I watch the news and wonder about this; Obama is frequently 'threatening' Putin, even (uncharacteristically for a president) getting a little unfavorably personal about him. Regarding what's going on in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea, Obama toys with ideas like SANCTIONS and BOOTS ON THE GROUND and implies, aloud in public, "How do we think Putin would like any of those choices?" asks Obama. What to do, what to do?
Is Putin on Russian news talking about what he might do in Ukraine or Crimea? Is he talking on their news about how Obama might like it if Putin invades further into Ukraine? Does he have news people asking questions on subjects that I would think might go best unasked? Does Putin show his cards like we must due to our transparency? Of course not. He's got the upper hand on this one. Al Qaeda, too, doesn't have press conferences announcing choices on how to hit America next, with Islamic media demanding how they plan to do it, etc, right? :-)
Have we always discussed in public what we might do to counteract what a world leader or despot has done which we're not happy with?
Is it healthy for us to tell the world what we're contemplating? It works for the leader/despot, right?
How do we draw a line between transparency to the American people and blabbing about what threats we might make? It seems almost unbelievable to me that we're in this situation.
What do you think?
Z
remember
Andrew Breitbart...American Hero
My Blog List
-
-
-
-
An Epidemic Of Biden3 years ago
-
-
FOR ME - MORE BLOG LESS F B2 years ago
-
-
Kid's Creations2 months ago
-
Sixty-one Years Ago Today2 hours ago
-
His Name Was Charles4 years ago
-
-
-
Project Reconquista Commences10 years ago
-
Sorta Makes You Wanna Cry...9 years ago
-
-
-
-
Mr. AOW Has Gone Home3 years ago
-
-
Compare and Contrast1 week ago
-
-
Wow. I Lost Myself6 years ago
-
-
-
Can You Hear Us Now?1 week ago
-
VALENTINES DAY! :-)4 years ago
142 comments:
"Transparency...?" Hows This!
Transparency? What Transparency?
Suddenly, out of the blue, a message from above appeared, a new government email directly that belatedly contradicts the message that Obama, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and press secretary Jay Carney repeated, and repeated in the immediate aftermath of the attack in Benghazi, and incidentally was something that any sensible person already knew. If they had any brains in that thing called a head. It CONTRADICTS the White House and State Department's story that they “believed” a video led to what was thought to be a spontaneous attack. In that e-mail there is concrete evidence that “Her Thighness” Hillary deliberately and maliciously lied.. (what a shock)!
And by the way, It only took the Lame Stream News ONLY 1 1/2 years to bring this out. Apparently there was much more important news to report, like Traffic Jams and Racial Remarks, so I guess that it’s only fair to cut them some slack.... Rigt your progressive MORON’S who have been making jokes about this for the past Year and a Half! And they are still either quite about it or denying it. You shameless IDIOT’S! Where are you now Ducky, Dave, Liberalmann, Progressive Witch? Where is your respect for the men who died?
Say it loud and say it clear, OBAMA AND HILLARY LIED, AND PEOPLE DIED..
Quite a dilemna. But isn't WHATEVER happens usually beyond the law of "meaning" anyway?
Anytime a sitting President lies for political expediency or personal gain, her or she should face impeachment proceedings. AND THAT ALSO SHOULD APPLY TO ANYONE THAT WANTS TO RUN FOR THE PRESIDENCY!
Transparency? Yeah right!!
Like the Liberals running around allover these boards calling Republicans “Nutjobs”, because of this Racist basketball owner?
Lets talk about the truth!
Where were all these outspoken Liberals when Reverend's Wright's made all those racist comments like calling Italian people "garlic noses"? Or his whine that Obama is "surrounded by too many Jews"?
And that 9/11 was America's Chickens coming home to "Roost".
All that was Irrelevant but saying a racist remark in his own home and taped by a paid off whore WAS Relevant? I don’t think so!
But, at this point what difference does it make?
Our enemies cannot read, interpret and/or understand our jouissance that resides beyond the wall of language, and so must constantly ask themselves, "Che vuoi?"
We spent a week or more just watching all those Liberals going absolutely nuts because there was a story in the headlines about a senile old white guy ranting off about his Tramp girlfriend who want to trap him on a phone conversation calling Negro’s names.
But when a story about Benghazi breaks like this we see a futile attempt to deflect from the subject matter at hand, and change the subject once again to a “Racial” story..... You liberals really are desperate.. ........“Crickets”
Importance? Transparency? Why Transparency Is So Important"
You Liberals always have all the deniability, even when we Conservatives have all the facts and accountability!
You libs keep digging that hole of yours deeper and deeper, don't you?
But when these e-mails, and the facts come out, you liberals (especial the Mexican Missionary) all shout in unison, "about something that “BUSH or Reagan” did!
Now these idiots are saying the DOD is going to send Drones and missiles on the ranch... And this is not a group of extremists?
The Teabaggers are not taking about the fact that Sterling is unquestionably an asshole, but I am just as much disturbed by the fact that somebody taped him without his knowledge and in his own home. These were private conversations, people, and do you really think that somebody like Al Sharpton would fare significantly better if we were to bug his home?
I mean, he's already uttered such despicable statements as "Greek homos", "Chinamen", "white interlopers", "crackers", and "ni**ers" (part of a slanderous rant against David Dinkins), and that was when he wanted to be heard. Can you even begin to imagine what they would say if this dude was a liberal??
Well Obama did say he would have the most transparent administration in history. We just assumed he was talking about a different kind of transparency. We didn't know he meant he would telegraph his foreign policy moves and strategic maneuvering to our opponents. We had no clue he would make Richard Nixon look like the Second Coming. When I say we, I don't mean me or you or most of the people who read your blog who possess the power to reason.
There are times for transparency, and then sometimes you keep your cards close to the vest.
This administration has a complete tin ear knowing the difference, I've never seen such political incompetence.
Transparency in the mainstream media? Forget it!
This is what I have recently gotten when I search CNN for recent articles about Benghazi:Page not found
We're sorry! This page is not available. Please visit the CNN homepage or use the search box below.
The teaser for the lost article states as follows:
New docs reinforce W. House push film was to blame for Benghazi updated 2 days ago
New documents obtained by conservative watchdog Judicial Watch reinforce that the White House did indeed strongly argue that outrage over an anti-Muslim film was the reason for the deadly 2012 terror attacks on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi.
Welcome to Orwell's Oceania!
AOW - I did the same search and got:
"Showing 1-10 of 2,717 CNN results for benghazi"
Perhaps their search function was down earlier.
This Administration 'transparently' lied when it made that claim early on....about their endeavor to be the most transparent Administration in history. But in regards to their public pronouncements as laid out by Z.....Obama isn't any different than other Administrations.
@CI:
Why would he be any different? When they all knew that the NYT would happily divulge state secrets anyway without fear of prosecution.
It's a standing tradition for them to do the most harm possible.
Does Putin show his cards like we must due to our transparency?
---------
Huh?
The course in Ukraine is pretty obvious.
Is Putin willing to try to annex a nearly failed state and risk serious damage to Russia's economy.
Give it a rest Ducky , your BS is running over
I think this notion of transparency is a metrosexual concept —one that either originated during a political campaign, or as part of a Walt Disney marketing strategy. As a concept, “transparency” is ludicrous on its face. It has no place in the real world of domestic politics and international relations. All around the world, seasoned statesmen are laughing themselves silly every time they hear this expression uttered by a member of the American press corps.
20% of Russia's GDP consists of "selling oil/gas" to Europe.
The "Green Monster" of carbon aversion is the ONLY thing keeping the Russian economy going. If Europe could ever get over its' "carbonphobia", Putin's government would collapse.
WHY Putin wants the "Eastern Ukraine".
Gas to sell to the West (and not "waste" on Ukrainians.
Fear of Fracking is Putin's greatest world ally.
According to the United States Energy Information Administration, Ukraine has Europe's third largest unproved, technically recoverable shale gas reserves after Poland and France.
CI,
I still cannot find the article I mentioned. Here is the link:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/29/politics/benghazi-documents/index.html
Today at Pajamas Media:
...But what remains is something tragically simple. The Obama administration and related entities (State, intelligence, etc.) were willing to lie about the murder of truly heroic American citizens in order to protect their behinds and, more importantly and scandalously, win an election. And people like Candy Crowley of CNN were all too willing to help them.
This is a hundred times worse than Watergate and Monicagate, in which nobody died or was even hurt and only a dress was destroyed between them. It’s an absolute threat to the democratic principles of our republic.
So American “liberalism” and the mainstream media are now on trial, even if they don’t know it (and a few of them do). Can they face the reality of what they have wrought, investigate and purge themselves?...
Fredd +1.
AOW +1.
Commenting made easy.
Mustang +1.
Abs Marxist +1.
Thersites +1.
I'm on vacation. +1
Maybe if Boehner follows through with the Select Committee we will have some transparency.
AOW...Yep, that link is a dead end. It looks like the same information is at this link:
http://tinyurl.com/o9esdxa
CnC +1.
CnC and Fredd; thanks for at last addressing my point.
It's absolutely nuts to sit here and listen to Obama talking about what they might do to Putin. Obviously, some of it is legitimate posturing; a threat without having to say "This is a threat" but even today, with Merkel, you have to wonder....
AOW: I switched to "never miss a ping CNN" during the presser with Merkel this morning and they were showing it! So cnn DOES know HOW to cover other things, but the Malaysian Air situation has been THE greatest shield any liberal channel and administration could possibly have!
They haven't mentioned Benghazi yet ...
And, yes...Pajamas is so right.
By the way, I suppose you all know that Ben Rhodes is the guy who wrote the email that people are finally learning about....did you know his brother is the head of CBS news? Ya, the CBS which hasn't mentioned one word of the new emails which are damning this administration?
What a coincidence! :-)
Marxist...maybe the fact that the lefties are supporting Obama on no fracking might come from Obama's promise of "flexibility" after his reelection? Ya think?
Lying Lester; The TEA PARTY has ALL come down on Sterling; I don't know a Conservative who's NOT said he was a bigot. Where do you get your information?
Ed.....The minute there's any kind of investigative hearing, the subject will go away; it has EVERY SINGLE TIME in the past, whether with F&F or NSA...
wait for it. Issa gets in a twit, postures around, big expensive hearings and everybody goes home. I'm not hopeful.
What I AM hopeful about is how Americans are polling over this in spite of the fact that their networks, CNN, MSNBC, etc are either NOT covering Benghazi at all or are covering it as "a FOX story" (which, of course, is now deemed ridiculous by most thinking Americans)
z, Angie and Obama are meeting today at the White House.
What are they discussing? Well we damn well know they're discussing sanctions against Putin and Angie knows she's got plenty to lose while the economics of this mean virtually nothing to America.
Should this talk be covered up? Do you think Putin doesn't know how the Great Game is played?
Meanwhile, the jobs report was actually not real good but the suckers are screaming Benghazi. We are a nation of stooges.
Ducky, I mentioned that in my comment. EVERY president and visiting dignitary has to address sanctions, etc. I am not talking about that, and clearly said so.
"you have to wonder.." about today and the big picture, however.
I hadn't seen this morning's presser when I wrote this post last night.
I obviously mean, as I said, whether we'll have boots on the ground, etc., and HERE IS MY OBVIOUS POINT;
PUTIN AND AL QAEDA HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY TO TELL EVERYONE EVERYTHING. And DO WE LOSE because our media wants every detail? (Unless it's something like the latest scandals, which they want no details about) :-)
CLEARLY, particularly with this president, we can't trust him to make educated decisions, so we're stuck; do we want to hear everything they're talking about because we should know the mess he could bring down on us and European countries, and in the Middle EAst, or is it better for people like in this administration who don't pay attention to experts calling punches without telling the public?
There has to be happy medium and it's not what we've got.
Ya, we're "stooges" who feel the families of four dead Americans deserve the truth and so do the rest of us.
And we're "stooges" who've never heard the kinds of insults Carney and Obama bring down on FOX nearly ever day and miss the dignity of past presidential administrations.
The GOOD NEWS is that the polls are clearly showing that Americans are finally realizing that maybe they SHOULD know what happened in Benghazi.
Which is worse? Four Americans dying like they did? Or Americans being lied to about their deaths and trying to prevent a president instead of telling the truth?
Nobody here is naïve enough to think all presidents don't do this from time to time (though I imagine you'd be loath to admit one Dem pres who has, as usual), but this guy's taken us all to a very new low.
Maybe this is good; maybe Americans will start asking "Why didn't I hear about that on CBS news last night? Oh, ya...the head of the News there is the brother of the cover-up guy at the WH"
we can only hope
As for jobs numbers...I think America can handle both stories, don't you? Or would that jobs situation have served as SUCH a good smokescreen AGAIN for Democrat problems?
I've got to apologize for my interminably long comments...my two today are longer than my post.
I just feel so passionate about this stuff and can't stop typing!
None of that "commenter +1" for me! Not too fond of those, anyway, frankly!
I want to hear your thoughts!
Lester, One more 'teabaggers' and you're gone. permanently.
thanks.
By the way, both of you will be gone. I think you understand what I mean.
Transparency in government is a great idea, but, there should be exceptions. As somebody said, Obama treats the word transparency like an abstract campaign word. It is like the words "truth", "honesty", "credibility", and "integrity". These are all just empty words Democrats use in campaigns.
Barack Obama promised the most transparent administration, ever. Then, he stupidly gets transparent with world-wide terrorism by announcing dates the US will leave Iraq and Afghanistan. So, all the bad guys have to do is wait for those dates to come, and position themselves to do their ultimate dirty deeds after those dates.
Obama is stupid when it comes to playing in international politics. It's like he has no clue that we have opponents out there. He actually believes that by driving America towards socialism, socialists around the world will like him. His international stupidity has only gained him disrespect, and has weakened our nation.
Mustang: I am not sure I understand what a metrosexual is. Is that like John Edwards?
The best definition of metrosexual is a narcissistic candy-ass.
Bob - "Then, he stupidly gets transparent with world-wide terrorism by announcing dates the US will leave Iraq and Afghanistan."
I agree with your post, but would quibble with this line. Not only was the withdrawal date for Iraq announced during the last Administration, but announcing such a date is only confirming the obvious.
Withdrawing forces the size of which we had/have in IRQ and AFG, takes months of retrograde, basing and lift planning....that is not only coordinated through commercial assets in open source but through host nation governments....which leak information like a screen door. It is absolutely impossible to withdraw from these engagements and keep them classified beyond the initial decision.
"The best definition of metrosexual is a narcissistic candy-ass."
And epitomized in Pajama Boy.
@ Bob ...
Exactly.
CI,
Thanks for that new link.
CI,
Hold.
The.
Phone.
Did the title of the article change?
I'm not sure, but I think that the title of article changed from "New docs reinforce W. House push film was to blame for Benghazi" to "Benghazi -- government cover-up or right-wing conspiracy theory?"
AOW...I'm not sure if it was ever the same article, just that the link I found had similar reporting about JW's FOIA request for the e-mails in question.
AOW, I have seen articles disappear within minutes and I've seen titles change...though it looks like this isn't the case here according to CI.
CI...you're right about when the step-down was announced; it does take effort that can't be ignored to draw down all we have there.
This relates somewhat to the theory behind when Halliburton was selected over there...the left went WILD with it and my husband, who'd done bids that large, reminded me that they needed people and equipment there fast and, as we both well knew, bids that big can take 2 years to finalize...
That's when context is ignored only in some cases.
AOW....even more damning to the left's bedwetting over Halliburton's involvement was that they held the LOGCAP contract at the time. They were the only prime contractor available to set up logistics operations in theater. No such crying when the Clinton Administration used them in the Balkans.
@z --- HERE IS MY OBVIOUS POINT;
PUTIN AND AL QAEDA HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY TO TELL EVERYONE EVERYTHING.
-----
And we do?
Where do you live, Candyland?
CI..I guess you're replying to my words on Halliburton...
It's about time someone agreed with me because that, for certain, is the truth.
There was no time to entertain bidding contracts..ridiculous notion. But it sure fed the left, didn't it.
And some on the right, too.
Ducky...How can I have discourse with someone so eager not to understand the point I've made already several times that Putin and terrorists have NOTHING guarding anything they say or do and we do.
Do you deny that? No, never mind...don't even answer; I'm done.
Thanks.
OK. No +1.
I'll say "Exactly" or "I agree".
Z - "CI..I guess you're replying to my words on Halliburton..."
Yep, sorry. I saw AOW's name on your post, and thought I was responding to her.
EDDDDDDDDDD!! I like what you have to SAY! Give us more.
How about "I agree with what he said and I will add that...." (smile)
CI..no problem! Don't even know why I bothered to point that out.
What's important is the POINT, isn't it!
I can't tell you how many times I've said this about Halliburton and people just don't want to hear the truth. I appreciate your response.
I believe this post was deleted. Don't know why unless it gets too close to putting all this sill Benghazi hand wring in perspective.
Well, as for openness ...
Of course the administration is 'hiding something' about Benghazi. So is the House and Senate! But because it can look like they're hiding something, it can be USED. What was Stevens doing there?
The compound seemed to be a CIA staging area/safe house. Maybe he was paying off and/or placating insurgents.
NOBODY wants to get to the bottom of this: does Issa really want to compromise the CIA?, it is not as if the spooks actually take their cues from any President gimme a break. They are independent -- that's the PROBLEM -- Issa.
But yeah the OPTICS can be exploited, because the OPTICS seem like there was a coverup. Because there WAS. Maybe somebody will eventually make Issa shut up. Not until he gets too close to a bunch of spooks who can shut him down.
Ducky, so this is Issa's fault, is that what you're suggesting.
I can't STAND Issa....as you know if you actually read my comments...My new phrase is "If you want a huge scandal to go away, just get Issa to have a hearing" because that IS what's happened.
By the way, unlike the NY Times, I think that if the CIA was involved as you suggest, and you could be right, that's not news....perhaps filling Issa and Gowdy and the Dems who also want to get to the bottom of this finally might stop this whole thing? I doubt Issa'd do what the NY Times does when IT'S told to stay quiet...and publishes.
I've heard it suggested Boehner signed off on a Benghazi gun run op with Stevens to run, and is reticent for that to be known.
Ed, nobody wants it known.
They'll use it for some campaign sound bites and if anyone gets close it will suddenly shut down.
Right now we know nothing and all we have is the "hard hitting" reporter asking if Obama was in the situation room.
Any of the Fox stooges asking what the CIA was running?
Ducky - "The compound seemed to be a CIA staging area/safe house."
Minor point of order. The facility attacked was a US Consulate. A CIA Annex was a few miles away. No reporter is going to get answers from any Press Secretary where it concerns a HUMINT operation. It os however, something that can be discovered by a House/Senate Select Committee.
Ducky, you do realize how your comments almost go 'sane' sometimes and then your constant idiotic harangue on anything conservative starts again?
WHY do you shut down conversation like that? it's nuts.
Ya...it's ALL Boehner and Issa's fault, right?
you are blinder than even I thought.
And you blame US for not engaging in constructive discussions?
I forgot: it's also FOX's fault.
Probably Bush's, too. You forgot
The point, z, is that it isn't anyone's "fault".
The CIA was running some kind of operation and it went bad.
Now, if we were this open democracy you imagine then we'd know what the CIA had been up to, no?
But we aren't and it's foolish to say we are. Issa is just playing the game and trying to make a few political points with this kabuki.
Nothing is revealed.
If it isn't anybody's fault, stop with the nonsensical slams to everyone on the right.
The leftwingers have been crazed with how this is only GOP baloney...when it isn't.
If the Left would clam up and stop insulting, and maybe some of the folks from both sides got with the families of the dead and said something believable to them, we could all let this go.
The White House handled this so badly, THAT is a huge issue.
It should have been handled better, 'DUDE' (and to think we've got guys who still say DUDE on this type of topic is scary, by the way)..
But..now they're on some witch hunt of WHERE WAS OBAMA THAT NIGHT? as if we all have to know he might have been in the bathroom with the flu, for all we know.
Duck, the post is about transparency, so we've come full circle.
But there are things that should not be revealed.
Hard to know what they are until you know what they are :)
Ed, thanks....you are the voice of reason today.
That's exactly my point; Hard to know.
I'm sorry that our being free creates that dangerous dilemma for us and not for despots like Putin and terrorists like Al Qaeda.
See what I mean, my friend?
Z+1
ED! NOOOOW I like it when you do that! :-) :-)
It occurred to me just now that the Ben Rhodes email's not being released when requested is questionable and something that should be remembered when we're suggesting this is a CIA plot gone bad, etc.etc.
TOO many things like not releasing this email to make it look like much other than incompetence and a cover-up of the actual situation.
Anybody want to chime in on that?
Z,
TOO many things like not releasing this email to make it look like much other than incompetence and a cover-up of the actual situation.
Didn't Nixon get into trouble for something very similar? Once something is subpoenaed, then that something has to be addressed in some manner -- not buried.
AOW - Unfortunately, like anything else written in legalese....it all depends on how the subpoena was worded, and the scope of who was covered under it.
CI,
Any way that we can check that wording?
I thought it was released earlier but so redacted as to be meaningless.
AOW/Ed, the closest I've found to the subpoena verbiage is here:
http://tinyurl.com/kofpwb3
It has occurred to me that obama is doing Putin's bidding. Sanctions on individuals.. Putin's enemies? Putin threatens back that US oil companies may not be invited to profit there anymore. You think That bothers obamma?
I think it went down like this.
Putey: obama, you play the bad cop. I'll give you a list of rich pains of mine and you sanction them.
In retaliation, I'll kick out the US oil companies.
obama: Sounds Great!
.. Laughter....
Hey rational/lester. Why don't you talk like a grownup. You like to claim the high ground then hide behind a fake ID to spew your vomit.
pathetic.
Specifically on tranparencey, obama hasn't been transparent with Americans on anything. None of the campaign promises have come to pass except for a few I can think of.
-I will stand with the muslims
-I will transform America
-You might have to get by on pain pills.(coming soon to a neighborhood near you)
Nothing else. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
So, now its even more negative. he's not transparent with America, but he is with the rest of the world. How nice.
Even the National Review knows this is kabuki
Kid, I'd like to see the college records.
@ED:
" Boehner signed off on a Benghazi gun run op with Stevens to run, and is reticent for that to be known."
You think Bonehead is some kind of Charlie Wilson?
Ed, I personally don't believe obama did Anything at hahvard or columbia.
Nothing. Somje money changed hands and his name ended up on their records but he did jack nothing there beside protest whitey.
Someone Prove me wrong.
Kid, I think you're right.
Do you remember that video that went around for a bit of some old rich Arab man saying he sponsored Obama for years...paying for college, etc. When the media tried to talk with him, the word was he'd died.
ED/IMP; what's this about a Benghazi gun run and Boehner? I don't find that comment by Ed...??
Ed..the left's great at redacting; what's the point of requesting information if that happens?
AOW/ silly you! Nixon was a Republican! He got it the ax HARD, of course. And just think ;nobody died.
Krauthammer is 100% right. DOn't believe everything you read.
Imp; I feel so bad for those parents who were promised by Hillary they'd kill "the guy"...one guy, Hillary? Really? That's the wording she apparently used, according to the father/ wassup?
They'd have been better off saying "Something went vitally wrong.." and leaving out the idiotic video. Even the bigwig in Libya said, on Face the Nation, days after this happened, that it was definitely preplanned.
WHY is this WH so used to lying that our poor victims' families can't get the truth?
@Z:
ED says:
We've heard it suggested Boehner signed off on a Benghazi gun run op with Stevens to run, and is reticent for that to be known.
May 2, 2014 at 1:04 PM
@Z:
"WHY is this WH so used to lying that our poor victims' families can't get the truth?"
What hasn't he / they lied about since 2009. Beginning with ACA ? Obummer care.
It's a pattern. And it's a lying Dem congress that supports the lies...all for politics. The dead are acceptable collateral damage to save the "One".
Listen to Pelousy today. The crap sandwich she expects all of us to accept. She's worse than Shillary.
Yea, I heard it was a jail break - and went bad when the Seals showed up and forced the mortars.
The Consulate was housing some Al-Quada heavy's, that the camel caretakers wanted to free.
IMP, exactly on the NON-retaliation. just like clinton, this will only serve to embolden them and there will be another major attack as a result.
If we lived in a sensical universe, there would be consequences for this kind of imbecilic incompetence (at best) at the national level. National defense is the Number 1 mandate of the federal government and they score zero at it. Incompetence personified, janet, the former head of DHS even said - we can't stop terror attacks.
There is Nothing going on here that makes any sense.
As far as Bengahzi, the story I heard was that the hidebeast clinton was involved in running guns to al queerda (the rebels) in Syria.
Man, I sure hope someone can bust this story wide open.
Will the libtards care? No. But it will be in the history books for future patriots with enough moxy to create another free society by sacking this tyranical government the libtards created.
@Kid:
Like the neutered, eunich, metro sexual potus said the other day...why are we so eager to use the military?
In two years when they land in a "libya" with their pink panties and tutu's, after the purge of the real hairy ones and seals... real men....Putin will meet them.
Kid, how much of this is what Ducky and some others are suggesting..that this was the CIA gone amuck? That they were gun running or something, a la F&F.
I'll never forget the lefties saying Fast and Furious was Bush's fault when I SO WELL remember the guys on that project saying "Then Holder's guys said 'great that you got the guns to the bad guys...now go home'....we said 'go home? the idea's to survey the situation now that they have the guns!' "no, go home."
I felt so badly for them when I heard that. Bush's guys did it TO survey what happened next.
God knows what HOlder's thugs were thinking.
TS/WS....what do you think about that? Your theory that you heard is the first time I've heard that one. Is there a prison of sorts at the place the attack occurred? And attacks occurred at 2 locations, didn't they?
@Kid:
I forgot to add that Putin will say...DUDE too.
IMP, Can't/won't argue that point.
Z, PS, of course, the dems blame everything on everyone else.
@Kid:
In the bio about Charlie Wilson....nothing was possible for him without the cooperation of his CIA agent...Philip Seymour Hoffman.
If the Admin, or, Sec of State were involved - and were willing to let the jail break happen, would that be the reason why help was not sent after requested weeks before?
@TS/WS:
I don't think anyone of them in their whole cabal...are that clever. Otherwise...they'd have one hell of a believable cover story by now...and not proffering redacted emails.
Kid...I've heard that before, too, but what good to the CIA does bringing drugs into America DO?
TW/SW..I don't know. I read these comments and watch the news and I just want to move back to Paris, tell you the truth.
Don't all gang up on France now, people; they never said there was honesty and freedom there :-)
Imp: You bring up such a good point saying Putin would say "DUDE", too, because I SO OFTEN hear our leftwinger journalists echoed in the words of our enemies...Assad, Putin, etc. VERY often, they'll play on something that the left plays up here. Fascinating. I should keep a list every time I hear that kind of thing and post it some day.
If they were sending "heavy" guns to Syria, would they not want the Al Quada "heavy's" there also.
@Z:
" but what good to the CIA does bringing drugs into America DO?"..
All I can say is...I can't even fathom what goes on in the minds of a real spook. But I wish Tom Clancy was around to tell us.
Z, hard drugs in America make a lot of money for the government. First off they get the wholesale price dollars, then when they bust the larger dealers, they confiscate lots of cash and premium assets, cars, houses, yachts, etc.
I personally believe the government brought drugs into the college campuses in the 60's when the race riots and the Vietnam protests were in high gear. Mellowed everyone out that's for sure. Then it blossomed as an idea with 'potential' from there.
Dems are saying..Benghazi is a corpse.
How disgustingly crude, ignorant and foul...considering that 4 real Americans were murdered.
Pathetic....I wish that they would have to bear the burden and the grief of their loved ones that were murdered by a "video". They have no souls...no heart...and no brains, no morals and are all suck up Sycophants.
IMP. What difference does it make now !!!!!
"They have no souls...no heart...and no brains, no morals and are all suck up Sycophants. "
Oh yea. They will do Anything to Anybody. the stuff they spew 24/7 makes it obvious to anyone with 2 brain cells they have less than zero respect for anyone. Least of all Americans.
If the Public believed: "If you want to keep your policy you can keep your policy", "If you want to keep your doctor, you can keep your doctor", then shouldn't the public believe " it was the "Video"?
"Dude that was two years ago", get over it.
@TS/WS:
What do you mean...IF?
Yea,
O'Bamo said it forty times.
Oh, yea, "There is not a smidgen of corruption in the IRS scandal", also.
The public is all on board with the Pres donchanow
Fact....the Magic One....made his way back into the WH...by defiling the bodies of 4 dead Americans by walking all over them.
And the low life whitewater lying POS cleaned up after him.
Eleanor Holmes Norton...a Negro demrat.
"Benghazi is a corpse"
Funny...the 4 dead were...all white Americans. See a connection here?
-----
No.
Imp, if these were Black Americans dead, you can bet Norton would be outraged; you're right.
But I don't think it's a race thing with her in this case.
Kid! "Wholesale price dollars" you honestly think cartels or somebody gives money to the CIA and that goes to the gov't and nobody knows?
How do they keep that quiet?>
Z, The columbians and the Afghans want to sell the cocaine and heroin.
In this scenario, CIA agents pose as drug dealers, with no way for the producers to connect the dots, and the main point is why would they want to connect the dots.
They want to sell their products. They could care less if they're CIA agents or mobsters. In fact, they'd be more comfortable if they knew they were CIA as they're not going to have to worry about trouble form the US Feds.
Match made in Heaven.
@z ---
Kid! "Wholesale price dollars" you honestly think cartels or somebody gives money to the CIA and that goes to the gov't and nobody knows?
-----
Surely you remember Noriega.
Z, PS, the 'war on drugs is a joke right? If we really had a "war on drugs", we'd be bombing coke factories in Columbia and spraying defoilage agents on poppy fields in Afghanistan.
There is no war on drugs.
That would require that the government cares about people so there is the first Gong, then I'd have to be convinced the US Government is unable to handle some goat herders in Afghanistan and a few coke plants in columbia.
I'm having a hard time connecting those dots.
Kid...I suppose we could stop it if we wanted to.
By the way, everybody:
You know how Bush STILL gets blasted by leftwingers for announcing that the first battles in Iraq were over and we won...they all said he meant the whole theater of war was done and we'd succeeded, remember?
The media STILL mentions it in very insulting ways... he wanted to look like he'd done well, they suggest..he didn't realize he was wrong...he didn't know the area, etc etc etc..
EXCEPT where's the same outrage for Obama having said, more than once, AL QAEDA IS ON THE RUN! AL QAEDA IS DEFEATED~!
nothing in the media...silence.
such hypocrisy
the '50's and '60's-flower power, sex and rock an roll, funded most if not all the foreign OPS (black ops), had to be off the books--Congress did not want to know-and would not fund anything that would come back to bite them.
Arkansas Airport Daddy Bush and Bubba.
It just makes sense to fund ops with the under the wrapping of current young people's indiscretions.
Z - I agree, that the media has been largely absent on Obama continuing the alleged 'war on terror', in the same or ramped up manner that his predecessor had.
That doesn't refute [for me] the gross error in invading Iraq in 2003.
Z, Hypocrisy.... How about squealing media people about Bush taking working vacations on his zero luxury ranch in Texas, versus the obama's going on seperate multi-hundred million dollar vacations taking 900 or so of their friends along paid for by taxpayers.
This latest one, michele spent over 220,000 for a couple days in a hotel somewhere. What do you do to spend 220k in a hotel for 2 days?
media? Not a peep. What else do people need to know?
Libtards? Not a peep. They don't care, they don't care, they don't care. About any of it. They only want to free money.
"Zero luxury ranch"?
Have you seen photos of the ranch house? The hyperbole is killing me.....
CI, Compared to where the oBAMa's go?
I'm not comparing, I'm pointing out the hyperbole.
What's the value added in characterizing Crawford as 'zero luxury'? The Obama's haven't set any records in trips, dollars sent or days away from 1600 Penn.
CI, That look like the Taj Mahal to you?
I will have to ask you to back up your claim that that oBAMa's haven't set any records for vacation expenditures.
Look at pictures of the inside....and hit Google while you're at it. You brought up the alleged disparity in vacation expenditures, it should be a simple unbiased link if true.
I'm not trying to be an ass....I simply don't understand the need to distort and distract, when this Administration already gives us so much ammunition with which to oppose it.
So, the Bush's have nice furniture? I have nice furniture, so what?
Simple unbiased link? From where? Who is going to put valid numbers on the internet for who spent what. I simply look at each 'obama vacation' and see the estimated costs, and I know that the Bush's never spent like this, not reported anyway, and you KNOW the media would have hopped all over something like that.
You know there are stories where obama took 900 of his friends. Michele took 3 digit numbers of her friends somewhere. Multiple times. Shoe me a link where the Bush's did anything of the sort.
I'm not getting it. If there are 'links' out there show me one.
Furniture? So you haven't seen photos of the inside of the ranch house. Perhaps our definitions of 'zero luxury' are wildly different......and that I actually attempt to source my assertions.
"Simple unbiased link? From where? Who is going to put valid numbers on the internet for who spent what. I simply look at each 'obama vacation' and see the estimated costs, and I know that the Bush's never spent like this, not reported anyway, and you KNOW the media would have hopped all over something like that."
Your first statement is refuted by your second. You can't KNOW anything if you claim there are no sources to be had.
Try Google, I did. You might not like what you find.
Kid said:
Ed, I personally don't believe obama did Anything at hahvard or columbia.
Nothing.
There's a guy I know who was in Obama's law school class at Columbia. None of his classmates remember Obama.
Imp said:You think Bonehead is some kind of Charlie Wilson?
I don't know if it was a gun run, jail break or buy back.
I lean to buy back.
That's what libs do :)
CI, You wanna play dueling links? ;-)
1.4 BILLION just last year alone for the obamas
Not really. It's lazy debating, though sources are appreciated. Sources that aren't transparently biased that is.
This Administration may yet raise the bar for luxury, but when we've been treated to patently and absurdly false claims for their first four years in office, regarding the number of days and dollars spent on 'vacation'....sans the inclusion of inflation....I'm content to let the historians quibble over pennies.
These are distractions from the fact that both parties and all Administrations have been on a quest for more executive and political power....and increasing the size and scope of the State.
Bread and circuses while the Empire grows......
Nice point CI... I saw a report today on how some presidents feel more comfortable at Camp David than others and that use of the retreat center helps keeps costs down.
It was an interesting article tangentially related as Obama does not visit there frequently and security inherently costs more in the urban settings he prefers.
CI,
Thanks for finding that wording.
I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that the wording did include any and all emails related to Benghazi. And that may be why Jay Carney kept recently insisting that the recently-revealed emails didn't relate to Benghazi.
I read yesterday that a Special Committee will be formed. We'll soon find out if that will indeed happen -- and where things will go from that point.
BTW, I want to point out that the Watergate break-in occurred on in mid-June of 1972 and that Nixon wasn't forced out of office until August of 1974. Certainly not a fast track!
THe Crawford Ranch is luxurious? It's just lovely and comfortable. And think of what money it saved us for them to go there. And, of course, they went and had visiting dignitaries there, too.
Actually, I hope they got paid for entertaining them.
By the way, I'd love to hear where that book got it wrong..with links.
Because an article is in The Daily Caller, the information is necessarily untrue or inflated??
The difference in Bushes and Obamas and vacations and lifestyle is huge.
But, how'd we get to that subject?
CI, did you ever stand up for Bush or any Republican like you do for the Obamas so often?
"CI, did you ever stand up for Bush or any Republican like you do for the Obamas so often?"
You've confused standing up for truth and fact with picking a team.
"Because an article is in The Daily Caller, the information is necessarily untrue or inflated??"
Of course not. Unlike some, I don't dismiss an assertion based on the medium. I will however, note the rather obvious bias of the book.
I'm curious as to why you wouldn't also have an issue with someone claiming that the Crawford ranch is, and I quote, "zero luxury".
Political correctness has no political boundaries.
"No, CI, I don't stand up for people I believe in and who share my values."
I think you meant to add a couple of 'dont's'. So when truth and fact conflict with ideology, you stick with PC?
"You just seem to get your hackles up every single time the slightest criticism of Obama comes up other than on some political situations."
That's provably incorrect, so I assume this is a generalization, but I'm not sure why you'd spend time typing it.
Ah...subjectively relative comparisons, got it.
Since the book linked above was published by the now-deceased author in 20012, and there are several accounts as recent as last fall, detailing the number of days and dollars spent away from 1600 Penn, I would be curious to see what the book asserts, or if it parses what the taxpayers send and what the first family is required to pay for.
No, CI, my 'team' can only include people I feel share my values and seem to have good character...no matter what party they're in. I believe Tip O'Neil shared my values more than John Boehner does, by the way. No confusion on my end.
You just seem to get your hackles up every single time the slightest criticism of Obama comes up other than on some political situations.
I think their private lives, and our disagreement with them, are fair play as much as you seem to think Bush's are. Sorry...you have every right to bounce in every time he's criticized...I was just curious.
I've criticized Bush quite a lot here...on politics.
Still, re Bush, I can't fault a man whose personal time involved denying himself playing golf until our boys got home from war, or inviting about 20 of them to his ranch every year for the bike ride.
CI, really...in comparison with the amazing hotels most presidents go to (not just Obama, though Mrs. Obama's made a kind of science out of it) the Crawford Ranch is zero luxury. It's comfortable, it's lovely, it's their HOME.
@Dave:
"in the urban settings he prefers."
Cause his fan club and sycophants are always around...but not @ Camp David. He'd miss the slobbering masses of asses there.
I deleted it only for the 'don't' that was accidental, obviously.
And, frankly, I'm a little tired of pointing this out to you time and time again over the last many months. I guess it's just me!
Have a grand day.
"I've criticized Bush quite a lot here...on politics."
I didn't assert that you didn't. Which again, is why I'm perplexed that you would claim "You just seem to get your hackles up every single time the slightest criticism of Obama comes up other than on some political situations."
Using the sliding scale of truth mattering when it's convenient, is the tactic of the left. Not really something I expect Conservatives to emulate.
You have a good day too.
CI and Z,
I'm watching this interchange with some concern.
Sometimes I think CI is detached to a fault, and I disagree with him on the vacations, but understand that he thinks there are bigger fish to fry.
But I don't see him favoring Obama, only trying to be fair.
Glad you think so, Ed!
Can't help but keep noticing it...but I don't really care; just find it curious every single time.
All the best.
".....just find it curious every single time."
There you go again. I guess we all have our faults.
Ed - Detached isn't a bad label for how I feel. Since I view most of what transpires in two-party politics as theater.....I do prefer to read the reviews, rather than buy a ticket and be in the audience.
CI. I don't quite understand.
I think you know I've mentioned just this thing at least 20 times to you.
If Ed hasn't noticed it, I'm sure you're very pleased.
Go with that....I am.
Thanks..
"I don't quite understand."
You really think that I have taken issue with an absurd [or false] characterization of Obama "EVERY SINGLE TIME"? That's not only a ridiculous assertion, but technically qualifies as a provable lie. What is the value added in using that type of narrative?
But if leftist-type appeals to emotion [regardless of truth] works for you.....certainly go with that.
CI...I can't imagine you don't remember, and frankly I haven't the time, to bring up all the times I've questioned you about standing up for Obama!
"every single time"...yes, gad, I give up! It's not EVERY SINGLE TIME, but so frequent that it astonishes me that you, and frankly, Ed, don't remember all my curiosity about that.
You see, I have my faults, but I NEVER lie. You've so often disagreed with many of us regarding Obama that it's stunning to me that you, too, don't remember.
But, SO WHAT? I'm good.
Don't worry.
We have a different recollection; you needn't insult me. You really don't have to.
I'm closing down the comments for the day.
goodnight, everyone.
Post a Comment