Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Nobody Died in Watergate
25 views
Skip to first unread message
Ubiquitous
May 16, 2013, 10:23:36 PM5/16/13
to
By Jed Babbin
Fear and loathing on the Benghazi scandal trail.
Three State Department whistleblowers� congressional testimony was
nearly forgotten yesterday amid the lies and half-truths coming out of
the White House and its congressional cohorts.
If White House press secretary Jay Carney were spinning any faster, he�d
be mistaken for an Iranian uranium-enrichment centrifuge.
The testimony proved a host of things, some redundantly.
The first is that when UN Ambassador Susan Rice went on five Sunday
TV talk shows � five days after the incident � the Obama administration
had to know she was lying when she blamed the Benghazi attack on an
anti-Muslim video. How do we know? Among other things, there were no
demonstrations outside the Benghazi consulate before there was a
well-planned and probably rehearsed terrorist attack that took the lives
of Amb. Chris Stevens and one staffer.
We know from the testimony that the terrorists making the attack were
trying to lure more Americans into the fight by making apparently phony
calls for help on behalf of the Americans in the consulate.
That�s only one of the reasons that we should conclude that the attack
was rehearsed. The other reason is that, as I�ve written before, a Navy
ordnance expert I spoke to months ago told me that the mortars used to
kill the two former Navy SEALs at an outpost near the consulate had been
�registered� to their targets. (That is, the distance between the
mortars and their target as well as their relative elevation had been
measured.)
Against this evidence, Jay Carney could only mumble something to the
effect that, five days after the attack, the Obama administration
couldn�t be really exactly, precisely sure just who was responsible for
the attack.
And to conclude the point, in January, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) asked
Hillary, �Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for
a walk one night and decided they�d go kill some Americans,� Clinton
said �What difference � at this point, what difference does it make?�
The difference, Hillary, is that nobody died in the Watergate scandal.
No one manipulated CIA talking points on it, either.
We know that the CIA talking points � which were blamed for Rice�s
falsehoods for weeks after they were said � were subjected to massive
State Department revisions made for one purpose and one purpose only: to
help Obama�s presidential campaign. Any motive other than politics is
not credible.
We can easily gather that from the fact that Rep. John Tierney (D-Mass.)
said, �People who have actually seen the documents, who have actually
conducted a real investigation, completely reject the allegation that
[the State Department�s revisions to the CIA talking points] were made
for political purposes.�
And how is that a reasonable deduction? Elementary, Watson. The people
who supposedly conducted the �real investigation� of which Tierney
speaks are all Obama administration flunkies.
There�s more, of course, and lots of it. For example, Carney told the
White House press briefing yesterday that, �What I can tell you is that
it was the assessment of our intelligence community that the attacks
were participated in by extremists.� True enough. The falsity comes in
the fact that the CIA�s assessment was changed to delete everything
about the jihadis participation in the attack, up to including the
deletion of the word �attack� for which �demonstration� was substituted.
Carney added, �That�s what I�ve said. That�s what Ambassador Rice said.
She said on that Sunday that extremists were involved. What we didn�t
know is what their exact affiliation was.�
This is another example of why we need to watch these guys carefully and
not let them tell us what the meaning of the word �is� really is. What
Rice said was quite different. For example, to Jake Tapper on ABC�s This
Week, Rice said:
But our current best assessment, based on the information that
we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it
was a spontaneous � not a premeditated � response to what had
transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier,
there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to
this very offensive video that was disseminated.
We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came
to the embassy to � or to the consulate, rather, to replicate
the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that
unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some
individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons,
weapons that as you know in � in the wake of the revolution in
Libya are � are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved
from there.
So, contrary to what Carney said she said, Rice comfortably lied and
blamed the anti-Muslim video. Only after they supposedly demonstrated �
which we now know they didn�t � did Rice admit that some �extremists�
supposedly �hijacked� the demonstration.
Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), the committee�s ranking Dem, got the award
for the worst parsing of words at yesterday�s hearings. Cummings �
according to (of course) the New York Times � noted ��that the nation�s
top military and intelligence commanders have all said that American
forces could not have reached Benghazi in time to save any of the four
lives lost��
And of course they concluded no such thing.
As I pointed out in Monday�s column, former Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm.
Mike Mullen did his best to cover up for Hillary and Obama in his
Accountability Review Board Report. What Mullen said in the briefing
that delivered that report is illuminating:
On the night of the attacks, Benghazi, Tripoli, and Washington
communicated and coordinated effectively with each other. They
looped in the military right away, and the interagency response
was timely and appropriate. But there simply was not enough time
for U.S. military forces to have made a difference. Having said
that, it is not reasonable, nor feasible, to tether U.S. forces
at the ready to respond to protect every high-risk post in the
world.
Obviously, he didn�t say what Cummings attributed to him: there�s
nothing in what Mullen said � or in anything else for that matter � to
indicate that all our top military commanders and intelligence agency
chiefs agreed that nothing could have been done to save any of the four
American lives.
Don�t forget, this attack went on for over seven hours.
What Mullen said indicates that there�s a very high likelihood that Amb.
Stevens was killed in the first stages of the attack. As with Clinton
(either one of them, for that matter), what Mullen didn�t say is more
important than what he did say.
He didn�t say that the two former SEALs couldn�t have been saved in the
course of a seven-hour battle. They probably could have if the military
forces at Sigonella, Italy had been deployed. One more time: it�s only
about 40 minutes flying time at Mach 0.8 for the F-15s that were at
Sigonella. They could have gotten there in plenty of time, and those two
former SEALs might still be alive.
And so could have the four-man Spec Ops team that one of the Wednesday
whistleblowers said were told to not fly from Tripoli to Benghazi, which
would have taken about two hours.
The Democrats can spin it as much as they�d like, and they will. The
media will do their best to ignore Benghazi. The fact that Fox News has
covered it well is enough to convince them that the story is too harmful
to Obama.
But this is too big. This is the kind of scandal that could damage
Obama�s presidency in the historical sense. Let�s say it again: nobody
died in Watergate.
--
"Re-electing Obama is like backing The Titanic up and hitting the
iceberg a second time."
Fear and loathing on the Benghazi scandal trail.
Three State Department whistleblowers� congressional testimony was
nearly forgotten yesterday amid the lies and half-truths coming out of
the White House and its congressional cohorts.
If White House press secretary Jay Carney were spinning any faster, he�d
be mistaken for an Iranian uranium-enrichment centrifuge.
The testimony proved a host of things, some redundantly.
The first is that when UN Ambassador Susan Rice went on five Sunday
TV talk shows � five days after the incident � the Obama administration
had to know she was lying when she blamed the Benghazi attack on an
anti-Muslim video. How do we know? Among other things, there were no
demonstrations outside the Benghazi consulate before there was a
well-planned and probably rehearsed terrorist attack that took the lives
of Amb. Chris Stevens and one staffer.
We know from the testimony that the terrorists making the attack were
trying to lure more Americans into the fight by making apparently phony
calls for help on behalf of the Americans in the consulate.
That�s only one of the reasons that we should conclude that the attack
was rehearsed. The other reason is that, as I�ve written before, a Navy
ordnance expert I spoke to months ago told me that the mortars used to
kill the two former Navy SEALs at an outpost near the consulate had been
�registered� to their targets. (That is, the distance between the
mortars and their target as well as their relative elevation had been
measured.)
Against this evidence, Jay Carney could only mumble something to the
effect that, five days after the attack, the Obama administration
couldn�t be really exactly, precisely sure just who was responsible for
the attack.
And to conclude the point, in January, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) asked
Hillary, �Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for
a walk one night and decided they�d go kill some Americans,� Clinton
said �What difference � at this point, what difference does it make?�
The difference, Hillary, is that nobody died in the Watergate scandal.
No one manipulated CIA talking points on it, either.
We know that the CIA talking points � which were blamed for Rice�s
falsehoods for weeks after they were said � were subjected to massive
State Department revisions made for one purpose and one purpose only: to
help Obama�s presidential campaign. Any motive other than politics is
not credible.
We can easily gather that from the fact that Rep. John Tierney (D-Mass.)
said, �People who have actually seen the documents, who have actually
conducted a real investigation, completely reject the allegation that
[the State Department�s revisions to the CIA talking points] were made
for political purposes.�
And how is that a reasonable deduction? Elementary, Watson. The people
who supposedly conducted the �real investigation� of which Tierney
speaks are all Obama administration flunkies.
There�s more, of course, and lots of it. For example, Carney told the
White House press briefing yesterday that, �What I can tell you is that
it was the assessment of our intelligence community that the attacks
were participated in by extremists.� True enough. The falsity comes in
the fact that the CIA�s assessment was changed to delete everything
about the jihadis participation in the attack, up to including the
deletion of the word �attack� for which �demonstration� was substituted.
Carney added, �That�s what I�ve said. That�s what Ambassador Rice said.
She said on that Sunday that extremists were involved. What we didn�t
know is what their exact affiliation was.�
This is another example of why we need to watch these guys carefully and
not let them tell us what the meaning of the word �is� really is. What
Rice said was quite different. For example, to Jake Tapper on ABC�s This
Week, Rice said:
But our current best assessment, based on the information that
we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it
was a spontaneous � not a premeditated � response to what had
transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier,
there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to
this very offensive video that was disseminated.
We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came
to the embassy to � or to the consulate, rather, to replicate
the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that
unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some
individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons,
weapons that as you know in � in the wake of the revolution in
Libya are � are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved
from there.
So, contrary to what Carney said she said, Rice comfortably lied and
blamed the anti-Muslim video. Only after they supposedly demonstrated �
which we now know they didn�t � did Rice admit that some �extremists�
supposedly �hijacked� the demonstration.
Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), the committee�s ranking Dem, got the award
for the worst parsing of words at yesterday�s hearings. Cummings �
according to (of course) the New York Times � noted ��that the nation�s
top military and intelligence commanders have all said that American
forces could not have reached Benghazi in time to save any of the four
lives lost��
And of course they concluded no such thing.
As I pointed out in Monday�s column, former Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm.
Mike Mullen did his best to cover up for Hillary and Obama in his
Accountability Review Board Report. What Mullen said in the briefing
that delivered that report is illuminating:
On the night of the attacks, Benghazi, Tripoli, and Washington
communicated and coordinated effectively with each other. They
looped in the military right away, and the interagency response
was timely and appropriate. But there simply was not enough time
for U.S. military forces to have made a difference. Having said
that, it is not reasonable, nor feasible, to tether U.S. forces
at the ready to respond to protect every high-risk post in the
world.
Obviously, he didn�t say what Cummings attributed to him: there�s
nothing in what Mullen said � or in anything else for that matter � to
indicate that all our top military commanders and intelligence agency
chiefs agreed that nothing could have been done to save any of the four
American lives.
Don�t forget, this attack went on for over seven hours.
What Mullen said indicates that there�s a very high likelihood that Amb.
Stevens was killed in the first stages of the attack. As with Clinton
(either one of them, for that matter), what Mullen didn�t say is more
important than what he did say.
He didn�t say that the two former SEALs couldn�t have been saved in the
course of a seven-hour battle. They probably could have if the military
forces at Sigonella, Italy had been deployed. One more time: it�s only
about 40 minutes flying time at Mach 0.8 for the F-15s that were at
Sigonella. They could have gotten there in plenty of time, and those two
former SEALs might still be alive.
And so could have the four-man Spec Ops team that one of the Wednesday
whistleblowers said were told to not fly from Tripoli to Benghazi, which
would have taken about two hours.
The Democrats can spin it as much as they�d like, and they will. The
media will do their best to ignore Benghazi. The fact that Fox News has
covered it well is enough to convince them that the story is too harmful
to Obama.
But this is too big. This is the kind of scandal that could damage
Obama�s presidency in the historical sense. Let�s say it again: nobody
died in Watergate.
--
"Re-electing Obama is like backing The Titanic up and hitting the
iceberg a second time."
RichA
May 16, 2013, 10:27:01 PM5/16/13
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
The Democrats reserve the right to avoid answering questions which
may incriminate them.
may incriminate them.
thinbluemime
May 16, 2013, 7:02:57 PM5/16/13
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Fri, 17 May 2013 03:23:36 +0100, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> By Jed Babbin
>
> Fear and loathing on the Benghazi scandal trail.
>
> Three State Department whistleblowers’ congressional testimony was
> nearly forgotten yesterday amid the lies and half-truths coming out of
> the White House and its congressional cohorts.
> By Jed Babbin
>
> Fear and loathing on the Benghazi scandal trail.
>
> Three State Department whistleblowers’ congressional testimony was
> nearly forgotten yesterday amid the lies and half-truths coming out of
> the White House and its congressional cohorts.
> But this is too big. This is the kind of scandal that could damage
> Obama’s presidency in the historical sense. Let’s say it again: nobody
> died in Watergate.
The main stream bull-sh*t talking points about memo drafts and who changed
> Obama’s presidency in the historical sense. Let’s say it again: nobody
> died in Watergate.
what and when, is a cover for a much larger story involving weapons
running, illegal prisoner detention and possibly torture, DURING the Obama
administration, in violation of Executive Order 13491.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/EnsuringLawfulInterrogations
The real scandal hasn't even begun yet.
Remember, the Benghazi compound wasn't an embassy, it wasn't a consulate.
It was at it's heart a CIA operation.
Real reason for Benghazi cover up – Executive Order 13491
November 16th, 2012
http://therothshow.com/2012/11/breaking-news-real-reason-for-benghazi-cover-up-executive-order-13491/
thinbluemime
May 16, 2013, 7:12:17 PM5/16/13
to
On Fri, 17 May 2013 00:02:57 +0100, thinbluemime <thinbl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Fri, 17 May 2013 03:23:36 +0100, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
> wrote:
>
>> By Jed Babbin
>>
>> Fear and loathing on the Benghazi scandal trail.
>>
>> Three State Department whistleblowers’ congressional testimony was
>> nearly forgotten yesterday amid the lies and half-truths coming out of
>> the White House and its congressional cohorts.
>
>> But this is too big. This is the kind of scandal that could damage
>> Obama’s presidency in the historical sense. Let’s say it again: nobody
>> died in Watergate.
>
>
> The main stream bull-sh*t talking points about memo drafts and who
> changed what and when, is a cover for a much larger story involving
> weapons running, illegal prisoner detention and possibly torture, DURING
> the Obama administration, in violation of Executive Order 13491.
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/EnsuringLawfulInterrogations
>
>
> The real scandal hasn't even begun yet.
>
> Remember, the Benghazi compound wasn't an embassy, it wasn't a
> consulate. It was at it's heart a CIA operation.
https://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/msg/e0350b5e644037d5?hl=en
To what extent is the CIA still involved in detaining and interrogating
terrorist enemy combatants? Yesterday we noted that past Petraeus
paramour Paula Broadwell had claimed on Oct. 26 that the agency was
holding three Libyan detainees in Benghazi at the time of the 9/11
attacks there. Fox News Channel's Jennifer Griffin mentioned the three
detainees in a report the same day. Yesterday Griffin added that
according to her sources, "other prisoners from additional countries in
Africa and the Middle East" had also been held there, though "most . . .
had been moved two weeks earlier."
The agency issued a categorical denial: "The CIA has not had detention
authority since January 2009, when Executive Order 13491 was issued. Any
suggestion that the agency is still in the detention business is
uninformed and baseless."
wrote:
> On Fri, 17 May 2013 03:23:36 +0100, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
> wrote:
>
>> By Jed Babbin
>>
>> Fear and loathing on the Benghazi scandal trail.
>>
>> Three State Department whistleblowers’ congressional testimony was
>> nearly forgotten yesterday amid the lies and half-truths coming out of
>> the White House and its congressional cohorts.
>
>> But this is too big. This is the kind of scandal that could damage
>> Obama’s presidency in the historical sense. Let’s say it again: nobody
>> died in Watergate.
>
>
> The main stream bull-sh*t talking points about memo drafts and who
> changed what and when, is a cover for a much larger story involving
> weapons running, illegal prisoner detention and possibly torture, DURING
> the Obama administration, in violation of Executive Order 13491.
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/EnsuringLawfulInterrogations
>
>
> The real scandal hasn't even begun yet.
>
> Remember, the Benghazi compound wasn't an embassy, it wasn't a
> consulate. It was at it's heart a CIA operation.
To what extent is the CIA still involved in detaining and interrogating
terrorist enemy combatants? Yesterday we noted that past Petraeus
paramour Paula Broadwell had claimed on Oct. 26 that the agency was
holding three Libyan detainees in Benghazi at the time of the 9/11
attacks there. Fox News Channel's Jennifer Griffin mentioned the three
detainees in a report the same day. Yesterday Griffin added that
according to her sources, "other prisoners from additional countries in
Africa and the Middle East" had also been held there, though "most . . .
had been moved two weeks earlier."
The agency issued a categorical denial: "The CIA has not had detention
authority since January 2009, when Executive Order 13491 was issued. Any
suggestion that the agency is still in the detention business is
uninformed and baseless."
1,971 murdered in Obama's organized communities
May 17, 2013, 6:22:08 AM5/17/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 19:27:01 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> The Democrats reserve the right to avoid answering questions which
>may incriminate them.
Fortunately, they cannot reserve the right to avoid the consequences
of their actions.
wrote:
> The Democrats reserve the right to avoid answering questions which
>may incriminate them.
of their actions.
trotsky
May 17, 2013, 7:02:25 AM5/17/13
to
Affordable Care Act. This is a travesty on the American people
perpetuated by the piece of shit GOP that has no desire to do anything
that has to do with actual governing. Any questions, anonyshit?
--
Never post something on the internet unless you have a point of
reference. You will look like a moron otherwise.
Ubiquitous
May 17, 2013, 6:02:26 AM5/17/13
to
Anonymous wrote:
>1,971 murdered in Obama's organized communities wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 May 2013 19:27:01 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The Democrats reserve the right to avoid answering questions which
>>> may incriminate them.
>>
>> Fortunately, they cannot reserve the right to avoid the consequences
>> of their actions.
>
>
>Agreed. For example, yesterday marked the 38th attempt to repeal the
>Affordable Care Act. This is a travesty on the American people
TROLL-O-METER
>1,971 murdered in Obama's organized communities wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 May 2013 19:27:01 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The Democrats reserve the right to avoid answering questions which
>>> may incriminate them.
>>
>> Fortunately, they cannot reserve the right to avoid the consequences
>> of their actions.
>
>
>Agreed. For example, yesterday marked the 38th attempt to repeal the
>Affordable Care Act. This is a travesty on the American people
5* 6* *7
4* *8
3* *9
2* *10
1* | *stuporous
0* -*- *catatonic
* |\ *comatose
* \ *clinical death
* \ *biological death
* _\/ *demonic apparition
* * *damned for all eternity
1,971 murdered in Obama's organized communities
May 18, 2013, 5:34:18 AM5/18/13
to
On Fri, 17 May 2013 06:02:25 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>On 5/17/13 5:22 AM, 1,971 murdered in Obama's organized communities wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 May 2013 19:27:01 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The Democrats reserve the right to avoid answering questions which
>>> may incriminate them.
>>
>> Fortunately, they cannot reserve the right to avoid the consequences
>> of their actions.
>
>
>Agreed. For example, yesterday marked the 38th attempt to repeal the
>Affordable Care Act. This is a travesty on the American people
>perpetuated by the piece of shit GOP that has no desire to do anything
>that has to do with actual governing. Any questions, anonyshit?
Yeah. Where do we send the "body" of the Obama administration after
>On 5/17/13 5:22 AM, 1,971 murdered in Obama's organized communities wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 May 2013 19:27:01 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The Democrats reserve the right to avoid answering questions which
>>> may incriminate them.
>>
>> Fortunately, they cannot reserve the right to avoid the consequences
>> of their actions.
>
>
>Agreed. For example, yesterday marked the 38th attempt to repeal the
>Affordable Care Act. This is a travesty on the American people
>perpetuated by the piece of shit GOP that has no desire to do anything
>that has to do with actual governing. Any questions, anonyshit?
it completely collapses under the weight of its own corruption?
Michael OConnor
May 18, 2013, 7:56:24 AM5/18/13
to
I for one do not want to see Obama impeached, because the thought of
Joe Biden as President scares me even worse.
Joe Biden as President scares me even worse.
Dano
May 18, 2013, 11:22:26 AM5/18/13
to
That's right. This was NOT Nixon's worst sin.
Thanks for the reminder.
Thanks for the reminder.
Charles H. Sampson
May 18, 2013, 11:46:27 AM5/18/13
to
>...
went too far and struck at the root of what makes our democracy work:
fair elections. Benghazi was a tragic event, no matter how it was spun,
that cost the lives of four people, How are these comparable?
> No one manipulated CIA talking points on it, either.
I don't remember that the CIA was involved in Watergate. Refresh
me.
Charlie
--
Nobody in this country got rich on his own. You built a factory--good.
But you moved your goods on roads we all paid for. You hired workers we
all paid to educate. So keep a big hunk of the money from your factory.
But take a hunk and pay it forward. Elizabeth Warren (paraphrased)
>
> The difference, Hillary, is that nobody died in the Watergate scandal.
>
In Watergate, a politician with a life-long criminal bent finally
> The difference, Hillary, is that nobody died in the Watergate scandal.
>
went too far and struck at the root of what makes our democracy work:
fair elections. Benghazi was a tragic event, no matter how it was spun,
that cost the lives of four people, How are these comparable?
> No one manipulated CIA talking points on it, either.
me.
Charlie
--
Nobody in this country got rich on his own. You built a factory--good.
But you moved your goods on roads we all paid for. You hired workers we
all paid to educate. So keep a big hunk of the money from your factory.
But take a hunk and pay it forward. Elizabeth Warren (paraphrased)
JRStern
May 18, 2013, 12:08:17 PM5/18/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 08:46:27 -0700, csam...@inetworld.net (Charles H.
Sampson) wrote:
>Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>
>> By Jed Babbin
>>
>>...
>>
>> The difference, Hillary, is that nobody died in the Watergate scandal.
>>
> In Watergate, a politician with a life-long criminal bent finally
>went too far and struck at the root of what makes our democracy work:
>fair elections. Benghazi was a tragic event, no matter how it was spun,
>that cost the lives of four people, How are these comparable?
Watergate was a drip compared to the current IRS-gate. Even a dozen
Sampson) wrote:
>Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>
>> By Jed Babbin
>>
>>...
>>
>> The difference, Hillary, is that nobody died in the Watergate scandal.
>>
> In Watergate, a politician with a life-long criminal bent finally
>went too far and struck at the root of what makes our democracy work:
>fair elections. Benghazi was a tragic event, no matter how it was spun,
>that cost the lives of four people, How are these comparable?
more Tea Party groups established before the last election might well
have been enough to change the results.
And, the root of what makes our democracy work, LOL! Do you know what
Watergate was even all about, what the burglars were after? Pretty
obviously not. I forget the precise details, but it was evidence of
the call-girl ring being run out of the Democratic HQ for benefit of
visiting dignitaries.
J.
trotsky
May 18, 2013, 12:21:53 PM5/18/13
to
Adam H. Kerman
May 18, 2013, 12:21:50 PM5/18/13
to
JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote:
>csam...@inetworld.net (Charles H. Sampson) wrote:
>>In Watergate, a politician with a life-long criminal bent finally
>>went too far and struck at the root of what makes our democracy work:
>>fair elections. Benghazi was a tragic event, no matter how it was spun,
>>that cost the lives of four people, How are these comparable?
>Watergate was a drip compared to the current IRS-gate. Even a dozen
>more Tea Party groups established before the last election might well
>have been enough to change the results.
Dude, this all goes back to Watergate. Federal Election Campaign Act,
>csam...@inetworld.net (Charles H. Sampson) wrote:
>>In Watergate, a politician with a life-long criminal bent finally
>>went too far and struck at the root of what makes our democracy work:
>>fair elections. Benghazi was a tragic event, no matter how it was spun,
>>that cost the lives of four people, How are these comparable?
>Watergate was a drip compared to the current IRS-gate. Even a dozen
>more Tea Party groups established before the last election might well
>have been enough to change the results.
which required disclosure, was new. Still, CREEP (Committee to Re-Elect
the President) has huge buckets of funds, little of which was disclosed.
IRS wouldn't have been involved at all if Tea Party movement types had
reported under federal and state disclosure laws, none of which requires
IRS recognition and none of it's subject to tax.
>And, the root of what makes our democracy work, LOL! Do you know what
>Watergate was even all about, what the burglars were after? Pretty
>obviously not. I forget the precise details, but it was evidence of
>the call-girl ring being run out of the Democratic HQ for benefit of
>visiting dignitaries.
Years ago, they claimed they were looking for evidence of foreign
contributions, illegal at races at all levels for decades. In his "act",
years later, G. Gordon Liddy claimed they were trying to find whatever
dirt they had on him.
Dano
May 18, 2013, 1:24:10 PM5/18/13
to
"JRStern" wrote in message
news:0i9fp8ldeupo4ni5c...@4ax.com...
===========================================
Seriously? You don't think things like this (and far worse) never happened
under a Republican regime?
You clowns are SOOOO full of shit. You forget the "precise" details? How
about ANY?
These so-called "scandals" are so exaggerated as to actually discredit
Republicans and Tea Baggers even more than may actually be deserved...if
that's possible.
You obviously missed the "details" that proved there IS no scandal over
Benghazi...just a heart breaking tragedy...and the realization that we are
sometimes unable to respond to EVERY single threat, everywhere in the world.
Sadly...yes...there ARE limits to our vast power in the world.
The real disgrace of the IRS debacle was administrative and in the
application of the code itself. Tax exempts are NOT supposed to include
groups whose primary purpose is political. Period. Of course the law
SHOULD be applied evenly...to ALL of these groups. But extending this tax
exempt status is the REAL abuse. And when a group actually uses a political
name like "Tea Party" to self identify...well how freaking stupid must one
be to not see that as an abuse of the rule?
The AP business was clearly a national security issue. NOT a political one.
There are questions to be asked for certain. But I don't think for one
second they were trying to squelch the press. There was a security leak
that could endanger assets in the field. Lives were (probably still are) at
risk. They were trying to stem a security leak that affected keeping our
country safe. But I guess Republican logic has gotten so twisted that this
is no longer as high a priority as attacking the administration...no matter
the cost to the nation.
What ELSE you got???
news:0i9fp8ldeupo4ni5c...@4ax.com...
Seriously? You don't think things like this (and far worse) never happened
under a Republican regime?
You clowns are SOOOO full of shit. You forget the "precise" details? How
about ANY?
These so-called "scandals" are so exaggerated as to actually discredit
Republicans and Tea Baggers even more than may actually be deserved...if
that's possible.
You obviously missed the "details" that proved there IS no scandal over
Benghazi...just a heart breaking tragedy...and the realization that we are
sometimes unable to respond to EVERY single threat, everywhere in the world.
Sadly...yes...there ARE limits to our vast power in the world.
The real disgrace of the IRS debacle was administrative and in the
application of the code itself. Tax exempts are NOT supposed to include
groups whose primary purpose is political. Period. Of course the law
SHOULD be applied evenly...to ALL of these groups. But extending this tax
exempt status is the REAL abuse. And when a group actually uses a political
name like "Tea Party" to self identify...well how freaking stupid must one
be to not see that as an abuse of the rule?
The AP business was clearly a national security issue. NOT a political one.
There are questions to be asked for certain. But I don't think for one
second they were trying to squelch the press. There was a security leak
that could endanger assets in the field. Lives were (probably still are) at
risk. They were trying to stem a security leak that affected keeping our
country safe. But I guess Republican logic has gotten so twisted that this
is no longer as high a priority as attacking the administration...no matter
the cost to the nation.
What ELSE you got???
JRStern
May 18, 2013, 2:10:33 PM5/18/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 16:21:50 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote:
>>csam...@inetworld.net (Charles H. Sampson) wrote:
>
>>>In Watergate, a politician with a life-long criminal bent finally
>>>went too far and struck at the root of what makes our democracy work:
>>>fair elections. Benghazi was a tragic event, no matter how it was spun,
>>>that cost the lives of four people, How are these comparable?
>
>>Watergate was a drip compared to the current IRS-gate. Even a dozen
>>more Tea Party groups established before the last election might well
>>have been enough to change the results.
>
>Dude, this all goes back to Watergate. Federal Election Campaign Act,
>which required disclosure, was new. Still, CREEP (Committee to Re-Elect
>the President) has huge buckets of funds, little of which was disclosed.
Maybe, but what did that have to do with the breakin at the hotel?
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote:
>>csam...@inetworld.net (Charles H. Sampson) wrote:
>
>>>In Watergate, a politician with a life-long criminal bent finally
>>>went too far and struck at the root of what makes our democracy work:
>>>fair elections. Benghazi was a tragic event, no matter how it was spun,
>>>that cost the lives of four people, How are these comparable?
>
>>Watergate was a drip compared to the current IRS-gate. Even a dozen
>>more Tea Party groups established before the last election might well
>>have been enough to change the results.
>
>Dude, this all goes back to Watergate. Federal Election Campaign Act,
>which required disclosure, was new. Still, CREEP (Committee to Re-Elect
>the President) has huge buckets of funds, little of which was disclosed.
>IRS wouldn't have been involved at all if Tea Party movement types had
>reported under federal and state disclosure laws, none of which requires
>IRS recognition and none of it's subject to tax.
any organization seeking tax-exempt status? Don't you HAVE to
register as one of these kind of organizations now? Why do they even
have the law?
>>And, the root of what makes our democracy work, LOL! Do you know what
>>Watergate was even all about, what the burglars were after? Pretty
>>obviously not. I forget the precise details, but it was evidence of
>>the call-girl ring being run out of the Democratic HQ for benefit of
>>visiting dignitaries.
>
>Are you writing a political novel?
>
>Years ago, they claimed they were looking for evidence of foreign
>contributions, illegal at races at all levels for decades. In his "act",
>years later, G. Gordon Liddy claimed they were trying to find whatever
>dirt they had on him.
description I gave is in Liddy's latest book, but the story has been
around a long time and was the core of Howard Dean's suit(s) against
Liddy. I think Dean is supposed to have married one of the hookers.
J.
JRStern
May 18, 2013, 2:13:05 PM5/18/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:24:10 -0400, "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>===========================================
>
>Seriously? You don't think things like this (and far worse) never happened
>under a Republican regime?
You like it when it does?
>You clowns are SOOOO full of shit. You forget the "precise" details? How
>about ANY?
Learn to read, it's right there in my post.
>These so-called "scandals" are so exaggerated as to actually discredit
>Republicans and Tea Baggers even more than may actually be deserved...if
>that's possible.
Bite me.
>You obviously missed the "details" that proved there IS no scandal over
>Benghazi...
Only a blind idiot could say that.
> just a heart breaking tragedy...and the realization that we are
>sometimes unable to respond to EVERY single threat, everywhere in the world.
>Sadly...yes...there ARE limits to our vast power in the world.
You have entirely missed the point, but why not, so has our vaunted
MSM, it's what they're mostly good at anymore.
J.
wrote:
>===========================================
>
>Seriously? You don't think things like this (and far worse) never happened
>under a Republican regime?
>You clowns are SOOOO full of shit. You forget the "precise" details? How
>about ANY?
>These so-called "scandals" are so exaggerated as to actually discredit
>Republicans and Tea Baggers even more than may actually be deserved...if
>that's possible.
>You obviously missed the "details" that proved there IS no scandal over
>Benghazi...
> just a heart breaking tragedy...and the realization that we are
>sometimes unable to respond to EVERY single threat, everywhere in the world.
>Sadly...yes...there ARE limits to our vast power in the world.
MSM, it's what they're mostly good at anymore.
J.
Adam H. Kerman
May 18, 2013, 3:17:01 PM5/18/13
to
JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote:
>>>csam...@inetworld.net (Charles H. Sampson) wrote:
>>>>In Watergate, a politician with a life-long criminal bent finally
>>>>went too far and struck at the root of what makes our democracy work:
>>>>fair elections. Benghazi was a tragic event, no matter how it was spun,
>>>>that cost the lives of four people, How are these comparable?
>>>Watergate was a drip compared to the current IRS-gate. Even a dozen
>>>more Tea Party groups established before the last election might well
>>>have been enough to change the results.
>>Dude, this all goes back to Watergate. Federal Election Campaign Act,
>>which required disclosure, was new. Still, CREEP (Committee to Re-Elect
>>the President) has huge buckets of funds, little of which was disclosed.
>Maybe, but what did that have to do with the breakin at the hotel?
You didn't seem to appreciate that the tax laws IRS was applying were written
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote:
>>>csam...@inetworld.net (Charles H. Sampson) wrote:
>>>>In Watergate, a politician with a life-long criminal bent finally
>>>>went too far and struck at the root of what makes our democracy work:
>>>>fair elections. Benghazi was a tragic event, no matter how it was spun,
>>>>that cost the lives of four people, How are these comparable?
>>>Watergate was a drip compared to the current IRS-gate. Even a dozen
>>>more Tea Party groups established before the last election might well
>>>have been enough to change the results.
>>Dude, this all goes back to Watergate. Federal Election Campaign Act,
>>which required disclosure, was new. Still, CREEP (Committee to Re-Elect
>>the President) has huge buckets of funds, little of which was disclosed.
>Maybe, but what did that have to do with the breakin at the hotel?
post Watergate, although heavily modified by various court decisions.
>>IRS wouldn't have been involved at all if Tea Party movement types had
>>reported under federal and state disclosure laws, none of which requires
>>IRS recognition and none of it's subject to tax.
>Now that you put it that way ... then what is the point, exactly, for
>any organization seeking tax-exempt status? Don't you HAVE to
>register as one of these kind of organizations now? Why do they even
>have the law?
(schools and educational organizations that aren't schools), and
religious (that aren't churches). (Per court rulings, churches aren't
defined in tax law.) Donors can take tax deductible charitable contributions.
Political activity (influencing an election) would jeopardize their tax
status, and there are restrictions on lobbying, but it's not prohibited.
Over a low threshold, 501(c)(3)s must seek recognition.
501(c)(4) and (6) covers civic organizations/social welfare organizations
and business associations respectively. These can have lobbying as their
primary purpose. Political activity cannot be their primary purpose. They'd
pay a tax on political expenditures.
501(c)(4) and (6) are not required to seek recognition. They do, sometimes,
to give their donors confidence or because they're trying to push tax law
limits. These entities may be trying to push campaign finance law, too,
to claim that certain political expenditures aren't regulated in campaign
finance law, and therefore, their donors aren't subject to disclosure
under campaign finance laws.
Merely obtaining recognition as a 501(c)(4) or (6) isn't adequate to establish
that they haven't made political expenditures regulated under campaign
finance laws.
Sec 527 covers political organizations. There is no IRS recognition.
Most 527s make disclosure under applicable federal and state campaign
disclosure laws. For exceptional 527s that don't, they register with IRS
upon formation and make pre- and post-election disclosures. Sec 527 also
includes taxes on non-527s that make political expenditures.
I guess Sec 527 was written to begin with just to have some way to define
these exempt organizations in the tax code but it wasn't the original intent
of Congress that 527s would make campaign disclosure to IRS. That was a
relatively recent amendment.
>>>And, the root of what makes our democracy work, LOL! Do you know what
>>>Watergate was even all about, what the burglars were after? Pretty
>>>obviously not. I forget the precise details, but it was evidence of
>>>the call-girl ring being run out of the Democratic HQ for benefit of
>>>visiting dignitaries.
>>Are you writing a political novel?
>>Years ago, they claimed they were looking for evidence of foreign
>>contributions, illegal at races at all levels for decades. In his "act",
>>years later, G. Gordon Liddy claimed they were trying to find whatever
>>dirt they had on him.
>I've seen a lot of stories and not cared much about any of them, the
>description I gave is in Liddy's latest book, but the story has been
>around a long time and was the core of Howard Dean's suit(s) against
>Liddy. I think Dean is supposed to have married one of the hookers.
JRStern
May 18, 2013, 8:29:58 PM5/18/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 19:17:01 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>Watergate was a drip compared to the current IRS-gate. Even a dozen
>>>>more Tea Party groups established before the last election might well
>>>>have been enough to change the results.
>
>>>Dude, this all goes back to Watergate. Federal Election Campaign Act,
>>>which required disclosure, was new. Still, CREEP (Committee to Re-Elect
>>>the President) has huge buckets of funds, little of which was disclosed.
>
>>Maybe, but what did that have to do with the breakin at the hotel?
>
>You didn't seem to appreciate that the tax laws IRS was applying were written
>post Watergate, although heavily modified by various court decisions.
OK, but I still don't see what it has to do with a breakin at the
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>Watergate was a drip compared to the current IRS-gate. Even a dozen
>>>>more Tea Party groups established before the last election might well
>>>>have been enough to change the results.
>
>>>Dude, this all goes back to Watergate. Federal Election Campaign Act,
>>>which required disclosure, was new. Still, CREEP (Committee to Re-Elect
>>>the President) has huge buckets of funds, little of which was disclosed.
>
>>Maybe, but what did that have to do with the breakin at the hotel?
>
>You didn't seem to appreciate that the tax laws IRS was applying were written
>post Watergate, although heavily modified by various court decisions.
hotel.
>>>IRS wouldn't have been involved at all if Tea Party movement types had
>>>reported under federal and state disclosure laws, none of which requires
>>>IRS recognition and none of it's subject to tax.
>
>>Now that you put it that way ... then what is the point, exactly, for
>>any organization seeking tax-exempt status? Don't you HAVE to
>>register as one of these kind of organizations now? Why do they even
>>have the law?
>
>Merely obtaining recognition as a 501(c)(4) or (6) isn't adequate to establish
>that they haven't made political expenditures regulated under campaign
>finance laws.
Hey thanks for an excellent explanation. That does put a somewhat
>that they haven't made political expenditures regulated under campaign
>finance laws.
different spin on it. Somewhat. So the Tea Party groups *could* just
go ahead, or never even apply to the IRS in the first place, or
organize as 527s. I guess. Since IRS policy is generally that even
their approval in advance never guarantees their approval after the
fact. Though having been consulted, of course they still have a duty
to be fair and objective about it and get it done. Did they ever rule
for or against the various applicants, or just scare them all off?
Did they go after the *individuals* who applied for new approvals?
J.
Adam H. Kerman
May 18, 2013, 11:18:55 PM5/18/13
to
Administration but haven't read it yet.
There's another catch: IRS was probably fishing (sorry for the pun).
IRS wouldn't typically ask for information about donors without being
aware of noncompliance with tax laws. So, IRS suspected what they were
doing but wouldn't be able to prove it in advance, not till someone complained
that one of these groups purchased television air time or some other
obvious political expenditure. At which point, the group would simply try
to go out of business attempting to avoid questions.
JRStern
May 19, 2013, 12:49:27 AM5/19/13
to
On Sun, 19 May 2013 03:18:55 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Yeah, well that's what happens when you have a bunch of accountants
somehow suddenly responsible for managing free (?) political speech, I
mean what next, health care?
J.
somehow suddenly responsible for managing free (?) political speech, I
mean what next, health care?
J.
Remysun
May 19, 2013, 1:59:45 AM5/19/13
to
At most, the guy is Commander-in-Chief, and Benghazi could be seen as
a moment of tactical failure. Little Big Horn was a lot worse, but
nobody got impeached over Custer. Although, peach custard sounds
interesting.
a moment of tactical failure. Little Big Horn was a lot worse, but
nobody got impeached over Custer. Although, peach custard sounds
interesting.
1,975 murdered in Obama's organized communities
May 19, 2013, 7:48:48 AM5/19/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 11:21:53 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>On 5/18/13 4:34 AM, 1,971 murdered in Obama's organized communities wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 06:02:25 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/17/13 5:22 AM, 1,971 murdered in Obama's organized communities wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 16 May 2013 19:27:01 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Democrats reserve the right to avoid answering questions which
>>>>> may incriminate them.
>>>>
>>>> Fortunately, they cannot reserve the right to avoid the consequences
>>>> of their actions.
>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed. For example, yesterday marked the 38th attempt to repeal the
>>> Affordable Care Act. This is a travesty on the American people
>>> perpetuated by the piece of shit GOP that has no desire to do anything
>>> that has to do with actual governing. Any questions, anonyshit?
>>
>> Yeah. Where do we send the "body" of the Obama administration after
>> it completely collapses under the weight of its own corruption?
>
>
>Who's "we", anonyshit?
The majority of Americans who know our nation is being "lead" by a
>On 5/18/13 4:34 AM, 1,971 murdered in Obama's organized communities wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 06:02:25 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/17/13 5:22 AM, 1,971 murdered in Obama's organized communities wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 16 May 2013 19:27:01 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Democrats reserve the right to avoid answering questions which
>>>>> may incriminate them.
>>>>
>>>> Fortunately, they cannot reserve the right to avoid the consequences
>>>> of their actions.
>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed. For example, yesterday marked the 38th attempt to repeal the
>>> Affordable Care Act. This is a travesty on the American people
>>> perpetuated by the piece of shit GOP that has no desire to do anything
>>> that has to do with actual governing. Any questions, anonyshit?
>>
>> Yeah. Where do we send the "body" of the Obama administration after
>> it completely collapses under the weight of its own corruption?
>
>
>Who's "we", anonyshit?
narcissist poster child for Shit-From-Mouth syndrome.
1,975 murdered in Obama's organized communities
May 19, 2013, 7:55:41 AM5/19/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 21:49:27 -0700, JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid>
wrote:
May the devil take them all before they have the chance.
wrote:
1,975 murdered in Obama's organized communities
May 19, 2013, 7:58:12 AM5/19/13
to
>"JRStern" wrote in message
>news:0i9fp8ldeupo4ni5c...@4ax.com...
>
>On Sat, 18 May 2013 08:46:27 -0700, csam...@inetworld.net (Charles H.
>Sampson) wrote:
>
>>Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>
>>> By Jed Babbin
>>>
>>>...
>>>
>>> The difference, Hillary, is that nobody died in the Watergate scandal.
>>>
>> In Watergate, a politician with a life-long criminal bent finally
>>went too far and struck at the root of what makes our democracy work:
>>fair elections. Benghazi was a tragic event, no matter how it was spun,
>>that cost the lives of four people, How are these comparable?
>
>Watergate was a drip compared to the current IRS-gate. Even a dozen
>more Tea Party groups established before the last election might well
>have been enough to change the results.
>
>And, the root of what makes our democracy work, LOL! Do you know what
>Watergate was even all about, what the burglars were after? Pretty
>obviously not. I forget the precise details, but it was evidence of
>the call-girl ring being run out of the Democratic HQ for benefit of
>visiting dignitaries.
>
>===========================================
>
>Seriously? You don't think things like this (and far worse) never happened
>under a Republican regime?
Got some evidence?
>news:0i9fp8ldeupo4ni5c...@4ax.com...
>
>On Sat, 18 May 2013 08:46:27 -0700, csam...@inetworld.net (Charles H.
>Sampson) wrote:
>
>>Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>
>>> By Jed Babbin
>>>
>>>...
>>>
>>> The difference, Hillary, is that nobody died in the Watergate scandal.
>>>
>> In Watergate, a politician with a life-long criminal bent finally
>>went too far and struck at the root of what makes our democracy work:
>>fair elections. Benghazi was a tragic event, no matter how it was spun,
>>that cost the lives of four people, How are these comparable?
>
>Watergate was a drip compared to the current IRS-gate. Even a dozen
>more Tea Party groups established before the last election might well
>have been enough to change the results.
>
>And, the root of what makes our democracy work, LOL! Do you know what
>Watergate was even all about, what the burglars were after? Pretty
>obviously not. I forget the precise details, but it was evidence of
>the call-girl ring being run out of the Democratic HQ for benefit of
>visiting dignitaries.
>
>===========================================
>
>Seriously? You don't think things like this (and far worse) never happened
>under a Republican regime?
And even if they did, that was then, this is now.
Obama is walkin' the green mile.
cloud dreamer
May 19, 2013, 8:31:02 AM5/19/13
to
On 18/05/2013 1:16 PM, Charles H. Sampson wrote:
> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>
>> By Jed Babbin
>>
>> ...
>>
>> The difference, Hillary, is that nobody died in the Watergate scandal.
>>
> In Watergate, a politician with a life-long criminal bent finally
> went too far and struck at the root of what makes our democracy work:
> fair elections. Benghazi was a tragic event, no matter how it was spun,
> that cost the lives of four people, How are these comparable?
I wonder if any Right-winger name the 11 embassies and FIFTY TWO people
> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>
>> By Jed Babbin
>>
>> ...
>>
>> The difference, Hillary, is that nobody died in the Watergate scandal.
>>
> In Watergate, a politician with a life-long criminal bent finally
> went too far and struck at the root of what makes our democracy work:
> fair elections. Benghazi was a tragic event, no matter how it was spun,
> that cost the lives of four people, How are these comparable?
that died on Bush's watch???
Nope. Didn't think so.
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/minneapolis-mn/T137LPQOUH8QAC6TO
..
cloud dreamer
May 19, 2013, 8:48:38 AM5/19/13
to
dead under his watch.
Impeachment was never mentioned.
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/minneapolis-mn/T137LPQOUH8QAC6TO
..
Adam H. Kerman
May 19, 2013, 10:22:04 AM5/19/13
to
interrogating Indians. Man, I wonder what WWII would have been like if we'd
contracted it all out.
Adam H. Kerman
May 19, 2013, 10:23:44 AM5/19/13
to
law relies upon political rivalry or the media to discover violations, but
once the election has passed, there's nothing practical to do about it.
Years ago, I worked a political campaign and came across evidence of a
foreign contribution in a rival candidate's political committee. The
committee disclosed it itself on its own reports (whoops). Months
after the primary, we heard back from FEC.
JRStern
May 19, 2013, 12:00:23 PM5/19/13
to
J.
Adam H. Kerman
May 19, 2013, 12:01:50 PM5/19/13
to
Ok, I guess we have some idea! I remember what they did with the silk
that was supposed to go for parachutes.
JRStern
May 19, 2013, 12:03:47 PM5/19/13
to
If Bush had done nothing after all those attacks but play golf, I'd
have hoped he would have been impeached.
And are you kidding - large segments of the Democratic party talked
constantly about impeaching Bush from before he was even inaugurated
because they were rabid to "get even" for Bubba Clinton.
J.
JRStern
May 19, 2013, 12:05:20 PM5/19/13
to
On Sun, 19 May 2013 16:01:50 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
I'm sure it was the same with the Roman legions.
J.
J.
David Johnston
May 19, 2013, 12:32:00 PM5/19/13
to
On 5/19/2013 10:03 AM, JRStern wrote:
> On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:18:38 -0230, cloud dreamer
> <reduce...@recycle.com> wrote:
>
>> On 19/05/2013 3:29 AM, Remysun wrote:
>>> At most, the guy is Commander-in-Chief, and Benghazi could be seen as
>>> a moment of tactical failure. Little Big Horn was a lot worse, but
>>> nobody got impeached over Custer. Although, peach custard sounds
>>> interesting.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Bush never got impeached for the eleven embassy attacks and FIFTY-TWO
>> dead under his watch.
>>
>> Impeachment was never mentioned.
>>
>> http://www.topix.com/forum/city/minneapolis-mn/T137LPQOUH8QAC6TO
>
> Which is exactly why the US under Bush took major military action.
Really. What major military action did they take in response to the
> On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:18:38 -0230, cloud dreamer
> <reduce...@recycle.com> wrote:
>
>> On 19/05/2013 3:29 AM, Remysun wrote:
>>> At most, the guy is Commander-in-Chief, and Benghazi could be seen as
>>> a moment of tactical failure. Little Big Horn was a lot worse, but
>>> nobody got impeached over Custer. Although, peach custard sounds
>>> interesting.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Bush never got impeached for the eleven embassy attacks and FIFTY-TWO
>> dead under his watch.
>>
>> Impeachment was never mentioned.
>>
>> http://www.topix.com/forum/city/minneapolis-mn/T137LPQOUH8QAC6TO
>
> Which is exactly why the US under Bush took major military action.
embassy attacks?
Dano
May 19, 2013, 12:39:06 PM5/19/13
to
"JRStern" wrote in message
news:3rthp8lnalee9u098...@4ax.com...
================================================
So what are you saying? That Obama has done nothing militarily?
Seriously?
I think there are a few folks riding camels who might take issue with THAT
claim. And there's a certain someone sleeping with the fishes who Bush
swore to get...and failed in doing so.
As for talk of impeaching Bush...they SHOULD have. My biggest beef with
Obama is in choosing to NOT go after Bush and Cheney for their crimes while
in office. So in a very real way they reap what they sow.
news:3rthp8lnalee9u098...@4ax.com...
So what are you saying? That Obama has done nothing militarily?
Seriously?
I think there are a few folks riding camels who might take issue with THAT
claim. And there's a certain someone sleeping with the fishes who Bush
swore to get...and failed in doing so.
As for talk of impeaching Bush...they SHOULD have. My biggest beef with
Obama is in choosing to NOT go after Bush and Cheney for their crimes while
in office. So in a very real way they reap what they sow.
JRStern
May 19, 2013, 2:47:49 PM5/19/13
to
On Sun, 19 May 2013 12:39:06 -0400, "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>"JRStern" wrote in message
>news:3rthp8lnalee9u098...@4ax.com...
>
>On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:18:38 -0230, cloud dreamer
><reduce...@recycle.com> wrote:
>
>>On 19/05/2013 3:29 AM, Remysun wrote:
>>> At most, the guy is Commander-in-Chief, and Benghazi could be seen as
>>> a moment of tactical failure. Little Big Horn was a lot worse, but
>>> nobody got impeached over Custer. Although, peach custard sounds
>>> interesting.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Bush never got impeached for the eleven embassy attacks and FIFTY-TWO
>>dead under his watch.
>>
>>Impeachment was never mentioned.
>>
>>http://www.topix.com/forum/city/minneapolis-mn/T137LPQOUH8QAC6TO
>
>Which is exactly why the US under Bush took major military action.
>
>If Bush had done nothing after all those attacks but play golf, I'd
>have hoped he would have been impeached.
>
>And are you kidding - large segments of the Democratic party talked
>constantly about impeaching Bush from before he was even inaugurated
>because they were rabid to "get even" for Bubba Clinton.
>
>================================================
>
>So what are you saying? That Obama has done nothing militarily?
>Seriously?
Since Benghazi? "What difference does it make now?"
J.
wrote:
>"JRStern" wrote in message
>news:3rthp8lnalee9u098...@4ax.com...
>
>On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:18:38 -0230, cloud dreamer
><reduce...@recycle.com> wrote:
>
>>On 19/05/2013 3:29 AM, Remysun wrote:
>>> At most, the guy is Commander-in-Chief, and Benghazi could be seen as
>>> a moment of tactical failure. Little Big Horn was a lot worse, but
>>> nobody got impeached over Custer. Although, peach custard sounds
>>> interesting.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Bush never got impeached for the eleven embassy attacks and FIFTY-TWO
>>dead under his watch.
>>
>>Impeachment was never mentioned.
>>
>>http://www.topix.com/forum/city/minneapolis-mn/T137LPQOUH8QAC6TO
>
>Which is exactly why the US under Bush took major military action.
>
>If Bush had done nothing after all those attacks but play golf, I'd
>have hoped he would have been impeached.
>
>And are you kidding - large segments of the Democratic party talked
>constantly about impeaching Bush from before he was even inaugurated
>because they were rabid to "get even" for Bubba Clinton.
>
>================================================
>
>So what are you saying? That Obama has done nothing militarily?
>Seriously?
J.
Charles H. Sampson
May 19, 2013, 2:54:34 PM5/19/13
to
JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 08:46:27 -0700, csam...@inetworld.net (Charles H.
> Sampson) wrote:
>
> >Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> >
> >> By Jed Babbin
> >>
> >>...
> >>
> >> The difference, Hillary, is that nobody died in the Watergate scandal.
> >>
> > In Watergate, a politician with a life-long criminal bent finally
> >went too far and struck at the root of what makes our democracy work:
> >fair elections. Benghazi was a tragic event, no matter how it was spun,
> >that cost the lives of four people, How are these comparable?
>
> Watergate was a drip compared to the current IRS-gate. Even a dozen
> more Tea Party groups established before the last election might well
> have been enough to change the results.
How would that have been possible? They were asking to be qualified
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 08:46:27 -0700, csam...@inetworld.net (Charles H.
> Sampson) wrote:
>
> >Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> >
> >> By Jed Babbin
> >>
> >>...
> >>
> >> The difference, Hillary, is that nobody died in the Watergate scandal.
> >>
> > In Watergate, a politician with a life-long criminal bent finally
> >went too far and struck at the root of what makes our democracy work:
> >fair elections. Benghazi was a tragic event, no matter how it was spun,
> >that cost the lives of four people, How are these comparable?
>
> Watergate was a drip compared to the current IRS-gate. Even a dozen
> more Tea Party groups established before the last election might well
> have been enough to change the results.
as a certain type of charitable organization, which could legally only
do a little bit of politics. Of course, the IRS was singling out these
organizations because many similar organizations were only too willing
to overlook that little word "legally".
> And, the root of what makes our democracy work, LOL! Do you know what
> Watergate was even all about, what the burglars were after? Pretty
> obviously not. I forget the precise details, but it was evidence of
> the call-girl ring being run out of the Democratic HQ for benefit of
> visiting dignitaries.
some revisionism of the last three-or-so decades. To say that you forget
the precise details is a wild understatement! Time for a refresher
course for you.
Charlie
--
Nobody in this country got rich on his own. You built a factory--good.
But you moved your goods on roads we all paid for. You hired workers we
all paid to educate. So keep a big hunk of the money from your factory.
But take a hunk and pay it forward. Elizabeth Warren (paraphrased)
trotsky
May 19, 2013, 3:02:54 PM5/19/13
to
trotsky
May 19, 2013, 3:03:40 PM5/19/13
to
anim8rFSK
May 19, 2013, 3:53:49 PM5/19/13
to
In article <3rthp8lnalee9u098...@4ax.com>,
Clod isn't kidding; she is however willfully ignorant and/or outright
lying.
--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."
lying.
--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."
trotsky
May 19, 2013, 5:50:38 PM5/19/13
to
On 5/19/13 11:03 AM, JRStern wrote:
> On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:18:38 -0230, cloud dreamer
> <reduce...@recycle.com> wrote:
>
>> On 19/05/2013 3:29 AM, Remysun wrote:
>>> At most, the guy is Commander-in-Chief, and Benghazi could be seen as
>>> a moment of tactical failure. Little Big Horn was a lot worse, but
>>> nobody got impeached over Custer. Although, peach custard sounds
>>> interesting.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Bush never got impeached for the eleven embassy attacks and FIFTY-TWO
>> dead under his watch.
>>
>> Impeachment was never mentioned.
>>
>> http://www.topix.com/forum/city/minneapolis-mn/T137LPQOUH8QAC6TO
>
> Which is exactly why the US under Bush took major military action.
Interesting--so it doesn't matter who you take "major military action"
> On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:18:38 -0230, cloud dreamer
> <reduce...@recycle.com> wrote:
>
>> On 19/05/2013 3:29 AM, Remysun wrote:
>>> At most, the guy is Commander-in-Chief, and Benghazi could be seen as
>>> a moment of tactical failure. Little Big Horn was a lot worse, but
>>> nobody got impeached over Custer. Although, peach custard sounds
>>> interesting.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Bush never got impeached for the eleven embassy attacks and FIFTY-TWO
>> dead under his watch.
>>
>> Impeachment was never mentioned.
>>
>> http://www.topix.com/forum/city/minneapolis-mn/T137LPQOUH8QAC6TO
>
> Which is exactly why the US under Bush took major military action.
against, just as long as you do it.
Were you trying to be funny?
Remysun
May 20, 2013, 2:34:42 AM5/20/13
to
On May 19, 8:48 am, cloud dreamer <reduce.re...@recycle.com> wrote:
> On 19/05/2013 3:29 AM, Remysun wrote:
>
> > At most, the guy is Commander-in-Chief, and Benghazi could be seen as
> > a moment of tactical failure. Little Big Horn was a lot worse, but
> > nobody got impeached over Custer. Although, peach custard sounds
> > interesting.
>
> Bush never got impeached for the eleven embassy attacks and FIFTY-TWO
> dead under his watch.
>
> Impeachment was never mentioned.
Don't forget it was a Republican who got the ball rolling towards
> On 19/05/2013 3:29 AM, Remysun wrote:
>
> > At most, the guy is Commander-in-Chief, and Benghazi could be seen as
> > a moment of tactical failure. Little Big Horn was a lot worse, but
> > nobody got impeached over Custer. Although, peach custard sounds
> > interesting.
>
> Bush never got impeached for the eleven embassy attacks and FIFTY-TWO
> dead under his watch.
>
> Impeachment was never mentioned.
Nixon's impeachment, for which he resigned before it could take place.
Today's politics would be so much better if people were indeed
disgusted by their own party, whatever affiliation that might be.
1,976 murdered in Obama's organized communities
May 20, 2013, 7:12:29 AM5/20/13
to
named Clinton and Obama did with Benghazi because it might interfere
with their partying.
And besides, Shits-from-his-mouth Obama would have us believe there
are no islamofascist terrorists...
1,976 murdered in Obama's organized communities
May 20, 2013, 7:15:34 AM5/20/13
to
On Sun, 19 May 2013 09:03:47 -0700, JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid>
wrote:
>On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:18:38 -0230, cloud dreamer
><reduce...@recycle.com> wrote:
>
>>On 19/05/2013 3:29 AM, Remysun wrote:
>>> At most, the guy is Commander-in-Chief, and Benghazi could be seen as
>>> a moment of tactical failure. Little Big Horn was a lot worse, but
>>> nobody got impeached over Custer. Although, peach custard sounds
>>> interesting.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Bush never got impeached for the eleven embassy attacks and FIFTY-TWO
>>dead under his watch.
>>
>>Impeachment was never mentioned.
>>
>>http://www.topix.com/forum/city/minneapolis-mn/T137LPQOUH8QAC6TO
>
>Which is exactly why the US under Bush took major military action.
>
>If Bush had done nothing after all those attacks but play golf, I'd
>have hoped he would have been impeached.
Clintobama did far worse than "do nothing" - they lied, attempted to
cover up and dismiss, and very likely took direct steps that ensured
the deaths in Benghazi.
Impeachment? Hell no! Trial and execution!
wrote:
>On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:18:38 -0230, cloud dreamer
><reduce...@recycle.com> wrote:
>
>>On 19/05/2013 3:29 AM, Remysun wrote:
>>> At most, the guy is Commander-in-Chief, and Benghazi could be seen as
>>> a moment of tactical failure. Little Big Horn was a lot worse, but
>>> nobody got impeached over Custer. Although, peach custard sounds
>>> interesting.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Bush never got impeached for the eleven embassy attacks and FIFTY-TWO
>>dead under his watch.
>>
>>Impeachment was never mentioned.
>>
>>http://www.topix.com/forum/city/minneapolis-mn/T137LPQOUH8QAC6TO
>
>Which is exactly why the US under Bush took major military action.
>
>If Bush had done nothing after all those attacks but play golf, I'd
>have hoped he would have been impeached.
cover up and dismiss, and very likely took direct steps that ensured
the deaths in Benghazi.
Impeachment? Hell no! Trial and execution!
1,976 murdered in Obama's organized communities
May 20, 2013, 7:19:42 AM5/20/13
to
On Sun, 19 May 2013 16:50:38 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>On 5/19/13 11:03 AM, JRStern wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:18:38 -0230, cloud dreamer
>> <reduce...@recycle.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 19/05/2013 3:29 AM, Remysun wrote:
>>>> At most, the guy is Commander-in-Chief, and Benghazi could be seen as
>>>> a moment of tactical failure. Little Big Horn was a lot worse, but
>>>> nobody got impeached over Custer. Although, peach custard sounds
>>>> interesting.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bush never got impeached for the eleven embassy attacks and FIFTY-TWO
>>> dead under his watch.
>>>
>>> Impeachment was never mentioned.
>>>
>>> http://www.topix.com/forum/city/minneapolis-mn/T137LPQOUH8QAC6TO
>>
>> Which is exactly why the US under Bush took major military action.
>
>
>Interesting--so it doesn't matter who you take "major military action"
>against, just as long as you do it.
>
>Were you trying to be funny?
One can never kill enough islamofascists. Or their apologists.
>On 5/19/13 11:03 AM, JRStern wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:18:38 -0230, cloud dreamer
>> <reduce...@recycle.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 19/05/2013 3:29 AM, Remysun wrote:
>>>> At most, the guy is Commander-in-Chief, and Benghazi could be seen as
>>>> a moment of tactical failure. Little Big Horn was a lot worse, but
>>>> nobody got impeached over Custer. Although, peach custard sounds
>>>> interesting.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bush never got impeached for the eleven embassy attacks and FIFTY-TWO
>>> dead under his watch.
>>>
>>> Impeachment was never mentioned.
>>>
>>> http://www.topix.com/forum/city/minneapolis-mn/T137LPQOUH8QAC6TO
>>
>> Which is exactly why the US under Bush took major military action.
>
>
>Interesting--so it doesn't matter who you take "major military action"
>against, just as long as you do it.
>
>Were you trying to be funny?
1,976 murdered in Obama's organized communities
May 20, 2013, 7:23:41 AM5/20/13
to
cloud dreamer
May 20, 2013, 7:37:21 AM5/20/13
to
On 20/05/2013 8:42 AM, 1,976 murdered in Obama's organized communities
wrote:
Say what???? There was no lying. The Right created that illusion and you
slurp it up cause that's what you WANT to hear. Obama made it clear in
several appearances that they were terrorists.
And the Republicans were caught LYING by modifying the emails.
As for lying, Bush had the worst one since the 30s - the WMD.
He started A WAR over a lie.
Holy cow. Are you really that blind that you see what you want to see???
Mind boggling. Absolutely mind boggling.
<plonk>
..
wrote:
slurp it up cause that's what you WANT to hear. Obama made it clear in
several appearances that they were terrorists.
And the Republicans were caught LYING by modifying the emails.
As for lying, Bush had the worst one since the 30s - the WMD.
He started A WAR over a lie.
Holy cow. Are you really that blind that you see what you want to see???
Mind boggling. Absolutely mind boggling.
<plonk>
..
Dano
May 20, 2013, 9:22:04 AM5/20/13
to
"JRStern" wrote in message
news:eh7ip89sf55g4inkd...@4ax.com...
=====================================
Seriously. Which freaking country would YOU have invaded after Benghazi?
Should we also invade Russia in reprisal for Boston and Watertown?
news:eh7ip89sf55g4inkd...@4ax.com...
Seriously. Which freaking country would YOU have invaded after Benghazi?
Should we also invade Russia in reprisal for Boston and Watertown?
JerryD(upstateNY)
May 20, 2013, 11:08:33 AM5/20/13
to
Someone wrote.........I wonder if any Right-winger
citizens say they were under attack and needed
help and Bush told everyone to stand down, so
oikllllllllllokl9no one did a thing except stand there
and watch out people get killed.
--
JerryD(upstateNY)
"1,976 murdered in Obama's organized communities"
<Bengha...@whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
name the 11 embassies and FIFTY TWO people
that died on Bush's watch???
Nope. Didn't think so.
Please point out in which of those attacks did our
that died on Bush's watch???
Nope. Didn't think so.
citizens say they were under attack and needed
help and Bush told everyone to stand down, so
oikllllllllllokl9no one did a thing except stand there
and watch out people get killed.
--
JerryD(upstateNY)
"1,976 murdered in Obama's organized communities"
David Johnston
May 20, 2013, 12:44:42 PM5/20/13
to
On 5/20/2013 5:12 AM, 1,976 murdered in Obama's organized communities wrote:
> On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:18:38 -0230, cloud dreamer
> <reduce...@recycle.com> wrote:
>
>> On 19/05/2013 3:29 AM, Remysun wrote:
>>> At most, the guy is Commander-in-Chief, and Benghazi could be seen as
>>> a moment of tactical failure. Little Big Horn was a lot worse, but
>>> nobody got impeached over Custer. Although, peach custard sounds
>>> interesting.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Bush never got impeached for the eleven embassy attacks and FIFTY-TWO
>> dead under his watch.
>>
>> Impeachment was never mentioned.
>>
>> http://www.topix.com/forum/city/minneapolis-mn/T137LPQOUH8QAC6TO
>
> Bush didn't lie and attempt to cover those up
Please present your evidence that Obama was certain that the video
> On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:18:38 -0230, cloud dreamer
> <reduce...@recycle.com> wrote:
>
>> On 19/05/2013 3:29 AM, Remysun wrote:
>>> At most, the guy is Commander-in-Chief, and Benghazi could be seen as
>>> a moment of tactical failure. Little Big Horn was a lot worse, but
>>> nobody got impeached over Custer. Although, peach custard sounds
>>> interesting.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Bush never got impeached for the eleven embassy attacks and FIFTY-TWO
>> dead under his watch.
>>
>> Impeachment was never mentioned.
>>
>> http://www.topix.com/forum/city/minneapolis-mn/T137LPQOUH8QAC6TO
>
> Bush didn't lie and attempt to cover those up
wasn't a motivation.
Adam H. Kerman
May 20, 2013, 1:08:59 PM5/20/13
to
wasn't a motivation.
Charles H. Sampson
May 20, 2013, 1:44:05 PM5/20/13
to
1,975 murdered in Obama's organized communities
> narcissist poster child for Shit-From-Mouth syndrome.
That's the same majority that is currently giving him a 53%
approval rating, I presume.
<Bengha...@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 11:21:53 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >On 5/18/13 4:34 AM, 1,971 murdered in Obama's organized communities wrote:
> >> On Fri, 17 May 2013 06:02:25 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 5/17/13 5:22 AM, 1,971 murdered in Obama's organized communities wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 16 May 2013 19:27:01 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> The Democrats reserve the right to avoid answering questions which
> >>>>> may incriminate them.
> >>>>
> >>>> Fortunately, they cannot reserve the right to avoid the consequences
> >>>> of their actions.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Agreed. For example, yesterday marked the 38th attempt to repeal the
> >>> Affordable Care Act. This is a travesty on the American people
> >>> perpetuated by the piece of shit GOP that has no desire to do anything
> >>> that has to do with actual governing. Any questions, anonyshit?
> >>
> >> Yeah. Where do we send the "body" of the Obama administration after
> >> it completely collapses under the weight of its own corruption?
> >
> >
> >Who's "we", anonyshit?
>
> The majority of Americans who know our nation is being "lead" by a
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 11:21:53 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >On 5/18/13 4:34 AM, 1,971 murdered in Obama's organized communities wrote:
> >> On Fri, 17 May 2013 06:02:25 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 5/17/13 5:22 AM, 1,971 murdered in Obama's organized communities wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 16 May 2013 19:27:01 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> The Democrats reserve the right to avoid answering questions which
> >>>>> may incriminate them.
> >>>>
> >>>> Fortunately, they cannot reserve the right to avoid the consequences
> >>>> of their actions.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Agreed. For example, yesterday marked the 38th attempt to repeal the
> >>> Affordable Care Act. This is a travesty on the American people
> >>> perpetuated by the piece of shit GOP that has no desire to do anything
> >>> that has to do with actual governing. Any questions, anonyshit?
> >>
> >> Yeah. Where do we send the "body" of the Obama administration after
> >> it completely collapses under the weight of its own corruption?
> >
> >
> >Who's "we", anonyshit?
>
> narcissist poster child for Shit-From-Mouth syndrome.
That's the same majority that is currently giving him a 53%
approval rating, I presume.
Charles H. Sampson
May 20, 2013, 1:44:05 PM5/20/13
to
JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:24:10 -0400, "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >===========================================
> >
> >Seriously? You don't think things like this (and far worse) never happened
> >under a Republican regime?
>
> You like it when it does?
>
> >You clowns are SOOOO full of shit. You forget the "precise" details? How
> >about ANY?
>
> Learn to read, it's right there in my post.
>
> >These so-called "scandals" are so exaggerated as to actually discredit
> >Republicans and Tea Baggers even more than may actually be deserved...if
> >that's possible.
>
> Bite me.
The sophistication of your argument is stunning.
> >You obviously missed the "details" that proved there IS no scandal over
> >Benghazi...
>
> Only a blind idiot could say that.
>
> > just a heart breaking tragedy...and the realization that we are
> >sometimes unable to respond to EVERY single threat, everywhere in the world.
> >Sadly...yes...there ARE limits to our vast power in the world.
>
> You have entirely missed the point, but why not, so has our vaunted
> MSM, it's what they're mostly good at anymore.
>
> J.
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:24:10 -0400, "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >===========================================
> >
> >Seriously? You don't think things like this (and far worse) never happened
> >under a Republican regime?
>
> You like it when it does?
>
> >You clowns are SOOOO full of shit. You forget the "precise" details? How
> >about ANY?
>
> Learn to read, it's right there in my post.
>
> >These so-called "scandals" are so exaggerated as to actually discredit
> >Republicans and Tea Baggers even more than may actually be deserved...if
> >that's possible.
>
> Bite me.
The sophistication of your argument is stunning.
> >You obviously missed the "details" that proved there IS no scandal over
> >Benghazi...
>
> Only a blind idiot could say that.
>
> > just a heart breaking tragedy...and the realization that we are
> >sometimes unable to respond to EVERY single threat, everywhere in the world.
> >Sadly...yes...there ARE limits to our vast power in the world.
>
> You have entirely missed the point, but why not, so has our vaunted
> MSM, it's what they're mostly good at anymore.
>
> J.
suzeeq
May 20, 2013, 2:19:14 PM5/20/13
to
JRStern wrote:
>>>> which required disclosure, was new. Still, CREEP (Committee to Re-Elect
>>>> the President) has huge buckets of funds, little of which was disclosed.
>>> Maybe, but what did that have to do with the breakin at the hotel?
>> You didn't seem to appreciate that the tax laws IRS was applying were written
>> post Watergate, although heavily modified by various court decisions.
>
> OK, but I still don't see what it has to do with a breakin at the
> hotel.
At the time, Watergate was an office complex as well as a hotel. The
Democratic National Committee had offices there, which is why it was
targeted, they were looking on anything they could use againse the Dem
candidates. Read All the President's Men or rent the movie, it explains
nearly everything.
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 19:17:01 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
> <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> Watergate was a drip compared to the current IRS-gate. Even a dozen
>>>>> more Tea Party groups established before the last election might well
>>>>> have been enough to change the results.
>>>> Dude, this all goes back to Watergate. Federal Election Campaign Act,
> <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> Watergate was a drip compared to the current IRS-gate. Even a dozen
>>>>> more Tea Party groups established before the last election might well
>>>>> have been enough to change the results.
>>>> which required disclosure, was new. Still, CREEP (Committee to Re-Elect
>>>> the President) has huge buckets of funds, little of which was disclosed.
>>> Maybe, but what did that have to do with the breakin at the hotel?
>> You didn't seem to appreciate that the tax laws IRS was applying were written
>> post Watergate, although heavily modified by various court decisions.
>
> OK, but I still don't see what it has to do with a breakin at the
> hotel.
At the time, Watergate was an office complex as well as a hotel. The
Democratic National Committee had offices there, which is why it was
targeted, they were looking on anything they could use againse the Dem
candidates. Read All the President's Men or rent the movie, it explains
nearly everything.
suzeeq
May 20, 2013, 2:20:49 PM5/20/13
to
cloud dreamer wrote:
> On 19/05/2013 3:29 AM, Remysun wrote:
>> At most, the guy is Commander-in-Chief, and Benghazi could be seen as
>> a moment of tactical failure. Little Big Horn was a lot worse, but
>> nobody got impeached over Custer. Although, peach custard sounds
>> interesting.
>>
>
>
> Bush never got impeached for the eleven embassy attacks and FIFTY-TWO
> dead under his watch.
>
> Impeachment was never mentioned.
>
> http://www.topix.com/forum/city/minneapolis-mn/T137LPQOUH8QAC6TO
>
That's because Democrats know the difference between an impeachable
> On 19/05/2013 3:29 AM, Remysun wrote:
>> At most, the guy is Commander-in-Chief, and Benghazi could be seen as
>> a moment of tactical failure. Little Big Horn was a lot worse, but
>> nobody got impeached over Custer. Although, peach custard sounds
>> interesting.
>>
>
>
> Bush never got impeached for the eleven embassy attacks and FIFTY-TWO
> dead under his watch.
>
> Impeachment was never mentioned.
>
> http://www.topix.com/forum/city/minneapolis-mn/T137LPQOUH8QAC6TO
>
event, and one that's not.
cloud dreamer
May 20, 2013, 2:52:11 PM5/20/13
to
something that won't make any difference in the end.
..
David Johnston
May 20, 2013, 3:00:36 PM5/20/13
to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_George_W._Bush
Although the majority of Democrats dismissed the idea as idiotic, given
what damage the Republicans had done to themselves with a frivolous
impeachment attempt.
anim8rFSK
May 20, 2013, 3:27:48 PM5/20/13
to
In article <kndpa9$7it$3...@dont-email.me>, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com>
wrote:
Actually Clod is just lying.
wrote:
JerryD(upstateNY)
May 20, 2013, 7:59:56 PM5/20/13
to
suzeeq" wrote Read All the President's Men or rent
the movie, it explains nearly everything...........FROM A DEMOCRAT'S POINT
OF VIEW !!!
I fixed you post to read correctly.
--
JerryD(upstateNY)
the movie, it explains nearly everything...........FROM A DEMOCRAT'S POINT
OF VIEW !!!
I fixed you post to read correctly.
--
JerryD(upstateNY)
suzeeq
May 20, 2013, 8:33:35 PM5/20/13
to
JerryD(upstateNY) wrote:
> suzeeq" wrote Read All the President's Men or rent
> the movie, it explains nearly everything...........
> suzeeq" wrote Read All the President's Men or rent
> the movie, it explains nearly everything...........
> I fixed you post to read correctly.
I fixed yours to read the way I wrote it. Doesn't matter if it was a
Democrat or Republican who wrote, Woodward is Repulican leaning now I
believe. The sources of much of their information were people in the
Nixon Whitehouse.
suzeeq
May 20, 2013, 8:33:59 PM5/20/13
to
suzeeq
May 20, 2013, 8:34:31 PM5/20/13
to
JRStern
May 20, 2013, 8:45:40 PM5/20/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 09:22:04 -0400, "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com>
So you admit it, and you're proud of it.
J.
J.
JRStern
May 20, 2013, 8:47:12 PM5/20/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 10:44:05 -0700, csam...@inetworld.net (Charles H.
Sampson) wrote:
>JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:24:10 -0400, "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >===========================================
>> >
>> >Seriously? You don't think things like this (and far worse) never happened
>> >under a Republican regime?
>>
>> You like it when it does?
>>
>> >You clowns are SOOOO full of shit. You forget the "precise" details? How
>> >about ANY?
>>
>> Learn to read, it's right there in my post.
>>
>> >These so-called "scandals" are so exaggerated as to actually discredit
>> >Republicans and Tea Baggers even more than may actually be deserved...if
>> >that's possible.
>>
>> Bite me.
>
> The sophistication of your argument is stunning.
Customized for the audience.
Sampson) wrote:
>JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:24:10 -0400, "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >===========================================
>> >
>> >Seriously? You don't think things like this (and far worse) never happened
>> >under a Republican regime?
>>
>> You like it when it does?
>>
>> >You clowns are SOOOO full of shit. You forget the "precise" details? How
>> >about ANY?
>>
>> Learn to read, it's right there in my post.
>>
>> >These so-called "scandals" are so exaggerated as to actually discredit
>> >Republicans and Tea Baggers even more than may actually be deserved...if
>> >that's possible.
>>
>> Bite me.
>
> The sophistication of your argument is stunning.
J.
EGK
May 20, 2013, 8:49:03 PM5/20/13
to
difference in the end either if everyone had just ignored it. Sometimes it
really is the principle of the thing.
suzeeq
May 20, 2013, 10:00:17 PM5/20/13
to
presidential powers being brought into the open, and therefore a real
scandal, not something contrived.
EGK
May 20, 2013, 10:17:54 PM5/20/13
to
power. Your premise is also faulty. Who brought Nixon's scandal out in
the open? It was the press. The same press the Obama administration has
been spying on.
suzeeq
May 20, 2013, 10:44:13 PM5/20/13
to
complacency of the public about the presidency in the 50s and 60s,
Watergate was a rude shock.
Who says the current administrataion has been spying on the press?
EGK
May 21, 2013, 12:16:04 AM5/21/13
to
things Nixon did were any worse than a lot of Presidents. He was paranoid
and extremely arrogant. The press didn't tend to report on negatives as
much before then. The 60's and the Vietnam war changed things. Heck, do
this day, lots of people think LBJ had something to do with the Kennedy
assassination and he was pretty much hounded from office for decisions he
made about Vietnam. Plus can you imagine if the same press we have since
Watergate went after JFK's ties to the mob including possibly working with
them to assassinate Castro?
>Who says the current administrataion has been spying on the press?
administration is saying they were going after dangerous leakers (ie,
whisleblowers) while spying on the AP reporters. The Nixon administration
tried the same excuse when they went after Danial Ellsberg and the release
of the Pentagon Papers. The lawyer in that case said what this
administration is doing is worse than Nixon.
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/5/17/obama_worse_than_nixon_pentagon_papers
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/opinion/spying-on-the-associated-press.html?_r=0
Just today they've been accused of spying on a FOX news reporter.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-admin-spied-fox-news-reporter-james-rosen-134204299.html
Dano
May 21, 2013, 12:37:34 AM5/21/13
to
Plenty of deaths on the Bush/Rumsfeld watch. Glass houses anyone?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/12/1130950/-If-diplomatic-attacks-are-a-sign-of-weakness-Bush-was-the-weakest-of-all
An idiot speaks:
The attacks on our embassies & diplomats are a result of perceived American
weakness. Mitt Romney is right to point that out.
— @RumsfeldOffice via Twitter for iPhone
Donald Rumsfeld was Secretary of War Defense between 2001 and 2006, so none
of this should be news to him:
June 14, 2002, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide bomber kills 12 and injures 51.
February 20, 2003, international diplomatic compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Truck bomb kills 17.
February 28, 2003, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Gunmen on motorcycles killed two consulate guards.
July 30, 2004, U.S. embassy in Taskkent, Uzbekistan
Suicide bomber kills two.
December 6, 2004, U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Militants stormed and occupied perimeter wall. Five killed, 10 wounded.
March 2, 2006, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide car bomber killed four, including a U.S. diplomate directly targeted
by the assailants.
September 12, 2006, U.S. embassy in Damascus, Syria
Gunmen attacked embassy with grenades, automatic weapons, and a car bomb
(though second truck bomb failed to detonate). One killed and 13 wounded.
January 12, 2007, U.S. embassy in Athens, Greece
A rocket-propelled grenade was fired at the embassy building. No one was
injured.
July 9, 2008, U.S. consulate in Istanbul, Turkey
Armed men attacked consulate with pistols and shotguns. Three policemen
killed.
March 18, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen
Mortar attack misses embassy, hits nearby girls' school instead.
September 17, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen
Militants dressed as policemen attacked the embassy with RPGs, rifles,
grenades and car bombs. Six Yemeni soldiers and seven civilians were killed.
Sixteen more were injured.
So did those attacks (and the 9/11 ones, for that matter) happen because of
"perceived American weakness"? Is that what Rumsfeld wants to argue—that our
country's diplomatic missions were targeted because George Bush's America
was perceived as weak?
As for Obama, the attacks in Cairo and Benghazi are the first two attacks on
a U.S. diplomatic mission in an ostensibly peaceful country during his
entire presidency—and they were sparked by that idiot wingnut Islamophobe
Terri Jones. The embassy in Afghanistan was targeted by the Taliban last
Sept. 13, but that's a country at war.
If you buy Rumsfeld's nonsense, you can tally the numbers to determine which
administration was "perceived weaker."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/12/1130950/-If-diplomatic-attacks-are-a-sign-of-weakness-Bush-was-the-weakest-of-all
An idiot speaks:
The attacks on our embassies & diplomats are a result of perceived American
weakness. Mitt Romney is right to point that out.
— @RumsfeldOffice via Twitter for iPhone
Donald Rumsfeld was Secretary of War Defense between 2001 and 2006, so none
of this should be news to him:
June 14, 2002, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide bomber kills 12 and injures 51.
February 20, 2003, international diplomatic compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Truck bomb kills 17.
February 28, 2003, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Gunmen on motorcycles killed two consulate guards.
July 30, 2004, U.S. embassy in Taskkent, Uzbekistan
Suicide bomber kills two.
December 6, 2004, U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Militants stormed and occupied perimeter wall. Five killed, 10 wounded.
March 2, 2006, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide car bomber killed four, including a U.S. diplomate directly targeted
by the assailants.
September 12, 2006, U.S. embassy in Damascus, Syria
Gunmen attacked embassy with grenades, automatic weapons, and a car bomb
(though second truck bomb failed to detonate). One killed and 13 wounded.
January 12, 2007, U.S. embassy in Athens, Greece
A rocket-propelled grenade was fired at the embassy building. No one was
injured.
July 9, 2008, U.S. consulate in Istanbul, Turkey
Armed men attacked consulate with pistols and shotguns. Three policemen
killed.
March 18, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen
Mortar attack misses embassy, hits nearby girls' school instead.
September 17, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen
Militants dressed as policemen attacked the embassy with RPGs, rifles,
grenades and car bombs. Six Yemeni soldiers and seven civilians were killed.
Sixteen more were injured.
So did those attacks (and the 9/11 ones, for that matter) happen because of
"perceived American weakness"? Is that what Rumsfeld wants to argue—that our
country's diplomatic missions were targeted because George Bush's America
was perceived as weak?
As for Obama, the attacks in Cairo and Benghazi are the first two attacks on
a U.S. diplomatic mission in an ostensibly peaceful country during his
entire presidency—and they were sparked by that idiot wingnut Islamophobe
Terri Jones. The embassy in Afghanistan was targeted by the Taliban last
Sept. 13, but that's a country at war.
If you buy Rumsfeld's nonsense, you can tally the numbers to determine which
administration was "perceived weaker."
Dano
May 21, 2013, 12:40:19 AM5/21/13
to
"JRStern" wrote in message
news:esglp8t1mv2jj65an...@4ax.com...
============================================
Admit WHAT? Are you such a fucking drooling idiot you would start WWIII
over a pair of psychopaths?
You're a complete waste of time.
news:esglp8t1mv2jj65an...@4ax.com...
Admit WHAT? Are you such a fucking drooling idiot you would start WWIII
over a pair of psychopaths?
You're a complete waste of time.
1,978 murdered in Obama's organized communities
May 21, 2013, 6:31:11 AM5/21/13
to
1,978 murdered in Obama's organized communities
May 21, 2013, 6:32:53 AM5/21/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 09:22:04 -0400, "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com>
Invading Washington D.C. could well have a very positive outcome.
1,978 murdered in Obama's organized communities
May 21, 2013, 6:39:09 AM5/21/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 09:07:21 -0230, cloud dreamer
<reduce...@recycle.com> wrote:
>On 20/05/2013 8:42 AM, 1,976 murdered in Obama's organized communities
>wrote:
>> named Clinton and Obama did with Benghazi because it might interfere
>> with their partying.
>>
>> And besides, Shits-from-his-mouth Obama would have us believe there
>> are no islamofascist terrorists...
>>
>
>
>Say what???? There was no lying.
The "anti-muslim video riot" bullshit was pure lie.
>The Right created that illusion and you
>slurp it up cause that's what you WANT to hear. Obama made it clear in
>several appearances that they were terrorists.
He attempted to revise his own lies to that effect. Thus, he lied
again.
>And the Republicans were caught LYING by modifying the emails.
>
>As for lying, Bush had the worst one since the 30s - the WMD.
>
>He started A WAR over a lie.
A "lie" that a vast majority of 'Rats and intelligence agencies from
around the world agreed with. You say it's a lie; thus ~you~ are
lying.
>Holy cow. Are you really that blind that you see what you want to see???
>Mind boggling. Absolutely mind boggling.
Project much?
><plonk>
Another lie. Beware the next time you respond to me...
<reduce...@recycle.com> wrote:
>On 20/05/2013 8:42 AM, 1,976 murdered in Obama's organized communities
>wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:18:38 -0230, cloud dreamer
>> <reduce...@recycle.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 19/05/2013 3:29 AM, Remysun wrote:
>>>> At most, the guy is Commander-in-Chief, and Benghazi could be seen as
>>>> a moment of tactical failure. Little Big Horn was a lot worse, but
>>>> nobody got impeached over Custer. Although, peach custard sounds
>>>> interesting.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bush never got impeached for the eleven embassy attacks and FIFTY-TWO
>>> dead under his watch.
>>>
>>> Impeachment was never mentioned.
>>>
>>> http://www.topix.com/forum/city/minneapolis-mn/T137LPQOUH8QAC6TO
>>
>> Bush didn't lie and attempt to cover those up like the deceitful cunts
>> <reduce...@recycle.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 19/05/2013 3:29 AM, Remysun wrote:
>>>> At most, the guy is Commander-in-Chief, and Benghazi could be seen as
>>>> a moment of tactical failure. Little Big Horn was a lot worse, but
>>>> nobody got impeached over Custer. Although, peach custard sounds
>>>> interesting.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bush never got impeached for the eleven embassy attacks and FIFTY-TWO
>>> dead under his watch.
>>>
>>> Impeachment was never mentioned.
>>>
>>> http://www.topix.com/forum/city/minneapolis-mn/T137LPQOUH8QAC6TO
>>
>> named Clinton and Obama did with Benghazi because it might interfere
>> with their partying.
>>
>> And besides, Shits-from-his-mouth Obama would have us believe there
>> are no islamofascist terrorists...
>>
>
>
>Say what???? There was no lying.
The "anti-muslim video riot" bullshit was pure lie.
>The Right created that illusion and you
>slurp it up cause that's what you WANT to hear. Obama made it clear in
>several appearances that they were terrorists.
He attempted to revise his own lies to that effect. Thus, he lied
again.
>And the Republicans were caught LYING by modifying the emails.
>
>As for lying, Bush had the worst one since the 30s - the WMD.
>
>He started A WAR over a lie.
A "lie" that a vast majority of 'Rats and intelligence agencies from
around the world agreed with. You say it's a lie; thus ~you~ are
lying.
>Holy cow. Are you really that blind that you see what you want to see???
>Mind boggling. Absolutely mind boggling.
Project much?
><plonk>
Another lie. Beware the next time you respond to me...
1,978 murdered in Obama's organized communities
May 21, 2013, 6:44:14 AM5/21/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 10:44:42 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
wrote:
He and Clinton edited out the evidence of terrorism from the
on-the-scene reports and invented the video lie so he could try to
maintain his previous lie that he had defeated terrorism. Thus, he
could bustle off to Vegas for more partying while the four Americans
he abandoned in Benghazi slowly cooled to room temperature.
I pray Obama (and Clinton) get to experience their pain and horror.
wrote:
on-the-scene reports and invented the video lie so he could try to
maintain his previous lie that he had defeated terrorism. Thus, he
could bustle off to Vegas for more partying while the four Americans
he abandoned in Benghazi slowly cooled to room temperature.
I pray Obama (and Clinton) get to experience their pain and horror.
1,978 murdered in Obama's organized communities
May 21, 2013, 6:45:59 AM5/21/13
to
and horror of Obama's victims in Benghazi.
1,978 murdered in Obama's organized communities
May 21, 2013, 6:50:41 AM5/21/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 00:37:34 -0400, "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>Plenty of deaths on the Bush/Rumsfeld watch. Glass houses anyone?
They aren't in government anymore. Your attempt to divert from
Obama's growing criminality is noted and discarded.
wrote:
>Plenty of deaths on the Bush/Rumsfeld watch. Glass houses anyone?
Obama's growing criminality is noted and discarded.
cloud dreamer
May 21, 2013, 7:56:22 AM5/21/13
to
On 21/05/2013 8:15 AM, 1,978 murdered in Obama's organized communities
wrote:
As a retired soldier, I know you'll never understand the pain and horror
of the THOUSANDS of US soldiers who were victims of Bush's delusion in
Iraq.
I notice you didn't comment on the FIFTY TWO who DIED in embassy attacks
under BUSH.
<plonk> and stay there.
..
wrote:
of the THOUSANDS of US soldiers who were victims of Bush's delusion in
Iraq.
I notice you didn't comment on the FIFTY TWO who DIED in embassy attacks
under BUSH.
<plonk> and stay there.
..
David Johnston
May 21, 2013, 1:39:49 PM5/21/13
to
On 5/21/2013 4:39 AM, 1,978 murdered in Obama's organized communities wrote:
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 09:07:21 -0230, cloud dreamer
> <reduce...@recycle.com> wrote:
>
>> On 20/05/2013 8:42 AM, 1,976 murdered in Obama's organized communities
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:18:38 -0230, cloud dreamer
>>> <reduce...@recycle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 19/05/2013 3:29 AM, Remysun wrote:
>>>>> At most, the guy is Commander-in-Chief, and Benghazi could be seen as
>>>>> a moment of tactical failure. Little Big Horn was a lot worse, but
>>>>> nobody got impeached over Custer. Although, peach custard sounds
>>>>> interesting.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bush never got impeached for the eleven embassy attacks and FIFTY-TWO
>>>> dead under his watch.
>>>>
>>>> Impeachment was never mentioned.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.topix.com/forum/city/minneapolis-mn/T137LPQOUH8QAC6TO
>>>
>>> Bush didn't lie and attempt to cover those up like the deceitful cunts
>>> named Clinton and Obama did with Benghazi because it might interfere
>>> with their partying.
>>>
>>> And besides, Shits-from-his-mouth Obama would have us believe there
>>> are no islamofascist terrorists...
>>>
>>
>>
>> Say what???? There was no lying.
>
> The "anti-muslim video riot" bullshit was pure lie.
Really. And how did you determine that Obama didn't think it was
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 09:07:21 -0230, cloud dreamer
> <reduce...@recycle.com> wrote:
>
>> On 20/05/2013 8:42 AM, 1,976 murdered in Obama's organized communities
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:18:38 -0230, cloud dreamer
>>> <reduce...@recycle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 19/05/2013 3:29 AM, Remysun wrote:
>>>>> At most, the guy is Commander-in-Chief, and Benghazi could be seen as
>>>>> a moment of tactical failure. Little Big Horn was a lot worse, but
>>>>> nobody got impeached over Custer. Although, peach custard sounds
>>>>> interesting.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bush never got impeached for the eleven embassy attacks and FIFTY-TWO
>>>> dead under his watch.
>>>>
>>>> Impeachment was never mentioned.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.topix.com/forum/city/minneapolis-mn/T137LPQOUH8QAC6TO
>>>
>>> Bush didn't lie and attempt to cover those up like the deceitful cunts
>>> named Clinton and Obama did with Benghazi because it might interfere
>>> with their partying.
>>>
>>> And besides, Shits-from-his-mouth Obama would have us believe there
>>> are no islamofascist terrorists...
>>>
>>
>>
>> Say what???? There was no lying.
>
> The "anti-muslim video riot" bullshit was pure lie.
possible?
David Johnston
May 21, 2013, 1:41:53 PM5/21/13
to
On 5/21/2013 4:44 AM, 1,978 murdered in Obama's organized communities wrote:
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 10:44:42 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/20/2013 5:12 AM, 1,976 murdered in Obama's organized communities wrote:
>>> On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:18:38 -0230, cloud dreamer
>>> <reduce...@recycle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 19/05/2013 3:29 AM, Remysun wrote:
>>>>> At most, the guy is Commander-in-Chief, and Benghazi could be seen as
>>>>> a moment of tactical failure. Little Big Horn was a lot worse, but
>>>>> nobody got impeached over Custer. Although, peach custard sounds
>>>>> interesting.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bush never got impeached for the eleven embassy attacks and FIFTY-TWO
>>>> dead under his watch.
>>>>
>>>> Impeachment was never mentioned.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.topix.com/forum/city/minneapolis-mn/T137LPQOUH8QAC6TO
>>>
>>> Bush didn't lie and attempt to cover those up
>>
>> Please present your evidence that Obama was certain that the video
>> wasn't a motivation.
>
> He and Clinton edited out the evidence of terrorism from the
> on-the-scene reports and invented the video lie
Repeating the assertion is not presenting evidence.
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 10:44:42 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/20/2013 5:12 AM, 1,976 murdered in Obama's organized communities wrote:
>>> On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:18:38 -0230, cloud dreamer
>>> <reduce...@recycle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 19/05/2013 3:29 AM, Remysun wrote:
>>>>> At most, the guy is Commander-in-Chief, and Benghazi could be seen as
>>>>> a moment of tactical failure. Little Big Horn was a lot worse, but
>>>>> nobody got impeached over Custer. Although, peach custard sounds
>>>>> interesting.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bush never got impeached for the eleven embassy attacks and FIFTY-TWO
>>>> dead under his watch.
>>>>
>>>> Impeachment was never mentioned.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.topix.com/forum/city/minneapolis-mn/T137LPQOUH8QAC6TO
>>>
>>> Bush didn't lie and attempt to cover those up
>>
>> Please present your evidence that Obama was certain that the video
>> wasn't a motivation.
>
> He and Clinton edited out the evidence of terrorism from the
> on-the-scene reports and invented the video lie
so he could try to
> maintain his previous lie that he had defeated terrorism. Thus, he
> could bustle off to Vegas for more partying while the four Americans
> he abandoned in Benghazi slowly cooled to room temperature.
was going on, right?
Adam H. Kerman
May 21, 2013, 1:53:42 PM5/21/13
to
it should have been mentioned at all? CIA didn't say it was the cause.
David Johnston
May 21, 2013, 11:09:10 PM5/21/13
to
On 5/21/2013 11:53 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On 5/21/2013 4:39 AM, 1,978 murdered in Obama's organized communities wrote:
>
>>> The "anti-muslim video riot" bullshit was pure lie.
>
>> Really. And how did you determine that Obama didn't think it was
>> possible?
>
> If it hadn't been determined to be the cause,why do you keep stating that
> David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On 5/21/2013 4:39 AM, 1,978 murdered in Obama's organized communities wrote:
>
>>> The "anti-muslim video riot" bullshit was pure lie.
>
>> Really. And how did you determine that Obama didn't think it was
>> possible?
>
> it should have been mentioned at all? CIA didn't say it was the cause.
>
Actually the CIA talking points memo did suggest that this attack was
>
possibly inspired by the protest against the film in Cairo.
Adam H. Kerman
May 21, 2013, 11:56:12 PM5/21/13
to
Doesn't contradict what I said. No one said it was the cause.
Do you have some reason to believe it wasn't retaliation for allied
prisoners being interrogated at that facility? Please tell us what your
intelligence sources say, Johnston.
1,979 murdered in Obama's organized communities
May 22, 2013, 3:11:52 AM5/22/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 11:39:49 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
wrote:
He needed the lie to cover for his previous lies. And to allow him to
continue partying.
wrote:
continue partying.
1,979 murdered in Obama's organized communities
May 22, 2013, 3:13:43 AM5/22/13
to
- that must be it!
1,979 murdered in Obama's organized communities
May 22, 2013, 3:16:54 AM5/22/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 11:41:53 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
>> so he could try to
>> maintain his previous lie that he had defeated terrorism. Thus, he
>> could bustle off to Vegas for more partying while the four Americans
>> he abandoned in Benghazi slowly cooled to room temperature.
>
>You do know the ambassador was dead before Obama was informed anything
>was going on, right?
In part because Obama and Clinton had no interest in providing
increased security that the ambassador had asked for weeks before.
wrote:
>On 5/21/2013 4:44 AM, 1,978 murdered in Obama's organized communities wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 10:44:42 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/20/2013 5:12 AM, 1,976 murdered in Obama's organized communities wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:18:38 -0230, cloud dreamer
>>>> <reduce...@recycle.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 19/05/2013 3:29 AM, Remysun wrote:
>>>>>> At most, the guy is Commander-in-Chief, and Benghazi could be seen as
>>>>>> a moment of tactical failure. Little Big Horn was a lot worse, but
>>>>>> nobody got impeached over Custer. Although, peach custard sounds
>>>>>> interesting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bush never got impeached for the eleven embassy attacks and FIFTY-TWO
>>>>> dead under his watch.
>>>>>
>>>>> Impeachment was never mentioned.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.topix.com/forum/city/minneapolis-mn/T137LPQOUH8QAC6TO
>>>>
>>>> Bush didn't lie and attempt to cover those up
>>>
>>> Please present your evidence that Obama was certain that the video
>>> wasn't a motivation.
>>
>> He and Clinton edited out the evidence of terrorism from the
>> on-the-scene reports and invented the video lie
>
>Repeating the assertion is not presenting evidence.
The evidence has been presented. Your denial is of no consequence.
>On 5/21/2013 4:44 AM, 1,978 murdered in Obama's organized communities wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 10:44:42 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/20/2013 5:12 AM, 1,976 murdered in Obama's organized communities wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:18:38 -0230, cloud dreamer
>>>> <reduce...@recycle.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 19/05/2013 3:29 AM, Remysun wrote:
>>>>>> At most, the guy is Commander-in-Chief, and Benghazi could be seen as
>>>>>> a moment of tactical failure. Little Big Horn was a lot worse, but
>>>>>> nobody got impeached over Custer. Although, peach custard sounds
>>>>>> interesting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bush never got impeached for the eleven embassy attacks and FIFTY-TWO
>>>>> dead under his watch.
>>>>>
>>>>> Impeachment was never mentioned.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.topix.com/forum/city/minneapolis-mn/T137LPQOUH8QAC6TO
>>>>
>>>> Bush didn't lie and attempt to cover those up
>>>
>>> Please present your evidence that Obama was certain that the video
>>> wasn't a motivation.
>>
>> He and Clinton edited out the evidence of terrorism from the
>> on-the-scene reports and invented the video lie
>
>Repeating the assertion is not presenting evidence.
>> so he could try to
>> maintain his previous lie that he had defeated terrorism. Thus, he
>> could bustle off to Vegas for more partying while the four Americans
>> he abandoned in Benghazi slowly cooled to room temperature.
>
>You do know the ambassador was dead before Obama was informed anything
>was going on, right?
increased security that the ambassador had asked for weeks before.
1,979 murdered in Obama's organized communities
May 22, 2013, 3:23:53 AM5/22/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 09:26:22 -0230, cloud dreamer
That would be the "delusion" shared by a majority of DemocRats...
>I notice you didn't comment on the FIFTY TWO who DIED in embassy attacks
>under BUSH.
I have. I noted the difference that Bush didn't try to cover it up
with lies as Obama has in his bizarre crusade to deny islamic
terrorism.
><plonk> and stay there.
I knew you were lying. Maybe you should read the help file to learn
how to actually plonk the truth when it conflicts with your
comfortable little world of lies.
>I notice you didn't comment on the FIFTY TWO who DIED in embassy attacks
>under BUSH.
with lies as Obama has in his bizarre crusade to deny islamic
terrorism.
><plonk> and stay there.
I knew you were lying. Maybe you should read the help file to learn
how to actually plonk the truth when it conflicts with your
comfortable little world of lies.
David Johnston
May 22, 2013, 3:46:53 AM5/22/13
to
David Johnston
May 22, 2013, 3:48:53 AM5/22/13
to
>>> so he could try to
>>> maintain his previous lie that he had defeated terrorism. Thus, he
>>> could bustle off to Vegas for more partying while the four Americans
>>> he abandoned in Benghazi slowly cooled to room temperature.
>>
>> You do know the ambassador was dead before Obama was informed anything
>> was going on, right?
>
> In part because Obama and Clinton had no interest in providing
> increased security that the ambassador had asked for weeks before.
>
of over a hundred men?
Adam H. Kerman
May 22, 2013, 9:59:32 AM5/22/13
to
to contradict yourself, as quoted above. You've been running your mouth
throughout this thread. You've yet to give any plausible argument as to
why speculation and inference should have been offered at an official
press conference. It's long past time for you to shut the fuck up.
For a short time, I was willing to buy into the argument (not offered by
you, Johnston) that the talking points were deliberate mis-information
because a source had to be protected for a day, but the memo written by
Hillary's flack about not giving any ammunition to Republicans in Congress
shows otherwise.
David Johnston
May 23, 2013, 12:15:22 AM5/23/13
to
to be a lie rather than just a faulty conclusion.
Adam H. Kerman
May 23, 2013, 1:24:27 AM5/23/13
to
writing the talking points believed it was important as a contributing
factor, given the emphasis placed on it in the talking points. You're
the only one being Clintonesque here. From what we know now, they had
already reached these conclusions at the time the talking points were
written and simply didn't want to say them publicly.
So you're completely full of shit, as always.
1,983 murdered in Obama's organized communities
May 23, 2013, 7:42:26 AM5/23/13
to
On Wed, 22 May 2013 01:48:53 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
Your denial of the evidence doesn't make it go away.
>>>> so he could try to
>>>> maintain his previous lie that he had defeated terrorism. Thus, he
>>>> could bustle off to Vegas for more partying while the four Americans
>>>> he abandoned in Benghazi slowly cooled to room temperature.
>>>
>>> You do know the ambassador was dead before Obama was informed anything
>>> was going on, right?
>>
>> In part because Obama and Clinton had no interest in providing
>> increased security that the ambassador had asked for weeks before.
>>
>
>How much increased security would have done the trick against a militia
>of over a hundred men?
Over a hundred and one? In reality, far fewer would be necessary
since our military is ~far~ better than a bunch of pig bastards with
explosive toys.
>>>> so he could try to
>>>> maintain his previous lie that he had defeated terrorism. Thus, he
>>>> could bustle off to Vegas for more partying while the four Americans
>>>> he abandoned in Benghazi slowly cooled to room temperature.
>>>
>>> You do know the ambassador was dead before Obama was informed anything
>>> was going on, right?
>>
>> In part because Obama and Clinton had no interest in providing
>> increased security that the ambassador had asked for weeks before.
>>
>
>How much increased security would have done the trick against a militia
>of over a hundred men?
since our military is ~far~ better than a bunch of pig bastards with
explosive toys.
David Johnston
May 23, 2013, 12:23:16 PM5/23/13
to
to go anywhere.
1,983 murdered in Obama's organized communities
May 24, 2013, 10:29:08 AM5/24/13
to
On Thu, 23 May 2013 10:23:16 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
Your ability to dance a circular denial jig isn't getting you
anywhere, either.
anywhere, either.
William December Starr
May 24, 2013, 10:53:34 PM5/24/13
to
In article <kn8d8e$un4$1...@dont-email.me>,
"Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com> said:
> You obviously missed the "details" that proved there IS no scandal
> over Benghazi...just a heart breaking tragedy...and the
> realization that we are sometimes unable to respond to EVERY
> single threat, everywhere in the world. Sadly...yes...there ARE
> limits to our vast power in the world.
>
> The real disgrace of the IRS debacle was administrative and in the
> application of the code itself. Tax exempts are NOT supposed to
> include groups whose primary purpose is political. Period. Of
> course the law SHOULD be applied evenly...to ALL of these groups.
> But extending this tax exempt status is the REAL abuse. And when
> a group actually uses a political name like "Tea Party" to self
> identify...well how freaking stupid must one be to not see that as
> an abuse of the rule?
>
> The AP business was clearly a national security issue. NOT a
> political one. There are questions to be asked for certain. But
> I don't think for one second they were trying to squelch the
> press. There was a security leak that could endanger assets in
> the field. Lives were (probably still are) at risk. They were
> trying to stem a security leak that affected keeping our country
> safe. But I guess Republican logic has gotten so twisted that
> this is no longer as high a priority as attacking the
> administration...no matter the cost to the nation.
>
> What ELSE you got???
A Marine holding an umbrella!
-- wds
"Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com> said:
> You obviously missed the "details" that proved there IS no scandal
> over Benghazi...just a heart breaking tragedy...and the
> realization that we are sometimes unable to respond to EVERY
> single threat, everywhere in the world. Sadly...yes...there ARE
> limits to our vast power in the world.
>
> The real disgrace of the IRS debacle was administrative and in the
> application of the code itself. Tax exempts are NOT supposed to
> include groups whose primary purpose is political. Period. Of
> course the law SHOULD be applied evenly...to ALL of these groups.
> But extending this tax exempt status is the REAL abuse. And when
> a group actually uses a political name like "Tea Party" to self
> identify...well how freaking stupid must one be to not see that as
> an abuse of the rule?
>
> The AP business was clearly a national security issue. NOT a
> political one. There are questions to be asked for certain. But
> I don't think for one second they were trying to squelch the
> press. There was a security leak that could endanger assets in
> the field. Lives were (probably still are) at risk. They were
> trying to stem a security leak that affected keeping our country
> safe. But I guess Republican logic has gotten so twisted that
> this is no longer as high a priority as attacking the
> administration...no matter the cost to the nation.
>
> What ELSE you got???
A Marine holding an umbrella!
-- wds
0 new messages