Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT: Beghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!
577 views
Skip to first unread message
Oscar
May 10, 2013, 9:03:27 PM5/10/13
to
At the conclusion of a week dominated by tabloid/sensational news
centered around murderous/kidnapped white women — Tsarnaev who? — the
lingering Benghazi story finally picked up steam today. White House
press flak Jay Carney was grilled today by ABC News's Jonathan Carl,
who subsequently filed a groundbreaking report this evening:
From ABCnews.go.com http://tiny.cc/9aawww
<< Exclusive: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed
of Terror Reference
By Jonathan Karl
May 10, 2013 6:33 AM
When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now-discredited Benghazi
talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the
documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence
community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a
different story.
ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that
show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts
first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to
Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she
appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.
Read the full Benghazi talking points revisions (PDF): http://tiny.cc/jx9vww
White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made
with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included
requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-
affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA
warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding
the attack.
That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press
Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points in November.
“Those talking points originated from the intelligence community.
They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had
happened,” Carney told reporters at the White House press briefing on
November 28, 2012. “The White House and the State Department have
made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking
points by either of those two institutions were changing the word
‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was
inaccurate.”
Summaries of White House and State Department emails — some of which
were first published http://tiny.cc/j19vww by Stephen Hayes of the
Weekly Standard — show that the State Department had extensive input
into the editing of the talking points.
State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland raised specific objections
to this paragraph drafted by the CIA in its earlier versions of the
talking points:
“The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists
linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that,
since April, there have been at least five other attacks against
foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including
the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot
rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S.
facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.”
In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence
agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with
including that information because it “could be abused by members [of
Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to
warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned …”
The paragraph was entirely deleted.
Like the final version used by Ambassador Rice on the Sunday shows,
the CIA’s first drafts said the attack appeared to have been
“spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo”
but the CIA version went on to say, “That being said, we do know that
Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the
attack.” The draft went on to specifically name the al Qaeda-
affiliated group named Ansar al-Sharia.
Once again, Nuland objected to naming the terrorist groups because “we
don’t want to prejudice the investigation.”
In response, an NSC staffer coordinating the review of the talking
points wrote back to Nuland, “The FBI did not have major concerns with
the points and offered only a couple minor suggestions.”
After the talking points were edited slightly to address Nuland’s
concerns, she responded that changes did not go far enough.
“These changes don’t resolve all of my issues or those of my buildings
leadership,” Nuland wrote.
In an email dated 9/14/12 at 9:34 p.m. — three days after the attack
and two days before Ambassador Rice appeared on the Sunday shows –
Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes wrote an email saying the
State Department’s concerns needed to be addressed.
“We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency
equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want
to undermine the FBI investigation. We thus will work through the
talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.”
After that meeting, which took place Saturday morning at the White
House, the CIA drafted the final version of the talking points –
deleting all references to al Qaeda and to the security warnings in
Benghazi prior to the attack.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said none of this contradicts
what he said about the talking points because ultimately all versions
were actually written and signed-off by the CIA.
“The CIA drafted these talking points and redrafted these talking
points,” Carney said. “The fact that there are inputs is always the
case in a process like this, but the only edits made by anyone here at
the White House were stylistic and nonsubstantive. They corrected the
description of the building or the facility in Benghazi from consulate
to diplomatic facility and the like. And ultimately, this all has been
discussed and reviewed and provided in enormous levels of detail by
the administration to Congressional investigators, and the attempt to
politicize the talking points, again, is part of an effort to, you
know, chase after what isn’t the substance here.”
UPDATE: A source familiar with the White House emails on the Benghazi
talking point revisions say that State Department spokesman Victoria
Nuland was raising two concerns about the CIA’s first version of
talking points, which were going to be sent to Congress: 1) The
talking points went further than what she was allowed to say about the
attack during her state department briefings; and, 2) she believed the
CIA was attempting to exonerate itself at the State Department’s
expense by suggesting CIA warnings about the security situation were
ignored.
In one email, Nuland asked, why are we suggest Congress “start making
assertions to the media [about the al Qaeda connection] that we
ourselves are not making because we don’t want to prejudice the
investigation?”
One other point: The significant edits – deleting references to al
Qaeda and the CIA’s warnings – came after a White House meeting on the
Saturday before Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on five Sunday shows.
Nuland, a 30-year foreign service veteran who has served under
Democratic and Republican Secretaries of State, was not at that
meeting and played no direct role in preparing Rice for her
interviews. >>
centered around murderous/kidnapped white women — Tsarnaev who? — the
lingering Benghazi story finally picked up steam today. White House
press flak Jay Carney was grilled today by ABC News's Jonathan Carl,
who subsequently filed a groundbreaking report this evening:
From ABCnews.go.com http://tiny.cc/9aawww
<< Exclusive: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed
of Terror Reference
By Jonathan Karl
May 10, 2013 6:33 AM
When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now-discredited Benghazi
talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the
documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence
community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a
different story.
ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that
show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts
first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to
Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she
appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.
Read the full Benghazi talking points revisions (PDF): http://tiny.cc/jx9vww
White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made
with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included
requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-
affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA
warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding
the attack.
That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press
Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points in November.
“Those talking points originated from the intelligence community.
They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had
happened,” Carney told reporters at the White House press briefing on
November 28, 2012. “The White House and the State Department have
made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking
points by either of those two institutions were changing the word
‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was
inaccurate.”
Summaries of White House and State Department emails — some of which
were first published http://tiny.cc/j19vww by Stephen Hayes of the
Weekly Standard — show that the State Department had extensive input
into the editing of the talking points.
State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland raised specific objections
to this paragraph drafted by the CIA in its earlier versions of the
talking points:
“The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists
linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that,
since April, there have been at least five other attacks against
foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including
the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot
rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S.
facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.”
In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence
agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with
including that information because it “could be abused by members [of
Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to
warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned …”
The paragraph was entirely deleted.
Like the final version used by Ambassador Rice on the Sunday shows,
the CIA’s first drafts said the attack appeared to have been
“spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo”
but the CIA version went on to say, “That being said, we do know that
Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the
attack.” The draft went on to specifically name the al Qaeda-
affiliated group named Ansar al-Sharia.
Once again, Nuland objected to naming the terrorist groups because “we
don’t want to prejudice the investigation.”
In response, an NSC staffer coordinating the review of the talking
points wrote back to Nuland, “The FBI did not have major concerns with
the points and offered only a couple minor suggestions.”
After the talking points were edited slightly to address Nuland’s
concerns, she responded that changes did not go far enough.
“These changes don’t resolve all of my issues or those of my buildings
leadership,” Nuland wrote.
In an email dated 9/14/12 at 9:34 p.m. — three days after the attack
and two days before Ambassador Rice appeared on the Sunday shows –
Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes wrote an email saying the
State Department’s concerns needed to be addressed.
“We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency
equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want
to undermine the FBI investigation. We thus will work through the
talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.”
After that meeting, which took place Saturday morning at the White
House, the CIA drafted the final version of the talking points –
deleting all references to al Qaeda and to the security warnings in
Benghazi prior to the attack.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said none of this contradicts
what he said about the talking points because ultimately all versions
were actually written and signed-off by the CIA.
“The CIA drafted these talking points and redrafted these talking
points,” Carney said. “The fact that there are inputs is always the
case in a process like this, but the only edits made by anyone here at
the White House were stylistic and nonsubstantive. They corrected the
description of the building or the facility in Benghazi from consulate
to diplomatic facility and the like. And ultimately, this all has been
discussed and reviewed and provided in enormous levels of detail by
the administration to Congressional investigators, and the attempt to
politicize the talking points, again, is part of an effort to, you
know, chase after what isn’t the substance here.”
UPDATE: A source familiar with the White House emails on the Benghazi
talking point revisions say that State Department spokesman Victoria
Nuland was raising two concerns about the CIA’s first version of
talking points, which were going to be sent to Congress: 1) The
talking points went further than what she was allowed to say about the
attack during her state department briefings; and, 2) she believed the
CIA was attempting to exonerate itself at the State Department’s
expense by suggesting CIA warnings about the security situation were
ignored.
In one email, Nuland asked, why are we suggest Congress “start making
assertions to the media [about the al Qaeda connection] that we
ourselves are not making because we don’t want to prejudice the
investigation?”
One other point: The significant edits – deleting references to al
Qaeda and the CIA’s warnings – came after a White House meeting on the
Saturday before Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on five Sunday shows.
Nuland, a 30-year foreign service veteran who has served under
Democratic and Republican Secretaries of State, was not at that
meeting and played no direct role in preparing Rice for her
interviews. >>
Oscar
May 10, 2013, 9:08:15 PM5/10/13
to
House Oversight Committee hearings round-up, by TownHall.com
http://tiny.cc/dpawww
<< The Damning Dozen: Twelve Revelations from the Benghazi Hearings
Guy Benson | May 09, 2013
Much of the media and liberal establishment simply ignored yesterday's
Benghazi hearings. They were content to see, hear, and speak no evil
— which is typically the fastest way to kill a story in Washington.
Others framed the proceedings as just another quixotic, partisan
effort to hype a long-resolved story. Selling that template requires
adherence to two fallacious assertions: First, that no major questions
remain regarding the 9/11 terrorist assault on our consulate in
Benghazi, Libya — and second, that no new information emerged from the
whistle-blowers' hours-long testimony. The former claim is outright
insulting. The latter betrays either aggressive ignorance or wishful
thinking. House Oversight Committee Republicans' focused questioning
extracted quite a few nuggets of relevant information. For their
part, many committee Democrats were focused on unseemly efforts to
attack, distract and smear — all employed as they cynically groused
about Republicans "politicizing" the investigation. Cutting through
the nonsense and dissembling, here's what we now know:
(1) Murdered US Ambassador Chris Stevens's second in command, Gregory
Hicks, was instructed not to speak with a Congressional investigator
by Sec. Hillary Clinton's chief of staff, Cheryl Mills. Hicks said
he'd "never" faced a similar demand at any point during his
distinguished 22-year diplomatic career. When he refused to comply
with this request, the State Department dispatched an attorney to act
as a "minder," who insisted on sitting in on all of Hicks's
discussions with members of Congress.
(2) When Hicks began to voice strenuous objections to the
administration's inaccurate talking points with State Department
higher-ups, the administration turned hostile. After being lavishly
praised by the President and the Secretary of State for his
performance under fire, Assistant Secretary of State Beth Jones
instantly reversed course and launched into a "blistering critique" of
Hicks' leadership. He was subsequently "effectively demoted." Hicks
called Rice's talking points "stunning" and "embarrassing."
(3) Secretaries Clinton and Rice — the President's hand-selected
messenger on Benghazi to the American people — repeatedly stated that
the attack arose from "spontaneous protests" over an obscure YouTube
video. This was never true. Hicks called the YouTube video a "non-
event" in Libya. He and others on the ground — including Amb. Stevens
— recognized the raid as a coordinated terrorist attack from the very
beginning. Hicks testified that he personally told Sec. Clinton as
much at 2 AM on the night of the attack, along with her senior staff.
Also, Rep. Trey Gowdy revealed an email sent on 9/12 in which
Assistant Sec. Jones confirmed to a Libyan official that the attack
had been carried out by terrorist organization Ansar al-Sharia. Days
later, Rice recited bogus talking points on five American television
networks, and Clinton denounced the video while standing next to the
flag-draped coffins of the fallen. Hicks said that he never mentioned
any "spontaneous demonstrations" related to a video in his phone call
with Clinton.
Questions: How, why, and by whom did the administration's talking
points get scrubbed and re-written? Why did the President refuse to
identify the attack as terrorism in an interview with CBS News on
September 12, and why did he allow Sec. Rice to disseminate patently
false information days later on his behalf?
(4) A small, armed US force in Tripoli was told it did not have the
authority to deploy to Benghazi in the midst of the attack. Twice.
Flight time between the two cities is less than an hour. Members of
the would-be rescue contingent were "furious" over this obstruction.
The witnesses said they did not know who ultimately gave the "stand
down" orders, or why. If it was not the Commander-in-Chief calling the
shots, why not, and where was he? Whistle-blower Mark Thompson, a
career counter-terrorism official at State, said he called the White
House to request the immediate deployment of a Foreign Emergency
Support Team (FEST) to Benghazi. He was told it was "not the right
time" to do so, then was cut out of the communications loop.
(5) The US security chief in Libya, Eric Nordstrom, averred that Sec.
Clinton "absolutely" would have been briefed on his (and Stevens's)
repeated requests for an increased security presence in Libya. This
claim undercut committee Democrats' nitpicking over whether Clinton's
signature appeared on the memo denying those requests.
Furthermore, the Benghazi compound was operating below the bare
minimum global security standard for US diplomatic missions —despite
being in an exceedingly dangerous place, and having been subjected to
previous attempted attacks. Only the Secretary of State has the
authority to grant exemptions for minimum security requirements.
(6) Amb. Stevens was stationed at the vulnerable Benghazi compound on
a dangerous symbolic date at the behest of Sec. Clinton, who wished to
make that diplomatic mission a permanent outpost. This detail should
only intensify questions as to why the consulate was so poorly
protected (see item #7).
(7) Nordstrom stated that elements of the lightly-armed Libyan militia
group tasked with protecting the consulate were "certainly" complicit
in the attacks. No US Marines were present at the time. Hicks
estimated that at least 60 terrorists swarmed into the compound during
the attack. Eight months later, zero arrests have been made.
(8) A mortally wounded Amb. Stevens was taken to a hospital controlled
by the Islamist extremist group (Ansar Al-Sharia) primarily
responsible for the assault. Administration officials initially
pointed to locals rushing Stevens to a local hospital as evidence of
local goodwill from protesters who didn't approve of the mob spinning
out of control. Hicks said the American contingent did not go to
retrieve Stevens from said hospital during the fight because they were
fearful that it was a trap.
(9) The US government did not seek permission from the Libyan
government to fly any aircraft into Libyan airspace, aside from a
drone. The witnesses testified that they believe the Libyan government
would have complied with any such request. The fact that none was even
made indicates that there was never a plan or intention to rush
reinforcements to Benghazi. This renders the "would they have made it
on time?" argument largely irrelevant — the facts in item #4
notwithstanding. Another important point about the "they wouldn't
have made it" defense: The assault lasted for eight hours and took
place into two waves at two different compounds. How could anyone have
known how long the fighting would last? How could they have
anticipated that ex-Navy SEALs Woods and Doherty wouldn't have been
able to stave off the enemy for a few more hours? Help was not on the
way. It was never sent.
(10) Despite committee Democrats' repeated claims and leading
questions, reduced funding or "austerity" had absolutely nothing to do
with the inadequate security presence on the ground. The State
Department itself made this fact crystal clear at previous hearings,
as did the administration's internal "ARB" review. Why did multiple
Democrats flog an obsolete, thoroughly-debunked explanation, if not to
muddy the waters?
(11) Oversight Democrats tried to cast doubt on Mark Thompson's
credibility, suggesting that he'd declined to participate in the
administration's ARB probe. Thompson corrected the record, noting that
he "offered his services" to those investigators, who in turn did not
invite him to testify. Democrats also claimed that the House hearings
were slanted because the leaders of the ARB investigation were not
invited to participate. In fact, Chairman Issa explicitly did invite
them, as confirmed by letters obtained by ABC News. They chose not to
participate. Democrats were dead wrong on both counts.
(12) During her Congressional testimony on Benghazi, Sec. Clinton
memorably asked, "what difference does it make?" in regards to the
provenance of the administration's incorrect talking points. Gregory
Hicks and Eric Nordstrom both attempted to answer that question.
Hicks did so in granular detail (the false explanation opened a nasty
rift between the US and Libyan governments, impeding the FBI's
investigation for weeks). An emotional Nordstrom was more general (we
lost friends; the truth matters).
One of the few points of bipartisan agreement was that the number of
unresolved issues merit additional hearings on Benghazi. >>
http://tiny.cc/dpawww
<< The Damning Dozen: Twelve Revelations from the Benghazi Hearings
Guy Benson | May 09, 2013
Much of the media and liberal establishment simply ignored yesterday's
Benghazi hearings. They were content to see, hear, and speak no evil
— which is typically the fastest way to kill a story in Washington.
Others framed the proceedings as just another quixotic, partisan
effort to hype a long-resolved story. Selling that template requires
adherence to two fallacious assertions: First, that no major questions
remain regarding the 9/11 terrorist assault on our consulate in
Benghazi, Libya — and second, that no new information emerged from the
whistle-blowers' hours-long testimony. The former claim is outright
insulting. The latter betrays either aggressive ignorance or wishful
thinking. House Oversight Committee Republicans' focused questioning
extracted quite a few nuggets of relevant information. For their
part, many committee Democrats were focused on unseemly efforts to
attack, distract and smear — all employed as they cynically groused
about Republicans "politicizing" the investigation. Cutting through
the nonsense and dissembling, here's what we now know:
(1) Murdered US Ambassador Chris Stevens's second in command, Gregory
Hicks, was instructed not to speak with a Congressional investigator
by Sec. Hillary Clinton's chief of staff, Cheryl Mills. Hicks said
he'd "never" faced a similar demand at any point during his
distinguished 22-year diplomatic career. When he refused to comply
with this request, the State Department dispatched an attorney to act
as a "minder," who insisted on sitting in on all of Hicks's
discussions with members of Congress.
(2) When Hicks began to voice strenuous objections to the
administration's inaccurate talking points with State Department
higher-ups, the administration turned hostile. After being lavishly
praised by the President and the Secretary of State for his
performance under fire, Assistant Secretary of State Beth Jones
instantly reversed course and launched into a "blistering critique" of
Hicks' leadership. He was subsequently "effectively demoted." Hicks
called Rice's talking points "stunning" and "embarrassing."
(3) Secretaries Clinton and Rice — the President's hand-selected
messenger on Benghazi to the American people — repeatedly stated that
the attack arose from "spontaneous protests" over an obscure YouTube
video. This was never true. Hicks called the YouTube video a "non-
event" in Libya. He and others on the ground — including Amb. Stevens
— recognized the raid as a coordinated terrorist attack from the very
beginning. Hicks testified that he personally told Sec. Clinton as
much at 2 AM on the night of the attack, along with her senior staff.
Also, Rep. Trey Gowdy revealed an email sent on 9/12 in which
Assistant Sec. Jones confirmed to a Libyan official that the attack
had been carried out by terrorist organization Ansar al-Sharia. Days
later, Rice recited bogus talking points on five American television
networks, and Clinton denounced the video while standing next to the
flag-draped coffins of the fallen. Hicks said that he never mentioned
any "spontaneous demonstrations" related to a video in his phone call
with Clinton.
Questions: How, why, and by whom did the administration's talking
points get scrubbed and re-written? Why did the President refuse to
identify the attack as terrorism in an interview with CBS News on
September 12, and why did he allow Sec. Rice to disseminate patently
false information days later on his behalf?
(4) A small, armed US force in Tripoli was told it did not have the
authority to deploy to Benghazi in the midst of the attack. Twice.
Flight time between the two cities is less than an hour. Members of
the would-be rescue contingent were "furious" over this obstruction.
The witnesses said they did not know who ultimately gave the "stand
down" orders, or why. If it was not the Commander-in-Chief calling the
shots, why not, and where was he? Whistle-blower Mark Thompson, a
career counter-terrorism official at State, said he called the White
House to request the immediate deployment of a Foreign Emergency
Support Team (FEST) to Benghazi. He was told it was "not the right
time" to do so, then was cut out of the communications loop.
(5) The US security chief in Libya, Eric Nordstrom, averred that Sec.
Clinton "absolutely" would have been briefed on his (and Stevens's)
repeated requests for an increased security presence in Libya. This
claim undercut committee Democrats' nitpicking over whether Clinton's
signature appeared on the memo denying those requests.
Furthermore, the Benghazi compound was operating below the bare
minimum global security standard for US diplomatic missions —despite
being in an exceedingly dangerous place, and having been subjected to
previous attempted attacks. Only the Secretary of State has the
authority to grant exemptions for minimum security requirements.
(6) Amb. Stevens was stationed at the vulnerable Benghazi compound on
a dangerous symbolic date at the behest of Sec. Clinton, who wished to
make that diplomatic mission a permanent outpost. This detail should
only intensify questions as to why the consulate was so poorly
protected (see item #7).
(7) Nordstrom stated that elements of the lightly-armed Libyan militia
group tasked with protecting the consulate were "certainly" complicit
in the attacks. No US Marines were present at the time. Hicks
estimated that at least 60 terrorists swarmed into the compound during
the attack. Eight months later, zero arrests have been made.
(8) A mortally wounded Amb. Stevens was taken to a hospital controlled
by the Islamist extremist group (Ansar Al-Sharia) primarily
responsible for the assault. Administration officials initially
pointed to locals rushing Stevens to a local hospital as evidence of
local goodwill from protesters who didn't approve of the mob spinning
out of control. Hicks said the American contingent did not go to
retrieve Stevens from said hospital during the fight because they were
fearful that it was a trap.
(9) The US government did not seek permission from the Libyan
government to fly any aircraft into Libyan airspace, aside from a
drone. The witnesses testified that they believe the Libyan government
would have complied with any such request. The fact that none was even
made indicates that there was never a plan or intention to rush
reinforcements to Benghazi. This renders the "would they have made it
on time?" argument largely irrelevant — the facts in item #4
notwithstanding. Another important point about the "they wouldn't
have made it" defense: The assault lasted for eight hours and took
place into two waves at two different compounds. How could anyone have
known how long the fighting would last? How could they have
anticipated that ex-Navy SEALs Woods and Doherty wouldn't have been
able to stave off the enemy for a few more hours? Help was not on the
way. It was never sent.
(10) Despite committee Democrats' repeated claims and leading
questions, reduced funding or "austerity" had absolutely nothing to do
with the inadequate security presence on the ground. The State
Department itself made this fact crystal clear at previous hearings,
as did the administration's internal "ARB" review. Why did multiple
Democrats flog an obsolete, thoroughly-debunked explanation, if not to
muddy the waters?
(11) Oversight Democrats tried to cast doubt on Mark Thompson's
credibility, suggesting that he'd declined to participate in the
administration's ARB probe. Thompson corrected the record, noting that
he "offered his services" to those investigators, who in turn did not
invite him to testify. Democrats also claimed that the House hearings
were slanted because the leaders of the ARB investigation were not
invited to participate. In fact, Chairman Issa explicitly did invite
them, as confirmed by letters obtained by ABC News. They chose not to
participate. Democrats were dead wrong on both counts.
(12) During her Congressional testimony on Benghazi, Sec. Clinton
memorably asked, "what difference does it make?" in regards to the
provenance of the administration's incorrect talking points. Gregory
Hicks and Eric Nordstrom both attempted to answer that question.
Hicks did so in granular detail (the false explanation opened a nasty
rift between the US and Libyan governments, impeding the FBI's
investigation for weeks). An emotional Nordstrom was more general (we
lost friends; the truth matters).
One of the few points of bipartisan agreement was that the number of
unresolved issues merit additional hearings on Benghazi. >>
Oscar
May 10, 2013, 9:29:23 PM5/10/13
to
'This is the most transparent administration in history.' - President
Barack Obama, February 14, 2013.
From WhiteHouse.gov http://tiny.cc/kkbwww
<< Transparency and Open Government
Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies
SUBJECT: Transparency and Open Government
My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of
openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public
trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation,
and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote
efficiency and effectiveness in Government.
Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes
accountability and provides information for citizens about what their
Government is doing. Information maintained by the Federal Government
is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action,
consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in
forms that the public can readily find and use. Executive departments
and agencies should harness new technologies to put information about
their operations and decisions online and readily available to the
public. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public
feedback to identify information of greatest use to the public. >>
Barack Obama, February 14, 2013.
From WhiteHouse.gov http://tiny.cc/kkbwww
<< Transparency and Open Government
Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies
SUBJECT: Transparency and Open Government
My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of
openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public
trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation,
and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote
efficiency and effectiveness in Government.
Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes
accountability and provides information for citizens about what their
Government is doing. Information maintained by the Federal Government
is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action,
consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in
forms that the public can readily find and use. Executive departments
and agencies should harness new technologies to put information about
their operations and decisions online and readily available to the
public. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public
feedback to identify information of greatest use to the public. >>
Bob Harper
May 10, 2013, 10:15:48 PM5/10/13
to
political 'enemies' :)
Bob Harper
Oscar
May 11, 2013, 1:14:16 AM5/11/13
to
On May 10, 7:15 pm, Bob Harper wrote:
>
> Not to mention Barack Milhous Obama's use of the IRS to harrass
> political 'enemies' :)
http://tiny.cc/d4lwww
>
> Not to mention Barack Milhous Obama's use of the IRS to harrass
> political 'enemies' :)
http://tiny.cc/k5lwww
John Thomas
May 11, 2013, 1:44:47 AM5/11/13
to
dissemblers. All Admimistrations find ways to harass and persecute
their political enemies. All Administrations are basically
incompetent. The present Administration is less competent than most,
though less incompetent than the last. The FBI (Famous But
Incompetent) is even less competent than the Administration. The CIA
(Crazed Incompetent Assassins) are even bigger bumblers than the FBI.
And the USA is The Greatest Nation in The World. What else is new?
Oscar
May 11, 2013, 2:01:22 AM5/11/13
to
Agreed, Mr. Thomas. The blockbuster New York Times cover story on black farmer loans discrimination, and the subsequent payout fiasco, is barely three weeks old http://tiny.cc/x4nwww
Enacting the Affordable Care Act is gonna be fun times. And it's gonna last for years!
Enacting the Affordable Care Act is gonna be fun times. And it's gonna last for years!
Bob Harper
May 11, 2013, 9:25:13 AM5/11/13
to
and force them to submit themselves to all the provisions of Obamacare,
it will be modified as quickly as was the air traffic controller nonsense.
I am, alas, not sanguine about that.
Bob Harper
John Thomas
May 11, 2013, 10:22:03 AM5/11/13
to
On May 11, 6:25 am, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 5/10/13 11:01 PM, Oscar wrote:
>
> > Agreed, Mr. Thomas. The blockbuster New York Times cover story on
> > black farmer loans discrimination, and the subsequent payout fiasco,
> > is barely three weeks oldhttp://tiny.cc/x4nwww
> On 5/10/13 11:01 PM, Oscar wrote:
>
> > Agreed, Mr. Thomas. The blockbuster New York Times cover story on
> > black farmer loans discrimination, and the subsequent payout fiasco,
>
> > Enacting the Affordable Care Act is gonna be fun times. And it's
> > gonna last for years!
>
> There's one hope: *if* we are able to hold Congress' feet to the fire
> and force them to submit themselves to all the provisions of Obamacare,
> it will be modified as quickly as was the air traffic controller nonsense.
>
> I am, alas, not sanguine about that.
>
> Bob Harper
The Congress is more incompetent than the Administration, the FBI and
> > Enacting the Affordable Care Act is gonna be fun times. And it's
> > gonna last for years!
>
> There's one hope: *if* we are able to hold Congress' feet to the fire
> and force them to submit themselves to all the provisions of Obamacare,
> it will be modified as quickly as was the air traffic controller nonsense.
>
> I am, alas, not sanguine about that.
>
> Bob Harper
the CIA. Why? Because the American voter is more incompetent than
them all.
Bob Lombard
May 11, 2013, 12:12:48 PM5/11/13
to
bl
Bob Harper
May 11, 2013, 12:17:54 PM5/11/13
to
bh
Oscar
May 12, 2013, 6:03:41 PM5/12/13
to
On May 10, 7:15 pm, Bob Harper wrote:
>
>
> Not to mention Barack Milhous Obama's use of the IRS to harrass
> political 'enemies' :)
The amendment to the 1954 tax reform act that prohibits all tax-exempt
> political 'enemies' :)
organizations, including churches, from supporting or opposing
political candidates? Sponsored by then-Senate Majority Leader Lyndon
Johnson.
Some historians say LBJ offered up the amendment to take some of the
steam out of the anti-communist frenzy of the era and that it was
directed at such right-wing organizations as Facts Forum and the
Committee for Constitutional Government. More likely, though, others
say he was trying to punish his political enemies, including black
churches pushing for an end to segregation. Of course, LBJ simply
'evolved' on civil rights a decade later and now guys like Stenroos
think he's just peachy.
On Feb 10, 9:22 am, Mark S wrote:
>
> > Lyndon Johnson may have been the most-skilled — or at least the most-powerful — Democratic politician of the last century.
>
> Possibly, but Obama is running him a close second.
>
> In fact, when it comes to who is skilled, I'd say that the winner
> might be Obama, for the simple fact that with LBJ, his skill was
> obvious and overt. With Obama, his skills may be even greater, because
> people don't realize what he's doing until after he's won the battle.
<end>
Oscar
May 14, 2013, 3:39:09 AM5/14/13
to
Remember, it wasn't even ten days ago that the President warned
graduates at Ohio State University about 'creeping cynicism' and
'voices' that 'warn that tyranny is . . . around the corner.' Is the
IRS scandal worthy of cynicism? George F. Will weighs in.
From Washington Post http://tiny.cc/6kc2ww
<< In IRS scandal, echoes of Watergate
George F. Will
May 13, 2013
“He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents,
endeavored to . . . cause, in violation of the constitutional rights
of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to
be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.”
— Article II, Section 1, Articles of Impeachment against Richard M.
Nixon, adopted by the House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974
The burglary occurred in 1972, the climax came in 1974, but 40 years
ago this week — May 17, 1973 — the Senate Watergate hearings began
exploring the nature of Richard Nixon’s administration. Now the nature
of Barack Obama’s administration is being clarified as revelations
about IRS targeting of conservative groups merge with myriad Benghazi
mendacities.
This administration aggressively hawked the fiction that the Benghazi
attack was just an excessively boisterous movie review. Now we are
told that a few wayward souls in Cincinnati, with nary a trace of
political purpose, targeted for harassment political groups with “tea
party” and “patriot” in their titles. The Post reported Monday that
the IRS also targeted groups that “criticized the government and
sought to educate Americans about the U.S. Constitution.” Credit the
IRS’s operatives with understanding who and what threatens the current
regime.
Jay Carney, whose unenviable job is not to explain but to explain away
what his employers say, calls the IRS’s behavior “inappropriate.” No,
using the salad fork for the entree is inappropriate. Using the
Internal Revenue Service for political purposes is a criminal offense.
It remains to be discovered whether the chief executive is guilty of
more than an amazingly convenient failure to superintend the excesses
of some executive-branch employees beyond the Allegheny Mountains.
Meanwhile, file this under “What a tangled web we weave”:
The IRS official in charge of the division that makes politically
sensitive allocations of tax-exempt status said Friday that she
learned from news reports of the targeting of conservatives. But a
draft report by the IRS inspector general says this official was
briefed on the matter two years ago.
An emerging liberal narrative is that this tempest is all the Supreme
Court’s fault: The Citizens United decision — that corporations,
particularly nonprofit advocacy groups, have First Amendment rights —
so burdened the IRS with making determinations about who deserves tax-
exempt status that some political innocents in Cincinnati inexplicably
decided to begin by rummaging through the affairs of conservatives.
Ere long, presumably, they would have gotten around to groups with
“progressive” in their titles.
Remember, all campaign “reform” proposals regulate political speech.
And all involve the IRS in allocating speech rights.
Liberals, whose unvarying agenda is enlargement of government,
suggest, with no sense of cognitive dissonance, that this IRS scandal
is nothing more sinister than typical government incompetence. Five
days before the IRS story broke, Obama, sermonizing 109 miles
northeast of Cincinnati, warned Ohio State graduates about “creeping
cynicism” and “voices” that “warn that tyranny is . . . around the
corner.” Well.
He stigmatizes as the vice of cynicism what actually is the virtue of
skepticism about the myth that the tentacles of the regulatory state
are administered by disinterested operatives. And the voices that
annoy him are those of the Founders.
Time was, progressives like the president 100 years ago, Woodrow
Wilson, had the virtue of candor: He explicitly rejected the Founders’
fears of government. Modern enlightenment, he said, made it safe to
concentrate power in Washington, and especially in disinterested
executive-branch agencies run by autonomous, high-minded experts.
Today, however, progressivism’s insinuation is that Americans must be
minutely regulated because they are so dimwitted they will swallow
nonsense. Such as: There was no political motive in the IRS targeting
political conservatives.
Episodes like this separate the meritorious liberals from the
meretricious. The day after the IRS story broke, The Post led the
paper with it, and, with an institutional memory of Watergate,
published a blistering editorial demanding an Obama apology. The New
York Times consigned the story to page 10 (its front-page lead was the
umpteenth story about the end of the world being nigh because of
global warming). Through Monday, the Times had expressed no editorial
thoughts about the IRS. The Times’s Monday headline on the matter was:
“IRS Focus on Conservatives Gives GOP an Issue to Seize On.” So that
is the danger.
If Republicans had controlled both houses of Congress in 1973, Nixon
would have completed his term. If Democrats controlled both today, the
Obama administration’s lawlessness would go uninvestigated. Not even
divided government is safe government, but it beats the alternative. >>
graduates at Ohio State University about 'creeping cynicism' and
'voices' that 'warn that tyranny is . . . around the corner.' Is the
IRS scandal worthy of cynicism? George F. Will weighs in.
From Washington Post http://tiny.cc/6kc2ww
<< In IRS scandal, echoes of Watergate
George F. Will
May 13, 2013
“He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents,
endeavored to . . . cause, in violation of the constitutional rights
of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to
be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.”
— Article II, Section 1, Articles of Impeachment against Richard M.
Nixon, adopted by the House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974
The burglary occurred in 1972, the climax came in 1974, but 40 years
ago this week — May 17, 1973 — the Senate Watergate hearings began
exploring the nature of Richard Nixon’s administration. Now the nature
of Barack Obama’s administration is being clarified as revelations
about IRS targeting of conservative groups merge with myriad Benghazi
mendacities.
This administration aggressively hawked the fiction that the Benghazi
attack was just an excessively boisterous movie review. Now we are
told that a few wayward souls in Cincinnati, with nary a trace of
political purpose, targeted for harassment political groups with “tea
party” and “patriot” in their titles. The Post reported Monday that
the IRS also targeted groups that “criticized the government and
sought to educate Americans about the U.S. Constitution.” Credit the
IRS’s operatives with understanding who and what threatens the current
regime.
Jay Carney, whose unenviable job is not to explain but to explain away
what his employers say, calls the IRS’s behavior “inappropriate.” No,
using the salad fork for the entree is inappropriate. Using the
Internal Revenue Service for political purposes is a criminal offense.
It remains to be discovered whether the chief executive is guilty of
more than an amazingly convenient failure to superintend the excesses
of some executive-branch employees beyond the Allegheny Mountains.
Meanwhile, file this under “What a tangled web we weave”:
The IRS official in charge of the division that makes politically
sensitive allocations of tax-exempt status said Friday that she
learned from news reports of the targeting of conservatives. But a
draft report by the IRS inspector general says this official was
briefed on the matter two years ago.
An emerging liberal narrative is that this tempest is all the Supreme
Court’s fault: The Citizens United decision — that corporations,
particularly nonprofit advocacy groups, have First Amendment rights —
so burdened the IRS with making determinations about who deserves tax-
exempt status that some political innocents in Cincinnati inexplicably
decided to begin by rummaging through the affairs of conservatives.
Ere long, presumably, they would have gotten around to groups with
“progressive” in their titles.
Remember, all campaign “reform” proposals regulate political speech.
And all involve the IRS in allocating speech rights.
Liberals, whose unvarying agenda is enlargement of government,
suggest, with no sense of cognitive dissonance, that this IRS scandal
is nothing more sinister than typical government incompetence. Five
days before the IRS story broke, Obama, sermonizing 109 miles
northeast of Cincinnati, warned Ohio State graduates about “creeping
cynicism” and “voices” that “warn that tyranny is . . . around the
corner.” Well.
He stigmatizes as the vice of cynicism what actually is the virtue of
skepticism about the myth that the tentacles of the regulatory state
are administered by disinterested operatives. And the voices that
annoy him are those of the Founders.
Time was, progressives like the president 100 years ago, Woodrow
Wilson, had the virtue of candor: He explicitly rejected the Founders’
fears of government. Modern enlightenment, he said, made it safe to
concentrate power in Washington, and especially in disinterested
executive-branch agencies run by autonomous, high-minded experts.
Today, however, progressivism’s insinuation is that Americans must be
minutely regulated because they are so dimwitted they will swallow
nonsense. Such as: There was no political motive in the IRS targeting
political conservatives.
Episodes like this separate the meritorious liberals from the
meretricious. The day after the IRS story broke, The Post led the
paper with it, and, with an institutional memory of Watergate,
published a blistering editorial demanding an Obama apology. The New
York Times consigned the story to page 10 (its front-page lead was the
umpteenth story about the end of the world being nigh because of
global warming). Through Monday, the Times had expressed no editorial
thoughts about the IRS. The Times’s Monday headline on the matter was:
“IRS Focus on Conservatives Gives GOP an Issue to Seize On.” So that
is the danger.
If Republicans had controlled both houses of Congress in 1973, Nixon
would have completed his term. If Democrats controlled both today, the
Obama administration’s lawlessness would go uninvestigated. Not even
divided government is safe government, but it beats the alternative. >>
Herman
May 14, 2013, 3:57:55 AM5/14/13
to
On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 9:39:09 AM UTC+2, Oscar wrote:
This is quite discussion you're having with yourself.
I hope you're enjoying the back and forth.
This is quite discussion you're having with yourself.
I hope you're enjoying the back and forth.
Oscar
May 14, 2013, 5:01:24 AM5/14/13
to
On May 14, 12:57 am, Herman wrote:
>
> This is quite discussion you're having with yourself.
>
> I hope you're enjoying the back and forth.
Mr. Harper and Mr. Thomas are both good contributors, ideologically
>
> This is quite discussion you're having with yourself.
>
> I hope you're enjoying the back and forth.
opposed. Mr. Lombard is cantankerous and unpredictable. Mr. Berger
must be on vacation; Mr. Stenroos is pooping his pants; and you just
wheeze like a sow.
Frank Berger
May 14, 2013, 10:24:44 AM5/14/13
to
didn't get blown up even once. Regarding the Bengazhi and IRS stories.
Really, what is there to say? The Administration is clearly hoping to
stone-wall its way out of trouble. It doesn't seem to be working. I
thought Will's column was brilliant.
William Sommerwerck
May 14, 2013, 10:54:06 AM5/14/13
to
"Frank Berger" wrote in message
news:iLWdnf4b4eGq1A_M...@supernews.com...
> Actually, I just returned from two fantastic weeks in Israel,
> during which I didn't get blown up even once. Regarding the
> Bengazhi and IRS stories... Really, what is there to say? The
political groups, not just conservative ones. As is typical of the US press
(on either side), stories are often badly misreported.
news:iLWdnf4b4eGq1A_M...@supernews.com...
> Actually, I just returned from two fantastic weeks in Israel,
> during which I didn't get blown up even once. Regarding the
> Administration is clearly hoping to stone-wall its way out of
> trouble. It doesn't seem to be working. I thought Will's column
> was brilliant.
If you'd read the NYT article, you'd have seen the IRS was looking at all
> trouble. It doesn't seem to be working. I thought Will's column
> was brilliant.
political groups, not just conservative ones. As is typical of the US press
(on either side), stories are often badly misreported.
O
May 14, 2013, 11:18:35 AM5/14/13
to
In article <kmtivc$jva$1...@dont-email.me>, William Sommerwerck
They just hadn't gotten to the liberal ones yet. But they sure knew
how to find "tea party" and "conservative" and other keywords. How
anyone who professes to be liberal can condone this behavior is beyond
me.
This is what happens when you get your news from the NYT, who is
obviously backpedaling it. The Washington Post, no Republican rag, has
demanded an apology from the White House, and using the IRS as a weapon
against your political foes is something that got on Nixon's
impeachment list.
The director of the IRS *apologized* for the targeting. You don't need
to apologize when you're doing the right thing, as you allege.
Sorry, this is a Republican, George Will, but it was printed in the
Washington Post.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-irs-scandal-carries-
echoes-of-watergate/2013/05/13/78f03660-bbf1-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_stor
y.html>
-Owen
how to find "tea party" and "conservative" and other keywords. How
anyone who professes to be liberal can condone this behavior is beyond
me.
This is what happens when you get your news from the NYT, who is
obviously backpedaling it. The Washington Post, no Republican rag, has
demanded an apology from the White House, and using the IRS as a weapon
against your political foes is something that got on Nixon's
impeachment list.
The director of the IRS *apologized* for the targeting. You don't need
to apologize when you're doing the right thing, as you allege.
Sorry, this is a Republican, George Will, but it was printed in the
Washington Post.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-irs-scandal-carries-
echoes-of-watergate/2013/05/13/78f03660-bbf1-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_stor
y.html>
-Owen
Norman Schwartz
May 14, 2013, 12:10:05 PM5/14/13
to
>
> If you'd read the NYT article, you'd have seen the IRS was looking at
> all political groups, not just conservative ones. As is typical of
> the US press (on either side), stories are often badly misreported.
BS., even if you hadn't read the NYT article, it was a much broader witch
> If you'd read the NYT article, you'd have seen the IRS was looking at
> all political groups, not just conservative ones. As is typical of
> the US press (on either side), stories are often badly misreported.
hunt.
http://www.chicoer.com/digitalextras/ci_23231148/irs-kept-shifting-targets-tax-exempt-groups
"When tax agents started singling out non-profit groups for extra scrutiny
in 2010, they looked at first only for key words such as 'Tea Party,' but
later they focused on criticisms by groups of "how the country is being
run," according to investigative findings reviewed by Reuters on Sunday."
Add to that the actions of the Justice Department towards the AP and we have
yet another Nixon-like Administration.
O
May 14, 2013, 12:41:50 PM5/14/13
to
In article <519261f4$0$19535$607e...@cv.net>, Norman Schwartz
There is a report that they were targeting Jewish groups as well:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/348013/irs-inquisition-update
-Owen
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/348013/irs-inquisition-update
-Owen
Herman
May 14, 2013, 1:24:39 PM5/14/13
to
On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 6:41:50 PM UTC+2, O wrote:
> In article <519261f4$0$19535$607e...@cv.net>, Norman Schwartz
>
>
> In article <519261f4$0$19535$607e...@cv.net>, Norman Schwartz
>
>
> There is a report that they were targeting Jewish groups as well:
>
You mean pro-Israel?
>
O
May 14, 2013, 1:44:33 PM5/14/13
to
In article <44d2dd27-971d-41b5...@googlegroups.com>,
Not necessarily - from the bottom of that article:
"And at least one purely religious Jewish organization, one not focused
on Israel, was the recipient of bizarre and highly inappropriate
questions about Israel.� Those questions also came from the same
non-profit division of the IRS at issue for inappropriately targeting
politically conservative groups. The IRS required that Jewish
organization to state �whether [it] supports the existence of the land
of Israel,� and also demanded the organization �[d]escribe [its]
religious belief system toward the land of Israel.�
-Owen
"And at least one purely religious Jewish organization, one not focused
on Israel, was the recipient of bizarre and highly inappropriate
questions about Israel.� Those questions also came from the same
non-profit division of the IRS at issue for inappropriately targeting
politically conservative groups. The IRS required that Jewish
organization to state �whether [it] supports the existence of the land
of Israel,� and also demanded the organization �[d]escribe [its]
religious belief system toward the land of Israel.�
-Owen
William Sommerwerck
May 14, 2013, 2:20:03 PM5/14/13
to
"O" wrote in message news:140520131118353580%ow...@denofinequityx.com...
carefully at ALL political groups to see whether tax exemption is justified.
> This is what happens when you get your news from the NYT, who is
> obviously backpedaling it.
I would suggest you look at the article, which I learned about through a
Friends of the US Chamber of Commerce mailing.
In article <kmtivc$jva$1...@dont-email.me>, William Sommerwerck
<grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Frank Berger" wrote in message
> news:iLWdnf4b4eGq1A_M...@supernews.com...
> > Actually, I just returned from two fantastic weeks in Israel,
> > during which I didn't get blown up even once. Regarding the
> > Bengazhi and IRS stories... Really, what is there to say? The
> > Administration is clearly hoping to stone-wall its way out of
> > trouble. It doesn't seem to be working. I thought Will's column
> > was brilliant.
> If you'd read the NYT article, you'd have seen the IRS was looking at all
> political groups, not just conservative ones. As is typical of the US press
> (on either side), stories are often badly misreported.
> They just hadn't gotten to the liberal ones yet. But they sure knew
> how to find "tea party" and "conservative" and other keywords. How
> anyone who professes to be liberal can condone this behavior is beyond
> me.
I said nothing of the sort. But I have no problem with the IRS looking
<grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Frank Berger" wrote in message
> news:iLWdnf4b4eGq1A_M...@supernews.com...
> > Actually, I just returned from two fantastic weeks in Israel,
> > during which I didn't get blown up even once. Regarding the
> > Bengazhi and IRS stories... Really, what is there to say? The
> > Administration is clearly hoping to stone-wall its way out of
> > trouble. It doesn't seem to be working. I thought Will's column
> > was brilliant.
> If you'd read the NYT article, you'd have seen the IRS was looking at all
> political groups, not just conservative ones. As is typical of the US press
> (on either side), stories are often badly misreported.
> They just hadn't gotten to the liberal ones yet. But they sure knew
> how to find "tea party" and "conservative" and other keywords. How
> anyone who professes to be liberal can condone this behavior is beyond
> me.
carefully at ALL political groups to see whether tax exemption is justified.
> This is what happens when you get your news from the NYT, who is
> obviously backpedaling it.
Friends of the US Chamber of Commerce mailing.
Frank Berger
May 14, 2013, 3:15:39 PM5/14/13
to
groups were targeted. Broadening of the targets may have happened or been
planned only after the conservative targeting was exposed. This
interpretation seems to be accepted by Eric Holder and President Obama. I
don't see how you came up with yours.
William Sommerwerck
May 14, 2013, 3:49:58 PM5/14/13
to
> My perusal of several NYT articles seems to indicate that
> conservative groups were targeted. Broadening of the targets
> may have happened or been planned only after the conservative
> targeting was exposed. This interpretation seems to be accepted
> by Eric Holder and President Obama. I don't see how you came
> up with yours.
Nor do I see how anyone can blame the President for something he's not
> conservative groups were targeted. Broadening of the targets
> may have happened or been planned only after the conservative
> targeting was exposed. This interpretation seems to be accepted
> by Eric Holder and President Obama. I don't see how you came
> up with yours.
supposed to have any control over.
Oscar
May 14, 2013, 4:34:34 PM5/14/13
to
The most alarming thing about this whole Internal Revenue 'Service'
scandal is that it _validates_ Glenn Beck's site, The Blaze. Glenn
Beck!! I can't _stand_ him. He was so idiotic on his Fox show. But he
was ahead of this story by several months, reporting on The Blaze last
year what was copped-to last week by the director of the Exempt
Organizations Division of the IRS, Lois 'I'm not good at math'
Lerner.
Topsy-turvy times, folks.
scandal is that it _validates_ Glenn Beck's site, The Blaze. Glenn
Beck!! I can't _stand_ him. He was so idiotic on his Fox show. But he
was ahead of this story by several months, reporting on The Blaze last
year what was copped-to last week by the director of the Exempt
Organizations Division of the IRS, Lois 'I'm not good at math'
Lerner.
Topsy-turvy times, folks.
Oscar
May 14, 2013, 5:31:08 PM5/14/13
to
Obama supporter/defender and TV 'Hardball host Chris Matthews, in a
back-and-forth on his show with Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), just said
he thinks President Obama sometimes acts like an 'op-ed writer who
doesn't really act like has control over the federal government.'
Whoa, Nelly!! Not exactly a frameable picture of the 'Lincoln-esque'
figure he once championed. He went on to reference Ronald Reagan's
firing of the striking air traffic controllers just after his
inauguration and how everyone, especially the Russians, took notice.
Obama is far from that, he said: 'Action speaks louder than words.'
Not exactly a ringing endorsement of one of the smartest people in
power anywhere anytime.
On Feb 20, 9:30 am, Herman wrote:
>
> Obviously I don't despise Obama. I admire him. He's one of the smartest people in power anywhere anytime.
<end>
back-and-forth on his show with Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), just said
he thinks President Obama sometimes acts like an 'op-ed writer who
doesn't really act like has control over the federal government.'
Whoa, Nelly!! Not exactly a frameable picture of the 'Lincoln-esque'
figure he once championed. He went on to reference Ronald Reagan's
firing of the striking air traffic controllers just after his
inauguration and how everyone, especially the Russians, took notice.
Obama is far from that, he said: 'Action speaks louder than words.'
Not exactly a ringing endorsement of one of the smartest people in
power anywhere anytime.
On Feb 20, 9:30 am, Herman wrote:
>
> Obviously I don't despise Obama. I admire him. He's one of the smartest people in power anywhere anytime.
<end>
Frank Berger
May 14, 2013, 5:31:34 PM5/14/13
to
the IRS to target political enemies? I don't think so. Is the top dog
*always* held somewhat accountable for what happens beneath him? Yes. Does
one always have to investigate where the orders came from? Yes? Does the
top guy get a pass? No.
Frank Berger
May 14, 2013, 5:33:55 PM5/14/13
to
definitive qualification for President is (insert adjective of your choice).
J.Martin
May 14, 2013, 5:45:25 PM5/14/13
to
reason, most of the country seems not to care much about this, and I
think I know why.
Republicans and the right-wing media have cried wolf so many, many
times over the course of Obama’s presidency that it is not surprising
that they are not being listened to now. We’ve been hearing for so
long about birth certificates, secret ties to Islamic terrorists,
death panels, plans to relinquish US sovereignty to the UN, plots to
take everyone’s guns, and on and on, that we can’t expect people to
get too excited about the various drafts of some talking points or
even the apparent fact that some Tea Party organizations were asked by
the IRA to prove their tax exempt status, and not politely, either.
Compared to the trumped up “scandals” the right has been screaming
about for the past five years, this is pretty tame stuff, even if it
does happen to be true.
Oscar
May 14, 2013, 5:56:29 PM5/14/13
to
On May 14, 2:33 pm, Frank Berger wrote:
>
> > On Feb 20, 9:30 am, Herman wrote:
>
> > Obviously I don't despise Obama. I admire him. He's one of the
> > smartest people in power anywhere anytime.
>
>
> > On Feb 20, 9:30 am, Herman wrote:
>
> > Obviously I don't despise Obama. I admire him. He's one of the
> > smartest people in power anywhere anytime.
>
> I don't know what Obama's IQ is, but whoever thought that a high IQ is the
> definitive qualification for President is (insert adjective of your choice).
Not only is Angela Merkel smarter — an accredited physicist, not an
> definitive qualification for President is (insert adjective of your choice).
attorney — she's a (former) Communist http://tiny.cc/h8f3ww and an
effective politician. I'm surprised herman likes Big Pimpin'
Fundraisin' Barnstormin' Speech-givin' Barack Obama more. White guilt?
From PBS.org, December 5, 2008:
<< President-elect Barack Obama raised a record-breaking $745 million
throughout his presidential campaign, the Federal Election Committee
reported Thursday.
Mr. Obama, who spent campaign dollars furiously in the last weeks of
his run for the White House, was elected on Nov. 4 with a reported $30
million leftover in campaign funds. In contrast to his Republican
opponent, who was restricted to the $84-million limit involved with
accepting public financing, Mr. Obama spent more than $136 million
from Oct. 26 until Nov. 24. McCain spent $26.5 million in the same
period.
The FEC figures indicate that Mr. Obama’s final haul was $100 million
more than Democratic candidate John Kerry and Republican winner George
W. Bush’s combined $650 million haul in 2004. >>
Oscar
May 14, 2013, 6:07:19 PM5/14/13
to
On May 14, 2:45 pm, J.Martin wrote:
>
> It is indeed a one-sided conversation, here and elsewhere. For some
> reason, most of the country seems not to care much about this, and I
> think I know why.
Says the arch-left middle-aged white noise drone teacher telling his
>
> It is indeed a one-sided conversation, here and elsewhere. For some
> reason, most of the country seems not to care much about this, and I
> think I know why.
head-down-texting students what to think.
Bueller...Bueller...Bueller...Bueller...Bueller.
J.Martin
May 14, 2013, 6:13:22 PM5/14/13
to
research into my background? (We've already discussed how creepy that
is. I'd think you would want us all to forget that you ever did
that.)
This is a perfect example of why no one takes you seriously.
Oscar
May 14, 2013, 6:40:25 PM5/14/13
to
On May 14, 3:13 pm, J.Martin wrote:
>
> That's all you've got?
Well, at least you didn't call me 'crazy' or some such other
>
> That's all you've got?
politically incorrect pejorative.
On Sep 16 2011, 9:03 am, J.Martin wrote:
>
> > BTW I ain't going nowhere.
>
> Whatever. You have announced you were leaving the group at least
> three times before, and unfortunately you never left. We've all come
> to accept it that, except for those blissful periods where the men in
> the white coats are successful in getting you to take your
> medications, we are stuck with you. Which is fine, really: you're
> good for a laugh most of the time.
Out-of-the-way vicious, like a grizzly bear! (or just a troll)
But seriously, I'd like to take this opportunity to advise you on
proper stylistic references to the 44th President, Barack Obama.
First, always refer to him as _PRESIDENT_ Obama (not 'Obama'), or The
Presidency of Barack Obama (not 'Obama's presidency'), or President
Obama's Administration (not 'Obama Administration'). Second, do not
reference his middle name (unless it is the day after inauguration and
you are a staff reporter for The New York Times). And third, do not
refer to his mother as a 'fat-leg shuffler'. Totally out-of-bounds.
On Mar 7 2011, 1:28 pm, herman wrote:
>
> When you see an overweight person approaching (with the usual fat leg shuffle) your first thought is not "this guy's loaded." Instead you think: "not very well-educated person who can't control himself".
In short, show some respect.
On May 14, 2:45 pm, J.Martin wrote:
>
> Republicans and the right-wing media have cried wolf so many, many
> times over the course of Obama’s presidency that it is not surprising
> that they are not being listened to now.
Reporter Howard Fineman:
> times over the course of Obama’s presidency that it is not surprising
> that they are not being listened to now.
“They don’t accept the President’s legitimacy in many ways. I have
never heard Newt Gingrich call President Obama ‘President Obama.’ It’s
usually just ‘Obama.’
“And I know that sounds like a trivial thing, but it’s not. It’s very
important.”
From Mediaite, January 11, 2013 http://tiny.cc/byh3ww
<< On Friday, MSNBC’s The Cycle investigated the outrage directed at
cohost Steve Kornacki, as well as other journalists, for referring to
President Barack Obama simply as “Obama” after the first reference.
Seriously and without irony, this happened.
Kornacki says he was inundated by angry emails and tweets from the
president’s supporters after he referred to Obama on the second
reference as simply “Obama.”
Rather than dismiss this nonsensical and embarrassing zealotry off
hand, he engaged his detractors in a reasoned way. He explained
writing style, and how reporters and opinion writers – including those
at the New York Times – will most often only use formal titles in the
first reference to an individual. Thereafter, the person is most often
simply referred to only by their last name.
Kornacki noted that many of the individuals criticizing him were
African-American, and he likened their pride in the president to the
pride shared by Irish and Catholic Americans in President John F.
Kennedy.
Krystal Ball said that it was understandable that Obama’s supporters
became incensed over the supposed slight by Kornacki because he has
been so disproportionately disrespected compared to other presidents.
She noted that she is also guilty of being overprotective of female
officeholders, sometimes insisting that they be addressed by their
full titles.
“We’re touching on something really deep here,” Touré opined. He noted
that the word policing was “silly,” but a sense of defensiveness about
the “hatred” Obama faces is legitimate and justified.
Thankfully, S.E. Cupp added a bit of healthy skepticism into the
conversation when she noted that the last president – and all the
other 42 presidents who served before him – was generally treated with
slightly less reverence in the press than their supporters believed
they deserved.
Most certainly, no prior president has merited their own style
guidelines when writing about them. >>
Bob Harper
May 14, 2013, 6:49:05 PM5/14/13
to
Bob Harper
J.Martin
May 14, 2013, 6:56:15 PM5/14/13
to
old postings of mine in some sort of file, or do you go searching
through the archives? Really strange, either way. You should find
better things to do with your time.
Oscar
May 14, 2013, 7:06:30 PM5/14/13
to
On May 14, 3:56 pm, J.Martin wrote:
>
> Wow. You are really, really strange. Do you keep all these two-year-
> old postings of mine in some sort of file, or do you go searching
> through the archives? Really strange, either way. You should find
> better things to do with your time.
And you should be more like Jesus Christ! (or Barack Obama, take your
>
> Wow. You are really, really strange. Do you keep all these two-year-
> old postings of mine in some sort of file, or do you go searching
> through the archives? Really strange, either way. You should find
> better things to do with your time.
pick)
William Sommerwerck
May 14, 2013, 7:07:49 PM5/14/13
to
"Frank Berger" wrote in message
news:XrOdnYSQZqLfMA_M...@supernews.com...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> Nor do I see how anyone can blame the President for something
>> he's not supposed to have any control over
> Has anyone "blamed" the President in the sense of accusing him
> of directing the IRS to target political enemies? I don't think so.
I think so.
>> Nor do I see how anyone can blame the President for something
>> he's not supposed to have any control over
> Has anyone "blamed" the President in the sense of accusing him
> of directing the IRS to target political enemies? I don't think so.
Americans don't seem to be aware that the Right is trying to return this
country to a state resembling the mid-19th century.
William Sommerwerck
May 14, 2013, 7:08:31 PM5/14/13
to
> I don't know what Obama's IQ is, but whoever thought
> that a high IQ is the definitive qualification for President
> is (insert adjective of your choice).
Agree. Smart is as smart does.
> that a high IQ is the definitive qualification for President
> is (insert adjective of your choice).
William Sommerwerck
May 14, 2013, 7:10:23 PM5/14/13
to
"Bob Harper" wrote in message
news:Cbzkt.795036$OJ2.6...@en-nntp-11.dc1.easynews.com...
Anyone can blame anybody for anything. But my understanding is that the
President has no say-so over how the IRS does things.
news:Cbzkt.795036$OJ2.6...@en-nntp-11.dc1.easynews.com...
President has no say-so over how the IRS does things.
Frank Berger
May 14, 2013, 7:23:04 PM5/14/13
to
William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Frank Berger" wrote in message
> news:XrOdnYSQZqLfMA_M...@supernews.com...
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>>> Nor do I see how anyone can blame the President for something
>>> he's not supposed to have any control over
>
>> Has anyone "blamed" the President in the sense of accusing him
>> of directing the IRS to target political enemies? I don't think so.
>
> I think so.
>
Who?
> "Frank Berger" wrote in message
> news:XrOdnYSQZqLfMA_M...@supernews.com...
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>>> Nor do I see how anyone can blame the President for something
>>> he's not supposed to have any control over
>
>> Has anyone "blamed" the President in the sense of accusing him
>> of directing the IRS to target political enemies? I don't think so.
>
> I think so.
>
Frank Berger
May 14, 2013, 7:24:36 PM5/14/13
to
the actions of his subordinates?
Oscar
May 14, 2013, 7:33:14 PM5/14/13
to
On May 14, 3:56 pm, J.Martin wrote:
>
>
> You should find better things to do with your time.
I have the day off today, and tonight I'm going to see Motörhead in
downtown LA with a beautiful opera-loving, yoga-practicing Latina.
Vibrant, colorful, diverse, tolerant. We are the future of America.
What are you doing?
P.S. Why haven't you apologized to Mr. Powell for your vicious comment?
Oscar
May 14, 2013, 7:34:02 PM5/14/13
to
On May 10, 7:15 pm, Bob Harper wrote:
>
> Not to mention Barack Milhous Obama's use of the IRS to harrass
> political 'enemies' :)
Oops, former New Yorker and Vanity Fair editor Tina Brown's very left
Daily Beast (AKA Newsweek) just published this piece.
Key paragraph:
<< It was the D.C. Federal Appeals Court that upheld a subpoena for
Judy Miller’s sources in 2005 in connection with the Scooter Libby
trial. That court ruled that a privilege for reporters not to disclose
sources of information did not protect her in the District of
Columbia. She resisted and went to jail.
As a consequence of that case, the House of Representatives passed a
Federal Shield Law bill on Oct. 16, 2007, by voting 398 to 21. As
Senator, Obama supported this bill. As president, however, he
effectively deep-sixed it. >>
Oh, c'mon! He's just 'evolving'! Don't be so hard on the guy, Tina.
<< Is Obama Worse For Press Freedom Than Nixon?
by James C. Goodale
May 14, 2013 12:11 PM EDT
James Goodale defended the New York Times during the Pentagon Papers.
But Nixon had nothing on Obama, writes the First Amendment lawyer
— and that’s bad news for freedom of the press.
President Barack H. Obama’s outrageous seizure of the Associated
Press’s phone records, allegedly to discover sources of leaks, should
surprise no one. Obama has relentlessly pursued leakers ever since he
became president. He is fast becoming the worst national security
press president ever, and it may not get any better.
It is believed that Obama’s Justice Department sought AP’s records to
find the source of a leak that informed an AP story about a failed
terrorist attack. What makes this action particularly egregious is
that Justice didn’t tell AP what it was doing until two months after
it obtained the records. This not only violates Justice Department
guidelines for subpoenas of this sort, but also common sense, decency,
and the First Amendment.
Under the guidelines, subpoenas concerning the press cannot be issued
without the express approval of the Attorney General. Further, before
a subpoena is issued, the government is honor-bound to negotiate with
the party to which it is directed.
While Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. may have approved the
subpoena, he apparently never told AP about it. In the meantime, the
Justice Department for two months has had all the details of AP’s
newsgathering. AP could bring a lawsuit to declare its First Amendment
rights have been violated and seek a return of its records. Gary
Pruitt, President of AP, has already made a demand for them.
While this legal action by AP is possible, the government has picked
the one federal jurisdiction most favorable to it for obtaining the
source of leaks, namely, the federal court in the District of
Columbia. Its subpoenas were directed to telephone companies located
in D.C.
It was the D.C. Federal Appeals Court that upheld a subpoena for Judy
Miller’s sources in 2005 in connection with the Scooter Libby trial.
That court ruled that a privilege for reporters not to disclose
sources of information did not protect her in the District of
Columbia. She resisted and went to jail.
As a consequence of that case, the House of Representatives passed a
Federal Shield Law bill on Oct. 16, 2007, by voting 398 to 21. As
Senator, Obama supported this bill. As president, however, he
effectively deep-sixed it.
Had the bill passed by the House become law, it would have protected
AP in this instance. Obama effectively killed this bill because as
president he decided the bill needed “a national security exception.”
This is to say, reporters would have to disclose sources if national
security required it.
Since the bill was intended in part to protect reporters when they had
national security leaks (such as AP in this instance) the “national
security exception” would have swallowed up the bill, and consequently
the bill died in the Senate.
The action against AP comes as no surprise because it is safe to say
Obama is paranoid about stopping leaks. He has indicted six leakers,
more than any other president in history. The previous record was
three, and that encompasses the entire history of the country. But
there surely is more to come.
First, Obama has been pursuing James Risen, a New York Times reporter,
for the source of a leak he received about Iran’s nuclear program.
Risen published this leak in his book, “The State of War: the Secret
History of the C.I.A.” When Obama’s Justice Department sought the
source of the leak, Risen refused to give it. He won his case in the
Federal District Court in Virginia in 2011. The government appealed,
and that appeal has been sitting undecided for 17 months.
Should Risen lose his case on appeal, which is entirely likely, most
observers believe he will refuse to testify and go to jail, as did
Judy Miller. Obama will then be faced with another controversy of a
similar magnitude to that he faces today.
Secondly, early next month, the trial of Pfc Bradley Manning is
scheduled to begin. Manning leaked information to Julian Assange, the
founder of the website WikiLeaks. Assange published the leaks, as did
the Guardian, the New York Times, der Speigel, El Pais, and Le Monde.
Manning’s trial may well be the most significant “leak” trial ever.
The government purportedly will produce as many as 100 witnesses or
more to prove Manning, and inferentially the New York Times and the
other papers, damaged national security under the Espionage Act, and
aided the enemy.
This will be the first such trial that uses the Aiding the Enemy Act
to prosecute a leaker. Many First Amendment observers believe that
the Aiding the Enemy Act is so broad as applied to Manning that it
violates the First Amendment. If the government succeeds in
convicting Manning under this Act, an appeal raising First Amendment
issues is almost guaranteed.
Lastly, Obama continues to pursue Julian Assange. He is holed up in
the Ecuadorean Embassy because his lawyers believe he will be
extradited to the United States where he will face prosecution for
conspiring with Manning to violate the Espionage Act.
Assange is sought in Sweden for sexual practices allegedly violating
Swedish law. Manning’s lawyers believe if Assange is extradited to
Sweden, he will immediately be extradited to the U.S.
In December 2010 the government convened a grand jury to indict
Assange. Since this grand jury has not been heard from in recent
months, the public may think the grand jury has disbanded.
Assange’s lawyers believe, however, that the grand jury has already
secretly indicted Assange. This would account for the silence of the
grand jury, since, if it has in fact indicted Assange secretly,
government lawyers are bound by the rules of secrecy not to disclose
it.
This grand jury is proceeding under a theory that is extremely
dangerous to freedom of the press. It is trying to prove Assange
“conspired” with Manning to violate the Espionage Act. This would only
require that Manning agreed with Assange to leak information. This
would be far easier to prove than trying to prove Assange, in fact,
violated the Espionage Act.
It would also put in jeopardy the gathering of national security
information by any reporter and so criminalize the newsgathering
process. For this reason, in 2011, the Committee to Protect
Journalists wrote to President Obama not to go forward with the
prosecution of Assange. It pointed out that every reporter and
publisher would be subject to such prosecution merely for attempting
to gather the news from those with access to classified information.
Following the publication of the Pentagon Papers, President Richard
Nixon tried to use the same theory to indict the New York Times and
Neil Sheehan, the reporter to whom Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon
Papers. The grand jury met for 17 months and faced furious opposition
by reporters, academics, and others whom the government suspected of
having access to the Pentagon Papers before they were published. In
the end, Nixon gave up on this prosecution.
Many in the journalistic community — in addition to the Committee to
Protect Journalists — hope Obama will also give up on the prosecution
of Assange. Obama’s record on national security press matters is bad
enough without being remembered for succeeding where Nixon failed. >>
>
> Not to mention Barack Milhous Obama's use of the IRS to harrass
> political 'enemies' :)
Oops, former New Yorker and Vanity Fair editor Tina Brown's very left
Daily Beast (AKA Newsweek) just published this piece.
Key paragraph:
<< It was the D.C. Federal Appeals Court that upheld a subpoena for
Judy Miller’s sources in 2005 in connection with the Scooter Libby
trial. That court ruled that a privilege for reporters not to disclose
sources of information did not protect her in the District of
Columbia. She resisted and went to jail.
As a consequence of that case, the House of Representatives passed a
Federal Shield Law bill on Oct. 16, 2007, by voting 398 to 21. As
Senator, Obama supported this bill. As president, however, he
effectively deep-sixed it. >>
Oh, c'mon! He's just 'evolving'! Don't be so hard on the guy, Tina.
<< Is Obama Worse For Press Freedom Than Nixon?
by James C. Goodale
May 14, 2013 12:11 PM EDT
James Goodale defended the New York Times during the Pentagon Papers.
But Nixon had nothing on Obama, writes the First Amendment lawyer
— and that’s bad news for freedom of the press.
President Barack H. Obama’s outrageous seizure of the Associated
Press’s phone records, allegedly to discover sources of leaks, should
surprise no one. Obama has relentlessly pursued leakers ever since he
became president. He is fast becoming the worst national security
press president ever, and it may not get any better.
It is believed that Obama’s Justice Department sought AP’s records to
find the source of a leak that informed an AP story about a failed
terrorist attack. What makes this action particularly egregious is
that Justice didn’t tell AP what it was doing until two months after
it obtained the records. This not only violates Justice Department
guidelines for subpoenas of this sort, but also common sense, decency,
and the First Amendment.
Under the guidelines, subpoenas concerning the press cannot be issued
without the express approval of the Attorney General. Further, before
a subpoena is issued, the government is honor-bound to negotiate with
the party to which it is directed.
While Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. may have approved the
subpoena, he apparently never told AP about it. In the meantime, the
Justice Department for two months has had all the details of AP’s
newsgathering. AP could bring a lawsuit to declare its First Amendment
rights have been violated and seek a return of its records. Gary
Pruitt, President of AP, has already made a demand for them.
While this legal action by AP is possible, the government has picked
the one federal jurisdiction most favorable to it for obtaining the
source of leaks, namely, the federal court in the District of
Columbia. Its subpoenas were directed to telephone companies located
in D.C.
It was the D.C. Federal Appeals Court that upheld a subpoena for Judy
Miller’s sources in 2005 in connection with the Scooter Libby trial.
That court ruled that a privilege for reporters not to disclose
sources of information did not protect her in the District of
Columbia. She resisted and went to jail.
As a consequence of that case, the House of Representatives passed a
Federal Shield Law bill on Oct. 16, 2007, by voting 398 to 21. As
Senator, Obama supported this bill. As president, however, he
effectively deep-sixed it.
Had the bill passed by the House become law, it would have protected
AP in this instance. Obama effectively killed this bill because as
president he decided the bill needed “a national security exception.”
This is to say, reporters would have to disclose sources if national
security required it.
Since the bill was intended in part to protect reporters when they had
national security leaks (such as AP in this instance) the “national
security exception” would have swallowed up the bill, and consequently
the bill died in the Senate.
The action against AP comes as no surprise because it is safe to say
Obama is paranoid about stopping leaks. He has indicted six leakers,
more than any other president in history. The previous record was
three, and that encompasses the entire history of the country. But
there surely is more to come.
First, Obama has been pursuing James Risen, a New York Times reporter,
for the source of a leak he received about Iran’s nuclear program.
Risen published this leak in his book, “The State of War: the Secret
History of the C.I.A.” When Obama’s Justice Department sought the
source of the leak, Risen refused to give it. He won his case in the
Federal District Court in Virginia in 2011. The government appealed,
and that appeal has been sitting undecided for 17 months.
Should Risen lose his case on appeal, which is entirely likely, most
observers believe he will refuse to testify and go to jail, as did
Judy Miller. Obama will then be faced with another controversy of a
similar magnitude to that he faces today.
Secondly, early next month, the trial of Pfc Bradley Manning is
scheduled to begin. Manning leaked information to Julian Assange, the
founder of the website WikiLeaks. Assange published the leaks, as did
the Guardian, the New York Times, der Speigel, El Pais, and Le Monde.
Manning’s trial may well be the most significant “leak” trial ever.
The government purportedly will produce as many as 100 witnesses or
more to prove Manning, and inferentially the New York Times and the
other papers, damaged national security under the Espionage Act, and
aided the enemy.
This will be the first such trial that uses the Aiding the Enemy Act
to prosecute a leaker. Many First Amendment observers believe that
the Aiding the Enemy Act is so broad as applied to Manning that it
violates the First Amendment. If the government succeeds in
convicting Manning under this Act, an appeal raising First Amendment
issues is almost guaranteed.
Lastly, Obama continues to pursue Julian Assange. He is holed up in
the Ecuadorean Embassy because his lawyers believe he will be
extradited to the United States where he will face prosecution for
conspiring with Manning to violate the Espionage Act.
Assange is sought in Sweden for sexual practices allegedly violating
Swedish law. Manning’s lawyers believe if Assange is extradited to
Sweden, he will immediately be extradited to the U.S.
In December 2010 the government convened a grand jury to indict
Assange. Since this grand jury has not been heard from in recent
months, the public may think the grand jury has disbanded.
Assange’s lawyers believe, however, that the grand jury has already
secretly indicted Assange. This would account for the silence of the
grand jury, since, if it has in fact indicted Assange secretly,
government lawyers are bound by the rules of secrecy not to disclose
it.
This grand jury is proceeding under a theory that is extremely
dangerous to freedom of the press. It is trying to prove Assange
“conspired” with Manning to violate the Espionage Act. This would only
require that Manning agreed with Assange to leak information. This
would be far easier to prove than trying to prove Assange, in fact,
violated the Espionage Act.
It would also put in jeopardy the gathering of national security
information by any reporter and so criminalize the newsgathering
process. For this reason, in 2011, the Committee to Protect
Journalists wrote to President Obama not to go forward with the
prosecution of Assange. It pointed out that every reporter and
publisher would be subject to such prosecution merely for attempting
to gather the news from those with access to classified information.
Following the publication of the Pentagon Papers, President Richard
Nixon tried to use the same theory to indict the New York Times and
Neil Sheehan, the reporter to whom Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon
Papers. The grand jury met for 17 months and faced furious opposition
by reporters, academics, and others whom the government suspected of
having access to the Pentagon Papers before they were published. In
the end, Nixon gave up on this prosecution.
Many in the journalistic community — in addition to the Committee to
Protect Journalists — hope Obama will also give up on the prosecution
of Assange. Obama’s record on national security press matters is bad
enough without being remembered for succeeding where Nixon failed. >>
MiNe 109
May 14, 2013, 7:52:21 PM5/14/13
to
In article <_sidnYMVPahcWg_M...@supernews.com>,
One might develop such an understanding from those comparing him to
Nixon, who did do such things.
Stephen
Nixon, who did do such things.
Stephen
O
May 14, 2013, 7:57:18 PM5/14/13
to
In article <kmtv1g$tjc$1...@dont-email.me>, William Sommerwerck
> But I have no problem with the IRS looking
> carefully at ALL political groups to see whether tax exemption is justified.
>
But that's not what they did. In fact, they deliberately keyed on "tea
party," "Patriots," and Glenn Becks "9/11 Project." They deliberately
delayed the formation of groups for as much as 13 months.
political groups. There was some language about "broadening the
search" which was then followed by "But repeated revisions of the
lookout list kept lapsing back to the original search." I think we can
safely say that there was no effectual broadening to look at "all
political groups."
Sorry, this is an attempted whitewash by the NYT, which was rather
wishy-washy with Nixon too. So far, though the Washington Post &
George Will is still calling it like it is.
-Owen
<grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "O" wrote in message news:140520131118353580%ow...@denofinequityx.com...
> In article <kmtivc$jva$1...@dont-email.me>, William Sommerwerck
> <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > "Frank Berger" wrote in message
> > news:iLWdnf4b4eGq1A_M...@supernews.com...
>
> > > Actually, I just returned from two fantastic weeks in Israel,
> > > during which I didn't get blown up even once. Regarding the
> > > Bengazhi and IRS stories... Really, what is there to say? The
> > > Administration is clearly hoping to stone-wall its way out of
> > > trouble. It doesn't seem to be working. I thought Will's column
> > > was brilliant.
>
> > If you'd read the NYT article, you'd have seen the IRS was looking at all
> > political groups, not just conservative ones. As is typical of the US press
> > (on either side), stories are often badly misreported.
>
>
> > They just hadn't gotten to the liberal ones yet. But they sure knew
> > how to find "tea party" and "conservative" and other keywords. How
> > anyone who professes to be liberal can condone this behavior is beyond
> > me.
>
> I said nothing of the sort.
Nor did I say you did.
> "O" wrote in message news:140520131118353580%ow...@denofinequityx.com...
> In article <kmtivc$jva$1...@dont-email.me>, William Sommerwerck
> <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > "Frank Berger" wrote in message
> > news:iLWdnf4b4eGq1A_M...@supernews.com...
>
> > > Actually, I just returned from two fantastic weeks in Israel,
> > > during which I didn't get blown up even once. Regarding the
> > > Bengazhi and IRS stories... Really, what is there to say? The
> > > Administration is clearly hoping to stone-wall its way out of
> > > trouble. It doesn't seem to be working. I thought Will's column
> > > was brilliant.
>
> > If you'd read the NYT article, you'd have seen the IRS was looking at all
> > political groups, not just conservative ones. As is typical of the US press
> > (on either side), stories are often badly misreported.
>
>
> > They just hadn't gotten to the liberal ones yet. But they sure knew
> > how to find "tea party" and "conservative" and other keywords. How
> > anyone who professes to be liberal can condone this behavior is beyond
> > me.
>
> I said nothing of the sort.
> But I have no problem with the IRS looking
> carefully at ALL political groups to see whether tax exemption is justified.
>
party," "Patriots," and Glenn Becks "9/11 Project." They deliberately
delayed the formation of groups for as much as 13 months.
>
> > This is what happens when you get your news from the NYT, who is
> > obviously backpedaling it.
>
> I would suggest you look at the article, which I learned about through a
> Friends of the US Chamber of Commerce mailing.
>
I did read it - and nowhere does it say the IRS was looking at all
> > This is what happens when you get your news from the NYT, who is
> > obviously backpedaling it.
>
> I would suggest you look at the article, which I learned about through a
> Friends of the US Chamber of Commerce mailing.
>
political groups. There was some language about "broadening the
search" which was then followed by "But repeated revisions of the
lookout list kept lapsing back to the original search." I think we can
safely say that there was no effectual broadening to look at "all
political groups."
Sorry, this is an attempted whitewash by the NYT, which was rather
wishy-washy with Nixon too. So far, though the Washington Post &
George Will is still calling it like it is.
-Owen
William Sommerwerck
May 14, 2013, 7:59:29 PM5/14/13
to
"Frank Berger" wrote in message
news:_sidnYMVPahcWg_M...@supernews.com...
O
May 14, 2013, 8:09:57 PM5/14/13
to
for using the IRS to target political enemies. If Nixon could do it,
why can't Obama, or someone close to Obama (Haldeman, Ehrlichtman,
Dean, etc.)? The balance of power hasn't shifted. It's not like the
Treasury Department doesn't report to the President anymore.
This is not an isolated, lone-wolf type of thing. This is a concerted
attack:
"Of the 296 total applications that the inspector general reviewed, 108
were approved, 28 were withdrawn by the applicants, and 160 were still
open � some of those pending for up to 1,138 days."
-NY Times
Furthermore, the Government has admitted to wiretapping the Associated
Press phones, giving them free access to sources, information that's
supposed to be protected by the first amendment.
We're looking at Government gone Wild here, and tops are being flashed,
and boobs are definitely visible.
-Owen
O
May 14, 2013, 9:23:24 PM5/14/13
to
In article <smcelroy2-CF125...@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>, MiNe
Well, somebody in the Obama administration is doing such things too.
-Owen
-Owen
Bob Harper
May 14, 2013, 10:42:09 PM5/14/13
to
Chicago/Cook County?
Bob Harper
Herman
May 15, 2013, 3:06:50 AM5/15/13
to
Le mardi 14 mai 2013 23:56:29 UTC+2, Oscar a écrit :
>
> Not only is Angela Merkel smarter — an accredited physicist, not an
>
> attorney — she's a (former) Communist http://tiny.cc/h8f3ww and an
>
> effective politician. I'm surprised herman likes Big Pimpin'
>
> Fundraisin' Barnstormin' Speech-givin' Barack Obama more. White guilt?
>
>
Never mind I never compared Obama and Merkel. And yes, let's by all means drag race into this.
>
> Not only is Angela Merkel smarter — an accredited physicist, not an
>
> attorney — she's a (former) Communist http://tiny.cc/h8f3ww and an
>
> effective politician. I'm surprised herman likes Big Pimpin'
>
> Fundraisin' Barnstormin' Speech-givin' Barack Obama more. White guilt?
>
>
Oscar
May 15, 2013, 4:42:50 AM5/15/13
to
On May 15, 12:06 am, Herman wrote:
>
> Never mind I never compared Obama and Merkel.
_PRESIDENT_ Obama!! What is it with you people?? Abbreviation or
>
> Never mind I never compared Obama and Merkel.
shorthand your excuse? Do you also say 'Jap' for Japanese??
From Mediaite, January 11, 2013 http://tiny.cc/byh3ww
<< On Friday, MSNBC’s The Cycle investigated the outrage directed at
cohost Steve Kornacki, as well as other journalists, for referring to
President Barack Obama simply as “Obama” after the first reference.
Seriously and without irony, this happened.
Kornacki says he was inundated by angry emails and tweets from the
president’s supporters after he referred to Obama on the second
reference as simply “Obama.”
Kornacki noted that many of the individuals criticizing him were
African-American, and he likened their pride in the president to the
pride shared by Irish and Catholic Americans in President John F.
Kennedy.
African-American, and he likened their pride in the president to the
pride shared by Irish and Catholic Americans in President John F.
Kennedy.
“We’re touching on something really deep here,” Touré opined. He noted
that the word policing was “silly,” but a sense of defensiveness about
the “hatred” Obama faces is legitimate and justified. >>
that the word policing was “silly,” but a sense of defensiveness about
the “hatred” Obama faces is legitimate and justified. >>
Herman
May 15, 2013, 6:32:43 AM5/15/13
to
Le mercredi 15 mai 2013 10:42:50 UTC+2, Oscar a écrit :
> On May 15, 12:06 am, Herman wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Never mind I never compared Obama and Merkel.
>
>
>
> _PRESIDENT_ Obama!! What is it with you people?? Abbreviation or
>
> shorthand your excuse? Do you also say 'Jap' for Japanese??
>
Your obsession with race is stultifying.
> On May 15, 12:06 am, Herman wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Never mind I never compared Obama and Merkel.
>
>
>
> _PRESIDENT_ Obama!! What is it with you people?? Abbreviation or
>
> shorthand your excuse? Do you also say 'Jap' for Japanese??
>
It would be useful for me to say "President Obama" should there be a chance of confusion with another person named Obama. That chance is nonexistent.
Same with Merkel.
Oscar
May 15, 2013, 6:47:30 AM5/15/13
to
On May 15, 3:32 am, Herman wrote:
>
> Your obsession with race is stultifying.
>
> It would be useful for me to say "President Obama" should there be a chance of confusion with another person named Obama. That chance is nonexistent.
No, herman, I was making a point there. I'm not the one 'obsessing'
>
> Your obsession with race is stultifying.
>
> It would be useful for me to say "President Obama" should there be a chance of confusion with another person named Obama. That chance is nonexistent.
over commonplace stylistic practices that have been in place for
decades. I'm just informing you of the rules of the game here & now,
as dictated by large swaths of President Obama's most ardent
supporters, as indicated in the story above. They got a problem with
the way you write and talk: hearing singular use of the President's
surname is charged with emotion for certain individuals and is likely
to be used in a racist way if uttered by a privileged white man such
as you. So they are asking you kindly to abide by their requests to
refer to him as 'President Obama.' Is that so difficult?
Herman
May 15, 2013, 7:27:51 AM5/15/13
to
On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 12:47:30 PM UTC+2, Oscar wrote:
> They got a problem with
>
> the way you write and talk: hearing singular use of the President's
>
> surname is charged with emotion for certain individuals and is likely
>
> to be used in a racist way if uttered by a privileged white man such
>
> as you. So they are asking you kindly to abide by their requests to
>
> refer to him as 'President Obama.' Is that so difficult?
As if you are "their" spokesperson.
> They got a problem with
>
> the way you write and talk: hearing singular use of the President's
>
> surname is charged with emotion for certain individuals and is likely
>
> to be used in a racist way if uttered by a privileged white man such
>
> as you. So they are asking you kindly to abide by their requests to
>
> refer to him as 'President Obama.' Is that so difficult?
You're so full of shit it's hard to believe you can actually walk.
It's common practice to refer to a person by his surname alone, once he or she has been introduced.
Oscar
May 15, 2013, 7:53:10 AM5/15/13
to
On May 15, 4:27 am, Herman wrote:
>
> As if you are "their" spokesperson.
No, I'm not their spokesman. I simply watched a news channel called
>
> As if you are "their" spokesperson.
MSNBC that had an entire segment on the topic we are 'arguing' about
(really, you're just missing my sarcasm). In said segment, the white
MSNBC reporter at the center of the 'outrage' talked about the huge
influx of email and letters from black Obama supporters tellin' him
never do that again and to show some respect. They would say the same
to you. You don't think so?
> You're so full of shit it's hard to believe you can actually walk.
It's called regulatin'!
> It's common practice to refer to a person by his surname alone, once he or she has been introduced.
you, herman, is that nationwide news network, MSNBC, actually devoted
a 7-8 minute roundtable discussion http://tiny.cc/byh3ww [VIDEO] to
explain to their dim, infantile audience, populated by butt-hurt Obama
supporters who don't automatically get a 'President' in front of
'Obama' every time a reporter says it, that it is simple journalistic
tradition not to use a title after the initial reference. I am mocking
these hyper-sensitive, politically correct-gone-wild idiots. Sorry if
that went over your head.
Oscar
May 15, 2013, 8:23:14 AM5/15/13
to
Must-watch!!
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Monday May 13, 2013
Barack Trek: Into Darkness http://tiny.cc/zlk4ww [VIDEO]
'The IRS shifts the burden of proof from the tinfoil behatted to the
government by targeting the Tea Party and other conservative groups.'
Total running time 6:46
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Monday May 13, 2013
Barack Trek: Into Darkness http://tiny.cc/zlk4ww [VIDEO]
'The IRS shifts the burden of proof from the tinfoil behatted to the
government by targeting the Tea Party and other conservative groups.'
Total running time 6:46
O
May 15, 2013, 10:29:21 AM5/15/13
to
In article
<8703c007-dacb-4d30...@e14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
white Presidents. If you can call President Eisenhower "Eisenhower"
and President Bush "Bush," I think you can all President Obama "Obama."
I don't think Obama should get any special respect because he's black -
I think he should be treated exactly the same.
It's his name.
I'm tired of politically correct eggshell walking.
It's not like we haven't had "Dubya," "Bush lies, people die," or even
"Landslide Lyndon."
-Owen
<8703c007-dacb-4d30...@e14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
Oscar <oscaredwar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 15, 4:27 am, Herman wrote:
> >
> > As if you are "their" spokesperson.
>
> No, I'm not their spokesman. I simply watched a news channel called
> MSNBC that had an entire segment on the topic we are 'arguing' about
> (really, you're just missing my sarcasm). In said segment, the white
> MSNBC reporter at the center of the 'outrage' talked about the huge
> influx of email and letters from black Obama supporters tellin' him
> never do that again and to show some respect. They would say the same
> to you. You don't think so?
I think it's racist to have different rules for black Presidents and
> On May 15, 4:27 am, Herman wrote:
> >
> > As if you are "their" spokesperson.
>
> No, I'm not their spokesman. I simply watched a news channel called
> MSNBC that had an entire segment on the topic we are 'arguing' about
> (really, you're just missing my sarcasm). In said segment, the white
> MSNBC reporter at the center of the 'outrage' talked about the huge
> influx of email and letters from black Obama supporters tellin' him
> never do that again and to show some respect. They would say the same
> to you. You don't think so?
white Presidents. If you can call President Eisenhower "Eisenhower"
and President Bush "Bush," I think you can all President Obama "Obama."
I don't think Obama should get any special respect because he's black -
I think he should be treated exactly the same.
It's his name.
I'm tired of politically correct eggshell walking.
It's not like we haven't had "Dubya," "Bush lies, people die," or even
"Landslide Lyndon."
-Owen
Oscar
May 15, 2013, 11:39:20 AM5/15/13
to
On May 15, 7:29 am, O wrote:
>
> I think it's racist to have different rules for black Presidents and
> white Presidents. If you can call President Eisenhower "Eisenhower"
> and President Bush "Bush," I think you can all President Obama "Obama."
> I don't think Obama should get any special respect because he's black -
> I think he should be treated exactly the same.
I concur.
>
> I think it's racist to have different rules for black Presidents and
> white Presidents. If you can call President Eisenhower "Eisenhower"
> and President Bush "Bush," I think you can all President Obama "Obama."
> I don't think Obama should get any special respect because he's black -
> I think he should be treated exactly the same.
> It's his name.
>
> I'm tired of politically correct eggshell walking.
> It's not like we haven't had "Dubya," "Bush lies, people die," or even
> "Landslide Lyndon."
Although it would be a cold day in hell before Newsweek/Daily Beast
would run a Wimp Factor cover for Obama, he has all the
characteristics of a wimp: soft hands, fey, smug, 'lazy' (his words),
marijuana-lover, the feminine climate of his native state, disdainful
and passive-aggressive in the face of opposing viewpoints; not to
mention crippling indecision, 'leading from behind', passing the buck,
lack of a narrative (amazingly, through no shortage of speeches), poor
leadership, and a lameness in his ability to build consensus.
Oh yeah, he killed Osama; or, sent some doughboys to do it. H.W. Bush
was a real war hero, of course.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Oscar
May 15, 2013, 12:37:31 PM5/15/13
to
On May 15, 8:55 am, J.Martin wrote:
>
> > P.S. Why haven't you apologized to Mr. Powell for your vicious comment?
>
> Why haven't you apologized to me?
>
> > P.S. Why haven't you apologized to Mr. Powell for your vicious comment?
>
I did. Within 24 hours!
On Mar 14, 12:12 am, Oscar wrote:
>
> Having seen your most recent asinine broadside attack — that I take
> 'pride' in Indian genocide — I did check out some of your history
> and thought I saw something about UC-Irvine, which I admit is a pet
> favorite of mine. But it was in error, so mea culpa bout that.
You've
> attempted to research my personal background,
Wait a minute now...YOU offered up this information _TO ME_ in our
first exchange, just a few posts before you called me a racist.
On Nov 9 2012, 12:06 pm, J.Martin wrote:
>
> I'm quite aware of these demographic changes. I work in education, on
> a California campus where Asian American students outnumber whites,
> and Latinos will very likely outnumber all other ethnicities within a
> few years if trends continue. My wife works in the K-12 system, and
> her classes typically have 6-8 white students out of 25.
So take some ginko biloba and refresh your memory — all the research I
did was reading some of your old posts, mostly replies to me (and I
somehow mistakenly extrapolated 'California campus' and 'Asians
outnumber whites' as UC-Irvine). I don't know jack-squat about
anything else about you, except that you like The Rolling Stones, as
stated such in a thread I started in January.
> ...repeatedly printed outright lies based upon your shoddy research,
The mea culpa about the Irvine thing was proffered within a day. I
have not mentioned it since.
> called me a racist.
You called _me_ a racist, that's how our 'frenemy-ship' began. Don't
forget that.
On Nov 11 2012, 12:15 pm, J.Martin wrote:
>
> This is a load of racist bullshit, of course, but that is how I would read your post.
Does
> your lovely latina know you engage is such creepy online stalking?
Yeah, you're not being a creepy middle-aged dude there at all.
Being curious about total strangers who are bent on calling others
'racist' for having different political views is not 'stalking'.
But I _do_ know that bullying and badgering the 'mentally ill' —
whether true or not, you don't know for sure — by way of vicious
taunting messages is cruel behavior. You should be publicly shamed for
picking on the meek. What else do you do, mock the speech of those
afflicted with cerebral palsy?
Herman
May 15, 2013, 1:10:32 PM5/15/13
to
On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 6:37:31 PM UTC+2, Oscar wrote:
>
> Yeah, you're not being a creepy middle-aged dude there at all.
>
>
>
> Being curious about total strangers who are bent on calling others
>
> 'racist' for having different political views is not 'stalking'.
>
>
Oscar, let me tell you, your habit of saving or whatever it is you do with posts that are years old, and quotig these as "evidence" and speculating about poster's habits, is regarded by all as extremily creepy.
>
> Yeah, you're not being a creepy middle-aged dude there at all.
>
>
>
> Being curious about total strangers who are bent on calling others
>
> 'racist' for having different political views is not 'stalking'.
>
>
Your habit of reducing everything to racial or ageist demographics doesn't flatter you either.
O
May 15, 2013, 1:32:09 PM5/15/13
to
In article
<dc4251a4-c93b-4437...@s18g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
I'll give credit to Obama where credit is due - he did pass Obamacare,
an accomplishment many presidents tried and failed at. Whether you
like the program or not, its passage through Congress was a major
political feat. Obama has some personal affectations that annoy his
opponents, but I wouldn't pin wimpy or some of the other connotations
you've added above.
Yes, he did get Osama, and it's to his credit. Like Reagan, who went
through his first term with major accomplishments, Obama is being
hassled his second term with various scandals in his administration,
though none has risen up to directly implicate him. The IRS one is the
most troubling, and may very well rise up to his direct advisors.
Bush got a lot of flack from the Patriot Act, which Obama has not only
kept, but has expanded on. That, plus increased use of drones, even
domestic use of drones, wiretapping the Associated Press, and using the
IRS as a political thugs are the kind of things that can dissociate him
from his liberal base.
-Owen
<dc4251a4-c93b-4437...@s18g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
an accomplishment many presidents tried and failed at. Whether you
like the program or not, its passage through Congress was a major
political feat. Obama has some personal affectations that annoy his
opponents, but I wouldn't pin wimpy or some of the other connotations
you've added above.
Yes, he did get Osama, and it's to his credit. Like Reagan, who went
through his first term with major accomplishments, Obama is being
hassled his second term with various scandals in his administration,
though none has risen up to directly implicate him. The IRS one is the
most troubling, and may very well rise up to his direct advisors.
Bush got a lot of flack from the Patriot Act, which Obama has not only
kept, but has expanded on. That, plus increased use of drones, even
domestic use of drones, wiretapping the Associated Press, and using the
IRS as a political thugs are the kind of things that can dissociate him
from his liberal base.
-Owen
Oscar
May 15, 2013, 1:48:58 PM5/15/13
to
On May 15, 10:32 am, O wrote:
>
> I'll give credit to Obama where credit is due - he did pass Obamacare,
> an accomplishment many presidents tried and failed at. Whether you
> like the program or not, its passage through Congress was a major
> political feat...
>
> I'll give credit to Obama where credit is due - he did pass Obamacare,
> an accomplishment many presidents tried and failed at. Whether you
> like the program or not, its passage through Congress was a major
>
> Yes, he did get Osama, and it's to his credit...
>
> Bush got a lot of flack from the Patriot Act, which Obama has not only
> kept, but has expanded on. That, plus increased use of drones, even
> domestic use of drones, wiretapping the Associated Press, and using the
> IRS as a political thugs are the kind of things that can dissociate him
> from his liberal base.
All good points.
> Bush got a lot of flack from the Patriot Act, which Obama has not only
> kept, but has expanded on. That, plus increased use of drones, even
> domestic use of drones, wiretapping the Associated Press, and using the
> IRS as a political thugs are the kind of things that can dissociate him
> from his liberal base.
G.H.W. Bush raised taxes against his word and got Saddam — am I
allowed to say his last name? — Hussein out of Kuwait, but the 'wimp'
label never entirely escaped him.
Oscar
May 15, 2013, 1:59:07 PM5/15/13
to
On May 15, 10:10 am, Herman wrote:
>
> Your habit of reducing everything to racial or ageist demographics doesn't flatter you either.
Oh shut up, you old perv.
>
> Your habit of reducing everything to racial or ageist demographics doesn't flatter you either.
On Aug 20 2011 12:33 am, herman wrote:
>
> To veer off into the totally irrelevant, I'm rather fascinated by
> Julia Fischer who manages to straddle the divide with her very good
> plush looks; she can play like a demon, and she also has a powerful
> intellect. Sort of the sexy Professor, who plays both the violin and
> the piano, and can crack a good joke. I need to cool off now.
'Straddle the divide with her very plush good looks,' he said! <lolz
cackle>
John Wiser
May 15, 2013, 2:42:17 PM5/15/13
to
"J.Martin" <sixt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why haven't you apologized to me? You've attempted to research my
> personal background, repeatedly printed outright lies based upon your
> shoddy research, called me a racist. Does your lovely latina know you
jdw
> Why haven't you apologized to me? You've attempted to research my
> personal background, repeatedly printed outright lies based upon your
> shoddy research, called me a racist. Does your lovely latina know you
> engage is such creepy online stalking?
Quite possibly creeps turn her on.
jdw
Herman
May 15, 2013, 3:00:03 PM5/15/13
to
O
May 15, 2013, 3:10:00 PM5/15/13
to
In article
<960a3ef4-f4f3-4d17...@o2g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
He was more geeky then wimpy. Clinton's harping on the economy,
stupid, was what really beat him.
A good account of what G.H.W. Bush did as a war hero in WWII is in the
book "Flyboys" by James Bradley. It really is a remarkable story and
well worth the read.
"FLYBOYS is the true story of young American airmen who were shot down
over Chichi Jima. Eight of these young men were captured by Japanese
troops and taken prisoner. Another was rescued by an American submarine
and went on to become president. The reality of what happened to the
eight prisoners has remained a secret for almost 60 years. After the
war, the American and Japanese governments conspired to cover up the
shocking truth. Not even the families of the airmen were informed what
had happened to their sons. It has remained a mystery--until now."
-Owen
<960a3ef4-f4f3-4d17...@o2g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
stupid, was what really beat him.
A good account of what G.H.W. Bush did as a war hero in WWII is in the
book "Flyboys" by James Bradley. It really is a remarkable story and
well worth the read.
"FLYBOYS is the true story of young American airmen who were shot down
over Chichi Jima. Eight of these young men were captured by Japanese
troops and taken prisoner. Another was rescued by an American submarine
and went on to become president. The reality of what happened to the
eight prisoners has remained a secret for almost 60 years. After the
war, the American and Japanese governments conspired to cover up the
shocking truth. Not even the families of the airmen were informed what
had happened to their sons. It has remained a mystery--until now."
-Owen
Jonathan Ellis
May 15, 2013, 4:56:08 PM5/15/13
to
"Oscar" <oscaredwar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:960a3ef4-f4f3-4d17...@o2g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> G.H.W. Bush raised taxes against his word and got Saddam � am I
> allowed to say his last name? � Hussein out of Kuwait, but the 'wimp'
> label never entirely escaped him.
But the economic climate of the time demanded a raise in taxes. If he
hadn't, it could conceivably have done considerable damage to the
economy, even though he might have remained in power.
And there you have the difference between Bush Sr. and Bush Jr.
Junior cut taxes when it was economically inadvisable to do so. He got
the second term that Senior didn't get. America is still paying the
price in an economy which, while it would have run into problems anyway,
those problems were VERY much exacerbated as a result of the tax cuts.
And in any case none of this has anything to do with classical music or
recordings...
-- JLE
Oscar
May 15, 2013, 6:29:48 PM5/15/13
to
On May 14, 2:45 pm, J.Martin wrote:
>
> It is indeed a one-sided conversation, here and elsewhere. For some
> reason, most of the country seems not to care much about this, and I
> think I know why.
Obama just came out ALL RILED UP, declaiming with 'anger' about the
IRS scandal and going out of his way to state that '[he] understands
why Americans are angry.' So you're wrong about most of the country
not caring much about this.
>
> It is indeed a one-sided conversation, here and elsewhere. For some
> reason, most of the country seems not to care much about this, and I
> think I know why.
Obama just came out ALL RILED UP, declaiming with 'anger' about the
IRS scandal and going out of his way to state that '[he] understands
why Americans are angry.' So you're wrong about most of the country
not caring much about this.
Oscar
May 15, 2013, 6:32:28 PM5/15/13
to
On May 15, 1:56 pm, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
>
> Yeah, Bush Sr. raised taxes... And yes, it broke an election promise.
>
> But the economic climate of the time demanded a raise in taxes. If he
> hadn't, it could conceivably have done considerable damage to the
> economy, even though he might have remained in power.
>
> And there you have the difference between Bush Sr. and Bush Jr.
Thanks for the primer.
>
> Yeah, Bush Sr. raised taxes... And yes, it broke an election promise.
>
> But the economic climate of the time demanded a raise in taxes. If he
> hadn't, it could conceivably have done considerable damage to the
> economy, even though he might have remained in power.
>
> And there you have the difference between Bush Sr. and Bush Jr.
> Junior cut taxes when it was economically inadvisable to do so. He got
> the second term that Senior didn't get. America is still paying the
> price in an economy which, while it would have run into problems anyway,
> those problems were VERY much exacerbated as a result of the tax cuts.
Bush?? Because I did not. I also voted for Obama in 2008.
> And in any case none of this has anything to do with classical music or
> recordings...
William Sommerwerck
May 15, 2013, 6:38:02 PM5/15/13
to
"Oscar" wrote in message
news:f5f57a5f-eeb4-475a...@e14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
He be would be even wiser to pay attention to the scandal the AG has gotten
himself into. Holder should resign, immediately. This might make people forget
about the IRS flap.
news:f5f57a5f-eeb4-475a...@e14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
himself into. Holder should resign, immediately. This might make people forget
about the IRS flap.
Oscar
May 15, 2013, 6:45:32 PM5/15/13
to
On May 15, 3:38 pm, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
> He be would be even wiser to pay attention to the scandal the AG has gotten
> himself into. Holder should resign, immediately. This might make people forget
> about the IRS flap.
I concur. Eric Himpton Holder, Jr. is officially dead weight. Whatever
>
> He be would be even wiser to pay attention to the scandal the AG has gotten
> himself into. Holder should resign, immediately. This might make people forget
> about the IRS flap.
filaments of respect or wisps of integrity he had remaining were
zapped when he locked horns with Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) today
and actually had the nerve to declare the Congressman was acting in a
'shameful' manner during questioning. Yeah, because it's Issa's fault
this whole 'sideshow' is going on. The utter gall of this loathsome
man is staggering.
O
May 15, 2013, 8:55:03 PM5/15/13
to
In article
<9344bb55-77cd-4fc3...@g9g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Holder seemed over his head from the start, I think he's just been in
one battle after another since day 1. That said, politically, Obama
needs a high level head to roll to try to stem the scandal tide, and
Holder's number just might get called.
-Owen
<9344bb55-77cd-4fc3...@g9g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
one battle after another since day 1. That said, politically, Obama
needs a high level head to roll to try to stem the scandal tide, and
Holder's number just might get called.
-Owen
Norman Schwartz
May 16, 2013, 2:47:37 PM5/16/13
to
philosophy to himself. If all this shit were happening a W's administration
the press would be having a field day. I think it obvious as to why Obama is
being handled with kid gloves.
> -Owen
O
May 16, 2013, 8:33:49 PM5/16/13
to
In article <519529e1$0$19521$607e...@cv.net>, Norman Schwartz
Jay Leno on the tonight show:
This marks the 40th anniversary of Watergate scandal. Just think of
it: Back then they had an enemies list, they were spying on reporters,
and they used the IRS to target their opponents. Thank God those days
are gone forever!
-Owen
This marks the 40th anniversary of Watergate scandal. Just think of
it: Back then they had an enemies list, they were spying on reporters,
and they used the IRS to target their opponents. Thank God those days
are gone forever!
-Owen
Oscar
May 16, 2013, 9:16:01 PM5/16/13
to
On May 16, 5:33 pm, O <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:
> In article <519529e1$0$19521$607ed...@cv.net>, Norman Schwartz
> > > <9344bb55-77cd-4fc3-8da7-e27cbb879...@g9g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Leno will be missed when he's gone. A great political humorist, and
except for Jon Stewart and Bill Maher, one of the only shows to make
me laugh.
Establishment media elites of the Left have begun to turn against
Obama.
Chris Matthews, who used to compare the President to Lincoln, said
yesterday:
'What part of the presidency does Obama like? He doesn't like dealing
with other politicians — that means his own cabinet, that means
members of the congress, either party. He doesn't particularly like
the press.... He likes to write the speeches, likes to rewrite what
Favreau and the others wrote for the first draft.
So what part does he like? He likes going on the road, campaigning,
visiting businesses like he does every couple days somewhere in Ohio
or somewhere," Matthews continued. "But what part does he like? He
doesn't like lobbying for the bills he cares about. He doesn't like
selling to the press. He doesn't like giving orders or giving somebody
the power to give orders. He doesn't seem to like being an executive.'
No juice??
Tina Brown, editor-in-chief of Newsweek/The Daily Beast (and former
chief of New Yorker and Vanity Fair), on MSNBC's Morning Joe:
<< JOE SCARBOROUGH: Tina, what has happened to this president, the
president from hope and change? What has happened?
TINA BROWN: Well, it's so interesting. I think that Obama doesn't like
his job, actually. I think that he is genuinely of a professioral
disposition in the sense that I think that he's interested in chewing
over the pros and cons, and he doesn't like, he doesn't like power and
he doesn't know how to exercise power. And I think knowing how to
exercise power is absolutely crucial. He doesn't understand how to
underpin his ideas with the political gritty, granular business of
getting it done. And that kind of gap has just widened and widened and
widened. And so that every time there is a moment, a window where he
can jump in, like something like a Simpson-Bowles as well, he just
doesn't do it. He hangs back at crucial moments when you have to dive
through that window. >>
> In article <519529e1$0$19521$607ed...@cv.net>, Norman Schwartz
> > > <9344bb55-77cd-4fc3-8da7-e27cbb879...@g9g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
except for Jon Stewart and Bill Maher, one of the only shows to make
me laugh.
Establishment media elites of the Left have begun to turn against
Obama.
Chris Matthews, who used to compare the President to Lincoln, said
yesterday:
'What part of the presidency does Obama like? He doesn't like dealing
with other politicians — that means his own cabinet, that means
members of the congress, either party. He doesn't particularly like
the press.... He likes to write the speeches, likes to rewrite what
Favreau and the others wrote for the first draft.
So what part does he like? He likes going on the road, campaigning,
visiting businesses like he does every couple days somewhere in Ohio
or somewhere," Matthews continued. "But what part does he like? He
doesn't like lobbying for the bills he cares about. He doesn't like
selling to the press. He doesn't like giving orders or giving somebody
the power to give orders. He doesn't seem to like being an executive.'
No juice??
Tina Brown, editor-in-chief of Newsweek/The Daily Beast (and former
chief of New Yorker and Vanity Fair), on MSNBC's Morning Joe:
<< JOE SCARBOROUGH: Tina, what has happened to this president, the
president from hope and change? What has happened?
TINA BROWN: Well, it's so interesting. I think that Obama doesn't like
his job, actually. I think that he is genuinely of a professioral
disposition in the sense that I think that he's interested in chewing
over the pros and cons, and he doesn't like, he doesn't like power and
he doesn't know how to exercise power. And I think knowing how to
exercise power is absolutely crucial. He doesn't understand how to
underpin his ideas with the political gritty, granular business of
getting it done. And that kind of gap has just widened and widened and
widened. And so that every time there is a moment, a window where he
can jump in, like something like a Simpson-Bowles as well, he just
doesn't do it. He hangs back at crucial moments when you have to dive
through that window. >>
William Sommerwerck
May 16, 2013, 9:22:31 PM5/16/13
to
TINA BROWN: Well, it's so interesting. I think that Obama doesn't
like his job, actually. I think that he is genuinely of a professioral
disposition in the sense that I think that he's interested in chewing
over the pros and cons, and he doesn't like, he doesn't like power
and he doesn't know how to exercise power. And I think knowing
how to exercise power is absolutely crucial.
Of course. That's what being an executive is about.
like his job, actually. I think that he is genuinely of a professioral
disposition in the sense that I think that he's interested in chewing
over the pros and cons, and he doesn't like, he doesn't like power
and he doesn't know how to exercise power. And I think knowing
how to exercise power is absolutely crucial.
It's typical of intellectuals. They resent the general stupidity of human
beings and the need to "herd" them to get anything done. Jimmy Carter was
something like that.
John Wiser
May 16, 2013, 10:04:41 PM5/16/13
to
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:kn40hl$rpg$1...@dont-email.me...
Who was our last intellectual Republican chief exec.?
jdw
news:kn40hl$rpg$1...@dont-email.me...
jdw
Mark S
May 16, 2013, 10:24:49 PM5/16/13
to
Oops: ABC's Benghazi 'scoop' was based on fabricated email
by Jed Lewison
Last week, ABC's Jon Karl broke a "blockbuster" scoop on
BenghaziWhiteWaterGate™ showing that a senior White House aide had
intervened on behalf of the State Department in the process of
drafting Susan Rice's talking points:
In an email dated 9/14/12 at 9:34 p.m. — three days after the attack
and two days before Ambassador Rice appeared on the Sunday shows –
Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes wrote an email saying the
State Department’s concerns needed to be addressed.
“We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency
equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want
to undermine the FBI investigation. We thus will work through the
talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.”
And thus proof of the Obama administration's Benghazi talking point
coverup was unveiled. But as CNN's Jake Tapper now reports, Karl's
report quoted the Rhodes email inaccurately. Here's what Rhodes
actually said:
"All –
"Sorry to be late to this discussion. We need to resolve this in a way
that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the
investigation.
"There is a ton of wrong information getting out into the public
domain from Congress and people who are not particularly informed.
Insofar as we have firmed up assessments that don’t compromise intel
or the investigation, we need to have the capability to correct the
record, as there are significant policy and messaging ramifications
that would flow from a hardened mis-impression.
"We can take this up tomorrow morning at deputies."
That's very different than the version Karl reported. Specifically, it
doesn't say anything remotely like what Karl claimed it said. For
example, the State Department isn't even mentioned. As Tapper points
out:
"So whoever leaked the inaccurate information earlier this month did
so in a way that made it appear that the White House – specifically
Rhodes – was more interested in the State Department’s concerns, and
more focused on the talking points, that the email actually stated."
Karl got burned, plain and simple. He was the stenographer for a
someone pushing a political attack against the Obama administration
and Hillary Clinton.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/14/1209042/-Oops-ABC-s-Benghazi-scoop-was-based-on-fabricated-email
Republicans Altered Benghazi Emails, CBS News Report Claims
One day after The White House released 100 pages of Benghazi emails, a
report has surfaced alleging that Republicans released a set with
altered text.
CBS News reported Thursday that leaked versions sent out by the GOP
last Friday had visible differences than Wednesday's official batch.
Two correspondences that were singled out in the report came from
National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes and State Department Spokeswoman
Victoria Nuland.
The GOP version of Rhodes' comment, according to CBS News: "We must
make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities,
including those of the State Department, and we don't want to
undermine the FBI investigation."
The White House email: "We need to resolve this in a way that respects
all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation."
Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/16/republicans-benghazi-emails_n_3289428.html
The scandals are falling apart
By Ezra Klein, Published in The Washington Post : May 16, 2013 at
11:47 am
Things go wrong in government. Sometimes it’s just bad luck. Sometimes
it’s rank incompetence. Sometimes it’s criminal wrongdoing. Most of
the time you never hear about it. Or, if you do hear about it, the
media eventually gets bored talking about it (see warming, global).
But every so often an instance of government wrongdoing sprouts wings
and becomes something quite exciting: A political scandal.
The crucial ingredient for a scandal is the prospect of high-level
White House involvement and wide political repercussions. Government
wrongdoing is boring. Scandals can bring down presidents, decide
elections and revive down-and-out political parties. Scandals can
dominate American politics for months at a time.
On Tuesday, it looked like we had three possible political scandals
brewing. Two days later, with much more evidence available, it doesn’t
look like any of them will pan out. There’ll be more hearings, and
more bad press for the Obama administration, and more demands for
documents. But — and this is a key qualification — absent more
revelations, the scandals that could reach high don’t seem to include
any real wrongdoing, whereas the ones that include real wrongdoing
don’t reach high enough. Let’s go through them.
1) The Internal Revenue Service: The IRS mess was, well, a mess. But
it’s not a mess that implicates the White House, or even senior IRS
leadership. If we believe the agency inspector general’s report, a
group of employees in a division called the “Determinations Unit” —
sounds sinister, doesn’t it? — started giving tea party groups extra
scrutiny, were told by agency leadership to knock it off, started
doing it again, and then were reined in a second time and told that
any further changes to the screening criteria needed to be approved at
the highest levels of the agency.
The White House fired the acting director of the agency on the theory
that somebody had to be fired and he was about the only guy they had
the power to fire. They’re also instructing the IRS to implement each
and every one of the IG’s recommendations to make sure this never
happens again.
If new information emerges showing a connection between the
Determination Unit’s decisions and the Obama campaign, or the Obama
administration, it would crack this White House wide open. That would
be a genuine scandal. But the IG report says that there’s no evidence
of that. And so it’s hard to see where this one goes from here.
2) Benghazi: We’re long past the point where it’s obvious what the
Benghazi scandal is supposed to be about. The inquiry has moved on
from the events in Benghazi proper, tragic as they were, to the
talking points about the events in Benghazi. And the release Wednesday
night of 100 pages of internal e-mails on those talking points seems
to show what my colleague Glenn Kessler suspected: This was a
bureaucratic knife fight between the State Department and the CIA.
As for the White House’s role, well, the e-mails suggest there wasn’t
much of one. “The internal debate did not include political
interference from the White House, according to the e-mails, which
were provided to congressional intelligence committees several months
ago,” report The Washington Post’s Scott Wilson and Karen DeYoung. As
for why the talking points seemed to blame protesters rather than
terrorists for the attack that killed the U.S. ambassador and three
other Americans? According to the e-mails and initial CIA-drafted
talking points, the agency believed the attack included a mix of
Islamist extremists from Ansar al-Sharia, a group affiliated with al-
Qaeda, and angry demonstrators.
White House officials did not challenge that analysis, the e-mails
show, nor did they object to its inclusion in the public talking
points.
But CIA deputy director Michael Morell later removed the reference to
Ansar al-Sharia because the assessment was still classified and
because FBI officials believed that making the information public
could compromise their investigation, said senior administration
officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the
internal debate.
So far, it’s hard to see what, exactly, the scandal here is supposed
to be.
3) AP/Justice Department:. This is the weirdest of the three. There’s
no evidence that the DoJ did anything illegal. Most people, in fact,
think it was well within its rights to seize the phone records of
Associated Press reporters. And if the Obama administration has been
overzealous in prosecuting leakers, well, the GOP has been arguing
that the White House hasn’t taken national security leaks seriously
enough. The AP/DoJ fight has caused that position to flip, and now
members of Congress are concerned that the DoJ is going after leaks
too aggressively. But it’s hard for a political party to prosecute
wrongdoing when they disagree with the potential remedies.
Insofar as there’s a “scandal” here, it’s more about what is legal
than what isn’t. The DoJ simply has extraordinary power, under
existing law, to spy on ordinary citizens — members of the media
included. The White House is trying to change existing law by
encouraging Sen. Chuck Schumer to reintroduce the Media Shield Act.
The Post’s Rachel Weiner has a good rundown of what the bill would do.
It’s likely that the measure’s national security exemption would make
it relatively toothless in this particular case, but if Congress is
worried, they always can — and probably should — take that language
out. Still, that legislation has been killed by Republicans before,
and it’s likely to be killed by them again.
The scandal metanarrative itself is also changing. Because there was
no actual evidence of presidential involvement in these events, the
line for much of this week was that the president was not involved
enough in their aftermath. He was “passive.” He seemed to be a
“bystander.” His was being controlled by events, rather than
controlling them himself.
That perception, too, seems to be changing. Mike Allen’s Playbook,
which is ground zero for scandal CW, led Thursday with a squib that
says “the West Wing got its mojo back” and is “BACK ON OFFENSE.” Yes,
the caps are in the original.
The smarter voices on the right are also beginning to counsel caution.
”While there’s still more information to be gathered and more
investigations to be done, all indications are that these decisions –
on the AP, on the IRS, on Benghazi – don’t proceed from [Obama],”
wrote Ben Domenech in The Transom, his influential conservative
morning newsletter. “The talk of impeachment is absurd. The queries of
‘what did the president know and when did he know it’ will probably
end up finding out “’just about nothing, and right around the time
everyone else found out.’”
I want to emphasize: It’s always possible that evidence could emerge
that vaults one of these issues into true scandal territory. But the
trend line so far is clear: The more information we get, the less
these actually look like scandals.
And yet, even if the scandals fade, the underlying problems might
remain. The IRS. could give its agents better and clearer guidance on
designating 501(c)(4), but Congress needs to decide whether that
status and all of its benefits should be open to political groups or
not. The Media Shield Act is not likely to go anywhere, and even if it
does, it doesn’t get us anywhere close to grappling with the post-9/11
expansion of the surveillance state. And then, of course, there are
all the other problems Congress is ignoring, from high unemployment to
sequestration to global warming. When future generations look back on
the scandals of our age, it’ll be the unchecked rise in global
temperatures, not the Benghazi talking points, that infuriate them.
(End)
Watching a 'scandal' evaporate before our very eyes
By Steve Benen
Rachel Maddow noted on the show last night that the controversy
surrounding Benghazi effectively "went away" yesterday, and given the
latest information, it's hard to imagine how any serious person could
disagree.
The White House yesterday afternoon released the inter-agency
communications that went into crafting the "talking points" requested
by Congress last September. Lawmakers already saw these materials
months ago -- they found nothing controversial at the time -- but
Republicans and the media decided it was time to see them again...we
learned what we already knew: there was no cover-up; State and the CIA
engaged in a predictable bureaucratic "tug of war"; and this:
"The internal debate did not include political interference from the
White House, according to the e-mails, which were provided to
congressional intelligence committees several months ago."
And with that, everything Republican conspiracy theorists desperately
wanted Americans to believe -- there's a scandal; there's a cover-up;
there's evidence the White House manipulated and lied about a crisis
for political ends -- suddenly evaporated before our very eyes...note
that most sensible people realized the right's conspiracy theories
were wrong, which is why the so-called "controversy" was relegated to
Republican media, until last Friday's report from ABC News pushed the
story into the mainstream. *That ABC News report, we now know, was
wrong.*
There's just nothing left. Trying to characterize this as a genuine
political story worthy of attention has been a misguided partisan
exercise for months, but now, it's reached the point of
ridiculousness. Every reporter saying the White House is engulfed in
"three scandals" is misleading the public -- there was a deadly attack
against a U.S. diplomatic outpost last year, which left four Americans
dead. It was a tragedy; it was not a political controversy.
Put a fork in the Benghazi story; it's done.
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/05/16/18295499-watching-a-scandal-evaporate-before-our-very-eyes
It's been amusing watching from the sidelines as Oscar salivates at
the scandals that aren't scandals. Maybe Oscar will learn someday that
it's not a good idea to put your faith in that hapless clown Darryl
Issa (R-Arrested for carrying a concealed weapon; indicted for
stealing a car).
These latest non-scandals will just serve as another tar baby that the
GOP nuts have embraced, and that will doom them in 2014 & 2016. I have
to say I'm LOVIN' it!
by Jed Lewison
Last week, ABC's Jon Karl broke a "blockbuster" scoop on
BenghaziWhiteWaterGate™ showing that a senior White House aide had
intervened on behalf of the State Department in the process of
drafting Susan Rice's talking points:
In an email dated 9/14/12 at 9:34 p.m. — three days after the attack
and two days before Ambassador Rice appeared on the Sunday shows –
Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes wrote an email saying the
State Department’s concerns needed to be addressed.
“We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency
equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want
to undermine the FBI investigation. We thus will work through the
talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.”
And thus proof of the Obama administration's Benghazi talking point
coverup was unveiled. But as CNN's Jake Tapper now reports, Karl's
report quoted the Rhodes email inaccurately. Here's what Rhodes
actually said:
"All –
"Sorry to be late to this discussion. We need to resolve this in a way
that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the
investigation.
"There is a ton of wrong information getting out into the public
domain from Congress and people who are not particularly informed.
Insofar as we have firmed up assessments that don’t compromise intel
or the investigation, we need to have the capability to correct the
record, as there are significant policy and messaging ramifications
that would flow from a hardened mis-impression.
"We can take this up tomorrow morning at deputies."
That's very different than the version Karl reported. Specifically, it
doesn't say anything remotely like what Karl claimed it said. For
example, the State Department isn't even mentioned. As Tapper points
out:
"So whoever leaked the inaccurate information earlier this month did
so in a way that made it appear that the White House – specifically
Rhodes – was more interested in the State Department’s concerns, and
more focused on the talking points, that the email actually stated."
Karl got burned, plain and simple. He was the stenographer for a
someone pushing a political attack against the Obama administration
and Hillary Clinton.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/14/1209042/-Oops-ABC-s-Benghazi-scoop-was-based-on-fabricated-email
Republicans Altered Benghazi Emails, CBS News Report Claims
One day after The White House released 100 pages of Benghazi emails, a
report has surfaced alleging that Republicans released a set with
altered text.
CBS News reported Thursday that leaked versions sent out by the GOP
last Friday had visible differences than Wednesday's official batch.
Two correspondences that were singled out in the report came from
National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes and State Department Spokeswoman
Victoria Nuland.
The GOP version of Rhodes' comment, according to CBS News: "We must
make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities,
including those of the State Department, and we don't want to
undermine the FBI investigation."
The White House email: "We need to resolve this in a way that respects
all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation."
Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/16/republicans-benghazi-emails_n_3289428.html
The scandals are falling apart
By Ezra Klein, Published in The Washington Post : May 16, 2013 at
11:47 am
Things go wrong in government. Sometimes it’s just bad luck. Sometimes
it’s rank incompetence. Sometimes it’s criminal wrongdoing. Most of
the time you never hear about it. Or, if you do hear about it, the
media eventually gets bored talking about it (see warming, global).
But every so often an instance of government wrongdoing sprouts wings
and becomes something quite exciting: A political scandal.
The crucial ingredient for a scandal is the prospect of high-level
White House involvement and wide political repercussions. Government
wrongdoing is boring. Scandals can bring down presidents, decide
elections and revive down-and-out political parties. Scandals can
dominate American politics for months at a time.
On Tuesday, it looked like we had three possible political scandals
brewing. Two days later, with much more evidence available, it doesn’t
look like any of them will pan out. There’ll be more hearings, and
more bad press for the Obama administration, and more demands for
documents. But — and this is a key qualification — absent more
revelations, the scandals that could reach high don’t seem to include
any real wrongdoing, whereas the ones that include real wrongdoing
don’t reach high enough. Let’s go through them.
1) The Internal Revenue Service: The IRS mess was, well, a mess. But
it’s not a mess that implicates the White House, or even senior IRS
leadership. If we believe the agency inspector general’s report, a
group of employees in a division called the “Determinations Unit” —
sounds sinister, doesn’t it? — started giving tea party groups extra
scrutiny, were told by agency leadership to knock it off, started
doing it again, and then were reined in a second time and told that
any further changes to the screening criteria needed to be approved at
the highest levels of the agency.
The White House fired the acting director of the agency on the theory
that somebody had to be fired and he was about the only guy they had
the power to fire. They’re also instructing the IRS to implement each
and every one of the IG’s recommendations to make sure this never
happens again.
If new information emerges showing a connection between the
Determination Unit’s decisions and the Obama campaign, or the Obama
administration, it would crack this White House wide open. That would
be a genuine scandal. But the IG report says that there’s no evidence
of that. And so it’s hard to see where this one goes from here.
2) Benghazi: We’re long past the point where it’s obvious what the
Benghazi scandal is supposed to be about. The inquiry has moved on
from the events in Benghazi proper, tragic as they were, to the
talking points about the events in Benghazi. And the release Wednesday
night of 100 pages of internal e-mails on those talking points seems
to show what my colleague Glenn Kessler suspected: This was a
bureaucratic knife fight between the State Department and the CIA.
As for the White House’s role, well, the e-mails suggest there wasn’t
much of one. “The internal debate did not include political
interference from the White House, according to the e-mails, which
were provided to congressional intelligence committees several months
ago,” report The Washington Post’s Scott Wilson and Karen DeYoung. As
for why the talking points seemed to blame protesters rather than
terrorists for the attack that killed the U.S. ambassador and three
other Americans? According to the e-mails and initial CIA-drafted
talking points, the agency believed the attack included a mix of
Islamist extremists from Ansar al-Sharia, a group affiliated with al-
Qaeda, and angry demonstrators.
White House officials did not challenge that analysis, the e-mails
show, nor did they object to its inclusion in the public talking
points.
But CIA deputy director Michael Morell later removed the reference to
Ansar al-Sharia because the assessment was still classified and
because FBI officials believed that making the information public
could compromise their investigation, said senior administration
officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the
internal debate.
So far, it’s hard to see what, exactly, the scandal here is supposed
to be.
3) AP/Justice Department:. This is the weirdest of the three. There’s
no evidence that the DoJ did anything illegal. Most people, in fact,
think it was well within its rights to seize the phone records of
Associated Press reporters. And if the Obama administration has been
overzealous in prosecuting leakers, well, the GOP has been arguing
that the White House hasn’t taken national security leaks seriously
enough. The AP/DoJ fight has caused that position to flip, and now
members of Congress are concerned that the DoJ is going after leaks
too aggressively. But it’s hard for a political party to prosecute
wrongdoing when they disagree with the potential remedies.
Insofar as there’s a “scandal” here, it’s more about what is legal
than what isn’t. The DoJ simply has extraordinary power, under
existing law, to spy on ordinary citizens — members of the media
included. The White House is trying to change existing law by
encouraging Sen. Chuck Schumer to reintroduce the Media Shield Act.
The Post’s Rachel Weiner has a good rundown of what the bill would do.
It’s likely that the measure’s national security exemption would make
it relatively toothless in this particular case, but if Congress is
worried, they always can — and probably should — take that language
out. Still, that legislation has been killed by Republicans before,
and it’s likely to be killed by them again.
The scandal metanarrative itself is also changing. Because there was
no actual evidence of presidential involvement in these events, the
line for much of this week was that the president was not involved
enough in their aftermath. He was “passive.” He seemed to be a
“bystander.” His was being controlled by events, rather than
controlling them himself.
That perception, too, seems to be changing. Mike Allen’s Playbook,
which is ground zero for scandal CW, led Thursday with a squib that
says “the West Wing got its mojo back” and is “BACK ON OFFENSE.” Yes,
the caps are in the original.
The smarter voices on the right are also beginning to counsel caution.
”While there’s still more information to be gathered and more
investigations to be done, all indications are that these decisions –
on the AP, on the IRS, on Benghazi – don’t proceed from [Obama],”
wrote Ben Domenech in The Transom, his influential conservative
morning newsletter. “The talk of impeachment is absurd. The queries of
‘what did the president know and when did he know it’ will probably
end up finding out “’just about nothing, and right around the time
everyone else found out.’”
I want to emphasize: It’s always possible that evidence could emerge
that vaults one of these issues into true scandal territory. But the
trend line so far is clear: The more information we get, the less
these actually look like scandals.
And yet, even if the scandals fade, the underlying problems might
remain. The IRS. could give its agents better and clearer guidance on
designating 501(c)(4), but Congress needs to decide whether that
status and all of its benefits should be open to political groups or
not. The Media Shield Act is not likely to go anywhere, and even if it
does, it doesn’t get us anywhere close to grappling with the post-9/11
expansion of the surveillance state. And then, of course, there are
all the other problems Congress is ignoring, from high unemployment to
sequestration to global warming. When future generations look back on
the scandals of our age, it’ll be the unchecked rise in global
temperatures, not the Benghazi talking points, that infuriate them.
(End)
Watching a 'scandal' evaporate before our very eyes
By Steve Benen
Rachel Maddow noted on the show last night that the controversy
surrounding Benghazi effectively "went away" yesterday, and given the
latest information, it's hard to imagine how any serious person could
disagree.
The White House yesterday afternoon released the inter-agency
communications that went into crafting the "talking points" requested
by Congress last September. Lawmakers already saw these materials
months ago -- they found nothing controversial at the time -- but
Republicans and the media decided it was time to see them again...we
learned what we already knew: there was no cover-up; State and the CIA
engaged in a predictable bureaucratic "tug of war"; and this:
"The internal debate did not include political interference from the
White House, according to the e-mails, which were provided to
congressional intelligence committees several months ago."
And with that, everything Republican conspiracy theorists desperately
wanted Americans to believe -- there's a scandal; there's a cover-up;
there's evidence the White House manipulated and lied about a crisis
for political ends -- suddenly evaporated before our very eyes...note
that most sensible people realized the right's conspiracy theories
were wrong, which is why the so-called "controversy" was relegated to
Republican media, until last Friday's report from ABC News pushed the
story into the mainstream. *That ABC News report, we now know, was
wrong.*
There's just nothing left. Trying to characterize this as a genuine
political story worthy of attention has been a misguided partisan
exercise for months, but now, it's reached the point of
ridiculousness. Every reporter saying the White House is engulfed in
"three scandals" is misleading the public -- there was a deadly attack
against a U.S. diplomatic outpost last year, which left four Americans
dead. It was a tragedy; it was not a political controversy.
Put a fork in the Benghazi story; it's done.
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/05/16/18295499-watching-a-scandal-evaporate-before-our-very-eyes
It's been amusing watching from the sidelines as Oscar salivates at
the scandals that aren't scandals. Maybe Oscar will learn someday that
it's not a good idea to put your faith in that hapless clown Darryl
Issa (R-Arrested for carrying a concealed weapon; indicted for
stealing a car).
These latest non-scandals will just serve as another tar baby that the
GOP nuts have embraced, and that will doom them in 2014 & 2016. I have
to say I'm LOVIN' it!
O
May 16, 2013, 10:38:39 PM5/16/13
to
In article <1fglt.394$jk3...@newsfe24.iad>, John Wiser
Reagan's diaries and letters were fairly well received, even by some
liberals. Dubya's grades at Yale were better than Al Gore's. Let's
skip Nixon/Ford. Eisenhower was certainly no dummy, and, of course, a
natural leader. If all else fails, we could go back to Abraham Lincoln,
don't think you can top that one.
-Owen
liberals. Dubya's grades at Yale were better than Al Gore's. Let's
skip Nixon/Ford. Eisenhower was certainly no dummy, and, of course, a
natural leader. If all else fails, we could go back to Abraham Lincoln,
don't think you can top that one.
-Owen
Oscar
May 16, 2013, 10:39:27 PM5/16/13
to
On May 16, 7:24 pm, Mark S wrote:
>
> These latest non-scandals will just serve as another tar baby that the
> GOP nuts have embraced, and that will doom them in 2014 & 2016. I have
> to say I'm LOVIN' it!
Tar baby?? I'm not so sure a middle-aged Anglo from a white-flight
>
> These latest non-scandals will just serve as another tar baby that the
> GOP nuts have embraced, and that will doom them in 2014 & 2016. I have
> to say I'm LOVIN' it!
refugee neighborhood in racist* Orange County should be using phrases
like 'tar baby' so loosely.
* Orange County, Calif. has has more racist tweets than anywhere else
in USA.
From LA Weekly, May 13, 2013 http://tinyurl.com/bw5ot2o
<< The Twitter "geography of hate" map http://tinyurl.com/a93vaxx
that's getting so much buzz has nary a splotch of color in Southern
California, indicating we are indeed some mellow, peace-loving
liberals.
Yes, while the Southeast rages with more racial and homophobic
outbursts than a redneck with Tourette syndrome, according to this
study of Twitter language from a California college, SoCal is as calm
as the Pacific on a warm spring day. Except that Orange County is the
frigging hatred capital of the nation!
According to a summary of the research, which was unveiled over the
weekend by Humboldt State University, ...
"... Orange County, California has the highest absolute number of
tweets mentioning many of the slurs ..."
The only the reason that our friends to the south didn't constitute a
huge red blotch on the map is that the hateful tweets were well
outnumbered by the total number of tweets.
In other words, O.C.'s per capita hate was low, given the huge volume
of social media shout outs in SoCal.
But still, there's got to be something here.
OC Weekly's Gustavo Arellano says, " ... There are many haters here,
more haters per number than anywhere else in the country, but they're
being increasingly drowned out by the Reconquista." >>
Oscar
May 16, 2013, 10:40:07 PM5/16/13
to
'Mitt Stenroos.' I like that.
From Time magazine, August 1, 2006:
<< Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is taking flak this week for his
use of the term "tar baby" while addressing a group of Iowa
Republicans on July 29 in a reference to Boston's troubled Big Dig
highway project. Was he offensive in doing so? The head of the NAACP,
Bruce Gordon, believes the governor "made a bad choice" in using such
a term, the civil-rights leader told the Boston Herald. But Romney has
his defenders as well, among them a minister in the Nation of Islam.
Romney's spokesman apologized on his behalf, saying the governor
simply meant to refer to "a sticky situation."
In wandering into that territory, Romney has plenty of company. In
May, rookie White House spokesman Tony Snow was asked about the
government covertly collecting phone records. "I don't want to hug the
tar baby of trying to comment on the program...," Snow replied, which
brought him an instant round of static. Two years ago, TIME used the
phrase, reporting that John Kerry's presidential advisers were telling
him to get away from "the Iraq tar baby."
Is tar baby a racist term? Like most elements of language, that
depends on context. Calling the Big Dig a tar baby is a lot different
than calling a person one. But sensitivity is not unwarranted. Among
etymologists, a slur's validity hangs heavily on history. The concept
of tar baby goes way back, according to Words@Random from Random
House: "The tar baby is a form of a character widespread in African
folklore. In various folktales, gum, wax or other sticky material is
used to trap a person." The term itself was popularized by the 19th-
century Uncle Remus stories by Joel Chandler Harris, in which the
character Br'er Fox makes a doll out of tar to ensnare his nemesis
Br'er Rabbit. The Oxford American Dictionary defines tar baby much
like Romney used it, "a difficult problem, that is only aggravated by
attempts to solve it." But the term also has had racial implications.
In his book Coup, John Updike says of a white woman who prefers the
company of black men, "some questing chromosome within holds her
sexually fast to the tar baby." The Oxford English Dictionary (but not
the print version of its American counterpart) says that tar baby is a
derogatory term used for "a black or a Maori."
So, is use of the term today a case of insensitivity? Or is the
controversy caused by political correctness gone amok? The dictionary
writers point out that a word's origins and its popular perception can
be divergent. Current examples include the detoxification of the words
suck and slut, both of which have slipped into mainstream usage. "All
words have life cycles," says Erin McKean, editor-in-chief of the
Oxford American Dictionary "What's really important is not
etymologically what it means, but the effect it has." And that is a
constantly evolving standard. Witness the debate over who can and
can't use the N-word. McKean says that the next print version of the
Oxford American Dictionary will note that tar baby can have derogatory
connotations. Which may help public figures avoid becoming ensnared by
Br'er Fox more than a century after he set his little trap.
Yeah, the IRS thing is no scandal at all. Keep on dreaming. >>
From Time magazine, August 1, 2006:
<< Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is taking flak this week for his
use of the term "tar baby" while addressing a group of Iowa
Republicans on July 29 in a reference to Boston's troubled Big Dig
highway project. Was he offensive in doing so? The head of the NAACP,
Bruce Gordon, believes the governor "made a bad choice" in using such
a term, the civil-rights leader told the Boston Herald. But Romney has
his defenders as well, among them a minister in the Nation of Islam.
Romney's spokesman apologized on his behalf, saying the governor
simply meant to refer to "a sticky situation."
In wandering into that territory, Romney has plenty of company. In
May, rookie White House spokesman Tony Snow was asked about the
government covertly collecting phone records. "I don't want to hug the
tar baby of trying to comment on the program...," Snow replied, which
brought him an instant round of static. Two years ago, TIME used the
phrase, reporting that John Kerry's presidential advisers were telling
him to get away from "the Iraq tar baby."
Is tar baby a racist term? Like most elements of language, that
depends on context. Calling the Big Dig a tar baby is a lot different
than calling a person one. But sensitivity is not unwarranted. Among
etymologists, a slur's validity hangs heavily on history. The concept
of tar baby goes way back, according to Words@Random from Random
House: "The tar baby is a form of a character widespread in African
folklore. In various folktales, gum, wax or other sticky material is
used to trap a person." The term itself was popularized by the 19th-
century Uncle Remus stories by Joel Chandler Harris, in which the
character Br'er Fox makes a doll out of tar to ensnare his nemesis
Br'er Rabbit. The Oxford American Dictionary defines tar baby much
like Romney used it, "a difficult problem, that is only aggravated by
attempts to solve it." But the term also has had racial implications.
In his book Coup, John Updike says of a white woman who prefers the
company of black men, "some questing chromosome within holds her
sexually fast to the tar baby." The Oxford English Dictionary (but not
the print version of its American counterpart) says that tar baby is a
derogatory term used for "a black or a Maori."
So, is use of the term today a case of insensitivity? Or is the
controversy caused by political correctness gone amok? The dictionary
writers point out that a word's origins and its popular perception can
be divergent. Current examples include the detoxification of the words
suck and slut, both of which have slipped into mainstream usage. "All
words have life cycles," says Erin McKean, editor-in-chief of the
Oxford American Dictionary "What's really important is not
etymologically what it means, but the effect it has." And that is a
constantly evolving standard. Witness the debate over who can and
can't use the N-word. McKean says that the next print version of the
Oxford American Dictionary will note that tar baby can have derogatory
connotations. Which may help public figures avoid becoming ensnared by
Br'er Fox more than a century after he set his little trap.
Yeah, the IRS thing is no scandal at all. Keep on dreaming. >>
William Sommerwerck
May 16, 2013, 10:45:05 PM5/16/13
to
>> It's typical of intellectuals. They resent the general stupidity
>> of human beings and the need to "herd" them to get anything
>> done. Jimmy Carter was something like that.
> Who was our last intellectual Republican chief exec.?
TR, I believe.
>> of human beings and the need to "herd" them to get anything
>> done. Jimmy Carter was something like that.
> Who was our last intellectual Republican chief exec.?
O
May 16, 2013, 11:13:26 PM5/16/13
to
In article
<0ac0a916-e2c6-47cc...@fq2g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
Mark S <markst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Is this the best you got Mark? It's pretty thin. Obama's losing his
base left and right.
> Oops: ABC's Benghazi 'scoop' was based on fabricated email
>
> by Jed Lewison
>
> Last week, ABC's Jon Karl broke a "blockbuster" scoop on
> BenghaziWhiteWaterGate showing that a senior White House aide had
> intervened on behalf of the State Department in the process of
> drafting Susan Rice's talking points:
>
> In an email dated 9/14/12 at 9:34 p.m. ‹ three days after the attack
> and two days before Ambassador Rice appeared on the Sunday shows
> Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes wrote an email saying the
> State Departmentąs concerns needed to be addressed.
>
> łWe must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency
> equities, including those of the State Department, and we donąt want
away? It wasn't this quote that's the scandal - the scandal is
erupting everywhere.
>
>
> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/14/1209042/-Oops-ABC-s-Benghazi-scoop-wa
all, she's actually in the State Department, and here's what she said:
In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence
agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with
including that information because it łcould be abused by members [of
Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to
warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned Š˛
Reference: ABC News:
<http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-
points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/>
Yes, this is Karl's article, which also contains his rebuttal to the
smear from Klein and Lewison:
"The differences in the two versions are being taken by some as
evidence that my source sought to intentionally mislead about the
extent of State Department involvement in changing the talking points.
The version I obtained makes specific reference to the State
Department, while the version reported by CNN references only łall of
the relevant equities˛ and does not single out State.
But thereąs another important note here that touches on State
Department involvement and shows that the portrait remains far from
complete. The subject line of the e-mail, according to CNN, was łRe:
Revised HPSCI Talking Points for Review.˛
>
> The scandals are falling apart
> By Ezra Klein, Published in The Washington Post : May 16, 2013 at
> 11:47 am
>
> Things go wrong in government. Sometimes itąs just bad luck. Sometimes
> itąs rank incompetence. Sometimes itąs criminal wrongdoing. Most of
> look like any of them will pan out. Thereąll be more hearings, and
> leadership. If we believe the agency inspector generaląs report, a
> group of employees in a division called the łDeterminations Unit˛ ‹
> sounds sinister, doesnąt it? ‹ started giving tea party groups extra
> and every one of the IGąs recommendations to make sure this never
> of that. And so itąs hard to see where this one goes from here.
Except the person in charge of this department now runs the IRS
Obamacare office, and got $103,390 in bonuses, with the biggest bonuses
coming when the IRS harassment was at it's peak:
<http://washingtonexaminer.com/irs-tax-exemptionobamacare-exec-got-10039
0-in-bonuses/article/2529899>
>
> 2) Benghazi: Weąre long past the point
Since day one of Benghazi, the administration has been trying to
convince us its old news. Try liberal Maureen Dowd:
<http://www.adn.com/2013/05/13/2901101/maureen-dowd-administration-faile
d.html>
> where itąs obvious what the
where the State Department systematically cut out all the information
from the CIA, at which point Petraeus said the talking points weren't
worth using, because of all the stuff that was cut out.
<snip>
opponents, or love a Presidency/State Department who is more than
willing to lie to the American people concerning terrorist attacks, for
political reasons, and while spying on reporters may be perfectly legal
under an act that was anathema when Bush did it, but wonderful when
done by this President, it isn't a wise thing to piss off people in
your corner who buy ink by the barrel.
But you've been drinking the Obama Koolaid, and I hope you can still
enjoy LOVIN' it for a while.
-Owen
<0ac0a916-e2c6-47cc...@fq2g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
Mark S <markst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Is this the best you got Mark? It's pretty thin. Obama's losing his
base left and right.
> Oops: ABC's Benghazi 'scoop' was based on fabricated email
>
> by Jed Lewison
>
> Last week, ABC's Jon Karl broke a "blockbuster" scoop on
> BenghaziWhiteWaterGate showing that a senior White House aide had
> intervened on behalf of the State Department in the process of
> drafting Susan Rice's talking points:
>
> In an email dated 9/14/12 at 9:34 p.m. ‹ three days after the attack
> and two days before Ambassador Rice appeared on the Sunday shows
> Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes wrote an email saying the
>
> łWe must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency
> equities, including those of the State Department, and we donąt want
> to undermine the FBI investigation. We thus will work through the
> talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.˛
>
> And thus proof of the Obama administration's Benghazi talking point
> coverup was unveiled. But as CNN's Jake Tapper now reports, Karl's
> report quoted the Rhodes email inaccurately. Here's what Rhodes
> actually said:
>
> "All
>
> "Sorry to be late to this discussion. We need to resolve this in a way
> that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the
> investigation.
>
> "There is a ton of wrong information getting out into the public
> domain from Congress and people who are not particularly informed.
> Insofar as we have firmed up assessments that donąt compromise intel
> talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.˛
>
> And thus proof of the Obama administration's Benghazi talking point
> coverup was unveiled. But as CNN's Jake Tapper now reports, Karl's
> report quoted the Rhodes email inaccurately. Here's what Rhodes
> actually said:
>
> "All
>
> "Sorry to be late to this discussion. We need to resolve this in a way
> that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the
> investigation.
>
> "There is a ton of wrong information getting out into the public
> domain from Congress and people who are not particularly informed.
> or the investigation, we need to have the capability to correct the
> record, as there are significant policy and messaging ramifications
> that would flow from a hardened mis-impression.
>
> "We can take this up tomorrow morning at deputies."
>
> That's very different than the version Karl reported. Specifically, it
> doesn't say anything remotely like what Karl claimed it said. For
> example, the State Department isn't even mentioned. As Tapper points
> out:
>
> "So whoever leaked the inaccurate information earlier this month did
> so in a way that made it appear that the White House specifically
> Rhodes was more interested in the State Departmentąs concerns, and
> record, as there are significant policy and messaging ramifications
> that would flow from a hardened mis-impression.
>
> "We can take this up tomorrow morning at deputies."
>
> That's very different than the version Karl reported. Specifically, it
> doesn't say anything remotely like what Karl claimed it said. For
> example, the State Department isn't even mentioned. As Tapper points
> out:
>
> "So whoever leaked the inaccurate information earlier this month did
> so in a way that made it appear that the White House specifically
> more focused on the talking points, that the email actually stated."
>
> Karl got burned, plain and simple. He was the stenographer for a
> someone pushing a political attack against the Obama administration
> and Hillary Clinton.
He got a quote wrong? And that's what's going to make this scandal go
>
> Karl got burned, plain and simple. He was the stenographer for a
> someone pushing a political attack against the Obama administration
> and Hillary Clinton.
away? It wasn't this quote that's the scandal - the scandal is
erupting everywhere.
>
>
> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/14/1209042/-Oops-ABC-s-Benghazi-scoop-wa
> s-based-on-fabricated-email
>
>
> Republicans Altered Benghazi Emails, CBS News Report Claims
>
> One day after The White House released 100 pages of Benghazi emails, a
> report has surfaced alleging that Republicans released a set with
> altered text.
>
> CBS News reported Thursday that leaked versions sent out by the GOP
> last Friday had visible differences than Wednesday's official batch.
> Two correspondences that were singled out in the report came from
> National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes and State Department Spokeswoman
> Victoria Nuland.
>
> The GOP version of Rhodes' comment, according to CBS News: "We must
> make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities,
> including those of the State Department, and we don't want to
> undermine the FBI investigation."
>
> The White House email: "We need to resolve this in a way that respects
> all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation."
>
> Read more:
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/16/republicans-benghazi-emails_n_3289428.
> html
It isn't Rhodes comment that's the bad egg, it's Nuland's. First of
>
>
> Republicans Altered Benghazi Emails, CBS News Report Claims
>
> One day after The White House released 100 pages of Benghazi emails, a
> report has surfaced alleging that Republicans released a set with
> altered text.
>
> CBS News reported Thursday that leaked versions sent out by the GOP
> last Friday had visible differences than Wednesday's official batch.
> Two correspondences that were singled out in the report came from
> National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes and State Department Spokeswoman
> Victoria Nuland.
>
> The GOP version of Rhodes' comment, according to CBS News: "We must
> make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities,
> including those of the State Department, and we don't want to
> undermine the FBI investigation."
>
> The White House email: "We need to resolve this in a way that respects
> all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation."
>
> Read more:
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/16/republicans-benghazi-emails_n_3289428.
> html
all, she's actually in the State Department, and here's what she said:
In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence
agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with
including that information because it łcould be abused by members [of
Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to
warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned Š˛
Reference: ABC News:
<http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-
points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/>
Yes, this is Karl's article, which also contains his rebuttal to the
smear from Klein and Lewison:
"The differences in the two versions are being taken by some as
evidence that my source sought to intentionally mislead about the
extent of State Department involvement in changing the talking points.
The version I obtained makes specific reference to the State
Department, while the version reported by CNN references only łall of
the relevant equities˛ and does not single out State.
But thereąs another important note here that touches on State
Department involvement and shows that the portrait remains far from
complete. The subject line of the e-mail, according to CNN, was łRe:
Revised HPSCI Talking Points for Review.˛
>
> The scandals are falling apart
> By Ezra Klein, Published in The Washington Post : May 16, 2013 at
> 11:47 am
>
> itąs rank incompetence. Sometimes itąs criminal wrongdoing. Most of
> the time you never hear about it. Or, if you do hear about it, the
> media eventually gets bored talking about it (see warming, global).
>
> But every so often an instance of government wrongdoing sprouts wings
> and becomes something quite exciting: A political scandal.
>
> The crucial ingredient for a scandal is the prospect of high-level
> White House involvement and wide political repercussions. Government
> wrongdoing is boring. Scandals can bring down presidents, decide
> elections and revive down-and-out political parties. Scandals can
> dominate American politics for months at a time.
>
> On Tuesday, it looked like we had three possible political scandals
> brewing. Two days later, with much more evidence available, it doesnąt
> media eventually gets bored talking about it (see warming, global).
>
> But every so often an instance of government wrongdoing sprouts wings
> and becomes something quite exciting: A political scandal.
>
> The crucial ingredient for a scandal is the prospect of high-level
> White House involvement and wide political repercussions. Government
> wrongdoing is boring. Scandals can bring down presidents, decide
> elections and revive down-and-out political parties. Scandals can
> dominate American politics for months at a time.
>
> On Tuesday, it looked like we had three possible political scandals
> look like any of them will pan out. Thereąll be more hearings, and
> more bad press for the Obama administration, and more demands for
> documents. But ‹ and this is a key qualification ‹ absent more
> revelations, the scandals that could reach high donąt seem to include
> documents. But ‹ and this is a key qualification ‹ absent more
> any real wrongdoing, whereas the ones that include real wrongdoing
> donąt reach high enough. Letąs go through them.
>
> 1) The Internal Revenue Service: The IRS mess was, well, a mess. But
> itąs not a mess that implicates the White House, or even senior IRS
> 1) The Internal Revenue Service: The IRS mess was, well, a mess. But
> leadership. If we believe the agency inspector generaląs report, a
> group of employees in a division called the łDeterminations Unit˛ ‹
> sounds sinister, doesnąt it? ‹ started giving tea party groups extra
> scrutiny, were told by agency leadership to knock it off, started
> doing it again, and then were reined in a second time and told that
> any further changes to the screening criteria needed to be approved at
> the highest levels of the agency.
>
> The White House fired the acting director of the agency on the theory
> that somebody had to be fired and he was about the only guy they had
> the power to fire. Theyąre also instructing the IRS to implement each
> doing it again, and then were reined in a second time and told that
> any further changes to the screening criteria needed to be approved at
> the highest levels of the agency.
>
> The White House fired the acting director of the agency on the theory
> that somebody had to be fired and he was about the only guy they had
> and every one of the IGąs recommendations to make sure this never
> happens again.
>
> If new information emerges showing a connection between the
> Determination Unitąs decisions and the Obama campaign, or the Obama
>
> If new information emerges showing a connection between the
> administration, it would crack this White House wide open. That would
> be a genuine scandal. But the IG report says that thereąs no evidence
> of that. And so itąs hard to see where this one goes from here.
Except the person in charge of this department now runs the IRS
Obamacare office, and got $103,390 in bonuses, with the biggest bonuses
coming when the IRS harassment was at it's peak:
<http://washingtonexaminer.com/irs-tax-exemptionobamacare-exec-got-10039
0-in-bonuses/article/2529899>
>
> 2) Benghazi: Weąre long past the point
Since day one of Benghazi, the administration has been trying to
convince us its old news. Try liberal Maureen Dowd:
<http://www.adn.com/2013/05/13/2901101/maureen-dowd-administration-faile
d.html>
> where itąs obvious what the
> Benghazi scandal is supposed to be about. The inquiry has moved on
> from the events in Benghazi proper, tragic as they were, to the
> talking points about the events in Benghazi. And the release Wednesday
> night of 100 pages of internal e-mails on those talking points seems
> to show what my colleague Glenn Kessler suspected: This was a
> bureaucratic knife fight between the State Department and the CIA.
The only thing that got knifed in this fight was the talking points,
> from the events in Benghazi proper, tragic as they were, to the
> talking points about the events in Benghazi. And the release Wednesday
> night of 100 pages of internal e-mails on those talking points seems
> to show what my colleague Glenn Kessler suspected: This was a
> bureaucratic knife fight between the State Department and the CIA.
where the State Department systematically cut out all the information
from the CIA, at which point Petraeus said the talking points weren't
worth using, because of all the stuff that was cut out.
<snip>
>
> It's been amusing watching from the sidelines as Oscar salivates at
> the scandals that aren't scandals. Maybe Oscar will learn someday that
> it's not a good idea to put your faith in that hapless clown Darryl
> Issa (R-Arrested for carrying a concealed weapon; indicted for
> stealing a car).
>
> These latest non-scandals will just serve as another tar baby that the
> GOP nuts have embraced, and that will doom them in 2014 & 2016. I have
> to say I'm LOVIN' it!
I don't know how you can love an IRS who acts against political
> It's been amusing watching from the sidelines as Oscar salivates at
> the scandals that aren't scandals. Maybe Oscar will learn someday that
> it's not a good idea to put your faith in that hapless clown Darryl
> Issa (R-Arrested for carrying a concealed weapon; indicted for
> stealing a car).
>
> These latest non-scandals will just serve as another tar baby that the
> GOP nuts have embraced, and that will doom them in 2014 & 2016. I have
> to say I'm LOVIN' it!
opponents, or love a Presidency/State Department who is more than
willing to lie to the American people concerning terrorist attacks, for
political reasons, and while spying on reporters may be perfectly legal
under an act that was anathema when Bush did it, but wonderful when
done by this President, it isn't a wise thing to piss off people in
your corner who buy ink by the barrel.
But you've been drinking the Obama Koolaid, and I hope you can still
enjoy LOVIN' it for a while.
-Owen
Mark S
May 16, 2013, 11:45:36 PM5/16/13
to
On May 16, 7:39 pm, Oscar <oscaredwardwilliam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 16, 7:24 pm, Mark S wrote:
>
>
>
> > These latest non-scandals will just serve as another tar baby that the
> > GOP nuts have embraced, and that will doom them in 2014 & 2016. I have
> > to say I'm LOVIN' it!
>
> Tar baby?? I'm not so sure a middle-aged Anglo from a white-flight
> refugee neighborhood in racist* Orange County should be using phrases
> like 'tar baby' so loosely.
Not only are you an idiot at every conceivable level, you're just as
> On May 16, 7:24 pm, Mark S wrote:
>
>
>
> > These latest non-scandals will just serve as another tar baby that the
> > GOP nuts have embraced, and that will doom them in 2014 & 2016. I have
> > to say I'm LOVIN' it!
>
> Tar baby?? I'm not so sure a middle-aged Anglo from a white-flight
> refugee neighborhood in racist* Orange County should be using phrases
> like 'tar baby' so loosely.
easily manipulated by me as you are by the Obama-hating scandal
wishers who sucked you into their fantasies for the better part of a
week.
Yes, I admit that I used the term "tar baby" just to draw the expected
reaction from you. Prior to my post, I even did a quick internet
search on the phrase to see what articles would draw immediate hits.
Sure enough, that Time Magazine article from 2006 came up in my
search. And lo and behold, here you are a few posts later, doing one
of your typical cut-n-paste jobs of an article that anyone would find
in a second if they searched on the words "tar baby." Of course, had
you bothered to READ that Time article, you wouldn't have bothered
posting it as a rebuttal as it turns out to be quite evenhanded,
indeed neutral in its assessment of whether the term tar baby is to be
avoided these days.
So predictable. So childish. And ultimately, so boring.
wagnerfan
May 16, 2013, 11:53:11 PM5/16/13
to
satirists and ridicule whoever - on both sides though the Faux News
knuckle draggers would think they only attack the Right - they do
often attack the Right since it so full of hypocrisy its easy to
target but they all go after Obama if he deserves it.
I am watching these so called scandals fall apart - the only reason
they are kept alive is by career criminals like Darrell Issa, bitter
has beens like Sessions and nitwits like Gohmert. Keep it Repubs = you
are just guaranteeing Hillarys presidency in 2016. Wagner fan
Mark S
May 16, 2013, 11:57:31 PM5/16/13
to
> <0ac0a916-e2c6-47cc-9dd3-d76ad7b5d...@fq2g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> He got a quote wrong? And that's what's going to make this scandal go
> away? It wasn't this quote that's the scandal - the scandal is
> erupting everywhere.
>
So, a reporter - Jon Karl - says that he has SEEN e-mails from the
White House and even puts supposed words from those e-mails in quotes,
which anybody who has taken Journalism 101 knows means that you are
making a direct quote from the source you're citing. Then a few days
later, another reporter receives copies of those very same e-mails
that you - Jon Karl - averred that you had examined, but reports that
they say something entirely different than what you reported. So, you
- Jon Karl - then have to admit that you did NOT actually see the e-
mails, but were relying on an undisclosed source for their content,
and that the verbatim quote you offered and that you identified as
being contained in the e-mails that you said you examined was NOT from
the e-mails, but was a paraphrase offered by some third-party source.
Great reporting. The guy got played like a fiddle by some RW
operative. Props to the operative for doing his job. Not so much for
the reporter who proved himself a hapless shill.
There is no "scandal" without the doctored quote. How hard is that to
understand? That quote "he got wrong" is what launched this long-
simmering non-scandal into a scandal that the MSM took notice of last
week. The fact that the quote was a lie is central to the fact that
the scandal isn't a scandal. The proof of that can now be seen in the
fact that the RW is now pivoting away from the specifics - which we
now know were lies - to their tired old, race-based "we can't trust
this uppity ni**er" meme.
The RW can't buy a break. They paint Obama as the evil despot who is
manipulating the government to his advantage while at the same time
claiming he's incompetent and ineffectual. You can't be both.
Owen & Osacr. Two peas in the manipulated RW pod.
>
> Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Is this the best you got Mark? It's pretty thin. Obama's losing his
> base left and right.
No he's not. Dream on. You're drinking the RW Kool ade.
> Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Is this the best you got Mark? It's pretty thin. Obama's losing his
> base left and right.
>
> He got a quote wrong? And that's what's going to make this scandal go
> away? It wasn't this quote that's the scandal - the scandal is
> erupting everywhere.
>
White House and even puts supposed words from those e-mails in quotes,
which anybody who has taken Journalism 101 knows means that you are
making a direct quote from the source you're citing. Then a few days
later, another reporter receives copies of those very same e-mails
that you - Jon Karl - averred that you had examined, but reports that
they say something entirely different than what you reported. So, you
- Jon Karl - then have to admit that you did NOT actually see the e-
mails, but were relying on an undisclosed source for their content,
and that the verbatim quote you offered and that you identified as
being contained in the e-mails that you said you examined was NOT from
the e-mails, but was a paraphrase offered by some third-party source.
Great reporting. The guy got played like a fiddle by some RW
operative. Props to the operative for doing his job. Not so much for
the reporter who proved himself a hapless shill.
There is no "scandal" without the doctored quote. How hard is that to
understand? That quote "he got wrong" is what launched this long-
simmering non-scandal into a scandal that the MSM took notice of last
week. The fact that the quote was a lie is central to the fact that
the scandal isn't a scandal. The proof of that can now be seen in the
fact that the RW is now pivoting away from the specifics - which we
now know were lies - to their tired old, race-based "we can't trust
this uppity ni**er" meme.
The RW can't buy a break. They paint Obama as the evil despot who is
manipulating the government to his advantage while at the same time
claiming he's incompetent and ineffectual. You can't be both.
Owen & Osacr. Two peas in the manipulated RW pod.
Mark S
May 17, 2013, 12:04:37 AM5/17/13
to
Just read through this thread and you'll watch the whole sorry mess
unfold, including the salivating and gloating b Oscar and the usual
suspects. Sad stuff.
scandals, blind hatred or overt racism to find disagreements.
So sad that you and Oscar do seem to need such things.
unfold, including the salivating and gloating b Oscar and the usual
suspects. Sad stuff.
> But you've been drinking the Obama Koolaid, and I hope you can still
> enjoy LOVIN' it for a while.
>
I have my differences with President Obama. I don't need phony
> enjoy LOVIN' it for a while.
>
scandals, blind hatred or overt racism to find disagreements.
So sad that you and Oscar do seem to need such things.
Oscar
May 17, 2013, 1:06:41 AM5/17/13
to
On May 16, 9:04 pm, Mark S wrote:
>
> I have my differences with President Obama. I don't need phony
> scandals,
Yeah, because this is the Teflon Führer and there is no such thing as
>
> I have my differences with President Obama. I don't need phony
> scandals,
scandal under his reign. It is all 'made up' and conspiratorial from
every conceivable angle. Sounds awful credulous, Mark, especially when
people are being fired as a result. Btw, the 'firings' so far are two
men whose a) exit date had already been determined (IRS acting
commissioner Steven Miller); or b) had just assumed his position 8
days ago (Tax-Exempt and Government Entities Division commissioner
Joseph Grant). Meanwhile, Sarah Hall Ingram, who served as
commissioner of the Tax-Exempt and Government Entities Division from
2009 to 2012 is still director of the IRS' Affordable Care Act
division.
'People should be fired for this serious breach of public trust. We
don't do this in America.' - Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri)
> blind hatred or overt racism to find disagreements.
County, Calif.? http://tinyurl.com/bw5ot2o
'... Orange County, California has the highest absolute number of
tweets mentioning many of the slurs ...'
Nothing like moving all the way across the country to a newly-
incorporated township where no extended family dwells, just to send
the kids to 'good schools' with the offspring of your white flight
neighbors. Instead of neighborhood bridge clubs or sewing circles, I'm
assuming there are racist tweeting meetings down there.
> So sad that you and Oscar do seem to need such things.
with skepticism, i.e. he was totally unproven). Well, five years
later, he has been a great disappointment, to say the least. This is
how I feel about him now:
MSNBC's Chris Matthews:
'What part of the presidency does Obama like? He doesn't like dealing
with other politicians — that means his own cabinet, that means
members of the congress, either party. He doesn't particularly like
the press.... He likes to write the speeches, likes to rewrite what
Favreau and the others wrote for the first draft.
So what part does he like? He likes going on the road, campaigning,
visiting businesses like he does every couple days somewhere in Ohio
the bills he cares about. He doesn't like selling to the press. He
doesn't like giving orders or giving somebody the power to give
orders.
He doesn't seem to like being an executive.'
In short, he's incredibly ineffective as a leader and an
doesn't like giving orders or giving somebody the power to give
orders.
He doesn't seem to like being an executive.'
administrator, and he lacks a clear agenda — that is, other than the
overt disdain and demonization of any person or group that differs
with him.
Oscar
May 17, 2013, 1:17:59 AM5/17/13
to
On May 16, 8:45 pm, Mark S wrote:
>
> Not only are you an idiot at every conceivable level, you're just as
> easily manipulated by me as you are by the Obama-hating scandal
> wishers who sucked you into their fantasies for the better part of a
> week.
Oh yeah? Essplain.
>
> Not only are you an idiot at every conceivable level, you're just as
> easily manipulated by me as you are by the Obama-hating scandal
> wishers who sucked you into their fantasies for the better part of a
> week.
> Yes, I admit that I used the term "tar baby" just to draw the expected
> reaction from you. Prior to my post, I even did a quick internet
> search on the phrase to see what articles would draw immediate hits.
> Sure enough, that Time Magazine article from 2006 came up in my
> search. And lo and behold, here you are a few posts later, doing one
> of your typical cut-n-paste jobs of an article that anyone would find
> in a second if they searched on the words "tar baby."
> Of course, had you bothered to READ that Time article, you wouldn't
> have bothered posting it as a rebuttal as it turns out to be quite
> evenhanded, indeed neutral in its assessment of whether the term tar
> baby is to be avoided these days.
policing'/'political correctness', subjects I find fascinating and, as
regards the latter, a complete invention of the Far Left.
> So predictable.
Mark, your defense at all costs not only of Barack Obama and the
Democratic Party, but every left-wing position/politican/cause
conceivable, is the only predictable thing here.
> So childish. And ultimately, so boring.
Mark S
May 17, 2013, 1:41:03 AM5/17/13
to
On May 16, 10:06 pm, Oscar <oscaredwardwilliam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I voted for Obama in 2008, bought into it all (though on faith and
> with skepticism, i.e. he was totally unproven). Well, five years
> later, he has been a great disappointment, to say the least.
All that means is that you were just as immature as a voter - and why
>
> I voted for Obama in 2008, bought into it all (though on faith and
> with skepticism, i.e. he was totally unproven). Well, five years
> later, he has been a great disappointment, to say the least.
you would vote for someone - in 2008 as you are immature today in your
continuing posting and reposting of old quotes from me and others that
clog your hard drive.
This is
> how I feel about him now:
>
> MSNBC's Chris Matthews:
>
> 'What part of the presidency does Obama like? He doesn't like dealing
> with other politicians — that means his own cabinet, that means
> members of the congress, either party. He doesn't particularly like
> the press.... He likes to write the speeches, likes to rewrite what
> Favreau and the others wrote for the first draft.
>
> So what part does he like? He likes going on the road, campaigning,
> visiting businesses like he does every couple days somewhere in Ohio
> or somewhere. But what part does he like? He doesn't like lobbying for
> the bills he cares about. He doesn't like selling to the press. He
> doesn't like giving orders or giving somebody the power to give
> orders.
> He doesn't seem to like being an executive.'
>
> In short, he's incredibly ineffective as a leader and an
> administrator, and he lacks a clear agenda — that is, other than the
> overt disdain and demonization of any person or group that differs
> with him.
How anyone can call ineffective the person who - for starters - got
healthcare reform through Congress, who took out Bin Laden, who has
now got the deficit under control to the point where the CBO said this
week that the deficit problem is solved for the next decade, and who
has openly gone to bat for marriage equality rights, needs to get a
grip on what being effective means.
The fact is that the Obama Agenda is getting initiated and will have
far-reaching and -lasting effects.
Check out Tweets next week. He'll be back to feeling something going
up his leg, as he did in 2008. I'll bet you a nickel that his line
next week will be how masterfully no-drama Obama suckered the RW into
looking like a bunch of petulant children.
Oscar
May 17, 2013, 2:30:25 AM5/17/13
to
On May 16, 10:41 pm, Mark S wrote:
>
> > I voted for Obama in 2008, bought into it all (though on faith and
> > with skepticism, i.e. he was totally unproven). Well, five years
> > later, he has been a great disappointment, to say the least.
>
> All that means is that you were just as immature as a voter - and why
> you would vote for someone - in 2008 as you are immature today...
>
> > I voted for Obama in 2008, bought into it all (though on faith and
> > with skepticism, i.e. he was totally unproven). Well, five years
> > later, he has been a great disappointment, to say the least.
>
> All that means is that you were just as immature as a voter - and why
Care to elaborate? I am anything but a 'low information voter' (your
phrase of choice), so what makes it immature to cast a vote on faith
and/or confidence and little else? Candidate Obama made some
impressive speeches and was not George Bush. As Biden infamously said,
he was young, articulate, clean, fresh, and 'vibrant'...and 'gave good
mic'. He was _all_ talk, but then again most candidates are. The
difference was, he had so little history as a legislator and private
citizen as to make him a true 'blank slate'. His candidacy was a
Rorschach test of personal associations and projections: undecideds,
independents, and 'low information voters' saw myriad things in Obama.
It was most peculiar legitimate candidacy in modern history, by a long
shot. So you are deriding a great amount of American voters with your
derisive dismissal. But that's just what you do.
Herman
May 17, 2013, 3:06:34 AM5/17/13
to
On Friday, May 17, 2013 8:30:25 AM UTC+2, Oscar wrote:
>
> Care to elaborate? I am anything but a 'low information voter' (your
>
> phrase of choice), so what makes it immature to cast a vote on faith
>
> and/or confidence and little else?
You clearly are a major media noise consumer, but have zero analytical skills. It's all lizard brain.
>
> Care to elaborate? I am anything but a 'low information voter' (your
>
> phrase of choice), so what makes it immature to cast a vote on faith
>
> and/or confidence and little else?
So that's why you voted for the best hyped candiate in 2008 and that's why you now hate him as viscerally as ou do, 'cause that's the latest hype.
Oscar
May 17, 2013, 3:37:43 AM5/17/13
to
On May 17, 12:06 am, Herman wrote:
>
> You clearly are a major media noise consumer, but have zero analytical
> skills. It's all lizard brain.
Wrong. My analytical skills are quite acute, herman. It is those who
>
> You clearly are a major media noise consumer, but have zero analytical
> skills. It's all lizard brain.
seek to defend Obama at _all_ costs who are blinded by lack of
analysis. The IRS scandal, the AP scandal, and — yes — the
investigation into what happened (and how the response was framed) at
Benghazi are all legitimate cases for pressing the President and his
administration for the facts and the truth, whys and wherefores.
> So that's why you voted for the best hyped candiate in 2008
> and that's why you now hate him as viscerally as ou do, 'cause that's
> the latest hype.
dimensional leader, terrible administrator, ineffective negotiator,
arrogant and belittling, and really thin-skinned. He's had 4.5 years
to show us 'the way'. I'm still trying to figure out which way we're
going (the wrong way).
May I turn the question to you and ask what you like about Barack
Obama, so much that you called him the 'one of the smartest in power
anytime anywhere'. High praise, indeed.
wagnerfan
May 17, 2013, 4:45:18 AM5/17/13
to
been saying on MSNBC - he has been tough but no tlike that Wagner Fan
wagnerfan
May 17, 2013, 4:46:59 AM5/17/13
to
On Fri, 17 May 2013 04:45:18 -0400, wagnerfan <ivanm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
BTW anyone who says Obama has done nothing is either stupid, blind or
both Wagner fan
wrote:
both Wagner fan
Oscar
May 17, 2013, 4:59:37 AM5/17/13
to
On May 17, 1:46 am, wagnerfan wrote:
>
> BTW anyone who says Obama has done nothing is either stupid, blind or
> both Wagner fan
Yeah, there was that 'beer summit' with the angry professor and the
>
> BTW anyone who says Obama has done nothing is either stupid, blind or
> both Wagner fan
'stupid' cop.
And killing Osama.
On May 5 2011, 4:08 pm, M forever wrote:
>
> Sounds all great, but unfortunately, it's mostly nonsense. This
> operation, as little and as conflicting evidence as we have of it, was
> far from "surgical". They probably didn't plan that they had to blow
> up one of their own helicopters, and I don't think they planned to
> blow half of Osama's head off so that they can't release the photos
> now. Sounds more like a half-botched operation to me.
And Libya.
On Jun 11 2011, 11:53 am, herman wrote:
>
> you mean that illegal war down in Libya, starting as a sort of relief
> mission that has turned into a regime change war without any legal
> basis? Yeah, tell me about it.
More to come...
td
May 17, 2013, 6:11:16 AM5/17/13
to
On May 16, 10:04 pm, "John Wiser" <jico...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net> wrote in message
You mean: "Has there ever been ANY Republican chief executive who
wasn't dumb as a post?"
Answer: Yean. Lincoln.
TD
> "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net> wrote in message
wasn't dumb as a post?"
Answer: Yean. Lincoln.
TD
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages