> -------------------------------------------------
> During an interview with The Daily Show host Jon Stewart, former
> Secretary of State Colin Powell said he regretted telling the United
> Nations that Iraq was harboring weapons of mass destruction.
> "I, of course, regret the U.N. speech that I gave," he said, "which
> became the prominent presentation of our case. But we thought it was
> correct at the time. The President thought it was correct. Congress
> thought it was correct."
> ------------------------------------------------
> Mike Hendrix wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 03:36:48 -0500, bill horne<redy...@rye.net>
>> wrote:
>>> Mike Hendrix wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 23:33:11 -0500, bill horne<redy...@rye.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Mike Hendrix wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 20:15:02 -0500, bill horne<redy...@rye.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Ralph E Lindberg wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article<50a6b2c7$0$27185$c3e8da3$66d3c...@news.astraweb.com>,
>>>>>>>> MaxD<gmdi...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/16/2012 12:42 PM, Jan Orme wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 15, 2:23 pm, Jan Orme<JanOrm...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 15, 8:49 am, Jan Orme<JanOrm...@aol.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:> On Nov 15, 8:47
>>>>>>>>>>> am, Jan Orme<JanOrm...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Petraeus To Testify Behind Closed Doors On Benghazi
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fridayhttp://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57550090/petraeus-to-testify-beh
>>>>>>>>> And that from no less a reliable source than Peter King. LMAO.
>>>>>>>> So, the story is the King got a classified briefing and which he
>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>> disclosed????
>>>>>>>> Snork.
>>>>>>>> PS for the wingnuts whining about the POTUS disclosing
>>>>>>>> classified info.
>>>>>>>> Ah, you really need to learn how the government handles
>>>>>>>> classifying and
>>>>>>>> de-classifying information. It's a function of the Executive
>>>>>>>> branch, not
>>>>>>>> the Judicial or Legislative. So it's ultimately the President's
>>>>>>>> call
>>>>>>>> what is, and is not, classified.
>>>>>>> What, exactly, is classified about "It was terrorists" as opposed to
>>>>>>> the lie of "It was extremists reacting to a video"?
>>>>>> bill, I agree with you. HOWEVER, as all of us that have worked for
>>>>>> DOD know in spades....... their superiors lie like a coon dog basking
>>>>>> on the porch..... it just comes all too natural for them.
>>>>>> I can remember preparing briefs for Admirals and not recognizing the
>>>>>> comments when they were delivered. Absolutely nothing resembling the
>>>>>> truth or facts of the matter........ but they are the ones that are
>>>>>> masters at telling people what they want to hear. That is how they
>>>>>> get into those positions.
>>>>> Except in this case, they were not telling people what they want to
>>>>> hear - they were telling people what they wanted them to hear.
>>>> -------------------------
>>>> bill, I think it happens all the time. I seem to remember Colin
>>>> Powell delivering a speech to the UN (was it the UN?) In any event he
>>>> had been fed "talking points" also.
>>> But you seem to misremember that most leading Democrats and most of
>>> the leaders of the Western World also believed what he said. And they
>>> believed it well before he said it.
>>>> As I recall he was one pissed off
>>>> puppy when he found that he had actually been lying with the talking
>>>> points he had been provided.
>>> -------------------------------------------------
>>> During an interview with The Daily Show host Jon Stewart, former
>>> Secretary of State Colin Powell said he regretted telling the United
>>> Nations that Iraq was harboring weapons of mass destruction.
>>> "I, of course, regret the U.N. speech that I gave," he said, "which
>>> became the prominent presentation of our case. But we thought it was
>>> correct at the time. The President thought it was correct. Congress
>>> thought it was correct."
>>> ------------------------------------------------
>>> So who was "lying"?
>>>> Of course that was under a different administrations so we should
>>>> probably forget that one.
>>> No, we should probably remember the facts rather than what you "seem
>>> to remember".
>> bill, here is a quote from his interview with Barbara Walters:
>> "Asked further how he felt upon learning that he had been misled about
>> the accuracy of intelligence on which he relied, Mr. Powell said,
>> "Terrible." He added that it was "devastating" to learn later that
>> some intelligence agents knew the information he had was unreliable
>> but did not speak up."
> So who was "lying"? Who "misled" him?
> Why did the intelligence agencies of other nations think the same thing?
On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 09:13:58 -0700, MaxD <gmdi...@att.net> wrote:
>On 11/17/2012 6:17 AM, bill horne wrote:
>> Mike Hendrix wrote:
>>> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 03:36:48 -0500, bill horne<redy...@rye.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Mike Hendrix wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 23:33:11 -0500, bill horne<redy...@rye.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Mike Hendrix wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 20:15:02 -0500, bill horne<redy...@rye.net>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ralph E Lindberg wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article<50a6b2c7$0$27185$c3e8da3$66d3c...@news.astraweb.com>,
>>>>>>>>> MaxD<gmdi...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/16/2012 12:42 PM, Jan Orme wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 15, 2:23 pm, Jan Orme<JanOrm...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 15, 8:49 am, Jan Orme<JanOrm...@aol.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:> On Nov 15, 8:47
>>>>>>>>>>>> am, Jan Orme<JanOrm...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Petraeus To Testify Behind Closed Doors On Benghazi
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fridayhttp://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57550090/petraeus-to-testify-beh
>>>>>>>>>> And that from no less a reliable source than Peter King. LMAO.
>>>>>>>>> So, the story is the King got a classified briefing and which he
>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>> disclosed????
>>>>>>>>> Snork.
>>>>>>>>> PS for the wingnuts whining about the POTUS disclosing
>>>>>>>>> classified info.
>>>>>>>>> Ah, you really need to learn how the government handles
>>>>>>>>> classifying and
>>>>>>>>> de-classifying information. It's a function of the Executive
>>>>>>>>> branch, not
>>>>>>>>> the Judicial or Legislative. So it's ultimately the President's
>>>>>>>>> call
>>>>>>>>> what is, and is not, classified.
>>>>>>>> What, exactly, is classified about "It was terrorists" as opposed to
>>>>>>>> the lie of "It was extremists reacting to a video"?
>>>>>>> bill, I agree with you. HOWEVER, as all of us that have worked for
>>>>>>> DOD know in spades....... their superiors lie like a coon dog basking
>>>>>>> on the porch..... it just comes all too natural for them.
>>>>>>> I can remember preparing briefs for Admirals and not recognizing the
>>>>>>> comments when they were delivered. Absolutely nothing resembling the
>>>>>>> truth or facts of the matter........ but they are the ones that are
>>>>>>> masters at telling people what they want to hear. That is how they
>>>>>>> get into those positions.
>>>>>> Except in this case, they were not telling people what they want to
>>>>>> hear - they were telling people what they wanted them to hear.
>>>>> -------------------------
>>>>> bill, I think it happens all the time. I seem to remember Colin
>>>>> Powell delivering a speech to the UN (was it the UN?) In any event he
>>>>> had been fed "talking points" also.
>>>> But you seem to misremember that most leading Democrats and most of
>>>> the leaders of the Western World also believed what he said. And they
>>>> believed it well before he said it.
>>>>> As I recall he was one pissed off
>>>>> puppy when he found that he had actually been lying with the talking
>>>>> points he had been provided.
>>>> -------------------------------------------------
>>>> During an interview with The Daily Show host Jon Stewart, former
>>>> Secretary of State Colin Powell said he regretted telling the United
>>>> Nations that Iraq was harboring weapons of mass destruction.
>>>> "I, of course, regret the U.N. speech that I gave," he said, "which
>>>> became the prominent presentation of our case. But we thought it was
>>>> correct at the time. The President thought it was correct. Congress
>>>> thought it was correct."
>>>> ------------------------------------------------
>>>> So who was "lying"?
>>>>> Of course that was under a different administrations so we should
>>>>> probably forget that one.
>>>> No, we should probably remember the facts rather than what you "seem
>>>> to remember".
>>> bill, here is a quote from his interview with Barbara Walters:
>>> "Asked further how he felt upon learning that he had been misled about
>>> the accuracy of intelligence on which he relied, Mr. Powell said,
>>> "Terrible." He added that it was "devastating" to learn later that
>>> some intelligence agents knew the information he had was unreliable
>>> but did not speak up."
>> So who was "lying"? Who "misled" him?
>> Why did the intelligence agencies of other nations think the same thing?
>Um...Foreign Aid??
If you remember back to that time Saddam was working hard to maintain
the image that he had weapons of mass destruction. I would bet he was
caught in a bind where if he said there were none he would have been
in trouble as fast or faster with his neighbors.
Petraeus said they're statement about the attack blamed anger over the
anti-muslim film, because they were hoping to catch the terrorists
who had actually done it! That sounds reasonable to me?
MaxD wrote:
> On 11/17/2012 7:27 PM, bill horne wrote:
>> dm_callier wrote:
>>> On Saturday, November 17, 2012 5:17:38 AM UTC-8, bill horne wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>> So who was "lying"? Who "misled" him?
>>>> Why did the intelligence agencies of other nations think the same
>>>> thing?
>>> French President Chirac was quoted as saying words to the effect,that
>>> the intelligence services "sometimes intoxicate each other".
> Petraeus said they're statement about the attack blamed anger over the
> anti-muslim film, because they were hoping to catch the terrorists
> who had actually done it! That sounds reasonable to me?
> Terry, without the Pirates
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Are you are asking yourself?
Have you always been a Dumb Fuck? Have you seen the film? Know anyone
who has or did see it by 9/11/12? Can you post it here?
Cripes! We all know that the Rat Bastard Muslim Radicals are flat
nutso against Freedom Of Speech. But those buggers with their AK-47s
and Grenade Rockets didn't see it or even hear about it except in yet
another Planned Obama Wet Dream Lie. My bet is that this is the
Benghazi version of Mexican Cartel Fast And Furious Gun Running like
hidden by your Eric Holder...only this one is them running guns to
Syrian Rebels. Wanna bet?
Unlike the Watergate Break In and theft. This time four Americans are
Dead. And I suspect that those two SEALs took out a raft of bad guys
during the 7 hours they were engaged before they were killed by mortor
fire. Those folks that were supposedly pissed off about your "anti-
muslim film" ...do you suppose they were kinda like some pissed off
prisoners in your Slam that wanted better food and such? Ever
encounter that kinda spontanious problem? Did they have AK-47s,
Mortors or Grenade Launcers that the coulds burn down the slam with
like we see from Benghazi Footage? Hmmm..?
> > Petraeus said they're statement about the attack blamed anger over the
> > anti-muslim film, because they were hoping to catch the terrorists
> > who had actually done it! That sounds reasonable to me?
> > Terry, without the Pirates
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Are you are asking yourself?
> Have you always been a Dumb Fuck? Have you seen the film? Know anyone
> who has or did see it by 9/11/12? Can you post it here?
> Cripes! We all know that the Rat Bastard Muslim Radicals are flat
> nutso against Freedom Of Speech. But those buggers with their AK-47s
> and Grenade Rockets didn't see it or even hear about it except in yet
> another Planned Obama Wet Dream Lie. My bet is that this is the
> Benghazi version of Mexican Cartel Fast And Furious Gun Running like
> hidden by your Eric Holder...only this one is them running guns to
> Syrian Rebels. Wanna bet?
> Unlike the Watergate Break In and theft. This time four Americans are
> Dead. And I suspect that those two SEALs took out a raft of bad guys
> during the 7 hours they were engaged before they were killed by mortor
> fire. Those folks that were supposedly pissed off about your "anti-
> muslim film" ...do you suppose they were kinda like some pissed off
> prisoners in your Slam that wanted better food and such? Ever
> encounter that kinda spontanious problem? Did they have AK-47s,
> Mortors or Grenade Launcers that the coulds burn down the slam with
> like we see from Benghazi Footage? Hmmm..?
> Or do you even give a shit?
> Jan
Your nutcase rants, & ravings, are sort of like LZ's delusions about
what he knows "really" went on at Waco. He just can't figure out
why the Feds / Reno / Clinton weren't prosecuted for murdering all
those innocent, gun loving Christians, when it's obvious they're all
guilty as sin? <wink wink>
WTF does "Fast & Furious" have to do with the attack in Benghazi, or
me being a prison guard over a dozen years ago? I suspect you've had
a few highballs to wash down your pain pills with after getting your
teeth yanked? You're having fantasies about Obama being in "big
trouble", and think those who voted for him should be in big trouble
too - For treason, at least? HawHawHaw!
I notice you couldn't spell "mortars", or "launchers", and suggest
you take a look at your dopey ramblings (that would give Richard
plenty of competition for most stupid postings) when you sober up
tomorrow?
Romney lost. Obama was reelected, and will continue being President.
Get used to it!
> MaxD wrote:
>> On 11/17/2012 7:27 PM, bill horne wrote:
>>> dm_callier wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, November 17, 2012 5:17:38 AM UTC-8, bill horne wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> So who was "lying"? Who "misled" him?
>>>>> Why did the intelligence agencies of other nations think the same
>>>>> thing?
>>>> French President Chirac was quoted as saying words to the effect,that
>>>> the intelligence services "sometimes intoxicate each other".
> Petraeus said they're statement about the attack blamed anger over the
> anti-muslim film, because they were hoping to catch the terrorists
> who had actually done it! That sounds reasonable to me?
> Terry, without the Pirates
I've got a few carbon certificates left for those who still haven't caught on,
LZ
> > Petraeus said they're statement about the attack blamed anger over the
> > anti-muslim film, because they were hoping to catch the terrorists
> > who had actually done it! That sounds reasonable to me?
> > Terry, without the Pirates
> I've got a few carbon certificates left for those who still
> haven't caught on,
> LZ
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bengahzi has NOTHING to do with the Election, LZ. BUT....people like
Lampson want it to go away and not be reminded that four people died
and don't want to be reminded that they don't give a shit.
It may take some time but this is going to stick in their craw for a
long while. It ain't going away as long as the families are still
around. And they will be.
>On Nov 18, 7:05 am, Lone Haranguer <linus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Don Lampson wrote:
>> > On Nov 16, 11:42 am, Jan Orme <JanOrm...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> On Nov 15, 2:23 pm, Jan Orme <JanOrm...@aol.com> wrote:
>> > Petraeus said they're statement about the attack blamed anger over the
>> > anti-muslim film, because they were hoping to catch the terrorists
>> > who had actually done it! That sounds reasonable to me?
>> > Terry, without the Pirates
>> I've got a few carbon certificates left for those who still
>> haven't caught on,
>> LZ
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Bengahzi has NOTHING to do with the Election, LZ. BUT....people like
>Lampson want it to go away and not be reminded that four people died
>and don't want to be reminded that they don't give a shit.
>It may take some time but this is going to stick in their craw for a
>long while. It ain't going away as long as the families are still
>around. And they will be.
>Jan
------------------------
Jan, there is no doubt that the "Obama" administration spun the
message. No doubt.
As to the part about 4-people died. Yea they did, but a LOT more have
died in Afghanistan since that incident. Why aren't you as upset
about those deaths as your are the deaths in Bengazi?
It is fairly obvious that you want to do anything to discredit Obama.
That is all that you have posted in the past 8-months. Attacking
Obama from a position of weakness only makes you look foolish, kinda
like Donald Trump foolish, if you get my drift.
Obama is in the White House for another 4-years, it is time to make
the best of it. Democrats have control of the Senate, it is time to
make the most of it.
If you and the right wing nut cases keep singing off the same sheet of
music you are going to be in the same predicament come the next
election.
> Jan, there is no doubt that the "Obama" administration spun the
> message. No doubt.
> As to the part about 4-people died. Yea they did, but a LOT more have
> died in Afghanistan since that incident. Why aren't you as upset
> about those deaths as your are the deaths in Bengazi?
> It is fairly obvious that you want to do anything to discredit Obama.
> That is all that you have posted in the past 8-months. Attacking
> Obama from a position of weakness only makes you look foolish, kinda
> like Donald Trump foolish, if you get my drift.
> Obama is in the White House for another 4-years, it is time to make
> the best of it. Democrats have control of the Senate, it is time to
> make the most of it.
> If you and the right wing nut cases keep singing off the same sheet of
> music you are going to be in the same predicament come the next
> election.
> It is your choice, wake up.
Mike, there are so MANY real things to beat Obama up over, things he has done (and shouldn't have), things he hasn't done (and should have). But Jan would rather just spout the talking points from the ODS folk.
-- --------------------------------------------------------
Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org
This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read
RV and Camping FAQ can be found at
http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv
Jan, there is no doubt that the "Obama" administration spun the message. No doubt.
As to the part about 4-people died. Yea they did, but a LOT more have died in Afghanistan since that incident. Why aren't you as upset about those deaths as your are the deaths in Bengazi?
It is fairly obvious that you want to do anything to discredit Obama. That is all that you have posted in the past 8-months. Attacking Obama from a position of weakness only makes you look foolish, kinda like Donald Trump foolish, if you get my drift.
Obama is in the White House for another 4-years, it is time to make the best of it. Democrats have control of the Senate, it is time to make the most of it.
If you and the right wing nut cases keep singing off the same sheet of music you are going to be in the same predicament come the next election.
> In article <ua9ia8lqctahg9f6nobhv5up19n9g1s...@4ax.com>,
> Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs (dot) us> wrote:
>> Jan, there is no doubt that the "Obama" administration spun the
>> message. No doubt.
>> As to the part about 4-people died. Yea they did, but a LOT more have
>> died in Afghanistan since that incident. Why aren't you as upset
>> about those deaths as your are the deaths in Bengazi?
>> It is fairly obvious that you want to do anything to discredit Obama.
>> That is all that you have posted in the past 8-months. Attacking
>> Obama from a position of weakness only makes you look foolish, kinda
>> like Donald Trump foolish, if you get my drift.
>> Obama is in the White House for another 4-years, it is time to make
>> the best of it. Democrats have control of the Senate, it is time to
>> make the most of it.
>> If you and the right wing nut cases keep singing off the same sheet of
>> music you are going to be in the same predicament come the next
>> election.
>> It is your choice, wake up.
> Mike, there are so MANY real things to beat Obama up over, things he
> has done (and shouldn't have), things he hasn't done (and should have).
> But Jan would rather just spout the talking points from the ODS folk.
I'm sure both of you had exactly the same opinion and encouraged people to ignore Nixon's coverup of the Watergate affair too. After all, why would you treat one presidential coverup differently from the next?
-- Bruce
Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one else can see. Arthur Schopenhauer
>On 11/18/2012 10:31 AM, Ralph E Lindberg wrote:
>> In article <ua9ia8lqctahg9f6nobhv5up19n9g1s...@4ax.com>,
>> Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs (dot) us> wrote:
>>> Jan, there is no doubt that the "Obama" administration spun the
>>> message. No doubt.
>>> As to the part about 4-people died. Yea they did, but a LOT more have
>>> died in Afghanistan since that incident. Why aren't you as upset
>>> about those deaths as your are the deaths in Bengazi?
>>> It is fairly obvious that you want to do anything to discredit Obama.
>>> That is all that you have posted in the past 8-months. Attacking
>>> Obama from a position of weakness only makes you look foolish, kinda
>>> like Donald Trump foolish, if you get my drift.
>>> Obama is in the White House for another 4-years, it is time to make
>>> the best of it. Democrats have control of the Senate, it is time to
>>> make the most of it.
>>> If you and the right wing nut cases keep singing off the same sheet of
>>> music you are going to be in the same predicament come the next
>>> election.
>>> It is your choice, wake up.
>> Mike, there are so MANY real things to beat Obama up over, things he
>> has done (and shouldn't have), things he hasn't done (and should have).
>> But Jan would rather just spout the talking points from the ODS folk.
>I'm sure both of you had exactly the same opinion and encouraged people >to ignore Nixon's coverup of the Watergate affair too. After all, why >would you treat one presidential coverup differently from the next?
-----------------------
Apples & oranges and you know it.
Spokes people (Rice) are provided talking points every time they get
up to speak..... just ask Colin Powell. And Powell is as honest as
the day is long.
I am certainly not excusing the Administrations twisting of facts (and
that was obviously done). But the Republicans need to back off Rice.
Now if we find out that the people killed in Bengazi were on a "gun
smuggling" mission then I suspect opinions will change with the
public. Until then all this hullabaloo is just making the folks who
are upset up about it look foolish.
Of course they have delighted in looking foolish for the past
8-months. It is time to move on and set a new course.
Mike Hendrix wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 10:50:39 -0800, Bruce S<bruce.sn...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On 11/18/2012 10:31 AM, Ralph E Lindberg wrote:
>>> In article<ua9ia8lqctahg9f6nobhv5up19n9g1s...@4ax.com>,
>>> Mike Hendrix<mike (at) travellogs (dot) us> wrote:
>>>> Jan, there is no doubt that the "Obama" administration spun the
>>>> message. No doubt.
>>>> As to the part about 4-people died. Yea they did, but a LOT more have
>>>> died in Afghanistan since that incident. Why aren't you as upset
>>>> about those deaths as your are the deaths in Bengazi?
>>>> It is fairly obvious that you want to do anything to discredit Obama.
>>>> That is all that you have posted in the past 8-months. Attacking
>>>> Obama from a position of weakness only makes you look foolish, kinda
>>>> like Donald Trump foolish, if you get my drift.
>>>> Obama is in the White House for another 4-years, it is time to make
>>>> the best of it. Democrats have control of the Senate, it is time to
>>>> make the most of it.
>>>> If you and the right wing nut cases keep singing off the same sheet of
>>>> music you are going to be in the same predicament come the next
>>>> election.
>>>> It is your choice, wake up.
>>> Mike, there are so MANY real things to beat Obama up over, things he
>>> has done (and shouldn't have), things he hasn't done (and should have).
>>> But Jan would rather just spout the talking points from the ODS folk.
>> I'm sure both of you had exactly the same opinion and encouraged people
>> to ignore Nixon's coverup of the Watergate affair too. After all, why
>> would you treat one presidential coverup differently from the next?
> -----------------------
> Apples& oranges and you know it.
> Spokes people (Rice) are provided talking points every time they get
> up to speak..... just ask Colin Powell. And Powell is as honest as
> the day is long.
> I am certainly not excusing the Administrations twisting of facts (and
> that was obviously done).
I'm glad to hear you accept that.
> But the Republicans need to back off Rice.
And I agree with that - she probably wasn't in the Benghazi loop. In fact, the President said that she wasn't - which raises the question of why she was the one sent out to talk about it.
> Now if we find out that the people killed in Bengazi were on a "gun
> smuggling" mission then I suspect opinions will change with the
> public. Until then all this hullabaloo is just making the folks who
> are upset up about it look foolish.
IMO, the terrorism connection was suppressed because it didn't fit with the President's campaign claim that 'bin Laden is dead and the terrorists are on the run'. (but just to be clear for the reading disabled, i'm not arguing that bin laden is not dead)
> Of course they have delighted in looking foolish for the past
> 8-months. It is time to move on and set a new course.
Move on to where? The last I heard, the President and the Democrats want to continue with the same policies of the last 4 years - which is not a "new course". But I admit to being surprised that the recent Gulf oil rig fire - and worker deaths - hasn't resulted in a shallow-water well "moratorium".
On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 16:25:32 -0500, bill horne <redy...@rye.net>
wrote:
>IMO, the terrorism connection was suppressed because it didn't fit >with the President's campaign claim that 'bin Laden is dead and the >terrorists are on the run'. (but just to be clear for the reading >disabled, i'm not arguing that bin laden is not dead)
bill, I certainly would not argue against that. At this moment I bet
the Administration wishes they had handled things differently.
>> Of course they have delighted in looking foolish for the past
>> 8-months. It is time to move on and set a new course.
>Move on to where? The last I heard, the President and the Democrats >want to continue with the same policies of the last 4 years - which is >not a "new course".
You have a point. However, the President and Democrats seem to be
representing a majority of the population. I do not necessarily agree
with the majority but that is the message the voters sent.
As you know I want to cut spending. I want to cut it drastically. I
do not think it is going to happen. Democrats seem to only be willing
to cut Defense spending while the Republicans seem to only be willing
to cut domestic programs. Sadly the American people will be the
loser.
>But I admit to being surprised that the recent >Gulf oil rig fire - and worker deaths - hasn't resulted in a >shallow-water well "moratorium".
That might be a surprise to me as well but I think Obama is wising up
and trying to not be as reactionary to things like that. Especially
the shellacking he took over the Canadian pipe line deal.
Eric Holder has taken a lot of heat the past few years..... much of it
deserved. However, he delivered a pretty big win with the BP
settlement announced this week. That leaves me to wonder if a
Republican Attorney General would have even filed charges. It seems
to me that Republicans tend to dismiss virtually everything a
corporation does.
Mike Hendrix wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 16:25:32 -0500, bill horne<redy...@rye.net>
> wrote:
>> IMO, the terrorism connection was suppressed because it didn't fit
>> with the President's campaign claim that 'bin Laden is dead and the
>> terrorists are on the run'. (but just to be clear for the reading
>> disabled, i'm not arguing that bin laden is not dead)
> bill, I certainly would not argue against that. At this moment I bet
> the Administration wishes they had handled things differently.
>>> Of course they have delighted in looking foolish for the past
>>> 8-months. It is time to move on and set a new course.
>> Move on to where? The last I heard, the President and the Democrats
>> want to continue with the same policies of the last 4 years - which is
>> not a "new course".
> You have a point. However, the President and Democrats seem to be
> representing a majority of the population. I do not necessarily agree
> with the majority but that is the message the voters sent.
I contend that you don't know what message the voters sent, because each bloc of voters voted for - or against - different things. And there is no rule or law of science/economics/etc that says the "majority" knows the correct solution to something.
> As you know I want to cut spending. I want to cut it drastically. I
> do not think it is going to happen. Democrats seem to only be willing
> to cut Defense spending while the Republicans seem to only be willing
> to cut domestic programs. Sadly the American people will be the
> loser.
Nothing new there. Somebody loses even if stuff gets cut.
>> But I admit to being surprised that the recent
>> Gulf oil rig fire - and worker deaths - hasn't resulted in a
>> shallow-water well "moratorium".
> That might be a surprise to me as well but I think Obama is wising up
> and trying to not be as reactionary to things like that. Especially
> the shellacking he took over the Canadian pipe line deal.
> Eric Holder has taken a lot of heat the past few years..... much of it
> deserved. However, he delivered a pretty big win with the BP
> settlement announced this week. That leaves me to wonder if a
> Republican Attorney General would have even filed charges.
That seems like an extreme wondering.
> It seems
> to me that Republicans tend to dismiss virtually everything a
> corporation does.
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 10:50:39 -0800, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On 11/18/2012 10:31 AM, Ralph E Lindberg wrote:
>>> In article <ua9ia8lqctahg9f6nobhv5up19n9g1s...@4ax.com>,
>>> Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs (dot) us> wrote:
>>>> Jan, there is no doubt that the "Obama" administration spun the
>>>> message. No doubt.
>>>> As to the part about 4-people died. Yea they did, but a LOT more have
>>>> died in Afghanistan since that incident. Why aren't you as upset
>>>> about those deaths as your are the deaths in Bengazi?
>>>> It is fairly obvious that you want to do anything to discredit Obama.
>>>> That is all that you have posted in the past 8-months. Attacking
>>>> Obama from a position of weakness only makes you look foolish, kinda
>>>> like Donald Trump foolish, if you get my drift.
>>>> Obama is in the White House for another 4-years, it is time to make
>>>> the best of it. Democrats have control of the Senate, it is time to
>>>> make the most of it.
>>>> If you and the right wing nut cases keep singing off the same sheet of
>>>> music you are going to be in the same predicament come the next
>>>> election.
>>>> It is your choice, wake up.
>>> Mike, there are so MANY real things to beat Obama up over, things he
>>> has done (and shouldn't have), things he hasn't done (and should have).
>>> But Jan would rather just spout the talking points from the ODS folk.
>> I'm sure both of you had exactly the same opinion and encouraged people
>> to ignore Nixon's coverup of the Watergate affair too. After all, why
>> would you treat one presidential coverup differently from the next?
> -----------------------
> Apples & oranges and you know it.
> Spokes people (Rice) are provided talking points every time they get
> up to speak..... just ask Colin Powell. And Powell is as honest as
> the day is long.
Powell never said anything he didn't believe to be true.
> I am certainly not excusing the Administrations twisting of facts (and
> that was obviously done). But the Republicans need to back off Rice.
She either lied, or is completely incompetent. Either way, she should never be approved for a promotion.
-- Bruce
Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one else can see. Arthur Schopenhauer
>On 11/18/2012 12:30 PM, Mike Hendrix wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 10:50:39 -0800, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On 11/18/2012 10:31 AM, Ralph E Lindberg wrote:
>>>> In article <ua9ia8lqctahg9f6nobhv5up19n9g1s...@4ax.com>,
>>>> Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs (dot) us> wrote:
>>>>> Jan, there is no doubt that the "Obama" administration spun the
>>>>> message. No doubt.
>>>>> As to the part about 4-people died. Yea they did, but a LOT more have
>>>>> died in Afghanistan since that incident. Why aren't you as upset
>>>>> about those deaths as your are the deaths in Bengazi?
>>>>> It is fairly obvious that you want to do anything to discredit Obama.
>>>>> That is all that you have posted in the past 8-months. Attacking
>>>>> Obama from a position of weakness only makes you look foolish, kinda
>>>>> like Donald Trump foolish, if you get my drift.
>>>>> Obama is in the White House for another 4-years, it is time to make
>>>>> the best of it. Democrats have control of the Senate, it is time to
>>>>> make the most of it.
>>>>> If you and the right wing nut cases keep singing off the same sheet of
>>>>> music you are going to be in the same predicament come the next
>>>>> election.
>>>>> It is your choice, wake up.
>>>> Mike, there are so MANY real things to beat Obama up over, things he
>>>> has done (and shouldn't have), things he hasn't done (and should have).
>>>> But Jan would rather just spout the talking points from the ODS folk.
>>> I'm sure both of you had exactly the same opinion and encouraged people
>>> to ignore Nixon's coverup of the Watergate affair too. After all, why
>>> would you treat one presidential coverup differently from the next?
>> -----------------------
>> Apples & oranges and you know it.
>> Spokes people (Rice) are provided talking points every time they get
>> up to speak..... just ask Colin Powell. And Powell is as honest as
>> the day is long.
>Powell never said anything he didn't believe to be true.
>> I am certainly not excusing the Administrations twisting of facts (and
>> that was obviously done). But the Republicans need to back off Rice.
>She either lied, or is completely incompetent. Either way, she should >never be approved for a promotion.
-------------------------------
Bruce, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I doubt that is
the majority opinion. I think most thinking individuals see this as
another witch hunt launched by the wing-nuts.
