<consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
> On 2012-11-16, J.C. Watts <jonens...@charter.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 15, 11:10?pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
> ><consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
> >> Basically, your party and President are cowardly and dishonorable, and
> >> when anyone tries to hold them accountable, they double down on the
> >> cowardly and dishonorable.
> > Honestly Con, I think you should probably go away for awhile. After
> > the election debacle, and rants and diatribes like this, it really is
> > hard to take you seriously.
> What do you call leaving four Americans to die in Benghazi? Embodying
> the Democratic party principles? I know, to the president -- it's just
> a bump in the road.
> Well, the same dishonorable blame-other tactics are being called out,
> and you say "you can't take it seriously". What can you take seriously?
Certainly not you...you are too partisan to be taken seriously. Are
you actually John McCain????
> I know government workers have a hard time taking anything seriously.
> It's not like anyone considers turning the money spigot off. Big mama
> government will provide. Just don't try and hit them in their pension
> -- then they get nasty.
> On Nov 16, 6:52?am, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
><consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2012-11-16, Eric Ramon <ramon.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Nov 15, 9:10?pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
>> ><consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Obama is to blame, he won't answer questions, and when McCain attempts
>> >> to get him to accept responsibility, Democrats make cheap, false, and
>> >> dishonorable attacks on him.
>> >> Basically, your party and President are cowardly and dishonorable, and
>> >> when anyone tries to hold them accountable, they double down on the
>> >> cowardly and dishonorable.
>> > I hear Obama is toast.
>> I thought he was and I was wrong. I can admit I was wrong;
>> I don't have to point fingers at others and blame.
>> > That is to say, you tend to overreact in a highly partisan way.
>> Overreact? That's the whole point. It isn't a partisan issue.
>> Do you understand dead? D-E-A-D? With people who could've
>> and should've helped? Do you understand duty, and helping
>> fellow Americans? Apparently the Democratic Party does not.
>> And to try and weasel out of being held accountable, as you
>> apparently are wont to do? Low and dishonorable.
>> The Democratic Party is redefining low and dishonorable. But
>> it is because of their cowardice and dishonesty, not because of
>> political talking points.
> Members of the Bush administration were never held accountable for
> starting a war in Iraq based on false information.
They weren't? Then what was the years of attacks and hand-wringing
from the Democratic party all about?
> In fact, Romney was going to have a lot of them in his
> administration. Did you ever call them out for being held
> accountable?
That's ancient history, a hypothetical, and another transparent
attempt to avoid blame with a red herring.
> I think there should be hearings on this obviously. But it would be
> nice if Republicans would let the hearings happen without jumping to
> conclusions first, which from my eyes looks like what they are
> trying to do.
When the administration tries to avoid people attending the
hearings, what are you supposed to do? Bend over and take it?
Obama lied. His administration lied. Period. He was caught at
it, now he uses the FBI and the Petraeus affair to distract.
They are the ones subverting the process, and here you are pointing
fingers at McCain.
That is low tactics, and I would hope it would be beneath you.
-- An amateur practices until he gets it right. A pro
practices until he can't get it wrong. -- unknown
> >> >> >> > John McCain skips a briefing on Benghazi to go to a presser
> >> >> >> > complaining that he's not getting enough info about Benghazi?
> >> >> >> > Pure awesomeness.
> >> >> >> Considering the lies that were peddled in previous briefings,
> >> >> >> not a surprise.
> >> >> >> > Almost as good as the main who picked Sarah Palin for his VIP
> >> >> >> > complaining that Susan Rice isn't smart enough to be Secretary of
> >> >> >> > State.
> >> >> >> I think it's the "honest enough" that is the question. When you are
> >> >> >> stupid enough to peddle a story a child wouldn't believe, that's stupid.
> >> >> >> And it's noted that you just point fingers at others, as usual.
> >> >> >> Obama is a coward and a cretin, and you trying to blame Republicans
> >> >> >> for his fecklessness takes the cake.
> >> >> >> Try accepting some responsibility for a change. Blaming Republicans
> >> >> >> for Democratic failings is low-class. But I guess oh-so-Democrat.
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> There's nothing sweeter than life nor more precious than time.
> >> >> >> -- Barney
> >> >> > To summarize:
> >> >> > 2012: Susan Rice makes a wrong public statement based on bad
> >> >> > intelligence
> >> >> It wasn't based on bad intelligence. It's based on a lie. A lie
> >> >> so transparent it wouldn't fool a schoolchild.
> >> >> > 2003: George W. Bush starts a war based on bad intelligence
> >> >> With Congressional approval and scrutiny all the way along.
> >> >> He got buy in. But it's ancient history.
> >> >> > Which of these two do Lindsay Graham and John McCain think is a
> >> >> > national crisis?
> >> >> Blaming others again, I see. Trying to distract again, I see.
> >> >> Despicable tactics again, I see.
> >> > I'm not blaming McCain and Graham for the deaths in Benghazi.
> >> Who are you blaming? No one, apparently.
> > I'm waiting for the facts to come out before assigning blame. But if
> > you don't think I'm open to acknowledging its a fuckup, well google is
> > your friend and I've posted on this before.
> A "fuckup"? Then where are your questions for the people who fucked
> up?
> >> > I'm blaming them for trying to use it to score political points and
> >> > not even being subtle about it.
> >> No, you are repeating Democrat talking points that are trying to
> >> distract from Obama's responsibility for the whole sordid affair.
> > And you're repeating GOP talking points
> What? Come on. You are the one who started pointing fingers
> away from your homeboys. Bringing up Palin -- how ridiculous
> can you get.
> >> McCain is a genuine war hero outraged about Obama's cowardly and
> >> cavalier treatment of Americans. Saying he is trying to score
> >> political points is dastardly and beneath contempt.
> > McCain is indeed a genuine war hero. But as a politician he has lost
> > his way since 2000 and is sad shadow of his former self.
> Attacking him again to evade? Do you always do that?
> >> Who *would* you hold accountable? When will the press and the Congress
> >> do so? Apparently they won't. So McCain has to do it.
> > McCain can't do it with any credibility when he blows off the
> > oversight briefings.
> Who are you to judge him and what he needs to do? IT ISN"T ABOUT HIM.
> And since he was lied to in previous briefings, you want him to take
> them at face value?
> >> To claim that he
> >> is trying to score political points by doing his job is once again,
> >> despicable and transparent tactics.
> > Doing his job doesn't include attending oversight briefings? To claim
> > that he isn't trying to score political points is to be willfully
> > blind to what's going on in Washington.
> There you go again. Attacking to evade. It's a red herring, and it
> won't work.
> >> Obama is to blame, he won't answer questions, and when McCain attempts
> >> to get him to accept responsibility, Democrats make cheap, false, and
> >> dishonorable attacks on him.
> > Obama may be to blame, but Republicans started making cheap, false and
> > dishonorable attacks on him before the smoke even cleared in Benghazi,
> > before they or anyone knew anything.
> Excuse me? The administration made apologies for free speech in the
> moments after the attack. That's what was attacked, and you don't need
> any more evidence since they actually did it and it's a matter of
> public record. It's cowardly and un-American, though I suppose it fits
> well with Obama's world view.
> So how was that "cheap, false, and dishonorable"? Do you even know what
> that means?
> > And they continue to do so rather than do real investigation and
> > oversight.
> Patently false. And a transparent attempt by you to point fingers
> at others instead of addressing the issue at hand. Oh, does that
> remind me of someone and some political party?
See...this is why it is hard to take you seriously. If you can't find
any fault in the way some in the Republican leadership have approached
this issue, then I don't know what to say.
I think hearings need to be held and the truth needs to come out, but
I have my doubts that's what McCain really wants.
> On Nov 16, 8:52?am, "J.C. Watts" <jonens...@charter.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 16, 6:52?am, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
>> <consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 2012-11-16, Eric Ramon <ramon.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > On Nov 15, 9:10?pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
>> > ><consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> Obama is to blame, he won't answer questions, and when McCain attempts
>> > >> to get him to accept responsibility, Democrats make cheap, false, and
>> > >> dishonorable attacks on him.
>> > >> Basically, your party and President are cowardly and dishonorable, and
>> > >> when anyone tries to hold them accountable, they double down on the
>> > >> cowardly and dishonorable.
>> > > I hear Obama is toast.
>> > I thought he was and I was wrong. I can admit I was wrong;
>> > I don't have to point fingers at others and blame.
>> > > That is to say, you tend to overreact in a highly partisan way.
>> > Overreact? That's the whole point. It isn't a partisan issue.
>> > Do you understand dead? D-E-A-D? With people who could've
>> > and should've helped? Do you understand duty, and helping
>> > fellow Americans? Apparently the Democratic Party does not.
>> > And to try and weasel out of being held accountable, as you
>> > apparently are wont to do? Low and dishonorable.
>> > The Democratic Party is redefining low and dishonorable. But
>> > it is because of their cowardice and dishonesty, not because of
>> > political talking points.
>> Members of the Bush administration were never held accountable for
>> starting a war in Iraq based on false information. ?In fact, Romney
>> was going to have a lot of them in his administration. ?Did you ever
>> call them out for being held accountable?
>> I think there should be hearings on this obviously. ?But it would be
>> nice if Republicans would let the hearings happen without jumping to
>> conclusions first, which from my eyes looks like what they are trying
>> to do.
> Plus it would be nice if those with Congressional oversight duties
> would attend briefings on it, so they know what they are ranting
> about. The fact that McCain skipped his briefing for a press event
> shows that he's not really interested in real oversight, he just wants
> to score points.
Who are you to decide he needs a briefing? Since the administration
has repeatedly lied during the briefings, why would they be a priority?
-- Being against torture ought to be sort of a bipartisan thing.
-- Karl Lehenbauer
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American <con...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>Who are you to decide he needs a briefing? Since the administration
>has repeatedly lied during the briefings, why would they be a priority?
The top Republican the committee, Senator Susan Collins, AND
Chairman Senator Joe Lieberman, both called him out for not
showing up! McCain has turned Benghazigate into a clown show.
>> >> >> >> > John McCain skips a briefing on Benghazi to go to a presser
>> >> >> >> > complaining that he's not getting enough info about Benghazi?
>> >> >> >> > Pure awesomeness.
>> >> >> >> Considering the lies that were peddled in previous briefings,
>> >> >> >> not a surprise.
>> >> >> >> > Almost as good as the main who picked Sarah Palin for his VIP
>> >> >> >> > complaining that Susan Rice isn't smart enough to be Secretary of
>> >> >> >> > State.
>> >> >> >> I think it's the "honest enough" that is the question. When you are
>> >> >> >> stupid enough to peddle a story a child wouldn't believe, that's stupid.
>> >> >> >> And it's noted that you just point fingers at others, as usual.
>> >> >> >> Obama is a coward and a cretin, and you trying to blame Republicans
>> >> >> >> for his fecklessness takes the cake.
>> >> >> >> Try accepting some responsibility for a change. Blaming Republicans
>> >> >> >> for Democratic failings is low-class. But I guess oh-so-Democrat.
>> >> >> >> --
>> >> >> >> There's nothing sweeter than life nor more precious than time.
>> >> >> >> -- Barney
>> >> >> > To summarize:
>> >> >> > 2012: Susan Rice makes a wrong public statement based on bad
>> >> >> > intelligence
>> >> >> It wasn't based on bad intelligence. It's based on a lie. A lie
>> >> >> so transparent it wouldn't fool a schoolchild.
>> >> >> > 2003: George W. Bush starts a war based on bad intelligence
>> >> >> With Congressional approval and scrutiny all the way along.
>> >> >> He got buy in. But it's ancient history.
>> >> >> > Which of these two do Lindsay Graham and John McCain think is a
>> >> >> > national crisis?
>> >> >> Blaming others again, I see. Trying to distract again, I see.
>> >> >> Despicable tactics again, I see.
>> >> > I'm not blaming McCain and Graham for the deaths in Benghazi.
>> >> Who are you blaming? No one, apparently.
>> > I'm waiting for the facts to come out before assigning blame. But if
>> > you don't think I'm open to acknowledging its a fuckup, well google is
>> > your friend and I've posted on this before.
>> A "fuckup"? Then where are your questions for the people who fucked
>> up?
>> >> > I'm blaming them for trying to use it to score political points and
>> >> > not even being subtle about it.
>> >> No, you are repeating Democrat talking points that are trying to
>> >> distract from Obama's responsibility for the whole sordid affair.
>> > And you're repeating GOP talking points
>> What? Come on. You are the one who started pointing fingers
>> away from your homeboys. Bringing up Palin -- how ridiculous
>> can you get.
>> >> McCain is a genuine war hero outraged about Obama's cowardly and
>> >> cavalier treatment of Americans. Saying he is trying to score
>> >> political points is dastardly and beneath contempt.
>> > McCain is indeed a genuine war hero. But as a politician he has lost
>> > his way since 2000 and is sad shadow of his former self.
>> Attacking him again to evade? Do you always do that?
>> >> Who *would* you hold accountable? When will the press and the Congress
>> >> do so? Apparently they won't. So McCain has to do it.
>> > McCain can't do it with any credibility when he blows off the
>> > oversight briefings.
>> Who are you to judge him and what he needs to do? ?IT ISN"T ABOUT HIM.
>> And since he was lied to in previous briefings, you want him to take
>> them at face value?
>> >> To claim that he
>> >> is trying to score political points by doing his job is once again,
>> >> despicable and transparent tactics.
>> > Doing his job doesn't include attending oversight briefings? To claim
>> > that he isn't trying to score political points is to be willfully
>> > blind to what's going on in Washington.
>> There you go again. Attacking to evade. It's a red herring, and it
>> won't work.
>> >> Obama is to blame, he won't answer questions, and when McCain attempts
>> >> to get him to accept responsibility, Democrats make cheap, false, and
>> >> dishonorable attacks on him.
>> > Obama may be to blame, but Republicans started making cheap, false and
>> > dishonorable attacks on him before the smoke even cleared in Benghazi,
>> > before they or anyone knew anything.
>> Excuse me? The administration made apologies for free speech in the
>> moments after the attack. That's what was attacked, and you don't need
>> any more evidence since they actually did it and it's a matter of
>> public record. It's cowardly and un-American, though I suppose it fits
>> well with Obama's world view.
>> So how was that "cheap, false, and dishonorable"? Do you even know what
>> that means?
>> > And they continue to do so rather than do real investigation and
>> > oversight.
>> Patently false. And a transparent attempt by you to point fingers
>> at others instead of addressing the issue at hand. Oh, does that
>> remind me of someone and some political party?
> See...this is why it is hard to take you seriously. If you can't find
> any fault in the way some in the Republican leadership have approached
> this issue, then I don't know what to say.
It isn't about them.
> I think hearings need to be held and the truth needs to come out, but
> I have my doubts that's what McCain really wants.
Why? Because you're trying to make it about him? It isn't about him.
It is about getting at the truth. If the Obama administration cooperates
with the hearings, I say fine. But with their outrageous evasive tactics,
including the talking points you are parroting trying to make McCain and
the Republicans the issue, that can't be done.
I am just sick of this constant red herring point fingers approach.
Bringing up Palin -- how ridiculous can you get. Bringing up past
adminstration's errors. That isn't the issue. The issue is the
Benghazi situation.
Let the hearings commence. With all the players. If that happens? I
am happy. The press and the Democrats -- but I repeat myself --
pointing of fingers at McCain is a transparent attempt to distract.
-- There's nothing sweeter than life nor more precious than time.
-- Barney
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American <con...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>Let the hearings commence. With all the players. If that happens? I
>am happy. The press and the Democrats -- but I repeat myself --
>pointing of fingers at McCain is a transparent attempt to distract.
> >> >> >> >> > John McCain skips a briefing on Benghazi to go to a presser
> >> >> >> >> > complaining that he's not getting enough info about Benghazi?
> >> >> >> >> > Pure awesomeness.
> >> >> >> >> Considering the lies that were peddled in previous briefings,
> >> >> >> >> not a surprise.
> >> >> >> >> > Almost as good as the main who picked Sarah Palin for his VIP
> >> >> >> >> > complaining that Susan Rice isn't smart enough to be Secretary of
> >> >> >> >> > State.
> >> >> >> >> I think it's the "honest enough" that is the question. When you are
> >> >> >> >> stupid enough to peddle a story a child wouldn't believe, that's stupid.
> >> >> >> >> And it's noted that you just point fingers at others, as usual.
> >> >> >> >> Obama is a coward and a cretin, and you trying to blame Republicans
> >> >> >> >> for his fecklessness takes the cake.
> >> >> >> >> Try accepting some responsibility for a change. Blaming Republicans
> >> >> >> >> for Democratic failings is low-class. But I guess oh-so-Democrat.
> >> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> >> There's nothing sweeter than life nor more precious than time.
> >> >> >> >> -- Barney
> >> >> >> > To summarize:
> >> >> >> > 2012: Susan Rice makes a wrong public statement based on bad
> >> >> >> > intelligence
> >> >> >> It wasn't based on bad intelligence. It's based on a lie. A lie
> >> >> >> so transparent it wouldn't fool a schoolchild.
> >> >> >> > 2003: George W. Bush starts a war based on bad intelligence
> >> >> >> With Congressional approval and scrutiny all the way along.
> >> >> >> He got buy in. But it's ancient history.
> >> >> >> > Which of these two do Lindsay Graham and John McCain think is a
> >> >> >> > national crisis?
> >> >> >> Blaming others again, I see. Trying to distract again, I see.
> >> >> >> Despicable tactics again, I see.
> >> >> > I'm not blaming McCain and Graham for the deaths in Benghazi.
> >> >> Who are you blaming? No one, apparently.
> >> > I'm waiting for the facts to come out before assigning blame. But if
> >> > you don't think I'm open to acknowledging its a fuckup, well google is
> >> > your friend and I've posted on this before.
> >> A "fuckup"? Then where are your questions for the people who fucked
> >> up?
> >> >> > I'm blaming them for trying to use it to score political points and
> >> >> > not even being subtle about it.
> >> >> No, you are repeating Democrat talking points that are trying to
> >> >> distract from Obama's responsibility for the whole sordid affair.
> >> > And you're repeating GOP talking points
> >> What? Come on. You are the one who started pointing fingers
> >> away from your homeboys. Bringing up Palin -- how ridiculous
> >> can you get.
> >> >> McCain is a genuine war hero outraged about Obama's cowardly and
> >> >> cavalier treatment of Americans. Saying he is trying to score
> >> >> political points is dastardly and beneath contempt.
> >> > McCain is indeed a genuine war hero. But as a politician he has lost
> >> > his way since 2000 and is sad shadow of his former self.
> >> Attacking him again to evade? Do you always do that?
> >> >> Who *would* you hold accountable? When will the press and the Congress
> >> >> do so? Apparently they won't. So McCain has to do it.
> >> > McCain can't do it with any credibility when he blows off the
> >> > oversight briefings.
> >> Who are you to judge him and what he needs to do? ?IT ISN"T ABOUT HIM.
> >> And since he was lied to in previous briefings, you want him to take
> >> them at face value?
> >> >> To claim that he
> >> >> is trying to score political points by doing his job is once again,
> >> >> despicable and transparent tactics.
> >> > Doing his job doesn't include attending oversight briefings? To claim
> >> > that he isn't trying to score political points is to be willfully
> >> > blind to what's going on in Washington.
> >> There you go again. Attacking to evade. It's a red herring, and it
> >> won't work.
> >> >> Obama is to blame, he won't answer questions, and when McCain attempts
> >> >> to get him to accept responsibility, Democrats make cheap, false, and
> >> >> dishonorable attacks on him.
> >> > Obama may be to blame, but Republicans started making cheap, false and
> >> > dishonorable attacks on him before the smoke even cleared in Benghazi,
> >> > before they or anyone knew anything.
> >> Excuse me? The administration made apologies for free speech in the
> >> moments after the attack. That's what was attacked, and you don't need
> >> any more evidence since they actually did it and it's a matter of
> >> public record. It's cowardly and un-American, though I suppose it fits
> >> well with Obama's world view.
> >> So how was that "cheap, false, and dishonorable"? Do you even know what
> >> that means?
> >> > And they continue to do so rather than do real investigation and
> >> > oversight.
> >> Patently false. And a transparent attempt by you to point fingers
> >> at others instead of addressing the issue at hand. Oh, does that
> >> remind me of someone and some political party?
> > See...this is why it is hard to take you seriously. If you can't find
> > any fault in the way some in the Republican leadership have approached
> > this issue, then I don't know what to say.
> It isn't about them.
Of course it is. How they conduct congressional oversight is part of
the issue here.
> > I think hearings need to be held and the truth needs to come out, but
> > I have my doubts that's what McCain really wants.
> Why? Because you're trying to make it about him? It isn't about him.
> It is about getting at the truth. If the Obama administration cooperates
> with the hearings, I say fine. But with their outrageous evasive tactics,
> including the talking points you are parroting trying to make McCain and
> the Republicans the issue, that can't be done.
How they conduct oversight is certainly part of the issue. Skipping
hearing so they can conduct press conferences show that "finding the
truth" may not be their primary goal. You can't see that?
> I am just sick of this constant red herring point fingers approach.
> Bringing up Palin -- how ridiculous can you get. Bringing up past
> adminstration's errors. That isn't the issue. The issue is the
> Benghazi situation.
Bringing up the previous administration, and your reaction to that,
shows that you are not politically neutral in the matter. Which I
suspected from the beginning.
<consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
> On 2012-11-16, Eric Ramon <ramon.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 15, 9:10?pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
> ><consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
> >> Obama is to blame, he won't answer questions, and when McCain attempts
> >> to get him to accept responsibility, Democrats make cheap, false, and
> >> dishonorable attacks on him.
> >> Basically, your party and President are cowardly and dishonorable, and
> >> when anyone tries to hold them accountable, they double down on the
> >> cowardly and dishonorable.
> > I hear Obama is toast.
> I thought he was and I was wrong. I can admit I was wrong;
> I don't have to point fingers at others and blame.
> > That is to say, you tend to overreact in a highly partisan way.
> Overreact? That's the whole point. It isn't a partisan issue.
> Do you understand dead? D-E-A-D? With people who could've
> and should've helped? Do you understand duty, and helping
> fellow Americans? Apparently the Democratic Party does not.
> And to try and weasel out of being held accountable, as you
> apparently are wont to do? Low and dishonorable.
> The Democratic Party is redefining low and dishonorable. But
> it is because of their cowardice and dishonesty, not because of
> political talking points.
Members of the Bush administration were never held accountable for
starting a war in Iraq based on false information. In fact, Romney
was going to have a lot of them in his administration. Did you ever
call them out for being held accountable?
----
I did. I think all the republican apologists are bordering on assholes
on this one. Tom-whoever-it-was who disappeared being a notable
example of a non-libertarian claiming to be one. Disgust me much.
Fucking bullshit. I hate democrats only slightly more than Bushists.
Caveat: A small minority of Republicans are not Bushists. A small
minority of Democrats do not believe in unicorns.
>>> > John McCain skips a briefing on Benghazi to go to a presser
>>> > complaining that he's not getting enough info about Benghazi?
>>> > Pure awesomeness.
>>> Considering the lies that were peddled in previous briefings,
>>> not a surprise.
>>> > Almost as good as the main who picked Sarah Palin for his VIP
>>> > complaining that Susan Rice isn't smart enough to be Secretary of
>>> > State.
>>> I think it's the "honest enough" that is the question. When you are
>>> stupid enough to peddle a story a child wouldn't believe, that's stupid.
>>> And it's noted that you just point fingers at others, as usual.
>>> Obama is a coward and a cretin, and you trying to blame Republicans
>>> for his fecklessness takes the cake.
>>> Try accepting some responsibility for a change. Blaming Republicans
>>> for Democratic failings is low-class. But I guess oh-so-Democrat.
>>> --
>>> There's nothing sweeter than life nor more precious than time.
>>> -- Barney
>> To summarize:
>> 2012: Susan Rice makes a wrong public statement based on bad
>> intelligence
> It wasn't based on bad intelligence. It's based on a lie. A lie
> so transparent it wouldn't fool a schoolchild.
>> 2003: George W. Bush starts a war based on bad intelligence
> With Congressional approval and scrutiny all the way along.
> He got buy in. But it's ancient history.
Why cannot you admit when Bush the Yes Man and his
advisors screwed the pooch?
On Nov 16, 9:59 am, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
<consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
> Let the hearings commence. With all the players. If that happens? I
> am happy. The press and the Democrats -- but I repeat myself --
> pointing of fingers at McCain is a transparent attempt to distract.
Dude. The hearings have commenced. The only player that's been
missing is John McCain, because the classified briefing he skipped was
part of the hearings process! Today, David Petreus is testifying.
So the hearings are happening.
The real problem here, IMO, is the right-wing fantasy that Benghazi is
a combination Iran Hostage Crisis - Watergate silver bullet that will
finally bring down Obama after birtherism, Rev Wright, false cries of
socialism, etc. failed to. When in fact it's simply a garden variety
security and intelligence fuck-up, of the type every president has.
And I'm sure if the hearings, which are already ongoing, don't
produce that silver bullet you will be claiming it's a coverup.
> > >> Obama is to blame, he won't answer questions, and when McCain attempts
> > >> to get him to accept responsibility, Democrats make cheap, false, and
> > >> dishonorable attacks on him.
> > >> Basically, your party and President are cowardly and dishonorable, and
> > >> when anyone tries to hold them accountable, they double down on the
> > >> cowardly and dishonorable.
> > > I hear Obama is toast.
> > I thought he was and I was wrong. I can admit I was wrong;
> > I don't have to point fingers at others and blame.
> > > That is to say, you tend to overreact in a highly partisan way.
> > Overreact? That's the whole point. It isn't a partisan issue.
> > Do you understand dead? D-E-A-D? With people who could've
> > and should've helped? Do you understand duty, and helping
> > fellow Americans? Apparently the Democratic Party does not.
> > And to try and weasel out of being held accountable, as you
> > apparently are wont to do? Low and dishonorable.
> > The Democratic Party is redefining low and dishonorable. But
> > it is because of their cowardice and dishonesty, not because of
> > political talking points.
> Members of the Bush administration were never held accountable for
> starting a war in Iraq based on false information. In fact, Romney
> was going to have a lot of them in his administration. Did you ever
> call them out for being held accountable?
> I think there should be hearings on this obviously. But it would be
> nice if Republicans would let the hearings happen without jumping to
> conclusions first, which from my eyes looks like what they are trying
> to do.
Plus it would be nice if those with Congressional oversight duties
would attend briefings on it, so they know what they are ranting
about. The fact that McCain skipped his briefing for a press event
shows that he's not really interested in real oversight, he just wants
to score points.
----
I call busllshit. Never ascribe whatever when stupidity makes more
sense. I think McCain just fucked up, and your assertion about
oversight verses scoring points is bullshit.
You're right he wanted to score points, but he just screwed up.
It wasn't at the expense of oversight, which he would have relished.
> > > >> Obama is to blame, he won't answer questions, and when McCain attempts
> > > >> to get him to accept responsibility, Democrats make cheap, false, and
> > > >> dishonorable attacks on him.
> > > >> Basically, your party and President are cowardly and dishonorable, and
> > > >> when anyone tries to hold them accountable, they double down on the
> > > >> cowardly and dishonorable.
> > > > I hear Obama is toast.
> > > I thought he was and I was wrong. I can admit I was wrong;
> > > I don't have to point fingers at others and blame.
> > > > That is to say, you tend to overreact in a highly partisan way.
> > > Overreact? That's the whole point. It isn't a partisan issue.
> > > Do you understand dead? D-E-A-D? With people who could've
> > > and should've helped? Do you understand duty, and helping
> > > fellow Americans? Apparently the Democratic Party does not.
> > > And to try and weasel out of being held accountable, as you
> > > apparently are wont to do? Low and dishonorable.
> > > The Democratic Party is redefining low and dishonorable. But
> > > it is because of their cowardice and dishonesty, not because of
> > > political talking points.
> > Members of the Bush administration were never held accountable for
> > starting a war in Iraq based on false information. In fact, Romney
> > was going to have a lot of them in his administration. Did you ever
> > call them out for being held accountable?
> > I think there should be hearings on this obviously. But it would be
> > nice if Republicans would let the hearings happen without jumping to
> > conclusions first, which from my eyes looks like what they are trying
> > to do.
> Plus it would be nice if those with Congressional oversight duties
> would attend briefings on it, so they know what they are ranting
> about. The fact that McCain skipped his briefing for a press event
> shows that he's not really interested in real oversight, he just wants
> to score points.
> ----
> I call busllshit. Never ascribe whatever when stupidity makes more
> sense. I think McCain just fucked up, and your assertion about
> oversight verses scoring points is bullshit.
So you're saying he's incompetent? That's his excuse?
> > > >> Obama is to blame, he won't answer questions, and when McCain attempts
> > > >> to get him to accept responsibility, Democrats make cheap, false, and
> > > >> dishonorable attacks on him.
> > > >> Basically, your party and President are cowardly and dishonorable, and
> > > >> when anyone tries to hold them accountable, they double down on the
> > > >> cowardly and dishonorable.
> > > > I hear Obama is toast.
> > > I thought he was and I was wrong. I can admit I was wrong;
> > > I don't have to point fingers at others and blame.
> > > > That is to say, you tend to overreact in a highly partisan way.
> > > Overreact? That's the whole point. It isn't a partisan issue.
> > > Do you understand dead? D-E-A-D? With people who could've
> > > and should've helped? Do you understand duty, and helping
> > > fellow Americans? Apparently the Democratic Party does not.
> > > And to try and weasel out of being held accountable, as you
> > > apparently are wont to do? Low and dishonorable.
> > > The Democratic Party is redefining low and dishonorable. But
> > > it is because of their cowardice and dishonesty, not because of
> > > political talking points.
> > Members of the Bush administration were never held accountable for
> > starting a war in Iraq based on false information. In fact, Romney
> > was going to have a lot of them in his administration. Did you ever
> > call them out for being held accountable?
> > I think there should be hearings on this obviously. But it would be
> > nice if Republicans would let the hearings happen without jumping to
> > conclusions first, which from my eyes looks like what they are trying
> > to do.
> Plus it would be nice if those with Congressional oversight duties
> would attend briefings on it, so they know what they are ranting
> about. The fact that McCain skipped his briefing for a press event
> shows that he's not really interested in real oversight, he just wants
> to score points.
> ----
> I call busllshit. Never ascribe whatever when stupidity makes more
> sense. I think McCain just fucked up, and your assertion about
> oversight verses scoring points is bullshit.
> You're right he wanted to score points, but he just screwed up.
> It wasn't at the expense of oversight, which he would have relished.
Maybe he really is incompetent... that's definitely a possibility. ...
But then again this was a classified briefing so 1) he couldn't
grandstand for reporters and 2) he might learn something contrary to
his narrative. So not sure how much he would have relished it.
> > > >> Obama is to blame, he won't answer questions, and when McCain attempts
> > > >> to get him to accept responsibility, Democrats make cheap, false, and
> > > >> dishonorable attacks on him.
> > > >> Basically, your party and President are cowardly and dishonorable, and
> > > >> when anyone tries to hold them accountable, they double down on the
> > > >> cowardly and dishonorable.
> > > > I hear Obama is toast.
> > > I thought he was and I was wrong. I can admit I was wrong;
> > > I don't have to point fingers at others and blame.
> > > > That is to say, you tend to overreact in a highly partisan way.
> > > Overreact? That's the whole point. It isn't a partisan issue.
> > > Do you understand dead? D-E-A-D? With people who could've
> > > and should've helped? Do you understand duty, and helping
> > > fellow Americans? Apparently the Democratic Party does not.
> > > And to try and weasel out of being held accountable, as you
> > > apparently are wont to do? Low and dishonorable.
> > > The Democratic Party is redefining low and dishonorable. But
> > > it is because of their cowardice and dishonesty, not because of
> > > political talking points.
> > Members of the Bush administration were never held accountable for
> > starting a war in Iraq based on false information. In fact, Romney
> > was going to have a lot of them in his administration. Did you ever
> > call them out for being held accountable?
> > I think there should be hearings on this obviously. But it would be
> > nice if Republicans would let the hearings happen without jumping to
> > conclusions first, which from my eyes looks like what they are trying
> > to do.
> Plus it would be nice if those with Congressional oversight duties
> would attend briefings on it, so they know what they are ranting
> about. The fact that McCain skipped his briefing for a press event
> shows that he's not really interested in real oversight, he just wants
> to score points.
> ----
> I call busllshit. Never ascribe whatever when stupidity makes more
> sense. I think McCain just fucked up, and your assertion about
> oversight verses scoring points is bullshit.
<
>So you're saying he's incompetent? That's his excuse?
If, by your definition, everyone who has ever made a brain fart is
incompetent, then sure, dude, I wouldn't look at McCain's body
of work and call him incompetent, though he certainly has his
share of mistakes, like Palin.
"That's his excuse."?
Whatever, dude. Reagan, Bush X2, Clinton all had their mistakes.
None were incompetent. Well, Reagan was at the end, but not
before.
I'm amazed at how rsfcking dense the Economist can be sometimes. I read an article a few years ago about the Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon where they never stated the obvious fact that Hezbollah is an Iranian proxy group.
Here, they ignore that the administration was warned about a possible attack and that additional security had been requested. Spontaneous outbursts generally cannot be anticipated. They honestly expect us to think that being surprised is no different than dereliction? The Economist is also ignoring the fact that it is clear that several members of the administration, including the president, have lied about what happened. People usually don't lie without a reason.
> On 2012-11-16, D@n Brett@<nuda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 15, 11:21?pm, Eric Ramon<ramon.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 15, 9:10?pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
>>>> Obama is to blame, he won't answer questions, and when McCain attempts
>>>> to get him to accept responsibility, Democrats make cheap, false, and
>>>> dishonorable attacks on him.
>>>> Basically, your party and President are cowardly and dishonorable, and
>>>> when anyone tries to hold them accountable, they double down on the
>>>> cowardly and dishonorable.
>>> I hear Obama is toast.
>>> That is to say, you tend to overreact in a highly partisan way.
>> I'm surprised he still trusts the right-wing media after being mislead
>> in such a dastardly way.
> No, I understand that responsibility lies with me and I take ownership
> of my mistake. I know the concept is difficult for you, but just try
> to imagine what that might mean.
That you've stopped being a single-source consumer, with a deep and abiding trust that the far-right media is providing the "real story" while the more centrist media is in the pocket of the left?
Well, no, that's clearly not the case...
Cheers.
-- Too bad. Read the manual. If this stuff were easy
we would not get the big bucks. -- Michael Press, June 1st 2012
On 2012-11-16, xyzz-Quack! <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 9:59?am, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
><consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>> Let the hearings commence. With all the players. If that happens? I
>> am happy. The press and the Democrats -- but I repeat myself --
>> pointing of fingers at McCain is a transparent attempt to distract.
> Dude. The hearings have commenced. The only player that's been
> missing is John McCain, because the classified briefing he skipped was
> part of the hearings process!
Do you seriously think he is not read in? Your measly point is
no point at all.
> Today, David Petreus is testifying.
> So the hearings are happening.
> The real problem here, IMO, is the right-wing fantasy that Benghazi is
> a combination Iran Hostage Crisis - Watergate silver bullet that will
> finally bring down Obama after birtherism, Rev Wright, false cries of
> socialism, etc. failed to. When in fact it's simply a garden variety
> security and intelligence fuck-up, of the type every president has.
> And I'm sure if the hearings, which are already ongoing, don't
> produce that silver bullet you will be claiming it's a coverup.
I have no fantasy. I know that four people are dead, and that there is
no excuse for it. The simple facts of the case as they are known now
are damning enough. The people were left to die, and they were put
into position to die because of political posturing. And you bringing
McCain up to distract from that is trying to score political points.
By the way, you *do* recall that you posting that ridiculous
accusation against McCain is what started this little dustup?
-- Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently equipped fool. -- unknown
Emperor Wonko the Sane <d...@sorensensdomain.net> wrote:
>Here, they ignore that the administration was warned about a possible
>attack and that additional security had been requested. Spontaneous
>outbursts generally cannot be anticipated. They honestly expect us to
>think that being surprised is no different than dereliction? The
>Economist is also ignoring the fact that it is clear that several
>members of the administration, including the president, have lied about
>what happened. People usually don't lie without a reason.
You have no idea what you're talking about. None of that stuff
ever happened. Turn off Rush Limbaugh and read the news yourself.
On Nov 16, 11:44 am, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
<consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
> By the way, you *do* recall that you posting that ridiculous
> accusation against McCain is what started this little dustup?
No, I don't. Do you have me mistaken for another poster?
sure it is, they're just like the guy I *HAD* to learn about in
History class (he was a Wisconsinite) "IN MY HAND IS AN ENVELOPE WITH
THE NAMES OF KNOWN COMMUNISTS!!!!" the envelope contained Blank pages.
so excuse my Skepticism until people actually testify under Oath.
too many Republicans are acting McCarthyesque.
--
"Beware of the Military-Industrial Complex!!" D.D.E "iPOD -- I Prefer Other Devices" "Education is the progressive discovery of our own Ignorance" Will Durant
"One can't have a sense of perspective without a sense of Humor" -- Wayne Thiboux
"the Glass is not only half full, it has been delicious so far!!" -- ME
To reply, SCRAPE off the end bits.
American" <consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>On 2012-11-16, xyzz-Quack! <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 16, 9:59?am, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
>><consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>>> Let the hearings commence. With all the players. If that happens? I
>>> am happy. The press and the Democrats -- but I repeat myself --
>>> pointing of fingers at McCain is a transparent attempt to distract.
>> Dude. The hearings have commenced. The only player that's been
>> missing is John McCain, because the classified briefing he skipped was
>> part of the hearings process!
>Do you seriously think he is not read in? Your measly point is
>no point at all.
>> Today, David Petreus is testifying.
>> So the hearings are happening.
>> The real problem here, IMO, is the right-wing fantasy that Benghazi is
>> a combination Iran Hostage Crisis - Watergate silver bullet that will
>> finally bring down Obama after birtherism, Rev Wright, false cries of
>> socialism, etc. failed to. When in fact it's simply a garden variety
>> security and intelligence fuck-up, of the type every president has.
>> And I'm sure if the hearings, which are already ongoing, don't
>> produce that silver bullet you will be claiming it's a coverup.
>I have no fantasy. I know that four people are dead, and that there is
>no excuse for it. The simple facts of the case as they are known now
>are damning enough. The people were left to die, and they were put
>into position to die because of political posturing.
and others were ignored in the previous Administration.... something
like 30-40 killed over 8 different attacks. Mountain from a molehill
is what we have here.
more like Mourdock/Ailes trying to repeat Hearst.... REMEMBER THE
MAINE!!!!
--
"Beware of the Military-Industrial Complex!!" D.D.E "iPOD -- I Prefer Other Devices" "Education is the progressive discovery of our own Ignorance" Will Durant
"One can't have a sense of perspective without a sense of Humor" -- Wayne Thiboux
"the Glass is not only half full, it has been delicious so far!!" -- ME
To reply, SCRAPE off the end bits.
> >> > Obama is to blame, he won't answer questions, and when McCain attempts
> >> > to get him to accept responsibility, Democrats make cheap, false, and
> >> > dishonorable attacks on him.
> >> > Basically, your party and President are cowardly and dishonorable, and
> >> > when anyone tries to hold them accountable, they double down on the
> >> > cowardly and dishonorable.
> >> I hear Obama is toast.
> >> That is to say, you tend to overreact in a highly partisan way.
> > I'm surprised he still trusts the right-wing media after being mislead
> > in such a dastardly way.
> No, I understand that responsibility lies with me and I take ownership
> of my mistake. I know the concept is difficult for you, but just try
> to imagine what that might mean.
> --
> I don't want to get to the end of my life and find I have just
> lived the length of it. I want to have lived the width of it as
> well. -- Diane Ackerman
Have you ever stopped to think that, just maybe, you're not really...equipped... to form such strong opinions? I mean, I guess you can't help it, but you should have learned by now to keep these "fits" on the down low. You're really looking like more of an ass than on election day. And I didn't think that was possible.
