USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line
- Thread starter joecct
- Start date
- Status
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Because they already wasted time and money on this and found nothing. there is no 'there" there and there never was. It doesnt even qualify as a witch hunt it is so irrelevant. even if they prove whatever they are trying to prove, it doesnt do anything. This isnt Watergate, it isnt Whitewater it isnt even Lewinsky...it is a fishing expedition brought to you by the people who claim they care about governmental spending and abhor too much oversight.
You ask why the GOP gets ripped for it because they spend all day every day telling s they are the party of fiscal responsibility. The Dems never pretend that in fact everyone expects them to overspend and over reach. the GOP though pretends like they want to keep spending in check. Just like when christian Conservative campaign on the fact that they are wholesome and pure ripping to shreds everyone else and judging they are gonna catch more hell when they get caught...the current GOP is the epitome of "what is good for the goose is not good for the gander".
I hate Dems as much as anyone but they dont pretend to be anything they arent. The GOP is the party of hypocrisy.
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line
But after two invitations to do so, you declined to state how you thought the deaths were the result of anything State or the Oval Office did or did not do. So, despite your eager self righteousness, it is not the deaths that you are going on and on about but the administration's spin job afterwards.
I think what so many find offensive about the outrage on the extreme right over Benghazi is that many of those who are in a frenzy now about what appears to be misbehavior after an event that caused the death of four continue to believe the Iraq War, which killed and maimed unknown thousands and played a role in driving this country's economy into the trash bin, was good policy. It's not a matter of blaming Dubya for Benghazi or anything else: it's a matter of recognizing the staggering level of hypocrisy that is playing out. Some republicans are talking impeachment??
I can understand why the House republicans want to raise as big a stink about Benghazi as they can--it's political coin and it plays well in their socially conservative, generally rural south constituencies. I don't even have a problem with a congressional inquiry. The State Department and the administration should be asked what could have been done to prevent this from happening and what is being done to make sure it does not happen again. But that is not what this is headed for. It would be nice to be proven wrong.
But after two invitations to do so, you declined to state how you thought the deaths were the result of anything State or the Oval Office did or did not do. So, despite your eager self righteousness, it is not the deaths that you are going on and on about but the administration's spin job afterwards.
I think what so many find offensive about the outrage on the extreme right over Benghazi is that many of those who are in a frenzy now about what appears to be misbehavior after an event that caused the death of four continue to believe the Iraq War, which killed and maimed unknown thousands and played a role in driving this country's economy into the trash bin, was good policy. It's not a matter of blaming Dubya for Benghazi or anything else: it's a matter of recognizing the staggering level of hypocrisy that is playing out. Some republicans are talking impeachment??
I can understand why the House republicans want to raise as big a stink about Benghazi as they can--it's political coin and it plays well in their socially conservative, generally rural south constituencies. I don't even have a problem with a congressional inquiry. The State Department and the administration should be asked what could have been done to prevent this from happening and what is being done to make sure it does not happen again. But that is not what this is headed for. It would be nice to be proven wrong.
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line
It may be that nothing could have been done to prevent that tragedy. But the fact that you and the rest of the Obamaphiles continue to suggest that "Bush was worse," tells me you're worried. Perhaps very worried that there's some deep, dark secret here which will not only expose Obama but splash some mud on Hillary. Otherwise, why not just take the hit? "We screwed up." "We made an honest mistake" Instead, we get lies, dissembling, changes of subject (which you're particularly good at), diversions and all the rest.
Perhaps if I explain it to you a third time, you'll catch on (but I doubt it). How can I provide specifics of potential misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance by the Obama administration on this matter if they continue to lie and coverup? We've been told that the ambassador wanted additional security. And how much of a foreign policy expert does it take to be worried about attacks on the anniversary of 9/11? Like a mynah bird with Tourette's you've applied your big rhetorical whiffle bat now three times. And it's still irrelevant.
Where was Obama during the 8 hours of the attacks? What was he doing. With whom was he consulting? What did they advise him? What decisions, if any, did he make? These are the kinds of questions an administration committed to "transparency" would have long ago addressed. If the explanation here is "we did the best we could," then why not just tell us? If the goal was transparency, then why was the relevant official AWOL? Why did the administration instead roll out a spokesman who had zero responsibilities when it came to security at diplomatic installations? And why did that official (and the president) continue to offer a ridiculous lie about a video to explain what had happened? 'Course there was an election coming up. Nah, that couldn't have been part of the calculations. And holding any administration responsible for its political maneuvering is as American as apple pie. Why act like it's somehow unprecedented here? "It's all politics," he shrieks. Well, look who just woke up.
When Obama green lighted the attack on Bin Laden (carried out by brave men) we knew exactly where he was and what he was doing. Situation Room photos, national TV speech, the whole nine yards. But in this case, where the outcome was somewhat less successful, he's suddenly the dog who didn't bark. I wonder why that is. Perhaps these hearings will clear up some of these questions. Perhaps not.
But you keep swinging at those high hard ones with your little plastic bat. It'll continue to impress the diehards. But you won't get the ball out of the infield. "People died and Obama (and Hillary) lied." I'm sure the president will be able to appeal to his urban, mostly ethnic base, with claims of "racism" to deflect his responsibility here.
Hypocrisy? You've got a death grip on the obvious, haven't you? Perhaps you came to this realization during John Conyers' impeachment hearings. Like the man said: Politics ain't bean bag. So just climb down off your horse, would ya? It's unseemly. And silly. BTW, you refer to the "extreme right" (most of you guys are apparantly incapable of recognizing that those are actually two words), I'm wondering how often you use the phrase "extreme left." Certainly there is an extreme left, no? But it makes your job so much easier if you can just dismiss any opposition to or disagreement with the "community organizer" as "extreme" and/or "racist."
It may be that nothing could have been done to prevent that tragedy. But the fact that you and the rest of the Obamaphiles continue to suggest that "Bush was worse," tells me you're worried. Perhaps very worried that there's some deep, dark secret here which will not only expose Obama but splash some mud on Hillary. Otherwise, why not just take the hit? "We screwed up." "We made an honest mistake" Instead, we get lies, dissembling, changes of subject (which you're particularly good at), diversions and all the rest.
Perhaps if I explain it to you a third time, you'll catch on (but I doubt it). How can I provide specifics of potential misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance by the Obama administration on this matter if they continue to lie and coverup? We've been told that the ambassador wanted additional security. And how much of a foreign policy expert does it take to be worried about attacks on the anniversary of 9/11? Like a mynah bird with Tourette's you've applied your big rhetorical whiffle bat now three times. And it's still irrelevant.
Where was Obama during the 8 hours of the attacks? What was he doing. With whom was he consulting? What did they advise him? What decisions, if any, did he make? These are the kinds of questions an administration committed to "transparency" would have long ago addressed. If the explanation here is "we did the best we could," then why not just tell us? If the goal was transparency, then why was the relevant official AWOL? Why did the administration instead roll out a spokesman who had zero responsibilities when it came to security at diplomatic installations? And why did that official (and the president) continue to offer a ridiculous lie about a video to explain what had happened? 'Course there was an election coming up. Nah, that couldn't have been part of the calculations. And holding any administration responsible for its political maneuvering is as American as apple pie. Why act like it's somehow unprecedented here? "It's all politics," he shrieks. Well, look who just woke up.
When Obama green lighted the attack on Bin Laden (carried out by brave men) we knew exactly where he was and what he was doing. Situation Room photos, national TV speech, the whole nine yards. But in this case, where the outcome was somewhat less successful, he's suddenly the dog who didn't bark. I wonder why that is. Perhaps these hearings will clear up some of these questions. Perhaps not.
But you keep swinging at those high hard ones with your little plastic bat. It'll continue to impress the diehards. But you won't get the ball out of the infield. "People died and Obama (and Hillary) lied." I'm sure the president will be able to appeal to his urban, mostly ethnic base, with claims of "racism" to deflect his responsibility here.
Hypocrisy? You've got a death grip on the obvious, haven't you? Perhaps you came to this realization during John Conyers' impeachment hearings. Like the man said: Politics ain't bean bag. So just climb down off your horse, would ya? It's unseemly. And silly. BTW, you refer to the "extreme right" (most of you guys are apparantly incapable of recognizing that those are actually two words), I'm wondering how often you use the phrase "extreme left." Certainly there is an extreme left, no? But it makes your job so much easier if you can just dismiss any opposition to or disagreement with the "community organizer" as "extreme" and/or "racist."
Last edited:
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line
Those are fair questions and deserve to be answered.
The rest is your IBS acting up again.
Those are fair questions and deserve to be answered.
The rest is your IBS acting up again.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line
There was no lie, Hannity. None at all. All statements were clarified as opinions on a talk show. Why you continue along with the rest of the GOP to have such a hard one over what was talked about on Sunday talk shows is beyond me. I guess the only explanation is that if it was labeled as Al Qaeda right away Lindsey and John may have gotten their ward drums wish? But, no, Obama is in the White House so that wasn't going to happen anyway.
There is nothing to see here. The previous administration did much worse over and over and over again. And Obama is still more transparent than Bush. Might be more transparent than any other administration in history. Who knows? Surely more transparent than Reagan, Bush II, and Nixon.
There was no lie, Hannity. None at all. All statements were clarified as opinions on a talk show. Why you continue along with the rest of the GOP to have such a hard one over what was talked about on Sunday talk shows is beyond me. I guess the only explanation is that if it was labeled as Al Qaeda right away Lindsey and John may have gotten their ward drums wish? But, no, Obama is in the White House so that wasn't going to happen anyway.
There is nothing to see here. The previous administration did much worse over and over and over again. And Obama is still more transparent than Bush. Might be more transparent than any other administration in history. Who knows? Surely more transparent than Reagan, Bush II, and Nixon.
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line
Dream on. And the fact that the WH was told almost immediately the raids were AQ is what, a misunderstanding? You forgot the six cringing mentions of the video he knew had nothing to do with the attack before the UN. In your world that may not constitute a lie. But in mine it does. Why didn't Hillary make the rounds of the Sunday shows? She was SecState and had the responsibility for protecting our diplomatic outposts. Instead we got the UN Ambassador, who had about as much responsibility as the Secretary of Agriculture.
It's amazing to me that anyone, even you, would suggest that four dead Americans is an acceptable figure, because after all "Bush killed more." We're five years into this. When, exactly, is this jumped up cheap suit going to begin taking responsibility for what happens on his watch? Oh, wait, when something good happens, he's right there acting all presidential. But on this occasion, he was AWOL. And somehow, in your pea brain, Bush makes that all right. Or something. It's one thing to be partisan and supportive. It's entirely another to be so cynical that regardless of the facts, lower body counts by your guy are excused, even applauded, certainly defended to the last breath. Shame on you.
I think many of you ladies are scared sh*tless there's a smoking gun out there somewhere. A smoking gun that will put a round right in Hillary's azz.
Dream on. And the fact that the WH was told almost immediately the raids were AQ is what, a misunderstanding? You forgot the six cringing mentions of the video he knew had nothing to do with the attack before the UN. In your world that may not constitute a lie. But in mine it does. Why didn't Hillary make the rounds of the Sunday shows? She was SecState and had the responsibility for protecting our diplomatic outposts. Instead we got the UN Ambassador, who had about as much responsibility as the Secretary of Agriculture.
It's amazing to me that anyone, even you, would suggest that four dead Americans is an acceptable figure, because after all "Bush killed more." We're five years into this. When, exactly, is this jumped up cheap suit going to begin taking responsibility for what happens on his watch? Oh, wait, when something good happens, he's right there acting all presidential. But on this occasion, he was AWOL. And somehow, in your pea brain, Bush makes that all right. Or something. It's one thing to be partisan and supportive. It's entirely another to be so cynical that regardless of the facts, lower body counts by your guy are excused, even applauded, certainly defended to the last breath. Shame on you.
I think many of you ladies are scared sh*tless there's a smoking gun out there somewhere. A smoking gun that will put a round right in Hillary's azz.
Last edited:
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line
Outraged Over Benghazi, Silent on Iraq
By Jay Parini
7 hours ago
The Daily Beast
When I heard that the House of Representatives has established a select committee to investigate the attack on Benghazi that left several Americans dead in 2012, I couldn't help but wonder what these same legislators might have done had Barack Obama been president in 2003, and had the audacity of George W. Bush to attack a sovereign country that had no relevant connection to the 9/11 attacks with the result that nearly 5,000 Americans and well over 100,000 Iraqi civilians (many of them women and children) perished. Had Obama’s war in Iraq also cost American taxpayers $1.7 trillion, with another $490 in veteran expenses (thus far)—with a total cost of $6 trillion projected—I have no doubt that a select committee would long ago have sent him to the Hague for trial as a war criminal.
It’s sad to think how in our fury over Benghazi we’ve almost forgotten a recent war that destroyed so many families, nearly bankrupted this country (and may yet), and led to a hugely destabilized Iraq that no longer serves as a buffer to Iran. Needless to say, this terrible war was pursued under false pretenses, with huge amounts of government corruption—Houston-based company KBR alone (a spinoff from Halliburton, where Dick Cheney was chairman and CEO before becoming vice president) racked up charges of nearly $40 billion during the war, making it (by far) the winner in the Iraq sweepstakes. In most banana republics, this would be cause for serious investigation; but not so much here, where our politicians (or their friends) are allowed to profit from armed invasions. Can it possibly be so that the U.S. Congress has ignored such obvious corruption while investigating over and over whether Susan Rice was given some edited “talking points” on Benghazi? Really?
You do not have to devalue four lives to share these thoughts, Pio. To the contrary. Many people who object to the furor the House repubs are attempting to whip up do so because it is so obviously a political ploy that devalues the lives of those lost. Why does it appear to be so obviously a political ploy and nothing more? Because the same party cheered what Bush did. So people struggle to account for the difference, especially considering the colossal difference in scale.
Outraged Over Benghazi, Silent on Iraq
By Jay Parini
7 hours ago
The Daily Beast
When I heard that the House of Representatives has established a select committee to investigate the attack on Benghazi that left several Americans dead in 2012, I couldn't help but wonder what these same legislators might have done had Barack Obama been president in 2003, and had the audacity of George W. Bush to attack a sovereign country that had no relevant connection to the 9/11 attacks with the result that nearly 5,000 Americans and well over 100,000 Iraqi civilians (many of them women and children) perished. Had Obama’s war in Iraq also cost American taxpayers $1.7 trillion, with another $490 in veteran expenses (thus far)—with a total cost of $6 trillion projected—I have no doubt that a select committee would long ago have sent him to the Hague for trial as a war criminal.
It’s sad to think how in our fury over Benghazi we’ve almost forgotten a recent war that destroyed so many families, nearly bankrupted this country (and may yet), and led to a hugely destabilized Iraq that no longer serves as a buffer to Iran. Needless to say, this terrible war was pursued under false pretenses, with huge amounts of government corruption—Houston-based company KBR alone (a spinoff from Halliburton, where Dick Cheney was chairman and CEO before becoming vice president) racked up charges of nearly $40 billion during the war, making it (by far) the winner in the Iraq sweepstakes. In most banana republics, this would be cause for serious investigation; but not so much here, where our politicians (or their friends) are allowed to profit from armed invasions. Can it possibly be so that the U.S. Congress has ignored such obvious corruption while investigating over and over whether Susan Rice was given some edited “talking points” on Benghazi? Really?
You do not have to devalue four lives to share these thoughts, Pio. To the contrary. Many people who object to the furor the House repubs are attempting to whip up do so because it is so obviously a political ploy that devalues the lives of those lost. Why does it appear to be so obviously a political ploy and nothing more? Because the same party cheered what Bush did. So people struggle to account for the difference, especially considering the colossal difference in scale.
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line
With Obama on the run...conservatives are back:
http://www.omaha.com/article/20140511/NEWS08/140519984
With Obama on the run...conservatives are back:
http://www.omaha.com/article/20140511/NEWS08/140519984
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line
If it wasn't clear just how irrational the Benghazi screamers really are...
If it wasn't clear just how irrational the Benghazi screamers really are...
Slap Shot
I got nothing
Old Spazzo will never in a million years address this sanely.
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line
Two wrongs make a right? Who knew? BTW, Hillary voted for the war in Iraq. You gonna support her candidacy?
Two wrongs make a right? Who knew? BTW, Hillary voted for the war in Iraq. You gonna support her candidacy?
Last edited:
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line
What are you afraid of? And don't forget "racist." That's the libtard "twofer."
Please point out any inaccuracy in the post you deemed "irrational." The truth, evidently, hurts.
What are you afraid of? And don't forget "racist." That's the libtard "twofer."
Please point out any inaccuracy in the post you deemed "irrational." The truth, evidently, hurts.
Last edited:
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line
You figure if you keep shrieking "it's just politics" that'll make this go away? Why are the ladies of the chorale so worried about this? If it's obvious overreach by Republicans, why not sell them the rope to hang themselves? But it may not be. And that's what's got you all sh*ttin in your Dr. Dentons.
In fact, every post by you and every other member of the chorale comparing the death totals from Bengahzi to Iraq does devalue those deaths in Libya by implication. And you should all be ashamed. The suggestion that it's the administration and its supporters in the congressional Amen Corner (and not those mean old Republicans with their political motives) who are truly valuing the dead in Benghazi with their continued lying and covering up is preposterous.
It was Secretary Frequent Flyer Miles who assured the father of one of the victims that "we're gonna get the guy responsible for that video." That lie honors the dead?
You figure if you keep shrieking "it's just politics" that'll make this go away? Why are the ladies of the chorale so worried about this? If it's obvious overreach by Republicans, why not sell them the rope to hang themselves? But it may not be. And that's what's got you all sh*ttin in your Dr. Dentons.
In fact, every post by you and every other member of the chorale comparing the death totals from Bengahzi to Iraq does devalue those deaths in Libya by implication. And you should all be ashamed. The suggestion that it's the administration and its supporters in the congressional Amen Corner (and not those mean old Republicans with their political motives) who are truly valuing the dead in Benghazi with their continued lying and covering up is preposterous.
It was Secretary Frequent Flyer Miles who assured the father of one of the victims that "we're gonna get the guy responsible for that video." That lie honors the dead?
Last edited:
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line
Oh I don't think it will go away. There's a tail wagging the republican dog that will not allow it to. Will that same group attempt to impeach Obama on account of the ACA? Possible.
I personally could care less if they have hearings on the matter. If they find out things that can help prevent this from happening again, then good. But if it turns out to be a bunch of political gamesmanship, don't call me surprised. And don't ask me to believe that these House Reps are doing this out of concern over the four who lost their lives.
Oh I don't think it will go away. There's a tail wagging the republican dog that will not allow it to. Will that same group attempt to impeach Obama on account of the ACA? Possible.
I personally could care less if they have hearings on the matter. If they find out things that can help prevent this from happening again, then good. But if it turns out to be a bunch of political gamesmanship, don't call me surprised. And don't ask me to believe that these House Reps are doing this out of concern over the four who lost their lives.
Last edited:
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line
It wasn't so much about inaccuracy as it was about your stunning ignorance of the fundamental difference between the two events you were comparing.
It wasn't so much about inaccuracy as it was about your stunning ignorance of the fundamental difference between the two events you were comparing.
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line
You're right. It is about politics. What's stunning is that you're apparantly only offended when Republicans do it. This has been going on now for over 200 years.
You're right. It is about politics. What's stunning is that you're apparantly only offended when Republicans do it. This has been going on now for over 200 years.
Last edited:
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line
"Stunning ignorance of the. . .two events." Let's parse that a little. Of course the events were different. But so were the presidential responses. On the night OBL was clipped didn't Obama go on national TV to brag? And weren't there pictures taken and shown of him acting all presidential in the Situation Room? Or did I imagine all that. And on the night of the 8 hours of film critic raids on the diplomatic compound in Libya, did Obama go on national TV to brag? Were there any pictures taken and released of him acting all presidential in the Situation Room that night? In fact, do we, at this late date still not have a clear picture of where he was, who he consulted with, what he was told and what he decided to do? We do know that he began spreading the lie about a video for the next ten days or so. Yet you claim I'm stunningly ignorant of the events of those nights. Black Knight, meet reality.
"Stunning ignorance of the. . .two events." Let's parse that a little. Of course the events were different. But so were the presidential responses. On the night OBL was clipped didn't Obama go on national TV to brag? And weren't there pictures taken and shown of him acting all presidential in the Situation Room? Or did I imagine all that. And on the night of the 8 hours of film critic raids on the diplomatic compound in Libya, did Obama go on national TV to brag? Were there any pictures taken and released of him acting all presidential in the Situation Room that night? In fact, do we, at this late date still not have a clear picture of where he was, who he consulted with, what he was told and what he decided to do? We do know that he began spreading the lie about a video for the next ten days or so. Yet you claim I'm stunningly ignorant of the events of those nights. Black Knight, meet reality.
Last edited:
- Status