When your rhetoric is toned down, I might address your responses, but like some with some others here, I don't care to go down the rat hole of constant back and forth where there is no useful exchange...
But you asked me a question and I gave a very non-Basement type of answer. Now you're playing your never-ending dodge ball. After you side-swiped me in the Basement to kiss up to those dwellers.
You're well aware of who "nimbutt" is/was, and I just found it interesting that you would use that identity on this site. When I go downstairs, I'm responding strictly to the posts, not the poster. Oh, and your post may be another cause for an infraction...
I really don't remember nimbutt. I've aged in this new teaching gig. I woke up late on my birthday last December as usual. It was the day of Newtown. I knew I had to go back to the classroom. I'm 1,200 miles from home. Thanks to my Creator my wife will be here in 3 weeks.
I just found it a bit odd that that you would choose this particular moniker. At first, I thought you might be one in the same, but the posting style eventually narrowed the field quite a bit...
I've always prided myself on being a consistent liberal Republican. We Illinois Repubs have a long history of being normal compared to what's out there now.
Grant was a consistent drunk and his brother a consistent capitalistic crook.
On a better note, Dirksen and Percy were great Senators. Kirk embellished his military record like Blumenthal. The Senate has more skunks than not.
And you know I believe Lincoln kept his enemies, the radical Repubs, closer. Too bad since they killed him.
I'm sure every state has their share of states' wrongs. Hence, my ultimate belief in a strong central federal government, as the one George Washington believed in.
And I could vote for Christie.
O-Bam-Bam is a moderate Repub, almost too conservative.
Then Fournier printed this piece up.....course now that he works for the National Journal. He will be accused of being a Right Winger.
Why Benghazi is a Blow to Obama and Clinton
Both parties are wrong about the scandal: It’s not Watergate and it’s not nothing.
Both parties are wrong about Benghazi. Existing evidence does not point to a far-reaching cover-up on the scale of Watergate, as Republicans want you to believe. But it is not, as the White House claims, nothing.
The administration’s response to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on U.S. installations in eastern Libya was inaccurate, irresponsible and shrouded by campaign-style spin. It belied President Obama’s oft-broken promise to run a transparent government.
If nothing else, Benghazi is a blow to the credibility of the president and his potential successor, then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. This could be big.
Credibility is Obama’s strong suit, a key reason why his personal approval ratings continue to buoy soft job approval scores. He can’t afford to lose that trust.
Credibility is Clinton’s vulnerability, dating to the unjustified financial accusations that triggered the Whitewater investigation. Doubts persisted about her veracity and authenticity throughout the 2008 presidential campaign.
Why Benghazi is a Blow to Obama and Clinton - NationalJournal.com
Reverse psychology but not on your elevated plane.Is it your intention to make irrelevant posts, or are you content with ramblings? I don't give a **** about Dirksen, Percy, or Kirk. I just wanted to know the reasoning behind the moniker you have chosen...
I don't think the anger over this has to do with the consulate being attacked. Embassies and consulates get attacked, it happens. I think the anger is over the response to the attack, at least for those who are legitimately angry and not just grand standing.
I just don't understand when it became cool for the POTUS to lie to us. Obama blatantly lies. He's done it quite a few times. Yet no one says a word. When Clinton lied, he was impeached. When Bush lied, he was crucified. When Obama lies? Meh.I know this. The line that the administration came out with was not the truth. And they knew that. You can argue over whether or not Ambassador Rice knew that or not (at this point I don't really know on that one). But if she didn't, then at some point the person who changed those talking points did.
The WH didn't lie. Hell, they didn't even spin. But, I can see you'll never be convinced of that.I just don't understand when it became cool for the POTUS to lie to us. Obama blatantly lies. He's done it quite a few times. Yet no one says a word. When Clinton lied, he was impeached. When Bush lied, he was crucified. When Obama lies? Meh.
I don't believe there was deliberate malice from the Administration, causing the Benghazi attack. However, there was some incompetent policies and bungling of information about what was happening on the ground. Possibly caused by indifference and a lack of coordination between the State Department and CIA, which is notoriously arrogant about sharing info.
Then I think, realizing how bad the situation was handled, resulting in the unnecessary deaths, there was a rush to cover up the facts.
WHAT?! How are the emails NOT showing the WH was spinning this crap? Throughout this whole thing they've said they had nothing to do with crafting the response to this story. That's been proven false. Then, they accused Republicans of "doctoring" (yes, that was said on 3 different news shows by a WH aide) the emails. That's been proven false. These guys, for whatever reason, have covered this thing from the start. It's not a matter of what I need to be convinced of. I just posted earlier that I thought this thing was just a big political show by the GOP until the latest crap came out.The WH didn't lie. Hell, they didn't even spin. But, I can see you'll never be convinced of that.
Romney got caught in his debate making the same mistake.
WHAT?! How are the emails NOT showing the WH was spinning this crap? Throughout this whole thing they've said they had nothing to do with crafting the response to this story. That's been proven false. Then, they accused Republicans of "doctoring" (yes, that was said on 3 different news shows by a WH aide) the emails. That's been proven false. These guys, for whatever reason, have covered this thing from the start. It's not a matter of what I need to be convinced of. I just posted earlier that I thought this thing was just a big political show by the GOP until the latest crap came out.
There was some sort of cover up. Whether it was for political gain (elections were near remember) or to actually cover up the failure of allowing it to happen in the first place, the American people were deceived. No two ways about it. And the WH KNEW they were deceiving us. It doesn't matter why the GOP is doing this. I'm sure it's not because they are all noble beings and truly and passionately believe in this cause. I know it's not that. However, that does not matter one iota. What matters is that the Obama administration lied to us and spun this thing. Period. It shouldn't be cool to lie to the public. He thinks it is.
According to an extensive investigation by The New York Times, "The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs." The Times also reports that the attack was "fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam."
But in critiquing the Obama administration's comments in 2012 in the moments during and after the Benghazi attack, what would seem more relevant is what the White House and intelligence community reasonably believed was happening.
After all, at the same time as the unrest in Benghazi, violent outbursts very clearly in reaction to the anti-Islam video were going on in Egypt, Yemen and Sudan. The night of the Benghazi attacks, Al Jazeera reported they appeared to be spontaneous protests against the anti-Islam film.
But the talking points were edited! For political motivations!
That's what talking points are, they are the way political figures on both sides of the aisle attempt to tell the facts in the most favorable light. That said, the CIA gave both parties in Congress the same "talking points" it prepared for Rice. And, as noted, there are plausible national security reasons for not wanting to show our entire intelligence hand amid an active investigation.
Opinion: A guide to GOP's Benghazi obsession - CNN.com
Not only cover up the facts, but cover up the fact that the facts were covered up and the motives for doing that.
Seriously people, partisanship has a place in today's world because it represents ideologies and what is important to all of us. But we ALL should believe it is important that those elected and appointed to high office be honest, straight forward, and trustworthy with the people. In the Benghazi situation, in the Fast & Furious situation, in the IRS situation, and you can go right down the line, it is obvious that the administration and those appointed to work for it have not been honest, straight forward, and trustworthy with us. And that should bother us all no matter who is in the oval office or congress.
That is why Benghazi is important. Had that happened on George W. Bush's watch, the people would have taken to the streets in outrage, there would have been a half dozen special prosecutors appointed by now, and the media would have made it front page news for months--all demanding heads on a platter. The fact that it has been pretty much declared a non-story by Obama's surrogate media is disgraceful. That so many of you are willing to just shrug when your government plays you for the fools it believes you to be is disgraceful.
I don't believe all the scandals being pursued by the Republicans are any worse than many things that happen under most Administrations. The IRS and Fast & Furious do not necessarily have anything to do with the President or his people directly. And that's part of the problem with going after everything, hoping something will stick to the wall, they end up with nothing having any impact. Benghazi, on the other hand, was something different, in which the POTUS probably had knowledge and was even responsible for the decision not to send in help. Focus on the serious infraction with intent and effort, and it's more likely not to appear part of an overall witch hunt.
You are not looking at the issue from an objective standpoint. You are simply tooting the Democrat partisan horn Dianna. You are repeating their mantra like a good little brainless drone. You are usually above doing that. I don't know why you suddenly act like this.Yes, it's become another partisian witch-hunt that Fox News runs 24/7 while certain preening republican congress-critters are using to taint potential democratic candidates in 2016. It's pretty disgraceful, that disgraceful is SOP for congress nowadays, on both sides of the aisle.
Issa is now and always has been an exceptionally smelly partisian turd in an overflowing toilet. I'm ashamed he's from my state.
What do you have against finding out the truth?
You are not looking at the issue from an objective standpoint. You are simply tooting the Democrat partisan horn Dianna. You are repeating their mantra like a good little brainless drone. You are usually above doing that. I don't know why you suddenly act like this.
It is the Dumbocrats that are being the partisan jerks.
If the GOP wasn't pushing kangaroo hearing for their base, they would have allowed a 6-6 bipartisan committee instead of one that is 7-5 GOP. Go sell that BS to the base. The rest of us aren't buying.You are not looking at the issue from an objective standpoint. You are simply tooting the Democrat partisan horn Dianna. You are repeating their mantra like a good little brainless drone. You are usually above doing that. I don't know why you suddenly act like this.
In regards to the Benghazi coordinated and sustained AQ terrorist attack on 9/11, the fact of the matter is that Obama administration repeatedly lied to congress and the American people about what happened. And it is imperative that at the very least congress knows the truth. And why we the people and congress were lied to in the first place. It is unacceptable for the executive branch to keep lying to the legislative branch. It borders on treason.
There is nothing partisan whatsoever about congress wanting to get to the bottom of the matter.
The only partisanship is coming from the Democrats. If the Democrats in congress actually gave a **** about US national security they would be just as pissed off as the Republicans about being lied to repeatedly by the Obama administration regarding a national security matter. The only reason they are not is because of their partisanship. Partisanship is the one and only reason that congressional Democrats are giving the Obama administration a free pass on this shocking and horrendous scandal.
It is the Dumbocrats that are being the partisan jerks.
Then why are you practically word for word repeating the Democratic party mantra in this thread? You even used the phrase "witch hunt", which is the EXACT phrase that the ultra-partisan Democrats like Van Hollen have been using in their attempts to distract attention away from obvious incompetence. How do you explain that?! You use the EXACT phrase that the mindless Democrat drones are supposed to repeat over and over and over. Why are you doing that?I have no use for either the republican or democratic parties; they are both corrupt, partisan-drivel political machines that only care about lining their own pockets and gaining personal power.
You are so ****ing wrong that it is astounding. You are repeating that droning partisan Democrat mantra again. The fact of the matter is that the jungle boy administration has been so non-transparent that we still do not know who ordered Susan Rice to lie to Congress and the American people regarding the 9/11 attack in Benghazi. And it is Congress' duty to get to the bottom of that matter. It doesn't matter how many damn hearings it takes. If the jungle boy administration won't simply fess up, congress must keep prying and issuing more and more subpoenas. They have no other choice. The non-mindless drone demographic of American people will be rightfully livid if congress doesn't get to the bottom of this matter. Us non-partisans are getting impatient, while Democrat partisans wish to sweep it all under the rug and make it go away by continuing to repeat the mindless droning "witch hunt" mantra.This newest "Benghazi committee" is simply repeating what about twelve other governmental committees have done over the past two years, and the reason it's doing so is crystal clear: To continue smearing Hillary Clinton and hopefully diminish her chances of running for president. It's the same reason the GOP is suddenly apoplectic with indignation because the State Department under her watch didn't put Boko Haram on the terrorist watch list... never mind the fact that her republican predecessor hadn't done so either. If you can't see that, then you, sir, are the drone. Personally, I think I'm better served by recognizing partisan bull**** whenever and where ever I see it, and not look at a party designation to decide whether it's BS or not.
Your ridiculous sarcasm aside, the Dumbocrats' agenda regarding the Benghazi scandal is to get mindless drones to keep repeating "witch hunt, witch hunt, witch hunt, witch hunt, witch hunt, blah, blah blaw....Yeah, sure. We can all see that the republicans are pure as the driven snow, but the "Dumbocrats" are the partisan ones. Whatever, dude. :roll:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?