Thursday, May 16, 2013
HOW CAN YOU BE TOO BLIND TO SEE THE COVER UP? THE WHOLE THING WAS COVERED UP!
Only the cover up ended up having holes in it and was discovered.
Now the left has to scramble to reinvent terms so they no longer mean what they mean, but now mean what they want them to mean.
Try answering each of Judge Jeanine Pirro's questions as if YOU were the president. How would you respond when whatever you say now will bury you?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
You've got us, Joe.
There are critical issues out there and you post Judge Piro as an expert.
As soon as she said Benghazi I quit.
Let me know when the impeachment hearings start. I'm tuning out and attending to my photography till then.
Ducky: "As soon as she said Benghazi I quit."
You say that as though you think it was smart of you.
It wasn't. If you think Benghazi is unimportant, you are totally clueless.
I'll bet you can't refute a single one of her statements or answer a single one of her questions.
Try to forget who she is, for a moment, and try (as difficult as it will be for you) to focus on the content.
If you can refute her or shed positive light on her questions, I will apologize and admit you are not as dumb as you pretend to be.
I continue to follow The Daily Howler on this one.
At least this doesn't tear the fabric of reason.
Another good one from The Howler, Joe
I'm with Ducky on this one (SURPRISE!).
His Howler links contain ACTUAL FACTS. not the rabid, venomous, hate-filled hyperbole from that self-promoting attention whore who calls her self a Judge.
If Michelle Bachman, Michelle Malkin, Gloria Allred and Nancy Grace could somehow, through The Wonders of Modern Science produce a Love Child, this idiot is what would come out of the test tube.
If she has actual facts on her side, she should be able to present them in an objective manner without all of the drama.
I have no patience with this crap from either side.
Facts. Evidence. Proof. Truth. Give me those and I'll form my own opinion and make up my own mind. I don't need a "presenter with attitude". Keep that crap to yourself.
That being said, in any given situation where an attack is being carried out, it takes time to determine who the attackers are and what their motive is.
If you are sitting in your home and someone kicks in your door and starts opening fire, you DO NOT know "from the get go" (as that partisan gas bag Darrell Issa likes to say) who is attacking you or why.
You might have your suspicions. You might reach some knee jerk conclusions. But my dollar to your donut says that you are in panic mode and too busy trying to save your own life to conduct a rational, detailed analysis of who is attacking you and why.
Oh, and by the way, if you read the ACTUAL EMAILS that were released, the VERY FIRST ONE from the CIA contains their assessment that the attack was “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.”
That was 3 days after the attack when the CIA had the time to perform an analysis and reach a conclusion.
No one can convince me that within minutes of the first attack, the people being attacked knew with certainty who was attacking them, how many were attacking them and why.
That's just ridiculous.
And the idea that we would just automatically "scramble an F-16" to do a fly-over to scare the attackers, or reassign combat troops from one trouble spot to another without having a clear picture of what the threat was, where it was coming from, how large it was, what counter-measures would be required to defeat it, what the availability and readiness of those counter-measures were and whether they could be redeployed in time to make a difference ignores EVERY SINGLE RULE about putting soldiers in harm's way!
This entire Benghazi issue is a lot of trumped up nonsense.
Foreign Service is dangerous work. ESPECIALLY in an imploding civil war in a place like Lybia.
We lost some brave diplomats. It happens! A lot!
For Republicans and Conservatives to be using the noble sacrifice of the members of our brave Diplomatic Corps to try to score political points in the 2016 presidential election is reprehensible beyond belief.
Proving once again that there is no moral low to which The Right will not submit if it will serve to increase their power or fatten their wallets.
They are the lowest of the low.
SORRY! That last comment was from me. I claim it. Log In issue.
Joe, it's time to switch to another.
Your chances of implicating Obama may be best with the AP beef.
XO: "No one can convince me that within minutes of the first attack, the people being attacked knew with certainty who was attacking them, how many were attacking them and why."
Being the shrewd leaders that they are, for weeks AFTER the event nobody knew the cause of because they hadn't had time to work it out, the Obama flunkies held to a story about a video.
I knew it wasn't the video seconds after the first mention of it by the Administration.
Why didn't they know?
Aren't they smarter than I am?
Actually, they're not.
But they are as crooked as the day is long and that won't change.
Neither will you blindly falling for their rhetoric, fairy tales and pretenses.
Joe - "I knew it wasn't the video seconds after the first mention of it by the Administration."
No you didn't. That's a lie. You didn't "know" anything because you weren't privy to any information that wasn't available to the President.
You may have had your suspicions.
You may have had your knee-jerk, anti-muslim, prejudice ideas.
But you didn't "know" ANYTHING.
You still don't know anything.
Read the emails. Look at the evidence. Analyze the facts. Make up your own mind.
Anyone who says they knew within "seconds" what actually happened admits to being a gullible fool.
If the shoe fits...
XO: I can understand your doubt. Some people simply cannot deduce the truth from relevant facts.
Knowledge can be that which is concluded by examination of facts and correctly predicting proper conclusions.
That's very hard for a liberal. Their thought processes are marred by prejudice and agenda.
Just like they could not see the issues in the military coming. They just plain couldn't see it. Even though they were warned by those of us who understand the nature of the relationship between men and women, they STILL could not see it coming.
Unable to draw proper conclusions from a given set of facts.
Liberals keep getting it wrong, but just change the meaning of words so that they can convince themselves that they didn't.
Even though they were warned by those of us who understand the nature of the relationship between men and women
------
Are you being obtuse on purpose, Joe.
Yes, there would be incidents and those incidents were intended to be adjudicated. We liberals felt the American soldier capable of behaving like a professional.
The fringe right on the other hand thinks the American soldier is an impulsive child.
The left would also expect a professional prosecutor not a groper.
"Even though they were warned by those of us who understand the nature of the relationship between men and women"
Let me get this right, Joe. You actually wrote that?
Joe - "Knowledge can be that which is concluded by examination of facts and correctly predicting proper conclusions."
You had no "facts" to examine. You weren't there.
What you did was jump to conclusions based on your assumptions filtered by your bigoted prejudice.
Ducky: "Are you being obtuse on purpose, Joe."
Of course.
"Let me get this right, Joe. You actually wrote that?"
Yep.
XO: "You had no "facts" to examine. You weren't there."
So facts only come from people who were actually present for an event?
Hmmm.
I guess you were there for the discovery of the fossil, "Lucy," therefore it is a fact.
I hadn't realized that.
Joe - "So facts only come from people who were actually present for an event?
Hmmm.
I guess you were there for the discovery of the fossil, "Lucy," therefore it is a fact.
I hadn't realized that."
Don't be ridiculous. Even Donald Johanson didn't immediately know as soon as he unearthed the first bone fragment that "OH! I've found 3.2 million year old bipedal hominid! I'm going to name her Lucy!"
It took YEARS of careful excavation and scientific study to determine what they had found.
YEARS after that the findings were published in respected, peer-reviewed scientific journals and passed muster among the paleontology community.
Knowing that all of that occurred, I did not need to be present every step of the way to accept the findings as fact.
You, however, on the basis of the very first news report of an attack on a diplomatic facility in Libya IMMEDIATELY assume that you know exactly who the attackers are, what their motive is, and apparently feel you have some military expertise regarding what forces in the region are available and how they should have been deployed.
At the same time you are leaping to conclusions and making assumptions based on information you don't have, the CIA and State Department set to work using their assets to figure out what is going on and why.
That process took time and went through several analytical iterations which are clearly illuminated in the emails that the White House made public.
I know you right wing hacks are SO DESPERATE to find some club you can beat the President with, but Benghazi ain't it! That is weak sauce!
Even the IRS "scandal" is a dog that won't hunt.
Let's see...I have all of these people wanting to claim tax exempt status as a 501(c)(4) group.
In order to qualify, their PRIMARY FOCUS must be on "social welfare advocacy" with very limited, if any, political activity.
So if some of the groups applying have, as their founding principal, blatant political activity aimed at shrinking the federal government to the size that it can be dragged into the bathroom and drowned in the bathtub, should they not receive more scrutiny than a group who simply wants to inform the public at large about the actual, scientific facts regarding the impact of human activity on global climate change?
I think the IRS was performing their due diligence before granting tax exemptions to political action groups.
XO: "I think the IRS was performing their due diligence before granting tax exemptions to political action groups."
I sure you do.
Joe - "I sure you do."
WOW! Way to eviscerate my response!
How could I possibly reply to such a logical, fact filled rebuttal?
You really got me there buddy!
I'm dead in the water! Well played.
XO: Should have said, "I'm sure you do"
The response was indicative of my astute ability to discern what you will say before you say it.
You are both predictable and consistent in your ideology and inconsistency.
Post a Comment