The Next Four Years

[Mr. Perfect]

I guess this is the sound of the violins as Rome burns this time.

[monster_gardener]

People that don't have kids, what kind of war will their children face?

Thank You Very Much for Your Post, Mr. Perfect.

That sounds almost like a Zen koan.......

[monster_gardener]

I guess this the sound of the violins as Rome burns this time.

Thank You Very Much for your post, Mr. Perfect.

Don't let Giant Despair make you his captive on your Pilgrim's Progress........ *

Even if you get a Bunyan or two on your feet.......... **

The Pagan Vikings fought on even though they believed that they were Doomed to Defeat.....

And that the best they could do was Delay the Evil Day........

No one died at Watergate........

And even for the Son of a Bitch News Hounds of the Main Stream Media.....

If it Bleeds, It Leads...........

Affirmative Action may prevent Our Dear President, Choom Hog the Dog Eater Obama from being ImPeached .......

But not from being ImPeared ......... Oops I mean Impaired.........

And all of Choom's fake outrage after he sent out a woman to lie and run interference for him may avail him naught....

Naughty Man that he is...........


BenghaziGate may have just Begun........



*Or for me, Palmer Eldritch Progress.........

** Just make sure that you have a weapon like an Axe handy when you need it to chop logs or Zombies ......
And try to be as physically fit as possible..... Ideally as fit as an Ox even if you get a bit Blue from time to time.....

[Mr. Perfect]

MG, it doesn't matter, everybody knew he was lying long before the election, none of his constituents cared. The left created the Universe of Lies precisely for times like this, none of them care one whit for anything except for the enslavement of mankind to the state. Bengazi does not serve that so it is going nowhere.

[Demon of Undoing]

Petraeus apparently said today that the administration held off on saying exactly who and what was involved in the attack because they knew exactly who it was through compromised communications. Basically, an attempt to not blow methods and sources. It's a plausible argument. Could still be a lie, but it's plausible.

[Mr. Perfect]

Laughable lies. You can say it was a terrorist attack without saying who. Laughable. Who falls for this stuff.

[Demon of Undoing]

Laughable lies. You can say it was a terrorist attack without saying who. Laughable. Who falls for this stuff.

I don't think that explanation is any more far- fetched than the idea that the administration was lying to preserve some idea that the ME strategy was going to he'll. I mean, that much is obvious; blaming it on a movie doesn't make sense. As a bullshit dodge to not blow a source, it does. Sorta.


Mostly doesn't matter now.

[monster_gardener]

Laughable lies. You can say it was a terrorist attack without saying who. Laughable. Who falls for this stuff.

Thank You Very Much for your post, Mr. Perfect.

Seconded.......

But you need a graphic.........

Hat Tip to BLG at Planet Spengler.........

And how about a theme song...........

For Choom Hog The Lying Son of a Bitch Eater Obama and his Madministration.........

NadT0kfP7Zo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NadT0kfP ... re=related

[Ibrahim]

Mostly doesn't matter now.

I really don't see why the people who engineered this "scandal" during the election are still trying to parade it around. What's to gain? Either you're taking a swipe at a President who will never face another election, or trying to take a swipe at a party when there is no election for two years and everybody will be bored of talking about this in five minutes, or you think that somehow uncovering some hypothetical scandal will Make Americans Safer, as though the administration had a "let diplomats die" policy that they will stick to unless Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh crack the case in the worst cop movie of all time.

Or better yet, they actually do find some smoking-gun paper trail and the big score is "Obama said X several days before saying Y, and he probably most likely knew or should have known it was Y from the start." Watergate 2.0

If it weren't for being peripherally related to the Petraeus sex scandal this would already have disappeared.

[noddy]

this is the age of porn for bored middle aged women and this story reads like a mills n boon james bond novel for that crowd, the political nonsense is purely the backdrop.

if only they could find some details about shagging on the bistro table with chocolate cakes getting smothered, it would last for ever then.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

If it weren't for being peripherally related to the Petraeus sex scandal this would already have disappeared.

It may be the opposite in fact; the salaciousness of the Petraeus incident is playing right into the pre-packaged "let's damage the President for political expediency by not really doing or saying anything" crowd.

Otherwise, what we have is a situation where someone in the administration, maybe even the President, chose not to send in armed forces when there seems to be a big enough window of opportunity to do so.

Why should we put it past a President [who brags about his kill list and has already assassinated his own countrymen without trial] that he may have found it to his benefit to see these guys die?

Isn't it now sort of an open secret (or very strong rumor) that they were holding "extralegal" interrogation methods there, even after the President supposedly outlawed them?

What about the stuff where the ambassador may have been giving weapons and assistance to Al Qadea against Syria?

That is was politically in the best interest of the candidate if some guy with a youtube channel took the blame?

If it is indeed nothing more than the last point or something less; I don't see where this sort of thing could go: does the President have the right to the lie to the public about sensitive security matters [whether for their own benefit or his?] The answer to that could go a few different ways, none of them are really affirming though to a narcissistic audience that is interested in every James Bond details.

However; if there were ever an opening, however small, to question this whole "War on Terror" and how we are going about it, this may be the only chance one gets. The people have seen the body of the ambassador dragged through the streets, so they are invested in finding out what's really going on- this is the opportunity to show them. You can go on and on about drone strikes and unjust this and unfair that...but this is the concrete opportunity to show people what it means to "fight" a war where there is no clearly defined opposition, goals, or end point.

Instead, we will be stuck with who placed Peter with Mary and Paul; and what "it means for the administration" as if Obama ordered a cover up just to mess with people and be a meanie...

[Juggernaut Nihilism]

Mostly doesn't matter now.

I really don't see why the people who engineered this "scandal" during the election are still trying to parade it around. What's to gain? Either you're taking a swipe at a President who will never face another election, or trying to take a swipe at a party when there is no election for two years and everybody will be bored of talking about this in five minutes, or you think that somehow uncovering some hypothetical scandal will Make Americans Safer, as though the administration had a "let diplomats die" policy that they will stick to unless Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh crack the case in the worst cop movie of all time.

Or better yet, they actually do find some smoking-gun paper trail and the big score is "Obama said X several days before saying Y, and he probably most likely knew or should have known it was Y from the start." Watergate 2.0

If it weren't for being peripherally related to the Petraeus sex scandal this would already have disappeared.

Sure. Who cares if the administration was lying? If you can't damage the president politically with it, then what's the point of bringing it up? This fits perfectly with what you've revealed about yourself in the past: you don't care about truth or lies, you care about scoring points in an argument. It doesn't surprise me that you can't see a reason to call the administration on a lie if it's not going to play in the media by the next election. It's sickening. But it doesn't surprise me.

[Ibrahim]

Mostly doesn't matter now.

I really don't see why the people who engineered this "scandal" during the election are still trying to parade it around. What's to gain? Either you're taking a swipe at a President who will never face another election, or trying to take a swipe at a party when there is no election for two years and everybody will be bored of talking about this in five minutes, or you think that somehow uncovering some hypothetical scandal will Make Americans Safer, as though the administration had a "let diplomats die" policy that they will stick to unless Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh crack the case in the worst cop movie of all time.

Or better yet, they actually do find some smoking-gun paper trail and the big score is "Obama said X several days before saying Y, and he probably most likely knew or should have known it was Y from the start." Watergate 2.0

If it weren't for being peripherally related to the Petraeus sex scandal this would already have disappeared.

Sure. Who cares if the administration was lying? If you can't damage the president politically with it, then what's the point of bringing it up?

a) I don't think they lied, I think they didn't know what was going on at first. From a purely logical point of view there would be no benefit in lying for several days, then telling the truth.

b) Modern Republicans are the greatest liars in US political history, to the extent of fraudulently starting wars on pure lies for the profit of their friends, so I don't believe that they are going after this story for any but the shallowest political reasons.

This fits perfectly with what you've revealed about yourself in the past: you don't care about truth or lies,

Completely false and unsupported accusation.

[Ibrahim]

Actually another way you know that Republicans are manufacturing false outrage over this story is that they've made this much noise about the death of four Americans, but don't make a peep about thousands of US veterans blowing their own brains out every year due to lack of adequate care. Seems like the variable here is that one story gives a thin pretext for attacking the other party and their leader, whereas the bigger story is just a bummer and a bipartisan failure. Only care about dead Americans if you think you can gain some narrow partisan advantage from it.

[Juggernaut Nihilism]

Actually another way you know that Republicans are manufacturing false outrage over this story is that they've made this much noise about the death of four Americans, but don't make a peep about thousands of US veterans blowing their own brains out every year due to lack of adequate care.

Definitely agree. OMG OMG have you seen the YouTube vid of Mitt Romney lighting his cigar with a $100 bill and cracking the old "Two suicidal veterans walk into a bar..." joke?

[Ibrahim]

Actually another way you know that Republicans are manufacturing false outrage over this story is that they've made this much noise about the death of four Americans, but don't make a peep about thousands of US veterans blowing their own brains out every year due to lack of adequate care.

Definitely agree. OMG OMG have you seen the YouTube vid of Mitt Romney lighting his cigar with a $100 bill and cracking the old "Two suicidal veterans walk into a bar..." joke?

I assumed disabled vets were part of the %47. But let's not fight the last war.

[Juggernaut Nihilism]

a) I don't think "x", I think "y".

In the future, just use this template, with "x" representing something being said by someone to whom you have a negative emotional reaction, and "y" representing unoriginal MSNBC boilerplate on a given issue. If unfamiliar with boilerplate regarding "x", feel free to replace "y" with "it's racist" for all issues, regardless of context. In the highly likely event that people call you an durian, accuse them of ad hominem attacks, pronounce yourself the victor and repeat how you have destroyed their arguments until they get bored and quit the discussion. Repeat in all threads, on all subjects, forever, until no one takes you seriously and avoids serious discussion with you. Finally, announce that the reason no one will engage you is because they have grown weary of being beaten and raise your arms in victory. And that they're racist.

[Ibrahim]

a) I don't think "x", I think "y".

In the future, just use this template, with "x" representing something being said by someone to whom you have a negative emotional reaction, and "y" representing unoriginal MSNBC boilerplate on a given issue. If unfamiliar with boilerplate regarding "x", feel free to replace "y" with "it's racist" for all issues, regardless of context. In the highly likely event that people call you an durian, accuse them of ad hominem attacks, pronounce yourself the victor and repeat how you have destroyed their arguments until they get bored and quit the discussion. Repeat in all threads, on all subjects, forever, until no one takes you seriously and avoids serious discussion with you. Finally, announce that the reason no one will engage you is because they have grown weary of being beaten and raise your arms in victory. And that they're racist.

Complete nonsense, as you know.

If you had anything to say for yourself on-topic you wouldn't need to digress into these ineffective personal attacks. You fail either way but staying on topic is more dignified, don't you think?

[Juggernaut Nihilism]

a) I don't think "x", I think "y".

In the future, just use this template, with "x" representing something being said by someone to whom you have a negative emotional reaction, and "y" representing unoriginal MSNBC boilerplate on a given issue. If unfamiliar with boilerplate regarding "x", feel free to replace "y" with "it's racist" for all issues, regardless of context. In the highly likely event that people call you an durian, accuse them of ad hominem attacks, pronounce yourself the victor and repeat how you have destroyed their arguments until they get bored and quit the discussion. Repeat in all threads, on all subjects, forever, until no one takes you seriously and avoids serious discussion with you. Finally, announce that the reason no one will engage you is because they have grown weary of being beaten and raise your arms in victory. And that they're racist.

Complete nonsense, as you know.

If you had anything to say for yourself on-topic you wouldn't need to digress into these ineffective personal attacks. You fail either way but staying on topic is more dignified, don't you think?

Just like that. You're a natural.

[monster_gardener]

Mostly doesn't matter now.

I really don't see why the people who engineered this "scandal" during the election are still trying to parade it around. What's to gain? Either you're taking a swipe at a President who will never face another election, or trying to take a swipe at a party when there is no election for two years and everybody will be bored of talking about this in five minutes, or you think that somehow uncovering some hypothetical scandal will Make Americans Safer, as though the administration had a "let diplomats die" policy that they will stick to unless Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh crack the case in the worst cop movie of all time.

Or better yet, they actually do find some smoking-gun paper trail and the big score is "Obama said X several days before saying Y, and he probably most likely knew or should have known it was Y from the start." Watergate 2.0

If it weren't for being peripherally related to the Petraeus sex scandal this would already have disappeared.

Thank you for your post, Ibrahim.

Wrong Question about Wrong People,

I really don't see why the people who engineered this "scandal" during the election are still trying to parade it around.

The people who engineered this scandal are the Obama administration....

Who for whatever reason didn't have the sense to leave like the Brits did or enforce the Consulate sufficiently to resist an attack.....

My personal suspicion is that you are asking the wrong questions because you are invested in both Obama and the Libyan Intervention...

[monster_gardener]

If it weren't for being peripherally related to the Petraeus sex scandal this would already have disappeared.

It may be the opposite in fact; the salaciousness of the Petraeus incident is playing right into the pre-packaged "let's damage the President for political expediency by not really doing or saying anything" crowd.

Otherwise, what we have is a situation where someone in the administration, maybe even the President, chose not to send in armed forces when there seems to be a big enough window of opportunity to do so.

Why should we put it past a President [who brags about his kill list and has already assassinated his own countrymen without trial] that he may have found it to his benefit to see these guys die?

Isn't it now sort of an open secret (or very strong rumor) that they were holding "extralegal" interrogation methods there, even after the President supposedly outlawed them?

What about the stuff where the ambassador may have been giving weapons and assistance to Al Qadea against Syria?

That is was politically in the best interest of the candidate if some guy with a youtube channel took the blame?

If it is indeed nothing more than the last point or something less; I don't see where this sort of thing could go: does the President have the right to the lie to the public about sensitive security matters [whether for their own benefit or his?] The answer to that could go a few different ways, none of them are really affirming though to a narcissistic audience that is interested in every James Bond details.

However; if there were ever an opening, however small, to question this whole "War on Terror" and how we are going about it, this may be the only chance one gets. The people have seen the body of the ambassador dragged through the streets, so they are invested in finding out what's really going on- this is the opportunity to show them. You can go on and on about drone strikes and unjust this and unfair that...but this is the concrete opportunity to show people what it means to "fight" a war where there is no clearly defined opposition, goals, or end point.

Instead, we will be stuck with who placed Peter with Mary and Paul; and what "it means for the administration" as if Obama ordered a cover up just to mess with people and be a meanie...

Thank you VERY MUCH for your post, Nap.

Otherwise, what we have is a situation where someone in the administration, maybe even the President, chose not to send in armed forces when there seems to be a big enough window of opportunity to do so.

BINGO!............

Apart from whether the Obama Administration lied about it, it is a plain as a pikestaff that they are incompetent dumb asses when it comes to security matters ........

[monster_gardener]

a) I don't think "x", I think "y".

In the future, just use this template, with "x" representing something being said by someone to whom you have a negative emotional reaction, and "y" representing unoriginal MSNBC boilerplate on a given issue. If unfamiliar with boilerplate regarding "x", feel free to replace "y" with "it's racist" for all issues, regardless of context. In the highly likely event that people call you an durian, accuse them of ad hominem attacks, pronounce yourself the victor and repeat how you have destroyed their arguments until they get bored and quit the discussion. Repeat in all threads, on all subjects, forever, until no one takes you seriously and avoids serious discussion with you. Finally, announce that the reason no one will engage you is because they have grown weary of being beaten and raise your arms in victory. And that they're racist.

Thank you VERY MUCH for your post, Juggernaut.

And for your service to this nation against enemies foreign and domestic........

Of which IMVHO Ibrahim is one.......

Your post is excellent but IMO, the reason Ibrahim does this is that he hates and despises us/America..........

By his own words, he Despises America a dump....... Rampant & Ranking with Racists.........*

*On the otherhand he says he lives in a "hellhole"**.....Where IMVHO he may belong......

**A Canadian Hell Hole and a Socialist one at that......

[Crocus sativus]

.

Thank you VERY MUCH for your post, Juggernaut.

And for your service to this nation against enemies foreign and domestic ........

.

whaaaaat services ? .. come out of closet Juggernaut

.

Of which IMVHO Ibrahim is one.......

.

Poor Ibrahim

Monster, you too hard on Ibrahim



.

[Ibrahim]

Just like that. You're a natural.

Let me know when you feel up to talking about the actual subject. Take as long as you need.

[Ibrahim]

Otherwise, what we have is a situation where someone in the administration, maybe even the President, chose not to send in armed forces when there seems to be a big enough window of opportunity to do so.

That there was insufficient security is a given, the only question is why. Given a choice between some hypothetical Presidential scheme to benefit his political campaign somehow on one hand, and the fact that Republican-controlled Congress refused to provide more funding for diplomatic security on the other, most sensible people have a clear choice. Otherwise you're in "Bush did 9/11" territory.

In the case of the attack itself and in the case of the alleged lie it is a matter of cui bono. How does it benefit the administration to have their ambassador killed? And how does it benefit the administration to lie about the nature of the attack for a few days? There is no motivation in either case, but obvious motivation for the other political party to exploit the attack for their own benefit.