Did the president lie about them?
Of course he did. Either that, or he’s an idiot. Not that those are mutually exclusive possibilities.
24 thoughts on “The Embassy Attacks”
Comments are closed.
Did the president lie about them?
Of course he did. Either that, or he’s an idiot. Not that those are mutually exclusive possibilities.
Comments are closed.
People died. Obama lied.
A new Obama campaign bumper sticker: Chris Stevens is dead, and Al Qaeda is alive.
Rand, I’ll buy 25 at a buck a pop and plaster them wherever I can!
Assume the truth. Romney’s question to the public should be, “Why did president Obama lie about the embassy attack that killed our embassador by saying for a week after that it was not a terrorist attack involving Al Queda when he had intelligence reports proving it was?”
Pound it hard.
Well, obviously the administration’s first question wasn’t who did it, or how, or why, but how it would affect the campaign, as if it were an attack ad and not an attack.
Putting the election first, including when it means lying to the American people, is hardly new for Obama. Remember this wonderful caught-on-tape moment, as reported by ABC and others?
President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.
President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…
President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.
President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.
Yet, Romney’s dog got far more media coverage, as did Romney’s Olympic “gaffe” (nevermind that he was actually right). So too every less-than-perfect thing Romney says.
Leftists lie? I’m shocked–shocked I tell you! As I’ve written before: If you can’t trust people who believe in legalized looting, who can you trust?
But seriously . . . .
Remember that “Il Dufe” was raised by, and has associated a big chunk of his adult life with, people whopse credo is “No truth but socialist truth.”
And the Press’s response will likely be “We aren’t going to report it AND YOU CAN’T MAKE US!! Lalalalallalala.”
Does anyone remember the outcry when Jose Padilla was arrested and later called an enemy combatant? Recall how Padilla actually was suspected (and later convicted) of conspiracy to kill Americans in a terrorist act, but how evil Bush was threatening a Constitutional crisis by treating Padilla this way?
Now, we have Americans assissinated as citizens after being deemed guilty by a literally secret commission that works only within the White House. And we have civilians being awoken at night and taken in for questioning because they posted a youtube video parady that had nothing to do with a planned terrorist attack that killed a US Ambassador.
I get the idea that the issue wasn’t what Bush was doing, but that it was Bush and not Obama. If it is Obama that’s President, then he is given much greater leeway in determining what is a civil right, thus what is given by the state can be taken back by the state.
http://www.rushlimbaughsites.com/civil-liberties/you-might-be-arrested-under-the-national-defense-authorization-act-1372/
What do you think?
Here’s a more up to date summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012
As for the politics of the matter — Bush vs Obama — I would suggest that because you don’t pay attention to the left, you don’t realize how disheartened Democrats are with Obama. But who are they going to vote for? They don’t want to (or at least, shouldn’t want to) make the mistake of voting for the Green candidate and hand the White House to the Republicans, as Florida voters did in 2000 with Nader. They’re best hope of influencing things is to turn out the vote for Obama, and then pressure him once he is re-elected to look to his legacy.
Maybe they will just stay home?
People are right to point out the BS way Democrats and the media don’t constantly criticize Obama the way they did Bush. It shows they were never really arguing their ideals in good faith. 9/11,Iraq, and the economy should have been times the Democrats supported our country, yet they made concerted efforts to make the country fail and to denegrate our reputation abroad.
It is like the previous eight years of Democrat actions before Obama was elected just went down the memory hole.
Nice spam site there, bob. I think it jumped me to about three or four different sites. I have no idea what the story was because reading it wasn’t an option.
As for Democrats being disheartened by Obama, they seem to be taking it without much complaint. He got his arrest. Yeah, its a probation violation, because we know posting a youtube video on religion is akin to bank wire fraud. Wouldn’t want a relapse.
“Nice spam site there, bob. I think it jumped me to about three or four different sites. I have no idea what the story was because reading it wasn’t an option.”
Leland, I’m very sorry about that. I have no idea what went wrong. I thought linking to Rush Limbaugh (about a serious subject, with no pro-Democrat spin) would amuse you. The site works fine for me. Here’s the text of the article:
——–
November 28, 2011
You might be Arrested under the National Defense Authorization Act
Yes, Americans Will Be Targeted As Terrorists Under the NDAA
Controversy over whether or not Americans are exempt from a provision of the National Defense Authorization Act bill, set to be voted on this week by the Senate, which defines the the entirety of the United States as a battleground in the war on terror, has been addressed by Republican Congressman Justin Amash, who warns that the bill does apply to U.S. citizens.
As we previously reported, under the ‘worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial’ provision of S.1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which is set to be up for a vote on the Senate floor this week, the legislation will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who supports the bill.
That provoked concerns that American citizens could be targeted as terrorists and indefinitely detained without trial or charge.
“One section of these provisions, section 1031, would be interpreted as allowing the military to capture and indefinitely detain American citizens on U.S. soil. Section 1031 essentially repeals the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 by authorizing the U.S. military to perform law enforcement functions on American soil. That alone should alarm my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but there are other problems with these provisions that must be resolved,” Colorado Senator Mark Udall said in a speech earlier this month.
Following an ACLU alert on the legislation, some pointed out that the text of the bill actually exempts Americans from being detained under the new “homeland battlefield” designation under the proviso that “the requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.”
However, as Republican Congressman Justin Amash told the The Grand Rapids Press today, the language of the bill is “carefully crafted to mislead the public.”
“Note that it does not preclude U.S. citizens from being detained indefinitely, without charge or trial, it simply makes such detention discretionary,” Amash wrote on his Facebook page.
The controversy over whether or not the text of the bill suggests the legislation applies to U.S. citizens is largely inconsequential given the fact that every piece of anti-terror legislation passed since 9/11 has been used against Americans, both at home and abroad.
The Patriot Act was passed in the name of giving federal authorities the tools to catch terrorists, but it has been used in hundreds of cases against American citizens, often in cases that have no relation whatsoever to terrorism.
Furthermore, as Ron Paul has pointed out, Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen who has never been charged with any crime, was the victim of extrajudicial killing because of the same unconstitutional legalese that defines the entire globe as a “battlefield,” where the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens are declared null and void if they are designated as terrorists by the federal government.
Indeed, national intelligence director Dennis Blair openly stated last year that, “Being a U.S. citizen will not spare an American from getting assassinated by military or intelligence operatives.”
Recall that José Padilla, an American citizen, was held without charge for 3 and a half years as an “enemy combatant” and denied a trial in civilian court, after being accused of planning to detonate a “dirty bomb,” an accusation that was enough to keep Padilla in a military brig for over three years yet was never proven.
As far back as December 2002, the Washington Post reported that a “parallel legal system” had been put in place under the auspices of the war on terror, in which terrorism suspects — U.S. citizens and noncitizens alike — may be investigated, jailed, interrogated, tried and punished without legal protections guaranteed by the ordinary system.”
The “battlefield” provision of the NDAA is nothing new, it is merely an updating of existing policy that has been applied to American citizens on numerous occasions over the last decade.
The difference is that the danger of American citizens being detained without trial as terrorists on frivolous pretexts is an even greater danger now given that the Department of Homeland Security has characterized behavior such as buying gold, owning guns, using a watch or binoculars, donating to charity, using the telephone or email to find information, using cash, and all manner of mundane behaviors as potential indicators of domestic terrorism.
Article written by Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Infowars.com
Monday, November 28, 2011
So now you just steal copyrighted material and reprint it? Plagiarize much? Try going to the original source sometime…
Here’s a safe and legal link to the original article. There’s more at this link (also safe and legal):
Swann then moves on to ask the president about the infamous “kill list,” the list of people targeted for assassination. Despite the president’s earlier comments claiming that Americans would not be the target of indefinite detention, Swann reminds the president that an American citizen was on the list and was killed by a Hellfire missile launched from a Predator drone.
We all know the out cry if a Republican President did this. People still talk about Nixon’s enemies list. But Obama’s kill list? The pen dropping after the signing statements is louder.
Leland, I was trying to be helpful, and I was criticizing Obama, and you still give me grief, so screw you.
Not that I’m even the desired customer for all the free ice cream, but an edit button sure would be nice to clean up dumb mistakes like “they’re” vs “their”.
I have no idea how hard it is to configure one. But someday, in the future, people will be able to buy tickets to go to the moon and zero-g habitats and even Mars, and blogs will come with built-in edit buttons.
Yes, that’s what I need — a way to allow my commenters to come along later and edit their posts. What could go wrong?
And even if it was a desirable feature, how would you propose that I implement it without requiring commenters to log in? Or do you think you should just be able to edit anyone’s posts?
First and foremost, I was envisioning a system in which wordpress (or whatever) did all the work — you’d only have to click an option. I wasn’t suggesting that you go any extra work beyond that. Maybe you could tell I was thinking that, but I want you to know I respect your time and appreciate your blog.
Second, regarding the log in issue, I was thinking the blogging software could assign a password per comment, for anonymous commenters.
Regarding whether it is desirable, I have seen other commenters mention their belief that it would be desirable. I do understand the issue regarding an Orwellian memory hole. One solution is software enforcement: it would only allow edits in the form of cross-outs, rather than full deletions. Or, less elegantly, it would only allow comments on lines below the original line, and a date stamp would be applied to each edit. Another solution is that if you caught anyone doing it, you’d just ban them, since it is your blog, your rules.
Or we could just not freak out when we realize we used “their” instead of “they’re” 🙂
Lately I’ve been hitting a Star Trek board that uses brackets instead of angle signs. Half the time I’ll use the wrong symbol [i]somewhere[/i]. – like that.
(I’m banned again this week for daring to imply that Obama isn’t the annointed one, having mentioned the 850 calorie school lunch protests. I’ve been banned from their politics forum for years, with the bald proviso that I can return once I support Obama, so we can guess why the Federation never once portrayed two-party politics.) 😀
Instead of an edit button, how about buttons that say:
[add short pithy comment]
[add long, well reasoned counterpoint]
[add digression involving Apollo]
[explain the word “subsidy”]
[explain the term “crony capitalism]
[add automatic reply refuting Bob]
[add automatic reply refuting Jim]
[Godwin it]
[enter an actual comment manually]
“Yes, that’s what I need — a way to allow my commenters to come along later and edit their posts. What could go wrong?”
I agree. I’ve seen a WP blog which has an edit function timed for 60 minutes, but I prefer the current setup here.
Oh, and regarding the administration calling the attacks the result of a spontaneous uprising, and all their subsequent statements, we can sum it all up as:
TOUCHDOWN SEAHAWKS!
An out cry met with silence.