The focus of the mainstream media (MSM) and the Obama Administration on the aftermath of the September 11 murder of four U.S. Diplomats, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens has disproportionately been on the YouTube video that supposedly spurred the riots, and Mitt Romney.
The murdered U.S. Diplomats, the search for their killers, the fact that the riots are spreading, the people of Benghazi, the weapons provided by the United States to the militants (which has led to Libya now without a leader and Egypt in the clutches of the Muslim Brotherhood) are not really the concern of the MSM. But Mitt Romney is!
Mitt Romney
The almost obsessive focus by the MSM on Mitt Romney's comments made in response to the U.S. Embassy in Egypt announcement condemning those who "hurt the religious feelings" of Muslims borders on insanity.
An article in the New Yorker says,
"Romney has managed, in a couple of short vignettes, to showcase so many of the qualities that make people doubt him: the eager opportunism; the indifference to the truth; a certain arrogance; his clumsiness and near-incompetence as a diplomat; the sense that he doesn't understand what it means for a person to be in hard circumstances, or even danger."
The Chicago Tribune declared,
"Romney's insistence on criticizing Obama's administration over Wednesday's events had Democrats recalling the Republican's gaffes during a trip abroad in July, and Republicans cringing at what many saw as a botched chance to raise questions about the effectiveness of Obama's policies in the Middle East."
These are just two of thousands of such criticisms. President Obama, not surprisingly, is not being scrutinized nearly as closely, despite the fact that this has happened on his watch.
The YouTube Video
One would think that Pastor Brian Terry, the fool who likes to bring attention to himself by burning the Koran, is directly responsible for the death of the U.S. diplomats. He, along with the "film-maker" is being hounded by the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the entire mainstream media. Hillary Clinton and others have denounced the film.
Apparently, Terry has not even watched the film.
Clinton said,
"It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose, to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage. But as I said yesterday, there is no justification, none at all, to responding to this video with violence."
Glad she clarified.
Although it was widely reported that the film-maker was an Israeli named Sam Bacile, that seems to have been an alias. Perhaps the MSM should consider that there is a particular sensitivity with Israel before they put out false reports.
The FBI and U.S. Department of Homeland Security issued a joint intelligence bulletin about how the film poses "security concerns to U.S. interests at home and abroad," as reported by CNN. The wording is interesting.
Is it the film that poses a security risk? Or is it the radical Muslims who use the film as an excuse to riot, loot, and murder people?
There is also not much made that the riots fell on September 11, despite the fact that the video has been available for some time. The New York Times reported that "...the assailants seemed organized, well trained and heavily armed, and they appeared to have at least some level of advance planning." It is very possible that the film was used as an incitement tool, perhaps as a cover for the murder the U.S. Diplomats.
The protests have since spread to Yemen, Tunisia, Morocco, Gaza City, Sudan, Iran, Israel, and Iraq. In Iran, they chanted, "Death to America" and in Iraq they chanted, "America is the enemy of the people," while burning an American flag. Perhaps the MSM can start there.
Image Source: susiemadrak.com/wordpress
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 286
How can this happen and there not be an immediate broadcast with the President addressing the nation? I heard he made some kind of apology... to the people who did this?
Did I miss it?
I have a friend rotates every few years in her service working for an ambassador... and the first thing I did was find out if she was okay, and she was. She posted something about it (on another site)...
You missed it~Obama's addressed the nation & it was covered on all the cable news channels (even our local) plus ABC, CBS & NBC.
I must be getting like the therapist I saw in the 70's, she never watched the news or read newspapers (back before the internet) I was often surprised at her lack of knowledge of current events until she let me know that.
When Romney uses this to boost his campaign by linking "we will never apologize for our values" to it, isn't it important to quote the exact statement right?
This is referring to the You Tube video that spurred the event. HOW EXACTLY is that an apology for American Values?
What if there was an anti-Christian video that incited some Christians do do something like this in a Muslim country, and an Embassy of that country issued a statement: "condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Christians." Would that be so bad?
Seriously, there's no excuse for this horrendous act, and the Embassy statement wasn't their finest hour of diplomacy, but it had absolutely no resemblance to an apology for American values, as Romney kept repeating while exploiting this to the hilt, to advance his campaign.
I don't either, but I do watch the news to keep informed.
Robert, to me your comments read like this:
"wahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwah"
except this part:
What if there was an anti-Christian video that incited some Christians do do something like this in a Muslim country, and an Embassy of that country issued a statement: "condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Christians." Would that be so bad? It is not bad, at all! It would never happen. Nobody is afraid of Christians. The (I almost said apology) apologetic rebuke? is that better? "apologetic rebuke" clearly has everything to do with fear - and the radicals can smell it. If there were "apologetic rebukes" for some of the horrible anti-Christian things said by some of your buddies here Robert, I think some people may fall over. It doesn't happen - because I guess the feelings of those who are potentially violent are considered to be more sacred.
Trying again:
Well, that certainly lets out my big secret that I don't sit and watch TV all day long. :) lol! Nice to know you have a life, Heather! ;-)
Robert, to me your comments read like this:
"wahwahwah"
except this part:
What if there was an anti-Christian video that incited some Christians do do something like this in a Muslim country, and an Embassy of that country issued a statement: "condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Christians." Would that be so bad?
It is not bad, at all! It would never happen. Nobody is afraid of Christians. The (I almost said apology) apologetic rebuke? is that better? "apologetic rebuke" clearly has everything to do with fear - and the radicals can smell it.
If there were "apologetic rebukes" for some of the horrible anti-Christian things said by some of your buddies here Robert, I think some people may fall over. I think I saw the term "magic underwear" three times just yesterday.
Not so ancient after all.
Yep. In Africa, there's the Lord's Resistance Army, fighting to establish a fundamentalist Christian theocracy. And also the crazy Christian "witch hunters", who torture and murder children after accusing them of being witches (yeah, seriously).
John Baird and Jason Kenney a threat to Canada? You betcha for sure, same kind of threat that the Romney/Ryan/Rand ticket is to the USA.
"Scary"? No, I'm not scared, Renee. But I'm aware that there are Christian groups in the United States that are violent and potentially dangerous. I'm also aware that there are Christians in the United States working to remove the separation of church and state and/or to establish theocratic governments in the U.S. and elsewhere. And I'm aware that there are Christians in the U.S. who have been supporting other groups outside the U.S. -- the Lord's Resistance Army, the "witch-hunters", those trying to enact the Ugandan "Kill the Gays" bill, etc.
I doubt that they're anywhere near a majority of the Christians in the United States, but they certainly do exist.
BTW: Renee, nice non answer.
I do have things that take up my time... and I do pace myself with times of rest in my lift chair... writing and commenting on Gather. My hands are what limit me on writing and commenting. I would never get anything done if I didn't pace myself.
As far as the Christian discussion this thread turned into... there are some that follow what Jesus himself said and taught... and there are some who pay no attention to that... and call themselves Christian's (through out centuries doing evil in God's name)... I often wondered when I heard about the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland when they were killing each other saying God was on their side... Wow...
One can call himself a "money manager" and make promises of a good return and they can turn out to be the mastermind of a ponzi scheme like Bernie "Made Off..." Just ask any of his victim's how they view him....being... a trusted man who was helping them, or a thief helping himself and others to their money.
BM: I do expect to be accountable to my Creator in the fullness of time, and have no fear of that moment. Thank God I am not accountable to you or those who hold the same narrow, judgemental and contrarian perspective of their faith.
Well, not so much these days but it wasn't that long ago that people like my dad's parents left eastern Europe for the fear of Christians. Christians in the countries my granparents' families left had these fun events called "pogroms."
Christianity is Jewish... there is no way around that... so these "Christians" aren't really Christians are they? How can you embrace and love a Jewish Messiah then turn on Jewish people? That in itself says something.
I was only commenting on how many "Christians" do things that do not line up with what Jesus taught. It had not reflection on what is or isn't in the Koran.
People can assume any label they want but it doesn't mean they aren't false advertising themselves.
Weird, isn't it? Apparently the media isn't supposed to talk or write about Mitt Romney, even when he calls press conferences and sends out media releases saying stupid things and telling lies.
And when it does, then instead of writing about these things she thinks "the mainstream media" should be writing and talking about, she just writes (and writes and writes and writes...) about how they're not doing it the way she wants it done.
WTF?
Did I get something wrong? Do you think we should be focusing on Mitt Romney and the YouTube video?
Maybe not, but for some reason you are. You wrote the article about those issues. Why?
I see a lot of other aspects of the story in the media, but here you are beating the same drum again.
Yeah, I'm not sure how this "bordering on insanity" level of "mainstream media" almost-OBSESSION is so hard to find, but I'm looking at the main pages of ABC News, NBC News, CNN, CBS News, and Fox News.
I see a link to one opinion piece about Romney's remarks at CNN, a link to one article at CBS, nothing at ABC, nothing at NBC, and a link to one article at Fox to an opinion piece about the "liberal media" picking on poor Mitt.
By my count, that's two stories ("above the fold") on the main pages of 5 network news websites. In comparison, I saw links to three stories about topless pictures of Kate Middleton.
Ansar al-Sharia is blamed for crimes committed in eastern Libya. "The group has carried out several terrorist attacks within the last few weeks and also the killing of some Libyan officials, especially in Benghazi," said Mr Jibril.
Senior diplomatic sources say the U.S. State Department had credible information, 48 hours prior to the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya and the embassy in Cairo, that American locations may be targeted, however, no warnings were issued, no “lock down†orders given.
Obama was WARNED that this would happen and he. did. nothing.
"The media is obsessively covering the presidential candidate who dared to call out the mixed messages from the sitting president, which emboldens the radicals who murdered four Americans, including an Ambassador, which has not happened since the Carter years.
Due to the sitting President's complete incompetence, the same sitting president who knew the Ambassador was missing and went to bed, just as he missed half of his intelligence briefings, which, had he known about them, he would have known that the group who likely murdered Americans "carried out several terrorist attacks within the last few weeks and also the killing of some Libyan officials, especially in Benghazi," and "Senior diplomatic sources say the U.S. State Department had credible information, 48 hours prior to the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya and the embassy in Cairo, that American locations may be targeted, however, no warnings were issued, no “lock down†orders given."
Can you imagine the wingnut outrage if Romney held a press conference and no journalists turned up because they were out covering "real" news? They'd be absolutely spewing!
Renee, could you please provide a link to the website of any major media organization that is obsessively covering the Romney screw-up to the exclusion of all other reporting on the attack on the Libyan consulate and the demonstrations in other countries?
I'm guessing that we shouldn't hold our breath while waiting? ;-)
I answered your question. Why don't you guys answer mine?
The "Republican Operative" was a Lebanese news source.
Are you surprised that they would do such a thing? It is not exactly unprecedented.
Grow up.
And it is not as if this (again) has not been done before.
Why would you call it a rumor? Do you think that four Americans were NOT killed horribly and dragged through the streets?
Everyone else says they died as a result of weapons fire on the embassy and we're found where they died. Did you see the photos of men surrounding the Ambassador on the street?
The source you gave was Tayyar.org, a news website run by a Lebanese political party called the Free Patriotic Movement. I'm not very familiar with Lebanese politics, but according to Wikipedia, it formed government through a coalition called the March 8 Alliance that includes the Amal Movement, Hezbollah, the Progressive Socialist Party, the Lebanese Democratic Party, the El Marada Movement, the Glory Movement, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, the Ba'ath Arab Socialist Party, the Solidarity Party, and others.
The Independent, The New York Times, CNN, CBS News and many other news agencies have reported that Christopher Stevens died of smoke inhalation. Not that he was raped, murdered, and dragged through the streets as you've reported.
So how is it that you know that Tayyar.org is a "well respected news outlet" and that it's story is correct and the others are not?
That is SO Wil.
And that is SO not an answer to the question. But then I didn't really expect to get one. Not an honest answer, at least.
It is like you to ask for statistics on the worthiness of the news organization. Because others have not picked it up, does not mean that the others are lying, they either have not seen that, or they choose not to report it for whatever reason.
Many outlets have reported that he died from smoke inhalation, but how do they know that? Did they do an autopsy? The body was missing for hours.
Making false accusations again. Unsurprising.
"It is like you to ask for statistics on the worthiness of the news organization."
I didn't ask for any statistics, Renee. And I'm sure I'm not the only person who considers the trustworthiness of sources before accepting their claims without verification.
"Many outlets have reported that he died from smoke inhalation, but how do they know that?"
Because the Libyan doctor who treated him at the hospital said so. What does Tayyar.org base its claims on?
"Did they do an autopsy?"
No. That's happening now that his body has been returned to the U.S.
"The body was missing for hours."
Says who? Tayyar.org again?
What evidence can you provide to back up your claim that the Free Patriotic Movement's website, Tayyar.org is a "well respected news outlet"?
What evidence can you provide, apart from an unconfirmed story on their website, that Christopher Stevens was raped, murdered, and his body dragged through the streets?
Because your childish wahwahwah is read as a single word, and it exceeds the allowable width of the comment balloon. As a single word, it doesn't wrap. URLs often make this happen, too.
"Did they do an autopsy?"
No. That's happening now that his body has been returned to the U.S
Yet everyone knows how he died. interesting.
An autopsy is not performed in order to determine the cause of the vast majority of deaths in the U.S. According to WebMD, the autopsy rate was down to 8.5% in 2007, and dropping.
What I think is much more interesting is that you didn't seem too worried about autopsy results when you started reporting that he'd been raped, murdered, and his body dragged through the streets.
And to add an insult to injury, nobody bothered to secure the crime scene, likely destroying valuable evidence. And who have you seen asking that very simple question?
Maybe you should back up your claim with some actual evidence, Renee. Otherwise, people might be inclined to think that you're "throwing stuff out there with nothing to back it up.... just warped ideology" and trying to change the subject.
You made the claim about the source, Renee. If you can't back up that claim and provide actual evidence that Tayyar.org is a "well respected news outlet", then that shows your lack of credibility.
Renee has claimed that the mainstream media has obsessively focused on Mitt Romney's ridiculous performance, but when asked to provide a link to the website of even a single major media organization that was covering the Romney screw-up to the exclusion of all other reporting on the attack on the Libyan consulate and the demonstrations in other countries, she either wouldn't or couldn't do it.
Then after she kept crapping on about how Chris Stevens was raped and murdered and his body dragged through the streets, she claimed that her source, Tayyar.org was a "well respected news outlet", but couldn't provide any evidence to back up that claim.
You know what might contributeto the article in question? If the author of that article could back up the crap she writes with actual facts, but it seems that for some reason she can't manage to do that.
Because that's what you've got -- name-calling and personal attacks.
LOL, Maybe you guys should stop questioning Tayyar's credibility and consider that the MSM in the US is covering up the fact that the Obama Administration knew about this threat, and did nothing (and that it was never about the video, which was only used as a tool for incitement).
So we should just reject all other sources of information and dismiss any doubts regarding some previously unknown and obscure Web based news agency because they feed into your paranoid perspective on the issue? Yeah, that sounds like the usual method rightwingnuts rely on for becoming 'informed'.
Graham L. Sep 17, 2012, 10:56am EDT
The pair do this all the time, they are like big brother and little brother where one goes the other follows but contribute nothing at all to the article in question.
In actual fact, if you check, you will find that Wil and I are less likely to work in tandem defending rational thought against the onslaught of fear, hate and rage coming from the right wing than we are to work alone or with other Gather liberals. I certainly appreciate Wil's able co-operation in this instance, but it may be weeks before we stumble upon one another fighting the good fight and have the opportunity to once again call out: "Fight on, MacDuff, and devil take him that first cries 'Hold, enough!'"
There's a few stories to tell, that are worth hearing. The snipes at Romneys' precipitousness are off base, they should have been redundant. The people excoriating him should have said the same thing already.
Why should a political candidate beat the press in saying the First Amendment rules?
Only Mitt Romney has tried to make this about the First Amendment when it is about safety, security, defense and foreign relations. In doing so, in getting so far off topic, he has made part of the story about him.
But, somehow that is the media's fault.
The story was 1000s of miles away. They could have chased it instead of Romneys' heels. They could have prioritized. Nope. "When did you stop beating your wife, Governor? " Hacks trying to be clever, dead Americans in the streets.
Lame, and totally on them.
YouTube "Islam is evil" and your computer almost explodes, it was always and only about attacking America on 9/11. Somehow the Embassy missed that. Might as well send out an apologia a day.
Rory, do you think it is cool that the president missed half of his intelligence briefings?
I know you're supposed to be in your mid-20s, but you come across like a young teenager.
I don't care what the mainstream media does, it's pretty apparent they aren't interested in doing anything useful or even informative.
All of this would have happened if the video never existed. If you think it happened on 9/11 because of a YouTube video when there are ten thousand such videos and 364 other days, you're stupid. And totally irrelevant, you offer semantics, people are dead. Thanks for the callous indifference and wordplay.
You give a SHIT . You mouth off, that's all. Empathy, sympathy, humanity...
...you lack this.
This video hasn't THING ONE to do with this.
PERIOD.
Without the YouTube video none of this would be happening
I don't think so.
Chuck said, I think THIS is about your need to demonize the President at every opportunity Chuck, considering the events that have taken place in the past week, I think the president deserves criticism. You can still like him, you can still subscribe to his message. But you should not blindly toe the party line.
This video hasn't THING ONE to do with this.
PERIOD.
Quite right, Jay & Mark John.
No, I think THIS is about your need to demonize the President at every opportunity (whether opportunity exists or not), and for some reason to defend the fool running against him, no matter the level of idiocy he espouses on any given matter.
Bingo, Chuck! That's the approach from all the rightwingnuts.
Amongst them, of course, is the possibility that you actually believe you are defending your country by demonizing your president (ayaaA). But for all I know you actually believe him to be a demon from hell. Or Kenya.
Stephanie Sapp, a spokeswoman for Jones, said the group was supposed to show an excerpt of the film on Tuesday night, but Internet difficulties made that impossible."
The media is obsessively covering the presidential candidate who dared to call out the mixed messages from the sitting president, which emboldens the radicals who murdered four Americans, including an Ambassador, which has not happened since the Carter years. No shocker there, when we apologize for a YouTube video, what can we expect? Who would ever take America seriously?
Due to the sitting President's complete incompetence, the same sitting president who knew the Ambassador was missing and went to bed, just as he missed half of his intelligence briefings, which, had he known about them, he would have known that the group who likely murdered Americans "carried out several terrorist attacks within the last few weeks and also the killing of some Libyan officials, especially in Benghazi," and "Senior diplomatic sources say the U.S. State Department had credible information, 48 hours prior to the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya and the embassy in Cairo, that American locations may be targeted, however, no warnings were issued, no “lock down†orders given."
Romney, by the way, is up in the polls, which is surprising, considering that the Department of Justice is clamping down on Gallup. I am sure Rasmussen will be getting a call soon.
yeah, Romney is the important story here.
here is the link:
http://youdontknowish.tumblr.com/post/31487546491/muhammad-movie-trailer-so-this-is-the
The latest from CNN online:
"While he'd been identified in July 2011 by various names, including Sam Bassiel, federal officials now say they believe the filmmaker's name is Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. He was convicted in 2009 of bank fraud, with the indictment from the U.S. Attorney's Office listing seven aliases.
A production staffer said he believed the filmmaker was a Coptic Christian who also went by the name Abenob Nakoula Bassely."
There is. And I spell it I-R-A-N.
Well done.
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Still think Bush lied?
Game. Set. Match. Checkmate, too.
Aside from the fact that they are Democrats, what do these people all have in common?
Max Baucus (Mont.)
Evan Bayh (Ind.)
Joe Biden (Del.)
John Breaux (La.)
Maria Cantwell (Wash.)
Jean Carnahan (Mo.)
Tom Carper (Del.)
Max Cleland (Ga.)
Hillary Clinton (N.Y.)
Tom Daschle (S.D.)
Christopher Dodd (Conn.)
Byron Dorgan (N.D.)
John Edwards (N.C.)
Dianne Feinstein (Calif.)
Tom Harkin (Iowa)
Fritz Hollings (S.C.)
Tim Johnson (S.D.)
John Kerry (Mass.)
Herb Kohl (Wis.)
Mary Landrieu (La.)
Joe Lieberman (Conn.)
Blanche Lincoln (Ark.)
Zell Miller (Ga.)
Ben Nelson (Neb.)
Bill Nelson (Fla.)
Harry Reid (Nev.)
John Rockefeller (W.Va.)
Charles Schumer (N.Y.)
Bob Torricelli (N.J.)
BAMMMMMMM!!!!
....Rory.....
...Rory......
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Unbelievable. We can probably find quotes from all of these people saying Bush LIED, too. I checked your quotes to be sure, yep. All TRUE.
And you even used SNOPES to prove them. ROFLOL.
Bush started a war, which is many orders of magnitude worse than saying things. And while a number of Democrats voted to support Bush's drive to war they did so under the influence of presidential lies that abused the goodwill and support that rallied around the nation's leader after 9/11 and diverted the nation's attention away from the real culprits and towards a target of personal preference. The worst they are guilty of is being too trusting and showing too much deference to the office of the president.
So, nice try, team. You dug up a lot of verbiage to try and divert blame from where it belongs, in order, with:. The Bush administration; the Republican Party; the Democratic Party (yes, them too, to a lesser degree); the American people as accessories after the fact.
So when Democrats say stuff, we shouldn't expect any action? And even though I provided you with the list of Democrats that voted for it, it is still ONLY George Bush's fault?
priceless.
I actually saw this over a week ago and was waiting for the proper place to post it.
They will blame both and totally ignore O's part in the disaster.
They will blame both and totally ignore O's part in the disaster yep ;-)
Well, SOMEONE has to pay for the lazy cretins on welfare.
Renee wrote: "So when Democrats say stuff, we shouldn't expect any action? And even though I provided you with the list of Democrats that voted for it, it is still ONLY George Bush's fault?"
You really don't read what others write before commenting, do you? Or is this another example of the rightwingnut tactic of misstating an opponent's position and then arguing against your own misstatement?
I listed who was to blame, so clearly not ONLY Bush. I even included the Democrats on that list. And you, assuming you really are a US citizen.
It is always fascinating when proof means nothing.
"Bush started a war, which is many orders of magnitude worse than saying things. And while a number of Democrats voted to support Bush's drive to war they did so under the influence of presidential lies that abused the goodwill and support that rallied around the nation's leader after 9/11 and diverted the nation's attention away from the real culprits and towards a target of personal preference. The worst they are guilty of is being too trusting and showing too much deference to the office of the president."
Bush was President 2001-2009
...FLASH BACK TO 1998...
1998 DEMOCRATS: SADDAM HUSSEIN HAS WMDs
hmm, did the democrats LIE to Bush?
And we are still blaming George Bush.
Ah, the Outside Agitator theory. In most every Muslim country there are some people who subscribe to an extremely conservative form of Islam, i. e. 8th century tribal Arabian. The Salafi point of view is all over and is the inspiration for Al Qaeda, the Taliban, et al. While it's true that some people need a push to get started, they generally have to agree with whatever it is to start with. People in the US got all hot and bothered by a proposed Islamic center in NYC at the south end of Manhattan. You could just as easily say that conservative outside agitators were responsible for that.
I don't condone violence. I participated in a bunch of demonstrations against the war in Vietnam and never supported vandalism etc. I haven't changed my point of view on that. The other thing I haven't changed my point of view about is that agitators don't cause social unrest. The disaffection with the social or political system has to be there to start with.
And they voted for it...which is "many orders of magnitude worse than saying things."
...psshhh...
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"Yes, they made a grave mistake in trusting the word of President Bush."
...yes, and Bush made the grave mistake of trusting the word of the democommiRATS.
Bush was President 2001-2009
...FLASH BACK TO 1998...
1998 DEMOCRATS: SADDAM HUSSEIN HAS WMDs
Wow, he was even stupider than he sounded. And you voted for him twice? You must be downright differently abled.
What the leftists hate the most is that they know doggone well that Obama is looking more and more like Carter and Romney is being compared to Reagan.
The only thing that the folks in the middle east understand is strength. Romney showed that. Obama did not.
'The New Deal.' The most destructive Social Program ever perpetrated upon the American People...and the most anti-Constitutional scam in American History. A Damned shame.
"For more than 200 years, our party has led the fight for civil rights (see reverse-discrimination), health care (see Socialised nobamacare), Social Security (see NOTHING), workers' rights (how to abuse through taxation, and THEFT from hard-working Americans for Union Thugs), and women's rights (see Men and Leadership have taken a back seat to wussy-boys and bitchy fuc*ing women). We are the party of Barack Obama (kill me now), John F. Kennedy (ah, the days of Olde), FDR (Constitution-destroying Socialist), and the countless everyday Americans (code for "the Masses of Leftists in a collective Society) who work each day to build a more perfect union (psshhh...fuc* off). Take a look at some of our accomplishments, and you'll see why we're proud to be Democrats." (idiots...)
JFK, yeah, he was cool ;-) except he was a big fat cheater ;-)
Yes; a big fat (laughs! that's a funny turn of phrase, "big fat"!) cheater, and a drugger. I think he swam with Marilyn Monroe in the House Pool while Jackie was doing her Nails...and about 33 others. What is it with the Kennedy's and Swimming...?
Nonetheless, we have to try to fix things. Diplomacy is nicer than war.
there is a problem that bullying or war will not fix.
McCain didn't want us to lead from behind in Libya and Romney's American Exceptionalism is so jingoistic, he makes Reagan seem like a Peace Dove.
Do you actually believe that Romney, McCain & Associates would have stopped the Arab Spring, the takeover by the Muslim Brotherhood and the Libyan uprisings?
If so, tell us how......
Pleeeease.....Renee, and her cronies, are exercising typical double-standard advocacy.
They are blinded by their dogma.
What Renee can't defend, she deletes....
What Renee thinks she can defend, she doesn't delete--even though her defense is often biased and distorted.
You're a bright woman, Renee; it's a shame it's going to waste.
Ladies and gentlemen......watch her delete, yet again! Ladies and Gentlemen! Watch now!
Although the first question was actually a good one, the rest of your comment was seriously silly (except for the fact that I am bright - I like that part).
Have I ever deleted any of your comments? I delete Ron's, and I may have deleted one or two from R.F., and only because it was mean-spirited and hurt my friend's feelings - you know me - you can say whatever you want about me...but once you mess with my peeps....I think anyone could tell you it takes a lot for me to delete. And that is easy to verify just by looking at my posts. Perhaps you can do a research project - go to my posts and note the comments I delete. Then you can come back to me with actual data ;-)
Your question was SO good, that I am making it a post. Will let you know when it is ready ;-)
You mean like a dorky punching bag???
Would the Ambassador to Libya and U.S. Diplomats Have Been Murdered if Romney was President?
Romney came off as petulant, undignified, and self serving. He also managed to speak before he or his staff got the facts straight. Other than that he did a fine job of showing the nation his fitness for the presidency.