Hi 27° | Lo 4°

Letter: No answers from Obama

Fox News broadcast an interview with President Obama just before the Super Bowl Sunday evening. Bill O’Reilly asked the president what he was told when our embassy in Benghazi was attacked. The president responded that he was told it was under attack, but exactly who they were was not immediately known. Two days later he described it as a terrorist attack in a press meeting. There was no explanation why the American people were led to believe for six weeks, falsely, our compound was attacked because of a six-minute video that upset some Islamists.

No one is being held responsible for the lack of increased security that was requested numerous times to the State Department and ignored, which resulted in the death of our ambassador and three others. An FBI investigation has been finished, but no one has been arrested.

The IRS targeted conservative groups applying for 501c tax-exempt status and held up their applications up to two years. Information on these applications were leaked to the public. This is a criminal offense, but the Justice Department has taken no action.

After listening to the president’s evasive answers to O’Reilly, I found that none came close to an explanation. The listener was left with no answer. My question to Obama: “When will you stop playing politics and begin to do what is good for our country?” We have been waiting for five years.



Legacy Comments109

I find it very hard to believe Bruce you are unaware of all the editing and doctoring the media has done. The Zimmerman 911 tape was edited to make him look like a racist. Andrea Mitchell Doctored a video of Romney while he was running. Ed Shultz editing of Rick Perry to make him look like a racist. Video of McCain and mother of Aurora victim edited. Also photos have been edited by photographers with a liberal agenda.

You mean all the whining and complaining the right does when they aren't happy with how they're covered in the news? I'll give you one out of 4. The Ed Schultz hack job on Perry was inexcusable. But I don't think the other 3 are problematic. The Zimmerman issue has been gone over thoroughly, and there are legitimate claims to be made from both sides. All the video was aired by all the media within a few days. Zimmerman's actions and behavior since his acquittal should not make anyone feel comfortable that this guy carries a gun. I have no problem with the Romney edit--he was clearly flummoxed by the device at "Wa-Wa's, and his edited-out comment subsequently about "innovation" in the private sector vs. public sector contained a factual error that negated whatever "point" he was making. The woman McCain addressed felt deeply hurt by McCain's remarks--the unedited version: "...Teves said she was offended by McCain's comments. Honestly, I felt it was very disrespectful, that I had just lost my son and that what I needed was some straight talk I've never been talked to like that in my life," she said. Teves' husband, Tom, was a longtime supporter of McCain going all the way back to his first run for president in 2000. The couple are also strong supporters of the Second Amendment but support a ban on assault rifles. "I was a little upset when they talked to my wife that way. That's not how you talk to a grieving woman, I mean show some humanity," Tom Teves said of McCain's response to his wife." http://www.azfamily.com/news/McCain-aide-accuses-3TV-of-a-bad-edit--193171651.html http://www.mediaite.com/tv/inconvenient-untruth-mitt-romneys-wawas-story-was-a-big-fat-lie/

The problem is there is no penalty for these deceptive ongoing edits by the media. Next time it happens, take away their broadcast license for 6 months. Period.

I think that would require bringing back the Fairness Doctrine in some form or fashion, which I heartily support.

Reagan was given a complete pass by the media. He used his wiles on them so much that Iran-Contra and the death of over 200 marines in Lebanon were hardly a blip on his biography.

Wasnt this the 3rd attack on this facility? Why did every other country get out of there but the US?

I assumed this was an opinion page, instead it is one side citing sources to the other side and visa versa.. No one seems to "know" anything. They have to find it out from some source that reinforces what they already think. Some one new comes on and gives her opinion and Sail starts screaming "where is your source, where is your source? No wonder it is the same people over and over on here.

The hostility between the left and right is tearing this country apart and the root-cause of nearly every problem. One on the left refuses to admit their ruler and his minions made mistake, people got killed, and they embarked on a grand cover-up of lies. They used government thugs (the IRS) to target their enemies. They gave guns to known mexican drug gangs, got a brave border patrolman killed, and lied to cover that up. The list is endless, and the republicans had their share of high crimes and treasonous acts when they were in power. Get rid of all parties. Make ballot access simple and cheap. Don't spend a single tax dollar to help the republikrats of demopublikans through primaries. That would be a giant step toward restoring a government of the people.

Oh yes this is definitely the kind of post that will stop the hostility between the right and left. Right out of the Fox play book. The Democrats did all these awful things listed and by the way the Republicans did bad things too. You might want to run this by the Koch brothers see what they think of it.

LOL..you may have just made his point..

Your solution may have merit, but your blame is somewhat misplaced. And your litany of Democratic"wrongs" has a decidedly partisan slant. Benghazi was a screw-up but is now a distraction the right wing attack machine uses for its own purposes. The IRS looked at progressive groups too, but right wing groups have exploited the rules on political activities by "charitable" groups to a far greater extent. Both parties have been corrupted by big money. One party has been driven far to the right, captured by right-wing libertarian ideologues. The other party has barely moved from its long-time core values, but has been neutered by its need for campaign funds.Truman proposed a national health plan, for example. Obama is a centrist Democrat the far right has demonized from Day 1 to prevent or make more difficult the passage of any progressive programs--from fairer taxes to climate change legislation to single-payer health care to...the list goes on and on. Much the same was done to Clinton. For starters, getting big money out of politics requires campaign finance reform and nonpartisan methods of redistricting--neither of which Republicans will agree to right now because its how they keep their otherwise tenuous grip on political power--most of PA's congressional delegation is Republican, yet the state voted for Obama, for instance.

Then you obviously support the repeal of the 17th amendment

No. How does that follow logically from my post? It doesn't. What would make you even think that--don't bother answering that one, we already know. The issue in PA and elsewhere is the gerrymandering of congressional districts to favor incumbents, and also to give rural and suburban regions more influence than their population warrants, and less influence to urban districts. Even the direct election of representatives state-wide would be an improvement--though it's clearly unconstitutional and not in keeping with the intent of the Founders that House members be representative of districts. But gerrymandering of districts, which is what we talking about, while it has a long tradition in our history, is clearly an abuse. It could be remedied by the use of bipartisan/nonpartisan groups to devise congressional districts, using software specifically designed to make districts fairly and more truly representative.

However, we should return to the original intent of the founders that the Senate be chosen by state legislatures, that would be far more balanced. However, rural areas being dictated to by the population of a huge city which would generally have a different view of the world is not really fair either. That was the reason for the states having power to stand up to a centralized government.

There was a reason the 17th Amendment passed, and it had to do with the ease with which state legislatures could be corrupted by monied interests. The best cure for democracy is more democracy--not less.

Obama is a centrist Democrat Bruce? Oh yes, that is what he ran on. I remember now, he was going to have the most transparent Presidency ever, he was not going to take money from lobbyists, and he was going to balance the budget, and be the president of all the people.

What do any of your claims here have to do with disproving whether or not Obama is a centrist Democrat? It's the same old same old....That he hasn't been able to deal effectively with the power of lobbyists buttresses the case that he's middle of the road--grappling with the issue would have challenged business as usual. The balanced budget issue has been fully vetted here--talking to Carpers on this is like talking to a table. In case you haven't noticed, the deficit is shrinking-- I think at a faster rate than in decades, actually. For one who like to spout off about how some don't know basic economics, your comments betray your ideological bent,which allows you to conveniently overlook economic history of the past 70 years. Middle of the road economists know that government spending goes up to counter the effects of lowered demand in a recession (not to mention the safety net spending features that automatically kicked in, such as unemployment insurance). The budget deficit is as much the result of tax cuts over the last decade as it is the result of "overspending", whether you choose to accept that fact or not is a separate issue and your problem. And as far as overspending goes--middle of the road economists said the stimulus was too small (recall it was 40% tax cuts too), and should have been twice as big. Had it been, we'd likely have seen a faster recovery from the Great Recession. Again, the fact the stimulus wasn't bigger reflects the fact Obama is a centrist. As does his willingness to see entitlements cut, as part of a "Grand Bargain". Every other advanced democracy has some form of national health care; Harry Truman proposed one in 1950. That you don't regard him as "president of all the people" (and never did, based on your published comments here over the years) says much more about your politics than it does Obama's.

Doesn't every centrist democrat want to fundamentally transform America? Sure they do...right up until a real journalist asks them on live tv about it...then...not so much. I'd like to see the centrist republican Ted Cruz run for pres 2016...but he's so middle of the road he might become a democrat...

You might be interested in reading the study this article in Slate is based on. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/climate_desk/2014/02/internet_troll_personality_study_machiavellianism_narcissism_psychopathy.html?wpisrc=hpsponsoredd2

Stop this partisan lie and start asking why the GOP controlled congress is exactly who is to blame for failing to provide more funds for embassy security. This was just one example of their constant, voting-against what ever the Obama administration proposed. Or point to the dead Ambassador himself, who refused extra security when it was offered multiple times. If you want to debate the ups and downs of your pathetic political agenda, at least do so with facts.

Oh please...even the far left Kessler gave your "facts" 3 Pinocchios ..http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/barbara-boxers-claim-that-gop-budgets-hampered-benghazi-security/2013/05/15/d1e295cc-bdb0-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html

The Post and Kessler are hardly "far left". Your claim shows how far to the right your own views are skewed, when you and others on here condemn newspapers like the Times and the WAPO, which have considerably more journalistic integrity in their reporting than anything emanating from Fox, which is the only source the Carpers cite that even pretends to have standards of fairness.

2 points...The fact that you only took me to task for my assessment of Kessler and not my main point should signal to all of you on the left this Congress is to blame for the Benghazi attack is a fantasy. Second, please define for me "far left"

It would be far more revealing for you to define the term "far left". Suffice to say you seem to have the same broad brush definition as Joe McCarthy--one that is fast and loosely applied as opportunity and circumstance require.It is another example of the debased level of political language used by ideologues and extremists--those who loudly claim to see in others the very behaviors they engage in. So far as assigning blame for Benghazi, while the tragic events that unfolded there are the responsibility of the administration, the fact that Congressional Republicans repeatedly rejected requests for additional security funding for State Dept. outposts is telling as to how little conservatives value this Cabinet department. Compound this with the fact of the numerous previous attacks on diplomatic outposts which barely mustered notice, and the political dimensions of the Benghazi investigations are apparent to the fair-minded.

Wait a minute, you are using McCarthyite tactics to demonize everyone on this site as an extremist if they don't fall in line with your cynical, narrow point of view. Let's me honest, no one could deny that your viewpoints are "extreme" and your world view is "ideological". More of the same old same old denial that Obama and his administration could never do anything wrong. Defend to the end.

That's your usual spin--labeling others who disagree with YOU as the extremist. But I'm not the one who has quoted approvingly from conspiracy-minded birthers like Jerome Corsi, nor the one who quoted approvingly from racist anti-immigrant site VDARE, nor the one who routinely questions the science behind both climate change AND evolution, nor the one who throws out cryptic references to "Agenda 21" in the manner of the John Birch Society when it comes to protecting New Hampshire's aquifers from corporate exploitation. Shall I go on? These are examples of what are, by anyone's objective definition--extreme views. You don't offer facts--you just offer smears.

I asked you first...

My definition would be that which is generally accepted by political science. You'd rather leave it undefined. That way you can continue to use it in the same broad brush manner, tarring moderates. liberals, social democrats, progressives, socialists, communists, etc, with the same label.

curious...how do you know what are Kesslers political views are???

You're the one who made claims about Kessler being "far left". Provide some facts to justify your claim.. or trundle off to troll another day.

I asked you first...

I'll take that as a "no"--you're unable and/or unwilling to back up YOUR claim.

well.ok...maybe he's not "far left"..maybe just "way left"

Digging a hole for oneself or shoveling some more? Or both at once?

Sticking with way left....nothing that I have read about Kessler would lead me to believe he is in any way a conservative or in any way shape or form "right"....

As usual, no acknowledgement of any middle ground; if he's not 'right', he must be left. What other categories could there be? Impeccable logic duly noted, as the poster was unable either to support her claim or to acknowledge error. Like the other members of the Carp Per Diem, GWTW maintains pretense that world is divided into black and white, us vs. them, either/or categories. If Kessler is not "conservative" (yet another word left conveniently undefined for rhetorical purposes), then he must be, using GWTW’s logic as stated above— "far left". By such logic, and such "thinking", wars have been waged. Taken to its logical end, it’s the blind logic of the ideologue, the extremist, and the terrorist: one is either a Tea Party Republican or one is a RINO to be drummed out of the Party, either a Muslim, or an infidel; either a Christian, or damned; either part of the Master Race, or a "degenerate" deserving of extermination.

LOL....you know what I really think? I think you are exercised about my comment about Kessler because my comments about the drought in California are spot on. And since you cant attack those...you are taking out your frustration here....btw...I would define "conservative" as that which is generally accepted by political science...and by using your logic about my logic..since I'm not a christian..I must be damned.

If I feel I have something to say on a particular thread, I'll say it there. Your comments on this thread have been troll-like--the first on Kessler contained a falsehood, that when called on, produced a non-substantive response. The repeat responses demonstrated either a calculated obtuseness or reading comprehension difficulties. Underneath is a fundamental lack of regard for the accuracy and truthfulness of one's postings. Which brings us back to intent, and the charge of trollery: less to inform or enlighten than to contradict and provoke, with little or no regard for facts. On this very thread, 3 Carpers demonstrate their disregard for accuracy--whether of definitions or facts, or both.

Let's get this straight Bruce. No one "provokes" people more than you do. Your pompous attitude defines your constant posts about anyone who dares challenge the "facts" you find absolute as a "troll" or "carper". Yet you criticize others. I would think that the way you constantly attack others might make you take pause and look in the mirror.

If you have an issue with facts that I post, or the opinions I express based on them, there's nothing stopping you from challenging them. When I respond to a post with which I disagree, I do my best to stick to the facts. Some posters have a loose definition of what facts are—for instance believing that the spurious claims of climate science deniers should be given equal weight to the findings of the 97% of climate scientists who accept the theory of AGW and who believe we need to respond. They're not equivalent; the denier claims aren’t from scientists, and are either distortions of the facts or outright falsehoods. They’re illusions promoted to sow confusion and make it appear there is a controversy when there isn’t—and to prevent honest discussion of the issue of climate change. There’s hardly a disinterested true skeptic in the bunch— nearly all are bought and paid for by the fossil fuels industry. Here are three examples of recklessness with the facts on this thread: Your claim below that Elizabeth Warren's alleged native American ancestry was a factor in her hiring at HLS, or any other law school—not true. GWTW's claim that Glenn Kessler is "far left” is an opinion with no factual basis—it was intended as a smear and is untrue. It was put out there to impugn the integrity of mainstream journalism. Sail's conspiracy-minded claim that a Turkish envoy who had dinner with Amb. Stevens the night he died in the Benghazi attack left the mission through a gauntlet of terrorists about to attack--not true. These are three examples just on this thread of certain posters demonstrating how little they regard accuracy or truthfulness. The free flow of ideas and opinions should always be welcome. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but NOT their own facts. Recklessness with the facts by 3 Carpers just on this thread alone is the result of sloppiness or it's intentional--intended to inflame and “provoke”. When it happens repeatedly, as it does on this site--and there have been numerous examples over many months, it’s intentional, and that makes it trollery.

"....it was intended as a smear and is untrue. It was put out there to impugn the integrity of mainstream journalism.:...factually incorrect. In fact...I used the far left Kesslers column to prove gdn1's claim false.

Your reading comprehension fails again/ or your obtuseness meter kicks in. I'm not referring to the Kessler column. My comment here had nothing to with the validity or lack thereof of the Benghazi claim. The fact that a supposedly corrupted news source supported your position was all to the good, in your eyes. One last time: you provided NO support for your baseless and gratuitous claim that Kessler is "far left". You use the label as any self-respecting Carper would: to imply that mainstream journalism is ideologically driven, which in turn allows you to dismiss any and all news stories from the NYTimes or WAPO, or indeed, any source other than Breitbart or similar sources, whose definition of "news" truly is agenda-driven.

Mainstream media is ideologically driven Bruce. Top Liberal Media in the US. 1. NY Times 2 WAPO 3 LA Times 4. Boston Globe

While you of course have no "agenda" and no "ideology" whatsoever. Just a plain, straight shooter who calls 'em as she sees 'em. You mean the editorial pages of the papers you disparage are ones with which you disagree. But that's different than their coverage of the news. Good journalism recognizes that there are almost always two or more sides to stories--and good journalists work hard to give equal weight to all sides in news stories. That's generally true of the major newspapers in this country—their news stories are played straight, and every effort is made to make the reporting fair to all sides. The Times has been the paper of record in this country for a long time. It's image was tarnished during the run-up to the Iraq War--Judith Miller et al played right into the building war fever that the Bushies intended. That said, good journalistic practice also clearly separates news from opinion, and generally does this well. From the Union Leader to the NYTimes to the WAPO to the Globe--all do a pretty good job of separating news from opinion. Likewise the major networks except Fox, which has a harder time separating news from its editorial slant--opinion is often wholly a part of their "news". The WSJ prior to Murdoch generally did an excellent job of reporting news stories, while their opinion page has always veered right--further right than the NYTimes veered "left". IMHO, the NYTimes is just left of center, and it presents a wide variety of voices on its opinion page--in marked contrast to (for example) the Union Leader or the WSJ, which generally feature a steady diet of right-wing commentators. There's nothing wrong with that--if there's a measure of balance, but there rarely is more than a token op-ed on either site. Bottom line: the old-line main stream media still do a better job of covering the issues--from the economy to foreign affairs to the environment, than any of their newer competitors. Readers are presented with a broader variety of views than they get on the web or on so-called new media sites, of the kind you and your fellow Carps Per Diem rely on for their "news" and opinions.

Yeah, I have an agenda Bruce. I want the US to have a great economy so everyone benefits, I want folks to be informed about all politicians and hold them accountable, and I want folks to stop judging people based on their political views, religion and size of their wallets. I also would like our kids and grandkids to not be burdened with huge debt. Your views on the media are not surprising. When the media mirrors your idealogy, it is pretty easy to see why you believe they are unbiased. It has been quite a while since we have seen reporting that is unbiased. That is why folks have had to do their own research to get the facts on the web. And that is why most folks are uninformed, getting the truth these days takes a lot of research and time, and folks just do not bother. The media does not report and give the facts now. They just promote their Liberal Agenda, and that is why you refuse to see their bias.

If your so bent on holding politicians accountable, where were your cries to hold Bush Jr and his administration accountable for war crimes and purposely lying to the American public? Why do you only blame this present administration for the deficit? Why do you not argue for the repeal of failed NCLB act? It seems to me that you are full of conviction against any democrat, but that any republican is ok and can do anything without impunity.

If your so bent on holding politicians accountable, where are you on the Benghazi crimes or debt run up by this president? Why do you not argue for the repeal of failed Obamacare act? It seems to me that you are full of conviction against any republican, but that any democrar is ok and can do anything without impunity.

These aren't facts, they're opinions, based on a highly selective reading of facts on the matters mentioned: Benghazi "crimes"; "debt run up by this president" in the course of countering the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression; "repeal Obamacare"; "doing anything without [sic] impunity". It's difficult to have an open and fair discussion when some posters can't even keep straight basic political terms like "left" and "right", let alone start from propositions that deny reality on the sources of our deficit, or the compelling, long-standing need for a broader health insurance program in this country.

You my friend are way out in right field, Unlike some here, I gave this man a chance. Too many Obstructionists tried to derail anything he proposed, do you deny this? The verdict is still out on the ACA. Your kinda jumping the gun here. AS for Benghazi, there have been dozens of inquiries and there has been blame laid on many. The Republican House for not allowing more appropriations to the State department for added security to the embassies. The CIA for not being forthcoming with good information, lack of coordination between agencies (the USA patriot act was to solve this issue but hasn't) and even the ambassador himself refusing more security.These are just a few of the conclusions. thus your indignation is in my opinion nothing but false rhetoric. The ACA was originally based on Romney's plan that was ratified in Mass. What I find interesting here is that when Obama asked for input from the Republicans, they all dissed any idea, INCLUDING THEIR OWN! that he wanted to include. For you not to acknowledge this is disingenuous at best. I want you to tell me where in these facts I have erred?

Wait a minute, if a group feels that his approach and one man band approach to governance that they should say nothing and just roll over. Most of the population does not agree with most of Obama's ideas. "Obstructionism" is not taking a principled stand against another persons approach or viewpoint. On Benghazi, the blame has been laid on many but few heads have rolled. In fact, Hillary said: "what difference does it make" in a whiny b tone. There is no need of that. The Republicans were mocked and the Democrats dismissed many of their ideas. That bill was 2000 pages of back room deals and dirty politics and it is negatively impacting many millions more than it is helping. If you read Romney's plan, it is not the same as Obamacare and Obamacare is a failure. Maybe you should ask yourself why people want to derail the bad ideas of this president. He is neither fit nor able to lead. He plays "my way or the highway" now with a pen and a phone and has no desire to govern within the Constitution, that is called tyranny. You ought to thank those brave enough to stand up to him, those who you call "obstructionists". Unless of course you are willing to trade our governmental system for a monarchy or dictatorship just to get some of the social agenda Items you want?

First of all gsc, I am not your friend. I listened to all the Benghazi hearings and I read all of the reports. As far as the ACA goes, the Dems told the reps to sit in the back of the bus. The Dems had no desire and still have no desire to get input from the Reps on anything. That whole fake reaching across the aisle sham is a joke. Even the President has no desire to work with the Reps. He trashes them and then in the next sentence says he wants to work with them. That is not how you sit down and talk to anybody. The ACA is a disaster. We have only seen the tip of the iceberg on that. Why do you suppose the President has had to delay it? Why do you suppose you folks are just finding out now what is in it? You have been sold a cure all elixir from a sham salesman.

Again my friend I ask you, where are my facts wrong? Tell me and prove that there was no Republican obstructionism. Tell me and prove I'm wrong about the Benghazi investigations, tell me I'm wrong and prove it about the ACA originally came from Romney's plan in Mass and that the Democrats never asked for any input from the Republicans. Remember, the world is watching.

So this is how you roll gsec. You accuse me of distortions, I ask what they are, you ignore me, and now I am suppose to prove you wrong. Whoever said that the ACA was not based on Romney Care? Everyone knows it was, but not many know the differences between the two. Nor do many know what is in the ACA. What went on in Benghazi is still being hidden, because the left had made sure they did not play fair with the panel by not handing over e mails, etc for months on end. Funding was there for security, plus another fund that could have been accessed. Those who distribute the funds decided Chevy Volts for the Vienna Embassy took priority over Benghazi. Reid & Pelosi ran the show not President Obama. They trashed Reps on a daily basis, then came out smiling, saying they wanted to work with the Reps. The President does the same thing. That is not how reaching across the aisle works. You do not address much here. yet you accuse others who do address issues as distorting issues without proving them wrong. Sail is a great example of how you lefties ignore what he says. Bruce goes after him on Climate Change to his credit, but basically you lefties name call, assume and when that fails blame Bush. You also twist what is said. Does that mean you want to discuss issues, or does that mean you want to avoid discussing issues? Take any issue stated and refute it. Did Pelosi & Reid want input from the Reps? if they did, why did they create a hostile environment and dismiss them. Did Hillary own up to anything in regards to Benghazi at the hearings? What about the ACA is proven to be successful? Enquiring minds want to know.

Again I ask, Without citing Faux news and other right ring conspiracy organizations, please prove to me I am wrong in anything I have said here. You can't.

Again, I ask list my distortions.

The far left Kessler wrote a column about your "facts" regarding appropriations to the State department for added security to the embassies. False. "Even the ambassador himself refusing more security." False...He begged for more security through the proper channels. 'The ACA was originally based on Romney's plan"...not entirely..so half true. "The verdict is still out on the ACA."...Thats because the lawless Obama has made 20 changes to a law he is supposed to enforce...not rewrite. Impeachable offenses...

Your post is partisan bilge that distorts the facts and uses half-truths to support its suspect claim of "impeachable offenses"--yet again. Stevens did reject offers of extra security when they were offered by the military. From a NavyTimes article on the Senate report on Benghazi: "Yet it points out that Stevens had rejected additional security. The Defense Department had provided a Site Security Team in Tripoli, made up of 16 special operations personnel to provide security and other help. The report says the State Department decided not to extend the team’s mission in August 2012, one month before the attack. In the weeks that followed, Gen. Carter Ham, the head of Africa Command, twice asked Stevens to employ the team, and twice Stevens declined, the report said." http://www.navytimes.com/article/20140115/NEWS05/301150016/Benghazi-report-AFRICOM-general-offered-ambassador-help-before-attack There is no question the ACA has Republican roots, both RomneyCare and the ACA were originally Republican ideas derived from a Heritage Foundation plan, and many calls by the right for greater "personal responsibility" for healthcare--meaning a mandate to buy insurance. Many conservatives were "for it before they were against it". As for the partisan (to say the least) claim of a "lawless Obama": "In fact, applicable judicial precedent places such timing adjustments well within the Executive Branch's lawful discretion. As held by former Chief Justice William Rehnquist in a leading case on this subject, Heckler v. Chaney, courts must respect an agency's presumptively superior grasp of 'the many variables involved in the proper ordering of its priorities.'" http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/delaying-parts-of-obamacare-blatantly-illegal-or-routine-adjustment/277873/

What part of holding all politicians accountable did you not get gsec? My opinions on Bush have been written here many times. Same with education. Last time I checked, every President inherits the former President's pluses and minus. What he does with that is how we judge him. Unfortunately, the lefties refuse to judge their candidate. Instead they are stuck in the blame Bush Syndrome to relieve President Obama of any responsibility. I judge all pols on their actions. Most of them are corrupt and some are smarter than others in regards to how they manage the country. President Obama's record is there for all to see, But the left refuses to honestly access his performance. Not sure why. How many Presidents do you recall have been given a pass by the media?

Are you trying to pull a Senator Cruz now with his denying he was the catalyst for the last Gov't shutdown? You have several times in this forums blame this administration for all the deficits. Never once have I read that you admit that Bush Jr was wrong. I have read many distortions of the truth from you as well. Many times people on this forum have shown you that what you have said is incorrect, but you have continued with those same distortions. No president has been given a complete pass. Bush Jr. was given the same latitude in his first term, or did you conveniently forget? It wasn't until the true facts behind the invasion of Iraq that he started to be really criticized. Oh lets not forget the VP being given a pass on shooting his friend in the face with a shotgun. anyone else would have been arrested and prosecuted. Please spare me the indignation. Every other first time president has been given latitude to get the ball rolling. This president has been obstructed, and fought tooth and nail so he would fail. This cannot be denied. where is your outrage for this? I do not appreciate some of the things this president had done, but considering all the obstructionism, I'm surprised he is not worse.

Obviously you have not read my posts gsec. I am on record on this forum for having called out the GOP for the shutdown. I am also on record on this forum for stating that the GOP is too concerned with social issues like gay marriage and abortion. I have seen you called out many times for distortions, the latest being that the GOP was responsibile for not funding security in Benghazi. Anybody who listened to the hearings knows that question was asked, and it is up to the State Dept to distribute those funds where they deem the most problems. Like Benghazi where there were other attacks. List my distortions. I welcome you proving me wrong. This President has gotten pretty much everything he wanted. The obstruction excuse is right out of the Dem Handbook Tactic List. It is listed in the Handbook with Blame Bush for everything.

Given your history of posts on this site, including your comments on CC, Obama, the ACA, and the deficit, it's clear why you can make sweeping claims like "the media does not report and give the facts now". That's nonsense: you just don't like the "facts" as laid out in the reality-based press--which is the chief reason you don't post your sources--but just repeat the same slanted half-truths in your posts. What's especially striking is that you and other Carpers are the ones who are blind to their bias. Start citing your sources, and document your claims--if you truly believe them to be factual and unbiased, then let the chips fall where they may. GWTW, Itsa, and sail each abused accuracy and/or the facts with their claims on this thread. With your sweeping claim about media bias, you're doing the same, dismissing out of hand nearly every single mainstream news source. Like the other Carpers, you seem to routinely conflate fact with opinion. This isn't the old Soviet Union, and the mainstream news media are not Pravda, though you can readily find that comparison on a daily basis on such execrable echo-chamber sites as "Granite Grok". They present a selective version of "facts" to "prove" all kinds of marvelous things nearly every day. You’re entitled to your opinions, but it’s always nice when those opinions are closely tethered to the real world.

No the media does not give all the facts. They leave out facts to boost their agenda. And when that fails they actually doctor videos. We are not getting news, we are getting political propaganda. You feel that anybody that disagrees with you Bruce is a carper or a troll. Basically you lefties just want everybody who disagrees with your views to just fall off the face of the earth. And you use words like opinion is not fact, yet you believe your opinions are fact. Look up hypocrisy in the dictionary.

"Doctored videos", "leaving out facts to boost their agenda"... is precisely what Breitbart/James O'Connor did when it came to Acorn. Back up your allegations with examples/facts. Please cite an example of what you refer to as a "doctored video" that had wide distribution in the mainstream media.

And please don't forget Shirley Sherrod and the edited Breitbart video.

Thanks for the reminder! You're quite right. Chock up another one.

I didnt say it was corrupted...I said it was far left.

Oh dear, you used the word "are" twice. Makes your whole post useless.

LOL...I just noticed a flaw in your argument..I posted a link from WAPO. Thats one for me I suppose..

Really? I'd say it's yet another indication your claim doesn't have a leg to stand on. And so, to mix metaphors, when you're in a hole, stop digging.

" GOP controlled congress " HUH???

Bill who? He just loves to hear himself talk and rant and BS and fabricate and well, you know the rest...

This letter is partisan rhetoric. The right has had more than a year to get its facts in order to support its claims. The NYTimes investigation into Benghazi that was published Dec.28 is to date the definitive account of the events that transpired. From the article: "Fifteen months after Mr. Stevens’s death, the question of responsibility remains a searing issue in Washington, framed by two contradictory story lines. One has it that the video, which was posted on YouTube, inspired spontaneous street protests that got out of hand. This version, based on early intelligence reports, was initially offered publicly by Susan E. Rice, who is now Mr. Obama’s national security adviser. The other, favored by Republicans, holds that Mr. Stevens died in a carefully planned assault by Al Qaeda to mark the anniversary of its strike on the United States 11 years before. Republicans have accused the Obama administration of covering up evidence of Al Qaeda’s role to avoid undermining the president’s claim that the group has been decimated, in part because of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.The investigation by The Times shows that the reality in Benghazi was different, and murkier, than either of those story lines suggests. Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests. The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs. Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters. Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack, according to more than a dozen Libyan witnesses as well as many American officials who have viewed the footage from security cameras." http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/#/?chapt=0

quoting the NY Times article that has been debunked - PRICELESS

The poster makes his usual claims, but fails to provide any factual support. If and when he provides "facts" to support his claim regarding the Times story, take careful note of the sources he provides (if he dares to provide links to his alleged facts, that is) and decide whether they qualify as balanced journalistic sources, or right-wing attack vehicles with an agenda. The poster has a long and checkered past of postings in which he demonstrates an inability to tell fact from opinion, to say the least.

Surprised he doesn't quote from the Lara Logan story on 60 minutes.

does your source mention the Turkish Envoy had dinner with the Ambassador - NOPE - Does you source say what the Envoy encountered when he left - NOPE - your source sucks!

Once again, you show you have a low bar for what constitutes 'proof': If you wish it to be so, then it must be so. But in the real world, outside the deniosphere, real facts are the coin of the realm.The Times article does indeed mention Stevens' dinner with the Turkish envoy-- had you bothered to read it. As for your other claim--unlinked, surprise, surprise, I could find no independent corroboration of the timeline it offered for when the attack began--which is critical to any other unstated allegations in your post. From the Times article: "At 8:30 p.m., British diplomats dropped off their vehicles and weapons before flying back to Tripoli. At 9:42 p.m., according to American officials who have viewed the security camera footage, a police vehicle stationed outside turned on its ignition and drove slowly away. A moment later a solitary figure strolled by the main gate, kicking pebbles and looking around — a final once-over, according to the officials. The attack began with just a few dozen fighters, according to those officials." This timeline is corroborated by this post from the The Blaze" below. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/11/timeline-of-terror-benghazi-one-year-later/

Turkish envoy had to get through the blockade by the Al Queda terrorists - time for you to read real testimony given to the Senate

Time for you to pony up with your "facts", facts that don't appear in either the official Senate report, nor are they mentioned in the two links below--both highly critical. Source? Money quote? Documentation for its accuracy? I'm relying on multiple sources for the time line and the account of the envoy's leaving. I find no mention in the official Senate report of your claim that the "Turkish ambassador had to get through the blockade by the Al Queda terrorists" when he left the mission--nor do these 2 links make any mention of this. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence--put up or shut up. http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/benghazi2014/benghazi.pdf http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/76754/some-key-revelations-from-the-senate-report-on-benghazi/ http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1755

Still waiting for documentation from sail on this claim. Source? Link? Actual quote? Anything? Bueller?

Does your source say if the Turkish Envoy used his Satellite phone after he was passed through the Al Oueda terrorist blockade? Read the Senate testimony - then get back to us. It can be found in the Federal Register

Source for your claim? Still waiting for factual documentation.

48 hours more. Still waiting for documentation regarding the claim above. The silence is deafening.

48 hours later, still waiting for those facts that "debunk" the Times article.

Obama went on Fox knowing exactly the kind of questions he would be getting. The right have demonized Obama and the Dems for five years, but yet one little tweet they don't like and they refuse to go on MSNBC. They have decided to blame Hillary for her husband's cheating, which will definitely bring more women into the fold. One poster on here calls her a "pathological liar" over and over obviously not knowing the meaning of the phrase. He calls Elizabeth Warren names for no other reason than I guess she is a woman and he doesn't like her. Now the right is all upset about people singing about America in different languages. In a commercial for God's sake. No wonder they have to run on Obamacare, they have nothing else. No accomplishments besides being the Party of NO, NO, NO.

Let's see, for my next position I am going to check the box for ethnicity that says "Native American", I am technically 1/32 Abenaki. Then, after I am hired and my new company touts the fact that I am the first Native American to work at the company, I will change my mind and claim that I never meant to check that box but still tell my employer that my grandmother had high cheekbones so probably I really am a Native American. At that point I would be prosecuted, but Liz Warren was given a pass. It is not about her being a woman, she is a liar and abused EEOC to get hired at Harvard and was give a pass.

Ok finished with her, lets hear about the other 99 senators and your problems with them. Countries that hate their socialized medicine?

I guess you don't have issues with people garnering benefits lying about their ethnicity to get jobs? My guess is that you would not have an issue with people lying to get food stamps or ebt benefits either. She is one of the most disingenuous, why can't you ever come up with a rebuttal instead of smarmy, snyde comments. You have that act down pat, but can't you come up reasoned debate? For once?

Still at it aren't you with your SNIDE comments. Tell you what, sign your name to your posts and I will be glad to sign mine. I am not ashamed of anything I write. Why do you feel it is ok for you to write under an alias but no one else. This is not a "reasoned" debate forum Ok narrow it down. Just one country that hates its' socialized medicine.

Reasoned debate? That would be a refreshing change for the poster, or any of the other Carp Per Diems.

Your idea of reasoned debate is to dredge up a skewed set of facts on some progressive website and then say: "the debate is over". Your idea of discussion is to state your facts that prove your ideological slant and trash anyone else who disagrees. Never, never, never do you discuss anything, so you might want to look in the mirror to see a lack of reasoning.

"Skewed facts"? That's not how science works, when I post about climate change or evolution. The planet is warming, the warming is mostly due to fossil fuel produced greenhouse gases--those 2 facts are accepted by an overwhelming majority (97%) of climate scientists. The only "skewed facts" are the ones funded and propagated by the deniers. If you have a problem with being called out as an extremist, then get your facts straight first.

The 97% number comes from a very controversial 2010 study and that 97% of climate researchers are paid by the government and climate interest groups to support and advance the global warming agenda. In fact two researchers from the University of Illinois sent out that survey to 10,500 Phd, social scientists, doctors, dentists, etc. (a group like UCC) and omitted surveys to meteorologists, astronomers, etc. They asked two questions, "is the Earth warmer than the 1800's: and "is man to blame for current global warming trends". Only 3000 people replied and the answers were not what the researchers wanted so they managed it down to 77 responses and 75 out of 77 said yes to those two questions. Basically, that is how the 97% came about and the press embraced it as if it was the word of GOD. As far as evolution is concerned, I do not believe that our current science (1850's science) is accurate, I also do not believe that the earth is 10,000 years old and Adam and Eve started it all. I think that the secrets of life are far beyond our tiny intellect to understand. An extremist is not a person who questions science, an extremist is a militant ideologue who won't consider anything else and uses science when it is convenient to push their ideological agenda.

Not true. There have been at least a half dozen studies of the published literature done over the last decade, looking at thousands of papers. ALL of the studies reach the same conclusion--the overwhelming number of published papers, to the tune of 97%--agree that global warming is happening, and that more than half of the warming is due to human influence. It doesn't get any plainer than that. Couple that with all the leading national and international scientific organizations that support the theory. The fossil fuel industry’s own scientists told them over a decade ago that global warming was real, and that it was a problem very likely to worsen. You can the details of the studies of the literature, and links to the REAL SCIENCE at the sites below. As for evolution—what are you talking about--"1850's science"? Since Darwin and Wallace wrote about their discoveries, decades of research in multiple fields, from computational biology to paleontology, has built upon this theory--refining it, making new discoveries about how natural selection works. The pace of scientific discovery doesn't stand still (though there are obviously some who wish it would, or think it has); creationism/intelligent design rests on shaky facts and at bottom depends upon a kind of magical thinking. A prime example from creationism is the argument that the human eye is supposedly too complex not to have been ‘designed’ out of “whole cloth”, when in fact there is a large literature on just such development over time. Your statement "I think the secrets of life are far beyond our tiny intellect to understand" is contrary to the fundamental fact upon which science rests--that nature (and the Universe at large) has an order to it--it has laws that can be understood, and applied. Einstein said, "The most incomprehensible fact about the universe is that it is comprehensible." As for the extremist label: again, I'm not the one who fights facts with false facts, and then resorts to name-calling. I'm not the one who routinely posts approvingly from far-right, birther sources, nor tosses out conspiracy-minded and mindless references to "Agenda 21", nor to quasi-racist, anti-immigrant sites. I'm not the one who routinely disparages science and scientists--implying they're corrupt and fraudulent, and does so not on the basis of factual evidence, but on the say so of vested interests who intentionally have sown doubt and confusion about the science of climate change, because they don't give a damn about the consequences 75 or a hundred years out. http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/01/14/climate_change_another_study_shows_they_don_t_publish_actual_papers.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2012/12/11/climate_change_denial_why_don_t_they_publish_scientific_papers.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/debunking-climate-consensus-denial.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/01/22/global_warming_2013_ties_for_fourth_hottest_year_on_record.html

Spare us the phony outrage. Your claim is false. She did not abuse "EEOC to get hired". She was hired because she was damn good at teaching and the law. "Law School Professor Laurence H. Tribe, who voted to tenure Warren and was also involved in recruiting her: 'Elizabeth Warren's heritage had absolutely no role in the decision to recruit her to Harvard Law School,' he told the Crimson. 'Our decision was entirely based on her extraordinary expertise and legendary teaching ability. This whole dispute is fabricated out of whole cloth and has no connection to reality.' And that's the second arena where an absence of evidence should have some weight. If there's no easily located evidence that Warren has Native American ancestry, there's also no evidence Warren used her family story to boost herself into a Harvard job. A huge tell -- beyond the flat denials of two of the men who brought her to the school -- is that Warren's ancestry was not touted in 1995 in the Harvard Crimson as the Law School's first Native American hire, despite the ethnic studies movement's gathering force on the college's campus at the time and continued controversy over the lack of diversity at the law school (as highlighted at a protest involving Prof. Derrick Bell and law school student Barack Obama in 1991). The Crimson article on Warren was titled simply, "Woman Tenured at Law School." http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/is-elizabeth-warren-native-american-or-what/257415/ "Harvard Law School professor Charles Fried has said that any suggestion that Warren enjoyed an affirmative action advantage in her hiring as a full professor is "false" and that Warren was recruited because of her expertise in bankruptcy and commercial law. Records show that the leading Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts identified her race as "white" on an employment record at the University of Texas and declined to apply for admission to Rutgers Law School under a program for minority students.The records on Elizabeth Warren were obtained by The Associated Press on Thursday. Warren's heritage has been under scrutiny after it surfaced that she had listed herself as having Native American heritage in law school directories. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/10/elizabeth-warren-minority-status_n_1508060.html

Gosh, let's not forget that the Republican-controlled Congress TWICE rejected requests for increased funds from the State Department for embassy security; and ignored Hilary Clinton's warning that failure to beef up security could result in an inability to defend the embassies against terrorist attack. And the IRS also targeted liberal groups seeking the same exempt tax status (though you don't hear about that on FOX) because it became clear that the status was being misused.

Readers can verify Veritas claim by going to the State Dept budgets and looking under Embassy protection: http://www.state.gov/s/d/rm/c6112.htm

But sail, that link does not back up his claim?

WOW - really - who wooda thunk

Ambassador DIED and Hillary LIED. She could not help herself she is a pathological LIAR . Bill Clinton: Survey Says #1 Answer For Most Forgivable Liar - As the saying goes.....when you sleep with dogs - you get fleas

So by your own standards does that make you a flea bitten LIRV?

If snide comments had any value you would be a KaZillionaire

And if snide comments had any value you would be a KaZillionaire to infinity!

ouch - so original - what a zinger

Want to hold people accountable? Look at Obama's predecessor. Number of deaths at US Embassies and consulates under Bush: 60. Number of deaths at the US Embassy in Benghazi: 4. Number of investigations into the sixty deaths: ZERO. Number of investigations into the deaths at Benghazi: Too many to count, but all were made by Republicans. This, my friends, is hypocrisy at its absolute worst.

Care to post a source for that claim ..... though not

Boy it that calling the kettle black! For one who hates to cite credible and balanced references if you cite any at all!

Here you go...http://www.policymic.com/articles/40811/13-benghazis-happened-under-president-bush-and-fox-news-said-nothing There are links to each article within, and they all come from credible sources (CNN, BBC). Next?

Welcome to Whack a [Carper]Mole.

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.