The cover-up unravels

One phony story after another

Posted: May 12, 2013 at 2:29 a.m.

It could be the Nixon Era again. For now we know.

This story is only available from our archives.

Editorial, Pages 78 on 05/12/2013

Sure wish caring about little details like the truth had been a greater priority for this editorial staff when Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld were charging into Operation Iraqi Freedom, a premeditated war crime leading to the death of many hundreds of thousands.

Posted by: FrankLloydLeft

May 12, 2013 at 12:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Sometimes you must read widely to get the truth of the matter:


"May 9, 2013

—Republican lawmakers asked increasingly tough questions today as they held another day of hearings to investigate, in the words of Rep. Darrell Issa (R-California), “Hillary Clinton’s suspiciously high poll numbers and what can be done to make them lower.”

“With the help of Fox News, we have brutally attacked Hillary Clinton for months, and yet she remains more popular than ever,” Rep. Issa said.

Posted by: cdawg

May 12, 2013 at 2:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal )


These guys can't help themselves, they see ghost behind every tree, and spooks in every closet. Notice the person or person's who wrote this diatribe didn't put their name on this idiotic rant.

Republicans can't help themselves, they have been sucking stale air to long. Wasting time on such BS when there are real problems that need addressed. This bunch of republicans are a enemy to the American people and they prove it everyday. This President could say mother, apple pie and milk are good things and this bunch of would find some way to attack him. The hell with them, go after their hero G W Bush for war crimes and lying to the people repeatedly which cost trillions of dollars and thousands of lives not to mention the wounded men and women how fought his made up war. Every time the republicans come up with stupid things to waste time on the Democrats should go after one of them for some wrong doing or some conspiracy which wouldn't be hard to do. See how they like being on the other side of the fence. Hillary has more balls than all of them put together.



Posted by: rummy

May 12, 2013 at 3:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Go Democrat-Gazette staff, you nailed it.

Four dead Americans.

Posted by: JailBird

May 12, 2013 at 4:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I pray those lying, cheating, so-called reps of the American people are exposed and prosecuted. The election was compromised because of the cover-up of Benghazi, then the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS since 2011. Now the question about the Navy Seals killed. The healthcare bill has become much, much more expensive than told originally. The media needs to be held responsible, also.

I heard that some of the left news media has kids that work in the White House. Shouldn't that be against the law??? Can't believe this country.

Posted by: mycent

May 12, 2013 at 7 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Go for it Mycent you are on a roll.

Posted by: JailBird

May 12, 2013 at 7:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Unfortunately, doesn't rise to the level of being worthy of refutation. A complete piece of junk, pure farce and a perfect example why the republicans in congress have a 9% approval rating.

Three little posters that provide a little insight:

"Bush’s Secretary of Defense Mocks GOP Attacks On Obama’s Handling Of Benghazi"

“Frankly, had I been in the job at the time, I think my decisions would have been just as theirs were,” said [Sec. Robert] Gates, now the chancellor of the College of William and Mary.

“We don’t have a ready force standing by in the Middle East, and so getting somebody there in a timely way would have been very difficult, if not impossible.” he explained.

Suggestions that we could have flown a fighter jet over the attackers to “scare them with the noise or something,” Gates said, ignored the “number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from [former Libyan leader] Qaddafi’s arsenals.”

“It’s sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces,” he said. “The one thing that our forces are noted for is planning and preparation before we send people in harm’s way, and there just wasn’t time to do that.”

Posted by: fayfreethinker

May 12, 2013 at 8:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Who cares what Gates thinks. Hew was almost a s bad as Rumsfeld. Of course certain people don't care a bout Benghazi or the other scandles. Typical. But hey according to Hillary Clinton, it doesn't really matter. I am not suprised to see comments turning things around on President Bush. Blame every problem this country has had no matter when on him is the moonbat answer. What a complete crock of horse crap. By the way FFT, Rumsfeld was a worthless SecDef and shows of force from fighters (or bombers for that matter) is quite effective in dispersing enemy personnel.

Posted by: Tankersley101

May 13, 2013 at 6:20 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

You say" go D G staff you nailed it, four dead." Have you ever thought of the damage your hero G W Bush and his cohorts have caused to this country. Yes the loss of four fine Americans should be throughly investigated, but a witch hunt to try to cause political damage to a potential 2016 Presidential candidate that can beat any republican hands down is a fool hardy effort. Hillary hasn't even said she will run, chances are she won't for numerous reasons one of which she would have to hang out around republicans, why would anyone want to do that.

I hear all of your outrage over Benghazi, where is your outrage over what your hero G W Bush and his cohorts did to this country and thousands of families.
They lied to the country, made up facts solicited others into lying for them, lied too and deceived other countries, lied to the United Nation all for what. Bush used the most horrific event on American soil in history to avenge his father and to satisfy his hatred for Saddam Hussien. At what cost, I don't hear you complain about this crime, Money.

As of February of 2013 there have been over
4,474 Americans killed in Iraqi.

There have been over 2,174 Americans killed in Afghanistan.

There have been over 32,024 wounded and it is estimated this number could be over 100,000.

So where is all of your moral outrage, this is the problem with the republican party, they have turned thier backs on the American people , they show it each and every day. Republicans should wake up and smeel the crap they represent, if they don't change their thinking and prove to the people they have changed as a political party they will go by the way of the dinosaurs and become fossils. I fear it is already to late for them.



Posted by: rummy

May 13, 2013 at 7:22 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tankersley I am not suprised to see comments turning things around on President Bush. Blame every problem this country has had no matter when on him is the moonbat answer.

Isn't that the truth! They try and they lie, but it doesn't work anymore.

Posted by: mycent

May 13, 2013 at 7:27 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Fayfreethinker, you are absolutely correct in stating that the one thing we are noted for is our preparedness and planning. That is why, I can not believe that we WERE NOT PREPARED for any response actions on 9-11-2012 in an area that had had two attempts on the British Ambassador's life as well as two bombings of the compound where our diplomats were located within the few months prior to this attack.. One of those bombings in fact breached the security wall. The ambassador's multiple requests for increased securiy went not only unanswered, but some of the defending forces were actually withdrawn. I do not think that either the President or the Secretary of State had any intentions of getting our people harmed or killed, but I do believe that imcompetence combined with arragonce by our senior staff cost the lives of those brave people. I find it shamefull to continue with the ruse that this "demonstration" was caused by an internet video when our leaders KNEW that day that terrorists were invoilved. May the souls of our fallen heroes have everlasting peace.

Posted by: wventers

May 13, 2013 at 9:31 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

While we're at it, why were we not prepared for 9-11-2001?
It is still unbelievable to me that FOUR airplanes were hijacked and headed towards NYC and Washington without being intercepted by our military planes.
Hundreds of billions of $ for the military and all we could do is sit there and just let it happen?
I am not interested in any particular conspiracy theory, but that earlier 9-11 left a lot of unanswered questions, way too many.

Posted by: Coralie

May 13, 2013 at 11:06 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

What's a moonbat ?



Posted by: rummy

May 13, 2013 at 1:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The 9/11 commision report does an excellent job of explaining this.
They were only 14 total aircraft on alert at that time available for interception in the US.
In addition, only two bases had aircraft available in the vicinity of the hijacked aircraft.
Again the 9/11 report is pretty clear why they didn't respond more quickly.

Posted by: P5harri

May 13, 2013 at 1:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

This could be the most incompitant and corrupt administration in American history. LBJ's was second followed by Clinton, Bush, and Carter. Harry S. and Bess was the best I can remember. By the way, Bra, a "moonbat" has you written all over it. Look in the mirror.

Posted by: JailBird

May 13, 2013 at 4:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Standing orders on September 11 dictated that, upon receiving a request for assistance from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) would normally order escort aircraft to approach and follow an aircraft that was confirmed to be hijacked in order to assure positive flight following, report unusual observances, and aid search and rescue in the event of an emergency.9/11 Commission determined that on the morning of September 11, the FAA did not adequately notify NORAD of the hijackings of Flights 11, 175, 77 or 93 in time for escort aircraft to reach the hijacked flights."
Bumbling at best.

Posted by: Coralie

May 13, 2013 at 5:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Money, you and ohers who want to judge which are the most incompetent and corrupt administrations "in history" don't seem to know any history.
At least not any before FDR.
I could name you some pretty incompetent and corrupt administrations in the 19th century, plus Harding and maybe others before 1930.
Tiresome, meaningless hyperbole.

Posted by: Coralie

May 13, 2013 at 5:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The Grant administration ranks at the top for corruption.

Posted by: Tankersley101

May 13, 2013 at 6:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

From same wikipedia link:
"The Washington Post reported in its August 3, 2006 edition that:
"Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.
Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said."
"bungled response"

Posted by: Coralie

May 13, 2013 at 6:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )


When I look into the mirror all I see is a extremely handsome man. I looked up moonbat in the dictionary and thanks for the compliment, I am a left wing activist and proud of it. You run your mouth about incompetence and corruption but can't back it up with proof, typical " Wingnut ". Just because you say it doesn't make it so. Have a good evening.



Posted by: rummy

May 13, 2013 at 6:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

You seemed to hand miissed the part where they were exonerated of all those charges, in the same link you quoted.

Posted by: P5harri

May 13, 2013 at 7:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I meant "have missed". In my post above.

Posted by: P5harri

May 13, 2013 at 7:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

HOw can anyone know what Cheney or Bush said to the
9/11 Commission? Both testimonies were done in secret and both president and vp had lawyers present when they testified. Their participation was a joke.

Posted by: cdawg

May 14, 2013 at 2:11 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"The cover-up unravels"

No, let me tell you what is unraveling. It's another failed Republican smear campaign. They do that because they have no real policies other than playing gotcha politics and running up huge deficits and deregulating financial institutions, i.e. their pals.

"Why the Benghazi Hearings Are Likely to Be a Bust"

Posted by: cdawg

May 14, 2013 at 2:24 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

YEAH, what cdawg said.



Posted by: rummy

May 14, 2013 at 6:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

So what are you saying--that since Bush made a big mistake, Obama is "entitled" to make an even bigger one? Or since Bush made a mistake and we're going to bring it up and never let it die we're going to excuse every mistake every other president makes. Your argument has no merit even it were true. (The CIA's official report was that Iraqi had WMD--Bush had the support of both the house and the democratic led senate to pursue military force if necessary to disarm Iraqi of the WMD that most everyone (except those who changed their mind after none were found) believed they had). But either way, they made a decision based on the intel at the time. At least he didn't lie to us--this administration lies, lies, lies and hide, hide, hide and some people seem to think that is okay based on some crazy idea that someone else did it so it must be okay. I thought Obama was supposed to be some wonderful president (to hear some of you talk). Shouldn't he be held to higher standards? Let him come clean with what he knew and when he knew it--how long before you hold him accountable for what HE does?

Posted by: Snappy

May 14, 2013 at 8:47 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"the WMD that most everyone...believed they had"
except the people who actually investigated such as Scott Ritter.
It was pretty obvious to a lot of us ordinary people that the WMDs didn't exist. That's why we protested the war preparations.

Posted by: Coralie

May 14, 2013 at 1:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Charles Duelfer, top American weapons inspector, said the last Iraqi factory capable of producing militarily significant quantities of unconventional weapons was destroyed in 1996.

Posted by: Coralie

May 14, 2013 at 1:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

How long can you libs support such a corrupt administration? Every day more comes out on this scandalous president.

Snappy, you are right on. He is becoming so brazen because he's been able to get by with anything. Maybe, finally, his true colors are coming out.

Bush did act on what he was told and the congress passed the Iraq war, also. We gave Sadam months to get rid of those weapons. He wouldn't let the inspectors in till HE was ready. Ridiculous.

Good question "So what are you saying--that since Bush made a big mistake, Obama is "entitled" to make an even bigger one?" I think history, if we get to have one, will show who was the better president. I think Obama has been the worst President ever. He is using the Office for his own agenda. We need to prosecute those reps that have lied to the American people.

Posted by: mycent

May 14, 2013 at 2:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Good grief, the fake outrage and this story is dumb beyond words.

Snap: "...since Bush made a big mistake, Obama is "entitled" to make an even bigger one?">>

You make a good point. Just because Bush was the Worst President Ever (63% of presidential historians agree), it doesn't follow that Obama should follow that example. And of course, he hasn't.
As already covered, about 60 people lost their lives during attacks on embassies under your Bush (Worst President Ever). Four in this Benghazi attack, on a compound that now appears to be more of a CIA outpost.

But you're not comparing Bush's 60 to Obama's 4, your comparing these 4 to Bush's wars that killed a thousand times more than that. Oh boy.

Snap: "Your argument has no merit even it were true.">>

I agree that a comparison to Bush isn't useful. There really is no comparison.

Sn: "The CIA... Iraqi had WMD">>

And who made the decision to go to war on his cherry picked and distorted evidence? Your Bush.

Sn: "Bush had the support of [Congress] to pursue military force if necessary to disarm Iraqi of the WMD...">>

But it wasn't necessary, because he didn't have them. It was a trumped BS story. And Congress did not approve the war. I can go into more detail on that if you need.

Sn: "At least [Bush] didn't lie to us">>

Now you're just being silly. Let's review. This story covers it nicely:

False pretenses
Following 9/11, President Bush and seven top officials of his administration waged a
carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation about Saddam Hussein's Iraq

"President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

The rest:

Sn: "this administration lies, lies, lies...">>

Oh, that's 3x "lies." You must have some very good examples. Let's see you establish one. I dare ya.

Sn: "I thought Obama was supposed to be some wonderful president...">>

Personally, I think he's fantastic, and I'm not even a democrat.

Sn: "Shouldn't he be held to higher standards?">>

Yes. So let's see what you've got. And don't rely on the article at the top. It was clearly written by an idiot who can't do anything beyond repeat the jibber jabber they've heard on a Fox Box. It's nonsense from start to finish. Childish, embarrassing. It's so bad I can even bring myself to roast it. And that's pretty bad.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

May 14, 2013 at 3:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )


What do you mean by " His true colors are coming out "


Posted by: rummy

May 14, 2013 at 4:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Bras - It isn't racial if that is what you are trying to imply. I believe he has had an agenda since day one - socialism for one. He doesn't care about the welfare of this nation, as long as he gets his agendas fulfilled, go for broke. His healthcare plan is a disaster, but had to pass it anyway. He plays the blame game more than any president I can remember. In my opinion, he has no scruples.

Posted by: mycent

May 14, 2013 at 5:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

You've got em on the defensive, mycent. You shouldn't be suprised.

Posted by: Tankersley101

May 14, 2013 at 7:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

MyC: "I believe he has had an agenda since day one...>>

Indeed he does. The one the people hired him to accomplish. And it's clearly laid out on his website.

My: "socialism">>

Let's just be honest, you don't even know what the word socialism means. Really. You don't.

My: "He doesn't care about the welfare of this nation,">>

Curious then that: "Barack Obama is the first president in more than five decades to win at least 51 percent of the national popular vote twice,... "

Apparently the people don't believe you.

My: "as long as he gets his agendas fulfilled,">>

Precisely, and that's what he was hired to do, to get his agenda fulfilled. And more power to him. Godspeed as they say.

My: "His healthcare plan is a disaster,">>

You'll have to be more specific. The truth is in the details, and the details, as always, are not on your side.

"Big Health Insurance Rate Hikes are Plummeting"


Oops, bad news for wingnuts, because something actually good is happening in America and conservatives weren't able to completely muck it up (but they shall keep trying).

My: "He plays the blame game more than any president...">>

He's cleaning up an oil tanker sized boatload of mess after by far the Worst President in modern history. I don't think he blames Bush nearly enough. I think he's holding back, because he's just that nice of a guy.

"Economist Stiglitz Says Iraq War Costs May Reach $5 Trillion"

"The $10 trillion hangover... Paying the price for eight years of Bush"

Incidentally, if you were to lay 10 trillion one dollar bills end to end, they would extend, approximately, from earth to the sun and back... five times. Thanks Bush. Gotta love those "fiscal conservatives."

Posted by: fayfreethinker

May 14, 2013 at 9:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT - "Curious then that: "Barack Obama is the first president in more than five decades to win at least 51 percent of the national popular vote twice,...'

Yeah, when people vote 2 or more times, that can happen.

"Big Health Insurance Rate Hikes are Plummeting
Tell that to our insurance company. We just got a hike in our premium.
The plan is over 2000 pages. No one can understand it. The specialists need specialists to help. The govt. is trying to solicit money from companies now to help pay for it, as it has become much more expensive that we were told. Businesses will pay the fine and now the govt. has to cover more than they ever imagined.

You think Bush's debt is bad, just wait till Obama is done, Bush's debt will be minor in comparison, in fact it is already.

Posted by: mycent

May 14, 2013 at 10:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

More MyC silliness:

MyC: "Every day more comes out on this scandalous president.">>

Let's us know when you've found someone who can throw something that can stick to the wall.

MyC: "Bush did act on what he was told...">>

By the warmonger Dick Cheney. They were warned repeatedly that their Intel was doctored, cherry picked and bogus. I can bury you in examples. And here is how the Bush team responded to challenges to their fantasies:

Harry Reid:
"There is also another disturbing pattern here, namely about how the Administration responded to those who challenged its assertions. Time and again this Administration has actively sought to attack and undercut those who dared to raise questions about its preferred course.
"For example, when General Shinseki indicated several hundred thousand troops would be needed in Iraq, his military career came to an end. When then OMB Director Larry Lindsay suggested the cost of this war would approach $200 billion, his career in the Administration came to an end. When U.N. Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix challenged conclusions about Saddam's WMD capabilities, the Administration pulled out his inspectors. When Nobel Prize winner and IAEA head Mohammed el-Baridei raised questions about the Administration's claims of Saddam's nuclear capabilities, the Administration attempted to remove him from his post. When Joe Wilson stated that there was no attempt by Saddam to acquire uranium from Niger, the Administration launched a vicious and coordinated campaign to demean and discredit him, going so far as to expose the fact that his wife worked as a CIA agent.
"Given this Administration's pattern of squashing those who challenge its misstatements, what has been the response of this Republican-controlled Congress? Again, absolutely nothing. And with their inactions, they provide political cover for this Administration at the same time they keep the truth from our troops who continue to make large sacrifices in Iraq.


Posted by: fayfreethinker

May 14, 2013 at 10:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

MyC: "and the congress passed the Iraq war, also.">>

That's a popular rightwing distortion. My friend Barbara responds best:

"...we went to war - and Congress never voted to declare war, they voted the president powers to deal with a threatening situation, up to, as a last resort, war - based on assurances of WMDs by the administration. There is a difference between a declaration of war and granting of powers that could ultimately lead to war. In 1941 Congress, at the request of FDR, declared war on Japan. What Bush II got was not the same at all. The war powers requires first going through all channels short of war, including UN, NATO, and other treaty allies. Bush I went through the UN, put together a coalition, and had the obvious act of aggression from Saddam (invading Kuwait) - with the added benefit that 90% of that war was paid out of international funds. Bush II lied to the UN, ignored our treaty allies, and refused to accept any evidence against his pet project. If he'd asked for a declaration of war, he wouldn't have gotten it. He pulled a sneaky end run by calling war powers the same as a declaration of war. He was not given authority to go to war. He was given the authority to go to all ends short of war, and prepare for war if war was indeed necessary.” --Barbara F.

MyC: "We gave Sadam months to get rid of those weapons.">>

How do you get rid of weapons you don't have? Think MyCent, *think.* Repeat if necessary.

MyC: "He wouldn't let the inspectors in till HE was ready. Ridiculous.">>

Yes, imagine people wanting autonomy in their own country. Ridiculous. Your Bush pulled the inspectors, as my above reference notes.

MyC: "history... will show who was the better president.">>

Let us know when Obama gets results like your Bush:
"HNN Poll: 61% of Historians Rate the Bush Presidency Worst"

And do let us know when Obama's in the low 20's eh?

"Mr. Bush's final approval rating is the lowest final rating for an outgoing president since Gallup began asking about presidential approval more than 70 years ago."

Currently? Obama favorability: 52%

Posted by: fayfreethinker

May 14, 2013 at 10:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

MyC: "when people vote 2 or more times,">>

If you can confirm an instance of voter fraud, beyond what you imagine in your noggin, call the police.

MyC: "We just got a hike in our premium.">>

Good point. Insurance rates never went up before Obamacare.

Here is the experience of a relative that lives in Rogers. From a note he sent today to Womack who was busted posting fibs online:

"My premiums went down from over a thousand dollars per month to just under $350 because I was no longer locked into a policy due to a pre-existing condition in my family. I have an AR Blue Cross Blue shield agent in your district. I am happy to privately share the details.
Thank you Obamacare, and shame on you... for posting someone's fearmongering BS infographic [online] as if it were actually the facts."

M: "The plan is over 2000 pages.">>

I don't care.

MyC: "No one can understand it.">>

Just because you can't understand it doesn't mean no one can understand it.

MyC: "trying to solicit money from companies now to help pay for it,">>

Good. Smarter would be to put everyone in the same pool and pay for premiums with a straight up tax, but that would save a couple trillion a year and republicans couldn't stand for something that smart and effective.

MyC: "has become much more expensive that we were told.">>

It shaves a couple hundred billion off the deficit over ten years. You don't know what you are talking about.

MyC: "Businesses will pay the fine">>


MyC: "You think Bush's debt is bad,">>

Yeah, I think a $5 trillion unnecessary war is bad, and ten trillion front loaded for the future, is bad. That is, if you are a fiscal conservative (like me). Note:

"When George W. Bush took office, the federal government was running a surplus of $86 billion. When he left, that had turned into a $642 billion deficit."

MyC: "Bush's debt will be minor in comparison,">>

As usual, you don't know what you are taking about. You're just passing along gibberish you heard on the box. Start here:

"GOP Debunked: Obama did not create $5 trillion in new debt"

Posted by: fayfreethinker

May 14, 2013 at 10:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )


Your are the one implying racisum I just asked what you meant by your comment. You and I both know the answer. G W Bush was a disgrace and a liar and you know it, he and his cohorts ran this country into the ground. This president is trying his best to turn the country around and you and your party is acting like a bunch of babies because they lost the election, continue to pout and say no, that is just what the Americasn people expect from you guys. Know body is perfect in spite of what the Republicans think of themselves, this president has been trying his best to do right for the people. This is contrary to you and your buds way of thinking, you guys don't seem to care very much about doing good for the people you are obsessed whit getting even for loosing the presidential election, get used to it it won't be your last. Republicans keep up the good work and get ready to practice saying PRESIDENT CLINTON.




You got them on the defensive, Freethinker. You shouldn't be surprised

Posted by: rummy

May 15, 2013 at 5:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

There are things about Bush that I don't like, but the whole country was in an uproar when 9/11 happened. Most demanded something be done. The country was high with adrenaline.

I think Bush did well taking Saddam out, but yes it did cost lives and much money. That is what war does. But those that died freed people under the oppression of Saddam, and ended future evil acts by he and his sons.

Since Obama we have spiraled down because of his great spending. His scruples are terrible and, finally, it is coming to light which many have known for years.

And by the way, it has nothing to do with his race.

Posted by: mycent

May 15, 2013 at 8:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

I may add this:

Yes, Lord, keep exposing those that are bringing this country down with their corruption and attack on America's Christian and conservative values.

Posted by: mycent

May 15, 2013 at 9:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

MyC: " was in an uproar when 9/11 happened...The country was high with adrenaline.">>

More like the country was high on Bush peddled horse manure. Note:

"The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq"
WASHINGTON – In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.

...the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11,...

Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression,...

The numbers
Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year [‘02], attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens.

The answer is zero." --

MyC: "Since Obama we have spiraled down because of his great spending.">>

That's all on your Bush. Observe:

"New study agrees with old study: Deficits are largely the result of Great Recession, wars and Bush tax cuts:

Dissecting the Deficit
"...the economic downturn, President Bush’s tax cuts, and the legacy of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan explain virtually the entire federal budget deficit projected for the rest of this decade (that is, through 2019). That is, there would be practically no deficits over that period if the tax cuts, the wars, and the downturn had not occurred and other policies remained the same. This widely circulated CBPP chart makes their point vividly."

Posted by: fayfreethinker

May 15, 2013 at 10:47 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

This is inaccurate: " That's all on your Bush. Observe:"

Not all is on Bush.
While a great majority is the result of Bush, Obamas policies, as verified by others, has also contributed to the deficit.

Posted by: P5harri

May 15, 2013 at 11:45 a.m. ( | suggest removal )


I assume you have a mirror, in the evening when it is quiet and you are along get in front of it and practice saying PRESIDENT HILLARY CLINTON. Say it over and over untill you can say it right., you may have to help your cheeks some with your fingers untill you get it right. I know you can do it.

Tank you might want to start practicing also, just think you two guys could practice together, kind of a republican bonding time. You can wear your cowboy hats and chant Dick Cheney over and over.



Posted by: rummy

May 15, 2013 at 12:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

P5: "Not all is on Bush.">>

That's true. Not all. Almost all. Good catch.


ps. Hey Brasnomell, good stuff. MyCent is a lady.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

May 15, 2013 at 12:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal )


G W Bush was once asked what his position was on Roe v Wade, he said he realy didn't care how people got out of New Orleans.


Posted by: rummy

May 15, 2013 at 1:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I'll say one thing, Hilliary would have been a much better pick than Obama. I actually liked Bill, but they were crooks.

Posted by: mycent

May 15, 2013 at 1:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

What fun! Comment after comment and useless partisan link after link of throwing stones back and forth. Looks like a draw to me and seems to prove one important thing. Both plitical groups are equally corrupt. They both deserve whatever spankings they can manage to trade. Everyone would be better served if both would simply leave the playgound and turn it over to someone more responsible.

Posted by: jeffieboy

May 15, 2013 at 3:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

jeffie, jeffie, jeffie

Are you into spankings ?


Posted by: rummy

May 15, 2013 at 5:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I thoroughly enjoy watching two groups of idiots having it out in a battle of propoganda and ideology. It's like watching a couple kids argue over what crayon color is better. Crayons are crayons and what is so wonderful about these arguments is that they are both blind to any color but the one they want to see.

One doesn't have to worry about what government or the news or some politically or idealistically partisan advocate tells them. What you really have to worry about is what they don't tell you. When it comes to government there is a lot more you don't know than you do know. I used to be one of them so I know that's a fact.

Posted by: jeffieboy

May 15, 2013 at 7:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Thank you Jeffboy. There are enough crazies on both sides of the aisle to cause the average intelligent, or not so intelligent, Americans to shake their collective heads.

Posted by: justanArkansan

May 15, 2013 at 9:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )


Posted by: Tankersley101

May 15, 2013 at 10:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

As a Green I'm not on either side of the aisle.
There are more than two sides to every question, if not aisles.
I do relate to Bernie Saunders, though--he's the only real Socialist in Congress. The Vermont voters put him in office anyway.
I have my own beefs with Obama but willI defend him or Democrats in general when the attackers are dishonest, ignorant, and/or illogical--which is too much of the time.

Posted by: Coralie

May 16, 2013 at 12:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Die Gruenen sind wie tomaten, die fangen gruen an und wert spater rot.". Franz Strauss.

"The greeens are like tomatoes, they start out green and later turn red". "Red" as in communist. A quote from the Bundeschancellor on the rise of the green party in Europe. I think he hit the nail on the head.

Posted by: jeffieboy

May 16, 2013 at 3:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Low information voters rely on what the Obama press tells them and close their eyes and ears to what is obvious. Name a lie Obama told? " I will never raise taxes on the poor. They will never have to pay one red cent in new taxes!" The truth: Everyone who has a job left is paying taxes for Obamacare, which has not even kicked in yet. That's just one lie. It would take multiple pages to name them all. "I will close Guantanamo within my first term." Guantanamo is still open.
For those who do not believe in preparing for war: The nation who does not prepare for war will never have to fight one. No war is necessary for those who overrun you and take everything you have. A disarmed nation is like a person in a wheelchair cruising a ghetto at midnight without a weapon. The Gestapo and SS troopers took everything away from the Jews after Hitler took over. They were not armed and had no way of fighting back. That is a fact undisputed except by persons of Iranian leadership who would rewrite history by saying the holocaust did not happen. Some people in the U. S. today are just as blind or as deceitful. The results are the same whether done by ignorance or accident.

Posted by: kinggeorge

May 16, 2013 at 3:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

For you Obama sycophants: Obama is a professional liar, which is a prerequisite for a "community organizer," and union thug. He makes all previous corruption in government pale in comparison to his own organization of thieves and liars. He deserves a banana award for running the country like a banana republic. Thomas Jefferson said "a government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have." Another saying by P.J. O'rouark states "if you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs you when it's free."
Benghazi cover up? This administration administration has more cover holes to duck into than a prairie dog field. Nothing it does is open and above board.
The epitome of corruption!

Posted by: kinggeorge

May 16, 2013 at 3:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"It could be the Nixon Era again" starts the above article. Elsewhere Greenburg echoes: "Watergate!"

Oops. Pop fizzle flop, they all hit the floor:

"The scandals are falling apart"
"On Tuesday, it looked like we had three possible political scandals brewing. Two days later, with much more evidence available, it doesn’t look like any of them will pan out."

"Watching a 'scandal' evaporate before our very eyes"
the administration, eager to put the matter to rest, released the documents. In turn, we learned what we already knew: there was no cover-up; State and the CIA engaged in a predictable bureaucratic "tug of war"; and this:
"The internal debate did not include political interference from the White House, according to the e-mails, which were provided to congressional intelligence committees several months ago."
And with that, everything Republican conspiracy theorists desperately wanted Americans to believe -- there's a scandal; there's a cover-up; there's evidence the White House manipulated and lied about a crisis for political ends -- suddenly evaporated before our very eyes."

"In Two Hours Obama Destroys the GOP’s Benghazi and IRS Scandals"

Pop fizzle flop, another cooked up batch of republican fake outrage hits the floor. And they had such high hopes.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

May 16, 2013 at 6:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Now, speaking of low information voters, along comes MrD, (aka KingG), certainly an able candidate for poster child for low information voter. And then he shows us again, he still doesn't know what a lie is. Amazing.

KG: "Name a lie Obama told?">>

Yes. Still waiting.

KG: [claims] "I will never raise taxes on the poor. They will never have to pay one red cent in new taxes!">>

That's a prediction, a promise. Newsflash for wingnuts: not everything a politician promises will come to pass. That's not a lie. When papa Bush said: "no new taxes" he later chose to break that promise because circumstances changed. That's not a lie, it's a broken promise and is a necessary part of adjusting and compromising to what can be accomplished.

But you didn't even make it that far anyway. Step one, provide the source quote verifying your claim, and a little context too.

KG: "Everyone who has a job left is paying taxes for Obamacare,...">>

Obamacare is paid for with specific business taxes, some targeted taxes on the upper incomes (etc.). It also, in the big picture saves a lot of money currently being lost in waste and stupidity. So one could also argue it's going to lower taxes on the poor. Regardless, you've chosen a bad example as usual (and not a lie). Let's see you support your claim with something beyond mere assertion.

KG: "That's just one lie. It would take multiple pages...">>

Poor KG, he's got pages of "lies" but shucks, just can't seem to manage to support a single one. As usual.

KG: [quote] "I will close Guantanamo within my first term.">>

Again, over promised, not a lie. Step one (a baby step for you), learn what a lie is. Due in part to a SCOTUS decision under Bush, a president can't flip a switch and shut down Bush's Guantanamo quagmire. But you're wrong anyway, Obama did carry through with what he could:

"Obama issued an executive order January 22, 2009 to close this prison. But GOP and Democrat representatives defeated Obama's executive order by blocking funds for closure in a 90-6 vote."

Also, Obama has worked toward the goal, when he took office there were around 800 prisoners, last I checked there were a little over 150.

Regarding your Hitler gun control nonsense, again, best to learn about a topic before you go on about it.

"Sorry, Gun Nuts: Hitler Actually Relaxed Most Gun Laws"
"Here's the deal, oh, sweet, stupid gun nuts: Have a history lesson. Gun control laws had nothing to do with the rise of the Nazis or the Holocaust."

Posted by: fayfreethinker

May 16, 2013 at 6:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

KG: "Obama is a professional liar,">>

Again, since you continue to fail to establish a single example (please try again), it looks like you are the one bearing false witness here. And it's not your first time. Specific, referenced, examples upon request (and you know I'm good for them).

"Your bet is on!" -- Posted by: MrD, October 24, 2011 at 6:18 p.m.

That's where MrD (now KG) wanted to bet that Obama would lose the election by more than any president in history. Then he broke his promise, or what he would refer to... as "a lie."

Posted by: fayfreethinker

May 16, 2013 at 6:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"On Tuesday, it looked like we had three possible political scandals brewing. Two days later, with much more evidence available, it doesn’t look like any of them will pan out."

Give us a break Freebie. You internet meanderings are nothing more than the pot calling itself black, never mind the kettle.

They are not "possible". They are real. You can hope and dream all you want and go looking for whatever you want to find and find it in some dubious place with or without merit, but the facts won't change. It's gonna be a hillarious circus and nothing you can copy and paste will change it.

You are just so darned funny!

Posted by: jeffieboy

May 16, 2013 at 7:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"They are real....the facts won't change."

I'll say, it's looking more real everyday. Here's more

Posted by: cdawg

May 17, 2013 at 1:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Jeffie: "You are just so darned funny!"

Indeed. He's not only the smartest poster around, fayfreethinker has the most refreshing sense of humor. Did you read the rudepundit link?

Posted by: FrankLloydLeft

May 17, 2013 at 10:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Cdawg: "looking more real everyday. Here's more...">>

Ha. That was great. Reminds me. On page 2 of his book "The Real America" Glenn Beck admits to being a borderline schizophrenic. Allegedly, many of his former co-workers say he admitted to taking medication for mental illness which he then stopped taking because he said he couldn't function."

Assortment of idiotic, violent, Beck rhetoric:

"The clock is ticking. . . . The war is just beginning. . . . Shoot me in the head if you try to change our government. . . . You have to be prepared to take rocks to the head. . . . The other side is attacking. . . . There is a coup going on. . . . Grab a torch! . . . Drive a stake through the heart of the bloodsuckers. . . . They are taking you to a place to be slaughtered. . . . They are putting a gun to America's head. . . . Hold these people responsible." -- Glenn Beck,

Posted by: fayfreethinker

May 17, 2013 at 10:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

We don't thank you enough, freethinker. Your efforts to educate some of the more obtuse posters here are futile, (they won't bother to click on your excellent links) but thanks for all your research and thanks for your stalwart dedication to truth.

Posted by: FrankLloydLeft

May 17, 2013 at 11 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

WaterGate! Impeach!

"...House Republicans gave journalists bogus information, apparently on purpose, in the hopes of advancing the right's version of the Benghazi story.

As Josh Marshall explained, "...straight out: Republicans told us these were the quotes; that wasn't true."

Given what we now know, congressional Republicans saw all of these materials in March, couldn't find anything controversial, and moved on. But last week, desperate to manufacture a scandal, unnamed Republicans on Capitol Hill started giving "quotes" from the materials to reporters, making it seem as if the White House made politically motivated edits of Benghazi talking points.

As Major Garrett reported last night, the "quotes" Republicans passed along to the media were bogus. The GOP seems to have made them up. ABC's Jonathan Karl didn't know that, and presented them as fact, touching off a media firestorm.

Why would Republicans do this, knowing that there was evidence that would prove them wrong?

Probably because Republicans assumed the White House wouldn't disclose all of the internal deliberations that went into writing the Benghazi talking points. When the White House did the opposite on Wednesday, giving news organizations everything, the GOP had been caught in its lie.

And yesterday, Major Garrett was willing to say so."

Fizzle, Pop, Flop.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

May 17, 2013 at 11:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Jeffieboy quotes a German politician ""Die Gruenen sind wie tomaten, die fangen gruen an und wert spater rot."
However, Franz Strauss was not the German Chancellor.
"the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) nominated Strauss as their candidate for chancellor of West Germany in 1980. He was unsuccessful in his bid, however, because most voters considered his views too extreme."
(unless you think the Encyclopedia Brittanica is some random online liberal source)
Furthermore, your quote is about 30 years old.
Furthermore, it was applied to German politics at the time. There are separate, autonomous Green parties in most of the world's nations.
Furthermore, Socialists are not Communists.
I guess if you ordered filet mignon and got a hamburger you wouldn't complain. After all, it's the same beef.

Posted by: Coralie

May 17, 2013 at 1:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Free notes "Glenn Beck admits to being a borderline schizophrenic" and quotes some of Beck's word salad.
This may be the reason Beck appeals. to people who think that if something is incomprehensible, it must be deep.
That includes religious people who find more meaning in The Book of Revelation than in the rest of the Bible.
And those who enjoy convoluted conspiracy theories.

Posted by: Coralie

May 17, 2013 at 1:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Cor: "Jeffieboy... furthermore... [mistakes x4]>>

Careful readers (if they are still reading Jeffieboy posts) will notice Jeffie has been avoiding making factual claims lately and instead just posts rhetoric and spleen. That's one way of avoiding having your factual errors pointed out. Don't make them.

And then he goes and slips and tries one and Coralie gives him a four point smack. Nice.

Worse than Watergate! Impeach!

Benghazi goes full Bupkis:
"GOP Sources Altered Benghazi E-Mails To Suggest A Cover-Up, Reporter Confirms"

Posted by: fayfreethinker

May 17, 2013 at 3:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

COR: "Beck appeals. to people who think that if something is incomprehensible, it must be deep.
That includes religious people...">>

Reminds me of a quote I saw today on the sign in front of the Church of Christ church by the Springdale Wal-Mart. It says:

"Faith enables us to withstand
what we can't understand"

I don't quote this to make fun of it. I find it a profound and interesting insight to the human condition. It is what it is.

As one physics professor friend puts it, considering how hit and miss evolution has patched our brain together over the years, with our advanced stuff stacked upon a rudimentary "rodent" brain over an old "lizard" brain, we're lucky to have this many people that can think/reason as well as they do.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

May 17, 2013 at 3:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Strauss was the equivalent of "governor" of the state of Bayern or what we call Bavaria. I happened to be watching him on the news on ZDF TV sitting in my apartment in Nistermohrendorf in die "Shoenen Westerwald" in Western Germany when he made that statement about the emerging "Green Party". I think the greens had just won a couple seats in a national election and the man "affectionately" known as "der Mann ohne Haltz" (or the "man without a neck") was warning people about the ultimate goals of progressive left wing liberals, or the "Greens". He did it with the usual flourish of his boisterous and often outspoken and well known way.

Here is something very interesting....I was talking to my Austiran friend yesterday and it is amazing how many people in Austria are concerned about many of the same issues that many are here. He mentioned concerns over rising taxes, ever higher energy costs, inflation and food costs, a dead real estate market, ever stricter gun control, illegal immigration, unemployment, and an ever more intrusive government he says is currently led a man he describes as a former avowed communist turned socialist.

What was even more interesting is that he said most Europeans seem to really love Obama and that so far there has been nothing in the news in Austria about Benghazi, the IRS scandal, Fast and Furious, or Justice Department wiretaps of the AP or any negative news at all.

I emailed him some news links from here (he speaks and writes very good English) and he wrote back, I quote, "WOW". He had no idea about any of it saying they had not, I quote, "heard one word" about any of it. This morning he said there was a very brief mention about Obama and Benghazi on Austiran TV evening news so it seems a bit of it may be slowly getting out over there.

It is interesting how information flows around the planet and what is important to those that control various media in different ways around the world. Media only reports what it wants to no matter where it is on planet Earth. It's kind of like Freebies internet farming where he only finds what he is looking for and routinely misses the "whole story" and the truth of anything because the focus is on what he wants to find rather than what there is to find.

Posted by: jeffieboy

May 18, 2013 at 12:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"It is interesting how information flows..."
I've just learned that congressional conservatives are trying to add what is essentially a political or ideological requirement to the usual criteria involving intellectual merit and impact for approval of National Science Foundation grants.
We're talking about anti-evolutionists and climate change deniers.
That is pretty important in the long run, yet will it be a political "scandal" or will we even hear about it in the mainstream media?
Two articles in the 3 May 2013 issue of Science (pages 525 and 534) report on this:

Posted by: Coralie

May 18, 2013 at 12:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Jef: "nothing in the news in Austria about Benghazi, the IRS scandal, Fast and Furious, or... wiretaps...">>

Four scandals, mostly based on fake conservative outrage and outright lying, all fizzling at home and the world doesn't care. Nice. Or perhaps the world is just bored with idiotic, childish American gotcha politics based upon rubbish.

Well at least you have Unbrellagate to hang on to now. That'll get you a couple weeks of yapping on the AM talk boxes.

J: "he said most Europeans seem to really love Obama">>

Of course they do. Just like the rest of the world. See chart of countries ranked by support for Obama vs. Romney:

It was the same with Bush:

"Graphs comparing the approval ratings of presidents George W. Bush in 2008 and Barack Obama in 2009 evoke the trajectory of a pogo stick:
BAM! 12 percent for Bush in Germany.
BOING! 92 percent for Obama.
BAM! 11 percent for Bush in France.
BOING! 88 percent for Obama.
Overall, the positive reaction to the U.S. president has quadrupled from when the White House changed hands to when the survey was conducted in June." --German Marshall Fund (GMF) and the Italian Compagnia di San Paolo in their annual Transatlantic Trends survey.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

May 18, 2013 at 12:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The umbrella moment was an insult to every Marine and every soldier that ever served. Calling upon a warrior and veteran as a docile servant is insulting and disgusting. That is something no one that has never served at the "pointy end of the stick" will understand.

Marine regulations prevent a Marine in uniform from carrying an umbrella except for certain exceptions for female marines that may carry one in their left hand only so they are free to salute. The Marine standing there was following orders that only one man can give. A the Commander in Chief the president has the authority to change any military rule or regulation at will.

However, in doing so this "Commander in Chief" demonstrated his distain for those that serve with honor and pride. The Marine demonstrated a level of endurance that this commander in chief cannot match or even approach. While any soldier will attest that doing such a thing is distasteful, the fact that a Marine was called and performed such a lowly service proves his devotion to his oath of service.

Try it. Try holding your arm out straight away from your body for 15 minutes empty. I will bet that 95% of the people that read this can't for even 5 minutes measured on a clock. They don't have the physical endurance or strength. The weight of your arm alone is more than most of you will be able to bear.

A Marine did that while also holding an umbrella. Honor for a Marine and distain for his "commander" is in order. Next Mr. Barry Sueto will be looking for people to kiss his feet. BHO is simply disgusting in terms of having the priviledge and duty to command our armed forces. If Barry had used an "intern" in such a way there would probably be a much larger scandal.

Posted by: jeffieboy

May 18, 2013 at 5:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Jef: "The umbrella moment was an insult to every Marine...">>

Excellent. Jeffie is falling full blast for Umbrella-gate. I think that's just wonderful. Finally an outrage of some substance. Something about his speed.

This Marine has a different opinion about it:

Warning, language very very rough.

This provides in insight into why Europeans aren't interested in following every supremely idiotic rightwing fake outrage story of the day. It's all really too stupid for words.

"Forget about the IRS, AP, and Benghazi. They all pale in significance to Umbrella-Gate. President Obama asked White House Marine guards to hold umbrellas for the President and the Turkish Prime Minister during an outdoor press conference. Male Marines are not allowed to use umbrellas while in uniform, except when they are “perform[ing] such other duties as the President may direct“." --Jonathon Turley,


Posted by: fayfreethinker

May 18, 2013 at 5:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Oh, FFT. You really got the pulse on the military popular opinion.

Personally, I think the umbrella thing is out there, but you thinking you have the pulse on the military opinion is golden.

I question the authenticity of the quote on your link as well. It looks like more typical blog trash to me.

God Bless America.

Posted by: Tankersley101

May 20, 2013 at 5:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank: "but you thinking you have the pulse on the military opinion is...">>

Do at least attempt to be somewhat accurate as you flail about. It's really not too much to ask. I never said anything about having "a pulse" on anything. I simply said:

"This Marine has a different opinion about it."

That's it.


Posted by: fayfreethinker

May 20, 2013 at 9:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

It sure read differently to me.

You act like you know what the old country thinks as well.

"This provides in insight into why Europeans aren't interested in following every supremely idiotic rightwing fake outrage story of the day. It's all really too stupid for words."

Personally I like BBC. I avoid alot of your beloved pinko left bs.

I didn't expect anything less than you posting a meme that makes a punchline out of the deaths of Americans that died honorably in combat. I have a few posters for you.

Have fun on your xBOX.

Posted by: Tankersley101

May 20, 2013 at 11:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

More tantrum from Tank.

Tnk: "You act like you know what the old country thinks as well.">>

Had you been paying attention to the conversation you would have known that I was specifically responding to Jeff's comment:

"nothing in the news in Austria about Benghazi, the IRS scandal, Fast and Furious, or... wiretaps..." --Jeff, above

Good grief, do you ever tire of making a fool of yourself?

Tnk: "Have fun on your xBOX.">>

I've never had an xBOX.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

May 21, 2013 at 11:10 a.m. ( | suggest removal )


I gave up a long time ago on trying to understand anything tank says.


Posted by: rummy

May 24, 2013 at 7:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

At least Tank doesn't accuse everyone else of llying, ala Irish Mensa.
I respect him for that.
I think it's a pretty serious accusation to say that someone else is lying, and especially when all you mean by it is that they disagree with you and Fox News.
I'm making it a rule not to answer people who do that.

Posted by: Coralie

May 25, 2013 at 12:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Thanks, Coralie. I respect you for your politeness.

Posted by: Tankersley101

May 28, 2013 at 1:23 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Eight meaningless posts after one that made a case and not one of them is worthy of the few seconds it takes to scan them.....very briefly. Some things are not worth close scrutiny because they have no merit in the first place. Blah, blah, more senseless noise. Cummon guys, you can do better, but to do so you will actually have to try. How rediculously funny!

Posted by: jeffieboy

May 28, 2013 at 2:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Eight meaningless posts after one that made a case"
Not that you made a case-- you simply repeated ignorant right-wing rhetoric.

RE "not one of them is worthy of the few seconds it takes to scan them"
Okay, here you go:

"'Marines are always out getting rained on. That’s sort of what we do,' said Capt. Eric Flanagan, a Marines spokesman. A request from the president to a Marine who serves at the White House, however, would be an 'extenuating circumstance,' he said.

"Flanagan also pointed to Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which states that members of the Marine Corps shall 'perform such other duties as the President may direct.'

"In this case, Obama had clearly directed the Marines to be ready with umbrellas if necessary."

RE "Calling upon a warrior and veteran as a docile servant is insulting and disgusting."
As I understand the Marine ethic, a Marine follows orders without being insulted. And the President is, after all, the Commander-in-Chief. Your claim makes Marines out to be a bunch of whiners. Maybe that's an Army thing. Much more likely, though, it's a jeffieboy thing. Bonus riddle: Why are a servant and a Marine alike? Answer: They both serve.

The article continues:
"The same umbrella rules hold true for the Army; in the Navy and Air Force, all service members can carry an umbrella when not in field uniform."

Oh, look-- uniformed Army personnel holding umbrellas for G.H.W. Bush and G.W. Bush:
What an insult to our men in uniform! Oh, the tyranny!

And here are four photos of Obama holding his own umbrella: Of course in these cases he wasn't at ceremonies where he had to give a speech.

The Daily Caller really miscalled this one.

RE "The Marine demonstrated a level of endurance that this commander in chief cannot match or even approach."
And you? Should a person who is not called upon to be superhuman be expected to perform in a superhuman manner?

RE "Try holding your arm out straight away from your body for 15 minutes empty"
I have low blood pressure and thoracic outlet syndrome, so my doctor has advised me against performing such stunts. Of course if it were my duty as a Marine, I'd do it anyway. I just wouldn't make the extra effort to be insulted.

Posted by: AlphaCat

May 28, 2013 at 4:03 a.m. ( | suggest removal )