Posted by Tina
I ask you to read an article in the Conservative Tree House that appears to connect the dots to explain not only the increased violence in Iraq and elsewhere but the need by this administration to describe the Benghazi attack as a “spontaneous protest” in response to an “offensive internet video” and the arrest of Ahmed Abu Khattala.
When you need a “witness” to cover your tracks…and your a$$…
Meanwhile it is obvious, terrorists are not “on the run” and the threat of terrorism on our shores is growing not receding. Conservatives have warned for years of the danger of terrorists making there way across our permeable southern border. It is the main reason we ask that the border be secured. While Americans today are kept busy hand wringing over the inexcusable surge of young children that this administration encouraged to come to America, Rick Perry warns of an ominous uptick in dangerous people crossing into America:
“We have record high numbers of other than Mexicans being apprehended at the border. These are people that are coming from states like Syria that have substantial connections back to terrorist regimes and terrorist operations. So we’re seeing record, historic high numbers of these individuals being apprehended. “We flagged this issue in 2012 and have yet to even have a response as far as I know, from not just, not from the president, but not even from his administration,” he said.
NBC/WSJ poll reported at IBD show approval of foreign policy has reached an all time low at 37%
Excuse me Dewey but in case you have forgotten I always have the right to speak, it’s guaranteed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Apparently you believe that leaders of both major parties did not think there were WMD’s and did not support the war. Unfortunately that is left-wing propaganda spread to cover the butts of the war mongering Democrats after 911. In fact the whole world believed Saddam had WMD. Bush did not “lie” because he iterated exactly what the intel at the time indicated was true. He also did not choose to invade iraq based on WMD alone
The Iraq War Resolution:
The early years of the war were marked by mistakes in strategy but the change in strategy (The surge) resulted in a relatively stable nation that had formed its own parliament government and had held elections by the time Bush’s second term ended. All that was needed was continued diplomatic support and a small military presence to help keep the nation stable. We did that after WWII to great success in Germany and Japan and in south korea after the Korean war.
Those who voted to go to war iniraq included a majority of Republicans and very strong support from Democrats (58% in Senate and 40% in House)…including Sen’s Feinstein, Schumer, Clinton, Biden, Lieberman, Edwards, Daschle, Rockefeller, Landrieu, Kerry, Baucus, and Reid. In other words most of the leadership of the Democrat Party voted for war.
So laying this at the feet of George Bush alone is partisan BS and the leftist weenies that do deserve to be exposed as the disloyal partisanship before country people that they are..
Bush and Chenney did nothing “to” you. They worked their butts off to create a fast recovery after the dot com recession, keep our nations economy stable after 911, protect the American people from terror attacks, and create a coalition of allies to defend the world from terrorists. Americans were much better off in 2008 then we are now in every single way.
Waterboarding is a tool. It was used with the strictest of safety and legal measures in place to ensure that no terrorist was physically harmed in the process of extracting information. Was the experience easy or pleasant? No. Did it harm them? No! and it did result in the extraction of needed information that prevented further attacks. Members of our own military endure this procedure in training to prepare them in case they are captured by enemies…we do not torture them either! The voicing of the left’s squimish, pansya$$ed concerns were politically motivated and designed to undermine the administration. In earlier times that politicization in a time of war would have been considered traitorous or at the very least un-American.
If you are with Reid you are a total partisan and a hack for this out of control administration. Never has any American administration broken so many laws or governed with such tyrannical fury. Reid is deliberately blocking the democratic process you profess to care about so much.
Sorry, you are not an independent thinker.
Re: “Sorry, you are not an independent thinker.”
Not much of any kind of thinker. The way he mangles English with his bizarre pronouncements is brutal.
Independents rock!
Our friend dEWEY, as he spelled his name tonight, has been suspended for the time being. His latest remarks showed an egregious lack of respect for our purpose and raison d’etre. One comment also included a personal suggestion I found offensive and childish. I don’t have to put up with that and I don’t think any of you should either. I will consider any and all objections…feel free to voice them at will.
Rick Perry is playing for political advantage with a rather sensitive issue … which is rather slimy of him, don’t you think?
What do you think is happening to these Syrians, etc., nabbed at the border? Maybe procedures are implemented that are not quite according to the rules, and maybe opportunistic dweebs should just find something else to blather about?
Libby are you kidding me?
Obama has been on the presidential/Democrat Party campaign trail for nearly eight years!
He doesn’t govern, he doesn’t lead…in fact he’s often been accused, even from the left, of leading from behind when he deigns to takes a stab at it.
There’s no question that Rick Perry will make another run at the presidency.
On the other hand it is also true that he has led the state of Texas admirably and, absent effective federal help with a very real crisis on his border, he is willing to take command of the situation.
Rick Perry too has a phone and a pen.
As for your specious accusation:
Politifact:
The federals “nabbed” the “Syrians, etc.!”
Since your comment also covertly implies Rick Perry is a racist animal with dubious methods our readers might find this from the governors office in 2008 more indicative of the relationship Rick Perry’s office, and Texans generally, have with their southern neighbors and migrants in general:
Republicans are strongly in favor of LEGAL immigration but we also expect our governing bodies to abide by the laws of the nation and faithfully execute them as they are bound to do by their oaths of office.
The Presidents irresponsible handling of border issues has placed unprecedented burdens on state services and budgets and created an increased danger factor for terror attacks. His propensity to set criminals free is also troubling to say the least.
The Democrat Party was once the party that championed John F. Kennedy who’s policy on immigration was modest and aligned with common sense values:
It is fascinating how little attention Khattala’s arrest has been given here and within the right-wing media as a whole. Haven’t you been asking for justice for years? Haven’t you been asking for answers for years? And now…nothing?
Maybe it’s because of this little revelation:
“What he did in the period just before the attack has remained unclear. But Mr. Abu Khattala told other Libyans in private conversations during the night of the attack that he was moved to attack the diplomatic mission to take revenge for an insult to Islam in an American-made online video.
An earlier demonstration venting anger over the video outside the American Embassy in Cairo had culminated in a breach of its walls, and it dominated Arab news coverage. Mr. Abu Khattala told both fellow Islamist fighters and others that the attack in Benghazi was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him.
In an interview days after the attack, he pointedly declined to say whether he believed an offense such as the anti-Islamic video might indeed warrant the destruction of the diplomatic mission or the killing of the ambassador. “From a religious point of view, it is hard to say whether it is good or bad,” he said.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/18/world/middleeast/apprehension-of-ahmed-abu-khattala-may-begin-to-answer-questions-on-assault.html?hp&_r=1
It may be time to start practicing that “I’m sorry” speech.
That’s interesting Chris, but it’s only hearsay, so don’t put too much money on it. We’ll hear more on this subject soon enough and you may be right, but for now this is one of those things where speculation doesn’t do anything except divide us.
ROTFLMAO
Chris is still going on about that stupid video excuse for Benghazi the Obama administration was still touting long after it was known to be bogus by … the Obama administration!
The poor fellow, self admitted wannbe man burner, is completely obsessed. What a fool.
Whether the video influenced the attackers or not the administration still attempted to downplay the attack and fool the American people prior to the election by making it sound like it was the result of a crowd that lost control. The information the administration had was not limited to the video but instead included a connection to al Qaeda and an organized planned attack. Also, the “crowd out of control” meme, if swallowed by the public, would mean a successful whitewashing of the record of failure before, during, and after the attack both for Hillary and Obama.
I see no reason to apology and, as I indicated elsewhere, this arrest could easily be part of the cover story. I don’t trust either Hillary or Obama to be truthful. In fact the NYT article portrays Mr. Katala as Narcissistic,the same type of person as Obama and Hillary:
Both Obama and Hillary have demonstrated that they will do anything, say anything, for power…the end justifies the means.
Katala is the perfect dupe for their fabricated scenario.
Would love to be a fly on the wall to hear what type of deal the “interrogators” are cutting with Katala and the talking points they’re giving him to say once he reaches New York.
Must be terrible to know the majority of voters polled, which includes Democrats, think Obama’s a failure on foreign policy and such a liar nothing he and his administration says or does is believable.
Tina: “Whether the video influenced the attackers or not the administration still attempted to downplay the attack and fool the American people prior to the election by making it sound like it was the result of a crowd that lost control.”
Look, Republicans have had almost two years to prove this baseless charge, and you’ve come up with nothing. Does that not matter to you?
The fact is that the “spontaneous protest” talking point was delivered to the White House by the CIA. As soon as the CIA revised their official estimation, so did the White House. You have no evidence that the White House spun this to “fool the American people,” and you are deliberately denying evidence that it was a basic intelligence failure. You’ve done this for almost two years, and you’ll probably never stop doing this, because you’re not a truthful person.
“The information the administration had was not limited to the video but instead included a connection to al Qaeda and an organized planned attack.”
Please share with the class. What information did they have about an organized planned attack? How far in advance was the attack planned?
“Also, the “crowd out of control” meme, if swallowed by the public, would mean a successful whitewashing of the record of failure before, during, and after the attack both for Hillary and Obama.”
HOW? The attack was a failure regardless. It still didn’t have any effect on the election, which was never about foreign policy. Believe whatever you want about Obama, but he is a savvy politician; you can’t honestly believe he thought Benghazi would influence the election so greatly that it was worth lying about? Given that the 2012 election was always going to be about the economy, what possible motive did Obama have to lie about what happened in Benghazi?
“I see no reason to apology and, as I indicated elsewhere, this arrest could easily be part of the cover story.”
What does this sentence mean? Are you accusing the Obama administration of making a false arrest as political cover?
Do you have any evidence for this accusation? Do you care whether you do or not?
“In fact the NYT article portrays Mr. Katala as Narcissistic,the same type of person as Obama and Hillary:”
Did you seriously just compare President Obama and Hilary Clinton to an alleged terrorist?
God, you’re a terrible person.
Jack: “We’ll hear more on this subject soon enough and you may be right, but for now this is one of those things where speculation doesn’t do anything except divide us.”
Funny, Jack, I haven’t once heard you warn your fellow conservatives about divisive speculation when they’ve spent the past year and a half baselessly speculating that Obama manipulated the facts on Benghazi in order to win an election, with far less evidence for their claims than I’ve provided for mine.
Re Chris: “God, you’re a terrible person.”
What a dope.
Dope?
What dope?
How about Edward Klein who, in his new book, “Blood Feud,” describes the situation on the night of the Benghazi attack:
The part that sticks out for me, “She knew that Ambassador Christopher Stevens and a communications operator were dead, and that the attackers had launched a well-coordinated mortar assault on the CIA annex…”
So who’s the dope now?
And will the battle between the Clinton’s and Obama get ugly before all is said and done?
Tina: “Dope?
What dope?”
I did not call you a dope. Pie called me a dope. I called you a terrible person.
“How about Edward Klein”
Yes, you are correct, Edward Klein is a dope, as is anyone who would take the word of such a noted liar:
“Klein has been criticized for his biography of Hillary Clinton, titled, The Truth About Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She’ll Go to Become President, which was released on June 21, 2005. Politico criticized the book for “serious factual errors, truncated and distorted quotes and overall themes [that] don’t gibe with any other serious accounts of Clinton’s life.”[6] The book was attacked not only by liberals, but by conservatives as well. John Podhoretz wrote in the New York Post, “Thirty pages into it, I wanted to take a shower. Sixty pages into it, I wanted to be decontaminated. And 200 pages into it, I wanted someone to drive stakes through my eyes so I wouldn’t have to suffer through another word.”[7] In National Review James Geraghty wrote, “Folks, there are plenty of arguments against Hillary Clinton, her policies, her views, her proposals, and her philosophies. This stuff ain’t it. Nobody on the right, left, or center ought to stoop to this level.”
Of course, you have no problem stooping to such a level. Hence “terrible person.”
“So who’s the dope now?”
Still you.
Peggy Noonan:
“I have read the Hillary book by Ed Klein, which has been heavily dumped on by conservatives, and understandably. In terms of political impact it is not a takedown but a buildup. Dick Morris says its sensational charges will only “embolden” her. They will certainly tend to inoculate her against future and legitimate criticism and revelations. The book is poorly written, poorly thought, poorly sourced and full of the kind of loaded language that is appropriate to a polemic but not an investigative work…
Mr. Klein’s problem is that he assumes the market is conservative and conservatives are stupid. They’re not, actually. They want solid sourcing and new information that is true.”
It appears Noonan overestimates the conservatives at this particular blog.