The Goat Pen

Progress means a lot of different things to different people....the easiest way to observe progress as mentioned here is California and Detroit.

More progressive truthing.

When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story.

ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.

"the easiest way to observe progress as mentioned here is California and Detroit."

The easiest way for me to observe progress would be if I could watch your head being blown off with a shotgun. An amazing level of progress would be achieved if you were the one pulling the trigger. But either way would be an improvement...

The root of liberal is libertas, i.e., freedom.

If there is one thing that modern liberalism is deeply suspicious of, it is freedom.

aTm wrote:The root of progressive is "progress"

and, as per usual, when used by the left is a complete misnomer and diametrically opposed to the original definition

Professor Tiger wrote:

The root of liberal is libertas, i.e., freedom.

If there is one thing that modern liberalism is deeply suspicious of, it is freedom.

Lib tarians got it going on with that whole freedom thang. Gubment out of the drugs, outta the sex, and outta the rock n roll. And definitely outta the womb.

toe cracks me up. what a moron

Republicans want the hearings on Benghazi to last till summer of 2016.

They are spending significantly more time trying to get to the bottom of the administration's lies over Susan Rice's talking points than the lies used to send thousands of young men to their deaths in Iraq. JUST SAYIN

Going through some old bookmarks and deleting them...who can forget this gem from a man who really should have known better

http://washingtonexaminer.com/barone-go ... JXgbWewVHi

Jungle Rat wrote:toe cracks me up.

Yer welcome.

They are spending significantly more time trying to get to the bottom of the administration's lies over Susan Rice's talking points than the lies used to send thousands of young men to their deaths in Iraq.

A lie is saying something you know to be untrue.

In the case of Iraq, W's own CIA (as well as most of the world's intelligence services and nearly every Democrat in government) believed Saddam had WMD. W was naive and colossally stupid and bumbling in his invasion. But, it was a mistake, not a lie.

However, in the case of Benghazi, Obama's own CIA and State Dept. knew withing hours that the attack had nothing to do with youtube videos and rowdy demonstrations. They knew the truth - that it was a terrorist attack (e.g. random public demonstrators don't normally bring RPG's and mortars along.) The Washington political hacks rampantly politicized the intelligence provided by their own eyewitness who were there, and edited all the salient facts out of their reporting. That is not a mistake. That is a lie.

CO2 Levels hit peak:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/10/us/climat ... ?hpt=hp_t3

According to the Man Made Global Warming Religion, we should be frying right now. However:

US Headed towards the Coldest Spring on Record:

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/05/02/ ... ord-in-us/

The UK's spring was so cold 5,000 died from it:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ndous.html

Seskatchewan reports the coldest spring in a century:

http://iceagenow.info/2013/04/saskatche ... g-century/

WTF?

Prince Harry paying his respects. I'm torn between giving him props for that, and hoping someone has smacked him in the head and made sure he understands how many of those grave sites are there due to his family's fuckups.

Professor Tiger wrote:

They are spending significantly more time trying to get to the bottom of the administration's lies over Susan Rice's talking points than the lies used to send thousands of young men to their deaths in Iraq.

A lie is saying something you know to be untrue.

In the case of Iraq, W's own CIA (as well as most of the world's intelligence services and nearly every Democrat in government) believed Saddam had WMD. W was naive and colossally stupid and bumbling in his invasion. But, it was a mistake, not a lie.

However, in the case of Benghazi, Obama's own CIA and State Dept. knew withing hours that the attack had nothing to do with youtube videos and rowdy demonstrations. They knew the truth - that it was a terrorist attack (e.g. random public demonstrators don't normally bring RPG's and mortars along.) The Washington political hacks rampantly politicized the intelligence provided by their own eyewitness who were there, and edited all the salient facts out of their reporting. That is not a mistake. That is a lie.

Dick Armey, who was the Republican House majority leader at the time, was directly lied to by Dick Cheney, who promised him that the administration had solid evidence that Saddam was tied to Al Qaeda and that he had developed suitcase nukes . Cheney outright lied to him and knew he was lying. He needed Armey's support to get the war started.

I guess it's up to you to believe that the Bush Presidency was simply horrendously incompetent when it came to the intelligence gathered on Iraq. Me, I think certain administration figures simply wanted to go into Iraq, Cheney being the leader of that faction.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Author_Ch ... _0916.html

"Truth is the first casualty here when competing fiefs protect their mythologies. Some unhinged ideologues on the right cling to the mythology that Barry and Hillary are out to destroy America.

In the midst of a re-election campaign, Obama aides wanted to promote the mythology that the president who killed Osama was vanquishing terror. So they deemed it problematic to mention any possible Qaeda involvement in the Benghazi attack.

Looking ahead to 2016, Hillaryland needed to shore up the mythology that Clinton was a stellar secretary of state. Prepared talking points about the attack included mentions of Al Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia, a Libyan militant group, but the State Department got those references struck. Foggy Bottom’s spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, a former Cheney aide, quashed a we-told-you-so paragraph written by the C.I.A. that said the spy agency had “produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to Al Qaeda in Benghazi and eastern Libya,” and had warned about five other attacks “against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British ambassador’s convoy.”

"All the factions wove their own mythologies at the expense of our deepest national mythology: that if there is anything, no matter how unlikely or difficult, that we can do to try to save the lives of Americans who have volunteered for dangerous assignments, we must do it."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/12/opini ... .html?_r=1&

Sounds like the Justice Department collected phone records on the AP. Wow.

The press has done everything they can to protect Obama for 6 years. But this might really piss them off.

Just putting out deflections now, Benghazi's what worries them..(and the PAH)