The Goat Pen

Toemeesleather wrote:
Unemployment down to 6.1%, gdp grows at .1%......that's pert near global warming math.

Your polar vortex killed all notions of AGW, remember? It also held down growth Jan-Feb

but now the daffodils are in bloom

What in tarnation are all those new employees doing?


..besides filling out their brackets and collecting disability..

bluetick wrote:


Your polar vortex killed all notions of AGW, remember? It also held down growth Jan-Feb

I'd get Susan Rice on that PDQ!!

Pre-Benghazi numbers to remember:

13 embassy attacks during Bush
60 total embassy deaths during Bush
zero outraged republicans

Post-Benghazi number to consider

zero number of attacks in the intervening 19 months

Under Bush the embassy attacks were taking place mostly in Iraq, and during a time of acknowledged war — right in the thick of it, in fact — and no one tried to argue that they were anything but planned and executed attacks.

And during the Clinton years, the attacks — which took place an average of every 18 months — were recognized as planned, organized attacks and no one tried to argue that they were anything different, either.

And while our embassies were attacked under these presidents, and others, none of our Ambassadors were murdered (along with Navy Seals) while multiple stand-down orders were given against mounting a rescue.

Neither the Bush nor Clinton administrations sought to mischaracterize the attacks on their embassies. Neither of them disseminated weirdly vague stories that was “really” took place was a spontaneous protest over an unseen, stupid video. And it was not the Bush (or Clinton) administration that — even after acknowledging a terror attack had occurred — repeated those lies to grieving parents or (weeks later) in a speech to the UN where the “video” was blamed six times

Neither the Bush nor Clinton administrations first claimed that it was too early to talk about the attacks, and then too late. None of their Secretaries of State first flatly said — two days after the event — that they would not talk about the attack, declared to congress “what does it matter” or fell back on stereotypical behavior of yelling and emotionalism to distract the press and scare her mostly-male congressional inquisitors into silence. And none of their Secretary of State’s successors started out his term by quickly announcing that he didn’t intend to talk about the attacks, either.

But mostly, the reason “no one investigated” attacks under Bush or Clinton is because no one lied about what they were, or refused to be clear about what their responses had been.

Okay, ignoring the fact that the "stupid video" sparked other demonstrations and attacks elsewhere, one of which was the Cairo U.S. Embassy just the day before..

Care to boil it down -- what specifically was the crime that was being mischaracterized? Can you manage it in 25 words or less?

Posted in the Goat Pen:

"In September of 1984, for the third time in eighteen months, jihadists bombed a U.S. government outpost in Beirut yet again. President Reagan acknowledged that the new security precautions that had been advocated by Congress hadn’t yet been implemented at the U.S. embassy annex that had been hit. The problem, the President admitted, was that the repairs hadn’t quite been completed on time. As he put it, “Anyone who’s ever had their kitchen done over knows that it never gets done as soon as you wish it would.” Imagine how Congressman Issa and Fox News would react to a similar explanation from President Obama today."

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/c ... l?mobify=0

Shhhhhhhh.....

bluetick wrote:Okay, ignoring the fact that the "stupid video" sparked other demonstrations and attacks elsewhere, one of which was the Cairo U.S. Embassy just the day before..

Care to boil it down -- what specifically was the crime that was being mischaracterized? Can you manage it in 25 words or less?

[youtube]8ZyxkdDQ-8k[/youtube]

Care to boil it down -- what specifically was the crime that was being mischaracterized? Can you manage it in 25 words or less?

Here ya go:

Before the attack, the Administration denied requests for increased security.
During, the military was never ordered to rescue.
After, the Administration lied, evaded responsibility, obstructed.

The facts are settled. No denial will be tolerated.

Professor Tiger wrote:

Care to boil it down -- what specifically was the crime that was being mischaracterized? Can you manage it in 25 words or less?

Here ya go:

Before the attack, the Administration denied requests for increased security.
During, the military was never ordered to rescue.
After, the Administration lied, evaded responsibility, obstructed.

The facts are settled. No denial will be tolerated.

"In September of 1984, for the third time in eighteen months, jihadists bombed a U.S. government outpost in Beirut yet again. President Reagan acknowledged that the new security precautions that had been advocated by Congress hadn’t yet been implemented at the U.S. embassy annex that had been hit. The problem, the President admitted, was that the repairs hadn’t quite been completed on time. As he put it, “Anyone who’s ever had their kitchen done over knows that it never gets done as soon as you wish it would.” Imagine how Congressman Issa and Fox News would react to a similar explanation from President Obama today."

Imagine how Congressman Issa and Fox News would react to a similar explanation from President Obama today."

Imagine how the MSM and the Dem's would react to a similar explanation about Benghazi from President Bush today."

I'm glad you understood the main point of that article, i.e, political "situations" haven't changed and likely never will, it's the reaction to them by the media and its concomitant babbling classes and our elected "leaders" that has...

So, as long as you don't exceed the behavior/lie/cheat/steal of your predecessor, there's no accountability, all's good.....ie a father who had 2 DUIs as a teen has no business disciplining his son/daughter as long as he/she has no more than 1-2 DUIs. I'm guessing this is what passes for liberal logic

I guess a Nobel Peace prize puts you above accountability.

The debate/science is settled.

" I'm guessing this is what passes for liberal logic"

According to liberal logic (or any other kind of logic, for that matter), you should be tortured and killed. And then tortured some more...

Can I have a beer first?

not killed

Pacifist...