The Goat Pen

Today's post: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... -polls/?hp

unny thing - Obama is never mentioned anywhere in the article or transcripts. There are numerous references to Hillary and the State Department though. "Why Didn't Obama Save Four Americans?' and the ENTIRE context of the story is whether Clinton saw a supposed classified cable or not.

Oh, so it's not Obama's fault. It was POSSIBLY Hillary's fault, and maybe not that. After all, we can't expect for her to hear a cry for help from a US consulate directly to her office. We certainly can't expect her to be aware of trivial stuff like that. She's busy doing more important things.

But the most important thing is, this must not - repeat, NOT - be blamed on the President. Everybody knows that Presidents cannot be held accountable when their cabinet-level departments are negligent and get people killed. Liberals certainly did that when Bush screwed up Iraq.

The real parties responsible for Benghazi and the blatant cover up are Mitt Romney, George Bush, and the CIA. As for the 4 dead, we really never liked them anyway.

Professor Tiger wrote:

unny thing - Obama is never mentioned anywhere in the article or transcripts. There are numerous references to Hillary and the State Department though. "Why Didn't Obama Save Four Americans?' and the ENTIRE context of the story is whether Clinton saw a supposed classified cable or not.

Oh, so it's not Obama's fault. It was POSSIBLY Hillary's fault, and maybe not that. After all, we can't expect for her to hear a cry for help from a US consulate directly to her office. We certainly can't expect her to be aware of trivial stuff like that. She's busy doing more important things.

But the most important thing is, this must not - repeat, NOT - be blamed on the President. Everybody knows that Presidents cannot be held accountable when their cabinet-level departments are negligent and get people killed. Liberals certainly did that when Bush screwed up Iraq.

The real parties responsible for Benghazi and the blatant cover up are Mitt Romney, George Bush, and the CIA. As for the 4 dead, we really never liked them anyway.

Didn't you hear Mitt?

It's the economy, stupid! (Unless, of course, Mitt is losing and needs a straw man).

10ac wrote:You would think that since the Ambassador was a homo and was sodomized before and after he was tortured and killed that the limp wristed wing of the Dem party would have their panties in a twist.

And it's to the right-wingers credit that they can put on a show of outrage over a dead gay guy when it's a given that he got what he deserved in the end*.

*see, it's a small double entendre - it was the end of his life, and he got a dick in his rear(end) as he departed this life.

I got it. The joke that is.

Professor Tiger wrote:

unny thing - Obama is never mentioned anywhere in the article or transcripts. There are numerous references to Hillary and the State Department though. "Why Didn't Obama Save Four Americans?' and the ENTIRE context of the story is whether Clinton saw a supposed classified cable or not.

Oh, so it's not Obama's fault. It was POSSIBLY Hillary's fault, and maybe not that. After all, we can't expect for her to hear a cry for help from a US consulate directly to her office. We certainly can't expect her to be aware of trivial stuff like that. She's busy doing more important things.

But the most important thing is, this must not - repeat, NOT - be blamed on the President. Everybody knows that Presidents cannot be held accountable when their cabinet-level departments are negligent and get people killed. Liberals certainly did that when Bush screwed up Iraq.

The real parties responsible for Benghazi and the blatant cover up are Mitt Romney, George Bush, and the CIA. As for the 4 dead, we really never liked them anyway.

Jeez, calm down Francis. The title said one thing (Obama Killed 4 Americans) and the WHOLE article never mentioned Obama. Merely pointing out the oddity as it relates to heading vs text. Didn't mean to engender your bushciairaq/HistoryoftheWorldPt2 rant.

Leaving our own people to die in service to their country in an overseas hot zone, when it could have easily been prevented by their own incompetent or self-absorbed leaders, just pisses me off. You and JD obviously feel differently.

"and begged for increased security. "

I beg you to STFU....

Professor Tiger wrote:Leaving our own people to die in service to their country in an overseas hot zone, when it could have easily been prevented by their own incompetent or self-absorbed leaders, just pisses me off. You and JD obviously feel differently.

Please. Can the fake high-dudgeon. Unlike most of these chickenhawk GOP warmongerers (I mean the politicians, not anyone on this board), I was actually IN hotzones (Panama and Desert Storm). The shit isn't like watching 24 on T.V. and Jack Bauer texts the POTUS from inside an Al Qaeda camp in Somalia. You send a request and unless someone is actually taking fire, it goes on the pile and works its way up the chain. If it gets to Hillary (with the other 8,000 daily briefs), it then goes back down to administration/budget/personnell.

Don't forget the GOP slashed embassy security by most of a billion dollars.

I can attest that it was that way under Reagan, Bush I and Clinton; I presume that it remains the same under Bush II, Obama and whoever comes next.

Professor Tiger wrote:Leaving our own people to die in service to their country in an overseas hot zone, when it could have easily been prevented by their own incompetent or self-absorbed leaders, just pisses me off. You and JD obviously feel differently.

A tragedy, no doubt. Preventable, you bet.

We've lost thousands over there, and we're still losing hundreds more. I know you agree that most of those deaths were/are preventable. That you've made Benghazi the high-water-mark of your anger probably means that ALL of the unnecessary waste of blood and treasure has taken it's toll and you've reached your flashpoint. Benghazi is your last straw...damn the politics.

LMAO...

From the fivethirtyeight article:

"Mr. Obama is not a sure thing, by any means. It is a close race. His chances of holding onto his Electoral College lead and converting it into another term are equivalent to the chances of an N.F.L. team winning when it leads by a field goal with three minutes left to play in the fourth quarter. There are plenty of things that could go wrong, and sometimes they will.

But it turns out that an N.F.L. team that leads by a field goal with three minutes left to go winds up winning the game 79 percent of the time. Those were Mr. Obama's chances in the FiveThirtyEight forecast as of Wednesday: 79 percent."

See for me it's not that it happens. My take on it is that there are many requests every day. They are responsible for finding out which ones are real or not. They are not going to be 100%. When they are wrong people die. They can't be 100%. It's not their fault (unless they did it intentionally, which with this president is not out of the realm of possibility given his feelings about the US).

What is unforgivable is the out and out blatant lies. They can help that. Being wrong is human. Making a mistake is human. They get no telling how many requests for more security daily.

It goes to his true lack of morality to lie like he did for political gain.

" It's not their fault (unless they did it intentionally, which with this president is not out of the realm of possibility given his feelings about the US)."

If you really believe that, you are literally the dumbest motherfucker I've ever encountered. And considering the competition you have just on this board alone (to say nothing of the rest of the planet), that's saying something...

hedge wrote:" It's not their fault (unless they did it intentionally, which with this president is not out of the realm of possibility given his feelings about the US)."

If you really believe that, you are literally the dumbest motherfucker I've ever encountered. And considering the competition you have just on this board alone (to say nothing of the rest of the planet), that's saying something...

You mean if I really believe it's not their fault???

Oh you meant the part where I said it's not out of the realm of possibility with this president. Let's put it this way, I don't like Billary, I think he was severely lacking in honesty, integrity and morality but I would be shocked if he intentionally harmed US intrests.

Where Obama is concerned I would not be suprised if he did do things to harm US intrests. He is the one that says the US should have their wealth redistributed to other nations. I think he actually would harm the US if he could. I don't think he would put the intrest of the United States above his own.

Big Orange Junky wrote:
He is the one that says the US should have their wealth redistributed to other nations.

I'm guessing you don't have a link handy for that claim.

And if you're referring to foreign aid then we'll have to scan backwards to George Wash- ah, screw it.

Why in the hell did they mail absentee requests to every fing voter? Just dumb and it was an R...

Ohio Voting Count 'Nightmare' Looms

Thursday, 01 Nov 2012 01:07 PM

With the presidential election expected to hinge on Ohio, the state’s former secretary of state, GOP stalwart Kenneth Blackwell, is warning that a little-known change in the Buckeye State’s absentee-ballot process could lead to a “nightmare scenario.”

And that scenario could force the entire country to wait 10 days after the election to find out who will be the next president of the United States. It’s a complicated situation, to say the least, but one that could have a far-reaching impact on the Nov. 6 election process.

For the first time in the key swing state’s history, Blackwell says, virtually all Ohio voters this year were mailed an application for an absentee ballot. In previous elections, most Ohio voters had to request an application for an absentee ballot to receive one.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ohio-p ... /id/462413

BTW I notice Oprama is in Wisc today, then Vegas, then CO.

Wisc and Vegas? Ending in Iowa on Monday?