patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,206,093 comments by 14,330 users - askmeaboutthesaltporkcure, Ceffer, desertguy, GNL, The_Deplorable online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 25 - 48 of 48 Search these comments
HydroCabron
2014 May 7, 3:09am
It will bring into question anything Hillary says about everything.
The trust component of the democratic candidate will be shredded like Kraft non-fat cheddar cheese.
That must be some refreshing, flavorsome Kool Aid!
Given the sheer volume and magnitude of Hillary's lies in the past, and on subjects far more weighty than this - I don't see how this can make any difference. The public already knows who she is - they'll either ignore the existing stench, or bend over and puke on the floor.
Benghazi is like a tiny extra microbe on a bloated, maggot-laced corpse.
Such brainwashing. How does Fox News do it?
Y
2014 May 7, 3:32am
it's not faux news....this.
http://www.amazon.com/TrollMaster-Throttle-Accurate-Possible-TM212DPRO2/dp/B001PR2JZ6
Such brainwashing. How does Fox News do it?
Such brainwashing. How does Fox News do it?
Irrelevant.
A major, provable, in your face lie will be front and center come 2016....
It will bring into question anything Hillary says about everything.
The trust component of the democratic candidate will be shredded like Kraft non-fat cheddar cheese.
Yea right. The attention span of the average voter is about as long as it takes light to cross the street. Roughly 99% will say "what's that" if you say bengazi next year. Hope springs eternal though.
Y
2014 May 7, 3:55am
Unless it's kept in their face non-stop 24-7 for the next two years until they can recited it shot by shot.
bob2356 says
Roughly 99% will say "what's that" if you say bengazi next year.
marcus
2014 May 7, 3:58am
Essentially, the CIA was organizing weapons transfers to jihaddists/Al Qaeda in Syria. Stevens got hold of this and was eliminated to prevent him from leaking the story.
Whether it was this or some other combination of things that most of us don't have security clearance to know about, the right wing wants to blame the administration and the state department for not being transparent enough in days right after the attacks.
The idea that they would speculate that the terrorist attack had something to do with that anti Islam movie, when in fact it was terrorism motivated by other specific reasons (perhaps the usual) is so off the charts scandalous. My god, what is this country coming to ? It was so obvious to everyone a couple days after it happened that the real reason terrorists did it was because Obama is an ineffective President.
There's no way that benghazi would have affected the election. Administration already had sufficient national security card equity from elimination of bin laden to squander it via benghazi so the rep idea to make it look like dems were weak on national security would not have worked. Additionally if reps were to take it too far they would expose themselves from counterattacks about iraq campaign pretenses. Also, 538 forecast showed Barack in command since at least june and romney's 47% comments that were leaked in september did not help whatsoever to narrow the lead.
Vicente
2014 May 7, 12:55pm
Saint Reagan can do no wrong. And anything he said or did, we can interpret it and remember the parts we like, and forget the rest.
Saint Reagan can do no wrong. And anything he said or did, we can interpret it and remember the parts we like, and forget the rest.
There's a quite a bit of revisionist history on both sides regarding Reagan but the people at the time of his presidency loved him, that cannot be denied. The fact that he grabbed 49 of 50 states in his reelection, plus a record number of the opposition party's voting base can only be looked upon with envy by Clinton, Bush and Obama.
HydroCabron
2014 May 7, 10:40pm
Possibly the greatest man who ever lived, and just maybe the Second Incarnation of the Christ Jesus.
Only in 100,000 years will the true extent of Reagan's contributions to mankind be understood.
FuckTheMainstreamMedia
2014 May 8, 2:28am
Saint Reagan can do no wrong. And anything he said or did, we can interpret it and remember the parts we like, and forget the rest.
More left wing deflection 101.
My new question is does Cabronsito get his version of the news by attaching a hose to Rachel maddows rectum and sucking like he's syphoning gas?
Vicente
2014 May 8, 3:24am
There's a quite a bit of revisionist history on both sides regarding Reagan
Fact: Reagan had numerous terrorist incidents occur on his watch
non-GOP: Reagan had numerous terrorist incidents occur on his watch
GOP: Saint Reagan uhh... BENGHAZI!
It is clear who is the revisionist and who isn't. Pointing out facts is not revisionism.
HydroCabron
2014 May 8, 3:38am
At least GW Bush had no attacks on American soil during his presidency.
Y
2014 May 8, 4:36am
You are quite correct.
The 'attack' phase of 911 occurred while the terrorists were airborne.
In US airspace, but not on US soil.
And boarding the planes was not the "attack" phase.
At least GW Bush had no attacks on American soil during his presidency.
HydroCabron
2014 May 8, 4:38am
You are quite correct.
The 'attack' phase of 911 occurred while the terrorists were airborne.
In US airspace, but not on US soil.
And boarding the planes was not the "attack" phase.
AND the Pentagon and the WTC float on a cushion of air!
Checkmate, dirty li(e)berals!
Y
2014 May 8, 6:46am
Irrelevant.
The attack took place in the air, with the pilots/copilots attacked by the saudis.
Flying into the twin towers never occurred. The buildings were detonated below ground by the Yinons.
AND the Pentagon and the WTC float on a cushion of air!
Checkmate, dirty li(e)berals!
Some dont recall well how Regan went after Terrorist even bombing Libya a base of world terror network..not to mention going after the terrorist while in flight...
http://articles.latimes.com/1985-10-11/news/mn-17022_1_italian-troops
U.S. Jets Intercept Plane With Ship Hijackers; All 4 Seized : Italy Holds Terrorists at Base in Sicily
October 11, 1985|JACK NELSON | Times Washington Bureau Chief
Email
Share
WASHINGTON — In a stunning turn of events in the night skies over the Mediterranean late Thursday, U.S. Navy F-14 fighters intercepted an Egyptian airliner carrying the four Palestinian terrorists who hijacked an Italian cruise liner and murdered an elderly American tourist, then forced the plane to fly to a U.S. naval base in Sicily, the White House announced.
There, the terrorists were surrounded by a combined force of U.S. and Italian troops and taken into custody by Italian authorities for trial in Italy or possible extradition to the United States.
"This action affirms our determination to see that terrorists are apprehended, prosecuted and punished," White House spokesman Larry Speakes declared in releasing details of the dramatic episode.
"This operation was conducted without firing a shot," he noted, adding that President Reagan--who had approved the bold maneuver step by step throughout the day Thursday--was "extremely pleased with the successful mission."
"We have been assured by the government of Italy that the terrorists will be subject to full due process of law," Speakes said. "For our part, we intend to pursue prompt extradition to the United States of those involved in the crime.
FuckTheMainstreamMedia
2014 May 12, 3:12pm
Lol @ disliking an actual on point, on topic, news article from a left leaning source.
All Mr Wong was trying to do is counter Maddowspeak.
lostand confused
2014 May 12, 10:19pm
I just don't get the obsession with Benghazi . Maybe just something to stir up the masses, like abortion and gay marriage. There are far more dangerous things that Obama is doing- NSA, the giant TPP free trade agreement being negotiated in secret. Oh wait there is bipartisan support for both!!
Sometimes I wonder if politicians of both parties meet and chuckle at the stupid masses and how easy they are to manipulate. Republicans: Ha, we have it so easy-Benghazi, Benghazi, abortion, family values.. Democrats: Feminism, feminism, throw all men in jail and grab heir money and make men as beasts of burden .
HydroCabron
2014 May 12, 10:57pm
Obamacare is polling too well for the moment, and since the GOP has nothing, they switched back to Benghazi as the best of several mediocre choices.
Also, Benghazi is something they're ashamed of, because they attempted to use an ambassador's death for political gain. They need to pretend it was truly an epic outrage because of what the alternative implies about them.
FortWayne
2014 May 13, 2:01am
Also, Benghazi is something they're ashamed of, because they attempted to use an ambassador's death for political gain. They need to pretend it was truly an epic outrage because of what the alternative implies about them.
All while Obama "kills people based on meta data.", and liberals on this site have no problem with it.
HydroCabron
2014 May 13, 2:14am
All while Obama "kills people based on meta data.", and liberals on this site have no problem with it.
Relevance?
As long as you refrain from saying that Obama apologizes for America and shows weakness to our enemies, or I'm more than happy with your objections to Obama's drone warfare.
FortWayne
2014 May 13, 2:40am
Relevance?
As long as you refrain from saying that Obama apologizes for America and shows weakness to our enemies, or I'm more than happy with your objections to Obama's drone warfare.
You have yourself a deal.
I just don't get the obsession with Benghazi .
Obama's appeasement of Muslim world has failed. Govts in UK, Germany, and the rest of Europe get it... he doesnt. So he covers it up and blames
the attack on a video, which it wasnt.
Are you going to say it was the fault of a video which triggered the attack ?
"Fox News Channel’s Charles Krauthammer had a different reaction: “We now have the smoking document, which is the White House saying, ‘We’re pushing the video because we don’t want to blame it on the failure of our policies.’â€
That’s as spot-on as it gets. As Krauthammer notes, it was the Obama gang who politicized Benghazi, lying and stonewalling and covering up in order to protect the president in an election season.
The Obama White House’s chief concern about the Benghazi attack was making sure that President Obama looked good.
These documents undermine the Obama administration’s narrative that it thought the Benghazi attack had something to do with protests or an Internet video. Given the explosive material in these documents, it is no surprise that we had to go to federal court to pry them loose from the Obama State Department.
There are far more dangerous things that Obama is doing- NSA,
Hardly... Spying on foreigners is hardly dangerous.
« First « Previous Comments 25 - 48 of 48 Search these comments
Ever since militant jihadists killed four Americans, including the U.S. Ambassador, in an attack on a U.S. diplomatic outpost in that remote Libyan town two years ago, House Republicans have kept up a drumbeat of insinuation. They have already devoted thirteen hearings, twenty-five thousand pages of documents, and fifty briefings to the topic, which have turned up nothing unexpected.
Around dawn on October 23, 1983, I was in Beirut, Lebanon, when a suicide bomber drove a truck laden with the equivalent of twenty-one thousand pounds of TNT into the heart of a U.S. Marine compound, killing two hundred and forty-one servicemen. The U.S. military command, which regarded the Marines’ presence as a non-combative, “peace-keeping mission,†had left a vehicle gate wide open, and ordered the sentries to keep their weapons unloaded. The only real resistance the suicide bomber had encountered was a scrim of concertina wire.
Six months earlier, militants had bombed the U.S. embassy in Beirut, too, killing sixty-three more people, including seventeen Americans. Among the dead were seven C.I.A. officers, including the agency’s top analyst in the Middle East, an immensely valuable intelligence asset, and the Beirut station chief.
There were more than enough opportunities to lay blame for the horrific losses at high U.S. officials’ feet. But unlike today’s Congress, congressmen did not talk of impeaching Ronald Reagan, who was then President, nor were any subpoenas sent to cabinet members. This was true even though then, as now, the opposition party controlled the majority in the House. Tip O’Neill, the Democratic Speaker of the House, was no pushover. He, like today’s opposition leaders in the House, demanded an investigation—but a real one, and only one. Instead of playing it for political points, a House committee undertook a serious investigation into what went wrong at the barracks in Beirut. Two months later, it issued a report finding “very serious errors in judgment†by officers on the ground, as well as responsibility up through the military chain of command, and called for better security measures against terrorism in U.S. government installations throughout the world.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2014/05/ronald-reagans-benghazi.html#entry-more
#politics