The "Scandal" That Won't Go Away...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
erty -vs- Tyranny

CBS - Obama administration officials who were in key positions on Sept. 11, 2012, acknowledge that a range of mistakes were made the night of the attacks on the U.S. missions in Benghazi, and in messaging to Congress and the public in the aftermath.

The officials spoke to CBS News in a series of interviews and communications under the condition of anonymity so that they could be more frank in their assessments. They do not all agree on the list of mistakes and it's important to note that they universally claim that any errors or missteps did not cost lives and reflect "incompetence rather than malice or cover up." Nonetheless, in the eight months since the attacks, this is the most sweeping and detailed discussion by key players of what might have been done differently.

"We're portrayed by Republicans as either being lying or idiots," said one Obama administration official who was part of the Benghazi response. "It's actually closer to us being idiots."

The Obama administration's chief critics on Benghazi, such as Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., remain skeptical. They see a pattern, even a conspiracy, to deflect attention from the idea that four Americans had been killed by al Qaeda-linked attackers, on the president's watch. "There is no conclusion a reasonable person could reach other than that for a couple of weeks after the attack, [the Obama administration was] trying to push a narrative that was politically beneficial to the president's re-election," Graham told CBS News.

The list of mea culpas by Obama administration officials involved in the Benghazi response and aftermath include: standing down the counterterrorism Foreign Emergency Support Team, failing to convene the Counterterrorism Security Group, failing to release the disputed Benghazi "talking points" when Congress asked for them, and using the word "spontaneous" while avoiding the word "terrorism."

The Foreign Emergency Support Team known as "FEST" is described as "the US Government's only interagency, on-call, short-notice team poised to respond to terrorist incidents worldwide." It even boasts hostage-negotiating expertise. With U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens reported missing shortly after the Benghazi attacks began, Washington officials were operating under a possible hostage scenario at the outset. Yet deployment of the counterterrorism experts on the FEST was ruled out from the start. That decision became a source of great internal dissent and the cause of puzzlement to some outsiders.

Thursday, an administration official who was part of the Benghazi response told CBS News: "I wish we'd sent it."

The official said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's deputy, Patrick Kennedy, quickly dispensed with the idea. A senior State Department official Thursday told CBS News, "Under Secretary Kennedy is not in the decision chain on FEST deployment" but would not directly confirm whether Kennedy or somebody else dismissed the FEST.

Whoever made the decision, it came amid sharp disagreement over the FEST's true capabilities. Kennedy and others at the State Department view the team as one that primarily restores communications at besieged embassies. However, the FEST's own mission statement describes a seasoned team of counterterrorism professionals who can respond "quickly and effectively to terrorist attacks... providing the fastest assistance possible" including "hostage negotiating expertise" and "time-sensitive information and intelligence." In fact, FEST leader Mark Thompson says Benghazi was precisely the sort of crisis to which his team is trained to respond.

While it was the State Department that's said to have taken FEST off the table, the team is directed by the White House National Security Council. Those officials expressed the same limited view of FEST's capabilities when CBS News asked on Nov. 1, 2012, why FEST hadn't deployed. The officials argued that FEST teams were "used in the past to re-establish infrastructure, communications, etc. after a devastating attack...That wasn't the need here." {Read More}

Hm, is the controversy gaining steam? I report, you be the judge...

Via: Memeorandum


  1. RN: Hm, is the controversy gaining steam? I report, you be the judge...

    I judge no. The "scandal" is just about dead, IMO. As far as Obama goes, anyway. The real scandal may now spark some justified outrage... that being the GOP altering of the WH emails.

    RN via Will's blog: WD is humorous. Woof Woof..

    Huh? This comment is supposed to make sense? Not the first time you've posted this gibberish in response to a comment of mine or a comment about me. I'm guessing it's an insult of some kind having something to do with me using a picture of my dog as my avatar (but that's just a guess). Is RN a dog hater? Not sure why I should be offened in any case.

    Will (also via his blog): He's trying to suck me into an argument over at your site and I just can't do it (the damned brevity of life for one thing).

    Nope. I was aware you would probably ignore my comment. Just curious regarding the difference between the opinions of you and the Conservative you previously said you identified with (David Brooks). Life isn't too short to engage Shaw I guess. In any case, you thinking (or hoping) that Biden might come off the bench... it isn't going to happen. bush lied about WMD and illegally invaded two countries and he skated (and you defend him), while this Benghazi thing is mostly a fake scandal (and you're outraged)... further proof that this "moderate" claim of yours is mostly baloney... IMHO.

    1. Thanks for your opinion. We'll just have to wait and see. Me, I've stocked up on popcorn and crackerjacks. Going to enjoy the show.

      Now, on a different note. If you can try and stay on topic. I know it can be challenging at times but I have confidence in you.

    2. Anyway, Bush told the truth about WMD, and it was quite legal to retaliate against both countries. Dervish has no case. But yes he makes up crazy stuff like that and tosses it out there regardless of veracity just to stire controversy.

      As for the scandal, it is not fake. Dervish's judgement that it is is based entirely on partisanship, not reality. I.e. his side has no scandal, only his political opponents do. Les is to be commended for evaluating this scandal on its own merits, instead of judging it only on whether there is. D or R after a President's name.

      That Dervish actually says the Les defends Bush just shows he is typing without thinking. But he's new here, which might excuse him some for "voicing" such clueless assumptions.

  2. I every time emailed this weblog post page to all my associates,
    since if like to read it next my links will too.

    Also visit my web page :: black baby furniture sets

  3. RN: If you can try and stay on topic. I know it can be challenging at times but I have confidence in you.

    I addressed the topic. That I addressed other topics that you would rather I had not is not something you should have confidence that I won't do again. Are you threatening to delete or ban me if I say things "off topic" that you do not like? dmarks goes off topic with his comment, but I doubt he will receive any chastising.

    dmarks: ...bush told the truth about WMD, and it was quite legal to retaliate against both countries.

    There is a strong case with a lot of veracity to be made, but dmarks ignores it and tosses out crazy stuff he made up to defend bush because he has an "R" after his name. I have zero intent to "stir controversy", nor am I making any assumptions. I'm simply stating the facts. That bush lied about WMD is a fact. That the war in Afghanistan was illegal is a statement of fact, as is the statement that the war in Iraq was illegal. That is also a fact.

    dmarks: As for the scandal, it is not fake. Dervish's judgment that it is based entirely on partisanship, not reality.

    OK dmarks, I'll give you this one. The scandal is not completely fake, only mostly fake. The Obama administration probably knew the CIA/State talking points were inaccurate, but went with them for political reasons. That hardly means Obama lied, however, as no investigation had been done yet! If the CIA and State said the attack might be linked to the protests and video, and Obama made a political calculation to go with it... well, that's what politicians do. What exactly happened came out in short order as I'm sure they knew it would. BFD (or minor-FD at most) I say... and my assessment will be borne out by the fact that this scandal will shortly die (I predict). Does dmarks predict otherwise? Let me know what you predict and then we will see whose prediction is more accurate.

    And what about the scandal of the Repubs altering the WH emails? Clearly dmarks is ignoring them for partisan reasons. I admit there is a partisan component to my defense of Obama, but the facts are also on my side. The talking points were not revised 12 times. bush's wars were illegal. This is in stark contrast to dmarks attacks on Obama and defense of bush where he is forced to resort to distortions and lies to make his partisan cases.

    dmarks: That Dervish actually says that Les defends Bush just shows he is typing without thinking.

    Actually, it show that you are typing without thinking (or reading). My comment was directed at Will Hart, which is obvious due to me quoting him (from his blog) before saying WILL defends him. As for RN, he uses the right-wing distraction technique that anything bush did is irrelevant since he isn't president anymore. That too, I would call a defense of bush, as bush not being president anymore is no excuse for ignoring his crimes.

    1. 1) Whether or not your comment gets published or not will depend on two criteria of which I shall be the judge.

      They are: a) how far off topic your comment is and b) how absurd they are.

      2) I have chastised dmarks to use your terminology. So once again you're blowing smoke as usual.

      3) Afghanistan was justified, Iraq was not.

    2. Les: your opinions about Afghanistan and Iraq and justification are well thought out. Unlike WD, you have easily avoided basing your arguments on nonsense claims.

    3. WD: there have been no Bush crimes to ignore. Your fact-free claims of such are a perfect example of how you make up stuff and use false, slanderous accusations as a foundation for your arguments. As your foundation is thus very weak, your arguments fall over completely.

      Both Will and Les are not defenders of Bush, and have been very critical of him. It is also entirely illogical of you to accuse Les/RN of "defending" Bush when Les merely points out the fact that Bush has absolutely nothing to do with certain situations such as Benghazi.

  4. I doubt most people are paying any attention to this "scandal" at all. The GOP has constructed a narrative without any evidence at all. They didn't even come up with a alleged motive until recently. Besides, it appears they're just focusing on some Sunday morning talking points, making them just look petty and gossipy.This particular "scandal" may play well to their base (see dmarks above), but I seriously doubt it will spread any waves beyond them.

    The IRS affair is a little more troubling, but again, unless they have some evidence the WH was involved, I don't see the issue generating much attention from the broader public. If anything, people like me who are troubled by the aftermath of Citizens United would like to see a lot more scrutiny of 501(C)4's. The GOP may be digging itself a hole here, better off leaving it alone.

    Meanwhile, the military rape issue is being ignored by the GOP and it's television affiliate FOX News, but women do pay attention to these sorts of things.


    1. Jersey: do you even check stuff before you submit it? I looked for the military rape issue and found it used in the Fox News site, and they have also presented it as an hourly headline story. Your claim that Fox News ignores it does not match facts. Perhaps you goofed and were referring to one of the leftist media organs, such as CNN or NBC or CBS. Maybe they ignored it. I haven't checked. But I am not making easily disprovable claims about any of them.

      Thr aftermath of Citizens United, Jersey, is more open discource. More free speech. Only a fascist would be troubled by that. The IRS scandal proves we need much less scrutiny of 501(c)s. Come on Jersey, if you don't like what someone says, ignore it. Don't censor it.

    2. dmarks, you should legally change your name to Fox Republican. I've never in my life read anyone more partisan status quo than you. It's like you're not even a person, but rather some kind of recognition software that queues Republican talking points in response to anything and everything.


  5. RN, your post would have been balanced if you had also mentioned the fact that the GOP deliberately altered the emails from the WH to make it look like they were involved in a cover-up. That fact alone should send up red flags warning everyone that 90% of all the noise about it is partisan.

    The State Department and the CIA made some very bad errors in this tragedy, but it is also tragic that the GOP sees the deaths of 4 Americans as a way to advance their political agenda, which is to discredit everything and anything having to do with President Obama.

    Every administration in the history of this country has had to deal with tragedies and horrid events such as this. What makes this so stomach-turning is the circus the GOP is putting on. Believe me, the American people don't care about it as much as the GOP thinks it does, or as much as political bloggers do. Newt Gingrich has admitted that the Republicans overplayed the Clinton scandals and they paid dearly for it. They learned nothing from their behavior then and they'll pay for it again.

    As for GWB, there is no comparison between Iraq/Afghan War and this attack on the consulate in Benghazi. Every administration in our history has had to deal with horrendous events. Several attacks on consulates and embassies, killing 53 people, occurred during GWB's administration, and not one hearing was held to investigate the security failures of those attacks. There's nothing wrong with reminding people of that. It is instructive because it shows, again, that this is 90% political grandstanding by the GOP and it's consuming hatred for President Obama and 10% concern about security failures.

    And I don't think any of it is particularly entertaining or funny.

    1. My post is balanced, based on the news report I linked. I also knew you would be posting the dEmocratic party narrative. So, balance struck.

      I am chuckling over the dEms current over confidence. Thinking back on the alternating cycles of r and d overconfidence the ultimate results of such are always the same.

      I'm quite certain it is all being nicely orchestrated by the Oligarchs who are in actual political control and thus wield all the power.

    2. Perhaps one day the dEmocrats will overcome their GWB derangement syndrome. We all know he was a mediocre to poor statist President.

      As for the rEpublican party, well, relevancy is something it needs to rebuild. Still don't trust the dEmocratic party. Party politics and and powerlust are hallmarks of both in the present day environment.

      And the beat goes on...

    3. Perhaps one day when we are not dealing with Bush's fuck ups, we might be able to forget the worst president of the United States. Since we are deep into living the consequences of his lies, I doubt people will easily forget who brought us to this point.

    4. Anon: we are dealing with Obama's f*uck-ups now, including among many other things unemployment 20% worse than what Bush left him with. Whatever point Bush brought us to, Obama brought us to a worse point.

  6. The idea that the wars were illegal is a matter of imagination. WD has presented argumentts in an attempt to support this idea, but the arguments referred to events and situations that didn't match reality (I.e. WD made up stuff to make his case). The claims of illegality thus remain fever dreams, in an identical way that the claims Obama was born in Kenya are.

    And sorry, WD, lies are lies, no matter how you make up crazy stuff and call it "fact" and completely fail to support your case by linking to fringe editorials.

  7. "I also knew you would be posting the dEmocratic party narrative."

    Sorry, my friend, but it is not a Democratic Party "narrative." It is a FACT that GOP operatives deliberately lied about the WH emails to make it look like a cover-up. You seem blithely unconcerned about that.

    The GOP's lies have lost them their credibility on this. It is so obvious what they're up to, and, when all is said and done, their little theatrics will come back and bite them on their asparagasses.

    1. Well, narrative or no I am not blithely unconcerned with this wrinkle in the rEpublican narrative. But...

      Having said this you are right in a sense. I am not concerned really with the Circus Tent known as the Party of the Elephant in any real sense. As I've made fairly clear (I think) in my view the rEpubs lost credibility some time back. Since they have done little to nothing to regain credibility I really don't care

      Now, as more stuff surfaces, and if time allows I might report again. If so you be the judge. Even the rEpubs deserve a complete and accurate airing of their allegations, then as you say the public will decide. Hopefully it will be a thinking public.

  8. RN: I am chuckling over the dEms current over confidence. Thinking back on the alternating cycles...

    I am sure others are chuckling over the Repubs over confidence that they have much to gain by playing this game of holding hearing after hearing even though no great conspiracy has yet to be revealed. Anyway, there is no "over confidence" on the Dem side, so RN is chuckling only at something he imagines (much like dmarks and his imaginary "bush wars legal" baloney). Looking back on what past presidents have gotten away with, the Obama controversial do not come close, not by a mile.

    And why the hell is the "E" in "dems" capitalized? I probably shouldn't bother asking as RN most likely won't explain. Maybe he believes it "cool" to engage in odd behavior which leaves others thinking WTF?

    Also, in referring to "GWB derangement syndrome" RN confirms that he is a defender of the war criminal bush, something dmarks previously disputed. And bush's crimes have nothing to do with the crazies on his side who are convinced Obama was born in Kenya. He compares factual events (bush's illegal invasions) with imagined events (Obama born in Kenya) and tries to convince us both groups (people who believe the wars were illegal and people who believe Obama's birth certificate is fake) are comprised of crazies. It's the false analogy routine again, and it does not fly with people who examine the facts.

    First dmarks says I made it up then he refers to "fringe editorials". Which is it dmarks? Did I make it up or do my facts come from "fringe editorials"? dmarks can't even get his slanders straight. The "fringe" slander is quite hilarious coming from dmarks, given the fact that his belief that WMD was found in Iraq is a fringe one. Even bush disagreed with him. dmarks defends bush even when bush won't defend himself (admits he lied, in other words).

    dmarks: The aftermath of Citizens United... is more... free speech. Only a fascist would be troubled by that. The IRS scandal proves we need much less scrutiny of 501(c)s.

    Only a fascist would cheer the wealthy being allowed to purchase free speech and drown out the voices of the average citizens. The IRS scandal proves we need MORE scrutiny of 501(c)s, as politicking is something non-profits aren't supposed to be engaging in.

    1. 1) Why did you not ask about the capital E in rEpublican? Not curious about that? Ponder on WD.

      2) Your extreme partisanship is, to say the least amusing.

      3) I confirmed nothing with respect to GWB. However, to help you out. A) His campaign in Afghanistan was warranted, their were no war crimes, and he took his eye off the prime objective. Obama finished it. B) GWB was unjustified in the invasion of Iraq. It destabilized the region and ultimately played into the hands of the extremists. Their were no war crimes. But since you believe so perhaps you migjt want to revisit Vietnam and LBJ. Or you could do what reasonable people have done and move on.

    2. 4) I am chuckling at the dEmocratic party because, well, I'm amused at the whole damn waste of time. Same applies to the rEpublican party, which I have made clear has become essentially irrelevant. You made your point with respect to the post good for you.

      5) If your purpose for coming here and regurgitating the same bunk you did at Will's sight is to rekindle your old and worn out arguments please do not bother to waste your time by coming back.

      6) If you stay on topic, make even remotely reasonable arguments you will be posted. If on the other hand you engage in #5 activities as stated your comments will not be posted.

      7) Choice is yours... As site administrator all decisions are mine and are final.

    3. Yes, RN, we agree that Bush was correct on Afghanistan.

      WD's solution? To turn Obama to a tribunal made of fellow terrorists, who would have judged Osama bin Laden according to terrorists' interpretation of theology. Yes, his wonderful idea that secular courts are bad, and that kangaroo court made of religious extremists should be the top judicial authority on such matters.

    4. RN said: "2) Your extreme partisanship is, to say the least amusing."

      It is. I once pointed out a few statements made about Iraq being a danger and having WMD and all. I said that Bush said them. WD's knee-jerk thoughtless response was that they were all lies. The mention of Bush puts WD into quite a lather. He has even demanded several times that Bush be murdered (in punishment for the aforementioned imaginary war crimes); his obsession is so bad.

      I then pointed out that they were all made by Nancy Pelosi, and WD immediately made an about face and said they were true. The only difference being now he know that those quoted had a D after their name instead of an R.

      He's all about the party, and not about principle.

      Too bad it seems that WD is incapable of discussing the actual subject of the post without bringing in entirely unrelated whoppers.

      Back to the subject, Shaw might have some points about GOP deception on the emails from the White House. But, like you, Les, to me the party of those involved in this scandal or its investigation doesn't matter much.

    5. "The IRS scandal proves we need MORE scrutiny of 501(c)s, as [speaking out on political issues] is something non-profits aren't supposed to be engaging in."

      Why not? Are you so afraid of individuals speaking out on the most important issues of the day? Get rid of this silly restriction.

      Unlike you, I don't go into paranoid, conspiracy-minded authoritarian "crush them!" mode at the thought of people expressing themselves on very important issues.

    6. Dennis: I then pointed out that they were all made by Nancy Pelosi, and WD immediately made an about face and said they were true.

      I did not. I pointed out the DATE on which the statement was made. When Nancy Pelosi made those comments they were true. Then the IAEA inspectors got to work and forced Iraq to dismantle it's weapons programs. The DATE of the statement and it being true at the time has nothing to do with party loyalty, it has to do with reality.

      Dennis: Are you so afraid of individuals speaking out on the most important issues of the day? Get rid of this silly restriction.

      I'm not afraid at all. Also there is no "restriction" to get rid of. If non-profits want to speak out on political matters they should apply for the 527 designation. They want the 501c4 designation so they can hide their donors. Why are these donors so afraid of what the people might think in regards to who they're giving money for? This is a transparency issue. Everything of a political nature should be as transparent as possible. People trying to hide things are usually up to no good.

      Dennis: Unlike you, I don't go into paranoid, conspiracy-minded authoritarian "crush them!" mode...

      I've never gone into that "mode". The mode I follow is one of adhering to the Constitution, which does not give special group rights to corporations to crush us with their propaganda.

  9. Dmarks,

    Not to change the subject any but would you care to give some more details to this comment:

    "Anyway, Bush told the truth about WMD, and it was quite legal to retaliate against both countries."

    Forget about Afghanistan, there is no doubt that they were harboring Bin Laden and Al Qaeda and thus after 9/11 we were justified in our retaliation.

    But do detail "the truth" about WMD and what legal justification we had for attacking Iraq.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. Violating a no fly zones is not a good enough reason to invade a country. As you stated, Clinton's response was not to invade.
      Surprised you put so much interest/power in a UN action.
      Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds living in Iraq; years before 9/11, and America was well aware of those atrocities, yet did not respond at the time they happened.
      The "mushroom cloud" threat was a lie and a fear tactic on the American people, to get them to support Bush invading Iraq.
      The list is long, invading Iraq was a mistake, unnecessary, and harmful to America.

    3. "Violating a no fly zones is not a good enough reason to invade a country. As you stated, Clinton's response was not to invade."

      Clinton sent US military personnel into Iraq. Great lie to claim this is not an invasion.

      "The "mushroom cloud" threat was a lie"

      Not at all. It is a reasonable prediction given how Saddam Hussein had stockpiled WMD and was seeking to make more.

      "The list is long, invading Iraq was a mistake, unnecessary, and harmful to America."

      Perhaps. And Les and Will might argue so. But you based your argument on several flat-out falsehoods.

  10. Les/RN, I am actually curious about the capital E in rEpublican. I've seen you do this with other groups, and overlooked where it was explained.

    WD: The United States constitution protects the free speech rights of all, including the wealthy. This includes buying free speech. Newspaper publishers do this all the time, and have done so since the founding of this Republic. If you disagree with this, go ahead and amend the Constitution. In the mean time, take your megalomania and stuff it.

    And, sorry to say, there is no such thing as "drowning out". Nothing is drowned out. Besides, the Constitution does not have an asterisk after the First Amendment * = except when an ignorant person believes the undesired speech is drowning something out and must be silenced.

    As for WMD, I presented the latest proof. You turned around and lied that the WMD were not WMD. Come back when you have some credibility on this. You have none. I stick to field reports of what has been found "on the ground".

    As for slander, I have given none. You say things that are not true at all. I accurarely point this out. As I accurately point it out when you use as support, not facts, but left-fascist opinion pieces.

    The IRS scandal shows that we need much LESS scrutiny of 501(c)s.... hands off. If you don't like what someone says, ignore it.

    WD said: "....war criminal Bush". This is where WD starts to leave the realm of merely being uninformed and approaches that of being a dangerous nut. Despite the fact that there is no evidence of Bush war crimes, and even the actual authorities (ICC) have repeatedly ruled that there is no evidence (they have rejected over a hundred complaints by rabid Bush-hating cranks. Every single one of these complaints... none of which was valid at all.)


    Back to Les: Again, well stated. You disgree with Bush and his policies, but unlike WD, you aren't creating your own facts and running into lala land from assumptions based on things that never occured.

  11. dmarks, I believe I have answered the question as to the capital E in both dEmocratic and rEpublican. Bur it has been awhile and perhaps it was in response to Shaw, who I respect as well as like.

    But since you asked here it is... My disgust with both parties, their antics, and their inability to resolve the major issues of times. Rather than talking with and negotiating they talk at each other, more interested in winning and preserving power for the party. In all honesty I must say the rEpublicans are most quilty of this. However, dEmocrats IMNHO share some responsibility as well, albeit to a lesser degree.

  12. RN: If your purpose for coming here and regurgitating the same bunk you did at Will's sight is to rekindle your old and worn out arguments please do not bother to waste your time by coming back.

    I've never regurgitated any bunk at all, but I do believe I know what you are referring to... which would be truths that both you and dmarks do not like. In any case, that was not my intention at all. I simply asked what I thought was a reasonable question (directed at Will), which was why he is in such a tizzy about Obama "lying" about Benghazi but defends bush's lying about WMD? Then dmarks jumps in and regurgitates his same old bunk... which you claim to have chastised him for in the past, but which is highly dubious given your response this time (warning me that dmarks is to have the last word).

    OK then. I am actually tired of arguing with dmarks. So allow him to respond again and that will be the end of it (he can have the last word as you are demanding).

    BTW, "justified" and "warranted" both have meanings that don't equate to "legal". Are you using weasel words because you know bush's wars were illegal? I don't believe Afghanistan was "justified", "warranted" or legal.

    RN: But since you asked here it is...

    Here what is? Sounds like you are about to explain, but then you don't explain. Whatever. I'm not going to "ponder on". If you want to be weird for no reason go ahead.

    dmarks: the Constitution does not have an asterisk after the First Amendment...

    The First Amendment protects the free speech rights of INDIVIDUALS, not corporations. The way you twist it in suggesting free speech can be purchased is quite fascist, IMO. Newspaper publishers can do it because the press is SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the First Amendment. Why does dmarks believe the press is singled out if the singling out is completely meaningless?

    dmarks: As for WMD, I presented the latest proof. You turned around and lied that the WMD were not WMD.

    That is what you did. Lied about degraded munitions being WMD when that is not what bush was referring to at all, which is why he later admitted there was no WMD. bush knows degraded munitions aren't what he had hyped in the lead up to the illegal war, and he knew the public wouldn't buy it if he tried to say they were. Yet dmarks says both bush and I lied. Funny, dmarks says when bush said there were WMD he was telling the truth, but when he admitted there wasn't any then he lied. You think anyone except the fringe types believe that nonsense?

    dmarks: WD's solution? To turn Obama to a tribunal made of fellow terrorists...

    You meant Osama, right? Not Obama. Unless that was a Freudian slip. Meaning you actually believe the president is a terrorist. Anyway, I never suggested Osama be turned over to a tribunal of fellow terrorists.

    1. 1) I made no demands with respect to anyone having the last word. Can you read English Mr. Freud?

      2) You are one VERY weird dude WD. I spent enough time reading your bunk at Will's site to know you are either A) crazy or B) delusional.

      3 )What is dubious WD is most everything you type IMMHO.

      4) Don't waste your Freudian breath playing word games with me WDelusional. Sane people know Afghanistan was justified and Iraq was not. However, your allegations of war crimes is bunk. But I know you probably feel you're doing a great service of immense value for society.

      5) Guess you can't read WD. I directly answered dmarks. Oh, that's right, your word game salad again.

      6) Your ice is getting thin WD.

      Now, enjoy your Sunday and be measured in your resonse, if you feel the need to respond at all.

      Good Day...

  13. WD said: "The First Amendment protects the free speech rights of INDIVIDUALS, not corporations."

    Of course. ALL individuals, even if they happen to be associated with corporations. But you want these individuals silenced.

    But this is an improvement. Earlier you argued that free speech rights only applied to a narrowly-defined government-approved "press", and not individuals.

    "The way you twist it in suggesting free speech can be purchased is quite fascist, IMO."

    An opinion that is a lie is still a lie. As is yours.

    "Newspaper publishers can do it because the press is SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the First Amendment."

    Oh, there you go again. Limiting free speech to just the press.

    "Why does dmarks believe the press is singled out if the singling out is completely meaningless?"

    A fascist like you looks at the Bill of Rights and mis-reads it in such a fashion to see the mention of the press as an exclusion of all that is not the press. The rest of us, and civil libertarians see this as an emphasis, and not a limitation.

    "You meant Osama, right? Not Obama. Unless that was a Freudian slip."

    An honest typing mistake. No more a Freudian slip than when Ted Kennedy called President Obama "Osama Bin Laden"

    "Anyway, I never suggested Osama be turned over to a tribunal of fellow terrorists."

    You did, repeatedly.

    "defends bush's lying about WMD? Then dmarks jumps in and regurgitates his same old bunk"

    Excuse me for pointing out the truth when you lobbed a huge whopper into your "argument" yet again. Perhaps if you had not included an entirely false claim about Bush, I would not have "jumped in".

    " the lead up to the illegal war"

    There was no illegal war. This is why discussion of such matters is fruitless: you based things on false, dis-proven assumptions. You are referring to an event that did not happen.

    The partially degraded munitions were indeed WMD. It is a lie to say they are not.

  14. Harlan, I appreciate your commenting here. However, with respect to the comment regarding a post at Shaw's site it would be better if you phrased the comment in such a way as to create clarity and then link back to her post.

    I will be more than happy to post the comment if it meets blog policy.

    The Management
    Rational Nation USA

  15. RN: Now, enjoy your Sunday and be measured in your response, if you feel the need to respond at all.

    No, I won't bother with much of a response, given your "thin ice" warning that I must allow dmarks to have the last word (or last lies, as actually is the case with dmarks' comment). Also, the "word salad" comment I think applies to the supposed "direct answer" you gave dmarks which wasn't an answer at all. Capitalizing the "E" in dEmocrat and rEpublican illustrates your disgust with both parties? Sure it does.

    1. Willful Ignorance is indeed your calling card WD. Good bye

    2. You are just as I thought WDelusional. Please do yourself a favor and stop proving just how ignorant you really are.

  16. Rational:

    I thank you for your response, sir, and I was thanking your for this post.

    I attempted to say the same thing at Miss Shaw Kenaw's and was silenced. Not having a weblog, I am happy to see someone posting this without being smacked down by petty censorship. I also observe that unlike the huddled progressives, you are not afraid to entertain dissent.

    President Obama is incompetent, but he is a product of our political class. And I agree with you that both wings are broken. That is what separates us from the narrow-minded progressive. We can see the mote in our own eye.

    Libertarianism does not attract me, but at least libertarians are open-minded. Progressives are party indoctrinated.

    Thank you for your time,

    Harlan from LeftWatch (Somebody's gotta keep 'em honest!)

  17. WD's imagination is in overdrive. Hence his referal to "lies" I never made. When WD first showed up here, I suppose he could have been excused for some of the ignorant assumptions and outbursts. But by now, as Les says, ignorance is his calling card. Only a fool couldn't see Les's disgust with both parties. Only a fool could call Les any sort of fan of George W. Bush.

    Back to the subject....

  18. Goodbye, as in I'm banned? I said I'd let dmarks have the last lies. I guess that isn't good enough for RN. And I never said RN wasn't disgusted with both parties. I think that is pretty self evident. But he does defend bush because he knows that the Republicans are the only party that have a chance of doing anything even remotely like what he wants. And he does say he supported the Iraq war, so right there dmarks' fib that RN does not defend bush (in some capacity) is revealed.

    1. WDelusional, why don't you stop trying to be Freud? You haven't the intellect.

      You WDelusional DO NOT HAVE A FU**ING CLUE AS TO WHAT WANT. You just ain't smart enough to get much of anything correct.

      Now, do yourself a favor WDelusional and slink back into your self made euphoric and delusional exorbitance.

      Have a Fine Sunday Evening...

  19. Les, have you ever seen anything as silly as WD's assertion that the First Amendment only protects the freedom of expression of members of the press?? Oh wait. You run a political blog. I am sure you have seen many silly things.

    1. No. WDelusional keeps on a coming up with bunk though. I'm sure he'll provide the blogisphere with more bunk in the future.

  20. Dervish Sanders: "[RN] does say he supported the Iraq war" (Sun May 19, 01:15:00 PM EDT)

    Lets fact-check this, shall we? Earlier comments in this post from RN:

    "Afghanistan was justified, Iraq was not." (Sat May 18, 12:54:00 PM EDT)

    "GWB was unjustified in the invasion of Iraq" (Sat May 18, 09:29:00 PM EDT)

    "Sane people know Afghanistan was justified and Iraq was not." (Sun May 19, 07:38:00 AM EDT)

    RN could not have been more clear that he opposed the Iraq war. Not only three times here, but many times elsewhere. The only "fibs" involved in W-Dervish's above comments are the ones made by him. It is hard to be more dishonest than he is being: he read RN's clear claims that the Iraq war was unjustified.... all 3, and flipped RN's claim into one of support. I could show WD a dictionary, but he will keep lying. He makes up his own word meanings. And this time his dictionary of imagination says that if someone claims something is unjustified, it is support. And WD has yet to call me on a single fib, because I had made none here.

    I don't know, RN. Seems WD is getting nuttier and nuttier. You tell him he is on thin ice, and he responds with a lie-filled rant about how you support George W. Bush and the Iraq War.

    1. dmarks, WDelusional is simply engaging in throwing mud at the wall and hoping it sticks believing that nobody with the ability to think will come along to clean up after his doo doo trail.

      The dude is so enmeshed in the 1968 - 1969 flower child mentality he must be continuing to see gremlins everywhere.

      Or could it be drug induced euphoric flashbacks of himself masturbating over imagined diabolic conspiracies of the United States of America as it's rEpublican leadership diligently engages in perpetrating his imagined commission of WAR CRIMES. I wonder what WDelusional has to say about LBJ.

      WDelusional apparently thinks Afghanistan and Iraq are one in the same. He is obviously so deluded he can't distinguish the difference, hence his confusion with my clear and very concise statements. But then again for WDelusional facts are but a mere inconvenience.

      WDelusional definitely has a problem with grasping reality therefore his obsessive pursuit of attempting justifying his statements by using his very own delusional rational.

      I keep hoping WDelusional will take the hint and just slither away to whence he came. However, it is quite probably unlikely so ignoring him is the next course of action.

      The cellar must be a lonely place. Therefore we must have understanding for WDelusional.

    2. RN said: "I wonder what WDelusional has to say about LBJ."

      I'm pretty sure his meltdown over the LBJ issue got him booted out of Will's blog. But I could be wrong and it was something else. As for my booting him out, it was a combination of him sending me 30+ comments in which he talked about his penis, along with mindless "you suck" profanity-laced comments.

    3. Actually it was about the study that the Tax Policy Center did on Romney. I pointed out to him that the AEI had claimed that the TPC had made certain assumptions that Governor Romney never himself had made. I referenced the AEI piece/quoted from it and of course he didn't believe it and subsequently challenged me to find the assumptions in the TPC study itself. I did and instead of accepting that I and the AEI were right, he told a bald-faced lie and said that he had never said that the TPC didn't make assumptions. The whole episode was the most flagrant example of intellectual dishonesty that I had ever witnessed and I just could not proceed any further with the guy.

  21. RN said: "dmarks, WDelusional is simply engaging in throwing mud at the wall"

    More like he is throwing it while facing into a very strong wind. And that's worse than mud he is flinging.

  22. Welcome what used to be my world, Les. Exhausting, isn't it?

    1. Yeah. Difference being I haven't the patience you do for the bulls*it.

  23. Jersey was even being a little WD-ish here, with his "opposites" claim that Fox News was ignoring the military rape scandal. When in fact it's all over the place there.

  24. If Bush is a war criminal and Obama is doing 90% of what Bush was doing (and in some instances more), is Mr. Obama then 90% of a war criminal?

  25. Jersey's accusation of talking points is simply unintellectual and untrue. It is a cheap way for him to dismiss facts he doesn't agree with. The NPR is my main news source proves him a liar about "talking points".

    And WD's claim that First Amendment freedoms are only allowed for members of a narrowly defined government-approved press is one of the stupidest things I've seen on blogs in a while. A product of a fearful paranoid fascist mindset of someone who believes free speech is a privilege only to be allowed grudgingly by those who rule. In this view WD stands way out in left field holding hands with Kim Jon Un.... and all civil libertarians are playing on the opposing team.


Post a Comment

RN USA is a No Judgement Zone (to steal from Planet Fitness), so please, No Judgement of others. We reserve the right to delete any such comment immediately upon detection.

All views are welcome. As long as the comment is on topic and respectful of others.

Top Posts

Looking To 2016...

Our Biggest Creditor {China} Tells Us "The good old days of borrowing are over"