CBS reports Cliff's Notes don't match exact text from books.
SCANDAL!
Nice try, but no.
There is a substantial difference between a summary and a quotation. And even an inaccurate summary would in fact be news.
On the bright side, if you want to enjoy baseless cries of scandal, there is plenty to go around...
"Whose enemies list would you rather be on Nixon or Obama? Nixon’s political enemies list which began at a list of a modest 20 people expanded to nearly 600 and was designed to be used in conjunction with IRS Audits of politically unacceptable thinking (sound familiar??) but in reality the IRS hammer was rarely if ever implemented. The Nixon crew was unable to organize reprisals against the vast majority of people on the list, leading those on the list to rank it not as punishment but as a cool social status. Gonzo journalist Hunter S. Thompson was indignant that he was not on the list, “I would almost have preferred a vindictive tax audit to that kind of crippling exclusion.”
The folks on Obama’s enemies list are not saying that, in fact they are not saying anything because most of them are dead."
Benghazi, Petraeus, and the CIA
I like the end:
"In my book, Global NATO and the Catastrophic Failure in Libya, I have challenged this verdict that the intervention did more good than harm. Some other supporters of the Libya intervention are now calculating the costs as embassies rush to leave the people to the mercy of the militias. According to the British newspaper the Guardian, “the fear of further violence has led to the British and US embassies withdrawing some staff, the European Union closing its mission in Tripoli and BP announcing it was pulling out non-essential staff.” France had already scaled back its operations after a military attack on its mission in Tripoli. What Daryl Issa and the forces calling the issues of Benghazi a cover-up are refusing to deal with is the deceptions and lies that led to the catastrophic situation in Libya and North Africa today."
In your face, supporters of humanitarian interventionism.
Definitely rather be on Nixons hit list. Predator drones I can't deal with. Sever the head or remove the brain? I'm your guy.
The folks on Obama’s enemies list are not saying that, in fact they are not saying anything because most of them are dead.
Are you suggesting that Obama has been executing his political rivals?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The press is having a field day calling these things white house scandals.
IRS: Not a scandal really. The white house had nothing to do with it. It was a couple of office workers who were trying to cut their workload by getting creative in search terms. It amounted to profiling. So, how do you feel about profiling now?
Benghazi: I fail to understand what they are trying to find. So we get things wrong occasionally? The IRS does not have a clairvoyants on staff? I just don't get it.
AP News: Remember when you had a problem with Bradley Manning leaking information? Well, now you see the other end. What do you think now?
One amusing thing about the AP scandal. Back when the leak occured Republicans were screaming for an investigation. Now they're screaming about the investigation.
lol...so true.
The folks on Obama’s enemies list are not saying that, in fact they are not saying anything because most of them are dead.Are you suggesting that Obama has been executing his political rivals?
No, that would be Jonathan Franklin. In case you didn't know, quotation marks (" ") indicate that somebody other than the writer is speaking.
No, that would be Jonathan Franklin. In case you didn't know, quotation marks (" ") indicate that somebody other than the writer is speaking.The folks on Obama’s enemies list are not saying that, in fact they are not saying anything because most of them are dead.Are you suggesting that Obama has been executing his political rivals?
Where's stuffy grammarian when you need him. Or stuffy...punctuarian?
The line Bugleyman quoted only had a close quotes at the end, so I can understand why he thought that was you saying it, not JF.
Where's stuffy grammarian when you need him. Or stuffy...punctuarian?
The line Bugleyman quoted only had a close quotes at the end, so I can understand why he thought that was you saying it, not JF.
I'm Stuffy Grammarian-proof. Whenever challenged on, say, incorrect spelling, or improper quotation mark usage (look, I figured I'd throw 'em around the cut-and-paste block under the link and it would be obvious, okay?), I can hide behind either a) inebriation; or, b) an unfamiliarity with English punctuation rules. We don't use 'em in Gobonics.
Even our scandals have scandals!
No, that would be Jonathan Franklin. In case you didn't know, quotation marks (" ") indicate that somebody other than the writer is speaking.
Only when used in pairs...but then again, you are a goblin, after all. Also, since we're being pedantic, no one was "speaking." Oh hey, look -- quotation marks used correctly.
Like I said, Gobonics.
Not sure where this should go, but
Only when used in pairs...but then again, you are a goblin, after all. Also, since we're being pedantic, no one was "speaking." Oh hey, look -- quotation marks used correctly.
In hindsight, that was a bit of an overreaction. My bad.
|
Personally, I find it incredibly disappointing how Congressional Republicans keep talking about Benghazi like it is one person's fault - either Obama or Hillary.
The reality is that decisions were made based on rather serious constraints - Libya forbade the use of private military contractors, so either Libyans or US Marines had to be used... for cost purposes and because of increased budget constraints, a minimal Libyan security presence was in place at the consulate... Ambassador Stevens wanted to be accessible and able to move around the country, and 11 years from 9/11 thought that the anniversary wouldn't be a cause for undue alarm....
They keep fishing in an empty pond... as a Republican, this just makes me sad and frustrated.
Personally, I find it incredibly disappointing how Congressional Republicans keep talking about Benghazi like it is one person's fault - either Obama or Hillary.
The reality is that decisions were made based on rather serious constraints - Libya forbade the use of private military contractors, so either Libyans or US Marines had to be used... for cost purposes and because of increased budget constraints, a minimal Libyan security presence was in place at the consulate... Ambassador Stevens wanted to be accessible and able to move around the country, and 11 years from 9/11 thought that the anniversary wouldn't be a cause for undue alarm....
They keep fishing in an empty pond... as a Republican, this just makes me sad and frustrated.
Doesn't matter if you can fish or not when you seem to have the ability to convince people that worm is good eatin'
Personally, I find it incredibly disappointing how Congressional Republicans keep talking about Benghazi like it is one person's fault - either Obama or Hillary.
The reality is that decisions were made based on rather serious constraints - Libya forbade the use of private military contractors, so either Libyans or US Marines had to be used... for cost purposes and because of increased budget constraints, a minimal Libyan security presence was in place at the consulate... Ambassador Stevens wanted to be accessible and able to move around the country, and 11 years from 9/11 thought that the anniversary wouldn't be a cause for undue alarm....
They keep fishing in an empty pond... as a Republican, this just makes me sad and frustrated.
interesting perspective.
Let's ask the NYT's legal counsel during the Pentagon Papers!
And the Paypal 14 case seems to be coming to a close...
...? What does this have to do with the topic? Put it in government folly.
And the Paypal 14 case seems to be coming to a close......? What does this have to do with the topic? Put it in government folly.
The topic: AP press scandal -- one in a long line of sketchy Obama moves against whistleblowers and leaks, perhaps best exmplified by the persecution of Bradley Manning, Julian Assange and Wikileaks -- Paypal 14 on charges for doing internet-y stuff against Paypal in solidarity with Wikileaks.
I mean, jeez, it's not entirely off-topic. Did you know that that case was still in court? I didn't.
It's a silly comparison. The two cases are so completely different it doesn't even make sense.Let's ask the NYT's legal counsel during the Pentagon Papers!
The article does discuss the AP case, of course, but he's actually comparing Wikileaks to the Pentagon Papers with the Nixon-Obama comparison.
And the Paypal 14 case seems to be coming to a close......? What does this have to do with the topic? Put it in government folly.The topic: AP press scandal -- one in a long line of sketchy Obama moves against whistleblowers and leaks, perhaps best exmplified by the persecution of Bradley Manning, Julian Assange and Wikileaks -- Paypal 14 on charges for doing internet-y stuff against Paypal in solidarity with Wikileaks.
I mean, jeez, it's not entirely off-topic. Did you know that that case was still in court? I didn't.
I think you got on the 4:15 to Conspiracy Land, but okay.
I mean, jeez, it's not entirely off-topic. Did you know that that case was still in court? I didn't.
Based on the descriptions of some of the defendants' statements and attitudes, I'm not sure if all of them are aware it is still ongoing (or aware of much anything). Probably explains why they are in the position they are.
Except that the GOP are so completely sealed in their bubble that they would never have any notion that it might backfire. They're gonzo. I'll be willing to bet someone will at least make a motion before the year is out. Probably a teabagger.Impeachment hearings before the end of the term.I am not so sure about that.
If the GOP's attempt to impeach is seen by the public as political, then it will likely backfire on them.
This would be true even if there is substance to the charges - a.k.a.: Bill Clinton.
Kinda like Dennis Kucinich did with Bush in 2008? Or John Conyers did in 2005? Or like the New Mexico Democratic Party put a plank in their platform demanding Bush's impeachment in 2006? Or like the Vermont Democratic Committee voted to call for in 2007? Or like the Vermont legislature voted on in 2008? Or like the New Hampshire legislature also voted on in 2008? The point is there was not a whole lot of faux outrage over people talking about or drafting articles of impeachment when it was Bush in office. And honestly, No smart Republican would vote to support articles of impeachment against Pres. Obama, because Pres. Biden would be an even bigger train wreck.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But I wouldn't be at all surprised if the House voted on and even passed articles of impeachment, if they can get any traction with any of these charges. And not just the stupid ones. It's a political calculation. If they did hold such a vote, many Republicans who voted against it would face primary challengers attacking them for it. There's been so much energy invested in painting Obama as illegitimate, corrupt and un-American that a good chunk of the Base wouldn't accept anything else.
Exactly. Many people are far too invested in Obama being a train wreck of a president -- if not an out-right traitor -- that failing to vote for impeachment would essentially be a resignation.
If Obama left office tomorrow, I think his legacy would be a mixed bag, probably putting him somewhere in the forgettable middle of the pack as presidents go. Hell, he'd probably fare better than Carter simply for having gotten a 2nd term. To me he'd be most memorable for (1) being black, and (2) failing to live up to expectations (though in fairness, could anyone)?
I think you got on the 4:15 to Conspiracy Land, but okay.And the Paypal 14 case seems to be coming to a close......? What does this have to do with the topic? Put it in government folly.The topic: AP press scandal -- one in a long line of sketchy Obama moves against whistleblowers and leaks, perhaps best exmplified by the persecution of Bradley Manning, Julian Assange and Wikileaks -- Paypal 14 on charges for doing internet-y stuff against Paypal in solidarity with Wikileaks.
I mean, jeez, it's not entirely off-topic. Did you know that that case was still in court? I didn't.
He mentioned three cases, all related in some way to the 'press freedom' theme (AP, WL, Paypal4). Where is the "conspiracy"?
Yeah! Comrade Cardozo gets it!
[Rewards Comrade Cardozo with a puff off the Doodlebug doob]
Paypal seems a bit far fetched, but may be I'm not getting something.
Paypal seems a bit far fetched, but may be I'm not getting something.
I guess what you're not getting is that just because I link something doesn't mean I think it's the same thing. Sometimes, I am just flipping through the internet and I find articles and I think, "Ooh!, I wonder if anyone on Paizo's seen this?"
So, we're talking about the AP scandal and Wikileaks obviously comes up, and I'm flipping through the internet and I find an article on the Paypal 14 and I think to myself, "Hmmm, I remember that, I wonder if anyone else on Paizo's seen that?" and I link it.
No conspiracy needed.
Btw, I have no opinion on what the Paypal 14 did or are alleged to have done because I don't understand what they did or are alleged to have done. I'll let the IT nerds duke that one out.