View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

 

Kevin Buck: Obama derangement syndrome

Posted: February 11, 2014 2:00 a.m.
Updated: February 11, 2014 2:00 a.m.
 

Is anyone else tired of the barrage of ad hominem attacks, conspiracy theories, ginned-up scandals and false equivalencies coming from the right side of the political spectrum?

The destruction of President Obama’s presidency has taken on obsessive importance for a small but powerful political constituency, sometimes lumped under the brand name of “tea party.”

Email has made it especially easy for anybody to disseminate the latest Fox News outrage or forward conspiracy theories that somehow make it past the tinfoil hats and into the ether of cyberspace.

However, it is not reciprocal. George W. Bush was certainly a horrible president and he was rightly assailed from the left for lying us into a war with Iraq, paying for it with a Chinese credit card, approving torture as policy, turning a budget surplus into record deficits and destroying the economy, among other dubious achievements.

However, I do not recall a steady stream of false accusations, calls for impeachment, congressional investigations into trumped-up scandals or pure hatred churned out daily by liberal blogs or media opinion pieces and forwarded in endless email chains.

The truth was bad enough.

President Obama was attacked by the far right before he took his first oath of office. It all started with the idiocy of the Birther movement, a conspiracy theory that is still being pushed today, years after definitive proof was provided by the State of Hawaii, proof that was never even needed, as the president’s mother was an American citizen.

The irony that tea party heartthrob and Senator Ted Cruz was born in a foreign nation and still holds Canadian citizenship is lost on Birther dead-enders.

The smears are endless. Republicans, including powerful committee chairmen in the House of Representatives, keep throwing scandals against the wall, yet so far nothing has stuck.

Try as they might, they can’t find a high crime or misdemeanor to pin on the president and save their political party.

Not that they are giving up. We will be subjected to rants about the IRS, NSA, DOJ for a long time to come. Obama Derangement Syndrome means that if they cannot destroy his presidency, they will move on to destroy his legacy.

First and foremost in Republican scandal mongering is the terrorist attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Just the word “Benghazi” can send a conservative into a rage because they are sure the president must have done something wrong, but just what still cannot be articulated, which is a big problem for them.

The gist seems to be that Susan Rice, using CIA-provided talking points, initially blamed an anti-Muslim video for the attack instead of calling it a terrorist plot, which is not an impeachable offense.

There are also mythical Marines, gunships and Navy planes that could have saved the day, but those fantasy scenarios have long been debunked.

Benghazi was a tragedy, nobody disputes that, just as the 12 terrorist attacks on U.S. embassies that occurred on Dubya’s watch were tragedies or the 241 murdered Marines in Beirut, Lebanon, when Ronald Reagan was president was a tragedy.

Does anybody recall a single Republican calling for Reagan or George W. Bush’s impeachment?

This outrage is not about Benghazi and a murdered ambassador; it is pure politics, nothing more.
Benghazi is also a political twofer for Republicans because it may be their only hope of derailing the Hillary Clinton steamroller to the White House in 2016.

Republicans anxious to pin something on President Obama in the next three years need to step back and look at what real presidential scandals look like.

Richard Nixon and his band of crooks perpetrated the Watergate burglary and subsequent White House cover-up and destroyed his presidency.

Ronald Reagan’s administration secretly sold arms to a terrorist nation and sent the profits to terrorists in Nicaragua during the Iran-Contra scandal. He was saved from ignominy only by timely pardons from George Bush The Elder.

The current and former Republican governors of New Jersey and Virginia are embroiled in real, live scandals today that are destroying real lives.

Manufactured outrage may be a go to political weapon for Republicans, but it is ineffective in the long run if there is no there there.

Find something real and then we’ll talk.

Kevin Buck is a Santa Clarita resident. “Democratic Voices” runs Tuesdays and rotates among several SCV Democrats.

 

Comments

ricketzz: Posted: February 11, 2014 5:51 a.m.

Both parties are worthless and Unamerican. The Founders warned us against parties.

Between the Theocrats and the Corporatists, a normal person gets lost in the monkey-chatter. This is why it will never work.

You can't govern 300,000,000 people without Totalitarian means, period. Not a population this clueless and confused by wall-to-wall propaganda. They are blissfully unaware and will not respond until shaken to their foundations by a massive existential crisis. Like 9-11, but scarier.


chico: Posted: February 11, 2014 6:47 a.m.

Call me schadenfreude, but columns like this make me feel like Democrats deserve everything they get come November.


chico: Posted: February 11, 2014 6:56 a.m.

And another thing, nobody needs to 'pin' anything to Obama. He wont be up for election again.
--edited.


BrianBaker: Posted: February 11, 2014 7:11 a.m.

Buck (re Bush): "However, I do not recall a steady stream of false accusations, calls for impeachment, congressional investigations into trumped-up scandals or pure hatred churned out daily by liberal blogs or media opinion pieces and forwarded in endless email chains."

Then you've got the worst case of amnesia in history, bud.


BrianBaker: Posted: February 11, 2014 7:23 a.m.

Buck: "Just the word 'Benghazi' can send a conservative into a rage because they are sure the president must have done something wrong, but just what still cannot be articulated, which is a big problem for them."

To this very day we still don't know where either Obama or Clinton were that night, or what they were doing when that "3 AM phone call" came.

To this very day, no one has been "brought to justice" as was promised following the attack.

To this very day we keep getting a complete stonewall regarding every aspect of that attack.

Why is that, Buck, if they have nothing to hide?

Hmmmmm...?


philellis: Posted: February 11, 2014 8:21 a.m.

Is anyone else tired of the barrage of ad hominem attacks, conspiracy theories, ginned-up scandals and false equivalencies coming from the right side of the political spectrum?

No, but I am getting tired of being called a racist for not liking what Obama is doing


therightstuff: Posted: February 11, 2014 8:30 a.m.

"""This outrage is not about Benghazi and a murdered ambassador; it is pure politics, nothing more."""

Exactly right, Mr. Buck. Your president and his administration's handling of Benghazi was 100% about politics and here's the proof:

FACT: As recently as Super Bowl Sunday, your president confirmed that he KNEW Benghazi was a terrorist attack within 24 hours. Here are the deliberate and repeated lies your president and his administration told about the terrorist attack that killed four Americans:

ONE DAY LATER...Clinton states, "Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet."

THREE DAYS LATER..."Press Secretary Carney was asked about a report suggesting Benghazi was a terrorist attack and responded, "I have seen that report, and the story is absolutely wrong. We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent. That report is false."

FIVE DAYS LATER...Ambassador Rice specifically tells the American people it was NOT a terrorist attack but a spontaneous reaction to an offensive video.

SEVEN DAYS LATER...Obama appears on Late Night with David Letterman. Letterman asks, “Now, I don’t understand, the ambassador to Libya killed in an attack on the consulate in Benghazi. Is this an act of war? Are we at war now? What happens here? Obama replied, "Here’s what happened. You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character who – who made an extremely offensive video directed at – at Mohammed and Islam."

NINE DAYS LATER..."Obama and Clinton send a video message to the people of the Middle East, apologizing for an offensive video. Later that same day the Obama was asked about the attack on Benghazi on Univision. Obama said, "What we’ve seen over the last week, week and a half, is something that actually we’ve seen in the past, where there is an offensive video or cartoon directed at the prophet Muhammad. This is obviously something that then is used as an excuse by some to carry out inexcusable violent acts directed at Westerners or Americans."

FOURTEEN DAYS LATER..."Obama appears on The View and Joy Behar quotes Hillary Clinton, calling Benghazi a terrorist attack. She asks Obama point blank if Benghazi was a terrorist attack and Obama says it is an ongoing investigation.

Later that same day Obama gives a speech to the United Nations and does not refer to Benghazi as a terrorist attack but mentions the video six times.


This disturbing web of deceit leading up to the 2012 election has no effect on useless partisans like Kevin Buck, Obama's subservient wh0res in the main stream media, pathological liars such as Hillary Clinton, and apparently most Democrats, but this is why the murders in Benghazi still bother normal people.



17trillion: Posted: February 11, 2014 8:30 a.m.

Poor Kevin! I actually pity you after reading this. I pity you for being so delusional. I pity you that you have no memory. I pity you for taking time out of your life to write this garbage that could have been better spent sitting on the toilet.

Once again the Democrat agenda! Ready? Here it is:

Woe is me!

Republicans are bad!

You're a racist!

Bush!

Yep, there it is.......

Oh and Phil, don't worry about being called a racist. Embrace it and know it's the sign of a loser to resort to such things.


technologist: Posted: February 11, 2014 8:35 a.m.

"You can't govern 300,000,000 people without Totalitarian means, period." - ricketzz

Public notice: Ricketzz has expressed this sentiment multiple times. It should inform your evaluation of all his posts, especially when he calls others fascists.


projalice11: Posted: February 11, 2014 8:41 a.m.

Mr. Buck again a great opinion column.

No sense in responding to the posters. Their minds are made up to degrade,
destroy and ridicule the present administration.



technologist: Posted: February 11, 2014 8:55 a.m.

"However, I do not recall a steady stream of false accusations, calls for impeachment, congressional investigations into trumped-up scandals or pure hatred churned out daily by liberal blogs or media opinion pieces and forwarded in endless email chains."

As BB stated, Mr. Buck has an astounding case of political amnesia. I know he'll find facts inconvenient to his preferred narrative, but he should perform a web search on the string "Bush Hitler" and peruse the results as a refresher. There's far more that Mr. Buck has forgotten but this is sufficient to rebut his risible assertion.

Regarding calls for Bush impeachment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_George_W._Bush

I suppose the purpose of Mr. Buck's hyperbole is to characterize the criticism of Obama as unprecedented. I recommend he do some research on criticism of Presidents and public figures in general as a remedy for demonstrated ignorance of the historical particulars.


technologist: Posted: February 11, 2014 9:02 a.m.

"Mr. Buck again a great opinion column.

No sense in responding to the posters. Their minds are made up to degrade,
destroy and ridicule the present administration."

What, in particular, made it "great", Ms. Eisenberg?

I just posted specific history in rebuttal to one of Mr. Buck's assertions. How does factual information "degrade, destroy and ridicule"? --edited.


BrianBaker: Posted: February 11, 2014 9:12 a.m.

"How does factual information 'degrade, destroy and ridicule'"?

To quote Larry Elder, "Facts to a liberal are like kryptonite to Superman."


therightstuff: Posted: February 11, 2014 9:12 a.m.

With Obama continuing to arbitrarily change the new health care law by postponing the worst parts of it beyond the 2014 election and his poll numbers plummeting, Buck dusts off his old talking points about the Tea Party, birthers, Nixon, Reagan, and Bush. This tactic is beyond embarrassing, it is deplorable. It was hard to find just a few disgraceful comments among so many, but here’s a couple whoppers:


"""Obama was attacked by the far right before he took his first oath of office."""

You mean these right wingers?
"Barack Obama is not ready to be president" Joe Biden
"Shame on you, Barack Obama, shame on you!" Hillary Clinton

Democrats are the most shameless hypocrites.




"""We will be subjected to rants about the IRS…"""

Lois Lerner claims her innocence and then pleads the Fifth.
Lerner is put on administrative leave, or a tax-payer funded vacation for several months.
An Obama *donor* is put in charge of the IRS investigation.
With the 'investigation' ongoing, Obama claims there is not a “smidgin” of corruption. (The fix is in)

Reasonable people would question these actions. Democrats call them "rants"




"""The current and former Republican governors of New Jersey and Virginia are embroiled in real, live scandals today that are destroying real lives."""

Useless partisans are more outraged about a lane closure in New Jersey than a terrorist attack in Benghazi. Christy should have blamed everything on a video. Hey, it worked for Obama.




"""I do not recall a steady stream of false accusations, calls for impeachment, congressional investigations into trumped-up scandals or pure hatred churned out daily by liberal blogs or media opinion pieces and forwarded in endless email chains."""

This line was by far the worst. What rock were you living under for those eight years, Mr. Buck? This single statement illustrates how your entire column is completely void of honesty, integrity, and credibility. Something we’ve come to expect each week from Democratic Voices.


BrianBaker: Posted: February 11, 2014 9:14 a.m.

"No sense in responding to the posters. Their minds are made up to degrade,
destroy and ridicule the present administration."

Y'know, it's funny, but my LTEs usually generate a LOT of comments, and I don't hide out anywhere, dodging my critics. I wade right in and take them on.


17trillion: Posted: February 11, 2014 9:19 a.m.

Tech,

The only person more cowardly about answering questions than Indy is Lois so don't even waste your time expecting an answer. Besides, anyone whose stock reply is "Bingo" does not have the depth to coherently answer a question anyway.


17trillion: Posted: February 11, 2014 9:38 a.m.

You're right BB and I'm still waiting on Gary Horton to tell us all how much he pays his workers. He complained about the "scraps" paid to Boeing workers so I'm just curious what he pays his workers. Naturally Lois told me it was none of my business completely missing the irony of Horton complaining about someone else's wages and how IT WAS HIS BUSINESS.


projalice11: Posted: February 11, 2014 10:00 a.m.

Hey posters right on cue.


BrianBaker: Posted: February 11, 2014 10:11 a.m.

17trill, I see very little awareness on the part of the Dem/socialists of the irony in their scribblings. Ever.



technologist: Posted: February 11, 2014 10:36 a.m.

"Y'know, it's funny, but my LTEs usually generate a LOT of comments, and I don't hide out anywhere, dodging my critics. I wade right in and take them on."

I've noted that it's fairly unique among columnists at The Signal, BB. Good on you.


philellis: Posted: February 11, 2014 10:37 a.m.

Hey posters right on cue.

Yes, Lois, Ladi, Projalice, we will continue to post facts to balance the unsubstantiated left wing ramblings you so much adore.


BrianBaker: Posted: February 11, 2014 10:42 a.m.

Thanks, techno, for the kind words. Much appreciated.


technologist: Posted: February 11, 2014 10:42 a.m.

"Hey posters right on cue." - New nick for Ms. Eisenberg

Indeed, as demonstrated by your post. How about answering my questions about your complete mischaracterization of what I wrote, Ms. Eisenberg? The veracity of your new nick is at stake.

Are you capable of interactive dialog or do you operate purely in broadcast mode?


technologist: Posted: February 11, 2014 10:47 a.m.

"The only person more cowardly about answering questions than Indy is Lois so don't even waste your time expecting an answer."

It's a rhetorical device designed to reveal a lack of intellectual rigor, 17t. Based on experience, my expectations are in line with your own.


Indy: Posted: February 11, 2014 12:12 p.m.

Buck,

After watching clips of Fox, I can see why the conservatives here are ‘married’ to the conspiracies even though the same folks stay silent when Bush 2 had many consultants and embassies attacked. It’s all just political nonsense.

Likewise, Boehner sits in his office essentially made of stone to take votes on many important issues I guess feeling afraid that many republicans aren’t extremist and would vote to actually move forward.

The republican party had become just a group of folks that hide behind slogans, contrived conspiracies, and I guess feel comfortable just going out after uninformed low info voters that accept ‘Fox’ reports as ‘truth’ versus just being a bunch of ‘innuendo and speculative’ based commentaries that seek to control the uninformed.

In any event, we need to get our political discourse back to the issues like offs shoring from globalization, energy/capita falling worldwide and unsustainable global population growth.

It’s sad we can’t just isolate the current political theater that is devoid of reality but seems profitable for the media to recite and present as ‘infotainment’ that leaves many voters feeling helpless.

Anyway, you hit all the ‘hot button’ conservative positions and the responses you get are consistent with what you’d expect from conservatives when you ‘blow up’ their ideology based world!


technologist: Posted: February 11, 2014 12:22 p.m.

"However, I do not recall a steady stream of false accusations, calls for impeachment, congressional investigations into trumped-up scandals or pure hatred churned out daily by liberal blogs or media opinion pieces and forwarded in endless email chains."

Do you concur or dispute this assertion by Mr. Buck, Indy? I'll even assist your response to a direct question with a template.

I concur with Mr. Buck's assertion because…




I dispute Mr. Buck's assertion for the following reasons…





There you go. We'll await your specific and concise answer.


BrianBaker: Posted: February 11, 2014 12:28 p.m.

LOL


JohnnyCash: Posted: February 11, 2014 1:17 p.m.

"Do you concur or dispute this assertion by Mr. Buck, Indy?"

That's an unfair question, Tech, because you clearly don't understand the simple chemistry that C + O2 = CO2.


Indy: Posted: February 11, 2014 1:18 p.m.

technologist wrote: There you go. We'll await your specific and concise answer.

Indy: As frightening as this may appear, I actually agree with Baker: LOL


17trillion: Posted: February 11, 2014 1:35 p.m.

"Indy: As frightening as this may appear, I actually agree with Baker: LOL "

Sadly, guest readers will note the above statement as being the first on this fixed rock in space.


technologist: Posted: February 11, 2014 1:37 p.m.

Is that your attempt at a "quick quip", Indy? Or were you mocking yourself in alignment with BB?

Stick to the template. You answer, please.


17trillion: Posted: February 11, 2014 2:22 p.m.

There is nothing quick about Indy's quips. In fact, he might even be a bit more palatable if he were to employ a bit of quickness in his quips.


CaptGene: Posted: February 11, 2014 3:01 p.m.

"...ginned-up scandals..."

Absolutely zero intellectual integrity. What a buffoon.


therightstuff: Posted: February 11, 2014 3:13 p.m.

Indy: """I can see why the conservatives here are ‘married’ to the conspiracies even though the same folks stay silent when Bush 2 had many consultants and embassies attacked."""

There are at least two errors in this statement.

First, Obama loyalists like this poster have no idea how I responded when previous embassies were attacked. They make-up a response and then attack it as though it was real. Truly sad.

Two, Bush did not deliberately and repeatedly lie to the American public that the attacks were because of a spontaneous reaction to a video.

How Democrats continue to ignore the video lies as "conspiracy theories" is amazing. This is not a theory - all of the lies are clearly documented and yet it bounces off Obama loyalists.

Reason #833 why I would never be a Democrat.


therightstuff: Posted: February 11, 2014 3:14 p.m.

Is anyone else tired of the barrage of ad hominem attacks, conspiracy theories, ginned-up scandals and false equivalencies coming from the left about a lane closure in New Jersey?


TeaHugger: Posted: February 11, 2014 3:28 p.m.

Obama Derangement Syndrome: When the CBO states that 2.3 million people will leave the workforce because of Obamacare, Obama minions spin how great this is that millions will be released from the "shackles" of having to work. Which side do you think is more deranged?


BrianBaker: Posted: February 11, 2014 4:17 p.m.

They'll also be freed from the shackles of car payments, house payments, and all kinds of other impediments that stand in the way of their becoming poet laureates, according to Pelosi.

There's so much freedom in living in a shopping cart! Thank you, Dem/socialists!


projalice11: Posted: February 11, 2014 6:17 p.m.

It is so satisfying to bait this group of posters.

They respond right on cue and fall for the bait.

Throw them the bait on a hook and they go for the bait hook line and sinker.

Thank you posters for your responses they make good bait material.


CaptGene: Posted: February 11, 2014 6:22 p.m.

Thank you porjalice11 for proving, once again, that the Obama loyalists have no response to the abject failure that is the Obama Administration. All you have is mockery for the people that saw this coming.


JohnnyCash: Posted: February 11, 2014 8:27 p.m.

C'mon, Lois. Baiting?

I much preferred your "falling into my trap" schtick over this new one. You sounded so much more mysterious; like a wizard peering into a crystal ball in some hidden lair.

Hook, line, sinker, bait...now you've got me envisioning you in a canoe wearing some old fisherman's hat. Not exactly the brilliant and cunning tactician we all know you are.

Perhaps you could create another user name and try something else? Unless, of course, you're secretly lulling us into an intellectual slumber, waiting to strike with your superpower logic...you devil, you.


technologist: Posted: February 12, 2014 9:27 p.m.

Stop it, JC! It's late and you're scaring me!

Promise me this "Lois" you speak of isn't under my bed, with bait, please?


CaptGene: Posted: February 12, 2014 10:29 p.m.

She has a thing for bait, what with her "baited breath" and all.


17trillion: Posted: February 12, 2014 8:04 a.m.

Using "bait" 5 times in four sentences must be some kind of a new record.


therightstuff: Posted: February 12, 2014 8:34 a.m.

If we swallowed the bait, that would make Buck's column the worm.


Indy: Posted: February 12, 2014 11:28 a.m.

Kevin wrote: Benghazi was a tragedy, nobody disputes that, just as the 12 terrorist attacks on U.S. embassies that occurred on Dubya’s watch were tragedies or the 241 murdered Marines in Beirut, Lebanon, when Ronald Reagan was president was a tragedy.

Indy: Yes, Kevin, I too find it interesting that the Benghazi incidence has become such an icon at Fox and parroted here endlessly by many posters.

But the issue with the attacks on Bush 2 watch including the 12 attack on US embassies isn’t a scandal at all in conservative eyes . . .

Hypocrisy? Blatant partisanism? Discourse distortion? Rewriting of History?

Gee, it’s hard to say which one but it appears ‘all’ seem to apply here.

That’s the really sad part as conservatives here fails to see anything outside of what Fox tells them is important.

Anyway, for a small history lesson:

June 14, 2002, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide bomber kills 12 and injures 51.

February 20, 2003, international diplomatic compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Truck bomb kills 17.

February 28, 2003, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Gunmen on motorcycles killed two consulate guards.

July 30, 2004, U.S. embassy in Taskkent, Uzbekistan
Suicide bomber kills two.

December 6, 2004, U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Militants stormed and occupied perimeter wall. Five killed, 10 wounded.

March 2, 2006, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide car bomber killed four, including a U.S. diplomate directly targeted by the assailants.

September 12, 2006, U.S. embassy in Damascus, Syria
Gunmen attacked embassy with grenades, automatic weapons, and a car bomb (though second truck bomb failed to detonate). One killed and 13 wounded.

January 12, 2007, U.S. embassy in Athens, Greece
A rocket-propelled grenade was fired at the embassy building. No one was injured.

July 9, 2008, U.S. consulate in Istanbul, Turkey
Armed men attacked consulate with pistols and shotguns. Three policemen killed.

March 18, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen
Mortar attack misses embassy, hits nearby girls' school instead.

September 17, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen
Militants dressed as policemen attacked the embassy with RPGs, rifles, grenades and car bombs. Six Yemeni soldiers and seven civilians were killed. Sixteen more were injured.


JimmyStewart: Posted: February 12, 2014 11:57 a.m.

Barack Obama is the worst president in American history. He has taken the mantle away from Jimmy Carter. There are a few kooks on the right but is the minority. The facts are that the economy has not improved, we have less freedom and more regulations since Obama took office. Obama has lied outright to the American people and never owns up to it. People are sick and tired of the lies. I'm a Republican and I didn't like George W's overspending either but Obama has taken spending, to a new level. Remember this quote from our President? "I'll go line by line through the budget and cut where I can." Hmm wonder what happened to that promise?


JimmyStewart: Posted: February 12, 2014 12:05 p.m.

Indy,

Your comparisons are lacking. Those were quick suicide bombers. Benghazi went on for hours that was the point. Also, the denials after Benghazi that it wasn't terrorism but a movie--that is what has infuriated so many people. Lie, lie, lie and why? Just be honest and I would say that about any administration.


stevehw: Posted: February 12, 2014 12:24 p.m.

"Your comparisons are lacking. Those were quick suicide bombers. Benghazi went on for hours that was the point."

Jedda wasn't. Damascus was short-lived, but it wasn't suicide bombers. Istanbul wasn't a bomb (but the assailants were all killed, anyway). The Yemeni attackers had rifles and RPGs (and suicide bombers).

Amazing how some people can excuse anything under Bush, but nothing under Obama.


TeaHugger: Posted: February 12, 2014 1:00 p.m.

Why is it so difficult for those of you on the left to understand? The point of the matter isn't that there were attacks with Bush also. The point is that President Obama and his minions lied about it for two weeks after the attack, when they knew full well that it had nothing to do with a video!


therightstuff: Posted: February 12, 2014 1:50 p.m.

Steve and Indy, once again, in your mind-numbing loyalty to Barack Obama, you've completely missed the point. You go to great lengths to describe the kind of attacks under Bush but completely ignore the point made of the LIES that were told about Benghazi in the aftermath.

And then you accuse others of excusing Bush. Where does the hypocrisy end, guys?

You both used to excuse your leader by saying he didn't know it was a terrorist attack and the video fantasy was the best information they had. In an interview prior to the Super Bowl, Barack Obama admitted he KNEW Benghazi was a "terrorist attack" within 24 hours. And as I documented earlier in this thread, he, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, and Jay Carney ALL said it was NOT a terrorist attack but a video for two weeks AFTER they knew we had been hit by terrorists in Benghazi.

Gregory Hicks, Chief of Mission in Benghazi, was THERE that night and pleaded for help that never came from Sec. Clinton. When he heard the "video" explanation, his exact words were, "I was stunned. My jaw dropped. And I was embarrassed."

And why would they deliberately lie about this terrorist attack if they knew it wasn't true? Because Obama was boasting that Al Qaeda was "on the run" as part of his re-election campaign. And then on September 11 we got hit by terrorists. Therefore, it HAD to be a "spontaneous reaction to a video". A video that was on the internet since July and yet Obama said it was "spontaneous"......on September 11???

This is the lie you guys keep defending and brushing off as a conspiracy theory.

Susan Rice appeared on 60 Minutes recently and when asked about Benghazi, the ONLY thing she said was, "I don't have time for conspiracy theories." A real reporter would have wanted to know the truth about what happened but being a subservient Democrat wh0re, Lesley Stahl asked no follow up questions.

Hillary Clinton sat for more than five hours before Congress and the only time she lost her temper was when someone asked about the video. She had no answer. Her only reply was...."What difference does it now make!"

Gregory Hicks gave a powerful answer to Clinton's question when he testified: "It matters to me personally. It matters to my colleagues, to my colleagues at the Department of State. It matters to the American public for whom we serve. And most importantly, excuse me. It matters to the friends and family of, of Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods who were murdered on September 11th, 2012."

You guys trash people like Officer Hicks and embrace what Obama and Hillary tell you. The same guy who repeatedly said, "If you like your insurance, you can keep it. End of story. I guarantee it!" Was that a conspiracy, too?

You two really need to pull your noses out of Obama's ass and come up from some fresh air.






Indy: Posted: February 12, 2014 2:50 p.m.

stevehw wrote: Amazing how some people can excuse anything under Bush, but nothing under Obama.

Indy: Yep.

But seeing how often the Benghazi thing is recited on Fox, it’s not surprising that the ‘momentum’ continues on it.

Hopefully, the public will see the nonsense for what it is . . .


indy88: Posted: February 12, 2014 3:29 p.m.

Man writes LTE, conservative responders prove LTE's points emphatically!!

Anyone who thinks Obama has lied more than any other President simply "Can't handle the truth", MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.


therightstuff: Posted: February 12, 2014 4:07 p.m.

Indy,

I laid out all the undeniable facts about how Obama and his minions deliberately lied about Benghazi. I even quoted Gregory Hicks' testimony before Congress who was stunned and embarrassed by how your president lied about the cause of the attack. And your response?

"It's a Benghazi thing recited on Fox"

You will keep your head up Obama's ass, deny the facts, and blame Fox. You are truly are beyond shame but the perfect demographic for today's Democrat Party.


technologist: Posted: February 12, 2014 4:07 p.m.

A neat case of deflection and rationalization, Indys both.

For lower case indy:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/bandwagn.html


therightstuff: Posted: February 12, 2014 4:10 p.m.

indy88: """Man writes LTE, conservative responders prove LTE's points emphatically!!"""

Will you follow up and tell us what we posted that is not true or is this just another 'hit and run cheap shot' from another far-left Obama suck up?


therightstuff: Posted: February 12, 2014 4:21 p.m.

tech, help me out here. Conservatives have repeatedly condemned Bush for all of his failures. He was a genuine disappointment. Why is it when Obama lies about a terrorist attack for political purposes or lies about keeping your insurance to sell the ACA, these guys just keep bending over for more? Even when we send them video links of Obama out right lying, they blame Fox News or the GOP. Do partisan politics really go that deep with our friends on the left that it trumps everything else? It's not just stupid...it's scary stupid.


technologist: Posted: February 12, 2014 4:47 p.m.

TRS:

For some, it's cognitive dissonance. They acknowledge the illogic at some level but continue for some perceived benefit. I consider those folks misguided and therefore reachable by reason and balanced consideration of interests beyond their own.

My opprobrium is reserved for those who possess zero principles who don't care as long as their "side" wins. Their ideological fanaticism enables them to jettison all rational considerations because the "ends justify the means", even if those means damage our society and endanger our Republic.

You see a distasteful form of this fanaticism with the unnatural glee displayed when they wield the coercive power of government to crush an opponent and impose their will on others.

To summarize, the inexplicable behavior you perceive is the disparity in value systems, i.e. the difference between Consequentialism and Deontological Ethics.


BrianBaker: Posted: February 12, 2014 5:01 p.m.

Yep, TRS, it's pretty amazing that our resident leftists are so lazy and intellectually slothful.

They seem to function under the presumption that if one criticizes Obama, they somehow supported Bush, and frame all their "arguments" around that meme.

The problem for them is that it's not only inaccurate, but in many (if not most) cases it's completely false.

Guess what, Dem/socialists! I thought Bush was a lousy President, too! So don't frame your responses to anything around "Bush did it, too!" or any other form of the old and tired "Blame Bush" chestnut.


therightstuff: Posted: February 12, 2014 5:35 p.m.

"""the difference between Consequentialism and Deontological Ethics."""

You took the words right out of my mouth....right after I looked them up in the dictionary. I just find it funny how these guys mock other people for their faith and yet follow Obama like a religious figure, sinless in every way. It's much like a cult.

And Brian, unlike the cowards on the left who write columns with outrageous comments but never engage, you do indeed engage with posters with your columns. I may not always agree but I always respect that. Thanks.


BrianBaker: Posted: February 12, 2014 5:56 p.m.

TRS, thank you, sir or madam, for those kind words. Very much appreciated.


One thing I always note when talking with people about how much we agree or disagree, and whether or not that means we're ideologically opposed: the only person in the world with whom I agree 100% is......... me!

I'll bet everyone else can say the same thing, too.


TeaHugger: Posted: February 12, 2014 6:20 p.m.

I am not so sure. I wouldn't be surprised if Indy even argues with himself sometimes!


therightstuff: Posted: February 12, 2014 6:48 p.m.

Can you imagine the arguments Ladimas, Lois Eisenberg, and projalice11 have with each other?


indy88: Posted: February 12, 2014 6:58 p.m.

TRS- Where did I say anything anyone posted was not true? Where do you get that from? Buck baited the hook and conservatives bit and bit and bit, proving his point that some people are blowing this particular presidents lies out of proportion. Must you take every post so personally?
My statement was all presidents lie, I actually agreed with you.

It doesn't matter that it's true, your beating a dead horse at this point, get over it. And please stop with your insults, I have never been at any time an "Obama suck up", you denigrate your own arguments when you start
name calling, it's beneath the "superior mind" you think you have.


technologist: Posted: February 12, 2014 8:16 p.m.

"It doesn't matter that it's true, your (sic) beating a dead horse at this point, get over it."

Is that your message to the families of the 4 Americans that were murdered by terrorists?

Principled people don't "get over" matters of import. Truth falls into that category. Most Americans don't expect to be lied to by their elected leaders whom they've placed in positions of trust.

These brave men died in the service of their country. Mistakes were made. Lies were told. Politics were a priority rather than justice. In matters of honor, political party matters not a whit, it's wrong and accountability is in order.

I'm not going to "get over it".


projalice11: Posted: February 12, 2014 8:40 p.m.

"3.3 Million Enrolled on Health Marketplaces, Including More Young People.

Yea for the 3.3 million and the young people who have enrolled in ACA.


projalice11: Posted: February 13, 2014 9:24 p.m.

"California Governor Says Drought Is A “stark Warning” Of What Is To Come With A CHANGING CLIMATE (ucs - Union Of Concerned Scientists)"


stevehw: Posted: February 13, 2014 9:34 p.m.

"And why would they deliberately lie about this terrorist attack if they knew it wasn't true? Because Obama was boasting that Al Qaeda was "on the run" as part of his re-election campaign. And then on September 11 we got hit by terrorists."

And within two weeks, they confirmed that it was a terrorist attack...which means around the end of September.

When was the election again? November?


projalice11: Posted: February 13, 2014 9:38 p.m.

Boehner throws in the towel on the debt ceiling.

Yea for Boehner.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ej-dionne-john-boehners-sunshine-band/2014/02/12/ed33ee3c-9421-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html


TeaHugger: Posted: February 13, 2014 9:40 p.m.

Lois wrote: Yea for the 3.3 million and the young people who have enrolled in ACA.

Yes, and what about the millions who had their insurance cancelled, or their premiums and deductibles tripled?


technologist: Posted: February 13, 2014 10:08 p.m.

"When was the election again? November?"

I vote by mailed ballot in advance. Election Day was 11/6/13. Perhaps others citizens did as well.


BrianBaker: Posted: February 13, 2014 10:13 p.m.

I guess everyone should have "gotten over" WaterGate, too.

After all, absolutely NO ONE died in that particular scandal.

In the meantime, from Obama & Company, we have BenghaziGate, with a body count of 4.

Fast & Furious, with a body count of one Border Patrol agent and over 300 Mexican civilians.

The entire country being spied on by the NSA.

Tea Party groups being harassed by the IRS.

But interestingly, Nixon got hounded out of office, and Obama gets a pass, and we should all just "get over" it.

I. Don't. Think. So.


therightstuff: Posted: February 13, 2014 10:14 p.m.

indy88, I neither insulted you or took your post personally. You clearly have an inflated view of your opinion.

Thank you, tech. It's reassuring to know that there are still some out there that care about the truth. One of the most damaging legacies of the Obama administration is how our culture has become so desensitized to all the lying. People are hardly outraged any more. When Hillary Clinton barked, "What difference does in now make!", there were many Democrats who actually applauded her response. If she chooses to run for President, I pray that her incompetence and indifference will be haunted by the ghosts of Benghazi.

I'm with you my friend. I'm not going to "get over it" either.


projalice11: Posted: February 13, 2014 10:16 p.m.

Yea for the upswing of the current housing market, and yea for the low rates.

"New lending programs are allowing homeowners to lock in a low rate mortgage before the Fed increases interest rates"


therightstuff: Posted: February 13, 2014 10:28 p.m.

Steve: """And within two weeks, they confirmed that it was a terrorist attack...which means around the end of September."""

Yes, when Obama's wh0res in the media could no longer protect him because the facts were overwhelming, Obama had to admit publicly what he knew all along. It was a terrorist attack. So why all the deliberate and repeated lies, Steve? Why didn't the guy who promised the most transparent administration in history just come clean and tell us the truth?

Obama did the same thing with the health care law. We now know that he knew in advance that not everyone could keep their insurance policy. But he told them they could any way in order to sell it to nervous Democrat lawmakers.

Even after all this, Steve, you bend over and ask for more. For a guy who prides himself in dealing with facts, Obama's got you totally suckered.




ricketzz: Posted: February 13, 2014 6:58 a.m.

Suppose Karl Rove put the speed chemist and the crazy preacher up to making the Innocence of Moslems and then saw to it the dubbed-into-Arabic version was heard on reactionary media throughout North Africa, inflaming the masses. Did Rove help Romney craft a "Mideast in Flames" attack on Obama, that backfired when the Ambassador and others died?

Mitt was sure eager (and prepared, oddly) to take to the airwaves the next morning and decry the Administration foreign policy; "Mideast in flames" they kept saying.

I only bring this up now because Roves fingerprints have been found on the 2008 Georgia invasion of South Ossetia. I always thought there was something very odd about the whole string of riots sparked by the fake movie trailer.

The Ambassador's field trip was not known by Rove, et al. Perhaps the real story is that of a Republican Dirty Trick gone haywire. Just another possibility. BTW: When military targets are attacked, it is not terrorism. It is battle.


indy88: Posted: February 13, 2014 7:27 a.m.

BB-let me get this straight you go all the way back to Nixon and Watergate and then to a body count for Obama. You may have forgotten Bush's body count, over 3000 American Soldiers and 10's of thousands of innocent Iraqi and Afganistan civilians because of his lies. Let's not even mention the 30,000 soldiers who came back with life changing disabilities. As far as using lies for political gain Bush repeatedly used the lie that we would be less safe if he were not re-elected, lies and scare tactics. I'm sure since some of you can't get over things you must be completely outraged by the pass Bush got, right? Why aren't you posting about it? You haven't gotten over it or moved on have you? Exactly the point of the LTE and you all supported his point perfectly.


therightstuff: Posted: February 13, 2014 8:06 a.m.

indy88, what lies are you referring to? Shall I post the quotes of all your Democrat heroes who agreed with Bush about the weapons of mass destruction?

Remember, it was the Democrat's heart throb Colin Powell who made the case before the United Nations for the invasion of Iraq.

Did Bush make mistakes? Clearly. Has Bush been condemned? Absolutely. I've documented how Obama deliberately and repeatedly lied. Can you offer the same proof for Bush?


therightstuff: Posted: February 13, 2014 8:23 a.m.

"""Exactly the point of the LTE and you all supported his point perfectly."""

The only point the LTE made was to illustrate the Democrat political strategy when they know they've been caught in a lie.

"Refuse to answer any questions, circle the wagons, personally malign the character of your accusers, and truth be damned."

Reason #659 why I would never be a Democrat.


BrianBaker: Posted: February 13, 2014 8:33 a.m.

Yes, indy88, I am comparing Obama to Nixon. Why not? Is there some time limit on despicable presidential behavior?

I don't care about Bush. I didn't like him, either. But you Obama worshipers don't get to define the debate. Other people can do that, too.

And clearly you kiss the point of my comment, that Nixon was actually DRIVEN FROM OFFICE for actions FAR less deadly than what your guy's done, but you guys will excuse your ObaMessiah for ANYTHING.

And I notice that all you did was try to distract and obfuscate, instead of answering the question.

Not even a nice try, and definitely no cigar.

So, again, why is it good that Nixon was hounded out of office for WaterGate with its body count of ZERO, and your guy gets a complete pass on his actions that have left the ground littered with dead bodies everywhere, including a US Ambassador?


philellis: Posted: February 13, 2014 8:44 a.m.

One thing I always note when talking with people about how much we agree or disagree, and whether or not that means we're ideologically opposed: the only person in the world with whom I agree 100% is......... me!

I'll bet everyone else can say the same thing, too.

Brian, not true at all. I only agree with you about 90-95% of the time. Certainly not 100%


BrianBaker: Posted: February 13, 2014 8:55 a.m.

LOL, phil!


I guess I should have said "myself".

(But thanks for those kind words, too.)


indy88: Posted: February 13, 2014 9:08 a.m.

TRS-I'm sure the Democrats are very happy that you would never become one of them.
As far as my high opinion of myself, it's no where close to the high opinion and you and your "superior mind" have of yourself.
Have a nice day.


technologist: Posted: February 13, 2014 9:23 a.m.

"However, I do not recall a steady stream of false accusations, calls for impeachment, congressional investigations into trumped-up scandals or pure hatred churned out daily by liberal blogs or media opinion pieces and forwarded in endless email chains."

Apparently, Mr. Buck and a few other posters need a history briefing.

First, the columnist is riffing off the original, i.e. the Bush Derangement Syndrome neologism coined by Charles Krauthammer. Be sure to check out the 9/11 Truther "interesting theory" by Howard Dean, a former physician and Democratic candidate for President at the beginning of the article.

http://townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/2003/12/05/bush_derangement_syndrome/page/full

Secondly, this:

Nancy Pelosi: "We did not treat President Bush this way."

Roll tape, please. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WJ03isLxjk




therightstuff: Posted: February 13, 2014 9:24 a.m.

"""TRS-I'm sure the Democrats are very happy that you would never become one of them."""

As someone who tries to seek the truth and deplores hypocrisy, yes, I'm quite sure there would not be a place for me in today's Democrat Party. I don't want to be part of any group where you have to check your integrity at the door before entering.

And thank you for your kind wishes, indy88. I will indeed have a nice day.


therightstuff: Posted: February 13, 2014 10:46 a.m.

Great link, tech. Nancy Pelosi is not just a pathological liar, she's downright certifiable. It shows Democrat after Democrat saying deplorable things about Bush - including HER! And these are just the things that can be repeated in public. However, I think this undeniable, documented evidence will likely have no effect at all on the Obama disciples as we've seen with Benghazi. For Democrats, party trumps truth every time.


Indy: Posted: February 13, 2014 3:18 p.m.

therightstuff wrote: Indy: """I can see why the conservatives here are ‘married’ to the conspiracies even though the same folks stay silent when Bush 2 had many consultants and embassies attacked."""

There are at least two errors in this statement.

First, Obama loyalists like this poster have no idea how I responded when previous embassies were attacked. They make-up a response and then attack it as though it was real. Truly sad.

Indy: Please, give us your caps of those incidents under Bush 2 . . . what are you waiting for?

therightstuff wrote: Two, Bush did not deliberately and repeatedly lie to the American public that the attacks were because of a spontaneous reaction to a video.

Indy: This whole contrived issue of lying is just par for the religious conservative course.

You expect ‘perfect’ information that took place in a nation under siege and then through the idiotically contrived scandal from Fox using ‘innuendo and speculation’ as the ‘truth’?

Please, get a grip.

therightstuff wrote: How Democrats continue to ignore the video lies as "conspiracy theories" is amazing. This is not a theory - all of the lies are clearly documented and yet it bounces off Obama loyalists.

Indy: Again, religious conservatives see anyone that doesn’t buy their nonsense as ‘liars’. Old, tired and worn out . . .

therightstuff wrote: Reason #833 why I would never be a Democrat.

Indy: Gee, I though you voted for Obama . . . guess not.


Indy: Posted: February 13, 2014 3:22 p.m.

therightstuff wrote: Indy, I laid out all the undeniable facts about how Obama and his minions deliberately lied about Benghazi.

Indy: LOL

therightstuff wrote: I even quoted Gregory Hicks' testimony before Congress who was stunned and embarrassed by how your president lied about the cause of the attack. And your response?

Indy: I just find your fascination with Benghazi kind of scary . . .

therightstuff wrote: "It's a Benghazi thing recited on Fox"

You will keep your head up Obama's ass, deny the facts, and blame Fox. You are truly are beyond shame but the perfect demographic for today's Democrat Party.

Indy: Dude, sometimes your zeal to reciting Fox talking points gets the best of you . . . the only people that even continue to think about this incident are hard core religious conservatives that have hated Obama even before he took office!!!

Get a life . . .


BrianBaker: Posted: February 13, 2014 3:36 p.m.

I'm still waiting for any of the resident lefties to answer the question I posed earlier.

Maybe I need to do it again:

Why is it good that Nixon was hounded out of office for WaterGate with its body count of ZERO, and your guy gets a complete pass on his actions that have left the ground littered with dead bodies everywhere, including a US Ambassador?

Well? Anyone? Bueller?


therightstuff: Posted: February 13, 2014 8:06 p.m.

Indy: """Please, give us your caps of those incidents under Bush 2 . . . what are you waiting for?"""

I wasn't posting on The Signal in 2000 when George Bush was president. I live in 2014 when Obama is president. Perhaps it is you that needs to get a life.

And I can understand why searching for the truth about Benghazi would scare Obama loyalists. The fact that he lied about four dead Americans to cover his political ass is a pretty ugly fact to face for those who have "mutually pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor" totally to Barack Obama.

Really sick, dude.






ricketzz: Posted: February 14, 2014 7:09 a.m.

Nixon had the Vietnam War prolonged at least an extra year, for purely political purposes. Nixon authorized a Coup d'etat in Santiago, Chile (September 11, 1973) which resulted on over 20,000 dead or disappeared clergy, Nuns, college professors, etc. Nixon had National Guard troops fire live rounds into a crowd of protesters in Ohio. Watergate was a mercy coup.

Ambassador Stevens knew the risks but on this day he wanted a light footprint, for some reason. Benghazi was not under any unified control as the post revolution chaos in Libya was strong along the coast. He had to have a face to face with a Turkish official, and it had something to do with the CIA. (I'm guessing we wanted to send whatever loaned USA weapons we recovered in Libya on to Syrian rebels via Turkey, and wanted to keep it on the down low.)

It is not fair to the memories of the fallen to keep trying to make political hay out of their sacrifice.


therightstuff: Posted: February 14, 2014 8:34 a.m.

Then stop the lying and be honest about Benghazi. We just need better answers than "hey - all presidents lie, get over it" or "if you want to know why Obama kept calling the terrorist attack a spontaneous reaction to a video, you're deranged!". Why is it so hard for Democrats to be honest?


BrianBaker: Posted: February 14, 2014 11:54 a.m.

Sorry, ricketzz.

He shoots! He misses!


What was Nixon hounded from office for? Was it his Vietnam policy? No. Was it his Chile activities? No.

It was WaterGate, purely and simply. And to be COMPLETELY accurate, it was for COVERING IT UP ONLY, as he wasn't involved or knowledgeable about the actual break-in. There's no way you can lipstick that pig to try to change those simple facts.

He was hounded from office for a COVER-UP.

So... what do you Obama worshipers think about Obama's myriad cover-ups, huh? The cover-ups on Benghazi, Fast & Furious, NSA wiretaps, IRS scandal? ALL of that's okay with you guys, hmmmm?

I know hypocrisy when I see it.


ricketzz: Posted: February 15, 2014 7:23 a.m.

You'll get no argument from me that Obama is as bad as Nixon, concerning foreign policy and covert warfare. But when we are at war we give the CIC vast leeway to interpret, act, deceive, misinform, etc. If you don't want a slippery President repeal the War Powers Act and the Patriot Act. Rewrite the NDAA for peace.

Fast and Furious bothers me, but I know there are people on the ground who would die if the whole truth got out. Protecting methods and resources; again a byproduct of War.

Sec 501[c][4] requires that anonymous donations cannot be used for politics. More "T-Party" applications were flagged because there was a deluge of them after "Citizens United". Lois Lerner wants to throw somebody under a bus, lets wait and see who it is.

Watergate was a burglary of an inhabited structure, a common and very serious violent crime. Some burglars were armed. More serious violent felony. Nixon covering up a street crime to save his sorry lying anti semitic butt is very different from the President deferring to the CIA on covert matters.

NSA wiretaps were started by Clinton. By the time Obama got there they were an established feature of these Modern Times. He has virtually begged for Congress to reign in some of his powers, all they do is yammer.

Again, repeal the Patriot Act, the War Powers Act and (after auditing the DoD) redo the NDAA.


therightstuff: Posted: February 15, 2014 7:44 a.m.

Brian, I see two major differences between Nixon and Obama. First, the media. Though the media hated Nixon, at least it wasn't almost entirely made up of Democrats. Today's mainstream media filters every story by how it might impact Barack Obama and the Democrats. Compare their coverage of a terrorist attack in Benghazi to a lane closure in New Jersey. Total wh0res.

Second, the Republicans refused to circle the wagon to protect Nixon because they knew he had done wrong. That's when Nixon saw the handwriting on the wall and resigned.

Remember when Clinton disgraced the office by his sexual affair with a 24 year old intern? No Democrat had the honor to resign from his cabinet. 100% of the Democrats circled the wagon and defended Clinton and attacked anyone else who made accusations.

We're seeing it played out again today. Not one Democrat has the integrity to know the truth behind all the lies about Benghazi, IRS, TSA, and Obamacare. If anyone questions Obama, they circle the wagons and viciously attack everyone else, while the state run media looks on.


BrianBaker: Posted: February 15, 2014 8:15 a.m.

Ricketzz: "Nixon covering up a street crime to save his sorry lying anti semitic butt is very different from the President deferring to the CIA on covert matters."

Again missing the point. Nixon was on the verge of impeachment for ONE thing: the cover-up of a crime -- felony or not -- in which NO ONE died, and in which HE didn't participate.

Obama's cover-ups have bodies laying all over the place: Four, including an Ambassador, in Libya; over 300 in Mexico (Fast & Furious); attempted political repression (IRS scandal); massive violation of the Fourth Amendment (NSA wiretapping).

To this very day he's still stonewalling and trying to effect cover-ups... and that's okay with you? What kind of standards do you have? It doesn't matter that WaterGate was a "street crime". Hell, you can say the same thing about Fast & Furious: a street crime carried out under the color of authority, as far as I can see. They "officially" broke all kinds of gun laws.

===============================================

TRS, IMO you nailed it.

Not only did the Repubs refuse to circle the wagons around Nixon, but some of them were leading the impeachment effort. A display of actual integrity, something I can't recall seeing from a single Dem nowadays, and is even lacking in a lot of the Establishment GOP and its hacks.


CaptGene: Posted: February 15, 2014 9:12 a.m.

BB: "Not only did the Repubs refuse to circle the wagons around Nixon, but some of them were leading the impeachment effort. A display of actual integrity, something I can't recall seeing from a single Dem nowadays, and is even lacking in a lot of the Establishment GOP and its hacks"

I wasn't a republican then, and I'm not one now, but the half dozen or so reps that voted for impeachment are heroes, IMHO.


BrianBaker: Posted: February 15, 2014 9:46 a.m.

I'm with you, CaptGene. Amen.


technologist: Posted: February 15, 2014 10:46 a.m.

TRS, BB & CG, concur. That's the delineation; whether you have universally applied principles or situational ethics based on politics.


therightstuff: Posted: February 15, 2014 11:05 a.m.

A phrase that has lived through the ages was "What did the president know and when did he know it?" That was asked by Howard Baker, a Republican and true Statesman from Kansas. This was over a third-rate burglary.

Today if anyone asks what did the president know and when did he know it over four dead Americans in a terrorist attack, the IRS *admitting* they targeted conservative groups, or the continuing string of lies over Obamacare, you're called delusional.


BrianBaker: Posted: February 15, 2014 12:33 p.m.

Yes, exactly. That's why I raised WaterGate as an issue. I'm so sick of the "Well, Bush did it, too" bullpuckey. Bush is completely irrelevant. Nixon is a MUCH better parallel, which is why the leftists try so hard to steer away from it.


ricketzz: Posted: February 16, 2014 7:01 a.m.

There must be an underlying crime for there to be a cover up. You need to get more objective news sources. You have been misled by propagandists.


CaptGene: Posted: February 16, 2014 9:19 a.m.

But the criminal does not have to be the one doing the covering up, as is the case here. You need to lay off the Mother Jones, it's frying your brain.


BrianBaker: Posted: February 16, 2014 9:51 a.m.

Really, ricketzz?

Okay... then what do you call it when Obama and Clinton REFUSE to account for their activities on the night of the Benghazi attack? And a REFUSE to acknowledge that they misled the American public on the nature and cause of the attack -- the stupid video excuse -- in order to avoid a political catastrophe on the eve of the election?

What do you call it when Obama and Lerner REFUSE to accept responsibility, or hold anyone else responsible with some kind of penalties, for the IRS abuses?

What do you call it when Obama and Holder REFUSE to take responsibility for the Fast & Furious fiasco, nor hold anyone else responsible with penalties?

What do you call it when Obama claims to be "ignorant" of the NSA warrantless wiretaps of American civilians?

I dunno... is there a better word than "cover-up"? If so, what is it?


Indy: Posted: February 16, 2014 7:58 p.m.

therightstuff wrote: Indy: """Please, give us your caps of those incidents under Bush 2 . . . what are you waiting for?"""

I wasn't posting on The Signal in 2000 when George Bush was president. I live in 2014 when Obama is president. Perhaps it is you that needs to get a life.And I can understand why searching for the truth about Benghazi would scare Obama loyalists.

Indy: The only ones that see the Libya incident are Fox watchers and other conservatives that can’t see the real issues facing us and thus distort our political discourse with ‘innuendo and speculation’ that only the most strident conservative ‘basers’ would even consider.


Again, get a life.


BrianBaker: Posted: February 17, 2014 9:42 p.m.

"Indy: The only ones that see the Libya incident are Fox watchers and other conservatives that can’t see the real issues facing us and thus distort our political discourse..."

Wow! I guess nationally renowned legal scholar and leftist scion Jonathan Turley must be a closet conservative and "Fox watcher"! Who knew?

Written by Jonathan Turley, a legal scholar and leftist luminary:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/03/25/nixon-has-won-watergate/2019443/

Entitled "Nixon Has Won Watergate"

From the article:

"From unilateral military actions to warrantless surveillance that were key parts of the basis for Nixon's impending impeachment, the painful fact is that Barack Obama is the president that Nixon always wanted to be."


The article goes on from there, detailing many of Obama's various scandals and the "imperial" nature of his presidency.

Let's see... there's the unknown anonymous guy who calls himself "Indy", and there's nationally known published legal scholar, writer, and liberal icon Jonathan Turley...

Who's the real "expert" here....

I know... a toughie, right?


LOL!


therightstuff: Posted: February 17, 2014 10:54 p.m.

Indy: ‘innuendo and speculation’

It is not innuendo or speculation that Obama said he knew Benghazi was a terrorist attack within 24 hours.

It is not innuendo or speculation that he and his administration told the American people for two weeks that it wasn't a terrorist attack, but a spontaneous response to a video.

Obama zealots refer to these facts as innuendo and speculation. Normal people call them lies.


technologist: Posted: February 17, 2014 10:55 p.m.

No doubt Indy will have a word, setting Mr. Turley straight. :-D


ricketzz: Posted: February 17, 2014 7:04 a.m.

Since when is Turley a "liberal"? He is a civil libertarian. That's different.

Comparing Obama's Stasi to Nixon and Hoover's is dangerous, pre 9-11 thinking.


BrianBaker: Posted: February 17, 2014 8:16 a.m.

Jeez, ricketzz, you're as bad as Indy. You just make stuff up to try to conform to your world view.

No, Turley is a leftist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Turley

"Professor Turley is widely regarded as a champion of the rule of law, and his stated positions in many cases and his self-proclaimed 'socially liberal agenda' have led liberal and progressive thinkers to also consider him a champion for their causes, especially on issues such as separation of church and state, environmental law, civil rights, and the illegality of torture. Politico has referred to Turley as a 'liberal law professor and longtime civil libertarian'."



BrianBaker: Posted: February 17, 2014 8:22 a.m.

PS, ricketzz.

The ACLU also uses the words "civil liberties" in their name. You can't possibly be implying that they're NOT a leftist organization.

Can you?

If you are, please issue a Spew Alert first. I don't want to ruin my keyboard by spraying my coffee all over it when I bust out laughing.


Indy: Posted: February 17, 2014 12:17 p.m.

therightstuff wrote: Indy: ‘innuendo and speculation’

It is not innuendo or speculation that Obama said he knew Benghazi was a terrorist attack within 24 hours.

Indy: Yes, I know, Fox ‘said it’ and it must be true! LOL

therightstuff wrote: It is not innuendo or speculation that he and his administration told the American people for two weeks that it wasn't a terrorist attack, but a spontaneous response to a video. Obama zealots refer to these facts as innuendo and speculation. Normal people call them lies.

Indy: Yep, but sadly your ranting about Fox talking points misses the actual reality in play:

from: Anti-Islam film demonstration turns violent in Kabul
http://www.wfaa.com/news/world/Anti-Islam-film-demonstration-turns-violent-in-Kabul-169997156.html

Associated Press
Posted on September 17, 2012 at 1:51 AM
Updated Thursday, Dec 5 at 3:23 PM
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — Hundreds of Afghans burned cars and threw rocks at a U.S. military base as a demonstration against an anti-Islam film that ridicules the Prophet Muhammad turned violent in the Afghan capital early Monday.

Indy: Here’s another: Protests Spread Over Anti-Islam Film
http://www.voanews.com/content/muslims-protest-anti-islam-film/1509273.html
Hundreds of protesters rioting against an anti-Islam film torched a press club and a government building Monday in northwest Pakistan, sparking clashes with police that left at least one person dead.

Demonstrations also turned violent outside a U.S. military base in Afghanistan and at the U.S. Embassy in Indonesia. Meanwhile, the leader of the Shi'ite militant group Hezbollah called for sustained protests in a rare public appearance before thousands of supporters at a rally in the Lebanese capital, Beirut.

Indy: So here we have Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Lebanon . . . these are just the first several links from a search on ‘anti muslim film demonstration’.


Indy: Posted: February 17, 2014 12:20 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: The ACLU also uses the words "civil liberties" in their name. You can't possibly be implying that they're NOT a leftist organization

Indy: http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/01/12/aclu-comes-to-rush-limbaugh-defense/

ACLU Comes to Rush Limbaugh's Defense
Published January 12, 2004
FoxNews.com

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. – Talk radio host Rush Limbaugh (search) probably never expected the American Civil Liberties Union (search) to become one of his staunch supporters.

But the privacy rights group was on his side Monday when its Florida branch filed a "friend-of-court" motion on behalf of Limbaugh arguing state officials were wrong in seizing his medical records for their drug probe.

Indy: I wish I WAS making this up . . .


CaptGene: Posted: February 17, 2014 12:58 p.m.

Did anyone else notice that both articles Indy Nile posted were AFTER Benghazi (9/17)? Show me one that happened prior to Benghazi and then we have something to discuss.


technologist: Posted: February 17, 2014 1:04 p.m.

"Indy: I wish I WAS making this up . . . "

In a real sense, you are. Taking an inadequate data set and extrapolating it as a statistically valid sampling is fiction.

Wish granted.


Indy: Posted: February 17, 2014 3:31 p.m.

technologist wrote: “Indy: I wish I WAS making this up . . . "

In a real sense, you are. Taking an inadequate data set and extrapolating it as a statistically valid sampling is fiction. Wish granted.

Indy: LOL

Come man, you can do better than just a ‘quick quip’?

Why not another link from your libertarian websites?

Again, I’m here to help you . . . and I can see that it’s important that I do.


ricketzz: Posted: February 19, 2014 6:14 a.m.

Civil libertarians are only left? Pure Libertarians are social liberals, I would hardly call them leftist.

I don't consider him anything other than another TV character; certainly not an ally.


technologist: Posted: February 20, 2014 1:45 p.m.

"Again, I’m here to help you . . . and I can see that it’s important that I do." - Indy

Stick to your knitting as you're demonstrably incompetent at statistics.


ricketzz: Posted: February 21, 2014 6:37 a.m.

Statistics are the quickest way to lose an audience. Especially without visual aids.

"It was my understanding, Madame Chairman, that there'd be no math." -Chevy Chase doing Gerald Ford at an old League of Women Voters debate, 1976


technologist: Posted: February 23, 2014 12:23 p.m.

I've noted that those who make unsupported assertions dislike statistics.


ricketzz: Posted: February 24, 2014 6:56 a.m.

If you would like me to answer questions just ask. That goes for Brian as well. I am concerned that he thinks "civil liberties" are a leftist idea. What do the reactionary righties call it? The ACLU fought for the Nazis' right to have a parade through a very Jewish neighborhood in illinois. They defended Rush Limbaugh against Florida narcs. The religious fringe have hated them since the Scopes Monkey Trial.


technologist: Posted: February 24, 2014 2:39 p.m.

Brian can certainly speak for himself but perhaps he's focusing on current rather than historical ACLU focus.

https://www.aclu.org/key-issues


ricketzz: Posted: February 25, 2014 6:16 a.m.

Neither have you have any idea what civil liberties are about. Either we all have them or no one gets them. They are not reserved for the wealthy.

The radical right dislikes the ACLU because they dislike everything too nuanced to explain on a bumper sticker.


technologist: Posted: February 25, 2014 10:50 a.m.

"Neither have you have any idea what civil liberties are about."

Why don't we test your assertion? Proceed.

"Either we all have them or no one gets them."

Precisely and obviously.


ricketzz: Posted: February 26, 2014 6:17 a.m.

And what about the inability of the rude righties to understand a compound sentence, let alone a compound idea? Their talking points are no longer than what can be shouted in a single lungfull of tobacco tainted air.

Either Obama is an incredibly gifted but underachieving slacker, really pretty much exactly like George W Bush (or you or me); or he is a master of deceit and manipulation, able to run the world like a computer game, George Soros feeding him talking points via his hardened Blackberry. Or is he both [drama sting]?


technologist: Posted: February 26, 2014 11:12 a.m.

Parsing your last post, there's nothing to respond to.

But you did inspire me to smoke a cigar in my backyard oasis before the rain starts.


ricketzz: Posted: March 3, 2014 6:53 a.m.

Defend the dumbing down of our formerly clever people if you must. Respect is a two way street. I have faith that enough people can be educated, that we can reach a critical mass and save this place from Corporate dictators.

If we fail please don't blame me for not trying.



You need to be a registered user to post a comment. Please click here to register.

The Signal encourages readers to interact with one another, following the guidelines outlined in our Comment/Moderation Policy. Click here to read it.

To report offensive or inappropriate comments, e-mail abuse@signalscv.com. The content posted from readers of signalscv.com does not necessarily represent the views of The Signal or Morris Multimedia. By submitting this form you agree to the terms and conditions listed above. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

 
 

Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...