90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
Week In The News: Cleveland Escape, Military Sexual Assault, Mark Sanford

The Cleveland horrors. Dow 15,000. More sexual assault in the U.S. military. Mark Sanford. Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

Welcome home signs are shown near Seymour Street where three women were found in Cleveland, Ohio, Thursday, May 9, 2013, after being missing for ten years. (David Duprey/AP)

Welcome home signs are shown near Seymour Street where three women were found in Cleveland, Ohio, Thursday, May 9, 2013, after being missing for ten years. (David Duprey/AP)

A week of horrors, and escape.  In Cleveland, three women blessedly free after a decade in a house of horrors.  Just grotesque.  And in the US military, a big survey finds more sexual abuse than ever – and the Air Force chief of sexual assault prevention is charged with sexual assault.

Abroad, Israel hits Syria.  Moscow and Washington talk.  Hackers go on a global ATM thieving spree.  We’ve got Benghazi back in the news.  Mark Sanford back in politics.  Burial for a Boston bomber.  Immigration moves.

This hour, On Point:  Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

- Tom Ashbrook

Guests

Elizabeth Sullivan, editorial page editor at The Cleveland Plain Dealer.

David Sanger, chief Washington correspondent at The New York Times. (@SangerNYT)

Jack BeattyOn Point news analyst

From Tom’s Reading List

Cleveland Plain Dealer: 7 Things We Learned Today About The Captivity Of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus And Michelle Knight – “Thursday’s events surrounding the incredible escape Monday of three women held for a decade or more in a home on the West Side focused on the suspect in the case, 52-year-old Ariel Castro.”

TIME: Fear of Reprisal: The Quiet Accomplice in the Military’s Sexual-Assault Epidemic – “An estimated 26,000 people in the U.S. military were victims of sexual assaults in 2012, a substantial increase from an estimated 19,000 in 2010, according to an analysis of a Department of Defense (DoD) survey (sexual assaults are defined broadly from rape to ‘unwanted sexual touching’). But of those estimated 26,000, there were only 3,374 sexual assault reports last year.”

Politico: Mark Sanford Defeats Elizabeth Colbert Busch – “Republican Mark Sanford has defeated Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch in South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District special election. The victory caps a dramatic comeback by the scandal-tinged former governor, whose political career was left for dead four years ago when he was caught lying about an extramarital affair.”

The Washington Post: Senators Clash Over Border Security Proposals In Immigration Bill – “On the first day of debate over amendments, senators on the Judiciary Committee zeroed in on how well the 844-page legislation, developed by a bipartisan group of eight senators, is able to stem illegal immigration along the Southwest border.”

WBUR: Police: Dead Boston Bombing Suspect Is Buried – “Boston Marathon bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev was secretly buried in an undisclosed location outside Worcester after a frustrating weeklong search for a community willing to take the body, police said Thursday.”

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • Ed75

    What hasn’t been reported is the crimes of Kermit Gosnell of Philadelphia. He is probably the most prolific mass murderer in U.S. history, just counting the live babies that he killed. The verdict is still on the way.

    The media report these other criminal events, but not this one.

    • Wm_James_from_Missouri

      There is no ocean deep enough to contain the tears the Master, has cried for the sins of men.

    • Jasoturner

      If you don’t think this horrible story hasn’t been thoroughly reported, I’d be curious to know where you get your news.  Google that name and see how many hits you get.  That was one sick dude.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      you just need to turn to fox news for some reason the more liberal media has not reported it

      • Ray in VT

        Is Fox actually covering it?  There have been a number of media outlets that have criticized the “liberal media” for not covering the trial while also not covering it themselves.  Fox does appear to have been airing something about it just about daily for the last couple of weeks, but maybe not before then.  The media have been, or should, be criticized for spending massively more amounts of time covering the Jodi Arias trial.

        • Gregg Smith

          MSNBC gave 5 1/2 hours of live coverage when Hillary testified to Congress. This time zero live coverage.

          • Ray in VT

            Maybe because they realized that this was basically just a dog and pony show, which would result in relatively little new information.  It was news last fall when the Secretary of State testified.  For all of Fox’s hyping of this hearing, what did they get?  Whistleblowers who had in one case testified to Congress already, and another who had been interviewed by the ARB twice.  Thrilling, breaking news there.

          • Gregg Smith

            There was a lot new.

          • Ray in VT

            Such as?  That a four man security team, which would not have arrived until after the second attack, was not released by the military.

            I’m sure that the three witnesses were able to provide a lot of personal details, but it seems like there was not a lot that substantially added to our greater understanding of the overall situation.  The haters certainly didn’t get their smoking gun, but that won’t stop the conspiracy machine from churning stuff out.

          • Gregg Smith

            They were told to stand down. Assets were 2 hours away and could have been there before the second attack. We didn’t even try. Obama went to bed. Hillary was told it was a terrorist attack on day one. The talking points were changed 12 times.

          • Ray in VT

            The military says that they wouldnt have gotten there in time.  What flight were they going to take?  There was a reference to a C-130 that would have put them on the ground after the second attack ended.  So, given that threats emerged against the Tripoli embassy, you’re advocating sending your security people away?  You’d make a heck of a commander.

            I thought that Obama was drunk?  He was AWOL, right?  Who told Hilary that it was a terrorist attack on day one, and how did he know?  I’m talking proof, not opinion or gut feeling.

            Talking points were changed.  Wow, we didn’t know that already.  We didn’t know everything that the intelligence community knew for days.  What a shock.  We should probably just blab everything that we know.  It probably would have kept up out of Iraq. 

          • Gregg Smith

            My opinions Obama wasdrunk. I haveseennorebuttal.

            The fight rage in two wave for 7 hours. Who decided they knew how long it would last so why
             bother?

          • Ray in VT

            Glad to hear your drunkenness speculation.  It’s about as fact based as some of your other statements.

            First attack ended, and the situation was unclear, but, by all means, send 4 guys into an unclear, unstable situation while also decresing the security at your main base.  That’s poor tactical thinking.

          • Gregg Smith

            I gotta say your defenses and excuse making is appalling. You want to talk about Iraq, Bush, the Saudi kid and hypocrisy. Amazing, have at it.

          • Ray in VT

            My “defenses and excuse making” has merely been developed by watching the right’s contortionists operate here for a couple of years, and I am neither defending no excusing anything.

          • Acnestes

            Honestly, why do you bother with this guy?

          • Ray in VT

            Just stubborn.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Someone has to. This isn’t a college debate team where the undifferntiated “other” at WBUR will throw a flag on bald-faced lies.

          • Acnestes

             I left you and Ray a note below.  Print’s too cramped here.

          • hennorama

            Not to mention that Fox News, despite all their promotion of this “event” for days, cut away from the live hearing to cover an already over-covered murder trial.

            Even they seemed to acknowledge that there were no “bombshells” from so-called “whistleblowers”.

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith – What happened to “let the market decide”?  Infotainment shows are free to show what they wish are they not, sir?

            Or is this a case of your claim that “Supply comes first”?

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          i wonder what bills oboma is signing while all thse distractions are going on. i dont watch fox much but that is where i have heard that name pop up

          • Ray in VT

            Who knows?  There is this:

            http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/signed-legislation

            I’ve seen Gosnell’s name on news sites, but I almost never watch TV news, especially the 24 hour stations.  There’s just too much of the same thing over and over.  Also, there’s too many pundits and too few reporters for my taste.

  • Wm_James_from_Missouri

    I thought I would try to pass along some positive news, as this week has given us more terrible stories than any society should have to bear.

    ————————–

    A gene, called parkin has been found to increase the life span of fruit flies by 25 % , they are calling it the Dorian Gray gene.

    http://worldhealth.net/forum/thread/99132/dorian-gray-gene-could-add-decades-to-li/?page=1#post-99132

     
    Supplement websites have been talking about Catalase as a cure for grey hair for some time. Researchers are finally catching up with some of us. Note: radishes contain catalase.

    http://worldhealth.net/forum/thread/99131/grey-hair-a-thing-of-the-past-after-sc/?page=1#post-99131

    ———
    http://www.vitaminstuff.com/catalase.html

    —————–
    Some foods containing catalase

    http://www.ehow.com/info_8699205_foods-catalase-reverse-grey-hair.html

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       Thanks for the positive news.  We need it.

  • LinRP

    How about the attitude of the dispatcher who took Amanda Berry’s call? I can’t get over it. It was the most disheartening and depressing reaction to another human being in distress I have heard in a long time. I don’t care how “dispassionate” they are trained to be, she should have been saying, “I will stay on the line with you until the police get there.” Instead she was clearly in a hurry to hang up. Yet another jaded, cynical citizen ready to write off the situation as a prank, or the girl as hysterical

    Imagine that being you or your daughter’s first call to the outside world for help in 10 years. The first life line in a decade and your world depends on it, and the person is giving her the big rush off the line. It was awful, IMO.

  • madnomad554

    So regarding the military’s sexual assault issue’s…I did 5 years in the military and unfortunately went to Iraq twice. While in the military it became clear that sexual promiscuity is quite rampant. Military towns reek of adulterous activity. In part because there are a lot of very young and immature men and probably some immature woman. I was 32 when I enlisted and certainly didn’t run around chasing STD’s and unwanted babies.

    The military confirms that the #1 reason’s officers are relieved of their duty are adulterous relationships and sexual misconduct. Officers…those supposedly example setting leaders. Do you recall Gen. Petraous getting caught with his pants down?

    Now the military wants to give woman more front line combat rolls. We’ll have co-ed combat. But why create this environment at a time when military sexual assault is so rampant? If you can’t keep your top ranking Generals pants on and you can’t keep 25% of your officers pants on, how do you expect a co-ed front line not to increase sexual assault cases or at the very least, more sexual promiscuity within the military?

    Put a 20 year old male and female in a fox hole together and many want do anything but make a baby.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      i saw an article saying how much sexual assaults had increased in the military but they did not say if it was proportional to the number of women or not

      • jefe68

        Why is the number of women in the military a factor in regards to these heinous acts of violence?  

        What, are you blaming the victims here?

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          its relevent to see if the rate of violence has increased or not. its  crazy to want to try to figure out exactly what is happening? i know you like to make wild knee jerk reactions. i am blaming the warmongers, i dont think women or men should be in war. war is terrible and terrible things happen in it. if we put women in war terrible things will happen to them.

          • jefe68

            I’m not making a knee jerk reaction.
            You’re comment is loaded and if you don’t see that, well that’s your problem now, is it not.

            Funny how you now try to change the subject about war, this is not about war insomuch as it’s about how young men view women. 

            Women are being subject to assault on bases right here on US soil.
            How do you account for that?

            Knee-jerk indeed.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            i was being generous with the “knee” part.

    • Don_B1

      Sexual promiscuity is one thing, but rape is something entirely different.

      In a more “small-town” environment (though some bases can be quite large) promiscuity is more “observable’ perhaps, and therefore why you were as aware of it as you were, only you can review how you became aware of it.

      But no woman (or man) should have to submit to unwanted sex (of any sort), period.

      Note that if promiscuity was really as rampant and indiscriminate as i interpret from your remarks, why would anyone need to rape anyone? This goes to other psychological issues that are likely directly related to control, dominance and anger problems.

      • madnomad554

        Of course the two are different, at 44 I am well aware of that. Go spend just one year in the military and you will here tale after tale after tale, of adultery and promiscuity..neither have anymore to do with a “small-town” environment than large.

        You’ll have to ask the rapist why they rape, I don’t know.

        Any co-ed environment will have an elevated occurrence of either promiscuity, adultery or rape. Though even the male prison system is full of rape.

        My main point is that military leaders, especially officers, both male and female are being relieved of their duties at record levels, mostly due to adultery or inappropriate sexual contact…this reported on NPR.

        Is it no wonder that victims of rape are having trouble pleading their case, when many of their very leaders are guilty of the very same offense?

        Creating a more co-ed military environment is only going to make this worse.

           

        • Don_B1

          I am sorry to be obtuse, but I don’t see any evidence, most importantly from your statements, since you are trying to conflate officer promiscuity with the rise in women being raped by (enlisted?) men, or in any legal or psychiatric analysis that I have read.

          Since you admit to not knowing why men rape, why are you speculating on why they rape?

          Could you reread your original post to see why I did not understand where you were (or not) coming from?

          I have no evidence to place you in any “camp” of thought, but I can understand some revulsion at promiscuity from someone raised with strict rules or from someone just jealous of other’s ability to establish relationships (there are certainly others); is that what you think leads to increased rapes?

          Maybe it is just that I am misreading your post, but I see some misogyny in your blaming the increased “co-ed military environment” for the increased occurrence of rapes. Just the increased number of “targets” or opportunities is no reason for the criminal to commit a crime.

          Note that many of the rapes ARE by officers though your posts seem to imply they are only by enlisted men (jealous of officer promiscuity?).

          • madnomad554

             No apologies here for being direct, but where in the hell is the “jealous” factor coming from? I have been medically discharged for some 7 years now. Jealous of what???

            Speculation??? BOTH men AND woman commit rape, though most are committed by men. The only speculating going on here is coming form your end. Misogyny??? Quite offensive, as I view all  people as equals, men and woman.

            Late last year, around November, NPR aired a fairly lengthy report, not a sound bite, indicating the increased relieved of duty cases in the military, regarding all forms of sexual misconduct. The report was not of the speculative nature, rather it gave specific numbers. I don’t recall the specific reporter or would direct you to the interview.

            The sexual misconduct in the military is from top to bottom and includes all ranks, commissioned and non-commissioned enlistees. January 02 is when I first entered the military and got to my assigned unit in May of that year. That unit had just returned from Kosovo and the stories that floated around about enlistees visiting prostitutes while in Kosovo and the woman back home having affairs, was not what I expected. In fact it is part of why I am mostly disappointed with my overall military experience. Honestly, there are many dirty little secrets about the military and I was blindsided by all of them and I am glad it’s over with. 

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    It has started.

    “The US government has blocked a Texas-based company from distributing
    details online of how to make a plastic gun using a 3-D printer.
    The
    ban, by the State Department citing international arms control law,
    comes just days after the world’s first such gun was successfully fired.”

    No way this will stand up in courts if challenged.

    And why do we have to read this in the UK press?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/may/09/3d-printed-guns-plans-state-department

    • northeaster17

      Why do we need 3D printers making guns?

      • Jasoturner

        Because 2D printers can’t?

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      bur did have an article about it, it was the gun propaganda of the day yesterday. it sounds very strange from their message. i was thinking DOD just bought them out lock stock and barrel as it were. its a moot point for several reasons for one they already put the plans online. once you put something online it cannot be destroyed so its too late on that front. the other thing is that anyone can make a much better gun using scrap metal, a drill press and plans from the internet and if you follow some simple rules its perfectly legal. whats distrubing is that they are citing some sort of interantional treaty to limit a citizens rights? i dont see how that is legal

      • Don_B1

        You are undoubtedly correct about the comparison between plastic and metal guns, at least as they are made today. But for some tasks the plastic will more than suffice. Recall the movie, In the Line of Fire with Clint Eastwood and John Malkovich where Malkovich’s character uses composites to construct a gun to assassinate the president.

        The threat of 3D printing of plastic guns is their undetectability, which was made a crime by a law signed by President Ronald Reagan (in 1988).

        The plans that have been put on the Internet call for the insertion of a non-functional piece of metal to meet the “letter of the law” but the maker has no need to use it. It is probably for that reason that the plans have been “taken down.”

        While making possession of such an undetectable weapon illegal with long (30+ years?) jail terms is probably the only way to keep them from being made as the cost of 3D printers inevitably comes down to the cost of current printers, this will be difficult in the current political environment.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          they dont use metal detectors anymore they have naked scanners now. the real threat of 3d printed guns is that the govt would loose the power to regulate them. john malkovich had no trouble making one without the use of a 3d printer and i believe clint still stopped his plot despite his plastic gun. we can speculate but hopefully sometime the real story of what went down comes out.  there are already stiff penalties for making an undetectable gun. homemade guns will only ever become a serious issue if the gun controls limit whats available to people too much.

    • Jasoturner

      The biggest concern with these guns is probably their likelihood of misfiring or failing in a way that damages the shooter or innocent bystanders.  How many shots can these thing get off before the gun components start to degrade?  Ten?

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         I agree. I wouldn’t trust it.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          the point is just to prove that it can be done. its an experimental prototype

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        actually 6. its a prototype and open source users can improve it. its designed more to prove a concept than to be a final product. for them to be successful at this stage it only really had to fire once. you need to be careful when testing prototype weapons i am sure those who do such things are aware of the chance of failure

    • brettearle

      You’re saying this should be allowed, without permits/background checks?

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         No, I never said that.

        This is the statement I find troubling:
        “The ban, by the State Department citing international arms control law”

        There is a real issue with the Statists using ‘international law’ to regulate domestic issues.  This is the first time I have seen it in practice.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        permits are a matter of state law. how could you ever have a NICS check on a homemade gun?

  • Jasoturner

    Please talk about the dangerous willingness of people to sacrifice their liberty at the temple of safety.  Some of the comments being made by congress(wo)men after the Boston bombing are terrifyingly un-American.  Like, if you are cleared of wrongdoing, you should still be monitored by authorities.  THIS is what they want the United States to become?  Frankly, I’ll take the risk that some nut with bad wiring in his head might try to kill me over living in a country where shadowy “authorities” may monitor innocent people “just to be safe.”

    • brettearle

       Maybe, I’ve been listening to the wrong Media.

      Can you identify these “crazy politicians” for us?

      [No sarcasm, here....only serious curiosity]

      • Jasoturner

        Joe Lieberman, for example, stated that it “would have been hard” but that the bombers “could have been stopped.”  Which I took to mean that they would/should have been surveilled and deterred.

        I mean, maybe he meant better local policing, but he was talking in a context of increased interdepartmental communications.  That these ostensibly clean guys should have been kept under surveillance even after the brother had been cleared or nefarious activities.

        So that’s one example.

        • brettearle

          While you may not recognize me as what I claim–based on what I have to say, here–I am very, very big on privacy issues and often support ACLU issues.

          Nevertheless, the United States is involved in Asymmetric wars–where lone cells have tried to operate and to commit violent sedition.

          Not to mention Radical Cults, in the Middle East and in Central Asia, who are committed to destroying the United States.

          In the aftermath of the Boston Tragedy–and all of the terrorist events that have been thwarted between 9/11 and the Marathon tragedy, including ones that we don’t know about–it becomes quite justified to shore up our monitoring techniques.

          There are a number of reasons  why these men might have been caught, had there been better technology and interconnectivity

          And there are a number of reasons why these men might never have been caught, no matter what.

          But I can’t imagine that you are suggesting that we do nothing–in the aftermath of Boston…simply because you think that we sacrifice our Freedom for Security.

          Many Liberals don’t agree with you, I think.

          That doesn’t mean, we expect Big Brother.

          You seem to think that it’s all or nothing.

          You also seem to feel that Government will spin out of control, with its surveillance anxiety.

          That may, or may not be true.

          But let’s see what happens.

          It’s a difficult line to follow.

          Why can’t you see any middle ground?

          Flexibility, it seems to me, is essential.

          • Jasoturner

            I am not suggesting we do nothing, nor do I think it is all or nothing.  But I am suggesting that I am quite concerned about United States citizens surrendering their liberty to the government out of fear that is disproportionate the the actual threat.  Boston was awful, yes.  But would you covenant lifetime monitoring of our citizens (even just those who were “suspicious”) to maybe, possibly, avoid a similar event in the future?  To me that price seems far too high.

            You are correct in divining that I have little trust in the government reigning in new authority once granted, but I also find some ideas I have heard to be contrary to my understanding our of constitutional rights.  Such as our right to privacy.

            A police-level “no package” rule at the start and finish lines might well have prevented this.  A new security paradigm is not obviously required.  Which is why I hope that we can move forward with restraint and common sense, rather than knee-jerk responses such as full and unbridled integration of foreign and domestic signals intelligence.

            By the way, thanks for your thoughtful post.

          • brettearle

            Thanks.

            If I have time (tonight or tomorrow, or soon) I’ll respond to your most recent comment, above.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            just like another 9/11 type attack is impossible not because of the dhs or the patriot act but because americans are now alert to the threat we do not need any govt action or spending to counter this threat just alert citizens. this is what stopped the underwear bomber and the  shoe bomber and the times square bomber not any big brother BS. now that we know pressure cookers are a threat we will look twice at anyone with a big backpack and three times if they leave it somewhere the real threats to america are wearing nice suits and buy tv ads

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            those would give up even a little liberty for the illusion of security deserve neither

      • Jasoturner

        Here’s another

        Republican Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas, the committee chairman, said he
        feared “the Boston bombers may have succeeded because our system
        failed. We can and we must do better.”
         

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      you should read the article about the expanded powers the IRS now has to monitor basically everything about people

  • ToyYoda

    We spent an hour talking about the diamond heist that happened not too long ago.  I’m wondering if we can have a show to talk about the recent atm heist, which in many ways is ALOT more scarier:

    http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/10/daily-report-international-a-t-m-theft-takes-45-million/

  • Ray in VT

    Has there been much, if any, media coverage of the arrest of a Minnesota man who possessed firearms and explosives?  It is being looked at as a potential case of domestic terrorism.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      he must not be a muslim

      • Ray in VT

        Well, I am inclined to think that if he was, then there would have been a lot more coverage of him.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          thats where we are at in america. its pretty pathetic. antisemetic war/fear mongering is something i do not like seeing in america in 2013

  • alsordi

    Why is it the main stream media can air the entire Jody Arias trial all day long for weeks,  and there are men in penned up like animals in Guantanamo, for over ten years, without a trial ??

    US citizens deserve to hear these captives side of the story.

  • alsordi

    DOW at 15,000 is a joke,  supported by media hype on distorted home sales and unemployment statistics.  

    The Feds keep printing  and giving the cheap money to their best pals to reep in inflated profits while the rest of the country turns into a depressed police state.

    • ToyYoda

      Does that mean I need to buy gold?

      • Don_B1

        Buying gold now would likely being what happens so often: the smart ones get in early and the rest get in just in time to let the smart ones get out with their profits and then those “late buyers” take the losses.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        you might as well since all the bullets are already sold out

  • alsordi

    The phenomenon of Cleveland kidnapper is indicative of a nation in decline.  Cleveland, like Detroit is a low income community, with abandoned homes on every street, and pit bulls as the pet of choice for those that live there. 

    This guy, as sick a predator as he is,  was living the Road Warrior existence, taking from society what he pleases.  This is the cynical result from those that see wealthy bankers working the system and getting richer and richer.  They see the US spending trillions in phoney profit wars killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people.  And the depravity in the US media hasnt been a positive influence.

    How this crackpot gained his women is not too different to how some American Indians, African tribes and the barbarians of Northern Europe gained their female mates.

    Western society is in serious trouble.

    • brettearle

      The above observation is an exaggerated and inflated view of  pathology in American society.

      It is UTTERLY an Alarmist statement–contributing to the mistrust between people and promoting man’s alienation to man.

      The more hysteria like the above, that we see, and the more our country WILL go downhill, even more than it already has.

      The above comment creates the wanton impression that the next sociopath is next door–and that we should all hunker down and never give anyone else the time of day–unless they are known to us, personally.

      Congratulations, sir, for your pathetic contribution.

    • donniethebrasco

       The pathology comes from relying on the government for food, housing, and clothing.

      When people are encourage to scam the system instead of working for themselves, pathology ensues.

  • hennorama

    During the House Benghazi hearing on Wednesday, there was some quoting of an email from Beth Jones, the acting Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs, as follows:

    “I spoke to the Libyan ambassador and emphasized the importance of Libyan leaders continuing to make strong statements. When he said his government suspected that former Gadhafi regime elements carried out the attacks I told him that the group that conducted the attacks,
    Ansar al sharia, is affiliated with Islamic terrorists.”

    Now we find out, according to the NY Times, that Rep. Trey Gowdy misquoted that email, substituting “terrorist” in place of the word “extremist”.

    What a surprise.

    FTA:

    “During Wednesday’s hearing, Representative Trey Gowdy, Republican of South Carolina, read an excerpt from the e-mail, quoting what he said was a reference to the local militant group that carried out the attack, Ansar al-Shariah, as having links to “Islamic terrorists.”

    “But a copy of the e-mail reviewed by The New York Times indicates that A. Elizabeth Jones, the senior State Department official who wrote it, referred to “Islamic extremists,” not terrorists.

    “The distinction is important, administration officials said, because while the White House did not initially characterize the attack as terrorism, senior officials, including Ambassador Susan E. Rice, acknowledged the possibility that extremists had been involved in the assault.”

    See:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/10/us/politics/benghazi-debate-focuses-on-interpretation-of-early-e-mail-on-attackers.html?ref=politics

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       Thanks for clearing this up.  Drop the investigations immediately!!!!  Especially because Hillary plans to run in 2016 and we certainly don’t want to expose anything embarrassing for Mrs. Clinton.

      • Gregg Smith

        It’s all about the label. Radical Islamic extremist, no problem.

        • donniethebrasco

           I think Radical Islam is sufficient.

          But I prefer “movie critics.”

      • hennorama

        WftC I must admit I laughed out loud at your wry comment.

        The fact that Rep. Trey “I don’t know which way to comb over my hair” Gowdy made a big deal out of this email, and now it turns out it was misquoted, just adds to the nonsense.

        Regardless, your comment was amusing.

    • Gregg Smith

      She said with certainty it was the video. 

      The Libyan Ambassador did not say it was a video. Here’s the Libyan President:

      “It’s a preplanned act of terrorism directed at American citizens,” Magarief told NBC’s Ann Curry in an interview that aired Wednesday. “Reaction should have been, if it was genuine, should have been six months earlier. So it was postponed until the 11th of September. They chose this date, 11th of September, to carry a certain message.”

      http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/libya-president-benghazi-attack-terrorism-133154516.html

    • OnPointComments

      From this we can conclude that the administration won’t release the Benghazi emails, that is unless they think they can spin an email to the administration’s benefit.  I wonder which administration official gave the email to the New York Times.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      Tangent: I’ve never heard of Rep Trey Gowdy, R-SC.

      But lately whenever I first read about some unknown (to me) Republican Congresscritter, it always seems to be someone who really isn’t distinguishing themselves in a good way. Why is that?

      (Since the Senate is only 100 folks, I’ve probably heard of them all.)

      • hennorama

        TF – one need only look at which state Rep. Trey “Gauche” Gowdy hails from to get a clue.  As the caller just said “We’re a failed state here in South Carolina”.

        What the heck is in the water in South Carolina?

  • superpage

    I’m rather surprised there was no show on the Cleveland kidnappings.  

    • donniethebrasco

       There is no pro-Liberal agenda here.

      The police were hampered by fear from ACLU-types on privacy (especially in poor neighborhoods).  Castro had plastic bags on the windows.  That is usually done in marijuana growing operations or meth cookers.  But without probable cause, they can’t investigate.

      The neighborhood where this happened is supported by section 8 vouchers, EBT cards, and other government Robin Hood programs.

      • superpage

        Only for the insecure and paranoid.  

  • alsordi

    Who could be surprised at sexual assaults in the US military?.

    The neoconservative PNAC Project for a New American Century entails conquering and destabilizing a lineup of Muslim nations in the Middle East. 

    And two facts they realized from the start:
    First – Fraternizing with the local women in this region is not likely.
    Second – Positive troop morale requires the presence of females.

    So experts and the media can give all the politically correct and noble reasons why the increase in female enlistment has broken records over the past decade,  but I am certain its more for morale boost, which of course comes with negative consequences.

    • donniethebrasco

       Definitely a reason to get rid of all men in the military.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        i think you might have found the solution

  • OnPointComments

    Will the government get away with it?
    Obama administration has lied and covered up on Benghazi attacks — right under Americans’ noses

    http://chronicle.augusta.com/opinion/editorials/2013-05-10/will-government-get-away-it?v=1368150910 
    http://chronicle.augusta.com/opinion/editorials/2013-05-10/will-government-get-away-it?v=1368150910  

    “What if there is no accountability for all of this? What if there are no repercussions for leaving the embassy open to attack; not lifting a finger to save our murdered embassy personnel; lying about it all for days on end, at the highest levels of government; trying to cover it up for months on end; trying to intimidate witnesses into silence, and more?”  Testimony shines belated light on facts about the administration’s Benghazi fiction    Testimony shines belated light on facts about the administration’s Benghazi fiction  “What if there is no accountability for all of this? What if there are no repercussions for leaving the embassy open to attack; not lifting a finger to save our murdered embassy personnel; lying about it all for days on end, at the highest levels of government; trying to cover it up for months on end; trying to intimidate witnesses into silence, and more?”  

    Testimony shines belated light on facts about the administration’s Benghazi fiction   

    http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20130510/PC1002/130519980/1021/testimony-shines-belated-light-on-facts-about-the-administration-x2019-s-benghazi-fiction 

    “Terrible failures of judgment led to the deaths of four Americans at a U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya, eight months ago. But the Obama administration’s failure to give a complete — and honest — account about what went so tragically wrong before, during and after that terrorist attack is as troubling as that series of awful mistakes.”"Terrible failures of judgment led to the deaths of four Americans at a U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya, eight months ago. But the Obama administration’s failure to give a complete — and honest — account about what went so tragically wrong before, during and after that terrorist attack is as troubling as that series of awful mistakes.”

    • brettearle

      The loss of 250-odd GIs in Lebanon, in 1983, at President Regan’s direction, was MUCH, MUCH worse.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        Now Brett, it happened when Saint Ronnie was President.

        I’m sure the Lebanon kerfuffle was actually the freedom-loving, Commie-fighting triumph our Reagan hagiographers remember it as.

        • brettearle

          If only FAUX News had been on, at the time, for the grand Spin.

      • OnPointComments

        The loss of 250-odd GIs in Lebanon in 1983 has nothing to do with the Benghazi terrorist attack and subsequent coverup.

      • StilllHere

        “What difference does it make?”

  • Gregg Smith

    I am so very disappointed by some of these comments. I didn’t think people would so blatantly defend the lies and cover up. I would have thought folks would expect the truth from our government. This is amazing.

    The best I can tell, Bush was worse so Obama can do what he pleases. That is the most prevalent genius logic. Or Obama really did level with us about the threat of radical Islam. Or the best intelligence was that it was the silly video. Or someone who doesn’t matter said extremist instead of terrorist. Or it was just a confusing time. No one should ask Obama where he was after 5PM, no one. No exceptions. Hillary 2016! 

    Putting ideology over truth is despicable. It’s embarrassing. You folks, and you know who you are, should be ashamed.

    • dust truck

      Wait, so 8 months of investigations, 11 congressional hearings before five committees, 20 staff briefings and 25,000 pages of documents that show exactly what we started with:  a tragic situation with lessons to be learned.   Hilary took full responsibility for what happened.

      Where are the lies? So far Issa hasn’t found them, and he has been VERY thorough.

      • OnPointComments

        There wasn’t a protest in Benghazi.  There wasn’t a demonstration in Benghazi that got out of hand.  It had nothing to do with a YouTube video.

      • donniethebrasco

         They lied when they told the America people two things:

        1. No one in Benghazi asked for help.  Even if they did, there was no one who could help.

        2. The attacks on Benghazi were not Al Qaeda, they were demonstrations about an anti-Islamic video made by an American.

        Stop putting your head in the sand.

        • dust truck

          Clinton said it was incorrect and apologized for it and even appointed an independent commission led by two of the most distinguished, nonpartisan career civil servants in recent American
          history to investigate them. 

          This has ALREADY been investigated by Issa. Are you saying he’s not doing a good job?

    • Ray in VT

      Putting ideology ahead of truth is truly despicable, but you certainly don’t have a problem spreading misinformation, distortions, conspiracy theories and lies when it fits your narrative.

      • Gregg Smith

        Never.

        • Ray in VT

          Laughably untrue.

          • Acnestes

            I think he must mean, “You’re right, I never had a problem with spreading misinformation, distortions, conspiracy theories and lies.”

          • Gregg Smith

            I have a big problem with it.

    • brettearle

      Gregg,

      If you weren’t operating, with such a decided political agenda, more people would take your comments more seriously.

      While you may have some legitimate points, this tragedy is grossly, BUT GROSSLY, politicized by the Right Wing and even by some so-called responsible Republicans.

      While it may not fully excuse what happened, mistakes in security and protection happen periodically:  The Cole; the embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, come to mind.

      But the most egregious example that I can think of, offhand, were the slaughter of over 250 GIs in Lebanon, in 1983–who were ordered there by President Reagan.

      How many Congressional hearings took place in this Tragedy’s aftermath?

      How much post-Event Media coverage was there, for months and months–that called for a lynching of President Regan….especially by comparison to what’s going on now?

      VERY LITTLE.

      Instead, Regan sailed on his popularity, “accepted responsibility”–briefly and publicly.

      And then he went on to allow a major betrayal of the American people–whereby arms to Iran were being exchanged for funding to the anti-communists in Nicaragua–right, there, in the basement of the President’s Home.

      Plausible Deniability or not, Go figure.

      • Gregg Smith

        All I want is the truth. The truth has no agenda.

    • northeaster17

      I’m not sure what truth your looking for.
      Are you looking for Obama to say that radical Islam is dangerous to the U. S. and our way of life?
      Is it that we should not even be there in Libia?
      What should have Obama been doing after 5pm?
      Should this attack cancel Hillary’s white house ambitions?
      Why argue over the words terrorist or extremist?

      • Gregg Smith

        Yes, I do think Obama should say that because it’s true. He certainly should not go out of his way to hide it.

        An argument could certainly be made that we should not have had an Ambassador stationed in Benghazi. Few nations did.

        After 5PM Obama should have had the situation room spun up with appropriate staff on board. He should have remained engaged and done what was necessary to get them help. He should have acted as Commander in Chief.

        Yes, but Hillary was never qualified. Her tenure as SOS was dismal. Her record in the Travel Office, Whitewater, Rose Law Firm, Madison, the suddenly appearing billing records and on and on is as nasty as it gets. She was a doormat for Bill and a horrible role model for women. That she is being considered is appalling.

        They are one in the same, I was referring to a commenter who seems to believe the difference is so stark it exonerates Obama. I think it’s silly.

  • http://twitter.com/kl_artz kl h

    if the ppl in Cleveland were men they would’ve been found sooner. Stay OUT. of Syria but provide communication, new the culture of a company ALWAYS comes from the top down regarding sexual assaults

  • Fiscally_Responsible

    The prolonged, repeated abuse by Castro, an admitted sex addict, against these girls, is exactly why we should not allow gay boy or girl scout masters.  Doing so greatly increases the risk of abuse by people attracted to members of the same sex, particularly those in a defenseless position.  Allowing gay boy or girl scouts also increases the risk of peer to peer abuse.

    • Ray in VT

      So should straight men and women only be allowed to teach opposite sex classes in any schools, and we better keep the clergy away from the kids.  Pedophilia and homosexuality are two very different things.

      • Fiscally_Responsible

        In terms of schools, you had better have very close supervision, keep doors open, closely monitor  teachers and students, have a policy in place that forbids one adult/one child meetings, etc.  Anyone knows that when you start having any kind of overnight or offsite activities, the risk of any kind of inappropriate behavior increases dramatically as there is much more opportunity.  You can stick your head in the sand and kid yourself by saying that the risk of scoutmaster to scout or scout to scout inappropriate behavior is not affected.  But as I said and as statistics prove, you would just be kidding yourself.  And then when you groups like North American Man Boy Love Association that actually advocate for such inappropriate relationships, it is just a matter of time before the media has plenty to report about.

        • Ray in VT

          There should always be oversight, and preferably more than one adult present, but, again, NAMBLA is an organization of pedophiles, not of gay men.  Plenty of men who sexually assault boys are straight.  Are you attracted to small children?  I’m not.  I’m going to guess, I think very safely, that you are not a child molester, and I don’t think that that would be different if you homosexual.

    • northeaster17

      Should we apply that logic to priests or teachers or others who work with or around children?

      • Fiscally_Responsible

        See my response to “Ray in VT” below.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      if this guy was gay he would not have kidnapped any girls

  • Bruce Bartel

    It is not just the USA.

    Look to the Fritzl case in Austria.  Kept his daughter for 24 years in the basement and “fathered” 7 children.

    There are sick SOB’s all over.

  • Gregg Smith

    I think Obama was passed out drunk the night of Benghazi. I’ve said it before but it’s just an opinion. We know he drinks, we know his doctor told him to cut back.

    Questions: Can anyone prove he wasn’t drunk? Since his whereabouts are such a guarded secret, is it safe to assume the truth is more damning than the flack he gets for hiding it?

    • donniethebrasco

       Maybe he was Choomed up instead.

      Or reading a book about goats to children.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        i was thinking maybe he was out in the chune wagon with the chune gang

    • hennorama

      Gregg Smith The Amazing Time Traveling Mind Reader – why didn’t you let us know in advance that you would be performing today?

      Here I thought the Clinton Concussion Truthers at Fox News were the lowest of the low regarding the Benghazi events. Now you dredge up this equine excrement, setting yet another new low.

      Well done, sir. Please take a bow for debasing the discourse.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         Wait a minute.  Aren’t you curious what the President did on the evening of 9/11?

        Since regime isn’t forthcoming with information why not engage in outrageous speculation to shame them into being transparent?

        I recall in  9/11/2001 there was great interest by the media in what Bush did in the 7 minutes after he was told and also what he did in the days after.  Peter Jennings, ABC news anchor,  on his evening broadcast even implied that Bush was a coward for staying on Air Force One instead of returning immediately to DC.

        • Ray in VT

          I did not like the constant coverage of where the President was on 9/11.  As far as I was concerned, with the nation under attack by forces unknown, all that I needed to know was that he was secure, and that the government was functioning as it should.  What exactly did Peter Jennings say or imply?  Our cable was out that day, so we only had radio available for many hours for news.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             Fair points.  Cable was out?  A coincidence?

            I don’t have the direct quote but Jennings implied that Bush was coward and that ‘other’ Presidents would have returned directly to DC to show their resolve.  He never used the word coward but the implication was clear.

          • Ray in VT

            Yeah, the cable was down, and we never found out why.  I was working nights, so I had gone to bed around 4:00am that morning, and then my friend down the street calls and says “the World Trade Center is gone, the Pentagon’s been hit, and nobody knows where the President is!”, or something to that effect.  It was pretty scary, especially considered that we were very limited as to what we could get for news.

            D.C. was probably the last place that he should have been, except for NYC. I went to work that night, so we listened on the factory floor to the news on the radio.

        • hennorama

          WorriedfortheCountry – TY for your response. I respect and understand your views.

          Curious? Yes.

          Willing to, as you wrote “engage in outrageous speculation to shame them”? No.

          Equine excrement expert Smith clearly is both shameless and shameful.

          Baseless speculation has no place in Smith’s beloved “open and honest” debate, yet he engages in it nonetheless.

          As to Pres. Bush, 9/11, and Mr. Jennings – those events are completely unrelated to Benghazi, in time, place and magnitude. As such, any comparisons are incongruous and inadvisable in my view.

          • Gregg Smith

            I’ll put you down for a “no” and a “yes” respectively.

            Hey, don’t you accuse Rush of being drug addled on a regular basis? He’s not you know. Are you shameful or shameless?

          • hennorama

            Gregg “I don’t know and I don’t care what the dictionary says” Smith – you might benefit from looking up the definition of the word “accuse”, then perhaps restating your question.

            Alternatively, please provide evidence of the claim that forms the basis of your baseless question containing that word.

            As one suspects you will decline the challenge, allow me to answer your questions as posed, silly though they are:

            No.
            Neither.

            You may now return to your equine excrement.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       My money is still on shooting hoops in the WH gym. After all he knew he would be stuck in Air Force One the next day to go to that Las Vegas fund raiser.

    • StilllHere

      Coked up?

      • Ray in VT

        Choked on a peanut and then he got treatment for a pilonidal cyst, which, in case you didn’t know, is a physical ailment so debilitating that it precludes one from serving in the military.

    • Ray in VT

      Well, if you “knew” that Islamic terrorists were behind this so early on, before facts had been collected on the ground, then can you prove that you were not in cahoots with some of these people?  What are you hiding in the tin shack in which you say that you live?

      • Gregg Smith

        I have an alibi. I did not know right away it was terrorist but I expected it right away. I mean, duh! I did know right away it wasn’t about a stupid video but that’s not saying much. I’m not an idiot.

        • Ray in VT

          It was apparent right away that it was of a different character than other protests, but I’m willing to wait for the dust to settle before jumping to conclusions, and, considering the outrage that some silly cartoons created previously, it did not seem totally unbelievable to me, although, again, I was waiting for more information.

          • Gregg Smith

            That’s pragmatic and I could respect that for a couple of days. But after 5 days it was clear and Rice was sent out to lie. The information to support the video meme never arrived as the terrorist connection became crystal clear.

          • Ray in VT

            There were some reports from the ground that could not be disproved until after the consular video was retrieved.  Anything beyond that would be indefensible to me, but talk about a protest infiltrated by extremists, was waning prior to that.  I don’t think that things were clear after 5 days, considering that a major piece of evidence had yet to be collected.

    • OnPointComments

      Axiom:  a self-evident truth that requires no proof. 
       
      If it was bad that President Bush hesitated for a few minutes after he was told of the attacks on 09/11, then certainly it must be much, much worse that when President Obama was told of the attack in Beghazi, his reponse was to go to bed and not be heard from again for the rest of the night, then get up the next morning and fly off to Las Vegas for a fundraiser.

  • kilcoyne

    Cleveland kidnapper may be charged with five murders for the five miscarriages he caused. So, that’s murder, but abortion is a federally protected “reproductive right.”

    • donniethebrasco

       That’s right.  If a mother can kill her embryo, so can the father.

      • Ray in VT

        So, if I am allowed to cut off my own arm, then can I also cut off yours?

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

    “The victory caps a dramatic comeback by the scandal-tinged former
    governor, whose political career was left for dead four years ago when
    he was caught lying about an extramarital affair.”

    Can someone tell Politico that SC-1 is a R+11 district?

    Tom, time to analyze the process by which Republican Fambly Values male pols “comeback”. I missed the mea culpa on this one, the years wandering the desert and regaining his good name.

    And the funniest thing is how relieved that in this case “sex scandal” for a right-wing white conservative means “getting caught with a woman who gives her consent” rather than an underaged boy or girl.

    But let’s count the days before Sanford will tell me what to do in my bedroom.

    • OnPointComments

      Some Democrats have a problem with Mark Sanford because of his morality.
       
      Bill Clinton
      Ted Kennedy
      John Edwards
      Anthony Weiner
       
      Because of his morality.  Yeah, right.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        Yawn.

        Talk to me when Family Values Democrats take the lead into my bedroom.

      • StilllHere

        Exactly!

      • Ray in VT

        But the Democrats are supposed to be the moral relativist party.  Why is God’s Own Party putting a man like Sanford back in office?  It’s pretty astonishing the number of “family values” candidates screw around on their wives and such.  What bothers me the most about them is that they’re on such a high horse about how righteous they are.

  • TomK_in_Boston

    McConnell failed in making the GoP senatorial agenda “to make Obama a 1 term president” and now the right are trying to derail Hilary before the next primaries even start with their fake outrage over Benzagy. How do I know it’s political? Because it’s the first time they ever got their panties in a twist over security lapses. Above all, they’re fine with W clearin’ brush and readin’ “My Pet Goat” in response to “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US”. But there were plenty of others during the dark bush years. Never a peep. Never a demand for an investigation. What hypocrisy.

    From Bob Cesca:January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of “Bali Bombings.” No fatalities.February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name “David Foy.” This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what’s considered American soil.)September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting “Allahu akbar” storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.March 18, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.September 17, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

    Was it Elizabeth Sullivan who said “Rape is a crime of power, not a crime of sex”?

    Cos if so, that’s some good Plain Dealing.

  • Gordon Green

    Millions of people male and female alike use pornography without a problem, and I have yet to hear any convincing evidence that this has anything to do with actual sexual violence.  What evidence does Jack have to make the connection between the two?

    • brettearle

       The evidence he has may be in his own Self-Righteousness.

    • dreaddead1

      It is the same argument people that cite video games cause violence use.

  • http://www.facebook.com/gary.kay.7777 Gary Kay

    Dow 15,000. The next big collapse comes nearer.

  • skeptic150

    As much as the religious folks may not want to acknowledge/deal with this, humans are animals. As such, some will act, predictably, horrifically. Our behavior can, and should, be modified/”controlled” via moral codes, laws, conditioning, etc, but there will always be those on the bell curve of human behavior that will act horribly. It is unfortunate, but it is observable and predictable based on everything we know.

  • Boston_mom

    I get really tired of hearing that rape is about power, not sex. Rape has a distinction from power. SEXUAL power is different than power, and our refusal to acknowledge this as a society is part of the problem. It’s the dangerous combination of sex, power and violence that is at the root of this, and this is inherently different than “power.”

    • Boston_mom

      And just look at movies like Mr and Mrs Smith, during which their whole fight scene was foreplay. Sex and violence are very entwined in our culture, and they are neither sex, nor violence, on their own. Their combination makes them far more dangerous.

  • CatInBoston

    As a culture, we need to stop only teaching girls how to not be sexually assaulted, and start teaching boys not to sexually assault women. We need to talk about consent and healthy sex at every stage of education, and that means we need learn how to talk openly and unashamedly about sex.

    • adks12020

      I agree but good luck trying to make that point in the South or Midwest.

  • skeptic150

    Politicians, whether Dems, Repubs, Independents, are still part of the human animal spectrum and will behave as such. I am not sure why people care at all about politicians’ sex lives.  We should care more about their intellect and ability to reason.

  • skeptic150

    Politicians, whether Dems, Repubs, Independents, are still part of the human animal spectrum and will behave as such. I am not sure why people care at all about politicians’ sex lives. We should care more about their intellect and ability to reason.

    • brettearle

       C’mon….you know why people care about politicians’ sex lives…

      It’s Pop culture comics…

  • babbo1

    I found the sex negativity of today’s program completely disappointing. In particular, Jack Beatty made a comment early in the program about pornography and fantasy being to blame for the abuse of the three women he kidnapped. Anyone expressing this point of view is making a grievous mistake of confusing fantasy and reality: Committed partners in a relationship consensually exploring sexual fantasy is an empowering and healthy experience. What Ariel Castro stands accused of is abuse, not fantasy, and sex negativity and youth abstinence as one of the guests suggested is not the appropriate way for society to deal with sex crime. The appropriate response is the arrest and punishment of abusers.

  • skeptic150

    Sorry – these were in response to posts below but got redirected here.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      (The in crowd, which you are becoming part of, can just say “Disqus sucks”.)

  • Scott B

    That “rape isn’t about sex, it’s about power” has been repeatedly disproven.  Except in places like war zones and areas where it’s an matter of family honor such Africa and the Middle East, yet the myth hangs on, the majority of rapes are inflicted on women in their prime sexual years, from puberty on into their 40′s.

    This “porn causes rape”, has also been also been repeated disproven, starting with the Meese Commission under Reagan, yet that myth hangs on, too. 

    I will agree that better sex education needs to be done in this country. The clinical stuff is fine, but classroom videos of tap dancing sperm and ova fluttering big eyelashes doesn’t aid kids (or anyone) in how to have a good relationship, including sex, nor make them understand that the sexual content they see on TV, or find in porn when they do what kids have always done and find naughty stuff, does not reflect reality in any way.

  • Brad Freseman

    We need to privitize the enforcement of physical assualt charges in the military. It cannot be left to the military anymore-they have proven that they are not able to handle the responsibility.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      i am sure a govt contractor would do it for a fee

  • Acnestes

    Ray and TF, I know where you’re coming from and your efforts are laudable.  But geez, there are so many fools to suffer and so little time. As you say it’s not a debate, and you simply can’t win an argument against people who live in a delusion with their own personal undeniable facts, and whose, “arguments”, are simply a tired collection of bogey men, straw men and non sequiturs.  Granted, there’s a point in trying to expose them for what they are, but it seems to me that to any reasonable person they do it adequately all by themselves, particularly when two or three of them show up at once and reinforce each other.  They just can’t help it.

    • Ray in VT

      Well, there is something to be said for letting people hang themselves with their own words.

      • jefe68

        And they do it with so well, don’t you think?

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      Thanks. But this really doesn’t take up my time. I’m multitasking now, if I duck out I’m feeding my radio to a PC with HarddiskOgg, which creates a neat digital audio file. The effort to do this is incredibly less than it was even ten years ago, let along the old e-mail lists from c. 1997.

      To the larger point: As I always say, this wouldn’t matter if it were anywhere else. Public Radio, however, has this self-flagellating need to include, to take seriously, to wonder how they’ll appeal, to folks who don’t want public radio to do actual journalism, let alone media crit.

      There are mainstream media message boards which are like free-diving in a septic tank, and the media companies don’t pay attention to the content there. They’re not worth my time. This is.

      • Acnestes

         My hat’s off, and more power to you!

  • BHA_in_Vermont

    Mark Sanford is an embarrassment.

    • StilllHere

      It depends on what the meaning of is is.

    • OnPointComments

      That hurts coming from the state that elected socialist Bernie Sanders.

      • Gordon Green

        Bernie Sanders is a great man with complete integrity and sound judgement. What do you have against him? 

        • donniethebrasco

          Bernie Sanders voted against the Brady Bill.

          He is a pro-gun nut.

          • Ray in VT

            To what are you referring?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            and what good did the brady bill do?

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          Let me guess: For one thing, Bernie doesn’t scare when some troll calls him a sociaist. For another, Bernie doesn’t cotton to having the goalposts moved rightward on him, and will say so in polite company.

      • Ray in VT

        Bernie’s done some very good things in office, and he never took off from office so that he could screw around on his wife on another continent.

      • jefe68

        Oh please, the worst you can up with is that Bernie Sanders is a socialist?

        Bernie is out there everyday fighting for people who do not have a voice. You have some nerve.

  • BHA_in_Vermont

    Fiscal Hawk = using public money to go have sex with your mistress in South America?? 

  • Michiganjf

    At least the Republican hypocrite Sanford can no longer spout off about “family values” without getting called on it… that’s something, anyway.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      Wanna bet?

      • Michiganjf

        No, I don’t.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

    Sullivan: “Not knowing how Sanford’s district is drawn”?

    It’s R+11. I didn’t have to Google to find that out.

    And am I hearing “extremists on both sides” talk w.r.t. gerrymandering and Congress? This really doesn’t reflect the makeup of Congress.

    • OnPointComments

      It’s ironic that those who were silent when bizarre districts were drawn to ensure the election of minorities now feign outrage at the clearly contiguous and logical counties that make us SC’s 1st district.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        You really need to look up “silent”.

        Lefties have railed for years about how GOP leges in the old Confederacy are fascinated with corralling all the black voters into as few districts in the South as possible.

        It is not BothSidesDoIt. And there are invalidated  redistricting sessions to prove it.

  • jim_thompson

    Tom:

    First let me say as a SC resident I am so sorry for foisting Mark Sanford back into government.  If I run into him I’d like to say this, “Mr. Sanford there is nothing more vulgar nor nauseating than the pretense of piety.”

    Could your panel address the Heritage Foundation’s immigration reform cost report co-authored by Jason Richwine who says Hispanics have a lower IQ than whites and that their children and grandchildren will also have low IQs.   Evidently not only does he think low IQs are atrributed to being Hispanic, but  they will be multiplying too.  Mr. Richwine has also written recent articles on how Hispanics-and other “non-whites” are largely responsible for crime.  This fellow is a senior policy analyst for Heritage and a handpicked fellow of Jim DeMint’s.  Shouldn’t Jim DeMint resign?  He sure has sullied the Heritage Foundation’s image.

    Best,
    Jim T.
    Fort Mill,SC

    • donniethebrasco

      We have John Tierney in MA.

      And we had Barney Frank and Ted Kennedy.

      • jefe68

        You could move, how about South Carolina.
        You seem like a good fit.

    • donniethebrasco

       If there weren’t criminals, there wouldn’t be Kennedys.

      • jim_thompson

        Am not sure what that means or what it has to do with a Heritage Foundation senior policy analyist and co-author of a big roll out report clearly being a racist.  As for the Kennedy family-like all others- there is good and bad.  However, the Kennedy family lost three sons way too early who died in service to their country.  Do you need reminding that Joe Jr. died fighting in the US services for this country or that President Kennedy and Robert Kennedy were both brutally assassinated or that Ted died as he was working to make this country-and world-a better place for ALL people?  Picking on the dead…nice…stay classy!

    • William

       Richwine did the paper while getting his PHD at Harvard so it is legit.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        You really need to do more research. Or any.

        • William

           His paper passed the review board at Harvard.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Breaking: Heritage hack Jason Richwine, Racist AND Stupid, resigns. Turns out shopping his crap to white supremacists is too much even for the whitewashers (I mean that in the good way) of Heritage’s PR flacks.

            Your combination of awful instincts and awful research (sic) strikes again.

            I’d pay good money to bet on “any other racehorse than William bets on”, if it weren’t for that Heisenberg fellow.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      “Sullied Heritage’s image”?

      I didn’t know that was possible. I would have said “reinforced”, myself.

      • Bruce94

        Yep, I thought that the Heritage Foundation was where old, white, detached and dysfunctional Cro-Mag Conservatives go to end their careers “not with a bang, but with a whimper.”

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       Do have a specific issue with Dr. Richwine’s scholarship or are you just generally anti-science when you don’t like the results.  Did you know there were several well known liberal professors at Harvard on Dr. Richwine’s review board and signed off on his research?

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    The hand wringing by the liberal on-point panel on Mark Sanford’s victory is laughable.  They were silent on John Tierney’s (D-MA) recent win.

    • donniethebrasco

       ”Hand Wringing”

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         thank you.

        • donniethebrasco

           For all intensive purposes. [sic]

    • StilllHere

      We need OP to do a week of shows on how Sanford’s victory is evidence of a seachange in the voting public since November and Democrats did to do some serious soul-searching about the future of their party or else risk a century of obscurity.

      Time for a feel-good retreat!

  • http://www.facebook.com/jeremy.riberdy.3 Jeremy Riberdy
    • StilllHere

      Wow, how little value you place on life and the truth.  Good little soldier.

    • donniethebrasco

       They didn’t deny that they were Al Qaeda attacks.

      They didn’t blame movie critics instead of terrorists.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       Yes, hiding the truth in the midst of a Presidental election WAS all about politics.

      After all, we had just heard a week of chanting “GM is alive and Al Qaeda is dead” just prior to the attack.

      • Ray in VT

        I know, right?  Even after the video evidence was recovered from the consulate, people kept insisting that there had been a protest and such.  It’s just amazing the gall of these people.

        I don’t recall people chanting “GM is alive and Al Qaeda is dead”.  I recall a somewhat different chant that had a very different meaning.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           You may have missed it.  It was right after they voted God out the platform.  :)

          • Ray in VT

            They just had a hard time getting the name of God back in, which is certainly something that the GOP has never had a problem with.  ;).  For realz, though, I don’t remember people saying Al Qaeda, but Bin Laden, which are two very different things.  In some ways Al Qaeda is a bit like the brooms in the Sorcerer’s Apprentice.  They have been chopped at, and the head was lopped off, but branches and imitators have popped up elsewhere, and in a lot of ways that makes them more dangerous to be so splintered.  They might be less able to conduct big, elaborate, expensive attacks, but their minions are certainly capable of carrying out a wide variety of smaller strikes all over the globe, and it is certainly not my feeling that those sorts of threats have been downplayed by this administration

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             You are correct that chant was Bin Laden but the implication was Al Qaeda was decimated and impotent.

            I quickly found one source that chronicled Obama’s touting Al Qaeda’s demise 32 times between 9/11/12 and 11/1/2012.

            http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-touts-al-qaeda-s-demise-32-times-benghazi-attack-0

          • Ray in VT

            True, but decimated, which I think literally means to reduce by 10% although it has other connotations, is far different from destroyed.

            Take this quote for instance from your source:

            “We’ve decimated al Qaeda’s top leadership in the border regions around Pakistan, but in Yemen, in Libya, in other of these places – increasingly in places like Syria – what you see is these elements that don’t have the same capacity that a bin Laden or core al Qaeda had, but can still cause a lot of damage, and we’ve got to make sure that we remain vigilant and are focused on preventing them from doing us any harm.”

            That seems pretty right on to me.  We have killed a lot of leaders, but the organization, and others, remain dangerous, much like a wounded animal.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             Obama was running for President so one would expect him to trumpet his horn.  A ‘mission accomplished’ moment?  Not quite.

          • Ray in VT

            It was certainly something that one could tout, especially the Bin Laden killing, even if that may have been more symbolically important rather than operationally important.

          • northeaster17

            That aircraft carrier victory moment still haunts. Doesn’t it?

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            You really don’t know history, do you?

            The first rule of rhetoric is don’t bring up your side’s embarrassments.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             My side is the USA.  What is yours?

          • hennorama

            Yes, see how clearly the President  implied “Al Qaeda was decimated and impotent.”  I mean, it’s sooooooooo obvious.

          • WorriedfortheCountry
          • Ray in VT

            Well, if Gregory said it and not the President…

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             But Gregory is a known mouthpiece for the regime….how  could he get it wrong?

            Sorry I couldn’t resist.

          • Ray in VT

            That’s okay.  I take plenty of shots at Fox, of course I don’t think that they help themselves by loading up with former GOP officials or candidates, but whatever.

  • donniethebrasco

    Wow.

    Playing something critical of Hilary?

    But then go to commercial.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Uh oh.  Now ABC News is reporting the ‘talking points’ were changed 12 times and scrubbed of the terror reference.

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/

    Apparently, David Patreus, CIA director, was dismayed when he saw the changes but stayed quiet because he was a ‘team player’.

    • OnPointComments

      “Benghazi talking points, version 12.0″
       
      http://www.humanevents.com/2013/05/10/benghazi-talking-points-version-12/ 
       
      “Carney [White House Press Secretary Jay Carney] has said the revisions to the talking points were merely “stylistic.”  Yes, I believe that style is called “lying.” “

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Opie has earned his propagandist stripes.

  • Ray in VT

    Some of the stations that air Rush Limbaugh’s show have been reporting that many major advertisers have don’t air orders for during his show, and they’ve been losing a lot of money.  It’s a good thing that the Heritage Foundation is forking money his way, because if he’s costing stations money, I wonder how long they will continue to air him.

    • donniethebrasco

       The marketplace should rule.

      NPR buffoons continue to get paid as long as they are not critical of the liberals.

      Just look at what happened to Juan Williams.

      Before you say it, would you call him a “white” African American?  In the same way that the Boston Bombers were called “White Muslims” and George Zimmerman is a “White Hispanic?”

      • Ray in VT

        Juan Williams a white American?  I don’t think so, but I may be wrong.

        I think that NPR does a fine job, generally, and I think that they generally put people’s feet to the fire in a much more non-partisan way than some ideological outlet like Fox or some infotainer like Rush or Beck.

        • jefe68

          Why even try to use reason with someone who is obviously posting to get a rise out of folks. He’s a waste of space, and time for that matter.

          • Ray in VT

            I don’t know.  Maybe I just enjoy riling people up sometimes.  It is an unfortunate habit that I acquired from my dad.

        • brettearle

          Ray,

          He isn’t going to hear it–even if Ruppert Murdoch admitted that Right Wing Media was grossly more biased than MSM.

          Don’t waste your time.

          It’s a fool’s Errand.

          Everyone can see how Jaded he is.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        its all just a set up so they can start profiling anyone who looks caucasian.

    • brettearle

      All BlowHards fall.

      But, you know….it might be kind of important to keep him around for Comic Relief and to give us a continuing chance to point how gruesome Right Wing doublespeak truly is…

      We won’t have Rush to kick `round anymore?

      NO, say it ain’t SO!

    • Gregg Smith

      Yea, he’ll be off the air in a week, nobody likes him.

      • Ray in VT

        I would do a dance if he did go.  One less loon filling the heads of the susceptible with tripe.  Besides, it would give him more time to go on cruises with his pals.

        • Gregg Smith

          Just wait a bit, I’m sure your sources are impeccable although I had the down low on it last week. It may not be what you think. I think it’s fun that you got your hopes up and are so eager to side with those who advocate less speech and proclaim it loudly. We conservatives want more speech, we welcome Maddow, Morgan and Matthews. We are not afraid of them.

          • Ray in VT

            I am advocating nothing, just noting the problems that some companies who distribute his content are having financially, and some of them are acknowledging that he is a part of that problem.  By all means, let him say whatever idiotic thing that he wants.  It only adds to my daily comic relief.  The only thing that I might fear about Rush is that he might fall on me, and my preference for speech is quality, not quantity.

          • Gregg Smith

            Don’t believe everything you read. Remember the few advertisers who did drop him after the Fluke thing. They came back begging, he denied them. He’s the hottest ticket on radio. And look into it a little deeper, you’ll find more to the story. He’s hardly their problem. But whatever.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            “Don’t believe everything you read” starts with your wishful thinking about Rush’s ratings and advertisers.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            The first rule of lopsided media club is “Don’t talk about lopsided media club” (in the media).

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          maybe they could have beck on all day

  • donniethebrasco

    I think all 25 people who listened to this show enjoyed it.

    • dust truck

      so what are you doing here?

      • jefe68

        Being juvenile. 

    • Ray in VT

      Do you have a source for that figure, aside from factsfromstraightoutofmybutt.org?

      • StilllHere

        You are way too focused on guy’s arses, not that there’s anything wrong with that. Cold & lonely winter in Vermont I’m guessing.

        • Ray in VT

          Only when it comes to the amazing stuff that some people are able to pull out of there when it suits them.  I’m more of a lady’s top front sort of guy, and the cold nights just make my wife want to snuggle closer.

  • StilllHere

    IRS apologizes for targeting conservative groups.

    Another really bad week for Obama and his legacy.

    • Bruce94

      “Another really, bad week…for his legacy”  Yeah, right:  we learned that 165,000 jobs were added last month and that the unemployment rate dropped to 7.5%, a four-year low.  And btw the stock market reached an all-time high.   All this in spite of the drag on economic growth that Tea-Party Republicans and Cro-Mag Conservatives engineered with the sequester.

    • dust truck

      You’re totally exaggerating it. It was “[the IRS division head] said the practice was initiated by low-level workers in Cincinnati and was not motivated by political bias. After her talk, she told The AP that no high level IRS officials knew about the practice.”

      So it’s got nothing to do with Obama and it only affected something like 75 groups in the southern Ohio area.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      When the IRS chief was a Shrub appointee?

      That whole “don’t let Obama pick his own people, right down to the White House sommelier”, is blowing up in your face.

  • OnPointComments

    “How the ‘Marketplace Fairness Act’ could tax your 401(k)”
     
    http://www.humanevents.com/2013/05/09/how-online-marketplace-fairness-act-could-tax-your-401k/ 
     
    “The American Society of Pension Professionals and Actuaries, a group of more than 11,000 retirement plan and benefits professionals, warns the bill “would allow states to impose a financial transaction tax that would apply to American workers’ 401(k) contributions and other transactions within worker’s accounts.” The group notes that “over 70 million workers could be affected” by such taxes, which “could significantly reduce workers savings over time, threatening their retirement security.” The group calls for “a clear exception” for transactions within a 401(k) account.”

    • OnPointComments

      Taxing your retirement plan, IRA, or 401k could be one of the untended consequences of this bill that is being rushed through the Congress, without appropriate debate and scrutiny.  No committee debate, no discussion, no time for input.

    • hennorama

      Thanks for bringing this up OPC.

      I just fired off an email to my Senators and Representative, and suggest others consider similar actions.

      • OnPointComments

        You’re welcome.

  • OnPointComments

    If you can’t fault the Obama administration for lying about Benghazi, then at least fault them for being stupid.  During the On Point shows about Benghazi the week after the attack, many commenters said that the administration’s story didn’t make sense:  how could a spontaneous gathering of people, upset about a YouTube video, coincidentally have heavy artillery?  Yet the adminstration stuck with this silly fabrication for weeks.

    • Gregg Smith

      I actually wish he was that stupid. That’s as kind as I can be.

  • Gregg Smith

    “And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the Secretary of State, our UN Ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, Governor, is offensive. That’s not what we do. That’s not what I do as President. That’s not what I do as Commander-in-Chief.” President Obama

    Then what is 12 rewrites to remove all references to  Ansar al-Sharia  and Al Qaeda?

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      I remember that post. We had someone from ABC fluffing the big, big difference between inputting and editing.

      That granular gnat’s navel-level examination isn’t quite the bomb that ABC and Jonathan Karl think it is.

      No wonder Fox has seized on it as the “source” of “reportage” that’s fooled you.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         At least you looked at it because this time it wasn’t the Weekly Standard.

  • OnPointComments

    Hillary Clinton is readying to embark on the publicity tour for her $14 million book.
     
    “There will be no book titled, “Dear Hillary, I’m In a Burning Diplomatic Mission with no Security and Can’t Breathe: Dying Ambassador’s Letters to Former First Ladies” and no “It Takes a State Department to Spend Money on Art in Embassies Instead of on Embassy Security” book either. Those books would be the bloody handprints on the wall and that would distract us…”
     
    http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/our-soldiers-blood-on-hillary-obamas-hands/

    • ExcellentNews

      Since the Obama Birth Certificate strategy did not produce any results for the oligarchy (they still have to pay a 10% income tax, what an injustice!!!), the useful tools of the Republican Party have embarked on the Benghazi bandwagon, trying to turn an unfortunate event into political capital.

      I guess there will be no publicity tour for the conservative book called “Mission Accomplished – How we gave away 2.5 TRILLION of public funds to crony contractors and foreign dictators fighting wars in irrelevant countries”. The silence from the right on that subject is deafening. Not to mention the 5000 American and 500,000 arab dead…

  • 1Brett1

    The only thing that’ll stop a bad preschooler with a gun is a good preschooler with a gun… 

    2 year old shoots and kills self in accident:

    http://corsicanadailysun.com/local/x508497409/Police-Child-s-death-tragic-accident

    5 year old shoots 7 year old:

    http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/5-year-old-accidentally-shoots-brother-7-with-4497183.php

    3 year old fatally shoots self with uncle’s gun:

    http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/3-year-old-boy-shot-and-wounded-near-tampa/2119745

    5 year old kills 2 year old sister with his “children’s”  gun:

    http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/22138170/ky-child-shooting-part-of-urban-rural-gun-debate

    • dust truck

      Those kids would still be alive today if they had been armed.

    • ExcellentNews

      “Two guns are better than one!” said the gun factory owner from his 300ft yacht moored in the azure Cayman Islands lagoon. A crowd of obsequious bankers cheered him on, and then returned to work on their latest NRA campaign, called “get two and charge them on your credit card”.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        oboma is gun salesman of the year

    • hennorama

      1Brett1 – TY for posting these heartbreaking horrible homicides.

      My having clicked [Like] should be interpreted not as my “Liking” the information, but instead as a “Thank You For Posting”.

      I hate these preventable infanticides.  One hopes society will learn from them.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        what should “society” learn?

        • hennorama

          Futo Buddy – TY for your response.

          First, I wrote “One hopes society WILL learn from them.” (emphasis added)

          The hoped for lesson is to keep all firearms unloaded when not in use, and to keep all firearms safely and securely stored away from children.

          In other words, responsible firearms ownership, 100 percent of the time.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            i am all for that lesson.  gun owners and manufacturers and the NRA are doing all we can but i don’t think we will be able to achieve this goal as long as people resist gun safety education in the schools. the materials are available to any school or group and yet almost no schools use them. would you support an organisation that produced  and provided free gun safety materials?

          • 1Brett1

            If you look at my links, all of these tragedies were the result of preschoolers playing with guns. Does a three year old really have the capacity to absorb information in a gun safety class? 

            Parents should have the right to either teach or not teach their children about gun safety…People are always talking about how gun owners are really into safe handling of firearms and promoting such, yet time and time again these tragedies where a small child gets a hold of a gun are from homes where the adults were considered responsible gun owners. Mrs. Lanza was also considered a responsible gun owner. 

            But guns rights people don’t wish to have reasonable conversations about background checks or requiring gun owners to demonstrate safe use and storage of guns before owning them…they just want to say that the other side wants to “take away everybody’s guns” or the other side “wishes to start America down the slippery slope to Nazism,” and so on. 

            Fact is, gun rights advocates do not want to see any gun control measures, and they wrongfully characterize gun control advocates as wanting to take away all guns. The former is true, the latter is not.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            If you look at my links, all of these tragedies were the result of preschoolers playing with guns. Does a three year old really have the capacity to absorb information in a gun safety class?

            no (although “stop, don’t touch, leave the area, tell an adult” seems easy enough even for a three year old and was clearly not the policy in any of those houses) but One would expect their parents to be able to understand very basic safety rules

            Parents should have the right to either teach or not teach their children about gun
            safety…People are always talking about how gun owners are really into safe handling of firearms and promoting such, yet time and time again these tragedies where a small child gets a hold of a gun are from homes where the adults were considered responsible gun owners. Mrs. Lanza was also considered a responsible gun owner.

            i said nothing about what parents teach their kids. i said the schools should teach them like they do with bullys, drugs, traffic, thin ice, washing your hands, “stranger danger”, stds, and a dozen other things

            Really, nancy lanza a responsible gun owner? who considers someone who violates the storage laws in her state and makes straw purchases a responsible gun owner?
            i consider her one of the least responsible gun owners in history.

            But guns rights people don’t wish to have reasonable conversations about background checks or requiring gun owners to demonstrate safe use and storage of guns before owning them…they just want to say that the other side wants to “take away everybody’s guns” or the other side “wishes to start America down the slippery slope to Nazism,” and so on.
            i would love to have a reasonable conversation about these things.

            Fact is, gun rights advocates do not want to see any gun control measures, and they wrongfully characterize gun control advocates as wanting to take away all guns. The former is true, the latter is not.

            thats odd because we already have over 20,000 gun control measures and i have not heard too many people calling for the repeal of all of them although i am sure people have had that sentiment. a small majority of americans understand this and do not want any more laws when the ones we have are not enforced or are ineffective. there are some gun control advocates, and you can see them on this page, who would like to get rid of all guns.there has been debate on a national level and action on state levels to ban specific guns and magazines, some of the laws even require people to dispose of weapons they currently legally own. so its not unreasonable for gun rights activists to be concerned that their gun rights are being limited.

          • 1Brett1

            That’s a nice sentiment, but there is a tendency to think of gun owners as being, by and large, responsible. That is unless or until they are not responsible, which is judged only after a tragedy occurs. By the way, there is no evidence that Adam Lanza’s mother was a straw purchaser, or even that she acted irresponsibly beyond not getting her guns out of her house before her son used them. If Adam Lanza had never committed his murders, Nancy Lanza would be the type of woman the NRA would hold up as a responsible gun owner; she purchased her guns legally, used her guns for sport and protection; she took her sons to the shooting range and taught them how to shoot, etc. 

            There is also no evidence that any of the tragedies I provided links to were the result of any adult acting irresponsibly, aside from not completely securing their weapons (although the one tragedy was by a boy who was playing with his own gun). Children can be told of the dangers of something and then can act in ways they see as innocent/without danger, and they still can find themselves in a tragic situation. They will even find keys to locked cabinets, cabinets they’ve expressly been told NOT to go into (who knows, perhaps the children in the aforementioned tragedies actually did something they were told not to do; that isn’t too much of a leap to consider such a thing). There is also no evidence that the children in the aforementioned tragedies were NOT instructed in basic safety. 

            It would be nice if preventing accidents with guns were simply a matter of teaching kids gun safety in schools, and it would be nice if the implementation of such education were a simple matter. However, suggesting such seems simplistic. 

            As far as teaching children about guns in schools, what you propose in your reply teaches that guns are in the realm of something never to go near, like drugs. Many people (hunters, gun owners, etc.) would not want knowledge of guns taught that way. Then there are parents who wouldn’t want their kids to be taught about guns in school at all. Between the two types of parents, what then? Mandatory gun training? How to use guns safely? Never to go near a gun? It’s all a little muddled, what you propose.

            There are not currently universal background checks. There are not currently mandatory tests for those who wish to own guns (like a driving test for licensed drivers). There are not currently any laws that require regular inspections of how guns are stored by owners. Are there really 20,000 laws regarding guns? If there are, how many pertain to what is required of a licensed gun owner in the guns’ proper usage? 

            You and I can agree on a lack of enforcement of certain current laws. The maximum sentence for a straw purchase, for example, is 10 years. I think there should be no maximum, as in certain circumstances the sentence should be greater than 10 years…be that as it may, often violations amount to little more than a slap on the wrist. The same is true for illegal gun possession. I think there should be SEVERE consequences for anyone in possession of an illegal gun.

            I don’t know why certain laws are not currently enforced as strictly as they could be. Any ideas on that? 

              

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            gun owners are by and large responsible. 300 million guns only a few hundred “accidents” and that number is trending downwards.
            http://www.guns.com/2012/01/03/accidental-gun-deaths-and-firearm-related-homicides-at-an-all-time-low/
            nancy lanza bought her son guns and his own gun safe in his room. he was 20. she was a criminal in CT. no one thinks she was a responsible gun owner.
            in all the cases the adults who allowed the children to be unsupervised with guns are responsible.

            gun safety education is free and simple, all hunters support gun safety education
            http://eddieeagle.nra.org/order-materials.aspx
            MA requires a class and a safety test prior to recieving a license. universal background checks will never really affect the illegal transactions  and would not have affected any of the recent tragedies.
            inspections? are you serious?
             all 20,000+ pertain to what is required of a licensed gun owner in the guns’ proper usage. its clear you do not know what the laws are though you seem convinced more would somehow solve “the problem” which  seems to be improving steadily on all fronts by all measures.
            10 years is a while and i think they can always charge you with other things. in chicago where all handguns are illegal to carry they only prosecuted something like 40 cases so clearly they need more enforcement not mor laws.
            the laws are not enforced for a variety of reasons, whats clear is that more of them are useless if we do not actually enforce the ones we have.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      whats your point?

    • Gregg Smith

      Americans who support stricter gun control think gun crime has increased.

      http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/10/americans-who-favor-stricter-gun-control

      • 1Brett1

        That “poll” has nothing whatsoever to do with my post. All of the tragedies I provided links to were accidents. 

  • ExcellentNews

    Sad as the Cleveland story is, it just as dismaying to see the spelling on the welcome sign…

    • hennorama

      Do you mean the spelling in the words “Welcome Home”?

      What dismays you about how those words were spelled “on the welcome sign”?

  • TomK_in_Boston

    W is briefed “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US”, W goes brush clearin’ and we get 9/11 when he’s readin “My Pet Goat”. The right says – nothing! No problemo, amigo W.

    Benzagy happens, it’s a confused situation and miniscule compared to 9/11. The right says OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! Time to deep-six Hilary. But Noooo, it’s not political.

    ROTFL

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Circle the wagons bro.  We’ve got a Dem. politician to protect.

      • StilllHere

        Execute operation “Head buried in Sand”

    • Bruce94

      I think the difference between now and then is that although 9/11 (and the numerous security lapses under Bush you cite in your post below) represented a massive failure of our national security and intelligence agencies, for the most part Dems and Independents supported Bush in the aftermath and gave him the tools he requested for the response as well as the flexibility he said he needed to keep us safe going forward.

      After 9/11 and the subsequent losses overseas you’ve enumerated I don’t recall such irresponsible rushes to judgment and Congressional witch hunts.  In April 1983 following the bombing of the US Embassy in Beirut killing 63, I don’t remember seeing a witch hunt from Congress.  Instead, the next day Congress approved Reagan’s request for additional aid for Lebanon.  In October 1983 following the bombing of Marine barracks in Beirut killing 241 US troops and representing the deadliest single-day casualty toll for the Marine Corp since the Battle of Iwo Jima, again no witch hunt from Congress. 

      Reaching back further in our history, in Sept. 1984 following another attack on the US Embassy in Beirut less than two months before the Presidential election, again no witch hunt from Congress.  And it took the Reagan Admin. over two years to release their report in response to these bombings.      

      The Republicans in the case of Benghazi initially rushed to politicize a national security tragedy for some perceived advantage in the Presidential election and now seem hell bent on pursuing this flawed narrative to smear Hillary.  When it comes to using an admitted national security failure for perverse and petty political gain, the GOP appears to have no qualms.

      • OnPointComments

        In all of the instances that you noted, did anyone from the administration immediately tell bald-faced lies to the public, and stick with the lie for weeks?  Did the president and secretary of state make a commercial to apologize to the 09/11 terrorists or the Beirut terrorists?  Of course, maybe we should President Obama and Secretary Clinton some slack about the commercial, because they had to do that to support the bald-faced lie they told in the first place.  Did the administrations coerce employees to keep them quiet?

  • Gregg Smith

    So the IRS is being used to harass Tea Party types, typical. It’ll be excused. But I am glad they apologized. Clinton did the same thing to opponents but they buried the report forever. 

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      I missed the part when you mentioned the IRS chief at that time was a Bush appointee. Cue the parade…

      • Gregg Smith

        I don’t care who appointed him. Do you?

        • StilllHere

          A Democrat was president when he was born so right back at ‘em.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          I do. If the fish rots from the head first, the whole “WATB we won’t let Obama appoint anyone, even White House pastry chef” sorta loses whatever validity it had.

    • hennorama

      Gregg Smith – you wrote ”So the IRS is being used to harass Tea Party types, typical. It’ll be excused.”

      Do you think that applications for 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status should be granted automatically, without any IRS inquiries or in-depth examinations of applicants?

      Certainly the IRS should not be targeting any particular political ideology. But questioning applicants for tax-exempt status, in order to determine whether they were primarily political groups, is absolutely proper and should be more widely pursued. Many of these so-called “social welfare groups”, on both ends of the political spectrum, seem to spend virtually all of their time on political activities, which may be an abuse of their tax-exempt status.

      =====
      Now, let’s examine your statements:

      “the IRS is being used…” NO. Not “is” – “WAS”. Past tense.

      According to an article on foxnews.com:

      “Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups, acknowledged the issue at a conference Friday sponsored by the American Bar Association. She confirmed that organizations were singled out because they included the words “tea party” or “patriot” in their applications for tax-exempt status.“

      “Lerner said the practice was initiated by low-level workers in Cincinnati and was not motivated by political bias.

      “The IRS put out a written statement saying protocol was changed at the Cincinnati office in response to the rising number of applications for 501(c)(4) groups. This classification grants tax-exempt status to social welfare groups. Unlike other charitable groups, these
      organizations are allowed to participate in political activities but their primary activity must be social welfare.

      “The agents tried to “centralize work” in response to the [massive increase in the number of] applications, the IRS said, leading to problems the agency claims have since been fixed.

      “Mistakes were made initially, but they were in no way due to any political or partisan rationale. We fixed the situation last year and have made significant progress in moving the centralized cases through our
      system,” the IRS said.

      “During the conference earlier Friday, Lerner said the number of groups filing for the tax-exempt status more than doubled from 2010 to 2012, to more than 3,400. To handle the influx, the IRS centralized its review of these applications in the office in Cincinnati. As part of the review, staffers look for signs that groups are participating in political activity. If so, IRS agents take a closer look to make sure that politics isn’t the group’s primary activity, Lerner said.

      “In all, about 300 groups were singled out for additional review, Lerner said. Of those, about a quarter were singled out because they had “tea party” or “patriot” somewhere in their applications. Lerner said 150 of the cases have been closed and no group had its tax-exempt status revoked, though some withdrew their applications.“

      See:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/10/irs-apologizes-for-targeting-conservative-groups/#ixzz2Sw4bQ2ts

      =====

      “…to harass Tea Party types…” Not necessarily. – “harass” is a conclusion.

      Again, FTA:

      “In all, about 300 groups were singled out for additional review … about a quarter were singled out because they had ‘tea party’ or ‘patriot’ somewhere in their applications”.

      The IRS employees were looking for political activities, and used those words as a shortcut to screen applications for further review. But they also selected more than 200 other applications that did not
      contain those words.

      =====

      “typical.” How so? Do you have other evidence of “harassment”?

      =====

      “It’ll be excused.” – Again, a conclusion in search of evidence. This is speculation, pure and simple.

      According to an article on wsj.com, ”The IRS comments came as the Treasury Department inspector general for tax administration is nearing completion of a report on the matter; a spokesman for the inspector general said it is expected to be issued next week. At the same time, the IRS is sending questionnaires to some groups that self-declare their tax-exempt status, seeking more information on their political activity, and it is reviewing tax returns of some exempt groups to make sure they are complying with rules imposing a tax on some of their political activities, tax experts say.”

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323744604578474983310370360.html

      • Gregg Smith

        I think it was called the Barrett report.

        • hennorama

          Smith – wow, that was enlightening. Please continue.

    • StilllHere

      I blame the internet video.

    • OnPointComments

      An apology from the IRS — great.  Who gets fired for the mistake?
       
      Who got fired at the SEC when they were warned about Bernie Madoff, investigated Bernie Madoff, and gave him a pass?  No one.
       
      Who got fired at the SEC when it was discovered that SEC employees were watching porn on government computers, some spending hours each day surfing porn sites?  No one.
       
      Who got fired at the State Department for the judgment errors on Benghazi?  A more difficult question.  Eric J. Boswell, Charlene R. Lamb, Raymond Maxwell, and one more were placed on administrative leave, but were they ever fired?  I don’t know.  But my guess is no one.

      Who gets fired for the mistake at the IRS?  My guess is no one.

      • Gregg Smith

        Karen Tumilty is reporting no disciplinary action will be taken.

  • hennorama

    Fox News’ Neil Cavuto is now parading out as many failed Republican presidential candidates that he can get on the air, to express their opinions.

    First, Herman “999″ Cain, then Rick “don’t Google my last name” Santorum, and now Michelle “Thou protesteth too much” Bachmann.

    Of course, no actual information was forthcoming.

    One supposes Newt, Mitt, Ron, Rick, Jon and all the lesser-knows were unavailable to chime in.

    • OnPointComments

      I watch all of the news stations, and Fox is not the worst.  I do admit, however, that I wonder sometimes how Fox chooses guest commentators like Mark Furman, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, and Michelle Bachmann.

      • hennorama

        OPC – [insert the usual pleasantries here]

        The failed candidates I mentioned must have been rarin’ and ready to go on a moment’s notice, as they were responding to today’s WH press briefing, which was still in progress.

        And of course, the “how” is unimportant when choosing to put someone on the air. The unanswerable question is “why”.

        • OnPointComments

          My guess is pure entertainment value.

          • hennorama

            OPC – Granted, the guests you listed are certainly “entertaining” but perhaps not in the way Fox News may intend for them to be.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

    Breaking news: Heritage hack Jason Richwine, Racist AND Stupid, resigns.
    Turns out shopping his crap to white supremacists is too much even for
    the whitewashers (I mean that in the good way) of Heritage’s PR flacks.

  • anon

    So many interesting topics… as a woman who was in the military more than 30 years ago, I know that sexual harassment and assaults were frequent then, too. I had to report sexual harassment up my chain of command, which meant that I had to ask the man doing the harassing for permission to speak to the officer above him. By the time I got to that officer, he had been filled with lies from my harasser; before I opened my mouth, he was calling me a troublemaker and a liar… a year or two later, he sincerely apologized – but that year or two in between was hell. 

    I don’t know about Jack Beatty’s assertion that many military recruits have experienced sexual abuse. What I saw was that there’s an attitude in the military that women are sex objects and are often not take seriously as anything else. Of course, this depends on the environment and very much on the attitude of the commanding officer. In my experience, the women working in office environments (where they worked 8-5, 5 days a week at a headquarters or other level office) were respected more, but those of us in the field – on ships, etc., went through hell. I had a commanding officer (on a different base) say that I knew what I was getting into (as if the recruiter mentioned this) while also saying that he wouldn’t let his own daughters step foot on the base – that he commanded! I also worked at one small station where the commanding officer made it clear that I - the first woman who had ever been stationed there – was to be treated equally and respectfully; if someone even said something perceived as sexual harassment, he cracked down, and so it rarely happened there.

    As for Elizabeth’s assertion that rape is about power and not about sex, that’s a line that I learned in my feminist days, and that many people accept as truth, but in fact, I have since realized that rape is often about sex. Men in the military see women as sexual objects – and as has been mentioned, the society promotes this extensively. Not only women but also little girls are seen that way, and it’s sick.

    Also, I think that a factor in military sexual assault is that men in Iraq and Afghanistan don’t have the same access to bars and prostitutes that soldiers in Southeast Asia had. Not citing that as an excuse at all, but I do think it’s a factor in their seeing female colleagues as opportunities for sex.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1408098372 Mari McAvenia

      Thanks for your valuable contribution to this discussion. I was a female “first” in the UBCJA (United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America) a few years before you enlisted in the military. I built bridges. It was known as “bull work” in the carpentry world but I had to start somewhere. That’s how boys were traditionally broken into the trade so that’s why I went for that particular job, too.

      Affirmative Action ( for govt. financed projects, only) was a brand new law. That’s why my work at half the hourly wage men were getting was so valuable to the corporation. After the tax benefit for hiring a female & my slashed wages, the company got me for free. I was treated like less than a slave by co-workers. “Sexual Harrassment” hadn’t even been invented as a cover-all slogan, yet. I did not know about any of this at the time. I learned it the hard way.

      Everyday on the job was like walking a tightrope, lifting weights, thinking like a genius & disarming deliberately set, well-organized booby-traps, simultaneously. I loved the first three occupational hazards but loathed the last one. The traps were set for ME, only, by my own ”brothers”.  

      Predatory foremen asked me out for dates. One even showed up, unannounced, at my unlisted address with a bouquet of flowers & a bottle of wine one night. He was 25 years older than I, a “christian” and very married with kids. I gently turned him away & suggested he take his gifts home.

      Bad things really started to happen to me on the job after that. Shall I write a book about it? Suffice it to say that I have observed no improvements in the overall morale of American men, particularly those who are “forced” to work alongside women, since then.

      May I humbly request that you write a book about your experiences in the military? I you do, I will, too. This is no time to be a shrinking violet. A climbing, well nurtured, uncontrollable, all-enveloping beautiful vine, perhaps. Best of luck to you, Sis. 

       

  • Scott B

    It doesn’t matter what anyone puts out for art and media, someone somewhere is going to get the wrong message, be it from immaturity, or some mental, or emotional, issue.  Charles Mason thought the Beatle’s white album was all about him, and look what supposedly sane people have done after reading religious scripts like the Christian Bible and the Koran, waging war and bigotry, by declaring themselves prophets and gods.

  • hennorama

    Using ABC’s “Full Benghazi Talking Points Revisions”
    (http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Benghazi%20Talking%20Points%20Timeline.pdf), one discovers that the following phrases and words are used, in the order they are listed below, in each and every one of versions one
    through twelve of the Benghazi talking points:

    …currently available information…

    …in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S….

    …and subsequently its annex.

    …extremists…

    …participated in…

    …working w/Libyan authorities…

    …to help bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of U.S. citizens.

    So, from the very beginning, the CIA indicated “[events] in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S….”

    And also that “…extremists…” had “…participated in…” them.

    Exactly as Amb. Susan Rice said on those now-infamous Sunday news/talk shows:

    CBS – “…what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo …”

    ABC – “…this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo.”

    FOX – “…what happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo …”

    NBC – “…what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of– of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo…”

    (Notice that Amb. Rice consistently used the word “transpired”, rather than “inspired”. Could be unconscious substitution, or alliteration, or simply her own preferred paraphrasing. Or she might have misread the CIA talking points. It is interesting how she was consistent in this difference).

    CNN – “ what we saw in that horrific incident where some mob was hijacked ultimately by a handful of extremists …”

    Rice’s Benghazi remarks on CNN were limited and not very specific, as she and Candy Crowley first discussed Iran, then (as part of a question from Ms. Crowley) “…what’s gone on in the Middle East in Arab countries and elsewhere”. The discussion was much more general in nature, focusing on Embassy security and what Crowley characterized as “an underlying anti-Americanism that is very evident on the streets”.

    Transcripts of Rice’s remarks on all 5 shows:

    ABC:http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-us-ambassador-united-nations-susan-rice/story?id=17240933#.UYuoBaLUnDl

    CBS:http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57513819/face-the-nation-transcripts-september-16-2012-libyan-pres-magariaf-amb-rice-and-sen-mccain/

    CNN:http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1209/16/sotu.01.html

    FOX:http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday-chris-wallace/2012/09/16/amb-susan-rice-rep-mike-rogers-discuss-violence-against-americans-middle-east#p//v/1843960658001

    NBC:http://www.nbcnews.com/id/49051097/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/t/september-benjamin-netanyahu-susan-rice-keith-ellison-peter-king-bob-woodward-jeffrey-goldberg-andrea-mitchell/#.UYuowKLUnDl

    • Gregg Smith

      Inspired wouldn’t make sense grammatically. Events transpire. But it was a lie. Spontaneous reaction implies inspire. Alliteration??

      • hennorama

        Gregg Smith – Every version of the talking points contained the phrase “…in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S….

        Whether you believe “Inspired wouldn’t make sense grammatically” is irrelevant in light of the consistent usage of that word in the talking points.

        You also wrote “But it was a lie.” Please provide proof, sir. Please conform to your standard requirement of falsity foreknowledge. Also please keep in mind that your claim “it was a lie” would be an argument with the CIA, since they prepared the talking points.

        You also wrote “Spontaneous reaction implies inspire”. Does this signify that you therefore accept any and all implied meanings of words and phrases?

        As to “Alliteration??” – I say “look it up” but the phrase “thick brick skull wall” obviates the waste of electrons.

        • Gregg Smith

          Please show me where the talking points said Ansar al-Sharia or Al Qaeda.

          Dude, I wrote the song “Honey let me Honk Your Horns” 20 years ago. I know a little about alliteration. 

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith – a sudden urge to “go fly a kite” has struck for some reason.

            And I agree, you “know A LITTLE about alliteration.”

          • Gregg Smith

            It was about dirt track racing and loving cars. That’s big around here. It’s not my best work (I’m not proud) but here’s a chorus… for your pleasure:

            Sugar let me shake your shocks

            Take a few laps with me 

            I’ll rev ya ’til your motor knocks. 

            Cupcake let me keep your key.

            Darlin’ let me dust your dash.

            I like the way your leather’s worn

            Oh cutie let’s clutch and crash

            Honey let me honk your horn.

    • OnPointComments

      I’m impressed how you referenced all of those sources, and all of those quotes, without ever mentioning the YouTube video, which was the thrust of comments by President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, and Ambassador Rice.  Remember, President Obama and Secretary Clinton even released a video statement nine days after Benghazi apologizing for the YouTube Video.  I won’t bother to comment on the appropriateness of apologizing to the murderers of four Americans.  Ultimately, regardless of how the statements are parsed, I doubt there is anyone of reasonable intellect who is asking themselves “How in the world did anyone take what the administration said and think it was about a YouTube video?  Really?  They got that impression from administration statements?”  When the statements have to be parsed, and a few words here and there noted with “but we said this too,” you know that the administration is not being honest with the public.

    • Gregg Smith

      “This is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy. This is in response to a video that is offensive.” -James Carney

      “You don’t really believe that?” -Chris Wallace

      “Chris, absolutely I believe that. In fact, it is the case. We had the evolution of the Arab spring over the last many months. But what sparked the recent violence was the airing on the Internet of a very hateful very offensive video that has offended many people around the world.” -Susan Rice

      “This is a response to a hateful and offensive video that was widely disseminated throughout the Arab and Muslim world” -Rice to David Gregory

      • hennorama

        Gregg Smith – please provide the full context of and sources for the quotes in your post.

        Context is important, wouldn’t you agree:

        “I don’t care what the dictionary says.” – Gregg Smith

        “My comments were completely consistent.” – Gregg Smith

        “I don’t make contrary statements unless you torture the language and tell me what I think.” – Gregg Smith

        “Supply comes first.” – Gregg Smith

        “There is always demand for something even if it doesn’t exist …” – Gregg Smith

        “The supply creates the demand.” – Gregg Smith

        • Gregg Smith

          They’re your links, read them.

          • hennorama

            Gregg “I quit reading” Smith – Commanding someone to read something is quite hilarious coming from you.

            Care for a few more quotes?

            “I quit reading after you said I didn’t give a source because I already pointed out it was YOUR source. It’s all there in YOUR link.“ – Gregg Smith

            “And no I’m not going to read 60 pages of irrelevant gobbledygook just because you link it.” – Gregg Smith

            “You may have said more but I’m not reading all that.” -Gregg Smith

            “I’m not reading all that.“ – Gregg Smith

            ““My comments were completely consistent.” – Gregg Smith

            “I hope everybody reads it… but no one cares.” – Gregg Smith

            “Just so you know, I didn’t read a word, i don’t care.” – Gregg Smith

            “You’re right, I have no context to base that opinion on besides what I read” – Gregg Smith

            “Read my replies to Thinkster and Isaep, maybe that’ll help.” – Gregg Smith

            “I don’t make contrary statements unless you torture the language and tell me what I think.” – Gregg Smith

          • Gregg Smith

            I appreciate the idol worship but really, it’s not necessary. It’s a bit creepy.

            So, you’re complaining that I’m asking you to know what the links you just posted say? That’s weird. But if you must, all my quotes can be found here:

            http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/05/10/week-cleveland-sexual-sanford#comment-892667811

          • hennorama

            Smith – (with apologies to Styx) “Welcome to the Grand Delusion”… It appears the delusions of grandeur are particularly acute today. You might wish to visit a health care professional.

          • Gregg Smith

            Susan Rice said with certainty it was the video. She said it in the links you provided. What does Styx have to do with it? Do you have a point? You were the one who started this thread, I responded on topic and now look at you.

          • Gregg Smith

            BTW, I saw the Grand Illusion tour but the Chrystal Ball tour the year prior was better. It was Tommy Shaw’s first. 

          • StilllHere

            Dude, that is not idol worship, that is OCD at best but given this guy’s irrationality, I’m guessing stalker with bad intentions.  Stay safe.

          • Gregg Smith

            I’ll be alright. It’s just amazing to me how she cannot debate honestly and jumps all over the place.

      • hennorama

        Gregg “You Dishonest Cherry Picker You” Smith – your stubborn refusal to provide context for the quotes in your post was hilarious. I was waiting to determine how far you would go to avoid revealing your cherry picking of the quotes in your post. Pretty far, as it turns out.

        BTW – the “You Dishonest Cherry Picker You” is a direct quote of one of your own recent posts, referring to [hennorama].

        I first asked you for context, and you deflected, writing “They’re your links, read them.”

        I ridiculed your reply, and you again deflected, writing “So, you’re complaining that I’m asking you to know what the links you just posted say? That’s weird.”

        I had to restrain my fingers, as I knew what was in the transcripts, and knew you had cherry picked your quotes.

        Later in the same thread, you replied to another poster, about me, writing “It’s just amazing to me how she cannot debate honestly and jumps all over the place.”

        You further replied to me by writing, “Seriously, do you not see that you’re making a fool of yourself?”

        Ahhh, the irony.

        Here’s exactly why I asked you for the context.

        The interviews with Ambassador Rice are presented in full, and Gregg Smith’s cherry picked quotes are starred and bracketed inside the complete remarks, like so **[[cherry-picked quote]]**
        =====
        From the “Fox News Sunday” interview, Gregg Smith bravely cherry-picks remarks about what interviewer Chris Wallace prefaced as “anti-American protests in two dozen countries across the Islamic world”, as if Amb. Rice was discussing Benghazi in particular. Smith also conveniently omits the fact that there was a VIDEO CLIP of Jay Carney making a single (also out of context, as is typical of Fox News) remark.

        This is the relevant portion of the interview from the transcript.

        WALLACE: Leland Vittert reporting from Cairo — Leland, thanks for that.

        Joining us now our ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice. Ambassador, welcome back to “Fox News Sunday.”

        AMB. SUSAN RICE, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS: Thank you.

        WALLACE: This week, there have been anti-American protests in two dozen countries across the Islamic world. The White House says it has nothing to do with the president’s policies.

        Let’s watch.

        (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

        **[[ JAY CARNEY, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: This is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy. This is in response to a video that is offensive. ]]**

        (END VIDEO CLIP)

        **[[ WALLACE: You don't really believe that? ]]**

        **[[ RICE: Chris, absolutely I believe that. In fact, it is the case. We had the evolution of the Arab spring over the last many months. But what sparked the recent violence was the airing on the Internet of a very hateful very offensive video that has offended many people around the world.]]**

        Now, our strong view is that there is no excuse for violence. It is absolutely reprehensible and never justified. But, in fact, there have been those in various parts of the world who have reacted with violence. Their governments have increasingly and effectively responded and protected our facilities and condemned the violence and this outrageous response to what is an offensive video. But there is no question that what we have seen in the past, with things like satanic verses, with the cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad, there have been — such things that have sparked outrage and anger and this has been the proximate cause of what we’ve seen.

        WALLACE: Now, it may have sparked it but you critics say that the outpouring of outrage against the U.S. has everything to do with the U.S. policies, that we are disengaging from that part of the world, that we pulled out of Iraq, we are pulling out of Afghanistan, that Iran is continuing on with its nuclear program. And they say, our critics, that our allies no longer trust us, and our enemies no longer fear us.

        RICE: Well, Chris, that’s just false. And let’s be plain — our partners and allies have responded effectively and promptly when we have asked them to protect our facilities and our people.

        WALLACE: Well, let’s — it took three days in Cairo.

        RICE: Well — and what happened initially in Cairo was not sufficiently robust when President Obama picked up the phone and spoke to the President Morsi, right away things changed. And that’s an evidence of our influence and our impact.

        And what happened was that the authorities in Egypt have been very robust in protecting our facilities, not just in Cairo, but elsewhere in the country. President Morsi has issued repeated condemnations of the violent response and called for calm. And we have seen the same thing in Yemen, in Libya, in Tunisia and many other parts of the world.

        Source:http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday-chris-wallace/2012/09/16/amb-susan-rice-rep-mike-rogers-discuss-violence-against-americans-middle-east#p//v/1843960658001

        ====

        From the Meet The Press interview, Gregg Smith also cherry-picks a single remark that was part of a discussion of what interviewer David Gregory described in his lead-in as “Relative calm this morning in the Middle East after several days of intense anti-American protests raged across many parts of the Islamic world.” Gregory went on to discuss “shar[ing] the map of all of this turmoil with our viewers to show the scale of it across not just the Arab world, but the entire Islamic world”, Egypt, Pakistan, “protests against the drone strikes”, and Yemen, then asked,

        “How much longer can Americans expect to see these troubling images and these protests go forward?”

        Here’s the relevant part of the interview:

        Announcer: From NBC News in Washington, MEET THE PRESS with David Gregory.

        GREGORY: And good morning. Relative calm this morning in the Middle East after several days of intense anti-American protests raged across many parts of the Islamic world. But word this morning that the Obama administration has ordered the evacuation of all but emergency personnel from diplomatic missions in Tunisia and Sudan. And defense secretary Leon Panetta saying this morning, the Pentagon has deployed forces to several areas in an increased effort to protect U.S. personnel and property from the potential of violent protests, the latest consequences, of course, of this troubling unrest. Joining me now for the very latest, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice. Ambassador Rice, welcome back to MEET THE PRESS.

        MS. SUSAN RICE (U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations): Thank you, good to be here.

        GREGORY: The images as you well know are jarring to Americans watching all of this play out this week, and we’ll share the map of all of this turmoil with our viewers to show the scale of it across not just the Arab world, but the entire Islamic world and flashpoints as well. In Egypt, of course, the protests outside the U.S. embassy there that Egyptian officials were slow to put down. This weekend in Pakistan, protests as well there. More anti-American rage. Also protests against the drone strikes. In Yemen, you also had arrests and some deaths outside of our U.S. embassy there. How much longer can Americans expect to see these troubling images and these protests go forward?

        MS. RICE: Well, David, we can’t predict with any certainty. But let’s remember what has transpired over the last several days. **[[This is a response to a hateful and offensive video that was widely disseminated throughout the Arab and Muslim world.]]** Obviously, our view is that there is absolutely no excuse for violence and that– what has happened is condemnable, but this is a– a spontaneous reaction to a video, and it’s not dissimilar but, perhaps, on a slightly larger scale than what we have seen in the past with The Satanic Verses with the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. Now, the United States has made very clear and the president has been very plain that our top priority is the protection of American personnel in our facilities and bringing to justice those who…

        GREGORY: All right.

        MS. RICE: …attacked our facility in Benghazi.

        GREGORY: Well, let’s talk– talk about– well, you talked about this as spontaneous. Can you say definitively that the attacks on– on our consulate in Libya that killed ambassador Stevens and others there security personnel, that was spontaneous, was it a planned attack? Was there a terrorist element to it?

        MS. RICE: Well, let us– let me tell you the– the best information we have at present. First of all, there’s an FBI investigation which is ongoing. And we look to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpired. But putting together the best information that we have available to us today our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of– of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video. What we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. They came with heavy weapons which unfortunately are readily available in post revolutionary Libya. And it escalated into a much more violent episode. Obviously, that’s– that’s our best judgment now. We’ll await the results of the investigation. And the president has been very clear–we’ll work with the Libyan authorities to bring those responsible to justice.

        Source:http://www.nbcnews.com/id/49051097/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/t/september-benjamin-netanyahu-susan-rice-keith-ellison-peter-king-bob-woodward-jeffrey-goldberg-andrea-mitchell/#.UY6rt6LUnDm

        Well done Gregg “You Dishonest Cherry Picker You” Smith.

        Please take a bow for closed and dishonest debate.

        • Bruce94

          Well done!  Thanks for the above public service announcement.  Really amazing how some right-wing hacks on this forum resort to the exact same tactic they falsely accuse Obama administration spokespersons of employing in order to drive a preconceived narrative that fits their particular ideological straitjacket. 

          I have to think that their purpose is not only deception, but also distraction in order to avoid a serious discussion about this  event as well as other topics that are driven out of the conversation by their obsession with conspiracy theories.     

          • Gregg Smith

            Do you think Rice was truthful? You guys are out on a lonely limb.

          • hennorama

            Bruce 94 – TY for your response and your very kind words.

            One point that seems strange is the way much of the commentary is written as if the unfortunate events in Benghazi occurred in a vacuum, and that nothing else was going on in the world that day. Ambassador Rice very likely had been briefed on numerous topics prior to taping the five Sunday news/talk shows, and very likely had “talking points” about the incidents in Cairo, Mitt Romney’s criticisms, the other protests worldwide, the potential for Israeli strikes on Iran, and various other topics.

            All of the journalists realized there was a big picture to discuss.

            Fox’s Chris Wallace had referred to “anti-American protests in two dozen countries across the Islamic world”, and NBC’s David Gregory referred to sharing a “map of all of this turmoil with our viewers to show the scale of it across not just the Arab world, but the entire Islamic world”.

            As the interview transcripts showed, that was what Amb. Rice was discussing, and not merely Benghazi.

            CNN’s Candy Crowley, just before her interview with Amb. Rice, had said “This week in at least 23 countries around the world the people returned to the streets to protest, sometimes violently, sometimes not, outside U.S. embassies.”

            CBS’ Bob Schieffer focused on Benghazi right from the start of the interview with Amb. Rice, but Scheiffer also prefaced the show with more of an overview, saying “Today on FACE THE NATION on the anniversary of 9/11, an attack in Libya takes the life of our ambassador there and three other Americans. And a new attack in Afghanistan today leaves four U.S. service members dead. As the anti-American protests over a U.S.-made anti-Muslim film spread across the Arab world from Africa to Afghanistan to Australia. Here at home, big questions remain about the safety of U.S. personnel overseas. And how all this will affect Campaign 2012.“

            ABC’s Jake Tapper also focused on Benghazi at the start, then during the interview said “Look at this map, if you would. There have been protests around the world over the last several days.”

            There’s an interactive map of the various worldwide protests here:

            http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=201645180959880549419.0004c9a894dfb66defab9&msa=0

            The fact of the large number of countries involved may have been the reason that U.N. Ambassador Rice was chosen as spokesperson rather than someone more involved in the particulars of the Benghazi events, but that’s just speculation on my part.

            Thank you again for your kind words.

        • Gregg Smith

          What are you rambling about? There’s no secret, those transcripts have been printed and read, watched or listened to by everybody. You posted them. I’m not hiding squat. Rice was unequivocal with Wallace and that was at the very top. The context was there but so was the whole link. You posted an entire book parsing and cherry picking words and phrases to imply Rice really didn’t say to was the video… or something. And you complain about me?
          So I give you quotes you omitted from your links and you demand sources that you gave but refuse to read when I point it out so you call me names. Then this bunch of nothing. Why the drama? 

          • hennorama

            Gregg “You Dishonest Cherry Picker You” Smith – TY for your bravely unresponsive response.

            Please again note that “You Dishonest Cherry Picker You” is a direct quote of one of your own recent posts, referring to [hennorama].

            Your “defense” of your cherry-picking appears to be “everybody” has “printed and read, watched or listened to” “those transcripts”.

            Uh huh. Sure. That’s why you refused to provide context for your cherry-picked quotes. Sure, sure, of course.
            ====
            You wrote “You posted an entire book parsing and cherry picking words and phrases to imply Rice really didn’t say to [sic] was the video… or something. And you complain about me?”

            First, I did not “complain about” you. I simply asked you to provide context, as I do not believe “everybody” has “printed and read, watched or listened to” “those transcripts”. Nor do I believe “everybody” is motivated enough to open a link to read further. Allow me to quote you on the topic, purely as an example –

            “And no I’m not going to read 60 pages of irrelevant gobbledygook just because you link it.”

            Second, while I did indeed write a lengthy post listing the various words and phrases that were common throughout all twelve versions of the “talking points”, and then compared those words and phrases with what Amb. Rice had said, I also included links to transcripts of all five shows, as well as a link to the twelve versions of the “talking points”. Any reader could easily find the context, in marked contrast to the quotes in your post.

            Certainly I could have posted longer excerpts, but then one must observe how little you presumably enjoyed what you characterized as “an entire book”. One must also observe the inconsistency in your remarks, sir. Did you want a longer “entire book” with lengthier excerpts included?

            Please make up your mind as to the nature of your criticisms, if it’s not too much trouble.
            =====
            Continuing on as to your post, you wrote “Rice was unequivocal with Wallace and that was at the very top. The context was there but so was the whole link”.

            Indeed “Rice was unequivocal with Wallace” on the topic of “anti-American protests in two dozen countries across the Islamic world”, but not on the topic of Benghazi. This context was conveniently omitted from your cherry-picked quotes, as was the fact that Jay Carney’s words came from a video clip. Not only was the context not there, you also provided no “whole link”, nor indeed any other clue as to the source of the quotes in your post.
            =====
            You continued on in your post, writing, “So I give you quotes you omitted from your links and you demand sources that you gave but refuse to read when I point it out so you call me names.”

            Perhaps some punctuation and editing would help your run-on “rambling” sentence. (One must conclude this irony is lost on you, but I digress). Please allow me an attempt to clarify your words:

            “So I give you quotes you omitted [from your post] [comma] [that came] from your links [comma] and [then] you demand sources [period] [I'd like to point out] that you gave [the “sources” I am referring to as links in your original post, and that I assumed everybody had printed and read, watched or listened to the transcripts contained in those links] [period] [B]ut [you] refuse to read [your own sources/links, and then] when I point it out [comma] you call me names.”

            Please correct any errors in my understanding of your run-on “rambling” sentence.

            Assuming I understood your “rambling” correctly, these are my responses:

            As stated above, I certainly could have included what you describe as “quotes [I] omitted” but must again note your objection to the “entire book” aspect of my post.

            I did not “demand sources”. I requested them, politely. Quoting my “demand” here:

            “Gregg Smith – please provide the full context of and sources for the quotes in your post.”

            “Context is important, wouldn’t you agree:”

            I’d also like to point to your quoted economic idea that, “The supply creates the demand.” If this is true, then why didn’t you first “supply” the context and sources, prior to my so-called “demand”?

            I did not “refuse to read” anything. As stated in an earlier post, I knew what was in the transcripts, and knew you had cherry picked your quotes. I simply pointed out your incongruous remarks , by repeatedly quoting your own words.

            I also did not “call [you] names”. It probably felt as though I had, but I did not. I feel obliged to point out (again) the inconsistency involved here, by (again) quoting some of your own words to me, from earlier today – “Seriously, do you not see that you’re making a fool of yourself?”

            I look forward to your reply.

          • Gregg Smith

            Dude, I didn’t cherry pick. Rice said what she said and you can write a library of equivocation but it does not change squat. You didn’t even know what you own links said (not to mention what alliteration is).

            You are alone. There was testimony last week, maybe you missed it, the cover up has been exposed. No one thinks susan Rice was honest. And that is based on the transcripts that damn her but you somehow think you can parse them into exoneration. Again, you are alone.

            I don’t think you know much about Styx either.

            BTW, obviously I did not read all of the last 2 comments. Too long. The truth is simple and requires few words.

          • hennorama

            Gregg “I did not read all of the last 2 comments. Too long.” Smith – you, sir, have a closed mind, as your own words demonstrate.

            Was that brief enough for you?

          • Gregg Smith

            It’s not about me.

          • hennorama

            “Yes, Bush was the devil” “Stupid as hell in fact.” “Look it up.” “What I’m telling you is true” “I think the data backs me up” – Gregg Smith

            Context makes no difference, right?

          • Gregg Smith

            Of course context matters, I’ve always said that. I don’t get your point. If you are trying to claim Rice was forthright then you cannot do it without taking things out of context… as you have done. 

          • hennorama

            Extemporaneous equine excrement

          • hennorama

            Gregg “I’m obtuse but not on purpose, it’s my nature” Smith – you wrote “Of course context matters, I’ve always said that.”

            Actions speak louder than words, sir.

            When asked to provide context for quotes contained in your post, what did you do?

            Zippo.

            Thank you for demonstrating your commitment to “open and honest” debate.

            I believe the apt idiom is “Do as you say, not as you do.”

          • Gregg Smith

            That’s just weird.

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith – a few more of your unequivocal quotes:

            “This is amazing. The best I can tell, Bush was worse

            “He was a bad bad man but no one cares. Maybe “uncurious” is a better word.

            “He’s a monumental embarrassment. he just doesn’t think before he speaks.

            “The dude is shameless. Absolutely beyond the pale.

            “Dumb dumb dumb.

            “It pains me to say this They knew on day one.

            “We knew that before the inauguration.

            “Everybody and their brother in 2002 was saying the same thing.

            “I was thinking the same thing. It’s not arguable.

            “For sure they need to be sure but there isn’t much doubt.

            “The truth is simple and requires few words.

            “Any economic downturn is because of Bush

            “I want to be wrong. It always comes back to Bush.

            “It’s beyond ridiculous to say otherwise, if you believe it you are on the fringe.

            “don’t forget he killed his brother. I apologize but I can’t remember where I read it.

            “But it’s a moot point now.

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith – a few more of your unequivocal quotes:

            “Don’t tell anyone.

            “I know it’s not politically correct but I think

            “a belief in Islam makes you inherently dangerous.

            “a complete and utter no-brainer, the biggest “duh” ever.

            “Discrimination is necessary and good. Don’t marginalize it.

            “discrimination doesn’t bother me much It happens every day.

            “I’m down with it as long as we don’t torture

            “Discrimination, abuse, harassment, and assaults are illegal.

            “Huh? Which is which?

            “My comments were completely consistent.

            “I don’t make contrary statements unless you torture the language and tell me what I think.”

            “Huh? How can you say that?

            “I’m obtuse but not on purpose, it’s my nature.

            “I’m just amazed ya’ll put your names on this stuff.

          • hennorama

            Gregg “I didn’t cherry pick” Smith – I’ll keep this brief due to your aversion to lengthy posts.

            1. In the following quote from your post, to what was James Carney referring in his use of the word “This”?:

            ["This is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy. This is in response to a video that is offensive." -James Carney]

            2. In the following quote from your post, to what was Chris Wallace referring in his use of the word “that”?:

            ["You don't really believe that?" -Chris Wallace]

            3. In the following quote from your post, to what was Susan Rice referring in her use of the words “that” and “it”?:

            “Chris, absolutely I believe that. In fact, it is the case. We had the evolution of the Arab spring over the last many months. But what sparked the recent violence was the airing on the Internet of a very hateful very offensive video that has offended many people around the world.” -Susan Rice

            4. In the following quote from your post, to what was Susan Rice referring in her use of the words “This”?:

            “This is a response to a hateful and offensive video that was widely disseminated throughout the Arab and Muslim world” -Rice to David Gregory

            I ask this because you omitted any and all context in your post.

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith – Still waiting for your response to the direct questions contained in my prior post, which I’m repeating in full here:

            “Gregg “I didn’t cherry pick” Smith – I’ll keep this brief due to your aversion to lengthy posts.

            1. In the following quote from your post, to what was James Carney referring in his use of the word “This”?:

            ["This is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy. This is in response to a video that is offensive." -James Carney]

            2. In the following quote from your post, to what was Chris Wallace referring in his use of the word “that”?:

            ["You don't really believe that?" -Chris Wallace]

            3. In the following quote from your post, to what was Susan Rice referring in her use of the words “that” and “it”?:

            “Chris, absolutely I believe that. In fact, it is the case. We had the evolution of the Arab spring over the last many months. But what sparked the recent violence was the airing on the Internet of a very hateful very offensive video that has offended many people around the world.” -Susan Rice

            4. In the following quote from your post, to what was Susan Rice referring in her use of the words “This”?:
            “This is a response to a hateful and offensive video that was widely disseminated throughout the Arab and Muslim world” -Rice to David Gregory

            I ask this because you omitted any and all context in your post.”

          • Gregg Smith

            It depends on what the definition of is is.

            That’s just silly, do you not read your own links?

            And you say I have the comprehension problem.

          • hennorama

            Yet another unresponsive deflection.

            [That's silly] is the newest entry to the Gregg Smith Response-O-Matic.

          • hennorama

            Is is what it is, or is it not what it is?

  • rhondallo

    Under the Bush administration, I’ve read that there were 11 attacks on embassies and consulates, with 52 deaths. Where was the Republican concern and outrage then? I don’t remember hearing a peep from them. Just sayin’

    • OnPointComments

      In all of the attacks you read about, did anyone from the administration immediately tell bald-faced lies to the public, and stick with the lie for weeks?  After the attacks, did the president and secretary of state make a commercial to apologize to the attackers?  Of course, maybe we should President Obama and Secretary Clinton some slack about their commercial, because they had to do that to support the bald-faced lie they told in the first place.  Did the administrations coerce employees to keep them quiet after the attacks?  The answer to all of the questions is “No.”

  • StilllHere

    Obama, why the cover up?  Why the elaborate lies?  Why trotting out your information minister to lie for you?
    Why using the IRS as your personal Stasi?

    • OnPointComments

      When I was watching Jay Carney at his press briefing today, I couldn’t help but think of “Chicago” and the lawyer Billy Flynn, tap dancing as fast as he can.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      the stasi could have only dreamed about having the kind of access to private information the irs has

    • Mike_Card

      psst.  He does it just to piss you off and encourage you to act stupid on public forums.  Get used to it.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        I heard that Bush’s guy was the IRS chief. But hey, let’s not that warp any investigation to be had.

      • Gregg Smith

        Hey Mike, don’t be a stranger.

        • Mike_Card

          Life changes have made it more difficult to stay in the fray; I miss all of you, but will try to keep up.  Thanks for noticing.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      Nah, your undies are in a bunch that not every crackpot organization is automatically granted tax exempt status.

      But hey, let’s not let a Foxflap warp any investigation to be had. Given the right’s poutrage record, who know’s what’s there.

      If it’s not just all smoke-machine and no fire, that’s gonna raise the batting average all the way to .002.

  • Gregg Smith

    Maybe one of the fearless libs will read this. It won’t hurt.

    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/05/10/the_libyan_president_was_more_honest_than_our_own_administration_about_what_happened_in_benghazi

    If you must skip to the paragraph that begins: RUSH: Now, the Libyan president.

    This is a profound point I have not heard raised. I was going to take credit for it but I hate cowing to the evocation of the Rush monster. But really, IMHO which may still have some value to a few of you, this is the larger issue we should be considering. 

    • hennorama

      Wow.

      Gregg “And no I’m not going to read 60 pages of irrelevant gobbledygook just because you link it” Smith writing “Maybe one of the fearless libs will read this. It won’t hurt.”

      Seriously?

      Wow.

      • Gregg Smith

        I said one of the fearless libs, not you. It’s only a few paragraphs and it’s worthwhile.

        • jefe68

          I said one of the fearless libs, not you.

          I read it, it’s garbage.

          • Gregg Smith

            Well, thanks for reading but I don’t see the garbage. Mohammed el-Megarif is just the kind of moderate Muslim we can work with. He’s night and day compared to Gadaffi. So here he is denouncing terrorism and outing the perpetrators as the new President of Libya. Cooperating. Think of the change that represents! Really, garbage? 

            So Obama sticks a finger in his eye. Terrific.

          • jefe68

            It’s all conjecture.
            Rush is not one I trust on any level, it’s all about his ego and his bloviating, hence my reference to trash.

          • Gregg Smith

            I just thought it was a good point, that’s all.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Cacimbo-Smith/1142235495 Cacimbo Smith

    No Sanger, your reporter made up the bit about finding a witness who claims a video had anything to do with it in order to provide cover for the administration. An election was on the line-any lie for the cause. 

  • OnPointComments

    At yesterday’s press briefing, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said that there was a “deliberative process” around the Benghazi talking points involving several agencies.  When was the last time we heard the phrase “deliberative process?”  When Executive Privilege was invoked to hide documents from the Fast and Furious debacle.

  • anamaria23

     Time for a third party.
    I hope that Hillary Clinton does not  run for the Presidency.  Benghazi will follow her to her and President Obama to their graves, let alone the Presidency.
    The hyperpartisanship is  demoralizing the country and enabling our decline.
    Benghazi was a horrific, ineptly executed mission.  Sad that Ambassador Stevens and others killed were there at all on such a
    perilous day with pre  known poor security.   If there is a cover-up, the President needs to fess up.
    That said, as I watch from time to time the roll on PBS of our  fresh faced young lost in recent wars and considering the missteps of the Bush W. years, I find calls for impeachment of this President galling.

     
     
     
    .
     
    .
       
     
     
     

    • brettearle

      Hillary has no chance; Christie is a shoo-in.

      Benghazi does not hold a candle to President Reagan’s order to send 250-odd GIs–who lost their lives–to Lebanon, for security reasons.   

      Security breaches happen all the time. There are a number more than The Cole and the Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

      The one in Benghazi was tragic; it was poorly handled.

      But for you to whack it way out of proportion, the way that you have, only shows up your gross political bias.

      Iran-Contra and Abu Graib were monstrosities–but White House heads and top echelon Government officials did not have their heads roll, in either of those two Vulgar Scandals.  

  • Trond33

    Some friends and I were talking last night —

    What is perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the Cleveland kidnappings is the realization that with the high rate of missing person cases in the US, there are probably dozens, if not hundreds, of similar kidnapping cases scattered across the country.  

    We probably all need to become more observant of our surroundings, without becoming the neighborhood busy body.  If you have a neighbor who has clearly made their home a fortress and/or you have suspicions, share them with your local police and let them decide if it is something they need to follow up on. 

    • brettearle

      You sound like you are someone who is not simply being vigilant–but, rather, is overreacting.

      And, if you are, you are part of the problem and not the solution.

      There are many, many men and women who live solitary lives; who are agoraphobic; who do not spend a great deal of time outside.

      There are many men and women who are Xenophobic; or who have certain defiant attitudes about their government, or even their community.

      There are many men and women who keep to themselves; are not gregarious; do not seek the company of others.

      AND ALL OF THESE PEOPLE WOULD, VERY LIKELY, NEVER HURT ANYONE ELSE.

      BEING DIFFERENT, BEING `ECCENTRIC’…..

      DOES NOT MAKE YOU THE DREADED `OTHER’.

      For you to imply that a “fortress” is a subject for suspicion, IS OUTRAGEOUS.

      AND IT DOES NOTHING BUT TO INCREASE AND ENCOURAGE A SENSE OF MAN’S ALIENATION TO MAN.

      And when you consider the existence and the phenomenon of the 24/7 news media cycle–WHICH GIVES THE IMPRESSION THAT THESE TRAGEDIES ARE MORE COMMONPLACE THAN THEY ACTUALLY ARE–YOU HAVE DONE NOTHING BUT TO HAVE FALLEN INTO THE TRAP OF EXCESSIVE ANXIETY AND EXCESSIVE SUSPICION…..

      And by doing so, you are succeeding in whipping everyone into a destructive frenzy….which could eventually lead, in 20 years to a Fascist Reality.

      Congratulations on your Ignorance….

      • Trond33

        “breattearle” – who in the world would argue against the public being more vigilante in trying to notice women being held against their will as sex slaves???  

        What I propose is nothing more that is already suggested by law enforcement in DC in regards to the public reporting suspicious behavior to avert terrorism.  

        What kind of monster are you?  I just assumed you are a garden variety discussion board troll.  I think the everyone can clearly see who needs to be “congratulated on their ignorance…”  (by the way, ignorance is lower case “i” not upper case “I”. 

        • brettearle

          In your case, the Upper Case is much more appropriate and in keeping with identifying the Society of Hapless and Hopeless Hysterics–of which you are a Charter Member.

          You missed my entire point.

          As I would have expected.

          To see a so-called “Fortress” as a potential Den of Iniquity is an example of,

          Overreaching; Excessive Frenzy; Anxiety that is Over the Top; an example of decaying Hysteria……and a pathetic form of cultural McCarthyism.

          And such an attitude contributes, destructively, to everyone being afraid of everyone and everything else.

          Your reaction to the Madness is Madness itself.

          And….it…makes…..the Pathology in our country even worse.

          The number of false accusations and false reports and misrepresentations of the Truth keep rising in our country–because of people like you.

          “Fortress”…..Utter, but Utter BS

          For every sick individual–who is capable of felonious behavior–there are hundreds of thousands of people who keep to themselves and cherish their privacy, without the Ungodly suspicions of others.

          These cloistered individuals lead innocent lives–and they have every right not to live under such Suspicion.

          A Man’s Home is as much his Fortress as it is his Castle, my Friend.

          I only wish that I could have used Gigantic Upper Case letters, in this comment, here– as well as in my comment, before this one.

          But, alas, that is as far as the FONTS will take Me.

  • OnPointComments

    I wonder what went on at White House Press Spokesman Jay Carney’s secret briefing for hand-picked reporters that was held before yesterday’s press conference.  Who were those “special” journalists that got to attend, and what were they told?  In my opinion, secret meetings with special journalists doesn’t enhance the reputation of the most transparent administration in history.  And it stands the first amendment, freedom of the press, on its ear when it means freedom for some of the press but not others.

  • OnPointComments

    From IRS spokesperson Lois Lerner’s apology, describing how cases were screened:
     
    “They [IRS employees in Cincinnati] used names like Tea Party or Patriots and they selected cases simply because the applications had those names in the title.”
     
    Later, Ms. Lerner said:
     
    “They didn’t do this because of any political bias.”
     
    Uh huh.  No political bias, just pick the cases with names like Tea Party or Patriots.  Right.  No evidence of political bias there.  I wonder if the reaction would have been as tepid if the IRS employees were selecting cases based on applications filed by African Americans.

    • Gregg Smith

      And now we learn the chief counsel for the IRS knew about it in 2011. Is it not enough to paint those truly concerned with the direction America is taking, and with good reason, as racist religious mass murder supporting nut cases? Do they have to sic the IRS on them too? These people are nasty as hell.

      • hennorama

        Gregg Smith – please elaborate as to exactly who you are referring to by writing “they” and “These people”.

        Presuming that’s not too much of a “demand” for you to handle, of course.

        • Gregg Smith

          The liberal elite as led by Obama.

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith – TY for that nonspecific and vague response.

            Please list the names all of the individuals in the group you described, in the spirit of mutual understanding.

    • hennorama

      OPC – three points, then elaboration.

      ** applications with the words “Tea Party” and “Patriots” were not the only applications selected for further review. More than 200 other applications that did not contain those words were also selected.

      ** questioning applicants for tax exempt status to determine the validity of their eligibility is proper and should be more widely pursued. Many of these so-called “social welfare groups”, on both ends of the political spectrum, seem to spend virtually all of their time and resources on political activities, which may be an abuse of their tax-exempt status.

      ** the IRS should not be targeting any particular political ideology

      According to an article on foxnews.com:

      “The IRS put out a written statement saying protocol was changed at the Cincinnati office in response to the rising number of applications for 501(c)(4) groups. This classification grants tax-exempt status to social welfare groups. Unlike other charitable groups, these
      organizations are allowed to participate in political activities but their primary activity must be social welfare.

      “The agents tried to “centralize work” in response to the applications, the IRS said, leading to problems the agency claims have since been fixed.

      “Mistakes were made initially, but they were in no way due to any political or partisan rationale. We fixed the situation last year and have made significant progress in moving the centralized cases through our
      system,” the IRS said.

      “During the conference earlier Friday, Lerner said the number of groups filing for the tax-exempt status more than doubled from 2010 to 2012, to more than 3,400. To handle the influx, the IRS centralized its review of these applications in the office in Cincinnati. As part of the review, staffers look for signs that groups are participating in political activity. If so, IRS agents take a closer look to make sure that politics isn’t the group’s primary activity, Lerner said.

      “In all, about 300 groups were singled out for additional review, Lerner said. Of those, about a quarter were singled out because they had “tea party” or “patriot” somewhere in their applications. Lerner said 150 of the cases have been closed and no group had its tax-exempt status revoked, though some withdrew their applications. “

      See:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/10/irs-apologizes-for-targeting-conservative-groups/#ixzz2Sw4bQ2ts

      The IRS employees were looking for political activities, and used those words as a shortcut to screen applications for further review. But they also selected more than 200 other applications that did not
      contain those words. In other words, applications with the words “Tea Party” and “Patriots” were not the only applications selected for further review.

      Certainly the IRS should not be targeting any particular political ideology. But questioning applicants for tax exempt status, in order to
      determine whether they were primarily political groups rather than “social welfare” groups, is absolutely proper and should be more widely pursued, IMO. Many of these so-called “social welfare groups”, on both ends of the political spectrum, seem to spend virtually all of their time and resources on political activities,
      which may be an abuse of their tax-exempt status.

      I certainly not defending these actions on the part of the IRS, and am glad that, according to an article on wsj.com,

      ”The IRS comments came as the Treasury Department inspector general for tax administration is nearing completion of a report on the matter; a spokesman for the inspector general said it is expected to be issued next week. At the same time, the IRS is sending questionnaires to some groups that self-declare their tax-exempt status, seeking more information on their political activity, and it is reviewing tax returns of some exempt groups to make sure they are complying with rules imposing a tax on some of their political activities, tax experts say.”

      See:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323744604578474983310370360.html

      • OnPointComments

        I’m sure everything you wrote is true.  I repeat my point:  if the IRS selection criteria had been (1) any applications that appeared to indicate political activity, and (2) all applications filed by African Americans but this isn’t because of any racial bias, would you believe them?  I wouldn’t.

        • hennorama

          OPC – TY for your thoughtful response.

          As to the second part of your hypothetical – is there any evidence that “all applications filed by” Tea Partiers and/or Patriots were selected for review?

          In addition, without knowing either the total number of applications, the total number of applications selected for further review, or the characteristics of the other applications selected for further review, judgment as to “bias” is difficult.

          One also must recognize that the “Tea Party” and/or “Patriots” of all stripes were relatively new on the scene. There may have been a disproportionate number of applications containing those particular words, simply due to this newness.

          As an absurd example, let’s say there were 3400 total applications, and 3000 of them contained the words “tea party” or “patriot” somewhere in their applications. Selecting about 75 of 3000 applications for further review would not seem to demonstrate “bias”, wouldn’t you agree?

          Certainly this looks very bad, and may have been politically motivated. But there’s not enough information available to determine whether there was “bias”, or whether this was a case of the IRS struggling with a major increase in applications, combined with the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case. The CU decision was issued in January 2010, and the application selection process apparently began shortly thereafter, around March 1, 2010.

          Leaked details of the IG report indicate that soon thereafter, “The new Acting Manager, technical Unit, suggested the need for a Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party cases. The Determination Unit Program Manager agreed.” So there was very early recognition that this was a “Sensitive” matter.

          The IG investigation report will be out soon, and some details of the report have already been leaked, as seen in this interactive usatoday.com article:

          http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/11/irs-tea-party-investigation-timeline/2153007/

          and this timeline:
          https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/699736-tigta-timeline.html

          Please note that the selection criteria changed significantly over time, as shown in the leaked documents in the timeline.

          Again, this looks bad, and is definitely quite troubling. But let’s see what the IG report says once it’s released.

          • OnPointComments

            To make your absurd example more accurate, let’s say there were 3400 total applications, and 100 of them contained the words “tea party” or “patriot” somewhere in their applications. All of the 100 applications were automatically selected for further review simply because they contained the words “tea party” or “patriot.”  This would seem to demonstrate “bias,” wouldn’t you agree?  If the USA Today article is accurate, then my question is rhetorical since the article unambiguously states that these conservative groups were targeted.
             
            This doesn’t “look bad,” IT *IS* BAD.  You say there’s not enough information available to determine whether there was “bias;”  I say what was done is the definition of bias.
             
            I’m going to go off on a tangent.  We have truly fallen through the looking glass.  Members of radical Islam were responsible for the first bombing of the World Trade Center, the 9/11/2001 attacks, the Boston Marathon bombing, the Fort Hood shooting, a multitude of attacks around the world, have stated that they want to destroy the “Great Satan” USA, yet we don’t dare apply any more additional scrutiny at the airport to the Arab with the “Allahu Akhbar” button on his robes than to the 90 year old grandmother in a wheelchair because, well, that would be wrong.  Yet we have people trying their best to rationalize or justify IRS’s admission that the agency targets conservative groups.  Don’t go after those who are trying to destroy us, go after those who advocate smaller government.  I can’t imagine a more absurdist drama.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        Understaffing the government’s accounts-receivable department causes problems, it appears.

  • brettearle

    deleted

  • brettearle

    deleted

  • brettearle

    deleted

  • brettearle

    Jasoturner–

    Disqus wouldn’t let me post this comment, directly below your reply to an earlier comment of mine, far down on this Thread.

    There is reason to believe that LITERALLY, with the
    proper Algorithms and with the right interconnectivity between agencies,
    these men MIGHT (not definitely) have been singled out–WELL before they
    even finished manufacturing their bombs; or well before they protaged
    these explosives to the site.

    It is also quite possible that such an arrest–with proper law–might not have been such a breach of the current Patriot Act.

    And
    if it were, would either you, or I, have sanctioned such curtailment of
    law enforcement–and, therefore, would have let these two go on their
    merry way to kill and maim, in Copley Square?   

    I think the answer for both of us is, No…..

    And, if it is otherwise, I’d like to know why.

  • JONBOSTON

    Last week began with Obama lecturing Americans not to be afraid of tyranny only to have this week end with Wednesday’s testimony on Benghazi revealing an administration determined to fabricate lies to the American people followed by the revelation that the IRS was conducting a partisan witch-hunt against tea-party and patriotic groups in the run-up to the 2012 election (and possibly as far back as 2011).  One gets the feeling with this administration that tyranny is just a means to an end.  Lying to the American public and most tragically to the families of the 4 who died in Benghazi about the real cause for the attack on the embassy in Benghazi; jailing of an innocent  anti-Islamic video film maker that still continues today; IRS commissioner Dan Shulman lying to Congress that the IRS was not targeting conservative groups; Obama administration by-passing Congress and the US Constitution with all of its executive orders regarding the Dream act and non-enforcement of our immigration laws; illegal recess appointments to the NLRB and the Consumer Finance bureau that are only now being shot down by Federal Courts; the re-election of Obama as a result of arguably the most divisive, disgusting , and lying campaign ever waged by a sitting US president, and I could continue. The thought that this rapidly declining nation has to endure Obama and his ilk for another three years is repulsive to me.

    Unless engaged in a “willing suspension of disbelief”, what’s even more disturbing is the complete silence from Democrats, the silence from the New York Times (a once great paper but now totally in the bag for Obama) and other mainstream media organizations, civil liberties groups such as the ACLU, and yes ,NPR’s On-Point ,which couldn’t devote more than a few minutes at the end of Friday’s program to Benghazi. Where’s the outrage? Have these once great organizations and institutions been so corrupted by partisan ideology that they no longer put the country first?  I guess their response would be , “What difference does it make”?

    • brettearle

      The Abu Graib and the Iran-Contra debacles make the IRS and Benghazi improprieties seem like class 2 misdemeanors.

      • Gregg Smith

        History will judge but I disagree. No one died at Abu Graib. Obviously I mean since Hussein ran the place and had the wood chipper in the basement. The lucky ones went in head first. I don’t see what’s so bad about wearing women’s underwear on your head. I mean who hasn’t?

        • brettearle

          How to weigh apples and apples?

          How to weigh apples and oranges?

          Benghazi WAS a Tragedy
          Benghazi WAS mishandled.

          Hillary
           Clinton will likely lose the 2016 nomination, over it.  [It wouldn't
          have mattered, anyway:  Christie is, very likely our next President, no
          matter what.]

          But, when you consider the following, then Benghazi can be put in perspective….

          American embassies and diplomatic posts have been the object of violence, before–a number of times–resulting in Death.

          It can come with the territory.

          Our GIs die every day–and up until recently, it was because of faulty Bush II Intel [or at least cherry-picked Intel].

          Abu Graib was a disaster, a hundred ways Tuesday.

          It
           was a PR debacle that made us look like demonic torturers, to the
          Islamic world, even more than we already had; and to this day has
          emboldened the Islamic world against our soldiers and made them even
          more vulnerable to sniper ambush.

          From that standpoint, it is MORE significant than Benghazi…..

          What’s more, Iran-Contra was part of a grander design to avert the spread of Marxism/Communism in Latin America.

          The only PROBLEM with that was that the CIA conducted many covert operations, back then, that resulted in many, many innocent casualties.

          So, Iran-Contra was therefore monstrously complicit in these deaths.

          What’s
           more, most of the government officials, coming out of the Iran-Contra
          affair were either pardoned, were not prosecuted, or were not
          re-tried–so I do not know what JONBOSTON is talking about.

          Reagan’s role of Plausible Deniability is patently obvious.  

          JONBOSTON’s
           Iran-Contra version must be some imbroglio that only he knows
          about–but that the Press and the Public are not privy to.

          And
          then, of course, there was that LITTLE gambit in 1983, with more than
          250 soldiers slaughtered in Lebanon–that Reagan got off scot-free for.

          You guys think you smell blood.

          Benghazi is so far from Impeachment, it might as well have happened on Jupiter.

          • Gregg Smith

            I’ve read that before somewhere.

      • JONBOSTON

        Just three months into the Iraq war, Democrats that initially enthusiastically supported the war began a five-year campaign to delegitimize it, casting America as its villain. It culminated with Dems and their media acolytes taking a relatively minor incident like guards misbehaving at Abu Ghraib and blowing it up into an international scandal. Iran Contra was a mistake that resulted in the dismissal and conviction of numerous high ranking Reagan officials.

        I guess you’re not troubled by a president and his administration deliberately and with full knowledge lying to the American public. And I guess you’re not troubled when a Secretary of State outright lies to the father of one of the slain Navy Seals as to the cause of the embassy attack as his flag draped coffin is unloaded from the military transport. And I guess you’re not troubled when the Commander in Chief  still hasn’t explained to the American public what he did and what he ordered on the night of the attack. And I guess you could care less that the IRS has targeted conservative groups due to their political beliefs , something that recalls Nixon’s enemies list.  By the way,if you care to know,  lying to Congress under oath is a federal crime, a felony. IRS abuse is a fundamental attack on our democracy and liberty if it isn’t a federal felony.  Just a pathetic response.

        • brettearle

          How to weigh apples and apples?

          How to weigh apples and oranges?

          Benghazi WAS a Tragedy
          Benghazi WAS mishandled.

          Hillary
          Clinton will likely lose the 2016 nomination, over it.  [It wouldn't
          have mattered, anyway:  Christie is, very likely our next President, no
          matter what.]

          But, when you consider the following, then Benghazi can be put in prospective….

          American embassies and diplomatic posts have been the object of violence, before–a number of times–resulting in Death.

          It can come with the territory.

          Our GIs die every day–and up until recently, it was because of faulty Bush II Intel [or at least cherry-picked Intel].

          Abu Graib was a disaster, a hundred ways Tuesday.

          It
          was a PR debacle that made us look like demonic torturers, to the
          Islamic world, even more than we already had; and to this day has
          emboldened the Islamic world against our soldiers and made them even
          more vulnerable to sniper ambush.

          From that standpoint, it is MORE significant than Benghazi…..

          What’s more, Iran-Contra was part of a grander design to avert the spread of Marxism/Communism in Latin America.

          The only PROBLEM with that was that the CIA conducted many covert operations, back then, that resulted in many, many innocent casualties.

          So, Iran-Contra was therefore monstrously complicit in these deaths.

          What’s
          more, most of the government officials, coming out of the Iran-Contra
          affair were either pardoned, were not prosecuted, or were not
          re-tried–so I do not know what JONBOSTON is talking about.

          Reagan’s role of Plausible Deniability is patently obvious. 

          JONBOSTON’s
          Iran-Contra version must be some imbroglio that only he knows
          about–but that the Press and the Public are not privy to.

          And
          then, of course, there was that LITTLE gambit in 1983, with more than
          250 soldiers slaughtered in Lebanon–that Reagan got off scot-free for.

          You guys think you smell blood.

          Benghazi is so far from Impeachment, it might as well have happened on Jupiter.

  • OnPointComments

    If even Joe Klein of Time magazine knows it, maybe there’s hope that others who wear rose-colored glasses when they view everything that happens in the Obama administration will realize the truth too.
     
    “IRS Mess”  Joe Klein, Time magazine

    http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/11/irs-mess/ 
     
    “And now they have violated one of the more sacred rules of our democracy: you do not use the tax code to punish your opponents. 
     
    “Lois G. Lerner, the IRS official who oversees tax-exempt groups, said the “absolutely inappropriate” actions by “front-line people” were not driven by partisan motives.

    “Does anyone actually believe this?”
     
    Personally, I don’t get any solace from the fact that it was career IRS employees, not political appointees, that singled out conservative organizations.  It’s an indication that corruption at the agency is endemic.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      JokeLine is the most Beltway Inbred “moderate” “newsman” I can think of.

      Still waiting for this to become something besides a “where there’s smoke there’s a smoke machine” “scandal”.

  • OnPointComments

    “He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, ENDEAVOURED TO OBTAIN from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, AND TO CAUSE, IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS, INCOME TAX AUDITS OR OTHER INCOME TAX INVESTIGATIONS TO BE INTITIATED OR CONDUCTED IN A DISCRIMINATORY MANNER.” (emphasis added)
     
    From the Articles Of Impeachment of Richard Nixon, as read by George Will on ABC’s “This Week.”  Nixon resigned.
     
    Concerning conservative groups, individuals at the IRS have endeavoured to obtain confidential information, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, and caused income tax investigations to be intiated and conducted in a discriminatory manner.  What is the appropriate punishment for those who were involved?

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      Har de har. George Will! That’s the last of his good name.

      Do you need a grown-up to describe the difference here? Cos I don’t have the patience.

  • OnPointComments

    “Lying about Benghazi”
      http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-oped-0510-goldberg-20130510,0,7640079.story 
     
    Excerpt:
    “Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference — at this point, what difference does it make?”

    What Clinton was really doing there was deflecting attention away from the fact that she lied…administration officials knew from the outset the video had nothing to do with it.  

    The hearings exposed another lie. Obama and Clinton have insisted they did everything they could to help the Americans besieged in Libya; they just couldn’t get help to them in time.  That’s simply untrue…we know the administration ordered others who were willing, able and obliged to come to the consulate’s rescue to “stand down.” 

    We do know they deceived the public. Which brings us back to the lies over the video. In the wake of Benghazi, the country endured an intense debate over how much free speech we could afford because of the savage intolerance of rioters half a world away. Obama and Clinton fueled this debate by incessantly blaming the video — as if the First Amendment was the problem.

     Clinton and Obama swore oaths to support and defend the Constitution. But after failing to support and defend Americans left to die, they blamed the Constitution for their failure. That’s what difference it makes.

    • hennorama

      The opinions of a conservative columnist. Next.

      • OnPointComments

        The unadulterated facts.  As included in the opinion of a conservative columnist.
         
        Which parts of the column aren’t true?  We know that Obama and Clinton knew it wasn’t the video because of the testimony last week, the editing of the talking points, and the coercion of State Department employees who dared question the story that was fabricated out of thin air.  When they sent Susan Rice to repeat the lie, even the Libyan president disputed her story.  Do Obama and Clinton really expect anyone to believe that Libyan intelligence was better than US intelligence?  Only a Democrat party ideologue could be that gullible.  Did Obama and Clinton send help?  No, they didn’t.  Those in Benghazi were on their own, with no support from the US, until they were killed.
         
        During this past week, Benghazi, paired with the IRS story, is the best advertisement ever for keeping the House of Representatives in Republican control.  I’d bet my last dollar that if Democrats controlled the House, we’d never know what happened in Benghazi, and we’d never know what motivated the IRS to target conservatives.

        • hennorama

          OPC – as you seem to have actually read Mr. Goldberg’s piece, please indicate any new information he imparted to the world.

          My quick scan of his piece is summed up as “here a lie, there a lie, everywhere a lie, lie …”

          He has his opinions, which he shared, but that’s nothing new at all.

          • OnPointComments

            Thank you for your response.
             
            Perhaps Mr. Goldberg’s goal wasn’t to break new fertile ground in this administration’s deceit, but merely to summarize the deceptions that had withered on the vine last week.

          • hennorama

            OPC – TYFYR as well.

            Mr. Goldberg’s anti-all-things-Obama bent is well-known, making his opinions in this piece completely predictable and unsurprising.

            However, unlike you, Mr. Goldberg repeatedly used the word “lie” rather than “deception”. There’s a significant difference.

      • pete18

         Do really hold the position that there was nothing worth being concerned about in how the administration has handled Benghazi?

        • hennorama

          pete18 – I have never written anything like that.

          • pete18

             I’m just asking the question. The sum total of your answers that I’ve seen on the board sure imply that.

            So, do you think there were any problems with how the Obama administration has handled Benghazi? Were any lies told by any member of the administration, before, during or after the event ?

          • hennorama

            pete18 – TY for your post. I appreciate and respect your views. Apologies for the delayed response, but I’ve been dealing with what I describe as The Six Sigma Conundrum (sail, surf, snorkel, snack, snooze, or sex) as well as people clamoring for loco moco, stir-fried pork and rice, and sun-dried tomato and atrichoke frittata.

            Let me begin with answers to your questions, then elaborate. Apologies in advance as to the length of the elaboration.

            You wrote, “So, do you think there were any problems with how the Obama administration has handled Benghazi?”

            Yes, I do.

            Allow me to rephrase your second question in order to focus it, if I may. My rephrasing is inside brackets:

            “Were any lies told by any member of the administration, before, during or after the event[s that occurred on Sept. 11 and 12, 2012, at the US diplomatic post and the CIA annex in Benghazi, about those events]?”

            I would characterize many of the most controversial comments as “shading the truth”, “deceptive”, “semantic shading”, “lacking in complete candor” and/or “spin”. And as to what is supposed to be “the big lie” about “the video” – no.

            The events that occurred at the US “diplomatic post” and the CIA annex, on Sept. 11 and 12, 2012, in Benghazi (I’ll refer to them as “the Benghazi events” hereafter) could be characterized as “9/11/2001, writ small”, with two exceptions – they occurred outside “the homeland”, and they occurred in the middle of a Presidential election campaign. These differences account for many of the differences in the aftermath.

            The Benghazi events were politicized by the Romney campaign (even before we knew both the full extent of, and the identities of the casualties), despite the old political axiom that “politics ends at the water’s edge” and the more recent “no political attacks on the anniversary of the attacks of 9/11/2001”.

            This also occurred in the environment of extreme upheaval in North Africa and the Middle East, and in Libya in particular.

            The U.S. facility in Benghazi wasn’t a consulate.; it was a temporary “diplomatic post”. I had been using the term “consulate” from the beginning and hadn’t noted the correct terminology until reading the various versions of the now-infamous “talking points”. Various news organizations used the term “consulate” from the beginning.

            One also must recognize that the US facilities and personnel in Benghazi were there largely for CIA operations rather than diplomatic services. This fact has been largely ignored in the political public panderings of various members of investigative committees, as well as a variety of media pundits, news organizations, and others.

            The CIA involvement certainly could be the reason for the the lack of complete candor from the start.

            Some journalists were paying attention, however. On Oct. 10, 2012, Dana Milbank of The Washington Post reported/opined/blogged as to how Rep. Jason Chaffetz “accidentally blew the CIA’s cover” in a televised public hearing.

            (See:http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-letting-us-in-on-a-secret/2012/10/10/ba3136ca-132b-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_print.html).

            Milbank continued “That the Benghazi compound had included a large CIA presence had been reported but not confirmed. The New York Times, for example, had reported that among those evacuated were ‘about a dozen CIA operatives and contractors.’ The paper, like The Washington Post, withheld locations and details of the facilities at the administration’s request.”

            This is the NYT article Milbank quoted, from Sept. 24, 2012:

            http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/world/africa/attack-in-libya-was-major-blow-to-cia-efforts.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

            Other organizations later reported the CIA involvement, as the fact of the CIA presence had become more widely recognized:

            According to a Wall Street Journal article published in November 2012, “The U.S. effort in Benghazi was at its heart a CIA operation, according to officials briefed on the intelligence. Of the more than 30 American officials evacuated from Benghazi following the deadly assault, only seven worked for the State Department. Nearly all the rest worked for the CIA, under diplomatic cover, which was a principal purpose of the consulate, these officials said.” (See:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204712904578092853621061838.html This article may be difficult to access directly, but the quote above is available from other online sources as well)

            And:

            http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/11/12/174455/libyans-diplomats-cias-benghazi.html#.UZEzFqLUnDk

            http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/05/cia-moved-swiftly-scrub-abandon-libya-facility-after-attack-source-says/#ixzz2IE8icKIQ

            http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204712904578090612465153472.html

            And over the past weekend, David Brooks discussed the CIA’s presence in Benghazi as well as their role in the talking points, with host David Gregory on Meet The Press:

            “GREGORY: Let me widen this discussion. David Brooks, as we talk again about Benghazi, you know, here this morning and what’s new this morning, the Chairman of the House Oversight Committee is falling short of saying this was Hillary Clinton and President Obama’s fault. But he does say the administration essentially directed the intelligence community to back off what they wanted to say.

            “MR. DAVID BROOKS (Columnist, New York Times): There’s an underlying narrative here which I actually think is wrong. The underlying narrative is that the CIA is this bunch of technically pure non-political people and then they produce a product which is then doctored by a bunch of political people either at State or at the White House. My reading of the evidence is that a very terrible event happened at a CIA– basically a CIA facility. They went into intense blame-shifting mood, trying to shift responsibility on to the State Department, on to anywhere else. And the State Department pushed back. They said no, it’s not our fault, it was your facility. And so they pushed back and they said why are we suddenly releasing information that we haven’t been releasing so far? So the CIA was super aggressive. There was some pushback. Out of that bureaucratic struggle, all the talking points were reduced to mush and then politics was inserted into it. So I don’t think we should necessarily say this is politics intruding on a CIA pure operation.”

            See:http://www.nbcnews.com/id/51857413/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/#.UZA55KLUnDl

            When one reads the first version of the CIA “talking points”, it is clear that the CIA is trying to cover themselves when they point to “at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants” since April 2012.

            The various versions of the talking points can be found here:http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Benghazi%20Talking%20Points%20Timeline.pdf

            It is also clear from the first version of the CIA “talking points” that the intelligence community had NOT concluded at that point that the attacks were premeditated terror. Instead, they indicated that the attacks “were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo”, and then had “evolved into a direct assault.” The initial talking points also indicated that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qa’ida” had merely “participated in” the attack, without any details as to what is meant by “participated in”.

            This is in line with what Amb. Rice said on the news/talk shows.

            You’ve already read this post, as you’ve replied to it previously, but I’m repeating a portion of it regardless. I’ve also edited it slightly to change “consulate” to “diplomatic post”:

            “There are multiple timeframes involved in Benghazi:

            1. Events before the attacks. Security and intelligence should have been better. No argument about that, as security obviously was insufficient to defend against the attacks that occurred. However, diplomacy and CIA activities in Libya were obviously risky at the time, especially in Benghazi. Balancing risks, political and intelligence gathering goals, with security needs is always difficult.

            2. The initial attack and response on the ground. Hard to find fault with anyone’s actions on the ground, with the [obvious] exception of some of the local militia security personnel guarding the [diplomatic post]. The CIA team at the annex gathered 40 to 60 local militia and arrived at the [diplomatic post's] compound about 45 minutes after the start of the attack and evacuated remaining personnel and casualties in about 15 minutes, retreating to the CIA annex. Unfortunately they could not locate Amb. Stevens.

            3. The time after the first attack and before the second attack. This was the focus of much of the “what-ifs” from Mr. Hicks and others during the most recent hearing. Why weren’t jets sent? That was asked and answered, as Mr. Hicks himself said. Why weren’t the 4 SO personnel sent? DOD says they were needed in Tripoli, and were not “combat assault ready”. As a reminder, a six-man security team, including two DOD personnel was already en route from the US Embassy in Tripoli to Benghazi, but they got stuck at the airport after their arrival in Benghazi for about 4 hours, unable to arrange transport. They arrived at the CIA annex just before the second attack began.

            4. The second attack and response on the ground. Again, it’s hard to find fault with anyone’s actions on the ground.

            5. Afterward. This is the so-called “cover-up” period. “They didn’t call it “terrorism” – Susan Rice lied – she was sent out to lie – they changed the talking points – they won’t let whistle blowers testify – they demoted whistle blowers – Hillary – Obama – why didn’t they call it terrorism – they blamed the video – Watergate – Iran Contra – fill in the blank.

            The argument here presumably is that it’s never allowable to put a bad event into the best possible light, assuming that is what was being done by the administration, of course.

            The “Obama/Hillary screwed up/covered up/lied” argument never found traction immediately after the Benghazi events, and Pres. Obama was reelected. Sec. Clinton has left office, but may run for President in 2016. The ARB issued a report and made numerous recommendations. No one has yet been captured and held to account for the attacks.”

            So we have an intelligence outpost and a “diplomatic post” in a highly turbulent country, with minimal security. Both facilities are attacked on the anniversary of the 9/11/2001 attacks. In the background are protests and violent demonstrations in a number of countries, involving what many consider to be a blasphemous anti-Islam video. The US is in the middle of a relatively close Presidential election season. The Republican candidate is behind, and had just been raked over the coals for leaving Afghanistan out of his convention speech. The Romney camp was looking for an opportunity to demonstrate Romney’s foreign policy “chops.” The Obama camp was touting the death of OBL, and that al Qaeda had been significantly diminished.

            Were politics involved in the aftermath of these Benghazi events? Of course, from both sides, and this continues even now. Did the Obama administration tell the whole truth from the beginning? No, and likely for a variety of reasons, including secrecy, political concerns, and an abundance of caution.

            Other than that, “there’s no there there”.

          • pete18

             

            Well, I’m glad to hear you admit that the Obama
            administration wasn’t telling the whole truth, but it is still amazing that you
            and other Obama defenders can only go that far. It’s clear from the testimony
            of Hicks and calls made at from other Americans at the American consulate at
            the time of the attack that there were no protests going on. The You Tube video
            had nothing to do with that attack, nor the ones in Cairo. The Obama
            administration knew this yet presented the utter fabrication that the You Tube
            video was the cause of the attack. He did this as late as 15 days after the
            fact during an address to the UN. This was not a shading of the truth, it was a
            complete lie. It cannot be blamed on or excused by CIA activities at the
            embassy, confusion over what happened, a power play between the CIA and the
            State department, or any “politicizing” (otherwise know as justified critiques)
            by Mitt Romney during the heat of a campaign.  There is no defense for this and for you, as
            someone who takes great pride in trying to only argue the facts,

            to make such great efforts to rationalize it really detracts
            from the intellectual honesty of the rest of your arguments (in my opinion).

             

            http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/05/the_complete_benghazi_timeline_in_spreadsheet_format.html

          • hennorama

            pete18 – TY for your response. I understand and respect your views. Apologies in advance as to the length of my response, as well as to the delay in responding, for the reasons previously given.

            A few points:

            You wrote “It’s clear from the testimony of Hicks and calls made at from other Americans at the American consulate at the time of the attack that there were no protests going on.’

            I want to clarify that the US facility was not a consulate – it was a temporary residential “diplomatic post/facility”. As I said in my post, I too had been using the term “consulate” throughout. Then I noticed that the penultimate version of the “talking points” used the term “diplomatic post”, which was later changed to “diplomatic facility”, as Jay Carney has indicated.

            The term “consulate” implies more permanence, and also functions that were not included in the activities carried out at the compound that was first attacked. The ARB report described it as “a temporary, residential facility” and said “the U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi was never a consulate and never formally notified to the Libyan government.”

            See:http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf pages 5 and 14.

            As to your statements that “It’s clear … that there were no protests going on” and “The You Tube video had nothing to do with that attack, nor the ones in Cairo.” – first of all, those are separate conclusions.

            We know now “that there were no protests going on”, at the Benghazi facility, but there were conflicting reports immediately after the attacks. One such report was from Libyan television journalist Firas Abdelhakim, who had followed the attackers vehicles en route to the compound, spoke to them prior to the attack, and witnessed the initial attack. According to The Washington Post, he reported that when asked who they were, they said: “we are Muslims defending the Prophet,” “we are defending the Prophet, we are defending Islam,” and “we are a group of Muslim youth.” Abdelhakim also indicated that they weren’t carrying banners or chanting slogans. This indicates BOTH that they weren’t protesting, and at least SOME possible connection to “the video”; i.e. “we are defending the Prophet.”

            But certainly as regarding the Cairo protests, demonstrations, and subsequent breach of the walls at the US Embassy – these were clearly linked to “the video”, as were the protests, demonstrations and violence in nearly two dozen countries worldwide.

            See:http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=201645180959880549419.0004c9a894dfb66defab9&msa=0

            As for those who continue to say “they blamed the video” for the attacks in Benghazi, one can only continue to say “show me where anyone said ‘the video was the direct cause of the attacks in Benghazi’”.

            I definitely understand the criticisms, and it is certainly true that if one were predisposed against the administration that one could “hear” the various remarks as “blaming the video for Benghazi”. Certainly one could fairly say that one might easily get the impression that “they blamed the video”. However, in the vast majority of comments related to “the video”, administration officials were discussing an overview of the protests, demonstrations and violence in nearly two dozen countries worldwide.

            Pres. Obama’s did the same thing in his UN speech.

            I’m including only portions that mention “the video” and/or Benghazi/Libya or Cairo, directly or indirectly here, with EMPHASIS added: (please note that any use of the word “embassy” clearly excludes the US facilities in Benghazi):

            “At time, the conflicts arise along the fault lines of race or tribe, and often they arise from the difficulties of reconciling tradition and faith with the diversity and interdependence of the modern world. In every country, there are those who find different religious beliefs threatening. In every culture, those who love freedom for themselves must ask themselves how much they’re willing to tolerate freedom for others.

            “And THAT IS WHAT WE SAW PLAY OUT IN THE LAST TWO WEEKS, WHERE A CRUDE AND DISGUSTING VIDEO SPARKED OUTRAGE THROUGHOUT THE MUSLIM WORLD. Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well.

            “For as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and every faith. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion, we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe.

            “WE UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE TAKE OFFENSE TO THIS VIDEO because millions of our citizens are among them. I know there are some who ask why don’t we just ban such a VIDEO. The answer is enshrined in our laws. Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.

            ….and continuing later…

            “The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: THERE IS NO SPEECH THAT JUSTIFIES MINDLESS VIOLENCE.

            “There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. THERE IS NO VIDEO THAT JUSTIFIES AN ATTACK ON AN EMBASSY. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.

            “In this modern world, with modern technologies, for us to respond in that way to hateful speech empowers any individual who engages in such speech to create chaos around the world. We empower the worst of us if that’s how we respond.

            “More broadly, THE EVENTS OF THE LAST TWO WEEKS also speak to the need for all of us to honestly address the tensions between the West and the Arab world that is moving towards democracy.

            ….and continuing later…

            “Let us remember that Muslims have suffered the most at the hands of extremism. ON THE SAME DAY OUR CIVILIANS WERE KILLED IN BENGHAZI, a Turkish police officer was murdered in Istanbul only days before his wedding, more than 10 Yemenis were killed in a car bomb in Sana’a, several Afghan children were mourned by their parents just days after they were killed by a suicide bomber in Kabul.

            ….and continuing later…

            “THE FUTURE MUST NOT BELONG TO THOSE WHO TARGET COPTIC CHRISTIANS IN EGYPT. It must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted, “Muslims, Christians, we are one.” The future must not belong to those who bully women. It must be shaped by girls who go to school and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons.

            ….and continuing later…

            “THE FUTURE MUST NOT BELONG TO THOSE WHO SLANDER THE PROPHET OF ISLAM. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.

            (APPLAUSE)

            “LET US CONDEMN INCITEMENT AGAINST SUFI MUSLIMS AND SHIA PILGRIMS. It’s time to heed the words of Gandhi, “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.”

            ….and continuing later…

            “We have seen hard choices made — from Naypyidaw to CAIRO to Abidjan — to put more power in the hands of citizens.

            ….and continuing later…

            “So much attention in our world turns to what divides us. That’s what we see on the news, that’s what consumes our political debates. But when you strip all away, people everywhere long for the freedom to determine their destiny; the dignity that comes with work; the comfort that comes with faith; and the justice that exists when governments serve their people and not the other way around.

            “The United States of America will always stand up for these aspirations for our own people and for people all across the world. That was our founding purpose. That is what our history shows. That is what CHRIS STEVENS worked for throughout his life.

            “And I promise you this: Long after the killers are brought to justice, CHRIS STEVENS’ legacy will live on in the lives that he touched, in the tens of thousands who marched against violence through the streets of BENGHAZI, in the LIBYANS who changed their Facebook photo to one of CHRIS, in the signs that read simply, “CHRIS STEVENS WAS A FRIEND TO ALL LIBYANS.” They should give us hope. They should remind us that so long as we work for it, justice will be done, that history is on our side, and that a rising tide of liberty will never be reversed.

            “Thank you very much.”

            See: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/25/transcript-obama-address-to-un-general-assembly/#ixzz2TSlsQDXn

            I’d address the balance of your comments, but the Six Sigma Conundrum has a much more powerful pull.

          • Gregg Smith

            You have defended it at every turn. You are the last person on earth still giving credence to the video meme. Anyone reading your comments can come to no other conclusion than you have little concern over the issue.

            I was going to pull some of your quotes but WOW!!! I looked at your profile and there were pages and pages of comments to me. Mindless, parsing, illogical, egotistical, gratuitously nasty comments. It creeped me out, I need a shower.

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith – the fact that an equine excrement expert such as yourself might need a shower likely surprises no one.

            My approach is fact-based and rarely theoretical, and much of what I write is disputing and refuting your posts and other posts, rather than “defending” anything. The fact that you believe the absolutist conclusions (“You are the last person on earth…”, “Anyone reading your comments can come to no other conclusion…”) you wrote merely demonstrates your own closed mind.

            As previously and repeatedly stated, you have never experienced anything “nasty” from me. Your “woe is me, hennorama called me names, hennorama’s being nasty to me” theme would be funny were it not so pathetic. Each time I point out that I haven’t “called you names”, you have responded with either brave silence or the hilarious “TLDR but I got the gist. Look, I don’t care about all that”.

            You have been subjected to ridicule, derision and “not suffering fools gladly”, but not name calling. I believe the relevant idioms here is “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen” and “Grow a pair”.

            Allow me to also remind you (again) of your recent profanely libelous “Comment removed” from about three weeks ago, as merely one example of your own well-practiced name-calling.

            Also as previously stated, the sheer volume of equine excrement coming from your fingertips requires extensive fact-based response, as does your, to put it in the politest possible terms, “repeated inconsistency”. My style involves presenting facts and “making the case”, both of which require more words than when one merely makes unsupported claims and/or states opinions. But really it’s all your fault, Gregg Smith. If you’d stop posting so much equine excrement, I wouldn’t feel the need to comment as much.

            But IMO, disputing your words is ultimately pointless. The words “thick brick skull wall” again come to mind here.

          • Gregg Smith

            I don’t call names, if any of my comments have been removed I’m not aware of it. I’m a harmless lovable fuzzball and everybody knows it. I get along fine with most. Now, that doesn’t mean I’ll lay down and just have you go all postal on me. Hell you just called me a dishonest cherry picker while claiming not to call me names. Or the Horse crap references. I’m not interested in parsing all the tangents thou take. Call me what you want, say I can’t comprehend, whatever I’ll just point out you lost the argument by doing so. Really look at your profile, it’s creepy. People read this stuff believe it or not. I am happy to let your inanity and nastiness, as well as your stalking obsession speak for themselves. If I occasionally call you a piece of shit, it is only because it’s true despite how incredibly out-of-character it is for me to say. I mean enough’s enough.

            All of that would be fine if you actually addressed the concerns raised. But you don’t, you pollute the blog with some weird personal and self-righteous glee. I will make a better effort to not goad you on but it doesn’t take much to send you into a hissy. I’m sure the blog as a whole doesn’t appreciate it and to the extent I enable it I feel kinda bad.

            IMHO the things you routinely defend (yes you do) are a danger to this country.

          • hennorama

            Gregg “I’m not reading all that” Smith – You wrote ”I don’t call names, if any of my comments have been removed I’m not aware of it.”

            This sentence implies a worrisome lack of short term memory. You may wish to get that checked by a health care professional. Allow me to refresh your recollection by listing the various posts in which I refer to your “Comment removed”:

            http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/05/03/week-arrests-syria-pill#comment-886690714

            http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/05/03/week-arrests-syria-pill#comment-885415285

            http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/04/19/manhunt-for-boston-bombing-suspect#comment-872584133

            http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/04/19/manhunt-for-boston-bombing-suspect#comment-871534687

            Due to the fact that your comment was removed, linking to it is impossible. However, it was contained in the OP show from April 18, 2013, titled “Bostonians Reflect on Marathon Bombings”, here:

            http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/04/18/boston-roundtable-marathon-bombings

            Your “Comment removed” was in response to this post:

            http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/04/18/boston-roundtable-marathon-bombings#comment-867490374

            As to your renewed claim “Hell you just called me a dishonest cherry picker while claiming not to call me names.” – beg to differ, sir. I was merely quoting your own words, as I twice pointed out to you, like so:
            “BTW – the “You Dishonest Cherry Picker You” is a direct quote of one of your own recent posts, referring to [hennorama].”

            And again, “Please again note that “You Dishonest Cherry Picker You” is a direct quote of one of your own recent posts, referring to [hennorama].”

            Clearly you fail to perceive that I repeatedly use your own words inside quotation marks between the first and last words in your moniker, like so:

            Gregg “I didn’t cherry pick” Smith
            Gregg “I’m obtuse but not on purpose, it’s my nature” Smith
            Gregg “I did not read all of the last 2 comments. Too long.” Smith
            Gregg “And no I’m not going to read 60 pages of irrelevant gobbledygook just because you link it” Smith
            Gregg “I quit reading” Smith
            Gregg “I don’t know and I don’t care what the dictionary says” Smith

            etc.

            Recommending a reading comprehension course here would likely fall on blind eyes, so I will refrain from doing so.

            If you would like to list examples of what you consider “name calling” on my part, please do. I’ve tried to help you with this previously, but can only wonder if you recall this fact.

            In closing, please allow me to point to the “inconsistency” involved in the first sentence of your first paragraph, and the penultimate sentence in the same paragraph:

            “I don’t call names, if any of my comments have been removed I’m not aware of it”

            “If I occasionally call you a piece of shit, it is only because it’s true despite how incredibly out-of-character it is for me to say.”

            I’d ask you to explain the incongruity of these two sentences, as well as your definition of “true”, but why waste the electrons?

          • Gregg Smith

            Now, I suspect you are lying. When a comment is removed it says “Comment Removed” and it stays there. If any of my comments have been removed I am not aware. It could have happened but I don’t know why, I’m lovable.

            I did look at your beloved links but it was just more name calling. And now you’re saying I need mental help. You’re just nasty.Why do you assume I would know if my comment was removed? Did you have a point?

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith – I did not write “you need mental help”. If you can find an instance of my having done so, please show it.

            Rather, I expressed worry and concern for you by writing “This sentence implies a worrisome lack of short term memory. You may wish to get that checked by a health care professional.”

            I then went on to demonstrate what “implies a worrisome lack of short term memory” by listing multiple instances of posts in which I refer to your “Comment removed”, all of which were written as replies to you, and at least one of which you replied to.

            I did not “assume [you] would know if [your] comment was removed”, other than the fact that I referred to your “Comment removed” in four separate posts directed to you, at least one of which your replied to.

            Your “Comment removed” remains in the record of comments to the OP show from April 18, 2013, as indicated. Your “Comment removed” is exactly where I directed you to, as a reply to the post indicated.

            If you are unable or unwilling to investigate the suspicions expressed by your writing “Now, I suspect you are lying”, you only have yourself to blame.

            One can lead a Gregg Smith to posts, but one can’t make him read.

            One can challenge a Gregg Smith “to list examples of what you consider ‘name calling’ on my part,” but one can’t make him accept.

            The point is, to be as polite as possible, your words are demonstrably and repeatedly inconsistent and contradictory.

            The point is, you seem unable to recall recent events, and perhaps even your owns words.

            The point is, this seeming inability to recall recent events is worrisome.

            You wrote “Edit: Just to be clear, I have almost 6K comments.” To use your own words – “Did you have a point?”

            You further wrote “You will not define me no matter how hard you try. I don’t need to prove, explain or justify anything to you.”

            I am not trying to “define” you; you have done that yourself. (Perhaps that was the reason you mentioned the sheer number of your comments. I dunno.) Indeed you “don’t don’t need to prove, explain or justify anything to” me. Rather, you need to prove to yourself how you comply with your own standards, and how you words are consistent with “open and honest debate”.

            As I have said “I believe the relevant idioms here are “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen” and “Grow a pair”.

          • Gregg Smith

            “This sentence implies a worrisome lack of short term memory. You may wish to get that checked by a health care professional.”
            so I stopped reading. I don’t have time to explain it to you. Your like a yappy yorkie at my ankles.

          • hennorama

            Smith – I’m not a health care professional, so I couldn’t possibly comment.  But isn’t there and old saying along the lines of  ”Talking to yourself is one thing, but answering yourself is another matter entirely”?

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          Who knows? I’m so tired of responding to “the boy who cried wolf” that next time I may not pay attention.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        Henno, it’s not that Jonah Goldberg is a conservative columnist, it’s that he’s a feckless liar and partisan hack. It takes something to stand out in the crowd of righties like that, and “Da Jonah-G Show” does.

        Of course, if I could recommend a conservative columnist who isn’t a total idiot lately, I would. Finding one is really a Diogenesian task.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      Jonah Goldberg?

      He doesn’t even deserve a “Didn’t he used to be worth something?”. He’s always been a partisan hack.

  • donniethebrasco

    Since the supporting the Obama Administration is the op/ed policy and overall purpose of this station, we will argue that Bush and Reagan and Nixon did things that were worse.

    We won’t talk about what the Obama Administration has done, but use this as an opportunity to talk about the Iraq war, the Iran-Contra Arms dealing, and Watergate.

  • Gregg Smith

    I was glad to see Obama do what any sane ethical President would do and that is express outrage over the IRS and their abuse of power. I can understand why he is spitting mad about this, who wouldn’t be?

    Ditto Benghazi, his outrage from being lied to is apparent. His complete transparency and cooperation are to be lauded. I rest easy knowing he is doing everything in his power to get to the bottom of it.

  • Gregg Smith

    I hate “what if” arguments but one can’t help but wonder what would be happening if Bush were President right now. I’m not feeling confident for justice. Clinton got away with using the IRS as his own personal agency to harass. It was uncovered and investigated but the final report was buried by both parties. And remember the FBI files? He skated. Who hired Craig Livingstone, we still don’t know. The precedent has been set and it’s not pretty.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      Yeah, keep “whatiffing” away, Gregg. While there, keep pretending the right doesn’t need racists to win races.

      But my two cents: People on the right wouldn’t be all undie-bunching about “government” and “freedom” and crap.

      Nobody would care about the IRS’ level of understaffing. Let me rephrase that: Nobody, even our “run gummint like a business” types, would care about how the government’s “accounts receivable” department has been understaffed for years.

      • Gregg Smith

        I do hate the argument but geez, how can you not wonder?

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          There’s no such thing as “wonder” on the right. Any distinction between the George Will “wondering” and the pitchforks and death threats and hyperbole front-paged by asswipes at Fox from idiot GOP congresscritters I’ve never heard of simply doesn’t exist.

          If you’re the one sane right-winger, you’ve done a poor job of not realizing you’ve lain down with dogs and got up with fleas.

          • Gregg Smith

            You always give me credit for that, thanks for extending me the benefit of doubt. I guess. But I swear, I’m not itchy at all.

  • Gregg Smith

    Just a reminder, the IRS has hired thousands and thousands of new personal to enforce Obamacare. What could go wrong?

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

    I don’t know about the gasbag shows and The Evening News, but I await NPR’s frothing at the mouth over the IRS not rubber-stamping TeaPartyPatriotFreedom groups’

    For those of you asking “What would it be when Bush II was president”. the simple answer is It was worse and proved partisan.

    Anti-Iraq war sermon brings the IRS heat onto a church

    Two years later, IRS clears church.

    Yeah, I’ll just hold my breath while some Teabagger “proves” the IRS was out to get them under Obama.

    And if we want to granularize further, the Shrub IRS audited Greenpeace and the NAACP. I’m not a tax lawyer, but for some reason I think auditing returns is the same as not rubber-stamping tax-deductible status.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      for some reason neither oboma nor bush would audit the pentagon but you keep up with your partisan battles thats sure to keep the focus off the man behind the curtian

  • OnPointComments

    I couldn’t have said it better.
     
    LIES ABOUT LIBYA – Thomas Sowell
    http://www.creators.com/print/conservative/thomas-sowell/lies-about-libya.html 
     
    Excerpt:
     
    With lies, as with potato chips, it is hard to stop with just one. After the “spontaneous protest” story was discredited, the next claim was that this was the best information available at the time from intelligence sources.  But that claim cannot survive scrutiny, now that the 12 drafts of the Obama administration’s talking points about Benghazi have belatedly come to light.
     
    The problem with telling a lie, or even a succession of lies, is that a very small dose of the truth can sometimes make the whole thing collapse like a house of cards.  After years of getting glowing job evaluations, and awards of honors from the State Department for his work in various parts of the world, Mr. Hicks suddenly began to get bad job evaluations and was demoted to a desk job in Washington after he spoke with a Congressman about what he knew. The truth is dangerous to liars.
     
    The Obama administration’s excuse for not trying to get help to the Americans in Benghazi…is as shaky as its other statements.  But it will take more investigations to determine who gave the order to “stand down,” and why. How many new lies that will generate is another question.

  • Gregg Smith

    This thing is exploding. Will tomorrow’s show be on the Obama administration’s abuse of the Tea Party and Patriots?

  • OnPointComments

    I find it counterfactual and counterintuitive that our government, which routinely alleges racial discrimination by simply counting heads, now says that the IRS targeting of conservative groups is not political.
     
    As someone once said, I may have been born at night but it wasn’t last night.

    • Gregg Smith

      They certainly have no problem profiling conservatives.

  • Gregg Smith

    So now with an administration deeply embroiled in no less than four major scandals, Obama blames Rush! Could he have elevated the radio guy any more if he tried?

    • StilllHere

      He is not ready to be president.

  • OnPointComments

    Does anyone else wonder what the heck is going on?

    THE FIRST AMENDMENT, Freedom Of The Press, was challenged with the Department Of Justice seizure of Associated Press telephone records.  Unreasonable search and seizure is deemed reasonable by Attorney General Eric Holder.
     
    THE FIRST AMENDMENT, Freedom of Speech, is under assault by those who lament the Citizens United decision and assure us that free speech doesn’t include political speech.

    THE SECOND AMENDMENT, Freedom To Bear Arms, is under attack by the Obama administration.

    THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT established the income tax, and now we know the IRS is a liberal gestapo targeting conservative groups, and that the IRS director lied under oath.

    Benghazi was lied about time and again. Is all of this the fundamental transformation of America that Obama promised?

    • jefe68

      First off if you’re going to make comments that use words like “ liberal gestapo” you’re going to turn people like me off big time. By the way the IRS can do this under a Republican presidency as well. 

      I happen to think the IRS has done something here that might be criminal. 

      The DOJ is also doing something that reminds me of Nixon and GW Bush. 

      Your 2nd Amendment meme is overblown.

      That said President Obama is doing a great job of giving away the Senate and the House in the 2014 bi-elections.

      If that happens, it’s time for the demise of our sense of decency and the beginning of impeachment hearings. Which no matter what your political ideology is, unless you are that extreme, would be very damaging to the nation.

      • OnPointComments

        It was over-the-top hyperbole on my part; I apologize.  In my opinion, I doubt that President Obama had any direct involvement with the IRS, however I think he has had much to do with creating the atmosphere and setting the tone that made targeting conservative groups happen.  President Obama constantly berates anyone with whom he disagrees and who thinks the government has grown too large.  He has fomented class warfare.
         
        The second amendment is under attack.  Because an infinitessimal fraction of gun owners wreak havoc, the solution proposed is to register all guns, ban guns, and perform background checks on anyone purchasing a gun.  The “slippery slope” may be cliché, but that doesn’t mean it’s not true; if gun control legislation had passed, I wonder what the next step would be.  
         
        The fault for any lack of veracity and abuse of power in the Obama administration rests solely with the Obama administration.

        • jefe68

          You are 100% correct in the fault lies with who’s in the White House, in this case it’s President Obama. That said, I’m not sure I can take Dick Cheney seriously when he goes on about presidential abuse of power.
          The man haas always been into the idea of a more “imperial” president.

          This also has to do with what I’m now seeing as government getting  a bit out of control. It’s funny, I’m starting to sound like a Libertarian, but when one reads of these abuses of power on the part of the IRS and the Justice Department one has to wonder.

          I’m not so sure the registration of firearms is a bad thing, but in my view it should be up to the states. One has to remember in the 1880′s in Tombstone, AZ everyone had to check their firearms at the marshals office. That was one of the reasons for the famous gun-fight at the OK corral.

  • Gregg Smith

    I’ve read more than once the hair splitting about the distinctions between an Embassy and a Consulate and whatever. What difference can it possibly make? Our Ambassador was murdered.

ONPOINT
TODAY
Apr 16, 2014
A woman walks past a CVS store window in Foxborough, Mass., Tuesday, Feb. 7, 2012. The nation’s major drugstore chains are opening more in-store clinics in response to the massive U.S. health care overhaul, which is expected to add about 25 million newly insured people who will need medical care and prescriptions, as well as offering more services as a way to boost revenue in the face of competition from stores like Safeway and Wal-Mart. (AP)

Retailers from Walgreens to Wal-Mart to CVS are looking to turn into health care outlets. It’s convenient. Is it good medicine? Plus: using tech to disrupt the healthcare market.

Apr 16, 2014
Harvard Business School is one of the top-ranked MBA programs in the country. Our guest today suggests those kinds of degrees aren't necessary for business success. (HBS / Facebook)

Humorist and longtime Fortune columnist Stanley Bing says, “forget the MBA.” He’s got the low-down on what you really need to master in business. Plus: the sky-high state of executive salaries.

RECENT
SHOWS
Apr 15, 2014
In this file photo, author and journalist Matt Taibbi speaks to a crowd of Occupy Wall Street protestors after a march on the offices of pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, Wednesday, Feb. 29, 2012, in New York. There was a heavy police presence around the 42nd Street area as the demonstration began Wednesday morning outside. (AP)

Muckraking journalist Matt Taibbi sees a huge and growing divide in the US justice system, where big money buys innocence and poverty means guilt. He joins us.

 
Apr 15, 2014
A crowd gathers at the finish line of the Boston Marathon in Boston for a Sports Illustrated photo shoot before the one-year anniversary of the Boston Marathon bombings, Saturday, April 12, 2014. (AP)

One year after the Boston Marathon bombing, we look at national and local security on the terrorism front now, and what we’ve learned.

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
How Boston Is Getting Ready For the 2014 Boston Marathon
Tuesday, Apr 15, 2014

Boston Globe metro reporter Maria Cramer explains how the 2014 Boston Marathon will be different than races in the past.

More »
Comment
 
WBUR’s David Boeri: ‘There’s Still Much We Don’t Know’
Tuesday, Apr 15, 2014

WBUR’s senior reporter David Boeri details the ongoing investigation into the alleged Boston Marathon Bombing perpetrators.

More »
Comment
 
Remembering The Boston Marathon Bombing, One Year Later
Tuesday, Apr 15, 2014

One year after the Boston Marathon Bombing, we look back at our own coverage of the attacks and the community’s response from April 2013.

More »
Comment