WH Spokesman Carney Slams GOP’s ‘Obsession’ With Anti-Islam Film

In the days following the attacks on our embassy in Benghazi, Libya last year the Obama administration insisted the whole thing was a result of Muslim ire at an anti-Islam film posted to Youtube. Today, after Hillary testified in front of the Senate over her role in the debacle, White House spokesman Jay Carney is blasting Republicans for their “obsession” about the film.

During her testimony, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton continued to blame the Benghazi attack on “militants” and got agitated over a question from Republican Senator Ron Johnson (WI) who asked about why the administration illegitimately focused on the video for so long.

As Sen. Johnson tried to pin Clinton down on the issue, the Secretary raised her voice saying, “The fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest? Or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?”

White House spokesman Jay Carney also got into the business of scoffing at any question over the video. When asked early on Wednesday afternoon about Clinton’s testimony, the White House spokesman was dismissive.

The Republican’s question about the video, Carney said, was “an obvious political obsession over a series of talking points that again bears no relevance on the central issues.”

No relevance?

In fact, Hillary Clinton herself appeared in a video–as did the President–apologizing to the Muslim world over the video and making sure that Muslims knew that the U.S. denounced it. The only reason this ad was created was because Obama et al maintained that the video was a main imputes for the violence during that period. The video ad ran in Pakistan in the days after the attacks in Benghazi.

So, it was the Obama administration that “obsessed” over this anti-Islam video. Republicans just want to know why the Obama administration purposefully lied about the attacks on Benghazi for so long.

That seems pretty relevant.

It all brings to mind Bill Clinton’s claim that it “depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is” when we have an administration basing a week of responses to Benghazi predicated on the claim that it was all over a Youtube video but then blasting Republicans for pointing out that the administration had said this.

School Sex Scandal Teacher Debra LaFave Back On Probation
Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Zelsdorf-Ragshaft-III/100000173426945 Zelsdorf Ragshaft III

    Hillary Clinton committed perjury. She gave sworn testimony she never blamed the video for the Benghazi attack. That is simply not true. She told parents of the murdered Americans they would be taking action against the man who made the video.

  • herddog505

    I do the same kind of things when my wife catches me in a statement that later proves (she thinks) to be not entirely accurate from a certain point of view.

    It usually works, too.

  • GarandFan

    You’d think that Carney would know when to stop digging that hole.

    • herddog505

      The problem is that it can actually work. I have even seen this kind of behavior in people I know. Dashiell Hammett puts his finger on it in the novel The Thin Man:

      [paraphrase] “If you catch Mimi in a lie, she just tells another. When you catch her in that one, she tells another. Eventually, she wears you down and you find yourself believing things that you KNOW aren’t true because you get tired of NOT believing them.”

      In this case, the people who are supposed to be doing the questioning are not only willing but EAGER to believe (and publicize) anything that Barry or his henchmen say. Add to it that the person ultimately responsible for this bunk is the most powerful man in the world: he doesn’t have to tell the truth to anybody unless it suits his purposes to do so.

  • 914

    Not to worry.. Barry is making reparations to the muslim world. Egypt to get new war tanks and F-16s?

    • jim_m

      It’s not because they are muslim, it’s because they are enemies of the US or enemies of our traditional allies. Those are the only countries he supports.

  • Vagabond661

    Can we slam the Libs for their obsession with gun control?

  • jim_m

    The difference is that it is either a failure in our intelligence gathering or it isn’t. Your answer, Hilary, seems to indicate that it is and you would rather not talk about it because then you either have to admit it or, more likely, lie about it. Of course lying is what you did when you blamed it on a protest.over a stupid movie.

    the GOP is not obsessed about a film. It is obsessed about the incompetence of this admin and its State Dept and the lying to cover up that incompetence.

  • Commander_Chico

    There were mobs and attacks on the embassies in Tunis, Cairo, Sana’a and Khartoum that were motivated by the video.

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      And the soi disant cognoscenti wade in to offer apology for 0bama and Clinton…

    • MartinLandauCalrissian

      Uh, no. The Cairo protest also had nothing to do with any Youtube video. It was about trying to force the US to release Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman (also known as the “Blind Sheik”). Even CNN noted that. Are you ever right?

      • Brucehenry

        No, YOU are wrong. While the organizers of the Cairo protest may have been “pro-sheikh,” they certainly used the video to whip up mob outrage.

        • herddog505

          And you got this information from whom, exactly? MiniTru, yes? And where did THEY get it?

          • Brucehenry

            Some people believe everything they see in the media, others believe none of it. I try to make my best judgments about what is credible and what isn’t. YMMV.

          • herddog505

            Yes: we all have our biases and do the best we can to navigate the world based on the information that we get and how credible we think that it is.

        • jim_m

          Just like the radical islamist protested against the cartoons, including the ones they made up that were never published. These things are not offenses they are pretexts. You are really gullible if you think that these are actually offenses and not simply pretexts to commit acts of violence.

          • Brucehenry

            I’m not attempting to justify either, just to point out that “outrage” over the video was indeed a factor, despite Calrissian’s insistence it had “nothing to do” with the Cairo protest.

        • MartinLandauCalrissian

          Wrong as always brucie. CNN visited the site of the protest the day before it went crazy and it was planed for just what I said and it had nothing to do with any Youtube video. http://articles.cnn.com/2012-09-10/middleeast/world_meast_zawahiri-peace-plan_1_zawahiri-islamists-al-qaeda-leader

          • Brucehenry

            Your link has nothing to do with your point,dude.

          • MartinLandauCalrissian

            Then, like all leftists, you need to learn to read and reason. The CNN report shows that the protest had already begun before it went mad and it was based on freeing the Blind Sheik, not any video. Moron.

          • Brucehenry

            You may have posted the wrong link is all I’m saying. The link you posted has to do with an interview with al-Zawahiri and doesn’t mention Cairo or the Blind Sheikh, unless I missed it. I’ll look again. Maybe you should, too.

          • MartinLandauCalrissian

            OK, I guess the written piece wasn’t as obvious. I apologize for being no help. Here is the video of the report and it shows these guys forming in front of the US embassy in the days before the big protest showing that it had already started before the big protest and that it had nothing to do with the Youtube video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tPszLCEyu-I

          • Brucehenry

            Well, those four guys had THEIR reason for the protest, and other protesters had theirs. Those four guys weren’t the only ones protesting. Sorry, but that video does not prove that the Cairo protest had “nothing to do” with the video.

          • MartinLandauCalrissian

            LOL. So, the people who are powerful in the local radical Islamist community in Cairo said on film that they were protesting to release the Blind Sheik and not for any video and that isn’t good enough for you? No, you have to read the minds of hundreds of people that never appeared on film to say what their problem was instead. See, this is why you extremist, left-wingers have no credibility. You live your silly little lives saying “are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?”

          • Brucehenry

            Ok, you win lol.

    • Par4Course

      And the State Department, Hillary, Susan Rice and President Obama do not know the difference between Libya – where our ambassador and 3 others were killed – and Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Sudan, where protests did not result in American deaths?

  • UOG

    Warner, this is just the Obama Administration’s way of say, “That’s right, I did obsess about that video… before I stopped obsessing about it.” Perhaps our next Sec. of State can expand on that for you, because I’ve never understood the logic of his “before I voted against it” statement either.

  • Brucehenry

    Look, most folks who are aware of the situation KNOW that the administration continued to insist it was the video longer than was appropriate. Now the administration has corrected itself and is acting appropriately in response to the real facts.

    Similarly, most folks who are aware of the situation know there was a NSB entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside US.” After 9/11. the Bush administration corrected it’s “OK, now you’ve covered your ass” attitude and acted appropriately for the next few weeks and months.

    Americans are not interested in wallowing in the Blame Game. That’s why they gave the Bushies a pass on the August NSB and that’s why they’re giving the Obama administration a pass on this. Like Hillary asks ,”What difference, AT THIS POINT, does it make?” that the administration got the public statements wrong for a few days? The point is, what are we doing NOW?

    If the administration had never mentioned the video, Ambassador Stevens would still be dead. Most Americans want to focus on what to do going forward, IMO. Republican attempts to prolong the Blame Game are seen as transparent political games. That’s what Carney’s talking about.

    • Vagabond661

      What difference? If they knowingly lied to us then to win an election, what else are they capable of? What other facts are they twisting for their own political gain? Do you not think the American people have a right to now? Do you not think that the families of the 4 people who died have a right to know? Shouldn’t justice be served?

      It is hypocritical and dishonest to me that people who are using Sandy Hook to pass meaningless legislation are the same people who think this is not a big deal.

      • Brucehenry

        And the same people who said, in 2004 “Well, regardless of whether or not there were WMDs in Iraq, we’re there NOW, and the question is what to do going forward,” said THAT to win an election, didn’t they?

        Weren’t they the same folks who claimed that anti-war people were “obsessed” with the question of WMDs? That, basically, what difference does it make, at this point?

        Were you outraged by that argument then, Vagabond?

        • herddog505

          Here’s the problem with your line of thought:

          First, only lefties think that Bush lied. Those of us who have memories capable of going back beyond yesterday afternoon recall that Slick Willie thought that Saddam had the things and, indeed, attacked him on more than one occasion in an attempt to make people forget about Monica… um… er… get Saddam to cooperate with the dozen or so UN resolutions requiring him to give them up. We also remember that the Congress agreed with Bush in ’02, as did the governments of the various countries who went into Iraq with us. Therefore, it’s reasonable to say that Bush was MISTAKEN, not dishonest (I personally don’t get “outraged” over people making a mistake, though I’m not fond of being lied to). This casts a rather different light on his actions AFTER the invasion, don’t you think?

          Second, there is much to say in the “we’re there and have to stay the course and what difference does it make HOW we got there at this point?” argument. Let’s assume that Bush, realizing that he’d made a terrible mistake, said, “Ooops. My bad. We’re bringing the troops home tomorrow.” What then? Iraq was in shambles, there were credible predictions of civil war and / or invasion from Iran (remember them? We heard enough about Iran during the war from the left), and it was reasonable to think that leaving precipitously would not only leave Iraqis in the lurch but also destroy our credibility. Perhaps you also recall the sad history of A-stan and what happened after the Soviets left: who stepped into that little power vacuum, who did they help and support, and what happened next? Hint: it starts with “a-l-q-a-e-d” and ends with “a”, and the road leads to 3000 Americans murdered in one morning.

          I suggest that Barry also bought into the “we’re there and have to stick around” argument as he didn’t exactly trip over himself pulling the boys out of Iraq, did he? And he got bin Laden, so why are our guys still in A-stan? Are you not outraged? After all, isn’t Barry complicit (after the fact) in Bush’s “lies”? Or could it be that he, like Bush before him, realizes that one can’t just stop a war in the same way that one can call a ball game on account of rain?

          • Brucehenry

            What I’m saying is not an attempt to justify or condemn what one administration did or did not do, in their respective situations, except to point out that their after-the-fact arguments are similar.

            I plead guilty to being predisposed to skepticism of conservatives and less skepticism of liberals. Sue me.

          • Commander_Chico

            C’mon, all of the nuclear stuff was a complete forged and fabricated lie – Niger uranium, aluminum tubes, “smoking gun mushroom cloud.” Colin Powell now says he’s ashamed of what he said at the UN.

            In any event, the Iraq war was a complete fucked-up disaster for the USA. The American people got nothing out of it – not oil, not security, and the enmity of most Iraqis for a generation. The Iranian-controlled government there is now gunning down protesters, and Iraqis will be blaming the USA for that, too.

          • herddog505

            That’s not unreasonable: if I went out and said a lot of things that later proved untrue, not only making myself look like a boob or a liar in the process but also leading to the deaths of quite a lot of people, I’d be ashamed, too.

            But being ashamed of being wrong is different from being ashamed for being a liar. Has Powell said, “I lied” or “I knew that it wasn’t true, but I was just saying what I was told to say”? Or is it more like, “Dammit, I ought to have known better” or “Oh, if only I’d known then what I know now”?

          • Hawk_TX

            If the nuclear stuff was fabricated then why did the U.S. fly over 1.77 tons of radioactive material out of Iraq in 2004?

            http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3872201.stm

          • Brucehenry

            Re-read the text of your link and you may realize how silly it was to post it as evidence of an ongoing WMD program by Saddam.

          • Hawk_TX

            There is nothing silly about 1.77 tons of enriched uranium. Are you so naive or deluded that you think that it was for peaceful energy production?

          • Brucehenry

            The link said that the found “uranium would not be suitable” for a dirty bomb (which is what the concern was, not a conventional nuclear device which would be the goal of a WMD program), And that the “1,000 sources” mentioned were from a “huge range” of radioactive items used for industrial and medical purposes.

            Diehard pathetic attempts to “prove” the existence of an ongoing WMD program are always easily dispensed with.

          • Hawk_TX

            The authorization for use of military force against Iraq resolution of 2002 stated that “that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;”

            Clearly the concern was over both dirty bombs and nuclear devices.

          • jim_m

            Don’t confuse Chico with facts. He doesn’t think facts are important.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            You could have quoted our own Michael Laprarie

          • jim_m

            Part of the dishonesty is that Bruce will have defended Clinton for attacking Iraq and denied that it was to be a distraction. Today, Bruce will find it convenient to agree with you that Clinton did it to create a political distraction and say that there was no need to attack Iraq.

            The M.O. of lefties is to have it both ways. They will say that something is important today and then claim it was a pretense tomorrow if they think they can benefit from doing so.

          • Brucehenry

            Cite?

        • Olsoljer

          There WERE weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Some were moved out of the country to Syria, some were destroyed by American SOGs prior to the actual invasion. Your party line is to lie, obfuscate, re- direct, and deny, deny, deny. (You and chica are very good at it).

          • Brucehenry

            Diehard nonsense, sorry.

        • Vagabond661

          I googled your quote. It didn’t show up. Who said that? Or was it a conglomeration of what many people said? there is a couple of things skewed with your argument and I think Herddog covered them better than i could. The only thing I can add is Saddam Hussein killed his own people so we saved some lives disposing him from power.

          What really outraged me was the way Ambassador Stevens was killed. That was a huge slap in the face and I wondered why drones weren’t sent out to mow down those cowards.

          What was the reason we removed Qaddafi from power anyway? Did he have weapons of mass destruction? Did he ignore 14 UN resolutions? Did Obama have the blessings of Congress?

          • Brucehenry

            Yes, many people said basically that, and yes, it was a conglomeration of what many people said. Do you remember it differently? Do you imagine you have some pathetic Gotcha here?

            Perhaps drones weren’t sent out to “mow down those cowards” because many many innocent civilians may have been killed if they had been, it being in the middle of a crowded city and all.

            “We” didn’t remove Qaddafi from power. His own people did, with a little help from NATO. And us, yes, but it’s a stretch to say “we” removed him, if you mean the US government. And “we” don’t routinely remove governments that ignore or violate UN resolutions, as Israel can attest.

          • Vagabond661

            Really I was asking because you put it in quotes like someone actually said it. I remember a lot of the left asking where were the WMD. Heck we gave Saddam 14 months to do whatever he wanted to with the WMD.

            Your excuses to sit on your hands while things are falling apart around is awe inspiring. No doubt Patton and John McClane can draw from yours and the left’s inspirational ideas.

            The people who shrug their shoulders over accountability in Benghazi are the same ones who demanded to know everything about Romney’s taxes. Pathetic.

          • Brucehenry

            OK, maybe I shouldn’t have put it in quotes, but that was the gist of the argument, was it not? Isn’t that argument basically the same as “What difference, AT THIS POINT, does it make?”

          • Vagabond661

            Again I agree with herddog about that. We went on our best intel. Not only our intel but the whole world’s intel. Saddam kicked the inspectors out. He did everything to escalate the situation. 14 months and Congress’s approval and a huge coalition. A hole damn site different than an Ambassador getting killed.

            Ambassador Stevens was BEGGING for more security. When he got killed the WH IMMEDIATELY started lying and did nothing to help them for 9 hours. The left SCREAMED when Bush finished reading a book but provides cover for the WH for 9 hours…no wait, for month now of inaction.

            I see a whole lot of differences between the two. Only an apologetic ideologue can make the pretzel logic jumps to tie them together.

          • Brucehenry

            Well, that’s your opinion. The way I see it, only an ideologue could ignore the similarities to arrive at a position of such obviously selective outrage.

          • Vagabond661

            Removing a tyrant dictator and a terrorist attack on a US embassy. Oh silly me. why could I have not seen such similarities.

          • Brucehenry

            The similarity is in the arguments “justifying” the actions or inactions of each respective administration, not in the actions or inactions themselves, genius.

          • Vagabond661

            I am more outraged that people were killed in Benghazi and this administration chooses to lie, duck and run for cover. I am not outraged that leftists play Monday morning quarterbacking on the existence of WMDs.

            “What difference at this point does it make?”

            Accountability. I have arguments with liberals who say I am responsible if a crook breaks into my home, steals a gun and then uses that gun to kill someone. And yet a woman is not responsible enough to buy her own birth control.

            “What difference at this point does it make?”

            Accountability. The same government who wants to restrict the type of guns I can buy or how many rounds can be in a magazine pleads no mas when pressed about Fast & Furious.

            “What difference at this point does it make?”

            Accountability. The same government who forces Obamacare on us exempts itself and a bunch of their buddies from it.

          • herddog505

            Hear him! Hear him!

          • jim_m

            The mantra of the left is accountability for thee but not for me.

    • herddog505

      First of all, we get that you hate Bush, think he lied, blah-blah-blah. Unless you’re trying to claim a tu quo que, “what does it matter” (see what I did there?) what Bush did?

      Second, I challenge the assertion that the regime simply made a mistake and has honestly addressed it and is moving forward on the right track. The “it was the video!” was the basis of what I see as a pretty nasty coverup that has culminated in the brazen question, “What does it matter?”

      1. Barry, without informing the Congress, much less getting permission, attacked Libya for reasons that are still unclear;

      2. As one might expect, we knocked Qa— Kh— Gh— GoDaffy off his lousy little throne pretty quickly, Unfortunately, due to a want of “boots on the ground” (remember when those were so vital?), Libya didn’t exactly turn into a peaceful, lawful democracy overnight. Instead, AQ and other anti-American extremists – that GoDaffy had been suppressing as they were as much a threat to him as they are to us – suddenly had no check on their activities AND access to a lot of weaponry. But not to worry! Barry was on the case and rapidly had ‘em on the ropes. What a mensch he is!

      3. The US ambassador got wind that these people, far from being on the ropes, were out to get him and his staff. He REPEATEDLY warned his superiors in the State Dept., who responded by giving him less security than the embassy in Vienna has;

      4. In due course, the consulate was attacked and four Americans were murdered;

      5. Barry and Co. trotted out Susan Rice to tell the world that, “It was THE VIDEO!” and tossed the videographer back into the klink, he being a parole violator, menace to society and all that (he might even have been a JOOOOO… er… Israeli). MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! Meanwhile, the ruins of the consulate lay unprotected and indeed uninvestigated for days despite promised from Barry that (A) we’d investigate to find out who did it and (B) even the score with them;

      6. Ambassador Stevens’ warnings came to light, and people started to ask embarrassing questions about Susan Rice’s “It was THE VIDEO!” story. The regime’s response? “RAAAAACISTS!”

      7. Even the president of Libya threw water on the “It was THE VIDEO!” story by publicly stating that he and everybody in Libya knew that the attack was conducted by AQ sympathizers. That it was done on 9-11 was NOT just a coincidence;

      8. Confronted by the fact that the story had fallen apart and that Susan Rice wasn’t likely to be confirmed by the Senate for anything above file clerk in the embassy in Reykjavik, Barry and Co. admitted that MAYBE it wasn’t the video, that the security ball was dropped by the State Dept, that The Hilldabeast took “full responsibility”, and that some career bureaucrats were going to lose their jobs;

      9. Then we learned that the bureaucrats “lost their jobs” by moving from one office to another and that The Hillabeast, she of “Full Responsibility”, was likewise remaining right where she was;

      10. When The Hilldabeast FINALLY got ’round to testifying before the Congress about what happened in Benghazi, she waxed indignant over being questioned and finally, in a fit of righteous anger, shouted, “What difference does it make???” whether the Americans were murdered over a video or in a pre-meditated terrorist attack by the very organization that Barry had boasted that he had on the ropes?

      So, we have what looks to be a major f*ck-up by the regime that has been compounded by a pack of lies, obsfucastions, and stonewalls whenever anybody asks about what really happened. But “the American people” don’t like playing “the blame game” (I guess they got tired of it on 1-20-09 as they LOVED it in the eight years prior, right?) and want to “move forward”, which is to say just forget that their government was incompetent enough to let four Americans die alone in a war-torn land despite having warnings that trouble was brewing and then lie like hell about it for three months and finally demand to know, “What difference does it make?”

      Four people are dead, and the ultimate response from Barry and Co. is to ask what difference it makes.

      Nice.

      • Brucehenry

        No offense, but if I was interested in posting such a long reply as yours, I could stretch things out by writing:

        1.
        2.
        3.
        type bullet points in regard to the Iraq WMD narrative, too. AND to the “Mission Accomplished — major combat operations in Iraq have ended” (when they were actually just getting started) narrative, too.

        By 2004, it had been revealed that the major justification for the Iraq invasion was either a lie or a giant fuckup. It was also apparent that the Bush administration had woefully misjudged what it was going to take to “win” in Iraq, and what “victory” would look like.

        What was the response of Republicans? “Well, what difference does it make AT THIS POINT? We’re there NOW, and what do we do going forward?” Hence, a couple of years later, “the Surge.”

        The difference? Four dead Americans versus 4000 dead Americans.
        But the American people were OK with that response and reelected the authors of the Iraq policy. Similarly, Americans were satisfied with Obama’s response to Benghazi, which happened in September, enough to reelect him in November.

        Now, don’t ever change, but if you don’t mind a little criticism, the “Hildabeast,” “Uncle Choo-choo,” “mini-Tru” schtick gets old. Lol.

        • jim_m

          The mission accomplished sign was for the specific ship he was on and not for the whole Iraq conflict. Everyone understands this, including dishonest leftists like you, Bruce.. The only difference is that the dishonest people don’t want to give up their talking point.

          In a like manner, the dishonest left ignores the many reasons presented to Congress for the authorization of force. Dishonest people claim that it was only ever about WMD even though they have been presented multiple times with the evidence hat it was not. Dishonest people also ignore the fact that much of the intel was generated by the Clinton admin as well as ignoring that most of the dems voted in favor of that authorization and had received the same briefings that Bush had.

          All you are showing us is that you are dishonest and that you ignore the truth because it doesn’t line up with your ideology. You’re a good little lefty.

          • Brucehenry

            One, I’m not talking just abut the sign. Bush stood in front of that sign and said, on video, that “major combat operations in Iraq have ended.” The Americans who were killed and maimed in Fallujah in 2004 probably disagree.

            And two, what I am doing here is pointing out that the after-the-fact arguments used by both administrations are similar. Nothing more or less, except to demonstrate that some people are outraged by what Republican administrations do, and others are outraged by what Democratic administrations do.

          • jim_m

            The fact was that major operations had ended since we had eliminated the Hussein government. The major combat objective had been achieved.

            What you call “after the fact” arguments seems to include the laundry list of issues voted on in the authorization of force. That’s why I tell you that your position is dishonest. Your position is dependent upon a false belief that the issues in the authorization were never real and merely rationalizations after the fact. Your position is the lie here.

          • Brucehenry

            I don’t deny that that laundry list of reasons was in the authorization. My position is that those reasons were included to give cover to the administration and its Democratic enablers in the event the WMDs were never found, which they weren’t. The “WMDs that might be given to terrorists” thing was the main selling point. The rest was drumbeat.

            As I have stated on other Wizbang threads, if you think the American people would have approved going to war over violated UN resolutions, in the absence of the Smoking Gun/Mushroom Cloud imagery, you are mistaken. Nobody gives a shit about UN resolutions until it SUITS them to give a shit.

            You may call it dishonest all you wish. That was my interpretation then, and it remains my opinion today.

          • jim_m

            Spoken like a true ideologue who puts their ideology over the factual evidence.

          • Brucehenry

            Hi, Pot. I’m Kettle.

          • herddog505

            Please to meet you both. I’m Black, but my friends call me Blackie.
            ;-)

          • jim_m

            If a lefty actually came with facts to a discussion and not ideology then I might be persuaded. The closest we get to facts from the left is some BS like “fire can’t melt steel”. Either that or revisionist bullshit like “the second amendment was written to protect slavery”.

            If you want to bring facts to a discussion it would be a good start to actually have some. Your BS claim of “Bush lied” is just that: BS.

            You are at least honest enough to finally admit that it is your opinion. But if you want to be persuasive try to back up your opinion with facts. If you actually had facts showing that Bush knew there were no WMD in Iraq your opinion might be persuasive. Instead you just put your opinion out as though it were fact and you have nothing other than your ideology to back it up.

          • Brucehenry

            Dude, speaking of dishonesty, that comment looks like an attempt to say that I, personally, have at some point espoused trutherism or the revisionist second amendment/slavery argument. Both of which you know to be untrue.

            As I have said on other threads, when the administration pretended it was CERTAIN that the alleged WMDs constituted a clear and present danger, even though “it” knew it was cherry-picking facts to make its case, that amounted to a lie.

            But whether it was a lie, per se, or just monumental blindness/stupidity, what difference, at this point, does it make? Lol.

          • jim_m

            No I have not heard trutherism from you, nor the stupid second amendment BS. But the WMD issue is nearly the same. It is not as ignorant as the others, but it is still dishonest.

          • Brucehenry

            But yet we HAVE seen revisionist history being espoused by you, Jim. (The whole Goldberg/”liberal fascism”/Hitler-was-a-leftist nonsense. Not to mention your conflation of Southern racist Democrats of 70 and 150 years ago with modern liberalism. )

            So pardon me if I scoff at your notions of what is dishonest and what is not.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            There he goes again about a book he acknowledges he has never read…

          • Brucehenry

            Hey, maybe someone can explain to me what constructive purpose Rodney P Graves is supposed to serve here….?

            At least, as a dissenting voice, I add value to the site. What purpose does this guy serve aside from lurking in the comments section? How long has it been since he posted an article?

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            About two days.

            Worst Recovery Ever

            When was your last article posted here?

          • Brucehenry

            And before that?

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Considerably more recently than yours.

          • Brucehenry

            LOL, yes that’s true. I’ve never had an article published here, and until the other day, you hadn’t had one up for about 6 months. In the meantime, you’ve lurked in the comments, occasionally snarking at me or Chico, sometimes including a pretentious French, Italian, Latin, or Greek phrase to show us all how erudite you are. And sometimes misspelling them, haha. Very impressive.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Quoth the commenter who refers to other commenters as “dude.” Get back to me when you make the front page, “dude.”

          • Brucehenry

            “Quoth.” LOL.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            I missed your innaugural front page post, “dude?”

          • Brucehenry

            Maybe someday I’ll submit my “innaugural” post and see if it gets accepted. Dude.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            I shan’t hold my breath whilst waiting, “dude.”

          • Brucehenry

            What a hoot.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            What a Loon.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            What a lefty maroon, as the waskally wabbit would say.

          • jim_m

            The difference is that today’s definitions of left and right are different from what they meant 70 years ago. I have told you that before and you haven’t understood that.

          • Brucehenry

            I understand that when the argument is about liberal vs conservative today you like to talk about how Southern Democrats were racists many years ago. Then you want to lecture others about dishonesty. Please.

          • jim_m

            Wait, southern dems weren’t racists? Who knew? I thought that dems were still racists. Hell race is all you ever think about when you look at someone else.

          • Brucehenry

            Flailing

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Yes, you are.

          • Brucehenry

            Rubber, glue, haha.

          • 914

            Sticks on YOU!

          • jim_m

            The left carries on like they never were racists and that lincoln was a democrat. You need to be reminded that up to 7 years ago you still had a KKK member in the Senate. You also need to take a hard look in he mirror and see what current people like Reid and Biden have said about obama. Bill Clinton too has said some things that if he were a republican he would have been turned out into the street.

            You think that conservatives are racist yet you support policies that look at people’s race first before you look at anything else. Dem policies are racist through and through. Dem political strategy is hinged upon keeping minorities poor and dependent. If not then why with dem dominance of Congress throughout the 70′s and 80′s why have minorities not found a way out of poverty in the inner city? Dem policies keep them there on purpose.

            Dems complain about black children being let down by crappy public schools but one f the first things obama did was kill the voucher program that let poor black kids go to he same school as his kids. I guess he just didn’t want his girls being exposed to that.

        • herddog505

          First, none taken. I am verbose as every boss I’ve ever had has told me. Something about not having hours in the day to read my e-mails…

          Second:

          [T]he major justification for the Iraq invasion was either a lie or a giant fuckup. It was also apparent that the Bush administration had woefully misjudged what it was going to take to “win” in Iraq, and what “victory” would look like.

          That’s quite a difference, don’t you think? A foul-up is an inadvertent act; there is, by definition, no mens rea. A lie, on the other hand, is deliberate and requires a mens rea. They are about as different as night and day.

          If you want to criticize Bush for being stupid, incompetent, a fool, etc., that’s one thing. But to say he LIED… that’s something else.
          As for Barry, I suggest that he DID know that there were terrorists plots against the consulate in Benghazi as the ambassador had sent specific warnings to that effect. Therefore, when he sent Rice out to yap about a video, he was deliberately NOT telling the truth. He lied.

          • jim_m

            The left says that Bush lied because that is exactly what they would do if they were caught in a mistake. That is exactly what they did with Benghazi.

  • puhiawa

    Welcome to ObamaWorld. Where up is down and down is what we say at the time.

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE