Guest Posted May 17, 2013 Posted May 17, 2013 Michelle Malkin On Sept. 12, 2012, President Barack Obama vowed to "bring to justice" the perpetrators of the deadly attack in Benghazi, Libya. On Oct. 26, 2012, Obama said his "biggest priority" was bringing the "folks" in Libya responsible for murdering four Americans to "justice." Tick, tock, tick, tock. While White House press secretary Jay Carney sneers at the GOP's "obsession" with what went wrong at the besieged Libyan consulate, Obama continues to ply his emptiest talking point. On May 13, 2013, more than eight months after the bloody disaster, Obama snippily reminded reporters that he had told us all back in September that "we would find out what happened, we would make sure that it did not happen again, and we would make sure that we held accountable those who had perpetrated this terrible crime." Woulda, coulda, shoulda. Justice delayed is justice denied. A little more "obsession" from this administration with hunting down the jihadist killers would be a good thing. How about a little more anger directed at the perpetrators and a little less rage aimed at the conservative press? Nah. Team Obama seems more singularly focused on blaming its opponents, smearing whistleblowers and deriding those who are trying to hold the president to his words, words, words. Perhaps with their newfound skepticism toward the lying liars of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the former lapdogs of the White House press corps will start asking questions like this: Where the hell is Sufyan Ben Qumu a.k.a. Abu Sufian bin Qumu? Qumu, a suspected Libyan Islamic Fighting Group militant with ties to the financiers of the 9/11/01 attacks, was held at Guantanamo Bay for six years. The Bush administration foolishly handed him over to the Gadhafi regime on the promise that he would remain imprisoned. In 2010, Qumu was granted amnesty and released. Contrary to the delusions of the International Gitmo Bleeding Hearts Fan Club, the supposedly poor and oppressed Qumu did not content himself with writing poetry or farming potatoes. A week after the 9/11/12 attack, the Ansar al-Sharia leader was named a possible chief plotter in the deadly terrorist assault on our consulate personnel, staff and private security contractors in Benghazi. In April, international media outlets reported widely that Qumu had survived an assassination bid. Two weeks ago, the FBI finally got around to publicizing photos of three individuals at the Benghazi murder scene who are wanted for questioning. Congressional and intelligence sources have said the probe has moved at a snail's pace. There's been a "near total lack of progress," House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers said in December. It's all par for this administration's foot-dragging course. Remember: The FBI conducted a drive-by investigation last fall, flying in and out of Libya after a paltry 12 hours on the ground. What difference did the phony YouTube narrative plied by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton and President Obama make? As former deputy chief of mission at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli, Greg Hicks testified last week that the damage done was "immeasurable" because it delayed the FBI probe. Classified documents were left unsecured at the compound. Critical time and evidence were squandered. As Hicks explained, the YouTube fable publicly contradicted Libyan President Mohammed Magariaf, who had immediately reported after the 9/11/12 Benghazi attack that "this was an attack by Islamic extremists." The nonsense YouTube talking points "affected cooperation with the Libyans," Hicks said. "I firmly believe that the reason it took us so long to get the FBI to Benghazi is because of those Sunday talk shows." Meanwhile, the Washington Free Beacon's Bill Gertz reports, Qumu's Ansar al-Sharia goons "continue to operate freely" in Benghazi and spread jihadist ideology. Instead of keeping as many terror operatives as possible off the streets and out of commission, the Obama administration is once again vowing to shut down Guantanamo Bay. Attorney General Eric Holder, whose former law firm Covington and Burling represented 18 Gitmo detainees demanding freedom, announced "a renewed effort to close Guantanamo" this week. This despite the chilling disclosure by the office of the director of national intelligence that 27.9 percent of the 599 former detainees released from Guantanamo were either confirmed or suspected of later engaging in jihadist attacks. That's a "2.9 percent rise over a 25 percent aggregate recidivism rate reported by the intelligence czar's office in December 2010," according to Reuters. Closing Gitmo, you should note, just happens to be the top policy goal of the left-wing Center for Constitutional Rights. CCR is the U.S. group of jihadi-sympathizing lawyers who helped spring none other than Benghazi terror plotter Abu Sufian bin Qumu from Gitmo. Social justice for Qumu and the Gitmo Goon Squad. No justice for the Benghazi Four. When it comes to Obama's vow to hold the killers accountable, there is no there there. http://townhall.com/columnists/michellem...98823/page/full Quote
Administrators Tom Wetmore Posted May 21, 2013 Administrators Posted May 21, 2013 But then... Quote "Absurdity reigns and confusion makes it look good." "Sinless perfection is such a shallow goal." "I love God only as much as the person I love the least." *Forgiveness is always good news. And that is the gospel truth. (And finally, the ideas expressed above are solely my person views and not that of any organization with which I am associated.)
Ted Oplinger Posted May 21, 2013 Posted May 21, 2013 Apples and oranges, Tom - and we both know this. Bush 43 didn't sell them out and refuse to send help while the attacks were in progress. It isn't the deaths that provoke the outrage, Tom - it is the fact it has come out that assets were available for defense during the earliest hours of this fight - but were twice told to stand down. The ex-SEALS going to to the rescue were themselves told to stand down and NOT render aid to a sitting US diplomat. Bush 43 never once did that to a sitting US diplomat - and we both know this. There are protocols in place within the armed forces that provoke an immediate reaction to come to the aid of an Ambassador when the call for help is made. Two different generals began sending aid - and were told to stand down and NOT render aid, then were subsequently relieved of their commands. As much as Democrats want to spin this as an infantile "Bush did this too!" thing, the fact is Bush 43 didn't sell out his embassies with inadequate security, then refuse to render aid when the attack was made. That rests solely on the Democrat government currently in place. What is worse is the subsequent cover-up. Makes Nixon look like a choir boy. Quote "As iron sharpens iron, so also does one man sharpen another" - Proverbs 27:17 "The offense of the cross is that the cross is a confession of human frailty and sin and of inability to do any good thing. To take the cross of Christ means to depend solely on Him for everything, and this is the abasement of all human pride. Men love to fancy themselves independent. But let the cross be preached, let it be made known that in man dwells no good thing and that all must be received as a gift, and straightway someone is offended." Ellet J. Waggoner, The Glad Tidings "Courage is being scared to death - and saddling up anyway" - John Wayne "The person who pays an ounce of principle for a pound of popularity gets badly cheated" - Ronald Reagan
bonnie Posted May 21, 2013 Posted May 21, 2013 Apples and oranges, Tom - and we both know this. Bush 43 didn't sell them out and refuse to send help while the attacks were in progress. It isn't the deaths that provoke the outrage, Tom - it is the fact it has come out that assets were available for defense during the earliest hours of this fight - but were twice told to stand down. The ex-SEALS going to to the rescue were themselves told to stand down and NOT render aid to a sitting US diplomat. Bush 43 never once did that to a sitting US diplomat - and we both know this. There are protocols in place within the armed forces that provoke an immediate reaction to come to the aid of an Ambassador when the call for help is made. Two different generals began sending aid - and were told to stand down and NOT render aid, then were subsequently relieved of their commands. As much as Democrats want to spin this as an infantile "Bush did this too!" thing, the fact is Bush 43 didn't sell out his embassies with inadequate security, then refuse to render aid when the attack was made. That rests solely on the Democrat government currently in place. What is worse is the subsequent cover-up. Makes Nixon look like a choir boy. Come on Ted,have to give A for effort. What would a liberal defense be if not "Well what about Bush"? Obama only takes credit when it involves issues like Bin Ladin,they can't even keep that story straight.The rest is deferred back to Bush. Obama will never be adult enough to wear big boy pants and the liberals will keep holding up the ones he tries to wear Quote Everything you do is based on the choices you make. It's not your parents, your past relationships, your job, the economy, the weather, an argument, or your age that is to blame. You and only you are responsible for every decision and choice you make, period ... ... Wish more people would realize this. Quotes by Susan Gottesman
joeb Posted May 21, 2013 Posted May 21, 2013 Tom's post reminds me of Monday's Mallard Fillmore cartoon. In it Obama is once again blaming Bush for everything. http://safr.kingfeatures.com/idn/ck2/con...TIwXzc2MC5naWY= Quote Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.Alexis de Tocqueville
joeb Posted May 21, 2013 Posted May 21, 2013 Apples and oranges, Tom - and we both know this. Bush 43 didn't sell them out and refuse to send help while the attacks were in progress. It isn't the deaths that provoke the outrage, Tom - it is the fact it has come out that assets were available for defense during the earliest hours of this fight - but were twice told to stand down. The ex-SEALS going to to the rescue were themselves told to stand down and NOT render aid to a sitting US diplomat. Bush 43 never once did that to a sitting US diplomat - and we both know this. There are protocols in place within the armed forces that provoke an immediate reaction to come to the aid of an Ambassador when the call for help is made. Two different generals began sending aid - and were told to stand down and NOT render aid, then were subsequently relieved of their commands. As much as Democrats want to spin this as an infantile "Bush did this too!" thing, the fact is Bush 43 didn't sell out his embassies with inadequate security, then refuse to render aid when the attack was made. That rests solely on the Democrat government currently in place. What is worse is the subsequent cover-up. Makes Nixon look like a choir boy. Bush didn't lie about what happened either. Huge difference. Quote Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.Alexis de Tocqueville
Ted Oplinger Posted May 21, 2013 Posted May 21, 2013 You're absolutely right, Bonnie. My bad. It was insensitive of me not to regard the "Bush did it, too" defense as to be the expected line defense at some time. I guess I would have regarded it with the due regards it deserves had this been played last September.... Whoever put that picture together had to stretch some of those instances REALLLLLLY far in order to make that linkage... Blessings, Quote "As iron sharpens iron, so also does one man sharpen another" - Proverbs 27:17 "The offense of the cross is that the cross is a confession of human frailty and sin and of inability to do any good thing. To take the cross of Christ means to depend solely on Him for everything, and this is the abasement of all human pride. Men love to fancy themselves independent. But let the cross be preached, let it be made known that in man dwells no good thing and that all must be received as a gift, and straightway someone is offended." Ellet J. Waggoner, The Glad Tidings "Courage is being scared to death - and saddling up anyway" - John Wayne "The person who pays an ounce of principle for a pound of popularity gets badly cheated" - Ronald Reagan
bonnie Posted May 21, 2013 Posted May 21, 2013 Whoever put that picture together had to stretch some of those instances REALLLLLLY far in order to make that linkage... Blessings, No far is to far to defend the most transparent,the brightest man to inhabit the White House. Just as the IRS targeting and admitting to targeting conservative groups. All done before,Right? While I am sure there have been abuses prior to this we have never seen anything on this scale. Nixon had much to learn Quote Everything you do is based on the choices you make. It's not your parents, your past relationships, your job, the economy, the weather, an argument, or your age that is to blame. You and only you are responsible for every decision and choice you make, period ... ... Wish more people would realize this. Quotes by Susan Gottesman
Administrators Tom Wetmore Posted May 21, 2013 Administrators Posted May 21, 2013 Originally Posted By: Ted Oplinger Apples and oranges, Tom - and we both know this. Bush 43 didn't sell them out and refuse to send help while the attacks were in progress. It isn't the deaths that provoke the outrage, Tom - it is the fact it has come out that assets were available for defense during the earliest hours of this fight - but were twice told to stand down. The ex-SEALS going to to the rescue were themselves told to stand down and NOT render aid to a sitting US diplomat. Bush 43 never once did that to a sitting US diplomat - and we both know this. There are protocols in place within the armed forces that provoke an immediate reaction to come to the aid of an Ambassador when the call for help is made. Two different generals began sending aid - and were told to stand down and NOT render aid, then were subsequently relieved of their commands. As much as Democrats want to spin this as an infantile "Bush did this too!" thing, the fact is Bush 43 didn't sell out his embassies with inadequate security, then refuse to render aid when the attack was made. That rests solely on the Democrat government currently in place. What is worse is the subsequent cover-up. Makes Nixon look like a choir boy. Bush didn't lie about what happened either. Huge difference. You guys are hilarious! Quote "Absurdity reigns and confusion makes it look good." "Sinless perfection is such a shallow goal." "I love God only as much as the person I love the least." *Forgiveness is always good news. And that is the gospel truth. (And finally, the ideas expressed above are solely my person views and not that of any organization with which I am associated.)
OzarkWoman Posted May 21, 2013 Posted May 21, 2013 But then... Yes please, be sure to always blame Bush for anything that happens. Whether you like it or not, Obama is and has been caught in a number of LIES and he is covering up so much. But hey, you go on ahead and continue to make excuses for him. Me, I will continue to dislike him even more than Bush, and I never thought it was possible for me to dislike a politician more than Bush. But, even before Obama was elected I had a bad taste for him, but then, I actually did research about him, unlike most voters. Quote
OzarkWoman Posted May 21, 2013 Posted May 21, 2013 You guys are hilarious! Actually, anyone that would make any excuse for Obama, as you and others continually do, are the ones who are hilarious, sad but hilarious. Quote
Administrators Tom Wetmore Posted May 21, 2013 Administrators Posted May 21, 2013 No, the hilarity is watching the predictable tendency to always jump to the wrong conclusion, misunderstand and misinterpret the evidence and what the opposition says. Case in point - That picture and statistic of attacks wasn't blaming Bush for those deaths. Nor was it offered to make excuses for Obama. It was pointing out the Republican hypocrisy in the partisan outrage against Obama over Benghazi of blaming him for it and for some supposed cover up. _______ happens. It happened under Bushes watch too. But none of you jumped to the conclusion that Bush was at fault or or covering up something about those attacks. You accepted them for what they were - horrible tragedies in an era when these things happen despite the best effort of good men in power to defend against them. Congressional efforts at dithering over what can't be undone or changed and effectively avoiding doing something to fix the many serious problems within their power to do and for which the American people elected them to do. Quote "Absurdity reigns and confusion makes it look good." "Sinless perfection is such a shallow goal." "I love God only as much as the person I love the least." *Forgiveness is always good news. And that is the gospel truth. (And finally, the ideas expressed above are solely my person views and not that of any organization with which I am associated.)
joeb Posted May 21, 2013 Posted May 21, 2013 Tom, You're one piece of work. It's already been brought out in sworn testimony before Congress that the entire story of a video being the source of the attack on the embassy is a total fabrication. Yet Obama was out there weeks after he knew that the Behghazi attack was a terrorist attack telling the world that a video was the entire problem. It's also been shown in sworn testimony that the story that no help was available to help those who died in Benghazi is another lie. Three separate groups who were ready to go were told to stand down and not help. He's lying through his teeth about the entire sad affair. And you're going, "What evidence? Huh? Obama lied? There's no cover up. There's no evidence.... " The only reason you think there is no evidence is because you have both hands planted firmly over your eyes and both ears fully plugged. You're the I see no evil and hear no evil about Obama guy, all the while denying you're covering your eyes and plugging your ears. It's sort of like Hillary Clinton in front of Congress saying, for all intents and purposes, that the truth just doesn't matter. And, like the guy the Obama administration sent out the Sunday talk shows that said "its irrelevant" to a question about the law. But, that really is the truth about this president. The law is irrelevant as far as he's concerned. Quote Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.Alexis de Tocqueville
bonnie Posted May 21, 2013 Posted May 21, 2013 Tom, You're one piece of work. It's already been brought out in sworn testimony before Congress that the entire story of a video being the source of the attack on the embassy is a total fabrication. Yet Obama was out there weeks after he knew that the Behghazi attack was a terrorist attack telling the world that a video was the entire problem. It's also been shown in sworn testimony that the story that no help was available to help those who died in Benghazi is another lie. Three separate groups who were ready to go were told to stand down and not help. He's lying through his teeth about the entire sad affair. And you're going, "What evidence? Huh? Obama lied? There's no cover up. There's no evidence.... " The only reason you think there is no evidence is because you have both hands planted firmly over your eyes and both ears fully plugged. You're the I see no evil and hear no evil about Obama guy, all the while denying you're covering your eyes and plugging your ears. It's sort of like Hillary Clinton in front of Congress saying, for all intents and purposes, that the truth just doesn't matter. And, like the guy the Obama administration sent out the Sunday talk shows that said "its irrelevant" to a question about the law. But, that really is the truth about this president. The law is irrelevant as far as he's concerned. No, the hilarity is watching the predictable tendency to always jump to the wrong conclusion, misunderstand and misinterpret the evidence and what the opposition says. Case in point - That picture and statistic of attacks wasn't blaming Bush for those deaths. Nor was it offered to make excuses for Obama. It was pointing out the Republican hypocrisy in the partisan outrage against Obama over Benghazi of blaming him for it and for some supposed cover up. _______ happens. It happened under Bushes watch too. But none of you jumped to the conclusion that Bush was at fault or or covering up something about those attacks. You have to admit this is getting rather desperate by some. How can you possibly misunderstand such a post,Joab? Any one reading the news and following this story knows beyond a doubt that there is something seriously wrong.No one even knows where "our president" was after hearing about Benghazi,except the next day he went campaigning. Listen to this man on any incident that is occurring."No one told me" I heard it on the news" Just what is it we need him for,I forget? I had a lot of quarrel with President Bush,but I did and do believe he did care about those serving our country. I also think he took his faith seriously.I seriously question the claimed faith of our current president,except faith in the power he has Quote Everything you do is based on the choices you make. It's not your parents, your past relationships, your job, the economy, the weather, an argument, or your age that is to blame. You and only you are responsible for every decision and choice you make, period ... ... Wish more people would realize this. Quotes by Susan Gottesman
Administrators Tom Wetmore Posted May 22, 2013 Administrators Posted May 22, 2013 Look, even the Republican partisan witch hunt is losing steam.... http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/05/21/2040941/gop-aides-crazy-benghazi/?mobile=wt Even the leader of the pitchfork crowd, Mitch McConnell, is beginning to realize there is nothing there. http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/0...r-up/?mobile=wt Maybe one of you would like to explain what would have happened to this witchhunt if the Republican operatives hadn't made up stuff about the e-mails. Do you think that bit of lying was OK? Quote "Absurdity reigns and confusion makes it look good." "Sinless perfection is such a shallow goal." "I love God only as much as the person I love the least." *Forgiveness is always good news. And that is the gospel truth. (And finally, the ideas expressed above are solely my person views and not that of any organization with which I am associated.)
Ted Oplinger Posted May 22, 2013 Posted May 22, 2013 Look, even the Republican partisan witch hunt is losing steam.... http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/05/21/2040941/gop-aides-crazy-benghazi/?mobile=wt Even the leader of the pitchfork crowd, Mitch McConnell, is beginning to realize there is nothing there. http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/0...r-up/?mobile=wt Maybe one of you would like to explain what would have happened to this witchhunt if the Republican operatives hadn't made up stuff about the e-mails. Do you think that bit of lying was OK? Certainly, Tom. Had the Republicans had the spine and courage, they would have issued subpoenas for all the survivors rescued during the attack last September. Likewise the witnesses the commanders of the two military sections relieved of duty during the episode. Bring in the chain of orders from the White House to the military assets told to stand down. Why were these survivors sequestered away in secrecy? There is more than enough damaging evidence with those testimonies alone to warrant a special investigation. Could it have been there testimony would have destroyed Obama's election chances? Why all the obfuscation and stonewalling, if there's nothing to hide? What's that little bit about the Left being "concerned" about free elections? I guess that applies ONLY if people freely elect Democrats. Candy Crowley's moment in the second debate looms large here - sad that Romney's allies sold him out here. To wit, Tom, those promoting the Left have been using this little phrase for decades - if there's nothing to hide, why not open it all up? I have seen Democrats for decades run tantrum after tantrum since Watergate, trying to pin every little thing they could for the sake of POWER. Now, when it is their turn to face up to situations that beg ethics and legality, they want to play the game they have constantly whined the Republicans play? Nothing says the parties are the same, than for Democrats to play this game- conducting witch hunts, then ridicules as a "witch hunter" anyone calling them to task on it. Mitch McConnell is not a fighter, nor is he willing to bite the hands that feed him. He does not know how to lead political dissent, nor does he have the courage to look for real answers. He's just as happy as Democrats to find any hook he can to sweep this embarrassment into the gargantuan pile of Democrat wrong-doing under the rug. I would suspect Mitch is willing to put this on the back burner as the AP and IRS scandals hit Americans hard on the First Amendment - and may well prove a better battle ground in his eyes. Mitch won't act unless he's given clearance by his handlers, and then only if the risk is zero. Fast & Furious, Benghazi, AP wire-tapping, IRS political harassment on an unprecedented scale...all the things the Left so vociferously whines about when a Republican is in office the Left has pursued on a scale dwarfing anything a Republican administration ever did. Where is YOUR voice for liberty and justice now, Tom? Silenced, isn't it? Party loyalty supersedes anything else, because agreeing on even a small portion of current events with the "evil Republicans" is unthinkable? Because sites like "ThinkProgress", "Politico", "Huffington Post", "Daily Beast", and "The Daily Kos" declare it so, right? Yes, Tom, these sites DO foster the attitude that Republicans are evil; if you think it doesn't, try reading the comments after the articles, and/or respond as a conservative would. Yes, Tom, that is correct - "ThinkProgress" is not an intellectual site - it simply promotes a mass-psychology agenda of talking points and hate. Likewise the other sites - they only create a mental attitude to regard those opposing it with ridicule and hate, deeming them evil. These do precisely what they accuse FOX News and conservative sites of doing. Rules for Radicals spells it out plainly - accuse your opponents of doing precisely the evil you do. I would recommend people to regard "ThinkProgress" as nothing but a partisan and polar propaganda device that would make Goebbels proud. I had a co-worker in the regulatory lab I worked at, who read this site with a passion, and had nothing but hatred for anything and anyone not aligning with that site's viewpoint. That hatred spilled over into personification a number of times - just as I see it happening elsewhere. I have said this before, and I will restate it again - when I see Democrats willing to declare their own people unsupportable for these kinds of things - just as the Republicans did back in 1973 with Nixon with the petty Watergate break-in - then I will begin to view those promoting the Left as more than a mere bought constituency heeling like an obedient whipped puppy. When those promoting the Left cease with this infantile "Laws for thee, but not for me" attitude they have fostered for decades, I will begin to take them seriously. After such behavior since the Woodrow Wilson and FDR administrations, pointing fingers at Republicans for picking up on that habit comes across as sheer hypocrisy and phoniness. Later, Quote "As iron sharpens iron, so also does one man sharpen another" - Proverbs 27:17 "The offense of the cross is that the cross is a confession of human frailty and sin and of inability to do any good thing. To take the cross of Christ means to depend solely on Him for everything, and this is the abasement of all human pride. Men love to fancy themselves independent. But let the cross be preached, let it be made known that in man dwells no good thing and that all must be received as a gift, and straightway someone is offended." Ellet J. Waggoner, The Glad Tidings "Courage is being scared to death - and saddling up anyway" - John Wayne "The person who pays an ounce of principle for a pound of popularity gets badly cheated" - Ronald Reagan
Guest Posted May 22, 2013 Posted May 22, 2013 Sheer hypocrisy and phoniness, is exactly what it is. But at a level I've never seen before. Quote
joeb Posted May 22, 2013 Posted May 22, 2013 Tom, As Ted also said, your sources for news are nothing but sources of propoganda. The sad part of it is, is that you'll never see it as so. Quote Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.Alexis de Tocqueville
Guest Posted May 22, 2013 Posted May 22, 2013 Tom's not even sure if anybody died in Benghazi. He didn't see anybody die. Quote
joeb Posted May 22, 2013 Posted May 22, 2013 Tom's not even sure if anybody died in Benghazi. He didn't see anybody die. ***grins*** I've often wondered how someone like Tom who has the mental wherewithal to become a lawyer like could get sucked as far into pure propoganda as he has. This is starting to look like what happened in Germany before WWII. Hitler never knew anything about the bad stuff the Nazi Party was doing either. Or so many of very smart people in both educational and religious circles thought. They believed what are basically the very same lies. And Obama doesn't have the advantage of a religion tied directly to the state that had adopted the idea in the following link. It made for a real witches brew of ideas the Hitler exploited big time. It's how he was able to get German people to follow him so blindly. I'd never understood how he'd done this until I read Bonhoeffer Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy. Eric Mataxas, the author, goes into this in the book. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%B6lkisch_movement Quote Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.Alexis de Tocqueville
Administrators Tom Wetmore Posted May 23, 2013 Administrators Posted May 23, 2013 I suppose the fact that I referred to what happened as a tragedy made you believe that I meant just the opposite. You guys are a strange lot, wouldn't you say! As far as my source supposedly being propaganda, am I to assume nobody actually took the time to check the identified sources in those articles to confirm or refute the article's reporting of the facts? Seriously, it really is quite laughable in view of the source of the OP! Michelle Malkin as a source of unbiased truth!!! Conservatively (see I can be) I would say that 80% of the outside "sources" quoted here are unquestionably right-wing propaganda sites. So declaring that my source is propaganda is really a serious case of the pot calling the kettle black! Quote "Absurdity reigns and confusion makes it look good." "Sinless perfection is such a shallow goal." "I love God only as much as the person I love the least." *Forgiveness is always good news. And that is the gospel truth. (And finally, the ideas expressed above are solely my person views and not that of any organization with which I am associated.)
Guest Posted May 23, 2013 Posted May 23, 2013 Michelle Malkin speaks the truth. But you can't handle the truth. So I fully understand your post, and almost sympathize with you. You are a product of well known factors. Quote
Administrators Tom Wetmore Posted May 23, 2013 Administrators Posted May 23, 2013 "As [joeb] said, your sources for news are nothing but sources of propoganda. The sad part of it is, is that you'll never see it as so." Quote "Absurdity reigns and confusion makes it look good." "Sinless perfection is such a shallow goal." "I love God only as much as the person I love the least." *Forgiveness is always good news. And that is the gospel truth. (And finally, the ideas expressed above are solely my person views and not that of any organization with which I am associated.)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.