FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Boardman writes: "The strangest thing about the public release on May 15 of 100 or so emails relating to Benghazi talking points was that the White House had already made these same emails available to Congress roughly two months earlier."

Boardman: 'If the White House showed the 100 pages of emails to Congress last winter, why didn't that put the Benghazi 'scandal' to rest?' (photo: unknown)
Boardman: 'If the White House showed the 100 pages of emails to Congress last winter, why didn't that put the Benghazi 'scandal' to rest?' (photo: unknown)


Faking the News: The Benghazi Emails Scandal

By William Boardman, Reader Supported News

17 May 13

 

how us the emails! Here, take another look!

The strangest thing about the public release on May 15 of 100 or so emails relating to Benghazi talking points was that the White House had already made these same emails available to Congress roughly two months earlier.

But they weren't the same emails, were they?

Well, yes, apparently they were exactly the same emails. But the White House didn't release them, it just gave a few congresspeople a chance to look at them. But the emails weren't classified, congresspeople were free to talk about them if they had any problems with then.

But didn't the emails tell pretty much the same story last winter as they do this spring?

Yes, they tell exactly the same story - the same sloppy, confusing, bureaucratic mishmash of a story featuring a mud-wrestling match between the CIA and the State Department over who would be set up to be the fall guy for four dead Americans. Of course that wasn't the story Republicans were looking for.

But if that's the true story, isn't that the story news media were looking for? Apparently not, since it's not a very exciting story, especially during an election season that needed all the excitement it could get, no matter how artificial.

But if the White House showed the 100 pages of emails to Congress last winter, why didn't that put the Benghazi "scandal" to rest?

Well, you seem to be assuming that Congresspersons - or most of their staff - bothered to read the emails. A hundred pages is a lot, and that cuts into fundraising time. Some in Congress were just too busy even to attend the briefing on the emails.

One Email Asked: Why Are We Even Writing Talking Points?

OK, I understand why Republicans aren't interested in reading information that undermines their most cherished fantasies, but what about Democrats, why didn't they play whistleblower and tell the truth?

You're still assuming someone's going to attend a briefing or read a hundred pages of six-month-old emails. Failing to master the core evidence is a bi-partisan skill. Besides, how many Democrats do you think there are who want to be seen defending President Obama?

So that circumstance makes it easy for some partisan staffer to say he's read the emails and then make up the contents he wants reported?

Exactly, that's what someone did to ABC News - and ABC, hungry for a scoop, ran the story with no confirmation of the accuracy of the handwritten notes from its only source, who was anonymous. They called it a "smoking gun."

Didn't ABC News report that it had seen the original email?

ABC News did say that. It wasn't true. And they didn't run it by the White House or anyone else in the administration.

Doesn't all that violate basic rules of traditional journalism?

Yes. Your point would be?

Don't they have editors to prevent that sort of thing?

I have no information on that.

>It Seems That Fake Email Wasn't the Same as the Real One

But didn't ABC apologize for that when CNN exposed their "smoking gun" as neither a gun nor smoking?

Not exactly. Unless you call what Jonathan Karl wrote, acknowledging that CNN published the correct email, an apology: "This helps fill out the portrait of the inter-agency deliberations that went into shaping the now-discredited talking points. Assuming, as appears to be the case based on time stamps, that this is a version of the same e-mail ABC News reported on last week, there are some differences."

That's true, isn't it? Aren't there differences between his fake email and CNN's real one?

Yes, and he ignores most of those differences - for example, he doesn't mention that the original email says, "There is a ton of wrong information getting out into the public domain from Congress and people who are not particularly informed."

Isn't that kind of shifting the blame, when the government itself has the right information?

Well, parts of the government had some information, other parts had other information, and the emails were all about trying to get the government's parts to agree on what information to make public, while protecting those who needed protecting, like the CIA and FBI. Everyone in government knew it was a mess - a mess with the CIA in the middle of it - they were all just trying to make sure it was someone else's mess.

So they made it the president's mess?

That's life - the president runs the government, or the government runs him, it's an endless struggle. And news media feed the fight - here's Karl again: "The White House could still clear up this confusion by releasing the full e-mail transcripts that were provided for brief review by a select number of members of Congress earlier this year. If there's no 'there' there, as President Obama himself claimed yesterday, a full release should help his case."

OK, so the White House released the 100 emails to the public and that should be the end of the Benghazi "scandal?"

You might think so, but I'm not sure why. There are five different Congressional Republican committee chairs planning hearings. And over at ABC News, Jonathan Karl is still acting as if they had it right all along: "The emails confirm the ABC News report that the so-called 'talking points' written by the CIA on the attack underwent extensive revisions - 12 versions - and that substantial changes were made after the State Department expressed concerns."

But that's the State Department, they can't impeach State, can they?

Yes and no. This all happened on Hillary Clinton's watch, so Republicans figure if they can do her enough political damage, she won't run for president in 2016 - you could call it a kind of pre-impeachment.

Isn't there anyone in Washington who deals their marked cards from the bottom of a full deck?



William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
-77 # jtatu 2013-05-17 12:18
What is this? Rubbish. Twelve iterations of "talking points" leading to blatent mendacity to help get the POTUS reelected.
 
 
+84 # WBoardman 2013-05-17 14:14
Blatant mendacity is a funny thing,
and if the talking points were blatant mendacity,
then the question is: who was mendacious?

If the talking points are mendacity, then it's a form
of mendacity by committee.

Since the Rice iteration of the talking points
rather withered quickly, it's hard to see how much
they helped, or hurt, POTUS re-election.

For actual blatant mendacity, I guess I'd pick
a congressional aide who wrote a fake email
and passed it off as real,
OR
an ABC News reporter who says he's seen an email
that doesn't actually exists -- and then calls it
a smoking gun.

When everyone cheats, the answer is NOT
choosing which lie to believe.
 
 
+23 # Barbara K 2013-05-18 05:44
WBoardman: Thank you so much for reporting on the fact that the truth has finally come out. I didn't believe the BS of the Republibaggers in the first place. It only takes some watching and listening to creditable people to know that the Rs were chasing their own tails just trying to make up scandals and are still doing it. They have "orders" from their leaders outside of congress to keep spreading and focusing on "scandals" and not to let any legislation pass. What kind of people want a government like that? The entire bunch of fire and brimstone Rs need to be replaced with some real people who give a crap about the rest of us. Even the present "scandals" have nothing to do with the president, but the Rs will waste hundred of billions of dollars to "investigate" and intimidate people anyway. After all, that keeps them from doing anything to save this country from total collapse and get people back to work. Something they don't want to happen as they are afraid it might look good for the President. Well it FOR SURE doesn't look good for themselves, and they figure it doesn't matter. Well, it does matter, and people are getting their smarts back and I hope they kick out the scums who are making our lives miserable to lie and cheat at their childish games.

..
 
 
-32 # edge 2013-05-18 06:40
Quoting WBoardman:


When everyone cheats, the answer is NOT
choosing which lie to believe.


Well then one good thing comes out of this, YOU WILL NEVER BLAME ANOTHER THING ON BUSH or The TEA PARTY...CORRECT?

If not then you are a LIAR, and what you just wrote was a FRAUD to deflect away from your Messiah!
 
 
+26 # WBoardman 2013-05-18 07:57
There's no logic here, so far as I can tell.

Oh, and name-calling is not an argument ;-)))
 
 
+12 # pegasus4508 2013-05-18 12:57
I will continue to blame BUSH. FOR EVERYTHING
 
 
+1 # bmiluski 2013-05-20 07:06
Wow, you people just don't give up on this lack of responsibility thing.
You people put my country in severe peril and continue to reject taking responsibility for it. Which means you'll do it again and therefore should never be elected.
 
 
-21 # edge 2013-05-18 06:42
Quoting jtatu:
What is this? Rubbish. Twelve iterations of "talking points" leading to blatent mendacity to help get the POTUS reelected.


Wrong, I heard Jay Carney say they only changed ONE SINGLE WORD!

If that is not rue then you would be implying that the White House is LYING to the American public!
 
 
+14 # WBoardman 2013-05-18 08:01
Carney's comments (in November, was it?) were wrong,
but he may or may not have known the truth.

Got any evidence?

Finger-pointing is all too easy
when everyone involved is culpable,
and everyone involved has a hidden agenda
(or several),
starting with the CIA.
 
 
-4 # edge 2013-05-19 05:46
Quoting WBoardman:
Carney's comments (in November, was it?) were wrong,
but he may or may not have known the truth.

Got any evidence?

Finger-pointing is all too easy
when everyone involved is culpable,
and everyone involved has a hidden agenda
(or several),
starting with the CIA.


THE EVIDENCE IS THE WHITE HOUSE CHANGED LOTS OF WORDS!

Why do YOU protect LIARS, because they are your liars?
 
 
+7 # WBoardman 2013-05-19 11:01
Edge -- if the White House changed lots of words,
then they are identifiable.

So what words were they?
And having identified them, shall we assess
their importance or unimportance?

For comparison, how about listing the words changed by the CIA, State, and others? And assessing them?

Blanket shouts of LIARS is not evidence.

Oh, and ad hominem invective is not an argument.
 
 
0 # bmiluski 2013-05-20 07:07
Have you looked in the mirror lately and asked yourself that very same question?
 
 
-105 # Jack Gibson 2013-05-17 13:53
Oh, Boardman, stop being a lying shill and propagandist for the government, whether you intentionally mean to be or not. This story, contrary to your falsehood(s), IS news. The POTUS intentionally allowed a U.S. Ambassador and others to be murdered by ordering a stand-down and attempting to prevent security and U.S. military personnel from defending the U.S. compound where this travesty occurred.

---And, in case I get falsely accused of being a "right-winger" again, I am not ANY such thing. I am a constitutionalist.---

The neoliberal propaganda spin ministry is out en force attempting to save their war-criminal president who should be impeached for a multitude of crimes, and I predict that it isn't going to work; or at least that most readers, at least of those who are not completely brainwashed by Obama worship, are going to see through all this lying propaganda and are at least not going to falsely claim, as you are, Boardman, that this is supposedly a non-story. Therefore, again, your damage control isn't going to work, and it's just going to add to the evidence that there is a heavyhanded attempted-cover up going on to try and sidetract this very serious issue. Any one of the crimes that Obama has perpetrated is enough in and of itself to get him impeached, but he has added mass-murderous crime upon mass-murderous crime, as well as heavily undermined and abrogated the laws of this land, including its supreme law, the U.S. Constitution, to the mix.

IMPEACH OBAMA!
 
 
+76 # WBoardman 2013-05-17 15:29
OK, ad hominem name-calling isn't an argument.
That doesn't leave much of your post to discuss.

When you claim there are falsehoods, it's good for
your credibility to name at least one. ;-)))

As for your assertion:
"The POTUS intentionally allowed a U.S. Ambassador and others to be murdered by ordering a stand-down and attempting to prevent security and U.S. military personnel from defending the U.S. compound where this travesty occurred."

What evidence is for any of that?
By the time any stand-down was "ordered" by whomever,
Stevens was dead or dying.

Rather than froth on about "mass-murderous crime"
it would be more persuasive to name just one.

For impeachable offenses [other than mass murder]
might I suggest assassination by drone,
or maintaining Gitmo and black site prisons,
or asserting the right to wage perpetual war,
or unprecedented enforcement of government secrecy?
 
 
-88 # Jack Gibson 2013-05-17 16:39
Okay, you're trying to intimidate me. But it won't work. I did name one falsehood; that you claim that this is a "non-story". You'll see, unless you refuse to accept it, which it appears that you're already doing because you falsely believe that the entire story is being fabricated by the "Rethuglicans" (and because you still fall for the false "left-right paradigm", and are entrapped by its "divide-and-con quer" strategy), that the truth will come out. In fact, it IS already coming out; and, if it isn't allowed to be completely covered up, it will come out more and more. I don't hold my breath that you will ever face it, though.
 
 
+28 # ABen 2013-05-17 21:21
Gibson; you mention 'truth coming out', but I wonder what truth you are talking about. If you are referring to the truth about the chain of events that led to the killing of four Americans, or are you referring to some tortured reading of those events that will support a conspiracy theory. The former is already known, the latter is still being created. You end your earlier post with a call to impeach our president. Unless you are so deluded as to think that the slime oozing from Fixed Noise bears some resemblance to fact, you would realize how ridiculous that sounds.
 
 
+31 # L. Sabransky 2013-05-17 21:55
Here's the problem, Jack: Have you ever been involved with court cases, even if it's sitting on a jury? The plaintiff has to prove their case. We all know OJ killed Nicole, right? But, the proof was not there. The prosecution botched the case with the infamous glove, remember? So, if, after 11 tries, congressmen who are mostly attorneys, can't figure out a way to prove the guilt of Obama or Clinton, without resorting to illegal tactics such as faking emails, or using fake emails, then they really don't have much of a case, do they now, Jack?

In the real world, if you've appealed your case 11 times to no avail, generally, you are at a dead end and must accept defeat. Not in congress, though... They just keep getting to spend our hard-earned money for their futility and folly, and to keep people like you, Jack, entertained and angry.

History may prove you to be right, Jack, but, for now, you have chosen the wrong idiots to figure their way out of a paper bag, much less figure out how to take this president down, and you should move on to the next fabricated scandal.
 
 
+28 # Billy Bob 2013-05-17 23:55
Really? You're "intimidated"? Just because you're losing an argument doesn't mean you need to feel "intimidated". WBoardman's not trying to steel your wife or your career or ruin your reputation. He's just trying to point out that your post makes no sense. You're being a bit overly dramatic.
 
 
+26 # curmudgeon 2013-05-18 01:13
Gee, Jack,
You are right .....the truth is coming out - and it does NOT support any of your contentions, especially the ione about the intentional killing of the ambassador. I hope you are big enough to admit you are wrong

Your side, especial Rep. Issa must not want the truth known...demandi ng Mullen and co-writer partner on original report testify in closed session. They have offered to testify FROM THE BEGINNING in open session and still do commit.

Funny the ABC which ran the lies...BTW which the subject of this story....not your swiftboating troll agenda.
 
 
+1 # mdhome 2013-05-21 07:32
They do NOT want the truth, they want to get rid of the president. that and only that will satisfy them.
 
 
+16 # kalpal 2013-05-18 04:19
When all you have faith, as Jack Gibson does, what else is necessary. Being a possessor of a conspiracy theory is a major ego builder. It is far harder to knock down a conspiracy theory than a world trade tower. The theory tends to weave and bob around avoiding facts and asserting its truthy truth as being inviolable by anyone except a fictional superhero.
 
 
+12 # WBoardman 2013-05-18 08:15
Your alleged "falsehood" is false.

I do not claim Benghazi is a "non-story."

Your putting "non-story" in quotes is a falsehood,
I I do not use the term.

On the contrary, it's quite an interesting story,
in a Rashomon sense, given the multiplicity of perspectives.
Read my piece again, you'll see.

Oh, and ad hominem invective is still not an argument.
 
 
-11 # Jack Gibson 2013-05-18 11:41
No, I did NOT put "non-story" in quotes as a falsehood; I put it in quotes as "so-called". Anyway, there's no sense in trying to debate with you anymore, because all of what I say will simply be falsely interpreted as only for the purpose(s) of attacking you and nothing else; and as my supposedly only carrying out right-wing shilling and trolling, as some, many, if not most here are falsely convinced that I am, even though I'm most-definitely NOT right-wing, and NOT a shill-troll either. But people who want to believe lies over truth will continue to believe those lies no matter how much I disclaim them, so it's fruitless to even attempt to reason with you and them; therefore, I won't continue to try and do so.
 
 
+2 # bmiluski 2013-05-20 07:21
It's funny how so many republicans I talk to claim they're not republican or right-wing. Yet they continue to vote for republicans and right-wing issues. Strange........ .
 
 
-3 # Jack Gibson 2013-05-20 13:12
Well, again, because you almost only do nothing but love and believe lies, you won't believe the complete truth of it, but I have NEVER voted for a Republican or Republican, right-wing issues. Evidently, as far you neoliberals are concerned, all constitutionali sts like myself have to be Republicans, "neo-conservati ves", "libertarians" and/or "right-wing-nut s"; but I'm none of those things, and never have been. "Enjoy" your (belief in) lies.
 
 
0 # bingers 2013-05-21 18:10
You do understand that neo-liberal is the European term for conservatives, right? And I thought you were going away.

BTW, the only people who love lies are conservatives who require them to avoid being "primaried." I wish I had known that when I was in high school, I would have only dated conservatives and would have gotten lucky a lot more. But, sadly, lying doesn't come that easily to me, so I ultimately ended up becoming a liberal after nearly 50 years as a Republican oriented person.
 
 
0 # bingers 2013-05-21 18:05
"I'm most-definitely NOT right-wing, and NOT a shill-troll either. But people who want to believe lies over truth will continue to believe those lies no matter how much I disclaim them, so it's fruitless to even attempt to reason with you and them; therefore, I won't continue to try and do so."

Good, because you're guilty of everything you've been accused of and not seeing your crap would be like a breath of fresh air.
 
 
+6 # pegasus4508 2013-05-18 13:07
Please explain to me why the HOUSE Republicans cut the State Department budget several times, yet think that CUTS have no real world impact? Perhaps, had the funds been available, there would have been more security. Clinton DID address this, but of course, neither the rabid right wing NOR the media expanded, questioned or investigated how this contributed to the problem.
 
 
+4 # pegasus4508 2013-05-18 13:07
Please explain to me why the HOUSE Republicans cut the State Department budget several times, yet think that CUTS have no real world impact? Perhaps, had the funds been available, there would have been more security. Clinton DID address this, but of course, neither the rabid right wing NOR the media expanded, questioned or investigated how this contributed to the problem.
 
 
-13 # Jack Gibson 2013-05-18 13:39
Having re-read your comment, such as it is, and replete with lie after lie after lie that it is, I don't feel the need to respond to most of it, at least at this point; but I "can't believe" that you have the audacity to falsely claim that assassination by drone isn't a "mass-murderous crime", being as most of the many people who are usually killed with each strike are innocent civilians, which even you should know. "Unbelievable"! [Though not at all surprising.---W hat are you going to falsely claim next, that I'm a "shill-troll", just to try and save (your) face? That wouldn't surprise me either.] I don't think you're "wrapped completely tight", so I'm surprised that RSN and others publish your articles---that 's just my opinion, so I'm not attempting to diagnose you psychologically , practice psychology and/or medicine without a license, or libel and/or slander you. I have a right to my opinions and to my free speech, regardless of you fraudulently, and very conveniently, calling it "ad hominem name-calling". My original post speaks for itself, and doesn't need any replying to by you; which, obviously, as you've already shown, would be replete with nothing but further attempted-intim idation(s), and more and more falsehood(s).
 
 
+1 # bmiluski 2013-05-20 08:00
This is so typical of you JACK GIBSON. You keep claiming there are lies yet you never give an example of one. Your neo-con puppet masters have programmed you well.
 
 
+1 # bmiluski 2013-05-20 07:19
Jack you do know the difference between fact and opinion right? Because something being a 'non-story' or story is just an opinion.
This whole business reminds me of White Water. You spent $2 BILLION of our tax dollars trying to pin something on the Clintons and failed.
 
 
+6 # MJnevetS 2013-05-18 12:58
Quoting Jack Gibson:
This story...IS news. The POTUS intentionally allowed a U.S. Ambassador and others to be murdered by ordering a stand-down and attempting to prevent security and U.S. military personnel from defending the U.S. compound where this travesty occurred...I am a constitutionalist.


I am certainly no fan of the president's drone programs; further, I would agree that those people targeted for assassination by drone are being killed in violation of the Constitution. But, if you believe the Fox News talking points that the "POTUS intentionally allowed a U.S. Ambassador and others to be murdered." Then you have been eating a steady diet of lead paint chips. Every 'fact' you allege, has been fully disproven. Bengazi was a CIA operation gone bad and had troops been called in, they could have been there for the clean-up. Nothing would have been prevented, although a war could have been started. Let's put it this way, bright eyes, if an angry mob in NYC surrounded and began torching the Chinese Embassy, what do you think would happen if China deployed a company of soldiers to midtown Manhattan. You think about that genius, because that is the type of thought process that has to be used before deploying military in a foreign country. If they don't ask for our assistance in controlling their population, it is an act of WAR! and BTW Scalia also has said he is a 'constitutional ist' Based upon that, I'm pretty sure that means full of $hit right winger.
 
 
-7 # Jack Gibson 2013-05-18 14:41
Here you go again, nothing but lying illegal libeler and slanderer. I have NEVER to my recollection watched FOX News; and if I ever did once or twice and don't remember it, I certainly haven't done so in MANY years. You and others here continue to talk to me like I'm a complete idiot, and with nothing but disrespect; but, not to laud myself, I am a highly intelligent fifty-seven year old man, with a paralegal background, though I am fully physically disabled now (but I am still a member of the National Lawyers Guild, the second largest national bar association in the U.S.---that Marjorie Cohn is past-president of---as a fully physically disabled former legal worker; and a member of the ACLU); and, as I've stated in this thread before, I reiterate that I am NOT a "Rethuglican", NOT a "right-winger", and NOT a shill-troll [although you will probably keep believing those lies since you've told NOTHING BUT lies about me thus far, along with other of your law-violating compatriots (because you have done nothing but illegally libel and slander me)].

I, therefore, legally demand and/or request that you completely cease and desist violating civil law and illegally libeling and slandering me.
 
 
+1 # vgirl1 2013-05-19 19:57
"I have NEVER to my recollection watched FOX News; and if I ever did once or twice and don't remember it, I certainly haven't done so in MANY years"
-----------------------------------------
Trying to convince us, huh?

Hilarious.
 
 
+1 # bmiluski 2013-05-20 08:02
Oh now I get it. YOu are either being paid to post your stupidities or else you have no life and nothing better to do.
Wow, how pathetic.
 
 
0 # bingers 2013-05-21 18:15
Sorry, liar, the truth is an absolute defense against both libel and slander. So sue me. My lawyer will be asking for sanctions, so you will be required to pay all of our legal fees. Go ahead, prove yourself an egregious liar in open court AND pay out hundreds of thousands of dollars for the privilege.
 
 
+5 # pegasus4508 2013-05-18 13:02
CIVICS - Please PRAY TELL what are we NOW Impeaching Obama for. Last I checked, skin color is NOT an option. Neither is the fact that the president is a DEMOCRAT. Guess because in the constitution black people were 3/5 of a person? I want them to vote to impeach. It worked really well with CLINTON
 
 
-8 # Jack Gibson 2013-05-18 15:04
I was wondering when someone was finally going to falsely throw the race card into this. Let me make it abundantly clear, seeking Obama's impeachment HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE COLOR OF HIS SKIN. He is a tyrant, traitor and betrayer to and of this country, its Constitution, many of its other laws, its sovereignty, and its Americanism. He is un-American and anti-American through all of the foregoing; and because of all of it, his impeachment MUST be sought. It is NOT "optional". Under the U.S. Constitution, when a POTUS has committed treason and violated countless laws, it is the OBLIGATION of the American people and Congress to seek his impeachment. And, having said all of that, before I am attacked, and further illegally libeled and slandered, as I undoubtedly will be because most of you will defend this traitor and tyrant tooth and nail, no matter what, even though doing so makes you completely complicit in his many crimes, and therefore traitors to this country, its Constitution and many of its other laws, etc., as well, I am NOT seeking for said impeachment because the "Rethuglicans" are seeking it. I'm seeking it because it is my American DUTY to do so since Obama is such an extremely- criminal, tyrannical and treasonous "president", and because of what I said in the foregoing, due to it being the obligation of the American people and Congress to do so; and for NO OTHER REASON(S). Get that straight; though, undoubtedly, you will not! Now, attack away...
 
 
-6 # Jack Gibson 2013-05-18 15:43
P.S.---Someone in another thread just reminded me that I also meant to say, that I just as adamantly stood for and sought the impeachment of George Walker Bush as well, in case you folks typically jump on that bandwagon and falsely try to make it look like I'm supposedly only after Obama's impeachment.
 
 
+1 # vgirl1 2013-05-19 20:05
Yeah, right!

Hilarious.
 
 
+1 # vgirl1 2013-05-19 20:04
No credibility. No understanding of the Constitution or impeachable offenses.

We are waiting for you and your ilk to tell us exactly the treasonous and other high crimes/misdemea nors you assert were actually committed by this POTUS. You make the claim, but no one offers the specifics to see if they stand the test of meeting the definition of these words.

Your comments reek of hot air, anger, hate, rage, resentment, vitriol, and malice.

It sticks to one like glue in every misinformed word one writes and accusation one makes.
 
 
-3 # Jack Gibson 2013-05-20 13:02
Nope, you're not talking about me, you're talking about yourself, "VGirl1". You neoliberals are the ones who are full of evil hate, not True Constitutionali sts like myself. You are controlled by it but just don't realize it. Your anger is always "justified"; but, no one else's anger, who you misinterpret and misrepresent as "right-wing", etc., supposedly is. In fact, you neolibs are so deluded that you don't believe your anger is anger; and/or, as I said, that your hate is hate. Thus, you are part and parcel of a mass-insanity that I stopped being a part of long ago.
 
 
-1 # bmiluski 2013-05-20 08:03
I guess then he'd only be 3/5ths impeached.
 
 
0 # bingers 2013-05-21 18:17
Quoting bmiluski:
I guess then he'd only be 3/5ths impeached.



Crap, sorry, I meant to nullify the twit's negative and missed and hit red instead. At this point consider your count to be zero. Anyone else notice he's been dishing out negs to everyone who has refuted his lying posts?
 
 
+1 # bmiluski 2013-05-20 07:15
And the fact that REPUBLICANS CUT EMBASSY security budget by $300 million below what we asked for did not play a part?
 
 
-25 # lnason@umassd.edu 2013-05-17 22:44
When I heard Susan Rice lying so blatantly that weekend, I chalked it up to political campaigning and the emails have demonstrated clearly, now that they are public, that this was the case. While many names have been redacted from the emails so that we cannot clearly assign responsibility for the intentional lies, it is fairly clear that these lies did indeed help Obama's reelection even though these lies may not have been necessary.

The full scope of the scandal will only emerge when we know exactly who made which revisions in the cover-up phase and when the issue of who ordered troops to stand down when a rescue mission would have saved two American lives.

Republican motivations for pursuing these matters are irrelevant. Even if they are completely motivated by political advantage, it is still important for voters to know that their government intentionally lies to them and that the current administration is unwilling to save Americans in danger.

We should seek the names of those responsible and they should be prosecuted and held accountable for (1) disseminating public lies and (2) negligent homicide.

Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
 
 
+11 # kelly 2013-05-18 08:01
I'd love to hear you say that Democratic motivation for pursuing these matters is irrelevant whenever anything comes up against a Republican president. As I recall, you were one of the first to jump on the partisan bandwagon when things came up during elections and past administrations . If you are truly worried about the dissemination of lies, then look to the Congressional comittee which calls old emails new and a news organization calling non-evidence evidence.
 
 
+13 # WBoardman 2013-05-18 08:26
"a rescue mission would have saved two American lives" --
former Defense Secretary & CIA chief Robert Gates
calls this claim "cartoonish."

It's certainly speculative and unprovable.

We haven't been in the habit of holding our leaders accountable
for getting Americans killed
for many decades now, at least since Viet-nam.

But if we're going to start now, let's take on
those who killed 4,000, not just 4 --
those who lied us into war in Iraq....

And, yes, 4,000 is way low for the real death toll.
 
 
+7 # MJnevetS 2013-05-18 13:08
Quoting WBoardman:
those who killed 4,000, not just 4 --
those who lied us into war in Iraq....
And, yes, 4,000 is way low for the real death toll.
WBoardman, I only take offense with the part of the comment that suggests it was only American deaths (4,000) that should be considered not the additional 123,000 Iraqi CIVILIAN deaths, so that Haliburton could control Iraqi oil and prevent lower prices.
 
 
+2 # WBoardman 2013-05-19 11:03
Your offense is well taken,
or would be,
if you hadn't ignored my next sentence.

We are making the same point.
 
 
+6 # MJnevetS 2013-05-18 13:04
Quoting lnason@umassd.edu:
The full scope of the scandal will only emerge when
...Republican operatives decide what they want to claim it is AND fabricate some more e-mails, or falsify other evidence to convince the faithful (not that people like you, or any Fox News aficionado, need convincing)
 
 
0 # bingers 2013-05-21 18:20
She wasn't lying, she was saying the "facts" the CIA was telling her to cover their asses. Turned out that the consulate was targeted because it was a major CIA outpost.
 
 
-1 # Michael Lee Bugg 2013-05-22 10:18
Bingers, has this been confirmed? I thought that was the case but I never saw confirmation. What I do know is that Benghazi was the stronghold of the rebels and we helped the rebels, I thought. Who would have expected such an attack there? Tripoli would not have been a surprise. What if Benghazi had been a diversion with the primary target intended to be the embassy in Tripoli? Obama would have caught he'll for sending help to Benghazi! Why was Stevens even in Benghazi? I have not even heard that yet! The other fact is that more security people at Benghazi would not have stopped mortar shells that I read were fired at the consulate. No consulate or embassy can be made impregnable in a foreign country. Even if attackers cannot get inside they only have to wait for the staff to go outside for numerous routine reasons! Let's say that Edge, Gibson, and Nason are right, Obama intentionally allowed those four to die in Benghazi. What, I wonder, would they think Obama's motive was? So that he could endure more maniacal Republican attacks? Yes, let's pretend these three are right, or even that Obama just made some bad decisions that day and tried to cover them up. If Obama should be impeached, W. should have been executed! Four died at Benghazi; 2,994 died on our soil on 9/11 on Bush's watch, and he prevented an immediate investigation, and let Usama bin Laden escape, and started an unjustified war in Iraq to bury his criminal negligence prior to 9/11/2001!
 
 
-1 # Michael Lee Bugg 2013-05-23 05:38
Whoever gave me a thumbs down just showed his flaming hypocrisy, didn't you? You can't stand the truth because you probably voted for the idiot in chief - George Worst Bush - TWICE, didn't you? This shows that you have no ability to judge the merits of ANYTHING!
 
 
+20 # Billy Bob 2013-05-17 23:59
Something tells me that if the President was a Republican, the ABC "reporter" who claimed to have "obtained" the emails would have been fired and ABC would be publicly disgraced. The fact that they quoted emails they claimed to "have obtained" but that didn't match the actual emails at all, would have meant "heads must role". It would be used as further confirmation of the "liberal bias in the media".

Lucky for ABC, the President is a Democrat.
 
 
+2 # Majikman 2013-05-18 05:48
Yeah, BB, like Dan Rather.
 
 
+10 # WBoardman 2013-05-18 08:29
ABC News has a history of faking the news
(as do others, presumably).

When I worked for ABC News in the mid-1960s
their Viet-Nam documentary, "I Am A Soldier"
promoted that war using staged footage.
 
 
0 # bmiluski 2013-05-20 08:08
Uh, the fact that no heads rolled is proof that the media is a neo-con run machine.
 
 
+11 # Milarepa 2013-05-18 00:23
Why not simply accept that most governments on this planet are criminal, including of course the US. By criminal I mean that their modus operandi is not concern for the people who elected them but concern for profit and/or power. This would include the EU nations as well. As they say on TV "In my opinion". Which of course is all we have - our opinions. I live in Sweden and am familiar with Swedish corruption in government. Yes, I do consider the current government of Sweden criminal. And Sweden places regularly at the top of non-corruption lists. The Economist especially always has Sweden at the very top. I would place Sweden at the very top of the list of countries that know how to make their criminal behavior look harmless. In short, the ruling government faction is clever at covering up. The Nobel Prize is a bonus cover-up. Wonderful!
 
 
-34 # Jack Gibson 2013-05-18 03:53
This is interesting. Are many "progressives" up all night, or was an alert put out in the middle of the night to come and defend Boardman? Because I started out last night when I went to bed, as the only one with a "thumbs up" of both of my original comments, and Boardman had none. Now all of sudden, in the wee hours of the morning, beginning in the middle of the night, I have been "thumbs-downed" to the max, and Boardman is the only one who has apparently received any "thumbs up" in response to his comments. I say "apparently" because, since RSN has this single denotation of approval or disapproval, there is no way to be able to tell how many "thumbs up" people received who have received more "thumbs down" than "thumbs up". It is all very convenient, as I have undoubtedly received more than one "thumbs up" since the "disapproval bots" have come out en force to attempt to discredit my comments. I noticed a long time ago that many people have approached RSN telling them that they need to show both positive ratings and negative ratings of comments separately, instead of this single denotation of so-called "approval" or "disapproval", but that they have been thoroughly ignored; and that, obviously, the policy intentionally has not been changed, even though it is misleading. When people get so heavily "red-lined" as I'm being right now, they evidently don't want people to know that such commenters have gotten any positive "votes". This is grossly unjust, so please correct it.
 
 
+11 # Majikman 2013-05-18 06:05
Jack, I don't mean to be unkind, but "Get over yourself". Being "thumbed down" is not a character assassination but means the reader disagrees. Unless one is vested in being the Delphic Oracle, what's the BFD?
As for the plethora of comments you attribute to your post...not so. I'm on the West Coast and anything I post after 10pm doesn't appear until the next day.
 
 
+3 # kelly 2013-05-18 08:05
Ever thought you might not be the guru you figured you were. There's always Blaze.
 
 
+5 # MJnevetS 2013-05-18 13:23
When facts are unavailable, there is always a 'conspiracy' to justify reality. Perhaps, just perhaps, the thumbs down are due to the fact that:

a) The readers of RSN tend to be open minded and want the truth (which, according to Colbert, does "have a liberal bias")

b) Your right-wing comments don't have truthfulness behind them, let alone 'truthyness' (Colbert, again)

c) since the vast majority of RSN readers are 'truth seekers', someone who expresses dis-proven Right-Wing propaganda as gospel will be justifiably shunned with red thumbs.

d) The timing MAY be due to the fact that there are many European (certainly British) readers of RSN who would be waking up to your inane comments and may have given you their Greenwich Mean Time opinion as to your comments. (Based upon the earths rotation around the sun, people experience different times when the sun rises relative to other parts of the planet. hundreds of years ago, mythical beings, known as scientists, used this phenomena and created 'time zones'. (I know, science is scary, but it is real and you can look it up, just not on Fox News)

e) You're not paranoid, EVERYONE IS OUT TO GET YOU!
 
 
-7 # Jack Gibson 2013-05-18 14:21
Yet another nothing but false comment full of nothing but fraud and falsehoods; thus, having said that, I don't need to deny it point by point, because ALL OF IT is lies. You may really believe those lies, but that doesn't make them facts. I will specifically respond to one of your points, though; I do NOT believe ANY right-wing propaganda WHATSOEVER; you just very conveniently and falsely claim that I do; and, because most people here want to hear and believe those kinds of lies as if their very lives depended upon it, they swallow it "hook, line and s(uc)ker". The rest of your nothing but illegal libel and slander comment is best not supposedly "legitimated" by denying and more specifically than I already have. Liars love lies, and lovers of lies love liars; so "enjoy" the "kudos" you will undoubtedly get for your nothing but lies, and "enjoy" the re-probation that I will undoubtedly nothing but receive for my telling nothing but the truth, yet again.
 
 
+1 # bmiluski 2013-05-20 08:11
Honestly, you Guys........Jac k is a shill and is being paid to post this stuff. Either that or his aluminum hat has fallen off.
 
 
0 # bmiluski 2013-05-20 08:09
That's right JACK GIBSON, there is now a conspiracy against YOU.
 
 
+10 # ddd-rrr 2013-05-18 04:08
I have come to the conclusion that in the US, both the general voting population and those in positions of responsibility for governing and for reporting on it split roughly into two groups: those who follow facts and history, and those who believe in myths; those who believe in science (and evolution…), and those who choose not to; those who follow logic, and those whose reasoning is disordered; those who prefer to be honest, and those who would be hypocritical; those who choose to be informed, and those who prefer to remain ignorant of even basic information. YUCK! Who can we blame for the intellectual slovenliness of so many in our population? Perhaps our schools?
 
 
+11 # Bruce Gruber 2013-05-18 04:30
But, Jack, insisting that a fellow blogger should accept your assertions as "fact" to understand your "truth" neglects that there have had more than two decades of "vast right wing (Rovarian) conspiracy" for Progressives to tsk-tsk.

While enshrining the search for self-justificat ion by moralists who oppose 'social' (as opposed to 'buyer beware' free enterprise) contracts, your compatriots are dedicated to paying Hillary back for her accusation. We still hear the gnashing of teeth from the 'Right'eous.
 
 
+11 # dascher 2013-05-18 04:30
This clearly has nothing at all to do with Obama and everything to do with Hilary Clinton. The election was not going to be affected at all unless it could be shown that Obama personally ordered the attack on the mission in Benghazi - presumably speaking in the Arabic that he picked up as a child in Indonesia.

The Obama/Clinton haters have gotten so hysterical over this incident that they have forgotten to mention Hilary's name for the past few weeks. That such stupidity can actually be listened to by anybody does not reflect well upon our press. It doesn't even reach the level of laughable.
 
 
0 # bmiluski 2013-05-20 08:14
Actually, I think that they want to blow this thing up so big that everyone will remember it AND THEN bring it back to wack Hilary over the head with it. Should she choose to run.
 
 
+8 # Merschrod 2013-05-18 04:47
Jack and W - W you bring out the real story but miss it when you say "Yes, they tell exactly the same story - the same sloppy, confusing, bureaucratic mishmash of a story featuring a mud-wrestling match between the CIA and the State Department over who would be set up to be the fall guy for four dead Americans."

The story is probably that State provided the cover for the CIA - or why would the CIA draft the story? State is the cover and is taking the heat. That is the real story.
 
 
+3 # Terrapin 2013-05-18 07:37
Merschrod ... THANK YOU!
This is exactly what my BullShit Detector® senses.
 
 
+19 # Majikman 2013-05-18 05:01
Mr. Boardman, how dare you intimidate a closed mind by shining a light on an issue.
Don't you know by now that any discussion, any at all, with a repug that goes against their pre-digested meme is met with the so predictable tactic of veering off topic?
 
 
-9 # Jack Gibson 2013-05-18 12:07
How many times do I have to state the complete truth to people who convince themselves of lies through their presumptions and continue to believe those lies no matter what, that I am NOT a "Republican"!? I wouldn't be a "Republican" if I was paid a million dollars to be such. Nor would I be a "Democrat" either if my life depended on it. They are BOTH evil and really part of a one-party system which I haven't bought into for many, many years. So please, if you can, stop this mis- and dis- information of fraudulently claiming that I'm a "Republican"; the last thing, along with being a "Democrat", that I would ever be, meaning that I would NEVER be either EVER AGAIN (and I was NEVER a "Republican"--- Get it?).
 
 
+4 # Majikman 2013-05-18 17:38
Jack, you can call yourself whatever you wish. What you are amply demonstrating is a childish temper tantrum, an attempt to bully and abuse the writer of a well presented article that you disagree with, no facts or sources to support your screed about issues that are outside the scope of the article...I could go on.
Odd that you, in your own words, have to deny you're a repug "how many times". If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck well, blimey, it just might be a duck.
 
 
-8 # Jack Gibson 2013-05-18 19:40
Well, you don't have to tell me twice that you're a typical willful idiot. I now understand that from this, your first obvious (to the discerning like myself) "claim to fame" on that score. Please don't rub it in (to yourself), and further indirectly admit that you too don't know your rear end from a hole in the ground (or anything else for that matter). I defend myself, and/or stand up for myself, and that's supposedly a "childish temper tantrum"; but if those of you like yourself have a true temper tantrum about my speaking nothing but the truth, that's supposedly "not" a temper tantrum. Get real. I'm so fed up with you braindead quacks; that, if I wasn't smarter than that, I would no longer know which end is up (hint: that's an old figure of speech and/or saying). But, unfortunately for you "ducks", I still do know which end is up (and which one is down like your programmed, non-independent mindlessness). You idiots can't stand it that I can stand up for myself so well. Every time you stick your feet in your mouth, you think that it will be that last word and shut me up; but you can't do so, so you resort to more and more fraud and falsehood(s) like your "hero", "Barack 'Insane' ObamaCON". I hope and pray for you that you finally truly wake up to what's really going on, but I know that you probably never will. If I didn't feel so truly sorry for your ilk, I would say "enjoy" your subservience to global enslavement under the globalists, and their minions like Michael Moore.
 
 
+1 # Bruce Gruber 2013-05-20 07:05
It is entertaining (somewhat) to see so clearly stated the underlining faith or beliefs that self-professed 'superior', independent or libertarian 'undemocratic' folks project as "truth". Like religious fanatics whose various gods are EACH the only source of enlightenment, their carefully selected brew of biases insulate them from unbelievers and their constant peer pressure of "Amen!"s or "Allah be praised"s give collective weight to their anti-collectivi st 'truths'.

Unfortunately, Jack, most of us CAN "stand it". We just cringe at the venom underlying your diatribes and have a nagging sense that the invective of your accusatory submissions demonstrates a commonly observed "word rage" (like road rage) that suggests that concealed carry and the right to bear arms sometimes might put thoughtful and considerate citizens at risk ... just sayin' ...
 
 
-1 # Jack Gibson 2013-05-20 12:48
Yet more idiotic neoliberal crap. 1.) But you "folks" supposedly never express venom; although you do quite often if not usually. 2.) I have never owned a single gun in my entire life, having NEVER, due to absolutely no indoctrination whatsoever, believed in them, or violence of any kind; as I have always been a pacifist and against violence ever since I was a kid decades ago during the Vietnam war. And I have no desire to own any, or be directly involved with, firearms now; nor will I ever.

But, having said #2 above, because I understand it and why it exists, I completely defend the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. If some "gun-lover", that you neolibs hate with such invective and venom so much, had been allowed to "concealed-carr y" in the theater in Aurora, Colorado, (many?) innocent lives probably would have been saved. You, like your fellow- neolib globalists who are manipulating you, want us all to be defenseless, in a multitude of ways, not just with regard to guns, against the tyranny and despotism that is now fast completely taking over the United States right now.
 
 
-1 # bingers 2013-05-21 18:31
Oh, I spent many years as a Republican, so I learned venom and vitriol well, so when dealing with inveterate liars such as yourself, I have plenty of venom to spare. But I've been nice to you so far. I've pointed out that you lie, sure, but everyone here knows it, so I haven't pushed it.

As for Benghazi, the fault is primarily drtived from Republicans slashing the budget for consulate protection and the CIA covering everything up. I notice you feel this is tantamount to Armageddon, but the 13 embassy attacks and 60 deaths under Bush didn't mean a thing.
 
 
0 # Jack Gibson 2013-05-22 12:34
More illegal libel and slander because you have nothing-but-fal sely claimed that I have "lied". I haven't lied about a single thing, but I'm not surprised that you think that I "have". You're still a "Rethuglican", you just don't realize it. You neolibs are all thugs. You're full of evil and hate; but, of course, you are the first ones to cry "hate" about voices which dissent from your brainwashed (washed-of-brai ns) neoliberal rhetoric, and to falsely accuse them of being "full of hate" themselves. It is your neoliberal heroes like the complete fraud, "Barack 'Insane-al-CIAd uh(!)-terrorist ' 'O-bomb-aCON'", who are destroying liberty and freedom in the U.S., and bringing it and much of the rest of the world to their knees in abject slavery, but you're so blind to it that you lie all the time, yet you believe your lies so much that you really believe that they're supposedly "not lies". Your lord and master is Evil himself, in the guise of "war is peace", "freedom is slavery" (and slavery 'freedom'), and "ignorance is strength". You will see. But it will probably be far too late for you and all of your ilk by then.
 
 
0 # bmiluski 2013-05-20 08:16
I'd love to wake up to what's really going on but you keep putting me to sleep with the same rhetoric about lies, lies, and more lies without any facts with which to wake me up.
 
 
-1 # bingers 2013-05-21 18:25
Still waiting for the first true thing to emerge from your poison pen.
 
 
+7 # whiterabbit 2013-05-18 07:42
Why are we not focusing more on the CIA presence just a couple of blocks from the embassy? the consulate was primarily diplomatic cover for an intelligence operation that was known to Libyan militia groups.which is very likely the reason for the attack. Or the fact that CIA operates were slow to respond to attack, preferring to use untested Libyan intelligence organization (which they had recruited)to maintain security for U.S. personnel. Of course all 23 of CIA operates escaped unharmed. They had to have known of impeding attack, yet to keep their hands clean they sit back and allowed it to happen. There are rumors that it was actually the CIA station just a couple blocks away that was actual target but location leaked to attackers was intentionally meant to steer them away from their headquarters.
Someone needs to bring those 23 operates into investigations and hold them and whole agency responsible for their role.
 
 
+7 # WBoardman 2013-05-18 09:12
Too early to draw reliable conclusions about the CIA,
bur months late to be asking questions.

The good news is that the CIA is beginning to get
some of the attention it deserves from credible reporters:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/benghazi-what-did-cia-know-and-when-did-it-know-it
 
 
-1 # Cassandra2012 2013-05-19 10:08
Yes, but 'operatives' (not operates, though surgery to remove the tumors in the CIA may indeed be in order.)
 
 
-9 # Jack Gibson 2013-05-18 13:30
Oh, btw too, you liars and false accusers, I'm not the least bit intimidated BY ANYONE. I can't be intimidated, BY ANYONE WHATSOEVER. Because I don't let ANYONE intimidate me, period. So the claims of several of you that I've allegedly been successfully intimidated, are nothing but lies. Your kind of people love twisting peoples' words around and basing false claims on those intentional misinterpretati ons, and then of course misrepresent those "twistings" of peoples' words into the opposite of what they meant in order to seek to discredit the truth. And, because most people want to continue to believe falsehoods no matter what, your audience loves your "twistings" and "eats them up", using them as further so called proof of the lies that they believe about truthtellers like myself. And then of course too, organizations like RSN help the process along by very conveniently and intentionally refusing to re-post comments that were edited by people, and that there is nothing whatsoever legitimately "inappropriate" about the content of, as they are doing in my case, and as they are doing in violation of freedom of speech.

But, now, having said that, I will contradict myself a little bit concerning the present coverup of the Benghazi matter which is in full swing presently. It is now very clear, by how most of you are arbitrarily swallowing the lies of the coverup because it supposedly "exonerates" your "favorites", Obama and Clinton, etc., that this coverup may succeed, sadly.
 
 
0 # vgirl1 2013-05-19 20:07
Again, hilarious.

How about those rewritten emails the TPRepubs posted as if they were the original WH emails?

That sure is truth in accusation.
 
 
-9 # Jack Gibson 2013-05-18 14:04
You folks keep falling into the trap of blaming everything on the "Republicans", as the "Republicans" blame everything on the "Democrats", just as the "divide-and-con quer" powers-that-be want you to do, and you mostly oblige them and thus let them successfully manipulate you. How many times have you been told that, only to ignore the truth of it over and over and over again? No doubt you will ignore it and/or falsely deny it yet again. You are being played, but you absolutely refuse to face it, and most of you will continue to do so as if "your life depends upon it". What dupes. How about facing that the "left-right paradigm" and the so-called "two-party", really one-party, system is by design meant to keep you scapegoating eachother and thereby missing what's really going on, that you are being chumped, and that the powers-that-be are manipulating down a "garden path" to global enslavement? But, oh now, you "can't" face that, because it goes against everything that you've been very successfully manipulated, indoctrinated, conditioned, programmed and "washed-of-(rea l)-brains" to believe. Thus, most of you keep continuing to blame everything on the "Republicans", and adamantly and absolutely refusing to face that your "champions" on your "side" are part and parcel of the program to enslave you. As a result, you will probably keep on continuing to be so successfully manipulated, and corralled in the very direction(s) that the global enslavers' are engineering you to go.
 
 
-2 # Jack Gibson 2013-05-18 16:49
I would edit that and completely correct my couple of grammatical errors therein, but I'm concerned that it would never be re-posted after I did so; so please forgive those grammatical errors, thank you. (I try to catch all of them before I post the comments in the first place, but sometimes I miss them.)
 
 
0 # bmiluski 2013-05-20 08:19
OH my dear Jack, it's not your grammatical errors for which you should be apologizing. It's your total lack of facts to back up continuous rantings.
 
 
-2 # Jack Gibson 2013-05-20 13:46
All your so-called "facts" are is the neo-fascist, neoliberal U.S. government and establishment media propagandist's lies. You ilk swallow so much of their lies, that come out in almost everything that they open their mouths and say, that you can't see the forest for the trees. And, every time that, and as soon as, you realize that you and your neoliberal crowd were wrong about something, you ignore it and "move on"; even, as in the case of ObamaCON/FRAUD, continuing to defend it and/or them, no matter how much of true war crimes and other crimes, and/or a war criminal and other criminal (and false receiver of the Nobel "Peace" Prize), turn out to have been perpetrated, and/or they turn out to have perpetrated. They're "your" side's war and other crimes, and/or "your" war criminal and other criminal, so it's supposedly "okay"; and then you actually have the nerve and the gall to decry when the Republicans act the same way (i.e., that their crimes and criminals are "okay" with them). See how you have fallen into the "left-right paradigm" and "divide-and-con quer" trap(s)? No, of course you don't. You're too deep in avoidance and denial of what's really going on, too deep into your la-la-land fantasy world, and too deeply deceived to be able to do so. Thus, you keep lying to yourselves, continuing to believe in and live the lies that you are prevalently told by your side, and continue to expand your elaborate fantasy world around yourselves, so that you're unreachable.
 
 
-2 # Jack Gibson 2013-05-20 22:52
(I ran out of space.) And in case you say that the Republicans do all of that; you're right, they do (build an elaborate fantasy world around themselves, etc.); but so do you. For, you see, they are just as much fooled by the "left-right paradigm" and the "divide-and-con quer" strategy(ies) as your side is.
 
 
-1 # bingers 2013-05-21 18:35
Frankly, while the Republicans had some help from conservative Democrats, in a most basic way, yes, almost EVERYTHING wrong with the country these days has happened because of Republican actions from Reagan forward.
 
 
-1 # bingers 2013-05-21 18:42
Also, many studies have shown the same result, the better educated you are, the more likely you are to be liberal, and it's not because of some supposed "indoctrination " by liberal professors. Liberal professors teach thinking for yourself, conservative ones in general teach conforming to a prefab opinion.

Just look at Texas which used to have a middling rank as far as quality education, about 30th in the country. They now rank in the high 40s and the Texas Board of education wants to make teaching critical thinking illegal.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN