A simple post:
President Barack Obama delivered an extensive denunciation of a 'crude and disgusting' anti-Islam video made in California, telling the United Nations that 'it is time to heed the words of Gandhi' and declaring: 'The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.'
Obama strongly condemned the protests that spread across the Middle East and the murder of Chris Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, branding them 'an assault on America'.
But he stated that the unrest and murderous attacks were the result of the low-budget video, which had 'sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world'.
He said: 'I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion.
'We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offence to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.'
Oh Drat: Music Production Courses And Soundsld-militant-claim-two-hours-libya-010758099.html;_ylt=AgjrtGeURbg3WSrvh5ZZdwWs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNsYmYyN2MxBG1pdANUb3BTdG9yeSBGUARwa2cDMTcwYTM1NmQtNzM2My0zM2Y5LWIwZWUtY2VhOTk1YmUwNzZlBHBvcwMzBHNlYwN0b3Bfc3RvcnkEdmVyAzVlZWQ2MjQwLTFkNzktMTFlMi05N2VmLWVkOTY2MjgyZjM2Mw–;_ylg=X3oDMTFpNzk0NjhtBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25z;_ylv=3″>Today:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.
The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.
The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.
U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Benghazi assault, which President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials ultimately acknowledged was a “terrorist” attack carried out by militants with suspected links to al Qaeda affiliates or sympathizers.
Administration spokesmen, including White House spokesman Jay Carney, citing an unclassified assessment prepared by the CIA, maintained for days that the attacks likely were a spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim film.
The most transparent administration “ever”
Barack Obama is a LIAR.
Simple.
Now the question is why?
Don't hold your breath waiting for the Obama-flack ridden press to ask.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
@Aye:
You should watch the interview with former Secretary Rice that I linked above.
@Cary:
What Hillary says now or yesterday is irrelevant.
What Obie and Rice et al said in the days when they were trying to cover their asses, that’s what’s relevant.
Look there and you will find the genesis of the lies.
@Cary:
Cary, eyes on me. Good.
Now, did you read this?
@Cary:
Andrew Cuomo:
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2012/10/24/chris-matthews-who-used-phrase-shuck-and-jive-now-calls-sarah-palin-#ixzz2AKvf73xS
Sissie Matthews:
http://www.examiner.com/article/hypocrisy-chris-matthews-says-shuck-and-jive-racist-but-used-term-3-times
The easier way to fact check 0-blama is to assume it’s all a lie and look for the truth!!
@drjohn:
The way I understand it, is that there were multiple events going on, and the messages got mixed. Yes, the attacks on the Libyan embassy were orchestrated terrorist attacks (as Obama stated on 9/12) clearly executed on the date that would be most painful to Americans.
There were ALSO protests within Islamic regions against the video that was found offensive (frankly, I found the video offensive, too… and it’s difficult to explain the concept of free speech to them, although we need to make the effort to do so.)
As Secretary Rice indicated, there was a lot of information coming in at once. In light of all this, it is my opinion that the presence of any intentional lies are unlikely.
@Cary:
Next question- how many “murderous acts” occurred on 9-11-12?
Common Sense
yes you are true to your name, that is a good one,
how do you cal this theory?
reverse probing?
bye
@drjohn:
There were a total of four Americans killed at U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.
With all due respect, I think we all read the newspapers here. I’m not interested in participating in a quiz.
http://youtu.be/FA2zwrchZ0E
@drjohn:
Just one involving the murder of a US ambassador.
Mully
more than one
they then went to get the other in another compound and the fourth one somewhere else,
all killed violently while fighting for their lives, and left alone by a whole COUNTRY
the most powerful OF THE WORLD, DID NOT HELP THE FOUR BRAVES, EVEN AFTER THEY DIED TO MAKE A STATEMENT TO THE ALQUAEDA.
@Cary:
That says more about you than about her, eh?
@Aye:
**SIGH** Yes, I guess it does. It means I know the meanings behind the words I use. Fancy that.
@Cary:
Shuck and jive has multiple meanings as I cited for you in #47
You, of course, opted to interpret what she wrote in the most negative fashion possible rather than applying one of the more common and widely accepted meanings to the phrase.
Again, your choice speaks more loudly of you than her.
@drjohn: My point is that if the message was “mixed” then why blame the video?? Is there more imperial evidence to support the video vs a planned terrorist attack?
Personally, unlike the MANPADS which are definitively not in the hands of the tangos, I can say I believe that Palin knowingly said what she said to draw attention to herself.
1. Her face-lift is horrible. Yikes. She was cute 4 years ago now she looks horrible. Not as bad as Michelle or Hilary mind you, but still bad.
2. He voice really bothers me. That Alaskan twang is nauseating in the extreme.
3. Why does Fox even have her on? I mean she contributes what exactly?
4. I see she whored her other daughter out to Dancing with the Stars. Unreal.
5. Notice that no one really pays attention to the pablum she spouts any more?
@Ivan:
Yo…dumbazz…
You missed something:
IVAN
1, 2, 3, 4, 5. NEGATIVES ON A NICE AND BEAUTIFUL GIFTED CONSERVATIVE, TRUE AMERICAN,
SHE CAN DELIVER A SPEECH BETTER THAN ANYONE YOU GET FROM OBAMA WHO’S JOKES ARE NOT FUNNY AND THUGISH LOW CLASS,
CAN YOU FIND SOMETHING POSITIVE
@Aye:
Have a great weekend, Aye.
@Cary: What’s your point?
Condi gave a great interview. She commented on the mechanics of what is SUPPOSED to happen, and left any other speculation on her part to remain unsaid.
@Cary: Um, okay let’s look at what MadCow said.
So the latest revelations about Benghazi appear entirely uninteresting? Tell me, were one of the four murdered Americans a member of your family, would ANY new reports on the situation that led to his death be “entirely uninteresting” to you?
Or would you applaud Ms. Maddow’s attempt to change the narrative away from responsibility to calling names instead?
I doubt that you will answer me honestly.
Prove me wrong.
@anticsrocks:
Did you even read my last comment to this same exact question you posed previously? It appears you didn’t. If I want to run in circles, I’ll go to the park. I’ve got a full plate over the next few days. Have a great weekend.
@Budvarakbar: Well Bud, sorry. I went back and re-read that comment and it seemed pretty clear that since I posted a quote of her (Maddow’s) own words, that my comments were referring to Ms. Maddow.
@Cary: I didn’t think you had the stones to address my questions with any shred of integrity.
Look, I can’t help it that your lefty heroine, Ms. Maddow wants to downplay either the original situation in Benghazi which led to the deaths of four Americans or the subsequent “shuck and jive” on the part of the Obama administration.
I can’t help the fact that Maddow realizes that Obama royally screwed this one up and is now trying to switch the focus onto a supposed racial comment by Gov. Palin. Maddow’s in CYA mode for the administration, anyone can see that. Well, anyone but you, it would seem.
Have a nice day, good luck with your running and your full plate.
@anticsrocks:
I answered it and thank you.
PS – One doesn’t need “stones” to have integrity… but that’s two entirely different conversations. Just food for thought.
@Cary: Hey it’s no problem Cary.
We just now have you on record that mundane issues like an ongoing investigation into the horrible deaths of four Americans is “entirely uninteresting,” and a manufactured accusation of racism is much more important to you.
Now myself, I find it appalling that an alleged journalist like Maddow is bored with attempts to find out what went wrong and why and how four Americans were murdered.
I would much rather get to the bottom of the story, to find out the hows and the whys of what went on so that those four, brave Americans at least, did not die in vain. But then again, I’m not an “enlightened” progressive so that is probably why I don’t focus on race to the extent that if it doesn’t exist, then it must be manufactured.
@anticsrocks:
I’d appreciate it if you didn’t put words or positions in my mouth, especially when I already answered your question. Perhaps not to your satisfaction, but I answered it. Your attempts to bully me into saying what you want me to say by emasculating me are something I’m way past falling for. All you need to do is scroll up to find what I’ve already said, not that difficult. I’m done.
@anticsrocks: My original question was that by posting Maddow’s insipid attempt to divert the issue from responsibility for the deaths of the Americans to some manufactured outrage over a supposed racial comment, did that mean you agreed with Maddow? Did you also think that further investigation into the deaths of the Americans in Benghazi was uninteresting?
You answered thusly with a denial and an attempt to put words into Maddow’s mouth it would seem:
So after asking more than once, and with your refusal to further elaborate, much less even actually answer my initial question, one can only come to the conclusion that you agree with Maddow; that you think further probing into Benghazi (new revelations, I think is how she put it), are “entirely uninteresting.”
Don’t you think that accusing Palin of manufactured racism instead of putting her (Maddow’s) energy into trying to find out what happened is pretty damn hypocritical?
You can accuse me of bullying, but you sir, are the one who refused to answer my question and instead attempted to obfuscate.
So point blank – IN YOUR MIND, WHICH IS WORSE, SAYING THAT FURTHER REPORTS INTO OR ABOUT THE MURDERED AMERICANS AT BENGHAZI ARE UNINTERESTING OR ACCUSING PALIN OF RACISM?
Which in your mind is worse?
Do you believe everything you read in the MSM—or is Reuters, in this instance, not main stream. I would expect an Islam extremist group to take credit for this action, regardless of the truth of the matter. And, besides, a story like this sells more news. You should also refer to a dictionary for the meaning of the word ‘lie’—with particular emphasis on the qualifying term ‘intent’ to deceive—which you could only ascertain by mystical experience or by self-admission or by direct contradiction on the same subject within a short period of time. Do you know how hard it is to indict a person for perjury?
@Liberal1 (Objectivity):
William Jefferson Clinton … Martha Stewart … Scooter Libby … Shelly Zimmerman … etc … etc
Not difficult at all. Next question.
@Liberal1 (Objectivity):
You mean like having the admin’s front people all telling the media, and the world, for two weeks after the fact that the attack happened due to a “film”, rather than what we find is the true cause. And that, after the admission, by some in the know, that the attack, as it happened, and even before it happened, is due to a group the President said were “on the run”? You mean like that type of contradiction?
My guess is that the President, with Jarrett and Axelrod, pushed the theme of the “movie” being the cause because to admit that AQ was behind it contradicted their assertion, and promise, to the American people, that AQ was “on the run”.
And, where there is smoke, ofttimes there is fire, Lib1. We are now finding out that the consulate in Libya requested, and even demanded, increased security for themselves in the area, on fears that what actually happened might actually happen. And were denied. “By whom?”, should be the question asked of the President and his admin.
And even if we consider that the entire episode is due to confusion on intelligence reports, confusion on requested extra security, and a “fluid” situation, there are a couple of important points to consider, for the American people;
-One, AQ is behind it. This contradicts Obama’s assertion that he has AQ “on the run”. And no amount of wiggling and twisting can absolve Obama of being wrong here.
-Two, if the above ‘confusions’ led to the misunderstandings taking place about Obama, this shows a serious lack of competence in handling by Obama and his admin. Is this what we should be getting by someone who has over three years “at the helm”?
You have a point about the believability of the mainstream press, Lib1.
We have seen them photoshop worse smoke over an area.
We have seen them take the word of a woman who claimed unshot bullets (right out of the package) were ”shot” into her home.
We have seen them swallow narratives whereby the same woman ”lost” about five different homes during a battle.
We have seen them allow a dead child from a hospital to be dirtied up and carried to and fro in a bombed area just so they could get an action shot.
We have seen their ”after” photos once a suitcase full of toys were strewn all over the top of a bombed street.
We have even seen them take an OLD ambulance missing its siren from the middle of the Red Cross and claim it was hit with a missile.
So, yes, the media MIGHT have been running ahead to report that this al Qaeda splinter group, Ansar al-Sharia, took responsibility for the Benghazi consulate/annex attacks.
Except for one thing.
The Libyan people on the ground also knew who did it.
The Libyan people went to the Ansar al-Sharia bases and forced them all out.
People, NOT THE MEDIA, knew, Lib1.
This is just a joke; don’t anyone go getting all lathered up about it…
Verb: To Lie
Story:
Snow White, Superman and Pinocchio are walking along.
They see a sign: “Contest for World’s Most Beautiful Woman.” Snow White goes in, later comes out smiling, wearing a crown.
They walk along and see another sign: “Contest for World’s Strongest Man.” Superman goes in, later comes out smiling, wearing the belt.
They walk along and see a sign: “Contest for World’s Greatest Liar.” Pinocchio goes in, later comes out with his head down crying.
“Who the hell is Mitt Romney?” Pinocchio sobs.
Hi John:
There is Al Qaeda and there is Al Qaeda. There’s the “original” Al Qaeda, responsible for the USS Cole, 9/11, and running the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. That’s the group which was the target of the “war on terror.” Those people are, indeed, “on the run.” They are hiding out in the border regions (Afghanistan/Pakistan). That group has been utterly gutted by NATO, the Seals, and by Obama and his drones.
Then you’ve got Radical Islam — “inspired by” Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda copycats.
It’s analogous to Lipitor (the original, proprietary anticholesterol drug) and atorvastatin (the generic copycat).
We could kill off Pfizer (the parent drug company which made the original), but there will always be the copycat generics, around the world.
So we’ve basically won the “war.” And transformed the war on terrorism into a global police and intelligence operation. There will probably always be some version of the generic Al Qaeda copycats. Just like there will always be policemen who want to roast women alive and eat them.
No one can ever eliminate crazy people or homicidal religious fanatics. The latter are the world’s most renewable resource. But you can’t argue that Obama was not a worthy successor to George W Bush in the war on terror department.
As for Libya, as I’ve written before, we’ll eventually have all the facts. Right now, all we’ve got is partisan bloviating, of the type which always goes on (e.g. Trayvon Martin) in the immediate aftermath of a violent tragedy with political implications.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/
There is no way to excuse this.
Hi Aye,
Sure, someone screwed up. Who were the “U.S. officials?” Were they Clinton, Obama, and Biden? Leon Panetta? Who? Do you know? When were the above told and what were they told? Everyone said that it was Obama’s fault and Holder’s fault that ATF-supplied weapons got into the hands of Mexican narcos and were used to kill an American border guard. Blood was on their hands, it was claimed. Turned out, it wasn’t so.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com:
Well, what we know for sure is that Panetta was in the Oval Office with Obama shortly after the e-mails from Libya began arriving in the Situation Room which is, as you know, right downstairs.
We know for sure that Obama, Clinton, and Panetta are now all on record telling multiple conflicting evolving tales as to what they knew and when they knew it.
Someone, or several someones, has been lying their asses off in order to cover this whole thing up.
Just yesterday Panetta lied about the quantity and quality of the information that they had to go on.
The presence of a drone and its’ video feeds, security camera video footage, e-mails, and repeated pleas for help are all pieces of incontrovertible, undeniable evidence that people knew and opted to just leave these people to fend for themselves.
This goes to the highest levels, right into the Oval Office. No matter how much Obama may wish to insulate himself he’s complicit in a failure of the most basic responsibility of his office.
You claim that the Fast and Furious matter has been settled and that Obama and Holder have been cleared. How can you say that with a straight face when there are hundreds of thousands of pages of information that is being withheld under a claim of Executive Privilege? If Obama and Holder were unaware of Fast and Furious as they claim, then what is the valid basis of their Executive Privilege claim?
The heat on this Benghazi thing has been building for two or three weeks now. Today, the pan bubbled over and caught the kitchen afire.
Hi Aye,
F & F was thoroughly investigated by the Inspector General. They identified the highest ranking officer who knew about it; and it was several levels below Holder. George W Bush claimed executive privilege over a whole lot of things, and I don’t think he did it to cover up culpability for anything. It’s complicated running a government. You need to have a free flow of information, meaning that people should be able to say what’s on their minds, without an eye to what might someday be made public. You think that congressional committees don’t leak? You think that a “clean” Inspector General would risk getting involved in an obstruction of justice criminal activity to protect the butts of Holder and Obama? That would have to be a huge conspiracy, in and of itself (the cover up). Sure, you can believe what you want. You can claim what you want. But it doesn’t make any of it true.
With regard to your certitude that Panetta and Obama and Clinton are in deep doo-doo, neither Romney nor his supporters (e.g. Condi Rice) share your certitude. It’s not like Romney has ever missed an opportunity he sensed to stick it to Obama, and, right now, Romney is fighting for his political life, in the battle of his life.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-condoleezza-rice-libya-obama-20121025,0,4555322.story
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com:
Read this slowly: Executive Privilege
Obama CANNOT make that claim to block the release of documents if he and Holder were not aware of or involved in Fast and Furious.
Period. End of story.
From a previous response to Greg on this issue which he ran from like a six year old girl:
It is my belief that Romney very wisely decided to purposely leave this out of the debate. Perhaps he knew, or had a feeling, that the dam would break on this story and that it would take on a life of its’ own.
For sure he knew that if he got involved in it he would be accused of playing politics.
Either way, he opted to stay away from the issue.
His failure to broach this topic at the debate, however, does not negate the issue. Nor does it absolve Obama, Hillary, Panetta, et al of the blood stains that are on their hands.
From your mouth to God’s ears. Bypassing due process.
This is going to turn out to be a terrible tragedy, mismanaged by lower level State Department officials, who were not political appointees and who wanted to handle things on their own, without asking for permission from Mommie Clinton.
The investigation will reveal both flaws in State Department procedure, which probably went back to the 1980s, and individual culpability of lower level officials. It will also confirm Condi Rice’s opinion that any misinformation was the unintentional dissemination of fog-of-war conflicting information.
Alternatively, it could plausibly have been the result of intelligence efforts to obtain information about the perpetrators, while getting the perpetrators to drop their guard by giving them the impression that the US government felt that it was the result of the spontaneous demonstrations which erupted all over the Islamic world, in the immediate aftermath of Cairo and Benghazi.
You don’t know anything more than I know and I don’t know anything.
– “Blood on their hands.” Just more partisan lynch mob pot stirring.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com:
He says as he conveniently ignores or outright dismisses what we do know.
What we know for sure is that four Americans were murdered.
We know that two former Navy SEALS, employed by the CIA, repeatedly called for help and were denied that assistance.
We know that Obama has told multiple stories.
We know that Hillary has told multiple stories.
We know that Panetta’s story, and Obama’s story, and Hillary’s story don’t match what we already know of the evidence.
And we know that you’re apparently cool with it and that you’ll draw the curtain on the voting both and cast your ballot for Obama unaffected and undaunted by any of this.
Volumes spoken.
@openid.aol.com: You said about F&F:
Nah, they just covered it up. Nothing to see here, move along.
Hi Antics,
When the facts don’t match the claims, ignore the facts. Believe what you choose.
You choose to believe that F&F was a scheme, hatched in the Oval Office, between Holder and Obama, rather than a lower level operation, hatched in the Bureau of ATF. You believe the the Inspector General would involve himself in a massive criminal conspiracy which would put Watergate to shame, to cover it up and save the butts of Holder and Obama, with said Inspector General putting himself at risk of criminal prosecution, for participating in said conspiracy, confident that no one involved in the conspiracy would ever reveal the facts.
Notice what a big part of the campaign F&F turned out to be.
You also choose to believe that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Leon Panetta personally made the decision to under-resource the security in Benghazi, and are also involved in a conspiracy to keep the truth from coming out.
You also believe that WMD truly did exist in Iraq, only they were shipped to Syria, for “safe keeping” in the run-up to war in 2003.
You also believe that the rusting canisters of mustard gas which turned up in Iraq were the same WMD for which the UN and the US Congress gave the President the authority to invade Iraq, despite the MULTIPLE admissions by President Bush himself that no WMD were found and that this was all the result of “bad intelligence.”
In short, your mind is made up and you are not about to be confused by the facts. Nor are you of a mind to wait for facts to emerge, before joining the lynch mob. And you disagree entirely with Condi Rice’s assessment, based on facts which have emerged to date, because this assessment isn’t consistent with the hyper-partisan narrative which you support.
And you no doubt supported the proposition that the BP oil spill constituted “Obama’s Katrina.”
And you blame Obama for $4 per gallon gasoline, fully confident that, had McCain-Palin prevailed, we’d still be paying today the $1.86 per gallon we were paying in the depths of the global recession.
Interesting thinking, yours, unless you wish to correct me on this.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com: You said:
Fog of war? When they had live, real time video and multiple emails DURING the attack?
Who are you trying to convince, us or yourself?
@openid.aol.com: You make a whole LOT of assumptions as to what I believe, without even asking me.
And I am the one who jumps to conclusions…
LOL
I’m merely quoting Condi Rice, who has as much information as you have and much more experience with this sort of thing than anyone commenting on this thread.
You are also choosing not to consider my earlier point, to wit:
Be logical here. Let’s say that Obama actually knew, right away, that it was a terrorist attack. But it’s early on and the intelligence and national security authorities are attempting to determine their next actions. Obama’s initial statements are intentionally ambiguous. He doesn’t blame it on the pan-Islamic uprisings, because, initially, it’s just Cairo and Benghazi. So he gives his Rose Garden speech, in which he doesn’t blame it on The Video, but instead just makes a vague reference to terrorism. But then the Islamic world erupts — clearly over the video. This gives intelligence an idea. Let’s play some Rope-a-dope. Let’s let them think that we think it was just a spontaneous uprising. This would have two beneficial effects: firstly, the terrorists might put their guard down and be more careless than they’d otherwise be. Or else (even better), the terrorists would be peeved that they weren’t getting “credit” (and those groups almost always want to get “credit”) and this could generate some chatter that could lead to their location and capture.
You have no information whatsoever about what happened and why it happened as it did. You don’t know what’s real information and what’s planted information and what’s misinformation and what’s classified information.
The only thing that you really know is that you don’t like Obama and you won’t pass up a single opportunity to weaken him, in advance of the election.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
Hi Antics,
That’s not correct; I laid out a scenario and I invited you to correct the scenario, if stated incorrectly. So I again invite you to correct any of my “assumptions” detailed in #94.
Ball in your court.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com: You said:
Larry, I could give a rat’s ass what verbal acrobatics that Obama and his admin have employed since this became public. The bottom line is that he knew in real time and could have said to Panetta, “Get those people some help, NOW!” But he didn’t. Why? Who knows? Maybe he didn’t care, or maybe he was just incompetent, or maybe he was afraid to take action because due to perceived political fall out.
What we know is that he did nothing to help those people and in fact his admin did more than stand by, they PREVENTED help from intervening and as a result four Americans in his employ have died.
THIS is okay with you?
You can EXCUSE this by dissembling and contorting the facts?
Don’t lecture me on ignoring facts when you are blatantly twisting them to prop up your hero.
@openid.aol.com: So you TELLING me what I believe, then daring me to defend my position is asking me what I believe in?
Only in the mind of a dyed in the wool liberal like yourself does that make sense.
I had not stated anything, one way or the other about what I believed transpired in F&F, yet you recited an entire litany of what you said I believed.
Amazingly pompous on your part.