They define intelligence as trust in Obama.The difference is...despite the lies, total lack of cooperation, and blatant obfuscation efforts...you inherently trust this administation. Don't confuse trust with intelligence.
Not nearly. Geithner's remarks switch back & forth between past & future tense. "The deficit" (like for the year in question) is obviously not the same as "future deficits". The annual deficit is shrinking, btw. What year are we talking about, anyway? SS was still in the black as of 2009.
And, of course, it's utterly remarkable that Righties grant any credibility to Geithner's recollection of the conversation, anyway. Well, other than in terms of motivated reasoning. They're calling him a liar at the same time-
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/mitt-romney-adviser-tim-geithner-lie-106563.html
It's entirely immaterial to the subject of OMFG! BENGHAZI! in any event.
Well said. I can't get too worked up about it considering that it was after the fact and my guy was doing the same thing by trying to make it look worse than it really was, but it is truly amazing the lengths to which people will go to pretend Team Obama weren't lying their collective asses off.It speaks to the culture of corruption in the current administration. The partisan rational for what is and isn't tolerable amounts to situational ethics and whats permitable by the ignorant public depends on political persuasion. In this way our two party system allows for and from what I'm seeing demands the continued culture of corruption in DC.
Benghazi is a near perfect example of the hypocrisy of the nations citizenry, yes from both sides. Point remains that the current admin had a political agenda with the talking points, then when called out for it they engaged in a cover up with information. This is clearly laid out and doesn't require a complicated maneuvering of optics to shift and distort what happened.
Partisan mindsets simply allow for this stuff to be tolerated, it's one reason a strong third party is needed so that it can be another voice of reason against the current party in power. This would benefit the people, though not necessary R or D parties or the political hacks who take their self worth rather seriously by bashing the other side.
Annual deficit is only falling in so far as we buy into accounting gimmicks. We ran 672b last year, we will be well above that this year. The peak measurement of the deficit of 2009 is a poor place to start when looking at what is a manageable or normal deficit for the nation over the past decade but it is commonly used to rationalize our continued high running deficits. Important to understand that public government debt is more often than not simply private sector profit.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/2013/opds092013.pdf
That's end of fiscal year 2013@16.699trillion.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/2014/opds042014.pdf
This is us halfway through fiscal year 2013@17.462trillion.
Of course when measuring deficits the past few years we shouldn't forget the fed kickbacks courtesy of QE that amount to 80-100billion of deficit reduction per year along with very low interest rates.
The difference is...despite the lies, total lack of cooperation, and blatant obfuscation efforts...you inherently trust this administation. Don't confuse trust with intelligence.
It speaks to the culture of corruption in the current administration. The partisan rational for what is and isn't tolerable amounts to situational ethics and whats permitable by the ignorant public depends on political persuasion. In this way our two party system allows for and from what I'm seeing demands the continued culture of corruption in DC.
Benghazi is a near perfect example of the hypocrisy of the nations citizenry, yes from both sides. Point remains that the current admin had a political agenda with the talking points, then when called out for it they engaged in a cover up with information. This is clearly laid out and doesn't require a complicated maneuvering of optics to shift and distort what happened.
Partisan mindsets simply allow for this stuff to be tolerated, it's one reason a strong third party is needed so that it can be another voice of reason against the current party in power. This would benefit the people, though not necessary R or D parties or the political hacks who take their self worth rather seriously by bashing the other side.
Annual deficit is only falling in so far as we buy into accounting gimmicks. We ran 672b last year, we will be well above that this year. The peak measurement of the deficit of 2009 is a poor place to start when looking at what is a manageable or normal deficit for the nation over the past decade but it is commonly used to rationalize our continued high running deficits. Important to understand that public government debt is more often than not simply private sector profit.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/2013/opds092013.pdf
That's end of fiscal year 2013@16.699trillion.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/2014/opds042014.pdf
This is us halfway through fiscal year 2013@17.462trillion.
Of course when measuring deficits the past few years we shouldn't forget the fed kickbacks courtesy of QE that amount to 80-100billion of deficit reduction per year along with very low interest rates. The QE has been as responsible as anything in cutting deficits, only cost to that was massive shifts of wealth to the 0.01% and a punishing set of stagnant wages and rising fixed costs to the poor and middle class.
Trey Gowdy calls the media (and others) out on the carpet.
http://chicksontheright.com/posts/item/25851-oh-look-trey-gowdy-is-being-awesome-again
With Benghazi, it's follow the weapons.“Follow the money.” That was the directive given to Washington Post journalists Woodward and Bernstein by their confidential source code named “Deep Throat” to get to the bottom of the Nixon White House cover-up of the Watergate burglaries in 1972.
Where was Barack Obama for 18 1/2 hours? And who was calling the shots in his absence?In the event that it has gone unnoticed, the White House and the U.S. Department of State is desperate for every American to believe that persistent questions about the attack at Benghazi on September 11, 2012, that killed four Americans, including a U.S. Ambassador (the first such murder in more than 30 years) are nothing more than a baseless political ploy against the current administration and a gratuitous attack to derail a potential future candidate for president. So do many in congress. So do nearly all of the major media outlets, every Progressive blog on the internet, and countless political pundits.
Irrational yet exuberant allegiance to their own political messiah and their matriarch of international mayhem aside, there is a much more important reason for this frenzied veil of protection against any thorough and meaningful inquiry. Although only a few similarities exist between the “Deep Throat” of Watergate and my intelligence source for facts related to Benghazi, the message is similar. Instead being directed to “follow the money,” I was directed to “follow the weapons.”
Trey Gowdy and the Real Lesson of WatergateReminiscent of the 18 1/2 minute gap of the subpoenaed Watergate tapes, there appears to be an 18 1/2 hour gap of the whereabouts and activities of Barack Obama. So my additional or replacement question is where was Barack Obama during this period, who was he with, and exactly what were the nature of his activities? A follow-up question, if I may. If Barack Obama was not in charge or making decisions during this most critical period in recent American history, who was? The Secret Service logs, among documents and tapes, would certainly tell this uncomfortable tale.
The truth is as simple as it is uncomfortable. The truth will expose a level of national and international criminality far beyond the scope and treachery of the combined sum of Watergate, Iran-Contra, the Bay of Pigs, Fast & Furious, and even the proven presidential perjury at the end of the finger-wagging to an American audience and congress. The truth about Benghazi is far greater than most people realize, for a thorough and honest investigation will expose the largest central logistics, control and coordination center for weapons, arms and manpower in the Middle East.
I found this article extremely interesting. This portion of our history was happening during a timeframe when my hedonistic desires overrode everything else. I was not paying any attention other than to know that Nixon resigned. Bugging offices, bugging planes, bugging anything possible was widespread. Nixon was forced to resign for doing something that was commonplace. Democrats wielded their power to force Nixon to resign.1973 Democrats blocked investigation of LBJ.
CIA Whistleblower faces the ire of an angry Justice Department over Benghazi questionsThe Pelosi threat not to participate in the Benghazi hearings or the demand to depart from the rules and suddenly have an even split of committee members — something Pelosi never did when she herself was Speaker — is a remnant of that “we’re the boss” attitude House Democrats learned in their 58 years of total control of the House. A period refreshed with their four-year return to power from 2006-2010. They still think like the Senate Democrats of 1973, who ordered an investigation of Nixon — an investigation that eventually drove Nixon from office. Forcing Nixon out for doing exactly what LBJ had done.
You'll have to read the rest for yourselves.The current plight of whistleblower Robert “Tosh” Plumlee began last October, when he posted 11 “questions” about Benghazi and the illegal arms running operations on Facebook. As quickly as they appeared in the social media stream, the CIA and the Department of Justice instructed him to remove those questions from the public domain and remain forever silent about the covert and highly illegal weapons running operations being conducted. Despite his classification as a photojournalist with Salem-News that provided him the legitimacy to report on Benghazi, he complied.
When certain revelations about Benghazi were recently made public, Mr. Plumlee knew that remaining silent was not an option. The deaths of four Americans weighed heavily on his conscious, and his own character and integrity would not allow him to be silenced, regardless of the threats to him. Accordingly, Mr. Plumlee decided to republish the 11 questions that provide insight into the activities being covertly performed by the U.S. government. His actions quickly caught the attention of the government “gatekeepers,” who are now reportedly coming at him with a vengeance to silence him and all further discussion about Benghazi.
Earlier this week, Mr. Plumlee was told by two high-level sources that a subpoena was being prepared by the Holder Justice Department, and would be soon served upon him. The purpose of such a subpoena is twofold. First, the government needs to legally silence him, which becomes automatic once he is under subpoena.
I've wondered to myself before and articles like this reinforce those thoughts. Was Ambassador Stevens specifically targeted and if he was, by whom? Representative Gowdy may have a story to unravel that will be the biggest of my lifetime. This time, I'm paying attention.The questions asked by Mr. Plumlee that the government wants so badly to censor remain, at least for now, on his Facebook page. They are reprinted here for your review. I suggest that everyone reading this demands answers, if not for the sake and future of Mr. Plumlee, then for the sake of our future.
- Is the United States secretly arming and supporting various factions of the Syrian Rebels with high caliber impact weapons from The United States arsenals?
- Is the United States little known Direct Commercial Sales Program, also known as ʻ‘The Blue Lantern Report”, being used as a ʻ‘cutoutʼ’ to secretly aid both sides of a Middle Eastern civil war?
- Is America again playing both sides against the middle for corporate gain as previously demonstrated by the Cuban Project of the fifties and sixties, as well as the Iran Contra fiasco of the eighties and the South American—Mexican Drug Wars of the nineties?
It has been established via some field reports from the Middle East and some isolated media reports that the Direct Commercial Sales Program (DCSP) an American international program, which legally allows the United States to sell weapons to a host of foreign countries without monitoring those weapons after leaving our arsenals, stockpiles, and jurisdiction, has shipped High Impact weapons to Syrian Rebels during the last two years.- I have to ask. What happens to those weapons after legally being sold via this program and they leave our control?
- Are they being monitored, traced, certified, and inventoried after arriving in other countries?
- Will our troops one day again face these American made weapons on some foreign battlefield?
- Is this Direct Commercial Sales program a secret cash cow for many US Corporations, International arms merchants, its insiders, or affiliates?
- Is it possible this could be another ʻ‘off-‐‑the-‐‑booksʼ’ secret covert operation ran by the CIAʼ’s Special Tactical Unit, similar to the Iran-‐‑Contra operations of the eighties and the old Cuban projects of the fifties and sixties, where we supplied both sides weapons and escalated the conflict for personal and corporate gain?
- Could we be selling and supplying dangerous high impact weapons, while aiding and financing both sides of a Civil War in Syria?
- Could we be escalating the Middle East conflict either knowingly or unintentionally providing weapons to both sides of the Syrian conflict? These are simple questions. I’m just asking:
- Did our Ambassador and others, weeks before they were murdered, notify our State Department and CIA that Syrian Rebels had obtained US Weapons, including “Stinger missiles’ from Jordan, Turkey, Pakistan, shipped from CIA safe houses?
- Were they told to “Stand Down?
Someone get these guys some lube, they're going to harm themselves lol
The whole weapons thing is another reason I can't get too worked up over Benghazi. Yes, we may have been illegally selling weapons to the good guys - well, to whom we are hoping are the least worst guys - in the Libyan civil war's many factions. Frankly, I don't have a problem with that. Frankly, I prefer that my government take action to support the best and suppress the worst. And yes, frankly I expect them to fuck it up fairly often because it's a very confusing world and, well, it's government.Getting to the Foggy Bottom of Benghazi
With Benghazi, it's follow the weapons.
Where was Barack Obama for 18 1/2 hours? And who was calling the shots in his absence?
Trey Gowdy and the Real Lesson of Watergate I found this article extremely interesting. This portion of our history was happening during a timeframe when my hedonistic desires overrode everything else. I was not paying any attention other than to know that Nixon resigned. Bugging offices, bugging planes, bugging anything possible was widespread. Nixon was forced to resign for doing something that was commonplace. Democrats wielded their power to force Nixon to resign.
CIA Whistleblower faces the ire of an angry Justice Department over Benghazi questions
You'll have to read the rest for yourselves. I've wondered to myself before and articles like this reinforce those thoughts. Was Ambassador Stevens specifically targeted and if he was, by whom? Representative Gowdy may have a story to unravel that will be the biggest of my lifetime. This time, I'm paying attention.
With Benghazi, it's follow the weapons.
Where was Barack Obama for 18 1/2 hours? And who was calling the shots in his absence?
You'll have to read the rest for yourselves. I've wondered to myself before and articles like this reinforce those thoughts. Was Ambassador Stevens specifically targeted and if he was, by whom? Representative Gowdy may have a story to unravel that will be the biggest of my lifetime. This time, I'm paying attention.
All conspiracy theory, all the time, so stay tuned for the next thrilling installment of desperate conflation & duh-version from the nation's real issues.
-snip-
Anybody who can google should have, at the least, an incredibly strong suspicion that we were involved in running arms to the Syrian rebels, mostly AQ.
Here, knock yourself out: https://www.google.com/search?q=wea...fficial&client=firefox-a&channel=np&source=hp
Fern
Anybody who can google should have, at the least, an incredibly strong suspicion that we were involved in running arms to the Syrian rebels, mostly AQ.
Here, knock yourself out: https://www.google.com/search?q=wea...fficial&client=firefox-a&channel=np&source=hp
Fern
Not sure of the legality I do know that congress passed the boland act (which Reagan Ignored anyway lol) that prevented sales to the contras but I dont think it has any bearing now, pretty sure the CIA does shit like that all the time we just never find out.
Look at this article from a year ago
CIA 'running arms smuggling team in Benghazi when consulate was attacked
But if the attack was in effort to get at these weapons than I sorta understand the reluctance to go into detail. They probably would rather not let the russians know we were directly running arms. What's strange is all the right wing hawks wanted to arm the rebels. It also claims more CIA agents were in the area and that more americans (CIA) were killed there.
Please. If there were any arms smuggling going on, none of it would have happened at the consulate, but rather at the port facility. You know- big fucking shipping containers getting shipped in, shipped out, moved all over the place, emptied out, filled up, re-purposed all the time. And the paperwork, of course.
The television network said that a CIA team was working in an annex near the consulate on a project to supply missiles from Libyan armouries to Syrian rebels.
Sources said that more Americans were hurt in the assault spearheaded by suspected Islamic radicals than had been previously reported. CIA chiefs were actively working to ensure the real nature of its operations in the city did not get out.
So only the losses suffered by the State Department in the city had been reported to Congress
Which matters not in the slightest wrt the attack on our consulate or the ultra partisan attack by the Romney campaign afterwards. The supposed back story can not be shown to have had any effect on the situation. It can't even be shown to be true. It doesn't matter if we were running guns to Syrian groups, or not.
That's really an odd position. I can't count how many times I've heard liberals complain about our weapon shipments to Afghanistan when they were fighting off the Russians.
Representative Gowdy may have a story to unravel that will be the biggest of my lifetime. This time, I'm paying attention.
Lol! What info did they cover up?
We don't need a third party we need Americans to stop being fucking idiots.
I won't ask you to, but I'd love to see just a single credible link supporting that sentiment. You wouldn't be conflating disgust with Reagan selling Iran weapons with Operation Cyclone now would you? That would be downright Fauxy of you.
We supported the Afghans in their struggle against the Russian invaders for an entire decade, and for the life of me I can't recall a single time where I heard a liberal (or anyone else really) complain about it. Help me out here, I do tend to miss news from time to time.
Really, running weapons to Syrian rebels, many of whom are AQ, doesn't matter? Well, it may not matter to you but it does to me and many others.
That's really an odd position. I can't count how many times I've heard liberals complain about our weapon shipments to Afghanistan when they were fighting off the Russians.
Additionally, I think to get an accurate picture of what went on we need to know what we were doing there; why our ambassador was in Benghazi etc.
If Stevens was over there on routine duties etc we can expect a certain set of govt officials to be involved, or exclude them from possible involvement. If, OTOH, he was over there working on a large CIA run arms shipment project that brings a whole other crew of govt officials into play. Without knowing who the players were you don't even know who to ask questions. Without knowing what they were actually doing you can't know the motives etc.
I think of it as 'context'. A set of decisions made under one context may make sense under that context, but not under a different context.
Fern
You can't be serious?
Are you claiming to have missed all the discussions of AQ et al since the beginning of the Iraqi war and how we were largely responsibility because of our sending arms to Afganis?
Now someone wants to claim it doesn't matter.
Fern
Look! Moving goalposts! First you claimed that libs opposed supporting the mujahedin at at the time, now point to evaluations made after the whole thing was over to support the original assertion.
Desperately lame.
Beat me to it.
So no link, no acknowledgement of Iran and AQ being separate entities. Thanks for playing Fern, you may return to your tin foil now.