As Seth noted earlier, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton began her long-awaited congressional testimony about Benghazi with excuses and an attempt to misdirect the public about what the administration knew about the incident and when it knew it. But while Clinton happily listened to fawning praise from the Democratic members of the Senate committee this morning, she lost her cool when one senator pressed her closely to account for the false story that had been put out in the days following the attack.
Senator Ron Johnson pointed out that accurate information about the assault that would have easily corrected the misconception, promoted by United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice and others, that the attack was merely a protest about a film rather than a terrorist attack was available at the time. Clinton not only refused to answer that question in a straightforward matter, but snapped, “What difference does it make?” about the whole matter of the false account. She then attempted to insinuate that there was still some doubt about the matter.
The answer to her question is clear. An administration that sought, for political purposes, to give the American people the idea that al-Qaeda had been “decimated” and was effectively out of commission had a clear motive during a presidential campaign to mislead the public about Benghazi. The fact that questions are still unanswered about this crime and that Clinton and President Obama seem more interested in burying this story along with the four Americans that died is an outrage that won’t be forgotten.
While Clinton gave, as she has before, lip service to the idea that she took responsibility for the tragedy, throughout her testimony she demonstrated that she regarded the whole idea of accountability as a detail to be shrugged off or pigeonholed along with internal government reports about the matter. Her attitude, when not listening to paeans to her service and frequent trips abroad, seemed to betray her belief that not only were questions about Benghazi unimportant but that she knew the mainstream press would continue to give her a pass for her failures.
The problem here is not just what she considers an irrelevant question from Johnson or a mere “difference of opinion”–as she characterized Senator John McCain’s scathing attack on her record on the issue–but a belief that four dead Americans in Benghazi was really not such an earth-shaking event. Her consistent talking point seemed to be that the committee shouldn’t bother itself trying to find out what happened and why and who was responsible for the mistakes that led to the deaths, but merely to “move on”—to steal a phrase made popular during her husband’s presidency. That’s why she still won’t say who changed the public talking points about Benghazi that led to Rice’s lies and why they were altered.
That’s been the key to understanding the administration’s desire to treat its lies about Benghazi as somehow unworthy of further investigation. In Hillary’s world, lies don’t matter as long as it’s her side telling them. That’s not a standard that she and other Democrats would apply to any Republican. As McCain pointed out, the American people deserve an honest account of events that gets the facts straight.
Senator Rand Paul rightly pointed out that her failure of leadership ought to have led to her dismissal. Saying that the State Department gets lots of cables and she can’t be expected to read them all is not the sort of arrogant answer a Senator Hillary Clinton would have accepted from a Republican administration.
“What difference does it make” is an answer that ought to hang over Hillary Clinton for the rest of her public career. It is just one more indication that what happened after Benghazi in the State Department was akin to a cover up. Should Clinton run for president in 2016, this is a story that won’t go away. Nor should it.
The Clintons (plural) have always been about three things: Money, power , and fame. Everyone and everything else can go to hell.
Add "lies" to that.
She is a Clinton, truth is not part of the vocabulary. nShe is a privledged liberal elitist and with that attitude screaming with each of her non-answers. nShe was angry that "those" people had the nerve to question her about her incompetence in public. nShe like the common cockroach does not like the light and truth shining on her limited capabilities nShe knew that the Obama propaganda corp already was prepared to provide cover and distraction for anything that was said.
'An administration that sought, for political purposes, to give the American people the idea that al-Qaeda had been “decimated” and was effectively out of commission….' n nEffectively out of commission? No such claim was ever made. But "political purposes" are clearly the reason for these hearings.
" But "political purposes" are clearly the reason for these hearings." n nyep n ndoes anyone care about the ambassador and the 3 others who were slaughtered by the jihad mob? n nyou sure don't n ntrying to discover how and why these Americans were ABANDONED to be murdered is 'political'? n n
How about Americans "slaughtered" right here in schools, movie theaters, shopping centers? When are we going to hear outraged senators and members of congress holding hearings into the carnage that just occurred in Connecticut? n nProbably never because there is no partisan gain in it for them and the NRA/gun lobby would crucify anyone who broke ranks with them. n n85 Americans are "slaughtered" right here in the USA every day and all we here from the same people outraged about Bengazi is there is no way to prevent it – end of story! n nSo if we can't even protect American citizens right here in the USA and Conservative members of Congress just accept this as business as usual with absolutely no outrage whatsoever, how are we going to guarantee that members of the State Department operating thousands of miles from our shores will be safer than if they lived here? n n n and this doesn't seem at all important as evidenced by the fact that there has not been a single call from a Republican member of congress to hold hearings into finding solutions to this problem n n n
What difference does it make?
I think this is classic projection. You assume it's a political attack because that's what you would do to your opponent. You're not interested in the truth, only how to use an incident for political gain. But you can't accept you have such low motives so project them onto your adversaries. n n
Review Obama's campaign statements you moron. You liberals never have your facts straight. Apparently you prefer the propaganda stream media's disinformation and misinformation. You people are not worth listening to or talking to. You might as well talk to an ape.
Well, talking to an ape would probably be a better use for our time than talking to someone like you, who are either a sociopath or just a sadistic weasel.
Why is it that people on the left rarely speak meaningfully on issues, and all they seem to know how to do is call people names?
Ok, C A, why don't you point out to me how my comment was worse than the comment I was addressing, then read down to where I made a number of comments that some would consider "speaking meaningfully on issues". Now, I can imagine that you might find nothing I say "meaningful"; if you do, by doing so you authorize me to levy the same accusation against you. nAnd once you're done answering that challenge, you can tell me how you can ignore the dozens of meanspirited remarks here, not to mention the calumnies perpetuated on a daily basis against the Obama children by "people on the right".
The president did state that "al-Qaeda has been decimated." One might assume from his remark that, that merry band of terrorist-murderers were, for the most part, out of commission. As we all know, nothing could be further from reality. Unfortunately, their killing machine is still as strong as ever.
I don't know if it's cynicism on my part or if the non-stop lies of the MSM and this administration are wearing me down, but I am afraid the whole country is now going to be telling Republicans to just go shut up because "What difference does it make?" Clinton's answer is shocking BS just coming from a cabinet official to the Senate, but it's maddening besides to realize how no Republican could ever get away with saying that about anything a Democrat wanted to know (consider the so-called Plume outing, for instance). She'll probably not only get away with it, but will likely get a big boost from it in opinion polls. n nVery frustrating …
Yes, it is very frustrating that the MSM does not cover issues honestly and impartially. Therefore, important course corrections are not being made. To paraphrase the motto of the old Soviet KGB, " The MSM, the sword and shield of the Democratic Party."
Right. And FOX isn't MSM, right? The NY Post isn't MSM. All the Murdoch holdings aren't MSM. nTypical lack of critical thinking, ipse dixit and post hoc ergo propter hoc. nCongratulations. Be sure to check the thumbs down button.
Stop polluting the environment with your tantrums and lies or we'll get the EPA after you!
Geez, you're really all over the map, kiddo. I thought you were on my side. Or are you just a garden variety troll, spewing meaningless insult wherever you can?
lol
Look on the bright side. That clip of Hillary losing her temper will be part of YouTube history by tomorrow. nReminded me of her seven minute rant when she sat on the Senate Armed Services Committee without asking a single question during the Petraeus confirmation hearing for CENTCOM. She was so rant-y that even the NYT critiqued her.
I wonder if she practiced it in the mirror a few times before she hit the stage.
Well, it is Oscar Season…
I watched Hillary's exchange with Sen. R. Johnson a second time, at RealClearPolitics. nShe lost it, and then realized what had happened, and THEN shifted back into the "practiced in a mirror" persona – it looked like she has been getting some professional acting training. Which just made me wonder who in Hollywood has been on that task? n nRCP also has the Youtube of Rand Paul's question, and I thought he was trying to lead to the big question: whether Amb. Stevens was in Benghazi to arrange a weapons deal of some kind, before the weapons flooded out of Libya to Mali and the Sinai and Syria. n nOk, I was also trying to figure out the new eyeglasses as part of her re-branding.
That "rant"was not Hillary losing her cool. It is highly likely that the "rant" was pre-planned and rehearsed.
this looks like an apotheosis n nnever heard so much larded praise from the Dems n nher bluster and aggressive tone is shocking
I just heard the new ranking member of the House Foreign Relations Comm, Eliot Engel, D, NY, opening statement, and all he did was focus on effusive praise for the Great Hillary, and 'inadequate funding', which is a sign that the dems are hopeless. nLooked like Ileanna wanted to punch him. I know I did, because he used to be my congressman, before redistricting, and I have no idea when he became such a sychophant, probably in 2012 in order to insure he still had a CD.. n nHow can anyone still bring up 'inadequate funding'?
I will say this. The Rice-talking points aspect of this has been pretty much exhausted. It may be indisputable that the Obama team deliberately misled lest the truth affect the campaign, but Obama won anyway and anyone in America with an opinion about this one way or another is not about to change that opinion now. n nHowever, there are two other aspects to this incident that are a lot harder to wave away: n n1) The Administration and Hillary dropped the ball on security — and Hillary's excuses today are basically that our people can't hide, a lot of other US diplomats were killed before my watch, you can't expect me to read every cable, and it's Congress's fault for not rubber stamping State budget requests. These are all non sequiturs since Chris Stevens and the others would have been secure with a half dozen reliable armed contractors and a sensible plan for rapid withdrawal. n n2) The Benghazi murders and now the mess in Mali and the attack in Algeria are all direct results of the ill-conceived and badly botched US-NATO intervention in Libya, inspired by a foolish misreading of the Arab Spring.
I was hoping that this incident would become 'Ghaddafi's Revenge'. To this day I don't understand why Obama wanted to assassinate him along with the rest of the criminals in NATO.
Barry likes the moslam brotherhood?
It is interesting that the false choices she gave in her "what difference does it make" outburst show that she still does not get it. The alternative to a spontaneous attack growing out of a demonstration against a YouTube video was NOT a bunch of guys out for a walk spontaneously deciding to attack Americans. Neither characterization is correct or even close to being correct.
The only correct characterization of all these tears, lies, and drama is "Cover Up". Oh, she gets it all right. She knows full well what the truth is, which is why all we hear are lies. A regular criminal would be tried to the full extent of the law for accessory to murder. But the Obama administration, most of Congress, and the media are above the law. They are so steeped in moral relativism, that to them, murder doesn't make any difference.
"What difference does it make… whether it was a video on the internet, or video games in the hands of the mentally ill…?" People are DEAD and LIBERALS are to blame! n nHitlery just made herself unemployable… n n…again.
I hope you're right. But I think the Chicago Illegal Machine will keep on rolling.
In her frustration to cover up the tragic embarrassing mess, Hillary may have blurted out something she heard many times from her husband.
“What difference does it make?”. Well, behind the utube video is a man, sitting in jail who incurred the wrath of an aggrieved people because of a lie. That’s why it matters. Individuals matter.
Yes. The main point of this is being obfuscated. The West is supporting and promoting the Jihadists globally.
The new and appropriate slogan for the whole 0bama administration "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE" nPathetic! 4 Americans lost their lives, "what difference does it make?"
When Clintons say they take full responsibility for a disaster, it does not mean they are willing to be punished for it, just that it is now your turn to "move on" to another topic. n nDoes Clinton think that cables about an armed attack on a US ambassador is something that she did not need to pay attention to? What an idiot. n nI laugh when she talks about how the State Department is still studying the event to extract meaning from it. She was ready from day 1 to announce that the motive of the attackers (none of whom they had ever talked to, mind you) was their disgust at a YouTube video. n nSince the solution for the Newtown attacks is trying to take guns away from Americans, is the Obama Administration going to protect American embassies overseas by taking automatic weapons and RPGs away from the people in Libya and Afghanistan and Syria?
THEREFORE!!! What measures as "unacceptable" is that there is nothing, NOTHING, that will be done to hold anyone accountable, either for their failures in protecting Americans and therefore as accessories to their murder, or as accomplises after the fact in their efforts to protec their political skins – again at the cost of American lives – which are insignificant, unless they respond to Democrat lables. And it may be said that all of us responding on this blog and any others trying to express our outrage remain complicit to our impotence. IMPOTENCE. We see the catastrophe. We recognize its significance. We understand its potential to injure further. And we can do nothing – NOTHING – about it.
What never ceases to amaze me is, assuming that you anti Obama posters are sincere and not just paid lackeys for the GOP, that you think Commentary has any less of an agenda than the MSM you constantly criticize. Isn't Fox News MSM? Isn't the NY Post MSM? The fact is that there are media whores on both sides, and Commentary sold its soul years ago to its advertisers and their minions, just like more left wing organs did to theirs. Any one of you, if offered the right amount of money, would go to work for whomever. You all know that. As long as you believe that the ends justify the means, you will never turn down a job from any authoritarian. Some of you are obviously racist, some are obviously psychopaths, some of you are just crooks, and some of you don't even realize how you are being fooled by the folks at Commentary, who are out eating treyf and golfing on shabbat with the Koch brothers and others who could not care less for the future of your kids or the earth they are busy raping while you buy every misdirective game they play……
Oldleftie – thanks for the laugh.I had a rough day teaching a bunch of teenagers. Then I get to read this, and I realize they aren't so bad, or as intellectually stunted as I imagined.
and you are easily amused, and substitute meaningless repartee for reasoned debate. If that bunch of teenagers are intellectually stunted, it's obviously because you are not doing your job. For the right price, you can hire me to take the blame.
MSM refers to the 3 major networks that people turn on at 6 and 6:30 to see the local news sports and weather and then the national news — and please note that in Ohio (Cleveland & Toledo markets) the local news for all 3 networks parrots the national news that follows their newscast. Since a lot of businesses, hospitals, etc., where there are waiting rooms leave the channel on CNN headline news as generic program, some people include CNN in MSM; however CNN ratings, especially compared to Fox, as you point out, hardly makes CNN "mainstream." n nThe idea of MSM (another term used is "legacy media") is that it is the common news source that people turn on and absorb almost unthinkingly and, so, actually rely upon to be factual, rather than partisan. n nYour newspaper examples, specifically in cities big enough to present a choice/option, are actually known to their readers and selected for their tone, features, and surely politics, too. In most American cities there is only one newspaper, which, perhaps was Republican leaning back in the 50's and 60's (consider the coverage of "hippies," for instance), but since then has one after another evolved into far left leaning — meaning people sit down with the paper with the news on and get the same talking points, which aren't presented as talking points, but as accepted fact. n nTo see the power of this, you might check into S. I. Hayakawa's _Language in Thought and Action_.
I respectfully disagree. To limit your definition of MSM to the 3 major networks today when most cable companies are also providing the Fox affiliates and cable channels is at best an unfortunate exaggeration and worst a prevarication. Waiting rooms today are as likely to have Fox News on as CNN. Most Newspapers are not "left leaning". Look at the political endorsements of local candidates. They usually reflect the politics of their advertizers, which in local areas usually mean Republican. I take it that your reference to Hayakawa was for his concept of "thought terminating phrases". I prefer the analyses of Macluhan, Boulding, Skinner, Darley and Fuller.
People tune in to the local news because they turn in to the weather, which must be local to be any good, and the local sports, which if you follow any team in any sport you must know that the local media covers your particular team better than the national media (or any other area). This means that the news people get is that of the 3 major networks. n nAlso, since you call yourself "old" leftie, I would think you would know this. I, for instance, live in a senior apartment building with 100 apartments. I would venture to guess that possible a quarter to a third have cable TV, the rest of us use the antenna on the roof and a converter box (because cable TV is too expensive) and, if you're over 60, I can't imagine you don't have a little resistance to paying for something that has always been free to the viewer (paid for by interminable commercials). That is, Fox News on cable, and their high ratings, is not as meaningful as you wish to make it (and does Fox even have a "newscast" program?). On ratings, for instance, NCIS, the top rated show on TV, considered a HUGE success, always reaches over 10 million households and recently had some of their best numbers ever reaching over 20 million households — which, isn't a very large percentage of the population. n nAs to your laundry list of behavioralists, I believe you've missed the point. I'm not pointing out that there is an attempt/intent to modify the behavior/thinking of an audience (or that the media's existence is a celebration of itself), I am trying to get you to look at the way the language used can and does present an agenda, even when the pretense is relating only the facts, or even when the words fall from the mouth of one you are (or anyone is) predisposed to approve of. It's always harder to see that (and I'm not specifically pointing at you, here, but this is one of my personal gripes) when you agree with what is being said. I once had a discussion with someone who's intelligence I certainly respect about "propaganda," which, because of his definition he could not see his own side had or could ever use it. He insisted propaganda meant "lies," that if it isn't a lie, it isn't propaganda ("biased" is enough, which might mean a selection of the facts, usually).
It's the Republicans in the House and Senate who are impotent and incompetent. They are the ones who CAN do something about this but are too afraid to do so. Direct your anger at them, not yourself.
again, another meaningless statment. The Republicans in the House and Senate are doing exactly what their private sponsors pay them to do with campaign funds and jobs when they leave office, namely to keep the government functioning at only a minimum efficiency so that they can continue to rape the environment and deny workers decent wages and jobs.
Not sure about anyone else but I think we can all acknowledge that everyone has an agenda. It just happens that the overall agenda of this site compares favorably with my world view most of the time, hence I enjoy the dialogue. By MSM, I think most of us know we are referring to the entrenched liberal establishment whose bias has grown exponentially over the last two decades. n nMedia whores on both sides? Of course, and I don't think there is anyone here who would argue with that! n nYou lose me on the last part of your post because some of us might get along with the libs in our lives, even though we disagree on a lot. I do wish that our every day civility carried over into these postings. I think it's good to be able to vent but, as mature adults, we should be able to do that without resorting to insults. I'm as guilty of that as anybody but, again, I think we can all acknowledge it does nothing to influence the other side or those sitting on the fence…
There will never be any encouragement for meaningful dialogue as long as people can hide behind pseudonyms unless they have some commentment to an ethical standard that requires them to consider those whom they adress in fori like this as being equivalent to those who have knowledge of their identities. There is a meanspiritedness that is encouraged, I believe, more by those who identify with the "right" than the "left", because of the support by the latter of moral relativism and its requirement "what is hateful unto you, do not unto others". Those on the "right" seem to be far more convinced of their essential correctness and are more willing to accept that "ends justify means". Therefore they are more susceptible to media like Commentary which inflame xenophobia in order to support their sponsors. Look at the number of "thumbs down" votes I have gotten from people who have not even tried to comment. There is a sadism on the right which is not shared by the left. There is no one on the left who come even close to Savage or Levin or Limbaugh for sheer meanspirited rhetoric, because with all its faults, the left believes that the means must justify the ends. This is why authoritarians do not belong classed as leftists, no matter how often they try to invoke the saints of social democracy. That they used progressive socioeconomics in their drives to consolodate power does not mean that they were ever idealists, simply cynical pragmatists who, like the right wing demagogues of today were ready to say anything to sell their product until their competition was eliminated.
"There is no one on the left who come even close to Savage or Levin or Limbaugh for sheer meanspirited rhetoric, because with all its faults, the left believes that the means must justify the ends." n nHow could you (or anyone) believe what you are saying about the left and the right? Really? n nYou did hear Obama in this last campaign? You have heard Obama speak, right? n nCan you explain why Biden snorted and laughed with derision at anything Ryan said in their "debate"? n nWhat about "Take that mitches!" Have you never heard anything from Hollywood? Not even one hateful quote??? Or do you just think it all funny — "Oh, good one!" n nWhat about Pelosi comparing the tea party to Nazis? What about anything Pelosi or Reid have said? n nDo you truly believe that Republicans want to, what? — attack black people and put them in chains and make them slaves? n nHow about all the calls for Bush to be murdered? There even was a hit play, wasn't there? n nOr the calls for Palin to be raped? Or the treatment by the media of her family? Or Obama's nasty comments about her? n nAnd, yeah, what do you think of not allowing any conservative to speak on a college campus? Are you so afraid of discussion that all conservatives must be shouted down? n
your vehemence belies your claims to objectivity. If you look at the history of political dialogue over the past 20 years, the right clearly upped the ante with Limbaugh and Savage. As for the rest of your hyperbole, I hope you'll forgive me if I don't honor your exaggerations with reply, given that the subject was MSM vs the "righteous right", and not simply loose cannons.
Hyperbole is incorrect in that my "claims" weren't exaggeration and were meant to be taken literally. If you think they were hyperbole, that sort of makes a point — and one can take the examples given and look them up, or remember them and ponder or dismiss them, which we all do on everything. n nLastly, I (I've written articles for American Thinker) made no claim to objectivity. That's a strawman trick to claim I've failed at being something I didn't claim to be (strawmen being the preferred rhetoric of the President). I was being, and always at least try to be, respectful and civil in discussion (and, note, I said "try to be" because I am sure there are times when I have failed, and actually do apologize if you believe this is one of them).
I called your remarks "hyperbole" because instead of addressing my main criticism that it is the right wing media that began and continues to increase the violent, misogynistic, homophobic antihumanist fundamentalist Christian attacks on decent hard working Americans whose only crime is nonconformist individuality, you sir, not I, parade a string of straw men in the form of the odd angry remarks that all followed the right's commencement of meanspirited derision. Please tell me the names of those representatives of the MSM with equal backing that Rush, Beck, Savage, and Hannity have from the right wing who are as vitriolic as they are. I will give you Maher (who started out on the right) and Shultz. Neither are MSM. nMy point is that the right wing brought vitriol and insult to the party, and continue to use it far more frequently than the legitimate representatives of the left.
Nobody on either side compares to Chris Mathews for vitriol. Piers Morgan is just as over-the-top nasty, but he's not as insane. On the next level of attacking, extreme, insulting and condescending, stone headed bias is Soledad O'Brien, David Gregory, Candy Crowley. Talk show hosts who are over-the-top in their bias and hateful attacks are Joy Behar, Whoopi Goldberg, Janeane Garofalo, who tried to really be what she imagined Rush Limbaugh to be, and Katie Couric. On the network news Brian Williams is the most extremely biased, but, no, he doesn't froth at the mouth, just does his best to put forth the Obama party line in place of the news. Stephanopoulis is very pleasant about it, but is constantly perplexed (with Chris Christie, for instance) when he puts forth a Democrat speaking point as an established fact in a question and is corrected. n nI was trying to be done with this because I did my best to express my point and you have no interest in discussion, only attack of your perceived enemies (as the comment I'm responding to); however, you keep coming back as if you are determined to have the last word with the common Democrat tactic of hoping to get anyone reading to assume that if there is no answer to whatever you charge next, you're the winner — but this is my last comment on this subject, twist it anyway you think will score points (or consider any point beyond your own). It's up to you.
How courteous of you. The fact that you can condemn Chris Matthews and not take responsibility for Rush and Savage, indeed consider them less malignant says more than anything else I can say. If you are content with your apologetics, especially the time line and the indisputable fact that it was your allies who started and continue to exacerbate the anger and unjustifiable attacks on people like the Obama children, there is no need for me to say anything more.
Sorry, but I was raised as leftie and fully bought into exactly what you are saying all the way through my college indoctrination. Now, I look around at those I knew growing up and see exactly what you described only on the left. It's all a matter of perspective and I, having been on both sides at one time, see a lot anger on both sides. I just believe that true conservatives (those who embrace small gov't) have more logic behind their beliefs and feelings and are more willing to admit mistakes.
Please give me the names of any nationally syndicated conservatives who you can show have more logic behind their beliefs and feelings and are more willing to admit mistakes. Levin? Limbaugh? Hannity? Savage? Beck? Kristol? Krauthammer? Buchanan? With all due respect, not one has ever admitted they made a mistake. Breitbart? Drudge? Breitbart's progeny just ran an article falsely stating that Sidwell Friends School has armed guards in addition to the Secret Service protection of the Obama children. Although it has been proven that this is a lie, they have not admitted their mistake.
I'm speaking more on a 'personal interaction' level. As far national figures, I can just as easily point to both Clintons, Obama, Olbermann, Maddow, Mathews, et. al. ad nauseum. As for logic, well, I know when I was on the leftist side, there was nothing a conservative could have said that would have convinced me of anything other than what I wanted to believe and I would just get pissed and stop any meaningful dialogue…
And please tell me how you justify 1) the fact that it was Limbaugh/Savage, et. al that set the tone of the debate, long before Matthews/Olbermann appeared on the scene, and 2) how, now that you have "changed sides", you are more amenable to considering the views of those liberals you now dismiss than you were to the views of those conservatives you now worship.
I don't need to "justify" anything. I never set Limbaugh/Savage in front of you and said, or even implied, that I worship them. Do I listen to them? Occasionally. Do I turn the station when I feel they becoming bombastic and overbearing? Absolutely. Am I willing to listen to NPR or read articles and columns by libs? Sure. As for considering other views, I like to think I've grown as a thoughtful adult since I was in my late teens through mid-twenties.
You don't equate the rhetoric from those who represent views you support with that from those who represent views with which you disagree. QED.
As you should well know, if it's something you agree with, then it isn't rhetoric to you, now is it? That being said, I like to think that I am capable of disagreeing with a conservative point or agreeing with a liberal point, depending on the issue presented. I will say that I find myself supporting the libertarian point of view more often, if only to keep the other two somewhat honest…
I have no quarrel with you, Doc, except to the extent that we disagree on the agenda of outlets like Commentary. You are making common cause with the journalistic equivalent of arms merchants, who appeal to the lowest common denominator with homophobic and mysogynistic vitriol, consistently attacking their opposition for behavior they defend when committed by those they support.
You state that no one on the left even come close to Messrs. Savage, Levin or Limbaugh? Sir/Madame, there was a determined attempt to exceed the rhetoric of these right of center leaning radio stars. First, Air America's radio experiment in far left nonsense left it bankruptcy court. Their ratings were in the toilet and deservedly so. Next, the far-left former Current TV had, at most, 42,000 viewers at any one time period. Both of those organizations spokespeople were willing to say pretty much anything to sell their product until their competition was eliminated. But, alas, they failed.
Exactly. They went bankrupt because their target audience doesn't like the tone. Their target audience is seeking reasoned dialoge, not the left wing equivalent of racist/homophobic/misogynist screed. They failed because their target audience was looking for substance, not stereotype. Proof that appealing to the meanspirited only is profitable for those on your side of the political divide.
We golf on Shabbat with the Koch brothers while eating out treif? Why didn't anyone tell us?
A perfect non answer, fellas and gals, congratulation. You want to put out a list of the frum yids on your editorial staff? Otherwise, you've just confirmed my suspicions, because you didn't deny that you 1) are not shomer shabbos and 2) not shomer kashruth. Whether it's with the Koch brothers or "someone else of the same name" as Mark Twain was reputed to have remarked about Shakespeare writing "Hamlet", the point is the same. I believe that you are "professional Jews", attempting to use your ethnic identification as a means to increase your income and influence. You certainly are no followers of the Chofetz Chaim.
lefty n ndo you understand the difference between n nREPORTAGE AND OPINION???
How is that germane to this discussion, Charleston? You certainly don't consider Commentary "reportage", do you? Or Rush, or Beck or Savage? My point is that people like you cheer when your barbarians scorch the earth of those liberals you hate, and then complain when liberal barbarians do likewise to your earth. And what you refuse to see is that hucksters on both sides are making money feeding the prejudices of their respective interest groups. The only difference is that it is the right wing that takes sadistic pleasure in watching their barbarians, while the left wing laughs uneasily and wishes there could be a different way.
I was responding to- n nWhat never ceases to amaze me is, assuming that you anti Obama posters are sincere and not just paid lackeys for the GOP, that you think Commentary has any less of an agenda than the MSM you constantly criticize.<.i> n nCommentary is opinion and has an agenda n nthe MSM pretends to be objective reporting, but also have very left bias and lots of opinion n nyou did not understand my original post to you
Fox news is as much MSM as the left. nThe New York Post is as much MSM as the left. nMSNBC is not MSM in the sense of claiming any objectivity. nCommentary is as much a paid lacky of the Right as MSNBC is of the Left.
If Benghazi was barely mentioned in the 2012 campaign then why would we think it will be brought up 4 years later in 2016 when Clinton runs for the Presidency. Republicans will be no more courageous then than they are today. In fact, the Republicans may not be around by 2016, nor do they deserve to be. In any case, Obama will get everything he wants even if they are still around then.
A farce and executive privileges will be the way out for the O administration. nThe demo have shown by the deafening silence that they care about the administration but not about the country. nHilary stonewalls and protects who U know.
regarding: n n …they care about the administration but not about the country. n nyes n
"…an answer that ought to hang over Hillary Clinton for the rest of her public career." n nBut of course it won't! We Republicans saw to that when we handed the Senate to the Democrats "on principle" (remember Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock? Some "principles!"), and when we decided to run an essentially clueless candidate, Mitt the Businessman, against Barack Obama in the last election—which despite our claims to the contrary was a huge defeat, given how ready America's voters were to change course! What should have been an easy win morphed into a reaffirmation of the Obama path to "transform" the United States into something both unrecognizable and unwanted by most Americans. n nAnd so we now have no way to expose the reality of Hillary Clinton over the next four years. She showed today how she intends to spend her time between now and 2016: by lashing out at anyone who dares to question her "integrity" and "wisdom!" This is what has worked for Obama, and it will work for her. But let us be clear: the last resort of a con-man (or con-woman) is to lash out at her questioners—like an animal cornered! No demagogue or grifter can risk having his or her lies brought to light—and outward-directed rage and expletives, feigned offense, mock hurt and even tears—these are the tools such people as Obama and Hillary use to push back against accusers and questioners. But because the American people—all of us—has become "an ass," we are unable to deal with such people as these any longer, the way Robert Welch once dealt with Joseph McCarthy—quietly, deliberately, in the manner and tone of an executioner. n nImagine this: 8 years of Bill Clinton (who looks good only in comparison with what followed his two terms), 8 years of George W. Bush, 8 years of Barack Obama, 8 years of Hillary Clinton. Ask yourself: what kind of country will this be after 32 years of such governance? And, has there ever before been a long run of presidents like these, men who had no business leading a nation like this? n nBut perhaps the question should be: What do we expect, after converting this nation into an "entertainment complex," where citizens pride themselves on how many "friends" they have on Facebook, how many "followers" they have on Twitter, how many "songs" they have loaded onto their iPhones, etc? What kind of people forecast "the end of books" and think that's a great thing? What kind of people are we, to have traveled down this road: the "road" of gadgets and "my music?" We've turned our country into a playpen, into an entertainment park, a gigantic, hi-tech boneyard for dead and dying souls. n nIs there a way out of this mess? Sure. History is clear that when nations fall to the degree we have, only heroic action and thought can save them. They either have the will to rise above the past, and above what they've become, or they don't. n nBut can a society that has turned itself into a playpen suddenly resort to heroic behavior and thought? Who knows if that's possible? But it is all that will save us. n nOne hopes the Europeans, Japanese, South Koreans, Australians, Indians and Israelis wake up to the fact that—the era of Pax Americana is finished. To paraphrase Bruce Willis: "We are no longer that guy!"
no clare, the Obama people don't think they're turning, for instance, Egypt moderate, with our generous gift of fighter jets; the Muslim Brotherhood is ALREADY moderate in their eyes! remember James Clapper, he of the "largely secular" MB? n nthese people have made cognitive dissonance an art form. they can look at a video of Mohamed Morsi telling his people to teach their kids to hate Jews and not have a problem with it, but be livid when Bibi Netanyahu announces that he might build some more apartments in Jerusalem.
TOBIN: Stop firing. Think. All your current weapons, the writings, the rants from you and virtually all your cohorts in the Consevative MSM are useless. Four years ago you and your colleagues let the Democrats define those who knew, and could provide dispositive evidence, of Obama's ineligibility be defined as cranks and worse. Once you thoughtlessly let this happen, you were afraid to speak about it because you and your colleagues feared for your social standing, and your carreers. Now, Obama's illegal presidency is the only, the only weapon you have left to remove him and to stop his agenda of destruction. Stop being afraid
TO THE ADMINS: Why have my comments on Tobin been truncated? It was not as lengthy as other readers' comments which you appear to have published in their entirety. Truncating a comment is a form of direct censorship; it is abhorent and a disservice to your readers who cannot know that some portion of the comment was not published. n nPlease publish my comment in its entirety.
We will see, but I doubt that site admins will approve my comment which strongly criticizes Tobin nfor failing to understand how to legally rid ourselves of Obama and his destructive agenda. The site admins will probably suppress this comment, too. Tobin and others are our best and brightest nand they hide from, and permit the suppression of the truth. God help us.
My lengthy and highly critical comment about Tobin is being "approved" by the site admins. What do you think the decision of these august admins will be? Would Norman Podhoretz have spent money and time on deciding whether a (non-obscene, non- threatening) comment should be published? I doubt it. But his inheritors are really uncomfortable when readers can see through them.
Well, this is awkward.
WHAT DIFFERENCE DID IT (the nine days it took for the release of a definitive statement declaring it a terrorist attack) MAKE? I guess it depends upon your outlook. n nThe facts are the four men where already dead and the misinformation that you all are outraged about was out there for NINE DAYS! In contrast, following the 9/11 attacks that occurred under the Bush administration, the "9/11 Commission" did not even hold it's first hearing until 442 days AFTER the attack and the final report was not released for an additional 607 days! So instead of Americans having to wait nine days to hear "the truth", when the Republicans were in charge and the attack happened right here, not 5,400 miles away, it took 1049 days for SOME of the facts to be released. I say "some" because the vast majority of the 9/11 Commission's investigative records remain sealed at the National Archives in Washington, even though the commission had directed the archives to make most of the material public in 2009, we're still waiting for the material to be declassified. n nKeith referenced the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame and the fallout that followed. n nWhy was her "covert" status divulged? Because she and members of her CIA team determined that the information being put forth by the Bush administration to justify an all out war with Iraq, a nation that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 (according to the 9/11 Commission) were completely baseless. The National Security Adviser at the time, Condoleezza Rice tried to keep the findings secret to continue to mislead the American people into believing that Iraq had acquired uranium and was in the process of making an atomic bomb! She even held a press conference where she uttered the now famous line that America can't stand by and wait for a "mushroom cloud" to engulf a major American city. Talk about misleading the American people! So what did the Vice President do? Have his loyal adviser, Scooter Libby, discredit the source of the conflicting information which the Bush administration didn't want out there. n nWhat was the result of the misinformation fed to the American people by representatives of the Bush administration about Iraq? n n4,486 Americans killed in Iraq. n32,223 Americans wounded in Iraq. n nWhat was the cost to the American people of having to wait nine days till the intelligence community definitively stated that the attack in Benghazi was carried out by terrorists and not the result of a spontaneous demonstration? Republican outrage!! Outrage by the very people who supported years of deception by a Republican president who on May 1, 2003,on the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, declared that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended". On December 15, 2011, that statement finally became a reality. n nCondi Rice who deceived the American people for over three years for partisan purposes then went on to become Secretary of State and none of the Republican congressional members who were outraged by Susan Rice had any qualms confirming Condi. John McCain even praised Condi for her service to the country and strongly endorsed her confirmation and then senator Barack Obama, voted for her also. n nSo Republicans are outraged about the nine day wait for the truth about the nature of the attack that killed four Americans in Benghazi while the 1049 days it took for the nation to learn about the nature of the attack that killed 2,997 Americans in America didn't seem to bother them at all and to make matters worse, we're still waiting for the rest of the report to be released.
"What's the difference?" reveals that finding out the truth has no value to Hillary. That's because she has an interest in covering up what happened: gross negligence in ignoring appeals for more security; criminal negligence in not doing anything to save the lives of the ambassador and the 3 others who were murdered; and spinning a whopping lie after the attack to deceive the public into thinking al qaeda had been neutralized with the death of bin Ladin.