http://original.antiwar.com/andrew-p-napolitano/2013/05/15/storm-clouds-gathering/

Brilliant

The only thing he missed is the real reason the ambassador was in Benghazi.

Have a decency to quote relevant parts in your link.



Otherwise I assume idiocy of the first sentence is representative of the whole article. Napolitano should be buying tickets to Somalia, no government to worry about there.

& lol @ at Fox news talking heads

I know you must feel lost and betrayed by the administration you were so convinced was the light and hope of the world.

But thats no reason to come slinking back around here with retarded statements, betraying an education level of said Somali you reference.

While I am sure it must be frustrating to see it become plain to the whole world that your political opponents were, in fact, correct about the nature of this administration, and govt in general the entire time... please, do try and keep your composure. ^_^

The only credible scandal you have so far is IRA, but even broken clock is right twice a day.

No, your only recourse is denial of plain facts. Perhaps you really think, deep down, that if you ignore reality hard enough and long enough like the Bush administration - that the world will in fact reflect the reality you hope for.

So, how bout that "Youtube video" that supposedly triggered "protests" in Libya, that many of us included myself pointed out was an obvious lie from the start? CNN was even caught by a Canadian TV station in Egypt, reporting on said "Youtube protests" there - where the handfull of protestors were saying nothing about the video, it was something else. Yet CNN reported on what the State Dept told them to. Even though they obviously knew that there was in fact no outrage over any Youtube video.

Of course I am sure you also consider the testimony and reports of career diplomats - even ones who voted for and donated to Hillary and Obama in the past as "non-credible" lol.

And going by what you say, the AP is also non credible when they complain about being illegally snooped on by govt.

But hey, keep mimicking W Bush. Reality is all in how you perceive it right?

lol you and your lefty talking points, at least come up with something your leaders are not saying over and over. But as we all know original thought is beyond you.

Unsurprisingly your thinking is wrong.

Your argument boils down to following - there are large number of controversies surrounding this administration, so some of them must be true, therefore this administration mired in scandals.

Under normal circumstances this wouldn't be such unreasonable (but still not logically sound) way of thinking. Unfortunately you have Republican Party that is engaged in fringe pandering and pretty much willing to keep throwing BS out to see if anything sticks. Often times foresaking governing in the process.

Still, there is GOP evolution in progress - they moved from manufacturing implausible controversies (birth certificate) to manufacturing plausible controversies (government cover up).

Is IRS a controversy? Maybe. If I were an IRS auditor I too would scrutinize political orgs. with known track record of being astroturfing GOP fronts. Despite SCOTUS fuck-up there are still limitation on political donations. The only reason I am willing to even consider this is because my political views might cloud my objectivity, and in matters like this it is prudent to be overzealous at investigating possible IRS abuse.

Still, don't confuse me with your fellow tinfoil nutters simply because I agreed that yes, we should consider a possibility that this time broken clock is showing the right time.

No, you are living in a world of denial as usual. Most of these scandals have been known or presumed(AP records siezure) for a long time. The only thing that has changed, is now in the wake of AP getting cheesed off... the MSM is actually shining a light on some of the issues.

You even say IRS controversy is only a maybe, and admit if you were in the same position... you would also target your political opponents. Unfortunately, govt is populated with many people like yourself, and we are all demonstrably considerably worse off for it.

(oh BTW, many of the groups targeted were tiny grassroots affairs with no history of anything - but as you have proved countless times, almost nothing you say is backed by fact. )

As usual, you rest your entire rebuttal on attempting to be dismissive. Fortunately, nonfactual wild-eyed claims of "omgtinfoilhattery" are now having less impact with many segments of the public.

It should continue to be entertaining watching the "true believers" continue to make dismissive denials even in the face of evidence their left wing media comrades admit has substance. The world can only hope, that the media will actually take their job as watchdogs seriously now, and in the future there will be fewer "true believers".

I am sure its also a "conspiracy theory" that the IRS has a union, and that union gives overwhelmingly to anti-Tea Party Democrats.

http://spectator.org/archives/2013/05/16/the-liberal-union-behind-the-i/

Lawl. Maybe we could talk about the illegal IRS leaks of information to proPublica that were political in nature.

Not that it would do any good, with a "true believer".

I just love how you guys all gloat when there is no substance to any of this crap that implicates the President.

As we have stated, there is no way there was a mandate to target conservatives groups. Despite what FAUX says, there will be no "Watergate" moment. Just like the Benghazi incident that is turning out to be total inflated bullshit. The Pentagon offered extra forces for the very installation that was attacked, and the Ambassador that was killed repeatedly turned down the offer.

Keep telling yourself that Jet. Better yet, read the actual source material instead of Slate and come back and try to say that again with a straight face.

As I said, the hard trail will stop a few steps below the top - cause thats how it works.

The MSM hasnt even gotten around to half of it yet. As I have said before, there is soo much more that is known but not really had the spotlight on it yet.

I guess time will prove one of us right.

Nixon didn't survive Watergate. So many of you are gunning for Obama, that if he is involved, it would be just a matter of time.

I however would be willing to bet that nothing of substance will come of this. If it did I would be the first to admit that I was wrong. Admitting to being wrong is something that is lacking greatly on the far right, despite the evidence. Take, for instance, climate change.

Well, local Fox19 in Cincy has been investigating and has already found out that the people who were targeting conservative groups were "just doing as they were told".

The IRS employees govt union donates extremely heavily to Dem, and specifically anti-Tea Party candidates and groups.

The head of that division when lots of this was going on, now runs the IRS division in charge of implementing Obamacare and got huge bonuses. This was done after the IRS internally was aware of the problems.

Yep, no scandal here. Just move along, nothing but "good government".

I mean I would be surprised too if the IRS came after me given that I named my group after people who proudly and historically violated tax laws.

I mean HOW DARE THEY!

You are just proving my point.

Even if "tea party" reference being made here was not the most retarded thing I have ever seen you say, "9/12 project" , "Educating about Constitution" , "take the country back" and many more were also flagged. Oh, and the original "tea party" was a protest of tax laws. Which indirectly led this continent to not being ruled by the the British Empire.

Modern Tea Party was a response to handing the house over to the investment banksters, not actually a tax protest per se.

Honestly, that so many people like you - including most of the US political strata that calls itself "left" ( and I phrase this deliberately, as a plurality of the US "left" positions actually have nothing in common with actual progressive politics of empowerment ) are not only OK with, but seek to justify IRS behavior simultaneously justifies and illustrates why govt, especially a govt run by your allies will never have the trust of discerning people.

That the most pernicious arm of govt would not only be overtly intrusive in its questioning, politically selective, and then turn around and leak that confidential info to friendly media all with the open endorsement of leftists just shows why there can never be any compromise.

See I do think this is a watershed moment. Will it take down Obama? Probably not.

The watershed is that a lot of people who were already skeptical and distrustful of govt , which includes most moderates and centrists, see the true colors of the US political left.

The damage will be done, not by the scandal itself. But rather by the reaction of the coastal liberal elites to the scandal. How can you trust people who want expansive new govt programs and powers, when they openly advocate using the most intrusive powers of govt as political tools?

Try and not lie to yourselves, you know if this was a Republican President you would be all over this like fly's on shit.

Woe Nelly!

I know my history and also that the IRS fucked up super bad here. I was attempting to make fun by quoting Saturday Night Live from last night. Targetting anyone for political reasons is simply unacceptable and ruins the trust of an organization that needs trust as a paramount. So relax

On another note, I am proud to be a "Lefty". Things like separation of church and state, a woman's right to choose, womens health care, birth control, Planned Parenthood, PBS Obamacare, and other agenda items are near and dear to my heart DESPITE the fact that I cannot personally take advantage of many of these subjects.

In conclusion, noone that reaches the office of President is stupid enough to use the IRS as a weapon to fulfill a political agenda. I am very surprised that you are that naive. Well ok, maybe Bush and Cheney might have.

For someone like you who's intellect I respect to allow some of the far right's policies to move forward is just SHOCKING and DISTURBING to me. You seem to hold personal liberty so dear EXCEPT when it comes to a woman's body, and other things that someone with librarian ideals should absolutely never allow. Allowing Romney to be President would have been the biggest travesty to personal liberty in recent history in my opinion.

You know good and damn well that the abortion argument isn't that simple. You and sini continue to try to frame your side such that any argument against it appears to be heartless and uncaring. It is total bullshit and you know it. Nevermind the fact that Derid isn't on record being a crazy eyed anti-abortion supporter. So, why don't you share with us some of the things that you claim he supports that "[sic] librarian ideals should absolutely never allow"? Has he espoused support for abolishing the dewey decimal system when we weren't looking?

For the record, Derid has no need of my intrusion on this topic, but I cannot stand to watch you guys lie in an effort to hold the rest of us out as pariahs.

You, however, just said in exactly these words that you support Planned Parenthood, and claim to be well educated about your beliefs and the things you support. So, based on the way that you and sini leap to conclusions about the rest of us, we can now say that you hate black people, the infirm and the generally less productive members of society.



This woman entitles a chapter in one of her books "the cruelty of charity" and she is a hero of the left.

I'm sure none of this, nor the fact that the vast majority of Planned Parenthood offices are located in inner city minority dominated areas, will change your mind because you see me as a closed minded bigot (irony?) and nothing I say is worth you even reading all the way through. My sincere hope is that the other folks reading this will see that your attempts to discredit us for not caring are rooted in the soil of dishonesty at best and out right evil at worst.

The beauty of the argument of the left is that it is always couched in such a way that it allows you to shut off your brain and say "yes, I agree with this because it makes me feel good to think that the things I espouse will help people" and you never bother to look at where it actually comes from or what its actual impact is.

The simple truth is, life is hard and is full of hard choices. Let us know when you wake up from your stupor and want to start helping the civilized world work through the hard choices instead of just supporting the ideas that make you feel good.

I think the only naive thing, is to think that someone with the political muscle to become President, can do so without having tiers of loyal minions fighting dirty on their behalf - or that silent and passive approval cant and wont roll down hill to influence ambitious bottom feeders.

Sorry, I have studied far to much history to believe otherwise - and unlike many people am not under any illusions that the politicians in this decade are any different that any others one, two, three, four, or 14 decades ago. (Many Presidents have used IRS as a political weapon, historically speaking - Nixon and FDR immediately come to mind).

Do I think Obama personally wrote a memo to IRS folks telling them to target political enemies, and scrawled his John Doe large on it? Of course not. That does not change the fact that he has been very careful to make sure that there is as little outside investigation as possible. It does not change the fact that he has ignored the rule of law when he did not want to be inconvenienced, and has even outdone Bush and Cheney in terms of secrecy and intimidating and persecuting whistleblowers.

As far as the other things you talk about, when have I ever been anything but opposed to separation of Church and State?

When it comes to abortion, I have never been "pro life". True, I think that issue falls about at the bottom in terms of importance, but thats just because we have so many truly dire problems at hand.

As far as Romney.... I am still split on him. Obama is pretty bad. But on the other hand.. Romney is no friend to liberty. It could well in fact have turned out, that a President Romney would have been the way they finally did manage to disarm the public. In that regard, Romney could have gotten away with a lot with far less pushback than Obama.

I honestly dont get why you like Obamacare though. Even if you like the "idea" of Obamacare, I cant see how you could have supported that legislation. Have you ever actually read it? Tell me that if you had an team of underlings at work submit a systems implementation plan of similar quality , for a project that would have a massive impact on the future of the company, that you would not fire them on the spot.

I named lots of issues and you focus on the most politically charged. Facts are simple.




By defunding PP, you lose all these other services. Right wing people who are for this DONT CARE.

This was such a big part of Romney's campaign that if you supported him and the Republican agenda, I can say confidently that you care nothing for poor women's health care.

THIS IS THE POINT I WAS MAKING. Pro life / Pro Choice, that is not the major issue, although it is an important one to me.

In my case, and the reality of the matter is you have to pick the lessor of the two evils. I am not a blind liberal. I have to pick the lessor of the two evils. Voting for someone with no chance is a cop out. Ron Paul never had even a slight chance. SO by default, you are against all the things I posted. That is the point I am trying to make. Your personal beliefs are appreciated, but a vote for anyone other that Obama meant that in the last choice of the two candidates, all the things I mentioned are not important enough for you to compromise. That is a boiled down fact.

Thanks for making my point.

I dont buy that Jet, not at all. Even if Obama was the "lesser" evil than Romney, which while possible is still pretty thin- supporting evil is still supporting evil.

Are there times where it is logical to compromise? Sure, absolutely.

Obama vs Romney? Heh. We were screwed with either one of those guys.

Sorry, saying you defacto support X, Y, or Z, because you didnt vote for a terribly shitty guy who stands for a lot of bad things but *doesnt* support X, Y, or Z is a crock of bullshit and you know it.

It is a total fallacy promulgated by those who fervently wish to help people rationalize making unethical decisions at the polling place. (aka, Dem and GOP leaders)

I will only support a candidate or cause if I can do it and still sleep at night. Neither Romney nor Obama fit that bill. And it sure doesnt mean I support X,Y, or Z - just because a large portion of the country is silly enough to fall into that mental trap and support one of those two losers.

Ahh the principle purist. I respect you, but it has got to be frustrating.

I wouldnt actually consider myself a purist. Just both Obama and Romney, were in fact just that BAD. I could support a Reagan, or a Bill Clinton (never Hillary, she is not Bill and woes is us if she convinces people she is), or an Eisenhower. None of which I would consider ideologically pure.

Calling someone a purist for snubbing the likes of Obama and Romney is like calling someone a food snob for declining to partake of either the roast cow shit, or the grilled pig shit.

What? Isnt the food good enough for you? Damn foodie.

My comment was actually a compliment. I wish I was more of a purist instead of being so jaded and willing to compromise principle for agenda.