posted November 01, 2012 10:56 AM            

I can't imagine how your response could be more wrong IQ.

First, you ask a rhetorical question..about US personnel deliberately firing on women and children. But, US personnel have no such history. Terrorists do have that history.

Then you say CIA personnel chose NOT to disobey orders and go to the aid of Stevens and other State Dept personnel. Wrong. Disobey orders is exactly what they did do and they expected military backup to arrive. They were lighting up terrorist mortar positions with lasers expecting the arrival of laser guided munitions when they were killed. O'Bomber "SAYS" he gave orders to help them but this attack lasted 7 hours. Help was about 1-2 hours away and it never arrived. O'Bomber is either a liar or someone countermanded O'Bomber's order. Now who has the authority to countermand the orders of the Commander in Chief of US military forces? Hmmmm?

Then, you say the terrorists were not affiliated with al-Qaeda but were merely pro-Qaddafi. Wrong again. They may have been pro-Qaddafi but they were positively identified as an al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist group and in fact, Stevens sent a classified cable to Hillary Clinton asking for more security personnel and identifying the very group who attacked the compound. Hillary Clinton took no action on Steven's request for more security personnel.

What's happening here is that O'Bomber is trying to run out the clock by delaying talking about what happened at Benghazi and delaying any investigation until after the election. It stinks to high heaven.

Other than getting it all wrong IQ, you were right!

posted November 01, 2012 12:05 PM            

Need I remind you acoustic that you're the radical extremist who called terrorists who deliberately killed unarmed women and children in Iraq "Ballsy"..for killing people they didn't know? Need I remind you how extreme and radical identifying with and praising terrorists really is?

Need I remind you acoustic that you're the radical extremist who castigated the United States and the people of the United States for not packaging up a water treatment plant and shipping it to Saddam Hussein while he was building his palaces in Iraq and killing his own citizens...some with chemical weapons? Need I remind you acoustic how extreme and radical that really is?

Need I remind you acoustic that you're the radical extremist who called George W Bush a murderer and attempted to use the 6th Commandment from the Old Testament to back up your radical extremism...getting it all wrong, as usual. Need I remind you acoustic how extreme and radical that really is?

Don't even try to pretend your views are anywhere close to "mainstream America" or "middle of the road" acoustic. The viewpoints you've expressed here are the very definition of leftist radical extremism.

Nevertheless acoustic, I've enjoyed forcing you into taking those radical extreme positions. You've been the perfect foil and I don't want you to change a thing.

posted November 01, 2012 12:49 PM            

There was no praising of terrorists in our conversation. You're trying to dress up what I said in a way that you think benefits you. I said that ANYONE that kills another innocent person is inherently ballsy, which is a true statement. That is not to be taken out of context. You had said that terrorists were cowards, which has never been a rational sentiment.

I didn't castigate the United States, that was Republican Richard Lugar. See? Your memory is every bit as crappy as you try to suppose mine is.

Once again, I remind you that it WASN'T me that started a thread calling Bush a murderer. That was someone else. You were looking to bully people in that thread, and specifically looking for someone to relate murder to the ten commandments. We recently re-addressed that notion, and you went characteristically silent after I laid the easy case that Christianity is not pro-killing.

quote:

---

Don't even try to pretend your views are anywhere close to "mainstream America" or "middle of the road" acoustic. The viewpoints you've expressed here are the very definition of leftist radical extremism.

---

There is no need for me to pretend. I am, and always have been moderate. Not only so, but I correctly called the last Presidential election, while you did not. You've proven to be consistently out of touch with mainstream America. Everyone already knows this about you, and as a result it's YOU that is here pretending to be something you're obviously not.

quote:

---

Nevertheless acoustic, I've enjoyed forcing you into taking those radical extreme positions. You've been the perfect foil and I don't want you to change a thing.

---

The idea that you could "force" me into anything is laughable. Everyone also knows this. No attempts at re-engineering my image or character are ever likely to take hold.

quote:

---

I even enjoy it when you attempt to speak for everyone else on this forum...as you did in your last response. And I especially enjoy it when you call on other members to support your radical extremist and indefensible positions. It is a sign of weakness but you do need all the help you can get.

---

posted November 01, 2012 02:53 PM            

You said America "oppressed/repressed the Iraqi people by failing to send a water treatment plant to Saddam Hussein. You further said...when I pressed you...that by extension..the American people "oppressed/repressed the Iraqi people by failing to send a water treatment plant to Saddam Hussein.

Calling terrorists "Ballsy" for killing unarmed civilian women and children they don't know IS praising terrorists and attesting to their bravery. What trash.

I don't give a rat's ass who started the thread in question. YOU are the one who called Bush a murderer and YOU attempted to use the 6th Commandment from the Old Testament to back up you utter bovid excrement. It was necessary to straighten you out...as usual acoustic. The King James translation of the 6th Commandment..Thou shalt not kill...is a mis-translation, as any biblical scholar will tell you. The correct translation from the ancient text is...Thou shalt not commit murder, which is an entirely different matter.

Now acoustic, would you like to have a discussion with me about Franklin Roosevelt, Bill Clinton and Barack Hussein O'Bomber NOT being murderers under the very same insane construction you attempted to use for George Bush? Would you acoustic? Just say NO THEY'RE NOT acoustic and you're on.

And acoustic, would you like a discussion about Roosevelt's, Clinton's and O'Bomber's "Christian" status in view of your remark..."Christianity is not pro-killing". Or, did that only extend to George W Bush?

What you said is in no way "mainstream America" or "middle of the road" or "consensus thinking" in the United States.

It's the irrational, illogical, unreasonable, extremist, radical leftist viewpoints you were forced into taking to oppose the mainstream views I put forth.

posted November 01, 2012 03:18 PM            

I presented everything accurately as I generally do.

What I said about the water treatment plant came straight from Richard Lugar's testimony, which I cited. By extension, we are a representation of our government. There's no getting around the truthfulness of that statement. You didn't win the Oil for Food debate. You tried, and you failed.

quote:

---

Calling terrorists "Ballsy" for killing unarmed civilian women and children they don't know IS praising terrorists and attesting to their bravery. What trash.

---

No. Making an accurate statement is neither praising terrorists nor trash. You're opportunistically trying to spin something that's obviously false here.

quote:

---

I don't give a rat's ass who started the thread in question. YOU are the one who called Bush a murderer

---

No. Someone else put forward that Bush was a murderer. I just said that they were justified in that position. You pushed for a 6th Commandment showdown knowing that you could get Bush off on a technicality. You still lose the overall point, because Christianity doesn't advocate killing whether lawful or unlawful. Only in your fantastical brain can you believe you've come to some "Gotcha" moment with me because of that thread.

quote:

---

Now acoustic, would you like to have a discussion with me about Franklin Roosevelt, Bill Clinton and Barack Hussein O'Bomber NOT being murderers under the very same insane construction you attempted to use for George Bush? Would you acoustic? Just say NO THEY'RE NOT acoustic and you're on.

---

As I said, I wasn't the one to start that thread, nor that line of thinking. Here you are trying to bait me once again as correctly pointed out that you did in the previous thread. Funny how obvious you are about everything.

quote:

---

And acoustic, would you like a discussion about Roosevelt's, Clinton's and O'Bomber's "Christian" status in view of your remark..."Christianity is not pro-killing". Or, did that only extend to George W Bush?

---

Christianity is not pro-killing. That's all there is to say. I wasn't here to judge whether Bush or any other politician is a Christian.

quote:

---

What you said is in no way "mainstream America" or "middle of the road" or "consensus thinking" in the United States.

---

What I said when?
You'venever been in a place where you could depict what mainstream America is about, because you haven't been in touch with it for some time. Meanwhile, I have. Not only so, but I consistently bring accuracy to this forum, whereas you do not.

quote:

---

It's the irrational, illogical, unreasonable, extremist, radical leftist viewpoints you were forced into taking to oppose the mainstream views I put forth.

---

No, you would have to put forward both mainstream as well as rational points for that to be true. You have a terrible record on both counts.

quote:

---

Hahaha, and here you are again trying to get support from the usual suspects here acoustic. Didn't I tell you how weak that is?

---

Where? Are we just making stuff up now? Oh yeah, that's your modus operandi.

I don't need people to confirm that I'm being accurate. I know I am. If people would also like to opine in concurrence with my position it would be silly to be opposed to that. It wouldn't be weak in the slightest.

Being weak is putting forward nonsense, and resorting to changing the subject in order to get out of answering for it. You don't get much support, because there's none to get. If you're wrong, and people support you, then by the mathematical transitive property, they are also wrong. Any supporter of yours would just have their position destroyed as easily as your positions are.

posted November 01, 2012 05:36 PM            

Don't try to lie here acoustic. You brought up the 6th Commandment to bolster your nonsense argument that Bush is a murderer. I never would have because it's an entirely bogus as well as unbibical argument for anyone to make.

"Someone else put forward that Bush was a murderer. I just said that they were justified in that position."...acoustic

You just can't help yourself can you acoustic? You always manage to step in the excrement!

So acoustic, using your..ummm...powers of reason and logic; was Franklin Roosevelt a "murderer"? Are Bill Clinton and Barack Hussein O'Bomber "murderers" too?

posted November 01, 2012 07:04 PM            

quote:

---

Don't try to lie here acoustic. You brought up the 6th Commandment to bolster your nonsense argument that Bush is a murderer. I never would have because it's an entirely bogus as well as unbibical argument for anyone to make.

---

You're welcome to quote me.

quote:

---

"Someone else put forward that Bush was a murderer. I just said that they were justified in that position."...acoustic

You just can't help yourself can you acoustic? You always manage to step in the excrement!

---

What do you mean? If you disagree with me, maybe you should check yourself. I think you'll find that it's you that's stepping in the excrement. You keep talking about having a better memory than I do, but it's quite clear to me that you don't. I wasn't the one to bring it up. Nor did I argue against it when it was corrected initially (by someone that wasn't you). The whole conversation shows a typically moderate me.

quote:

---

So acoustic, using your..ummm...powers of reason and logic; was Franklin Roosevelt a "murderer"? Are Bill Clinton and Barack Hussein O'Bomber "murderers" too?

---

Are we talking about these people? Did someone else say that they were murderers? Would it be impossible for people to be of that opinion?

quote:

---

acoustic, I've told you on at least 4 occasions that attempting to get other members here to agree with you is a sign of weakness.

---

Very little is ever determined by what YOU have to say about something. Telling me it's a sign of weakness has never and will never create the reality that you are correct in your assertion, will it?

posted November 02, 2012 10:30 AM            

In other words acoustic, you said Bush is a murderer!

Since my memory is far better than yours acoustic, you would be wise to defer to me when I say YOU are the one who brought up the 6th Commandment to prove Bush is a murderer. I am the one who called you on your nonsense.

Don't think I didn't notice you ducked, bobbed, weaved and evaded when I asked you if Bush was a murderer...using you warped logic..then was Roosevelt a murderer and are Bill Clinton and Barack Hussein O'Bomber also murderers?

You never see it coming do you acoustic? You always step in the crap. Either through your extreme hypocrisy..as in this case where you attempt to apply a different standard to Bush than you do to your leftist heroes Roosevelt, Clinton and O'Bomber or because of your radical extremist ideology where when I goaded you, you ripped American citizens for repressing/oppressing Iraqi citizens. And what did you rip America and American citizens for acoustic? The most radical, extreme, absurd, ridiculous, harebrained notion I've ever seen on this forum acoustic.

According to you acoustic, America and American citizens were guilty FOR NOT packaging up a water treatment plant and shipping it to Saddam Hussein...while Saddam was busy building his palaces in Iraq and killing his own citizens there...instead of refurbishing his own water treatment plants.

Question acoustic.

What are you going to do if BornUnderDioscuri
shows up on this thread and confirms everything I said about your involvement in accusing Bush of murder...according to the 6th Commandment of the Old Testament. She was part of that discussion.

And acoustic, what are you going to do if pidaua, now BearsArcher shows up on this thread and confirms what I said about you accusing America and Americans of being guilty of repression/oppression for not shipping a water treatment plant to Saddam. She was part of that discussion.

Oh, I know acoustic. Deny, Deny, Deny!

Put away any nonsense that you are in any way "mainstream" America or "middle of the road" acoustic. Not in America acoustic. Perhaps in Fidel's Cuba but not in America.

posted November 02, 2012 12:07 PM            

quote:

---

In other words acoustic, you said Bush is a murderer!

---

I'm going to post the thread for you, so we can be done with this nonsense.

This started out with your typical desire to bring me down a peg. Now we're miles off course on a tangent that's not relevant at all to the original topic, and is not damaging to me personally in any way whatsoever.

quote:

---

Since my memory is far better than yours acoustic, you would be wise to defer to me when I say YOU are the one who brought up the 6th Commandment to prove Bush is a murderer. I am the one who called you on your nonsense.

---

No, I wasn't. It was Blue Roamer. Thanks for revealing your idiocy to yourself. Your ideas about your memory are as deluded as your conclusions that you have authority on virtually ANY topic.
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/003298.html

quote:

---

Don't think I didn't notice you ducked, bobbed, weaved and evaded when I asked you if Bush was a murderer...using you warped logic..then was Roosevelt a murderer and are Bill Clinton and Barack Hussein O'Bomber also murderers?

---

Avoiding a tangential conversation that doesn't progress the conversation we're having is not ducking, bobbing, or weaving. Your attempt at steering the conversation that way was an attempt at changing the subject.

quote:

---

You never see it coming do you acoustic? You always step in the crap. Either through your extreme hypocrisy..as in this case where you attempt to apply a different standard to Bush than you do to your leftist heroes Roosevelt, Clinton and O'Bomber or because of your radical extremist ideology where when I goaded you, you ripped American citizens for repressing/oppressing Iraqi citizens.

---

Total nonsense. There is no hypocrisy here as there was no judgment from me in the first place. You didn't goad me into "ripping" American citizens. I stated a fact, a fact that remains salient regardless of how you try to twist it in your mind into something else.

quote:

---

According to you acoustic, America and American citizens were guilty FOR NOT packaging up a water treatment plant and shipping it to Saddam Hussein...while Saddam was busy building his palaces in Iraq and killing his own citizens there...instead of refurbishing his own water treatment plants.

---

Do you think you won a point here or something? Do we need to resurrect the Oil for Food threads, so we can rehash all of your failed arguments?
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/001268-4.html

quote:

---

What are you going to do if BornUnderDioscuri
shows up on this thread and confirms everything I said about your involvement in accusing Bush of murder...according to the 6th Commandment of the Old Testament. She was part of that discussion.

---

Point her to the thread.

quote:

---

And acoustic, what are you going to do if pidaua, now BearsArcher shows up on this thread and confirms what I said about you accusing America and Americans of being guilty of repression/oppression for not shipping a water treatment plant to Saddam. She was part of that discussion.

---

Point her to the thread.

quote:

---

Put away any nonsense that you are in any way "mainstream" America or "middle of the road" acoustic. Not in America acoustic. Perhaps in Fidel's Cuba but not in America.

---

I don't have to. I know that I'm far more part of the mainstream than you'll ever be.

posted November 03, 2012 12:02 AM            

Correct

"I think you're wrong on that one. It's a very simply stated commandment (6th) that was put forth without condition."...acoustic

Incorrect and here you agree Bush is a murderer.

"Labeling someone a murderer for initiating a war is something that is quite universally common."...acoustic

Incorrect again and here you agree Bush is a murder.

"You don't see Bush as a killer/murderer, and BlueRoamer does. SGA, Dulce, Johnny, and I can both justify the label..."acoustic

Incorrect again and here you agree Bush is a murderer.

"When you send thousands of people off to kill whether you consider lawful or otherwise, you're going to be called a killer, because you facilitated it. It's that simple. That wasn't enough for you, but that IS the answer."....acoustic

Incorrect again acoustic and here you once again reinforce you view Bush is a murderer.

And here's the reason your idiotic response was not only radical, extreme, out of the mainstream but utterly wrong acoustic.

"As I have said before and as biblical scholars have attested to for many years acoustic, the 6th Commandment does not speak to killing per se but to MURDER...the deliberate killing of those innocent of any wrong doing. We've had this discussion before acoustic. Perhaps you'll get it this time.
"However, like English, Hebrew, the language in which most of the Old Testament was written, uses different words for intentional vs. unintentional killing. The verse translated "Thou shalt not kill" in the KJV translation, is translated "You shall not murder"2 in modern translations - because these translations represents the real meaning of the Hebrew text. The Bible in Basic English translates the phrase, "Do not put anyone to death without cause."2 The Hebrew word used here is ratsach,3 which nearly always refers to intentional killing without cause (unless indicated otherwise by context). Hebrew law recognized accidental killing as not punishable. In fact, specific cities were designated as "cities of refuge," so that an unintentional killer could flee to escape retribution.4 The Hebrew word for "kill" in this instance is not ratsach, but nakah, which can refer to either premeditated or unintentional killing, depending upon context.5 Other Hebrew words also can refer to killing.6-8 The punishment for murder was the death sentence.9 However, to be convicted, there needed to be at least two eyewitnesses.10" http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/notkill.html

So now acoustic, since you said all that..which is exactly what I said you said...by the way and in the context of the 6th Commandment..."It's a very simply stated commandment (6th) that was put forth without condition", here's some further questions to flesh out your hypocrisy or radical extremisn; one or the other, you choose acoustic.

When Roosevelt ordered the bombing of German cities...including fire bombing which killed hundreds of thousands of German civilians, did that make Roosevelt a murderer?

When Bill Clinton ordered the high altitude bombing of Serbia with gravity bombs dropped by B-52s for 78 straight days which killed many civilians did that make Clinton a murderer?

When Barack Hussein O'Bomber cut orders releasing armed drones to fire missiles on suspected terrorists and fighter/bombers to fire missiles and laser guided bombs on suspected terrorists but hit and killed civilians did that make O'Bomber a murderer?

So acoustic, are you just a little tin plated hypocrite or are you a radical rabble rousing extremist?

posted November 03, 2012 12:17 AM            

Obama 2012 campaign slogan is “Forward.” The operational motto of the Obama administration is “Cheese.” As in “say cheese.” From hollow Greek columns to strategically released Situation Room candids, the Paparazzi President has put self-serving optics above all else.

What did we get after four long years of expertly staged Kabuki-theater-meets-Potemkin-village productions? Sixteen trillion dollars in debt, a pile of dead bodies, troops at increased risk and a gallery of tax-subsidized Kodachrome pictures creating the grand illusion of leadership.

On Monday night, as Hurricane Sandy bore down on the East Coast, Team Obama’s image consultants released a photo showing POTUS purportedly in charge. The White House sent the picture out to 3.2 million Twitter followers with the message: “Photo: President Obama receives an update on the ongoing response to Hurricane #Sandy in the Situation Room.”

On Tuesday morning, the White House sent out another Situation Room photo with Obama — pen in hand, gilded coffee cup to the side, leaning intently toward a videoconference monitor — getting a Sandy update.

A White House caption informs us that Obama was flanked by “John Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism; Tony Blinken, National Security Advisor to the Vice President; David Agnew, Director for Intergovernmental Affairs; Alyssa Mastromonaco, Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations; and Chief of Staff Jack Lew.”

In his halcyon days, the images would have prompted an avalanche of social media swooning. But with a tornado of unanswered questions and swirling lies in Washington surrounding the president’s dereliction of duty during the 9/11/12 terrorist attack on our diplomatic staff and security personnel in Libya, informed Twitter users wanted to know only one thing:

What about Benghazi?

“Oh, so NOW the president is in the situation room?” conservative activist and blogger Melissa Clouthier responded. “But he went to bed during Benghazi.” Conservative writer and blogger Elizabeth Scalia asked: “How DEAF is the (White House)? They release photo of Obama in Situation Room monitoring storm? Where is (the) pic of him in that room, monitoring BENGHAZI?” When CBS News reporter Mark Knoller shared one of the White House photos on his Twitter feed, North Carolina small-businessman Aaron LePrell asked: “(C)an you request a picture of the Benghazi situation room for us?”

Visual hagiography is a staple of any White House administration. But the selective frequency with which the White House “Message: I’m working here, I’m really working here” photos have been disseminated has become a running joke. White House photographer Pete Souza’s Twitter feed and Flickr uploads serve as Agitprop Central for all White House-approved, behind-the-scenes-leadership glamour shots. A sample of photo captions:

–President Barack Obama convenes a conference call at Camp David with Homeland Security Advisor John Brennan, FBI Director Robert Mueller and Chief of Staff Jack Lew to discuss the shooting at a Wisconsin shopping mall, Sunday, Oct. 21, 2012.

–President Barack Obama holds a conference call with advisors to discuss the Aurora, Colo., shootings, during the motorcade ride to Palm Beach International Airport in Palm Beach, Fla., July 20, 2012.

–President Barack Obama receives a national security briefing from John Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security, in Martha’s Vineyard, Mass., Aug. 19, 2011.

–Reflected in a mirror, President Barack Obama conducts a conference call with his national security staff, including John Brennan (right), Assistant to the President for Counterterrorism, on the situation in Libya in Chilmark, Mass., August 22, 2011.

–President Barack Obama talks on the phone with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, in Chilmark, Mass., Aug. 23, 2011.

Yep, phoning it in as usual. Not until the coffins of the four Americans murdered in Libya returned to the U.S. does the word “Benghazi” appear in the official White House photostream on Flickr. A search for the tag “Benghazi” yields the following result:

“The White House doesn’t have anything tagged with Benghazi.”

The omission is telling, but no surprise. For all the daily attempts to manufacture images of competence, strength, decisiveness and leadership, Obama’s stage managers can’t shake the stubborn perception — and reality —of abject fecklessness and manipulation.

Remember: Obama’s campaign staff cooked up faux presidential seals complete with eagle’s head and the pretentious Latin phrase “Vero Possumus” (“yes, we can”). His stagehands outfitted Obamacare advocates with phony-baloney white lab coats. He publicly joked about turning a visit with U.S. soldiers abroad into “a pretty good photo op.” If he could have, he would have imprinted the world-famous May 2011 Situation Room photo taken during the bin Laden raid on “Obama for America” mugs and T-shirts.

And over the past four years, the Poser of the United States has shamelessly exploited the ultimate prop: his majestic tax-subsidized plane. A Los Angeles Times headline gushed approvingly last week: “Obama campaign rolls out its biggest prop: Air Force One.” In 2009, White House staff organized a narcissistic flyover stunt of the plane over New York City’s Statue of Liberty that terrified unsuspecting residents, who thought it was a terrorist attack. The White House refused to release all but one of the photos taken during the profligate joy ride.

America can’t afford another four years of empty gestures and exploitation at the expense of our economic and national security. It’s time for the poser-in-chief to exit stage left.
http://www.humanevents.com/2012/11/02/malkinposer-of-the-united-states-the-photo-op-presidency/

posted November 03, 2012 02:14 AM            

Now, when you refer to the thread I provided, you're trying to sell your interpretation of events.

You notice the difference?

quote:

---

Incorrect and here you agree Bush is a murderer.

---

Not incorrect. The 6th commandment is simply stated, and put forth without condition. That I didn't know it technically meant murder does not invalidate the statement. Nor is the suggestion that murder and killing are very similar. In fact, while finding that thread Google took it upon itself to give me threads with the word "kill," (with highlighting) though "murder" was my search term.

What's more important here, however, is that neither killing nor murder is moral in Christianity, so dissecting what Johnny and Blue Roamer started with, they weren't off the mark. Correcting the meaning of the sixth commandment doesn't diminish the conditions for judgment. Once again we have a wide context view, and there was an attempt to minimize it.

BUD made the initial correction on that front, not you. There was no debate after that about the sixth commandment. There is no travesty in a person being mistaken on the technical meaning of the sixth commandment in relation to Christians, as Christian aren't supposed to engage in either practice.

You're trying to make that rather easy and moderate conversation, which you were barely a part of, some sort of outrageous statement. It's not outrageous for anyone to see a person responsible for death as a poor Christian.

quote:

---

"Labeling someone a murderer for initiating a war is something that is quite universally common."...acoustic

Incorrect again and here you agree Bush is a murder.

---

It's not incorrect. People that initiate wars are often called murderers and killers. There is no argument against such a statement.
Nor in saying that is one calling Bush a murderer.

quote:

---

"You don't see Bush as a killer/murderer, and BlueRoamer does. SGA, Dulce, Johnny, and I can both justify the label..."acoustic

Incorrect again and here you agree Bush is a murderer.

---

Love how you cut short what I said there: "SGA, Dulce, Johnny, and I can both justify the label and the idea of Bush as responsible for death. For "death." Being responsible for "death" is still a problem under Christian morals, right?

quote:

---

"When you send thousands of people off to kill whether you consider lawful or otherwise, you're going to be called a killer, because you facilitated it. It's that simple. That wasn't enough for you, but that IS the answer."....acoustic

Incorrect again acoustic and here you once again reinforce you view Bush is a murderer.

---

No, I reinforce the view that Bush is a killer. After the translation of the sixth commandment was cleared up, murder dropped from my statements if you haven't noticed.

quote:

---

And here's the reason your idiotic response was not only radical, extreme, out of the mainstream but utterly wrong acoustic.

---

Save me the BS. Number one BUD had already pointed that out. Number two, regardless of the meaning of the sixth commandment killing is still out of line with Christianity. There's nothing remotely radical, extreme, or out of the mainstream about having views born out by the religion itself.

quote:

---

So now acoustic, since you said all that..which is exactly what I said you said...by the way and in the context of the 6th Commandment..."It's a very simply stated commandment (6th) that was put forth without condition", here's some further questions to flesh out your hypocrisy or radical extremisn; one or the other, you choose acoustic.

---

It's not EXACTLY how you said it was. It's not even close to how you said it was. That's why I posted the thread...so everyone including YOU could see exactly how much of a moron you were being about the whole thing.

quote:

---

When Roosevelt ordered the bombing of German cities...including fire bombing which killed hundreds of thousands of German civilians, did that make Roosevelt a murderer?

---

Once again, you're going off topic, and you're trying to bait me into something you think you can win at. You can't. There is no hypocrisy in the opinions expressed in that thread, nor is there today. Any Christian involving in killing or murdering is going against his/her religion. That's a fact, and it's not a disputable one.

quote:

---

So acoustic, are you just a little tin plated hypocrite or are you a radical rabble rousing extremist?

---

posted November 03, 2012 06:37 PM            

Thomas Sowell

Confidence men know that their victim — “the mark” — is eventually going to realize that he has been cheated. But it makes a big difference whether he realizes it immediately, and goes to the police, or realizes it after the confidence man is long gone.

So part of the confidence racket is creating a period of uncertainty during which the victim is not yet sure of what is happening. This delaying process has been called “cooling out the mark.”

The same principle applies in politics. When the accusations that led to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton first surfaced, he flatly denied them all. Then, as the months passed, the truth came out — but gradually, bit by bit. One of Clinton’s own White House aides later called it “telling the truth slowly.”

By the time the whole truth came out, it was called “old news,” and the clever phrase now was that we should “move on.”

It was a successful “cooling out” of the public, keeping them in uncertainty so long that, by the time the whole truth came out, there was no longer the same outrage as if the truth had suddenly come out all at once. Without the support of an outraged public, the impeachment of President Clinton fizzled out in the Senate.

We are currently seeing another “cooling out” process growing out of the terrorist attack on the American consulate in Benghazi on September 11 this year.

The belated release of State Department e-mails shows that the Obama administration knew, while the attack on the American consulate was still underway, that it was a coordinated, armed terrorist attack. They were getting reports from those inside the consulate who were under attack, as well as surveillance pictures from a camera on an American drone overhead.

About an hour before the attack, the scene outside was calm enough for the American ambassador to accompany a Turkish official to the gates of the consulate to say goodbye. This could hardly have happened if there had been protesting mobs there.

Why then did both President Obama and U.N. ambassador Susan Rice keep repeating the story that this was a spontaneous protest riot against an anti-Islamic video in America?

The White House knew the facts — but they knew that the voting public did not. And it mattered hugely whether the facts became known to the public before or after the election. What the White House needed was a process of “cooling out” the voters.

Not only did the Obama administration keep repeating the false story about an anti-Islamic video being the cause of a riot that turned violent, but the man who produced that video was tracked down and arrested, creating a media distraction.

All this kept the video story front and center, with the actions and inactions of the Obama administration in the background.

The White House had to know that it was only a matter of time before the truth would come out. But time was what mattered with an election close at hand. The longer they could stretch out the period of distraction and uncertainty, the better. Once the confidence man in the White House was reelected, it would be politically irrelevant what facts came out.

As the Obama administration’s video story began to slowly unravel, their earlier misstatements were blamed on “the fog of war” that initially obscures many events. But there was no such “fog of war” in this case. The Obama administration knew what was happening while it was happening.

They didn’t know all the details — and we may never know all the details — but they knew enough to know that this was no protest demonstration that got out of hand.

From the time it took office, the Obama administration has sought to suppress the very concept of a “war on terror,” or the terrorists’ war on us. The painful farce of calling the Fort Hood murders “workplace violence,” instead of a terrorist attack in our midst, shows how far the administration would go to downplay the dangers of Islamic-extremist terrorism.

The killing of Osama bin Laden fed the pretense that the terrorism threat had been beaten. But the terrorists’ attack in Libya exposed that fraud — and required another fraud to try to “cool out” the voters until after Election Day.

posted November 03, 2012 10:39 PM            

The lead editorials in the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal today offer stinging critiques of the Obama administration’s handling of Benghazi.

The Post notes that what happened in Benghazi “increasingly looks like a major security failure” and argues, “sooner or later the administration must answer questions” about that failure and “the policies that led to it.”

Why was there a security failure at the consulate, and how did U.S. forces in Libya and outside the country respond to the emergency? The result is a host of unanswered questions.

Following a single background briefing, the State Department has mostly refused to respond to inquiries about Benghazi, citing an ongoing investigation by a review board. But considerable evidence has emerged that Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, who died in the attack, and his security staff were deeply concerned about what they considered to be inadequate security. Fox News reported this week that a secret cable described an Aug. 15 “emergency meeting” at the consulate, at which the State Department’s regional security officer “expressed concerns with the ability to defend Post in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, host nation support and the overall size of the compound.”

Fox reported that the cable, dispatched to Washington, said the emergency meeting included a briefing about al-Qaeda training camps in the Benghazi area and Islamist militias, including those that allegedly carried out the Sept. 11 attack. In another cable on Sept. 11, hours before the attack, Mr. Stevens described “growing problems with security” in Benghazi and “growing frustration” with the local militias and police, to which the State Department had entrusted the consulate’s defense. Separately, according to a report on ForeignPolicy.com, Mr. Stevens may have dispatched a letter to Benghazi authorities, complaining that a policeman assigned to guard the consulate was photographing it on the morning of Sept. 11.

The Journal argues that the Obama administration has sought to avoid accountability by offering “evasive, inconsistent and conflicting accounts about one of the most serious American overseas defeats in recent years.” The editorial continues: “Unresolved questions about Benghazi loom over this election because the White House has failed to resolve them.”

Among those unanswered questions: “Why did the U.S. not heed warnings about a growing Islamist presence in Benghazi and better protect the diplomatic mission and CIA annex?” And: “What exactly happened on the day of 9/11? During the over six hours that the compounds in Benghazi were under siege, could the U.S. have done more to save lives?” And: “What was President Obama doing and ordering his subordinates to do in those fateful hours? Why has the Administration's story about what took place in Benghazi been so haphazard and unclear?”

posted November 03, 2012 10:45 PM            

2002: U.S. Consulate In Karachi, Pakistan, Attacked 10 Killed, 51 Injured
2004: U.S. Embassy Bombed In Uzbekistan 2 Killed, 9 Injured
2004: Gunmen Stormed U.S. Consulate In Saudi Arabia 8 Killed
2006: Armed Men Attacked U.S. Embassy In Syria 1 Killed, Several Injured
...2007: Grenade Launched Into U.S. Embassy In Athens

2008: Rioters Set Fire To U.S. Embassy In Serbia
2008: Ten People Killed In Bombings At U.S. Embassy In Yemen

2012 US Embassy in Benghazi, Libya attacked 4 Killed
Republicans become outraged and suddenly concerned with the safety and security of Americans abroad. NOW they demand investigations

posted November 04, 2012 11:43 PM            

What did President Barack Obama know and when did he know it? Why has the Obama administration kept changing its story about how Ambassador Chris Stevens, security officials Tyrone Woods of Imperial Beach and Glen Doherty of Encinitas, and information officer Sean Smith, who grew up in San Diego, died on Sept. 11 in Benghazi, Libya? Why won’t the mainstream media treat the incontrovertible evidence of the White House’s dishonesty and incompetence like the ugly scandal it obviously is?

These are all questions that demand to be answered after revelations that demolished the tidy narrative the president has been offering about Benghazi.

Until last week, the White House had taken a moderate hit over the fact that for two weeks after it happened, officials had fostered the impression that the four Americans were killed Sept. 11 in a spontaneous protest triggered by a blasphemous anti-Islam video posted on YouTube – not by a coordinated terrorist attack on the 11th anniversary of 9/11. But administration officials pushed back by saying the “fog of war” had left them uncertain about events, and that when White House press secretary Jay Carney and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice had cited the video, they were only repeating the best available information they had. The president’s repeated comments conveyed the impression that he wasn’t aware of the attacks as they were unfolding, saying only that the next day, he ordered increased security for embassies in the area.

But after a torrent of leaks of official emails and communiqués – likely coming from CIA officials who refuse to participate in a cover-up and/or who won’t accept the role of scapegoat – the “fog of war” narrative looks like damage control: a determined attempt to keep the facts from the public until after the Nov. 6 election. After the leaks, the president suddenly changed his story to say he was aware of the attacks as they unfolded and had quickly issued an order to “make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to.”

There was no “fog.” There was no spontaneous uprising. Thanks to a drone and other surveillance technology, the White House’s national security team knew in real time that the U.S. consulate and a “safe house” a mile away in Benghazi were under coordinated attack by a well-armed group, not from a protest that unexpectedly escalated. Over a seven-hour span on Sept. 11, the besieged Americans made at least two urgent requests for help; the U.S. military has considerable assets in the area that could have been deployed to Benghazi.

Who told the besieged Americans they were out of luck?

After hints appeared in the media that it was the CIA’s fault, the spy agency – obviously at the behest of CIA Director David Petraeus – put out a statement Friday that flatly denied it opposed coming to the rescue of Stevens, Woods, Doherty and Smith. At roughly the same time, in a TV interview, the president offered his new narrative of being aware of the crisis and taking decisive action, while refusing to answer the direct question of whether Americans in Benghazi requested help but were rejected. A day later, however, the White House said in fact that it had never received requests for help. This sets up the Pentagon to take the fall.

On Monday, incredibly, Obama acted put-upon by the questions about his administration’s integrity. In a TV appearance, he said, “I do take offense with some suggestion that in any way, we haven’t tried to make sure that the American people knew as the information was coming in what we believed.” Remember, the president made this statement only after leaks the previous week demolished his and his administration’s dishonest, intentionally misleading Benghazi narrative.

It has now been seven weeks since the terrorist attack. We deserve to know the truth. Charles Woods, father of Tyrone Woods, the former Navy SEAL from Imperial Beach, said it best in a Monday TV interview.

“I can’t imagine anyone with any heart that would watch a battle rage for seven hours knowing that heroes were there that were going to be slaughtered if you didn’t have help sent in. ... Whoever it was that was in that room watching that video of my son dying, their cries for help, their order ‘don’t help them at all, let them die’ ... you have the blood of my son, you have the blood of an American hero on your hands. I don’t know who you are, but one of these days the truth will come out.”

The senior Woods is correct. Inevitably, there will be a bipartisan fact-finding commission into this terrible tragedy and its cover-up.

Unless the mainstream media stops abetting the cover-up and the facts come out without a commission wielding subpoena power.

Isn’t this a story – a gigantic story?