View Full Version : Badgered: Obama Acts, but Republicans Not Satisfied
AP story!!!
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20130516/DA6AKR4O0.html
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama, seeking to regain his footing amid controversies hammering the White House, named a temporary chief for the scandal-marred Internal Revenue Service Thursday and pressed Congress to approve new security money to prevent another Benghazi-style terrorist attack.
The efforts did little to satisfy Republicans, who see the controversies as an opportunity to derail Obama's second-term agenda. House Speaker John Boehner suggested the White House had violated the public's trust, and he promised to "stop at nothing" to hold the administration accountable.
"Nothing dissolves the bonds between the people and their government like the arrogance of power here in Washington," Boehner said. "And that's what the American people are seeing today from the Obama administration - remarkable arrogance."
The targeting of conservative political groups by the IRS and new questions about the deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, last year - along with the Justice Department's seizure of journalists' phone records - have consumed the White House for nearly a week. Of the three controversies, the president's advisers see the IRS matter as the most likely to linger. At least three congressional committees are planning investigations into the agency that touches the lives of nearly every American.
Obama, who was criticized by both opponents and allies for his measured initial response to the IRS targeting, vowed to ensure the agency acts "scrupulously and without even a hint of bias."
"I think we're going to be able to fix it," he declared during a joint news conference with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
Soon afterward, Obama appointed senior budget official Danny Werfel to temporarily run the IRS, one day after Acting Commissioner Steven Miller's forced resignation. The White House is expected to nominate a permanent commissioner later this year.
However, the president knocked down the prospect of appointing a special prosecutor to investigate the IRS, saying the congressional investigations and a separate Justice Department probe should be enough to nail down who was responsible for improperly targeting tea party groups when they applied for tax-exempt status.
Obama and Erdogan were questioned during a light but steady rain during Thursday's outdoor event. As the rain picked up, the president summoned a pair of Marine guards to provide umbrellas for Erdogan and himself, joking, "I've got a change of suits, but I don't know about our prime minister."
The news conference marked Obama's first comments on the government's widely criticized seizure of telephone records of reporters and editors of The Associated Press in an investigation of news leaks. The president spoke of the importance of striking a balance between "secrecy and the right to know" but said he would make no apologies for trying to protect classified information that could put Americans at risk.
"I've still got 60,000-plus troops in Afghanistan, and I've still got a whole bunch of intelligence officers around the world who are in risky situations," he said. "Part of my job is to make sure that we're protecting what they do, while still accommodating for the need for information."
The president said he continues to have confidence in Attorney General Eric Holder, who has been the target of intense criticism from lawmakers after the phone record subpoenas were made public.
The IRS and Justice Department controversies have coincided with a revival in the GOP-led investigations into the September attacks in Benghazi, which claimed the lives of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans.
Obama, who angrily cast the investigations as a "sideshow" earlier this week, tried to turn the focus Thursday to Congress. He urged lawmakers to provide more money to strengthen security at U.S. diplomatic missions around the world.
"We need to come together and truly honor the sacrifice of those four courageous Americans and better secure our diplomatic posts around the world," Obama said. "That's how we learn the lessons of Benghazi. That's how we keep faith with the men and women who we send overseas to represent America
Snip
Trapper John
05-17-2013, 07:41
Blah, ba blah, blah, blah! O's rhetoric and responses are becoming soooo predictable!
Cue response #24 :D
Blah, ba blah, blah, blah! O's rhetoric and responses are becoming soooo predictable!
Cue response #24 :D
This link's premise is that Obama has proven himself to be transparent and Presidential. The organization he bugged is rallying around him.
It's the responses and rhetoric of the msm that has become predictable.
Trapper John
05-17-2013, 07:55
It's the responses and rhetoric of the msm that has become predictable.
Not so sure about that anymore. There is a palpable change in the media and the way they are handling this. And, Oh BTW, we have not heard the last from Bob Woodward, IMO. Remember how everyone mocked him when he complained about being threatened? I doubt that he has just been sitting on his hands.
Not so sure about that anymore. There is a palpable change in the media and the way they are handling this. And, Oh BTW, we have not heard the last from Bob Woodward, IMO. Remember how everyone mocked him when he complained about being threatened? I doubt that he has just been sitting on his hands.
TJ, did you read the story? This is written by the very news agency that was bugged, yet they're circling the wagons around Obama, regardless. That's predictable.
Woodward has been ostracized by the msm, incidentally. They threw him under Bus One months ago.
Trapper John
05-17-2013, 08:36
TJ, did you read the story? This is written by the very news agency that was bugged, yet they're circling the wagons around Obama, regardless. That's predictable.
Woodward has been ostracized by the msm, incidentally. They threw him under Bus One months ago.
Yeah I read it and I just don't see this as a one-sided op-ed piece. More just reporting of the news as it should be. Seemed fairly balanced to me and certainly not supportive of O.
I was replying to the responses of O as reported in this piece. They are very, very predictable as are the Republican responses.
As to Woodward, no one is going to marginalize him, IMO.
I think the genie is out of the bottle and a tipping point of sorts may have been reached. This is not going to go away and the truth is going to come out on all of it. :munchin
Yeah I read it and I just don't see this as a one-sided op-ed piece. More just reporting of the news as it should be. Seemed fairly balanced to me and certainly not supportive of O.
:eek: In that case, these are indeed not the 'droids you're looking for.
Yeah I read it and I just don't see this as a one-sided op-ed piece. More just reporting of the news as it should be. Seemed fairly balanced to me and certainly not supportive of O.
I was replying to the responses of O as reported in this piece. They are very, very predictable as are the Republican responses.
Balanced? Not supportive of O?
The article Dusty posted said this:
"The efforts did little to satisfy Republicans, who see the controversies as an opportunity to derail Obama's second-term agenda. House Speaker John Boehner suggested the White House had violated the public's trust, and he promised to "stop at nothing" to hold the administration accountable."
If this was balanced reporting, and the emphasis was on "doing what's right for Americans" vs "partisan gotcha", wouldn't Julie Pace's article omit the part I highlighted in orange? Are you certain that all Republicans are trying to derail Obama's second-term agenda vs doing what's right, i.e. standing up for the American people who don't want their trust violated?
Or if this was balanced reporting, where was the mention of the Dems using these controversies as an opportunity to paint all Repubs as bitter and crazy? I only see a slam on the Repubs in Julie Pace's article.
It's true that responses by both sides often seem "predictable", but what do you suggest? That if you see something that is wrong you shouldn't speak up lest someone view you as predictable?
Bottom line, AP has circled the wagons (or at least Julie Pace has) and is back on message, which is that Republicans care not for anything but destroying Obama, progress, and America itself. Tired, tired old message. But when all of the msm trots that out consistently, it's effective.
Balanced? Not supportive of O?
The article Dusty posted said this:
"The efforts did little to satisfy Republicans, who see the controversies as an opportunity to derail Obama's second-term agenda. House Speaker John Boehner suggested the White House had violated the public's trust, and he promised to "stop at nothing" to hold the administration accountable."
If this was balanced reporting, and the emphasis was on "doing what's right for Americans" vs "partisan gotcha", wouldn't Julie Pace's article omit the part I highlighted in orange? Are you certain that all Republicans are trying to derail Obama's second-term agenda vs doing what's right, i.e. standing up for the American people who don't want their trust violated?
Or if this was balanced reporting, where was the mention of the Dems using these controversies as an opportunity to paint all Repubs as bitter and crazy? I only see a slam on the Repubs in Julie Pace's article.
It's true that responses by both sides often seem "predictable", but what do you suggest? That if you see something that is wrong you shouldn't speak up lest someone view you as predictable?
Bottom line, AP has circled the wagons (or at least Julie Pace has) and is back on message, which is that Republicans care not for anything but destroying Obama, progress, and America itself. Tired, tired old message. But when all of the msm trots that out consistently, it's effective.
Somebody gets it. :cool:
Trapper John
05-17-2013, 13:08
Balanced? Not supportive of O?
The article Dusty posted said this:
"The efforts did little to satisfy Republicans, who see the controversies as an opportunity to derail Obama's second-term agenda. House Speaker John Boehner suggested the White House had violated the public's trust, and he promised to "stop at nothing" to hold the administration accountable."
If this was balanced reporting, and the emphasis was on "doing what's right for Americans" vs "partisan gotcha", wouldn't Julie Pace's article omit the part I highlighted in orange? Are you certain that all Republicans are trying to derail Obama's second-term agenda vs doing what's right, i.e. standing up for the American people who don't want their trust violated?
Or if this was balanced reporting, where was the mention of the Dems using these controversies as an opportunity to paint all Repubs as bitter and crazy? I only see a slam on the Repubs in Julie Pace's article.
It's true that responses by both sides often seem "predictable", but what do you suggest? That if you see something that is wrong you shouldn't speak up lest someone view you as predictable?
Bottom line, AP has circled the wagons (or at least Julie Pace has) and is back on message, which is that Republicans care not for anything but destroying Obama, progress, and America itself. Tired, tired old message. But when all of the msm trots that out consistently, it's effective.
One sentence who see the controversies as an opportunity to derail Obama's second-term agenda does not make this an op-ed piece. And I submit - of course they do! Our elected representatives are POLITICIANS and that's what they do on both sides of the aisle. Like it or not, politics is the modus operandi in DC.
As I have said before in other posts, the genie is out of the bottle and this will not go away. Bob Woodward was the first to leave the reservation months ago, even Chris Mathews is turning. The scrum politics is in full swing and I am watching to see where Leadership is going to emerge.
As I have said before in other posts, the genie is out of the bottle and this will not go away. Bob Woodward was the first to leave the reservation months ago, even Chris Mathews is turning.
I'm all for it.
Precedent says the msm kisses, makes up and rallies around the POTUS, though.
Trapper John
05-17-2013, 14:03
I'm all for it.
Precedent says the msm kisses, makes up and rallies around the POTUS, though.
You may be correct. But, the gut is telling me this isn't going away. Care to make a small wager?
You may be correct. But, the gut is telling me this isn't going away. Care to make a small wager?
I don't know...do you drink Carling Black Label? :D
One sentence who see the controversies as an opportunity to derail Obama's second-term agenda does not make this an op-ed piece. And I submit - of course they do! Our elected representatives are POLITICIANS and that's what they do on both sides of the aisle. Like it or not, politics is the modus operandi in DC.
It's not one sentence that's important, it's the location of that sentence. Professional journos call the first 2 paragraphs the "lead-in", used to get and keep reader attention. It was obviously vital to this writer and her management that she write something salacious and anti-Repub in the lead-in.
You will notice in her lead-in there is nothing anti-Dem, no use of words like "failures"...just the implication that the Repubs are all riled up, simply for political reasons.
Her entire piece was full of unbalanced reporting....sorry, not going to go line by line and spell it out.
Does analysis of one article establish, one way or another, a reporter's bias?
Interested parties might profit from looking at Ms. Pace's Twitter feed (https://twitter.com/jpaceDC). One Tweet leads to an article available here (http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_289563/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=qHkcgnuw).
There is also the president's press conference of 13 May 2013 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/13/remarks-president-obama-and-prime-minister-cameron-united-kingdom-joint-) during which Ms. Pace posed the following questions:Q Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to ask about the IRS and Benghazi. When did you first learn that the IRS was targeting conservative political groups? Do you feel that the IRS has betrayed the public’s trust? And what do you think the repercussions for these actions should be? And on Benghazi, newly public emails show that the White House and the State Department appear to have been more closely involved with the crafting of the talking points on the attack than first acknowledged. Do you think the White House misled the public about its role in shaping the talking points? And do you stand by your administration’s assertions that the talking points were not purposely changed to downplay the prospects of terrorism? And, Prime Minister Cameron, on Syria, if the EU arms embargo that you mentioned is amended or lapses, is it your intention to send the Syrian opposition forces weapons? And are you encouraging President Obama to take the same step? Thank you.
Ms. Pace actively sparred with the president during a news conference on 1 March 2013 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/03/01/statement-president-sequester). (Video of the exchange is available there (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/01/obama-ap-julie-pace-example-of-what-i-might-do_n_2790541.html).)
Ms. Pace's "page" at Salon dot com yonder over there (http://www.salon.com/writer/julie_pace/) offers additional examples of her reporting on the current administration.
Does analysis of one article establish, one way or another, a reporter's bias?
Interested parties might profit from looking at Ms. Pace's Twitter feed (https://twitter.com/jpaceDC). One Tweet leads to an article available here (http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_289563/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=qHkcgnuw).
There is also the president's press conference of 13 May 2013 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/13/remarks-president-obama-and-prime-minister-cameron-united-kingdom-joint-) during which Ms. Pace posed the following questions:
Ms. Pace actively sparred with the president during a news conference on 1 March 2013 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/03/01/statement-president-sequester). (Video of the exchange is available there (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/01/obama-ap-julie-pace-example-of-what-i-might-do_n_2790541.html).)
Ms. Pace's "page" at Salon dot com yonder over there (http://www.salon.com/writer/julie_pace/) offers additional examples of her reporting on the current administration.
Thanks Sigaba.
I read her Twitter - have the same opinion that she's left-leaning.
Read her page at Salon - same.
Read her questions to the President and his response during his 5/13/13 press conference. Here's the thing....the President knew those IRS/Benghazi questions were going to be asked by someone. Interesting that he specifically chose Julie Pace to ask the first questions. Isn't that a way to control what message he gives? YMMV, but I don't view that as sparring at all. Her questions were stated pretty softly IMO.
I don't know if it's useful to make this thread only about Julie Pace and her personal politics. There are plenty of people who believe her reporting is biased --> [LINK] (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2012/09/16/ap-sept-10-it-will-be-rare-day-when-national-security-or-terrorism-will-).
After the DOJ investigations into AP, I would have hoped the AP might have "seen the light" and come back to a more balanced reporting approach, with all their reporters. Obviously we all define "balanced" differently. I'm not sure if you are defending Ms Pace, but if you view her Twitter feed as "balanced", we'll have to agree to disagree.
I agreed with Dusty that in the article in post #1, AP seemed to be right back up under this administration making sucking noises.
Trapper John
05-18-2013, 05:54
I don't know...do you drink Carling Black Label? :D
"Hey Mabel, Black Label" I'm guessing the pink font was directed towards my age and being able to remember that? :p
Sure, your on. A case of Black Label. One condition though, we meet and drink it together along with pickled eggs. Now that's doin' it old school.:D
"Hey Mabel, Black Label" I'm guessing the pink font was directed towards my age and being able to remember that? :p
Sure, your on. A case of Black Label. One condition though, we meet and drink it together along with pickled eggs. Now that's doin' it old school.:D
This is one I hope you win, Bro.
Thanks Sigaba.
I read her Twitter - have the same opinion that she's left-leaning.
I agreed with Dusty that in the article in post #1, AP seemed to be right back up under this administration making sucking noises.
Surely Sigaba knows that Drudge doesn't write the articles. Saying "Drudged again" is akin to me saying "Berkley Libaried again" about some of his posts.
Pace is subtle in this article, I admit, but clearly deflating the seriousness of the problem in the article.
Think of it like this; If you were tasked with covering the story, and you did it in a 100% objective manner, what surmisal would the reader make?
Obama's plans are to use the IRS and DHS as the enforcement arms of the Affordable Health Care act in an effort to attain complete power over the Country, and he has done it by appointing lackeys who require little direction due to the fact that they have the same goals. He has cutouts in the chain of blame between himself and the actions causing the trouble (IRS, F&F, AP, etc.), and he has the msm to dilute and shift blame for him. He disappeared during Benghazi to win the election. He didn't let them drop the IRS confession 'til after the election. This is all crystal clear to someone who doesn't fall into the "facilitation" or "skeered" camps.
Trapper John
05-18-2013, 06:19
Thanks Sigaba.
I read her Twitter - have the same opinion that she's left-leaning.
There are plenty of people who believe her reporting is biased --> [LINK] (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2012/09/16/ap-sept-10-it-will-be-rare-day-when-national-security-or-terrorism-will-).
After the DOJ investigations into AP, I would have hoped the AP might have "seen the light" and come back to a more balanced reporting approach, with all their reporters.
And of course NewsBusters is a fair and unbiased news source?
The issue is not over whether this reporter or that reporter has a left or right leaning bias in a specific piece of reporting. So what? It's about the trend that is emerging overall.
For the first time we have seen liberal journalists break ranks, for the first time we have seen the White House Press Corps grill Jay Carney. For the first time I have seen a News anchor on the network visibly angered (Bob Shieferr). These are tectonic shifts IMO and the media hyenas smell blood and fear.
The politicians are going to play for political advantage and the media is going to have a feeding frenzy. That's their natures, that's what they do. That is all sideshow, IMO.
Watch for trends and look for common threads that are tying the scandals together. My gut is telling me that this is much, much bigger than Watergate and it is going to take some time for it to reveal. :munchin
Watch for trends and look for common threads that are tying the scandals together. My gut is telling me that this is much, much bigger than Watergate and it is going to take some time for it to reveal. :munchin
Sure, it is. Nobody died during Watergate.
This illustrates the control a propaganda machine has over a herd of useful idiots.
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2013/05/17/kmovs-conners-barred-from-facebook-interviews-on-irs-controversy/
ST. LOUIS (KMOX) - KMOV anchorman Larry Conners has been “advised” by KMOV’s parent company Belo Corp. to not make statements, post on Facebook, or participate in interviews concerning a recent controversy over Facebook comments he made about the Internal Revenue Service.
Conners has hired St. Louis attorney Merle Silverstein. Silverstein issued a letter to media outlets claiming that the corporate order “is the only reason for his silence.”
Conners wrote Monday night that shortly after he interviewed President Obama and his wife in April of 2012, the IRS “started hammering” him.
“At the time, I dismissed the ‘co-incidence’, but now, I have concerns … after revelations about the IRS targeting various groups and their members,” Conners wrote.
Snip
The Reaper
05-18-2013, 10:27
Well, it isn't like the Justice Department is going to be aggressively pursuing actions against the Executive Branch.
I think the POTUS is channeling another famous Dim predecessor:
"I never trust a man unless I've got his pecker in my pocket ." - LBJ
TR
ZonieDiver
05-18-2013, 22:16
Sure, it is. Nobody died during Watergate.
There are people in some of the tin-foil camps who would challenge that statement.
I'm not agreeing with them, just sayin' that they're out there (still, but getting old).
Surely Sigaba knows that Drudge doesn't write the articles. Saying "Drudged again" is akin to me saying "[Berkeley] Libaried again" about some of his posts.I am well aware that Drudge doesn't write the articles. When I say "Drudged again" I am referring to Mr. Drudge's habit of recasting pieces from news outlets in a sensational matter.
When I say "Drudged again," I'm referring to the growing influence of the blogosphere on American political discourse. This influence is fostering a dynamic that allows matters of opinion to be offered as matters of fact. A dynamic in which the absence of research is legitimized, even celebrated. A dynamic in which hyperbolic POVs are increasingly voiced without proof to substantiate the allegations being offered. A dynamic in which the absence of proof is treated as evidence.
For example.[The current president's] plans are to use the IRS and DHS as the enforcement arms of the Affordable Health Care act in an effort to attain complete power over the Country, and he has done it by appointing lackeys who require little direction due to the fact that they have the same goals. He has cutouts in the chain of blame between himself and the actions causing the trouble (IRS, F&F, AP, etc.), and he has the msm to dilute and shift blame for him. He disappeared during Benghazi to win the election. He didn't let them drop the IRS confession 'til after the election.
Another example (http://prorev.com/reagan.htm), from the other side of the aisle...Recovered history
REAGAN’S SECRET COUP PLANS
PROGRESSIVE REVIEW - With few exceptions, the media ignored what well could be the most startling revelation to have come out of the Iran/Contra affair, namely that high officials of the US government were planning a possible military/civilian coup. First among the exceptions was the Miami Herald, which on July 5, 1987, ran the story to which Jack Brooks referred. The article, by Alfonzo Chardy, revealed Oliver North's involvement in plans for the Federal Emergency Management Agency to take over federal, state and local functions during an ill-defined national emergency. . .
[SNIP]
And also (http://themoderatevoice.com/121004/ten-years-after-the-911-attacks-the-greatest-cover-up-in-u-s-history-still-holds/)...Ten years after the 9/11 catastrophe, the Bush administration cover-up of why the terrorist attacks were carried out despite the White House, CIA and FBI being repeatedly warned of them still holds. Not only has the final word not come out about this malfeasance of enormous and arguably criminal proportions, hardly any word about it has.
The mainstream media has been complicitous in ignoring this cover-up and ancillary efforts to hide the truth, which is not to be confused with the rantings of so-called 9/11 Truthers but rather an effort to hide the serial negligence and incompetence that characterized the government response before, during and after the attacks.
[SNIP] Oh, but it is different when they do it.
When I say "Drudged again," I'm referring to the growing influence of the blogosphere on American political discourse. This influence is fostering a dynamic that allows matters of opinion to be offered as matters of fact….”
Since when did fact get in the way of the main stream medias biased opinion?
If I recall correctly, wasn’t it the blogosphere (David Codrea and Mike Vanderboegh) that broke open Fast and Furious?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAWGhmptnA0
Edited to add:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rebeccaelliott/meet-the-camo-clad-gonzo-bloggers-behind-the-fast
Don’t knock the bloggers :D
I am well aware that Drudge doesn't write the articles. When I say "Drudged again" I am referring to Mr. Drudge's habit of recasting pieces from news outlets in a sensational matter.
When I say "Drudged again," I'm referring to the growing influence of the blogosphere on American political discourse. This influence is fostering a dynamic that allows matters of opinion to be offered as matters of fact. A dynamic in which the absence of research is legitimized, even celebrated.
Which research was absent when Drudge broke the Lewinsky scandal?
When I think of the reaction of libs to any of these miscarriages and this blatant dereliction were Bush in the catbird seat, my blood pressure pegs. I truly believe we're at the crux where the future of the Country is concerned, and it revolves around whether the msm is allowed to sweep Benghazi under the rug.
I'm gonna take another snapshot in 6 weeks to see if Benghazi gets the scrutiny it so obviously warrants by investigative reporters.
I am well aware that Drudge doesn't write the articles. When I say "Drudged again" I am referring to Mr. Drudge's habit of recasting pieces from news outlets in a sensational matter.
When I say "Drudged again," I'm referring to the growing influence of the blogosphere on American political discourse. This influence is fostering a dynamic that allows matters of opinion to be offered as matters of fact. A dynamic in which the absence of research is legitimized, even celebrated. A dynamic in which hyperbolic POVs are increasingly voiced without proof to substantiate the allegations being offered. A dynamic in which the absence of proof is treated as evidence.
How about work of fiction that portrays a unknown movie producer who produces a fringe and unknown anti-muslim film, which leads to a angry mob attacking a US Embassy and killing a US Ambassador.... and then feeding the fictional story line to the MSM who in turn spoon feed it to the masses as fact.
Talk about recasting and influence on American political discourse.
The fact is the Obama Administration tried to frame Benghazi on some guy named Nakoula Basseley Nakoula aka Sam Bacile.......
Nakoula Basseley Nakoula deserves a place in American history. He is the first person in this country jailed for violating Islamic anti-blasphemy laws.
You won’t find that anywhere in the charges against him, of course. As a practical matter, though, everyone knows that Nakoula wouldn’t be in jail today if he hadn’t produced a video crudely lampooning the prophet Muhammad.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/the-benghazi-patsy-91101.html#ixzz2TkcVR4nR
A violation of probation, though, usually produces a court summons and doesn’t typically lead to more jail time unless it involves an offense that would be worth prosecuting in its own right under federal standards. Not for Nakoula.
This wasn’t a case of nailing Al Capone on tax evasion. As Nina Shea of the Hudson Institute points out, Al Capone’s underlying offense was racketeering and gangland killings. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula’s underlying offense wasn’t an underlying offense. He exercised his First Amendment rights.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/the-benghazi-patsy-91101.html#ixzz2TkcdfwrH
If it was not for Drudge and the Nutjobs who have Blogs we might still be under the impression that Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the man allegedly behind the inflammatory film "Innocence of Muslims" caused the death of Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.
If it was not for Drudge and the Nutjobs who have Blogs we might still be under the impression that Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the man allegedly behind the inflammatory film "Innocence of Muslims" caused the death of Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.
Libs are aware of that. The only recourse they have is to try to minimalize the importance, discredit or ridicule them.
Which would you choose as a Soldier-a leader who took responsibility for his actions, or one who used false ignorance to shed blame?
If you're a lib, you make allowances for officials in your camp because your ideology overcomes any and every other concern.
It amazes me how anybody could be facetious or foolish enough to try to focus blame in these scandals and others on anybody but the person who is ultimately in charge.
Libs-don't blame Drudge, Limbaugh, Breitbart and Hannity for exposing the truth. Don't be a hater.
Libs are aware of that. The only recourse they have is to try to minimalize the importance, discredit or ridicule them.
Which would you choose as a Soldier-a leader who took responsibility for his actions, or one who used false ignorance to shed blame?
If you're a lib, you make allowances for officials in your camp because your ideology overcomes any and every other concern.
It amazes me how anybody could be facetious or foolish enough to try to focus blame in these scandals and others on anybody but the person who is ultimately in charge.
Libs-don't blame Drudge, Limbaugh, Breitbart and Hannity for exposing the truth. Don't be a hater.
I recall Breitbart referring to the type of journalism Sigaba is complaining about as Guerrilla Journalism. The left in his opinion had done it for decades and it was high time the Right fought them with the same fire.
One might make compare Guerrilla Journalism with Morgans Rifleman who were viewed dishonorable by British Elites for their unconventional tactics.