Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NYT Exonerates BHO on Benghazi

smitty_one_each (243267) writes | about 9 months ago

User Journal 20

http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/#/?chapt=0
Of course #OccupyResoluteDesk isn't even slightly culpable. He was beavering away on Healthcare.gov at the time.http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/#/?chapt=0
Of course #OccupyResoluteDesk isn't even slightly culpable. He was beavering away on Healthcare.gov at the time.

cancel ×

20 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

That's a good one, there (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#45809177)

Ha-hah. Seriously, though - it took about 10 minutes for the story to be out before Fox News was able to find a republican representative who was willing to tell them how President Lawnchair is still the son of Satan and this report is worthless. I'm surprised you didn't link to that story, instead.

And of course this story won't in any way stop you from calling for his removal by any available mechanism.

We're all reasonable adults (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45810699)

You know as well as I do that:
(a) The fact that HR36 hasn't even been brought to a vote shows that Boehner is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrats.
(b) If there isn't continued pressure for reform, we're just going to see another in the series of Ruling Class Tools in 2016, irrespective of party.

What are you talking about? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#45811395)

The fact that HR36 hasn't even been brought to a vote shows that Boehner is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrats.

Really? He has voted against nearly everything that President Lawnchair has supported pretty well since first picking up the speaker's gavel. Has it occurred to you that perhaps either he doesn't see it as an urgent matter, or he may even recognize that it would not be fiscally responsible at this time?

Right now a search for "John Boehner" and "HR36" only brings up a bunch of conservative blogs. As best i can tell he hasn't said anything about it in an interview or a speech. You are trying to project an opinion of it upon him based on inaction.

If there isn't continued pressure for reform, we're just going to see another in the series of Ruling Class Tools in 2016, irrespective of party.

Now you're wandering even further off the subject. This would be interesting given that you actually established the subject when you wrote the JE, but you don't seem to be bothered by it. Hell you want less government, right? Being as this was one of the least productive (in terms of legislation brought to a vote) congresses in our nation's history, you should be pleased with the magnitude of gridlock that prevented the government from doing anything. It appears that simply is not enough for you, though...

It's been quite productive (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45812693)

Consider that, with the 1913 freezing of the size of the House, power has drifted from its rightful position with the representatives of the people, over to the Executive. Thus, if you add the total legislation page count to the regulation page count, you get both a fat number and an understanding why all the bemoaning of the "do-nothing Congress" is just specious.
As for

Now you're wandering even further off the subject.

keep in mind that the NYT exists to run interference for the Left, not pursue facts. Thus, this exercise in airbrushing is purely an effort to distance Benghazi from the public discourse, lest justice interfere with Hillary's coronation.

Re:It's been quite productive (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#45813691)

Consider that, with the 1913 freezing of the size of the House

I thought you wanted less government? Why are you now starting to champion for more representatives in the house? By Tea Party reasoning that would only increase waste.

power has drifted from its rightful position with the representatives of the people, over to the Executive

Really? If the executive has all the power than can you tell me why he didn't get his health care bill? Can you tell me why he hasn't closed Guantanamo? Can you tell me why we are still in Afghanistan? If he had all the power then why has he been unable to fulfill so many of his campaign promises?

the bemoaning of the "do-nothing Congress" is just specious

No. As much as you are not a fan of numbers when they don't favor your argument, you could look at the numbers and easily see that this congress has nearly managed to pass the fewest number of bills since the birth of our country.

keep in mind that the NYT exists to run interference for the Left, not pursue facts

That is one of the most absurd things you have said in some time. You could ... oh, I don't know ... maybe read the article before criticizing it? When you allow your hyperpartisanship to direct you to brush it off sight unseen you do your cause no favors.

this exercise in airbrushing is purely an effort to distance Benghazi from the public discourse

Since when did you want Benghazi to be an item for the public to review? You just want it to lead to the overthrow of the POTUS, without regards for the mechanism of the same. You don't trust the public to get it "right".

lest justice interfere with Hillary's coronation

First of all, if that is a foregone conclusion then why even bother doing anything at all? More so what does any of this have to do with a person who hasn't declared interest in running yet? We might as well be talking about President Rand Paul in the same breath both people are equally as speculative in terms of presidential candidates. Being as Paul would have a full cult of (his father's) worshippers to tap in to for momentum, he would be a formidable opponent for any person who has ever lived, anywhere.

Re:It's been quite productive (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 9 months ago | (#45814753)

If he had all the power then why has he been unable to fulfill so many of his campaign promises?

Because they were lies to win an election, you big dummy! Get it through your thick head that's how things work in this business. How do you expect people (like you) to keep the faith if somebody doesn't put up an illusion of opposition?

Re:It's been quite productive (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45815541)

Consider that, with the 1913 freezing of the size of the House

I thought you wanted less government? Why are you now starting to champion for more representatives in the house? By Tea Party reasoning that would only increase waste.

You haven't understood the Constitutional, Tea Party reasoning before, and this reply is in character with your non-grasp of the discussion.

power has drifted from its rightful position with the representatives of the people, over to the Executive

Really? If the executive has all the power than can you tell me why he didn't get his health care bill? Can you tell me why he hasn't closed Guantanamo? Can you tell me why we are still in Afghanistan? If he had all the power then why has he been unable to fulfill so many of his campaign promises?

That's all you, Einstein. Obama has shown an ominous capacity for calling audibles on the ACA. One could offer speculation that Guantamamo is where all the worst of these meddling Tea Party kids will end up. Afghanistan? Well, there was a ton of money to be "made" by having GM sell MaxPros to the military. Down the road, one could speculate that it becomes a place to whittle our military down to a nubbin, since it's loyal to the Constitution and not to Obama personally.

the bemoaning of the "do-nothing Congress" is just specious

No. As much as you are not a fan of numbers when they don't favor your argument, you could look at the numbers and easily see that this congress has nearly managed to pass the fewest number of bills since the birth of our country.

Again, you're mixing apples & oranges. If we weren't in a post-Constitutional situation where the vast majority of the rules governing our country are produced by the Executive anyway, I might think you whinging meaningful. However, the legislation/regulation distinction is increasingly meaningless, and the fools cheer Obama when he talks about acting in spite of Congress.

keep in mind that the NYT exists to run interference for the Left, not pursue facts

That is one of the most absurd things you have said in some time. You could ... oh, I don't know ... maybe read the article before criticizing it? When you allow your hyperpartisanship to direct you to brush it off sight unseen you do your cause no favors.

Pravda on the Hudson [foxnews.com] cannot die fast enough.

this exercise in airbrushing is purely an effort to distance Benghazi from the public discourse

Since when did you want Benghazi to be an item for the public to review? You just want it to lead to the overthrow of the POTUS, without regards for the mechanism of the same. You don't trust the public to get it "right".

Give that line of hooey another million reps and see if it move closer to truth.

lest justice interfere with Hillary's coronation

First of all, if that is a foregone conclusion then why even bother doing anything at all? More so what does any of this have to do with a person who hasn't declared interest in running yet? We might as well be talking about President Rand Paul in the same breath both people are equally as speculative in terms of presidential candidates. Being as Paul would have a full cult of (his father's) worshippers to tap in to for momentum, he would be a formidable opponent for any person who has ever lived, anywhere.

If you think that NYT airbrushing was anything other than a love note to Hillary, then you probably think Duranty deserved his Pulitzer.

Re:It's been quite productive (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#45815723)

You haven't understood the Constitutional, Tea Party reasoning before

The only thing I don't understand in this regard is why the tea party call themselves the nation's greatest experts on the constitution when they care only about certain parts and are more than happy to completely ignore others. You can't accurately call yourself an expert on the entire document when you see some parts of it irrelevant in your decision making process; you are being at best disingenuous when you do so.

Some might even call you liars for such an action.

One could offer speculation that Guantamamo is where all the worst of these meddling Tea Party kids will end up

But I'm sure your tinfoil hat will help keep you safe, right?

Afghanistan? Well, there was a ton of money to be "made" by having GM sell MaxPros to the military

If a potus with an (R) after his name did it for the same reason you would champion it as a victory of the free market. Of course you would still need to show that the president has the ability to extend a war indefinitely on his own over the actions and advice of congress and his military advisors, but you don't seem to care to let such pitiful bits of reality get in the way.

Down the road, one could speculate that it becomes a place to whittle our military down to a nubbin, since it's loyal to the Constitution and not to Obama personally.

That would be quite a feat to accomplish in the time he has left until reelection ... oh, wait - did you forget that he's already been reelected and hence not allowed to run again? What would he gain by such an action as what you just described?

and the fools cheer Obama when he talks about acting in spite of Congress.

Do you have an example of him actually doing something in spite of congress? You can twist his words into claiming he wants to do such a thing, but that is far from showing him to actually do it.

You just want it to lead to the overthrow of the POTUS, without regards for the mechanism of the same. You don't trust the public to get it "right".

Give that line of hooey another million reps and see if it move closer to truth.

"hooey"? That is a strange label for demonstrated truth. You have shown and verified that job one for you is removal of President Obama by any means available. You have shown that you don't care what mechanism is employed to get it done. It is impossible to get closer to the truth than the truth itself. You just think that you are clever in how you stop short of explicitly endorsing an actual public execution, even though you endorse actions that would lead to it.

Re:It's been quite productive (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45817345)

Some might even call you liars for such an action.

No matter what you do, there is always some prevaricating jackwagon standing by to drop the "l" word.
I can only relate where I have been, what I have seen, heard, and done. I leave it to the diabolical "some" to interact with what I have said, twist it, add and subtract from it, squeeze out something substantially different, and claim it's what I've said.
I relax, knowing that "some" can engage in all manner of base calumny here under the sun, knowing that, if they repent not, it shan't go well for them in the hereafter.

Re:It's been quite productive (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#45817915)

... and just like that, you jettison an entire discussion because I used one word that hurt your feelings - even though I did not myself direct it at you specifically. Apparently it is acceptable to question your honesty and integrity but when I dare to suggest that someone might call you a liar, your feelings are hurt so deeply that you focus on that one word and ignore everything else that I said. In so doing you pretty clearly demonstrate why we haven't been able to have a reasonable conversation between us in some time now.

This double standard is vexing to say the least. I really truly wish I could get my hands on a printed version of the dictionaries that you and other slashdot conservatives use so I know what you actually mean when you discard the English language that the rest of us use. Presumably such a dictionary would also help me to avoid using these hurtful terms; it is particularly difficult to know which terms not to use when they come from your side so frequently but are apparently banned from traveling in the opposite direction.

"hurt my feelings" (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45825265)

Wait, were we taking any of this seriously?

Re:It's been quite productive (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#45815841)

Consider that, with the 1913 freezing of the size of the House

I thought you wanted less government? Why are you now starting to champion for more representatives in the house? By Tea Party reasoning that would only increase waste.

You haven't understood the Constitutional, Tea Party reasoning before

By the way, that is a massive cop-out right there. I pointed out the problem with your argument and you responded with disconnected drivel capped off with an insult. There is no way to increase the size of the house without increasing the cost of government. This is just another partisan act on your behalf; if the GOP held the upper chamber and not the lower you would be making the opposite argument.

Re:It's been quite productive (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45817327)

There is no way to increase the size of the house without increasing the cost of government.

"No way"? None? If you wanted to go after restoring anything akin to the proper Constitutional ratio (and I'm merely pointing out a problem here, not specifying a remedy) then you'd probably set about whacking some of the least useful executive areas (Dept. of Education, Dept. of Energy, EPA and so forth) and let the people lurking in those departments become Congressional staffers.
This would have the effect of making the House of Representatives the first among equals again, as it should be. Actual, elected representatives composing, reading, and voting on legislation that runs the country.
Now, with more representatives, the one-party rule with its two-party façade might crumble, and the Democrats & Republicans become historical relics. Boo effing hoo. Too, getting legislation through might become harder through an increase in size. Thus, the House might have to focus on simple, clear work, coloring within the lines of Enumerated Powers. Waah, waah, waah. It would be so unbearable if the federal government were to focus on inter-state and international tasks, and we shook ourselves loose of this "all politics, all the time" fixation. Sniff sniff.

Re:It's been quite productive (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#45817863)

There is no way to increase the size of the house without increasing the cost of government.

"No way"? None?

Correct. At least, none that you have described so far.

If you wanted to go after restoring anything akin to the proper Constitutional ratio

Could you please be so kind as to demonstrate how the current house setup is unconstitutional?

whacking some of the least useful executive areas (Dept. of Education, Dept. of Energy, EPA and so forth)

We know you are opposed to seeing people get an education who cannot afford a private education (as these people are likely to become well learned enough to vote against the tea party), and that you see things such as environmental conservation as needless. However killing off those departments wouldn't actually make the change you claim.

let the people lurking in those departments become Congressional staffers.

Your numbers neither balance nor make sense.

Actual, elected representatives composing, reading, and voting on legislation that runs the country.

We have elected representatives in the house. Apparently you want more of them because you can't be bothered to hold true to your "less government" ideal when you perceive it to potentially inhibit your power grab. And why don't you want senators elected? If the government is supposed to represent the people, shouldn't senators be elected as well? Why the double standard?

and we shook ourselves loose of this "all politics, all the time" fixation. Sniff sniff.

So then you should be utterly ecstatic with the fact that the current congress has hardly passed anything.

Re:It's been quite productive (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45825241)

Could you please be so kind as to demonstrate how the current house setup is unconstitutional?

Why are you accusing our Congress of being unconstitutional? I think this wholly scurrilous of you, sir. If you want to understand how the Progressives have sodomized our Constitutional order, see this link [thirty-thousand.org] . But DON'T call in unconstitutional.

Re:It's been quite productive (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 9 months ago | (#45830331)

There is no way to increase the size of the house without increasing the cost of government.

Bullshit... We can cap their salaries and staff.

Re:It's been quite productive (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45830575)

He sait "there is no way" and he's smarter than the both of us combined (just ask him) so I guess we gotta lay by our dishes.

Re:It's been quite productive (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 9 months ago | (#45830873)

Well, the only real difference between you and him is nothing more than style, but I gotta admit, yours is much more preferable, not as crude and 'primitive'.

Don't forget, today is the last Tuesday of the year. Take it out with a bang..

Re:It's been quite productive (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#45831223)

Thanks for the poke.

I needed a good laugh today (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45809533)

The NYTimes is a mouthpiece of the DNC.

This is about as believable as Fox News exonerating GWB on WMDs in Iraq.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>