The wages of our refusal to fight!

THURSDAY, MAY 23, 2013

Congressman Jordan just couldn’t hold it in: Each night, on The One True Liberal Channel, the millionaire children keep forgetting to fight.

When one team refuses to fight, the other team can say what it likes. In the New York Times, Jeremy Peters reports on yesterday’s congressional hearing concerning the IRS:
PETERS (5/23/13): At times, committee members could hardly conceal their contempt for the I.R.S. and the Obama White House.

Representative Jim Jordan, Republican of Ohio, tried to link the I.R.S. scandal with other controversies that are dogging the Obama administration.

“This administration, which told us and told the American people that the attack that killed four Americans in Benghazi was the work, was caused by a video, is now the same administration who expects us to believe that this scandal was just the result of two rogue agents in Cincinnati,” he said. “The people don’t buy it.”
Is that really what “this administration” told us? We’ll invite you to look again at what Susan Rice said on This Week.

Warning, though! Some reading skill is required!

Over on The One True Channel, the children have let claims of this type go unchallenged for more than eight months. The children keep refusing to fight—or to clarify, or to correct or explain.

As the children keep their traps shut, American voters keep hearing these claims from every part of their world. According to Peters, people like Jordan just can't hold it in!

It seems they try to conceal their contempt. Without correction or challenge, they fail!

On the bright side, the children on The One True Channel are being paid big bushels of money. Does that make you feel somewhat better as Jordan goes in for the kill?


  1. Is that really what “this administration” told us? We’ll invite you to look again at what Susan Rice said on This Week.

    Bob purports to proved that this administration didn't blame the video, but he merely cites what Susan Rice said. Other Administration people were also speaking, on and off the record. The combined effect was to wrongly blame the video.

    We know this, because the incorrect video story was all over the media. That mistaken cause could only have come from the Obama Administration.

    1. "Other Administration people were also speaking, on and off the record."

      Off the record? To you? Who? What is his/her/their position in the Administration?

  2. Scumbag troll.

    "The combined effect was to wrongly blame the video. We know this, because the incorrect video story was all over the media. That mistaken cause could only have come from the Obama Administration."

    Looks like somebody failed his Logic 101!

  3. It must have been the Obama administration which linked Saddam Hussein with 9/11/01 attacks too, since I distinctly remember that incorrect story being all over the media as well.

    David in Cal: Not necessarily a full-blown moron, but certainly willing to play one on the internet.


  4. Some actual transcripts would be welcome D in C.

  5. David, are you claiming the video had nothing to do with the protests in Cairo, and that the attack in Benghazi had nothing to do with the protests in Cairo?

  6. From what I understand, even the protest in Cairo was caused by some group who used the video the to inflame the protestors. IMHO it's poor reporting to focus on the video rather than on those who stirred up the anger.

    Also, focus on the video encourages a policy of self-censorship. We saw examples when no major newspaper except the Philadelphia Inquirer printed photos of the offensive cartoons. Another example is the harsh punishment given to the maker of that stupid video. Censorship is wrong in a country build on freedom of speech.

    Focusing on the instigators leads to healthier policies. There are people who will stir up anger against the West no matter what we do. We need to find ways to deal with this situation without undermining our own freedoms.

    1. DAinCA, From what you understand? Could you set the bar any lower? is your complaint about Benghazi now about "poor reporting"?

      Self-censorship? Is that the scandal? What the press does?

      The maker of the video got caught flouting the rules of his parole. He wasn't "censored." But is that the scandal? The Obama administration engineered the punishment of a parole violator by returning him to jail to serve out his sentence for fraud?

      There's a clear problem with the events in Benghazi: intelligence and operational failures led directly to the deaths of four US citizens, including an ambassador. How does such a thing happen? But you won't be discussing that and for the obvious reason. Instead you'll focus on talking points, and how misleading it was to blame a video, and whether a "terrorist action" differs from "an act of terror," and why the CIA didn't immediately disclose its findings to the public. And now "self-censorship" and regular censorship through law enforcement. Oh, yeah: and "healthier policies" and our precious bodily freedoms.

      Or something.

    2. Ah, direct from the 1960s, the return of the son of the "outside agitator"! Just like those Southern darkies were perfectly happy until them Northerners came down here and started stirring things up, all them Muslims in the Middle East didn't have a care in the world until some Al Jazeera types started poisoning their minds, shamelessly using a fun loving, satirical video from someone just exercising his freedom of speech.
      I'm sorry, Dave, I really don't care for sarcasm but faced with this line of reasoning I just can't help myself.

    3. "... faced with this line of reasoning ...."

      Way, way too generous.

  7. Ray, your racist language is offensive.

    If I understand your argument, you think Islamic rioting is appropriate, because the West is now treating Muslims the way Southern whites treated blacks during the Jim Crow era. I disagree.

    deadrat, it's true that Mr. Nakoula violated his parole by posting a video on the web. However, IMHO the fact that his video offended some Muslims was part of the reason that he was arrested in the middle of the night by six armed policemen and that he was send back to prison for an act that would normally be protected by Freedom of Speech.

    Now, I can't prove motivations. But, to me, it looks like he was punished more severely because of the nature of the video. After all, he would have violated his parole just as much if he had posted a video of his daughter's birthday party. But, in that case, I don't think he'd have been punished so severely or arrested so publicly. YMMV.

    For photos of Nakoula's arrest, see

    1. Strawman, meet argument.

    2. DAinCA, So Mr. Nakoula violated his parole, did he? Then back to jail with him. That's what's supposed to happen to parole violators, no? So I guess you have no problems with the man's return to incarceration.

      Oh, wait. That's not true. You're offended by the time of day he was arrested, the number of people who arrested him, and the fact that those people were armed. They should have consulted you first.

      And, sadly, no. HIs act was not "normally" protected by the First Amendment. That's because in the normal course of things, Nakoula gave up that right in return for release on parole. His choice. And, no. He wasn't punished "more severely" because of the video. He was returned to jail to serve out the rest of his sentence. That's what violating parole gets you.

      But yes, if he'd posted a video of his daughter's birthday party, he probably wouldn't have been arrested "so publicly." That's because a) no one would have noticed a birthday party video, and b) if they did, a birthday party video wouldn't have been part of an international incident.

      What the hell is wrong with you?

    3. David,
      Glad to provide you with the opportunity to act smug and morally superior about one word.
      Enjoy the holiday.

    4. deadrat, as you gathered, I was assuming that the police found out about the hypothetical birthday video.

      Your point (b) is exactly the point I was making. A birthday video would have violated Nakoula's parole conditions just as much as the actual video. But, IMHO he received a harsher punishment because his video offended Muslims.

      BTW, here's another hypothetical. Suppose the police had discovered that Nakoula had posted a video that offended Christians -- e.g. a video with pictures of the Piss Christ or of Mary covered with elephant dung. In that case, I don't think Nakoula would have been punished as severely as he was for the video offending Muslims.

      You gave the reason, deadrat. The Christians wouldn't have rioted and murdered. There wouldn't have been the same type of international incident. But, the bottom line is the United States punished someone more severely because he offended Muslims.

  8. "The wages of our refusal to fight."

    From Boehlert:

    The key to the Whitewater formula for Republicans is to get the press to play along and to get the press to hype stories beyond their importance while simultaneously not penalizing Republicans when their previous, laundry list of allegations fall flat. In recent days, that formula has been working for the GOP.

    Recall that over last eights months, Republicans, with Fox News and the right-wing media is their amplifier, have claimed Obama never called the Benghazi attack an act of terror. They suggested former CIA director David Patraeus was forced to resign because of Benghazi, that the White House had demanded changes in the original Benghazi talking points. That Obama watched Americans die in real time last September 11 and refused to send help. That so-called whistleblowers were blocked from testifying about the Benghazi, along with Benghazi survivors. Also, that Hillary Clinton was to blame for security cutbacks at the Benghazi facility, and faked a concussion in order to avoid testifying about the terror attack.

    False, false, false, false, false, false, and false.