Benghazi

[Juan_Bottom]

Let me ask you a question, do you love American history?

In the 1770s our American rebal force was illegally suplied with weapons from France, so that we might earn our freedom from a tyrannical king.

Why would that be good for us, but bad for Syria? Don't we, as "freedom loving" patriots have a duty to help the Syrian people to earn their freedom from a tyranical king? Should we not throw the rope back down the hole and help them to climb up like we did? Or are we just huge hypocrites? If our government sent guns to the rebals, then good for us.

Exactly JB,the American revolution though entirely justified was illegal by the laws that operated at the time,funny how US conservatives like to overlook this inconvenient fact..

Sweet.
Usually I just feel like I'm talking to myself.

[Woodruff]

Whenever you have a proxy war as in Syria, you are always going to have fractured resistance forces. In Syria, our team is the secular and non-sectarian FSA, who are fighting against the Islamic militants as well as against the Syrian government.

Why do we have a team there? We shouldn't have a team there.

[warmonger1981]

Juan_Bottom wrote :We control where our aid goes.

Funniest shit I heard in a long time.


Now what about Israel attacking Russian arm depots inside Syria or Israel saying that if Russia delivers a missile defense system they will attack. Or hezbollah supplying the Syria regime with weapons and people. Or refugees flooding Jordan and Lebenon making the economy shakey. Do you think Russia will sit by while America carves up the middle east? Russia and China are the ones blocking the UN from invading while Europe sends weapons to rebels AKA al-qaeda or other people who want to kill us. Sound like the Afghan war all over again. Give them guns and money they kill us with that shit 10 years later

[Juan_Bottom]

Basically none of that is accurate.

What I find frustrating about this groupd of people on CC, is how brazenly and confidently they talk as though they know all the angles of any given topic, while at the same time they don't know anything about the topic.

Juan_Bottom wrote :We control where our aid goes.

Funniest shit I heard in a long time.

We are literally transporting a few dozen Syrian fighters at a time to Libya, training & arming them, then sending them back to Syria. We're not arming the entire goddamn FSA with Apache helicopters. The Obama plan calls for only a few hundred trained & armed fighters, and we're not even doing all the training.
Right now, The United States and Saudi Arabia will be donating heavier weapons & heavy weapons training,
yeah,
but the US isn't giving out anything that can harm our own military jets or tanks. Those weapons that we are donating are useless against our own military assets. Even the Saudi weapons are useless.

And again, we are only training FSA NON-SECULAR, PRO-DEMOCRACY, PRO-WESTERN fighters. These are the guys who are fighting Assad, al-Nusra, and Al-Qaeda. Syria has historically been a non-sectarian safe haven for anyone of any faith. The FSA is made up of Christians and Muslims of different sects. The only guys these people hate more than Assad is the extremists. They want a Democratic-Socialist-type of government.

Now what about Israel attacking Russian arm depots inside Syria or Israel saying that if Russia delivers a missile defense system they will attack. Or hezbollah supplying the Syria regime with weapons and people. Or refugees flooding Jordan and Lebenon making the economy shakey. Do you think Russia will sit by while America carves up the middle east? Russia and China are the ones blocking the UN from invading while Europe sends weapons to rebels AKA al-qaeda or other people who want to kill us. Sound like the Afghan war all over again. Give them guns and money they kill us with that shit 10 years later

Russia and China have nothing to say about it.
They can block the UN Security council, and it's well and good that they should. They can even give weapons to Assad, whatever. But they cannot stop the combined support of Saudi Arabia and the United States. Right now we're about as limited on involvement as we can be, and that goes for the Saudi's as well. But Saudi Arabia has sole control over all of the word's oil prices, as they are not only the head of OPEC, but they also have an entire year's worth of GDP in cash reserves. That's trillions. No other OPEC nation has cash reserves like that. In the 90's, Saudi Arabia single-handedly destroyed Venezuela's economy for violating an OPEC decision. At that point, even the United States was powerless to help Venezuela, who violated the ruling to aid the US. The Saudi's can stop shipments of oil to any country, from any OPEC country, and it won't affect their own standard of living at all. If anyone goes against Saudi Arabia, they go against OPEC.
Israel as well, is a wild-card that Russia won't mess with. Israel is a small nation with a large security force that has proven in the past that it won't hesitate to pre-emptively attack any threat. All Russia can do is bark loudly. Because if Russia sends serious military aid, Israel will bomb the sh*t out of it, and Russia won't even be able to escalate the situation militarily, because Saudi Arabia will politically support the attack.

I don't believe that the EU has sent any weapons to any rebels yet, as the EU's arms embargo was allowed to expire August 1st 2013. The only European country to promise aid was France.
AND AGAIN I STRESS, we are arming the non-sectarian, PRO-DEMOCRACY, PRO-WESTERN FSA against President Assad and the Muslim Extremists. NO MATTER WHAT WE DO, Assad is going to be ousted. By aiding the FSA we are ensuring that the good guys will be the ones to replace him, and not the fundamentalist extremists.
IN AFGHANISTAN, we armed the extremists in their Holy War against the Soviets. Here, we are doing the opposite. The FSA leaders are largely Western-Educated, and have no interest in a Sharia-Law state. Just because the area is predominately Muslim does not in any way mean that it's exactly the same as Afghanistan.

[thegreekdog]

What I find frustrating about this groupd of people on CC, is how brazenly and confidently they talk as though they know all the angles of any given topic, while at the same time they don't know anything about the topic.

I think you need to explore this sentence some more.

[Juan_Bottom]

I think that you should explore my butthole.

[oVo]

What I find frustrating about this groupd of people on CC, is how brazenly and confidently they talk as though they know all the angles of any given topic, while at the same time they don't know anything about the topic.

I think you need to explore this sentence some more.

This is excellent and should be discussed in depth as it is certainly
a topic with no shortage of experts here... and only an expert
can solve a problem.

Meanwhile someone should grease up a large oblong vegetable
for Juan's_Bottom to keep him occupied allowing this discussion
to proceed.

The Subject Line is: Benghazi - Massive Coverup... a couple hundred
people have been killed during attacks on US Embassies over the
last decade or so. This event is somehow more significant than the
previous fatalities because conservatives are grasping for anything
and everything that might possibly tarnish a President these so called
"Uber Patriots" don't want to accept as their "leader." The Democratic
process is only valid in their eyes when their so called agenda is met
and any progress this country makes needs to be made with "their"
leadership in place. Which makes all sniping, half truths and total BS
slung at the Oval Office legit, because that's how the GOP functions.

Eight years of unaccountability in Washington should be followed by
a transparent Presidency with as many road blocks put in place as
possible to hinder "change."

I don't remember any previous administrations where the Commander
in Chief was directly and individually responsible for all foreign embassy
security decisions or dispatches of Marines.

[Night Strike]

What I find frustrating about this groupd of people on CC, is how brazenly and confidently they talk as though they know all the angles of any given topic, while at the same time they don't know anything about the topic.

I think you need to explore this sentence some more.

This is excellent and should be discussed in depth as it is certainly
a topic with no shortage of experts here... and only an expert
can solve a problem.

Meanwhile someone should grease up a large oblong vegetable
for Juan's_Bottom to keep him occupied allowing this discussion
to proceed.

The Subject Line is: Benghazi - Massive Coverup... a couple hundred
people have been killed during attacks on US Embassies over the
last decade or so. This event is somehow more significant than the
previous fatalities because conservatives are grasping for anything
and everything that might possibly tarnish a President these so called
"Uber Patriots" don't want to accept as their "leader." The Democratic
process is only valid in their eyes when their so called agenda is met
and any progress this country makes needs to be made with "their"
leadership in place. Which makes all sniping, half truths and total BS
slung at the Oval Office legit, because that's how the GOP functions.

Eight years of unaccountability in Washington should be followed by
a transparent Presidency with as many road blocks put in place as
possible to hinder "change."

I don't remember any previous administrations where the Commander
in Chief was directly and individually responsible for all foreign embassy
security decisions or dispatches of Marines.

1) How many ambassadors were killed out of those couple of hundred people you said have been killed?

2) How many of those people were killed after a military general was specifically told to stand down rather than send in the requested aid? Such a stand down order can only come from the president. Why was that stand down order given?

3) How many of those other deaths were immediately blamed on an irrelevant internet video as well as mobs that never existed?

4) How many of those people who were killed did the Secretary of State say that their manner of death made no difference?

5) Why are potentially dozens of CIA agents who were on the ground during the attack being barred from talking to Congress and are facing unrivaled interrogations and forced relocations and name changes?

6) Why are these questions never answered and are instead ignored while claiming that the situation is just a "phony scandal"?

[oVo]

I suspect that most Embassy Attacks could have been handled better
and the bobbles of Benghazi seem to be partly caused by a rush
to supply news outlets answers before all facts were known.

The situation itself "may have been" mishandled due to faulty
real time information, but even that isn't certain at this point
in time.

All embassy attacks are investigated, but the results have never
been instantaneous. Benghazi wasn't and isn't being swept under
the rug, but the rush for answers was partially initiated by the
Presidential Election... and an opposition party looking for traction
against a formidable incumbent.

The expression "phony scandal" is a poor choice of words, though
it was being referred to as a scandal long before the investigation
had even begun, with "leaked facts" that are still in the process of
being verified. If the President did something stupid in connection
to the attacks I expect it to come out eventually. The unverified
"facts" and extrapolations all over facebook and conservative
anti-obama websites tend to be lame after awhile. Seems nobody
possesses the patience to wait for the facts and all are content to
report and post anything that supports their agenda, regardless
of the source.

[Juan_Bottom]

1) How many ambassadors were killed out of those couple of hundred people you said have been killed?

2) How many of those people were killed after a military general was specifically told to stand down rather than send in the requested aid? Such a stand down order can only come from the president. Why was that stand down order given?

3) How many of those other deaths were immediately blamed on an irrelevant internet video as well as mobs that never existed?

4) How many of those people who were killed did the Secretary of State say that their manner of death made no difference?

5) Why are potentially dozens of CIA agents who were on the ground during the attack being barred from talking to Congress and are facing unrivaled interrogations and forced relocations and name changes?

6) Why are these questions never answered and are instead ignored while claiming that the situation is just a "phony scandal"?

OMG I just cannot handle you repeating the same questions after they have been answered for you. You are literally the Wendy Wright of Benghazi.


Your side was caught:
EDITING WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENCE TO MAKE OBAMA LOOK GUILTY
BEING TOLD TO PUSH THIS AS A SCANDAL BY A CONSERVATIVE SHADOW GROUP
LYING LYING LYING

But to you, Obama is the bad guy, and the people caught lying are some sort of truth-seekers. Catch some scientist editing data for climate change, and that's proof that global warming is a hoax. Catch the Republican Party editing emails and that's proof that Clinton is a Succubus. The hypocrisy is overwhelming.


1) 7, five by terrorists and two by planecrash.

3) AS TESTIFIED BEFORE CONGRESS, THE CONFUSION HAPPENED BECAUSE THE TERRORISTS HAD A LARGE GROUP OF YOUNG MEN SHOUTING AND PROTESTING ABOUT THE FILM IN FRONT OF THE EMBASSY BEFORE THE ATTACK. A LIBYAN DOCTOR OR GUARD WHO I DON'T EVEN CARE TO REMEMBER WITNESSED THE MOB AND IS THE ORIGINAL SOURCE FOR THAT STORY. IT WAS PART OF THE TERRORIST'S ATTACK STRATEGY OF CONFUSION. IT WORKED SO WELL THAT YOU ARE STILL CONFUSED WHILE EVERYONE ELSE HAS MOVED ON.

4)
THAT'S NOT WHAT SHE SAID. LYING LYING LYING.

5) I LITERALLY JUST ANSWERED THAT FOR YOU WHEN YOU LITERALLY JUST ASKED THAT SAME QUESTION.

6) BECAUSE OBAMA IS HITLER?
Not only have these questiones already been answered in this thread, there was this whole big thing at a place called "ongress" or "Kangress" or something like that, where all of your stupid questions were asked by lying "pablotechnitions" or something like that, AND ANSWERED BY HILLARY F*CKING CLINTON.
LITERALLY
ALL
OF
YOUR
BULLSHIT
WAS
DEALT
WITH
AND
HILLARY
CLINTON
GOT
A
10 POINT
BOOST
IN
PUBLIC
OPINION
POLLS
LITERALLY

[BigBallinStalin]

Let me ask you a question, do you love American history?

In the 1770s our American rebal force was illegally suplied with weapons from France, so that we might earn our freedom from a tyrannical king.

Why would that be good for us, but bad for Syria? Don't we, as "freedom loving" patriots have a duty to help the Syrian people to earn their freedom from a tyranical king? Should we not throw the rope back down the hole and help them to climb up like we did? Or are we just huge hypocrites? If our government sent guns to the rebals, then good for us.

Because as in Libya, the rebels are comprised of members of al-qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, both groups that will gladly use those weapons to turn around and both attack the US and replace the existing dictators with their own Shariah Law dictators.

We didn't arm Al-Qaeda or the Muslim brotherhood in Libya, they intercepted and stole weapons that our allies shipped to Libya.
[citation needed]

Honestly, those charged with shipping those weapons probably weren't sure who exactly they were giving weapons to. It's an acceptable risk which the US will flatly deny but in reality allow. Theft isn't required, perhaps fraud, but I wouldn't expect the CIA to have their homework completely ready on the various groups spontaneously popping up.

The HUM INT capabilities of the CIA--especially in Libya--are a joke, so I don't find your story believable. It's highly likely the USG intentionally and perhaps unintentionally aided such groups, given the gaps in their knowledge and the general systemic problems of central planners picking winners and losers without market prices, incentives, etc.

We don't have any confirmation that we were shipping weapons from Benghazi to Syrian rebels. This is just an assumption based off of a secret tip.

We are not just giving out scud missile launchers to anyone with a "FREE SYRIA" t-shirt. We control where our aid goes.

"We"* control the 'aid' as much as the US controlled it during the 1980s with the mujahideen.

*We aren't the US government.

So, if there's no evidence, then of course the USG didn't do anything wrong. I'm not sure about that kind of reasoning. The USG is capable and willing to supply various groups in order to achieve their own goals--while flatly denying such support publicly.

Whenever you have a proxy war as in Syria, you are always going to have fractured resistance forces. In Syria, our team is the secular and non-sectarian FSA, who are fighting against the Islamic militants as well as against the Syrian government. President Obama approved a plan by which the CIA will hand pick Syrian Rebels, train them, then send them back to Syria to fight with the FSA. Saudi Arabia is doing the same thing, and you're only going to see a handful of fighters trained overall.

The Special Forces based in Lebanon which were 'originally' providing 'aid' to the refugees have been charged with training various rebels. The Patriot systems which we've authorized to be lent to Turkey and Lebanon were 'initially' for defense, but have recently been ordered to maintain a 15 mile or so area of control into Syrian air space. This would complement the defense of training camps on the Syrian-Lebanese and Syrian-Turkish borders.

Therefore, given how much the Pentagon/DoD/State spokespeople lie, I wouldn't trust them; therefore, I wouldn't find your analysis accurate--an analysis which I find many media sources touting about. Those training camps--especially the ones of the Turkish border--are dominated by the Islamic rebels, which the US government is 'inadvertently' defending. Gee, let's think about that one...

Also, "secular" is a funny word. It's just as accurate as calling Iran's new president "moderate." The USG provides aid to those groups which hopefully do what they want them to. That's about it. The USG in practice doesn't care much about spreading democracy, aiding refugees (as a sole goal), nor bringing peace, justice, and freedom to the world. They generally rely on a realist perspective, which occasionally blends with the liberal internationalism (e.g. exporting democracy to Iraq and AFG since 2002/2003). They want these groups to do their bidding, which explains why the US is so comfortable with supporting dictatorships and the recent military coup in Egypt.

If the USG has a history of supporting such extreme and authoritarian groups, then I wouldn't blindly reject the strong possibility that the US has been aiding Islamic groups in Libya and Syria. (Think about it. The Saudi government is just as Islamic as those "Islamic militants").

But the heart of the matter is that Bashar Assad will eventually be removed from power, and we have a chance to decide who replaces him. The FSA kind of denigrated in it's fighting ability due to the fact that they were unarmed and waiting in refugee camps with civilians, but now we are working with their command to build them back up to strength. The EU has agreed to help them as well. We could sit on our ass and practice isolationism and pretend that we don't care what happens in Syria, but that could be just the way that al-Nusra seizes power and strengthens Syrian's ties with Iran and with Al-Qaeda. The FSA are clearly the good guys here; they defected rather than turn their weapons against civilians when they were ordered to, and the Islamic Militants hate them almost as much as they hate us.

The Free Syrian Army is just a word under which many different groups operate, so it's not wise to call them the 'good' guys. Any perspective leaning on a 'good v. bad' reasoning should be suspect too.

Al-Nusra is probably being aided by the USG as we speak too. It's just a matter of time until the Freedom of Information Act allows us access to the information--of course, if that happens, it won't matter, since Americans will be busy screaming about supporting the next line of militant--I mean, moderate/secular--rebels for the sake of democracy, lol.

The FSA have killed civilians as well, and have probably used chemical weapons, since they've had access to some of the Syrian government's chemical depots. Collateral damage is unavoidable, so casting this story in such stark lines is miserably inept.

[Night Strike]

I suspect that most Embassy Attacks could have been handled better
and the bobbles of Benghazi seem to be partly caused by a rush
to supply news outlets answers before all facts were known.

Within 24 hours, everyone knew it was a terrorist attack. The following Sunday, 5 days after the attack, Susan Rice told every single Sunday show it was due to an internet video, and other administration officials followed suit. Changing the explanation was not due to a lack of facts.


Juan, did you enjoy the all caps while stating nothing?

[BigBallinStalin]

J_B I laugh at your sources. How do either of them prove the Benghazi isn't a scandal?

They don't prove that it's not a scandal.
The facts prove that it's not a scandal, I mean only hardcore Conservatives ever thought that there even was a scandal. Everyone else accepted that this has been just more terrible posturing by Congressional Republicans. Hillary Clinton, who was the Republican focus here, actually got somewhere around a +10 bump in her public popularity after testifying about it.

What the audio does show, is why Congressional Republicans were pushing Benghazi. And why Conservative media was pushing Benghazi. It was a losing issue for them, but they wouldn't stop. Now you know why they had behaved so irrationally, it's because they were following someone else's protocol.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Regardless of whatever axes there are to grind between the Repicrats and the Demlicans, how can it not be a scandal when a bunch of insurgents kill your people with weapons that you airlifted to them? Would it not at the very least show catastrophically bad judgement on your part for handing out weapons to the wrong people? I'm sorry if I'm just a simple truck driver, but this bears further explanation.

Great questions, but please, sir, shut up and wave your flag of Freedom. Such questions will be ignored or followed up with misleading answers.

It's a total scandal, but it's difficult to trace exactly when, where, and who the US gave weapons to (I doubt they've kept accurate records, and if they did, then they wouldn't release them because "national security.")

Furthermore, how can it not be a scandal to try to blame it on some silly Youtube video, instead of manning up and accepting responsibility?

Agreed, but politicians and bureaucrats hate accountability. It makes them look bad!

[Juan_Bottom]

I suspect that most Embassy Attacks could have been handled better
and the bobbles of Benghazi seem to be partly caused by a rush
to supply news outlets answers before all facts were known.

Within 24 hours, everyone knew it was a terrorist attack. The following Sunday, 5 days after the attack, Susan Rice told every single Sunday show it was due to an internet video, and other administration officials followed suit. Changing the explanation was not due to a lack of facts.


Juan, did you enjoy the all caps while stating nothing?

I actually did. I already answered almost all of those "questions" that you just asked, and you didn't even ask questions... You think that you're provoking thought in other people with your post, but nobody on CC thinks about anything you say. They ignore you the way you ignore the truth. So it's just dumb dribble when you talk, and that's your reputation.
Now, nobody listens to anything that I say either, but that's just because people like to argue here and there's no opening to argue with me. I post only when I know what I'm talking about, and that ruins the game. I don't have any illusions about how the fora thinks of me. Above TGD and OVO took cheap shots at me, but neither one of them has anything to say about the quality of my information. You, on the other hand, can't put three sentences together without someone calling bullshit.

And also, what you just said was also stupid. You probably remember Mitt Romney trying a similar line against Obama during the presidential election debates, and the moderator had to correct Romney.

It's just stupid that you go on and on about stuff that's so irrelevant, even after we explain it to you. You're a dishonest poster.

[rishaed]

I think that you should explore my butthole.

I;m surprised that no one except oVo even made an aside to this comment here, seeing as no matter how one reasons with J_B he won't listen anyways.

[Juan_Bottom]

I think that you should explore my butthole.

I;m surprised that no one except oVo even made an aside to this comment here, seeing as no matter how one reasons with J_B he won't listen anyways.

lol, ok Christian

Look, I only know you from the Zimmerman thread, where you meticulously explained that profiling someone as a criminal based solely on their skin color isn't racist. And I was not the only person to call bullsh*t there, was I? Even TGD did, whom you're supporting here. And who, like you, also has no argument with the facts as I presented them. Ya'll just want to make singular posts that are also cheap shots. And that's fine;
But if you're going to try to come in here and take Night Strike's side and try to convince anyone of of some grand Obama conspiracy, you're going to have a bad time.

[rishaed]

Thanks for twisting words here. That being said I was truly surprised considering the other people on this forum who usually comment on those things. However The only person I'm agreeing with here is Dukasaur. And If i did try and convince of some grand Obama conspiracy he sure made it a lot easier with everything he's pulled in the last coupla months. (Including the promise for better whisleblower protection and laws? Well guess what that got pulled from the original list of promises on the site) If I had to choose between President Grant, Jackson, or Obama right now... I might be tempted to choose Grant despite the blatant corruption in his term of office.

[Juan_Bottom]

Thanks for twisting words here. That being said I was truly surprised considering the other people on this forum who usually comment on those things. However The only person I'm agreeing with here is Dukasaur. And If i did try and convince of some grand Obama conspiracy he sure made it a lot easier with everything he's pulled in the last coupla months. (Including the promise for better whisleblower protection and laws? Well guess what that got pulled from the original list of promises on the site) If I had to choose between President Grant, Jackson, or Obama right now... I might be tempted to choose Grant despite the blatant corruption in his term of office.

Not twisting, you said it:

Trayvon was a black youth ( Partial Matching ID) walking around in the rain just looking around?! (Suspicious Behavior) I mean who looks around (at houses) and walks slowly in the rain if all they wanna do is get home?

That's not a partially matching ID.
A partially matching ID is when you are looking for someone immediately after a crime. Not days, weeks, or months later. That is definitely called racial profiling.

Essentially your posts were just four or so pages arguing around this point. But saying someone is young and black and therefore fits the profile of a criminal from a month prior is racial profiling.

[oVo]

I don't see Benghazi as a coverup, conspiracy or scandal, yet.
But that may change as the investigation into the events
surrounding the Embassy and it's security efforts are
eventually revealed.

I have an extreme right wing conservative friend on FaceBook
who bludgeons me constantly with all the impeach Obama, Nazi
Regime, Socialist/Commie/Muslim and Benghazi drek. I'd probably
block him, but it's occasionally interesting to see all the ignorant
bliss from extrapolated BS that seems to mythically grow with
each telling of some of the current President's miss deeds and
experience the websites that invent new tales of paranoid
debauchery and the irreversible undoing of America.

[thegreekdog]

I think that you should explore my butthole.

I;m surprised that no one except oVo even made an aside to this comment here, seeing as no matter how one reasons with J_B he won't listen anyways.

I thought about replying, but I figure the inclusion of JB's post in the "out of context quotes" thread would be sufficient. I got my jab in; JB responded, confirming my suspicions that he also doesn't really know what he's talking about. We're good.

[thegreekdog]

What I find frustrating about this groupd of people on CC, is how brazenly and confidently they talk as though they know all the angles of any given topic, while at the same time they don't know anything about the topic.

I think you need to explore this sentence some more.

Eight years of unaccountability in Washington should be followed by
a transparent Presidency with as many road blocks put in place as
possible to hinder "change."

HAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh that's rich. Do go on.

[thegreekdog]

Look, I only know you from the Zimmerman thread, where you meticulously explained that profiling someone as a criminal based solely on their skin color isn't racist. And I was not the only person to call bullsh*t there, was I? Even TGD did, whom you're supporting here. And who, like you, also has no argument with the facts as I presented them.

Yes, because unlike you I try to limit my discussions to things I know about or can point to reliable sources. Which again is why I found your statement re: ignorance so ironic.

If you are curious, I believe the Benghazi situation is blown out of proportion for political reasons and generally agree wit oVo (except without his particular brand of thinking our current president is transparent or that liberals didn't do this to our previous president). But I'm also an isolationist (as that term is currently defined - which is people who don't want military bases in 100+ countries or to be involved in foreign wars where no one has attacked the United States), so I probably have that bias going for me.

To also be fair and provide a caveat, I didn't read your posts on this subject because I really don't care because, as oVo indicated, this happens, it's not the president's fault that it happens (at least not directly - perhaps his intervention in middle east affairs is an indirect cause, but he's no different than any other president), and there's not much he could have done to prevent it (unless he mans up and takes a non-interventionist policy in the middle east - but if he does that, he's a nutjob who just wants the terrorists to win).

[The Voice]

I'm writing a new book called 1984 Forgotten. I think one of the most devout Party members should be named Juan Bottom . I've gotta say; there's some great 'duckspeak' in this thread. This from my senior thesis:

As one of the contributors to the Newspeak Dictionary, Smye introduces Winston to a new word, duckspeak, which means abuse when applied to an opponent and praise to a friend. Ironically, Winston relates Newspeak, which he calls pure orthodoxy, to the “quack-quack-quacking” of a duck.

Although he cannot overhear exactly what one Party member shouts to others nearby, Winston can assume it is one of three things: denouncing Goldstein and demanding sterner measures against thoughtcriminals, criticizing the Eurasian army, or praising Big Brother. The terrifying thing is, Winston concludes that it makes no difference. The narrator notes, “Winston had a curious feeling that this was not a real human being but some kind of dummy. It was not the man’s brain that was speaking, it was his larynx. The stuff that was coming out of him consisted of words, but it was not speech in the true sense: “it was noise uttered in unconsciousness, like the quacking of a duck” (57).

[Night Strike]

And also, what you just said was also stupid. You probably remember Mitt Romney trying a similar line against Obama during the presidential election debates, and the moderator had to correct Romney.

And not only was she roundly chastised for being out of line, what she said was also shown to be false by fact checkers.