Quotes of the day
posted at 8:30 pm on May 22, 2011 by Allahpundit
“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s associates were satisfied by US President Barack Obama’s clarifications during his address to pro-Israel lobby AIPAC in Washington, Sunday…
“One of the associates told Ynet that the speech was ‘befitting,’ and that they were particularly pleased with Obama clarifications about considering the 1967 borders as the basis for peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, but not necessarily as the final ones.”
***
[S]ome Israeli media also asked if Netanyahu himself stoked an air of crisis.
Contrary to impressions that he was surprised by Obama’s speech [at the State Department on Thursday], reports on Sunday confirmed he was told over 24 hours ahead of time that Obama would propose a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders, and had called Washington to try to get the president to change his mind and his text — without success.
When Obama went ahead, Netanyahu, who was about to board his flight to Washington, issued a strong statement rejecting the suggestion. Officials seemed taken aback and an aide, asked if Netanyahu had been forewarned, said: ‘No comment.’…
“In radio interviews on Sunday, … Israeli ambassador to Washington Michael Oren on Sunday confirmed that Netanyahu was informed in advance. Asked by Israel Army Radio, ‘Why create a crisis?,’ Oren said: ‘We do not feel that there is a crisis. There are differences.’”
***
“George Mitchell, who stepped down as the Obama administration’s special envoy to the Middle East last week, said Sunday that President Obama’s call to base Israeli-Palestinian peace talks on pre-1967 borders is not a threat to Israel…
“‘A major objective of this initiative, among others, is to prevent a disaster for Israel from occurring at the United Nations General Assembly in September, when the Palestinians have said they will see a unilateral declaration of statehood,’ Mitchell said. “The president spoke out strongly against that. We oppose it. And the way to prevent that from occurring is to provide an alternative in direct negotiation that would foreclose or make not necessary that option.’”
***
“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu must accept U.S. President Obama’s vision for Mideast peace if talks with the Palestinian Authority are to resume, chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said on Sunday…
“Speaking to the Kuwaiti news agency KUNA on Sunday, Erekat said that an Israeli acceptance of Obama’s guidelines was essential if stalled negotiations were to resume, saying that as far as the Palestinians were concerned peace talks ‘actually aim at realizing this [Obamas'] objective, the establishment of the independent Palestinian state with these borders, along with swap of territories.’”
***
“It’s no secret that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas plans to lobby the U.N. General Assembly this September for a resolution that will predetermine the results of any Israeli-Palestinian negotiations on borders. He made clear in a New York Times op-ed this week that he will insist that member states recognize a Palestinian state on 1967 lines, meaning Israel’s boundaries before the Six Day War.
“Unfortunately, even President Barack Obama appears to have been influenced by this thinking. He asserted in a speech Thursday that Israel’s future borders with a Palestinian state ‘should be based on the 1967 lines,’ a position he tried to offset by offering ‘mutually agreed land swaps.’ Mr. Abbas has said many times that any land swaps would be minuscule…
“If the borders between Israel and the Palestinians need to be negotiated, then what are the implications of a U.N. General Assembly resolution that states up front that those borders must be the 1967 lines? Some commentators assert that all Mr. Abbas wants to do is strengthen his hand in future negotiations with Israel, and that this does not contradict a negotiated peace. But is that really true? Why should Mr. Abbas ever negotiate with Israel if he can rely on the automatic majority of Third World countries at the U.N. General Assembly to back his positions on other points that are in dispute, like the future of Jerusalem, the refugee question, and security?”
***
“That was a deeply unwise speech Obama just gave to AIPAC. The president did not ask himself the first question of political speechmaking: Why am I saying this? Instead he surrendered to his personal exasperation with Benjamin Netanyahu, and escalated a confrontation he had every reason to de-ecalate.
“The president did not merely restate his view on the 1967 lines. He added extra emphasis on a worrying point that was implicit in his big Thursday speech on the Middle East: that the future Palestinian state will have exclusive responsibility for security arrangements within its territory. So, if a rocket is fired at Israel from the West Bank, it will be the security forces of the Palestinian state that will deal with it – or not. If Hezbollah intrudes into the West Bank it will be the security forces of the Palestinian state that will react – or not. And since those security forces are to be non-militarized, they may well lack the means even if they have the will.
“The speech left me wondering: if the president is prepared to state now, in advance, that he has a view on the territorial outcome of negotiations, why won’t he state now, in advance, that he has a view on Palestinian refugee claims? Why won’t he state a view in advance on the non-division of Jerusalem? The thing most important to the Palestinians is now the official position of the Obama administration. The concerns of Israel have either been rejected in advance (security within the future West Bank Palestinian state) or else left for negotiation.”
***
“Now, it was my reference to the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps that received the lion’s share of the attention. And since my position has been misrepresented several times, let me reaffirm what ’1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps’ means.
“By definition, it means that the parties themselves – Israelis and Palestinians – will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. It is a well known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation. It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last forty-four years, including the new demographic realities on the ground and the needs of both sides. The ultimate goal is two states for two peoples. Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.
“If there’s a controversy, then, it’s not based in substance.”
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air
DC firm shaking down Chevron learns lesson about poking the bear
Burglars lock homeowner in gun closet with predictably hilarious results
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Someone at HA fix your clock. It’s 5 or 6 minutes fast for many posts and screwing things up.
NotCoach on May 17, 2013 at 10:02 AM
The pResident LIED. Four people died.
dogsoldier on May 17, 2013 at 10:02 AM
He’s being honest, telling the socialists, “You’re messiah is going down.”
dogsoldier on May 17, 2013 at 10:03 AM
woodward continues his desperate quest for relevance.
sesquipedalian on May 17, 2013 at 10:04 AM
Woodward looking for relevance.
oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 10:05 AM
The GOP will betray you
True_King on May 17, 2013 at 10:06 AM
nonsense.
sesquipedalian on May 17, 2013 at 10:06 AM
Two entire days worth of information missing.
Who gave the stand down order and why?
Why did Killary continue the Youtube talking point two weeks later at the dead American’s funerals?
Bishop on May 17, 2013 at 10:06 AM
Media will sweep this under the rug
Gop over reached according to them
Case closed
cmsinaz on May 17, 2013 at 10:08 AM
…and Fast & Furious?
KOOLAID2 on May 17, 2013 at 10:08 AM
I just posted that after oldroy and True_King posted. I’m not first, and I’m not Bishop!
NotCoach on May 17, 2013 at 10:10 AM
Woodward doesn’t need a “quest for relevance”. He brought down a sitting US President. In the journalism world and on the political scene, he will always be relevant.
Boudica on May 17, 2013 at 10:10 AM
…and you continue your desperate quest… to untie your testicles!
KOOLAID2 on May 17, 2013 at 10:10 AM
Why did State and the WH lie about Benghazi being a terrorist attack?
NotCoach on May 17, 2013 at 10:11 AM
Woodward also accurately wrote the sequester was allllll Zero’s idea… Oooooooh that had to burn Zero’s azz.
dogsoldier on May 17, 2013 at 10:13 AM
Only one person could have given the stand down order, the Commander-in-Chief. If anyone other than Obama gave that stand down order on their own, then Obama could very easily fire that person and put that aspect of the scandal to rest. He hasn’t fired anyone because Obama himself gave the stand down order.
MPan on May 17, 2013 at 10:13 AM
Why did State and the White Hose lie about Benghazi being the result of a YouTube video?
And, don’t tell me that they didn’t because I will inundate you with quotes.
Resist We Much on May 17, 2013 at 10:13 AM
So the emails are all fakes?
NotCoach on May 17, 2013 at 10:14 AM
And all the testimonial evidence are lies.
dogsoldier on May 17, 2013 at 10:14 AM
Obama, so the Libyan weapons could be transferred by the Turks to the “Rebels” in Syria.
oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 10:14 AM
if you were capable of exercising independent judgment instead of relying on ed’s propaganda, you’d realize that the emails disprove the idea that there was a cover up.
btw, ed, that awful sound you hear is your fingers scraping the bottom of the barrel.
sesquipedalian on May 17, 2013 at 10:14 AM
When the cost of social justice, is social justice, the mooring is untethered.
Republican Yogi on May 17, 2013 at 10:14 AM
Old lib talking point: “Woody took down Nixon, he was brave.”
New lib talking point: “Ancient fool should shut up.”
Who gave the stand down order and why?
Who gave the stand down order and why?
Who gave the stand down order and why?
Who gave the stand down order and why?
Who gave the stand down order and why?
Who gave the stand down order and why?
Who gave the stand down order and why?
Who gave the stand down order and why?
Bishop on May 17, 2013 at 10:15 AM
Nope.
Gatsu on May 17, 2013 at 10:15 AM
You managed to respond to a comment before that comment was even posted. I wish I had a super power, like Xray vision or something.
Bishop on May 17, 2013 at 10:15 AM
This s**t is still going?
MadisonConservative on May 17, 2013 at 10:17 AM
Squiddie is spinning furiously this morning for his sweetie.
slickwillie2001 on May 17, 2013 at 10:17 AM
Paging Jon Stewart.
Aitch748 on May 17, 2013 at 10:18 AM
Looks like you and oldroy got your talking points memo at about the same time this morning. ‘woodward looking for relevance’ is this morning’s line of defense, is it?
Midas on May 17, 2013 at 10:18 AM
You Obama fellator. There’s no question you thought Woodward was a hero 5 years ago, criticizing Bush, you pathetic hypocrite.
MadisonConservative on May 17, 2013 at 10:19 AM
Looks like you have your head up your Azz backwards this morning. Merely trying to point out that Woodward has come late to the party, again. If he was really on the ball, he’d be comparing the body count, the weapons transfer, the fact that this is 10x the importance that Watergate was. But no. Just Woodward as always, tagging along at the end hoping to get lucky again and get one small bit of a story that has already broke so he can once again claim his god-like status.
oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 10:19 AM
Why was the ambassador in an unprotected consulate on the anniversary of the worst terrorist strike on the US?
Is this an example of smart power, leading from behind or some other politically correct concept of the P.O.S. libs in charge of this once great country?
Gotcha on May 17, 2013 at 10:19 AM
Ah, I see. In total denial despite the truth staring you in the face. Any other trolls willing to try a little harder or are all of you burying your heads in the sand like sequesteredbrain ? I know verbalidiocy is just like sequesteredbrain on this topic already, so your denials of truth will be snickered at and forgotten.
Opinion of those who aren’t leftists shills. Was the video lie created because:
a) A stand-down order was given.
b) The upcoming presidential election.
c) Both.
NotCoach on May 17, 2013 at 10:22 AM
As long as there really are more whistleblowers to go forward with future House hearings, the Benghazi scandal still has legs. Though if you’re Team Clinton, you really want the media not to follow the Woodward route but to parrot Carl Bernstein in claiming this is the least of the scandals, and eavesdropping on the AP is the most serious.
jon1979 on May 17, 2013 at 10:22 AM
You know, except for the document trail and video evidence from days worth of speeches, interviews, and more, where they, you know, *did* unquestionably lie about it.
Good point.
/
Midas on May 17, 2013 at 10:22 AM
That too.
NotCoach on May 17, 2013 at 10:24 AM
LOL!
Resist We Much on May 17, 2013 at 10:24 AM
The emails show that State was embarrassed by the incident and afraid it would make them look bad so they directed CIA to redact them to the point of nonsense make them look better.
Who determined the video was to blame? No one has said, have they?
alwaysfiredup on May 17, 2013 at 10:25 AM
As Steve Hayes pointed out, where the hell was any mention of this YouTube video in any of these emails since they claimed that’s what started this whole thing?
crrr6 on May 17, 2013 at 10:26 AM
Sesqui apparently missed this part, I can see how considering the font is set at about 28 these days.
Bishop on May 17, 2013 at 10:28 AM
um, wut? Did you get a different set of emails? Where is there any mention of this YouTube bullchyt – the very thing they said started this supposed spontaneous movie riot?
crrr6 on May 17, 2013 at 10:29 AM
“Hydraulic pressure in the system not to tell the truth?” What they heck is that supposed to mean? Woodward rivals Alexander Haig when it comes to coining malapropisms.
potkas7 on May 17, 2013 at 10:30 AM
The liberal water-carriers are starting to look like a legion of Black Knights from Monty Python.
Or a brigade of Baghdad Bobs.
Aitch748 on May 17, 2013 at 10:30 AM
LOL, wow. Through-the-looking-glass moment.
Midas on May 17, 2013 at 10:31 AM
Well dismissal of the Benghazi scandal is exactly what’s going on. GOP Ways and Means chairman says IRS stuff does not rise to level of special prosecutor. Both sides will maintain the status quo and sweep all of it under the rug while we the people get played once again.
bgibbs1000 on May 17, 2013 at 10:31 AM
Hey, I’m not the one posting the same things, using largely the same words, at the same time, as sequipiddlesitself. If you’re not working from the same talking points, then you ought to be questioning your own sanity. It would certainly make *me* a bit nervous if I suddenly and accidentally found myself agreeing with a sub-moronic Obama lickspittle troll.
Just saying.
Midas on May 17, 2013 at 10:32 AM
Too many here have fallen for the Preezy’s enemies list. Woodward is one that is telling it like it is.
NotEasilyFooled on May 17, 2013 at 10:32 AM
Yeah, the timestamps are hosed up.
Midas on May 17, 2013 at 10:33 AM
Racist!
ronsfi on May 17, 2013 at 10:34 AM
LOL! Woody is a hero to the leftards when he is useful and gets thrown under the bus when he is objective. How convenient! No wonder you all love Obama. Shifty, unprincipled, sees people as disposable just like you.
JAM on May 17, 2013 at 10:35 AM
Maybe “Toria” leaned across her keyboard and accidentaly deleted the 9/11 & 9/12 emails with her boobs, like Nixon’s secretary did with the tapes?
Boudica on May 17, 2013 at 10:36 AM
These emails do not indicate a coverup. These emails start to show the WH and Hillary’s State Department changed and manipulated our intelligence from basic facts to something that would help them politically.
The incessant lies about their horrific incompetence in defending our ambassador, horrific incompetence in preparing for 9/11, and the political distortions made to the talking points covering up their incompetence is what the cover up actually is.
Lies covering up lies covering up incompetence.
GardenGnome on May 17, 2013 at 10:41 AM
Everytime the Benghazi scandal is mentioned, we should also bring up that the whole point of the dishonest narrative that Susan Rice told was to start a campaign to undermine the First Amendment. We were to no longer have our freedom of speech if we wished to criticize Islam. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula is still in a United States jail for expressing his opinion on Islam.
thuja on May 17, 2013 at 10:45 AM
Here’s a funny thing. Even if we give the administration the benefit of the doubt Benghazi was a big enough thing that they felt they couldn’t just say “In the interest of national security, we can’t expose the data that has been gathered on this so far. The investigations are ongoing and all the facts will be brought out in the end.” So they made up a story–perhaps even to lull AQ into thinking that they weren’t even on their trail.
However, unfortunately, I have a memory. Reagan was directly implicated for “disinformation” by the media when some of our disinformation content abroad was brought back as “news” to America and the administration didn’t directly disavow it. The press treated it as the same thing as Reagan lying directly to America. So disinformation, itself, was a big thing for Reagan.
However, now the libs can claim that neither disinformation directly to the American people, nor the events for which the administration couldn’t simply give an answer of National Security are not important enough to warrant further interest.
Is it any wonder that I wouldn’t want to trust their judgment about what is “newsworthy”!
Axeman on May 17, 2013 at 10:46 AM
Remember, lies of omission are still lies.
alwaysfiredup on May 17, 2013 at 10:46 AM
It is a coverup.
The whole, entire goal has been to distract people as to what the protests in Cairo were really about.
As everyone in Cario knows, it had nothing to do with the video.
It was AQ-backed, via two proxy groups who have been applying pressure to Morsi since he took over. He did one thing they wanted – freed the “political prisoners”, which are jihadi’s. The have one other thing they wanted, which hasn’t happened yet because it’s dependent on Obama and State.
At this point, it can’t happen. But, it has a chance after the mid-terms.
budfox on May 17, 2013 at 10:47 AM
The possibilities vary from the stupid, through the ignorant, to the sinister, to the downright crazy. As follows;
Stupid; The One & Co. may have honestly believed that there was no more al-Qaeda. And that sending arms to the Syrian “resistance”, run by that oh-so-secular Muslim Brotherhood, would make everyone in the Arab Crescent love them even more. I buy this, because I believe they really are that f’ing stupid.
Ignorant; Roughly the same as above, except that add in their total ignorance of the actual structure of groups like al-Qaeda, which is cellular in nature. Meaning, killing one leader, or even several, doesn’t kill the group.
As Wretchard relates in his Three Conjectures, it may be impossible for any Islamist group to “surrender”, because by their decentralized nature there is no one authority who can order everyone to lay down their arms. In Libya, we saw what may be an object lesson in that- which The One & Friends reject, because it clashes with their worldview.
Sinister; Ambassador Stevens was the point man for what everyone up the rat line knew was a illegal operation (being eerily like Iran-Contra, much as Fast & Furious was), and as such he was deliberately “hung out” to silence him so he could never testify in front of a Congressional committee under oath.
Note that I’m not saying that he ever intimated that he might; but this crew is paranoid enough that given the chance, they would very probably allow him to be killed to forestall the possibility. After all, they come from the far left, where the motto has always been, “Sacrifices must be made in the name of the Cause”.
Downright Crazy; There may have been some personal animus involved. That is, somebody at top level may simply have not liked Chris Stevens. Keep in mind that in those circles, when somebody proclaims that you’re his or her BFF, you never let them clap you on the back, because there will almost certainly be a dagger in their hand aimed right between your shoulderblades.
In these circles, simply getting somebody s**tcanned is often not enough from a visceral, personal standpoint. They crave vengeance for real or imagined wrongs, and they yearn for blood on the floor as a catharsis. And yes, this can make them do things that are, by any objective judgment, utterly idiotic. In such a state, the concept of “blowback” simply isn’t part of their “reasoning”. This is doubly so for those who believe that their dogmas make them immune to the press.
If I had to vote for who was most likely to want Stevens erased for personal reasons, I’d have to say Hillary. She seems to have a habit of leaving dead guys in her wake. In this case, the reason, if it is ever discovered, may not necessarily make sense in an objective way. Well, unless there’s money involved. (Money has motivated at least as many murders as unrequited or jilted love; ask any prosecuting attorney.)
Please note that these re not mutually exclusive; more than one, or two or more, or all of the above may have been in play with different individuals.
What patently was not in play, was anything even remotely resembling common sense.
clear ether
eon
eon on May 17, 2013 at 10:57 AM
Too funny. If you read the emails, and ignore the fact that they are all about deleting information so the public doesn’t find out about it, you’ll find that there is no cover up!
And you think you have independent thought? please.
Monkeytoe on May 17, 2013 at 11:00 AM
Lesson for Obama: Don’t piss off Bob Woodward.
lea on May 17, 2013 at 11:01 AM
I agree with you about Benghazi. The IRS scandal might be the one the one that sticks. However, if Hillary runs in 2016, Benghazi will never go away.
lea on May 17, 2013 at 11:15 AM
Which leads to one very unpleasant conclusion for what is required to stop these savages. We have historical precedent in the cult of the Thuggees who were also more or less cellular in nature. … and no, nobody thought that they had a legitimate claim to be practicing their religion.
AZfederalist on May 17, 2013 at 11:41 AM
Very nice analysis
AZfederalist on May 17, 2013 at 11:41 AM
So the CIA and the FBI knew from the get-go that these were terrorist attacks and that al-qaeda or an affiliated terrorist group was involved and the State Department and WH have the CIA delete all references to al-qaeda and terrorism and substitute an obscure YouTube video, and this isn’t a scandal.
Actually, it isn’t a scandal. The definition of a scandal is: “public embarrassment”. It goes beyond that. But I don’t know what’s the name of a situation that worse than a scandal. Criminal behavior? Treasonous behavior?
GAlpha10 on May 17, 2013 at 11:51 AM
I posted this in the wrong thread, so re-posting it here:
I’m really curious as to why the White House is so frightened of the truth on this one.
The truth appears to be that it was a terrorist attack, and that the administration was naive, negligent, and incompetent in the days leading up to the attack, and during it.
Yes, that’s an ugly sentence. But there’s nothing in it that’s impeachable that I see, or that would likely even damage the President’s approval number long term.
Frankly, I don’t even see that it’s all that damaging to Hillary’s Presidential prospects. In 2016, people really will be saying “oh, that was so long ago.”
And yet, the White House seems absolutely terrified of the truth of this getting out.
I hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but does that mean that there’s more to this than my summary? Something that would be far more damaging to this administration or to Hillary?
And it would have to be the former, right? Does anyone really believe that Obama would go through such machinations to protect Hillary? No, it’s gotta be himself.
And I see that eon has sort of an answer to my questions…
Chris of Rights on May 17, 2013 at 12:10 PM
This is a great time to have a national debate on gay marriage I think.
NoDonkey on May 17, 2013 at 12:11 PM
The conference I just attended the last couple days had the absolute luck of having Bob Woodward as speaker on Wednesday. It was scary, but all too believable, even Barack Obama knew he did not know how to lead back in 2007. He saw the opportunity for power even though he knew he was not qualified to exercise it.
WashJeff on May 17, 2013 at 12:14 PM
Obviously, someone must have brainwashed you into writing this.
How are you not embarrassed to make this claim?
blink on May 17, 2013 at 12:32 PM
Quite the opposite, it puts the lie to a number of statements (1) the entire youtube video narrative, (2) the “CIA gave us bogus information” line, and (3) the “talking points didn’t undergo revision, or only underwent stylistic changes, or only changed consulate to diplomatic facility”.
And this is with 2 days prior missing, and no indication of what was said at the deputys’ meeting, where the final and heaviest edit was made, which is shown in the emails.
You did read the emails didn’t you?
rightmind on May 17, 2013 at 1:01 PM
Thanks.
I might add to your insightful comparison, that according to Colin Wilson in The History of Murder, there is strong evidence to indicate that the Thuggee were originally an offshoot of the Hashasin in Persia, the cult of Islamist killers run by Hasan ibn-Sabah. When their stronghold at Alamut was destroyed by the Mongols in 1267, substantial numbers of them who were elsewhere escaped. Apparently, at least some migrated to India and were soon “back in business at the same old stand” as Madonna sang in Dick Tracy. Over the generations, they moved away from Islam and embraced the worship of Kali.
Showing once more that killing a hydra is probably easier than destroying a cult which is itself devoted to destruction.
cheers
eon
eon on May 17, 2013 at 1:20 PM
Out of curiosity, I wondered, do trolls sometimes post something of substance?
None there. Just an insult.
Nope. Unsupported assertion of irrelevance.
Can’t find any there. Just another unsupported assertion and some insults.
That’s it for this thread. The troll didn’t even bother to respond to all of the replies it got.
farsighted on May 17, 2013 at 1:34 PM
Thanks to you, too.
A lot of people think that The One & Co. are trying to get “out in front” of this all now, to clear the decks for the midterms next year.
I believe just the opposite. I think they were sure that none of this would ever come out. The IRS crew would keep their mouths shut, the MSM would help them cover up Benghazi, and nobody would find out about their antics with AP.
Unfortunately, such maneuverings leave victims, ranging from the Tea Party groups to the State Department officials who were left twisting in the breeze in Libya. Ad all of the above got fed up enough that they complained.
Even then the MSM wasn’t going to listen to the people from State; Our Messiah could never do anything like that!
And they weren’t about to listen to all those right-wing reactionaries in the Tea Parties; Never mind being interrogated, if we had our way you’d all be eviscerated, castrated, blinded, pithed, stumped, impaled, stuffed with razor blades, and buried alive!!
But then the AP material came to light.
That was what turned this “phoney scandal” into a Perfect Storm. When the MSM realized that their Messiah might not hate them as he (and they) hate everyone who is not exactly like them, but neither does he trust them. And that he was quite capable of breaking the law to get what he wants, even from them.
To the MSM, that was simply intolerable. Even from their Messiah.
As the old saying goes, there is no honor among thieves. And payback’s a b***h.
cheers
eon
eon on May 17, 2013 at 1:35 PM
It’s not a superpower, and it’s not Hot Gas being buggy with the timestamps again. Some posters really are just that predictable.
(Did they ever fix it? I’m curious… 2:42 PM)
Gingotts on May 17, 2013 at 2:42 PM
What the F is the CIA doing by letting State write their intelligence reports?
The CIA should have let Hillary make any changes she wanted to — but under HER OWN signature!
I guess CIA hires stenographers, not agents nor analysts, these days.
What an abominination if we can’t trust the CIA lapdogs to stand on their own back legs.
Heads should roll at the CIA, but I haven’t heard many complaints about the CIA doing this.
fred5678 on May 17, 2013 at 3:59 PM
Ah, the man with the nose of a bloodhound that could scent any minute whiff of anti-American behavior by our leaders-a man who has sat quietly in the face of obvious agenda’s to take apart the gem of western civilization– a man who long ago has sold his flexible soul to the political left, awakens. Yes Rip Van Woodward, things are much different when the enemies of America, God, family, and freedom are in charge. Rub your eyes and pretend to have been sleeping all these years.
Don L on May 17, 2013 at 4:01 PM
Goodness, the boss signs their paychecks–hence their new motto, “submission before honor”
Don L on May 17, 2013 at 4:08 PM
I love your devious use of the decent idea of “independent judgment” when you leftists have as the goal of your soulless agenda to control every single free citizen, that they may never are use independent judgment. Sort of like Satan quoting scripture to Christ?
Don L on May 17, 2013 at 4:37 PM
Wow, how did I do that?
dogsoldier on May 17, 2013 at 5:57 PM
That would be a cool one to have. Then I could deal with the trolls up front and then the rest of us could discuss the matter.
dogsoldier on May 17, 2013 at 6:00 PM
Even better, -an ignore button.
slickwillie2001 on May 17, 2013 at 7:03 PM
Always relevant, not always lauded for it.
(Like your handle, BTW)
AesopFan on May 17, 2013 at 10:25 PM