A New Word

Hmmmm... weren't satisfied with the options already available? Not that it applies here, but kakistocracy gets across the point you're trying to make without having to be freshly invented. It just doesn't have the benefit of being immediately recognized for its negative meaning by those who haven't bothered to learn it.

I suppose I should just be glad you haven't adjusted the newly coined word to "Obamocracy."

Still sounds better than a plutocracy.

Conservonics is not a language!

WOW how revealing ! The first words they come up with when using a new word
with a description and those words that reflect the new word are :(kakistocracy) the
next one was : ("Obamocracy.") the third was : (plutocracy) Yet it took the new
word defining what the o's presidency is like ,before the PDLS's were able to see
what the o's ways are !!! lol... Thank you oh swift ones, who point out what a great
leader that follows those 4 words to the letter !!! lol... petey1234 you are a 1%er?
Does your company know that you comment here ? lol...

"Conservonics is not a language!"
:) !!!

I will not respond to disrespectful comments. Happy Thanksgiving.

Garber , SO ?
Petey1234 : How was my question disrespectful ? Your company would cringe if
they knew you were posting like this . Would they not ?

WFB- My name is Peter. Pete is ok, but Petey is a diminutive form which I don't accept from my friends, so I'm certainly not going to accept it from you.

If you choose to address me in a respectful manner, I will respond in kind. The tone of comments on this blog (and most around the Internet) is disrespectful and not conducive to actual discussion. I choose not to take part in that.

I have found over the last couple of years that getting a conservative to see and hear the truth is much like getting Helen Keller see and hear the truth...impossible!

steve lets explore that . In the benghazi incident the the pdls's still do not
acknowledge that the o and his staff lied . What do you think ? In climate change
Conservatives have said that climate constantly changes . Your side thinks that
climate changing is new ! What do you say ? lol...
As for pete : petey is not a diminutive name . to prove my point you may call me
Petey the rest of my time here . I am curious why a name makes you feel diminutive
though . Have you been teased so much as a child ,that you are emotionally scared ?
I am always amused at how such minuscule things seem to make PDLS's shut
down . Unable to operate unless people around them give them high undeserved
respect . I know a Petey , we all liked him and he was respected fully by all . I
should find him and tell him that we made him feel diminutive , but I know that he
would laugh and say ,"what ....... . No I better not say ,if petey bothers you the truth
would make you cry .

WFB- I guess that's as good as I'm going to get. It's a diminutive form of the name, most often used by kids (and even that not too frequently) or by close friends (which we're not). Use outside those conditions is disrespectful. You can call me whatever you want... I just won't respond to it.

Now, as to your questions from earlier: I'm not at 1%er. I'm not a PDLS... I'm progressive and liberal, but not a Democrat or socialist. My employer pays me for the service I provide, which is as an engineer. I disagree with some of their lobbying efforts, but as long as I don't use my position there in a way that makes the company look bad or waste the time they're paying me for, it's none of their business.

With regard to the suggestions of additional terms, just because I hear your complaints doesn't mean they're valid. I know that Amy has suggested President Obama is socialist, anti-American and wants to eliminate success. Recognizing that belief doesn't make it true.

On Benghazi, the messaging was inconsistent and often inaccurate. I listened to the New York Times during the whole affair, so perhaps I didn't get a fair view of it. My impression from the beginning was that terrorists took advantage of the chaos from general discontent with the US (video may have made things worse for a bit) to attack an American diplomatic mission. Did the President's team lie? I wasn't paying close enough attention what he said to know. What he said didn't inform my understanding of the situation. Was that used to push a political agenda? No. My takeaway: Don't trust everything you hear from politicians.

Climate change isn't new. The global warming "conspiracy" is to say we're making it worse. If you don't recognize the argument the opposition is making, how can you argue against it?

My recognition of them changing the terms after they have been proven to be
incorrect is the point that I am discussing .The PDLS's started with "Man made global
warming" ! They changed MMGW to "climate change" . Why ? If the PDLS"s (used
even if you hold one faction of the whole) were correct why did they have to change
their comments,wording,and time line of the Man made Global warming nuts ? Do
you truly believe that we did not have climate change until modern man showed up
on the planet ?
As for the petey comment ,I was not using it as a diminutive form towards you . I
grew up with a Petey and I see it as a endearing term/name .
I do agree that the information that the New York Times spewed from the Benghazi
incident was "inconsistent and often inaccurate" ! There were news organizations
that had it correct from the beginning .
As for being a 1% ,I was mistaken in believing you were a friend of mine that jabs
at each other at times (politically) for fun ! We tend to go out for dinner and drinks
and laugh at how we both view politics.

Here Peter is where you come in disappointing. The reason the whole Benghazi
affair is such a blatant lie is that this group of murderers where trying to spring one
of their Al Queda brethren from the on site prison. ( You know, the one full of
prisoners from the now defunct, since he is dead, Osama bin laden wing). As
Commander -in-Chief, the President's number one duty is to protect the citizens of
these United States. So when 4 people die after seven hours of calculated
indifference, in other words, it was time to go to his political fund raiser in Las
Vegas. We people who believe that actions by the President are accountable to
the people are dismayed and shocked that:
1). The president tried to Blame this on some stumblebum in California who
releases a video.
2). Has his Sec. Of State go out on not one, but four Sunday programs, and lie
thru her teeth about events in Libya.
3). Watch in dismay as our joke of a media wanders around like a deaf, blind,
mute' in the weeks before the election hoping they can get Obama across the
Finnish line without actually telling the truth of a story that was, is, and forever will
be a political calculation that left 4 American heroes dead, bodies desecrated,
because Obama had to stick to his story. Bin laden was dead. Al Queda was dead
too!

And you wonder why conservatives are upset? You ought to be ashamed of
yourself. It's your indifference to reality that got those men killed.

Yert,

Did Hillary Clinton go on four Sunday morning programs to cover the official talking points? My understanding was that Susan Rice, the Ambassador to the United Nations did. She's reported to be on the short list to replace Clinton for the second term, but that's a very different thing. And the gamesmanship about Rice is unproductive - it's just trying to make the President look weak if he doesn't nominate her or careless if he does. Responsible opposition would raise these concerns quietly, but the current media environment doesn't reward responsible governance.

I don't wonder why conservatives are upset about Benghazi. There was an attack on those serving the United States.

I knew there were CIA facilities in the area, including CIA agents on staff at the consulate (although it wasn't at the top of my mind). I was unaware that there was a prison where al Qaida members were being held. If so, and that's the reason for the attack, then that's the biggest problem. If we're going to have CIA prisons, they shouldn't be mixed up with diplomatic missions. It's already dangerous operating in countries like Libya without risking being targeted due to prisoner escape attempts which have nothing to do with the consulate.

There were a lot of factors which contributed to their deaths. Labeling the attacks as caused by a video aren't among them. Denial of requests for additional security forces may have contributed. How much more would it have taken to protect them? At what cost to other consulates and embassies? Congress had cut funding for diplomatic security.

WFB- I posted an in-depth response to you which looks like it was caught up in the filter. It's probably coming through eventually, but until then let me just repeat (from the lost comment) that no offense was taken about Petey or 1% comments. You made a few assumptions. I made a few different assumptions. We clarified and moved on.

Peter,
Your correct about Ms. Rice. Got ahead of myself. However, the biggest factor in
the deaths of these 4 was the inaction of the U.S Government. They certainly had
the chance to take action. But then to unleash the video whopper on the American
people smelled from the get go. And add insult to death, the media just could not
find the time to get to the truth. Even though most educated people knew the
administration's pronouncements on this whole affair we're a total pile.

And if congress cut the funding, then don't send them to begin with. We do not
send our people into harms way to lose. You'd think Barry would know that by now!

WFB- That comment still hasn't come in, and it's possible I went over the character limit, so I'll hit the high points again.

For climate change, it's a matter of refining the model. The climatological models show that the increased CO2, methane, and other gases being emitted by industry and modern life have a substantial effect on the world climate. As I understand it, the first step of this is reducing the radiative losses into space, which increases the overall temperature. This model has been refined as it also has large effects on wind patterns, ocean currents, and other factors which shift the rainfall and other weather patterns much more quickly than would otherwise happen. The faster changes mean we have less time to respond as the Great Plains and sub-Saharan Africa have more and more severe droughts. The story changes as the models become more accurate with increased computational power and more data to put into the models. The basic story is still the same, but the Earth is a complex system.

On Benghazi, the Times and other sources gave me enough information to know the general story (possibly by reading between the lines... can't trust the media as complete truth, but I believe the problem is journalists taking the easy story and chasing sensationalism, not a pervasive bias). The big question is whether the attackers seeded the protests to provide cover for the attacks or took the opportunity when the protests happened. Because the video is a credible reason for demonstrations outside the embassies and consulates.

But this is not on topic for the blog, as Amy will probably drop in to tell us when she doesn't have better things to do.

Now, back to the blog topic...

President Obama isn't the worst possible. The auto bailout saved industry in and around Michigan, plus a lot of jobs in the rest of the country both in the companies which took the bailout and in others (competitors and suppliers, mostly). It also preserved a large section of tax base and reduced the amount of unemployment and other safety net programs needed in those areas. Could it have been done better? Possibly. But leaving them be would certainly be worse.

Sanctions on Iran are much more effective because his diplomatic team was able to get the rest of the world to agree to harsh sanctions. Without that diplomacy, India, China, and Italy (among others) would still be buying oil from Iran.

This isn't to say that Obama's performance has been perfect or even close to it. Benghazi and Fast and Furious jump to mind, while humanitarian crises continue in places like Syria.

I also don't accept the claims about taxes being confiscated wealth of producers (we're not near that level of taxation) or votes being bought with the social safety net. But that will be another comment for another day.

First I will say that Clinton and the o came out and lied about it all pertaining to a
Movie ! They did so for over 2 weeks .
As for climate change the various factors not to mention better temperature guages
plus not being able or having no information on such things on various points of time
. All effect the out come of proper studying of the temperature change . Plus there
are many Climate Scientists who disagree that man has any effect on over all temp
changes . Another point is that most of the CO2 does not come from man !! Even if
man could reduce his additional amount to zero . It would not have an effect on
green house gases to warrant temp changes .
As for the auto industry , give it more time to see if it actually save GM !!! For the
Auto industry was fine but various companies were in trouble . I find it funny that we
claim that GM is saved yet we only see it after a boost of money was shot in to its
coffers . So give it 3 years yet then I will give you my opinion if GM is saved .

Peter123...after these comments from you, I suggest you back away from debating the Benghazi incident. "I listened to the New York Times during the whole affair, so perhaps I didn't get a fair view of it (you are correct Peter!). Did the President's team lie? I wasn't paying close enough attention what he said to know (Yes Peter, it sounds that way).

Stevol...what Peter123 is showing you is how to debate without knowing the truth by allowing yourself to be brainwashed by an ultra-bias MSM sources like the NY Times. I call that lying since you refused to not get educated with the facts and took on only a bias source for your info. Many liberals like you don’t even know you may be lying while debating. That’s because you have no way of learning how to balance your political and world news away from the liberal and dishonest MSM (please read Goldberg’s “Bias.”). Too many libs debate an issue you either know too little about or your source is only the dishonest and bias MSM. Like the NY Times

Jim,

Congratulations. You've missed the entire point of what I've been saying. I perhaps wasn't detailed enough in my statement - I read the Times and also pieces from other sources (but I got news from the Times throughout). I was interested in what happened in Benghazi, not what the Obama team was saying. As such, I don't know exactly what the Obama team was saying, just the rough outline. I just know they were sending mixed messages. One day the President mentioned "acts of terror" in the Rose Garden. That weekend it was back to the video being the cause. What was the overall story from the White House? Again, I don't know because it's not healthy to hang on their every word.

Of course, you're too busy attacking some of my sources and picking out parts of statements (I get my news from the news, not from the President) to address the general framework I mentioned (protests ostensibly about the video made it easier to make a real attack). Which, again, is the story I was getting from the Times and other sources from the beginning.

WFB-

Fair point about GM not being out of the woods yet. I still assert that other companies, such as suppliers, were largely boosted by not having a huge part of their customer base gone.

Climate change, the majority of climate scientists agree. Attempts of media outlets to be fair lead to those opposed getting a larger voice than their actual numbers would dictate. You're right that there's a significant number who disagree with that consensus.

Peter123...I understand what you are saying and yes, I have attacked your sources. And rightfully so if I may. Those sources so happen to be what is killing our free nation. Yet you have no idea why or how. The NY Times lack of the truth, or even any reporting over Benghazi, is the classic example of bias and dishonest liberal journalism. Yet you seem to keep bringing up the fact that you watched (how do you “watch” a newspaper?) the NY Times with regard to the scandal regarding the WH and Benghazi. If this were a Republican admin???

The NY Times is another in a long line of dying liberal, bias, MSM outlets. They not only fired all their top brass from their own dishonest journalism (during the Bush admin), their own liberal peers had to let them go! How bad was that! Had some wealthy Mexican not loaned them money just to stay afloat, you wouldn’t be reading or “watching” the NY Times.

This is a case where the liberal MSM knows they are wrong. Here’s the simple reason why. All Americans should demand answers about the obvious cover-up and who started its. Yet our MSM has failed to report most of this if any at all. I begged the Milw JS to please report this Benghazi scandal or at least do what an honest, unbiased journalist should do: investigate! Yet very few liberal MSM journalists did this. Why? Obama and the fact they pretty much all endorsed him and his cronies once again.

I don’t care who you voted for. All Americans should want to know the truth and all the facts surrounding Benghazi. Including brining Hillary out from hiding to testify. Just like Watergate Pete!

Peter123...sorry, correction. You said "listened" to the NY Times. Not "watched."

Still not sure how you “listen” to a newspaper.

Peter123 states: "I'm not a PDLS... I'm progressive and liberal, but not a Democrat or socialist." LOL. Sorry, Peter "progressive" is just another nicer-sounding term for "liberal." And liberals these days appear to be more of the socialist ilk than in years past...

As for Benghazi: Obama lied and four Americans died. Period. This from the so-called "Commander-In-Chief" whose main job is to keep Americans safe. Rather than do that - and have to admit al-Qaeda is making a comeback - Obama and his administration chose to blame a little-viewed video as being responsible, even though they all knew that was not true. They ran with that falsehood for weeks prior to the presidential elections. In addition, Obama - who has stated that it is his duty to protect American lives - let four people die on his watch solely for political purposes that benefited him. That in itself should be grounds for removing this narcisstic, arrogant, and dangerous little man-child from office. Too bad that Republicans in Washington D.C. are so afraid to do so for fear their political careers may then be on the line - rather than doing the right thing and getting Obama impeached.

Jim,

You're right. I said I listened to the Times. Once. As in paid attention to with some level of trust. The other terms I used were "got information from" and "read." Again, you're attacking things that aren't the point.

Benghazi was covered as it happened. I've told you what the Times led me to believe, and you (again) haven't disputed that. If you want to accuse the Times of being complicit in some coverup, dispute my source or dispute my conclusion. If I got my information from the source and the information is correct, then what's the problem? I'm not asking you to praise the New York Times or retract your overall claims of bias, as that's not at issue here.

Why hasn't the Journal Sentinel covered this in more detail? Because they're a regional newspaper. They don't do international news. That comes from the AP, Reuters, or other wire services. That's not a coverup. That's the paper you're reading. Once again, the Times did cover it. They're an international newspaper. Look to the Washington Post for further coverage. I trust they have it, as they're a newspaper that covers international news.

Through the discussion here, I do want an investigation. President Obama signed an executive order closing the secret CIA prisons in 2009. Yert said yesterday that the reason for the attacks was breaking terrorists out of secret CIA prisons. This came up after the election from a Fox News reporter. These prisons shouldn't exist, and if they do we should have a firewall between them and consulates/embassies/diplomatic missions. Ambassadors shouldn't be put at risk by the intelligence services. If that's this is the coverup you're talking about, I agree that a thorough investigation is warranted. If it's about the alleged charade that this wasn't by prepared militants/terrorists, it's a distraction from the real problems facing the country.

Way to go Pert123 - Hemmer puts up a humorous blog about Obama's established policy/goal of wealth redistribution and you employ the old standby tactic of the left of shallow denial and then try to change the topic to, of all things, Global Warming (errr - "climate change")

You are a real gem. Please keep it up.

To hemmer's topic - The affirmation of the status quo of Ineptocracy is unfortunate. All the talk of the "tipping point" where democracies on the decline, accelerate their demise because the masses vote to extend welfare over jobs is bad for the country. The concentration of wealth will not be affected, unlike the proliferation of poverty that Obama has a 4 year solid record of achieving.

As for your global warming distraction. Read up. Reputable scientists across the globe have been predicting and studying the impending ice age for years. Spending millions to prevent Global Warming is a knee jerk reaction by the ignorant masses that will freeze us all earlier than predicted since 1890's: http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-warming-or-the-new-ice-age-fear-of-the-big-freeze/30336

Before I can pass any judgement on Bengazi,I need to if there was a secret CIA
prison there or not since that completly changes the situation.

Peter,the rules here for using liberal sources is they can only be used by a
conservative when it backs up a conservative viewpoint to convince a liberal of
something. When you are told you need balance it means watch FOX news.
Anything liberal is socialism, I have been told here that a social liberal is a
socialist.

Peter123…busted!!! Here’s Peter’s defense as to why the liberal MSM refused to report the Obama/Benghazi scandal: “Why hasn't the Journal Sentinel covered this in more detail? Because they're a regional newspaper. They don't do international news. That comes from the AP, Reuters, or other wire services. That's not a coverup. That's the paper you're reading. Once again, the Times did cover it.” Your total defense of the liberal MSM and the ultra-liberal Milw JS is hilarious. But you are about to be exposed!

Nobody reads and finds more bias in our state newspaper than me. Maybe some equal, but none more than me. So don’t try to disguise your bias or your lack of knowledge with the actual facts surrounding Benghazi or where you get your news from. Look in today’s JS. Page 3A to 19A and tell me what sections are in those pages. WORLD, NATION, and POLITICS! Yet you told me “They (Milw JS) don't do international news.” LOL!!

BTW Pete, I read the same article. One of only a few that made the NY Times or front page. This was reported on Sept 12 and then the NY Times stood by this again in late Oct!!! “On Sept. 12, The New York Times reported having spoken with "fighters involved in the assault," who told the paper "in interviews during the battle that they were moved to attack the mission by anger over a 14-minute, American-made video." And from one of your best sources know doubt. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/14/new-york-times-libya_n_1962397.html

"Page 3A to 19A...WORLD, NATION, and POLITICS!. Yet you told me "They (Milw JS) don't do international news" LOL!!". Hayett read the bylines. Except for the article about the elevation to Cardinal for someone with Milwaukee roots, there isn't a single article with a Journal Sentinel byline. They are all stories written by others and picked up by the JS for use in the paper.

Exactly how many people have died chasing after the Weapons of Mass destruction lie?

Jim,

You got me - the first reports were flawed. How about this one from September 15? "The organization and firepower used in the assault, which killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, has raised alarm in Washington about the possibility of links to Al Qaeda and a premeditated conspiracy that found a pretext in anger over an American-made video mocking the Prophet Muhammad." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/world/middleeast/attack-by-fringe-group-highlights-the-problem-of-libya-militias.html?pagewanted=all

How about this one from September 20th? http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/21/world/middleeast/assault-on-consulate-in-libya-a-terrorist-attack-white-house-says.html Here it's the White House Press Secretary saying it's a terrorist attack about a week after the attacks.

I just went and read the Huffington Post piece. It says that some people at the protests cited that video as a cause. Near the beginning of the quote from the foreign editor of the Times, he says "it was clear that at least some of the people involved in the incident were informed and motivated by the video." I also have never claimed that the Huffington Post is a neutral news source. It's not.

Referee33 already made my point about the international coverage in the Journal Sentinel. They won't investigate Benghazi for the same reason the Lake Country Reporter doesn't investigate the state government.

Amy, people died, then Obama hemmed and hawed. Even if we assume that the alleged requests of the Director of National Intelligence to avoid discussing terrorism are false, his statements were after the fact. Although irresponsible, that's a very different situation than than the statements or actions which cause deaths you claim.

Peter123...after reading your posts, under another fake name I see, I think you know very well the definition and the meaning of "ineptocracy"

Jim, I promise, there are a lot of people who disagree with you. You can feel free to think I'm whoever you think I am. Unless it's someone who was posting here about a year and a half ago under the same name I'm using now, it's not me.

I'm pretty sure I do know what "ineptocracy" means. I'm pretty sure it applies to government in India. Actually works for the government of Italy under Berlusconi, particularly southern Italy (although like Greece, people weren't paying their taxes). Not so much here, where we have budget problems because we're spending so much being the world's police and our health care costs much, much more than anywhere else in the world. Are there people gaming the system and voting for that opportunity? Certainly. It's a big country. But that's not where most of President Obama's votes came from, nor is it a big segment of the population.

"Nobody reads and finds more bias in our state newspaper than me. Maybe some
equal, but none more than me."

I love the hubris of that statement, though at the same time it is safe to say that
Jim knows all about bias.

"So don't try to disguise your bias or lack of knowledge with the actual facts
surrounding Benghazi or where you get your news from."

Yea!! That's Jim's job!

Extoes...struggling with my facts again I see. You're a hoot!

Does Peter realize he's arguing "bias" with a person who was eating up everything Jerome Corsi served up regarding Omaba not being a US born citizen?

Dont feel special, Peter. Jim at one time or another has accused everyone who has ever taken him to task of actually being someone else.

Peter123...majority of Americans agree with me with liberal bias. Especially with the NY Times.

MGarber, yup. Soon we'll be accused of being off-topic. Once in a while, it just seems worth fighting the good fight.

Jim, that must make it true. I guess that means you'll agree that Barack Obama was the better choice than Mitt Romney, as the majority of voters agreed on that.

MGarber..."eating up everything Jerome Corsi served up regarding Omaba not being a US born citizen?"

To prove another one of your liberal lies - oops, I mean libertarian lies ;) ;), I have no clue who you are even talking about.

Peter123...wow! Running from benghazi already? Yes obama won. But like I said.
Libs like you have no idea how or even why you voted for him. So go ahead and
change the subject since I called out your unbalanced sources and your lack of
knowledge with obams foreign affairs. But dont feel bad. Obama has no clue either.

Jim, I've responded to all your points.

"Extoes...struggling with my facts again I see. You're a hoot!"

That's right Jim, for some reason I am always struggling with what you call "my
facts". Mainly because they bear little resemblance to the actual facts and events.

"You're a hoot!"
Ditto...

" Does Peter realize he's arguing "bias" with a person who was eating up everything
Jerome Corsi served up regarding the o not being a US born citizen?"
You have to admit that the o was either hiding his information , or his media hid it
for him ! I do wonder when the media will ever show us the o's transcripts ? I find it
funny that a group that attacked Bush for being dumb . (His transcripts are better
than the o's) Has no problem even looking in to the o's . Yet the o wasted more , lost
more , screwed up more , and lied where people died ! Yet no call for the o to step
down .

I know this is off topic but I just have to ask; why did you pull your blog Jim?
Bad publicity?
Inquiring minds would like to know...well, ok, I want to know.

Ex...my decision. No one else.

Peter123 A newspaper is only reliable as their sources. Does the New York Times have access to information not available to CNN? Fox News? MSNBC?
You seem to accept what they print as Gospel.

Investigation by Obama Administration into Benghazi,? Border Agent Brian Terry was killed on Dec. 14, 2010. Two years later and we have not been told who gave the go ahead for Fast and Furious.

Reminds me of a cartoon by Mark Parisi. Always "not me".

That is a good point ! For several years now the ows's had said "Fox lies" over and
over . Yet if you look back and check what is said . Fox is far more on point and
proven fact driven ! Yet they saw the truth , they reported the truth and for several
weeks now the msm has yet to admit that Fox told the truth while the New Joke
Times and its brethren news groups , Were telling lies ! You could blame the o since
he heads the WH , but nobody on the left does . Yet it took the truth telling Fox News
to inform the public correctly . Even after they reported the information the PDLS's all
keep saying "Fox lies " !!! How sad that such a great news group is slandered over
and over .

Geno, I go to the Times because they have coverage which is more in-depth than what is typically available at CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC. The assertion from others commenting here has been that there's a massive coverup between the Obama administration and the mainstream media. The New York Times is clearly part of the group they're asserting is at fault here. Hence, they're a relevant news organization to discuss. Also, it's easier to search their archives than other sources of similar credibility, like NPR (also targeted as a left-wing apparatus, although I don't have as much exposure to its news coverage).

Peter123...for real? You help me feel good as to why I left liberalism

Geno - If you want to learn more about who was responsible for Fast and Furious, take a couple of hours and read the DOJ 517 page report - A Review of the ATF's Operation Fast and Furious and Related Matters - issued September 19, 2010.

pete . I admit that I do see a lack of coverage of hard news coming from main
stream media . Especially the new york times and msnbc ! I do see that their news
does cover many things and some things are well done . But I also see a gap in
decent coverage when it comes to anything that opposes PDLS thinking . I was
wondering if you see it also ? Do not get me wrong, sometimes I have to turn off the
right side of the media also .

ref33: Maybe you need to educate yourself as to who is responsible for "Fast and Furious" - and it is not George W. Bush - it is Obama. A common problem the left makes is assuming that a previous gun operation started by Bush ("Wide Receiver") is the same as "Fast and Furious." It isn't. There are glaring differences. For one, the number of guns involved in Bush's operation was much smaller. And Bush's "Wide Receiver" ceased to exist shortly after the feds realized it wasn't working (due to "tracking devices" in guns being discovered).
So before you go stating that "Fast and Furious" was started by Bush, read up. It wasn't. No matter how you want to spin it:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/21/Obama-Lies-Says-Fast-and-Furious-Started-Under-George-W-Bush

Just a blurb to get you started:
"Here are the facts: there was an operation to crack down on cartel members and border crime under Bush, but it wasn't Fast and Furious, and it was stopped approximately two years after it began because the Bush administration realized there was a loophole in it that could be exploited.

Besides being a completely different operation, "Wide Receiver" was miniscule in comparison to Fast and Furious. It involved only 400 to 450 guns, compared to 2500 in Fast and Furious, and every gun was equipped with a tracing/tracking device. Yet Congressman Paul Gosar (R-AZ) alleges only two guns out of the entire 2500 involved in Fast and Furious had tracing/tracking devices on them.

Moreover, the Mexican government knew about "Wide Receiver," and Mexican agents worked with Phoenix-area ATF when the operation was conducted. Contrast that with Fast and Furious, where Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder did not bother letting the Mexican government know 2500 guns were headed their way."

Hemmer - Why do you put words in my mouth that I never said? Nowhere in my comment to geno did I even mention GWB, much less blame him for F&F. Have you read the report yourself or are you just accepting what cut and paste Breitbart tells you?

"eating up everything Jerome Corsi served up regarding Omaba not being a US born citizen?"
"To prove another one of your liberal lies ...I have no clue who you are even talking about. "
Doesnt matter. Everyone who ever espoused birther nonsense, got it (one way or another) from him.

George - I'm not trying to make any point other than read the independent report for yourself. After you've read it, then draw your own conclusion. All we ever hear in these blogs is how biased the media is - both sides - but nobody seems to be willing to ferret out the facts. Until that happens, nothing will change.

lol... Hemmer, you are awesome !
Ref; If you did not mean to insinuate anything about Bush . Please inform all of us
what your posting was for ? lol...
The problem I see over and over is that pdls's like ref , Do these postings and
comments for their followers do not actually read and check out the full topics .
When this happens the PDLS's tend to believe that "Bush" , or "Republicans" did
something wrong . When in fact it was their supreme leader the o who is at fault
again , but will not be held accountable as an adult for PDLS's will lie for him ! Again
!!

WFB - read my last comment. If you have difficulty understanding it, I'll explain it to you in simple terms. Don't take someone else's opinion as fact. Read it for yourself.

goergdeuyba:

The "loophole" was the distance and length of time that the guns could be traced over due to the technology used. The knowledge that a single gun could get into criminal hands without being able to be tracked real time and found, ended Wide Receiver.

Fast and Furious BEGAN with the knowledge that guns could not be tracked real time. By design it aided criminal activity and could only discover the whereabouts of the guns AFTER a crime (involving a shooting). Poor plan, poor execution and people died. Just like Benghazi.

WFB- With regard to the gaps in coverage from NY Times, I don't see any huge chasms lacking coverage. They aren't covering the conspiracy theories related to the Obama presidency (birthers, the transcripts, etc.). There are some gaps in coverage which contribute to my preference - there isn't much coverage of celebrities, for example. Which I don't care about. The Op-Ed page has conservative hacks (Brooks), legitimate conservatives (Douthat), some liberal hacks (such as Dowd), some moderate-liberal hacks (such as Friedman), and some legitimate liberals (Krugman and Kristof). Editorials are liberal.

I can't immediately think of any broad areas lacking coverage, but I can't rule it out completely.

Ref, you should have known that pointing someone to a report detailing the Fast and Furious program was a preposterous response to a question about why we haven't gotten answers about the Fast and Furious program. How very partisan of you. That report came out before someone was killed by the guns, so it was too focused on the details of the program and not enough of a witch hunt.

Hayett Says:
"Peter123...majority of Americans agree with me with liberal bias. Especially with the NY Times. "

".......majority of Americans agree with me with liberal bias."

Proof please.

GWB: The guns from "Wide Receiver" had the tracking devices in them. When the Mexican criminals getting the guns discovered this, they took the tracking devices out or destroyed them. "Wide Receiver" ended.
"Fast and Furious" - started under Obama and resulting in the death of an American ATF agent had no accountability and was a disaster from the get-go. Agents were complaining about it. It was a mess. Although - a mess designed by the Obama Administration to try to enable more gun control legislation in our own country. However, the nefarious plans of Obama & Co. backfired with the death of the agent - killed by one of the "Fast and Furious" guns.
Face it, all the "investigating" in the world isn't going to do diddly - cuz Obama & Co. will stonewall, the press will go along with it, and it will fade (as it already has). Benghazi is the same. Obama & Co. stonewall, the press reports what Obama wants out there, and after more time has passed - Obama & Co. hope people lose interest. Unfortunately, many Americans are just not interested and the end result will be complacency. We have seen with an election that almost half the country is more interested in "getting stuff" at the expense of the other half, so when nothing is in it for them, they don't care. Why care about an ATF agent murdered during Obama's failed "Fast and Furious?" Why worry about four Americans killed in Benghazi simply cuz a president was unwilling to help them (cuz if he did then he would have had to admit the truth - that al-Qaeda was back in business, which could have been detrimental to re-election) and instead chose to further his political career. Sad but true.

Here's a great article detailing the differences between "Wide Receiver" and "Fast and Furious." It points out how "Wide Receiver" had tracking devices and they failed. As soon as they failed, the program ended. "Fast and Furious" was a mess from the get-go.

Read on:
http://patriotupdate.com/25043/how-wide-receiver-and-fast-and-furious-are-different

groegerbudya:

5-10% of tracking units in the approximately 300-400 guns for Wide Receiver were failing due to component failures, destruction or range issues. When this was discovered, the program ended.

Fast and Furious never attempted to track guns. It was a deliberate flood of over 2000 guns by design. The dozens of deaths that have, are, and will continue occur was obviously predictable and exacerbated by the Obama Administration keeping Mexico out of the loop. We are all waiting for the results that were worth all these civilian lives. The geniuses surrounding Obama must have something brilliant in mind that us knuckleheads can't understand.

I notice one common thing in the Libs posting their comments. The Obama Administration has no responsiblity for Fast and Furious. Because of "Wide Receiver", it is all Bush's fault.

Pete123..."Sanctions on Iran are much more effective because his diplomatic team was able to get the rest of the world to agree to harsh sanctions."
We can all go to bed at night knowing the world is safer (except in the Middle East and Africa and Isreal).
Our new contries motto, "Bin Laden is dead and GM lives". Life is good under our current leader.

Geno,

Curious that you take a quote from a comment that I made, then say that the liberals commenting here have absolved the Obama administration of responsibility for something I said was a point against the President in that very comment. "Wide Receiver" was brought up (repeatedly) in response to a comment by Referee33 pointing to a report about Fast and Furious (and Wide Receiver, although Ref didn't mention it). Because Wide Receiver was an early section of that report, GWB (the commenter) and Amy presume that it was the key point Ref was making. Why?

I've glanced at the report Ref mentioned, looking at the Fast and Furious section. Here are a few points: Fast and Furious was an attempt to get the buyers further up the line instead of focusing on the straw buyers, who there are certainly many of that have not been caught. The idea was to defer bringing in the guys ATF had evidence on (which the report says they had nothing which could be prosecuted, as gun rights are still in place) when going after those would have been far from stopping the guns entirely. So they gave up a minor gain now for a chance at real progress later. The operation was badly handled at the district office of ATF. More reading is needed to assess whether it might go further up, but there were emails found which reported misleading information up the line.

Mucho said above that 5-10% of tracking units failed, causing ATF to end Wide Receiver. Which means 90% were still working. If it's realistic to stop all the guns going to Mexico, that's a fatal flaw. As it's not, that's an increased operating risk.

Was Fast and Furious a good idea? Do I support it? No. Is it a failure of government? Yes. Should the Mexican authorities have been involved? Probably (although given corruption, that's not a slam dunk question).

And in conclusion, barring evidence to the contrary, bungled operations are usually more likely than malicious intent. Read the report.

Regarding Iran and dangers in the Middle East, what would you have done? Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon yet, and pressure is being put on them to stop enriching nuclear fuel. The rest of the world is united in saying they should stop. The alternative I see is unilateral (well, bilateral... Israel would help) invasion of Iran to shut it down, as bombings of nuclear facilities would only delay, not stop, the program.

Again, the world has problems. President Obama has made some of them worse. He's made some better.

Pete , to prove my point lets just look at one of those things you cited ! How many
years did it take for the media to publish the o's birth certificate ? If the New York
timers did iots job why did it not push for it ? Do you remember when Bush was in
office ? I do , the media gave him 2 weeks to give information on himself . YTet
when he ran over the time by a couple of days the New Joke times did pieces on
how Bush was hiding something !!!! Yet the o gets away with birth for 2 years and
his transcripts for 4 years . What else ? If the njt did its job it probobly would have
stopped people from guessing if the o was a legal citizen . But instead the media
calls those people birthers instead of taking blame themselves for not informing
people immediatly when the o started !!!!! Will we ever get the facts on the o ? Or
will we the people have to guess until the media can use the guesses against
American citizens as a slight for not knowing ?

Peter123 - What a refreshing breath of fresh air in this malodorous blog. I enjoy your comments. They are refreshingly bipartisan (my opinion). In order to survive in this blogosphere, you must truly be bipartisan. You must have the thickness and toughness of the hide of an elephant and the stubbornness and obstinacy of a donkey in order to survive the constant attacks on intelligence that takes place here daily.

Ref, you've got far more stamina for this than I do. I have time and energy for this right now because I'm out of town for work in an area with not too much going on. I'm glad you enjoy my comments, but in truth it's all just an attempt to get some differing opinions into Waukesha County. You're not my target audience.

WFB, the birth certificate thing was a fabricated issue. It was a no-win situation for the Times. They could have done an in-depth investigation. What would that have accomplished? They had already concluded that he was born in Hawai'i. They could have found more evidence, and doubters would have continued to blame the liberal bias at the Times for failing to provide evidence. If I recall correctly, that's basically what happened.

What's to be gained from transcripts now? It won't show that he's ineligible to be President. It won't prove some conflict of interest (which is the justification for tax return demands). He has a record to be judged on. The transcripts won't provide anything more.

I was too young to vote in 2000, so I don't recall the two week deadline you're referring to for President Bush's records. Did those relate to his service in the National Guard? Was it his transcripts? His tax returns? His birth certificate?

Did any see the movie Idiocracy?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy

"...(His (Bush) transcripts are better than the o's)..."

And you would know this how?

Taking another WAG?

"Did any see the movie Idiocracy?"
Yes I did. Did anybody read the book (Short story actually) it was based on? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marching_Morons

First of all everything was looked in to by the media about Bush ! The o has had a
pass on everything even Benghazi until the right pushed harder ! If the media
wanted to be a media they should treat all the presidents the same . That is not the
case with the o . The media still refuses to tie the o with several anti american
people . Aires is one of them . Why ? Look how the media still jumps on Bush's
second . yet they pass on Biden . Benghazi has to be forced on the njt . The media
blames bush for our economy but fails to show us how Bush did something more
than the o ! Yet the o gets a pass and the media still blames Bush ! Bush 4 T in 8
years the o 6 T in 4 years and counting ! Yet bush wasted money ? Bush had a war
while the o has 3 ! Bush went to Harvard so did the o ! Yet Bushes transcripts are
public ! Where is the o's ? Bush had Katrina and was attacked for not propping up
people after 2 weeks . The o had the one along the east coast and people still do not
have help in many areas . Yet it is many weeks later and I still do not see attacks on
the o ,or even have a recollection of the storms name ! lol...How would the media
have attacked Bush if he had ties to terrorists like the o has ?
Over and over the o is a failure yet the media still props the leader up as a savior .
How sad even with me and others pointing this out you still just ignore the truth.
Just look at Walker . He turned to the police for he saw problems with some who
worked under him. Yet the media,unions, PDLS's try to tie Walker to these crooks
even though Walker was the one to turn them in !!!! Bias , bias, bias . Yet you still do
not see it PDLS's !

WFB - Give up the Birth Certificate issue. It is inane. In 2008 we had a guy born in the Panama Canal running against a guy born in Hawaii to mixed parents (one foreign-national and one US Citizen.)

The "new word" Hemmer brings up alludes more ot the cycle of democracy than the faults of any one elected leader. Obama is an unfortunate agent acting as a catalyst in the downfall of democracy.

If you are unaware of this phenomenon, detailed by Alexander Tytler over 200 years ago, start here:

http://www.wrisley.com/cycle.htm

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury.

"From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."


Some are electing to fight the cycle while Obama and his legion are greasing the slide.

@ janetluvshorses/Achieve1/Nathan: Unless you can make a comment without taunts and/or personal attacks (and the "pooooor Amy" stuff is getting rather old), your comments will not appear.
Please re-read the Discussion Guidelines and then try playing nice - otherwise don't play at all. :)

Peter123...Sanctioins and World pressure are really working. Posted yesterday.

"Iranian scientists have run computer simulations for a nuclear weapon that would produce more than triple the explosive force of the World War II bomb that destroyed Hiroshima, according to a diagram obtained by The Associated Press".

Georgie...Not to be concerned. Obama Administration will talk to them.

"DUBAI (Reuters) - Iran will go on refining uranium "with intensity" and the number of enrichment centrifuges it has operating will rise substantially in the current year, the country's nuclear energy chief was quoted as saying on Wednesday.

The comments by Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani, head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation, signaled continued defiance in the face of international demands that Tehran halt enrichment to the higher 20 percent fissile purity level, close down its Fordow enrichment plant, and ship out its stockpile of the material."

"BANDAR ABBAS, Nov. 28 -- Two domestically-made submarines in the classes of Qadir and two domestically-manufactured hovercrafts in the classes of SR.N6 and BH7 were delivered to the Iranian Navy fleet on Wednesday during a ceremony held in the Persian Gulf port city of Bandar Abbas."

They are capable of launching missles. Iran also deploys Frigates that have the same capabiliies. All for peaceful means. Before WWII, Japan and Germany built up their Military while the rest of the world protested.

First, sorry for the delay in these replies... work has kept me busy. Only a bit of time to reply now...

WFB, which aspects of President Bush's life are you complaining about having examined? The National Guard commitments which allowed him to avoid being drafted for Vietnam, which were then pushed around to allow him to do political work? His business entanglements? Those are clearly fair targets for press scrutiny. And President Obama's connections were also examined. You know the name Ayers, and we all heard about his troubling real estate deals with Tony Rezko back in 2008. We also heard nonsense about the schools he attended in Indonesia. Looks like Obama was investigated, too. And if we see his transcripts, there will be another target.

Or are you complaining that Bush never got a free pass from the press on his policies? Like when we went to war on the credit card, exploding deficits wouldn't have been there without the tax cuts? Or claims of weapons of mass destruction? I don't recall Dick Cheney being hit in the press nearly as badly for his comments about the deficit not mattering during good times as President Obama is for a deficit during a bad recession, while mainstream economics tells us a boom is the time for austerity. President Bush had at least a year of a free pass after Al Qaida attacked.

Geno, what is it you want in Iran? Economic sanctions take time to work. It's a stick used to push changes in other areas. Hard-liners on the right don't want diplomatic negotiations with Iran, and the economic sanctions aren't good enough. If you don't convince them and you don't push them economically, it requires military action. What would you prefer be done in Iran? A general direction is ok (no specifics required), because it looks to me like the available levers are being used to push them.