Monday, November 18, 2013

The never-grow-ups

Janet Gallagher is part of this country's biggest problem:  The never-grow-ups.

She wants you to know "based on two presidential elections," America wants Barack.

Republicans can say the same of Bully Boy Bush.  He won two elections.  I'd argue the first was a gift from the Supreme Court which wrongfully inserted itself into the process.  But Republicans -- or just people who voted for Bully Boy Bush regardless of party i.d. -- can say he was chosen twice.

"NSA spying was happening before Obama," huffs Janet assuming she's proven something.

Murder happened before Barack became president, so did pedophilia, as did the Hully Gully.

What's your point?

Questions regarding Benghazi are, Janet insists cloaked in stupidity, an effort "to discredit Hillary Clinton" for a presidential run.

That's a cute little lie and the stupidity in Gallagher's head is vast.

There's no lie she can't repeat with a straight face because she believes all the crap she hears and is incapable of a thought of her own.

If she can tear herself from the MSNBC feed long enough, she can grasp she's the problem.

She's the stupid idiot that keeps the Democratic Party lying.

She is their success story.

Questions about Benghazi were not raised to attack Hillary and only a damned liar or a fool would repeat that.

Unlike lazy asses with flapping mouths, I've been at probably every Benghazi hearing.  I was there in October 2012 when they started.

The notion that Hillary was targeted?

It's a lovely little piece of spin that exists so you won't ask questions.

'She's targeted!'

Oh, goody, then we don't have to think about what happened or why.  If this is all about attacks on Hillary, then it's end of story.

But Hillary wasn't attacked by Republicans.

In fact, it was kind of embarrassing to sit there and listen to Republicans (and Democrats) fawn over the non-present Hillary.

In the early days, she was all about cooperation -- or the pretense of it.

And she hadn't repeatedly sold the lie that Benghazi was the result of a YouTube video.

So Republicans -- with one exception -- had nothing but praise for Hillary in all these hearings she wasn't present for.

The only person on the Republican side gunning for Hillary in 2012 was US House Rep Jason Chaffetz.  And maybe that's because he knew more than many.  He'd been to Libya after the September 12, 2012 attack which claimed the lives of Tyrone Woods, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Ambassador Chris Stevens.

He's the reason we knew it was a CIA compound.  He kept objecting to efforts by government witnesses (State Dept witnesses) to lie.  And at one point, in discussion with the Chair, his microphone was not off.  If you attended that hearing, and we did, you left it knowing this wasn't just a diplomatic mission in Libya.

Even with that, Hillary still had many Republicans on her side.  Due in part because she was so close to Republicans in the Congress.  Her close circle included many in the House and Senate when she was Senator Hillary Clinton.   We dole that information out as needed.  For example, when US House Rep Ileana Ros-Lehtinen was requesting information officially and a rag (POLITICO) was telling you the fur would fly or some other sexist nonsense, we informed you that actually Hillary and Ileana were friends.  And they are.

In January 2013, Hillary went to the Congress -- the Senate and House (the press focused on the Senate appearance -- we were at both hearings that day).  Hillary brought scorn on herself.

Remember Barack's Annie Oakley crack about Hillary in 2008?

Goodness, did she live up to it that day.

She was all bluster and bullying.

In fairness to Hillary, she was being a 'team player' (which may be why she shouldn't be president -- when has she ever bucked her party and demonstrated herself to be an individual? -- even Barack can point to multiple times when he bucked the party while in the Senate and he only had 3 years while she had 8).

But she wasn't answering questions.

That's the reality.

Long before her bellicose moment, she'd shamed herself already and you could see the shock among those asking the questions.   A sort of: Who the hell is this person?

She came itching for a fight and all she did was disgrace herself.

Because she stone walled and snarled on Barack's behalf, suddenly the so-called left that had called her a c**t, or just worn t-shirts proclaiming she was that, loved her.  Thing is, these people will not stay with her.

They applaud reporters who lie as long as the reporters lie for Barack.  When a truth comes out or even just a question, these villagers grab their torches.  They will do the same with Hillary.

Hillary is not the front runner currently.  She's the woman who better keep her mouth shut about Barack or risk losing soft support.

And in 2016, should she run, protecting Barack won't be the concern.

The Cult of St. Barack will have found a new man -- or Elizabeth Warren -- to love.  And Hillary will be alone to defend her shouting of "What difference does it make!"

It might even be compared to Howard Dean's roar.

But Hillary was given a pass until the start of 2013.  Even now, there are Republicans who have softened their critiques -- or avoided them entirely -- because Hillary was not just a colleague but also a friend.

If she'd shown up in January not trying to act like Little Miss Tough Guy, things would have gone a lot better for her with Congress.  Instead, she wanted to be a 'team player' and insisted on combating instead of providing testimony.

Little Whores for Barack applaud that.

People who care actual democracy?  They realize that her tantrum in front of Congress was not only inappropriate but disrespectful of the Constitution and our supposed belief in checks and balances.

MSNBC loved it when Hillary played the bully on behalf of Barack and they got their new talking point: It's to destroy Hillary's run!

If you believe that crap, you really shouldn't be voting.  If you're that stupid that you will let hucksters rewrite history, then you really shouldn't be voting.

Janet then tries to liken Benghazi to Iraq and insists that, if truth matters, why aren't "the Republicans who started the war in Iraq" demanding answers about that?

Does she really want to sound like a worthless hypocrite?

Her 'logic' -- and we use the term loosely -- is that Republicans started the Iraq War therefore Barack gets a pass on Benghazi.

That's not how the world works or how the law works.

Does MSNBC destroy the thought process?

Possibly so.

But Republicans didn't start the war alone.  They had Democrats voting for the war including John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, John Kerry, Dianne Feinstein and many, many more.

She wants you to know that "4,500 American soldiers died directly due to the Bush administration's dishonesty."


She's a deeply stupid woman.

First off, don't say "soldiers."  Soldiers refers to the army.  That's why "troops" is used.  Or service members.  You are insulting other branches -- and the dead -- when you say "soldiers."

Sorry for your stupidity.

Second, which MSNBC personality fed you that one?

4,5000 US troops have not died in Iraq.

The number is 4489 -- and that includes DoD civilian employees (non-service members).

iraq count

And, yes, that is one more in the last six months.  I assume it was someone who was injured and passed; however, it could have been some troop dying in Iraq in 2013.  I have no way of knowing and long ago grasped how little most Americans care.

When Janet can't even give a f**k enough to check the official figure at the Defense Dept (PDF format warning, it's here), that says all we need to know about the lack of interest on the part of most Americans in the Iraq War.

The total mattered once to Americans.

Before the 'withdrawal'?

No.  It mattered before November 2008.  Once those elections were held, left and 'left' sites all lost interest in the Iraq War.

There were a few who died that had Facebook or MySpace pages.  As a result, we were able to note not just their names but to also put a face to the name.  Here's Christopher Fishbeck.

christopher fishbeck

He died June 6, 2011.  And when I look at the photo, my eyes water and I either take a deep gulp and get a hold of myself or I just start crying.

Maybe it's his smile?  Maybe it's in part that he's so young?  Maybe it's in part that he's holding a puppy?  Maybe it's because he was from my state?  I don't know.

But what I do know is that we got more hate mail for running that photo than for anything else.

Not my comments on the administration (of Barack or of Bush) or my criticism of the false gods such as Amy Goodman.

None of it got as much hate mail as running the photo of Christopher Fishbeck.

Because some felt it was wrong to grab the MySpace photo?

No, because this was 'hurting' Barack.  He was going to pull all troops out come the end of 2011 and he had re-election in 2012 to run for and didn't I know that running that photo would hurt Barack's chances?

I've rarely been as sickened by my own side (the left) as when Martha and Shirley told me about those e-mails and gave me the count.

Christopher Fishbeck didn't matter.  A Republican was no longer in the White House so who gave a f**k anymore if an American died in Iraq?

If you doubt it, grasp the fact that there's no effort made to highlight the continued fallen in Afghanistan.  (Americans do grasp that over 100 US troops have died in Afghanistan so far this year, right?  And you might want to check out Mark Thompson's report for Time magazine today about how all US troops aren't coming out in the 'drawdown.')

There was other angry e-mails from visitors when we'd run photos but none compared to the over 2,000 that came in objecting to running Christopher Fishbeck's photo because it might hurt Barack's 2012 re-election chances.

Little sidebar to a related topic.  We just saw Veterans Day in this country.  For years and years, decades and decades, I've heard people insist that my side is so awful to veterans.

And I've always thought, you just don't know what you're talking about.

But in the last years a number of lefties have felt the need to write F**K VETARANS and other such 'lovely' pieces on Veterans Day.

And I've waited to see these people called out.  They never are.

I do not and did not support the Iraq War.

Unlike the Cult of St. Barack, I wasn't sitting on my ass doing nothing.

Starting in February 2003, a month before the war started, I was speaking to college students about the illegal war.

The Iraq War was wrong, it was illegal.

That is my opinion (and I can back it up if required).

That doesn't mean that I trash those who were sent to Iraq.

They were ordered to go, they went.  Some are proud of what they did there, some are not.

My problem is with the government, it has nothing to do with those who were ordered to serve there.

'They don't secure my freedoms!' and other similar remarks.

Why are you saying this?

Because you're a piece of human filth?

If you've got a problem, it's not with some man or woman sent to Iraq.  It's with a government that made the decision -- a bi-partisan decision -- to declare war on Iraq.

They could have refused!

Some did refuse to serve.  I believe we applauded everyone who refused publicly.

But those of you who lack even the courage to not vote for Barack when you know he's over The Drone War are probably the last who should ever criticize anyone for going along (willfully or reluctantly) with an order from the US government.

Today, Veterans Day is about honoring service.  They were asked to go, they were ordered to go, and they did.  And fortunately, they made it back.  If you can't find anything else in Veterans Day to celebrate, maybe you could at least celebrate that they made it back?

When we have the White House, we lower our guard don't we?  We show just how ugly we can be.  We attack other Americans for how they vote, for what they believe in and so much more.  And then we're surprised by how quickly we're out of power.  (The other side does it too.  That doesn't make it right.)  Out of power, we suddenly want to build alliances and suddenly want to talk about issues that matter -- as opposed to just reciting the daily talking point of the White House.

We have a sick government.  It kills people, it spies on people.  It's as far from the notion of democracy as it can get without totally abandoning the term.

Why do we have a sick government?

Because we are a lazy people.

Take Janet who wants to pretend she cares about how many American troops died in Iraq.  She didn't care enough to even Google.

Just last month, a few on the left were slamming Suzanne Somers.  She'd misremembered what animal was on the cover of a magazine and she'd found some quotes online that were incorrect.

But here we have a person who wants to use the fallen to try to establish that she's on some higher ground and she can't even bother to Google the number in a letter she intended to be published.

If we ever looked honestly at ourselves and how we function when our side is in power, we might grasp why the electorate swings back and forth repeatedly from one party to the next.

The never-grow-ups ensure that our democracy gets weaker and weaker, year after year, because they don't give a damn about rights and liberties except when the other party is in power.  Let another Bush get into the White House and our side will probably be publicly weeping in the streets of America for the fate of the Constitution.  But right now, as it's assaulted?

Don't we have a MoveOn petition to sign about what Republicans are doing?  Isn't there some Republican we can slime?  Don't we have a president to defend!

Again, we're responsible for the destruction of democracy.

The e-mail address for this site is