“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#160321 Mar 17, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>Found another female who needs rescuing there, Lancelot?
Don't get any lipstick on your trusty sword now...
Guinevere may be miffed.
Better stick to fancy wording, ms kitty. You suck at humor (too).

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#160322 Mar 18, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Better stick to fancy wording, ms kitty. You suck at humor (too).
Good morning, bob, from a happy, heterosexual, married mother of two, and thanks for the left-handed compliment.

:)

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#160323 Mar 18, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>Good morning, bob, from a happy, heterosexual, married mother of two, and thanks for the left-handed compliment.:)
Easy fix.

Replace the term "lesbian", with "dysfunctional crone".

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#160324 Mar 18, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Easy fix.
Replace the term "lesbian", with "dysfunctional crone".
I invite you to replace your head with something functional bob - like a Big Gulp dispenser, maybe?

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#160325 Mar 18, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Easy fix.
Replace the term "lesbian", with "dysfunctional crone".
And good morning to from the Monarchic socialistic ambulance chaser, also heterosexual if the orientation criterion is important to you.

If you behave and are respectable to the Catcher Crown, I'll dub you Knight of the Frustrated Right.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#160326 Mar 18, 2013

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#160327 Mar 18, 2013
Riki wrote:
<quoted text>
Condi Rice? You mean your "National Security Adviser" on September 11 (presumably a failure of national security!) who was later promoted to Secretary of State by "Heckuvajob" Bush? Was she promoted because she was competent or because she was connected and played her role well?
The position of National Security Adviser is subordinate to that of Secretary of State. If Condi Rice was a failure in that position because of September 11, 2001, then what was Sec of State Hillary Clinton on September 11, 2012?

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#160328 Mar 18, 2013
Going by the emoticons, I hit somebody's nerves :) Kewl!

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#160329 Mar 18, 2013
Roberta G wrote:
<quoted text>
The position of National Security Adviser is subordinate to that of Secretary of State. If Condi Rice was a failure in that position because of September 11, 2001, then what was Sec of State Hillary Clinton on September 11, 2012?
She also failed. Which lessens Condi's failure of 9/11/001 in importance, significance, and consequence,
not
one
iota.

Ask families and friends of the three thousand dead as a result of Condi's failure, whose 'failure' was more egregious.

And then ask Republicans in Congress why they voted to decrease funding for American Embassy security.

G'head.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#160330 Mar 18, 2013
Roberta G wrote:
<quoted text>
The position of National Security Adviser is subordinate to that of Secretary of State. If Condi Rice was a failure in that position because of September 11, 2001, then what was Sec of State Hillary Clinton on September 11, 2012?
Uhhh ... well ... actually, the National Security Adviser is not subordinate to the Secretary of State, although (because the Secretary is a cabinet member) they are of a lower rank.

The National Security Adviser is subordinate to the President.

Besides ... it looks like you're talking to a truther. Unlike you, they aren't just playing the blame game in a partisan manner. He's probably willing to blame Clinton as much as Rice, liberals and Democrats as much as conservatives and liberals. After all, no matter what us sheeple think they're really the same thing, and it's all part of the sinister plot that goes on for ever and ever but never seems to complete.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#160331 Mar 18, 2013
Obviously, it should have read "e's probably willing to blame Clinton as much as Rice, liberals and Democrats as much as conservatives and Republicans1".

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#160332 Mar 18, 2013
Aw, bug off, the pair of ye.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#160333 Mar 18, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>She also failed. Which lessens Condi's failure of 9/11/001 in importance, significance, and consequence,
not
one
iota.
Ask families and friends of the three thousand dead as a result of Condi's failure, whose 'failure' was more egregious.
And then ask Republicans in Congress why they voted to decrease funding for American Embassy security.
G'head.
But Rice didn't fail on 9/11.

Yes, the United States was attacked on her watch, but the failures were systemic and not attributable to any one person or Administration or political party.

Can you make the argument that the Administration wasn't as focused on terror as they should have been up to 9/11. Sure - there is a certain amount of circumstantial evidence to support that.

What you can't do, even with that, is support the conclusion that the attack could have been avoided if Rice had been screaming about terror every day at the top of her lungs, and Ashcroft and Powell and the entities they run had doubled the previous administration's focus on al Qaeda.

One of the things Americans do best is play the blame game, and the problem with 9/11 is that there is so much to go around that it can be overwhelming. I think that plays a role in the ease with which some people grab onto the various and sundry whack-job theories, that it couldn't have happened if some super-duper secret Simon Bar Sinister figure or group hadn't pulled all the strings from the background.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#160334 Mar 18, 2013
Roberta G wrote:
Aw, bug off, the pair of ye.
I'm as likely to do that as you are, Roberta.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#160335 Mar 18, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>I'm as likely to do that as you are, Roberta.
I have industrial-strength bug spray at the ready.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#160337 Mar 18, 2013
Obama's Missile-Defense Reversal

A tacit admission that the U.S. will soon be vulnerable to attack.
========

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel chose Friday afternoon to announce one of the biggest switcheroos of the Obama Presidency: The Pentagon now plans to fortify America's homeland defenses against missile attack, reversing a 2009 decision that was part of President Obama's fantasy of a world without nuclear weapons.

Mr. Hagel said the U.S. will add 14 ground-based long-range missile interceptors by 2017 to the 30 already deployed at sites in Alaska and California. "The United States has missile-defense systems in place to protect us from limited ICBM attacks," said the new Defense chief, "but North Korea in particular has recently made advances in its capabilities and is engaged in a series of irresponsible and reckless provocations."

That's for sure. The Pentagon believes North Korean missiles can already reach Alaska and Hawaii, and it's only a matter of time before they are nuclear-tipped and can hit Seattle or San Diego. The Pyongyang regime has recently promised to attack the U.S. and turn South Korea into a "sea of fire." It's nice to see the Obama Administration finally admitting reality.

The shame is that the U.S. could already have those 14 extra interceptors in place, plus another 10 in Europe next year. Those plans from the Bush Administration were well along when Mr. Obama pulled the plug in 2009. He also mothballed or killed several promising missile-defense development programs, such as the airborne laser."

For full article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788...

"......reversing a 2009 decision that was part of President Obama's fantasy of a world without nuclear weapons."

"It's nice to see the Obama Administration finally admitting reality."
lol-
The Prince of Peace might need some water to wash this one down.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#160338 Mar 18, 2013
Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 03/18/2013

"Question: Whats the U.S. take on this EU plan with Cyprus that would basically call on Cypruss government to raid the personal accounts of its citizens?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I would refer you to the Treasury Department. Were obviously monitoring the situation right now. Our general proposition is that we believe its very important for Europe to take steps necessary, as they have been, to both grow and deal with sovereign debt issues. But as regards this particular situation, Id refer you to Cyprus -- beyond saying that were monitoring it -- I mean, refer you to Treasury beyond saying that were monitoring it.

Question: The markets, the global markets have obviously reacted negatively to this. Is there any concern, anything you would say to the American people about whether this might ricochet to the U.S. economy?

MR. CARNEY: Well, again, Im not going to comment on markets. You might see if Treasury officials will comment on them. I would simply say that we have long said that a strong, stable Europe is in the interest of the United States, and that applies broadly to our approach to all of Europe and to all of the eurozone.

With regards to Cyprus, I would refer you to Treasury except to say that were monitoring the situation."

UNBELIEVEABLE.
No official comment from the White House regarding the government of Cyprus {possibly} raiding/taking personal property from it's citizens."

ART Carney. I don't know how he sleeps at night.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#160339 Mar 18, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
Obama's Missile-Defense Reversal
A tacit admission that the U.S. will soon be vulnerable to attack.
========
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel chose Friday afternoon to announce one of the biggest switcheroos of the Obama Presidency: The Pentagon now plans to fortify America's homeland defenses against missile attack, reversing a 2009 decision that was part of President Obama's fantasy of a world without nuclear weapons.
Mr. Hagel said the U.S. will add 14 ground-based long-range missile interceptors by 2017 to the 30 already deployed at sites in Alaska and California. "The United States has missile-defense systems in place to protect us from limited ICBM attacks," said the new Defense chief, "but North Korea in particular has recently made advances in its capabilities and is engaged in a series of irresponsible and reckless provocations."
That's for sure. The Pentagon believes North Korean missiles can already reach Alaska and Hawaii, and it's only a matter of time before they are nuclear-tipped and can hit Seattle or San Diego. The Pyongyang regime has recently promised to attack the U.S. and turn South Korea into a "sea of fire." It's nice to see the Obama Administration finally admitting reality.
The shame is that the U.S. could already have those 14 extra interceptors in place, plus another 10 in Europe next year. Those plans from the Bush Administration were well along when Mr. Obama pulled the plug in 2009. He also mothballed or killed several promising missile-defense development programs, such as the airborne laser."
For full article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788...
"......reversing a 2009 decision that was part of President Obama's fantasy of a world without nuclear weapons."
"It's nice to see the Obama Administration finally admitting reality."
lol-
The Prince of Peace might need some water to wash this one down.
Been wondering where you have been.

Hey, tell us. Where do you land in the rift between self-described balding-fat-cat Karl Rove and I-can-see-Russia-from-my-back- yard Sarah? And between Reince Priebus's "we gotta be nice" and Rand Paul? What do you make of the Republican Party autopsy results? Are you a Ted Cruz fan?

Come on girl, hit us with a diatribe, it's been boring around here!

What about our new posters, are you going to address them?

Your friend, the low information voter Catcher.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#160340 Mar 18, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>She also failed. Which lessens Condi's failure of 9/11/001 in importance, significance, and consequence,
not
one
iota.
Ask families and friends of the three thousand dead as a result of Condi's failure, whose 'failure' was more egregious.
And then ask Republicans in Congress why they voted to decrease funding for American Embassy security.
G'head.
Willie already answered the first portion of your post. Here is the response to the second part.

The State Department denied/ignored additional security at the consulate when it was requested due to the increased risks which had emerged in the months leading up to the attack and slimmed down the number of fully trained Americans who can deal with a volatile situation like that. And the act of Congress at the urging of the Republicans had nothing to do with decreased security.
The State Department had $2+ billion in reserve funds for security. Funding had nothing to do with the security situation in Benghazi.
lisw

Georgetown, OH

#160341 Mar 18, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
Heartbreaking.
:(

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 2 min Good-Evil 793,166
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 3 min Just Think 120,605
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 47 min Epiphany2 607,028
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr Robert F 567,240
Homosexuality isn't just 'sin'......it's AN ABO... 1 hr Ninja of Reason 4
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 2 hr Pegasus 267,248
Israel's end is near, Ahmadinejad says (Jun '07) 3 hr Rathore 38,042
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 5 hr samanthar 97,403
More from around the web