19 thoughts on “A Meaningless Phrase”

  1. It didn’t have any when Saint Ronald Reagan used it to save the asses of the military commanders whose incompetence cost the lives of 200-plus Marines and ran us out of Lebanon with our tail between our legs.

    Why should it when someone who’s not senile yet uses it?

    1. Perhaps so, but when the Reagan administration ran arms to a foreign country contrary to the law; someone went to jail. So, who has gone to jail for Fast and Furious?

      Under Bush, when someone got caught lying about national security issues, someone went to jail. No one went to jail under Clinton, but who will go to jail for lying about Benghazi?

    2. Is it your case that it was wrong when Reagan did it, so it’s all right when Obama/Hillary does it? Your ethics need debugging.

  2. Why bring up Reagan when Janet “Waco” Reno is a better example of a cabinet officer covering for the President?

  3. The point is Hillary is not taking responsibility. She blamed her staff in the same breath. Taking responsibility means accepting consequences. There are no consequences so far. It’s all a game to get to Nov. 7th.

  5. This whole thing is turning into a great example of how the shit always flows downhill. Like when Hillary says, “I take full responsibility…to shovel this shit further on down the chain.” Except in this case it’s some unnamed “security expert”. What, are we outsourcing consulate security to Sherlock Holmes? Perhaps more like Deputy Dawg, “Dangnabbit!”.

  6. This afternoon Rush Limbaugh played a whole bunch of clips of (D)s saying that ALL responsibility for anything having to do with the federal government lies in the Oval Office .

    Oddly enough for all their misdirecting BS over the last month, one of the finger pointers of old was Barack Obama, one of the others, was Hitlary!

  7. It would be funny if it weren’t so sad. When they say, like Obama did in this second debate, “I take full responsibility” it means “I take no responsibility.” Instead, we will have a commission to figure things out until nobody is paying attention anymore and we’ll just ignore that as well.

    Responsibility is meaningless without repercussions. I am very disappointed that Romney didn’t come back and counter with that in this debate. Obama claimed to say that within an hour he had said the Benghazi attack was terrorism (but he didn’t really.) So why didn’t Romney ask, “If you knew it was terrorism from the very beginning, why did you and your surrogates continue to lie about it being a spontaneous protest for a two weeks?”

    1. There were a LOT of things Romney could have come back with which would have destroyed Obama right then and there and sealed the debate. Yours was one of them.

      None of them occurred to Romney.

      1. The “fix is in” on such things, so I don’t know if accusing the President of telling a lie would help in the debate.

        I think the more important role of the debate is to “smoke them out.” We have the Vice President saying “I know nothing! I see nothing!” whereas the President is on record that he declared it to be terrorism “in the first hour.” You can compare those statements then against the spokespeople on the Sunday talk shows.

        It is kind of like cross examination by a skilled prosecuter. You don’t get an answer from the witness and then shout out “You lie!” as they do in Hollywood courtroom dramas. Instead, you just keep asking questions, allowing the witness to build up a framework that you can take down by calling a rebuttal witness.

        Mr. Romney has a law degree from Harvard, and he is a smart guy. But there are also lawyers and then there are lawyers. Chris Christie and Rudy Gulliani were not only Federal prosecuters but served on high profile cases. I would consider these guys as “NFL MVP” level lawyers, especially with respect to cross-exam. Fred Thompson was also a Federal prosecuter, and plays at the “NFL level”, but he may have played a somewhat better prosecuter on TV’s Law and Order. Mr. Romney may be a “good college player” in my sports metaphor.

        It is kind of a shame that the Republicans can’t bring themselves to put Chris Christie or Rudy on the ticket, although Chris has more Tea Party street cred, but they are both considered to be squishes on “the social issues.” I think a lot of the Chris Christie “tough guy from New Jersey” is a bit of an act and maybe a media exageration, and maybe Rudy is the better Federal prosecuter. But both these guys are lightning-quick on their feet and would “wipe the floor” with a certain person who is a legal wannabe.

        2. Paul Milo says:

          “Instead, you just keep asking questions, allowing the witness to build up a framework that you can take down by calling a rebuttal witness.”

          Well the prosecutor can help a lot by noting, ” On the 25th you said to XYZ this; on the 28th you said that…..which is true?”

          Much better to push the person’s words back onto them and force them to deal with the contradiction.

    2. The moderator stepping in and speaking for the President took all the wind out of his sails. And the Michelle breaking the rules by clapping loudly and getting the crowd into it didn’t help. But he did try to come back from that and did mention something about 2 weeks with no further mention of terrorism.

      It’s funny that with Obama’s, “you didn’t build that statment” the left was up in arms that his statement was being taken out of context. In this case it’s Obama that’s trying to take his own statement out of context. He made one generic statement about terrorism but the rest of the speech was all about the demonstration and the video. Obama tried to spin the attack as some spontaneous event that spun off of some demonstration. But that doesn’t make sense because acts of terror are premeditated events. Obama over the course of 2 weeks made every attempt to make the consulate attack into anything other than a premeditated attack which implies that he was not treating it as an act of terror.

Comments are closed.