Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Outgoing Secretary Of The Statement

“What difference does it make?” That’s the mantra of the Obama Administration now, and it’s not just about what happened in Benghazi. It’s about many things, like twice taking an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, so help me God - and then ignoring it. “What difference does it make?”
 It’s about quadrupling our deficits for the last four years after promising to cut them in half. What difference does it make? It’s about using the Federal Reserve to print trillions of dollars with nothing to back them up. What difference does it make? It’s about infringing on the right to keep and bear arms in spite of the Second Amendment. What difference does it make? It’s about making “recess appointments” when the Senate isn’t in recess and appointing “czars” to make policy without congressional confirmation or authorization. What difference does it make?

Guess we could call Hillary Clinton our outgoing “Secretary of the Statement” since she made that infamous remark in the form of a rhetorical question. After shedding crocodile tears about her friend “Chris” and the other three dead Americans whose bodies were flown back to America, Mrs. Clinton pounded the table in feigned indignation yelling: “Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for walk one night who decided they’d go and kill some Americans?” It was neither of those things Madame Secretary, but as you said: what difference does it make?
What difference does it make that you (ignored) didn’t receive your friend Chris’s repeated pleas for more security? What difference does it make that you and/or President Obama and/or the Secretary of Defense (refused) didn’t know enough to send help to the former Navy Seals who, thinking for seven hours that help was on the way, died bravely trying to defend surviving Americans? What difference does it make that you all sent out UN Ambassador Susan Rice to lie to the American people about it five times the next Sunday morning?
What difference does it make that our Secretary of State just wants to go on her way without being accountable to questions about her competence, questions concerning her lies about some video being the cause of the attack, or questions about her lack of accountability to the US Senate that confirmed her? What difference, at this point, does it make?
What difference does it make if our soldiers’ morale plummets after realizing their commander-in-chief cares more about an election than about the very lives of brave soldiers under his command? What difference does it make that our president talked tough about the terrorists - promising to “bring them to justice” but hasn’t done a thing, even after one of the terrorists talked about it with a New York Times reporter at a cafe? What difference does it make when the same terrorists with the same weapons are so unafraid of President Obama that they took American hostages when attacking an oil rig in Algeria a couple of weeks ago?

What difference does it make when the Obama Administration censors any references to Islam or jihad from government documents about the war in which we’re engaged? What difference does it make that we’re afraid even to call our enemy by its true name? What difference does it make that our enemies think President Obama is a wuss and that America is a paper tiger?
 What difference does it make that Iran doesn’t take seriously President Obama’s promise that “The United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.” What difference does it make that Israel doesn’t take our president seriously either and so will be forced into a pre-emptive attack on Iran to save itself? What difference does it make if that drives up the price of oil to $500 or $1000 a barrel and sinks the whole world’s economy? What difference does it make if a nuclear war breaks out in the Middle East and we’re led by a cowardly, incompetent administration?

Hard to see why any of this would be a big deal.


Eric said...

What difference does it make that Tom doesn't know jack$hit about politics, (see his election prediction for proof) he'll post his hilarious gobblygook anyway!

Thanks, Tom.

PS I am really looking forward to seeing how you react to another 8 years of a Clinton presidency. Hmmm, I wonder if Bill can be Hillary's vice-president - let's watch the conservative gaskets blow!

Anonymous said...

Hmmm. I think Eric got it right. Obama was washing up Hillary for her run in 2016. He doesn't care any more. He got his eight. It seems no liberal wants or cares why Rice was so willing to shill for the Pres. Why did any of this happen? Who is responsible? No one cares, right Eric.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

thanks for share...

Anonymous said...

There doesn't seem to be much interest here in rehashing all these old right wing talking points that failed so miserably last election.

Tom McLaughlin said...

All the timid Anonymouses:

Especially the spelling-challenged one. I won't have to rehash them too much longer. They'll soon break through Democrat blinders and cripple the country.

Hillary blamed Bush for not funding embassy security in Benghazi. These people have no shame. Now that our Dear Leader is in his second term, even the information-challenged voters who gave it to him will start blaming him for screwing everything up.

The honeymoon will be over soon. Reality has a way of catching up and kicking you in the ass.

Nobody escapes. Not even The One.

Anonymous said...

Reality has already caught up to you and kicked your ass, you are just too obtuse to figure it out.

The One has won.

Steve said...

I haven’t read of any Democrat-appointed or Republican-appointed czars who authored legislation and bypassed Congress in the process. If you have examples, please post them. Here’s a link to a fackcheck.org article address czars. http://factcheck.org/2009/09/czar-search/
Czars, as they relate to presidential politics, have been around since FDR’s administration. They’re policy advisors. No sitting president has ever conferred the title of czar onto anyone. The term czar is applied by the media. Consider Bush’s War Czar: General Douglas Lute. His given title was Deputy National Security Advisor of Iraq and Afghan Policy and Implementation. That’s eleven words long. In the interest of brevity and compelling copy, which sounds better: his given title or War Czar? To a print journalist, there’s a nine-word difference in the two titles. That’s a full sentence.

Imbedded in the factcheck article is a link to the lists of all of Obama’s czars and the 35 czars that George W. had in his administration. The lists also denote which posts required senate confirmation and which didn’t. Did Fox commentators warn their audiences about W.’s czars?

Removing specific words related to fundamental Islam is a topic you wrote about in September 2010. You provided this link http://www.meforum.org/2632/obama-tries-to-eradicate-radical-islam to an article from Raymond Ibrahim where he made the same argument. To make his case, he linked this government memo http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/126.pdf
“What terrorists fear most is irrelevance; what they need most is for large numbers of people to rally to their cause. There was a consensus that the US Gov’t should avoid unintentionally portraying terrorists, who lack moral and religious legitimacy, as brave fighters, legitimate soldiers, or spokesmen for ordinary Muslims. Therefore, the experts counseled caution in using terms such as “jihadist,” Islamic terrorist,” Islamist,” and “holy warrior” as grandiose descriptions.” Another passage reads, “The consensus is that we must carefully avoid giving bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders the legitimacy they crave, but do not possess, by characterizing them as religious figures, or in terms that may make them seem to be noble in the eyes of some.” You can debate the efficacy of this approach, but the declared rationale behind it is strategic and not fear, as you suggest. The interesting part is the date at the top of the memo. The date is January 2008; twelve months before Obama took office, yet the author includes it in his article titled “Obama tries to eradicate radical Islam not from America, but from America’s mindset.” Your blog, Mr. McLaughlin, sounds like Obama is continuing a strategy first explored by Michael Chertoff, Bush’s Director of Homeland Security.

Brian said...

Really, Steve? Factchecks and information taken in context? That is not how Tom operates. Nope, he prefers to see how the Right Wing talking heads are spinning things, and take it from there. Why not even add MORE embellishments? It's fun! And much easier to make your point! No need to do your own research. Find a title that you think backs you up, and link it - no thought required. OOOPS, the link actually DISPROVES your point because you didn't even bother to read your "proof". God, I'll never get over the hilariousness of that one.

Anonymous said...

Yet another spanking being taken by Tom.

Anonymous said...

I, for one, am so seriously sick and terrified for my country.If you are a fringe group you get all the liberal protection afforded by our constitution. As a married, white, conservative, Christian, consealed weapons permitted, gun carrying, female American citizen, I am told I am the crazy one, because I refuse to stand down on my 2nd ammendment rights. I am tired of defending myself, I am tired of feeling ashamed of my President and his policies. It happened before with Bill Clinton, and honestly, if the DNC is really going to put forward Hillary, I prob will leave. I still believe America to be the best country in the world, but I am weary, and disheartened, oh, and broke, the economy has brought my family to it's knees. I agree with alot of what Tom says in his column and more importantly, stand up for his right to his opinions without attacking him personally. It is freedom of speech for all of us...not just the ones you agree with.

Rick said...

to the last timid Anonymous (Tom's words):

Yes, Tom has his freedom to say what he wants in his columns, and by the same token we have the freedom to attack him, just as he attacks gays, women's rights supportors, and other groups. And you can really give one single instance in which your gun rights were tampered with. I think you are reacting to the gun lobby scare tactics - great for sales!

So, where are you thining of moving come 2016?

Winston Smith said...

Ill side with Tom on this, in a limited fashion.
As you know I detest the farce that is two'party politics in this country. It is extremely limited and it seems both parties really serve the same corporate banker masters. Pretty obvious when you want to see it. Why people want to play along and root for their team is beyond me? Merely look at Obama and its obvious he's carried out an agenda W would have wet dreams over----upping the assault on our rights via Ndaa, etc, running guns via fast and furious, and stepping up a drone campaign that routinely slaughters innocent civilians.
Yes, these programs were from previous administrations, but the reality is Ndaa was not discarded but signed on New Year's Eve ( gee wonder why? ) and after promising to remove that pesky little part about detaining Americans he didn't! Fast and furious? again, same thing. Not to mention the executive priviledge invoked to escape blame, how noble, and the drone program, ramped up heavily in 2010, well, anyone backing that is a sadisitic evil demon. Period. And the shallow and inept two,party thinking has so called liberals giving the nod to all of this, even defending it! Imagine, if someone from the GOP were in charge, all the "liberals" would be feigning outrage! Sickening...

Hillary Clinton is also a demon. Anyone buying the bs she peddles should have their critical thinking skills checked. She routinely lies and displays a hubris that is beyond compare. Well. Other than Obama.

I thought the "republicans" were terryifying under W, but the Obama freaks have proven it doesn't matter what label you give your party--- it's all the same just a different wrapper. As long as the guy you edpndorse is in office murder and ruining the constitution is ok.

It is incomprehensible to me why anyone puts up with this two,party farce? It does not work. There is a reason many of the founding fathers warned against what they called " factions" in the federalist papers ( numbers 9 and 10 I think? ) . They sell you a cult of personality and you believe it, even vehemently defend it! All the while we are played. Divide and conquer. This is relentlessly pushed by the networks which only proves the corproate control. It does not work! My god, we still use the electoral college for christs sake, and some of you half wits will,argue for it! Wake up, it's nearly too late!

Peter said...

I am 100% totally in agreement with the notion that the two party system is a disastrous farce. Both parties are involved in horrific asctivities, but they do diverge on many issues and have different social agendas. But the need to open up elections for outside parties and individuals is immense.

Greg said...

I often wonder why Tom bothers to write his columns. It is not an attempt to change people's minds about topics, or he would not be so childishly rude. I think it must be because of his obsession with trying to make fun of liberals, and he somehow feels better about himself by insulting and belittling others. Like the drunk at the party with a lampshade on his head, he really does not realize that people are laughing AT him, especially those who he thinks he is targeting. Why would liberals willfully come and read this stuff if we didn't like the entertainment of watching a bufoon make a fool out of himself?

Please hurry with your next piece!

Anonymous said...

Quadrupling our deficit? That's just a lie. The deficit is going DOWN.