Patterico's Pontifications

4/3/2014

Thursday Random Links

Filed under: General — JD @ 2:42 pm

[guest post by JD]

Dem Senate candidate in Iowa denigrates farmers and non-lawyers. . Ironically, Sen Feinstein is also not a lawyer, but she is a Dem, so that is okay.

The smartest, most eloquent speech reader President ever became the first President to utter the terms stinkburger and meanwich in public. Or private.

Sen Hairy Reed’s obsession continues unabated, and has expanded to his Senate website. The accusation of them not paying taxes is one he has utilized before. Other than Rush, have private citizens ever been attacked like this before? it is beyond surreal.

Charles Koch delivers a dignified response to the leftist nonsense.

The Daily Beast tacitly endorses male genital mutilation. Christoph’s head assplodes.

—JD

60 Responses to “Thursday Random Links”

  1. #SMEGMA

    JD (03f68b)

  2. Does the immunity to lawsuit extend past the Senate floor?

    Kevin M (b11279)

  3. Did youse see my comment over at the other thread about political corruption and Benghazi?

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  4. I think this Hairy Reed person is drinking from a flask when people aren’t looking.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  5. That would probably be funny of you hadn’t already pointed that same barb at DRJ.

    JD (03f68b)

  6. I think Christoph said he belonged to Eta Smegma Pi fraternity in college.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  7. From Best of the Web April 1, 2014:

    The Power of the Press

    There once was a man named Agler
    Who wrote to a guy called the Haggler
    It sounds like a limerick
    But it isn’t
    Because nothing rhymes with “limerick,” and no other common noun rhymes with “Haggler”

    What happened to Straggler?

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304432604579475500472923632?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304432604579475500472923632.html

    (his wife wa sleft off his insurance policy. Finally, the intervention of the New York times got him restored, but C.M.S would not discuss the case even after Mr. Agler promptly wrote an email to C.M.S. waiving his privacy rights, on the grounds that they had a policy not to discuss individual cases.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  8. “What do we want!?”

    “In Tact Penises”

    “When do we want it!?”

    “Now!”

    DejectedHead (a094a6)

  9. David Letterman announces he’s retiring in 2015.
    To paraphrase one of Dorothy Parker’s most famous one-liners, “How will we able to tell ?”

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  10. 10. David Letterman announces he’s retiring in 2015.
    To paraphrase one of Dorothy Parker’s most famous one-liners, “How will we able to tell ?”

    Comment by Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 4/3/2014 @ 3:14 pm

    That was pretty much my reaction to Lena Dunham’s threat to quit acting. I didn’t even know she was acting.

    I only know who she is cuz I heard she was getting nekkid. So I looked. And, well, it’s kind of like her acting.

    I could have lived without any of it.

    Steve57 (a017ec)

  11. Lena Dunham is a really talented writer that has the imagination to imagine her own life…then write about it.

    DejectedHead (a094a6)

  12. Lena Dunham has a face and body for radio.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  13. Not every woman can be as petite and dainty as Michelle Obama.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  14. ‘goggles do nothin’ Steve, the only attractive one in that group, is the one they don’t show, so I’ve heard,

    narciso (3fec35)

  15. I may have to go to the next Santa Monica City Council meeting and hand out the literature on circumcision being beneficial, just to see some enraged liberal head explosions.

    JVW (9946b6)

  16. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/04/health/fda-approves-portable-drug-overdose-treatment.html?hp

    A bit of common sense deregulation, but probably only because some people on the left weer arguing for it.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  17. 3. Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 4/3/2014 @ 2:52 pm

    Did youse see my comment over at the other thread about political corruption and Benghazi?

    Which thread and what number or tiem and date stamp?

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  18. The article regarding circumcision is in one way quite ridiculous, with the “official medical opinion” going from almost outlawing it to now contemplating making it mandatory (it’s a Jewish plot, I’m sure… ;-) ).

    It seems that “they” want to assume rampant promiscuity is the norm, so anything one can do to decrease STD transmission rates should be done.
    Ironic, I always thought the original purpose was to be an obvious reminder that one had some laws about behavior and self-restraint to obey.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  19. Sammy, over at Ft. Hood.
    Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 4/3/2014 @ 2:39 pm

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  20. So, will we now see in Iowa a Repub denigrating lawyers and non-farmers?
    It sounds like a winner.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  21. Why do Democrats hate farmers ?

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  22. EPIC FAIL as Preezy, Barcky hits the comedy club circuit… first stop, teh birthplace of SDS. How fitting.

    Colonel Haiku (ac19af)

  23. I saw your comment, MD. According to the internet, an infallible source, Kristi Rogers was the CEO of the US division of Aegis Group, whereas the security at Benghazi was provided by Blue Mountain Group out of Wales. Is Blue Mountain a subsidiary of Aegis? Sammy?

    nk (dbc370)

  24. As Dr. Krauthammer has deftly pointed out, for weeks and months Kathleen Sebelius and Jay Carney simply had no idea !!!!1!!1!! about the number of sign-ups to ObamaCare, yet yesterday, they all of a sudden had a census of enrollees right down to the most precise decimal point !

    Praise Alinsky !

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  25. The APA recommends circumcision? In Germany, your baby’s name must be approved by the government. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/maybe-try-julian-couple-banned-naming-son-wikileaks-n70596 The more Nazis change, the more they stay the same. Sieg Heil, Kameraden!

    nk (dbc370)

  26. I thought that might be the reason for his support of CIPA and against strong encryption,

    narciso (3fec35)

  27. nk, yes, I think it was an issue of subsidiaries and such. There was no “maybe” about it from what the fellow said. “He” (forget his name) said that his wife Toensig discovered it in the midst of her work for Hicks and other Benghazi whistle-blowers.
    I can’t help but wonder how this was kept “secret” so long, or who knew and said nothing about it. It’s the kind of thing that makes you want to just boot them all out unless they can justify staying.

    The more Nazis change, the more they stay the same.
    I don’t know their name or the current status, but there was a family from Germany seeking asylum in the US because they wanted to homeschool and German law going back to the 30′s says you must send your kinder to the public schools for proper indoctrination.
    After some initial benevolent treatment, AG Holder ordered they be denied asylum and sent back to Germany, presumably for the father to be put in jail and the children to be sent to indoctrination, if not removed from the home.

    Painted Jaguar (a sockpuppet) (f9371b)

  28. Sorry, PJ used this computer last.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  29. Reid, Reid Hairy-A
    how many young boys
    have you raped today?

    Colonel Haiku (ac19af)

  30. Actually when you look at her CV, it’s not that surprising;

    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/kristi-rogers/4/658/aa3

    narciso (3fec35)

  31. I have that on good authority, from a reliable source… a source as reliable as the ones Hairy-Ahole uses for his smears.

    Colonel Haiku (ac19af)

  32. You might find this case interesting, Painted Jaguar. Especially Justice Douglas’s dissent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_v._Yoder But you guys are not social animals anyway, are you?

    nk (dbc370)

  33. di Genova, MD. The same diGenova and Toensing that vouched for that lying ass AGOTUS.

    Colonel Haiku (ac19af)

  34. Yes, and Andrew McCarthy vouched for Fitz, what can you say.

    narciso (3fec35)

  35. this might apply on the other thread;

    http://www.seanet.com/~jimxc/Politics/April2014_1.html#jrm13739

    one of the explanation for the landslide;

    narciso (3fec35)

  36. I can’t remember a leader of the senate covering for such a dumb ass president as frequently as harry the dunce.

    mg (31009b)

  37. I can’t forget the last time I forgot about dumb ass Presidedents

    Steve57 (a017ec)

  38. I support gay marriage. I also hate thuggery

    I don’t support gay marriage. And I don’t support thuggery.

    Sic semper tyrannis

    I don’t hate much.

    Steve57 (a017ec)

  39. I’ve got it worked out.

    Steve57 (a017ec)

  40. Here’s a random link.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0P4q6GRtCM&feature=player_embedded

    4/2/14 Fox All Star Panel on the Morell Benghazi hearings

    Morell turned in an amazing performance. It was incredible. Literally, as in not credible.

    He said stuff like he didn’t know the WH was going to use his talking points to brief the press?!?!

    The former Deputy Director of the CIA apparently needs someone to feed him some intel on the meaning of the words, “talking points.”

    He says the analyst who said that the attack developed out of a protest wasn’t aware of the eye witness accounts!!

    That’s pretty freakin’ unaware. Do they keep that analyst locked in a safe for just these moments? I would consider the eyewitness accounts, the debriefs, to be essential to the analysis. The Obama administration apparently found the one analyst who didn’t know there were going to be eyewitnesses. Or care.

    He said he never saw Susan Rice on the Sunday talk shows.

    That’s pretty unaware. As a matter of fact, my analysis is that Mike Morrell and this mystery “intelligence community” analyst are one and the same.

    I think the most amazing thing is that the Fox News All Stars sat around talking as if this guy wasn’t just lying his tail off for the administration. As if maybe he’s just confused.

    Steve57 (181b49)

  41. Comment by Steve57 (181b49) — 4/4/2014 @ 11:13 am

    Morell turned in an amazing performance. It was incredible. Literally, as in not credible.

    He said stuff like he didn’t know the WH was going to use his talking points to brief the press?!?!

    Very possible. The “talking points” were written for members of Congress – what they recommended they should say.

    The decision to go to the press was made by the White House.

    At 8:43 pm on Friday, September 14, 2012, Tommy Vietor [a National Security Council spokesperson] wrote to Jacob J Sullivan [Assistant to the Vice President for Foreign Affairs, or is that an old job of his?] and
    Benjamin J. Rhodes [deputy national security adviser for strategic communication, a former speechwriter who coined the term "kinetic
    military action"] as follows:

    Subject: RE: Revised HPSCI Talking Points for review [HSPCI = House Permanent select Committee on Intelligence]

    There is massive disinformation out there, particularly with Congress. They all think it was premeditated based on inaccurate assumptioons or briefings. So I think this is a response to not only a tasking from the house intel committee but also NSC guidance that we need to brief members/press and correct the record.

    The former Deputy Director of the CIA apparently needs someone to feed him some intel on the meaning of the words, “talking points.”

    The talking points orginally were for members of the House Intelligence Committee. They had heard contradictory things. At first, it was terrorism.

    He says the analyst who said that the attack developed out of a protest wasn’t aware of the eye witness accounts!!

    And why should you believe that is not true??

    That’s pretty freakin’ unaware.

    Indeed. That doesn’t sound like what a central intelligence agency should be.

    Do they keep that analyst locked in a safe for just these moments?

    Well, yes. There were probably people who did know it was wrong, and so of course they selected innocent dupes who didn’t know better to put their namkes to the analysis.

    I would consider the eyewitness accounts, the debriefs, to be essential to the analysis.

    You might not normally do this, because you might not normally have it, nor wuld it usually add much. What would they say? There was an attack? Well, they knew that/ what they wanted to know was who did it, and maybe why.

    But it did matter. The key point here is that the eyewitness accounts contradict some of the Sooper Sekrit intelligence they got from sources in the Libyan government and “intelligence partners” in that THERE WAS NO DEMONSTRATION!! Furthermore, a little bit of military analysis would also tell you this had to have been planned in advance, because unplanned attacks simply aren’t that successful. And they knew things they shouldn’t have bene expected to know.

    The Obama administration apparently found the one analyst who didn’t know there were going to be eyewitnesses. Or care.

    The CIA did, not the Obama administration. The Obama Adminsitration was the target of disinformation by the attackers (if you think it was unplanned, you don’t look furtehr for planners) but they thought they were among the few people who did NOT have disinformation.

    He said he never saw Susan Rice on the Sunday talk shows.

    The ratings aren’t 50% or even 20%, so why should he have? Now he undoubtably read about it within a day or two, and saw video excerpts.

    That’s pretty unaware. As a matter of fact, my analysis is that Mike Morrell and this mystery “intelligence community” analyst are one and the same.

    No, he’s the superviser or the supervisor’ supervisor, who picked the intelligence analysts.

    I think the most amazing thing is that the Fox News All Stars sat around talking as if this guy wasn’t just lying his tail off for the administration. As if maybe he’s just confused.

    I think they didn’t have a good grasp of the total picture it created.

    I don’t think the same thing you do, but the picture isn’t admirable.

    I mean, even after the fact, he doesn’t admit to errors in procedure. Everything was just hunky dory. This is, at a minimum, a horrible intelligence blunder.

    Sammy Finkelman (ebf45c)

  42. The following is mine, not a quote:

    You might not normally do this look for eyewitness accounts] because you might not normally have it, nor would it usually add much.

    What would they say? That there was an attack? Well, they knew that.

    What they wanted to know was who did it, and maybe why.

    But it did matter. The key point here is that the eyewitness accounts contradict some of the SOOPER SEKRIT INTELLIGENCE intelligence they got from sources in the Libyan government and “intelligence partners” in that THERE WAS NO DEMONSTRATION!!

    They ignored what the CIA stattion chief said also, on the grounds that he didn’t know as much as their reliable sources.

    Furthermore, a little bit of military analysis would also tell you this had to have been planned in advance, because unplanned attacks simply aren’t that successful.

    And the attackers knew things they shouldn’t have been expected to know.

    Sammy Finkelman (ebf45c)

  43. I think you can chalk up Prince Talal’s ownership stake in NewsCorp, which brings some of his other projects into scrutiny,

    narciso (3fec35)

  44. Oh, this?

    http://townhall.com/columnists/dianawest/2013/01/11/is-saudi-prince-steering-news-corp-coverage-n1486794/page/full

    He only owns, as of a year ago, slightly over 5%. He can only affect things indirectly, or things where other people know what’s he’s trying to do, and covering up Benghazi is not something he could get other people to join in.

    Anything on that, he’d have to use other reasons.

    Of course Fox could be steered onto a slightly wrong path – like blaming the Whote House for coing up with the idea of a spontaneous attack, rather than the CIA.

    Sammy Finkelman (ebf45c)

  45. Poor Toy Pony has ushered in the demise of his 8-year plan.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-04/us-threatens-russia-sanctions-over-petrodollar-busting-deal

    A controlled denouement leaving an empire worthy of his reign is now off the table.

    gary gulrud (e2cef3)

  46. 40. I’m toying with support of Natural Causes.

    “My Spirit will not contend with them forever”.

    gary gulrud (e2cef3)

  47. Uhh, Sammy? From your own missive:

    The decision to go to the press was made by the White House.

    At 8:43 pm on Friday, September 14, 2012, Tommy Vietor [a National Security Council spokesperson] wrote to Jacob J Sullivan [Assistant to the Vice President for Foreign Affairs, or is that an old job of his?] and
    Benjamin J. Rhodes [deputy national security adviser for strategic communication, a former speechwriter who coined the term "kinetic
    military action"] as follows:
    Subject: RE: Revised HPSCI Talking Points for review [HSPCI = House Permanent select Committee on Intelligence]

    There is massive disinformation out there, particularly with Congress. They all think it was premeditated based on inaccurate assumptioons or briefings. So I think this is a response to not only a tasking from the house intel committee but also NSC guidance that we need to brief members/press and correct the record.

    That House Intel Committee tasking mentioned in this email came from the ranking Democratic member, Dutch Ruppersburger. And that tasking was very specific. He wanted to know what committee members could say in their public comments.

    I.E. to the press.

    That was the whole point in asking for unclassified talking points. The CIA can brief Congress at a classified level. Ruppersburger didn’t want to know what the CIA could tell him and the other members. He wanted to know what they could tell the press. So for Morrell to testify as he did the other day that he didn’t know his talking points were going to be used to brief the press is a verifiable lie. As the email you cite proves.

    I don’t see what you don’t understand. If you actually don’t. The emails are here:

    http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/05/politics/white-house-benghazi-emails/

    The very first bullet point in the very first email from the CIA’s Office of Congressional Affairs reads:

    For the committee:

    1) “White Paper” on press guidance (OPA, OGC, DI, NE)

    Is this difficult for you, Sammy? They spelled it out for Morrell. He’d have to have been brain dead not to know he was producing talking points that were going to the press. Definitely from the members of the House committee. And if they’re going to the press with it, so is the WH.

    Would you like to try to salvage any credibility?

    Steve57 (e3957b)

  48. that last was speculation, however the alternative would suggest an incurious mind when it comes to our policy makers, enemy action or coincidence, which do you prefer.

    narciso (3fec35)

  49. I’d like to add that the third bullet states:

    3) Contact State Legl (sic) Affairs for questions on document destruction at consulate (OCA)

    Note while their is a bullet to coordinate with the State Department on document destruction (which would have started during a protest had there been one), there is one very conspicuous bullet absent.

    There is no bullet telling them to coordinate with State about eye witness accounts. As in, what were the DSS agents reporting back to the State Dept.’s command center in DC.

    Why?

    Because the CIA would have ALREADY HAD THAT! They already had those unclassified eye witness accounts.

    I don’t think the same thing you do, but the picture isn’t admirable.

    I mean, even after the fact, he doesn’t admit to errors in procedure. Everything was just hunky dory. This is, at a minimum, a horrible intelligence blunder.

    Sammy, there were no errors in the procedure. Given the fact that the prescribed procedure as directed from the WH was to conceal intelligence. Not produce it. And Morrell was a good German who followed the prescribed procedure.

    Steve57 (e3957b)

  50. Last year the median farm income in MN was $42K or some similarly silly return on investment.

    We’ve already lost manufacturing as an economic input. Retail buh bye. Eating out, endangered.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-04/shocking-truth-about-deindustrialization-america-everyone-should-know

    404care will increase the cost to employers’ offerings to their employee plans of $6000. Buh, bye bennies.

    gary gulrud (e2cef3)

  51. Sometimes I think the Benghazi situation is like this incident;

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1278447/posts

    they were loath to follow the lead, since the CIA had a contact in Black September, Ali Salameh, and since because Arafat was a ‘partner in peace’ or something,

    narciso (3fec35)

  52. 51. that last was speculation, however the alternative would suggest an incurious mind when it comes to our policy makers, enemy action or coincidence, which do you prefer.

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 4/6/2014 @ 11:30 am

    No, there’s no speculation. At 9:14 on September 14 the CIA notes that State had major reservations with “much or most of the document.” CIA revised it accordingly. If State had concerns with what CIA was putting out, that means the administration had concerns. And there’s one light colored house at the top of the administration.

    Further evidence.

    At 12:13 PM there was an email asking that the talking points be run by the Director, Petraeus at the time, since they were going out in his name “even if it going with the force of full interagency coordination.”

    And Petraeus’ reaction to the talking points? At 2:27PM he responds:

    No mention of the cable to Cairo, either? Frankly, I’d just as soon not use this, then… NSS’s call to be sure…

    NSS = National Security Staff.

    That’s the WH. The WH was going to decide what the press would be told. Really, it’s a remarkable exchange because he was deferring to his deputy director. So his deputy director was really in charge of what Petraeus was going to tell Congress.

    Petraeus no longer had control of what was being put out in his name. The WH did. It was up to the WH what was being put out “From the Director.”

    But then, Petraeus was under investigation at the time. No wonder he rolled over.

    But there is no speculation. Petraeus ceded control of the narrative to the WH. The only speculation that would have been involved at the time is who the WH would have assigned to be its public face for the narrative. Turned out to be Rice.

    Steve57 (e3957b)

  53. Sorry I should be clearer, the motives of the Fox All Stars, I think the Insiders on Sunday Afternoon, are often more on point.

    narciso (3fec35)

  54. PLO negotiators have 7 conditions to renew talks

    One of them is receiving a written letter from Israel’s premier recognizing the Palestinian borders of 1967 with East Jerusalem as its capital.

    The New York Times headline Saturday was about Kerry saying he might have to undergo a reality check.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/05/world/middleeast/kerry-says-middle-east-talks-are-at-an-impasse.html?hpw&rref=world

    RABAT, Morocco — With Israel and the Palestinians falling into a familiar cycle of tit-for-tat retribution, and a peace agreement more elusive than ever, Secretary of State John Kerry conceded on Friday that this week had been a “reality check” for the peace process.

    Sammy Finkelman (3bb3ae)

  55. 55. Comment by Steve57 (e3957b) — 4/6/2014 @ 12:26 pm

    At 9:14 on September 14 the CIA notes that State had major reservations with “much or most of the document.” CIA revised it accordingly. If State had concerns with what CIA was putting out, that means the administration had concerns.

    Hillary Clinton does not equal Obama.

    The State Department was concerned about the way the CIA was writing things to make it look like they had warned them, which they hadn’t in any real sense.

    And Petraeus’ reaction to the talking points? At 2:27PM he responds:

    No mention of the cable to Cairo, either? Frankly, I’d just as soon not use this, then… NSS’s call to be sure…

    This shows that Petraeus fully believed the video was responsible – because that was what he had been told. The talking points did not try to claim that warning.

    If that “warning” was left out, you might as well leave out all the rest. That was the only serious “warning” that should have alerted anyone that something was about to happen (according to the video theory)

    The CIA apparently had cabled Cairo about an upcoming demonstration about a video.

    Somebody at the CIA who wrote the talking points evidently knew what he was doing. It never mentioned the video.

    Spontaneous, yes, but video no.

    NSS = National Security Staff.

    That’s the WH. The WH was going to decide what the press would be told.

    Yes, but.. Petraeus was probably still under the impression these were just for the House Intelligence committee (guidance as to what THEY could tell the press) and that could wait till next week.

    Really, it’s a remarkable exchange because he was deferring to his deputy director.

    They tamed him, but not enough – they were in the process of getting rid of him.

    So his deputy director was really in charge of what Petraeus was going to tell Congress.

    Correct.

    Petraeus no longer had control of what was being put out in his name. The WH did. It was up to the WH what was being put out “From the Director.”

    The WH or NSS was in charge of what would be made public. They have the authority to declassify.

    But then, Petraeus was under investigation at the time. No wonder he rolled over.

    They were always after him.

    Sammy Finkelman (3bb3ae)

  56. 50. Comment by Steve57 (e3957b) — 4/6/2014 @ 11:23 am

    The CIA can brief Congress at a classified level. Ruppersburger didn’t want to know what the CIA could tell him and the other members. He wanted to know what they could tell the press. So for Morrell to testify as he did the other day that he didn’t know his talking points were going to be used to brief the press is a verifiable lie. As the email you cite proves.

    He didn’t know the White House would tell the press directly i.e. send Susan Rice or somebody else to say things on five network Sunday news shows.

    These were supposed to be used by members of Congress, to be used as they saw fit. It was known that members of the House Intelligence Committee would not be happy with them, because they said nothing about terrorism, like they’d heard before, and so they most probably not be used.

    I don’t see what you don’t understand.

    The question and answer.

    Morrell was surely thinking about somebody from the White House going on television and he didn’t expect anything like that.

    I have and saw the emails last May.

    The very first bullet point in the very first email from the CIA’s Office of Congressional Affairs reads:

    For the committee:

    1) “White Paper” on press guidance (OPA, OGC, DI, NE)

    Is this difficult for you, Sammy? They spelled it out for Morrell. He’d have to have been brain dead not to know he was producing talking points that were going to the press.

    They were going to members of Congress,

    The key question is what exactly was Morrell asked and what exactly did he say.

    Sammy Finkelman (3bb3ae)

  57. Morrell expected the talking pts never to be used because they didn’t mention terrorism.

    Sammy Finkelman (3bb3ae)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2382 secs.