…but I’m back! Never was a huge poster to IC/icinexile/landv but I hung around the edges a bit. I’m amazed people are still here! I’d get email from landv now and then but it always appeared to just be spam stuff. Or maybe I’m getting it confused with the Yahoogroups. I just happened to read Lorraine’s yahoogroups posting yesterday rather than the usual “more spam, delete” action I have apparently been taking too often over the years.
So I might be missing the obvious, but how do I get my post into a specific category? Maybe that will become obvious when I hit the Publish button here…
Jims01721
Not seeing how I can see who posted either, guess I’ll learn.
Testing to see if comment generates an email…
Welcome back!
Welcome back!
Yes, when you post, you can pick a category; I think the list is on the right of the page.
Welcome back, Jim
I wish Lorianne managed to go through initial hurdles, too.
I have sent her id and password, but she is still lost, I think.
Glad to hear from you, Jims.
What’s on your mind lately?
Personally, I’m just in a funk. Conservatives have managed to make a big stink about Benghazi, but then failed to follow up with pertinent questions. I want to know why the administration persisted for so many days in its story that the embassy attack was initiated by protesters of a video, when they knew in a very short time that it was a pre-planned jihadist attack. In the days after the attack both President Obama and Secretary Clinton gave major speeches in which they condemned the video. If any Muslims had been unaware of the video, those speeches certainly brought it to their attention; the apologies probably caused more unrest and outrage than did the original film. (Anyway, I’ve found that usually is the case–talk about something you deplore, and it ends up getting more publicity)
I’ll tell you what I think about the Benghazi cooked-up talking points; I think that after Republican candidate Mitt Romney cited the administration’s failures as leading up to the storming of the Egyptian embassy the day before, they decided they could blame Romney for instigating the Benghazi protest and ensuing deaths. So they cooked up the story to cook Romney.
The only reason that Romney didn’t get blamed was that the truth of the attackers’ identity surfaced, and they couldn’t blame Romney for something planned before his remarks were made, so they had to flop around for awhile to call attention away from their failed ploy.
That’s what I think happened. And it’s a lot more plausible than that far-fetched (and subsequently disproven) old fable that the Bush administration outed Valerie Plame to get back at her husband.
But of course the press hated Bush, and Obama sends tingles up their legs. So, no questions about Mr. Obama’s motives, please.
http://www.hughhewitt.com/transcripts.aspx?id=540117b1-4b08-4683-8478-905e81a955ac
Mark Steyn on the Hillary Clinton doctrine: “What difference does it make?” and how Congress played into her hands.
Well, just forget about my rant above. I went back and looked at the timeline of events on Sept 10-11, and Romney’s remarks were made AFTER the attack on Benghazi, so there was no way the administration could have blamed him for stirring up the angry crowd they had fabricated.
It is puzzling though, why they so actively promoted that false narrative. It’s very strange, and I really would like to know the reasoning behind it. Too bad the senators were unable to ignore Ms Clinton’s faked outrage; they should have pressed her to answer the question.