FU - FairAndUNbalanced.com

I just can't seem to muster the outrage over killing an American like Anwar al-Awlaki when there is little outrage over non-American civilian casualties. Those people don't get trials. Those people didn't even do anything wrong. But apparently I am supposed to care more about the American because of his label.

I'm not saying that all military action must avoid collateral damage. I'm only pointing out that we make room for unfortunate consequences to our actions when we must--and that we have done much worse than kill an inaccessible American terrorist without judicial authorization.

I believe I'm with you on that. The link goes to his full article. I believe the small excerpt that I included does accurately reflect the view he expresses.

"To treat a reporter as a criminal for doing his job — seeking out information the government doesn’t want made public..."

-Dana Milbank, pseudonym of Fox Mulder

This is an irresponsible oversimplification of a reporter's job--or at least what it should be. Unless 1.) the public has some interest in knowing that information and 2.) innocent people are not going to be hurt as a direct result of exposing it, there is nothing noble about simply revealing information that the government doesn't want us to know, especially if the intent is to make money off of it. I am accordingly unconvinced by the perception of victimhood here.

Mr. Deming, my post was not specifically about Obama, hence the reason why you thought Gosnell was a non-sequitur in being one of my points. Obama and our corrupt government are merely symptoms of a vastly greater problem. We The People could repair the damage that an incompetent and corrupt president and congress have done by electing people that really will follow the dictates of the constitution in their governance of the nation. We could bring a return of personal responsibility instead of demonizing those folks calling for it. The problem is that we as a nation are too wrapped up in ourselves. We only care what is “in it for us individually”, that is, when we even pay attention at all. Getting rid of the king of fools is not the issue. It is educating in mind and morals those that elect that king to hold reign over us all. THAT is the problem that is seemingly beyond solving now.

In a civil,case, Burr would win with a preponderance of evidence.

Burr posts his take, citing four sources: CNN, The New York Times, TPM, and The Miami Herald.

T. Paine cites The Washington Times and calls it "the truth," dismissing Burr's assertions as "contradictory to the facts in evidence" without actually addressing any of them himself.

I just don't know what to believe!

Thank you, T. Paine.

I am unconvinced by your use of the opinion page of the Washington Times as a definitive authority. While their opinion is, for the most part, predictable, this piece seems particularly out of date.

In fairness to the author, it is possible that yesterday's date may be misleading. Sometimes these things are written days in advance. Perhaps he put pen to paper before the memos, including the "smoking gun", were released.

In any case, I am less interested than you might imagine in romping through the remarkable mind of a Washington Times staffer.

I prefer to know the reasoning of a more creditable and thoughtful source, which is to say you, T. Paine. Perhaps you can tell us something other than that the President must be guilty of something horrible because he is .. you know ... Obama.

Burr, with all due respect and admiration of you as a friend, it is not I that is guilty of wishful thinking and ignorant of following the evidence to where it leads. Here is a very good summation of facts to date. (You will note that many of your assertions are contradictory to the facts in evidence, my friend.) This is a relatively long piece, but if anyone truly is interested in the truth, it is worth the read.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/16/benghazi-the-anatomy-of-a-scandal/?page=1

Thank you, T. Paine.

Sometimes you just need to go where the evidence leads. In this case it contradicts your wishful thinking.

Oh my God! Only in this day and age of duplicity and dissembling from the most opaque, incompetent, and corrupt White House in my life time can the Benghazi scandal now be blamed on the Republicans. If this is the take one gets out of this, then one simply is not interested in the truth and merely wants to protect a partisan position. Hillary was right, “what difference does it make?” To hell with the truth about the death of four Americans, including two former SEAL’s that were ordered to stand down and not assist the people under attack. Obama will likely survive this and the other issues comprising scandal-palooza because the left will defend this president regardless of ANY and ALL high crimes and misdemeanors he commits, the press will carry their water, and the cowardly Republicans will do nothing to bring the truth to light. Maybe Obama’s spiritual mentor was right and God really has now damned America.

Republicans lying is not a scandal. It is normal operations.

Bachmann recently claimed that the IRS scandal is part of a conspiracy to draw attention away from the Benghazi issue. That's right. A conspiracy within a conspiracy. Obama can't fool her.

I meant that you should ignore the claims themselves, since there is no good reason to believe that they are true, given the absence of sources and the typically poor quality of such messages. I would be inclined, as you are, to respond to the person who sent it. Fortunately, the only person in my life who still cares about and believes in the chainmail that he receives does not forward anything to me.

I thought about Ryan's point, albeit in another way. One approach to bigotry, by email, chain mail or in any other form, is to starve it of attention. That has some appeal. As I see it, it is worthwhile to occasionally to refute the bigotry and rebuke the bigot.

The site Jerry has discovered is well done. My only hesitation to such a factual challenge is the danger of an implicit acknowledgement that basic rights are dependent on such facts. That is easily overcome, isn't it? We just need to be diligent in pointing out that basic rights are, in fact, inalienable.

I did notice that one reader found the source of the anti-Islam screed. It is an extremist site that is both anti-Islam and anti-Christian:

http://www.hindujagruti.org/news/13946.html

Here is a response to each point.

http://www.barenakedislam.com/2012/09/21/bni-response-to-the-viral-email-re-islam-and-japan/

Burr, I find myself in complete agreement with you, my friend.

Our constitution protects ALL Americans to worship or not as they see fit. Too bad our current president seemingly wishes to infringe upon that constitutional and natural right for many Christians.

As with most (conservative) chainmail, it is best to ignore it entirely. The expectation that you believe it without any sources is reason enough.

Some of these claims are false. Some apply to non-Muslims as well, making them irrelevant. Some don't make sense. Some even seem to contradict each other.

Claims h and n stood out to me in particular as representative of this sort of chainmail. It is one thing to claim that Japan has some easily researchable law concerning Muslims, but it is another to make a sweeping claim about how the people feel about and react to them.

"Yeah, what T. Paine said!"

Sincerely,

A Backward Bumpkin From the Hills

Very fortunate for the people of Delaware. Finally equality in the eyes of the law.

Thank you, T. Paine.

You may have missed this:

Military personnel were frustrated at being ordered not to fly to Libya, staying in Egypt to protect facilities from what seemed like a growing threat. Shouldn't commanders have made different decisions?

Such issues are of vital interest to partisans. Most Americans, at least most who pay any attention, see only a bewildering set of retrospective second guessing of granular decisions made in the dead of night during a chaotic time of unreliable information. It scarcely qualifies as Monday morning quarterbacking. Criticisms have fallen into a pattern of you-turned-left-when-you-should-have-turned-right.

It is sad that most Americans are compelled to regard this as a lost-in-tall-weeds type of question. A command decision to keep personnel where they were to protect against mobs there may have been wrong. Or not. They wouldn't have gotten there in time, but nobody know that for sure at the time.

Apparently the State Department did have some concern with the language used. I'm not sure what foreign impact it would have.

The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa'ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya does not contradict much that was being stated publicly. and We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks is pretty close to what was actively being said by Susan Rice.

The YouTube video was far from unknown by the time the riots began.

Witness intimidation seems insubstantial so far.

Point is, the sort of oversight that is appropriate has been pretty much ruled out by the hyperventilating that has characterized Republican hysteria. The hearings have been effectively turned out by those Americans who are not willing to accept as self-evident that the President or Secretary were conspiring to have diplomats killed, were indifferent to the danger, or wanted to cover up the danger of terrorism.

Republicans advanced such assumptions as a given before hearings even started.

I suspect that, if committee Republicans became models of responsibility from now on, it would be too late for those members of the public not already committed to hating the administration generally and the President personally to accept Republicans as credible investigators.

That is a sad thing, as I see it.