The Democrat Double Standard

Wasserman Schultz: Wrong Statements About Libya Doesn't Mean They Were False

Debbie Wasseerman Schultz, DNC chair: Piers, it is not okay for you to be saying that the administration was putting out completely false statements. They put out information that they had at the time based on the intelligence that they were given

Debbie do you mean that time oh say like the intelligence given about Saddams wmd's that led to the war?

Piers Morgan: That turned out to be completely wrong.

Yes it did.

Wasserman Schultz: Well that doesn't mean it was false. It doesn't mean that it was deliberate. It means that.

Sure about that?

That excuse sure didn't work out for the Bush administration.

Morgan: What?! Now wait a minute. If you put out a false statement, then it's false, it's wrong. It's both of those things.

www.realclearpolitics.com...

If its false its false.

Which way is it people?

Her argument vindicates Bush, but nope they won't see it that way, but it like totally excuses the current administration.

Always trying to have it both ways.

The Liberal Double Standard

Being somewhere between a Liberal radical and a Liberal Democrat, I have to contest this title. If you must, pin your allegations on a member of the liberal party. But don't paint all of the liberals with this lady's standards. It's not very educated, and it reeks of political spin.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


One Group of people condemns Bush for the Iraq war and they call themselves liberals, and Democrats.

Spin?

Nope.

Have anything to say about Schultz?

I will change the title so some will not get "offended".

reply to post by AfterInfinity

But don't paint all of the liberals with this lady's standards.

Kind of tough to do when these foolish words come out of the mouth of the DNC Chair. The appointed mouthpiece for the party. They should have canned her months ago. Her statement is completely absurd considering all that was learned in yesterdays hearing on the manner.

This incident, the circumstances leading up to it and the cover up afterwards are far more damaging than Watergate ever was. No one died in in the midst of the Watergate scandal. This tragedy should mark the official end to Obama's term as POTUS. No reelection needed. Time for Obama's understudy to run up against Romney.

The details are getting worse by the day and Dems like Debbie just refuse to get it. This should be a nonpartisan issue and yet they aim to shift blame and dodge the truth.

Enough!!!!

P.S.

Still waiting for Debbie's Democratic peers to finally put the muzzle on her and end her reign as their mouth piece. I'd be happy if just on of her peers came out against this absurdity. What will it take??

I know several republicans that condemn Bush for the Iraq war.
Your words are ignorant and I deny them.

Using Liberal - Conservative, Democrat - Republican, Left - Right as slurs to intentionally offend and generalize is no different than using a racial slur to do the same thing. All members of any group do not think and act the same way. Similar yes, some, but to a degree. Everyone in politics has their own agendas as well as the ones they are paid to produce.

This is one person that talked like a fool to another fool on a known disinfo station for fools, what do you expect to see when you watch it, honesty, integrity, and objective reporting? Those things haven't existed on CNN for a long time, if ever.

And let it be known that the GOP defunded the state department which limited security.
Then they turn around and point the finger...

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.

www.washingtonpost.com...

Like I have said before, when the Obama administration attempts to blame things on Bush's presidency, it doesn't float...Yet I already know that if Romney gets in office, he will flop, and Obama's administration will get the majority of the blame. Mark my words, as it will happen if he wins, and it seems that those who really choose the president before the elections want things that way. How else can Romney's sudden surge be explained? He has made it evident that he is not a fit president, and he isn't even that charismatic. I am convinced that his popular support is quite low, with as many times as he has lied or stuck his own foot in his mouth.

Anyway, it doesn't matter if you are dem or rep, as BOTH sides use the same tactics, and both sides will blame the other at times. This is why I do not really respect the political opinions of those who are die-hard one way or the other, with no regard for the candidate's values themselves. I do not subscribe to either of the major parties, as both have views that are too rigid. For instance, republicans: I am supposed to listen to Ryan sit there and tell me that abortion is wrong, even in rape cases? Excuse me, but we have enough of government telling us what we can and cannot do with our bodies already, so we definitely do not need more of these laws prohibiting and stifling our rights as citizens. The moral part of the decision should be left to the person, not the government. The gov. is the last group on the earth that should be preaching about morals, and both Romney and Ryan are the last two people who should be preaching morals to the rest of society, considering the documented cases of immorality on their records.

And let it be known that the GOP defunded the state department which limited security. Then they turn around and point the finger..

And let it be known that the current administration sent Chevy volts to European embassies while Benghazi burned.

Then they turn around and point the finger..

But this topic has a narrower focus:

Schultz comments about false information.

reply to post by neo96


This actually reminds me of "debates" with my wife.

She is never wrong.
I may have "heard" her incorrectly, but she is never wrong.

This is the silly season, my friend. The left (incumbent) party will try to put itself in the best light possible.

Obama could walk down the street with a chainsaw and the left would call it "elective invouluntary amputations"

reply to post by neo96


Actually there were WMD's in Iraq. Russia took 17 truck loads of them into Syria right before the war began. Satellite photo's were taken of the event but Russia said they would help iraq if anything was said about it. Bush kept quiet and took one for America. The WMD's were found in Syria and Obama said they were keeping a close eye on them. Last week it was reported they had vanished.

reply to post by neo96


One person kills a cat and suddenly everyone who goes hunting is "evil". I don't care what party you support, do NOT generalize. It's rude, plain and simple. If you can't understand such a simple concept, I could start a thread about people who start political threads and paint them all the same color.

I don't think anyone would appreciate it, which is exactly my point.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by neo96

 

One person kills a cat and suddenly everyone who goes hunting is "evil". I don't care what party you support, do NOT generalize. It's rude, plain and simple. If you can't understand such a simple concept, I could start a thread about people who start political threads and paint them all the same color.

I don't think anyone would appreciate it, which is exactly my point.

edit on 11-10-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Thanks for proving the op considering the sheer about of topics that generalize in the Pm.

Talk about everything but Schutlz comments pretty rude not to address the topic.

Originally posted by campanionator
And let it be known that the GOP defunded the state department which limited security.
Then they turn around and point the finger...

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.

www.washingtonpost.com...

edit on 11-10-2012 by campanionator because: (no reason given)

You can reduce a budget and still spend money on security where it is clearly needed most. Its called prioritizing.....There is plenty of wasteful spending within the State Dept. You should see the comp packages that State Dept. employees get when they are assigned to a specific detail. The State Dept. will pay your rent in a very comfortable borderline luxury apt/condo/ house, they will move your stuff and even pay to move your car. On top of a nice salary and benefit package. Not a bad gig.

Nice way to deflect responsibility. Can't wait for Obama to explain this next Thursday!! Too bad its only going to get worse until then as more details emerge.

reply to post by neo96


What's your point? I simply made a comment about painting with a wide brush...generalizations are not often accurate.

Heeeeers Debbie !!

Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz may be President Barack Obama's worst surrogate, at least according to the Obama campaign's internal polls. But Wasserman Schultz may be campaigning for herself to win an under-the-radar race for a leadership position in her party that may allow her to succeed Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, who could retire from Congress next spring. ...

Wasserman Schultz Preparing to Oust Pelosi

and some "rumors" from a few months ago... Debbie Wasserman Schultz ‘getting booted’ as DNC chairwoman after November?