I say yes, you say no, OR People are Strange

Athena, LOVED the pics of your furbabies. They made me smile. I especially liked the pic of Athena being bombarded by her puppies. Camilla is looking on as if to say, "No thank you!!" LOL

Camilla the German Shepherd. We think the gardener did it ("the butler did it") - seriously. But there was never any proof. I still blame myself.

So sorry Kam. I haven't been on the board so I had to go back to your original message. Is Emma ok?

I too watched The Dust Bowl last night.  I had NO IDEA how bad it was, how many people died of respiratory illness, the VASTNESS of the area - just no idea.  I've heard the words "dust bowl" but had no visuals to go with it.

Ken Burns really is amazing.  I LOVED his Lewis & Clark, and Baseball.  Thought National Parks was a bit too, well, "soupy, sloppy, sentimental?" not sure, but didn't watch it all.

If you haven't yet seen The Dust Bowl, keep an eye out for it on your local PBS.

I watched Dust Bowl last night (thanks Lindasa for the heads up) I was well aware of it however as my DH's family is/was from Oklahoma and moved to Texas during the war - DH's grandfather committed suicide during the early thirties - he was a businessman who lost everything because of the "dust".

Aren't conspiracy's wonderful.....especially when they are NEEDED for something:

Meme created byLorraine Devon Wilke

The story was dead on arrival; while the opposition beat the bushes, unturned every stone, and twisted the intent of everyone involved, the truth just kept creeping back in:there was no intent to mislead or cover-up events in Benghazi.

The question is: why is it so important to Republicans that itlookto be so? Why are they so hell-bent on spinning the story to make it appear as though some nefarious deed was being perpetrated by the Obama Administration toward…what end? Given the considerable time being allocated and the taxpayers’ money being spent to pursue this line of logic, you would think there was some grand reasoning behind the crusade, some hint of true scandal. Instead, it sputters towards its factual but far less grand conclusion: that a change in verbiage in the initial CIA reports (asreportedby General David Petraeus) is responsible for the inaccurate early assessment of cause reported to the White House, then repeated by the nowGOP-persecutedAmbassador Susan Rice. Is it possible, like a political game of “telephone,” that bungled verbiage is at the root of all this?

British magazine,The Economist, which, as a colleague of mine commented, is “not a liberal rag by ANY stretch of the imagination,” came out with a story this past week that took America, and its pugilistic pack of Republicans, to task for their absurdist thinking regarding Benghazi-gate and Ambassador Rice’s “hand” in it. In a piece aptly titled,Benghazi-gate gets even more ludicrous,a few salient points are made:

At the most fundamental level, the reason it is absurd to suspect the existence of a “cover-up” over the Benghazi attack is that such a cover-up could not have had any conceivable goal. Back to the beginning:the underlying accusation about Benghaziis that the Obama administration deliberately mischaracterized the terrorist attack there as having grown out of a spontaneous demonstration because that would be less politically damaging. Such a cover-up would have made no sense becausethe attack would not have been less politically damaging had it grown out of a spontaneous demonstration.The attack on the Benghazi compound would not have been any less politically difficult for the administration if it had grown out of a riot, nor would any normal voter have expected it to be less politically damaging, nor would any normal campaign strategist have expected any normal voter to have expected it to be less politically damaging. Had Susan Rice gone on the talk shows on September 15th and inaccurately stated that the attackers had been wearing green pants, when in fact their pants had been red, there would be no reason to suspect this to be part of a political “cover-up”, because no American voters could conceivably have cared either way.

The Republicans, particularly dog-with-a-bone duo John McCain and Lindsey Graham, insist their attacks on Susan Rice have no equivalency to their continued embrace of Condoleezza Rice even after her mischaracterizations about WMD in the ramp-up to the Iraq War. Nor does McCain accept any equivalency regarding Watergate (“Nobody died in Watergate.”). And yet, to take up the logic ofThe Economist, both those events, unlike Benghazi,hadreasons for their ultimately discovered cover-ups: the WMD lie conveniently gave purpose to a war against a country that wasnotbehind 9/11, and the Watergate cover-up was meant to hide the illegal activities of a corrupt GOP Administration hell-bent on destroying its opposition.

In the case of Benghazi, however, there is no similar rationale or logic to justify a “cover up”…because there is none. In the “fog of war,” or likely with an intent tonotincite immediate and further danger until more was known, the CIAchanged the word “terrorist” to “extremist.”And Ambassador Rice took that information, the only information the White House had in those early moments, and reiterated it. AsThe Economistpoints out, neither her iteration – nor the later-discovered more correct one – offered evidence of any malfeasance on the part of the Obama Administration, had any impact one way or the other on the election, or indicated any reason or logic for a cover-up of any kind.

It did, however, show evidence of the power of aword. Like the infamous “Telephone Game,” the CIA’s replacement of “terrorist” with “extremist” incited hysteria and suspicion on the part of the GOP opposition and set an entire investigation into motion, one that has put a respected ambassador under attack, led to the implication of wrong-doing on the part of the Obama administration, and involved a four-star general who is alsofighting a scandalin his personal life (which some are even suggesting is a “blackmail” attempt in service of the administration’s “cover-up”…know that the writer of this linked article also considers global warming a “hoax”).

After losing the election in a manner that was surprising only to them, the GOP appears to be looking for a body to flog in their attempt to recover their footing. Benghazi-gate offers convenient timing and a suitably tragic event to manipulate. What itdoesn’toffer is logic for, or evidence of, the cover-up they are attempting to breath into life. With so many more factual and immediate needs in a country, and world, struggling with economic and political woes, it seems time for the wounded warriors of the Right to turn their formidable energies toward a more productive goal than attempting to create scandal where none exists. Particularly when real scandal is never too hard to find.

Emma is doing well thus far...mom is not too worried now. Thanks for your support. xxo

Noticed the same thing Athena around word of the year...

Richard Woolfe just made an interesting observation.  Who have been the pillaried members of the Obama administration, besides Obama himself. Valerie Jarret, Eric Holder, Van Jones...now Susan Rice.  What do they have in common?

Kam, we cross-posted . . . that observation about who's been the most pilloried/vilified is pretty telling.

L

Kam.....and anyone with a sick furbaby.....my group is sending you all a big healing hug full of love from:  Shortie, Buffy, Beau Freckles, Autumn, Casey, Gracie, Sassy, Nee'Nee', Jingles,GT, Tippy,Doddie,Maggie,Timmy,Little Boy, Him & Her, Stray Guy, Alfie, Jimmie and of course sweet, feisty Dahlia.  Yes, I am well aware I have too many.....but I only take the unwanted and usually they are the ones who wander up or are found in a dangerous area.  I only had two ferals out of the whole bunch......so these are the ones people dumped out.  I have too many dogs for the same reason.  All the cats are neutered, and while Him & Her live outside ( neighbors moved and left them behind ) the rest are all confined to either my house or a big screen room I have.....with plexiglass and heat lamps for the winter months.  They get flea treated when needed and taken to the vet if they are ill.  Same for the dogs....no un-neutered animals here....can't afford it and over-all they are better pets for it....especially the cats who are highly prone to mark territory.  They get good food....an expensive Diamond brand.  I'm hoping no more show up because I really have no wish to work the rest of my life ( one vacation in the last 38 years ) to feed and care for animals.  I love each and every one and know they are all very special but this in many ways has been a huge focal point of my life and though it would seem strange.....I would like to spend some time not having to have this 365 day/ 24/7 exercise just to find out what its like to not have someone who needs me....though a great many of them would never let on that they do. It is for the most part a great pleasure but if I don't get any one else.....I could easily be in my 80's when the last one goes. 

Jackie

Yay Emma......Another group ((((((((((((((hug)))))))))))))))))) Welcome home in a short while, you earned it.

Jackie

From what I can tell Linda, you are lucky that your cats curl up together.  Mine curl up, sometimes, next to each other, but Ms Boo says "no touchy" to Emma. 

Here are my cats at 4 weeks together.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_r_ySzXTBw  (@ old house)

Emma is the one who ends up in the box.

LOL - Linda - "my friend" - we heard that plentuy of times in 2008. Of course, half of the time he said it with a sneer to his enemies. I remember how disrespectfully McCain treated Obama during the debates, once even refusing to shake his hand. What a baby.

Kam, glad Emma is ok.

Jackie and Lindasa--love the articles!

I cannot do links on phones, but I saw an article that the bankruptcy judge basically said to Hostess, "not quite so fast folks!" And they now have to go to mediation. The judge wasn't all that happy to see all the money that was destined for the insiders while the employees got squat.