|The debatesPage 2 of 8 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)|
Let me re-phrase ^ this in a better way:
So a woman has a right to do to her body what she wants unless that may POTENTIALLY 'harm' other people?
If that's better, I'd hate to see worse. I take it you're trying to state your personal opinion of how the world should be. It certainly is not an accurate statement of the law on abortion. Any state that chooses can prohibit abortion after viability, at least where that would not unreasonably risk the life of the mother. And the majority in a state that does that doesn't need to explain its decision to anyone.
the problem with that is when she or he;( because crack use isn't exclusive to women) is brought to the nearest Emergency room all F'd-up; the cost of medical care & rehab has to be absorbed by the gov't (which means the tax-payer)
That's one problem with it. A lot of people might think there's not only that practical consideration, but also a moral one. They might want to prohibit substances like those just as a matter of public morals. And if they do, that's their call. There's no constitutional right to use marijuana or cocaine, any more than there is to commit sodomy in the town square at noon.
Posted: 10/17/2012 4:03:26 AM
Romney uses Massachusetts as a kind of microcosm of the United States.
Then why is it that the facts about his term in Massachusetts differ so greatly from the Mittster's fond recollection? He didn't create the best schools in the country...he didn't balance their budget...he didn't create jobs there...in Massachusetts they really don't like the Mittster.
Posted: 10/17/2012 7:59:56 AM
I luv the "I was the governor" bit.....of course he failed to mention his state was 47th in job creation when he was governor....
^^^And of course all the same rerun talking points are still being thrown around. Nothing new for us Democrats to bring to the table other than the small handful of deceptive lies that are our only hope of discrediting the GOP candidate.
Stop listening to these 3 or 4 hand puppets & just check the facts for yourself from a reputable non-agendist site. You'll start to see a pattern.
Massachusetts’ job growth ranking improved year to year under Romney. As we wrote in an item this week when an Obama ad claimed Massachusetts “fell” to 47th under Romney, in the 12 months before he took office, the state ranked 50th in job creation. That ranking remained 50th during Romney’s first year in office, but by his final year, it had improved to 28th.
...he didn't balance their budget...
Yes he did. Massachusetts has a constitutional amendment that requires a balanced budget. A governor can NOT do otherwise. Again, stop listening to these 3 or 4 hand puppets & just check the facts for yourself from a reputable non-agendist site. You'll start to see a pattern.
Finally, the ad claims Romney “balanced every budget, without raising taxes.” Massachusetts’ Constitution requires a yearly balanced budget, so the boast isn’t — or shouldn’t be — that Romney balanced the budget every year. Rather, it’s that he did it without raising taxes.
It’s true that Romney never raised personal income taxes as governor. But as we have noted repeatedly, Romney increased government fees by hundreds of millions of dollars, and he also closed loopholes on some corporate taxes (a fact we have noted whenever Romney has claimed he did not raise taxes as governor).
Posted: 10/17/2012 10:50:39 AM
|What if it did? If "the public" means most local people, whose business would banning those things be but theirs? Americans have recognized since the beginning that the majority in a state has an inherent right to regulate public morals. It's part of what is called the police power--the power to make government policy. There are and always have been state laws against whatever acts, sexual and otherwise, a majority considered immoral enough to make criminal--prostitution, adultery, polygamy, adult incest, bestiality, and so forth.|
Moral views change, though, and they may sometimes change so much in most states that the few states which still ban a thing by law are found to be violating the 14th Amendment's guarantee of due process. That is what happened, for example, with the Texas law against sodomy in 2003. The Supreme Court had never done this with state laws about sexual morality until recently, and its authority for doing it is questionable or even doubtful.
Posted: 10/17/2012 1:10:19 PM
So you are saying that Harper has not raised the age to start collecting old age pensions?
Analytical people might look at this as Harper saving CPP for future generations. They might say "Hmmm... life expectancies have increased by 9 years since the CPP was first initiated, also all these baby-boomers are going to take a huge bite out of it. I suppose it's reasonable that after 46 years revisions might have to be made".
^^^^Listened to a program about this on CBC radio several months ago... the majority of callers expressed views similar to those above. Kind of surprised me because I don't have a lot of faith in the average CBC listener being able to think logically.... guess I was underestimating them. The fear mongering isn't going to work on this one.
As for the rest of your post:
Posted: 10/17/2012 2:25:43 PM
|Oh... so I guess you're ready to drop the pension thing... thought you might, didn't overestimate you.|
What've scientists got to do with "Medicare for All Canadians ... more Social programs ... Better emigration policy ...", the point you were addressing?
Posted: 10/17/2012 3:29:46 PM
....I don't like the idea of him lying in front of 100 million viewers(calling Benghazi a terrorist attack) and when some citizen asked him a direct question i.e. "Why did you not fix immigration in your first year, like you promised?" he chose not to answer.
^^^You're right -- no one likes to be lied to, but one would think that those that support Mitt Romney would be quite used to fast moving 'dancing on issues' he's been up to by now.
That is after all, the only real 'constant' about the man.
And no, it's not just Democrats saying this....YouTube is jam packed with past losing competitors from the Republican primaries saying 'exactly' the same thing about him.
You noted that the President did not answer a citizen's question. Have you forgotten that Mitt Romney chose not to answer a question on supporting the Equal Pay?
...Mr. Romney yet again completely avoided the question of women receiving equal pay in the workplace as if getting home from work early is all that concerns working women. Forbes, Oct 17, 2012
The FACT is that President Obama did not lie he did say " acts of terror".
The following is from a well-known fact-checker, but the actual transcripts documenting the same are now widely available from the White House and many other online sources showing the exactly the same mention the day after.
During the second presidential debate, Mitt Romney charged that "it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror."
Obama had bristled at the idea that his administration had played politics with the attack. He called the suggestion "offensive".
Obama: "The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened -- that this was an act of terror -- and I also said that we're going to hunt down those who committed this crime."
Romney: "I think interesting the president just said something, which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror."
Obama: "That's what I said."
Romney: "You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you're saying?"
Obama: "Please proceed, governor."
Romney: "I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror."
Obama: "Get the transcript."
We went to the transcript, and the president has a point. On September 12, the day after the attack, in the Rose Garden, Obama condemned the attack and said, "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation."
Posted: 10/17/2012 7:08:41 PM
|^^^Stop listening to these 3 or 4 hand puppets & just check the facts for yourself from a reputable non-agendist site. You'll start to see a pattern.|
CNN Fact Check: Candidates positions on contraception?
By the CNN Wire Staff
updated 7:51 AM EDT, Wed October 17, 2012
(CNN) -- President Barack Obama on Tuesday tried to draw a distinction between himself and GOP challenger Mitt Romney on contraceptives. He boasted that Obama's Affordable Care Act gives insured women free contraception coverage, and said Romney thinks employers should decide whether women can get contraception through insurance.
Obama made the statements at Tuesday's presidential debate in Hempstead, New York. Romney, who has said he wants to repeal the Affordable Care Act and also takes issue with part of the contraceptive coverage rule, countered that Obama misrepresented his stance.
"A major difference in this campaign is that Gov. Romney feels comfortable having politicians in Washington decide the health care choices that women are making. I think that's a mistake. In my health care bill, I said insurance companies need to provide contraceptive coverage to everybody who is insured. ... Gov. Romney not only opposed it, he suggested that in fact employers should be able to make the decision as to whether or not a woman gets contraception through her insurance coverage."
"I don't believe that bureaucrats in Washington should tell someone whether they can use contraceptives or not, and I don't believe employers should tell someone whether they can have contraceptive care or not. Every woman in America should have access to contraceptives, and the president's statement of my policy is completely and totally wrong."
To make sense of the statements, we should examine what the Affordable Care Act's contraceptives rule does, and what Romney has said he objects to.
The rule initially required most insurance plans to provide free contraception coverage to women. By August 2011, the rule was amended to exempt certain religious employers, such as churches, synagogues and other houses of worship, from offering such coverage.
But other religiously affiliated organizations, including colleges and hospitals, were not exempt, and religious groups objected.
So, in February, the Obama administration announced what it called a compromise in which free contraception coverage still must be offered to employees of religiously affiliated colleges and hospitals, but health insurers -- rather than the employers -- would have to cover the cost.
Churches and other houses of worship retained the full exemption, meaning women who worked there had no guarantee of full contraception coverage.
The requirement went into effect August 1, though the non-exempt religiously affiliated institutions such as colleges and hospitals can have up to August 1, 2013, to comply.
Some conservatives and religious groups, including some affiliated with the Catholic Church, continued to object, saying the rule still infringed on religious liberty and set a dangerous precedent by distinguishing between church and church-affiliated groups for conscience clauses.
Romney has said he would repeal the Affordable Care Act, which includes the contraceptives rule.
He also opposes the contraceptives rule specifically. In August, his campaign released a TV ad accusing Obama of mounting a "war on religion," saying that the health care law forces religious institutions to "go against their faith."
On February 10, the day the Obama administration announced the compromise, Romney said the rule still was "an assault on religious conviction," and suggesting that the insurance companies that would be forced to pay for contraception for employees of religiously affiliated colleges and hospitals could try to pass the cost on to the employers.
Around the same time, Romney said he supported a proposed amendment that would have allowed employers to opt out of providing health care coverage they disagreed with on moral grounds. The proposal, which was killed in the Senate in March, was Senate Republicans' response to the controversy over contraception and religious employers, though it didn't specifically mention contraception. The proposal stated that the health care act imposes requirements that infringe on the rights and conscience of insurers and plan sponsors, and it would have established that an entity refusing coverage on religious or moral grounds is not in violation of the law.
Obama's health care act does require most insurers to provide free contraception coverage to women, as described above. Romney, while not opposing the availability of contraception, opposes the contraception rule, arguing it forces some religious institutions to go against their faith.
Posted: 10/17/2012 9:06:30 PM
|What constitutional authority does a U.S. President have to order a private company to spend even a nickel, on anything? None. And yet on the surface, at least, this administrative rule relieves the employer who opposes contraceptives for religious reasons of the duty to provide them to his employees, but makes the firm's medical insurance company pick up the tab instead.|
Who can believe the insurance company will absorb this cost, imposed on it by executive dictate? Of course it won't--it will pass the higher cost right back to the employer by increasing what it charges to insure the other medical services in its plan. So this is only a shell game--this rule that claims to respect religious freedom will do no such thing. A Catholic employer that no longer has to pay directly for its employees' contraceptives will end up paying for them anyway, only in an indirect, hidden way.
Posted: 10/18/2012 5:12:23 AM
|Mr Romney has said that he will keep the pre-existing conditions clause of PPACA...in other words ...no one can be denied healthcare coverage due to a pre-existing condition...while doing away with all the rest of PPACA...well, this will dramatically increase health insurance costs...because if what Mr Romney wants goes through...then I'll only buy my insurance when I need it and drop it the rest of the time...as will many other Americians...then the claims paid vs premiums will go thru the roof...causing insurance companies to virtually charge, in premiums, the cost of care.|
Posted: 10/18/2012 7:08:09 AM
I noticed your post didn't mention the words "Blunt Amendment" which I find odd as that is what forced Romney to take a repositioning. You can google the Blunt Amendment too and find Romney's repositioning.
^^^Stop listening to these 3 or 4 hand puppets & just check the facts for yourself from a reputable non-agendist site. You'll start to see a pattern
If you want to take issue with the article calling the "Blunt Amendment" a "proposed amendment" which is one in the same amendment in the fact check article, go ahead. Not my problem - I didnt write the article, & whoever wrote the article didnt specifically call it the "Blunt Amendment" when it was explained. It was simply called a " proposed amendment" & was FULLY referenced in the next to the last paragraph of the fact check article. I knew what it was.
Here it is again, since it was probably too much trouble to have actually read it in the first place, is probably too much trouble to actually scroll back 3 posts & re-read it:
Around the same time, Romney said he supported a proposed amendment that would have allowed employers to opt out of providing health care coverage they disagreed with on moral grounds. The proposal, which was killed in the Senate in March~(by Democrats), was Senate Republicans' response to the controversy over contraception and religious employers, though it didn't specifically mention contraception.
The proposal stated that the health care act imposes requirements that infringe on the rights and conscience of insurers and plan sponsors, and it would have established that an entity refusing coverage on religious or moral grounds is not in violation of the law.
Seems some Democrats are literally turning circles trying to figure ways to sabatoge the position he takes on the issue of whether or not religious entities can be exempt from mandates that violate their principles based on their religious beliefs.
Yeah, what war on religion? Pffft!!
Posted: 10/18/2012 11:16:22 AM
So prostitution is illegal because it may potentially harm other people.
When did they Outlaw Prostitution? I enjoy the heck out of living next door to two Brothels. And, I'll tolerate no one outlawing them. Even the arrogant Harry Reid has gotten himself in hot water for such talk. Surprised he didn't get Tared n Feathered when he has brought that up in meetings. What a flipping hypocrite he is. Anyhow just looked over there, the girls are still there with plenty of cars in the parking lot. So, you are mistaken, Prostitution is still legal, and a piece of the world is still beautiful.
Now on to the False Debates. How can anyone still call these Debates wen a Candidate for President is Arrested for trying to attend them.
First Ron Paul, now Jill Stein. Yet we take this lightly. We still listen to these two Con Artists that everybody shows good reason not to like. And we tolerate them like there isn't better choices?
Posted: 10/19/2012 5:08:43 AM
As which is cheaper, babies or birth control?
Stop trying...the republicants just don't care...they are just not about caring for the live babies...it's all about a spermizoa.
When a woman CHOOSES to have unprotected sex that is definitely a possibility...don't worry though she can always go abort it...isn't that what abortion is for?
There ya go...it was only the woman's choice...and afterwards...her choice to choose should be taken away from her.
Posted: 10/19/2012 9:10:59 AM
But if you had adequate reading comprehension skills you would not be arguing at all as it is obvious that Obama did not directly refer to the attack in Benghazi as a Terrorist act.
Yes, I did read the transcript of the Presidents Rose Garden address...and cannot agree with what you would like to interpret...BTW...an "act of terror" is the defination of terrorism.
Posted: 10/19/2012 10:58:44 AM
|From the first, this administration has been lying through its teeth about what happened in Libya. Mr. Barack Hussein Obama had been indulging in wishful thinking about the so-called "Arab spring" and supposedly moderate Islamists like Mr. Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt, while preening himself on Bin Laden's death. So it was inconvenient for this rosy picture of what appeasement was supposed to have achieved when, right in the midst of Obama's stretch run for re-election Muslim jihadists again attacked U.S. territory on 9/11, murdering the ambassador to Libya and three other Americans.|
It was all the more embarrassing--and damning--that there had been almost no security, even though eastern Libya had always been known to be swarming with jihadists, and even though there had been other jihadist attacks there. These included an attack on the night of June 5 in which jihadists set off bombs outside the very same Benghazi consulate, and U.S. emissaries in Libya had been pleading in vain for more security all summer. Ambassador Stevens' journal, retrieved from the rubble a day or two after the attack by a CNN reporter (we were told that for almost three more weeks it was too dangerous for FBI agents to got there) shows he was deeply concerned about the continuing lack of security. Worst of all, Mr. Obama had known for months that in Pakistan, on June 4, U.S. missiles had killed Al Qaeda's number two man--a Libyan--and that Al Qaeda's leader had called for revenge.
To hide these facts from the American people, this administration cooked up a flimsy cover story that the attack had been caused by an obscure video trailer about Mohammed. Mr. Obama then called on Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, Jay Carney, and others to help him peddle the lie. Obama's leftist supporters are also trying to peddle it right here, and like him, they are showing their disregard for facts. We will see how well they can weasel after next Monday, when I expect the lid to be blown off this debacle and its cover-up in the final debate--with two weeks left before the election.
Posted: 10/19/2012 1:10:14 PM
We will see how well they can weasel after next Monday, when I expect the lid to be blown off this debacle and its cover-up in the final debate--with two weeks left before the election.
Frankly, after all the crow shyte that Mr Romney was eating during and after the debate on his mis-informed comments on Lybia, I think he'll avoid the topic like the plague.
Gafaw...snicker...chuckle...laugh...belly laugh...remember the post "Mission Accomplished" spin that came out after it turned out we hadn't actually won the Iraq war???
Posted: 10/19/2012 1:40:25 PM
Wow! Another one questioning my reading comprehension skills! I am starting to get the feeling that it is a concerted effort to intimidate me since my native language is not English. Maybe there is a tinge of racism in that attack about my English skills. Guess what? You are full of it. I will give you a little bit of a language lesson here so next time you won't be so ready to impugne people's reading skills just because you don't like what they say. Are you ready? It won't take long, I promise. Here it is: context is an essential part of language. The when and where of something that is said helps to understand its full meaning. So, the president said "act of terror." Where he said it? At a statement to the media event at the Rose Garden in the White House. When did he do that? After the country had learned that the US ambassador to Libya had been killed in Benghazi. Do you now understand what the president said?
And it's this type of behavior that will bleed rational people away from this party. I find the Republican's behavior on this issue completely embarrassing and unbelievably petty.
Romney chose to continually parse and question the validity of a phrase that a was clearly stated. More consumed with the tack of pursuing a 'gotcha' moment against the president on the national /international stage, he lost a key opportunity he had to pull back and show that he was presidential material.
It seems this 'big tent' party has become something that anyone with a modicum of rational thought and a world view that isn't influenced by a simplistic right-wing conspiratorial machine, is likely seriously reassessing why they are still affiliated to them---especially given some of the unbelievable antics of this election cycle from January on.
Fiscal conservatism as an idea is one that I think is popular to many people, not just Republicans. But the attraction often ends right there because the party is also increasingly tied to fractional social, christian, and militaristic agendas that don't have resonance to most.
For many like me who are non-religious, the zealotry of the fundamental traditionalists also has zero appeal. In my opinion, should the GOP lose this election despite the lies, and despite the mega-money that has been thrown at it, the party will likely need a complete split from the growing anti-intellectual / distrusting/ homophobic / 'otherism' sect, that has blown up within it, to ever posture again as a viable choice.
People are turned off because the party doesn't reflect in its make-up, a basic acceptance in true 'big tent fashion', the spectrum of people in our population that are diverse whether ethnically, sexually or in any other way that is unlike traditionalists. Their loss.
As it stands now, the GOP has to reinvent itself, or it must watch as other groups come along, perhaps an even a more moderated Democratic party with an enhanced fiscal conservatism plank, to offer a new home to those who could do without that 'side of crazy' that has made up the party for the last few years.
Intolerance, insular and backward-thinking has led this party astray from a message that should have had particular appeal, especially this year.
Posted: 10/19/2012 3:18:55 PM
he lost a key opportunity he had to pull back and show that he was presidential material.
Romney probably didn't want to get too far into Libya in a debate that wasn't about foreign policy. Wait until Monday, when he will show Mr. Obama up for the bald-faced liar he is. The best Obama and his supporters can do is point to the phrase "no acts of terror" he used in passing in his statement of the 12th. Meanwhile they conveniently ignore that for the next two weeks, both Obama and his officials flatly contradicted the claim that this was a planned jihadist attack by endlessly repeating the lie that it was caused by a video trailer.
the growing anti-intellectual / distrusting/ homophobic / 'otherism' sect,
What is that? Sounds like pseudo-intellectual dross from a really lame grad school paper--or maybe from the Queen Bee's Princeton senior thesis.
the zealotry of the fundamental traditionalists also has zero appeal
About as much appeal as the zealotry of leftist dim bulbs has for me.
Intolerance, insular and backward-thinking
That's a fair description of the typical leftist drone.
anyone with a modicum of rational thought and a world view that isn't influenced by a simplistic right-wing conspiratorial machine
I only hope you and people who think like you do will keep assuring yourselves how much smarter and more knowledgeable you are than conservatives.
Posted: 10/19/2012 6:58:24 PM
So what part about where he called the attacks, acts of terror did you not understand?
Here it is: context is an essential part of language. The when and where of something that is said helps to understand its full meaning. So, the president said "act of terror." Where he said it? At a statement to the media event at the Rose Garden in the White House. When did he do that? After the country had learned that the US ambassador to Libya had been killed in Benghazi. Do you now understand what the president said?
So you two gentlemen are fans of context? How about we expand the context beyond the narrow confines of your statements all the way into reality and see what we find. (I've summed up each statement in capital letters for your convenience).
White House spokesman Jay Carney, news briefing, Sept. 13
"America has a history of religious tolerance and respect for religious beliefs that goes back to our nation’s founding. We are stronger because we are the home to people of all religions, including millions of Muslims, and we reject the denigration of religion. We also believe that there is no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence."
9/13/12 - CARNEY BLAMES VIDEO, NOT PRE-PLANNED TERRORISM
As you know, Jay Carney is Obama's mouthpiece, and speaks for the entire administration - he says no more, and no less, than Obama decides he will say.
Hilary Clinton, at the transfer of remains ceremony, Sept. 14
“This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with. It is hard for the American people to make sense of that because it is senseless, and it is totally unacceptable.”
9/14/12 - CLINTON BLAMES VIDEO, NOT PRE-PLANNED TERRORISM
Susan E. Rice, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, “Face the Nation,” Sept. 16
“Based on the best information we have to date ... it began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo, where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.... We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.”
9/16/12 - RICE BLAMES VIDEO, NOT PRE-PLANNED TERRORISM
Mathew Olsen, Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, before Congress, Sept. 19
“I would say yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy….The best information we have now, the facts that we have now indicate that this was an opportunistic attack on our embassy. The attack began and evolved and escalated over several hours at our embassy — our diplomatic post in Benghazi. It evolved and escalated over several hours.
It appears that individuals who were certainly well-armed seized on the opportunity presented as the events unfolded that evening and into the — into the morning hours of September 12th. We do know that a number of militants in the area, as I mentioned, are well-armed and maintain those arms. What we don't have at this point is specific intelligence that there was a significant advanced planning or coordination for this attack.
9/19/12 - OLSEN BLAMES VIDEO & OPPORTUNISM, CLAIMS SPONTANEOUS TERRORISM
Margaret Brennan CBS News correspondent, CBS News, Sept. 20, reporting what the Obama admin certainly already knows:
"Witnesses tell CBS News that there was never an anti-American protest outside of the consulate. Instead they say it came under planned attack. That is in direct contradiction to the administration’s account."
The Obama admin also has security footage and drone footage confirming the above. So... will they now tell the American people the truth? Let's see...
White House spokesman Jay Carney, news briefing, Sept. 20
“It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently, and the result was four deaths of American officials. So, again, that's self- evident.
“He also made clear that at this point, based on the information he has — and he is briefing the Hill on the most up-to-date intelligence — we have no information at this point that suggests that this was a significantly preplanned attack, but this was the result of opportunism, taking advantage of and exploiting what was happening as a result of reaction to the video that was found to be offensive.”
9/20/12 - CARNEY - BLAMES VIDEO & OPPORTUNISM - i.e., KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY LIES
Note how now it is "self-evident" that it was a terrorist attack (but only a spontaneous one). Too funny!
President Obama, Univision Town Hall, Sept. 20
QUESTION: “We have reports that the White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Do you have information indicating that it was Iran, or al-Qaeda was behind organizing the protests?”
OBAMA: “Well, we're still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”
9/20/12 - OBAMA - BLAMES VIDEO & OPPORTUNISM - i.e., KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY LIES
Hilary Clinton, statement at a meeting with Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, Sept. 21
“What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and we will not rest until we have tracked down and brought to justice the terrorists who murdered four Americans.”
9/21/12 - CLINTON - IT WAS A TERRORIST ATTACK
Finally - the Obama admin tells the truth But wait...
President Obama, on ABC’s “The View,” Sept. 25
OBAMA: “We are still doing an investigation. There is no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. Now, we don’t have all the information yet so we are still gathering.”
9/25/12 - OBAMA - WON'T SAY IT WAS A TERRORIST ATTACK - i.e., KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY LIES
Obama, speech to the U.N. General Assembly, Sept. 25
“That is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.”
9/25/12 - OBAMA - BLAMES VIDEO 6 TIMES - i.e., KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY LIES REPEATEDLY
Obama blames the Benghazi incident on the video 6 times, but does not say the word "terror," "terrorist," or "terrorism" even once in his 30 minute speech - the message Obama was pushing was that the video was the cause of the Benghazi attack.
Watch Obama's UN speech for yourself.
White House spokesman Jay Carney, news briefing, Sept. 26
QUESTION: “Is there any reason why the President did not — he was asked point-blank in The View interview, is this a terrorist attack, yes or no? Is there any reason why he didn’t say yes?”
CARNEY: “He answered the question that he was asked, and there's no reason that he chose the words he did beyond trying to provide a full explanation of his views and his assessment that we need to await further information that the investigation will uncover. But it is certainly the case that it is our view as an administration, the President’s view, that it was a terrorist attack.”
9/26/12 - CARNEY - OBAMA's VIEW IS THAT IT WAS A TERRORIST ATTACK
Now, gentlemen, tell me again about context...
Just for the sake of argument, let's pretend that Obama considered the Benghazi attacks to be a planned terrorist attack, or act of terror, from the very beginning, as he and his supporters are claiming. I have a question for you two - what the fvck kind of human being, let alone the freaking president, goes out fundraising, shaking hands, smiling, laughing - the day after a terrorist attack that killed 4 American citizens, while at the same time sending out his underlings to lie about it for him, as proven above?
Why the fvck didn't Obama come out right away and assure the American people that he was doing all he could to bring the terrorists to justice, instead of acting like it was a spontaneous riot gone bad?
Why did Obama not come out and admit that the attack was obviously pre-planned, rather than lie about it?
Why didn't he say something like "look, we have hundreds of embassies, consulates, and other American interests all over the world - we can't make every one an impregnable fortress - that is not the purpose or function of our diplomatic mission. Yes, ambassador Stevens did request addidtional security, but what he requested, and what we anticipated sending, would not have been enough to repel such a well planned and executed attack, and would only have resulted in more dead Americans?"
I would have accepted that explanation - and it's way closer to the truth than anything that has come from the lying Obama admin.
Rather than be a leader - a man - Obama immediately slithered to his 'comfort zone,' where he is at his best - that of the lowest form of life on the planet - a politician. He, and his scummy minions, have lied and spun - politicized it - from the start, and then had the nerve to blame the Rebubs for politicizing it.
Even worse, semi-literate Obama backers are all over the internet pretending that they understand context and correcting the poor dumb conservatives. It's hilarious - and sad.
And it's this type of behavior that will bleed rational people away from this party. I find the Republican's behavior on this issue completely embarrassing and unbelievably petty.
As the statements listed above clearly show, the despicable behavior, the deliberate lie after lie, the politicizing of the attack, is on the part of the Obama admin. But, you say the Republicans are embarrassing and petty for pointing it out?!? Interesting take on the situation - though not exactly what I'd call "rational."
Posted: 10/20/2012 7:07:38 AM
When we are attacked on the homeland again, you republicans are going to be eating your shit trying to blame Obama. This is a repeat of what happened in the nineties.
All good points you made, which is what I've often told some pple! If this isn't enough to illustrate just how toxic the GOP is to the political decision making of this nation than I dunno what is! I'm baffled as to how they keep getting votes from the middle class.
Furthermore, where was the GOP outrage when over 250 US Marines were blown up in an under-protected facility in Beirut in 1983?
Posted: 10/20/2012 9:18:22 AM
|Who here thinks that things are getting better?|
Who thinks we are more Free then we were any political term ago?
Who here thinks that that your own personal voice or question can be heard in Politics today?
Who's life is better today then it was any political term ago?
If your like me, most of us are tired of the outrageous fuel prices, you at least know someone who has lost their home to unethical Banking Practices, your not rejoicing for all the money Government spent bailing out AIG, the Banks, and the Auto Industry, and your not entirely sure that this War against Terrorism isn't just a War over Oil, and maybe Drugs.
Now How important are these issues to you, vs how represented are these issues by Obama or Romney?
I personally see our lifes rapidly spiraling down to nothing, or worse, and I don't see any of the Major Candidates even trying to fix this. I'm feeling used, abused, ignored, but certainly not represented.
Please show me where I'm wrong?
Posted: 10/20/2012 12:52:56 PM
I can't shake out of my memory that the Reagan and the repugnicans collaborated with Khomeini and his followers to prolong the captivity of American citizens in Teheran just so that they could use that situation to attack president Carter in the 1980 election.
^^^Stop listening to these 3 or 4 hand puppets who suffer from Chronic long-term Obamnesia & just check the facts for yourself from a reputable non-agendist site. You'll start to see a pattern.
"Well before Reagan became president, the deal for releasing the hostages had already been worked out by the Carter administration's State Department and the Iranians, ably assisted by Algerian diplomats," said David Farber, a Temple University historian and author of Taken Hostage: The Iranian Hostage Crisis and America's First Encounter with Radical Islam.
"No Reagan administration officials participated in the successful negotiations," Farber added. "The Iranian government waited to officially release the Americans until Carter had left the presidency as a final insult to Carter, whom they despised. They believed Carter had betrayed the Iranian revolution by allowing the self-exiled Shah to receive medical attention in the United States and then had threatened their new government by attempting, unsuccessfully, to use military force in April 1980 to free the hostages."
"By doing this, Iran thought they were showing the world that they could meddle in our affairs, just as we had done to them in 1953," added Dave Houghton, a political scientist at the University of Central Florida and author of U.S. Foreign Policy and the Iran Hostage Crisis. Houghton suggested that Iran had a relatively unsophisticated grasp of U.S. politics, and said he thinks it’s possible that the Iranians "didn’t even know what Reagan had said on the campaign trail."
"I don't think they were scared into the release," Houghton said. "In all likelihood, they released the hostages because they needed the sanctions we'd placed on them lifted so they could finance their war with Iraq."
The one scholar who entertained the possibility that Iran was taking heed of the future president’s philosophy was Michael Gunter, a political scientist at Tennessee Tech University and the author of several papers about the crisis. Still, Gunter added, the "main reason for the release" was that "the mileage the Iranians had gained by holding the hostages had been used for everything it was worth and there was no further advantage in continuing."
Several other experts agreed that the Iranians’ focus was on Carter, not Reagan.
"If it was related to the occupant of the White House, it certainly had more to do with Carter than Reagan," said Stephen Kinzer, a former New York Times reporter who now teaches at Boston University and authored the book, Reset: Iran, Turkey, and America’s Future. "My guess is that the hostages would have been released even if someone else had been inaugurated -- anyone but Carter. The Iranians had come to hate Carter and didn't want to give him a triumph. Giving it to someone else was fine with them."
Posted: 10/20/2012 4:08:51 PM
|Below is a CNN article about an earlier attack on the Benghazi consulate that had just occurred. Notice it mentions that a Libyan jihadist group (now identified as the "Omar Abdul Rahman Brigades") claimed the June 5 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was revenge for the June 4 killing of the Al Qaeda bigshot and Libyan Abu Yahya al-Libi. |
Ayman al-Zawahiri, now the head of Al Qaeda, released a recorded eulogy of al-Libi the morning of September 11, in which he called for Muslims--and particularly Libyans--to avenge him. Knowing that, and knowing it was September 11, and knowing the Benghazi area was full of jihadists, and knowing the Omar Abdul Rahman Brigades had continued their violence, and knowing they had shown they were able to track the movements of Western diplomats, it should have been no surprise that that night, they attacked the very same target they'd attacked June 5. And this time they succeeded.
Mr. Obama wanted us to believe that now the bad old regimes in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt were gone, North Africa was seeing an "Arab Spring" blossoming out. Bin Laden was dead, and now Obama basked in the glory of eliminating him. All that apologizing for America he'd done to foreign Muslims and all that diplomacy Mrs. Clinton and her adviser Huma Abedin had carried on with the new Muslim Brotherhood-dominated government in Egypt were supposed to have brought about a bright, new day.
In short, things were supposed to be going swimmingly. But providing a strong armed presence to protect our emissaries in Libya would have clashed with that story. If jihadists who wanted us dead were enough a part of the landscape there that it was still such a dangerous place, people might suspect the truth. And that was that even though the Arab Spring had brought up a lot of poisonous weeds, this administration ignored the ugly facts, indulged in wishful thinking, and cooked up a rosy image of things to add some luster to Mr. Obama's foreign policy. Four Americans were sacrificed to keep that image intact.
June 7th, 2012
06:28 PM ET
Libyan official: U.S. drones seeking jihadists in Libya
By Nic Robertson, Paul Cruickshank and Jomana Karadsheh reporting from Tripoli, Libya
A senior Libyan official told CNN that the U.S. is flying surveillance missions with drones over suspected jihadist training camps in eastern Libya because of concerns over rising activity by al Qaeda and like-minded groups in the region but said that to the best of his knowledge, they had not been used to fire missiles at militant training camps in the area.
The revelation follows a failed attack on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi on Tuesday night, which a shadowy jihadist group claimed was to avenge the death of al Qaeda No. 2 Abu Yahya al-Libi.
The official said that one militant commander operating in Derna, Abdulbasit Azuz, had complained that a drone strike had targeted his training camp in the east of Libya. Last month, there were reports of explosions outside the Derna area in the vicinity of the camps, according to a different source.
The CIA's covert drone strike program is rarely publicly acknowledged. It has been widely reported that drones have been deployed to target militants in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.
The U.S. flew drones for a while after the NATO intervention in Libya to monitor chemical and biological sites, US military officials tell CNN. But the officials would not comment on whether drone flights were ongoing.
The senior Libyan official said it would be bad if such a strike had occurred. He added that the Americans' use of drones in a surveillance capacity had been discussed at the top level of the transitional Libyan government.
As CNN has reported, Azuz is a senior al Qaeda operative and longtime close associate of the group's leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, who was dispatched to Libya from the tribal areas of Pakistan in spring 2011, according to several sources. There, he subsequently recruited fighters.
Azuz is a veteran jihadist who fought the Soviet-backed government in Afghanistan in the early 1990s, according to several sources. He later to moved to the UK, where he increasingly came on the radar screen of British security services for his radical recruitment efforts in Manchester. In the period after the July 2005 London bombings, he was detained in the Belmarsh high-security prison and placed under a Control order, according to the sources.
He left the UK in 2009 and traveled to the tribal areas of Pakistan, from where al-Zawahiri redeployed him to Libya to set up a bridgehead for the terrorist group, according to the sources.
According to one source, Azuz has dispatched men as far west as Ajdabiya and Brega in his attempt to build up al Qaeda operations in eastern Libya.
According to the senior Libyan official, five radical Islamist militant commanders are operating in the Derna area, with 200 to 300 men under their command in the camps.
According to Libyan security sources, within the militant ranks in Derna, there are 20 to 30 hardcore jihadist fighters who are cause for most concern. One source said a number of Egyptian jihadists are also present in the Derna area, as well as fighters belonging to al Qaeda's North African affiliate, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.
Recently, Libya's grand mufti, Asadiq Gherayli, met with the five militant commanders, and four of them, including Azuz, agreed with the government terms not to carry out attacks.
Only one refused: Sufian bin Qumu (also known as Abu Faris al Libi), a released Guantanamo detainee who is believed to be operating a camp in the mountainous woods along the sea outside Derna.
Qumu, 53 is a Libyan jihadist who participated in jihad in Afghanistan in the early and mid-1990s and joined the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group in Sudan in the mid-1990s, where he worked as a truck driver for bin Laden's company, according to a detainee assessment compiled while he was at Guantanamo.
He subsequently moved to Pakistan and then to Afghanistan, during which time he left the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and declared allegiance to the Taliban, according to the assessment. He was arrested in Pakistan after fleeing Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban and handed over to U.S. authorities.
The assessment described him as having a "long-term association with Islamist extremist Jihad and members of Al-Qaida and other extremist groups."
Moammar Gadhafi's Libyan government said the assessment considered him "a dangerous man with no qualms about committing terrorist acts." The assessment said he had once assaulted guards at the detention facility in Cuba.
It added that before becoming a jihadist, Qumu had served as a tank driver in the Libyan army before spending several years in prison on accusations of murder and drug dealing. It was after his escape in 1993 that he first traveled to Afghanistan.
According to one source, locals in Derna believe he was behind an assassination attempt several months ago on Abdel Hakim al Hasadi, another militant commander in the city.
Several senior Libyan officials said they were aware of Azuz and Qumu's presence in the Derna area.
They say local tribes, including the Obeidi tribe, which control the area are keeping watch on the camps. One source said the tribes have the authority to capture and kill the occupants. "No one who leaves ever goes back," one source said.
Another source said that the militants are proving increasingly unpopular in Derna and that residents recently forced one group to vacate a camp on the outskirts of the city.
The jihadist group that claimed responsibility for the failed attack on the U.S. Mission in leaflets left at the scene called itself the Imprisoned Omar Abdul Rahman Brigades. It promised more attacks against American interests.
It was first heard from late last month, when it claimed responsibility for an attack on a Red Cross office in Benghazi. A purported video of the attack was apparently posted on jihadist websites that regularly feature statements by al Qaeda. The video showed several rockets being fired into a building at night.
In claiming responsibility, the group stated, "We do not recognize (state) borders when we plan for our operations, and we have prepared a message that will soon reach America in response to polluting the clarity of the defiant city of Derna," according to a translation by Flashpoint Partners, which monitors jihadist websites.
According to a source in touch with jihadist militants in eastern Libya, there are indications the group has roots in the Derna area.
Posted: 10/21/2012 6:59:38 AM
I can't shake out of my memory that the Reagan and the repugnicans collaborated with Khomeini and his followers to prolong the captivity of American citizens in Teheran just so that they could use that situation to attack president Carter in the 1980 election
I debunked that many-times-debunked myth with a fact checked article.
Posted: 10/21/2012 7:40:53 AM
I debunked that many-times-debunked myth with a fact checked article.
You debunked this with a fact checked article on what Mr Romney said happened??? I think not...
PART ONE--THE CHRONOLOGY
[The following time line of 1980 Reagan Campaign Deal With Iran was mailed to me along with a packet of newspaper clippings that support the "October Surprise" theory that I had previously posted. Reading all the clippings (from everything from the Huntsville Times to the San Francisco Examiner) makes me feel better about the mainstream press. Maybe we just need to read the stuff that isn't on the front page.]
Throughout 1979 hostage crisis and 1980 presidential campaign - CIA's Iran desk/covert operatives rabidly pro-Reagan and anti-Carter [Witness by M. Rafizadeh p.346]
1980 - Iranian Cyrus Hashemi offers to open back channels to Rafsanjani in Iran to obtain release of the 52 hostages [San Jose Mercury News, 6/13/87, p. 21A. from L. A. Times]
March 1980 - Reagan Campaign pollster Richard Wirthlin notifies Campaign that an "October Surprise" [release of the 52 hostages before the election] cannot be allowed to happen or Carter will almost certainly win the election [Hidden Power by R. Perry pp123-124, 144]
April 1980 - William Casey, Reagan Campaign Manager, is in communication with Richard Secord, then chief planner of Carter's Desert One rescue attempt. [Rebel by D. Freed. November 22, 1983]
April 18, 1980 - Carter makes top-secret decision to proceed with Desert One rescue attempt. [All Fall Down by G. Sick]
April 20, 1980 - Casey O.S.S. associate, Miles Copeland, publishes details of Carter's Desert One rescue attempt, which are continuously broadcast into Iran [Washington Star, 4/20/80]
April 25, 1980 - Desert One rescue attempt (chief planner Richard Secord [Secord's testimony in Irangate hearings], staff trained by Secord associates Cupp, Gadd and Dutton) [San Jose Mercury News, 12/12/86, p. 23A], while Oliver North is in Iran [The Nation, 6/20/87, by C. Hitchins] is sabotaged by the CIA/Secret Team in communication with Reagan Campaign Manager William Casey. [M. Rafizadeh, Witness and personal communication]. Mrs. Cynthia Dwyer tells Rev. Moore immediately following the attempt, in Iran, that it was caused to fail by the CIA [Rev. Moore, personal communication]
May 1980 - Mrs. Cynthia Dwyer, who will become the "53rd hostage", is taken captive in Iran.
August 1980 - Reagan Campaign appoints Richard Beal, assistance to campaign pollster Richard Wirthlin, to work on counter strategies to a Carter "October Surprise." [Hidden Power by R. Perry p. 124] and Richard V. Allen, the campaign's chief foreign policy adviser, is appointed to head one of two "October Surprise" groups [Albosta Committee Report Vol. 1, pp. 47-
48; NY Times 10/7/80; and San Jose Mercury News, 4/12/87, p. 21A]
October 10, 1980 - Iran demands list of arms and spare parts purchased under the Shah, as part of negotiations for release of the 52 hostages [All Fell Down by G. Sick]
October 11, 1980 - Carter's Iran Core Group, including Sick, compiles list of $150 million worth of U.S. arms and spare parts, per Iran's request of the day before [All Fell Down, pp. 369-370]
"Early" October, 1980 - Secret Washington, D.C. meeting between Richard V. Allen, Robert McFarland, and L. Silberman representing the Reagan Campaign and an emissary of Iran, who offers to release the 52 hostages on Reagan's terms in exchange for later U.S. arms sales to Iran, "to ensure Carter's defeat." [Knight-Ridder, 4/11-12/87; Washington Post, 11/29/87]
October 16 & 17, 1980 - Meeting of top Reagan Campaign officials to decide whether to debate Carter. Decision is made to debate even though Wirthlin's projections at the meeting show Reagan should not debate if an "October Surprise" can occur. [Hidden Power by R. Perry, p.144]
October 18, 1980 - According to Wirthlin's projections, beginning of crucial window of vulnerability for an "October Surprise", i.e. when Carter would gain the most percentage points at the polls, 10%, if the hostages were brought safely home (between October 18 and 25). [Hidden Power by R. Perry]
October 22, 1980 - Iran suddenly drops all demands for and discussion of arms in exchange for hostages in its negotiations with Carter. [All Fell Down by G. Sick, pp. 371-372]
October 24, 1980 - At Reagan Campaign national headquarters, Ed Meese puts Admiral Robert Carrick full-time on counter-"October Surprise" operations and intelligence, in a campaign memorandum [Albosta Committee Report, Vol. 1, p. 50]. In late p.m., Reagan Campaign staffer in the campaign's Operations Center boasts, "We don't have to worry about an 'October Surprise.'****[Allen] cut a deal." [Larry King Live, 12/4/86]
October 28, 1980 - Carter-Reagan presidential debate. Barbara Walters asks Carter about reports that he is negotiating a release of the 52 hostages in return for weapons and spare parts together with unfreezing Iranian assets. Carter responds that he intends to return to Iran what Iran already owns. [Iran had already paid for $300 million worth of U.S. weapons and spare parts under the Shah].
Barbara Walters also asks Reagan about his plans for the hostages. Reagan responds, "I have been accused lately of having a secret plan with regard to the hostages...My ideas require quiet diplomacy where you don't say what it is you're thinking of doing." [All Fell Down, Gary Sick, p. 377]
October 29, 1980 - Six days before the Nov. 4 election, Carter is assured his secret negotiations with Iran - promising Iran $240 million in U.S. arms and spare parts paid for under the Shah, together with unfreezing Iranian assets - will result in the release of the 52 hostages before the Nov. 4 election. Iran's parliament is scheduled to meet the next day, October 30, 1980, to approve the Carter-Iran deal. [Miami Herald, August 9, 1987]
October 29-30, 1980 - Richard V. Allen and George Bush meet in Paris, France with a representative of Iranian Mohammad Beheshti, a key member of Iran's Hostage Policy Committee (other key members were Rafsanjani and Khomeini's son). Bush and Allen give Beheshti's representative bribe money to delay release of the 52 hostages until after the 1980 election. Former Iranian president Bani-Sadr reports that Beheshti's Hostage Policy Committee suddenly killed Carter's plan, and the scheduled meeting of Iran's Parliament for October 30, 1980 was called off at the last minute. [Miami Herald, August 9, 1987; New York Times, August 3, 1987; personal communication and call-in to radio talk show from U.S. serviceman who was at the Allen, Bush, Beheshti-representative meeting in Europe]
October 30, 1980 - At the morning "October Surprise" group meeting, Reagan Campaign Manager William Casey boasts that the campaign doesn't have to worry about an "October Surprise" from Carter's releasing the hostages before the election. [Hidden Power by R. Perry, P.153]
Following the November 4, 1980 Election - Iranian Foreign Minister and CIA double agent Ghotzbadeh, in negotiation with the Reagan Transition Team (Reagan's post-election/pre-inauguration headquarters), secretly arranges for further delays of release of the 52 hostages until Reagan's inauguration [Former Iranian President Bani-Sadr, San Jose Mercury News, 4/12/87, from the Miami Herald]
January 20, 1980, Inauguration Day - The 52 hostages are released, as arranged; all aspects of Carter's hostages-for-money deal are consummated by morning. [All Fell Down by G. Sick] Mrs. Dwyer, the wife of a former classmate of Richard V. Allen, now Reagan's first NSC Adviser, is still held captive in Iran.
January 21, 1980, Reagan's first full day in office - Reagan tells Richard V. Allen, his new NSC Adviser, to tell Iran "The deal's off" unless Mrs. Dwyer is released [Allen's report, MacNeil-Lehrer TV Hour, 11/7/86]. The call to Iran communicating Reagan's order linking his "deal" with Iran to Mrs. Dwyer's release probably tape-recorded in White House Situation Room [Washington Post, 4/13/87]. Reagan holds first NSC meeting; topics: Iranian Ghorbanifar's disinformation on Iran, and Libya [Seymour Hersh, San Jose Mercury News; and Washington Post, 2/20/87]
Late January 1981 - Secy of State Haig meets with Ariel Sharon to discuss U.S. arms shipments to Israel [Newsweek, 12/8/86], and announces that U.S. policy toward Iran depends on Mrs. Dwyer's release [In These Times, 6/24-7-7/87]
February 9, 1981 - Mrs. Dwyer is released in Iran, and returns to U.S.
February 20, 1981 - Secy of State Haig approves Israeli sale of U.S. arms to Iran with encouragement of McFarlane and Ledeen, and meets with Shamir about the upcoming sales [Wall Street Journal, 12/12/86, p. 54]
Late February/Early March, 1981 - Israel begins shipments of U.S arms to Iran [LA Times, 1/25/87] NOTE: There had to be a signed presidential finding to authorize these early-1981 shipments of U.S. arms by Israel to Iran. That same finding was probably used to authorize the controversial Aug/Sept 1986 Irangate shipments to Israel, which the White House denies there was a signed finding for. Reason: they don't want the public to know about the 1981 shipments and their relation to Reagan's 1980 arms-for-hostages-delay deal with Iran.
Also Late February/Early March 1981 - Cyrus Hashemi begins parallel shipments of U.S. arms to Iran, claiming they are "part of an effort necessary to get the [original 52] hostages released." [San Jose Mercury News, 4/12/87, from LA Times; Washington Times 12/17/86; and S.F. Chronicle, 1/6/87, from Washington Post wire], and were with William Casey and the CIA's authorization [Washington Times, 12/17/86].
1985-1986 - Cyrus Hashemi works with Oliver North's Irangate network, from the very beginning [Jack Anderson, 1/26/87, S.F. Chronicle].
July 21, 1986 - Cyrus Hashemi murder, reportedly by government agents [San Jose Mercury News, 6/13/87, p. 21A, from LA Times; Executive Intelligence Review, 8/1/86, p. 47]
8 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)