Alan Dershowitz on CNN: 'Hearing Lot Of Lies' From People Like Glenn Greenwald Who 'Foment A Paranoid Streak'

[Auburn85 434]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl-GfmkvmGM

[ToomersRevenge 284]

Far less intrusive than the TSA...is this not the same TSA who is searching grandmothers and infants? I don't know anyone who thinks the TSA isn't going too far most of the time. That's not a great comparison.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Dersh couldn't carry Greenwald's jock if you gave him a wheelbarrow.

[AURaptor 1,137]

This from a govt which tells us there's no targeting by the IRS, when clearly, there's targeting by the IRS.

This from an administration which told us Benghazi was all about a video, when they KNEW , all along, it was NEVER about a video.

[shabby 1,960]

This from a govt which tells us there's no targeting by the IRS, when clearly, there's targeting by the IRS.

This from an administration which told us Benghazi was all about a video, when they KNEW , all along, it was NEVER about a video.

Oh do tell, please enlighten me when the Obama administration ever stated that there was no targeting.

Oh, and while you're at it, please provide the evidence that the Obama administration knew all along what caused the Benghazi uprising. I'll patiently await your lack of ability to do so. It's rather pathetic I think to state things like they're facts without any......... facts. Congrats Raptor, you just proved Martin Bashir's point for him in the other thread.

[jj3jordan 2,125]

Do you pay any attention at all? Obama knew it was a terrorist attack the first day. They blamed it on the video that nobody saw. That is not even disputed any more.

[shabby 1,960]

Do you pay any attention at all? Obama knew it was a terrorist attack the first day. They blamed it on the video that nobody saw. That is not even disputed any more.

Again, please link where anyone has proven that the Obama administration did not think the video played a major part on day one and deliberately misled. still waiting. The release of the full emails actually confirm the opposite of 'your claim'. Funny, you guys love to make paranoid delusional claims and then its like crickets around here when asked to verify with reliable sources.

[shabby 1,960]

And Alan Dershowitz absolutely nailed it. We need real discussion based upon real information rather than paranoid perpetuated misinformation presented as "truth".

[AURaptor 1,137]

This from a govt which tells us there's no targeting by the IRS, when clearly, there's targeting by the IRS.

This from an administration which told us Benghazi was all about a video, when they KNEW , all along, it was NEVER about a video.

Oh do tell, please enlighten me when the Obama administration ever stated that there was no targeting.

I believe I said the " govt ", not the administration. The IRS claimed there was no targeting.

On Monday, the IRS said acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller was first informed on May, 3, 2012, that applications for tax-exempt status by tea party groups were inappropriately singled out for extra scrutiny.

At least twice after the briefing, Miller wrote letters to members of Congress to explain the process of reviewing applications for tax-exempt status without disclosing that tea party groups had been targeted. On July 25, 2012, Miller testified before the House Ways and Means oversight subcommittee but again did not mention the additional scrutiny – despite being asked about it.

http://www.huffingto..._n_3271549.html

Oh, and while you're at it, please provide the evidence that the Obama administration knew all along what caused the Benghazi uprising. I'll patiently await your lack of ability to do so. It's rather pathetic I think to state things like they're facts without any......... facts. Congrats Raptor, you just proved Martin Bashir's point for him in the other thread.

How did I do that ?

Oh, and here's that egg facial you ordered.

Enjoy!

WASHINGTON (AP) — Then CIA-Director David Petraeus objected to the final talking points the Obama administration used after the deadly assault on a U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, because he wanted to see more details revealed to the public, according to emails released Wednesday by the White House.

Under pressure in the investigation that continues eight months after the attacks, the White House on Wednesday released 99 pages of emails and a single page of hand-written notes made by Petraeus' deputy, Mike Morell, after a meeting at the White House on Saturday, Sept. 15. On that page, Morell scratched out from the CIA's early drafts of talking points mentions of al-Qaida, the experience of fighters in Libya, Islamic extremists and a warning to the Cairo embassy on the eve of the attacks of calls for a demonstration and break-in by jihadists.

Petraeus apparently was displeased by the removal of so much of the material his analysts initially had proposed for release. The talking points were sent to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to prepare her for an appearance on news shows on Sunday, Sept. 16, and also to members of the House Intelligence Committee.

http://news.yahoo.co...-220924269.html

[alexava 6,974]

did that idiot really say that you have a choice not to board a plane? you also have a choice to not use a phone.

[AURaptor 1,137]

did that idiot really say that you have a choice not to board a plane? you also have a choice to not use a phone.

It's not an idiotic thing to say, and he's right. The entirety of all US citizens can't be presumed guilty, first, and then treated as such. There's no reasonable level of suspicion when a net is cast over all of us, just because.

[shabby 1,960]

"I believe I said the " govt ", not the administration. The IRS claimed there was no targeting.

On Monday, the IRS said acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller was first informed on May, 3, 2012, that applications for tax-exempt status by tea party groups were inappropriately singled out for extra scrutiny.

At least twice after the briefing, Miller wrote letters to members of Congress to explain the process of reviewing applications for tax-exempt status without disclosing that tea party groups had been targeted. On July 25, 2012, Miller testified before the House Ways and Means oversight subcommittee but again did not mention the additional scrutiny – despite being asked about it."

uh, one person equates to the government? And when you said government, you weren't referring to the Obama administration? Not buying it. Did not Obama and every aide in his administration acknowledge that the IRS targeted conservative groups. Seems like the 'government' acknowledged this just fine.

Oh, and while you're at it, please provide the evidence that the Obama administration knew all along what caused the Benghazi uprising. I'll patiently await your lack of ability to do so. It's rather pathetic I think to state things like they're facts without any......... facts. Congrats Raptor, you just proved Martin Bashir's point for him in the other thread.

How did I do that ? By utilizing coded words like government in attempt to link something to the Obama administration.

Oh, and here's that egg facial you ordered. Apparently they came with a side of epic fail

Enjoy!

WASHINGTON (AP) — Then CIA-Director David Petraeus objected to the final talking points the Obama administration used after the deadly assault on a U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, because he wanted to see more details revealed to the public, according to emails released Wednesday by the White House.

Under pressure in the investigation that continues eight months after the attacks, the White House on Wednesday released 99 pages of emails and a single page of hand-written notes made by Petraeus' deputy, Mike Morell, after a meeting at the White House on Saturday, Sept. 15. On that page, Morell scratched out from the CIA's early drafts of talking points mentions of al-Qaida, the experience of fighters in Libya, Islamic extremists and a warning to the Cairo embassy on the eve of the attacks of calls for a demonstration and break-in by jihadists.

Petraeus apparently was displeased by the removal of so much of the material his analysts initially had proposed for release. The talking points were sent to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to prepare her for an appearance on news shows on Sunday, Sept. 16, and also to members of the House Intelligence Committee.

Within those batch of emails, a clear evolution is shown. Little was known as to the cause of the Benhazi attack and the video was mentioned in the CIA assessment. Do you dispute that? If so try a little reading comprehension where the CIA asked for that line to be removed

http://www.huffingto..._n_3280734.html

"But senior administration officials on Wednesday said that Michael J. Morell, then the deputy director of the CIA, also wanted that line removed, separately from Nuland. Morell believed it was irrelevant to the message of the talking points -- what happened in Benghazi -- and unprofessional to include those warnings but not allow State Department officials to include how they had responded to them.

Separate from Wednesday's document release, the CIA recently conducted an internal review of how and why the talking points were changed -- a move that also came in response to the continuing questions from Congress. That review showed that many changes were made to the original talking points -- drafted by a senior officer -- over concerns about accuracy, an FBI investigation and other bureaucratic matters. A U.S. intelligence official told The Huffington Post the review was completed "early this year."

Senior administration officials, discussing that internal review, relayed that some CIA officials didn't like that the original draft of the talking points said the government "know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa'ida participated in the attack," because at that time it was premature to name those responsible for the attacks."

[AURaptor 1,137]

uh, one person equates to the government? And when you said government, you weren't referring to the Obama administration? Not buying it. Did not Obama and every aide in his administration acknowledge that the IRS targeted conservative groups. Seems like the 'government' acknowledged this just fine.

I see how you completely dodged the issue. 1. The ACTING DIRECTOR lied, when asked if he knew of the IRS targeting specific groups. 2. Don't care if you buy it or not. I distinguished between 'govt' and the administration. There are more bad apples up in D.C. than JUST the Obama folks. ( maybe you should try reading more closely next time ) 3. Obama claims he only found out about this on the Friday the news broke, a couple of weeks ago. THAT, my friend, is ludicrous. 4. Then you're still not paying attention. .

By utilizing coded words like government in attempt to link something to the Obama administration.

You're paranoid. When I MEAN the Obama admin, I'll say the Obama admin.

Apparently they came with a side of epic fail

You enjoy your epic fail ?

I see you're gonna stick w/ the fairy tale version of events, where because they didn't know for sure, Susan Rice was still trotted out on the Sunday morning shows, 5 days after the event, to spin a lie about a video which wasn't at all relevant to the attack.

If you don't know , then you don't speculate. It's really not that hard a concept, even for you to comprehend. But this admin - OBAMA! no code here, pal! - took an active part in fabricating a lie about this being because some nobody had posted a video several months before, but gosh all dandy, it wasn't until 9/11 that these angry protesters got worked up enough over it to start murdering Americans.

[shabby 1,960]

uh, one person equates to the government? And when you said government, you weren't referring to the Obama administration? Not buying it. Did not Obama and every aide in his administration acknowledge that the IRS targeted conservative groups. Seems like the 'government' acknowledged this just fine.

I see how you completely dodged the issue. 1. The ACTING DIRECTOR lied, when asked if he knew of the IRS targeting specific groups. 2. Don't care if you buy it or not. I distinguished between 'govt' and the administration. There are more bad apples up in D.C. than JUST the Obama folks. ( maybe you should try reading more closely next time ) 3. Obama claims he only found out about this on the Friday the news broke, a couple of weeks ago. THAT, my friend, is ludicrous. 4. Then you're still not paying attention. .

By utilizing coded words like government in attempt to link something to the Obama administration.

You're paranoid. When I MEAN the Obama admin, I'll say the Obama admin.

Apparently they came with a side of epic fail

You enjoy your epic fail ?

I see you're gonna stick w/ the fairy tale version of events, where because they didn't know for sure, Susan Rice was still trotted out on the Sunday morning shows, 5 days after the event, to spin a lie about a video which wasn't at all relevant to the attack.

If you don't know , then you don't speculate. It's really not that hard a concept, even for you to comprehend. But this admin - OBAMA! no code here, pal! - took an active part in fabricating a lie about this being because some nobody had posted a video several months before, but gosh all dandy, it wasn't until 9/11 that these angry protesters got worked up enough over it to start murdering Americans.

Aren't you speculating? Reread your previous posts. It's filled with speculation. Your original post critiqued the administration for day one lying about the video. Yet there it is, l(the video) listed as a primary cause in the first assessment by the CIA, not the administration. Further, I present proof that the CIA requested that terrorist groups be left out. You again avoid that. I get it. It doesn't fit your fantasy assumption which you continue to state as fact despite being dis-proven and then whine about other people speculating. Again- Epic fail.

You do however succeed wonderfully in providing the perfect model delusional fantasy in regards to what Alan Dershowitz and Martin Bashir were discussing. I thank you for your effort in supporting the liberal agenda. Conservatives present half a story to suit an agenda of paranoid fantasy. McCarthy would have been proud (well not of your effort as it was full of epic fail) But it was indeed the thought that counts.

Too recount: Your Areas of epic fail

1) you equate a director to all of government. In the face of Congressional Democrats, Republicans in congress and the executive Branch (Not to mention all their aides) all acknowledging the targeting. You present one person in the face of thousands as the representative "government" Here, let me educated you. A government is a body of representatives / leaders. your conclusion rates an epic fail but suceeds brilliantly as an example of what Dershowitz discussed. Don't you think at this point you should own up that the government did indeed acknowledging targeting and you were attempting to draw a faulty link to cover up?

2) You claim the Obama administration deliberately lied about the cause of the Benghazi attack being a video- dis-proven by over 99 emails showing that the video was listed as the primary driver as written by the CIA assessment (even if said assessment was wrong) . Emails confirming that the CIA wanted references to terrorist groups stricken because they didn't have enough info to warrant that conclusion as yet. Nothing supports your narrative of administration deliberately lying.

Enjoy the delusion however- might I recommend for your next fantasy a beach, margaritas, and women?

[AURaptor 1,137]

You're just a blind zealot, a true believer in big govt.

A director in charge is significant. Very significant.

The 99 emails in no way disprove , and in fact prove that this admin lied.

In your world, up is down, and down is up, just so you can give cover to your lord and master, Obama.

Carney say there were no substantive changes, yes massive changes were made, multiple times.

[homersapien 11,812]

Wow. And I thought AURaptor had given up on the Benghazi thread. Well, heck, let's pick it back up. I think the ball is in your court raptor:

Is the following a fair representation of your position?

"AU Raptor is making the case that the "movie riots":

1) were used from the beginning in a calculating way by the Obama adm to obfuscate or "cover-up" the truth of the Libyan attacks.

2) didn't occur in a temporal framework that made it even possible they could have motivated the Libyan attacks.

3) wouldn't have occurred at all unless the Obama adm hadn't brought attention to them with their PSAs. "

http://www.aufamily....ke/page__st__72

[AURaptor 1,137]

homer, you're thread crossing here, and I'll not take part. The larger issue of credibility and trust w/ the govt as a whole, and this admin in particular.

There's no 'code' , what so ever, btw, when I say ' the govt'. That's the sort of ridiculous, straw grasping charge the Left love to interject into a discussion when they know they've lost the argument.

Just making a general statement, for all to understand.

So, when I'm accused by others for speaking in code, let it be known that such a idea is bunk, and only shows the true colors of those making the accusation.

[homersapien 11,812]

homer, you're thread crossing here, and I'll not take part. The larger issue of credibility and trust w/ the govt as a whole, and this admin in particular.

There's no 'code' , what so ever, btw, when I say ' the govt'. That's the sort of ridiculous, straw grasping charge the Left love to interject into a discussion when they know they've lost the argument.

Just making a general statement, for all to understand.

So, when I'm accused by others for speaking in code, let it be known that such a idea is bunk, and only shows the true colors of those making the accusation.

Well, you are the one who brought up Benghazi even though we had a perfectly good thread on the subject which you walked away from. Not that there is anything wrong with knowing when to quit. In fact, it shows maturity.

But revisiting the thread seems like fair game if you bring the subject back up (with the same claims).

[AURaptor 1,137]

Well, you are the one who brought up Benghazi even though we had a perfectly good thread on the subject which you walked away from. Not that there is anything wrong with knowing when to quit. In fact, it shows maturity.

But revisiting the thread seems like fair game if you bring the subject back up (with the same claims).

It helps make the case, and is part of the larger narrative. Sorry if it puts your deal leader in a bad light, when he forced Susan Rice to go out and lie, 5 x's , on the Sunday morning shows, but hey... them's the breaks.

Deal w/ it.

[homersapien 11,812]

Well, you are the one who brought up Benghazi even though we had a perfectly good thread on the subject which you walked away from. Not that there is anything wrong with knowing when to quit. In fact, it shows maturity.

But revisiting the thread seems like fair game if you bring the subject back up (with the same claims).

It helps make the case, and is part of the larger narrative. Sorry if it puts your deal leader in a bad light, when he forced Susan Rice to go out and lie, 5 x's , on the Sunday morning shows, but hey... them's the breaks.

Deal w/ it.

Well, I am sure it helps to make your case. But then, when you don't restrict yourself to the actual facts, it's not hard to make a case.

Is it?

[autigeremt 6,970]

And Alan Dershowitz absolutely nailed it. We need real discussion based upon real information rather than paranoid perpetuated misinformation presented as "truth".

Prove to me they really want to discuss it. The problem is the misinformation, the lack of credibility, and the actual events of the day. No one from the White House is really interested in getting the facts out. Either they are protecting an agenda or incompetence. It's hard to say these days.