We Need The Exorcist

Mike Huckabee, Fox host, former governor of Arkansas, former Republican presidential candidate, Baptist preacher, and either a demon-possessed Republican or a Republican-possessed demon (my analysis is incomplete at this time; there may be a distinction here without a difference), has exposed himself as completely out of his mind.

He and a lot of other Benghazi-obsessed Republicans think Big O has been involved in a cover-up of biblical proportions, but Huck has ditched his medication and the resulting stream-of-consciousness insanity is particularly brutal:

I believe that before it’s all over, this president will not fill out his full term. I know that puts me on a limb. But this is not minor. It wasn’t minor when Richard Nixon lied to the American people and worked with those in his administration to cover-up what really happened in Watergate. But, I remind you — as bad as Watergate was, because it broke the trust between the president and the people, no one died. This is more serious because four Americans did in fact die…

When a president lies to the American people and is part of a cover-up, he cannot continue to govern. And as the facts come out, I think we’re going to see something startling. And before it’s over, I don’t think this president will finish his term unless somehow they can delay it in Congress past the next three and a half years.

Just why Barack Obama would want to even remain in office and try to govern a country full of Mike Huckabees is beyond me. I wouldn’t blame O if he and Michelle decided to grab the kids, turn out the lights, and hand the keys to the White’s House over to Huckabee, Limbaugh, Hannity, and Wayne LaPierre, and just be done with it.

exorcist gopThen, by God, we could start two or three more wars in the Middle East, maybe drop a nuke or two on North Korea, kill ObamaCare, boot poor folks off Medicaid and other socialist welfare programs, make gun ownership mandatory, and, oh yeah, start probing the privvies of pregnant women all over the country who don’t have sense enough, by God, to make their own decisions about motherhood.

Either that, or we will have to find a good exorcist—an energetic Democratic electorate who will register and then show up to vote even in off years—to cast the devil out of the Republican Party.

15 Comments

  1. Troy

     /  May 8, 2013

    My sentiments exactly!

    Like

  2. ansonburlingame

     /  May 8, 2013

    Duane,

    Trash Huckabee all you like, but tread carefully on Benghazi, I at least suggest.

    From the beginning, Sept 11, 2012, I have been deeply concerned about what went on that day and events thereafter. I have paid close attention, read all I can find, corresponded with Woodward on the matter, and have been deeply involve in meaningful and “polite” discussions with former college classmates, some liberal and some conservative about all the matters related to Benghazi. Most of those matters are of grave and long term national concern to me.AND my reasonably apolitical classmates, former members of the military.

    After 8 months, that “old matter” of Benghazi just “won’t go away”. Why is that?

    Well security in LIbya “sucked” for a long time and almost everyone agrees with that FACT,now. But we have yet to really assess the BLAME for that lack of security. But I think we will, ultimately and it will land right on Hillary’s lap, fair and square, in my view, as it should.

    Then there is STILL today, 8 months after the attack, concern about what was done, what COULD have been done, and what SHOULD have been done better on Sept 11, 2012. Today more will be revealed, publicly by “whistle blowers”. But even after today, MY “jury” at least will still be deliberating. I for one want Gen HAM and other members of his staff to testify, ;publicly about what really went on in that very important Op-Con center on that fateful day. More SHOULD be revealed on THAT aspect of Benghzai, the TRUTH, if you will whatever it is.

    Finally there is the political spin IMMEDIAtELY placed on “Benghazi”. ANYONE that “looks” today, knows full well that it was NOT a demonstration caused by a video. Frankly we knew that about 24 hours later as more real news, not just right wing rabble rousing, came in.

    Yet for almost the duration of the remaining Presidential campaign, all we heard from many in the administration was……. (go rewatch old clips).

    At the moment the attack began in Benghazi, about 4 PM EDT in DC on Sept 11, 2012 it quickly became obvious that what was going on was second ONLY to what happened in Iran in 1979. Yet looked how we did NOT react for hours, days, weeks and even months afterward. A political stone wall was errected around those events and actions taken, pure and simple and that politcal stone wall is now being taken down, one brick at a time, it seems to me.

    I am not yet ready to equate the POLITICS surrounding Benghazi with Watergate POLITICS of long ago, but I am getting closer and closer as more is revealed. NO, I do not call for bringing down a President or other such things. But the TRUTH, yes, I want to really know and understand it, politics be damned.

    You don’t know the truth about Benghazi any more than I do, right now. And I am surprised frankly that many Dems are sticking to the “party line” that Benghazi just happend long ago (my ass it did) and so why bother NOW?

    POLITICS should NOT dictate how we protect and defend America and Americans, “over there”. It is a matter of apolitical TRUTH when we MIGHT have failed to do what was needed and maybe, could have been done, better.

    Anson

    Like

    • As I said to Jim, this thing has been about politics, and will now always be about politics, ever since Mitt Romney and Reince Preibus made it about politics before the fires had gone out on that horrific night. It’s utter bullshit now to think that Republicans are after the “truth” of what happened. They have their “truth” and the only thing left to do is to use it to wound President Obama and to destroy Hillary Clinton.

      Like

    • Michael D. Gaden, BSNE, MBA

       /  May 14, 2013

      Anson –

      I respectfully observe several (mostly) non-content things about your post:

      1. You abandon your usual (and admirable) “provisional” conversational stance – that is, “I think”, “it seems to me”, and “in my opinion” are either absent entirely or occur only once in your writing, as I saw it.
      2. You have many words capitalized, which in the parlance of “internet speak” is the equivalent of yelling or at least speaking loudly, I believe.
      3. The flavor of the entire piece, it seems to me, is one of convincing, not dialogue, which you don’t often do.
      4. You invoke “Woodward”, who I assume is Bob Woodward. You typically quote someone but seldom use them as an authority reference, as it seems to me you did in this instance.

      I could be wrong, but is this an emotional issue for you? Are you trying to convince someone (perhaps yourself) that there is an issue here, where evidence doesn’t support an issue, so far? It doesn’t seem to me to be a “let’s wait-and-see” stance, but an ‘I’ve made up my mind” stance.

      Am I wrong?

      Like

  3. I note that there are roughly 250 to 300 U.S. embassies and other diplomatic missions around the world, many in unstable places like: Albania, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Kosovo, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, Cuba (called “U.S. Interests Section”), Mexico (some 22 consulates or consulate agencies), Nicaragua, Chile, Ecuador, Peru, Algeria, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Republic of the Congo, Cairo, Addis Ababa, Kenya, Liberia, Lesotho, Nigeria, Niger, Senegal, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. Just going down the list and picking at random here, but don’t most of those names seem like unstable places? The point I’m trying to make is that it really isn’t practical to station combat forces near each of them just in case terrorists decide to attack one of them, nor is it practical to keep air power at the ready 24/7 to fly in defense of each of them. Traditionally, like the rest of the international community, we rely on small contingents of military to guard the principal buildings, i.e., in our case the USMC, and then depend on the host governments to handle the bigger stuff.

    I am not saying that the attack on our mission in Benghazi and the loss of life wasn’t a tragedy, it was. And Hillary has already admitted that contingency plans needed improvement. To her credit, she immediately did everything she could to beef them up. But the present kerfuffle in Congress is clearly political combat over a small incident in a very large and complicated challenge. I too, like Anson, would like to know more about the decision-making in the sequence of events, especially in the military and State Department chains of command, but so far the only possible fault I can see is in the strategic part of this, not the tactical. In other words, we may have put our mission into Libya too early, before the government was stable and in control. That could well be laid at the doorsteps of Obama and Clinton – it was a judgement call that turned bad. But this was a diplomatic matter. If it had been military, a firefight, a battle in which lives were lost because of imperfect judgement, there might have been some careers affected but there wouldn’t be a political blood-letting and wholesale second-guessing as is going on now. This is raw politics and it’s bad.

    And by the way, as long as we’re airing things out, another thing I’d like to see reviewed is what preparations the State Department had previously requested be funded by Congress and how those requests were handled, and by whom.

    Like

    • As usual, Jim, you get to the rational heart of the matter. Unfortunately, this is not any longer about a rational search for the truth, but about politics, and it has been so since Romney and Reince Priebus uttered their premature bullshit while the thing was still unfolding.

      Like

  4. Jim Hight

     /  May 9, 2013

    The Huckster speaks of the sins of lying to the American people and that four Americans died. If he is so concerned, why not call for the prosecution of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfield, and others for their lies regarding Iraq that killed thousands of Americans? The proof is there that Bush was determined to invade Iraq, no matter what, and there were all kinds of plans to justify the invasion. This was the greatest lie since the Gulf of Tonkin that resulted in the unnecessary deaths of so many young Americans. Huckabee will not do so since he is a hypocritical piece of crap and concerned only with the politics of the incident. When will some Democrat in the Senate get the guts to introduce a resolution to investigate the Iraqi conflict, which was built on nothing but lies? After all, the American public has the right to know. . .

    Like

    • Jim,

      It makes me sick to hear these guys talk about “four dead Americans” constantly while, as you mentioned, there are thousands of dead Americans and tens or hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis because of our misguided and publicly misleading policy regarding the Iraq war. Not to mention the countless numbers of injured vets who are now endlessly waiting to have their cases examined by the VA, which like everything associated with the Iraq war, was not prepared for the aftermath of the war, especially the huge number of casualties. And let’s don’t even talk about the financial costs to the taxpayer, which go on and on and on.

      If Barack Obama had done such a stupid thing, he’d have been impeached, or worse, by now.

      Duane

      Like

  5. Here’s a quote from a book Huck-a-buck is too little familiar with, “How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” Luke 6:42. The GOP, Huckbuckety, Anson, etc. continue to operate like the Pharisees and other blind guides of the New Testament era. Their remarkable arrogance is almost matched by their frustrating stupidity. The hope for America — and the world — is they seem to be leaving no offspring. Their hatred and complete contempt for other than the leadership of selfish old white men (token Uncle Toms do not count) has rendered them essentially sterile. Thank goodness.
    As I mentioned a couple of times in comments past, Huck was a classmate of mine at Southwestern Seminary — his first year/my last. He is the personification of the crass hucksterism that has come to define that once fine institution. He is a shill and a charlatan and every bit as corrupt as Limbaugh, Cantor, McConnell, Rove, Reed, Robertson and the rest of the bought-and-paid-for hacks who drive the GOP. And as for their foot soldiers — the rabble who trail after them offering the occasional ass kiss or blow job (or worn out puff within this blog’s comments) — I just hope their shots are up to date: word has it that dying of an STD can be very painful.

    Like

  6. kfreed

     /  May 9, 2013

    “either a demon-possessed Republican or a Republican-possessed demon”

    Now that right there is funny. Don’t care who ya are:)

    Like

  7. ansonburlingame

     /  May 9, 2013

    Jim above is coming close to my questions, in terms of what he want to know more about.

    The only rebutal to his comment is OF COURSE we don’t station military assests around the world to just protect diplomatic facilities. Those assest are stationed for other reasons, all over the world. BUT IF such assests CAN be used in an emergency, then why not use them? Some will say we had no such assests available. Others say we had them and they were told in whole or in part to “standdown”. I don’t KNOW the truth yet, but want to know it for sure, what assests WERE availiable and why were they NOT used on Sept 11, 2012. General Ham who was at the tip of the spear is the best guy to answer that question(s)

    As for you two carrying on the Huckabee beating, so what, I say again.

    Security sucked beforehand and we still do not know WHY and WHO caused such a lack of security.

    Who did or did not do what on Sept 11, 2012 is still to be determined, truthfully.

    And the potential of a political cover up. Well you tell me. When does campaign spin, political spin devolve to a cover up, poltically, when does such a cover up become a BLATANT cover up, OK call them lies, and when does criminal action come into play to be investigated.

    I don’t know those answers, truthfully, and neither does anyone else around here in Jopllin ,MO.

    Anson

    Like

  8. Anson,
    I am confident that if there is ever an indisputable crime/cover-up (scandal) exhumed by the usual suspects, you will be the first to shout, BENGHAZI!!! Until then, the ongoing fishing expedition is another deceptive distraction attached to this leaky shrimp boat:

    http://www.eschatonblog.com/2009/02/wingnut-mythology.html

    Like

    • ansonburlingame

       /  May 11, 2013

      I have no idea what a 2009 article about wingnuts has to do with a national security concern about a 2012 crisis, a crisis seemingly mishandled by many in the current administration and MAYBE some GOP budget cutters in Congress.

      I have been deeply interested in Benghazi since Sept 11, 2012 simply because it raised big questions about military readiness and NCA competence, competence to protect and defend.

      It took a long time for Watergate to come down to where it did. I hope and pray that does not happen over Benghazi. Tape recordings and Deep Throat finally collapsed the house of cards surrounding Watergate. I suspect emails may show all sorts of “stuff” from what happened surrounding Benghazi. The potential for very damaging truth is there in my view and that is what I want, the truth, not spin for political purposes, from both sides.

      All this blog, on this subject, seems interested in is to protect and defend your political side.

      Well go ahead and do so, but you can expect more questions and comments from me when you do, until the real truth comes out.

      Anson

      Like

  9. Jane is always amused when Anson shows his bias and ignorance. This time it is his wailing about Benghazi, which was not an embassy nor a legation. It was a CIA safe house!

    It just happens that a prominent GOP House member, Jason Chaffetz of Utah, said this week that House Republicans “intentionally voted to reduce funds for embassy protection after their 2010 majority win.” How about that?

    We now know exactly who is to blame. And Jane has some numbers for Corporal Burlingame: The GOP gerrymandered House cut $128 million from the President’s budget request in 2011, and $331 million from his 2012 request.

    Trying to pin something on Hillary Clinton just got more remote.

    Like

%d bloggers like this: