Part of the Bay Area News Group

Want tickets to Obama’s re-inauguration?

By Josh Richman
Tuesday, November 13th, 2012 at 1:57 pm in 2012 presidential election, Anna Eshoo, Barack Obama, Barbara Lee, George Miller, Jackie Speier, U.S. House.

With the presidential election only a week behind us, members of Congress are starting to take requests for free tickets to President Barack Obama’s second-term inauguration on Monday, Jan. 21, 2013 in Washington, D.C.

Some – including Reps. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland; George Miller, D-Martinez; Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto; and Jackie Speier, D-San Mateo – already have pages on their websites at which you can request tickets in a lottery system. The rest of the Bay Area’s delegation will have similar pages up soon; you must request tickets from your House member, or from one of your state’s two U.S. Senators.

[Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.]

  • Elwood

    Well, it’s painfully obvious why illustrious leader seldom has a press conference.

    Without his teleprompter, he’s a stammering, stuttering, stupid fool.

    The most frequent sound coming out of his mouth was “uh”.

  • John W

    To the contrary, I thought he did extremely well. Then again, I was more focussed on the substance rather than counting uh’s.

    Of course, we all long for the smooth-talking eloquence of POTUS 43.

  • Elwood

    Last I noticed, contrary to what many dimmiecrats and other loony tunes liberals seem to think, G.W. Bush is no longer POTUS.

  • Elwood

    Real numbers:

    DJIA close 11/6/12 13,112.44

    DJIA close 11/14/12 12,570.95

    Down 541.49

    Stock Market is SO glad illustrious leader was re-elected!

    Illustrious leader held one of his rare press conferences today. He hates the idea that anyone would have the audacity to question him. After he spoke, market took its biggest slide of the day.

  • Elwood

    Wonderful job, illustrious leader!

    WASHINGTON (CBSDC/AP) – As President Barack Obama is set to begin his second term, new statistics on America’s poverty rate indicate that nearly 50 million Americans, more than 16 percent of the population, are struggling to survive.

    http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/11/15/census-u-s-poverty-rate-spikes-nearly-50-million-americans-affected/

  • Elwood

    It’s an Obamarally!

    Dow down only 28 today.

    Maybe some day I’ll be able to afford fish heads with my rice again!

  • Elwood

    Americans died.

    Obama lied.

  • John W

    Re: #7

    POTUS did not lie. But, if he had, at least you got it in the right order. That’s significant. Because whatever POTUS said on the subject was after the fact. Which means it had no consequences whatever regarding the killing of four Americans. If you said “Obama lied and people died” and there was any truth to it, then we would have something to discuss.

    What’s more, two weeks of mixed messages about what/who triggered the attack on the mostly CIA Benghazi mission hardly constitutes a “coverup,” especially considering the fact that the attack came in the midst of massive protests about the “movie” throughout the Muslim world, including Cairo, elsewhere in the Middle East and Indonesia.

    Contrast that with what was said BEFORE THE FACT about WMD in order to make the case to go to war in Iraq — by POTUS, VPOTUS, National Security Advisor, SecDEF and SecSTATE. Consequences: More than 4,000 American war dead, God knows how many Iraqi civilian dead, about a trillion dollars of national debt and a new client state for Iran. And, in 2004, we re-elected the folks who did that.

    The duet of McCain/Graham mutters about blocking a potential nominee for SecSTATE because of what she said as UN Ambassador about Benghazi on a Sunday morning news show a few days after the attack. But McCain complained about Senators interrogating the other Dr. Rice about her role and what she said to Congress under oath as National Security Advisor in the run-up to the Iraq war as part of HER confirmation hearings for SecSTATE.

    We should learn everything there is to know about Benghazi: intelligence, security preparedness, and response. Not for a witch hunt but to avoid future Benghazi’s. To that end, it might help if Senator McCain would attend the briefings of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee instead of holding a press conference to vent about the lack of information at the very moment when the committee meeting is underway. Something about a “scheduling error.” Do I smell a coverup?

  • Elwood

    @ 8

    Nice try, John.

    We’ll see.

  • Elwood

    Dead Cat Bounce

    Dow plus 46

    Woo hoo!

    I can taste those fish heads now!

  • Elwood

    CIA talking points were edited by WH before given to Rice.

    Americans died.

    Obama lied.

    http://mrctv.org/videos/king-petraeus-said-cias-talking-points-were-edited-play-down-terrorism

  • John W

    Re: 11

    The lies are coming from people who want to exploit the deaths of four Americans for political purposes. That specifically includes McCain.

    EXCERPTS FROM ASSOCIATED PRESS REPORT ON THE PETRAEUS TESTIMONY:

    The recently resigned spy chief explained that references to terrorist groups suspected of carrying out the violence were removed from the public explanation of what caused the attack so as not to tip off the groups that the U.S. intelligence community was on their trail.” [Rice used the term "extremist elements" in place of the names of specific groups.]

    Petraeus also said it initially was unclear whether militants infiltrated a demonstration to cover their attack.

    Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y. said Petraeus had briefed the House committee on Sept. 14 (2 days before Rice appeared on TV), and he does not recall Petraeus being so positive at that time that it was a terrorist attack. “He thought all along that he made it clear there was terrorist involvement,” King said. “That was not my recollection.”

    Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., said Petraeus explained that the CIA’s draft points were sent to other intelligence agencies and to some federal agencies for review. Udall said Petraeus told them the final document was put in front of all the senior agency leaders, including Petraeus, and everyone signed off on it.” {By the way, I just watched Peter King on TV saying “they (CIA) signed off on it.”]

    Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D. (retiring) said it’s clear that Rice “used the unclassified talking points that the entire intelligence community signed off on, so she did completely the appropriate thing.”

    Democrats said Petraeus made it clear the change was not made for political reasons.

    END OF EXCERPTS FROM AP REPORT

    This whole business of who said what when about the nature of the attack (pre-planned terrorism or act of opportunism piggybacking the widespread protests) is much ado about absolutely nothing. The real issues are about security at the compound and the ability or inability to send in reinforcements quickly enough — so that we can save lives in the future.

  • Elwood

    That’s all very interesting, John.

    I always look forward to your lengthy replies to everything.

    ” {By the way, I just watched Peter King on TV saying “they (CIA) signed off on it.”]”

    That’s funny. That’s not what he says in the video I link to.

    He says the talking points were edited by someone in the administration. Gee, I wonder who is the head administrator?

  • Elwood

    Do women really think that this advances their cause in some way?

    In my opinion it only makes them objects of ridicule.

    http://tinyurl.com/bnr7zmy

  • John W

    Re: 13

    Peter King said both things. They are not in conflict. Somebody removed the reference to al Qaeda and softened it to “extremist elements.” All intelligence and other agencies involved, specifically including Petraeus, signed off.

    The Libya-based group most often mentioned in connection with the attack is not al Qaeda. The group’s relationship, if any, to al Qaeda remains an open question. So, I’m not sure why referring to extremist elements instead of al Qaeda is a big deal. I think most people know what “extremist elements” is code for in that region of the world.

    The real issues: intelligence, security, response and prevention of future Benghazi’s.

  • Elwood

    @ 15

    Doublethink, a word coined by George Orwell in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, describes the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts.[1] It is related to, but distinct from, hypocrisy and neutrality. Its opposite is cognitive dissonance, where the two beliefs cause conflict in one’s mind. Doublethink is an integral concept of George Orwell’s dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. The word doublethink is part of Newspeak. –Wikipedia

  • John W

    Wow, Elwood, that’s deep!

    Okay, we’ve found the smoking gun.

    Turns out the White House National Security Advisor and State Department did edit the unclassified version of the talking points. They changed the word “consulate” to “diplomatic facility.” You know, on account of the fact that it wasn’t a consulate, even though the media keep referring to it as such. Why aren’t we investigating the media for falsely calling it a consulate? Just kidding.

    By the way, the NSA and State are part of the review process and are supposed to offer changes they think appropriate. Then, all the edits got re-circulated for everybody to either sign off or object.

    So, tell me again, what is the big “lie” and why is it supposed to be a BFD? Did anybody ever deny the possibility that this might have been a pre-planned act of terrorism involving Ansar al-Sharia and al Qaeda affiliates. Was it a mortal sin to allow for the possibility that the world-wide (Muslim world) protests over the video and what happened in Benghazi were somehow related, given that they all happened at the same time. To this very day, do we know that the timing of the attack was not triggered by those protests, even though there apparently was no spontaneous protest outside the Benghazi compound?

    Lost in all this is the very good news that 30 American lives were saved and that, ten days after the attack, U.S.-friendly Libyans stormed the Ansar al-Sharia compound and forced them out.

  • Elwood

    @ 17

    Oh, please, John, you can’t possibly be that naive.

    We are talking, of course, about the lie promulgated by Jay Carney, Susan Rice et al for days after the attack that it was just a random bunch of folks really upset about a video that no one had ever seen.

    Yeah, right. Your blind loyalty to all things Obama seems to have clouded your thinking.

  • John W

    You’re right, Elwood. I am not naive.

    Today, I watched the video clips of Susan Rice on the CBS, NBC and ABC Sunday shows five days after the attack. She made the same basic set of remarks on all three, almost verbatim. The remarks were consistent with the unclassified talking points that were reported by Diane Feinstein on Friday (which I have in front of me as I write this).

    On ABC “This Week,” Rice stated the following points:

    First, that “it is important to know that an FBI investigation” is underway.

    Second, that the “current best assessment” is that this began as a “spontaneous,” “not pre-meditated” response by a small number of people to the protests in Cairo a few hours earlier (and being repeated elsewhere throughout the Muslim world).

    Third, that what was then thought to have started as a spontaneous protest was “hijacked by individual clusters of extremists” who showed up armed with heavy weapons. Actually, Rice was more direct on this than the talking points, which only said “there are indications extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”

    Fourth, that “we’ll wait to see exactly what the investigation confirms.”

    We now know there was no protest before the attack began. Big deal! That was information that proved to be incorrect, not a Watergate coverup.

    When somebody speaks of clusters of extremists armed with heavy weapons, who the hell do you think they are referring to, Benghazi Boy Scout Troop 42?

    By then, the CIA may well have suspected the specific identity of the groups involved, but that’s not something you necessarily blab about on the TV Sunday morning talk shows five days later, while you’re trying to confirm the information and track down the attackers. In fact, Petraeus testified on that precise point –that public talking points intentionally omitted information about the terrorist groups so as not to tip them off that the CIA and FBI were on to them.

    I don’t know what anybody thinks Obama had to gain by intentionally mischaracterizing Benghazi. This was not some sort of game changer that would have affected the election. How do I know that? Because the Republicans and Romney did everything they possibly could to make it a game changer, and it obviously failed. They would have done that no matter what Obama said about the subject.

  • Elwood

    Petraeus ‘Knew Almost Immediately’ Al Qaeda-Linked Group Responsible for Benghazi

    David Petraeus is going to tell members of Congress that he “knew almost immediately after the September 11th attack, that the group Ansar al Sharia, the al Qaeda sympathizing group in Libya was responsible for the attacks,” CNN reports.

    In his closed door meeting on the Hill, “[Petraeus] will also say he had his own talking points separate from U.N. ambassador Susan Rice. [Hers] came from somewhere other in the administration than his direct talking points,” Barbara Starr of CNN reports, referencing a source close to Petraeus.

    The former CIA director will move to further himself from comments that didn’t accurately characterize the terror attack that Rice made 5 days after on national television shows.

    “When he looks at what Susan Rice said,” CNN reports, “here is what Petraeus’s take is, according to my source. Petraeus developed some talking points laying it all out. those talking points as always were approved by the intelligence community. But then he sees Susan Rice make her statements and he sees input from other areas of the administration. Petraeus — it is believed — will tell the committee he is not certain where Susan Rice got all of her information.”

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/petraeus-knew-almost-immediately-al-qaeda-linked-group-responsible-benghazi_663458.html

  • Elwood

    “I don’t know what anybody thinks Obama had to gain by intentionally mischaracterizing Benghazi.”

    Try this: He wanted to prevent his administration from looking like incompetent bungling fools when it was revealed that they had been backing Al Qaeda and that their line that everything in Libya was just hunky dory was absolute bull****.

  • John W

    What Weekly Standard (conservative) said Petraeus “will say” is not what he did say.

    “…when it was revealed that they [Obama administration] had been backing Al Qaeda…” I’ll let anybody who reads that comment reach their own conclusion as to its merit.

    I give up. You are liberated from further comment from me on this subject.

  • Truthclubber

    @22 –

    See? What did I tell you? You DON’T know how to silence this clown.

    He will not respond to any kind of reasonable exchange — that’s his game — so the only way to win that war is to “attack his tactics”.

    That is why the moment I start to comment on the BS he is trying to sling by “attacking his tactics”, he attacks me with non-stop ad hominen slurs and innuendos, which diminish with every volley I push back into his face (and other body parts), until he calls for help from his mommy, Josh Richman (since Josh needs his comments to drive up readership on this blog) — and Josh drops the hammer on MOI for being “too rough” on someone who slurs me constantly for being drug-addicted, etc.

    I await the latest “You need to seek help, stop taking drugs, etc., BS” from Elwood that will rain down with the tacit approval of JR any moment now…

  • Josh Richman

    Oh, Truthclubber has the sads. What a delicate flower.

    You know perfectly well that you’re welcome to debate issues here until the cows come home, and yes, you’re damned right we want the page hits – but I suspect the bull—- arguments that you and Elwood get into probably drive more readers away than they attract.

    My problem is when someone like you – not just you – posts four consecutive, gloating, taunting comments to the same thread, devoid of any facts or debate, without any one else responding. You’re trolling at that point, and that’s something I won’t allow here.

    Your comment at #23 underscores that you still don’t get why I have to intervene sometimes. This blog is not a place for you or anyone else to silence anyone. EVERYONE needs to feel free to comment here and debate the issues. When someone tries to intimidate or insult another commenter into silence, that’s when I’ll pull an Akin and “shut that whole thing down.” If you don’t like it, you’re free to leave.

  • John W

    Re: 24

    “Pull an Akin”

    Great line! I’ll have to plagiarize that.

  • Elwood

    @ 22 John W.

    “What Weekly Standard (conservative) said Petraeus “will say” is not what he did say.”

    John, Petraeus testified behind closed doors. How do you know what he did or did not say?

    I did not mean to imply that the illustrious leader regime was deliberately backing Al Qaeda, but it appears that they inadvertently did so. Can you say bumbling incompetence?

  • Alcoahead

    Wow — both of the comments @27 and @28 were stricken by a coward. Who would have thought a so-called journalist would stoop so low?

  • Alcoahead

    Too late — in anticipation of same, I did screen scrapes (with time stamps) of all the posts (@27 and @28) that you (Joshie) eliminated — so now you stand naked with a cover-up on your hands as a so-called “journalist”.

    Enjoy!

  • Josh Richman

    Truthclubber, you seem to think we’re in some kind of contest here. We’re not. I set the rules here, and I’ve made them abundantly clear: discuss issues, without intimidation or efforts to silence others exercising that same right, or be banned. It’s that simple, and not subject to debate. It’s not a forum for attacking other commenters personally, and certainly not one for attacking me. If you want your rights reinstated, feel free to email me at jrichman@bayareanewsgroup.com or call me 510-208-6428 any morning this week except Thursday, and I’ll be happy to discuss it with you.