Return to the Hot Topics Forum

 o
Benghazi part III

Posted by mrskjun 9 (My Page) on
Tue, Nov 20, 12 at 14:28

ohiomom said,"
Thank you Nancy ... so people who risked their lives working with the US are thrown under the bus by Issa, I imagine their lives are not worth 2 nickels now. Nice job Issa :(
This will not generate any outrage ..."

Do you think it will generate as much outrage as the doctor who is spending thirty years in a Pakistani prison because he helped us get Bin Laden? It is really crowded under Obama's bus!

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Benghazi part III

the doctor who is spending thirty years in a Pakistani prison because he helped us get Bin Laden? It is really crowded under Obama's bus!

To the best of my knowledge President Obama does not control the judiciary system in Pakistan.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Was that the outrage du jour on Fox today?


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Ahhh I see nancy. Thanks for all your help doc, I'll take credit for getting Bin Laden, but you are on your own!

I wouldn't know jill, are you going to share with us?


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Do you think it will generate as much outrage as the doctor who is spending thirty years in a Pakistani prison because he helped us get Bin Laden? It is really crowded under Obama's bus!

*

Crowded?

It's been high centered for years!


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Was that the outrage du jour on Fox today?

I think this is deflection from Issa and his error in releasing names of Libyans working with the U.S. That and changing the subject from the CIA's covert operation in Benghazi, the CIA's intelligence failure, the CIA's inability to protect its own compound, and the CIA's possible - probable - shipping of arms to the Syrian rebels. So another group of jihadists / Salafists will be fighting with Western weapons.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

I wouldn't know jill, are you going to share with us?

Couldn't tell you, MrsK. The only time I have ever watched FOX was Nov 6th this year. Once MSNBC called the election for Obama, I switched to Fox (it took me a while to find it on my cable system). I had the immense pleasure of watching Rove's meltdown. It was so enjoyable, perhaps I should tune in more often.

I think this is deflection from...

Oh, yes, well that is something that goes on around here quite often, isn't it?


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

You really think it's a deflection of intelligence failure under the Commander and Chief Obama nancy? Everyone running to cover their butts before the election?


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

a deflection of intelligence failure

Seems so since General Petraeus and the Agency are both receiving a pass from partisan hand-wringers.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

No pass from me nancy. He is morally corrupt. He may have been a great general, but his character makes him persona non grata as president in my book.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

US consulate attack in Benghazi 'disrupted major intelligence operation'

A large number of Americans whose existence was unknown to Libyan leaders were evacuated from Benghazi even as fighting around the compound continued.

The new briefings admit they were involved in CIA or other intelligence operations targeting Islamist activity in the east of the country, as well as securing some of the more dangerous weapons with which the country is infested.

The revelations are being used by Islamist leaders, currently on the defensive after the attack and a subsequent backlash by secular forces which saw some of their bases stormed over the weekend, as justification for their anti-American rhetoric...

As the attack on the consulate was under way, around 30 Americans were driven at high speed to an accommodation block -- sometimes referred to as a "safe house" though it was no better protected than the consulate itself -- but came under renewed attack there.

They were then taken to the airport and flown directly to Tripoli and out of the country. According to the New York Times, they included at least 12 CIA agents who are now "scattered across Europe and the United States" -- something which is hindering the FBI investigation into the killing of the ambassador, Chris Stevens, and three other staff.

The paper said the CIA team had been playing a "crucial role in conducting surveillance and collecting information on an array of armed militant groups". It quoted an official as saying its enforced withdrawal was a "catastrophic intelligence loss".

Similar reports in the Wall Street Journal said that the Libyan government had only been informed of the extent of the intelligence operation after the attack.

The size of the US presence has led to speculation that Islamists targeted by the operation, including Ansar al-Sharia, a militant group, and al-Qaeda, had staged a pre-emptive attack.

And then there's this interesting item:

Mr Sallabi, who used to lead one of Libya's biggest revolutionary militias, the February 17 brigade, said he had offered protection to the US ambassador, and had warned him that the city was becoming dangerous.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Deadly Attack in Libya Was Major Blow to C.I.A. Efforts

The C.I.A.'s surveillance targets in Benghazi and eastern Libya include Ansar al-Sharia, a militia that some have blamed for the attack, as well as suspected members of Al Qaeda's affiliate in North Africa, known as Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.

Eastern Libya is also being buffeted by strong crosscurrents that intelligence operatives are trying to monitor closely. The killing of Mr. Stevens has ignited public anger against the militias, underscored on Friday when thousands of Libyans took to the streets of Benghazi to demand that the groups be disarmed. The makeup of militias varies widely; some are moderate, while others are ultraconservative Islamists known as Salafis.

"The region's deeply entrenched Salafi community is undergoing significant upheaval, with debate raging between a current that is amenable to political integration and a more militant strand that opposes democracy," Frederic Wehrey, a senior policy analyst with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace who closely follows Libya and visited there recently, wrote in a paper this month, "The Struggle for Security in Eastern Libya."

American intelligence operatives also assisted State Department contractors and Libyan officials in tracking shoulder-fired missiles taken from the former arsenals of the former Libyan Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi's forces; they aided in efforts to secure Libya's chemical weapons stockpiles; and they helped train Libya's new intelligence service, officials said.

Senior American officials acknowledged the intelligence setback, but insisted that information was still being collected using a variety of informants on the ground, systems that intercept electronic communications like cellphone conversations and satellite imagery. "The U.S. isn't close to being blind in Benghazi and eastern Libya," said an American official.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

He may have been a great general, but his character makes him persona non grata as president in my book.

No comment on his tenure as head of the CIA, and no comment on the Agency's intelligence failure in Benghazi? His extra-marital affair may be the least of his disappointments and shortcomings.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

And the Ambassador had been asking for extra security. The consulate had been attacked just weeks before. The British Ambassador and the Red Cross had already been pulled out. Why was Ambassador Stevens left with little security when it was already known that there were terrorists cells operating in Benghazi? And why when the attack started and he began calling for help, wasn't it forthcoming. It took seven hours for those four Americans to die.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

What is all the carp about the President throwing people under the bus? It's just such a shallow attempt to discredit him.

First he is accused of coming to the aide of his "little woman" at the UN. When that doesn't work the pivot is to "he threw her under the bus" ??? Mind you I predicted that one!

Next Hilary Clinton is being thrown under the bus for being sent as Secretary of State to the Middle East?????

Then a Pakistani Doctor, arrested, charged and convicted by the Pakistanis for breaking their laws is thrown under the bus????? I guess the President should have sent in ground troops to break him free !!!!

It really is too bad that some conservatives can't seem to focus on real issues, of which their are many, instead of making themselves look silly with accusations that are baseless. Oh well totally wasted energy on their part as it will not move their agenda forward ... not even a little.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

MsK, why did the CIA, which was supposedly monitoring the armed extremist militias, fail in its intelligence? Why was the CIA unable to protect its own operation and agents, and its cover?

Ambassador Stevens was warned of the danger, and went to Benghazi anyway.

Did too many count on the CIA to protect them?

And why when the attack started and he began calling for help, wasn't it forthcoming.

This has been answered before; the time needed to bring reinforcements from Tripoli took longer than the c. 45 minute attack. But reinforcements were sent.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

I cannot believe we are starting our third thread on Benghazi.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Tue, Nov 20, 12 at 19:24

I predict 4 and a half before it backfires on the GOP and then be dropped....unless Rice is nominated for SOS that is...


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

I predict 10 because there is a big issue with all these people under the bus need attention NOW. What do we win vgkg. It is so funny. They are trying so hard to make an issue.

The bus thing.....It is getting difficult to keep up with the people under the bus.

Who he has thrown under the bus and that was good.

Who he should have thrown under the bus because he should not have spoken up for them he should have thrown them under the bus. I guess they were bad. Those we can leave under the bus.

It is difficult to try to remember who is under the bus and who the President should pull out from under the bus. Who should be backed up over with the bus. Photobucket


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

"Intelligence officials told CNN that the intelligence community, not the White House, changed the now infamous Benghazi talking points given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice before her appearance on several morning news shows in September. CNN quoted both the spokesperson for the Director of National Intelligence and an anonymous official "familiar with the drafting of the talking points." The DNI spokesperson said that the only "substantive changes" came from the intelligence community and not the White House.

Former CIA Director David Petraeus told lawmakers in a closed door hearing last week that the CIA's original assessment on the Sept. 11 Benghazi attack was that it was carried out by al Qaeda affiliated groups. But he reportedly said that analysis was later taken out after an interagency review in favor of a more general assessment that "extremists" carried out the attack to broaden the scope and not tip off terrorists to U.S. knowledge on the matter. And despite the fact that Petraeus said the CIA approved the change, Republicans, led by Republican senators John McCain (AZ), Lindsey Graham (SC) and Kelly Ayotte (NH), have accused the White House of stripping the language for political reasons.

But Shawn Turner, the spokesman for the Director of National Intelligence, told CNN that it wasn't the White House's decision:

"The intelligence community made substantive, analytical changes before the talking points were sent to government agency partners for their feedback. There were no substantive changes made to the talking points after they left the intelligence community."

Another anonymous intelligence official echoed Turner, saying that the changes were made based on legitimate intelligence and for legal purposes:
"First, the information about individuals linked to al Qaeda was derived from classified sources. Second, when links were so tenuous - as they still are - it makes sense to be cautious before pointing fingers so you don't set off a chain of circular and self-reinforcing assumptions. Third, it is important to be careful not to prejudice a criminal investigation in its early stages."

Indeed, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) told the New York Times last week that in his closed door briefing, Petraeus "was adamant there was no politicization of the process, no White House interference or political agenda."

The fight over the talking points will most likely continue; it has even become a campaign cause for Republican senators like Lindsey Graham. Others like John McCain have vowed to do "everything" to block the potential nomination of Susan Rice for Secretary of State. But Democrats in Congress and media commentators are beginning to wonder why Republicans are picking a substance-free fight with Rice, a woman and an African-American, after the drubbing they took in last month's elections among those demographics. end quote

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Who he has thrown under the bus

Next claim will be that President Obama threw the bus under the bus.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Next claim will be that President Obama threw the bus under the bus.

The next Scandal. He threw a Red bus under a Blue bus. Because of the Red States. SCANDAL. RED BUS SCANDAL!!!! Finally Obama did something wrong and they caught him.

It will be the BB&B.... Birth Certificate, Benghazi, Bus SCANDAL!!!!


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Lets make a wager on how many threads. I lost the wager at Obama HQ at what time PA would get called for the president, and what time he would be declared the winner.

It is getting so crazy, but Fox and friends will never ever stand corrected when they are wrong. Fast and furious, Benghazi, birth certificate , college records...Where is the next great outrage??? I will never ever believe a word coming from that network. I remember turning to Fox to see coverage of one of the worse natural disaster ever to hit our country, and guess what? They weren't covering it. The "panel" was busy dissecting Benghazi. My hope is that Susan Rice is nominated SOS.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III


Posted this 4 weeks ago, in this thread.

Gotta love the silent complicity.

_________________________________________________________________

UPDATE 1

Issa is ousting names of Libyan people, working with/for the US, putting their lives in danger:

House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) compromised the identities of several Libyans working with the U.S. government and placed their lives in danger when he released reams of State Department communications Friday, according to Obama administration officials.

Issa posted 166 pages of sensitive but unclassified State Department communications related to Libya on the committee's website afternoon as part of his effort to investigate security failures and expose contradictions in the administration's statements regarding the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi that resulted in the death of Amb. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

But Issa didn't bother to retract the names of Libyan civilians and local leaders mentioned in the cables, and just as with the WikiLeaks dump of State Department cables last year, the administration says that Issa has done damage to U.S. efforts to work with those Libyans and exposed them to physical danger from the very groups that had an interest in attacking the U.S. consulate.

And guess what--deafening silence.

We all can re-post this till the cows come home. Ohiomom is right--they couldn't give a rat's shiny behind about people dying.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Thank you David and Maddie for the latest and SOLID information on the Benghazi Non-Scandal.

And to Marquest for alerting us to the new scandal: BB&B, the BirthCertificate, Benghazi, Bus Scandal. I appreciate the heads up. The unneeded demise of the red bus just chokes me up and fills me with outrage! I shall probably need three threads in order to properly vent my indignation.

Kate


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Nancy is right. Obama has nothing to do with judicial processes in Pakistan. He prefers to practice extrajudicial killings instead.

Over 1,000 soldiers have died in Afghanistan since 2009. Get over 4 men who died in Libya. It's not optimal.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

I think Obama called them a bump in the road brush. So you are probably right.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Do you have a quote for that mrskjun? That Obama called 4 deaths a bump in the road?

And what do you call the deaths in Iraq? Revenge?


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

bickering beyond Benghazi


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Obama has nothing to do with judicial processes in Pakistan. He prefers to practice extrajudicial killings instead.

And Romney criticized President Obama's foreign policy as being too weak. With his gaggle of neocons advisors, we would have seen more of the same. The Pentagon is committed to drone warfare, no matter who is in the White House. And we'll suffer from this when other countries deploy their own armed drones.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

bickering beyond Benghazi

Good one Marshall another BB&B.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

"Ambassador Stevens was warned of the danger, and went to Benghazi anyway."

What danger was he warned of, and by whom?


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Gosh, Nika, perhaps we can find out that answer as part of the four (?) major investigations.

We cannot ask the Libyan head of Benghazi security because he was just assassinated. Gosh, perhaps the place is too dangerous for even well protected local security leaders.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Mrsk..What does the Bush Cheney war machine call the unnecessary invasion of Iraq when hundreds of thousands deaths occurred for NOTHING. NO WMDs. And the other RICE lied about it along with her boss. Where was your outrage then?


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

From my link @ Nov 20 15:57

Mr Sallabi, who used to lead one of Libya's biggest revolutionary militias, the February 17 brigade, said he had offered protection to the US ambassador, and had warned him that the city was becoming dangerous


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Gosh marshall, I think that is why Ambassador Stevens kept asking for increased security...you think?

And now, after testifying under oath that his office had nothing to do with changing the talking points to that of a You Tube video, Clapper is now saying that his office changed the talking points to that of a You Tube video. Wonder if there is any penalty for lying under oath to congress. Or is this just a matter of trying to squeeze him under that bus.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

MsKjun, do you have any opinion as to why the CIA was lacking in protection for its operations in Benghazi?


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Perhaps nancy because security for our embassies falls under the auspices of the State Dept., who also happened to be the ones receiving requests for more security. So, I am assuming that the State Dept. did not request more protection from the CIA, or anyone else.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

WASHINGTON : In the weeks leading up to the attack last month on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, diplomats on the ground sounded increasingly urgent alarms. In a stream of diplomatic cables, embassy security officers warned their superiors at the State Department of a worsening threat from Islamic extremists, and requested that the teams of military personnel and State Department security guards who were already on duty be kept in service.

The requests were denied, but they were largely focused on extending the tours of security guards at the American Embassy in Tripoli - not at the diplomatic compound in Benghazi, 400 miles away. And State Department officials testified this week during a hearing by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that extending the tour of additional guards - a 16-member military security team - through mid-September would not have changed the bloody outcome because they were based in Tripoli, not Benghazi.

snip

While it is unclear what impact a handful of highly trained additional guards might have had in Benghazi were they able to deploy there, some State Department officials said it would probably not have made any difference in blunting the Sept. 11 assault from several dozen heavily armed militants.

“An attack of that kind of lethality, we’re never going to have enough guns,” Patrick F. Kennedy, under secretary of state for management, said at Wednesday’s hearing. “We are not an armed camp ready to fight it out.”

A senior administration official said that the military team, which was authorized by a directive from Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, was never intended to have an open-ended or Libya-wide mission.

“This was not a SWAT team with a DC-3 on alert to jet them off to other cities in Libya to respond to security issues,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the matter.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

I think, because I don't have any access to the real facts so it's pure supposition on my part, that we will find this Consulate (it was not an Embassy) was totally under the control of the CIA including security. The diplomatic aspect was a ruse to hide the covert CIA operations that were going on there.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

"Do you have a quote for that mrskjun? That Obama called 4 deaths a bump in the road? "

The President made those comments in response to a question asking whether supporting the Arab Spring was the right thing to do given the riots and demonstrations that occurred in the ME in response to the anti Muslim video.

Given that Mrs, and others, are adamant that the videos had nothing to do with the situation in Benghazi then it follows that the Presidents comments had nothing to do with the four tragic deaths.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

The consulate was more of a "mission" and has been referred to as such.

The CIA compound was attacked and overrun so the obvious question is why the CIA - the agency responsible for intelligence, and specifically running an intelligence operation on Islamist militias in eastern Libya - failed to adequately secure its own compound. If any government entity would have been aware of the danger, it would have been the CIA. Had there been sufficient security at the 13-acre compound, the U.S. mission would have been protected as well due to its close proximity.

Why are there no questions being directed to the CIA Chief of Station in Libya? Who was responsible for this tragic intelligence failure?


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Good logic, chase; keep up the good work.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

A more general question might be why are the severe critics focused almost exclusively on Obama and the State Dept. when it looks like all the arrows are pointing at the CIA? Why no interest at all in the CIA?

Kate


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Because Obama is the devil as antichrist and will destroy the US in less than 4 years (failed to achieve his nefarious goals in the first four years.)


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Thank you for simplifying my life by providing ready-made,
easy answers, marshall. So comforting to know that Obama is so inefficient when it comes to his nefarious goals. Gives us "HOPE" that we may make it through another 4 years with no harm.

Kate


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Posted by marshallz10 z9-10 CA (My Page) on
Wed, Nov 21, 12 at 13:39

Because Obama is the devil as antichrist and will destroy the US in less than 4 years (failed to achieve his nefarious goals in the first four years.)

*

We're accustomed to failure when it comes to Obama--and the economy. But he did get a heck of a good start.

;)


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

will destroy the US in less than 4 years

D'Souza got rich off promoting that nonsense.

We're accustomed to failure when it comes to Obama--and the economy

You (often) forget that not everyone sees life (or history) through your filter so your collective "we" is not representative of everyone except the viewers of Fox News, Breitbart, et al.

Apparently many Americans didn't agree based on the results of the election. You offered no better alternative - on the contrary. Next time if you want change then have your party offer up something other than/better than Romney.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

I respectfully disagree epi. Next time we should offer up someone who will do their very best to destroy the character of their opponent. Up to and including accusing them of murder, committing felonies, and tax evasion. It works, as we've seen. And if this is what the voters want, I think they'll see a lot more of it in future campaigns.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

"accusing them of murder, committing felonies, and tax evasion."

Mrs are you suggesting for one minute that the President did that? If so that is a serious allegation and you need to provide information to back that up....but you won't....you never so.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

"Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) today issued a statement essentially conceding that he was wrong in accusing the White House of changing U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice's talking points on Benghazi for political purposes."


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

The voters, by a majority, also disliked Romney's policies and plans for America's future.

I think those were the major reasons why Romney lost.

Kate


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Yes McCain did...guess he got some REAL facts and has decided to back off just like the rest did once they were briefed.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Nancy: "Ambassador Stevens was warned of the danger, and went to Benghazi anyway."

Nik: "What danger was he warned of, and by whom?"


Nancy: "Mr Sallabi, who used to lead one of Libya's biggest revolutionary militias, the February 17 brigade, said he had offered protection to the US ambassador, and had warned him that the city was becoming dangerous."

Very troubling, Nancy. Where was the ambassador stationed at the time he received the warning and offer of protection from Mr. Sallabi? How much time passed between the warning and his arrival in Benghazi?


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Next time we should offer up someone who will do their very best to destroy the character of their opponent. Up to and including accusing them of murder, committing felonies, and tax evasion. It works, as we've seen. And if this is what the voters want, I think they'll see a lot more of it in future campaigns.

Isn't that what Romney and the Republicans (unsuccessfully) tried and continue to try to do with garbage like 2016, the birth certificate, Trumps nonsense,...? Based on your very own statement it sure seems so. But it didn't work this time so why would you think it will work in 2016? It seems that most Americans saw right through all the propoganda. If the plan for 2016 is what you describe then hopefully they will do so again.

Please shut off Fox News. Your words are straight from their talking heads and it is all nonsense like most of the other things they opine. Jon Stewart already did a very funny parody of this that included the very points you posted.
The bottom-line is, thankfully, most Americans saw through all the carp during the election and they continue to now.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Actually epi, I think I will start watching FOX exclusively. It seems that liberals find it to be exceptional. I don't know why I've been wasting my time watching CNN.

For you chase.
Saturday, August 4: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid caused an uproar this week when he said that Mitt Romney hadn�t paid taxes for 10 years

Even Liberal Wolf Blitzer Attacks Obama Commercial Accusing Romney of �Murder�

"Either Mitt Romney, through his own words and his own signature, was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the SEC, which is a felony," Cutter said on a conference call with reporters back then.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Not good enough Mrs....lots of people said lots of stupid things on both sides.

Your clear inference was that the President campaigned on those issues which he did not.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Actually epi, I think I will start watching FOX exclusively. It seems that liberals find it to be exceptional. I don't know why I've been wasting my time watching CNN.

Actually Mrsk, you should just watch Jon Stewart which is what I do when I want to hear what Fox is saying (or come on here). He makes it palatable. You can get your Fox "news" with a dose of laughter watching the absurdity. He gets quite a bit of fodder from them which is why you words rang a bell to me.

I guess it's just a strange coincidence that you just happen to have the same points as Fox. ;)


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

ahhh want to move the goal posts chase? got it!!

Did you ever think it may be a strange coincidence that FOX has the same points as me?


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

No Mrs, I must admit that it never struck me strange that FOX and you have the same talking points.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

" I must admit that it never struck me strange that FOX and you have the same talking points."

Yeah, I have to agree with Chase. I don't believe that anyone found that strange at all.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

No Mrs, I must admit that it never struck me strange that FOX and you have the same talking points.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Saves me the troubleof checking what points FOX gnus are pushing. I meant to thank you, mrskjun. ;>))


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

It's true. When some of the Righties spout this wingnut nonsense here , I wonder where it came from. Then at the gym I see the roundtable of these whack jobs talking about subjects no other network is mentioning and I figure it out. Deny all you want, but Fox is the only place these far out theories exist and are perpetuated to the sheeple who watch. .


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Perhaps if they Tivo such programming and watch the clips later, that is not watching FOX. Just trying to help out with less lame excuses.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

For heaven's sake, who cares? I watch Fox sometimes. Bash away; I don't own stock in it.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

To be fair(er), those of us who check in on Drudge Report, RedState, and WND can find highlights of all of FOX's "scoops".


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

For heaven's sake, who cares?

People who actually care about accuracy and factual information and abhor faux news programs that don't report either but claim they do. Content of this very thread, and its two predecessors, are based on many things created by Faux News or similar media.

I watch Fox sometimes

That's been clear.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

I don't think Fox News is necessarily the ORIGIN of all those false, misleading, twisted, contorted, exaggerated, deceptive tales they call "news." To me, rightwing communication is a closed loop--the identical info. keeps circulating and re-circulating through the same channels: e-mails from partisan groups; emails from right-wing organizations; emails from right-wing reps and senators and the Republican Party; blogs; facebook; rightwing online "news" sources; online newspapers and articles; especially radio talk shows, etc. Identical info. flowing from one source to the next; one rightwing source feeding the next one.

It might even be possible that Fox News is on the receiving end of this vast circulation of the same info. repeated from one source to the next.

It doesn't really matter if the "talking points" start or end with Fox News. The crucial point is how the right-wing sources repeat the same info over and over--sending it on to the next source--repeating forever (it sometimes seems) within the same closed loop.

The "closed loop" is what explains how Fox News and mrsk end up pushing the same talking points--without necessarily ever having anything to do with each other. They both get their talking points from other (perhaps identical) sources within the closed loop.

I will confess that when I go surfing the TV channels, I usually do stop for a few seconds on Fox News--but I usually can't take more than a few seconds. Yes, I'd rather get my Fox News with a good dose of laughter, via Jon Stewart!

Kate


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

"I watch Fox sometimes"

No way. Now this thread has my head spinning.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Okey dokey then; you are easily entertained.

I sure hope tomorrow goes better for you, you are very cranky today.

See ya; wouldn't wanna be ya.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Couldn't case less who watches what our listens to what. However I must admit to being annoyed when exact phrasing like " little woman" and "thrown under the bus" are parroted within hours of being used on FOX .

It's as if some have no ability to express their thoughts independently and in their own words


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Yes, I'd rather get my Fox News with a good dose of laughter, via Jon Stewart!

Kate, that is why I enjoy Demi and Msk post. They make me laugh because I have seen the satire of Jon Stewart what they are repeating and really believe.

I think it was you Demi that said you envisioned poster sitting at their computers and being angry and I laughed and thought if she only knew. I apologize if it was not you. But you should watch Jon Stewart.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

I don't think Fox News is necessarily the ORIGIN of all those false, misleading, twisted, contorted, exaggerated, deceptive tales they call "news." To me, rightwing communication is a closed loop--the identical info.

I don't either but they claim to be a legitimate news source and as we see on here people use them as such. They are nothing more than a mouthpiece to promote an agenda, not a source for real information.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

I think it was you Demi that said you envisioned poster sitting at their computers and being angry and I laughed and thought if she only knew. I apologize if it was not you. But you should watch Jon Stewart.

*

I know who he is but I've not sat down and watched him.
The few times I've seen him he seems to always be "mugging" and being silly. The stupid looks at the camera and rubber Jim Carey type facial expressions were something I couldn't get past.

I don't watch television news regularly and seldom at all even turn on broadcast news. I used to be a political and news junkie for years and now it is nothing but posturing by just about everyone in my opinion--I have no need for that.

If I make you laugh then good.

I try to laugh too, but I'm not laughing at this economy and another four years of it--for my fellow countrymen.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

I try to laugh too, but I'm not laughing at this economy and another four years of it--for my fellow countrymen.

President Obama win is why I am laughing and have more hope for the economy. The obstruction did not work so I feel the Congress will get busy and sign a jobs bill.

The people that cared about their countrymen were aware that the opposing political party had worked hard at obstruction and not writing any job bills.

Words are easy but when the countrymen are vilified because they needed food stamps, health care needs, a child receiving a free lunch, it sort of make the "feel for the countrymen" words are cheap, free even. Action takes heart and caring enough to help pull the countrymen out of despair. President Obama is trying to do that Romney did not care about that 47%.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

If only President Obama could understand that you need to teach someone to fish and encourage conditions for fishing instead of redistributing fish.

He knows it; however, I believe he intentionally wants people dependent on the government.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Well, I hate to overwork this already overworked fishing metaphor, but I must.

"If only President Obama could understand that you need to teach someone to fish and encourage conditions for fishing instead of redistributing fish."

I believe that a President that you would support would take a different tack. They would give the wealthy free bait and insist that they would share their fish with the unfortunates just like they did under Bush, right? Then, even though the rich were catching as many fish as they could, your system insists that they would hire more fishermen.

Heck, under your system we could even tax the poorest fishermen one of their two fish just to give them a sense of self-worth.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Demi he is just trying to make people that say they care about their countrymen that they put their money where their mouth is.

We have to pay to teach them to fish so I am willing to put my money in the pot to teach them to fish. I do not want to give lip service it is easy to say I care but care cost.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Since the discussion has veered towards fishing metaphors, I take it that those accusing President Obama and Susan Rice of trying to cover up a terrorist attack have now accepted that they did no such thing. Senator McCain has indicated as much, and I hope the off-topic discussion is due to embarrassment of having once again been used partisan shock troops.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Demi should give Jon Stewart a chance. This is how I get the most outrageous Fox made up outrages such as Benghazi, birth certificates, Rev. Wright , Bill Ayers, college records...yadayada yada..I like Colbert too.

One of my bumper stickers says. Turn off Fox news. Actually those two words, Fox and news ,should never be used together.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

McCain has a lot of nerve attacking Susan Rice for not being very bright, especially after having selected Sarah Palin as his running mate.

McCain's lead ib trashing Susan Rice led to the dirty 100 racist Republican Congressmen sending a letter to President Obama asking him not to appoint her for Sec. of State.
They've got to be kidding.
Appoint her because she is qualified and because she is the right person for the job under President Obama. She has done a great job at the U.N.

Here is a link that might be useful: The GOP’s Misguided Crusade Against Susan Rice


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

So, you all get your news from Jon Stewart, a comedian, and you are vilifying those that watch FOX? okey dokey


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Posted by mrskjun 9 (My Page) on
Thu, Nov 22, 12 at 6:34

So, you all get your news from Jon Stewart, a comedian, and you are vilifying those that watch FOX? okey dokey

Oh MrsK, is that what you took from the above exchanges? That is almost as funny as Jon Stewart's take on Fox News stories.

~Ann


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Mrs have you anything to say about McCain walking back his comments about Dr Rice?

Seems to me after all the negative things that have been said about her that you would have some thoughts on this. It's pretty significant...why do you suppose he did that?


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Considering how we have been plagued with Benghazi posts for weeks now, I think the same posters who posted relentlessly should weigh in now on the latest news--which even McCain is accepting.

Its a bit like RosannaDana carrying on heatedly at some length and then abruptly saying "Never mind." The RosannaDanas themselves are the ones who keep turning their mountains into molehills--and we laugh at the discrepancy.

It takes courage to admit "I was wrong." Any courage here?

Kate


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

chase, I haven't said a single negative thing about Rice. I have said she is a brilliant woman and I thought it was very denigrating of Obama to treat her like the "little woman" who needed his protection. She is grown up enough to answer the question of who gave her the video talking points.

And what is the latest news Kate?


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Mrs I didn't say you did, whether you said it directly or supported others who said it, it was clear she was being blamed for KNOWINGLY telling lies about the cause of the riots. This has been proven to be totally incorrect and McCain admits it.

I am asking you what you think of the fact McCain is walking back his statements and the fact is Dr Rice never misled the public .


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

The RosannaDanas themselves are the ones who keep turning their mountains into molehills--and we laugh at the discrepancy.

*

I don't call the failures that allowed four innocent Americans to die "molehills."

There's nothing else left to say, not much new news has come out.

Hopefully, we will learn why there was an intentional attempt by the Obama Administraton to mislead the citizens of this country and the world to believing that this attack and grisly murders of our government representatives was NOT a planned terrorist attack.

Asking questions and pointing out discrepancies does not qualify one to be a "Roseannadanna." Suggesting mrskjun, others and I that have the questions are lacking in courage because we do not admit "I was wrong" as you suggest is personal, tacky, and totally irrelevant. Wrong about what?

We still don't have answers. I wasn't wrong about four people being dead, I wasn't wrong about Susan Rice going on television and repeating this lie multiple times, I wasn't wrong about Barack Obama suggesting multiple times, and at the United Nations, that these murders were the result of reaction from some "video" made in this country, I wasn't wrong about what the father of a dead man killed in the attacks said about Hilary telling him about "getting" the maker of the videos.

It is natural to have suspicions about why these obvious mischaracterizations of what really happened were taken.

There is nothing to apologize for, and even if there were, where do YOU get off suggesting some of us are lacking in "courage" for not posting what YOU want to hear?

That is just silly.

Why can't you be content to let us have our say like you have your say without goading, insulting and accusing, huh?

If I am not mistaken, the correct term is, "Roseanne Roseannadanna."

Perhaps you care about accuracy about as much as The Obama Administration.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

  • Posted by bboy USDA 8 Sunset 5 WA (My Page) on
    Thu, Nov 22, 12 at 9:50

Sound of breezes blowing through ancient pines, as they have for thousands of years.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

we will learn why there was an intentional attempt by the Obama Administraton to mislead the citizens of this country and the world to believing that this attack and grisly murders of our government representatives was NOT a planned terrorist attack.

Still no questioning why the CIA failed to have sufficient security to protect its own safe house even while it was supposedly conducting covert operations in Benghazi which included gathering intelligence on radical Islamist militias. If any agency would have been in a position to know the situation in Benghazi, it would have been the CIA. Yet there are no demands for answers from the CIA's Chief of Station in Libya.

The dog that doesn't bark.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Interesting--McCain finally gets his belated briefing (due to his own tardiness) and backs off--no more attack dog leading the pac for McCain.

I guess he understands some things now that he didn't before when he was growling daily into the news mikes. Of course, they are probably classified--which is why they are not being discussed publically, but that is just PROOF to the critics here on HT that Obama was up to no good.

If he was, McCain seems to have agreed to cover up for Obama. Maybe you should be asking your questions of McCain--why he has forsaken your "cause" and joined Obama in whatever nefarious plot Obama is up to. Huh?

mrsk, my post above was not directed personally to you. Don't know why you take everything so personally. It was directed at the "posters" (plural)--which of course could include you among others. My post was specifically directed at those who have been unfairly attacking Dr. Rice. If you didn't attack her, don't wear the shoe if it does not fit. I never said you did attack her--so you don't need to defend yourself on that charge if you are not guilty of it. Anyone who watches the News however is very well aware that there has been a BIG bruhaha raised about Dr. Rice -- in fact, that is where most Republicans have been focusing their attention during the past week or so. Most of your leaders have given up on the questions you claim are still pending ominously over America.

This is directly to demi. Gosh, I don't know how to spell Rosannadanna's last name (I still don't). No wonder you doubt every assertion I've ever made and will continue to forever into the future.

Get real, demi. Spelling an entertainer's last name is not the recognized criteria for validity in intellectual circles.

Kate


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

I just think its hilarious that some people believe that if this was called a 'terrorist attack' that Obama woulda lost the election - an incredible leap away from logic - at the same time concluding that Obama won the election because he promised all those lazy brown people 'free stuff'.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

David, I think those amazing interpretations partly explain why the Republicans lost the election. Out of touch!

Kate


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Thu, Nov 22, 12 at 10:47

Agreed David, a terrorist attack close to Bush's re-election was a plus of support for him via those infamous orange alerts, why wouldn't it be the same for Obama minus the color code?...unless it's a different code for Obama?


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Nancy: "Ambassador Stevens was warned of the danger, and went to Benghazi anyway."

Nik: "What danger was he warned of, and by whom?"

Nancy: "Mr Sallabi, who used to lead one of Libya's biggest revolutionary militias, the February 17 brigade, said he had offered protection to the US ambassador, and had warned him that the city was becoming dangerous."

Very troubling, Nancy. Where was the ambassador stationed at the time he received the warning and offer of protection from Mr. Sallabi? How much time passed between the warning and his arrival in Benghazi?


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

"..... in fact, that is where most Republicans have been focusing their attention during the past week or so...."

Well they needed something to focus their attention on, after their humiliating loss.

~Ann


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Nikoleta,

It would not take a specific warning of specific danger, really.

Stevens know the risk he was taking in his work simply because he was going to LIBYA... a recently destabilized state, flooded with military weaponry, currently being run by an impotent transitional government and a thousand militia warlords in charge of their own little areas and a heavy influence of Islamic Fundamentalism filling the power vacuum.

It's not like it's a secret. Nor is it difficult to figure out that it's a dangerous place to be right now. Stevens was a smart guy, I am fairly certain he was quite aware what risks he took going there.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

  • Posted by bboy USDA 8 Sunset 5 WA (My Page) on
    Thu, Nov 22, 12 at 11:45

The popular vote was too close to call it a humiliating loss, or make any other statements about Obama's supposedly big victory. Clearly there is still a huge block of Americans that vote red. Probably every time, regardless of the facts.


 o
RE:The Right's problem

The following from Brad DeLong's blog summarizes this unwillingness to accept reality, especially the reality of changing demographics. There is also a nice takedown of the "takers" argument about the explosive growth of entitlements.

Here is a link that might be useful: Reality, not on this planet


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

A matter of opinion BBoy. I see it as a humiliating loss. The Republicans lost seats in both the House and the Senate. They lost the popular vote and it was a Electoral College landslide.

But what is really humiliating is the fact that Romney and his team were so clueless. They were more than just confident that they were going to win. They truly believed that they had it in the bag.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

I agree with Ann. The humiliation wasn't in the numbers so much as it was their attitudes. They were totally convinced that they would win and the polls were just plain wrong.

Maybe not so much humiliating as embarrassing.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

I wonder what would be the desired results if this issue of Benghazi was presented as a terrorist attack. Demi, Msk do you have a vision of what you or other Americans could do if you knew day one that it was a Terrorist attack?

Why you have a need to work so hard at holding on to a lie?

Do you love America and its freedom and democracy? The country has voted. Majority has spoken. You are even the minority on HT that should give you a hint that you are chasing ghost, and embarrass yourselves. I have admitted I do get a chuckle because you are odd thinkers.

I do not understand what joy or outcome you feel you get out of issues that you argue without facts. Could it be....

-Obama will not be the President for 4 more years. Did it work?
-Convince people that President Obama is a bad president. It is not working his approval rating is the highest it has been since he took office.
-You enjoy fantasy stories. Maybe it works for you.
-You enjoy entertaining. That is working. It is entertaining because you confirm that Romney and a few others are still upset that the majority of America did not want the America of Me, Myself, and I. Romney LOST!!!! The topics keep topping out because people enjoy telling you how wrong you are at processing information.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Marquest, I don't know what dead horse you are flogging.
Benghazi has nothing to do with the election as far as I'm concerned, except that I wonder if the stories that don't match up had anything to do with the election.

Hopefully, we'll find out.

I got over Obama being elected about one minute after it happened.

Apparently you haven't.

Everyone has left the building and you are flogging to an nonexistent audience.

Enjoy your flogging and gloating, it is of no consequence to me.

Life goes on.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Demi I am bored. I guess I am too organized. The table is set and the turkey is in the oven. I have 4 hours to kill until everybody arrives. So,,,,,

Your response is like two people talking.......
"Benghazi has nothing to do with the election as far as I'm concerned, except that I wonder if the stories that don't match up had anything to do with the election."

You are not concerned but you wonder and post after post WHAT ABOUT BENGHAZI!!! You wonder if it would have effected the election. If you did not care about the election that would not be part of your reasons to wonder about Benghazi.

"Hopefully, we'll find out.

I got over Obama being elected about one minute after it happened."

Yep I can tell how you have gotten over that lost to President Obama as you wonder how it would have maybe helped the President lose.

"Apparently you haven't."

You are right. I have been basking in the glow because America won and I am proud and happy that the majority voted for ever man, woman and child and not Me, Myself and I. You cannot imagine how happy that makes me.

I am a giver and enjoy giving. It is more fun for me giving a gift than receiving a gift. So I feel good knowing that if people need help we have a President that shares my outlook on life. I am not concerned about the ones that may cheat the system, I am more concerned that the ones that need are receiving.

"Enjoy your flogging and gloating, it is of no consequence to me."

I am not flogging anyone but if being happy is gloating then thank you for giving me your permission to enjoy gloating. It feels sooooo goood. Post some more Benghazi's so I can continue to gloat as you continue to wonder "What If" When you get over the wonder What If(s) you will stop chasing rainbows. Then I will believe your words that you are over PRESIDENT OBAMA WON. Some how I doubt that will happen since it has not happened in the last 4 years.

This is historical
Presidential Inauguration will be held in Washington DC on Monday, January 21, 2013.

President Obama’s inauguration will be held on the Martin Luther King holiday, January 21st. Think about it, the first African American president will be sworn in for his second term on the Martin Luther King holiday observance


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

"President Obama's inauguration will be held on the Martin Luther King holiday, January 21st."

On the surface, without giving it much thought, that doesn't seem like such a good choice to me. Are inauguration dates predetermined or does the President get to choose?


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Did some research and found that Inaugural Day is always Jan 20th but when Jan 20 falls on a Sunday the oath is taken in private and the public ceremony held the 21st.

In view of that I think it is way cool that it just so happens it is Martin Luther King Day. Had it been contrived I would have thought differently.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Had it been contrived I would have thought differently.

I would not have seen it as contrived but more like choosing a day that is meaningful to you and your supporters. MLK represented a movement for freedom, opportunity, and justice. All races marched with MLK for ending poverty, workers rights, ending wars, The Presidents campaign reflected those goals. Refer to his acceptance speech.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

No, the Obama rhetoric was in favor of freedom, opportunity, and justice. The practices of the Obama administration have not been true to its professed principles. Extra-judicial surveillance and assassinations of even US citizens without trial are not hallmarks of freedom and justice.

Growing the police and surveillance State does not make me freer, safer or more secure.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

I would prefer it not be on Dr. Kings birthday. His dreams have not all been realized. I think that day should be meant for honoring Dr. King, and to reflect on how far we have come because of him, and how far we have yet to go. The inauguration of a president should be separate.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

How can that happen though MRS...Jan 20th is the date set out by law for the inauguration of the President. No way around that and the third Monday of January is set as MLK Day. This year they coincide.

I guess maybe someone should have given more thought when they set the third Monday of Jan as MLK day.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

"I guess maybe someone should have given more thought when they set the third Monday of Jan as MLK day."

Agree.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who has a friend/family member say something like: "Oh, a combo b-day/whatever day present." Not having MLK day set apart diminishes the attention it deserves.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Well I wouldn't go that far...the Inauguration of your President can hardly be viewed as a diminishing event !

To me it takes precedent....


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

A quick check shows that this also happened for President Clinton's Inauguration.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

o reflect on how far we have come because of him, and how far we have yet to go.

And there is the month of February designated as Black History Month.

Black History Month is an annual observance in February, celebrating the past and present achievements of African Americans. In February 1926, Dr. Carter G. Woodson, founder of the Association for the Study of African American Life and History, proposed the establishment of "Negro History Week" to honor the history and contributions of African Americans to American life. Dr. Woodson, known as the "Father of Black History", chose the second week of February because it commemorates the birthdays of two men who greatly affected the African American community: Abraham Lincoln (February 12) and Frederick Douglass (February 14). Negro History Week became Black History Week in the early 1970's. In 1976, the week-long observance was expanded to a month in honor of the nation's bicentennial.

Black History Month is sponsored by the Association for the Study of African American Life and History (ASALH). The Association was founded in 1915 by Dr. Carter Woodson -- historian, teacher, author and publisher. Each year the Association designates the national theme for Black History Month. The 2012 theme is Black Women in American Culture and History, "to explor[e] African American women's roles in and contributions to the making of America".


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

The Benghazi Conspiracy

Republicans have the same basic attitude toward conspiracy theories as the Plains Indians had toward the buffalo -- they are the basis of life, even religion, and no part, no matter how minor, should go unexploited. Hence Senator John McCain's milking of the Benghazi attack. Or, rather, not the attack itself but the Obama administration's response to it.

He and other Republicans seem to think that the White House, and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, played down the possibility that Al Qaeda operatives were behind the attack, so that President Obama could boast on the campaign trail that his policies had decimated the terrorist organization. In other words he lied to the American public so that he could win re-election.

It's an odd theory, because the attack did nothing to change the simple fact that Mr. Obama has been ordering people killed right and left in the war on terrorism, including Osama bin Laden and two American citizens...

The theory lost steam when CBS and CNN reported that, actually, the Director of National Intelligence was behind the change, and the White House made no substantial edits.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

The Republican Party can't run a government because they aren't interested in running a government. Since it's no longer my football we're playing with, I'm going to ruin this game. And that's what it is to them...a game.

Why is everyone biting on this stale bait?


-Ron-


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Thu, Nov 22, 12 at 22:33

I'm trying to squeeze my predicted 4.5 threads out of it.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Marxhallz wrote"

No, the Obama rhetoric was in favor of freedom, opportunity, and justice. The practices of the Obama administration have not been true to its professed principles. Extra-judicial surveillance and assassinations of even US citizens without trial are not hallmarks of freedom and justice.
Growing the police and surveillance State does not make me freer, safer or more secure.

Libertarian Baloney. You mix up freedom. opportunity, justice with counter-terrorism efforts and the primary responsibility of a President - national security.

This is a shallow criticism at best and one that rings hollow for most Americans after 9/11. Next time a President gets a CIA warning about Al Qaida hi jackings we need every effort to stop them, even if that means tapping those 3 a.m. phone calls you made to Pakistan or stepping up airport security, scanning underwear before entering the boarding area, making people take off their shoes....or killing known terrorists who are plotting to kill us with a drone attack.
U.S. citizens have no right to commit terrorism and if suspected, yes, the government must place them under surveillance and apprehend or kill them if necessary.

Bush was afraid of the libertarian idealists like yourself and failed to take the necessary steps after being warned by bin Laden of the hi-jackings.

As far President Obama. he has been accused of not closing Gitmo but you know why that is right?


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

U.S. citizens have no right to commit terrorism and if suspected, yes, the government must place them under surveillance and apprehend or kill them if necessary.

Oh yes, because the US government has never, ever been mistaken.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

I'm processing the juxtaposition of having Marshallz called "Marxhallz"... and advocating a security state of wiretapping and extrajudicial assassination... all in the same post.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Why is everyone biting on this stale bait?
Ron, I do it for the entertainment. I am enjoying watching them try to find something to feel better about the Romney lost. Also, If it goes to 150 it helps the Democratic cause in the google search, we need the sane people that search Benghazi out there see how the BatCrapCrazy Right push their negative Faux Anger Agenda.

vgkg
I'm trying to squeeze my predicted 4.5 threads out of it.

You have won your prediction. There was at least 3 others before this group of Faux Benghazi outrage.

Growing the police and surveillance State does not make me freer, safer or more secure.
Marshallz
Easy for you to say when you are still alive. My family members and thousands other that died on 9/11 do not have the luxury to still be here to complain about how they are not safe, free or secure.

Bush did not keep them safe, and alive.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Nancy: "Since the discussion has veered towards fishing metaphors, I take it that those accusing President Obama and Susan Rice of trying to cover up a terrorist attack have now accepted that they did no such thing."

Nancy: "Ambassador Stevens was warned of the danger, and went to Benghazi anyway." "Mr Sallabi, who used to lead one of Libya's biggest revolutionary militias, the February 17 brigade, said he had offered protection to the US ambassador, and had warned him that the city was becoming dangerous."

Nancy, Just to be clear, Mr. Sallabi gave that warning and offer of protection to Ambassador Stevens before Mr. Stevens arrived in Benghazi?


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Well, it is somehow strangely comforting to see that after my Thanksgiving Day break from HT (too busy with company) that nothing has changed.

Hear/read untruths (from Fox News or some other right "news" service)
Yell and scream about that bad Obama man
Oh, what I said wasn't true?
Doesn't matter. That bad Obama man is still in office and I must continue to repeat these untruths...because I have nothing else left to do.

Add me to the "gloating" list. I am still basking in the delight of Obama winning. I am still basking in the delight of Romney losing. I am still basking in the delight of Romney being humiliated because he was just so sure he would win.

In my opinion, it was a humiliating loss. Remember when GWB won his second term and he called it a "mandate". I'm sure you all believed him. Yet he won by less than Obama did.

Benghazi has nothing to do with the election as far as I'm concerned, except that I wonder if the stories that don't match up had anything to do with the election.

Now that was impressive! Contradicted yourself in the same sentence.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Demi
Benghazi has nothing to do with the election as far as I'm concerned, except that I wonder if the stories that don't match up had anything to do with the election.
----------------------------------------------------------------
jillinnj
Now that was impressive! Contradicted yourself in the same sentence.

LOL Yep that was my thought. Can we say someone should stay away from the poker table.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

NO, I didn't contradict myself at all, marquest.

IF you had read carefully with past statements in mind you would have understood what I meant.

My point is that talking about Benghazi has nothing to do with how the election turned out--my bringing it up has nothing to do with the election results.

I was talking about Benghazi BEFORE the election and I have since--that hasn't changed.

I do wonder if the upcoming election had anything to do with the different stories and the stonewalling we got from the Obama Administration before November 6.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

For those of your who insist that the top priorities of this nation are national security and anti-terror actions, let me send my condolences to future Americans and visitor to the police State of the future. Throwing 9/11 out as justification for loss of liberty means the lives of a few are more important than liberty for most. If that is your opinion, my apologies to our descendents.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

the stonewalling we got from the Obama Administration before November 6.

What evidence do you have that the Obama Administration "stonewalled" before November 6?


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Yesterday grandson said we should go around the table and give one thing you are thankful for. He started by saying X Box. I said Obama won. Everyone rolled their eyes, and daughter said just because the election is over, don't expect her to stop talking about it.

I read some humorous articles about how to talk to your drunken Republican uncles over the Thanksgiving table. Luckily everyone of the nine people at our table are Democrats. It was different for my granddaughter because this was her second dinner yesterday. The first was with her mother and stepdad and her other GP's who are staunch Republicans. In fact the whole table was except for GD and her boyfriend who argued the Dem case against so many. In fact my son ran into his former Father in law at Costcos where the FIL said to him.."this country is going to hell in a handbasket" standing beside son's car with the Obama bumper sticker.

My only REAL disappointment after I worked so hard getting people to vote was to find out yesterday that the granddaughter did NOT vote because she forgot to change her registration to the city she is now living. She said...but he was going to win PA anyway to which she got a long lecture from Grandma about Florida and the 547 votes that REALLY counted in a big way. She was probably glad to leave. Her BF is a big Obama guy, so I told him next time he needed to make sure she voted.

I have no idea how I hijacked this thread about a non related subject. Something must have triggered it. I know ...it was Jill and Marquest still celebrating the win....lol


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

marshall, do you really believe we live in heaven and people that live to die will not do you and yours any harm and that less security is needed? It does not matter. It does not matter if someone blows him/her up at her desk? If we have less security this will make you feel you have more freedom? It is the preferred policy?

We think our security is bad try going to the airport in other countries. You do not get near the airport without almost having a bend over and drop your pants search.

I do not like all the security that has been put in place since 9/11 but maybe because it is personal for me I have made peace with the policies. I live in the reality.

Just reading HT and the things that are said about our President is enough to prove it does not take much to make an American not care about their fellow American they are American Terrorist. Look at history it was an American that killed one of our Presidents. Wonderful American..... please..... how about Tim" McVeigh. Spare me the killing Americans without a trial. Them or us. I prefer them since they do not care about us.

Growing the police and surveillance State does not make me freer, safer or more secure.

Grow the security all they needed before Faux News whips up a new story that the need to believe weak minded start to live by and think they need to take things into their killing American hands. I take comfort that they patrol forums like HT, emails and phone conversation so these haters are targeted as the terrorist they can become.

Homegrown Nuts.
Lee Harvey Oswald
New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

lily: "I read some humorous articles about how to talk to your drunken Republican uncles over the Thanksgiving table."

What a peach.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Spare me the killing Americans without a trial. Them or us. I prefer them since they do not care about us.

Marquest, you are not just joking when you say this?


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

  • Posted by bboy USDA 8 Sunset 5 WA (My Page) on
    Fri, Nov 23, 12 at 15:18

It's the old exceptional occurrences as basis for deciding there is a general problem, hypothetical scenarios as argument for actions (by the government and corporations) that affect everyone's lives in concrete ways. Same drum the right wingers are beating here all the time.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Fri, Nov 23, 12 at 15:58

Growing the police and surveillance State does not make me freer, safer or more secure.

I am with Marshall on this one, NDAA was my biggest dissapointment with our current president just as the patriot act was with the last one. What is that saying about giving up liberty for security and not deserving either (or something to that affect) ??


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

The odds of being directly affected by terrorist attacks are infinitely smaller than coming under passive surveillance on a regular basis and closer active surveillance for associating with a "suspicious" person or group. Being an organic farmer active in sustainability issues, I am on the active end of those possibilities.

We have "enjoyed" many threads on this subject. The general conclusion was that bin Laden has won because we have become our own potentially oppressive State.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

So Bin Laden is the only enemy America will ever encounter?

As I said it is personal for me. It is intrusive but we live in a different world outside and inside America. Nothing is 100% but not to attempt to prevent is just not a wise move in my opinion.

I look at it as why do people pay for home security systems. You have a deadbolt. It would be even freer if you did not have to unlock the door before you leave the house.

Be free, you do not need locks or security systems. These things take away your freedom and security with all those pesky locks and security.

The security is the door, deadbolt, Electronic Guardian Security system at the front door of the Country.

The terrorist are using Surveillance we are having cyber attacks. We cannot live like we are horse and buggy and want the life of past. Our own citizens are turning on the President and its own people as takers.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

"Oh, Freedom's jes' another word for nothing left to lose,

strum strum

Sing it, Janis


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

"The odds of being directly affected by terrorist attacks are infinitely smaller than coming under passive surveillance on a regular basis and closer active surveillance for associating with a "suspicious" person or group"

Any free thinker will be "suspicious". Internet sites will be rich hunting grounds to root these potentially subversives out.

Bad news for marquest when she deadbolts the door and finds out the threat is in the house with her.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Elvis, I know folks who will not post opinions on websites because they fear future consequences of being among those suspected of subversive thinking. These people come from all parts of the political spectrum. I have a couple of acquaintances whose on-line personae are fairly neutral yet in the real world at much more vocal, even more extreme.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

  • Posted by bboy USDA 8 Sunset 5 WA (My Page) on
    Fri, Nov 23, 12 at 22:41

Look at what was going on by the time of J. Edgar Hoover. No reason to think Big Brother has been sent to his room since.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Gee, did we bring on the crickets?


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Locust, not crickets, are more feared. How is that for a non sequitor?

And the End of BenghaziIII is nigh!


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

I thought non sequitur was half the game here; albeit usually happens quite by accident. ;D


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

True. I long ago got tired of pointing out n.s.; instead I've take to pointing out b.s.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Man, that's a tough call. What about the NS BS; can't do a darn thing with that stuff. Unless it's oddly relevant. And that might be an accident, too. Priceless when it's not.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

"And the End of BenghaziIII is nigh!"

Alas, I hope Nancy sees this!

I would hate for this thread to run out before I can confirm that I am properly understanding what Nancy told me. Nancy, just to be clear, Mr. Sallabi gave that warning and offer of protection to Ambassador Stevens before Mr. Stevens arrived in Benghazi? You said he "went to Benghazi anyway" so I assume this must be the case. Am I correct?


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Cramp in your google fingers, Nik? Assuming Nancy is not an inner member of the US Mission in Benghazi, I doubt she's privy to any more information than you could easily find yourself.


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Nika is just cramped...or crabbed...not sure about the right descriptive. :)


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

There's this to ponder......


 o
RE: Benghazi part III

Thanks for the chart, David. Should silence a few here.


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: This thread has reached the upper limit for the number follow-ups allowed (150). If you would like to continue this discussion, please begin a new thread using the form on the main forum page.


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here