Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Yeah, I'm not really seeing a smoking gun here either.
Now, if the Emails said that Obama ordered the attack on Ambassador Stevens over money owed to the Prez. That would be a smoking gun.
An email saying that the White House wants to emphasize that our policy is right and the President didn't do anything wrong.... well that's just Standard Operating Proceedure.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
He didn't call it a terrorist attack the next day. Go back over what he said.
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
d-usa wrote: Every TV appearance has the goal of explaining how any president didn't feth up.
There is not a single bit of news here that we didn't already know.
Incorrect.
The administration and it's staff knew it had NOTHING to do with that video D... FROM. THE. GET. GO.
It was nothing more than an attempt to deflect a political problem during a heated election season.
It's every bit news worthy.
Furthermore...Why wasn’t Rhodes’s e-mail (the one pulled from JudicialWatch) released before yesterday? It seems perfectly germane to the House’s investigation of Benghazi.... huh?
Yeah. 4 brave souls murdered by terrorists in an attack on an embassy and whembly and co screaming for the President's head over it...
Meanwhile, 109,032 deaths including 66,081 civilian deaths and 4,486 U.S. soldiers in Iraq between 2003 and 2012. For... what was it again? Weapons of something or other, I forget.
And that was an intentional invasion, conducted whilst we were already at war in another part of the world.
But let's not grind our teeth about the four and a half thousand US service men and women in wooden boxes over a ficticious cause for a lying administration, who deliberately sent them out there to fething die when we can shout at the guy from the side we didn't vote for who was in the big chair when four people were killed by terrorists. Oh and we'll certainly not grind our teeth in the same fashion about the three thousand plus killed by a terrorist attack during the previous administration's time in office, against the twin towers.
Oh and then there's this:
January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.
June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.
October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of "Bali Bombings." No fatalities.
February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.
May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.
July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.
December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.
March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name "David Foy." This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what's considered American soil.)
September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting "Allahu akbar" storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.
January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.
March 18, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.
July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.
September 17, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.
But sure, lets keep cranking the conspiracy engine about Obama, and whilst we're doing it, keep it stoked in case Hilary looks to run, cos feth knows we're scared of her chances... So, keep digging these four poor bastards back up and ride them around town on the back of a mule, to show the world what an evil conspiracy looks like...
FFS, You're like a dog with two dicks, constantly going over and over this whilst willfully ignoring the hundreds of thousands dead by the explicit instruction of the prior guy. Pack it in and knock it off.
It's.fething. Pathetic.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/30 20:59:40
d-usa wrote: Every TV appearance has the goal of explaining how any president didn't feth up.
There is not a single bit of news here that we didn't already know.
Incorrect.
The administration and it's staff knew it had NOTHING to do with that video D... FROM. THE. GET. GO.
NOTHING. IN. THOSE. EMAILS. BACKS. THAT. UP.
D... take a breath.
The CIA testifed that they went through proper channels to attest that it was an organized attacked, not because of a spontaneous protest.
This email PROVES that the WH staff was only interested in mitigating this event during the election season in order to maintain Obama's foreign policy strength against Romney.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/30 21:14:06
d-usa wrote: Every TV appearance has the goal of explaining how any president didn't feth up.
There is not a single bit of news here that we didn't already know.
Incorrect.
The administration and it's staff knew it had NOTHING to do with that video D... FROM. THE. GET. GO.
NOTHING. IN. THOSE. EMAILS. BACKS. THAT. UP.
D... take a breath.
The CIA testifed that they went through proper channels to attest that it was an organized attacked, not because of a spontaneous protest.
This email PROVES that the WH staff was only interested in mitigating this even during the election season in order to maintain Obama's foreign policy strength against Romney.
It would prove that if there was any evidence that shows that they knew it was not because of the video, believed it was not because of the video, and then said it was because of the video anyway.
But it doesn't. It shows that they said what they believed to be true.
Yeah. 4 brave souls murdered by terrorists in an attack on an embassy and whembly and co screaming for the President's head over it...
Yep... or technically, it should rest on Hillary Clinton's feet. But, you go ahead and defend this administration's action on this.
Meanwhile, 109,032 deaths including 66,081 civilian deaths and 4,486 U.S. soldiers in Iraq between 2003 and 2012. For... what was it again? Weapons of something or other, I forget.
How is that germane to this discussion?
And that was an intentional invasion, conducted whilst we were already at war in another part of the world.
Relevance please?
But let's not grind our teeth about the four and a half thousand US service men and women in wooden boxes over a ficticious cause for a lying administration, who deliberately sent them out there to fething die when we can shout at the guy from the side we didn't vote for who was in the big chair when four people were killed by terrorists. Oh and we'll certainly not grind our teeth in the same fashion about the three thousand plus killed by a terrorist attack during the previous administration's time in office, against the twin towers.
So... it's Bush's fault.
Gotcha.
Oh and then there's this:
January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.
June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.
October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of "Bali Bombings." No fatalities.
February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.
May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.
July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.
December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.
March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name "David Foy." This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what's considered American soil.)
September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting "Allahu akbar" storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.
January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.
March 18, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.
July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.
September 17, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.
Hey... I'm just as outrage that these happened.
Were they blamed on the video? Or Justin Beiber's music video?
But sure, lets keep cranking the conspiracy engine about Obama, and whilst we're doing it, keep it stoked in case Hilary looks to run, cos feth knows we're scared of her chances... So, keep digging these four poor bastards back up and ride them around town on the back of a mule, to show the world what an evil conspiracy looks like...
It’s been said before but it bears repeating…
No one died during Watergate.
FFS, You're like a dog with two dicks, constantly going over and over this whilst willfully ignoring the hundreds of thousands dead by the explicit instruction of the prior guy. Pack it in and knock it off.
It's.fething. Pathetic.
It's fething pathetic that some thinks it's okay to be lied to in such fashion.
It would prove that if there was any evidence that shows that they knew it was not because of the video, believed it was not because of the video, and then said it was because of the video anyway.
But it doesn't. It shows that they said what they believed to be true.
The administration knew it wasn't a protest.
The CIA informed them ON THE SAME NIGHT.
Let it go Wembly.
Conceal, don't feel.
Nah... it'll forever be my soapbox.
I'll submit that nothing will ever happen though.
*shrug* Politics as usual.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/30 21:13:35
Yep... or technically, it should rest on Hillary Clinton's feet. But, you go ahead and defend this administration's action on this.
Meanwhile, 109,032 deaths including 66,081 civilian deaths and 4,486 U.S. soldiers in Iraq between 2003 and 2012. For... what was it again? Weapons of something or other, I forget.
How is that germane to this discussion?
And that was an intentional invasion, conducted whilst we were already at war in another part of the world.
Relevance please?
But let's not grind our teeth about the four and a half thousand US service men and women in wooden boxes over a ficticious cause for a lying administration, who deliberately sent them out there to fething die when we can shout at the guy from the side we didn't vote for who was in the big chair when four people were killed by terrorists. Oh and we'll certainly not grind our teeth in the same fashion about the three thousand plus killed by a terrorist attack during the previous administration's time in office, against the twin towers.
So... it's Bush's fault.
Gotcha.
It's fething pathetic that some thinks it's okay to be lied to in such fashion.
fine, then I'll be clear.
The administration prior to this launched a war, invaded a country, based on a lie, based on intentional fabrication, to settle a family grudge and score some sweet personal financial deals. At a cost in the blood of the men and women of the armed services and a huge civilian population, thousands dead, thousands more crippled and wounded, yet from you, not a whistle, not a peep, no anger, no continued 'Never Forget Iraq!' thread or constant reminder in any other thread relating to politics ever.
Thousands dead for lies and greed. Yet you and some others constantly come onto this forum ad nauseum (to the extent where others have made memes about it) to resurrect threads and start new ones about this one incident, because? Because it's partisan with you. Because you're using the death of these four men, in a surprise terrorist attack, to attack people who's politics you don't care for. If you were attacking the previous administration's hideous death toll and continued cover ups as well, then I'd have some time for it, but instead we get the oft touted 'oh it's all Bush's fault' sarcasm. Because all those thousands dead on a lie was fine, cos he was your guy...
I'm totally, sick of hearing you endlessly using these four dead men to push a political, partisan attack. It's not about some vaulted notion of justice, it's about using the memory of these people and their violent death to score points.
The administration prior to this launched a war, invaded a country, based on a lie, based on intentional fabrication, to settle a family grudge and score some sweet personal financial deals. At a cost in the blood of the men and women of the armed services and a huge civilian population, thousands dead, thousands more crippled and wounded, yet from you, not a whistle, not a peep, no anger, no continued 'Never Forget Iraq!' thread or constant reminder in any other thread relating to politics ever.
Wow...
And you think I'm nuts? Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) is indeed alive.
Why is it that some of you still ignore the contents of the Iraq War Resolution?
But, then again, keep on blaming Bush because it's easier to hate someone.
Thousands dead for lies and greed. Yet you and some others constantly come onto this forum ad nauseum (to the extent where others have made memes about it) to resurrect threads and start new ones about this one incident, because?
*I* resurrected this thread? Might wanna back up from that accusation bucko.
Because it's partisan with you.
REALLY dude? Just look at what you just posted.
Because you're using the death of these four men, in a surprise terrorist attack, to attack people who's politics you don't care for.
So do you agree that this was a terrorist attack that had nothing to do with that anti-Muslin video? If so, there are PROOF that the administration KNEW that it was a terrorist attack. And yet, for political reasons, they blamed it on that video for weeks.
You okay with that?
If you were attacking the previous administration's hideous death toll and continued cover ups as well, then I'd have some time for it,
Sigh... first of all, I wasn't on Dakka during that time and second of all... Bush drove me fething nuts. For what it's worth...
Dude... Abu Gharib was one of the most embarrassing moment in US history. Bush should've accepted Donald Rumsfeld resignation.
but instead we get the oft touted 'oh it's all Bush's fault' sarcasm.
Hey... youstarted it boyo... just saying. If you start dishing... I'll throw it right back at ya. This is the OT Thunderdome™ after all.
Because all those thousands dead on a lie was fine, cos he was your guy...
Uh huh... might wanna look at the wiki I posted earlier. You'd learn something.
I'm totally, sick of hearing you endlessly using these four dead men to push a political, partisan attack. It's not about some vaulted notion of justice, it's about using the memory of these people and their violent death to score points.
I resent that MGS... I want policies in placed so that this doesn't happen again.
If you hold that opinion of me... fine... zero feths given. Likewise, I'll hold you accountable for defending this administration's actions regardless of why these men died.
One interesting thing from Attkisson is that recent tactic has been successfully used by Republican and Democrat administrations to release information slowly, sometimes over the course of several years, so people either become “numb” or disinterested in what would have been an enormous scandal.
She stated:
“If all that we know today had come out the week after Benghazi,” she said, “it would have really been disastrous.”
I agree and it's a shame that most of the media was only interested in protecting Obama, rather than maintain their journalistic integrity.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/30 22:01:01
Or you release the news slowly because if you talk about what you know now, some random guy on the internet will keep a thread alive for years calling you a liar.
Pretty much the entire Congress voted to go to war there Stompa. They looked at the same intell Bush had and agreed. If he so straight up lied 110% to go to War you think we would have impeached his ass like we did Clinton, Bill (JFK nailed Marilyn Monroe and he nailed Pug Face)
Though I want to point out, not cutting hair here, you see where I am going with it.
January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.
June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.
October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of "Bali Bombings." No fatalities.
February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.
May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.
July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.
December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.
March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name "David Foy." This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what's considered American soil.)
September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting "Allahu akbar" storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.
January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.
March 18, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.
July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.
September 17, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.
Now what your also missing is Kabul, Afghanistan and Green Zone, Iraq
Benghazi was a Diplomat Mission so just limited personnel. Yet with all these attacks on Consulate and Embassy you think we should have added in more Security for Stevens espacially in a "Hot Area". Before fingers are pointed at a funding cut for Security does not mean "cannot provide squat" it means "reallocate Security personnel in accordance with the environment"
to settle a family grudge and score some sweet personal financial deals.
Clinton authorized a missile attack on Iraq for the attempt at the time unknown assassination attempt on Bush Sr.
Contracts are awarded to the lowest bidder. Someone please make the connection here. I tried this once and no one got it.
Yet you and some others constantly come onto this forum ad nauseum (to the extent where others have made memes about it) to resurrect threads and start new ones about this one incident,
I look at this thread like I look at Bundy "Cause" to see how far Whembly can go. Also to gauge how much we forgot. Or not really knowing.
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
The administration prior to this launched a war, invaded a country, based on a lie, based on intentional fabrication, to settle a family grudge and score some sweet personal financial deals. At a cost in the blood of the men and women of the armed services and a huge civilian population, thousands dead, thousands more crippled and wounded, yet from you, not a whistle, not a peep, no anger, no continued 'Never Forget Iraq!' thread or constant reminder in any other thread relating to politics ever.
Wow...
And you think I'm nuts? Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) is indeed alive.
Why is it that some of you still ignore the contents of the Iraq War Resolution?
But, then again, keep on blaming Bush because it's easier to hate someone.
It's remarkably easy to hate a man responsible for the deaths of thousands based on a lie and a personal agenda. I've read the War Resolution before, it's a mixture of horse gak and the things we knew he was doing along with every other despot on the earth who we don't invade, or indeed go ahead and quietly support...
Thousands dead for lies and greed. Yet you and some others constantly come onto this forum ad nauseum (to the extent where others have made memes about it) to resurrect threads and start new ones about this one incident, because?
*I* resurrected this thread? Might wanna back up from that accusation bucko.
Because it's partisan with you.
REALLY dude?
Just look at what you just posted.
You didn't post the initial, but here you are again, here we go again with the Whembly Benghazi-Bump Machine. And of course it's partisan, that's why there isn't an equal or heavier gnashing of teeth from you about Iraq or anything else. You take this one personally, not for the deaths, not for the people who fell, but because of who was in office, because of who was head of foreign affairs. Obama and Hilary. It's a political thing with you, it's ok, you can admit it, we all already know...
Because you're using the death of these four men, in a surprise terrorist attack, to attack people who's politics you don't care for.
So do you agree that this was a terrorist attack that had nothing to do with that anti-Muslin video? If so, there are PROOF that the administration KNEW that it was a terrorist attack. And yet, for political reasons, they blamed it on that video for weeks.
You okay with that?
Obama said it was a terrorist attack the next day.
It was, from where I'm sitting, a terrorist attack. There are mixed reports as to whether there was a protest, protests nearby or protests that day. This raises further questions about whether the attack used the protest as a front to get close enough to launch attack or whether there was other confusion during the attack.
I don't know, it does sound like confusion and conflicting information, it does not sound like I've heard from some, that this is some mandarin bs about Obama being sympathetic to the terrorists, or the four being offered up as sacrifice to the new regime in Libya. I'm totally ok with them presenting what they believe to be the case at the time and then, later, saying 'we were wrong, this is the actual case'.
If you were attacking the previous administration's hideous death toll and continued cover ups as well, then I'd have some time for it,
Sigh... first of all, I wasn't on Dakka during that time and second of all... Bush drove me fething nuts. For what it's worth...
Dude... Abu Gharib was one of the most embarrassing moment in US history. Bush should've accepted Donald Rumsfeld resignation.
The entire war was a shame. Bush and Blair should be on trial for the deaths of every serviceman or service woman and every Iraqi civilian. They flouted the international law they used to damn everyone else, ignored evidence that did not support their crusade and committed themselves to the deaths of thousands whilst they played golf together and 'prayed' from air conditioned offices.
Because all those thousands dead on a lie was fine, cos he was your guy...
Uh huh... might wanna look at the wiki I posted earlier. You'd learn something.
Read it, it's full of lies and the truths it contains are truths that the US doesn't usually use to invade another country, I might even wish they did, if it took out Mugabe or similar, but it was all about suiting Bush's needs, not about liberating people from a brutal oppressor... one the US and co had put there, armed and supported, till he didn't do as he was told...
I'm totally, sick of hearing you endlessly using these four dead men to push a political, partisan attack. It's not about some vaulted notion of justice, it's about using the memory of these people and their violent death to score points.
I resent that MGS... I want policies in placed so that this doesn't happen again.
No you don't, you and those you're listening to (or perhaps those you listen too and you haven't figured it out) want to damage this administration but more importantly use this to damage Clinton, because those on the other side are fairly terrified of her chances, should she run.
If you hold that opinion of me... fine... zero feths given. Likewise, I'll hold you accountable for defending this administration's actions regardless of why these men died.
Hey... it's thunderdome after all, right? Roll your sleeves up and get back in here!
One interesting thing from Attkisson is that recent tactic has been successfully used by Republican and Democrat administrations to release information slowly, sometimes over the course of several years, so people either become “numb” or disinterested in what would have been an enormous scandal.
I like how political tactics are new to you. Pssssst, they all do it... They've always done it...
“If all that we know today had come out the week after Benghazi,” she said, “it would have really been disastrous.”
I agree and it's a shame that most of the media was only interested in protecting Obama, rather than maintain their journalistic integrity.
Ahhhh, the media is sheltering Obama again, funny, I thought they were driven, both ego and finance-wise, to break new stories, be the first to release information and use the guise of 'reporting the truth' to reveal anything, no matter how damaging to a political side... This argument that the 'lamestream' is protecting the president is horse gak, if he slipped up, they'd report it in a heartbeat and knife each other in the rush to do it.
And then we have the largest 'news' channel in America being a direct and brazen partisan propaganda channel against Obama.
So, try again? Or perhaps just don't, because you've been flogging this horse for fething years now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Pretty much the entire Congress voted to go to war there Stompa. They looked at the same intell Bush had and agreed. If he so straight up lied 110% to go to War you think we would have impeached his ass like we did Clinton, Bill (JFK nailed Marilyn Monroe and he nailed Pug Face)
You seem to be forgetting the atmosphere here following 9/11. The public was up in arms, clamoring for blood and retribution. The Intel presented was a mixture of fabricated answers presented under torture, a lone CIA claim citing pipes being used for weapons, the harrowing and truthful presentation of Saddam's regime's terrible human rights record (but as I said, go to war with him over it, why didn't we have a problem with it when we were arming him? Why don't we have a problem with it when it's all the other monsters (lots of whom we also armed...)).
And above all, the times meant that going against the administration during that time of national emergency meant you were 'unAmerican', 'unpatriotic', it wasn't a nationally encouraged thing then to rebel against the tyrant in the White House, because he wasn't a black guy that we didn't vote for...
America had bloodlust and politicians voting against 'the evidence we need to go to war with someone threatening to commit further terrorist attacks against us' was endangering citizens' lives and a potentially unAmerican terrorist appeaser.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/30 23:03:46
cincydooley wrote: Can we at least all agree that the whole feth up, coupled with age, should really disqualify Hilary from running in 2016?
No.
The terrorist attack on September 11, 2001 (the United States' single largest intelligence failure of her 200+ year history) or any time an embassy was attacked between 2002 and 2004 didn't disqualify George W. Bush from running for President in 2004, why should this incident disqualify Hilary?
Double standard much?
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
the United States' single largest intelligence failure of her 200+ year history
I don't know man. Billy Mitchells was all like "yo I think the Japanese gonna bomb pearl harbor on a sunday morning and then they're totally gonna invade the Philippines" and everyone else was like "lolwut?"
the United States' single largest intelligence failure of her 200+ year history
I don't know man. Billy Mitchells was all like "yo I think the Japanese gonna bomb pearl harbor on a sunday morning and then they're totally gonna invade the Philippines" and everyone else was like "lolwut?"
He said it in 1921.
Billy Mitchell was a friggin stud of the first water.
In a fist fight between Billy Mitchell and Mikhail Tukhachevsky, neither of them win because they were both too awesome to live and died before the fight even started
You seem to be forgetting the atmosphere here following 9/11. The public was up in arms, clamoring for blood and retribution. The Intel presented was a mixture of fabricated answers presented under torture, a lone CIA claim citing pipes being used for weapons, the harrowing and truthful presentation of Saddam's regime's terrible human rights record (but as I said, go to war with him over it, why didn't we have a problem with it when we were arming him? Why don't we have a problem with it when it's all the other monsters (lots of whom we also armed...)).
I am not forgetting 9/11 Atmosphere I got out a three months before that and was hauled backed in and made a Movement Coordinator. So someone in CIA fabricated a answers yet Bush is at fault? Sounds like something similar in this thread eh
-Though I do know suicide bombers in Israel slacked way off since Saddam no longer able to donate 10K to the families for a bomber.
-Tough there were like 50+ circumstantial evidence of chemical weapons being found. 155mm double chamber artillery rounds I know of because the Insurgents thought they were HE. No explosion but "pops". That scared the Hell out of us.
-As for arming him I've no clue but I believe we had a thing against Iran for something about Embassy Hostage (guessing) but if you know the real reason why I like to read
-We armed Pol Pot?
-We armed Stalin.
-We armed the French in Indo-China.
-We armed the Hmong (they seriously hate the Vietnamese)
-We armed Thailand who seriously hate Cambodia and Vietnam
-We armed ANA (Afghanistan National Army)
-We armed Iraq Army
-We sell arms and combat vehicles to Israel
Just to mention a few. You have to remember. POTUS signs the Agreement/Treaty/Arms Deal but its the Dept of State that regulates the flow.
I'm going to take Bushnism for this. The Left hand (waves Right) at times does not know what the Left hand (waves Left) is doing.
And above all, the times meant that going against the administration during that time of national emergency meant you were 'unAmerican', 'unpatriotic', it wasn't a nationally encouraged thing then to rebel against the tyrant in the White House, because he wasn't a black guy that we didn't vote for...
Here I am thinking is not to disparage the Military people who keep rotating back and forth on deployments. Though a high portion of troops feel Bush had our back compare to Obama but Bush never ran against Obama because Bush had his eight years...
America had bloodlust and politicians voting against 'the evidence we need to go to war with someone threatening to commit further terrorist attacks against us' was endangering citizens' lives and a potentially unAmerican terrorist appeaser.
Breath..wwwooooooooosshhhhaaaaaaaaa....breath....wwoooooossshhhhaaaaaaa Let future generation decide if it was right or wrong.
Know this though. I would not trust a Middle Eastern country ever. They can nuke themselves for all I care. Israel can pretty much handle they're affair as they see fit and also their neighbor's if they get froggy.
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
The administration prior to this launched a war, invaded a country, based on a lie, based on intentional fabrication, to settle a family grudge and score some sweet personal financial deals. At a cost in the blood of the men and women of the armed services and a huge civilian population, thousands dead, thousands more crippled and wounded, yet from you, not a whistle, not a peep, no anger, no continued 'Never Forget Iraq!' thread or constant reminder in any other thread relating to politics ever.
Wow...
And you think I'm nuts? Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) is indeed alive.
Why is it that some of you still ignore the contents of the Iraq War Resolution?
But, then again, keep on blaming Bush because it's easier to hate someone.
It's remarkably easy to hate a man responsible for the deaths of thousands based on a lie and a personal agenda. I've read the War Resolution before, it's a mixture of horse gak and the things we knew he was doing along with every other despot on the earth who we don't invade, or indeed go ahead and quietly support...
Thousands dead for lies and greed. Yet you and some others constantly come onto this forum ad nauseum (to the extent where others have made memes about it) to resurrect threads and start new ones about this one incident, because?
*I* resurrected this thread? Might wanna back up from that accusation bucko.
Because it's partisan with you.
REALLY dude?
Just look at what you just posted.
You didn't post the initial, but here you are again, here we go again with the Whembly Benghazi-Bump Machine. And of course it's partisan, that's why there isn't an equal or heavier gnashing of teeth from you about Iraq or anything else. You take this one personally, not for the deaths, not for the people who fell, but because of who was in office, because of who was head of foreign affairs. Obama and Hilary. It's a political thing with you, it's ok, you can admit it, we all already know...
No. It's because the four dead Americans deservesbetter.
That email that the WH desperately tried to classify shows how political this was.
Because you're using the death of these four men, in a surprise terrorist attack, to attack people who's politics you don't care for.
So do you agree that this was a terrorist attack that had nothing to do with that anti-Muslin video? If so, there are PROOF that the administration KNEW that it was a terrorist attack. And yet, for political reasons, they blamed it on that video for weeks.
You okay with that?
Obama said it was a terrorist attack the next day.
Act of terror in a "roundabout" manner.
It was, from where I'm sitting, a terrorist attack. There are mixed reports as to whether there was a protest, protests nearby or protests that day. This raises further questions about whether the attack used the protest as a front to get close enough to launch attack or whether there was other confusion during the attack.
I don't know, it does sound like confusion and conflicting information, it does not sound like I've heard from some, that this is some mandarin bs about Obama being sympathetic to the terrorists, or the four being offered up as sacrifice to the new regime in Libya. I'm totally ok with them presenting what they believe to be the case at the time and then, later, saying 'we were wrong, this is the actual case'.
The CIA testified (Morell) in Congress that they reported it was a sophisticated attack with no protest whatsoever.
You're getting the Cairo protest at this time mixed up with the Benghazi events.
If you were attacking the previous administration's hideous death toll and continued cover ups as well, then I'd have some time for it,
Sigh... first of all, I wasn't on Dakka during that time and second of all... Bush drove me fething nuts. For what it's worth...
Dude... Abu Gharib was one of the most embarrassing moment in US history. Bush should've accepted Donald Rumsfeld resignation.
The entire war was a shame. Bush and Blair should be on trial for the deaths of every serviceman or service woman and every Iraqi civilian. They flouted the international law they used to damn everyone else, ignored evidence that did not support their crusade and committed themselves to the deaths of thousands whilst they played golf together and 'prayed' from air conditioned offices.
Right... startup another thread on the Iraq War and I'd be happy to discuss this with you. I'd be you'll be surprised what my responses will be.
I'm totally, sick of hearing you endlessly using these four dead men to push a political, partisan attack. It's not about some vaulted notion of justice, it's about using the memory of these people and their violent death to score points.
I resent that MGS... I want policies in placed so that this doesn't happen again.
No you don't
YES. I. fething. DO! All you have to do is read my prior posts about this.
you and those you're listening to (or perhaps those you listen too and you haven't figured it out) want to damage this administration
Gee... trying to hold this administration accountable is the wrong thing to do... eh?
but more importantly use this to damage Clinton, because those on the other side are fairly terrified of her chances, should she run.
She should've resigned... much the same way that Rumsfeld tried to resign due to Abu Gharib. That's what should've happened.
What difference does it all makes?
It's all moot because if she runs, she'll win. I don't believe there's any viable Republican who can take on the Clinton Machine.
If you hold that opinion of me... fine... zero feths given. Likewise, I'll hold you accountable for defending this administration's actions regardless of why these men died.
Hey... it's thunderdome after all, right? Roll your sleeves up and get back in here!
“If all that we know today had come out the week after Benghazi,” she said, “it would have really been disastrous.”
I agree and it's a shame that most of the media was only interested in protecting Obama, rather than maintain their journalistic integrity.
Ahhhh, the media is sheltering Obama again, funny, I thought they were driven, both ego and finance-wise, to break new stories, be the first to release information and use the guise of 'reporting the truth' to reveal anything, no matter how damaging to a political side... This argument that the 'lamestream' is protecting the president is horse gak, if he slipped up, they'd report it in a heartbeat and knife each other in the rush to do it.
And then we have the largest 'news' channel in America being a direct and brazen partisan propaganda channel against Obama.
So, try again? Or perhaps just don't, because you've been flogging this horse for fething years now.
Answer me honestly... stick a Republican president in there instead of Obama, but the exact same things occured.
Think the media would be that forgiving?
Didn't think so.
When a Republican does something bad, the media is like THE REPUBLCIANS ARE DOING BAD THINGS. When a Democrat does something bad, the media is like THE REPUBLICAN ARE OVERLY CRITICIZING THE DEMOCRATS.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: I don't believe that an American corpse has ever been so thoroughly flogged in our history to such little effect for so transparent an agenda.
Do you really believe I'm doing that?
Am I explaining my positions good enough or do you think so little of me? o.O
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/01 03:31:50
I have to think back to all those Republicans saying there shouldn't be an investigation in to Iraq because that'd be a witch hunt and just laugh.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote: I have to think back to all those Republicans saying there shouldn't be an investigation in to Iraq because that'd be a witch hunt and just laugh.
sebster wrote: I have to think back to all those Republicans saying there shouldn't be an investigation in to Iraq because that'd be a witch hunt and just laugh.
O.o
Dude... there were investigations.
He's commenting on what many Republicans said about said investigations, not whether they happened.
sebster wrote: I have to think back to all those Republicans saying there shouldn't be an investigation in to Iraq because that'd be a witch hunt and just laugh.
O.o
Dude... there were investigations.
He's commenting on what many Republicans said about said investigations, not whether they happened.
Ah... my mistake seb.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Anyone else want to keep saying that the administration didn't know immediately that this was a terrorist attack?
This guy here... Brigadier General Robert Lovell, U.S. Air Force (Retired) told the House Oversight Committee yesterday, under oath, that the military knew immediately Benghazi was terrorist attack and not a “protest gone awry.”
“Nor did we completely understand what we had in front of us, be it kidnapping, rescue, recovery, protracted hostile engagement, or any or all the above. But, what we did know quite early on was that this was a hostile action.This was not demonstration gone terrible awry.To the point of what happened, the facts led to the conclusion of a terrorist attack. The Africom J2 was focused on attribution. The attacks became attributable very soon after the event.”
So... this was not an intelligence failure, but a leadership failure... brought on by the need to pretend that the Libya intervention/Foreign Policy was a smashing success during a hotly contest re-election campaign.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/01 15:01:41
If the thought of something makes me giggle for longer than 15 seconds, I am to assume that I am not allowed to do it. item 87, skippys list
DC:70S+++G+++M+++B+++I++Pw40k86/f#-D+++++A++++/cWD86R+++++T(D)DM++
