Thread: Another US Embassy Under Siege

Originally Posted by koman

Why are Obama supporters so offended by what is standard OP in the business of DC.

I'm bothered that the gop opposition repeatedly refuses to pass legislation, stonewall's judicial and senior government appointments- but obviously has all the time in the world to convene numerous committees for these rentascandals that never go anywhere. How much time do they waste on that, compared to the business of government?

Apparently it's not just Admiral Mullens and General Petraeus the GOP is after ... but also General Dempsey the current JCS.

Fuck the GOP ... None of these guys are fools or tools of either party.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by sabang

Originally Posted by koman

Why are Obama supporters so offended by what is standard OP in the business of DC.

I'm bothered that the gop opposition repeatedly refuses to pass legislation, stonewall's judicial and senior government appointments- but obviously has all the time in the world to convene numerous committees for these rentascandals that never go anywhere. How much time do they waste on that, compared to the business of government?

Better that than passing BS legislation such as the Obamacare train wreck or the latest horror - the immigration bill which nobody has read yet but we need to pass all this stuff to see what's in it!

Insanity...

Yes....it's what political opposition is all about. Oppose badly flawed legislation that creates far more problems that it solves. Oppose bad political appointments, nepotism and cronyism and token appointments etc. It is expected and proper for either party to do the same...and they do.

The health-care legislation amounts to over thirty thousand pages now....and remember the immortal words of Ms Pelosi "we need to pass it to find out what's in it". Using this kind of logic, Nancy Pelosi would head out ice fishing without finding out how thick the ice is......or drive flat out into the fog, just hoping not to hit anything. This seems to be quite a prevalent method of doing things in DC these days. Yes opposition is called for.... and of course collaboration when/where it makes sense....which is rare under the present leadership.....

Originally Posted by koman

which is rare under the present leadership.....

Compare to what? The "leadership" so evident from 2000-2008 to take a nation to war without raising the taxes needed to fund them? Or maybe the unfunded Medicare Prescription Act?

I'm channeling raycarey from that period by the way ... It's like a deafening echo in the room reminding me of GWB bashing liberals of that period. Long on vitriol and short on substance ... Wank, wank, wank ...

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by sabang

damage done is ultimately to your political cause.

It is?

By determining who ordered Amb Steven's security to be significantly reduced prior to the attack despite his request for more?

We need to find out who made the decision not to add security in anticipation of the 9/11 anniversary.

And, we need to learn who made the decision not to send fighters when Amb Stevens told Washington he was under attack and who told the men who volunteered to go and help to stand down and why?

Pretty simple questions to answer if you're not trying to lie & obfuscate, eh?

No, what you really want is to keep beating a dead horse ... ... Until somebody says something you want to hear. I just don't think you're going to get any satisfaction. So far ... Gates, Pickering, Mullen, Dempsey, Petraeus, Clinton aren't those people.

Originally Posted by koman

Yes....it's what political opposition is all about.

No... it isn't. Pursuing miscreance or 'scandal' is not the prime purpose of a political opposition at all. Trying to make fire where there is only smoke, whilst serially ignoring or subverting the business of government is clearly all the GOP is about while in Opposition- which will likely be for a long time.

Ya think Joe Sixpack would entrust a party like that with the role of governing? A party that only seeks to subvert government and it's processes? I really don't think so. I repeat- the main damage the GOP's 'scandal obsession' is causing is to itself. Well, America too- but who actually cares about America inside the Beltway these days. That place urgently needs a shake up.

[QUOTE=sabang;2450379]

Originally Posted by koman

Yes....it's what political opposition is all about.

No... it isn't. Pursuing miscreance or 'scandal' is not the prime purpose of a political opposition at all.

[COLOR="Blue"]That's not what I said.....I said to "oppose flawed legislation...bad political appointments, nepotism, cronyism etc"........

[COLOR="Blue"]Exposing scandal happens to go with the territory as well. If there is no scandal to expose fair enough.....but there is....and it's not longer just FOX banging on about it.

When an opposition party smells blood, (read scandal) they will pursue it to the bitter end and that is what we are seeing.....unpalatable as it might to those who thought the Obama machine was like the second coming of the Messiah.....

[/COLOR][/COLOR]
- but who actually cares about America inside the Beltway these days. That place urgently needs a shake up.

[COLOR="Blue"]Yes...that I can totally agree with...... first up is to get a new government........

[/COLOR]

And the number of times that You Tube Video was mentioned in the White House Benghazie Emails is...ZERO.

And yet that’s what they blamed for more than a week....

"Weekly Standard writer Steven Hayes reacted to the release of the Benghazi emails Wednesday on “Hannity.”

Chief among the revelations from today’s release of 100 Obama administration emails related to Benghazi is there was no mention of a YouTube video at any point, yet it became a central part of Ambassador Rice’s case during her appearances on Sunday morning television, Hayes said.
Additionally, Hayes also noted that the emails provide further evidence that changes to the talking points were principally driven by the State Department and not the intelligence community, contradicting testimony by former Secretary Hillary Clinton."

The Lies Just Keep Stacking Up Don't They?

BENGHAZI-GATE: What Really Happened On 9/11 - YouTube

"In the video, Christopher Greene of AMTV explains what really happened on Sept. 11 at the Benghazi embassy in Libya and why the cover-up may be bigger than Watergate."

It's worth watching just to see Bill Maher show his ass.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

And the number of times that You Tube Video was mentioned in the White House Benghazie Emails is

As has been stated, if you are going to blather on about this story you should at least learn to spell Benghazi.

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

And the number of times that You Tube Video was mentioned in the White House Benghazie Emails is

As has been stated, if you are going to blather on about this story you should at least learn to spell Benghazi.

Pettifogging BS......does it really matter how he spells the name of some North African shithole FFS?

Hardly relevant or material to the argument.... well maybe to anal retentive TEFL'ers for whom the only recourse is nit-picking over minor spelling errors when they have nothing else to contribute......

Originally Posted by koman

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

And the number of times that You Tube Video was mentioned in the White House Benghazie Emails is

As has been stated, if you are going to blather on about this story you should at least learn to spell Benghazi.

Pettifogging BS......does it really matter how he spells the name of some North African shithole FFS?

Hardly relevant or material to the argument.... well maybe to anal retentive TEFL'ers for whom the only recourse is nit-picking over minor spelling errors when they have nothing else to contribute......

Nothing else to contribute?

To what discussion?

When Obama is going to get impeached?

(Answer: Never)

The fact is that Booners seems to want to portray himself as being massively interested in the "facts" of the Benghazi killings, yet in reality he can't even be arsed to read how to spell it properly, despite the fact it's in virtually every reputable news story posted here.

Kinda makes me think he's just bullshitting to have a few cheap digs at Obama based on whatever nonsense he gets from conservative propaganda sites.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Kinda makes me think he's just bullshitting to have a few cheap digs at Obama based on whatever nonsense he gets from conservative propaganda sites.

"kinda"?

it's his raison d'etre.

so perhaps you're wondering how this became such a big story this week:

The episode began at dawn last Friday, when ABC News reporter Jonathan Karl broke explosive news about Benghazi. Until that point, the Benghazi story had been confined almost entirely to the right-wing fever swamps, where it lingered as a symbol of Obama’s desire to appease radical Islamists. Karl changed that by reporting that he had obtained the administration’s e-mails, and they showed, in contrast to its claims, a one-sided intervention on behalf of the State Department. Karl’s report produced among mainstream and liberal reporters a sense of embarrassment at having dismissed the story as a weird partisan obsession. “For a long time, it seemed like the idea of a coverup was just a Republican obsession,” wrote Alex Koppelman in a scathing and widely circulated online commentary for The New Yorker, “But now there is something to it.”



On Tuesday, Karl’s Benghazi report began to crumble. Jake Tapper reported that, despite claiming to have “reviewed” the e-mails, Karl had not seen them, but had only seen accounts through third parties, who were almost certainly Republican staffers. (Karl is a good reporter, though sometimes prone to overly credulous coverage of Republicans.) And the accounts of those e-mails misrepresented them, characterizing “extensive input from the State Department” when in fact all the agencies had colluded in a familiar, numbing bureaucratic exercise of finding the lowest common denominator of unobjectionable mush. Factually, Benghazi was back to where it had been before Karl mainstreamed it. As a psychological prod, though, its power was undiminished.

The Strange Creation of the Obama Scandals -- Daily Intelligencer

"explosive".... "devastating".... I read these words a lot here and then it invariably turns out to be yet more irrelevant bullshit that finishes with that days news cycle.

if i had to guess, i'd say by this time next week, the usual suspects will be frothing about how the media gave obama a pass.

round and round they go....waiting to be suckered into believing the next manufactured controversy.

Yes, folks, move along now. Nothing to see here but total transparency!

Benghazi Emails Directly Contradict White House Claims.

'Splain that one there all you die-hard Obamabots!

Just checking in here. Oh I see the usual suspects chasing their own tails. Carry on...

Originally Posted by raycarey

if i had to guess, i'd say by this time next week, the usual suspects will be frothing about how the media gave obama a pass.

round and round they go....waiting to be suckered into believing the next manufactured controversy.

Ray just ask yourself one question; "Where was Obama the night the Benghazi consulate was attacked by Alqueada terrorists"?

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Originally Posted by raycarey

if i had to guess, i'd say by this time next week, the usual suspects will be frothing about how the media gave obama a pass.

round and round they go....waiting to be suckered into believing the next manufactured controversy.

Ray just ask yourself one question; "Where was Obama the night the Benghazi consulate was attacked by Alqueada terrorists"?

Wasn't he attending some 9/11 remembrance ceremony?

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Wasn't he attending some 9/11 remembrance ceremony?

At 02:00? When they first learned about the attack. At 10:00 Ambassador Stevens confirmed dead. Where was Obama?

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

At 02:00? When they first learned about the attack. At 10:00 Ambassador Stevens confirmed dead. Where was Obama?

Is this your idea of proof that there was a cover-up Earl. Pin pointing Obama's location?

^ the cover up came later, of course.

During a serious national crises like a terrorist attack on US sovereign territory, ( a US consulate), and a US Ambassador murdered; where was the President? And what did he do? Not one peep from the WH on this issue. It was important during 9/11/01. It was important 9/11/12.