keepthefaith Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 ...Which EVERY administration in the history of history has done when they fall on their face. So previous bad behavior makes it just? How Obama and Co. have handled this is totally unacceptable. It was B.O. who said during his 2008 campaign and after that election that he would have the most transparent administration ever. That was his first lie unless you consider the ease at which we can all see his lies as the transparency he intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 What everyone here is forgetting is that there was a reason the Ambassador was in Benghazi. That reason had to do with weapons and Syria. The government wanted to hide that reason, therefore no help for our countrymen. They then tried to downplay the attacks and treat them as a protest gone bad. From the very start, what went on over there was political. The administration was wrong every step of the way. They are now doing their very best to thwart any investigation, just like they did in the Fast & Furious, IRA, NSA and DoJ scandals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 (edited) Greg: The Administration politicized the event when they lied about what caused it for the purposes of protecting a carefully constructed political narative during the debates. Now, don't get my wrong; I'm no friend to the Democrats or the Republicans, but the Republicans have the right of this. Once the event had been turned political, there is no turning back. I understand the argument, I just disagree with the chain of events. Here's the difference. When 9/11 happened, the president didn't send his "people" out to lie about what happened to the entire free world for weeks on end. It's not a perfect analogy, I grant you. However, for the sake of the discussion, Bush couldn't lie about what happened because it happened in Manhattan. Whereas Benghazi happened half a world away and even the people on the ground disagree about who knew what when. As Morell clarified in his testimony today, there was an internal debate within the intelligence community as to whether or not there were protestors let alone the cause. Considering the amount of intel and data they have to sift through every hour, this confusion is not a new development in our national security apparatus. Don't get what I'm arguing wrong, I'm not trying to defend the administrations handling of this or prop them up in anyway. What I am against is the inherent political bent brought into the debate. Obscuration of a f*ck up by the administration is not the same thing as "leaving Americans to die". And once you frame your argument with those explosive words, it reeks of partisanship rather than patriotism. And that's what I object to. And without spending a lot of time on a very cliched criticism, I'm certain the country would have been more comforted if they saw the President in a room full of children quickly panic and run out the door. How freaking ridiculous. I agree, I don't want to spend a lot of time on this but there are literally hundreds of reactions Bush could have chosen between doing nothing and running out in a panic. It would be ridiculous for him to have run out in a panic, I completely agree. In fact, the only thing more ridiculous would be for him to sit dumbstruck while war was breaking out in downtown Manhattan. And you should never go full gatorman. At least on this sentiment we can find agreement. Yep. The WH brought this upon themselves with incompetence and lies. Period. Actually, a bunch of guys with automatic weapons storming the place brought this situation upon us. You do know that, right? As for the "repeated warnings," unless anyone had information about the specifics, i.e. planes leaving from Logan the morning of 9/11, it wasn't going to be prevented. The only way would have been if Clinton had taken UBL out when he had the chance. It's amazing how when it comes to this event you can clearly grasp the issue but yet you're unable to see the same thing applies here to Benghazi. Obama (or the real target: Hillary) couldn't have prevented it without specific intelligence any more than Bush could have prevented 9/11. And if the WH couldn't have prevented the attack, then what are we really talking about here? We're talking about the administrations response to the attack. THAT is a valid issue to discuss, but once you cloak it in political talking points ("he left Americans to die!") you mark yourself as someone who is either ignorant of the facts or a political partisan looking to score points. Either way, approaching the issue from that angle destroys any hope of shining a light on the breakdowns in security and fixing those before more American diplomats get killed. Shouldn't that be the real aim of these investigations rather than a political witch hunt? Edited April 2, 2014 by GreggyT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 I understand the argument, I just disagree with the chain of events. It's not a perfect analogy, I grant you. However, for the sake of the discussion, Bush couldn't lie about what happened because it happened in Manhattan. Whereas Benghazi happened half a world away and even the people on the ground disagree about who knew what when. As Morell clarified in his testimony today, there was an internal debate within the intelligence community as to whether or not there were protestors let alone the cause. Considering the amount of intel and data they have to sift through every hour, this confusion is not a new development in our national security apparatus. Don't get what I'm arguing wrong, I'm not trying to defend the administrations handling of this or prop them up in anyway. What I am against is the inherent political bent brought into the debate. Obscuration of a f*ck up by the administration is not the same thing as "leaving Americans to die". And once you frame your argument with those explosive words, it reeks of partisanship rather than patriotism. And that's what I object to. I agree, I don't want to spend a lot of time on this but there are literally hundreds of reactions Bush could have chosen between doing nothing and running out in a panic. It would be ridiculous for him to have run out in a panic, I completely agree. In fact, the only thing more ridiculous would be for him to sit dumbstruck while war was breaking out in downtown Manhattan. At least on this sentiment we can find agreement. Actually, a bunch of guys with automatic weapons storming the place brought this situation upon us. You do know that, right? It's amazing how when it comes to this event you can clearly grasp the issue but yet you're unable to see the same thing applies here to Benghazi. Obama (or the real target: Hillary) couldn't have prevented it without specific intelligence any more than Bush could have prevented 9/11. And if the WH couldn't have prevented the attack, then what are we really talking about here? We're talking about the administrations response to the attack. THAT is a valid issue to discuss, but once you cloak it in political talking points ("he left Americans to die!") you mark yourself as someone who is either ignorant of the facts or a political partisan looking to score points. Either way, approaching the issue from that angle destroys any hope of shining a light on the breakdowns in security and fixing those before more American diplomats get killed. Shouldn't that be the real aim of these investigations rather than a political witch hunt? When the SoS screams "what difference does it make" it sort of makes one wonder if the administration gives a rat's ass about security. It seems that the only thing that they have ever cared about is how they are perceived. It's been a smoke and mirror administration since day one, so in my opinion they don't deserve one iota of slack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 It's amazing how when it comes to this event you can clearly grasp the issue but yet you're unable to see the same thing applies here to Benghazi. Obama (or the real target: Hillary) couldn't have prevented it without specific intelligence any more than Bush could have prevented 9/11. And if the WH couldn't have prevented the attack, then what are we really talking about here? We're talking about the administrations response to the attack. THAT is a valid issue to discuss, but once you cloak it in political talking points ("he left Americans to die!") you mark yourself as someone who is either ignorant of the facts or a political partisan looking to score points. Either way, approaching the issue from that angle destroys any hope of shining a light on the breakdowns in security and fixing those before more American diplomats get killed. Shouldn't that be the real aim of these investigations rather than a political witch hunt? Stevens asked for more security because Benghazi was a dangerous place. Maybe it wouldn't have prevented their deaths, but the fact remains he knew it was dangerous, asked for help, was refused, and he ended up dying from what he feared would happen. And help could have been provided. Again it might not have saved them, but at least they would have made an attempt. That they didn't, it was close to election time, and they used a ridiculous story like the internet video (do you believe that?) tells me that politics played a large part in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 I think they need to hire a defense attorney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 (edited) That's bull ****. The only ones making this political are folks like you. It's not enough that 4 people died serving their country, but because it happened while a Dem was running for reelection the GOP made the tragedy political while claiming it was the other side doing so. The irony of your statement is so thick you can't even see it yourself. This is the issue that should be debated, not the political aftermath which has no bearing on the realities of the event. so its ok because every other regime did it? Maybe most of them were before my time, I am only 14 or something... But really, brah? Really? I learned in 5th grade that if everyone jumps off a bridge doesn't mean its a good idea. A good idea might be you doing that alone so you can see my point Because that is probably the stupidest reasoning possible? What does every other regime have to do with the enlightened Obama? He fugged up. It happens. In most cases real men grab their nuts and admit it. Instead the dude tucked his and tried to walk a tightrope. Edit. Tablet autocorrect Also, by no means am I telling you to jump off a bridge to kill yourself. I am telling you to jump off a bridge because once you take that small last step you can't undo the weight of the world coming. That's exactly what the WH did in their lies and mishandling. They brought it on themselves. Made a bad political move on a gambling stake and lost big. Edited April 3, 2014 by jboyst62 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 Sources on ground during Benghazi attack slam ex-CIA boss Morell’s testimony by Adam Housley Fox News Former deputy CIA director denies being part of politically driven Benghazi cover-up as his ties to Hillary Clinton are revealed by David Marttosko Daily Mail Resigned from CIA last year, to join a 'consulting' firm run by associate of Mrs. Clinton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 Morell, a now-retired career intelligence official who served under six presidents and was with George W. Bush in Florida on the day of the 2001 terrorist attacks, has the credibility to validate the conspiracy theories Republicans have been floating about Benghazi. But instead, he used the rare public session to rebut the accusations. “I never allowed politics to influence what I said or did — never,” he testified. “None of our actions were the result of political influence in the intelligence process — none. . . . The White House did not make any substantive changes to the talking points, nor did they ask me to.” He called the talking points — which turned out to be wrong — “the best available information at the time.” Did he have a conversation with anyone at the White House about the nature of the talking points? “No, sir.” His thoughts on the false information Susan Rice gave on TV the Sunday after the attacks? “What she said about the attacks evolving spontaneously from a protest was exactly what the talking points said.” How about the claims that somebody in the administration told the military not to assist on the night of the attack? “I am aware of several requests by CIA for military support that night, and those requests were honored and delivered.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-latest-benghazi-hearing-is-another-republican-flop/2014/04/02/80fa7936-bab7-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 http://www.washingto...1245_story.html I see why you've been laughing at this whole thing because it's sure some funny ****. I've never laughed so hard at the fact that four people are still dead. That's a !@#$ing knee slapper! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-latest-benghazi-hearing-is-another-republican-flop/2014/04/02/80fa7936-bab7-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html god. You think this is funny. Man, have you heard about 9/11. Thousands killed. And some of them just plain civilians, too! The Bush admin really pulled off a funny bit there. I am chuckling now just thinking about it. Wiring all those explosives up, shooting down the plane. Freaking hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 Sources on ground during Benghazi attack slam ex-CIA boss Morell’s testimony by Adam Housley Fox News Former deputy CIA director denies being part of politically driven Benghazi cover-up as his ties to Hillary Clinton are revealed by David Marttosko Daily Mail Resigned from CIA last year, to join a 'consulting' firm run by associate of Mrs. Clinton Lol!! Grasping at straws. Just pathetic. You clowns need to let this phony scandal go and admit you built a mountain out of a moll hill for nothing more than political reasons. Using the deaths of these Americans for shameless political posturing, just awful I see why you've been laughing at this whole thing because it's sure some funny ****. I've never laughed so hard at the fact that four people are still dead. That's a !@#$ing knee slapper! god. You think this is funny. Man, have you heard about 9/11. Thousands killed. And some of them just plain civilians, too! The Bush admin really pulled off a funny bit there. I am chuckling now just thinking about it. Wiring all those explosives up, shooting down the plane. Freaking hilarious. Oh look, Dumb and Dumber are angry. You two idiots were all about this "scandal" from the start. Played like flutes by the propaganda. Fools! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 Lol!! Grasping at straws. Just pathetic. You clowns need to let this phony scandal go and admit you built a mountain out of a moll hill for nothing more than political reasons. Using the deaths of these Americans for shameless political posturing, just awful Oh look, Dumb and Dumber are angry. You two idiots were all about this "scandal" from the start. Played like flutes by the propaganda. Fools! hey Einstein, you may wish to refrain from calling other people dumb, idiots, or fools when in the same post you can't even spell 'mole hill'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 Oh look, Dumb and Dumber are angry. You two idiots were all about this "scandal" from the start. Played like flutes by the propaganda. Fools! You know you sure do like to make **** up about me. Please link to where I've been all about this scandal from the start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 Oh look, Dumb and Dumber are angry. You two idiots were all about this "scandal" from the start. Played like flutes by the propaganda. Fools! As long as I am dumb and Jim is dumber I am ok with this! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 As long as I am dumb and Jim is dumber I am ok with this! I've got news for you................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 I've got news for you................. Yeah? Is it funny? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 Yeah? Is it funny? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 No. You have a rather evil post count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 No. Well, I'd rather not hear it. This thread is about Benghazi. We need to keep it humorous. Gatorkid might get bored, otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts