Political BS: Benghazi

Political BS: Benghazi (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

joether -> Political BS: Benghazi (5/10/2013 12:23:16 PM)
Source of Discussion I'm sure we have had this discussion in different forms regarding the details of it. So why must House Republicans....WASTE....more taxpayer dollars 'discussing', 'fact-finding', and 'examining' an issue that is all about scoring political points for 2016, an nothing about good government? Just imagine for the moment how much money, time, and media coverage their mouth piece FOX News has pushed this topic into the minds of our fellow Americans. Yes, four guys died in another country. But wait, those four guys KNEW they were in a dangerous place to begin with. They knew at any time, they could be killed for any number of ways and reasons. One can not protect against every single possible situation, but that's why they are TRAINED to handle those kind of situations. Yet, how many House Republican 'inquires' have we seen to match the scale, depth, and length of the Benghazi moment, to that of Sandy Hook? How many little kids died, in a place that should have been....SAFE...? Those kids were not in a dangerous place, or forced there by the government. Yet, more than four times the number that died in Benghazi happened within our borders. Of our own country! House Republicans will not go into length on this issue since it would bring the very people whom give them cash for re-election: The Gun Industry and the NRA. Nor would they hold their own people to any ounce of accountability or responsibility because it would heavily effect them in the next election. So how is this possibly 'legit', 'ethical', and above all 'a good use of taxpayer money'?

muhly22222 -> RE: Political BS: Benghazi (5/10/2013 6:07:24 PM)
Why are Republicans investigating the Benghazi incident? The simple answer...there's some evidence of a cover-up, and they want to get to the bottom of it. And until they do, neither you nor anybody else can tell us where that is, or who is/was involved. Also, an analog from the Bush years...remember Valerie Plame? The CIA agent who was outed? There was significant Democratic investigation into that...was that a waste of time and money? Nobody died in that scandal. That's the difference between the Sandy Hook shooting and the Benghazi incident. Sandy Hook was a terrible tragedy, but there's no indication that the government was involved, or that there was any sort of cover-up done. There are indications that something of that nature happened in Benghazi, that a cover-up was orchestrated from somewhere in the administration. I'm not saying that Obama was involved, though if he was, I'd certainly like to know that. I'm not even saying Hillary was involved, though the same goes for her. But it seems like something fishy happened, and I absolutely want Congress to investigate that, because there isn't another body that can.

Arturas -> RE: Political BS: Benghazi (5/10/2013 6:27:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: muhly22222 Why are Republicans investigating the Benghazi incident? The simple answer...there's some evidence of a cover-up, and they want to get to the bottom of it. And until they do, neither you nor anybody else can tell us where that is, or who is/was involved. Also, an analog from the Bush years...remember Valerie Plame? The CIA agent who was outed? There was significant Democratic investigation into that...was that a waste of time and money? Nobody died in that scandal. That's the difference between the Sandy Hook shooting and the Benghazi incident. Sandy Hook was a terrible tragedy, but there's no indication that the government was involved, or that there was any sort of cover-up done. There are indications that something of that nature happened in Benghazi, that a cover-up was orchestrated from somewhere in the administration. I'm not saying that Obama was involved, though if he was, I'd certainly like to know that. I'm not even saying Hillary was involved, though the same goes for her. But it seems like something fishy happened, and I absolutely want Congress to investigate that, because there isn't another body that can. I don't understand. These were simple peasants angry about a YouTube video and our Armed Forces, including our Quick Reaction Forces, The Mediterranean Fleet, Navy Seals and such, were all off that day on previously scheduled vacations and besides, the unarmed Predator Drone circling overhead beamed HD pictures real time that were suspected of being nothing more than a hack by the Chinese so we really did not know what was going on at the time, you know, "We Can Do It" and all does not count in this situation so there's nothing to see here. Besides, it was Bush's fault anyway.

dcnovice -> RE: Political BS: Benghazi (5/10/2013 6:56:07 PM)
quote: I don't understand. Well, if you say so . . . [:)]

Owner59 -> RE: Political BS: Benghazi (5/10/2013 7:30:53 PM)
All these arm-chair warriors who don`t know jack-shit, tell`n us how they would have kicked ass soooo much better........... are getting laughable....... My gut tells me this is bush-guilt-derived angst fed by a daily dose of fox-bull-shit and fake outrage..... I mean....bush and his pin-heads really did trick Americans into getting killed(4409 of them) with their premeditated Iraq lies.... They really do have blood on their hands and it irks them. They think somehow...that pretending the President was similarly acting in bad faith....will mitigate their culpability in those 4409 needless deaths.

TheHeretic -> RE: Political BS: Benghazi (5/10/2013 7:45:05 PM)
When the Obamabots are out in force like this, you know they must be scared. The desperate effort to spin the discussion back to their comfortable talking points in the wake of the ABC piece might be some good cardio for them. The bit though, where the White House is ready to chuck Hillary under the bus on who said what about editing those talking points? Priceless!

Owner59 -> RE: Political BS: Benghazi (5/10/2013 8:04:28 PM)
Shake`n in our boots rich.....[:D] We`re just responding to the lunatic fringe..... If you look up "respond' in the dictionary...you`ll see the term indicates something that follows....not something that precedes... I have enjoyed Colbert`s and Stewart`s lampooning of your party tho.......Thanks much buddy[;)] Don`t change rich...please....don`t change..... ~~~~~~~~~~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/08/colbert-benghazi-outrage_n_3238507.html?utm_hp_ref=comedy This is reminiscent of Clintons blowjob scandal......when toward the end,any time the cons made another ridiculous charge(rape?!)against President Clinton,his poll numbers went up and the gop`s went down..... It went from ridiculous to surreal when some cons actually suggested that Clinton himself was "planting" the bad stories,thinking his poll numbers would go up.....[8\|] I mean......what kind of retards come up with thoughts like that? Fuck`n psychopaths is who.....[:D]

YN -> RE: Political BS: Benghazi (5/10/2013 8:08:52 PM)
The real fact is that the Obama administration bowed to their European betters and reluctantly joined (in fact did the heavy lifting) for the thieves Sarkozy and Cameron. Now with Libya in a Saudi and Qatari sponsored Salafi chaos (the French Embassy has also been attacked, and the English have issued warnings regarding the health and well being of their citizens and is now cutting their governmental personnel in Libya. If I were Canadian I would worry as well, that hospital bombings are now reported to be done by Canadian aircraft, and the information is from and published by Arabic sources.

Owner59 -> RE: Political BS: Benghazi (5/10/2013 8:11:09 PM)
Oh and rich....will you be the 1st con to break ranks and tell us what the cover up was? We`re still wanting to know those inconsequential details.....when you get a chance....[8\|] Thanks in advance good buddy..... This question BTW,is open to anyone to answer.

Owner59 -> RE: Political BS: Benghazi (5/10/2013 8:16:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: YN The real fact is that the Obama administration bowed to their European betters and reluctantly joined (in fact did the heavy lifting) for the thieves Sarkozy and Cameron. Now with Libya in a Saudi and Qatari sponsored Salafi chaos (the French Embassy has also been attacked, and the English have issued warnings regarding the health and well being of their citizens and is now cutting their governmental personnel in Libya. If I were Canadian I would worry as well, that hospital bombings are now reported to be done by Canadian aircraft, and the information is from and published by Arabic sources. Can you imagine though....actual Americans,elected officials and other republican nit-wits, abusing these tragedies and conflicts for political gain, against an American president? That would be the very definition of un-American.....

DomKen -> RE: Political BS: Benghazi (5/10/2013 8:23:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: muhly22222 Also, an analog from the Bush years...remember Valerie Plame? The CIA agent who was outed? There was significant Democratic investigation into that...was that a waste of time and money? Nobody died in that scandal. We don't know that but the CIA has heavily hinted that they lost assets due to Plame being outed.

TheHeretic -> RE: Political BS: Benghazi (5/10/2013 8:40:57 PM)
FR, because a huge percentage of this thread doesn't get past the filters I have set. Before I think of myself as "following" a news story, the rule of thumb is generally that I need to be reading 5 or 6 differently sourced reports a day, getting familiar with the big picture background, and kicking the subject around in conversation with people I can agreeably disagree with. By my standards, I'm not "following" the hearings regarding the efforts by the White House to cover their asses by writing big fat lies and sending people out to tell them. I did however, come across one piece today that fits pretty well with my overall impression of the current doings in Washington, and where it is going. Why the Benghazi Cover-Up is Not the Next Watergate quote: Here we go. The House Oversight Committee hearings on Benghazi begin today, and do you know what we’re going to learn? We’re going to learn that 0bama and Hillary Clinton were informed almost immediately that the attack on the Benghazi consulate was being waged by Islamic jihadists connected to al Qaeda. Then we’re going to learn that 0bama and Hillary immediately went into protective mode … protecting 0bama’s reelection efforts and Hillary’s chances for 2016. 0bama had a narrative to protect. His diplomatic efforts in the Middle East had brought about a new era of cooperation and peace, right? Al Qaeda was on the run and all but decimated, right? Hillary? She had incompetence to cover up. Almost immediately she came to understand that this consulate had requested additional security and protection, and that her chain of command had said no. Now she had four dead Americans, including one dead Ambassador to deal with. The 3:00 am phone call came, and her phone was turned off.

YN -> RE: Political BS: Benghazi (5/10/2013 9:04:12 PM)
Well. as in normal in such cases, the full and unpainted facts of the affair will leak out in dribbles over the next 5 decades.

Owner59 -> RE: Political BS: Benghazi (5/10/2013 9:11:13 PM)
Oblivious Fox Dolts Miss Irony of Asking Oliver North’s Opinion of Alleged Benghazi ‘Cover-Up’ http://aattp.org/oblivious-fox-dolts-miss-irony-of-asking-oliver-norths-opinion-of-alleged-benghazi-cover-up-video/ [:D] [image]http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2009/Rogues/North-mugshot.jpg[/image]

TheHeretic -> RE: Political BS: Benghazi (5/10/2013 9:22:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: YN Well. as in normal in such cases, the full and unpainted facts of the affair will leak out in dribbles over the next 5 decades. Nah. Not this. It ain't that big. The part I personally find most horrifying in this mess was carried out in the full light of day, cameras rolling, with both the President and Secretary of State bragging about it - we locked up a guy for making a movie that wasn't politically correct. Nobody on any side much seems to give a shit about that part. Now the full scope of the green energy boondoggle? That's one that will take 50 years, and the people watching the news then will still be paying off the debt from it

YN -> RE: Political BS: Benghazi (5/10/2013 9:44:12 PM)
The undercurrents in the case of Libya run far deeper then this minor up-swell that is currently visible. The more interesting question is how and why the Saudi/Qatari funded, trained and supported Wahhabi/Salafi jihadists which France, the UK, and the US (FUKUS for short) supported militarily with their "revolt" are now openly attacking the English, French and United States in Libya. These actions are planned, men do not decide to attack an embassy out of boredom.

TheHeretic -> RE: Political BS: Benghazi (5/10/2013 10:12:30 PM)
Love the acronym, but "grand conspiracy" and "just for the hell of it" are not the only options on the list. While all the militant branches were quite happy to have western airpower clear them a path to revolution, the Islamic fundamentalist fucktard wings most certainly did not want the western influence sticking around. Our Bengazi facilities were allowed to become a (relatively) soft target, and that was exploited.

YN -> RE: Political BS: Benghazi (5/10/2013 10:30:46 PM)
If a "grand conspiracy" or not, that supposedly "foreign" AQ elements were able to infiltrate into a large and factionalized city; conduct a heavy attack lasting hours upon hard targets; and then ex-filtrate through a "patchwork" of armed militia controlled areas in a heavily militarized and factionalized nation with an apparent impunity demonstrates either remarkable luck or a large amount of local and/or external support.

TheHeretic -> RE: Political BS: Benghazi (5/11/2013 12:14:23 AM)
The biggest unanswered question my mind about Libya has nothing to do with the Stephens attack, but rather, why did the President choose to take personal and exclusive ownership of the US role in the revolution. He could have easily had a bipartisan resolution authorizing the support we gave. He could have had it immediately for the asking, after bin Laden, but instead, we got a new doctrine of Presidential power - the remote control exclusion to the bit of the Constitution where it says Congress declares war (and if you want to see hypocrisy, just wait until a future Republican President decides to use that). It simply makes no sense at all.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Political BS: Benghazi (5/11/2013 2:48:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic The biggest unanswered question my mind about Libya has nothing to do with the Stephens attack, but rather, why did the President choose to take personal and exclusive ownership of the US role in the revolution. He could have easily had a bipartisan resolution authorizing the support we gave. He could have had it immediately for the asking, after bin Laden, but instead, we got a new doctrine of Presidential power - the remote control exclusion to the bit of the Constitution where it says Congress declares war (and if you want to see hypocrisy, just wait until a future Republican President decides to use that). It simply makes no sense at all. It makes perfect sense, Rich. As soon as a President with an R after his/her name, if those of us critical of Obama's use of the "remote control exception" aren't out front in our criticism, our pointing out of the hypocrisy will be drowned out, by the hordes who support a D President, with allegations of our hypocrisy. They can do no wrong, even when they do.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125