Update on Benghazi

Update on Benghazi (Full Version)

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

Message

Phydeaux -> Update on Benghazi (11/3/2013 5:14:08 PM)
So. Two years after the Benghazi attack. Two years after the president promised to get to the bottom of this, and to pursue those that perpetrated it. Two years after the US was informed who did it and two years after photographers for the Times took pictures of one of the suspects openly drinking coffee at a cafe. Two years - and the United States still hasn't put the suspects on the Rewards for Justice program. Why is that, do you suppose? News story out Oct 27 finally reported what I knew the day after the attack. That the attack was a deliberate, sophisticated planned Al-qaide operation. That there was no mob inspired by a video. Interestingly, two of the organizers, Jamal and Chalabi were in custody. One in Pakistan, one in Egypt. Interestingly, the United states has not attempted to extradict either of these individuals to the US. One of them was inextricably released. Why is that? http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/questions-they-won-t-answer_765692.html

EdBowie -> RE: Update on Benghazi (11/3/2013 6:08:53 PM)
Repeating the same old tinfoil hat conspiracy theories is an 'update', how?

stef -> RE: Update on Benghazi (11/3/2013 6:17:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie Repeating the same old tinfoil hat conspiracy theories is an 'update', how? That's how the Tea Party rolls.

tammystarm -> RE: Update on Benghazi (11/3/2013 7:28:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stef quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie Repeating the same old tinfoil hat conspiracy theories is an 'update', how? That's how the Tea Party rolls. I'm sorry. What does the Tea Party have to do with this post? I can see how Obama's failures are brought to focus here, but they are his failures and not those of an imaginary entity you call the "Tea Party". I believe the only real tea party was that one that triggered our fight for independence from an overbearing and deceptive government when this great nation was founded.

tammystarm -> RE: Update on Benghazi (11/3/2013 7:38:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie Repeating the same old tinfoil hat conspiracy theories is an 'update', how? I read the article and did not see any "theory", only historical facts and a few new ones, like Obama is getting all his appointments halted since he has unfinished business yet unattended to, like Benghazi, where our ambassador was horribly killed under the eyes of a watching drone.

tammystarm -> RE: Update on Benghazi (11/3/2013 7:40:23 PM)
I cannot help but notice there is a lot this man, Obama, does not know and has not dealt with.

Phydeaux -> RE: Update on Benghazi (11/3/2013 8:43:51 PM)
The update: Two years after - and we still haven't attempted to place them on the equivalent of a most wanted list.

Phydeaux -> RE: Update on Benghazi (11/3/2013 8:46:48 PM)
I shouldn't post sleep deprived. Its only been 14 months - not two years. Sept 11, 2012. Noted.

TheHeretic -> RE: Update on Benghazi (11/3/2013 9:48:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tammystarm I'm sorry. What does the Tea Party have to do with this post? I can see how Obama's failures are brought to focus here, but they are his failures and not those of an imaginary entity you call the "Tea Party". I believe the only real tea party was that one that triggered our fight for independence from an overbearing and deceptive government when this great nation was founded. The Tea Party has nothing whatsoever to do with any of this, but the assertion is freshman Alinsky. A simple question, with an obvious answer, always gets hidden from, in the stupid arguements about the range of F-16s. The question is; "why was help so far away?" And the obvious answer is; "because our whole military posture and state of readiness in the Med wasn't anywhere near what it needed to be." The President chose to personally own the toppling of Kuhdaffy, and then he took his eye off the ball. It seems to be a bit of a habit with him.

tweakabelle -> RE: Update on Benghazi (11/3/2013 11:04:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic The President chose to personally own the toppling of Kuhdaffy, and then he took his eye off the ball. It seems to be a bit of a habit with him. Actually when it comes to taking eyes off the ball in the Middle East, the previous President takes the ball, set, game and match. Bush's 'achievements' - eg. taking the US eye off the Osama bin Laden ball or the Afghanistan ball, and disastrously choosing to play in Iraq instead - set an unenviable standard that will be difficult to match, let alone better. Obama's Middle Eastern achievements are pitifully small, but he hasn't embroiled the US in another total disaster yet (fingers crossed!), despite several opportunities to mess things up thoroughly in the Bush style.

TheHeretic -> RE: Update on Benghazi (11/3/2013 11:14:35 PM)
And here we have sophomore Alinsky.

Phydeaux -> RE: Update on Benghazi (11/3/2013 11:32:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic The President chose to personally own the toppling of Kuhdaffy, and then he took his eye off the ball. It seems to be a bit of a habit with him. Actually when it comes to taking eyes off the ball in the Middle East, the previous President takes the ball, set, game and match. Bush's 'achievements' - eg. taking the US eye off the Osama bin Laden ball or the Afghanistan ball, and disastrously choosing to play in Iraq instead - set an unenviable standard that will be difficult to match, let alone better. Obama's Middle Eastern achievements are pitifully small, but he hasn't embroiled the US in another total disaster yet (fingers crossed!), despite several opportunities to mess things up thoroughly in the Bush style. You know, when we talk about previous presidents taking their eye off the ball.. why don't you make your defense of the president that Jefferson took his eye off the ball. Its about as relevant. Or you could take Hillaries standard. You know, what difference does it make now anyway. They died weeks ago! So either Hillary is right - nothing past a few weeks is relevent - in which case - why are you blaming bush? Or she's wrong.. In which case lets investigate benghazi, shall we?

mnottertail -> RE: Update on Benghazi (11/4/2013 4:08:49 AM)
FR: Pretty much nutsacker grade school Goebbels.

thishereboi -> RE: Update on Benghazi (11/4/2013 5:33:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic The President chose to personally own the toppling of Kuhdaffy, and then he took his eye off the ball. It seems to be a bit of a habit with him. Actually when it comes to taking eyes off the ball in the Middle East, the previous President takes the ball, set, game and match. Bush's 'achievements' - eg. taking the US eye off the Osama bin Laden ball or the Afghanistan ball, and disastrously choosing to play in Iraq instead - set an unenviable standard that will be difficult to match, let alone better. Obama's Middle Eastern achievements are pitifully small, but he hasn't embroiled the US in another total disaster yet (fingers crossed!), despite several opportunities to mess things up thoroughly in the Bush style. Alrighty then, as long as he isn't as bad as the last guy, it's all good [8D]

TheHeretic -> RE: Update on Benghazi (11/4/2013 5:48:18 AM)
FR And with Ron's arrival, we have sophomoric Alinsky. [;)]

mnottertail -> RE: Update on Benghazi (11/4/2013 6:29:09 AM)
We have sub-ameobic Geobbels. There is nothing resembling Alinsky anywhere on this thread. Most of the people on this thread have no idea who that is, and I can say without fear of evidence to the contrary, NOBODY, save myself, has read any of Alinsky's works. (I would insert a caveat for stef, but the odds are 9:1 against, and pick em). Rhetorically radical 'conservatives' with their shopworn jingoes that are easily proven to be mendacious as well as inept day in and day out propaganda notwithstanding, would have no more clue of Alinsky than they do Adam Smith or conservativism. You don't effect change by just running off at the mouth in hysteria and fantasy, as nutsackers invariably do, and that......according to Alinsky. Pick up a book and read it sometime (he only wrote two I am aware of), don't regurgitate the stupid shit that cretins like Limbaugh are blowing out their asses. BTW, William F. Buckley, that old school flaming commie, called him an 'organizational genius' and openly admired him. Dick Armey gave copies of *Rules for Radicals* to nutsacker gauleiters. So, nothing at all unAmerican or loathsome in Saul Alinsky, even by nutsacker standards.

TheHeretic -> RE: Update on Benghazi (11/4/2013 8:34:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail There is nothing resembling Alinsky anywhere on this thread. Most of the people on this thread have no idea who that is, and I can say without fear of evidence to the contrary, NOBODY, save myself, has read any of Alinsky's works. (I would insert a caveat for stef, but the odds are 9:1 against, and pick em). Sorry about that bubble, Ron, but I first read Rules for Radicals 20 odd years ago, disagree completely with his requirement that you can never admit to common ground with the enemy, and I give copies of the book as gifts to college kids I know. The subject of this thread is the lack of a response from the administration, in the aftermath of the Benghazi attack (which is a scandal, partly because of the lack of response while the Benghazi attack was going on). Attempts to mock the people raising the issue, and getting that uncomfortable issue lost in a whole other set of weeds, most certainly are the sort of tactics old Saul wrote about and encouraged. Just for the hell of, before I get tired of looking at the "gotta-potty dance" avatar, would you say that having no rapid response capability in a region as volatile as the Med coast of Africa was a sound policy and posture to safeguard United States interests in the region?

joether -> RE: Update on Benghazi (11/5/2013 1:37:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux So. Two years after the Benghazi attack. Two years after the president promised to get to the bottom of this, and to pursue those that perpetrated it. Two years after the US was informed who did it and two years after photographers for the Times took pictures of one of the suspects openly drinking coffee at a cafe. Two years - and the United States still hasn't put the suspects on the Rewards for Justice program. Why is that, do you suppose? News story out Oct 27 finally reported what I knew the day after the attack. That the attack was a deliberate, sophisticated planned Al-qaide operation. That there was no mob inspired by a video. Interestingly, two of the organizers, Jamal and Chalabi were in custody. One in Pakistan, one in Egypt. Interestingly, the United states has not attempted to extradict either of these individuals to the US. One of them was inextricably released. Why is that? http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/questions-they-won-t-answer_765692.html And its been many MORE years, since those THIRTEEN EMBASSY ATTACKS from the former George W. Bush Administration. Don't see conservatives of any kind holding Republicans fully accountable or responsible, yet they are 'ok' when it happens....ONCE....in two terms of President Obama. Can you say 'Hypocrites'? I know you can! Funny still that conservatives keep bring this issue up, even though for the most part its old news. Why? Because they have NOTHING TO TALK ABOUT that most Americans care. Four people dead, and that by itself is tragic; yet in the thirteen embassy attacks, nearly a hundred Americans were injured or killed. Where is the outcry? I'm ok if you want to hold President Obama responsible for that. BUT....only if you'll hold former President Bush accountable for each embassy attack.....AND....Republicans for NOT doing their job like they are so zealously pursuing with Benghazi. This is what, the third or fourth thread you have started on the topic in a few months? Give it a rest! Your not going to EVER hold the people you vote/desire in public office to even a billionth of the accountability and responsibility as you slam the President. So why should anyone give you any credibility of holding the President (whom you HATE) accountable?

joether -> RE: Update on Benghazi (11/5/2013 1:49:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tammystarm quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie Repeating the same old tinfoil hat conspiracy theories is an 'update', how? I read the article and did not see any "theory", only historical facts and a few new ones, like Obama is getting all his appointments halted since he has unfinished business yet unattended to, like Benghazi, where our ambassador was horribly killed under the eyes of a watching drone. Its a conservative conspiracy. Facts? How many of those 'weapons of mass destruction' did we find in Iraq? You know, the Bush administration told has had 'massive stockpiles' of 'biological, chemical, and maybe a few nuclear items'? We went there, searched EVERYONE and didn't find very much of anything. We used both our regular troops and reservists. We as a country extended their tours of duty. The whole thing last for six years. Cost this nation 4,000+ dead US Soldiers, 32,500+ wounded US Soldiers (most of them with long term injures), and 100K-600K dead civilians (depending on which report you wish to believe). It cost the nation $4 Trillion dollars of borrowed money. That's right, 1/4th of the current US Debt is called 'Iraq'. And how many of those 'massive stockpiles' of 'weapons of mass destruction' did we find to justify all this? Enough to fill seven Wal-Mart Superstores to the brim, right? The issue Republicans and their conservative lackeys have been pushing is straight up tinfoil hat conspiracy crap. The President's appointments are held up by the same people that not only shutdown the US Government but almost collapse the nation financially. After trying to hold the country over a barrel demanding we remove a law. You cant hold your party accountable for the HUGELY, MAJOR stuff. Why should we take you seriously when you want to hold the President over something that is minor in comparison? I want to hear the bullshit reasons. Prove to me that you are currently holding Republicans to the same level, if not TWICE, the accountability and responsibility as you slam the President.

joether -> RE: Update on Benghazi (11/5/2013 2:13:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic The subject of this thread is the lack of a response from the administration, in the aftermath of the Benghazi attack (which is a scandal, partly because of the lack of response while the Benghazi attack was going on). Attempts to mock the people raising the issue, and getting that uncomfortable issue lost in a whole other set of weeds, most certainly are the sort of tactics old Saul wrote about and encouraged. Funny how there was a "...lack of a response from the administration, in the aftermath of the THIRTEEN EMBASSY ATTACKS..." under the former President Bush. And how many conservatives demanded answers on each case? Not a single one! How many Congressional and conservative groups/organizations amassed huge gatherings, ads in papers, and speeches demanding President Bush to answer for EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM? Even go so far as to impeach him for any one of them? Not even a single time. Don't you find that just....a little....odd? Of course not, everyone was 'above board' in that administration, right? Bush and company was TOTALLY HONEST on things. So this is a HUGE amount of bullshit your shoveling.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875