Obama should have been impeached for LYING and if Christy is lying about not knowing what happened then he should be impeached too....or maybe he should get a pass as did Obama.....LMAO
|
I read your last post. You changed what you said about the statement from her not caring about who was responsible to whether she was concerned with the motivation. She said "It is our job to figure out what happened". Don't you think that would cover the motivation?
I hate to say it but this is why I usually ignore your posts. |
OOPS!.....if christy is only misleading then he should be forgiven
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
-spence |
Quote:
If you need any help cleaning your screen I'll send someone over. Know a lot of people down there... -spence |
Quote:
You are also choosing not to comment on the fact that the administration blamed the attack on an American citizen. "I usually ignore your posts" It seems it would be more accurate to say that you ignore the sections of my posts that make your side look bad. |
Quote:
"fixed in the balanced of its membership" There are 8 members who caucus with the Democrats, and 7 members who caucus with the GOP. 8, I believe, is greater than 7. The bi-partisan report sems to refute Nebe's claim that the link to AL Queda was fabricated by a reporter. |
Quote:
"I'm not sure that really matters. A lot of fairly honest people are guilty of sensationalizing things along the way." So Spence, your idea of "beating something to death", is to say that "it doesn't matter", and that's that? Whether she is honest, or a blatant liar, "doesn't really matter" to you, as long as she's liberal. |
Quote:
-spence |
Quote:
I don't think she was trying to mislead anyone, she just conflated two stories. Flip a few words around and it all make sense. -spence |
Quote:
One does not accidentally misremember getting shot at by snipers. Spence, was she referring to another time when she actually got shot at? Or has she never been shot at? If she claimed she got shot at in one place, but it actually happened in another place, that's one thing. If she has never been shot at, but claimed she has, that's something else. If one has been shot at nineteen times, but they claim it was twenty times, that's one thing. If one has been shot at zero times, but they claim it happened once, that's another thing entirely. It's not something you have trouble distinguishing between if it happened zero times or one time. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
|
You should read the NYT article again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
|
You should also read the senate report then. It doesn't place blame on the admin for any manipulation of talking points and doesn't discount the idea that the video was a factor.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
And I don't know what you mean by "what's been established by both parties over the past decades". You call it more "progressive than what we have today." So is that it? Democrats progressive--Republicans progressive light? Well from the way the Repubs keep giving, after sputtering complaints, in to Dem demands, I think that is what we have today. I don't know how that has changed over the past decades, its even got more "progressive." I would think you should be happy with the way it is. |
Quote:
And hasn't there just been some declassified testimony by a general that the administration was told pronto, before the administration kept blaming the video, that it was a terrorist attack, not a response to a video? Not hearing much about it. Maybe just dreamed it. |
Quote:
Quote:
"It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attacks or whether extremist group leaders directed their members to participate. Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day's violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video, suggesting that these and other terrorist groups could conduct similar attacks with little advance warning." This follows the initial evidence that the video was a catalyst exploited by heavily armed extremists. Didn't Obama use the word "terror" just the following day? What may be new in the report is that it goes deeper into into a potential military response finding there were no feasible options. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
|
Quote:
NY Times- "This dovetails with an investigation by The Times, which found that the attack was triggered in part by spontaneous anger over an anti-Islamic video. " REALLY???? there is no evidence of this Senate Report "Contrary to many press reports at the time, eyewitness statements by U.S. personnel indicate that there were no protests at the start of the attacks. On September 18,2012, the FBI and CIA reviewed the closed circuit television video from the Mission facility that showed there were no protests prior to the attacks. Other reporting indicated there were no protests. Fot lC Qpt~ined closed circuit television video from the Mission facility and there were credible eyewitness statements of U.S. personnel on the ground that night As a result of evidence from closed circuit videos and other reports, the IC changed its assessment about a protest in classified intelligence reports on September 24, 2012, to state there were no demonstrations or protests at the Temporary Mission Facility prior to the attacks." the administration and state even walked this back HUFF PO- "The deadly September attack on a U.S. consulate in Libya was not precipitated by an anti-American protest, as had originally been reported, the State Department disclosed Tuesday night. According to reports from ABC and the Associated Press, the State Department now acknowledges that "gunfire and explosions near the front gate" were the first signs of danger precipitating the attacks that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. This revelation stands in contrast to the story originally reported by the Obama administration and others, who claimed that a protest against the anti-Islam film "The Innocence of Muslims" outside the American consulate was co-opted by violent extremists." Huff Po-WASHINGTON — The State Department said Tuesday it never concluded that the consulate attack in Libya stemmed from protests over an American-made video ridiculing Islam, raising further questions about why the Obama administration used that explanation for more than a week after assailants killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans. what we are/were supposed to believe I guess is that a bunch of guys were sitting around a 10 inch black and white tv in their hut one afternoon watching al jezeera's coverage of protests breaking out across the arab streets one of them yelled...mohammeds!!....this our opportunity...we are deeply angered over an anti-islamic video which we have never seen........ during the commercial break we will coordinate an uncoordinated but very well armed assault on the loosely guarded compound of the great satan that is just down the street....quick...gather all of the mortars that you can carry....they will never expect that we are coming....what's that you say???? this is September the 11th!!!??? why this is truly a message for allah!!! make haste my brothers....we must kill everyone inside and burn the infadel's evil outpost to the ground... Andy McCarthy had a great article regarding the Cairo rioting that was supposed to be caused by the video as well... "As I said above, there is a kernel of truth to the claim that the video factored into the Cairo rioting. On September 9, two days before, the Grand Mufti publicly denounced “the actions undertaken by some extremist Copts who made a film offensive to the Prophet.” This denunciation led some of the Cairo hooligans to inveigh against the video. It was, however, only one item in a broad list of grievances Islamic supremacists lodged against the United States. Many of the rioters focused on demanding the release of the Blind Sheikh and other jihadists. More to the point, many of them expressed their support for al Qaeda. They gleefully chanted, “Obama, Obama, there are still a million Osamas!” They tore down the Stars-and-Stripes from our flagpole, replacing it with al Qaeda’s notorious black jihad banner. The claim that the Cairo rioting was over the video traces from the fact that the State Department – specifically, the U.S. embassy in Cairo – put out nauseating statements in the hours before the rioting started, deriding “the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims,” and indignantly condemning “religious incitement.” Then, in the days after both the Cairo rioting and the massacre in Benghazi, President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, Ambassador Susan Rice, White House spokesman Jay Carney, and other administration figures repeatedly cited the video as the catalyst. The Obama-friendly press, naturally, ran with this spin: the video caused the rioting at the embassy in Cairo, which seamlessly spilled over into neighboring Libya, where a similar “protest” spontaneously erupted into deadly violence." http://www.nationalreview.com/node/348125/print |
bringing this back around to Christy...Jonah Goldberg has a great perspective about this in a recent column...
WHAT DIFFERENCE IT MAKES 'And that leaves out the <sarcasm> little </sarcasm> issue of Benghazi. The Senate Intelligence Committee report is at once a fascinating and utterly banal artifact of Washington. It identifies a huge mistake. It denounces said mistake. It concludes that the mistake could have been prevented. But nobody is responsible for the mistake. The bureaucracy did it! Okay, you ask, who was in charge of that bureaucracy? Shut up, they explain. Liberal pundits and reporters are utterly contemptuous of the idea that the Benghazi scandal will be a problem for her. Eugene Robinson writes today that the Senate Intelligence Report is a total exoneration of the administration. This is bizarre on many levels. It’s also hard to square with the fact that the White House is livid with the Democrats who signed on to the report (or so a couple of Hill folks have told me). Why get furious at an exoneration? The lack of curiosity about the report from the mainstream media is really remarkable. Why, exactly, aren’t reporters camped outside Clinton’s home demanding a reaction? I mean I understand that she didn’t close a couple of lanes on the George Washington Bridge, but four murdered Americans, including a U.S. ambassador, is important, too. Maybe if she had joked about putting traffic cones in front of the embassy on September 11?' |
Quote:
The initial reporting was that there was a protest, the video camera recordings etc... weren't available until later. The talking points were based on information at the time, and the Senate report found there was no effort by the Administration to cover up or manipulate the process. Rushing a process doesn't make it a scandal. -spence |
Quote:
Also, the Ambassador appears to have had a lot of control over the security situation and seemed comfortable with local militias providing security at the Mission. From what I've read at least the problems were communication within the CIA and State that prevented the deteriorating situation from being fully understood by even those beneath the Secretary. Many regard Clinton as a very strong and positive Secretary of State. Does the event in Libya make her unfit to serve? I don't think anyone has connected those dots yet. Quote:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/21/world/...unter-protest/ For some reason people keep forgetting to include this fact in their assessment of the "situation on the ground." Ultimate, a complex and confused situation like this will never be clear once it's politicized. -spence |
Quote:
|
Quote:
"Somewhere Chris Stevens is smiling . . . This is what we knew . . . about Libya." Apparently, we didn't "know," at least other than some Pollyanna types, what we needed to know . . . about Libya. |
Quote:
This is an area that I think the Times report gets right. What does it mean to be an "affiliate?" What does alQaeda mean anymore? It appears as though there were some links with individuals but there doesn't look to be much that's material. Just some of the more extreme militant factions branding themselves with a label. Quote:
Quote:
http://armedservices.house.gov/index...D-2DB9B53C3424 Like this... Quote:
Quote:
-spence |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
What she said was: Quote:
What I don't understand is, what prohibits a terror attack's timing from being linked to furor over a video? Isn't it quite possible they've been thinking of an attack for some time and the events around the region -- there was more than just Egypt -- gave them some inspiration? Ham's remarks about no specific intel on the attack would certainly back this thinking. Also, isn't it quite believable that a bunch of heavily armed, battle hardened veterans of the civil war would be able to assemble rapidly and coordinate an attack with RPG's and accurate small arms fire as Ham describes? Hell, that's exactly what they had been doing against the Libyan army for the past year. Didn't the civil war actually start in Benghazi? -spence |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:03 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com