Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 5 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
Old 05-09-2014, 07:53 PM   #121
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 16,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Hmmm. Let's see....Oh yes! Obama told the world this guy was responsible for what happened in Benghazi, and simultaneously invited every Islamic nutjob to take a shot at him. What do you call that, high-quality representation? Is that Obama's idea of serving this guy?
So did Bush invite "every Islamic nutjob to take a shot" at the serviceman who shot the Koran? One example of many...

Quote:
Oh. So you're saying Bush was weak on American exceptionalism, and apologized to jihadists? I thought he was a war-hawk? Can't have it both ways...I love it. Spence says Bush was soft with Muslims...
Actually, it's you that can't have it both ways.

Quote:
Obama blamed the guy for the uprising. The uprising led to the deaths. If A caused B, and B caused C, ...am I going too fast?
Obama didn't blame the guy for the uprising, he simply said he doesn't represent the beliefs of America.

And Obama was right. The video producer doesn't represent the beliefs of the vast majority of Americans.

Quote:
Most sociologists say that 1% or 2% of Muslims worldwide support jihadists. There's what, 1.5 billion Muslims in the world? Borrow a calculator, do the math. Sorry if that fact doesn't suit your insipid agenda, but it's a fact nonetheless. If you have other facts (such as claiming that gun ownership in Canada isn't all that high, or the Hilary really did get shot at), well, we are all ears...please enlighten me...
If you want to equate a 1% or 2% of Muslims worldwide supporting jihadists with "millions and millions of Muslims resort (ing) to barbaric violence" then you probably don't understand jihad.

As for gun ownership in Canada, the stats speak for themselves.

-spence
spence is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2014, 09:45 PM   #122
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,819
Let me try it again. The administration's talking points gives us two options:

"To underscore that these protests are rooted in an internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."

Since the Benghazi attack was not rooted in the video, it was, using the administrations own talking point, rooted in "a broad failure of policy."
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2014, 01:47 PM   #123
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,619
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Let me try it again. The administration's talking points gives us two options:

"To underscore that these protests are rooted in an internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."

Since the Benghazi attack was not rooted in the video, it was, using the administrations own talking point, rooted in "a broad failure of policy."
and since the Benghazi attack was not rooted in the video, all of the administration's talking points were willful and concerted lies, underscored by the memo...
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2014, 03:55 PM   #124
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Let me try it again. The administration's talking points gives us two options:

"To underscore that these protests are rooted in an internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."

Since the Benghazi attack was not rooted in the video, it was, using the administrations own talking point, rooted in "a broad failure of policy."
Spence, you claim that Obama did not blame the video for the attack.

Look at that quote that Detbuch put up, and tell us if you want to recant. You have fun wit that.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2014, 06:21 PM   #125
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 16,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Spence, you claim that Obama did not blame the video for the attack.

Look at that quote that Detbuch put up, and tell us if you want to recant. You have fun wit that.
I love it, make something up then challenge me to deny it.

Brilliant!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
spence is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2014, 06:39 PM   #126
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
I love it, make something up then challenge me to deny it.

Brilliant!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Your direct quote...

"Obama didn't blame the guy (who made the video) for the uprising, he simply said he doesn't represent the beliefs of America.

Am I still making it up that you claim that Obama didn't blame the video for the attack?

It's getting boring, Spence.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2014, 06:43 PM   #127
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 16,885
Read everything again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
spence is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2014, 07:14 PM   #128
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 16,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Let me try it again. The administration's talking points gives us two options:

"To underscore that these protests are rooted in an internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."

Since the Benghazi attack was not rooted in the video, it was, using the administrations own talking point, rooted in "a broad failure of policy."
One item I do think has to be given to the Administration is that the talking points were in context of the broader situation which included Benghazi. This can be inferred by reading it.

By the time Rice when on TV there were some 1/2 dozen violent protests at American missions all related to the video. We still don't know if the Benghazi attack was completely independent of the video either. Certainly it wasn't completely about the video but it's still quite possible the timing of the attack was inspired by the violence in Cairo or perhaps taken as an opportunity...as was reported at the time.

I'd be willing to wager Benghazi has had more government investigative focus than even 9/11. Think about that for a while, it really puts everything in perspective.

-spence
spence is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2014, 10:23 PM   #129
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
One item I do think has to be given to the Administration is that the talking points were in context of the broader situation which included Benghazi. This can be inferred by reading it.

How do the talking points operate in the context of Benghazi? It is Benghazi which is in question now. And it was Benghazi which was the BIG story, the main context, at the time the talking points were made.

And the "broader situation" included a broader context than the focus on the video. There was a long train of events over a long period of time that were all part of the "broader situation" involving radical Islam, jihad of the sword, terrorism, Al Qaeda, and more, which spread into various violent "events" worldwide. And the leaders of those events were partly responsible for the "Arab spring" and were certainly about coopting it and using it as the means to further advance their hegemony in Muslim lands. The administration's talking points certainly wanted to "infer" that its policy was steadfastly and competently addressing the broader picture. They were intended to "infer" that there was this isolated glitch in the administration's lead, from behind, against terrorism and the rise of democracy in the Middle East. It had killed Bin Laden, Al Qaeda was decimated, on the run, ineffectual. The temporary glitch in the picture was the result of a video, not failure of policy.


By the time Rice when on TV there were some 1/2 dozen violent protests at American missions all related to the video. We still don't know if the Benghazi attack was completely independent of the video either.

Again, it is vital to make the distinction of how the video was related to protests. If the relationship was strict, if the video in itself was the cause of the violent protests, if they were the "spontaneous" expressions of offended Muslims acting on that offense, and not instigated by Al Qaeda or its affiliates, it might be "inferred" that administration policy was not at fault. But if the video was a tool of "extremists" of the Al Qaeda brand (or even taken by them "as an opportunity" as you say), then failure of policy was to be "inferred." And certainly, the Benghazi attack was not "rooted" as the memo put it, in the video, but was carried out by those with whom the administration was not concerned. It was a la the memo, a "broader failure of policy"

Certainly it wasn't completely about the video but it's still quite possible the timing of the attack was inspired by the violence in Cairo or perhaps taken as an opportunity...as was reported at the time.

It was completely about a well coordinated terrorist attack by Al Qaeda affiliates. There was no protest before the attack, or remonstrations against the video during the attack. the influence of the video, if any, was very peripheral and unnecessary. If it had any influence, it is far more likely that influence was fueled by Al Qaeda brand rather than spontaneous reaction. The timing . . . 9/11.

I'd be willing to wager Benghazi has had more government investigative focus than even 9/11.

And yet all that "government investigative focus" didn't retrieve the memo. It was by the limited but singular focus of a private group. To a great extent, the government investigations were not focused. They went in different tangents by different investigators, many of whom were not "investigating" but rather were obstructing. A lot of it was blather. On the other hand, much was found that was damning of the administration's handling and policy. And, like Watergate, it took time to develop in a meaningful way. Watergate took 2 years to culminate in Nixon's resignation. There was no talk from the Democrats about "old news" or moving on. They persisted, and with the help of media, and private investigating, they got their man. Most of the current media are not as adversarial to Obama as they were to Nixon, so the outcome for Obama will probably minimal. For Hillary--who knows?

Think about that for a while, it really puts everything in perspective.

-spence
Ah . . . the "perspective" thing. The "context of the broader situation," as you put it, can lead to a broader "perspective." If one wants to get out of the little pigeon hole of protecting Obama and Hillary, and being willfully blind to their manipulation of "context" and "perspective" in order to achieve and maintain power, one might perceive wrongheaded policies which endanger us.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2014, 01:52 AM   #130
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,619
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
One item I do think has to be given to the Administration is that the talking points were in context of the broader situation which included Benghazi. This can be inferred by reading it.

By the time Rice when on TV there were some 1/2 dozen violent protests at American missions all related to the video. We still don't know if the Benghazi attack was completely independent of the video either. Certainly it wasn't completely about the video but it's still quite possible the timing of the attack was inspired by the violence in Cairo or perhaps taken as an opportunity...as was reported at the time.

I'd be willing to wager Benghazi has had more government investigative focus than even 9/11. Think about that for a while, it really puts everything in perspective.

-spence
these are pretty much the same lies Carney told that had the press corps incredulous

as Detbuch pointed out the only "protest" occurring prior to Benghazi was the Cairo incident which was "announced on August 30 by Jamaa Islamiya, to release Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and Egypt's prime minister Hesham Kandil said "a number" of protesters later confessed to getting paid to participate"........, so much for spontaneous protests....

"On June 29, newly elected Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi pledged to free Omar Abdel-Rahman, who he described as a political prisoner.[31] On August 2, Egypt formally requested that the United States release Abdel-Rahman.[32]

On August 30, according to Eric Trager, al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya called for a protest at the US embassy in Cairo on September 11 to demand the release of Abdel-Rahman.[33]

On September 8, El Fagr reported on a threat to burn down the US embassy in Cairo unless Abdel-Rahman was released. Raymond Ibrahim described this threat as a unified statement by Egyptian Islamic Jihad and al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya.[34]

A DHS report released on September 11 and reported by Fox News on September 19 indicated that a web statement incited "sons of Egypt" to pressure America to release Abdel-Rahman "even if it requires burning the embassy down with everyone in it." The Web statement was apparently posted on an Arabic-language forum on September 9, two days before the attack, and was in reference to the embassy in Egypt." I guess the administration didn't see it coming

also.......... On September 10, 2012, at least 18 hours before the attack in Benghazi, al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri released a video to coincide with the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks in 2001, which called for attacks on Americans in Libya in order to avenge the death of Abu Yahya al-Libi in a drone strike in Pakistan in June 2012.[5] It is uncertain how much prior knowledge of the attack al-Zawahiri had, though he praised the attackers on October 12, 2012 in another video. oops...missed that one too, wait.... maybe this is the video to blame??...no, can't be, Carney said Behghazi had nothing to do with 9/11 or US policy

the others occurred after Benghazi...after the Administration blamed the video for Cairo and Benghazi, neither of which were rooted in the video....

Carney did say this...

"In his press briefing on September 14, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that "we don't have and did not have concrete evidence to suggest that this [the Benghazi attack] was not in reaction to the film."lie[183] He went on to say: "There was no intelligence that in any way could have been acted on to prevent these attacks. lie It is – I mean, I think the DNI spokesman was very declarative about this that the report is false. The report suggested that there was intelligence that was available prior to this that led us to believe that this facility would be attacked, and that is false lie ... We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack lie. The unrest we've seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive. And while the violence is reprehensible and unjustified, it is not a reaction to the 9/11 anniversary that we know of, or to U.S. policy." lie...probably just a coincidence...the timing and all

if you read through the list of other "protest" following Benghazi...

Yemen
In Yemen, the protests started on September 13, after Abdul Majid al-Zindani, a cleric and former mentor to Osama bin Laden, called on followers to emulate the attacks in Egypt and Libya. probably nothing to do with 9/11 and/or US policy

Greece
About 600 Muslim protestors in Athens tried to march on the U. S. Embassy, but were stopped by Greek police. No injuries were reported, although three cars were damaged and three storefronts were smashed. The protestors chanted "we are all with Osama". probably nothing to do with 9/11 and/or US Policy

Sudan
Also after Friday prayers on September 14, protesters started fires and tore down the flag in the German embassy. Demonstrators hoisted a black Islamic flag at the German embassy, which read in white letters "there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his Prophet".[53] Although it was initially assumed that the attacks were to a target of opportunity related to the protests against the film Innocense of Muslims, the incident is now reported as a long-planned deliberate attack against Germany preachers encouraged the riots by referring to Germany's defending Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard in 2012 during the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy; well, at least they had a good reason


read that and think about it for a while "no intelligence" might be accurate...just in a different "context"...
frankly...offering or accepting the idea that a cartoon or an obscure film has more to do with this than US Policy, perception of US Policy and/or the Anniversary of 9/11 is just mind-bogglingly dishonest..."seems" as though the subsequent protests and violence "were rooted in" the success of the Benghazi attackers and the reaction of the administration(which essentially dumped fuel on the fire with their little video effort)...that is very troubling..

some movie reviews...

The New Republic said that the film "includes not a single artistically redeemable aspect" with "atrocious" directing, "terrible" sets and acting consisting of "blank eyes and strained line readings".[109] The New York Daily News called it an "obscenely inept vanity project" that is "far beneath any reasonable standard of movie-making."[110] Muslim filmmaker Kamran Pasha stated, "I am of the opinion that it is a film of questionable artistic merit....


the administration may have been the movie's biggest promoter if you think about it Spence

Last edited by scottw; 05-12-2014 at 03:10 AM..
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2014, 09:50 AM   #131
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,766
Wasn't another Benghazi report just released? How many more to go?

Did this one find anything?
PaulS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2014, 10:23 AM   #132
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 16,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
Wasn't another Benghazi report just released? How many more to go?

Did this one find anything?
Yes, it discovered that the CIA and military acted properly and found no wrong doing by the Whitehouse.

But just because three investigations now have found the same thing shouldn't stop the Senate from wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on a fourth when it switches hands. There is still an election in 2016 after all.
spence is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2014, 10:38 AM   #133
buckman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
buckman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Yes, it discovered that the CIA and military acted properly and found no wrong doing by the Whitehouse.

But just because three investigations now have found the same thing shouldn't stop the Senate from wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on a fourth when it switches hands. There is still an election in 2016 after all.
And 2016 might possibly include Hillary. But what does that matter
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
buckman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2014, 10:46 AM   #134
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 16,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman View Post
And 2016 might possibly include Hillary. But what does that matter
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
What does it matter?
spence is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2014, 11:04 AM   #135
buckman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
buckman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
What does it matter?
Well at a minimum she was once again proved incompetent and evasive at excepting responsibility for mistakes that were made. But incompetence alone doesn't make her a standout in this administration. What does amaze me about you Spence ,and Paul is to the degree of acceptance for incompetence that you have. You're almost gleeful , maybe even boastful , that incompetence was behind the death of four heroes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
buckman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2014, 11:27 AM   #136
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,766
I guess both Lindsey Graham and buckman aren't too happy with the report:

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, has some harsh words for the recently released Benghazi report, led by his own party.

"I think the report is full of crap," Graham told Gloria Borger on CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday.

Graham, who has maintained a critical voice in the Benghazi controversy over the past two years, says it's "garbage" that the report finds no members of the Obama administration lied to cover up what happened in Benghazi.

"That's a bunch of garbage," Graham said. "That's a complete bunch of garbage."

To conclude, Graham says the findings of the report prove the House Intelligence Committee "is doing a lousy job policing their own."

Asked why the Republican chairman of the Intelligence Committee would be "buying a bunch of garbage," Graham simply replied, "good question."

Graham said he is going to take another look at the findings of the report.

"I'm going to do a hard review of this."
PaulS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2014, 11:33 AM   #137
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman View Post
What does amaze me about you Spence ,and Paul is to the degree of acceptance for incompetence that you have. You're almost gleeful , maybe even boastful , that incompetence was behind the death of four heroes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
That is so sleazy
PaulS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2014, 11:35 AM   #138
buckman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
buckman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
I guess both Lindsey Graham and buckman aren't too happy with the report:

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, has some harsh words for the recently released Benghazi report, led by his own party.

"I think the report is full of crap," Graham told Gloria Borger on CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday.

Graham, who has maintained a critical voice in the Benghazi controversy over the past two years, says it's "garbage" that the report finds no members of the Obama administration lied to cover up what happened in Benghazi.

"That's a bunch of garbage," Graham said. "That's a complete bunch of garbage."

To conclude, Graham says the findings of the report prove the House Intelligence Committee "is doing a lousy job policing their own."

Asked why the Republican chairman of the Intelligence Committee would be "buying a bunch of garbage," Graham simply replied, "good question."

Graham said he is going to take another look at the findings of the report.

"I'm going to do a hard review of this."
Maybe all the untruths that were flying around at the time, orchestrated by the administration, is what the good Senator meant .
Oh that's right ,they just didn't know what they were talking about over and over again....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
buckman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2014, 11:51 AM   #139
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 16,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman View Post
Well at a minimum she was once again proved incompetent and evasive at excepting responsibility for mistakes that were made. But incompetence alone doesn't make her a standout in this administration. What does amaze me about you Spence ,and Paul is to the degree of acceptance for incompetence that you have. You're almost gleeful , maybe even boastful , that incompetence was behind the death of four heroes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
If there's any glee it's that a wasteful partisan witch hunt is once again called out for what it is. I guess the fact that those 4 Americans have been so shamelessly used by some doesn't even occur to you.

Regarding your last comment, that's pretty low. I guess when you've got nothing left it's all you've got.
spence is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2014, 04:19 PM   #140
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Yes, it discovered that the CIA and military acted properly and found no wrong doing by the Whitehouse

But just because three investigations now have found the same thing shouldn't stop the Senate from wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on a fourth when it switches hands. There is still an election in 2016 after all.
Then again, it "seems" that the report is, what you have disapproved of in other posts, "sloppy." And inconsistent. And the investigation was not as wholehearted as it should have been.

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/12/0...hazi-part-iii/
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright 2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com