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:

 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 10-25-2015, 08:59 PM   #151
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
[QUOTE/Spence]:
When you look at what Clinton herself said on Sept 12th:

"Yesterday, our U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya was attacked. Heavily armed militants assaulted the compound and set fire to our buildings. American and Libyan security personnel battled the attackers together.

Makes it sound as if there was adequate security personnel (even though there was not), but it was simply overwhelmed by unnamed "armed militants "(even though on the same day she said it was al-Qaeda affiliates). And the American security, if I recall correctly, was in a different compound and didn't arrive in time. And the Libyan security, if I recall correctly, mostly did not put up a sustained fight, some even joined in the attack on the consulate.

"Four Americans were killed. ...

Yeah, the Ambassador, an aide, and two American soldiers who were not part of the consulate security. Had there been the adequate American military security needed in a dangerous place (a hotbed of terrorism as I once phrased it and which you poo-pooed) things would have ended differently. As Jim in CT has pointed out several times, other countries consulates had pulled out of Libya because of the danger. And Hillary just didn't know about any of the 600 requests for more security. And that was, of course, not Hillary's fault, but that of Ambassador Stephens for not calling her directly. Her function as Secretary of State sure reeks of competence here, eh?. She actually believed al Qaeda was on the run, a non-factor, the Libyans were pro-American and would protect the consulate,(after all, it was she that called for the toppling of Qadaffi and intervention in Libya and the grateful Libyans would befriend us not attack us), yada yada yada. All was well and secure . . . nothing to be unduly concerned about. Her underlings assured her that all was well. Other consulates that pulled out were simply uninformed or cowards.

"This is an attack that should shock the conscience of people of all faiths around the world. We condemn in the strongest terms this senseless act of violence, and we send our prayers to the families, friends, and colleagues of those we’ve lost. ...There will be more time later to reflect, but today, we have work to do.

This sounds like a prelude to some revelation of what really happened. And how could she say it was a senseless act of violence if she knew on the same day that she said this, that it was a well-planned al Qaeda attack? There was a great deal of sense about it. It was September 11. There were warnings of it. It was a soft target. It was what al Qaeda is partially about--the removal of American presence from Muslim countries. Too bad that she had to wait till the day late "Today" to have work to do.

"There is no higher priority than protecting our men and women wherever they serve.

It seems that the priority was not high enough in Benghazzi. It only became higher, for her, after it was too late to competently provide in the first place.

"We are working to determine the precise motivations and methods of those who carried out this assault.

Aha! The "precise" motivations. We get from the prelude to motivation to what it precisely is . . .

"Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet.

Bingo! There's your motivation. The video. Aside from the "some" named here, no others are referred to. It could be argued that the "some" implies others. But its a nice trick not to name others and leave this particular lump of motivation to stand alone with all that implies.

"America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation.

What does religious tolerance have to do with a "senseless act of violence"?

"But let me be clear—there is no justification for this, none. Violence like this is no way to honor religion or faith.

A response to a video, "spontaneous" or otherwise (though spontaneous would conveniently make it less forseeable ergo less preventable) which maligns Islam would be a sort of 'honoring" of Islam. But al Qaeda violence is meant more to impose Islam, not merely to "honor" it. (Subliminal hint--it was the video!)

"And as long as there are those who would take innocent life in the name of God, the world will never know a true and lasting peace."

Or those who would take an innocent life under any name. Quite a cheap platitude to make her sound like a high-minded drum-major for peace who would never take evil for granted . . . and would certainly protect us as well as the Benghazzi consulate from such evil

[QUOTE/Spence]I don't see much inconsistency.[QUOTE]

You would if you really tried. But you're too deep in the tank to see.

The vagueness of her statement and its obvious implications are inconsistent with the surety of her comments to her daughter and to the Egyptian minister. And the several platltudinous remarks are meant to separate her from culpability or incompetence re Benghazi.

Here is another article re Hillary and Benghazi:

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/201.../?subscriber=1

Last edited by detbuch; 10-25-2015 at 10:45 PM..
detbuch is offline  
Old 10-26-2015, 04:33 AM   #152
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
you'd think if anyone, Spence, would recognize Hillary using Spence Speak

and I'll add/remind of this....he later statement to the families of the dead Servicemen...

she said, "We are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of your son"
scottw is offline  
Old 10-26-2015, 08:39 AM   #153
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
you'd think if anyone, Spence, would recognize Hillary using Spence Speak

and I'll add/remind of this....he later statement to the families of the dead Servicemen...

she said, "We are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of your son"
Correct. And she said this to a grieviung father, AFTER she told the PM of Egypt that she knew it had nothing to do with the video. And to top it all of, th eguy who made the video, who she threw under the bus, is an American citizen.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 10-26-2015, 10:42 AM   #154
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Correct. And she said this to a grieviung father, AFTER she told the PM of Egypt that she knew it had nothing to do with the video. And to top it all of, th eguy who made the video, who she threw under the bus, is an American citizen.
Jim, do you know what "time" is?
spence is offline  
Old 10-26-2015, 11:34 AM   #155
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Jim, do you know what "time" is?
I believe I do.

Do you know what a "lie" is?

You keep giving her a pass because she was possibly receiving conflicting intelligence about the suspected cause of the attack. But her actions spit in the face of your theory that she wasn't being deliberately dishonest. If she came out publicly and said "we are receiving conflicting information, we are trying to sort it out", no sane person would fault her for that. And in that case, your defense would have merit.

But that's not what she did. Not by a long shot.

In public, she kept blaming the video. The only possible explanation for why she stuck to that story (especially in light of the fact that in private communications, she conisstently called it a planned terrorist attack) is that it painted her in the best possible light.

Spence, her statements weren't always based on the last intelligence reports she receivced. They were always crafted to make it seem like she could not have foresen what happened, therefore she is not at fault.

That's good enough for you. We'll see if it's good enough for people who aren't liberal zealots. I think it may be. But I know I'm right, her actions leave no room for doubt. I'm sorry if that's disturbing to you.

Her statement to the grieving dad at the airport (we'll get the filmmaker who did this!), came after her private emails in which she said she knew it wasn't the video. Do you expect us to believe that at first she thought it was a terrorist attack, then a few days later, it looked like it was the video?
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 10-26-2015, 11:39 AM   #156
Sea Dangles
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Sea Dangles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,718
Oh, did Jim just say he knows he is right again??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Sea Dangles is offline  
Old 10-26-2015, 11:42 AM   #157
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Her statement to the grieving dad at the airport (we'll get the filmmaker who did this!), came after her private emails in which she said she knew it wasn't the video. Do you expect us to believe that at first she thought it was a terrorist attack, then a few days later, it looked like it was the video?
Yes, because of time...

In between her communications and airport meeting the CIA changed it's analysis on the event shifting from a planned attack to one motivated by the video...which was what Rice's public remarks a few days later were based on.

This was well documented during the Senate investigation.
spence is offline  
Old 10-26-2015, 11:56 AM   #158
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Yes, because of time...

In between her communications and airport meeting the CIA changed it's analysis on the event shifting from a planned attack to one motivated by the video...which was what Rice's public remarks a few days later were based on.

This was well documented during the Senate investigation.
I see. So it's all a function of timing, that her public statements blamed the video, while her private statements claimed it was a planned attack. She was only regurgitating what she had been last told. And the fact that every one of her public statements painted a picture that absolves her of any responsibility, is just coincidence?

What good fortune for her!

Spence, when she testified "what difference does it make", was that also from a CIA report? Or was she still trying to avoid admitting that she had every opportunity to prevent these deaths?

I guess CIA told her to ask what difference it makes.

The answer, of course, is this...if it was a spontaneous response to a youtube video, she is not to blame. If it was a planned attack that other nations foresaw but we didn't, she looks like a moron. A moron with blood on her hands.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 10-26-2015, 11:58 AM   #159
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
I see. So it's all a function of timing, that her public statements blamed the video, while her private statements claimed it was a planned attack.
You're not paying attention.
spence is offline  
Old 10-26-2015, 12:01 PM   #160
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,190
Sort of like how the story of the drone hit on the Dr w/o Borders changed.
PaulS is offline  
Old 10-26-2015, 12:11 PM   #161
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
Sort of like how the story of the drone hit on the Dr w/o Borders changed.
Totally different scenario. The GOP isn't trying to destroy the credibility of the US Military.

Also Jim, I'd appreciate it if you'd start calling her Mrs. President.
spence is offline  
Old 10-26-2015, 12:31 PM   #162
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Totally different scenario. The GOP isn't trying to destroy the credibility of the US Military.

Also Jim, I'd appreciate it if you'd start calling her Mrs. President.
True, we have to concede that the GOP is out to get her.

That aside. Spence, why didn't she just say "we are trying to figure it out, it's a fluid situation at the moment"?

Can you support your claim that every time she flip-flopped, it's because there was another intelligence report that said "forget what we told you 5 minutes ago, we changed our mind, now we think it was caused by _____".

I'll call her FCOTUS, that's the closest I can get. And I don't know that she's beatable.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 10-26-2015, 01:41 PM   #163
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
That aside. Spence, why didn't she just say "we are trying to figure it out, it's a fluid situation at the moment"?
I think there's a lot of public pressure to get as much information out as possible, which is why the official statements did tend to have a qualifier. Even Rice's often touted remarks were not stated as absolute and final.

Quote:
Can you support your claim that every time she flip-flopped, it's because there was another intelligence report that said "forget what we told you 5 minutes ago, we changed our mind, now we think it was caused by _____".
If you look at the CIA testimony and how the information evolved and the timeline compared to Administration remarks it does align pretty well.

This was all laid out in detail during the bi-partisan majority findings of the Senate investigation.
spence is offline  
Old 10-26-2015, 01:45 PM   #164
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Yes, because of time...

In between her communications and airport meeting the CIA changed it's analysis on the event shifting from a planned attack to one motivated by the video...which was what Rice's public remarks a few days later were based on.

This was well documented during the Senate investigation.
that explanation is about as dumb as telling parents of Servicemen slain by terrorists in Libya that you are going to go get those responsible by arresting some obscure video maker who was nowhere near the attack.....

please stop Spence...if you are stupid enough to believe this crap it doesn't mean others are


Jim...it's not a function of timing...it's a function of LYING....the problem with LYING is that you have to keep LYING
scottw is offline  
Old 10-26-2015, 02:02 PM   #165
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
that explanation is about as dumb as telling parents of Servicemen slain by terrorists in Libya that you are going to go get those responsible by arresting some obscure video maker who was nowhere near the attack.....

please stop Spence...if you are stupid enough to believe this crap it doesn't mean others are


Jim...it's not a function of timing...it's a function of LYING....the problem with LYING is that you have to keep LYING
You are right, it doesn't come close to passing the common sense smell test. Every private communication, she seems to say it was a planned attack. Every pubkic statement, she blames it on the video, thus denying any fault oin her part. I don't claim to be non-partisan here, as I think she is truly a wretched woman. But putting that aside, there's only one possible conclusion, that she lied when it suited her, to make it appear that the attack was not something that could have been foreseen, therefore she's not at fault.

Let's say that the attack was prompted by the video (no one believes that, let's just say). If Hilary thinks the guy who made the video is criminally responsible for the actions of people (on the other side of the world) who get upset by its message, then why doesn't she think Al Sharpton is similarly responsible for people who have been murdered after he works up crowds into a violent, white-hating rage?

I'd LOVE to see someone ask her that.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 10-26-2015, 02:36 PM   #166
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
that explanation is about as dumb as telling parents of Servicemen slain by terrorists in Libya that you are going to go get those responsible by arresting some obscure video maker who was nowhere near the attack.....

please stop Spence...if you are stupid enough to believe this crap it doesn't mean others are


Jim...it's not a function of timing...it's a function of LYING....the problem with LYING is that you have to keep LYING
Have you read the bi-partisan Senate report?
spence is offline  
Old 10-26-2015, 02:48 PM   #167
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Every private communication, she seems to say it was a planned attack. Every pubkic statement, she blames it on the video, thus denying any fault oin her part.
Every is pretty specific, I'd like you to report back on how many times of each...
spence is offline  
Old 10-26-2015, 09:18 PM   #168
justplugit
Registered Grandpa
iTrader: (0)
 
justplugit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: east coast
Posts: 8,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
....the problem with LYING is that you have to keep LYING
She must have one heck of a memory to remember her lies, she wouldn't
need a memory if she told the truth.
" Oh what a terrible web we weave when at first we try to deceive."

" Choose Life "
justplugit is offline  
Old 10-27-2015, 04:15 AM   #169
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Have you read the bi-partisan Senate report?
do you know what "time" is?

it's awfully critical of Clinton and State and they didn't have all of the information to consider that's come out since....

maybe we should have another?

keep telling yourself the lies are ok....
scottw is offline  
Old 10-27-2015, 10:46 AM   #170
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Also Jim, I'd appreciate it if you'd start calling her Mrs. President.
"Mrs. President." Is that a Freudian slip? Wasn't she sort of a Mrs. President for Bill when he was President? I think the more standard formal title would be Madam President. Or that would have been so before gender expansion and required normalization. Both Mrs. and Madam are "sexist"--as well as being too restrictive to differentiate between the number of genders now existing.
detbuch is offline  
Old 10-27-2015, 12:45 PM   #171
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
That depends on the context of what the current thinking was when the email was sent.
The context of whose current thinking? There were various contexts of current thinking. Pick and choose the one which best suits your "current" thinkings at various contexts of time? Oh, the preferred current thinking at this moment of the day is planned terrorist attack nothing to do with the video--oh, oh, might better go with the more preferred current thinking at this later moment of the day being video had something to do with attack . . . Oh, uh, better go public with the context which emphasizes the video. . . oh, better to slant both ways . . . be definitive sounding but vague enough to have plausible deniability.

What a jumbled mess of gibberish.


I'd note the formal investigations into the general matter found that communication to Congress and the public was consistent with the state of the intelligence at that time.[/QUOTE]

The reported state of intelligence was conflicting at various times. It was later resolved into a more coherent state which crystalized the perception of the attack as planned and coordinated by al Qaeda affiliates, not a spontaneous protest because of the video--which seemed, ironically, to be its initial perception, if we are to believe Hillary's first "context of current thinking."

And the formal investigation, which you cling to, the Senate committee report on Benghazi, found State Dept. extremely culpable for lack of security for the compound. It blistered the State Dept. for not providing proper security even though violence was on the rise there--violence, much not connected to the video but which began preceding it and connected to other issues dear to the organized al Qaeda terrorists.

"The committee found the attacks were preventable based on extensive intelligence reporting on terrorist activity in Libya-- to include prior threats and attacks against Western targets--and given the known security shortfalls at the U.S. mission."

The report which you cling to did not have the information now available because the administration and its Secretary of State withheld it, only to dribble it out much later, bit by inadequate bit, and still not entirely forthcoming.

So the Report was wrong in its assessment that the attack appeared not to be planned. It was wrong about the significance of the video, and, ultimately, in my opinion, on placing the blame on underlings rather than the boss. You have said that it was a systemic problem, which Hillary, after the attack and too late, was going to fix. Wasn't Hillary part of the system? The leading part?

And isn't it peculiar that the CIA, which seems to have been giving conflicting and erroneous reports (gee, haven't we heard that criticism of the CIA even before Benghazi) bolstered its security at its compound only a mile away, but State did not do so for the embassy compound? Sure, blame it on Chris Stevens who turned down offers from General Ham, or on some other underling, even though hundreds of requests for more security were given--just, reputedly, never got to Hillary. It seems, from this picture, that Hillary as a Sec. State was being so in fundamentally disconnected name only. She is portrayed as the head of something that goes about its business without regard to her, she being a mere functionary who can be replaced by another without consequence. If it does well, she gets the credit. If it effs up, she "takes responsibility" but not the blame.

But she would fix the "systemic problem" by finally becoming an active part of the system. She would become truly the head of the organization, delve into its workings and fix its problems--which is what the head of most, at least non-political, organizations, are expected to do before crises happen, not after, which is why they are paid so much and should be fired or downgraded or replaced, not promoted to higher levels when things go wrong. But then, in the big corporate world, which Hillary purports also to want to fix, the same insane reward for failure is often seen.

So what was Hillary's role in the Benghazi tragedy. She would take responsibility, but not the blame. She would root out the cause and exact the cures and justice. Granted, even though "the contexts of current thinking" were supposedly rapidly shifting back and forth from two scenarios (not correctly so, if even true) she would, according to Spence, "look" for ways to prosecute the video maker. Even though his video did not violate the law.

Why would she do something so despotic? OK . . . OK, I know that Progressives do have a despotic mindset. But this is almost too egregious, even for a Progressive. Perhaps there is a broader context of thinking which is more current than day to day, but is a fact in History. Mind you, She is so good at deflecting, obfuscating, dodging questions, filibustering to fill up "current contexts" of time-restricted investigations as in her just concluded appearance before Congress, that she appears (to those who want her to appear so) . . . as Presidential. There has been this context of thinking that has been current for many years about her. She has been grooming herself for over a decade to appear Presidential. It was laughably ironic when Spence tried to put down Cruz for grandstanding in order to put himself in the potential limelight of being a Presidential candidate. But Hillary's grandstanding is just peachy with Spence. Even in spite of (or because of) all the lying and manipulation, her grandstanding is "Presidential." We should begin referring to her as Mrs. President.

So why would she promise to do something as psychopathically despotic as trying to criminally prosecute someone for a crime he has not committed? What is the fact in history which could shift the "current context of thinking" about her regarding responsibility for Benghazi, or regarding her being Presidential?

Who is ultimately responsible for the presence of al Qaeda affiliates who were terrorizing Libya and who killed the four Americans at the Benghazi compound? Was the video responsible for all that, and for the chaos, terror, killing, occurring in Libya now. Who steered the administration into deposing Qaddafi? Qaddafi warned what would happen if he was eliminated, which is what is happening now.

Hillary did that.

She was so enamored of the idea of an Arab Spring. But was so ignorant of Arab Consequence. George Bush was discredited as stupid, incompetent, even a war criminal, for toppling Saddam.

Better to blame it all on a video and "systemic failure" and bad intel, certainly not on policy failure as advised in an administration internal memo--and Presidentially go after the video maker. It would not be Presidential to look like a Clinton in Bush clothing.

Last edited by detbuch; 10-27-2015 at 10:39 PM..
detbuch is offline  
Old 10-27-2015, 12:49 PM   #172
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
"Mrs. President." Is that a Freudian slip? Wasn't she sort of a Mrs. President for Bill when he was President? I think the more standard formal title would be Madam President. Or that would have been so before gender expansion and required normalization. Both Mrs. and Madam are "sexist"--as well as being too restrictive to differentiate between the number of genders now existing.
I agree, Madam President has a better ring to it.

To be honest I'm sort of looking forward to watching Jim's head explode
spence is offline  
Old 10-27-2015, 01:10 PM   #173
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
I agree, Madam President has a better ring to it.

To be honest I'm sort of looking forward to watching Jim's head explode
You love him that much, do you?
detbuch is offline  
Old 10-27-2015, 02:25 PM   #174
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
I agree, Madam President has a better ring to it.

To be honest I'm sort of looking forward to watching Jim's head explode
I think she'd be a big improvement over the incumbent...and Bill would be an even bigger improvement as First Spouse, compared to the angry, entitled, spoiled brat we have now.

At this point, I'd love to see all republicans stop voting. Give liberals the reins to take over everything completely, so that when the inevitable happens, we all are forced to concede (everyone except you, at least) that liberalism doesn't work. You'll be the last holdout.

Spence, if liberal economics has any validity to it...why is CT in the shape it's in? Or Mass, Illinois, you name it? Is it because they aren't liberal enough? Are taxes still way too low? Are houses too cheap? Is it that we haven't been generous enough to public labor unions? I'd be genuinely curious to hear your take on that. Especially as regards CT, which ought to be the best state in the union - lots of educated folks, high average salaries, beautiful state. Yet thanks precisely to the agenda you embrace, it's almost impossible to be middle class here, the cost of living is crushing, our debt is going to cause incomprehensible damage, and we are one of the VERY few states that are losing population.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 10-28-2015, 08:50 AM   #175
Fly Rod
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Fly Rod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Gloucester Massachusetts
Posts: 2,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Also Jim, I'd appreciate it if you'd start calling her Mrs. President.
Now UUUU RRRRR hitting below the belt....

"When its not about money,it's all about money."...
Fly Rod is offline  
Old 10-30-2015, 03:07 AM   #176
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post

I agree, Madam President has a better ring to it.

To be honest I'm sort of looking forward to watching Jim's head explode
Inmate # 43678 has an even better ring to it...

President Trump and Vice President Palin have full permission to go wild with Executive Orders and the Republican Congress may engage in any legislative Tom Foolery that they might invent on the fly in order to pass their agenda items.... so that we may watch your head explode be careful what you support, condone and wish for...payback can be a beeotch
scottw is offline  
Old 10-30-2015, 06:52 AM   #177
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
The vagueness of her statement and its obvious implications are inconsistent with the surety of her comments to her daughter and to the Egyptian minister. And the several platltudinous remarks are meant to separate her from culpability or incompetence re Benghazi.
At the time she made both of those remarks the CIA had definitively and incorrectly stated it was a well planned attack. The detail from the Senate report noted a non-analyst changed the analyst's initial findings which wasn't realized until the next day...where is was corrected...and the summary which involved the video was sent to State for Rice's TV tour.

I'm still perplexed why some can't fathom that the video protests in Cairo and other cities inspired the militants to attack a US presence they'd been itching to get at for months...
spence is offline  
Old 10-30-2015, 06:53 AM   #178
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
Inmate # 43678 has an even better ring to it...
I wouldn't get your hopes up.

Quote:
President Trump and Vice President Palin have full permission to go wild with Executive Orders and the Republican Congress may engage in any legislative Tom Foolery that they might invent on the fly in order to pass their agenda items.... so that we may watch your head explode be careful what you support, condone and wish for...payback can be a beeotch
I like the idea of a Trump-Palin ticket
spence is offline  
Old 10-30-2015, 07:19 AM   #179
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post

I'm still perplexed why some can't fathom that the video protests in Cairo and other cities inspired the militants to attack a US presence they'd been itching to get at for months...
it's not perplexing...they didn't need video motivation as you stated, they'd been itching.....which is why blaming the video and it's source is stupid....you answered your own perplexion

but Spence, if a left wing group produces a video depicting Tea Party members in all sorts compromising and unsavory acts and members of a Tea Party group get offended and ransack a DNC office...maybe kill a few people...are you willing to blame the video and would you want the video makers jailed? will it perplex you if people blame the video and makers rather than the Tea Party members for the damage and death?
scottw is offline  
Old 10-30-2015, 07:27 AM   #180
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
it's not perplexing...they didn't need video motivation as you stated, they'd been itching.....which is why blaming the video and it's source is stupid....you answered your own perplexion
Then why didn't they attack in scale before? Why wasn't it well planned? Why did many attackers cite the video as their motivation?

Sorry but you can't take the video out of the equation.
spence is offline  
 

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 10:02 AM.


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