Off Topic Messages

Re: Benghazi Cover-up

Mon Oct 29, 2012 6:34 am

elvissessions wrote:Obama knew Iran bordered the sea.

That put him well ahead of Romney.


He also knows that 'England' is not an island :twisted:

Re: Benghazi Cover-up

Mon Oct 29, 2012 6:48 am

JaneTLC wrote:
The military was told to Stand Down and not to enter the fight to save American citizens! As a result, our Ambassador was raped, sodomized, beaten, the safe room he was hiding in was set on fire, then he was dragged from that room and through the streets of Bengazi so the cowards who attacked and killed him could ridicule his death.


The above paragraph doesn't even make sense to me.


Looking for sense in what I just read (the part you've quoted) is the smallest of the problems. That was terrible - and if the part in bold is true... Well, where is the love for your neighbour, really?

If I told military not to save anyone's lives causing something like to happen, I would never, EVER have peace of mind again. And to believe that there are people out there who think that this is "common stuff" and don't care. :shock: Hard to believe that things like that are happening in our world.

Re: Benghazi Cover-up

Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:21 am

The idea Stevens was raped/sodomized is utterly unconfirmed, and I personally believe, given the chaos of the circumstances, highly improbable.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/stevens.asp

Besides the FACTS of the situation, this link happens to include a video that offers some indication of the pandemonium, which makes the idea of a systematic rape seem awfully unlikely.

Re: Benghazi Cover-up

Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:31 am

likethebike wrote:
1. The previous president... failed to adequately prepare for the worst attack on US soil in US history

2. gave up on pursuing the man behind those attacks

3. allowed one of America's greatest cities to drown underwater

4. violated the Geneva action and US Constitution with acts of torture, violated the US Constitution with illegal phone wire taps

5. encouraged his buddies on Wall Street to rape the country financially eventually leading to a complete meltdown of the world economy...


(note likethebike's comments were edited)

A bit off topic, but I can't blame you for that.

1. Bush had months, Clinton had eight years. That's settled.

2. Gave up on pursuing? Now, you don't really believe that do you? Be honest.

3. You must believe President Bush had more power than I, if you believe he can
control the weather. I live on the Gulf Coast by the way. And trust me, we never
know how destructive these storms are going to be. And I've never heard one
person in my state complain that it was any President's fault.

4. President Bush threw everything he (we) had at the terrorists. And it's an ongoing
war at a great cost. Just remember, he kept us safe, our military is more prepared,
and our Drones are the envy of the world.

5. This "world economy" you speak of is something of a hindrance to "our" economy
now (Obama's) and then (Bush's). Wall Street has never been more than an East
Coast version of Las Vegas. What type of people does this type of business attract?
I wish everyone of the crooks that stole investor's money would be locked up in jail.
What's not talked about though is personal responsibility. If you knowingly borrowed
more money than you could pay back, let's say for a new home, is that the government's
(President's) fault? Also, if you're able to pay your loan back but choose to walk away
because you're upside down on your home loan - is that okay too?

President Bush must have been one powerful man.

Re: Benghazi Cover-up

Mon Oct 29, 2012 9:06 am

No it's not settled. Those attacks much as you wish they were were not on Clinton's watch. It was Bush who ignored a direct daily briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined to strike in America." It was Bush who did not have a cabinet meeting on terrorism until only days before the attack. It was Bush who froze when the news of the attacks came. Bush did nothing, nothing in those eight months. If he had done one single thing maybe he would get off the hook, but he didn't.

#2 Bush admitted as much himself. When Bush made statements about not caring about Bin Laden anymore, Bin Laden brazenly opened up shop, not in a cave but in a mini-mansion complex in Pakistan.

Again as with A, Bush did nothing to help with the city's evacuations and rescues and various sundry services until the city was under water. Again no effort. He can't control the weather but he did nothing to mitigate its impact. Most of Katrina's impact was human made.

Really? He threw everything he had at it. No, he pursued terror through stupid policies he saw in movies that yielded no results. In the process, he basically ruined the country's reputation as a champion of human rights. Of course, that position was obliterated by the decision to invade Iraq as well. And Bush saw the DC sniper right after the bombings and the anthrax attacks. After Iraq there was no need. Hell that did more damage than any bomb.

The world economy is a hindrance to ours now. But it was our bankers (with the help of some friends in London) that helped push the world economy off a cliff with their ridiculous speculation schemes. The debacle in Greece has Merril Lynch's fingerprints all over it as they helped guide the country on the ridiculous idea that you could borrow and spend forever without having to pay for it as long as you used Wall Street's tricks to cover it all up.

And again the Republican line trying to blame the financial crisis on poor people. It was the Wall Street scum (a more accurate word cannot be found) that built up all the debt. They were the ones that borrowed on margins that were well beyond the assets of their companies. They stockpiled debt and sold it to poor investors as grade a investments while at the same time belittling it as junk in their private memos. Individually many homeowners who qualified for more standard loans were pushed by aggressive bank sales people into the more high risk loans. On a few of the most loathsome occasions, they would actually present the clients with papers that were at the more standard rate, but the bottom line where they signed was the varying rate. It was just disgusting. This crisis was based almost entirely on fraud and excessive corporate greed where companies were no longer required to meet strict margin levels on their borrowing. Again, this was a man made catastrophe. Had Bush and congress been on it, a lot of it could have been avoided.

One of the great shames of the Obama administration is that not Wall Street CEO has been tried for that economic calamity.

Re: Benghazi Cover-up

Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:59 pm

Despite the arguments here and on other topics, there is a clear difference between the two major party candidates, and I know who I am going to choose and for what reasons.

God's speed, President Obama.

Re: Benghazi Cover-up

Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:22 pm

We are all in this together.


Absolutely, and if only it were that simple.

Unfortunately the Republicans are being led by a man who wants to write off 47 percent of our nation's population.

Re: Benghazi Cover-up

Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:05 pm

jak wrote:Nobody should be naive enough to think the president is going to be able to prevent every attack or assault on our country or people.The incident in Benghazi may have been unavoidable.I dont know.I do believe those people expressed concerns for their safety in the weeks leading up to the event.I question how an embassy could be that poorly guarded considering it's location.That's all a mute point now.My problem is how the administration handled the situation during the actual assault.I feel major mistakes were made and then they went into damage control.If you watched Face the Nation this week you heard Bob Schieffer state Susan Rice was a guest last week.She sat right across from him and said the Benghazi incident was not terrorist related.That's five days after the incident.As Schieffer said,how can so many stories come from the administration concerning the incident?It's all smoke and mirrors.They all play the same game.Obama is no better or worse than any other politician weve had in the past.When was the last time one of these guys stood up and just took full responsibility for something rather than going the duck and cover route?


That's my trouble. It's five days after the incident. How often do we know the truth of events within five days? Also, what does merely publicly calling it a terrorist attack (as Obama did do in the Rose Garden the day after the event) gain or lose us? Maybe there was some strategic initiative in having Rice go out there and say that. The problem is that we're five weeks from this event. Many police investigations of murders and crimes etc. take place over the course of months and they're smaller scale events.

I thought Obama did step up when he was on the Daily Show last week and in the debate. He acknowledged if people are getting killed then something is going wrong.

Re: Benghazi Cover-up

Sat Nov 03, 2012 6:31 am

Obama is making all of this worse by not talking to the people about it. His silence seems incriminating. If he were to spell out everything that is known so far and answer the questions posed to him then this whole thing would go away.

Instead he is evasive and wants to put it off until after the election. When asked by a reporter (an excerpt shown here on TV) whether support was denied to those in Benghazi, his answer was "that is not what this election is all about."

Well, maybe it should be. If the Commander-in-Chief is too pre-occupied with his own re-election to protect Americans in harm's way then can we trust him to stay in the job?

(The usual tactic now for rabid leftists would be to cause distraction by referring to some other incident years ago, to blame Bush again, or to start name-calling).

Re: Benghazi Cover-up

Sat Nov 03, 2012 12:43 pm

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/north-o ... /id/462614

Excerpt:

"What we also know is that those four Americans were under fire for a protracted period of time and nothing was done of any substance whatsoever while that even took place to save the lives of Americans, which I personally find to be unconscionable.”

North compared it to a situation he was involved with during the Reagan administration.

“I was involved deeply in the Achille Lauro events when Ronald Reagan had about 90 minutes maximum to make a decision as to how to capture the terrorists who had murdered Leon Klinghoffer, hijacked the cruise ship Achille Lauro and were trying to escape with the help of Hosni Mubarak,” he said.

“Thanks to intelligence that we had from the Israelis, we were able to intercept the aircraft and, following the president’s direction, capture the terrorists in, of all places, Sigonella, Italy. All of that transpired on my birthday back in 1985.”

North went on: “This year…we had a similar situation where a president and national security council could have made a decision that may well have saved the lives of Americans and no decision was made. An event that went on for over seven hours when U.S. military help was less than an hour away at Sigonella, of all places, none of it dispatched.

"A UMV was overhead and they watched it from Washington in various command centers, like the White House Situation Room, the National Counterterrorism Center, the State Department and Lord knows how many others. Plenty of people aware of what was going on, no decision was made to help save the lives of Americans.

We ought to be outraged. That’s part of the cover up as to what’s been going on out there. Obviously, if the truth were known, it would not bode well for the commander in chief. My assessment: it’s time for us to hire a new commander in chief, one who will make those kinds of decisions very much like President Reagan.”
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Re: Benghazi Cover-up

Sun Nov 04, 2012 8:46 am

elvissessions wrote:I honestly -- honestly -- think it's disgraceful the way the Republicans have milked this tragedy.
And the saddest part is they wouldn't have said a damn word about it after the first week, if it weren't an election year.
Fact!

You're honestly -- honestly wrong. Fact!


billyblues wrote:I'm not north-american and I'm not taking sides here, but could you please inform us all on just how much more experience Barack Obama had with international policy in 2008 than Mitt Romney has in 2012?

elvissessions wrote:Obama knew Iran bordered the sea.
That put him well ahead of Romney.

I didn't hear about that, but I once heard that Obama thought there were 57 states with "one left to go".
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws
Last edited by Blue River on Sun Nov 04, 2012 12:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Re: Benghazi Cover-up

Sun Nov 04, 2012 10:25 am

ian wrote:http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/north-obama-benghazi-attack/2012/11/02/id/462614

Excerpt:

"What we also know is that those four Americans were under fire for a protracted period of time and nothing was done of any substance whatsoever while that even took place to save the lives of Americans, which I personally find to be unconscionable.”

North compared it to a situation he was involved with during the Reagan administration.

“I was involved deeply in the Achille Lauro events when Ronald Reagan had about 90 minutes maximum to make a decision as to how to capture the terrorists who had murdered Leon Klinghoffer, hijacked the cruise ship Achille Lauro and were trying to escape with the help of Hosni Mubarak,” he said.

“Thanks to intelligence that we had from the Israelis, we were able to intercept the aircraft and, following the president’s direction, capture the terrorists in, of all places, Sigonella, Italy. All of that transpired on my birthday back in 1985.”

North went on: “This year…we had a similar situation where a president and national security council could have made a decision that may well have saved the lives of Americans and no decision was made. An event that went on for over seven hours when U.S. military help was less than an hour away at Sigonella, of all places, none of it dispatched.

"A UMV was overhead and they watched it from Washington in various command centers, like the White House Situation Room, the National Counterterrorism Center, the State Department and Lord knows how many others. Plenty of people aware of what was going on, no decision was made to help save the lives of Americans.

We ought to be outraged. That’s part of the cover up as to what’s been going on out there. Obviously, if the truth were known, it would not bode well for the commander in chief. My assessment: it’s time for us to hire a new commander in chief, one who will make those kinds of decisions very much like President Reagan.”


Yeah, Reagan saluting Ollie North, who is "outraged." :smt005 Perfect. Ollie got into a wee bit of trouble back then over a little thing called "Iran-Contra." When it started, Reagan was scared to death of the whole thing being run out of the White House, "deniability" or no. "We'll all be hanging by our thumbs." I figure, in private, he gave North a one finger salute.

Well, it must be a nice world you live in, Ian, is all I can say. Maybe it's better. There's a place like that, and I went there a few times, but I came back.

phpBB [video]



rjm

Re: Benghazi Cover-up

Sun Nov 04, 2012 10:47 am

rjm wrote:
ian wrote:http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/north-obama-benghazi-attack/2012/11/02/id/462614

Excerpt:

"What we also know is that those four Americans were under fire for a protracted period of time and nothing was done of any substance whatsoever while that even took place to save the lives of Americans, which I personally find to be unconscionable.”

North compared it to a situation he was involved with during the Reagan administration.

“I was involved deeply in the Achille Lauro events when Ronald Reagan had about 90 minutes maximum to make a decision as to how to capture the terrorists who had murdered Leon Klinghoffer, hijacked the cruise ship Achille Lauro and were trying to escape with the help of Hosni Mubarak,” he said.

“Thanks to intelligence that we had from the Israelis, we were able to intercept the aircraft and, following the president’s direction, capture the terrorists in, of all places, Sigonella, Italy. All of that transpired on my birthday back in 1985.”

North went on: “This year…we had a similar situation where a president and national security council could have made a decision that may well have saved the lives of Americans and no decision was made. An event that went on for over seven hours when U.S. military help was less than an hour away at Sigonella, of all places, none of it dispatched.

"A UMV was overhead and they watched it from Washington in various command centers, like the White House Situation Room, the National Counterterrorism Center, the State Department and Lord knows how many others. Plenty of people aware of what was going on, no decision was made to help save the lives of Americans.

We ought to be outraged. That’s part of the cover up as to what’s been going on out there. Obviously, if the truth were known, it would not bode well for the commander in chief. My assessment: it’s time for us to hire a new commander in chief, one who will make those kinds of decisions very much like President Reagan.”


Yeah, Reagan saluting Ollie North, who is "outraged." :smt005 Perfect. Ollie got into a wee bit of trouble back then over a little thing called "Iran-Contra." When it started, Reagan was scared to death of the whole thing being run out of the White House, "deniability" or no. "We'll all be hanging by our thumbs." I figure, in private, he gave North a one finger salute.

Well, it must be a nice world you live in, Ian, is all I can say. Maybe it's better. There's a place like that, and I went there a few times, but I came back.

phpBB [video]



rjm


Actually Ronald Reagan isn't saluting Ollie North in the picture.

Re: Benghazi Cover-up

Sun Nov 04, 2012 10:50 am

Blue River wrote: I once heard that Obama thought there were 57 states.



He was right. Unfortunately we had to sell a few states to China.
There's only so much money they'll lend us on credit.

16T and counting America, this is President Obama's Economy.

Re: Benghazi Cover-up

Sun Nov 04, 2012 11:34 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:Despite the arguments here and on other topics, there is a clear difference between the two major party candidates, and I know who I am going to choose and for what reasons.

drjohn, is that you at the 1:55 mark? ---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWfGKt0a ... re=related


elvissessions wrote:Romney has so little integrity...

Speak for yourself.

Re: Benghazi Cover-up

Sun Nov 04, 2012 12:59 pm

Blue River wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:Despite the arguments here and on other topics, there is a clear difference between the two major party candidates, and I know who I am going to choose and for what reasons.

drjohn, is that you at the 1:55 mark? ---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWfGKt0a ... re=related


elvissessions wrote:Romney has so little integrity...

Speak for yourself.


Wait a' go Blue River, I can't believe how ignorant the left can be! :roll:

Re: Benghazi Cover-up

Sun Nov 04, 2012 3:05 pm

Here's Pat Caddell, a Democratic Pollster for the Carter administration, and his thoughts on the Obama administration and the way they've handled the Benghazi terrorist attack: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yV1Xa83Hjq4

Re: Benghazi Cover-up

Sun Nov 04, 2012 6:43 pm

Thank you for that, chris!

Read this article -

Slain SEAL's Father Blasts Obama: ' Better to Die Hero than Live a Coward '

Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, a former Navy SEAL killed in the Libya terror attack last month, sent a direct message to President Barack Obama about courage and cowardice.

Mr. Woods said: “Remember this Mr. President, my son and the others died heroes. And it’s better to die the death of a hero than it is to live the life of a coward.

Woods said that U.S. officials who denied a request for help while the diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya was under attack "are murderers of my son.”

Woods’ son was part of a small team at a CIA annex near the consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. Stevens, Woods and two other Americans died in the attack.

A request from the CIA annex for backup was denied by U.S. officials during the Sept. 11 assault.

"They refused to pull the trigger," Woods said. "Those people who made the decision and who knew about the decision and lied about it are murderers of my son."

Tyrone Woods and others at the CIA annex ignored orders by their superiors to stand down and instead went to the consulate.

"I wish that the leadership in the White House had the same level of moral courage and heroism that my son displayed," Charles Woods said.

Re: Benghazi Cover-up

Fri Nov 16, 2012 12:18 am

The Republicans continue to transform the tragedy of lost lives into the lowest of political farces:

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/15/john-mccains-scheduling-error/

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/15/mccain-skips-benghazi-briefing-gets-testy-when-questioned-by-cnn/