Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
#BBC: After Benghazi revelations, heads will roll
22 views
Skip to first unread message
Kurt Nicklas
May 12, 2013, 10:50:08 AM5/12/13
to
After Benghazi revelations, heads will roll
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22483768#TWEET751125
Republicans such as Congressman Darrell Issa have held repeated
hearings on the Benghazi attacks
There's new evidence, obtained by ABC, that the Obama administration
did deliberately purge references to "terrorism" from accounts of the
attack on the Benghazi diplomatic mission, which killed four people
including the US ambassador to Libya.
Conservatives have long maintained that the administration
deliberately suppressed the truth about the attacks.
This is the first hard evidence that the state department did ask for
changes to the CIA's original assessment.
Specifically, they wanted references to previous warnings deleted and
this sentence removed: "We do know that Islamic extremists with ties
to al-Qa'ida participated in the attack."
There's little doubt in my mind that this will haunt Hillary Clinton
if she decides to run for president, unless she executes some pretty
fancy footwork.
State department spokesperson Victoria Nuland is directly implicated,
and the fingerprints of senior White House aides Ben Rhodes and Jay
Carney are there as well.
Black and white
Republicans are certain to use the Benghazi affair against Clinton
should she run in 2016
In the interests of full disclosure I have to say I have not in the
past been persuaded that allegations of a cover-up were a big deal. It
seemed to me a partisan attack based on very little.
I remember listening to reports from the BBC and others at the time
that did suggest the attack in Benghazi was a spontaneous reaction to
a rather puerile anti-Islamic video.
I understand President Barack Obama's careful use of the word
"terrorism" when it actually means something, rather than as a knee-
jerk description of any violence by foreigners against Americans,
often in order to justify a "war on terror".
But the evidence is there in black and white, unless we doubt the
documents obtained by ABC, which I don't.
Mr Obama's critics are often not very clear what is behind their
allegations. I presume they think that the White House wanted to avoid
claims the murders were the result of terrorism because this would
undermine his claim that al-Qaeda was seriously "degraded". There's
also a vague sense he's "soft on terror".
Butt-guarding
The new documents contain two rationales for the changes in language.
The first is that it would prejudice the FBI investigation.
Perhaps, but I am not at all persuaded.
The other reason given, old-fashioned butt-guarding, is more credible.
As Ms Nuland puts it, such a report "could be abused by members [of
Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to
warnings, so why would we want to feed that either?"
However you read the motives, the state department and apparently the
White House did get the CIA to change its story.
This is now very serious, and I suspect heads will roll. The White
House will be on the defensive for a while.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22483768#TWEET751125
Republicans such as Congressman Darrell Issa have held repeated
hearings on the Benghazi attacks
There's new evidence, obtained by ABC, that the Obama administration
did deliberately purge references to "terrorism" from accounts of the
attack on the Benghazi diplomatic mission, which killed four people
including the US ambassador to Libya.
Conservatives have long maintained that the administration
deliberately suppressed the truth about the attacks.
This is the first hard evidence that the state department did ask for
changes to the CIA's original assessment.
Specifically, they wanted references to previous warnings deleted and
this sentence removed: "We do know that Islamic extremists with ties
to al-Qa'ida participated in the attack."
There's little doubt in my mind that this will haunt Hillary Clinton
if she decides to run for president, unless she executes some pretty
fancy footwork.
State department spokesperson Victoria Nuland is directly implicated,
and the fingerprints of senior White House aides Ben Rhodes and Jay
Carney are there as well.
Black and white
Republicans are certain to use the Benghazi affair against Clinton
should she run in 2016
In the interests of full disclosure I have to say I have not in the
past been persuaded that allegations of a cover-up were a big deal. It
seemed to me a partisan attack based on very little.
I remember listening to reports from the BBC and others at the time
that did suggest the attack in Benghazi was a spontaneous reaction to
a rather puerile anti-Islamic video.
I understand President Barack Obama's careful use of the word
"terrorism" when it actually means something, rather than as a knee-
jerk description of any violence by foreigners against Americans,
often in order to justify a "war on terror".
But the evidence is there in black and white, unless we doubt the
documents obtained by ABC, which I don't.
Mr Obama's critics are often not very clear what is behind their
allegations. I presume they think that the White House wanted to avoid
claims the murders were the result of terrorism because this would
undermine his claim that al-Qaeda was seriously "degraded". There's
also a vague sense he's "soft on terror".
Butt-guarding
The new documents contain two rationales for the changes in language.
The first is that it would prejudice the FBI investigation.
Perhaps, but I am not at all persuaded.
The other reason given, old-fashioned butt-guarding, is more credible.
As Ms Nuland puts it, such a report "could be abused by members [of
Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to
warnings, so why would we want to feed that either?"
However you read the motives, the state department and apparently the
White House did get the CIA to change its story.
This is now very serious, and I suspect heads will roll. The White
House will be on the defensive for a while.
Davej
May 12, 2013, 10:54:21 AM5/12/13
to
On May 12, 9:50 am, Kurt Nicklas <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
Darrell Issa needs both hands to wipe his own ass. I'm still waiting
for the Republicans to explain why it is so, so, so important to give
terrorists the publicity they crave.
> [...]
> There's new evidence, obtained by ABC, that the Obama administration
> did deliberately purge references to "terrorism" from accounts of the
> attack on the Benghazi diplomatic mission...
> did deliberately purge references to "terrorism" from accounts of the
Darrell Issa needs both hands to wipe his own ass. I'm still waiting
for the Republicans to explain why it is so, so, so important to give
terrorists the publicity they crave.
deep
May 12, 2013, 11:23:22 AM5/12/13
to
On Sun, 12 May 2013 07:54:21 -0700 (PDT), Davej <gal...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
This is nothing more than the Republicans desperation to stick
something, anything they can think of on Obama. It's a witch hunt,
plain and simple. And they aren't interested in placing the blame on
anybody but Obama.
wrote:
something, anything they can think of on Obama. It's a witch hunt,
plain and simple. And they aren't interested in placing the blame on
anybody but Obama.
deep
May 12, 2013, 11:26:38 AM5/12/13
to
On Sun, 12 May 2013 07:50:08 -0700 (PDT), Kurt Nicklas
<kurtn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>This is now very serious,
No it's not. This is a witchhunt personally aimed at Obama, and maybe
<kurtn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>This is now very serious,
hopefully Hillary, just in case. This is nothing more than a simple
lack of adequate intel on the ground at the time. There was no
warning about this. At the time nobody knew what was going on and it
wasn't until quite some time later that the details of the attack and
who was responsible came out.
Gray Guest
May 12, 2013, 12:32:14 PM5/12/13
to
Davej <gal...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:966ef1b7-57bb-4426-ac00-
540b6b...@w8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:
And we're waiting for one of you drooling syncophants to achiece sentience
besides the talking points they pour into your empty head.
The CIA warned multiple times about threats in Libya.
A video was released by the people who did the attacks warning of deaths to
Americans.
The consulate's security was laughable.
Where was Obama and Hillary during the attack?
Let me be clear, if I was President and this was happening, my ass would
have been in the situation room all night and I would have directed any
asset that might have possibly got into the area to do so.
Even though they were quite aware of what it was about, they blamed
something else, a video that noo ne had ever heard of and put someon in
jail over it (why the libs aren't pissing blood over this civil rights
atrocity is beyond me).
There are 3 separate and distinct parts of this.
1) The unpreparedness for this which is a result of liberal worldview
(which is greatly flawed in and of itself) and some insane desire spebnd
money on the useless eaters at home and not on things they are obliged to
do.
This unpreparedness alone, in my view, is enough to censure a President, or
even impeach him, if it was found that by deleiberate policy our people
were left out unprotected.
2) The lack of response to the events as they unfolded. It is clear form
the Congressional testimony that there were sufficient assets in place to
deal with this crowd. Failure to act on Obama's part is a hideous failure
and indicator of the kind of zero the left reveres. And if there weren't
assets close enough which is what you vermin have been claiming, then that
is part of failure #1.
3) The coverup. Even though it is very clear that they KNEW what it was,
they then lied to the public about it, one out of sheer embarassment over
thier stupidity but secondly for POLITICAL reasons. Obama's reelection. The
incurious media would not question the official line (BTW the media is the
truly great enemy today and the most deserving of pain and death) and now
the effort os tpo help protect Hillary to keep her viable.
I don't know if you onion heads realize what a great piece of video the
"What difference does it make" video is. In the right hands, played over
the video of the ambassador being dragged it will be devastating.
BTW, where are the autopsys? What actually killed the ambassador. Was he
anally raped with a bayonet before, during aor after his death.
You vermin, you filth, he was one of your own. Is this how you treat your
own? Leave them undefended, cover up what happened, attack those simply
trying to get to the truth, or report it as they were eyeball witnesses?
Frankly none of you deserve a bit of respect, you certainly shouldn't be
allowed to govern others.
Keep it up vermin, keep pushing. I am of the belief that you have gone to
far. People are looking at Hillary now and wondering what lies will be told
and what secrets covered up to get her elected.
This is no longer Democracy. It should fall.
--
Refusenik #1
Libs suffer from Eleutherophobia. And there is no cure.
Obama called the SEALs and THEY got bin Laden. When the SEALs called Obama,
THEY GOT DENIED. Fuck Obama
540b6b...@w8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:
besides the talking points they pour into your empty head.
The CIA warned multiple times about threats in Libya.
A video was released by the people who did the attacks warning of deaths to
Americans.
The consulate's security was laughable.
Where was Obama and Hillary during the attack?
Let me be clear, if I was President and this was happening, my ass would
have been in the situation room all night and I would have directed any
asset that might have possibly got into the area to do so.
Even though they were quite aware of what it was about, they blamed
something else, a video that noo ne had ever heard of and put someon in
jail over it (why the libs aren't pissing blood over this civil rights
atrocity is beyond me).
There are 3 separate and distinct parts of this.
1) The unpreparedness for this which is a result of liberal worldview
(which is greatly flawed in and of itself) and some insane desire spebnd
money on the useless eaters at home and not on things they are obliged to
do.
This unpreparedness alone, in my view, is enough to censure a President, or
even impeach him, if it was found that by deleiberate policy our people
were left out unprotected.
2) The lack of response to the events as they unfolded. It is clear form
the Congressional testimony that there were sufficient assets in place to
deal with this crowd. Failure to act on Obama's part is a hideous failure
and indicator of the kind of zero the left reveres. And if there weren't
assets close enough which is what you vermin have been claiming, then that
is part of failure #1.
3) The coverup. Even though it is very clear that they KNEW what it was,
they then lied to the public about it, one out of sheer embarassment over
thier stupidity but secondly for POLITICAL reasons. Obama's reelection. The
incurious media would not question the official line (BTW the media is the
truly great enemy today and the most deserving of pain and death) and now
the effort os tpo help protect Hillary to keep her viable.
I don't know if you onion heads realize what a great piece of video the
"What difference does it make" video is. In the right hands, played over
the video of the ambassador being dragged it will be devastating.
BTW, where are the autopsys? What actually killed the ambassador. Was he
anally raped with a bayonet before, during aor after his death.
You vermin, you filth, he was one of your own. Is this how you treat your
own? Leave them undefended, cover up what happened, attack those simply
trying to get to the truth, or report it as they were eyeball witnesses?
Frankly none of you deserve a bit of respect, you certainly shouldn't be
allowed to govern others.
Keep it up vermin, keep pushing. I am of the belief that you have gone to
far. People are looking at Hillary now and wondering what lies will be told
and what secrets covered up to get her elected.
This is no longer Democracy. It should fall.
--
Refusenik #1
Libs suffer from Eleutherophobia. And there is no cure.
Obama called the SEALs and THEY got bin Laden. When the SEALs called Obama,
THEY GOT DENIED. Fuck Obama
Gray Guest
May 12, 2013, 12:34:05 PM5/12/13
to
deep wrote in news:9mcvo8529pjfqmb6b...@4ax.com:
So 4 dead Americans mean nothing to you?
Failure to heed warnings means nothing to you?
Failure to protect Americans means nothing to you?
Lieing about it means nothing to you?
Putting someone in jail as part of the coverup means nothing to you?
What's coming is on your heads. You are filth.
Failure to heed warnings means nothing to you?
Failure to protect Americans means nothing to you?
Lieing about it means nothing to you?
Putting someone in jail as part of the coverup means nothing to you?
What's coming is on your heads. You are filth.
Gray Guest
May 12, 2013, 12:37:07 PM5/12/13
to
deep wrote in news:d1dvo895bmi6rvs6q...@4ax.com:
Wow and you knock Fox viewers? What candy cane and unicorn news network are
you watching.
Because anyone who watched the hearings and heard the words of Ambassador
Stevens #2 knows that this is just a lie.
Are you listenting you rotting corpse, The #2 man in Libya, spoke to
Stevens just before he died. Reposnsible for security.
You have the temerity to mock our intelligence and alliegances?
you watching.
Because anyone who watched the hearings and heard the words of Ambassador
Stevens #2 knows that this is just a lie.
Are you listenting you rotting corpse, The #2 man in Libya, spoke to
Stevens just before he died. Reposnsible for security.
You have the temerity to mock our intelligence and alliegances?
Zepp
May 12, 2013, 12:44:08 PM5/12/13
to
On Sun, 12 May 2013 16:34:05 +0000, Gray Guest wrote:
> deep wrote in news:9mcvo8529pjfqmb6b...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sun, 12 May 2013 07:54:21 -0700 (PDT), Davej <gal...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On May 12, 9:50 am, Kurt Nicklas <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> There's new evidence, obtained by ABC, that the Obama administration
>>>> did deliberately purge references to "terrorism" from accounts of the
>>>> attack on the Benghazi diplomatic mission...
>>>
>>>
>>>Darrell Issa needs both hands to wipe his own ass. I'm still waiting
>>>for the Republicans to explain why it is so, so, so important to give
>>>terrorists the publicity they crave.
>>
>> This is nothing more than the Republicans desperation to stick
>> something, anything they can think of on Obama. It's a witch hunt,
>> plain and simple. And they aren't interested in placing the blame on
>> anybody but Obama.
>>
>>
> So 4 dead Americans mean nothing to you?
4,000 dead Americans mean nothing to you. After all, you still excuse
> deep wrote in news:9mcvo8529pjfqmb6b...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sun, 12 May 2013 07:54:21 -0700 (PDT), Davej <gal...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On May 12, 9:50 am, Kurt Nicklas <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> There's new evidence, obtained by ABC, that the Obama administration
>>>> did deliberately purge references to "terrorism" from accounts of the
>>>> attack on the Benghazi diplomatic mission...
>>>
>>>
>>>Darrell Issa needs both hands to wipe his own ass. I'm still waiting
>>>for the Republicans to explain why it is so, so, so important to give
>>>terrorists the publicity they crave.
>>
>> This is nothing more than the Republicans desperation to stick
>> something, anything they can think of on Obama. It's a witch hunt,
>> plain and simple. And they aren't interested in placing the blame on
>> anybody but Obama.
>>
>>
> So 4 dead Americans mean nothing to you?
Bush for lying the country into Iraq.
Zepp
May 12, 2013, 12:59:57 PM5/12/13
to
Broadderick will bring Clinton to justice any minute now.
Klaus Schadenfreude
May 12, 2013, 2:47:40 PM5/12/13
to
On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:26:38 -0600, deep wrote:
>On Sun, 12 May 2013 07:50:08 -0700 (PDT), Kurt Nicklas
><kurtn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>This is now very serious,
>
>No it's not. This is a witchhunt personally aimed at Obama
Awwwwwwww.
><kurtn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>This is now very serious,
>
>No it's not. This is a witchhunt personally aimed at Obama
And you never came after Bush with all your lies and bullshit, huh?
You're SO abused.
LOL
Wayne
May 12, 2013, 10:57:25 PM5/12/13
to
up.
Jeanne Douglas
May 12, 2013, 11:13:52 PM5/12/13
to
In article <almarsoft.4797...@news.eternal-september.org>,
would mean they would have to deal with actual issues that affect their
constituents, most of whom are now pretty damned sick of Republican
obstructionism (which is what this Benghazi nonsense is since there was
a thorough investigation which excoriated the State Department, which
Hillary Clinton acknowledged and took responsibility for).
If real issues are discussed and if votes are taken they are handing the
opposition much ammunition for campaign ads. Cannot be allowed to
happen, because they know their constituents are all roiled up and
paying attention.
--
JD
"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
Wayne <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 May 2013 07:54:21 -0700 (PDT), Davej <gal...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 May 2013 07:54:21 -0700 (PDT), Davej <gal...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On May 12, 9:50�am, Kurt Nicklas <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > There's new evidence, obtained by ABC, that the Obama
> administration
> > > did deliberately purge references to "terrorism" from accounts of
> the
> > > attack on the Benghazi diplomatic mission...
>
>
>
>
> > Darrell Issa needs both hands to wipe his own ass. I'm still waiting
> > for the Republicans to explain why it is so, so, so important to
> give
> > terrorists the publicity they crave.
>
> The whole thing could be put to bed if Obama/Clinton would just fess
> up.
The Republicans can't let it go, can't allow it to rest. Because that
> > > [...]
> > > There's new evidence, obtained by ABC, that the Obama
> administration
> > > did deliberately purge references to "terrorism" from accounts of
> the
> > > attack on the Benghazi diplomatic mission...
>
>
>
>
> > Darrell Issa needs both hands to wipe his own ass. I'm still waiting
> > for the Republicans to explain why it is so, so, so important to
> give
> > terrorists the publicity they crave.
>
> The whole thing could be put to bed if Obama/Clinton would just fess
> up.
would mean they would have to deal with actual issues that affect their
constituents, most of whom are now pretty damned sick of Republican
obstructionism (which is what this Benghazi nonsense is since there was
a thorough investigation which excoriated the State Department, which
Hillary Clinton acknowledged and took responsibility for).
If real issues are discussed and if votes are taken they are handing the
opposition much ammunition for campaign ads. Cannot be allowed to
happen, because they know their constituents are all roiled up and
paying attention.
--
JD
"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
Jason
May 12, 2013, 11:35:53 PM5/12/13
to
In article <hlwdjsd2-CCC52D...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne
Do you agree with Hillary Clinton. She said it does not matter as to the
reason they died?
Believe it or not--it matters to the parents and family members of the
people that died or were injured in Benghazi.
reason they died?
Believe it or not--it matters to the parents and family members of the
people that died or were injured in Benghazi.
Jeanne Douglas
May 12, 2013, 11:48:15 PM5/12/13
to
In article <Jason-12051...@66-53-214-9.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
It was inelegantly expressed, but, of course, that's not what she meant.
Because her ACTIONS prove that that's not what she meant.
Because her ACTIONS prove that that's not what she meant.
Zepp
May 12, 2013, 11:52:47 PM5/12/13
to
On Sun, 12 May 2013 19:57:25 -0700, Wayne wrote:
> On Sun, 12 May 2013 07:54:21 -0700 (PDT), Davej <gal...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 May 2013 07:54:21 -0700 (PDT), Davej <gal...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On May 12, 9:50 am, Kurt Nicklas <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > [...]
>> > There's new evidence, obtained by ABC, that the Obama
> administration
>> > did deliberately purge references to "terrorism" from accounts of
> the
>> > attack on the Benghazi diplomatic mission...
>
>
>
>
>> Darrell Issa needs both hands to wipe his own ass. I'm still waiting
>> for the Republicans to explain why it is so, so, so important to
> give
>> terrorists the publicity they crave.
>
> The whole thing could be put to bed if Obama/Clinton would just fess up.
Ah, the old "if they weren't guilty of something, why would we be
>> > [...]
>> > There's new evidence, obtained by ABC, that the Obama
> administration
>> > did deliberately purge references to "terrorism" from accounts of
> the
>> > attack on the Benghazi diplomatic mission...
>
>
>
>
>> Darrell Issa needs both hands to wipe his own ass. I'm still waiting
>> for the Republicans to explain why it is so, so, so important to
> give
>> terrorists the publicity they crave.
>
> The whole thing could be put to bed if Obama/Clinton would just fess up.
accusing them?"
Jeanne Douglas
May 13, 2013, 12:08:31 AM5/13/13
to
points are created. They go back and forth and everybody puts their 2
cents in and, eventually, the final version is produced. NOTHING before
that means a damned thing; it was just the point of the view of the
first people to start the ball rolling.
RD Sandman
May 13, 2013, 12:28:27 AM5/13/13
to
Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in news:hlwdjsd2-
CCC52D.201...@news.giganews.com:
> In article <almarsoft.4797...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Wayne <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 12 May 2013 07:54:21 -0700 (PDT), Davej <gal...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On May 12, 9:50�am, Kurt Nicklas <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > [...]
>> > > There's new evidence, obtained by ABC, that the Obama
>> administration
>> > > did deliberately purge references to "terrorism" from accounts of
>> the
>> > > attack on the Benghazi diplomatic mission...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Darrell Issa needs both hands to wipe his own ass. I'm still waiting
>> > for the Republicans to explain why it is so, so, so important to
>> give
>> > terrorists the publicity they crave.
>>
>> The whole thing could be put to bed if Obama/Clinton would just fess
>> up.
>
>
> The Republicans can't let it go, can't allow it to rest. Because that
> would mean they would have to deal with actual issues that affect their
> constituents, most of whom are now pretty damned sick of Republican
> obstructionism (which is what this Benghazi nonsense is since there was
> a thorough investigation which excoriated the State Department, which
> Hillary Clinton acknowledged and took responsibility for).
ROFLMAO!!!! I agree that Republicans keep screwing themselves into the
ground.
> If real issues are discussed and if votes are taken they are handing
the
> opposition much ammunition for campaign ads. Cannot be allowed to
> happen, because they know their constituents are all roiled up and
> paying attention.
>
--
Sleep well, tonight.....
RD (The Sandman
You can be young without money, but you
can't be old without it.
CCC52D.201...@news.giganews.com:
> In article <almarsoft.4797...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Wayne <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 12 May 2013 07:54:21 -0700 (PDT), Davej <gal...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On May 12, 9:50�am, Kurt Nicklas <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > [...]
>> > > There's new evidence, obtained by ABC, that the Obama
>> administration
>> > > did deliberately purge references to "terrorism" from accounts of
>> the
>> > > attack on the Benghazi diplomatic mission...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Darrell Issa needs both hands to wipe his own ass. I'm still waiting
>> > for the Republicans to explain why it is so, so, so important to
>> give
>> > terrorists the publicity they crave.
>>
>> The whole thing could be put to bed if Obama/Clinton would just fess
>> up.
>
>
> The Republicans can't let it go, can't allow it to rest. Because that
> would mean they would have to deal with actual issues that affect their
> constituents, most of whom are now pretty damned sick of Republican
> obstructionism (which is what this Benghazi nonsense is since there was
> a thorough investigation which excoriated the State Department, which
> Hillary Clinton acknowledged and took responsibility for).
ground.
> If real issues are discussed and if votes are taken they are handing
the
> opposition much ammunition for campaign ads. Cannot be allowed to
> happen, because they know their constituents are all roiled up and
> paying attention.
>
--
RD (The Sandman
You can be young without money, but you
can't be old without it.
RD Sandman
May 13, 2013, 12:31:38 AM5/13/13
to
Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in
news:hlwdjsd2-CC7C7C...@news.giganews.com:
Bacause it show that she does not possess the requisite backbone for it.
However, she will probably come out OK because those on her side love her
to death and the Republicans won't have a serious candidate or, like in
the case of, Romney won't know how to present it.
RD Sandman
May 13, 2013, 12:34:08 AM5/13/13
to
Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in
news:hlwdjsd2-3FE0AA...@news.giganews.com:
> In article <kmpo2f$1eq$3...@dont-email.me>, Zepp <de...@gone.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 12 May 2013 19:57:25 -0700, Wayne wrote:
>>
>> > On Sun, 12 May 2013 07:54:21 -0700 (PDT), Davej
>> > <gal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On May 12, 9:50 am, Kurt Nicklas <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > [...]
>> >> > There's new evidence, obtained by ABC, that the Obama
>> > administration
>> >> > did deliberately purge references to "terrorism" from accounts
>> >> > of
>> > the
>> >> > attack on the Benghazi diplomatic mission...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> Darrell Issa needs both hands to wipe his own ass. I'm still
>> >> waiting for the Republicans to explain why it is so, so, so
>> >> important to
>> > give
>> >> terrorists the publicity they crave.
>> >
>> > The whole thing could be put to bed if Obama/Clinton would just
>> > fess up.
>>
>> Ah, the old "if they weren't guilty of something, why would we be
>> accusing them?"
>
> These Republican assholes are obsessing over the process for how
> talking points are created.
difference between what Hillary and the White House claim they did and
what the CIA and FBI claim they did.
They go back and forth and everybody puts
> their 2 cents in and, eventually, the final version is produced.
> NOTHING before that means a damned thing; it was just the point of the
> view of the first people to start the ball rolling.
didn't have a damn thing to do with it?
Jason
May 13, 2013, 1:27:26 AM5/13/13
to
In article <hlwdjsd2-CC7C7C...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne
You are correct. If she runs for president, that video will be used by
whomever is running against her.
Hillary Clinton is in the process of writing a book and she will reveal
all sorts of secret stuff about what happened in the White House.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/04/04/hillary-clintons-new-book-coming-in-2014/>
whomever is running against her.
Hillary Clinton is in the process of writing a book and she will reveal
all sorts of secret stuff about what happened in the White House.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/04/04/hillary-clintons-new-book-coming-in-2014/>
Jason
May 13, 2013, 1:30:33 AM5/13/13
to
In article <XnsA1BEDB7CE...@216.196.121.131>, RD Sandman
They knew they were lying. They just wanted to make it past the election
before revealing the truth.
They had a chance to talk to the survivors the week after the attack so
they knew the truth--that it was a well planned terrorist attack.
before revealing the truth.
They had a chance to talk to the survivors the week after the attack so
they knew the truth--that it was a well planned terrorist attack.
deep
May 13, 2013, 8:50:46 AM5/13/13
to
On Sun, 12 May 2013 22:30:33 -0700, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>They had a chance to talk to the survivors the week after the attack so
>they knew the truth--that it was a well planned terrorist attack.
Which nobody knew until much later. The Administration wasn't hiding
>They had a chance to talk to the survivors the week after the attack so
>they knew the truth--that it was a well planned terrorist attack.
anything. At the time nobody knew what was going on.
Klaus Schadenfreude
May 13, 2013, 9:06:50 AM5/13/13
to
Zepp
May 13, 2013, 11:21:27 AM5/13/13
to
lost several toes, the GOP went through a similar process trying to
figure out how to exploit Benghazi.
Zepp
May 13, 2013, 11:22:29 AM5/13/13
to
What is WRONG with you people?
Steve
May 13, 2013, 11:56:11 AM5/13/13
to
Steve
May 13, 2013, 11:56:11 AM5/13/13
to
>What is WRONG with you people?
So here we have Zepp lying in an attempt to cover up
his previous stupid claim about capital gains.
"I've never claimed that listing cap gains on a 1040
will put you in jail, only that trying to list them
at a lower rate would."
--David B.(Zepp) Jamieson Aug 5 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/1634d84e583d3c46?hl=en&
....but here is, in fact, where he made the very
claim he denies he ever made........
"If Nevermore tries paying cap gains with a 1040, he'll
be in jail soon enough."
--David B.(Zepp) Jamieson, Dec 3, 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/30fdaff423e2029b?hl=en&
Wayne
May 13, 2013, 12:05:18 PM5/13/13
to
"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
news:hlwdjsd2-CCC52D...@news.giganews.com...
In article <almarsoft.4797...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Wayne <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 May 2013 07:54:21 -0700 (PDT), Davej <gal...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On May 12, 9:50 am, Kurt Nicklas <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > There's new evidence, obtained by ABC, that the Obama
> administration
> > > did deliberately purge references to "terrorism" from accounts of
> the
> > > attack on the Benghazi diplomatic mission...
>
>
>
>
> > Darrell Issa needs both hands to wipe his own ass. I'm still waiting
> > for the Republicans to explain why it is so, so, so important to
> give
> > terrorists the publicity they crave.
>
> The whole thing could be put to bed if Obama/Clinton would just fess
> up.
# would mean they would have to deal with actual issues that affect their
# constituents, most of whom are now pretty damned sick of Republican
# obstructionism (which is what this Benghazi nonsense is since there was
# a thorough investigation which excoriated the State Department, which
# Hillary Clinton acknowledged and took responsibility for).
LOL. "acknowledged and took responsibility for"?????
Five words:
"what difference does it make?"
deep
May 13, 2013, 12:21:15 PM5/13/13
to
know about any disaster in advance.
Just another case of Republicans trying to destroy a good President
simply because he's a Democrat and because they can't win on the
issues.
Steve
May 13, 2013, 12:24:51 PM5/13/13
to
deep
May 13, 2013, 12:36:22 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:24:51 -0400, Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com>
What part of nobody knew what the hell was going on don't you get?
They had no accurate intel on the ground. Nobody knew even what
happened until much later. Hours even days later.
They had no accurate intel on the ground. Nobody knew even what
happened until much later. Hours even days later.
Dänk 42Ø
May 13, 2013, 12:51:09 PM5/13/13
to
Mitt Romney's name being quacked over and over and over by leftards.
Checking again, it appears that he still lost the Nov. 6, 2012 election,
and he presently holds no political office. In other words, Romney is
completely irrelevant, yet leftards invoke his name in response to any
criticism of Chairman Obama.
Dänk 42Ø
May 13, 2013, 1:13:56 PM5/13/13
to
proverbial bus in 2008, breaking their promise to nominate her by
choosing an unknown, inexperienced, kharismatic Kool-Aid Kult leader who
came out of nowhere.
The reason that Chairman Obama didn't make Hillary his Veep is because
her personality overpowers his, so he made her Secretary of State for two
reasons: First to appease Hillaristas whose support he still needed, and
second because although SoS is a very important job, it requires constant
travel, and since Americans do not pay attention to foreign affairs, this
keeps her out of the public eye.
But Chairman Obama would never grant Hillary full access to White House
information, simply because she is his rival, the only one who could
possibly beat him in the 2016 election. Unlike Susan Rice, Obama keeps
Hillary completely out of the loop. Still, I'm sure that in her position
she hears enough dirt to fill a book.
RD Sandman
May 13, 2013, 1:15:30 PM5/13/13
to
Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in news:Jason-1205132230330001@66-53-214-
172.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com:
There are those who claimed that many of them watched in live from drone
cameras.
172.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com:
cameras.
RD Sandman
May 13, 2013, 1:15:57 PM5/13/13
to
deep wrote in news:dbo1p8dvo2pkvfpge...@4ax.com:
Bullshit. They sure as hell knew the following morning.
RD Sandman
May 13, 2013, 1:17:17 PM5/13/13
to
Zepp <de...@gone.com> wrote in news:kmr0fl$4e4$5...@dont-email.me:
Which wasn't the claim from the White House. A week later and Obama was
still mentioning the video.
> What is WRONG with you people?
still mentioning the video.
> What is WRONG with you people?
Steve
May 13, 2013, 1:25:58 PM5/13/13
to
Steve
May 13, 2013, 1:25:58 PM5/13/13
to
Steve
May 13, 2013, 1:30:27 PM5/13/13
to
ants when I put poison on their hill.
deep
May 13, 2013, 2:02:08 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:15:57 -0500, RD Sandman
<rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>deep wrote in news:dbo1p8dvo2pkvfpge...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sun, 12 May 2013 22:30:33 -0700, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>>
>>>They had a chance to talk to the survivors the week after the attack so
>>>they knew the truth--that it was a well planned terrorist attack.
>>
>> Which nobody knew until much later. The Administration wasn't hiding
>> anything. At the time nobody knew what was going on.
>>
>
>Bullshit. They sure as hell knew the following morning.
Prove it. They had no good intel on the ground. They had no warning,
<rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>deep wrote in news:dbo1p8dvo2pkvfpge...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sun, 12 May 2013 22:30:33 -0700, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>>
>>>They had a chance to talk to the survivors the week after the attack so
>>>they knew the truth--that it was a well planned terrorist attack.
>>
>> Which nobody knew until much later. The Administration wasn't hiding
>> anything. At the time nobody knew what was going on.
>>
>
>Bullshit. They sure as hell knew the following morning.
nobody claiming responsiblity. Contradictory reports from on site. It
wasn't until days later all the facts came out and even then they
weren't completely sure of what the truth was. There was no deceit or
deception. Only a breakdown of intel and communications in a very
difficult time. Once again this is nothing but a bunch of Republicans
monkeys flinging feces hoping some will stick to Obama.
MattB .
May 13, 2013, 2:05:33 PM5/13/13
to
Steve
May 13, 2013, 2:14:07 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:02:08 -0600, deep wrote:
>Prove it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/05/05/gregory-hicks-i-thought-benghazi-assault-was-a-terrorist-attack-from-the-get-go/
“I thought it was a terrorist attack from the get-go. I think
everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the
beginning,” Gregory Hicks said in an interview with investigators
shared with “Face The Nation.” The excerpt was one of several host Bob
Schieffer revealed on the program.
Bert
May 13, 2013, 2:13:27 PM5/13/13
to
attack was actually a "spontaneous demonstration" against a movie that
no one had seen.
--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN
STEADY EDDY
May 13, 2013, 2:24:01 PM5/13/13
to
On May 12, 7:54 am, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 12, 9:50 am, Kurt Nicklas <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > There's new evidence, obtained by ABC, that the Obama administration
> > did deliberately purge references to "terrorism" from accounts of the
> > attack on the Benghazi diplomatic mission...
>
> Darrell Issa needs both hands to wipe his own ass. I'm still waiting
> for the Republicans to explain why it is so, so, so important to give
> terrorists the publicity they crave.
Fat chance.
> On May 12, 9:50 am, Kurt Nicklas <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > There's new evidence, obtained by ABC, that the Obama administration
> > did deliberately purge references to "terrorism" from accounts of the
> > attack on the Benghazi diplomatic mission...
>
> Darrell Issa needs both hands to wipe his own ass. I'm still waiting
> for the Republicans to explain why it is so, so, so important to give
> terrorists the publicity they crave.
Zepp
May 13, 2013, 3:09:57 PM5/13/13
to
and other spots. Care to explain that?
RD Sandman
May 13, 2013, 3:15:56 PM5/13/13
to
deep wrote in news:nfa2p8diimermp4kc...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:15:57 -0500, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>deep wrote in news:dbo1p8dvo2pkvfpge...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sun, 12 May 2013 22:30:33 -0700, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>>>
>>>>They had a chance to talk to the survivors the week after the attack
so
>>>>they knew the truth--that it was a well planned terrorist attack.
>>>
>>> Which nobody knew until much later. The Administration wasn't hiding
>>> anything. At the time nobody knew what was going on.
>>>
>>
>>Bullshit. They sure as hell knew the following morning.
>
> Prove it.
Watch the hearings, dumbass.
They had no good intel on the ground. They had no warning,
> nobody claiming responsiblity. Contradictory reports from on site. It
> wasn't until days later all the facts came out and even then they
> weren't completely sure of what the truth was. There was no deceit or
> deception. Only a breakdown of intel and communications in a very
> difficult time.
Must be why all the aliterations on the reports while the Administration
claims only one change and it was purely 'sylistic'. ;)
Once again this is nothing but a bunch of Republicans
> monkeys flinging feces hoping some will stick to Obama.
Apparently some of that stuck to you since you seem to be full of shit
again.
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:15:57 -0500, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>deep wrote in news:dbo1p8dvo2pkvfpge...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sun, 12 May 2013 22:30:33 -0700, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>>>
>>>>They had a chance to talk to the survivors the week after the attack
so
>>>>they knew the truth--that it was a well planned terrorist attack.
>>>
>>> Which nobody knew until much later. The Administration wasn't hiding
>>> anything. At the time nobody knew what was going on.
>>>
>>
>>Bullshit. They sure as hell knew the following morning.
>
> Prove it.
They had no good intel on the ground. They had no warning,
> nobody claiming responsiblity. Contradictory reports from on site. It
> wasn't until days later all the facts came out and even then they
> weren't completely sure of what the truth was. There was no deceit or
> deception. Only a breakdown of intel and communications in a very
> difficult time.
claims only one change and it was purely 'sylistic'. ;)
Once again this is nothing but a bunch of Republicans
> monkeys flinging feces hoping some will stick to Obama.
again.
deep
May 13, 2013, 3:35:04 PM5/13/13
to
deaths. But somehow that's ok. Somebody working for Obama make a bad
error in judgement an you want to crucify Obama for FOUR American
deaths.
deep
May 13, 2013, 3:41:21 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 14:14:07 -0400, Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com>
wrote:
"I thought..."
known as 20-20 hindsight. Truth is at the time he had no idea either.
So that's no proof. Just one persons 2nd guessing after the fact. Try
again. How about some real proof. No? I didn't think so. Everything
you know you learned from Fox News right?
wrote:
known as 20-20 hindsight. Truth is at the time he had no idea either.
So that's no proof. Just one persons 2nd guessing after the fact. Try
again. How about some real proof. No? I didn't think so. Everything
you know you learned from Fox News right?
deep
May 13, 2013, 3:43:02 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 14:15:56 -0500, RD Sandman
They have no proof. Just Obama haters' opinions. Another Republican
witchhunt, and they are dragging out anybody they can find who will
try to blame everything on Obama.
witchhunt, and they are dragging out anybody they can find who will
try to blame everything on Obama.
deep
May 13, 2013, 3:45:14 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 18:13:27 +0000 (UTC), Bert <be...@iphouse.com>
wrote:
Actually lots of people had seen it and at the time that was the best
intel they had. Nobody had any reason to conclude it was a planned
terrorist attack of such magnitude. Terrorists usually don't make
major frontal assaults on US property. There was no reason to think
it was.
wrote:
intel they had. Nobody had any reason to conclude it was a planned
terrorist attack of such magnitude. Terrorists usually don't make
major frontal assaults on US property. There was no reason to think
it was.
Zepp
May 13, 2013, 3:52:43 PM5/13/13
to
football out of Benghazi.
Especially the second debate, when he was silly enough to believe you
crazy right wing fucks and tried claiming Obama never referred to
'terrorism' in the wake of the attacks.
Zepp
May 13, 2013, 4:05:05 PM5/13/13
to
I always knew the Mets would win the World Series in 1969. I knew it
clear back in 1935.
Is that proof?
Zepp
May 13, 2013, 4:11:52 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 10:21:15 -0600, deep wrote:
rock stead, the GOP Congression ratings are down 33% from their already
absymally low March ratings.
Steve
May 13, 2013, 4:33:18 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 20:05:05 +0000 (UTC), Zepp <de...@gone.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 13 May 2013 14:14:07 -0400, Steve wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:02:08 -0600, deep wrote:
>>
>>>Prove it.
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/05/05/gregory-
>hicks-i-thought-benghazi-assault-was-a-terrorist-attack-from-the-get-go/
>> ?I thought it was a terrorist attack from the get-go. I think everybody
>On Mon, 13 May 2013 14:14:07 -0400, Steve wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:02:08 -0600, deep wrote:
>>
>>>Prove it.
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/05/05/gregory-
>hicks-i-thought-benghazi-assault-was-a-terrorist-attack-from-the-get-go/
>> in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning,?
>> Gregory Hicks said in an interview with investigators shared with ?Face
>> The Nation.? The excerpt was one of several host Bob Schieffer revealed
>> on the program.
>
>And what is that proof of, exactly?
<SNICKER> He was pretty close to the action, you know.. way closer
>
>And what is that proof of, exactly?
than you..
But you have your fantasies to guide you, don't you, Wordsong.
Steve
May 13, 2013, 4:33:18 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 13:41:21 -0600, deep wrote:
>On Mon, 13 May 2013 14:14:07 -0400, Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:02:08 -0600, deep wrote:
>>
>>>Prove it.
>>
>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/05/05/gregory-hicks-i-thought-benghazi-assault-was-a-terrorist-attack-from-the-get-go/
>>�I thought it was a terrorist attack from the get-go. I think
>>everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the
>>beginning,� Gregory Hicks said in an interview with investigators
>>shared with �Face The Nation.� The excerpt was one of several host Bob
>>Schieffer revealed on the program.
>
>"I thought..."
>
>known as 20-20 hindsight. Truth is at the time he had no idea either.
<CHUCKLE>
>On Mon, 13 May 2013 14:14:07 -0400, Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:02:08 -0600, deep wrote:
>>
>>>Prove it.
>>
>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/05/05/gregory-hicks-i-thought-benghazi-assault-was-a-terrorist-attack-from-the-get-go/
>>�I thought it was a terrorist attack from the get-go. I think
>>everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the
>>beginning,� Gregory Hicks said in an interview with investigators
>>shared with �Face The Nation.� The excerpt was one of several host Bob
>>Schieffer revealed on the program.
>
>"I thought..."
>
>known as 20-20 hindsight. Truth is at the time he had no idea either.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/05/benghazi-cia-talking-point-edits-white-house.html?mobify=0
It�s striking to see the twelve different iterations that the talking
points went through before they were released to Congress and to
United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice, who used them in Sunday show
appearances that became a central focus of Republicans� criticism of
the Administration�s public response to the attacks. Over the course
of about twenty-four hours, the remarks evolved from something
specific and fairly detailed into a bland, vague mush.
Steve
May 13, 2013, 4:39:00 PM5/13/13
to
deep
May 13, 2013, 4:40:20 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 20:11:52 +0000 (UTC), Zepp <de...@gone.com> wrote:
>> Obama is supposed to be clairvoyant, all-seeing. Has to be able to know
>> about any disaster in advance.
>>
>> Just another case of Republicans trying to destroy a good President
>> simply because he's a Democrat and because they can't win on the issues.
>
>Yeah, and it's gone way beyond old. I note that Obama's poll ratings are
>rock stead, the GOP Congression ratings are down 33% from their already
>absymally low March ratings.
This is the worst Congress ever in history thanks to the conservatives
>> Obama is supposed to be clairvoyant, all-seeing. Has to be able to know
>> about any disaster in advance.
>>
>> Just another case of Republicans trying to destroy a good President
>> simply because he's a Democrat and because they can't win on the issues.
>
>Yeah, and it's gone way beyond old. I note that Obama's poll ratings are
>rock stead, the GOP Congression ratings are down 33% from their already
>absymally low March ratings.
and their unnatural and irrational hatred of Obama. They would rather
burn this country down than do the right thing by the American people.
They have brought this entire government to a standstill rather than
admit they can't always jam their sick and twisted ideology down
everybody's throats.
Steve
May 13, 2013, 4:47:40 PM5/13/13
to
Syd M.
May 13, 2013, 5:53:29 PM5/13/13
to
On May 13, 4:47 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 14:40:20 -0600, deep wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 14:40:20 -0600, deep wrote:
PDW
deep
May 13, 2013, 6:05:25 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 16:47:40 -0400, Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com>
Yet here it's the Republicans are are infighting, eating their own,
have no leadership, at the bottom of the polls (worst ever) and are
desperately lashing out at Obama rather than trying to deal with any
issues. Gee, how did it go with that Romney fellow, hmmm?
have no leadership, at the bottom of the polls (worst ever) and are
desperately lashing out at Obama rather than trying to deal with any
issues. Gee, how did it go with that Romney fellow, hmmm?
Scout
May 13, 2013, 6:16:38 PM5/13/13
to
"deep" wrote in message news:nfa2p8diimermp4kc...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:15:57 -0500, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>deep wrote in news:dbo1p8dvo2pkvfpge...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sun, 12 May 2013 22:30:33 -0700, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>>>
>>>>They had a chance to talk to the survivors the week after the attack so
>>>>they knew the truth--that it was a well planned terrorist attack.
>>>
>>> Which nobody knew until much later. The Administration wasn't hiding
>>> anything. At the time nobody knew what was going on.
>>>
>>
>>Bullshit. They sure as hell knew the following morning.
>
> Prove it. They had no good intel on the ground. They had no warning,
> nobody claiming responsiblity.
"(Reuters) - Officials at the White House and State Department were advised
> <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>deep wrote in news:dbo1p8dvo2pkvfpge...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sun, 12 May 2013 22:30:33 -0700, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>>>
>>>>They had a chance to talk to the survivors the week after the attack so
>>>>they knew the truth--that it was a well planned terrorist attack.
>>>
>>> Which nobody knew until much later. The Administration wasn't hiding
>>> anything. At the time nobody knew what was going on.
>>>
>>
>>Bullshit. They sure as hell knew the following morning.
>
> Prove it. They had no good intel on the ground. They had no warning,
> nobody claiming responsiblity.
two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi,
Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for
the attack, official emails show."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-usa-benghazi-emails-idUSBRE89N02C20121024
Really Dudu, do you ever bother to get the facts before spouting your
bullshit?
Scout
May 13, 2013, 6:17:00 PM5/13/13
to
"deep" wrote in message news:evf2p8183n3hkm8mj...@4ax.com...
Scout
May 13, 2013, 6:18:53 PM5/13/13
to
"deep" wrote in message news:rfg2p85d0op3t1knl...@4ax.com...
(Reuters) - Officials at the White House and State Department were advised
two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi,
Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for
the attack, official emails show.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-usa-benghazi-emails-idUSBRE89N02C20121024
What do you call that?
two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi,
Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for
the attack, official emails show.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-usa-benghazi-emails-idUSBRE89N02C20121024
Scout
May 13, 2013, 6:22:37 PM5/13/13
to
"deep" wrote in message news:vjg2p8lf7u9tu0l6e...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 18:13:27 +0000 (UTC), Bert <be...@iphouse.com>
> wrote:
>
>>In news:dbo1p8dvo2pkvfpge...@4ax.com deep wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 12 May 2013 22:30:33 -0700, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>>>
>>>>They had a chance to talk to the survivors the week after the attack
>>>>so they knew the truth--that it was a well planned terrorist attack.
>>>
>>> Which nobody knew until much later. The Administration wasn't hiding
>>> anything. At the time nobody knew what was going on.
>>
>>Which explains the almost immediate and continuing claim that the
>>attack was actually a "spontaneous demonstration" against a movie that
>>no one had seen.
>
> Actually lots of people had seen it and at the time that was the best
> intel they had. Nobody had any reason to conclude it was a planned
> terrorist attack of such magnitude.
Right, they just happened to show up with RPGs and mortars to a
> wrote:
>
>>In news:dbo1p8dvo2pkvfpge...@4ax.com deep wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 12 May 2013 22:30:33 -0700, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>>>
>>>>They had a chance to talk to the survivors the week after the attack
>>>>so they knew the truth--that it was a well planned terrorist attack.
>>>
>>> Which nobody knew until much later. The Administration wasn't hiding
>>> anything. At the time nobody knew what was going on.
>>
>>Which explains the almost immediate and continuing claim that the
>>attack was actually a "spontaneous demonstration" against a movie that
>>no one had seen.
>
> Actually lots of people had seen it and at the time that was the best
> intel they had. Nobody had any reason to conclude it was a planned
> terrorist attack of such magnitude.
demonstration over a YouTube video?
> Terrorists usually don't make
> major frontal assaults on US property. There was no reason to think
> it was.
(Reuters) - Officials at the White House and State Department were advised
two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi,
Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for
the attack, official emails show.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-usa-benghazi-emails-idUSBRE89N02C20121024
There was every reason to think so. The armaments for one. The claims of
two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi,
Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for
the attack, official emails show.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-usa-benghazi-emails-idUSBRE89N02C20121024
responsibility for another.
Steve
May 13, 2013, 6:25:41 PM5/13/13
to
told “Fox News Sunday.” “It was totally inaccurate. There's no excuse
for that. It was false information. And what they try to do is
harmonize what happened in Benghazi with what happened everywhere else
across the Middle East.”
Lynch also acknowledged the talking points were likely revised to
reflect President Obama’s decry – with his re-election bid in the
balance -- that “Al Qaeda is on the run.”
Maryland Democratic Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, the top Democrat on the
House Intelligence Committee, also acknowledged Sunday the facts as
told by Rice were wrong.
Read more:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/05/democrats-now-critical-rice-benghazi-explanation-amid-more-damaging-evidence/#ixzz2TDKtE000
Scout
May 13, 2013, 6:26:09 PM5/13/13
to
"Steve" <steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote in message
news:8732p8d4g208n7nlb...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 15:22:29 +0000 (UTC), Zepp <de...@gone.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 12 May 2013 22:30:33 -0700, Jason wrote:
>>
>>> In article <XnsA1BEDB7CE...@216.196.121.131>, RD Sandman
>
>>On Sun, 12 May 2013 22:30:33 -0700, Jason wrote:
>>
>>> They had a chance to talk to the survivors the week after the attack so
>>> they knew the truth--that it was a well planned terrorist attack.
>>
>>> they knew the truth--that it was a well planned terrorist attack.
>>
>>And said so within hours of the attack.
>
> Liar...
>
"(Reuters) - Officials at the White House and State Department were advised
two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi,
Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for
the attack, official emails show."
Benghazi time, 20-30 minutes after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission
allegedly began - carried the subject line "U.S. Diplomatic Mission in
Benghazi Under Attack" and the notation "SBU", meaning "Sensitive But
Unclassified." "
"A third email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time,
carried the subject line: "Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility
for Benghazi Attack." The message reported: "Embassy Tripoli reports the
group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an
attack on Embassy Tripoli." "
Seems they were told about 2.5 hours after the start of the attack.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-usa-benghazi-emails-idUSBRE89N02C20121024
Scout
May 13, 2013, 6:27:57 PM5/13/13
to
"deep" wrote in message news:kgj2p85ui7q86unqv...@4ax.com...
and conservatives in general........
Jeanne Douglas
May 13, 2013, 7:26:56 PM5/13/13
to
In article <dZ-dnbqEl5bJggzM...@earthlink.com>,
Dänk 42Ø <da...@kush.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 May 2013 22:27:26 -0700, Jason wrote:
>
> > In article <hlwdjsd2-CC7C7C...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne
> > Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <Jason-12051...@66-53-214-9.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> >> Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article <hlwdjsd2-CCC52D...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne
> >> > Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > In article
> >> > > <almarsoft.4797...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >> > > that would mean they would have to deal with actual issues that
> >> > > affect their constituents, most of whom are now pretty damned sick
> >> > > of Republican obstructionism (which is what this Benghazi nonsense
> >> > > is since there was a thorough investigation which excoriated the
> >> > > State Department, which Hillary Clinton acknowledged and took
> >> > > responsibility for).
> >> > >
> >> > > If real issues are discussed and if votes are taken they are
> >> > > handing the opposition much ammunition for campaign ads. Cannot be
> >> > > allowed to happen, because they know their constituents are all
> >> > > roiled up and paying attention.
> >> >
> >> > Do you agree with Hillary Clinton. She said it does not matter as to
> >> > the reason they died?
> >> >
> >> > Believe it or not--it matters to the parents and family members of
> >> > the people that died or were injured in Benghazi.
> >>
> >> It was inelegantly expressed, but, of course, that's not what she
> >> meant. Because her ACTIONS prove that that's not what she meant.
> >
> > You are correct. If she runs for president, that video will be used by
> > whomever is running against her.
> >
> > Hillary Clinton is in the process of writing a book and she will reveal
> > all sorts of secret stuff about what happened in the White House.
>
> I'm sure Hillary is still mad about the way her Party threw her under the
> proverbial bus in 2008, breaking their promise to nominate her by
> choosing an unknown, inexperienced, kharismatic Kool-Aid Kult leader who
> came out of nowhere.
>
> The reason that Chairman Obama didn't make Hillary his Veep is because
> her personality overpowers his, so he made her Secretary of State for two
> reasons: First to appease Hillaristas whose support he still needed, and
> second because although SoS is a very important job, it requires constant
> travel, and since Americans do not pay attention to foreign affairs, this
> keeps her out of the public eye.
>
> But Chairman Obama would never grant Hillary full access to White House
> information, simply because she is his rival, the only one who could
> possibly beat him in the 2016 election. Unlike Susan Rice, Obama keeps
> Hillary completely out of the loop. Still, I'm sure that in her position
> she hears enough dirt to fill a book.
Why do you think Obama can run again in 2016?
--
JD
"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
Dänk 42Ø <da...@kush.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 May 2013 22:27:26 -0700, Jason wrote:
>
> > In article <hlwdjsd2-CC7C7C...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne
> > Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <Jason-12051...@66-53-214-9.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> >> Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article <hlwdjsd2-CCC52D...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne
> >> > Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > In article
> >> > > <almarsoft.4797...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >> > > Wayne <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > On Sun, 12 May 2013 07:54:21 -0700 (PDT), Davej
> >> > > > <gal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > On May 12, 9:50 am, Kurt Nicklas <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > > [...]
> >> > > > > > There's new evidence, obtained by ABC, that the Obama
> >> > > > administration
> >> > > > > > did deliberately purge references to "terrorism" from
> >> > > > > > accounts of
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > attack on the Benghazi diplomatic mission...
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Darrell Issa needs both hands to wipe his own ass. I'm still
> >> > > > > waiting for the Republicans to explain why it is so, so, so
> >> > > > > important to
> >> > > > give
> >> > > > > terrorists the publicity they crave.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > The whole thing could be put to bed if Obama/Clinton would just
> >> > > > fess up.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > The Republicans can't let it go, can't allow it to rest. Because
> >> > >
> >> > > > On Sun, 12 May 2013 07:54:21 -0700 (PDT), Davej
> >> > > > <gal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > On May 12, 9:50 am, Kurt Nicklas <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > > [...]
> >> > > > > > There's new evidence, obtained by ABC, that the Obama
> >> > > > administration
> >> > > > > > did deliberately purge references to "terrorism" from
> >> > > > > > accounts of
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > attack on the Benghazi diplomatic mission...
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Darrell Issa needs both hands to wipe his own ass. I'm still
> >> > > > > waiting for the Republicans to explain why it is so, so, so
> >> > > > > important to
> >> > > > give
> >> > > > > terrorists the publicity they crave.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > The whole thing could be put to bed if Obama/Clinton would just
> >> > > > fess up.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > that would mean they would have to deal with actual issues that
> >> > > affect their constituents, most of whom are now pretty damned sick
> >> > > of Republican obstructionism (which is what this Benghazi nonsense
> >> > > is since there was a thorough investigation which excoriated the
> >> > > State Department, which Hillary Clinton acknowledged and took
> >> > > responsibility for).
> >> > >
> >> > > If real issues are discussed and if votes are taken they are
> >> > > handing the opposition much ammunition for campaign ads. Cannot be
> >> > > allowed to happen, because they know their constituents are all
> >> > > roiled up and paying attention.
> >> >
> >> > Do you agree with Hillary Clinton. She said it does not matter as to
> >> > the reason they died?
> >> >
> >> > Believe it or not--it matters to the parents and family members of
> >> > the people that died or were injured in Benghazi.
> >>
> >> It was inelegantly expressed, but, of course, that's not what she
> >> meant. Because her ACTIONS prove that that's not what she meant.
> >
> > You are correct. If she runs for president, that video will be used by
> > whomever is running against her.
> >
> > Hillary Clinton is in the process of writing a book and she will reveal
> > all sorts of secret stuff about what happened in the White House.
>
> I'm sure Hillary is still mad about the way her Party threw her under the
> proverbial bus in 2008, breaking their promise to nominate her by
> choosing an unknown, inexperienced, kharismatic Kool-Aid Kult leader who
> came out of nowhere.
>
> The reason that Chairman Obama didn't make Hillary his Veep is because
> her personality overpowers his, so he made her Secretary of State for two
> reasons: First to appease Hillaristas whose support he still needed, and
> second because although SoS is a very important job, it requires constant
> travel, and since Americans do not pay attention to foreign affairs, this
> keeps her out of the public eye.
>
> But Chairman Obama would never grant Hillary full access to White House
> information, simply because she is his rival, the only one who could
> possibly beat him in the 2016 election. Unlike Susan Rice, Obama keeps
> Hillary completely out of the loop. Still, I'm sure that in her position
> she hears enough dirt to fill a book.
Why do you think Obama can run again in 2016?
--
JD
"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
Steve
May 13, 2013, 8:17:55 PM5/13/13
to
RD Sandman
May 13, 2013, 8:44:32 PM5/13/13
to
Zepp <de...@gone.com> wrote in news:kmrdq5$qn3$5...@dont-email.me:
Care to produce a cite proving that?
RD Sandman
May 13, 2013, 8:45:21 PM5/13/13
to
RD Sandman
May 13, 2013, 8:46:53 PM5/13/13
to
deep wrote in news:evf2p8183n3hkm8mj...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 11:05:33 -0700, MattB .
> <trdel...@spamnogmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:02:08 -0600, deep wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:15:57 -0500, RD Sandman
>>><rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>deep wrote in news:dbo1p8dvo2pkvfpge...@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 12 May 2013 22:30:33 -0700, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason)
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>They had a chance to talk to the survivors the week after the
>>>>>>attack so they knew the truth--that it was a well planned
>>>>>>terrorist attack.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which nobody knew until much later. The Administration wasn't
>>>>> hiding anything. At the time nobody knew what was going on.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Bullshit. They sure as hell knew the following morning.
>>>
>>>Prove it. They had no good intel on the ground. They had no
>>>warning, nobody claiming responsiblity. Contradictory reports from
>>>on site. It wasn't until days later all the facts came out and even
>>>then they weren't completely sure of what the truth was. There was
>>>no deceit or deception. Only a breakdown of intel and communications
>>>in a very difficult time. Once again this is nothing but a bunch of
>>>Republicans monkeys flinging feces hoping some will stick to Obama.
>>
>>
>>You talking about Iraq and WMD?
>>
> Bush did in fact fake intel
Where is your proof that *Bush* did, in fact, fake intel. Particularly
since the Defense and counter terrorism groups saw that same intel.
and that led to THOUSANDS of American
> deaths. But somehow that's ok. Somebody working for Obama make a bad
> error in judgement an you want to crucify Obama for FOUR American
> deaths.
>
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 11:05:33 -0700, MattB .
> <trdel...@spamnogmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:02:08 -0600, deep wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:15:57 -0500, RD Sandman
>>><rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>deep wrote in news:dbo1p8dvo2pkvfpge...@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 12 May 2013 22:30:33 -0700, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason)
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>They had a chance to talk to the survivors the week after the
>>>>>>attack so they knew the truth--that it was a well planned
>>>>>>terrorist attack.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which nobody knew until much later. The Administration wasn't
>>>>> hiding anything. At the time nobody knew what was going on.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Bullshit. They sure as hell knew the following morning.
>>>
>>>Prove it. They had no good intel on the ground. They had no
>>>warning, nobody claiming responsiblity. Contradictory reports from
>>>on site. It wasn't until days later all the facts came out and even
>>>then they weren't completely sure of what the truth was. There was
>>>no deceit or deception. Only a breakdown of intel and communications
>>>in a very difficult time. Once again this is nothing but a bunch of
>>>Republicans monkeys flinging feces hoping some will stick to Obama.
>>
>>
>>You talking about Iraq and WMD?
>>
> Bush did in fact fake intel
since the Defense and counter terrorism groups saw that same intel.
and that led to THOUSANDS of American
> deaths. But somehow that's ok. Somebody working for Obama make a bad
> error in judgement an you want to crucify Obama for FOUR American
> deaths.
>
Tom McDonald
May 13, 2013, 9:02:58 PM5/13/13
to
on him. Hell, lots of it, he was (and is) proud of.
deep
May 13, 2013, 9:06:12 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:45:21 -0500, RD Sandman
Difference is Bush really was responsible and 1000 times the people
died.
died.
Zepp
May 13, 2013, 9:03:46 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:44:32 -0500, RD Sandman wrote:
> Zepp <de...@gone.com> wrote in news:kmrdq5$qn3$5...@dont-email.me:
>
>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 18:13:27 +0000, Bert wrote:
>>
>>> In news:dbo1p8dvo2pkvfpge...@4ax.com deep wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 12 May 2013 22:30:33 -0700, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>They had a chance to talk to the survivors the week after the attack
> so
>>>>>they knew the truth--that it was a well planned terrorist attack.
>>>>
>>>> Which nobody knew until much later. The Administration wasn't hiding
>>>> anything. At the time nobody knew what was going on.
>>>
>>> Which explains the almost immediate and continuing claim that the
> attack
>>> was actually a "spontaneous demonstration" against a movie that no one
>>> had seen.
>>
>> Except riots over that movie had taken place earlier in the day in
> Cairo
>> and other spots. Care to explain that?
>>
>>
> Care to produce a cite proving that?
God's teeth. Don't any of you clowns ever watch actual news?
> Zepp <de...@gone.com> wrote in news:kmrdq5$qn3$5...@dont-email.me:
>
>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 18:13:27 +0000, Bert wrote:
>>
>>> In news:dbo1p8dvo2pkvfpge...@4ax.com deep wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 12 May 2013 22:30:33 -0700, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>They had a chance to talk to the survivors the week after the attack
> so
>>>>>they knew the truth--that it was a well planned terrorist attack.
>>>>
>>>> Which nobody knew until much later. The Administration wasn't hiding
>>>> anything. At the time nobody knew what was going on.
>>>
>>> Which explains the almost immediate and continuing claim that the
> attack
>>> was actually a "spontaneous demonstration" against a movie that no one
>>> had seen.
>>
>> Except riots over that movie had taken place earlier in the day in
> Cairo
>> and other spots. Care to explain that?
>>
>>
> Care to produce a cite proving that?
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-Issues/2012/0912/Blasphemy-riots-6-
examples-around-the-world/Innocence-of-Muslims
deep
May 13, 2013, 9:11:17 PM5/13/13
to
linuxgal
May 13, 2013, 10:48:35 PM5/13/13
to
deep wrote:
> Somebody working for Obama make a bad
> error in judgement an you want to crucify Obama for FOUR American
> deaths.
No, I want to crucify Obama for covering up an al-Qaeda attack by
> Somebody working for Obama make a bad
> error in judgement an you want to crucify Obama for FOUR American
> deaths.
running a narrative it was just a protest in response to a YouTube video
because it was the eve of the election and he was running as the guy who
killed bin Laden.
--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0
linuxgal
May 13, 2013, 10:54:50 PM5/13/13
to
deep wrote:
> Just another case of Republicans trying to destroy a good President
> simply because he's a Democrat and because they can't win on the
> issues.
If Bush used the IRS to harass Move On.org would that be an "issue"?
> Just another case of Republicans trying to destroy a good President
> simply because he's a Democrat and because they can't win on the
> issues.
Zepp
May 13, 2013, 10:04:34 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 18:54:50 -0800, linuxgal wrote:
> deep wrote:
>> Just another case of Republicans trying to destroy a good President
>> simply because he's a Democrat and because they can't win on the
>> issues.
>
> If Bush used the IRS to harass Move On.org would that be an "issue"?
The problem is that the head of the IRS, whose term ended in November of
> deep wrote:
>> Just another case of Republicans trying to destroy a good President
>> simply because he's a Democrat and because they can't win on the
>> issues.
>
> If Bush used the IRS to harass Move On.org would that be an "issue"?
2012, was a Bush appointee. It was he, not Obama, who determined IRS
policy.
It was his assistant, the acting commish, an Obama appointee, who
revealed this was going on and apologized.
You've got a scandal, maybe, but you can't point at Obama. In fact, it
kinda makes sense that a Republican IRS commish might have been behind
it; mainstream GOP hate the teabaggers a whole lot more than the Dems do.
Zepp
May 13, 2013, 10:05:24 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 18:48:35 -0800, linuxgal wrote:
> deep wrote:
>> Somebody working for Obama make a bad error in judgement an you want to
>> crucify Obama for FOUR American deaths.
>
> No, I want to crucify Obama for covering up an al-Qaeda attack by
> running a narrative it was just a protest in response to a YouTube video
> because it was the eve of the election and he was running as the guy who
> killed bin Laden.
I'm sure you want to crucify him, but it's pretty hard to claim a cover
> deep wrote:
>> Somebody working for Obama make a bad error in judgement an you want to
>> crucify Obama for FOUR American deaths.
>
> No, I want to crucify Obama for covering up an al-Qaeda attack by
> running a narrative it was just a protest in response to a YouTube video
> because it was the eve of the election and he was running as the guy who
> killed bin Laden.
up when the NEXT DAY he's talking about it being an act of terror.
linuxgal
May 13, 2013, 11:22:32 PM5/13/13
to
deep
May 13, 2013, 10:23:07 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 18:54:50 -0800, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
wrote:
>deep wrote:
>> Just another case of Republicans trying to destroy a good President
>> simply because he's a Democrat and because they can't win on the
>> issues.
>
>If Bush used the IRS to harass Move On.org would that be an "issue"?
Bush did in fact use the IRS to harass the NAACP.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083100737.html
You wingers' double standards are truly amazing.
wrote:
>deep wrote:
>> Just another case of Republicans trying to destroy a good President
>> simply because he's a Democrat and because they can't win on the
>> issues.
>
>If Bush used the IRS to harass Move On.org would that be an "issue"?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083100737.html
You wingers' double standards are truly amazing.
linuxgal
May 13, 2013, 11:23:29 PM5/13/13
to
Zepp wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 18:54:50 -0800, linuxgal wrote:
>
>> >deep wrote:
>>> >>Just another case of Republicans trying to destroy a good President
>>> >>simply because he's a Democrat and because they can't win on the
>>> >>issues.
>> >
>> >If Bush used the IRS to harass Move On.org would that be an "issue"?
> The problem is that the head of the IRS, whose term ended in November of
> 2012, was a Bush appointee. It was he, not Obama, who determined IRS
> policy.
>
> It was his assistant, the acting commish, an Obama appointee, who
> revealed this was going on and apologized.
They want to hang this one one office in Cincinatti but the targets were
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 18:54:50 -0800, linuxgal wrote:
>
>> >deep wrote:
>>> >>Just another case of Republicans trying to destroy a good President
>>> >>simply because he's a Democrat and because they can't win on the
>>> >>issues.
>> >
>> >If Bush used the IRS to harass Move On.org would that be an "issue"?
> The problem is that the head of the IRS, whose term ended in November of
> 2012, was a Bush appointee. It was he, not Obama, who determined IRS
> policy.
>
> It was his assistant, the acting commish, an Obama appointee, who
> revealed this was going on and apologized.
nationwide.
deep
May 13, 2013, 10:24:02 PM5/13/13
to
RD Sandman
May 13, 2013, 10:48:37 PM5/13/13
to
Zepp <de...@gone.com> wrote in news:kms2hi$s25$5...@dont-email.me:
Here is what your cite says:
"The most recent example is a US-made film called the �Innocence of
Muslims,� which reportedly spurred demonstrations in Egypt and Libya that
ended with the deaths of the US Ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher
Stevens, and three of his consular staff. In Cairo, protesters scaled the
walls of the US embassy compound and replaced the US flag with an
Islamist one, but no one was hurt.
[Notice the words "....reportedly spurred..."
The two-hour film paints the prophet Muhammad as a pedophile and fraud.
The details of the amateurish film's provenance are still being sorted
out, but it was reportedly made in America. A YouTube trailer of the film
was dubbed into Arabic and portions were later picked up by Egyptian TV
stations and discussed in the local media.
The Youtube trailer was the supposed inflaming part shown in Benghazi. I
see in the preceding paragraph that protesters replaced the US flag with
an Islamist one, but no one was hurt. Not much of a riot.
"The most recent example is a US-made film called the �Innocence of
Muslims,� which reportedly spurred demonstrations in Egypt and Libya that
ended with the deaths of the US Ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher
Stevens, and three of his consular staff. In Cairo, protesters scaled the
walls of the US embassy compound and replaced the US flag with an
Islamist one, but no one was hurt.
[Notice the words "....reportedly spurred..."
The two-hour film paints the prophet Muhammad as a pedophile and fraud.
The details of the amateurish film's provenance are still being sorted
out, but it was reportedly made in America. A YouTube trailer of the film
was dubbed into Arabic and portions were later picked up by Egyptian TV
stations and discussed in the local media.
The Youtube trailer was the supposed inflaming part shown in Benghazi. I
see in the preceding paragraph that protesters replaced the US flag with
an Islamist one, but no one was hurt. Not much of a riot.
RD Sandman
May 13, 2013, 10:53:34 PM5/13/13
to
Tom McDonald <kil...@gmail.com> wrote in news:83gkt.352$je4.172
@newsfe09.iad:
Actually, no, he didn't. He did not falsify intel although he may have
misread it. He saw the same intel the committees did and the Senate
passed a war resolution supported by statements from John Kerry, both
Clintons, etc.. He did NOT do the deregulation attributed to him. He
did not give a taxcut to the rich that the middle class didn't also
receive. In fact, Obama not only extended that taxcut and added another
2% from payroll taxes.
Was Bush a good president? I don't think so but I do think that history
will judge him a much better president than the current media does.
@newsfe09.iad:
misread it. He saw the same intel the committees did and the Senate
passed a war resolution supported by statements from John Kerry, both
Clintons, etc.. He did NOT do the deregulation attributed to him. He
did not give a taxcut to the rich that the middle class didn't also
receive. In fact, Obama not only extended that taxcut and added another
2% from payroll taxes.
Was Bush a good president? I don't think so but I do think that history
will judge him a much better president than the current media does.
RD Sandman
May 13, 2013, 10:55:03 PM5/13/13
to
Zepp <de...@gone.com> wrote in news:kms653$s25$1...@dont-email.me:
No, he didn't. He was talking about terror in general. Listen carefully
to that video of him in the Rose Garden.
to that video of him in the Rose Garden.
Zepp
May 13, 2013, 10:59:50 PM5/13/13
to
legitimate. Any sleazy asshole can form a 501(k) with the word "Patriot"
in the title, and quite a few have.
Zepp
May 13, 2013, 11:00:56 PM5/13/13
to
Romney's campaign implode.
Zepp
May 13, 2013, 11:02:13 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 21:55:03 -0500, RD Sandman wrote:
> Zepp <de...@gone.com> wrote in news:kms653$s25$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 18:48:35 -0800, linuxgal wrote:
>>
>>> deep wrote:
>>>> Somebody working for Obama make a bad error in judgement an you want
> to
>>>> crucify Obama for FOUR American deaths.
>>>
>>> No, I want to crucify Obama for covering up an al-Qaeda attack by
>>> running a narrative it was just a protest in response to a YouTube
> video
>>> because it was the eve of the election and he was running as the guy
> who
>>> killed bin Laden.
>>
>> I'm sure you want to crucify him, but it's pretty hard to claim a cover
>> up when the NEXT DAY he's talking about it being an act of terror.
>>
>>
> No, he didn't. He was talking about terror in general. Listen
> carefully to that video of him in the Rose Garden.
Given that nobody knew exactly who was behind the attacks, how specific
> Zepp <de...@gone.com> wrote in news:kms653$s25$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 18:48:35 -0800, linuxgal wrote:
>>
>>> deep wrote:
>>>> Somebody working for Obama make a bad error in judgement an you want
> to
>>>> crucify Obama for FOUR American deaths.
>>>
>>> No, I want to crucify Obama for covering up an al-Qaeda attack by
>>> running a narrative it was just a protest in response to a YouTube
> video
>>> because it was the eve of the election and he was running as the guy
> who
>>> killed bin Laden.
>>
>> I'm sure you want to crucify him, but it's pretty hard to claim a cover
>> up when the NEXT DAY he's talking about it being an act of terror.
>>
>>
> No, he didn't. He was talking about terror in general. Listen
> carefully to that video of him in the Rose Garden.
could he get?
Zepp
May 13, 2013, 11:10:30 PM5/13/13
to
and where they were located a few days before the war? Obviously they
were lying then.
He saw the same intel the committees did
not have WMDs or the capability of making any was held back. And the
Senate did not declare war. They simply passed a resolution telling Bush
to start a war if he felt like it, on the understanding that he wouldn't
do so without backing from the UN Security Council. That was another
thing Bush lied about.
and the Senate
> passed a war resolution supported by statements from John Kerry, both
> Clintons, etc..
1998, or 2002, before the UN inspectors, led by an American joint task
force, determined that Saddam was in complience.
He did NOT do the deregulation attributed to him. He
> did not give a taxcut to the rich that the middle class didn't also
> receive. In fact, Obama not only extended that taxcut and added another
> 2% from payroll taxes.
cuts went to the rich, who have since basically gutted the American
economy. And yes, Obama extended much of that tax cut, another
disgraceful cave on his part.
Assuming you AREN'T in the top 1%, why are you applauding the massive
screwing you're getting?
>
> Was Bush a good president? I don't think so but I do think that history
> will judge him a much better president than the current media does.
I think he will go down as the first post-coup President of the former
> Was Bush a good president? I don't think so but I do think that history
> will judge him a much better president than the current media does.
United States.
Zepp
May 13, 2013, 11:13:08 PM5/13/13
to
movie. They were. Reporters at the time said "allegedly" because as is
usual in such situations, it's hard to have definitive information.
No, the Cairo riots weren't as damaging as Benghazi, but they were
visible enough to excuse the initial confusion.
Jeanne Douglas
May 13, 2013, 11:18:18 PM5/13/13
to
didn't turn any of these organizations down, as they should have.
Jeanne Douglas
May 13, 2013, 11:19:04 PM5/13/13
to
allowing right-wing fundamentalists to spew political hatred with
impunity.
Zepp
May 13, 2013, 11:29:55 PM5/13/13
to
groups and what are flat-out political organizations.
It's pretty much destroyed democracy in America.
linuxgal
May 14, 2013, 12:45:10 AM5/14/13
to
Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> And, unfortunately, no matter what investigations they did, the IRS
> didn't turn any of these organizations down, as they should have.
Why should they have, the "Tea Party" in the title, or "Patriot" ?
> And, unfortunately, no matter what investigations they did, the IRS
> didn't turn any of these organizations down, as they should have.
Jeanne Douglas
May 13, 2013, 11:58:19 PM5/13/13
to
Scout
May 14, 2013, 12:20:10 AM5/14/13
to
"Zepp" <de...@gone.com> wrote in message news:kmsa43$s25$1...@dont-email.me...
I would think by now you could come up with something more conclusive than
just allegations.
So where is it?
Scout
May 14, 2013, 12:22:38 AM5/14/13
to
"Zepp" <de...@gone.com> wrote in message news:kms9v5$s25$1...@dont-email.me...
And then you wonder why people don't consider your claims creditable.
Scout
May 14, 2013, 12:23:54 AM5/14/13
to
"Zepp" <de...@gone.com> wrote in message news:kms9fk$s25$1...@dont-email.me...
hours of it starting?
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages