Benghazi - Colbert Goes After ABC News ‘Super Sleuth’ Jon Karl’s ‘Journalism’ Behind Inaccurate Benghazi Report

[Antonio E. Gonzalez]

So, terrorists kill Americans, but some people insist on making the
events leading up to it the focus; you know, instead of getting the
terrorists responsible.

Anyway, in case you forgot how the whole Benghazi "scandal" fell
apart, here:


<http://www.mediaite.com/tv/colbert-goes-after-abc-news-super-sleuth-jon-karls-journalism-behind-inaccurate-benghazi-report/>

<http://preview.tinyurl.com/k7vg9jq>

"President Obama�s recent woes provided Stephen Colbert with glee on
Monday night as he presented the Obama Scandal Booth, ready to help
himself to a healthy portion of controversy. But the subject of his
scrutiny was not the president, it was ABC News� Jonathan Karl, whose
Benghazi report on talking points has come into question. Colbert
joined in on the criticism, seeking to understand Karl�s so-called
�journalism.�

Colbert stepped into the booth, which was swirling with slips of paper
� each with a scandal written on it � to �grasp wildly at any
accusation that floats past.� As luck would have it, Monday�s winner
was: Benghazi.

Which of course brought him to the topic of Karl�s report on the
emails exchanged about the talking points. One email by national
security adviser Ben Rhodes, in particular, which Karl later said was
based on a paraphrase � not the actual email. (Karl has since said he
�regretted� not properly attributing the quote, but the story still
stands.)

�Super sleuth� Karl�s story was a bombshell� until it wasn�t. Since
Rhodes actual email showed he never mentioned the State Department, as
Karl had reported �verbatim� from a source.

�Yes, Karl never saw the email. So when he quoted from it, those
quotes were in quotes,� Colbert reasoned, gesturing air quotes. �I
mean, that�s just what you call �journalism.��

He then proceeded to offer some �journalism� of his own."

--

- Officially, President Obama will be the best US President since FDR
on 2017; unofficially, he already is.


--

- ReFlex76

- <http://twitter.com/ReFlex76>

[Ashton Crusher]

Colbert first, Stewart second, for the two best half-hours of
newsiness and truthiness on TV. And generally more accurate and in
much better context then the drivel put out by the lame stream news.

[RichA]

On May 21, 3:38 pm, Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:
>    So, terrorists kill Americans, but some people insist on making the
> events leading up to it the focus; you know, instead of getting the
> terrorists responsible.
>

No, the terrorists should because and tortured to death, in a perfect
world. What they can do (because it's right in front of them) is also
go after the inattentive incompetents who LET it happen. How many
incidences post-911 is it going to take for government bureaucrats to
DO THEIR JOBS?

[1,979 murdered in Obama's organized communities]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 12:38:03 -0700, Antonio E. Gonzalez
<AntE...@aol.com> wrote:

>- Officially, President Obama will be the best US President since FDR

>on 2017; unofficially, he already is.*

* in the shit-spewing, golf-playing, wannabe-king, affirmative action
poster child category.

[Antonio E. Gonzalez]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 22:34:59 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Ummm, they did their jobs, it just wasn't enough in this case.

[Antonio E. Gonzalez]

Actually, in the terrorist-ass-kicking,
Great-Depression-preventing, Obamacare-passing category.

[JRStern]

It is not at all clear that they "did their jobs" beforehand, it is
exceedingly doubtful that they "did their jobs" during the event, it
seems unbelievable that they "did their jobs" after the event when
even their leader Hildabeast's only comment on the matter was to cry,
"What does it matter now?" That is hardly an explanation of how well
they did their jobs.

J.

[trotsky]

On 5/22/13 12:34 AM, RichA wrote:
> On May 21, 3:38 pm, Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:
>> So, terrorists kill Americans, but some people insist on making the
>> events leading up to it the focus; you know, instead of getting the
>> terrorists responsible.
>>
>
> No, the terrorists should because and tortured to death, in a perfect
> world.

What?

In a perfect world you would've been recognized as brain dead a long
time ago.


--
Never post something on the internet unless you have a point of
reference. You will look like a moron otherwise.

[cloud dreamer]

The ambassador was offered more security. He turned it down. No one
anywhere can be 100% for an ambush. That's the reason the tactic is
used. These things happen...and they happened 10x more often under Bush
with 48 more deaths....but somehow...those are okay.

BTW, if Bush had done his job, 911 may not have happened. It's mind
boggling how concerned the Right is over 4 deaths but think nothing of
the 1,000,000+ deaths that resulted from Bush's incompetence.

..

[trotsky]

On 5/23/13 6:57 AM, cloud dreamer wrote:
> On 23/05/2013 2:51 AM, JRStern wrote:

>> It is not at all clear that they "did their jobs" beforehand, it is
>> exceedingly doubtful that they "did their jobs" during the event, it
>> seems unbelievable that they "did their jobs" after the event when
>> even their leader Hildabeast's only comment on the matter was to cry,
>> "What does it matter now?" That is hardly an explanation of how well
>> they did their jobs.
>>
>

> The ambassador was offered more security. He turned it down. No one
> anywhere can be 100% for an ambush. That's the reason the tactic is
> used. These things happen...and they happened 10x more often under Bush
> with 48 more deaths....but somehow...those are okay.
>
> BTW, if Bush had done his job, 911 may not have happened. It's mind
> boggling how concerned the Right is over 4 deaths but think nothing of
> the 1,000,000+ deaths that resulted from Bush's incompetence.

I have to give the right wing guys credit. They have created a bubble
of "You can't criticize Bush because he's just like a retarded kid."
Obama gets to be blamed for everything and Bush gets to be blamed for
nothing. Disingenuous assholes.

[Professor Bubba]

In article <iZSdnVj7MvwCmgPM...@mchsi.com>, trotsky

What's going on here is that the Obama administration is trying to
skate on the fact that the facility attacked in Benghazi was not a
consulate but a CIA station. The Republicans know this, and they know
that Obama can't admit to it, so they're free to pillory him about it
in public. Any substantive Benghazi hearings would have to be held
behind closed doors.

The IRS scandal has been transformed from a reasonable inquiry into
whether its vetting policy was even-handed to something where it's been
decided that Tea Party groups are not supposed to be investigated at
all. The right has managed to "play the ref" on the IRS, which is a
remarkable achievement. The tactic has worked pretty well with the
media over the years, but here? This opportunity to jam up the IRS was
unexpected, but the right took full advantage of it. The right has
always been much better at this stuff than the left.

[Adam H. Kerman]

I have to give you credit for putting a comic spin on Clod's typical
idiocy, but you're wildly off the mark. What else is new.

There's plenty to criticize Bush for, and little to praise him for, but
9/11 and the constant drumbeat of "failure of intelligence" and lack of
inter-agency communication was nothing more than 20-20 hindsight. Hell,
FBI wasn't even coordinating and analyzing information it had collected
from counter-intelligence work and what its own field offices were doing.

9/11 wasn't a failure of intelligence, but a failure of policing. We had
the Clinton years, at least six, to go after the bad guys who had perpetrated
the first World Trade Center attack. There wasn't much effort put into it,
and international politics thwarted proper investigations of USS Cole attack.

PBS's Frontline did a nice documentary years ago on John O'Neill,
"The Man Who Knew".

[Jim G.]

cloud dreamer sent the following on 5/23/2013 6:57 AM:

> On 23/05/2013 2:51 AM, JRStern wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 18:25:22 -0700, Antonio E. Gonzalez
>> <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 22:34:59 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On May 21, 3:38 pm, Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> So, terrorists kill Americans, but some people insist on making the
>>>>> events leading up to it the focus; you know, instead of getting the
>>>>> terrorists responsible.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, the terrorists should because and tortured to death, in a perfect
>>>> world. What they can do (because it's right in front of them) is also
>>>> go after the inattentive incompetents who LET it happen. How many
>>>> incidences post-911 is it going to take for government bureaucrats to
>>>> DO THEIR JOBS?
>>>
>>> Ummm, they did their jobs, it just wasn't enough in this case.
>>
>> It is not at all clear that they "did their jobs" beforehand, it is
>> exceedingly doubtful that they "did their jobs" during the event, it
>> seems unbelievable that they "did their jobs" after the event when
>> even their leader Hildabeast's only comment on the matter was to cry,
>> "What does it matter now?" That is hardly an explanation of how well
>> they did their jobs.
>>
>> J.
>>
>
> The ambassador was offered more security. He turned it down.

Got a cite for that?

> No one
> anywhere can be 100% for an ambush. That's the reason the tactic is
> used. These things happen...and they happened 10x more often under Bush
> with 48 more deaths....but somehow...those are okay.

Right. Because there's no middle ground between, say, dereliction of
duty and "okay." For stupid people, at least.

> BTW, if Bush had done his job, 911 may not have happened.

Ramping up the stupid even more, I see. Well done!

> It's mind
> boggling how concerned the Right is over 4 deaths but think nothing of
> the 1,000,000+ deaths that resulted from Bush's incompetence.

Given the degree of detachment that you have from the real world, are
you actually allowed out in public without adult supervision?

--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"I was wondering if you could give me some advice on how to handle
stress." -- Norma Bates, BATES MOTEL

[Irish Mike]

On May 21 2013 4:38 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:

> So, terrorists kill Americans, but some people insist on making the
> events leading up to it the focus;

As it should be. Obama makes a speech about how he has single handedly
put muslim terrorist on the run. Except, of course, he never calls them
muslim or terrorists. So Hillary insists the US open a consulate in
Benghazi even though the military and CIA tell her it isn't safe.

They stick a poor Ambassador and a few retired Navy SEALs in the place
with out nearly enough security to protect them. The Ambassador and the
retired Navy SEALs beg Clinton and Obama for more security, especially on
the anniversary of 9/11. But Obama and Clinton think this will make them
look bad politically because it would show that Obama really hasn't
defeated Al Quada and the other groups of muslim terrorists, so they
totally ignore the Ambassador's repeated pleas for more security.

Then, on the anniversary of 9/11 a heavily armed muslim terrorist unit
attacks the embassy. During the attack, which last for several hours, the
Ambassador/or repeatedly begs for a rescue force to come and save them.
Obama and Clinton ignore the requests and tell the military to stand-down.
Then Obama goes to bed and leaves the Americans to be killed. Next
morning Obama jets off to a political fund raiser in Las Vegas and Hillary
starts spinning their cover up story.

Obama and Hillary decide to ignore the CIA reports of the terrorist attack
and murder of the Ambassador and three other Americans. The come up with
a plan to blame it all on a "spontaneous mob" (that just happened to be
armed with assault rifles and rocket propelled grenades) that was reacting
to some silly little You Tube video clip that no one in Benghazi ever even
saw. Later a whistle blower in Hillary's State Department would say it
was one of the most preposterous and embarrassing lies he has ever heard.

To help keep the spin going Obama and Clinton go on TV and make an apology
to the muslim terrorists for the video no one has seen. They even spin
this lie to the families of the ambassador and the other dead Americans.

Obama and Clinton repeatedly tell this pack of lies until their lame
cover-up finally falls apart when whistle blowers come forward and tell
what really happened and how the four Americans at Benghazi were really
murdered by muslim terrorists. Then Obama and Hillary switch political
gears and say they can't talk to the press because of their big super
duper, top secret investigation that doesn't result in a fucking thing and
no one from the State Department is fired or even reprimanded.

Of course, the real reason for the Benghazi cover-up was to help Obama get
reelected to a second term. Which is, of course, the same reason Obama
and his thugs tried to cover up the IRS scandal and the AP and Fox News
scandals.


Irish Mike

"By his own actions, Obama is arrogantly ambitious but sadly incompetent.
He has corrupted the foundations of our Republic, and for that he gets a
failing grade." Peter Morici

Liberals say they are willing to consider opposing points of view, but are
always shocked, angry and outraged to find they exist.

[Antonio E. Gonzalez]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 16:04:54 -0700, "Irish Mike"
<ad7...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

>On May 21 2013 4:38 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>
>> So, terrorists kill Americans, but some people insist on making the
>> events leading up to it the focus;
>
>As it should be.

Nah, what matters is getting the terrorists who did this. Anyway,
this issue is as dead as Andrew Breirbart; you're free to keep beating
the corpse, the rest of us have moved on.

[RichA]

Colbert is an ass---- liberal who has made a career out of
histrionics.

[JRStern]

El Wrongo. They'd been screaming for more security for months, and it
was turned down. But that's not even the question. The question is,
in the event, did state or defense tell available resources not to go.
This seems pretty clearly the case. After the fact, did they tell the
truth? No. For days and weeks they blamed the murders ON THE USA, on
freedom of the press, on some goofy Youtube video, on the idea that
them poor Muslims just couldn't HELP themselves because the video was
so vile.

So, why are they STILL LYING? Because the CIA base was doing several
things which are "secret", that is are probably illegal, immoral, or
just embarrassing.

These are the questions and the facts. Go ahead and keep changing the
subject and denying the obvious, that's why we love ya.

J.

[Irish Mike]

On May 25 2013 12:30 AM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:

> On Fri, 24 May 2013 16:04:54 -0700, "Irish Mike"
> <ad7...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
> >On May 21 2013 4:38 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
> >
> >> So, terrorists kill Americans, but some people insist on making the
> >> events leading up to it the focus;
> >
> >As it should be.
>
> Nah, what matters is getting the terrorists who did this. Anyway,
> this issue is as dead as Andrew Breirbart; you're free to keep beating
> the corpse, the rest of us have moved on.

You mean as in "moveon.org", which is one of Obama's left wing propaganda
units that tries to divert voter's attention away from Obama's myriad of
fuck-ups and cover-ups?. Sorry bucko, but the Benghazi scandal, the
murder of four Americans, including a US Ambassador and the Obama
administration's attempted cover-up is just getting started. And it is
being fueled by the Fast and Furious scandal, the IRS scandal, the AP
scandal and the Fox News scandal.

And Obama is being further damaged because of new evidence coming forward
every day, the fact that one of Obama's top IRS officials just pleaded the
Fifth Amendment in front of a Congressional Investigative Committee and
the fact that Eric Holder just got caught in a fresh pack of lies.

No bucko, the next step is that Obama and his pack of dishonest, lying
political thugs are going to start turning on each other. And you can
look for Eric Holder to get thrown under the bus by Obama and at least a
few of Obama's IRS crooks to go to prison.

"I could no more disown Jeremiah Wright than I could disown the black
community" - Obama, about two weeks before he disowned Jeremiah Wright and
threw him under the bus.

[David Johnston]

Where were these "available resources"?

[David Johnston]

On 5/24/2013 5:04 PM, Irish Mike wrote:
> On May 21 2013 4:38 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>
>> So, terrorists kill Americans, but some people insist on making the
>> events leading up to it the focus;
>
> As it should be. Obama makes a speech about how he has single handedly
> put muslim terrorist on the run. Except, of course, he never calls them
> muslim or terrorists. So Hillary insists the US open a consulate in
> Benghazi even though the military and CIA tell her it isn't safe.

Wasn't the consulate there as cover for the CIA operation?

[Dano]

"JRStern" wrote in message
news:v2j0q8523e8n3k7al...@4ax.com...

==============================================

What are YOUR sources? Why are you still lying? Do you think that you have
ANY credibility?

[JRStern]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 09:36:59 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
wrote:

>>> The ambassador was offered more security. He turned it down.
>>
>> El Wrongo. They'd been screaming for more security for months, and it
>> was turned down. But that's not even the question. The question is,
>> in the event, did state or defense tell available resources not to go.
>
>Where were these "available resources"?

Conventional, special, and extra-special military forces, for example:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/05/us_military_we_could_have_saved_ambassador_stevens.html

Everyone knew it was dangerous for diplomats (sic) to be in Benghazi,
the situation was complex, and you never know the what-ifs. But to
deny that there were available forces, and to deny that they were told
to stand down, is disgusting. Those are outright lies. The decision
to tell them to stand down, is a separate discussion. Most accounts
had it that we didn't want to send in the military and look like big
imperialists. Then again this was a CIA base and operation, and who
knows what additional resources they had or why they were not sent.

J.

[JRStern]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 12:14:19 -0400, "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Getting into a debate with retarded leftists who think it's clever to
turn the debate into whether the sun rises in the east, is a total
waste of time. Try this: www.google.com

J.

[David Johnston]

On 5/25/2013 10:25 AM, JRStern wrote:
> On Sat, 25 May 2013 09:36:59 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
> wrote:
>
>>>> The ambassador was offered more security. He turned it down.
>>>
>>> El Wrongo. They'd been screaming for more security for months, and it
>>> was turned down. But that's not even the question. The question is,
>>> in the event, did state or defense tell available resources not to go.
>>
>> Where were these "available resources"?
>
> Conventional, special, and extra-special military forces, for example:
>
> http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/05/us_military_we_could_have_saved_ambassador_stevens.html

Your link says military forces would have been available to hit the
ground in 3 to 5 hours. I note that would mean arriving well after the
Ambassador experienced his injuries.

[BTR1701]

In article <knqno0$25r$1...@dont-email.me>,

No more than every consulate and embassy we have around the world is.

[Mason Barge]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 10:13:52 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
wrote:

Did Hillary C. actually insist that a consulate be opened there over
objections, or is this just more crap?

[Adam H. Kerman]

I'm calling bullshit.

Consulates, generally, aren't used to interrogate prisoners as this one was.
It wasn't even CIA doing it, but a contractor.

[Dano]

"David Johnston" wrote in message news:knqno0$25r$1...@dont-email.me...

=========================================

Couldn't that be said of virtually ANY consulate? The CIA annex however,
was just over a mile from the consulate. I'm convinced...but certainly am
in no position to know...let alone prove...that this whole affair is so
shrouded in the secrecy ALWAYS surrounding events that relate to CIA
activity...that we will never know exactly what occurred. In fact...a
commando unit was sent to an air station in Sicily that night...but for
whatever reasons was not deployed to Benghazi. One hypothesis I have is
that they feared they were already destined to be too late to rescue our
people and were reluctant to start a chain reaction that would ultimately
lead to another war, involving ground troops on still another front. Just
my uneducated guess. Lord knows there is enough EDUCATED guesswork going on
from both sides of this political football game.

One other thing though...why is there so little said about the votes in
congress denying funding for more security for our diplomatic missions?
Seems peculiar to say the least. When we send our diplomatic people to war
torn areas...which is where we need them to be most...these brave folks will
always be in harms way. This loss of life...sad as it certainly is...was
NOT specific to this administration. In fact our diplomats in places like
this are always in grave danger. They understand that going in. As a
symbol of America, of course they will attract the rage of our enemies.
They deserve all the protection we can give them. Protection that was
deemed too costly by many in congress who now point fingers and try to
assess blame for political gain. Quite disgusting. These
lawmakers...mostly Republican...need to look into a mirror and self assess.

[Dano]

"JRStern" wrote in message
news:8gp1q8pntv15nmq6v...@4ax.com...

=======================================================

Right. Pulled more biased crap out of your ass. And those equally relevant
right wing sources. More name calling and lying. Typical.

[Dano]

"Mason Barge" wrote in message
news:e6r1q8hjtc60b4sbe...@4ax.com...

===========================================

Whose objections? There are always objections to anything.

[thinbluemime]

There was NO, I REPEAT, NO consulate or embassy in Benghazi. This fact is
glossed over or downplayed to obscure the mission in Benghazi, which at
it's heart WAS NOT diplomatic.

<QUOTE ON>

Although the ambassador was killed, the Benghazi “consulate” was not a
consulate at all but basically a secret CIA operation which included an
effort to round up shoulder-launched missiles. In fact, only seven of the
30 Americans evacuated from Benghazi had any connection to the State
Department; the rest were affiliated with the CIA.

The official reports, such as the one from the Accountability Review Board
and the Senate Homeland Security Committee report, essentially dance
around that uncomfortable fact:

“In December 2011, the Under Secretary for Management approved a one-year
continuation of the U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi, which was never a
consulate and never formally notified to the Libyan government.” (ARB)

<QUOTE OFF>


http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf pp 14-15

[BTR1701]

In article <op.wxnav...@experience.zoomtown.com>,

thinbluemime <thinbl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 25 May 2013 17:47:15 +0100, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <knqno0$25r$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 5/24/2013 5:04 PM, Irish Mike wrote:
> >> > On May 21 2013 4:38 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> So, terrorists kill Americans, but some people insist on making the
> >> >> events leading up to it the focus;
> >> >
> >> > As it should be. Obama makes a speech about how he has single handedly
> >> > put muslim terrorist on the run. Except, of course, he never calls
> >> them
> >> > muslim or terrorists. So Hillary insists the US open a consulate in
> >> > Benghazi even though the military and CIA tell her it isn't safe.
> >>
> >> Wasn't the consulate there as cover for the CIA operation?
> >
> > No more than every consulate and embassy we have around the world is.
>
>
> There was NO, I REPEAT, NO consulate or embassy in Benghazi. This fact is
> glossed over or downplayed to obscure the mission in Benghazi, which at
> it's heart WAS NOT diplomatic.
>
> <QUOTE ON>
>
> Although the ambassador was killed, the Benghazi “consulate” was not a
> consulate at all

If there's an ambassador, then by definition there's an embassy or a
consulate.

[thinbluemime]

>> Although the ambassador was killed, the Benghazi “consulate†was

>> not a
>> consulate at all
>
> If there's an ambassador, then by definition there's an embassy or a
> consulate.

Yes, but NOT IN BENGHAZI, in Tripoli.

Tripoli had a Embassy, Benghazi had a "Temporary Mission Facility."
http://www.collins.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/81d5e2d9-cc8d-45af-aa8b-b937c55c7208/Flashing%20Red-HSGAC%20Special%20Report%20final.pdf
page one

As a matter of fact, the Tripoli Embassy had officially opened only two
weeks before Stevens was killed in Benghazi. The Tripoli 'reopening'
mentioned below refers to post Qaddafi Libya, since everything had been
closed down during the USA/NATO regime change.

http://libya.usembassy.gov/en_082612.html





-------------------



Remarks by Ambassador Chris Stevens at the Reopening of the Consular
Section
August 26, 2012


Ambassador Chris Stevens (R) and MFA Director of the Americas Desk
Abdurrahman al-Gannas (L) cut the ribbon to mark the opening of the new
Consular section.

(As delivered)

Good morning everybody. Sabaah al-kheir. Welcome to the Embassy. I know
it's hot and you're in the sun, so I promise my remarks will be short and
to the point.

Today is a great day for U.S.-Libyan relations. I'm so glad that you were
all able to join us here to mark the reopening of our Consular section.
Since returning to Libya as Ambassador in May, there's one question I've
heard almost every day from Libyans: "When are you going to start issuing
visas again?" Now, at last, you have your answer: Tomorrow.

I'm happy -- (applause) I'm happy to announce that starting on Monday,
August 27, we are ready to offer a full range of consular services to
Libyans. This means non-immigrant visas, as well as assistance to
Americans residing in, or visiting, Libya.

I congratulate our new Consul, Jenny Cordell (applause), and her fine
Libyan staff, for their hard work getting ready for this day, and for the
even harder work they will be doing starting tomorrow.

The reopening of our consular section will cre - will create new
opportunities for deepening ties between our two countries. For example,
we are working with the Minister of High - Higher Education to expand
English-language and university-level opportunities for Libyans, both here
and in the United States. This year we are sending hundreds of Libyans to
visit the U.S. on academic and professional exchange programs. In fact,
last Thursday a group of exceptional teenagers left for a Youth Leadership
Program in the United States. And on Friday, a group of Libyan journalists
traveled to America for a program on Journalism in Transitional Countries.

We're also supporting travel and exchanges between Libyans and Americans
in other areas, such as the development of civil society and the promotion
of trade.

Relationships between governments are important, but relationships between
people are the real foundation of mutual understanding. That's why the
reopening of our Consular section is such an important milestone in
relations between our two countries.

So, my message to Libyans today is ahlan wasahlan bikum. You are welcome
to visit America, and there's the door! Thank you. (applause)

[Adam H. Kerman]

thinbluemime <thinbl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>There was NO, I REPEAT, NO consulate or embassy in Benghazi. This fact is
>glossed over or downplayed to obscure the mission in Benghazi, which at
>it's heart WAS NOT diplomatic.

It's not an embassy because it's not the seat of government. (In countries
in which the government sits in one capital and the head of state in another
capital, I don't know which one would be the embassy.) But it's a consulate
by the mere fact that the ambassador was working out of the facility.

It's the same concept as an ordinary military passenger aircraft becoming
Air Force One when it's pressed into service to fly the president somewhere.

[JRStern]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 10:45:58 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>

But probably before he died - the facts are still very fuzzy.

But apparently there was an initial attack, a long quiet period, and
then the final attack, and IIRC the CIA defenders were not killed
until something like twelve hours after the business started.

So yes, there is reason to think that it was already over and done and
no troops NEEDED to be sent, or possibly even to think everyone was
already dead - when that was not the case.

But if you don't even try, that's one thing, and if you lie about it
afterwards, that's another. And if you blame it on a Youtube video,
you're a triple fraud and idiot.

And if you say "What does it matter now?" you're Hildabeast.

J.

[JRStern]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 13:26:13 -0400, "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com>

As usual, you describe yourself and nothing but.

J.

[JRStern]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 12:55:12 -0400, Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com>
wrote:

When the principals are all inveterate liars, we'll never know.

Apparently most of the facility was CIA, probably running guns to the
local insurgents and for shipment to Syria. Hildabeast might have
volunteered or been coerced to open a civilian consulate there as
well, to make it all nicer, or as a cover story, or maybe she never
heard of it at all until it blew up but someone at State made these
decisions.

J.

[BTR1701]

In article <op.wxndq...@experience.zoomtown.com>,

thinbluemime <thinbl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 25 May 2013 20:34:05 +0100, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <op.wxnav...@experience.zoomtown.com>,
> > thinbluemime <thinbl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> Although the ambassador was killed, the Benghazi "consulate" was

> >> not a consulate at all
> >
> > If there's an ambassador, then by definition there's an embassy or a
> > consulate.
>
> Yes, but NOT IN BENGHAZI, in Tripoli.

You're making a distinction without a difference.

[Mason Barge]

I'm not one of the people pooh-poohing what happened in Benghazi, but
if this had been an attack on the American Embassy, this would be a
different magnitude.

Myy guess is that the words "Jimmy Carter" would substantially
eliminate Hillary from contention in the 2016 presidential campaign.

[Irish Mike]

Yeah, like the Ambassador telling Hillary Benghazi wasn't safe and
repeatedly begging for more security. And he kept begging, and being
ignored by Hilliary, right up to the time the muslim terrorists over ran
the embassy and murdered him and three other Americans. And while the
muslim terrorists were attacking and over running the embassy, which took
several hours, Hillary's people ignored their pleas for help, told the
military to stand down and Obama went to bed.

Irish Mike

Proud to be one of the 59,133,000 plus Americans who voted against Obama.

[Irish Mike]

On May 23 2013 8:57 AM, cloud dreamer wrote:

> On 23/05/2013 2:51 AM, JRStern wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 May 2013 18:25:22 -0700, Antonio E. Gonzalez
> > <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 21 May 2013 22:34:59 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>

> >>> On May 21, 3:38 pm, Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>> So, terrorists kill Americans, but some people insist on making the

> >>>> events leading up to it the focus; you know, instead of getting the
> >>>> terrorists responsible.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> No, the terrorists should because and tortured to death, in a perfect
> >>> world. What they can do (because it's right in front of them) is also
> >>> go after the inattentive incompetents who LET it happen. How many
> >>> incidences post-911 is it going to take for government bureaucrats to
> >>> DO THEIR JOBS?
> >>
> >> Ummm, they did their jobs, it just wasn't enough in this case.
> >
> > It is not at all clear that they "did their jobs" beforehand, it is
> > exceedingly doubtful that they "did their jobs" during the event, it
> > seems unbelievable that they "did their jobs" after the event when
> > even their leader Hildabeast's only comment on the matter was to cry,
> > "What does it matter now?" That is hardly an explanation of how well
> > they did their jobs.
> >
> > J.
> >
>
> The ambassador was offered more security. He turned it down.

you are a liar. Whistle blowers in the State Department swore under oath
that the Ambassador repeatedly begged Clinton for more security,
especially on
the anniversary of 9/11. But Obama and Clinton think this will make them
look bad politically because it would show that Obama really hasn't
defeated Al Quada and the other groups of muslim terrorists, so they
totally ignore the Ambassador's repeated pleas for more security.

Then, on the anniversary of 9/11 a heavily armed muslim terrorist unit
attacks the embassy. During the attack, which last for several hours, the
Ambassador repeatedly begs for a rescue force to come and save them.
Obama and Clinton ignore the requests and tell the military to stand-down.
Then Obama goes to bed and leaves the Americans to be killed. Next
morning Obama flies off on Air Force One at taxpayer expense to a
political fund raiser in Las Vegas and Hillary and Obama's staff start
spinning their cover up story.

Obama and Hillary decide to ignore the CIA reports of the terrorist attack
and murder of the Ambassador and three other Americans. The come up with
a plan to blame it all on a "spontaneous mob" (that just happened to be
armed with assault rifles and rocket propelled grenades) that was reacting
to some silly little You Tube video clip that no one in Benghazi ever even
saw. Later a whistle blower in Hillary's State Department would say it
was one of the most preposterous and embarrassing lies he has ever heard.

To help keep the spin going Obama and Clinton go on TV and make an apology
to the muslim terrorists for the video no one has seen. They even spin
this lie to the families of the ambassador and the other dead Americans.

Obama and Clinton repeatedly tell this pack of lies until their lame
cover-up finally falls apart when whistle blowers come forward and tell
what really happened and how the four Americans at Benghazi were really
murdered by muslim terrorists. Then Obama and Hillary switch political
gears and say they can't talk to the press because of their big super
duper, top secret investigation that doesn't result in a fucking thing and
no one from the State Department is fired or even reprimanded.

Of course, the real reason for the Benghazi cover-up was to help Obama get
reelected to a second term. Which is the same reason Obama
and his thugs tried to cover up the IRS scandal and the AP and Fox News
scandals.

[David Johnston]

On 5/25/2013 5:48 PM, Irish Mike wrote:

> Obama and Hillary decide to ignore the CIA reports of the terrorist attack
> and murder of the Ambassador and three other Americans.

You know, it's still a terrorist attack even if it was spontaneous. The
difference between spontaneous and planned is that if it was
spontaneous, then there was no intelligence failure. Which is why the
CIA included speculation about that possibility.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 23, 2013 7:44:45 AM UTC-4, trotsky wrote:

> In a perfect world you would've been recognized as brain dead a long
> time ago.
>
Shouldn't you be trolling the Procol Harem page on Facebook. Nobody cares about you here.

[Irish Mike]

Bull shit. The CIA operatives said from tne very beginning that it was a
well planned terrorist attack and they reported it that way. It was the
higher ups in the White House and Hillary's office that subsequently put
pressure on them to change the story to help support Obama and Hillary's
lame cover-up. People from Hillary's office swore under oath in front of
a Congressional Inquiry Hearing that they, and their superiors, knew it
was a planned terrorist attack from the very beginning.

The reason Hillary and Obama tried to cover up the Benghazi terrorist
attack is exactly the same reason they tried to cover up the IRS scandal,
the AP scandal and the Fox News scandal. To help Obama get reelected.
Period.

Irish Mike

[Irish Mike]

On May 22 2013 10:26 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:

> On Tue, 21 May 2013 23:52:33 -0700, "1,979 murdered in Obama's
> organized communities" <Boy...@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 21 May 2013 12:38:03 -0700, Antonio E. Gonzalez
> ><AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >>- Officially, President Obama will be the best US President since FDR
> >>on 2017; unofficially, he already is.*
> >
> >* in the shit-spewing, golf-playing, wannabe-king, affirmative action
> >poster child category.
>
> Actually, in the terrorist-ass-kicking,
> Great-Depression-preventing, Obamacare-passing category.

Hardly. Obama has spent more money, borrowed more money and added more
money to the national debt than any President in America's history. Obama
has added $3.26 billion dollars to the national debt every 24 hours, since
he was first elected four and a half years ago.

Obamacare is an economic disaster that was jammed down the throats of the
American people on a totally partisan Democrat political maneuver and did
not receive one single Republican vote. Obama claimed that Obamacare
would pay for itself. That has now been proven to be one of the biggest
political lies ever told to the American people. The CBO now estimates
that, conservatively, Obama care will add $2.6 trillion dollars to the
national debt. And that is in addition to the $7.2 trillion dollars Obama
has already added to the national debt.

The only thing Obama will be remembered for is actually making Jimmy
Carter look good.

[Dano]

"JRStern" wrote in message
news:5l82q8p8j7fi89m8c...@4ax.com...

====================================

You know you kind of sound like Pee Wee Herman when you do that right?

Apologies to Pee Wee and his vastly superior intellect.

[thinbluemime]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 23:37:45 +0100, Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com>

wrote:

> On Sat, 25 May 2013 14:46:55 -0700, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <op.wxndq...@experience.zoomtown.com>,
>> thinbluemime <thinbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 25 May 2013 20:34:05 +0100, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > In article <op.wxnav...@experience.zoomtown.com>,
>>> > thinbluemime <thinbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >> Although the ambassador was killed, the Benghazi "consulate" was
>>> >> not a consulate at all
>>> >
>>> > If there's an ambassador, then by definition there's an embassy or a
>>> > consulate.
>>>
>>> Yes, but NOT IN BENGHAZI, in Tripoli.
>>
>> You're making a distinction without a difference.
>
> I'm not one of the people pooh-poohing what happened in Benghazi, but
> if this had been an attack on the American Embassy, this would be a
> different magnitude.
>

> My guess is that the words "Jimmy Carter" would substantially

> eliminate Hillary from contention in the 2016 presidential campaign.

"After the Ambassador’s (Stevens)arrival at the Special Mission on
September 10, ARSO 1 gave the Ambassador a tour of the SMC and pointed out
the safe area and escape hatch windows in the Ambassador’s room in Villa C.

Later that afternoon, the Ambassador visited the Annex for a briefing.

He then met with the City Council at a local hotel for dinner, an event at
which local media invited by the Council showed up unexpectedly, despite
U.S. efforts to keep the Ambassador’s program and movements from being
publicized."

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf



Contrast the very public Tripoli Embassy opening by Stevens two weeks
before, with his arrival at the Benghazi Special Mission Compound (also
referred to as: consulate, temporary mission facility and et cetera)

Why the secrecy in Steven's program and facility, that is widely thought
by the American public to be an extension of the Tripoli Embassy? Because
Benghazi was at it's heart a CIA operation.



DID SENATOR DROP BENGHAZI BOMBSHELL? Could explain why murdered ambassador
was in attacked facility
Posted on March 19, 2013
http://kleinonline.wnd.com/2013/03/19/did-senator-drop-benghazi-bombshell-could-explain-why-murdered-ambassador-was-in-attacked-facility/


Bret Baier asked Graham why Stevens was in the Benghazi mission despite
the many known security threats to the facility.

Graham replied, “Because that’s where the action was regarding the rising
Islamic extremists who were trying to get their hands on weapons that are
flowing freely in Libya.”

He stated, “We were desperately trying to control the antiaircraft
missiles, the man pads that were all over Libya, that are now all over the
Mideast.”



----------------


Assistant Secretary Shapiro Discusses Libya’s Missing Weapons
February 03, 2012
http://www.stimson.org/spotlight/assistant-secretary-shapiro-discusses-libyas-missing-weapons/


On February 02, 2012, the Managing Across Boundaries program hosted
Libya's Missing Weapons: Understanding Global Efforts to Control
Conventional Arms, an event that examined the impact of the collapse of
the Gadhafi regime on the uncontrolled proliferation of conventional
weapons, including man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS).

Speakers and panelists highlighted the impact of these weapons, not only
to security in Libya and across sub-Saharan Africa, but also to longer
term socio-economic development on the African continent.

The discussion used Libya as the basis for a broader discussion on
addressing unsecured caches of dangerous arms, illicit trafficking, and
interdiction of gray and black market weapons around the world.



FASCINATING INFORMATION from Shapiro's seminar
http://www.stimson.org/images/uploads/Shapiro_Libya_Remarks.pdf

[thinbluemime]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 14:45:03 +0100, Professor Bubba
<bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote:

> In article <iZSdnVj7MvwCmgPM...@mchsi.com>, trotsky
> <gms...@email.com> wrote:

>
>> On 5/23/13 6:57 AM, cloud dreamer wrote:
>> > On 23/05/2013 2:51 AM, JRStern wrote:
>>
>> >> It is not at all clear that they "did their jobs" beforehand, it is
>> >> exceedingly doubtful that they "did their jobs" during the event, it
>> >> seems unbelievable that they "did their jobs" after the event when
>> >> even their leader Hildabeast's only comment on the matter was to cry,
>> >> "What does it matter now?" That is hardly an explanation of how well
>> >> they did their jobs.
>> >>
>> >

>> > The ambassador was offered more security. He turned it down. No one
>> > anywhere can be 100% for an ambush. That's the reason the tactic is
>> > used. These things happen...and they happened 10x more often under
>> Bush
>> > with 48 more deaths....but somehow...those are okay.
>> >
>> > BTW, if Bush had done his job, 911 may not have happened. It's mind
>> > boggling how concerned the Right is over 4 deaths but think nothing of
>> > the 1,000,000+ deaths that resulted from Bush's incompetence.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have to give the right wing guys credit. They have created a bubble
>> of "You can't criticize Bush because he's just like a retarded kid."
>> Obama gets to be blamed for everything and Bush gets to be blamed for
>> nothing. Disingenuous assholes.
>
>
> What's going on here is that the Obama administration is trying to
> skate on the fact that the facility attacked in Benghazi was not a
> consulate but a CIA station. The Republicans know this, and they know
> that Obama can't admit to it, so they're free to pillory him about it
> in public. Any substantive Benghazi hearings would have to be held
> behind closed doors.


"The Benghazi US mission was very clearly an operation of the Central
Intelligence Agency, and that is the reason that the Obama administration
officials have never been able to speak frankly and publicly about it.
McCain and the others know this very well, and they know that their public
carping cannot be “simply” answered because the answers would endanger
sources and methods. "

http://www.juancole.com/2013/05/republican-myths-libya.html

[thinbluemime]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 18:13:31 +0100, Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid>
wrote:

> cloud dreamer sent the following on 5/23/2013 6:57 AM:

>> On 23/05/2013 2:51 AM, JRStern wrote:

>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 18:25:22 -0700, Antonio E. Gonzalez
>>> <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 22:34:59 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On May 21, 3:38 pm, Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>> So, terrorists kill Americans, but some people insist on
>>>>>> making the
>>>>>> events leading up to it the focus; you know, instead of getting the
>>>>>> terrorists responsible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, the terrorists should because and tortured to death, in a perfect
>>>>> world. What they can do (because it's right in front of them) is
>>>>> also
>>>>> go after the inattentive incompetents who LET it happen. How many
>>>>> incidences post-911 is it going to take for government bureaucrats to
>>>>> DO THEIR JOBS?
>>>>
>>>> Ummm, they did their jobs, it just wasn't enough in this case.
>>>

>>> It is not at all clear that they "did their jobs" beforehand, it is
>>> exceedingly doubtful that they "did their jobs" during the event, it
>>> seems unbelievable that they "did their jobs" after the event when
>>> even their leader Hildabeast's only comment on the matter was to cry,
>>> "What does it matter now?" That is hardly an explanation of how well
>>> they did their jobs.
>>>

>>> J.

>> The ambassador was offered more security. He turned it down.
>

> Got a cite for that?

May 14, 2013
Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S.
officials say
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/14/191235/amb-stevens-twice-said-no-to-military.html#.UaH1hXVy7tB

[thinbluemime]

"it has come out that the annex of the Benghazi consulate was a Central
Intelligence Agency HQ. Likely the consulate itself was thought safe
because of the large numbers of CIA operatives at the annex, some of them
with a background in military special forces. They were seen by the
consulate staff as “the cavalry.”

Likewise, the reluctance to fortify the consulate may have come from fears
that too much security would interfere with intelligence-gathering. State
Department officials at the Beirut embassy in Lebanon have complained to
me that they are virtually trapped inside the fortified complex, and can’t
easily get out and mix with people, which interferes with their ability to
build Lebanese contacts or do good political reporting. The CIA staff in
Benghazi likely was trying to avoid a similar isolation."

http://www.juancole.com/2012/11/republicans-tip-world-off-to-covert-cia-role-in-libya.html

[JRStern]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 01:57:10 -0400, "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com>

I know you're just following the leftwad manual in an attempt to sound
smart. The manual says, "act like a fool because we've got no
argument". If you refuse to respect facts, I guess your next best
choice is simply to act like a clown, so that is "smart" - "smart" for
losers. But I have no interest in following you there.

J.

[JRStern]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 21:20:21 -0700, "Irish Mike"
<ad7...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

>On May 25 2013 8:59 PM, David Johnston wrote:
>
>> On 5/25/2013 5:48 PM, Irish Mike wrote:
>>
>> > Obama and Hillary decide to ignore the CIA reports of the terrorist attack
>> > and murder of the Ambassador and three other Americans.
>>
>> You know, it's still a terrorist attack even if it was spontaneous. The
>> difference between spontaneous and planned is that if it was
>> spontaneous, then there was no intelligence failure. Which is why the
>> CIA included speculation about that possibility.
>
>Bull shit. The CIA operatives said from tne very beginning that it was a
>well planned terrorist attack and they reported it that way.

It can be both, well planned but waiting for an appropriate moment.


J.

[Irish Mike]

Apparently it never occured to you, or Obama or Hillary that the
anniversary of 9/11 might be the "appropriate moment"? Well it certainly
occured to Ambassador Stevens and the three other Americans killed in the
muslim terrorist attack later that night.

Irish Mike

[Dano]

"JRStern" wrote in message
news:14c4q8dlclse5rcfk...@4ax.com...

==========================================

I guess they were waiting for brain dead Republicans to regain power back in
2001 eh? They just knew those stupid twats would take their eyes off the
ball...and then overact just the way they did...attacking the wrong people.
Them terrorists is mighty smart dontcha know. Get back in yer bunker
Sternie. There's one over there!

[Irish Mike]

On May 26 2013 8:55 AM, thinbluemime wrote:

> On Sat, 25 May 2013 21:48:50 +0100, JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 25 May 2013 12:55:12 -0400, Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 25 May 2013 10:13:52 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 5/24/2013 5:04 PM, Irish Mike wrote:
> >>>> On May 21 2013 4:38 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> So, terrorists kill Americans, but some people insist on making the
> >>>>> events leading up to it the focus;
> >>>>
> >>>> As it should be. Obama makes a speech about how he has single
> >>>> handedly
> >>>> put muslim terrorist on the run. Except, of course, he never calls
> >>>> them
> >>>> muslim or terrorists. So Hillary insists the US open a consulate in
> >>>> Benghazi even though the military and CIA tell her it isn't safe.
> >>>
> >>> Wasn't the consulate there as cover for the CIA operation?
> >>
> >> Did Hillary C. actually insist that a consulate be opened there over
> >> objections, or is this just more crap?
> >
> > When the principals are all inveterate liars, we'll never know.
> >
> > Apparently most of the facility was CIA,

Bullshit! Ambassador Stevens and one other American were the only ones
there and they repeatedly begged the White House and the State Department
for more security. Obama and Hillary ignored their pleas for more
security because it flew in the face of Obama's political claims that he
had defeated al queada and that he had muslim terrorists in that area on
the run.
When the muslim terrorists attacked the lightly defended Consulate on the
anniversary of 9/11, Ambassador Stevens, and the two retired Navy SEALs
who went to the Consulate in an attempt to rescue him, were pleading for
help right up to the time they were all murdered by the terrorists.
Hillary ordered the available military rescue units to stand down and
Obama went to bed while the four Americans were being murdered.

The next morning, Obama jetted off to a political fund raiser in Las Vegas
and Hillary, and Obama's staff, began spinning the cover story that it was
just a spontaneous mob (armed with automatic assault rifles and rocket
propelled grenades) that attacked the embassy and murdered the four
Americans. Then Obama and Hillary lied to the American people for the
next two weeks and said it was all the result of some silly You Tube video
that no one in Benghazi had even seen.

These facts were sworn to, under oath, by several State Department
whistle blowers who later came forward to tell the truth and debunk
Hillary and Obama's failed cover-up attempt. Obama and Hillary then were
forced to switch political gears and claimed they could not discuss any
thing about Benghazi because they were conducting a super dooper, top
secret investigation on the whole issue.

Big fucking surprise - no one in the State Department or White House Staff
had any knowledge of the event. No one went to prison, no one was fired
and no one was demoted and no one was reprimanded. Well except the State
Department whistle blower who was threatened, reprimanded and demoted.

Irish Mike

Keep your trust in God; your president is an idiot.

[JRStern]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 11:49:34 -0700, "Irish Mike"

If you put it like that it would have been a good moment not to be in
Benghazi, actually. But for better or worse, Stevens went. I salute
his courage. Seriously.

But it may still be that even with 9/11 coming around, the actual
decision to launch the attack came suddenly.

But to quote Hildabeast, "none of that matters now". What matters,
contra Hilda, is what happened when it did occur. And the blizzard of
lies from the regime afterwards, from day one right through today.

J.

[David Johnston]

On 5/25/2013 10:20 PM, Irish Mike wrote:
> On May 25 2013 8:59 PM, David Johnston wrote:
>
>> On 5/25/2013 5:48 PM, Irish Mike wrote:
>>
>>> Obama and Hillary decide to ignore the CIA reports of the terrorist attack
>>> and murder of the Ambassador and three other Americans.
>>
>> You know, it's still a terrorist attack even if it was spontaneous. The
>> difference between spontaneous and planned is that if it was
>> spontaneous, then there was no intelligence failure. Which is why the
>> CIA included speculation about that possibility.
>
> Bull shit. The CIA operatives said from tne very beginning that it was a
> well planned terrorist attack

What's your source?

[Dano]

"David Johnston" wrote in message news:ko01g1$a21$2...@dont-email.me...

===========================================

You don't want to know...though you probably can guess.

[Antonio E. Gonzalez]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 21:31:40 -0700, "Irish Mike"
<ad7...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

>On May 22 2013 10:26 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 23:52:33 -0700, "1,979 murdered in Obama's
>> organized communities" <Boy...@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, 21 May 2013 12:38:03 -0700, Antonio E. Gonzalez
>> ><AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>- Officially, President Obama will be the best US President since FDR
>> >>on 2017; unofficially, he already is.*
>> >
>> >* in the shit-spewing, golf-playing, wannabe-king, affirmative action
>> >poster child category.
>>
>> Actually, in the terrorist-ass-kicking,
>> Great-Depression-preventing, Obamacare-passing category.
>
>Hardly. Obama has spent more money, borrowed more money and added more

>money to the national debt than any Pre <snippy>

Oooh, thanks for reminding me:the deficit's down for the third
straight year!



--

- ReFlex76

- <http://twitter.com/ReFlex76>

[Antonio E. Gonzalez]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 03:54:46 -0700, "Irish Mike"
<ad7...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

>On May 25 2013 12:30 AM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:

>
>> On Fri, 24 May 2013 16:04:54 -0700, "Irish Mike"
>> <ad7...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >On May 21 2013 4:38 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>> >
>> >> So, terrorists kill Americans, but some people insist on making the
>> >> events leading up to it the focus;
>> >
>> >As it should be.
>>

>> Nah, what matters is getting the terrorists who did this. Anyway,
>> this issue is as dead as Andrew Breirbart; you're free to keep beating
>> the corpse, the rest of us have moved on.
>
>You mean as in "moveon.org", wh <snippy>

No, as in no one cares, we've moved on.

Weeks of these fake "scandals," and President Obama's popularity
has either remained the same, or *risen* in poll after poll.

The American public ain't fooled, 2014 beckons, and Republicans
have nothing.

[JRStern]

On Mon, 27 May 2013 18:02:49 -0700, Antonio E. Gonzalez

<AntE...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 25 May 2013 21:31:40 -0700, "Irish Mike"
><ad7...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On May 22 2013 10:26 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 23:52:33 -0700, "1,979 murdered in Obama's
>>> organized communities" <Boy...@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Tue, 21 May 2013 12:38:03 -0700, Antonio E. Gonzalez
>>> ><AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>- Officially, President Obama will be the best US President since FDR
>>> >>on 2017; unofficially, he already is.*
>>> >
>>> >* in the shit-spewing, golf-playing, wannabe-king, affirmative action
>>> >poster child category.
>>>
>>> Actually, in the terrorist-ass-kicking,
>>> Great-Depression-preventing, Obamacare-passing category.
>>
>>Hardly. Obama has spent more money, borrowed more money and added more
>>money to the national debt than any Pre <snippy>
>
> Oooh, thanks for reminding me:the deficit's down for the third
>straight year!

In case you didn't pass second grade arithmetic, a reduced deficit
does not mean we've paid back a penny, in fact it continues to
increase by a couple of billion dollars per day. And that's even with
interest rates held at zero by The Bernank.

And even the "reduced deficit" is an accident due to two things.
First, the sequester, since the only thing Obama *wants* to do is
spend, spend, spend. Second, fracking of oil and gas, which on behalf
of the green weenie wing of the party Obama is dead set against, but
is happening in spite of him, and is an immense boost to the US
economy.

The economy is still upside-down. It's not entirely Obama's fault,
and there is no easy fix. One can even argue that he's done some
sensible things - some people think so. But cause for celebration?
Not if you understand it even a little bit. If and when interest
rates return to anything like normal, we're screwed. With luck Obama
will be out of town by then and he can keep saying, "What me worry?"

J.

[Irish Mike]

The deficit has been more than a $trillion dollars every year Obama has
been in power. The current expected annual deficit is less than $ a
trillion dollars only because Obama has raised taxes during a recession.
Obama has not made any cuts to his insane level of government spending
and, according to the CBO, will very quickly run through this increased
tax revenue. Mean while Obama, and his Democrat sycophants, continue to
push to have the debt ceiling raised yet again, so Obama can continue to
borrow from the Chinese and piss the money away on more free government
hand outs - to buy more votes.

The sad fact is that Obama is just a politician and is not, and never has
been, a leader. All he cares about is his personal popularity. He has no
interest in America, in healing our economy or in reducing the size and
scope of our huge, wasteful and incompetent federal government.

And this is clearly proven by the continued growth of our national debt,
the loss of personal and religious freedom and the multiple scandals that
are currently ripping America apart.

Irish Mike

Ultimately, and inevitably, Obama's failed policies, irresponsible
spending and massive debt will prove that Republicans and Fiscal
Conservatives were right.

[Dano]

"JRStern" wrote in message
news:7d28q8lr0sda3rodq...@4ax.com...

=============================================

Why worry anyway? When the pendulum inevitably swings back to the right
again, the Pubs will find a couple of wars that don't need fighting to get
us into for their arms dealer/defense contractor buddies to profit from and
bury us still deeper in debt. Then they'll get tossed out...again...many
will go to work for lobbyists and the military-industrial
complex...lather...rinse...repeat...

[Irish Mike]

The whistle blowers from Hillary's State Department, in sworn testimony
before a Congressional Inquiry hearing. And, big surprise, the whistle
blowers are the only ones in the State Department that have been
reprimanded and demoted as a result of the Benghazi attack and failed
cover up.

[trotsky]

A public toilet.


--
Never post something on the internet unless you have a point of
reference. You will look like a moron otherwise.

[Antonio E. Gonzalez]

On Mon, 27 May 2013 21:22:18 -0700, "Irish Mike"

<ad7...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

>On May 27 2013 10:02 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 25 May 2013 21:31:40 -0700, "Irish Mike"
>> <ad7...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >On May 22 2013 10:26 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 21 May 2013 23:52:33 -0700, "1,979 murdered in Obama's
>> >> organized communities" <Boy...@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Tue, 21 May 2013 12:38:03 -0700, Antonio E. Gonzalez
>> >> ><AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>- Officially, President Obama will be the best US President since FDR
>> >> >>on 2017; unofficially, he already is.*
>> >> >
>> >> >* in the shit-spewing, golf-playing, wannabe-king, affirmative action
>> >> >poster child category.
>> >>
>> >> Actually, in the terrorist-ass-kicking,
>> >> Great-Depression-preventing, Obamacare-passing category.
>> >
>> >Hardly. Obama has spent more money, borrowed more money and added more
>> >money to the national debt than any Pre <snippy>
>>
>> Oooh, thanks for reminding me:the deficit's down for the third
>> straight year!
>>
>
>The deficit has been more than a $trillion dollars every year Obama has
>been in power. The current expected annual deficit is less than $ a
>trillion dollars only because Obama has raised taxes during a recession.

<snippity>

Yes, raising taxes raises revenue; this is something people in the
1990s knew as "math." Nice to see common sense is returning.

[Antonio E. Gonzalez]

On Mon, 27 May 2013 18:41:16 -0700, JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid>
wrote:

>On Mon, 27 May 2013 18:02:49 -0700, Antonio E. Gonzalez
><AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 25 May 2013 21:31:40 -0700, "Irish Mike"
>><ad7...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On May 22 2013 10:26 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 23:52:33 -0700, "1,979 murdered in Obama's
>>>> organized communities" <Boy...@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >On Tue, 21 May 2013 12:38:03 -0700, Antonio E. Gonzalez
>>>> ><AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >>- Officially, President Obama will be the best US President since FDR
>>>> >>on 2017; unofficially, he already is.*
>>>> >
>>>> >* in the shit-spewing, golf-playing, wannabe-king, affirmative action
>>>> >poster child category.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, in the terrorist-ass-kicking,
>>>> Great-Depression-preventing, Obamacare-passing category.
>>>
>>>Hardly. Obama has spent more money, borrowed more money and added more
>>>money to the national debt than any Pre <snippy>
>>
>> Oooh, thanks for reminding me:the deficit's down for the third
>>straight year!
>
>In case you didn't pass second grade arithmetic, a reduced deficit
>does not mean we've paid back a penny, in fact it continues to
>increase by a couple of billion dollars per day. And that's even with
>interest rates held at zero by The Bernank.
>

It's also irrelevant. Debt can be paid off, what we need now are
jobs.

>And even the "reduced deficit" is an accident due to two things.
>First, the sequester, since the only thing Obama *wants* to do is
>spend, spend, spend.

If only that were true. Discretionary spending (adjustied for
inflation, population growth, and GDP growth) is at its lowest in
decades, and in desperate need of an increase. Roads don't repair
themselves.

Second, fracking of oil and gas, which on behalf
>of the green weenie wing of the party Obama is dead set against, but
>is happening in spite of him, and is an immense boost to the US
>economy.
>

Another reason to get with the spending; as more water wells catch
fire, or just become too toxic to use, people will sour on fracking.

>The economy is still upside-down. It's not entirely Obama's fault,
>and there is no easy fix. One can even argue that he's done some
>sensible things - some people think so. But cause for celebration?
>Not if you understand it even a little bit. If and when interest
>rates return to anything like normal, we're screwed. With luck Obama
>will be out of town by then and he can keep saying, "What me worry?"
>

Yet another reason we need to pass Stimulus 2, and this time make
sure it's no less than $2 trillion.

Here's a good destination: it's estimated it'll cost $3 trillion to
repair our ailing infrastructure. Money into the economy, millions of
jobs, *and* we don't have to worry about our bridges falling apart
while we are on them.