Confused about what? You haven't said one thing about dbar or me that's made any sense except to "Joe". You're just a mindless troll and a waste of skin. ES&D.<quoted text>I think you are confused. No, I know you are confused. For sure? You are a Fraud. At least, with Joe, I know what I'm dealing with. You and dbar? Scum.
#108 May 5, 2013
#109 May 5, 2013
and you get things like
"Victoria Toensing, a former Justice Department official and Republican counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee, is now representing one of the State Department employees. She told Fox News her client and some of the others, who consider themselves whistle-blowers, have been threatened by unnamed Obama administration officials."
"Toensing declined to name her client. She also refused to say whether the individual was on the ground in Benghazi on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, "
"However, Toensing disclosed that her client has pertinent information on all three time periods investigators consider relevant to the attacks"
"State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell on Monday indicated that – far from threatening anyone – the administration hasn’t been presented with any such cases.“I'm not aware of private counsel seeking security clearances or -- or anything to that regard,” Ventrell told reporters.“I'm not aware of whistle-blowers one way or another."
"An unclassified version of the board’s final report that was released to the public contained no conclusions that suggested administration officials had willfully endangered their colleagues in Benghazi or had misled the public or Congress.
“And that should be enough,” Ventrell said at Monday’s press briefing.“Congress has its own prerogatives, but we've had a very thorough, independent investigation, which we completed and [which was] transparent and shared. And there are many folks who are, in a political manner, trying to sort of use this for their own political means, or ends.”
so an author of opinion pieces for fox news is now representing clients she says are threatened but will not name any names except to say they just seem to know the answers to key time periods that House investigators are looking at.
what a lucky find by a former republican operative.
who happens to write for fox.
what a coincidence.
seems to me if a lawyer is applying for security clearances then Victoria can name them.
and Issa who is never shy of camera time can leap in front of one and have those "whistle blowers" front and center.
but that will most likely not happen.
Issa will most likely play political games with the deaths of those Americans,he will run to fox and any news cameras around and make all kind of allegations without any proof.
unless McCain skips a classified briefing on the attacks to beat him to it.
just like fast and furious.
then when the hearings no longer serve Issa's political purposes it will fade away.
just like fast and furious.
#110 May 5, 2013
Go have another cheap beer in your garage, troll.
#111 May 5, 2013
Now there's a major contribution to the topic. I don't drink alcohol. Blow me.
#112 May 5, 2013
And we should believe a State Dept spokesman, why? They never lied before? The names will come out eventually, these courageous folks are afraid for their lives. If it wasn't for FNC and them, the MSM and Dems like you would be glad to see it swept under the rug.
#113 May 5, 2013
and extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary proof.
a fox opinion writer makes a claim and the State department says they have no claims like that.
then the responsibility is on the journalist to show the proof.
which lawyer needs clearance?
no admittance of who the "whistle blower" is needed.
that would settle whether the State department spokesman is telling the truth.
so where is this lawyer?
anyone can make a claim.
but not everyone can back up their claims.
i certainly have no problem with finding out all that is possible about the terror attack in Libya.
that being said there is a difference between the search for truth versus a witch hunt for political purposes.
#114 May 5, 2013
On the Sunday Morning talk shows, several Democrats admitted that UN Ambassador Susan Rice's statements about the Benghazi attack were wrong, and that references to "Islamic extremists" and Al Qaeda were deleted from her talking points.
"It was scrubbed," Rep. Steve Lynch (D-MA) told Fox News Sunday. "It was totally inaccurate. There's no excuse for that. It was false information."
Meanwhile a top diplomat has confirmed that everyone at the embassy knew the attack was terrorism "from the get-go."
Over successive drafts, the CIA and White House altered Rice's talking points to remove references to Al Qaeda and change references to "attacks" on Benghazi to "demonstrations." You can learn more details of the changes made from an in-depth study of successive drafts published in the Weekly Standard.
In addition, Rice herself may have misled the public on her own initiative, according to the Weekly Standard. The talking point drafts don't mention the anti-Islamic YouTube video which Rice herself foregrounded in her public statements and interviews about the Benghazi attack.
Via the Weekly Standard, Fox News and CBS.
So dbar, what have you got to say about this?
This won't look very good for Hilary in the primaries.
#115 May 5, 2013
Well, here 'ya go:
#116 May 5, 2013
try the article
"But according to two officials with knowledge of the process, Mike Morrell, deputy director of the CIA, made broad changes to the draft afterwards. Morrell cut all or parts of four paragraphs of the six-paragraph talking points—148 of its 248 words (see Version 2 above). Gone were the reference to “Islamic extremists,” the reminders of agency warnings about al Qaeda in Libya, the reference to “jihadists” in Cairo, the mention of possible surveillance of the facility in Benghazi, and the report of five previous attacks on foreign interests."
so right there the CIA modified the talking points.
so how does Hilary "cut all or parts of four paragraphs of the six-paragraph talking points"
unless she was impersonating Mike Morrell.
as to your claim of a diplomat--you had a report.
"A cable sent the following day, September 12, by the CIA station chief in Libya, reported that eyewitnesses confirmed the participation of Islamic militants and made clear that U.S. facilities in Benghazi had come under terrorist attack."
that does not mean that everyone knew the attack was terrorism from the get go.
it means that the confirmation came the next day after the attack occurred.
you said"everyone at the embassy knew the attack was terrorism "from the get-go."
not according to the article.
the author of the article
"Hayes has been selected as the official biographer for Vice President Richard Cheney."
yep no bias?
"He wrote, for example, "there can no longer be any serious argument about whether Saddam Hussein's Iraq worked with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to plot against Americans."
" the intelligence community consistently held that the relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda was not operational, with Tenet telling 60 Minutes, "We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period."
so the author has been known to stretch things and claim things.
that are not supported by evidence
#117 May 5, 2013
Well, here are some unanswered questions from that "far right-wing" gang at CBS News.
http://touch.humanevents.com/humanevents/ #!/entry/the-unanswered-questi ons-of-benghazi,516cb1f9d7fc7b 5670b20e83
#118 May 5, 2013
first off the husband /wife lawyer team is not requesting "secret clearance levels".
at least according to your article from the people who publish her opinion columns.
Issa made a complaint about setting up a process and the response from "
the administration hasn’t been presented with any such cases.“I'm not aware of private counsel seeking security clearances or -- or anything to that regard,”
typical Issa --make a complaint about a problem that did not occur.
then claim that he is not getting the response to the problem he complained about.
of the three
Eric Nordstrom testified before so another rehashing by Issa.
Gregory N. Hicks took a phone call and was nowhere near the attack site.
he was debriefed and his actions were cited before.
Mark I. Thompson “advises senior leadership on operational counterterrorism matters, and ensures that the United States can rapidly respond to global terrorism crises.
so you got a talking head analyst.
not anyone directly involved with the attack or the response.
lastly you have
"two career State Department employees who regard themselves as “whistleblowers”
yep they say they are but have not made that claim publicly.
they could say they were atheists--same difference.
and their biggest complaint
"The lawyers said their clients believe their accounts of Benghazi were spurned by the Accountability Review board."
"and that the two employees have faced threats and intimidation from as-yet-unnamed superiors."
Hilary ordered the investigation but had no control over that investigation.
so even if the claims are true Hilary had nothing to with it.
and so far all you have is their claim of being ignored.
will they have something new perhaps?
time will tell.
#119 May 5, 2013
so much for the claim that the MSM is sweeping the Libya attack under the rug.
and of those questions.
one--there was confusion on the ground and the timeline may not be complete.
so the idea is to parade the death of the ambassador all over the news?
yep let the family relive the pain all over again.also see number eight below.
two--convening the group when the reaction to the attack was up and running?
who says the group did not communicate?
now the group has to meet before issuing the orders to respond?
three--what does that matter?
four--what does that have to do with Libya?
five-semantics the President said""No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation."
six-- plenty of assets were available within eight hours.if i remember correctly a response team left Tripoli less than one hour after the report of the attack
seven--after the attack and is seeks opinion.has nothing to do with the situation in Libya
eight--photos of bodies? parading the dead? give terrorists some pictures so they can show what they did to get new recruits?
nine--same as eight
ten--those transcripts most likely discuss classified info.
so you gonna trust the admin or i trust the republicans to give a complete unclassified version?
#120 May 7, 2013
Since you are Jewish, I'm curious what you think when you read Isaiah 53 in the Tanach. Who do you think the prophet Isaiah is describing with such beautiful and sorrowful words?
#121 May 7, 2013
I know you're probably just posing this question to be a wise ass, but I don't know what the heck you're talking about and neither would most Jews. I never said I was a bible or Talmudic scholar, and I'm certainly not a Messianic Jew. In fact, I don't follow any organized religion. I'm Jewish by heritage and culture only. And this is WAY off topic.
#122 May 8, 2013
No, I did not ask this to be a “wise ass.” Quite a while back, you asked me about the family Bible studies we did as my children were growing up. I accepted your inquiry as legitimate curiosity – not an attempt to be a “wise ass” and I responded with courtesy. I certainly did not take offense at your inquiry.
In the same way, I was honestly interested in hearing what your feelings are on Isaiah Chapter 53 in the Holy Scriptures, easily obtained on the internet and not requiring an advanced degree in pastoral or rabbinical studies. The Word of God is accessible to all humanity, not just a select few.
You seem like an intelligent person who knows a lot about many things. I don’t think it was being a wise ass to think you may have read the Scriptures and have feelings and insights about what God’s Word says.
As far as being WAY off topic, since I believe that God is sovereign and all things on this earth and all creation are under His jurisdiction, any subject that comes up on here can and is relevant to God. As a believer, I recognize that God is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent so there’s no other way for me to look at it.
Most of my friends are Jewish “in name only” but over the last 40 years we’ve had discussions about God and they do not get offended at all as you have. Some of us believe Jesus is the Messiah and some do not.
As I said, there was no ill intent. I just wanted to know if it was something you had examined and what you thought.
#123 May 8, 2013
I apologize, but I couldn't tell where your question was coming from. I will do some research on the passage you mention out of curiosity, but will start a new thread (or you can) on the topic if I want to explore it further and think that others will have an interest in it. If we have an off-topic conversation between the two of us, the trolls on here will have a reason to come out from under their rocks (as if they need a reason).
#124 May 9, 2013
Apology accepted. I hope you do read and it would be wonderful to hear what you think. There will be no arguing from me. I don't argue about matters of faith.
God says in Isaiah 55 that His Word does not go out void, so may it bless and encourage your heart and life.
#125 May 9, 2013
You can tell obama is in trouble now by the number and length of the dumbar posts!!!!
Add your comments below
|Sex offender law coming to town (Oct '08)||2 hr||No name||33|
|Sprayer basketball court||3 hr||Sheeples||13|
|Drugs (Apr '09)||10 hr||No name||18|
|Paul Stepanoff Needs to be Removed NOW! (Jul '14)||16 hr||madame mona||233|
|Best Dance School (Jun '13)||Sep 21||Qtown||89|
|Goddard School QT (May '10)||Sep 21||notahappymom||31|
|re max 440 (Jul '08)||Sep 19||Disgusted||88|
Find what you want!
Search Coopersburg Forum Now
Copyright © 2017 Topix LLC