“ IT'S A CHOICE !!!”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#161972 May 12, 2013
UIDIOTRACEMAKEWORLDPEACE wrote:
<quoted text> So, what you think about US foreign policy ?
Kind of an ambiguous question, but okay... It's always hard to make the right choice. Do we back the rebels and freedom fighters, when they may be terrorists in the end? Or do we back the oppressive regimes and alienate the people. I think we should stop backing the Chechnyans at least... I have no idea what we should do about Syria...:)

ps.. Hilary and Berenz is more of a domestic issue..

Have a nice night!

“Take It To The Limit”

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#161973 May 12, 2013
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
I never saw a more biased investigation than Watergate, and President Nixon. Democrats were relentless in their efforts to tie Nixon into the coverup, with Republicans claiming the coverup investigation was just politically motivated... until the WH tapes were released.
Just because there's only one party pushing for facts, doesn't mean that there hasn't been any wrong doing, as we found out with President Nixon. We don't have much taping going on anymore, but we do have emails. I wonder what the investigators will find out if the obama WH is ever forced to release the emails... like when Nixon had to release his tapes.
I wonder how long it will take before barry starts squealing "national security".
barry won't have to. his boys might arrange a scandal on 'Voices', or 'American Idol', then baby pigshit will have a heart attack while on GMA, and the whole nation will be enthralled by the drama, and then this minor international incident will be forgotten.
barry knows america.

“ IT'S A CHOICE !!!”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#161974 May 12, 2013
Continued...

Are the benefits we get from using drones worth the radicalization they cause?...and forever Al-Qaeda
where we create them by arming freedom fighters' there is an Iran where our support for the dictatorship blows up in our faces. For Egypt, I do think we should stop supporting them if they ever turn on Israel again...:)
Gn.. going to sleep...

“Mean People Suck”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#161975 May 12, 2013
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sure glad FDR was President on 12/7/41, and not you. FDR had no guarantee we would win, as a matter of fact, he knew we'd just had our Pacific fleet crippled.
This may be the dumbest post allegedly about Benghazi yet.

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#161976 May 12, 2013
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>I think I have an easy answer. Even if there was zero chance of success, they would have should have gone in. If only to recover bodies. There is not a military person in the US who would not say the same. It was not money, it was not lack of ability to go in, it was the belief that these men were expendable to save face. that's it. Period. Unfortunately Leon Panetta, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama do not understand that you don't stand down and you always go in. It's what makes americans willing to fight and to serve abroad in dangerous situations. That has been badly damaged.
The stand-down order was issued by Special Operations Command Africa, saying that "it was more important for those guys to be in Tripoli" for embassy security.

Couldn't they have helped save some people, or at least stem the attack?

The flight was scheduled for take-off 45 minutes after the attack had ended >according to Hicks' own testimony<. Thus the command stand-down decision to keep personnel where they were to provide security in place.

Why was Hicks silenced and demoted?

Obviously he wasn't - he's been interviewed at least twice in State Dept investigations, the second time at his own request, and he's given testimony in Congressional hearings. That's being "silenced"? As for the "demotion" - what constitutes a demotion in your mind? He's still at the same pay grade and position, just not at the same location. Why was he transferred? Partly due to his own mgmt issues, which predated Sept. 11, and partly due to his own request, which he recounted in his own testimony,

"based on criticism that I received, I felt that if I went back, I would never be comfortable working there, and in addition, my family really didn't want me to go back. We had endured a year of separation when I was in Afghanistan in 2006 and 2007. That was the overriding factor. So I voluntarily curtailed."

So, where's the demotion?

The alleged Hicks "demotion and silencing" is emblematic of what it is ludicrous about all these protests of a "cover-up". Ever since last September, conspiracy mongers have pin-balled from one budding scandalous "reveal" to another, desperately trying to turn a tragedy into political fodder. Before Petraeus' testimony, we were told the lid was gongabout to be blown off. Didn't happen. Had to move on. Before Clinton's testimony, the lid was again about to be "blown off". Again, nothing. Darn! Now, we have the so-called "silenced whistle-blowers" >giving testimony in State Dept investigation and Congressional hearings<. Good Gawd!

As each point since Sept has been addressed, scandal-groupies leap shamelessly to the next, hoping against hope something sufficiently nasty will materialize from the "Sturm und Drang" (Storm and Stress), all the while building speculation upon speculation, baldly ignoring controverting info, and pronouncing long-winded conclusions built entirely on those speculations.

America may be watching American Idol,(tho' apparently not so much since it's ratings have reportedly plummeted) but this above is why those that do pay attention are just alternately sickened and bored with the political gotcha-game swirling over the bodies of four dead Americans.

As I've said, Americans have been subjected to this political flummery since Jan 09 directed at this President, with one "conspiracy" after another, interspersed with scandal after alleged scandal. Here's my own speculation - America's sickness and boredom with these unending shrill wolf-sightings played a minor but significant part in the President's re-election.

Well-played, RNC.

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#161977 May 12, 2013
Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>Why don't you ask the libs that have the psa See something say something. They are so busy with running from crisis to crisis it's a wonder more people aren't disturbed and nervous. Not over anything important mind you. Some time back when I was out of work and took a day labor job we broke for lunch. Before I ate I gave thanks, boy that caused the guy next to me to wig out. He'll today he might call dhs lol.
Can anyone direct me to an on-line translator for this? Besides the obligatory "Poor Persecuted Pious Me" reference, I can't make heads or tails of the rest.

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#161978 May 12, 2013
Speaking of "misinformed", concering the so-called "edited" Libya talking points:

Researching the above response gave me a chance to review Gen. Petraeus's testimony from last November (which is a loong time ago for "well-informed" scandal-watchers, I know).

The changes to this memo were questioned way back in November. Obviously the House And Senate Intelligence Committees had the original >in-hand< for comparison. Get that? They saw the original way back then. At that time, Gen' Petraeus acknowledged the changes, and said they were done to avoid "alerting the militants that American intelligence and law enforcement agencies were tracking them". He said that his office didn't make the changes, but he signed off on them.

Beyond that, if anyone here has actually bothered to read the memo as released, it does, in fact, state that "There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations." So, sorry, but obviously the admin didn't change the memo to avoid mention of terrorists.

Did you read that? The edit was in the intelligence decision not to specifically name any particular group. Pretty standard stuff in law enforcement while an investigation is ongoing. Not being privy to the byzantine world of intelligence in tracking terrorists, I have no problem averring that they had their reasons to redact the specific names. Gen. Petraeus obviously agreed.

On top of that, the President, as has been discussed here (but forgotten?) spoke of terrorism the next morning at a presser in the Rose Garden, and again in an interview the next day.

The admin, from the beginning, was not denying that terrorists were likely involved, but stressed that, as it says in the disputed memo,“This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated."

Should we find it odd that they only now, six months later, the memo becomes a part of the ongoing "cover-up" theme for this small but shrill crowd of "well-informed" people?

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#161979 May 12, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>Still waiting for some evidence to suggest that the decision was made to save face rather than on the tactical situation on the ground, lisw, and your suspicions of liberals, Obama, Clinton, Panetta, et al is not evidence.
Think about what you're saying here. You'd have sent them in no matter what, even with zero chance of success. What you're guaranteeing is at least the possibility that the four dead Americans becomes more - potentially many more.
That would certainly have delighted the Islamic fundamentalists, and maybe some opponents of Obama.
I don't believe for a minute it would have delighted you, but I feel pretty damned confident that you would be even more incensed if a failed rescue operation resulted in the deaths of even more Americans.
Easy answers in hindsight aren't real, lisw.
You know me not at all. It is typical to send in troops to save just four, remember lone survivor and to lose more troops because of it. It's what we do. It's why we are willing to fight. I don't care how the fundamentalists feel, I only care how American's who put themselves at risk feel.
the saving face is obvious in the e-mail that said that they didn't want anyone to think alquaeda was in still a threat. It's obvious why you didn't want to talk about Benghaze. You have no great insights, you're just in the tank with this incompetent commander-in-chief.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#161980 May 12, 2013
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>You know me not at all. It is typical to send in troops to save just four, remember lone survivor and to lose more troops because of it. It's what we do. It's why we are willing to fight. I don't care how the fundamentalists feel, I only care how American's who put themselves at risk feel.
the saving face is obvious in the e-mail that said that they didn't want anyone to think alquaeda was in still a threat. It's obvious why you didn't want to talk about Benghaze. You have no great insights, you're just in the tank with this incompetent commander-in-chief.
So you believe more than four Americans should have been killed, in a futile attempt to save the four, for the sake of gung-ho and hoo-raw?

The parents and families of the four would have felt better about that, I suppose?

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#161982 May 12, 2013
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>You know me not at all. It is typical to send in troops to save just four, remember lone survivor and to lose more troops because of it. It's what we do. It's why we are willing to fight. I don't care how the fundamentalists feel, I only care how American's who put themselves at risk feel.
the saving face is obvious in the e-mail that said that they didn't want anyone to think alquaeda was in still a threat. It's obvious why you didn't want to talk about Benghaze. You have no great insights, you're just in the tank with this incompetent commander-in-chief.
This is what is maddening - the extent of self-serving speculation and misinformation. You are pressing ahead with the idea that there was a chance to save these four. Did you not hear? Even Hicks, the so-called "whistle-blower", stated that the rescue deployment was already too late - the attack was over.

You all keep talking about "low-information voters", yet that very thing is on parade throughout this discussion.

There is absolutely no conceivable reason that the military would not have responded if there was anything to be gained. But what's the point showing up to a party after everyone's gone home?

One enduring question for me, which I don't hear addressed by anyone, right, left, mainstream, or comedy channel:

Forty (40) personnel >were< evacuated from the chaos.

No hay to be made out of that, I guess.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#161983 May 12, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>So you believe more than four Americans should have been killed, in a futile attempt to save the four, for the sake of gung-ho and hoo-raw?
The parents and families of the four would have felt better about that, I suppose?
No one knew it would have been futile, and it is the mindset of the military that you go in despite the danger if even one american life is at risk. They didn't know how this would unfold and yes those parents would feel better if they knew someone tried to save their loved ones. That is a no-brainer.
You sure change colors often, are you going for devil's advocate.? Pick a lane.

“ IT'S A CHOICE !!!”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#161984 May 12, 2013
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>Can anyone direct me to an on-line translator for this? Besides the obligatory "Poor Persecuted Pious Me" reference, I can't make heads or tails of the rest.
Hi, I think he meant the liberals at PSA-public service announcement, and the fact that he prayed someone today might call dhs- which could mean Homeland security .. Hope that helps.:)

“Mean People Suck”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#161985 May 12, 2013
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>You know me not at all. It is typical to send in troops to save just four, remember lone survivor and to lose more troops because of it. It's what we do. It's why we are willing to fight. I don't care how the fundamentalists feel, I only care how American's who put themselves at risk feel.
the saving face is obvious in the e-mail that said that they didn't want anyone to think alquaeda was in still a threat. It's obvious why you didn't want to talk about Benghaze. You have no great insights, you're just in the tank with this incompetent commander-in-chief.
Still waiting for some evidence to suggest that the decision was made to save face rather than on the tactical situation on the ground, lisw, and your suspicions of liberals, Obama, Clinton, Panetta, et al is not evidence.

I'm not holding my breath, mind you - I have no death wish.

I'm not surprised that you've retreated behind old faithful (in the tank yada yada yada). That's certainly a lot easier than having to deal with any yucky off-message stuff like what I've actually posted.

I don't want to talk about Benghazi because of posts like this one, where you misrepresent what I've said (never said anything about great insights - just offered my opinion based on what I know and experienced in the service), hide behind old faithful, and trot out some pseudo-platitudes about how we always go in.

We don't always go in. The United States military does not play 'charge of the light brigade' or go over the top WWI style marching in the face of machine guns. There's always somebody who wants to, there's always somebody who swears than can or could have done it, but sometimes they get stopped because somebody up the chain of command isn't convinced they can do it.

Sometimes those decisions are made prudently; sometimes there is an overabundance of caution; I suppose sometimes the decisions can be influenced by politics.

I don't know how the decision was made here. I don't have enough information to either defend or criticize the decision - and neither do you, unless you've got cards you ain't playing yet.

In the absence of anything remotely resembling evidence that the decision to stop the rescue was political, I can't see any reason to assume it was. If you don't understand the difference between that and 'being in the tank', it's a personal choice and nothing more.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#161986 May 12, 2013
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>No one knew it would have been futile, and it is the mindset of the military that you go in despite the danger if even one american life is at risk. They didn't know how this would unfold and yes those parents would feel better if they knew someone tried to save their loved ones. That is a no-brainer.
You sure change colors often, are you going for devil's advocate.? Pick a lane.
I would not have felt 'better' about it, if my military son had been thrown at a situation which was un-savable, and lost his life in the process. And as Hip mentioned, 40 lives were saved after the fact - no one talks about them - but you rattle on that 4 Americans died in an Embassy attack, and advocate wasting more American lives in service to American solidarity.

The 68+ folks killed in embassy attacks, under the leadership of "The Hero" in the title of this thread, aren't the subject of your outrage...I suppose because they weren't "AMERICAN" lives.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#161987 May 12, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>I would not have felt 'better' about it, if my military son had been thrown at a situation which was un-savable, and lost his life in the process. And as Hip mentioned, 40 lives were saved after the fact - no one talks about them - but you rattle on that 4 Americans died in an Embassy attack, and advocate wasting more American lives in service to American solidarity.
The 68+ folks killed in embassy attacks, under the leadership of "The Hero" in the title of this thread, aren't the subject of your outrage...I suppose because they weren't "AMERICAN" lives.
Your son would have said "it's what we do." Nobody knows if it was Unsavable. Would you not run into a burning house to save someone?

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#161988 May 12, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>Still waiting for some evidence to suggest that the decision was made to save face rather than on the tactical situation on the ground, lisw, and your suspicions of liberals, Obama, Clinton, Panetta, et al is not evidence.
I'm not holding my breath, mind you - I have no death wish.
I'm not surprised that you've retreated behind old faithful (in the tank yada yada yada). That's certainly a lot easier than having to deal with any yucky off-message stuff like what I've actually posted.
I don't want to talk about Benghazi because of posts like this one, where you misrepresent what I've said (never said anything about great insights - just offered my opinion based on what I know and experienced in the service), hide behind old faithful, and trot out some pseudo-platitudes about how we always go in.
We don't always go in. The United States military does not play 'charge of the light brigade' or go over the top WWI style marching in the face of machine guns. There's always somebody who wants to, there's always somebody who swears than can or could have done it, but sometimes they get stopped because somebody up the chain of command isn't convinced they can do it.
Sometimes those decisions are made prudently; sometimes there is an overabundance of caution; I suppose sometimes the decisions can be influenced by politics.
I don't know how the decision was made here. I don't have enough information to either defend or criticize the decision - and neither do you, unless you've got cards you ain't playing yet.
In the absence of anything remotely resembling evidence that the decision to stop the rescue was political, I can't see any reason to assume it was. If you don't understand the difference between that and 'being in the tank', it's a personal choice and nothing more.
Not suspicions willie. e-mails say this is what was said, basicly "save face" now Hillary or Obama may not have said it, but then the fact that they did not object to it, does that not either prove consent or incompetence? How you can say that things are not their fault because they didn't say it is unbelievable. You can't be that stupid.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#161989 May 12, 2013
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>Not suspicions willie. e-mails say this is what was said, basicly "save face" now Hillary or Obama may not have said it, but then the fact that they did not object to it, does that not either prove consent or incompetence? How you can say that things are not their fault because they didn't say it is unbelievable. You can't be that stupid.
I'd like to find on the internet a succinct and accurate timeline of events and quotes beginning with the attack up to the present. A who-knew-what-when and a who-said-what-when would make this mess easier to review...for example, Hillary said this while standing next to the caskets of those 4 men:

"This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing do to with."

That flipping video thing again- Did she know THEN that was BS while standing next to those caskets as she spoke to the nation, the world and their families? If the answer to that is yes, someone needs to wind up a slap her.
==
One other aspect which hasn't been discussed much was Libyan President Magarief's annoyance and dismay with the United States after Susan Rice made her infamous Sunday morning rounds. He had already emphatically stated, "It was a pre-planned act of terrorism," adding that "the anti-Islam film had nothing to do with this attack." So then, here comes ding dong Rice prancing around calling it a "spontaneous reaction to a video" which made him look like an uninformed, liar. He had every reason to have been deeply offended and he was. And Margarief for what it's worth, is precisely the kind of guy we want in Libya so when this entire charade was carried out it wasn't just America which was affected, the chosen reaction and response by this administration had other far reaching serious effects and negative consequences.

I don't think any of this is will result in an impeachment so I'm not even entertaining that notion but maybe we'll learn something from it and although that brings no comfort to the families of those 4 men, I guess it's something.

Would any of this have occured under a McCain administration? We'll never know but sometimes I wonder if his military knowledge and senior position in our government would have been more appropriate and helpful- he was a POW longer than Obama was a senator but what the heck....we threw caution to the wind, elected an unknown cubscout when we had multiple hotspots around the world and a war or two sooooooo, instead of choosing a seasoned opponent, here we are.

Anyway, he's doing dandy things for the gay community!
lol-

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#161990 May 12, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd like to find on the internet a succinct and accurate timeline of events and quotes beginning with the attack up to the present. A who-knew-what-when and a who-said-what-when would make this mess easier to review...for example, Hillary said this while standing next to the caskets of those 4 men:
"This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing do to with."
That flipping video thing again- Did she know THEN that was BS while standing next to those caskets as she spoke to the nation, the world and their families? If the answer to that is yes, someone needs to wind up a slap her.
==
One other aspect which hasn't been discussed much was Libyan President Magarief's annoyance and dismay with the United States after Susan Rice made her infamous Sunday morning rounds. He had already emphatically stated, "It was a pre-planned act of terrorism," adding that "the anti-Islam film had nothing to do with this attack." So then, here comes ding dong Rice prancing around calling it a "spontaneous reaction to a video" which made him look like an uninformed, liar. He had every reason to have been deeply offended and he was. And Margarief for what it's worth, is precisely the kind of guy we want in Libya so when this entire charade was carried out it wasn't just America which was affected, the chosen reaction and response by this administration had other far reaching serious effects and negative consequences.
I don't think any of this is will result in an impeachment so I'm not even entertaining that notion but maybe we'll learn something from it and although that brings no comfort to the families of those 4 men, I guess it's something.
Would any of this have occured under a McCain administration? We'll never know but sometimes I wonder if his military knowledge and senior position in our government would have been more appropriate and helpful- he was a POW longer than Obama was a senator but what the heck....we threw caution to the wind, elected an unknown cubscout when we had multiple hotspots around the world and a war or two sooooooo, instead of choosing a seasoned opponent, here we are.
Anyway, he's doing dandy things for the gay community!
lol-
Good of you to finish your post with a nice little mention of the "gay community."

I'd rather see you feeling depression instead of anger.

You know, depression is anger without enthusiasm.

You are enthusiastically angry.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#161991 May 12, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd like to find on the internet a succinct and accurate timeline of events and quotes beginning with the attack up to the present. A who-knew-what-when and a who-said-what-when would make this mess easier to review...for example, Hillary said this while standing next to the caskets of those 4 men:
"This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing do to with."
That flipping video thing again- Did she know THEN that was BS while standing next to those caskets as she spoke to the nation, the world and their families? If the answer to that is yes, someone needs to wind up a slap her.
==
One other aspect which hasn't been discussed much was Libyan President Magarief's annoyance and dismay with the United States after Susan Rice made her infamous Sunday morning rounds. He had already emphatically stated, "It was a pre-planned act of terrorism," adding that "the anti-Islam film had nothing to do with this attack." So then, here comes ding dong Rice prancing around calling it a "spontaneous reaction to a video" which made him look like an uninformed, liar. He had every reason to have been deeply offended and he was. And Margarief for what it's worth, is precisely the kind of guy we want in Libya so when this entire charade was carried out it wasn't just America which was affected, the chosen reaction and response by this administration had other far reaching serious effects and negative consequences.
I don't think any of this is will result in an impeachment so I'm not even entertaining that notion but maybe we'll learn something from it and although that brings no comfort to the families of those 4 men, I guess it's something.
Would any of this have occured under a McCain administration? We'll never know but sometimes I wonder if his military knowledge and senior position in our government would have been more appropriate and helpful- he was a POW longer than Obama was a senator but what the heck....we threw caution to the wind, elected an unknown cubscout when we had multiple hotspots around the world and a war or two sooooooo, instead of choosing a seasoned opponent, here we are.
Anyway, he's doing dandy things for the gay community!
lol-
Your points are good especially about the Libyan gov't. We keep saying we want peaceful muslims to stand up to the violence. here libyans tried to help the ambassador and yet were assigned the blame for a spontaneous demonstration. They (Hillary, Obama et al,) were not concerned about how the Libyans fault. Believe me if they have to throw a gay person under the bus they will, if it helps their political careers. Wish I could say lol but it's just so pathetic.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#161992 May 12, 2013
felt not fault

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 3 min Aura Mytha 765,033
Play "end of the word" (Jan '11) 4 min andet1987 4,963
sex krne me jyada maza kise aata hai lake ko ya... (Oct '13) 5 min kannan 8
21 f . brunette hot and sexy looking for skype ... (Apr '14) 6 min kannan 3
Rapture Believers Continue To Mock Christians 9 min andet1987 7
Any girls wanna sex Skype? (Jan '13) 10 min kannan 46
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 14 min onemale 263,584
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 24 min hojo 554,996
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 1 hr mike 603,659
Why do BLACK People hate Mexicans so much? (Dec '13) 2 hr truth 932

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE