Benghazi

[Doc]

No question. I did not mean to imply it's the parents who are politicizing it -- which is why I bolded and clipped the relevant section. It's Wacka's response about Hillary which I was reacting to.

Hilly's involved Gregg. And her challengers for 2016 will make sure everyone knows about it. And it won't be just her GOP challengers either.

[Jim in Anchorage]

 

 

 

 

If I felt you were capable of understanding the finer points of any argument, let alone this one, I'd answer. (Even though I've already explained my position in quite some detail -- but again, since you can't read well, you probably couldn't understand it)

 

But since you are a mouth breathing, racist, homophobic, gay-hating fool who adds nothing to this community that can be considered constructive -- I choose to tell you to !@#$k off.

Considering the complete and total lack of concern you exhibit over the life's lost in Benghazi I feel good about you're opinion of me. Show's I am distancing myself from you and others of your mindset. And no I generally don't read your garbage.

[Deranged Rhino]

Hilly's involved Gregg. And her challengers for 2016 will make sure everyone knows about it. And it won't be just her GOP challengers either.

She absolutely is involved and if she's found out to have done wrong with Benghazi then she should be slammed. So far, there has been nothing other than conjecture and GOP talking points to prove she did anything criminal or negligent.

 

As I've said a couple times now, intelligence is never clear cut -- something Morell's testimony makes clear. Hillary, nor the WH could not have prevented the attack. There has not been any evidence, other than conjecture, to the contrary. Of course, as SecState, the buck stops with her as it should in terms of responsibility. But to say she failed to act and people died because of that is just not true.

 

If you want to get the WH or Hillary for covering up the classification of the attack for political gain -- that's fair game. Testimony and evidence paint a rather clear picture that the people on the ground at the time, and the people in State, CIA and the administration were not on the same page during or after the attack as to the cause. Every hearing and testimony on the matter has shown this to be the one constant truth. Even though the evidence is stacked against those that cry cover-up, I have no problem with people being upset over it or the GOP going after it for political points. That's part of the game. They're politicians, it's what they do.

 

But let's call it what it is... We're not politicians, we should be able to have an honest conversation about this. The issue that's driving this is not about the memory of dead Americans. It's about winning an election by using those deaths in a political witch hunt. If it wasn't a witch hunt, more testimony and congressional time would be being spent on figuring out how to prevent such an attack from happening again, wouldn't it?

 

For evidence of what I'm talking about, look at the mouth-breather's post beneath this one. The GOP has clouded the issue by invoking the name of dead Americans so that the simpletons of their base don't think too hard about what actually happened.

 

Considering the complete and total lack of concern you exhibit over the life's lost in Benghazi I feel good about you're opinion of me. Show's I am distancing myself from you and others of your mindset. And no I generally don't read your garbage.

The fact that you take my position as having no concern for the ones who lost their lives shows that I once again used too many syllables for you to comprehend. My position is the opposite of that stance, my stupid, stupid, stupid, tiny man. It's astonishing that you're able to feed yourself and breath at the same time.

Edited April 6, 2014 by GreggyT

[Jim in Anchorage]

She absolutely is involved and if she's found out to have done wrong with Benghazi then she should be slammed. So far, there has been nothing other than conjecture and GOP talking points to prove she did anything criminal or negligent.

 

As I've said a couple times now, intelligence is never clear cut -- something Morell's testimony makes clear. Hillary, nor the WH could not have prevented the attack. There has not been any evidence, other than conjecture, to the contrary. Of course, as SecState, the buck stops with her as it should in terms of responsibility. But to say she failed to act and people died because of that is just not true.

 

If you want to get the WH or Hillary for covering up the classification of the attack for political gain -- that's fair game. Testimony and evidence paint a rather clear picture that the people on the ground at the time, and the people in State, CIA and the administration were not on the same page during or after the attack as to the cause. Every hearing and testimony on the matter has shown this to be the one constant truth. Even though the evidence is stacked against those that cry cover-up, I have no problem with people being upset over it or the GOP going after it for political points. That's part of the game. They're politicians, it's what they do.

 

But let's call it what it is... We're not politicians, we should be able to have an honest conversation about this. The issue that's driving this is not about the memory of dead Americans. It's about winning an election by using those deaths in a political witch hunt. If it wasn't a witch hunt, more testimony and congressional time would be being spent on figuring out how to prevent such an attack from happening again, wouldn't it?

 

For evidence of what I'm talking about, look at the mouth-breather's post beneath this one. The GOP has clouded the issue by invoking the name of dead Americans so that the simpletons of their base don't think too hard about what actually happened.

 

 

The fact that you take my position as having no concern for the ones who lost their lives shows that I once again used too many syllables for you to comprehend. My position is the opposite of that stance, my stupid, stupid, stupid, tiny man. It's astonishing that you're able to feed yourself and breath at the same time.

Have you ever considered your posts are largely idiotic and I don't care to figure out what they are trying to say? Man you are textbook liberal. Make wild accusations with no backing facts, when challenged get emotional, loud, and start screaming personal insults. You come across as extremely angry .to me. What happened to you?

[Tiberius]

Have you ever considered your posts are largely idiotic and I don't care to figure out what they are trying to say? Man you are textbook liberal. Make wild accusations with no backing facts, when challenged get emotional, loud, and start screaming personal insults. You come across as extremely angry .to me. What happened to you?

Make wild accusations without facts to back them up? You just described the whole benghazi "scandal" in a nutshell you kook

[Chef Jim]

Make wild accusations without facts to back them up? You just described the whole benghazi "scandal" in a nutshell you kook

 

Why don't you give us your thoughts on what happened there and how it's been handled by the administration since.

[B-Man]

Why don't you give us your thoughts on what happened there and how it's been handled by the administration since.

 

Lol Chef...............that was rhetorical right ?

 

 

Hayden Faults Administration, Not CIA, on Benghazi Talking Points

By Eliana Johnson

[Deranged Rhino]

Have you ever considered your posts are largely idiotic and I don't care to figure out what they are trying to say?

How can you determine they are idiotic if you admittedly do not care to figure out what they are trying to say? You're so dim-witted you cannot even craft a decent insult, let alone contribute to this board in a meaningful way. All you bring is ignorance, hate, and dumb-assery.

 

Man you are textbook liberal.

As if you have ever read a textbook or know what one is.

 

Make wild accusations with no backing facts,

I backed up all of my accusations with facts. But since you already admitted you don't try to understand what I post, how can you possibly know my accusations are wild or have no facts? Seems like a contradiction there, Jimmy. Which is it?

 

when challenged get emotional, loud, and start screaming personal insults.

I have never screamed personal insults. When I'm calling you a racist, homophobic, ignorant, asshat of a human -- those are facts. Backed up by your posting history. Those aren't "insults". If you don't want to be called those things, stop doing them. It's really simple. So simple even someone with as low of an IQ as you could figure it out....

 

You come across as extremely angry .to me. What happened to you?

I'm not angry in the slightest. Someone who uses words to express themselves, even when those words are long and sometimes difficult to pronounce if you have less than a third grade education -- does not equate to anger.

 

I don't waste my time being angry at the likes of fools like you. It's much more fun to smack you down when you speak up because you are just so, so, so, petty. And so, so, so tiny of a man. I can't even call you a man. 'You’re like an early draft of a man, where they just sketched out a giant, mangled skeleton, but they didn’t have time to add details, like pigment or self-respect. You’re Frankenstein’s monster, if his monster was made entirely of dead dicks.'

[meazza]

 

How can you determine they are idiotic if you admittedly do not care to figure out what they are trying to say? You're so dim-witted you cannot even craft a decent insult, let alone contribute to this board in a meaningful way. All you bring is ignorance, hate, and dumb-assery.

 

 

As if you have ever read a textbook or know what one is.

 

 

I backed up all of my accusations with facts. But since you already admitted you don't try to understand what I post, how can you possibly know my accusations are wild or have no facts? Seems like a contradiction there, Jimmy. Which is it?

 

 

I have never screamed personal insults. When I'm calling you a racist, homophobic, ignorant, asshat of a human -- those are facts. Backed up by your posting history. Those aren't "insults". If you don't want to be called those things, stop doing them. It's really simple. So simple even someone with as low of an IQ as you could figure it out....

 

 

I'm not angry in the slightest. Someone who uses words to express themselves, even when those words are long and sometimes difficult to pronounce if you have less than a third grade education -- does not equate to anger.

 

I don't waste my time being angry at the likes of fools like you. It's much more fun to smack you down when you speak up because you are just so, so, so, petty. And so, so, so tiny of a man. I can't even call you a man. 'You’re like an early draft of a man, where they just sketched out a giant, mangled skeleton, but they didn’t have time to add details, like pigment or self-respect. You’re Frankenstein’s monster, if his monster was made entirely of dead dicks.'

 

You are being petty.

[Tiberius]

 

Morell refuted the accounts of a coverup for political gains today. But good job posting an article from 2 days before his open testimony.

 

While Morell acknowledged the CIA could have done a “better job” on some aspects of its analysis of Benghazi. The former top intelligence official also said that none of the agency’s flaws “reflect any intention to mislead Congress or the American people or any intention to provide political benefit to anyone.”

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/02/cia-strikes-back-on-benghazi.html

Here you are Chef, this is all I need to say. Will you ever answer a question Chef?

 

 

 

You are being petty.

How about you explain to us how you came to this conclusion

[Deranged Rhino]

You are being petty.

I'm sadly not above it.

[meazza]

 

I'm sadly not above it.

 

Sorry i thought you were above that. The sliver of good among ppp lol

 

And it's nice that gatorman is sticking up for you. I guess you'll need a cold shower after that.

[boyst]

It's been brought up that the victims are what matter in the Benghazi incident.

 

Just a point to make here but look at how many here keep interjecting politics to the topic. Without relevance of what political viewpoint they bring to it - look who brings it up the most. Further, look who is among the first to bash or critique it on a solely political basis.

 

Then you'll see who cares about the truth and who cares about the politics of the event.

[meazza]

It's been brought up that the victims are what matter in the Benghazi incident.

 

Just a point to make here but look at how many here keep interjecting politics to the topic. Without relevance of what political viewpoint they bring to it - look who brings it up the most. Further, look who is among the first to bash or critique it on a solely political basis.

 

Then you'll see who cares about the truth and who cares about the politics of the event.

 

I have no doubt that this is being used as a political tool but the entire incident being political started with the white house and the video narrative.

[boyst]

I have no doubt that this is being used as a political tool but the entire incident being political started with the white house and the video narrative.

I get that, I dislike that and from that point it has been tied with the worst thing this Admin has done. Right up there with the ACA rollout - it was something that they completely failed in handling.

 

The ACA did not have to be political and it could have been handled a lot better - even just the shut down part of it - you know, back off your guns and say "gee, we know it's not ready to work but we'll keep that quiet and let you guys claim victory for 1 year."

 

This reeks of political spin all over and it's a joke.

 

Every administration has their goofs but this admin has managed to turn every event and every moment in to a political mess.

[Deranged Rhino]

I have no doubt that this is being used as a political tool but the entire incident being political started with the white house and the video narrative.

...Which, as Morell's testimony clearly states, is not as clear cut as you'd like to think.

 

The people on the ground were not in agreement with the cause, let alone the various intelligence apparatuses and the WH. Hitting the WH with charges of obscuring the cause during the immediate weeks after the attack, during the campaign, that's politics 101. Romney and the GOP rightly used the tool available to them and it wound up backfiring during the debates. That specific line of attack -- dealing with how the WH responded to the attacks -- should have ended when the general election was over. That's when it was time to let go of the politics and shift the focus to what really matters: preventing further attacks by figuring out how this one was successful.

 

But the witch hunt hasn't stopped. It's been 19 months and as a country we've spent more time and energy trying to stick it to the WH rather than actually working to keep American diplomats safer. Look at 3rd's posts, he admits he doesn't think this administration should be given any slack -- and he's probably right -- but when those kind of political emotions get brought into this kind of tragedy, no good comes from it.

 

If the goal is to protect Americans, then your argument cannot be "they started it" -- which is how your argument is coming across.

[meazza]

 

...Which, as Morell's testimony clearly states, is not as clear cut as you'd like to think.

 

The people on the ground were not in agreement with the cause, let alone the various intelligence apparatuses and the WH. Hitting the WH with charges of obscuring the cause during the immediate weeks after the attack, during the campaign, that's politics 101. Romney and the GOP rightly used the tool available to them and it wound up backfiring during the debates. That specific line of attack -- dealing with how the WH responded to the attacks -- should have ended when the general election was over. That's when it was time to let go of the politics and shift the focus to what really matters: preventing further attacks by figuring out how this one was successful.

 

But the witch hunt hasn't stopped. It's been 19 months and as a country we've spent more time and energy trying to stick it to the WH rather than actually working to keep American diplomats safer. Look at 3rd's posts, he admits he doesn't think this administration should be given any slack -- and he's probably right -- but when those kind of political emotions get brought into this kind of tragedy, no good comes from it.

 

If the goal is to protect Americans, then your argument cannot be "they started it" -- which is how your argument is coming across.

 

I have no goal in this, i really don't care aside from a drive by but showing that the WH and the chosen one are just as bad or maybe even worse than their so called opponents.

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

I have no goal in this, i really don't care aside from a drive by but showing that the WH and the chosen one are just as bad or maybe even worse than their so called opponents.

And that's why this whole topic is corrupted with political baggage and bile of the worst kind -- none of which has any bearing on the actual events that night. My only argument is for people to have the courage to admit what they're upset about, because it damn sure isn't about dead Americans. It's about settling old grudges that have nothing to do with honoring the memory of the dead.

 

EDIT: That's not directed at you personally, you admit your angle which is commendable. I mean your response is probably shared by a great number of the most vocal people who continue to beat this dead horse. Your response sums up their beliefs perfectly.

Edited April 7, 2014 by GreggyT

[3rdnlng]

...Which, as Morell's testimony clearly states, is not as clear cut as you'd like to think.

 

The people on the ground were not in agreement with the cause, let alone the various intelligence apparatuses and the WH. Hitting the WH with charges of obscuring the cause during the immediate weeks after the attack, during the campaign, that's politics 101. Romney and the GOP rightly used the tool available to them and it wound up backfiring during the debates. That specific line of attack -- dealing with how the WH responded to the attacks -- should have ended when the general election was over. That's when it was time to let go of the politics and shift the focus to what really matters: preventing further attacks by figuring out how this one was successful.

 

But the witch hunt hasn't stopped. It's been 19 months and as a country we've spent more time and energy trying to stick it to the WH rather than actually working to keep American diplomats safer. Look at 3rd's posts, he admits he doesn't think this administration should be given any slack -- and he's probably right -- but when those kind of political emotions get brought into this kind of tragedy, no good comes from it.

 

If the goal is to protect Americans, then your argument cannot be "they started it" -- which is how your argument is coming across.

 

How many times do I have to call out your horseshit assertions? This administration has been wrong on Benghazi from the start. They are still trying to cover up for it, a year and a half later. If they had come clean early on this it would be behind them. They've chosen not to do so and I for one feel they should reap what they've sowed. This to me is not political but it is about character, or lack thereof. I don't want Hillary just because i'm a conservative. I don't want her first of all because she lacks character. The Benghazi incident shows that. After that, we can talk politics.

[Jim in Anchorage]

How can you determine they are idiotic if you admittedly do not care to figure out what they are trying to say? You're so dim-witted you cannot even craft a decent insult, let alone contribute to this board in a meaningful way. All you bring is ignorance, hate, and dumb-assery.

 

 

As if you have ever read a textbook or know what one is.

 

 

I backed up all of my accusations with facts. But since you already admitted you don't try to understand what I post, how can you possibly know my accusations are wild or have no facts? Seems like a contradiction there, Jimmy. Which is it?

 

 

I have never screamed personal insults. When I'm calling you a racist, homophobic, ignorant, asshat of a human -- those are facts. Backed up by your posting history. Those aren't "insults". If you don't want to be called those things, stop doing them. It's really simple. So simple even someone with as low of an IQ as you could figure it out....

 

 

I'm not angry in the slightest. Someone who uses words to express themselves, even when those words are long and sometimes difficult to pronounce if you have less than a third grade education -- does not equate to anger.

 

I don't waste my time being angry at the likes of fools like you. It's much more fun to smack you down when you speak up because you are just so, so, so, petty. And so, so, so tiny of a man. I can't even call you a man. 'You’re like an early draft of a man, where they just sketched out a giant, mangled skeleton, but they didn’t have time to add details, like pigment or self-respect. You’re Frankenstein’s monster, if his monster was made entirely of dead dicks.'

It is so easy to picture veins popping out on your forehead as you stomp your foot and write this. You need some serious medication adjustments. Sorry if I set back you're out patent treatment.