Benghazi

[birdog1960]

 

And you're still wrong. This thread is 81 pages. You're not the only one who's made that stance. In fact, I did while the hearings were going on and I loathe Clinton.

 

Comments like this are why you're a joke.

 

Care to revise your BS statement?

 

nope. it's absolutely true. if feel it is morally superior to vote for the lesser of evils if it is inevitable that only one of those choices can win. I can't fathom a reasonable argument to the contrary.

 

you produced those other quotes with amazing facility. how bout producing those from the other 80 pages that condemn the saliva statement?

Edited June 29, 2016 by birdog1960

[Deranged Rhino]

nope. it's absolutely true. if feel it is morally superior to vote for the lesser of evils if it is inevitable that only one of those choices can win. I can't fathom a reasonable argument to the contrary.

 

You can make that argument all you wish, you just can't do it while claiming it's the principled approach -- which is what you were trying to claim. It's the opposite of principled. Literally the exact opposite of the definition of the word.

[boyst]

Bird dog is getting spanked

[birdog1960]

Bird dog is getting spanked

ah yes, an unbiased judge.

 

You can make that argument all you wish, you just can't do it while claiming it's the principled approach -- which is what you were trying to claim. It's the opposite of principled. Literally the exact opposite of the definition of the word.

if it's morally superior (which it is), how then is it simultaneously unprincipled?

 

oh, and the quotes?

Edited June 29, 2016 by birdog1960

[B-Man]

What We Do Know about the Benghazi Attack Demands a Reckoning

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437273/benghazi-scandal-hillary-clinton-state-department-obama-administration-house-committee

The Benghazi Debacle Should Have Ended Hillary Clinton’s Career

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437262/hillary-clinton-benghazi-scandal-how-she-survived

Instead, with an assist from the media, she’s going to get off scot-free. Do failures and lies matter any longer? If you are a prominent Democratic politician, what exactly is the level of wrongdoing that will end your career

{snip}

So here we are.

The presumptive Democratic nominee for president is largely responsible for one of the great foreign-policy disasters of the last eight years and unquestionably responsible for helping mislead the public, yet in the media calculus of our time the Benghazi report is a “win,” because it merely confirms failures we already knew about.

And everyone knows that old failures are no failures at all.

[Deranged Rhino]

if it's morally superior (which it is), how then is it simultaneously unprincipled?

 

 

This is one of the most ridiculous attempts I've seen on here to run from one's own comments.

 

oh, and the quotes?

 

Do you're own work, Sue. They're all there.

[birdog1960]

 

 

This is one of the most ridiculous attempts I've seen on here to run from one's own comments.

 

 

Do you're own work, Sue. They're all there.

this is running. what I've done is to confront. back to ignore you're not worth it.

[Deranged Rhino]

this is running. what I've done is to confront. back to ignore you're not worth it.

 

Running? No, that's me telling you that I'm not your lackey. What a shock that an intellectual giant like yourself is unable to use a search function. Then again it makes it all the more easier to once again show you what a complete dunce you actually are, so I guess I should thank you.

 

This took all of three seconds to pull up:

 

That's bull ****. The only ones making this political are folks like you. It's not enough that 4 people died serving their country, but because it happened while a Dem was running for reelection the GOP made the tragedy political while claiming it was the other side doing so.

 

The irony of your statement is so thick you can't even see it yourself.

 

 

This is the issue that should be debated, not the political aftermath which has no bearing on the realities of the event.

 

 

...Which EVERY administration in the history of history has done when they fall on their face. I have no problem with calling the WH out for that, but that's not what is at the core of the argument on the right. It's that either Obama and/or Clinton knowingly and willingly let Americans die for political gain -- that's the headline that the right has turned this issue into. Why? To win points in the general election and '16 election.

 

And the ones who are so high and mighty on here crying about dead Americans while politically abusing their memories is as shameful, if not more so, than the original offense.

 

 

And yet when over 3,000 Americans died, on US soil, and the President sat in a room full of kids doing nothing while cameras rolled, I bet you didn't have the same criticism. Even though both the 9/11 commission and every report that's come out since highlights the repeated warnings of the attack that were missed by both Clinton's outgoing administration and W's incoming...

 

That's why I can't take you, B-Man, or Doc seriously on Benghazi. You're parsing your loyalties to dead Americans on purely political grounds. It's as shameful as what you're slamming Obama's administration for now. It's hypocritical and reeks of politics.

 

Focus on the issue -- what went wrong and how to prevent it from happening again. If there are proven to be people criminally negligent, then by all means unleash the dogs of war.

 

 

I understand the argument, I just disagree with the chain of events.

 

 

It's not a perfect analogy, I grant you. However, for the sake of the discussion, Bush couldn't lie about what happened because it happened in Manhattan. Whereas Benghazi happened half a world away and even the people on the ground disagree about who knew what when. As Morell clarified in his testimony today, there was an internal debate within the intelligence community as to whether or not there were protestors let alone the cause. Considering the amount of intel and data they have to sift through every hour, this confusion is not a new development in our national security apparatus.

 

Don't get what I'm arguing wrong, I'm not trying to defend the administrations handling of this or prop them up in anyway. What I am against is the inherent political bent brought into the debate. Obscuration of a f*ck up by the administration is not the same thing as "leaving Americans to die". And once you frame your argument with those explosive words, it reeks of partisanship rather than patriotism. And that's what I object to.

 

 

 

I agree, I don't want to spend a lot of time on this but there are literally hundreds of reactions Bush could have chosen between doing nothing and running out in a panic. It would be ridiculous for him to have run out in a panic, I completely agree. In fact, the only thing more ridiculous would be for him to sit dumbstruck while war was breaking out in downtown Manhattan.

 

 

At least on this sentiment we can find agreement.

 

 

Actually, a bunch of guys with automatic weapons storming the place brought this situation upon us. You do know that, right?

 

 

It's amazing how when it comes to this event you can clearly grasp the issue but yet you're unable to see the same thing applies here to Benghazi.

 

Obama (or the real target: Hillary) couldn't have prevented it without specific intelligence any more than Bush could have prevented 9/11. And if the WH couldn't have prevented the attack, then what are we really talking about here? We're talking about the administrations response to the attack.

 

THAT is a valid issue to discuss, but once you cloak it in political talking points ("he left Americans to die!") you mark yourself as someone who is either ignorant of the facts or a political partisan looking to score points. Either way, approaching the issue from that angle destroys any hope of shining a light on the breakdowns in security and fixing those before more American diplomats get killed. Shouldn't that be the real aim of these investigations rather than a political witch hunt?

 

 

Then at least have the intellectual fortitude to admit that's the real goal of harping on Benghazi -- because it's definitely not done out of any perceived honor to the dead.

 

 

 

Again, I have no problem going after the WH for how they handled the fallout. That's fair and on the table. And you misunderstood my point, I'm not excusing their behavior by pointing out that it's not uncommon -- rather I'm pointing out the scale of the offense. The only offense you can rationally argue (with actual evidence, not tin-foil hat conspiracy type sources of which I'm normally a fan) the administration perpetrated was obscuration of the attack's origins. And even that, as demonstrated by Morell's testimony, is a stretch or at best, nit-picking.

 

Everything else brought into the debate is designed to score points against Hillary (the real target) and the WH by creating a false narrative that they actively covered something up and THAT lead to the death of American diplomats. There's a mountain of difference between the first charge and this one. And to make sure that people don't think too hard about it, the GOP shamelessly claims to be only doing this to honor the dead or out of a deep sense of patriotism.

 

So yes, I have a big problem with anyone who brings up Benghazi under the guise of wanting to honor the dead when really it's about scoring political points. And yes, the overwhelming majority of the outrage on this issue coming from the right is indeed phoney. You can tell it's phoney because more money, time, and media attention has been paid to trying to catch the WH in a lie than it has on figuring out how to prevent future attacks from killing American diplomats.

 

It's sickening -- every bit as sickening as ANY administration using dead Americans as political cover.

 

You can roast the administration for their handling of the aftermath, but that's not how the backlash is framed, anyone who can read beyond their political blinders can see that.

 

 

Again. The real reason the GOP cares. It's not for dead soldiers or justice, but to stop Hillary from winning an election. That's the definition of politicizing the death of Americans.

 

Shameful.

 

Seriously, go !@#$ yourself.

[Nanker]

I don't usually call out spelling errors but this is egregious since it's the name of the righties cult hero.

You don't usually capitalize any words in your sentences, you fu ck wad.

[boyst]

ah yes, an unbiased judge.

 

if it's morally superior (which it is), how then is it simultaneously unprincipled?

 

oh, and the quotes?

i am un biased.

 

Transgreg is an idiot. And Tom is a narcissist who dances only in the little bit he knows. He fakes the rest

I bet he does not know how sonar works or how to amplify it

[Deranged Rhino]

Transgreg is an idiot.

 

[DC Tom]

i am un biased.

 

Transgreg is an idiot. And Tom is a narcissist who dances only in the little bit he knows. He fakes the rest

I bet he does not know how sonar works or how to amplify it

 

Sonar is sound waves reflected off an object to detect it. You amplify it by collecting more bats.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

Slow down...............you've been drinking a lot today.........

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

Slow down...............you've been drinking a lot today.........

 

True. Posting between meetings and there were more than a few good chuckles that I felt needed acknowledgment. is just way faster.

[boyst]

 

transgreg is an idiot, even you DR must agree. he's almost as bad as that guy Tgreggy or GreggyT that would come around here.

 

Sonar is sound waves reflected off an object to detect it. You amplify it by collecting more bats.

proving my point. you're not very samrt.

 

it's a big pool of knowledge you have but it's not very deep. by your standards then the yankees would have good sonar.

[DC Tom]

transgreg is an idiot, even you DR must agree. he's almost as bad as that guy Tgreggy or GreggyT that would come around here.

proving my point. you're not very samrt.

 

it's a big pool of knowledge you have but it's not very deep. by your standards then the yankees would have good sonar.

 

Really? I'm not very smart because I responded to your vague question with a smart-ass remark?

[boyst]

Really? I'm not very smart because I responded to your vague question with a smart-ass remark?

Tom, your guise of smartass remarks is weak. It's your guise to have time to go to Wikipedia and research the topic. I'm. Ot the only one to see thru it!

[DC Tom]

Tom, your guise of smartass remarks is weak. It's your guise to have time to go to Wikipedia and research the topic. I'm. Ot the only one to see thru it!

 

I have no idea what you're doing. I'm just going to assume you're drunk.

[B-Man]

How the White House misled on Benghazi

by Sarah Westwood

 

Original Article

 

New evidence obtained by the House Select Committee on Benghazi suggests the Obama administration forged ahead with a narrative that blamed the Sept. 11, 2012 attack in Benghazi on a protest over a YouTube clip, despite clear and consistent signs that the violence was planned and executed by a terrorist group.

 

 

In a 48-page summary of the committee's findings that was penned by a pair of Republican committee members and made public Tuesday, Reps. Jim Jordan and Mike Pompeo argued the administration presented the public with an explanation that had little basis in fact because President Obama was preoccupied with declaring terrorism dead ahead of his reelection.

 

 

More at the link:

[George]

I'm beginning to doubt that justice will ever be served wrt the Clinton Crime Family.

 

Ken Starr couldn't get it done despite being allowed and encouraged to investigate then President Bill Clinton for several years over anything and everything he could dig up, infer, or imagine.

 

I mean an impeachment proceeding over lying about a BJ was the best he could do? Really?

 

And now this latest failure...

 

You'd think that those lying, cheating, bastards weren't guilty of nothing when we all know how corrupt and disgusting they really are...

 

It's embarrassing, it really is.