I Hate Dialysis Message Board
Off-Topic => Political Debates - Thick Skin Required for Entry => Topic started by: Hober Mallow on January 23, 2013, 11:22:58 AM
-
This is what Rand Paul actually said to Secretary Clinton at the Benghazi hearing:
"I think ultimately with your leaving that you accept the culpability for the worst tragedy since 9/11. And I really mean that."
Four dead Americans is a tragedy. But the worst tragedy since 9/11?
How about all the Americans killed in the seven embassy or U.S. consulate attacks under George Bush?
How about the twenty children killed in the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre?
How about the 2,000 people killed in Hurricane Katrina?
How about the Colorado movie theater shooting, the Virginia Tech shooting, Hurricane Sandy? You remember Hurricane Sandy, don't you Paul? That thing where you voted against relief funding for the victims? Ringing a bell?
The Benghazi deaths are a tragedy enough without the need for Rand Paul's indelicate hyperbole.
-
Rand Paul is just beginning his run for 2016.
-
Looks like Benghazi is heating up again.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/06/benghazi-witness-us-military-response-could-have-scared-off-attackers-prevented/
Doesn't look good for Clinton.
-
The Obama Administration actually wants the American Public to "forget about the Benghazi thing because...it happened a long time ago" and yet they continue to blame Bush. :)
-
The Obama Administration actually wants the American Public to "forget about the Benghazi thing because...it happened a long time ago" and yet they continue to blame Bush. :)
Very true. Not much of a PR campaign of defense is it?
-
The Obama Administration actually wants the American Public to "forget about the Benghazi thing because...it happened a long time ago" and yet they continue to blame Bush. :)
Very true. Not much of a PR campaign of defense is it?
I personally think this administration should get the boot. NOT :welcomesign; ANYMORE
-
This is Whitewater all again. Ridiculous.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-8-2013/the-big-benghazi-theory
What about the 54 attacks on diplomatic targets killing 13 Americans during Bush's administration?
A total of 3 hearings...really? Where was your outrage then?
-
This is Whitewater all again. Ridiculous.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-8-2013/the-big-benghazi-theory
What about the 54 attacks on diplomatic targets killing 13 Americans during Bush's administration?
A total of 3 hearings...really? Where was your outrage then?
Dear YL, I listened to the entire tape. Not so sure why so many people find the death of 4 brave souls funny. In addition, who says that we all supported Bush. The Patriot Act, John Warners defense authorization act 2007, The Military Commissions Act and much more took away many of our well cherished liberties.
I guess my answer is, two wrongs don't make a right. Yup Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon and on and on have done all sorts of covert operations over the years, lied to congress, lied to America and yet Obama and the Benghazi incident is somehow funny. Sorry, I fail to see the humor of those men who died bravely while Obama and Clinton abandoned them.
-
Can't find a real scandal? No problem. Simply make one up by altering emails:
Was ABC News used by someone with an ax to grind against the State Department? It looks possible. A key email in its “scoop” that the administration’s “talking points” on Benghazi had been changed a dozen times came from White House national security communications adviser Ben Rhodes. It seemed to confirm that the White House wanted the talking points changed to protect all agencies’ interests, “including those of the State Department,” in the words of the email allegedly sent by Rhodes.
But CNN’s Jake Tapper reveals that Rhodes’ email didn’t mention the State Department, and doesn’t even seem to implicitly reference it. The email as published by Karl differs significantly from the original obtained by Tapper.
According to ABC’s Jonathan Karl, Rhodes weighed in after State Department’s Victoria Nuland, who expressed concerns about the way the talking points might hurt “my building’s leadership.” ABC quotes Rhodes saying:
"We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation. We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting."
The email obtained by Tapper is very different.
"Sorry to be late to this discussion. We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.
"There is a ton of wrong information getting out into the public domain from Congress and people who are not particularly informed. Insofar as we have firmed up assessments that don’t compromise intel or the investigation, we need to have the capability to correct the record, as there are significant policy and messaging ramifications that would flow from a hardened mis-impression.
"We can take this up tomorrow morning at deputies."
...
Significantly, the Rhodes email doesn’t even mention the controversial Benghazi talking points. Reporting by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard paraphrased Rhodes’ email the same way – to depict him jumping in behind Nuland and protecting the interests of the State Department. Some on the right have suggested Karl and Tapper might be talking about two different emails, but in the ABC and CNN stories, the emails are dated identically, 9/14/12 at 9:34 p.m. Tapper provides the original; Karl did not.
Oops.
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/who_doctored_a_white_house_email/
-
Can't find a real scandal? No problem. Simply make one up by altering emails:
Was ABC News used by someone with an ax to grind against the State Department? It looks possible. A key email in its “scoop” that the administration’s “talking points” on Benghazi had been changed a dozen times came from White House national security communications adviser Ben Rhodes. It seemed to confirm that the White House wanted the talking points changed to protect all agencies’ interests, “including those of the State Department,” in the words of the email allegedly sent by Rhodes.
But CNN’s Jake Tapper reveals that Rhodes’ email didn’t mention the State Department, and doesn’t even seem to implicitly reference it. The email as published by Karl differs significantly from the original obtained by Tapper.
According to ABC’s Jonathan Karl, Rhodes weighed in after State Department’s Victoria Nuland, who expressed concerns about the way the talking points might hurt “my building’s leadership.” ABC quotes Rhodes saying:
"We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation. We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting."
The email obtained by Tapper is very different.
"Sorry to be late to this discussion. We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.
"There is a ton of wrong information getting out into the public domain from Congress and people who are not particularly informed. Insofar as we have firmed up assessments that don’t compromise intel or the investigation, we need to have the capability to correct the record, as there are significant policy and messaging ramifications that would flow from a hardened mis-impression.
"We can take this up tomorrow morning at deputies."
...
Significantly, the Rhodes email doesn’t even mention the controversial Benghazi talking points. Reporting by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard paraphrased Rhodes’ email the same way – to depict him jumping in behind Nuland and protecting the interests of the State Department. Some on the right have suggested Karl and Tapper might be talking about two different emails, but in the ABC and CNN stories, the emails are dated identically, 9/14/12 at 9:34 p.m. Tapper provides the original; Karl did not.
Oops.
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/who_doctored_a_white_house_email/
It is not news that this administration has lied through its teeth on Benghazi, what is missing is any interest in how they completely mishandled the event before these four men were killed and during the actual attack. The real story of Benghazi is overshadowed by the subsequent coverup of how they messed up this whole affair.
-
Benghazi was a consulate but it was closed to that use many months ago. There are three buildings in the Benghazi compound, building A is abandoned, building B & C are used by the CIA,
There is an operation where the US is trying to establish an arms route through Turkey into Syria. It is supposed that this meeting with the Ambassador and a military official from Turkey was about arming the rebels. That Meeting was over at 9:30pm and the Turkish delegation left the compound. Our Ambassador went to building C where a bedroom had been prepared for him. The attack on the consulate timed to celebrate 9/11 began at 10 pm. The Ambassador and his bodyguard was moved to a safe room in bldg C.
The CIA was handling the communications, letting the world know that this attack was taking place. Almost immediately the attackers found a diesel storage tank next to bldg C and used it to set the bldg on fire. The guards the US contracted with Syria to provide security, vanished.
A team was sent from Cairo and attempted to get into bldg C to save the Ambassador. They found the bodyguard barely alive and the Ambassador dead from smoke inhalation.
Budget cut closed the Consulate to begin with. The CIA had its own classified operation, otherwise nobody would have been there.
Once again budget cuts played a role. No law was broken. Subsequently, the CIA moved into the Muslim Brotherhood HQ two blocks away and killed all who were there.
-
Benghazi was a consulate but it was closed to that use many months ago. There are three buildings in the Benghazi compound, building A is abandoned, building B & C are used by the CIA,
There is an operation where the US is trying to establish an arms route through Turkey into Syria. It is supposed that this meeting with the Ambassador and a military official from Turkey was about arming the rebels. That Meeting was over at 9:30pm and the Turkish delegation left the compound. Our Ambassador went to building C where a bedroom had been prepared for him. The attack on the consulate timed to celebrate 9/11 began at 10 pm. The Ambassador and his bodyguard was moved to a safe room in bldg C.
The CIA was handling the communications, letting the world know that this attack was taking place. Almost immediately the attackers found a diesel storage tank next to bldg C and used it to set the bldg on fire. The guards the US contracted with Syria to provide security, vanished.
A team was sent from Cairo and attempted to get into bldg C to save the Ambassador. They found the bodyguard barely alive and the Ambassador dead from smoke inhalation.
Budget cut closed the Consulate to begin with. The CIA had its own classified operation, otherwise nobody would have been there.
Once again budget cuts played a role. No law was broken. Subsequently, the CIA moved into the Muslim Brotherhood HQ two blocks away and killed all who were there.
Gerald, I don't believe that is the issue. The issue is whether we could have intervened to save more lives and what did Clinton and Obama do during the attack? In addition, the lies surrounding the initial State Dept and WH responses is a legitimate issue along with how they acted. To date, no one has stated where Obama was during the attack. All issues that should be answered, but likely will never be answered.
-
I can only add that the ambassador was dead within one hour of the attack. Smoke inhalation.
-
I can only add that the ambassador was dead within one hour of the attack. Smoke inhalation.
Very true, the first two fatalities could not be saved, but the two former seals needed backup to take out the mortar site, which could have been done from the air with laser guidance which they reportedly already lit up. Gerald, many unanswered questions which I really don't expect to every hear, or at least in the next 20 or 30 years anyway.
-
HemoDoc;
I appreciate your comments, Doc. There were others there who deserve an applause too. As you have probably read, members of this unit during my time, were not permitted to talk about their work to anyone – unless you were inside an Army Security Agency operations building. Also, the unit was on loan to the National Security Agency, a civilian arm of American intelligence gathering.
The consequences of this was the lack of promotions, recognition of the job/results, and no medals (which might lead to a publication of the name and duties of the unit). Some time around 1966, the qualifying standards were lowered due to demands for manpower. Talking about it now makes me a little nervous.
I think you already know that the first person killed and on the Vietnam Wall Memorial was a man named Davis and he was in the ASA. I might say that I am not used to the attention for my time in the service. My time in Laos was with a unit designated as the Army Security Agency Special Operations Detachment. And, yes, I was shot at and I shot back. The Green Berets were much better at that than I was.
gl
-
HemoDoc;
I appreciate your comments, Doc. There were others there who deserve an applause too. As you have probably read, members of this unit during my time, were not permitted to talk about their work to anyone – unless you were inside an Army Security Agency operations building. Also, the unit was on loan to the National Security Agency, a civilian arm of American intelligence gathering.
The consequences of this was the lack of promotions, recognition of the job/results, and no medals (which might lead to a publication of the name and duties of the unit). Some time around 1966, the qualifying standards were lowered due to demands for manpower. Talking about it now makes me a little nervous.
I think you already know that the first person killed and on the Vietnam Wall Memorial was a man named Davis and he was in the ASA. I might say that I am not used to the attention for my time in the service. My time in Laos was with a unit designated as the Army Security Agency Special Operations Detachment. And, yes, I was shot at and I shot back. The Green Berets were much better at that than I was.
gl
Gerald, no need to belittle what you did at all. I don't apologize for my service even though I was just a doc with Army boots on and stateside the entire time. For myself, I was ready to go if called, but that call almost came a couple of times, but in the end it never did. To be willing to go is the first step. To actually go and do is a whole other thing altogether and it takes a special person to do what you were called and I assume volunteered to do. Mind you, I am glad I stayed stateside, but I was willing to do my part, but I was in a non-combat position to begin with which is a much lower level of risk altogether.
In any case, Gerald, thank you for your service and thank you for your example living a life well lived despite some serious health issues.
Lastly, my uncle did three tours in Korea and got the silver star among other medals including a purple heart. I would think you would have some interesting stories to trade.
God bless,
Peter
-
Obama appoints Rice as national security adviser!
Hey McCain: :sir ken;
-
It was never about anything Rice did, it was about trying to take back the MA senate seat.
And then Brown forgot all the warnings not to drink and post, and that went out the window.
Now it's all about Hillary in 2016.