Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28

Thread: Three More Officials To Testify Over Benghazi Attacks

  1. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Michigan
    Last Seen
    01-28-15 @ 06:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    5,587
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Three More Officials To Testify Over Benghazi Attacks

    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    you are missing the D in your name.
    I came before.

  2. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    The darkside of the moon
    Last Seen
    05-24-14 @ 05:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,905
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Three More Officials To Testify Over Benghazi Attacks

    Quote Originally Posted by Jango View Post
    I came before.
    The Asylum version often does. In case you don't get it that is movie terminology not saying you came from an asylum.

  3. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    The darkside of the moon
    Last Seen
    05-24-14 @ 05:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,905
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Three More Officials To Testify Over Benghazi Attacks

    Quote Originally Posted by Muhammed View Post
    It's a huge scandal for a plethora of reasons. Including but not limited to...

    Obama said that he wouldn't put any boots on the ground in Libya. A lot of us knew that was lie as soon as he said it. And the consulate attack proved beyond any doubt that he was flagrantly lying.

    They also showed a disregard for the safety of the ambassador and the e-mails that were released prove that.

    First off, the state department is not the military, though they may use military to guard the embasies or consulates. They are not a military attacking force as the military is. Putting some guards for the embassador and the consulate is not actually an invasion. But you also seem to contradict yourself with that ignorance. What do you consider the mistake? Was it that there were diplomats there and that involved him putting some "boots on the ground" for the sake of protection, or was it that there were not enough "boots on the ground." You are doing the dishonest playing of both sides here. Either he was wrong to even start up an embassy and put some military people in the country as you implied in whining about him putting boots on the ground, or he did not put enough troops there to protect the americans you felt should have been there for diplomatixc purposes with the new government we helped to gain power. Pick a side and quit the BS.
    Quote Originally Posted by Muhammed View Post
    The Obama administration turned Benghazi into an Al Qaeda safe haven by providing AQ with air power during their war to oust the Qadaffi government. Not only did Obama illegally go to war in Libya without consent from congress, he picked the wrong side in that civil war. Congress gave their consent to attack AQ not the Qadafi regime. Qadaffi was sending his armed forces to Benghazi to wipe out AQ and we provided the air power that stopped him.
    Actually, the attack on libya did not have much to do with AQ at all. This was not part of the war on terror against those who did 9/11 as you imply. In case you forgot khadaffi was quite vocal about his opposition to the terrorists who did 9/11. No, the UN forces decided to assist the rebels in overthrowing the government. For some reason the UN decided to assist them. The US was pretty friendly towards khadaffi having sold weapons to him just months before. I will agree it made little sense for them to join the attack, but they did and they were not the ones in charge so blaming Obama for failures of the attack are really overlooking the reality this was not a US invasion, but rather the US assisting with the invasion other countries lead.

    But you are dishonest in your representation of the rebellion in libya, and it is not surprising considering how much dishonesty has been shown in this whole area by the right. It was actually quite legal for the president to use discretionary forces to assist in covering our responsibilities and commitments within the UN, and to assist in UN actions which the president may feel are necessary without the approval of congress. Not to mention congress did a big old stupid during the Bush years in an open ended poorly defined declaration of war with terrorism which gave some severely warped military discretional powers to the president. That was all fine by you years ago when bush was in power, but now it is all of a sudden a problem. None of this is illegal and all of it is necessary or permitted by the constitution and congress. You can claim it is illegal and whatnot, but where is the impeachment and sanctions against obama for these things by the republican controlled congress? Why haven't they done anything in a year since this happened? Why haven't they proposed anything in regards to this so called illegal invasion? Well it is because there was no invasion, and obama was within his powers and they know it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Muhammed View Post
    The Obama administration obviously lied about the attack for purely political reasons during the run-up to the election. A coordinated AQ attack on our consulate directly contradicted the TV ads the Obama campaign was running. So they sent Obama's longtime friend Susan Rice on every major network to lie about it and say it was all about a silly video.
    Oh really, and you know this to be fact because of you think it happened that way? Your imaginary friend told you? The voices in your head agree with you? Some guy on the internet told you so? Some guy at faux news thinks it is so? Stop me when i hit the BS reason of your choice. because none of those things matter to me or even constitute anything more than a tinfoil hat conspiracy. Let us say for a moment you actually guessed right, your guesses do not constitute proof in an investigation. You probably couldn't get probable cause to hold up on a faux news story considering how dishonest they are, and there is mounds of proof they have knowingly lied about things. Your personal biases and opinions are not proof. So even if you performed a miracle and actually guessed right on any of these things, this is america and you have to prove it. Beyond that, your opinion is less than reliable. It is most commonly wrong and is obviously biased. So your ideas do not override my common sense which says this was some bad decision making where the US state department overstepped their abilities and got hit for it. On top of that they didn't know all the facts and in an attempt to inform the public told them a theory they were investigating that happened to be wrong. Not an impeachable offense, or even an uncommon one for presidents and the state department. Maybe they should either increase taxes to pay for state department presence in a safer way, or tone back presence in violent countries until they can fund themselves better. Maybe there even was a lie or two going up to the election, but no one was going to pay attention to a couple of white lies with Mittens stream of BS. Mitt lied so damned much he started to confuse himself and forget which lie he was in. he played both sides of every story. perhaps that overshadowed a couple of inconsitencies with obama's story on benghazi. At this point there have been so many lies about benghazi from the right no one can trust you guys.

    Oh, and mr. honesty might want to recognize playing the prophet is not something a muslim would do which might tend to influence how a person buys your load of crap.

  4. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Michigan
    Last Seen
    01-28-15 @ 06:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    5,587
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Three More Officials To Testify Over Benghazi Attacks

    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    The Asylum version often does. In case you don't get it that is movie terminology not saying you came from an asylum.
    The Django you were thinking about and 'my' Jango are worlds apart, sweetheart.

    Truth be told, I got the name from the Star Wars bounty hunter, but I have molded him into a character of my own in the novel I am writing, which I started in 2010. So if anything, Django is stealing my heat.

  5. #15
    Guru

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In a Blue State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,733

    Re: Three More Officials To Testify Over Benghazi Attacks

    Quote Originally Posted by Jango View Post
    The Django you were thinking about and 'my' Jango are worlds apart, sweetheart.

    Truth be told, I got the name from the Star Wars bounty hunter, but I have molded him into a character of my own in the novel I am writing, which I started in 2010. So if anything, Django is stealing my heat.
    I named my cat Jango for the same reason.
    We went from sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me to safe spaces.

  6. #16
    Guru

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In a Blue State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,733

    Re: Three More Officials To Testify Over Benghazi Attacks

    Quote Originally Posted by Blue_State View Post
    I named my cat Jango for the same reason.
    BTW, he is the world's worst bounty hunter. He has about 7 flies to his name. Other than that, the animal world taunts him.
    We went from sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me to safe spaces.

  7. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Michigan
    Last Seen
    01-28-15 @ 06:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    5,587
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Three More Officials To Testify Over Benghazi Attacks

    Quote Originally Posted by Blue_State View Post
    BTW, he is the world's worst bounty hunter. He has about 7 flies to his name. Other than that, the animal world taunts him.
    That's surprising since felines are such great predators. But, my king shepherd Bosco is afraid of the vacuum and thunder. To each their own, I guess.

  8. #18
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Three More Officials To Testify Over Benghazi Attacks

    Maybe if you make about 20 threads for every update there might be a new stary? Only problem is it seems to be a small group of the same people who keeps touting this as important. Perhaps it will become more interesting or actually be watergate if you guys shout louder? I also noticed that supposedly these guys are going to testify to bring down Obama because the news calls them whistleblowers and says the Obama admin may have threatened them (The Obama admin may also be holding the easter bunny hostage) so it seems that they will be bringing down the admin with their testimony of? Oh wait we don't even know if they will contradict the story given by the Obama admin at all.

    Well, i guess it is good you shout victory now, sort of like how you declared victory in the presidential election. It will be much harder to claim victory after they testify and Obama is still around. So have fun with your victory party before the loss. I have to admit given your propensity for fail it is probably the best you can get.

    Well, maybe if you put up enough threads the DP staff will make a new place for all the benghazi threads. At this point it has to be more pressing than the zimmerman case. Then we can all put this racket where it belongs. It will be 2020 and you will still be hung up on benghazi. Can't you move onto the new conspiracy theory that obama did the boston marathon bombings? What happened to him stealing your guns? benghazi is old and tired at this point, and we have moved on. Please join us in 2013.

    Well, what I am opposed to is to keep investigating over and over despite having a clear answer in hopes that the answer will change to the imaginary scenario you have in your mind. If it does not lead to the execution of Obama, his family, and every person who voted for him you will not be satisfied. There is no resolution that will ever satisfy a tinfoil hat conspiracy nut. Even if their wildest dreams of aliens mating with bigfoot to give birth to Obama in kenya is realized there would be a deeper conspiracy of crazy that they would want to investigate. These investigations are best left to TLC or the history channel and not as a distraction from congress doing their jobs. We do not need to give congress yet another excuse why they should fail to produce a budget, but thanks for helping in that area.

    You have no evidence there was anything more than a screw up, and that means you do not even know what you are trying to uncover. Not to mention we have heard the doom to obama claims before. You and your comrades have been claiming the next watergate every other week for the past 4 years and you have not even come close. We heard it every day for over a year before the last election. Every time obama sneezed or some republican said something Obama lost the election. It was the end of his presidency, you promised. Look, this is the chicken little/little boy who cried wolf thing on a countrywide level. It is not the end of the world for Obama, and you have not won. You have not even heard any new evidence or testimony. You have no idea what these guys will say. They could come forth and say obama is a great guy and everything was as he said. Not that it would stop you from crying benghazi every two minutes, but you don;'t even know, and you cannot even speculate on what they might say because you cannot even figure out an alternative that means what you wish it does.

    I tell you what. If you want me to end up more in the middle with my comments quit feeding so much insanity into the discussion. I have never said the democrats were good by any stretch like the republicons want us to believe the republicons are honest and good people who have our backs. But that doesn't mean they are near equal in levels of stupidity with the republicans presently. You just paint big giant targets on yourselves with all this tinfoil hat BS. You just invite the calls of insanity and stupidity when you endorse these ignorant and dimwitted fools. You have people claiming women's bodies shut down when they are raped, and you make them the head of your science committee. You are the party of family values and morals and you support people like Sanford and gingrich. You claim fiscal responsibility while the last president from your party tanked a stable and growing economy and put us into a recession and billions in debt with 2 wars and he couldn't touch the boogeyman. You claim to be on the side of the american worker while destroying unions and running a corporate dumbass who had destroyed more american jobs than the japanese in the 80s.

    So before you go thinking this is a republican democrat thing, your side is screwed up massively. It is FUBAR. Pretending you are a libertarian while clearly being a republican is not going to help you. It just makes the joke that much more funny because you think calling yourself a lib excuses your blind spot for the reps. Obama sucks, you are correct in that aspect, but he doesn't suck anywhere near as much as the alternatives, and the parts that have really failed have been ideas that came from his republican side like continuing the BS wars, keeping Gitmo open, Going with mandatory private insurance instead of universal health care, and bailing out too big to fail businesses. Just because obama did them doesn't mean those were democrat policies. The dems have their own crap, but it is currently nothing like the stupid coming from your republican heroes. So don't blame me for commenting on the much larger pile of BS you seem to think is a big old pile of gold.

    you are missing the D in your name.

    First off, the state department is not the military, though they may use military to guard the embasies or consulates. They are not a military attacking force as the military is. Putting some guards for the embassador and the consulate is not actually an invasion. But you also seem to contradict yourself with that ignorance. What do you consider the mistake? Was it that there were diplomats there and that involved him putting some "boots on the ground" for the sake of protection, or was it that there were not enough "boots on the ground." You are doing the dishonest playing of both sides here. Either he was wrong to even start up an embassy and put some military people in the country as you implied in whining about him putting boots on the ground, or he did not put enough troops there to protect the americans you felt should have been there for diplomatixc purposes with the new government we helped to gain power. Pick a side and quit the BS.

    But you are dishonest in your representation of the rebellion in libya, and it is not surprising considering how much dishonesty has been shown in this whole area by the right. It was actually quite legal for the president to use discretionary forces to assist in covering our responsibilities and commitments within the UN, and to assist in UN actions which the president may feel are necessary without the approval of congress. Not to mention congress did a big old stupid during the Bush years in an open ended poorly defined declaration of war with terrorism which gave some severely warped military discretional powers to the president. That was all fine by you years ago when bush was in power, but now it is all of a sudden a problem. None of this is illegal and all of it is necessary or permitted by the constitution and congress. You can claim it is illegal and whatnot, but where is the impeachment and sanctions against obama for these things by the republican controlled congress? Why haven't they done anything in a year since this happened? Why haven't they proposed anything in regards to this so called illegal invasion? Well it is because there was no invasion, and obama was within his powers and they know it.

    Oh really, and you know this to be fact because of you think it happened that way? Your imaginary friend told you? The voices in your head agree with you? Some guy on the internet told you so? Some guy at faux news thinks it is so? Stop me when i hit the BS reason of your choice. because none of those things matter to me or even constitute anything more than a tinfoil hat conspiracy. Let us say for a moment you actually guessed right, your guesses do not constitute proof in an investigation. You probably couldn't get probable cause to hold up on a faux news story considering how dishonest they are, and there is mounds of proof they have knowingly lied about things. Your personal biases and opinions are not proof. So even if you performed a miracle and actually guessed right on any of these things, this is america and you have to prove it. Beyond that, your opinion is less than reliable. It is most commonly wrong and is obviously biased. So your ideas do not override my common sense which says this was some bad decision making where the US state department overstepped their abilities and got hit for it. On top of that they didn't know all the facts and in an attempt to inform the public told them a theory they were investigating that happened to be wrong. Not an impeachable offense, or even an uncommon one for presidents and the state department. Maybe they should either increase taxes to pay for state department presence in a safer way, or tone back presence in violent countries until they can fund themselves better. Maybe there even was a lie or two going up to the election, but no one was going to pay attention to a couple of white lies with Mittens stream of BS. Mitt lied so damned much he started to confuse himself and forget which lie he was in. he played both sides of every story. perhaps that overshadowed a couple of inconsitencies with obama's story on benghazi. At this point there have been so many lies about benghazi from the right no one can trust you guys.

    Oh, and mr. honesty might want to recognize playing the prophet is not something a muslim would do which might tend to influence how a person buys your load of crap.
    link?

    LOL!

    seeya at the hearings

    expect em to go on for weeks, and if what cbs is reporting turns out to be true, months

    why did state dept press spokesperson victoria nuland scrub (according to boston democratic congressman steven lynch and ranking member of pelosi's caucus on house intel dutch ruppersberger) the words "islamic extremists with ties to al qaeda" and "ansar al sharia" and "jihad" out of the cia advisory drawn up for the edification of the american people?

    why did then secretary of state hillary clinton try to do an end run around her own counterterrorism security group, tasked with "coordinating counterterrorism assets across all the agencies," with deadly consequences, according to foggy bottom's acting deputy assistant secretary for counterterrorism, who also testifies that he was frozen out by arb and threatened?

    why did barack hussein obama go to bed?

    stay tuned
    Last edited by The Prof; 05-06-13 at 08:57 AM.

  9. #19
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,274

    Re: Three More Officials To Testify Over Benghazi Attacks

    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    Maybe if you make about 20 threads for every update there might be a new stary? Only problem is it seems to be a small group of the same people who keeps touting this as important. Perhaps it will become more interesting or actually be watergate if you guys shout louder? I also noticed that supposedly these guys are going to testify to bring down Obama because the news calls them whistleblowers and says the Obama admin may have threatened them (The Obama admin may also be holding the easter bunny hostage) so it seems that they will be bringing down the admin with their testimony of? Oh wait we don't even know if they will contradict the story given by the Obama admin at all.

    Well, i guess it is good you shout victory now, sort of like how you declared victory in the presidential election. It will be much harder to claim victory after they testify and Obama is still around. So have fun with your victory party before the loss. I have to admit given your propensity for fail it is probably the best you can get.
    Who's shouting victory? Other than the victory of allowing these people to tell their story, which the administration seems to want to suppress. You are right on one aspect, and that is that this may all be an exercise in getting the truth of the events out, and in the end that is what it should be. The speculation stems from what we know happens when cover ups are dug into historically.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  10. #20
    Educator
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    10-20-13 @ 10:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    675

    Re: Three More Officials To Testify Over Benghazi Attacks

    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    Well, maybe if you put up enough threads the DP staff will make a new place for all the benghazi threads. At this point it has to be more pressing than the zimmerman case. Then we can all put this racket where it belongs. It will be 2020 and you will still be hung up on benghazi. Can't you move onto the new conspiracy theory that obama did the boston marathon bombings? What happened to him stealing your guns? benghazi is old and tired at this point, and we have moved on. Please join us in 2013.
    Indeed. We were told what happened by the President and Hillary. An evil person made a movie, put it on you tube and Muslims became upset. The evil doer who made the movies is still in jail. So let's just move on and be thankful we know the truth.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •