Page 5 of 16 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 151

Thread: White House holds OFF-THE-RECORD briefing with reporters on Benghazi

  1. #41
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 10:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    18,266

    Re: White House holds OFF-THE-RECORD briefing with reporters on Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by polgara View Post
    Good morning, humbolt.

    What the heck is a "background" meeting? A review of what happened? If so, why would that be necessary at this point? The outcome that people died unnecessarily hasn't changed, but the stories sure have! Is it too much to expect that the truth be told and mistakes admitted, and a solution found so this never happens again? Most people don't like to be lied to! :
    I don't know what it would be at this point. I did finally manage to find a list of those attending, and it's notable for those not included. Must have been a cozy little lunch - not discussing what already happened, but most likely to frame what is about to happen. In short, having lost the high ground in the media on this event, they're trying to regain it by selectively offering a version of revelations to come. That's all pure speculation on my part, but if in their shoes I'd probably be trying to mitigate the damage too.

  2. #42
    Sage

    Mason66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,475

    Re: White House holds OFF-THE-RECORD briefing with reporters on Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by humbolt View Post
    I don't know what it would be at this point. I did finally manage to find a list of those attending, and it's notable for those not included. Must have been a cozy little lunch - not discussing what already happened, but most likely to frame what is about to happen. In short, having lost the high ground in the media on this event, they're trying to regain it by selectively offering a version of revelations to come. That's all pure speculation on my part, but if in their shoes I'd probably be trying to mitigate the damage too.
    I think we should all make a list of the people that were at that meeting and disregard any stories they file on this subject.

    Not one network was invited which is weird.

  3. #43
    Sage
    polgara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,356

    Re: White House holds OFF-THE-RECORD briefing with reporters on Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by humbolt View Post
    I don't know what it would be at this point. I did finally manage to find a list of those attending, and it's notable for those not included. Must have been a cozy little lunch - not discussing what already happened, but most likely to frame what is about to happen. In short, having lost the high ground in the media on this event, they're trying to regain it by selectively offering a version of revelations to come. That's all pure speculation on my part, but if in their shoes I'd probably be trying to mitigate the damage too.
    : Everybody will be required to say the same thing, so the public isn't "confused." Hint: we're not!

    I'm a bit surprised that in the months since this happened that efforts were not made to have a believeable explanation. Too many different finger-pointings, which change over time, are always suspect. It almost looks like they assumed their belief that the public has the "attention span of a gnat," isn't holding true this time. Their problem is that the public hasn't forgotten the awful circumstances of people pleading for help, which never arrived. The public will usually always be for the underdog that was wronged, which these people appeared to be, through no fault of their own! ...sad... The truth is needed here! We shall see...

  4. #44
    Sage
    Slyfox696's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    7,986

    Re: White House holds OFF-THE-RECORD briefing with reporters on Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by vendur View Post
    Occam's razor says try again
    You're right...suggesting a conspiracy between the White House and all the reporters they met with, where the journalists directly go against what their job is, is clearly what Occam's razor suggests...
    Quote Originally Posted by humbolt View Post
    No. It wouldn't. Even if the emails were provided, nothing you've proposed changes the information contained in the emails.
    IF the Republicans were given these e-mails long ago, why are they just now bringing them up? Why not bring them up months ago when they first got them?

    Stop deflecting and changing the subject.
    I'm not, I'm introducing common sense to combat the vast amount of conspiracy notions.

    This affair does have political implications, and none of them are good for your side of the aisle.
    I don't have a side of the aisle. Why do people automatically assume that pointing out political bias means someone is on the other side of the aisle?

    I believe in common sense. The common sense answer to this is if the White House and the press were in cahoots, they would not meet meet publicly off the record/background to plan their strategy to cover up a story the media has been talking about for months. That makes no sense. I REALLY wish people would just stop and think a little before they get carried away.

    Clinton entirely screwed up an initiative in Libya, people were murdered
    No, you are missing a key step in there. Clinton only screwed up BECAUSE people were murdered. There's a big difference. Had the attack not happened that night, no one would still know about the security details in Benghazi right now and Republicans would be busy with some other political attack. Republicans have not cared about anything regarding the safety of any other ambassadors in other parts of the world, which proves to me this isn't about what's right, but rather what's political. Heck, I still don't even know what point they are pretending to try and make that hasn't already been made.

    If there's political hay to be made, you need to remember that your folks plowed the field, planted the grain, and crowed about it. That the harvest is not to their liking is largely their own fault.
    That's just a ridiculous analogy. First of all, it's not "my folks" it is/was OUR folks. Whether you like it or not, Obama is still your President and Clinton was still your Secretary of State. That's the problem with so many people, they think this is nothing but a game to be won. That's why Republicans are STILL investigating something which is irrelevant to what needs to be done for the future safety of Americans.

    Quit playing for one team, and focus on what's important. Clinton is no longer Secretary of State. Patraeous is no longer head of the CIA. The four Americans are dead. Instead of continuing a witch hunt which is only being investigated for political purposes, let's see the investigation turn to "are the rest of our Americans overseas safe". To me, that seems like a far better use of our time. Of course, that doesn't rile up voters nearly as much, so we understand why it's not being done, at least not publicly.

    Quote Originally Posted by jonny5 View Post
    Maybe, but that's not the point. Why isn't the admin releasing this info to US.
    Why aren't they releasing information about an irrelevant pre-meeting which can be reported on or why aren't they releasing information about private and/or classified e-mails? Which one?

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Way to completely miss the point. "Off the record" discussions between the white house and reporters are not some new sinister thing that should make one terrified of the media. They happen all the time.
    Whenever one wants to see conspiracy, facts no longer matter.
    Quote Originally Posted by humbolt View Post
    Changing talking points again? A Background Meeting that's off the record, but not an Off The Record Meeting? Geeze. These people are coming unglued.

    How were talking points changed?

    Once more, you see conspiracy because you want to, not because it exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by humbolt View Post
    According to Gawker, here's the list of attendees: Ben Feller (Associated Press), Jonathan Weisman and Laura Meckler (Wall Street Journal), Michael Shear and Scott Wilson (Washington Post), Caren Bohan (Reuters), David Jackson (USA Today), Carol Lee (Politico), Peter Nicholas (Tribune Co.), Margaret Talev (McClatchy), and Julianna Goldman (Bloomberg).
    UPDATE (3:30 p.m.): White House press secretary Jay Carney addressed the meeting at today's public briefing. He said reporters from 14 news organizations were present, including television, print and online.
    White House holds 'deep background' Benghazi briefing - POLITICO.com

    It appears as if your list might be lacking...

  5. #45
    Sage

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

    Re: White House holds OFF-THE-RECORD briefing with reporters on Benghazi

    the background briefing badly backfired

    carney got carved up immediately afterwards like he has never been so cut

    Full Video: Jay Carney Grilled About Benghazi At Friday Press Briefing | RealClearPolitics

    holding forth rather hopelessly in the james brady briefing room, the white house press secretary was challenged with THIRTY SIX questions on benghazi

    carney was also confronted with 8 inquiries concerning the irs' targeting of groups politically opposed to this addled administration carney's charged with defending

    2 questions concerned chemical weapons in syria, one was about obamacare, and that was it---not exactly what the white house wants to be wonking

    that is, not a single member of the worked up white house press corps asked the worn out wag what the president thought about comprehensive immigration reform...

    or background checks for gun purchases...

    or jason collins, the gay basketball player

    the tone of the hour was calm and professional, no one was leaning forward, none waved their arms

    but they were clearly NOT buying a word the white house wafted their way

    ap: on benghazi, with all due credit to my colleague on my right (jonathan karl), we now have emails showing that the state dept pushed back against talking points language from the cia and expressed concern about how some of the information could be used politically in congress---you have said the white house only made a stylistic change here but these were not stylistic changes, these were content changes---so, again, what role did the white house play not just in making but in directing changes?

    carney: the only edit made by the white house or the state dept to those talking points generated by the cia was a change from referring to the facility that was attacked in benghazi from consulate because it was not a consulate to diplomatic post, a matter of non substantive factual correction

    ap followup: but his information was information that the cia obviously knew was about prior attacks and warnings---does the president think that it was appropriate to keep that information away simply because of how congress might use it

    jeff zeleny: the substance of these emails tho suggests you're having very specific exchanges between state dept officials and an official here at the white house which jonathan uncovered in which a state dept official raises questions about providing talking points that would include a mention of al qaeda because of the concern that congress would use that against the state dept

    zeleny a few seconds later interrupts carney who is reading to him: the emails specifically demonstrated a concern about giving members of congress something to use against the state dept

    zeleny followup: that's not, that, i mean, the language of that email is pretty clear and the response is pretty clear in terms of saying we want to address victoria nuland's concerns---no matter who ended up providing the talking points in the end it certainly seems clear that there was an influence by the white house and the state dept on the cia talking points

    zeleny again: was concern about how congress would react a factor in what went into those talking points as that email suggests

    april ryan (american urban radio): since you say this is a minor change, a minor change in venue, that the wording is a change in venue, why such a big deal today with this deep background off-the-record briefing, makes it seem like there's been fuel added to the fire---if this is such a minor issue why not just tell the press like you did from the podium just a few minutes ago instead of having this background briefing with a select few and not the whole corps if it's such a minor issue

    dan lothian, cnn: how do you go from a conversation that was apparently happening between various administration officials, various officials of this govt on sept 14, and in those emails, that email exchange, there is a discussion about a group, ansar al sharia, and then after victoria nuland raises questions on the part of the state dept, that reference to that group is then removed from the conversation and doesn't make its way into the talking points---that is not a stylistic edit, that is not single adjustment as you said back in november, that is a major dramatic change in the information

    followup: but if you go back to what susan rice was talking about on those talk shows she may have left open the possibility of extremists but this is an altogether different thing when you talk about a specific group, ansar al sharia

    cnn continues: but just a followup on this once and for all (carney: you promise once and for all; lothian: well, maybe not)---you are comfortable, you are still comfortable with the way you characterized this back in november---this was a single adjustment---and perhaps it was the cia that drafted these talking points but that's sorta glossing over the fact that you had all of these other parties invovled---these were not stylistic edits, jay, this is very much a content driven change

    abc's man of the hour, jonathan karl: you told us that the only changes made to the talking points were stylistic, is it a stylistic change to take out all references to previous terror threats in benghazi

    karl interrupts to ask: jay, this was not the change of one word to another, these were extensive changes after they were written by the cia---there were concerns that were raised by the state dept that the white house directed the interagency process used in making these talking points, the original version included references to al qaeda, references to ansar al sharia, the original cia version included extensive discussion of the previous threats and terrorist attacks in benghazi---these were taken out after the cia wrote its initial draft based on input from the state dept, do you deny that

    carney: no (24:50)

    karl: jay, if you come back to what you said, you said the only changes made by the white house were stylistic and a single word, what we see here is that the state dept raised objections about the references to ansar al sharia, they raised objections to the fact that the cia had warned about terror threats in benghazi prior to the attack---those subjects were taken out of the cia talking points at the direction of the white house based on objections from the state dept

    karl: when you said what you said did you know that this had gone thru 12 versions and that there had been extensive changes made, were you aware of that at the time

    kirsten welker, nbc: let me ask it in a slightly different way, do you acknowledge that your initial characterization of the white house involvement was to some extent a mischaracterization of the extent to which the white house was involved in the evolution of those talking points

    helene cooper, nyt: why not come forward initially and say friday nite white house officials were involved in the interagency process that you've been describing, why not offer that information at the start

    cooper: speaker boehner has asked that you release the emails and according to our sources house officials are also asking that they get more documentation about the saturday sept 15 meeting at the white house, will you release those additional emails and documents

    peter baker, nyt: you said that republicans are being political about it, is it not also political to say we want to keep something out of these talking points because we might be criticized by members of congress, is that not a political motivation there

    baker: but if the phrasing is say, let's not put this out because we're not sure it's true, the phrase is instead let's not put this out because we don't wanna be criticized by our political opponents, is that not political in itself

    baker: on the backgrounder, you had earlier said, well everybody does it basically, republicans and democrats, everybody has backgrounders---you all came to town tho saying you were gonna be different, change the rule, be more transparent---don't you think it encourages the idea that you had something or your colleagues or whoever did the backgrounder, i wasn't there, had something to say they didn't want to say out here

    baker: you haven't done that on the record, why do a backgrounder

    baker: then what purpose is there doing a backgrounder

    american urban radio: would you provide that information from the background in this briefing, do you think that you gave much of that information from the briefing, that background briefing today, in your briefing today, on the record

    alexis simendinger, rcp: just overarching, looking back at... cuz a lot of us were in the briefing room with you the day after the attacks---is the president satisfied with the way the administration handled this, would you do anything differently, or would he want the administration to do anything differently, looking backward

    rcp: following up on that, you talked right away about the video and i'm wondering when you were saying now that you didn't want to be speculative, some of us were wondering why you didn't just wait and say there was an investigation, so why are you saying the video discussion is not speculative

    rcp: doesn't this series of emails now suggest that your discussion of the video was speculative, you are cherry picking

    rcp: but today the president put out health care work that got wiped out because this has continued because that information was not put out

    unidentified reporter: it seems like you're saying a couple different things, you're saying that the first iteration of the talking points that the cia drafted was what they thought happened and the last version was what they knew happened---by the nature of the cia signing off on each iteration of the talking points they were perfectly fine with members of congress or officials discussing anything they included in any of those versions that they signed off on---so why was it necessary, why was it deemed necessary to refer then back to not including certain information in the final draft if they were perfectly fine with that being put out

    followup: but if it was improper for for the cia to speculate about those things why would they sign off on the first version for others to review

    followup: but the cia's not gonna spill secrets they're not comfortable with putting out there

    another unknown to me: it's coming up on 8 months to the day since the benghazi attack, the fbi's just got around to releasing 3 images of people they're looking for information for about perpetrators of the attack, is the president confident that the fbi is capable of solving and finding the perpetrators he said months ago was a priority for the president, is the president doing all in his power to do that as well

    afp: you talked about the talking points being about what we knew or what the cia believed it knew---the first few drafts say we do know, we do know that islamic extremists with ties to al qaeda participated in the attack---this is not couched, it says we do know

    carney: i direct you to the intelligence community

    *****

    1. do you know for whom these talking points were written, were intended?

    2. darn that fox news

  6. #46
    Professor
    vendur's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    06-05-13 @ 08:35 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,250

    Re: White House holds OFF-THE-RECORD briefing with reporters on Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    You're right...suggesting a conspiracy between the White House and all the reporters they met with, where the journalists directly go against what their job is, is clearly what Occam's razor suggests...
    IF the Republicans were given these e-mails long ago, *why are they just now bringing them up? Why not bring them up months *ago when they first got them?*
    Media informs the people.
    Obama's mouthpiece informs the media.
    If obama's mouthpiece says to the media "I want to talk to you but we don't want you to tell the people",

    Then clearly the Obama adminstration does not want the people to know something.*
    This isn't even an assumption; it's a logical deduction.

    Now you have to explain using LESS THAN ZERO ASSUMPTIONS why they want to talk to the media "off the record" for any other reason

    The only assumption comes down on the reason they don't want people to know what they are talking.
    Do you understand now, or is your English equally as bad as your basic logic?

  7. #47
    King of Videos
    dirtpoorchris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    WA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,026

    Re: White House holds OFF-THE-RECORD briefing with reporters on Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    You're right...suggesting a conspiracy between the White House and all the reporters they met with, where the journalists directly go against what their job is, is clearly what Occam's razor suggests...
    IF the Republicans were given these e-mails long ago, why are they just now bringing them up? Why not bring them up months ago when they first got them?

    I'm not, I'm introducing common sense to combat the vast amount of conspiracy notions.

    I don't have a side of the aisle. Why do people automatically assume that pointing out political bias means someone is on the other side of the aisle?

    I believe in common sense. The common sense answer to this is if the White House and the press were in cahoots, they would not meet meet publicly off the record/background to plan their strategy to cover up a story the media has been talking about for months. That makes no sense. I REALLY wish people would just stop and think a little before they get carried away.

    No, you are missing a key step in there. Clinton only screwed up BECAUSE people were murdered. There's a big difference. Had the attack not happened that night, no one would still know about the security details in Benghazi right now and Republicans would be busy with some other political attack. Republicans have not cared about anything regarding the safety of any other ambassadors in other parts of the world, which proves to me this isn't about what's right, but rather what's political. Heck, I still don't even know what point they are pretending to try and make that hasn't already been made.

    That's just a ridiculous analogy. First of all, it's not "my folks" it is/was OUR folks. Whether you like it or not, Obama is still your President and Clinton was still your Secretary of State. That's the problem with so many people, they think this is nothing but a game to be won. That's why Republicans are STILL investigating something which is irrelevant to what needs to be done for the future safety of Americans.

    Quit playing for one team, and focus on what's important. Clinton is no longer Secretary of State. Patraeous is no longer head of the CIA. The four Americans are dead. Instead of continuing a witch hunt which is only being investigated for political purposes, let's see the investigation turn to "are the rest of our Americans overseas safe". To me, that seems like a far better use of our time. Of course, that doesn't rile up voters nearly as much, so we understand why it's not being done, at least not publicly.

    Why aren't they releasing information about an irrelevant pre-meeting which can be reported on or why aren't they releasing information about private and/or classified e-mails? Which one?


    Whenever one wants to see conspiracy, facts no longer matter.

    How were talking points changed?

    Once more, you see conspiracy because you want to, not because it exists.



    White House holds 'deep background' Benghazi briefing - POLITICO.com

    It appears as if your list might be lacking...
    Why would someone hold a absolutely secret meeting where if they get caught then they are pretty much red handed? When they can just have the peons lock the doors and get away with it this way? I applaud your faith in mankind but unfortunately conspiracy and evil does exist in this world. Curiosity and carefulness is required to combat these possibilities.
    I'm Finding it Harder to be a Gentleman, White Stripes ~ "You think I care about me and only me. When every girl needs help climbing up a tree."

  8. #48
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 10:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    18,266

    Re: White House holds OFF-THE-RECORD briefing with reporters on Benghazi

    [QUOTE=Slyfox696;1061796048]You're right...suggesting a conspiracy between the White House and all the reporters they met with, where the journalists directly go against what their job is, is clearly what Occam's razor suggests...
    IF the Republicans were given these e-mails long ago, why are they just now bringing them up? Why not bring them up months ago when they first got them?

    I'm not, I'm introducing common sense to combat the vast amount of conspiracy notions.

    I don't have a side of the aisle. Why do people automatically assume that pointing out political bias means someone is on the other side of the aisle? Because when the shoe fits...

    I believe in common sense. The common sense answer to this is if the White House and the press were in cahoots, they would not meet meet publicly off the record/background to plan their strategy to cover up a story the media has been talking about for months. That makes no sense. I REALLY wish people would just stop and think a little before they get carried away.
    So you really can't explain the selective invitations. Okay. Common sense would tell one that something could be up. I'm just pointing that out because I know you're big on common sense.

    No, you are missing a key step in there. Clinton only screwed up BECAUSE people were murdered. There's a big difference. Had the attack not happened that night, no one would still know about the security details in Benghazi right now and Republicans would be busy with some other political attack. Republicans have not cared about anything regarding the safety of any other ambassadors in other parts of the world, which proves to me this isn't about what's right, but rather what's political. Heck, I still don't even know what point they are pretending to try and make that hasn't already been made.
    So, if security was screwed up all the way along, and no one noticed, everything is fine? You need to put that in a disclaimer when you hire State Department officials. I think they'd like to know.

    That's just a ridiculous analogy. First of all, it's not "my folks" it is/was OUR folks. Whether you like it or not, Obama is still your President and Clinton was still your Secretary of State. That's the problem with so many people, they think this is nothing but a game to be won. That's why Republicans are STILL investigating something which is irrelevant to what needs to be done for the future safety of Americans.
    Well, the past here is not too inspiring, if you know what I mean.

    Quit playing for one team, and focus on what's important. Clinton is no longer Secretary of State. Patraeous is no longer head of the CIA. The four Americans are dead. Instead of continuing a witch hunt which is only being investigated for political purposes, let's see the investigation turn to "are the rest of our Americans overseas safe". To me, that seems like a far better use of our time. Of course, that doesn't rile up voters nearly as much, so we understand why it's not being done, at least not publicly.
    Oh absolutely. Let's not talk about our past and recent **** ups. Let's move on. This is so yesterday.

    Why aren't they releasing information about an irrelevant pre-meeting which can be reported on or why aren't they releasing information about private and/or classified e-mails? Which one?


    Whenever one wants to see conspiracy, facts no longer matter.

    How were talking points changed?

    Once more, you see conspiracy because you want to, not because it exists.



    White House holds 'deep background' Benghazi briefing - POLITICO.com

    It appears as if your list might be lacking...

  9. #49
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,155

    Re: White House holds OFF-THE-RECORD briefing with reporters on Benghazi

    Correction: An earlier version of this post incorrectly referred to the meeting as "off the record." Though the existence of the meeting was off the record, it was conducted on "deep background."
    White House holds 'deep background' Benghazi briefing - POLITICO.com
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  10. #50
    Sage
    Slyfox696's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    7,986

    Re: White House holds OFF-THE-RECORD briefing with reporters on Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by vendur View Post
    Media informs the people.
    Obama's mouthpiece informs the media.
    If obama's mouthpiece says to the media "I want to talk to you but we don't want you to tell the people",

    Then clearly the Obama adminstration does not want the people to know something.*
    This isn't even an assumption; it's a logical deduction.

    Now you have to explain using LESS THAN ZERO ASSUMPTIONS why they want to talk to the media "off the record" for any other reason

    The only assumption comes down on the reason they don't want people to know what they are talking.
    Do you understand now, or is your English equally as bad as your basic logic?


    You're right, the only possible thing which could have been happening is a conspiracy between the White House and the news organizations. Nevermind the fact it's not uncommon to have these background meetings, the only conclusion which involves the least assumptions is a massive conspiracy which is being covered up in plain sight, while the same administration is already being accused politically of another cover up. Good argument.

    UPDATE (3:05 p.m.): I asked Earnest to explain the meaning of "deep background," as defined by the White House, for my readers. He emails:

    Deep background means that the info presented by the briefers can be used in reporting but the briefers can't be quoted.
    So the simplest explanation is the meeting was exactly what it was...it was a meeting to give deeper background to the reporters before the press conference.

    Quote Originally Posted by dirtpoorchris View Post
    Why would someone hold a absolutely secret meeting where if they get caught then they are pretty much red handed? When they can just have the peons lock the doors and get away with it this way? I applaud your faith in mankind but unfortunately conspiracy and evil does exist in this world. Curiosity and carefulness is required to combat these possibilities.
    So...to avoid getting caught redhanded in a secret meeting behind closed doors, they announce to the world a closed door secret meeting? That makes sense to you?

    Quote Originally Posted by humbolt View Post
    So you really can't explain the selective invitations.
    Why or how would I explain it? How about you ask the White House? My guess would be the answer would be far more innocuous than you want to believe. Hell, according to your information the Wall Street Journal was represented, as was the AP, so it's not like you can say it was full of sympathetic "liberal media" outlets.

    Okay. Common sense would tell one that something could be up. I'm just pointing that out because I know you're big on common sense.
    I am, and common sense would also tell you that there is absolutely NO WAY any intelligent person would hold a conspiratorial meeting, which is announced ahead of time, in the White House, with people whose jobs and fame hinges on getting the next big story, in a time like this when the Administration is already under political attack for a supposed cover-up.

    I am big on common sense. Do you really think your position is common sense and not looking for conspiracy? Do you really think intelligent politicians would really hold a conspiracy meeting in the White House, announced ahead of time, at a time like this? I would hope your common sense would tell you this meeting was not likely to be anything more than what it was called.

    So, if security was screwed up all the way along, and no one noticed, everything is fine? You need to put that in a disclaimer when you hire State Department officials. I think they'd like to know.
    If the attack hadn't happened, no one would have known or cared all along the way. And that includes everyone, from the State department to Congressional Republicans to the President. The only reason this has become a big deal is because there was an attack.

    The sad part is, and I've mentioned this already, but we still don't know what security is like in other places. I've never heard Republicans (or Democrats) call for additional Congressional inquiries into assessing the strength of other bases. When do you think Republicans will get around to that?

    Well, the past here is not too inspiring, if you know what I mean.
    I have no idea what you mean.

    Oh absolutely. Let's not talk about our past and recent **** ups. Let's move on. This is so yesterday.
    No, let's LEARN from our past and recent screw-ups and let's use that knowledge to fix the problems. THAT is what is important. How about you and Republicans come around to that?

Page 5 of 16 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... 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
  •