-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Nov 8, 2013, at 7:47 PM
Just found it. So it looks like 60 minutes puts out a of false information also just like Rathergate. I thought they were full of BS when they said Obama wasn't lying when he said "you can keep your policy".
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Nov 8, 2013, at 7:51 PM
How come a reporter for 60 minutes can admit it when it appears she is wrong but the President of the United States sticks to his lies when caught and will not recant.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Nov 8, 2013, at 8:44 PM
When common doesn't understand humor this is what he comes up with.
-- Posted by rocknroll on Fri, Nov 8, 2013, at 8:50 PM
I don't get it. What was reported wrong. All I see here is about how and why they got something wrong. Did they make Obama look bad and have to respond to it due to a spanking?
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Nov 8, 2013, at 11:57 PM
"What was reported wrong."
Either you didn't see 60 Minutes or you don't know what happened, or both.
The Brit said he had gone to the Information Center and wondered why no one else could. The fact is that he was not there that night. Otherwise he possibly would have know that the Information Center was immediately reinforced from the CIA Annex, that reinforcements also arrived from Tripoli.
Also on the program, Mr. Hicks neglected to mention that he had personally spoken with the SecState about 5 hours after the initial attack, and hold her that Benghazi needed to be evacuated, to which she agreed.
All along, reinforcements were being deployed from Europe and the CONUS, but in view of the evacuation could not reach Benghazi in time.
That's the problem with "witch-hunting." Sooner or later you find out that "witches" are not real, and you've been pursuing figments of your imagination.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Nov 9, 2013, at 8:14 AM
But Common CBS is an Obama Chanel.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sat, Nov 9, 2013, at 9:01 AM
So let's follow the spin argument - the only "scandal" on Benghazi has now switched to CBS.
The fact that
-the ambassador and security staff begged the State Dept. and Obama admin for more security prior to the attack
-there were direct warnings from the Libyans that al Qaeda was active in the area
-there were warnings of 3 planned attacks. One of them was a plan to kill our ambassador
-it was, after all, the anniversary of September 11th...
-Obama was AWOL
-the Obama admin lied for weeks about the cause - don't lecture us believing a CBS story. You bought the Obama admin lie hook, line and sinker. Not us...
-witnesses were threatened not to testify or talk about what happened
-want more?
The scandal IS the Admin's failure to plan for this despite warnings, failure to act approrpriately when it happened and cover up with lies later.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sat, Nov 9, 2013, at 9:48 AM
"Either you didn't see 60 Minutes or you don't know what happened, or both."
I don't watch 60 Minutes so it was hard to know what happened according to a new spin by common, Obama or both.
Thanks for explaining it to me. Now I know it's the same ole blame the witches.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Nov 9, 2013, at 11:40 AM
Thanks for explaining it to me.
You're welcome. If you're uncomfortable with the truth, just listen to Dug, the smartest person in the world.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Nov 9, 2013, at 2:31 PM
Seems like the only Benghazi "Trap" didn't turn out so good for 4 brave heroes. Of course the obamabots will deny deny deny. Now one even has a conspiracy theory.
-- Posted by Mowrangler on Mon, Nov 11, 2013, at 8:02 AM
-- Posted by Mowrangler on Mon, Nov 11, 2013, at 8:02 AM
Mow,
The leftist have no concern about cutting off the life for these four individuals, but don't let a free loader who vote's for a living miss a meal or a showing of Duck Dynasty on his large flat screen TV.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Nov 11, 2013, at 8:50 AM
we saw that too. Figured it was because of Dan Rather's honest reporting.
-- Posted by mo55 on Mon, Nov 11, 2013, at 8:55 AM
Rick,
The opposition seems to think the New York Times is sugar coating the Benghazi story.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Dec 29, 2013, at 4:00 PM
Wheels,Barry and his entourage are in Hawaii looking for the terrorists. OJ looked for the real killers on the golf course,didn't he?
-- Posted by rocknroll on Sun, Dec 29, 2013, at 4:06 PM
"OJ looked for the real killers on the golf course,didn't he?"
Rock,
I would get in trouble if I typed what I was thinking.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Dec 29, 2013, at 6:32 PM
Wheels
Don't say something granny cant handle.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Dec 29, 2013, at 8:43 PM
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Dec 29, 2013, at 8:43 PM
Regrets,
What I was thinking wouldn't bother Granny.... but it would undoubtedly get the Leftist's panties in a wad.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Dec 29, 2013, at 10:18 PM
Here's some more goings on in the Obama administration. No proof that the administration was involved but there is a pattern in the White House and administration of lying and covering up. Makes Watergate look like kids stuff:
"State Dept. whistleblower has email hacked, deleted"
"They took all of his e-mails and then they deleted them all," said his attorney. He said that he could not prove who was responsible for the hack job, but said the attack was "sophisticated" and called the targeting of Higbie "alarming."
"Higbie played a key role in helping fellow whistleblower Aurelia Fedenisn, a former investigator for the department's inspector general, reveal in June a pattern of alleged coverups by top department officials."
===============================
Getting ready for that 2014 election. Gotta get rid of any problems that could emerge... Hope and Change 2014!
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Dec 30, 2013, at 9:30 AM
"U.S. officials suspect that a former Guantanamo Bay detainee played a role in the attack on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and are planning to designate the group he leads as a foreign terrorist organization, according to officials familiar with the plans.
"Militiamen under the command of Abu Sufian bin Qumu, the leader of Ansar al-Sharia in the Libyan city of Darnah, participated in the attack that killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, U.S. officials said.
"Witnesses have told American officials that Qumu's men were in Benghazi before the attack on Sept. 11, 2012, according to the officials. It's unclear whether they were there as part of a planned attack or out of happenstance. The drive from Darnah to Benghazi takes several hours.
"The State Department is expected to tie Qumu's group to the Benghazi attack when it designates three branches of Ansar al-Sharia, in Darnah, Benghazi and Tunisia, as foreign terrorist organizations in the coming days.
"In 2007, Qumu was released from the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and sent to Libya, where he was detained. The Libyan government released him in 2008.
"He and two other men, militia leaders Ahmed Abu Khattala and Seif Allah bin Hassine, will be identified as "specially designated global terrorists," a determination that allows U.S. officials to freeze their financial assets and bar American citizens and companies from doing business with them.
"The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the developments.
"About a dozen criminal complaints have been filed in the Benghazi case, with more expected. U.S. intelligence officials have said that several militias had a hand in the attack. Some of the individuals charged are from Darnah, although it's not clear if they are tied to Qumu's group. Khattala has already been named in a criminal complaint.
"The FBI declined to comment Tuesday."
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 8, 2014, at 8:42 AM
How long until it's Bush's fault?
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Jan 8, 2014, at 9:19 AM
How long until it's Bush's fault? -- Posted by Old John on Wed, Jan 8, 2014, at 9:19 AM
It only becomes Bush's fault when Obama does something wrong. We've got to deflect all of Obama's failures. Had this guy been released in 2009 then it would have been "Bush's fault".
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Jan 8, 2014, at 9:47 AM
"It only becomes Bush's fault when Obama does something wrong. We've got to deflect all of Obama's failures. Had this guy been released in 2009 then it would have been "Bush's fault"."
He was released in 2007, or rather transferred to Libya at that time. Libya freed him in 2008. It's not Obama's fault. I posted it because it directly contradicts The report that claims no al Qaeda involvement. Abu Sufian bin Qumu Has ties to al Qaeda, and had been captured in Afghanistan.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 8, 2014, at 10:43 AM
It's not Obama's fault. I posted it because it directly contradicts The report that claims no al Qaeda involvement. -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 8, 2014, at 10:43 AM
I saw the 2007 and knew it occurred under Bush. My sarcastic point was - Bush get's blamed for Bush's mistakes, and somehow for all of Obama's mistakes as well. :-)
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Jan 8, 2014, at 1:30 PM
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Jan 13, 2014, at 6:01 PM
Only if you worship at the Fox News alter...
New York Times Benghazi Investigation Confirms Paper's Early Reporting On Video's Role
Posted: 12/29/2013 2:02 pm EST
NEW YORK --- Following a months-long investigation, The New York Times reported Saturday that it had found no evidence that al-Qaeda, or any international terrorist group, was involved in the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on a U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya. The Times' David Kirkpatrick also wrote that the attack "was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam," an assessment that's prompted much chatter on Twitter and the Sunday morning talk shows.
The Obama administration originally pointed to the YouTube video, "Innocence of Muslims," as a primary factor in the attack. But Republicans challenged that version of events, and the media had largely dismissed the notion that the video played a major role.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jan 13, 2014, at 10:35 PM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jan 13, 2014, at 10:35 PM
Common that report is already been proven incomplete and biased.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Jan 14, 2014, at 12:55 AM
regret, you are quoting Fox again, u once said you dont watch Fox, you and Dug need to retreat to your "ignorance closet".
-- Posted by Dexterite1 on Tue, Jan 14, 2014, at 5:31 AM
-- Posted by rocknroll on Tue, Jan 14, 2014, at 5:57 AM
you and Dug need to retreat to your "ignorance closet". -- Posted by Dexterite1 on Tue, Jan 14, 2014, at 5:31 AM
You had tears in your eyes when Obama promised you free health care. You loved him. You voted for him twice. You bought it all just because he was "Obama". Your savior.
Then you had tears in your eyes a month ago when you found out Obama lied. And your health insurance sucked and you were getting the screws put to you financially.
Most of us knew Obama was lying and Obamacare was a disaster. If I'm ignorant, you're looking much worse. A sucker for all-things-Obama.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Jan 14, 2014, at 7:14 AM
"...that report is already been proven incomplete..."
And the Fox report is "complete and unbiased", that's a real joke...
I don't believe that the NY Times report has been "discredited" in any way. One of the main questions that the "Al Qaida attack" proponents ignore totally, is why these "bloodthirsty" terrorists rushed the unconscious Ambassador Stevens to a hospital in an attempt to save his life.
Another factor that's continually overlooked by "Fox worshipers " is that there was no US Consulate in Benghazi, but rather the US presence was a CIA operation, apparently also including the Information Office that was burned.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jan 14, 2014, at 7:31 AM
"If I'm ignorant, you're looking much worse."
Another rant by "Some Random Dug."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jan 14, 2014, at 7:33 AM
"The rightwing cabal on these threads swear they don't watch fox news or listen to hannity and limbaugh."
Apparently the Left-Wing Cabal doesn't know the difference between a news channel and a website.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 14, 2014, at 8:00 AM
Fatal error posting a link to anything FOX. Doesn't matter what it says the subject goes to wayside as the Obamacrat leg humpers get their panties twisted.
-- Posted by rocknroll on Tue, Jan 14, 2014, at 11:35 AM
Terrorists parade their kill and the libs believe it when they say they were taking him to the hospital.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jan 14, 2014, at 6:18 PM
I usually puke when I hear someone say "You know what I heard on Fox news?"
-- Posted by left turn on Tue, Jan 14, 2014, at 6:22 PM
I do not listen to Rush Limbaugh but I do watch Fox News from time to time because I want to hear something other than the pro Obama crowd. Most on here that are so critical of Fox either have no idea of what a more balanced view of current events than you do of Chris Matthews. I would like to know what their main problem is with people like Neil Cavuto and Shepard Smith and their reporting. The talk shows are mostly just that.
Along with the liberal OW shows I do not watch a lot of the other entertainment programs if they have an agenda to promote.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Jan 14, 2014, at 7:28 PM
Wheels, I'm listening to Mark Levin as I type. I listen to Rush about 10 minutes on the way to work 3-4 days a week. Coming home I hear a little Alan Combs. If I've seen the TCM movie playing when I turn on the TV and nothing but reality shows are on, I will watch FOX News for a few minutes. Then I turn to MSNBC or such long enough to figure I've reached the bottem and turn the dang thing off.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jan 14, 2014, at 7:46 PM
regret, you are quoting Fox again, u once said you dont watch Fox, you and Dug need to retreat to your "ignorance closet".
-- Posted by Dexterite1 on Tue, Jan 14, 2014, at 5:31 AM
Can you prove it wrong?
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Jan 14, 2014, at 9:49 PM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jan 14, 2014, at 7:33 AM
You bought the lies. You're the fool. Obama has said the rollout was a disaster. The costs are going to go much higher than we were told. And only a few fools bought it all. You're one Common.
You care nothing of the truth - just the party line. Two words come to mind when liberals like yourself post:
ig·no·rance ˈ/ignərəns/ noun 1. lack of knowledge or information.
lem·ming /lemiNG/ noun 1. A member of a crowd with no originality or voice of his own. One who speaks or repeats only what he has been told. A tool. A cretin.
Perfect.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Jan 14, 2014, at 11:40 PM
The rightwing cabal on these threads swear they don't watch fox news or listen to hannity and limbaugh. -- Posted by Spaniard on Tue, Jan 14, 2014, at 7:41 AM
And where did you hear this Spaniard:
"The US had little to do with ending Hitler's reign". - Spaniard
MSNBC? Pravda (russia)? The People's Daily (china)?
reposted for posterity. lol.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Jan 14, 2014, at 11:45 PM
More typical "Some Random Dug" ranting and raving...
Name calling, no relevant content, no logic, no sanity, etc....
Another SRD "contribution" unencumbered by the thought process. (Thanks to Car Talk.)
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jan 15, 2014, at 8:15 AM
"lem·ming /lemiNG/ noun 1. A member of a crowd with no originality or voice of his own. One who speaks or repeats only what he has been told. A tool. A cretin."
Dug,
I like the word lemming because it so aptly fits most of the Leftists posting on here. I know you brought it up first awhile back.... hope you don't mind me borrowing the term occasionally. I don't want some of those "Lemmings" coming down on me and accusing me of "Plagiarism". :-)
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Jan 15, 2014, at 8:32 AM
"1. A member of a crowd with no originality or voice of his own. One who speaks or repeats only what he has been told. A tool. A cretin."
A perfect definition of the SO group that is limited to regurgitating Fox, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. tirades.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jan 15, 2014, at 8:38 AM
A perfect definition of the SO group that is limited to regurgitating Fox, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. tirades.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jan 15, 2014, at 8:38 AM
Common,
Could you post a list of the approved programs both radio and tv that us poor "cretins" are permitted to watch?
That way perhaps all of us can be indocrinated into the order of 'Loyal Obama Worshipers'.... i.e. "Lemmings".
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Jan 15, 2014, at 8:50 AM
Common,
PS: Those that keep repeating the Fox, Limbaugh, Hannity etc rhetoric belong to the order of NILTS.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Jan 15, 2014, at 8:53 AM
Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. tirades. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jan 15, 2014, at 8:38 AM
This is what you're reduced to. Obama has abandoned you on Obamacare... yet you still push his talking points.
And, as has been documented many times, you continue to reference and quote Rush Limbaugh more than anyone on SO.
============
Wheels - use it any time! I didn't invent the use of the word, but I find it fits perfectly with Common, Dexter, lefty, and many of the other all-things-Obama crowd.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Jan 15, 2014, at 9:30 AM
The simplest solution is to read, watch and listen to a variety of programming options. I would say that NPR is the least biased, but even MSNBC has vocal conservations in Scarborough, Huntsman, and Steele.
Fox is the most biased. They can't even bring themselves to admit anything good about the President, like for example Gates saying in his book that the President's decision on taking out Osama bin Laden was the most courageous act he had seen.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jan 15, 2014, at 9:34 AM
Just for the record, a description of the lemming (aka liberal democrat):
"Lemmings are found only in the Northern Hemisphere. They have small eyes and small ears that are nearly hidden. They are solitary and generally intolerant of one another. Females can produce up to 13 young. After several years of optimal breeding conditions, overutilization of food resources, and low predation, populations become excessively large and more aggressive."
The perfect description of an Obama supporter. They refuse to see things, they refuse to listen, they breed like crazy and are intolerant of others.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Jan 15, 2014, at 9:36 AM
From FOX NEWS Common. Refute any single point in this story as "biased". Just out - damming evidence from the DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED Senate Intelligence Committee. Once again, you were wrong. This time on Benghazi.
"The Senate Intelligence Committee has released a comprehensive report on the Benghazi attack finding the tragedy was "preventable" and the administration failed to respond to "ample" warnings that security was deteriorating before Sept. 11, 2012.
The report faulted the State and Defense departments. It also cited the failure of the Obama administration to "bring the attackers to justice."
Specifically, the report said the intelligence community provided "ample strategic warning" that security in eastern Libya was deteriorating and U.S. personnel "were at risk." The report said multiple "tripwires" were crossed signaling security problems, and the State Department should have increased its security posture in response."
1-You're caught again in a bad position.
2-refute fox news on this story.
I'll await your non-response.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Jan 15, 2014, at 9:47 AM
Gates saying in his book that the President's decision on taking out Osama bin Laden was the most courageous act he had seen.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jan 15, 2014, at 9:34 AM
And he also said Obama was not much of a leader, not an exact quote.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Jan 15, 2014, at 9:55 AM
"I would say that NPR is the least biased,"
Common,
Isn't that the station that fired Juan Williams because he was becoming too conservative? Have you ever listened to Juan Williams.
Wht conservative hires do the stations you recommend have that offset the liberal hacks they hire.
I have heard the likes of Alan Combs, Juan Williams, Bob Beckel and more on Fox that are very liberal.
Stations that will not show both sides of the picture are the most biased.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Jan 15, 2014, at 10:01 AM
Alan Combs, the same one that Hannity fired?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jan 15, 2014, at 11:32 AM
Alan Combs, the same one that Hannity fired? -- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jan 15, 2014, at 11:32 AM
The same one that Bill O'Reilly has on his show from time to time?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Jan 15, 2014, at 11:39 AM
Alan Combs, the same one that Hannity fired?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jan 15, 2014, at 11:32 AM
I didn't know Hannity ran Fox. Is he in charge of personnel matters as well as having a show?
Even Combs's sister in law rolls her eyes when sitting opposite of him.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Jan 15, 2014, at 11:45 AM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jan 15, 2014, at 11:32 AM
Still awaiting your no-response on that senate controlled intelligence committee that blew away months of your misleading talking points. It destroyed everything you've claimed on Benghazi...
Wrong again.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Jan 15, 2014, at 11:46 AM
I'm still not understanding why the Ambassador wasn't told to stand down and not go to Lybia by his boss .
Rick,
Maybe his boss was putting on Hole Number 3 and couldn't be disturbed for a few more hours?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Jan 15, 2014, at 1:32 PM
I figure Common will finally respond - if ever - after he watches Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz tonight on MSNBC. He's got to see how they handle this report that pretty much discounted everything Common has said in defense of Obama and Benghazi.
Be careful Common - when Ed and Rachel are faced with the undeniable truth they usually won't even talk about anything that hurts Obama. They may not bring it up tonight.
What will you do then?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Jan 15, 2014, at 3:08 PM
"...finding the tragedy was "preventable" and the administration failed to respond to "ample" warnings..."
Why is this "new?" The fact that warnings were made and security had been questioned had been known all along. This was true throughout Northern Africa, the Middle East and Southwest Asia. In how many of those countries did US Embassy officials claim to have "too much" security. Did the fact that Congress reduced the State Departments security budget by $300 million have anything to do with what security was provided?
As for the tragedy being "preventable," of course it was preventable. Virtually every disastrous incident could have been prevented in one way or another given sufficient resources. This is particularly true with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.
- - - - - - - - - -
Now try answering these questions...
The attack on the USS Maine was "preventable," why was it sunk?
The attack on Pearl Harbor was "preventable," why was it not?
The Tet Offensive was "preventable," why did it happen?
The attack on the Marine barracks in Beruit was "preventable," why was it not prevented?
The 9/11 tragedy was "preventable," why was it allowed to happen?
The war in Iraq was certainly "preventable," why was that country invaded?
- - - - - - - - - -
Claiming something was "preventable" is easy after the fact, with all of the intelligence that was available, but that brings up more questions...
The CIA and Embassy personnel in Libya were major sources of this intelligence, why did the Ambassador plan on spending the night in a poorly defended facility?
With the CIA Annex only a mile away, why did they not provide security?
Should the State Department have closed all facilities in Libya and evacuated all Americans?
Should the CIA have withdrawn from Benghazi due to the threat?
- - - - - - - - - -
I don't expect you to be willing or able to answer these questions. If you blind yourself to the realities of the world, it is easy to pretend that the President or the Secretary of State are 100% and singularly to blame for the appalling event having taken place. They have taken responsibility as it occurred on their watch, but they did not cause it to happen.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jan 15, 2014, at 3:59 PM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jan 15, 2014, at 3:59 PM
Common,
Was Obama notified by anybody that this was a terrorist attack while it was occurring, or within 24 hours of the beginning of the attack?
Having the grasp you do of outstanding events in history, I am sure you possess this information.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Jan 15, 2014, at 4:43 PM
Where to start with Common's spin. Let's cut and paste a few from the original Benghazi thread... from Ike's scary "archives"...
================
Street demonstrations by Muslim kids against a stupid video made in America, hardly falls into a "world on fire" category. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Sep 15, 2012, at 8:00 AM
It simply means to provide clear explanations to convince local populations that movie clips from the US are not the position of either the US government nor the vast majority of Americans. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Sep 13, 2012, at 12:56 PM
All accounts and reports regarding Benghazi are lies, except those accusing the administration of cowardly criminal acts. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Sep 28, 2013, at 8:28 AM
The demonstration at the information center turned violent and fires were set. Everything that could have been done was done. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jul 31, 2013, at 9:42 PM
The great "Benghazi witch hunters" appear to be riding again. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Aug 1, 2013, at 9:59 AM
What massive failures? The only ones you talk about are fabricated issues, like Benghazi. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Aug 5, 2013, at 8:18 AM
The truth has been revealed and just because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions, does not mean it is false. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Aug 6, 2013, at 9:00 AM
What do you know today that you did not know before the recent hearing? -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Sep 20, 2013, at 4:05 PM
So there is absolutely nothing that was revealed by the latest "witch hunt" "hearing" which brings up the question of why did they hold it. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Sep 20, 2013, at 7:53 PM
The individuals identified as being behind the attack are still being pursued. What else do the republicans expect to be revealed? -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Sep 21, 2013, at 7:59 AM
To continue claiming "lies," "cover-up," etc. just makes them appear nothing but desperate to make something political out of a tragic event. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, May 6, 2013, at 12:03 PM
Trying to make it appear that everyone knew attacks were coming? The Benghazi hearings were a flop.-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, May 9, 2013, at 7:35 AM
The current hearings are simply a witch hunt probably even aimed more at Hillary Clinton, than the President. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, May 10, 2013, at 11:44 AM
Real "twisting and skewering" can be seen in the conservative attempt to pump up and revive the Benghazi witch hunt. There is nothing there of any significance. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, May 11, 2013, at 5:01 PM
===============
As I posted above, you've been discrediting any results of investigations as republican witch hunts and you've been defending Obama, his administration and Clinton from the start. Now the senate DEMOCRATS publish even more damming information. Your own party has abandoned you with the truth.
Once again, you were wrong and pushed the lies and mislead to protect your president. Nothing new for you.
Still waiting for you to refute Fox News on this.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Jan 15, 2014, at 5:13 PM
It's OK to get mixfused.
What I didn't post was Common's constant name calling, condescending comments referring to posters as ignorant, stupid, partisan, "Rush" worshippers, etc. when anyone tried to get the truth out about Benghazi. The same truth the democrats released today.
And he was wrong all the time.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Jan 15, 2014, at 6:00 PM
Rick,
Common owes other posters an admission that he was wrong in all of those defenses of the administration that he made. Especially with some of the name calling and how he belittled people. It was obvious 2 days ago that this was coming back to bite the administration and as late as today, Common was still spinning and defending.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Jan 15, 2014, at 6:03 PM
"All accounts and reports regarding Benghazi are lies, except those accusing the administration of cowardly criminal acts. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Sep 28, 2013, at 8:28 AM"
This is the only one of the above extracts that I believe was taken out of context. If I recall correctly I was speculating on the conservative position, which has seemingly always been that rational straightforward explanations are branded as "lies" but any opinion that blames the Administration for "cowardly or criminal acts" are obviously 100% true.
The remainder of the extracts are essentially correct. Thanks for keeping such careful track of them...
As for investigation results, what's changed? Everyone was aware that operating in Libya and specifically Benghazi was extremely risky. Why else would there have been so many CIA operatives there?
- - - - - - -
I did not expect you to answer any of my questions, but when you're ready to (if ever) I have more...
If the attack was a pre-planned Al Qiada operation, why did they try to save the Ambassador's by rushing him to a hospital?
Why has no one ever concluded that if the information facility were part of the State Department, why did they not have Marine guards?
Why did the Ambassador plan on staying in Benghazi overnight, considering that he was well aware of the security situation?
Why did the CIA not provide better protection for the Ambassador?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jan 15, 2014, at 6:38 PM
"...of the name calling and how he belittled people."
What name calling??
What "belittling?"
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jan 15, 2014, at 6:40 PM
I cannot freaking believe it!!! In spite of all the evidence Common is still spinninging.
The only excuse Obama can give at this point is that I was incompetent and did not know what was going on. Which makes him unfit for the job of Commander in Chief.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Jan 15, 2014, at 7:01 PM
Common,
You need to tune in to Fox to find out what is going on.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Jan 15, 2014, at 7:05 PM
I did not expect you to answer any of my questions-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jan 15, 2014, at 6:38 PM
Take it up with the DEMOCRAT intelligence report: "The report also detailed a possible failed ambush, where attackers tried to lure the CIA into the hospital where Stevens' body was being held. The CIA did not take the bait."
As for the rest, I don't need to answer questions that I never asked or made statements of. I'm simply pointing out that many months ago these issues were raised and you continually pointed out that everyone was nuts, "Fox News" watchers, "Rush" listeners - anything you could throw out to discredit people for Obama.
You were wrong. Either intentionally or simply. You continue to discredit and get personal with anyone that disagrees with you and you don't have to look any further than this thread. I return the favor.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Jan 15, 2014, at 8:04 PM
OK, It was the ambassador's fault.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Jan 15, 2014, at 9:35 PM
You need to tune in to Fox to find out what is going on.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Jan 15, 2014, at 7:05 PM
Heck you can even go to the big three liberal stations (ABC CBS NBC) and get the information. The only one left that is still spewing the BS is MSNBC.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Jan 15, 2014, at 9:43 PM
"...I don't need to answer questions..."
-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Jan 15, 2014, at 8:04 PM
Why does that not surprise anyone...
As expected, SRD appears to have neither the ability nor the intention of considering anything other than what his biased outlook has already decided on. He's always been the embodiment of phrase, "don't confuse me with the facts, I've already made up my mind."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jan 16, 2014, at 7:59 AM
Common,why no comments on that non-FOX link I posted on the 14th?
-- Posted by rocknroll on Thu, Jan 16, 2014, at 8:03 AM
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Jan 16, 2014, at 9:38 AM
-- Posted by rocknroll on Thu, Jan 16, 2014, at 9:21 AM
But Rock... "What difference does it make"
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Jan 16, 2014, at 9:42 AM
"SRD appears... don't confuse me with the facts, I've already made up my mind." -- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jan 16, 2014, at 7:59 AM
Perfect response. One that you use repeatedly when you are totally wrong and made my point:
"What "belittling?" -- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jan 15, 2014, at 6:40 PM
You have been completely wrong on Benghazi - as your own words and posting clearly show. Fox News and the Democrats in the Senate got it right. Your response? More belittling and name calling. It's your only defense when you've lost all credibility.
Just like on Obamacare. If I had the time I could repost all the lies and defense of Obamacare you've put on SO. And then cut Obama's own words that defy you. Biased outlook? Senate democrats agree with me. You're alone.
Why on earth would anyone believe you anymore? YOu have but one strategy - not to be right, not to persuade, not to discuss... just defend Obama. It's clear. Even when Obama admits he's wrong you defend.
But we've known that for quite some time.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jan 16, 2014, at 9:53 AM
Dug,
I would like to say this before someone beats me to it..... The Senate Committee that issued the report on Benghazi are all "racists". Democrats and Republicans alike. ☺ ☻ ☺ ☻
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Jan 16, 2014, at 10:33 AM
Wheels,
When you get as in-the-tank as Common it must be very mentally challenging to manage the talking points. You're right! According to Common (and other OW's) if you disagree with Obama you're racist. What a conundrum ($5 word) Common is in when Democrats criticize the Obama administration. What can you do? Except wait for Rachel and Ed to provide their spin that evening?
A good analogy of the Obama administration would be the Titanic. It's going down because of the Captain's arrogance and refusal to listen to others.
Some smarter Obama supporters (Spaniard) took a life boat and got off the ship before it sank and left Obama on. Albeit the last life boat available. Stuck in there for a long time but knew it was looking bad and bailed.
Common is standing on the rail (Decaprio) holding hands with Obama (Winslet) right up to the end. But in the end, DeCaprio went down with the ship and Winslet survived just fine.
Common's going down with the ship and his love for Obama has killed his credibility. Obama will be a multi-millionaire in a few years living off the taxpayer as he has since about the day he was born. Sipping Mai-Tai's in Hawaii and laughing all the way to the bank.
Common's credibility? RIP...
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jan 16, 2014, at 10:52 AM
Notably absent from that Senate report are Pants Suit and Empty Suit. As long as the buck stopped somewhere else.
-- Posted by rocknroll on Thu, Jan 16, 2014, at 11:10 AM
Notably absent from that Senate report are Pants Suit and Empty Suit. As long as the buck stopped somewhere else.
-- Posted by rocknroll on Thu, Jan 16, 2014, at 11:10 AM
They will never make me believe that both were not fully aware of what was going on. If it were really true that they did not.... neither of them belong in the position they held.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Jan 16, 2014, at 2:27 PM
Try reading the report...
Here are some applicable quoted extracts to make it easier for you. Note in particular that the Ambassador turned down added military security at least two time immediately before the attack.
"It is important to acknowledge at the outset that diplomacy and intelligence
collection are inherently risky, and that all risk cannot be eliminated. Diplomatic
and intelligence personnel work in high-risk locations all over the world to collect
information necessary to prevent future attacks against the United States and our
allies."
"There has been considerable public discussion about the DoD's Site Security
Team in Tripoli. The SST, which was provided by the DoD at no expense to the
Department of State, consisted of 16 special operations personnel detailed to the
Chief of Mission in Libya, although its numbers fluctuated slightly due to
rotations.
"DoD confirmed to the Committee that Ambassador Stevens declined two
specific offers from General Carter Ham, then the head of AFRICOM, to sustain
the SST in the weeks before the terrorist attacks. After reading the August 16,
2012, EAC cable, General Ham called Ambassador Stevens and asked ifthe
Embassy needed the SST from the U.S. military, but Stevens told Ham it did not.
"Shortly thereafter, Stevens traveled to Germany for a previously scheduled meeting
with Ham at AFRICOM headquarters. Ham again offered to sustain the SST at the
meeting, and Stevens again declined.
"There was no singular "tactical warning" in the intelligence
reporting leading up to the events on September 11, 2012, predicting an attack
on U.S. facilities in Benghazi on the 9/11 anniversary, although State and the
CIA both sent general warning notices to facilities worldwide noting the
potential security concerns associated with the anniversary. Such a specific
warning should not have been expected, however, given the limited
intelligence collection of the Benghazi area at the time.
"To date, the Committee has not identified any intelligence or other
information received prior to September 11, 2012, by the IC or State Department
indicating specific terrorist planning to attack the U.S. facilities in Benghazi on
September 11, 2012.
"According to a January 4, 2013, letter from the Acting Director of the CIA,
Michael Morell, "[t]he nature of the attacks suggested they did not involve
significant pre-planning.
"However, the collective assessment of the IC remains that the attacks
"were deliberate and organized, but that their lethality and efficacy did not
necessarily indicate extensive planning.
"DoD moved aerial assets, teams of Marines, and special operations forces
toward Libya as the attacks were ongoing, but in addition to the seven-man
reinforcement team from Tripoli, the only additional resources that were able to
arrive on scene were unmanned, unarmed aerial surveillance assets.
"The Committee has reviewed the allegations that U.S. personnel, including
in the IC or DoD, prevented the mounting of any military relief effort during the
attacks, but the Committee has not found any of these allegations to be
substantiated.
"In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the IC received numerous reports,
both classified and unclassified, which provided contradictory accounts that there
were demonstrations at the Temporary Mission Facility. In some cases, these
intelligence reports-which were disseminated widely in the Intelligence
Community--contained references to press reports on protests that were simply
copied into intelligence products. Other reporting indicated there were no protests.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jan 16, 2014, at 2:41 PM
Quite good,common. I was afraid you'd gone and slit your wrists. You nit picked it rather well.
-- Posted by rocknroll on Thu, Jan 16, 2014, at 3:07 PM
The report was prepared by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and found that State, then under Hillary Clinton, refused requests to boost security despite warnings from the CIA and its own staff about the danger of militant attacks.
State has acknowledged that security was not adequate but has defended itself by saying that it never received intelligence indicating an attack of the ferocity of the terrorist assault.
From the Washington Post: "The State Department acknowledged Wednesday that it rejected appeals for more security at its diplomatic posts in Libya in the months before a fatal terrorist attack in Benghazi."
The report said the Defense Department had provided a Site Security Team in Tripoli, made up of 16 special operations personnel. But the State Department decided not to extend the team's mission in August 2012, one month before the attack.
Stevens wanted more security. That is clear. What he wanted was local police/military because he didn't want to offend the Muslims with a larger US presence. He never said he didn't want more security. He foolishly wanted the locals to provide it.
And none of that covers the failure of State/Obama admin to heed warnings of impending attacks or prior severe attacks. And of course the response when the attack started.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jan 16, 2014, at 3:40 PM
Try reading the report for yourself...
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jan 16, 2014, at 4:01 PM
Rick, Here is the applicable spin to make it easier for you. Note in particular that the Ambassador turned down added military security at least two times immediately before the attack.
You all being conservatives have no logic.
It was the ambassador's fault.
Obama and Clinton saved countless lives by detaining the traitor that made the video.
Also a president as astute as this one has enough sense to apologize to the Muslims although not made public. :)
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Jan 16, 2014, at 4:14 PM
Took the words right out of my mouth Rick...
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jan 16, 2014, at 4:24 PM
Good thing you took the words out of Dug's mouth, Rick. Now he can reinsert his foot.
-- Posted by left turn on Thu, Jan 16, 2014, at 5:18 PM
Blame the dead guy for they tell no tales.
-- Posted by rocknroll on Thu, Jan 16, 2014, at 6:02 PM
-- Posted by left turn on Thu, Jan 16, 2014, at 5:18 PM
As usual, not an original thought or comment. You're the perfect Obama worshiper. He needs low information voters like yourself.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jan 16, 2014, at 7:20 PM
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Jan 16, 2014, at 7:48 PM
Here's what you may be neglecting...
"...refused requests to boost security despite warnings..."
Refused because resources were not available, and because the facility in Benghazi was scheduled to be abandoned by December. The staff in Tripoli and the CIA in Benghazi were all aware of the situation.
"...rejected appeals for more security at its diplomatic posts in Libya..."
Benghazi was a CIA facility not a State Department consulate. The appeals were rejected for lack of resources.
"But the State Department decided not to extend the team's mission in August 2012..."
The SST was funded by DOD, at no cost to State. The Ambassador, because he wanted to limit the US footprint, declined deployment of SST's twice.
"...heed warnings of impending attacks or prior severe attacks."
No one was more aware of the warnings than the CIA and the ambassador in Libya. Their actions were based on their own assessments of the threat. There was no reason that the Ambassador could not have travelled to Benghazi on the 12th.
- -- -- -- -- -- -
The bottom line remains unchanged.
There was no cover up of anything.
The analysis of the existing threats at the time were made in Libya by the CIA and the embassy.
The distribution of security resources were made based on threats throughout the region, including North Africa, the Middle East and Southwest Asia.
There was no criminal actions by anyone in the State Department or in the CIA.
The military was not able to deploy teams in time to reach Benghazi, even though numerous teams were launched.
Reinforcements were immediately sent from the CIA Annex and from Tripoli.
The statements that Ambassador Rice made were compiled by the CIA and State and DOD based on what they knew and what their best information was at that time.
There were demonstrations the same night in Egypt and other areas generated by the "video."
- -- -- -- -- -- -
This is what I have been saying all along. The above facts do not support the republican "witch hunts" that have been going on virtually continuously for over a year.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jan 16, 2014, at 8:03 PM
I guess you still haven't read the report.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Jan 16, 2014, at 8:07 PM
You need change that to "democrat" witch hunts. They agree with the republicans and have published this damming report. You act like there are no revelations or criticisms in the report.
You said you did read it, right? The numerous failures of the state department and administration are highlighted in the report.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jan 16, 2014, at 8:07 PM
It's hard to get an obamacratic teat lipper and leg humper to use original thoughts.
-- Posted by rocknroll on Thu, Jan 16, 2014, at 8:16 PM
Someone said something about waiting for the new talking points. Looks like nothing new was sent down.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Jan 16, 2014, at 8:58 PM
Hillary is probably threatening the heads of the media to quit reporting on this.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Jan 16, 2014, at 9:01 PM
"I guess you still haven't read the report."
Sorry, I've read the entire thing. See the extracts posted above (Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jan 16, 2014, at 2:41 PM)
The only thing I glossed over is the "witch hunt" comments from page 66 to 81, which were written as "Additional Views" by the minority members to cast invalid aspersions on the administration.
They could just as easily have written "The failures of [Beruit] can be summed up this way: the Americans [Marines] serving in [Lebanon} were vulnerable; the State Department knew they were vulnerable; and no one in the Administration really did anything about it."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jan 16, 2014, at 9:05 PM
Obama and his people are just like Reagan and his people?
Geeese!
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Jan 16, 2014, at 9:15 PM
The point is very simply that in this dangerous world today, it is impossible for every person in the military and State Department and every facility to be 100% safe every second of each day.
It easy for anyone to say the reposnsibility rests completely with the President and the Secretary of State, and they have accepted this responsibility. This does not make them personally to blame for the tragic event.
As the report concludes...
"Tbe Majority also believes, however, that the Benghazi attacks have been the subject of misinformed speculation and accusations long after the basic facts of the attacks have been determined, thereby distracting attention from more important concerns: the tragic deaths of four brave Americans, the hunt for their attackers, efforts by the U.S. Government to avoid future attacks, and the future of the U.S.Libya relationship."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jan 16, 2014, at 9:50 PM
It easy for anyone to say the reposnsibility rests completely with the President and the Secretary of State-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jan 16, 2014, at 9:50 PM
Take it up with the senate DEMOCRAT controlled intelligence committee that pretty much said so and disagrees with you. You're arguing with yourself. Their report, not ours.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jan 16, 2014, at 10:29 PM
After you get around to reading the basic report, point me to the page where it clearly states that the President and the Secretary of State are 100% to blame for the entire tragic event.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jan 16, 2014, at 10:47 PM
Common,
"Ah feel your pain"!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Jan 16, 2014, at 10:48 PM
What "pain?"
What is there in the report that was not known previously?
---- ---- ---- ---- ----
There was no "stand down" order until after Benghazi had been evacuated.
That the attacks were "preventable" is obvious and was well known, and were subject to the availability of resources.
That non-specific warnings were received was abundantly clear to the Embassy in Tripoli and the CIA.
The military responded by deploying units in an attempt to reach Benghazi in time to be of assistance.
Immediate reinforcements were sent from the CIA Annex and from Tripoli.
---- ---- ---- ---- ----
There were numerous details provided that I was not aware of not the least of which was that the Ambassador turned down offers of added military security not just once, but several times.
The gist of the republican annex was clearly as expected in an ineffective and futile effort to redirect all blame on the President and Secretary of State. Secretary Clinton had long since accepted responsibility and initiated action to limit the possibility of reoccurrence.
The SO group again fell into the "Benghazi trap" in falsely assuming that the report could reveal some manner of "smoking gun" with which to skewer top members of the Obama administration. There was none, but as usual, the group continues the "witch hunt."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jan 17, 2014, at 7:48 AM
You are in denial Common. Seek counseling.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Jan 17, 2014, at 9:48 AM
futile effort to redirect all blame on the President and Secretary of State... the group continues the "witch hunt." -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jan 17, 2014, at 7:48 AM
Collected, published, voted on, signed and sealed by the democrats. You're having a hard time with that aren't you? Why? It's your party's report. They did lay blame and they confirmed everything that republicans (and some other democrats) have been saying while the Obama campaign team (and others here) continually lied right up to the 2012 election. ANY means justifies the end.
Can't help you there.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Jan 17, 2014, at 10:22 AM
"They did lay blame and they confirmed everything that republicans (and some other democrats) have been saying..."
On what page of the report did you find that?
The republicans said there was...
a cover up. Not true.
a stand down order. Not true.
there were no reinforcements sent. Not true.
there was actionable intelligence. Not true.
the attack was entirely pre-planned. Not true.
there were no protests. Not true.
- - - - - - -
It may be a matter of some not being able to comprehend the report...
"Can't help you there."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jan 17, 2014, at 10:56 AM
Even James Carville only gave himself a 2.5 in a scale of 1 to 10 on trying to cover for Obama last night. Funny.
What do you think your score is Common.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Jan 17, 2014, at 11:07 AM
From ABC news and the AP - both Obama supporters:
Inadequate security: "The State Department had decided not to request an extension of the team's presence, about a month before the attacks, because officials thought the job could be done by local or department security."
Failed to act on threats: "The State Department should be ready to evacuate or close diplomatic missions facing the highest threat, the report says." and "Operations in Benghazi continued with little change even though the mission crossed some "tripwires" that should have led to reduction in personnel or the suspension of operations. Some nations closed their diplomatic facilities because of worsening security conditions in the summer of 2012."
No protests? Give it up Common: "Analysts inaccurately referred to the presence of a protest at the mission before the attack, and they didn't corroborate the information. The intelligence community took too long to correct the erroneous reports, causing confusion and leading government officials to make incorrect public statements."
Failed to protect Americans: "The U.S. government must not rely on local security in areas where its facilities are under high threat or where the host nation is not capable of providing adequate security."
All from the report. Courtesy of ABC and the AP news.
From the NY Times - actionable intelligence: " A stinging report by the Senate Intelligence Committee released Wednesday concluded that the attack 16 months ago that killed four Americans in Benghazi, Libya, could have been prevented, singling out the State Department for criticism for its failure to bolster security in response to INTELLIGENCE WARNINGS about a growing security crisis around the city.
and: "But it is unsparing in its criticism of the State Department for failing to provide adequate security to the mission even as violence spiked in Benghazi in June 2012. In contrast, the report said, the C.I.A. quickly bolstered security at its annex about a mile away." CIA was prepared, State Dept unprepared... despite warnings...
and: "In the months before the attack, the committee found, American intelligence agencies gave ample warning about deteriorating security in Benghazi and the risks to Americans in the city."
and: "On Sept. 5, 2012, a week before the attack, the Africa Command issued a warning about a growing threat to Americans, "particularly in northeast Libya." As these warnings mounted, the C.I.A. bolstered its security at the agency's Benghazi facility, known as the Annex, but the State Department DID NOT make similar moves to protect the diplomatic compound."
==============
Very clear, very critical. Courtesy of the US Senate Democrats, the NY Times, the AP and ABC news. Take it up with them. Sounds like Fox got it right and the others are coming around.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Jan 17, 2014, at 11:18 AM
I just can't fathom common spending so much time and energy marginalizing a tragedy then defending the events that led up to it,occurred during it and what has followed.
-- Posted by rocknroll on Fri, Jan 17, 2014, at 12:34 PM
Inadequate security: ... "The State Department had decided not to request an extension of the team's presence... "
The DOD offered more security several more times, the Ambassador declined.
- ----- - ---- - ---- - ---- -
Failed to act on threats: ..."Operations in Benghazi continued with little change even though the mission crossed some "tripwires" ...
Operations in Benghazi were a CIA show. The Ambassador was there for a 24 hour visit.
- ----- - ---- - ---- - ---- -
Failed to protect Americans: "The U.S. government must not rely on local security ...."
The Ambassador chose to keep the American presence low, however there were numerous CIA operatives 2 km from the information center.
- ----- - ---- - ---- - ---- -
From the NY Times - actionable intelligence: ...
From the report" "To date, the Committee has not identified any intelligence or other
information received prior to September 11, 2012, by the IC or State Department indicating specific terrorist planning to attack the U.S. facilities in Benghazi on September 11, 2012."
- ----- - ---- - ---- - ---- -
"....could have been prevented, singling out the State Department for criticism ..."
Of course the attack could have been prevented, just like so many other incidents "could have been" particularly with such brilliant hindsight.
- ----- - ---- - ---- - ---- -
"... it is unsparing in its criticism of the State Department for failing to provide adequate security..."
There was no consulate in Benghazi. The mission was to be closed in months.
- ----- - ---- - ---- - ---- -
"...intelligence agencies gave ample warning about deteriorating security in Benghazi ..."
From the report "There was no singular "tactical warning" in the intelligence reporting leading up to the events on September 11, 2012..."
- ----- - ---- - ---- - ---- -
",,, the Africa Command issued a warning about a growing threat to Americans, "particularly in northeast Libya."
Which was about the same time that General Ham offered additional American military security forces.
- ----- - ---- - ---- - ---- -
"....make similar moves to protect the diplomatic compound."
It was an Information Center to be closed.
==============
Very clear in defining the exact circumstances around the incident, and in exposing the "witch hunt."
SRD grasping at straws again...
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jan 17, 2014, at 1:50 PM
"...spending so much time and energy marginalizing a tragedy then defending the events that led up to it,..."
It is by no means a matter of "so much time." It is simply a matter of reading the report and understanding the circumstances. Apparently the SO group can't afford the time or effort to get things right.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jan 17, 2014, at 1:54 PM
Apparently the SO group can't afford the time or effort to get things right.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jan 17, 2014, at 1:54 PM
Common,
I think I asked you once before about when was Obama notified this was a Terrorist attack. You apparently chose not to answer.
There were credible reports just a few days ago that he was notified while the attack was being carried out. And what did he do about it..... I believe I remember a report saying he went to bed so he could make his campaign trip the next day.
You can write a book on your talking points and you are not going to convince Americans that he is not into this up to his neck in the responsibility end.... and if he truly knew nothing, he has fired no one for not letting him know.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Jan 17, 2014, at 2:38 PM
SRD grasping at straws again... -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jan 17, 2014, at 1:50 PM
Didn't take you too long to return to personal attacks and belittling. You'll notice I did neither in this latest round. It's all you have to score a point anymore and it's worthless.
============
Apparently the SO group can't afford the time or effort to get things right. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jan 17, 2014, at 1:54 PM
The SO group got it right over a year ago. You got it wrong. And now the NY Times, the AP, ABC news and the DEMOCRATS in the senate have provided clear and stinging analysis of the failure of the administration and in particular the State department.
You're alone. Reading a report doesn't mean anything if you can't comprehend the overwhelming opinion and analysis. Yes - it disagrees tremendously with you.
Take it up with the democrats in the senate. And most importantly, grow up.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Jan 17, 2014, at 3:02 PM
"And most importantly, grow up."
You may want to take your own advice. There were numerous relevant questions posed above but you failed to answer any.
Clearly that's your choice, but I would suggest that you quit the whining when things don't go your way.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jan 17, 2014, at 3:58 PM
"...when was [President]Obama notified this was a Terrorist attack."
My guess is that it was while the attack was going on. Probably very soon after he was advised of the demonstrations at the Embassy in Egypt. Which is likely to be the reason that the Intelligence community was looking at a similar event in Libya.
I would also maintain that he then coordinated actions with the NSA, DOD, the CIA and the State Department. Why would you think he was not aware of what was going on?
As I recall the DCM talked to Secretary Clinton at about 2:00 am and concurred with his recommendation to evacuate Benghazi.
And in spite of that, the DOD reinforcements continued to be on the way.
Try reading the report and see what questions can be answered.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jan 17, 2014, at 4:09 PM
"There were numerous relevant questions posed above but you failed to answer any."
Common you should take your "relevant questions" to the Bi-Partisan Senate Committee who reported their findings this week. You don't seem to agree with them..... so go in, stamp your feet, pound on their desks and demand they answer your "relevant questions".
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Jan 17, 2014, at 4:11 PM
I common still trying to spin this thing?
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Jan 17, 2014, at 4:18 PM
"So an Ambassador can tell the DOD what to do...huh?"
That's exactly correct, specifially when it has to do with deploying military forces to the Ambassador's country.
"Then why did he go?"
He had a meeting with the Turkish Consule General, and was to met with Libyans the next day. In any case it was apparently his decision to go there.
"The heels are dug in..."
That's basically correct. My contention is that the bipartisan report explains what happened very accurately. There is really little further to be added. No cover up, no crimes, no more "witch hunt."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jan 17, 2014, at 4:19 PM
No spin, just facts...
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jan 17, 2014, at 4:20 PM
My guess -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jan 17, 2014, at 4:09 PM
That's the most honest thing you've said. A freudian slip. You're guessing.
================
"So an Ambassador can tell the DOD what to do...huh?" That's exactly correct. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jan 17, 2014, at 4:19 PM
An abject lie - again. The ambassador is NOT in the "chain of command". Another hit to your ever dissipating credibility.
================
There were numerous relevant questions posed above but you failed to answer any. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jan 17, 2014, at 3:58 PM
I don't answer to you. Neither does the senate DEMOCRAT led committee. It doesn't suit your narrative - or admitted guessing.
More lies. The democrats released a scathing report that faulted the administration and the state department and exposed the lies by the administration. Take your "guessing" up with them.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Jan 17, 2014, at 4:29 PM
Common has used several names for anyone disagreeing with him and has become repetitive lately and has misused a few (annex??)so in the interest of expanding his supposed insults I submit this:
Hope it helps....I personally like "shooting match" although "posse" is a close second.
-- Posted by rocknroll on Fri, Jan 17, 2014, at 5:01 PM
"An abject lie - again."
As usual you're wrong again. It is not a matter of the chain of command. The Ambassador answer only to the State Department with respect to what goes on in his country. The DOD does not deploy military forces against the Ambassador's will.
-------------------
"I don't answer to you."
And I appreciate that, but you don't seem to be able to answer anything.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jan 17, 2014, at 5:27 PM
The DOD does not deploy military forces against the Ambassador's will.-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jan 17, 2014, at 5:27 PM
Wrong. The president of the United States decides when and where to send troops and there isn't an ambassador in the world that can override or change that. He can request or suggest. But the statement ""So an Ambassador can tell the DOD what to do...huh?" That's exactly correct" is wrong.
No ambassador can deploy troops, can direct their every action, can decide when and where. The ambassador can request additional resources and the DOD can respond how they please without regard to any ambassador.
Absolutely ludicrous. You're still guessing.
====
but you don't seem to be able to answer anything. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jan 17, 2014, at 5:27 PM
I don't have to. The senate DEMOCRAT report answered it all and showed you up. I don't need to do that this time. That's a relief. It is an incessant job of many to keep your misleading statements in line.
I'll just let your political party and the media do that to you this time. I know, it hurts.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Jan 17, 2014, at 5:59 PM
Sorry Dug, you've lost it again...
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jan 17, 2014, at 6:36 PM
What massive failures? The only ones you talk about are fabricated issues.. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Aug 5, 2013, at 8:18 AM
Street demonstrations by Muslim kids against a stupid video made in America, hardly falls into a "world on fire" category. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Sep 15, 2012, at 8:00 AM
It simply means to provide clear explanations to convince local populations that movie clips from the US are not the position of either the US government nor the vast majority of Americans. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Sep 13, 2012, at 12:56 PM
Nope. More "cut and paste" of your lies and misinformation. There's plenty more. You're going to lose your democrat party card if you keep getting off the talking points.
And the military operates at the behest of the ambassador? LOL!
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Jan 17, 2014, at 8:20 PM
Now you're really not making any sense.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jan 17, 2014, at 9:51 PM
I heard a comment a couple of days ago regarding the Ambassador refusing the military's offer of help. The comment was basically, where would the Ambassador be with the State Dept asking or receiving help from the military after it being turned down by the State Department when he asked for it and it was refused.
Basically a political decision.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Jan 17, 2014, at 10:26 PM
What ever your source was, don't use it again, they don't know what they're talking about.
The Ambassador is head of the country team, and has a military attaché that works with the geographical combatant command, in this case Africom. General Ham wanted to provide additional military security forces, the Ambassador declined to accept the teams. He could have been overruled by SecState or the President, but was not. Clear evidence of this is the absence of any claims to that end in the partisan republican annex to the report.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jan 18, 2014, at 6:31 AM
-- Posted by Diseased Turtle on Sat, Jan 18, 2014, at 12:54 PM
Rick, who do you suppose had the power to prevent it, in as much as the added security requested was not supplied by State Department, staffed by Obama appointments?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Jan 18, 2014, at 1:19 PM
I just heard George Zimmerman changed his name to Ben Gazi. We'll never hear about him from the liberal press anymore.
-- Posted by rocknroll on Sat, Jan 18, 2014, at 3:28 PM
Commons 1/17/14 post at 1:50 pm was a brutal takedown. Dug is still smarting. -- Posted by Spaniard on Sat, Jan 18, 2014, at 8:30 AM
Says the guy who said "The US had little to do with ending Hitler's reign" - Spaniard.
For your information, Common "took down" the Senate democrats. Not me. It's your party Spaniard... it's your party's analysis of the failure of your president and, god forbid, your Hillary Clinton. I'm just parroting democrat talking points - like you do.
Take it up with the democrats Ike.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sat, Jan 18, 2014, at 4:03 PM
Cristie said he is responsible for the good and the bad on his watch. The same is true for obama. Cristie said he could not watch over 63,000 state employees. So, how is Obama supposed to watch over the millions of federal employees? He can't. It's that goose and gander thing.
-- Posted by left turn on Sat, Jan 18, 2014, at 5:11 PM
Lefty, it has been testified to that Obama was briefed on this as it was happening. But it appears a good night's sleep so he could campaign the next day was more important.
How many people died during the lane closing on the bridge?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Jan 18, 2014, at 5:29 PM
"...a valid reason why..."
Maybe it was because certain Libyans decided to attack the American facilities. The date may have had something to do with it, and even the Egyptian demonstrations of the same day may well have had something to do with the timing. Whether they knew that the Ambassador was there appears to be unknown. Whether they were terrorists, insurrectionists, demonstrators or passers-by is not the issue. The blame is on them and there was no "valid" reason for the act of terror.
-------------------------------
"...a tragedy , one that might have been avoided..."
The fact that it could have been prevented is well known. It is obvious that virtually any incident could have been prevented in one way or another. In this case there could have been a military SST with the Ambassador, the meeting could have been in the CIA Annex, the Ambassador could have spent that night in Tripoli rather than at the temporary mission facility, etc.
---------------------------
"...[President] Obama is the Commander in Chief , this happened under his watch..."
There is no doubt about that. He is ultimately responsible for his entire administration, just as Secretary Clinton was responsible for incidents within the State Department. Having "ultimate" responsibility does not mean that they are solely to blame. No more than President Bush was "to blame" for military deaths in Iraq, or No more than President Clinton was "to blame" for military deaths in Bosnia, or no more than President Regan was "to blame" for military deaths in Lebanon, or no more than President Carter was "to blame" for military deaths in Iran, or no more than President Nixon was "to blame" for military deaths in Vietnam, or so on.
--------------------------
"...he made a mistake..."
What was President Obama's "mistake?"
What was Secretary Clinton's "mistake?"
What was "covered up?"
What should Ambassador Stevens' have done differently?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jan 18, 2014, at 7:25 PM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jan 18, 2014, at 7:25 PM
Why don't you ask the democrats that voted for the report that was very critical of the Obama administration and the Secretary of State office?
Or ask Spaniard... he's a die-hard democrat. Maybe he knows.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sat, Jan 18, 2014, at 7:53 PM
No need to, and I know better than to expect any rational or logical response on here.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jan 18, 2014, at 8:50 PM
No need to, and I know better than to expect any rational or logical response on here.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jan 18, 2014, at 8:50 PM
Common,
So long as you maintain that there is no possible blame directly attributable to Obama, nothing you see printed or hear spoken will be a rational or logical response so far as you are concerned. You're looking like you have a screw loose.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Jan 18, 2014, at 9:06 PM
I know better than to expect any rational or logical response on here. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jan 18, 2014, at 8:50 PM
As well you should know. You produce all of the irrational and illogical postings for all-things-Obama. It's getting old Common.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sat, Jan 18, 2014, at 10:27 PM
What about Nakoula Basseley Nakoula Common? He was the first American jailed for Muslim blasphemy.
Hillary told Charles Woods father: "We will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted." while all the time knowing the film wasn't the reason.
Woods said when Obama spoke to him he wouldn't even look into his eyes.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sat, Jan 18, 2014, at 10:50 PM
"...that there is no possible blame directly attributable to [President] Obama..."
What exactly is it that the President did, that causes full blame to fall on him?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jan 19, 2014, at 8:10 AM
"...mistake was he didn't order Hillary to tell ALL 100% US Ambassadors..."
There are hundreds of things that numerous people "didn't do" but the question was what did the President do to cause the attack.
Do you really believe that all US Ambassadors should be "confined to quarters" on every September 11th out of fear?
There was no "break" in the chain of command. The President accepted ultimate responsibility as Commander-in-Chief, and Secretary Clinton accepted responsibility as Secretary of State. How is that a "break" or a "cover up?"
The incident in Benghazi was a tragic event and can be called a "loss" if you prefer, but that does not change the circumstances.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jan 19, 2014, at 11:48 AM
"I honestly do not recall [President] Obama saying "my bad"...
From 1 1/2 years ago...
"Ultimately as Commander-in-Chief I am responsible and I don't shy away from that responsibility," Obama added."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jan 19, 2014, at 1:07 PM
Rick,
I think, if I didn't screw up on the zeroes, it would be about $2,739,726,027.40.
Pocket change for wealthy people like our congressmen and women.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Jan 19, 2014, at 2:43 PM
Rick,
Don't spend that $0.40 all in one place. It was actually only 39.72 cents.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Jan 19, 2014, at 5:16 PM
"I didn't read the report" -- Posted by Spaniard on Sun, Jan 19, 2014, at 6:04 PM
Translation:
"I have nothing to contribute. I'm clueless but I enjoy being a cheerleader".
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Jan 19, 2014, at 7:03 PM
The President accepted ultimate responsibility as Commander-in-Chief, and Secretary Clinton accepted responsibility as Secretary of State. How is that a "break" or a "cover up?" -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jan 19, 2014, at 11:48 AM
The President denied for weeks and refused to answer direct questions about the lie of a "video". After the election they didn't care anymore.
Hillary Clinton said "what does it matter" when questioned about what started the incident. It does matter Hillary. You were warned, you were asked for more security and you failed to protect our citizens when ample warnings and other embassy closings and missions closed in Benghazi.
Once things are uncovered, there is no more cover up. It's not that hard common.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Jan 19, 2014, at 7:08 PM
"Once things are uncovered..."
There was no cover up from the beginning.
From the report...
"...which provided contradictory accounts that there were demonstrations at the Temporary Mission Facility.'
So the intelligence was aware that there were 3 separate incidents.
One appeared to be at the TMF where the demonstrators were armed with nothing more than a can of diesel fuel and a match, and they tried to save the Ambassador by taking him to the hospital.
The second was apparently by some Libyans that followed the CIA agents to the annex, and shot at them.
And it was only the third where the attackers used heavier weapons such as mortars and fired at the CIA Annex again.
As for Secretary Clinton, it would be better if you took the statement in context so you would understand the real meaning.
As for the "warnings," the Ambassador was aware of them and chose to travel to Benghazi and declined the additional military security team.
So how is this the fault of State or the President?
I understand you are unable to answer questions, so I don't expect much in response.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jan 19, 2014, at 7:31 PM
From the report:
"Operations in Benghazi continued with little change even though the mission crossed some "tripwires" that should have led to reduction in personnel or the suspension of operations." - Fail.
""The U.S. government must not rely on local security in areas where its facilities are under high threat or where the host nation is not capable of providing adequate security." - Fail.
NY Times: "A stinging report by the Senate Intelligence Committee released Wednesday concluded that the attack 16 months ago that killed four Americans in Benghazi, Libya, could have been prevented, singling out the State Department for criticism for its failure to bolster security in response to INTELLIGENCE WARNINGS about a growing security crisis around the city." - Fail.
""But it is unsparing in its criticism of the State Department for failing to provide adequate security to the mission even as violence spiked in Benghazi in June 2012."
Take it up with the NY Times and Senate democrats Common. As usual you are left by yourself and a few brainless comments from comrade Spaniard - the atheist communist. Not a good sign...
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Jan 19, 2014, at 8:37 PM
"...personnel or the suspension of operations."
It was a CIA operation, talk to them.
"...must not rely on local security in areas..."
That was a decision of the Ambassador. DOD offered to continue a military security team.
"...could have been prevented,..."
Of course it could have been prevented by many different means. See the numerous posts above.
"...failing to provide adequate security to the mission..."
It was a CIA mission, not a State Department mission and it was the Ambassador chose to make a 24 hour trip.
So possibly you could answer these questions...
What was covered up?
How did the President cause the attack?
Blank response...
I suspected that would be the case.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jan 19, 2014, at 9:03 PM
It's the democrats report.
Blank response.
I suspected that would be the case.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Jan 19, 2014, at 9:05 PM
This is exactly what I have been saying all along. There was nothing that the President did that caused the attack.
As for prevention, there were numerous things that different people or agencies could have done in retrospect.
The President could have recalled Ambassadors in the region if we were too frightened to operate there.
The DOD could have tried to get the Ambassador's rejection of additional military security forces overruled.
Congress could have reinstated $300 million in State Department security funds that they had taken away.
The CIA could have tried to persuade the Ambassador to hold his meeting at the Annex or in Tripoli.
20/20 hindsight is great for finding solutions. The Administration has accepted ultimate responsibility but that does not equate to being blamed for causing the tragedy.
Vainly beating the bushes for scapegoats, trying to find nonexistent cover-ups, or attempting to assign blame based on seniority is the stuff of "witch hunts."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jan 20, 2014, at 7:48 AM
Common
What about the charade that went on for weeks when Obama was informed it was a terrorist attack while it was happening?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Jan 20, 2014, at 8:03 AM
This is exactly what I have been saying all along. There was nothing that the President did that caused the attack.-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jan 20, 2014, at 7:48 AM
That's why nobody answers your questions. You're talking to yourself. Nobody that I know of said the president caused the attack. You create false arguments so you can appear to be smart and winning a point.
It's all you have. Again, take it up with Senate democrats and the NY Times. I've been posting their damning comments and you accuse me of making things up. It's your party. It's your media.
Now go off and create a new argument with yourself. It's psychologically interesting to see you fight yourself.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Jan 20, 2014, at 9:14 AM
Pretty elaborate way of Dug saying "I lost, let's talk about something else."
OK, I accept your concession statement. Thanks.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jan 20, 2014, at 11:10 AM
Common,
What about my 8:03am question.... too tough for you?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Jan 20, 2014, at 11:16 AM
All questions re: Obama are too tough for Common. He completely ignored the statement he made up - his straw man and then he argued against himself. Disturbing... who said this Common?
"There was nothing that the President did that caused the attack."
I'll await another spin and refuse-to-answer response...
I haven't lost any argument on this. You're arguing with yourself most of the time and b) when you make a real point you're arguing with senate democrats and the NY Times, ABC news, etc. - the liberal media.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Jan 20, 2014, at 11:32 AM
"What about my 8:03am question...."
"Too tough?" No. What "charade?"
From day one after the attack it was referred to as an act of terror. The Intelligence Community identified the real possibility of demonstrations related to those at the Embassy in Cairo.
The report states that "There were effectively at least three different attacks against U.S. facilities in fewer than eight hours."
The first attack was by individuals that used diesel fuel to set the temporary mission facility on fire. These are the individuals that could easily have been incited by the Egypt attacks.
The second attack at the Annex was with small arms and RPG's and was repelled with no US losses.
The third attack included mortars that caused casualties.
Each of the attacks seemed to have been carried out by different groups. There would be no reason for the President to place the sole blame for the attacks on a single group with all of the unknown aspects of what really happened.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jan 20, 2014, at 1:16 PM
Why would I consider anyone on SO as "foe or enemy?"
Differences of opinion exist, and always will. I have no objection to people expressing their feelings. I find some of their conclusions rather strange, specifically ones that declare that the nation is spiraling downward into a socialist quagmire, from which we may never recover.
I also am well aware that the President has made mistakes in his administration, as have all Presidents, but also has numerous worthwhile accomplishments. So I come to his defense on these columns when a few decide that they can constantly deride any and everything he has done.
I have no problem with disagreements, but am not about to "knuckle under" because I happen to be outnumbered.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jan 20, 2014, at 4:31 PM
"...somebody being offended when this happens..."
I can assure you that no offense has been taken...
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jan 20, 2014, at 6:17 PM
I have no problem with disagreements, but am not about to "knuckle under" because I happen to be outnumbered.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jan 20, 2014, at 4:31 PM
But you were wrong.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Jan 20, 2014, at 6:19 PM
Everybody has his/her own opinion of this subject. I venture to guess nobody's mind has been changed. Can we move on to something eise? It's getting a little bit anoying.
-- Posted by left turn on Mon, Jan 20, 2014, at 6:22 PM
Can we move on to something eise? It's getting a little bit annoying. -- Posted by left turn on Mon, Jan 20, 2014, at 6:22 PM
I agree. Now that the Senate Democrats have lambasted Obama and Hillary I'm not sure there's much more worth discussing on this debacle.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Jan 20, 2014, at 7:54 PM
Lefty pal,couldn't agree more,just don't get used to it.✌️
-- Posted by rocknroll on Mon, Jan 20, 2014, at 8:04 PM
"...lambasted ???"
Perhaps someone will pull up the report and read it to Dug.
"....there's much more worth discussing on [his] debacle."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jan 20, 2014, at 10:45 PM
common, Regardless of what I spout off about on these threads of entertainment, I do find myself looking at both sides. Some times I can understand that I could be only a thought away from agreeing with you.
I thank my maker for that thought.:)
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Jan 20, 2014, at 11:20 PM
Menu
Producers of 60 Minutes admitted that their story was based on false information. Their "witness" was not there that night.
More failed "witch-hunting."
Replies (166)