myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Windsurfing Videos Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Benghazi-gate
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 55, 56, 57 ... 78, 79, 80  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
boggsman1



Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 3550
Location: at a computer

PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 2:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NW...you are a joker, really. The State Dept did an extensive investigation, and Darryl Issa interviewed the two admirals that led the investigation. But, guess what? he didnt call the Admirals to the house floor...why? probably because their findings didnt fit his agenda. Why isnt ISSA leading a Iran-Contra hearing? because he doesnt have anything....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 1693
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 2:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The State Dept. investigating themselves, need I say anything more?
Please.

_________________
I don't drink the 'cool' aid, I drink tequila, it's more honest.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
boggsman1



Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 3550
Location: at a computer

PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 3:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nw30 wrote:
The State Dept. investigating themselves, need I say anything more?
Please.

Dude, ISSA is full steam ahead, but guess what? he has nothing. Otherwise we would be in the middle of Iran-Contra II. BTW- The State Dept appointed two reputable Admirals to lead the investigation, I trust them..you should too.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 5809

PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 3:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You say you want the truth? I don't think so. What you guys want is a public crucifixion that you can be happy with. It's not going to happen, and sooner or later it will be time to move on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
keycocker



Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3353

PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 3:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I know for a fact that numerous Embassy people were killed in tne Bush administration and you never heard of it, but I did because I hang with Embassy people at times.
I also know two US Embassy contractors were killed on Fri.
You care nothing about them because you can't blame them on Obama.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
keycocker



Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3353

PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 3:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Do you find the" no big deal " attitude among the Right about the 19 dead Embassy people from the Bush years to now astonishing?
In the Fox world they are just meat.
Do you find that astonishing?
NW ask yourself why on Fox those people dont matter, all the testimony on Behghazi doesn't exist,
They are playing the public to sell soap powder.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5202

PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 3:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The man who only pays attention to things like the Drudge Report says:

Quote:
Why all the defensive ruckus over finding the truth over this terrorist attack?


As Jack says, you can't handle the truth. But you have absolutely no interest in it. You just want to be told lies that allow you to continue hating Obama. But racism is dead. Oh I wish I could believe you NW--but you have no credibility.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 1471

PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 4:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As I have said before, Benghazi would be nothing but a very sad, but a no big deal issue if it weren't for the "it was the tape" attempt to re-direct blame for the attack. That was really, really stupid, and one has to wonder what else is/was going on. There also continues to be a "lack of sharing" of critical information regarding the attack, but for what reason?

Maybe it is nothing as the left would like us to believe. However, there is enough stink to make the skeptics wonder where they are hiding the crap.

Since Hillary will be running for Pres., the left will do anything and everything to keep her from getting touched by the smell. If there was a cover up, you can bet it is now a REALLY BIG cover up. We will probably never know the full story.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 5809

PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

techno900, you remember all the lies and BS we heard from President Reagan and a notable cast of other shady characters in the Iran Contra scandals? Needless to say, I was pissed that the truth was never revealed, and that justice wasn't properly served. The situation stunk so bad, it was absolutely atrocious. What did you think about it? I'm willing to guess that you weren't that upset at all. With a lot of Republicans, Ronald Reagan was a god.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5202

PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 11:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No comment required:


Quote:
By Dana Milbank, Published: September 16

Why do people claim that the Benghazi scandal is “phony”?

To answer that, let’s check in with the people fanning the controversy. They assembled Monday morning at the Heritage Foundation, convened by a conservative group to listen to Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) and several experts on the terrorist attack that killed four Americans in the Libyan city last year.

Some of those onstage posed questions about Benghazi that pointed to serious, if not scandalous, mistakes the government made before and during the attack. But those legitimate questions were undermined by other participants who rolled around the grassy knoll.

The lunacy began when Cliff Kincaid, a leader of Accuracy in Media, the group holding the gathering, suggested that the Obama administration is covering up events regarding Benghazi because the CIA operation there was secretly arming the enemy. “This administration has a policy of supporting al-Qaeda, the same people behind the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11,” he declared.

One of the panelists, former CIA officer Clare Lopez, picked up the theme. “Have we flipped our policy,” she asked, “to where we are placing the power, the influence, the might, diplomatic assets, military assets, intelligence assets, financial assets, at the service of al-Qaeda in the Middle East to bring to power forces of Islamic jihad? . . . Are we involved in the Middle East to help the forces of Islam, of al-Qaeda, of the Muslim Brotherhood, of jihad and sharia?”

Wolf’s reply: “I think Clare makes a very good point.” And this is the man leading the effort to create a “select committee” to investigate Benghazi.

So the Obama administration, which dispatched Osama bin Laden and decimated al-Qaeda with drone strikes, is now in cahoots with the terrorist network? Sorry, Congressman. I’ve got an appointment back on Earth.

It’s a pity that those seeking answers on Benghazi can’t focus on what really matters: Could anything have been done to prevent the deaths of the four men lost in Benghazi that night? And what can be done to make sure such a thing never happens again?

Instead, the Benghazi scandal-seekers are determined to link Hillary Clinton to the inadequate security at the diplomatic outpost (ignoring the obvious fact that a secretary of state doesn’t make security decisions for individual facilities) and the bogus “talking points” presented by then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice in the days after the attack (as though more accurate talking points might have retroactively saved lives).

At least one participant at the Heritage gathering seemed to have the right perspective. Retired Gen. Paul Vallely wasn’t concerned about after-the-fact talking points or al-Qaeda conspiracies or whether Clinton signed diplomatic cables about security requests. He wanted to know why the U.S. military didn’t at least try to get reinforcements to the besieged Americans in Benghazi.

“Obviously there was not even an attempt at a rescue,” he told the 40 people in the audience. “That’s the bottom line of it all.” Vallely, a frequent critic of President Obama, said he doesn’t believe administration claims that there wasn’t enough time to send help to Benghazi.

Certainly, any such help would have been too late for Ambassador Chris Stevens and his colleague Sean Smith, who were killed in the early moments of the attack. It may not have saved security personnel Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty either, he acknowledged, “but you don’t know until you try.”

An investigation led by Thomas Pickering and former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Mike Mullen concluded that “there simply was not enough time given the speed of the attacks for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference.” Even if that’s true, nobody knew at the start of the siege how long it would last. Why didn’t they at least try?

But investigators haven’t shown such discipline, which makes it easy to discredit the inquiry. A report issued Monday by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who leads the congressional investigation of Benghazi, mentions Clinton 33 times — but essentially ignores Vallely’s question.

Maybe that’s because activists pushing for the inquiry are distracted by wild theories. At the Heritage event, Lopez speculated that the administration covered up the Benghazi events because Obama wants to make it illegal to criticize Islam.

Retired Col. Dick Brauer Jr. spun the notion that the military was told to stand down by presidential friend Valerie Jarrett, or perhaps Tommy Vietor, then a White House spokesman.

And Wolf found it objectionable that “Hillary Clinton is now making $200,000 a speech.”

Scandalous
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 55, 56, 57 ... 78, 79, 80  Next
Page 56 of 80

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group