Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!!!!!

Postby Jack Roper » Fri May 09, 2014 6:46 pm

The right wingers (read Fox News and their true believers) would have you believe there is a vast conspiracy by the Obama Administration to cover-up the Benghazi raid that killed four Americans in 2012. The House Republicans are even going so far as to set up another special committee to "investigate" the truth about this foreign policy failure, caused, incidentally by the failure of the Republican House to adequately fund security at American Embassies and Consulate office for years prior to this event--but hey, let's not bring THAT up.

Their focus is on some very tightly orchestrated questions, as outlined in this excellent article, which, oh dear, have already been answered several times. No matter, the Republicans need to have an issue that get's their base riled.

The Already Asked-And-Answered Questions Fox Wants To Know From The Benghazi Select Committee

Research May 7, 2014 4:03 PM EDT ››› OLIVIA KITTEL, MICHELLE LEUNG, & SAMANTHA WYATT

Fox News has pushed reset on many of its favorite Benghazi myths that have already been put to rest in the wake of the recently released Rhodes email and the House GOP's announcement of the formation of a Select Committee to investigate the attacks.

QUESTION: Who Changed The Talking Points?

QUESTION: Why Blame The Attacks On A Video?

QUESTION: Where Was President Obama During The Attacks?

QUESTION: Why Wasn't More Done To Rescue Americans?

QUESTION: Why Won't Congress Consider Eyewitnesses In Benghazi Investigations?

White House Released Email Used To Prepare Susan Rice For Sunday Talk Shows

NY Times: White House Releases Emails Sent To Susan Rice Before Media Appearances. On April 30 The New York Times reported that the White House had released an email dated September 14, 2012, from Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes to other national security aides including then-ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, that included "goals for Ms. Rice's appearances on the shows and advice on how to discuss the subject of the protests that were raging in Libya and at other American diplomatic posts in the Middle East" during appearances on the Sunday talk shows. [The New York Times, 4/30/14]

Right-Wing Media Use Manufactured Scandal Over Email To Revive Already-Answered Questions

QUESTION: Who Changed The Talking Points?

Gretchen Carlson: Benghazi Asks Whether Talking Points Were Deliberately Changed. During an interview with Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) on the May 2 edition of The Real Story, host Gretchen Carlson argued that the most important information about Benghazi comes down to, "Did anyone deliberately change the talking points, how far up did that go?" [Fox News, The Real Story, 5/2/14]

Steve Hayes: A Second Set Of Talking Points Were Created By White House. On the May 2 edition of America's Newsroom, Fox contributor Steve Hayes claimed, "There were in effect two sets of talking points, one that was produced by the intelligence community that was edited with heavy input from the White House, the State Department, and others and that ultimately was produced for Capitol Hill, and on the other hand you have this second set of talking points that was produced by the White House for Susan Rice that placed heavy emphasis on the video." [Fox News, America's Newsroom, 5/2/14]

Neil Cavuto: There Was An "Orchestrated Effort To Present Talking Points That Were Based On Lies." During an interview with Rep. Cohen (D-TN) on the May 5 edition of Fox News' Your World, host Neil Cavuto argued that the Rhodes email "at least showed an orchestrated effort to present talking points that were based on lies." [Fox News, Your World with Neil Cavuto, 5/5/14]

ANSWER: There Were No Efforts To Alter Talking Points For Political Purposes

Senate Select Committee On Intelligence: "Talking Points Went Through The Normal Interagency Coordination Process." The Senate Committee on Intelligence review determined there was no effort by the administration to cover-up or alter the talking points for political purposes:


The Majority concludes that the interagency coordination process on the talking points followed normal, but rushed coordination procedures and that there were no efforts by the White House or any other Executive Branch entities to "cover-up" facts or make alterations for political purposes. Indeed, former CIA Director David Petraeus testified to the Committee on November 16, 2012, "They went through the normal process that talking points-unclassified public talking points-go through." In fact, the purpose of the National Security Council (NSC) is to coordinate the many national security agencies of the government, especially when information about a terrorist attack is flowing in and being analyzed quickly-and the NSC used this role appropriately in the case of the talking points coordination. Furthermore, such coordination processes were also standardized, often at the urging of Congress, following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks with the explicit goal of reducing information "stovepipes" between and among agencies. [Review Of The Terrorist Attacks On U.S. Facilities In Benghazi, Libya, September 11-12, 2012, U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 1/15/14]

Slate's Weigel: Rhodes Email Relied On CIA Talking Points. Laying out a timeline of events, Slate's David Weigel pointed out that the Rhodes email came "hours after the CIA and State Department were urging that the assault on the U.S. consulate be blamed on a protest." Weigel added that "it's just lazy journalism or lazy politicking to blame Rhodes for a talking point that was fed from the CIA." [Slate, 4/30/14]

Email Consistent With Intelligence Reports At The Time. The email issued by Rhodes, which advised Rice on her upcoming appearances, provided information about global protests and said specifically about the attack, "the currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US Consulate and subsequently its annex." The language used by Rhodes is nearly identical to the initial draft of the CIA talking points, and was consistent with the intelligence community. [Media Matters, 4/29/14]

QUESTION: Why Blame The Attacks On A Video?

Bill O'Reilly: Everyone "Knew It Was Not A Spontaneous Demonstration Within Hours." On the May 1 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly asserted that during the attacks "pretty much everyone else directly involved with the Benghazi attack knew it was not a spontaneous demonstrations [sic] within hours." [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 5/1/14]

Brit Hume: "There Was Never Anyone" In The Intelligence Community Who Thought "This Video Has Anything To Do With Triggering The Benghazi Attack." On the May 5 edition of America's Newsroom, Fox analyst Brit Hume claimed that "there was never anyone in the intelligence chain that we know of or anybody in the military command that we know of or anybody on the ground from the state department that we know of who thought these talking points or this video had anything to do with triggering the Benghazi attack." [Fox News, America's Newsroom, 5/5/14]

Bret Baier: "The Administration Knew From The Beginning The Benghazi Terror Attacks Were Not The Result Of Outrage Over A Video." Bret Baier opened the May 1 edition of Special Report by claiming that testimony from a former administration official proved that "the Administration knew from the beginning the Benghazi terror attacks were not the result of outrage over a video." [Fox News, Special Report, 5/1/13]

Chris Wallace: "This Just Adds To The Question Of Why CIA Officials Would Say It Was A Spontaneous Protest In The Talking Points." On the May 1 edition of Happening Now, Fox host and correspondent Chris Wallace claimed that "there are a lot of people the accountability review board did speak to" who "absolutely did not think this was a protest as early as 3:15 in the morning. This just adds to the question of why CIA officials would say it was a spontaneous protest in the talking points." [Fox News, Happening Now, 5/1/13]

ANSWER: Intelligence At The Time Linked Video To Attacks

Senate Select Committee On Intelligence: Intel Reports Linked Inflammatory Video To Benghazi Attack. A Senate Select Committee on Intelligence found that "some intelligence suggests" an inflammatory video linked to violent protests around the region led terror groups to conduct "similar attacks with advanced warning":


It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attacks or whether extremist group leaders directed their members to participate. Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day's violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video, suggesting that these and other terrorist groups could conduct similar attacks with little advance warning. [Review Of The Terrorist Attacks On U.S. Facilities In Benghazi, Libya, September 11-12, 2012, U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 1/15/14]

Former CIA Acting Director Believed At The Time Video Might Have Motivated Attack. Former CIA acting director Mike Morrell has testified that the CIA chief of station in Libya believed at the time that the video might have motivated the attackers. [The Daily Beast, 4/2/14]

Cairo Protests Cited By CIA Talking Points Were Sparked By The Anti-Islam Video. The "protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo" mentioned in both versions of the CIA talking points were part of a global reaction to the anti-Islam video. A September 14 New York Times article reported "Anti-American rage that began this week over a video insult to Islam spread to nearly 20 countries across the Middle East and beyond on Friday, with violent and sometimes deadly protests." The article went on to note that protesters "had penetrated the perimeters of the American Embassies in the Tunisian and Sudanese capitals, and said that 65 embassies or consulates around the world had issued emergency messages about threats of violence." [The New York Times, 9/14/12]

Slate's Dickerson: Emails Show "White House Believed The Story They Were Pushing." Slate chief political correspondent John Dickerson wrote that while the newly released documents "clearly show that the White House pushed the video story," they also show "proof that the White House believed the story they were pushing," given that the CIA "made spontaneity its first and most durable claim that weekend" by initially blaming the video. [Slate, 4/30/14]

QUESTION: Where Was President Obama During The Attacks?

Laura Ingraham: "We Don't Even Have Photos Of Obama" From The Night Of The Benghazi Attacks. On the May 2 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, Fox contributor Laura Ingraham guest hosted and claimed that no one had any photos of President Obama to prove where he was the night of the Benghazi attacks in Libya:


INGRAHAM: They released a photo after the killing of bin Laden pretty quickly from the situation room, but we don't have any photos from the other night, the September, 11 2012. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 5/2/14]

Steve Doocy: Where Was The President The Night Of The Attacks? On the May 2 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy claimed that people were trying to get an answer for where President Obama was the night of the attacks:


DOOCY: Also very troubling is, and people have been trying to get an answer for this for twenty months, where was the president the night of the attacks? [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/2/14]

Greta Van Susteren: "The White House Won't Tell Us" Where Obama Was The Night Of The Attacks. On May 5, On The Record host Greta Van Susteren claimed that a yet-unanswered question surrounding the Benghazi attacks is "where was President Obama during the deadly terror attack?" On her blog, she argued, "The only reason I want to know where the President was that night is because the White House won't tell us. So..where was he? doing what?" [Fox News, On the Record, 5/5/14; Greta Wire, 5/5/14]

ANSWER: Obama Was In The Oval Office And His Staff Was Fully Engaged Throughout The Attack

Obama Was In The Oval Office During Attacks. A photo that has been available for over a year on the White House Flikr page shows President Obama in the Oval Office during the September 2012 attacks:

Obama in Oval Office[Flickr.com, accessed 5/7/14]

Huffington Post: "The President Told Them To Deploy Forces As Quickly As Possible." The Huffington Post reported that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey were meeting with President Obama when they learned of the attack and the president responded immediately:


Several committee Republicans pressed Panetta and Dempsey about their discussions with President Barack Obama on that fateful day and his level of involvement, suggesting that after the initial conversation the commander in chief was disengaged as Americans died.

Panetta said he and Dempsey were meeting with Obama when they first learned of the Libya assault. He said the president told them to deploy forces as quickly as possible. [The Huffington Post, 2/7/13]

Dempsey: Obama's Staff "Was Engaged With The National Military Command Center Pretty Constantly" Throughout The Attack. Dempsey testified during a February 7 congressional hearing that the president's staff was engaged with the military command center constantly during the attack, "which is the way it would normally work":


SEN. KELLY AYOTTE (R-NH): But just to be clear, that night he didn't ask you what assets we had available and how quickly they could respond and how quickly we could help those people there -

PANETTA: No. I think the biggest problem that night, Senator, is that nobody knew really what was going on there.

AYOTTE: And there was no follow up during the night, at least from the White House directly?

PANETTA: No. No, there wasn't.

DEMPSEY: I would, if I could just, to correct one thing. I wouldn't say there was no follow-up from the White House. There was no follow-up, to my knowledge, with the president. But his staff was engaged with the national military command center pretty constantly through the period, which is the way it would normally work.

AYOTTE: But no direct communication from him?

DEMPSEY: Not on my part, no. [C-SPAN, 2/7/13, via Media Matters]

QUESTION: Why Wasn't More Done To Rescue Americans?

Fox & Friends Asks "Why Rescue Operations Were Never Put Into Play?" During Fox & Friends' May 1 broadcast co-host Brian Kilmeade asked "Can you imagine if there's some other communication that reveals why rescue operations were never put into play?" [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/1/14]

On Fox, Sharyl Attkisson Accuses White House Of Failing To Send Help During Attacks. On the May 1 edition of Fox News' On The Record with Greta Van Susteren former CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson said that "some attempts weren't made" to rescue American personnel in Benghazi and that closed door testimony from military officials "belies the claim that everything was done that could have been done." [Fox News, On The Record, 5/1/14]

O'Reilly Claims Obama Never Ordered Military To Assist In Benghazi. During his May 1 edition of The O'Reilly Factor host Bill O'Reilly said that during the attacks "[t]here wasn't anybody who said do something. That had to come from President Obama, through Leon Panetta ... it didn't happen." [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 5/1/14]

KT McFarland: "We Didn't Try To Rescue" Americans In Benghazi. On the May 1 edition of Happening Now contributor KT McFarland claimed there was no rescue effort made to save Americans in Benghazi. She also wondered if the administration didn't rescue Americans to increase Obama's chances at reelection, and if Obama's administration lied about the attack after for similar political reasons:


MCFARLAND: What it looks like is that the administration did not provide adequate security. We didn't try to rescue those people when they were under attack. And after the fact we covered up the reasons for the attack.

And the question I've got is: who made those decisions and why did they make those decisions? Were they politically motivated? Did the administration decide it wasn't going to rescue americans because it didn't fit in to their political re-election narrative? And after the fact, when it was pretty clear that Americans were under attack by a terrorist group, did they cover up and lie about it again because they wanted to win an election?" [Fox News, Happening Now, 5/1/14]

ANSWER: Obama Administration, Military Did Everything Within Their Power

Senate Select Committee On Intelligence: Committee Found No Evidence Of Intentional Delay Or Obstruction By The Chief Of Base Or Any Other Party. A Senate Committee on Intelligence review of the Benghazi attacks found no evidence of a "stand down" order given to responding units during the attack:


The Committee explored claims that there was a "stand down" order given to the security team at the Annex. Although some members of the security team expressed frustration that they were unable to respond more quickly to the Mission compound, 12 the Committee found no evidence of intentional delay or obstruction by the Chief of Base or any other party. The Committee has reviewed the allegations that U.S. personnel, including in the IC (Intelligence Community) 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.

[...]

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. [Review Of The Terrorist Attacks On U.S. Facilities In Benghazi, Libya, September 11-12, 2012, U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 1/15/14]

Senate Select Committee On Intelligence: No Military Resources Could Have Provided Additional Support. A Senate Committee on Intelligence found that military assets were not in place to respond in time:


According to Major General Darryl Roberson, Vice Director of Operations for the Joint Staff: There were no ships available to provide any support that were anywhere close to the facility at Benghazi. The assets that we had available were Strike Eagles loaded with live weapons that could have responded, but they were located in Djibouti, which is the equivalent of the distance between here [Washington D.C.] and Los Angeles. The other fighters that might have been available were located in Aviano, Italy. They were not loaded with weapons. They were not on an alert status. We would've had to build weapons, load weapons, get tankers to support it, and get it there. There was no way that we were going to be able to do that. Unfortunately, there was not a carrier in the Mediterranean that could have been able to support; the assets that we mobilized immediately were the only assets we had available to try to support.

[...]

There have been congressional and public questions about why military assets were not used from the U.S. military base in Souda Bay, Crete. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 7, 2013, that (1) the military asset in Souda Bay, Crete, "wasn't the right tool for the particular threat we faced;" (2) " ... the aircraft were not among the forces that we had at heightened alert;" and (3) the "boots-on-the ground capabilities" that DoD deployed would have arrived too late, so they did not deploy to Benghazi. [Review Of The Terrorist Attacks On U.S. Facilities In Benghazi, Libya, September 11-12, 2012, U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 1/15/14]

ANSWER: Reinforcements Were Dispatched From Tripoli And Elsewhere In Benghazi

Senate Select Committee On Intelligence: Personnel At Nearby CIA Annex Came To Compound's Aid. The Senate Committee on Intelligence review found that the groups responding to the Benghazi attack were credited with saving lives of the personnel in diplomatic facility:


Although there was no formal written agreement about how security should be handled between the two facilities in Benghazi, there was a common understanding that each group would come to the other's aid if attacked, which is what happened the night of September 11, 2012.102 IC personnel immediately came to the aid of their colleagues at the Temporary Mission Facility, and fought bravely to secure TMF [The Mission Facility] personnel and their own Annex facility. The Committee interviewed U.S. personnel in Benghazi that night, and they credited their lives being saved to the personnel who responded to the attacks. [Review Of The Terrorist Attacks On U.S. Facilities In Benghazi, Libya, September 11-12, 2012, U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 1/15/14]

AP: Six-Member Quick Reaction Team And 60 Libyan Militiamen In Benghazi Responded To The Attack. The AP reported that a "six-member quick reaction security team arrived on the scene from its compound across town, the officials said. About 60 Libyan militiamen accompanied the team, and it again tried to secure a perimeter around [Ambassador Chris] Stevens' building, taking turns searching inside." [Associated Press, 10/10/12, via The Denver Post]

AP: Reinforcements From Embassy In Tripoli Arrived The Same Night. The quick-response team returned to its compound across town and the same night, a "team of reinforcements from the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli arrived on a chartered aircraft at the Benghazi airport and reached the security compound," the AP explained. [Associated Press, 10/10/12, via The Denver Post]

Wash. Post's Ignatius: Reinforcements From Tripoli Arrived Before Second Attack In Benghazi. Washington Post foreign affairs columnist David Ignatius described a "detailed CIA timeline" of the events that occurred during the attack in Benghazi, which shows that the reinforcements sent by the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli arrived on the scene in Benghazi prior to the second attack of the night being launched:


·11:56 p.m.: CIA officers at the annex are attacked by a rocket-propelled grenade and small arms. Sporadic attacks continue for about another hour. The attacks stop at 1:01 a.m., and some assume the fight is over.

·1:15 a.m.: CIA reinforcements arrive on a 45-minute flight from Tripoli in a plane they've hastily chartered. The Tripoli team includes four GRS security officers, a CIA case officer and two U.S. military personnel on loan to the agency. They don't leave the Benghazi airport until 4:30 a.m. The delay is caused by negotiations with Libyan authorities over permission to leave the airport; obtaining vehicles; and the need to frame a clear mission plan. The first idea is to go to a Benghazi hospital to recover Stevens, who they rightly suspect is already dead. But the hospital is surrounded by the al-Qaeda-linked Ansar al-Shariah militia that mounted the consulate attack.

·5:04 a.m.: The team from Tripoli arrives at the CIA base. Glen Doherty, one of the GRS men from Tripoli, goes to the roof and joins Woods in firing positions.

·5:15 a.m.: A new Libyan assault begins, this time with mortars. Two rounds miss and the next three hit the roof. The rooftop defenders never "laser the mortars," as has been reported. They don't know they're in place until the indirect fire begins, nor are they observed by the drone overhead. The defenders have focused their laser sites earlier on several Libyan attackers, as warnings not to fire. At 5:26 the attack is over. Woods and Doherty are dead and two others are wounded. [The Washington Post, 11/1/12]

ANSWER: Secretary Panetta Said U.S. Military Did Not Have Enough Information In Time To Act

CBS/AP: Panetta Says U.S. Military Did Not Intervene Because Attack "Was Over Before The U.S. Ha[d] Sufficient Information On Which To Act." An October 25 article by CBS News and the Associated Press reported that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters that the U.S. military "was prepared to respond" to the Benghazi attack "but did not do so because it lacked what he called 'real-time information." The article quoted Panetta as saying, "You don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on ... (We) felt we could not put forces at risk in that situation." Panetta also told reporters, "It was really over before we had the opportunity to really know what was happening." [CBS/Associated Press, 10/25/12]

Additional Reinforcements Would Not Have Been Able To Get To Benghazi Before The Second Attack Was Concluded. In an interview, Former Deputy Chief of Mission in Libya Gregory Hicks said that a flight that special forces were scheduled to take, but did not, would have taken off after 6:00 a.m., local time -- approximately 45 minutes after the attack at the CIA annex that killed two people. [Media Matters, 5/7/13]

QUESTION: Why Won't Congress Consider Eyewitnesses In Benghazi Investigations?

Steve Doocy: The Government "Made It Impossible" For Congress To Talk To Benghazi Witnesses. During an interview with Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) on the May 7 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy claimed that the administration had "made it impossible" for congress to talk to witnesses of the Benghazi attack:


DOOCY: They've also made it impossible for to you talk to the people who were there. It sounds like -- from what we've heard some of you guys talk about -- these guys have been threatened with their jobs. If you say anything, there goes your pension. We might sue you. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/7/14]

Brian Kilmeade: "Eyewitness Accounts" Are Not Being Considered In Benghazi Testimonies. On the April 7 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade argued that "eyewitness accounts" were not considered in Benghazi investigations that instead deferred to analysts. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/2/14]

ANSWER: Benghazi Survivors Have Testified Before Congress

LA Times: Two "Key Witnesses" Were "Grilled For Hours" On Capitol Hill. According to an October 28, 2013 report in the Los Angeles Times, "Two of the Justice Department's key witnesses in last year's terrorist attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, were summoned to Capitol Hill this month and grilled for hours in separate legal depositions" by House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA):


Two of the Justice Department's key witnesses in last year's terrorist attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, were summoned to Capitol Hill this month and grilled for hours in separate legal depositions.

[...]

Issa, mounting his own congressional investigation, learned the agents' names in May, and in September began pushing for access to them. The agents are Alec Henderson, who was stationed in Benghazi, and John Martinec, then based in Tripoli. [Los Angeles Times, 10/28/13]

LA Times: Rep. Issa Learned Identity Of Survivors Through Previous Benghazi Testimony. According to the October 28 Los Angeles Times article, Issa learned the identities of the witnesses through former Deputy Chief of Mission Gregory Hicks, who had been stationed in Tripoli during the attack:


The powerful Republican House chairman learned the identities of the three agents from Gregory Hicks, the former deputy chief of mission in Libya, who testified before the committee.

Hicks revealed that "Martinec ran into my villa [in Tripoli] yelling, 'Greg, Greg, the consulate's under attack.'" He said Martinec had been in phone contact with Henderson in Benghazi, and that Henderson told Martinec "the consulate had been breached and there were at least 20 hostile individuals armed in the compound." [Los Angeles Times, 10/28/13]

Daily Beast: Multiple CIA Officers Who Were At The Base During The Attack Testified Before Congress. According to a May 24 report by The Daily Beast, multiple CIA officers who were in Benghazi at the time of the attack have already testified before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence:


On Wednesday, Deputy CIA Director Mike Morell -- along with CIA officers who were at the agency's Benghazi base on the night of the attack -- testified at a classified hearing before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. In the closed hearing, according to U.S. officials with knowledge of the proceedings, Morell was asked by Republican members about how the second wave of attackers knew to go to the CIA annex, which was a mile away from the diplomatic mission. Morell responded that at this point the CIA did not know whether the attackers had known the location of the annex or learned about it on the evening of the attack, according to these sources. [The Daily Beast, 5/24/13]

http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/0 ... -wa/199208

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/05/09 ... ilt/199248

Re: Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!!!!!

Postby drawscore » Fri May 09, 2014 11:02 pm

Jack, there's a thing called "The KISS Principle." Obviously, it is something with which you are unfamiliar.

Too much information; too long a read. Most of us, either right or left, are going to see that, read less than a tenth of it, and move on to something else.

However I will address one point: QUESTION: Why Won't Congress Consider Eyewitnesses In Benghazi Investigations?

Congress undoubtedly would have, if the Obama administration had not forced the witnesses to sign non-disclosure agreements and/or had made them available to the investigating congressional committees.

Oh, and left wing sites, especially ones like "Media Matters," are about as credible to those of us on the right, as "Newsmax" would be to those on the left. Please try and find sites with a greater degree of objectivity. BBC America, for one.

Drawscore

Re: Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!!!!!

Postby misterg792000 » Sat May 10, 2014 7:50 am

drawscore wrote:Jack, there's a thing called "The KISS Principle." Obviously, it is something with which you are unfamiliar.


...seriously? How old are you, anyway? I'm sorry, but real discourse between adult human beings requires more than Talking Points. Between your "screw you guys I'm going home (right after I throw out a bunch of statements I'm unwilling or unable to defend)" in the Fox News thread and whining "that's too long I'm not reading it" in this one, one can only conclude that "debate" truly is like playing chess with a pigeon; all you do is knock the pieces over, shit on the board, then fly away. This kind of proud, willful ignorance is really a sight to behold.

drawscore wrote:However I will address one point:


You still haven't answered my question: what, exactly, is being "covered up"?

drawscore wrote:Oh, and left wing sites, especially ones like "Media Matters," are about as credible to those of us on the right, as "Newsmax" would be to those on the left.


Credibility has nothing to do with political leanings; otherwise a rag like WorldNetDaily would be considered equally as credible as the National Review. If you had an attention span longer than five seconds though, you may have noticed the numerous citations sprinkled throughout.

Re: Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!!!!!

Postby Jack Roper » Sat May 10, 2014 4:02 pm

Thank you Misterg. Your analogy to the pigeon and the chessboard is brilliant. Drawscore is always acting like a shit-filled pigeon, which is why he is worthy of disdain and someone to ignore. The validity of this piece is in all of the citations and quotes, something only a fool would "kiss" off. Notice he did not even read the response to the question he raised. Maybe he could get a job on the House Committee on Unbenghazi Acitivity.

Re: Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!!!!!

Postby drawscore » Sat May 10, 2014 11:51 pm

Someone else unfamiliar with the KISS principle. For the benefit of those unaware, it's an acronym (which is why it was in all caps). It stands for "Keep It Simple, Stupid!" It means to keep it short and sweet. Unless you are telling a story, a long post is not going to keep the attention of the reader. Better to make several short posts, each addressing one or two points, than one long one, addressing several. Even those that agree with you, probably won't read past the fourth paragraph. Sixth, at best, especially if one disagrees with it. (But there will be some exceptions.)

Drawscore

1378430_304815479659277_776583488_n-500x213.jpg

Re: Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!!!!!

Postby Chris12 » Sun May 11, 2014 9:16 am

Okay i admit its a bit long but in general one liners are overrated, especially in regards to politics.

Re: Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!!!!!

Postby misterg792000 » Sun May 11, 2014 5:32 pm

drawscore wrote:Someone else unfamiliar with the KISS principle. For the benefit of those unaware, it's an acronym (which is why it was in all caps). It stands for "Keep It Simple, Stupid!" It means to keep it short and sweet.


We're all aware of what it means; you seem to be confused and think it applies in this case. Which is made all the more ludicrous by the fact that you respond with "whether that actually addressed any of my statements or not, it was too long and I didn't read it, ergo since I willfully ignored this information it doesn't count." Again, how old are you?

You still haven't answered my question.

Re: Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!!!!!

Postby drawscore » Sun May 11, 2014 6:46 pm

State your question

Drawscore

Re: Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!!!!!

Postby misterg792000 » Mon May 12, 2014 8:43 am

drawscore wrote:State your question

Drawscore


I have asked you three times what, exactly, is being "covered up" that 13 hearings, 50 briefings, and 25,000 pages of documents has not uncovered. This makes number 4.

Re: Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!!!!!

Postby drawscore » Mon May 12, 2014 4:20 pm

>>>I have asked you three times what, exactly, is being "covered up" that 13 hearings, 50 briefings, and 25,000 pages of documents has not uncovered. This makes number 4.<<<

The truth.

Democrats have blocked inquiries in the senate, and have stonewalled in the house. They may have produced "25,000 pages of documents," but key documents have been withheld. A FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) suit had to be filed by an outside organization (Judicial Watch) to pry these documents loose.

The Democrats have no interest in finding the truth, because it would be politically harmful to them, especially if it came out prior to the mid-term elections. And there are far too many people who do not hold political office, who are also uninterested in the truth. These are the ones that are so ideologically brainwashed, that they would vote for Adolf Hitler if he was on the ballot, and had a "D" next to his name.

Like Trey Gowdy said, "If we're wrong (Republicans), we'll pay for it." Of course, if the Democrats are wrong, they will be the ones paying for it in November.

And tell me, what is wrong with this picture: Lois Lerner has been held in contempt of congress. The contempt citation has been sent to the US attorney for DC, who works for Eric Holder (appointed by Obama), and who has also been appointed to his position by Obama. The law leaves no wiggle room. It says a grand jury SHALL be convened. But, since the US attorney ignored the law when his boss (Holder) was held in contempt of congress, what are the chances he will convene a grand jury for another Obama official? Any conflict of interest here at all?

Now, any other questions?

Drawscore

Re: Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!!!!!

Postby misterg792000 » Mon May 12, 2014 6:38 pm

drawscore wrote:>>>I have asked you three times what, exactly, is being "covered up" that 13 hearings, 50 briefings, and 25,000 pages of documents has not uncovered. This makes number 4.<<<

The truth.


....OK, this will make number 5. What is this "truth" that is being covered up? Or is it, as I suspect, a vague way of saying "until they come to the conclusions I want them to"? Exactly how many hearings have to come to the same conclusion before you accept that, whether you like it or lump it, you were wrong?

drawscore wrote:Democrats have blocked inquiries in the senate, and have stonewalled in the house


...and yet, 13 hearings and 50 briefings have taken place. Yep, that sure is some fine obstructionism.

drawscore wrote:The Democrats have no interest in finding the truth, because it would be politically harmful to them, especially if it came out prior to the mid-term elections.


Yes, this nebulous, vague "truth", which again seems to be defined by you as "anything which confirms my existing bias." I ask again, what possible reason does the GOP have to fixate on this particular attack, while never inquiring about the 11 embassy/consulate attacks 2001-2008, the faulty/doctored intelligence that resulted in the death of 1,000x more Americans in Iraq, or the complete and utter failure of the National Security apparatus to even *attempt* to prevent an attack that killed 2,700+ Americans with ample intelligence beforehand if they're so concerned about American lives?

The answer: life is cheap, getting that lousy no good uppity ni-...uh, "socialist" to pay for his imagined crimes is what's truly important. More blood for the blood God, kill your parents.

The Actual Truth: after making several suicidal attempts at overturning the ACA, which has managed to become fairly popular and successful, the noise machine needs a distraction so that their base forgets all about it.

drawscore wrote: And there are far too many people who do not hold political office, who are also uninterested in the truth. These are the ones that are so ideologically brainwashed, that they would vote for Adolf Hitler if he was on the ballot, and had a "D" next to his name.


You say this again, as if this imaginary scenario you pulled out has any bearing on reality and wasn't dumb enough the first time.

drawscore wrote:Now, any other questions?


Yes, even though you still haven't answered the first one; why is literally everything that comes out of your mouth straight out of the Hannity/Limbaugh/Fox News daily talking points? Do you actually have *any* other source of information?

Re: Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!!!!!

Postby drawscore » Tue May 13, 2014 1:58 pm

When the Benghazi attack occurred, the Obama administration went into overdrive, blaming the attack on some obscure internet video, when they knew damn well, it was a coordinated terrorist attack. When the bodies arrived at Dover AFB, both Clinton and Obama lied to the faces of the family members on hand to receive the remains of their loved ones. That's the truth. That's what this bunch of worthless wastes of skin tried to hide, aided by the lapdog media, and Obama's adoring minions in congress. That's what they keep trying to hide and/or divert attention away from.

>>>...and yet, 13 hearings and 50 briefings have taken place. Yep, that sure is some fine obstructionism.<<<

And all in different committees, many in the senate, where Democrats hold sway. Now, it's just one, under the leadership of a former federal prosecutor, who has publicly said "If we (Republicans) are wrong, then we will pay for it, as we should." Doesn't sound like someone on a political witch hunt. My experience, is that the ones that bitch and whine the loudest, are the ones with the most to fear.

>>>Yes, this nebulous, vague "truth", which again seems to be defined by you as "anything which confirms my existing bias." I ask again, what possible reason does the GOP have to fixate on this particular attack, while never inquiring about the 11 embassy/consulate attacks 2001-2008, the faulty/doctored intelligence that resulted in the death of 1,000x more Americans in Iraq, or the complete and utter failure of the National Security apparatus to even *attempt* to prevent an attack that killed 2,700+ Americans with ample intelligence beforehand if they're so concerned about American lives?<<<

And you don't want the answers, because they would fly in the face of YOUR existing bias. And we both know it. And why do the Republicans "fixate" on it? Perhaps to find out why Clinton, Rice, and Obama lied about it being a spontaneous attack because of an internet video, instead of telling the truth - that it was a coordinated attack. Oh, and if you check your figures, you'll find that more people died in the Middle East/Afghanistan under Obama, than under Bush.

>>>The answer: life is cheap, getting that lousy no good uppity ni-...uh, "socialist" to pay for his imagined crimes is what's truly important. More blood for the blood God, kill your parents.<<<

Race has nothing to do with it. Obama's policies have harmed, and continue to harm the country. I'm surprised you chose to play the race card. When liberals can't win on the facts, they say or imply "Racist!" Disgusting. I expected better of you.

>>>The Actual Truth: after making several suicidal attempts at overturning the ACA, which has managed to become fairly popular and successful, the noise machine needs a distraction so that their base forgets all about it.<<<

Whether Obamacare is "popular," is a matter of opinion. And even if it is, it will be less so when the figures come out, and show that the vast majority of those enrolled, are over 50, and that premiums will skyrocket, because the healthy 20-30-40 year olds choose to pay the $95 tax for not having Obamacare, than the $200 premium. And the 50+ crowd, many on fixed incomes, will be paying $1000 a month or more. Of course, to retain power for another two years, the full implementation of Obamacare has once again been delayed - until after the mid-term elections.

>>>You say this again, as if this imaginary scenario you pulled out has any bearing on reality and wasn't dumb enough the first time.<<<

You dismiss out of hand, the statement the people would vote for Hitler if he had a "D" next to his name. Unfortunately, there are some Republicans who are the same way, but it does not make the point any less valid.

>>>>Yes, even though you still haven't answered the first one; why is literally everything that comes out of your mouth straight out of the Hannity/Limbaugh/Fox News daily talking points? Do you actually have *any* other source of information?<<<

If you say so. My reply would be that "Great minds think alike." As for informational sources, I get two daily newspapers, one liberal, the other more to the center. I watch BBC America, and yes, Fox News. Occasionally, I will even watch a little MSNBC, just to keep up with what the other side is thinking, or bitching about. But one can only take so much of "Fat Eddie" Schultz, Rachel "Madcow" Maddow, and Chris "Tingles" Matthews.

November is coming, and so are We The People!

Drawscore

Re: Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!!!!!

Postby misterg792000 » Tue May 13, 2014 4:40 pm

drawscore wrote:When the Benghazi attack occurred, the Obama administration went into overdrive, blaming the attack on some obscure internet video, when they knew damn well, it was a coordinated terrorist attack.


Remember when the Republican nominee tried this same attack during the debates and then received the debate equivalent of a gory headshot immediately? Apparently not. Not that it would be remotely relevant even if it were true.

drawscore wrote:That's what this bunch of worthless wastes of skin tried to hide, aided by the lapdog media, and Obama's adoring minions in congress. That's what they keep trying to hide and/or divert attention away from.


So you claim that they said something publically....and by doing so were trying to hide it. Yeah okay.

drawscore wrote:And all in different committees, many in the senate, where Democrats hold sway. Now, it's just one, under the leadership of a former federal prosecutor, who has publicly said "If we (Republicans) are wrong, then we will pay for it, as we should." Doesn't sound like someone on a political witch hunt. My experience, is that the ones that bitch and whine the loudest, are the ones with the most to fear.


Thus far, you've shown your experience to be minimal at best.
So, now for a hypothetical question: what evidence, if any, would it take for you to admit "I was wrong"?

drawscore wrote:>>>Yes, this nebulous, vague "truth", which again seems to be defined by you as "anything which confirms my existing bias." I ask again, what possible reason does the GOP have to fixate on this particular attack, while never inquiring about the 11 embassy/consulate attacks 2001-2008, the faulty/doctored intelligence that resulted in the death of 1,000x more Americans in Iraq, or the complete and utter failure of the National Security apparatus to even *attempt* to prevent an attack that killed 2,700+ Americans with ample intelligence beforehand if they're so concerned about American lives?<<<

And you don't want the answers, because they would fly in the face of YOUR existing bias. And we both know it.


The difference between me and you is, I accept the answers that have been produced by the same investigation every single time it has been undertaken. You do not. Whenever you don't get the answer you want, you scream "THEY CHEATED, DO IT OVER". You're no different from the Sandy Hook Truthers or the "9/11 was an inside job" boneheads in this regard.

drawscore wrote:And why do the Republicans "fixate" on it? Perhaps to find out why Clinton, Rice, and Obama lied about it being a spontaneous attack because of an internet video, instead of telling the truth - that it was a coordinated attack. Oh, and if you check your figures, you'll find that more people died in the Middle East/Afghanistan under Obama, than under Bush.


Rice was reading directly from the briefing the CIA gave her; if you had actually paid attention to previous investigations instead of saying "THIS IS TAKING TOO LONG HAVE THEY IMPEACHED OBAMA YET", you'd know this. As for the other two, scroll up.

I'd dearly love to know where you're getting "your figures" that claim the 300,000 to 1,000,000 deaths related to the military occupation of Iraq by January 2009 have been exceeded.

drawscore wrote:>>>The answer: life is cheap, getting that lousy no good uppity ni-...uh, "socialist" to pay for his imagined crimes is what's truly important. More blood for the blood God, kill your parents.<<<

Race has nothing to do with it. Obama's policies have harmed, and continue to harm the country. I'm surprised you chose to play the race card. When liberals can't win on the facts, they say or imply "Racist!" Disgusting. I expected better of you.


hahahaha...yes, race has nothing to do with conservatives hard-on for Obama, whisper campaigns that a Presidential candidate's birth certificate was faked are a completely normal part of the election cycle. I assure you, the "southern strategy" was phased out immediately in 2008 as well!

drawscore wrote:Whether Obamacare is "popular," is a matter of opinion.


No, it's not; it's objective fact. I realize that pretending objective fact does not exist is a whole thing with conservatives nowadays, but your refusal to recognize reality in no way negates it.

drawscore wrote:>>>You say this again, as if this imaginary scenario you pulled out has any bearing on reality and wasn't dumb enough the first time.<<<

You dismiss out of hand, the statement the people would vote for Hitler if he had a "D" next to his name. Unfortunately, there are some Republicans who are the same way, but it does not make the point any less valid.


I dismiss it out of hand because it is the sort of blindingly idiotic statement one would expect from a 10-year-old, the equivalent of "If you put the murder or deportation of all blacks in the US up to a vote, Republicans couldn't pull the "yes" lever fast enough".

drawscore wrote:>>>>Yes, even though you still haven't answered the first one; why is literally everything that comes out of your mouth straight out of the Hannity/Limbaugh/Fox News daily talking points? Do you actually have *any* other source of information?<<<

If you say so. My reply would be that "Great minds think alike."


Your idea of "great minds" are people who flunked out of college and got a job at their dad's radio station. That explains a lot.

I ask again, how old are you? I ask because I'm searching for a rational explanation for your blinding naivete and reduction of US politics to rah-rah football game horseshit.
Though I suppose like my first question, it will never actually get answered.

Re: Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!!!!!

Postby drawscore » Tue May 13, 2014 11:01 pm

>>>Rice was reading directly from the briefing the CIA gave her<<<

Horseshit! She was briefed (directly or indirectly) by Ben Rhodes, a senior White House advisor. The recently uncovered e-mails which the White House withheld from investigating congressional committees, prove it, Oh, and Ben Rhodes' brother, David, runs CBS News. But I suppose you will stick to your claim that the media isn't biased.

Need proof? How about The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times, neither of them especially friendly to conservatives:

http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast ... story.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/01/world ... .html?_r=0

What will it take for you to admit that you were wrong?

Drawscore

Re: Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!!!!!

Postby misterg792000 » Wed May 14, 2014 4:48 am

drawscore wrote:What will it take for you to admit that you were wrong?


A lot more than already-discredited talking points punctuated with the usual whining about LIB'RUL MEDIA BIAS (tm)
CIA Memo, September 15, 2012 wrote:The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... a-bad-rap/
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... p-his-mind
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cia-talking ... -protests/

Not that it's relevant in the first place or evidence of wrongdoing even if it *was* true. It's interesting how you keep going back and hammering on about something of no relevance and yet refuse to answer any questions about something you pretend to be passionate about.

Re: Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!!!!!

Postby Chris12 » Wed May 14, 2014 7:24 am

Race has nothing to do with it. Obama's policies have harmed, and continue to harm the country. I'm surprised you chose to play the race card. When liberals can't win on the facts, they say or imply "Racist!" Disgusting. I expected better of you.


You can do better then that. ''Liberals'' Say and imply racist because if the Republicans haven't already blatantly told everyone they have a problem with Obama being black then they at least made it ridiculously easy to be accused of it.

Not a single person would have doubted Obama's birth certificate if he was white. Not even if he spoke with the thickest French accent imaginable. Its all based on his being black and thus its racist. Its an incredible ''black and white :big:'' issue.

They also didn't made a fuss when some white guy born from Canada nominated himself for Presidential candidate.

Re: Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!!!!!

Postby drawscore » Wed May 14, 2014 9:02 am

>>>A lot more than already-discredited talking points punctuated with the usual whining about LIB'RUL MEDIA BIAS (tm)<<<

So the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times are wrong? And they are both such defenders and promoters of liberal group think. Go against those two (and the Washington Post and CBS News) and you'll have to turn in your ACLU and CPUSA cards.

And there's no collusion between the White House and the media? Obama having a senior advisor, whose brother runs CBS News, doesn't present even a hint of conflict of interest? Sorry, but the world I live in, is not all rainbows and unicorns.

But there is a risk for Republicans. Yahoo News had this to say:

"Contrary to the caricature of Republicans, as singularly obsessed for political reasons with Benghazi, the reality is quite different. There is deep unease within the Republican leadership that the select committee, which has yet to announce a schedule of hearings, could backfire, and badly. Investigate and find nothing new, and the committee looks like a bunch of tin-hatted obsessives. Investigate and uncover previously-hidden secrets, and it makes all of the other Republican panels that dug into Benghazi seem like Keystone Kops."

Sounds reasonable, but the truth is more important than loyalty to an ideology or political party.

Yahoo news continued:

House Speaker John Boehner himself resisted calls to form the committee for nearly a year and a half. Rep. Frank Wolf, a Republican from Virginia, proposed a special select committee on Benghazi first in November 2012. Since then he worked to get a majority of Republicans to sign onto his plan.

But it was not until Judicial Watch in April uncovered a set of White House emails on Benghazi -- emails that were not shared with Congress -- that Boehner decided to agree to Wolf’s idea.

The full article is at: http://news.yahoo.com/benghazi-investig ... itics.html

Perhaps you can enlighten us on why the Obama White House did not provide the subpoenaed e-mails a year and a half ago.

Oh, and Chris, Misterg is a big boy. He can defend himself and his comments.

Drawscore

Re: Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!!!!!

Postby Chris12 » Wed May 14, 2014 11:15 am

Oh, and Chris, Misterg is a big boy. He can defend himself and his comments.


Good because it wasn't my intention to defend him. I just found your statement that race had nothing to do with it hilarious :big:

Re: Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!!!!!

Postby misterg792000 » Wed May 14, 2014 11:17 am

drawscore wrote:>>>A lot more than already-discredited talking points punctuated with the usual whining about LIB'RUL MEDIA BIAS (tm)<<<

So the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times are wrong? And they are both such defenders and promoters of liberal group think. Go against those two (and the Washington Post and CBS News) and you'll have to turn in your ACLU and CPUSA cards.


I provided citations proving you're wrong; put on your big girl panties and deal with it. Or name a few more Bircher boogie-men, whatever.

drawscore wrote:And there's no collusion between the White House and the media?


Nope. Again it bears pointing out I heard none of you people making this sort of accusation when the press took the White House's case for war in Iraq at face value in 2003 (nor its' deep ties to Fox News at the time); however any time your party (rah rah go team boola boola are you ready for some football) does not control the White House this tired trope pops up. You're either quite young, or have a very short memory.

drawscore wrote:Oh, and Chris, Misterg is a big boy. He can defend himself and his comments.


Guess what, it's a more or less public forum and you don't get to control who participates.

Re: Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!!!!!

Postby drawscore » Wed May 14, 2014 11:24 pm

Chris12 wrote:
Oh, and Chris, Misterg is a big boy. He can defend himself and his comments.


Good because it wasn't my intention to defend him. I just found your statement that race had nothing to do with it hilarious :big:


Chris, you mistakenly believe that because I do not like Obama and his policies, I must be a racist. It's not true, and I resent that implication. I don't like Hillary Clinton, either. Does that make me a woman hater? Let's not become like the journalistic hacks over at MSNBC.

Drawscore

Black.jpg


Racist.jpg

Re: Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!!!!!

Postby drawscore » Wed May 14, 2014 11:51 pm

misterg792000 wrote:
drawscore wrote:>>>A lot more than already-discredited talking points punctuated with the usual whining about LIB'RUL MEDIA BIAS (tm)<<<

So the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times are wrong? And they are both such defenders and promoters of liberal group think. Go against those two (and the Washington Post and CBS News) and you'll have to turn in your ACLU and CPUSA cards.


I provided citations proving you're wrong; put on your big girl panties and deal with it. Or name a few more Bircher boogie-men, whatever.

Your citations came from left leaning publications/reporters, whose credibility is questionable. At least, when I provided cites, I provided them from sources I believed would have some credibility with you. Unfortunately, I am learning that, no matter what the source, if it does not conform with your mindset, it's wrong. Who does it have to come from, in order to be credible to you?

drawscore wrote:And there's no collusion between the White House and the media?


Nope. Again it bears pointing out I heard none of you people making this sort of accusation when the press took the White House's case for war in Iraq at face value in 2003 (nor its' deep ties to Fox News at the time); however any time your party (rah rah go team boola boola are you ready for some football) does not control the White House this tired trope pops up. You're either quite young, or have a very short memory.

Ahh, when Ben Rhodes is a communications advisor to Obama, and his brother, David, runs CBS News, the appearance of conflict of interest looms large over that relationship. Obama has the story he wants to tell; he goes to Ben, Ben goes to David, and Wowee gee, Obama's story is the lead on the CBS Evening News. Tell me again, that there is no collusion. Perhaps, as Joseph Goebbels said, "If you tell a lie loud enough and often enough, it will become the truth."

"There are none so blind, as those that will not see." You believe certain things, and in certain ideas. Deviation is not tolerated, and those that do, are (insert expletive here). However, you do have one quality that I respect. You don't back down from what you believe in. And while that is an admirable quality, you and I do have to consider the possibility that there just might be a kernel of truth in what the other says.


drawscore wrote:Oh, and Chris, Misterg is a big boy. He can defend himself and his comments.


Guess what, it's a more or less public forum and you don't get to control who participates.


I guess you need all the help you can get.

Drawscore

Re: Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!!!!!

Postby misterg792000 » Thu May 15, 2014 5:24 am

drawscore wrote:I don't like Hillary Clinton, either. Does that make me a woman hater?


That in and of itself? Nope; however, misogyny is also a pretty large part of modern conservatism, so it's a safe bet that anyone who called Rush "Sandra Fluke is a slut" Limbaugh a 'great mind' is quite the misogynist himself.

Also, LOL at posting image macros cheering on war criminal Allen West.

drawscore wrote:Your citations came from left leaning publications/reporters, whose credibility is questionable. At least, when I provided cites, I provided them from sources I believed would have some credibility with you.


So when you think they're supporting your fantasies they're credible, but when they're tearing them apart, they're not. Gotcha.
Congrats on continuing the "waaaah lib'rul media bias!" nonsense for middle-right corporate-friendly major media outlets though.

drawscore wrote:Ahh, when Ben Rhodes is a communications advisor to Obama, and his brother, David, runs CBS News, the appearance of conflict of interest looms large over that relationship. Obama has the story he wants to tell; he goes to Ben, Ben goes to David, and Wowee gee, Obama's story is the lead on the CBS Evening News. Tell me again, that there is no collusion.


Wow, the fantasy scenario you just put together there totally proves it!
Whoever imagined that communications advisers have close ties to people working in the communications industry?!?

drawscore wrote:You believe certain things, and in certain ideas. Deviation is not tolerated, and those that do, are (insert expletive here). However, you do have one quality that I respect. You don't back down from what you believe in. And while that is an admirable quality, you and I do have to consider the possibility that there just might be a kernel of truth in what the other says.


In your case, that's a possibility I never have to consider. Your head is jammed so firmly up the ass of the right-wing noise machine that even when evidence that you are wrong is put in your face you squeal "LIB'RUL MEDIA BIAS!!!!" repeatedly. Counterfactual information is religion to you people; "climate change is a hoax!" "decreasing taxes for the wealthy increases tax revenue!" "Benghazi was an elaborate coverup!" "The IRS vetting the tax-exempt status of a group that exists primarily to protest taxes is somehow a scandal!". No matter what the evidence, the fat drug addict on the radio told you it was true, so it must be.

drawscore wrote:I guess you need all the help you can get.


I guess you really don't understand how this whole internet thing works. I ask for the dozenth time, how old are you?

Re: Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!!!!!

Postby Chris12 » Thu May 15, 2014 9:24 am

Chris, you mistakenly believe that because I do not like Obama and his policies, I must be a racist. It's not true, and I resent that implication. I don't like Hillary Clinton, either. Does that make me a woman hater? Let's not become like the journalistic hacks over at MSNBC.


I wasn't talking about you per se but if those Birthers manage reach even a small place of prominence in the Republicans and their voters then racism must be involved. No white president would ever have been asked for his birth certificate. The republican's make themselves a ridiculously easy to accuse of racism by having those people in their ranks.

Re: Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!!!!!

Postby drawscore » Thu May 15, 2014 12:01 pm

>>>I ask for the dozenth time, how old are you?<<<

Old enough to have served in Vietnam, and be spit on and cursed by your long-haired, dope smoking, Nancy Pelosi type, hippie freak friends, which is what probably made me a hard core conservative. Considering that the average age of the service member in Vietnam was 19, that makes me 60 +/- if I got there late (1973-74), and well beyond that, if I was there early (1964-65). Let's just say that I'm old enough to know better, young enough to still do it, and smart enough to get away with it. Here's another hint: When I was young, and thought I was ten feet tall and bulletproof, I used to do fun stuff with large trash bags, water, cannon fuse, and calcium carbide. If you can't make the connection, ask someone older and wiser.

Drawscore

Re: Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!!!!!

Postby drawscore » Thu May 15, 2014 12:12 pm

>>>I wasn't talking about you per se but if those Birthers manage reach even a small place of prominence in the Republicans and their voters then racism must be involved. No white president would ever have been asked for his birth certificate. The republican's make themselves a ridiculously easy to accuse of racism by having those people in their ranks.<<<

Oh? I seem to remember the Democrats being all over John McCain in 2008 because he was born in what was then, the (Panama) Canal Zone. It was determined that the Canal Zone was a territory or possession of the United States at the time of McCain's birth, and that he was born on a military installation, to military parents, which satisfied the requirement that he be a "natural born citizen."

Weird but true fact: The mouth of the Panama Canal on the Atlantic side, is further west than the Pacific mouth. Don't think so? Try Google Earth or MapQuest. Type in "Panama Canal."

Drawscore

Re: Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!!!!!

Postby Chris12 » Thu May 15, 2014 12:32 pm

drawscore wrote:>>>I wasn't talking about you per se but if those Birthers manage reach even a small place of prominence in the Republicans and their voters then racism must be involved. No white president would ever have been asked for his birth certificate. The republican's make themselves a ridiculously easy to accuse of racism by having those people in their ranks.<<<

Oh? I seem to remember the Democrats being all over John McCain in 2008 because he was born in what was then, the (Panama) Canal Zone. It was determined that the Canal Zone was a territory or possession of the United States at the time of McCain's birth, and that he was born on a military installation, to military parents, which satisfied the requirement that he be a "natural born citizen."

Weird but true fact: The mouth of the Panama Canal on the Atlantic side, is further west than the Pacific mouth. Don't think so? Try Google Earth or MapQuest. Type in "Panama Canal."

Drawscore


Oh, well you got me there then :big: And did the Democrats accept that explanation rather then insisting it was all fake?

Re: Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!!!!!

Postby misterg792000 » Thu May 15, 2014 4:31 pm

drawscore wrote:>>>I ask for the dozenth time, how old are you?<<<

Old enough to have served in Vietnam, and be spit on and cursed by your long-haired, dope smoking, Nancy Pelosi type, hippie freak friends, which is what probably made me a hard core conservative. Considering that the average age of the service member in Vietnam was 19, that makes me 60 +/- if I got there late (1973-74), and well beyond that, if I was there early (1964-65). Let's just say that I'm old enough to know better


In other words, you're not young, just stupid. Gotcha. Or, more likely, you're out and out lying giving the "spit on and cursed" nonsense that everyone remembers but never witnessed or heard from someone who witnessed it firsthand.

Though your "dope smoking" comment is hilarious after you earlier in this thread called an oxycontin-riddled junkie sex tourist a "great mind".
Last edited by misterg792000 on Thu May 15, 2014 4:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Re: Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!!!!!

Postby misterg792000 » Thu May 15, 2014 4:32 pm

Chris12 wrote:Oh, well you got me there then :big: And did the Democrats accept that explanation rather then insisting it was all fake?


"The Democrats" were a handful of people who were being purposefully snarky as a response to birther hysteria in this case.

Re: Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!!!!!

Postby Kyle » Thu May 15, 2014 5:43 pm

Chris12 wrote:
Chris, you mistakenly believe that because I do not like Obama and his policies, I must be a racist. It's not true, and I resent that implication. I don't like Hillary Clinton, either. Does that make me a woman hater? Let's not become like the journalistic hacks over at MSNBC.


I wasn't talking about you per se but if those Birthers manage reach even a small place of prominence in the Republicans and their voters then racism must be involved. No white president would ever have been asked for his birth certificate. The republican's make themselves a ridiculously easy to accuse of racism by having those people in their ranks.


Not true. Chester A. Arthur was accused of being born in both Ireland and Canada during his lifetime, and the Canada idea was almost certainly created out of political spite.

Re: Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!!!!!

Postby drawscore » Thu May 15, 2014 6:23 pm

misterg792000 wrote:
drawscore wrote:>>>I ask for the dozenth time, how old are you?<<<

Old enough to have served in Vietnam, and be spit on and cursed by your long-haired, dope smoking, Nancy Pelosi type, hippie freak friends, which is what probably made me a hard core conservative. Considering that the average age of the service member in Vietnam was 19, that makes me 60 +/- if I got there late (1973-74), and well beyond that, if I was there early (1964-65). Let's just say that I'm old enough to know better


>>>In other words, you're not young, just stupid. Gotcha. Or, more likely, you're out and out lying giving the "spit on and cursed" nonsense that everyone remembers but never witnessed or heard from someone who witnessed it first hand.

Though your "dope smoking" comment is hilarious after you earlier in this thread called an oxycontin-riddled junkie sex tourist a "great mind".<<<

You got a comment to make or a point to make, fine. I'll debate with you. You want to get into insults, I'll match you with the best of them. I'm stupid? Before you start pointing fingers, perhaps you should look in a mirror. Just because I disagree with you politically, does not make me "stupid." You want to match intelligence? Any time.

And don't give me that crap about "it never happened." I like to think I displayed remarkable restraint when this idiot got on to Travis AFB, and spit on me at the passenger terminal. It was only when he did it a second time, that I knocked him on his ass. And the Air Police carted his butt off to the stockade, to the applause of many of those there to welcome home their family members and friends.

My comment about "dope smoking hippie freaks" is laughable? No more laughable than what we hear from Nasty Pelousy, and Harry Greed, and the rest of that crowd every day. You want stupid? How about Pelosi's comment that illegal aliens should be deported, only if they break the law. Gee, Nancy, didn't they break the law by crossing our border illegally? Or what about "We have to pass the bill so we can see what's in it?" But she's a liberal. She gets a pass from the "li'brul media."

You want stupid hypocrisy? How about Media Matters for America, a far left, George Soros funded organization, headed by David Brock, lavishing praise and exalting the virtues of labor unions. Right up to the time the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) wanted to organize their lower paid employees. Then, they went out and got a labor lawyer to fight the SEIU.

And these are the people you defend and praise. And yet, according to you, I'm stupid. Yeah, right. I'm sorry you're ill. Please let me know when you recover from your case of cranial-rectal inversion.

Drawscore
Last edited by drawscore on Thu May 15, 2014 7:27 pm, edited 6 times in total.