Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
Has Hillary EVER told the truth ?
Monday, May 6, 2013 10:33 AM
AURAPTOR
America loves a winner!
Monday, May 6, 2013 4:04 PM
NEWOLDBROWNCOAT
Monday, May 6, 2013 11:32 PM
Quote:Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat: The place in Benghazi was an undercover CIA outpost, not really an embassy or consulate everybody agrees on that. So it wasn't really under the control of the State Dept. How 'bout blaming the head of the CIA?
Tuesday, May 7, 2013 3:26 AM
Tuesday, May 7, 2013 4:57 AM
STORYMARK
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: I see the inconvenient truth on this matter has the natives squirming somewhat.
Tuesday, May 7, 2013 5:38 AM
NIKI2
Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...
Quote:Or we just got bored with the right's inane obsession with it 8 or so months ago.
Quote:If you want to talk squirming, how about we list all the Embassy attacks and deaths that happened under Bush's watch, which your wingnuts never said one peep about, and still avoid...
Quote: Partisan politics has so polarized America that normal, honest behavior seems to be the oddity that stands out these days. The attack of our embassy in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11,which resulted in four Americans being murdered, is now used as an opportunity to gain political points. Washington Republicans and the partisan pundits beyond have slapped on the war paint, donned the camouflage and are armed to the hilt—out to get Obama’s blood at all cost. Now there is loud clamor for transparency and investigations, accusations of a cover-up and incompetence, with those doing the talking all the while professing to only want the truth as concerned Americans and conscientious politicians. Give me a break. The only conscientious concern here is self-serving partisan BS. Where was all that concern for our men and women serving in embassies and consulates across the globe when all the other attacks and killings occurred? Like in 2002 when the US Consulate in the Karachi, Pakistan, was attacked and 10 were killed? Or in 2004 when the US embassy in Uzbekistan was attacked and two were killed and another nine injured? How about in 2004, when the US Consulate in Saudi Arabia was stormed and 8 lost their lives? There is more: In 2006, armed men attacked the US Embassy in Syria and one was murdered. Then in 2007 a grenade was thrown at the US Embassy in Athens. In 2008, the US Embassy in Serbia was set on fire. In 2008, bombings in the US Embassy in Yemen killed 10. Notice the dates, all before the Obama administration. Excerpts from http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/13333916-number-of-embassies-attacked-during-the-bush-years-before-benghazi-many] We could, of course, mention the calls to increase funding for embassy security that the Republicans voted against and actually cut: Quote:Of course it's obvious, the GOP deliberately defunded the security budget for the state department hoping that a weak and ineffective security posture overseas would embarrass Obama. Granted, the state department under Hillary made a calculated judgement to beef up security with what little security funding they had and they choose Tripoli instead of Benghazi, chances are the attack on Benghazi planners knew in advance that this target was weakly defended and made for a spectacular propaganda event for all who would use this debacle for political gain. Both the organization involved in perpetrating the attack and the GOP which has shamelessly used this travesty to constantly harangue Obama clearly ignoring the extenuating circumstances regarding the denied state department security funding designed to weaken and embarrass the appearance of whomever was in charge of the state department and the President in charge at the time. Clearly Bush's failures were excused because there was clearly no democrat that could conceivably be blamed for those security oversight failures at those embassy's. Not like 9/11 which the GOP constantly shirked responsibility for and ignored over 52 clear warnings and tried to blame Clinton for long after he was no longer in office and long after Clinton's administration had warned the incoming Bush regime about Al Qaeda long before any warnings starting streaming across Bush's desk unheeded and ignored until the neo-cons were convinced political gain was theirs for the political taking/exploitation by the senseless avoidable tragedy of 9/11. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130211145528AAo79dJ But we've been through all that before, so why bother? ;o) It was all Obama's PERSONAL fault back then; it's all Clinton's PERSONAL fault now...then Obama was running for office; now Clinton may be. Transparent, old news, and boring. There's a difference between ignoring something real and not paying attention to trumped-up partisan bullshit.
Quote:Of course it's obvious, the GOP deliberately defunded the security budget for the state department hoping that a weak and ineffective security posture overseas would embarrass Obama. Granted, the state department under Hillary made a calculated judgement to beef up security with what little security funding they had and they choose Tripoli instead of Benghazi, chances are the attack on Benghazi planners knew in advance that this target was weakly defended and made for a spectacular propaganda event for all who would use this debacle for political gain. Both the organization involved in perpetrating the attack and the GOP which has shamelessly used this travesty to constantly harangue Obama clearly ignoring the extenuating circumstances regarding the denied state department security funding designed to weaken and embarrass the appearance of whomever was in charge of the state department and the President in charge at the time. Clearly Bush's failures were excused because there was clearly no democrat that could conceivably be blamed for those security oversight failures at those embassy's. Not like 9/11 which the GOP constantly shirked responsibility for and ignored over 52 clear warnings and tried to blame Clinton for long after he was no longer in office and long after Clinton's administration had warned the incoming Bush regime about Al Qaeda long before any warnings starting streaming across Bush's desk unheeded and ignored until the neo-cons were convinced political gain was theirs for the political taking/exploitation by the senseless avoidable tragedy of 9/11. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130211145528AAo79dJ
Tuesday, May 7, 2013 6:17 AM
Tuesday, May 7, 2013 6:43 AM
Quote:President Bush was one of five high-ranking officials who caused McClellan to lie to the public in clearing Bush’s political adviser Karl Rove and Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff I. Lewis Libby of any responsibility for the leak of Plame’s employment as an undercover intelligence officer. “The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,” McClellan said. “So I stood at the White House briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby. “There was one problem. It was not true. “I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the Vice President, the President’s chief of staff, and the President himself.” http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/112007a.html
Tuesday, May 7, 2013 7:22 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: So, the Left doesn't care that this admin has ACTIVELY covered up the truth as to 4 Americans were left to die?
Tuesday, May 7, 2013 8:24 AM
Tuesday, May 7, 2013 8:48 AM
Tuesday, May 7, 2013 9:03 AM
Tuesday, May 7, 2013 10:46 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Storymark: A "cover-up" with no basis in reality is "facts" in rappyland... Yet the documented *actual* fact that the requests for more security were denied by the GOP is "lies". And he wraps it up with just a touch of misogyny, so that Nikki knows her place. Rappyland - home of the twisted, land of the dumb. Babe.
Wednesday, May 8, 2013 12:21 AM
Thursday, May 9, 2013 2:38 PM
Friday, May 10, 2013 2:53 AM
Quote: Right-Wing Media Myths about Benghazi Fox and others just keep dredging up lies about embassy attack Right-wing media are using a congressional hearing to push new myths about the Obama administration's response to the September 11, 2012 attacks on a U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya. In fact, these myths are discredited by previous congressional reports and testimony, which show that the politicized nature of the hearings come from right-wing media and Congressional Republicans, that the military could not have rescued personnel from the second attack, that the administration was in constant communication at all levels during the attacks, and that the intelligence community believed there was a link to an anti-Islam video at the time of the attacks. MYTH: Latest Benghazi Hearing Is Apolitical Fox News' Brian Kilmeade Attacks The Claim That Benghazi Hearings Are "Politically Driven." On Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade claimed that because self-identified whistleblowers are testifying at congressional hearings on Benghazi at a time that elections are not being held, the hearings can't be politically driven, saying "politics is out, and whistleblowers are in": KILMEADE: [A]nyone who says this is politically driven, or it's against the president, that's out the window. Because if there's a non-political season in this world in American politics, it's now. The mid-terms aren't close -- STEVE DOOCY [co-host]: Sure. KILMEADE: And the president is not running. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/7/13, via Media Matters] FACT: Right-Wing Media And Congressional Republicans Have Politicized The Hearings Fox News' John Bolton: "I Hope [Benghazi] Is A Cover Up ... If It Was Merely A Political Cover-Up Then There Can Be A Political Cost To Pay." On Your World, Fox News contributor John Bolton said he hoped the hearings found that despite all evidence to the contrary, the Obama administration had engaged in a "political cover up" by altering CIA talking points to suggest that the attacks came in response to an anti-Islam video: BOLTON: I'd have to say for the good of the country, I hope it is a cover up rather than the alternative, which is the Obama administration was so blind to the reality of the threat of Islamic terrorism, the continued threat from Al Qaeda... If that's the problem there's no cure for it. If it was merely a political cover-up then there can be a political cost to pay. [Fox News,Your World with Neil Cavuto, 5/6/13, via Media Matters] Lawyers Representing The "Whistleblowers" In Hearings Are Long-Time GOP Activists With History Of Pushing Discredited Claims. The lawyers claiming to represent some of the witnesses at the Benghazi hearing, Victoria Toensing and Joseph diGenova, are long-time Republicans known for pushing false claims in the media and for having conflicts of interest in their professional work. They have both served as advisors to Republican candidates and donated thousands of dollars to GOP candidates and causes, and have been criticized for a conflict of interest for serving in a dual role in separate Justice Department investigations and for dropping "the air of impartiality, non-partisanship, and professionalism required" by their roles as leaders of a congressional investigation. [Media Matters, 4/30/13; 5/6/13] Congressional Democrats Criticized House GOP Report For "Unnecessarily Politicizing Our National Security." A congressional report on Benghazi that was authored by five Republican committee chairmen was criticized by the ranking Democrats on those committees in a letter to House Speaker John Boehner, in which they said the report is "unnecessarily politicizing our national security": Quote:We are writing to strongly object to your decision to issue a partisan Republican staff report on Benghazi and dispense with House procedures for vetting official committee reports to correct inaccuracies and mischaracterizations. By abandoning regular order and excluding Democratic Members entirely from this process, you are unnecessarily politicizing our national security and casting aside the system used by the House for generations to avoid making obvious mistakes, errors, and omissions. [House Oversight Committee, 5/6/13 Lots and lots more at http://www.alternet.org/right-wing-media-myths-about-benghazi]
Quote:We are writing to strongly object to your decision to issue a partisan Republican staff report on Benghazi and dispense with House procedures for vetting official committee reports to correct inaccuracies and mischaracterizations. By abandoning regular order and excluding Democratic Members entirely from this process, you are unnecessarily politicizing our national security and casting aside the system used by the House for generations to avoid making obvious mistakes, errors, and omissions. [House Oversight Committee, 5/6/13
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL