Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by g8orbill, Apr 29, 2014.
River's point = proven
not sure how you could possibly arrive at that conclusion from my post shab
River said the Benghazi obsession had nothing to do with Benghazi but about the hatred of Obama. You then went on to describe a litany of non-Benghazi nonsense hence proving his point.
Or, how many people think there really was no scandal, and that Obama, and his minions, are being 100% honest with the American people?
Well, as shown earlier, "most Americans" think the former.
The rest of that post is not worth responding to as is is simple diversion away from the topic.
you do realize that the one cia talking point that they (and you) latched to and catapulted to the front and center was from an analyst sitting in front of a keyboard reading social media sites in a cubicle somewhere. the cia information that the administration political sensors chose to ignore and bury were from the front line people on the scene and in Libya. how can that level of political censorship of the facts not bother you?
this is typical of what this administration does, they hear what they want to hear and like a petulant child that doesn't understand no they scream and stamp their feet when somebody tries to tell them something they don't want to hear. how can that not bother you? seriously. people died, the CIC was not available to make time critical calls. was he on a booty call and couldn't be interrupted or helping sash with her homework or wtf was he doing that was more important than being in the room when decisions had to be made.
who was in charge, what authority did they have, what decisions did they have to make, who influenced their decisions. those question should be answered for every half hour of the first 12 - 24 hours of the attack. if nothing else it needs to be dissected and learned from so that if this happens again there is a process to get answers and do it in a timely manner.
again I am not sure how you could remotely arrive at that conclusion from my post- I simply responded to his assertion that this had to do with losing an election
Which former? You kind of messed that up. Meanwhile, maybe the American people are continually being fed this kind of stuff from Fox:
It's not true of course:
The former quoted statement, river...
You really seem to be having difficulty staying on target, don't you.
Tell you what. You can start your very own obsessive Fox News thread, and title it something like that too so I won't be tricked into going in there and finding all your obsessed posts... I can just totally avoid the thread all together.
Right. Wouldn't want to bring Fox into it. After all, no one quoted Fox on this thread until the very first post.
And it is an example of the falsehoods that Fox spews on this topic daily.
discrepancies in emails obtained by Watchdog vs Congress
as much as I think this op ed needs its own thread I am going to post it here- if I am a betting man these briefings will never be released because they know it will doom them
President Obama claims he was only repeating what the intelligence community told him when his administration asserted that the attack in Benghazi began with a spontaneous protest inspired by an Internet video. If that’s the case, there is a simple way to prove it: Give the new congressional select committee investigating Benghazi his daily intelligence briefings that show exactly what he was told.
There is precedent for doing so. In 2004, at the request of the 9/11 Commission, President George W. Bush declassified and publicly released the President’s Daily Brief (PDB) delivered to him before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. No sitting president had ever declassified a PDB while still in office. But Bush did it anyway, releasing the report titled “Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S.” It warned that the FBI had detected “patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings” but contained no actionable intelligence that could have stopped the 9/11 attacks from happening.
What’s good enough for Bush should be good enough for Obama. Congress should ask the president to follow precedent and release the PDBs he received in the days after the Benghazi attack.
Someone at Fox doesn't know what the word "discrepancy" means. It means a difference in facts.
A difference in what fields within an email are redacted isn't a difference in facts.
So you're saying bbbbbbbut Bush?
what the article said was that when the dems accused W of having advanced warning on 9-11 he released these briefings which proved we did not
prezBHO could put the whole damned thing to bed by releasing these daily briefs
Despite what Bush's former chief of staff said on Fox, Bush did not release a bunch of daily briefings willingly because he wanted transparency. He released one after a lot of pressure from Congress and it took two and a half years. The former NYT writer I linked to earlier said he had seen bits of other PDBs and they were far more revealing than the one Bush released.
And who can forget this exchange:
True. Perhaps I more accurately should have said "someone at Fox is confident that many of their viewers either don't know or don't care what the word 'discrepancy' means."
'history' shows this?
whether W released them willingly or not is moot- he released them and prezBHO could totally put this to bed if his regime is innocent by releasing the briefings-what are you libs afraid of?
Yes. Are you not paying attention? Again?
Bush did so and so therefore Obama can do so and if he wishes, according to his worshipers.
That is the crux of their arguments regarding anything Obama does. Not whether it is right or wrong, but that someone else did something similar at one time.