Benghazi Hearings (Page 3)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() ejshowers - 2013-05-09 3:07 PM No, not watching. It was a tragedy and has been investigated, much like the 7 or so Embasssy attacks that occurred under G.W. Bush's watch. You mean the ones in which there was no attempt to deceive the American public about who did the attacking and why? The ones in which the perpetrators of the attacks were correctly and quickly identified as terrorists, many of whom were then eventually caught or killed? Those attacks? |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() crowny2 - 2013-05-09 3:27 PM GomesBolt - 2013-05-09 3:21 PM crowny2 - 2013-05-09 3:15 PM tuwood - 2013-05-09 2:44 PM scoobysdad - 2013-05-09 1:44 PM powerman - 2013-05-09 1:23 PM I'll also add that the major three networks are also in CYA-mode over this. After all, they bought the Administration's youtube video cover story hook, line and sinker without bothering to do their own fact-checking. Even after the fact, they never bothered to investigate what really happened on the ground where it happened-- or they knew the real story and decided not to report it. Now, they have the real story being told by the people who were there and they still aren't reporting it or, as in the the case of the AP story I read yesterday, they are grossly misrepresenting the story. BTW, the headline from that story: "Former US Official describes Libya attack"... how does that in any way describe what yesterday's hearings were really about? The hearings were about high-ranking witnesses to the actual events presenting a story completely at odds with the one presented to the American public. Worse, the story didn't even appear on the "front page" of the online version of my major city newspaper this morning. Here is the only problem with that... the "truth" is optional... and they still make plenty of money off "reporting" on Lohan. They make their "money" either way. I was running on the treadmill at the gym this morning and FoxNews, CBS, and ABC were on the three TV's in front of me. I don't know the exact ratio's but Fox had the Benghazi testimony with a reporter on site being interviewed and spent most of the hour covering it. CBS and ABC were pretty much wall to wall Ariel Castro and Jodi Arias with just a little blurb about Benghazi. I couldn't tell for sure because I was listening to music, but I don't even think CBS and ABC had a reporter on site at the hearings. I just checked now and abcnews, cbsnews, nbcnews all have Castro as their main story. Foxnews is the only one with Benghazi leading. "ultimately journalism has changed … partisanship is very much a part of journalism now." Les Moonves (head of CBS News) Just more information. Can't see it because you have to take the Pro Choice Pledge just to read the article. Huh. Doesn't do that to me. Basically, Fox kept cutting away from the coverage every time a Democrat began to speak. So much so that the Fox host recognized it and claimed they would address it on the next time clip. They then basically only showed another 10 minutes of live stuff and the rest of it was talking heads. Good thing they caught it. People would've missed stuff like this: |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() scoobysdad - 2013-05-09 1:33 PM Consider this. Right after Hillary made her infamous "What difference, at this point, does it make?" statement, she added one more: "It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator." So, aren't these hearings essential to doing just that? After all, this is the the first time that the American public is hearing from people who were on the scene describing what happened, and under oath to boot. I don't understand how anyone could then describe this hearing as unnecessary, un-newsworthy or a "witch hunt". So, what did we learn? For starters, we learned that our State Department in Libya regarded the attack as a terrorist attack from the outset, that the youtube video was a "non-event" in Libya and that there was never any protest outside the Libyan consulate. We also know that all of this information was conveyed directly to Sec. of State Hillary Clinton by State Department official Gregory Hicks. This should have left no question, nor any room for confusion, about who was behind the attack or what caused it. This means that the "Youtube video" story that was being sold to the American public was either completely fabricated or "borrowed" from the Egyptian embassy incident to explain the attack by someone at the State Department. The story was either created with Hillary Clinton's direct knowledge or she participated in the cover-up by holding her silence as soon as the Obama and Susan Rice went to the public with a story she knew to be false. At the very least, this should end Hillary Clinton's political career. She was either behind a lie or complicit in a lie about a major international incident involving the murder of four Americans, including an ambassador. As further indication of Clinton's culpability, we have her direct subordinate and former lawyer trying to intimidate direct witnesses to the events into refusing to participate in a congressional investigation. Hillary needs to be brought up on charges. The open question is whether Obama and Rice knew the story they were selling was false. The exploration of that issue is where this investigation needs to go next. If Obama did know, then this incident is worse than Watergate. In fact, the parallels are eerily similar. Both incidents involved trying to improve the chances of the presidents' re-elections. Both involved cover-ups at the highest level and direct lies told to the American public by the presidents. The difference, as has already been pointed out, is that Benghazi was also an international (not just domestic) incident involving the murder of four Americans, including an ambassador. I'd say it was a cluster mess of communication between the CIA, State Department, and Department of Defense. If she withheld information, I cannot imagine it would amount to an "ending of a political career". Otherwise, I'm guessing there would not be a elected official left in office. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() scoobysdad - 2013-05-09 3:33 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-09 3:27 PM GomesBolt - 2013-05-09 2:17 PM What happened to all the pro-Obama types? None of them are fighting-back. Kinda like the media... Just hoping the story goes away. NYT had a tweet yesterday that said "we may never know who changed the memo." Would they have said "We may never know who ordered people to sneak-around in the Watergate Hotel"? No way! They'd have gotten to the bottom of it. Other than that, I don't really know. I know one thing: I'm going to wait until all the evidence is out there and then make a decision based on all of it, and not just fall in line behind what Hannity and FoxNews and a bunch of GOP politicians tell me to believe any more than I believe the WH or MSNBC version. Others would be well-advised to do the same. Or you can just watch the unedited testimony of the people who were on the ground when and where the events occurred and who communicated such to the Secretary of State in person. Then you can compare that account with the one the Administration attempted to sell to the American people-- and with the complicity of the "press", did so effectively. Fine, but understand that just because someone was "on the ground" that doesn't mean they have or are necessarily telling the whole story. They can be every bit as biased and their perspective can be just as one-sided or narrow as someone who is sitting hundreds of miles away. Listen, you've got your mind made up that this was a cover-up. I get that, and it's fine. You believed there was a cover up long before these hearings even started. If you choose to only give creednce to the testimony that fits the version you prefer, it's entirely understandable that you'll come to the conclusion you have. As I said, there is the GOP/FOX version, and the Administration's version, and the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() GomesBolt - 2013-05-09 2:23 PM jeffnboise - 2013-05-09 3:12 PM tuwood - 2013-05-09 1:44 PM scoobysdad - 2013-05-09 1:44 PM powerman - 2013-05-09 1:23 PM I'll also add that the major three networks are also in CYA-mode over this. After all, they bought the Administration's youtube video cover story hook, line and sinker without bothering to do their own fact-checking. Even after the fact, they never bothered to investigate what really happened on the ground where it happened-- or they knew the real story and decided not to report it. Now, they have the real story being told by the people who were there and they still aren't reporting it or, as in the the case of the AP story I read yesterday, they are grossly misrepresenting the story. BTW, the headline from that story: "Former US Official describes Libya attack"... how does that in any way describe what yesterday's hearings were really about? The hearings were about high-ranking witnesses to the actual events presenting a story completely at odds with the one presented to the American public. Worse, the story didn't even appear on the "front page" of the online version of my major city newspaper this morning. Here is the only problem with that... the "truth" is optional... and they still make plenty of money off "reporting" on Lohan. They make their "money" either way. I was running on the treadmill at the gym this morning and FoxNews, CBS, and ABC were on the three TV's in front of me. I don't know the exact ratio's but Fox had the Benghazi testimony with a reporter on site being interviewed and spent most of the hour covering it. CBS and ABC were pretty much wall to wall Ariel Castro and Jodi Arias with just a little blurb about Benghazi. I couldn't tell for sure because I was listening to music, but I don't even think CBS and ABC had a reporter on site at the hearings. I just checked now and abcnews, cbsnews, nbcnews all have Castro as their main story. Foxnews is the only one with Benghazi leading. "ultimately journalism has changed … partisanship is very much a part of journalism now." Les Moonves (head of CBS News) So because FOX News is going "All IN" on the coverage-that makes them the only 'credible' news outlet. Give It A Rest! As someone said earlier, FOX think they smell blood in the water; so OF COURSE they're going All IN. This is about midterms and 2016 elections. And that's all it's about. This thread, like every other social/political-minded COJ thread is heading exactly where ALL social/political threads on COJ go. The exact same people commenting, (myself absolutely included) spewing the exact same "Democrat=Bad/Good. Republican=Bad/Good". And if you share a differing opinion than the vocal majority, you'll be 'quoted' and BOLD faced and, God forbid, sarc fonted. I'll ask you this. Americans die, are sodomized, bodies are mutilated. = Good or Bad? Then the story was modified in-order so a person can come across more popular. Again, good or bad? This is all bad man. All bad. Are we still talking about Libya or the Iraqi Invasion?? Yes-it really is ALL Bad. And sadly, I don't know where to look for information anymore, except looking EVERYWHERE for information. Foreign policy takes place in the shadows; always has-always will. You, me and many others have all worn the uniform and we ALWAYS knew that we didn't really know ALL there was to know. Yet we still served with unwavering conviction. Us common folk will never, EVER know all the details. Why is that so hard for us to comprehend? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() I've said a few times in the past, but it bears repeating here. Hillary will not win the nomination in 2016 regardless of what happens because she's too darn old. She'll be the same age as McCain when he was running and she made nasty comments about him being "too old" at the time. I don't think this has a thing to do with Hillary 2016. For some this is political, for me it's about learning that we don't hang our people out to dry like this. I seriously think Benghazi and the attention being given to it now is what's keeping the administration from putting people in the Syria mess. Edited by GomesBolt 2013-05-09 4:03 PM |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() jeffnboise - 2013-05-09 3:55 PM GomesBolt - 2013-05-09 2:23 PM I'll ask you this. Americans die, are sodomized, bodies are mutilated. = Good or Bad? Then the story was modified in-order so a person can come across more popular. Again, good or bad? This is all bad man. All bad. Are we still talking about Libya or the Iraqi Invasion?? Yes-it really is ALL Bad. And sadly, I don't know where to look for information anymore, except looking EVERYWHERE for information. Foreign policy takes place in the shadows; always has-always will. You, me and many others have all worn the uniform and we ALWAYS knew that we didn't really know ALL there was to know. Yet we still served with unwavering conviction. Us common folk will never, EVER know all the details. Why is that so hard for us to comprehend? Bush didn't lie to get elected. He believed what he wanted to believe and painted the picture the way he wanted it to be to justify toppling a dictator. Obama did the same selective believing of someone's brilliant thought that this was about a youtube video in order to get elected. They're either both nasty or both innocent. |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() GomesBolt - 2013-05-09 5:00 PM I've said a few times in the past, but it bears repeating here. Hillary will not win the nomination in 2016 regardless of what happens because she's too darn old. She'll be the same age as McCain when he was running and she made nasty comments about him being "too old" at the time. I don't think this has a thing to do with Hillary 2016. For some this is political, for me it's about learning that we don't hang our people out to dry like this. I seriously think Benghazi and the attention being given to it now is what's keeping the administration from putting people in the Syria mess. Reagan was 69 when elected. it's not about age. It's about charisma. McCain had none. Hillary is a favorite. But I do agree. I don't think she can win. I think it's an attempt to smudge the dems. I really think we are not in the Syria mess because it does not benefit us to be there. And we have an administration that doesn't have the "go in with guns blazing" attitude. |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() tuwood - 2013-05-09 2:30 PM jeffnboise - 2013-05-09 3:12 PM tuwood - 2013-05-09 1:44 PM scoobysdad - 2013-05-09 1:44 PM powerman - 2013-05-09 1:23 PM I'll also add that the major three networks are also in CYA-mode over this. After all, they bought the Administration's youtube video cover story hook, line and sinker without bothering to do their own fact-checking. Even after the fact, they never bothered to investigate what really happened on the ground where it happened-- or they knew the real story and decided not to report it. Now, they have the real story being told by the people who were there and they still aren't reporting it or, as in the the case of the AP story I read yesterday, they are grossly misrepresenting the story. BTW, the headline from that story: "Former US Official describes Libya attack"... how does that in any way describe what yesterday's hearings were really about? The hearings were about high-ranking witnesses to the actual events presenting a story completely at odds with the one presented to the American public. Worse, the story didn't even appear on the "front page" of the online version of my major city newspaper this morning. Here is the only problem with that... the "truth" is optional... and they still make plenty of money off "reporting" on Lohan. They make their "money" either way. I was running on the treadmill at the gym this morning and FoxNews, CBS, and ABC were on the three TV's in front of me. I don't know the exact ratio's but Fox had the Benghazi testimony with a reporter on site being interviewed and spent most of the hour covering it. CBS and ABC were pretty much wall to wall Ariel Castro and Jodi Arias with just a little blurb about Benghazi. I couldn't tell for sure because I was listening to music, but I don't even think CBS and ABC had a reporter on site at the hearings. I just checked now and abcnews, cbsnews, nbcnews all have Castro as their main story. Foxnews is the only one with Benghazi leading. "ultimately journalism has changed … partisanship is very much a part of journalism now." Les Moonves (head of CBS News) So because FOX News is going "All IN" on the coverage-that makes them the only 'credible' news outlet. Give It A Rest! As someone said earlier, FOX think they smell blood in the water; so OF COURSE they're going All IN. This is about midterms and 2016 elections. And that's all it's about. This thread, like every other social/political-minded COJ thread is heading exactly where ALL social/political threads on COJ go. The exact same people commenting, (myself absolutely included) spewing the exact same "Democrat=Bad/Good. Republican=Bad/Good". And if you share a differing opinion than the vocal majority, you'll be 'quoted' and BOLD faced and, God forbid, sarc fonted. So basically, no matter what happens in the Obama administration you're good with it and anyone who questions it is doing it for partisan purposes? The truth is irrelevant? Wow! I think the point of my quote was just made irrelevant. Look, the current POTUS is a Democrat, golfer, basketball player, part-time smoker, African American, Chicagoan with a foreign sounding name. These are truths and they are undeniable. Obviously, one (or more) of these facts disagree with people. Chose what's relevant or irrelevant. Good Luck!
|
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() i like this quote from this article Republicans have a political motivation to ask. Democrats have a political motivation not to answer Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/09/political-motives-dont-c... |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() KateTri1 - 2013-05-09 4:11 PM GomesBolt - 2013-05-09 5:00 PM I've said a few times in the past, but it bears repeating here. Hillary will not win the nomination in 2016 regardless of what happens because she's too darn old. She'll be the same age as McCain when he was running and she made nasty comments about him being "too old" at the time. I don't think this has a thing to do with Hillary 2016. For some this is political, for me it's about learning that we don't hang our people out to dry like this. I seriously think Benghazi and the attention being given to it now is what's keeping the administration from putting people in the Syria mess. Reagan was 69 when elected. it's not about age. It's about charisma. McCain had none. Hillary is a favorite. But I do agree. I don't think she can win. I think it's an attempt to smudge the dems. I really think we are not in the Syria mess because it does not benefit us to be there. And we have an administration that doesn't have the "go in with guns blazing" attitude. The only charisma she's ever had was borrowed from Bill, so she's really not going to do well... But she was nasty with McCain, 72, lots of charisma, when she is gonna be 69 with no charisma. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() GomesBolt - 2013-05-09 3:25 PM KateTri1 - 2013-05-09 4:11 PM GomesBolt - 2013-05-09 5:00 PM I've said a few times in the past, but it bears repeating here. Hillary will not win the nomination in 2016 regardless of what happens because she's too darn old. She'll be the same age as McCain when he was running and she made nasty comments about him being "too old" at the time. I don't think this has a thing to do with Hillary 2016. For some this is political, for me it's about learning that we don't hang our people out to dry like this. I seriously think Benghazi and the attention being given to it now is what's keeping the administration from putting people in the Syria mess. Reagan was 69 when elected. it's not about age. It's about charisma. McCain had none. Hillary is a favorite. But I do agree. I don't think she can win. I think it's an attempt to smudge the dems. I really think we are not in the Syria mess because it does not benefit us to be there. And we have an administration that doesn't have the "go in with guns blazing" attitude. The only charisma she's ever had was borrowed from Bill, so she's really not going to do well... But she was nasty with McCain, 72, lots of charisma (???), when she is gonna be 69 with no charisma. Pfft, gag, cough!!....You owe me a new keyboard cuz I just spit water all over this one. We ARE talking about John "Arm ALL the Rebels, everywhere, all the time" McCain, right? THAT, sir. Is a completely different thread. Now how about a Mark Sanford thread. THAT'S the kind of charisma and high moral character we need representing the people. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() chirunner134 - 2013-05-09 1:19 PM powerman - 2013-05-09 2:05 PM "The Press" has not been the press for a long time. They were given the freedom they have to ensure there would be a watchdog over the government. They have not been a watch dog for a long time now. And no, Fox certainly isn't. News today is about entertainment, ratings, and money. I suppose money has had it's influence for a very long time. But the way I see it, it has absolutely corrupted our entire country. Government, press, and "The People". I completely agree. At least with the main stream media. some of the smaller media sources might be more honest in their Journalism but then its hard to know if you can trust them. I actually think PBS does a good job. I mean look, if I take them at their word, Frontline seems to put out some really good stuff. Lot's of info and back up, and they "SEEM" to be unbiased. If you take it at face value. Any other "news source" is just blatantly obvious in their bias, sensationalism, and spin. I mean like... you know I'm standing right in front of you right.... sort of blatant. And it's EVERYWHERE in EVERYTHING. You have to really work at getting any info out. I mean seriously... where was the "Press" when we went to war with a country that was of no threat to us? Where were they with the Patriot Act. They finally came around, then they jumped in Obama's lap. I mean seriously... that's fine if you like him, but Presidential material he was not... but the press anointed him the second coming. The housing bubble, Wall Street, Bengazi, Sandy Hook... you name it... where the heck is the "PRESS"? Nowhere. They are busy reporting on F'n social media and who tweeted what. Wow... I need to count to ten.... I have never watched a Micheal Moore "documentary". I finally watched "Fahrenheit 9/11". That's what the news is today... nothing but garbage entertainment with a few kernels of truth thrown in. Frontline is how everything should be, even if they had their own slant. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() jeffnboise - 2013-05-09 4:50 PM GomesBolt - 2013-05-09 3:25 PM KateTri1 - 2013-05-09 4:11 PM GomesBolt - 2013-05-09 5:00 PM I've said a few times in the past, but it bears repeating here. Hillary will not win the nomination in 2016 regardless of what happens because she's too darn old. She'll be the same age as McCain when he was running and she made nasty comments about him being "too old" at the time. I don't think this has a thing to do with Hillary 2016. For some this is political, for me it's about learning that we don't hang our people out to dry like this. I seriously think Benghazi and the attention being given to it now is what's keeping the administration from putting people in the Syria mess. Reagan was 69 when elected. it's not about age. It's about charisma. McCain had none. Hillary is a favorite. But I do agree. I don't think she can win. I think it's an attempt to smudge the dems. I really think we are not in the Syria mess because it does not benefit us to be there. And we have an administration that doesn't have the "go in with guns blazing" attitude. The only charisma she's ever had was borrowed from Bill, so she's really not going to do well... But she was nasty with McCain, 72, lots of charisma (???), when she is gonna be 69 with no charisma. Pfft, gag, cough!!....You owe me a new keyboard cuz I just spit water all over this one. We ARE talking about John "Arm ALL the Rebels, everywhere, all the time" McCain, right? THAT, sir. Is a completely different thread. Now how about a Mark Sanford thread. THAT'S the kind of charisma and high moral character we need representing the people. McCain can speak without a written speech in front of him, Hillary cannot. I do not agree with his politics, but he can speak to a group and isn't afraid to confront an angry mob. I've seen it in person and I've met him in person. Yep, charisma. I have never met Hillary, but I notice you weren't defending her so I take that to mean you agree that she is lacking in charisma. I never brought-up Mark Sanford. You did. If you're trying to compare Mark Sanford to Bill Clinton. I say ok, I agree with you. They're both scum, but they both clearly have charisma. I find the tactic interesting that when someone disagrees with something a republican says, they bring-up some other issue in the GOP that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Why is that? For the record, Benghazi has nothing to do with the Charisma of our leaders. It had to do with the lack of Courage from our elected leaders. You most certainly can't claim McCain lacks courage if you have read his bio. Edited by GomesBolt 2013-05-09 5:12 PM |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() "I find the tactic interesting that when someone disagrees with something a republican says, they bring-up some other issue in the GOP that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Why is that?" Of course, that is only something Democrats do..... Please! |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() sbreaux - 2013-05-09 5:16 PM "I find the tactic interesting that when someone disagrees with something a republican says, they bring-up some other issue in the GOP that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Why is that?" Of course, that is only something Democrats do..... Please! Go back in this deck and show me where one of the conservative types has done that. There are 4 pages of it. I am throwing down the challenge because I notice it on just about every thread from Liberals. I have seen it now a half-dozen times today all from Democrats. "Oh yeah, well Bush...". |
|
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Just a reminder folks of the "label line"... once they start getting thrown around, threads usually disappear. No need for that. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Thank you. No need for that here. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() powerman - 2013-05-09 5:43 PM Just a reminder folks of the "label line"... once they start getting thrown around, threads usually disappear. No need for that. Good point. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() Brock Samson - 2013-05-09 11:15 AM KateTri1 - 2013-05-09 12:09 PM crusevegas - 2013-05-08 8:06 PM ChineseDemocracy - 2013-05-08 4:39 PM Brock Samson - 2013-05-08 7:11 PM To compare this to Watergate is ridiculous in my opinion. How about the testimony regarding the e-mail from Nuland the day after Benghazi and several days before Rice was sent out on the Sunday shows in which Nuland referred to what occurred at Bengahzi as being perpetrated by a group specifically linked to Al Quida( I can never spell it). !!!!! ANd I've read several stories on the testimony this afternoon and no one is mentioning that small exchange. Am I crazy, but isn't that kind of a BIG thing? An e-mail from the State department spokesperson in which DOS acknowledges that there was an "attack" and it was perpetrated by a certain extremist group linked to Al Quida, before Rice went out.
I've seen thousands of people testify in my life time, and my personal belief is that Mr. Hicks was telling the truth. I found him very credible.
But in order for any thing that happened today to matter, the press is going to have to go after it, they are going to have to have a "Watergate" type moment, the press is going to have to believe it's important enough to investigate and expose... And, I don't believe that will ever happen given the way the press covers this administration. Agreed, nobody was killed in Watergate. Do you work for Fox? They completely twist someone's words into crap. CD isn't implying that situation wasn't tragic, he's just saying that it wasn't "Treason". It was an "attack" by foreign extremists on our Consulate. Extremely tragic. And Clinton was cleared by an independent commission. So... this comes across to me as a witch hunt.
Now on to the "independent" Administrative Review Board (ARB) report, not really independent. Additionally one of the conclusions that "cleared Clinton" found "systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies" at the State Department relating to the Benghazi incident. So I've always been curious how there can be systemic failures of leadership and management, but yet conclude that no leaders or managers were at fault? I'm going to take a wild guess and say this may be what happens when you basically ask someone to investigate themselves. KateTri1, I do not work for Fox News but thanks for the compliment. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() KateTri1 - 2013-05-09 4:48 PMIf she withheld information, I cannot imagine it would amount to an "ending of a political career". Otherwise, I'm guessing there would not be a elected official left in office. Sadly, Clinton herself could have been part of the riots that killed these Americans and a good percentage of the population would still vote for her. Two words: Ted Kennedy. The American people will forgive anything. Especially when they are stupid enough to not know anything about the person they are voting for. (is there a D or R after their name...) |
|
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() TriRSquared - 2013-05-09 6:14 PM KateTri1 - 2013-05-09 4:48 PMIf she withheld information, I cannot imagine it would amount to an "ending of a political career". Otherwise, I'm guessing there would not be a elected official left in office. Sadly, Clinton herself could have been part of the riots that killed these Americans and a good percentage of the population would still vote for her. Two words: Ted Kennedy. The American people will forgive anything. Especially when they are stupid enough to not know anything about the person they are voting for. (is there a D or R after their name...) You can now add Sanford to the list. |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() GomesBolt - 2013-05-09 4:36 PM sbreaux - 2013-05-09 5:16 PM "I find the tactic interesting that when someone disagrees with something a republican says, they bring-up some other issue in the GOP that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Why is that?" Of course, that is only something Democrats do..... Please! Go back in this deck and show me where one of the conservative types has done that. There are 4 pages of it. I am throwing down the challenge because I notice it on just about every thread from Liberals. I have seen it now a half-dozen times today all from Democrats. "Oh yeah, well Bush...".
You made a blanket statement then challenge me to find it on one of the 4 pages on this thread..... Then you say you notice it on every thread from "liberals". Again, I stand by my statement..... |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() This thread has lost the will to live. Time to put it out of its misery. |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() It's the same fate that ALL the political threads face. I resisted the urge to play today, by the force was too strong. I won't make that mistake again. TAN here I come. |
|