Benghazi Hearings (Page 7)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Today's new item: "The day after it happened, I acknowledged that it was an act of terrorism.” - Obama Then why did he tell the UN it was due to the video almost 2 weeks after the attack? The man is lying about his lying... Edited by TriRSquared 2013-05-13 12:54 PM |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() TriRSquared - 2013-05-13 12:54 PM Today's new item: "The day after it happened, I acknowledged that it was an act of terrorism.” - Obama Then why did he tell the UN it was due to the video almost 2 weeks after the attack? The man is lying about his lying... His rose garden speech said "act of terror". Remember Candy Crowley? But he told everyone it was due to the video including Letterman. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() TriRSquared - 2013-05-13 12:54 PM Today's new item: "The day after it happened, I acknowledged that it was an act of terrorism.” - Obama Then why did he tell the UN it was due to the video almost 2 weeks after the attack? The man is lying about his lying... At which point in the youtube clip does he blame the attack on Benghazi on the video? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() tuwood - 2013-05-13 12:21 PM The Washington Times had an interesting article on Patraeus. CURL: Watch out for Petraeus in Benghazi scandal Rule number one in washington is to never throw the CIA under the bus.
Very interesting article. But Curl is pretty conservative. When it comes from other sources, you know it's starting to get ugly... like say Morning Joe and Tom Brokaw... |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() mr2tony - 2013-05-13 2:00 PM TriRSquared - 2013-05-13 12:54 PM At which point in the youtube clip does he blame the attack on Benghazi on the video? Today's new item: "The day after it happened, I acknowledged that it was an act of terrorism.” - Obama Then why did he tell the UN it was due to the video almost 2 weeks after the attack? The man is lying about his lying... Um at 17 seconds in: "That is what we saw play out in the last 2 weeks. (Benghazi was about 2 weeks before this) A crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world." Why would he refer to the time period (2 weeks) if not referring to the attack (answer: he was). And if it WAS truly a terrorist attack and had nothing to do with the video then why even bring it up? Edited by TriRSquared 2013-05-13 1:27 PM |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() TriRSquared - 2013-05-13 1:24 PM mr2tony - 2013-05-13 2:00 PM TriRSquared - 2013-05-13 12:54 PM At which point in the youtube clip does he blame the attack on Benghazi on the video? Today's new item: "The day after it happened, I acknowledged that it was an act of terrorism.” - Obama Then why did he tell the UN it was due to the video almost 2 weeks after the attack? The man is lying about his lying... Um at 17 seconds in: "That is what we saw play out in the last 2 weeks. (Benghazi was about 2 weeks before this) A crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world." Why would he refer to the time period (2 weeks) if not referring to the attack (answer: he was). And if it WAS truly a terrorist attack and had nothing to do with the video then why even bring it up? I see. So it's not what he actually SAID, it's what he MEANT? |
|
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() mr2tony - 2013-05-13 3:57 PM TriRSquared - 2013-05-13 1:24 PM I see. So it's not what he actually SAID, it's what he MEANT? mr2tony - 2013-05-13 2:00 PM TriRSquared - 2013-05-13 12:54 PM At which point in the youtube clip does he blame the attack on Benghazi on the video? Today's new item: "The day after it happened, I acknowledged that it was an act of terrorism.” - Obama Then why did he tell the UN it was due to the video almost 2 weeks after the attack? The man is lying about his lying... Um at 17 seconds in: "That is what we saw play out in the last 2 weeks. (Benghazi was about 2 weeks before this) A crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world." Why would he refer to the time period (2 weeks) if not referring to the attack (answer: he was). And if it WAS truly a terrorist attack and had nothing to do with the video then why even bring it up? Really? Come on Tony... Please tell me what else he meant by this then... http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_3V7Oqe1q-g ..but, but he said the word terrorist... |
![]() ![]() |
Slower Than You ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Don't let Tony get under your skin, he's part of Barry's Back Pocket Media. Bought and paid for. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() bcart1991 - 2013-05-13 3:49 PM Don't let Tony get under your skin, he's part of Barry's Back Pocket Media. Bought and paid for. Yeah! Speaking of which, where's my check? Probably delayed due to sequestration. |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() scoobysdad - 2013-05-10 2:39 PM GomesBolt - 2013-05-10 12:52 PM I saw the comment. "..." was a much smarter choice. KateTri1 - 2013-05-10 12:00 PM powerman - 2013-05-10 12:53 PM scoobysdad - 2013-05-10 9:14 AM Finally, one of the major non-Fox News networks is paying attention. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-tal... As a bonus watch the segment following the one about the edits, featuring Hillary Clinton's testimony at the original hearings. Kind of puts a whole new light on her "heartfelt" words and the fawning media attention on her getting choked up about the four dead Americans to know now that she lied directly to the faces of the victims' family members, doesn't it? Remember, she was told directly by Greg Hicks at 2am the same night of the attacks that there was no protest outside the consulate due to any video, which was a "non-event in Libya". Yet she sold the story and attempted to prevent witnesses from providing their observations to a congressional investigation. She lied, she covered up. Of course, what difference, at this point, does it make, right? Ya, and same thing about the piece... "this could be used to beat up Hillary or beat up the state department"... How about instead of "beat up" how about "hold accountable". Or... here is an even more novel idea... instead of adding adjectives to spin your story, how about you just report the facts, and then let your audience decide. That would be awesome. ... Why'd you delete that? It was fine. But I agree completely with "..." as well Wow. That comment was on for tops, about 4 minutes. Were you guys doing a 30 second refresh of the thread or something? |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() There have been 11 hearings since the original investigation and over 25,000 pieces of documentation provided to Congress. I"m not sure what "new" damming revelations congress hopes to obtain. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() KateTri1 - 2013-05-13 4:48 PM scoobysdad - 2013-05-10 2:39 PM GomesBolt - 2013-05-10 12:52 PM I saw the comment. "..." was a much smarter choice. KateTri1 - 2013-05-10 12:00 PM powerman - 2013-05-10 12:53 PM scoobysdad - 2013-05-10 9:14 AM Finally, one of the major non-Fox News networks is paying attention. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-tal... As a bonus watch the segment following the one about the edits, featuring Hillary Clinton's testimony at the original hearings. Kind of puts a whole new light on her "heartfelt" words and the fawning media attention on her getting choked up about the four dead Americans to know now that she lied directly to the faces of the victims' family members, doesn't it? Remember, she was told directly by Greg Hicks at 2am the same night of the attacks that there was no protest outside the consulate due to any video, which was a "non-event in Libya". Yet she sold the story and attempted to prevent witnesses from providing their observations to a congressional investigation. She lied, she covered up. Of course, what difference, at this point, does it make, right? Ya, and same thing about the piece... "this could be used to beat up Hillary or beat up the state department"... How about instead of "beat up" how about "hold accountable". Or... here is an even more novel idea... instead of adding adjectives to spin your story, how about you just report the facts, and then let your audience decide. That would be awesome. ... Why'd you delete that? It was fine. But I agree completely with "..." as well Wow. That comment was on for tops, about 4 minutes. Were you guys doing a 30 second refresh of the thread or something? I get email notifications whenever anyone responds. So, it's kind of like the recalled email syndrome. Any time somebody edits their thread with a "never mind" or a ... like in your case I just go to my email to read it. Oh, and I didn't think your comment was bad. |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() tuwood - 2013-05-13 6:21 PM KateTri1 - 2013-05-13 4:48 PM scoobysdad - 2013-05-10 2:39 PM GomesBolt - 2013-05-10 12:52 PM I saw the comment. "..." was a much smarter choice. KateTri1 - 2013-05-10 12:00 PM powerman - 2013-05-10 12:53 PM scoobysdad - 2013-05-10 9:14 AM Finally, one of the major non-Fox News networks is paying attention. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-tal... As a bonus watch the segment following the one about the edits, featuring Hillary Clinton's testimony at the original hearings. Kind of puts a whole new light on her "heartfelt" words and the fawning media attention on her getting choked up about the four dead Americans to know now that she lied directly to the faces of the victims' family members, doesn't it? Remember, she was told directly by Greg Hicks at 2am the same night of the attacks that there was no protest outside the consulate due to any video, which was a "non-event in Libya". Yet she sold the story and attempted to prevent witnesses from providing their observations to a congressional investigation. She lied, she covered up. Of course, what difference, at this point, does it make, right? Ya, and same thing about the piece... "this could be used to beat up Hillary or beat up the state department"... How about instead of "beat up" how about "hold accountable". Or... here is an even more novel idea... instead of adding adjectives to spin your story, how about you just report the facts, and then let your audience decide. That would be awesome. ... Why'd you delete that? It was fine. But I agree completely with "..." as well Wow. That comment was on for tops, about 4 minutes. Were you guys doing a 30 second refresh of the thread or something? I get email notifications whenever anyone responds. So, it's kind of like the recalled email syndrome. Any time somebody edits their thread with a "never mind" or a ... like in your case I just go to my email to read it. Oh, and I didn't think your comment was bad. Well, it was a light hearted joke toward Hillary. But given the topic, I felt .. it was a bit disrespectful. Hence the the change.. didn't really have anything smart to add.. lol.. I guess it's better to be quiet and thought a fool than speak up and have it confirmed. I didn't know about the possibility of email notifications on these threads.. interesting. Edited by KateTri1 2013-05-13 6:19 PM |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() KateTri1 - 2013-05-13 5:02 PMThere have been 11 hearings since the original investigation and over 25,000 pieces of documentation provided to Congress. I"m not sure what "new" damming revelations congress hopes to obtain. I think it's clear that they got the testimony from Greg Hicks, they got the edits to the talking points, they got Nuland's ridiculous email, and they're getting a testimony from Patraeus that who knows where that will go. Jay Carney according to George Will (a RINO if ever there was one) is quickly losing his value to the White House. This is not a done deal. Even Tom Brokaw said this is just starting. This, the IrS, and now the AP, this will get really ugly. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() KateTri1 - 2013-05-13 7:18 PM tuwood - 2013-05-13 6:21 PM KateTri1 - 2013-05-13 4:48 PM scoobysdad - 2013-05-10 2:39 PM GomesBolt - 2013-05-10 12:52 PM I saw the comment. "..." was a much smarter choice. KateTri1 - 2013-05-10 12:00 PM powerman - 2013-05-10 12:53 PM scoobysdad - 2013-05-10 9:14 AM Finally, one of the major non-Fox News networks is paying attention. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-tal... As a bonus watch the segment following the one about the edits, featuring Hillary Clinton's testimony at the original hearings. Kind of puts a whole new light on her "heartfelt" words and the fawning media attention on her getting choked up about the four dead Americans to know now that she lied directly to the faces of the victims' family members, doesn't it? Remember, she was told directly by Greg Hicks at 2am the same night of the attacks that there was no protest outside the consulate due to any video, which was a "non-event in Libya". Yet she sold the story and attempted to prevent witnesses from providing their observations to a congressional investigation. She lied, she covered up. Of course, what difference, at this point, does it make, right? Ya, and same thing about the piece... "this could be used to beat up Hillary or beat up the state department"... How about instead of "beat up" how about "hold accountable". Or... here is an even more novel idea... instead of adding adjectives to spin your story, how about you just report the facts, and then let your audience decide. That would be awesome. ... Why'd you delete that? It was fine. But I agree completely with "..." as well Wow. That comment was on for tops, about 4 minutes. Were you guys doing a 30 second refresh of the thread or something? I get email notifications whenever anyone responds. So, it's kind of like the recalled email syndrome. Any time somebody edits their thread with a "never mind" or a ... like in your case I just go to my email to read it. Oh, and I didn't think your comment was bad. Well, it was a light hearted joke toward Hillary. But given the topic, I felt .. it was a bit disrespectful. Hence the the change.. didn't really have anything smart to add.. lol.. I guess it's better to be quiet and thought a fool than speak up and have it confirmed. I didn't know about the possibility of email notifications on these threads.. interesting. On the Hillary side of things, it wasn't long ago that the Fox News commentators were accusing Hillary of faking a head injury to avoid testifying on Benghazi. ...and that's what Stewart and Colbert are probably blasting the most. It does not appear as if fact-finding is the m.o. here. As you've seen in countless posts in this thread...either the president and/or Hillary is lying, or their incompetence is to blame for the Benghazi mess. It's just the latest false choice scenario with more soon to come I'm sure.
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() Formula to any scandal in DC: Admit Nothing, Deny Everything, Make Counter-Accusations. Obama did all that and more today with two issues. One reporter put it this way: Lie, Lie, Lie, Lie some more, now say it's old news. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Interesting article about how Obama never really specifically called the Libyan consulate attack "terrorism" in the days following the incident, much as he's trying to sell that now. Vaguely referring to an "act of terror" in the general sense is not the same thing. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-... |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() GomesBolt - 2013-05-13 9:00 PM Formula to any scandal in DC: Admit Nothing, Deny Everything, Make Counter-Accusations. Obama did all that and more today with two issues. One reporter put it this way: Lie, Lie, Lie, Lie some more, now say it's old news. I loved his comment the other day saying that Benghazi is bring brought up again due to "political motivations". You mean like the way it was swept under the rug during the election due to "political motivations"? Pot.Kettle.Black. wait, is that racist? |
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() ChineseDemocracy - 2013-05-13 8:29 PM KateTri1 - 2013-05-13 7:18 PM tuwood - 2013-05-13 6:21 PM KateTri1 - 2013-05-13 4:48 PM scoobysdad - 2013-05-10 2:39 PM GomesBolt - 2013-05-10 12:52 PM I saw the comment. "..." was a much smarter choice. KateTri1 - 2013-05-10 12:00 PM powerman - 2013-05-10 12:53 PM scoobysdad - 2013-05-10 9:14 AM Finally, one of the major non-Fox News networks is paying attention. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-tal... As a bonus watch the segment following the one about the edits, featuring Hillary Clinton's testimony at the original hearings. Kind of puts a whole new light on her "heartfelt" words and the fawning media attention on her getting choked up about the four dead Americans to know now that she lied directly to the faces of the victims' family members, doesn't it? Remember, she was told directly by Greg Hicks at 2am the same night of the attacks that there was no protest outside the consulate due to any video, which was a "non-event in Libya". Yet she sold the story and attempted to prevent witnesses from providing their observations to a congressional investigation. She lied, she covered up. Of course, what difference, at this point, does it make, right? Ya, and same thing about the piece... "this could be used to beat up Hillary or beat up the state department"... How about instead of "beat up" how about "hold accountable". Or... here is an even more novel idea... instead of adding adjectives to spin your story, how about you just report the facts, and then let your audience decide. That would be awesome. ... Why'd you delete that? It was fine. But I agree completely with "..." as well Wow. That comment was on for tops, about 4 minutes. Were you guys doing a 30 second refresh of the thread or something? I get email notifications whenever anyone responds. So, it's kind of like the recalled email syndrome. Any time somebody edits their thread with a "never mind" or a ... like in your case I just go to my email to read it. Oh, and I didn't think your comment was bad. Well, it was a light hearted joke toward Hillary. But given the topic, I felt .. it was a bit disrespectful. Hence the the change.. didn't really have anything smart to add.. lol.. I guess it's better to be quiet and thought a fool than speak up and have it confirmed. I didn't know about the possibility of email notifications on these threads.. interesting. On the Hillary side of things, it wasn't long ago that the Fox News commentators were accusing Hillary of faking a head injury to avoid testifying on Benghazi. ...and that's what Stewart and Colbert are probably blasting the most. It does not appear as if fact-finding is the m.o. here. As you've seen in countless posts in this thread...either the president and/or Hillary is lying, or their incompetence is to blame for the Benghazi mess. It's just the latest false choice scenario with more soon to come I'm sure.
Like it or not, truth or not, the Obama admin is now hip dip in defending itself in ever-widening investigations. DOJ phone # grab on AP reporters, Benghazi, and IRS targeting conservative groups. With the media in his pocket this should be no problem to defend or push aside, IF THEY DID NOTHING WRONG. I do not buy that all the media wants is a story. They would have covered this long ago if that was the case. For the record, this is not the GOP's fault or the Republicans fault... if there really is nothing there then it will be obvious that it was only politically motivated and will be seen as a farce.....I think we're long past that honestly. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ChineseDemocracy - 2013-05-13 5:29 PM KateTri1 - 2013-05-13 7:18 PM tuwood - 2013-05-13 6:21 PM KateTri1 - 2013-05-13 4:48 PM scoobysdad - 2013-05-10 2:39 PM GomesBolt - 2013-05-10 12:52 PM I saw the comment. "..." was a much smarter choice. KateTri1 - 2013-05-10 12:00 PM powerman - 2013-05-10 12:53 PM scoobysdad - 2013-05-10 9:14 AM Finally, one of the major non-Fox News networks is paying attention. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-tal... As a bonus watch the segment following the one about the edits, featuring Hillary Clinton's testimony at the original hearings. Kind of puts a whole new light on her "heartfelt" words and the fawning media attention on her getting choked up about the four dead Americans to know now that she lied directly to the faces of the victims' family members, doesn't it? Remember, she was told directly by Greg Hicks at 2am the same night of the attacks that there was no protest outside the consulate due to any video, which was a "non-event in Libya". Yet she sold the story and attempted to prevent witnesses from providing their observations to a congressional investigation. She lied, she covered up. Of course, what difference, at this point, does it make, right? Ya, and same thing about the piece... "this could be used to beat up Hillary or beat up the state department"... How about instead of "beat up" how about "hold accountable". Or... here is an even more novel idea... instead of adding adjectives to spin your story, how about you just report the facts, and then let your audience decide. That would be awesome. ... Why'd you delete that? It was fine. But I agree completely with "..." as well Wow. That comment was on for tops, about 4 minutes. Were you guys doing a 30 second refresh of the thread or something? I get email notifications whenever anyone responds. So, it's kind of like the recalled email syndrome. Any time somebody edits their thread with a "never mind" or a ... like in your case I just go to my email to read it. Oh, and I didn't think your comment was bad. Well, it was a light hearted joke toward Hillary. But given the topic, I felt .. it was a bit disrespectful. Hence the the change.. didn't really have anything smart to add.. lol.. I guess it's better to be quiet and thought a fool than speak up and have it confirmed. I didn't know about the possibility of email notifications on these threads.. interesting. On the Hillary side of things, it wasn't long ago that the Fox News commentators were accusing Hillary of faking a head injury to avoid testifying on Benghazi. ...and that's what Stewart and Colbert are probably blasting the most. It does not appear as if fact-finding is the m.o. here. As you've seen in countless posts in this thread...either the president and/or Hillary is lying, or their incompetence is to blame for the Benghazi mess. It's just the latest false choice scenario with more soon to come I'm sure.
I think I've made that statement about both Obama and Hillary and I'd be happy to hear your thoughts on it. I was and am specifically talking about the FACT that it was called a spontaneous outburst due to a Video. If they weren't lying and they were not incompetent why did Susan Rice, Obama and Hillary say the above? I think any rational thinking person knows some sudden outburst by a demonstration wouldn't be pulling RPG's and Mortars out of their jackets and firing them off. But I seriously want to hear your thoughts on this. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() scoobysdad - 2013-05-14 8:03 AM Interesting article about how Obama never really specifically called the Libyan consulate attack "terrorism" in the days following the incident, much as he's trying to sell that now. Vaguely referring to an "act of terror" in the general sense is not the same thing. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-... Really Rich? He didn't "vaguely" refer to an act of terror. He specifically used the words, "act of terror." I don't understand how that is vague. Heck, I think it may even be a bit too much as the 3 separate times he used the terminology were extremely close to September 11th...within what, 2 days of the event? Personally, I'd want a thorough investigation into exactly what caused the attack prior to describing it in any manner. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() tri42 - 2013-05-14 5:11 PM ChineseDemocracy - 2013-05-13 8:29 PM Like it or not, truth or not, the Obama admin is now hip dip in defending itself in ever-widening investigations. DOJ phone # grab on AP reporters, Benghazi, and IRS targeting conservative groups. With the media in his pocket this should be no problem to defend or push aside, IF THEY DID NOTHING WRONG. I do not buy that all the media wants is a story. They would have covered this long ago if that was the case. For the record, this is not the GOP's fault or the Republicans fault... if there really is nothing there then it will be obvious that it was only politically motivated and will be seen as a farce.....I think we're long past that honestly. KateTri1 - 2013-05-13 7:18 PM tuwood - 2013-05-13 6:21 PM KateTri1 - 2013-05-13 4:48 PM scoobysdad - 2013-05-10 2:39 PM GomesBolt - 2013-05-10 12:52 PM I saw the comment. "..." was a much smarter choice. KateTri1 - 2013-05-10 12:00 PM powerman - 2013-05-10 12:53 PM scoobysdad - 2013-05-10 9:14 AM Finally, one of the major non-Fox News networks is paying attention. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-tal... As a bonus watch the segment following the one about the edits, featuring Hillary Clinton's testimony at the original hearings. Kind of puts a whole new light on her "heartfelt" words and the fawning media attention on her getting choked up about the four dead Americans to know now that she lied directly to the faces of the victims' family members, doesn't it? Remember, she was told directly by Greg Hicks at 2am the same night of the attacks that there was no protest outside the consulate due to any video, which was a "non-event in Libya". Yet she sold the story and attempted to prevent witnesses from providing their observations to a congressional investigation. She lied, she covered up. Of course, what difference, at this point, does it make, right? Ya, and same thing about the piece... "this could be used to beat up Hillary or beat up the state department"... How about instead of "beat up" how about "hold accountable". Or... here is an even more novel idea... instead of adding adjectives to spin your story, how about you just report the facts, and then let your audience decide. That would be awesome. ... Why'd you delete that? It was fine. But I agree completely with "..." as well Wow. That comment was on for tops, about 4 minutes. Were you guys doing a 30 second refresh of the thread or something? I get email notifications whenever anyone responds. So, it's kind of like the recalled email syndrome. Any time somebody edits their thread with a "never mind" or a ... like in your case I just go to my email to read it. Oh, and I didn't think your comment was bad. Well, it was a light hearted joke toward Hillary. But given the topic, I felt .. it was a bit disrespectful. Hence the the change.. didn't really have anything smart to add.. lol.. I guess it's better to be quiet and thought a fool than speak up and have it confirmed. I didn't know about the possibility of email notifications on these threads.. interesting. On the Hillary side of things, it wasn't long ago that the Fox News commentators were accusing Hillary of faking a head injury to avoid testifying on Benghazi. ...and that's what Stewart and Colbert are probably blasting the most. It does not appear as if fact-finding is the m.o. here. As you've seen in countless posts in this thread...either the president and/or Hillary is lying, or their incompetence is to blame for the Benghazi mess. It's just the latest false choice scenario with more soon to come I'm sure.
tri42, you said it best in your first line..."truth or not." It doesn't matter if it's true or not. Sling it, sling it, sling it. Eventually the mud sticks, whether it should or not, right? That's politics. What was the DOJ doing? Were they dealing with national security issues? Were they doing what was necessary to get information on active terrorist cells intent on killing Americans? What happens when the investigations that the GOP are pursuing come up against classified info. walls? There's a lot of gray here. ...and to put forth the president is somehow encouraging and or allowing the IRS to target political enemies is beyond comedy...but then again, the accusations are coming from a party in which 30% of registered Republicans believe the president is Muslim, and over 50% believe he was born outside of the United States. What's that phrase the kids nowadays use? haters gonna hate. Most of those clamoring most fervently for investigation on top of investigation are not seeking the truth, they are seeking political points. It kinda goes back to the boy who cried wolf syndrome Jon Stewart was pointing out.
|
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() ChineseDemocracy - 2013-05-14 7:31 PM tri42 - 2013-05-14 5:11 PM ChineseDemocracy - 2013-05-13 8:29 PM Like it or not, truth or not, the Obama admin is now hip dip in defending itself in ever-widening investigations. DOJ phone # grab on AP reporters, Benghazi, and IRS targeting conservative groups. With the media in his pocket this should be no problem to defend or push aside, IF THEY DID NOTHING WRONG. I do not buy that all the media wants is a story. They would have covered this long ago if that was the case. For the record, this is not the GOP's fault or the Republicans fault... if there really is nothing there then it will be obvious that it was only politically motivated and will be seen as a farce.....I think we're long past that honestly. KateTri1 - 2013-05-13 7:18 PM tuwood - 2013-05-13 6:21 PM KateTri1 - 2013-05-13 4:48 PM scoobysdad - 2013-05-10 2:39 PM GomesBolt - 2013-05-10 12:52 PM I saw the comment. "..." was a much smarter choice. KateTri1 - 2013-05-10 12:00 PM powerman - 2013-05-10 12:53 PM scoobysdad - 2013-05-10 9:14 AM Finally, one of the major non-Fox News networks is paying attention. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-tal... As a bonus watch the segment following the one about the edits, featuring Hillary Clinton's testimony at the original hearings. Kind of puts a whole new light on her "heartfelt" words and the fawning media attention on her getting choked up about the four dead Americans to know now that she lied directly to the faces of the victims' family members, doesn't it? Remember, she was told directly by Greg Hicks at 2am the same night of the attacks that there was no protest outside the consulate due to any video, which was a "non-event in Libya". Yet she sold the story and attempted to prevent witnesses from providing their observations to a congressional investigation. She lied, she covered up. Of course, what difference, at this point, does it make, right? Ya, and same thing about the piece... "this could be used to beat up Hillary or beat up the state department"... How about instead of "beat up" how about "hold accountable". Or... here is an even more novel idea... instead of adding adjectives to spin your story, how about you just report the facts, and then let your audience decide. That would be awesome. ... Why'd you delete that? It was fine. But I agree completely with "..." as well Wow. That comment was on for tops, about 4 minutes. Were you guys doing a 30 second refresh of the thread or something? I get email notifications whenever anyone responds. So, it's kind of like the recalled email syndrome. Any time somebody edits their thread with a "never mind" or a ... like in your case I just go to my email to read it. Oh, and I didn't think your comment was bad. Well, it was a light hearted joke toward Hillary. But given the topic, I felt .. it was a bit disrespectful. Hence the the change.. didn't really have anything smart to add.. lol.. I guess it's better to be quiet and thought a fool than speak up and have it confirmed. I didn't know about the possibility of email notifications on these threads.. interesting. On the Hillary side of things, it wasn't long ago that the Fox News commentators were accusing Hillary of faking a head injury to avoid testifying on Benghazi. ...and that's what Stewart and Colbert are probably blasting the most. It does not appear as if fact-finding is the m.o. here. As you've seen in countless posts in this thread...either the president and/or Hillary is lying, or their incompetence is to blame for the Benghazi mess. It's just the latest false choice scenario with more soon to come I'm sure.
tri42, you said it best in your first line..."truth or not." It doesn't matter if it's true or not. Sling it, sling it, sling it. Eventually the mud sticks, whether it should or not, right? That's politics. What was the DOJ doing? Were they dealing with national security issues? Were they doing what was necessary to get information on active terrorist cells intent on killing Americans? What happens when the investigations that the GOP are pursuing come up against classified info. walls? There's a lot of gray here. ...and to put forth the president is somehow encouraging and or allowing the IRS to target political enemies is beyond comedy...but then again, the accusations are coming from a party in which 30% of registered Republicans believe the president is Muslim, and over 50% believe he was born outside of the United States. What's that phrase the kids nowadays use? haters gonna hate. Most of those clamoring most fervently for investigation on top of investigation are not seeking the truth, they are seeking political points. It kinda goes back to the boy who cried wolf syndrome Jon Stewart was pointing out.
I DONT CARE IF OBAMA IS INVOLVED OR NOT. Find out what really happened. What is the truth ? No one's slinging anything. Can you harbor the thought that MAYBE the Administration is possibly involved in a cover up(s) ? We don't know. but it is possible. It's definitely worth investigating. Let's stop hiding behind the you're after my boy and it's wrong theme. He's starting to lose the benefit of the doubt now, not only in my eyes, but in the mainstream media's eyes... a group who mostly voted FOR Obama. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() tri42 - 2013-05-14 4:11 PM ChineseDemocracy - 2013-05-13 8:29 PM KateTri1 - 2013-05-13 7:18 PM tuwood - 2013-05-13 6:21 PM KateTri1 - 2013-05-13 4:48 PM scoobysdad - 2013-05-10 2:39 PM GomesBolt - 2013-05-10 12:52 PM I saw the comment. "..." was a much smarter choice. KateTri1 - 2013-05-10 12:00 PM powerman - 2013-05-10 12:53 PM scoobysdad - 2013-05-10 9:14 AM Finally, one of the major non-Fox News networks is paying attention. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-tal... As a bonus watch the segment following the one about the edits, featuring Hillary Clinton's testimony at the original hearings. Kind of puts a whole new light on her "heartfelt" words and the fawning media attention on her getting choked up about the four dead Americans to know now that she lied directly to the faces of the victims' family members, doesn't it? Remember, she was told directly by Greg Hicks at 2am the same night of the attacks that there was no protest outside the consulate due to any video, which was a "non-event in Libya". Yet she sold the story and attempted to prevent witnesses from providing their observations to a congressional investigation. She lied, she covered up. Of course, what difference, at this point, does it make, right? Ya, and same thing about the piece... "this could be used to beat up Hillary or beat up the state department"... How about instead of "beat up" how about "hold accountable". Or... here is an even more novel idea... instead of adding adjectives to spin your story, how about you just report the facts, and then let your audience decide. That would be awesome. ... Why'd you delete that? It was fine. But I agree completely with "..." as well Wow. That comment was on for tops, about 4 minutes. Were you guys doing a 30 second refresh of the thread or something? I get email notifications whenever anyone responds. So, it's kind of like the recalled email syndrome. Any time somebody edits their thread with a "never mind" or a ... like in your case I just go to my email to read it. Oh, and I didn't think your comment was bad. Well, it was a light hearted joke toward Hillary. But given the topic, I felt .. it was a bit disrespectful. Hence the the change.. didn't really have anything smart to add.. lol.. I guess it's better to be quiet and thought a fool than speak up and have it confirmed. I didn't know about the possibility of email notifications on these threads.. interesting. On the Hillary side of things, it wasn't long ago that the Fox News commentators were accusing Hillary of faking a head injury to avoid testifying on Benghazi. ...and that's what Stewart and Colbert are probably blasting the most. It does not appear as if fact-finding is the m.o. here. As you've seen in countless posts in this thread...either the president and/or Hillary is lying, or their incompetence is to blame for the Benghazi mess. It's just the latest false choice scenario with more soon to come I'm sure.
Like it or not, truth or not, the Obama admin is now hip dip in defending itself in ever-widening investigations. DOJ phone # grab on AP reporters, Benghazi, and IRS targeting conservative groups. With the media in his pocket this should be no problem to defend or push aside, IF THEY DID NOTHING WRONG. I do not buy that all the media wants is a story. They would have covered this long ago if that was the case. For the record, this is not the GOP's fault or the Republicans fault... if there really is nothing there then it will be obvious that it was only politically motivated and will be seen as a farce.....I think we're long past that honestly. Did you just seriously say "truth or not"? Yup. You did. "Truth or not, the Obama admin is hip dip in defending itself..." Thanks for making my point for me. This has nothing to do with the truth and never did. This is about getting the Obama administration on the defensive and keeping them there for as long as they can. |
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-14 9:20 PM tri42 - 2013-05-14 4:11 PM ChineseDemocracy - 2013-05-13 8:29 PM KateTri1 - 2013-05-13 7:18 PM tuwood - 2013-05-13 6:21 PM KateTri1 - 2013-05-13 4:48 PM scoobysdad - 2013-05-10 2:39 PM GomesBolt - 2013-05-10 12:52 PM I saw the comment. "..." was a much smarter choice. KateTri1 - 2013-05-10 12:00 PM powerman - 2013-05-10 12:53 PM scoobysdad - 2013-05-10 9:14 AM Finally, one of the major non-Fox News networks is paying attention. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-tal... As a bonus watch the segment following the one about the edits, featuring Hillary Clinton's testimony at the original hearings. Kind of puts a whole new light on her "heartfelt" words and the fawning media attention on her getting choked up about the four dead Americans to know now that she lied directly to the faces of the victims' family members, doesn't it? Remember, she was told directly by Greg Hicks at 2am the same night of the attacks that there was no protest outside the consulate due to any video, which was a "non-event in Libya". Yet she sold the story and attempted to prevent witnesses from providing their observations to a congressional investigation. She lied, she covered up. Of course, what difference, at this point, does it make, right? Ya, and same thing about the piece... "this could be used to beat up Hillary or beat up the state department"... How about instead of "beat up" how about "hold accountable". Or... here is an even more novel idea... instead of adding adjectives to spin your story, how about you just report the facts, and then let your audience decide. That would be awesome. ... Why'd you delete that? It was fine. But I agree completely with "..." as well Wow. That comment was on for tops, about 4 minutes. Were you guys doing a 30 second refresh of the thread or something? I get email notifications whenever anyone responds. So, it's kind of like the recalled email syndrome. Any time somebody edits their thread with a "never mind" or a ... like in your case I just go to my email to read it. Oh, and I didn't think your comment was bad. Well, it was a light hearted joke toward Hillary. But given the topic, I felt .. it was a bit disrespectful. Hence the the change.. didn't really have anything smart to add.. lol.. I guess it's better to be quiet and thought a fool than speak up and have it confirmed. I didn't know about the possibility of email notifications on these threads.. interesting. On the Hillary side of things, it wasn't long ago that the Fox News commentators were accusing Hillary of faking a head injury to avoid testifying on Benghazi. ...and that's what Stewart and Colbert are probably blasting the most. It does not appear as if fact-finding is the m.o. here. As you've seen in countless posts in this thread...either the president and/or Hillary is lying, or their incompetence is to blame for the Benghazi mess. It's just the latest false choice scenario with more soon to come I'm sure.
Like it or not, truth or not, the Obama admin is now hip dip in defending itself in ever-widening investigations. DOJ phone # grab on AP reporters, Benghazi, and IRS targeting conservative groups. With the media in his pocket this should be no problem to defend or push aside, IF THEY DID NOTHING WRONG. I do not buy that all the media wants is a story. They would have covered this long ago if that was the case. For the record, this is not the GOP's fault or the Republicans fault... if there really is nothing there then it will be obvious that it was only politically motivated and will be seen as a farce.....I think we're long past that honestly. Did you just seriously say "truth or not"? Yup. You did. "Truth or not, the Obama admin is hip dip in defending itself..." Thanks for making my point for me. This has nothing to do with the truth and never did. This is about getting the Obama administration on the defensive and keeping them there for as long as they can. Intelligence does not always trump eyesight, at least. If you don't understand what I posted and what that means, I can't help you. Seriously. I have no desire to see Obama smeared, get to the truth. Do you honestly think the Administration had nothing to do with all 3 things ? Really ? If it was the Bush admin in place now, I wouldn't like to say it but I would have a hard time defending that they were completely oblivious. LOL.... still can't believe you think I'm contradicted myself because of the truth or not statement.... think long enough and you may figure it out. |
|