login
Benghazi
-
No new posts
 2012-11-01 1:30 PM |
Champion  7347     SRQ, FL |  Subject: BenghaziSandy pushed this off the front page for a few days but more and more seems to be coming to light. While there are still a bunch of unknowns it sure is looking like the WH, CIA and State Dept are playing a dangerous game of "who can throw who under the bus". I honestly believe that some major mistakes (maybe not intentional but mistakes nonetheless) were made and that trying to cover it up (and conveniently pushing the investigation off till after the election) is going to bite the Obama administration in the rear eventually. |
| 2012-11-01 1:34 PM in reply to: #4478918 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Benghazi it's pretty obvious the administration (and their media cohorts) are doing everything they can to push this story until after next Tuesday. |
| 2012-11-01 1:49 PM in reply to: #4478918 |
Master 2277 Lake Norman, NC | Subject: RE: Benghazi TriRSquared - 2012-11-01 2:30 PM I honestly believe that some major mistakes (maybe not intentional but mistakes nonetheless) were made... ...is going to bite the Obama administration in the rear eventually. The rear-biting has basically already happened. Obama was on The Daily Show and just came out and said, "we didn't know what was going on. State, CIA, my office - it's a big machine with lots of people and the communication and coordination just wasn't there. It takes time to figure out what was going on. In most instances, there was too much communication and it was all unvetted." I think it's a big story when it happens BECAUSE of the administration and basically the President. But this is most likely a case of the big government machine simply not able to effectively work. It could've happened under Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan... even Romney! You take things for granted until something goes wrong. Then you fix it to try and make sure it doesn't happen again. Overturned a rock and exposed a problem? HALE YES! Major mistakes. Hillary Clinton just came out and said, "you want to blame someone, blame me." If you're in Congress and want to call for resignation - not all together unreasonable. Same as "Fast & Furious". If I were in Congress, I would want many an ATF head on the block! (Holder wasn't in Justice when the program kicked off.) I don't believe there's any coverup. Trying to keep it out of the news and on out of the limelight until after the election? Well of course!
|
| 2012-11-01 1:55 PM in reply to: #4478926 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Benghazi tuwood - 2012-11-01 1:34 PM it's pretty obvious the administration (and their media cohorts) are doing everything they can to push this story until after next Tuesday. As of right now, the headlines on the bank of TVs in my office are as follows: CNN: Mayor Thomas Kelaher, Toms River, New Jersey. MSNBC: Basement Apartments and First Floor Units Flooded Around Hoboken FOX: Mainstream Media Has Been Absent from Behghazi Investigation Bloomberg: New Jersey Drivers Wait in Line for Fuel as Sandy Curbs Gasoline CNBC: Wave of Scams Could Follow Sandy Top headlines of the day: Wall Street Journal: Battered Region Faces Long Recovery NY Times: More Dead Found in Storm’s Wreckage Chicago Tribune: Death toll up, gasoline lines grow after Sandy (actually now it's Naperville slayings: Kids told to 'get on their knees and pray') I would say that it's not the liberal media doing anything. I would say most rational people want to know about the storm's effects rather than Benghazi. In fact, of all the news sources I've looked today, only one has Benghazi even in it's top three or four stories. Yep, you guessed it, Fox News. |
| 2012-11-01 2:00 PM in reply to: #4478957 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Benghazi Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-11-01 2:49 PM TriRSquared - 2012-11-01 2:30 PM I honestly believe that some major mistakes (maybe not intentional but mistakes nonetheless) were made... ...is going to bite the Obama administration in the rear eventually. The rear-biting has basically already happened. Obama was on The Daily Show and just came out and said, "we didn't know what was going on. State, CIA, my office - it's a big machine with lots of people and the communication and coordination just wasn't there. It takes time to figure out what was going on. In most instances, there was too much communication and it was all unvetted." I think it's a big story when it happens BECAUSE of the administration and basically the President. But this is most likely a case of the big government machine simply not able to effectively work. It could've happened under Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan... even Romney! You take things for granted until something goes wrong. Then you fix it to try and make sure it doesn't happen again. Overturned a rock and exposed a problem? HALE YES! Major mistakes. Hillary Clinton just came out and said, "you want to blame someone, blame me." If you're in Congress and want to call for resignation - not all together unreasonable. Same as "Fast & Furious". If I were in Congress, I would want many an ATF head on the block! (Holder wasn't in Justice when the program kicked off.) I don't believe there's any coverup. Trying to keep it out of the news and on out of the limelight until after the election? Well of course I agree it can happen under any administration. However you put all the facts out in the open and then apologize for your mistakes and fire the people who dropped the ball. A coverup? Maybe not in the true sense of the word. Are they dragging their feet to really release what happened. Yep. I believe that 100%. As for your F&F claim you are incorrect. F&F kicked off in Oct 2009. Obama and Holder were in office. There were similar operations done under the Bush admin but those had ended. F&F is 100% Obama and Holder's baby. And Holder should have been gone LONG ago for it. |
| 2012-11-01 2:01 PM in reply to: #4478969 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Benghazi mr2tony - 2012-11-01 2:55 PM tuwood - 2012-11-01 1:34 PM it's pretty obvious the administration (and their media cohorts) are doing everything they can to push this story until after next Tuesday. As of right now, the headlines on the bank of TVs in my office are as follows: CNN: Mayor Thomas Kelaher, Toms River, New Jersey. MSNBC: Basement Apartments and First Floor Units Flooded Around Hoboken FOX: Mainstream Media Has Been Absent from Behghazi Investigation Bloomberg: New Jersey Drivers Wait in Line for Fuel as Sandy Curbs Gasoline CNBC: Wave of Scams Could Follow Sandy Top headlines of the day: Wall Street Journal: Battered Region Faces Long Recovery NY Times: More Dead Found in Storm’s Wreckage Chicago Tribune: Death toll up, gasoline lines grow after Sandy (actually now it's Naperville slayings: Kids told to 'get on their knees and pray') I would say that it's not the liberal media doing anything. I would say most rational people want to know about the storm's effects rather than Benghazi. In fact, of all the news sources I've looked today, only one has Benghazi even in it's top three or four stories. Yep, you guessed it, Fox News. You do realize you just proved his point right? |
| 2012-11-01 2:15 PM in reply to: #4478987 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Benghazi TriRSquared - 2012-11-01 2:01 PM mr2tony - 2012-11-01 2:55 PM tuwood - 2012-11-01 1:34 PM it's pretty obvious the administration (and their media cohorts) are doing everything they can to push this story until after next Tuesday. As of right now, the headlines on the bank of TVs in my office are as follows: CNN: Mayor Thomas Kelaher, Toms River, New Jersey. MSNBC: Basement Apartments and First Floor Units Flooded Around Hoboken FOX: Mainstream Media Has Been Absent from Behghazi Investigation Bloomberg: New Jersey Drivers Wait in Line for Fuel as Sandy Curbs Gasoline CNBC: Wave of Scams Could Follow Sandy Top headlines of the day: Wall Street Journal: Battered Region Faces Long Recovery NY Times: More Dead Found in Storm’s Wreckage Chicago Tribune: Death toll up, gasoline lines grow after Sandy (actually now it's Naperville slayings: Kids told to 'get on their knees and pray') I would say that it's not the liberal media doing anything. I would say most rational people want to know about the storm's effects rather than Benghazi. In fact, of all the news sources I've looked today, only one has Benghazi even in it's top three or four stories. Yep, you guessed it, Fox News. You do realize you just proved his point right? lol, I was going to say the same thing. Prior to Sandy it was pretty much the same thing. Fox News talking Benghazi and all the other outlets talking about anything but. The only journalist to ask Obama a serious question about Benghazi (to which he completely dodged) was a local reporter in Denver. Brian Williams spent 2 days with the President a week ago for a 30 minute interview and the best he could do was "are you happy with your intelligence community in our post 9-11 world" or something like that. /facepalm |
| 2012-11-01 2:25 PM in reply to: #4479036 |
Champion 11989  Philly 'burbs | Subject: RE: Benghazi tuwood - 2012-11-01 3:15 PM TriRSquared - 2012-11-01 2:01 PM mr2tony - 2012-11-01 2:55 PM tuwood - 2012-11-01 1:34 PM it's pretty obvious the administration (and their media cohorts) are doing everything they can to push this story until after next Tuesday. As of right now, the headlines on the bank of TVs in my office are as follows: CNN: Mayor Thomas Kelaher, Toms River, New Jersey. MSNBC: Basement Apartments and First Floor Units Flooded Around Hoboken FOX: Mainstream Media Has Been Absent from Behghazi Investigation Bloomberg: New Jersey Drivers Wait in Line for Fuel as Sandy Curbs Gasoline CNBC: Wave of Scams Could Follow Sandy Top headlines of the day: Wall Street Journal: Battered Region Faces Long Recovery NY Times: More Dead Found in Storm’s Wreckage Chicago Tribune: Death toll up, gasoline lines grow after Sandy (actually now it's Naperville slayings: Kids told to 'get on their knees and pray') I would say that it's not the liberal media doing anything. I would say most rational people want to know about the storm's effects rather than Benghazi. In fact, of all the news sources I've looked today, only one has Benghazi even in it's top three or four stories. Yep, you guessed it, Fox News. You do realize you just proved his point right? lol, I was going to say the same thing. Prior to Sandy it was pretty much the same thing. Fox News talking Benghazi and all the other outlets talking about anything but. The only journalist to ask Obama a serious question about Benghazi (to which he completely dodged) was a local reporter in Denver. Brian Williams spent 2 days with the President a week ago for a 30 minute interview and the best he could do was "are you happy with your intelligence community in our post 9-11 world" or something like that. /facepalm I must say I'm pretty impressed that the Dems managed to cook up a hurricane of this magnitude to get their failings off the front pages. |
| 2012-11-01 2:27 PM in reply to: #4479058 |
| Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida | Subject: RE: Benghazi mrbbrad - 2012-11-01 3:25 PM tuwood - 2012-11-01 3:15 PM TriRSquared - 2012-11-01 2:01 PM mr2tony - 2012-11-01 2:55 PM tuwood - 2012-11-01 1:34 PM it's pretty obvious the administration (and their media cohorts) are doing everything they can to push this story until after next Tuesday. As of right now, the headlines on the bank of TVs in my office are as follows: CNN: Mayor Thomas Kelaher, Toms River, New Jersey. MSNBC: Basement Apartments and First Floor Units Flooded Around Hoboken FOX: Mainstream Media Has Been Absent from Behghazi Investigation Bloomberg: New Jersey Drivers Wait in Line for Fuel as Sandy Curbs Gasoline CNBC: Wave of Scams Could Follow Sandy Top headlines of the day: Wall Street Journal: Battered Region Faces Long Recovery NY Times: More Dead Found in Storm’s Wreckage Chicago Tribune: Death toll up, gasoline lines grow after Sandy (actually now it's Naperville slayings: Kids told to 'get on their knees and pray') I would say that it's not the liberal media doing anything. I would say most rational people want to know about the storm's effects rather than Benghazi. In fact, of all the news sources I've looked today, only one has Benghazi even in it's top three or four stories. Yep, you guessed it, Fox News. You do realize you just proved his point right? lol, I was going to say the same thing. Prior to Sandy it was pretty much the same thing. Fox News talking Benghazi and all the other outlets talking about anything but. The only journalist to ask Obama a serious question about Benghazi (to which he completely dodged) was a local reporter in Denver. Brian Williams spent 2 days with the President a week ago for a 30 minute interview and the best he could do was "are you happy with your intelligence community in our post 9-11 world" or something like that. /facepalm I must say I'm pretty impressed that the Dems managed to cook up a hurricane of this magnitude to get their failings off the front pages. Only if by Democrats, you mean Iran... Pretty much one in the same... http://www.examiner.com/article/hurricane-sandy-credited-to-heroic-iranian-regime-by-syria |
| 2012-11-01 2:32 PM in reply to: #4479036 |
Master 2277 Lake Norman, NC | Subject: RE: Benghazi tuwood - 2012-11-01 3:15 PM TriRSquared - 2012-11-01 2:01 PM mr2tony - 2012-11-01 2:55 PM tuwood - 2012-11-01 1:34 PM it's pretty obvious the administration (and their media cohorts) are doing everything they can to push this story until after next Tuesday. As of right now, the headlines on the bank of TVs in my office are as follows: CNN: Mayor Thomas Kelaher, Toms River, New Jersey. MSNBC: Basement Apartments and First Floor Units Flooded Around Hoboken FOX: Mainstream Media Has Been Absent from Behghazi Investigation Bloomberg: New Jersey Drivers Wait in Line for Fuel as Sandy Curbs Gasoline CNBC: Wave of Scams Could Follow Sandy Top headlines of the day: Wall Street Journal: Battered Region Faces Long Recovery NY Times: More Dead Found in Storm’s Wreckage Chicago Tribune: Death toll up, gasoline lines grow after Sandy (actually now it's Naperville slayings: Kids told to 'get on their knees and pray') I would say that it's not the liberal media doing anything. I would say most rational people want to know about the storm's effects rather than Benghazi. In fact, of all the news sources I've looked today, only one has Benghazi even in it's top three or four stories. Yep, you guessed it, Fox News. You do realize you just proved his point right? lol, I was going to say the same thing. Prior to Sandy it was pretty much the same thing. Fox News talking Benghazi and all the other outlets talking about anything but. The only journalist to ask Obama a serious question about Benghazi (to which he completely dodged) was a local reporter in Denver. Brian Williams spent 2 days with the President a week ago for a 30 minute interview and the best he could do was "are you happy with your intelligence community in our post 9-11 world" or something like that. /facepalm Again, go to Comedy Central dot com and check out the Daily Show interview. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - the most leftist, anti-Fox, anti-Romney outlet you can find and... Stewart nails Obama with hardballs on Bengazzi. Not only brings it up, but asks him what went wrong, why, and he doesn't let it go.
|
| 2012-11-01 2:38 PM in reply to: #4479036 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Benghazi How did I prove his point? Oh I'm sorry Tuwood, were you merely pointing out that every major news station except the one that's known for being a right-wing sounding board was focused on the news and not Benghazi? Sorry, I thought there was some underlying meaning in `and his media cohorts.' |
| 2012-11-01 2:53 PM in reply to: #4479099 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Benghazi mr2tony - 2012-11-01 2:38 PM How did I prove his point? Oh I'm sorry Tuwood, were you merely pointing out that every major news station except the one that's known for being a right-wing sounding board was focused on the news and not Benghazi? Sorry, I thought there was some underlying meaning in `and his media cohorts.' My point was the mainstream media (who is in the tank for Obama) is covering everything but Benghazi and just ignoring it. They most certainly should be covering Sandy because it is a huge story, but that is no excuse for completely ignoring it prior to Sandy. What ever happened to investigative journalism? Nobody's asking questions, Obama's ducking press conferences, and everyone's totally ok with that. When Fox actually brings it up, it's just because they're "the right wing channel"?? |
| 2012-11-01 3:21 PM in reply to: #4479139 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Benghazi tuwood - 2012-11-01 2:53 PM mr2tony - 2012-11-01 2:38 PM How did I prove his point? Oh I'm sorry Tuwood, were you merely pointing out that every major news station except the one that's known for being a right-wing sounding board was focused on the news and not Benghazi? Sorry, I thought there was some underlying meaning in `and his media cohorts.' My point was the mainstream media (who is in the tank for Obama) is covering everything but Benghazi and just ignoring it. They most certainly should be covering Sandy because it is a huge story, but that is no excuse for completely ignoring it prior to Sandy. What ever happened to investigative journalism? Nobody's asking questions, Obama's ducking press conferences, and everyone's totally ok with that. When Fox actually brings it up, it's just because they're "the right wing channel"?? News organizations have limited resources. They'll be covering Sandy for a while and not the alleged cover-up. I know, I know, it's a big conspiracy that they're not all-Benghazi, all the time, like Fox News, which, by the way, is just poor news judgment. PS. What's with all this Tony-on-Tony violence. We should join forces. We might be unstoppable. Edited by mr2tony 2012-11-01 3:23 PM |
| 2012-11-01 3:27 PM in reply to: #4479219 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Benghazi mr2tony - 2012-11-01 3:21 PM tuwood - 2012-11-01 2:53 PM News organizations have limited resources. They'll be covering Sandy for a while and not the alleged cover-up. I know, I know, it's a big conspiracy that they're not all-Benghazi, all the time, like Fox News, which, by the way, is just poor news judgment. mr2tony - 2012-11-01 2:38 PM How did I prove his point? Oh I'm sorry Tuwood, were you merely pointing out that every major news station except the one that's known for being a right-wing sounding board was focused on the news and not Benghazi? Sorry, I thought there was some underlying meaning in `and his media cohorts.' My point was the mainstream media (who is in the tank for Obama) is covering everything but Benghazi and just ignoring it. They most certainly should be covering Sandy because it is a huge story, but that is no excuse for completely ignoring it prior to Sandy. What ever happened to investigative journalism? Nobody's asking questions, Obama's ducking press conferences, and everyone's totally ok with that. When Fox actually brings it up, it's just because they're "the right wing channel"?? I agree with you to an extent. Fox is all about Sandy as well, but they continue to give Benghazi some coverage. You can certainly argue prioritizing Sandy over Benghazi stories today. However, that doesn't explain why the other media ignored the "coverup" completely prior to Sandy as if it wasn't even a story. |
| 2012-11-02 7:34 AM in reply to: #4479219 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Benghazi mr2tony - 2012-11-01 4:21 PM tuwood - 2012-11-01 2:53 PM News organizations have limited resources. They'll be covering Sandy for a while and not the alleged cover-up. I know, I know, it's a big conspiracy that they're not all-Benghazi, all the time, like Fox News, which, by the way, is just poor news judgment. PS. What's with all this Tony-on-Tony violence. We should join forces. We might be unstoppable. mr2tony - 2012-11-01 2:38 PM How did I prove his point? Oh I'm sorry Tuwood, were you merely pointing out that every major news station except the one that's known for being a right-wing sounding board was focused on the news and not Benghazi? Sorry, I thought there was some underlying meaning in `and his media cohorts.' My point was the mainstream media (who is in the tank for Obama) is covering everything but Benghazi and just ignoring it. They most certainly should be covering Sandy because it is a huge story, but that is no excuse for completely ignoring it prior to Sandy. What ever happened to investigative journalism? Nobody's asking questions, Obama's ducking press conferences, and everyone's totally ok with that. When Fox actually brings it up, it's just because they're "the right wing channel"?? Indeed they do. Yet they still seem able to report on things other than Sandy. It's not "all Sandy all the time". This is an important issue. Yet you have not heard word one from any new outlet (save Fox) on this. Not a single peep. Actually Joe Scarborough did interview Obama on it but all he got was a bunch of half answers and indignation. |
| 2012-11-02 8:09 AM in reply to: #4479079 |
| Subject: RE: Benghazi Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-11-01 12:32 PM Again, go to Comedy Central dot com and check out the Daily Show interview. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - the most leftist, anti-Fox, anti-Romney outlet you can find and... Stewart nails Obama with hardballs on Bengazzi. Not only brings it up, but asks him what went wrong, why, and he doesn't let it go.
This has to be the most appropriate place for Obama's handling of the Benghazi message.
|
| 2012-11-02 8:21 AM in reply to: #4479219 |
| Subject: RE: Benghazi mr2tony - 2012-11-01 1:21 PM tuwood - 2012-11-01 2:53 PM News organizations have limited resources. They'll be covering Sandy for a while and not the alleged cover-up. I know, I know, it's a big conspiracy that they're not all-Benghazi, all the time, like Fox News, which, by the way, is just poor news judgment. PS. What's with all this Tony-on-Tony violence. We should join forces. We might be unstoppable. mr2tony - 2012-11-01 2:38 PM How did I prove his point? Oh I'm sorry Tuwood, were you merely pointing out that every major news station except the one that's known for being a right-wing sounding board was focused on the news and not Benghazi? Sorry, I thought there was some underlying meaning in `and his media cohorts.' My point was the mainstream media (who is in the tank for Obama) is covering everything but Benghazi and just ignoring it. They most certainly should be covering Sandy because it is a huge story, but that is no excuse for completely ignoring it prior to Sandy. What ever happened to investigative journalism? Nobody's asking questions, Obama's ducking press conferences, and everyone's totally ok with that. When Fox actually brings it up, it's just because they're "the right wing channel"??
Tony, in the second debate Obama indicated that he called what happened in Benghazi was a an organized terrorist attack the day after it occurred. Yet Obama, his Press Secretary, the UN Ambassador and Hillary Clinton for two weeks after that date said to the American public repeatedly that it was a spontaneous act from a protest over some video clip on YouTube. Could you explain that to me Tony? I see it as: A. for whatever reason the Administration decided to purposefully lie to the American people or B. They are so incompetent that Obama truly has no business in a leadership position.
|
| 2012-11-02 10:24 AM in reply to: #4478918 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Benghazi |
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK