pertinax
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 131
|
Post by pertinax on Jun 1, 2014 19:16:10 GMT -5
Benghazi is the biggest non-story I can recall in many decades. The kind of manufactured rage "story" that is all motive on the part of the outraged while lacking any apparent reasonable motive ascribed to the alleged perpetrators. There is just no reasonable payoff to do what it is the right is claiming the "administration" did within minutes or hours of a very dynamic and confusing situation. There is no logical political payoff here for this "outrage" to even pass the sniff test. And honestly what in hell does it matter what words were used to describe an event that was literally still smoking? There is no there there. I get angry with people who are willfully pretending that mistakes/confusion = lies/cover-up very clearly and only because they detest the politician in question and wish to see political points scored. (Like most of the particularly stupid anti-Bush people who still screech about the Hussein WMD "lies.") Or the morons who simply ascribe all responsability for the actions of the entire executive branch and all security and intelligence agencies DIRECTLY on the man in the White House. Presuming of course he is in the other party of course. If their guy wins? You switch off that unreasonable super-culpability standard real quick like. The IRS thing is very disturbing. And needs aggresive investigation. I will be pretty surprised if the reasonable among us will be able to pin it on Obama directly though when the facts are in- which they must be soon. Which is the entire point of EasyEd's post no doubt. Benghazi will not be a non-story until the following questions have been answered: 1.Why did the Hillary Clinton led state Department refuse repeated requests to upgrade security at the Benghazi outpost even after the Brits had abandoned their HQ and after several attacks on the U.S. Benghazi compound itself? 2. Why did State replace U.S Marine guards with ragtag Libyans of doubtful loyalty? 3. Where were Obama and Hillary during the attack? 4. After forces on the ground knew immediately, and the CIA knew a few hours later that the attack was a true, organized terror attack and not rabble inspired by a video, who sent Susan Rice out onto 5 cable shows over a week afterwards to swear on her mother's grave there was no terror attack but rather just a spontaneous response to the video? 5. Days after it was known that an organized terror attack had taken place, how cold and immoral a person could Hillary Clinton be to "comfort" the parent of one of the Americans killed in the attack by vowing to "get the maker of that video?" 6. Why were not military forces immediately despatched in a rescue effort? To answer that they wouldn't have gotten there in time is absurd since no one could have possibly know how long the attacks would last. 7. Is it at all even slightly credible that when Leon Panetta went to meet with Obama with a ranking General who had just informed Panetta that we were dealing with a terror attack, that they did not tell the president as much? And that being the case: 8. Why did Obama tell the UN two weeks later that it was a protest caused by a video?
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Scandals
Jun 2, 2014 4:35:27 GMT -5
via mobile
Boz likes this
Post by Elvado on Jun 2, 2014 4:35:27 GMT -5
Just stop it already. Mrs. Clinton's ghostwriter has announced that she will no longer participate in this witch hint. She is satisfied that the ARB, to whom she never spoke, got it right.
We return you now to the countdown to the birth of her newest campaign prop and loving interviews with the bubbleheads on network news.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Jun 2, 2014 9:07:49 GMT -5
People that are genuinely invested in Benghazi as scandal are so far down the rabbit's hole I can't wrap my mind around it. We literally went to WAR based on lies, have our two most recent presidents building and using an unprecedented complete surveillance society, have such blatant pay-for-play bribery that it's an accepted part of the system...
But the people who tell you what to think have told you that THIS is where all the outrage should finally go. Honestly, isn't it embarrassing to be played so effectively? Pick ANY serious tragic event in the last twenty years and there will be countless questions like that. This is only important because you've been TOLD it's important and forgive my dismissiveness but the right wing perpetual outrage machine plays its constituents like fiddles.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jun 2, 2014 9:35:29 GMT -5
People that are genuinely invested in Benghazi as scandal are so far down the rabbit's hole I can't wrap my mind around it. We literally went to WAR based on lies, have our two most recent presidents building and using an unprecedented complete surveillance society, have such blatant pay-for-play bribery that it's an accepted part of the system... But the people who tell you what to think have told you that THIS is where all the outrage should finally go. Honestly, isn't it embarrassing to be played so effectively? Pick ANY serious tragic event in the last twenty years and there will be countless questions like that. This is only important because you've been TOLD it's important and forgive my dismissiveness but the right wing perpetual outrage machine plays its constituents like fiddles. Can't help but notice you didn't provide any answers to Pertinax's unanswered questions; not did you say why they are unimportant. You merely changed the subject to the Iraq War and the spying scandal, both of which are important but not the subject of the questions Pertinax posted.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Jun 2, 2014 9:54:28 GMT -5
And when someone can explain why this is the focus over other such issues then I'll take it a little more seriously. Why weren't these types of questions asked about the COUNTLESS scandals of the last 14 years? It's not a matter of changing the subject, it's that the subject itself is a distraction.
The right-wing's politcial handlers gave the marching orders, and they are being followed right down the line. That's all this is. But keep telling yourselves that you are actually outraged and that this is about truth-seeking. Willfully blind, ignorant, USED. It's absolutely pathetic. Hook, line, sinker.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Scandals
Jun 2, 2014 12:48:52 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Elvado on Jun 2, 2014 12:48:52 GMT -5
And the Left has trotted out the it doesn't matter brigade in response. There should be something extra in your envelope this week
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Jun 2, 2014 13:25:54 GMT -5
Disgusting.
|
|
|
Post by Problem of Dog on Jun 2, 2014 13:49:47 GMT -5
Benghazi is the biggest non-story I can recall in many decades. The kind of manufactured rage "story" that is all motive on the part of the outraged while lacking any apparent reasonable motive ascribed to the alleged perpetrators. There is just no reasonable payoff to do what it is the right is claiming the "administration" did within minutes or hours of a very dynamic and confusing situation. There is no logical political payoff here for this "outrage" to even pass the sniff test. And honestly what in hell does it matter what words were used to describe an event that was literally still smoking? There is no there there. I get angry with people who are willfully pretending that mistakes/confusion = lies/cover-up very clearly and only because they detest the politician in question and wish to see political points scored. (Like most of the particularly stupid anti-Bush people who still screech about the Hussein WMD "lies.") Or the morons who simply ascribe all responsability for the actions of the entire executive branch and all security and intelligence agencies DIRECTLY on the man in the White House. Presuming of course he is in the other party of course. If their guy wins? You switch off that unreasonable super-culpability standard real quick like. The IRS thing is very disturbing. And needs aggresive investigation. I will be pretty surprised if the reasonable among us will be able to pin it on Obama directly though when the facts are in- which they must be soon. Which is the entire point of EasyEd's post no doubt. Benghazi will not be a non-story until the following questions have been answered: 1.Why did the Hillary Clinton led state Department refuse repeated requests to upgrade security at the Benghazi outpost even after the Brits had abandoned their HQ and after several attacks on the U.S. Benghazi compound itself? 2. Why did State replace U.S Marine guards with ragtag Libyans of doubtful loyalty? Do me a favor and just venture a guess as to the answers to these two questions. Because I'm really interested where you think this all leads.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Scandals
Jun 7, 2014 16:10:08 GMT -5
via mobile
Boz likes this
Post by Elvado on Jun 7, 2014 16:10:08 GMT -5
Not that this qualifies as a scandal, but does anyone else find chewing gum during a memorial service to be in poor taste?
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,321
|
Post by tashoya on Jun 7, 2014 21:15:51 GMT -5
Not that this qualifies as a scandal, but does anyone else find chewing gum during a memorial service to be in poor taste? Yes. Though I'm not sure why. But, yes.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jun 20, 2014 18:24:55 GMT -5
Does anyone actually believe all those IRS emails from and to Lois Lerner and others were accidentally destroyed, along with the hard drives? And, there is no server who has copies of them?
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Jun 20, 2014 21:59:27 GMT -5
Does anyone actually believe all those IRS emails from and to Lois Lerner and others were accidentally destroyed, along with the hard drives? And, there is no server who has copies of them? If you think a server is a "who," then you clearly don't understand issues relating to email storage.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Scandals
Jun 21, 2014 6:22:58 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Elvado on Jun 21, 2014 6:22:58 GMT -5
I for one believe the IRS and the Adminsitratikn on this one. Is it any more implausible than believing that a one term Senator with no executive experience on any level could be a fantastic President and could oversee the takeover of 1/6 of the US economy flawlessly and without serially rewriting the law on the fly to suit his political needs?
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jun 21, 2014 6:45:34 GMT -5
Does anyone actually believe all those IRS emails from and to Lois Lerner and others were accidentally destroyed, along with the hard drives? And, there is no server who has copies of them? If you think a server is a "who," then you clearly don't understand issues relating to email storage. So, change who to that or which. Now would you answer the question?
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Jun 21, 2014 8:55:23 GMT -5
If you think a server is a "who," then you clearly don't understand issues relating to email storage. So, change who to that or which. Now would you answer the question? Oh, I have no idea if they're telling the truth. And unlike most people, I realize the worthlessness of my entirely uninformed "beliefs" about current events. I was just trying to highlight that you--and to be fair, most other people--have no business offering an opinion either because it appears you lack a fundamental understanding of the technology involved in backing up billions of emails.
|
|
|
Post by Problem of Dog on Jun 21, 2014 15:04:44 GMT -5
I for one believe the IRS and the Adminsitratikn on this one. Is it any more implausible than believing that a one term Senator with no experience in business on any level could be a fantastic President and could oversee the takeover of 1/6 of the US economy flawlessly and without serially rewriting the law on the fly to suit his political needs? Yes. Experience in business = #1 so much great president wow
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Scandals
Jun 21, 2014 15:12:12 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Elvado on Jun 21, 2014 15:12:12 GMT -5
I for one believe the IRS and the Adminsitratikn on this one. Is it any more implausible than believing that a one term Senator with no experience in business on any level could be a fantastic President and could oversee the takeover of 1/6 of the US economy flawlessly and without serially rewriting the law on the fly to suit his political needs? Yes. Experience in business = #1 so much great president wow Thank you for addressing the entire post with your pithy little comment. Of course, you might have written more and the server may have crashed destroying the rest of your brilliant analysis ....
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,393
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Jun 21, 2014 15:19:42 GMT -5
W had a business background. He will go down as one of the worst presidents in the history of this country. Clinton, one on the country's best presidents (Monica aside), had zero business experience.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Scandals
Jun 21, 2014 15:28:16 GMT -5
via mobile
Boz likes this
Post by Elvado on Jun 21, 2014 15:28:16 GMT -5
Please see correction. You have aptly pointed out the mistake in my post. Mr. Obama had zero executive experience on any level. And it shows, painfully it shows.
|
|
|
Post by Problem of Dog on Jun 21, 2014 15:58:47 GMT -5
Please see correction. You have aptly pointed out the mistake in my post. Mr. Obama had zero executive experience on any level. And it shows, painfully it shows. Oh, so now you realized you made a spurious correlation, and you changed it to one of the golden oldies, the '08 "he has no executive experience!" So if executive experience is the litmus test, why wasn't Palin the nominee in '08 with McCain as the VP?
|
|