Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 5 of 19     «   Prev   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   Next   »
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 21,381
Reply with quote  #121 
From dewy,

"Nobody I know is trying to suggest Ambassador Stevens is in any way responsible for the tragic deaths at the Consulate.  The only point being made here is that the Ambassador turned down some offers for increased security.  It appears to be a fact.  That said, nobody I know is trying to say whether it was appropriate to consider his refusal or not."


Again, you talk about "
whether it was appropriate to consider his refusal or not".  Where is his refusal and WHERE did you get your talking point about there even being a REFUSAL?  Answer the question boy.  It is clear that you haven't read the report.  Striking your keyboard with no facts to back up your insane assertions.  Typical ploy from one who would deceive 'the readers'.  

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 21,381
Reply with quote  #122 
Quote:
Originally Posted by keepinitreal
So no known sources??  And that is ok for someone trying to sway 50,000 readers with their 'debate'?  I would like to know why dewy is spreading unsubstantiated untruths from unnamed sources? (as he did in post #104 "It appears to be a fact" and #106 when he spread the untruth instead of question the validity of the untruth)


what do you know, catch dewy in a lie and he continues to squirm.  answer the question boy

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #123 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverInBlue

In light of this, we still don't "know" that "Stevens turned down additional security." 



Excerpt:

The Senate report found that Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was killed in the attacks, also declined an offer from Ham to extend the tour of a site security team composed of former special operations soldiers.



More information.

Excerpt from above link:

At least one of these exchanges between Stevens and Ham has been confirmed by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey, who testified before a Congressional committee (not the Issa committee which has not called Ham as a witness) as follows—

“I was aware of it, because it came in, in Gen. Ham’s report. Gen. Ham actually called the embassy to, to see if they wanted to extend the special security team there and was said – and was told no.”


Edit:  
The report for the first time points specifically to Stevens for twice refusing the U.S. military's offer to keep a special operations team there that was providing extra security in the weeks before the attacks.

keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 21,381
Reply with quote  #124 
That all you got??

dewy has been phishing all day for a shred of evidence to corroborate his story.  Dig it all up dewy, no smoking gun will be found.  A bunch of people with their asses in a sling or necks in a noose pointing at the dead man who can't defend himself.

keep trying

Quote:
“I was aware of it, because it came in, in Gen. Ham’s report. Gen. Ham actually called the embassy to, to see if they wanted to extend the special security team there and was said – and was told no.”


Was told NO by who or whom?  Read the report dewy, looking like a fool in your defense to blame the dead while letting those responsible off scot-free.  disgusting

you have no way of knowing what exactly was requested and what exactly was denied and by whom.  Just like killing babies by the millions, the left has no shame when blaming the dead

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 21,381
Reply with quote  #125 
Your links are from May, the report just came out.  Keep reading in your May Forbes article for the rest of the story after your reference.  It questions why such a story would be told, read the whole article and quit the parsing.

No one actually claimed that they heard Amb. Stevens deny more security.  You are looking so silly blaming the dead.

You read the recent report yet or are you still reading magazine articles from May that carry NO OFFICIAL RELEVANCE?  Read the congressional findings mr. moderator

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 21,381
Reply with quote  #126 
Here it is again.

http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/benghazi2014/benghazi.pdf

Try and stay focused, lots of blame to go around in this report but have yet to see it officially cited where they found that the dead man refused more security.  In this report Charlene Lamb denied more security.

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #127 
I added another link to my previous post.  No way is this report blaming Ambassador Stevens for this tragedy and it goes on to cite where the CIA and State Departments came up short in protecting these people.
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,778
Reply with quote  #128 
Gregory Hicks put all this 'turned down' nonsense to bed, see the link in posted in #103. He makes it abundantly clear that Stevens actions were dictated by Patrick Kennedy, his superior in the State Dept.

Arguing that Stevens "turned down" something he never could have accepted is simply absurd.

Here is the link


http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304302704579332732276330284?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop&mobile=y

This paragraph might be relevant:

Ex
However, on July 13, State Department Undersecretary Patrick Kennedy refused the Defense Department offer and thus Chris's July 9 request. His rationale was that Libyan guards would be hired to take over this responsibility. Because of Mr. Kennedy's refusal, Chris had to use diplomatic language at the video conference, such as expressing "reservations" about the transfer of authority.

Also relevant

Ex

Because Mr. Kennedy had refused to extend the special forces security mission, State Department protocol required Chris to decline Gen. Ham's two offers to do so, which were made after Aug. 6. I have found the reporting of these so-called offers strange, since my recollection of events is that after the Aug. 6 incident, Gen. Ham wanted to withdraw the entire special forces team from Tripoli until they had Libyan government approval of their new mission and the diplomatic immunity necessary to perform their mission safely. However, Chris convinced Gen. Ham to leave six members of the team in Tripoli.

(Read that first line again. Clear that Stevens had no choice in the matter.)


__________________
#MakeDCListen #End Socialism #NoDems #2016 #ForAmerica
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #129 
FIB - I've never tried to determine what was in the Ambassador's mind.  Only Hicks has tried to do this.  I simply made a factual statement.  I think there are cable communications confirming these discussions but I'm not sure.  Maybe an angry Hicks wants to put a different spin on it.  Who knows for sure.  Then again, maybe there's something to what he says.  We'll probably never know.  This all started when I mentioned to mikec there was a refusal of security from Stevens in response to something he wrote.  I'd heard these facts stated several times and I simply pointed them out.  You can take it from here if you think you or Hicks can read minds and need to convince the readers what our Ambassador had in mind.  I certainly don't have that capability.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 21,381
Reply with quote  #130 
Funny how in the 17 months or so since the murders, the only NAME that dewy has assigned even a little blame to is the deceased.  No other name has been volunteered by the dude and he said he is all about answers.

To write a statement like "the CIA and State Departments came up short in protecting these people" is something we knew from the very beginning and it took almost 17 months for dewy to state what we knew on 9/12/12.  Way to be on top of the story dewy.

(Read that first line again. Clear that Stevens had no choice in the matter.)

Thanks again FIB for your work


Hopefully this relegates Dewey's uninformed statement to the trash heap of liberal obfuscation. Expect many more as they continue their effort to steer clinton clear of this event. 

I apologize for missing your post you moved to this thread at #103


__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 21,381
Reply with quote  #131 

Why does dewy link Forbes magazine, Yahoo and WSJ articles when the senate report itself could be referenced?  Why would he need someone to read the report for him, state their opinion of the report, publish their opinion in a magazine/newspaper and THEN have dewy takes those magazine articles as gospel.

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 8,683
Reply with quote  #132 
Dewey's sole purpose, and the content of most of his posts over the past several months, is to defend Obama at all costs.  Let's not forget that he has never once criticized Obama about anything and has said he won't due to debate strategy. 

The funny thing is that the more he defends, the more obvious it is that there is a ton to try to defend with the president.
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,778
Reply with quote  #133 
Admin withholding key Benghazi emails.

Funny how they say there's nothing to see, and then they hide information.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/withholds-benghazi-emails/

__________________
#MakeDCListen #End Socialism #NoDems #2016 #ForAmerica
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,778
Reply with quote  #134 
One of the numerous lingering loose ends - the sudden dismissal of Patraeus during the breaking Benghazi story - moves back into the spotlight. Why is hestill being investigated 18 months after he resigned? He initially pushed back against the Obama narrative, then was suddenly ( conveniently?) caught up in scandal uncovered via emails (oh, hello NSA!).

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/03/petraeus-being-kept-quiet-rep-asks-holder-why-probe-ex-cia-chief-remains-open/

__________________
#MakeDCListen #End Socialism #NoDems #2016 #ForAmerica
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,778
Reply with quote  #135 
The question here is why did the Obama administration go to court to fight the release of these emails?

The answer appears to be that they destroy the Obama administrations narrative, long known to be outright lies for purely political purposes. Apparently the idiots in the White House thought they could get away with this subterfuge, and they have been in perpetual damage-control mode ever since. The most inept administration I've ever seen.


Benghazi Emails Show White House Effort to Protect Obama
Staff attempted to insulate president’s policies from criticism ahead of election


http://freebeacon.com/national-security/benghazi-emails-show-white-house-effort-to-protect-obama/

Ex

Emails sent by senior White House adviser Ben Rhodes to other top administration officials reveal an effort to insulate President Barack Obama from the attacks that killed four Americans.

Rhodes sent this email to top White House officials such as David Plouffe and Jay Carney just a day before National Security Adviser Susan Rice made her infamous Sunday news show appearances to discuss the attack.

The “goal,” according to these emails, was “to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.”

----
Ex:

Also contained in the 41 pages of documents obtained by Judicial Watch is a Sep. 12, 2012 email from Payton Knopf, the former deputy spokesman at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations.

In this communication, Knopf informs Rice that senior officials had already dubbed the Benghazi attack as “complex” and planned in advance. Despite this information, Rice still insisted that attacks were “spontaneous.”

The newly released cache of emails also appear to confirm that the CIA altered its original talking points on the attacks in the following days.

Then-CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell is identified as the person who heavily edited the critical fact sheet.

Ex:

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said that the emails show the White House was most concerned with insulating Obama.

“Now we know the Obama White House’s chief concern about the Benghazi attack was making sure that President Obama looked good,” Fitton said in a statement. “And these documents undermine the Obama administration’s narrative that it thought the Benghazi attack had something to do with protests or an Internet video.”

“Given the explosive material in these documents, it is no surprise that we had to go to federal court to pry them loose from the Obama State Department,” Fitton said.

__________________
#MakeDCListen #End Socialism #NoDems #2016 #ForAmerica
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,778
Reply with quote  #136 
Also worth noting, that Ben Rhodes asshat is the brother of the CBS news exec who put the clamps on Sheryl Atkisson's investigation of Benghazi. atkisson has since left CBS News and is now writing a book. By the time it comes out, most of the Obama clowns will likely have moved on to cushy high paying jobs in the liberal socialist democrat sector.

And isn't it interesting how liberals screamed bloody murder about abuse of power, until it was them abusing power?

__________________
#MakeDCListen #End Socialism #NoDems #2016 #ForAmerica
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,778
Reply with quote  #137 
Her are the words, outright lies, spoken by Hillary Clinton, hyped as the next liberal socialist Democrat candidate for president, as she stood over the caskets of four dead Americans, in front of their families.


-----

“This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing do to with.”


When Hillary Clinton spoke those words, in front of those victims’ families and the whole world, she knew full well that the Benghazi attack had nothing to do with any YouTube video. Months later, when she was finally called to account for it, she actually said, “What difference does it make?”

Clinton lied about the murder of an American ambassador and three other brave Americans who were left to die. She knows she lied. She knows we know she lied. And the best her defenders can muster up is: “Hey, it was a long time ago. Let it go.”

Hillary 2016. Yay.





Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/07/reminder-hillary-clinton-lied-about-benghazi-while-standing-in-front-of-the-victims-caskets/#ixzz30J23oY45

__________________
#MakeDCListen #End Socialism #NoDems #2016 #ForAmerica
bluedog

Registered:
Posts: 9,046
Reply with quote  #138 
This is our next President.....Hard to believe, but, it's probably so.....[eek]

The entitlement voters say so!  [thumb]
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 21,381
Reply with quote  #139 
"The question here is why did the Obama administration go to court to fight the release of these emails?

The answer appears to be that they destroy the Obama administrations narrative, long known to be outright lies for purely political purposes. Apparently the idiots in the White House thought they could get away with this subterfuge, and they have been in perpetual damage-control mode ever since. The most inept administration I've ever seen."

At least the truth has finally been tracked to the current Liar in Chief's doorstep

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 21,381
Reply with quote  #140 
Trey Gowdy[biggrin][bawl][nono][rofl][thumb]
__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
JoiseyGuy

Registered:
Posts: 24,434
Reply with quote  #141 
I would love to believe that these folks were acting on behalf of the American people and not to the benefit of a political party, or against a potential Presidential candidate, but I guess I'm just jaded and find that thought to be a fairy tale. I am all in favor of the truth being told, but the motive sours me, and I do realize the danger of assuming a motive.  The political climate makes me wonder however.      
__________________
"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking. Where it is absent discussion is apt to become worse than useless." Leo Tolstoy

"Do not try to teach pigs to sing. It will frustrate you and infuriate the pigs who will unite in anger against you, and you will never achieve singing your song". Dr. Petersen
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 21,381
Reply with quote  #142 
We have here the very same motive to get the current liar in chief, that was used to get the other liar, Richard milhouse. Joisey it seems like you have fell into that trap where the truth seems political to you. Can't the truth just be the truth?
__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #143 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoiseyGuy
I would love to believe that these folks were acting on behalf of the American people and not to the benefit of a political party, or against a potential Presidential candidate, but I guess I'm just jaded and find that thought to be a fairy tale.   


JG - You're not alone.  Read what the Conservative National Review Online had to say about this supposed "new" evidence.  John Dickerson gives an objective analysis of this so called "smoking gun".  Mother Jones has a good write-up exposing how this is nothing more than a partisan investigation.  Of course, this last article is from a more biased source but if biased sources have no room for comment, then the opinion of our members here on the Right should be equally ignored by our readers.

I still say there has to be a motive to have a scandal.  I see no motive.  Secretary Rice was given information that a video may have contributed to the Benghazi attacks and she went on to say subsequent investigations would get to all the facts of this tragedy.  How anyone can believe deliberately putting out the wrong facts on September 12, knowing the CIA or State Department would obtain and release more elaborate details only days later, would be advantageous in an election seven weeks later, makes absolutely no sense to me.


keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 21,381
Reply with quote  #144 
The loons still won't admit that just like Watergate, it wasn't the act or lack of acting, it is the coverup. No one cares now about the motive why Hillary and Barry let 4 Americans die, the motive of concern now is why our government lies and then covers up. Focus on the coverup that is quadruple the coverup of Watergate

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 7,691
Reply with quote  #145 
Dude, wasn't that like, 2 years ago?
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 7,691
Reply with quote  #146 
This whole affair was politicized the night it happened.  The motive was that it was a month before the election, and the Administration was touting it's toughness on terrorism, and normalization of relations in that part of the world.  The motive was that being attacked by terrorists didn't fit the re-election strategy.

The fact is, as we found out in testimony this week, is that the Admin knew it was a terrorist attack almost immediately, and they knew who was responsible.

That being the case, why the lie about the video? 
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 21,381
Reply with quote  #147 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikec
Dude, wasn't that like, 2 years ago?

I was wondering if that makes 'blaming Bush' obsolete. After 6 years dewy and barry are still talking about a down economy, raising the minimum wage and something new called top secret preventative healthcare. Hardly a peep from the apologists over Benghazi in the last few months

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 7,691
Reply with quote  #148 
Quote:
Originally Posted by keepinitreal
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikec
Dude, wasn't that like, 2 years ago?
I was wondering if that makes 'blaming Bush' obsolete. After 6 years dewy and barry are still talking about a down economy, raising the minimum wage and something new called top secret preventative healthcare. Hardly a peep from the apologists over Benghazi in the last few months


I'm assuming you saw the interview with that idiot ex-NSC Spokesperson last night with Brett Baeir.  It was pure disgustingness.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 21,381
Reply with quote  #149 
Yes I saw it. More of the condescending left. Along with the responses from pelosi and of course hillary's statements on the subject. The candy Crowley lie also. It is clear that they do not care enough to come forward with the truth. More loony democrat obsructionism, what jg calls the Washington way
__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
JoiseyGuy

Registered:
Posts: 24,434
Reply with quote  #150 
Real - It's all sickening, and yes, it's "The Washington Way", pretending to govern while fighting political wars.  Truly disgusts me.  Both Parties play loose with the truth and pretend to be sanctimonious when in reality they are looking to maintain a power seat in the next election.  Too much BS all around for me.  It's the corrupted system !!
__________________
"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking. Where it is absent discussion is apt to become worse than useless." Leo Tolstoy

"Do not try to teach pigs to sing. It will frustrate you and infuriate the pigs who will unite in anger against you, and you will never achieve singing your song". Dr. Petersen
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation: