Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 19      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   Next   »
CoachB25

Registered:
Posts: 2,234
Reply with quote  #61 
James Carville just made a great point.  The author of the article for the NY Times on Benghazi will win the Pulitzer Prize and then, that fact will be used to cover Hillary in her presidential run.  To which O'Reilly pointed out that the author left out the Pentagon's Report that made the link to Al Qaeda.  To which Carville (to paraphrase) clarified that that won't matter to the masses down the road.  Wow. 
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,842
Reply with quote  #62 
The Snowden story will win the Pulitzer.

The Kirkpatrick- NYT sneak attack on reality has already been exposed as BS on so money fronts, most have consigned it to the curiosity bin. Carville might be gettin lazy with this analysis, but at least he's upfront the the NYT is already campaigning for Clinton.
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,842
Reply with quote  #63 
Here is a refresher on the time line of the Benghaxi attack, events that Clinton and Obama believed didn't warrant their approval of multiple requests for additional security.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/benghazi-timeline-how-the-attack-unfolded/

Expect to see more on this in the next few years.
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,842
Reply with quote  #64 
Declassified testimony from Congressional hearings reveals

"Minutes after the American consulate in Benghazi came under assault on Sept. 11, 2012, the nation's top civilian and uniformed defense officials -- headed for a previously scheduled Oval Office session with President Obama -- were informed that the event was a "terrorist attack," declassified documents show."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/13/benghazi-transcripts-top-defense-officials-briefed-obama-on-attack-not-video-or/

ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,842
Reply with quote  #65 
^^^^^^

What that story means is that Hillary Clinton knowingly lied standing in front of four flag-draped coffins.

Edit: removed further comment. Above says it all.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 23,000
Reply with quote  #66 
Do we have to argue semantics of what a LIE is again just because we change which LIE we are referencing?  We knew hillary lied, maybe the smoking gun.  So then they decided to LIE within minutes of hearing otherwise?  But what is the definition of a LIE?
__________________
"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: 23,000
Reply with quote  #67 


FIB, we are on the wrong forum when you post this link on a forum with an audience of 50,000 and one comment is made on this story in 24 hours

EX:
Senior State Department officials who were in direct, real-time contact with the Americans under assault in Benghazi have also made clear they, too, knew immediately -- from surveillance video and eyewitness accounts -- that the incident was a terrorist attack. After providing the first substantive "tick-tock" of the events in Benghazi, during a background briefing conducted on the evening of Oct. 9, 2012, a reporter asked two top aides to then-Secretary Clinton: "What in all of these events that you've described led officials to believe for the first several days that this was prompted by protests against the video?"

"That is a question that you would have to ask others," replied one of the senior officials. "That was not our conclusion."

What is the official UCS' moderator take on how the LIES proliferated from the white house in the hours and days after 9/11/12?  Why did the story differ so drastically from the early Intel?  WHY? WHY? WHY?
The 10-15 readers deserve an answer

__________________
"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: 23,000
Reply with quote  #68 
Jay Carney the official white house ass clown,  errrr spokesman, said on september 18, 2012 that "there was NO evidence that it was a preplanned or premeditated act, we saw evidence that it was sparked by the video".    Complete LIES.  THe facts from the newly released FACTS from the hearing says they knew the TRUTH within 20 minutes after the attack.  How does the left square with these LIES coming from their leaders?  NO big deal they say, nothing to see here they say  Panetta told obama the day of the attack that it was terrorist activity.  The libtards battle the truth by attacking those seeking answers by footdragging, obstructionism and further lying for their cause.  Let the readers be forewarned that this administration is not concerned about the truth, only negating, compartmentalizing and downplaying their incompetence.

They can not make it go away so they then they work in only poo pooing these glaring internal problems.  They attack their questioners and therefore try and lessen their tarnished image.

__________________
"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: 8,184
Reply with quote  #69 
We can't do anything about Obama at this point.

My personal hope is that Hillary Clinton gets the credit she is due for being complicit in the cover up, and it keeps her from advancing her political career further.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 23,000
Reply with quote  #70 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverInBlue
Here is a refresher on the time line of the Benghaxi attack, events that Clinton and Obama believed didn't warrant their approval of multiple requests for additional security. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/benghazi-timeline-how-the-attack-unfolded/ Expect to see more on this in the next few years.


can someone smarter than I am post this link in a bullet type, timeline form please

How many get to catch the Fox news show The Five pretty often?

__________________
"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: 23,000
Reply with quote  #71 
What is the official UCS' moderator take on how the LIES proliferated from the white house in the hours and days after 9/11/12?  Why did the story differ so drastically from the early Intel?  WHY? WHY? WHY?

today's questions with a purpose.  Lot's of questions, little answers

__________________
"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" 
woody

Registered:
Posts: 8,821
Reply with quote  #72 
I am waiting for the Congressional investigation into Benghazi to recall HC as a witness, I don't know, maybe sometime during the summer of 2014, Spring of 2015. I'm sure that, "what does it matter", doesn't apply this go round.
__________________
Anarcho Capitalism. Get some, and no you can't have any of my money to live off of you Socialist Democrat.

"IT'S GOOD TO BE DA KING"
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 9,543
Reply with quote  #73 
  • December 2011: Terror plot thwarted, but Benghazi emergency plan warns of many Islamic terrorists still operating in area.
  • March 2012: U.S. Embassy in Tripoli lead security officer, RSO Eric Nordstrom, requests additional security but later testified he received no response.
  • April 10, 2012: An explosive device is thrown at a convoy carrying U.N. envoy Ian Martin.
  • May 22, 2012: A rocket-propelled grenade hits the offices of the International Red Cross.
  • June 6, 2012: An IED explodes outside the Benghazi consulate compound.
  • June 11, 2012: An RPG hits a convoy carrying the British Ambassador. The U.K. closes its consulate. Col. Wood, military Site Security Team (SST) commander, is in Benghazi, and helps with emergency response.
  • July 2012: RSO Nordstrom again requests additional security (perhaps via cable signed by Amb. Stevens dated July 9, see below).
  • July 9, 2012: Amb. Stevens sends a cable requesting continued help from military SST and State Dept. MSD (Mobile Security Deployment team) through mid-Sept. 2012, saying that benchmarks for a drawdown have not been met. The teams are not extended.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Before death, Amb. Stevens warned of "violent" Libya landscape
  • Early August: State Dept. removes the last of three 6-man State Dept. security teams and a 16-man military SST team from Libya.
  • August 2, 2012: Ambassador Stevens sends a cable to D.C. requesting "protective detail bodyguard postions" -- saying the added guards "will fill the vaccum of security personnel currently at post... who will be leaving with the next month and will not be replaced." He called "the security condition in Libya ... unpredictable, volatile and violent."
  • August 8, 2012: A cable from Amb. Stevens to D.C. says "a series of violent incidents has dominated the political landscape" and calls them "targeted and discriminate attacks."
  • Aug. 27, 2012: The State Department issues a travel warning for Libya citing the threat of assassination and car bombings in Benghazi/Tripoli.

 

 

 

 

pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 9,543
Reply with quote  #74 
KIR - that was the best i could do

spazsdad

Registered:
Posts: 4,903
Reply with quote  #75 
Washington post article
Senate report places blame on State Department, says attack could have been prevented.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/senate-report-attack-on-us-compound-in-benghazi-could-have-been-prevented/2014/01/15/5e197224-7de9-11e3-95c6-0a7aa80874bc_story.html

__________________
#SCOTUS
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 9,543
Reply with quote  #76 
So a bi-partisan report lays the blame for the Benghazi attacks primarily on the State Department run by Hillary Clinton.  Four US citizens died because the State Department, run by Hillary Clinton, did not take their safety seriously enough despite ample evidence that it would be required.

Dewey, do you think this is a subject that should come up during the 2016 Presidential campaign assuming Hillary runs as everyone expects her to?  Do you think this will hurt her chances of being elected given that she was at the helm when these four people died needlessly?
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 23,000
Reply with quote  #77 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pabar61
KIR - that was the best i could do



That is perfect dude. Thanks, had seen it on the news but didn't capture a screenshot, that's good right there for all the readers to see.

__________________
"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: 23,000
Reply with quote  #78 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pabar61
So a bi-partisan report lays the blame for the Benghazi attacks primarily on the State Department run by Hillary Clinton.  Four US citizens died because the State Department, run by Hillary Clinton, did not take their safety seriously enough despite ample evidence that it would be required.

Dewey, do you think this is a subject that should come up during the 2016 Presidential campaign assuming Hillary runs as everyone expects her to?  Do you think this will hurt her chances of being elected given that she was at the helm when these four people died needlessly?


dewy said it was too early to opine before the report.  Now after the report there will be some new dummass excuse why it will not soil HC's chances at running this country into the ground

__________________
"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: 9,543
Reply with quote  #79 
It's too early to opine before the report comes out but not too early to opine on the citizenship of a man who has not declared his candidacy for the presidential election that is 3 years away.  I believe that is known as liberal logic.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 23,000
Reply with quote  #80 
pabar, if you ever get an answer on that question, ask the readers why harry reid will not bring the bi partisan sanctions against Iran to a vote on the Senate floor.  dewy, is always for bringing the votes to the floor let's see how he sidesteps that one.  He'll probably blame the House for Harry reid's total obstruction
__________________
"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: 9,543
Reply with quote  #81 
I think you just asked it but I'll ask again.

Dewey - a bi-partisan group of Senators would like to bring to the floor a vote to sanction Iran if they violate the terms of the current terribly flawed "deal" that we cut with an ecstatic Iranian regime.  Should Harry Reid bring this to the floor for a vote?  If he doesn't, isn't he an obstructionist?
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 23,000
Reply with quote  #82 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pabar61
KIR - that was the best i could do



when you fit the pre 9/11/12 timeline with the timeline as the attack started, it is clear to see how hc is the wrong person to be at the helm of American lives.  These were 4 Americans lost, could we put American soldiers under her command???  Anyone with loved ones in the service or those that have served will scream HELL NO to have to answer to that lying ass biitch

__________________
"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: 23,000
Reply with quote  #83 
why would a person spend so much time wondering if a candidate is qualified based on documentation while another candidate needs to be vetted on job performance but yet, no discussion on the job performance, only on documentation?  Let the readers see the left as the hypocrites that they are and see that they run from the issues of the day.

Job Performance, Cruz would clean HCs clock.  obama got a pass with his documentation and then he still failed as president.  Maybe dewy thinks if another presidential candidate gets a pass on his documentation then he would also fail as president as obama did

__________________
"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: 9,543
Reply with quote  #84 
Hillary Thigh'd, people died.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #85 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pabar61


Dewey, do you think this is a subject that should come up during the 2016 Presidential campaign assuming Hillary runs as everyone expects her to? 


pabar - Our leaders are not infallible and we occasionally get attacked all over the world.  There are millions of Americans who think the last Administration, and the one before, made some miscalculations that may have left us vulnerable on 9/11 and made more miscalculations that led us into two wars.  I have no doubt people take these events into consideration, and should take them into consideration, when evaluating their leaders and Presidential candidates.  This should indeed be part of their decision process.

Our Country is subject to the same analysis.  Unfortunately during wartime, we sometimes miscalculate and inadvertently cause the death of innocent citizens.  No doubt we're subject to analysis worldwide when this happens and I wouldn't tell the World they shouldn't do so.  Same with those voters who hold the State Department and/or Hillary Clinton responsible for the Ambassador's death.  For me personally, I see Benghazi as a similar event to many others, our citizens being killed by those who hate us, and I'm comfortable, from everything I've read, that intentional wrongdoing played no role and understand sometimes we fail to stop a tragedy before it happens.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 23,000
Reply with quote  #86 
Report says attack could have been prevented, but then you would have to admit there was a danger first, if you do not see the danger then you should not be head of State Department.  Your job as head of State Dept. is to see and assess danger.  If you do not see the danger post 9/11 then you are incompetent or just ignorant or maybe stupid.  The world changed 9/11/01 and these assclowns in charge did not see the danger??
__________________
"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: 9,543
Reply with quote  #87 
Thank you Dewey.  I have no doubt that nobody did anything intentionally wrong that resulted in anyone's death.  That would certainly be horrible and scandalous and, to date, I'm not aware of anyone that has proposed any intentional wrongdoing.  But there is the question of competence and the many warnings that were received by State regarding this situation which were obviously ignored.  To me, it speaks to Clinton's inadequacy to perform the job to which she was appointed.

While it is true that most tragedies have some element of failures that caused them, this thread is only about Benghazi.  In the discussion regarding Benghazi, previous administrations and their actions are irrelevant.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 23,000
Reply with quote  #88 
For all of George Bush's failures and there were a few, the one thing he did and did well was keep us (U.S.) safe.  Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria they will all end up biting us in the ass.  End of times

You think anyone in this administration  (or probably anyone in civilian government) is capable of handling foreign policy?  John Kerry is the answer?

__________________
"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: 23,000
Reply with quote  #89 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pabar61


While it is true that most tragedies have some element of failures that caused them, this thread is only about Benghazi.  In the discussion regarding Benghazi, previous administrations and their actions are irrelevant.


Thank you pabar for getting dewy and I back on topic.  This is not a prior administration, casualty of war or birth certificate thread.  This thread, (and the other Benghazi thread) have survived several hijack attempts from the leftists.  Staying on subject would be so much appreciated

What did the POTUS and sec of state do or fail to do in a moment of crisis?  This is not just about this one crisis where we lost 4 Americans.  This is about the future, not the past.  The future where barack obama or hillary clinton is in charge of our total security. 

To the readers, do you trust your countries future with BO or HC at the helm??  How did they perform leading up to Benghazi?  Would you trust them with your nations sovereignty at risk?

__________________
"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  #90 
pabar - This is not just a Benghazi thread.  It's a political thread aimed at questioning Hillary Clinton's credentials by asking if we should consider Benghazi when deciding her probable candidacy.  Yes, just like we should consider the history of the GOP and their failures in our decision process.  Maybe we should have a campaign, or a thread, that only includes the tragedies under Democrat watch and ignore the others.  I read it more as an election question asking what voters should consider and I did my best to answer.  I think I remained on topic but I'll let you take it where you think it should go from here.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.