Hello again,No, they're NOT good questions... Nobody has YET to tell me WHAT they're covering up... Without THAT, you got NOTHING!Quote:
all good questions, Tom, no doubt they have been answered behind closed doors.
Excon
|
Hello again,No, they're NOT good questions... Nobody has YET to tell me WHAT they're covering up... Without THAT, you got NOTHING!Quote:
all good questions, Tom, no doubt they have been answered behind closed doors.
Excon
No they got nothing?
Hello again,
Let me ask my right wing friends a question. How many contractors were killed in Iraq? How many in Afghanistan? Why don't you know? Don't you care? Where are the posts about them? Why are THEIR deaths any less important than the 4 in Benghazi? Could it be because FOX didn't TELL you to be pissed??
Frankly, I believe FOX and the Limp one are RUNNING the Republican party.
excon
So it's all a Murdoch plot, which came first Elliot Carver in the Bond Movie, or Rupert Murdoch? Art imitating life for a change
I already told you what they are covering up.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Here's a refresher..
How US Ambassador Chris Stevens May Have Been Linked To Jihadist Rebels In Syria - Business Insider
Hello again, tom:
Couple things.
First off, there's NO direct connection, and the link is tenuous at best.. But even if it's true, what has the attack got to do with it? And why would saying the attack WASN'T an attack, cover up what was already revealed by your link?
I STILL don't see WHAT was covered up, or (if I buy your reasoning) WHY they'd even bother to cover it up.
You DID want us to intervene in Iran, didn't you? How DO you support a rebel cause? You give them WEAPONS, right? How do you KNOW the people you're supporting are on your side? Does it even matter if the guy they're fighting is YOUR enemy? Shouldn't WE intervene in Syria? Isn't the rebel movement in Syria as important as the rebels in Iran were?
I STILL see no coverup or a NEED for a coverup. I just see Murdock/O'Reilly directing the show, and shills like McCain and Graham mouthing the words.
You haven't answered MY questions above. Why don't you care about the contractors that were killed in Afghanistan?
excon
Consider Iran/ Contra as the closest parallel . A mission being financed by other nations so the WH doesn't have to be accountable to Congress.Now back then I had no problem with the concept of aiding the Contras . But that operation was illegal ;and many in the WH paid the legal costs for that action;including John Poindexter, the national security adviser under Reagan
Now I'm, surprised however that you would be comfortable with an op that funnels heavy weapons into the hands of radical political Islamists .
I am well aware of contractors being killed . It is NOT news that they were openly hired for the job they do in Afghanistan . There were many reports of contractors getting killed in Iraq and Afghanistan .No one thought in necessary to conceal that info from the American public .To compare this to a secret op that is probably illegal is a stretch .
Hello again, tom:
Like I said, the link is TENUOUS at best. I'll wait till there's PROOF.
In any case, you're looking for scandal where, at MOST, there's incompetence and some bureaucratic bungling... And, to be focusing on it a month later seems to be missing the larger picture.
excon
Focusing on it a month later because the WH lied and played prevent defense until the election. The links are incomplete for 2 reasons . The first is that the WH is stonewalling . The Congressional investigations are not unified under a single committee so it is much tougher to connect the dots . The 2nd reason is one that you won't buy ,but nonetheless true . The American media is concentrating on the attack,whether it was terrorism or a reaction to a Youtube video ,and the sexcapades of Petraeus . I called all those side-shows to the real issue and they are . Remember ;Nixon was able to stonewall and coverup Watergate until way past the 1972 election . You can bide your time if you choose . I say there is a cancer in the White House .
By the way ;there are reporters in the foreign press who were telling this story in September .
So WH coverups and adventures in destabilisation are nothing new, when has the US not conveniently armed a dissident regime and every time it bites them on the bum. Libya is no different, the weapons will go to Al Qaeda and its affiliates, how much of it has already gone to Gaza
Ex, if there was nothing to cover up why did they lie to us? Why did Obama stand in front of the UN and lie? After all those years of "Bush lied" I'd think you would also want to know why this administration lied to us. Obama has been lying to us from the beginning, and you somehow think the American public is best served by dishonesty, coverups and incompetence. Dude!
Hello again,
Thomas E. Ricks, a Pulitzer Prize winning former reporter for the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post, was cut off of FOX News yesterday. "I think the emphasis on Benghazi has been extremely political, partly because Fox is operating as the wing of the Republican Party."
Wall Street Journal, huh? Pulitzer Prize, huh? Yeah, he's a lefty all right. This is like the election... You guys THINK you're winning on this issue, but the reality is MUCH different.
excon
Yeah I've read Ricks ;have even incorporated some of his points in my critique of the leadership from the Generals rank . Everything has a political component to it . Basically Ricks used the same deflection about the Iraqi contractors that you tried to use. As I already pointed out ,the difference is that it was no secret that the military and State used private contractors. When the adm comes forward and honestly tells us what those contractors were doing then perhaps all the "hype" will die down. The reason it is still an issue is not because of FOX ;that's absurd. The reason it is still an issue is because of the way the adm is handling a cover-up of the event and the situation and policies that led to it.
Without facts and proof this whole thing amounts to more right wing chest thumping, and sabre rattling, and political posturing. We all know that facts won't come out for a long time on this and many other matters so why muddy the waters with speculation and assumptions that distracts us all from a bigger picture or can't you guys read a map?
Yeah that's what they said during Watergate... what was it?. oh yeah... a 'two-bit burglary' .
When the FACTS came out, people went to jail so it's a bit early on Benghazi to sentence people. All the FACTS aren't out and so far you are sentencing the messenger, and speculating.
Ah, so you don't mind the administration lying to you either.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Ambassador Rice told you that things could change as more facts come to light on ALL those Sunday programs you guys are hollering about.
Seems you guys ignored the truth and only heard what you wanted too. She never said these where facts, just a preliminary report. 4 or 5 times if I heard right. Why do you ignore THAT simple fact?
Hello Steve:
I don't think we have the same understanding about what a LIE is... YOU say because Obama didn't/couldn't close Gitmo, he LIED. I don't say that at all.Quote:
Ah, so you don't mind the administration lying to you either.
Obama DIDN'T lie. Rice DIDN'T lie. Them's is the facts. Live with it.
Excon
It's at least entertaining to watch you guys dance around the FACT that the government you elected is lying to you.
Hell the governments you have elected have lied to us too. We lived through them, and so will you.
Well at least we know there is clarity in the position of the left ;it's OK to get lied to by the most transparent administration in history.
Btw Ambassador Rice is a side-show too... the Adm is secretly thrilled every time they can deflect the issue. Susan Rice again proved herself to be the loyal foot soldier today ;and the President will be more than happy to let her be the focus ;just like the distraction of a couple weeks over Petraueus . I'm not particularly concerned with Rice's lies. I'm more concerned with what information the President had about the attack ;and the policies being pursued in Benghazi.
I love how you eventually find a way to justify lies and corruption.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I love the way a prolife congressman from Tennesee rides the tea party wagon to congress and wants one of his 5 mistresses to have an abortion.
People are flawed... some more than others.
Now that Jesse Jackson Jr. has stepped aside, his predecessor wants the seat back. Mel Reynolds, convicted of campaign fraud and having sex with an underaged campaign volunteer, announced his bid to get his old seat back.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I bet he wins. Dems love their perverts.
Hello again, Steve:
You're still pissed off that you lost, huh? How can I help?Quote:
I bet he wins. Dems love their perverts.
Excon
Trade me a running back.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Good one
By destroying Rice and having Kerry at State the repubs hope to get Brown back in the senate. No wonder those former Brown supporters of his losing campaign are raising hell about a potential Secretary of State nominee.
Post election politics since they want Kerry to be the Secretary of State.
G.O.P. Unites Around John Kerry for Secretary of State - NYTimes.com
False outrage fits you guys like a glove.Quote:
The Kerry boomlet adds another level of intrigue to the uproar surrounding Ms. Rice and has real implications for the balance of power on Capitol Hill. If Mr. Kerry were nominated and confirmed, it could open the door to a return via special election of Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts, who was defeated this month by Elizabeth Warren. A Brown victory which is far from certain could cut the Democratic margin by one and restore to office a man who was popular with his Republican colleagues.
? Doesn't make any sense. If Kerry becomes SEc State then Duvall Patrick gets to pick his replacement until a special election... some 150 days after Kerry resigns from the Senate .
I no longer want stone face Kerry there than Rice. Rice was Kerry's foreign policy advisor during the 2004 campaign .Both their take on foreign policy sucks .
YOU may feel that way, but obviously repubs have a different idea about Kerry, and Rice, and Scott Brown.
Maybe the beltway Repubics are part of the mutual admiration society.
Or political self interest. The prospect of winning an election turns you guys on like nothing else except extracting a few more bucks from those you hate like those lazy 47%.
Hmmm Romey got 47% of the popular vote.
By the way, as I've already noted her status as Benghazi patsy Isn't the only concern about Rice. Environmentalists aren't too happy about her financial ties to the Keystone Pipeline and now this:
Rice holds stakes in firms that have done business in Iran
Surely her current holdings are a little more of a concern than Romney's stakes that had been in a blind trust for a decade that the media raised hell about.
Face it, Rice is a problem. She should not be the face of our foreign policy.Quote:
This news adds to the list of questions about Susan Rice not only her public statements, but now there are broader concerns about her past record. Democratic staffers also said on condition of anonymity for the same reason that the investments would prompt questions of her if she is nominated.
Hello again, Steve:
So, a vet who LIED about his medals in Vietnam would be a better face??Quote:
Rice is a problem. She should not be the face of our foreign policy.
You DID believe the Swiftboaters, didn't you? Of course, you did.
Excon
That is certainly why he's be a terrible choice for Sec Defense.Quote:
So, a vet who LIED about his medals in Vietnam would be a better face??
You're making the mistake tom corrected Tal about. I never said I wanted him, though he would sail through confirmation. Probably departing from his yacht in Rhode Island.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Never mind the fact the Tour in Vietnam was 1 full year... how did Kerry get out of there in only 4 months...
When I say YOU guys I mean the right as a collective, not you as individuals, which is hard to separate sometimes. YOU guys take things so personally.
Just to clarify.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:14 PM. |