Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Current Events (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=486)
-   -   Trump Approves Murder of American Journalist (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=842966)

  • Jan 23, 2019, 11:19 AM
    jlisenbe
    And the wall was the only reason that those who survived were able to do so.

    And thank you for linking that article. Tal, you need to read this from the article linked above. They seemed to have done the absolute minimum they could have done, and disaster resulted.

    "There are disagreements about whether State acted reasonably, but that it didn't honor requests for additional security is established fact," said Georgetown University adjunct assistant professor Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, who is also a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which focuses on foreign policy and national security.
    The State Department has acknowledged it rejected requests to provide more security personnel in Libya. It also acknowledged rejecting a request to erect guard towers at the Benghazi mission, but notes that a number of physical security upgrades, such as the installation of concrete barriers to block unused gates, were made during 2012.
  • Jan 23, 2019, 11:58 AM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    And the wall was the only reason that those who survived were able to do so.

    And thank you for linking that article. Tal, you need to read this from the article linked above. They seemed to have done the absolute minimum they could have done, and disaster resulted.

    "There are disagreements about whether State acted reasonably, but that it didn't honor requests for additional security is established fact," said Georgetown University adjunct assistant professor Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, who is also a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which focuses on foreign policy and national security.
    The State Department has acknowledged it rejected requests to provide more security personnel in Libya. It also acknowledged rejecting a request to erect guard towers at the Benghazi mission, but notes that a number of physical security upgrades, such as the installation of concrete barriers to block unused gates, were made during 2012.

    Now read this:

    Finally, since no one in the US intelligence community had evidence of an imminent attack, neither Ambassador Stevens nor the State Department made Benghazi security a very high priority. Stevens’ trip to Benghazi on the day of attack wasn’t coordinated with the US security team based with the US embassy in Tripoli, so they didn’t go. The ambassador, according to the review board, “did not see a direct threat of an attack of this nature and scale.”
    https://www.vox.com/2018/11/20/17996...y-he-requested
  • Jan 23, 2019, 12:12 PM
    jlisenbe
    If you want to say that Stevens played a part in his own demise, then that's fine, but I don't think Stevens refused to send more security personnel, refused to adequately harden the consulate, or lied about the cause of the attacK afterwards. That would all have been on Obama and Clinton.
  • Jan 23, 2019, 12:44 PM
    Wondergirl
    Yes, Stevens played a part in his own demise. I read somewhere, and will scare it up again if you wish, that Stevens felt adding more security would be sending the wrong message.
  • Jan 23, 2019, 12:55 PM
    jlisenbe
    All I can tell you is that according to your Politi Fact site, additional security was repeatedly requested.
  • Jan 23, 2019, 01:37 PM
    talaniman
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    And yet again, you are not able to identify a single specific area where I was inaccurate. Who is responsible for overseas consulates? The Sec. of State. Who did not take action despite many appeals from the people in Benghazi? HC.

    Show your links to that assertion so I can give you one that the republican congress refused requests for additional funds for the state dept. Specifically they cut the budget for embassy and consulate security.

    http://reverbpress.com/politics/gop-...starting-2011/

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...n_1954912.html

    I understand your feelings but rather rely on the facts. I mean you hold the lives of 4 lost lives in one tragic incident, but mark the lost lives of others as casualties of war. That's illogical, and MASSIVELY inaccurate. Just my own feelings on the whole matter.
  • Jan 23, 2019, 01:57 PM
    jlisenbe
    1 Attachment(s)
    Yep. Just devastating cuts. Only in the fantasy world of liberals could this be considered the root cause of Benghazi. Note the cuts that occurred in 09 when the dems were in charge.

    Attachment 49128
  • Jan 23, 2019, 02:12 PM
    talaniman
    Yeah they seem to have gone back up in 2012, wonder why? You know I don't remember anyone saying it was the root cause of the tragedy in Benghazi, but you cannot ignore it as one of many factors either.

    Repubs did a great job of politicizing it though.
  • Jan 23, 2019, 02:14 PM
    jlisenbe
    Spending for 2012 would have been voted in BEFORE the September attack on Benghazi. How do you explain that?
  • Jan 23, 2019, 02:23 PM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    All I can tell you is that according to your Politi Fact site, additional security was repeatedly requested.
    Three reasons, basically: bureaucratic confusion, the mission’s unique legal status, and the murky nature of the intelligence warning of potential threats.oreover, the mission’s confusing legal status made meeting its security needs particularly hard. The Benghazi mission wasn’t an embassy or even an official consulate; it was so off-book that the Libyan government was never officially notified of its existence. This strange legal status put the mission outside the normal State Department procedures used to allocate security funding and personnel.
    Finally, since no one in the US intelligence community had evidence of an imminent attack, neither Ambassador Stevens nor the State Department made Benghazi security a very high priority. Stevens’ trip to Benghazi on the day of attack wasn’t coordinated with the US security team based with the US embassy in Tripoli, so they didn’t go. The ambassador, according to the review board, “did not see a direct threat of an attack of this nature and scale.” So while Stevens did ask for more security, his requests weren’t taken as urgent enough to overcome the bureaucratic muddle standing in their way.
    https://www.vox.com/2018/11/20/17996...y-he-requested
  • Jan 23, 2019, 03:48 PM
    jlisenbe
    Quote:

    So while Stevens did ask for more security, his requests weren’t taken as urgent enough to overcome the bureaucratic muddle standing in their way.
    So that's (literally, in this case) the bottom line. And who was responsible for the making sure the "bureaucratic muddle" did not endanger an ambassador's life? If you guess HC, you guess right. Were there other contributing factors? That sure seems to be the case, and if that's your point then consider it made, but HC is ultimately responsible. And who was responsible for doing nothing, nothing, nothing during the hours and hours the assault was underway? Who was responsible for intentionally lying about the reason for the attack?
  • Jan 23, 2019, 04:04 PM
    Wondergirl
    And where is HC now? Hmmmmm. HC has just finished grocery shopping, has put all the bags into the trunk, and is on her way home.
  • Jan 23, 2019, 04:08 PM
    jlisenbe
    Yep. Got off scott free. Sad. At least she is not the president, so maybe justice was served after all, at least on a low level.
  • Jan 23, 2019, 04:16 PM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    Yep. Got off scott free. Sad. At least she is not the president, so maybe justice was served after all, at least on a low level.

    And I'm sure she is much happier.
  • Jan 23, 2019, 04:19 PM
    jlisenbe
    If so, then good for her.
  • Jan 23, 2019, 04:28 PM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    If so, then good for her.

    So please stop posting about her.
  • Jan 23, 2019, 04:58 PM
    jlisenbe
    Tell you what. I'll stop posting about her if you'll start treating Trump with the same kind, considerate, and understanding point of view you use with Clinton. The primary reason I bring her up is when some on this board start whining about Trump's supposed lying (and he does do it) when they were perfectly happy to vote for both Clinton and Obama. What's good for the goose...
  • Jan 23, 2019, 05:11 PM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    Tell you what. I'll stop posting about her if you'll start treating Trump with the same kind, considerate, and understanding point of view you use with Clinton. The primary reason I bring her up is when some on this board start whining about Trump's supposed lying (and he does do it) when they were perfectly happy to vote for both Clinton and Obama. What's good for the goose...

    I haven't whined nor have I talked about HC -- only when you trash her. You have no idea who I voted for. I have stated on here that I was a fan of tRump's Apprentice tv show and had hopes his business acumen would improve our country in major ways.
  • Jan 23, 2019, 05:49 PM
    paraclete
    Coming back to the theme of the thread, Trump has told his press secretary not to bother with WH press conferences so perhaps he would approve the murder of all journalists
  • Jan 23, 2019, 06:45 PM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    Coming back to the theme of the thread, Trump has told his press secretary not to bother with WH press conferences so perhaps he would approve the murder of all journalists

    What if tRump holds a press conference and no one shows up?
  • Jan 23, 2019, 06:50 PM
    jlisenbe
    Quote:

    when some on this board
    That was not necessarily a reference to you. However, you do jump to her defense rather quickly. If you don't believe that, look at your last ten or so posts. I don't mean that in a critical manner, but just making an observation.
  • Jan 23, 2019, 06:58 PM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    That was not necessarily a reference to you. However, you do jump to her defense rather quickly. If you don't believe that, look at your last ten or so posts. I don't mean that in a critical manner, but just making an observation.

    I looked. My "last ten or so posts" did not defend her. I did try to get you away from posting about her (*cough* she's history!) and misrepresenting her and what she said.
  • Jan 23, 2019, 07:21 PM
    jlisenbe
    Quote:

    Three reasons, basically: bureaucratic confusion, the mission’s unique legal status, and the murky nature of the intelligence warning of potential threats.oreover, the mission’s confusing legal status made meeting its security needs particularly hard. The Benghazi mission wasn’t an embassy or even an official consulate; it was so off-book that the Libyan government was never officially notified of its existence. This strange legal status put the mission outside the normal State Department procedures used to allocate security funding and personnel.
    Finally, since no one in the US intelligence community had evidence of an imminent attack, neither Ambassador Stevens nor the State Department made Benghazi security a very high priority. Stevens’ trip to Benghazi on the day of attack wasn’t coordinated with the US security team based with the US embassy in Tripoli, so they didn’t go. The ambassador, according to the review board, “did not see a direct threat of an attack of this nature and scale.” So while Stevens did ask for more security, his requests weren’t taken as urgent enough to overcome the bureaucratic muddle standing in their way.
    OK then. What was the purpose of this??
  • Jan 23, 2019, 07:37 PM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    OK then. What was the purpose of this??

    It was a response to what you had said. I had quoted you in that post.
  • Jan 23, 2019, 07:45 PM
    jlisenbe
    A response for the purpose of NOT defending HC? Oh well.
  • Jan 23, 2019, 08:03 PM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    A response for the purpose of NOT defending HC? Oh well.

    The topic was Stevens and why security wasn't up to snuff.
  • Jan 24, 2019, 12:33 AM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Wondergirl View Post
    What if tRump holds a press conference and no one shows up?

    Well he might hold a State of the Union address and no one will show up
  • Jan 24, 2019, 04:24 AM
    jlisenbe
    Quote:

    The topic was Stevens and why security wasn't up to snuff.
    And how HC was responsible for it, so you leaped to her defense. If that is not the case, then what was the purpose of your remarks?
  • Jan 24, 2019, 08:15 AM
    talaniman
    If you blame Hillary for deaths on her watch, then what's the rationale for not blaming the dufus and his SOS for deaths on their watch, like a journalist for example.
  • Jan 24, 2019, 02:05 PM
    jlisenbe
    That's a valid complaint against Trump, but not even close to being on the same level. Trump had no advance notice of potential trouble concerning the journalist, and certainly had no opportunity to help him once the trouble started. BTW, did your hero Mr. Obama ever hold anyone responsible for the debacle in Benghazi?? We both know the answer to that one. That would have required holding HC responsible, and good luck with that one.
  • Jan 24, 2019, 02:29 PM
    talaniman
    Not even the repub lead investigations brought or recommended charges against HC in regard to Benghazi so blame them too, right?
  • Jan 24, 2019, 03:45 PM
    jlisenbe
    No. I don't know that she broke a law in regard to Benghazi. Being incompetent is not a violation of a law. Now as to her toy email server and her destroying evidence on it, yes the FBI should have charged her, but your buddy Comey saluted and obeyed his master's command, in my view at least.
  • Jan 25, 2019, 01:59 PM
    talaniman
    Again for the umpteenth time, repubs had a chance to prosecute, censure, or whatever else, when they took over the government which they certainly had the last two years at least, so either they got NOTHING, or they were feckless and incompetent, or likely BOTH!
  • Jan 25, 2019, 02:53 PM
    tomder55
    yeah that was going to happen with emperor's bots running the show at justice .
  • Jan 25, 2019, 03:18 PM
    talaniman
    What happened after they fired the bots?
  • Jan 25, 2019, 03:26 PM
    tomder55
    they are still running it and will until he gets rid of Rosenstein .
  • Jan 25, 2019, 04:26 PM
    jlisenbe
    Quote:

    they were feckless and incompetent, or likely BOTH!
    I would vote for both.
  • Jan 25, 2019, 07:14 PM
    talaniman
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    they are still running it and will until he gets rid of Rosenstein .

    Set to retire when they confirm the new guy. The new guy will be to busy keeping the dufus out of jail to worry about Hillary.
  • Jan 26, 2019, 09:13 AM
    tomder55
    He has to clean his own house .First move I believe will be to act on the IG's report . He also has to get rid of the Mueller investigation Did you actually read the indictment of Stone ? Stone ,Corsi and Credico were performing a 3 stooges act and Stone lied about it . Basically they wanted to know what Assange had and when he was going to release it to the press. But Stone went further and publicly bragged that he had an insiders view of Assange's operation (completely false ….all he did was make some fishing phone calls to Wiki). Stone then tells a friend in the Trump campaign (Bannon) that Wiki has stuff about Evita . So Stone is asked to give the campaign any info Wiki is planning on revealing . Again ;if Trump's campaign was involved in any of the espionage surrounding the hacking ,they would've known the info Wiki had and would not have bothered listened to Stone . They were completely in the dark . They turned to Stone for info that came to him from Wiki that came to Wiki probably from Ruskie hackers with names like Guccifer2 . Stone ;not knowing jack about what Wiki had ,but wanting to get an in with Trump , hinted about POTENTIAL future Wiki releases . So Stone was a best the 3rd person in the telephone game that was being played and most likely 4th because he was getting some of his stuff from Credico who had interviewed Assange and presumed therefore to have an in with him. Mueller knows this and has not charged Stone with conspiracy with Wiki ……..and forget about a conspiracy with the Ruskies. The judge would laugh that charge out of court . So instead Mueller did a gestapo raid on Stone for 'misleading Congressional investigators ' .He also tried to direct Credico in his testimony so additional charges of witness tampering are added . Serious charges ? Yes . Anything in all of this that imperils the President ? No. It is not illegal to seek or obtain damaging information on your political opponent . With all the people that have been taken down with process crime in the course of this investigation ,not one charge links the Trump campaign in a collusion conspiracy . The Justice Department and the FBI went out of their way to portray Donald Trump as a suspect in what would have been the most abhorrent crime in the nation’s history. It has been more than two years. Is it too much to ask that the Justice Department withdraw its public suggestion that the president of the United States might be a clandestine agent of Russia?
  • Jan 26, 2019, 11:07 AM
    talaniman
    That's why we wait and get the whole report before we stop Mueller's investigation. Indicting and convicting close associates of dufus certainly does imperil the dufus I would think and he certainly is hiring lawyers for his inevitable defense 40 so far. Has it not occurred to you that shooting off ones mouth may have the consequences of a closer look?

    Dumb entitled criminals. We wouldn't be here if not for the lies, but they all know the TRUTH will not set them free. I find it amusing you defend the wrong doing of these career criminals and con men, yet like JL, still want to prosecute the so called process crimes of Hillary.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/live-news/in...-live-updates/

    Quote:

    However, the report found that political bias did not affect the investigation and it gave support to the decision not to prosecute Clinton.


  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:46 PM.