Check out some similar questions!

tomder55 · Nov 19, 2012, 06:20 AM

But Tom you always were their patrons, admittedly the relationship soured somewhat but OBL was a favoured son while the Russians were in Afghanistan.Al Qaeda was a monster of your own making...

That is a myth . We did not supply anyone in the OBL group . He self funded or raised funding for his operation on his own . It's possible that charge could be made if you were speaking of the Taliban... but not al Qaeda .

You still don't recognise what an affront you represent too much of the civilised world, you think you share our values but you do not.

No ,we may be an affront to you . But you don't represent the 'civilized world' .

It seems that every time something goes wrong we hear that the US had a hand it it

Hope you are enjoying Leon Panetta's visit .

paraclete · Nov 19, 2012, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by tomder55

That is a myth . We did not supply anyone in the OBL group . He self funded or raised funding for his operation on his own . It's possible that charge could be made if you were speaking of the Taliban... but not al Qaeda .

And how did you separate out the mujihadeen, I would say you were not concerned about who you dealt with as long as they killed Russians so making that distinction is a joke

No ,we may be an affront to you . But you don't represent the 'civilized world' .
Hope you are enjoying Leon Panetta's visit .

So if I don't represent the civilised world, what do you represent?
http://www.smh.com.au/world/philippi...119-29m4m.html
This is what we don't want here, your uncivilised behaviour.

I don't enjoy evita and leon swanning around here building up the idea that the US should have more influence in my country and this region. You forgot us for fifty years and suddenly we are important. We are not interested in fortress Australia. There is a myth promulgated by the americans that we need you to stem the yellow tide. Have you noticed what is going on in south east asia, the locals have bought into this nonsense and are arming themselves

tomder55 · Nov 19, 2012, 02:44 PM

They are rightly concerned... something about the Chinese sending troops to plant Chinese flags on their islands. Maybe that's it No ?

paraclete · Nov 19, 2012, 06:12 PM

No they are more concerned about the moral degregation of their people which comes from associating with your military, having gotten rid of you, they don't want you back

excon · Nov 25, 2012, 10:09 AM

Hello again,

GOP Rep. Peter King, today said that Susan Rice had an obligation to not just read whatever was handed to her on Benghazi, but to investigate further.

If EVERYBODY, INCLUDING Peter King, had QUESTIONED what they were being told back in 2001, we WOULDN'T have WRONGLY invaded Iraq, and 4,000 Americans WOULD be alive instead of DEAD..

Now, they're running around with their hair on fire about FOUR dead Americans in Benghazi?? That's NOT to diminish these losses, but where were the DOUBTERS when we needed them??

Oh, that's right. They can't remember past 4 years.. Well, that's why I'M here.

excon

paraclete · Nov 25, 2012, 03:30 PM

There are some practicalities here, it's apparent Rice was on a tryout for Secretary of State, being given a chance to show a public face, she would have had no reason to question what was placed in front of her and little opportunity to investigate, in the same way a TV anchor reads what is in front of them.

It is convenient to attack her, as Obama said attack him, or is it they can't get to him

speechlesstx · Nov 26, 2012, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again,

GOP Rep. Peter King, today said that Susan Rice had an obligation to not just read whatever was handed to her on Benghazi, but to investigate further.

If EVERYBODY, INCLUDING Peter King, had QUESTIONED what they were being told back in 2001, we WOULDN'T have WRONGLY invaded Iraq, and 4,000 Americans WOULD be alive instead of DEAD..

Now, they're running around with their hair on fire about FOUR dead Americans in Benghazi??? That's NOT to diminish these losses, but where were the DOUBTERS when we needed them???

Oh, that's right. They can't remember past 4 years.. Well, that's why I'M here.

excon

Aren't you about done with the Bush years? Whatever happened in 2001 is relevant only as a lesson learned. Susan Rice missed that lesson.

tomder55 · Nov 26, 2012, 12:10 PM

Iraqs possession of wmd was consensus opionion of the world's intelligence community ;including a special UN agency's . I thought the left likes consensus opinions.

NeedKarma · Nov 26, 2012, 12:35 PM

Iraqs possession of wmd was consensus opionion of the world's intelligence community ;including a special UN agency's . I thought the left likes consensus opinions.

I'm told we no longer should speak of this.

paraclete · Nov 26, 2012, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by tomder55

Iraqs posession of wmd was concensus opionion of the world's intelligence community ;including a special UN agency's . I thought the left likes concensus opinions.

A consensus of fools led by the chief fool, what happened to the mobile factories, did they just drive off into the sunset? What happened to that uranium purchased in Africa? Your position of leadership led to others following you, a leadership you know they are reluctant to follow again.

NeedKarma · Nov 26, 2012, 01:59 PM

And it wasn't cheap: $6.6 billion in lost Iraq cash now accounted for, inspector says | The Envoy - Yahoo! News
Add to that the exorbitant consulate costs.

paraclete · Nov 26, 2012, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

And it wasn't cheap: $6.6 billion in lost Iraq cash now accounted for, inspector says | The Envoy - Yahoo! News
add to that the exorbitant consulate costs.

Yes I imagine they have accounted for the missing explosives too.

excon · Nov 26, 2012, 02:59 PM

Hello again, tom:

Iraqs possession of wmd was consensus opionion of the world's intelligence community

So, it's the SIZE of the consensus that matters, huh? Susan Rice had a consensus opinion, too. It just wasn't as big. The principal is the SAME. She/you were told XXX by the intelligence community... She/you BELIEVED it. She/you said as much.

Excon

speechlesstx · Nov 26, 2012, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

So, it's the SIZE of the consensus that matters, huh? Susan Rice had a consensus opinion, too. It just wasn't as big. The principal is the SAME. She/you were told XXX by the intelligence community... She/you BELIEVED it. She/you said as much.

excon

Intelligence said it was al-Qaida.

talaniman · Nov 26, 2012, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Intelligence said it was al-Qaida.

After they said it was a protest, and what intelligence organization tells the public what they are really thinking? Not the CIA.

Probably still hasn't.

speechlesstx · Nov 26, 2012, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by talaniman

After they said it was a protest, and what intelligence organization tells the public what they are really thinking? Not the CIA.

Probably still hasn't.

Not so, Petraeus said they knew "almost immediately" it was terrorism. You're just changing the story like the administration did.

talaniman · Nov 26, 2012, 04:00 PM

They knew, but that's not what they wrote as a public statement.

paraclete · Nov 26, 2012, 05:32 PM

It's on a need to know basis, what part of that do you not get, telling the press and public everything just jeopardises the investigation and gives comfort to the enemy, how much comfort have they gained by seeing you in disarray, and bickerring among yourselves, it has done more damage than the actual attack.

You should be used to cover stories by now

tomder55 · Nov 26, 2012, 08:17 PM

I don't blame Rice ;she was the stooge they sent out there . I have to assume that she was an ignorent stooge who had no idea that she was a patsy .We already know the DCI report was altered by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper,to remove the words "terrorism" and "al Qaeda" from the talking points... or at least he's the latest being thrown under the bus in this cover-up.

One problem is that Clapper in testimony ALSO spewed the company line about the video and a flash mob protest.

The question about Rice remain.Did she know she was lying before Congress ? Why was she chosen to make what was obviously a totally false explanation on the Sunday morning talking shows ?Why was proper security not present, despite repeated terrorist attacks in Benghazi on foreign diplomats? Why did Ambassador Stevens travel to Benghazi when his previous calls for more security had gone unanswered? Why was Gen. Carter Ham summarily sacked as head of AFRICOM almost immediately after the attack when talk that forces under his command could have gone to the rescue ? Why were two former SEALs on loan to CIA in Libya in the first place? They were not there the ambassador's security, and in fact disobeyed orders to stand down when they tried to rescue him. The adm knew in real time it was a terrorist attack .Why did they send out Rice with their lie ?

paraclete · Nov 26, 2012, 09:30 PM

All good questions, Tom, no doubt they have been answered behind closed doors. Tom, don't hold your breath until the answers come forth. As I said IT is on a need to know basis, and you don't need to know. I don't remember that Constitution of yours conferring upon you the right to know, even the President only has to report once a year