The Truth is Out There

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Fri May 10, 2013 5:37 pm

woodchip wrote: I guess Hillary needed her beauty sleep and Obama needed his sleep so he could go campaigning the next day. So the phone call came and they both just rolled over and snored the night away.

WAIT. you mean Hillary WASN'T the one that they wanted to answer the phones at 3AM like her campaign add said?!?!?!?!?!

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri May 10, 2013 6:48 pm

Top Gun wrote:I think there's a pretty clear difference between making an initial assumption that turned out to be incorrect and deliberately lying.

Well it seems AB news is getting some bawls. Some excerpts to show that actual lying took place:

According to ABC News, the original paragraph read:

"The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa'ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador's convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks."

But Nuland (Dept. Spokesman) wrote that the lines "could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned ..."

The paragraph in question was then reportedly deleted.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05 ... e-fallout/

So this sounds a bit more than how Jay "Conman" Carney stated:

"Carney had claimed last year that the only adjustment the White House or State Department made to the language was to change the word "consulate" to "diplomatic facility."

So TG you still want to continue along the line of "incorrect assumptions" or do you now see that a real coverup was in progress. If you need more encouragement, then this excerpt from the same linked story kinda cements it:

"Department spokesman Victoria Nuland pressed the CIA to scrub references to the agency's prior security warnings out of concern they could be used against her department. "

Yes we wouldn't want to show the world how inept we were now would we.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat May 11, 2013 7:07 am

this whole overblown, steaming pile of BS is SUCH a transparent effort. The goal isn't to 'seek truth', it isn't aimed at correcting errors or shortcomings which led to the deaths of 4 Americans, it is merely an attempt to slow down a Hillary Clinton 2016 juggernaut. Not only an attempt, but an obvious, clumsy and ultimately futile attempt, I suspect.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat May 11, 2013 7:21 am

Tommy Vietor, Obama’s former National Security Council spokesman, took to Twitter this morning to reveal the real culprit behind the repeatedly altered Benghazi talking points: House Republican.

The #Benghazi TPs were written at request of the House intel committee Rs so they could go on TV. Cong forced admin to do them now attack

pathetic

Here are the next Democratic talking points.

Its all the republicans fault.
The Devil made us do it.

ROFLOL

Its always someone elses fault isnt it.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat May 11, 2013 7:27 am

callmeslick wrote:this whole overblown, steaming pile of BS is SUCH a transparent effort. The goal isn't to 'seek truth', it isn't aimed at correcting errors or shortcomings which led to the deaths of 4 Americans, it is merely an attempt to slow down a Hillary Clinton 2016 juggernaut. Not only an attempt, but an obvious, clumsy and ultimately futile attempt, I suspect.

SO, your saying that in 2016 we should trust a person that was proven to have knowingly lied to the American people for the sake of her political career and who stood before congress and said what difference does the truth make. Into the Whitehouse.

Plus your trying to changd the subject away from benghazi again. Nice try

OH and FYI the only steaming pile of BS is the pile that came from the administration in the botched aftermath handling of benghazi. Nice try though

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat May 11, 2013 7:55 am

Slick, why did Hillary and Obama tell the parents of the dead Americans “We will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted" long after she knew the attack that killed them was a pre planned terrorist attack that did not happen in spontaneous protest to a video that has NEVER caused a protest in Benghazi?

The attack required surveillance that she knew took place in the weeks prior to the attack and tactical planning with trained assailants and coordination with the Libyan security forces that were supposed to be protecting the compound and it required some one to leak the secondary locations of the US personnel etc, etc, et frikken cetera!

There is no way this was anything other than a pre planned terrorist attack timed to happen on the anniversary of 9/11.

They told those lies to the parents and the rest of us because they were trying to sustain a known false narrative in the public domain at the expense of all ethical obligations they had to those parents and America at large. They did it to protect candidate Obama. The epitome of 'playing politics'!

Regardless of republican political opportunism Hillary and Obama are responsible for their lies.
Can you give us any reasonable excuse to forgive them for their putting Obama's reelection before the truth?

Remember Obama's outrage at Romney in the 2nd debate saying he was offended that he or his state department would be acused of playing politics with the death of the ambassador and the other 3 Americans?
The only way to properly address that now is to say he is a lying hypocrit of the highest order!
So, yes, there is a steaming pile of BS alright but it isn't just political opportunistic republicans. The larger pile of feces is the one you and the partisan press are trying to peddle.
You are every bit as bad as those opportunistic republicans are. Every damn bit!

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat May 11, 2013 8:06 am

callmeslick wrote:this whole overblown, steaming pile of BS is SUCH a transparent effort. The goal isn't to 'seek truth', it isn't aimed at correcting errors or shortcomings which led to the deaths of 4 Americans, it is merely an attempt to slow down a Hillary Clinton 2016 juggernaut. Not only an attempt, but an obvious, clumsy and ultimately futile attempt, I suspect.

So what you are saying is we should just placidly keep believing what the White House tells us so your party can maintain power? And since when is that failure of a person Hillary Clinton a juggernaut? She was a failure when her hubby had her handle instituting a national health care program in the early 90's, she was a failure for trying to convince us that Lewinsky was a vast right wing conspiracy even with the spotted dress, she was a failure to New York state when they voted her carpetbagging ass as their senator when she dumped them to become secretary of state and she failed Ambassador Stevens twice. Once when she didn't beef up security in Benghazi even after her security people told her it was imperative to do so. And secondly she failed the Ambassador when she got the 3 am phone call and rolled her baggy ass over and went back to sleep. Just what we need, a tired worn out person who only knows how to say "What difference does it make" when something goes horribly wrong.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat May 11, 2013 8:09 am

Slicks just scared. he knows the anointed successor to the throne just killed her chances and its only going to get worse for them as more truth is revealed. and he'll say anything to protect his party.

You cant defend the indefensible.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Sat May 11, 2013 9:09 am

You guys weren't righteously outraged when Bush was re-elected after starting a war in Iraq by lying about WMDs, linked Saddam to AQ, and then declared "Mission Accomplished" in 2003. It is amusing, I remember some of you complaining about how the press wouldn't let Bush off the hook for all that.

So what difference does the truth make? It makes no difference at all because you have already made up your minds. "The Truth is Out There" And Nobody Cares Because They Just Substitute Their Own Truths.

MD-1118 · Post by **MD-1118** » Sat May 11, 2013 10:06 am

Krom wrote:You guys weren't righteously outraged when Bush was re-elected after starting a war in Iraq by lying about WMDs, linked Saddam to AQ, and then declared "Mission Accomplished" in 2003. It is amusing, I remember some of you complaining about how the press wouldn't let Bush off the hook for all that.

So what difference does the truth make? It makes no difference at all because you have already made up your minds. "The Truth is Out There" And Nobody Cares Because They Just Substitute Their Own Truths.

I was wondering when this was going to come up...

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat May 11, 2013 10:12 am

Krom wrote:You guys weren't righteously outraged when Bush was re-elected after starting a war in Iraq by lying about WMDs, linked Saddam to AQ, and then declared "Mission Accomplished" in 2003. It is amusing, I remember some of you complaining about how the press wouldn't let Bush off the hook for all that.

So what difference does the truth make? It makes no difference at all because you have already made up your minds. "The Truth is Out There" And Nobody Cares Because They Just Substitute Their Own Truths.

apparently you don't understand the definition of a Lie.

Bush was operating on the information provided to him by our intelligence agency along with those of France, GB, and Russia, that information turned out to be incorrect. that sir does not constitute a lie, but an error. how grievous? history will decide.

President Obama and his staff KNEW the facts. They had the evidence in front of them and willing chose to give misleading information. HUGE DIFFERENCE.

ly·ing
1 [lahy-ing] Show IPA
noun
2.
telling or containing lies; deliberately untruthful; deceitful; false: a lying report. Synonyms: deceptive, misleading, mendacious, fallacious; sham, counterfeit. Antonyms: true, candid, actual, correct, accurate, trustworthy.

Now if you could PROVE that Bush KNOWING provided false information and was deliberately untruthful I'll join you in condemning him. but you cannot. all you have is hindsight that what he claimed based upon the evidence that was presented to him was incorrect. that is not a lie. it might be incompetence but it is not a lie.

on the other hand. we know that President Obama, and SOS Clinton along with others were deliberately untruthful when they talked about Benghazi. we KNOW they knew what happened and intentionally gave false statements about the events

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat May 11, 2013 10:24 am

Will Robinson wrote:Slick, why did Hillary and Obama tell the parents of the dead Americans “We will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted" long after she knew the attack that killed them was a pre planned terrorist attack that did not happen in spontaneous protest to a video that has NEVER caused a protest in Benghazi?

link to a direct quote, please.

Regardless of republican political opportunism Hillary and Obama are responsible for their lies.
Can you give us any reasonable excuse to forgive them for their putting Obama's reelection before the truth?

that's an idiotic assertion on the face of it.....had Obama gone all Rambo and retaliated excessively, he would have won by an even larger margin. There was utterly no political advantage gained. What you all seem VERY willing to overlook is that the location wasn't an embassy, or even a consulate. In reality, it was clearly a CIA outpost, the details of which were intended to remain VERY obscure. Thanks to the repeated dredging and rehashing of the incident, those details become a bit more clear, but the actions at the time bear all the hallmarks of blowing a lot of smoke to allow covert personnel to get the heck out of there.

Remember Obama's outrage at Romney in the 2nd debate saying he was offended that he or his state department would be acused of playing politics with the death of the ambassador and the other 3 Americans?
The only way to properly address that now is to say he is a lying hypocrit of the highest order!

another steaming pile of crap. No such thing was done. Ever. Now, as I said above, the GOP seems so desperate to somehow slow the Hillary bandwagon down they will beat those deaths senseless for political purposes, but the Obama side?
Not really.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat May 11, 2013 10:52 am

callmeslick wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:Slick, why did Hillary and Obama tell the parents of the dead Americans “We will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted" long after she knew the attack that killed them was a pre planned terrorist attack that did not happen in spontaneous protest to a video that has NEVER caused a protest in Benghazi?
link to a direct quote, please.

AH you want transcripts of what she said or it isnt valid. moving the goal posts I see.

Charles Woods, the father of a Navy SEAL killed in Benghazi, said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told him when his son's body returned to Andrews Air Force Base: "We will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted."

I'm sure the testimony of this man about comments given to him in private are not good enough for you. and since it WAS given in private I'm sure there were MULTIPLE witnesses to what she said.

sorry Slick you'll need to do better then that.

Since Hillary has recently been proven as a lair I chose to believe what this man said over what you want us to believe she didn't say because there were no witnesses. and since you wouldn't believe any other source anyways, I'll quote your hero "what difference does it make"

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat May 11, 2013 11:17 am

Much like how bush has been proven to tell the truth, eh? ;P

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat May 11, 2013 11:39 am

CUDA wrote: AH you want transcripts of what she said or it isnt valid. moving the goal posts I see.
Charles Woods, the father of a Navy SEAL killed in Benghazi, said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told him when his son's body returned to Andrews Air Force Base: "We will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted."
I'm sure the testimony of this man about comments given to him in private are not good enough for you. and since it WAS given in private I'm sure there were MULTIPLE witnesses to what she said.

sorry Slick you'll need to do better then that

.
source for this?

Since Hillary has recently been proven as a lair I chose to believe what this man said over what you want us to believe she didn't say because there were no witnesses. and since you wouldn't believe any other source anyways, I'll quote your hero "what difference does it make"

so, as is so often the case with you, it's all about what you 'choose to believe' over actual hard facts. Thanks for clarifying.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat May 11, 2013 11:42 am

No Ferny, Bush has not been shown to knowingly lied as Cuda pointed out.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat May 11, 2013 11:52 am

callmeslick wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:Slick, why did Hillary and Obama tell the parents of the dead Americans “We will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted" long after she knew the attack that killed them was a pre planned terrorist attack that did not happen in spontaneous protest to a video that has NEVER caused a protest in Benghazi?
link to a direct quote, please.

If I give you the link to the parent quoting Hillary will that change your mind about it? That parents comments are certainly out there to be cited but I think you know that and you issued your demand for a quote as an attempt to discredit the assertion and my proving it was said will not make a bit of difference to you.

So, tell me, if it was said what difference does it make to you?

callmeslick wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:Regardless of republican political opportunism Hillary and Obama are responsible for their lies.
Can you give us any reasonable excuse to forgive them for their putting Obama's reelection before the truth?
that's an idiotic assertion on the face of it.....had Obama gone all Rambo and retaliated excessively, he would have won by an even larger margin. There was utterly no political advantage gained.

What is idiotic is claiming there was no political need to change the story when the emails from the State Department specifically state the reason for the change are political in nature!, and whitehouse spokesman Carney lied to the media claiming the only thing changed was a single word, and nothing of substance was changed, when in fact a great deal of substance was removed! All mention of terrorism for example!

Here's a clue, just because you say it wasn't is no reason for anyone to believe you.

callmeslick wrote: What you all seem VERY willing to overlook is that the location wasn't an embassy, or even a consulate. In reality, it was clearly a CIA outpost, the details of which were intended to remain VERY obscure.
Thanks to the repeated dredging and rehashing of the incident, those details become a bit more clear, but the actions at the time bear all the hallmarks of blowing a lot of smoke to allow covert personnel to get the heck out of there.

Are you trying to claim the state department or other Obama operatives actually were trying to accomplish something in Benghazi after the attack started? Please elaborate on what you are trying to imply with that! lol.
You are talking about a group of buildings that the enemy performed a strategically planned assault on! I think they knew exactly who was there. The allegations that our diplomats were engaged in spy activity was made loud and clear prior to the attack. That is one of the reasons the ambassador had asked for more security!
You are the one trying to raise the 'smoke screen'.

For you to try and suggest the attempt to get some truthful answers spoiled Obama's 'smoke screen' anti-Islam-film-story he created as a cover for the CIA operatives trying to evacuate the area, or whatever pile of nonsense you will now spin it into, is an amazingly pathetic bit of spin! Bravo! You are worse than Carney!

callmeslick wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:Remember Obama's outrage at Romney in the 2nd debate saying he was offended that he or his state department would be acused of playing politics with the death of the ambassador and the other 3 Americans?
The only way to properly address that now is to say he is a lying hypocrit of the highest order!
another steaming pile of crap. No such thing was done. Ever.

Really?!? That's amazing then because the footage of the debate clearly shows Obama saying what you are telling me he didn't say!

Let me guess, it is a rightwinger conspiracy that digitally altered the debate footage that we all saw and Obama never really declared his indignation at Romneys comments....
Lol, you are consistent if nothing else...just declaring things didn't happen regardless of reality staring you in the face.

callmeslick wrote:Now, as I said above, the GOP seems so desperate to somehow slow the Hillary bandwagon down they will beat those deaths senseless for political purposes, but the Obama side?
Not really.

Lol. Riiiggghhhttttt, Obama wouldn't politicize anything for a campaign....lol!

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat May 11, 2013 11:53 am

woodchip wrote:No Ferny, Bush has not been shown to knowingly lied as Cuda pointed out.

you're joking, right? Bush and Cheney clearly lied, repeatedly, about WMD, if you choose to believe even a fraction of what has been reported to have been provided them in terms of intelligence data. Yellow Cake? WMD? Puhleese.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat May 11, 2013 11:57 am

Ferno wrote:Much like how bush has been proven to tell the truth, eh? ;P

yep Benghazi is all GW's fault.. FYI everyone Bush has been out of office 5 years now. time for the President to take off the training wheels. this topic is about the Current administration and the proven lies that they have told. it's not a history lesson and a BUT BUT they did it first class

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat May 11, 2013 12:00 pm

Slick would love to change the debate into Bush/WMD's to protect Hillary but even that would be stupid because Hillary and Bush were both operating from the same set of assumptions that everyone else was.

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

more believers

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat May 11, 2013 12:06 pm

callmeslick wrote:
Since Hillary has recently been proven as a lair I chose to believe what this man said over what you want us to believe she didn't say because there were no witnesses. and since you wouldn't believe any other source anyways, I'll quote your hero "what difference does it make"
so, as is so often the case with you, it's all about what you 'choose to believe' over actual hard facts. Thanks for clarifying.

willfully ignorant are we?? the Cold hard facts are there you just choose to ignore them. such is often the case with you. just wanted to clarify that for you

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat May 11, 2013 12:08 pm

Will Robinson wrote:Slick would love to change the debate into Bush/WMD's to protect Hillary but even that would be stupid because Hillary and Bush were both operating from the same set of assumptions that everyone else was.

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
more believers

OMG SAY it ain't so Hillary Lied then TOO!!!!!!

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat May 11, 2013 12:12 pm

callmeslick wrote:
CUDA wrote: AH you want transcripts of what she said or it isnt valid. moving the goal posts I see.
Charles Woods, the father of a Navy SEAL killed in Benghazi, said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told him when his son's body returned to Andrews Air Force Base: "We will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted."
I'm sure the testimony of this man about comments given to him in private are not good enough for you. and since it WAS given in private I'm sure there were MULTIPLE witnesses to what she said.

sorry Slick you'll need to do better then that
.
source for this?

never heard of it before??????? that's because MSNBC hasn't reported on it so you didn't hear about it.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat May 11, 2013 12:43 pm

callmeslick wrote:
woodchip wrote:No Ferny, Bush has not been shown to knowingly lied as Cuda pointed out.
you're joking, right? Bush and Cheney clearly lied, repeatedly, about WMD, if you choose to believe even a fraction of what has been reported to have been provided them in terms of intelligence data. Yellow Cake? WMD? Puhleese.

prove to me that Bush had facts to the contrary about WMD BEFORE he spoke about them saying Iraq had them and I'll agree with you. until you do that then, you are misguided about what a lie is and are playing politics trying to deflect from the current topic about Benghazi.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat May 11, 2013 1:55 pm

CUDA wrote:yep Benghazi is all GW's fault.. FYI everyone Bush has been out of office 5 years now. time for the President to take off the training wheels. this topic is about the Current administration and the proven lies that they have told. it's not a history lesson and a BUT BUT they did it first class

Ah but you see, Bush did not have the benefit of the All-Seeing All-Knowing Great Eye of Obama that lets the user know the absolute truth and even predicts next weeks bingo game. So basically incompetence is an answer for Bush, but Obama is way too smart for that (except when it is convenient for republicans for him to be stupid)

woodchip wrote:No Ferny, Bush has not been shown to knowingly lied as Cuda pointed out.

"Mission Accomplished"

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat May 11, 2013 3:01 pm

Ferno wrote:
woodchip wrote:No Ferny, Bush has not been shown to knowingly lied as Cuda pointed out.
"Mission Accomplished"

Mission accomplished was a banner on an aircraft carrier to acknowledge the successful accomplishment of a returning group of ships. It didn't say 'The War is over' or 'al Queda has been decimated'....it said the mission that they had been on was accomplished. They undertake numerous missions. No big deal they are allowed to celebrate a successful mission for crying out loud.
The media and other democrat hacks reported it in a way to imply that Bush was making a larger proclamation so they could then tell you how wrong he was.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat May 11, 2013 3:28 pm

Oh so that's the explanation now? That's funny. Last I remember, it meant "major combat operations are over".

This discussion isn't about facts anymore, but speculation, posturing and who did what when. It's like a junior high discussion where one person is going NU UH! and the other is going NU HUH!

To borrow a line from The Joker: "It'd be funny if it weren't so pathetic. aw what the hell, I'll laugh anyway"

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat May 11, 2013 4:43 pm

Ferno wrote:Oh so that's the explanation now? That's funny. Last I remember, it meant "major combat operations are over".

This discussion isn't about facts anymore, but speculation, posturing and who did what when. It's like a junior high discussion where one person is going NU UH! and the other is going NU HUH!

To borrow a line from The Joker: "It'd be funny if it weren't so pathetic. aw what the hell, I'll laugh anyway"

The aircraft carrier had just spent like a year straight in action over there and was returning home. That's a pretty big milestone. But lets assume the banner was really a political calculation by Bush instead of a celebration for the crew.

In the context of this discussion, you are saying Bush told us "major combat operations are over" in Iraq when you obviously think they were not. That was his "lie". Ok.

Well, Obama had told us basically the same thing about al Queda during the election and I didn't say a damn thing about it. I knew he was full of it but that was typical politician rhetoric and not worth getting pissed off over in my opinion.
So, for me, they were both equally hyperbolic in their assertions.

But then for the two examples to really be equally bad we need some more parallels to be in place don't we?
So, tell me, when operations went on in Iraq and more men died did Bush take the reports from the field and ignore what they said and have them rewritten to attribute the deaths to some fabricated enemy? Did he imply that it wasn't his efforts in Iraq that caused these new deaths? Did he fabricate stories about a civilian hate monger made a video that drove the people of Iraq to attack the americans and then lie to the parents of those dead americans about how they died, promising to find this video producer and punish him. Did he go to the UN and make speeches about how we apologize for the video? Did he demote state department employees for telling the truth about it?

If Bush took the opportunity of a returning aircraft carrier for a photo op then please call him what he is for it and I'll not complain.

For me, Obama fabricating the storyline about how people died, putting a person in jail for a film he blamed for a protest that didn't really happen that lead to a spontaneous attack by protestors who just happened to have rocket propelled grenades in their pockets... and mortars set up on the perimeter of their spontaneous protest. A spontaneous protest that had somehow managed to have arranged the sudden departure of complicit Libyan policemen at the compound who had also leaked the locations of the ambassador and staff's secondary location to these spontaneous protesters and had been taking pictures of the compound during the weeks leading up to this spontaneous protest. Punishing whistleblowers...lying to the parents of the dead americans who are looking for answers to what happened.

Well somehow that seems to be a bit much even for an opportunistic politician!! You go ahead and see both incidents as one and the same if you want to but there is a big difference in the level of deceit and disregard for a lot of people separating both of those scenarios. A BIG difference.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat May 11, 2013 4:49 pm

Will Robinson wrote: If I give you the link to the parent quoting Hillary will that change your mind about it? That parents comments are certainly out there to be cited but I think you know that and you issued your demand for a quote as an attempt to discredit the assertion and my proving it was said will not make a bit of difference to you.

actually, Will that was exactly what I was after. I had never heard the direct assertion made.

So, tell me, if it was said what difference does it make to you?

well, that, plus context would count for something. Doesn't relate to lying about anything, really, but does show a certain mindset.

What is idiotic is claiming there was no political need to change the story when the emails from the State Department specifically state the reason for the change are political in nature!, and whitehouse spokesman Carney lied to the media claiming the only thing changed was a single word, and nothing of substance was changed, when in fact a great deal of substance was removed! All mention of terrorism for example!

almost all of this done AFTER the election, by an administration which isn't up for re-election......

Are you trying to claim the state department or other Obama operatives actually were trying to accomplish something in Benghazi after the attack started? Please elaborate on what you are trying to imply with that! lol.

I am claiming that, not 'trying'. It is patently obvious that they didn't want to release to the general public exactly what they knew about what, as that would likely reveal certain sources and cooperative agencies. What is astounding is that you couldn't see that as plausible(which I garner from the lol).

Really?!? That's amazing then because the footage of the debate clearly shows Obama saying what you are telling me he didn't say!

then your footage is doctored. What was actually said was that he was outraged that Romney would suggest that he wouldn't do his utter best to protect his employees and staff. Nothing more, nothing about 'for political gain', nothing.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat May 11, 2013 4:53 pm

Ferno wrote:Oh so that's the explanation now? That's funny. Last I remember, it meant "major combat operations are over".

This discussion isn't about facts anymore, but speculation, posturing and who did what when. It's like a junior high discussion where one person is going NU UH! and the other is going NU HUH!

To borrow a line from The Joker: "It'd be funny if it weren't so pathetic. aw what the hell, I'll laugh anyway"

hitting the nail on the head......I am astounded at what folks call 'facts', which are, in fact as alluded to by CUDA, 'what I choose to believe'. FACTS are matters proven beyond reproach, not suppositions that you buy into. Facts are relatively rare in this sort of discussion, especially if there is a chance to paint Obama badly.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat May 11, 2013 6:29 pm

callmeslick wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:Really?!? That's amazing then because the footage of the debate clearly shows Obama saying what you are telling me he didn't say!
then your footage is doctored. What was actually said was that he was outraged that Romney would suggest that he wouldn't do his utter best to protect his employees and staff. Nothing more, nothing about 'for political gain', nothing.

You are just completely full of crap! Here, at the end of this one around the 6:00 minute mark. Tell us again how it never happened that he was outraged at the insinuation that he or his team would play politics! Go ahead! Tell me again "it never happened"!

I was going to go point for point and expose your BS on the other stuff too but it really isn't worth it. You constantly and blatantly deny anything that occurred that is counter to your party's interest even when I provide the links and sources. You just declare it as if you are the king of reality or something! Why should I bother taking you even slightly seriously? You are just spouting outright lies at this point.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat May 11, 2013 7:43 pm

callmeslick wrote:
Ferno wrote:Oh so that's the explanation now? That's funny. Last I remember, it meant "major combat operations are over".

This discussion isn't about facts anymore, but speculation, posturing and who did what when. It's like a junior high discussion where one person is going NU UH! and the other is going NU HUH!

To borrow a line from The Joker: "It'd be funny if it weren't so pathetic. aw what the hell, I'll laugh anyway"

hitting the nail on the head......I am astounded at what folks call 'facts', which are, in fact as alluded to by CUDA, 'what I choose to believe'. FACTS are matters proven beyond reproach, not suppositions that you buy into. Facts are relatively rare in this sort of discussion, especially if there is a chance to paint Obama badly.

So kindly post links to the facts as you see them. Are you saying Hicks was not demoted for criticizing what Rice was saying? Are you saying that the real version of what happened was not redacted to the point of absurdity? Are you saying even the ring leader of what happened is not still walking around free even though we know where he is? This after Obama told the parents of the slain that they would bring the people complicit in the acts of terror to justice and to date only have the video maker in jail. So as Joe Friday would say, "Just the facts, ma'am"

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat May 11, 2013 8:02 pm

He cant woody. Because he doesn't have any, and what ever he posts will just be his opinion.
Ya know at first it used to bother me when he singled me out. Now I just consider it a badge of honor. It just the realisation that he has to try and discredit me instead of staying on topic and defending the mounting evidence against this administration, which he has proven incapable of doing or even attempting to do

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat May 11, 2013 8:18 pm

Well Cuda, slicks style works very well on the low information voter. Keep saying the same untruths in a authoritative manner and they will believe. Primarily because they are too lazy to ferret out the truth for themselves. At any rate you are in good company here as he tries to discredit any number of us as to what we post. Unfortunately for slick, his posting style has become abundantly clear and he continues to post as he does out of habit I suspect.

vision · Post by **vision** » Sat May 11, 2013 10:29 pm

This is the weakest excuse for a scandal I've ever seen. The United Stated must be doing pretty good if everyone can waste so much time on this topic. Be thankful.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun May 12, 2013 12:11 am

well if you don't like it woody, you can leave.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun May 12, 2013 6:25 am

Leave from where Ferny? America? This Board? Do try and enunciate your desires more clearly.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun May 12, 2013 6:56 am

CUDA wrote:He cant woody. Because he doesn't have any, and what ever he posts will just be his opinion.

none of you really has facts....that is the whole point. You run with innuendo and conjecture.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun May 12, 2013 7:00 am

woodchip wrote:Well Cuda, slicks style works very well on the low information voter. Keep saying the same untruths in a authoritative manner and they will believe. Primarily because they are too lazy to ferret out the truth for themselves. At any rate you are in good company here as he tries to discredit any number of us as to what we post. Unfortunately for slick, his posting style has become abundantly clear and he continues to post as he does out of habit I suspect.

actually, as I pointed out on another board, I noted this past week or so the utter disgust(basically around the point of 'this is a scandal?' from the professionals at my new workplace. We have news channels on in the caf and breakrooms, and this group of 'high information voters'(educated, informed professional engineers, chemists, IT guys and instrumentation operators)agrees with my position. These aren't exactly political wonks, at least from the little I've seen of them. Just intelligent fellow citizens, and they would post exactly as I do, if they could be bothered.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun May 12, 2013 8:18 am

On a scale of 1-10 of american political scandals, if Watergate was the worst at 10 and Bush taking a photo op under a banner saying Mission Accomplished prematurely is a 1 then so far what we have discovered puts Benghazi at 3 to 4 range.

However the administrations degree of despicable self serving tactics is only a 1 compared to the mainstream media's role in covering the Obama teams butt instead of covering the story the way they covered Watergate or even the Mission Acomplished event! The media's effort to protect Obama in this has been a solid 10! Their selective application of journalistic integrity is appalling.

That blatant partisan support from the media is one of the main reasons so many of us will make an effort to force this into the public domain as often and fervently as we can. By making the media cover it is small victory in itself regardless of how easily Obama may slip through untouched.