DescentBB

Well it appear that the Benghazi affair is having new life breathed into it. For those of you following the lamestream newsy's and thus are part of the vast uniformed voter pool, three non political appointee types (read career civil servants) are going to testify before congress about the attack. They are:

Gregory N. Hicks, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attacks

Mark I. Thompson, a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for Operations in the agency’s Counterterrorism Bureau

Eric Nordstrom, a diplomatic security officer who was the regional security officer in Libya, the top security officer in the country in the months leading up to the attacks.

So as you can see they are not exactly low level individuals. What will be even more interesting is a lawyer representing 2 whistle blowers had this to say:

“I'm not talking generally, I'm talking specifically about Benghazi -- that people have been threatened,” Toensing told Fox News on Wednesday. “And not just the State Department; people have been threatened at the CIA. ... It's frightening. ...They're taking career people and making them well aware that their careers will be over.”

Now if this is the case and it comes out in public hearings, I would be looking for heads to roll. Remember this all took place while the Presidential race was in full swing. If it is shown that the threats were made to protect Obama's presidency and if it links up to Obama's office, then Obama may very well become another Nixon.

woodchip wrote: then Obama may very well become another Nixon.

I said that when it happened. But all we got from the Whitehouse was lies, and all we got from our SOS was "what difference does it make"

So I'm looking at the major news outlets home pages to see what they have on the whistle blower story. First up is ABC news:

http://abcnews.go.com/

Nope there is not a word about Benghazi.

Then I go to NBC news:

http://www.nbcnews.com/

Again nothing. So I Try CBS news:

http://www.cbsnews.com/us/

Well this makes 3 in a row. Curious how the big three news organizations have not even a whisper of the Benghazi whistle blowers. Well lets try cable. So off I go to CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/

Well this is becoming sad but not entirely unexpected. So now I turn to Fox News and bingo...finally find coverage:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05 ... latestnews

So when you nay-sayers think the mainstream news is not in Obama's pocket and when Jay "Conman" Carney says Benghazi is "old news" I guess the lamestream falls into lockstep and see's no sense in reporting it. If you wonder why Fox News is the most popular cable news network then this may be a indication of why.

Did you check MSNBC? I'm sure they're all over this story

I figured msnbc with reporters the likes of Chris "Legs" Mathews, why bother.

CUDA wrote:

woodchip wrote: then Obama may very well become another Nixon.

I said that when it happened. But all we got from the Whitehouse was lies, and all we got from our SOS was "what difference does it make"

funny how you will continue, along with Woody and other likeminded souls, to keep wishing that Obama somehow transforms into a criminal. It isn't going to happen, of course, because nothing criminal took place, and most of the nation realizes it. Of course, you could try and focus on economic growth and long-term fiscal stability that comes from that, but why bother when there are strawmen to set up, right?

You would know because you're the king of strawman. Your post is the perfect example change the subject because you don't want to discus the top presented. Stawman at its finest. Why should I expect anything different from you then we get from the administration, you do walk lockstep in their example

Think back to the debate where so many people thought Romney would destroy Obama on Bengahzi but he didn't dare because of the Obama team, including debate moderator Crowley and all the mainstream media outlets had been successfully maintaining the misinformation that protected Obama.
Our president used those lies to turn Romneys momentum aside.

If, at that point in the campaign Romney didn't have to overcome Obama's main stream media cohorts on that issue he would have picked up momentum instead of losing it. The scandal of Bengahzi-gate would have run parallel in the daily news cycle to the almost-hurricane that provided Obama the cover he desperately needed. Gov. Christy probably wouldn't have been so friendly to him either since Obama would be the owner of so much bad publicity via Bengahzi...

So it is a worthy story as it always has been, and as always, it won't be reported by most of the media until they have no choice because as the truth dribbles out it becomes a stream that will grow into a river that they either ride on top of or wash away beneath.
They no longer have an election to protect so they will remember how to work like real journalists again. The debate raging in their war rooms now will be Hillary: protect her or bury her...

Keep sippin' dat redneck Kool-aid boys!

Actually we just chose to not put our heads in the sand and to seek the truth about an issue that everyone knows that the administration had been proven to have lied about on multiple occasions.

Many call that accountability.

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:

woodchip wrote: then Obama may very well become another Nixon.

I said that when it happened. But all we got from the Whitehouse was lies, and all we got from our SOS was "what difference does it make"

funny how you will continue, along with Woody and other likeminded souls, to keep wishing that Obama somehow transforms into a criminal. It isn't going to happen, of course, because nothing criminal took place, and most of the nation realizes it. Of course, you could try and focus on economic growth and long-term fiscal stability that comes from that, but why bother when there are strawmen to set up, right?

Funny how I never wished Obama anything. And Slick, how do you know nothing criminal took place? If indeed a cover up by suppressing witness's via threats took place and gets linked to the president, I'm afraid he will face impeachment the same as Nixon did. Do I wish Obama gets forced out in that manner? No, because we will have the biggest idiot in politics take his place. With Biden running things America will be made the butt of jokes by every country in the world.

Top Gun wrote:Keep sippin' dat redneck Kool-aid boys!

And keep dem dem heads in the sand down on dat ole plantation.

CUDA wrote:Actually we just chose to not put our heads in the sand and to seek the truth about an issue that everyone knows that the administration had been proven to have lied about on multiple occasions.

Many call that accountability.

The only "everyone" I see here are people who have had a massive hate-on for Obama since he was first elected, and are desperately grasping at the flimsiest straws possible to cast aspersions on him. I've yet to see a shred of credible evidence that there's any sort of massive cover-up going on here.

Top Gun wrote:

CUDA wrote:Actually we just chose to not put our heads in the sand and to seek the truth about an issue that everyone knows that the administration had been proven to have lied about on multiple occasions.

Many call that accountability.

The only "everyone" I see here are people who have had a massive hate-on for Obama since he was first elected, and are desperately grasping at the flimsiest straws possible to cast aspersions on him. I've yet to see a shred of credible evidence that there's any sort of massive cover-up going on here.

Of course you have not seen any evidence...yet. Perhaps we should wait and see how the whistle blower testimony goes before you get too defensive. You may want to tune into the coverage by Fox News though, as you will probably get schmoosed at the other networks.

Top Gun wrote:

CUDA wrote:Actually we just chose to not put our heads in the sand and to seek the truth about an issue that everyone knows that the administration had been proven to have lied about on multiple occasions.

Many call that accountability.

The only "everyone" I see here are people who have had a massive hate-on for Obama since he was first elected, and are desperately grasping at the flimsiest straws possible to cast aspersions on him. I've yet to see a shred of credible evidence that there's any sort of massive cover-up going on here.

OMG slick jr.

Anyone that disagrees with this president is either a racist or a hater ROFLOL
Keep trying to stifle debate by name calling, seems thats the only way left can deal with criticism

woodchip wrote:Of course you have not seen any evidence...yet. Perhaps we should wait and see how the whistle blower testimony goes before you get too defensive. You may want to tune into the coverage by Fox News though, as you will probably get schmoosed at the other networks.

I'll be sure to tune into Fox if I'm in the mood to watch some nursery rhymes.

CUDA wrote:Anyone that disagrees with this president is either a racist or a hater ROFLOL
Keep trying to stifle debate by name calling, seems thats the only way left can deal with criticism

Your take on the political spectrum must be all kinds of fun if you get "left" from me.

Ya your as much a centrist a slick is

Top Gun wrote:... I've yet to see a shred of credible evidence that there's any sort of massive cover-up going on here.

So if it turns out that they did cover it up what will your position be?
Are you just hiding your unquestioning devotion to his cause behind the story they propped up with hopes you can continue to claim to have chosen a virtuous leader because no evidence has been verified by his supporters?

Heh, and you acuse others of drinking the 'Kool-Aid'....lol!

CUDA wrote:Ya your as much a centrist a slick is

yup, and the fact that you don't realize that we are clearly in the middle of the spectrum shows how tightly you are wearing your blinders. Get out and do some reading, my friend, I am not vaguely approaching the left side of the spectrum.

See the problem is…the middle of the spectrum is composed of both the right and the left.

The last time I checked…both sides float right down the ole main stream.

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:Ya your as much a centrist a slick is

yup, and the fact that you don't realize that we are clearly in the middle of the spectrum shows how tightly you are wearing your blinders. Get out and do some reading, my friend, I am not vaguely approaching the left side of the spectrum.

Are we having delusions of grandeur again? About the only thing your the center of is your universe

Cuda, if we're limiting ourselves to just a "left/right" axis, even the most whackjob out-there members of the Democratic Party would fall well right-of-center on a global political scale, or maybe near dead-center if you're being extremely generous. And slick isn't close to the far-left fringe. That's why I find so much of the conservative rhetoric out there today to be utterly laughable, because it's so completely skewed in what its perception of "left" and "right" is in the first place.

Top Gun wrote:Cuda, if we're limiting ourselves to just a "left/right" axis, even the most whackjob out-there members of the Democratic Party would fall well right-of-center on a global political scale, or maybe near dead-center if you're being extremely generous. And slick isn't close to the far-left fringe. That's why I find so much of the conservative rhetoric out there today to be utterly laughable, because it's so completely skewed in what its perception of "left" and "right" is in the first place.

In a discussion about American politics you need to factor in the global spectrum in order to make yourself closer to center....ummm...OK... but irrelevant.

No, completely relevant, because the American political discourse is so skewed from reality that it needs a massive dose of sanity injected back into it. Anyone who calls the Democratic Party "far-left" with a straight face is delusional.

I never called the Democratic party "Far left" dont assume

Whoops back on topic

However, the video is never mentioned in the numerous talking-points drafts, according to a Weekly Standard story last week, based in part on a 43-page House report and records of official emails.

"Well, it was scrubbed," Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Steve Lynch told "Fox News Sunday." "It was totally inaccurate. There's no excuse for that. It was false information.  And what they try to do is harmonize what happened in Benghazi with what happened everywhere else across the Middle East."

Lynch also acknowledged the talking points were likely revised to reflect President Obama's decry  with his re-election bid in the balance -- that "Al Qaeda is on the run."

Maryland Democratic Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, also acknowledged Sunday the facts as told by Rice were wrong.


Seems like the Democrats are starting distance themselves from the lies of the adminstration. Lol I wonder why they hate america so much

Top Gun wrote:No, completely relevant, because the American political discourse is so skewed from reality that it needs a massive dose of sanity injected back into it. Anyone who calls the Democratic Party "far-left" with a straight face is delusional.

That is silly!

"American political discourse" is....American political discourse!
It isn't skewed! It simply is the conversation of Americans as it exists at the moment you reference it.
And the word American in that context is pretty darn self explanatory. It requires that the rest of the planet NOT be factored in!

Furthermore, if you need to include the political perspective of the whole world in order to be able to 'truthfully' position your self where you claim to be, center....left....right....standing on the edge of anarchy...wherever, then you are no longer using the american political spectrum as a metric and it is you that has created skewed results if you do so and make that claim.

Example, I'm of average wealth for an American until you factor in all the other people in the world at which point, according to your skewed up logic, I'm now one of the very wealthiest people in 'America'

For any given issue people generally fall into one of two camps…right or left, and to be part of the center generally means to take some left positions and some rights positions.

This idea that there is some magical exact center position on every subject, and some people actually take those magic positions is what I find fascinating.

Yea, there are a few positions one could take on any given issue, that could be considered “centrist” but everyone including certain people on this board consider such positions (compromise) a “sell out” or “cave in” position.

So if you really want to consider yourself a “centrist” you have to be able to compromise…and that’s one thing I rarely see here, and there are a million threads on every issue from abortion to taxes to prove it.

And just for the record…nobody is accusing anyone of being “far left” that’s a total strawman.

And I have no problem with being right of center…even though I may actually be the most “centrist” person on this board. (I actually do take both right and left positions and ……gasp…compromise) But my basic leaning is to the right…so what.

But to be honest, with people like Z as the unabashed representative of the liberal/left I would run like hell from the label as well.

Ya missed a couple of the CBS ones woody. Issa's flapping his gums all over the place like a fly on crap, so it was bound to stick somewhere other than Fox News. The right wing Newsbusters.org had the best transcripts from Face the Nation, but I did see it live on CBS on Sunday. They also had a segment on the news on Monday night. Were you asleep the whole time?



http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-bake ... hazi-cover

I thought this thread would be about extra-terrestrials.

Here, I'll derail it for fun!

This is better. The first law applies to this topic.

to both of the last two!!

Oh, this set's even better!

Murphy's War Laws

Well the hearings are in and it is evident that Obama and Hillary Lied when People died just to protect their political asses. The whole smoke screen that military aide was too far away to do any good is belied by Deputy Chief of Station Gregory Hicks sworn testimony :

"Further, Hicks explained how a separate team of special forces personnel were not given the authorization to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi. "They were furious," he said. "

So we had assets right there in Libya and not as some here thought were across the Mediterranean. It is also very telling when the head of Special Forces Command Africa states the military command should of been the one to make the decision to send help to Benghazi instead of being prevented by the Obama Administration. As the Lt. Col. so colorfully stated, "This is the first time in my career that a diplomat has more balls than somebody in the military." So as is clearly shown, help was available but the Obama Team One did not allow them to be sent. I guess winning a election was more important that rendering aide to their own Foreign Service personnel. I mean Al Qaeda was dead and terrorism was on the run according to Obama. Can't have that gainsaid this close to a election.

There is more to the hearings but this will get the ball rolling.

Still better than Romney.

vision wrote:Still better than Romney.

Nice deflection. Nothing to do with the subject, but good none the less. So lets trying talking about Benghazi with your next post.

vision wrote:Still better than Romney.

But how can you possibly know that? You are advocating the acceptance of a campaign of lies to protect a candidate and deliver an election to him and everything you know bad about the opponent, Romney, was delivered to you from the same campaign of lies!
You know nothing.

Now one finds out the Deputy Chief of Station was demoted to a desk job for criticizing Susan Rice's assertion Benghazi was a result of a video. Now I don't know about you but intimidation to keep a person quiet may very well be cause for a special prosecutor to be established. Time will tell.

Second point is who told Lt. Col. Gibson to stand his reaction force down ( he is the guy in charge of Special Forces Africa)?

Hmmm. This is beginning to sound like a standard play in the Republican book: impeach a second term democrat president on anything they can find (and use an unlimited bottomless endless budget to find or create anything necessary) in order to prevent that person from accomplishing as much and hopefully open the door for a republican president on the next election...

Or is it beginning to sound like 2nd term Dem. Presidents think they can do anything they want in their 2nd term and then lie about the consequences?