DescentBB

CUDA will be happy. So will the rest of the Benghazi coverup theorists. The dirt keeps oozing out from under the presidential rug. I'm starting to change my opinion about the whole sordid matter and who knew what, when.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security ... velations/

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/abc-ne ... id/568767/

It's been pretty obvious to me that Obama is Mr. Appearance for quite a while. He's very savvy with the public, to a fault in my opinion. In many ways I think he's a consummate modern US politician... nursing image almost to perfection. It's disappointing to me in that He ran on the image of transparency and accountability, only to really mean that he ran on image, and the honesty and accountability part was just what the people wanted to hear at the moment.

I'm starting to wonder what the end game is. He's won his reelection, and his image is tarnishing - I'm quite curious to see how he finishes out his term.

It isn't a theory. It is simply not something the mainstream media is willing to report on objectively.

of course it doesn't stay buried......because one political side has Bengazi as one of its few talking points, and lacks any programs of substance on either the foreign or domestic front.

callmeslick wrote:of course it doesn't stay buried......because one political side has Bengazi as one of its few talking points, and lacks any programs of substance on either the foreign or domestic front.

Of course "what does it matter!?" slick will dismiss the whole affair as a "fake" scandal. Perhaps Nixon would have gotten away with calling Watergate a "fake" scandal (and with more reason- since OUR AMBASSADOR DIDN'T DIE because of an office break in and the administration's actions subsequently covered up for POLITICAL reasons.)

callmeslick wrote:of course it doesn't stay buried......because one political side has Bengazi as one of its few talking points, and lacks any programs of substance on either the foreign or domestic front.

slick, it's not the stupid political mistakes that gets a politician in trouble, it's always the lies to cover it up that does. If the original sin wasn't so bad, why lie about it? I'd would've been more impressed if Obama had fessed up that mistakes were made back when the poop hit the fan.

snoopy wrote:It's been pretty obvious to me that Obama is Mr. Appearance for quite a while. He's very savvy with the public, to a fault in my opinion. In many ways I think he's a consummate modern US politician... nursing image almost to perfection. It's disappointing to me in that He ran on the image of transparency and accountability, only to really mean that he ran on image, and the honesty and accountability part was just what the people wanted to hear at the moment.

I'm starting to wonder what the end game is. He's won his reelection, and his image is tarnishing - I'm quite curious to see how he finishes out his term.

Yea, have you ever noticed when Obama speaks in front of some audience or the press that those flags that are ever present in the background are perfectly folded like someone ironed them in place? I don't think Bush was ever that anal retentive.

If the press and the investigative reporters we have today were around when Nixon was in office...he never would of had to resign. People like slick prefer things like Benghazi be kept from the public, at least when his party is in office.

... And none of you will do anything but vote for the same tired actors, just like you always do. Don't see why any of you care.

vision wrote:... And none of you will do anything but vote for the same tired actors, just like you always do. Don't see why any of you care.

And you'll vote for every single democrat on your local ticket.

I know! Why don't you just NOT VOTE the rest of your life. That way you won't VOTE for the same tired actors like you've always done Vision. Do something good for our country (for a change)!

what's most significant about Benghazi is that the REASON that they had to make tight choices as to where to spend State Dept money was because the House GOP members INSISTED that the embassy security budget be slashed. Now, in hindsight, could they have allocated differently? Sure, but that would have left someplace else vulnerable. Bottom line is that 4 people being killed in the Middle East isn't a major deal, nor was there any sort of major coverup that wouldn't be normal in ANY situation involving a CIA operation.

What is amusing is that the GOP 2014 strategy to date is about Obamacare(which now, in a bizarre twist, seems to involve Republicans from Scott Brown to numerous southern candidates ENDORSING huge parts of the ACA while calling for its repeal) and Bengazi. Nothing about jobs, nothing about the environment, nothing about the long-term model for the economy, nothing about simplifying the tax code, nothing about minimum wages, nothing about unemployment benefits and most of all, nothing about immigration reform. They will find, come September and beyond, that you cannot run a general election without anything to run on, and Bengazi and Obamacare aren't issues that will win for them.

It wasn't an embassy slick. It was a building that wouldn't have been in any budgeted security scheme....a CIA operation part of which was to help the State Dept arm some rebels in Syria and other places where the balance of power wasn't to their liking.

I notice you avoid the Obama administrations role in the management of the defense and their ridiculous stream of lies to cover it and instead you want to talk about Repub foreign policy and Repub budget policy votes.

Good little Demo keep blowing that smoke because the screen is definitely getting thin.

Will Robinson wrote:It wasn't an embassy slick. It was a building that wouldn't have been in any budgeted security scheme....a CIA operation part of which was to help the State Dept arm some rebels in Syria and other places where the balance of power wasn't to their liking.

it was designated as a consulate, so YES, it would be covered.

I notice you avoid the Obama administrations role in the management of the defense and their ridiculous stream of lies to cover it and instead you want to talk about Repub foreign policy and Repub budget policy votes.

yup, because the part you keep focusing on is complete BS that no one except the hard-core right(polls show that moderate GOP voters have no interest in Bengazi) cares about.

Good little Demo keep blowing that smoke because the screen is definitely getting thin.

speaking of smoke, if this trend continues, smoked will be the description of the GOP within 3 more cycles of elections:
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy ... 6-3-n95431
note, you are now starting to see the higher paying jobs show up in numbers.

So is that U1…U2…U3…or the “actual” unemployment rate…lol.

Slick if no one cared about it they wouldn't have told so many lies to hide it and as TC pointed out all those lies are going to be what hurts them the most....or Hillary anyway.

The whole budget issue is a smoke screen. If we were talking about something like unemployment compensation and funds ran out and Repubs had voted down an extension then you could say Repubs caused the Administration to fail to keep payments flowing. But we are talking about a single operation, we don't go and help overthrow the government of Libya every year and then decide to go gather weapons from the fallout of the effort to send them to rebels in Syria....
So if the administration wanted to do that op and then somehow found themselves short of money, which they didn't, then it is on them regardless of how much funding is available to them! They chose to send the ambassador and his team in there to do their bidding. If they are so inept that they sent him ill equipped it doesn't excuse them from responsibility! You are just regurgitating Dem party talking points and you are as full of crap as Susan Rice was, as Hillary Clinton was, as President Obama was, as Jay Carney was, etc. etc.

And as for the Repubs fate, I don't give a crap about that end of the turd anymore than I care for the end you think is yummy.

callmeslick wrote:of course it doesn't stay buried......because one political side has Bengazi as one of its few talking points, and lacks any programs of substance on either the foreign or domestic front.

Kind of hard to have a program with Obama/Reid blocking any attempts to do so.

callmeslick wrote:what's most significant about Benghazi is that the REASON that they had to make tight choices as to where to spend State Dept money was because the House GOP members INSISTED that the embassy security budget be slashed. Now, in hindsight, could they have allocated differently?

I suggest once again that you listen to the original hearings and what Ms Lamb had to say about the security funding:

"In testimony Wednesday before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, was asked, “Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?”

Lamb responded, “No, sir.”

In short slick you keep trying to put the blame on the GOP and I have to keep reminding you that the state dept budget was sufficient for a increase in security. Stop using your all too hackneyed explanations and blames,

callmeslick wrote: Sure, but that would have left someplace else vulnerable. Bottom line is that 4 people being killed in the Middle East isn't a major deal, nor was there any sort of major coverup that wouldn't be normal in ANY situation involving a CIA operation.

First off the killing of a Ambassador is a huge deal especially when coupled with deliberately not increasing security to further the talking points that terrorism was on the run and AQ was dead. The new emails clearly show a coverup beyond any impact on the workings of the CIA. It was a political cover up soley to get a person elected to the office of president.

callmeslick wrote:What is amusing is that the GOP 2014 strategy to date is about Obamacare(which now, in a bizarre twist, seems to involve Republicans from Scott Brown to numerous southern candidates ENDORSING huge parts of the ACA while calling for its repeal) and Bengazi. Nothing about jobs, nothing about the environment, nothing about the long-term model for the economy, nothing about simplifying the tax code, nothing about minimum wages, nothing about unemployment benefits and most of all, nothing about immigration reform. They will find, come September and beyond, that you cannot run a general election without anything to run on, and Bengazi and Obamacare aren't issues that will win for them.

Not much the GOP can do as every effort they make is either blocked by Reid or veto'd by Obama. There is a saying, when you see someone making mistakes that will cost him the battle...don't interfere.

ThunderBunny wrote:And you'll vote for every single democrat on your local ticket.

That is an odd thing to say to formerly registered republican who has recently registered independent and voted for members of several different parties. Yes, sometimes I vote for a republican, democrat, green, or libertarian candidate on the same ballot depending on the issue. This requires a lot of research, but it is the least I can do to be part of a democracy. Of course, it is much easier to vote straight ticket, which is what I would expect you to do TB since you have never shown any indication of "subtly of thought" in your posts -- only panic and fear. Does blind devotion to a single party or outright rejection of another make for a healthy democracy or a brutal authoritarian government? Honestly TB, what is your vision of the future? You hate Americans, Russians, Chinese, Muslims... Is there anything other than violence you feel positive toward?

vision wrote:

ThunderBunny wrote:And you'll vote for every single democrat on your local ticket.

That is an odd thing to say to formerly registered republican who has recently registered independent and voted for members of several different parties. Yes, sometimes I vote for a republican, democrat, green, or libertarian candidate on the same ballot depending on the issue. This requires a lot of research, but it is the least I can do to be part of a democracy. Of course, it is much easier to vote straight ticket, which is what I would expect you to do TB since you have never shown any indication of "subtly of thought" in your posts -- only panic and fear. Does blind devotion to a single party or outright rejection of another make for a healthy democracy or a brutal authoritarian government? Honestly TB, what is your vision of the future? You hate Americans, Russians, Chinese, Muslims... Is there anything other than violence you feel positive toward?

That's a laugh. You're a straight ticket democrat voter. Your posts say as much.

ThunderBunny wrote:That's a laugh. You're a straight ticket democrat voter. Your posts say as much.

Oh, right.

What is this, a forum full of 5th graders?

Yes. yes it is. Slick, Krom, Foil, you and I are the only grownups here.

ThunderBunny wrote:That's a laugh. You're a straight ticket democrat voter. Your posts say as much.

first off, nothing in his posts suggests a straight-party anything. Then again, you'd likely say the same about me, although I was a contributor in the past 20 years to at least 6 GOP campaigns, and worked with one(Specter in PA). Just because the GOP has chosen to ever close their ranks to anyone except a radical right-wing ideologue, doesn't mean people wish to vote straight ticket Dem.....it's just the best choice available due to the bad decisions in the Republican leadership.
IMHO, the best President in my lifetime was a Republican(Eisenhower), the best Senator I've ever known personally was a Republican(Roth, although Biden was damned good, too). It's a shame that neither could have survived the CURRENT GOP environment.

ThunderBunny wrote:That's a laugh. You're a straight ticket democrat voter. Your posts say as much.

In your world, disagreement=leftie.

the best President in my lifetime was a Republican(Eisenhower)

Absolutely. the man is an idol. what he did when he was president is almost heroic.

Hehe, Foil must feel honored to be named among the heavyweights!

vision wrote:

ThunderBunny wrote:That's a laugh. You're a straight ticket democrat voter. Your posts say as much.

Oh, right.

Right- I wonder what percentage out of your total votes were for democrats.

Care to say?

Does it matter in the absolute least? Better question: have you ever voted for a single person with a D next to their name on the ballot?

ThunderBunny wrote:Right- I wonder what percentage out of your total votes were for democrats.

Care to say?

I would love to! As it turns out, I tend to vote more Green and Libertarian than either Republican or Democrat. Nearly every one of those goofy online tests that supposedly reveal what your ideal party is tell me I'm either Green or Libertarian. As I remember the last time I voted, I'm fairly certain I chose an equal measure of all parties (which is probably rare). However, I tend to vote on a rather small set of topics that are important to me but not politicians. There just isn't time to research the deep history of dozens of candidates for dozens of elected positions from local to state to federal offices. For instance, one of my top issues is Net Neutrality. This doesn't lend itself to party parity like abortion or guns. Because of this, it is likely I'll vote for both Democrats and Republicans when I hit the polls.

You know, people change and values change as time goes on. I was raised by Republicans who would have had a portrait of Regan in the house if there were any places where portraits of Jesus didn't hang. My early experiences shaped who I am even though I no longer identify as a Republican or Christian. There is also a possibility I will one day become a Muslim who loves the Tea Party! Life is weird that way.

and why do they keep trying to beat Bengazi to death, again? Oh yeah.....this:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder ... tate-video

callmeslick wrote:and why do they keep trying to beat Bengazi to death, again? Oh yeah.....this:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder ... tate-video

You point that out like its a bad thing.

I guess if you want her to win it is...

those numbers, given HOW MUCH the GOP has tried to focus on this 'scandal' are telling.

Lol!
Those numbers, according to and quoting the same source you linked say:

"That said, we think the Quinnipiac numbers do reveal this: Hillary Clinton is one of the most famous (or infamous, depending on your point of view) US political figures on the planet. That’s why she does well. These early polls reflect simple name recognition as much as they do an actual electoral choice."

So,
1) you seem to be reading too much positive into a poll that is way too premature to bank an election on
2) the nature of the negative impact her role in the disaster called Benghazi will have on her electability is yet to be measured.
the efforts she and others have gone to to shield her from responsibility indicate they know it can be harmful to her.

Will, even you can realize that Benghazi only matters to those that already despise Clinton. Do you honestly believe there is a hipster in Seattle that's waiting for the hearings to start so they can make up their mind? A very sad thing that four Americans lost their lives, but they were simply wrong about what happened. The Obama Administration was wrong the same way Bush Administration was wrong about Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman. Sad...but not malicious. There's a big difference.

Even though this won't stay buried, it's NOT going to be the issue that wins elections for Republicans. Most Americans just don't care about it. Maybe Obama tried to cover it up, but the fact is this was yet another screwup in a multitude of CIA screwups that blew up in our faces and lead to the deaths of several Americans. The CIA isn't known for their wonderful competence a lot of the time anyway. Whether Obama knew about this CIA operation that was using our ambassador for nefarious reasons before it happened is up for debate and that's where the real scandal may be hiding.

Now what will really sink Hillary is if she chooses her husband Bill for her veep running mate, and I HAVE actually heard that suggestion going around. God help us.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/0 ... tail=email
when WILL the real truth be discovered?

Z.. wrote:Will, even you can realize that Benghazi only matters to those that already despise Clinton. Do you honestly believe there is a hipster in Seattle that's waiting for the hearings to start so they can make up their mind?

I think Hillary believes too many of those hipsters and other democrat voters might be turned off by too much negative reporting on her....reporting that has a ring of truth to it so that makes it hard for hipsters to get off their mothers couch and go vote for someone who probably really sucks anyway. A vote that stays at home is a vote for the other side. why do you think they spend billions on negative ads every four years?

Z.. wrote:A very sad thing that four Americans lost their lives, but they were simply wrong about what happened. The Obama Administration was wrong the same way Bush Administration was wrong about Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman. Sad...but not malicious. There's a big difference.

I think there is a whole lot of sentiment in america today about American government killing people with drones, arming one terrorist group to over throw another, etc. etc.
If the reporting paints Hillary as a part of that and says that she tried to cover it up after the fact....well then there is a giant difference between that and the army hiding Tillman's death from friendly fire.

Watch the contortions they are going through to try to hide the stupid things they did. Thats the problem they have now, having operated with such an immunity from investigative journalism that they began to arrogantly flaunt their disregard for decency, ethics and morality. "We have to pass the law before you can know whats in it"...What difference does it make that 4 americans died..."...etc.

They have acted with impunity in a very public fashion due to the cover given them by the 'journalists'.
They better hope the media is willing to continue to cover their ass even when it becomes painfully shameful to do so.
With a primary election coming she might just be reintroduced to a journalist or two that has decided the other Dem is a better choice at which time she will have to face her record and the scrutiny it deserves.

had you read my link, Will, you can see that avoiding close investigation isn't new, nor liberal, nor related to press coverage. Who was responsible for the deaths of 4 Americans back there in Kent, Ohio? We'll never know.

callmeslick wrote:had you read my link, Will, you can see that avoiding close investigation isn't new, nor liberal, nor related to press coverage. Who was responsible for the deaths of 4 Americans back there in Kent, Ohio? We'll never know.

So should people shut up about the offenses committed because cover ups are so succesful? Lol, tell Nixon....

that sentiment that is boiling up about America, under Obama (Hillary Sec of State), has turned for the worse with all the bad policy NSA, drones killing people all around the world, etc. etc.
It is going to be an issue when trying to turn out the vote.
You know it as well as I do and your implying that scandals are easy to cover up, thus there is nothing to it, is really weak stuff.
How will you put that defense on a bumper sticker? Hillary 2016: You'll never prove any of it and what does it really matter?!?
lol!

I can tell it bothers them just by watching the defensive nature of their reaction to it. I can tell by watching you...

actually, I have seen no evidence beyond some VERY likely doctored emails(the right wing loons seem to have ones that read differently than ones presented earlier), of ANY wrongdoing. Government isn't perfect, nor is defense. Crap happens, and, as opposed to Kent State, this isn't a case of ANYONE knowingly harming a US citizen. Mountains out of molehills, and NO, I don't think folks like Woody, with their righteous indignation are anything less than politically driven hypocrites who couldn't care less about US citizen's lives and well-being. Just look at their position on healthcare.....

You haven't looked at the timeline of what their own people said they knew about the attack and tried to reconcile it with the public statements the administration made.
A reconciling that becomes impossible to do in light of the email from a Whitehouse lackey to outline how the truth needed to be 're-written'.

Obama was selling the video motive for weeks, in speeches at the UN and in every appearance he could inspite of knowing it was not a video that caused it. The email you mentioned, they try to say it was regarding the region as a whole referencing other locations and assaults....
There were no other Americans assaulted during that time frame and the email was pretty damn obviously talking about Bengahzi. Like I mentioned before. The media is letting them blatantly lie about this. In fact, in the case of this issue the media and Obama are both so invested in the lie they have told they have no choice now but to keep telling it.

Hillary told the parents of one of the dead Americans she would make sure the guy who made the video was punished....obviously implying it was the video that set off the attack that killed their son.

She told those grieving parents that in the hanger where the young mans body was being returned to them for burial and that was a week or so after any possible time she could have not known the video had no effect on the crowd, that it was a coordinated, preplanned attack by organized al Queda types. She most likely knew in real time it was a preplanned attack as many of the people on the ground had said immediately after it began and that scenario was fortold by Ambassador Stevens when he cited al Queda presence around their operation getting stronger and requested more security.

She also, obviously, knew it was a joint CIA State Department op to transport shoulder fired missiles from Libyan inventory into the hands of other terrorist types to help overthrow Assad in Syria.

There is so much there that if this was Bush and Rice you would be telling us why the media is correct to be talking impeachment. So get off the soapbox complaining about partisan motives!

Will Robinson wrote:....There is so much there that if this was Bush and Rice you would be telling us why the media is correct to be talking impeachment. So get off the soapbox complaining about partisan motives!

OK, so why didn't liberals and MSNBC call for the impeachment of Bush? Why didn't FOX for that matter? Bush's record is far worse in the death department concerning human losses at American embassies.

13 Benghazis

Then, there's this take by Jon Stewart:

http://news.yahoo.com/jon-stewart-expos ... 38939.html

TC
I don't see the attack and resulting deaths as impeachable. I said if the same thing happened under Bush you would hear people in the media talking about it in that context.

I also don't see where radicals attacking our embassies in the Middle East during Bush's presidency is the same. It isn't the attacks, it is the reaction and lies that followed.

I realize you want to ignore what we ARE talking about and instead focus on the premise that the Ambassador and some CIA operators were killed in what you hope to portray as analogous to radicals attacking embassies etc.

You have failed to alter reality. Why do you feel compelled to construct such flawed premise?