Quote from: The Brain on November 09, 2012, 03:10:56 PM
What was the real reason?
It is obvious from the timing. Obama won the election so he gets to re-write the history of what happened at Benghazi. He cannot go after Hillary so he gets Petraeus out of office puts a lickspittle in his place who willing shifts the blame to the CIA (and it's outgoing Chief). End of story, everyone goes home happy.
It's like a town not having enough fire trucks (State Department security) and than placing all the blame on a neighboring town (CIA security) for not helping enough when the place burns down.
Quote from: Strix on November 09, 2012, 03:56:59 PM
It is obvious from the timing. Obama won the election so he gets to re-write the history of what happened at Benghazi. He cannot go after Hillary so he gets Petraeus out of office puts a lickspittle in his place who willing shifts the blame to the CIA (and it's outgoing Chief). End of story, everyone goes home happy.
Someone remind me to invest in the tin foil business. That stuff always sells.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 09, 2012, 04:59:49 PM
"Sweaters" Santorum on Strategos Petraeus:
Quote"It's very disturbing," Santorum says. "We all have our personal failings and none of us are perfect but to put yourself in that type of position and engage in activity which could compromise your ability to do your job is something that is very very disturbing and shows incredibly poor judgement."
Santorum is disturbed not only because Petraeus broke his marital vows "but for putting himself in a position that could compromise the agency."
That's why he had to resign.
:lmfao: Oh yes, that's the reason. And how long has the Obama Administration been holding that card? Well, they waited until the perfect time to play it.
Quote from: Strix on November 10, 2012, 07:24:57 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 09, 2012, 04:59:49 PM
"Sweaters" Santorum on Strategos Petraeus:
Quote"It's very disturbing," Santorum says. "We all have our personal failings and none of us are perfect but to put yourself in that type of position and engage in activity which could compromise your ability to do your job is something that is very very disturbing and shows incredibly poor judgement."
Santorum is disturbed not only because Petraeus broke his marital vows "but for putting himself in a position that could compromise the agency."
That's why he had to resign.
:lmfao: Oh yes, that's the reason. And how long has the Obama Administration been holding that card? Well, they waited until the perfect time to play it.
What are you an arab now? Going in for magical thinking? Pathetic. The Obama may have held this "card" for some time, but probably not to cover up the non-scandal you seem concerned about. If Obama lost the election, Petreus could leave with his dignity. If he won, then he would have to get rid of the general.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2012, 02:08:40 PMWhat are you an arab now? Going in for magical thinking? Pathetic. The Obama may have held this "card" for some time, but probably not to cover up the non-scandal you seem concerned about. If Obama lost the election, Petreus could leave with his dignity. If he won, then he would have to get rid of the general.
Or when the FBI found out and Obama couldn't hold his card anymore.
Quote from: Strix on November 10, 2012, 02:27:14 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2012, 02:08:40 PMWhat are you an arab now? Going in for magical thinking? Pathetic. The Obama may have held this "card" for some time, but probably not to cover up the non-scandal you seem concerned about. If Obama lost the election, Petreus could leave with his dignity. If he won, then he would have to get rid of the general.
Or when the FBI found out and Obama couldn't hold his card anymore.
Strix you know theres a forum that you might find more at home in:
Final Proof Jackie shot JFK -
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=148254 (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=148254)
Quote from: Strix on November 10, 2012, 02:27:14 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2012, 02:08:40 PMWhat are you an arab now? Going in for magical thinking? Pathetic. The Obama may have held this "card" for some time, but probably not to cover up the non-scandal you seem concerned about. If Obama lost the election, Petreus could leave with his dignity. If he won, then he would have to get rid of the general.
Or when the FBI found out and Obama couldn't hold his card anymore.
That sort a negates your first theory doesn't it? If the FBI forced his hand, then it wouldn't an attempt to shift blame on the "scandal", of Bengazi. Unless the FBI was the one shifting blame.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2012, 03:12:18 PM
That sort a negates your first theory doesn't it? If the FBI forced his hand, then it wouldn't an attempt to shift blame on the "scandal", of Bengazi. Unless the FBI was the one shifting blame.
Strix must think Petraeus is the only person that could possibly testify next week.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2012, 03:12:18 PM
Quote from: Strix on November 10, 2012, 02:27:14 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2012, 02:08:40 PMWhat are you an arab now? Going in for magical thinking? Pathetic. The Obama may have held this "card" for some time, but probably not to cover up the non-scandal you seem concerned about. If Obama lost the election, Petreus could leave with his dignity. If he won, then he would have to get rid of the general.
Or when the FBI found out and Obama couldn't hold his card anymore.
That sort a negates your first theory doesn't it? If the FBI forced his hand, then it wouldn't an attempt to shift blame on the "scandal", of Bengazi. Unless the FBI was the one shifting blame.
No, a scapegoat was needed and the FBI investigation made it easy to get him out of office and pin the blame on the CIA. I doubt the FBI would have made an issue of it if Obama told them not to do so. He would have been replaced as the CIA chief in a less scandalized manner. They would have made it quietly during their other post transitions.
Obama has already managed to change the direction of the investigation. It's no longer a White House or State Department issue but has become a problem with the CIA.
Bah. I'll wait till it plays out. Congress can still subpena him.
Okay, I'll bite, why would Petraeus having an affair be an issue for the state department?
Your scenario still doesn't make a lot of sense. Obama had to act because the FBI found out because Obama directed the FBI to investigate thereby shifting blame from the Benghazi attack that happened over a month ago.
Not that I want to assist Strix any, but Raz, the media has been having more and more of a field day over Benghazi in the past week or two.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2012, 08:21:23 PM
Okay, I'll bite, why would Petraeus having an affair be an issue for the state department?
Your scenario still doesn't make a lot of sense. Obama had to act because the FBI found out because Obama directed the FBI to investigate thereby shifting blame from the Benghazi attack that happened over a month ago.
It isn't. The fact that the State Department didn't provide adequate security in Benghazi and also appeared to ignore/decline attempts by the Ambassador and his staff to increase security is the problem. The CIA happened to have a security team nearby, probably as part of their own facility there, and they attempted to rescue/help the Ambassador and his staff. From the sounds of it, the CIA, or at least the agents in place, went beyond their authority in attempting the rescue. If it is true than it had to have pissed off people in the Administration.
So, having the extra-martial affair hanging over the CIA chief allowed Obama to do several things. First, he is able to remove him as CIA chief in a very disgraceful public manner. Second, he changes the direction of the investigation from White House/State Department to CIA wasn't doing it's job because it's chief was to busy shagging and carrying on. Third, he eliminates any political chances the CIA chief might have had by exposing the affair and ultimately pinning the Benghazi failure on him.
An excellent job by Obama.
Raz, I doubt you are naive enough to think that the FBI forced Obama's hand or that the timing was pure coincidence. Panetta is on his way out and now the CIA head, Obama will be able to place to sycophants in place without issue.
Quote from: Strix on November 10, 2012, 08:33:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2012, 08:21:23 PM
Okay, I'll bite, why would Petraeus having an affair be an issue for the state department?
Your scenario still doesn't make a lot of sense. Obama had to act because the FBI found out because Obama directed the FBI to investigate thereby shifting blame from the Benghazi attack that happened over a month ago.
It isn't. The fact that the State Department didn't provide adequate security in Benghazi and also appeared to ignore/decline attempts by the Ambassador and his staff to increase security is the problem. The CIA happened to have a security team nearby, probably as part of their own facility there, and they attempted to rescue/help the Ambassador and his staff. From the sounds of it, the CIA, or at least the agents in place, went beyond their authority in attempting the rescue. If it is true than it had to have pissed off people in the Administration.
Why would them attempting a rescue piss off the Administration? That makes no sense.
Quote from: frunk on November 10, 2012, 08:48:04 PM
Why would them attempting a rescue piss off the Administration? That makes no sense.
Have you ever worked in government? Little of what they do makes sense. Best guess, the White House/State Department didn't take the attack seriously initially, so they didn't want to upset people in the region by coming in guns blazing. This is why the timeline is so important. The White House was trying to cover up any proof or suggestion that they might have delayed military action.
From the sounds of it, they were having a two hour meeting concerning options while the Ambassador and others were dying.
Quote from: Strix on November 10, 2012, 08:33:52 PM
Raz, I doubt you are naive enough to think that the FBI forced Obama's hand or that the timing was pure coincidence. Panetta is on his way out and now the CIA head, Obama will be able to place to sycophants in place without issue.
You remind of of the Arabs when they ask if we are really so "Naive" as to believe that the Mossad isn't directing shark attacks. If this was some sort of conspiracy to direct attention from Benghazi, why wouldn't they have done it a month ago? You know, before the election. Instead they drop the news at the end of the week, when people usually release stuff hoping that the press isn't paying attention.
Quote from: Strix on November 10, 2012, 08:54:21 PM
Quote from: frunk on November 10, 2012, 08:48:04 PM
Why would them attempting a rescue piss off the Administration? That makes no sense.
Have you ever worked in government? Little of what they do makes sense. Best guess, the White House/State Department didn't take the attack seriously initially, so they didn't want to upset people in the region by coming in guns blazing. This is why the timeline is so important. The White House was trying to cover up any proof or suggestion that they might have delayed military action.
From the sounds of it, they were having a two hour meeting concerning options while the Ambassador and others were dying.
Do you have nay proof of this?
Quote from: garbon on November 10, 2012, 08:25:48 PM
Not that I want to assist Strix any, but Raz, the media has been having more and more of a field day over Benghazi in the past week or two.
And?
You just sounded dismissive when you mentioned the Benghazi story which arguably is more of a scandal now then when it happened.
Quote from: garbon on November 10, 2012, 09:00:32 PM
You just sounded dismissive when you mentioned the Benghazi story which arguably is more of a scandal now then when it happened.
I am dismissive. I'm not sure what the scandal is. Because the Media is reporting it, doesn't mean it's actually some sort of cover up. I mean the media reported the chick in Aruba disappearing for over a year, yet that's hardly notworthy.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2012, 09:02:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 10, 2012, 09:00:32 PM
You just sounded dismissive when you mentioned the Benghazi story which arguably is more of a scandal now then when it happened.
I am dismissive. I'm not sure what the scandal is. Because the Media is reporting it, doesn't mean it's actually some sort of cover up. I mean the media reported the chick in Aruba disappearing for over a year, yet that's hardly notworthy.
True, it's nothing more than a bump in the road. :lmfao:
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2012, 09:02:50 PM
I am dismissive. I'm not sure what the scandal is. Because the Media is reporting it, doesn't mean it's actually some sort of cover up. I mean the media reported the chick in Aruba disappearing for over a year, yet that's hardly notworthy.
But it also doesn't mean it isn't. The media is being rather tenacious with regards to Benghazi and the inability of the administration to come forth with a story to quite them all day seems a little odd.
Quote from: garbon on November 10, 2012, 09:05:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2012, 09:02:50 PM
I am dismissive. I'm not sure what the scandal is. Because the Media is reporting it, doesn't mean it's actually some sort of cover up. I mean the media reported the chick in Aruba disappearing for over a year, yet that's hardly notworthy.
But it also doesn't mean it isn't. The media is being rather tenacious with regards to Benghazi and the inability of the administration to come forth with a story to quite them all day seems a little odd.
Not really. Have you ever know the media to be quite?
Quote from: Strix on November 10, 2012, 09:04:43 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2012, 09:02:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 10, 2012, 09:00:32 PM
You just sounded dismissive when you mentioned the Benghazi story which arguably is more of a scandal now then when it happened.
I am dismissive. I'm not sure what the scandal is. Because the Media is reporting it, doesn't mean it's actually some sort of cover up. I mean the media reported the chick in Aruba disappearing for over a year, yet that's hardly notworthy.
True, it's nothing more than a bump in the road. :lmfao:
So in other words, you have nothing.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2012, 09:14:39 PM
So in other words, you have nothing.
There are to many stories by to many media sources for me to post them all. I suggest taking your head out of the hole in the sand once in awhile.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2012, 09:14:39 PM
Quote from: Strix on November 10, 2012, 09:04:43 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2012, 09:02:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 10, 2012, 09:00:32 PM
You just sounded dismissive when you mentioned the Benghazi story which arguably is more of a scandal now then when it happened.
I am dismissive. I'm not sure what the scandal is. Because the Media is reporting it, doesn't mean it's actually some sort of cover up. I mean the media reported the chick in Aruba disappearing for over a year, yet that's hardly notworthy.
True, it's nothing more than a bump in the road. :lmfao:
So in other words, you have nothing.
Funny, that's what was clear with regards to you after responding to my last post.
Quote from: Strix on November 10, 2012, 09:37:59 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2012, 09:14:39 PM
So in other words, you have nothing.
There are to many stories by to many media sources for me to post them all. I suggest taking your head out of the hole in the sand once in awhile.
I'm sure there are. But I don't listen to Alex Jones.
Quote from: garbon on November 10, 2012, 09:57:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2012, 09:14:39 PM
Quote from: Strix on November 10, 2012, 09:04:43 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2012, 09:02:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 10, 2012, 09:00:32 PM
You just sounded dismissive when you mentioned the Benghazi story which arguably is more of a scandal now then when it happened.
I am dismissive. I'm not sure what the scandal is. Because the Media is reporting it, doesn't mean it's actually some sort of cover up. I mean the media reported the chick in Aruba disappearing for over a year, yet that's hardly notworthy.
True, it's nothing more than a bump in the road. :lmfao:
So in other words, you have nothing.
Funny, that's what was clear with regards to you after responding to my last post.
I don't have to have anything, I'm not trying to prove something. All I need to do is shoot down wild speculations. It was Strix who was making assertions.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2012, 10:20:08 PMI'm sure there are. But I don't listen to Alex Jones.
You must considering you are probably one of the few who know who he is? Who is he by the way?
Try the New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, USA Today, Chicago Tribune, and Miami Herald to name a few...
Quote from: Strix on November 10, 2012, 08:54:21 PM
Quote from: frunk on November 10, 2012, 08:48:04 PM
Why would them attempting a rescue piss off the Administration? That makes no sense.
Have you ever worked in government? Little of what they do makes sense. Best guess, the White House/State Department didn't take the attack seriously initially, so they didn't want to upset people in the region by coming in guns blazing. This is why the timeline is so important. The White House was trying to cover up any proof or suggestion that they might have delayed military action.
From the sounds of it, they were having a two hour meeting concerning options while the Ambassador and others were dying.
So you are speculating on a supposed coverup, and your proof of the reason for the coverup is more speculation? Until there's any information this is a non-story. As far as I can tell the worst that can be pinned on the Administration is confusion over a rapidly evolving situation that they (supposedly) might have reacted poorly to.
Quote from: frunk on November 10, 2012, 10:57:14 PM
As far as I can tell the worst that can be pinned on the Administration is confusion over a rapidly evolving situation that they (supposedly) might have reacted poorly to.
That's putting it nicely. I like how you grabbed in the terminology of "rapidly evolving situation."
Quote from: garbon on November 10, 2012, 11:10:17 PM
Quote from: frunk on November 10, 2012, 10:57:14 PM
As far as I can tell the worst that can be pinned on the Administration is confusion over a rapidly evolving situation that they (supposedly) might have reacted poorly to.
That's putting it nicely. I like how you grabbed in the terminology of "rapidly evolving situation."
There's no way an group of people a few thousand miles away will be able to react particularly well to things happening on a minute by minute timescale. It just doesn't happen.
That's only one of the complaints being made. Perhaps you should brush up with a few articles?
Quote from: frunk on November 11, 2012, 09:07:34 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 10, 2012, 11:10:17 PM
Quote from: frunk on November 10, 2012, 10:57:14 PM
As far as I can tell the worst that can be pinned on the Administration is confusion over a rapidly evolving situation that they (supposedly) might have reacted poorly to.
That's putting it nicely. I like how you grabbed in the terminology of "rapidly evolving situation."
There's no way an group of people a few thousand miles away will be able to react particularly well to things happening on a minute by minute timescale. It just doesn't happen.
That's why micro-management doesn't work out so well. However, who is to blame? The people being micro-managed or the micro-managers?
Quote from: garbon on November 11, 2012, 09:54:16 AM
That's only one of the complaints being made. Perhaps you should brush up with a few articles?
Can you link to one that gives a brief description of the complaints? The only ones I've found searching for Benghazi scandal seem a bit over the top.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 11, 2012, 11:24:24 AMYeah, just saw that this morning, too. Veddy interestink.
Sorta takes the wind out of Strix's "ZOMG OBAMA WAS WAITING TO PLAY THIS CARD" conspiracy. But you're not House Majority Leader without your share of little birdies.
It seems to do so. I guess another example of the Obama Administration being clueless as always. Russian Reset, Copenhagen, Fast & Furious, Benghazi Security, and now Petraeus, I was always hopeful they were just being Machavillian.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 11, 2012, 11:52:28 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 11, 2012, 09:54:16 AM
That's only one of the complaints being made. Perhaps you should brush up with a few articles?
Can you link to one that gives a brief description of the complaints? The only ones I've found searching for Benghazi scandal seem a bit over the top.
I thought this one was good. I'd given up thinking about the Benghazi event until I read this op-ed.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204712904578090612465153472.html
Quote from: Strix on November 11, 2012, 11:26:04 AM
Quote from: frunk on November 11, 2012, 09:07:34 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 10, 2012, 11:10:17 PM
Quote from: frunk on November 10, 2012, 10:57:14 PM
As far as I can tell the worst that can be pinned on the Administration is confusion over a rapidly evolving situation that they (supposedly) might have reacted poorly to.
That's putting it nicely. I like how you grabbed in the terminology of "rapidly evolving situation."
There's no way an group of people a few thousand miles away will be able to react particularly well to things happening on a minute by minute timescale. It just doesn't happen.
That's why micro-management doesn't work out so well. However, who is to blame? The people being micro-managed or the micro-managers?
So more conjecture? You have no proof that it was being micromanaged. It would seem Obama can do no right. If he took an active interest he was a micromanaging incompetent, if he did not he was clueless.
Quote from: garbon on November 11, 2012, 12:04:56 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 11, 2012, 11:52:28 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 11, 2012, 09:54:16 AM
That's only one of the complaints being made. Perhaps you should brush up with a few articles?
Can you link to one that gives a brief description of the complaints? The only ones I've found searching for Benghazi scandal seem a bit over the top.
I thought this one was good. I'd given up thinking about the Benghazi event until I read this op-ed.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204712904578090612465153472.html
I'm still not seeing it. Their main beef seems to be that Obama didn't know what happened, which true for everyone in the United States. Your op Ed is also rather selective with facts.
Quote from: garbon on November 11, 2012, 12:04:56 PM
I thought this one was good. I'd given up thinking about the Benghazi event until I read this op-ed.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204712904578090612465153472.html
I think the first question is something that the State Department should look into. But the idea that Obama or Clinton should've known about that sort of request is nonsense, if they do they're micro-managing more than Carter ever did. Also Obama and Clinton's 'reponsibility' is just standard ministerial responsibility isn't it? If you're head of the government or of a department you take responsibility for the actions of your government or department, even if you didn't know about or approve them. So the Secretary of State is responsible for the decision made by a far more junior bureaucrat.
'• What exactly happened on the day of 9/11? During the over six hours that the compounds in Benghazi were under siege, could the U.S. have done more to save lives? What was President Obama doing and ordering his subordinates to do in those fateful hours?'
Again that's a legitimate question but I don't think there's any hint of scandal here, I think the article's description is of reasonable behaviour with some open questions at the end:
'Within half an hour, the consulate was on fire. At about 10:45 p.m., help arrived from the CIA annex about a mile away. The CIA offered its first account of that evening this Thursday night, nearly two months after the fact. Agency personnel were dispatched within 25 minutes of the initial attack on the consulate. By 11:20, they evacuated the consulate. Stevens and Sean Smith, a State employee, were dead.
The fortified annex then came under steady small-arms fire for 90 minutes starting around midnight, according to the CIA timeline, but it was never breached. The fighting lulled for four hours. Before dawn, a sudden mortar attack killed two CIA security officers on a rooftop, according to CIA officials. By then, a Quick Reaction Force had arrived from Tripoli to evacuate the annex. The CIA briefers said the agency did not deny aid to the consulate. But the Journal reported on Friday that the CIA and State "weren't on the same page about their respective roles on security" in Benghazi.
The latest account also leaves unanswered what other options Mr. Obama and his security team considered. The U.S. failed to bring armed drones, gunships or other close air support to defend the annex from the militias who were outside its gates for over four hours. The fighting at the consulate may have taken place too quickly to bring in outside military support. According to officials who spoke this week, fighter jets in Italy would have created too much collateral damage in a civilian neighborhood.
An unarmed U.S. drone was diverted to Benghazi but had trouble distinguishing between the terrorists and U.S. allies who came to the compounds' aid. An armed drone wasn't in the area. A large special operations force from Fort Bragg arrived in Sicily too late to help, according to a National Public Radio report Thursday.
Mr. Obama was informed of the attacks at around 5 p.m.—11 p.m. in Libya—during a previously scheduled meeting with his military advisers, and he ordered military assets moved to the area, according to ABC News. During the attacks, however, the Administration didn't convene the Counterterrorism Security Group, which was created to coordinate a response to a terrorist attack, according to a CBS News report.'
I don't understand what the relevance of the last question is at all.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 11, 2012, 12:06:07 PMSo more conjecture? You have no proof that it was being micromanaged. It would seem Obama can do no right. If he took an active interest he was a micromanaging incompetent, if he did not he was clueless.
No, not conjecture. You lack the real world experience to understand what is being discussed. Micro-managing is something that looks great in theory but doesn't work out when applied to real life.
It is clear from what has been reported so far that there was a major disconnect between the Ambassador and his security staff and the State Department, it is also clear there was a major disconnect from those in Benghazi and those outside of the situation when the attack happened. It will be an interesting investigation and the hearings that follow will be as well.
Personally, I think it was a lack of leadership followed by a lack of those at fault taking responsibility. It's just a Fast & Furious 2: Benghazi up In Smoke.
Quote from: Strix on November 11, 2012, 12:42:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 11, 2012, 12:06:07 PMSo more conjecture? You have no proof that it was being micromanaged. It would seem Obama can do no right. If he took an active interest he was a micromanaging incompetent, if he did not he was clueless.
No, not conjecture. You lack the real world experience to understand what is being discussed. Micro-managing is something that looks great in theory but doesn't work out when applied to real life.
It is clear from what has been reported so far that there was a major disconnect between the Ambassador and his security staff and the State Department, it is also clear there was a major disconnect from those in Benghazi and those outside of the situation when the attack happened. It will be an interesting investigation and the hearings that follow will be as well.
Personally, I think it was a lack of leadership followed by a lack of those at fault taking responsibility. It's just a Fast & Furious 2: Benghazi up In Smoke.
Do you not understand the word "conjecture"? Tell me, how is this "clear" to you? You don't have any evidence of this, nor do you know the inner workings of the State Department (unless you have been moonlighting as a high ranking State Department official). You keep bring up Fast and Furious, a favorite conservative talking point. As far as I know, no criminal wrong doing discovered involving Obama in that either.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 11, 2012, 01:16:47 PMDo you not understand the word "conjecture"? Tell me, how is this "clear" to you? You don't have any evidence of this, nor do you know the inner workings of the State Department (unless you have been moonlighting as a high ranking State Department official). You keep bring up Fast and Furious, a favorite conservative talking point. As far as I know, no criminal wrong doing discovered involving Obama in that either.
It is clear to me that you don't understand the whole discussion but I will humor you.
I don't need to work for the State Department because unlike you I read news articles. As garbon has repeatedly pointed out to you there are numerous stories and articles out there concerning Benghazi, as well as OFFICIAL White House press releases. The reason I don't need to work for the State Department is because the State Department has released information concerning timelines and actions taken during the attack.
I bring up Fast and Furious because it shares some similar characteristics to Benghazi. A killing takes place and the "official" story keeps changing as new information emerges with those at the highest levels basically stating that it's not their fault even though they were in charge.
Quote from: Strix on November 11, 2012, 06:53:09 PM
I bring up Fast and Furious because it shares some similar characteristics to Benghazi. A killing takes place and the "official" story keeps changing as new information emerges with those at the highest levels basically stating that it's not their fault even though they were in charge.
And like Fast and Furious, as well as other Washington fuck ups, the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing. As usual. CIA and State Department not talking to one another? Color me fucking shocked.
But let's not get too crazy with the conspiratorial wet dreams like Hillary-Obama-Petraeus cover ups, or losing perspective that somehow this is the single greatest US defeat in the Middle East since Eagle Claw. Ronald Reagan received a hell of a lot more flag draped coffins of US embassy personnel to give up that title.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 11, 2012, 07:16:01 PMAnd like Fast and Furious, as well as other Washington fuck ups, the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing. As usual. CIA and State Department not talking to one another? Color me fucking shocked.
But let's not get too crazy with the conspiratorial wet dreams like Hillary-Obama-Petraeus cover ups, or losing perspective that somehow this is the single greatest US defeat in the Middle East since Eagle Claw. Ronald Reagan received a hell of a lot more flag draped coffins of US embassy personnel to give up that title.
This would be a non-issue if the Obama administration hadn't fucked up by coming out with the video being the cause statement. It was a rushed lame response that stood up as well as the Jets defense to scrutiny. The follow up stories and accounts of what happened make Obama and his cronies look worse. I do think a cover up is taking place to save Hillary's future dreams of running for President. The buck stops at her and she is refusing to take the bullet. Beyond that I don't think there is any cover up concerning wrong doing or any malicious intent by Obama and his cronies. I think Obama and his Administration had a chance to show real leadership/strength and whiffed.
And it's fun to see Raz try to discuss things that happen in a real world he has never been a part of in any way/shape/form.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 11, 2012, 01:16:47 PM
Do you not understand the word "conjecture"? Tell me, how is this "clear" to you? You don't have any evidence of this, nor do you know the inner workings of the State Department (unless you have been moonlighting as a high ranking State Department official). You keep bring up Fast and Furious, a favorite conservative talking point. As far as I know, no criminal wrong doing discovered involving Obama in that either.
Even you must realize that the sum of Strix's contribution to this thread has consisted of badly reanimated talking points stuck together with horseshit glue. There's no way he's both sentient and not trolling.
Quote from: Strix on November 11, 2012, 06:53:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 11, 2012, 01:16:47 PMDo you not understand the word "conjecture"? Tell me, how is this "clear" to you? You don't have any evidence of this, nor do you know the inner workings of the State Department (unless you have been moonlighting as a high ranking State Department official). You keep bring up Fast and Furious, a favorite conservative talking point. As far as I know, no criminal wrong doing discovered involving Obama in that either.
It is clear to me that you don't understand the whole discussion but I will humor you.
I don't need to work for the State Department because unlike you I read news articles. As garbon has repeatedly pointed out to you there are numerous stories and articles out there concerning Benghazi, as well as OFFICIAL White House press releases. The reason I don't need to work for the State Department is because the State Department has released information concerning timelines and actions taken during the attack.
I bring up Fast and Furious because it shares some similar characteristics to Benghazi. A killing takes place and the "official" story keeps changing as new information emerges with those at the highest levels basically stating that it's not their fault even though they were in charge.
So the argument is I should simply take your word for it, because garbon and you have "read the articles"?
Quote from: mongers on November 11, 2012, 09:40:19 PMI wouldn't go that far, but it would be nice to see some evidence to counter Raz's position.
One thing good thing has come out of this discussion, the Benghazi raid conspiracy stuff plays well with the republican right, as indicated by Strix's 'enthusiasm', so they're going to run with this 'cause celebre' and drive it into ground, maybe they'll ultimately get an impeachment vote out of it, that'll be a good use of 2 or 4 years of a house majority.
I am sure that Benghazi will play well with the Right and Left. It's time for all the would-be Presidental candidates to come out of the woodwork to get their faces in the limelight. Stevens was the first casualty but it will be interesting to see how many political careers come to a screeching halt over this. Petraeus is finished, and I am sure Hillary will be as well by the end.
Quote from: Maximus on November 11, 2012, 09:15:12 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 11, 2012, 01:16:47 PM
Do you not understand the word "conjecture"? Tell me, how is this "clear" to you? You don't have any evidence of this, nor do you know the inner workings of the State Department (unless you have been moonlighting as a high ranking State Department official). You keep bring up Fast and Furious, a favorite conservative talking point. As far as I know, no criminal wrong doing discovered involving Obama in that either.
Even you must realize that the sum of Strix's contribution to this thread has consisted of badly reanimated talking points stuck together with horseshit glue. There's no way he's both sentient and not trolling.
It's the same type of razor sharp analysis that led him to claim that Mexicans are predisposed to rape.
Quote from: Strix on November 11, 2012, 09:12:57 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 11, 2012, 07:16:01 PMAnd like Fast and Furious, as well as other Washington fuck ups, the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing. As usual. CIA and State Department not talking to one another? Color me fucking shocked.
But let's not get too crazy with the conspiratorial wet dreams like Hillary-Obama-Petraeus cover ups, or losing perspective that somehow this is the single greatest US defeat in the Middle East since Eagle Claw. Ronald Reagan received a hell of a lot more flag draped coffins of US embassy personnel to give up that title.
This would be a non-issue if the Obama administration hadn't fucked up by coming out with the video being the cause statement. It was a rushed lame response that stood up as well as the Jets defense to scrutiny. The follow up stories and accounts of what happened make Obama and his cronies look worse. I do think a cover up is taking place to save Hillary's future dreams of running for President. The buck stops at her and she is refusing to take the bullet. Beyond that I don't think there is any cover up concerning wrong doing or any malicious intent by Obama and his cronies. I think Obama and his Administration had a chance to show real leadership/strength and whiffed.
Except Hillary did take the bullet.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 11, 2012, 10:17:21 PMSo the argument is I should simply take your word for it, because garbon and you have "read the articles"?
The argument is that nothing secretive or unsubstantiated is being discussed. Some theories have been put forth based on what has been given so far for public consumption on the matter. You decided to dismiss the basis for the theories without evidence or any particular reason other than you're unable to keep up with current events.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 11, 2012, 10:19:06 PMIt's the same type of razor sharp analysis that led him to claim that Mexicans are predisposed to rape.
Pst...you might want to keep up with current events in Mexico.
Quote from: Strix on November 11, 2012, 10:18:12 PM
Quote from: mongers on November 11, 2012, 09:40:19 PMI wouldn't go that far, but it would be nice to see some evidence to counter Raz's position.
One thing good thing has come out of this discussion, the Benghazi raid conspiracy stuff plays well with the republican right, as indicated by Strix's 'enthusiasm', so they're going to run with this 'cause celebre' and drive it into ground, maybe they'll ultimately get an impeachment vote out of it, that'll be a good use of 2 or 4 years of a house majority.
I am sure that Benghazi will play well with the Right and Left. It's time for all the would-be Presidental candidates to come out of the woodwork to get their faces in the limelight. Stevens was the first casualty but it will be interesting to see how many political careers come to a screeching halt over this. Petraeus is finished, and I am sure Hillary will be as well by the end.
QED.
Quote from: Strix on November 11, 2012, 10:27:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 11, 2012, 10:20:54 PMExcept Hillary did take the bullet.
How so?
By, you know, accepting blame. I thought you were reading all the articles.
Quote from: Strix on November 11, 2012, 10:23:19 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 11, 2012, 10:17:21 PMSo the argument is I should simply take your word for it, because garbon and you have "read the articles"?
The argument is that nothing secretive or unsubstantiated is being discussed. Some theories have been put forth based on what has been given so far for public consumption on the matter. You decided to dismiss the basis for the theories without evidence or any particular reason other than you're unable to keep up with current events.
You see, you have to post what these theories and the evidence backing them up, not just say, "I know, and you don't!".
Jesus, for how many pages did Raz and Strix go back and forth? I skipped over their posts after the fifth iteration, and I still spend more time not reading their posts than I spend reading other people's posts here.
Quote from: DGuller on November 11, 2012, 10:36:31 PM
Jesus, for how many pages did Raz and Strix go back and forth? I skipped over their posts after the fifth iteration, and I still spend more time not reading their posts than I spend reading other people's posts here.
Kiss my ass. I'm trying to get answers out of the tinfoil moron.
Fuck you, Raz. You and Teatard take it fucking elsewhere. You've pissed all over my Petraeus meme.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 12, 2012, 12:35:45 AM
Fuck you, Raz. You and Teatard take it fucking elsewhere. You've pissed all over my Petraeus meme.
What Petraues meme?
There, now you and Strix have your own thread, so you can fling poo all you want.
What is your problem?
QuoteRaz and Strix Benghazi monkey shitfight thread
:lmfao:
Center stage boys.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 12, 2012, 01:51:39 AM
What is your problem?
You guys want to play ping pong with each others' nuts for several pages, knock yourselves out.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 12, 2012, 12:35:45 AM
Fuck you, Raz. You and Teatard take it fucking elsewhere. You've pissed all over my Petraeus meme.
Hey now, I belong to a New York State Union, that means I am a Democrat until they tell me otherwise. Get it straight! :showoff:
Quote from: 11B4V on November 12, 2012, 03:36:13 AM
QuoteRaz and Strix Benghazi monkey shitfight thread
:lmfao:
Center stage boys.
Fuck off. I fight the the good fight, and get mocked for it.
You're the only dingleberry around here that insists on banging your head against cinderblockheads like Strix. That makes you silly.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 12, 2012, 01:08:03 PM
You're the only dingleberry around here that insists on banging your head against cinderblockheads like Strix. That makes you silly.
Take a look at the thread, I ain't the only one. Derspeiss was advancing the same arguments as Strix a few weeks ago
If Hillary took a bullet it must have been a blank since she caught no flack for it.
Edit: damned Kindle autocorrect
The other, more likely, option is that there was nothing behind the bullet.
Quote from: derspiess on November 12, 2012, 01:55:27 PM
If Hillary took a bullet it must have been a blank since she caught no clack for it.
True, because there is no real scandal here.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 12, 2012, 02:52:05 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 12, 2012, 01:55:27 PM
If Hillary took a bullet it must have been a blank since she caught no clack for it.
True, because there is no real scandal here.
Possibly not. But something doesn't smell right.
Quote from: derspiess on November 12, 2012, 02:54:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 12, 2012, 02:52:05 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 12, 2012, 01:55:27 PM
If Hillary took a bullet it must have been a blank since she caught no clack for it.
True, because there is no real scandal here.
Possibly not. But something doesn't smell right.
Burning corpses never do, but no matter how much you and Strix want there to be a conspiracy or cover-up there just isn't anything there.
Hey, Raz!
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57582929/official-we-knew-benghazi-was-a-terrorist-attack-from-the-get-go/?tag=socsh
Quote"Everybody in the mission" in Benghazi, Libya, thought the attack on a U.S. consulate there last Sept. 11 was an act of terror "from the get-go," according to excerpts of an interview investigators conducted with the No. 2 official in Libya at the time, obtained by CBS News' "Face the Nation."
But like you said, there was no possible way for anyone to think it was a terrorist attack :rolleyes:
I said that? I don't recall saying that. I do like how the next sentence clarifies that this is what this guy thinks, and he wasn't actually there so it would how would he know what everyone knew from the beginning? And that was my point from the beginning (which you seemed to have missed), that it wasn't understood exactly what was happening or who did it.
What a weasel. Just take your medicine & move on, Raz.
I think a lot of things "from the get go" as well, derLindsay. What'd I win? :lol:
How about you find where I said that, "there was no possible way for anyone to think it was a terrorist attack ".
Quote from: Razgovory on May 05, 2013, 07:13:25 PM
How about you find where I said that, "there was no possible way for anyone to think it was a terrorist attack ".
Not in those exact words, but that was the gist of your argument.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 05, 2013, 07:12:58 PM
I think a lot of things "from the get go" as well, derLindsay. What'd I win? :lol:
From the get go, I though Seeds was a member of the landed nobility.
Quote from: derspiess on May 05, 2013, 07:50:12 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 05, 2013, 07:13:25 PM
How about you find where I said that, "there was no possible way for anyone to think it was a terrorist attack ".
Not in those exact words, but that was the gist of your argument.
Maybe you should read it again. Hell, this thread isn't that long, you can find my arguments from six months ago.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,8379.855.html Here's the rest of the thread.
QuoteIsn't it? What I'm seeing is attacks on Obama because his administration made statements about how they thought an attack happened with the information they had at the time. They believed this for two weeks before they changed their mind for whatever reason. This doesn't strike me as odd. Yet for some strange reason, this is apparently really fucking important. I have no idea why. As of now, nobody except the people who perpetrated the crime actually know what happened. The identity of people of involved is not known let alone how they were organized. Yet Derspiess knows for certain. It's obvious to him. I'd like know how he knows this.
Here's one of my posts from late October. I even mention you! I'm not seeing "there was no possible way for anyone to think it was a terrorist attack ". In fact, I seem to be arguing against certainty and you for certainty.
Quote from: garbon on May 05, 2013, 08:00:04 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 05, 2013, 07:12:58 PM
I think a lot of things "from the get go" as well, derLindsay. What'd I win? :lol:
From the get go, I though Seeds was a member of the landed nobility.
There's absolutely nothing noble about my land. :(
And don't you forget it. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Razgovory on May 05, 2013, 08:12:34 PM
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,8379.855.html Here's the rest of the thread.
QuoteIsn't it? What I'm seeing is attacks on Obama because his administration made statements about how they thought an attack happened with the information they had at the time. They believed this for two weeks before they changed their mind for whatever reason. This doesn't strike me as odd. Yet for some strange reason, this is apparently really fucking important. I have no idea why. As of now, nobody except the people who perpetrated the crime actually know what happened. The identity of people of involved is not known let alone how they were organized. Yet Derspiess knows for certain. It's obvious to him. I'd like know how he knows this.
Here's one of my posts from late October. I even mention you! I'm not seeing "there was no possible way for anyone to think it was a terrorist attack ". In fact, I seem to be arguing against certainty and you for certainty.
Keep on weaseling, you weasel.
:lol: I guess I should take this to mean that right wing media now claims that the Obama administration's argument was ""there was no possible way for anyone to think it was a terrorist attack ", and since you assume that I repeat exactly what President says it stands to reason that my argument should be the same as fictitious arguments ascribed to the President.
Razgovory should give derspiess an apology.
Derspeiss, I'm sorry your name didn't get put in the thread title. I didn't make it, Seedy did. :hug: