goemaw.com

General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: GCJayhawker on May 08, 2013, 11:42:58 AM

Title: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: GCJayhawker on May 08, 2013, 11:42:58 AM
Anyone else watching these? I'm not really sure what to make of them so far, seems as though it is a bunch of people just recapping timelines and not really saying much.  Granted I have only been watching for a little bit.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Shacks on May 08, 2013, 11:48:35 AM
My Facebook newsfeed and the Facebook political post thread will be a real treat tonight, stay tuned gE

That's the extent of my interest in this hearing
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Dugout DickStone on May 08, 2013, 01:05:04 PM
They were huge puds who let their base get overrun. 

Source:  me
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: SPEmaw on May 09, 2013, 12:45:28 PM
They were huge puds who let their base get overrun. 

Source:  me

wow - you're a dirtbag.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Institutional Control on May 09, 2013, 01:22:26 PM
They were huge puds who let their base get overrun. 

Source:  me

wow - you're a dirtbag.

 :runaway:
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Dugout DickStone on May 09, 2013, 02:19:07 PM
They were huge puds who let their base get overrun. 

Source:  me

wow - you're a dirtbag.

I just tell the truth, SPEmaw.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: MakeItRain on May 09, 2013, 08:33:38 PM
...idiotic grandstanding
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 09, 2013, 08:34:37 PM
Did Hillary make it, or did she have another "fall"?
Title: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: felix rex on May 09, 2013, 08:40:27 PM
I blame Obama for that guy getting stabbed on the street outside the embassy. It's time we protect Americans from the Arabian moon god, IMO. :jeagle:
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 09, 2013, 08:42:29 PM
Obama already passed the blame to that YouTube video, sorry FRetard.
Title: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: felix rex on May 09, 2013, 08:44:36 PM
Obama already passed the blame to that YouTube video, sorry FRetard.

For the stabbing today?!?!?
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 09, 2013, 08:46:33 PM
Obama already passed the blame to that YouTube video, sorry FRetard.

For the stabbing today?!?!?

You doubt they're related? LowObamaApologistIQ
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: MakeItRain on May 09, 2013, 09:59:03 PM
Obama already passed the blame to that YouTube video, sorry FRetard.

For the stabbing today?!?!?

You doubt they're related? LowObamaApologistIQ

Got clownsuited for being an idiot, continued to run mouth, well done.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 09, 2013, 10:08:38 PM
#agendaofhate
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: ednksu on May 10, 2013, 11:10:57 AM
Did Hillary make it, or did she have another "fall"?
You're such an bad person.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 11, 2013, 09:42:41 AM
Did Hillary make it, or did she have another "fall"?
You're such an bad person.

You're cool with her dodging these hearings?
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: ednksu on May 11, 2013, 09:53:54 AM
Did Hillary make it, or did she have another "fall"?
You're such an bad person.

You're cool with her dodging these hearings?
oh you mean how she didn't dodge anything and it was yet another example of your foxnews conspiracy bullshit?
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: p1k3 on May 11, 2013, 12:40:14 PM
Did Hillary make it, or did she have another "fall"?
You're such an bad person.

You're cool with her dodging these hearings?
oh you mean how she didn't dodge anything and it was yet another example of your foxnews conspiracy bullshit?

She's been dodging it
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 11, 2013, 01:28:32 PM
Yeah, its not really debatable that Hillary has been dodging this.

Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: ednksu on May 11, 2013, 06:25:53 PM
wtf is there to debate you retards? She testified already!
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: GCJayhawker on May 13, 2013, 09:21:48 AM
I don't get the dodging talk.  Like EDN said she already testified on this. What do you want her to do, testify again?
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: ben ji on May 13, 2013, 09:24:01 AM
So apparently Benghazi was not really a embassy and was just loaded with CIA people?  :dunno:
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: felix rex on May 13, 2013, 09:42:15 AM
So apparently Benghazi was not really a embassy and was just loaded with CIA people.

FYP?  :dunno:

Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Institutional Control on May 13, 2013, 09:47:34 AM
I'm still trying to understand what the outrage about Benghazi is.  What is being covered up?

I understand the IRS thing. That's bullshit and some people should be fired. I don't know if that's criminal behavior or not but it should be.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: mortons toe on May 13, 2013, 10:48:45 AM
I'm still trying to understand what the outrage about Benghazi is.  What is being covered up?

I understand the IRS thing. That's bullshit and some people should be fired. I don't know if that's criminal behavior or not but it should be.
Jets were within one hour away, and were told to stand down... the fighting lasted for some 7-8 hours.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: GCJayhawker on May 13, 2013, 10:50:32 AM
I'm still trying to understand what the outrage about Benghazi is.  What is being covered up?

I understand the IRS thing. That's bullshit and some people should be fired. I don't know if that's criminal behavior or not but it should be.
Jets were within one hour away, and were told to stand down... the fighting lasted for some 7-8 hours.

I don't know what to believe on the jets. I have hear 1 hour but I have also heard 4 hours.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 13, 2013, 10:52:04 AM
I'm still trying to understand what the outrage about Benghazi is.  What is being covered up?

I understand the IRS thing. That's bullshit and some people should be fired. I don't know if that's criminal behavior or not but it should be.

In a nutshell...

1. The government lied to the American people about the cause of the attack. We now know that the CIA and the State Department knew more or less immediately that the attack on the consulate was a premeditated act of terrorism committed, conveniently, on the anniversary of 9/11. However, political hacks at the State Department (i.e., Hillary),  revised the CIA's "talking points" (which are distributed to government officials so they can report accurate information to the media) to remove the references to terrorism and instead blame the attack on a spontaneous reaction to a youtube video. President Obama, SoS Clinton, Ambassador Susan Rice and others peddled this pablum for weeks. The truth matters. Not only did the falsehood directly contradict the Libyan president, who acknowledged it was an act of terror, it feeds into the narrative that America was somehow to blame for the attack, and if we would only be a little more respectful to Islam, all this could have been avoided. It was all bullshit.

2. The State Department insisted that no additional security was ever requested for the Benghazi consulate in the months leading up to the attack - now revealed as bullshit.

3. The State Department insisted that nothing more could have been done from a military standpoint to assist the embattled consulate - now revealed as bullshit. We still don't know who exactly gave the order to the military to stand down.

This is just a brief synopsis. The details are worse. Don't take my word for it, even hard core leftists are now outraged (after dismissing the GOP's efforts for months as a political witch hunt):
- http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/12/opinion/sunday/dowd-when-myths-collide-in-the-capital.html?_r=1& (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/12/opinion/sunday/dowd-when-myths-collide-in-the-capital.html?_r=1&)
- http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/05/benghazi-cia-talking-point-edits-white-house.html?mobify=0 (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/05/benghazi-cia-talking-point-edits-white-house.html?mobify=0)
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: ben ji on May 13, 2013, 10:56:41 AM
ben ji's dad, faithful right wing rush limbaugh listener, thinks some dems are making a big stink of this to run Hillary through the mud so she cant run for president in 2016.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: steve dave on May 13, 2013, 10:57:28 AM
ben ji's dad, faithful right wing rush limbaugh listener, thinks some dems are making a big stink of this to run Hillary through the mud so she cant run for president in 2016.

 :frown:
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 13, 2013, 11:00:40 AM
I think some Dems are making a big stink about this because Hillary legitimately screwed up.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: OregonSmock on May 13, 2013, 11:36:02 AM
I think some Dems are making a big stink about this because Hillary legitimately screwed up.


This. 
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Dugout DickStone on May 13, 2013, 05:20:38 PM
ben ji's dad, faithful right wing rush limbaugh listener, thinks some dems are making a big stink of this to run Hillary through the mud so she cant run for president in 2016.

 :frown:

Biden!
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: ednksu on May 13, 2013, 06:11:02 PM
I'm still trying to understand what the outrage about Benghazi is.  What is being covered up?

I understand the IRS thing. That's bullshit and some people should be fired. I don't know if that's criminal behavior or not but it should be.
Jets were within one hour away, and were told to stand down... the fighting lasted for some 7-8 hours.
out of what airbase?  Every legitimate news source has said air support would have had to come from Italy.  Fox news is the only place that pulled a bullshit talking point about and AC 130 (not really a Tactical CAS platform) and that was quickly debunked.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 13, 2013, 06:16:44 PM
Or there were other nefarious actions going on there, and once things got out of control a decision was made . . . dead people don't talk.

CIA black hole perhaps?



Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: michigancat on May 13, 2013, 06:21:22 PM
the jets could have bombed the crap out of everyone and problem would have been solved. Pretty simple, you guys.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 13, 2013, 06:25:23 PM
I'm still trying to understand what the outrage about Benghazi is.  What is being covered up?

I understand the IRS thing. That's bullshit and some people should be fired. I don't know if that's criminal behavior or not but it should be.
Jets were within one hour away, and were told to stand down... the fighting lasted for some 7-8 hours.
out of what airbase?  Every legitimate news source has said air support would have had to come from Italy.  Fox news is the only place that pulled a bullshit talking point about and AC 130 (not really a Tactical CAS platform) and that was quickly debunked.

I think you'd be better off if you checked into foxnews now and then.  The fact that most people have no clue what a monster fuckup this is, is proof that you have to watch all news outlets to know what's going on.




Also, I don't think Hillary (Secretary of State at the time of the attack, FYI that's who runs the State Dept) has testified since the State Department has been exposed as full of crap in this matter.  She probably ought to explain that.

Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: ednksu on May 13, 2013, 06:29:47 PM
I'm still trying to understand what the outrage about Benghazi is.  What is being covered up?

I understand the IRS thing. That's bullshit and some people should be fired. I don't know if that's criminal behavior or not but it should be.
Jets were within one hour away, and were told to stand down... the fighting lasted for some 7-8 hours.
out of what airbase?  Every legitimate news source has said air support would have had to come from Italy.  Fox news is the only place that pulled a bullshit talking point about and AC 130 (not really a Tactical CAS platform) and that was quickly debunked.

I think you'd be better off if you checked into foxnews now and then.  The fact that most people have no clue what a monster fuckup this is, is proof that you have to watch all news outlets to know what's going on.




Also, I don't think Hillary (Secretary of State at the time of the attack, FYI that's who runs the State Dept) has testified since the State Department has been exposed as full of crap in this matter.  She probably ought to explain that.
She testified 23 Jan and nothing substantial was proven than, just as now.  If Republicans want to stop making stuff up, creating conspiracies which they admit has no factual basis, maybe they should call her to testify again.  Your worn out rhetoric shows just how idiotic this whole circus is. 
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: p1k3 on May 13, 2013, 07:36:08 PM
Or there were other nefarious actions going on there, and once things got out of control a decision was made . . . dead people don't talk.

CIA black hole perhaps?

Rent-a-thugs? Sounds about right.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Headinjun on May 13, 2013, 08:37:49 PM
I'm still trying to understand what the outrage about Benghazi is.  What is being covered up?

I understand the IRS thing. That's bullshit and some people should be fired. I don't know if that's criminal behavior or not but it should be.

In a nutshell...

1. The government lied to the American people about the cause of the attack. We now know that the CIA and the State Department knew more or less immediately that the attack on the consulate was a premeditated act of terrorism committed, conveniently, on the anniversary of 9/11. However, political hacks at the State Department (i.e., Hillary),  revised the CIA's "talking points" (which are distributed to government officials so they can report accurate information to the media) to remove the references to terrorism and instead blame the attack on a spontaneous reaction to a youtube video. President Obama, SoS Clinton, Ambassador Susan Rice and others peddled this pablum for weeks. The truth matters. Not only did the falsehood directly contradict the Libyan president, who acknowledged it was an act of terror, it feeds into the narrative that America was somehow to blame for the attack, and if we would only be a little more respectful to Islam, all this could have been avoided. It was all bullshit.

2. The State Department insisted that no additional security was ever requested for the Benghazi consulate in the months leading up to the attack - now revealed as bullshit.

3. The State Department insisted that nothing more could have been done from a military standpoint to assist the embattled consulate - now revealed as bullshit. We still don't know who exactly gave the order to the military to stand down.

This is just a brief synopsis. The details are worse. Don't take my word for it, even hard core leftists are now outraged (after dismissing the GOP's efforts for months as a political witch hunt):
- http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/12/opinion/sunday/dowd-when-myths-collide-in-the-capital.html?_r=1& (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/12/opinion/sunday/dowd-when-myths-collide-in-the-capital.html?_r=1&)
- http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/05/benghazi-cia-talking-point-edits-white-house.html?mobify=0 (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/05/benghazi-cia-talking-point-edits-white-house.html?mobify=0)



May 12, 2013 11:00 AM
Gates: Benghazi-Obsessed Republicans Have 'Cartoonish' View of Military Capability
By David

Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told CBS News that Republican lawmakers who are blasting President Barack Obama's administration for failing to take military action during last September's surprise attacks in Benghazi have a "cartoonish" view of the military.

"I listened to the testimony of [Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta] and [Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey]," Gates explained to CBS host Bob Schieffer in an interview that aired on Sunday. "And, frankly, had I been in the job at the time, I think my decisions would have been just as theirs were."

"We don't have a ready force standing by in the Middle East -- despite all the turmoil that's going on -- with planes on strip alert, troops ready to deploy at a moment's notice. And so, getting somebody there in a timely way would have been very difficult, if not impossible."

He continued: "And, frankly, I've heard, 'Why didn't you just fly a fighter jet over and try and scare them with the noise or something?' Well, given the number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from [former Libya dictator Muammar] Gaddafi's arsenals, I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi under those circumstances."

Gates pointed out that others had suggested that the military could have sent in Special Forces or some other small group.

"Based on everything I've read, people really didn't know what was going on in Benghazi contemporaneously, and to send some small number of Special Forces or other troops in without knowing what the environment is, without knowing what the threat is, without having any intelligence in terms of what is actually going on on the ground, I think, would have been very dangerous," the former defense secretary observed. "And personally, I would not have approved that."

"It's sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces. The one thing that our forces are noted for is planning and preparation before we send people in harm's way. And there just wasn't time to do that."

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/gates-benghazi-obsessed-republicans-have-car
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 13, 2013, 11:02:56 PM
Or there were other nefarious actions going on there, and once things got out of control a decision was made . . . dead people don't talk.

CIA black hole perhaps?

Fast & Furious - Syria Edition.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Dugout DickStone on May 13, 2013, 11:21:42 PM
Or there were other nefarious actions going on there, and once things got out of control a decision was made . . . dead people don't talk.

CIA black hole perhaps?

Fast & Furious - Syria Edition.

Vast & Conspirious
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 14, 2013, 06:10:15 AM
Lot of CIA running around, something like 22 or 23 of the 32 rescued were CIA.

Hmm




Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: felix rex on May 14, 2013, 06:17:15 AM
This is basically a case of when CYA goes wrong.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 14, 2013, 08:04:41 AM
May 12, 2013 11:00 AM
Gates: Benghazi-Obsessed Republicans Have 'Cartoonish' View of Military Capability
By David

Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told CBS News that Republican lawmakers who are blasting President Barack Obama's administration for failing to take military action during last September's surprise attacks in Benghazi have a "cartoonish" view of the military.

"I listened to the testimony of [Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta] and [Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey]," Gates explained to CBS host Bob Schieffer in an interview that aired on Sunday. "And, frankly, had I been in the job at the time, I think my decisions would have been just as theirs were."

"We don't have a ready force standing by in the Middle East -- despite all the turmoil that's going on -- with planes on strip alert, troops ready to deploy at a moment's notice. And so, getting somebody there in a timely way would have been very difficult, if not impossible."

He continued: "And, frankly, I've heard, 'Why didn't you just fly a fighter jet over and try and scare them with the noise or something?' Well, given the number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from [former Libya dictator Muammar] Gaddafi's arsenals, I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi under those circumstances."

Gates pointed out that others had suggested that the military could have sent in Special Forces or some other small group.

"Based on everything I've read, people really didn't know what was going on in Benghazi contemporaneously, and to send some small number of Special Forces or other troops in without knowing what the environment is, without knowing what the threat is, without having any intelligence in terms of what is actually going on on the ground, I think, would have been very dangerous," the former defense secretary observed. "And personally, I would not have approved that."

"It's sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces. The one thing that our forces are noted for is planning and preparation before we send people in harm's way. And there just wasn't time to do that."

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/gates-benghazi-obsessed-republicans-have-car

I'll take the word of the guys on the ground.

Quote
Hicks told committee staffers prior to Wednesday's hearing that he pushed for a stronger military response to an attack. He said he was rebuffed by Washington, according to excerpts of interview transcripts provided by the House oversight committee.

Hicks said he asked twice whether an F-16 or some other "fast-mover" aircraft could fly over the battlefield with hopes it would scatter the attackers.

"I talked with the defense attache, Lt. Col. Keith Phillips, and I asked him, 'Is there anything coming?' "

According to Hicks' account, Phillips said the nearest fighter planes were in Aviano, Italy, and it would take two to three hours to get them airborne, and there were no tanker assets close enough to support them. Hicks said when he asked again, before the 5:15 a.m. mortar attack that killed State Department security personnel former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. But the answer was no again. Also killed was State Department employee Sean Smith.

A four-man team of military special operations forces was in Tripoli was organized, geared up and about to drive to a C-130 aircraft, to help those in Benghazi when its commander was ordered to stop by his superiors, Hicks said.

"He got a phone call from SOCAFRICA (Special Operations Command Africa) which said, you can't go now, you don't have authority to go now," Hicks said. "They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it."

Hicks said the commander told him: "I have never been so embarrassed in my life that a State Department officer has bigger balls than somebody in the military."

Maj. Robert Firman, a Pentagon spokesman, said Tuesday there was never any kind of stand-down order. Firman later said the military is trying to assess the incident Hicks is referring to, but the aircraft in question wound up evacuating a second wave of Americans from Benghazi to Tripoli, not transporting rescuers to a firefight.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/05/08/benghazi-hearing-whistleblowers/2143813/
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: felix rex on May 14, 2013, 10:21:44 AM
You guys do know that every country stuffs its embassies and "aid" agencies full of spies, right? That's not a new thing for you, is it?
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Emo EMAW on May 14, 2013, 10:34:22 AM
You guys do know that every country stuffs its embassies and "aid" agencies full of spies, right? That's not a new thing for you, is it?

How are people supposed to know that?
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Fedor on May 14, 2013, 10:38:05 AM
You guys do know that every country stuffs its embassies and "aid" agencies full of spies, right? That's not a new thing for you, is it?

How are people supposed to know that?
Read some spy novels or something.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Emo EMAW on May 14, 2013, 10:39:18 AM
You guys do know that every country stuffs its embassies and "aid" agencies full of spies, right? That's not a new thing for you, is it?

How are people supposed to know that?
Read some spy novels or something.

I did, they taught me American spies are always pretending to be Canadian journalists/photographers.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Fedor on May 14, 2013, 10:43:32 AM
You guys do know that every country stuffs its embassies and "aid" agencies full of spies, right? That's not a new thing for you, is it?

How are people supposed to know that?
Read some spy novels or something.

I did, they taught me American spies are always pretending to be Canadian journalists/photographers.
I liked this one..had some good stuff in it.
http://www.amazon.com/Comrade-J-Pete-Earley/dp/0399154396
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Panjandrum on May 14, 2013, 11:47:36 AM
You guys do know that every country stuffs its embassies and "aid" agencies full of spies, right? That's not a new thing for you, is it?

How are people supposed to know that?

By not being dense?

Or would you rather we have someone walking around the embassies with name badges that say "SPY" underneath the name and photo?
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Emo EMAW on May 14, 2013, 12:16:55 PM
If everyone knows they're spies, then what's the point? 
Title: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: felix rex on May 14, 2013, 12:34:16 PM
If everyone knows they're spies, then what's the point?

Professional courtesy.
Title: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: felix rex on May 14, 2013, 12:36:36 PM
Or read the news:

Russia's security services claimed Tuesday to have arrested a CIA agent posing as an employee of the U.S. Embassy in Moscow for allegedly trying to recruit a Russian secret service agent to work for the U.S.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Emo EMAW on May 14, 2013, 12:38:41 PM
I read that.  Nowhere did it say the Ruskies knew he was a spy the entire time.
Title: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: felix rex on May 14, 2013, 12:42:36 PM
It's assumed. Again, professional courtesy. DC has more spies than any city in the world. Can you pick them out? (Hint: start at embassies, aid agencies, and NGOs).
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Emo EMAW on May 14, 2013, 12:47:42 PM
Fair enough.  Just seems like given the choice we'd rather not have spies running all over DC. 
Title: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: felix rex on May 14, 2013, 12:53:41 PM
Would you like US spies running around other cities? It's a game within a game. It's better to know where the spies are in your city, but one is shown to hide another. And most times, the "shown" is only arrested to force a trade for a "hidden".
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Institutional Control on May 14, 2013, 01:21:31 PM
If everyone knows they're spies, then what's the point?

Don't play dumb, Scotter Libby.
Title: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: felix rex on May 14, 2013, 01:34:44 PM
Oh, and "rogue". Always.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Dugout DickStone on May 14, 2013, 04:21:22 PM
It's assumed. Again, professional courtesy. DC has more spies than any city in the world. Can you pick them out? (Hint: start at embassies, aid agencies, and NGOs).

Second hint:  look for hot chicks who are super easy
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: CNS on May 14, 2013, 04:27:14 PM
Poor CIA guy who was caught by Russia.  I mean, this is it.  Desk job or something like that from here on, right?  Would suck to have Google News lead with me screwing up at my job. 
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: ben ji on May 14, 2013, 04:35:41 PM
Alright guys, i think i'm on to something here so stick with me

1. Most spies work at embassies or for NGO's in a country worth spying on
2. Lots of crazy stuff going on in Egypt, should prob transfer a couple spies there.
3. FR works at an embassy
4. FR is a spy

 :surprised: :runaway: :ohno:
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 14, 2013, 04:49:33 PM
Alright guys, i think i'm on to something here so stick with me

1. Most spies work at embassies or for NGO's in a country worth spying on
2. Lots of crazy stuff going on in Egypt, should prob transfer a couple spies there.
3. FR works at an embassy
4. FR is a spy

 :surprised: :runaway: :ohno:

You seriously just figured that out, ben ji?
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Institutional Control on May 14, 2013, 05:00:32 PM
One of my buddies was in Intelligence for the Navy and now works for a "security" company located in DC. But he spends most of his time in Africa and Afghanistan. I'm betting he's CIA but he doesn't admit it. Worked for the embassy in Athens before working for the security company.
Title: Re: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: 8manpick on May 14, 2013, 05:19:14 PM
Alright guys, i think i'm on to something here so stick with me

1. Most spies work at embassies or for NGO's in a country worth spying on
2. Lots of crazy stuff going on in Egypt, should prob transfer a couple spies there.
3. FR works at an embassy
4. FR is a spy

 :surprised: :runaway: :ohno:

If you just mumped up the fr goes to Egypt thread, I will find you and kick your ass.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: wetwillie on May 14, 2013, 10:18:30 PM
One of my buddies was in Intelligence for the Navy and now works for a "security" company located in DC. But he spends most of his time in Africa and Afghanistan. I'm betting he's CIA but he doesn't admit it. Worked for the embassy in Athens before working for the security company.

You probably just got him killed.
Title: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: felix rex on May 15, 2013, 12:47:50 AM
Alright guys, i think i'm on to something here so stick with me

1. Most spies work at embassies or for NGO's in a country worth spying on
2. Lots of crazy stuff going on in Egypt, should prob transfer a couple spies there.
3. FR works at an embassy
4. FR is a spy

 :surprised: :runaway: :ohno:

oh man, I would be a terrible spy. Not nearly enough of an extrovert IRL. Can you imagine just cold starting friendships non stop? That part would make me more nervous than the actual spying.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 15, 2013, 06:29:42 AM
I do have to LOL a little at the "well the military just isn't suited for, you know, just doing stuff at the drop of a hat" talking point in regards to Benghazi.

I mean really, a Trillion plus dollar a year military/intelligence/industrial complex and we don't have anybody on alert for these kinds of things in a place like the Middle East and North Africa?

What happens when the Chinese fire one of the "carrier killer" anti-shipping missiles at us?  Do we have to convene meetings at every level of the Navy, conduct 2 years of research and write 15,000 pages of White Papers before we can react?

The foreign media was all over the AQ presence in Benghazi for months prior to the Embassy attack . . . but then again, we probably didn't want that out there all that much considering we used our "usual suspect" AL-CIAda types to overthrow Gaddafi to begin with.

Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: felix rex on May 15, 2013, 06:40:16 AM
Oh boy. Al CIAda. I'm gonna use that one at the office.  :lol:
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 15, 2013, 07:22:23 AM
Oh boy. Al CIAda. I'm gonna use that one at the office.  :lol:

Fantastic  :thumbsup:
Title: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: felix rex on May 15, 2013, 07:33:24 AM
REDACTED
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Institutional Control on May 15, 2013, 07:43:22 AM
REDACTED

Now I'll never be able to watch the documentary he suggested. :(
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Tobias on May 15, 2013, 07:43:50 AM
REDACTED

 :runaway:

chinese!
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: WillieWatanabe on May 15, 2013, 08:01:30 AM
WHAT IS GOING ON
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Institutional Control on May 15, 2013, 08:03:23 AM
 :shakesfist:
Title: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: blundus rex on May 15, 2013, 08:15:15 AM
Don't ask where I got this.

-Your friends

(http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/05/15/eqana5ut.jpg)

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: CNS on May 15, 2013, 01:54:34 PM
WHAT IS GOING ON

Tradecraft
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: OK_Cat on May 15, 2013, 01:56:05 PM
Don't ask where I got this.

-Your friends

(http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/05/15/eqana5ut.jpg)


 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: CNS on May 15, 2013, 01:57:28 PM
Alright guys, i think i'm on to something here so stick with me

1. Most spies work at embassies or for NGO's in a country worth spying on
2. Lots of crazy stuff going on in Egypt, should prob transfer a couple spies there.
3. FR works at an embassy
4. FR is a spy

 :surprised: :runaway: :ohno:

oh man, I would be a terrible spy. Not nearly enough of an extrovert IRL. Can you imagine just cold starting friendships non stop? That part would make me more nervous than the actual spying.

I would be a pretty bad ass spy after a few cocktails if that is the main requirement.  Bad thing is that when drunk, I agree to a lot of stuff.  Is that a good trait for a spy?  If so, I really missed my calling.   
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Emo EMAW on May 15, 2013, 02:00:26 PM
Remember in "The Recruit" when Colin Farrell is supposed to go into a bar and pick up a chick only his female peer (hot) gets too drunk and he takes care of her instead and fails his mission?  That is (one of the many reasons) why I couldn't be a spy.  Who avoids a sure thing like that, amirite? 
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: CNS on May 15, 2013, 02:03:04 PM
Remember in "The Recruit" when Colin Farrell is supposed to go into a bar and pick up a chick only his female peer (hot) gets too drunk and he takes care of her instead and fails his mission?  That is (one of the many reasons) why I couldn't be a spy.  Who avoids a sure thing like that, amirite?

Are you Colin or the drunk(fake) co-worker in this sitch?
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Emo EMAW on May 15, 2013, 02:04:32 PM
Remember in "The Recruit" when Colin Farrell is supposed to go into a bar and pick up a chick only his female peer (hot) gets too drunk and he takes care of her instead and fails his mission?  That is (one of the many reasons) why I couldn't be a spy.  Who avoids a sure thing like that, amirite?

Are you Colin or the drunk(fake) co-worker in this sitch?

Could go either way, really.  Could prob do both in same night. 
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: ednksu on May 15, 2013, 03:31:09 PM
I do have to LOL a little at the "well the military just isn't suited for, you know, just doing stuff at the drop of a hat" talking point in regards to Benghazi.

I mean really, a Trillion plus dollar a year military/intelligence/industrial complex and we don't have anybody on alert for these kinds of things in a place like the Middle East and North Africa?

What happens when the Chinese fire one of the "carrier killer" anti-shipping missiles at us?  Do we have to convene meetings at every level of the Navy, conduct 2 years of research and write 15,000 pages of White Papers before we can react?

The foreign media was all over the AQ presence in Benghazi for months prior to the Embassy attack . . . but then again, we probably didn't want that out there all that much considering we used our "usual suspect" AL-CIAda types to overthrow Gaddafi to begin with.
6 hours to launch forces, 24 hrs to project nearly overwhelming force to nearly anywhere in the world, yeah I'd says thats pretty drop of the hat-ish. 

Also stop reading fox news.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 15, 2013, 03:47:48 PM
edn most things seem to be a personal afront to you . . . it was just a general comment, and I don't read Fox News. 

The vast majority of countries in this world of ours don't spend a Trillion plus dollars a year on a military/industrial/intelligence complex, so "projecting overwhelming" force in a world full of countries who spend less than 1% annually on mechanisms and methods to kill people isn't really that impressive.  Then again, I suspect most of those countries could line up enough forces to keep our military/industrial/intelligence complex bogged down for months.




Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Dugout DickStone on May 15, 2013, 04:32:05 PM
I buy that they don't just send a small force into an area where that force could get wiped out or captured, or where a jet could get shot down.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: ednksu on May 15, 2013, 07:22:02 PM
edn most things seem to be a personal afront to you . . . it was just a general comment, and I don't read Fox News. 

The vast majority of countries in this world of ours don't spend a Trillion plus dollars a year on a military/industrial/intelligence complex, so "projecting overwhelming" force in a world full of countries who spend less than 1% annually on mechanisms and methods to kill people isn't really that impressive.  Then again, I suspect most of those countries could line up enough forces to keep our military/industrial/intelligence complex bogged down for months.

For not reading foxnews you sure do copy all their points verbatim quite well.  Its not a personal affront, but I don't deal well with people who distort crap to fit their agendas.  The bottom line is that the Republican party through their mouthpiece foxnews, has been putting out these talking points for months even thought they admit they are baseless.

I honestly think half of your work in this thread is trolling Dax.  You know pretty well how government functions and how easily and often infighting, failures of communication, and turf wars cause governmental failure.

Other reading
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/benghazi-e-mails-show-clash-between-state-department-cia/2013/05/10/5ac8a650-b989-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add_story_1.html
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 15, 2013, 07:24:27 PM
The whole military could or couldn't have done something debate is an enormous rabbit hole in this discussion.

The government lied to you and then told lies to cover up their lies and people are dead and its supposedly nobody's responsibility to make sure this crap doesn't happen again. 

Edna, I'm certain you would benefit most from fox news as you clearly have no idea what the eff is really going on ever.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Rams on May 15, 2013, 07:33:22 PM
just so we're clear here, you guys are upset because a bunch of politicians lied to the american people? is this for real?
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 15, 2013, 07:38:01 PM
just so we're clear here, you guys are upset because a bunch of politicians lied to the american people? is this for real?

It's a pretty short list of politicians to be using the term "a bunch", Rams.  But I appreciate the joke.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: ednksu on May 15, 2013, 07:45:23 PM
The whole military could or couldn't have done something debate is an enormous rabbit hole in this discussion.

The government lied to you and then told lies to cover up their lies and people are dead and its supposedly nobody's responsibility to make sure this crap doesn't happen again. 

Edna, I'm certain you would benefit most from fox news as you clearly have no idea what the eff is really going on ever.
oh man you totally burned me, brah
(http://machoarts.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/high-five.jpg)


And no, its been pretty well proven, that if you really want to know what is actually going on, foxnews is the last source for news. 

And the military capabilities talking point was a critical point of discussion for months until legitimate journalist proved all the talking points wrong on what resources were in the region and how long it would have taken to get support in theater.  Remember the Obama left them behind talking point?  Yeah its still a big deal, even when proven wrong.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 15, 2013, 08:21:18 PM
I'm a little confused about how someone who doesn't watch fox news know so much about fox news.

Are all of your grievances based on fox news hearsay?  The facts of the Benghazi spectacle and your strange conspiracy theory of a conspiracy theory make you look like a delusional imbecile.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: EMAWmeister on May 15, 2013, 08:27:40 PM
Somebody royally mumped up in either gravely underestimating the situation or just simply failing to put ourselves in a position to execute, but that happens fairly often. The fact that they tried to feed us this bullshit about some youtube video that makes amatuer porn look like Oscar winning cinematography being the reason they attacked our consolate is just mind-boggling.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 15, 2013, 08:30:46 PM
Somebody royally mumped up in either gravely underestimating the situation or just simply failing to put ourselves in a position to execute, but that happens fairly often. The fact that they tried to feed us this bullshit about some youtube video that makes amatuer porn look like Oscar winning cinematography being the reason they attacked our consolate is just mind-boggling.

Yeah. I really don't understand the people who don't think the government blew it here.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 15, 2013, 08:33:41 PM
Somebody royally mumped up in either gravely underestimating the situation or just simply failing to put ourselves in a position to execute, but that happens fairly often. The fact that they tried to feed us this bullshit about some youtube video that makes amatuer porn look like Oscar winning cinematography being the reason they attacked our consolate is just mind-boggling.

Yeah. I really don't understand the people who don't think the government blew it here.

They don't watch enough fox news.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: star seed 7 on May 15, 2013, 09:05:15 PM
Somebody royally mumped up in either gravely underestimating the situation or just simply failing to put ourselves in a position to execute, but that happens fairly often. The fact that they tried to feed us this bullshit about some youtube video that makes amatuer porn look like Oscar winning cinematography being the reason they attacked our consolate is just mind-boggling.

Yeah. I really don't understand the people who don't think the government blew it here.

i don't think anyone is against the argument that the government could have done better, but rather, people on the right seem to think obama intentionally had these people killed.

which is even more stupid.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 15, 2013, 09:08:21 PM
Perfect example of fox news hearsay
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 15, 2013, 09:09:21 PM
I'm a little confused about how someone who doesn't watch fox news know so much about fox news.

Are all of your grievances based on fox news hearsay?  The facts of the Benghazi spectacle and your strange conspiracy theory of a conspiracy theory make you look like a delusional imbecile.

MSNBC entire scope of investigative reporting is Fox news. Edna and a few others know everything there is to know about them from a whacky perspective.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 15, 2013, 09:15:51 PM
Somebody royally mumped up in either gravely underestimating the situation or just simply failing to put ourselves in a position to execute, but that happens fairly often. The fact that they tried to feed us this bullshit about some youtube video that makes amatuer porn look like Oscar winning cinematography being the reason they attacked our consolate is just mind-boggling.

Yeah. I really don't understand the people who don't think the government blew it here.

i don't think anyone is against the argument that the government could have done better, but rather, people on the right seem to think obama intentionally had these people killed.

which is even more stupid.

Dude, where did you hear that? I think pretty much everyone in the world knows they covered the real reason because Obama's campaign mantra was "OBL is dead and Al-Qaeda is on the run". How would that play if an ambassador and 3 others were just killed by Al-Qaeda?
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: star seed 7 on May 15, 2013, 09:28:22 PM
Somebody royally mumped up in either gravely underestimating the situation or just simply failing to put ourselves in a position to execute, but that happens fairly often. The fact that they tried to feed us this bullshit about some youtube video that makes amatuer porn look like Oscar winning cinematography being the reason they attacked our consolate is just mind-boggling.

Yeah. I really don't understand the people who don't think the government blew it here.

i don't think anyone is against the argument that the government could have done better, but rather, people on the right seem to think obama intentionally had these people killed.

which is even more stupid.

Dude, where did you hear that? I think pretty much everyone in the world knows they covered the real reason because Obama's campaign mantra was "OBL is dead and Al-Qaeda is on the run". How would that play if an ambassador and 3 others were just killed by Al-Qaeda?

read between the lines on fox news.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 15, 2013, 09:32:50 PM
The anti fox news people are really outing themselves for the retards they are in this thread.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on May 15, 2013, 10:30:37 PM
If Rachel Maddow or John Stewert don't talk about it, I don't know about it
Title: Re: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Rams on May 15, 2013, 10:36:40 PM
If Rachel Maddow or John Stewert don't talk about it, I don't know about it
well john stewart just did a full segment tonight in how the republicans actually have a legitimate beef with the benghazi scandal...so...
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 15, 2013, 10:43:29 PM
If Rachel Maddow or John Stewert don't talk about it, I don't know about it

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-may-13-2013/barack-trek--into-darkness (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-may-13-2013/barack-trek--into-darkness)
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: ednksu on May 15, 2013, 10:56:11 PM
I'm a little confused about how someone who doesn't watch fox news know so much about fox news.

Are all of your grievances based on fox news hearsay?  The facts of the Benghazi spectacle and your strange conspiracy theory of a conspiracy theory make you look like a delusional imbecile.
Where did I say I didn't watch their programming?  I watch their info-tainment trash to know what others are thinking and where they are getting their talking points from.  Also, Mygyn Kylly  :love:, but not for her mind.
Somebody royally mumped up in either gravely underestimating the situation or just simply failing to put ourselves in a position to execute, but that happens fairly often. The fact that they tried to feed us this bullshit about some youtube video that makes amatuer porn look like Oscar winning cinematography being the reason they attacked our consolate is just mind-boggling.

Yeah. I really don't understand the people who don't think the government blew it here.

i don't think anyone is against the argument that the government could have done better, but rather, people on the right seem to think obama intentionally had these people killed.

which is even more stupid.
This.  The Benghazi issue is a terrible example of government gone wrong, compartmentalizing, and in fighting. 

Now if you really wanna get sand in your vagina, lets discuss the AP records seizure, which is turning into another example of republican hypocrisy, lookin at you Issa.
Title: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: felix rex on May 16, 2013, 12:36:02 AM
This is basically a case of when CYA goes wrong.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: slobber on May 16, 2013, 08:32:49 AM
I have just caught up on this thread and I have learned several plausible/ highly likely things. Here are the main two.

1. There are some dumb-asses in this very thread, on goEMAW.com (unfortunately, it is not likely that you know who you are).
2. Felix Rex is not in Cairo. He is a spy, living in Manhattan, KS, coaching the KSU Wildcats Mens Basketball team...check the timelines!
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 16, 2013, 08:35:07 AM
Liar, liar... http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/newly-released-benghazi-emails-directly-contradict-white-house-claims_724603.html (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/newly-released-benghazi-emails-directly-contradict-white-house-claims_724603.html)

Quote
When Petraeus received the rewritten [bullshit] talking points, he objected. “Frankly, I’d just as soon not use this,” he wrote to a legislative affairs staffer.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 16, 2013, 09:03:55 AM
Oh please EDN, I doubt Fox News puts the lack of response by the military in Benghazi in the context of a $1 Trillion Dollar Plus annual military/industrial/complex.   Those types love that stuff.

The only person who sounds like a Fox News Guy is your conservative hard on inducing comment about "Overwhelming Force" in 24 hours.

I think you're just lashing out because things like your "indigenous populations" rising up thoughts are being excoriated again and again as a myriad of news sources from the NYT on down are outlining the heavy CIA/Western Intelligence involvement in all of this upheaval.   Libya was obviously a NATO/Western Intelligence operation and lots of people are asking why?   Not saying Gaddafi was a good guy (but hey, the U.S. is more than willing to arm their favorite thug regimes and Theocratic States to the teeth), but he had renounced terrorism, had renounced WMD desires etc. etc.   But wait, didn't he aspire for a North African Union that would be less dependent on Western economic mechanisms and influence . . . hmmm??    Have the Chinese been exerting more influence in North Africa in regards to things like energy production?  Funny how AQ seems to pop up in places the Chinese are poking around in, obviously forcing the U.S. to send in JSOC/Military resources and other "aid".

So once again, a right and proper series questions to be asking is . . . .why was Benghazi teaming with CIA spooks?   Were they there to weed out AQ, or get the usual AQ suspects ready to ship off to Syria, or was it some sort of CIA rendition destination?



Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Dugout DickStone on May 16, 2013, 09:12:02 AM
I doubt we overthrew Momar.  He was pretty much our guy.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 16, 2013, 09:17:18 AM
I doubt we overthrew Momar.  He was pretty much our guy.

Operation Odyssey Dawn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Odyssey_Dawn


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16573516



Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: felix rex on May 16, 2013, 09:20:59 AM
So once again, a right and proper series questions to be asking is . . . .why was Benghazi teaming with CIA spooks?

I feel like if the answers were nickels, I could put them in a sock and whack you in the face and still get this response.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Dugout DickStone on May 16, 2013, 09:22:15 AM
I doubt we overthrew Momar.  He was pretty much our guy.

Operation Odyssey Dawn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Odyssey_Dawn


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16573516

Interesting if true.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 16, 2013, 09:22:48 AM
So once again, a right and proper series questions to be asking is . . . .why was Benghazi teaming with CIA spooks?

I feel like if the answers were nickels, I could put them in a sock and whack you in the face and still get this response.

I pretty much feel the same way about your idiotic propaganda, only for your truth sock I'd use Platinum coins.

Title: Re: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: michigancat on May 16, 2013, 09:23:42 AM
So once again, a right and proper series questions to be asking is . . . .why was Benghazi teaming with CIA spooks?

I feel like if the answers were nickels, I could put them in a sock and whack you in the face and still get this response.

:thumbs:
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 16, 2013, 09:25:04 AM
I doubt we overthrew Momar.  He was pretty much our guy.

Operation Odyssey Dawn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Odyssey_Dawn


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16573516

Interesting if true.

So that F-15E flying out of the U.K. in support of anti Gaddafi forces didn't really crash in Libya?

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-202_162-20045015.html

The U.S. has launched cruise missiles against Libyan air defenses as part of the international military effort against Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi.

CBS News national security correspondent David Martin confirms that the Pentagon launched 50-100 cruise missiles around 2 p.m. ET Saturday, following the French fighter jets' sorties over Benghazi.


Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Dugout DickStone on May 16, 2013, 09:26:38 AM
I doubt we overthrew Momar.  He was pretty much our guy.

Operation Odyssey Dawn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Odyssey_Dawn


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16573516

Interesting if true.

So that F-15E flying out of the U.K. in support of anti Gaddafi forces didn't really crash in Libya?

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-202_162-20045015.html

The U.S. has launched cruise missiles against Libyan air defenses as part of the international military effort against Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi.

CBS News national security correspondent David Martin confirms that the Pentagon launched 50-100 cruise missiles around 2 p.m. ET Saturday, following the French fighter jets' sorties over Benghazi.


Seems like that is just a little TOO convienient though, eh?
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 16, 2013, 09:29:37 AM
I seriously think some of you dumbasses only read DNC talking points.   

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/05/how-can-we-understand-benghazi-without-probing-the-cias-role/275781/

Did an American ambassador die in Benghazi in part because the Obama Administration, like all its executive branch predecessors, decided to use diplomatic cover to protect covert CIA assets? What, exactly, were those CIA agents doing in Benghazi? These are the sorts of questions neither establishment Republicans nor establishment Democrats have an interest in answering. Says John McCain of Benghazi, "I would call it a cover-up to the extent that it was willful removal of information." The purpose of the CIA presence in Benghazi is certainly being excluded from official statements and covered up, but the Republicans clamoring for transparency and excoriating the Obama Administration for lying are okay with certain lies and opaqueness.

The disclosure they're seeking is decidedly partial.

I don't know why the press is playing along. If the American facility in Benghazi was a CIA operation disguised as a diplomatic post, let's call it a CIA facility, probe whether that fact helps explain why it was attacked, and investigate the CIA's failure to protect its personnel along with the State Department's failure to protect its employees. At present, journalists like Hayes are writing as if we should credulously accept whatever former CIA director David Petraeus says as if it's the true account of what happened. I've got no objection to getting to the bottom of Benghazi. But so long as we all pretend that it's a story about a diplomatic mission that was attacked, we'll be missing part of the truth. And so long as Republicans continue to champion the White House's prerogative to expand executive power to fight terrorism and invoke the state secrets privilege to obscure the true nature of its actions abroad, calls for "transparency" on Benghazi will be peculiar. I'm for transparency, but I want the whole story of Benghazi, including the CIA's role in it.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 16, 2013, 09:35:07 AM
I doubt we overthrew Momar.  He was pretty much our guy.

Operation Odyssey Dawn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Odyssey_Dawn


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16573516

Interesting if true.

So that F-15E flying out of the U.K. in support of anti Gaddafi forces didn't really crash in Libya?

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-202_162-20045015.html

The U.S. has launched cruise missiles against Libyan air defenses as part of the international military effort against Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi.

CBS News national security correspondent David Martin confirms that the Pentagon launched 50-100 cruise missiles around 2 p.m. ET Saturday, following the French fighter jets' sorties over Benghazi.


Seems like that is just a little TOO convienient though, eh?

Yeah, a little too convenient in terms of covering up the real reason why they wanted Gaddafi gone.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15392189

Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: 8manpick on May 16, 2013, 09:36:39 AM
Good idea. Let's be transparent about the activities of our foreign spies. :flush:
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 16, 2013, 09:38:04 AM
Good idea. Let's be transparent about the activities of our foreign spies. :flush:

Nobody is saying that dumbass, but in this case it's a perfectly applicable question in light of events.

Some of you are so far in the tank for the administration you have absolutely no objectivity whatsoever.

Sad . . . thought we had some real thinkers on here, but apparently not.

Sad

Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Dugout DickStone on May 16, 2013, 09:44:59 AM
Good idea. Let's be transparent about the activities of our foreign spies. :flush:

Nobody is saying that dumbass, but in this case it's a perfectly applicable question in light of events.

Some of you are so far in the tank for the administration you have absolutely no objectivity whatsoever.

Sad . . . thought we had some real thinkers on here, but apparently not.

Sad

This is repeating stuff but doesn't everyone know that a US installment in a ME country will have a bunch of CIA folks there?  I mean, they aren't hosting polo matches and high tea in rough ridin' Benghazi.  They are rough ridin' with stuff.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 16, 2013, 09:55:33 AM
One school of thought is that the CIA was buying weapons that Libyan militias had captured from the Libyan military for export to the "freedom fighters" in Libya.

Multiple reports of arms that the former Yugoslavia sold Gaddafi's military being found in the hands of Syrian "rebels".

Actual Libyan "Freedom Fighters" showing up on the battlegrounds of Syria is extremely well documented.   

In the vast majority of these cases, these types of operations need state sanctioned intelligence agencies in order to be effective. 



Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Dugout DickStone on May 16, 2013, 09:56:54 AM
One school of thought is that the CIA was buying weapons that Libyan militias had captured from the Libyan military for export to the "freedom fighters" in Libya.


Interesting, if true.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: felix rex on May 16, 2013, 10:02:36 AM
In the vast majority of these cases, these types of operations need state sanctioned intelligence agencies in order to be effective.

No
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 16, 2013, 10:05:09 AM
In the vast majority of these cases, these types of operations need state sanctioned intelligence agencies in order to be effective.

No

You're just trying to contrary at this juncture.

Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: felix rex on May 16, 2013, 10:10:21 AM
In the vast majority of these cases, these types of operations need state sanctioned intelligence agencies in order to be effective.

No

You're just trying to contrary at this juncture.

No
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Kat Kid on May 16, 2013, 10:20:40 AM
It is pretty hilarious that we have someone on here that is both in a position to:
1) provide more details about what actually happened
2) would probably be willing to do it

yet almost everyone would rather just spout off their own half-baked theories based on media reports that talk to sources like the one we have right here.  It is a fascinating study in epistemic closure.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 16, 2013, 10:22:09 AM
This is turning into a slaughter, amongst many potential bullet points:

From offices at secret locations, American intelligence officers have helped the Arab governments shop for weapons, including a large procurement from Croatia, and have vetted rebel commanders and groups to determine who should receive the weapons as they arrive, according to American officials speaking on the condition of anonymity. The C.I.A. declined to comment on the shipments or its role in them.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/world/middleeast/arms-airlift-to-syrian-rebels-expands-with-cia-aid.html


https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/commentaryanalysis/who-just-started-arming-syria-rebels


That sophisticated anti-tank and anti-infantry munitions are now being funneled exclusively to non-extremist rebel units, who themselves are committed to isolating al-Qaeda, suggests either a staggering coincidence or some degree of external facilitation. Now here’s another interesting fact. The M60, the M79, the RBG-6 and the RPG-22 are all currently in use by the Croatian Army.

One plausible scenario would be that these weapons were all coming from Libya, which was one of the initial arms-runners to the Syrian opposition. The former Yugoslavia, which manufactured the M60 and M79, formerly enjoyed warm ties with Muammar Qaddafi, as did Croatia prior to the Libyan revolt and subsequent NATO intervention (former Croatian President Stipe Mesi? seemed to want those ties to continue regardless).

 

So it is possible that the M60s, M79s, RPG-22s and RBG-6s were all sold to Libya a long time ago and were only just emptied from warehouses by the National Transition Council for urgent use in another country
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 16, 2013, 10:25:34 AM
It is pretty hilarious that we have someone on here that is both in a position to:
1) provide more details about what actually happened
2) would probably be willing to do it

yet almost everyone would rather just spout off their own half-baked theories based on media reports that talk to sources like the one we have right here.  It is a fascinating study in epistemic closure.

You're just pissed off that the administration is catching heat and rightfully so, and quoting articles from sources like the New York Times and other entities who are actually on the ground in these areas and then discussing them isn't a "half baked" theory.   Unless you can tell me that Felix Rex is some sort of CIA operative clearly in the know on all of these things, than I can only assume he's just a policy wonk pushing paper and spending a lot of time on a message board.

Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: felix rex on May 16, 2013, 10:31:23 AM
It's like you haven't read anything I've ever posted. :sockfullofnickels:
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 16, 2013, 10:35:42 AM
Everything you've posted falls under the Captain Obvious point of the day.


. . . Platinum coin filled sock to the face and head.


Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: felix rex on May 16, 2013, 10:37:34 AM
I kinda agree, but that's a point in my favor, not yours.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 16, 2013, 10:39:57 AM
I kinda agree, but that's a point in my favor, not yours.

What was that line from an old Clint Eastwood movie, Heartbreak Ridge, where the big guy in jail tells Clint that if he wants to pop the kid in the ass he doesn't have to butter him up so hard . . . I picture you as the big guy trying to regale the youngsters with your nothingness.

Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: felix rex on May 16, 2013, 10:40:58 AM
ok
Title: Re: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: michigancat on May 16, 2013, 10:58:40 AM
It's like you haven't read anything I've ever posted. :sockfullofnickels:

I read posts from dax and I can't understand what he's upset about. Do I need the nickel sock?

I mean, yeah, we have spies running all over the place doing potentially shady crap, but did Benghazi just bring this to light? Is he upset that people wanted to get their stories straight about the shady spies? :dunno:
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: felix rex on May 16, 2013, 11:10:00 AM
I'm really not certain. Every embassy of every country in the world is packed with spies (<--captain obvious fact of the day). So, why is it outrageous that there were CIA officers in Benghazi? And why does that dumbfuck at the Atlantic want us to relabel all our embassies as "CIA facilities"?

There's reasons to be upset about what happened, but the fact that government's don't open separate "spy facilities" in every country is hardly one of them.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 16, 2013, 11:32:28 AM
No one is the least surprised that there were CIA in Libya . . . hell they helped bring about the regime change in that country, and they're in the process of trying to bring about regime change in another country in the region.   What no one can really explain is . . . why?   At worst Libya and Syria are/were nothing but mild annoyances in the grand scheme of things and yet still, they WERE relatively stable and understandably calculating entities operating pretty much as typical nation states.

In turn we have and soon will have nothing but chaos and the CIA is playing an integral role in much of this process.

So spare me this faux overly simplistic disgust along the lines of, "well hell,  you want us to tell you who the spies are" . . . that's bullshit and a cop out. 





Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: ednksu on May 16, 2013, 11:38:53 AM
Oh please EDN, I doubt Fox News puts the lack of response by the military in Benghazi in the context of a $1 Trillion Dollar Plus annual military/industrial/complex.   Those types love that stuff.
Quote from: dax

The only person who sounds like a Fox News Guy is your conservative hard on inducing comment about "Overwhelming Force" in 24 hours.
yeah these two statements kinda conflict.  But more to the point, I sound like someone who has read a book and not talking points.
The entire point of the Airborne is to provide quick reaction force upto the Division level.  Its not about getting a hard on about our forces, its the reality of the structure of the American military. 

 
Quote from: Dax
I think you're just lashing out because things like your "indigenous populations" rising up thoughts are being excoriated again and again as a myriad of news sources from the NYT on down are outlining the heavy CIA/Western Intelligence involvement in all of this upheaval.   Libya was obviously a NATO/Western Intelligence operation and lots of people are asking why?   Not saying Gaddafi was a good guy (but hey, the U.S. is more than willing to arm their favorite thug regimes and Theocratic States to the teeth), but he had renounced terrorism, had renounced WMD desires etc. etc.   But wait, didn't he aspire for a North African Union that would be less dependent on Western economic mechanisms and influence . . . hmmm??    Have the Chinese been exerting more influence in North Africa in regards to things like energy production?  Funny how AQ seems to pop up in places the Chinese are poking around in, obviously forcing the U.S. to send in JSOC/Military resources and other "aid".

So once again, a right and proper series questions to be asking is . . . .why was Benghazi teaming with CIA spooks?   Were they there to weed out AQ, or get the usual AQ suspects ready to ship off to Syria, or was it some sort of CIA rendition destination?
Here is the inherent problem with your position which removes all Arab/ME/North Africa agency in their OWN affairs.  The US has been trying to get rid of Gaddafi for DECADES.  CIA, MI6 (especially) have been putting a large amount of assets behind his removal since Pan Am with NO success.  Just because the US is being opportunistic with its foreign policy or security objectives doesn't mean that the local insurgents didn't do the majority of the heavy lifting.   

Aside from your alex jones, gold standard, african union talking point, which is much more radical than i gave you credit for, Gaddafi was a hated man, his tribe were a hated people by large segments of the country. 
One school of thought is that the CIA was buying weapons that Libyan militias had captured from the Libyan military for export to the "freedom fighters" in Libya.

Multiple reports of arms that the former Yugoslavia sold Gaddafi's military being found in the hands of Syrian "rebels".

Actual Libyan "Freedom Fighters" showing up on the battlegrounds of Syria is extremely well documented.   

In the vast majority of these cases, these types of operations need state sanctioned intelligence agencies in order to be effective. 


Its been proven, as I've already mentioned, more of these resources went south to Mali and was once again the cause for direct (colonial) western intervention.  Now I'm sure there were a number of fighters and resources that went to Syria, but the timelines, logic, and common sense don't back that those movements occurred on a large scale like you're supposing.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 16, 2013, 11:46:44 AM
So in essence the U.S. engaged in regime change in Libya because Gaddafi was a bad guy and wasn't for all inclusive freedom for the various sects of people in Libya?

Golly, I thought regime change based on those ideals was wholly unacceptable.

"Local Insurgents" is oxymoron of n'th degree in this day and age and in that region of the world, and when F-15E's and Cruise Missiles are flying overhead in order to support the "insurgency" than it's really state sponsored regime change.



Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: felix rex on May 16, 2013, 11:46:58 AM
It is pretty hilarious that we have someone on here that is both in a position to:
1) provide more details about what actually happened
2) would probably be willing to do it

yet almost everyone would rather just spout off their own half-baked theories based on media reports that talk to sources like the one we have right here.  It is a fascinating study in epistemic closure.

I have a friend with a boring job title who was quoted in the media regarding the September protests. He had permission from the press office and gave them his full name, etc. They quoted him as "a senior Western diplomat with knowledge of the incident" or something. So we still call him variations of that sometimes.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: felix rex on May 16, 2013, 11:49:03 AM
No one is the least surprised that there were CIA in Libya . . . hell they helped bring about the regime change in that country, and they're in the process of trying to bring about regime change in another country in the region.   What no one can really explain is . . . why?   At worst Libya and Syria are/were nothing but mild annoyances in the grand scheme of things and yet still, they WERE relatively stable and understandably calculating entities operating pretty much as typical nation states.

In turn we have and soon will have nothing but chaos and the CIA is playing an integral role in much of this process.

So spare me this faux overly simplistic disgust along the lines of, "well hell,  you want us to tell you who the spies are" . . . that's bullshit and a cop out.

Do you think the U.S. triggered the incidents or merely tried to steer an inevitable shipwreck towards a friendlier shore?
Title: Re: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: michigancat on May 16, 2013, 11:51:03 AM
It is pretty hilarious that we have someone on here that is both in a position to:
1) provide more details about what actually happened
2) would probably be willing to do it

yet almost everyone would rather just spout off their own half-baked theories based on media reports that talk to sources like the one we have right here.  It is a fascinating study in epistemic closure.

I have a friend with a boring job title who was quoted in the media regarding the September protests. He had permission from the press office and gave them his full name, etc. They quoted him as "a senior Western diplomat with knowledge of the incident" or something. So we still call him variations of that sometimes.

great episode premise right there.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 16, 2013, 11:53:50 AM
No one is the least surprised that there were CIA in Libya . . . hell they helped bring about the regime change in that country, and they're in the process of trying to bring about regime change in another country in the region.   What no one can really explain is . . . why?   At worst Libya and Syria are/were nothing but mild annoyances in the grand scheme of things and yet still, they WERE relatively stable and understandably calculating entities operating pretty much as typical nation states.

In turn we have and soon will have nothing but chaos and the CIA is playing an integral role in much of this process.

So spare me this faux overly simplistic disgust along the lines of, "well hell,  you want us to tell you who the spies are" . . . that's bullshit and a cop out.

Do you think the U.S. triggered the incidents or merely tried to steer an inevitable shipwreck towards a friendlier shore?

So in other words, as long as the perception is that it went the U.S.'s way, than it's okay.   Sort of a blinders on, pro U.S. hegemony view of the world.   

Just say No to Regime Change . . . unless the Democrat administration says it worked out for the best . . . and the CIA can rally the troops and the arms for the next regime change.





Title: Re: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: felix rex on May 16, 2013, 11:55:21 AM
It is pretty hilarious that we have someone on here that is both in a position to:
1) provide more details about what actually happened
2) would probably be willing to do it

yet almost everyone would rather just spout off their own half-baked theories based on media reports that talk to sources like the one we have right here.  It is a fascinating study in epistemic closure.

I have a friend with a boring job title who was quoted in the media regarding the September protests. He had permission from the press office and gave them his full name, etc. They quoted him as "a senior Western diplomat with knowledge of the incident" or something. So we still call him variations of that sometimes.

great episode premise right there.

lol. I thought the same thing. Also, he's Mormon!
Title: Re: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: felix rex on May 16, 2013, 11:56:07 AM
It is pretty hilarious that we have someone on here that is both in a position to:
1) provide more details about what actually happened
2) would probably be willing to do it

yet almost everyone would rather just spout off their own half-baked theories based on media reports that talk to sources like the one we have right here.  It is a fascinating study in epistemic closure.

I have a friend with a boring job title who was quoted in the media regarding the September protests. He had permission from the press office and gave them his full name, etc. They quoted him as "a senior Western diplomat with knowledge of the incident" or something. So we still call him variations of that sometimes.

great episode premise right there.

Tentative title: "Mormon, Mor problems"
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: felix rex on May 16, 2013, 11:57:17 AM
No one is the least surprised that there were CIA in Libya . . . hell they helped bring about the regime change in that country, and they're in the process of trying to bring about regime change in another country in the region.   What no one can really explain is . . . why?   At worst Libya and Syria are/were nothing but mild annoyances in the grand scheme of things and yet still, they WERE relatively stable and understandably calculating entities operating pretty much as typical nation states.

In turn we have and soon will have nothing but chaos and the CIA is playing an integral role in much of this process.

So spare me this faux overly simplistic disgust along the lines of, "well hell,  you want us to tell you who the spies are" . . . that's bullshit and a cop out.

Do you think the U.S. triggered the incidents or merely tried to steer an inevitable shipwreck towards a friendlier shore?

So in other words, as long as the perception is that it went the U.S.'s way, than it's okay.   Sort of a blinders on, pro U.S. hegemony view of the world.   

Just say No to Regime Change . . . unless the Democrat administration says it worked out for the best . . . and the CIA can rally the troops and the arms for the next regime change.

Is that an answer? I bet dax would be a treat in a deposition.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: ednksu on May 16, 2013, 11:58:05 AM
So in essence the U.S. engaged in regime change in Libya because Gaddafi was a bad guy and wasn't for all inclusive freedom for the various sects of people in Libya?

Golly, I thought regime change based on those ideals was wholly unacceptable.

"Local Insurgents" is oxymoron of n'th degree in this day and age and in that region of the world, and when F-15E's and Cruise Missiles are flying overhead in order to support the "insurgency" than it's really state sponsored regime change.
Once again, just because our interest align doesn't mean its a conspiracy like you want it to be. 

Also your colonialist views betray your points once again when you confine these people's identity to the western constructed states imposed on them.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: felix rex on May 16, 2013, 11:59:35 AM
oh boy. edn just threw down the colonialist card.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 16, 2013, 12:02:35 PM
So in essence the U.S. engaged in regime change in Libya because Gaddafi was a bad guy and wasn't for all inclusive freedom for the various sects of people in Libya?

Golly, I thought regime change based on those ideals was wholly unacceptable.

"Local Insurgents" is oxymoron of n'th degree in this day and age and in that region of the world, and when F-15E's and Cruise Missiles are flying overhead in order to support the "insurgency" than it's really state sponsored regime change.
Once again, just because our interest align doesn't mean its a conspiracy like you want it to be. 

Also your colonialist views betray your points once again when you confine these people's identity to the western constructed states imposed on them.

I'd actually buy into what you're saying, but when the British Special Forces are rolling in, the "rebels" are pictured using some very high tech gear only found in Western military usage, and the F-15's are dropping guided munitions overhead . . . it all rings a little hollow.

Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: michigancat on May 16, 2013, 12:03:19 PM
It is pretty hilarious that we have someone on here that is both in a position to:
1) provide more details about what actually happened
2) would probably be willing to do it

yet almost everyone would rather just spout off their own half-baked theories based on media reports that talk to sources like the one we have right here.  It is a fascinating study in epistemic closure.

I have a friend with a boring job title who was quoted in the media regarding the September protests. He had permission from the press office and gave them his full name, etc. They quoted him as "a senior Western diplomat with knowledge of the incident" or something. So we still call him variations of that sometimes.

great episode premise right there.

Tentative title: "Mormon, Mor problems"

Do any grizzly veteran types lay down profanity tirades in front of the Mormons? That would be great. If not, I'm sure you could add it for laughs.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 16, 2013, 12:08:10 PM
No one is the least surprised that there were CIA in Libya . . . hell they helped bring about the regime change in that country, and they're in the process of trying to bring about regime change in another country in the region.   What no one can really explain is . . . why?   At worst Libya and Syria are/were nothing but mild annoyances in the grand scheme of things and yet still, they WERE relatively stable and understandably calculating entities operating pretty much as typical nation states.

In turn we have and soon will have nothing but chaos and the CIA is playing an integral role in much of this process.

So spare me this faux overly simplistic disgust along the lines of, "well hell,  you want us to tell you who the spies are" . . . that's bullshit and a cop out.

Do you think the U.S. triggered the incidents or merely tried to steer an inevitable shipwreck towards a friendlier shore?

So in other words, as long as the perception is that it went the U.S.'s way, than it's okay.   Sort of a blinders on, pro U.S. hegemony view of the world.   

Just say No to Regime Change . . . unless the Democrat administration says it worked out for the best . . . and the CIA can rally the troops and the arms for the next regime change.

Is that an answer? I bet dax would be a treat in a deposition.

Sure it's an answer . . . and yeah, I'd be a treat in anything.

Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: ednksu on May 16, 2013, 12:10:53 PM
So in essence the U.S. engaged in regime change in Libya because Gaddafi was a bad guy and wasn't for all inclusive freedom for the various sects of people in Libya?

Golly, I thought regime change based on those ideals was wholly unacceptable.

"Local Insurgents" is oxymoron of n'th degree in this day and age and in that region of the world, and when F-15E's and Cruise Missiles are flying overhead in order to support the "insurgency" than it's really state sponsored regime change.
Once again, just because our interest align doesn't mean its a conspiracy like you want it to be. 

Also your colonialist views betray your points once again when you confine these people's identity to the western constructed states imposed on them.

I'd actually buy into what you're saying, but when the British Special Forces are rolling in, the "rebels" are pictured using some very high tech gear only found in Western military usage, and the F-15's are dropping guided munitions overhead . . . it all rings a little hollow.
They're using motorola talkabouts from Sam's club! That doesn't prove that its a western operation either, all it shows is that they had material support, something we already knew and that the US and other western countries have admitted to.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: felix rex on May 16, 2013, 12:13:14 PM
It is pretty hilarious that we have someone on here that is both in a position to:
1) provide more details about what actually happened
2) would probably be willing to do it

yet almost everyone would rather just spout off their own half-baked theories based on media reports that talk to sources like the one we have right here.  It is a fascinating study in epistemic closure.

I have a friend with a boring job title who was quoted in the media regarding the September protests. He had permission from the press office and gave them his full name, etc. They quoted him as "a senior Western diplomat with knowledge of the incident" or something. So we still call him variations of that sometimes.

great episode premise right there.

Tentative title: "Mormon, Mor problems"

Do any grizzly veteran types lay down profanity tirades in front of the Mormons? That would be great. If not, I'm sure you could add it for laughs.

And sometimes when they bring snacks they make things like kahlua cake just so the mormons can't have any (mormons are notorious office snack hogs).
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: felix rex on May 16, 2013, 12:14:27 PM
No one is the least surprised that there were CIA in Libya . . . hell they helped bring about the regime change in that country, and they're in the process of trying to bring about regime change in another country in the region.   What no one can really explain is . . . why?   At worst Libya and Syria are/were nothing but mild annoyances in the grand scheme of things and yet still, they WERE relatively stable and understandably calculating entities operating pretty much as typical nation states.

In turn we have and soon will have nothing but chaos and the CIA is playing an integral role in much of this process.

So spare me this faux overly simplistic disgust along the lines of, "well hell,  you want us to tell you who the spies are" . . . that's bullshit and a cop out.

Do you think the U.S. triggered the incidents or merely tried to steer an inevitable shipwreck towards a friendlier shore?

So in other words, as long as the perception is that it went the U.S.'s way, than it's okay.   Sort of a blinders on, pro U.S. hegemony view of the world.   

Just say No to Regime Change . . . unless the Democrat administration says it worked out for the best . . . and the CIA can rally the troops and the arms for the next regime change.

Is that an answer? I bet dax would be a treat in a deposition.

Sure it's an answer . . . and yeah, I'd be a treat in anything.

I agree with this. I think we'd have a great time.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 16, 2013, 12:23:41 PM
So in essence the U.S. engaged in regime change in Libya because Gaddafi was a bad guy and wasn't for all inclusive freedom for the various sects of people in Libya?

Golly, I thought regime change based on those ideals was wholly unacceptable.

"Local Insurgents" is oxymoron of n'th degree in this day and age and in that region of the world, and when F-15E's and Cruise Missiles are flying overhead in order to support the "insurgency" than it's really state sponsored regime change.
Once again, just because our interest align doesn't mean its a conspiracy like you want it to be. 

Also your colonialist views betray your points once again when you confine these people's identity to the western constructed states imposed on them.

I'd actually buy into what you're saying, but when the British Special Forces are rolling in, the "rebels" are pictured using some very high tech gear only found in Western military usage, and the F-15's are dropping guided munitions overhead . . . it all rings a little hollow.
They're using motorola talkabouts from Sam's club! That doesn't prove that its a western operation either, all it shows is that they had material support, something we already knew and that the US and other western countries have admitted to.

edn's definition of "material support":

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRkOzwFpCfoO5GaHtv_1u8w69AtWYG2PtLHKF41M0hSWDVunNleSQ)

We wanted the poor Libyan civilians to have a little scrap metal to sell.





Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: OregonSmock on May 16, 2013, 12:25:43 PM
Oh please EDN, I doubt Fox News puts the lack of response by the military in Benghazi in the context of a $1 Trillion Dollar Plus annual military/industrial/complex.   Those types love that stuff.

The only person who sounds like a Fox News Guy is your conservative hard on inducing comment about "Overwhelming Force" in 24 hours.

I think you're just lashing out because things like your "indigenous populations" rising up thoughts are being excoriated again and again as a myriad of news sources from the NYT on down are outlining the heavy CIA/Western Intelligence involvement in all of this upheaval.   Libya was obviously a NATO/Western Intelligence operation and lots of people are asking why?   Not saying Gaddafi was a good guy (but hey, the U.S. is more than willing to arm their favorite thug regimes and Theocratic States to the teeth), but he had renounced terrorism, had renounced WMD desires etc. etc.   But wait, didn't he aspire for a North African Union that would be less dependent on Western economic mechanisms and influence . . . hmmm??    Have the Chinese been exerting more influence in North Africa in regards to things like energy production?  Funny how AQ seems to pop up in places the Chinese are poking around in, obviously forcing the U.S. to send in JSOC/Military resources and other "aid".

So once again, a right and proper series questions to be asking is . . . .why was Benghazi teaming with CIA spooks?   Were they there to weed out AQ, or get the usual AQ suspects ready to ship off to Syria, or was it some sort of CIA rendition destination?


So do you have a problem with the fact that the United States has intelligence operations in other countries, or is it the fact that those intelligence operations try to manipulate things to benefit the United States?
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 16, 2013, 12:40:02 PM
Oh please EDN, I doubt Fox News puts the lack of response by the military in Benghazi in the context of a $1 Trillion Dollar Plus annual military/industrial/complex.   Those types love that stuff.

The only person who sounds like a Fox News Guy is your conservative hard on inducing comment about "Overwhelming Force" in 24 hours.

I think you're just lashing out because things like your "indigenous populations" rising up thoughts are being excoriated again and again as a myriad of news sources from the NYT on down are outlining the heavy CIA/Western Intelligence involvement in all of this upheaval.   Libya was obviously a NATO/Western Intelligence operation and lots of people are asking why?   Not saying Gaddafi was a good guy (but hey, the U.S. is more than willing to arm their favorite thug regimes and Theocratic States to the teeth), but he had renounced terrorism, had renounced WMD desires etc. etc.   But wait, didn't he aspire for a North African Union that would be less dependent on Western economic mechanisms and influence . . . hmmm??    Have the Chinese been exerting more influence in North Africa in regards to things like energy production?  Funny how AQ seems to pop up in places the Chinese are poking around in, obviously forcing the U.S. to send in JSOC/Military resources and other "aid".

So once again, a right and proper series questions to be asking is . . . .why was Benghazi teaming with CIA spooks?   Were they there to weed out AQ, or get the usual AQ suspects ready to ship off to Syria, or was it some sort of CIA rendition destination?


So do you have a problem with the fact that the United States has intelligence operations in other countries, or is it the fact that those intelligence operations try to manipulate things to benefit the United States?

Not when it has the potential of getting 10's of thousands of more people killed, and the potential of turning the region into a bigger chowder keg than it already is.   Not when it has the potential of allowing arms that were under the control of the existing regime to then be funneled to places all over the region . . . which is what happened in Libya, and could very easily happen in Syria.




Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: felix rex on May 16, 2013, 12:47:04 PM
So basically, you're against the Arab Spring.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: ednksu on May 16, 2013, 12:49:14 PM
So basically, you're against the CIArab Spring.
fify
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: michigancat on May 16, 2013, 12:49:55 PM
And sometimes when they bring snacks they make things like kahlua cake just so the mormons can't have any (mormons are notorious office snack hogs).

oh man. when my mormon in-laws visited last summer, we were at this fair that had free ice cream, but there was only one flavor and it had coffee beans in it. THEY WENT APESHIT ON IT. Did their two year old son enjoy it? YOU BET YOUR ASS HE DID. SECONDS FOR EVERYONE.
Title: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: felix rex on May 16, 2013, 01:33:13 PM
And sometimes when they bring snacks they make things like kahlua cake just so the mormons can't have any (mormons are notorious office snack hogs).

oh man. when my mormon in-laws visited last summer, we were at this fair that had free ice cream, but there was only one flavor and it had coffee beans in it. THEY WENT APESHIT ON IT. Did their two year old son enjoy it? YOU BET YOUR ASS HE DID. SECONDS FOR EVERYONE.

Episode
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 16, 2013, 01:37:12 PM
So basically, you're against the Arab Spring.

LOL, good one.

I'm dating myself, but if I were to have a theme song for the Arab Spring and the U.S. reaction and support of say, oh, the opposition in Bahrain, I'd probably use Depeche Mode's "Enjoy the Silence".

But then again, there's the whole crazy Fifth Fleet thing and all that.

If you don't fully support the U.S./CIA unknown endgame in the "Arab Spring" (replete with Cruise Missiles and Guided munitions when needed) than you hate Democracy and 'Merika!!

It's like the same movie only in an alternative universe.






Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: OregonSmock on May 16, 2013, 01:51:55 PM
So basically, you're against the Arab Spring.

LOL, good one.

I'm dating myself, but if I were to have a theme song for the Arab Spring and the U.S. reaction and support of say, oh, the opposition in Bahrain, I'd probably use Depeche Mode's "Enjoy the Silence".

But then again, there's the whole crazy Fifth Fleet thing and all that.

If you don't fully support the U.S./CIA unknown endgame in the "Arab Spring" (replete with Cruise Missiles and Guided munitions when needed) than you hate Democracy and 'Merika!!

It's like the same movie only in an alternative universe.


History repeats itself, which is part of the problem.  It would be great if everyone could just sing kumbaya and leave each other alone, but that's not in our nature as humans.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: CNS on May 16, 2013, 03:14:45 PM
And sometimes when they bring snacks they make things like kahlua cake just so the mormons can't have any (mormons are notorious office snack hogs).

oh man. when my mormon in-laws visited last summer, we were at this fair that had free ice cream, but there was only one flavor and it had coffee beans in it. THEY WENT APESHIT ON IT. Did their two year old son enjoy it? YOU BET YOUR ASS HE DID. SECONDS FOR EVERYONE.

Episode

This is why it will never get made.  Too all over the place.  I mean, is it about Cairo, is it about Mormons, is it about weird street food, etc.  Maybe a sketch comedy, but not a normal sitcom. 
Title: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: felix rex on May 16, 2013, 03:18:06 PM
And sometimes when they bring snacks they make things like kahlua cake just so the mormons can't have any (mormons are notorious office snack hogs).

oh man. when my mormon in-laws visited last summer, we were at this fair that had free ice cream, but there was only one flavor and it had coffee beans in it. THEY WENT APESHIT ON IT. Did their two year old son enjoy it? YOU BET YOUR ASS HE DID. SECONDS FOR EVERYONE.

Episode

This is why it will never get made.  Too all over the place.  I mean, is it about Cairo, is it about Mormons, is it about weird street food, etc.  Maybe a sketch comedy, but not a normal sitcom.

Well, that's myopic.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: CNS on May 16, 2013, 03:21:06 PM
And sometimes when they bring snacks they make things like kahlua cake just so the mormons can't have any (mormons are notorious office snack hogs).

oh man. when my mormon in-laws visited last summer, we were at this fair that had free ice cream, but there was only one flavor and it had coffee beans in it. THEY WENT APESHIT ON IT. Did their two year old son enjoy it? YOU BET YOUR ASS HE DID. SECONDS FOR EVERYONE.

Episode

This is why it will never get made.  Too all over the place.  I mean, is it about Cairo, is it about Mormons, is it about weird street food, etc.  Maybe a sketch comedy, but not a normal sitcom.

Well, that's myopic.

Maybe if you get the right producer.  Like Marky Mark or something.   :dunno:
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: michigancat on May 16, 2013, 03:22:46 PM
I'm thinking something similar to Veep.
Title: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: felix rex on May 16, 2013, 03:26:59 PM
I'm thinking something similar to Veep.

I was thinking more Sports Night. Also, I want Sorkin walking dialogues and lots of cringy awkward silences. I will not bend on this.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: michigancat on May 16, 2013, 03:28:00 PM
I'm thinking something similar to Veep.

I was thinking more Sports Night. Also, I want Sorkin walking dialogues and lots of cringy awkward silences. I will not bend on this.

that would work, too. stay true to your vision.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: OK_Cat on May 16, 2013, 03:29:45 PM
seinfeld-ish. 
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 16, 2013, 03:48:53 PM
Man imagine the good times and story lines if Romney had been elected.

Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: michigancat on May 16, 2013, 03:50:02 PM
Man imagine the good times and story lines if Romney had been elected.



you could set it during the 2012 election, theoretically. I'm not sure you'll need to, though.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: OK_Cat on May 16, 2013, 04:37:23 PM
speaking of mormons - my unaware co-worker is mormon and her daughter is getting married soon.  apparently, us non-mormon people aren't allowed to go into their church thing.  (temple?)  so they have a reception at a different location where they do a ring swap. 

seems weird to be so secretive or whatevs. 

could be an episode.  like the main guy forgot his mormon card and they won't let him in, and his friends are saving him a seat and get really frustrated that people try and sit down and he isn't there.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: michigancat on May 16, 2013, 05:12:42 PM
speaking of mormons - my unaware co-worker is mormon and her daughter is getting married soon.  apparently, us non-mormon people aren't allowed to go into their church thing.  (temple?)  so they have a reception at a different location where they do a ring swap. 

seems weird to be so secretive or whatevs. 

could be an episode.  like the main guy forgot his mormon card and they won't let him in, and his friends are saving him a seat and get really frustrated that people try and sit down and he isn't there.

Yeah, you have to have a "temple recommend" to actually go to the wedding. My wife couldn't go to either of her sisters' weddings. Part of receiving a recommend is having your finances analyzed to make sure you are tithing enough.

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/10141-tithing-there-standard-time-one-must-have-been-paying.html

would be a great episode, if there was a mormon temple in friggin cairo. (Of course, there is one in Nigeria and one in Rome which could make for a great trip in which the non-mormon's travel for the wedding only to find out they don't actually get to go into the wedding). (also all mormons get married while students at BYU)
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: CNS on May 16, 2013, 05:20:02 PM
You realize  you guys are basically rewriting Big Love with some terrorists mixed in there, right?

Also, the episode about the magical undergarments should be the one where the guy gets stabbed by the homeless guy and you could make fun of how magical they are or something. 
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: michigancat on May 16, 2013, 05:47:38 PM
You realize  you guys are basically rewriting Big Love with some terrorists mixed in there, right?

Also, the episode about the magical undergarments should be the one where the guy gets stabbed by the homeless guy and you could make fun of how magical they are or something. 

Big Love was a stupid fantasy show focused entirely on fake mormons. Mormons are just an adorable sub-story here.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Institutional Control on May 16, 2013, 06:02:00 PM
You realize  you guys are basically rewriting Big Love with some terrorists mixed in there, right?

Also, the episode about the magical undergarments should be the one where the guy gets stabbed by the homeless guy and you could make fun of how magical they are or something. 

Big Love was a stupid fantasy show focused entirely on fake mormons. Mormons are just an adorable sub-story here.

This guy is no fantasy.

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ol9Smu9QYf4/TjvyU827J-I/AAAAAAAAANw/ACdbhc5KxwA/s1600/WarrenJeffsMug.jpg)
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 17, 2013, 09:54:58 AM
Back on topic, Bob Woodward compares Benghazi to Watergate on MSNBC (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/woodward-i-would-not-dismiss-benghazi-similar-watergate_724707.html). It's always the cover-up that gets you.

And more than 6 months later, still no explanation by Obama about the bullshit youtube video meme. Liberals: "Eh, so the administration lied, big whoop. Eh, so they used the IRS to suppress votes and free speech. Eh, so they tapped reporters' phones. He's our guy, and he favors gay marriage and higher taxes on successful people, and that's all that really matters."
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: OK_Cat on May 17, 2013, 09:58:01 AM
speaking of mormons - my unaware co-worker is mormon and her daughter is getting married soon.  apparently, us non-mormon people aren't allowed to go into their church thing.  (temple?)  so they have a reception at a different location where they do a ring swap. 

seems weird to be so secretive or whatevs. 

could be an episode.  like the main guy forgot his mormon card and they won't let him in, and his friends are saving him a seat and get really frustrated that people try and sit down and he isn't there.

Yeah, you have to have a "temple recommend" to actually go to the wedding. My wife couldn't go to either of her sisters' weddings. Part of receiving a recommend is having your finances analyzed to make sure you are tithing enough.

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/10141-tithing-there-standard-time-one-must-have-been-paying.html

would be a great episode, if there was a mormon temple in friggin cairo. (Of course, there is one in Nigeria and one in Rome which could make for a great trip in which the non-mormon's travel for the wedding only to find out they don't actually get to go into the wedding). (also all mormons get married while students at BYU)

traveling to rome only to not be allowed into the wedding would be a great episode.  so far, this show is better than some of the crap on tv right now.   :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Super PurpleCat on May 17, 2013, 02:00:20 PM
I do have to LOL a little at the "well the military just isn't suited for, you know, just doing stuff at the drop of a hat" talking point in regards to Benghazi.

I mean really, a Trillion plus dollar a year military/intelligence/industrial complex and we don't have anybody on alert for these kinds of things in a place like the Middle East and North Africa?

Where were you in 2003 when we invaded Iraq?  Do you remember when 4th ID was delayed for months because Turkey refused to let us ship our equipment through their airspace, so we had to put that stuff on container ships and go the long way around?  Logistics isn't easy at that scale. 

And you don't just send in a small force without properly assessing the threat level.  The US military learned that lesson all too well in 1993 in Mogadishu.

Quote
What happens when the Chinese fire one of the "carrier killer" anti-shipping missiles at us?  Do we have to convene meetings at every level of the Navy, conduct 2 years of research and write 15,000 pages of White Papers before we can react?

No, because the Navy has been planning and training for that sort of scenario for years now.  Not to mention we have plenty of assets in place for just that sort of event.

Quote
The foreign media was all over the AQ presence in Benghazi for months prior to the Embassy attack . . . but then again, we probably didn't want that out there all that much considering we used our "usual suspect" AL-CIAda types to overthrow Gaddafi to begin with.

Go look at the timeline of events of when President Bush sent in troops to Liberia in 2003 to secure the US Embassy there.  That should give you an idea of our reaction capabilities in North Africa.  Former Defense Secretary Gates is right on this, as he should know.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: GCJayhawker on May 17, 2013, 02:55:58 PM
So it turns out that Congressional GOP members/staffers lied to the press about what was in the Benghazi emails, interesting.  Still doesn't excuse the massive safety fuckup that happened at the embassy but is interesting.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Kat Kid on July 01, 2013, 10:06:16 AM
http://m.democracynow.org/stories/13745 (http://m.democracynow.org/stories/13745)
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 01, 2013, 11:35:20 AM
http://m.democracynow.org/stories/13745 (http://m.democracynow.org/stories/13745)

I'm pretty sure the attack was a spontaneous demonstration over a video that got out of hand when a few hooligans with hand held rockets joined in. This info was directly from the administration. That book must be from infowars or something.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: OregonSmock on July 01, 2013, 12:20:43 PM
Benghazi frustrates butthurt Republicans to no end.  They have been hoping and praying for a scandal that would take down President McBlackenstein for a while now, but none of this weak crap is getting any public interest.  The IRS scandal turned out to be nothing as well.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: p1k3 on July 01, 2013, 12:26:14 PM
Benghazi frustrates butthurt Republicans to no end.  They have been hoping and praying for a scandal that would take down President McBlackenstein for a while now, but none of this weak crap is getting any public interest.  The IRS scandal turned out to be nothing as well.

and the NSA stuff is going away too. Barry has stripped us of all our freedoms and no one even gives a damn
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 01, 2013, 12:52:54 PM
Ben is just one of those Obamabots who just doesn't care, as long as the President has a (D) next to his name people like Ben will be there to explain and apologize every step of the way.

It's a shame that the Ambassador had to get killed while the CIA was shipping Yugoslavian built arms sold to the Libyan Army to the Islamic "Freedom Fighters" in Syria.



Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 01, 2013, 12:55:30 PM

Once again, thanks to Ben for the "Race" Variation of Godwin's law, albeit I'd have to check and see if Ben or anyone else dropped it earlier in the thread.   If not, major props for holding off for so long, but ultimately succumbing to the overriding urge.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Kat Kid on July 01, 2013, 01:56:42 PM
congrats to dax on finally finding someone to direct his "only when a (D) is prez" rant at.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 01, 2013, 02:07:07 PM
Thanks KK . . . Ben will come along and say that's not the case.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: OregonSmock on July 01, 2013, 04:06:54 PM
The false outrage is especially hilarious.  Well done, 'Pad.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: EMAWmeister on July 05, 2013, 12:20:27 PM
Benghazi is pretty mumped up, not sure why people say it isn't.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: sys on July 05, 2013, 09:32:57 PM
Benghazi is pretty mumped up, not sure why people say it isn't.

because the people saying it was ended up rough ridin' up felix rex's travel (nontravel) plans, just like we said they would.
Title: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: felix rex on July 05, 2013, 10:22:54 PM
Benghazi is pretty mumped up, not sure why people say it isn't.

because the people saying it was ended up rough ridin' up felix rex's travel (nontravel) plans, just like we said they would.

They are breaking up families.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: p1k3 on July 05, 2013, 11:29:52 PM
It's because the Barry apologists can't get over their delusion that he's an honest and caring beacon of freedom, even when there is ass loads of facts to the contrary. The Barry apologists don't want to admit they're wrong. I'm not sure what it will take at this point.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: EMAWmeister on July 06, 2013, 02:56:35 AM
Benghazi is pretty mumped up, not sure why people say it isn't.

because the people saying it was ended up rough ridin' up felix rex's travel (nontravel) plans, just like we said they would.

They are breaking up families.

FR, I don't want you or your wife to die. So I hope they protect you and stuff.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 06, 2013, 09:18:06 AM
Look at Egypt.  This administration was loving all over a guy who had/has the most radical/conservative Islamic sects out on the streets protesting his ouster and demanding his return.    While the secularists, Christians and others were out on the streets in Egypt demanding his ouster the administration decides they have no comment.

Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 06, 2013, 10:37:33 AM
Look at Egypt.  This administration was loving all over a guy who had/has the most radical/conservative Islamic sects out on the streets protesting his ouster and demanding his return.    While the secularists, Christians and others were out on the streets in Egypt demanding his ouster the administration decides they have no comment.

I don't see how the administration could see this as anything but a good thing.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 06, 2013, 02:22:49 PM
It's because the Barry apologists can't get over their delusion that he's an honest and caring beacon of freedom, even when there is ass loads of facts to the contrary. The Barry apologists don't want to admit they're wrong. I'm not sure what it will take at this point.

They are a pathetic herd of people, for sure.

I feel sorry for them until they get up in my face with their psycho bullshit. To that end, they are also an obnoxious herd of people.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 21, 2013, 01:56:26 PM
Bump: just to laugh at all the libtards that believed believed the Obama administrations lie that this attack was prompted by a youtube video, and by implication, not the rioters fault.

 :lol:
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on September 19, 2013, 03:34:58 PM
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/09/19/spitting-on-their-graves-democrats-leave-benghazi-hearing-before-testimony-from-benghazi-families-n1704732 (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/09/19/spitting-on-their-graves-democrats-leave-benghazi-hearing-before-testimony-from-benghazi-families-n1704732)
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 19, 2013, 05:28:48 PM
When you're running arms from the Libyan army weapons caches and likely helping AQ leaning "Freedom Fighters" (of which numerous have come out of the Benghazi area in the last 7 to 9 years) get to Syria, you have to treat the death of an Ambassador as colateral damage.

Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on October 28, 2013, 08:49:04 AM
Americans in Benghazi Died, Hillary Lied. Hillary 2016!!!

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/60-minutes-benghazi_764832.html (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/60-minutes-benghazi_764832.html)
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on October 28, 2013, 09:48:35 AM
Americans in Benghazi Died, Hillary Lied. Hillary 2016!!!

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/60-minutes-benghazi_764832.html (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/60-minutes-benghazi_764832.html)

That's not very catchy. "Hillary lied, people died" is better.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: CNS on October 28, 2013, 09:50:31 AM
Americans in Benghazi Died, Hillary Lied. Hillary 2016!!!

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/60-minutes-benghazi_764832.html (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/60-minutes-benghazi_764832.html)

That's not very catchy. "Hillary lied, people died" is better.

Yeah, it's just lazy that you can't rhyme Benghazi with something. 
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on October 28, 2013, 11:32:29 AM
Americans in Benghazi Died, Hillary Lied. Hillary 2016!!!

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/60-minutes-benghazi_764832.html (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/60-minutes-benghazi_764832.html)

That's not very catchy. "Hillary lied, people died" is better.

Yeah, it's just lazy that you can't rhyme Benghazi with something.

True, fugazi is an easy and appropriate one.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 28, 2013, 12:13:07 PM
So, once again, the entire initial narrative from the administration about what actually happened and why.   Has been wholly and completely discredited.

The entire area was a hot bed of CIA arms smuggling and CIA "Freedom Fighter" recruitment.

Had this taken place under a Republican administration they would have been excoriated and likely impeached by a Democratically controlled Congress.

But the new paradigm is, the CIA is "Cool" . . . until a Republican is elected to the Oval Office.



Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Stupid Fitz on October 28, 2013, 12:22:38 PM
None of this matters or counts because Obammer didn't know about it.  Benghazi  :dunno: wasn't aware of it, disaster of a healthcare.gov  :dunno: He doesn't need it so why would he test it, illegally spying on not just American doodz  :dunno: no idea, wasn't me???

I'm starting to think being president is different than I thought it was.  I guess, I thought you did and knew about really important things, but apparently not. 
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 28, 2013, 12:23:46 PM
"Al Quada has grown in power across Libya . . . " Lara Logan CBS News

Why is anyone the least bit surprised?  This is what happens when you overthrow relatively stable governments in the region.

The question is, why?

Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on October 28, 2013, 12:48:12 PM
Sad but true. The only thing that has kept the entire middle east under control is heavy handed dictators. The whole area is going to blow up at some point. In hindsight, Saddam should have been left alone.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: p1k3 on October 28, 2013, 01:59:22 PM
None of this matters or counts because Obammer didn't know about it.  Benghazi  :dunno: wasn't aware of it, disaster of a healthcare.gov  :dunno: He doesn't need it so why would he test it, illegally spying on not just American doodz  :dunno: no idea, wasn't me???

I'm starting to think being president is different than I thought it was.  I guess, I thought you did and knew about really important things, but apparently not.

It's like the Prez doesn't really do a damn thing, ya know?
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: p1k3 on October 28, 2013, 02:04:37 PM
None of this matters or counts because Obammer didn't know about it.  Benghazi  :dunno: wasn't aware of it, disaster of a healthcare.gov  :dunno: He doesn't need it so why would he test it, illegally spying on not just American doodz  :dunno: no idea, wasn't me???

I'm starting to think being president is different than I thought it was.  I guess, I thought you did and knew about really important things, but apparently not.

It's like the Prez doesn't really do a damn thing, ya know?

I mean he either does know about all this stuff and is just lying to us (likely) or is just a worthless figure head puppet guy (plausible).
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Stupid Fitz on October 28, 2013, 08:09:32 PM
Both of those excuses/reasons are terrible and hilarious.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Kat Kid on November 09, 2013, 03:22:26 PM
Americans in Benghazi Died, Hillary Lied. Hillary 2016!!!

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/60-minutes-benghazi_764832.html (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/60-minutes-benghazi_764832.html)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/60-minutes-apologizes-for-benghazi-report/2013/11/08/6e7b6b9a-487e-11e3-a196-3544a03c2351_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/60-minutes-apologizes-for-benghazi-report/2013/11/08/6e7b6b9a-487e-11e3-a196-3544a03c2351_story.html)
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: felix rex on November 09, 2013, 05:33:21 PM
lol
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on November 09, 2013, 06:30:51 PM
Americans in Benghazi Died, Hillary Lied. Hillary 2016!!!

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/60-minutes-benghazi_764832.html (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/60-minutes-benghazi_764832.html)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/60-minutes-apologizes-for-benghazi-report/2013/11/08/6e7b6b9a-487e-11e3-a196-3544a03c2351_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/60-minutes-apologizes-for-benghazi-report/2013/11/08/6e7b6b9a-487e-11e3-a196-3544a03c2351_story.html)

CBS isn't to be trusted.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: jmlynch1 on November 09, 2013, 06:41:15 PM
Americans in Benghazi Died, Hillary Lied. Hillary 2016!!!

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/60-minutes-benghazi_764832.html (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/60-minutes-benghazi_764832.html)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/60-minutes-apologizes-for-benghazi-report/2013/11/08/6e7b6b9a-487e-11e3-a196-3544a03c2351_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/60-minutes-apologizes-for-benghazi-report/2013/11/08/6e7b6b9a-487e-11e3-a196-3544a03c2351_story.html)

CBS isn't to be trusted.
look at fox though, sticking to their make believe guns :gocho:
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 09, 2013, 09:21:12 PM
So it really was a YouTube video that caused it? I'll be damned
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: felix rex on November 10, 2013, 04:31:07 AM
So it really was a YouTube video that caused it? I'll be damned

I'll regret this, but ... wut?
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 10, 2013, 08:27:07 AM
Oh hey guys, that guy may have lied, so that makes everything okay now.  The CIA "Freedoom Fighter" recruitment, the running of Libyan weapons to Syria, the dead ambassador and other dead Americans.  It's all okay now because some British dude may have lied.

Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 10, 2013, 06:13:56 PM
Oh hey guys, that guy may have lied, so that makes everything okay now.  The CIA "Freedoom Fighter" recruitment, the running of Libyan weapons to Syria, the dead ambassador and other dead Americans.  It's all okay now because some British dude may have lied.

This was my point
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on April 30, 2014, 03:54:14 PM
And now the emails finally surface proving that the White House was directly involved in pushing the bullshit talking point (which they knew at the time to be bullshit) about this being a spontaneous riot in response to an internet video. The White House was afraid that, otherwise, this would negatively reflect on its "foreign policy."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/emails-illustrate-how-white-house-shaped-benghazi-talking-points/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/emails-illustrate-how-white-house-shaped-benghazi-talking-points/)

Quote
Obtained by the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch through a Freedom of Information Act request, an email from then-White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes (the brother of CBS News president David Rhodes) listed several goals for then-United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice as she prepared to go on political talk shows just a few days after the Sept. 11, 2012 attack.

Rhodes wrote that one "goal" for Rice was "To underscore that these protests are rooted in and Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy." Another stated "goal" was to "reinforce the President and Administration's strength."
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on April 30, 2014, 04:03:53 PM
This is what it looks like when the media does it's job (even though it fell to a conservative watchdog group to actually request the email). http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/04/30/jon_karl_challenges_jay_carney_over_new_benghazi_email.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/04/30/jon_karl_challenges_jay_carney_over_new_benghazi_email.html)
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on April 30, 2014, 04:56:09 PM
This is what it looks like when the media does it's job (even though it fell to a conservative watchdog group to actually request the email). http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/04/30/jon_karl_challenges_jay_carney_over_new_benghazi_email.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/04/30/jon_karl_challenges_jay_carney_over_new_benghazi_email.html)

I remember Jake Tapper of ABC doing that to the first press secretary, the bird looking guy. He ended up at CNN shortly thereafter. Jon Karl will probably be out within a few weeks.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: bubbles4ksu on April 30, 2014, 05:51:17 PM
do you guys think obama should have gulf on tonkin'd this thing and started a war?
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: michigancat on April 30, 2014, 06:09:36 PM
is the media's job to ask the same question over and over for 8 minutes? If so, well done.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Benja on April 30, 2014, 06:18:50 PM
Benghazi is a fun word to say. Ben-ga-ZI. Ben-GA-zi. BENGA-zi.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on April 30, 2014, 06:46:09 PM
is the media's job to ask the same question over and over for 8 minutes? If so, well done.

Depends on if you get a relevant answer or not. I must admit that Carney is a true pro at deflection.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 30, 2014, 09:08:35 PM
B.O.,Hillary, et al. get caught lying in their cover up operation and the goE libtards race to deflect and discredit those asking the questions. Pathetic.

The media should still be there asking these questions until an actual answer is given.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 01, 2014, 08:06:44 AM
Cong. Tim Huelskamp ?@CongHuelskamp  17h
Listening to former VP Cheney talk about dangers of Obama foreign policy #fiascos
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 01, 2014, 10:12:29 AM
B.O.,Hillary, et al. get caught lying in their cover up operation and the goE libtards race to deflect and discredit those asking the questions. Pathetic.

The media should still be there asking these questions until an actual answer is given.

Most of the media will provide dutiful coverage for a day or two, then quickly move on to less embarrassing topics. They won't bang the drum like they would if it was a republican admin. Just too biased. Any one of Obama's scandals (fast&furious, irs targeting, Benghazi coverup, nakedly political closing of monuments and scenic overlooks during budget battle, just to name a few) would have caused far greater damage if the MSM had applied the same level of persistence and skepticism that it applies to Republicans.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 01, 2014, 10:14:26 AM
B.O.,Hillary, et al. get caught lying in their cover up operation and the goE libtards race to deflect and discredit those asking the questions. Pathetic.

The media should still be there asking these questions until an actual answer is given.

Most of the media will provide dutiful coverage for a day or two, then quickly move on to less embarrassing topics. They won't bang the drum like they would if it was a republican admin. Just too biased. Any one of Obama's scandals (fast&furious, irs targeting, Benghazi coverup, nakedly political closing of monuments and scenic overlooks during budget battle, just to name a few) would have caused far greater damage if the MSM had applied the same level of persistence and skepticism that it applies to Republicans.

Do you have an example of a republican scandal that the media really just showed a ton of persistence and skepticism toward?
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 01, 2014, 10:27:25 AM
B.O.,Hillary, et al. get caught lying in their cover up operation and the goE libtards race to deflect and discredit those asking the questions. Pathetic.

The media should still be there asking these questions until an actual answer is given.

Most of the media will provide dutiful coverage for a day or two, then quickly move on to less embarrassing topics. They won't bang the drum like they would if it was a republican admin. Just too biased. Any one of Obama's scandals (fast&furious, irs targeting, Benghazi coverup, nakedly political closing of monuments and scenic overlooks during budget battle, just to name a few) would have caused far greater damage if the MSM had applied the same level of persistence and skepticism that it applies to Republicans.

Do you have an example of a republican scandal that the media really just showed a ton of persistence and skepticism toward?

Are you serious? How about Abu Graib (sp) and Gitmo for starters. Non stop for months. I think there was some mention of Abu Graib on front cover if NYT for something like a month straight. And that's just off the top of my head.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 01, 2014, 10:28:45 AM
Also, the Bush "attorney general scandal". Media ran with it for over a month. Again, just off top of my head.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 01, 2014, 10:31:03 AM
B.O.,Hillary, et al. get caught lying in their cover up operation and the goE libtards race to deflect and discredit those asking the questions. Pathetic.

The media should still be there asking these questions until an actual answer is given.

Most of the media will provide dutiful coverage for a day or two, then quickly move on to less embarrassing topics. They won't bang the drum like they would if it was a republican admin. Just too biased. Any one of Obama's scandals (fast&furious, irs targeting, Benghazi coverup, nakedly political closing of monuments and scenic overlooks during budget battle, just to name a few) would have caused far greater damage if the MSM had applied the same level of persistence and skepticism that it applies to Republicans.

Do you have an example of a republican scandal that the media really just showed a ton of persistence and skepticism toward?

Are you serious? How about Abu Graib (sp) and Gitmo for starters. Non stop for months. I think there was some mention of Abu Graib on front cover if NYT for something like a month straight. And that's just off the top of my head.

The media has been covering the IRS scandal for a whole year now. Also, Abu Graib was not a republican scandal.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 01, 2014, 10:32:17 AM
Chris Christie's Bridgegate compared to the IRS targeting being uncovered at the same time.

You can't seriously be suggesting there's an even standard applied by the MSM.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 01, 2014, 10:33:11 AM
Chris Christie's Bridgegate compared to the IRS targeting being uncovered at the same time.

You can't seriously be suggesting there's an even standard applied by the MSM.

I haven't heard about Chris Christie's bridge since the week it happened.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 01, 2014, 10:35:18 AM
B.O.,Hillary, et al. get caught lying in their cover up operation and the goE libtards race to deflect and discredit those asking the questions. Pathetic.

The media should still be there asking these questions until an actual answer is given.

Most of the media will provide dutiful coverage for a day or two, then quickly move on to less embarrassing topics. They won't bang the drum like they would if it was a republican admin. Just too biased. Any one of Obama's scandals (fast&furious, irs targeting, Benghazi coverup, nakedly political closing of monuments and scenic overlooks during budget battle, just to name a few) would have caused far greater damage if the MSM had applied the same level of persistence and skepticism that it applies to Republicans.

Do you have an example of a republican scandal that the media really just showed a ton of persistence and skepticism toward?

Are you serious? How about Abu Graib (sp) and Gitmo for starters. Non stop for months. I think there was some mention of Abu Graib on front cover if NYT for something like a month straight. And that's just off the top of my head.

The media has been covering the IRS scandal for a whole year now. Also, Abu Graib was not a republican scandal.

If you think the media is covering the IRS scandal with same tenacity as if it were a republican admin, I can't help you. And you're right, Abu Ghraib was not a republican scandal, but tell that to the NYT and other media outlets which repeatedly linked it to Bush. You've gotta be kidding me with this crap.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 01, 2014, 10:38:27 AM
B.O.,Hillary, et al. get caught lying in their cover up operation and the goE libtards race to deflect and discredit those asking the questions. Pathetic.

The media should still be there asking these questions until an actual answer is given.

Most of the media will provide dutiful coverage for a day or two, then quickly move on to less embarrassing topics. They won't bang the drum like they would if it was a republican admin. Just too biased. Any one of Obama's scandals (fast&furious, irs targeting, Benghazi coverup, nakedly political closing of monuments and scenic overlooks during budget battle, just to name a few) would have caused far greater damage if the MSM had applied the same level of persistence and skepticism that it applies to Republicans.

Do you have an example of a republican scandal that the media really just showed a ton of persistence and skepticism toward?

Are you serious? How about Abu Graib (sp) and Gitmo for starters. Non stop for months. I think there was some mention of Abu Graib on front cover if NYT for something like a month straight. And that's just off the top of my head.

The media has been covering the IRS scandal for a whole year now. Also, Abu Graib was not a republican scandal.

If you think the media is covering the IRS scandal with same tenacity as if it were a republican admin, I can't help you. And you're right, Abu Ghraib was not a republican scandal, but tell that to the NYT and other media outlets which repeatedly linked it to Bush. You've gotta be kidding me with this crap.

Hannity has mentioned the IRS scandal at least 3 times this week. That's pretty impressive coverage, if you ask me.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 01, 2014, 11:32:15 AM
Chris Christie's Bridgegate compared to the IRS targeting being uncovered at the same time.

You can't seriously be suggesting there's an even standard applied by the MSM.

I haven't heard about Chris Christie's bridge since the week it happened.

You haven't been paying attention.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 01, 2014, 01:33:08 PM
B.O.,Hillary, et al. get caught lying in their cover up operation and the goE libtards race to deflect and discredit those asking the questions. Pathetic.

The media should still be there asking these questions until an actual answer is given.

Most of the media will provide dutiful coverage for a day or two, then quickly move on to less embarrassing topics. They won't bang the drum like they would if it was a republican admin. Just too biased. Any one of Obama's scandals (fast&furious, irs targeting, Benghazi coverup, nakedly political closing of monuments and scenic overlooks during budget battle, just to name a few) would have caused far greater damage if the MSM had applied the same level of persistence and skepticism that it applies to Republicans.

Do you have an example of a republican scandal that the media really just showed a ton of persistence and skepticism toward?

Are you serious? How about Abu Graib (sp) and Gitmo for starters. Non stop for months. I think there was some mention of Abu Graib on front cover if NYT for something like a month straight. And that's just off the top of my head.

The media has been covering the IRS scandal for a whole year now. Also, Abu Graib was not a republican scandal.

If you think the media is covering the IRS scandal with same tenacity as if it were a republican admin, I can't help you. And you're right, Abu Ghraib was not a republican scandal, but tell that to the NYT and other media outlets which repeatedly linked it to Bush. You've gotta be kidding me with this crap.

Hannity has mentioned the IRS scandal at least 3 times this week. That's pretty impressive coverage, if you ask me.

Well there you go. Because there's one cable news network with prime time conservative pundits, that balances everything out.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 01, 2014, 01:35:16 PM
Does it not? :dunno:
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 01, 2014, 03:02:41 PM
Does it not? :dunno:

The only TV news outlets that count in this discussion are ABC, NBC, and CBS.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 01, 2014, 03:06:11 PM
Does it not? :dunno:

The only TV news outlets that count in this discussion are ABC, NBC, and CBS.

I don't watch any of those so I really can't comment on them. I usually just stick with CNN/Fox. Sometimes MSNBC if I want to see what the far left has to say about something going on.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: steve dave on May 01, 2014, 03:14:12 PM
as a moderate, I love mocking people who complain about bias in whatever news they watch/listen/read. very similar to the mocking of fanbases complaining about ESPN or whoever having it out for their team.  :love:
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 01, 2014, 03:22:37 PM
Compared to Fox/MSNBC, CNN is straight down the middle. I'm sure ABC, NBC, and CBS are also moderate. Extremists make for much better tv, though, imo. I like watching Hannity and that guy that comes on after Rachel Maddow's show. Ed something.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 01, 2014, 03:49:38 PM
Compared to Fox/MSNBC, CNN is straight down the middle. I'm sure ABC, NBC, and CBS are also moderate. Extremists make for much better tv, though, imo. I like watching Hannity and that guy that comes on after Rachel Maddow's show. Ed something.

CNN is the best of the cable news, especially Erin Burnett. Maddow and her clone Chris Hayes are hilarious. She spent 2 solid months on bridgegate as her lead story, and nothing has ever come of it.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 01, 2014, 03:53:47 PM
Compared to Fox/MSNBC, CNN is straight down the middle. I'm sure ABC, NBC, and CBS are also moderate. Extremists make for much better tv, though, imo. I like watching Hannity and that guy that comes on after Rachel Maddow's show. Ed something.

CNN is the best of the cable news, especially Erin Burnett. Maddow and her clone Chris Hayes are hilarious. She spent 2 solid months on bridgegate as her lead story, and nothing has ever come of it.

I like Ed Schultz. He comes on after Maddow and always has polls on the show and then goes on and on about how the people want whatever liberal issue he is pushing because it's winning the poll with more than 90% of the votes. Maddow is pretty good, too.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on May 01, 2014, 04:02:38 PM
Maddow is amazing.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 01, 2014, 04:19:21 PM
Compared to Fox/MSNBC, CNN is straight down the middle. I'm sure ABC, NBC, and CBS are also moderate. Extremists make for much better tv, though, imo. I like watching Hannity and that guy that comes on after Rachel Maddow's show. Ed something.

CNN is the best of the cable news, especially Erin Burnett. Maddow and her clone Chris Hayes are hilarious. She spent 2 solid months on bridgegate as her lead story, and nothing has ever come of it.

I like Ed Schultz. He comes on after Maddow and always has polls on the show and then goes on and on about how the people want whatever liberal issue he is pushing because it's winning the poll with more than 90% of the votes. Maddow is pretty good, too.

I thought he was relegated to saturday nights for some hate speech against republicans or war on women or something.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 01, 2014, 04:20:00 PM
Compared to Fox/MSNBC, CNN is straight down the middle. I'm sure ABC, NBC, and CBS are also moderate. Extremists make for much better tv, though, imo. I like watching Hannity and that guy that comes on after Rachel Maddow's show. Ed something.

CNN is the best of the cable news, especially Erin Burnett. Maddow and her clone Chris Hayes are hilarious. She spent 2 solid months on bridgegate as her lead story, and nothing has ever come of it.

I like Ed Schultz. He comes on after Maddow and always has polls on the show and then goes on and on about how the people want whatever liberal issue he is pushing because it's winning the poll with more than 90% of the votes. Maddow is pretty good, too.

I thought he was relegated to saturday nights for some hate speech against republicans or war on women or something.

I don't know. I don't tune in very often. It wouldn't be surprising.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 01, 2014, 09:46:55 PM
McKee is trolling. Trying to divert attention from the disgusting lies perpetrated by his deity.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: puniraptor on May 02, 2014, 07:05:09 AM
The free market meets the demand for media. The people aren't being controlled by the MSM, the MSM is giving the people what they want.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: steve dave on May 02, 2014, 07:32:52 AM
espn never talks good about the cats because they have an agenda and hate our guts!
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 02, 2014, 09:12:20 AM
The free market meets the demand for media. The people aren't being controlled by the MSM, the MSM is giving the people what they want.

It's a real shame the MSM isn't reporting both sides any more.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 02, 2014, 12:27:34 PM
No bias here. Benghazi? "That's a Fox Story." (http://downtrend.com/brian-carey/foxs-ed-henry-other-reporters-will-tease-me-and-tell-me-that-benghazi-is-a-fox-story/)

No bias here. (unbiased) reporter for (unbiased) AP trades emails with State Dep spokeswoman bashing Fox's coverage of Benghazi non-story. (http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2014/04/30/matthew-lee-ap-colluded-victoria-nuland-bash-fox-news-benghazi-coverage/)
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: steve dave on May 02, 2014, 12:41:37 PM
 :love:
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: star seed 7 on May 02, 2014, 12:44:59 PM
Last time I tuned into fox, it was megan kelly outraged that obamas moment of silence for the boston bombing wasn't open to the press. No bias there.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 02, 2014, 01:25:51 PM
The free market is butt rough ridin' the MSM. Nobody watches their news shows. Fox is annihilating them, despite 24/7 carpet bombing from the msm.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: michigancat on May 02, 2014, 02:28:18 PM
No bias here. Benghazi? "That's a Fox Story." (http://downtrend.com/brian-carey/foxs-ed-henry-other-reporters-will-tease-me-and-tell-me-that-benghazi-is-a-fox-story/)

No bias here. (unbiased) reporter for (unbiased) AP trades emails with State Dep spokeswoman bashing Fox's coverage of Benghazi non-story. (http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2014/04/30/matthew-lee-ap-colluded-victoria-nuland-bash-fox-news-benghazi-coverage/)

:D
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: puniraptor on May 02, 2014, 03:11:14 PM
The free market is butt rough ridin' the MSM. Nobody watches their news shows. Fox is annihilating them, despite 24/7 carpet bombing from the msm.

fox is also the msm, bruh.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 02, 2014, 03:14:24 PM
No, Fox manages to be the most watched cable news network without being mainstream at the same time.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 02, 2014, 03:43:05 PM
No, Fox manages to be the most watched cable news network without being mainstream at the same time.

Not to split hairs, but MSM does not refer to cable news. It refers to the dinosaur networks and publications of much broader circulation and viewership.

FoxNews is obviously the most watched cable news network because it's the only somewhat conservative news network, at least in terms if its pundits. Liberal viewership is much more diluted across the great many networks with a liberal slant.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 02, 2014, 03:44:57 PM
No, Fox manages to be the most watched cable news network without being mainstream at the same time.

The only reason fox news is #1 is because there is no competition.

When CNN was a distant third in the cable news wars, they decided to try an get some of fox's viewers by becoming more centered in their reporting, and it worked. Now they at least battle for last with MSNBC even though the 2 combined have about half of what fox has.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 02, 2014, 04:44:23 PM
The reason Fox is number one is because we live in a center right country. Just because the minority screams the loudest doesn't mean anyone is listening.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: steve dave on May 02, 2014, 04:58:16 PM
this thread got amazing :love:
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 02, 2014, 05:51:30 PM
Like I've said, they want it all covered up because it was the epicenter of a large CIA arms smuggling and "freedom fighter" recruiting operation.

I saw a documentary the other day about the overthrow and Qaddafi, and the only thing missing from U.S. involvement was regular army boots on the ground.  Otherwise U.S. forces and CIA assets filled the skies, coordinated, commanded and dropped the bombs/fired the missiles to support the overthrow.  Ultimately leaving Libya in ruins and full of Islamic Fundamentalist oriented gangs.

But hey, we didn't actually "invade", so no worries.



Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Headinjun on May 02, 2014, 09:22:58 PM
That is very quite plausible DAX.

Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Jabeez on May 03, 2014, 12:43:58 PM
The reason Fox is number one is because we live in a center right country. Just because the minority screams the loudest doesn't mean anyone is listening.
popular  votes don't agree.

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 03, 2014, 10:02:21 PM
The reason Fox is number one is because we live in a center right country. Just because the minority screams the loudest doesn't mean anyone is listening.
popular  votes don't agree.

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

Less than 30% of eligible voters cast a ballot for Obama in 2012.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Jabeez on May 03, 2014, 10:09:06 PM
The reason Fox is number one is because we live in a center right country. Just because the minority screams the loudest doesn't mean anyone is listening.
popular  votes don't agree.

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

Less than 30% of eligible voters cast a ballot for Obama in 2012.
I thought republicans were the not lazy ones?

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 04, 2014, 12:14:09 AM
The reason Fox is number one is because we live in a center right country. Just because the minority screams the loudest doesn't mean anyone is listening.
popular  votes don't agree.

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

Less than 30% of eligible voters cast a ballot for Obama in 2012.
I thought republicans were the not lazy ones?

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

It can be a pain to go vote after work.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: bubbles4ksu on May 04, 2014, 12:11:31 PM
Pffffft!
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: LickNeckey on May 04, 2014, 09:47:25 PM
The reason Fox is number one is because we live in a center right country. Just because the minority screams the loudest doesn't mean anyone is listening.
popular  votes don't agree.

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

Less than 30% of eligible voters cast a ballot for Obama in 2012.
I thought republicans were the not lazy ones?

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

It can be a pain to go vote after work.

 :lol:
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: LickNeckey on May 04, 2014, 09:49:05 PM
The reason Fox is number one is because we live in a center right country. Just because the minority screams the loudest doesn't mean anyone is listening.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/01/28/strong-majority-of-americans-nra-members-back-gun-control
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 05, 2014, 12:49:38 PM
Hey, at least the MSM is talking about it. Meet the Press discusses Benghazi with... will.i.am? (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/05/04/meet_the_press_panel_benghazi_smoking_gun__role_of_government.html)
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 05, 2014, 12:50:55 PM
Remember this guy on MSNBC? Cenk Uygur demonstrates Liberal discourse on Benghazi (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/05/04/cenk_uygur_explodes_on_gop_over_benghazi_fck_you_move_the_fck_on.html)
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 05, 2014, 12:53:53 PM
And this guy, apparently some sort of Obama security council advisor :lol:, further demonstrates the quality of liberal discourse re Benghazi Vietor: "Dude, that was like two years ago." (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/05/01/fmr_security_council_spokesman_tommy_veitor_on_benghazi_dude_this_was_two_years_ago.html)  :lol:
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Kat Kid on May 05, 2014, 01:07:19 PM
Meet the press is awful.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Asteriskhead on May 05, 2014, 03:04:42 PM
Meet the press is awful.

what in the world?

edit: I guess you're not wrong. I forget that I watch it to laugh at everyone who gets brought on.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Kat Kid on May 05, 2014, 03:50:21 PM
Meet the press is awful.

what in the world?

edit: I guess you're not wrong. I forget that I watch it to laugh at everyone who gets brought on.

Oh I always try to watch some middle aged to elderly white people arguing with each other every Sunday morning.  David Gregory is just awful at his job and really hard to watch.

Below I will rank:

1.  Fox News Sunday- Chris Wallace's boarding school debate team/editorial board smirk is well worth the price of admission.  It is a great bookend to George Will's serious Millhouse face.  But the whole panel rotation is pretty great: Bill Kristol's sparkly laugh and smile, Mara Liasson's terrifying glare, Dana Perino's helpful hints.  I also like exasperated Juan Williams.  I really miss Fred Barnes excited hand gestures and Mort Kondrake's "isn't he an upper plains Democrat?" demeanor on Sundays and I don't much care for grumpy Brit Hume or angry Laura Ingraham. 

2.  This Week- I don't like George Stephanopolous much.  He seems like he is struggling to understand things while controlling diarrhea or passing a stone when he is trying to project seriousness.  He also is awkward when he tries to have fun or listens to whatever funny Jay Leno or Jimmy Kimmel made that we are all supposed to chuckle at.  George Will is better in this format because he gets to be exasperated, which he does very well.  He is very good at debating in a panel and it is no wonder he is now a regular on two shows.  Krugman is usually bad in this format because he doesn't really understand how to do talking points and the format does not allow him to talk over people to continue banter or grill someone.  Peggy's crazy pronouncements while closing her eyes and imagining it is the 1980's are really fun.  Cokie Roberts is terrible.  Sam Donaldson is terrible.  Van Jones is terrible.  Mark Halperin is terrible.  Fareed is always unable to engage with people much dumber than him which is the same problem that Christine Amanpour always had.  The main problem with almost all of these characters is they all refuse to say anything interesting.  Apparently Laura Ingraham came on this past Sunday and threw some bombs, but everyone seemed just kind of shocked and didn't really respond.  It is a real shame that Christopher Hitchens never caught on with one of the Sunday shows because he would've been a real treat at opposing all BS and stinking the place up with his lack of couth.

3.  Bob Schieffer - old person.  I almost never watch this.

4.  MSNBC - Up with Steve Kornacki is terrible.

5.  David Gregory is awful.  His weird head bobble, his terrible questions filled with unstated assumptions, his relentless smiling, his inexplicable haircut.  He is the worst.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: michigancat on May 05, 2014, 03:57:55 PM
KK, have you read "This Town"? I think you'd enjoy it.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Kat Kid on May 05, 2014, 04:22:03 PM
KK, have you read "This Town"? I think you'd enjoy it.

I have not.  I am currently on a leave from long reads.  But that might be a good summer read.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: ChiComCat on May 05, 2014, 04:29:50 PM
No, Fox manages to be the most watched cable news network without being mainstream at the same time.

The only reason fox news is #1 is because there is no competition.

When CNN was a distant third in the cable news wars, they decided to try an get some of fox's viewers by becoming more centered in their reporting, and it worked. Now they at least battle for last with MSNBC even though the 2 combined have about half of what fox has.

If the two other outlets combine for 33% of the 24 hour news media, I also think the MSM butthurt needs to stop.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 05, 2014, 04:49:58 PM
No, Fox manages to be the most watched cable news network without being mainstream at the same time.

The only reason fox news is #1 is because there is no competition.

When CNN was a distant third in the cable news wars, they decided to try an get some of fox's viewers by becoming more centered in their reporting, and it worked. Now they at least battle for last with MSNBC even though the 2 combined have about half of what fox has.

If the two other outlets combine for 33% of the 24 hour news media, I also think the MSM butthurt needs to stop.

Considering fox news has about 2 million viewers and the 3 major broadcast evening network news shows have about 21 million viewers, the butthurt will probably continue. Sad that Obama keeps harping on poor little Fox news when he owns the rest.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Asteriskhead on May 05, 2014, 08:52:29 PM
@Kat Kid- I've only ever watched David and George's programs, and my own opinion is that George is much worse at his job than David is (I don't think David is very good). Maybe I should broaden my horizons and watch some other old white people arguing on Sunday morning shows, but one of my favorite things to do while hungover on a Sunday morning is ponder why David Gregory's eyebrows are a different color than the hair on his head. I've tweeted this question at him at least twice and have never received a response.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 05, 2014, 11:02:02 PM
If Kat Kat and his pals got angered up and decided to storm NBC (Rockefeller Center?) to murder David and his staff, and then burn the building down, would goE try to cover it up by blaming it on a Sugar Dick blot post?
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: steve dave on May 06, 2014, 07:24:58 AM
Meet the press is awful.

what in the world?

edit: I guess you're not wrong. I forget that I watch it to laugh at everyone who gets brought on.

Oh I always try to watch some middle aged to elderly white people arguing with each other every Sunday morning.  David Gregory is just awful at his job and really hard to watch.

Below I will rank:

1.  Fox News Sunday- Chris Wallace's boarding school debate team/editorial board smirk is well worth the price of admission.  It is a great bookend to George Will's serious Millhouse face.  But the whole panel rotation is pretty great: Bill Kristol's sparkly laugh and smile, Mara Liasson's terrifying glare, Dana Perino's helpful hints.  I also like exasperated Juan Williams.  I really miss Fred Barnes excited hand gestures and Mort Kondrake's "isn't he an upper plains Democrat?" demeanor on Sundays and I don't much care for grumpy Brit Hume or angry Laura Ingraham. 

2.  This Week- I don't like George Stephanopolous much.  He seems like he is struggling to understand things while controlling diarrhea or passing a stone when he is trying to project seriousness.  He also is awkward when he tries to have fun or listens to whatever funny Jay Leno or Jimmy Kimmel made that we are all supposed to chuckle at.  George Will is better in this format because he gets to be exasperated, which he does very well.  He is very good at debating in a panel and it is no wonder he is now a regular on two shows.  Krugman is usually bad in this format because he doesn't really understand how to do talking points and the format does not allow him to talk over people to continue banter or grill someone.  Peggy's crazy pronouncements while closing her eyes and imagining it is the 1980's are really fun.  Cokie Roberts is terrible.  Sam Donaldson is terrible.  Van Jones is terrible.  Mark Halperin is terrible.  Fareed is always unable to engage with people much dumber than him which is the same problem that Christine Amanpour always had.  The main problem with almost all of these characters is they all refuse to say anything interesting.  Apparently Laura Ingraham came on this past Sunday and threw some bombs, but everyone seemed just kind of shocked and didn't really respond.  It is a real shame that Christopher Hitchens never caught on with one of the Sunday shows because he would've been a real treat at opposing all BS and stinking the place up with his lack of couth.

3.  Bob Schieffer - old person.  I almost never watch this.

4.  MSNBC - Up with Steve Kornacki is terrible.

5.  David Gregory is awful.  His weird head bobble, his terrible questions filled with unstated assumptions, his relentless smiling, his inexplicable haircut.  He is the worst.

enjoyed this
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 06, 2014, 09:07:03 AM
No, Fox manages to be the most watched cable news network without being mainstream at the same time.

The only reason fox news is #1 is because there is no competition.

When CNN was a distant third in the cable news wars, they decided to try an get some of fox's viewers by becoming more centered in their reporting, and it worked. Now they at least battle for last with MSNBC even though the 2 combined have about half of what fox has.

If the two other outlets combine for 33% of the 24 hour news media, I also think the MSM butthurt needs to stop.

Considering fox news has about 2 million viewers and the 3 major broadcast evening network news shows have about 21 million viewers, the butthurt will probably continue. Sad that Obama keeps harping on poor little Fox news when he owns the rest.

Fox News runs all day every day, though. The 3 major broadcasting networks only air 1 hour per day on weeknights.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: star seed 7 on May 06, 2014, 09:15:46 AM
i'm pretty glad fox isn't considered msm.  think about if actual media behaved like they do?  naw, i'll stick with the impartials.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 06, 2014, 11:00:51 AM
i'm pretty glad fox isn't considered msm.  think about if actual media behaved like they do?  naw, i'll stick with the impartials.

Just as you think the MSM is impartial, the far right thinks Fox is impartial. Moderates are the only ones that see they all are partisan.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: steve dave on May 06, 2014, 11:08:29 AM
i'm pretty glad fox isn't considered msm.  think about if actual media behaved like they do?  naw, i'll stick with the impartials.

Just as you think the MSM is impartial, the far right thinks Fox is impartial. Moderates are the only ones that see they all are partisan.

I don't think the intelligent far right think fox is impartial.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: michigancat on May 06, 2014, 11:09:55 AM
Everyone has biases.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 06, 2014, 11:28:43 AM
i'm pretty glad fox isn't considered msm.  think about if actual media behaved like they do?  naw, i'll stick with the impartials.

Just as you think the MSM is impartial, the far right thinks Fox is impartial. Moderates are the only ones that see they all are partisan.

I don't think the intelligent far right think fox is impartial.

Any stance with "far" in front of it is not intelligent.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 06, 2014, 12:18:52 PM
The problem with a biased MSM is that it gives Dems a pronounced advantage among low information voters. The vast majority of folks who bother to watch cable news have already made up their minds, and are relatively well informed (at least as compared to the folks who get their news predominately from E!).

The persuadable low information voters are who the parties are gunning for, and these people just don't pay much attention to news. They get their news in dribs and drabs - a snippet from the morning shows, entertainment/gossip/reality shows, the occasional newspaper or magazine front page sitting in the hotel, restaurant, or waiting room. These media are dominated by liberals. Maybe they'll tune in to one or two of the presidential debates, moderated by - you guessed it - liberals. In the second debate, for example, between Romney and Obama, Candy Crowley did Romney a severe disservice by "fact checking" one of his statements about Benghazi - a statement that was true. Crowley acknowledged her mistake the next day, but the damage was done.

So while FoxNews and talk radio provide nice alternatives for conservatives, they don't have much effect in persuading the low information voters. Fox's biggest impact is occasionally shaming the other networks into providing more coverage of stories they would rather ignore. Stories like Benghazi and the Goznell serial killer abortionist, for example.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 06, 2014, 12:53:44 PM
Everyone has biases.

Yes, but the networks now have agendas, and they all happen to be working for the left. News reporting has become indistinguishable from commentary.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Unruly on May 06, 2014, 01:03:27 PM
The problem with a biased MSM is that it gives Dems a pronounced advantage among low information voters. The vast majority of folks who bother to watch cable news have already made up their minds, and are relatively well informed (at least as compared to the folks who get their news predominately from E!).

The persuadable low information voters are who the parties are gunning for, and these people just don't pay much attention to news. They get their news in dribs and drabs - a snippet from the morning shows, entertainment/gossip/reality shows, the occasional newspaper or magazine front page sitting in the hotel, restaurant, or waiting room. These media are dominated by liberals. Maybe they'll tune in to one or two of the presidential debates, moderated by - you guessed it - liberals. In the second debate, for example, between Romney and Obama, Candy Crowley did Romney a severe disservice by "fact checking" one of his statements about Benghazi - a statement that was true. Crowley acknowledged her mistake the next day, but the damage was done.

So while FoxNews and talk radio provide nice alternatives for conservatives, they don't have much effect in persuading the low information voters. Fox's biggest impact is occasionally shaming the other networks into providing more coverage of stories they would rather ignore. Stories like Benghazi and the Goznell serial killer abortionist, for example.

 :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

http://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5?utm_source=slate&utm_medium=referral&utm_term=partner#!JEFNn
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 06, 2014, 01:25:16 PM
The problem with a biased MSM is that it gives Dems a pronounced advantage among low information voters. The vast majority of folks who bother to watch cable news have already made up their minds, and are relatively well informed (at least as compared to the folks who get their news predominately from E!).

The persuadable low information voters are who the parties are gunning for, and these people just don't pay much attention to news. They get their news in dribs and drabs - a snippet from the morning shows, entertainment/gossip/reality shows, the occasional newspaper or magazine front page sitting in the hotel, restaurant, or waiting room. These media are dominated by liberals. Maybe they'll tune in to one or two of the presidential debates, moderated by - you guessed it - liberals. In the second debate, for example, between Romney and Obama, Candy Crowley did Romney a severe disservice by "fact checking" one of his statements about Benghazi - a statement that was true. Crowley acknowledged her mistake the next day, but the damage was done.

So while FoxNews and talk radio provide nice alternatives for conservatives, they don't have much effect in persuading the low information voters. Fox's biggest impact is occasionally shaming the other networks into providing more coverage of stories they would rather ignore. Stories like Benghazi and the Goznell serial killer abortionist, for example.

No, they haven't made up their minds. That is why they need Hannity/O'Reilly/Maddow, etc. to tell them what to think about current events.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 06, 2014, 01:36:33 PM
Fox News is biased right.   MSNBC might as well broadcast from the DNC headquarters.

Just got reminded of a story the other day.  Late WHPS Tony Snow busted David Gregory in a daily briefing.   Gregory was reading his questions from a DNC talking points one pager, and Snow called him on it by pulling out a copy and reading the exact same questions off of it.



Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: bubbles4ksu on May 06, 2014, 01:40:45 PM
http://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5?utm_source=slate&utm_medium=referral&utm_term=partner#!JEFNn
that is self-selecting. a lot of out of touch senior citizens watch fox news. you can look at a list of the groups that sponsor npr and tell that it is society's elite.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 06, 2014, 01:41:19 PM
Just admit it resident progressive liberals.  Had Benghazi occurred under the watch of a Republican administration, your reps in Congress would have already been moving stridently down the path of impeachment.   The CIA weapons running and recruitment of "freedom righters" aka terrorists in the region by the CIA would have already been exposed and hearings would already have been under way to reel the CIA back in and loop off a whole bunch of heads in the process.

In fact, the whole overthrow of Qhadaffi would have elicited a list of hearings before various committees that would have gone on for weeks/months.





Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Unruly on May 06, 2014, 01:52:47 PM
In the political facebook thread

:dunno:


(https://scontent-a-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1.0-9/1939966_10152342801759090_1351559459_n.png)
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 06, 2014, 02:33:34 PM
In the political facebook thread

:dunno:


(https://scontent-a-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1.0-9/1939966_10152342801759090_1351559459_n.png)

Was a U.S. Ambassador killed in any of those other situations?   Were the areas involved essentially way points for CIA clandestine activity involving the smuggling of weapons formally controlled by a regime the CIA had over thrown?   Was there expansive CIA recruitment of "freedom fighters" to be shipped to another CIA (Western Intelligence) regime change operation?

Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 06, 2014, 02:38:53 PM
In the political facebook thread

:dunno:


(https://scontent-a-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1.0-9/1939966_10152342801759090_1351559459_n.png)

Also, pretty sure the bush administration blamed those on coordinated terrorist attacks and responded accordingly.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 06, 2014, 02:48:46 PM
In the political facebook thread

:dunno:


(https://scontent-a-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1.0-9/1939966_10152342801759090_1351559459_n.png)

Also, pretty sure the bush administration blamed those on coordinated terrorist attacks and responded accordingly.

No, I'm sure they must have blamed it on a spontaneous protest in response to an internet video, so as not to have their foreign policy called into question.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: bubbles4ksu on May 06, 2014, 02:53:10 PM
where do you nutjobs think this ranks against iran-contra?
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: michigancat on May 06, 2014, 04:22:28 PM
Well, if we're gonna fight wars, I'd prefer clandestine CIA operations to say...what we did in Vietnam or Iraq.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 06, 2014, 05:09:02 PM
Well, if we're gonna fight wars, I'd prefer clandestine CIA operations to say...what we did in Vietnam or Iraq.

Agreed. Just get rid of the guys at the top and deny any involvement. Nation building is for losers.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: bubbles4ksu on May 06, 2014, 05:11:32 PM
Well, if we're gonna fight wars, I'd prefer clandestine CIA operations to say...what we did in Vietnam or Iraq.

Agreed. Just get rid of the guys at the top and deny any involvement. Nation building is for losers.
eff neocons and their rough ridin' nation building. there isn't a worse foreign policy.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: michigancat on May 06, 2014, 05:14:33 PM
Well, if we're gonna fight wars, I'd prefer clandestine CIA operations to say...what we did in Vietnam or Iraq.

Agreed. Just get rid of the guys at the top and deny any involvement. Nation building is for losers.

I really don't know what you're trying to say here.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 06, 2014, 05:59:19 PM
Yes, let's use the CIA and then leave a complete power vacuum behind which in turn creates an even more fertile breeding ground for militaristic radical fundamentalists (the perfect place to recruit future "freedom fighters" from).

Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: michigancat on May 06, 2014, 06:13:32 PM
I'd prefer we not get involved at all. But yeah, I'd still take the secret power vacuum thing over the nation building.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 06, 2014, 06:20:03 PM
I'd prefer we not get involved at all. But yeah, I'd still take the secret power vacuum thing over the nation building.

Throw the lead, count the dead . . . leave.

Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 06, 2014, 09:35:11 PM
I support whatever the Democrat is supports and oppose what lever the Democrat opposes.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: star seed 7 on May 07, 2014, 01:44:38 AM
i have to lol at the idea of the "low information voter" sitting around and watching the 6pm national news...  :lol:
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: bubbles4ksu on May 07, 2014, 02:04:11 AM
i have to lol at the idea of the "low information voter" sitting around and watching the 6pm national news...  :lol:
"low information voter" is a rush limbaugh catchphrase. when you hear someone say it you can guarantee that they rely on AM radio to teach them about the world.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 07, 2014, 11:14:10 AM
Cong. Tim Huelskamp ?@CongHuelskamp  9m
That many? 7% of journalists are Republicans & #MediaBias doesn’t exist. http://goo.gl/jnrcQU
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 07, 2014, 10:42:30 PM
i have to lol at the idea of the "low information voter" sitting around and watching the 6pm national news...  :lol:
"low information voter" is a rush limbaugh catchphrase. when you hear someone say it you can guarantee that they rely on AM radio to teach them about the world.

Folks, you can guarantee it!
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: GCJayhawker on May 08, 2014, 08:30:02 AM
I enjoyed The colbert report last night showing a clip from "The Five" on Fox news.  Had one of the anchor guys trying to come up with some conspiracy for why the White House handled Benghazi the way they did, but his timeline was all wrong and he got called out on it, on air, by another repub anchor on the show. 

The guy tried to say the Benghazi attack happened before Bin Laden was killed so the President didn't want to look soft on terror by admitting the truth.  Pretty LOL stuff.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 08, 2014, 11:45:38 AM
I enjoyed The colbert report last night showing a clip from "The Five" on Fox news.  Had one of the anchor guys trying to come up with some conspiracy for why the White House handled Benghazi the way they did, but his timeline was all wrong and he got called out on it, on air, by another repub anchor on the show. 

The guy tried to say the Benghazi attack happened before Bin Laden was killed so the President didn't want to look soft on terror by admitting the truth.  Pretty LOL stuff.

Well, that's pretty dumb. Everyone knows the coverup was because the election was less than a month away and they were touting bin laded was dead and al-qaeda was on the run.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 13, 2014, 12:48:39 PM
An interesting look back at the email that just came out recently. No wonder Jon Karl was so adamant about getting to the truth. He knew about this email not being released nearly a year ago and was pilloried by the leftists for bringing it up then.

From a year ago:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-boehlert/shouldnt-jonathan-karl-re_b_3286898.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-boehlert/shouldnt-jonathan-karl-re_b_3286898.html)

Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 13, 2014, 01:31:16 PM
From the above link:

Quote from:  Media Matters
Another key question is whether Karl should reveal the source who misled him. While journalists take seriously the vow to not reveal the identity of confidential sources in exchange for the information that those sources provide, it's not unheard of for journalists to reveal source identities if it's proven that that person badly misled a reporter or passed along bogus information. Some observers think that's what happened in the case of the Benghazi talking points.

"The answer here is that Karl pretty clearly got burned by his source," wrote Talking Points Memo editor, Josh Marshall.

Reporters enter into an agreement and give anonymity to sources in exchange for information, and specifically, in exchange for reliable information. But when sources pass along provably false misinformation, and particularly when they do it a plainly partisan fashion, the nature of that agreement changes and under some newsroom interpretations, reporters are no longer bound to keep secret the name of the unreliable source. In fact, it's sometimes argued reporters are obligated to 'burn' their source in the name of disclosing attempts at misinformation.

Then it's proven to be completely true a year later.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 13, 2014, 10:51:33 PM
If Hillary can't even man up about Benghazi she surely won't survive the Dem primaries.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: ednksu on June 17, 2014, 10:25:39 PM
so many Benghazi threads....so little time  :sdeek:
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: CNS on June 18, 2014, 09:08:38 AM
The guy captured is Blue Steel'ing the hell out of basically every other captured terrorist's face in that pic they keep showing on the news. 
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: Kat Kid on November 23, 2014, 10:04:39 PM
I'm still trying to understand what the outrage about Benghazi is.  What is being covered up?

I understand the IRS thing. That's bullshit and some people should be fired. I don't know if that's criminal behavior or not but it should be.

In a nutshell...

1. The government lied to the American people about the cause of the attack. We now know that the CIA and the State Department knew more or less immediately that the attack on the consulate was a premeditated act of terrorism committed, conveniently, on the anniversary of 9/11. However, political hacks at the State Department (i.e., Hillary),  revised the CIA's "talking points" (which are distributed to government officials so they can report accurate information to the media) to remove the references to terrorism and instead blame the attack on a spontaneous reaction to a youtube video. President Obama, SoS Clinton, Ambassador Susan Rice and others peddled this pablum for weeks. The truth matters. Not only did the falsehood directly contradict the Libyan president, who acknowledged it was an act of terror, it feeds into the narrative that America was somehow to blame for the attack, and if we would only be a little more respectful to Islam, all this could have been avoided. It was all bullshit.

2. The State Department insisted that no additional security was ever requested for the Benghazi consulate in the months leading up to the attack - now revealed as bullshit.

3. The State Department insisted that nothing more could have been done from a military standpoint to assist the embattled consulate - now revealed as bullshit. We still don't know who exactly gave the order to the military to stand down.

This is just a brief synopsis. The details are worse. Don't take my word for it, even hard core leftists are now outraged (after dismissing the GOP's efforts for months as a political witch hunt):
- http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/12/opinion/sunday/dowd-when-myths-collide-in-the-capital.html?_r=1& (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/12/opinion/sunday/dowd-when-myths-collide-in-the-capital.html?_r=1&)
- http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/05/benghazi-cia-talking-point-edits-white-house.html?mobify=0 (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/05/benghazi-cia-talking-point-edits-white-house.html?mobify=0)
Republican House Intelligence Committee Report says nothing improper, conservative blog powerline agrees, Lindsay Graham throws a temper tantrum
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/11/the-house-intelligence-committees-benghazi-more-than-fair.php (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/11/the-house-intelligence-committees-benghazi-more-than-fair.php)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/23/graham-critical-new-gop-house-report-on-benghazi-calls-findings-garbage/ (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/23/graham-critical-new-gop-house-report-on-benghazi-calls-findings-garbage/)
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: ednksu on February 01, 2016, 01:53:57 AM
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/267500-gop-accuses-dems-of-wasting-2-mil-on-benghazi-probe

If these Dems would just let us conduct our probe without any rules, agenda, or any fiscal constraint we could just get to the bottom of this!
Title: Benghazi Hearing
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 01, 2016, 06:47:35 AM
The quest to cover-up the weapons shipping operation and recruitment of mercenaries to overthrow the Syrian government and create the biggest humanitarian crisis since WWII (and drive radical Islam into Europe and elsewhere) is unyielding and never rests.