Author Topic: Benghazi Hearing  (Read 22292 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Unruly

  • Oh so Unruly.
  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2703
    • View Profile
Re: Benghazi Hearing
« Reply #300 on: May 06, 2014, 01:52:47 PM »
In the political facebook thread

:dunno:


:dance:


Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 45945
    • View Profile
Re: Benghazi Hearing
« Reply #301 on: May 06, 2014, 02:33:34 PM »
In the political facebook thread

:dunno:




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?

“the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era.”  George Kennan architect of long term containment on the expansion of NATO Eastward

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7267
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: Benghazi Hearing
« Reply #302 on: May 06, 2014, 02:38:53 PM »
In the political facebook thread

:dunno:




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

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: Benghazi Hearing
« Reply #303 on: May 06, 2014, 02:48:46 PM »
In the political facebook thread

:dunno:




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.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline bubbles4ksu

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5488
  • Son of Pete
    • View Profile
Re: Benghazi Hearing
« Reply #304 on: May 06, 2014, 02:53:10 PM »
where do you nutjobs think this ranks against iran-contra?

Offline michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 50754
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: Benghazi Hearing
« Reply #305 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.

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7267
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: Benghazi Hearing
« Reply #306 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.

Offline bubbles4ksu

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5488
  • Son of Pete
    • View Profile
Re: Benghazi Hearing
« Reply #307 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.

Offline michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 50754
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: Benghazi Hearing
« Reply #308 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.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 45945
    • View Profile
Re: Benghazi Hearing
« Reply #309 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).

“the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era.”  George Kennan architect of long term containment on the expansion of NATO Eastward

Offline michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 50754
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: Benghazi Hearing
« Reply #310 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.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 45945
    • View Profile
Re: Benghazi Hearing
« Reply #311 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.

“the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era.”  George Kennan architect of long term containment on the expansion of NATO Eastward

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: Benghazi Hearing
« Reply #312 on: May 06, 2014, 09:35:11 PM »
I support whatever the Democrat is supports and oppose what lever the Democrat opposes.
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Online star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 59437
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Re: Benghazi Hearing
« Reply #313 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:
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

Offline bubbles4ksu

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5488
  • Son of Pete
    • View Profile
Re: Benghazi Hearing
« Reply #314 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.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 35276
    • View Profile
Re: Benghazi Hearing
« Reply #315 on: May 07, 2014, 11:14:10 AM »
Cong. Tim Huelskamp [email protected]  9m
That many? 7% of journalists are Republicans & #MediaBias doesn’t exist. http://goo.gl/jnrcQU

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: Benghazi Hearing
« Reply #316 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!
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline GCJayhawker

  • Point Plank'r
  • Combo-Fan
  • *
  • Posts: 845
    • View Profile
Re: Benghazi Hearing
« Reply #317 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.

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7267
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: Benghazi Hearing
« Reply #318 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.

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7267
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: Benghazi Hearing
« Reply #319 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


Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7267
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: Benghazi Hearing
« Reply #320 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.

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: Benghazi Hearing
« Reply #321 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.
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline ednksu

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9856
    • View Profile
Re: Benghazi Hearing
« Reply #322 on: June 17, 2014, 10:25:39 PM »
so many Benghazi threads....so little time  :sdeek:
Quote from: OregonHawk
KU is right on par with Notre Dame ... when it comes to adding additional conference revenue

Quote from: Kim Carnes
Beer pro tip: never drink anything other than BL, coors, pbr, maybe a few others that I'm forgetting

Online CNS

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 35081
  • I'm Athletes
    • View Profile
Re: Benghazi Hearing
« Reply #323 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. 

Offline Kat Kid

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 19698
    • View Profile
Re: Benghazi Hearing
« Reply #324 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.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.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/23/graham-critical-new-gop-house-report-on-benghazi-calls-findings-garbage/