Boston
Footballguy
http://video.foxnews.com/v/2363874222001/miller-time-benghazi-hearing-/?intcmp=obnetwork
Good stuff from Dennis Miller from a few days ago...
Good stuff from Dennis Miller from a few days ago...
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in Rocket Attack (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter Topes
- Start date
Flying Spaghetti Monster
Footballguy
Many have already said HC might be the greatest Secretary of State of several generations. I will let her record stand by itself. The GOP minions rabidly attacking her just illustrates their fear.
This whole benghazi thing is a pathetic attempt by the GOP to score political points. The GOP should have learned their lesson after Romney got embarrassed during a national debate by lying about Obama.
Weird that they want a second bite of that cake.
pittstownkiller
Footballguy
pittstownkiller
Footballguy
That I can agree with.Jon Stewart's satire definitely has a leftist slant, but who cares? It's awesome, and the guy never fails to make me laugh.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
"The reason most people don't know Benghazi from Ben Gazzara (and they don't know Ben Gazara at all) is that we are not a culture that believes in consequenecs anymore."
[ETA: Fixed].
Last edited by a moderator:
pittstownkiller
Footballguy
Is this the same group that proclaimed her one of the top 100 female lawyers in the country?BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
So he is saying we DO believe in consequences? Cuz he went double negative with NOT and DOESN'T.
Boston
Footballguy
It matters what the meaning of the word is is...So he is saying we DO believe in consequences? Cuz he went double negative with NOT and DOESN'T.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
And?It matters what the meaning of the word is is...So he is saying we DO believe in consequences? Cuz he went double negative with NOT and DOESN'T.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
It's sad this whole conversation is rife with language like "rabid." My feeling is that Demo or Repub we the people have a right to know every little detail about what happens in our government and Obama above all precached that in 2008 but has done the complete opposite as president. I could go into the Obama Rose Garden 9/11 commemoration statement, but it's water over several bridges now. I respect your opinion so I will let it stand.
But on Hillary, I distinctly recall Obama (validly) lashing McCain (and maybe her) with statements that the US should be negotiating with Iran, with North Korea, resolving Palestine/Israel through diplomacy, restoring faith with Europe, etc. And I cannot recall an administration D or R that has been less successful in diplomacy. Iran, NK & Israel/Palestine have stood still while Europe has bought none of Obama's requested economic programs.
More than anything I see an administration that has gone whole hog on Kissinger-like realpolitik like it was 1972 when the USA and the rest of the world is light years away from that place and time.
I won't derail the conversation, but I thought I'd offer my view on Hillary's performance. I'm sure she will get her own thread eventually when she runs for president (and she will), but as President Obama showed she ain't no natural as a campaigner, she may not even win her own party nomination.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Ha that was me, tried to quote it correctly, and only fixed half of it. I will change it. Feel free to let me know if I got it wrong. Thanks.So he is saying we DO believe in consequences? Cuz he went double negative with NOT and DOESN'T.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
I'm not talking about Hilary Clinton. I'm talking about you. Why are you more curious about the inner-workings of the development of talking points and their presentation after the deaths of 4 Americans than you are about the inner-workings of how intelligence was formulated and presented to the American public to sell us on a War that we all now know was bull####?
~ 4500 Americans died as a result of that debacle, and over 100,000 Iraqis were killed. Yet you're more worried about talking points that had ZERO affect on American lives?
squistion
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Scary, as she has shown that she is as inept as she is callous and ruthless.
"what does it matter" that they left people out there to die when they could have saved them
sporthenry
Footballguy
TIA
Mr.Pack
Footballguy
So Bush believing the same intelligence that HC, Bill, Kerry et al, believed is his fault, but your guys who believed the same intel is Bush's fault?
ANd those 4 who died in the Bangazzi attacks were American lives. Reading your post, you pretty much devalue their lives and that's pathetic, but that's the Liberal way, defend your party at all costs, even if it meant American lives.
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
So, Sean Smith's mother was on The O'Reilly Factor earlier and said that Obama, Hillary and Susan Rice all told her TO HER FACE on 9-14-12 (at the eulogy) that the youtube video was the reason that her son died. Lying to the media is one thing, but lying to the face of a mother of a guy who died while serving this country? Pathetic.
Lutherman2112
Footballguy
FlopJacks: you should get the quote correct.
"With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk last night who decided to kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is people were trying their best in real time to get to the best information."
"With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk last night who decided to kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is people were trying their best in real time to get to the best information."
Flying Spaghetti Monster
Footballguy
"The Republicans are pulling out the stops to manufacture a scandal, but it’s not likely to stick on Hillary Clinton or Democrats in general."
Doctor Detroit
Please remove your headgear
he always seemed smarter than let himself be used as a propaganda tool
oh well
of course we've had embassy attacks. We had an "attack" on the embassy in Turkey on Hillary's last day as SOS. How many of these "attacks" had fire fights that lasted several hours and had terrorists killing our ambassador? Seems like a ludicrous laughable comparison that Stewart himself would mock, were he not actually making it.
sporthenry
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Flying Spaghetti Monster
Footballguy
During GWB presidency we had over 50 attacks and 13 americans dead. How many hearings did we have over it????? 0
sporthenry
Footballguy
Well I'd still love the link that shows that b/c of our inaction, we left people out to die. But I'll help you out a bit. It wasn't 6 hours of attacks. It was 2 separate attacks that occurred 6 hours later.
Mr.Pack
Footballguy
How many times did Bush hang Americans out to dry and refuse to help?
sporthenry
Footballguy
How many times has Obama done that? I'd love to hear how he refused to help or hung them out to dry.
Last edited by a moderator:
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Hey Darryl Issa wannabe, if you are going to make an accusatory declaration of fact... back up your statement.
Failtard.
mad sweeney
Footballguy
Hmmm, what's the difference between those people and Bush? How much of the intel went through their advisors, their appointees? Your usual dug in flop posts are outdone by this little bit of silliness. You can't even get the outrage right since no one died from the talking points. But by all means, don't let that stop you from your cute little rants.So Bush believing the same intelligence that HC, Bill, Kerry et al, believed is his fault, but your guys who believed the same intel is Bush's fault?
ANd those 4 who died in the Bangazzi attacks were American lives. Reading your post, you pretty much devalue their lives and that's pathetic, but that's the Liberal way, defend your party at all costs, even if it meant American lives.
more importantly how many offensive videos did Bush ask YouTube to review?
Carolina Hustler
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Carolina Hustler
Footballguy
I like it when the Obama backers compare Obama to Bush. It's only appropriate to compare apples to apples (failures, both of them)
jamny
Footballguy
Link?Remember, we're talking Americans killed in Embassy/consulate attacks. Just to be specific.
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
Most important question still unanswered in Benghazi debate: Why are Republicans KooK Idiots?
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
I don't get how the Republicans think this is helping them. It's obviously 100% about Hillary in 2016.
But the people who are wound up about this are never voting for Hillary anyway. And no one else cares. So all it's really doing is putting another coat of crazy paint on the Republican brand.
But the people who are wound up about this are never voting for Hillary anyway. And no one else cares. So all it's really doing is putting another coat of crazy paint on the Republican brand.
Last edited by a moderator:
Stinger Ray
Footballguy
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/ Exclusive: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror ReferenceWhen it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story.
ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attac
White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.
That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points in November.
“Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened,” Carney told reporters at the White House press briefing on November 28, 2012. “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”
Summaries of White House and State Department emails — some of which were first published by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard — show that the State Department had extensive input into the editing of the talking points.
State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland raised specific objections to this paragraph drafted by the CIA in its earlier versions of the talking points:
“The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.”
In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned …”
The paragraph was entirely deleted.
Like the final version used by Ambassador Rice on the Sunday shows, the CIA’s first drafts said the attack appeared to have been “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo” but the CIA version went on to say, “That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” The draft went on to specifically name the al Qaeda-affiliated group named Ansar al-Sharia.
Once again, Nuland objected to naming the terrorist groups because “we don’t want to prejudice the investigation.”
In response, an NSC staffer coordinating the review of the talking points wrote back to Nuland, “The FBI did not have major concerns with the points and offered only a couple minor suggestions.”
After the talking points were edited slightly to address Nuland’s concerns, she responded that changes did not go far enough.
“These changes don’t resolve all of my issues or those of my buildings leadership,” Nuland wrote.
In an email dated 9/14/12 at 9:34 p.m. — three days after the attack and two days before Ambassador Rice appeared on the Sunday shows – Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes wrote an email saying the State Department’s concerns needed to be addressed.
“We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation. We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.”
Related: Diplomat Says Requests For Benghazi Rescue Were Rejected
After that meeting, which took place Saturday morning at the White House, the CIA drafted the final version of the talking points – deleting all references to al Qaeda and to the security warnings in Benghazi prior to the attack.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said none of this contradicts what he said about the talking points because ultimately all versions were actually written and signed-off by the CIA.
“The CIA drafted these talking points and redrafted these talking points,” Carney said. “The fact that there are inputs is always the case in a process like this, but the only edits made by anyone here at the White House were stylistic and nonsubstantive. They corrected the description of the building or the facility in Benghazi from consulate to diplomatic facility and the like. And ultimately, this all has been discussed and reviewed and provided in enormous levels of detail by the administration to Congressional investigators, and the attempt to politicize the talking points, again, is part of an effort to, you know, chase after what isn’t the substance here.”
UPDATE: A source familiar with the White House emails on the Benghazi talking point revisions say that State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland was raising two concerns about the CIA’s first version of talking points, which were going to be sent to Congress: 1) The talking points went further than what she was allowed to say about the attack during her state department briefings; and, 2) she believed the CIA was attempting to exonerate itself at the State Department’s expense by suggesting CIA warnings about the security situation were ignored.
In one email, Nuland asked, why are we suggest Congress “start making assertions to the media [about the al Qaeda connection] that we ourselves are not making because we don’t want to prejudice the investigation?”
One other point: The significant edits – deleting references to al Qaeda and the CIA’s warnings – came after a White House meeting on the Saturday before Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on five Sunday shows. Nuland, a 30-year foreign service veteran who has served under Democratic and Republican Secretaries of State, was not at that meeting and played no direct role in preparing Rice for her interviews.
ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attac
White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.
That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points in November.
“Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened,” Carney told reporters at the White House press briefing on November 28, 2012. “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”
Summaries of White House and State Department emails — some of which were first published by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard — show that the State Department had extensive input into the editing of the talking points.
State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland raised specific objections to this paragraph drafted by the CIA in its earlier versions of the talking points:
“The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.”
In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned …”
The paragraph was entirely deleted.
Like the final version used by Ambassador Rice on the Sunday shows, the CIA’s first drafts said the attack appeared to have been “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo” but the CIA version went on to say, “That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” The draft went on to specifically name the al Qaeda-affiliated group named Ansar al-Sharia.
Once again, Nuland objected to naming the terrorist groups because “we don’t want to prejudice the investigation.”
In response, an NSC staffer coordinating the review of the talking points wrote back to Nuland, “The FBI did not have major concerns with the points and offered only a couple minor suggestions.”
After the talking points were edited slightly to address Nuland’s concerns, she responded that changes did not go far enough.
“These changes don’t resolve all of my issues or those of my buildings leadership,” Nuland wrote.
In an email dated 9/14/12 at 9:34 p.m. — three days after the attack and two days before Ambassador Rice appeared on the Sunday shows – Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes wrote an email saying the State Department’s concerns needed to be addressed.
“We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation. We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.”
Related: Diplomat Says Requests For Benghazi Rescue Were Rejected
After that meeting, which took place Saturday morning at the White House, the CIA drafted the final version of the talking points – deleting all references to al Qaeda and to the security warnings in Benghazi prior to the attack.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said none of this contradicts what he said about the talking points because ultimately all versions were actually written and signed-off by the CIA.
“The CIA drafted these talking points and redrafted these talking points,” Carney said. “The fact that there are inputs is always the case in a process like this, but the only edits made by anyone here at the White House were stylistic and nonsubstantive. They corrected the description of the building or the facility in Benghazi from consulate to diplomatic facility and the like. And ultimately, this all has been discussed and reviewed and provided in enormous levels of detail by the administration to Congressional investigators, and the attempt to politicize the talking points, again, is part of an effort to, you know, chase after what isn’t the substance here.”
UPDATE: A source familiar with the White House emails on the Benghazi talking point revisions say that State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland was raising two concerns about the CIA’s first version of talking points, which were going to be sent to Congress: 1) The talking points went further than what she was allowed to say about the attack during her state department briefings; and, 2) she believed the CIA was attempting to exonerate itself at the State Department’s expense by suggesting CIA warnings about the security situation were ignored.
In one email, Nuland asked, why are we suggest Congress “start making assertions to the media [about the al Qaeda connection] that we ourselves are not making because we don’t want to prejudice the investigation?”
One other point: The significant edits – deleting references to al Qaeda and the CIA’s warnings – came after a White House meeting on the Saturday before Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on five Sunday shows. Nuland, a 30-year foreign service veteran who has served under Democratic and Republican Secretaries of State, was not at that meeting and played no direct role in preparing Rice for her interviews.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
You know, Kenneth Star's still around- he's currently president of Baylor University. I'm sure he'd be eager and willing to get involved in this investigation if you guys want. He's good at this sort of thing.
pittstownkiller
Footballguy
First you would need the Justice Department to call for a special prosecutor; I don't think you have to worry about that Tim.
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
Flying Spaghetti Monster
Footballguy
SmoovySmoov
The Way of the Samurai
There's so much stupidity in your post that it makes my head hurt.Mr.Pack said:So Bush believing the same intelligence that HC, Bill, Kerry et al, believed is his fault, but your guys who believed the same intel is Bush's fault?tommyGunZ said:
ANd those 4 who died in the Bangazzi attacks were American lives. Reading your post, you pretty much devalue their lives and that's pathetic, but that's the Liberal way, defend your party at all costs, even if it meant American lives.
Flying Spaghetti Monster
Footballguy
I sure hope this investigation clears up why the Republican appropriation in Congress gave the administration $300 million less than it asked for for the State Department, including funding for security.
Security that would have perhaps prevented this from happening.
Security that would have perhaps prevented this from happening.
sporthenry
Footballguy
See that is where my questions are. That seems to help answer some of the questions regarding substandard security. Well that and the fact they were in the process of trying to make it a full time outpost. But I can't help but think they are keeping the actual operations at Benghazi a secret for something related to the intelligence community.tommyGunZ said:
Carolina Hustler
Footballguy
O, wait, ...Stinger Ray said:
I thought this was accidentally mislabeled...
Wasn't this just a protest... that evolved into rockets and machine guns? (because everyone carries a rocket launcher to a protest)
shader
Footballguy
This thread is absolutely horrible for someone just trying to figure out what the heck happened. One side is throwing any and everything at the wall, desperate for something to stick. The other side just puts their hands over their ears, laughs at the hilarity of it all and downplays the whole thing. Maybe one of the two sides is right. I'd just be interested to know what a "center" viewpoint would be.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
That's the problem with today's political climate and the need to equate everything on one side to something on the other side. The side being insane benefits as instead of being called out, they are seen as simply 1 side of the issue. Meanwhile the side being rationale gets equated to morons and baffoons.
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
I think my views are pretty center, but in having conversations in real life with people from both extremes, the liberals think it is silly that this is even a story (as if an ambassador being killed overseas is a non-story), and the conservatives don't like hearing that the Republicans are the ones who cut funding for security and are generally acting like jackasses about the whole thing. I guess you know that you are in the center when people from both extremes take issue with your stance.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
