U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in Rocket Attack (3 Viewers)

[timschochet]

I never wrote it was a coincidence. Obviously it wasn't, since the arrest was directly related to the video (which was a parole violation).But you make the assumption that he was arrested for political reasons at the direction of Obama and Hillary, that he is being held as a political prisoner, and that this is all part of a deliberate attempt to cover up Benghazi. There is no proof of ANY of that.

Considering you are the king of "Here is what I think, even though I have zero proof to back it up yet" shtick, I find that comment from you hilariously ironic.

I don't often accuse specific politicians, of any stripe, of conspiratorial actions, especially without proof.

No, just that George Bush single-handedly killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never wrote that. I wrote that he made the decision to invade Iraq, and that invasion resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. That is a true statement, not based on conjecture, and certainly not conspiracy.

 

[timschochet]

I never wrote it was a coincidence. Obviously it wasn't, since the arrest was directly related to the video (which was a parole violation).But you make the assumption that he was arrested for political reasons at the direction of Obama and Hillary, that he is being held as a political prisoner, and that this is all part of a deliberate attempt to cover up Benghazi. There is no proof of ANY of that.

Link?

If someone is arrested for political reasons, he is by definition a political prisoner, isn't he?

If he is being punished in a way different than 99% of how other criminals would be punished, refused bail on a trumped flee concern, and was the target of a phony scapegoating escapade by the Administration , then yes he is a political prisoner; since these things may have happened, investigation by Congress is applicable. The video was out for months, why wasn't he arrested then if he was such a detriment to society?

Again, how do we know this to be true? I'm really not trying to diminish your argument, because you're quite correct that if the dots can be connected, then he is a political prisoner and we have a very bad situation which ought to be investigated and dealt with. But again, I just don't see the evidence.

Have you seen the evidence that the filmmaker deserves to be in jail; you seem fine with that outcome.

I haven't seen the evidence, and I have no idea if I'm fine with the outcome. I'm quite sure that, as we speak, there are thousands of people in jail who do not deserve to be there, and many were unlawfully arrested. You and CH, on the other hand, seem fine with assuming that he was arrested on the personal orders of Obama and Hillary in order to aid their coverup of the Benghazi scandal. I'm certainly not fine with that assumption.

 

[pittstownkiller]

I never wrote it was a coincidence. Obviously it wasn't, since the arrest was directly related to the video (which was a parole violation).But you make the assumption that he was arrested for political reasons at the direction of Obama and Hillary, that he is being held as a political prisoner, and that this is all part of a deliberate attempt to cover up Benghazi. There is no proof of ANY of that.

Considering you are the king of "Here is what I think, even though I have zero proof to back it up yet" shtick, I find that comment from you hilariously ironic.

I don't often accuse specific politicians, of any stripe, of conspiratorial actions, especially without proof.

No, just that George Bush single-handedly killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never wrote that. I wrote that he made the decision to invade Iraq, and that invasion resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. That is a true statement, not based on conjecture, and certainly not conspiracy.

Many people, from both sides of the aisle, decided to vote on a resolution to invade Iraq. I think my version of your statement is more accurate than your revisionist version.

 

[pittstownkiller]

I never wrote it was a coincidence. Obviously it wasn't, since the arrest was directly related to the video (which was a parole violation).But you make the assumption that he was arrested for political reasons at the direction of Obama and Hillary, that he is being held as a political prisoner, and that this is all part of a deliberate attempt to cover up Benghazi. There is no proof of ANY of that.

Link?

If someone is arrested for political reasons, he is by definition a political prisoner, isn't he?

If he is being punished in a way different than 99% of how other criminals would be punished, refused bail on a trumped flee concern, and was the target of a phony scapegoating escapade by the Administration , then yes he is a political prisoner; since these things may have happened, investigation by Congress is applicable. The video was out for months, why wasn't he arrested then if he was such a detriment to society?

Again, how do we know this to be true? I'm really not trying to diminish your argument, because you're quite correct that if the dots can be connected, then he is a political prisoner and we have a very bad situation which ought to be investigated and dealt with. But again, I just don't see the evidence.

Have you seen the evidence that the filmmaker deserves to be in jail; you seem fine with that outcome.

I haven't seen the evidence, and I have no idea if I'm fine with the outcome. I'm quite sure that, as we speak, there are thousands of people in jail who do not deserve to be there, and many were unlawfully arrested. You and CH, on the other hand, seem fine with assuming that he was arrested on the personal orders of Obama and Hillary in order to aid their coverup of the Benghazi scandal. I'm certainly not fine with that assumption.

Do you think that if the administration did not publicly link the video to Benghazi that this man would be in jail right now?

 

[DocHolliday]

The Benghazi story is going to be interesting to watch as it continues to unfold. I wonder who takes the fall? Who falls on the sword for Obama and Hillary?

The damage to Hillary is going to be fun to monitor over the next few months. It is amusing that Obama abused her during the primaries and then she worked her tail off for him as S of S. Now, her hopes to be POTUS in 2016 are slipping away as she is hammered by the Benghazi incident while following Obama's wimpy foreign policy technique.

What cannot be lost in the political circus is that 4 lives were lost. The 2 seals that died while trying to protect the embassy had balls of steel.

 

[timschochet]

I never wrote it was a coincidence. Obviously it wasn't, since the arrest was directly related to the video (which was a parole violation).But you make the assumption that he was arrested for political reasons at the direction of Obama and Hillary, that he is being held as a political prisoner, and that this is all part of a deliberate attempt to cover up Benghazi. There is no proof of ANY of that.

Considering you are the king of "Here is what I think, even though I have zero proof to back it up yet" shtick, I find that comment from you hilariously ironic.

I don't often accuse specific politicians, of any stripe, of conspiratorial actions, especially without proof.

No, just that George Bush single-handedly killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never wrote that. I wrote that he made the decision to invade Iraq, and that invasion resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. That is a true statement, not based on conjecture, and certainly not conspiracy.

Many people, from both sides of the aisle, decided to vote on a resolution to invade Iraq. I think my version of your statement is more accurate than your revisionist version.

Well then you're wrong. Although the resolution authorized the President that he could make the decision to invade, that decision was still his to make.

 

[pittstownkiller]

I never wrote it was a coincidence. Obviously it wasn't, since the arrest was directly related to the video (which was a parole violation).But you make the assumption that he was arrested for political reasons at the direction of Obama and Hillary, that he is being held as a political prisoner, and that this is all part of a deliberate attempt to cover up Benghazi. There is no proof of ANY of that.

Considering you are the king of "Here is what I think, even though I have zero proof to back it up yet" shtick, I find that comment from you hilariously ironic.

I don't often accuse specific politicians, of any stripe, of conspiratorial actions, especially without proof.

No, just that George Bush single-handedly killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never wrote that. I wrote that he made the decision to invade Iraq, and that invasion resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. That is a true statement, not based on conjecture, and certainly not conspiracy.

Many people, from both sides of the aisle, decided to vote on a resolution to invade Iraq. I think my version of your statement is more accurate than your revisionist version.

Well then you're wrong. Although the resolution authorized the President that he could make the decision to invade, that decision was still his to make.

Yes, the President asks Congress for their blessing on invading Iraq, the give it to him but only with the understanding he won't do it. I think Hillary tried to defend her vote with this sort of logic. I love your obtuse ways Tim.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I never wrote it was a coincidence. Obviously it wasn't, since the arrest was directly related to the video (which was a parole violation).But you make the assumption that he was arrested for political reasons at the direction of Obama and Hillary, that he is being held as a political prisoner, and that this is all part of a deliberate attempt to cover up Benghazi. There is no proof of ANY of that.

Considering you are the king of "Here is what I think, even though I have zero proof to back it up yet" shtick, I find that comment from you hilariously ironic.

I don't often accuse specific politicians, of any stripe, of conspiratorial actions, especially without proof.

No, just that George Bush single-handedly killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never wrote that. I wrote that he made the decision to invade Iraq, and that invasion resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. That is a true statement, not based on conjecture, and certainly not conspiracy.

Many people, from both sides of the aisle, decided to vote on a resolution to invade Iraq. I think my version of your statement is more accurate than your revisionist version.

Well then you're wrong. Although the resolution authorized the President that he could make the decision to invade, that decision was still his to make.

This was nothing more or less than a de facto Declaration of War having all the same practical effects.

In any DOW it is then always up to the President as CIC when where and how to attack relying on his military as he may see fit.

 

[timschochet]

I never wrote it was a coincidence. Obviously it wasn't, since the arrest was directly related to the video (which was a parole violation).But you make the assumption that he was arrested for political reasons at the direction of Obama and Hillary, that he is being held as a political prisoner, and that this is all part of a deliberate attempt to cover up Benghazi. There is no proof of ANY of that.

Link?

If someone is arrested for political reasons, he is by definition a political prisoner, isn't he?

If he is being punished in a way different than 99% of how other criminals would be punished, refused bail on a trumped flee concern, and was the target of a phony scapegoating escapade by the Administration , then yes he is a political prisoner; since these things may have happened, investigation by Congress is applicable. The video was out for months, why wasn't he arrested then if he was such a detriment to society?

Again, how do we know this to be true? I'm really not trying to diminish your argument, because you're quite correct that if the dots can be connected, then he is a political prisoner and we have a very bad situation which ought to be investigated and dealt with. But again, I just don't see the evidence.

Have you seen the evidence that the filmmaker deserves to be in jail; you seem fine with that outcome.

I haven't seen the evidence, and I have no idea if I'm fine with the outcome. I'm quite sure that, as we speak, there are thousands of people in jail who do not deserve to be there, and many were unlawfully arrested. You and CH, on the other hand, seem fine with assuming that he was arrested on the personal orders of Obama and Hillary in order to aid their coverup of the Benghazi scandal. I'm certainly not fine with that assumption.

Do you think that if the administration did not publicly link the video to Benghazi that this man would be in jail right now?

Yes. I can't know for sure, but you ask what I think, and I strongly think he would be, and here's why: it was not the administration that publicized the video; it was the Muslim world. Muslims around the world protested this video well before the administration ever even mentioned it, and called for "Death to America." Once it became clear who made the video, it was also clear to local police that he had violated his parole by putting the video on youtube. That made him subject for arrest, and so he was arrested. To me that is a much simpler explanation of the facts in this case than assuming a big conspiracy directed by Obama and Clinton.

 

[timschochet]

I never wrote it was a coincidence. Obviously it wasn't, since the arrest was directly related to the video (which was a parole violation).But you make the assumption that he was arrested for political reasons at the direction of Obama and Hillary, that he is being held as a political prisoner, and that this is all part of a deliberate attempt to cover up Benghazi. There is no proof of ANY of that.

Considering you are the king of "Here is what I think, even though I have zero proof to back it up yet" shtick, I find that comment from you hilariously ironic.

I don't often accuse specific politicians, of any stripe, of conspiratorial actions, especially without proof.

No, just that George Bush single-handedly killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never wrote that. I wrote that he made the decision to invade Iraq, and that invasion resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. That is a true statement, not based on conjecture, and certainly not conspiracy.

Many people, from both sides of the aisle, decided to vote on a resolution to invade Iraq. I think my version of your statement is more accurate than your revisionist version.

Well then you're wrong. Although the resolution authorized the President that he could make the decision to invade, that decision was still his to make.

This was nothing more or less than a de facto Declaration of War having all the same practical effects.

In any DOW it is then always up to the President as CIC when where and how to attack relying on his military as he may see fit.

Of course. And IMO, anyone who voted for that resolution has to take some of the responsibility for it. I believe a good argument can be made that Hillary Clinton is not President right now because she voted for that resolution. But none of this contradicts my earlier statement. Ultimately, it was George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq, and for better or worse (I say worse), the history books will show him, and not Congress, as the responsible party. Correctly so, IMO.

 

[pittstownkiller]

I never wrote it was a coincidence. Obviously it wasn't, since the arrest was directly related to the video (which was a parole violation).But you make the assumption that he was arrested for political reasons at the direction of Obama and Hillary, that he is being held as a political prisoner, and that this is all part of a deliberate attempt to cover up Benghazi. There is no proof of ANY of that.

Link?

If someone is arrested for political reasons, he is by definition a political prisoner, isn't he?

If he is being punished in a way different than 99% of how other criminals would be punished, refused bail on a trumped flee concern, and was the target of a phony scapegoating escapade by the Administration , then yes he is a political prisoner; since these things may have happened, investigation by Congress is applicable. The video was out for months, why wasn't he arrested then if he was such a detriment to society?

Again, how do we know this to be true? I'm really not trying to diminish your argument, because you're quite correct that if the dots can be connected, then he is a political prisoner and we have a very bad situation which ought to be investigated and dealt with. But again, I just don't see the evidence.

Have you seen the evidence that the filmmaker deserves to be in jail; you seem fine with that outcome.

I haven't seen the evidence, and I have no idea if I'm fine with the outcome. I'm quite sure that, as we speak, there are thousands of people in jail who do not deserve to be there, and many were unlawfully arrested. You and CH, on the other hand, seem fine with assuming that he was arrested on the personal orders of Obama and Hillary in order to aid their coverup of the Benghazi scandal. I'm certainly not fine with that assumption.

Do you think that if the administration did not publicly link the video to Benghazi that this man would be in jail right now?

Yes. I can't know for sure, but you ask what I think, and I strongly think he would be, and here's why: it was not the administration that publicized the video; it was the Muslim world. Muslims around the world protested this video well before the administration ever even mentioned it, and called for "Death to America." Once it became clear who made the video, it was also clear to local police that he had violated his parole by putting the video on youtube. That made him subject for arrest, and so he was arrested. To me that is a much simpler explanation of the facts in this case than assuming a big conspiracy directed by Obama and Clinton.

Yes, local police would be monitoring today's reason for the Muslims to be chanting "death to America". I could just kiss you when you're this innocent.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I never wrote it was a coincidence. Obviously it wasn't, since the arrest was directly related to the video (which was a parole violation).But you make the assumption that he was arrested for political reasons at the direction of Obama and Hillary, that he is being held as a political prisoner, and that this is all part of a deliberate attempt to cover up Benghazi. There is no proof of ANY of that.

Link?

If someone is arrested for political reasons, he is by definition a political prisoner, isn't he?

If he is being punished in a way different than 99% of how other criminals would be punished, refused bail on a trumped flee concern, and was the target of a phony scapegoating escapade by the Administration , then yes he is a political prisoner; since these things may have happened, investigation by Congress is applicable. The video was out for months, why wasn't he arrested then if he was such a detriment to society?

Again, how do we know this to be true?

I'm really not trying to diminish your argument, because you're quite correct that if the dots can be connected, then he is a political prisoner and we have a very bad situation which ought to be investigated and dealt with. But again, I just don't see the evidence.

I see probable cause, which warrants an investigation... Do you not?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I never wrote it was a coincidence. Obviously it wasn't, since the arrest was directly related to the video (which was a parole violation).But you make the assumption that he was arrested for political reasons at the direction of Obama and Hillary, that he is being held as a political prisoner, and that this is all part of a deliberate attempt to cover up Benghazi. There is no proof of ANY of that.

Link?

If someone is arrested for political reasons, he is by definition a political prisoner, isn't he?

If he is being punished in a way different than 99% of how other criminals would be punished, refused bail on a trumped flee concern, and was the target of a phony scapegoating escapade by the Administration , then yes he is a political prisoner; since these things may have happened, investigation by Congress is applicable. The video was out for months, why wasn't he arrested then if he was such a detriment to society?

Again, how do we know this to be true? I'm really not trying to diminish your argument, because you're quite correct that if the dots can be connected, then he is a political prisoner and we have a very bad situation which ought to be investigated and dealt with. But again, I just don't see the evidence.

Have you seen the evidence that the filmmaker deserves to be in jail; you seem fine with that outcome.

I haven't seen the evidence, and I have no idea if I'm fine with the outcome. I'm quite sure that, as we speak, there are thousands of people in jail who do not deserve to be there, and many were unlawfully arrested. You and CH, on the other hand, seem fine with assuming that he was arrested on the personal orders of Obama and Hillary in order to aid their coverup of the Benghazi scandal. I'm certainly not fine with that assumption.

Do you think that if the administration did not publicly link the video to Benghazi that this man would be in jail right now?

Yes. I can't know for sure, but you ask what I think, and I strongly think he would be, and here's why: it was not the administration that publicized the video; it was the Muslim world. Muslims around the world protested this video well before the administration ever even mentioned it, and called for "Death to America." Once it became clear who made the video, it was also clear to local police that he had violated his parole by putting the video on youtube. That made him subject for arrest, and so he was arrested. To me that is a much simpler explanation of the facts in this case than assuming a big conspiracy directed by Obama and Clinton.

Yes, local police would be monitoring today's reason for the Muslims to be chanting "death to America". I could just kiss you when you're this innocent.

Does he really have no understanding of how the justice system works? Or is he trolling us?

 

[timschochet]

I never wrote it was a coincidence. Obviously it wasn't, since the arrest was directly related to the video (which was a parole violation).But you make the assumption that he was arrested for political reasons at the direction of Obama and Hillary, that he is being held as a political prisoner, and that this is all part of a deliberate attempt to cover up Benghazi. There is no proof of ANY of that.

Link?

If someone is arrested for political reasons, he is by definition a political prisoner, isn't he?

If he is being punished in a way different than 99% of how other criminals would be punished, refused bail on a trumped flee concern, and was the target of a phony scapegoating escapade by the Administration , then yes he is a political prisoner; since these things may have happened, investigation by Congress is applicable. The video was out for months, why wasn't he arrested then if he was such a detriment to society?

Again, how do we know this to be true?

I'm really not trying to diminish your argument, because you're quite correct that if the dots can be connected, then he is a political prisoner and we have a very bad situation which ought to be investigated and dealt with. But again, I just don't see the evidence.

I see probable cause, which warrants an investigation... Do you not?

Not really no.

However, there are certain aspects of Benghazi that WOULD warrant further investigation, IMO, and in that event this part of the story could be thrown in the mix I suppose. But my problem is that the investigation coming from the House of Representatives is so partisan and so directed at embarrassing Obama and Clinton that I can't regard it as serious, and I don't believe the result will be anything other than yet another political circus. Therefore, if I had my way the whole matter would be dropped. It's not very important no matter how you look at it.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I never wrote it was a coincidence. Obviously it wasn't, since the arrest was directly related to the video (which was a parole violation).But you make the assumption that he was arrested for political reasons at the direction of Obama and Hillary, that he is being held as a political prisoner, and that this is all part of a deliberate attempt to cover up Benghazi. There is no proof of ANY of that.

Considering you are the king of "Here is what I think, even though I have zero proof to back it up yet" shtick, I find that comment from you hilariously ironic.

I don't often accuse specific politicians, of any stripe, of conspiratorial actions, especially without proof.

No, just that George Bush single-handedly killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never wrote that. I wrote that he made the decision to invade Iraq, and that invasion resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. That is a true statement, not based on conjecture, and certainly not conspiracy.

Many people, from both sides of the aisle, decided to vote on a resolution to invade Iraq. I think my version of your statement is more accurate than your revisionist version.

Well then you're wrong. Although the resolution authorized the President that he could make the decision to invade, that decision was still his to make.

This was nothing more or less than a de facto Declaration of War having all the same practical effects.

In any DOW it is then always up to the President as CIC when where and how to attack relying on his military as he may see fit.

Of course. And IMO, anyone who voted for that resolution has to take some of the responsibility for it. I believe a good argument can be made that Hillary Clinton is not President right now because she voted for that resolution. But none of this contradicts my earlier statement. Ultimately, it was George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq, and for better or worse (I say worse), the history books will show him, and not Congress, as the responsible party. Correctly so, IMO.

I would agree except to say he could be called "the most responsible" party but not the only responsible one.

I think another issue, which rarely gets discussed, is the neocon principle of more or less blowing up the middle eastern political rubric. We've gone from pan-Arabist/post-panArabist (or Baath/post-Baath, take your pick) authoritarianism in Iraq, Libya, Tunisia and Egypt, and ended up with some weird quasi-democracy hybrids. Are we better off now and for decades? I don't know. One big issue after the 9/11/01 attacks was addressing how authoritarian governments were breeding extremism and terrorism. Supposedly taking away the authoritarianism should have helped - IF that premise was true. Obama, whether he admits it or not, has tacitly bought into that (and frankly his campaign rehetoric in 2008 has turned out to be pretty disingenuous). This will not be a zero-sum game over the next generation, we will have to wait to see if it is plus or minus in the final analysis. But I do feel the middle east has finally turned an historical corner from its post-WWI miasma nonetheless.

 

[pittstownkiller]

I never wrote it was a coincidence. Obviously it wasn't, since the arrest was directly related to the video (which was a parole violation).But you make the assumption that he was arrested for political reasons at the direction of Obama and Hillary, that he is being held as a political prisoner, and that this is all part of a deliberate attempt to cover up Benghazi. There is no proof of ANY of that.

Link?

If someone is arrested for political reasons, he is by definition a political prisoner, isn't he?

If he is being punished in a way different than 99% of how other criminals would be punished, refused bail on a trumped flee concern, and was the target of a phony scapegoating escapade by the Administration , then yes he is a political prisoner; since these things may have happened, investigation by Congress is applicable. The video was out for months, why wasn't he arrested then if he was such a detriment to society?

Again, how do we know this to be true? I'm really not trying to diminish your argument, because you're quite correct that if the dots can be connected, then he is a political prisoner and we have a very bad situation which ought to be investigated and dealt with. But again, I just don't see the evidence.

I see probable cause, which warrants an investigation... Do you not?

Not really no. However, there are certain aspects of Benghazi that WOULD warrant further investigation, IMO, and in that event this part of the story could be thrown in the mix I suppose. But my problem is that the investigation coming from the House of Representatives is so partisan and so directed at embarrassing Obama and Clinton that I can't regard it as serious, and I don't believe the result will be anything other than yet another political circus. Therefore, if I had my way the whole matter would be dropped. It's not very important no matter how you look at it.

Pay no attention to the man behind the screen!

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I never wrote it was a coincidence. Obviously it wasn't, since the arrest was directly related to the video (which was a parole violation).But you make the assumption that he was arrested for political reasons at the direction of Obama and Hillary, that he is being held as a political prisoner, and that this is all part of a deliberate attempt to cover up Benghazi. There is no proof of ANY of that.

Link?

If someone is arrested for political reasons, he is by definition a political prisoner, isn't he?

If he is being punished in a way different than 99% of how other criminals would be punished, refused bail on a trumped flee concern, and was the target of a phony scapegoating escapade by the Administration , then yes he is a political prisoner; since these things may have happened, investigation by Congress is applicable. The video was out for months, why wasn't he arrested then if he was such a detriment to society?

Again, how do we know this to be true?

I'm really not trying to diminish your argument, because you're quite correct that if the dots can be connected, then he is a political prisoner and we have a very bad situation which ought to be investigated and dealt with. But again, I just don't see the evidence.

I see probable cause, which warrants an investigation... Do you not?

Not really no.

However, there are certain aspects of Benghazi that WOULD warrant further investigation, IMO, and in that event this part of the story could be thrown in the mix I suppose. But my problem is that the investigation coming from the House of Representatives is so partisan and so directed at embarrassing Obama and Clinton that I can't regard it as serious, and I don't believe the result will be anything other than yet another political circus. Therefore, if I had my way the whole matter would be dropped. It's not very important no matter how you look at it.

The funny thing is that Bill Clinton's wife could have been left out of this whole thing - and that was the whole point of trotting Rice out instead of her or some underling.

But Hillary more or less literally dragged herself in by making the House committee drag her in in the first place and then by giving that insane through the looking glass strange sound clip of saying "what difference does it make now?" She's just not that good, at anything, let's face it. For starters she had one of the most secure party nominations for a non-president of the past 150 years all sewn up and ended up losing to a no-name dude with an anti-war and social welfare platform less than two years from a Chicago state senate seat. Please.

 

[mad sweeney]

I never wrote it was a coincidence. Obviously it wasn't, since the arrest was directly related to the video (which was a parole violation).But you make the assumption that he was arrested for political reasons at the direction of Obama and Hillary, that he is being held as a political prisoner, and that this is all part of a deliberate attempt to cover up Benghazi. There is no proof of ANY of that.

Considering you are the king of "Here is what I think, even though I have zero proof to back it up yet" shtick, I find that comment from you hilariously ironic.

I don't often accuse specific politicians, of any stripe, of conspiratorial actions, especially without proof.

No, just that George Bush single-handedly killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never wrote that. I wrote that he made the decision to invade Iraq, and that invasion resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. That is a true statement, not based on conjecture, and certainly not conspiracy.

Many people, from both sides of the aisle, decided to vote on a resolution to invade Iraq. I think my version of your statement is more accurate than your revisionist version.

Revisionist indeed. "Well, your guys voted (based entirely on our guys' inaccurate and/or completely fabricated evidence. So basically, we're both at fault. "

 

[timschochet]

Sorry, Saints In Dome, again I have to reject your interpretation:

IMO, the reason Susan Rice was trotted out was not for her to take cover for Hillary, but because the Obama administration wanted to promote Susan Rice to the public. They had ambitious plans for Ms. Rice in 2013, and that's why she appeared on all the talk shows. Again, that fact in itself should be reasonable evidence that the administration had no deliberate intention to mislead the public; otherwise, why choose Rice, whom they had slated for such an important position? It seems clear to me that they had no idea that it wasn't the video.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Sorry, Saints In Dome, again I have to reject your interpretation:

IMO, the reason Susan Rice was trotted out was not for her to take cover for Hillary, but because the Obama administration wanted to promote Susan Rice to the public. They had ambitious plans for Ms. Rice in 2013, and that's why she appeared on all the talk shows. Again, that fact in itself should be reasonable evidence that the administration had no deliberate intention to mislead the public; otherwise, why choose Rice, whom they had slated for such an important position? It seems clear to me that they had no idea that it wasn't the video.

Hey let's face it we're just a couple guys making suppositions, we weren't flys on teh wall and we don't read WH emails or have tapes etc., that is real evidence.

However, Rice as UN Ambassador would have had next to no real time knowledge of any of this. The Secretary of State, or someone else in state, or say someone involved in diplomatic security, would.

Going out and explaining official positions on a terrorist attack is not a" get to know me" moment. It makes a lot more sense from the angle of plausible deniability, someone with real knowledge of the situation would have had to lie, on camera, to the press on a major news program, and to the American people. As it was Rice wasn't lying because she did not know any better and to this day no one can accuse Hillary or anyone in State of lying either. And that was the idea.

 

[Phil Elliott]

Sorry, Saints In Dome, again I have to reject your interpretation:

IMO, the reason Susan Rice was trotted out was not for her to take cover for Hillary, but because the Obama administration wanted to promote Susan Rice to the public. They had ambitious plans for Ms. Rice in 2013, and that's why she appeared on all the talk shows. Again, that fact in itself should be reasonable evidence that the administration had no deliberate intention to mislead the public; otherwise, why choose Rice, whom they had slated for such an important position? It seems clear to me that they had no idea that it wasn't the video.

Here is a story reportedly about Rice in line to replace National Security Advisor, Tom Donilon.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/05/15/will_benghazi_furor_keep_susan_rice_out_of_the_white_house

 

[pittstownkiller]

I never wrote it was a coincidence. Obviously it wasn't, since the arrest was directly related to the video (which was a parole violation).But you make the assumption that he was arrested for political reasons at the direction of Obama and Hillary, that he is being held as a political prisoner, and that this is all part of a deliberate attempt to cover up Benghazi. There is no proof of ANY of that.

Considering you are the king of "Here is what I think, even though I have zero proof to back it up yet" shtick, I find that comment from you hilariously ironic.

I don't often accuse specific politicians, of any stripe, of conspiratorial actions, especially without proof.

No, just that George Bush single-handedly killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never wrote that. I wrote that he made the decision to invade Iraq, and that invasion resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. That is a true statement, not based on conjecture, and certainly not conspiracy.

Many people, from both sides of the aisle, decided to vote on a resolution to invade Iraq. I think my version of your statement is more accurate than your revisionist version.

Revisionist indeed. "Well, your guys voted (based entirely on our guys' inaccurate and/or completely fabricated evidence. So basically, we're both at fault. "

I would not use the word "fault" because Iraq's true evolution remains to be seen. The evidence you reference was provided to multiple administrations and was not fabricated by those administrations. My post had to do with someone voting for a resolution then backing off of it when it was politically expedient. My post also was in reference to Tim's post about Bush, and his attempt to characterize it in a way that it could never be read as.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

Honestly, I'll bet Hillary is seething over this. Had they been forthright from the start when this first happened last September, I doubt this would even be a story still, but they had to duck, evade and misdirect to make sure that it didn't ruin Obama's reelection, and it might be at the cost of Hillary's chances in 2016 (if things goes badly and this does stick to her), and you know that has to be burning her ### like crazy considering the Clintons and Obamas privately are not fond of each other (even though they play nice publicly for the sake of the party).

You're kidding, right? Obama had to cover up this debacle because he was up for re-election. I was certain Hill was asked to resign. If it were Donald Trump, he would have taken great pleasure to tell her, "YOU'RE FIRED!"

Instead of Employee of the Month, we now have Fired Employee of the Week. Not.Good.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

We about done in here?

 

[FlapJacks]

We about done in here?

...just getting started

 

[Todd Andrews]

President Obama, vaporizing terrorists into pink mist since 2009®.

 

[FootballDummy]

We about done in here?

Nah, Pittstownkiller and Carolina Hustler will never be finished with their OUTRAGE!!11!!!11

 

[pittstownkiller]

We about done in here?

Nah, Pittstownkiller and Carolina Hustler will never be finished with their OUTRAGE!!11!!!11

Outrage is not how I would describe my feelings on this. I have said from my very first posts that despite of the very tragic loss of life and all the compelling issues that come with that, my interest was mostly the political fallout.

 

[timschochet]

Hillary Clinton's approval rating actually rose slightly, from 52% to 53%, according to a poll I just heard on the radio. If part the intent of this investigation is, as many of us strongliy suspect, to embarrass Hillary in order to weaken her chances for 2016, so far it's not working.

The same poll suggests that most of the public are disinterested and bored by this story. The only ones who are interested are the Republican base.

 

[timschochet]

Another poll I heard about (please don't ask me to link, because it was on the radio) suggested that a majority of the Reublican base, the ones so interested in this issue, could not name the country that Benghazi was located in. Around 25% guessed North Korea.

 

[jonessed]

A: You should have a clue what you are talking about. Some voters didnt know where Benghazi was, and as such didnt make a determination. The fact that people don't know were Benghazi is, isnt news. What is note worthy is the people who call it the BIGGEST SCANDAL IN AMERICAN HISTORY, and yet dont know where it is is laughable.

I'm sure Chris Stevens is rolling laughing in his grave

Or as so eleoquently stated by our Secretary of State:

"Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided theyd go kill some Americans? What difference at this point, what difference does it make?"

Brava.

Given what's in those emails I expect we will be seeing this quote a lot if Hillary runs again.It looks as if Obama will successfully deflect, but Hillary really can't.

 

[timschochet]

A: You should have a clue what you are talking about. Some voters didnt know where Benghazi was, and as such didnt make a determination. The fact that people don't know were Benghazi is, isnt news. What is note worthy is the people who call it the BIGGEST SCANDAL IN AMERICAN HISTORY, and yet dont know where it is is laughable.

I'm sure Chris Stevens is rolling laughing in his grave

Or as so eleoquently stated by our Secretary of State:

"Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided theyd go kill some Americans? What difference at this point, what difference does it make?"

Brava.

Given what's in those emails I expect we will be seeing this quote a lot if Hillary runs again.It looks as if Obama will successfully deflect, but Hillary really can't.

Do you really suppose this will resonate with anyone other than those who never would have voted for Hillary anyhow?

 

[squistion]

Another poll I heard about (please don't ask me to link, because it was on the radio) suggested that a majority of the Reublican base, the ones so interested in this issue, could not name the country that Benghazi was located in. Around 25% guessed North Korea.

I am pretty sure that someone provided a link to that poll several pages earlier in this thread but IIRC of those who felt Benghazi was as bad as Watergate, 39% didn't know where Benghazi was. I don't remember the 25% North Korea figure, but 6% thought it was in Cuba.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Hillary Clinton's approval rating actually rose slightly, from 52% to 53%, according to a poll I just heard on the radio. If part the intent of this investigation is, as many of us strongliy suspect, to embarrass Hillary in order to weaken her chances for 2016, so far it's not working.The same poll suggests that most of the public are disinterested and bored by this story. The only ones who are interested are the Republican base.

That's funny, because I heard on the radio that her approval rating plummeted to 27%. But don't ask me for a link; I heard it on the radio. And we all know radio talking heads, most who have an agenda, would neeeeeever lie about such things.

 

[sporthenry]

Hillary Clinton's approval rating actually rose slightly, from 52% to 53%, according to a poll I just heard on the radio. If part the intent of this investigation is, as many of us strongliy suspect, to embarrass Hillary in order to weaken her chances for 2016, so far it's not working.

The same poll suggests that most of the public are disinterested and bored by this story. The only ones who are interested are the Republican base.

That's funny, because I heard on the radio that her approval rating plummeted to 27%. But don't ask me for a link; I heard it on the radio. And we all know radio talking heads, most who have an agenda, would neeeeeever lie about such things.

I wonder what kind of radio stations you listen to.

A poll by the same company, Public Policy Polling, was just released today, and shows that, in the period from just before last week’s Benghazi hearing and just after, Hillary’s approval number actually ticked up a point, from 51% to 52%.

The poll that came out today was actually taken May 6-9, before the Benghazi poll, and shows that 51% of voters favorable toward Hillary, versus 43% unfavorable. In the poll that was released Monday, but taken May 10-12, Clinton’s favorability ticked up to 52%, versus 44% unfavorable.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/bengha-zzzz-hillary-clintons-approval-rating-ticked-up-a-point-during-benghazi-hearings/

 

[Ghost Rider]

Congratulations on missing obvious sarcasm.

 

[pantherclub]

Congratulations on missing obvious sarcasm.

ah, the rush limbaugh defense. I just got owned but hey it was all a joke.

 

[timschochet]

Hillary Clinton's approval rating actually rose slightly, from 52% to 53%, according to a poll I just heard on the radio. If part the intent of this investigation is, as many of us strongliy suspect, to embarrass Hillary in order to weaken her chances for 2016, so far it's not working.The same poll suggests that most of the public are disinterested and bored by this story. The only ones who are interested are the Republican base.

That's funny, because I heard on the radio that her approval rating plummeted to 27%. But don't ask me for a link; I heard it on the radio. And we all know radio talking heads, most who have an agenda, would neeeeeever lie about such things.

Well, obviously either one of us heard wrong, or somebody on the radio is misrepresenting the facts. Guess we'll find out. The radio show I was listening to was Stephanie Miller, who is certainly partisan,

 

[Ghost Rider]

Congratulations on missing obvious sarcasm.

ah, the rush limbaugh defense. I just got owned but hey it was all a joke.

If you don't think, "And we all know radio talking heads, most who have an agenda, would neeeeeever lie about such things," wasn't obvious sarcasm (punctuated by the multiple 'e's in 'never'), then I don't know what to tell you.

 

[timschochet]

Congratulations on missing obvious sarcasm.

??I don't understand the sarcasm. It turns out that what I heard was true. (Minus one percentage point). So what point are you trying to make?

 

[pantherclub]

Congratulations on missing obvious sarcasm.

ah, the rush limbaugh defense. I just got owned but hey it was all a joke.

If you don't think, "And we all know radio talking heads, most who have an agenda, would neeeeeever lie about such things," wasn't obvious sarcasm (punctuated by the multiple 'e's in 'never'), then I don't know what to tell you.

of course guy, of course

 

[sporthenry]

Hillary Clinton's approval rating actually rose slightly, from 52% to 53%, according to a poll I just heard on the radio. If part the intent of this investigation is, as many of us strongliy suspect, to embarrass Hillary in order to weaken her chances for 2016, so far it's not working.The same poll suggests that most of the public are disinterested and bored by this story. The only ones who are interested are the Republican base.

And in fact, they'll probably make her a martyr for this whole situation which will just make her look even more sympathetic especially to women. As dumb as the public might be, they don't really like witch hunts which are obviously politically motivated. Heck, we just had Pittstownkiller admit he cared more about the political fallout than the actual tragedy.

Outrage is not how I would describe my feelings on this. I have said from my very first posts that despite of the very tragic loss of life and all the compelling issues that come with that, my interest was mostly the political fallout.

If you want to tie them to the negligence beforehand, that would be something but they can't do that. So all this back and forth and releasing of information which doesn't really incriminate Obama or Hillary makes them sympathetic figures.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Congratulations on missing obvious sarcasm.

??I don't understand the sarcasm. It turns out that what I heard was true. (Minus one percentage point). So what point are you trying to make?

That using the "I heard it on the radio" line to back up a point, even if what you are saying is correct, doesn't really wash. It's like saying, "I read it on the internet." True or not, if you are gonna make assertions, you need more backup than "I heard it on the radio."

 

[timschochet]

Congratulations on missing obvious sarcasm.

??I don't understand the sarcasm. It turns out that what I heard was true. (Minus one percentage point). So what point are you trying to make?

That using the "I heard it on the radio" line to back up a point, even if what you are saying is correct, doesn't really wash. It's like saying, "I read it on the internet." True or not, if you are gonna make assertions, you need more backup than "I heard it on the radio."

But I never claimed it was true. When I wrote that I heard it on the radio, that's an indication for you or whorvers reading this to take it for what it's worth. It's redundant of you to make the point that what's heard on the radio can't be proven, that's already implied.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Congratulations on missing obvious sarcasm.

??I don't understand the sarcasm. It turns out that what I heard was true. (Minus one percentage point). So what point are you trying to make?

That using the "I heard it on the radio" line to back up a point, even if what you are saying is correct, doesn't really wash. It's like saying, "I read it on the internet." True or not, if you are gonna make assertions, you need more backup than "I heard it on the radio."

But he heard it from some guy on the radio!! Must be true..

A audio recording of the victims father, who by his detail was told directly by Hilary Clinton, "We’ll ‘make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted" Wasn't good enough for him..

 

[pantherclub]

Hustler and Rider are a couple of gems.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

QuoteHillary Clinton's approval rating actually rose slightly, from 52% to 53%, according to a poll I just heard on the radio. If part the intent of this investigation is, as many of us strongliy suspect, to embarrass Hillary in order to weaken her chances for 2016, so far it's not working.

QuoteAnd in fact, they'll probably make her a martyr for this whole situation which will just make her look even more sympathetic

Was watching the PBS documentary on Clinton and Whitewater/Lewinsky the other day and had this exact thought -- that Hillary's is actually going to benefit from all this stupidity the same way her husband did from being impeached.All 'scandal' all the time from here to 2016 might not work out the way people expect it to work out.

 

[timschochet]

Congratulations on missing obvious sarcasm.

??I don't understand the sarcasm. It turns out that what I heard was true. (Minus one percentage point). So what point are you trying to make?

That using the "I heard it on the radio" line to back up a point, even if what you are saying is correct, doesn't really wash. It's like saying, "I read it on the internet." True or not, if you are gonna make assertions, you need more backup than "I heard it on the radio."

But he heard it from some guy on the radio!! Must be true..

A audio recording of the victims father, who by his detail was told directly by Hilary Clinton, "We’ll ‘make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted" Wasn't good enough for him..

Wow. Do you really not see the difference between the two items?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

QuoteHillary Clinton's approval rating actually rose slightly, from 52% to 53%, according to a poll I just heard on the radio. If part the intent of this investigation is, as many of us strongliy suspect, to embarrass Hillary in order to weaken her chances for 2016, so far it's not working.

>QuoteAnd in fact, they'll probably make her a martyr for this whole situation which will just make her look even more sympathetic

Was watching the PBS documentary on Clinton and Whitewater/Lewinsky the other day and had this exact thought -- that Hillary's is actually going to benefit from all this stupidity the same way her husband did from being impeached.All 'scandal' all the time from here to 2016 might not work out the way people expect it to work out.

May very well be

 

[greenroom]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57584947/wh-benghazi-emails-have-different-quotes-than-earlier-reported/

Looks like the Republicans were not being honest. So can we call a spade a spade that the Republicans are pushing this as a political ploy.