Democrats now critical of Rice's Benghazi explanation, amid more damaging evidence

  • Thread starter Thread starter livingwordunity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Honestly…

There is nothing Hillery Clinton can’t weasel out of. Nothing.

🤷
 
SamH said:
Agreed, especially with spineless Republicans not willing to press her.
Click to expand...
They are too busy degfending gay adoption and legalizing illegals to vote against them to be bothered with something as trivial as this.
 
ishii said:
You have the nerve to compare the suicide bombing of Beirut to the attack on Benghazi? Did the marines in Beirut ask for more security? No, but the embassy in Benghazi did. Did Reagan concoct a fairy tale story about the Beirut suicide bombers in order to deflect damage to his presidency? No, but Obama did. Are you that partisan Oldcelt, that you would equate Beirut and Benghazi? Are you so partisan as to make excuses for a president who would rather lie than take responsibility for failure? If Obama had said, “yes, we made mistakes in not defending Benghazi or responding to the attack”, that would have handed an issue to Romney weeks before the election. Instead Obama concocted a story designed to minimize political damage to Obama at the expense of the truth. And now, it looks like (one hopes) the chickens have come home to roost. We may yet see the truth. (no thanks to the Obama admin).

Oh what a web we weave, Oldcelt.

Who died from Watergate? Yet, a president was brought down. Is it your hope that the vast majority of the people stay in the dark on this issue? Is Obama care and free abortions worth telling lies to the American people?

Obama lied to manipulate the 2012 election in his favor. He deserves to be kicked out of office.

Ishii
Click to expand...
I certainly do equate the two incidents…no actually, the difference is obvious…the death toll. Reagan was warned by his Secretary of Defense not to place troops in Beirut. There was no major action taken by the administration in reaction to the bombing, and no one was screaming for the President’s job or for a major congressional investigation.
So far as anyone concocting stories, what is your evidence that President Obama did anything of the sort? Are you so partisan that you can’t even wait for the investigation to conclude?
While it is true that no one died in Watergate you are conveniently ignoring a couple of important facts. 1. Watergate began with a criminal act by GOP partisans with close ties to the President…the Obama Administration did not coordinate, assist, or attempt to hide the Benghazi attacks…this attack was committed by foreign forces with no ties to the administration. 2. President Nixon was complicit in an attempt to cover up the original criminal act and admitted to that in his later interviews. At worst, what you have here is a case of trying to explain what had occurred before the facts were known and choosing a very stupid explanation.

My curiosity rests with precisely what was going on at the compound. It has been suggested that it was being used as a base for some covert operations, and that Ambassador Stevens was well aware of the danger.

In any case, your hopes for impeachment will go nowhere…there are still some sane people in the house, and you will probably be very disappointed with how this investigation concludes. I, on the other hand, have never viewed this as an event of major significance. Sad, surely…a world-changer…not a chance.
 
oldcelt said:
A very quick look into our recent history shows the dangers of instituting military action based on faulty or incomplete information. It just may be that the former Secretary of State learned a very important lesson during her time as US Senator.
Click to expand...
Oh come on oldcelt, there is a HUGE difference between sending in a Special Ops unit to save the Embassy personnel who were under attack and declaring war such as during the Vietnam era and then subsequently in Iraq. No one wanted a wholesale invasion, just an attempt to aid those under fire.

As to what Clinton learned as a US Senator (how long was that, a couple of years?) she simply learned to campaign…lie, obfuscate, pander, take on a ‘black’ accent and if all else fails burst into tears. She is a real piece of work. Why she is the frontrunner for 2016 tells me more people are paying attention to Kim’s baby bump than the future of our country.

Lisa
 
mary_bobo said:
To add to the list of questions that have been asked here, I want to know why the producer of the video is still in jail? On what charges?
Click to expand...
Bump…

Far as I know yes he is! I thought that he was in jail on some kind of parole violation, not because of the video. Talk about government over reach and a violation of Constitutional rights. But he’s some kind of throwaway and has no constituancy apparently.

Really sad that Mrs Clinton proudly annonced to the father of one of the dead heroes “We put that video maker in jail!” She sure doesn’t mind lying, even to a grieving father.

Lisa
 
Seachange said:
***Everything ***he has done in the Middle East has helped the Muslim Brotherhood. This ‘Arab Spring’ nonsense has brought down stable governments across the region, with American assistance to the ‘rebels’, and replaced them with the unstable Muslim Brotherhood or a myriad of islamist groups vying to fill the power vacuums. None of these places are freer now than before their revolutions. Things are much worse for them, the ordinary citizens, now than when they were under their so-called dictators, especially for Christians and other non-Muslims.

Information sources say that the ‘rebels’ in Syria are predominately foreign fighters attached to various Islamist jihad organisations.

WAR ON SYRIA; 95 Percent Of ‘Syrian Rebels’ (FSA) Are Foreigners; German Intelligence Report

The UN reports that it was not Assad who used sarin but the rebels (who probably got it from Ghadaffi’s stores through the weapons conduit set up by Stevens at Obama’s orders in Benghazi).
Click to expand...
This is the truly scary result of Obama’s foreign policy of supporting rebels who DO have a cause and it’s not in the interests of this country that it be furthered.

I can vouch for Egypt which is a mess, literally and figuratively. Since the MB took over, business which used to support government operations and support the Egyptian people has taken a dive. Mubarek apparently had a lot of lucrative contracts that enriched him but in addition, the garbage was picked up and other government run functions went smoothly. When I was Egypt I was struck by the FILTH everywhere. Trash is literally ankle deep in the streets. Acres of partly constructed buildings and homes with rebar sticking out of the unfinished floors are not being completed.

According to our Egyptian guide, the MB has no clue how to run a government and thus little or nothing is being done. Add the violence to the mix and tourism the one decent industry (other than cotton) is down 80%!

Obama being a street activist somehow is blind to the reality that sometimes the people in the streets throwing rocks are no more honest or capable than those entrenched in the government. He seems to have some romantic notion about these revolutions regardless of the actual results.

Lisa
 
ishii said:
Did Reagan concoct a fairy tale story about the Beirut suicide bombers in order to deflect damage to his presidency? Are you that partisan Oldcelt, that you would equate Beirut and Benghazi? Ishii
Click to expand...
No, but he did a “bait and switch” worthy of any in history. I guy I once worked with, an ex-Marine, said he was in on the ground in the Grenada operation, and he said it was a joke. There was no threat to American lives or interests there.

Reagan just did it to take the media’s (and the public’s) eye off what had happened a few days before in Beirut, when Iranians blew up a bunch of his fellow Marines. Iranians, I might add, who were working with Hezbollah and acting as conduits for Reagan’s sale of weapons to Teheran to fund his illegal war in Central America.
 
LisaA said:
Oh come on oldcelt, there is a HUGE difference between sending in a Special Ops unit to save the Embassy personnel who were under attack and declaring war such as during the Vietnam era and then subsequently in Iraq. No one wanted a wholesale invasion, just an attempt to aid those under fire.

As to what Clinton learned as a US Senator (how long was that, a couple of years?) she simply learned to campaign…lie, obfuscate, pander, take on a ‘black’ accent and if all else fails burst into tears. She is a real piece of work. Why she is the frontrunner for 2016 tells me more people are paying attention to Kim’s baby bump than the future of our country.

Lisa
Click to expand...
There is no question that there is that there is a huge difference…in one we made the wrong decision based on faulty and incomplete information and thousands of lives were lost or forever damaged…in another we kept our heads and accepted what the military in the area concluded. Whether you like it or not, the embassy attack was a highly fluid situation and the information was very sketchy at the time…actually still is. We chose not to charge in willy-nilly…the same decision made by other administrations during very similar circumstances.
So far as Ms. Clinton being the front-runner at this time…that is a fact, and your little insults will do nothing to change that. From an experience standpoint, she would be one of the most qualified candidates ever to run and the GOP knows that they would have very little chance against her. After all…that’s what much of this is really about…isn’t it?
 
colmywaykurtz said:
Reagan just did it to take the media’s (and the public’s) eye off what had happened a few days before in Beirut, when Iranians blew up a bunch of his fellow Marines. Iranians, I might add, who were working with Hezbollah and acting as conduits for Reagan’s sale of weapons to Teheran to fund his illegal war in Central America.
Click to expand...
Really? Even a little island adventure like Grenada isn’t pulled off in a couple days. :rolleyes:
 
oldcelt said:
I.

…In any case, your hopes for impeachment will go nowhere…there are still some sane people in the house…
Click to expand...
Agreed, there won’t be an impeachment for two reasons:
  1. Nobody has the stomach for impeaching the first black president, no matter how much the information was misreprented/hidden/distorted.
  2. No sane person would initiate an action to make Biden president.

    Especially when it really came down to a bad judgement call on how quickly a rescue mission could get there versus how long the people there could hold out. The two ex-seals managed to stretch the battle out far longer than any reasonable person could have predicted. Typical bureacratic CYA, a lot of bad decisions led up to the attack and no one wants to own up and be held accountable.
The back and forth in these - your guy did, my guy did, etc. etc. reminds me of a song to the tune of the old dog food jingle:

My guy’s better than your guy
My guy’s better than yours,
My guy’s better 'cause I like the way he lies to me,
My guy’s better than yours.
 
Hillary Clinton:

Remarks at the Transfer of Remains Ceremony to Honor Those Lost in Attacks in Benghazi, Libya
This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with. It is hard for the American people to make sense of that because it is senseless, and it is totally unacceptable.
Click to expand...
My emphases

16:245- 17:05 in this video:

youtube.com/watch?v=SY81JQZ3_bI
 
oldcelt said:
There is no question that there is that there is a huge difference…in one we made the wrong decision based on faulty and incomplete information and thousands of lives were lost or forever damaged…in another we kept our heads and accepted what the military in the area concluded. Whether you like it or not, the embassy attack was a highly fluid situation and the information was very sketchy at the time…actually still is. We chose not to charge in willy-nilly…the same decision made by other administrations during very similar circumstances.
Click to expand...
Oh PUH-LEASE. So you think a rescue operation is identical to the ramp up of a full scale invasion? You claim to know something about the military but are you aware that rescue operations occur all of the time? The troops responding to calls for help don’t sit back, analyze all of the potential resuts and ramifications…at which time those calling for help would be dead. They gear up and go. If, when they get there (it was apparently less than an hour away) the mission has to be aborted or is unsuccessful, that is one of the hazards of war. But the point is that these troops respond, bravely and without thought of their own safety.

There was apparently a drone overhead during much of the attack. Those geared up and apparently ready to go would have had realtime information. Further they are TRAINED to go into volatile situations. That’s the point of their training.

You really think that when Americans call for help from our military or other first responders that a lengthy analysis precedes a response? REALLY?
oldcelt said:
So far as Ms. Clinton being the front-runner at this time…that is a fact, and your little insults will do nothing to change that. From an experience standpoint, she would be one of the most qualified candidates ever to run and the GOP knows that they would have very little chance against her. After all…that’s what much of this is really about…isn’t it?
Click to expand...
Qualifed at what? She was a do nothing Senator and as SoS accomplished nothing. Between the blunders of the reset button with respect to the Soviets to Benghazi, she was seen dancing a conga, raising a glass and sniping at students who asked what “the President” would do in a particular situation. Yep, much to be proud of…

And what it’s about is the dishonesty and corruption that is present in this Administration. I hope some day we actually get the truth about what happened.

Lisa
 
styrgwillidar said:
Agreed, there won’t be an impeachment for two reasons:
  1. Nobody has the stomach for impeaching the first black president, no matter how much the information was misreprented/hidden/distorted.
  2. No sane person would initiate an action to make Biden president.

    Especially when it really came down to a bad judgement call on how quickly a rescue mission could get there versus how long the people there could hold out. The two ex-seals managed to stretch the battle out far longer than any reasonable person could have predicted. Typical bureacratic CYA, a lot of bad decisions led up to the attack and no one wants to own up and be held accountable.
.
Click to expand...
I remember when Joe Biden was named to the VP slot. My immediate reaction was "Oh a life insurance policy! No one would do ANYTHING that would put that walking example of Foot in Mouth Disease in the Oval Office.

I agree, Obama would never be impeached and frankly I don’t know the point of impeaching Clinton. My hope is that eventually even Democrats will see Obama as the corrupt and incompent stuffed shirt that he is and just ignore him. We’ve had four years without a leader in the White House. We can survive another four.

Lisa
 
oldcelt said:
I certainly do equate the two incidents…no actually, the difference is obvious…the death toll. Reagan was warned by his Secretary of Defense not to place troops in Beirut. There was no major action taken by the administration in reaction to the bombing, and no one was screaming for the President’s job or for a major congressional investigation.
So far as anyone concocting stories, what is your evidence that President Obama did anything of the sort? Are you so partisan that you can’t even wait for the investigation to conclude?
While it is true that no one died in Watergate you are conveniently ignoring a couple of important facts. 1. Watergate began with a criminal act by GOP partisans with close ties to the President…the Obama Administration did not coordinate, assist, or attempt to hide the Benghazi attacks…this attack was committed by foreign forces with no ties to the administration. 2. President Nixon was complicit in an attempt to cover up the original criminal act and admitted to that in his later interviews. At worst, what you have here is a case of trying to explain what had occurred before the facts were known and choosing a very stupid explanation.

My curiosity rests with precisely what was going on at the compound. It has been suggested that it was being used as a base for some covert operations, and that Ambassador Stevens was well aware of the danger.

In any case, your hopes for impeachment will go nowhere…there are still some sane people in the house, and you will probably be very disappointed with how this investigation concludes. I, on the other hand, have never viewed this as an event of major significance. Sad, surely…a world-changer…not a chance.
Click to expand...
Of course you don’t view the Obama lie as anything significant: such is the effect of being a partisan Democrat. Look at the clips of Obama and his partners in crime continuing to call the attack the result of a you tube video! There is nothing for me to prove old Celt as its on the record. What make the act more despicable is that the false story concocted by Obama was intended to minimize damage to his re-election chances. He lies about Benghazi so he could get re elected. You will recall that Watergate was not initially damaging to Nixon at first either. Hopefully we will get enough good Americans to demand the truth and come forward with the truth on this. Hopefully patriotism will prevail over the lies due do to blind partisan loyalty.

Ishii
 
oldcelt said:
So far as Ms. Clinton being the front-runner at this time…that is a fact, and your little insults will do nothing to change that. From an experience standpoint, she would be one of the most qualified candidates ever to run and the GOP knows that they would have very little chance against her. After all…that’s what much of this is really about…isn’t it?
Click to expand...
May God help us all if that were true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top