৮ মে, ২০১৩
"House Hearing on U.S. Consulate Attack in Benghazi, Libya."
"The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee conducts a hearing with Foreign Service officers focusing on information turned over to the committee by administration whistle-blowers on the Benghazi terrorist attacks." Live streaming here — on C-Span3, beginning in a few minutes.
এতে সদস্যতা:
মন্তব্যগুলি পোস্ট করুন (Atom)
পোস্টগুলি
৮৮৭টি মন্তব্য:
«সবচেয়ে পুরাতন ‹পুরাতন 887 এর 401 – থেকে 600 আরও নতুন» সবচেয়ে নতুন»ritmo: "And why do these friends of yours have such funny names?"
Easy there ritmo, calling those names "funny" is racist, as the left is wont to inform us.
Of course, I should simply wait about 9 minutes and you'll probably just change your mind.
Did you see that? That was the biggest fucking squirrel I ever saw.
But it wasn't half as scary as the Benghazi bear.
Hyphenated American said...
I other words, after all the swearing and cursing, ritmo could not propose a single thing that he could have done if he were the president of the USA in August 2001,
what, you mean "asking for intelligence to stop it" isn't' a sane response?
Ritty is apparently for profiling at airports now, and randomly searching Muslim passengers.
who knew?!
ritmo: Drago, how are those electoral prospects holding up?"
LOL
Lookie here at how fast ritmo scrambles to the perceived conversational "safety" of some other ("any other!!) topic now that her remarkable powers of "mind changing" have been amply demonstrated.
LOL
Mr. Ed said...
What is it about Iraq that makes rightists runaway and hide from even discussing it. Guilt, fear, embarrassment? Surely these are comfortable feelings by now.
I've been discussing it all damned day, horse's ass, and documenting all the lies the Lefties have told.
Go through the post and come up with something we haven't hit yet.
Assuming you can read, of course.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Drago, how are those electoral prospects holding up?
Aww, ritty all bum hurt because she's talking intelligence when she shouldn't be and a total beclowning took place.
PS: $1.2 million in donations to Colbert Busch, $929,000 on independent expenditures against Sanford.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
In the meantime, it's good enough for me to know that Obama's not had one of those things happen.
I think you should tell that to the people of Boston, idiot.
ritmo: "Buh-Bye."
Give ritmo 9 minutes and she'll be back.
The only question will be whether or not she will remember that she said "Buh-Bye".
You go NOW!
Jay: "I think you should tell that to the people of Boston, idiot."
It will only take a few months and ritmo and the left will put that unfortunate "workplace violence" behind them.
O Ritmo the Retard said...
Haven't thought about it in a while, Hyphenated. Not my job to. You want to pay me a president's salary?
HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA
Shorter retard: Flinging poo from the sidelines
Still no word on what Bush could have done to prevent 9/11 even if he had known that the plan was to hijack jets and crash them into buildings. Of course, if he'd known the names and addresses of the plotters, the date of the attack, or the specific targets, he could have done a lot more, but he didn't know that, did he? And whose fault was that? Hint: it was Clinton flunkie Jamie Gorelick in 1995 who created "the oft-noted wall of separation that prevented counterterrorism agents and federal prosecutors from communicating with one another prior to September 11" (link) - the same Jamie Gorelick who was later a member of the panel investigating the disaster she had helped facilitate.
I can think of at least three things Buch could have done that would have worked, but he didn't (and couldn't) do any of them even after 9/11: 1. ground all air flights forever and make everyone take trains or ships, 2. ban Muslims from all flights in U.S. airspace, or 3. expel all Muslims from the U.S. Does anyone think Bush should have done any of these? Does anyone think he could have? Can anyone name another method that would have worked, even if Bush had known the method that would be used on 9-11? (Actually, I'm not sure 2 or 3 would even have worked: they could have hijacked planes in Canada and flown them to NYC and DC.)
O Ritmo the Retard said...
Haven't thought about it in a while, Hyphenated. Not my job to. You want to pay me a president's salary?
So you haven't "thought about" the 1998 PDB you brought up 1 hour ago "in a while" huh?
You're beyond parody.
ritmo: "Buh-Bye."
5/8/13, 7:39 PM
ritmo: "--Some Republican. Althouse Blog. May 8th, 2013."
5/8/13, 7:41 PM
LOL
Stay with me here....
It looks like ritmo changed her mind again!
And this time it took only 2 minutes!
A new ritmo record!
I love this.
Ritty injects the 1998 PDB here:
O Ritmo Segundo said...
It's almost as if he watched 3,000+ Americans die on home soil after getting memos that this would happen while reading children's books about goats.
5/8/13, 5:47 PM
And then says:
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Haven't thought about it in a while, Hyphenated. Not my job to. You want to pay me a president's salary?
5/8/13, 7:39 PM
Ritty, really, really fucking dumb.
So ritty doesn't "think about" the appropriate response to the 1998 PDB, she just flings the word "memo" around like poo over & over.
That's a touching story.
Uh, creeley, we all assured garage there would be no latin on the thread tonight.
OK. Here it is again without the Latin or the fallacy description:
Even if their complaints about Bush were equivalent, it still comes down to what their mothers apparently did not teach them: Two wrongs don't make a right.
I think Garage and Ritmo have performed a valuable service. They've made it clear:
* They cannot defend the Obama administration on Benghazi.
* They are immoral and dishonest participants in this discussion.
ritmo's passion has already been noted.
But ritmo's tone, incoherence and complete lack of focus (as demonstrated this evening) is indicative of someone who is on medication.
Or should be.
ritmo: "I can always find new ways to point out Republican shamelessness, Drago."
LOL
But are you capable of remembering what you say from one minute to the next?
LOL
No.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Drago, how are those electoral prospects holding up? You finding enough white people? How about enough blind, partisan rage to inflate?
That seems to be your problem. The Demos couldn't steal the election last night because SC's voter id law went into effect this year.
What, O what, will Ritmo and Co do when they can't steal votes and their Gaynesty bill goes down in flames in the House?
Does the name "creeley" sound a bit like "creepy"?
Not so much as Ritmo sounds like nitwit.
Obviously, Ritmo is running out of zingers if he has to try to make fun of people's names as his only defense.
ritmo, are you still here?
Are you aware that you are?
CEO-MMP said...
"I know, brave kkkonservatives"
Ritmo, please pay attention to what I'm about to 'say':
Fuck you. Really. Fuck you. That's just offensive and beneath you.
CEO,
This is the most unobservant comment you've ever made. There is literally nothing beneath Ritmo. In fact the Althouse blog should have a Godwin convention for Ritmo: all commenting should immediately cease on any thread he posts to.
Creeley: "Obviously, Ritmo is running out of zingers if he has to try to make fun of people's names as his only defense."
Uh, wouldn't "running out of" something necessarily imply there was, at some point in time, at least 2 of the somethings to begin with?
I'm afraid if we're talking about ritmo and "zingers", then I'm going to have to challenge that assertion.
I know, brave kkkonservatives,
He just starts out like this. On occasion, I'll see Ritmo make a good faith argument for what he believes. This, however pretty much gives you more insight to his thinking than any of what he passes off as an argument.
I don't know whether he deserves the grief he gets onr not. It's clear however that he invites it with crap like this.
ritmo: "I'm also capable of interpreting it, Drago."
LOL
Interpreting what?
LOL
It just keeps getting better.
Why bother arguing with Ritmo?
It's like wrestling with a pig. Sure you can win, but so what? You just finished wrestling a pig what's so great about that?
And my use of the animal "pig" offends you go ahead and replace it with any other one that doesn't. Same difference.
Not so much as Ritmo sounds like nitwit.
I prefer dumbshit, but yeah, either is close.
FOX hasn't recovered in relevance since.
Fox is the highest rated cable news channel.
Idiot.
ritmo: "Oh yeah, Drago. And I'm subjecting you to the FOX News treatment. You know, like how we repeat over and over again something that someone said. Only in your case, we know it wasn't something misstated, but what you actually meant."
LOL
What?!
Too funny.
Please continue ritmo.
You can't possibly keep up this Olympian level of incoherence....
.....or can you?......
@ Dr. Weevil
"Can anyone name another method that would have worked, even if Bush had known the method that would be used on 9-11?"
He could have ordered the USAF to shoot the planes down. And this is probably still an option if needed.
ritmo: "Robert Gibbs did that to Sean Hannity in 2008"
What 2 men do in the privacy of their own TV studio is their business.
What we want to know is: have you always been this incoherent, or is it a more recent development?
This is the most unobservant comment you've ever made. There is literally nothing beneath Ritmo. In fact the Althouse blog should have a Godwin convention for Ritmo: all commenting should immediately cease on any thread he posts to."
Marshal, you're right. Completely.
Is there a way we could compare the media freakout over Abu Graib versus the media crickets on Benghazi?
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Yep.
I'm also capable of interpreting it, Drago.
Now, let's have you interpret this choice morsel of insight into Republican values:
"Whether lives would have been saved, more lost, etc., to a large degree isn't that important."
--Some Republican. Althouse Blog. May 8th, 2013.
I bet you you won't.
But that's not because you're a coward who doesn't care about human lives or anything.
I care you fucking knuckle dragger. I knew two of those guys that were killed there. I know what they did to save those lives and I know how this administration lied to the faces of those families and to this country about what happened. I know what your values are you insignificant insect and they are the problem and always have been. I'd rather you be the fodder and ground into dust.
ritmo: "Drago, you feelin' about as relevant as Karl Rove and Dick Morris tonight?"
LOL
Keep it up ritmo. At this rate I'm sure to win the "Leftist Distraction Talking Points" Bingo contest!!
ritmo, do you have that "thing" where you have no short term memory after a few minutes?
Dr Weevil said...
I can think of at least three things Buch could have done that would have worked, but he didn't
As a thought experiment, just imagine if Bush held a news conference on 8/15/01 and announced the US government has intelligence that radical Muslims are planning to hijack aircraft and therefore:
1. Every Muslim male will be stopped and questioned and searched extensively prior to boarding any US aircraft
2. Air Marshalls will be hired and trained
What would the reaction of ritty and her ilk been?
Tell me what's different about tonight's usual contest of wills to make it worth reading the thread to catch up?
I'm just seeing a cop and a tsunami.
Relympago said...
WMDs, lie about it if you have to, just as long as we get our contracts and Jr. gets to look like a big boy to Daddy.
Oh, they were there you cheap one trick douchebag. Where the fuck do you people come from?
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Drago, you feelin' about as relevant as Karl Rove and Dick Morris tonight?
More like Ritmo feeling like Pauline Kael.
That's one of her gowns, right?
Didn't that cunt Ritmo already do the whole "buh bye" stomping off thing about twice in this thread?
Jesus. Is there any reason it needs to be here clogging the place up like an oversized turd wad?
AJLynch: "Is there a way we could compare the media freakout over Abu Graib versus the media crickets on Benghazi?"
There is no comparison.
The left ran with Abu Graib for months and months on end.
Further, they held Bush and Cheney personally responsible.
Personally responsible.
So much for ritmo's vaunted "consistency".
LOL
Not to worry though. Give her 5 minutes and you might find her on your side!....(but for only a few minutes or until the moon changes phase).
CEO: "Didn't that cunt Ritmo already do the whole "buh bye" stomping off thing about twice in this thread?"
Yes. But in her defense, she doesn't remember doing that.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Then go tell it to the Republican who says he doesn't, Methadras. Assuming you aren't just another knuckle-dragging phony.
Are you going to pull the same bullshit you pulled last time, moron? You know the one where people you disagree with must collectively hold someone else's comments responsible for the rest lest we are all smeared with that disagreeable commentary you don't like? I don't give two shits what that republican who remains unnamed says or said. It's not my concern and it's on him/her, not me or anyone else.
Relympago said...
WMDs, lie about it if you have to, just as long as we get our contracts and Jr. gets to look like a big boy to Daddy.
Hi dum-dum.
The challenge goes to you: Name a single "WMD lie"
thanks.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Then go tell it to the Republican who says he doesn't, Methadras
How about you link it, cunt?
"Whether lives would have been saved, more lost, etc., to a large degree isn't that important."
--Some Republican. Althouse Blog. May 8th, 2013.
"What difference, at this point, does it make?"
--The Secretary of State of the United States.
So, let's see here.
Hussein knew that an invasion was coming.
Intel reports showed multiple convoys of "unknown" composition crossing the Iraqi-Syrian border prior to the coalition forces moving into Iraq.
Saddam had used Sarin gas against his own Kurdish citizens in 1988.
And now, "unexpectedly" and suddenly, Syria's government has sarin gas which they use against their rebels.
Hmmmmm.
Nothing to see. Move along folks.
So now "the issue at hand" is that someone who may or may not be a Republican said something on the previous page that Ritmo insists is so offensive that we must all without exception abandon the topic of the original post and rush to denounce the statement or else have stupid troll quote it over and over and over again. Does Ritmo ever feel compelled to denounce stupid and evil things that garage or Inga or other lefties say?
'Arrhythmia' is normally a bad thing, but this site could certainly use a strong dose of it.
"Whether lives would have been saved, more lost, etc., to a large degree isn't that important."
--Some Republican. Althouse Blog. May 8th, 2013.
Link it or it is a lie.
Neither of which are nearly as offensive as the idea that 4 deaths don't matter because... Iraq.
ritmo: "Drago seems to think this is all one big laugh, Methadras."
I hate to break this to you ritmo, but your psychoses is not what this is all about.
I hope this doesn't upset you too much.
LOL
I see we have some of the usual suspects ranting tonight..still no Inga?
Does Ritmo ever feel compelled to denounce stupid and evil things that garage or Inga or other lefties say?
At this point I'm convinced they are the same person using different handles to act differently, at least in some minor ways.
Dr Weevil: "Does Ritmo ever feel compelled to denounce stupid and evil things that garage or Inga or other lefties say?"
LOL
I'm still waiting for ritmo to explain how a few thousand more people could tip the island of Guam over.
I would ask garage to explain that, but garage probably thinks that Guam is a suburb of Cleveland with a really good public school system.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
So what you're saying is that it's ok for Republicans to use Benghazi for political spectacle and whether they actually care about any lives lost there is immaterial, as long as you alone do.
Got it.
Oh, so you are going to put words in my mouth now, eh? Are you seriously going to stoop to this level? You know, even lower than I had you pegged at before? I said no such thing, i intimated no such thing, I insinuated no such thing. You will not dictate the terms by which I or anyone else is held responsible for their individual comments as a collective. Not only is that unsound, but frankly insane. What more should expect from you however? This is the schtick you ride in on. This is all you have. This is all you do. You don't score points, you don't even make cogent arguments. You are nothing more than a contrarian and that's your whole game. I hope you've had playing it because in the end your entire contribution to Althouse has been nothing. Bravo, you succeeded in doing what you do best, nothing.
I think that one thing that has been not discussed here is the effect that it may have on the rest of Obama's term (and Hillary's chance of winning the Presidency).
I do not think that this was, really, impeachable. Malfeasance, misfeasance, ineptitude, etc. I would suggest that it was ineptitude and ignorance that got them into this, and the four Americans killed, and then a lot of lying to the American people after that. But, does it rise to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor(as required by the Constitution)? Clinton lied under oath. The people in the Administration, from Obama on down, did so mostly not under oath, and those who were under oath dissembled sufficiently that they are probably safe from prosecution (and, wouldn't get prosecuted by Holder anyway).
But, I would still suggest that this is going to harm Obama, maybe even significantly. Part of their problem is that a lot on the left have been pushing the narrative that Obama had some sort of mandate for winning the last election, despite destroying the economy, passing ObamaCare into law, passing out billions in "stimulus" money to cronies, etc. But, part of this "mandate" is a result of pushing the Administration's actions and missteps into 2013, well after the election, by lying through their teeth to the American public about what happened in Benghazi. And, they kept lying for months after 9/11/12. Most everyone involved knew at the time that it was a terrorist attack, and had absolutely nothing to do with that video that they continued push as the cause up through the election. That was an intentional lie, most likely to take the heat off Obama through the election. It worked.
So, Obama and his people blatantly lied about this failure, where Americans died, and the United States was seen as a paper tiger, as a direct result of faulty policies and deliberate orders to let Americans die. And, partially as a result, he was reelected.
Imagine if the debate where moderator Cindy Crowly covered for Obama about Benghazi, if the information that came out today had been known at the time. Deliberate orders from Obama political appointees to stand down (issued at least twice). Deliberate changing of talking points, at the direction of Obama political appointees to actively mislead (and lie to) the American people about the causes of the attack, whether armed forces could have responded in time, and who ordered them not to do so, etc.
So, Obama and his Administration lied to win reelection. They lied, and continued to lie, until they couldn't do so any more. And, they won reelection.
So, next time the issue of Obama's "mandate" comes up, a lot of people are going to respond that his victory was at least partially a result of this blatant lying to the American people.
We shall see.
ndspinelli said...
I see we have some of the usual suspects ranting tonight..still no Inga?
That drunken sot doesn't dare show herself on here ever again.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Stop pretending this is about personal treatment, CEO. You just used one of your other "team-member's" "opinions" (if you can call it that) to substitute for your own, so you can cut the whole personal integrity charade. You're just playing a game tonight, too - (along with the rest of them) - and I've said nothing personally critical to you (or really, anything personal at all tonight) before you decided to jump on their bandwagon. "
No sweetheart. I got home late and was trying to catch up with the comments, hoping it wasn't going to turn into a shit-show. I'm reading along and here you come with your "kkkonservatives" thing--which I told you before was offensive.
And yes, I take it personally, and I'm not playing a game about it. You're being more and more ridiculous, more and more out of hand and your charm(s) are fading rapidly.
So, no bandwagon. Just personally offended because of a. your comment and b. your repeated take-overs of every single goddam thread here.
early ritmo: "But that's not because you're a coward who doesn't care about human lives or anything."
5/8/13, 7:51 PM
Later ritmo: "and I've said nothing personally critical to you (or really, anything personal at all tonight) before you decided to jump on their bandwagon."
5/8/13, 8:09 PM
LOL
ritmo really can't help herself.
She literally (yes, "literally") does not remember what she posts from minute to minute!!
ritmo: "Noted conservative Dante wrote it at 6:05, you blind, empirically challenged, and never to be trusted to an impartial investigation on anything, cunt-rags."
5/8/13, 8:13 PM
LOL
ritmo: "and I've said nothing personally critical to you (or really, anything personal at all tonight) before you decided to jump on their bandwagon."
5/8/13, 8:09 PM
Relympago said...
Isn't it heart warming the way the Iraqis show their appreciation for the 4,400 Americans who gave their lives saving their country? How have they thanked us for sacrifice?
How many Iraqi's have you met that have said as much. I've met so many that have expressed their gratitude to me personally about the new chance they and their families can now have without the horrors of Hussein to worry about anymore. Do they have issues still? Of course. What? Do you think it takes little to no time to put a country back together again from scratch? You sound like another one of those bush lied people died useful idiot ignorant fools.
7 things we learned about Benghazi today:
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/05/08/seven-things-we-learned-from-the-benghazi-whistleblower-hearing/?singlepage=true
The Benghazi cover-up is pretty much nailed in this 5 minutes.
Hillary, you stink of the cover-up!
"I'm just a country boy from Ohio." Who is on fire! That is how you do it. Jim Jordan, my new favorite member of the House.
ritmo: "I'm fine leaving them to others. Just can't stand the lack of introspection,"
LOL
I've already cut and pasted an sssortment of ritmo's comments to a more liberal acquaintance of mine as a case study of liberal projection.
He agreed, at least in ritmo's case!
His actual "comeback" to me was that "the right has more ritmo's than the left".
LOL
His actual comeback!
ritmo: "But please, tell me how I'm the one with a problem."
LOL
No ritmo. I'm quite sure there isn't anyone who can tell you anything!
LOL
Ritmo said:
"Just can't stand the lack of introspection, unwillingness to use a single standard for both sides, utter lack of humanity, and complete imperviousness to any facts that I don't want to hear..."
Excellent summary of your typical content, Ritmo!
We are tired of it, too.
Not having to read utter drivel is 100% within your control, of course: if you don't post it, you won't have to read it.
I'm fine leaving them to others. Just can't stand the lack of introspection, unwillingness to use a single standard for both sides, utter lack of humanity, and complete imperviousness to any facts that they don't want to hear. Republicanism here is apparently a circular firing squad and I don't mind breaking it up for the sake of something more interesting.
Fuckwad, it had been a pretty decent, even handed discussion of the testimony until you showed up and took one of your patented shits all over the place.
So don't give me that bullshit because you're the only one here stupid enough to believe it, you pathetic little twatwaffling cunt.
Sockpuppet x: Gawdamn! The lefties are taking a beating tonight, butt hurt real good.
FIFY
Oops.
ritmo, does "FIFY" count as "trendy phone text speak"?
LOL
Your paranoid ravings and your moral depravity are "interesting," Ritmo the Retard, but not because they shed any light on politics.
I don't regard you as a coherent spokesman for any political faction. I just regard you as a kid with very serious moral and psychological problems.
You're coming here, in fact, to air out those problems in the hope that you can find answers.
Politics has nothing to do with the voices raging in your head. Republicans have nothing to do with the voices raging in your head.
Every paranoid thinks that he's responding brutally to his perceived tormenter because his tormenter struck first. The voices in your head are driving your crazy.
Bruce Hayden said...
I think that one thing that has been not discussed here is the effect that it may have on the rest of Obama's term (and Hillary's chance of winning the Presidency).
I do not think that this was, really, impeachable. Malfeasance, misfeasance, ineptitude, etc.
Have to disagree.
If this was some hostage deal, a la Iran Contra, gone south, and the Administration let those guys die because, once they talked to the media, it would show up their incompetence, then it's definitely impeachable.
YMMV, but it's tough to see how, with Panetta in there, they were blind to the realities. This stinks of ValJar and Axelrod.
Again, YMMV.
Sockpuppet y: "When is the next hearing? Is that all there is?"
Well, not really.
The families of the slain (who could have been rescued) will probably spend some time thinking about how avoidable their loved ones deaths were.
And ritmo will "forget" that this conversation was even had and will be back tomorrow to reengage.
"The voices in your head are driving your crazy."
Those voice are the smartest and sanest part of this pathetic piece of shit.
Ritmo's link takes me to the first page of comments, but Dante's comment is on the second page. Ooops: poor stooge can't even handle a simple link. Here is the supposedly shameful quotation in context (addressed to Cedarford):
"I agree with your basic point (though don't know the timeline for Ambassador Stevens). The problem is the inaction.
"Whether lives would have been saved, more lost, etc., to a large degree isn't that important.
"As evidenced by one of the Republicans, it's not a good idea to tell people the US can't have a response deployed in under 20 hours. The inaction invites further attacks."
This could have been expressed more clearly, but it seems obvious to me that Dante is expressing the same principle as the Marine Corps' "leave no man behind" principle. In war and other forms of violence, you may sometimes lose more men trying to rescue those in trouble, but it's still the right thing to do. Dante admits (what any honest man must admit) that any attempt to rescue four fellow citizens who were under attack, surrounded, and heavily outnumbered by opponents who enthusiastically violate every provision of the Geneva Convention, might well have ended with more than four dead. He thinks it was still the right thing to do. Ritmo apparently can't get his mind around the concept that fighting, while it risked possibly losing more lives in the short run, would very likely have meant losing fewer lives in the long run, because it would have made the U.S. less of a laughing-stock to its enemies. He seems to approve of the idea of cutting your losses by abandoning allies to horrible deaths rather than risking the lives of others to try to save them, even when those others were very willing to do so.
Seven Palms said...
Gawdamn! The righties are taking a beating tonight, butt hurt real good.
Sure, that's why they had to trot out Ritmo.
All the other village idiots have gone to the proctologist.
PS Gee, I'll bet that's some phony folksy, conjuring up another sockpuppet.
Nobody's in love with butt hurt like he is.
7 Things We Learned From the Benghazi Whistleblower Hearing
Oh, ok. Then my apologies for not realizing how ashamed you were of Jay for making it soo darn hard to see that perception of even-handedness.
If you get an even-handed hearing out of this obviously partisan effort, and accept it as such, then maybe there will be hope for that party yet. "
You really are dumb.
And btw, Ritzy: if you actually had the courage of your convictions (ha.), once you figured out that I was actually offended by the stupid shit you've said, you'd at least apologize instead of working so hard to justify.
So really--you're just a lying sack of dog shit.
Benghazi, is the story of the betrayal of duty, honor and privilege at the highest levels of our government.
After almost 12 hours since the Benghazi hearing commenced it has only garnished? 500 comments...
Whereas the Collins "coming out the closet" nothing story, as of right now, is clocking in at 859 comments.
Its a sample, an exhibit of the answer you gave to your own question the other day... when you said... "It must be us. This must be our doing. Our preference."
Our judgment is FUBAR.
Chances that Ritmo's cheerleaders Mr. Ed, Relympago, and Seven Palms are actually three different human beings: less than 10%.
Congress can appoint a Special Prosecutor. Does anyone know the mechanism? Does the Republican majority in the House make it possible for Boehner to appoint a Special Prosecutor, or does that need the Senate's agreement? Anyone know? Without a SP the Benghazi investigation will peter out between the Obama Administration stonewall and MSM disregard.
Dr Weevil: "In war and other forms of violence, you may sometimes lose more men trying to rescue those in trouble, but it's still the right thing to do."
Precisely.
When we sent in 2 "heavies" (CH-53's) along with 2 cobra gun ships and 2 harriers to rescue the lone air force (air force!...kidding) pilot Scott O'Grady that principle that Weevil alludes to was on full display.
That's how we roll....at least it was until the night of 9/11/2012.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
You will not dictate the terms by which I or anyone else is held responsible for their individual comments as a collective.
Shaggy had better to say about this.
Keep letting Republicans and conservatives off the hook. Guilt by silence is not just any other form of plausible deniability. Republicans have a big personal responsibility problem, and it caused them to lose in 2006, 2008, and they'll get it again. They tried to get around it by going "Tea Party" and saying they weren't responsible for 2000 - 2008. No one's buying it anymore. Criticizing other conservatives on Althouse for the way they whip you all up into a frenzy for political partisan purposes is not a bad thing. If you were capable of it, in fact, it might actually indicate your own sanity.
You just don't get it do you? I don't think you can. Here, let me put it simply and plainly for you, so that for all time, you will never have to question the intent and purposes of where I come from and I suspect where many conservatives come from.
I will take the worst that conservativism has over the best leftism, your ideology, has to offer any day of the week, 24/7/365. You are ideologically depraved. You believe in an ideology that is steeped in death and misery. You prove this every time one has to read your pedantic efforts at illustrating them. Your ideology has poisoned this world with it's grandiose notions of death. It embraces the wicked and shuns the moral. It will lie, cheat, steal, and kill to justify it's means to any end. It will succor evil wherever it lurks and indemnify it as being right and true. This is what you are, this is what you are a part of. What you are and what you think are a sickness, a cancer born of the pervasive evil that leftism surrounds itself with. You swim in it, you drench yourself with it. You give us but a taste of it's true nature simply because you are one of it's less observant and simple adherents. Sickeningly enough there are much much much worse purveyors of this ideology than you.
Is there anything in what I've said that leaves you confused as to my intents?
Now stupid Ritmo thinks Republicans are avoiding responsibility for everything that happened "2000 - 2008", as if Clinton had not been president for all 366 days of the year 2000 and almost three weeks of 2001. The guy can't even handle the most basic facts of the political calendar.
Weevil: "Chances that Ritmo's cheerleaders Mr. Ed, Relympago, and Seven Palms are actually three different human beings: less than 10%."
LOL
Sockpuppetry is a long-practiced technique by the left.
Although in Glen Greenwald's case I cut him a little slack since he, as a lefty, has been somewhat consistent in his criticism across R and D administrations.
Be as vulgar as you want, CEO. I don't know you or have reason to trust you well enough to just blindly agree with your assertions of feeling offense, so you'll have to forgive me for hearing a decent argument for your hurt feelings first. Not some half-assed one. Offending the "thread" is about the same sort of collectivization that you and everyone here accuse those not affiliated with your partisan faction of all the time. So I'm sure you'll understand if I don't find it the most persuasive of entities here. "
Whatever, taint breath.
I've told you before that I particularly didn't care for the "kkkonservative" bullshit, and I told you again tonight. You didn't give a shit, because you're only here to disrupt shit. It's why you post from about 5 different accounts.
You're pathetic.
A message about Inga: The Inga Zone #23
My point on impeachment is that, because the lying by the top officials was mostly not under oath, and Obama himself never really lied under oath. And, with his bare mention of terrorism early on (pointed out by Cindy Crawly covering for him), he really never fully lied to the American people. It was his people who did. Sure, his immediate staff was probably instrumental there, but he didn't.
Contrast this with Bill Clinton, who blatantly lied under oath and to a judge. He was impeached, but never convicted. At this level, sure, the Republicans could get an impeachment in the House, but are even more unlikely to get a conviction in the Senate. Likely wouldn't gt more than a handful of Dem votes, and those only because they are up for reelection in 2014 and from Red States. And, because of this, I don't see the Republicans in the House voting out Articles of Impeachment, because if they did, and if the impeachment failed in the Senate, which it almost assuredly would, they would harm themselves more than they would harm Obama, esp. with minority communities.
ritmo: "Pretty dramatic raving coming from someone whose ideology would have left him and everyone else living under monarchy for the past 400 years."
LOL
Yes, clamoring for lower taxes, a smaller government and less government regulation is exactly the same thing as wanting a monarch!!
LOL
BTW, isn't it about time for newsweek to come out with another cover showing Obama's head within a halo?
LOL
The Inga zone #23 is gold.
ritmo: "Drago - looks like you've got another thread participant who can't remember what he just said."
LOL
"another"
That implies there was at least one before.
But the only other possibility for that designation was you.
LOL
Glad to see you finally on board!
Recognition of your problem is the first step in addressing it.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Thomas, you're the one that hopes for dirty bomb attacks, hopes for some vague, but destructive "comeuppance" on my part, and then tells me that I'm full of rage - or failing that, what's it? Moral depravity? Ok.
You keep thinking it's your job to act like a 1950s father. Let me tell you something, my father and grandfather were ten times the man you are. Compared to them, you're an incurious, authority loving, moral coward who couldn't stand for something intelligent and decent on his own unless someone beat you into believeing it first.
If you are were remotely worth of the 10 times of value your father or your grandfather were, they would have seen you for the little rancid monster they birthed from their stock. Their collective shame would be apparent and if your meanderings are any indication of the kind of pride you would envision they would bestow upon you for the kind of speck of a human being you are and turned out to be, then sadly they too, like you, would be mistaken if not utterly disappointed.
Ritzy, are you saying you've only ever posted here from one account at a time and that this account is your only account?
Ritmo the Retard...
This obsessive way in which you transform your correspondents into proxies for the Republican Party, Bush, Rove, etc., is the paranoid voices in your head speaking.
Look, kid, I feel for you. You're a fucking mess. Hard to see how you function with that mess of voices raging in your head.
Deal with your problems and forget about fucking politics. You're not healthy enough to deal with politics.
ritmo: "Your powers of extrasensory perception sure are pathetic."
Actually, deciphering you and your actions only requires regular ole sensory perception.
You're simply not "deep" enough to require extrasensory perception.
Sandfordina said...
I just love seeing the righties making complete fools of themselves, IMPEACH OBAMA!
Oh look, a koskid got loose.
Chances that Ritmo's cheerleaders Mr. Ed, Relympago, Seven Palms, and Sanfordina are actually four different human beings: less than 5%.
"So what you're saying is that it's ok for Republicans to use Benghazi for political spectacle and whether they actually care about any lives lost there is immaterial, as long as you alone do."
I realize that it's pointless to even explain this but... not everyone functions, beginning and end, on emotion. Caring about the people who died doesn't demand that this be, beginning and end, about the fact of the death of those that died. If it were none of us and no one and our justice system would not treat one death different from another, would not treat a murder different from an accident. If I say that some people have dangerous jobs I'm not belittling the value of their life.
So to some extent the fact of the attack, the fact that four people died, is only a small part of the whole situation. For example, does it really matter who is responsible for the attack or why they did it? Maybe a little bit. But it's not really a mystery is it? It's not a criminal investigation, it's terrorism. We're after those guys *anyway*.
For myself (and I suspect for a portion of others who have served and some who haven't) one of the most important things to me is the element, not that those people died, but that they seem to have been *left* to die. Hindsight might call into question security and staffing decisions but those are most important relative to changing future policies, not as a matter of casting blame. But leaving our people out to hang when the shit hits the fan? That's important. That sort of breach of trust is devastating and there's not an excuse for it.
The "analogy" isn't Iraq or Afghanistan... the analogy is a stranded Army unit, outnumbered and under attack, and someone telling air support to stay on the ground because there are only a couple of men still alive. Unless there is no air support available or the planes and helicopters are grounded... who EVER trusts command ever again?
So in that sense, Ritmo, it really doesn't matter *if* a response would have saved any lives or not. Trying and failing means that at least you *tried*.
So it really does matter, simply because of *trust*, who decided not to *try* and why they made that decision.
The other part of it that I'm most concerned with is that the administration seems to have conspired to blatantly lie to America for no reason at all, to have used the event to justify the use of violence as a response to speech when they repeatedly blamed a video and the video maker instead of the murderers, and to have undermined all future US moral authority when it comes to defending speech and the principle of allowing it to be free, even when it hurts.
Again... for apparently NO reason.
I'd like some reasons and I think that the American people deserve to be told the reasons.
Patrick, you tell me the "good faith" argument to use against people making a partisan hack-job case based on this:
"Whether lives would have been saved, more lost, etc., to a large degree isn't that important."
--Some Republican. Althouse Blog. May 8th, 2013.
Go ahead. I'm all ears on what the good faith is in there that I'm supposed to be engaging here
Read Dr. Weevil t 8:29. You disagree with Dr. Weevil and the poster. Fine. I do also, at least to the extent that the total potential casualties ought to factor into, if not necessarily determine whether rescue efforts are made.
You're just showing that you cannot even converse with someone with whom you have strong disagreements. That's fine too, but it makes me wonder why you'd want to hang out at a place where you disagree so much.
At least I know it's not worth reading your posts. Didn't much anyway.
"so interested"? I asked once.
"hack me?"...really? You accuse ST of plotting violence against you, threaten him with the popo and now you're accusing me of hacking you because I asked you about your sockpuppet habits?
What a pathetic baby you really are.
Bruce Hayden said...
My point on impeachment is that, because the lying by the top officials was mostly not under oath, and Obama himself never really lied under oath. And, with his bare mention of terrorism early on (pointed out by Cindy Crawly covering for him), he really never fully lied to the American people. It was his people who did. Sure, his immediate staff was probably instrumental there, but he didn't.
Contrast this with Bill Clinton, who blatantly lied under oath and to a judge. He was impeached, but never convicted.
That's because the Demos held the Senate at the time and were able to enlist a few RINOs in the cause.
Conspiring to cover up the willful abandonment leading to the deaths of 4 men would be. The Constitutional phrase, "high crimes", is just a euphemism for felonies.
Remember, Nixon wasn't going to be impeached for perjury.
early ritmo: "But hopefully he'd be feeling that way about the trendy three letter acronyms Drago obsessively reaches for, like a teenage girl on spring break."
5/8/13, 8:42 PM
Later ritmo: "Lol. The source of this comment is what makes it so funny."
5/8/13, 8:44 PM
LOL
Hi there teenager!
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Pretty dramatic raving coming from someone whose ideology would have left him and everyone else living under monarchy for the past 400 years.
You guys sure put the "D" in dramatic.
This coming from a drech, who lashes out at what he doesn't understand because he doesn't know or ascribe to classical liberalism. And yet believes, laughingly that my ideology would require a monarchy. I laugh at would an uneducated idiot you really are.
Chances that Ritmo will honestly address my 8:29pm comment explaining what I believe Dante meant when he wrote the comment which Ritmo then quoted a dozen times as horribly horribly shocking and offensive, because he didn't understand it: less than 2%.
For a minute there I thought we were discussing Benghazi... so I almost took down my down beat comment.
But now I see this is just another Ritmo Dance.
Dr Weevil said...
Chances that Ritmo will honestly address my 8:29pm comment explaining what I believe Dante meant when he wrote the comment which Ritmo then quoted a dozen times as horribly horribly shocking and offensive, because he didn't understand it: less than 2%."
Nate Silver, why are you posting under the name Dr Weevil?
Patrick: "I do also, at least to the extent that the total potential casualties ought to factor into, if not necessarily determine whether rescue efforts are made."
This is what the big deal is.
We had personnel in place who could have attempted a rescue during a fight which lasted 7 hours.
Those personnel were trained and armed for just such a rescue.
Those personnel were told to stand down.
For those of us who serve, we want to know why.
For those of us who only serve Obama, they don't want to know.
And they don't want you to even ask.
Not very complicated really.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Oh, Methadras - and thanks for NOT convincing anyone here, with that last rant, that your purpose for entering this thread and weighing in on Benghazi is anything but partisan and political, but personal.
Drago - looks like you've got another thread participant who can't remember what he just said.
I don't require to convince anyone of anything. Unlike you. You are the ultimate attention whore and not even a good one.
Ritmo: Look at how much monkey poo I can fling everyone.
I don't try to convince anyone of anything. I say what I have to in order to get my point across. Everyone here knows your game dude. It's sad.
Well said there Synova.
"This is what the big deal is.
We had personnel in place who could have attempted a rescue during a fight which lasted 7 hours.
Those personnel were trained and armed for just such a rescue.
Those personnel were told to stand down.
For those of us who serve, we want to know why.
For those of us who only serve Obama, they don't want to know.
And they don't want you to even ask."
This.
And if there's a reason why not? Then there's a reason. But anyone who has, to any extent at all, trusted their life to a branch of our government *needs* to know that there was a reason.
My God, when I left it was <400, now it's 552!....then I saw Ritmo was here....nevermind..
ndspinelli said...I see we have some of the usual suspects ranting tonight..still no Inga?
At least 9 different sockpuppets in just this one thread. All the wat back to 11:36 this morning.
Phoebee
BenedictineM
Perstephanie
SouthofFrance
Angelica Dallas
Relympago
Seven Palms
Sandfordina
Waverly
All with the same blogger profie as Inga
Those personnel were told to stand down.
For those of us who serve, we want to know why.
You ought to be able to find out, we all ought to have the reasons, and find out who made the decisions. I doubt that the press is really all that curious. They suspect who messed up, but don't want to know for sure, because the peasants will get all bent out of shape.
Ritmo, are you really whining about "the hate" here in this thread?
YOU? With some of the stupid shit you've been saying?
Here's something for you to think about: without you crapping on everything here, there's no hate.
Thread was fine before you showed up.
Synova said...
This.
And if there's a reason why not? Then there's a reason. But anyone who has, to any extent at all, trusted their life to a branch of our government *needs* to know that there was a reason.
Synova, it's as if Urkel took a lesson from Carter. In that Carter attempted a rescue of the hostages in Iran and failed, while Urkel calculated it was better to not have tried at all and therefore not fail. Guess who looks like the fool. I can at least credit Carter for trying, but Urkel didn't even bother. He just went back to sleep so could get some rest for his big fund raising campaign in Nevada, while letting the rest of his minions figure the rest out for him.
If ever you want to confirm that, just right click on the namer and the blogger profile appears. In Inga's case, it's http://www.blogger.com/profile/09015394999418555703
Add Dragon my ass to the list. One sick lady.
saint Croix's link;
3. Clinton was briefed at 2 am on the night of the attack, was never told that a movie had anything to do with the attack by those on the ground in Libya, yet blamed the movie anyway.
But she bumper her head. REally. She did. She's not a ridiculous power hungry liar or anything.
ritmo: "And Drago's LOLs and ROFLs, and other, trendy and newly discovered (for him) text acronyms."
LOL
ritmo has already forgotten that she used "lol" as well!
It's not possible to converse with someone who is sane who has no short term memory, much less someone who has some underlying "condition".
Remember back to when Bush won reelection in 2004 and the swamp that is Democratic Underground went into whine-mode and then one of them started a thread for everyone on there to list out the meds they were on?
LOL
Talk about some crazy folks on the left.
Once the word got out that the country was laughing at them they quickly pulled that thread!
That is ritmo.
Let's see. Ritmo quoted the same supposedly shocking horrible statement by a Republican at least a dozen times, but now that I've attempted to explain what the author actually meant, he can't be bothered to return to the topic even once.
He could gotten the same message across to roughly the same number of people a lot more easily with an "I'm a Lying Troll on the Internet!" bumper sticker. I guess he prefers to spread the message far beyond his home town.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Actually, Methadras, they'd be kicking your ass now.
Anyone is welcomed to try
Pretty funny how obsessed everyone's become with me, tonight. If these hearings really were in good-faith, I sure hope something enlightening or even informative comes out of them.
But for everyone else, I really am getting that this is some sort of last stand in the effort to prove Obama evil.
Whatever, proceed as you were. If there was anything worth knowing out of all this, I'm sure I'll find out about it.
Now back to the soooo unpartisan, enlightenment seeking, democracy loving, comment-fest. And Drago's LOLs and ROFLs, and other, trendy and newly discovered (for him) text acronyms.
And the vulgarity.
And the hate.
And the personalization of the political (and vice versa) while Synova lectures me on the importance of being unemotional, if not necessarily (at least as far as I can see) entirely rational or reasonable.
Wow, victimhood much?
Pretty funny how obsessed everyone's become with me...
The kind of sickness, depravity and paranoia you demonstrate is sure to draw a lot of attention.
It's akin to encountering a screaming madman in the middle of the streets of a city.
Yeah, people are going to become a little "obsessed" with that.
Whether it's "funny" or not...
ritmo: "I know most of you are perplexed by my loquaciousness and interest in information and response, but seriously, I'd like to be able to take each comment and commenter as one in a kind - if more of you would be so kind as to allow for that."
Take note of the change in tone from previous postings to this.
Indicative of an extreme bi-polar disorder.
I can't get upset at ritmo.
She's laboring under some real disadvantages.
B said...
ndspinelli said...I see we have some of the usual suspects ranting tonight..still no Inga?
At least 9 different sockpuppets in just this one thread. All the wat back to 11:36 this morning.
Phoebee
BenedictineM
Perstephanie
SouthofFrance
Angelica Dallas
Relympago
Seven Palms
Sandfordina
Waverly
All with the same blogger profie as Inga
All of those profiles magically went private. ROFL!!!
This is what the big deal is.
We had personnel in place who could have attempted a rescue during a fight which lasted 7 hours.
Those personnel were trained and armed for just such a rescue.
Those personnel were told to stand down.
For those of us who serve, we want to know why.
For those of us who only serve Obama, they don't want to know.
And they don't want you to even ask."
Boom.
This.
The media don't want to know, either. Isn't that strange? It's almost as if the media have an agenda and are in bed with the democrats.
So now, after dozens of comments blaming all Republicans for one thing that Dante wrote that he couldn't be bothered to try to understand, Ritmo claims that he prefers to take "each comment and commenter as one in a kind".
Drago said...
Dr Weevil: "In war and other forms of violence, you may sometimes lose more men trying to rescue those in trouble, but it's still the right thing to do."
Precisely.
When we sent in 2 "heavies" (CH-53's) along with 2 cobra gun ships and 2 harriers to rescue the lone air force (air force!...kidding) pilot Scott O'Grady that principle that Weevil alludes to was on full display.
That's how we roll....at least it was until the night of 9/11/2012.
================
Not really.
There is a time when the soldier-killing slogan "Leave no man behind!!" is finally halted by common sense.
In Vietnam, sometimes it was when the bodies of 6 men lay in a pile around the "buddy corpse" killed by the same sniper. And someone wisely, or just finally... thought it was stupid to order more deaths to "get the 1 that became 7 corpses"
We didn't follow that in the Gulf War, perhaps the Marines and snake-eaters bought into it..but the AF limited it to rescue only it the downed crew was believed alive and rescue in those circumstances when it was believed the risk level to rescuers was acceptable.
Methadras said...
Ritmo: Look at how much monkey poo I can fling everyone.
He calls it browbeating, but it's the same thing.
On the weekends it usually comes from some phony folksy.
Once you're caught, either change the subject or say the source isn't good enough.
Needless to say, this is why I think it's only a few guys and endless sockpuppets.
Ritmo is an outstanding member of a club called the "no matter what" club.
"No matter what" the evidence shows, I'm going to try to undermine it, argue against it persuasively enough to be paid attention to.
At some point you people that pay attention to him must realize this.
You are not going to get anywhere with this guy.
He is just jerking your chains!
He comes here to engage in some sort of psychological masturbation... and I for one, refuse to be one of his props.
methadras: "In that Carter attempted a rescue of the hostages in Iran and failed, while Urkel calculated it was better to not have tried at all and therefore not fail."
Remember though that Carter altered the number of helicopters requested for the mission which meant that if anything went wrong the mission would have to be scrubbed for lack of adequate assets.
In that sense, it was the same as LBJ sitting in his bunker and personally picking out targets.
@Drago: I believe you're right RE the bi-polar. I had, up until tonight, been willing to believe it was a sign that there was actual reasonableness just under the surface.
I was wrong.
Cedarford said...
We didn't follow that in the Gulf War, perhaps the Marines and snake-eaters bought into it..but the AF limited it to rescue only it the downed crew was believed alive and rescue in those circumstances when it was believed the risk level to rescuers was acceptable
Why the other armed services tend to be a bit put off by the AF.
And I'm just a tad skeptical Cedar was in.
Ritmo's Radio Address To His Majesty's Home Audience.
(see 5:47 PM post for the transcript)
Wow! Almost 600 comments on this thread (about a third of them trolling from Ritmo, but still).
The basic questions remain. What went wrong? What can we learn from this event? It is now clear that the US made no military effort to rescue the ambassador and the others under attack, but could have. Why not? What considerations beyond the expendability of the ambassador were weighed? The truth is out there.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
I don't require to convince anyone of anything. Unlike you.
No. You're just not very good at having a point, let alone making one. You just yell and scream and pretend that whatever you want to shout to the high heavens is the only thing that's ever worth it for anyone to hear.
And yes, that is a game.
Yes, You're rubber and I am glue. It's the same game Inga plays. I think at this point there is nothing more to discuss. I'm serious about this, but maybe you should think about getting some mental help. Your delusions are getting the better of you.
Cedarford: "We didn't follow that in the Gulf War, perhaps the Marines and snake-eaters bought into it..but the AF limited it to rescue only it the downed crew was believed alive and rescue in those circumstances when it was believed the risk level to rescuers was acceptable."
Well, I can't speak for the AF.
Just the Navy/Green Team.
And we did follow that.
The one caveat is that we did need to know roughly where someone might be.
Drago said...
ritmo: "I know most of you are perplexed by my loquaciousness and interest in information and response, but seriously, I'd like to be able to take each comment and commenter as one in a kind - if more of you would be so kind as to allow for that."
Take note of the change in tone from previous postings to this.
Indicative of an extreme bi-polar disorder.
I can't get upset at ritmo.
She's laboring under some real disadvantages.
You keep calling Ritmo, she. I could have sworn that Ritmo addressed himself as being male. Oh well, either way, gender is irrelevant. The crazy is equal.
Mike: "The basic questions remain. What went wrong? What can we learn from this event? It is now clear that the US made no military effort to rescue the ambassador and the others under attack, but could have. Why not? What considerations beyond the expendability of the ambassador were weighed? The truth is out there."
Mike, I'm afraid that, according to the left, your questions are racist and in poor taste and politically motivated and besides it's a very "old" story now and what difference, at this point, does it make?
Cedarford's point, that if a rescue is too dangerous it shouldn't be undertaken, if we're certain to lose the rescue team as well... that's one of those reasons I was talking about.
Sandstorms are a reason.
Diplomatic issues can be a reason. State goals can be a reason.
But there doesn't seem to be a reason, not even a bad reason, behind not getting a team in the air headed that direction. Obama and Clinton can't even use the excuse that it would have pissed off the new government of Libya.
Drago said...
methadras: "In that Carter attempted a rescue of the hostages in Iran and failed, while Urkel calculated it was better to not have tried at all and therefore not fail."
Remember though that Carter altered the number of helicopters requested for the mission which meant that if anything went wrong the mission would have to be scrubbed for lack of adequate assets.
In that sense, it was the same as LBJ sitting in his bunker and personally picking out targets.
That is true. I had forgetten in the plausible dependability on the part of the peanut president.
So now I'm "self-centered" because I think Ritmo should take a little time out from tossing childish insults back at people who have insulted him to answer a rational argument that totally refutes a point he thought important enough to repeat over a dozen times? Take your time, Ritmo. We already know you can't handle the truth.
... intellectual vowel movement all over the tread..
LOL.
Bryan Preston provides an excellent summary of the day. My summary of the summary:
1. There were multiple stand-down orders, not just one.
2. Ambassador Stevens' reason for going to Benghazi has been cleared up. Hicks testified that Ambassador Stevens traveled to Benghazi to fulfill one of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's wishes.
3. Clinton was briefed at 2 am on the night of the attack, was never told that a movie had anything to do with the attack by those on the ground in Libya, yet blamed the movie anyway.
4. Whistleblowers were intimidated into silence.
5. The YouTube movie was a non-event in Libya. Hicks directly testified that the YouTube movie, for which a man remains in jail, was not in any way relevant to the attack in Benghazi.
6. Democrats were uninterested in getting at most of the facts, but were very interested in destroying Mark Thompson.
7. House hearings are a poor way to determine who did what and why during and after the attack. The Republicans, as I said, should have broken today s hearing out across several days. When they did question the witnesses, they kept their speeches short and focused on getting answers. Their Democratic counterparts consistently gave speeches and raised red herrings.
A goodly number of these comments seem to be obsessing over one commenter or another, boring beyond belief.
A goodly number of these comments seem to be coming from new accounts that are private.
FIFY
Blogger Alexandria said...
A goodly number of these comments seem to be obsessing over one commenter or another, boring beyond belief.
You mad, Inga?
It's squirrels! all the way down with the Axelrodians.
creeley, why did Hillary want him to go?
Ritmo wrote: 4 [dead] in a foreign embassy in a country undergoing dangerous revolution versus thousands dead on American soil in the heart of our own country's financial district.
Well, at least he agrees about direction and differs only in magnitude.
A goodly number of these comments seem to be obsessing over one commenter or another, boring beyond belief.
The developing picture from Benghazi is just too much to bear... at the time of such great advancements in the areas of welfare, child care and Medicare.
2. Ambassador Stevens’ reason for going to Benghazi has been cleared up. Hicks testified that Ambassador Stevens traveled to Benghazi to fulfill one of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s wishes. Despite the fact that security was worsening in Benghazi for months leading up to the 9-11 attack, Clinton wanted to make the post there permanent. Her State Department had denied repeated requests from the U.S. team in Libya to upgrade security there, but she wanted to use the permanent post as a symbol of goodwill. Stevens was committed to that goal and told Clinton he would “make it happen.” He was in Benghazi on 9-11 furthering Clinton’s goal. She had denied requests to beef up security at Benghazi and then blamed his death on a YouTube movie. Hicks’ testimony raises the question of Clinton’s competence and grasp on reality, strongly suggesting that she put political perceptions ahead of the facts on the ground in Benghazi.
But why?
3. Clinton was briefed at 2 am on the night of the attack, was never told that a movie had anything to do with the attack by those on the ground in Libya, yet blamed the movie anyway.
2:00 a.m. Funny, that.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন