PerfectStorm
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2011
- Messages
- 4,184
- Reaction score
- 5,098
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
so the administration TODAY puts out three most-wanted posters
They had fallen behind the counter at Walmart. The cleaning person found them. They hadn't been picked up because the sequester eliminated the funding for intel photos of Benghazi. The sequester is vewy, vewy specific, and Obama has no latitude in such matters. He's only the president.Why the hell did it take 8 months for this?
I didn't have to prove anything except that I quoted the OP. That's it. Here's the post. Apparently you didn't see the number four (4) earlier and now you claim you can't read Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The "real proof" is yet to come, yes. But we do know that Please re-read the sentence and get it clear before you respond again.
You keep repeating that lie, and maybe someone will eventually believe it. Anyone with an IQ larger than their shoe size will know I was criticizing the idea we cannot critique a source.You most certainly did. Try blowing that smoke up someone else's butt.
No, just the people who clearly don't understand the simple words on the page, and then use their misunderstanding to insult me.Yeah, yeah, yeah.... everybody in this thread but you is stupid.
My ilk? What is my ilk?It's very obvious that you and your ilk don't want to find out who's behind the curtain controlling the conversation.
The ones in the government weren't responsible for their deaths, they were responsible for the lack of support. So, as I said before, let's figure out why the support wasn't there and fix it.We prefer to hold the people responsible for these deaths accountable, including both the ones in Libya and in our government.
Only if it is a Nike size 12. Any other shoe you provide probably doesn't come close.Perhaps the shoe you mentioned fits you.
It has long since ceased having any biological function, but your ilk is located right next to your gizzard. It still determines your political leanings, but that's about all your ilk does these days. My ilk is much busier, and I don't even have a gizzard. Diversity exemplified.My ilk? What is my ilk?
...
I never once said it didn't matter who was responsible for murdering the four Americans, I said we shouldn't worry about who on our side dropped the ball (at this point) and instead focus on the why of how the process failed. ....
Why the hell did it take 8 months for this?
You're right. Attempting to separate the people responsible from the "process" is an attempt to distract from the obvious. The "process" in any function of government is a wholly human construction directed by humans. We know the order to assist our people in Banghazi was never given. No "process" is involved in that decision.Can the "who" and the "why" always be seperated?
e.g. If the "why" is that a decision was made not to send support and not to pursue the perps ... don't you need to know the "who" to determine the legitimacy of the "why"?
Yes. The who may be part of the why, but the why is far more critical. But unless it's your contention the who were deliberately wanting Americans to die, I think it's safe to say the problem was more with the process, not the persons.Can the "who" and the "why" always be seperated?
Completely false.You're right. Attempting to separate the people responsible from the "process" is an attempt to distract from the obvious.
Yes, but why? What matters more, who is in charge or why they gave the order? Do you really need to know Person A, or do you need to know what we can do to make sure Person A does a better job?The "process" in any function of government is a wholly human construction directed by humans. We know the order to assist our people in Banghazi was never given.
Yes. The who may be part of the why, but the why is far more critical. But unless it's your contention the who were deliberately wanting Americans to die, I think it's safe to say the problem was more with the process, not the persons.
....
...
Yes, but why? What matters more, who is in charge or why they gave the order? Do you really need to know Person A, or do you need to know what we can do to make sure Person A does a better job?
....
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdfRather than speculate if the "who" is important, how about if you tell us the "why"?
Then we can decide if we need to know the "who".
:roll:That's just plain silly. You mean you want to know why they gave the order but who gave it needs to be secret?
If you don't know who ordered it how can you find out why it was ordered?
It sounds like your priority is something other than find out the truth.
Man o man are you discombobulated, and I never thought I'd find the perfect opportunity to say that.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf
And in her testimony, Clinton said they were already working to meet some of the recommendations presented.
And you accept her testimony as a given?
Yes, if bubbabgone doesn't know every person involved in the security process in the State department, there's no way we'll ever be able to figure out what went wrong. And you called me silly.
Except he never said that so yes, you are silly.
That sounds like something Obama would personally dictate. Party line only!Obama administration officials threatened whistle-blowers on Benghazi, lawyer says | Fox News
for something that, as then secretary of state hillary suggested, doesn't make any difference, there sure is a lot of angst
why all the hiding?
Lawmakers demand access to survivors injured in Benghazi attack | Fox News
some of the benghazi survivors seem to have suffered some severe injuries---news to you
stay tuned:
Rep. Trey Gowdy: Benghazi hearings 'coming quickly' - Washington Times
an awful lot of questions, no?
why all the warnings ignored, why no military response, why the blaming of the video, why the claim that aq was on the run, why has no one been held responsible?
why did the president go to bed?
Sean Smith's mom: Obama didn't follow up on personal promises
and how could anyone in the white house suggest that none of it makes any difference?
Do you have an evidence to the contrary?And you accept her testimony as a given?
He did actually, well insinuated it.Except he never said that so yes, you are silly.
That's just plain silly. You mean you want to know why they gave the order but who gave it needs to be secret?
If you don't know who ordered it how can you find out why it was ordered?
It sounds like your priority is something other than find out the truth.
Man o man are you discombobulated, and I never thought I'd find the perfect opportunity to say that.
Do you have an evidence to the contrary?
He did actually, well insinuated it.
Which has nothing to do with any changes that might have been made since, like Clinton said in the testimony.The title of the thread is "Obama Administration Officials Threatened Whistle-Blowers On Benghazi, Lawyer Say", suggesting all the evidence is not yet in, that it is being suppressed.
That following a thread of conversation is not something which comes easily to you?I'm insinuating something right now. Do you know what that might be?
Which has nothing to do with any changes that might have been made since, like Clinton said in the testimony.
Again, I'll ask if you have any evidence to the contrary regarding Clinton's testimony in which she said changes were already in the process of being made?Clinton is just one person to testify. Do you believe that the entire truth of what happened hangs on her words?
BS. Let's say it was this or that. How about we say that it's whatever is the truth, and forget all the speculation. What's there to hide? Somebody didn't give the order to render those folks assistance. Who was it, and why didn't they give it? That's what we need to know. And in case you're in doubt, the president is supposed to be in charge.Let's say the determination was made we could not afford extra security at the compound. Is that a "who" or a why? That's a why. If the request for security didn't get passed up the chain because other intelligence said we had greater need for forces in other places, that's a why, not a who.
Unless you're alleging an intentional act of endangering Americans, the who is separated from the why.
Yes, but why? What matters more, who is in charge or why they gave the order? Do you really need to know Person A, or do you need to know what we can do to make sure Person A does a better job?
The why is far more important. The "who" is just what Republicans want to use to find more reasons to criticize the Obama administration. The who is political, the why is what's important.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf
And in her testimony, Clinton said they were already working to meet some of the recommendations presented.
:roll:
Yes, if bubbabgone doesn't know every person involved in the security process in the State department, there's no way we'll ever be able to figure out what went wrong. And you called me silly.
Exactly. Republicans keep insisting there's a cover-up...of what? What's being covered up? We know 4 Americans are dead. We know there were fundamental flaws in the processes which were supposed to keep them safe. What exactly is being hidden?What's there to hide?
No, you don't. YOU don't need to know that. The people responsible for those who made any potential mistakes need to know. You don't need to know anything.Who was it, and why didn't they give it? That's what we need to know.
Only if something bad happened. Whenever something good happens, the President had nothing to do with it.And in case you're in doubt, the president is supposed to be in charge.
I'm not tying anything. :shrug:You're tyng yourself in knots to try to say it doesn't matter who was responsible.
Shield them from what? What exactly are you accusing them of?Or ... to be more accurate, you feel compelled to shield Hillary or Barack at all costs.
I think anytime a situation exposes flaws it's reasonable to say the flaws need to be addressed. Are you saying we shouldn't address the flaws, as long as we have a scapegoat?Okay ... So to you it's reasonable that Hillary needed recommendations to help prevent a consulate in a hostile Country from being overrun and the ambassador and others from being killed
:roll:... yet she felt she knew enough to repeatedly blame a video for it.
Yes, because THAT'S more important than finding out WHY the process failed the four dead Americans. Let's drop any and all concerns for our other ambassadors and intelligence gatherers and simply engage in a political inquiry which serves no purpose other than trying to gather future votes.Let's find out why she didn't know what the hell she was doing without being told and why she was confident about the evil video and why she doesn't think it really matters anyway.
There's your whys.
Exactly. Republicans keep insisting there's a cover-up...of what? What's being covered up?
We know 4 Americans are dead. We know there were fundamental flaws in the processes which were supposed to keep them safe. What exactly is being hidden?
Let's quit the political posturing and focus on what's important, which is how to prevent it from happening again.
The blame game is a waste of time.
If there was someone who clearly violated the rules of their job, then they deserve to be fired.
But that's not an issue for the national media,...
that's an issue for whatever department is responsible for that person.
Let's quit wasting time trying to use the deaths of Americans as political fodder for the next election and let's spend the time making sure we do everything we can to make sure it doesn't happen again.
No, you don't. YOU don't need to know that. The people responsible for those who made any potential mistakes need to know. You don't need to know anything.
Only if something bad happened. Whenever something good happens, the President had nothing to do with it.
I'm not tying anything.
Shield them from what? What exactly are you accusing them of?
I think anytime a situation exposes flaws it's reasonable to say the flaws need to be addressed. Are you saying we shouldn't address the flaws, as long as we have a scapegoat?
Seriously, it's time to move on. Everyone knows it was not the video. You're bringing it up shows complete political posturing. Let it go already.
I believe that the maker of the video is still in Jail, No? pfft....Let it go....:roll: How about you libs stop trying to brush the deaths of 4 brave Americans under the rug like so much debris....It's offensive.
Yes, because THAT'S more important than finding out WHY the process failed the four dead Americans.
I know you're trying to be sarcastic here, but in mockery, comes grains of truth...Because this is exactly what liberals aiding and abetting the President's cover up are doing.
Let's drop any and all concerns for our other ambassadors and intelligence gatherers and simply engage in a political inquiry which serves no purpose other than trying to gather future votes.
It is really funny, because this is the exact line of thinking of hacks like Lawerence O'Donnell on MSNBC are parroting as useful idiots of this administration. And that you, and others come in here and just regurgitate the same line of thinking is an astonishing exercise in recognizing the effects of propaganda.
That's what you want. I want to prevent more tragedies and you want to talk about a video. I guess that just shows where our priorities differ.
How? You can't prevent anything if you don't even want to know the truth....Nah, you're not interested in anything other than covering the lies of this administration.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?