- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,499
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Let's put an end to this, tell us what sources are credible to you?
I'm surprised he hasn't quoted from "arepublicanmakingsh*tup.com" yet.
John King reported this morning that a reporter from CNN was able to interview a lead suspect in the Benghazi terror attack for two hours:
The FBI has reportedly not been able to track-down the suspect, but CNN had no problem talking to him for two hours.
"It is interesting," says King. "The FBI has put some photos up on its website of people of interest, but they haven't arrested anybody. And I'll tell you this: We've been working on a project here at CNN for a special due out later ... And Arwa Damon, our great correspondent, went back to Benghazi. She sat down with one of the people the FBI says is a lead suspect for 2 hours. He says he's never been contacted by the Libyan government, never been contacted by the FBI, so that is why you have this exasperation among some leading Republicans in the Congress."
As King notes, the Benghazi 9/11 terror attack took place almost a year ago.
Yes, Stevens was there to provide "diplomatic cover" but he also spoke several dialects of Arabic and the CIA needed someone who could talk to the locals and local militias.So what you're saying is that Ambassador Steven was part of a CIA operation? I don't think so.
Actually, quite a few people have.....No one has ever made that claim.
It wasn't a consolate. The US consolate was in Tripoli. The compound in Benghazi was an "annex" to the CIA station where people could stay while in Benghazi.We do know that the second facility was a CIA station not connected to the Consulate.
Just the links I've already provided and they weren't hard to find......here's another one.....The personnel there responded to the original attack in order to rescue Stevens and Smith. The second attack took place hours later causing the deaths of Doherty, Woods and the wounding of Ubben.
Can you prove that Stevens was involved in a CIA operation?[/B]
Why is it assumed that the FBI has been unable to track him down? The FBI investigation which is supposedly going on right now may not require direct contact with this individual. They may be able to track him down, but are either unable to interview him or feel it isn't important. The process of acquiring information doesn't necessitate direct contact with every person of interest. Posting his picture may have been intended to get information about him from other people. Or there could be international laws preventing the interview. It is also possible that the FBI is incompetent and can't track him down because they're all morons. I don't know. But whatever the case, we need to see this interview before taking anything from this story. Hell, it's possible they've got the wrong guy. You shouldn't jump to conclusions.
It's been a long time for there to be no results, but on the other hand, this is a pretty massive investigation. Think of the 9/11 investigation. We took immediate, drastic action, yet wound up in a war with people who had nothing to do with 9/11 and Bin Laden was in hiding for the next decade before we found him. An aggressive investigation and a smart investigation are mutually exclusive.
Be patient, that day will come.
Aren't you making false assumptions by claiming I am using "all dishonest and extreme" sources, especially when I've included Huffington Post, New York Times, Washington Post and others included in my sources.
When you imply Jennifer Rubin is just another reporter who works at the Washington Post you're either being dishonest or just plain ignorant. Which is it?
I only returned the criticism I have received many times . That fact is as you can see, I don't use just one source to post but many.
You made the claim that Ms. Jennifer Rubin is not a reporter (journalist) when she certainly is. Ms. Rubin is a syndicated columnist (reporter/journalist) that writes for other papers and news organs nationally. Claiming she is not a reporter is a lie, dishonest and ignorant on your part. Not mine.
That doesn't even make sense. I merely pointed out how incredibly funny I found it for you to question another person's sources, when you constantly post the most ridiculous sources possible.It appears that like you, the person that questioned my source(s) cannot justify his use of dishonest, extreme and stupid sources, they would have replied on their own. Go peddle your garbage somewhere else.
I completely understand and accept there's really no such thing as an unbiased source. However, there are sources which are more trustworthy than others, and those are the sources which I'm more willing to accept. Hell, if he'd post articles from Fox News, it would be a dramatic step up in quality of a source.Let's put an end to this, tell us what sources are credible to you?
It's almost worth registering a domain for. Create a fictitious blog, make up stuff and post it. Republicans would eat it up.Be patient, that day will come.
You made the claim that Ms. Jennifer Rubin is not a reporter (journalist) when she certainly is. Ms. Rubin is a syndicated columnist (reporter/journalist) that writes for other papers and news organs nationally. Claiming she is not a reporter is a lie, dishonest and ignorant on your part. Not mine.
That doesn't even make sense. I merely pointed out how incredibly funny I found it for you to question another person's sources, when you constantly post the most ridiculous sources possible.
I completely understand and accept there's really no such thing as an unbiased source. However, there are sources which are more trustworthy than others, and those are the sources which I'm more willing to accept. Hell, if he'd post articles from Fox News, it would be a dramatic step up in quality of a source.
As far as giving specific sources, it depends entirely on the subject matter. An espn.com article on economics would not be credible, but an espn.com article on sports would be far more credible than a mediamatters.com article on sports. It depends on the topic.
It's almost worth registering a domain for. Create a fictitious blog, make up stuff and post it. Republicans would eat it up.
hey wolf, thanks for admitting you freely post things you know aren't true. FYI, you didn't have to tell us. We already knew
writes opinion from a conservative Point of View in her Washington Post blog. She's not an objective reporter. And you made it sound as though she was.Jennifer Rubin
Jennifer Rubin Criticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia(
The problem is Obama has called this and all the other issues facing him to be phony scandals and only a true partisan supporter would buy that statement. This scandal may really be nothing more than incompetence but I learned a long time ago never to underestimate a liberal for most of what they do is by design. Far too many people support Obama because of his rhetoric and when he allowed Susan Rice to go on national TV and spout talking points designed to mislead that IMO was by design and his followers continue to buy the distortions.
This is still in dispute? They were situations with the appearance of possible wrong doing which was then manipulated into manufactured outrage by the Republican party so the blind Republican voters (not all Republican voters are blind, I'm just speaking to those who are blindly loyal) would have something to get upset about.The problem is Obama has called this and all the other issues facing him to be phony scandals
Only a truly partisan person would look at the evidence and say they were not manufactured "scandals".and only a true partisan supporter would buy that statement.
What scandal? What exactly is the scandal? The fact the administration didn't tell you the truth for a couple weeks while they tried to assure the safety of their intelligence agents and assets? Is that the scandal? Are you really to the point where you consider a politician not telling the truth to be a scandal?This scandal
I support Obama for multiple reasons. The first reason is that he's our President (which, interestingly enough, used to be the way Republicans said we should support Bush...funny how quickly they got away from that when Obama was elected). The second reason is because I truly believe he believes in helping those who need it and not just throwing them to the wolves and wishing them luck. The third reason I support Obama is because he very much seems to be a champion for equality under the law. And I support Obama because it truly disturbs me the lies Republicans will tell and the historic measures they'll take to make sure nothing happens in this country, even as our country obviously needs progress in certain areas.Far too many people support Obama because of his rhetoric
They were meant to mislead. I don't think many people argue that at this point, and I really think you are arguing against an imaginary audience. But if that's what you consider to be a scandal, then you obviously don't pay much attention to politics, because politicians misleading the public is a tale as old as time. Is it the right thing to do? It depends. In this case, I truly believe the deception was intended for purposes of intelligence and if it saved lives, American or otherwise, then it was absolutely worth it.and when he allowed Susan Rice to go on national TV and spout talking points designed to mislead that IMO was by design and his followers continue to buy the distortions.
What a wonderful rightwing meme! Issa and the rightwing noise machine concoct a load of discredited fake scandals, with no factual basis, and you blame Obama for discrediting them.
I love this reversomeme!
Slyfox696;1062129994]This is still in dispute? They were situations with the appearance of possible wrong doing which was then manipulated into manufactured outrage by the Republican party so the blind Republican voters (not all Republican voters are blind, I'm just speaking to those who are blindly loyal) would have something to get upset about.
As time and information has come and gone, we've seen these "scandals" have actually not been anything close to being scandals. Once you wade through the misinformation and outright lies spread by Republicans, you find that while things may not have been "right" or that wrong-doing did occur, they were not scandals on the Obama Administration.
Only a truly partisan person would look at the evidence and say they were not manufactured "scandals".
What scandal? What exactly is the scandal? The fact the administration didn't tell you the truth for a couple weeks while they tried to assure the safety of their intelligence agents and assets? Is that the scandal? Are you really to the point where you consider a politician not telling the truth to be a scandal?
I support Obama for multiple reasons. The first reason is that he's our President (which, interestingly enough, used to be the way Republicans said we should support Bush...funny how quickly they got away from that when Obama was elected). The second reason is because I truly believe he believes in helping those who need it and not just throwing them to the wolves and wishing them luck. The third reason I support Obama is because he very much seems to be a champion for equality under the law. And I support Obama because it truly disturbs me the lies Republicans will tell and the historic measures they'll take to make sure nothing happens in this country, even as our country obviously needs progress in certain areas.
There are things Obama has done I haven't liked. I do not like the way he has constantly thrown teachers under the bus when touting education reform. I do not like his signing of the NDAA, even as he recognized the dangers in it. I do not like how many of the programs Americans complained about (I'm speaking of the NSA actions now) have not seemed to be curtailed in any way. There are other things, but these are just off the top of my head.
.But at the end of the day, I support Obama because of the reasons I mentioned (as well as others)
They were meant to mislead. I don't think many people argue that at this point, and I really think you are arguing against an imaginary audience. But if that's what you consider to be a scandal, then you obviously don't pay much attention to politics, because politicians misleading the public is a tale as old as time. Is it the right thing to do? It depends. In this case, I truly believe the deception was intended for purposes of intelligence and if it saved lives, American or otherwise, then it was absolutely worth it.
I love how you run from the other threads when challenged with tough questions and actual facts that refute your partisan rhetoric. I expect the same here because in your liberal world Obama can do no wrong and the economic numbers generated really don't matter because he talks well and confuses you with rhetoric. Didn't see an apology for your claim that BLS didn't have the chart I posted. So many facts that simply confuse you yet you continue to buy the rhetoric. Obama loves having people like you supporting him. Think he really gives a damn about you?
Yes. Most of those Republicans haven't given a damn about the fact their leadership sent thousands of Americans to their death in Iraq based on the outright lies they told right there in Congress and on every news station in the country.Manufactured outrage over the death of a U.S. Ambassador and a UN Ambassador on National TV lying?
I think voters proved they most certainly not blind and were able to comprehend the fact our economy was better when Obama was re-elected than when he took office and they were also able to comprehend the Republican party did everything they could to prevent the economy from getting better under a Democrat's presidency.Voters have already proven they are blind by re-electing Obama with the economic numbers he has generated.
First of all, what exactly is the President supposed to do, fly to Benghazi himself, pick up an automatic rifle and fight the terrorists off?So you have no problem with a President going to a campaign event in Vegas while our U.S. interest in Libya is being attacked
The ambassador was dead before any reasonable response could have been initiated. What Obama did was irrelevant to the fact Stevens was dead.an ambassador killed
What does Obama being in Vegas have to do with the investigation? Does Obama investigate this personally?the perpetrator of the crimes unpunished
Obama was not in Vegas when Rice went on TV, I do not believe.and a UN Ambassador going on TV claiming it was a spontaneous protest?
Or it's neither. But that doesn't fit what Republicans want people to believe, so they lie and mislead the public into thinking it's a scandal.If it isn't a scandal it is gross incompetence and probably a little of both.
Except Obama didn't violate anyone's trust. And despite Republicans' best attempts to make people believe he did, he simply did not.Actually only a true partisan would allow "their" President to act like this in the face of Benghazi, the IRS, and other violations of the public trust.
Politics. We also know Republicans have blatantly lied about what happened that night in Benghazi for purely political gain. We know Issa outed intelligence assets during the investigation.The scandal is allowing the UN Ambassador to go on TV five days later and mislead the American people when it has been proven that the Administration new within hours it was a terrorist attack. That violates the public trust, is an attempt to cover up the truth. What would you call it if not a scandal?
And I felt he lived up to what I wanted in a President more than he didn't. And I felt he was a far better leader than Romney would have been.I understand, you gave him a chance
More lies.Do you realize he has issued more executive orders than any other President so how is that champion under the law?
They have. Many times.You claim Republicans have lied about Obama.
No, but you insist on ignoring them or distorting them anyways. I already told you I'm not discussing economics with you due to your complete lack of honesty in such a debate.Do the economic numbers lie?
Yes. What are you talking about?Do you realize it isn't the Federal Government's responsibility to deal with teachers?
It's not about my standards, it's just a truth. Politicians lie and mislead all the time. It's as traditional to politicians as sex is to prostitutes. Calling it a scandal when someone does is beyond absurd.If you have such low standards then we really do have a mess in this country.
It's almost touching that you track my movements.
Meanwhile, you didn't respond and can't: Obama (not to mention every reputable news source) has rebutted the fake, concocted "scandals" cooked up by Issa and his henchmen. So now you blame him for having to rebut a bunch of fake concocted "scandals".
The reversomeme!
You are right, no scandal here and Obama is working hard to bring those involved in the Benghazi murders of our Ambassador and others to justice. Just like his Laser focus on jobs he has the same focus on bringing those terrorists to justice. Guess CNN hasn't told him where they are yet. What is Obama hiding?
Lawmaker: If CNN can interview Benghazi suspect, why can't FBI? - CNN.com
Slyfox696;1062131214]Yes. Most of those Republicans haven't given a damn about the fact their leadership sent thousands of Americans to their death in Iraq based on the outright lies they told right there in Congress and on every news station in the country.
Manufactured and hypocritical outrage. They don't really care that someone died (maybe certain individuals do, but as a party they do not), they just wanted to turn what happened in Benghazi into an attack on Obama's advantage in foreign policy before the election.
I think voters proved they most certainly not blind and were able to comprehend the fact our economy was better when Obama was re-elected than when he took office and they were also able to comprehend the Republican party did everything they could to prevent the economy from getting better under a Democrat's presidency.
But I'm not going to discuss economics with you, because you've already proven you have no scruples in that debate. You constantly ignore relevant information which disagrees with your position, even as you post irrelevant information of your own and claim it to be proof of your argument. So if you want to discuss the economy, take it to that other thread you posted in constantly. Let's focus just on the so-called scandal situation.
First of all, what exactly is the President supposed to do, fly to Benghazi himself, pick up an automatic rifle and fight the terrorists off?
The ambassador was dead before any reasonable response could have been initiated. What Obama did was irrelevant to the fact Stevens was dead.
What does Obama being in Vegas have to do with the investigation? Does Obama investigate this personally?
Like I said, Republicans have heaped lie after misleading statement on top of one another and people have actually believed it. That is how this situation turned into a "scandal".
Obama was not in Vegas when Rice went on TV, I do not believe.
Furthermore, what does Obama being in Vegas have to do with anything? You do realize we don't live in the 1800s anymore, correct? It's not like Obama is incapable of leading just because he's not in DC.
Or it's neither. But that doesn't fit what Republicans want people to believe, so they lie and mislead the public into thinking it's a scandal.
Except Obama didn't violate anyone's trust. And despite Republicans' best attempts to make people believe he did, he simply did not.
Politics. We also know Republicans have blatantly lied about what happened that night in Benghazi for purely political gain. We know Issa outed intelligence assets during the investigation.
Why aren't you talking about those "scandals"? They very much were about misleading the American people. The reason you're not is because it's politics.
And I felt he lived up to what I wanted in a President more than he didn't. And I felt he was a far better leader than Romney would have been.
More lies.
snopes.com: President Obama's 923 Executive Orders
Executive Orders
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?