So this is the 14 minute trailer that has the Arabic people all in a uproar? If you haven't watched this, you should. The budget must of been about 10.000 dollars and the actors was way overpaid.
It's a good thing that Christians didn't take "Life of Brian" so seriously or England would have been toast.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmodVun16Q4&feature=related
Why would someone make this movie?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 12, 2012, 08:55:13 AM
Why would someone make this movie?
Why would someone make Basketball or The Book of Mormon, or The Life of Brian, or The Last Temptation of Christ, or any other religiously critical, or comical movie?
Because they are free to, even if we don't agree with what they have to say.
They suffocated him then dragged his body through the streets chanting "We are all Osama Bin Laden."
(http://i.imgur.com/pcOOr.jpg%22)
This was due to more than a 14 minute movie trailer on facebook.
So blame organized religions or the individuals?
Quote from: Townsend on September 12, 2012, 09:21:47 AM
So blame organized religions or the individuals?
No. It is the responsibility of the host nation to protect the foreign embassies on their soil. Libya and Egypt are to blame, and sanctions/penalties must be imposed. Additionally, why were we not prepared to defend our embassies internally? Both were in high-tension zones. There will certainly be some inquiry and the State Department will have questions to answer. It looks like Algeria and Tunisia embassies are in danger now according to the AP.
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRmJ1WJxztNMZpQA6sxU0L8YR8JI0ua7FEIBZldpyP-Mmk02qkQ)
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_ALGERIA_US_EMBASSY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-09-12-07-23-29
Quote from: Gaspar on September 12, 2012, 09:33:43 AM
No. It is the responsibility of the host nation to protect the foreign embassies on their soil. Libya and Egypt are to blame, and sanctions/penalties must be imposed.
So blame the new governments? The new governments who just came to power through violence? Keep the peace you violent bastards?
Quote from: Gaspar on September 12, 2012, 09:33:43 AM
No. It is the responsibility of the host nation to protect the foreign embassies on their soil. Libya and Egypt are to blame, and sanctions/penalties must be imposed. Additionally, why were we not prepared to defend our embassies internally? Both were in high-tension zones. There will certainly be some inquiry and the State Department will have questions to answer. It looks like Algeria and Tunisia embassies are in danger now according to the AP.
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRmJ1WJxztNMZpQA6sxU0L8YR8JI0ua7FEIBZldpyP-Mmk02qkQ)
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_ALGERIA_US_EMBASSY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-09-12-07-23-29
I thought everyone was supposed to love the U.S. when we elected Obama. I'm not being serious, but I literally heard those types of things from people that were trying to convince me to support him in 2008. They didn't know why, they were just certain that the world would love him.
Quote from: erfalf on September 12, 2012, 09:37:38 AM
I thought everyone was supposed to love the U.S. when we elected Obama. I'm not being serious, but I literally heard those types of things from people that were trying to convince me to support him in 2008. They didn't know why, they were just certain that the world would love him.
Now turn this statement around and put yourself in there. Keep in mind what you've posted and try to see the crazy that is you posting this.
Quote from: Townsend on September 12, 2012, 09:44:53 AM
Now turn this statement around and put yourself in there. Keep in mind what you've posted and try to see the crazy that is you posting this.
I'll say this: consider the source.
TW FB post:
Tuesday killing's of U.S. Ambassador to Libya John Christopher Stevens is the result of "President Obama's failure to lead and his failed foreign policy of appeasement and apology," U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe said Wednesday.
Then he started screaming about all the gays getting married on military bases and the toaster in his kitchen that is laughing at him.
Quote from: Townsend on September 12, 2012, 09:54:11 AM
TW FB post:
Tuesday killing's of U.S. Ambassador to Libya John Christopher Stevens is the result of "President Obama's failure to lead and his failed foreign policy of appeasement and apology," U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe said Wednesday.
Then he started screaming about all the gays getting married on military bases and the toaster in his kitchen that is laughing at him.
(http://www.straferight.com/photopost/data/500/medium/double-facepalm.jpg)
Quote from: Gaspar on September 12, 2012, 09:33:43 AM
No. It is the responsibility of the host nation to protect the foreign embassies on their soil. Libya and Egypt are to blame, and sanctions/penalties must be imposed. Additionally, why were we not prepared to defend our embassies internally? Both were in high-tension zones. There will certainly be some inquiry and the State Department will have questions to answer. It looks like Algeria and Tunisia embassies are in danger now according to the AP.
AP tweet:
QuoteBREAKING: Libyan deputy ambassador says several Libyan security officers killed in US consulate attack
US confirms its Libya ambassador killed in Benghazihttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19570254#TWEET225200 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19570254#TWEET225200)
QuoteThe US ambassador to Libya is among four Americans killed in an attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, President Barack Obama has confirmed.
Unidentified armed men stormed the grounds overnight amid uproar among Muslims over a US-produced film said to insult the Prophet Muhammad.
They shot at buildings and threw handmade bombs into the compound.
It has not been confirmed how the ambassador, J Christopher Stevens, and the others died.
"It is almost inevitable that this attack will put President Obama's foreign policy centre stage in the election campaign, at least for a while"
Protesters against the film also attacked the US embassy in Cairo on Tuesday night.
The Afghan government gave orders for the video-sharing website Youtube to be closed to the public until the offending film was removed but the site was still visible to internet users in the capital, Kabul.
Speaking at the White House, President Obama told reporters that the attack would not break the bonds between the US and the new Libyan government.
Libya's interim leader, Mohammed Magarief, apologised to the US over the killings, which he called "cowardly criminal acts".
Reports say a militia known as the Ansar al-Sharia brigade was involved in the attack, but the group has denied the claim, the BBC's Rana Jawad in Tripoli says.
'Asphyxiated'
Reports suggest that Ambassador Stevens and his staff went to the consulate in an attempt to evacuate the site after it was attacked.
Jonathan Marcus
BBC Diplomatic Correspondent
The killing of the US ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, along with three other US embassy staff, raises a host of questions about security, the prevalence of armed militias in the country and the whole trajectory of Libya's democratic project.
The Obama administration in Washington will want answers from the Libyan government about the scale of the security measures in place at its consulate in Benghazi and how demonstrators were able to get into the building.
More broadly the ambassador's death highlights the continuing instability in Libya as the country struggles to establish security and the rule of law.
The country is awash with weapons and armed militias - some of a salafist or extreme Islamic fundamentalist outlook - hold sway in many areas.
They were reportedly trying to leave the consulate building for a safer location when gunmen launched an intense attack, apparently forcing back security guards.
"The American ambassador and three staff members were killed when gunmen fired rockets in their direction," a Libyan official in Benghazi told Reuters news agency.
The Libyan doctor who treated Mr Stevens in hospital said he had died of severe asphyxiation, apparently from smoke inhalation, with no other injuries, and that he had tried for 90 minutes to revive him.
He was the only American brought into the Benghazi Medical Centre and initially nobody realised he was the ambassador, Ziad Abu Zeid told the Associated Press news agency.
A second US man killed in the attack was named as Sean Smith, a father of two who was employed as an information management officer.
The names of the remaining two victims have not yet been released.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described Mr Smith in a statement as "one of the best".
Speaking to reporters later, Mrs Clinton said many Americans were asking how such an attack could have happened in a country America had helped to liberate.
"This was an attack by a small and savage group, not the people and government of Libya," she said.
The attack was condemned by UK Foreign Secretary William Hague as "brutal and senseless".
Safety concerns
Our correspondent says many people are still armed following the conflict that overthrew Gaddafi.
Film outrages media
Analysts say the attack will raise serious new concerns about stability in the country and the ability of the new Libyan administration to maintain security.
In June, two British bodyguards were injured in an attack in Benghazi on a convoy carrying the British ambassador to Libya. Red Cross and UN staff also came under attack this year.
Correspondents say the film at the heart of the row, which appeared on Youtube translated into Arabic, is highly provocative and insulting to Muslims.
A demonstration in Cairo on Tuesday saw protesters breach the US embassy and tear down the US flag, which was flying at half-mast to mark the 9/11 attacks.
An Islamic tenet bans the portrayal of the Prophet Muhammad.
Cartoons featuring the Islamic religion's key figure sparked violent unrest among Muslims in 2005 when they were published by a Danish newspaper.
Mrs Clinton said the attack on the consulate in Benghazi "should shock the conscience of people of all faiths".
Quote from: Townsend on September 12, 2012, 09:44:53 AM
Now turn this statement around and put yourself in there. Keep in mind what you've posted and try to see the crazy that is you posting this.
It's not as crazy and stupid as the crap the Romney campaign has put out. I sincerely hope that the Libyan government takes serious action against the people responsible so we don't have to.
Quote from: nathanm on September 12, 2012, 10:14:41 AM
It's not as crazy and stupid as the crap the Romney campaign has put out.
His campaign doesn't count when it comes to this. They've proved that.
Quote from: Townsend on September 12, 2012, 10:16:40 AM
His campaign doesn't count when it comes to this. They've proved that.
There's that spectacular foreign policy 'experience'. If by experience, you mean 'train wreck'.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 12, 2012, 09:19:01 AM
They suffocated him then dragged his body through the streets chanting "We are all Osama Bin Laden."
If by suffocated you mean killed with a rocket?
Quote from: nathanm on September 12, 2012, 10:28:45 AM
If by suffocated you mean killed with a rocket?
BBC is saying he died from smoke.
I don't know. Gaspar's "sources" always seem so "on the money".
Hmm, in her statement, Clinton said that they actually carried Stevens to the hospital. I guess in Drudge-land that's "dragging his body through the streets".
Quote from: Townsend on September 12, 2012, 10:32:24 AM
BBC is saying he died from smoke.
I don't know. Gaspar's "sources" always seem so "on the money".
There's that gullibility again. ;D
A consultant on the film "Steve Klein" has reported that the two hour film cost 5 million to make.
Can you imagine two hours of that crap? I think the 13 plus minute trailer sums it up just fine.
And our Gub-Mint is going to send in 50 marines to guard the compound in Libya.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 12, 2012, 08:55:13 AM
Why would someone make this movie?
Speaking by phone Tuesday from an undisclosed location, writer and director Sam Bacile remained defiant, saying Islam is a cancer and that the 56-year-old intended his film to be a provocative political statement condemning the religion.
The two-hour movie, "Innocence of Muslims," cost $5 million to make and was financed with the help of more than 100 Jewish donors, said Bacile, who wrote and directed it.http://www.npr.org/2012/09/12/160987602/anti-islam-filmmaker-in-hiding-after-protests
Interesting that he says it was financed by "100 Jewish donors," when many other sources are reporting that the film was made/funded by "Coptic Christians".
Edited to add: that may not be the case, it's unclear at this point: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/12/hollywood-connection-film-rage-libya?intcmp=122
So if this swings campaign focus to foreign policy, how will Mitt-folk handle themselves?
For the first time in decades, more people trust a Democrat over a Republican for President when it comes to foreign policy.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 12, 2012, 08:55:13 AM
Why would someone make this movie?
Funny, my first thought was that the funders of the movie should be asking for their money back. No way it should have cost $5 million. I've seen better works out of a high school AV class.
Quote from: Townsend on September 12, 2012, 12:18:03 PM
So if this swings campaign focus to foreign policy, how will Mitt-folk handle themselves?
For the first time in decades, more people trust a Democrat over a Republican for President when it comes to foreign policy.
Especially after Romney effed-up today's handling of responding to the Embassy in Libya incident.
Maybe you guys can take as much amusement from this as I did: The spokesman for the Israeli foreign ministry called Bacile "a complete loose cannon and an unspeakable idiot"
Well this definitely puts a different spin on things. Thoughts?
http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/press-releases/the-attack-on-the-us-consulate-was-a-planned-terrorist-assault-against-us-and-libyan-interests/
Quote from: Hoss on September 12, 2012, 12:40:27 PM
Especially after Romney effed-up today's handling of responding to the Embassy in Libya incident.
QuoteIt looks like Romney's campaign jumped the gun, according to this autopsy by Talking Points Memo.
The Talking Points article reports that Romney based his remarks on a State Department statement that came out before the attacks. His campaign released the statement to reporters Tuesday evening before Obama even knew that Ambassador Stevens was killed, according to Talking Points.
This was a time to wait for facts before leaping to conclusions. Consider if Romney were serving as commander in chief and he was called on to make a military decision with limited information. Would he make a snap decision, as he did in this case? His actions now are the best predictor of future behavior.
Romney got hammered at the Democratic National Convention for his lack of foreign policy expertise. His behavior here confirmed it.
http://seattletimes.com/html/edcetera/2019133266_mitt-romney-libya-embassy.html
Talking about this? The president is always going to have more information at their fingertips than the opposing candidate. How is it that all the Obama shrimpers have forgotten: "Who will be answering that phone at 3am?"
Simply laughable all the energy being spent trying to make Romney out as a foreign policy neophyte when Obama was exactly that four years ago at this time. Most certainly any new president is going to bring in the most competent people he can for foreign policy.
I happen to believe tapping Clinton as SOS was a brilliant move by Obama. I suspect Romney will tap someone with like experience.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 12, 2012, 02:02:23 PM
Talking about this? The president is always going to have more information at their fingertips than the opposing candidate. How is it that all the Obama shrimpers have forgotten: "Who will be answering that phone at 3am?"
Simply laughable all the energy being spent trying to make Romney out as a foreign policy neophyte when Obama was exactly that four years ago at this time. Most certainly any new president is going to bring in the most competent people he can for foreign policy.
I happen to believe tapping Clinton as SOS was a brilliant move by Obama. I suspect Romney will tap someone with like experience.
Haha, I see what you did there.
Hell, even those in his own party are giving him the business for the statement he put out.
Maybe you should consider re-registering.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 12, 2012, 02:02:23 PM
I happen to believe tapping Clinton...was a brilliant move by Obama. I suspect Romney will tap someone with like experience.
They are both happily married men. I find it hard to believe either of them would tap Clinton or similar.
Quote from: Townsend on September 12, 2012, 09:21:47 AM
So blame organized religions or the individuals?
I cut to the chase and just blame Bush...
Quote from: guido911 on September 12, 2012, 02:22:28 PM
I cut to the chase and just blame Bush...
I try to distance him off to a memory.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 12, 2012, 02:02:23 PM
Talking about this? The president is always going to have more information at their fingertips than the opposing candidate. How is it that all the Obama shrimpers have forgotten: "Who will be answering that phone at 3am?"
Dude, he attacked the administration for a Tweet sent out by the Cairo embassy before the attack in Benghazi took place, saying that the tweet "apologized to our attackers" or some such nonsense. One which was shortly followed by this (in response to other Tweets): "Sorry, but neither breaches of our compound or angry messages will dissuade us from defending freedom of speech AND criticizing bigotry."
He stepped in it. Big time, and not because he didn't have as much information as Obama did, but because he didn't even have as much information as was available in the press several hours before his idiotic statement. And then he doubled down on it this morning, continuing to lie about the timeline. How many times will you let Romney blatantly lie to you before you finally say enough is enough?
It just boggles the mind that he wouldn't have the good sense to keep his trap shut in the middle of a bucking terrorist attack, or what may have been, it was hard to say last night and it still isn't clear. There's some disturbing stuff just now appearing in the media, but only time will tell if it's actually true.
Quote from: nathanm on September 12, 2012, 02:32:31 PM
Dude, he attacked the administration for a Tweet sent out by the Cairo embassy before the attack in Benghazi took place, saying that the tweet "apologized to our attackers" or some such nonsense. One which was shortly followed by this (in response to other Tweets): "Sorry, but neither breaches of our compound or angry messages will dissuade us from defending freedom of speech AND criticizing bigotry."
He stepped in it. Big time, and not because he didn't have as much information as Obama did, but because he didn't even have as much information as was available in the press several hours before his idiotic statement. And then he doubled down on it this morning, continuing to lie about the timeline. How many times will you let Romney blatantly lie to you before you finally say enough is enough?
It just boggles the mind that he wouldn't have the good sense to keep his trap shut in the middle of a bucking terrorist attack, or what may have been, it was hard to say last night and it still isn't clear. There's some disturbing stuff just now appearing in the media, but only time will tell if it's actually true.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-death-of-an-ambassador/2012/09/12/ed3b719e-fcfa-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_story.html
Quote from: Townsend on September 12, 2012, 02:28:35 PM
I try to distance him off to a memory.
Chip, Card or Mind? not sure which one lasts longer.
Right-wing entertainment will run with this and spin it like Meadowlark and Curly spun basketballs.
(http://ww4.hdnux.com/photos/02/57/46/719279/3/628x471.jpg)
Has this thread reduced to bashing Romney? He is not in charge of anything. This happened on Barry's watch, and whatever negative fall out should go to him--regardless of timing. We are playing by Katrina rules after all.
Quote from: guido911 on September 12, 2012, 05:08:38 PM
Has this thread reduced to bashing Romney? He is not in charge of anything. This happened on Barry's watch, and whatever negative fall out should go to him--regardless of timing. We are playing by Katrina rules after all.
It sure appears that way these days....
Quote from: guido911 on September 12, 2012, 05:08:38 PM
Has this thread reduced to bashing Romney? He is not in charge of anything.
He's the idiot that opened his mouth and let a bunch of diarrhea spew forth. Hopefully this thread will get back to more actual news when there is more actual news to report.
Seeing that our carp are biting today. John Kerry did the same damned thing in 2004. The same thing.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/12/Flashback-Kerry-Slams-Bush-004
Go ahead and lob another one in there.
Quote from: guido911 on September 12, 2012, 06:13:37 PM
Seeing that our carp are biting today. John Kerry did the same damned thing in 2004. The same thing.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/12/Flashback-Kerry-Slams-Bush-004
Go ahead and lob another one in there.
Yep, and look where it got him. In 2004.
I see Obama sent some warships heading over to the Libya area. I wonder if these are actual American ships.... :P
Quote from: guido911 on September 12, 2012, 06:57:42 PM
I see Obama sent some warships heading over to the Libya area. I wonder if these are actual American ships.... :P
They are missile destroyers. Far to much firepower for a simple uprising. My guess is that this is positioning for Isreal's attack of Iran.
His pants are at his ankles, but he doesn't want to get caught completely naked.
Quote from: guido911 on September 12, 2012, 06:13:37 PM
Seeing that our carp are biting today. John Kerry did the same damned thing in 2004. The same thing.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/12/Flashback-Kerry-Slams-Bush-004
Go ahead and lob another one in there.
Seems to be a viral case of RDS going around.
I think there may be a preventative measure here.
All societies appear to have a need to rush something.
The middle east seems to rush our embassies.
Two or three times a year, Thanksgiving, Christmas, school starts, we rush Walmart.
Maybe we should build several Walmarts for them to get it our of their system the way we do it here.
It seems to keep our radicals calmer.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 13, 2012, 07:50:20 AM
They are missile destroyers. Far to much firepower for a simple uprising. My guess is that this is positioning for Isreal's attack of Iran.
His pants are at his ankles, but he doesn't want to get caught completely naked.
Such deep and insightful analysis. Yes, piled rather deep.
The left unloads on the left:
Hmm, you seem to have confused Fox News for the left. Fox News doesn't allow lefties on their network and you know it.
This whole situation is getting strange.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81198.html
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/09/14/obamas-daily-intelligen
http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=284684
Apparently we were warned on the 6th, and that of course would (or should) have been part of the president's morning security briefing. Now protests are sprouting up in London and I expect Occupy to be standing in "solidarity" and burning flags here soon.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/mob-gathers-us-embassy-london_652335.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/revealed-inside-story-of-us-envoys-assassination-8135797.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/9542540/White-House-denies-claims-it-ignored-credible-information-about-consulate-attack.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/14/us-protests-warnings-idUSBRE88C1MG20120914
Meanwhile, President Obama blows off Netanyau to do an interview with Pimp with a Limp, and has not attended a daily intel briefing since 9/5.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/obama-chats-with-pimp-the-limp-dj-laz-on-911-morn/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-is-obama-skipping-more-than-half-of-his-daily-intelligence-meetings/2012/09/10/6624afe8-fb49-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_story.html
According to the public schedule of the president, the last time the Obama attended his daily intelligence meeting was Sept. 5 — a week before Islamist radicals stormed our embassy in Cairo and terrorists killed our ambassador to Tripoli. The president was scheduled to hold the intelligence meeting at 10:50 a.m. Wednesday, the day after the attacks, but it was canceled so that he could comfort grieving employees at the State Department — as well he should. But instead of rescheduling the intelligence briefing for later in the day, Obama apparently chose to skip it altogether and attend a Las Vegas fundraiser for his re-election campaign. One day after a terrorist attack.
http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/19523404/obama-event-in-las-vegas-to-draw-10k-people
Ya think perhaps now would be a good time to make the fundraisers a secondary priority and work a little?
(http://api.ning.com/files/0syY6P0IPL6fMRrszpwLFMieXETZcQ8Q5zNanFM8fls52Y2*JrVbaN20Tf4XDm3ZW2wRtIdv96pwFX1dmOLOE5wStjzhJnyj/EmptyChairEmptySuit.jpg?width=357&height=500)
Quote from: Gaspar on September 14, 2012, 12:34:25 PM
Now protests are sprouting up in London and I expect Occupy to be standing in "solidarity" and burning flags here soon.
If you really cant see any difference between Occupy campers and religious extremists with RPGs, it tends to devalue any other observations you might share.
Quote from: patric on September 14, 2012, 01:00:20 PM
If you really cant see any difference between Occupy campers and religious extremists with RPGs, it tends to devalue any other observations you might share.
Mr Blue Font, at it again.
Quote from: patric on September 14, 2012, 01:00:20 PM
If you really cant see any difference between Occupy campers and religious extremists with RPGs, it tends to devalue any other observations you might share.
Quote from: Hoss on September 14, 2012, 01:15:47 PM
Mr Blue Font, at it again.
Liberal translator: Nothing to see here. Move on. Forward!
Quote from: erfalf on September 14, 2012, 01:21:47 PM
Liberal translator: Nothing to see here. Move on. Forward!
Conservative translator: I miss my slumber parties.... ;D
Anybody named Barack Hussein Obama should be able to squash all this. Oh sorry, that's right he was born in America. ;)
Quote from: Hoss on September 14, 2012, 01:27:37 PM
Conservative translator: I miss my slumber parties.... ;D
Just par for the course with you guys. When you can't defend, you attack. I think I posted a video about this the other day, but it was dismissed because of the source. Ironic.
Quote from: erfalf on September 14, 2012, 04:02:59 PM
Just par for the course with you guys. When you can't defend, you attack. I think I posted a video about this the other day, but it was dismissed because of the source. Ironic.
Awww...someone has a sad.
A map of all the places in the world that are currently either protesting or rioting against the U.S. :
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=201645180959880549419.0004c9a894dfb66defab9&msa=0
The scale of this makes you think the sorry video is only a footnote (and there is some speculation it was part of a larger, planned 9/11 assault).
The Egyptians have their own version of the Fox News Channel called al-Nas that translated the film to incite their audience.
Quote from: patric on September 15, 2012, 11:43:27 AM
The Egyptians have their own version of the Fox News Channel called al-Nas that translated the film to incite their audience.
Supposedly it was one of the Coptic Christian groups that translated it. There is apparently little love lost between the Coptics and the Muslims in Egypt.
Quote from: patric on September 15, 2012, 11:43:27 AM
A map of all the places in the world that are currently either protesting or rioting against the U.S. :
____________________________________________________________________________________________
It is most unfortunate that it is recorded in our archives for the future generations to decipher whether we are right or wrong in interfering in governments that has existence through eons of time, being only newcomers touting our great experiment in a democrat-republic form of government. We are winding again the doomsday clock as we again interfere with age old governments who have the ability to participate in space wars. Like the Holy Roman Empire, that turns to Christianity in order to preserve the Empire, we are head strong in rejecting it. Too we have become the assassin of their leaders.
If one dares pull up the picture and enlarge it and understand how one would feel if this happens in your land.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre.
It is impossible to convert the mid-east when they have thousands of years of their history to rely on and pictures like this are written in the annuals of history.
Quote from: patric on September 15, 2012, 11:43:27 AM
A map of all the places in the world that are currently either protesting or rioting against the U.S. :
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=201645180959880549419.0004c9a894dfb66defab9&msa=0
The scale of this makes you think the sorry video is only a footnote (and there is some speculation it was part of a larger, planned 9/11 assault).
The Egyptians have their own version of the Fox News Channel called al-Nas that translated the film to incite their audience.
That's remarkable! But, I didn't see Chicago on that map?
Of course, all this unrest in the Arab world is Bush & Romney's fault.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 17, 2012, 09:39:02 AM
Of course, all this unrest in the Arab world is Bush & Romney's fault.
Nah, it's actually the fault of a Coptic Christian and his Muslim enablers.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 17, 2012, 09:39:02 AM
Of course, all this unrest in the Arab world is Bush & Romney's fault.
We could blame all the religious leaders misleading their followers.
I blame them and humanity's ability to fall for these kinds of tailpipe/potato scenarios.
Beni from Israel is probably the one stirring it up through the Mosad. AIPAC's got his back.
Quote from: nathanm on September 17, 2012, 12:50:20 PM
Nah, it's actually the fault of a Coptic Christian and his Muslim enablers.
There are plenty of offensive things in the world, and plenty of people to offend. The basis may be race, religion, sex, or political affiliation. How a person or society handles being offended or ridiculed is what's important. We learn a lot about a people or a religion when we view the ways they handle ridicule. Their response defines them.
You can't pin this on idiots speaking their minds, or engaging in their art. The individuals perpetrating the violence are who is at fault.
We are not about to go stringing people up because of their words, or beheading them (as many of the Muslim clerics have requested that President Obama do). We are not going to burn books, movies, or imprison actors and musicians because of what they say. If you go on YouTube, you will find thousands of offensive videos about the prophet Mohammed. You will also find a hundred times that score ridiculing Christ. Hindus, Pagens, Sikhs, and Mormons are equally targets.
If we start blaming people for freedom of speech, simply because we want to avoid the conflict and controversy that comes with freedom of speech, we will surely lose that freedom on all fronts.
This was the fault of a group of radical murderous evil people. Hopefully we can introduce them to our Drone program.
Considering all the rhetoric from the administration blaming this "film", I expect to hear shortly that they will be halting all production on the Bin Laden raid movie Zero Dark Thirty. Wouldn't that be "spiking the football" in the face of the organization that is responsible for all this violence, possibly inciting more violence? Just saying.
Quote from: erfalf on September 17, 2012, 01:38:52 PM
Considering all the rhetoric from the administration blaming this "film", I expect to hear shortly that they will be halting all production on the Bin Laden raid movie Zero Dark Thirty. Wouldn't that be "spiking the football" in the face of the organization that is responsible for all this violence, possibly inciting more violence? Just saying.
Not sure. Since you expect it, would it?
Quote from: Townsend on September 17, 2012, 01:41:36 PM
Not sure. Since you expect it, would it?
Just don't want the administration to make the same mistake this fellow appears to have made according to said administration.
Quote from: erfalf on September 17, 2012, 01:53:54 PM
Just don't want the administration to make the same mistake this fellow appears to have made according to said administration.
Good pont. Since the protesters were chanting "We are all Osama Bin Laden," that film would probably insite quite a bit of violence that the administration, by their own logic, would then be responsible for.
I'm sure they've scrapped it and President Obama is now crafting a speech condemning those responsible for Bin Laden's death.
Has Seal Team Six been arrested yet?
http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/Egyptian-Protesters-Scale-U-S-Embassy-Walls-Rip-3865961.php
Boy Gaspar, siding with our enemies is pretty low of you...but not unexpected for a Teaheadist.
Quote from: Teatownclown on September 17, 2012, 02:09:31 PM
Boy Gaspar, siding with our enemies is pretty low of you...but not unexpected for a Teaheadist.
Not I.
Just figuring that if the administration is going to come down on Nikoula Nikoula for making this movie and represent it as the impetus for the violence taking place now, it would logically follow that if they were to release a movie that incites the exact same group of people they would take responsibility for that. It's a rather simple connection.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 17, 2012, 02:14:36 PM
Not I.
Just figuring that if the administration is going to come down on Nikoula Nikoula for making this movie and represent it as the impetus for the violence taking place now, it would logically follow that if they were to release a movie that incites the exact same group of people they would take responsibility for that. It's a rather simple connection.
Americans Really Didn't Like Mitt Romney's Libya Commentshttp://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romney-libya-comments-poll-obama-ambassador-killed-egypt-2012-9
Get with the program, Gaspar. Spooner...
Quote from: Gaspar on September 17, 2012, 02:14:36 PM
Just figuring that if the administration is going to come down on Nikoula Nikoula for making this movie and represent it as the impetus for the violence taking place now
I suspect the only people coming down on Nikoula Nikoula will be his parole officer and the judge that throws him back in jail for violating his parole.
Quote from: erfalf on September 17, 2012, 01:38:52 PM
Considering all the rhetoric from the administration blaming this "film", I expect to hear shortly that they will be halting all production on the Bin Laden raid movie Zero Dark Thirty. Wouldn't that be "spiking the football" in the face of the organization that is responsible for all this violence, possibly inciting more violence? Just saying.
Bingo!!!
QuoteThink about it: if the poorly produced and laughably bad trailer for "The Innocence of Muslims" results in chaos, murder, and the burning of foreign outposts all throughout the Middle East, how much rioting and mayhem is a big-budgeted, slickly produced, Oscar-bait blockbuster celebrating the death of the leader of al-Qaeda going to cause?
Moreover, an excuse Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will not be able to use in the case of "Zero Dark Thirty" (as she did with "Innocence of Muslims") is the cowardly and self-righteous claim that the federal government and the Obama White House had nothing to do with "Zero Dark Thirty."
Because the federal government and the Obama White House had everything to do with "Zero Dark Thirty."
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/09/15/Obama-Admin-Must-Stop-Killing-Bin-Laden-Film
Quote from: guido911 on September 17, 2012, 08:05:02 PM
Bingo!!!
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/09/15/Obama-Admin-Must-Stop-Killing-Bin-Laden-Film
see here what Bush started and now POTUS Obama continues...the totalitarianism state.
Glad I lived it up in the 60's 70's 80's 90's. Today? Avoid crowds. Ignore much. Find serenity. Breathe.
Gore v. Bush and Monica were game changers.
I thought Breitbart died by a liberal dart.
We are liken a great whore who sets upon the sea of the Philistine's that beckons the East to come unto her and try what she has to offer. Slowly she is being rebuked, which is bringing on violence as she takes the wars into the homes, targeting the children, mothers and the aged.
The use of rockets, drones and bombs against the their homes will do no more than create violence from the Mid-East and East in a land that has seen centuries of violence and the longer we persist the more determine they will become. We have become like Rome when they tried our type of government and the military generals took it over, when it became so corrupt they changed it into an emperor.
The handwriting on our walls becomes more vivid each day. The East has rockets that will reach the United States and the indusial might along with knowledge have been transferred into their hands. The dollar has suffered a severe devaluing as China demands to be paid in Yen. The Dooms Day Clock moves closer to the zero hour and as the Mayans predicted their Dooms Day Clock would strike the zero hour the latter part of December 2012.
It is time to get the hell out of the East and prepare for a stars war, build back our industrial might and reclaim our technology. When we vote let us make sure the one we vote for favors forging the spears into pruning hooks and the swords into plow shears.
Seeing the crowd carrying the sign which reads: "Don't provoke Muslims" has convinced me that a percentage of Muslims look for any reason to be offended.
Quote from: Townsend on September 18, 2012, 11:21:13 AM
We like a great whore.
Goes without sayin' really.
They threw the virgins in the volcano. Talk about pressure to put out.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 18, 2012, 12:18:47 PM
They threw the virgins in the volcano. Talk about pressure to put out.
Yes RM, they had virgins included within their empire.
Since we like to post poll results as some sort of evidence of anything, here you go.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-s-foreign-policy-approval-rating-drops-after-mideast-turmoil
Quote from: erfalf on September 19, 2012, 01:09:44 PM
Since we like to post poll results as some sort of evidence of anything, here you go.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-s-foreign-policy-approval-rating-drops-after-mideast-turmoil
This is down towards the loons posting at the bottom:
QuoteCNSNews.com is not funded by the government like NPR. CNSNews.com is not funded by the government like PBS.
So you're posting from a crazy site?
QuoteThe Democrat SCUM (Socialist Communist Utopian Marxist) strategy of passively supporting the America hating, Christian hating muslims is working. The muslim brotherhood and al-qaida are in full swing. Now the Democrat SCUM and their Democrat party media (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, PBS, NY Times, Wash Post, etc.) have to properly spin their propaganda to make America's freedom of speech right the issue and discuss how this right can be shut down in instances like this to protect America.
This is a typical SCUM strategy used by wanna be dictatorships to silence their political opposition for in the name of protecting "the people."
Quote from: Townsend on September 19, 2012, 01:29:42 PM
This is down towards the loons posting at the bottom:
So you're posting from a crazy site?
Never mind reading...
Here's another "crazy site".
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/18/13944296-nbcwsj-poll-obamas-approval-on-foreign-policy-drops?lite
Quote from: erfalf on September 19, 2012, 01:37:48 PM
Never mind reading...
Here's another "crazy site".
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/18/13944296-nbcwsj-poll-obamas-approval-on-foreign-policy-drops?lite
Which still shows more approve than disapprove.
Quote from: Hoss on September 19, 2012, 01:40:01 PM
Which still shows more approve than disapprove.
Did I say otherwise, or is that your Obama reflex kicking in?
Quote from: erfalf on September 19, 2012, 01:42:11 PM
Did I say otherwise, or is that your Obama reflex kicking in?
Neither, just pointing out your ODS. You, Gassie and Gweed must be having daily meetings or something.
Quote from: erfalf on September 19, 2012, 01:42:11 PM
Did I say otherwise, or is that your Obama reflex kicking in?
I was pointing out the website from which you posted. Not the content.
Quote from: Hoss on September 19, 2012, 01:45:47 PM
Neither, just pointing out your ODS. You, Gassie and Gweed must be having daily meetings or something.
So you retort with a straw man?
Quote from: Townsend on September 19, 2012, 01:46:32 PM
I was pointing out the website from which you posted. Not the content.
Oh, I know. It is just funny. It's like my kids. Two people telling them the same things have different meaning. If brother tells sister, she has to verify with me and mom, even though brother was right from the git go.
Quote from: erfalf on September 19, 2012, 01:47:08 PM
So you retort with a straw man?
Nope, just pointing out your ODS. But I'm sure you already knew this.
Quote from: erfalf on September 19, 2012, 01:48:08 PM
Oh, I know. It is just funny. It's like my kids. Two people telling them the same things have different meaning. If brother tells sister, she has to verify with me and mom, even though brother was right from the git go.
Pew Research has Obama +8.
Romney's pulled advertising from Ohio and Michigan.
This is over.
Quote from: Townsend on September 19, 2012, 01:51:37 PM
Pew Research has Obama +8.
Romney's pulled advertising from Ohio and Michigan.
This is over.
Remember Reagan/Carter 1980. Nothing is over yet. But it's not looking real good either.
Quote from: Hoss on September 19, 2012, 01:57:35 PM
Remember Reagan/Carter 1980.
Barely.
I remember that Anderson looked like Bill Keane to me.
Quote from: Hoss on September 19, 2012, 01:40:01 PM
Which still shows more approve than disapprove.
Except for a group where it really matters come November:
QuoteStill, in the current NBC/WSJ poll, only 41 percent of independents approve of Obama's foreign-policy handling, versus 53 percent who did so last month.
Quote from: Townsend on September 19, 2012, 01:51:37 PM
Pew Research has Obama +8.
Romney's pulled advertising from Ohio and Michigan.
This is over.
QuoteOne reason the Romney forces may have pulled money out of Michigan is President Barack Obama's campaign and a political action committee supporting his re-election aren't spending here either, said Rich Robinson, director of Michigan Campaign Finance Network.
"You don't spend money if you know you're going to win or you know you're going to lose, and Obama hasn't spent five cents" in Michigan, Robinson said.
From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120906/POLITICS01/209060394#ixzz26wardgFB
Quote from: Hoss on September 19, 2012, 01:57:35 PM
Remember Reagan/Carter 1980. Nothing is over yet. But it's not looking real good either.
Which is why I posted the poll earlier about Obama tongue in cheek. Polls are just opinion and are highly susceptible to manipulation. I believe up to the 2010 midterms hardly anyone saw the butt whooping coming except Rasmussen (again) and they were called lunatics.
Personally I am not particularly confident in Romney's chances, but I would never say that it was over.
QuoteOne reason the Romney forces may have pulled money out of Michigan is President Barack Obama's campaign and a political action committee supporting his re-election aren't spending here either, said Rich Robinson, director of Michigan Campaign Finance Network.
"You don't spend money if you know you're going to win or you know you're going to lose, and Obama hasn't spent five cents" in Michigan, Robinson said.
http://www.freep.com/article/20120913/NEWS15/309130243/President-Barack-Obama-takes-command-in-Michigan-poll-shows?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cp (http://www.freep.com/article/20120913/NEWS15/309130243/President-Barack-Obama-takes-command-in-Michigan-poll-shows?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cp)
QuotePresident Barack Obama, fresh off a Democratic National Convention in which the turnaround of Michigan's signature auto industry played a central role, heads into the final two months of the campaign with the state's voters solidly behind him.
A poll done by EPIC-MRA of Lansing for the Free Press, WXYZ-TV (Channel 7) and other media partners showed Obama with a commanding 10-percentage-point lead over Michigan-born-and-raised Mitt Romney, whose chances in the state may have been seriously hurt by last week's Democratic convention in Charlotte, N.C.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/poll-suggests-obama-swing-state-attacks-working/2012/06/27/gJQAv6746V_blog.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/poll-suggests-obama-swing-state-attacks-working/2012/06/27/gJQAv6746V_blog.html)
QuoteA new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll out Wednesday suggests that in key swing states, President Obama's ad campaigns against former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney are working.
While nationally the two rivals are locked in a dead heat, in 12 expected battleground states — Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin — Obama leads by eight points in the survey.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-12/republicans-end-michigan-ads-pushing-wisconsin-onto-map.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-12/republicans-end-michigan-ads-pushing-wisconsin-onto-map.html)
QuoteMichigan, Pennsylvania
Americans for Prosperity, a nonprofit group co-founded by the billionaire industrialist Koch brothers, last ran presidential ads in Michigan on May 13. The group stopped its Pennsylvania run Aug. 30 even as it continues advertising in the nine swing states, CMAG data current through Sept. 11 show.
Karl Rove, a former political strategist for President George W. Bush, identifies Michigan as a "toss-up," on an electoral map posted to his website. Yet neither Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies nor American Crossroads -- outside groups Rove helps guide -- has advertised there on Romney's behalf since Aug. 6, CMAG data show.
Conversely, Rove's map shows New Hampshire as leaning toward Obama even as American Crossroads spends money to advertise against the president in the state.
Quote from: Townsend on September 19, 2012, 02:15:08 PM
http://www.freep.com/article/20120913/NEWS15/309130243/President-Barack-Obama-takes-command-in-Michigan-poll-shows?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cp (http://www.freep.com/article/20120913/NEWS15/309130243/President-Barack-Obama-takes-command-in-Michigan-poll-shows?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cp)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/poll-suggests-obama-swing-state-attacks-working/2012/06/27/gJQAv6746V_blog.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/poll-suggests-obama-swing-state-attacks-working/2012/06/27/gJQAv6746V_blog.html)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-12/republicans-end-michigan-ads-pushing-wisconsin-onto-map.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-12/republicans-end-michigan-ads-pushing-wisconsin-onto-map.html)
Don't bust my paradigm dude.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 19, 2012, 02:17:51 PM
Don't bust my paradigm dude.
Eh, it's not like I trust either candidate or party. I just have to favor the side I fear less.
Quote from: erfalf on September 19, 2012, 02:08:28 PM
I believe up to the 2010 midterms hardly anyone saw the butt whooping coming except Rasmussen (again) and they were called lunatics.
I don't believe that's accurate. Tea Party favorables were high at the time and I know the generic ballot was looking good for Republicans several months out. I don't have any recollection of specific state polls, though.
Quote from: nathanm on September 19, 2012, 03:02:17 PM
I don't believe that's accurate. Tea Party favorables were high at the time and I know the generic ballot was looking good for Republicans several months out. I don't have any recollection of specific state polls, though.
Let me clarify, Rasmussen was the only one that was accurate as to the magnitude. You are correct that pretty much everyone was sure that there was going to be a major swing in the house, but I don't think many were thinking it was going to be such a historic swing.
Quote from: erfalf on September 19, 2012, 03:43:25 PM
Let me clarify, Rasmussen was the only one that was accurate as to the magnitude. You are correct that pretty much everyone was sure that there was going to be a major swing in the house, but I don't think many were thinking it was going to be such a historic swing.
Newsroom:
Quote"America just elected the most dangerous and addle-minded congress in my lifetime."
Quote from: erfalf on September 19, 2012, 02:08:28 PM
I believe up to the 2010 midterms hardly anyone saw the butt whooping coming except Rasmussen (again) and they were called lunatics.
That is untrue. You have posted twice that Rasmussen was the most accurate. Rasmussen says they were the most accurate, but in reality they were tied for ninth most accurate.
http://www.fordham.edu/images/academics/graduate_schools/gsas/elections_and_campaign_/2008%20poll%20accuracy%20panagopoulos.pdf
Rasmussen just lied to make themselves look good and you and others believed it.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 19, 2012, 04:10:27 PM
That is untrue. You have posted twice that Rasmussen was the most accurate. Rasmussen says they were the most accurate, but in reality they were tied for ninth most accurate.
http://www.fordham.edu/images/academics/graduate_schools/gsas/elections_and_campaign_/2008%20poll%20accuracy%20panagopoulos.pdf
Rasmussen just lied to make themselves look good and you and others believed it.
Well who in the heck am I to believe, Panagopoulos or Panagopoulos?
http://www.fordham.edu/images/academics/graduate_schools/gsas/elections_and_campaign_/poll%20accuracy%20in%20the%202008%20presidential%20election.pdf
Damn Greeks. Just can't trust them.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 19, 2012, 04:10:27 PM
Rasmussen just lied to make themselves look good and you and others believed it.
Now who does this sound like? :o
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/03/30/independent-pollster-scott-rasmussen-headlines/186270
"Independent Pollster" Scott Rasmussen Headlines Republican Fundraisers
On his website and during interviews, Scott Rasmussen portrays himself as an "independent pollster" who doesn't have a stake in the fortunes of either political party. Yet Rasmussen, who has been criticized for producing polling that favors conservatives, recently headlined two Republican fundraisers. On February 11, Rasmussen was the keynote speaker at the Twin Falls Lincoln Day Celebration, which benefited the Republican Party of Twin Falls County, Idaho. Ticket packages for the dinner ran from $75 for general seating to $2,5000 for an eight person "platinum table." Republicans could also attend a $250 "Private VIP Reception" with Rasmussen; buy an autographed copy of Rasmussen's book ($25); and take a picture with Rasmussen ($25).
Event chairwoman Mya Goodman told Media Matters in an email that the party paid Rasmussen a fee of $15,000 plus travel to speak and the party chose Rasmussen "because we felt that his topic would be interesting and relevant to the current election cycle."
The following week, Rasmussen headlined a February 18 Lincoln Day fundraiser for the Manatee County Republican Party of Florida. Tickets for the event were reportedly $100. An email to the party was not returned. Local party chairwoman Kathleen King said in a December press release: "Rasmussen is a reliable and driving force in American Politics. Party activists are excited to hear what Rasmussen has to say when all eyes are watching the evolving contest for the Republican presidential nominee and the future make-up of the U.S. House and Senate."
A Rasmussen Reports spokesperson responded in an email to questions about whether Rasmussen's Republican fundraising clouds his claims to be an "independent pollster": All of Mr. Rasmussen's speaking engagements are booked through Premiere Speakers Bureau. He speaks to a wide variety of organizations and offers his assessment of public opinion on the issues of the day. Most of his speeches are not to political organizations, but to other groups interested in understanding public opinion trends. However, he has been hired to speak by groups from across the political spectrum and often tells them things they don't want to hear.
Mr. Rasmussen has outlined his views of public opinion on many leading issues of the day in his new book, The People's Money. The book includes proposals and analysis that will offend every member of Congress, Republican and Democrat alike. It also assigns blame for the current fiscal crisis on a bi-partisan basis.
When asked for examples of Democratic groups (or an equivalent) that Rasmussen has fundraised for, or spoken to, the spokesperson replied that "Scott's speeches are scheduled through Premiere Speakers Bureau and not Rasmussen Reports. When he is brought in for an event, the purpose of the meeting is up to the host. Scott is merely hired to speak." Requests for comment to Premiere Speakers Bureau were not returned. Rasmussen's biography and website repeatedly describe him as an "independent pollster." Media profiles also suggest that Rasmussen denies favoring a political side. Politico wrote in January 2010 that Rasmussen "contends that he has no ax to grind." Conservative writer John Fund wrote in August 2010 that Rasmussen denies a bias toward Republicans and "[a]s for his own politics, he is coy other than admitting he has a healthy suspicion of the political class he devotes so much time to studying. 'If I root for anyone to win, it's for our polls,' he laughs."
During the 2004 elections, the Republican National Committee and Bush re-election campaign reportedly disbursed nearly $150,000 to Rasmussen Reports for survey research information. The Washington Post wrote that "in 2004 the Bush reelection campaign used a feature on his site that allowed customers to program their own polls. Rasmussen asserted that he never wrote any of the questions or assisted Republicans in any way, but by the 2008 presidential election his conservative bent was a kind of brand for him."
Nate Silver, a statistician and author of The New York Times' FiveThirtyEight blog, told Media Matters that pollsters with partisan leanings can and do produce unbiased polls, but Rasmussen's polls have shown they "have a Republican bias." "I don't care what he does in his spare time," Silver wrote. "There are plenty of people with partisan leanings that produce fairly unbiased polls, e.g. Public Opinion Strategies on the right or Public Policy Polling on the left."
Silver added of Rasmussen Reports: "It's easy to demonstrate statistically that their polls have a Republican bias. I mean 'bias' in the way statisticians use the term, meaning that they consistently miss in one direction. ... I don't think people should pay very much attention to Rasmussen polls unless they are prepared to make a mental adjustment for this bias (i.e. add a few points to the Democratic candidate). I also haven't really seen any evidence yet that Rasmussen is interested in correcting it. At best, they seem to be competing on the basis of quantity rather than quality."
After the 2010 elections, Silver documented that Rasmussen "badly missed the margin in many states, and also exhibited a considerable bias toward Republican candidates." In one case, Rasmussen missed the final margin between candidates in Hawaii's Senate race "by 40 points, the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEight's database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998."
Separately, Rasmussen Reports has been criticized for often favoring conservative narratives in polling questions and analyses (examples during the 2009-2010 cycle can be found here). Democratic pollster Mark Mellman told Politico in 2010: "I think they write their questions in a way that supports a conservative interpretation of the world ... In general, they tend to be among the worst polls for Democrats, and they phrase questions in ways that elicit less support for the Democratic point of view."
A June 2010 Washington Post article quoted "John Zogby, the pollster whose publicity-seeking business model is considered a forebear of Rasmussen's," stating: "[Rasmussen] has got a conservative constituency, he has Fox News and the Washington Times and Drudge. ... The conservative result is the one that is going to get a huge level of coverage." Rasmussen, as indicated by his multimedia page, is a frequent guest on Fox News. He is scheduled to once again speak on a cruise to benefit conservative National Review following the November elections.
Quote from: guido911 on September 19, 2012, 04:52:37 PM
Now who does this sound like? :o
Rupert and his minions. But you already know that....
Turns out the "offensive video" was just smoke and mirrors for a successful assassination by Al Qaeda, but we were too busy spying on Americans to notice.
Feel good "infidel" story of the week:
QuoteAn Iranian cleric said he was beaten by a woman in the northern province of Semnan after giving her a warning for being "badly covered," the state-run Mehr news agency reported.
Hojatoleslam Ali Beheshti said he encountered the woman in the street while on his way to the mosque in the town of Shahmirzad, and asked her to cover herself up, to which she replied "you, cover your eyes," according to Mehr. The cleric repeated his warning, which he said prompted her to insult and push him.
"I fell on my back on the floor," Beheshti said in the report. "I don't know what happened after that, all I could feel was the kicks of this woman who was insulting me and attacking me."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-19/iran-cleric-pummeled-by-badly-covered-woman-after-warning-her.html
Still no time to talk to Netanyahu.
(http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/NGGCxmW7EFTYXBS3UzdMVQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/theticket/A3Lak6GCMAAdQg9.jpg_large.jpg)
When war breaks out, will liberals just say "well, there's nothing we could have done?"
Is it just me, or do you think a headline like this should only exist on The Onion?
France on alert over Muslim cartoon
http://www.newsday.com/news/world/france-on-alert-over-muslim-cartoon-1.4019803
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 19, 2012, 06:04:17 PM
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/03/30/independent-pollster-scott-rasmussen-headlines/186270
"Independent Pollster" Scott Rasmussen Headlines Republican Fundraisers
So do I get to pull a lefty and say "geeze this is from that lunatic source Media Matters? Seriously".
Seriously though, RM can't gripe if I ever happen to post anything from Newsbusters or Breitbart or something like that ever. At least most of the right wing sources stay at least an arms length away form the administration they claim to be covering.
We are under attack in Pakistan. They are now firing at our embassy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19660294
The administration has finally admitted that all of this is part of a coordinated terrorist attack, just as the Libyan Prime Minister asserted, but they don't intend to release information until after the election. Apparently it was coordinated by an ex-Gitmo detainee.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-never-anti-american-protest-benghazi-only-planned-attack_652761.html
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/20/world/anti-islam-protests/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/al-qaeda-ex-gitmo-detainee-linked-libya-attack-u-s-consulate-report-article-1.1163284
pancakes!
I wish George Bush had employed President Obama's Terror Tuesday Drone policy instead of capture-and-release! This may have been avoided.
Poof! You and your friends are gone!
LOL!
http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/
Caution, graphic image!
Quote from: erfalf on September 20, 2012, 08:14:24 AM
So do I get to pull a lefty and say "geeze this is from that lunatic source Media Matters? Seriously".
Post from a respected non-pandering site and your post won't be called into question.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 20, 2012, 09:03:51 AM
The administration has finally admitted that all of this is part of a coordinated terrorist attack
Was the administration denying it?
Quote from: Gaspar on September 20, 2012, 07:48:34 AM
Is it just me, or do you think a headline like this should only exist on The Onion?
France on alert over Muslim cartoon
http://www.newsday.com/news/world/france-on-alert-over-muslim-cartoon-1.4019803
No threat should ever exist because of someone's religion.
Quote from: Townsend on September 20, 2012, 09:32:13 AM
Post from a respected non-pandering site and your post won't be called into question.
Define non-pandering?
Quote from: Townsend on September 20, 2012, 09:34:15 AM
Was the administration denying it?
Yes. Jay Carney, when asked if this was a coordinated terrorist attack, said that it was a protest orchestrated by a small group, in response to an internet film.
Quote from: erfalf on September 20, 2012, 09:38:22 AM
Define non-pandering?
(http://www.amerika.org/wp-content/uploads/pandering.jpg)
Quote from: erfalf on September 20, 2012, 09:38:22 AM
Define non-pandering?
Judging from your posting history, whatever you read for information...not that.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 20, 2012, 09:39:36 AM
Yes. Jay Carney, when asked if this was a coordinated terrorist attack, said that it was a protest orchestrated by a small group, in response to an internet film.
What day?
Quote from: Townsend on September 20, 2012, 09:43:51 AM
What day?
That's been Carney's line since the morning after the attacks.
QuoteThe Obama administration's omnibus answer to why the Middle East (and now much of the Muslim world) is in near open rebellion against the United States: The video did it.
The follow-up question no one seems to be asking is: "What if the administration's explanation is true?"
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney insists the attacks in Egypt, Libya and elsewhere were a "response not to United States policy, and not to, obviously, the administration, not to the American people," but were rather a spontaneous "response to a video, a film we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting."http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bal-can-innocence-of-muslims-trailer-really-be-that-potent-20120919,0,7158806.story
I believe Obama repeated it the other night on Letterman as well.
Quote from: Townsend on September 20, 2012, 09:43:51 AM
What day?
Wow! You probably need to channel serf a bit. MSNBC opted not to mention it yesterday.
Several times. In fact, he denied that the Whitehouse had any intelligence (not really that hard to believe) on a coordinated attack. Until Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, mentioned in front of the Senate yesterday that it was indeed a coordinated attack, the administration was sticking to their "internet video" line.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/19/top-administration-official-says-strike-in-libya-was-terror-attack/#ixzz271Rm2lWC
Unable to squash the story, MSNBC is just now reporting this.
The one good thing that has come out of this is that the President has decided to attend his national security briefings.
He's learning.
Quote from: erfalf on September 20, 2012, 10:00:11 AM
I believe Obama repeated it the other night on Letterman as well.
Jon Stewart too! I don't know how Townsend could have missed it.
I'll have to check and see if Honey bo bo has mentioned it.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 20, 2012, 10:07:22 AM
Jon Stewart too! I don't know how Townsend could have missed it.
I'll have to check and see if Honey bo bo has mentioned it.
::)
Quote from: Gaspar on September 20, 2012, 10:07:22 AM
Jon Stewart too! I don't know how Townsend could have missed it.
I'll have to check and see if Honey bo bo has mentioned it.
Your posts tend to be fairly inaccurate so I question when you don't post a link.
Not watching much TV lately. Catching up on this story now.
I went with the feeling that any attack like this could be a terrorist attack.
Keeping up on Twitter feeds allows me to skip the political stances around election time which sometimes means I miss white house updates.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 20, 2012, 09:52:43 AM
That's been Carney's line since the morning after the attacks.
The articles I'm finding, out within the last two hours, have mixed opinions on how planned the attack was.
Per the more conservative articles, the President might've planned it.
Per the more middle of the road and left leaning, they are of mixed opinions that there might've been some planning but the crowds were not all organized and let loose at once.
Quote from: Townsend on September 20, 2012, 10:15:25 AM
Your posts tend to be fairly inaccurate so I question when you don't post a link.
Not watching much TV lately. Catching up on this story now.
I went with the feeling that any attack like this could be a terrorist attack.
Keeping up on Twitter feeds allows me to skip the political stances around election time which sometimes means I miss white house updates.
I give you the benefit of the doubt. Consequently, I have discovered that Honey bo bo has
not yet commented on the administrations diversion of the truth.
(http://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/honey-boo-boo-5-5.gif?w=418&h=250)
Quote from: Gaspar on September 20, 2012, 10:23:27 AM
Consequently, I have discovered that Honey bo bo has not yet commented.
I'm sure your family is waiting with bated breath.
Huh, I see the anti-Obama folks are getting desperate.
Quote from: nathanm on September 20, 2012, 10:26:20 AM
Huh, I see the anti-Obama folks are getting desperate.
Helps to only post parts of the story.
...and to try to shuck and jive by posting family video.
Carney is now saying it's "self-evident" that last week's assault on the US Consulate in Benghazi "was a terrorist attack."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/20/us-usa-libya-whitehouse-idUSBRE88J0YI20120920
http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=285711
Damn! This admin looks like bungling idiots.
If by chance we find out that the smoke-screen was so that President Obama wouldn't' have to cancel that multi-million dollar fundraising dinner in Vegas on the 12th, the sh!t is really going to hit the fan.
What the eff are you talking about? The Washington Post, among others, reported that the administration believed the assassination to be the work of al Qaeda on the 12th. You've apparently become deranged. Or you're reading Drudge again.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 20, 2012, 12:26:57 PM
If by chance we find out that the smoke-screen was so that President Obama wouldn't' have to cancel that multi-million dollar fundraising dinner in Vegas on the 12th, the sh!t is really going to hit the fan.
Other than Harry Ried, and Nancy Pelosi, why was he in Vegas? I thought he said that Vegas was evil and companies should avoid having conventions there, that Vegas was bad for the economy...........
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/sep/12/obama-asks-nevadans-move-forward-him/ (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/sep/12/obama-asks-nevadans-move-forward-him/)
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/more-good-news-for-obama-remember-this-las-vegas-bad-bad-bad-place-to-go-take-a-vacation-wo/question-3168713/?page=1&postId=93434327#post_93434327 (http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/more-good-news-for-obama-remember-this-las-vegas-bad-bad-bad-place-to-go-take-a-vacation-wo/question-3168713/?page=1&postId=93434327#post_93434327)
Quote from: nathanm on September 20, 2012, 12:41:05 PM
What the eff are you talking about? The Washington Post, among others, reported that the administration believed the assassination to be the work of al Qaeda on the 12th. You've apparently become deranged. Or you're reading Drudge again.
Then why do they keep talking out of both ends of their mouths? While they may blame Al Qaeda, they are also placing a considerable amount of blame on this wacky film maker.
http://news.yahoo.com/pakistan-anti-film-ads-feature-obama-clinton-143350312.html?_esi=0&ugccmtnav=v1%2Fcomments%2Fcontext%2Fb5ab804c-ccfa-3bc2-bf40-7b78f31b581b%2Fcomments%3Fcount%3D20%26sortBy%3DhighestRated%26isNext%3Dtrue%26offset%3D20%26pageNumber%3D1
Quote from: nathanm on September 20, 2012, 12:41:05 PM
What the eff are you talking about? The Washington Post, among others, reported that the administration believed the assassination to be the work of al Qaeda on the 12th. You've apparently become deranged. Or you're reading Drudge again.
The post and several papers reported that intelligence suggested it MAY be the work of Al Qaeda, as did the Libyan Prime Minister.
The administration contradicted that multiple times, and in fact they immediately sent out Ambasidor Rice to all of the networks to contradict what the Libyan PM and others were saying. They launched a media air-stike to squash any assertion that this was terrorism related.
http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-east-north-africa/249717-rice-at-odds-with-libya-says-benghazi-attack-was-not-premeditated
Politico has reported that the Britts are claiming that intelligence on the coordinated attack was delivered to the State Dept two days before.
"According to senior diplomatic sources, the U.S. State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and 'lockdown', under which movement is severely restricted."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81198.html
Sh!t fan, fan sh!t.
(http://mos.totalfilm.com/images/1/10-greatest-gross-out-moments-of-the-80s-00-420-75.jpg)
According to his schedule, he has a fundraiser tonight in Tampa at a private residence. I wonder if he will cancel to address the nation?
Naaaaaah!
Quote from: Gaspar on September 20, 2012, 01:08:30 PM
Politico has reported that the Britts are claiming that intelligence on the coordinated attack was delivered to the State Dept two days before.
Well atleast the Brits will hold our politicians feet to the fire.
You keep up the good fight, Gaspar. Don't let your campaign be dictated by facts.
Let's get this war started.
The craziness surround this "film" just gets crazier.......
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/20120920PNI0920-wir-muslim-film-actress-court-youtube-injunction.html (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/20120920PNI0920-wir-muslim-film-actress-court-youtube-injunction.html)
Quote
LOS ANGELES -- A judge on Thursday denied a request seeking to force YouTube to remove an anti-Muslim film trailer that has been blamed for causing deadly violence in the Muslim World.
Judge Luis Lavin rejected the request from Cindy Lee Garcia, an actress who appears in the clip, in part because the man behind the film was not served with a copy of the lawsuit.
Garcia has said she and her family have been threatened and her career damaged since the 14-minute trailer for "Innocence of Muslims" surfaced.
"Emotionally, I am very disturbed," Garcia said before heading into court Thursday.
"My whole life has been turned upside down in every aspect," she added. "My family has been threatened."
Garcia said she was duped by the man behind the clip and that the script she saw referenced neither Muslims nor Prophet Muhammad. She said she was shocked when she finally saw the end result.
"I think it's demoralizing, degrading," she said of the film. "I think it needs to come off."
On Wednesday, Garcia filed a lawsuit for fraud and slander against Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the man behind "Innocence of Muslims" who has gone into hiding since the trailer rose to prominence last week.
Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/20120920PNI0920-wir-muslim-film-actress-court-youtube-injunction.html#ixzz272G9IW9x
Quote from: Gaspar on September 20, 2012, 01:11:17 PM
Sh!t fan, fan sh!t.
(http://mos.totalfilm.com/images/1/10-greatest-gross-out-moments-of-the-80s-00-420-75.jpg)
According to his schedule, he has a fundraiser tonight in Tampa at a private residence. I wonder if he will cancel to address the nation?
Naaaaaah!
And now from that far right polling institution: Romney 47% - Obama 47%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.aspx
For having such an inept opponent, O is sure having a hell of a time.
Quote from: nathanm on September 20, 2012, 01:18:39 PM
You keep up the good fight, Gaspar. Don't let your campaign be dictated by facts.
Quote"We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers"
Haha...nor facts, evidently....
I don't rembember which legal talking head I heard talking about it on the radio, but someone was discussing the film and likening it to yelling fire in a crowded building. I understand what he was trying to do. But didn't the "film" come out over a month ago?
So when you can't deny the facts you make the fact giver less credible. YOu guys would fit right in with this administration.
Quote from: erfalf on September 20, 2012, 01:23:12 PM
I don't rembember which legal talking head I heard talking about it on the radio,
And so starts your "facts"
Some would say...
More "good" news for our Native American friend out east.
http://bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/20120919umassherald_poll_brown_pulling_ahead_of_warren/srvc=home%26position=0
Quote from: Townsend on September 20, 2012, 01:27:10 PM
And so starts your "facts"
Some would say...
I think I'm going to pull a "Townsend" the rest of the day and not actually say anything and attempt to belittle everyone that doesn't agree with me for no apparent reason exept that they don't agree with me.
Quote from: erfalf on September 20, 2012, 01:32:13 PM
More "good" news for our Native American friend out east.
http://bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/20120919umassherald_poll_brown_pulling_ahead_of_warren/srvc=home%26position=0
And this relates to this thread how?
Quote from: dbacks fan on September 20, 2012, 01:35:19 PM
And this relates to this thread how?
Well, I didn't want to start a poll watching thread and we were discussing it earlier and the whole sh1t fan thing.
Quote from: erfalf on September 20, 2012, 01:24:07 PM
So when you can't deny the facts you make the fact giver less credible. YOu guys would fit right in with this administration.
What facts? I already referenced the fact that the White House was discussing the possibility of the assassination being an al Qaeda operation by the 12th. As in within a few hours of the attack. Gaspar insists that the White House has denied that possibility all along. He is doing a fine job ruining his credibility all on his own. He doesn't need my help.
Quote from: nathanm on September 20, 2012, 01:36:54 PM
What facts? I already referenced the fact that the White House was discussing the possibility of the assassination being an al Qaeda operation by the 12th. As in within a few hours of the attack. Gaspar insists that the White House has denied that possibility all along. He is doing a fine job ruining his credibility all on his own. He doesn't need my help.
Show me evidence that the Whitehouse made that claim.
Quote from: erfalf on September 20, 2012, 01:36:05 PM
Well, I didn't want to start a poll watching thread and we were discussing it earlier and the whole sh1t fan thing.
So in other words it's like how to confuse a dog, rattle the door knob while holding it's leash, and pour food in it's bowl at the same time?
Quote from: dbacks fan on September 20, 2012, 01:38:32 PM
So in other words it's like how to confuse a dog, rattle the door knob while holding it's leash, and pour food in it's bowl at the same time?
More like keyboard ADD. ;D
Quote from: nathanm on September 20, 2012, 01:36:54 PM
He is doing a fine job ruining his credibility all on his own. He doesn't need my help.
Oh, Okay...
(http://cache.kotaku.com/assets/resources/2007/04/cliff_clavin.jpg)
Quote from: nathanm on September 20, 2012, 01:36:54 PM
What facts? I already referenced the fact that the White House was discussing the possibility of the assassination being an al Qaeda operation by the 12th. As in within a few hours of the attack. Gaspar insists that the White House has denied that possibility all along. He is doing a fine job ruining his credibility all on his own. He doesn't need my help.
Gas is telling you what the administration IS doing. They are the ones that don't make any sense.
Quote from: Townsend on September 20, 2012, 01:20:19 PM
Let's get this war started.
Now your talkin!!! Except for the newsflash that the ME is already at war with us.
Quote from: Townsend on September 20, 2012, 10:15:25 AM
Keeping up on Twitter feeds allows me to skip the political stances around election time which sometimes means I miss white house updates.
Who in the hell are your twitter sources that are not political? Need to find those.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 20, 2012, 09:18:36 AM
LOL!
http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/
Caution, graphic image!
I stopped by that party earlier in the night. I guessed I missed something.
Quote from: guido911 on September 20, 2012, 01:44:54 PM
Who in the hell are your twitter sources that are not political? Need to find those.
Guido, it's the new "news" revolution, an entire news story in 140 charachters or less for those with short attention spans.
Quote from: dbacks fan on September 20, 2012, 01:49:54 PM
Guido, it's the new "news" revolution, an entire news story in 140 charachters or less for those with short attention spans.
If I only had a Twitter translator.
Quote from: erfalf on September 20, 2012, 01:34:54 PM
I think I'm going to pull a "Townsend" the rest of the day and not actually say anything.
That'd be helpful.
Quote from: guido911 on September 20, 2012, 01:44:54 PM
Who in the hell are your twitter sources that are not political? Need to find those.
Follow my twitter. You're welcome to grab them. Mostly entertainment, historical/educational and Oklahoma development.
Quote from: dbacks fan on September 20, 2012, 01:49:54 PM
Guido, it's the new "news" revolution, an entire news story in 140 charachters or less those with short attention spans.
I know what twitter is. I am not a complete Hoss :o. I need to know which sources are intelligent, well-reasons, and useful without political spin. Seriously, I can only reread so many of my own tweets.
Quote from: Townsend on September 20, 2012, 01:59:59 PM
Follow my twitter. You're welcome to grab them. Mostly entertainment, historical/educational and Oklahoma development.
I'll look for ya.
Quote from: guido911 on September 20, 2012, 02:01:21 PM
I'll look for ya.
There's news on there too. Mostly bad.
Quote from: guido911 on September 20, 2012, 02:01:04 PM
I know what twitter is. I am not a complete Hoss :o. I need to know which sources are intelligent, well-reasons, and useful without political spin. Seriously, I can only reread so many of my own tweets.
It was meant as humor, i forgot to add :D ;D :P ;) lol after it to inflect that it was meant as humor.
Quote from: erfalf on September 20, 2012, 01:34:54 PM
I think I'm going to pull a "Townsend" the rest of the day and not actually say anything.
Quote from: Townsend on September 20, 2012, 01:57:01 PM
That'd be helpful.
Let me rephrase that. I'm going to keep saying things without actually saying anything. I should work at the White House with that kind of double speak.
Quote from: erfalf on September 20, 2012, 02:08:08 PM
I'm going to keep saying things without actually saying anything.
You've shown true talent for this.
Quote from: Townsend on September 20, 2012, 02:13:15 PM
You've shown true talent for this.
I learn from the best. ;)
Quote from: Gaspar on September 20, 2012, 01:38:21 PM
Show me evidence that the Whitehouse made that claim.
I already referenced the Washington Post. Google News is over there.
Quote from: nathanm on September 20, 2012, 02:33:06 PM
I already referenced the Washington Post. Google News is over there.
There is not a single report, interview, or broadcast from last week to the effect that the Administration suspected this was a planned terrorist attack.
Not one.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 20, 2012, 03:02:08 PM
There is not a single report, interview, or broadcast from last week to the effect that the Administration suspected this was a planned terrorist attack.
Not one.
You are either misinformed or lying.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 20, 2012, 03:02:08 PM
There is not a single report, interview, or broadcast from last week to the effect that the Administration suspected this was a planned terrorist attack.
Not one.
You guys think this fits under rule 38? 199?
Quote from: nathanm on September 20, 2012, 03:15:00 PM
You are either misinformed or lying.
I posted the links. I will eat crow if you can post a link confirming the contrary.
At this point I'm probably just straining my finger joints, huh?
Quote from: Gaspar on September 20, 2012, 03:21:05 PM
I posted the links. I will eat crow if you can post a link confirming the contrary.
I already led you to water. Do you want me to drink for you, too? Using simple search terms on Google News and using the date range feature, it took about 30 seconds to find that which you seek. I'll give you a chance to look for yourself and retract your statement.
I believe the official position on the matter changed only yesterday. I could be wrong. But I also know plenty in the administration including Obama himself were still towing the video line as of yesterday.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/benghazi-attack-called-terrorist/2012/09/19/90e74b52-0290-11e2-9b24-ff730c7f6312_story.html
Quote from: erfalf on September 20, 2012, 03:30:11 PM
I believe the official position on the matter changed only yesterday.
That's completely irrelevant. Gaspar claimed that "[t]here is not a single report, interview, or broadcast from last week to the effect that the Administration suspected this was a planned terrorist attack." That is factually incorrect, and all it would have taken to disabuse himself of that notion was about 30 seconds on the Googles.
Quote from: nathanm on September 20, 2012, 03:35:46 PM
That's completely irrelevant. Gaspar claimed that "[t]here is not a single report, interview, or broadcast from last week to the effect that the Administration suspected this was a planned terrorist attack." That is factually incorrect, and all it would have taken to disabuse himself of that notion was about 30 seconds on the Googles.
I think the times said spacifically that
Quotefor the first time Wednesday acknowledged that last week's assault on the U.S. Consulate in Libya was a "terrorist attack,"
How does that contradict Gas?
Quote from: erfalf on September 20, 2012, 03:49:29 PM
I think the times said spacifically that
How does that contradict Gas?
erfalf, at this point you are wasting time. Nate is playing parce and quip. It'll go on all day.
Quote from: erfalf on September 20, 2012, 03:49:29 PM
How does that contradict Gas?
It doesn't. Of course, I didn't say it did, so I'm not sure what your point is. My point is that Gaspar is choosing to ignore reality in favor of some incoherent right wing narrative that's completely irrelevant anyway.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 20, 2012, 03:59:04 PM
Nate is playing parce and quip.
First off, the word is parse. Secondly, I'm not playing anything. This is serious business. If people believe and continue to repeat lies we can't have a rational and coherent discussion about where our country is, where it's headed, and what we can do about it. You may not see that as something worth doing, but I do. So keep deflecting from the fact you said something that is factually untrue if you feel you must, that's not even the point, so long as you stop repeating the lie.
Quote from: nathanm on September 20, 2012, 04:13:32 PM
First off, the word is parse. Secondly, I'm not playing anything. This is serious business. If people believe and continue to repeat lies we can't have a rational and coherent discussion about where our country is, where it's headed, and what we can do about it. You may not see that as something worth doing, but I do. So keep deflecting from the fact you said something that is factually untrue if you feel you must, that's not even the point, so long as you stop repeating the lie.
I'm all turned around. What did Gas lie or mis-represent?
Quote from: nathanm on September 20, 2012, 04:13:32 PM
First off, the word is parse. Secondly, I'm not playing anything. This is serious business. If people believe and continue to repeat lies we can't have a rational and coherent discussion about where our country is, where it's headed, and what we can do about it. You may not see that as something worth doing, but I do. So keep deflecting from the fact you said something that is factually untrue if you feel you must, that's not even the point, so long as you stop repeating the lie.
Then just post a damn link to prove your point instead of playing internet bully.
Quote from: erfalf on September 20, 2012, 04:17:01 PM
I'm all turned around. What did Gas lie or mis-represent?
Um, you quoted my quotation of his restatement of it.
Um, so now I am hearing that the "embassy" in Libya was actually a "mission". One, how can so many in our press be wrong all the time. Two, what's the difference?
Quote from: erfalf on September 21, 2012, 09:26:20 AM
Um, so now I am hearing that the "embassy" in Libya was actually a "mission". One, how can so many in our press be wrong all the time. Two, what's the difference?
Our embassy is in Tripoli. There is (or was) a consulate in Benghazi, where Ambassador Stevens was killed.
So Hillery is still pedaling the line that the attacks were not premeditated? Seriously? ???
http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/terrorism/250839-clinton-fails-to-convince-republicans-on-libya-events
Quote from: erfalf on September 21, 2012, 03:28:23 PM
So Hillery is still pedaling the line that the attacks were not premeditated? Seriously? ???
The State Department has had a "Kick Me" note taped to their coat tails ever since they began spending more time punishing war crimes whistle-blowers than they have punishing actual war criminals. Former Tulsan Manning comes to mind.
Quote from: patric on September 21, 2012, 03:44:40 PM
The State Department has had a "Kick Me" note taped to their coat tails ever since they began spending more time punishing war crimes whistle-blowers than they have punishing actual war criminals. Former Tulsan Manning comes to mind.
Oh you mean Manning who leaked thousands of documents he was entrusted not to leak which could have resulted in many U.S. servicemen & women being killed?
I suppose the war criminals you refer to are Bush, Cheney, & Rumsfeld?
This seriously cannot be true. Piss Christ coming back now?
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/wh-silent-over-demands-to-denounce-piss-christ-artwork.html
Quote from: Conan71 on September 21, 2012, 04:08:54 PM
Oh you mean Manning who leaked thousands of documents he was entrusted not to leak which could have resulted in many U.S. servicemen & women being killed?
I suppose the war criminals you refer to are Bush, Cheney, & Rumsfeld?
I bet you heard all those screams from the left about that SEAL's leaking classified info after he wrote the book about his unit's (as opposed to Barry's) killing bin Laden and how patriotic he was. Oh wait...
Quote from: guido911 on September 21, 2012, 09:25:41 PM
I bet you heard all those screams from the left about that SEAL's leaking classified info after he wrote the book about his unit's (as opposed to Barry's) killing bin Laden and how patriotic he was. Oh wait...
The Navy Seal claims he released NO classified information. None of us (probably) can either confirm or deny that claim; that is unless you have access to classified information which you (probably) have no authority to release.
Access to classified information requires BOTH a clearance AND a need to know.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 21, 2012, 04:08:54 PM
Oh you mean Manning who leaked thousands of documents he was entrusted not to leak which could have resulted in many U.S. servicemen & women being killed?
Wrong:
An ongoing Pentagon review of secret documents made public by the WikiLeaks website has so far found no evidence that the disclosure harmed U.S. national security or endangered troops in the field, a Pentagon official told NBC News on Monday.
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/politics/Review_of_WikiLeaks_docs_sees_no_smoking_gun-99261354.htmlQuote from: Conan71 on September 21, 2012, 04:08:54 PM
I suppose the war criminals you refer to are Bush, Cheney, & Rumsfeld?
And wrong:
A secret video leaked on to the internet shows American soldiers laughing as a helicopter strike kills around a dozen civilians in Baghdad, including children and journalists.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1263822/WikiLeaks-video-Reuters-journalists-civilians-gunned-US-pilots.html
And still blaming the video:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-view-marginalize-video-ignoring-it_653041.html
I know it's from the Weekly Standard, but it is just a blurb how Obama referenced it on the View and at the U.N.
Thankfully, it doesn't matter what Obama says, the Libyan people are taking care of it. ;D
(There is still no conclusive evidence as to whether or not the attack was in fact planned in advance or if the opportunity popped up thanks to the protests, not that it matters in the least)
OK lets look at it that it was a planned attack. Kinda weak by comparison don't ya think? I mean really, to do it on 911. How cliche. Was their Abbottabad mole leader really that big of a brain child? Cause if this is his replacements plans. They suck. So if this is the worst we have to worry about. I think we will be OK.
Need to step it up Arian Refs. The World is watching.
Finally! Someone does something presidential.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/27/clinton-meet-netanyahu-after-israelis-un-speech/?page=all#pagebreak
Quote from: Gaspar on September 27, 2012, 09:39:07 AM
Finally! Someone does something presidential.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/27/clinton-meet-netanyahu-after-israelis-un-speech/?page=all#pagebreak
Is it too late for the Dims to slip Hillary in as their candidate?
Quote from: Conan71 on September 27, 2012, 11:15:37 AM
Is it too late for the Dims Republicans to slip Hillary in as their the Democratic candidate?
FIFY
This is just now breaking. Two senior officials have confirmed that President Obama knew the Libyan attach was a coordinated terrorist effort and even labeled it as such internally, but covered it up. I suspect he didn't want to cancel that very important fundraiser on the 12th in the battleground state of NV.
Excuse the source, but it's just now hitting the other outlets: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/27/us-officials-knew-libya-attack-was-terrorism-within-24-hours-sources-confirm/
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/fbi_still_not_allowed_in_us_embassy_5YwX4HbNjQkTPb8vmvJfEK
Quote from: Gaspar on September 27, 2012, 01:39:32 PM
This is just now breaking. Two senior officials have confirmed that President Obama knew the Libyan attach was a coordinated terrorist effort and even labeled it as such internally, but covered it up. I suspect he didn't want to cancel that very important fundraiser on the 12th in the battleground state of NV.
Excuse the source, but it's just now hitting the other outlets: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/27/us-officials-knew-libya-attack-was-terrorism-within-24-hours-sources-confirm/
Buried at the bottom of the article:
Quote
One intelligence official clarified to Fox News that there was not a "definitive" lead on who might have been responsible for the Libya attacks in the immediate aftermath, though officials had an idea of the suspects.
"It's inaccurate to suggest that within the first 24 hours there was a definitive calling card and home address for the perpetrators of the Benghazi attack. Potential suspects and data points emerge early on, but it still takes time to be certain who is responsible," the official said.
Not speaking publicly before the facts are known is usually considered a good thing, it's something that Romney would do well to learn.
Quote from: swake on September 27, 2012, 01:45:43 PM
Not speaking publicly before the facts are known is usually considered a good thing, it's something that Romney would do well to learn.
But, knowing what he did (maybe he didn't know the specific perpetrator's names) and still out and out lying about the situation for over a week is alright with you?
Quote from: erfalf on September 27, 2012, 01:49:25 PM
But, knowing what he did (maybe he didn't know the specific perpetrator's names) and still out and out lying about the situation for over a week is alright with you?
So you know that he was out and out lying to you?
Ah, the clairvoyance. Apparently it's contagious!
Quote from: swake on September 27, 2012, 01:45:43 PM
Buried at the bottom of the article:
Not speaking publicly before the facts are known is usually considered a good thing, it's something that Romney would do well to learn.
I'm not finding a mention of this on any of the respected journalism sites. They must be making sure their stories are accurate so they don't have to put a fine print on it like Fox or the NY Post.
Quote from: Townsend on September 27, 2012, 01:50:31 PM
So you know that he was out and out lying to you?
The Pres has been pedaling the "video" line, and that it was "spontaneous" for over a week. Is that not lying, considering his intel? What politically correct reason is there for this line?
If you pick and choose which words to listen to, yes.
He had stated from the outset it might have been a terrorist attack.
bfd
Quote from: erfalf on September 27, 2012, 01:49:25 PM
But, knowing what he did (maybe he didn't know the specific perpetrator's names) and still out and out lying about the situation for over a week is alright with you?
So you are saying the president has a duty to tell the public everything he knows or suspects as soon as he learns about it, got it. That does not seem wise in the real world.
When exactly did Bush hold his news conference to tell the American public that we knew where Bin Laden was way back in 2001 and that he over ruled special forces plans to go and get him?
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18560_162-4494937.html
Quote from: swake on September 27, 2012, 01:56:50 PM
So you are saying the president has a duty to tell the public everything he knows or suspects as soon as he learns about it, got it. That does not seem wise in the real world.
When exactly did Bush hold his news conference to tell the American public that we knew where Bin Laden was way back in 2001 and that he over ruled special forces plans to go and get him?
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18560_162-4494937.html
That is a big difference. Withholding information and telling false information are different, you do understand that right?
It was an attack on American soil that took the lives of Americans. Delay, is the only purpose behind misleading the public. The only motive for delay, was a multimillion dollar fundraiser that night in NV and two more durring the following days. Had he attended these after a Terrorist attack on the United States, it would have been despicable.
Instead, he labels the attack as the fault of a US internet filmmaker, and perpetuates that until today. Says the attack was just "a bump in the road."
Figure out a way to defend that. This cannot be a template for how we handle attacks against America.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 27, 2012, 02:07:17 PM
Instead, he labels the attack as the fault of a US internet filmmaker, and perpetuates that until today. Says the attack was just "a bump in the road."
You mean "Some say/some may say Instead, he labels the attack as the fault of a US internet filmmaker, and perpetuates that until today. Says the attack was just "a bump in the road."
Quote from: Gaspar on September 27, 2012, 02:07:17 PM
Figure out a way to defend that. This cannot be a template for how we handle attacks against America.
I don't need to figure it out. I will commend Obama for not giving in to the shrinking violets who want to let terrorists dictate our actions and reactions, and instead letting the Libyan people deal with the attackers, which they are doing.
Quote from: nathanm on September 27, 2012, 02:15:39 PM
I don't need to figure it out. I will commend Obama for not giving in to the shrinking violets who want to let terrorists dictate our actions and reactions, and instead letting the Libyan people deal with the attackers, which they are doing.
Personally, I have no problem with a no comment. That at the very least would be respectable. But to blatantly continue a misleading line of thought in order to I don't know what? Seriously. I think the partisan hat is pulled on pretty tight on this matter for some reason.
Quote from: swake on September 27, 2012, 01:56:50 PM
So you are saying the president has a duty to tell the public everything he knows or suspects as soon as he learns about it, got it. That does not seem wise in the real world.
When exactly did Bush hold his news conference to tell the American public that we knew where Bin Laden was way back in 2001 and that he over ruled special forces plans to go and get him?
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18560_162-4494937.html
Uh, where in that story does it say that Bush was the one who over-rode DF's strategy?
Quote from: erfalf on September 27, 2012, 02:18:41 PM
Personally, I have no problem with a no comment. That at the very least would be respectable. But to blatantly continue a misleading line of thought in order to I don't know what? Seriously. I think the partisan hat is pulled on pretty tight on this matter for some reason.
Exfreekinzactly!
Quote from: erfalf on September 27, 2012, 02:18:41 PM
Personally, I have no problem with a no comment. That at the very least would be respectable. But to blatantly continue a misleading line of thought in order to I don't know what? Seriously. I think the partisan hat is pulled on pretty tight on this matter for some reason.
You're talking about Fox news stories now right?
Quote from: Townsend on September 27, 2012, 02:22:26 PM
You're talking about Fox news stories now right?
Ignore, ignore, ignore. Make sure that hat stays on tight.
Quote from: erfalf on September 27, 2012, 02:18:41 PM
But to blatantly continue a misleading line of thought in order to I don't know what?
You're making smile up now. He never said it wasn't a terrorist attack. The question was whether it was planned in advance or whether it was a spontaneous reaction to the opportunity that presented itself. Apparently, they thought that the evidence was more supportive of the latter. Not that it matters in the least as long as the people who did it are being dealt with. You could call it sunshine and roses and our consulate would still be in ruins and people would still be dead.
Quote from: nathanm on September 27, 2012, 02:34:02 PM
You're making smile up now. He never said it wasn't a terrorist attack. The question was whether it was planned in advance or whether it was a spontaneous reaction to the opportunity that presented itself. Apparently, they thought that the evidence was more supportive of the latter. Not that it matters in the least as long as the people who did it are being dealt with. You could call it sunshine and roses and our consulate would still be in ruins and people would still be dead.
Talk about me playing semantics. You are correct, he never denied it was a terrorist attack. That I am alright with, ever respect. But he continued to claim that the video had something to do with and even claimed that it was a spontaneous attack.
Quote from: erfalf on September 27, 2012, 02:40:21 PM
Talk about me playing semantics. You are correct, he never denied it was a terrorist attack. That I am alright with, ever respect. But he continued to claim that the video had something to do with and even claimed that it was a spontaneous attack.
Beyond that he was careful to send out ambassador Rice to all of the networks to push the video line and insulate himself and members of his cabinate from scrutiny on the issue. Continued to push the video line even when addressing the crowd in front of the coffins of the fallen.
Had he acknowledged that they knew this was a terrorist attack against the US, he would have had to cancel his big NV fundraiser, and he needs Nevada money!
White House Defends Changing Rhetoric On Libya Attackhttp://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/white-house-defends-changing-rhetoric-on-libya-attack/ (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/white-house-defends-changing-rhetoric-on-libya-attack/)
QuoteThe White House today rejected criticism of the Obama administration's response and changing rhetoric regarding the deadly Sept. 11 assault on the U.S. consulate in Libya as "unfortunate" attempts to politicize the attack.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said the president is "absolutely focused on finding out exactly what happened."
GOP nominee Mitt Romney has noted the administration's rhetorical evolution – from saying the attack was a spontaneous act to now admitting that it was an act of terrorism – and accused the president of not wanting to "level with the American people" or come "clean" with what really happened in assault.
"There has been an attempt by Republicans, beginning with Governor Romney, to try to turn this event into a partisan issue-to try to score political points out of a terrorist attack that cost the lives of four Americans including our ambassador to Libya. And that is unfortunate," Carney told reporters today.
The White House initially linked the attack to broader protests in the region sparked by an amateur anti-Islamic movie. "We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack," Carney told reporters on September 14. "The unrest we've seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive. And while the violence is reprehensible and unjustified, it is not a reaction to the 9/11 anniversary that we know of, or to U.S. policy."
Two weeks later, however, the White House says the president believes the assault was a "terrorist attack," a term Obama has not used in his descriptions of the violence.
"I'm the president's spokesman," Carney said today. "It has been since I said so, the president's position that this is a terrorist attack."
The president conceded Monday in an interview on ABC's "The View" that "there is no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the on-going assault, that it wasn't just a mob action."
Asked why the president declined to publicly describe the violence as a terrorist attack, Carney said he was "simply answering a question."
"He bases his judgments on matters like this on the assessments that he's provided by the intelligence community," he said.
–Mary Bruce, Ann Compton, Jon Garcia
So there's that for you to tear apart if you want.
Quote from: erfalf on September 27, 2012, 02:40:21 PM
But he continued to claim that the video had something to do with and even claimed that it was a spontaneous attack.
Keep up the spin. I find it pleasantly distracting.
Quote from: Townsend on September 27, 2012, 03:18:36 PM
White House Defends Changing Rhetoric On Libya Attack
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/white-house-defends-changing-rhetoric-on-libya-attack/ (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/white-house-defends-changing-rhetoric-on-libya-attack/)
So there's that for you to tear apart if you want.
Carney would have been much more honest if he would have simply said:
"The president is absolutely focused on his re-election campaign and cannot be bothered with the daily minutia of his job."
Oh good, you survived. ;D
Some might find this interesting: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-september-25-2012/king-abdullah-ii-of-jordan-pt--1
Stewart let loose with some surprisingly uncomfortable questions for HRH.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 27, 2012, 02:20:45 PM
Uh, where in that story does it say that Bush was the one who over-rode DF's strategy?
If Bush wasn't the one making that call, then his was an even worse presidency then what we all think it was.
I am not saying he made the wrong call, the facts on the ground are usually not all the facts. Looking at his presidency overall it was
most likely a bad call but I won't claim to know that. But then killing Bin Laden that fast might have stopped Bush from being able to invade Iraq........ Bush did say that he didn't care about getting Bin Laden just a few months later.
Bush is Obama's license, crutch, and addiction.
Unfortunately, it seems he is also the foundation for his policys.
Swake, enough with all the "but Bush. . ."
We can't continue to allow our leaders to use the precedent of failure as an excuse for continued failure.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 27, 2012, 04:15:12 PM
Bush is Obama's license, crutch, and addiction.
No, he's the tool with which we can bludgeon you. ;)
Quote from: nathanm on September 27, 2012, 09:57:11 PM
No, he's the tool with which we can bludgeon you. ;)
Yes, Obama is a tool.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 27, 2012, 10:10:33 PM
Yes, Obama is a tool.
A tool that's probably going to get reelected because Romney is..well..Romney.
Quote from: nathanm on September 27, 2012, 10:15:28 PM
A tool that's probably going to get reelected because Romney is..well..Romney.
Is that anything like 'pulling a Munson'?
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_3a_jPE7ia3Y/TQvBa4F7BnI/AAAAAAAAAIk/kHBA1IdBsZM/s1600/kingpin.jpg)
Quote from: nathanm on September 27, 2012, 03:21:57 PM
Keep up the spin. I find it pleasantly distracting.
It's not me, unless I was the only one that saw him on The View and at the U.N. Maybe it's all just a dream...
He may have been backing off the initial position, but he still hasn't let the movie go. I have seen that justice has moved rather swiftly for the movie maker.
Quote from: erfalf on September 28, 2012, 07:40:19 PM
I have seen that justice has moved rather swiftly for the movie maker.
Pro tip: Don't use an alias when the conditions of your parole on fraud charges specifically forbid it. And don't use the Internet when the conditions of your parole specifically forbid that.
Quote from: nathanm on September 28, 2012, 07:44:51 PM
Pro tip: Don't use an alias when the conditions of your parole on fraud charges specifically forbid it. And don't use the Internet when the conditions of your parole specifically forbid that.
I'd just like to see the justice department move as swiftly in regards to some other issues, i.e. internal corruption.
Quote from: erfalf on September 28, 2012, 07:53:20 PM
I'd just like to see the justice department move as swiftly in regards to some other issues, i.e. internal corruption.
You really think an order came from on high to arrest the guy? Isn't there a simpler explanation? Namely that his parole officer reads the newspaper.
Bizarre: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/09/i-am-nakoula-anti-islam-moviemaker-now-cult-hero/
Every now and then, a blind squirrel finds a nut.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-1-2012/american-terror-story
How many times do I have to tell you, Timmy? You're not like all the other kids. They are not clairvoyant like you. You're special.
They'll postpone the results of the investigation until after the election of course.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/white-house-has-no-comment-on-house-gopers-assertions-that-libyan-mission-requested-security-prior-to-91112-attack/
Quote from: Gaspar on October 03, 2012, 02:33:46 PM
They'll postpone the results of the investigation until after the election of course.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/white-house-has-no-comment-on-house-gopers-assertions-that-libyan-mission-requested-security-prior-to-91112-attack/
They may want to make sure if it was a legitimate request.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/sensitive-documents-left-behind-at-american-mission-in-libya/2012/10/03/11911498-0d7e-11e2-bd1a-b868e65d57eb_story.html?wpisrc=al_national
Looks like Benghazi is going to start hitting the fan tomorrow. The link is from a center-right blogger, but his sources are pretty solid.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/09/on-eve-of-house-hearings-state-department-finally-admits-no-there-was-never-any-protest-outside-the-benghazi-consulate-before-the-attack/
Remember, if this were Bush, could you imagine the circus surrounding the daily press briefings. Oh wait, we haven't had one of those for a while....
That's completely at odds with what people on the ground reported at the time. So much for solid sources.
I have known stoners who put Harold and Kumar to shame that have better memories than people seem to have today.
Quote from: nathanm on October 09, 2012, 08:53:14 PM
That's completely at odds with what people on the ground reported at the time. So much for solid sources.
I have known stoners who put Harold and Kumar to shame that have better memories than people seem to have today.
Did you even bother to watch the damned video? The change in story was from our STATE department. Sheesh. Watch it and learn.
Quote from: guido911 on October 09, 2012, 09:01:53 PM
Did you even bother to watch the damned video? The change in story was from our STATE department. Sheesh. Watch it and learn.
I don't really care where it comes from, it's still revisionist history. There are pictures of crowds at the consulate prior to the fires having been set. Also, Smith (aka vilerat) mentioned shots, not explosions. Yes, he was busy playing EVE Online at the time of the attack. From memory, he said "holy smile, gun shots" or something very similar.
So yeah, forgive me if I remain skeptical when news reports conflict with eyewitness accounts and photographs.
Quote from: nathanm on October 09, 2012, 08:53:14 PM
I have known stoners who put Harold and Kumar to shame that have better memories than people seem to have today.
Ah, the good old days. We all had better memories than we seem to have today. Accuracy, however, is another issue.
:D
Quote from: nathanm on October 09, 2012, 09:05:53 PM
If the administration is going to try to redirect information, they really need to get everyone on board before going to the press.
QuoteSo yeah, forgive me if I remain skeptical when
the current administration puts out any information on current events.
Quote from: guido911 on October 09, 2012, 09:01:53 PM
Did you even bother to watch the damned video? The change in story was from our STATE department. Sheesh. Watch it and learn.
Why do you keep trying to convince the postman?
Quote from: Red Arrow on October 09, 2012, 09:49:59 PM
Ah, the good old days. We all had better memories than we seem to have today. Accuracy, however, is another issue.
:D
My point exactly. Good thing we found all those WMDs in Iraq after we invaded. After all, we had the intel and photos before we went in, and since it no longer matters what we learn after the fact in Nate's world, we'll stick with finding nukes and anthrax.
Quote from: guido911 on October 09, 2012, 10:47:00 PM
My point exactly. Good thing we found all those WMDs in Iraq after we invaded. After all, we had the intel and photos before we went in, and since it no longer matters what we learn after the fact in Nate's world, we'll stick with finding nukes and anthrax.
No we didn't, we had a bunch of manufactured evidence, as reported in the NYT and elsewhere before the invasion. Had the AP printed photos of Saddam's purported NBC facilities, your analogy would make sense. As it is, you're just grasping at straws. Perhaps you need to reacquaint yourself with the arrow of time.
Moreover, I didn't say I can't be convinced, I said I can't be convinced with bare assertions in the face of actual evidence. Perhaps there will be evidence disclosed in the hearings.
Watching Morning Joke on MSNBS this morning at the gym and they were all just flabbergasted at the official report from the State Dept. They were attempting to walk through scenarios as to why the administration would push the false story to the American Public. Unfortunately the pretty idiots did not connect the simplest of dots.
Major campaign event in Las Vegas that day at the Area Hotel and Casino, and a private campaign dinner that night with big money donors in Colorado!
Party with Jay-Z and Beyonce a few days later that featured a champagne tower of 350 bottles worth $105,000.
(http://lh5.ggpht.com/-CtOIaC7tVe4/UFphigSoz3I/AAAAAAAAA3I/xkDQOcWvWM4/obama-jay-z-champagne-tower_thumb%25255B1%25255D.jpg?imgmax=800)
Had Ambassador Rice been instructed to tell the truth, that we were attacked by Al Qaeda, it would have looked irresponsible and insensitive for the president to attend such events. Instead, movie (that had already been condemned by the Muslim world months before) provided a convenient escape from responsible action and saved these very important fund raisers.
Now that Mrs. Clinton is telling the truth, this is going to get much worse for the President. He shouldn't' have hired that woman. She's not going to be his patsy.
The State Department has now confirmed that in fact there was NO PROTEST.
OFFICIAL AP REPORT: When Stevens finished his final meeting of the day, he escorted a Turkish diplomat outside the main entrance of the building. The situation was calm, the officials said, and there were no protests. Five U.S. agents and four local militiamen were providing security.
A little more than an hour later, around 9:40 p.m., everything changed.
The compound's agents were alerted by loud noises, gunfire and explosions near the front gate. A barracks near the entrance for the local militiamen was burned down. In the control center, agents watched on cameras as a large group of armed men flowed into the compound. They immediately sounded the alarm and made telephone calls to the embassy in Tripoli, officials in Washington, the Libyan authorities and the U.S. quick reaction force located at a second compound a little over a mile away. http://news.yahoo.com/state-dept-reveals-details-benghazi-attack-062900114.html
The protest story was inserted by the White House for reasons we don't yet know but I suspect it was to preserve the president's campaign schedule. The unfortunate concequence either way was that reports from the US and international media citing the Video as the cause, are responsible for sparking other protests, destruction, and death at other embassy's as Muslims took up arms in what they believed to be an organic protest against the fabrication.
Big lies have big consequences. The president needs to learn that all of the campaign money and champagne in the world is not worth this.
I'm surprised no one has scolded you for the blue type-face this morning.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 10, 2012, 09:27:00 AM
I'm surprised no one has scolded you for the blue type-face this morning.
Wasn't it agreed that most of us would just skip it?
Quote from: Conan71 on October 10, 2012, 09:27:00 AM
I'm surprised no one has scolded you for the blue type-face this morning.
It's bad form...and you know who the forum police is!
Here is Jake Tapper going after our president who shoots first, aims later (sound familiar?):
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jake-tapper-grills-carney-on-libya-didnt-president-obama-shoot-first-and-aim-later/
As a note, Tapper does respond to tweets if you want to get some insight on how the press sometimes acts. I got a response from him on the issue of polls and how the media handles them.
Nothing more coming from Nate?
Just wait, the "Bush invaded Iraq on lies" bleat will become the response to this clusterfark.
Quote from: guido911 on October 10, 2012, 07:31:39 PM
Nothing more coming from Nate?
What else is there to say absent further evidence?
Quote from: nathanm on October 10, 2012, 09:26:11 PM
What else is there to say absent further evidence?
You can usually think of something.
Quote from: Red Arrow on October 10, 2012, 09:29:35 PM
You can usually think of something.
If it would make you feel better I could go on a rant about how ridiculous this whole thing that the right has whipped up is and what an absolute disaster Romney's stated position on foreign policy is, but I'd rather play pinball.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 10, 2012, 07:11:02 AM
Big lies have big consequences. The president needs to learn that all of the campaign money and champagne in the world is not worth this.
If only you and the chickenhawks had held that belief in 2003 we might have avoided having more than three orders of magnitude more of our people killed than this alleged failure on Obama's part.
Quote from: nathanm on October 10, 2012, 09:31:55 PM
If it would make you feel better I could go on a rant about how ridiculous this whole thing that the right has whipped up is and what an absolute disaster Romney's stated position on foreign policy is, but I'd rather play pinball.
Go play pinball. It just wouldn't be the same if your heart wasn't in it.
Quote from: nathanm on October 10, 2012, 09:47:56 PM
If only you and the chickenhawks had held that belief in 2003 we might have avoided having more than three orders of magnitude more of our people killed than this alleged failure on Obama's part.
Did we have a Presidential election in 2003? I must have missed it.
Quote from: Red Arrow on October 10, 2012, 10:10:47 PM
Did we have a Presidential election in 2003? I must have missed it.
Elections are not the only way to influence government. Had more people paid attention to the actual evidence before them rather than the bare assertions masquerading as a rebuttal, they might have voiced their disagreement with the plan to invade Iraq and avoided a lot of the present mess we're in.
Trey Gowdy kicks the @sses needing kicking.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/329944/gowdy-rice-you-come-committee-and-you-tell-us-eliana-johnson
Quote from: nathanm on October 10, 2012, 10:23:06 PM
Elections are not the only way to influence government. Had more people paid attention to the actual evidence before them rather than the bare assertions masquerading as a rebuttal, they might have voiced their disagreement with the plan to invade Iraq and avoided a lot of the present mess we're in.
Isn't great to be able to look back with 20/20 hindsight?
Quote from: Red Arrow on October 11, 2012, 07:44:31 AM
Isn't great to be able to look back with 20/20 hindsight?
No hindsight needed then. It was obvious the lies going on at the time. What was needed was just regular old sight - as in open their eyes.
Something that most of the people in this country chose not to use.
Quote from: Red Arrow on October 11, 2012, 07:44:31 AM
Isn't great to be able to look back with 20/20 hindsight?
Those of us who read more than the front page figured it out without the benefit of hindsight.
That does remind me of a very interesting TED talk, though. Be very careful about what you think you remember:
http://www.ted.com/talks/scott_fraser_the_problem_with_eyewitness_testimony.html
(He's slightly incorrect about his big reveal, but as best I can tell, he would be right if it weren't for amateur video posted on the interwebs)
BREAKING: Early this morning a masked gunman killed a Yemeni security officer that worked at our embassy in Yemen. The Obama administration is reporting that the security officer was shot through the head with an insulting Youtube video, however Yemeni intelligence reports that it was indeed a gun!
Murder isn't funny
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 11, 2012, 05:09:00 PM
Murder isn't funny
I guess you must be just slightly too far left to appreciate that humor... being in the exact center, I guess I am too.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 11, 2012, 05:09:00 PM
Murder isn't funny
Neither is blaming the public's interest in the death of four Americans on, wait for it, Mitt Romney. Disgusting animal shows her jelly spine...
Quote from: guido911 on October 11, 2012, 07:38:00 PM
Neither is blaming the public's interest in the death of four Americans on, wait for it, Mitt Romney.
The public had little interest. Darrell Issa, on the other hand, had great interest right up until the point that he accidentally disclosed classified information during his play. What is with Republicans and outing the CIA?
Quote from: nathanm on October 11, 2012, 07:45:14 PM
The public had little interest. Darrell Issa, on the other hand, had great interest right up until the point that he accidentally disclosed classified information during his play. What is with Republicans and outing the CIA?
That's right, the public could care less if its citizens, or its ambassador, is murdered by terrorists. You are as bad as Cutler.
Quote from: guido911 on October 11, 2012, 08:02:39 PM
That's right, the public could care less if its citizens, or its ambassador, is murdered by terrorists. You are as bad as Cutler.
The public
should have a lot more interest, then the Republicans wouldn't be able to distort the record so much. But they don't, and that's the country we live in. Get over it.
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/10/11/biden_contradicts_state_department_on_benghazi_security
Vice President Joe Biden claimed that the administration wasn't aware of requests for more security in Libya before the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi during Thursday night's debate, contradicting two State Department officials and the former head of diplomatic security in Libya.
"We weren't told they wanted more security. We did not know they wanted more security there," Biden said.
In fact, two security officials who worked for the State Department in Libya at the time testified Thursday that they repeatedly requested more security and two State Department officials admitted they had denied those requests.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 12, 2012, 07:54:56 AM
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/10/11/biden_contradicts_state_department_on_benghazi_security
Vice President Joe Biden claimed that the administration wasn't aware of requests for more security in Libya before the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi during Thursday night's debate, contradicting two State Department officials and the former head of diplomatic security in Libya.
"We weren't told they wanted more security. We did not know they wanted more security there," Biden said.
In fact, two security officials who worked for the State Department in Libya at the time testified Thursday that they repeatedly requested more security and two State Department officials admitted they had denied those requests.
I posted a vid of Carney trying to explain away Biden's comment as he only speaking for himself/pres--not the administration whoever else that is. Oh, I know who he was talking about, and RM will not be pleased.
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ3xZoPXHqAyDlemjALbrUv8TwQHwuc-xR5nhWOUMyaDmvwcSeuhQ)
And she does NOT deserve it.
Carney's job is even harder today. He's having to walk back many of Biden's loose comments. First Bengazi and now Obamataxes. http://freebeacon.com/carney-walks-back-bidens-million-dollar-threshold-for-tax-hike/
While President Obama's performance in the debate was lackluster, Biden's just keeps on giving.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 12, 2012, 01:34:14 PM
Carney's job is even harder today. He's having to walk back many of Biden's loose comments. First Bengazi and now Obamataxes. http://freebeacon.com/carney-walks-back-bidens-million-dollar-threshold-for-tax-hike/
While President Obama's performance in the debate was lackluster, Biden's just keeps on giving.
The only reason I cared about last night was the left's breaking of their arms patting uncle Joe on the back--for reasons I cannot understand. To me, the most disgusting and repugnant statement on Benghazi yesterday came from that POS Cutler who blamed the public's interest in four murdered Americans on Romney.
Quote from: guido911 on October 11, 2012, 08:02:39 PM
That's right, the public could care less if its citizens, or its ambassador, is murdered by terrorists. You are as bad as Cutler.
The public cannot find an answer to "what in the hell are we doing over there". Russia is said to have installed the trigger on their submarine missiles in the missiles crises designated for installation in Cuba. The public mourns the loss of any life. Oceans no longer protect us as a great wall which leaves us with a 30 minute span from launch to touchdown. The doomsday clock will run out. We have been informed by nations of the east. The beast called man shows the likely theory that we are of a common ancestor constantly repeating our actions.
Quote from: shadows on October 12, 2012, 03:42:10 PM
The public cannot find an answer to "what in the hell are we doing over there". Russia is said to have installed the trigger on their submarine missiles in the missiles crises designated for installation in Cuba. The public mourns the loss of any life. Oceans no longer protect us as a great wall which leaves us with a 30 minute span from launch to touchdown. The doomsday clock will run out. We have been informed by nations of the east. The beast called man shows the likely theory that we are of a common ancestor constantly repeating our actions.
C'mon back buddy. I know you can do it.
So in the same vein as Bush, can we now start a new chant for Obama.
Obama Lied = People Died.
Although, to be more accurate, it should be People Died = Obama Lied! ;)
Quote from: erfalf on October 18, 2012, 08:26:30 AM
So in the same vein as Bush, can we now start a new chant for Obama.
Obama Lied = People Died.
Although, to be more accurate, it should be People Died = Obama Lied! ;)
Oops
Quote from: erfalf on October 18, 2012, 08:26:30 AM
So in the same vein as Bush, can we now start a new chant for Obama.
Obama Lied = People Died.
Although, to be more accurate, it should be People Died = Obama Lied! ;)
He didn't lie, he just delayed the truth until after his Las Vegas and Colorado fundraisers. It was an act of convenience for him.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 18, 2012, 08:39:29 AM
He didn't lie, he just delayed the truth until after his Las Vegas and Colorado fundraisers. It was an act of convenience for him.
As Reagan once said, "there he goes again"...
Quote from: Gaspar on October 18, 2012, 08:39:29 AM
He didn't lie, he just delayed the truth until after his Las Vegas and Colorado fundraisers. It was an act of convenience for him.
While it is disguesting, I doubt Obama was deflecting just for this reason. I think he was just hoping it would go away all together.
The amazing irony of this whole situation is that Romney is the one who is portrayed to have botched everything in regards to this mess.
Quote from: erfalf on October 18, 2012, 11:47:51 AM
While it is disguesting, I doubt Obama was deflecting just for this reason. I think he was just hoping it would go away all together.
That whoop whoop noise you hear may be black helicopters overhead. ;D
Quote from: Hoss on October 18, 2012, 11:52:37 AM
That whoop whoop noise you hear may be black helicopters overhead. ;D
I doubt it is out of the realm of possiblity that politicians would like all of their messes to disappear. It's a fact of life, not a conspiracy.
Nice
How to Make the Administration Sound Like It Lied About Libya: Edit the Tape!http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/10/18/how_to_make_the_administration_sound_like_it_lied_about_libya_edit_the_tape.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/10/18/how_to_make_the_administration_sound_like_it_lied_about_libya_edit_the_tape.html)
QuoteConservatives have started sending me links to the newest of American Crossroads' long web videos, arguing that it provides proof that contradicts my piece about Obama and Libya: That there's no video of Obama denying that terrorists attacked in Benghazi.
Readers, I have to ask you to brace yourselves: The video is at least partly bogus. Watch it below, and notice the exchange between U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and David Gregory.
This is how the exchange appears in the Crossroads video.
GREGORY: That was spontaneous, was it a planned attack? Was there a terrorist element to it?
RICE: This is a response to a hateful and offensive video.
And this is the actual exchange from the September 16 episode of Meet the Press. I've bolded the parts that appear in the Crossroads video.
RICE: This is a response to a hateful and offensive video that was widely disseminated throughout the Arab and Muslim world. Obviously, our view is that there is absolutely no excuse for violence and that-- what has happened is condemnable, but this is a -- a spontaneous reaction to a video, and it's not dissimilar but, perhaps, on a slightly larger scale than what we have seen in the past with The Satanic Verses with the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. Now, the United States has made very clear and the president has been very plain that our top priority is the protection of American personnel in our facilities and bringing to justice those who...
GREGORY: All right.
RICE: ...attacked our facility in Benghazi.
GREGORY: Well, let's talk -- talk about -- well, you talked about this as spontaneous. Can you say definitively that the attacks on -- on our consulate in Libya that killed ambassador Stevens and others there security personnel, that was spontaneous, was it a planned attack? Was there a terrorist element to it?
RICE: Well, let us -- let me tell you the -- the best information we have at present. First of all, there's an FBI investigation which is ongoing. And we look to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpired. But putting together the best information that we have available to us today our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of -- of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video. What we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. They came with heavy weapons which unfortunately are readily available in post revolutionary Libya. And it escalated into a much more violent episode.
Look, like I wrote yesterday, Rice was wrong here. She may have been purposefully misleading. There was apparently no protest used as a cover story by the attackers. But the attackers did cite the video in their reasons for committing the murders.
But the Crossroads video is attempting to change the record. When Gregory asked Rice whether terrorism occured in Banghazi, Rice did not mumble about the video. She offered some disclaimers then said that "opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate." The idea that Rice foolishly claimed that the attack was part of a video protest, and nothing more, is a myth that only comes true with sketchy edits.
Also: Read Erik Wemple on what the Libya questioner wanted Obama to tell him, and what Obama did tell him when the cameras were off.
Quote from: erfalf on October 18, 2012, 11:51:50 AM
The amazing irony of this whole situation is that Romney is the one who is portrayed to have botched everything in regards to this mess.
And given Romney's performance the last couple months, why would you consider that amazing at all?
Quote from: Townsend on October 18, 2012, 04:21:59 PM
Nice
How to Make the Administration Sound Like It Lied About Libya: Edit the Tape!
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/10/18/how_to_make_the_administration_sound_like_it_lied_about_libya_edit_the_tape.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/10/18/how_to_make_the_administration_sound_like_it_lied_about_libya_edit_the_tape.html)
And for some more context:
Quote
Rice: First of all we had no actionable intelligence to suggest that-- that any attack on our facility in Benghazi was imminent. In Cairo, we did have indications that there was the risk that the video might spark some-- some protests and our embassy, in fact, acted accordingly, and had called upon the Egyptian authorities to-- to reinforce our facility. What we have seen as-- with respect to the security response, obviously we had security personnel in Benghazi, a-- a significant number, and tragically, among those four that were killed were two of our security personnel. But what happened, obviously, overwhelmed the security we had in place which is why the president ordered additional reinforcements to Tripoli and-- and why elsewhere in the world we have been working with governments to ensure they take up their obligations to protect us and we reinforce where necessary.
You're right, they weren't lying. ::)
If you're going to accuse someone of lying, at least point out what in that statement is a lie.
Quote from: nathanm on October 18, 2012, 04:44:01 PM
If you're going to accuse someone of lying, at least point out what in that statement is a lie.
Quote
Rice: First of all we had no actionable intelligence to suggest that-- that any attack on our facility in Benghazi was imminent.
And now it seems even more complicated in that we were running weapons to the rebels in hopes of overthrowing Gaddafi.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/how-u-s-amb-chris-stevens-may-have-been-linked-to-jihadist-rebels-in-syria-and-does-it-involve-weapons/
Quote from: erfalf on October 19, 2012, 09:55:24 AM
Rice: First of all we had no actionable intelligence
What was the actionable intelligence they had?
Quote from: erfalf on October 19, 2012, 09:57:26 AM
And now it seems even more complicated in that we were running weapons to the rebels in hopes of overthrowing Gaddafi.
Might as well be quoting the Weekly World News.
Quote from: Townsend on October 19, 2012, 09:58:52 AM
Might as well be quoting the Weekly World News.
Business Insider? It's good enough for NPR and NYT.
Quote from: Townsend on October 19, 2012, 09:57:58 AM
What was the actionable intelligence they had?
http://intelligentuspolitics.com/obama-administration-knew-of-terrorist-threats-in-libya-before-attack-says-congressional-subcommittee/
Quote
The letter to Secretary Clinton states that, "Based on information provided to the committee by individuals with direct knowledge of events in Libya, the attack that claimed the ambassador's life was the latest in a long line of attacks on Western diplomats and officials in Libya in the months leading up to September 11, 2012." They added, "In addition, multiple U.S. federal government officials have confirmed to the committee that, prior to the September 11 attack, the U.S. mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi. The mission in Libya, however, was denied these resources by officials in Washington."
Quote from: erfalf on October 19, 2012, 10:03:35 AM
Business Insider? It's good enough for NPR and NYT.
You linked the Blaze. Not the same as the Business Insider.
QuoteAnd now it seems even more complicated in that we were running weapons to the rebels in hopes of overthrowing Gaddafi.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/how-u-s-amb-chris-stevens-may-have-been-linked-to-jihadist-rebels-in-syria-and-does-it-involve-weapons/
Quote from: erfalf on October 19, 2012, 10:06:23 AM
http://intelligentuspolitics.com/obama-administration-knew-of-terrorist-threats-in-libya-before-attack-says-congressional-subcommittee/
What gives you the knowledge that it was "actionable".
Quote from: Townsend on October 19, 2012, 10:18:38 AM
You linked the Blaze. Not the same as the Business Insider.
Woops,
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-syria-heavy-weapons-jihadists-2012-10#ixzz29keeGla8
Although Beck called it the day after it occurred.
Quote from: Townsend on October 19, 2012, 10:20:00 AM
What gives you the knowledge that it was "actionable".
Uh, previous attacks, requests for more protection. What would you consider actionable intelligence?
Quote from: erfalf on October 19, 2012, 10:25:43 AM
Uh, previous attacks, requests for more protection. What would you consider actionable intelligence?
I don't know. I'm not in the actual loop.
I'm not in charge of the personnel or deciding how to post them. I'm no longer receiving the memo's either.
Frankly, I think your link to fox news offering online degrees in counter-terrorism is probably fairly unreliable too.
(http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/simgad/7574078980214065512)
The good news is that losing four Americans in Libya is not optimal.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2219867/President-Barack-Obama-Benghazi-attack-If-4-Americans-killed-OPTIMAL.html
Quote from: guido911 on October 19, 2012, 04:00:46 PM
The good news is that losing four Americans in Libya is not optimal.
I'd imagine not.
Quote from: Townsend on October 19, 2012, 04:05:42 PM
I'd imagine not.
I agree. Less than just two dead Americans falls within the optimal range.
I honestly can't for the life of me figure out why this is such a big deal..
Libya is an unstable place currently where bad stuff happens and after it happens it takes more than a couple of days to figure it out and why.
Life is not black and white, its complicated...
Everything POTUS OBAMA says sparks outrage among Republican commentators.
Quote from: Teatownclown on October 19, 2012, 04:31:44 PM
I honestly can't for the life of me figure out why this is such a big deal..
Libya is an unstable place currently where bad stuff happens and after it happens it takes more than a couple of days to figure it out and why.
Life is not black and white, its complicated...
Everything POTUS OBAMA says sparks outrage among Republican commentators.
Please, just shut up. For once, stop embarrassing this forum with the apparent little value you place on the lives of dead Americans who may have wound up that way unnecessarily. After all, that's all we heard about when evil Boosh was in charge.
Quote from: guido911 on October 19, 2012, 05:10:38 PM
Please, just shut up. For once, stop embarrassing this forum with the apparent little value you place on the lives of dead Americans who may have wound up that way unnecessarily. After all, that's all we heard about when evil Boosh was in charge.
I wasn't politicizing the thousands of dead soldiers and Iraqi's for the 2 trillion dollar war we were lied into.
You're such a bubble head....
Quote from: Teatownclown on October 19, 2012, 05:18:13 PM
I wasn't politicizing the thousands of dead soldiers and Iraqi's for the 2 trillion dollar war we were lied into.
Thousands of soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, according to the Lancet.
Mother of dead American not pleased with "optimal" comments. I wish she would stop politicizing her son's death.
QuoteThe mother of an American diplomat killed during a terrorist raid on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi has hit out at Barack Obama for describing the attack as 'not optimal', saying: 'My son is not very optimal - he is also very dead.'
During an interview shown on Comedy Central, Obama responded to a question about his administration's confused communication after the assault by saying: 'If four Americans get killed, it's not optimal.'
Speaking exclusively to MailOnline today, Pat Smith, whose son Sean died in the raid, said: 'It was a disrespectful thing to say and I don't think it's right.
'How can you say somebody being killed is not very optimal? I don't think the President has the right idea of the English language.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220241/Barack-Obama-Benghazi-attack-Mother-diplomat-criticises-Presidents-optimal-comment.html#ixzz29mrKYjZk
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220241/Barack-Obama-Benghazi-attack-Mother-diplomat-criticises-Presidents-optimal-comment.html
Quote from: nathanm on October 19, 2012, 05:32:13 PM
Thousands of soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, according to the Lancet.
Over a million according to estimates I heard that from Lancet (IIRC, there was a range given of 600k to 1.1 million - ballpark, so Red doesn't get too excited if I am 42 people off...). And the vast majority of those NOT fighters, but elderly, women and children.
Quote from: guido911 on October 19, 2012, 05:33:24 PM
Mother of dead American not pleased with "optimal" comments. I wish she would stop politicizing her son's death.
Oops, the Daily Mail literally lied. Made the "quotes" up, like something out of the last season of The Wire.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1061168977
Quote from: guido911 on October 19, 2012, 05:10:38 PM
Please, just shut up. For once, stop embarrassing this forum with the apparent little value you place on the lives of dead Americans who may have wound up that way unnecessarily. After all, that's all we heard about when evil Boosh was in charge.
Where was EXACTLY THAT intensity when Bush started a false, unnecessary war that ended up killing over 4,000 of our kids?? The frenzy is raised to this point for 4, but stone cold, crickets in the background, silence on 4,000+. Exactly what we have come to expect from Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, and their ilk.
A whole lot like the umbrage at $500 million for Solyndra, but nothing for the $1 trillion + spent on Iraq war.
That is the hypocrisy of the extremist right. Blatant. Calculating. Manipulative. Deceptive.
Quote from: guido911 on October 19, 2012, 05:33:24 PM
Mother of dead American not pleased with "optimal" comments. I wish she would stop politicizing her son's death.
Isn't that Mitt Romney's job? :P
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/us/politics/explanation-for-benghazi-attack-under-scrutiny.html?partner=MYWAY&ei=5065&_r=0
My conclusion is the reason for the misdirection is that the administration doesn't want people to know why our people were there in the first place. As long as nothing like this never happened, no one would ever know the difference, but as it happened, our guys were killed by our own guns. They have been successful in steering this whole thing away from the admins policy with Libya and Gaddafi. Unfortunately, several people have had to fall on the sword for the team.
Finally, would a "we are looking into it, and it is too early to comment" been enough in the days immediately following the tragic night?
Ruh roh!
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57538689/emails-detail-unfolding-benghazi-attack-on-sept-11/?tag=AverageMixRelated
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-usa-benghazi-emails-idUSBRE89N02C20121024
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/state-dept-email-white-house-607-pm-91112-ansar-al-sharia-claims-responsibility
Again, why make up the stuff about the video? Makes no sense.
A group takes credit for a terrorist attack? Wow. That never happens.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2222620/Hillary-Clinton-downplays-emails-showing-White-House-knew-al-Qaeda-linked-group-claimed-Libya-attack.html
Facebook may not be evidence, but apparently the admin thinks YouTube is completely reliable. Heck, what does the administration consider reliable evidence? Whatever looks favorable for re-election?
Ms. Clinton is determined not to take the blame for these bumbling idiots that she must call bosses.
Quote from: erfalf on October 25, 2012, 09:18:24 AM
apparently the admin thinks YouTube is completely reliable.
You do realize that your statement makes no sense whatsoever, right? AFAIK, nobody used the Youtube video of evidence of anything. The protesters in Cairo used it as an excuse to protest in front of our embassy, though. I realize the election is getting close, but you can do better than this.
Quote from: nathanm on October 25, 2012, 02:02:48 PM
You do realize that your statement makes no sense whatsoever, right? AFAIK, nobody used the Youtube video of evidence of anything. The protesters in Cairo used it as an excuse to protest in front of our embassy, though. I realize the election is getting close, but you can do better than this.
Are you kidding me? Obama and Hillary were out blaming the video for the attacks in Benghazi for a long time--even after they knew it wasn't the case.
Why is it so hard to admit that this is a major league F-up? Seriously?
Quote from: nathanm on October 25, 2012, 02:02:48 PM
You do realize that your statement makes no sense whatsoever, right? AFAIK, nobody used the Youtube video of evidence of anything. The protesters in Cairo used it as an excuse to protest in front of our embassy, though. I realize the election is getting close, but you can do better than this.
Regarding evidence, yes my statement was poorly worded. But what led them to conclude the video had anything to do with this. Seems just as flimsy as some facebook posting stating explicitly that "we did this". I agree they are both flimsy. But it just proves that the admin is
talking out of trying to save their arse.
Edited:
I don't think their arse needs saving on this one. They relayed the information they were being provided, which turned out to be incorrect, and corrected it when the intelligence community's assessment changed.
Quote from: nathanm on October 25, 2012, 02:45:56 PM
I don't think their arse needs saving on this one. They relayed the information they were being provided, which turned out to be incorrect, and corrected it when the intelligence community's assessment changed.
Uh... no.
Quote from: erfalf on October 25, 2012, 02:46:38 PM
Uh... no.
Great. Where are you getting your insider info?
Quote from: Townsend on October 25, 2012, 02:52:06 PM
Great. Where are you getting your insider info?
I don't take the administrations word for it. I think it is pretty well established that the admin was peddling a false story for quit some time after they realized it wasn't the case.
It seems to boil down to certain groups up in arms because the president didnt hold a press conference a hour after the attack and say "here's all the facts"
...just like Bush did an hour after 9/11...
Quote from: erfalf on October 25, 2012, 02:53:39 PM
I don't take the administrations word for it. I think it is pretty well established that the admin was peddling a false story for quit some time after they realized it wasn't the case.
I can see how you'd get that impression listening to the color commentary on Fox.
Quote from: nathanm on October 25, 2012, 03:13:33 PM
I can see how you'd get that impression listening to the color commentary on Fox.
Oy, big ol' gaggle of Coulters.
Quote from: patric on October 25, 2012, 03:07:57 PM
It seems to boil down to certain groups up in arms because the president didnt hold a press conference a hour after the attack and say "here's all the facts"
...just like Bush did an hour after 9/11...
No, it's the dozens of press related events where the admin said the exact opposite of what was the truth.
Quote from: erfalf on October 25, 2012, 03:23:06 PM
No, it's the dozens of press related events where the admin said the exact opposite of what was the truth.
Ah, the dozens of them. Can you get that list for us?
Quote from: erfalf on October 25, 2012, 03:23:06 PM
No, it's the dozens of press related events where the admin said the exact opposite of what was the truth.
We shall start calling you Steve. As in Steve Doocy.
Quote from: Townsend on October 25, 2012, 03:24:56 PM
Ah, the dozens of them. Can you get that list for us?
If I said one time, you would still mock and ignore. Yet, once would be too many.
Quote from: Hoss on October 25, 2012, 03:26:20 PM
We shall start calling you Steve. As in Steve Doocy.
Who are you, Jay. Jay Carney. Look over here, a squirrel.
Quote from: erfalf on October 25, 2012, 03:33:53 PM
If I said one time, you would still mock and ignore. Yet, once would be too many.
Yet the list is still absent....
Quote from: erfalf on October 25, 2012, 03:33:53 PM
If I said one time, you would still mock and ignore. Yet, once would be too many.
It's the Fox news blather. Don't buy into it so hard and the mocking would be less.
Quote from: erfalf on October 25, 2012, 03:35:56 PM
Who are you, Jay. Jay Carney. Look over here, a squirrel.
Point proven.
Quote from: Townsend on October 25, 2012, 03:36:28 PM
It's the Fox news blather. Don't buy into it so hard and the mocking would be less.
There were at least 5 incidents on one day (Sunday) by one woman. We can start there.
Quote from: erfalf on October 25, 2012, 03:50:41 PM
There were at least 5 incidents on one day (Sunday) by one woman. We can start there.
I am persuaded.
Quote from: erfalf on October 25, 2012, 03:23:06 PM
No, it's the dozens of press related events where the admin said the exact opposite of what was the truth.
Exact opposite? The administration denied that four people had been killed in an attack on our consulate in Benghazi? I would think that the intelligence briefings that were released with dates and everything would put to rest your concerns that the administration was saying anything other than what was known at the time.
Generally speaking, if Issa is pushing the investigation, you can be almost positive it's BS. It's what he does. So far, all of his investigations have cleared the administration of any wrongdoing. Go figure.
Also off the top of my head, Letterman and the UN.
Quote from: nathanm on October 25, 2012, 04:01:05 PM
Exact opposite? The administration denied that four people had been killed in an attack on our consulate in Benghazi? I would think that the intelligence briefings that were released with dates and everything would put to rest your concerns that the administration was saying anything other than what was known at the time.
You are doing it again.
Quote from: guido911 on October 25, 2012, 04:22:06 PM
You are doing it again.
What? Insisting that words have meaning and are not just totems? Yes. I am doing that.
Quote from: nathanm on October 25, 2012, 04:25:36 PM
What? Insisting that words have meaning and are not just totems? Yes. I am doing that.
No, completely ignoring what you know to be the meaning of those words. Does context mean nothing?
Again, is Obama (admin) completely free and clear on this? Nothing to see, move on? Were there no wrong moves?
I understand during an election cycle, mountains will be made of mole hills. But that doesn't mean that there were no mole hills to begin with. While many Romney backers are calling for the heads of the admin because of the video comments (which in itself are detestable), the whole cover up of gun running in Libya is what should be driving everyone bonkers. I'm with Conan (I think he said this) in thinking that if the gov't wants someone offed, do it themselves. The risks of backfiring are much lower, and at worst, we haven't just armed the people we might piss off.
Quote from: erfalf on October 25, 2012, 04:38:38 PM
if the gov't wants someone offed, do it themselves.
Iraq and Afghanistan went so swimmingly that I can't imagine what Obama must have been thinking to refuse to commit ground forces in Libya.
Quote from: erfalf on October 25, 2012, 03:23:06 PM
No, it's the dozens of press related events where the admin said the exact opposite of what was the truth.
Where to even start....
Well, within a couple hours of hearing the first reports about it, I remember some one in a press notice saying that it was unknown exactly who was responsible, then listed some possible candidates - one of which was "terrorist organization".
So the continued ranting and raving about how this was handled is pretty much exactly like the shrill harpy chant about birth certificates, college transcripts, passports, and all the other non-existent - proven false - MurdochFantasyWorld carp that has been spewed for decades about not just Obama, but Clinton before him. How long, after years of evidence beyond ANY reasonable doubt do these lies end??? And when will you personally stand up for what is right, regardless of political affiliation? Hint; spreading these lies doesn't really help credibility.
While again, frothing at the mouth over the horrible loss of 4 consulate personnel, while STILL having NO indignation about the 4,000 + of our kids that were killed for the multi-trillion dollar obscenity of the most recent Iraq war.
You might actually have some credibility, as well as other RWRE, if there were even the same response to that as to these smaller magnitude events. Let alone proportional response. But that would not be on "The Script", now, would it?
I guess we are moving on. Nothing more to say I guess.
Quote from: erfalf on October 25, 2012, 10:21:07 PM
I guess we are moving on. Nothing more to say I guess.
I thought so. Point verified...again.
The father of one of the SEAL's killed in Banghazi has been making his rounds. I saw this clip on youtube from apparently Megyn Kelly's show.
Newt is on the networksez implying that there are some new "October surprises" a breakin.
"There is a rumor — I want to be clear, it's a rumor — that at least two networks have emails from the National Security Adviser's office telling a counterterrorism group to stand down," Gingrich said. "But they were a group in real-time trying to mobilize marines and C-130s and the fighter aircraft, and they were told explicitly by the White House stand down and do nothing. This is not a terrorist action. If that is true, and I've been told this by a fairly reliable U.S. senator, if that is true and comes out, I think it raises enormous questions about the president's role, and Tom Donilon, the National Security Adviser's role, the Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, who has taken it on his own shoulders, that he said don't go. And that is, I think, very dubious, given that the president said he had instructions they are supposed to do everything they could to secure American personnel."
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/31/gingrich-rumor-says-networks-have-white-house-emails-telling-counterterrorism-group-to-stand-down-on-benghazi-rescue/#ixzz2AtA97Jpp
Sounds a bit reminiscent of Harry Reid don't you think?
Quote from: Gaspar on October 31, 2012, 09:57:26 AM
Newt is on the networksez implying that there are some new "October surprises" a breakin.
Just sad, Gas.
Quote from: Townsend on October 31, 2012, 10:02:48 AM
Just sad, Gas.
What did I say about the ODS and Nov 6th yesterday?
Quote from: Hoss on October 31, 2012, 10:30:18 AM
What did I say about the ODS and Nov 6th yesterday?
You were correct, sir.
Quote from: Townsend on October 31, 2012, 10:02:48 AM
Just sad, Gas.
What's sad about it? I mean, other than 4 Americans being killed on the anniversary of 9/11 and our prez though "Vegas Baby!" was more important. Even the WaPo is asking questions now.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-benghazi-questions-the-administration-must-answer/2012/10/30/02d02538-22e2-11e2-8448-81b1ce7d6978_story.html
Better link to the father of the hero SEAL killed in battle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR37NL89rfI
Quote from: guido911 on October 31, 2012, 11:46:30 AM
What's sad about it?
Don't drop to his level. You've got more talent than that.
Quote from: Townsend on October 31, 2012, 12:07:56 PM
Don't drop to his level. You've got more talent than that.
Not trying to drop to anyone's level. I am, well let Joe explain it...
edited. BTW, you probably should think about your comment and teaming with Hoss.
^^^^ Sorry, had to link to that Bidenism.
Quote from: guido911 on October 31, 2012, 12:11:41 PM
^^^^ Sorry, had to link to that Bidenism.
I've been told that is better than surprising you with it.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_vJJWmzKz0Gw/SnYBDW_qylI/AAAAAAAACTk/HGtYw9BvjEE/s400/Rush+Limbaugh+for+OxyContin+photo.jpg)
Quote from: guido911 on October 31, 2012, 11:46:30 AM
What's sad about it? I mean, other than 4 Americans being killed on the anniversary of 9/11 and our prez though "Vegas Baby!" was more important. Even the WaPo is asking questions now.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-benghazi-questions-the-administration-must-answer/2012/10/30/02d02538-22e2-11e2-8448-81b1ce7d6978_story.html
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/374066_555074481184905_2078983423_n.jpg)
What a shocker. That boulder Fox has been trying to push up bullshit mountain just rolled back and crushed them:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/world/africa/cia-played-major-defensive-role-in-libya-attack.html
Quote from: nathanm on November 02, 2012, 06:31:57 PM
What a shocker. That boulder Fox has been trying to push up bullshit mountain just rolled back and crushed them:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/world/africa/cia-played-major-defensive-role-in-libya-attack.html
I listened to an in depth version of this on NPR on the way home. Since that is one of the things they do so well....
And it just highlights how Fox - spelled "MurdochianFantasyWorld" intentionally lies about everything. And yet, so many still subscribe to "The Script" and drink the Fool-Aid (obviously a morphing of Fox Kool-Aid).
So, in his presser today the president said that Susan Rice was "sent by the White House" to brief the press based on information they provided.
"As I said before, she made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her,"
That clears that up, but begs the question, why would the White House ask the Ambassador to the UN to carry out a function of the Secretary of State?
. . .and why not provide her access to the intelligence from the CIA and State Department beforehand?
The only answer to both questions that I can think of is to separate the administration from acknowledging a terrorist attack and delaying media scrutiny durring an election, in exchange for the Secretary of State position after the election.
Pure Chicago, but perhaps too transparent. It's been two months and this thing is still evolving.
You're treading dangerously close to troofer territory again, Gaspar.
Quote from: nathanm on November 14, 2012, 04:27:11 PM
You're treading dangerously close to troofer territory again, Gaspar.
Perhaps you are right. They were aware that SS Clinton was planning on leaving after the election. Perhaps they were simply giving Ambassador Rice a tryout. Seems to have gone splendidly, wouldn't you agree?
McCain skips Benghazi briefing, gets testy when questioned by CNN(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/121115083005-mccain-story-top.jpg)
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/15/mccain-skips-benghazi-briefing-gets-testy-when-questioned-by-cnn/ (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/15/mccain-skips-benghazi-briefing-gets-testy-when-questioned-by-cnn/)
Quote(CNN) - Most of the Republican members of a Senate committee investigating the terrorist attack at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, skipped an important classified briefing by administration officials on the incident Wednesday, CNN has learned.
The missing lawmakers included Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who at the time of the top-secret briefing held a press conference in the Capitol to call for the creation of a Watergate-type special Congressional committee to investigate how and why the attack took place.
– Follow the Ticker on Twitter: @PoliticalTicker
McCain, who has accused President Barack Obama of not telling the truth about the Benghazi attack, said that even though there are several committees involved in the probe, only a select committee could streamline the information flow and resolve the "many unanswered questions" about the tragedy.
When CNN approached McCain in a Capitol hallway Thursday morning, the senator refused to comment about why he missed the briefing, which was conducted by top diplomatic, military and counter-terrorism officials. Instead, McCain got testy when pressed to say why he wasn't there.
"I have no comment about my schedule and I'm not going to comment on how I spend my time to the media," McCain said.
Asked why he wouldn't comment, McCain grew agitated: "Because I have the right as a senator to have no comment and who the hell are you to tell me I can or not?"
When CNN noted that McCain had missed a key meeting on a subject the senator has been intensely upset about, McCain said, "I'm upset that you keep badgering me."
While McCain refused to shed light on why he didn't show, his spokesman Brian Rogers emailed CNN a short time later with an explanation. He blamed it on a "scheduling error" but wouldn't provide any more detail.
According to a Democratic aide on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, only three of the eight GOP members of the committee attended the two hour briefing that ran from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. ET. By contrast, seven of the nine Democratic members were there.
McCain's press conference took place at noon.
I like it when the Republicans show how serious they really are.
Quote from: nathanm on November 15, 2012, 03:18:17 PM
I like it when the Republicans show how serious they really are.
"Damned facts getting in my way all the time."
Sore loser....bitter old soldier.
Quote from: Townsend on November 15, 2012, 03:04:14 PM
McCain skips Benghazi briefing, gets testy when questioned by CNN
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/121115083005-mccain-story-top.jpg)
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/15/mccain-skips-benghazi-briefing-gets-testy-when-questioned-by-cnn/ (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/15/mccain-skips-benghazi-briefing-gets-testy-when-questioned-by-cnn/)
Give him a break, probably needed his Geritol and a nap.
Petraeus said that the intelligence briefing documents the CIA provided the White House did indeed mention the Al Qaeda connection, but were obviously edited before being delivered to Rice.
http://mrctv.org/videos/king-petraeus-said-cias-talking-points-were-edited-play-down-terrorism
So, now I guess the search is for whoever edited the documents and why?
Now that the White House knows that intelligence documents were altered, I'm sure they are furious and doing everything within their power to get to the bottom of this!
Perhaps it was someone who didn't want to cancel a Vegas fundraiser? I dono? :P
Quote from: Gaspar on November 16, 2012, 03:38:06 PM
Petraeus said that the intelligence briefing documents the CIA provided the White House did indeed mention the Al Qaeda connection, but were obviously edited before being delivered to Rice.
http://mrctv.org/videos/king-petraeus-said-cias-talking-points-were-edited-play-down-terrorism
That's not Patraeus
We've told you you shouldn't trust Fox news.
Guest on Fox News to Discuss Benghazi Attack Is Given a Quick Exithttp://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/guest-on-fox-news-to-discuss-benghazi-attack-is-given-a-quick-exit/?smid=tw-share (http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/guest-on-fox-news-to-discuss-benghazi-attack-is-given-a-quick-exit/?smid=tw-share)
QuoteThomas E. Ricks, the veteran defense reporter and author, said he expected his Monday morning appearance on Fox News to last about three minutes. It ended, in fact, after 90 seconds — his last sentence was a description of the network as "a wing of the Republican Party."
After the interview, a Fox News staffer told Mr. Ricks that he had been rude.
The strange and unusually short interview segment quickly gained the attention of media critics, because criticism of Fox News is rarely aired on Fox News. Mr. Hicks said in an e-mail message afterward that he did not think he was being rude. "I thought I was being honest," he said. "They asked my opinion, and I gave it."
The topic was the attack on the United States's diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. Before being thanked and sent on his way, Mr. Hicks said he thought the controversy around the attack was "hyped, by this network especially."
Fox News has devoted far more airtime to the events in Benghazi, on Sept. 11, than other television news networks, with numerous suggestions that the Obama administration is engaged in a cover-up. Erik Wemple of The Washington Post and the anti-Fox group Media Matters, among others, have documented the ups and downs of Fox's reporting on the subject.
"Right now, pressure mounting on the Obama administration over its response to the deadly attack on our consulate in Benghazi," the Fox anchor Jon Scott said before tossing to Mr. Ricks, a former Washington Post and Wall Street Journal reporter whose latest book, "The Generals," was published last month.
After Mr. Ricks said that he thought that "Benghazi generally was hyped, by this network especially," Mr. Scott homed in on the word "hype," asking, "When you have four people dead, including the first U.S. ambassador in more than 30 years, how do you call that hype?"
Mr. Ricks answered, "How many security contractors died in Iraq? Do you know?"
Mr. Scott said he did not know.
"Nobody does, because nobody cared," Mr. Ricks said. "We know that several hundred died, but there was never an official count done of security contractors dead in Iraq. So when I see this focus on what was essentially a small firefight, I think, No. 1, I've covered a lot of firefights, it's impossible to figure out what happens in them sometimes. And second, I think that the emphasis on Benghazi has been extremely political, partly because Fox was operating as a wing of the Republican Party."
That was the end of the segment.
"Alright, Tom Ricks, thank you very much for joining us today," Mr. Scott said before his co-anchor tossed to a commercial break.
Mr. Ricks said in his e-mail that "I think the segment was about half as long as planned." In the pre-interview with the producer in charge of the segment, Mr. Ricks expressed his point of view that the Benghazi controversy had been over-covered, "so they shouldn't have been surprised when they pushed back on that, and I defended my position," he said.
The producer, whom Mr. Ricks did not name, told him beforehand that he'd also have a chance to talk about the lack of combat readiness of some Army units, a subject he wrote a blog post about last Friday. "But they seemed to lose interest in that," he said.
Mr. Ricks added, "One reason I spoke the way I did is that the hero of my new book is George Marshall, the Army chief of staff during World War II. He got his position by speaking truth to power, and I try to follow that example."
A Fox News spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment about whether the interview segment was cut short.
There's a possibility it was supposed to be a 90 second segment (in a musical tone) buuuuuut I dooooouuuuubt iiiiiit.
Fox was just a little "testy" that day because their oxycontin shipment hadn't arrived yet.
Two Dozen CIA Officials Spent a Day Editing the Benghazi Talking Pointshttp://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/12/04/benghazi_talking_points_cia_not_white_house_watered_down_public_account.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/12/04/benghazi_talking_points_cia_not_white_house_watered_down_public_account.html)
QuoteThe Wall Street Journal's Siobhan Gorman and Adam Entous are the latest reporters to do some digging into the now infamous talking points that Susan Rice delivered on the Sunday talk shows in the wake of the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi.
The specific takeaway is that their sources have confirmed what acting CIA Director Michael Morell had also reportedly told senators late last month: That it was the the CIA and not the White House that scrubbed any mention of al-Qaida from the Benghazi talking points.
But perhaps more interesting is the broader picture that the report provides of the extensive editing process that went on at the agency, one that doesn't make the nation's spy agency look exactly nimble:
The 94-word intelligence summary emerged from a daylong email debate between more than two dozen intelligence officials, in which they contested and whittled the available evidence into a bland summary with no reference to al Qaeda, an assessment the administration now acknowledges was wide of the mark. ...
A detailed examination of how U.S. assessments were turned into the talking points reveals a highly cautious, bureaucratic process that had the effect of watering down the U.S.'s own intelligence. The same process was slow to change conclusions when evidence shifted, in particular about links to al Qaeda and whether the attack grew out of a protest.
Ed Henry: Some Fox News commentators overdid it on Benghazihttp://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/12/ed-henry-some-at-fox-news-overdid-it-on-benghazi-151251.html (http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/12/ed-henry-some-at-fox-news-overdid-it-on-benghazi-151251.html)
QuoteFox News White House correspondent Ed Henry says that some Fox News shows over-covered the fallout from the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi, a candid assessment from one of the network's own.
"I wouldn't lie to you. I see that we're covering Benghazi a lot, and I think that should be something that we're asking about," Henry tells the AP's David Bauder.
But Henry adds that while the network had the "proper emphasis," and while other networks under-covered the story, "some of our shows, some of our commentators, have covered it more than it needed to be covered."
In the days leading up the 2012 election and even after, Fox News provided round-the-clock coverage of the administration's response to the Benghazi attack, even as other networks returned to other issues, especially the economy.
Quote from: Townsend on December 06, 2012, 10:33:51 AM
Ed Henry: Some Fox News commentators overdid it on Benghazi
It makes up for the under-coverage of the other networks. It balanced out in the end.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 06, 2012, 11:20:35 AM
It makes up for the under-coverage of the other networks. It balanced out in the end.
The sane balance out the insane in the end.
Quote from: Townsend on December 06, 2012, 11:23:46 AM
The sane balance out the insane in the end.
You and I probably disagree on which set is sane. :D
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 06, 2012, 12:41:31 PM
You and I probably disagree on which set is sane. :D
I'm sure, though you're wrong with your opinion, you're correct in this statement.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 06, 2012, 11:20:35 AM
It makes up for the under-coverage of the other networks. It balanced out in the end.
If that were true - and it SOOO obviously is NOT - then Fox would spend the next 8,000 months exclusively covering and harping on and on and on about the 4,000 + kids that were wantonly killed in Iraq due to "someone's" arrogance. What do you think the odds are on that??
Quote from: Townsend on December 06, 2012, 01:05:05 PM
I'm sure, though you're wrong with your opinion, you're correct in this statement.
I obviously feel the same way about your opinion.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 06, 2012, 05:05:36 PM
I obviously feel the same way about your opinion.
It's like you're in an infinite circle of wrongness.
Quote from: Townsend on December 06, 2012, 05:06:21 PM
It's like you're in an infinite circle of wrongness.
You appear to be in the same circle.
Why don't you go back to complaining about sidewalks? At least there you have something to stand on. :D
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 06, 2012, 05:31:41 PM
You appear to be in the same circle.
Why don't you go back to complaining about sidewalks? At least there you have something to stand on. :D
You gave. I win.
Quote from: Townsend on December 06, 2012, 10:42:48 PM
You gave. I win.
You win!.... An all expense paid trip to Syria courtesy of Uncle Sam. See your Army recruiter for your free tickets. (I would have sent you to one of those "stan" places but I didn't feel like looking up the spelling.)
You can have it.
(As far as sidewalks, I have repeatedly said they have their appropriate places, just not everywhere and I do not give on that. I assume you caught the double meaning of "stand on".)
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 06, 2012, 10:49:36 PM
(As far as sidewalks, I have repeatedly said they have their appropriate places, just not everywhere and I do not give on that. I assume you caught the double meaning of "stand on".)
The places you said they don't need to exist at 111th and Memorial have the ramps from the street, just no sidewalks.
Quote from: Townsend on December 07, 2012, 09:39:47 AM
The places you said they don't need to exist at 111th and Memorial have the ramps from the street, just no sidewalks.
And I still say that. Places downtown, places with multiple houses per acre, places with lots of little kid need sidewalks. My neighborhood does not need sidewalks. The stores on the SW corner of 111th & Memorial are connected by the access drive behind the stores. I don't see drivers zipping through there. I think that the entrances to the area off Memorial would be a tragedy waiting to happen (either car/pedestrian or car/car avoiding a pedestrian) if there were sidewalks next to Memorial going across the entrances right at Memorial. It's bad enough going north from 111th with people turning into Starbucks in the morning and that's before drivers even get any speed up after the traffic light. 111th and Memorial is NOT downtown and I don't want it to be.
Susan Rice is out.
CNBC tweet: Ambassador Susan Rice withdraws name from consideration for U.S. Secretary of State.
Edited to add:
EXCLUSIVE: Susan Rice drops out of running for secretary of state; Saddened by partisan politicshttp://rockcenter.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/13/15888883-exclusive-susan-rice-drops-out-of-running-for-secretary-of-state-saddened-by-partisan-politics?chromedomain=nbcpolitics (http://rockcenter.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/13/15888883-exclusive-susan-rice-drops-out-of-running-for-secretary-of-state-saddened-by-partisan-politics?chromedomain=nbcpolitics)
QuoteEmbattled U.N. envoy Susan Rice is dropping out of the running to be the next secretary of state after months of criticism over her Benghazi comments, she told NBC News on Thursday.
"If nominated, I am now convinced that the confirmation process would be lengthy, disruptive and costly – to you and to our most pressing national and international priorities," Rice wrote in a letter to President Obama, saying she's saddened by the partisan politics surrounding her prospects.
"That trade-off is simply not worth it to our country...Therefore, I respectfully request that you no longer consider my candidacy at this time," she wrote in the letter obtained by NBC News.
Brian Williams will have an exclusive interview with Rice on tonight's "Rock Center With Brian Williams" at 10p/9c.
Rice had been viewed as one of the front-runners to replace Hillary Clinton as the nation's top foreign policy official.
She has been under intense fire from Republicans for initially characterizing the Sept. 11 assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, as a spur-of-the-moment response to a crude anti-Muslim film.
"What happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video," Rice said on NBC's "Meet the Press" five days after the attack.
"Opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. They came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are readily available in post-revolutionary Libya, and it escalated into a much more violent episode."
As more details emerged suggesting it was a premeditated terrorist action, GOP critics accused Rice of misleading the public at the height of the presidential campaign.
She countered that she went with the best information available about the attack, in which Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed.
"I relied solely and squarely on the information provided to me by the intelligence community. I made clear that the information was preliminary and that our investigations would give us the definitive answers," she said on Nov. 21 at the United Nations.
By then, Obama had already expressed strong support for Rice, warning Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) to stop slamming her and vowing to block her confirmation.
"They should go after me," he said at his first press conference after his re-election.
And last week, Clinton praised Rice as a "stalwart colleague" who had done a "good job" at the U.N.
Despite a series of closed-door meeting with Capitol Hill lawmakers to drum up support, Rice continued to face questions from senators key to her confirmation.
After a Nov. 28 sitdown with Rice, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said she couldn't yet endorse the veteran diplomat and raised a new point of concern: her role in protecting American embassies in Kenya and Nairobi that were bombed by terrorists in 1998.
Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) suggested Rice was seen as too much of an Obama loyalist and the GOP preferred "someone of independence."
In her letter to Obama, Rice took aim at her GOP critics.
"The position of secretary of state should never be politicized," she wrote, adding, "I'm saddened that we have reached this point, even before you have decided whom to nominate. We cannot afford such an irresponsible distraction from the most pressing issues facing the American people."
Her withdrawal leaves Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) as a possible candidate for the job, and Republicans have said he would have a smoother run.
"I think John Kerry would be an excellent appointment and would be easily confirmed by his colleagues," Collins said last month.
Rice, 48, has been the United States' permanent representative to the United Nations since 2009, after serving as a senior advisor to the Obama campaign , working at the Brookings Institution and holding other diplomatic and national security positions dating back to 19
It cut off at the end.
Red Herring.... Sacrificial lamb?
Quote from: Teatownclown on December 13, 2012, 03:38:53 PM
Red Herring.... Sacrificial lamb?
No, she just needs to HTFU. Since when has partisan politics
not been a part of presidential appointments.
Quote from: Teatownclown on December 13, 2012, 03:38:53 PM
Red Herring.... Sacrificial lamb?
Exactly! It's been John Kerry all along. President Obama needs someone with the right metal.
. . . or at least willing to throw the right medals.
We're sending troops to Turkey now, and sending 3,000 back to Iraq.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/12/09/277127/3000-us-troops-secretly-return-to-iraq/
Anything to avoid testifying on Benghazi...
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CLINTON?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-12-15-12-28-49
Quote from: Gaspar on December 14, 2012, 09:26:41 AM
We're sending troops to Turkey now, and sending 3,000 back to Iraq.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/12/09/277127/3000-us-troops-secretly-return-to-iraq/
Just loving it, aren't you. Wrong thing to do 10 years ago, wrong thing to do now. Fits perfectly with your RWRE (MurdochRoveBush) guy's world view. Wonder how many more of our kids are gonna get killed this go round?
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/184502_4675102509536_453474506_n.jpg)
Quote from: Teatownclown on December 17, 2012, 07:31:08 PM
Have we forgotten the 900,000 innocent civilians killed in Iraq during the US intervention?? How many children were in that sum?
Quote from: Teatownclown on December 17, 2012, 07:31:08 PM
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/184502_4675102509536_453474506_n.jpg)
What a disgusting way to be political!
Over a year later, MSNBC decides to start covering Benghazi and demands answers!
Somebody needs to ask Chris Matthews, what difference it makes?
(http://pjmedia.com/tatler/files/2013/05/Hill-diff.jpg)
Quote from: Gaspar on October 30, 2013, 12:26:05 PM
Over a year later, MSNBC decides to start covering Benghazi and demands answers!
Somebody needs to ask Chris Matthews, what difference it makes?
Maybe in a few more years, they and Fox will start to demand answers about the 30+ killed at embassies during Bush's regime....
No?...I thought not...
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 30, 2013, 06:08:47 PM
Maybe in a few more years, they and Fox will start to demand answers about the 30+ killed at embassies during Bush's regime....
No?...I thought not...
The silence is deafening, isn't it.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 30, 2013, 06:08:47 PM
Maybe in a few more years, they and Fox will start to demand answers about the 30+ killed at embassies during Bush's regime....
No?...I thought not...
Yes, and i'm sure those uncoordinated individual attacks were also blamed on an internet video so that president Bush could attend a campaign fundraising event in Vegas the next day without looking bad for abandoning his post in the midst of a terrorist attack on 9/11. Exactly the same!
Also funny, how we can blow up a goat herder and his family in a remote mountain region of Afghanistan for terrorist "ties", but we can't arrest the terrorists who attacked our embassy on video tape, and who's names and whereabouts we have intimate knowledge of. That's the questions that folks like Chris Matthews are just now beginning to ask. The administration cannot suppress the truth forever, especially when their own media myrmidons begin to feel betrayed.
I'm willing to bet we had an arms operation out of that embassy, and if that had come to light, the international implications would have created significant obstacles in an election year. ;) Instead, they were reduced to bumps in the road.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 31, 2013, 10:16:22 AM
Yes, and i'm sure those uncoordinated individual attacks were also blamed on an internet video so that president Bush could attend a campaign fundraising event in Vegas the next day without looking bad for abandoning his post in the midst of a terrorist attack on 9/11. Exactly the same!
Also funny, how we can blow up a goat herder and his family in a remote mountain region of Afghanistan for terrorist "ties", but we can't arrest the terrorists who attacked our embassy on video tape, and who's names and whereabouts we have intimate knowledge of. That's the questions that folks like Chris Matthews are just now beginning to ask. The administration cannot suppress the truth forever, especially when their own media myrmidons begin to feel betrayed.
I'm willing to bet we had an arms operation out of that embassy, and if that had come to light, the international implications would have created significant obstacles in an election year. ;) Instead, they were reduced to bumps in the road.
So the silence is quite all right with you, then... Much better, you're right! Even you can't really be so delusional as to believe your own propaganda....uncoordinated individuals...right....that's all any of these activities have been. Uncoordinated individuals. There is no worldwide terrorist agenda. These are not the droids you are looking for...
Not completely sure, but weren't you one of the supporters of the Libyan Imperialistic Voyeuristic Adventure? That effort we made to take out the stable, if distasteful existing regime...and replace them with the people from eastern Libya who have been leaving the country for years to head east so they could go kill our kids in Iraq and Afghanistan??
It is a whole like walking up to a mad dog, messing with it in some fashion, and then expressing surprise, if not downright dismay when it bites you. Makes one wonder who the real "mad" being is....
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 31, 2013, 09:44:33 PM
So the silence is quite all right with you, then... Much better, you're right! Even you can't really be so delusional as to believe your own propaganda....uncoordinated individuals...right....that's all any of these activities have been. Uncoordinated individuals. There is no worldwide terrorist agenda. These are not the droids you are looking for...
Not completely sure, but weren't you one of the supporters of the Libyan Imperialistic Voyeuristic Adventure? That effort we made to take out the stable, if distasteful existing regime...and replace them with the people from eastern Libya who have been leaving the country for years to head east so they could go kill our kids in Iraq and Afghanistan??
It is a whole like walking up to a mad dog, messing with it in some fashion, and then expressing surprise, if not downright dismay when it bites you. Makes one wonder who the real "mad" being is....
Here's the difference: Bush never tried to cover up his ignorance and incompetence. It was right out there for all the world to see.
The Obama administration keeps coming up with elaborate and embarrassing schemes to try and hide their ignorance and incompetence.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 01, 2013, 08:36:25 AM
Here's the difference: Bush never tried to cover up his ignorance and incompetence. It was right out there for all the world to see.
The Obama administration keeps coming up with elaborate and embarrassing schemes to try and hide their ignorance and incompetence.
The Bush administration relied on the party to try to cover up his ignorance and incompetence.
The Obama administration is attempting to cover up its own ignorance and incompetence.
Maybe they should have a shoe "duck off". Whoever loses has to swallow a pretzel without properly chewing.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 01, 2013, 08:36:25 AM
Here's the difference: Bush never tried to cover up his ignorance and incompetence. It was right out there for all the world to see.
The Obama administration keeps coming up with elaborate and embarrassing schemes to try and hide their ignorance and incompetence.
Yep...that excuses it all. No further oversight or study of the topic necessary.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 01, 2013, 09:16:52 AM
Yep...that excuses it all. No further oversight or study of the topic necessary.
To the best of my memory, the Bush Administration never attempted to cobble a terrorist attack into something it was not. Just because you are comfortable being dumbed down by Obama and his minions doesn't mean everyone else is.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 01, 2013, 10:13:06 AM
To the best of my memory, the Bush Administration never attempted to cobble a terrorist attack into something it was not.
9/11 was an attack on the USA by Iraq...
Quote from: Townsend on November 01, 2013, 10:15:41 AM
9/11 was an attack on the USA by Iraq...
You won't find a sound bite or article in which Bush or anyone in his administration said we were attacked by Iraq.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 01, 2013, 10:18:30 AM
You won't find a sound bite or article in which Bush or anyone in his administration said we were attacked by Iraq.
It was a hell of an excuse to run the Iraq war through congress, the national and international populous though.
"why are you attacking (name attack-y here)?" Answer: "911." Reaction: "Oh, 911. Alright then."
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 31, 2013, 09:44:33 PM
So the silence is quite all right with you, then... Much better, you're right! Even you can't really be so delusional as to believe your own propaganda....uncoordinated individuals...right....that's all any of these activities have been. Uncoordinated individuals. There is no worldwide terrorist agenda. These are not the droids you are looking for...
I love it when you post after a few Marshalls ;)
Not completely sure, but weren't you one of the supporters of the Libyan Imperialistic Voyeuristic Adventure? That effort we made to take out the stable, if distasteful existing regime...and replace them with the people from eastern Libya who have been leaving the country for years to head east so they could go kill our kids in Iraq and Afghanistan??
Nope! We had no business getting involved. Just like we have no business being involved in Syria. Ultimately all we seem to accomplish is to usher in more Muslim Brotherhood Al Qaeda sponsored leadership that will ultimately lead to increased instability, terrorism, and human rights violation. Sure, we get to sell lots of guns, bombs, and bullets, but at what cost? We have a horrible track record when it comes to freeing the sh!t out of people.
I do find it entertaining though that liberals who used to share the somewhat libertarian sentiment for not becoming involved in foreign wars have become, under Obama, willing to defend just about any military, or quasi-clandestine action he wishes to take. If I had asked most of you 5 years ago if it was legal or ethical for a US president to order the extermination of foreign or US citizens by executive order, you would have contended that it was an outright act of capital murder. Today, it is MEH?!
It is a whole like walking up to a mad dog, messing with it in some fashion, and then expressing surprise, if not downright dismay when it bites you. Makes one wonder who the real "mad" being is....
Yup!
However, the "arab spring" concept was like political heroin to Obama, and after pontificating on it in speeches around the world he was hooked.
When that backfired, his only choice became an attempt to sweep everything under the rug and hope no one noticed the bumps. Worse, he had important things to do like tours, speeches, and fundraisers. His Libyan policy failure couldn't have come at a worse time. The table was set and people were paying $30,000 a plate that next night in Vegas. He had to give the public a pacifier. "Mr. President, have you seen this YouTube video?"
"Just bumps in the road."
Quote from: Conan71 on November 01, 2013, 10:18:30 AM
You won't find a sound bite or article in which Bush or anyone in his administration said we were attacked by Iraq.
I think your "Recovering Republican" title should be changed to "Republican in Remission".
Just sayin'....
Perhaps this will jog some memories which have been tainted by time and hyperbole, as to why we ended up in Iraq:
Quote
Security Council
4644th Meeting (AM)
SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN 'MATERIAL BREACH' OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS,
OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)
Instructs Weapons Inspections to Resume within 45 Days,
Recalls Repeated Warning of 'Serious Consequences' for Continued Violations
Holding Iraq in "material breach" of its obligations under previous resolutions, the Security Council this morning decided to afford it a "final opportunity to comply" with its disarmament obligations, while setting up an enhanced inspection regime for full and verified completion of the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991).
By the unanimous adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the Council instructed the resumed inspections to begin within 45 days, and also decided it would convene immediately upon the receipt of any reports from inspection authorities that Iraq was interfering with their activities. It recalled, in that context, that the Council had repeatedly warned Iraq that it would face "serious consequences" as a result of continued violations.
Under the new inspection regime established by the resolution, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would have "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional and unrestricted access" to any sites and buildings in Iraq, including presidential sites. They would also have the right to remove or destroy any weapons, or related items, they found.
The Council demanded that Iraq confirm, within seven days, its intention to comply fully with the resolution. It further decided that, within 30 days, Iraq, in order to begin to comply with its obligations, should provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA and the Council a complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, including chemical, biological and nuclear programmes it claims are for purposes not related to weapons production or material. Any false statement or omission in the declaration will be considered a further material breach of Iraq's obligations, and will be reported to the Council for assessment.
Following this morning's vote, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said the Security Council resolution adopted today had strengthened the cause of peace and given new impetus to the search of security in an increasingly dangerous world. The adoption represented an example of multilateral diplomacy serving the cause of peace and security. He urged the Iraqi leadership to seize the
opportunity, and thereby begin to end the isolation and suffering of the Iraqi people. "If Iraq's defiance continues, however, the Security Council must face its responsibilities", he said.
He said, "This is a time of trial -– for Iraq, for the United Nations and for the world. The goal is to ensure the peaceful disarmament of Iraq in compliance with Council resolutions and a better, more secure future for its people." How the crisis was resolved would affect greatly the course of peace and security in the coming years in the region, and the world, he said.
Also speaking after the vote, Council members said that their views had been taken into account in the final version of the draft, which was co-sponsored by the United States and the United Kingdom. The representative of France welcomed the two-stage approach required by the resolution, saying that the concept of "automaticity" for the use of force had been eliminated. The representatives of China and the Russian Federation stressed that only UNMOVIC and the IAEA had the authority to report violations by Iraq of the resolution's requirements.
The United Kingdom's representative said the resolution made crystal clear that Iraq was being given a final opportunity. The Iraqi regime now faced unequivocal choice: between complete disarmament and the serious consequences indicated in the resolution.
The representative of the United States noted that, while primary responsibility rested with the Council for the disarmament of Iraq, nothing in the resolution constrained any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by that country, or to enforce United Nations resolutions protecting world peace and security.
The representatives of Mexico, Ireland, Bulgaria, Syria, Norway, Singapore, Colombia, Cameroon, Guinea and Mauritius also spoke.
The meeting, which began at 10:15 a.m., adjourned at 11:40 a.m.
Resolution
The full text of resolution 1441 (2002) reads, as follows:
"The Security Council,
"Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of
14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,
"Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,
"Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
"Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,
"Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,
"Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,
"Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,
"Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council's repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,
"Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,
"Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,
"Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,
"Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,
"Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary-General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq's continued failure to comply with relevant Council resolutions,
"Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,
"Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,
"Commending the Secretary-General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary-General for their efforts in this regard,
"Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,
"Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
"1.Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
"2.Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;
"3.Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;
"4.Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;
"5.Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm
Quote from: Conan71 on November 01, 2013, 12:22:14 PM
Perhaps this will jog some memories which have been tainted by time and hyperbole, as to why we ended up in Iraq:
Don't bother. He probably still thinks that Bush started the Iraq war, and that Bush was the one that claimed they had WMDs.
Quote from: Gaspar on November 01, 2013, 12:55:57 PM
Don't bother. He probably still thinks that Bush started the Iraq war, and that Bush was the one that claimed they had WMDs.
You really think you should make comments about accuracy?
Quote from: Conan71 on November 01, 2013, 12:22:14 PM
Perhaps this will jog some memories which have been tainted by time and hyperbole, as to why we ended up in Iraq:
So you're thinking the UN is the only reason we ended up in Iraq?
Was that Security Council meeting the one and only reason we ever ended up in Iraq?
Anyway, I'm not a big fan of "I bet we did it because of this." I'm pretty certain none of us have a clue as to why the US government chose to do much of anything.
I guess we can keep on reasoning why our political party was the best though...
Quote from: Gaspar on November 01, 2013, 12:55:57 PM
Don't bother. He probably still thinks that Bush started the Iraq war, and that Bush was the one that claimed they had WMDs.
Certainly didn't get the idea from his predecessor.
QuoteKING: OK. Iraq. You, I imagine, saw Colin Powell yesterday. Did he make a good case? What do you think?
CLINTON: Well, I think he made a good case. He always makes a good case. But the most important thing he said from the point of view from the United Nations is that we had intelligence and photographs which seemed to prove that Iraq was almost taking these chemical stocks, at least, out of the backdoor while the inspectors were going through the front door, that they were moving things.
And if that's true, it means Mr. Blix and his inspectors might never get to do the job that they were appointed to do. So I think that we need to listen to Blix, listen to the Secretary Powell and I still hope the United Nations can act together on this and I think there's still a chance we can.
And, you know, there's still a chance that Saddam Hussein will come to his senses and disarm.
KING: You support the president?
CLINTON: I think that he's doing the right thing now.
What I wanted him to do all along was go to the U.N. I think, you know, we've got three big security problems now.
We still haven't, for sure, eradicated bin Laden and also we're hearing the leadership of al Qaeda and they're still very active. And that's the most imminent problem.
And then we've got the North Korean problem we can talk about later, if you want. That's the biggest potential problem.
But Saddam Hussein, for 12 years, has defied the will of the United Nations and we contained him effectively, but I think it's fair to say that after what happened on September the 11th the will of the international community has stiffened, as represented by this last U.N. resolution which said, clearly, that the penalty for noncompliance is no longer sanctions. It can be your removal from office.
So, I -- my position all along has been one Senator Dole and I took here together on your show that we ought to let the U.N. do its work and I still believe that. But I think the fact that Colin Powell demonstrated persuasively that they're moving the weapons, or the weapon stocks in this case, which -- and it would be easier to move the much smaller quantities of anthrax or aphrotoxin (ph) or they may have a little smallpox. But we're pretty sure they've got a botulism (ph) and the chemical agents, VX and ricin.
KING: Does it look inevitable to you? I mean...
CLINTON: It's not inevitable. It still would be much better if this could be done without violence. But the man needs to get rid of his chemical and biological weapon stocks and...
KING: Did you see information when you were president that led you to think he was doing this?
CLINTON: Sure.
You know, in 1995, keep in mind we had information from two members of his family, two men who had married into his family that defected to Jordan. They gave us thee information and basically the Iraqis, said, OK, we were lying all of the time, here's what we really have. We went in and got that and destroyed it. Everything these guys knew about. Then they foolishly went back to Iraq and they were killed within a month of going back.
In 1998, when we and the British bombed for four days when we kicked the inspectors out, we degraded their capacity further, but there's no question they've had some time to rebuild.
Now based on the declarations they made in '99 and the estimates that were there in '91 at the end of the Gulf War, it's clear that the inspections destroyed more stuff than was destroyed in the Gulf War. but it's pretty clear there are still some things, substantial amounts of chemical and biological stocks unaccounted for.
KING: When you say up to the U.N. -- if -- would you demand another thing other than 1441 from the U.N. if you were sitting in still back in that chair?
CLINTON: Well, as a matter of international law, I don't think it's required. But what we're trying to do here is two things. We're trying to get rid of the chemical and biological storehouse in the hands of a tyrant because he might someday use them or give them away, and more importantly because international law, through the U.N. resolution, says he shouldn't have them.
The second thing we're trying to do is to build a global alliance for peace and freedom and security. So if we can do it with broad support within the U.N., it would be much better. Otherwise, there will always be some who believe that America acted alone. They will question our motives. They will use what we did as an excuse to attack other countries.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0302/06/lkl.00.html
Quote from: Townsend on November 01, 2013, 01:10:22 PM
So you're thinking the UN is the only reason we ended up in Iraq?
Certainly not. It was because Baby Bush had to carry on Daddy Bush's war for oil.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 01, 2013, 01:15:58 PM
Certainly not. It was because Baby Bush had to carry on Daddy Bush's war for oil.
I thought it was revenge against the assassination attempt.
Quote from: Townsend on November 01, 2013, 01:16:43 PM
I thought it was revenge against the assassination attempt.
That too. They also had to line the pockets of Haliburton execs who bundled for Bush/Cheney in 2000 and then paid off SCOTUS to steal the election from Algore.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 01, 2013, 01:19:08 PM
then paid off SCOTUS to steal the election from Algore.
That was blackmail actually. The bondage parties were videoed. We need never mention that again.
Quote from: Townsend on November 01, 2013, 01:23:27 PM
That was blackmail actually. The bondage parties were videoed. We need never mention that again.
The NSA will be there to pick you up shortly.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 01, 2013, 10:13:06 AM
To the best of my memory, the Bush Administration never attempted to cobble a terrorist attack into something it was not. Just because you are comfortable being dumbed down by Obama and his minions doesn't mean everyone else is.
He didn't have to since no one called him on it. Big difference. As for Obama - well everyone knows what he is - it's just that the others have pulled the wool over your eyes and have completely skated on all their misdeeds. Shows the relative effectiveness of the RWRE propaganda machine versus the Chicago Machine Politics propaganda machine.
If losing money on a failed real estate attempt to sell worthless land (Whitewater) is worth 8 years of attention and repeated attempts at ousting from office, then the things that went on during Baby Bush's 8 years go WAY beyond high crimes and misdemeanors.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 01, 2013, 10:18:30 AM
You won't find a sound bite or article in which Bush or anyone in his administration said we were attacked by Iraq.
Then how, exactly, did you get conned into believing there was a need to invade Iraq.
Parsing and dissemination.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 01, 2013, 01:54:16 PM
Then how, exactly, did you get conned into believing there was a need to invade Iraq.
Parsing and dissemination.
By Murdochian decree, i'm sure.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 01, 2013, 01:15:58 PM
Certainly not. It was because Baby Bush had to carry on Daddy Bush's war for oil.
See. Deep down, inside you really DO understand, but it's WAY off the reservation for the Disciples of the Script, so you would never admit it to yourself, let alone the outside world.
Quote from: Gaspar on November 01, 2013, 01:57:00 PM
By Murdochian decree, i'm sure.
Well, were you going with CNN at the time, then? Elsewise, it was Murdochian. Can you spell "Fox"...??
Quote from: Townsend on November 01, 2013, 01:03:24 PM
You really think you should make comments about accuracy?
Yeah. A little like getting Ray Charles to teach someone how to drive.
Quote from: Hoss on November 01, 2013, 03:10:19 PM
Yeah. A little like getting Ray Charles to teach someone how to drive.
Have you driven in Tulsa traffic lately?
Quote from: Conan71 on November 01, 2013, 01:15:58 PM
Certainly not. It was because Baby Bush had to carry on Daddy Bush's war for oil.
Sprechen Sie Deutsch?
Oh, never mind, we won that war.
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 01, 2013, 09:17:56 PM
Sprechen Sie Deutsch?
Oh, never mind, we won that war.
Are you sure?