PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
which is fucking amazing in its own right.......
Rand Paul (R), is a grandstanding smuck, using the lives of heros for politics.
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
which is fucking amazing in its own right.......
Even less belive its relevant what Rand Paul thinks.
The buck never quite reaches Obamas desk either....yeah, its odd to say the least
This is odd too....Bfgrn, lies his ass off creating a fantasy about Hillarys retirement as S of S and Jughead starts in Fox News, Republicans and Rand Paul like
he was solved something with Bfrn's original lie........
Jughead must have confused who was actually getting called out in that Senate hearing....Paul reamed her ass pretty good and everything he said was
what the investigation found and made public.....
And the bullshit about people on 'administrative leave'......paid vacation is what it was....no one lost their jobs....they all still work for the
state dept. and they never missed a paycheck....but then they shouldn't because they are just the scapegoats for Clintons incompetence....
It was a coverup and whitewash job from the word go.....
I wish you would write something readable!
christiefan915
Catalyst
So the killings didn't matter, just the words said about them?
Repubs were calling for Hillary's head long before she made that comment two days ago. And I repeat:
No conservatives called for Condi's firing when she ignored the PBDs about bin Laden and then we were attacked.
No conservatives called for Rumsfeld's firing when 18 U.S. soldiers were electrocuted in Iraq because of faulty wiring.
No conservatives called for Gen. McChrystal's firing when Pat Tillman was killed by friendly fire.
No conservatives called for George Tenet's firing when he falsely claimed it was a "slam-dunk case" that there were WMD in Iraq.
Certainly no repubs ever blamed anybody for these, it was all chalked up to the "fog of war." It's only in Benghazi that the "fog of war" ceased to exist.
Anti-Party
Tea Is The New Kool-Aid
What I don't understand about this is Rand Paul is asking her if Benghazi was an undercover CIA operation for gun running, as seen in some media. But then asks her to voice knowledge of the operation if it were one. Does he know what undercover is? I happen to believe that yes, it was a gun running station for Libya and Syria rebels after reading the articles and watching footage of Libya rebels with brand new American guns. Knowing this, why would I ask Clinton to discuss it? Maybe if I wanted to make one party in power look like liars and it was worth using exposed undercover operations as leverage.....
He says, "they shouldn't have been sent in there without a military guard". I could be wrong on this but didn't I hear two navy seals died there? Isn't it believed to be a weapons running facility and wouldn't there be weapons? How did they stay alive for so long?
Also, I wish people would read the cables. Fox News is saying the people were screaming for help but the truth is the cable said, "I would like to request some more military backup. In worst case scenario conditions I don't feel we are equipped to handle an attack" If I remember right this was days before the attack, not enough time for processing. And there is lots to process when you are playing world police like a king nation. And if I remember right one of the other cables was sent the day before saying a policeman looked in. Make your call America, can you predict an attack from a policeman looking in? And I believe one other cable Fox News reported about was never even sent, also I heard script they were using as fact came from a video game he was playing just before the attack, not exactly a cable.
Big mistakes were made. People stumble some when suprised. If we weren't there playing world police in the first place it wouldn't have happened. Democrats are now bought by the same military weapons manufacturers as the Republicans and Libertarians and NRA.
For a Republican to attack Clinton over a deathcount is a joke. Benghazi, 4. Afghanistan, 9-11 after cutting anti-terrorism funding and ........well, I'm just going to post the list of Iraq http://http://icasualties.org/Iraq/Fatalities.aspx
Anti-Party
Tea Is The New Kool-Aid
And I'm a Republican base voter. I plan to vote Republican next election just like last election. But if it's Jeb Bush vs. Clinton, expect a woman president..
Republicans need to wake up and stop repeating Fox News and start thinking like they use to..
Republicans need to wake up and stop repeating Fox News and start thinking like they use to..
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
my mistake....I had assumed you were trying to draw a parallel.....
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
oh wait....I believe that!.......
Bfgrn
New member
Hey Nova, the Benghazi attack took place on September 11, 2012. Hillary planned to step down well before that. Rand Paul is a fucking liar and was grandstanding.
Replacing Hillary Clinton: 5 top Secretary of State candidates
The former first lady insists she's stepping down next year, no matter who wins in November. Who should succeed her as America's most prominent diplomat?
By The Week Editorial Staff | April 17, 2012
Hillary Clinton is stepping down as Secretary of State next January, regardless of whether President Obama is sworn in for a second term or Mitt Romney is inaugurated for a first.
The Week
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
Lefties love to bring up the PBDs.
So question. Given that same information Condi had, what would you have done?
Ban Muslims from flying?
Attack Afghanistan?
Start rounding up Muslims and questioning them?
Remember the lefties at the time were still soiling their undergarments over Bush's supposed involvement in Enron.
So based on the PBD, what actions would you have taken to prevent 9/11?
christiefan915
Catalyst
That particular PDB wasn't the only one ignored.
On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.
That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.
The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.
But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.
In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.
“The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden,” the daily brief of June 29 read, using the government’s transliteration of Bin Laden’s first name. Going on for more than a page, the document recited much of the evidence, including an interview that month with a Middle Eastern journalist in which Bin Laden aides warned of a coming attack, as well as competitive pressures that the terrorist leader was feeling, given the number of Islamists being recruited for the separatist Russian region of Chechnya.
And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed. Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have “dramatic consequences,” including major casualties. On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had been delayed, but “will occur soon.” Some of the briefs again reminded Mr. Bush that the attack timing was flexible, and that, despite any perceived delay, the planned assault was on track.
Yet, the White House failed to take significant action. Officials at the Counterterrorism Center of the C.I.A. grew apoplectic. On July 9, at a meeting of the counterterrorism group, one official suggested that the staff put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place, two people who were there told me in interviews. The suggestion was batted down, they said, because there would be no time to train anyone else."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html
On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.
That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.
The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.
But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.
In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.
“The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden,” the daily brief of June 29 read, using the government’s transliteration of Bin Laden’s first name. Going on for more than a page, the document recited much of the evidence, including an interview that month with a Middle Eastern journalist in which Bin Laden aides warned of a coming attack, as well as competitive pressures that the terrorist leader was feeling, given the number of Islamists being recruited for the separatist Russian region of Chechnya.
And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed. Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have “dramatic consequences,” including major casualties. On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had been delayed, but “will occur soon.” Some of the briefs again reminded Mr. Bush that the attack timing was flexible, and that, despite any perceived delay, the planned assault was on track.
Yet, the White House failed to take significant action. Officials at the Counterterrorism Center of the C.I.A. grew apoplectic. On July 9, at a meeting of the counterterrorism group, one official suggested that the staff put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place, two people who were there told me in interviews. The suggestion was batted down, they said, because there would be no time to train anyone else."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html