Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Status:
"Smartened up and walked away!"
(set 26 days ago)
11,780 posts, read 5,795,007 times
Reputation: 14201
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaseMan
Oh, and you would know better than people who actually worked with him, how exactly?
I'm expecting Fox News' next "bombshell" on Benghazi to be another video of President Obama talking to black people at this point.
If you had actually worked with him and came here to post of his management skills - that's one thing. To read one article and become convinced that he was a bad manager and that was the reason for his demotion is ridiculous. We are to believe your article when all you've done is to bash people for their links to articles because to you they are lies.
I've read that Rhodes was very involved and he's WH.
And that he was.
Quote:
In an email dated 9/14/12 at 9:34 p.m. — three days after the attack and two days before Ambassador Rice appeared on the Sunday shows – Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes wrote an email sayingthe State Department’s concerns needed to be addressed.
“We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation. We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.”
After that meeting, which took place Saturday morning at the White House, the CIA drafted the final version of the talking points – deleting all references to al Qaeda and to the security warnings in Benghazi prior to the attack.
The GOP already had their hearings on this months ago and found nothing. What new things do you think more hearings will uncover that two rounds have not?
The Republicans are the ones insinuating something more insidious happened at Benghazi. The burden is on them to come up with some hard evidence. Vague assertions and innuendos coupled with histrionics do not count.
The talking points were not introduced at previous hearings. I guess you don't understand what the issues are at hand in the most recent hearing. The focus is not on Benghazi per se.
The difference between the Dem and Repub info consumer, is the Dem variety relies more on verifiable facts and the Repub variety relies more on supposition ... hence the divide.
I think I saw a post on the White House snitch site something mentioning these threads and a call for reinforcements that they're being overrun. Hopefully they'll respond here like they did in Benghazi. You'll know when they start talking about what a %&#^# person the OP is.
As an afterthought, I hope y'all have removed all traces of anything on CD that could lead back to who you are.
Ya never know when the IRS aka Administration Enforcement Arm will come "looking".
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob
The difference between the Dem and Repub info consumer, is the Dem variety relies more on verifiable facts and the Repub variety relies more on supposition ... hence the divide.
I neglected to give y'all the link so you can report this obviously concerted effort to get the administration and find out the real FACTS as believed by Bob and others.
It looks like they removed things that were either irrelevant to the attack at Benghazi (eg. The warning to the Cairo Embassy), useless ("well, some folks say this group is involved, but they deny it, and we don't know), or CIA cover-your-behind stuff ("The Agency sent out this or that warning" save it for the investigation). Basically, nothing at all pointing to Obama, or Clinton, or anything at all apart from the usual back-and-forth among career workers in any large organization.
So basically, a big yawner that is being wildly overhyped.
"Since April there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi"
Is that the statement you are choosing to ignore and rewrite? Nuland is Clinton's right arm.
The difference between the Dem and Repub info consumer, is the Dem variety relies more on verifiable facts and the Repub variety relies more on supposition ... hence the divide.
I neglected to give y'all the link so you can report this obviously concerted effort to get the administration and find out the real FACTS as believed by Bob and others.
As my above post says, how do you stand by and don't respond to an attack that last many hours?
That was the choice the Administration made in Benghazi. That is a big deal.
Not a contrived big deal but the real deal big deal.
That seems to be OK with many though.
It's easy, we are dealing with a president whose mindset is to leave the baby born alive to die in a linen closet, because the mother decided she wanted a late term abortion.
Like the mother above, the 0bama admin decided that those men were as good as dead, and help could not get there in time, so they just left them to die. Even when the Americans in Benghazi were still fighting for their lives hours past the time help could have arrived, help was not sent because it was decided at the start they were beyond rescue.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
