White House whistle blower tells how bad it is

[FinsterRufus]

Originally Posted by blanker

Some believe he's nuts, I prefer to think that he likes to mess with people. I really like that about him. I hope he's going to keep messing with everybody. I really really wish he'd wear a military uniform, compete with hat and decorations, and demand he be called "Presidente".

Give him time.

[EveryLady]

Originally Posted by KS_Referee

Yet your vote for Hillary Clinton, the person who violated security clearance laws and flat out did NOTHING to help while Americans were being attacked and brutally slaughtered in Benghazi, then lied about it... [/b]THAT person you voted for should have been allowed to run for office? Or maybe Bernie the Muppet who openly advocated taxing people in the 1% and 2% income brackets at 90%. You would support that person who is flat out honest about being a redistribution of wealth THIEF? Seriously?

What is the use of spending millions in tax payer dollars to have repeated Congressional investigations on this topic only to have the conclusions totally ignored by the populace. Since these evidentiary-based results were not what Clinton haters would have hoped true enough they weren't well covered by the right-wing media. I READ (or rather skimmed) all 700 pages of the House Benghazi Committee’s Findings that were released in June 2016. Did you? Probably not for I do not in the least doubt your intelligence and you could not have made that statement had you done so.

Increasingly it seems to matter less and less whether news is "fake" or not (whatever that term may mean) for folks simply tend to believe what they wish (and here I certainly don't absolve myself).

[Casper in Dallas]

Originally Posted by lisanicole1

I am 100 percent sure he knows what a high risk pool is in regards to health care.

Anything over his head or he wears water wings, yes I am sure he understand high risk pools 100%

[Steve McDonald]

I'm afraid if this White House whistle-blower was genuine, the current assignment may be sleeping with the fish. It seems credible, that many of the staff would be contemplating their escape from that place. Would any rational person accept a ride with someone they knew was a suicide car-bomber?

[KS_Referee]

Originally Posted by sickofnyc

Thirteen ****ing investigations on the taxpayers dime and NADA, but you still cannot let go so I'm also betting that you are birther that supported the horrific swindler and birther-in-chief... 'nuff said. Bye Bye.

I voted Libertarian for POTUS, as in Gary Johnson, because I believe Trump is a statist wanting to impose his will, morality and dictates upon society. I also believe the same of Hillary Clinton.

BTW... Did your "Bye Bye" mean you aren't speaking to me anymore? Please, oh PUH-LEASE let it be true!

[dechatelet]

Originally Posted by TwoByFour

I have been part of an executive team and I agree with your assessment of how a good exec team works. But I don't agree with your view that Trump is a good CEO. All the CEOs I worked with were good leaders - they communicated well, supportive of their team, instilled a sense of confidence that his/her vision was a good one for the company, took the long view on things, knew what was important and what wasn't, and were pretty thick skinned because things don't always go as planned and you have to roll with the punches.

Trump has none of those qualities.

How do you know?

You've never been part of his team, so you obviously don't know.

I would also counter that he does micromanage - for instance this business about the 20% import tax should have been determined by the State Department working with congress to make sure it is workable and then communicated. It wasn't. Trump simply told Spicer what to say and it blew up in his face.

You've never heard of "trial balloons"?

I suggest you look them up -- they're SOP for good politicians.

Originally Posted by ahzzie

We haven't lost for long. Just wait, sport!

2076 is a long way away.

Originally Posted by EveryLady

Earlier another poster's take was that Trump demonstrated great leadership tendencies since he would delegate and that it was not necessary for an executive to become involved in the details for that would constitute micro-management.

With him, I disagreed. Professionally, I've worked with a number of executives in a variety of industries as well as the outside attorneys who represented them. Almost to a one they were highly informed and extremely competent in their firms' specialty. Sure, they couldn't perform the actual work say of an engineer - but they sure knew the questions to ask and how to evaluate the bulls*hit.

How do you know Trump doesn't? You've never worked for him, so you don't know.

Here, Trump really needs to take the security briefings daily. Perhaps he will for his initial take didn't impress (me): "I'm, like, a smart person. I don't have to be told the same thing in the same words every single day for the next eight years," the president-elect added. "I don't need that. But I do say, 'If something should change, let us know.'"

That's a reasonable position to take. To hear the exact same thing over and over again is a waste of time.

Originally Posted by blanker

Some believe he's nuts, I prefer to think that he likes to mess with people. I really like that about him. I hope he's going to keep messing with everybody.

I agree with that. He is great at causing carpet chewing, mouth foaming temper tantrums by liberals and leftists that show that THEY are the unstable ones.

Originally Posted by sickofnyc

Thirteen ****ing investigations on the taxpayers dime and NADA, but you still cannot let go so I'm also betting that you are birther that supported the horrific swindler and birther-in-chief... 'nuff said. Bye Bye.

The investigations didn't go anywhere because Obama's lapdog attorney general refused to take them seriously.

I would like to see Jeff Sessions launch a new investigation.

It is obvious that Obama, Lynch, Holder, Koskinen, etc., committed major felonies. They should be held accountable.

In the meantime, I understand Trump is going to pardon low level soldiers who were severely punished for doing a miniscule fraction of what Hillary Clinton did.

[KS_Referee]

Originally Posted by EveryLady

What is the use of spending millions in tax payer dollars to have repeated Congressional investigations on this topic only to have the conclusions totally ignored by the populace. Since these evidentiary-based results were not what Clinton haters would have hoped true enough they weren't well covered by the right-wing media. I READ (or rather skimmed) all 700 pages of the House Benghazi Committee’s Findings that were released in June 2016. Did you? Probably not for I do not in the least doubt your intelligence and you could not have made that statement had you done so.

Increasingly it seems to matter less and less whether news is "fake" or not (whatever that term may mean) for folks simply tend to believe what they wish (and here I certainly don't absolve myself).

Nah, I didn't waste my time on the findings of that POS Committee. Instead I watched enough sworn testimony given to Congress from military, CIA & State Department personnel including very high ranking officers who informed the Whitehouse that they had teams standing by waiting to be deployed so they could be enroute to assist. I watched as these military, CIA & State Department personnel gave testimony to documented time lines on communications asking for help, offering to help and repeatedly being told to "Stand down." I watched as testimony was given on documented time line communications for two weeks leading up to the attack in Benghazi. I paid attention to what was said... then sadly I watched as Hillary Clinton REPEATEDLY LIED to Congress, then even had the audacity to proclaim, "What difference, at this point, does it make?"

No... I didn't need to read some biased BS report from a bunch of people who were simply doing what the administration asked them to do which was, "...just sweep this under the rug..."

You were right to not doubt my intelligence, but more important, you should have asked yourself, "Does this guy follow political events as much as he appears to?" The answer is YES, I do.

Shame on you! Shame on you for politicizing this. Shame on the members of Congress, the members of President Obama's Administration, the State Department and the media who politicized this. Shame on ANYONE who is trying to cover-up what happened, who lied, who told the military and CIA in several locations to stand down as our fellow countrymen were being slaughtered and begging for help... and shame on every single person who coerced folks, attempting to prevent them from testifying about their first hand information.

No... I didn't need to read some LYING report because I watched hour after hour of testimony, in total disbelief at how MY government betrayed these people who were slaughtered, crying through some of it because it was that damning in my eyes. So how dare you question me and what I know because it mattered much more to me than to read some BS report. I wanted to know the truth.

[EveryLady]

Originally Posted by dechatelet

...
How do you know Trump doesn't? You've never worked for him, so you don't know.

That's a reasonable position to take. To hear the exact same thing over and over again is a waste of time ...

I'm having trouble with the multiple quotes - but I don't need to have worked directly for him to form an opinion based upon what Trump says. You, too, almost certainly form opinions of Presidential strengths and weaknesses. I had commented:

Here, Trump really needs to take the security briefings daily. Perhaps he will for his initial take didn't impress (me): "I'm, like, a smart person. I don't have to be told the same thing in the same words every single day for the next eight years," the president-elect added. "I don't need that. But I do say, 'If something should change, let us know.'"

You believe Trump's take is "reasonable." I did not believing that it is "important to know the questions to ask and how to evaluate the bulls*hit." To further elaborate ... I just finished Michael Morell's The Great War of Our Time: The CIA's Fight Against Terrorism--From al Qa'ida to ISIS. Morell was Bush's PDI briefer at one point and described the robust interchanges. Granted, different Presidents may have varying preferences in how they absorb information - be it oral, written, passive, active - but my take (and granted this may be MY bias) is that the most responsible decision-making comes from more than being told of a change. If cramming before the night of an exam doesn't work for a college student I'm not sure that it's the best approach at a time of crisis.

My impression is that Trump IS fully cognizant of the role the President plays in protecting the Nation - takes that responsibility with great seriousness - and will exercise it to the best of his ability. The briefings he HAS received have only steadied him in this resolve.

Is there a whistle blower? Obviously I don't know. But fabricated information is more successful if it plays on or reinforces a current belief or (admittedly) bias. Look at Pizza Gate. And, yes, I question whether Trump's current approach to "detail" (plus, another issue, his impulsivity in tweets like the nuclear plans) could hamper his decision-making. This belief first formed probably just from listening to him then took hold when I stumbled across Tony Schwartz (the "co"-author" of The Art of the Deal) discussing his trouble getting Trump to focus long enough to do an interview. It was reinforced, certainly, by the above Trump quote to Fox. And so, the comment by the so-called whistle blower that "He has no interest in or ability to absorb factual background on issues that staff provides" rang true - though the word "interest" should be placed in context for I have no doubt that Trump is highly motivated to be a good President and is greatly interested in positive outcomes.

One forms opinions BEFORE one votes. Is that opinion subject to change? Do I hope that MY bias for background knowledge inaccurately colors my impression and/or that Trump will grow in the job. OF COURSE.

[EveryLady]

[quote=KS_Referee;46987191]

Nah, I didn't waste my time on the findings of that POS Committee. Instead I watched enough sworn testimony given to Congress from military, CIA & State Department personnel including very high ranking officers who informed the Whitehouse that they had teams standing by waiting to be deployed so they could be enroute to assist. I watched as these military, CIA & State Department personnel gave testimony to documented time lines on communications asking for help, offering to help and repeatedly being told to "Stand down." I watched as testimony was given on documented time line communications for two weeks leading up to the attack in Benghazi. I paid attention to what was said... then sadly I watched as Hillary Clinton REPEATEDLY LIED to Congress, then even had the audacity to proclaim, "What difference, at this point, does it make?"

Well, if my point was that most news sources introduce bias and that we end up with better information and come closer to a common understanding of a "truth" by returning to the original source, I sure was just proved wrong. I watched some (but from the sounds of it much less than you) of the Congressional testimony. Did I form a particular opinion from what I watched? No (other than thinking the Clinton quote "What difference does it make ... " reported out of context). Having just argued myself blue (last post) that absent a context or background framework, it's hard to adequately process specific data points to arrive at a sound conclusion - well, this for me is an example. For ME, I didn't know enough. Watching more, you decided that you had - and that's fair enough. Your decision; your call.

No... I didn't need to read some biased BS report from a bunch of people who were simply doing what the administration asked them to do which was, "...just sweep this under the rug..."

Neither of us, I assume (sure true for me) wants to litigate Benghazi here, but I'm really curious why you would reject the conclusions from a Republican-majority committee? That many believe any comments made by a whistle-blower published in the Daily Kos are contaminated by the source and lack of corroboration - THAT I understand. Heck, I agree with THAT. My review of the Committee report was late at night followed by checking out some of the information online. So no stellar recall here - but I had the strong impression that what it did was to take the myriad and seemingly conflicting details and weave them into a narrative that struck me as relatively coherent. And one that showed the complexity of a number of the issues.

You were right to not doubt my intelligence, but more important, you should have asked yourself, "Does this guy follow political events as much as he appears to?" The answer is YES, I do.

I haven't posted here long enough (did for a while, stopped, then was again drawn in by a personal issue and the election) to keep straight all the screen names.

Shame on you! Shame on you for politicizing this. Shame on the members of Congress, the members of President Obama's Administration, the State Department and the media who politicized this. Shame on ANYONE who is trying to cover-up what happened, who lied, who told the military and CIA in several locations to stand down as our fellow countrymen were being slaughtered and begging for help... and shame on every single person who coerced folks, attempting to prevent them from testifying about their first hand information.

My initial take on reading this was surprise for it was you not I who raised Benghazi then thinking more decided you are referring to my use of the term "Clinton-hater." Here, you are correct; I should have said "Clinton-opponent" for the use of the word "hate" introduces an unnecessary layer. I apologize. Emotion begets emotion. But I'm still unsure why you are upset (beyond the deaths of 4 Americans, of course). We BOTH seem to agree that Benghazi was politicized. We BOTH seem to find value in going beyond the press to original material for an issue of importance. In OUR cases, the money spent on the investigations was NOT wasted even though we relied on differing materials (you more on the hearings, me on the report). We did come to different conclusions, but that wasn't the point of what I wrote. Rather it is that "most folks tend to believe what they wish to" - including myself. Why that's true is another subject but with the distrust of government, press, educational institutions and now "facts" (alternate or not) it is only increasing. My guess is you would agree.

No... I didn't need to read some LYING report because I watched hour after hour of testimony, in total disbelief at how MY government betrayed these people who were slaughtered, crying through some of it because it was that damning in my eyes. So how dare you question me and what I know because it mattered much more to me than to read some BS report. I wanted
to know the truth.

To my sometimes dismay, I tend to introduce a lot of personal information in these posts mainly because I value clear communication. You know, the whole-where-are-you-coming-from-thing. Sure, if someone or some post strikes me as snarky I can get a bit snippy. Perhaps we can agree that we both care about the deaths but since we have differing views of the etiology I cannot fully appreciate your distress at the government.

Since the subject got introduced, I will pass on a very (to me) poignant view of Benghazi that was shared by my neighbor, an Air Force sergeant. No idea whether this is his original thought or perhaps one shared from something he read. He was angered by much of the news coverage of Benghazi - saying, the press is making these guys into victims. They were soldiers (he was speaking of the service records of the CIA contractors) who fell in the service of their country to the enemy. His take but I grasp that having a different view of what happened you might not feel the same.