quote Originally posted by jimbolaya: Perhaps this is why. If true, this would be disturbing indeed. Not familiar with this website so ya'll can fact it out if you would like. I received this through Facebook. I felt like channeling Avengador. http://patdollard.com/2012/...ght-arming-al-qaeda/ Jim

Hello, Glenn Beck has been saying this for about a week, but who listens to him, hes a kook. Right! (sarcasm)

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: That can also be said for Pearl Harbor, 9-11, etc. etc. etc..

I don't care about your argument with Tony, but NO you can't say that about Pearl harbor, or 9-11. In the case of of Pearl Harbor, we entered a little skirmish called World war II, because of it. As for 9-11, it was done in an instant, and could not have been expected, and nothing more than what was done, could have been done. For example, scramble jets, and ground all flights. Benghazi had the history of 9-11 to fall upon to at least give us warning for those that except history. In addition, it now appears our fearless leader sat and watched for two hours or more, and then decided to go to Vegas. Apple meet orange.

Jim

Listen boonie, I am not going to argue with you. It is just not worth it. You have your perceptions. I have mine. Please, let's just leave it at that.

Tony

quote Originally posted by jimbolaya: I don't care about your argument with Tony, but NO you can't say that about Pearl harbor, or 9-11. In the case of of Pearl Harbor, we entered a little skirmish called World war II, because of it. As for 9-11, it was done in an instant, and could not have been expected, and nothing more than what was done, could have been done. Apple meet orange. Jim

I'm talking about the knowladge & gathered intellligence beforehand of the possability that those things were going to/could happen.
I'm talking about processing & accessing the threat level of all incomming information.
The fact-checking, the weighing of options, the load-out, etc. etc. etc.

I'm surprised no one here seems to know this stuff.

quote Originally posted by Tony Kania: Seriously, besides a vote, what can we, as Americans, do to make this better? Our country is going down the toilet, and too many are taking handouts, instead of handing out. We babble about what we are given, but what can we do? Where does this start? Who is leading? My Grandfather stormed Normandy. I think of that guy every day. Heck, I have a light from one of the Auschwitz trains sitting directly in front of me. There is so many things wrong with this nation, and I know that I did not cause this. Why do we let our politicians own us? I could go on... Tony

The thing is... Obama has been in campaign mode since the day he was elected. Never once did it seem like he was ever really leading us. I will admit that I am having some sense of sadness for the president. His administration will go down in an epic failure. Newspapers the day after will probably read "Carter has been vindicated!" because he will no longer be known as the worst president. I don't know if this was directly the fault of Obama, or if it was the fault of his aides consistently steering him in the wrong direction. Did his aides tell him to ignore Libya until the last minute because it would be bad politically? Did his aides tell him to not work with the house congressional committee on Fast & The Furious because it would make him look bad? I don't think we'll ever know.

But I can say one thing... America is in far worse shape right now than it has ever been in the 30+ years that I've been alive. It's not evil corporations, it's not the evil military, and it's not the evil Republicans. It's a president who has been unable (or unwilling) to bring together America either because of his own arrogance, or his own stupidity. I'm really looking forward to November 7th... because hopefully by mid-day we'll be able to see that Romney is president, and we can begin to move on.

quote Originally posted by TommyRocker: This is kind of harsh... There haven't been any wars for freedom in my father's lifetime, let alone my own. I think if a 4th reich rose up, or some equivalent, there would be a huge amount of people like me jumping to take them down.

Vietnam was meant to help free the South Vietnamese from the marauding North Viet-Cong... there's quite a few members on here who participated in that, including my uncle who had a grenade blow up next to him. He survived and luckily came out of it with nothing more than deafness on one side. He's not a member here, but incidentally was the person I bought my Fiero from. Anyway... there was also Grenada, the first Gulf War to protect Kuwait from attack by Iraq. There's several others...

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: My father helped liberate Holland in WWII. My uncle was taken in Dieppe and was found at the end of the war in a concentration camp, weighing 85 lbs. My brother was a Cold Warrior with the Canadian Military. I missed the whole thing, however, I didn't miss the point. Men have fought and died for my freedom and prosperity. The Ambassador to Libya apparently died while people in the White House watched remotely by surveillance drone. No one to help, no one to prevent, no one to defend. I don't think I'm too harsh. The facts kind of say it all Arn

... and your father helped save my grandparents and my father in Holland during the occupation (in Vassen / Appeldorn). So if it wasn't for your father, I probably wouldn't be here... how about that!?

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: I'm talking about the knowladge & gathered intellligence beforehand of the possability that those things were going to/could happen. I'm talking about processing & accessing the threat level of all incomming information. The fact-checking, the weighing of options, the load-out, etc. etc. etc. I'm surprised no one here seems to know this stuff.

My mistake, but the comment you quoted was in reference to the response, not the intelligence gathering beforehand. Still Apples and oranges. If I concede that there is no way the administration could have known anything beforehand, our fearless leader still sat in a room, for two hours, watching the attacks, and then went to Vegas. BTW, I don't concede that they didn't know beforehand, but you knew that anyhoo.

quote Originally posted by jimbolaya: My mistake, but the comment you quoted was in reference to the response, not the intelligence gathering beforehand. Still Apples and oranges. If I concede that there is no way the administration could have known anything beforehand, our fearless leader still sat in a room, for two hours, watching the attacks, and then went to Vegas.

I don't know the particulars as to who and how things like riots outside of Embassies are supposed to be handled, so I could never comment on exactly what went on verses what was supposed to go on.
If there was waiting, I would hope it was for more/better intell, or to put feet on the ground.
I would hope it would be handled swiftly & correctly.
I don't believe The President just non-chalantly sat back and watched people die on a monitor.

But like I said, i'm sure I don't know all the particulars.

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 10-29-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: I don't know the particulars as to who and how things like riots outside of Embassies are supposed to be handled, so I could never comment on exactly what went on verses what was supposed to go on. If there was waiting, I would hope it was for more/better intell, or to put feet on the ground. I would hope it would be handled swiftly & correctly. I don't believe The President just non-chalantly sat back and watched people die on a monitor. But like I said, i'm sure I don't know all the particulars.

You need to wake up. And yes he did watch, they had drones flying over sending video back real time. He also went back to campaigning the next day spreading lies. If you really believe the white house did not know what was happening I feel sorry for you. This president and the mainstream media will do anything to try to get him reelected even lie about more Muslims killing Americans. It is really sick if you think about it and how they tried to cover it up. I respect your liberal views but I cannot respect stupidity.

quote Originally posted by F355spider: I respect your liberal views but I cannot respect stupidity.

I am NOT a liberal.
And did you just call me stupid?

I would be curous to know what information on the subject you have that I don't?

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: I would be curous to know what information on the subject you have that I don't?

Seriously, have you read the papers in the past few days? No one here is making shat up.

It is proven that the WH lied. Period. That is what we are discussing here.

Soldiers died because of these lies. That is all that I need to know.

Come on man.

Tony

[This message has been edited by Tony Kania (edited 10-29-2012).]

You need to wake up man! The signs are everywhere! EVERYWHERE.

quote Originally posted by Tony Kania: Seriously, have you read the papers in the past few days?

Yup.
That don't make them undisputable fact.

quote Originally posted by Tony Kania: No one here is making shat up.

I didn't say anyone was.
But you said The White House was.

quote Originally posted by Tony Kania: It is proven that the WH lied. Period.

It is proven, Period?
Who proved they lied?
Going on the intell at hand is not nesisarily lieing.

quote Originally posted by Tony Kania: Soldiers died because of these lies.

Soldiers died, but lies being the reason is just your conjecture.

Let me guess, the White House lied, Soldiers died because of these lies, it was all proven with-out-a-doubt, but no one will be held accountable for it because the liberal media will cover it up to get Obama re-elected?

P.S. I'm not saying no one dropped the ball, read the situation wrong, or waited too long, IN HINDSIGHT, i'm talking about all the desision making that had to go on AT THE MOMENT and all the things we DON'T know about what was happening AT THE TIME and ALL the considerations that had to be taken into account AT THE TIME.

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 10-29-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: Soldiers died, but lies being the reason is just your conjecture. Let me guess, the White House lied, Soldiers died because of these lies, it was all proven with-out-a-doubt, but no one will be held accountable for it because the liberal media will cover it up to get Obama re-elected? P.S. I'm not saying no one dropped the ball, read the situation wrong, or waited too long, IN HINDSIGHT, i'm talking about all the desision making that had to go on AT THE MOMENT and all the things we DON'T know about what was happening AT THE TIME and ALL the considerations that had to be taken into account.

Congressional hearing proved the white house knew it was not a riot from a movie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zx3OnFD_NCM
http://www.youtube.com/watc...3ISc&feature=related


Earlier on Monday, Sen. John McCain accused Obama of engaging in either a “massive cover-up” or “massive incompetence” regarding the Benghazi terror attack. The facts as they stand now indicate that Obama along with senior administration officials knew of the attack as it was actually unfolding on the eleventh anniversary of the September 11 attacks.

[This message has been edited by normsf (edited 10-29-2012).]

Are you off the meds Boonie?

Take it easy there big fella. No need to perpetuate what YOU believe. The rest of us will be OK with the facts of the matter.

It is so stupid it hurts.

Tony

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif. Credit: AP


Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee excoriated President Obama Monday in a sharply-worded letter, telling the president that his recounting of the events surrounding the brutal terror attack on our diplomatic outpost in Benghazi that left four Americans dead, sounds “implausible.” Lawmakers have been critical of the Obama administration’s handling of the deadly siege in Libya.

According to Defense News, McKeon’s letter was catalyzed by comments made October 26 by the president during a radio appearance. In his interview, Obama maintained that he issued a series of directives immediately following the attack, including one to “make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to.” The statement struck a cord with McKeon, who wonders why the Obama White House would not have used its military to secure the U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi.

(Related: Capitol Hill Briefings 48hrs After Benghazi Attack Claim al Qaeda Involvement)

DN reports that the letter was released directly following a televised interview in which the president assumed responsibility for the terror attack, saying the ultimately, it lies on his own shoulders. Obama then vowed retribution to anyone inside the U.S. government who “didn’t do their job.” In the letter, the HASC head wrote:


Your … directive would appear to involve potential actions by the U.S. military … There appears to be a discrepancy between your directive and the actions taken by the Department of Defense. As we are painfully aware, despite the fact that the military had resources in the area, the military did not deploy any assets to secure U.S. personnel in Benghazi during the hours the consulate and the annex were under attack … I find it implausible that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the commander of U.S. Africa Command and the commander of U.S. European Command would have ignored a direct order from the commander in chief.

.


McKeon went on to ask several additional questions of Obama in his letter, including one in which he urged the president to clarify “to whom” he issued “this first directive and how was this directive communicated to the military and other agencies — verbally or in writing?” The California congressman also asked if, on the day of the attack, the president instructed the military to “move available assets into Libya” and if he gave military commanders authority to “take any and all necessary measures to secure U.S. personnel, including specifically the authority to enter Libyan airspace.”

In addition, McKeon, who has served as HASC chairman since the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in 2010, also asked the president to “describe any recommendations provided to you regarding available military support and any orders you gave to them.”

Republicans across the country have roundly condemned the president’s handling of the terror attack in Libya that left four Americans — including a U.S. ambassador and two Navy SEALs dead — and their scrutiny is only intensifying as new details, and discrepancies, come to light.

Earlier on Monday, Sen. John McCain accused Obama of engaging in either a “massive cover-up” or “massive incompetence” regarding the Benghazi terror attack. The facts as they stand now indicate that Obama along with senior administration officials knew of the attack as it was actually unfolding on the eleventh anniversary of the September 11 attacks.

quote Originally posted by Tony Kania: Are you off the meds Boonie? Take it easy there big fella. No need to perpetuate what YOU believe. The rest of us will be OK with the facts of the matter. It is so stupid it hurts. Tony

And that details the maturity level with which you are capable of regarding the "free" exchange of opinions in the discussion of this event.

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: And that details the maturity level with which you are capable of regarding the "free" exchange of opinions in the discussion of this event.

What? Read the FACTS my friend. Actually, to me this is a VERY important issue that you seem to not be fully aware of, but seemed it OK to comment on.

I am almost glad that you are singleing me out for this. I do not claim to KNOW it all in this instance, but I can follow a trail of truth. YOU obviously feel the need to deflect. Why?

Soldiers died. Our POTUS lied. Period. The swaying of truth is impossible. The REAL truth is just that, still the truth. And I want to know the truth of this matter.

Let's say that his advisors told him not to react. Who is still in charge? Whos head should roll? That is what I am seeking here, not endless banter with you. Read the facts man.

Tony

Edit: Just you just call me immature? (See what I did there?)

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: And how did The White House respond to this acusation of a “massive cover-up” or “massive incompetence”, or "lieing" as some here contend?

It is not a contention! The WH has NOT responded, and seems to stand mute on the subject.

The "some here" that are saying these things are those that know more than you or I. The "some here" are in the loop, and they are speaking out to the United States about the "massive cover-up".

Yeah right, it was some movie that started this? Then, law enforcement rounds this guy up, and the WH places blame on the director/producer of the muslim film for the massacre. Um, hello! The WH had information that an attack was plausible. The Consulate requested additional forces for protection, and the WH ie. obama denied such requests. Even while this was taking place, the WH ie. obama stood by, watching the series of horrific events take place, and did NOTHING to protect our citizens. Nothing. Look where that got our soldiers, and sons?

Reality amigo. It is right in front of ya. Sorry to be so damn Tony about it, but that does not change the pace at which life travels.

Tony

[This message has been edited by Tony Kania (edited 10-29-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: And how did The White House respond to this acusation of a “massive cover-up” or “massive incompetence”, or "lieing" as some here contend?

Hello, first its not a contention its a fact established early on in congressional hearings. Second he hasnt responded to any of the accusations as hes hopeing enough people will not understand the shear gravity of this and vote him back into office before he has to come up with a more plausible explanation. Third Hurricane Sandy is doing a good job for him keeping these events out of the headlines for now until the elections.

quote Originally posted by normsf: ... Third Hurricane Sandy is doing a good job for him keeping these events out of the headlines for now until the elections.

I wanted to say that! I believe this in my heart.

Tony

Hello, this is worse than Nixons Watergate as no one died!

Are Obama supporters even interested in finding out more about what happened?
We've already seen enough red flags to be suspicious. Claims the administration didn't know about requests for increased security. Claims that once the attack began that forces were not allowed to respond. I recall a lot of people second guessing Bush after 9/11 about how he should have better prepared, but there's nothing to suggest he watched it happening and ordered people to stand down instead of respond.

There's certainly been enough people believing the 2nd and 3rd hand information when it suits their own viewpoint. If the stories coming out are contrary to your views, does that make them less likely to be true, or just less likely for you to believe them?

After Fast & Furious, we know for a fact this administration is willing to arm enemy combatants to further a political goal. That's not even being debated. The only question is who knew what and who to blame, but now that Obama has claimed Executive Privilege, it seems pretty obvious he was involved.

quote Originally posted by Tony Kania: Edit: Just you just call me immature? (See what I did there?)

I did not call you anything.
I commented on your maturity level regarding you allowing me my opinion, without resorting to this:

quote Originally posted by Tony Kania: 1. Are you off the meds Boonie? 2. Take it easy there big fella. No need to perpetuate what YOU believe. 3. The rest of us will be OK with the facts of the matter. 4. It is so stupid it hurts. Tony

1. Do I take meds?
2. Expressing my opinion is "perpetuating" what I believe?
3. I don't debate that.
4. What does that mean?

What part of that post is a mature decusion?
I will help you.
None.

You were meerly being insulting.

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 10-29-2012).]

Oh gawd! Sorry for "being insulting" then. Are your wittle feelings better now? No need to get all butt hurt.

Whew. With that being said, can you please read the facts now, then get back to us...

Tony

[This message has been edited by Tony Kania (edited 10-29-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Are Obama supporters even interested in finding out more about what happened?

Although I* am not a supporter, I am indeed interested.
And I am keeping my eyes & ears open.
But for me to believe that The President sat on this because of the election, or some secret love of Muslims, is gonna' take some other evidence.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: We've already seen enough red flags to be suspicious. Claims the administration didn't know about requests for increased security. Claims that once the attack began that forces were not allowed to respond. .

Do you mean ordered?

And I agree.
I am suspicious.
And I will keep on looking.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: After Fast & Furious, we know for a fact this administration is willing to arm enemy combatants to further a political goal. That's not even being debated.

I don't know that for a fact and I surely can debate that.
I don't believe that "enemy combatants were armed to further a political goal".
It was a poorly planned, poorly implimented, & poorly overseen "sting" that went terribly wrong.

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 10-29-2012).]

And you are being constructive by ingoring the facts of the matter.

I will be constructive now. Answer back, and I will not reply directly to you. I shall allow you to have the last word. Whether that word is true or not.

Enjoy your night Boonie. I don't hate you, but I damn sure disagree with you at this moment.

Tony

quote Originally posted by Tony Kania: I don't hate you, but I damn sure disagree with you at this moment.

That, I absolutly respect and support.

Peace.

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 10-29-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: But for me to believe that The President sat on this because of the election, or some secret love of Muslims, is gonna' take some other evidence.

What kind of remarkable evidence would it take?

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: Do you mean ordered?

I meant what I said. Period.

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: I don't know that for a fact and I surely can debate that.

You can debate anything you like but that doesn't change the evidence that's already been presented. Again, what miraculous evidence would it take to meet your personal level of scrutiny?
Does such a high level of evidence even exist such that it's possible to convince you of anything you don't currently believe?

You appear to be very careful to avoid conclusions in your posts and take great exception to anyone attributing a conclusion to anything you've said, yet you do show a willingness to debate the issue. To what end, is anybody's guess.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: You appear to be very careful to avoid conclusions in your posts and take great exception to anyone attributing a conclusion to anything you've said, yet you do show a willingness to debate the issue. To what end, is anybody's guess.

I do not deny that in the least.

quote Originally posted by Rickady88GT: So why would the White House lie about the attack? We now know that the White House knew more about the attack on 9-11 than are saying. Why would they say the attack was because of a video? Why do they continue to hide the truth from us?

Same reason for many of the inexplicable things done during the last four years.

quote Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence. ~ Napoleon Bonaparte

Why would the President name an (allegedly) gay man to be an ambassador to a Muslim country?

[This message has been edited by spark1 (edited 10-30-2012).]

quote Originally posted by TK: You need to wake up man! The signs are everywhere! EVERYWHERE.

Wow. I don't know how you can see them with your head buried in the sand.

On one side you have one or two people (Obuma), on the other side you have hundreds of witnesses. Who would you believe ? If it was a trial, the guilty party (s) would have been convicted in less than an hour.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Boonie (and possibly TK) are what I'd call "radical neutrals".

People here continue to try to group me in ways that supports their illusions about me, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the reality of who I am.
I am neither neutral or radical.

I see no crime in observing and gathering information while suspending conclusions.
In World events, I don't possess the need to voice my righteousness on what I think I know as fact.

When it comes to incomming information, I am a calculator of percentages & probabilities as to their validity and relationship to the actual truth.
And that's usually not enough for me to call it fact.
At any given time in World events, I know enough to know I don't know enough.
And when speaking about them, I am bound by that reality.

Many here are not.

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 10-30-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: I don't doubt that all these things are possable, just that people guessing about what they think they know about the TOTAL of the situation don't nessisarily make it true.

Believing something doesn't make it true.