No, you just usually post things that you've misinterpreted hence you think you're always wrong.

Everything I've read says that the response was a QRF made of US Army Special Ops and Navy Seals. Including a book written about the entire operation by a Marine.

-spence

Yes, if he didn't we wouldn't even be talking about it.

You'll never have everything, it's not possible. These investigations usually reach a point that satisfies the most important elements.

Do security issues persist at other US missions? Have internal escalation issues been addressed?

This is the most important stuff and something you don't hear from the GOP…because that's not their real concern…gotchya politics at it's best and at taxpayer expense.

That's why this issue is now driven by conspiracies desperate for evidence...

-spence

It would be possible to have all the info if the people involved were honest, had integrity and were truly doing their job in serving the people. If there was nothing untoward, wouldn't The Commander in Chief want to address the American people and follow up on his promise of "justice would be done"?

Check out Gowdy's questions in the first post and tell me we should be satisfied with the info we have been given so far. Latest polls show 61% aren't satisfied.

This is great...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireS...ghazi-24507933

The more the House investigates the more they undermine their own baseless accusations. What did Einstein say about doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result?

-spence

This rehash of the "news" is so old it is rancid.

Obamawan "These aren't the Droids you are looking for"

Insert major media news organization name here "These are not the Droids we are looking for, Move Along...."

This is technically new news. It was old before it was new.

I guess one might ask why GOP leaders were still pushing the stand down conspiracy long after they knew it wasn't valid?

-spence

At the time, it "technically" was not a "stand down" order, as we've discussed previously. That is a "technical" military term which encompasses a great deal more than merely ordering, or deciding, not to go. But, in civilian perspective, it might not amount to much of a difference. They shouldn't have used the technical military phrase "Stand down." I don't think they've used the phrase recently, have they? I haven't followed that old story.

Besides, the entire Benghazi issue is about a great deal more than using the phrase "stand down." As we have previously discussed, it is about administrative competence, including that of a person who is seeking the presidency. It is about why the administration was pushing the evil video conspiracy when they knew it wasn't valid as such. It is about the whole notion that the administration's policy negated the true presence and influence of Al Qaeda and its affiliates, and was validating its leading from behind policy and its developing disengagement from the Middle East by the notion that Al Qaeda was on the run and Islamic "extremism" was fueled by our meddling there and would be on the wane if our presence were diminished, even to the point of unconcern with who or what would emerge as a result of the so called "Arab Spring." Optimism about administration policy and perspective was spun for public consumption.

The current picture doesn't support the administration's spin. In those who are not driven by party politics it does not inspire the confidence worthy of maintaining this administration's, and its individual operatives, power.

If the GOP is using this, and a host of other "scandals," in order to replace the Democrat regime with its own, surely you can understand that. In response to Democrat shenanigans in some previous post you merely shrugged them off as "politics." Both parties play "politics." Right? What's good for the goose is good for the gander?

Besides, you often maintain that Bush, or Romney, or any Republican would do the same as Obama. So what's the difference? Why do you even care? You just prefer Frick instead of Frack? Or are you partial to Democrat politicking and spin because it is slicker, "smarter"? Maybe that's your gauge--those who have the "smartest" most influential spin are demonstrating superior ability and therefor most likely will rule the best?

Your article is your dreaded "old news" or "new old news" or shockingly new old stuff that is supposed to divert us from the heart of the matter to focus on peripheral fluff. That is the "competent" technique this administration and its press supporters use in a constant damage control mode. It is a very old, and very rancid technique which, when overplayed, begins to expose itself and wear out its effectiveness. Or not.

Anyway, the Benghazi thing is just another symptom of our broken political process. What has broken it goes to the core of who and what we are as a nation. It goes to the principles of our founding and the rejection of those principles in favor of an indeterminate process of governance. It is no wonder that we gravitate to the slickest, "smartest" spinners of what is good and right.

Couldn't be summed up better than that.

Actually it does support the administrations narrative, that's why the conspiracies haven't held. The legitimate critisim has long since been aired and addressed.

If the best spin lead to the best rulers the GOP would reign supreme.

By your own measure this is about the character of potential leadership. That some are disingenuously manipulating the perception of that leadership isn't just politics, it's dishonest. That they're wasting taxpayer money do it is even worse.

You still riding that tired train? :devil2:

-spence

Originally Posted by spence:

Actually it does support the administrations narrative,

No, the current picture in the Middle East does not support the Administration's "narrative." It is a narrative without basis.

spence:
that's why the conspiracies haven't held.

That's correct. The administration's conspiracies haven't held.

spence:
The legitimate critisim has long since been aired and addressed.

Important "legitimate" criticism has been deceitfully addressed, or evaded, by the administration. Of course, if Spence doesn't consider it "legitimate," it must not be. Not.

spence:
If the best spin lead to the best rulers the GOP would reign supreme.

Democrat (progressive) spin has absolutely been the most influential. It has "transformed America," and continues to fundamentally do so. I don't know if that makes it the best. I don't care for either.

You obviously are a sucker for one "side" and are so stuck in the "center" and its fleeting moment that you are oblivious of history.

spence:
By your own measure this is about the character of potential leadership. That some are disingenuously manipulating the perception of that leadership isn't just politics, it's dishonest. That they're wasting taxpayer money do it is even worse.

Could you be, at least once in this post, specific? Anyway, the disingenuous, dishonest, manipulation of the perception of Hillary's leadership potential or political accomplishments as being great stuff is a wasteful bunch of crap. Well . . . not so wasteful for her or the Dems if she gets elected. But that's the nature of influential spin . . . turning turds to gold.

As for wasting taxpayer's money, you must either be joking or are somehow blinded to how trivial a "waste" of spending that money on a search for answers is compared to what has actually been and is continuing to be and will further be the waste of our nation's wealth to the tune of unsustainable national debt. Until you address that and comment on how it can be reversed (other than the pitiful notion of politicians acting "responsibly") your perception of what is wasteful is not only disingenuous, dishonest, but just more caca.

spence:
You still riding that tired train? :devil2:

-spence[/QUOTE]

You were tired of it the moment it left the station. But, amazingly, you're not tired of this undisciplined, unprincipled, dishonest, disingenuous, corrupt, ad hoc, imposture of democratic government which determines for us, and against us, what is allowed, and spends our money in any way and amount it deems necessary to bend our will and mold our minds to accept its edicts as more beneficial and wise than our own desires.

And, amazingly, you cannot see that what you consider new, up to date, this so-called "progressive" rule, is as old as the tyrannical top down rule of men over men. IT is the tired old train, not that of our founding government. The train I "still ride" is still the newest concept of government . . . bottom up, consent of the governed.

It was getting off that founding train that has led us to your preferred top down soft despotism (which is progressively getting less soft and becoming harder and harsher). And has led us into the massive waste of profligate government spending. Your notion that it only requires "responsible" leaders (benevolent dictators?) to make us whole, efficient, and "moving in the right direction" (whatever that is), ignores human nature. It is that very nature which is the basis for our founding government.

That is why that original train works and why our current "tired train" of fake democracy doesn't.

I hate to bring this old thing up again . I mean "what does it matter " it's been done to death ........ Well except for the Sec of States secret email accounts ... Illegal email accoubts .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Was it illegal?

Absolutely
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I believe the law just says the emails have to be retained and made available. What law are you reading?

How about this from 2012 in the State Departments own words as a reason for firing Ambassador Gration.

Gration violated State Department policy by using a private, unsanctioned e-mail service for official business. In its executive summary listing its key judgments against the U.S. ambassador to Kenya who served under Hillary Clinton, the inspector general stated that Gration’s decision to willfully violate departmental information security policies highlighted Gration’s “reluctance to accept clear-cut U.S. Government decisions.” The report claimed that this reluctance to obey governmental security policies was the former ambassador’s “greatest weakness.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I haven't read that it was illegal but certainty inappropriate in my mind.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He wasn't fired, he resigned. It appears that use of private email was a concern but his leadership issues were the big problem.

Why would she do it ?pops into my mind
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It was a forced resignation
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do as I say, not as I do...

Sent to Diplomatic and Consular Staff in June 2011, the unclassified cable, with Clinton’s electronic signature, makes clear to “avoid conducting official Department from your personal e-mail accounts” and employees should not “auto-forward Department email to personal email accounts which is prohibited by Department policy.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...yees-while-she

This was done for the sole reason to avoid scrutiny and protect her for a future presidential run.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yea but there is a difference.

The existence of Mrs. Clinton’s personal email account was discovered by a House committee investigating the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi as it sought correspondence between Mrs. Clinton and her aides about the attack.

Two weeks ago, the State Department, after reviewing Mrs. Clinton’s emails, provided the committee with about 300 emails — amounting to roughly 900 pages — about the Benghazi attacks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us...lags.html?_r=0


How could they possibly have conducted a thorough investigation without The Sec of States correspondence.

When she testified before congress didn't she mention that all of her emails were locked up in her house and give me a year to clean them up and i'll forward them to you.
When the 1st committee received all the data for their investigation no one noticed there wasn't The Sec of States emails...... I say "bull#%&#.

Spence only invokes the smell test if it applies to Cheney.

I wasn't commenting on the whole thread but the fact that Hillary used the private email account. I heard that it wasn't illegal and that Pres. Obama actually stated that it shouldn't be done (not Hillary specifically but all Sr Gov. ees). I think it is innappropriate for gov. business to be conducted on private accts. Plus the issue of security.

That is a very fair assessment. One more item on a very long list of very questionable decision-making on her part. But I'd vote for her over Senator Warren (Princess Spreading Bull, who me thinks like-um the tee-pee of Great White Chief) any day of the week...

Now, given all the sniper fire she routinely came under as SecState, she was probably too afraid to leave her house to go to work. I still can't fathom how anyone recovers from that lie.

Because just like that lie Jim , this story also won't get any serious play by the media . Its just not as important as say .... Someone saying Obama doesn't love his country . You would think it would be seeing how hypocritical this was, as well as dangerous to this country's national security. I'm sure her emails have been scrubbed by now . Trey dropped the ball on this as he knew about this in August .
Complete BS and another reason why I don't think this President does love this country !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

no one can sit in Rev Wright's church for 20 years, call that man his spiritual advisor, let that man baptize your kids, and truly love what the country stands for. It's not possible. I'm supposed to believe that Obama just happened to skip all those sermons with viscious anti-American rhetoric? Sorry, if I sat in a church led by a white supremacist for 20 years, I cannot claim to love black people. It doesn't make sense.

Nor can one choose to be a political lapdog of Bill Ayers, who tried to bomb the US Capital Building, and love this country.

It's pretty funny you'd make this statement after the Clinton email thing has been one of the dominant news stories of the week. Oh, and broken by your evil NY Times no less.

It was ?? I thought Ford's plane crash and the wag the dog Holder move
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I love it, Feds uncover massive racial corruption by a government agency and it's of no worth...move along, nothing to see here...

Massive ??? You're hilarious.
And when the networks report something so obviously negative about this administration they "Spencerize" it. they don't report it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So you're alleging the Clinton story is being buried?

Facing your problem and admitting what you do is a good step. 😊
What the media in general does is add a "but" to every potentially damaging story. There was no "but" when Bush was president. Or either downplay the story or blow it out of proportion ,depending on how it makes the administration look.
You know like calling the Fergason story " massive" but downplaying an obviously corrupt and diabolical Secretary of State.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Clinton story is being burried?!? How about obamas big trade deal with Asia?? Absolutely no coverage. Why?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I can't find anything either . Maybe "big" is a stretch
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ferguson - corrupt system shaking down black people to fund the city.

Clinton - tells agency to release all emails

Obviously corrupt and diabolical.

The fishing expedition that is going to ensure will be hilarious.

Yes that correctly sums up the two stories .

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device