When is Jim in NJ

[Jim in CT]

Spence, let's try a little exercise, shall we?

You started this thread with the assumption that I would not be critical of Christie. but I was.

Your turn.

Hilary, as we all know, recently made up stories about being under sniper fire at an airport in Kosovo or somewhere, where she had to DIVE! into waiting military vehicles. Video from that day showed she lied through her teeth, as she was calmly smiling and waving for the cameras.

Her excuse? She was tired from not getting enough sleep the night before! Anyone who raises kids knows what brutal sleep deprivation feels like. Never, not once, has sleep deprivation caused any of us to believe we were under sniper attack.

OK Spence, what say you? Why doesn't this incident show without a shred of doubt, that this is a woman who will say anything whatsoever, and then confronted with irrefutable evidence of a lie, she makes up another lie.

What say you?

Good luck!

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Scott. Here is your facts. Old news....

http://www.theeverlastinggopstoppers...ication-video/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The article is not related to your post to which ScottW referred.

It doesn't say that Benghazi happened as originally described. The original description involving the video is not even discussed.

It doesn't say there was NO cover-up. It says that a couple of memos were misquoted which somehow discredits the whole investigation, and disregards everything else about the incident. And the "misquotes" don't entirely change the nature of the "original" quotes. One left out mention of the State Dept. and the other was a rewrite by the CIA which left out references to al Qaeda which they had in their original quote to satisfy the sensitivities of State Dept.

It doesn't say that the ties to Al Qaeda were "fabricated" by a corrupt journalist to sell a story. It stays away from discussing ties to Al Qaeda, which subsequent stories by "reputable" journalists (including CNN )show existed.

As Spence likes to say, this is old news.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Scott. Here is your facts. Old news....

http://www.theeverlastinggopstoppers...ication-video/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I suspect that if I were to reference or link the

http:www.theeverlastinglibstoppers.com

or something similar

for "facts and old news" on a controversial issue, you and Spence would be cackling and howling...

brilliant

[Fly Rod]

Obama should have been impeached for LYING and if Christy is lying about not knowing what happened then he should be impeached too....or maybe he should get a pass as did Obama.....LMAO

[Fly Rod]

OOPS!.....if christy is only misleading then he should be forgiven

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

Obama should have been impeached for LYING and if Christy is lying about not knowing what happened then he should be impeached too....or maybe he should get a pass as did Obama.....LMAO

Read my lips

[PaulS]

Let's be fair, Christie doesn't share your "political ideology".

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Let's be fair, Christie doesn't share your "political ideology".

Me? You think? I would think I agree with him on most of the issues, and for sure I admire his willingness to speak honestly and correctly about what needs to be addressed via the labor unions.

I was a huge supporter of his for a presidential run. If he had anything to do with ordering the lane closures, I want that to come out, because in that case, i would never vote for him in the primary.

Hope all is well Paul.

Jim

[detbuch]

Mea culpa. My above post went too far. Christie, I don't think, actually "bashed" right wingers. He's too accomplished a politician to do that. His profession to be "conservative" while acting more as a "centrist" makes him appear to "conservatives" to be soft on principles. He appears to talk "right" but slide "left" when the dust settles. And that is what the "conservative base" sees as a sort of slap in the face, and what makes that base suspicious of his bona fides as a leader. But if he can't convince that base, and if it distrusts him too much, he might, despite his reputed popularity, have a tough time winning the general election for President.

And his willingness to work with the left would probably lead us further down that road, just more slowly. If the Dems were actually willing to work with "conservatives" there might also be a slow down in the direction we're going, But their success in rapidly "transforming" America is built, not on compromise, but on the opposite.

So it appears that the unwillingness to "compromise," while talking it, is the means to success. That the Repubs try to be agreeable appears to make them weak, so they get rolled over without fear of retribution. Harry Reid boldly used the "nuclear option" to bar the ability of the minority to filibuster court nominees, so Obama can freely fill vacancies at record speed with the type of judges who will help further the progressive agenda. And what do the Repubs do? They promise to restore the filibuster power when they win. Brilliant. Instead of using the power to ram through their type of judges, they'll go back to having them denied. And we go further down the road.

So Christie may weather the storm. If he does, and if it makes him stronger and an even stronger candidate by beating his attackers, will he act as tough as he talks, or will he talk and slide?

[PaulS]

Read what she said. I don't think you have ever read a transcript.

"Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime."

So she said she wanted to know what happened, prevent it from happening again, and bring them to justice.

Frankly, spending this much time on a sentence or 2 in a hour??? long questioning is silly.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Read what she said. I don't think you have ever read a transcript.

"Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime."

"it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice"

Apparently you didn't read my last post. This quote from Clinton is idiotic. It is stupifying in its absurdity. The tactical response, in terms of preventing a future attack, is very different depending upon whether it was a reaction to a video, or a premeditated terrorist plot.

Paul, what about the fact that suggesting it was because of the video, is throwing an American citizen under the bus? As well as inviting Islamic radicals to declare a fatwah on the poor guy?

[PaulS]

I read your last post. You changed what you said about the statement from her not caring about who was responsible to whether she was concerned with the motivation. She said "It is our job to figure out what happened". Don't you think that would cover the motivation?


I hate to say it but this is why I usually ignore your posts.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I read your last post. You changed what you said about the statement from her not caring about who was responsible to whether she was concerned with the motivation. She said "It is our job to figure out what happened". Don't you think that would cover the motivation?


I hate to say it but this is why I usually ignore your posts.

You know what? I'll concede to you, that it's inappropriate to suggest that she doesn't care who did it. She seems to not care about why they did it, and the why has critical ramifications that, despite the fact that I mentioned it twice, you won't comment on.

You are also choosing not to comment on the fact that the administration blamed the attack on an American citizen.

"I usually ignore your posts"

It seems it would be more accurate to say that you ignore the sections of my posts that make your side look bad.

[spence]

You should read the NYT article again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

You should read the NYT article again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I was quoting the New Yorker article. And I was not doing so to buy whatever larger premise the article advocated. The article was vague enough not to do so anyway. But what I quoted is valid beyond whatever else the author intended. And her intention was, beyond whatever else she may have intended, to say there was a screw up by the administration. She just didn't like the insistence that the "participants" in the attack had to be called Al Qaeda. She certainly didn't prove they were not. But what she said is damning to the administration. And Most sources say that Al Qaeda was involved. And there is testimony that the administration new right from the start, before it claimed that it was "sparked" by a video, that it was a terrorist attack. NOT a protest against the video gone bad.

[spence]

You should also read the senate report then. It doesn't place blame on the admin for any manipulation of talking points and doesn't discount the idea that the video was a factor.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

You should also read the senate report then. It doesn't place blame on the admin for any manipulation of talking points and doesn't discount the idea that the video was a factor.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Doesn't it say the incident was avoidable? That there were unheeded warnings, so on and so forth, same old stuff . . . blah . . . blah . . . blah. Oh . . . but there was a mess up. Who shall we blame? Let's see, the buck . . . stops . . . here! (finger pointing to incompetent underlings). Funny how that never works in the real world . . . only in the la-la land of collegial politics.

And hasn't there just been some declassified testimony by a general that the administration was told pronto, before the administration kept blaming the video, that it was a terrorist attack, not a response to a video? Not hearing much about it. Maybe just dreamed it.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Doesn't it say the incident was avoidable? That there were unheeded warnings, so on and so forth, same old stuff . . . blah . . . blah . . . blah. Oh . . . but there was a mess up. Who shall we blame? Let's see, the buck . . . stops . . . here! (finger pointing to incompetent underlings). Funny how that never works in the real world . . . only in the la-la land of collegial politics.

Could have been avoided? Well, that's a surprise. The review from a year ago already took State to task for systemic problems that contributed. Stevens turned down two offers for more protection from the military and at other times requested more from State. It appears to have been a confusing situation. What else is new?

And hasn't there just been some declassified testimony by a general that the administration was told pronto, before the administration kept blaming the video, that it was a terrorist attack, not a response to a video? Not hearing much about it. Maybe just dreamed it.

The new Senate report reads.

"It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attacks or whether extremist group leaders directed their members to participate. Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day's violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video, suggesting that these and other terrorist groups could conduct similar attacks with little advance warning."

This follows the initial evidence that the video was a catalyst exploited by heavily armed extremists. Didn't Obama use the word "terror" just the following day?

What may be new in the report is that it goes deeper into into a potential military response finding there were no feasible options.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Could have been avoided? Well, that's a surprise. The review from a year ago already took State to task for systemic problems that contributed. Stevens turned down two offers for more protection from the military and at other times requested more from State. It appears to have been a confusing situation. What else is new?

That's the point. It is not new. What responsibility for "systemic Problems" does a CEO have? What kind of management by the top people allows for confusion? Where does the buck stop? In the real world CEO's are fired for allowing the "system" to be problematic, and for not attending to the confusion in performance of those beneath them. There were continuing problems and threats which were not addressed properly resulting in mission snafu. There was the inability to differentiate between friend and foe, or to understand the influence of Al Qaeda either by ignorance or by willful denial to support the narrative that Al Qaeda was no longer a serious threat. There was not a clear perception of what was going on in Benghazi and in Lybia after the overthrow of Qadaffi. There were obvious problems which others beside State and the Administration clearly saw. Wouldn't a competent commander in chief take heed of all the differing views, the confusion, the dangers, and at the very least, provide the proper security? Or was the agenda more important than the safety? And is the viability of the agenda now even less clear that policy is in tatters?

Leading from behind waits for disaster to happen in order to "fix" it.

The new Senate report reads.

"It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attacks or whether extremist group leaders directed their members to participate. Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day's violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video, suggesting that these and other terrorist groups could conduct similar attacks with little advance warning."

This follows the initial evidence that the video was a catalyst exploited by heavily armed extremists. Didn't Obama use the word "terror" just the following day?

Language can be so deceptive. Replace the word "catalyst" with the word "tool", and the connection between the video and the attack becomes more plausible.

Are we not made to understand that "insults" to Islam will result in violent response. We were told in the NY Times article that "someone" had translated the video into Arabic, and then it was disseminated. Now why would "someone" do that? Wasn't "someone" aware of what would happen? Is it not more plausible that "someone" actually wanted the video to produce useful violent reactions for the cause of Jihad--that "someone" would actually be looking for such videos or articles or cartoons or anything else to use to provoke anger against the West? The video was disseminated as a "U.S." product, not just by some person who should have a fatwa placed on him and hunted and done away with. It would be interesting to find out who the "someone" is. Al Qaeda brand?

Are we to believe that some innocent, normal run-of-the-mill usually peaceful Muslims decided to orderly protest an embassy (which had been under threat), but all of a sudden, in the midst of peaceful protest decided, hey let's go kill and burn? Yeah, you can bet that the "short order" planning was a result of a larger plan to use the video as a tool and to be ready to respond to any opportunity it presented.

What may be new in the report is that it goes deeper into into a potential military response finding there were no feasible options.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yeah, poor planning (as opposed to the better planning by the Al Qaeda brand) will result in "no feasible options".

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

That's the point. It is not new. What responsibility for "systemic Problems" does a CEO have? What kind of management by the top people allows for confusion? Where does the buck stop? In the real world CEO's are fired for allowing the "system" to be problematic, and for not attending to the confusion in performance of those beneath them.

If every CEO was fired for a problem within their organization you'd have monthly turnover. In this situation did Clinton's strategy or directive lead to the shortcomings? I've not read this was the case.

Also, the Ambassador appears to have had a lot of control over the security situation and seemed comfortable with local militias providing security at the Mission. From what I've read at least the problems were communication within the CIA and State that prevented the deteriorating situation from being fully understood by even those beneath the Secretary.

Many regard Clinton as a very strong and positive Secretary of State. Does the event in Libya make her unfit to serve? I don't think anyone has connected those dots yet.

Are we to believe that some innocent, normal run-of-the-mill usually peaceful Muslims decided to orderly protest an embassy (which had been under threat), but all of a sudden, in the midst of peaceful protest decided, hey let's go kill and burn? Yeah, you can bet that the "short order" planning was a result of a larger plan to use the video as a tool and to be ready to respond to any opportunity it presented.

Nobody has ever claimed that. Remember that in fact thousands of Benghazi's protested the attackers in support for the Ambassador and the USA.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/21/world/...unter-protest/

For some reason people keep forgetting to include this fact in their assessment of the "situation on the ground."

Ultimate, a complex and confused situation like this will never be clear once it's politicized.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Doesn't it say the incident was avoidable? That there were unheeded warnings, so on and so forth, same old stuff . . . blah . . . blah . . . blah. Oh . . . but there was a mess up. Who shall we blame? Let's see, the buck . . . stops . . . here! (finger pointing to incompetent underlings). Funny how that never works in the real world . . . only in the la-la land of collegial politics.

Yes ,and isn't it amazing there were no consequences for the underlings or anyone else for the screw up? Seems like in this current administration all you have to say is "the buck stops here" and "we are looking into it." No, that is not the way it works in the real world, when people screw up there are consequences.
I would hope in the Super Bowl O'reilly interview with our President, he would be asked, where were you, who were you with, and what was your response the night of the attack.

I think the Administration's theme song is, "Time is on our side, yes it is, time is on our side" LOL,but really not funny.