chess online
| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 Well its out, state Dept Lied |
||
|
dmaestro 10-Oct-12, 19:17 |
Well, I think Bush and Cheney lied through their teeth about WMDs. I think that Bush always planned to attack Iraq and just wanted a flimsy excuse. That was the published plan by the neocons back in 1998, to exploit an event and attack Iraq. Where were you then? Yet what you fail to admit is that the GOP house has been cutting funds for diplomatic security and that even the requested force or minor improvements to the compound would not have saved the ambassador from the nature of the terrorist attack. What this exposed was our inability to defend ambassadors in such situations with current security, and obviously there are classified plans being implemented to deal with this. If the evidence shows someone was outright lying without reason, they should be dealt with. But once again I think this is a partisan witch hunt. |
||
|
Yea I could care less about a witch hunt. They lied, why not admit it? I have presented a fact and you try and spin this every way you can to protect them? I dont get that. They are a political party not your mother. Its not personal. Why get angry at me or anyone else? I was watching the news and they reported there were lies. It was on NBC not FOX so is NBC on a witch hunt too? I dont get the lengths some people go to , to protect a politician. To beat all they lie, I post here about it and you get angry with me? DM dont be puppet |
||
|
Self deception is ugly. To believe otherwise is a fools errand, shows a liberal inability to accept facts out of desperation and a general weakness of the mind when manipulation is embraced instead of rejected. It's a simpletons game. And you lose. You should feel used and abandoned because the One was supposed to treat his followers with respect and let them in on the lie--not use them and have the lie perpetrated upon them. He used his base. He used his loyal followers and deceived his minions. I feel sorry for you that you feel compelled to defend the indefensible. It is pathetic and sad. Really, it is. Time to choke down that bitter pill and look really hard in the mirror and accept the reality that he thinks the true believers are expendable. And that is the truth. Avoid it. Deny it. Ignore it. But it will still be there staring at you in morning. You deserve better. I always expected this. But you deserve more than this. I'm sorry this happened to you. I really am. It must hurt. dok |
||
|
dmaestro 10-Oct-12, 22:11 |
============================================= Letting us in on a secret By Dana Milbank, Wednesday, October 10 When House Republicans called a hearing in the middle of their long recess, you knew it would be something big, and indeed it was: They accidentally blew the CIA’s cover. The purpose of Wednesday’s hearing of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee was to examine security lapses that led to the killing in Benghazi last month of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three others. But in doing so, the lawmakers reminded us why “congressional intelligence” is an oxymoron. Through their outbursts, cryptic language and boneheaded questioning of State Department officials, the committee members left little doubt that one of the two compounds at which the Americans were killed, described by the administration as a “consulate” and a nearby “annex,” was a CIA base. They did this, helpfully, in a televised public hearing. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) was the first to unmask the spooks. “Point of order! Point of order!” he called out as a State Department security official, seated in front of an aerial photo of the U.S. facilities in Benghazi, described the chaotic night of the attack. “We’re getting into classified issues that deal with sources and methods that would be totally inappropriate in an open forum such as this.” A State Department official assured him that the material was “entirely unclassified” and that the photo was from a commercial satellite. “I totally object to the use of that photo,” Chaffetz continued. He went on to say that “I was told specifically while I was in Libya I could not and should not ever talk about what you’re showing here today.” Now that Chaffetz had alerted potential bad guys that something valuable was in the photo, the chairman, Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), attempted to lock the barn door through which the horse had just bolted. “I would direct that that chart be taken down,” he said, although it already had been on C-SPAN. “In this hearing room, we’re not going to point out details of what may still in fact be a facility of the United States government or more facilities.” May still be a facility? The plot thickened — and Chaffetz gave more hints. “I believe that the markings on that map were terribly inappropriate,” he said, adding that “the activities there could cost lives.” In their questioning and in the public testimony they invited, the lawmakers managed to disclose, without ever mentioning Langley directly, that there was a seven-member “rapid response force” in the compound the State Department was calling an annex. One of the State Department security officials was forced to acknowledge that “not necessarily all of the security people” at the Benghazi compounds “fell under my direct operational control.” And whose control might they have fallen under? Well, presumably it’s the “other government agency” or “other government entity” the lawmakers and witnesses referred to; Issa informed the public that this agency was not the FBI. “Other government agency,” or “OGA,” is a common euphemism in Washington for the CIA. This “other government agency,” the lawmakers’ questioning further revealed, was in possession of a video of the attack but wasn’t releasing it because it was undergoing “an investigative process.” Or maybe they were referring to the Department of Agriculture. That the Benghazi compound had included a large CIA presence had been reported but not confirmed. The New York Times, for example, had reported that among those evacuated were “about a dozen CIA operatives and contractors.” The paper, like The Washington Post, withheld locations and details of the facilities at the administration’s request. But on Wednesday, the withholding was on hold. The Republican lawmakers, in their outbursts, alternated between scolding the State Department officials for hiding behind classified material and blaming them for disclosing information that should have been classified. But the lawmakers created the situation by ordering a public hearing on a matter that belonged behind closed doors. Republicans were aiming to embarrass the Obama administration over State Department security lapses. But they inadvertently caused a different picture to emerge than the one that has been publicly known: that the victims may have been let down not by the State Department but by the CIA. If the CIA was playing such a major role in these events, which was the unmistakable impression left by Wednesday’s hearing, having a televised probe of the matter was absurd. The chairman, attempting to close his can of worms, finally suggested that “the entire committee have a classified briefing as to any and all other assets that were not drawn upon but could have been drawn upon” in Benghazi. Good idea. Too bad he didn’t think of that before putting the CIA on C-SPAN. danamilbank@washpost.com |
||
|
Lying to the American Public is still lying. Quite acting like Obama's Administration is deeply entrenched in a secretive war they refuse to recognize, fund or address. It makes your whining even more pathetic than I thought it was... And even if everything you point out were true---the Dem's were nothing but tools for Obama and his lying attempt to retain power. This is simple---he didn't attend his meetings, he doesn't work hard and he got tagged on 9/11 and lied to us to save his own campaign. Take off the blinders...he got caught. Just like The Iran Contra deal...busted. Face facts. Grab a drink...slam it and admit to yourself that Obama got caught lying to you and you got burned in your attempts at undeserving loyalty. I know...it sucks. But you will survive. He might not. But you will...start with getting over denial....next comes anger, I think... Lying to the American people is NOT good leadership. He should pay for it like any other liar. Stop trying to justify it...it makes some of the smart things you say seem less credible. It really does. We don't agree but at least we should both know when we get caught with our pants down...Obama's pants are still around his ankles and your screaming that it doesn't matter because he's wearing a trench coat...Denial, Anger...you know the cycle. It will be okay. |
||
|
dmaestro 11-Oct-12, 07:42 |
Seems to me that your scenario DOK is possible, but not proven. Obviously there was inaccurate information given. Why, and who if anyone was lying and is so for what purpose remains to be seen. That is why it is always best to wait for more evidence before drawing conclusions, particularly in a partisan environment. The public exposure of classified operations by partisans in Congress is inexcusable. |
||
|
I can see you're trying. But the strain in your attempt could cause a bowel movement. It's that forced... When it all washes out and you realize clearly how Obama used the left to cover up his failed policies what will you say then? |
||
|
dmaestro 11-Oct-12, 09:04 |
|
||
|
U.S. Representative Jason Chaffetz: "I wish that I could tell you everything that I learned. I did go to Libya, I did drop everything. I had the same type of notice that was given to the Democrats. In fact, the State Department sent an attorney to follow me in my every footstep ... I wish that I could share everything that I learned there ... It's been too hard, too difficult to get basic information. I will tell you, though, that when I was in Libya -- good part of the day -- never once did a person ever mention a video. Never. And I am fascinated to know and understand from the President of the United States, from the Secretary of State, and from the Ambassador to the United Nations how they can justify that this video caused this attack. It was a terrorist attack. Let's be honest." Here's the libs trying to continue the deception just a little longer: DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz told a stunned Piers Morgan on Wednesday that although the White House made incorrect statements about the Libya attack, it didn't mean "they were false" because the White House didn't actually know they were incorrect statements. They don't seem to care how ridiculous they look to a large percent of the populous. They just want to muddy the waters long enough to survive the election. They think they'll have 4 years to do anything they want, solidify power, intertwine their ideology into every corner and facet of daily life, to 'remake' the country in their image and not have to worry about voter backlash or reelection. |
||
|
dmaestro 11-Oct-12, 09:49 |
|
||
|
***************************************************************** www.realclearpolitics.com |
||
|
dmaestro 11-Oct-12, 12:06 |
|
||
|
There |
||
|
Stinky ... |
||
|
|
||
|
Chaz |
||
|
Stinky ... |
||
|
Im sure we could |
Log in 
