Benghazigate takes a turn

[JustRalph]

Very hard to tell from that shot, but he has signs of smoke inhalation

[Lefty]

Thanks, Ralph. Yes I am well. Just been busy writing. Just finished my 19th book.

[fast4522]

First we have to conclude this embassy and its ambassador and staff were left unprotected because of the White House and state departments direction, what was going on here was not about budgetary concerns but strictly control. The sectary of state asks "what does it matter", Exactly what the White House and state department did not want was United States Marines laying down a serious amount of lead causing tensions for other operations in the region. In the aftermath the White House and state department say it was because of a movie that spurred the attack. All lies that can not cover the fact that had President Bush still been President our embassy and its ambassador and staff would have had the protection it needed. In short, policy under any other White House and state department would have resulted in the casualty's that would have been non American period.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

His face looks like it's taken a beating...someone with more experience in such things, correct me if I'm wrong.

Mosty says they attacked the embassy so they could rescue the ambassador. That's what he's saying...good God man...

That is the dumbest thing that has ever been posted here and maybe the dumbest thing in the history of the internet.

It isn't even close to what I said.

[Tom]

Assume mostie is right on everything that happened.
The questions that STILL demand an investigation:

Why was the extra protection he requested denied?
Why was no help sent during the attacks?
Why did the administration knowingly continue to lie about the video?
Why was a gag order placed on the CIA people?

They came
He died
We lied.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by newtothegame

I have a huge problem when you tell me that voter ID's suppress people from voting yet I have to have an ID to drive, buy liquor, gamble, etc etc.
Having an ID has not suppressed my ability to do none of the above.

Driving is not a fundamental right; nor is buying liquor, nor is gambling. Voting is a fundamental right and it should not be abridged. Especially when the strictures impact certain groups more than others.

A poor person is much less likely to have a drivers license than a person who is more well to do. An elderly person is less likely to have a drivers license than a younger person.

If we have a law in which one is required to show ID before voting, we have one large group which merely has to reach into their pocket or purse and pull out a drivers license. We have a minority-in more than one sense of the word-who has to travel to a facility to obtain an acceptable ID.

To do this they most likely have to take time off from work. They would most likely have to take public transportation or a cab. I drive, but if I did not and if I were required to obtain an ID through the state of Illinois, I would need to take 3 different buses to the nearest Secretary of State facility. I suspect it would take me two hours or more each way. Add in the wait time at places of that sort and it would be an all day task.

The worst part of all this is that this type of voter fraud is not a problem. In the last Presidential election there were less than five hundred accusations of this kind of fraud across the entire country. Ninety to ninety-five percent of those were found to be unwarranted. That means maybe twenty five to fifty cases which were turned over to a state attorney or district attorney for prosecution. There were over 120,000,000 votes cast in the last election if memory serves. You figure out the percentage.

Maybe you can explain to me how this fraud is supposed to work. I am an evil democrat and I want to exploit the voting process. First I go to my home precinct and I vote as myself. Now, I can't vote again at the same precinct unless I duck in the bathroom and put on a pair of Groucho glasses.

I go to a different precinct and tell them I am so and so. But how do I know that so and so is a voter in that precinct? How do I know that so and so has not already voted. How do I know that the election judge or a poll watcher or someone standing in line doesn't know so and so? How do I know that so and so himself is not the person standing behind me in line? There is too much risk and not enough reward in this type of fraud.

I know there is the famous story of the black woman who was also an election judge who voted multiple times. That woman was also found mentally incompetent. I hardly think a mentally incompetent person is capable of devising a brilliant scheme to steal an election.

Real election fraud occurs when corrupt official "lose" boxes of votes from precincts that lean heavily one way or the other. Or when hackers change vote totals on computers. Real election fraud occurs when politicians pass Voter ID laws that negatively impact one group and not another.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by newtothegame

I get it that we are opposed on most levels. But I am going to clue you in on something that I will only say this once. You and I have gone round and round...and quite honestly, if I met you, I am not going to say I wouldn't have the urge to kick your damn teeth in for some of your antics towards me here (and YES, you know what I am referring to). But, in the end, I appreciate your passion and I really believe that you think your ideas will better the country. I have no issue with mailmen or mail women. I have issues with Unions!

I can honestly say that if I met you, I would have no urge to kick you in the teeth. You can ask ArlJim78 if I ever kicked him in the teeth. We have met a couple of times at Arlington Park during the PA meetings arranged by JD Hanover. AJ78 and I will never be "come over and watch the Bears together" friends, but I think we have gotten along well at those outings. At least nobody's teeth ended up on the ground.

[Tom]

Driving is not a fundamental right; nor is buying liquor, nor is gambling. Voting is a fundamental right and it should not be abridged.

It should be protected.
Having to PROVE who you are and that you are eligible is fundamental.
Your argument that it abridges access to voting is absurd.
Not the most absurd thing you have said this week, but still, absurd.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by Tom

Assume mostie is right on everything that happened.
The questions that STILL demand an investigation:

1. Why was the extra protection he requested denied?
2. Why was no help sent during the attacks?
3.Why did the administration knowingly continue to lie about the video?
4. Why was a gag order placed on the CIA people?

They came
He died
We lied.

1. That is definitely a problem, but you are blaming the wrong person. Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama had anything to do with that decision. The decision was made several levels below the Office of the Secretary of State.
Any Secretary of State is an administrator in name only. Personnel decisions, which is what this was are decided and carried out far below.

2. Help was sent. Help was sent from the CIA annex a mile or two away. It arrived fifteen or twenty minutes after word spread of the attack.

Help was sent from Tripoli. A security force was in the air within the hour. Unfortunately, when it arrived in Benghazi it had difficulty making its way from the airport to the compound. A second security force was at the airport in Tripoli when it was told to stand down. Now a lot has been made about the fact that this group was told to stand down. The reason for the order is quite simple. The survivors, victims and wounded from the attacks were already in safe hands and preparing to fly out of the country.

Help was sent from bases in Europe. At least two groups were on their way to Benghazi. The problem is logistics for this type of thing are a lot more complicated than you realize. The whole incident was over before they got very far.

3. Hindsight is 20/20. At the time it was not at all clear whether there was a demonstration or if the attack grew out of that demonstration. There were all sorts of conflicting stories out of Benghazi. One thing I do know is that Obama clearly called it an act of terror the next morning in the Rose Garden. As Hillary said, at this point what difference does it make.

4. I can't answer definitively, but perhaps it was to protect ongoing operations and personnel. If there was a gag order, who issued it.

[Tom]

As Hillary said, at this point what difference does it make.

If you are not planning on doing anything about it, which they did not, then no difference.

But to Americans who are outraged when our people are murdered in service to us all are thrown under the bus and written off as political fodder, it makes a big difference. They knew what was going on in real time. They chose to not let it interfere with the election. They chose to lie about it...for weeks.
Both should face a charges of treason.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by mostpost

That is the dumbest thing that has ever been posted here and maybe the dumbest thing in the history of the internet.

It isn't even close to what I said.

No, that's basically what you are saying.

You're saying there were people there, during the attack, who had the best interests of the US Ambassador at heart...they were there to save him...to take him to the hospital.

I say bullshit. There was NOBODY there like that...that picture is NOT of people looking to get him some medical help. That's a picture of the scumbags dragging a US Ambassador through the streets, and taking pictures of it.

[Lefty]

Mostie says:
3. Hindsight is 20/20. At the time it was not at all clear whether there was a demonstration or if the attack grew out of that demonstration. There were all sorts of conflicting stories out of Benghazi. One thing I do know is that Obama clearly called it an act of terror the next morning in the Rose Garden. As Hillary said, at this point what difference does it make.

He did? That's not what I heard. If he thought it was clearly an act of terror why did he and Hillary keep saying it was a demonstration caused by the video.
He wouldn't even call it an act of terror on The View!

[fast4522]

An interesting read:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/...very-american/

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by fast4522

An interesting read:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/...very-american/

Thank you for posting that.

Unfortunately the American mainstream media for the most part does not agree with the author.
Every American should care.
However, the mainstream media has spent the week concerning itself with a screwball racist basketball owner and has turned a blind eye to the Benghazi e mail.
What an unusual set of values they have about true news coverage.

[Tom]

The Lame Stream Media breathed a sigh of relief when that tape surfaced.
They had a ready-made excuse to continue to protect the democrats and stifle information. Kudos to FOX fro continuing to understand what the role of a free press is. The others have no clue.


And then there is CNN......they are still touting the missing jet as breaking news.

Last night, they had more people on their panel than they had viewers!