• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

#YAKLA!!!!!

Trump is far more connected to this catastrophe than Clinton was connected to an attack on an Embassy in Benghazi.
The problem with Hillary was with the aftermath. The insistence that it was because of a video critical of Islam, the glib "what difference does it make" quip.
Screen-Shot-2016-03-15-at-11.00.50-AM.jpg


It just shows the insanity of all those calls of "Benghazi!!!".
Well at least it gave us the "-ghazi" suffix as an alternative to the overused "-gate". :)

And all those Republican accusations against Clinton and hours of questioning in the Congress.
Yeah, GOP definitely made too much of it. But too much is made of this too. Combat is unpredictable and things happen.
 
Well, the White House says that the Navy Seal "died a hero" and can't figure out why saying that isn't enough for everyone else to just move on.
A hero AND anyone who questions the raid is taking a dump on the dead guy...

Reminds me of asking questions at church. It's not that scripture doesn't make sense, it's my fault for having the audacity to question scripture.

Apparently, the dead guy's father refused to meet with Trump when he flew in for the soldier's funeral and is calling for an investigation into what happened on the raid. One of the important questions he asked was about how the raid took place one day after Trump announced the immigration ban from that list of countries which included Yemen and the planning for the raid involved a number of Yemenis from their government and on the ground. One guy in the loop who was pissed off about that could have tipped off the terrorists.
 
Well, the White House says that the Navy Seal "died a hero" and can't figure out why saying that isn't enough for everyone else to just move on.
A hero AND anyone who questions the raid is taking a dump on the dead guy...

Reminds me of asking questions at church. It's not that scripture doesn't make sense, it's my fault for having the audacity to question scripture.

Knowing what little I do about Seal training, I will readily assign the "hero" label to anyone who makes it through that curriculum. And to anyone who thinks that questioning the raid is a reflection on the Seals' heroism or lack thereof, I will just as readily apply the label COWARD.

That includes the scum who can't let go of their precious "Benghaaaaaaazi!" battle cry.
 
The problem with Hillary was with the aftermath. The insistence that it was because of a video critical of Islam, the glib "what difference does it make" quip.

Answer the question.

What fucking difference did it make?

Nobody was going to be brought back from the dead.

It was a political with hunt. Despicable.

This catastrophe in Yemen was something WE initiated.

If Trump is ordering operations without any evidence then that is something that should be known.
 
It only killed 1/4 of Americans as Benghazi. Besides... BENGHAZI!!!!

According to Spicer this was an "intelligence gathering" operation. They killed 30 people for intelligence?!

The intelligence gathered was, "the generals were right".
 
The insistence that it was because of a video critical of Islam, the glib "what difference does it make" quip.
I am not sure you have even a base understanding of the exchange that took place. The exchange had nothing to do with Islam, but with who was attacking the embassy.

So answer the question: What substantial difference does it make if these people were pretending to be protesters or just plain terrorists?
 
Answer the question.
What fucking difference did it make?
Knowing why something happened helps us to avoid it in the future.

This catastrophe in Yemen was something WE initiated.
For a legitimate purpose of combating AL Quida on the Arabian Peninsula. Note that this mission was first conceived while Obama was president. This operation was not something thought up and hastily executed by Trump.

If Trump is ordering operations without any evidence then that is something that should be known.

Any evidence of what? That they were bad guys? That things could go wrong and a SEAL could get killed? That terrorists like to surround themselves with children for propaganda purposes?
 
The problem with Hillary was with the aftermath. The insistence that it was because of a video critical of Islam, the glib "what difference does it make" quip.

Answer the question.

What fucking difference did it make?

Nobody was going to be brought back from the dead.

It was a political with hunt. Despicable.

This catastrophe in Yemen was something WE initiated.

If Trump is ordering operations without any evidence then that is something that should be known.

Why isn't Derec concerned with the 13 attacks on embassies and 60 deaths under President George W. Bush? I guess no amount of Bush-bashing will bring back those people. But bashing Hillary might - just might - bring back the four (count 'em; 4) people who died under the hated Secretary of State, at least in the minds of alt-morons.
 
I am not sure you have even a base understanding of the exchange that took place. The exchange had nothing to do with Islam, but with who was attacking the embassy.
The original talking points given to Susan Rice pushed the "video" angle.


There are legitimate criticisms to be leveled at how the administration handled the aftermath of the attack.

So answer the question: What substantial difference does it make if these people were pretending to be protesters or just plain terrorists?
It definitely does make a difference whether the attack was a "spontaneous" reaction to a video vs. a pre-planned attack.
 
For a legitimate purpose of combating AL Quida on the Arabian Peninsula. Note that this mission was first conceived while Obama was president. This operation was not something thought up and hastily executed by Trump.

Oh dear god. This is the logic you're pushing?
 
Why isn't Derec concerned with the 13 attacks on embassies and 60 deaths under President George W. Bush?
Again, it's not the attack, it's the misleading talking points about the reason for the attack (spontaneous attack due to a video vs. a pre-planned organized terrorist attack) and the glib response of "what difference does it make".

I guess no amount of Bush-bashing will bring back those people. But bashing Hillary might - just might - bring back the four (count 'em; 4) people who died under the hated Secretary of State,
Who is claiming that? Nice straw man.

at least in the minds of alt-morons.
You accuse me of being an alt-moron. Well you sir are a moron classic!

- - - Updated - - -

Oh dear god. This is the logic you're pushing?
War on terror is a bipartisan affair. If this actions in Yemen was illegitimate, what was Obama doing setting it up?

You can't have it both ways.
 
Well, the White House says that the Navy Seal "died a hero" and can't figure out why saying that isn't enough for everyone else to just move on.
A hero AND anyone who questions the raid is taking a dump on the dead guy...

Reminds me of asking questions at church. It's not that scripture doesn't make sense, it's my fault for having the audacity to question scripture.
They seem to be stuck on the "hero" part, not the "died" part.

- - - Updated - - -

Answer the question.

What fucking difference did it make?

Nobody was going to be brought back from the dead.

It was a political with hunt. Despicable.

This catastrophe in Yemen was something WE initiated.

If Trump is ordering operations without any evidence then that is something that should be known.

Why isn't Derec concerned with the 13 attacks on embassies and 60 deaths under President George W. Bush? I guess no amount of Bush-bashing will bring back those people. But bashing Hillary might - just might - bring back the four (count 'em; 4) people who died under the hated Secretary of State, at least in the minds of alt-morons.
This is of course excluding 9/11!!!
 
Again, it's not the attack, it's the misleading talking points about the reason for the attack (spontaneous attack due to a video vs. a pre-planned organized terrorist attack) and the glib response of "what difference does it make".

Why weren't there a dozen or more hearings on each of those events?

I guess no amount of Bush-bashing will bring back those people. But bashing Hillary might - just might - bring back the four (count 'em; 4) people who died under the hated Secretary of State,

Who is claiming that?

Where did I say someone was claiming that? If you wish to DISclaim it, then stop implying it by harping on Hillary's response to Repugs trying to pillory her for it.

at least in the minds of alt-morons.

You accuse me of being an alt-moron.

"Waaaah!"
If the shoe fits, wear it. I didn't name you - but you took personal offense... hmmm.
 
Why weren't there a dozen or more hearings on each of those events?
Ask Nancy Pelosi. Do I look like I run the congressional Democrats?
And I already said that I thought GOP overdid Benghazi, but that does not mean that there aren't valid criticisms as to how the administration (and Hillary in particular) handled it.

Where did I say someone was claiming that? If you wish to DISclaim it, then stop implying it by harping on Hillary's response to Repugs trying to pillory her for it.
One can criticize somebody's handling of a crisis without implying that such criticism can bring people back from the dead.


If the shoe fits, wear it. I didn't name you - but you took personal offense... hmmm.
You were replying to me. You are not fooling anybody.
 
The narcissist's credo:

That never happened.
If it did, I didn't know about it.
If I did, it wasn't my fault.
If it was, it wasn't that bad.
If it was, you deserved it.
 
The original talking points given to Susan Rice pushed the "video" angle.
This was not the question that was asked or the on Hillary was referring to. Please refer to the conversation and answer the question. What difference does it make that we identify if this group were protesters or terrorists when they are lobbing mortar rounds in the CIA compound and attacking the embassy. Please tell us. You are dodging the question.

There are leg...
Answer the question.

So answer the question: What substantial difference does it make if these people were pretending to be protesters or just plain terrorists?
It definitely does make a difference whether the attack was a "spontaneous" reaction to a video vs. a pre-planned attack.

And what is that difference? Please continue on. What is the difference in immediate response when the embassy is under a terrorist attack? Because that is the question put to Hillary. Answer it.
 
Again, it's not the attack, it's the misleading talking points about the reason for the attack (spontaneous attack due to a video vs. a pre-planned organized terrorist attack) and the glib response of "what difference does it make".

It was not "a glib response" and you know it. That's why you never include the context.
"Ron's questioning from start to finish was about how a simple phone call could have led to the truth — a fact that clearly got under Secretary Clinton's skin just as he described," Brian Reisinger, Johnson’s spokesman, told us.

But Johnson’s account requires some more context, as Clinton answered the senator’s question twice before her infamous comment.

Here is a transcript of their exchange, per PolitiFact Wisconsin, with the parts Johnson highlighted in bold:

Johnson: "Okay, when you read the ARB (State Department Accountability Review Board), it strikes me as how certain the people were that the attacks started at 9:40 Benghazi time. When was the first time you spoke to — or have you ever spoken to — the returnees, the evacuees? Did you personally speak to those folks?"

Clinton: "I‘ve spoken to one of them, but I waited until after the ARB had done its investigation because I did not want there to be anybody raising any issue that I had spoken to anyone before the ARB conducted its investigation."

Johnson: "How many people were evacuated from Libya?"

Clinton: "Well, the numbers are a little bit hard to pin down because of our other friends — "

Johnson: "Approximately?"

Clinton: "Approximately, 25 to 30."

Johnson: "Did anybody in the State Department talk to those folks very shortly afterwards?"

Clinton: "There was discussion going on afterwards, but once the investigation started, the FBI spoke to them before we spoke to them, and so other than our people in Tripoli — which, I think you’re talking about Washington, right?"

Johnson: "The point I’m making is, a very simple phone call to these individuals, I think, would’ve ascertained immediately that there was no protest prior to this. This attack started at 9:40 p.m. Benghazi time, and it was an assault. I appreciate the fact that you called it an assault. But I’m going back to then-Ambassador (Susan) Rice five days later going on the Sunday shows and, what I would say, is purposefully misleading the American public. Why wasn’t that known? And again, I appreciate the fact that the transparency of this hearing, but why weren’t we transparent to that point in time?"

Clinton: "Well, first of all, senator, I would say that once the assault happened, and once we got our people rescued and out, our most immediate concern was, number one, taking care of their injuries. As I said, I still have a DS (Diplomatic Security) agent at Walter Reed seriously injured — getting them into Frankfurt, Ramstein to get taken care of, the FBI going over immediately to start talking to them. We did not think it was appropriate for us to talk to them before the FBI conducted their interviews. And we did not — I think this is accurate, sir — I certainly did not know of any reports that contradicted the IC (Intelligence Community) talking points at the time that Ambassador Rice went on the TV shows. And you know I just want to say that people have accused Ambassador Rice and the administration of misleading Americans. I can say trying to be in the middle of this and understanding what was going on, nothing could be further from the truth. Was information developing? Was the situation fluid? Would we reach conclusions later that weren’t reached initially? And I appreciate the — "

Johnson: "But, Madame Secretary, do you disagree with me that a simple phone call to those evacuees to determine what happened wouldn’t have ascertained immediately that there was no protest? That was a piece of information that could have been easily, easily obtained?"

Clinton: "But, senator, again — "

Johnson: "Within hours, if not days?"

Clinton: "Senator, you know, when you’re in these positions, the last thing you want to do is interfere with any other process going on, number one — "

Johnson: "I realize that’s a good excuse."

Clinton: "Well, no, it’s the fact. Number two, I would recommend highly you read both what the ARB said about it and the classified ARB because, even today, there are questions being raised. Now, we have no doubt they were terrorists, they were militants, they attacked us, they killed our people. But what was going on and why they were doing what they were doing is still unknown —"

Johnson: "No, again, we were misled that there were supposedly protests and that something sprang out of that — an assault sprang out of that — and that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact, and the American people could have known that within days and they didn’t know that."

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."

Johnson: "Okay. Thank you, Madame Secretary."

So the transcript makes a few points fairly clear:

Johnson was the guy who got Clinton riled up by asking why she didn’t call Benghazi survivors;

Clinton did say "What difference at this point does it make?" in response to that question.

But Clinton also did provide Johnson other answers. She said her priority was figuring out how to rescue those still at the compound and how to treat their injuries, not pressing them for information. She said it wasn’t appropriate for the State Department to talk to them before FBI interviews. Finally, she said her department and the administration were still trying to sort out the confusion in the days following the attacks.

Johnson wanted her to say that she should have interrupted the FBI debriefing to ask this of the survivors. I'm certain that if she had, you'd be complaining about that. Context has meaning.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ou-need-know-about-hillary-clintons-infamous/
 
This was not the question that was asked or the on Hillary was referring to. Please refer to the conversation and answer the question. What difference does it make that we identify if this group were protesters or terrorists when they are lobbing mortar rounds in the CIA compound and attacking the embassy. Please tell us. You are dodging the question.
The point is that you should either make that identification before having Susan Rice make share an identification on "Face the Nation" or else tell her to say "we don't know yet, we are working on it".
Had Susan Rice just said "we do not know at this point" Benghazi would not have become a -ghazi at all I don't think.

That is my final answer. I can only speak for myself and my opinions, not for Ron Johnson or anybody else. If you want to know what he was thinking, I suggest you ask him.
 
This was not the question that was asked or the on Hillary was referring to. Please refer to the conversation and answer the question. What difference does it make that we identify if this group were protesters or terrorists when they are lobbing mortar rounds in the CIA compound and attacking the embassy. Please tell us. You are dodging the question.
The point is that you should either make that identification before having Susan Rice make share an identification on "Face the Nation" or else tell her to say "we don't know yet, we are working on it".

So this was the big deal? It had nothing to do with the question that was asked Hillary? Please explain why "making that identification" on Face the Nation would have prevented the attacks? Please, I want to know how this matters? I can easily bring up dozens "misstatements" by the current administration.


Had Susan Rice just said "we do not know at this point" Benghazi would not have become a -ghazi at all I don't think.
Then you are very naive. They would have found out that she had hummus for lunch or some other nonsense. It was all a show trial.

That is my final answer.
Not a very solid answer. You may want to reconsider your beliefs.
 
Back
Top Bottom