Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread ><<  1    2    3    4  >>Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: Unbelievable Scandal

Zen Peach





Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/29/2012 at 01:34 PM
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/28/write-about-terrorism-nah- let-s-all-bash-mitt-romney-instead.html

Kirsten Powers is a Democrat and a supporter of President Obama's re-election. Nevertheless, I expect her words to be dismissed out of hand. I am not sure what is worse, the grotesque failure of the Obama administration to keep our consulate in Benghazi safe from a known terrorist threat, the disgusting cover up in which high level administration officials lied for days and days and days in an attempt to make it go away or the majority of the media which has simply refused to seriously cover the story. Kudos to CNN and ABC for being the only major networks outside of Fox to cover it at all.

 

____________________

 
Replies:

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/29/2012 at 01:36 PM
Another take

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/09/benghazi-the-unanswered-quest ion.php

 

____________________

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3070
(3075 all sites)
Registered: 5/30/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/29/2012 at 01:54 PM
Excellent post Doug. Regardless of political affiliation measures must be taken to see that this doen't happen again. They need to re-activate Delta Force's role in protecting our High Value Officials in Hostile Fire Zones at once. Contractors and the Bureau of Diplomatic Protection are not sufficiently equipped to handle the current threat levels that are out there.

 

____________________
"What we do in life echoes in eternity."




 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/29/2012 at 02:09 PM
quote:
Excellent post Doug. Regardless of political affiliation measures must be taken to see that this doen't happen again. They need to re-activate Delta Force's role in protecting our High Value Officials in Hostile Fire Zones at once. Contractors and the Bureau of Diplomatic Protection are not sufficiently equipped to handle the current threat levels that are out there.


The thing that scares me is that I actually think this administration would rather do nothing than admit their entire world view is incorrect, that there even is a threat. We are definitely back to the 90's in terms of our view and reaction to this scorge and we are going to get hit here at home again if something is not done.

Luckily I don't think they are going to get away with the cover up. Whichever way the election goes, there is going to be a reckoning. This is too important a story.

 

____________________

 

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 998
(1012 all sites)
Registered: 3/28/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/30/2012 at 08:18 AM
I hope this gets the attention it deserves. But the j**k-offs in the media will probably concentrate on something more substantial. Perhaps an inference from Harry Reid, via another one of his imaginary friends, that Mitt Romney has worn the same socks all week. Let him prove he hasn't!!

On another note, pitiful ignorance on the part of John Kerry and Steny Hoyer in citing the deaths of five Americans in Libya. That's showing you're on top of things, guys.

 

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1958
(1961 all sites)
Registered: 5/12/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/30/2012 at 08:43 AM
quote:
quote:
Excellent post Doug. Regardless of political affiliation measures must be taken to see that this doen't happen again. They need to re-activate Delta Force's role in protecting our High Value Officials in Hostile Fire Zones at once. Contractors and the Bureau of Diplomatic Protection are not sufficiently equipped to handle the current threat levels that are out there.


The thing that scares me is that I actually think this administration would rather do nothing than admit their entire world view is incorrect, that there even is a threat. We are definitely back to the 90's in terms of our view and reaction to this scorge and we are going to get hit here at home again if something is not done.

Luckily I don't think they are going to get away with the cover up. Whichever way the election goes, there is going to be a reckoning. This is too important a story.


The people most hot to trot on this topic are the same people who were advocating for the invasion of Iraq. Even after it was discovered there were no weapons of mass destruction there was no apology or clarification from the neocons about how they had mislead the American public. They simply shifted their rationale to nation building and the spread of democracy.

The NYT and Washington Post both have stories on this today and so there goes the cover-up angle. President Obama also announced that terrorists were likely involved the day after the killings. After that there was an investigation which does take time. Whenever these types of tragedies occur it is because of some failure in security. This was true in Lebanon with Reagan and 9/11 with Bush.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 67499
(68016 all sites)
Registered: 10/27/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/30/2012 at 09:25 AM
You are gonna owe "America's mayor" some money, he's the only one who can use those 9/11 references to score points.

 

____________________
Hittin' The Web::Hugh Duty Memorial Giveaway has begun!

RIP Hugh Duty

 

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1958
(1961 all sites)
Registered: 5/12/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/30/2012 at 01:24 PM
quote:
You are gonna owe "America's mayor" some money, he's the only one who can use those 9/11 references to score points.


He won’t get a dime. I will send him a copy of this video with the note that Bernie is going to write a best seller when he gets out. This has to be the most outrageous example of corruption in US history.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftW5_gqwFLM

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/30/2012 at 01:41 PM
Right once again Obama does nothing wrong. It's just the dreaded neo-cons ginning up a scandal. Keep believing that.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/30/2012 at 02:48 PM
This is a total screwup. They lied from the start. The State Department was unprepared for the danger despite clear warnings. The attack happened. The media spent the first week blaming Romney for making a true statement. Then Rice went on all the talk shows and insisted it was caused by a video. The lies came in hot and heavy as the administration ducked for cover. Then the Director of Intelligence tried to take the blame. FINALLY some of the pro-Obama outlets like the NY Times have started writing about it. Here is a timeline of what happened. You can dismiss it because it's from Fox News or you can show how it is incorrect.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1867119840001/

This doesn't even discuss how he skips his intelligence briefings both before and after.

 

____________________

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3070
(3075 all sites)
Registered: 5/30/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/30/2012 at 03:34 PM
Syria is in the process of relocating their Chemical Weapons stockpile. Guess where they came from? Additionally there were more than just one reason for invading Iraq and the Congress of the United States sanction the invasion therefore giving The President authorization to do so.

From "The Progressive"

http://theprogressive.typepad.com/the_progressive/2007/02/22_reasons_why_.h tml

Nick Cohen's controversial polemic What's Left: How Liberals Lost Their Way has reignited the debate about the rights and the wrongs of the Iraq war. In an earlier post I exposed ten lies about the conflict which have shaped anti-war sentiment. I now go further and set out a more comprehensive point-by point case for the war which to my knowledge is fairly unique amongst all the material that's been produced on this issue. I do so because the self-righteous opponents of the war continue to insist that there can be no good argument for the war. Also I believe that the full weight of the pro-war argument has largely gone by default.

Such has been the success of the anti-war lobby in claiming the moral high ground for their views that there are now few on the left who are prepared to challenge them over the whole range of their propoganda. Even Nick Cohen provides only a very narrow justification for the war (the desirability of over-throwing an evil dictator and standing by the Iraqi victims of the insurgency), thereby conceding much valuable territory regarding the other equally valid reasons for the war.

Here then, in chronological order, are no less than 22 reasons why progressives should stand up against the prevailing opinion of the liberal-left on this issue, particularly at a time when their mindset threatens to undermine the chances of Labour winning the next election.

1. The second Gulf war of 2003 followed the first Gulf war of 1991 which resulted directly from Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

2. Instead of over-throwing Saddam at that time, the allies gave way to liberal sentiment and left him in power on the basis that he would never be in a position to threaten neighbouring countries again.

3. The terms of the 1991 cease-fire (not a peace settlement, by the way) forbade Iraq from developing WMD.

4. To that end a UN inspection regime was imposed by resolution 687 and several related resolutions, non-compliance with which would represent a breach of the cease-fire.

5. Several years passed during which UN inspections were continually being thwarted.

6. In 1998 Iraq ceased all cooperation with the United Nations and economic sanctions and no-fly zones were imposed.

7. Then came 9/11 which underlined the world-wide terrorist threat and highlighted how failing anti-West states could be used as sanctuaries and attack bases for jihadists.

8. 9/11 also pointed up the dangers of UNDER-reacting to intelligence information.

9 The intelligence was showing that Saddam still possessed WMD and was continuing with his WMD programme, despite the terms of the cease-fire and related UN resolutions.

10. The UN inspectors, most governments, every intelligence agency in the world, and even Saddam's own generals were convinced that these weapons still existed and represented a threat, either directly through Saddam or indirectly if they were to fall into the hands of Al-qaeda. In a post-war interview with the Iraq Survey Group Saddam admitted that he was trying to give the impression that he had WMD for deterrent purposes.

11. If there were any doubts about the intelligence the feeling after 9/11 was probably that it was safer not to take any chances and that anyway why should a tyrant like Saddam be given the benefit of that doubt, particularly if it provided a legitimate reason for getting rid of him?

12. After being given every opportunity to comply with the UN resolutions (over a considerable period) Saddam rejected the final demand under resolution 1441 (passed unanimously in November 2002) which called for "an accurate, full and final disclosure of Iraq's WMD's and of all aspects of its WMD programme", and which encompassed presenting evidence that WMD stocks had been destroyed. Opinions differed amongst eminent international lawyers on whether a second resolution was needed for military action. Such differences are quite common in international law since very little is clear-cut in this fairly new and arcane area of the law.

14 To argue that the war was DEFINITELY illegal is not therefore defensible whereas the Prime Minister's parliamentary answer (March 17, 2003) putting the legal case for the war is legally defensible.

15. The ensuing invasion presented an opportunity for (a) finally dealing with the WMD threat perceived at that time (b) removing a tyrannical dictator (c) neutralising Iraq as a potential base for world-wide terrorism (d) demonstrating that the international community could not be defied on such vital issues (e) allowing US troops to be withdrawn from Saudi Arabia and its holy places (which up to that point was one of AL-qaeda's main recruiting causes) and (f) allowing progress to be made towards a Middle East settlement (Saddam was offering 50,000 dollars for the families of Palestinian suicide bombers!).

16. Blair's dilemma was, therefore, this. To go into Iraq meant war with all its terrible consequences. But not going into Iraq meant Saddam defying the international community and literally getting away with murder thus setting an example to other dictators and enemies of democracy. It also meant Saddam proceeding with his WMD programme to a point where he might become invulnerable, possibly passing WMD on to the jihadists, continuing his repression of his muslim population, and continuing to undermine a Middle East peace settlement. Finally the need to keep US troops in Saudi Arabia would continueto give AL-qaeda a cause-celebre regarding the holy places. In other words he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.

17 In coming down in favour of the war Blair probably saw this as the lesser of the evils and as the chance to act as a restraining influence on Bush in a way that those opposing the war were not able to do..

18 Far from the invasion being anti-Islamic, the (Islamic) Kurds, anti-Saddam Sunnis and the Shias rejoiced at being liberated from Saddam's tyranny (even now despite the post-war mayhem a recent poll has shown that over 60% of the population believe that overthrowing Saddam was worth the hardship entailed, 75% of the Shias and 81% of the Kurds).

19. Yes, terrible mistakes were made in the post-war period (as in any war). Amongst these was underestimating the sheer depravity of an enemy which seems to be prepared to destroy the country and slaughter its people rather than to see it progress under a democratically elected government.

20 Iraq is NOT under occupation. The occupation was ended in 2004 under UN Security Council Resolution 1546 when the interim Iraqi government took power. Coalition troops have been mandated by the UN to keep the peace. The US government is pledged to comply with a UN resolution requiring them to leave if requested by the Iraqi government.

21. Millions of Iraqis risked death to elect their government. Their government therefore has a greater legitimacy than almost any other government in the world!

22. That government wants our troops to stay as long as it takes to do the job. To cut and run now would be one of the most ignoble acts in our history.


From this perspective then there is no betrayal of what the Labour Party and the liberal-left are supposed to stand for. Quite the opposite. Here we have a courageous Labour leader trying, against all the odds, to uphold the principles of democracy, social justice, humanitarianism, and international solidarity which the Labour Party was founded to promote. To be sure, there is a downside. But those who constantly dwell on these negative aspects without putting them into the above context are simply giving comfort to one of the most despicable enemies we have faced, thereby stiffening their resistance in the belief that western public opinion does not have the stomach for the fight and that one more spate of high-profile suicide bombings will precipitate demands to bring home the troops and thus bring them victory.

 

____________________
"What we do in life echoes in eternity."




 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 14590
(14590 all sites)
Registered: 3/28/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/30/2012 at 03:35 PM
They were told that the government couldn't control militant groups. There was no warning of any particular imminent attacks. I agree that ANY and ALL US buildings in any countries that have extreemists and terrorists as part of their populations need to be protected much better, not just because of this attack but in general. That compound did not look particularly secure to me. Bottom line is that we can never forget that even if the vast majority of normal citizens in these countries support us that there will always be a percentage of extremists who will try to kill their so called enemies for their twisted reasons and regardless of how vigilant we are there will be successful attacks against us. Let's just hope and pray that it is never on the scale of 9-11 or worse ever again.

 

____________________
Pete

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/30/2012 at 05:02 PM
quote:
They were told that the government couldn't control militant groups. There was no warning of any particular imminent attacks. I agree that ANY and ALL US buildings in any countries that have extreemists and terrorists as part of their populations need to be protected much better, not just because of this attack but in general. That compound did not look particularly secure to me. Bottom line is that we can never forget that even if the vast majority of normal citizens in these countries support us that there will always be a percentage of extremists who will try to kill their so called enemies for their twisted reasons and regardless of how vigilant we are there will be successful attacks against us. Let's just hope and pray that it is never on the scale of 9-11 or worse ever again.


Actually it is coming out that there were very specific warnings and the ambassador himself feared for his life. But that is not the real scandal. The real scandal is the lying and covering up for purely political purposes. And now they are pretending he stated all along it was terrorism. What a crock. The video I posted shows exactly what the administrations line was from the day it happened until they day the video was aired. I try to imagine Obama EVER getting on TV and saying "We messed up and I take full responsibility" As Kennedy did after the Bay of Pigs or others have done. It's inconceivable. He has NEVER admitted he has done a single thing wrong except in failing to communicate the excellence of all his policies to a dumb country. And he sends flacks on TV to brazenly lie figuring people will believe him over their lying eyes. I don't think he's going to get away with it this time. But he may succeed in bottling up this scandal until after the election. Then win or lose, the truth will come out. Because you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

 

____________________

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 14590
(14590 all sites)
Registered: 3/28/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/30/2012 at 05:37 PM
I have heard that the ambassador feared for his life which any American living in a country like that would. I wouldn't live in a compound that looked so lacking in security but I have heard of no specific warnings. I bet all of our diplomatic compounds around the world are a lot tighter now. Like I said, the extremists bent on killing us are gonna be successful a certain percentage of the time regardless of how vigilant we are. We just gotta try to make sure it is as little as possible.

 

____________________
Pete

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8384
(8385 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/30/2012 at 05:38 PM
quote:
I try to imagine Obama EVER getting on TV and saying "We messed up and I take full responsibility" as Kennedy did after the Bay of Pigs or others have done.

Oh, he'll eventually say it Doug. Or something along those lines. But "responsibility" is only another word, to be managed and contorted from any semblance of it's generally understood meaning.

The key thing to look for is consequence. Who gets fired? What policies change? In any normal context "responsibility" carries consequences. Wanna bet it won't here?

And what about questions of character? What kind of leader sends his people out to the media knowingly spouting lies? Rest easy; those sort of questions won't get asked.

Since the lapdog media won't put any pressure on him, there won't be any consequence. Except for the familes of those killed. If the press won't follow up on reports that he didn't take a single daily Presidential security briefing in the five days leading up to 9/11, then this will just get obfuscated in preference for stories about how cute he and Michelle were on The View.

And most Americans just don't care. Hey, the NFL refs are back! Thank God all's well again in America!

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 14590
(14590 all sites)
Registered: 3/28/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/30/2012 at 05:41 PM
I don't see this as a mess up in any way. I don't think anyone including the administration knew exactly who did this and why right away. As the investigation went along more has been learned. Not any kind of scandal IMO.

 

____________________
Pete

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 14590
(14590 all sites)
Registered: 3/28/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/30/2012 at 05:44 PM
And comparing the Bay of Pigs to this is like comparing water and dust. We didn't initiate anything here, we were the victims of an attack. Whether beefed up security would have helped or changed anything in this attack is also questionable.

 

____________________
Pete

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/30/2012 at 06:08 PM
quote:
quote:
I try to imagine Obama EVER getting on TV and saying "We messed up and I take full responsibility" as Kennedy did after the Bay of Pigs or others have done.

Oh, he'll eventually say it Doug. Or something along those lines. But "responsibility" is only another word, to be managed and contorted from any semblance of it's generally understood meaning.

The key thing to look for is consequence. Who gets fired? What policies change? In any normal context "responsibility" carries consequences. Wanna bet it won't here?

And what about questions of character? What kind of leader sends his people out to the media knowingly spouting lies? Rest easy; those sort of questions won't get asked.

Since the lapdog media won't put any pressure on him, there won't be any consequence. Except for the familes of those killed. If the press won't follow up on reports that he didn't take a single daily Presidential security briefing in the five days leading up to 9/11, then this will just get obfuscated in preference for stories about how cute he and Michelle were on The View.

And most Americans just don't care. Hey, the NFL refs are back! Thank God all's well again in America!


I think more care than you think. Obviously his hard core supporters are beyond reach. They won't even concede he did anything wrong let alone change their opinion of him. But not everyone is like that. It may not hurt him in the election but he will not escape the consequences of this, at least totally. At the very least his touted middle eastern policy for which he absurdly won a Nobel Peace Prize, is now known to be a joke.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/30/2012 at 06:11 PM
quote:
And comparing the Bay of Pigs to this is like comparing water and dust. We didn't initiate anything here, we were the victims of an attack. Whether beefed up security would have helped or changed anything in this attack is also questionable.


I didn't compare the two events. I compared the stand up way Kennedy took responsibility to the opposite way Obama can't admit he is flawed in any way.

And it is absolutely a fact that while EVERYONE knew almost immediately that it was an organized attack due to the presence of heavy weaponry and the obvious coordination. He sent his flacks on TV a WEEK later outrightly denying it. He was LYING. They absolutely knew it was not caused by that damned video. Absolutely knew it was not a spontaneous demonstration that got out of hand. Why? Osama died but Al Quaeda lives on.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/30/2012 at 06:16 PM
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/09/30/no-obama-didnt-call-benghazi-a ct-of-terror-in-speech/#more-806992

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/30/2012 at 06:22 PM
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/09/30/libya-attack-remains-an-inexpl icable-failure-terrorism-chris-stevens/#more-807001

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 27533
(27822 all sites)
Registered: 2/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/30/2012 at 11:06 PM
I don't know what 'news' you all listen to but I personally heard that the incident was planned terrorism and not associated with the other protests within twenty four hours after it happened. Where is the cover up?

 

____________________
Sometimes we can't choose the music life gives us - but we damn sure can choose how we dance!


 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 67499
(68016 all sites)
Registered: 10/27/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/1/2012 at 07:33 AM
NYC pos peter king getting his mug in front of the camera's calling for the US UN rep. to step down over this.

What a bag of hot air.

 

____________________
Hittin' The Web::Hugh Duty Memorial Giveaway has begun!

RIP Hugh Duty

 

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 998
(1012 all sites)
Registered: 3/28/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/1/2012 at 08:16 AM
Time Magazine's Mark Halpern on Morning Joe this morning

"There are a lot of Republican complaints about liberal bias in terms of media coverage of this campaign," Halperin said. "Some are more credible than others. I think one of the most credible and serious we should all think about is: The president is mostly being covered--has been covered--as a candidate, rather than as an incumbent whose record needs to be scrutinized. And this is an area where I think there are a lot of legitimate questions of how are we dealing with the Arab Spring, particularly protecting American assets overseas, and also, what are our goals in Libya, and are they being achieved in the right way? That line of argument and attack, with press scrutiny and Mitt Romney making the case, should be part of the debate, and I think will be, because this story does have a lot of unanswered questions."



 

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1958
(1961 all sites)
Registered: 5/12/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/1/2012 at 08:42 AM
quote:
Right once again Obama does nothing wrong. It's just the dreaded neo-cons ginning up a scandal. Keep believing that.


I didn't say that there wasn't anything wrong. I did say that the “dreaded neo-cons” are again exploiting a scandal in a way that has nothing to do with national security or even focusing on what the scandal is about. Read your posts on this thread. You either don't understand what al qaeda is or you are intentionally distorting it to make a political point. You seem hot to trot to implicate Obama in everything.

 
<<  1    2    3    4  >>  


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software

Privacy | Terms of Service | Report Infringement | Personal Data Management | Contact Us
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com