The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 74

Thread: Benghazi: IT TAKES TREY GOWDY JUST THREE MINUTES TO SILENCE THE MEDIA

  1. #41
    Senior Member .44 magnum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,170

    Default

    http://www.boston.com/whitecoatnotes...idM/story.html

    This interview says nothing about what went on during the attack. While admirable that Ambassador Stevens was a kind and peaceful man, he died a tragic death at the hands of Terrorists. What we all want to know is why the cover up ? Who was involved with the cover up ?

    Reasonable minded men and women can see that a story was concocted to take blame for security issues and no rescue attempt was made. But an order to stand down while under attack was given. This is way bigger then Watergate. The CIA is somehow involved because every Embassy has a CIA operative. That is very common knowledge across the world.

    Obama knew what really happened, and he sent his underlings out to spread lies rather then risk the truth costing him votes. Please forget what political parties these people belong to. Our POTUS is suppose to be Commander in Chief. If he does not protect and attempt a rescue of our citizens coming under fire he does not belong in the position.

    As Harry Truman, a Democrat said... "The Buck Stops Here" He saved thousand of American lives by doing the unthinkable. He had a love of his country first, and of its people. Historians question his decision, but it saved Americans lives.

    POTUS Obama is no Harry Truman. I'd suggest to either Party, they seek to find a man like Truman. One who has served his country, and does not put political gain before protecting its citizens.


    From 1905 to 1911, Truman served in the Missouri National Guard. When the United States entered World War I in 1917, he helped organize the 2nd Regiment of Missouri Field Artillery, which was quickly called into Federal service as the 129th Field Artillery and sent to France. Truman was promoted to Captain and given command of the regiment's Battery D. He and his unit saw action in the Vosges, Saint Mihiel and Meuse-Argonne campaigns. Truman joined the reserves after the war, rising eventually to the rank of colonel. He sought to return to active duty at the outbreak of World War II, but Army Chief of Staff General George C. Marshall declined his offer to serve.
    “I like one-shot kills where possible and prefer to do all my hunting before I shoot.” ..... Elmer Keith



  2. #42
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,961

    Default

    BTW, that press conference of Trey Gowdy was last fall. Yet, we are just really seeing it now? If some media covered it last fall, it must have somehow been glossed over. But 6 months later, the answers to those questions have still not been given.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  3. #43
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,961

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by .44 magnum View Post
    http://www.boston.com/whitecoatnotes...idM/story.html

    This interview says nothing about what went on during the attack. While admirable that Ambassador Stevens was a kind and peaceful man, he died a tragic death at the hands of Terrorists. What we all want to know is why the cover up ? Who was involved with the cover up ?

    Reasonable minded men and women can see that a story was concocted to take blame for security issues and no rescue attempt was made. But an order to stand down while under attack was given.

    I'm not sure there is proof that an order to stand down was given ... yet.

    I think it was a pertinent question for Gowdy to ask whether any allies were contacted to see if they had assets that could help more quickly than US assets.


    This is way bigger then Watergate. The CIA is somehow involved because every Embassy has a CIA operative. That is very common knowledge across the world.

    We know that the Annex was a CIA installation, and that the SEALs were working for the CIA. (At least that's the gist that I have.)


    Obama knew what really happened,

    If he wasn't kept up-to-the-minute on what was happening, then his staff is more incompetent than we can imagine.

    Another thought ... did he "freeze"? Was he not capable of acting decisively when the chips were down? If that was the reason for his "absence" during the event, that would be a BIG deal for the administration to want to cover up.


    and he sent his underlings out to spread lies rather then risk the truth costing him votes. Please forget what political parties these people belong to. Our POTUS is suppose to be Commander in Chief. If he does not protect and attempt a rescue of our citizens coming under fire he does not belong in the position.
    Interesting that Panetta has encouraged the Dems to take part in the House special committee, and go where the facts lead them. It seems that Panetta's tenure as SOD was very short. My recollection of his testimony is that his replies were carefully worded. As he was former CIA, I'd guess he knows a lot about what happened there as well, even if not in his "official" capacity.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  4. #44
    Senior Member .44 magnum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy View Post
    Interesting that Panetta has encouraged the Dems to take part in the House special committee, and go where the facts lead them. It seems that Panetta's tenure as SOD was very short. My recollection of his testimony is that his replies were carefully worded. As he was former CIA, I'd guess he knows a lot about what happened there as well, even if not in his "official" capacity.
    I've come to the conclusion we will never get the entire truth. That leads us to speculate. Something Obama did, or failed to do that night would have lost him the election. There are reports he did not even show up to the situation room during the crisis. What was he doing that night?

    Then you have to look at Ambassador Steven's career path. It is very likely he has some ties to the CIA. While everyone knows the CIA and foreign spy agencies work under the umbrella of their Embassies, it would be a scandal for the " Ambassador" himself being under the employ of the CIA. Most rumors involve Stevens trying to use his informants to find Qaddafi's weapons like rockets that could be used in the future against America's interests in the region.

    The only real story at this point is trying to understand the "Cover up" Did Obama just not want to get himself involved directly with a CIA operation gone bad... ? Or worse... he just did not care that Americans were under attack on foreign soil. ????

    What would make sense is that operatives in the CIA would have been compromised by telling the truth. Stevens may have been set up to die by the CIA itself. It would not be the first time an agent has given his life for the greater good of the Agency.
    Last edited by .44 magnum; 05-19-2014 at 08:43 AM.
    “I like one-shot kills where possible and prefer to do all my hunting before I shoot.” ..... Elmer Keith



  5. #45
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,961

    Default

    The only real story at this point is trying to understand the "Cover up" Did Obama just not want to get himself involved directly with a CIA operation gone bad... ? Or worse... he just did not care that Americans were under attack on foreign soil. ????

    What would make sense is that operatives in the CIA would have been compromised by telling the truth. Stevens may have been set up to die by the CIA itself. It would not be the first time an agent has given his life for the greater good of the Agency.
    If there was truly something "classified" happening, why couldn't the administration deal "privately" with the investigators and have evidence to convince them of the need for the classified info? I really don't believe that Gowdy, Cruz or Issa would jeopardize national security if they had been given the reasons for the necessity of "classification" of facts. If they were, they would be as reprehensible as those around whom the present speculations revolve. And wouldn't that have been the easiest way to resolve the controversy that continues to persist.

    I confess, I'm probably too naive to know why honesty wouldn't work in today's politics.

    Or was the truth so bad that it had no redeeming features?

    I also have to wonder how much credibility was lost of a global nature ... the Libyan President was public about the attack being terrorist activity. So, what must other ME leaders have concluded about the US credibility as the video "story" continued to be promoted even weeks later at the UN? On a people-to-people basis, how much trust do you have if dealing with someone you know can lie without blinking? Even old friends can erode trust by lying. Over time we have heard less and less about the Libyan President's early statement about this. I doubt the leaders in the ME have forgotten. Has that influenced the outcome of US dealings with Syria and Iran? Much was made of Obama bowing to the Saudi king ... but now even the Saudi's may doubt that Obama's overt actions indicate his actual intentions/motives?

    This is all speculation. I admit that. So, wouldn't it have been easier for the administration to have "come clean" from the beginning and not fostered speculations that may be even wilder than the actual facts may be? From a pragmatic standpoint, how much time and treasure could have been saved in investigations? Obama made much of being pragmatic when he was campaigning for his first term.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  6. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Detroit Lakes, MN
    Posts
    1,456

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nolefan View Post
    Quit throwing out blather about 93 people killed. How typical of a blind liberal to pull a number off of Huffington Post to deliberately create a false illusion. …..[
    While I appreciate the intensity of your post, you clearly are suffering from Benghazi derangement syndrome. Let’s take the issue you bring up individually.

    Quote Originally Posted by nolefan View Post
    You throw mud at Bush as though that should somehow exonerate the Obama administration from their incompetence or make our press less responsible for failure to do their duty and hold the White House and the Clinton State Department accountable.
    No mud was thrown at Bush and no blame placed there. The point, which you an others fail to see, is the hypocrisy in this by you on the right. The fact is that there were lots of attacks on embassies and other state department facilities during the previous administration. There was no outrage despite many deaths, now, this Benghazi incident is worth ofmany hours of news coverage on the right, many many hearing and thousands of pages of testimony, and dozens of pages of posts on this website, etc. There is a terrible inconsistency here and you apparently don’t see it and instead suggest some of us are blaming Bush. Sorry, that is not the case. Your hypocrisy is the issue. Take a look at the case of the multiple attacks on our consulate in karachi pakistan. The facility was attacked 4 times from 2002 to 2006 until in 2006 our envoy David Foy was specifically targeted and killed. Tell me, who was held accountable for this dereliction in duty and how much coverage and right wing ranting did this situation get?

    Quote Originally Posted by nolefan View Post
    The number "93" people killed includes the number of ASSAILANTS who died attacking the consulates. It includes the number of the local security and police officers killed. The Americans account for the smallest of the number. The majority killed are listed as civilians of Yemen, Turkey and Syria. We assume they were innocent bystanders…
    I will defer to the number here at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks...tic_facilities . 28 security staff associated with the various facilities were killed during the previous administration. There were also multiple civilians including us citizens also killed, but by your methods they do not count, only government or state department staff. So, I guess at Benghazi only one or two were killed depending on who counts in your ledger. Private contractors don't, right?
    Quote Originally Posted by nolefan View Post
    The reason the GOP didn't call for investigations is that the administration in charge at that time wasn't covering up and lying about what led to the attacks….
    Bull. After all the pages of testimony, after all the reports, after the newly released court ordered emails you have “misleading talking points”. Let Mr. Gowdy have at it, it is a set-up for failure. There is no there there. This is all about politics.
    Quote Originally Posted by nolefan View Post
    We want answers on Benghazi. ……why our CURRENT transparent administration was blatantly[/FONT] CHANGING the talking points sent to them by the CIA and sending out a stooge onto the Sunday talk shows to purposefully LIE to us.[/SIZE] [SIZE=3][FONT=book antiqua]
    Your assertion is not supported by the facts that have been posted in the various threads on this topic.
    Quote Originally Posted by nolefan View Post
    We are talking about the first American ambassador killed in the line of duty since the Carter administration. We are talking about a U.S. Embassy that was woefully unprepared in spite of Stephens begging for more protection, we are talking about WHY the U.S. military was not prepared to respond to a terrorist attack in the AFRICOM area of responsibility on the anniversary of 9/11[COLOR=#000000], especially in an area known to have rapidly escalating terrorist activity.
    Yes, this too has been covered. Do some research on Ambassdor Stevens. He was there because he wanted to be there. Oh, and by the way, there is no US embassy in Benghazi there is a consulate office. One of the stories I posted earlier has an interview with the gentlemen that met with the ambassador the day prior to the attacks. It provide a good perspective on his attitude and mission.

    Quote Originally Posted by nolefan View Post
    The attack lasted for hours and hours and hours. And we sent NO ONE to help them. The general in charge there said no one from the White House ever called. How must that demoralize our personnel in other regions of the world?? To know that if they are attacked our government may very well not send them help. I heard a democrat congressman on t.v. last year claiming that it was impossible to get help to them because "it's not like we just have pilots sitting around drinking coffee ready to be called up". Well, B.S. - we actually do have men and women in uniform who are assigned specific duty and it's called "the Ready Five". Surely on the anniversary of 9/11 our military in volatile areas of the world are all on the "Ready." We want to know why it's taken years to get the requested paperwork and emails and still the information comes trickling out with important parts redacted. You really think this is acceptable?
    This is covered in all the testimony too. There was no ability to reach them in time. Please post something besides blatant speculation that indicates otherwise. We have something like 500 state department facilities across the world. Do you think we should be able to reach them on a moments notice? As has also been explained elsewhere, the plan would have been to evacuate and that plan did not work out. There was no plan B.
    Quote Originally Posted by nolefan View Post
    I don't understand why all of you on the left are so blindly interested in continuing to follow your 'transparent' President without question on anything. You think what is coming out on Benghazi has Trey Gowdy fired up, I've heard him speak in person on this as well as the IRS scandal.
    You don’t understand. There is no blind following here. Mistakes were made. The questions have been asked and answered at numerous investigations and hearings, a bipartisan Senate committee report, a state department report, and investigative reporting. Bring on the next set of investigations. Ever notice that the only ones complaining about this administration lack of transparency are those who also claim you can see right through this administration’s motivations. You have “misleading talking points”. A true true shocker in politics. Fortunately, even according to a recent FOX news poll, 60+ percent of us see this new committee all about politics and only 30% see it as a quest for the truth. Congrats. By the way, what have any of these investigators done to improve security at our state department facilities? How many hearings and reports on that?

  7. #47
    Senior Member zeus3925's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    West Twin Cities Metro, MN
    Posts
    2,170

    Default

    By the way, what have any of these investigators done to improve security at our state department facilities? How many hearings and reports on that?
    Nothing. It would require government spending which the Grand Obstructionist Party is loath to do. It is cheaper and expedicious to create myth and legend for their minions to believe in.
    Zeus

    I don't want to feed an ugly dog!

  8. #48
    Senior Member swampcollielover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    MO
    Posts
    1,992

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zeus3925 View Post
    Nothing. It would require government spending which the Grand Obstructionist Party is loath to do. It is cheaper and expedicious to create myth and legend for their minions to believe in.
    Zzz.....Maybe just a big cutback in 'Entitlement' spending and a few less high cost vacations by the Pres and family.....the Republican's have never stopped a Democratic spending plan that was funded by cuts......Of course the Dem's have never put one forward!

  9. #49
    Senior Member schusker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Pawleys Island South Carolina
    Posts
    160

    Default

    'Yes, this too has been covered. Do some research on Ambassdor Stevens. He was there because he wanted to be there. Oh, and by the way, there is no US embassy in Benghazi there is a consulate office. One of the stories I posted earlier has an interview with the gentlemen that met with the ambassador the day prior to the attacks. It provide a good perspective on his attitude and mission."

    Yes, do some research, you will find that Ambassdor Stevens requests for additional security was denied.
    http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/...uced-security/

    'It is cheaper and expedicious to create myth and legend for their minions to believe in"
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ack-investiga/
    Blackfoot's Tide is Right Pistor
    Cacao Yates
    CD RE CGC CPE L-3

  10. #50
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,961

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zeus3925 View Post
    Nothing. It would require government spending which the Grand Obstructionist Party is loath to do. It is cheaper and expedicious to create myth and legend for their minions to believe in.
    In the very early testimony on Benghazi a State Dept person stated that funding was NOT the issue for the security in Benghazi.

    Perhaps I'd make the question broader ... has there been ANY feedback at all on ANY of the scandals that have taken place about how "making sure it never happens again" has been implemented ANYwhere in ANY agency?

    In fact, the administration gets "madder than hell" about the mismanagement activities ... then (as in the IRS) goes back to stonewalling. The recent emails begin to make it obvious why Lerner took the 5th. The FBI is in action out in Oregon over the O-care website ... but the FBI also flexed its muscles against the conservative groups that were being leaned on by the IRS. When thousands of ICE detainees were released as a result of sequester ... nothing was done. So, now they release another 36,000 (many of whom are felons). IRS employees get bonuses. And the POTUS "has confidence" in Shineski.

    In all of these things NOBODY gets fired. Nobody suffers any consequences. In fact, they go on paid leaves, then retire with pensions intact. That is not unique to this administration, though. Where is there any dis-incentive for corruption in the bureaucracy? Oh, yeah, the fella who pretended to be working for the CIA finally got some jail time. What about his pension, I wonder? Remember how long it was before anyone caught onto his scam ... years! How much restitution will he ever make? I won't limit this criticism to this administration ... any previous or future administrations that allow this to continue are just as culpable.

    I can't buy into that NONE of these scandals have basis in some very real incompetence or actual wrongdoing. Maybe this has come to a head during this administration, but it is obviously a big flaw in the overgrown bureaucratic culture that has become entrenched in a govt that is too large to monitor where taxpayer money is going. Nobody has found a way to have effective procedures for this crap to be minimized. I can't help but believe it is true of just about every agency in the Fed govt. Add to that the fraud and waste in social services programs from Medicare into Soc Sec, right down to Obamaphones. 5% sequester should have been ABSOLUTELY PAINLESS by just "cleaning house", for God's sake.

    Then, this from Obama's fund-raising speech:
    “The problem is not that we lack solutions… The problem we have is… one party in Congress right now that has been captured by ideologues,” Obama complained. Republicans “fundamentally believe that the problem is government [and] don’t believe that we as a community, as a country have any serious role to play in giving people a hand up,” he told the donors.

    Their “principal focus at any given point in the day is trying to figure out how can they make people sufficiently cynical, sufficiently angry, sufficiently suspicious that they can win the next election” by driving down turnout, he insisted.

    I think taxpayers have good reason to be suspicious about how govt spends their money.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •