The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-15-2013, 11:04 AM   #376
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,165
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Your takeaway I guess is that he deserved to die because he wouldn't go insubordinate and work outside his chain of command?
Keep guessing.
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 11:18 AM   #377
baja
Happy camper
 
baja's Avatar
 
Sweet

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 60,023

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Ware
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Requiem View Post
That is because most everyone is not paying attention and Americans are uneducated and apathetic when it comes to civics. Nice try to spin this into a NWO conspiracy thread.
Actually that would be you with the spin.

I only made a statement.
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 11:55 AM   #378
Requiem
~~~
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
~ ~ ~

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth Division
Posts: 23,852

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Princes of Tara
Default

And why did you make that statement?
Requiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 10:42 PM   #379
ant1999e
Ring of Famer
 
ant1999e's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: BFE
Posts: 6,281

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Money Ball
Default

The Benghazi Emails: Talking Points Changed at State Dept.'s Request

But emails show that the State Department had also raised concerns about mentions that the CIA had produced material -- before the attack -- on the threat of al-Qaeda-linked extremists in Benghazi. In addition, State expressed concerns about pointing to Ansar al Sharia before the FBI/Justice Department had concluded its investigation of the attack.

"I'm with Toria," wrote then Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs David S. Adams, agreeing with Nuland's concerns about a section on the CIA's intelligence on Benghazi extremists. "That last bullet especially will read to members [of Congress] like we had been repeatedly warned."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bengh...7#.UZRw2LXVAoM
ant1999e is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 10:43 PM   #380
ant1999e
Ring of Famer
 
ant1999e's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: BFE
Posts: 6,281

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Money Ball
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
Quote:
In the month before attackers stormed U.S. facilities in Benghazi and killed four Americans, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens twice turned down offers of security assistance made by the senior U.S. military official in the region in response to concerns that Stevens had raised in a still secret memorandum, two government officials told McClatchy.http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/1...#storylink=cpy
So it's U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens fault he was killed. Wow, you must be good at playing limbo because that's pretty low.
ant1999e is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 06:30 AM   #381
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,165
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ant1999e View Post
So it's U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens fault he was killed. Wow, you must be good at playing limbo because that's pretty low.
Take it up with the "two government officials" who said this, not me. And, nobody said it was "his fault". The point here is that we don't know all the facts and that you shouldn't run around placing blame until we have them. Which we probably never will. And how interesting that you're so quick to blame Obama but don't like when the possibility that others may be at fault come up.
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 07:27 AM   #382
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
Take it up with the "two government officials" who said this, not me. And, nobody said it was "his fault". The point here is that we don't know all the facts and that you shouldn't run around placing blame until we have them. Which we probably never will. And how interesting that you're so quick to blame Obama but don't like when the possibility that others may be at fault come up.
I don't think anyone's worked overtime blaming Obama directly, other than maybe for his absentminded professor's version of "Smart Power"

But you've essentially propped up one side of the story while completely ignoring the other...

Quote:
One person familiar with the events said Stevens might have rejected the offers because there was an understanding within the State Department that officials in Libya ought not to request more security, in part because of concerns about the political fallout of seeking a larger military presence in a country that was still being touted as a foreign policy success.

“The embassy was told through back channels to not make direct requests for security,” an official familiar with the case, who agreed to discuss the case only anonymously because of the sensitivity of the subject, told McClatchy.
You cite one source who says someone outside Stevens' Chain of Command asked if he could use some help.

Meanwhile the article cites two other sources, one who thinks the State Department was sandbagging security requests in Libya because of political concerns, and another who outright says the Embassy was told not to request more security.

Your argument would be akin to saying "Hey, if any higher-ups ordered some dirty prisoner treatment at Gitmo... it ain't no thang. Don't sweat it. The guys at the prison couldda just refused.

As with all of these scandals, a good indication of how far up things go is who, and how many people get ****canned. If people who clearly did something wrong appear to be getting protected, you know it's because they likely know who else they could take down with them.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 07:39 AM   #383
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 
All hail Hercules!

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,129

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
Take it up with the "two government officials" who said this, not me. And, nobody said it was "his fault". The point here is that we don't know all the facts and that you shouldn't run around placing blame until we have them. Which we probably never will. And how interesting that you're so quick to blame Obama but don't like when the possibility that others may be at fault come up.
Thanks for the laugh of the day.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 07:59 AM   #384
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,492

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

If this report is accurate, then it was the CIA, not the State Dept who decided the talking points.


White House releases Benghazi 'talking points' emails

Quote:
The correspondence appears to show that the CIA took the lead in developing the talking points and in omitting key information about possible extremist involvement in the attack.

References to al-Qaeda and Libya-based Islamist extremists were removed from the talking points after CIA officials questioned intelligence on who was responsible for the US deaths.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22544394
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 08:34 AM   #385
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,165
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Your argument would be akin to saying...
My argument isn't remotely akin to whay you're suggesting here. In fact, I'm not really making an argument by posting that article. What I'm doing is pointing out another side of the narrative that is being ignored by those eagerly engaged in the witch hunt. Their is a rush to judgement here, and people need to take a deep breath and wait for more facts to come out.
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 08:57 AM   #386
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
My argument isn't remotely akin to whay you're suggesting here. In fact, I'm not really making an argument by posting that article. What I'm doing is pointing out another side of the narrative that is being ignored by those eagerly engaged in the witch hunt. Their is a rush to judgement here, and people need to take a deep breath and wait for more facts to come out.
It's pretty clear the State Dept ignored multiple warnings. And they even explicitly worried about that reality when talking about how to massage the White House talking points.

You're the one that chose to take the only nugget you could possibly take out of that article in service to the time-honored tradition of "Blame the Dead Guy"

Meanwhile you ignored multiple other points in the same article that basically rendered your hand-selected nugget completely irrelevant.

You can fall back to the Sullivian "Just Asking Questions" defense all you want once the horse**** has been called out.

But it still is what it is.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 09:00 AM   #387
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
If this report is accurate, then it was the CIA, not the State Dept who decided the talking points.


White House releases Benghazi 'talking points' emails



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22544394
"Decided" can mean many things.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bengh...ry?id=19187137

Quote:
The emails confirm the ABC News report that the so-called "talking points" written by the CIA on the attack underwent extensive revisions – 12 versions – and that substantial changes were made after the State Department expressed concerns.

The early versions of the talking points, drafted entirely by the CIA, included references to the al Qaeda affiliate Ansar al-Sharia and to previous CIA warnings about terror threats in Benghazi. State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland expressed concerns about including those references in the talking points.

In one email, previously reported by ABC News, Nuland said that including the CIA warnings "could be used by Members [of Congress] to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings so why do we want to feed that? Concerned …"
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 09:30 AM   #388
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,492

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Two differently worded opinions. Time will tell.

Quote:
References to al-Qaeda and Libya-based Islamist extremists were removed from the talking points after CIA officials questioned intelligence on who was responsible for the US deaths.
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 09:54 AM   #389
Rigs11
Ring of Famer
 
Rigs11's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,598
Default

New Talking Point Revelations Should End Benghazi Witch Hunt
Emails from Obama administration aides obtained by CNN should end the right-wing media's nine-month witch hunt regarding the creation and editing of talking points related to the September 2012 attacks on diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya.

CNN has obtained more than 100 pages of emails detailing the exchanges between CIA, State Department, and other Obama administration aides concerning what should be included in talking points for public appearances by members of Congress and administration officials.

Those talking points were used by U.N. ambassador Susan Rice in a series of interviews that were subsequently seized upon by conservative critics who claimed she downplayed the role of terrorism in the attacks in order to aid President Obama's re-election. On May 10 ABC's Jonathan Karl reported on what he later acknowledged were summaries of a handful of the emails of administration aides, triggering another wave of claims that the administration had engaged in a cover-up.

But while the right has spent more than half a year mired in scandalmongering over the talking points, the emails buttress what Gen. David Petraeus, former head of the Central Intelligence Agency, testified in November: that the intelligence community signed off on the final draft of the talking points, and that references to terrorist groups in Libya were removed in order to avoid tipping off those groups and preserve the ongoing investigation.

Notably, while the right-wing media has expressed months of outrage over administration statements linking the attacks to an anti-Islam video, claiming that this was based on political desire and not the conclusions of the intelligence community, every version of the talking points stated that the attacks were "spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo," which had been triggered by the video. The emails contain no criticism of that statement.

CNN's Jake Tapper further reports that the removal of portions of the talking points dealing with warnings about the security situation in Benghazi prior to the attacks were supported by the CIA:

Senior administration officials say that long before the CIA heard concerns from the State Department about warnings being put in the talking points, CIA Deputy Director Mike Morrell advocated for taking the warnings out, since he felt the talking points should focus on what happened in Benghazi on September 11, rather than the previous six months.

He also felt it was unprofessional and unfair for the CIA to cite its own warnings to the State Department, officials said. Victoria Nuland, then the State Department spokeswoman, raised concerns over the CIA's first version of the talking points, saying that they went further than what she was allowed to say about the attack during her briefings.

The emails include:

■The director of the CIA's Office of Terrorism Analysis agreeing to remove a claim that extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attacks because it suggested culpability in the killings of U.S. personnel and "we do not know who was responsible for the deaths."
■Concerns from the general counsel of the CIA that the original talking points could "conflict with express instructions from NSS/DOJ/FBI that, in light of the criminal investigation, we are not to generate statements with assessments as to who did this."
■CIA's Office of Public Affairs suggesting language linking the attacks more strongly to the Cairo protests.
■State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland expressing concerns with portions of the talking points that she said made claims about the perpetrators belonging to groups linked with al Qaeda that "we ourselves are not making because we don't want to prejudice the investigation. The CIA's Office of Public Affairs replied that "we are waiting to hear back from the [FBI]."
■Deputy National Security Advisor Benjamin Rhodes making a single edit to the penultimate version of the talking points, changing the word "consulate" to "diplomatic post."
■Petraeus's criticism of the final talking points because they did not sufficiently link the attacks to the Cairo protests.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05...-bengha/194092
Rigs11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 10:01 AM   #390
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,068

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigs11 View Post
New Talking Point Revelations Should End Benghazi Witch Hunt
Emails from Obama administration aides obtained by CNN should end the right-wing media's nine-month witch hunt regarding the creation and editing of talking points related to the September 2012 attacks on diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya.

CNN has obtained more than 100 pages of emails detailing the exchanges between CIA, State Department, and other Obama administration aides concerning what should be included in talking points for public appearances by members of Congress and administration officials.

Those talking points were used by U.N. ambassador Susan Rice in a series of interviews that were subsequently seized upon by conservative critics who claimed she downplayed the role of terrorism in the attacks in order to aid President Obama's re-election. On May 10 ABC's Jonathan Karl reported on what he later acknowledged were summaries of a handful of the emails of administration aides, triggering another wave of claims that the administration had engaged in a cover-up.

But while the right has spent more than half a year mired in scandalmongering over the talking points, the emails buttress what Gen. David Petraeus, former head of the Central Intelligence Agency, testified in November: that the intelligence community signed off on the final draft of the talking points, and that references to terrorist groups in Libya were removed in order to avoid tipping off those groups and preserve the ongoing investigation.

Notably, while the right-wing media has expressed months of outrage over administration statements linking the attacks to an anti-Islam video, claiming that this was based on political desire and not the conclusions of the intelligence community, every version of the talking points stated that the attacks were "spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo," which had been triggered by the video. The emails contain no criticism of that statement.

CNN's Jake Tapper further reports that the removal of portions of the talking points dealing with warnings about the security situation in Benghazi prior to the attacks were supported by the CIA:

Senior administration officials say that long before the CIA heard concerns from the State Department about warnings being put in the talking points, CIA Deputy Director Mike Morrell advocated for taking the warnings out, since he felt the talking points should focus on what happened in Benghazi on September 11, rather than the previous six months.

He also felt it was unprofessional and unfair for the CIA to cite its own warnings to the State Department, officials said. Victoria Nuland, then the State Department spokeswoman, raised concerns over the CIA's first version of the talking points, saying that they went further than what she was allowed to say about the attack during her briefings.

The emails include:

■The director of the CIA's Office of Terrorism Analysis agreeing to remove a claim that extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attacks because it suggested culpability in the killings of U.S. personnel and "we do not know who was responsible for the deaths."
■Concerns from the general counsel of the CIA that the original talking points could "conflict with express instructions from NSS/DOJ/FBI that, in light of the criminal investigation, we are not to generate statements with assessments as to who did this."
■CIA's Office of Public Affairs suggesting language linking the attacks more strongly to the Cairo protests.
■State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland expressing concerns with portions of the talking points that she said made claims about the perpetrators belonging to groups linked with al Qaeda that "we ourselves are not making because we don't want to prejudice the investigation. The CIA's Office of Public Affairs replied that "we are waiting to hear back from the [FBI]."
■Deputy National Security Advisor Benjamin Rhodes making a single edit to the penultimate version of the talking points, changing the word "consulate" to "diplomatic post."
■Petraeus's criticism of the final talking points because they did not sufficiently link the attacks to the Cairo protests.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05...-bengha/194092
So as I have been saying,this is all a political game rethugs are playing.
peacepipe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 10:04 AM   #391
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
So as I have been saying,this is all a political game rethugs are playing.
Quoting Media Matters is almost rhetorically begging for a response letting us all know what Sean Hannity thinks.

https://twitter.com/JanCBS/status/334672576607571968

‏@JanCBS
Always found it odd that when admin officials complain abt a story, subsequent criticism on Media Matters will neatly mirror the complaints.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 10:08 AM   #392
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,068

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Quoting Media Matters is almost rhetorically begging for a response letting us all know what Sean Hannity thinks.

https://twitter.com/JanCBS/status/334672576607571968

‏@JanCBS
Always found it odd that when admin officials complain abt a story, subsequent criticism on Media Matters will neatly mirror the complaints.
Facts are a stubborn thing.
peacepipe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 10:12 AM   #393
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
Facts are a stubborn thing.
As the White House, and their widely-known mouthpiece Media Matters are slowly discovering.

There are MSM articles already linked and posted in this thread (and others) that establish how completely full of **** that diatribe is.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 10:17 AM   #394
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,068

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
As the White House, and their widely-known mouthpiece Media Matters are slowly discovering.

There are MSM articles already linked and posted in this thread (and others) that establish how completely full of **** that diatribe is.
, This has been nothing but a political witch hunt from the get go. This is about a tragic situation that's been politicized by Republicans.
peacepipe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 10:29 AM   #395
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
, This has been nothing but a political witch hunt from the get go. This is about a tragic situation that's been politicized by Republicans.
Yes, a "witch hunt" to find out why the Administration lied about the lead-up to and cause of an attack on an American Embassy, resulting in the first service-related death of an Ambassador in 34 years, as well as 3 other Americans killed

Oh and lied to their families. Oh, and scapegoated an online video, tried to flex it's muscle to get it censored, then helped out and jail it's anonymous producer.

No big whoop. I'm sure if Bush'd done it, you probably wouldn't have even noticed.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 10:48 AM   #396
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,492

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Yes, a "witch hunt" to find out why the Administration lied about the lead-up to and cause of an attack on an American Embassy, resulting in the first service-related death of an Ambassador in 34 years, as well as 3 other Americans killed

Oh and lied to their families. Oh, and scapegoated an online video, tried to flex it's muscle to get it censored, then helped out and jail it's anonymous producer.

No big whoop. I'm sure if Bush'd done it, you probably wouldn't have even noticed.
Lied?? Are you going to continue to carry water for the politicizing of this tragedy, despite the release of the E Mails??

Pick another fight, this one is a lost cause, that hopefully allows scrutiny of the salient facts; why wasn't security better managed, was there ever an order to 'stand down' (can you point to the source of that comment? it wasn't Hicks) and could help have arrived in time??

Quote:
One of the original talking points, based on an early memo, says: "We believe, based on currently available information, that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by protests at the US embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US consulate and subsequently the annex." It added that this assessment might yet change.

The second point is the crucial one. The memo says: "The crowd almost certainly was a mix of individuals from across many sectors of Libyan society. That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qaida participated in the attack."

The series of email exchanges reveal that the vital phrase "with ties to al-Qaida" was later excised.

The White House said this was done at the request of the CIA and not the White House and that the emails support this, showing that a CIA analyst said there was no intelligence at that point to support the assertion of al-Qaida involvement.

In an email from the CIA three days after the attack, it noted the reference to al-Qaida, suggesting it was complicit in the deaths of the four Americans, and a CIA analyst says: "Do we know this?"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...ed-white-house
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 10:49 AM   #397
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,068

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Yes, a "witch hunt" to find out why the Administration lied about the lead-up to and cause of an attack on an American Embassy, resulting in the first service-related death of an Ambassador in 34 years, as well as 3 other Americans killed

Oh and lied to their families. Oh, and scapegoated an online video, tried to flex it's muscle to get it censored, then helped out and jail it's anonymous producer.

No big whoop. I'm sure if Bush'd done it, you probably wouldn't have even noticed.
Where's the actual evidence that Obama lied? You got a lot of theories but where is the actual evidence.
peacepipe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 10:51 AM   #398
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,891
Default

Cracks me up how Obama says he finds out about all these scandals at the same time we do. I just read about the IRS scandal. I just found out about Fast and Furious. I had no idea the Benghazzi talking points were made up! I just found out! I'm as mad as you! lol. Umm Obama you are not one of us you are the them!
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 10:56 AM   #399
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,165
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
Lied?? Are you going to continue to carry water for the politicizing of this tragedy, despite the release of the E Mails??

Pick another fight, this one is a lost cause, that hopefully allows scrutiny of the salient facts; why wasn't security better managed, was there ever an order to 'stand down' (can you point to the source of that comment? it wasn't Hicks) and could help have arrived in time??
Beavis is consulting his list of acceptable sources to see if this one makes the cut. Stay tuned...
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 11:05 AM   #400
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
Lied?? Are you going to continue to carry water for the politicizing of this tragedy, despite the release of the E Mails??

Pick another fight, this one is a lost cause, that hopefully allows scrutiny of the salient facts; why wasn't security better managed, was there ever an order to 'stand down' (can you point to the source of that comment? it wasn't Hicks) and could help have arrived in time??
Could help have arrived in time? You're missing the point. Maybe deliberately.

Help should've been there ahead of time. It wasn't, and it looks like political optics were most likely the reason. Could help have gotten there "in time" after the attack? That's an open, yet mostly irrelevant question.

Because the only real-world effort they made to respond at all was one to gin up a scapegoat to claim they couldn't have seen this whole thing coming (on 9/11). The President and his administration didn't make a single effort to send assistance. They didn't have any idea how long the assault would go on. Yet not a single order anywhere for anyone to even attempt to assist. And that fell exactly in line with what appeared to have been their existing motivation all along... reelection campaigns ahead of lives.

To wonder whether help could have gotten there in time, when it's crystal clear that help was never going to be sent in the first place is interesting to say the least.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:28 PM.


Denver Broncos