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 01-24-2014, 10:53 AM   #501
Rigs11
Ring of Famer
 
Rigs11's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,637
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Do you believe the embassy attack was the product of a spontaneous youtube video protest?
Not sure. and I'm pretty sure you aren't either. where there mistakes? most likely? was there lax security? most likely. do we need to spend months and months on this? no. now I have a question for you. Would you spend this much time and be so passionate about this if this had happened if Obama wasn't prez?
Rigs11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2014, 11:19 AM   #502
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,254

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigs11 View Post
Not sure. and I'm pretty sure you aren't either. where there mistakes? most likely? was there lax security? most likely. do we need to spend months and months on this? no. now I have a question for you. Would you spend this much time and be so passionate about this if this had happened if Obama wasn't prez?
Lolz. "Not Sure. But Case Still Closed."

Again, even the Senate report admits the attack was obviously not spontaneous (on 9/11). Unfortunately it doesn't even ask the question of why we were lied to for so long. Or who authorized it.

Do you know who did?
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2014, 11:23 AM   #503
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigs11 View Post
Not sure. and I'm pretty sure you aren't either. where there mistakes? most likely? was there lax security? most likely. do we need to spend months and months on this? no. now I have a question for you. Would you spend this much time and be so passionate about this if this had happened if Obama wasn't prez?
He'll never answer and he'll never have to. He conveniently created his account after Obama became president, so he'll never have to defend anything that he said regarding any non-Obama presidents, or any fishy goings-on before Obama was president.

Now he'll just deflect, make some offhand comment about how it's always about Bush and never about Obama, even though his post history shows you the opposite. For him, it's always about Obama and never about anyone else. We can all pretty much guarantee that prior to Obama, Beavis didn't see what the big deal about the Patriot Act was. Covering up and fabricating evidence to create a war that we couldn't pay for? No problem! If Benghazi had happened under a McCain presidency (and yes, it would have happened, because Obama/Clinton had nothing to do with it...neither would McCain have), it would have been "well McCain's the foreign policy guru, they were just following his orders, and rightly so!"

Even now, his response about the Christie investigation was "big deal it's New Jersey, what did you expect?" With a democrat it would have been "OMG I BET THIS GUY WAS INVOLVED IN BENGHAZI TOO!"

But to answer your question: No.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2014, 11:32 AM   #504
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,254

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
Covering up and fabricating evidence to create a war that we couldn't pay for?
Lolz. Thanks for magnifying your own comical double standard.

Name the "fabrication" that had Bush's handwriting on it. Every "mistakes were made" "the intelligence apparatus needs to do a better job" argument made back then you're making now.

Everything with Bush was a criminal conspiracy. Everything with Obama is a "Whoopsie! Gee, whoever screwed that up (not naming names) will do better next time. Whoever that was."
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2014, 11:37 AM   #505
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,637
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
You don't care because you're a cheerleader. 4 Americans in foreign service can die for political purposes"

"Meh."

A Traffic Jam because of some state corruption in New Jersey?

"OMFG. Send in the Feds. We need to get to the bottom of this!"
One big difference between these "incidents" is that the Obama administration DID NOT directly and intentionally cause Bengahzi to happen, whereas the Christie corruption was directly and intentionally caused by Christie and his administration. Is Bengahzi the "worse" incident? Yes, of course, by far. Were there mistakes? Yes. Was/is there a "cover-up". Probably. But again, Bengahzi is a case of trying to save face vs. direct and intentional corruption. In other words, not really a good comparison.
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2014, 11:39 AM   #506
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
One big difference between these "incidents" is that the Obama administration DID NOT directly and intentionally cause Bengahzi to happen, whereas the Christie corruption was directly and intentionally caused by Christie and his administration. Is Bengahzi the "worse" incident? Yes, of course, by far. Were there mistakes? Yes. Was/is there a "cover-up". Probably. But again, Bengahzi is a case of trying to save face vs. direct and intentional corruption. In other words, not really a good comparison.
Right. If Obama had ordered the attack on the consulate in order to get back at the ambassador for not endorsing him (or to get back at him for not voting for a political crony's confirmation), then we'd have an accurate comparison.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2014, 11:45 AM   #507
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Lolz. Thanks for magnifying your own comical double standard.

Name the "fabrication" that had Bush's handwriting on it. Every "mistakes were made" "the intelligence apparatus needs to do a better job" argument made back then you're making now.

Everything with Bush was a criminal conspiracy. Everything with Obama is a "Whoopsie! Gee, whoever screwed that up (not naming names) will do better next time. Whoever that was."
Well, someone chose to put those 16 words in Bush's state of the union address, despite being briefed by several US agencies who said the intel was unreliable or outright false. And someone chose to keep it in the speech even after being told the intel was unreliable or outright false. You telling me Bush didn't read his own speeches before giving them? Actually on second thought...don't answer that. You telling me that Bush wouldn't have kept that statement in if he had known it to be false, even though he had been told it was false?

Besides, I've already got my answer regarding Benghazi...I learn from the worst...I mean best. "Meh. I'd imagine in all but a handful of countries, if you had politicos telling someone how to run their embassy, they'd be promptly told to stick their thumb up their ass. A culture where this is allowed to happen is one where it's been going on for years."
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2014, 11:56 AM   #508
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,254

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
One big difference between these "incidents" is that the Obama administration DID NOT directly and intentionally cause Bengahzi to happen, whereas the Christie corruption was directly and intentionally caused by Christie and his administration. Is Bengahzi the "worse" incident? Yes, of course, by far. Were there mistakes? Yes. Was/is there a "cover-up". Probably. But again, Bengahzi is a case of trying to save face vs. direct and intentional corruption. In other words, not really a good comparison.
It's not a direct comparison. But in your summary, you leave no room for negligence. Hanging your people out to dry because helping them might cost you a few votes is more than just a "Oh, that's too bad. I guess **** happens."

If a company knew of a specific danger to an employee, and was repeatedly asked to provide relief before something bad happened, you'd call it criminal negligence. If they repeatedly lied to investigators and covered the warnings up hoping nobody would figure it out... you'd call that obstruction of justice.

As for Christie, the comparison is about focus fixation. Christie isn't your governor. Or mine. I think it needs to be investigated. I think people need to go to jail. Even Christie if it can be established that he knew about it. But let's not pretend like this kind of political corruption doesn't happen all the time. 4 of Illinois' last 7 governors have done time. Nobody can pretend like this kind of stuff hasn't happened before.

But who's going to jail over Benghazi? At the very least, who's responsible for the denial of security? Or the fairy tales? Who's been at least fired? Just so we know.

So if you really take another look at the whole thing... ask yourself, who's really being consistent, and who isn't?
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2014, 12:37 PM   #509
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
It's not a direct comparison. But in your summary, you leave no room for negligence. Hanging your people out to dry because helping them might cost you a few votes is more than just a "Oh, that's too bad. I guess **** happens."

If a company knew of a specific danger to an employee, and was repeatedly asked to provide relief before something bad happened, you'd call it criminal negligence. If they repeatedly lied to investigators and covered the warnings up hoping nobody would figure it out... you'd call that obstruction of justice.

As for Christie, the comparison is about focus fixation. Christie isn't your governor. Or mine. I think it needs to be investigated. I think people need to go to jail. Even Christie if it can be established that he knew about it. But let's not pretend like this kind of political corruption doesn't happen all the time. 4 of Illinois' last 7 governors have done time. Nobody can pretend like this kind of stuff hasn't happened before.

But who's going to jail over Benghazi? At the very least, who's responsible for the denial of security? Or the fairy tales? Who's been at least fired? Just so we know.

So if you really take another look at the whole thing... ask yourself, who's really being consistent, and who isn't?
He's a national political figure and until two weeks ago was the only one in the Republican Party who stood a chance against Big Bad Hillary Clinton. Diminishing him as "just another governor" is (par for the course) pretty intellectually dishonest. If you don't understand why there's so much focus on it, that's on you, not us.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2014, 02:18 PM   #510
Rigs11
Ring of Famer
 
Rigs11's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,637
Default

hey beavis


Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: 'You Have To Prioritize Things'


Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged on Wednesday that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010.

On Wednesday morning, CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien asked the Utah Republican if he had "voted to cut the funding for embassy security."

"Absolutely," Chaffetz said. "Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have…15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a private army there, for President Obama, in Baghdad. And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces. When you’re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_1954912.html
Rigs11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2014, 10:17 PM   #511
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,254

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
He's a national political figure and until two weeks ago was the only one in the Republican Party who stood a chance against Big Bad Hillary Clinton. Diminishing him as "just another governor" is (par for the course) pretty intellectually dishonest. If you don't understand why there's so much focus on it, that's on you, not us.
Pretty dumb point considering Hillary "What Difference Does it Make" Clinton is #1 on your national political radar.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/...an-181714.html
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2014, 10:35 PM   #512
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,254

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigs11 View Post
hey beavis


Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: 'You Have To Prioritize Things'


Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged on Wednesday that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010.

On Wednesday morning, CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien asked the Utah Republican if he had "voted to cut the funding for embassy security."

"Absolutely," Chaffetz said. "Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have…15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a private army there, for President Obama, in Baghdad. And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces. When you’re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_1954912.html
Sorry man. That particular hail mary has been debunked in every way imaginable.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fa...31f9_blog.html

Every time anything goes wrong Democrats always yell "Shouldda spent mo money!" even while we're spending more on it than ever.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2014, 10:37 PM   #513
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,271

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Pretty dumb point considering Hillary "What Difference Does it Make" Clinton is #1 on your national political radar.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/...an-181714.html
Which proves my point that Benghazi was not the scandal rethugs dreamed it would be.
funny that beavis brings up the one comment "what difference does it make" that made rethugs loom small and petty in that hearing.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2014, 11:48 PM   #514
UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
Don't piss off Manning.
 
UltimateHoboW/Shotgun's Avatar
 
Time to believe!

Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Gensis Planet
Posts: 6,828

Adopt-a-Bronco:
CJ Anderson
Default

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2014, 11:50 PM   #515
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
Which proves my point that Benghazi was not the scandal rethugs dreamed it would be.
funny that beavis brings up the one comment "what difference does it make" that made rethugs loom small and petty in that hearing.
Notice none have answered that question. It's a pretty good one, given the circumstances, actually.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2014, 06:50 AM   #516
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,254

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
Which proves my point that Benghazi was not the scandal rethugs dreamed it would be.
funny that beavis brings up the one comment "what difference does it make" that made rethugs loom small and petty in that hearing.
Bush got handily reelected a year and a half after your beloved "mission accomplished" speech. I guess you guys shouldda just gave up and quit talking about it.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2014, 07:25 AM   #517
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,271

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Bush got handily reelected a year and a half after your beloved "mission accomplished" speech. I guess you guys shouldda just gave up and quit talking about it.
you think 286 electoral votes/50.7% of the vote is winning handily?!

Either way you got nothing on Benghazi or anything else for that matter.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2014, 08:03 AM   #518
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,254

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
you think 286 electoral votes/50.7% of the vote is winning handily?!

Either way you got nothing on Benghazi or anything else for that matter.
I didn't really intend to have another debate about the political aftermath of Libya. The reason I posted what I did was because we had a whistleblowing State Dept official saying exactly the opposite of what was argued here... that the Senate report on Benghazi can be relied upon as complete and authoritative. That's not to say it is or isnt mostly true. But it certainly isn't "The Whole Truth"

There are still too many unanswered questions for that to be the case.

And I suppose you'll tell me that the difference between 50.7% and 51.1% really means something.

Last edited by BroncoBeavis; 01-25-2014 at 08:06 AM..
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2014, 01:08 PM   #519
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,271

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default Rethugs report debunks own myth on Benghazi.

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/...military-hasc/
Quote:
In a new report released on Tuesday, the House Armed Services Committee concludes that there was no way for the U.S. military to have responded in time to the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya to save the four Americans killed that night. In doing so, the report debunks entirely a right-wing myth that says the White House ordered the military not to intervene.
For months after the attack that resulted in the death of U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens, conservative media was awash in reports that on the night of the assault the Obama administration at some point ordered the military not to take action that would have saved lives. This supposed “stand down order” led to a bevy of right-wing conspiracies about why the President and his administration had let the Americans die.
“Who told the SEALs to stand down?” Rep. Steve King asked in Nov. 2012, in just one of many interviews with Republicans referring to the response to Benghazi as “worse than Watergate.”
As Media Matters reports, Fox News cited reports of a stand-down order no fewer than 85 times during prime-time segments as of June 2013. As the new report — which the Republican majority of the committee authored –makes very clear in its findings, however, no such order ever existed. “There was no ‘stand down’ order issued to U.S. military personnel in Tripoli who sought to join the fight in Benghazi,” the report says, noting that the military was not positioned to respond to the attack.
“Given the military’s preparations on September 11, 2012, majority members have not yet discerned any response alternatives that could have likely changed the outcome of the Benghazi attack,” the report concludes.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2014, 04:53 PM   #520
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 37,088
Default

The ball on Benghazzi was dropped when they requested more security and were turned down. Once the attack began i doubt there was much they could do. You have to have assets in place before the attack.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2014, 05:04 PM   #521
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,271

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
The ball on Benghazzi was dropped when they requested more security and were turned down. Once the attack began i doubt there was much they could do. You have to have assets in place before the attack.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/1...-military.html

Quote:
“In light of the uncertain security environment, US Mission Benghazi will submit specific requests to US Embassy Tripoli for additional physical security upgrades and staffing needs by separate cover,” said the cable, which was first reported by Fox News.

Army Gen. Carter Ham, then the head of the U.S. Africa Command, did not wait for the separate cable, however. Instead, after reading the Aug. 16 cable, Ham phoned Stevens and asked if the embassy needed a special security team from the U.S. military. Stevens told Ham it did not, the officials said.

Weeks later, Stevens traveled to Germany for an already scheduled meeting with Ham at AFRICOM headquarters. During that meeting, Ham again offered additional military assets, and Stevens again said no, the two officials said.

More security was offered. The ball was dropped by those at the embassy themselves when they refused to have more security.

Last edited by peacepipe; 02-11-2014 at 05:06 PM..
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2014, 05:12 PM   #522
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/1...-military.html




More security was offered. The ball was dropped by those at the embassy themselves when they refused to have more security.
But they were FORCED not to ask for more!

(lol?)
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2014, 05:03 PM   #523
ant1999e
Ring of Famer
 
ant1999e's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: BFE
Posts: 6,333

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Money Ball
Default

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...ice-for-video/
Newly released emails on the Benghazi terror attack suggest a senior White House aide played a central role in preparing former U.N. ambassador Susan Rice for her controversial Sunday show appearances -- where she wrongly blamed protests over an Internet video.

More than 100 pages of documents were released to the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. Among them was a Sept. 14, 2012, email from Ben Rhodes, an assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for strategic communications.The Rhodes email, with the subject line: "RE: PREP Call with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET," was sent to a dozen members of the administration's inner circle, including key members of the White House communications team such as Press Secretary Jay Carney.

In the email, Rhodes specifically draws attention to the anti-Islam Internet video, without distinguishing whether the Benghazi attack was different from protests elsewhere.

The email lists the following two goals, among others:

"To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."

"To reinforce the President and Administration's strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges."

The email goes on to state that the U.S. government rejected the message of the Internet video. "We find it disgusting and reprehensible. But there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence," the email stated.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said the documents read like a PR strategy, not an effort to provide the best available intelligence to the American people.

"The goal of the White House was to do one thing primarily, which was to make the president look good. Blame it on the video and not [the] president's policies," he said.

The Rhodes email was not part of the 100 pages of emails released by the administration last May -- after Republicans refused to move forward with the confirmation of John Brennan as CIA director until the so-called "talking points" emails were made public.

The email is also significant because in congressional testimony in early April, former deputy CIA director Michael Morell told lawmakers it was Rice, in her Sunday show appearances, who linked the video to the Benghazi attack. Morell said the video was not part of the CIA analysis.

"My reaction was two-fold," Morell told members of the House Intelligence Committee, regarding her appearances. "One was that what she said about the attacks evolving spontaneously from a protest was exactly what the talking points said, and it was exactly what the intelligence community analysts believed. When she talked about the video, my reaction was, that's not something that the analysts have attributed this attack to."

Incidentally, three leading Republicans on Monday night sent letters to the House and Senate foreign affairs committees asking them to compel the administration to explain who briefed Rice in advance of the Sunday talk shows and whether State Department or White House personnel were involved.

"How could former Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, during the five Sunday talk shows on September 16, 2012, claim that the attacks on our compounds were caused by a hateful video when Mr. Morell testified that the CIA never mentioned the video as a causal factor," said the letter, from Sens. Lindsey Graham, of South Carolina; Kelly Ayotte, of New Hampshire; and John McCain, of Arizona.

The Sept. 14 Rhodes email does not indicate whether there was a "prep call" for Rice, as it suggests. If the call went ahead, it does not indicate who briefed her.

National Security Council spokesperson Bernadette Meehan played down the Rhodes email, telling Fox News in a statement: "There were protests taking place across the region in reaction to an offensive internet video, so that’s what these points addressed. There were known protests in Cairo, Sanaa, Khartoum, and Tunis as well as early reports of similar protests in Benghazi, which contributed to questions of how the attack began…. These documents only serve to reinforce what we have long been saying: that in the days after September 11, 2012, we were concerned by unrest occurring across the region and that we provided our best assessment of what was happening at the time.”

The statement did not address Fox News’ specific questions asking whether White House personnel, particularly Rhodes, briefed Rice before the Sunday shows, and what intelligence Rhodes relied on when he referred to the video.

The newly released emails also show that on Sept. 27, 2012 a Fox News report -- titled "US officials knew Libya attack was terrorism within 24 hours, sources confirm" -- was circulated at the most senior levels of the administration. This included going to then-deputy national security adviser Denis McDonough; then-White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan; Morell; and Rhodes, among others, but the comments were redacted, citing "personal privacy information."
ant1999e is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2014, 05:12 PM   #524
ant1999e
Ring of Famer
 
ant1999e's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: BFE
Posts: 6,333

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Money Ball
Default

Benghazi emails show White House image control - Judicial Watch
Wed Apr 30, 2014 12:48am http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article...40429?irpc=932

Benghazi emails show White House image control - Judicial Watch
Wed Apr 30, 2014 12:48am BST
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...o-white-house/
ant1999e is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2014, 05:24 PM   #525
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,271

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Whatever,is this the latest in the fake Benghazi scandal?
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:15 AM.


Denver Broncos