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 05-08-2014, 08:29 AM   #776
ant1999e
Ring of Famer
 
ant1999e's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: BFE
Posts: 6,266

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Money Ball
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
May 6, 2014
Ronald Reaganís Benghazi
Posted by Jane Mayer


http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...-benghazi.html
I must have missed the part where he tried to cover it up.
ant1999e is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 09:11 AM   #777
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,474

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Dude.

Your President made up a fake reason for the attack out of whole cloth and lied about it for weeks. Just so his Libya intervention didn't suddenly appear to be the utter failure it actually was. They even had the Youtube video producer arrested for effect.

They single-handedly arranged the story so things like this:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...muhammad-movie

would get printed instead of the truth.

BRAVO! WELL PLAYED! you say.

You're hopelessly slobknobbing the actual point on this one. And welcoming your new future at the same time.
How? I made no comment, just posted a recent take on the current state of politics in DC. I agree with the point she is making.

Quote:
Itís not the security of American government personnel working abroad. Itís the behavior of American congressmen at home.
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 09:14 AM   #778
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,190
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
How come there were no calls from Democrats for Reagan's impeachment after the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983?

Talk about security failures...
The real question is, what were US marines doing in Lebanon anyway?

Answer: They were there to support Israel's June 1982 invasion of southern Lebanon during which at least 10,000 Lebanese were killed -- maybe as many as 20,000.

Israel left Beirut in ruins - and allowed its allied Phalange militia into the Sabra & Shatilla refugee camps where they massacred 1,000 Palestinians, men, women and children.

Israel then proceeded to occupy southern Lebanon for many years.

Is it any wonder Lebanese viewed US troops not as peacekeepers (how they were and are described in the US press) but as occupiers allied with Israel?

No wonder our troops were attacked! They should never have been there. MHG
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 09:23 AM   #779
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,168

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
How? I made no comment, just posted a recent take on the current state of politics in DC. I agree with the point she is making.
Take away everything that happened afterwards, and Watergate was a petty burglary. It's all the stuff that happened afterwards that led to the end of a presidency. Even if much of it was helped along by political expediency (as it absolutely was)

Now I'm not equating the two. Only demonstrating how you want to focus on the splinter to ignore the log.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 09:25 AM   #780
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,064
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Your President made up a fake reason for the attack out of whole cloth and lied about it for weeks...
Which "fake reason", and which "attack", are we talking about? Just want to make sure I'm/we're clear on this.
TonyR is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 09:44 AM   #781
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,034

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Lolz, as if a couple guns were going to stop a freight truck barreling into a barracks while loaded with TNT.

Reagan put those Marines in a terrible situation, no doubt. But everyone knew why they were there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon_hostage_crisis
Really!? I imagine if they were loaded that the soldiers at the gate could've put a few through the front windshield killing the driver before he got to the barracks.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 09:45 AM   #782
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,168

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

http://www.nationaljournal.com/polit...ghazi-20140508

Quote:
A State Department email, belatedly made public last week under court order, proves beyond reasonable doubt that the White House communications team was more interested in covering Obama's butt than sharing accurate information with the public. Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes wrote that one "goal" for U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice's television interviews shortly after the attack was to "underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy." Another stated "goal" was to "reinforce the President and Administration's strength." The protests were not rooted in an Internet video, a fact the White House acknowledged only belatedly, reluctantly, and under fire.

The White House's explanation for withholding the email from Congress was laughable. Press secretary Jay Carney claimed that an email released under court order for Benghazi-related documents was not about Benghazi. You don't need to be a right-wing conspiracy nut to recognize that White House obfuscation gave the scandal its legs. "It is also impoliteóbut necessaryóto point out that Carney and his colleagues' opacity made their Benghazi problem worse," wrote Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 09:53 AM   #783
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,064
Default

Beavis, as I've stated in previous posts I haven't followed this story very closely and don't remotely know all the details. But I'm of the understanding that the "demonstration" story line came from the CIA, not the White House. See posts 719, 721, and 722 in which I posted articles that address this.
TonyR is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 09:54 AM   #784
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,168

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
Really!? I imagine if they were loaded that the soldiers at the gate could've put a few through the front windshield killing the driver before he got to the barracks.
The perimeter they had at the airport was pretty well indefensible. Which was the real shortfalling. At the point any gunners could've taken out the driver (if even possible), it already likely would've been too late at the speed the truck was driving.

Regardless, the fact remains that we could and should have done far more to allow those Marines to defend themselves. But again this isn't about the layers of effups that led to Benghazi (though there are many)

It's about the length our government went to to hide those effups or pin the entire episode on a random fiction.

Last edited by BroncoBeavis; 05-08-2014 at 10:22 AM..
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 10:16 AM   #785
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,168

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
Beavis, as I've stated in previous posts I haven't followed this story very closely and don't remotely know all the details. But I'm of the understanding that the "demonstration" story line came from the CIA, not the White House. See posts 719, 721, and 722 in which I posted articles that address this.
Nobody can prove definitively where any of it came from. That's mostly the product of the White House illegally withholding documents.

The CIA story is what the White House likes people to believe. But now we at least have proof that they were at the very least actively cheerleading for one (fake) conclusion over another (the truth).

Now you can go ahead and believe that senior CIA officials were blindly making edits to administration talking points destined for headline stories across the country with zero input from White House officials. Even while White House officials were busy writing emails saying "Blame it on this, not that!"

But once you allow for that level of obfusciation and compartmentalization in a Presidential administration, you'll never be allowed to believe that Presidents or close advisors could be involved in any real wrongdoing ever again. We're talking reasonable doubt here. Not whatever Gaffesque fantasy-explanation we can conjure up in our minds.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 10:25 AM   #786
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,034

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
The perimeter they had at the airport was pretty well indefensible. Which was the real shortfalling. At the point any gunners could've taken out the driver (if even possible), it already likely would've been too late at the speed the truck was driving.

Regardless, the fact that we could and should have done far more to allow those Marines to defend themselves, again this isn't about the layers of effups that led to Benghazi (though there are many)

It's about the length our government went to to hide those effups or pin the entire episode on a random fiction.
Actually they could've. One marine was able to load up and get off a shot but it was too late had he been allowed to have been loaded from the get go he likely would've got the driver. IMO.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 10:35 AM   #787
broncocalijohn
Famer of Rings
 
broncocalijohn's Avatar
 
I said Do It!

Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Lake Forest, Orange County, Calif.
Posts: 22,358

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Simon Fletcher
Default

I think the moral of any of these stories like Bengahzi or Lebanon is own up to your **** up.
broncocalijohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 10:38 AM   #788
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,168

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
Actually they could've. One marine was able to load up and get off a shot but it was too late had he been allowed to have been loaded from the get go he likely would've got the driver. IMO.
I'm not saying they couldn't have shot him. Just saying that at the point they could have, it likely wouldn't have made much difference. Once the driver crashed the (inadequate) fence, his line toward the barracks was pretty straight. And we're not talking about some Isuzu pickup with a couple boxes of dynamite in the back. It was a 20-ton truck carrying 20,000lbs of TNT. And even if it hadn't hit it's mark as well, it was large enough to cause massive casualties regardless.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 11:44 AM   #789
El Minion
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,757
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ant1999e View Post
I must have missed the part where he tried to cover it up.
El Minion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 12:00 PM   #790
The Lone Bolt
Ring of Famer
 
The Lone Bolt's Avatar
 
GO CHARGERS!!!!

Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The Boredom Capital of the Universe (Everett, WA)
Posts: 3,235
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Nobody can prove definitively where any of it came from. That's mostly the product of the White House illegally withholding documents.

The CIA story is what the White House likes people to believe. But now we at least have proof that they were at the very least actively cheerleading for one (fake) conclusion over another (the truth).

Now you can go ahead and believe that senior CIA officials were blindly making edits to administration talking points destined for headline stories across the country with zero input from White House officials. Even while White House officials were busy writing emails saying "Blame it on this, not that!"

But once you allow for that level of obfusciation and compartmentalization in a Presidential administration, you'll never be allowed to believe that Presidents or close advisors could be involved in any real wrongdoing ever again. We're talking reasonable doubt here. Not whatever Gaffesque fantasy-explanation we can conjure up in our minds.
It's ironic that you bring up Gaffney. You Benghazi conspiracy nuts are truly the new 9/11 troofers. You see all kinds of conclusive evidence where none exists.
The Lone Bolt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 12:31 PM   #791
broncocalijohn
Famer of Rings
 
broncocalijohn's Avatar
 
I said Do It!

Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Lake Forest, Orange County, Calif.
Posts: 22,358

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Simon Fletcher
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt View Post
It's ironic that you bring up Gaffney. You Benghazi conspiracy nuts are truly the new 9/11 troofers. You see all kinds of conclusive evidence where none exists.
I think you forgot your liberal talking points of adding birthers too. You know the agenda. Make anyone that goes against the administration to look like conspiracy nut jobs. It almost worked with your statement but big difference is almost everyone in congress doesnt believe in the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Try again and this time put the agenda manifesto on the coffee table.

Last edited by broncocalijohn; 05-08-2014 at 01:09 PM..
broncocalijohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 12:55 PM   #792
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,034

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt View Post
It's ironic that you bring up Gaffney. You Benghazi conspiracy nuts are truly the new 9/11 troofers. You see all kinds of conclusive evidence where none exists.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 01:23 PM   #793
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,474

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Take away everything that happened afterwards, and Watergate was a petty burglary. It's all the stuff that happened afterwards that led to the end of a presidency. Even if much of it was helped along by political expediency (as it absolutely was)

Now I'm not equating the two. Only demonstrating how you want to focus on the splinter to ignore the log.
IMO, the 'log' would be the attack itself: Why the security was insufficient, could lives have been saved after the attack began, where the intelligence failed, how to correct it.

The 'splinter': How the attack was characterized afterwards.

There was no denying that the attack took place (unlike Watergate)and who exactly was involved came to light after some waffling by the WH/State Dept/CIA.

But in the end, four Americans were killed and instead of working together to correct the mistakes, we get more partisan finger pointing at the 'splinter.'
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 01:38 PM   #794
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,168

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt View Post
It's ironic that you bring up Gaffney. You Benghazi conspiracy nuts are truly the new 9/11 troofers. You see all kinds of conclusive evidence where none exists.
So Bush Lied People Died = Trooferism.

Welcome to the implications of your new worldview.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 01:54 PM   #795
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,168

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
IMO, the 'log' would be the attack itself: Why the security was insufficient, could lives have been saved after the attack began, where the intelligence failed, how to correct it.

The 'splinter': How the attack was characterized afterwards.

There was no denying that the attack took place (unlike Watergate)and who exactly was involved came to light after some waffling by the WH/State Dept/CIA.

But in the end, four Americans were killed and instead of working together to correct the mistakes, we get more partisan finger pointing at the 'splinter.'
People understand who's ultimately to blame on that. That is, the terrorists. We didn't invite them to attack. So, yes, negligence is bad. But it's not the same as pulling the trigger yourself. So the focus shifts.

As it relates to a representational democracy, the far more dangerous thing to come out of this is the new 'normal' being election-season press manipulation. And flouting congressional oversight. Things you would undoubtedly be screaming about if this were 2007.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 02:01 PM   #796
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,168

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by broncocalijohn View Post
I think you forgot your liberal talking points of adding birthers too. You know the agenda. Make anyone that goes against the administration to look like conspiracy nut jobs. It almost worked with your statement but big difference is almost everyone in congress doesnt believe in the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Try again and this time put the agenda manifesto on the coffee table.
Fellatio to power. Now the truth is that under their own standard, every bad thing they said about Bush becomes unsubstantiated rumormongering.

Here we have a hand-selected administration representative going on every major media outlet and selling an outright top-to-bottom fiction during an election cycle. We have testimony from those closest to the situation saying "We knew that story wasn't true" and now we have email from the White House saying "Tell them the bull**** story, not the real one" which they also then worked to (illegally) hide from the related congressional investigation.

And these guys will continue to slobknob by saying "Well if it was Bull****, maybe they just believed the bull**** some unnamed lackey told them, so it's totally not their fault. And if they hid or shredded a few documents on the way, it's ok because BirferTroofTeaBagcadabra!
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 04:28 PM   #797
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,064
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
So Bush Lied People Died = Trooferism.
You're not really comparing Iraq and Benghazi, are you?
TonyR is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 04:35 PM   #798
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,827
Default

Liberals only like regime change when they can let France do the bombing. Then it's chic!
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 05:04 PM   #799
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,474

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
People understand who's ultimately to blame on that. That is, the terrorists. We didn't invite them to attack. So, yes, negligence is bad. But it's not the same as pulling the trigger yourself. So the focus shifts.

As it relates to a representational democracy, the far more dangerous thing to come out of this is the new 'normal' being election-season press manipulation. And flouting congressional oversight. Things you would undoubtedly be screaming about if this were 2007.
It has taken seven panels to come to that conclusion, and we're going for an eighth to be sure the WH didn't delay identifying who attacked and why?

Which will prove it was all a pre-election ploy to elect democrats??

Really?? Sounds a lot like partisan bull**** to me.

One thing appears certain, the GOP are using Benghazi as a fund raising opportunity for the mid terms.

Boehner silent on GOP fund-raising citing Benghazi

Quote:
House Speaker John Boehner is sidestepping questions about a GOP political committee that's using an investigation of the Benghazi attack to raise money.

The House is expected to vote Thursday to create a panel to investigate the deadly 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic post in Libya.

Reporters asked Boehner three times Thursday about the appropriateness of a fundraising pitch that talks about the investigation. But each time, Boehner said the probe will focus on finding the truth about the attack for the U.S. and the families of the four Americans who died.

The pitch comes from the campaign arm of House Republicans, the National Republican Congressional Committee. It says the House Benghazi panel won't let anyone get away from the investigation.

Democrats say the committee will be too partisan.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...ting-benghazi/

Yep, hypocritical, partisan politics as usual.
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 10:11 PM   #800
The Lone Bolt
Ring of Famer
 
The Lone Bolt's Avatar
 
GO CHARGERS!!!!

Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The Boredom Capital of the Universe (Everett, WA)
Posts: 3,235
Default

Republicans trying to create a phony scandal to both embarrass the President and raise funds for their next campaign? Say it ain't so!
The Lone Bolt is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:11 AM.


Denver Broncos