This is why I H A T E partisan politics...

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/20#post_3501794
Yep, And I know how the market has moved the last few weeks.
Then you know it took a nose dive days right after Obama was re-elected. I monitor around 60 stocks that are affected mostly by what happens in Washington. Then of course there's always the cyclical tech stocks. Go look at Groupon in the last week. I bought a bunch for my birthday (Nov. 11th), and I think it's had a 25% gain since then.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/20#post_3501783
They had no time once the crap came down. Where Stevens made his mistake is he depended on an administration packed with political hacks to make a decision based on something other than politics.
Where Stevens screwed up was relying on a false sense of security that a US Embassy was oblivious to being attacked in a highly volatile region like Libya. US Embassies have their place in certain parts of the world. Anywhere in the Middle East isn't one of them.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/20#post_3501792
It took all of 15 minutes to get a drone in place.....FIFTEEN MINUTES! And they couldn't do anything more than watch? We use drones for sensitive tactical strikes all the time. We couldn't get one here to do that?
But that isn't even the issue.....
The issue is the administration LIED to the public about WHY and HOW. Does this sound familiar? The sad thing is, those that defended the other "liars" are criticizing and those that criticized the past "Liar" are defending this group of "liars".
Iwas reading details on this story back in September and well into October. Yet I never brought it up. Because every aspect of the handling of the situation is just pathetic and sad....similar to the two reasons given over 10 years ago to the public.
Clemson, you are right...Partisan politics is killing this country...but it isn't at the politician level...it is at the citizen level. This entire thread screams partisan hypocrisy by all involved.
Edit: and the next political pundit that attributes this to watergate needs to be waterboarded. there has not been a level of corruption to equal blatant civil and legal rights violations and a disregard for the Constitution since then. Nixon was a crook of the highest level.
What could they do with an armed drone once they infiltrated the Embassy? Those things don't have movable AR-15's on them. They aren't sophisticated sniper's in the air. The mortar attacks aren't what killed the US members in that Embassy. It was stormed by a mob, and only four Libyan guards were standing out front.
You're "The administration lied to the public" statement is based on what you're getting from the biased and sensationalized news media and outlets. Has an official report even been released about the details of exactly what happened? The stupid media outlets take statements completely out of context, then continue to run with them just to incite their base. Seems it worked with you.
Interesting how you see these one column articles in the news about this American soldier getting killed in Afghanistan, or these individuals dying in Kabul. But Fox News isn't interested in digging into those stories to find out why those individuals were killed. They just brush those off as part of the war. Well guess what, that's what the Benghazi incident was - part of the war.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/40#post_3501797
Where Stevens screwed up was relying on a false sense of security that a US Embassy was oblivious to being attacked in a highly volatile region like Libya. US Embassies have their place in certain parts of the world. Anywhere in the Middle East isn't one of them.
What false sense of security? HE WAS SAYING THEY WERE VULNERABLE.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/40#post_3501796
Then you know it took a nose dive days right after Obama was re-elected. I monitor around 60 stocks that are affected mostly by what happens in Washington. Then of course there's always the cyclical tech stocks. Go look at Groupon in the last week. I bought a bunch for my birthday (Nov. 11th), and I think it's had a 25% gain since then.
Market hasn't moved enough to double jack. The sell of wasn't 0bama haters, it's people getting out of dividend stocks which are going to start selling off if we jump the cliff. I got beat up a bit on ATT then missed my entry point to get back in to Altria, DAMNABBIT!!! I like the dividend stocks.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/40#post_3501798
What could they do with an armed drone once they infiltrated the Embassy? Those things don't have movable AR-15's on them. They aren't sophisticated sniper's in the air. The mortar attacks aren't what killed the US members in that Embassy. It was stormed by a mob, and only four Libyan guards were standing out front.
You're "The administration lied to the public" statement is based on what you're getting from the biased and sensationalized news media and outlets. Has an official report even been released about the details of exactly what happened? The stupid media outlets take statements completely out of context, then continue to run with them just to incite their base. Seems it worked with you.
Interesting how you see these one column articles in the news about this American soldier getting killed in Afghanistan, or these individuals dying in Kabul. But Fox News isn't interested in digging into those stories to find out why those individuals were killed. They just brush those off as part of the war. Well guess what, that's what the Benghazi incident was - part of the war.
We already know and have for a couple months there was never a doubt there was no protest before the attack. What Rice said was a flat out lie. The unaired portion of 0bama's 60 minutes interview that was taped Friday before Rice went out 0bama wouldn't call it terrorism and he didn't blame the video. Yet after the fact during the debate he claimed he called it terrorism the next day, go back and look. This administration has told so many different lies about this they don't even know where they are at.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/40#post_3501801
We already know and have for a couple months there was never a doubt there was no protest before the attack. What Rice said was a flat out lie. The unaired portion of 0bama's 60 minutes interview that was taped Friday before Rice went out 0bama wouldn't call it terrorism and he didn't blame the video. Yet after the fact during the debate he claimed he called it terrorism the next day, go back and look. This administration has told so many different lies about this they don't even know where they are at.
Eleven or so days before the attacks, there were intel reports of violence and protests in that region. That's why Stevens raised the red flag. Somewhere along the line, the CIA got word that the protests were linked to this stupid YouTube video. None of it was ever confirmed. As far as Obama's little one word statement at the White House calling it "terrorism" (or whatever he stated) has already been debunked by the media and Washington. I totally agree there was a breakdown in command as far as the decisions made for this incident. When Stevens reported his concerns, the Pentagon should've either a) Locked down the Embassy and increased security and the number of armed soldiers for that facility, or b) Evacuated and extracted all primary personnel from the facility until all these intel reports were confirmed, and the violence subsided. Neither happened. Once it was over, you had all these opponents starting these conspiracy theories that the Obama Administration was well aware of everything that was going on, and for some bizarre reason, they decided to just ignore everything and leave Stevens and his staff to hang out to dry. Days after the incident, Hillary Clinton came out and stated she took full responsibility for the breakdown in communication, and what happened at the embassy. But that wasn't good enough for the detractors. We were winding down a very close and heated Presidential race, and this was perfect fuel and ammo for the Republicans to use to slam Obama on his foreign policy. So they ran with it, and continued to run with it as much as they possibly could. They used Benghazi as a political pawn. I guarantee you that if this exact same incident were to occur today, it would be in the news for a couple of days then eerily just disappear. Just like all these other tragic incidents that occur in that region at least once every couple of months since we've been over there. Where's the investigations of what happened in those situations?

 

[bionicarm]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/22/world/asia/afghan-suicide-bomber-kills-3-near-us-embassy.html?_r=0
Where's all the media attention about this incident? A suicide bomber made his way into a heavily guarded street just blocks away from the US Embassy in Kabul, and set off a explosive vest killing three security guards and wounding two civilians. ALERT THE MEDIA! Are we beefing up security around our Kabul Embassy now? Should we pull out the Ambassdor and his staff? We have the warning signs, what is the Pentagon doing about this?

 

[darthtang aw]

What could they do with an armed drone once they infiltrated the Embassy?  Those things don't have movable AR-15's on them. They aren't sophisticated sniper's in the air.  The mortar attacks aren't what killed the US members in that Embassy.  It was stormed by a mob, and only four Libyan guards were standing out front.
You're "The administration lied to the public" statement is based on what you're getting from the biased and sensationalized news media and outlets.  Has an official report even been released about the details of exactly what happened?  The stupid media outlets take statements completely out of context, then continue to run with them just to incite their base.  Seems it worked with you.
1. The attack on the annex was a more organized attack that the one on the "embassy". Mortar strikes could easily be removed from the equation by an armed drone. The mortar strikes did the most damage and were what killed our citizens at the annex. Not the insurgents. A second drone was brought in to replace the first drone before the annex attack. Again, why an unarmed drone? One would think air support might com in handy....and it would have against the mortars. There was mortar fire for 11 straight minutes....not exactly a short length of time. I agree the ambassador could not be saved the way events unfolded, but I do question only having to security personnel near him at the compound. Our senators here in the states receive more security.
2. CNN, MSNNBC, FOX, ABC, and NBC all report the same on this incident. Biased media to rally up their base? Seriously? Even the BBC has reported these same things...what base are they rallying? All the stories were not ran as "front page" headlines for months. The were in print papers on page 16, or clips and tidbits is broadcasts. If it was to rally the base for a head hunt, one would think they would have been front page news BEFORE the election, as that is when most of this information came out. Before the election...not after. Nice try though....biased media...seriously? And yes an official report has come out...and it kept changing day to day...and still is as individuals move to cover their own ass. Through all of this...one would think the CTA would have been involved and briefed during this event and series of events, but they weren't even asked to convene....why?

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/40#post_3501813
1. The attack on the annex was a more organized attack that the one on the "embassy". Mortar strikes could easily be removed from the equation by an armed drone. The mortar strikes did the most damage and were what killed our citizens at the annex. Not the insurgents. A second drone was brought in to replace the first drone before the annex attack. Again, why an unarmed drone? One would think air support might com in handy....and it would have against the mortars. There was mortar fire for 11 straight minutes....not exactly a short length of time. I agree the ambassador could not be saved the way events unfolded, but I do question only having to security personnel near him at the compound. Our senators here in the states receive more security.
2. CNN, MSNNBC, FOX, ABC, and NBC all report the same on this incident. Biased media to rally up their base? Seriously? Even the BBC has reported these same things...what base are they rallying? All the stories were not ran as "front page" headlines for months. The were in print papers on page 16, or clips and tidbits is broadcasts. If it was to rally the base for a head hunt, one would think they would have been front page news BEFORE the election, as that is when most of this information came out. Before the election...not after. Nice try though....biased media...seriously? And yes an official report has come out...and it kept changing day to day...and still is as individuals move to cover their own ass. Through all of this...one would think the CTA would have been involved and briefed during this event and series of events, but they weren't even asked to convene....why?
The report has constantly changed because they still haven't received cooperation or conclusive evidence from those on the ground as to exactly what happened once the mob got into the Embassy, and exactly what happened to Stevens. A physician that treated Stevens claimed his died of smoke asphyxiation, others claim he was stabbed and dragged around the facility. They still aren't 100% clear what happened.
Of course all the media outlets were reporting it. That's what they do. You listen to Fox, they put one spin on it, MSNBC another, and CNN yet another. The major networks just reported what they were given. They didn't sit around in their little groups like Hannity, Anderson Cooper, O'Reilly, and those loons on MSNBC spinning the truth to incite their respective bases. This happened on 9/11 and ballooned into a major event with all these news networks right up to election night. Interesting that in all the Presidential debates, you didn't hear either candidate get into a heated debate over the Benghazi tragedy. If it was such a high visible, volatile issue, why didn't Romney pounce all over Obama about it? He brought up the little controversy that Obama "didn't call it an act of terror", and that moderator Crowley retorted "He did call it an act of terror". That's was about it. By the third debate, it was pretty much ignored. Which "base" is continuing to be the most vocal about this incident and why? What's the motivation if it isn't partisan politics?

 

[darthtang aw]

The report has constantly changed because they still haven't received cooperation or conclusive evidence from those on the ground as to exactly what happened once the mob got into the Embassy, and exactly what happened to Stevens.  A physician that treated Stevens claimed his died of smoke asphyxiation, others claim he was stabbed and dragged around the facility.  They still aren't 100% clear what happened.
Of course all the media outlets were reporting it.  That's what they do.  You listen to Fox, they put one spin on it, MSNBC another, and CNN yet another.  The major networks just reported what they were given.  They didn't sit around in their little groups like Hannity, Anderson Cooper, O'Reilly, and those loons on MSNBC spinning the truth to incite their respective bases.  This happened on 9/11 and ballooned into a major event with all these news networks right up to election night.  Interesting that in all the Presidential debates, you didn't hear either candidate get into a heated debate over the Benghazi tragedy.  If it was such a high visible, volatile issue, why didn't Romney pounce all over Obama about it?  He brought up the little controversy that Obama "didn't call it an act of terror", and that moderator Crowley retorted "He did call it an act of terror".  That's was about it.  By the third debate, it was pretty much ignored.  Which "base" is continuing to be the most vocal about this incident and why?  What's the motivation if it isn't partisan politics?
When will you learn all politics are partisan since the dawn of time? There is no such thing as bipartisan. If there was we wouldn't have a political system.
And fine you win. You are not worth debating with anymore as your points change constantly. I got a bird to eat.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/40#post_3501807
Eleven or so days before the attacks, there were intel reports of violence and protests in that region. That's why Stevens raised the red flag. Somewhere along the line, the CIA got word that the protests were linked to this stupid YouTube video. None of it was ever confirmed. As far as Obama's little one word statement at the White House calling it "terrorism" (or whatever he stated) has already been debunked by the media and Washington. I totally agree there was a breakdown in command as far as the decisions made for this incident. When Stevens reported his concerns, the Pentagon should've either a) Locked down the Embassy and increased security and the number of armed soldiers for that facility, or b) Evacuated and extracted all primary personnel from the facility until all these intel reports were confirmed, and the violence subsided. Neither happened. Once it was over, you had all these opponents starting these conspiracy theories that the Obama Administration was well aware of everything that was going on, and for some bizarre reason, they decided to just ignore everything and leave Stevens and his staff to hang out to dry. Days after the incident, Hillary Clinton came out and stated she took full responsibility for the breakdown in communication, and what happened at the embassy. But that wasn't good enough for the detractors. We were winding down a very close and heated Presidential race, and this was perfect fuel and ammo for the Republicans to use to slam Obama on his foreign policy. So they ran with it, and continued to run with it as much as they possibly could. They used Benghazi as a political pawn. I guarantee you that if this exact same incident were to occur today, it would be in the news for a couple of days then eerily just disappear. Just like all these other tragic incidents that occur in that region at least once every couple of months since we've been over there. Where's the investigations of what happened in those situations?
You missed the point. Ms Rice said "We have no indications this was an organized attack". That is BS. During the second debate 0bama said he referred to the attack as a terrorist attack in the rose garden the next day. You are correct that he in fact did not. That's who whole point, these people can't get their damned story straight.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/40#post_3501808
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/22/world/asia/afghan-suicide-bomber-kills-3-near-us-embassy.html?_r=0
Where's all the media attention about this incident? A suicide bomber made his way into a heavily guarded street just blocks away from the US Embassy in Kabul, and set off a explosive vest killing three security guards and wounding two civilians. ALERT THE MEDIA! Are we beefing up security around our Kabul Embassy now? Should we pull out the Ambassdor and his staff? We have the warning signs, what is the Pentagon doing about this?
To report on how bad things are in Afghanistan right now (Remember my son's active duty and his wife is Nat Guard, we hear the inside stories) doesn't fit the preferred media narrative. Look at what's going on with the Sandy victims. You see how that is being downplayed compared to how the Katrina crap was blown up?

 

[darthtang aw]

Which other liars are you referring too?
A few that shall remain nameless on this forum have contested the bush administration lied about their intel.

 

[beth]

I don't know if Bush lied, but in view of the non-WMB that took us into war, its not outrageous to think that that whole thing was one big lie. Bush wanted to go to war with the "Axis of Evil".

 

[darthtang aw]

I don't know if Bush lied, but in view of the non-WMB that took us into war, its not outrageous to think that that whole thing was one big lie.  Bush wanted to go to war with the "Axis of Evil".
The axis of evil included N. Korea.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/40#post_3501832
A few that shall remain nameless on this forum have contested the bush administration lied about their intel.
What I look at is two things in that case. Ted Kennedy made a stronger case for Iraq having WMD's in his anti war speech as most administration officials did promoting the war. Second Hillary Clinton voted in favor of the war. You could maybe make the case Kennedy might not have gotten the straight story from the Clinton administration but do you think if Bill Clinton had any doubt that Iraq had WMD's he would have let Hillary make that vote? He was the one getting the intel less than 2 years before that vote was taken.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/40#post_3501835
I don't know if Bush lied, but in view of the non-WMB that took us into war, its not outrageous to think that that whole thing was one big lie. Bush wanted to go to war with the "Axis of Evil".
There were a lot of reasons to go into Iraq. Not sure the others were worth a ground invasion. Not sure we would have ever known about the level of corruption in the UN oil for food program without invading but was that worth all the American lives? It would have been if we had done something about the UN but seeing as how we still kiss their butt...

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/40#post_3501828
To report on how bad things are in Afghanistan right now (Remember my son's active duty and his wife is Nat Guard, we hear the inside stories) doesn't fit the preferred media narrative. Look at what's going on with the Sandy victims. You see how that is being downplayed compared to how the Katrina crap was blown up?
Both Sandy and Katrina were the responsibilities of their respective states. New Orleans was blown up due to the fact that thousands of people were left stranded for days without food, water, and even stuck in their homes. Look at the conditions of the Dome three days after the hurricane passed. Same thing with the Convention Center downtown. You didn't see that with Sandy. At least the Sandy victims got some type of relief, mainly due to the mistakes that occurred with Katrina.

 

[beth]

Take it from someone who knows a great deal about hurricane prep and evacuation. Neither NJ nor NO/LA were prepared to deal with what they got locally. Not because FEMA failed, but because neither of those states have enough experience, and therefore know-how on what needs to be done for pre-storm prep. No national effort can address this, it has to be statewide and even local. Most states aren't going to do what it takes because odds are they just are not going to be effected that frequently. There are no real lessons learned because the storms are too far and few, and the community at large just doesn't know what to do.
Storm prep is everything, and that is up to individuals, local and state emergency planners---not the president or FEMA.