(09-18-2017 11:49 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 11:42 AM)No Bull Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 11:33 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 10:36 AM)No Bull Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 10:14 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Why? She did nothing illegal.

She has lied to the American public about Benghazi. She has unmasked American citizens in order to spy on them for Lord Zero and Pantsuits.. and she has leaked names and information of the unmasked to the Press.

Prison is where the nasty little toad belongs.

This is so ignorant of basic fact I don't know where to begin.

1. Lying is not illegal, and Republican investigations have all said she did not lie anyway as she was just reporting what had been prepared for her using the current intelligence information that was proven later to be incorrect.
2. She did not unmask the people, the IC does that.
3. She's a bureaucrat, she has nothing to do with spying. The IC does that.
4. You have NO evidence that she leaked anything.

So Susan Rice lying is acceptable to you... Trump's is not...

I said that nowhere. Try to keep up.

And again, she did not lie about Benghazi. Go read the Republican lead investigations findings if you don't believe me. At the time she went on those morning shows, the information from the IC was that the video was still in the mix.

Yes, we later learned for certain that it wasn't. So no, she was not lying but rather relaying the current state of the investigation.

Tom. You are better than this. You know that Rice knew that the video had nothing to do with Benghazi attack. She knew this well before she made the rounds on the morning talk shows. Stop lying.

(09-18-2017 11:47 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 02:39 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 01:58 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Who said Busch didn't "wiretap" Obama?

Why would a Beer producer wiretap Obama?

Uh, cmon dude, The Beer Summit??

My bad! Vague reference to the German/CIA relationship in the Bush/Clinton/Obama years. Sock puppets give socks as gifts. Isn't that something?

(09-18-2017 11:52 AM)No Bull Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 11:49 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 11:42 AM)No Bull Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 11:33 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 10:36 AM)No Bull Wrote:  She has lied to the American public about Benghazi. She has unmasked American citizens in order to spy on them for Lord Zero and Pantsuits.. and she has leaked names and information of the unmasked to the Press.

Prison is where the nasty little toad belongs.

This is so ignorant of basic fact I don't know where to begin.

1. Lying is not illegal, and Republican investigations have all said she did not lie anyway as she was just reporting what had been prepared for her using the current intelligence information that was proven later to be incorrect.
2. She did not unmask the people, the IC does that.
3. She's a bureaucrat, she has nothing to do with spying. The IC does that.
4. You have NO evidence that she leaked anything.

So Susan Rice lying is acceptable to you... Trump's is not...

I said that nowhere. Try to keep up.

And again, she did not lie about Benghazi. Go read the Republican lead investigations findings if you don't believe me. At the time she went on those morning shows, the information from the IC was that the video was still in the mix.

Yes, we later learned for certain that it wasn't. So no, she was not lying but rather relaying the current state of the investigation.

Tom. You are better than this. You know that Rice knew that the video had nothing to do with Benghazi attack. She knew this well before she made the rounds on the morning talk shows. Stop lying.

I don't even know what's in my wife's mind half the time and I live with her. I have no clue what Rice did or did not know. Move along.

P.S.: Have you looked into the Republican lead investigations yet which concluded that Rice did nothing wrong?

(09-18-2017 01:11 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 11:52 AM)No Bull Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 11:49 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 11:42 AM)No Bull Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 11:33 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  This is so ignorant of basic fact I don't know where to begin.

1. Lying is not illegal, and Republican investigations have all said she did not lie anyway as she was just reporting what had been prepared for her using the current intelligence information that was proven later to be incorrect.
2. She did not unmask the people, the IC does that.
3. She's a bureaucrat, she has nothing to do with spying. The IC does that.
4. You have NO evidence that she leaked anything.

So Susan Rice lying is acceptable to you... Trump's is not...

I said that nowhere. Try to keep up.

And again, she did not lie about Benghazi. Go read the Republican lead investigations findings if you don't believe me. At the time she went on those morning shows, the information from the IC was that the video was still in the mix.

Yes, we later learned for certain that it wasn't. So no, she was not lying but rather relaying the current state of the investigation.

Tom. You are better than this. You know that Rice knew that the video had nothing to do with Benghazi attack. She knew this well before she made the rounds on the morning talk shows. Stop lying.

I don't even know what's in my wife's mind half the time and I live with her. I have no clue what Rice did or did not know. Move along.

P.S.: Have you looked into the Republican lead investigations yet which concluded that Rice did nothing wrong?

I have looked at the Republican led investigations... My problem with Susan Rice is that she has gone on National TV both during the Benghazi terrorist attacks and early on in the Unmasking investigations and lied her ass off to the American public. She is perfectly at ease lying to "we the people"...so God knows what ******* harm the POS had done. What you can count on as her supporter is that more will come to light as investigations progress... and Susan Rice will look worse than she does now.

1. There was one Benghazi terror attack.
2. It was well over before she went on TV. (It lasted less than a day)
3. The investigations concluded she DID NOT lie.
4. I'm not a supporter of hers. I'm a supporter of known facts and the truth. If she broke the law she deserves to be jailed.

Lastly, I would not put much stock in finding anything on her...just like they likely won't find much on trump himself. They're to savvy for that. So tempered expectations are advised.

The choice of Rice to be the spokesperson was very carefully calculated. She had a title (UN Ambassador, at the time) which carried some importance, but which would not have entitled her to be among those who actually knew what happened. Therefore she could peddle a bunch of lies on national TV with impunity and deniability. She probably did not know they were lies, but those who fed them to her most certainly did.

Whether she broke the law is hard to say. One interesting ramification: File criminal charges against her, and she just might drag in others as part of her defense. That's probably our best shot at ever getting to the truth.

(09-18-2017 01:11 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 11:52 AM)No Bull Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 11:49 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 11:42 AM)No Bull Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 11:33 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  This is so ignorant of basic fact I don't know where to begin.

1. Lying is not illegal, and Republican investigations have all said she did not lie anyway as she was just reporting what had been prepared for her using the current intelligence information that was proven later to be incorrect.
2. She did not unmask the people, the IC does that.
3. She's a bureaucrat, she has nothing to do with spying. The IC does that.
4. You have NO evidence that she leaked anything.

So Susan Rice lying is acceptable to you... Trump's is not...

I said that nowhere. Try to keep up.

And again, she did not lie about Benghazi. Go read the Republican lead investigations findings if you don't believe me. At the time she went on those morning shows, the information from the IC was that the video was still in the mix.

Yes, we later learned for certain that it wasn't. So no, she was not lying but rather relaying the current state of the investigation.

Tom. You are better than this. You know that Rice knew that the video had nothing to do with Benghazi attack. She knew this well before she made the rounds on the morning talk shows. Stop lying.

I don't even know what's in my wife's mind half the time and I live with her. I have no clue what Rice did or did not know. Move along.

P.S.: Have you looked into the Republican lead investigations yet which concluded that Rice did nothing wrong?

Why do we have to go back and present the facts to the same four or five people every couple of months?

(09-18-2017 02:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The choice of Rice to be the spokesperson was very carefully calculated. She had a title (UN Ambassador, at the time) which carried some importance, but which would not have entitled her to be among those who actually knew what happened. Therefore she could peddle a bunch of lies on national TV with impunity and deniability. She probably did not know they were lies, but those who fed them to her most certainly did.

Whether she broke the law is hard to say. One interesting ramification: File criminal charges against her, and she just might drag in others as part of her defense. That's probably our best shot at ever getting to the truth.

If that's the best, don't bother. She doesn't have to "drag" in anybody. The IC gave her the report and she read it. Again, the GOP already investigated this and came to the conclusion that the IC at the time was still working under the possibility that the video played a role and Rice just relayed this.

She doesn't have to say anything else as that's more than an adequate defense. Besides, stop acting like this was some sworn testimony she gave. She just disseminated the current IC reports to the press, period.

The problem is that you guys still want to pretend that there was some type of scandal here or cover-up...and it's total political nonsense. Obama himself called it an act of terror the very next day. Additionally, the NYT report the very next day after the attack mentioned that sources on the ground were saying the video was involved.

This desire to try and solve this case beyond any reasonable doubt in one week is what's making these attempts to paint people as deceitful liars look politically motivated, and otherwise ridiculous.

(09-18-2017 03:07 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 01:11 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 11:52 AM)No Bull Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 11:49 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 11:42 AM)No Bull Wrote:  So Susan Rice lying is acceptable to you... Trump's is not...

I said that nowhere. Try to keep up.

And again, she did not lie about Benghazi. Go read the Republican lead investigations findings if you don't believe me. At the time she went on those morning shows, the information from the IC was that the video was still in the mix.

Yes, we later learned for certain that it wasn't. So no, she was not lying but rather relaying the current state of the investigation.

Tom. You are better than this. You know that Rice knew that the video had nothing to do with Benghazi attack. She knew this well before she made the rounds on the morning talk shows. Stop lying.

I don't even know what's in my wife's mind half the time and I live with her. I have no clue what Rice did or did not know. Move along.

P.S.: Have you looked into the Republican lead investigations yet which concluded that Rice did nothing wrong?

Why do we have to go back and present the facts to the same four or five people every couple of months?

Because they need to keep the narrative alive that Hillary is this awful person who just let her friend die when she could have stopped it, coupled with the fact that they also need to try and implicate the Obama administration in some type of scandal because all of their other attempts failed miserably.

Basically, it's all they got. Not to mention it helps them detract their focus on the trump train wreck of an administration.

(09-18-2017 03:15 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Because they need to keep the narrative alive that Hillary is this awful person who just let her friend die when she could have stopped it, coupled with the fact that they also need to try and implicate the Obama administration in some type of scandal because all of their other attempts failed miserably.
Basically, it's all they got. Not to mention it helps them detract their focus on the trump train wreck of an administration.

It's not a narrative that Hillary is an awful person. She is. That doesn't necessarily make her worse than Trump. The 2016 election was between two people with what will almost certainly go down as the worst combined negatives of any two leading candidates. And there is ample reason for all the negatives.

(09-18-2017 03:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 03:15 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Because they need to keep the narrative alive that Hillary is this awful person who just let her friend die when she could have stopped it, coupled with the fact that they also need to try and implicate the Obama administration in some type of scandal because all of their other attempts failed miserably.
Basically, it's all they got. Not to mention it helps them detract their focus on the trump train wreck of an administration.

It's not a narrative that Hillary is an awful person. She is. That doesn't necessarily make her worse than Trump. The 2016 election was between two people with what will almost certainly go down as the worst combined negatives of any two leading candidates. And there is ample reason for all the negatives.

That still doesn't mean she did anything wrong when it comes to Benghazi.

(09-18-2017 03:45 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 03:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 03:15 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Because they need to keep the narrative alive that Hillary is this awful person who just let her friend die when she could have stopped it, coupled with the fact that they also need to try and implicate the Obama administration in some type of scandal because all of their other attempts failed miserably.
Basically, it's all they got. Not to mention it helps them detract their focus on the trump train wreck of an administration.

It's not a narrative that Hillary is an awful person. She is. That doesn't necessarily make her worse than Trump. The 2016 election was between two people with what will almost certainly go down as the worst combined negatives of any two leading candidates. And there is ample reason for all the negatives.

That still doesn't mean she did anything wrong when it comes to Benghazi.

I don't know that Hillary did anything wrong with respect to Benghazi. But somebody clearly did, badly wrong. You don't get that result without a major screw-up somewhere. And as I've said many times, I think republicans were in such a rush to try to pin something on her that they failed to ask the right questions. Somebody needs to hang for Benghazi. If it's not Hillary, then whoever is responsible. Republicans erred by not giving a damn who was responsible unless it was Hillary.

(09-18-2017 03:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 03:45 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 03:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 03:15 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Because they need to keep the narrative alive that Hillary is this awful person who just let her friend die when she could have stopped it, coupled with the fact that they also need to try and implicate the Obama administration in some type of scandal because all of their other attempts failed miserably.
Basically, it's all they got. Not to mention it helps them detract their focus on the trump train wreck of an administration.

It's not a narrative that Hillary is an awful person. She is. That doesn't necessarily make her worse than Trump. The 2016 election was between two people with what will almost certainly go down as the worst combined negatives of any two leading candidates. And there is ample reason for all the negatives.

That still doesn't mean she did anything wrong when it comes to Benghazi.

I don't know that Hillary did anything wrong with respect to Benghazi. But somebody clearly did, badly wrong. You don't get that result without a major screw-up somewhere. And as I've said many times, I think republicans were in such a rush to try to pin something on her that they failed to ask the right questions. Somebody needs to hang for Benghazi. If it's not Hillary, then whoever is responsible. Republicans erred by not giving a damn who was responsible unless it was Hillary.

Sorry. I mistook you for one of those loonies who thinks Hillary gave some sort of stand down order and watched them sodomize Stevens on tv for fun.

(09-18-2017 04:09 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Sorry. I mistook you for one of those loonies who thinks Hillary gave some sort of stand down order and watched them sodomize Stevens on tv for fun.

I've never been on the ground for one of these operations, but I planned a couple of contingency ops when I was in the navy. I've said several times, if I had been on-scene commander, there would have been a stand-down order, and I know that for a fact because I would have given it. This was a no-win situation.

Instead of focusing on whether there was or was not some stand-down order, what should have been the focus is how the situation was allowed to exist in the first place. Quite frankly, I would place some of the blame on the military, specifically the navy, because their shipbuilding program over the last 40 years has pretty much eliminated the assets that would have been needed to prevent this. Second, anybody who was aware of this mind-numbingly stupid adventure and allowed it to go forward needs to be punished severely. Third, fourth, and firth, and. so on, there are a lot of other factors. Hillary may well be one of them. Or not. But without asking the right questions, we will never know. And the right questions were never asked.

As far as Rice's involvement, I don't think there is an question that by the time she went on TV we had enough intel to be certain that it had nothing to do with a video. But the truth could have hurt Obama's chances in he approaching election. So the political decision was made to peddle a lie and hope it stuck. And Rice was selected because her title sounded impressive but she had no actual knowledge, so she could be fed the lies to parrot onstage.

(09-18-2017 11:47 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 02:39 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 01:58 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Who said Busch didn't "wiretap" Obama?

Why would a Beer producer wiretap Obama?

Uh, cmon dude, The Beer Summit??

There was a whole lot of dumb **** done in those eight years, but that has to be right up there at the top.

God, what a freaking clown Obama was.

(09-18-2017 04:09 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Sorry. I mistook you for one of those loonies who thinks Hillary gave some sort of stand down order and watched them sodomize Stevens on tv for fun.

who's the lunatic? you got a mirror around buddy?

(09-18-2017 03:07 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 01:11 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 11:52 AM)No Bull Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 11:49 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 11:42 AM)No Bull Wrote:  So Susan Rice lying is acceptable to you... Trump's is not...

I said that nowhere. Try to keep up.

And again, she did not lie about Benghazi. Go read the Republican lead investigations findings if you don't believe me. At the time she went on those morning shows, the information from the IC was that the video was still in the mix.

Yes, we later learned for certain that it wasn't. So no, she was not lying but rather relaying the current state of the investigation.

Tom. You are better than this. You know that Rice knew that the video had nothing to do with Benghazi attack. She knew this well before she made the rounds on the morning talk shows. Stop lying.

I don't even know what's in my wife's mind half the time and I live with her. I have no clue what Rice did or did not know. Move along.

P.S.: Have you looked into the Republican lead investigations yet which concluded that Rice did nothing wrong?

Why do we have to go back and present the facts to the same four or five people every couple of months?

Facts? or the ******* talking points your minders give you?

(09-14-2017 10:45 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Linky


Five months after House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes tried to create a fake scandal over Susan Rice unmasking senior Trump officials, the former national security adviser for President Barack Obama has been vindicated.

Rice privately told House investigators that she unmasked the identities of senior Trump officials to learn more about why they met with the crown prince of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) after the 2016 election, according to CNN. Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan had visited New York City in December to meet with Michael Flynn, who Trump would appoint as national security adviser, as well as future chief strategist Steve Bannon and son-in-law Jared Kushner.


WTF?

O couldn't keep ISIS informed of our movements if he didn't know what they were going to be.

(09-18-2017 06:47 PM)No Bull Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 03:07 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 01:11 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 11:52 AM)No Bull Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 11:49 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I said that nowhere. Try to keep up.

And again, she did not lie about Benghazi. Go read the Republican lead investigations findings if you don't believe me. At the time she went on those morning shows, the information from the IC was that the video was still in the mix.

Yes, we later learned for certain that it wasn't. So no, she was not lying but rather relaying the current state of the investigation.

Tom. You are better than this. You know that Rice knew that the video had nothing to do with Benghazi attack. She knew this well before she made the rounds on the morning talk shows. Stop lying.

I don't even know what's in my wife's mind half the time and I live with her. I have no clue what Rice did or did not know. Move along.

P.S.: Have you looked into the Republican lead investigations yet which concluded that Rice did nothing wrong?

Why do we have to go back and present the facts to the same four or five people every couple of months?

Facts? or the ******* talking points your minders give you?

Facts.

The things you keep on ignoring, and nothing on anyone's list of talking points.

Facts like the Republican investigations that cleared Rice and the actual process of unmasking. Both of which you continue to ignore while putting forth uninformed nonsense.

(09-18-2017 04:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 04:09 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Sorry. I mistook you for one of those loonies who thinks Hillary gave some sort of stand down order and watched them sodomize Stevens on tv for fun.

I've never been on the ground for one of these operations, but I planned a couple of contingency ops when I was in the navy. I've said several times, if I had been on-scene commander, there would have been a stand-down order, and I know that for a fact because I would have given it. This was a no-win situation.

Instead of focusing on whether there was or was not some stand-down order, what should have been the focus is how the situation was allowed to exist in the first place. Quite frankly, I would place some of the blame on the military, specifically the navy, because their shipbuilding program over the last 40 years has pretty much eliminated the assets that would have been needed to prevent this. Second, anybody who was aware of this mind-numbingly stupid adventure and allowed it to go forward needs to be punished severely. Third, fourth, and firth, and. so on, there are a lot of other factors. Hillary may well be one of them. Or not. But without asking the right questions, we will never know. And the right questions were never asked.

As far as Rice's involvement, I don't think there is an question that by the time she went on TV we had enough intel to be certain that it had nothing to do with a video. But the truth could have hurt Obama's chances in he approaching election. So the political decision was made to peddle a lie and hope it stuck. And Rice was selected because her title sounded impressive but she had no actual knowledge, so she could be fed the lies to parrot onstage.

Why do you have to be the voice of reason? How am I supposed to troll you when you make so much sense?


All joking aside, I think you nailed it. Everything was wrong with this picture from the start. Bad facilities, bad security. etc. etc.

Blaming Hillary was simply a witch hunt.