[TheRealThing]

^ Here ya go RV.

THE NEW YORK TIMES - "The ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens, was missing almost immediately after the start of an intense, four-hour firefight for control of the mission, and his body was not located until Wednesday morning at dawn, when he was found dead at a Benghazi hospital, American and Libyan officials said. It was the first time since 1979 that an American ambassador had died in a violent assault."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/world/...d=all&_r=0



AP - "Stevens was the first U.S. ambassador killed in the line of duty in 30 years."

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/american-...-over-film

[TheRealVille]

Looks like news sources, and congress were up to no good, the whole time, in reporting this.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/05/15/...azi-leaks/

Email:
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/05/p...index.html

[TheRealVille]

If you are looking for someone to blame on leaving out the "terrorists attack" references in the first talking points to Benghazi, you should look at the CIA director. It appears that the WH had zero to do with saying the attack was part of a "video" protest.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/15/politics/b...?hpt=hp_t2

[TheRealVille]

You post scripted that and you know it.

I only bolded the references, because apparently your eyes aren't so well at seeing what was there. There was zero wording added. The quote in #54, and the quote in #56 are exactly how wiki has it worded, with only bolding for your viewing shortcomings.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ass..._Americans

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Wikipedia?

[TheRealVille]

Wikipedia?

The list of diplomatic deaths on wiki is certainly searchable, and can be found to be true. Though it is a wiki link that says that John Granville was a diplomat, and was killed doesn't negate the fact that both statements are true. Are you hanging your hat on this?

http://www.google.com/search?client=safa...8&oe=UTF-8
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/world/....html?_r=0
He died in an attack while on diplomatic service in Sudan. He worked for the US agency below:
http://www.usaid.gov/who-we-are


Anything else?

[TheRealVille]

In January of 2011 Hillary Clinton warned that cutting monies for embassy security would put Americans in more danger didn't stop republicans from cutting that money. That is why republicans are only focusing on the emails and talking points, and not the cause. If they focus on the cause, they have to admit they cut embassy funding to securing those embassies.

http://www.google.com/search?client=safa...8&oe=UTF-8

[Harry Rex Vonner]

In January of 2011 Hillary Clinton warned that cutting monies for embassy security would put Americans in more danger didn't stop republicans from cutting that money. That is why republicans are only focusing on the emails and talking points, and not the cause. If they focus on the cause, they have to admit they cut embassy funding to securing those embassies.

http://www.google.com/search?client=safa...8&oe=UTF-8

Actually, one of the officials of the state department (a Caucasian woman) testified under oath that funding had nothing to do with the lack of security in Libya. I believe that you will find that there was no actual "cut" in the funding. Only the increase was cut. The "cut" line is typical of those often used by the lovely Ms. Rodham.

[TheRealVille]

Actually, one of the officials of the state department (a Caucasian woman) testified under oath that funding had nothing to do with the lack of security in Libya. I believe that you will find that there was no actual "cut" in the funding. Only the increase was cut. The "cut" line is typical of those often used by the lovely Ms. Rodham.

Bottom line, funds were 400 to 500 million less, anyway you look at it. They voted to reduce funds to embassy security. You say tomato, I say tomato. I'll take their word on what happened.


http://www.google.com/search?client=safa...8&oe=UTF-8
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/250237...s-scrutiny

[TheRealVille]

[Image: http://ww2.politicususa.com/wp-content/u...85x328.png]

Jake Tapper is on a roll at CNN. The co-chairs of the Benghazi review are asking that Darrell Issa (R-CA) allow them to testify publicly, as is “appropriate”, on either May 28 or June 3.

While the rest of the media is reporting that the co-chairmen of the independent review on the Benghazi attacks, Ambassador Thomas Pickering and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, have finally agreed to testify, in truth Pickering was not invited by Darell Issa (R-CA) to testify at the televised hearing. When called out on his lies on national TV, Issa finally tried to blame the White House for not inviting Pickering. Why wouldn’t Issa invite the co-chair of the independent review if he really wanted to get to the bottom of what happened?

I noted then that Issa was trying to force Pickering to testify when the cameras were done rolling on his Big Show, because Pickering wasn’t playing along with the Republican narrative on Benghazi.

Thursday, Tapper got yet another exclusive on Benghazi by publishing a letter from Pickering and Mullins to House Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa, in which they demand to be allowed to testify and for the American public to hear their testimony. It reads in part:

“As has been made clear on television and in writing, we are willing to testify publicly before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee… The public deserves to hear your questions and our answers.

“Recently, you seem to have changed your position on our appearance, apparently asking for a transcribed interview behind closed doors. In our view, requiring such a closed-door proceeding before we testify publicly is an inappropriate precondition…. Moreover, … Ambassador Pickering did not agree to such a closed-door proceeding.

“Having taken liberal license to call into question the Board’s work, it is surprising that you now maintain that members of the committee need a closed-door proceeding before being able to ask “informed questions” at a public hearing.

“What the Committee is now proposing is highly unusual in the context of senior officials who are not fact witnesses but instead are reporting their own independent review.”

Read the full letter via CNN here.

On Meet the Press last Sunday, Issa tried to smear Pickering as refusing to testify, but things didn’t go so well for the Congressman. It turns out Pickering was waiting to speak on the show, and he denounced firmly the notion that he had been invited to speak. In fact, he said he was told he was not welcome by Republicans, who are the majority in the House wherein these Scadaliscious hearings took place:

REP. ISSA: Now, Ambassador Pickering, his people and he refused to come before our committee that…

AMB. THOMAS PICKERING (Former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs/Chair, Accountability Review Board on Benghazi): That is not true.

GREGORY: All right. We’re- we’re going to get to Ambassador Pickering.

REP. ISSA: … We’re inviting him on Monday along with Admiral Mullen to come, to go through, with his papers, a private deposition so we can get the facts in a nonpartisan way.

..

AMB. PICKERING: Of course. I’ve said the day before the hearings, I was willing to appear to come to the very hearings that he disclu- he excluded me from. The White House told me back that he said…

REP. ISSA: One second. Please- please don’t tell me I excluded you.

AMB. PICKERING: Well, the- the majority was- we were told the majority said I was not welcomed at that hearing. I could come at some other time.

REP. ISSA: …He could have been the Democratic witness. And we would have allowed him. The Democrats requested no witness.The fact is, we don’t want to have some sort of a stage show… We’re inviting them on Monday. We’ll go through, not in front of the public but- but in a nonpartisan way questions and answers and then obviously…

So the real question here is what is Darrell Issa so afraid of? Why is he refusing to have the independent co-chair of the Benghazi review testify in public? Probably because Pickering told MSNBC, “I believe, in fact, the Accountability Review Board did its work well. I think the notion of, quote, a cover-up has all the elements of Pulitzer Prize fiction attached to it.”

When will Darrell Issa initiate an investigation into just who leaked misleading emails on Benghazi to the press — emails that just so happened to match the Republican fictional account of a suggested cover up? I’ll bet Issa will get right on that. Issa’s claims of wanting to get to the “truth” don’t hold up, especially in light of his desire to hide the testimony of Pickering and Mullins from the public.

http://www.politicususa.com/darrell-issa...ublic.html
http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/16/...in-public/

[TheRealVille]

^ The republican circus continues. When you aren't getting anything done, find a "scandal" to divert attention away from you. With a congress that has the lowest rating in history, this is nothing new. I can't wait until 2014 and see how things play out.

[WideMiddle03]

^ The republican circus continues. When you aren't getting anything done, find a "scandal" to divert attention away from you. With a congress that has the lowest rating in history, this is nothing new. I can't wait until 2014 and see how things play out.

then y dont u tell us everything the democrats have accomplished :lmao:

youll prolly just post another dumb liberal media link
but even the liberal links are struggling to come up with information for that

[TheRealVille]

^ You are like the little dog in the cartoon that keeps running around the big dog's leg, trying to egg him on. You aren't smart enough to talk on your own, so you rally around the "big dog's leg", crying "you tell him" to the big dogs.

[WideMiddle03]

^ You are like the little dog in the cartoon that keeps running around the big dog's leg, trying to egg him on. You aren't smart enough to talk on your own, so you rally around the "big dog's leg", crying "you tell him" to the big dogs.

you're mixing me up with your buddy wildcat :lmao:

[Harry Rex Vonner]

^ The republican circus continues. When you aren't getting anything done, find a "scandal" to divert attention away from you. With a congress that has the lowest rating in history, this is nothing new. I can't wait until 2014 and see how things play out.

You are correct in that they are acting like your boys did during Watergate. One of the main differences now from then is that Nixon was despised by the media while the media still has its collective head stuck up your boy's butt ("arse" to my Irish brothers).

[TheRealVille]

You are correct in that they are acting like your boys did during Watergate. One of the main differences now from then is that Nixon was despised by the media while the media still has its collective head stuck up your boy's butt ("arse" to my Irish brothers).

I guess we have the Irish thing in common.:Thumbs:

[vector]

You are correct in that they are acting like your boys did during Watergate. One of the main differences now from then is that Nixon was despised by the media while the media still has its collective head stuck up your boy's butt ("arse" to my Irish brothers).

not just the media you have already forget about the election in 2012
when the people voted in nov 2012 it was already been out it was a terrorist
attack and your boy still got beat

[Harry Rex Vonner]

not just the media you have already forget about the election in 2012
when the people voted in nov 2012 it was already been out it was a terrorist
attack and your boy still got beat

You aren't implying that we have an informed, intelligent electorate, are you? The average voter in this country wouldn't know Benghazi from Barbeque. Did they know it was a terrorist plot? Not likely unless Jennifer Lopez was involved. But, then, it wouldn't have mattered anyway.

The average voter in this country bases his/her vote on what he/she thinks is in it for him/her. They can't be confused with real facts because they have neither the inclination, the native intelligence, nor the education to understand much more than what is taking place on their favorite situation comedy. Keep in mind that the great majority of them are products of the government schools. They can't read or write but they do have a high self- esteem.

So, surprisingly, vector, we agree as to the effect on the election. The government schools, along with parents of a similar "intellect" and with no interest in their children, have done their job.

We are a country dominated by uneducated, disinterested, unmotivated, self-indulging dullards. And, of course, since your boys provide the freebies that allow them to exist, most all of these morons vote your way. That isn't going to change.

[TheRealThing]

You aren't implying that we have an informed, intelligent electorate, are you? The average voter in this country wouldn't know Benghazi from Barbeque. Did they know it was a terrorist plot? Not likely unless Jennifer Lopez was involved. But, then, it wouldn't have mattered anyway.

The average voter in this country bases his/her vote on what he/she thinks is in it for him/her. They can't be confused with real facts because they have neither the inclination, the native intelligence, nor the education to understand much more than what is taking place on their favorite situation comedy. Keep in mind that the great majority of them are products of the government schools. They can't read or write but they do have a high self- esteem.

So, surprisingly, vector, we agree as to the effect on the election. The government schools, along with parents of a similar "intellect" and with no interest in their children, have done their job.


We are a country dominated by uneducated, disinterested, unmotivated, self-indulging dullards. And, of course, since your boys provide the freebies that allow them to exist, most all of these morons vote your way. That isn't going to change.

vector will get right back to you on that one. He had to go take a couple excedrins from trying to read your post. :biggrin:

[WideMiddle03]

not just the media you have already forget about the election in 2012
when the people voted in nov 2012 it was already been out it was a terrorist
attack and your boy still got beat

[Image: http://cdn.motinetwork.net/politifake.or...009789.jpg]

[Harry Rex Vonner]

vector will get right back to you on that one. He had to go take a couple excedrins from trying to read your post. :biggrin:

I hope his reading skills weren't "developed" in a government school.

[vector]

You aren't implying that we have an informed, intelligent electorate, are you? The average voter in this country wouldn't know Benghazi from Barbeque. Did they know it was a terrorist plot? Not likely unless Jennifer Lopez was involved. But, then, it wouldn't have mattered anyway.

The average voter in this country bases his/her vote on what he/she thinks is in it for him/her. They can't be confused with real facts because they have neither the inclination, the native intelligence, nor the education to understand much more than what is taking place on their favorite situation comedy. Keep in mind that the great majority of them are products of the government schools. They can't read or write but they do have a high self- esteem.

So, surprisingly, vector, we agree as to the effect on the election. The government schools, along with parents of a similar "intellect" and with no interest in their children, have done their job.

We are a country dominated by uneducated, disinterested, unmotivated, self-indulging dullards. And, of course, since your boys provide the freebies that allow them to exist, most all of these morons vote your way. That isn't going to change.

in the red states I would agree with you

[vector]

vector will get right back to you on that one. He had to go take a couple excedrins from trying to read your post. :biggrin:

that 1 was pretty funny

[vector]

[Image: http://cdn.motinetwork.net/politifake.or...009789.jpg]

[Image: http://www.bluegrassrivals.com/forum/pic...tureid=554]

[TheRealVille]

Some republicans in Washington are already saying that their party is in serious danger of overplaying their hand.

[TheRealVille]

In Jan. 2011 Hillary Clinton warned that cutting funding to embassy security would put Americans in more danger. It looks like maybe we should put a little more blame where it should be put, on republicans in congress who voted to cut funding.
http://www.google.com/search?client=safa...70&bih=893
http://www.politicususa.com/democrat-gop...irror.html

Ackerman said, “The stench of hypocrisy that hangs over this city today emanates from this room. I’ve listened to my colleagues talk about the President of the United States and others in the administration using [the] terms ‘deliberate’, ‘lies’, ‘unmitigated gall’, ‘malfeasance,’ which is malicious and knowing evil-doing, ‘disgust’, ‘coverups’. If you want to know who is responsible in this town, buy yourself a mirror!”

He accused the Republicans of, according to NBC, having:


“the audacity to come here” when the administration requested, for worldwide security, “$440 million more than you guys wanted to provide. And the answer is that you damn didn’t provide it! You REDUCED what the administration asked for to protect these people. Ask not who the guilty party is, it’s you! It is us. It is this committee, and the things that we insist that we need have to cost money.”
He added, “Could you tell me which of my colleagues on this committee was as bodacious in their insistence that we provide more money for American security in the State Department budget. I would appreciate it.”
Ackerman then asked them to raise their hands and gave them a count of five to do so. None did.
So now we get to just one of the issues Republicans are trying to avoid by pointing the fingers first.

Dana Milbank reported on the Republicans cutting funding for embassy security in October:

House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012….Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.
Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan’s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

[Hoot Gibson]

Some republicans in Washington are already saying that their party is in serious danger of overplaying their hand.

Some Democrats say that things are going to get much worse for them before they get better. Some are even retiring to avoid facing an angry electorate next year. Obamacare hitting the fan over the next few months will not help the Democrats make the case that Republicans are overplaying "their hand." This is not a game, RV. Real people are being denied due process and discriminated against because of their political and religious beliefs. The more you defend President Outlaw and his goons, the more foolish you look.

[TheRealVille]

Some Democrats say that things are going to get much worse for them before they get better. Some are even retiring to avoid facing an angry electorate next year. Obamacare hitting the fan over the next few months will not help the Democrats make the case that Republicans are overplaying "their hand." This is not a game, RV. Real people are being denied due process and discriminated against because of their political and religious beliefs. The more you defend President Outlaw and his goons, the more foolish you look.

Think about what you just said. :biggrin:

[Hoot Gibson]

Think about what you just said. :biggrin:

Yeah, I am thinking Democratic Senator Max Baucus who says that Obamcare is a trainwreck waiting to happen. Now, it's your time to think if you haven't forgotten how.

[TheRealVille]

What do you mean "Obamacare hitting the fan over the next few months"? Are you implying that they are going to hold another repeal vote? nicker: How many so far? Is it 38 or 39?