If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   State Department rejects the Benghazi criticism from its own senior diplomat Gregory Hicks, says he's full of sh*t about his demotion and his views of the event   (guardian.co.uk) divider line 292
    More: Obvious, State Department, demotions, diplomats, United Nations Permanent Representative  
•       •       •

2613 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 May 2013 at 3:41 PM (50 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



292 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-09 05:57:29 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: Media exposure gets him a nice cushy job? Not sure how that works. Considering the nature of that exposure, the cushy job likely isn't within government

No sh*t Sherlock. If only there was a media arm that agrees with his Benghazi conspiracy theory. If only there was some media company or companies that employed former disgruntled government employees such as Oliver North. Can you think of a place like that where Hicks could get a job? One that, maybe, doesn't care so much about the truth? Maybe if you wrack your brain REALLY HARD you can come up with some obscure network he can get a job with.

Also, you still haven't said what you think the demotion was and why you lean more toward Hicks than toward State.


So he's testifying because he wants a job with Fox News. This you know and accept without reservation.

But the idea he's being jerked around in government because he spoke out against his bosses seems preposterous to you. I get it.
 
2013-05-09 05:58:07 PM

Zeppelininthesky: o5iiawah: Skanque: I keep seeing a lot of right-wing outrage in the comments on various websites about this whole Benghazi thing, but what the hell is the scandal?

Take your pick.

- Was there enough time to scram for help and if so, was the help refused?
- Why did Susan Rice go on 5 different talk shows in the coming weeks and talk about the youtube video?
- Why were people who had information about this bullied into keeping quiet

It is at its core a failure of intel.  we need to know why the intel failed, how this happened and prevent it from happening in the future.  The response we got from then Sec Of State Clinton was: "What does it matter who killed the ambassador, or how they did it?"

The one thing I really don't understand is, if the "cover up" was the fact that it was an attack instead of a protest, the White House stated directly a few days after that it was an attack and not a protest. The point of a cover up is to not make the truth known. If the truth is now known, then why is this an issue? The fact that it was a few days later is not relevant. You think if the administration or the State Department would want to cover up the fact that it was an attack, they would still stick to the story that it was a protest and not directly say it was an attack.

As stated in sworn testimony, any planes, troops or other assets were too far away to make any difference.

Face it, there is no cover up or scandal.


It's not just the State Department but the Pentagon as well.  This conspiracy is through the looking glass people.
 
2013-05-09 05:59:16 PM

Fart_Machine: Cletus C.: Media exposure gets him a nice cushy job? Not sure how that works.

I'm sure Joe the Plumber could give him some pointers.


Is he doing the plumbing for Fox now? I know he ran for Congress or something but he got thumped, didn't he? Really, check up on Joe and let us know how it's all worked out.
 
2013-05-09 05:59:34 PM

Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: Media exposure gets him a nice cushy job? Not sure how that works. Considering the nature of that exposure, the cushy job likely isn't within government

No sh*t Sherlock. If only there was a media arm that agrees with his Benghazi conspiracy theory. If only there was some media company or companies that employed former disgruntled government employees such as Oliver North. Can you think of a place like that where Hicks could get a job? One that, maybe, doesn't care so much about the truth? Maybe if you wrack your brain REALLY HARD you can come up with some obscure network he can get a job with.

Also, you still haven't said what you think the demotion was and why you lean more toward Hicks than toward State.

So he's testifying because he wants a job with Fox News. This you know and accept without reservation.

But the idea he's being jerked around in government because he spoke out against his bosses seems preposterous to you. I get it.


Asking to be re-assigned and then being given a temp assignment with the same pay and benefits is being jerked around?

I know you aren't this stupid.  Stop acting like you are.
 
2013-05-09 06:01:16 PM

Cletus C.: So he's testifying because he wants a job with Fox News. This you know and accept without reservation.


Yep. Can you think of another reason why a disgrunted State Department worker fed a bunch of info to Fox News about being a whistleblower?

 

Cletus C.: But the idea he's being jerked around in government because he spoke out against his bosses seems preposterous to you.


Yup, especially since such allegations are thus far without merit. Can you maybe provide some evidence for it? You've been asked several times and as yet have provided none. And yet you somehow expect us to believe that you are "leaning toward" believing him.
 
2013-05-09 06:01:18 PM

Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: I lean toward the guy who thinks he's being punished.

You lean toward the guy with an axe to grind? Why? I mean, doesn't he have a lot to gain in media exposure and attention if he says that State demoted him? Why would you put more weight on that?

Just out of curiosity, why do you think he has an axe to grind? And what does he have to gain from all the media exposure?

A nice cushy job. It's clear he's not happy with his current State Department gig. He thinks he's been passed over for promotion. Pretty clear axe to grind, here. Again, why do you lean more toward him than toward State?

Media exposure gets him a nice cushy job? Not sure how that works. Considering the nature of that exposure, the cushy job likely isn't within government. He's not happy with the job the state department gave him when he bugged out of Libya. He thinks it's retribution for being a dissenting voice out of the department. I spent some time in government and it sounds likely. But maybe not. But yes, I lean toward the former.


So he's like Anita Hill then?
 
2013-05-09 06:03:10 PM

Tor_Eckman: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: Media exposure gets him a nice cushy job? Not sure how that works. Considering the nature of that exposure, the cushy job likely isn't within government

No sh*t Sherlock. If only there was a media arm that agrees with his Benghazi conspiracy theory. If only there was some media company or companies that employed former disgruntled government employees such as Oliver North. Can you think of a place like that where Hicks could get a job? One that, maybe, doesn't care so much about the truth? Maybe if you wrack your brain REALLY HARD you can come up with some obscure network he can get a job with.

Also, you still haven't said what you think the demotion was and why you lean more toward Hicks than toward State.

So he's testifying because he wants a job with Fox News. This you know and accept without reservation.

But the idea he's being jerked around in government because he spoke out against his bosses seems preposterous to you. I get it.

Asking to be re-assigned and then being given a temp assignment with the same pay and benefits is being jerked around?

I know you aren't this stupid.  Stop acting like you are.


That was quite rude but I'll respond anyway because you raise an important point. In government they don't reduce your pay and benefits when you're shoved down the career ladder. Especially at his level. You're given some assignment nobody with any further aspirations wants.

Yes, it's a temporary assignment. A sucky one, sounds like. Sort of like Purgatory. What they do with him from here will be more telling.
 
2013-05-09 06:05:01 PM

Cletus C.: You're given some assignment nobody with any further aspirations wants.


Which is all fine and good except he asked for a temporary assignment early which put him out of the assignment rotation. So. Where was the demotion?
 
2013-05-09 06:05:27 PM

Cletus C.: Fart_Machine: Cletus C.: Media exposure gets him a nice cushy job? Not sure how that works.

I'm sure Joe the Plumber could give him some pointers.

Is he doing the plumbing for Fox now? I know he ran for Congress or something but he got thumped, didn't he? Really, check up on Joe and let us know how it's all worked out.


If a slob like Joe can ride a media wave after "sticking it to Obama" then I'm sure Hicks will do just fine.
 
2013-05-09 06:08:46 PM
And he still cleared Clinton and the Obama administration of whatever happy horsesh*t Issa's been screeching about. Sometimes, I wish right wingers had the capacity for embarrassment  for things other than cornholing each other.
 
2013-05-09 06:10:01 PM

YoungLochinvar: ShadowKamui: CynicalLA: ShadowKamui: CynicalLA: ShadowKamui: The_Gallant_Gallstone: FormlessOne: The more the GOP tries to turn this into a "scandal", the worse they look for the effort. It's fun to watch.

Which is a shame... they should've stuck with Fast and Furious.

Of course, I had my moment of revelation regarding Obama's JAP (Just Another Politician) status years ago during the Sestak/Specter PA Senate seat race.

Honestly between that and HSBC, you can pretty much claim Holder is either the dumbest AG ever or he's being paid off by the Mexican drug cartels.  Either way he needs to be disbarred at a minimum

So no more questions about Benghazi?  You seemed really concerned yesterday.  Just another coward partisan hack.

I'm not the idiot ignoring the actual investigation report that pretty much blamed a bunch of idiot middle managers in Washington and that even Hillary tried to fire cause they screwed up so badly.  They need to be fired and the state department needs to be fixed so something like that can't happen again.  Seriously quit defending utter stupidity/incompetence just cause Obama is their boss.

Yep, worthless partisan hack.  Thanks for confirming.

Actually the report was from the state department itself

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benghazi_attack#State_Department_Accoun ta bility_Review_Board

"Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department ... resulted in a special mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place,"

So when even the State Department itself is calling out these idiot middle managers, what exactly does that make you when you try to defend them?

Is anyone actually trying to defend the middle managers who did legitimately screw up? I've yet to see anybody do that, personally.


You got people like CynicLA trying to claim partisan hack on anything negative about Benghazi and even Congressmen trying to pass the buck to the budget cuts rather than the middle management idiots.  That's the biggest issue w/ the stupid fishing expedition, those morons might get off
 
2013-05-09 06:11:12 PM
Boy, the derpers in this thread are really working to spin this as a victory.  Poor things.
 
2013-05-09 06:11:37 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: So he's testifying because he wants a job with Fox News. This you know and accept without reservation.

Yep. Can you think of another reason why a disgrunted State Department worker fed a bunch of info to Fox News about being a whistleblower?

 Cletus C.: But the idea he's being jerked around in government because he spoke out against his bosses seems preposterous to you.

Yup, especially since such allegations are thus far without merit. Can you maybe provide some evidence for it? You've been asked several times and as yet have provided none. And yet you somehow expect us to believe that you are "leaning toward" believing him.


OK, here's the bottom line. You and several others get all into a lather every time Benghazi is mentioned. You reflexively and mindlessly attack, attack, attack anyone who gives the slightest hint of not marching the straight line you see.

The fact I expressed my opinion that he was probably being punished for being a big mouth and criticizing his bossed set you off this time. But yes, it is my opinion, though not one backed with anything other than he says so and my belief it makes sense. You saying he wasn't is your opinion, not backed with anything other than his bosses say he wasn't and your strong belief in everything they say.

You also say, without hesitation or question, his allegations are without merit. What allegations? He said a lot, most of it his version of events last Sept. 11. All that was without merit?

OK then.
 
2013-05-09 06:14:07 PM

fusillade762: Pick: Wow, Hicks tells the truth and the libs all come unglued like Hillary at a Congressional hearing. Woot!!! I love it.

What a bunch of sore losers. God, I hate Democrats.

2001-09-30?

Wow, you've been laying in wait a LOOOONG time. I must say I admire your sniper-like dedication.


My thought exactly.

Even the trolls are too ashamed of this at this point to tie their main names to defending the charade. Now that's telling!
 
2013-05-09 06:19:16 PM

Fart_Machine: Cletus C.: Fart_Machine: Cletus C.: Media exposure gets him a nice cushy job? Not sure how that works.

I'm sure Joe the Plumber could give him some pointers.

Is he doing the plumbing for Fox now? I know he ran for Congress or something but he got thumped, didn't he? Really, check up on Joe and let us know how it's all worked out.

If a slob like Joe can ride a media wave after "sticking it to Obama" then I'm sure Hicks will do just fine.


Hey, since you didn't want to google ol' Joe, I did. He's farking giving away AR-15s. Holy crap. I don't know how that works as a job but he sounds full-on nuts.
 
2013-05-09 06:21:12 PM

Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: So he's testifying because he wants a job with Fox News. This you know and accept without reservation.

Yep. Can you think of another reason why a disgrunted State Department worker fed a bunch of info to Fox News about being a whistleblower?

 Cletus C.: But the idea he's being jerked around in government because he spoke out against his bosses seems preposterous to you.

Yup, especially since such allegations are thus far without merit. Can you maybe provide some evidence for it? You've been asked several times and as yet have provided none. And yet you somehow expect us to believe that you are "leaning toward" believing him.

OK, here's the bottom line. You and several others get all into a lather every time Benghazi is mentioned. You reflexively and mindlessly attack, attack, attack anyone who gives the slightest hint of not marching the straight line you see.

The fact I expressed my opinion that he was probably being punished for being a big mouth and criticizing his bossed set you off this time. But yes, it is my opinion, though not one backed with anything other than he says so and my belief it makes sense. You saying he wasn't is your opinion, not backed with anything other than his bosses say he wasn't and your strong belief in everything they say.

You also say, without hesitation or question, his allegations are without merit. What allegations? He said a lot, most of it his version of events last Sept. 11. All that was without merit?

OK then.


Project much?
 
2013-05-09 06:26:09 PM

Cletus C.: The fact I expressed my opinion that he was probably being punished for being a big mouth and criticizing his bossed set you off this time. But yes, it is my opinion, though not one backed with anything other than he says so


And that's the problem. You can have an opinion, sure. But you don't get to have your own facts. Next time you form an opinion, try to make it based off of facts and not from some guy with an axe to grind.
 
2013-05-09 06:26:20 PM

Cletus C.:
OK, here's the bottom line. You and several others get all into a lather every time WTC7 is mentioned. You reflexively and mindlessly attack, attack, attack anyone who gives the slightest hint of not marching the straight line you see.

The fact I expressed my opinion that it was probably being pulled set you off this time. But yes, it is my opinion, though not one backed with anything other than he said "pull" so and my belief it makes sense. You saying he wasn't is your opinion, not backed with anything other than his bosses say he wasn't and your strong belief in everything they say.

You also say, without hesitation or question, his allegations are without merit. What allegations? He said a lot, most of it his version of events last Sept. 11. All that was without merit?

OK then.


This is what you sound like. You should be aware of that.
 
2013-05-09 06:29:13 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: The fact I expressed my opinion that he was probably being punished for being a big mouth and criticizing his bossed set you off this time. But yes, it is my opinion, though not one backed with anything other than he says so

And that's the problem. You can have an opinion, sure. But you don't get to have your own facts. Next time you form an opinion, try to make it based off of facts and not from some guy with an axe to grind.


I'll check with you for facts before I express an opinion again.
 
2013-05-09 06:31:20 PM

Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: The fact I expressed my opinion that he was probably being punished for being a big mouth and criticizing his bossed set you off this time. But yes, it is my opinion, though not one backed with anything other than he says so

And that's the problem. You can have an opinion, sure. But you don't get to have your own facts. Next time you form an opinion, try to make it based off of facts and not from some guy with an axe to grind.

I'll check with you for facts before I express an opinion again.


No, you don't have to check with me. You just have to check, literally, anywhere else. Because your opinion is based off of fact gleaned from nowhere.

But yes, having a fact-based opinion is preferable to pulling sh*t out of your own ass, or in this case pulling it out of someone else's
 
2013-05-09 06:31:32 PM

Cletus C.: But the idea he's being jerked around in government because he spoke out against his bosses seems preposterous to you.


No one has asked Mr. Hicks why he didn't talk Ambassador Stevens out of going to a CIA base that had a day job as a jerkwater outpost with a few inexperienced staff. The reason for him to blame people other than himself its pretty obvious. But since he asked to be removed from Libya out of cycle, he was put in another temporary job instead of suffering any actual pay grade or rank issues. If he wants to consider that a demotion then he's got a victimization complex. And he's got a lot to gain by making himself out to be much more of a martyr than he is. I'm reminded of all the complaints Richard Clarke got from the Right-Wing when he admitted there were serious farkups before 9/11.
 
2013-05-09 06:32:24 PM
It's cute and yet sad how the exact same trolls and shills come into every Benghazi thread crying the exact same tripe they've been crying for 8 months and give the exact same reaction to being explained to and told for the fiftieth time about the facts because they won't accept anything except "Obama is a Muslim monster who sacrificed American lives to his bloodlust" or some other dipshiat thing.
 
2013-05-09 06:34:04 PM

vygramul: Cletus C.:
OK, here's the bottom line. You and several others get all into a lather every time WTC7 is mentioned. You reflexively and mindlessly attack, attack, attack anyone who gives the slightest hint of not marching the straight line you see.

The fact I expressed my opinion that it was probably being pulled set you off this time. But yes, it is my opinion, though not one backed with anything other than he said "pull" so and my belief it makes sense. You saying he wasn't is your opinion, not backed with anything other than his bosses say he wasn't and your strong belief in everything they say.

You also say, without hesitation or question, his allegations are without merit. What allegations? He said a lot, most of it his version of events last Sept. 11. All that was without merit?

OK then.

This is what you sound like. You should be aware of that.


I had to google WTC7. It's a conspiracy theory that claims the twin towers were downed by explosives, not planes, right? Sure, I'm just like that. In your mind.
 
2013-05-09 06:35:22 PM
Sept. 10-11, 2012
Stevens arrives in Benghazi and holds meetings on and off the consulate grounds on Sept. 10. He spends the night, and for the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. holds meetings only inside the compound. It is an enclosed area about 300 yards long by 100 yards wide, with a 9-foot outer wall topped by barbed wire and augmented by barriers, steel drop bars and other security upgrades. There are four buildings in the compound. Five diplomatic security officers are present, along with four members of a local militia deployed by Libya's government to provide added security.
Around 8:30 p.m.
Stevens finishes his final meeting of the day and escorts a Turkish diplomat outside the main entrance of the consulate. The situation is calm. There are no protests.
Around 9:40 p.m.
Agents hear loud noises, gunfire and explosions near the front gate. A barracks at the entrance housing the local militiamen is burnt down. Agents viewing cameras see large group of armed men flowing into the compound. Alarm is sounded. Telephone calls are made to the embassy in Tripoli, officials in Washington, the Libyan authorities and a U.S. quick reaction force located at a second compound a little over a mile away.
Grabbing weapons
One agent, armed with a sidearm and an M4 submachine gun, takes Stevens and computer specialist Sean Smith to a safe room inside one of the compound's two main residences. It has a heavy metal grill and several locks, medical supplies and water, and windows that can be opened only from the inside. The other agents equip themselves with long guns, body armor, helmets and ammunition at other buildings. Two try to make it to the building with Stevens. They are met by armed men and are forced to retreat.
Attackers breach the compound
Attackers penetrate Stevens' building and try to break the grill locks for the safe room, but cannot gain access. They dump jerry cans of diesel fuel in the building, light furniture on fire and set aflame part of the exterior of the building. Two of the remaining four agents are in the compound's other residence. Attackers penetrate that building, but the agents barricade themselves in and the attackers can't reach them. Attackers try to enter the tactical operations center, where the last two agents are located. They smash up the door but cannot enter the building.
Americans trapped
Meanwhile, Stevens' building rapidly fills up with thick diesel smoke and burning fumes from the furniture. Inside, visibility is less than 3 feet. Unable to breathe, the Americans go to a bathroom and open a window, but still can't get enough air. They decide to leave the building. The agent goes first, flopping out onto a patio enclosed by sandbags. He takes immediate fire, including probably rocket-propelled grenades. Stevens and Smith don't come out of the building. The agent, suffering severely from smoke inhalation, goes in and out of the building several times to look for them. He then climbs a ladder to the roof of the building and collapses. He radios the other agents to alert them to the situation there.
The other four agents are able to reunite and take an armored vehicle to Stevens' building. They reach the collapsed agent and try to set up a perimeter. They take turns going into the building, searching on hands and knees for the missing Americans. Smith is pulled out, dead. Stevens cannot be found.
Reinforcements
A six-person quick reaction security team arrives from their compound across town. About 60 Libyan militiamen accompany them. They attempt to secure a perimeter around Stevens' building, and take turns going inside. Taking fire, Libyan forces determine they can't hold the perimeter. A decision is made to evacuate the compound and return with everyone to the reaction force's compound.
Evacuation
Agents pile into an armored vehicle, with Smith's body, and leave through the main gate. They face immediate fire. Crowds and groups of men block two different routes to the security compound. Heavy traffic means they are traveling only about 15 mph, and trying not to attract attention. On a narrow street they reach a group of men who signal for them to enter a compound. They sense an attack and speed away, taking heavy fire from AK-47 machine guns at a distance of only 2 feet, and hand grenades thrown against and under the car. Two tires are blown out.
They speed past another crowd of men and onto a main street and across a grassy median into opposing traffic. The agents drive against traffic, eventually reaching their compound. Security gets into firing positions around the compound and on the roof. They take more gunfire and rocket-propelled grenades intermittently for several hours.
More reinforcements
In the night, a team of reinforcements from the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli arrives on a chartered aircraft at the Benghazi airport and reaches the security compound.
Around 4 a.m.
The compound's building is hit by mortar fire. The roof is hit and two security personnel are killed. One agent involved in the attack from the beginning is severely wounded. The men decide to evacuate the city entirely. They spend the next hours securing the annex and moving a large convoy of vehicles to the airport. They evacuate on two flights.
 
2013-05-09 06:35:34 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: The fact I expressed my opinion that he was probably being punished for being a big mouth and criticizing his bossed set you off this time. But yes, it is my opinion, though not one backed with anything other than he says so

And that's the problem. You can have an opinion, sure. But you don't get to have your own facts. Next time you form an opinion, try to make it based off of facts and not from some guy with an axe to grind.

I'll check with you for facts before I express an opinion again.

No, you don't have to check with me. You just have to check, literally, anywhere else. Because your opinion is based off of fact gleaned from nowhere.

But yes, having a fact-based opinion is preferable to pulling sh*t out of your own ass, or in this case pulling it out of someone else's


Carry on, soldier.
 
2013-05-09 06:38:10 PM

El Pachuco: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: probably true

Based on what evidence?

[a4.ec-images.myspacecdn.com image 200x150]

"Probably true" is a kind of true.


Sort of like "technically true".

/the best kinds of true!
 
2013-05-09 06:42:46 PM

fusillade762: Pick: Wow, Hicks tells the truth and the libs all come unglued like Hillary at a Congressional hearing. Woot!!! I love it.

What a bunch of sore losers. God, I hate Democrats.

2001-09-30?

Wow, you've been laying in wait a LOOOONG time. I must say I admire your sniper-like dedication.


He's the Keri Russel of trolls.
 
2013-05-09 06:47:12 PM
So if the State Department and White House didn't do anything wrong - why did they have to lie about the root cause of the incident while in tandem - breaking the first rule of diplomacy and throw the Libyan PM under the bus? What net gain did they get for the outcome? What was the inane reasoning then? 4 people died and we simply should take it as "the cost of doing business" because "what does it matter" according to Hillary Clinton. Then why should it matter when a school full of children is killed by a lunatic?
 
2013-05-09 06:51:21 PM
I was listening to POTUS on Sirius today while they talked about this.  What I heard from Hick sounded like lies, or at least stretching the truth beyond reality.  But whatever.

I'll go ahead and concede the worst case scenario, the Obama administration downplayed the terrorism angle and sanctioned or ordered lies to the media.  Hell, I'll assume that Obama gave the orders himself.

A very crappy thing to do, and hugely disappointing.  But I just can't bring myself to get too upset about it.  It is a dangerous part of the world and the possibility of death in the line of duty is part of the gig

What laws were broken, even if you assume the worst?

You know what's worse, in my opinion?  The behavior of the GOP over the last 5 years.  The constant obstructionism, the willingness to disregard the best interests of the country in the name of not cooperating with Obama.

Over the last 5 years the GOP has willfully damaged our country again and again.  Bhengazi doesn't hold a candle to the sequester, or the lowering of the government credit rating (100% the Republicans fault), or the crappy way Obamacare turned out (also 100% republican fault), the list goes on.
 
2013-05-09 06:52:02 PM

Realist29: So if the State Department and White House didn't do anything wrong - why did they have to lie about the root cause of the incident while in tandem - breaking the first rule of diplomacy and throw the Libyan PM under the bus? What net gain did they get for the outcome? What was the inane reasoning then? 4 people died and we simply should take it as "the cost of doing business" because "what does it matter" according to Hillary Clinton. Then why should it matter when a school full of children is killed by a lunatic?


What lie?
 
2013-05-09 06:53:27 PM

Flaming Yawn: El Pachuco: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: probably true

Based on what evidence?

[a4.ec-images.myspacecdn.com image 200x150]

"Probably true" is a kind of true.

Sort of like "technically true".

/the best kinds of true!


Sort of like "act of terror?"
Sort of like "demonstrations?'
Sort of like "spontaneous?"
Sort of like a youtube video?"

That best kind of true?
 
2013-05-09 06:54:51 PM

Realist29: So if the State Department and White House didn't do anything wrong - why did they have to lie about the root cause of the incident while in tandem - breaking the first rule of diplomacy and throw the Libyan PM under the bus? What net gain did they get for the outcome? What was the inane reasoning then? 4 people died and we simply should take it as "the cost of doing business" because "what does it matter" according to Hillary Clinton. Then why should it matter when a school full of children is killed by a lunatic?


When setting up a diplomatic mission in a country that has traditionally been an adversary and that is vulnerable to radical elements that have vowed to destroy our country, there is an assumed level of danger that it not expected to exist in an elementary school.
 
2013-05-09 06:56:06 PM

theknuckler_33: Lt. Cheese Weasel: What did you expect? Christmas cards?

Pointing out that someone who claimed under sworn testimony that they were demoted when in fact they weren't seems particularly relevant. Perhaps we can get Hicks back in front of that committe and have them ask him if he has received a cut in pay or rank?  Wouldn't you like to know that from his own mouth now?

/I know he's gone already


Would you like to know more?
 
2013-05-09 06:56:32 PM
Magorn: 

...(and don;t for a second pretend this is about the "cover-up" because there wasn;t one,  there was misinformation and an incomplete understanding of what happened that got corrected, publicly ASAP)

I think the White House was disingenuous with the initial Islamic video story, which deserved some contention.  The rest of the inquisition is BS.
 
2013-05-09 06:59:02 PM

Cletus C.: vygramul: Cletus C.:
OK, here's the bottom line. You and several others get all into a lather every time WTC7 is mentioned. You reflexively and mindlessly attack, attack, attack anyone who gives the slightest hint of not marching the straight line you see.

The fact I expressed my opinion that it was probably being pulled set you off this time. But yes, it is my opinion, though not one backed with anything other than he said "pull" so and my belief it makes sense. You saying he wasn't is your opinion, not backed with anything other than his bosses say he wasn't and your strong belief in everything they say.

You also say, without hesitation or question, his allegations are without merit. What allegations? He said a lot, most of it his version of events last Sept. 11. All that was without merit?

OK then.

This is what you sound like. You should be aware of that.

I had to google WTC7. It's a conspiracy theory that claims the twin towers were downed by explosives, not planes, right? Sure, I'm just like that. In your mind.


*shrug*

I'm just letting you know. You've ventured into territory that is solely occupied by distrust of government and a desire to believe a version of the story even you admit has little evidence to support.
 
2013-05-09 07:07:41 PM

Maud Dib: Buffalo77: [fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net image 550x409]

'Bout time you got off the troll list and into the void.

*plonk*


Funny, this was the last straw for me too. And nothing of value was lost.
 
2013-05-09 07:12:48 PM

Pick: Wow, Hicks tells the truth and the libs all come unglued like Hillary at a Congressional hearing. Woot!!! I love it.

What a bunch of sore losers. God, I hate Democrats.


2/10. Weak effort, but bound to nab you a few bites.
 
2013-05-09 07:14:52 PM
This guy didn't even answer his phone when this was going on.  He "missed" the calls.
 
2013-05-09 07:15:27 PM
Timeline

2011 - Tamerlan Tsaraev (TT) flies to Moscow and is unaccounted for for 6 months.

Aug 23 2012- Abdul Rahman Ali Issa Al-Salimi AlHarbi (AAH) requests a visit with the WH

Aug 24 - AAH vists the WH

Aug 28 - AAH enters Boston on a special student visa.

Sept 11 - TT 3 friends are killed with their throats slit. There is no sign of forced entry meaning they probably knew their killer.

Sept 11 - Djokhar Tsaraev becomes a US Citizen

Sept 11 - The US CIA operation in Behghazi is attacked leading to 4 deaths. A video is blamed.

April 15 2013- TT and DT bomb the Boston Marathon.AAH is injured and tackled by alert citizens.

April 16 - AlHarbi is described as a person of interest, but that classification is later removed.

April 16 - SoS John Kerry has an unscheduled interview with a Saudi Ambassador.
 //Seems legit.
 
2013-05-09 07:24:44 PM
watching msnbc last night was a little more painful than usual. chris hayes and rachel maddow pulled out all the stops and went full retard.
 
2013-05-09 07:35:29 PM

Cletus C.: Flaming Yawn: El Pachuco: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: probably true

Based on what evidence?

[a4.ec-images.myspacecdn.com image 200x150]

"Probably true" is a kind of true.

Sort of like "technically true".

/the best kinds of true!

Sort of like "act of terror?"
Sort of like "demonstrations?'
Sort of like "spontaneous?"
Sort of like a youtube video?"

That best kind of true?


Are you giving your advise to all the GOP investigators? I bet you could get to the truth in moments.
 
2013-05-09 07:42:33 PM
Advice, not advise

FTFM
 
2013-05-09 07:43:31 PM

Ozymandius II: Timeline

2011 - Tamerlan Tsaraev (TT) flies to Moscow and is unaccounted for for 6 months.

Aug 23 2012- Abdul Rahman Ali Issa Al-Salimi AlHarbi (AAH) requests a visit with the WH

Aug 24 - AAH vists the WH

Aug 28 - AAH enters Boston on a special student visa.

Sept 11 - TT 3 friends are killed with their throats slit. There is no sign of forced entry meaning they probably knew their killer.

Sept 11 - Djokhar Tsaraev becomes a US Citizen

Sept 11 - The US CIA operation in Behghazi is attacked leading to 4 deaths. A video is blamed.

April 15 2013- TT and DT bomb the Boston Marathon.AAH is injured and tackled by alert citizens.

April 16 - AlHarbi is described as a person of interest, but that classification is later removed.

April 16 - SoS John Kerry has an unscheduled interview with a Saudi Ambassador.
 //Seems legit.


Alex Jones is that you?
 
2013-05-09 07:53:07 PM

DarwiOdrade: Realist29: So if the State Department and White House didn't do anything wrong - why did they have to lie about the root cause of the incident while in tandem - breaking the first rule of diplomacy and throw the Libyan PM under the bus? What net gain did they get for the outcome? What was the inane reasoning then? 4 people died and we simply should take it as "the cost of doing business" because "what does it matter" according to Hillary Clinton. Then why should it matter when a school full of children is killed by a lunatic?

What lie?


They can't say because they have no idea. No one has been able to tell us the exact lie.
 
2013-05-09 07:56:51 PM

Zeppelininthesky: They can't say because they have no idea. No one has been able to tell us the exact lie.


The fact we can't figure out the lie is all the evidence you need to know of the cover-up.
 
2013-05-09 07:58:20 PM

impaler: Zeppelininthesky: They can't say because they have no idea. No one has been able to tell us the exact lie.

The fact we can't figure out the lie is all the evidence you need to know of the cover-up.


Damn you, 0bama!!
 
2013-05-09 08:00:02 PM
Cletus C.

It means I don't know. You don't know. He thinks so. The state department says no. I lean toward the guy who thinks he's being punished. So probably but not certainly. Like I said, getting shoved down the government hierarchy is quite noticeable to those being shoved.

So here's what the state department is claiming:

1. Same pay
2. Same grade

He does not seem to be disputing this.

He says he doesn't like this current assignment, to which they say:

"Since foreign service officer assignments work on annual cycles, by shortening his assignment Mr Hicks was in the position of finding an 'off-cycle assignment'. In such situations, it is not uncommon to have difficulty finding a suitable assignment for some time."

This sounds like a very reasonable explanation to me anyway. He may still feel like he's being punished in some way, and I can respect your notion that punishment is in the eye of the punished, but I'm just not seeing any way that others can be expected to give his grievances any credibility given the circumstances.
 
2013-05-09 08:08:02 PM

Rwa2play: IOW, he's a lying sack of shiat that just torpedoed whatever career plans he had.


Citation needed.  Oh, you actually think the State Department was truthful despite the facts that terrorists were linked to the attacks on the night of Sept 11th yet blamed a video that was never connected to Benghazi?

You do realize how ignorant that makes you look right?  Hillary Clinton was CC'd on a memo linking an Al Queda linked group to the attacks.  She was never CC'd by any agency about a video causing a protest.  There was never a protest in benghazi.  Yet somehow the State Department's "Best information at the time" was a video tape protest?  And you believe that?!?

Yeap, ignorance runs deep.
 
2013-05-09 08:11:19 PM

MyRandomName: You do realize how ignorant that makes you look right? Hillary Clinton was CC'd on a memo linking an Al Queda linked group to the attacks. She was never CC'd by any agency about a video causing a protest. There was never a protest in benghazi. Yet somehow the State Department's "Best information at the time" was a video tape protest? And you believe that?!?


That's what the CIA said, and they should know, because of Republicans leaked that classified info in a rushed public hearing.

And SO FUKING WHAT if they were mistaken! What the hell does that change?

It's like you know you're being stupid, but if you pretend you're not, it makes it not stupid. That's not how "pretending" and "stupid" work.
 
2013-05-09 08:12:03 PM

impaler: That's what the CIA said, and they should know because they were there, which we know because of Republicans leaked that classified info in a rushed public hearing


FTFM
 
Displayed 50 of 292 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report