ABQCOWBOY Posted January 17, 2014 Author Share Posted January 17, 2014 Fixed it.... LOL..... AsburySkinsFan calling out any poster on a Bias. I'll consider your opinion and give it it's deserving attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 No, not at all. It is no secret that I have held to the fact that I do believe the State Department held a great deal of responsibility for this but having said that, I think the report came to some conclusions that I personally don't agree with......based on.......oh the Rightwing media told you so. Not because you actually interviewed anyone or got your butt on a plane and did any amount of actual investigative work, unlike the people who put together the bipartisan report.Look, when the actual facts of an event do not agree with what you believe, then it's time to re-evaluate what you believe. Oh, and just because the facts don't support your biased conclusions is not evidence of cover-up or conspiracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted January 17, 2014 Author Share Posted January 17, 2014 .....based on.......oh the Rightwing media told you so. Not because you actually interviewed anyone or got your butt on a plane and did any amount of actual investigative work, unlike the people who put together the bipartisan report. Look, when the actual facts of an event do not agree with what you believe, then it's time to re-evaluate what you believe. Oh, and just because the facts don't support your biased conclusions is not evidence of cover-up or conspiracy. ABC is a Rightwing media source? Very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 LOL..... AsburySkinsFan calling out any poster on a Bias. I'll consider your opinion and give it it's deserving attention. It is one thing to have an opinion it's entirely another to maintain that opinion in spite of the facts. That's when you go from having an opinion to showing your bias. ABC is a Rightwing media source? Very well. Right, your whole opinion on this matter was shaped by ABC News.....riiiiiiight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted January 17, 2014 Author Share Posted January 17, 2014 It is one thing to have an opinion it's entirely another to maintain that opinion in spite of the facts. That's when you go from having an opinion to showing your bias. Which facts? Please correct me if I am wrong but in the report just released, I don't believe that the internal E-mails ABC had in hand were mentioned or reported on. They were not addressed in the report conducted by the State Department on itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Which facts? Please correct me if I am wrong but in the report just released, I don't believe that the internal E-mails ABC had in hand were mentioned or reported on. They were not addressed in the report conducted by the State Department on itself. Go ahead and prove that they weren't...seriously those emails were the whole reason the Rightwingnuts went crazy with the conspiracy theories and accusations of treason, and it's going to be your assertion that the Senate never looked at them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted January 17, 2014 Author Share Posted January 17, 2014 This is the ABC report I am refering to. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/email-shows-state-department-rejecting-request-of-security-team-at-us-embassy-in-libya/ ABC News has obtained an internal State Department email from May 3, 2012, indicating that the State Department denied a request from the security team at the Embassy of Libya to retain a DC-3 airplane in the country to better conduct their duties. Copied on the email was U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was killed in a terrorist attack on the diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, Sept. 11, 2012, along with three other Americans. That attack has prompted questions about whether the diplomatic personnel in that country were provided with adequate security support. No one has yet to argue that the DC-3 would have definitively made a difference for the four Americans killed that night. The security team in question, after all, left Libya in August. But the question – both for the State Department, which is conducting an internal investigation, and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is holding hearings next week – is whether officials in Washington, D.C., specifically at the State Department, were as aware as they should have been about the deteriorating security situation in Libya, and whether officials were doing everything they could to protect Americans in that country. I do not believe that this latest report addressed these e-mails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 This is the ABC report I am refering to. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/email-shows-state-department-rejecting-request-of-security-team-at-us-embassy-in-libya/ ABC News has obtained an internal State Department email from May 3, 2012, indicating that the State Department denied a request from the security team at the Embassy of Libya to retain a DC-3 airplane in the country to better conduct their duties. Copied on the email was U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was killed in a terrorist attack on the diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, Sept. 11, 2012, along with three other Americans. That attack has prompted questions about whether the diplomatic personnel in that country were provided with adequate security support. No one has yet to argue that the DC-3 would have definitively made a difference for the four Americans killed that night. The security team in question, after all, left Libya in August. But the question – both for the State Department, which is conducting an internal investigation, and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is holding hearings next week – is whether officials in Washington, D.C., specifically at the State Department, were as aware as they should have been about the deteriorating security situation in Libya, and whether officials were doing everything they could to protect Americans in that country. I do not believe that this latest report addressed these e-mails. It did address that if you read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted January 17, 2014 Author Share Posted January 17, 2014 It did address that if you read it. May I ask where? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 I do not believe that this latest report addressed these e-mails.....based on?See this is where I ask you to demonstrate why you believe what you believe, and if you can't demonstrate anything of substance then I can only conclude that you believe it because you want to believe it, not because the evidence has convinced you. In other words....bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 There's a line from one of Tom Clancey's books. (No idea which one.). Mr. Clark is surveiling the Bad Guy's lair. And he observes very little security at all. "He was thinking like a spy, for whom security means concealment and the appearance of harmlessness, rather than thinking like a soldier, for whom security means lots of people with guns, pointing outward." I know I have no proven facts to support this, but I've always assumed that the ambassador was there for just such a reason as Larry's quoting from a Clancy book. It was classified and needed a small footprint. I tend to think that classified nature of the program also determined the operational response, or lack thereof. Then the fact that it happened during a presidential election cycle on the anniversary of 9/11 made everything go to hell in a hand basket. Next thing you know you've got the Admin blaming it on some douche's video, R's out for blood and Muslims rioting all around the world. Then you had Romney hot to trot about the issue, then disappointingly mute when it explicitly came up in one debate, then putting his foot in his mouth about the terrorist issue in the next debate. Continuing my conspiracy theory, I think Romney was told what was actually happening and to stand down and only attack it on the periphery and through meaningless noise box surrogates. That's why he zipped up until the tangential issue of how the president described the issue in press conferences. Otherwise, wouldn't he have simply asked during a debate something like, "Mr. President, what were you doing during this x hour ordeal? What was the Secretary of State doing? Why didn't you help those people?" I mean, it was easy pickings for a national program and Romney never went there. Either he's just that inept or there's more to the story. I always thought, and still think that there's more to the issue than R's or D's in intelligence committees or the Admin want us to know about (e.g., something like funneling weapons to Syria or pro-Military forces). That's why things unfolded in the absurd way they did. /conspiracy theory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Fixed it....Come on man. I'm not saying I agree with ABQCowboy, but the "fixed it" meme was played out five years ago. It's just bush league if you want to claim you're having an actual discussion. You're better than that.Oh, who am I kidding? This is the Tailgate, none of us are better than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted January 17, 2014 Author Share Posted January 17, 2014 I agree Wrong Direction. The report clearly identifies the fact that the Administration has failed to provide pertinent information and documentation to the committee. Other pieces of information have been supressed by this Adminstration so as not to be contained in this report. Also that the Administration prevented the committee access to personnel on the ground, at the time of the attack. (pages 68 thourgh 85). On page 76, the report specifically states that the Ultimate responsibility for the Benghazi Affair is that of Hillary Clinton. I also believe there is more to this but at this point, this is what we have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 It is no secret that I have held to the fact that I do believe the State Department held a great deal of responsibility for this but having said that, I think the report came to some conclusions that I personally don't agree with. ... I imagine every person will evaluate the events and come to their own conclusions. Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 I imagine most folks haven't changed their opinions on this at all. Only now, some feel their beliefs have been backed up. Others feel that they are being mislead and/or there is something being covered up now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted January 17, 2014 Author Share Posted January 17, 2014 I imagine most folks haven't changed their opinions on this at all. Only now, some feel their beliefs have been backed up. Others feel that they are being mislead and/or there is something being covered up now. I wonder which is which? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 As I stated above, the report finds that the intelligence community still has conflicted information on this. they always have conflicted info, the value assigned determines worth. any mention of the military's opinion? not even Dems are buying it http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/01/14/liberal-dianne-feinstein-rejects-nyt-benghazi-reportage-wh%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%98video%E2%80%99-assertion “Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) rejected the Times’s conclusion that al Qaeda wasn’t responsible for the attack that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans,” reported Julian Pecquet today, adding (emphasis mine): She also took issue with the notion that the Libya strike was sparked by a U.S.-made anti-Islam video online. “I believe that groups loosely associated with al Qaeda were” involved in the attack, she told The Hill last week. “That’s my understanding.” She also disputed the notion that the Sept. 11, 2012, assault evolved from a protest against the video, which was widely disseminated by Islamic clerics shortly before the attack. “It doesn’t jibe with me,” she said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Is there any way Fox News can be prevented? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted January 18, 2014 Author Share Posted January 18, 2014 Is there any way Fox News can be prevented? Well, I actually think that if other Media Centers would start reporting both sides, Fox News and it's popularity would be greatly diminished. JMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Well, I actually think that if other Media Centers would start reporting both sides, Fox News and it's popularity would be greatly diminished. JMO Dang, I love irony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Well, I actually think that if other Media Centers would start reporting both sides, Fox News and it's popularity would be greatly diminished. JMO Unintentional comedy is the best comedy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Nobody is really this ****ing stupid. I smell a troll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Nobody is really this ****ing stupid. I smell a troll Fe, Fi, Fo, Fum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 they always have conflicted info, the value assigned determines worth. any mention of the military's opinion? not even Dems are buying it I think we're talking two different things here. Folks in this thread are talking about who to "blame". Even Feinstein is blasting the GOP for trying to invent something where it's Clinton's fault. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/01/16/feinstein-says-gop-abusing-benghazi-report-to-blame-clinton/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Come on man. I'm not saying I agree with ABQCowboy, but the "fixed it" meme was played out five years ago. It's just bush league if you want to claim you're having an actual discussion. You're better than that. Oh, who am I kidding? This is the Tailgate, none of us are better than that. I wasn't claiming to be having an actual discussion at all, I was just illustrating that his "belief" is wholly unsubstantiated and remarkably just happens to coincide exactly with his political leanings....imagine that.Oh and I was being a smart ass in the process. Oh, and I've never been hip to what's current, so five years ago is just about right for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.