CNN Sources: 3 al Qaeda operatives took part in Benghazi attack

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Denny Crane said:
There will be something like binders of women, and it'll be 24/7 on the networks, instead.
Click to expand...

I'd say you're right, but Carney was caught in so many lies today, that some of the major networks are going to have to start investigating it.
 
PapaG said:
I'd say you're right, but Carney was caught in so many lies today, that some of the major networks are going to have to start investigating it.
Click to expand...

Ho Ho Ho !!!
 
Denny Crane said:
Yeah it was. Nixon illegally used the FBI and other agencies to threaten people on his enemies list. That's the tip of a really big iceberg.
Click to expand...

Is that significantly different than using the IRS to harass conservative non-profits?

Go Blazers
 
oldguy said:
Is that significantly different than using the IRS to harass conservative non-profits?

Go Blazers
Click to expand...

Either way, it seems absolutely corrupt.
 
oldguy said:
Is that significantly different than using the IRS to harass conservative non-profits?

Go Blazers
Click to expand...

Nixon had the FBI do illegal wiretaps of individuals and then intervened to prevent the FBI from fully investigating Watergate. He then fired people in the DoJ until he found one that would fire the special prosecutor. He committed perjury and obstructed justice, among other things. These things, among others, made Nixon's actions a constitutional crisis.

What exactly did the IRS do that was criminal here?
 
Denny Crane said:
Nixon had the FBI do illegal wiretaps of individuals and then intervened to prevent the FBI from fully investigating Watergate. He then fired people in the DoJ until he found one that would fire the special prosecutor. He committed perjury and obstructed justice, among other things. These things, among others, made Nixon's actions a constitutional crisis.

What exactly did the IRS do that was criminal here?
Click to expand...

hmm the IR guy that said there was no wrong doing has "retired"

hillery was unavailable till after the election, the general "retired" and so on..I think the head count on benghazi is over ten
 
Denny Crane said:
Nixon had the FBI do illegal wiretaps of individuals and then intervened to prevent the FBI from fully investigating Watergate. He then fired people in the DoJ until he found one that would fire the special prosecutor. He committed perjury and obstructed justice, among other things. These things, among others, made Nixon's actions a constitutional crisis.

What exactly did the IRS do that was criminal here?
Click to expand...

I'm not an expert on IRS laws and policy. It would seem that they targeted opposition to the current administration. That would seem to be a form of discrimination. I guess we'll see whether it was illegal as more comes to light.

Go Blazers
 
oldguy said:
I'm not an expert on IRS laws and policy. It would seem that they targeted opposition to the current administration. That would seem to be a form of discrimination. I guess we'll see whether it was illegal as more comes to light.

Go Blazers
Click to expand...

I'm still not seeing it. The first two posts include articles that say that 25% of those applications given extra scrutiny were tea party and the like. 75% weren't. So that really puts a hurt on the theory that they targeted political opposition.

Second, the IRS asking for more information from applicants who want 501(c)3 (tax exempt) organization status is hardly harassment. It would be a lot more of a concern if the administration's opposition were audited.

Third, why use the IRS to do something sinister as claimed? Nixon used the FBI and not the IRS for a reason... Ya know?

Fourth, those organizations claiming 501(c)3 and similar status are prohibited by law from political activities. So black churches, as I mentioned, white churches, tea party, etc., should be scrutinized. Otherwise the Democrats are getting partially funded at the taxpayer's expense. (True for republican organizations too, just making the point).
 
I love incestuous Washington.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/11/t...ews-may-drop-reporter-over-benghazi-coverage/

The brother of a top Obama administration official is also the president of CBS News, and the network may be days away from dropping one of its top investigative reporters for covering the administration’s scandals too aggressively.

CBS News executives have reportedly expressed frustration with their own reporter, Sharyl Attkisson, who has steadily covered the Obama administration’s handling of the Benghazi terrorist attack in Libya since late last year.

“Network sources” told Politico Wednesday that CBS executives feel Attkisson’s Benghazi coverage is bordering on advocacy, and Attkisson “can’t get some of her stories on the air.”
Click to expand...
 
Denny Crane said:
I'm still not seeing it. The first two posts include articles that say that 25% of those applications given extra scrutiny were tea party and the like. 75% weren't. So that really puts a hurt on the theory that they targeted political opposition.
Click to expand...

I guess that makes sense, if "tea party and the like" are 25% of all non-profits. I have no idea if they are 25% of all non-profits, but it doesn't seem likely.

Second, the IRS asking for more information from applicants who want 501(c)3 (tax exempt) organization status is hardly harassment. It would be a lot more of a concern if the administration's opposition were audited.
Click to expand...

If they picked in inordinate number of 'tea party and the like' (tpatl) non-profits, it is harassment, imo. Do you know what they asked the non-profits? Did they ask the tpatl non-profits the same questions they asked the other 75%? Did they treat the tpatl non-profits with the same respect they showed the other 75%?

Third, why use the IRS to do something sinister as claimed? Nixon used the FBI and not the IRS for a reason... Ya know?
Click to expand...

How would I know why they chose the agency? Maybe Nixon had someone in the FBI that would do his bidding. Maybe President Obama has someone in the IRS that will do his bidding.

Fourth, those organizations claiming 501(c)3 and similar status are prohibited by law from political activities. So black churches, as I mentioned, white churches, tea party, etc., should be scrutinized. Otherwise the Democrats are getting partially funded at the taxpayer's expense. (True for republican organizations too, just making the point).
Click to expand...

I have no problem with the IRS doing their job, which includes scrutinizing non-profits. I do have a problem with it if they do it to intimidate those that disagree with the administration, or if they single groups out for special attention.

Go Blazers
 
This stupid thread is a good way to tell who watches Fox. Because if you don't, you sure don't give a shit about whether a President doesn't tell the media all he knows after a CIA outpost in Benghazi has been attacked.

Standard operating procedure is to have a cover story while the proper response is determined. Only children would complain that a President's surrogate stuck to a cover story for a couple of weeks.
 
Interesting, given the recent news of 3-time Emmy winner Sheryl Attkisson being forced out at CBS for reporting on Benghazi and using "advocacy" in her reporting. Which is laughable on its own. Trying to report the truth is now political advocacy according to CBS News. Dan Rather, anyone??

CBS News President and WH Official Tied to Benghazi Scandal Are Brothers

http://www.freerepublic.com/^http:/...official-tied-to-benghazi-scandal-are-brother

One of the mainstream media journalists whose pursuit of the truth has been truly tenacious and nonpartisan is CBS News' Sharyl Attkisson. Her tough reporting has made life difficult for everyone from Hillary Clinton to the Bush administration and Congressional Republicans. She's also been relentless on the Obama administration's Fast & Furious gun-running scandal -- and, of course, Benghazi. As we mentioned this week, Attkisson's tough investigative journalism is starting to bother unnamed CBS News executives. Here's Politico's scoop, in case you missed it:

But from where Attkisson is sitting, there are actually two Goliaths, one of which is almost entirely absent from the Post profile. The second Goliath is CBS News, which has grown increasingly frustrated with Attkisson's Benghazi campaign. CBS News executives see Attkisson wading dangerously close to advocacy on the issue, network sources have told POLITICO. Attkisson can't get some of her stories on the air, and is thus left feeling marginalized and underutilized. That, in part, is why Attkisson is in talks to leave CBS ahead of contract, as POLITICO reported in April. Farhi mentions "internal conflicts" in the final paragraph, though he seems to dismiss them. The "internal conflicts" are indeed real -- Attkisson is still eyeing an exit, according to sources -- and provide important context for today's piece.

My analysis of this report was highly critical of CBS News. The network appears to be penalizing one of its best correspondents because she's doing her job too aggressively. Conservatives quickly imputed a political motive to CBS News' internal drama, but the Daily Caller has uncovered a connection that suggests there's a striking personal angle to this controversy, as well:

The brother of a top Obama administration official is also the president of CBS News, and the network may be days away from dropping one of its top investigative reporters for covering the administration’s scandals too aggressively. CBS News executives have reportedly expressed frustration with their own reporter, Sharyl Attkisson, who has steadily covered the Obama administration’s handling of the Benghazi terrorist attack in Libya since late last year...On Friday, ABC News reported that the Benghazi talking points went through 12 revisions before they were used on the public. The White House was intimately involved in that process, ABC reported, and the talking points were scrubbed free of their original references to a terror attack. That reporting revealed that President Obama’s deputy national security advisor, Ben Rhodes — brother of CBS News president David Rhodes — was instrumental in changing the talking points in September 2012. ABC’s reporting revealed that Ben Rhodes, who has a masters in fiction from NYU, called a meeting to discuss the talking points at the White House on September 15, 2012.

Well then. "CBS News executives" are wringing their hands that Sharyl Attkisson maybe "wading dangerously close" to advocacy on Benghazi. It's now entirely reasonable to ask if the top executive at the network may be "wading dangerously close" to a massive conflict of interest. Is David Rhodes trying to protect his brother -- who's just been revealed to be knee-deep in the Benghazi cover-up -- by muzzling and marginalizing a problematic journalist within his news division? Kudos to the Caller for shining the spotlight on that relationship, but it's amazing that no one connected those dots sooner. How many people in the elite MSM orbit are aware that Ben and David Rhodes are brothers? And they definitely are brothers, by the way; The New York Times confirmed that fact in a glowing profile of the younger Rhodes in March:

The son of a conservative-leaning Episcopalian father from Texas and a more liberal Jewish mother from New York, Mr. Rhodes grew up in a home where even sports loyalties were divided: he and his mother are ardent Mets fans; his father and his older brother, David, root for the Yankees. “No one in that house agreed on anything,” said David Rhodes, who is now the president of CBS News.

If Sharyl Attkisson continues to be relegated to the sidelines, or is even shown the door, at CBS News over her Benghazi coverage, the public must demand full disclosure about David Rhodes' role in that decision-making process. The Rhodes brothers' familial tie may be a bizarre, irrelevant coincidence. It's possible. But it's not a leap to suggest that this reeks of corruption and collusion.
Click to expand...
 
jlprk said:
This stupid thread is a good way to tell who watches Fox. Because if you don't, you sure don't give a shit about whether a President doesn't tell the media all he knows after a CIA outpost in Benghazi has been attacked.

Standard operating procedure is to have a cover story while the proper response is determined. Only children would complain that a President's surrogate stuck to a cover story for a couple of weeks.
Click to expand...

I don't watch Fox. Obama and his administration are clearly lying, though. Even NBC and ABC are now onto it. I'm sorry your feelers got hurt, though, so keep up with the "Fox" nonsense.
 
jlprk said:
This stupid thread is a good way to tell who watches Fox. Because if you don't, you sure don't give a shit about whether a President doesn't tell the media all he knows after a CIA outpost in Benghazi has been attacked.

Standard operating procedure is to have a cover story while the proper response is determined. Only children would complain that a President's surrogate stuck to a cover story for a couple of weeks.
Click to expand...

I don't watch FOX.

The ignorance and smug crap in this post overflows.
 
I don't watch Fox. In fact, I don't have cable/satellite television.
 
PapaG said:
I don't watch Fox. Obama and his administration are clearly lying, though. Even NBC and ABC are now onto it. I'm sorry your feelers got hurt, though, so keep up with the "Fox" nonsense.
Click to expand...

Masbee said:
I don't watch FOX.

The ignorance and smug crap in this post overflows.
Click to expand...

ABM said:
I don't watch Fox. In fact, I don't have cable/satellite television.
Click to expand...

You guys will get a laugh out of this then!

[video=youtube;C0u3rzSTR8Y]

 
SlyPokerDog said:
You guys will get a laugh out of this then!
Click to expand...


Shoot, let me add to the fray. ;)

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/mccain-benghazi-cover-investigation-143339866.html

Last week, fellow Republican Sen. James Inhofe suggested President Obama could be impeached for his role in the case.

"Of all the great cover-ups in history—we’re talking about the Pentagon Papers, the Iran-Contra, Watergate and all the rest of them—this is going to go down as the most serious, most egregious cover-up in American history.".....
Click to expand...
 
U.S. Embassy attacks by president:

3 Carter
3 Reagan
2 Obama
1 GHWBush
1 Clinton
14 George W. Bush

60-70 Deaths in consulate attacks during Dubya's presidency
ZERO Republican outrage during Dubya's presidency
 
jlprk said:
U.S. Embassy attacks by president:

3 Carter
3 Reagan
2 Obama
1 GHWBush
1 Clinton
14 George W. Bush

60-70 Deaths in consulate attacks during Dubya's presidency
ZERO Republican outrage during Dubya's presidency
Click to expand...

Dubya didn't deliberately lie about them and blame deaths on a video when no intel said as much, you balloon. Your posts are getting dumber by the day, as are your deflections. Isn't the poor sap who made the video still in jail? For what? Making a fucking lame ass video that the President of the United States decided to use as a bullshit excuse?

When was a US ambassador killed under Dubya, by the way?
 
Last edited:
He didn't have to lie to protect the CIA, because Democrats don't politicize CIA events, as you and Republicans are doing with Benghazi.
 
jlprk said:
He didn't have to lie to protect the CIA, because Democrats don't politicize CIA events, as you and Republicans are doing with Benghazi.
Click to expand...

Valerie Plame, where the only 'conviction' was a perjury charge, and not the leaking of classified info. Because it was Richard Armitage and Colin Powell who leaked it to Bob Novak, and not anyone in the White House.

You're losing it. Your posts are pathetic at this point.
 
jlprk said:
U.S. Embassy attacks by president:

3 Carter
3 Reagan
2 Obama
1 GHWBush
1 Clinton
14 George W. Bush

60-70 Deaths in consulate attacks during Dubya's presidency
ZERO Republican outrage during Dubya's presidency
Click to expand...

W launched the War on Terror. Al Queda was a force early on.

But you knew that.

How many American deaths under Republican Presidents during WWII?

Also, the crime for Bengazi is in the coverup.
 
Masbee said:
W launched the War on Terror. Al Queda was a force early on.

But you knew that.

How many American deaths under Republican Presidents during WWII?

Also, the crime for Bengazi is in the coverup.
Click to expand...

Obama has prosecuted the same war fo 5 years. You got me on WW2. But there were more Civil War deaths were under Republican presidents than WW2 American deaths under Democrats.

A couple of days ago with Denny, I had to go back to the Peloponnesian War. I can dig up Neanderthal battles if necessary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top