Video; Obama, responsible for Benghazi, case closed.

deleted for being contrary to conservative ideology

Originally posted by BobM88
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Thanks very much!

ETA: Ha...the first page answered my question about whether the capitol had moved from Tripoli to Benghazi...the 12/27/11 document said that the TNC moved their center from Benghazi to Tripoli.

edit on 10-5-2013 by BobM88 because: (no reason given)

Oh? Ya don't say.....

(Cue spooky music)



It is, too.

Now I'm out there too. As in, out to bed after fixing my other half's computer. G'night!

deleted for being contrary to conservative ideology

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by cholo

 

Langley could have scrambled jets in that time, watch him sit there and then talk about your dismal
comparison

What the hell would Langley have to do with scrambling jets???

To protect the pentagon

reply to post by cholo

Dear cholo,

Let's work on numbers. The House Republicans were the ones that cut the security budget? Nope.

House Democrats opened Wednesday’s House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing by attacking Republicans for cuts to embassy security funding— cuts that only happened thanks to overwhelming support from House Democrats, including House Oversight Committee Ranking Democratic member Rep. Elijah Cummings. In fact, more House Democrats – 149 of them — voted for the cuts than did House Republicans, of which 147 voted for them.

dailycaller.com...
Since the Republicans held 241 seats to the Democrats 191, that means 61% of the Republicans voted to cut the budget, and 78% of the Democrats did. It looks like Obama's party was the main mover.

Oh, and if I had wanted to insult you, you would have known. No insult intended here.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by cholo


So then, just to be clear, your avoiding answering questions about Obama?

And you started a thread about Obama and Benghazi, so you could blame Bush?

Because your doing both, and not much more.

I will take it from your intentional lack of addressing anything about Obama, you know which side of this argument is the wrong one, and you just find it impossible to admit to any faults of your hero.

As blaming Bush, and deflection does nothing but make you look pathetic, as you started the thread defending Obama, and will not ever address the actual facts about the problems with the official story.

Facts are facts, your just an Obamazombie, intent on defending him, no matter the situation, ignoring anything he does, and dismissing it, because he is Obama, and it doesn't matter.

IT BUSHS FAULT!!!!!!!


LOL, pathetic op, just pathetic man.

I wash my hands of this idiocy, op you are the worst thread maker ever.

I know, nest time make a thread about Clinton, and spend the entire thread blaming Bush for everything, even though he hadn't even been Pres yet, it would make as much sense.

My only hope, is that when the mods show up and delete half your posts for being off topic, you will learn a valuable lesson, and at least address replies to your op, from the perspective of the op, not blaming someone who had absolutely nothing to do with it.

deleted for being contrary to conservative ideology

Originally posted by BobM88
reply to post by redtic

 

Simply admitting "I don't know" is difficult for lots of people.

“For ultimately, the buck stops with me. As President, I have a solemn responsibility to protect our nation and our people. And when the system fails, it is my responsibility,” ~Obama



"I don't remember", or "I plead the fifth", might be the new rally call for this Administration.

reply to post by cholo

Dear cholo,

And you ignored my point. The Democrats were much more willing to cut the security budget than the Republicans, and the cuts wouldn't have passed without their vigorous support.

The clip you posted is just a repetition of what you've said before, that it was the Republicans' fault. I'm trying to show you why that is wrong.

With respect,
Charles1952

Deleted for being contrary to conservative ideology

***Attention***

Please discuss the topic and not each other. Ad hominem attacks will not be tolerated.

Thanks.

Hefficide

reply to post by cholo

Dear cholo,

A couple of quick questions.

Do you really believe that Moderators here censor posters simply because they have a liberal position? That hasn't been my experience at all, it's usually for some flagrant abuse or violation of the Ts and Cs.

What does "accepting responsibility" mean to you? After the words "I accept responsibility" are spoken, do you think everything is over? That there is no punishment or any further action to be taken?

Oh, and as an aside, when I see that it is Charles1952 contra mundum I usually step back and reasess my thinking. May I suggest that for you as well?

With respect,
Charles1952

With respect,
Charles1952

Anyways, I guess my perspective is not valid in these parts. Interesting how the stick always falls here.

Take Care ATS, I give up, you can be an echo chamber, you have earned it!

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by cholo

 

Dear cholo,

A couple of quick questions.

Do you really believe that Moderators here censor posters simply because they have a liberal position? That hasn't been my experience at all, it's usually for some flagrant abuse or violation of the Ts and Cs.

What does "accepting responsibility" mean to you? After the words "I accept responsibility" are spoken, do you think everything is over? That there is no punishment or any further action to be taken?

Oh, and as an aside, when I see that it is Charles1952 contra mundum I usually step back and reasess my thinking. May I suggest that for you as well?

With respect,
Charles1952

With respect,
Charles1952

Charles, I am leaving ATS, you guys win, you own the mods and you have the numbers.

YOU ARE VICTORIOUS!

Enjoy.

Bye

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by cholo

 

Dear cholo,

A couple of quick questions.

Do you really believe that Moderators here censor posters simply because they have a liberal position? That hasn't been my experience at all, it's usually for some flagrant abuse or violation of the Ts and Cs.

What does "accepting responsibility" mean to you? After the words "I accept responsibility" are spoken, do you think everything is over? That there is no punishment or any further action to be taken?

Oh, and as an aside, when I see that it is Charles1952 contra mundum I usually step back and reasess my thinking. May I suggest that for you as well?

With respect,
Charles1952

With respect,
Charles1952

I assure you guys, Hefficide is one of the best mods you will ever encounter, and has never to my knowledge, been known to censor someone for political beliefs.

On a side note, Heff has been known to claim to be liberal at times, and has also supported many of Obamas policies, as well as being quite happy about his winning reelection.

So I wouldn't worry too much about him censoring anyone for their political beliefs, period!!

Not really aimed at you Charles, I was just responding to your response to cholo.

Originally posted by cholo
Anyways, I guess my perspective is not valid in these parts. Interesting how the stick always falls here.

Take Care ATS, I give up, you can be an echo chamber, you have earned it!

OHHH!!! come on man!!! Don't take your ball and go home!!!!!

We don't want you to leave!!!! We just want you to explain, in your own words, why your defending Obama, with such vigor, when it seems so obvious to us he broke a sacred trust with members of the military, and diplomatic staff, by allowing them to be killed, and refusing to send them aid, when it was available, and could have arrived in time to help.

In a manner that doesn't involve deflection, or blaming Bush, who was not President at the time.

Please some back!!!!! You can U2U me and insult me, I don't care, I promise!!!!!

reply to post by Hefficide

Dear Hefficide,

This is off-topic as well. It seems that the moderating of this thread was reasonable. One "off-topic" seems about right. But I'm disappointed that cholo felt the way he did. It's hard enough to find a thread where I have to do a little digging and come up with new information, but I enjoy the challenge. I'm sad he ran off.

Well, not to be a complete waste of space, it seems likely that this investigation will go some place. I saw that 62% of the House Republicans are calling for a full select committee investigation. I don't know where Boehner will come down on that issue, but if he agrees it will get exciting.

The select committee would have members from several relevant committees such as State, Intelligence, Defense, and so on, AND they would have the power to issue subpoenas. That'll be a hoot.

Speaking of subpoenas, I wonder how Holder is coming along on that "Fast and Furious" business? Drag it out until after 2014?

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Holder is another topic that hasn't been rectified.


BTW,

You're too busy "confusing and swaying peoples belief systems" !



I laughed so hard at your sig!

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Hefficide

 

Dear Hefficide,

This is off-topic as well. It seems that the moderating of this thread was reasonable. One "off-topic" seems about right. But I'm disappointed that cholo felt the way he did. It's hard enough to find a thread where I have to do a little digging and come up with new information, but I enjoy the challenge. I'm sad he ran off.

Well, not to be a complete waste of space, it seems likely that this investigation will go some place. I saw that 62% of the House Republicans are calling for a full select committee investigation. I don't know where Boehner will come down on that issue, but if he agrees it will get exciting.

The select committee would have members from several relevant committees such as State, Intelligence, Defense, and so on, AND they would have the power to issue subpoenas. That'll be a hoot.

Speaking of subpoenas, I wonder how Holder is coming along on that "Fast and Furious" business? Drag it out until after 2014?

With respect,
Charles1952

I don't believe Heff is allowed to participate in this thread like he does in others, because he is moderating it, thus maintaining an unbiased stance, on the part of the staff. No conflict of interest and all that.

on topic: I just want to know who crapped in the fudge brownies in this whole thing.

I am not blaming Obama specifically, it is quite possible he had nothing to do with it, but one of his staff did at some level, and I want to know who and why.

We lost good people, who could have been saved. Maybe not all of them, heck, we may have still lost them all and them some of those trying to come to their aid.

At least trying is the important part to me.

If they were denied consent to go, because it was determined that we would have just lost more,lives, I could even accept that reality, but that hasn't been stated, instead we get the Pres saying on national TV " I am not aware about any comments about that, I will have to look into it".

Which is total BS, he is the Pres, he has 37 people telling him this stuff 20 times a day, he knows full well what is being said.