New Disclosures on Benghazi

Status
Not open for further replies.
In addition to the head of FEST, other upcoming interviews include Victoria Nuland.

And today, CNN is stating that Obama Is going to go through with with her promotion.

Cripes, now that is trolling!
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
In addition to the head of FEST, other upcoming interviews include Victoria Nuland.

And today, CNN is stating that Obama Is going to go through with with her promotion.
Click to expand...
Was Victoria convicted of something or found to have been in breach of some ethical rule?

Cripes, now that is trolling!
Click to expand...
What does that mean?
 
RandFan said:
Was Victoria convicted of something or found to have been in breach of some ethical rule?
Click to expand...

Only to Republican conspiracy theorists.

What does that mean?
Click to expand...

Well, since Republican conspiracy theorists know that Nuland was a key co-conspirator in the Benghazi coverup, and obviously Obama knows that Republican conspiracy theorists know that Nuland was a key co-conspirator in the Benghazi coverup, the only possible reason he could be promoting her is to thumb his nose at said Republican conspiracy theorists who know that Nuland was a key co-conspirator in the Benghazi coverup.
 
ANTPogo said:
Only to Republican conspiracy theorists.

Well, since Republican conspiracy theorists know that Nuland was a key co-conspirator in the Benghazi coverup, and obviously Obama knows that Republican conspiracy theorists know that Nuland was a key co-conspirator in the Benghazi coverup, the only possible reason he could be promoting her is to thumb his nose at said Republican conspiracy theorists who know that Nuland was a key co-conspirator in the Benghazi coverup.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I've been out of the loop on conspiracy theory philosophy. I forgot about the guilty until proven innocent concept.
 
16.5 said:
In addition to the head of FEST, other upcoming interviews include Victoria Nuland.

And today, CNN is stating that Obama Is going to go through with with her promotion.

Cripes, now that is trolling!
Click to expand...

And it looks like the Crazies agree with me that Obama is trolling:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/05/obama-nominates-benghazi-scapegoat-promotion

Hoo boy is right, although I assume part of that must be satire. Sloppily drafted and filled with classified information? How ridiculous can you get!

Here on JREF, we know that is false (although, I'll give him a pass on sloppily drafted, as he seems to be an expert!)
 
16.5 said:
And it looks like the Crazies agree with me that Obama is trolling:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/05/obama-nominates-benghazi-scapegoat-promotion

Hoo boy is right, although I assume part of that must be satire. Sloppily drafted and filled with classified information? How ridiculous can you get!

Here on JREF, we know that is false (although, I'll give him a pass on sloppily drafted, as he seems to be an expert!)
Click to expand...
Has Nuland broken a law or breached any professional ethic?

Hoo boy means Obama isn't afraid of the GOP and their witch hunt.

From The Link said:
The only question is, on a scale of 1 to 10, just how loathsome and shameless can the attacks from the Fox News set get over this? I'm going to predict it'll be about an 8. Give Ted Cruz a few minutes to warm up and he'll be claiming that Nuland's suggested changes to the Benghazi talking points should be prosecuted as a war crime.
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting this.
 
16.5 said:
And it looks like the Crazies agree with me that Obama is trolling:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/05/obama-nominates-benghazi-scapegoat-promotion

Hoo boy is right, although I assume part of that must be satire. Sloppily drafted and filled with classified information? How ridiculous can you get!

Here on JREF, we know that is false (although, I'll give him a pass on sloppily drafted, as he seems to be an expert!)
Click to expand...

How is it that you cite an article but completely miss the point of that article?
 
thaiboxerken said:
How is it that you cite an article but completely miss the point of that article?
Click to expand...

I didn't cite the article, friendo, I linked it here for people to read. Like you and the Hoard.

"On a political basis, hoo boy. Obama is waving a red cape in front of a bull here." The great thing is that I recognize spittle soaked partisan nonsense, and am quite comfortable posting it, particularly someone slapping Nuland on the back for the ridiculously worthless and wrong talking points.

Classified, oh dear, he should read this thread; won't take long, he can read my posts and ignore the three or four posts following it.

/Uh oh! 16.5 posted something in the Benghazi thread! It is the Obamasignal, to the Politics thread!
Pavlov would be fascinated by this thread... ring, ring, ring!
 
16.5 said:
I didn't cite the article, friendo, I linked it here for people to read. Like you and the Hoard.

"On a political basis, hoo boy. Obama is waving a red cape in front of a bull here." The great thing is that I recognize spittle soaked partisan nonsense, and am quite comfortable posting it, particularly someone slapping Nuland on the back for the ridiculously worthless and wrong talking points.

Classified, oh dear, he should read this thread; won't take long, he can read my posts and ignore the three or four posts following it.

/Uh oh! 16.5 posted something in the Benghazi thread! It is the Obamasignal, to the Politics thread!
Pavlov would be fascinated by this thread... ring, ring, ring!
Click to expand...

You didn't cite it, just quoted it and posted a link to it......:rolleyes:
 
thaiboxerken said:
You didn't cite it, just quoted it and posted a link to it......:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That is right, I understand that the difference is subtle, and it might escape you. That is fine.

I am happy you enjoyed the article.

/I do think whoever wrote that headline calling her a scapegoat is playing a little trick on our intrepid author!
 
Last edited:
Captain Hindsight!

16.5 said:
"On a political basis, hoo boy. Obama is waving a red cape in front of a bull here." The great thing is that I recognize spittle soaked partisan nonsense, and am quite comfortable posting it, particularly someone slapping Nuland on the back for the ridiculously worthless and wrong talking points.
Click to expand...
Did Nuland breach an ethical rule or break a law? Do you know what Nuland knew? Do you deny that the report from the CIA was contradictory? Your powers of hindsight are truly remarkable.

captainhindsight.jpg
 
16.5 said:
That is right, I understand that the difference is subtle, and it might escape you. That is fine.

I am happy you enjoyed the article.

/I do think whoever wrote that headline calling her a scapegoat is playing a little trick on our intrepid author!
Click to expand...

No, there is not.
 
The New York Times has weighed in on Nuland.

In an e-mail, she urged deleting mention of past warnings of terrorism in Libya because lawmakers could use that “to beat the State Department for not paying attention.”

And why would anyone wish to criticize the State Department for "not paying attention."

Oh right, 4 dead Americans in Benghazi.
 
16.5 said:
The New York Times has weighed in on Nuland.

In an e-mail, she urged deleting mention of past warnings of terrorism in Libya because lawmakers could use that “to beat the State Department for not paying attention.”

And why would anyone wish to criticize the State Department for "not paying attention."

Oh right, 4 dead Americans in Benghazi.
Click to expand...
Captain Hindsight, it was primarily a CIA operation and the CIA was trying to deflect blame onto the state department. Nuland recognized that fact.

Then you know all of this but you don't care. It doesn't fit your bias.

Oh, in case you didn't figure it out, that's not a smoking gun that proves what Nuland knew or didn't know.
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
And it looks like the Crazies agree with me that Obama is trolling:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/05/obama-nominates-benghazi-scapegoat-promotion

Hoo boy is right, although I assume part of that must be satire. Sloppily drafted and filled with classified information? How ridiculous can you get!

Here on JREF, we know that is false (although, I'll give him a pass on sloppily drafted, as he seems to be an expert!)
Click to expand...

Someone does not know the definition of the word "scapegoat". Color me surprised.

Daredelvis
 
16.5 there will be no criminal prosecutions resulting from this "scandal." Neither will there be any political impact against Obama.
 
We've devoted much discussion to the CIA's "alleged" conclusion that the attack spontaneously arose from an anti-video protest outside the Consulate. So I did some digging to find the first reference to the "CIA's" alleged conclusion. It turns out that the first reference to the video and the attack came from Hillary Clinton on 9/11/12.

"Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom