patrick.net

Dan8267 says

1. The right has been taken over by extremist loons.

by your measure that would include Senator John McCain. right ?

so how did he win the Republican nomination ?

Does he seem like a right wing nut.. hardly!

thomaswong.1986 says

How exactly does the Obama camp figure the attack on "09/11" was reaction to a anti Muslim YouTube video, given the real time transmissions showed it was an AQ attack and still did nothing.

There were protests going on at the same time, that's why.

But what I would like to know is, what if the OBama admin and the CIA was intentionally down playing the terrorism factor? WHAT IF THEY WERE ?

There are good reasons to do this, other than domestic political reasons.

For example, what if it was because they were fishing for some terrorist group to step up and take credit for it?

Or what if it was because of known best practices of not letting terrorists achieve the goals of a terrorist attack, by giving them credit for it?

I don't recall ever seeing republicans appear to be such retarded dirt bags, as they have been with the whole Bengazzi nonsense. You can't even see how it looks, because you really are THAT stupid.

marcus says

There were protests going on at the same time, that's why.

Protests In Benghazi or Egypt ? and of course dont you think anywhere in Middle East say during September 11 of any year there should have been beefed up security ?

what do you recommend the embassy and consuls staff do the
week of Sept 11 2013, 2014...

incompetence in safeguarding our nation...

thomaswong.1986 says

and of course dont you think anywhere in Middle East say during September 11 of any year there should have been beefed up security ?

Yes, and it was republican congress that denied that beefed up security.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/10/985191/chaffetz-absolutely-funding-embassy-security/

voting to cut 300 million from embaasy security. IF the democrats were half as slimey as republicans, you would have been hearing a lot more about this. But democrats are more about solving problems, than republicans who were all jumping up and down like retarded children and yelling "ooh ooh ooh, we've rally got them now."

marcus says

voting to cut 300 million from embaasy security.

as with any budget.. you rebalance your spending on your priorities.

Sept 11 2013 is around the corner... whats your plan with the funds you have?

Its doesnt take a miracle to work with spending and budgets.... you reallocate.

Now you screwed up ... and your blaming it on someone else...

how immature of Obama... stand up be a man! say you were wrong..

But in Chicago .. they dont do that! its not the Chicago way... so they keep blaming for their

own incompetence.

thomaswong.1986 says

by your measure that would include Senator John McCain. right ?

How the fuck do you know what my measure is?

thomaswong.1986 says

Now you screwed up ... and your blaming it on someone else...

As I said, you rarely here people (including democrats) talking about congressional funding cuts to embassy security.

And I'm sure you're probably right that the amount funded for embassy security is totally unrelated to the amount of securty that occurs there.

thomaswong.1986 says

how immature of Obama... stand up be a man! say you were wrong..

Obama and Hilary Clinton both have stood up, unlike any republican ever would and taken blame. Saying their priority is to avaoid this happening again.

Again, if only you had a clue how pathetically you gobble up the stupid propaganda making such a colossal asshole of yourself.

Mistakes happen all the time. But it takes retarded (and slimey) republicans to jump on this tragedy the way so many of you do.

Here's some accidental truth from your favorite network.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/cCqJtm6l_Co

Dan8267 says

thomaswong.1986 says

by your measure that would include Senator John McCain. right ?

How the fuck do you know what my measure is?

McCain is a rino, he is really a progressive, neocon.

marcus says

Mistakes happen all the time. But it takes retarded (and slimey) republicans to jump on this tragedy the way so many of you do.

do cover ups happen everyday ? the same week data from the CIA was removed from UN ambassador talking points.. pointing to facts it was a terrorist attack.

why cover it up.. say it was a terrorist attack and be done with it ! no that would go counter to election speeches not to mention appeasing the Muslims.

Dan8267 says

thomaswong.1986 says

by your measure that would include Senator John McCain. right ?

How the fuck do you know what my measure is?

oh thats right.. by Dans standard.. McCain is a war criminal.

thomaswong.1986 says

Dan8267 says

thomaswong.1986 says

by your measure that would include Senator John McCain. right ?

How the fuck do you know what my measure is?

oh thats right.. by Dans standard.. McCain is a war criminal.

Once again, you have proven that you don't know jack diddly shit about what goes on in my mind. Hell, a puny childish mind like yours could not possibly understand the workings of an adult mind like mine.

I have never suggested that McCain was a war criminal. You just pulled that out of your ass like you do everything. And that's why you're not going to be able to refer to any thing I've written which implies McCain is a war criminal. You, like most of the few people left in the Republican rank-n-file, are a dirty rotten liar with no credibility. But I will concede that you represent your fellow conservatives accurately: full of hatred and empty of knowledge.

thomaswong.1986 says

why cover it up.. say it was a terrorist attack and be done with it

marcus says

But what I would like to know is, what if the OBama admin and the CIA was intentionally down playing the terrorism factor? WHAT IF THEY WERE ?

There are good reasons to do this, other than domestic political reasons.

For example, what if it was because they were fishing for some terrorist group to step up and take credit for it?

Or what if it was because of known best practices of not letting terrorists achieve the goals of a terrorist attack, by giving them credit for it?

thomaswong.1986 says

CL says

Is there no real looney left?

yes .. lots...

maxine waters...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3I-PVVowFY

cover up against any regulations on Fannie Mae given the cronism and outright fraud commited by their owne members.. far more than Encon could ever be!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQXbT5ZMYaY

....

barney franks... wow... a real nut job given too much power ....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW5qKYfqALE

Maxine has a different point of view than you? Who knew?

Yet, that alone doesn't make that looney, ya know. Where are the ridiculous accusations like the right has?

I guess it's as I thought, Only one side is literally crazy.

RE: Benghazi. For the life of me, can't figure out what the accused motivations are even supposed to be.

Obama said act of terror, not terrorism. That would help him how? The voter would make some distinction?

And pressed in the debates, he insists, "I did call it terror!!", because now it is advantageous to call it terrorism? Huh?

And he allegedly somehow told the military to stand down? Why? When mobilizing against attacks, especially terror, only seems to bolster the incumbent's chances of reelection?

Papa Bush's poll numbers were astronomical during Persian Gulf I. Bush got reelected despite failing horribly on Al Qaeda, and got reelected BECAUSE of Al Qaeda.

So, Obama should have gotten a bump if he mobilized. And he would have won be an even bigger margin than he did, which was already the biggest since Ike.

The whole thing is ridiculously stupid.

Are there left-wingers that are a bit nutty? Sure. Of course there are.
But in the vein of this conversation, I agree that the far right takes the cake, but its only because the manner of how the GOP has chosen to deliver their message to them is different and by its nature of focus on xenophobia, weird conspiracies, and fear-mongering in the ever-present assertion that any and all liberal ideas are surely ones that lead down the path towards socialism/communism/boogie-manism/

Only problem: these tactics are outdated and starting to backfire at an increased rate. These tactics are very appealing and believable to one cross-segment of their reliable base. But their base is now too small to make a difference anymore. At the same time, this base seems to be growing increasingly removed from reality and their claims and ideas also in some ways have become even more outlandish.

So basically, the far right isn't going away. But as they become less and less significant I expect them to make more and more noise. If the GOP cares to have any meaningful part of US politics other than simply obstruction then they are going to have to become perhaps a bit more reasonable and less reliant on the aforementioned tactics that worked so well in the past and now can't "work the magic" anymore.

Oh yeah. FDR could have prevented Pearl Harbor, but didn't so he could get us into WWII. Also, he didn't help save the economy, he made it worse. The war he made us get into solved the depression. See?!?!? You can be a rightwinger!

2 nuts don't make a right!

FortWayne says

2 nuts don't make a right!

but they do make a scrotum

CL says

RE: Benghazi. For the life of me, can't figure out what the accused motivations are even supposed to be.

Obama said act of terror, not terrorism. That would help him how? The voter would make some distinction?

there is more to come... sooner than later!

Exclusive: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/will-the-ghosts-of-benghazi-haunt-hillary-the-note/

ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack. White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.

-------------------------------
Report Says al-Qaeda, CIA Warnings Deleted From Benghazi Talking Points

References to al-Qaeda and to CIA warnings of terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months before the attack on the U.S. diplomatic facility there were deleted from the now famous "talking points" delivered to Congress and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, ABC News reported Friday.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/15362-report-says-al-qaeda-cia-warnings-deleted-from-benghazi-talking-points

CL says

Oh yeah. FDR could have prevented Pearl Harbor,

had this been Nixon, you would have accused him of covering up attacking another nation. just as much as you are covering up Obama disclaiming WE were attacked.

but i do understand you wish to ignore all the facts because it would tarnish Obama.

and it would at the end of 8 years to see Obama a far worst president than Bush

Remember Rightie tightie, Lefty Losey.

THese wacko dimbulbs listen to nothing that doesn't confirm their intellectually dishonest bullshit.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/cCqJtm6l_Co

What is the policy for terrorist attacks? Do we give them credit and publicity for succeeding? Encouraging more attacks ? Or is it up to them to claim credit, in which case we go after them ?

If terrorism and suspicion of terrorism was taken out of talking points, for what was said days after the Benghazi attacks, only a severely retarded imbecile, would think there aren't many legitimate reasons for doing this other than presidential politics.

EVen if they were 90% sure of who it was, why should they give them credit ? HAve we learned nothing since the Hostage Crisis back in the 70s. That kind of attention is the reason they do it. I'm sure there can be other more convoluted reasons, such as wanting to increase our presence there. But whatever the reason, they definitely wanted publicity for this. What they got, was everyone curious about a video that mocks Mohamed.

What,... perhaps you think the US government should have taken out full page ads all over the middle East, congratulating Al Queda?

thomaswong.1986 says

and it would at the end of 8 years to see Obama a far worst president than Bush

Don't you want to at least represent yourself and your highly partisan and gullible (Fox snorting) team members as being semi literate ?

marcus says

What is the policy for terrorist attacks? Do we give them credit and publicity for succeeding? Encouraging more attacks ? Or is it up to them to claim credit, in which case we go after them ?

Tell the Israelis Govt that.. they will laugh at you... they kicked the fuck out of the PLO.
they knew who got credit and went after them until they were dead.

marcus says

If terrorism and suspicion of terrorism was taken out of talking points, for what was said days after the Benghazi attacks, only a severely retarded imbecile, would think there aren't many legitimate reasons for doing this other than presidential politics.

EVen if they were 90% sure of who it was, why should they give them credit ? HAve we learned nothing since the Hostage Crisis back in the 70s. That kind of attention is the reason they do it. I'm sure there can be other more convoluted reasons, such as wanting to increase our presence there. But whatever the reason, they definitely wanted publicity for this. What they got, was everyone curious about a video that mocks Mohamed.

In short you dont know what leadership means. You dont know what to do when
you get the phone call at 2 am.

all the means is we have an incompetent administration and state department.

so who have you identified and who have you apprehended ?

Or the idea of going after another group of Muslim just too much for you to handle..

Send them to Gitmo and waterboard them... oh no! cant do that again!

thomaswong.1986 says

Tell the Israelis Govt that.. they will laugh at you... they kicked the fuck out of the PLO.

It's a little different when everyone knows who did it.

thomaswong.1986 says

In short you dont know what leadership means. You dont know what to do when

you get the phone call at 2 am.

I think it sometimes means doing things that are secret, or not widely publicly announced to the world, such as the CIA operation that was attacked in Benghazi.

I'm not sure that I understand that if some secret US operation is firebomebed, that then detailed transparent aspects of that CIA operation have to come out, and blow by blow details of information have to be given to the public in real time, or otherwise it means a whitehouse cover up.

I would think that standard operating procedure would be that a lot of that type of information would NOT be disclosed. Especially not immediately, when the situation is still being investigated, and plans for possibly going after the responsible people are underway.

FOx is correct in how stupid they think their fans are (ie you should be insulted by the garbage they feed you - but instead you lap it up). But don't you get it ? All the half way intelligent people simply don't buy any of their rubbish.

marcus says

I'm not sure that I understand that if some secret US operation is firebomebed, that then detailed transparent aspects of that CIA operation have to come out, or otherwise it means a whitehouse cover up.

as the same terrorists most likely fire bombed the UK Canadian and other consuls..where they also some intel/SIS operation ?

they were smart enough to see the danger and get out fast before anyone died.

but they were not under some illusion as Obama was with the Muslim nations he could appease.

In the late 90s the best thing they could get on CLinton is he flirted with some intern, and eventually fooled around with her. Congradulations. You must be so proud.

Now this is the best you can dig up on Obama.

It's pathetic, and shows you to be stupid and driven only by emotion. (your hate for the other political team).

marcus says

Now this is the best you can dig up on Obama.

dig deep.. obama has no experience ! and frankly his illusions of some Global Unity and Understanding with the Muslim world if fucked up royally.

marcus says

In the late 90s the best thing they could get on CLinton is he flirted with some intern, and eventually fooled around with her. Congradulations. You must be so proud.

Clinton was a fucking lying ass dog.. he is a fucking egotist prick who thinks more of himself than of the nation and its people. Its all about his Legacy..

He visited the SFBA more than enought times trying to get credit for the tech industry hiring boom. and frankly all he got was a dinner. no one wanted him here anyway.

I rest my case.

marcus says

I rest my case.

Yup, for folks like Thomas wong and many on the right, words speak louder than action.

The guy who attacked us on 9/11 walked scot free and continued taunting us throughout Dubya the shrub's term. Not only that, he kept releasing tapes taunting us and we couldn't do nothing about it. But I don't like Obama on many things, but he got Bin Laden-his policy did.

All Dubya the shrub did was attack a country that had nothing to do with it and hand over Iraq to the shia Iran. Oh and he stood under a banner that said, "Mission Accomplished." But Obama is the Muslim friendly one??!!

Now I don't like Obama on multiple issues , but I often wonder why republicans never pick those issues and seem to speak in soundbites.

lostand confused says

Not only that, he kept releasing tapes taunting us and we couldn't do nothing about it.

He did? When I sure would like to see one single tape with Osama after that 2002 J-dam strike that took out his bunker?

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

What no one wants to address is why Michelle Obama led the attack on the US Embassy in Benghazi.

Stop trying to cover up for Chelsea Clinton.

lostand confused says

marcus says

I rest my case.

Yup, for folks like Thomas wong and many on the right, words speak louder than action.

The guy who attacked us on 9/11 walked scot free and continued taunting us throughout Dubya the shrub's term. Not only that, he kept releasing tapes taunting us and we couldn't do nothing about it. But I don't like Obama on many things, but he got Bin Laden-his policy did.

Dont you think it was stupid to say.. OBL "walked scot free". The guy was already deep in some cave god knows where. What made you think we were going to nab OBL anytime soon after 9/11 given he has lots of sympathizers in Afghanistan and Pakistan ? eventually thanks to 'enhanced interrogation' we found him. It took Israelis some 16 years to after Black September.

lostand confused says

All Dubya the shrub did was attack a country that had nothing to do with it and hand over Iraq to the shia Iran. Oh and he stood under a banner that said, "Mission Accomplished." But Obama is the Muslim friendly one??!!

Once again it boogles the mind you jackass dont recall how Al Qaeda attacked us before.
And certainly you seem to forget the whole move against these Muslim terrorist be they in any nation. Do any of these names ring a bell ? Abu Nidal, Abdul Rahman, Khala Khadr al-Salahat,

http://www.rightwingnews.com/column-2/debunking-8-anti-war-myths-about-the-conflict-in-iraq/

Saddam Hussein had no ties to terrorism. It’s amazing to me that today in 2005, people are still trotting out that oft-disproven quip. Christopher Hitchens was also apparently surprised when Ron Reagan, Jr. made a similar assertion recently and you may find his response to be most enlightening:

“CH: Do you know nothing about the subject at all? Do you wonder how Mr. Zarqawi got there under the rule of Saddam Hussein? Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal?RR: Well, I’m following the lead of the 9/11 Commission, which…

CH: Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal, the most wanted man in the world, who was sheltered in Baghdad? The man who pushed Leon Klinghoffer off the boat, was sheltered by Saddam Hussein. The man who blew up the World Trade Center in 1993 was sheltered by Saddam Hussein, and you have the nerve to say that terrorism is caused by resisting it? And by deposing governments that endorse it? … At this stage, after what happened in London yesterday?…

RR: Zarqawi is not an envoy of Saddam Hussein, either.

CH: Excuse me. When I went to interview Abu Nidal, then the most wanted terrorist in the world, in Baghdad, he was operating out of an Iraqi government office. He was an arm of the Iraqi State, while being the most wanted man in the world. The same is true of the shelter and safe house offered by the Iraqi government, to the murderers of Leon Klinghoffer, and to Mr. Yassin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. How can you know so little about this, and be occupying a chair at the time that you do?”

Mr. Hitchens is entirely correct. Saddam provided “safe haven” for terrorists with “global reach.” Among them were terrormaster Abu Nidal, Abdul Rahman Yassin, one of the conspirators in the 1993 WTC bombing, “Khala Khadr al-Salahat, the man who reputedly made the bomb for the Libyans that brought down Pan Am Flight 103
over…Scotland,”Abu Abbas, mastermind of the October 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking and murder of Leon Klinghoffer,” & “Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, formerly the director of an al Qaeda training base in Afghanistan” who is now believed to be leading Al-Qaeda’s forces in Iraq.

Without question, Saddam Hussein had extensive ties to terrorism.

Are you going to sit there and deny that terror sponsored states like Iraq, Libya, and Syria were all backing and training terrorists organizations for decades. Not to mention they all had projects to purchase or develop nuclear weapons... Where have you been ?

9/11 was the breaking point for any tolerance on any of these terrorist groups..be it OBL , Al Qaeda or any other muslim terrorists.

People in the know on such matters are saying that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama personally funded and ordered the attack.