38 replies to this topic

[Tiggs]

Merc14, on 12 October 2012 - 04:20 AM, said:

LOL. Oh I am all for investigation, at all levels and at all locations but you are the one calling it a witch hunt and stating it was impossibly dangerous for the FBI to go in-country due to the hazards while CNN reporters are walking through the building, unmolested and quite alone,  gathering that  evidence you deem so invaluable.

My mistake, apparently. I'm about a week behind. According to this Guardian article, the FBI agents were able to recently gain access for a 24 hour window when the US Military airlifted them in.

Quote

Show me a question that was so monstrously wrong at that hearing.

Who said that there were monstrously wrong questions at the hearing?

Quote

please post the video  from this single congressional investigation that you find so repulsively partisan.  Remember those speed bumps are human lives and our ambassador.  Time for your proof Tiggs' show us the partisanship.

I'm well aware of the human lives involved.

From the Politico article on Cummings letter to Issa:

In a letter to Issa Thursday, Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings criticized the California Republican’s handling of the probe into the September attacks that killed Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, and three diplomatic aides.

Specifically, Cummings complained that no classified briefing was held for lawmakers on the Oversight panel – giving them no guidance as to what information was classified and what was not. He also repeated an accusation that Issa withheld key documents from Democrats on the panel before Wednesday’s hearing – which Cummings called “premature, counter-productive and potentially damaging.”

“I have grave concerns about the way [Wednesday’s] hearing devolved into a disorganized, partisan, and absurd spectacle when it should have been a serious and responsible investigation of the attack in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans,” Cummings wrote to Issa.

Quote

Projecting is an internal thing.

Still not buying that, Merc. Not for a second.

Quote

I did not attack you, I merely said we have an insight into your character.  Is that a violation of the TOS? .  If that is your point then we have a bigger problem, don't we. Should I alert an admin?

Technically, Ad Hominem attacks are covered under the rules of Etiquette -  rule 5a.

On their own (providing they're not abusive or flame-baiting, etc.) - Etiquette violations are fairly minor.

As they're also a form of logical fallacy - for the purposes of debate - then I'm personally fine with just pointing out when they're being made against me.

That said - I think it's indicative that the conversation isn't going along particularly constructive lines.

[Tiggs]

and then, on 12 October 2012 - 08:43 AM, said:

There was a time in America when the murder of a US ambassador would have been unthinkable.  Such an act would have had consequences too painful and immediate to contemplate.  We are a month out and all that is happening is political squabbling still.  The enemies of this country are REAL.  They see us as weak and divided and I agree.  The buck stops at the desk in the Oval office and that is not a partisan statement - if the president isn't responsible to lead in this situation then why do we even need a president?  Weakness invites further aggression and I suspect we will see follow on attacks in the coming days because of all the vacillation.  These animals cannot be appeased.  They can only be defeated.

Out of curiosity - which group and where, exactly, do you suggest are retaliated against?

[Merc14]

Tiggs, on 12 October 2012 - 08:57 AM, said:

That said - I think it's indicative that the conversation isn't going along particularly constructive lines.

Fine, I'll stop responding to you but I think it was very constructive in one respect, we all learned a whole lot about you

[Tiggs]

Merc14, on 12 October 2012 - 12:35 PM, said:

Fine, I'll stop responding to you but I think it was very constructive in one respect, we all learned a whole lot about you

I'm sure that discovering that I'd rather there was an actual independent bi-partisan congressional investigation - as opposed to this political pre-election pantomime currently underway, headed by a chairman who has already called Obama "one of the most corrupt presidents in modern times" without a single shred of evidence against him - was a total shock to everyone who knows me

[and then]

Tiggs, on 12 October 2012 - 08:58 AM, said:

Out of curiosity - which group and where, exactly, do you suggest are retaliated against?

The fact that our intelligence services do not post lists of the groups we know of in Libya that have affiliations to al Queda and others does not mean we are unaware of them Tiggs.  I believe we have such intel and our leadership at 1600 decided to take a chance that they would not strike us since we "helped" them gain a foothold in Libya albeit under the radar.  I do not suppose that every individual involved could be targeted but I imagine that reprisals of a very painful and public nature could be made if we had the willingness.  But that would also require changing the story line on al Queda and it's late defeat.  What with Bin Laden being dead it only follows that so is al Queda, no?

[bee]

and then, on 12 October 2012 - 07:38 PM, said:

The fact that our intelligence services do not post lists of the groups we know of in Libya that have affiliations to al Queda and others does not mean we are unaware of them Tiggs.  I believe we have such intel and our leadership at 1600 decided to take a chance that they would not strike us since we "helped" them gain a foothold in Libya albeit under the radar.

it will be absolutely UNBELIEVABLE....if the US, Britain, France et al thought they could A$$ lick Al Qaeda into 'not being an active enemy'

By giving them Libya and Syria.

(I have considered this before when trying to understand this whole shameful episode with Libya and Syria)

Quote

I do not suppose that every individual involved could be targeted but I imagine that reprisals of a very painful and public nature could be made if we had the willingness.  But that would also require changing the story line on al Queda and it's late defeat.  What with Bin Laden being dead it only follows that so is al Queda, no?

I am of the opinion, that with the help of  misguided Western leaders/advisors/military...Al Qaeda is probably stronger than ever.




.But the question was to Tiggs......so I'll leave it at that...


.

[praetorian-legio XIII]

has any one seen or heard any more about the "apology" videos Obama and Clinton made?

[Corp]

What apology videos are those?

and then, on 12 October 2012 - 07:38 PM, said:

What with Bin Laden being dead it only follows that so is al Queda, no?

Did anyone actually make this claim? Because I seem to recall the US government saying some time ago that Bin Laden was no longer involved in the day to day operations of the group.

[Harte]

supervike, on 11 October 2012 - 03:50 PM, said:

Actions speak louder than words.  The Republicans in this case want it both ways.  Vote to cut funding, then act outraged that the security wasn't there.

What is the real goal?  This is all politically motivated.
http://cnnpressroom....bassy-security/

The vote you mention was only a starting point in negotiations.  A bipartisan deal was later reached which cut this spending by much less.  The spending was not simply for security (obviously, since the Administration requested 1.801 billion dollars for FY 2012) but was primarily for construction.

There was more than enough money to fulfill the security requests that several American officials in Libya were pleading for.   The decision to deny the requests was based on the idea that we should rely on locals to provide more security, and we were training them for the job.

The locals are in many cases sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood.  Of course they are.  If they aren't, then they get "disappeared."

No way around this.  It is a serious error in judgement and makes a point, valid or not, about the Obama Administration's stance on the existence - or nonexistence - of serious terrorist threats in the region.

Harte