- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Darrell Issa suffers a Benghazi slap; GOP chair exonerates Obama and Clinton
Posted on 4/15/14 at 7:48 pm to NHTIGER
Posted on 4/15/14 at 7:48 pm to NHTIGER
quote:
And I am quite "good" at word meanings.
Checkmate.
Sorry fella - join the crowd. Lots of us are very good at word meanings, grammar, sentence construction, and interpretation within context.
Rex has this special dictionary that essentially says that "words mean whatever I intend them to mean" and ignores context in every quote he posts or else just misquotes to begin with.
In his mind he wins every argument. based on his self-proclaimed superior ability with "word meanings."
1
Posted on 4/15/14 at 7:57 pm to NHTIGER
Well, thanks for the considered and civil response, and I mean that sincerely.
You are still left to demonstrate a "cover up", however. For example, how Susan Rice offered up anything on TV that was inconsistent with what our official government intelligence agency had said of the attack at the time.
Are you contending that avoiding the word "terrorism" constituted the cover-up, because both Rice and Clinton certainly appeared justified in blaming the video according to the CIA.
You are still left to demonstrate a "cover up", however. For example, how Susan Rice offered up anything on TV that was inconsistent with what our official government intelligence agency had said of the attack at the time.
Are you contending that avoiding the word "terrorism" constituted the cover-up, because both Rice and Clinton certainly appeared justified in blaming the video according to the CIA.
This post was edited on 4/15/14 at 8:05 pm
Posted on 4/15/14 at 8:07 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:
In his mind he wins every argument. based on his self-proclaimed superior ability with "word meanings."
My original intent in joining this thread was to show the thread title was false and misleading, as was most of the content of the OP.
The thread was on Page 6 at the time I discovered it.
In the 10th post from the top of Page 6, I clearly repudiated and severed the jugular of the opening post and the opening poster with a factual dissection of the former. The latter had absolutely no comeback, no response, no expressed disagreement with that post, which may be the only one that specifically addressed the content of the OP.
After severing his jugular, he lunged at my capillaries.
And that is always the way it goes with that poster.
He just wants a bone to chew on, not caring about the meat.
It's finally Spring here in NH, thus it's all good.
This post was edited on 4/15/14 at 8:09 pm
Posted on 4/15/14 at 8:11 pm to NHTIGER
quote:Hey! Whoa! Whoa! Hey!
And that is always the way it goes with that poster.
He just wants a bone to chew on, not caring about the meat.
Save it for the gay marriage thread!
Posted on 4/15/14 at 8:12 pm to NHTIGER
In addition to the questions I just asked...
- Did the CIA engineer or participate in an intentional cover-up. Yes or No?
- Should Obama have handpicked a version of what everybody has acknowledged was conflicting information or should he have relied on the CIA's assessment?
- Did the CIA engineer or participate in an intentional cover-up. Yes or No?
- Should Obama have handpicked a version of what everybody has acknowledged was conflicting information or should he have relied on the CIA's assessment?
Posted on 4/15/14 at 8:13 pm to NHTIGER
quote:
In the 10th post from the top of Page 6, I clearly repudiated and severed the jugular of the opening post and the opening poster with a factual dissection of the former.
quote:
After severing his jugular, he lunged at my capillaries.
And that is always the way it goes with that poster.
He just wants a bone to chew on, not caring about the meat.
Your experience has been shared by all of us. I usually refrain from engaging in a tit-for-tat with him because he just devolves into more and more meaningless points - to the point it is hard to keep up with what the original assertion really was.
I will challenge once in a while as I did today, but in general I just join the rest of the board laughing at his hubris.
It's fun in a sadistic sort of way.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 8:14 pm to Rex
quote:That is what the CIA does!
Did the CIA engineer or participate in an intentional cover-up. Yes or No?
Posted on 4/15/14 at 8:16 pm to NHTIGER
quote:
I clearly repudiated and severed the jugular of the opening post and the opening poster with a factual dissection of the former.
No, you really didn't. The OP was about the matter of the Benghazi response, and McKeon clearly exonerated Obama and Clinton in that regard. There was nothing misleading about the title and you didn't repudiate a thing.
You shifted the discussion to a "cover-up", a DIFFERENT albeit related topic. I shouldn't have entertained that in the first place, but I'm a nice guy, see.
This post was edited on 4/15/14 at 8:18 pm
Posted on 4/15/14 at 8:17 pm to Rex
quote:
Are you contending that avoiding the word "terrorism" constituted the cover-up, because both Rice and Clinton certainly appeared justified in blaming the video according to the CIA.
No, that is not my contention. The "act of terror" vs "terrorist attack" debate was seeded by Obama himself in the second debate. The cover-up was the continued assertion that the video played any role at all in the events in Benghazi.
As I have said many times, the State Dept. is the primary villain in the Benghazi affair, and the Obama people and their cover-up are secondary. There would have been no need for a cover-up had State not made a multitude of analytical and judgmental errors from Clinton all the way down to Stevens himself.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 8:18 pm to Rex
quote:No.
and McKeon clearly exonerated
But NH also laid out a very effective counter regarding importance or lack thereof of McKeon's Committee
Posted on 4/15/14 at 8:20 pm to NHTIGER
quote:
The cover-up was the continued assertion that the video played any role at all in the events in Benghazi.
From when to when? I might be willing to concede that part if you provide a timeline with quotes against the gathered intelligence.... which all, by the way, has very little to do with the opening post.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 8:22 pm to Rex
quote:
The OP was about the matter of the Benghazi response, and McKeon clearly exonerated Obama and Clinton in that regard.
McKeon clearly did NOT do that at all. He exonerated the Defense Dept.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 8:35 pm to NHTIGER
quote:
McKeon clearly did NOT do that at all. He exonerated the Defense Dept.
Oh, really? The initial fury by Republicans was that Obama and Clinton had not done enough militarily to save four lives. McKeon admits that he's satisfied with the military response, which would have come at the direction of Obama or the State Department, and yet you contend that his testimony doesn't implicitly exonerate them? Really? I'm not going to impugn your honesty, because judging by your civil responses I think you've been sincere, but I don't think you've thought this through entirely.
The matter of embassy or consulate preparation around the world, which would have affected Benghazi security, or any subsequent "cover-up" of the cause of the attack, are different matters from the OP.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 8:42 pm to Rex
quote:
he military response, which would have come at the direction of , , , the State Department
Posted on 4/15/14 at 8:52 pm to NHTIGER
quote:
It's finally Spring here in NH
Sounds killer.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 8:57 pm to Rex
(At some point soon, I'm gonna go watch the Red Sox-White Sox game and let this matter rest in peace, at least for tonight.)
No one on this Board has more Benghazi posts than I do. I'm a Republican. But search my posts all night if you want to, and you will not find one post by me that even hints that not enough was done militarily to save lives. I have never bought into that line of thinking because I was on top of this story from the every beginning and knew that there were a lot of people out there who had no clue what they were talking about regarding Benghazi (Hannity and Bolling, for example.) So please do not lump me in with that line of thinking just because I'm a Republican. I am quite capable of thinking for myself, and my entire career has dealt with factual analysis, and not reactionary "bandwagoning".
I absolutely assure you , particularly regarding Benghazi matters, I think things through very carefully and "entirely" before posting . I still average at least 25 hours a week, every week, on Benghazi research.
McKeon's report did in fact lay the blame for Benghazi on the White House, the State Dept., the intelligence community and to a lesser extent, the Defense Dept. He "exonerated" Defense to the extent that their shortcomings regarding Benghazi were attributable to the White House, the State Dept., and the intelligence community. I know this for a fact because I have read the February, 2014, 31-page report at least three times while merging it with other committee reports. Tell me, honestly, without searching, have YOU read McKeon's committee report?
quote:
The initial fury by Republicans was that Obama and Clinton had not done enough militarily to save four lives.
No one on this Board has more Benghazi posts than I do. I'm a Republican. But search my posts all night if you want to, and you will not find one post by me that even hints that not enough was done militarily to save lives. I have never bought into that line of thinking because I was on top of this story from the every beginning and knew that there were a lot of people out there who had no clue what they were talking about regarding Benghazi (Hannity and Bolling, for example.) So please do not lump me in with that line of thinking just because I'm a Republican. I am quite capable of thinking for myself, and my entire career has dealt with factual analysis, and not reactionary "bandwagoning".
quote:
but I don't think you've thought this through entirely.
I absolutely assure you , particularly regarding Benghazi matters, I think things through very carefully and "entirely" before posting . I still average at least 25 hours a week, every week, on Benghazi research.
McKeon's report did in fact lay the blame for Benghazi on the White House, the State Dept., the intelligence community and to a lesser extent, the Defense Dept. He "exonerated" Defense to the extent that their shortcomings regarding Benghazi were attributable to the White House, the State Dept., and the intelligence community. I know this for a fact because I have read the February, 2014, 31-page report at least three times while merging it with other committee reports. Tell me, honestly, without searching, have YOU read McKeon's committee report?
Posted on 4/15/14 at 9:05 pm to NHTIGER
quote:
Tell me, honestly, without searching, have YOU read McKeon's committee report?
I have not. Link it. I will admit where I've been wrong, but I honestly suspect that these "shortcomings" to which you're referring are more about military readiness than military response.
OF COURSE we were not ready militarily. Four people are dead.
OF COURSE State Department security was inadequate. Four people are dead.
But hindsight is 20/20 and there are resource issues involved.
I'd like to see the report. I'd like to see if McKeon says Obama or Clinton stymied something the military might have done. I'd like to see to what extent intelligence predicted an attack.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 9:31 pm to Rex
Posted on 4/15/14 at 9:35 pm to Rex
quote:
but I honestly suspect that these "shortcomings" to which you're referring are more about military readiness than military response.
They are. And that's a position I have taken from the very start. There were insufficient 9-11 anniversary military preparations and placements made throughout the Middle East/ North Africa area, with or without adequate intelligence..
This post was edited on 4/15/14 at 9:36 pm
Posted on 4/15/14 at 9:46 pm to Rex
quote:Same excuse the Bush admin used for WMDs!
That was the info the CIA gave them.
Page 9 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News