Political: Why does it take 2 Republican Senators got gain access to Benghazi Terrorist?
The Obama administration is doing everything they can to cover up the details of this attack. It is nothing short of treason.
by trishy1010 November 4, 2012 10:32 AM
Treason is too strong of a word at this time Trish.
by MichiganTed November 4, 2012 10:37 AM
The crime of betraying one's country, esp. by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.
The action of betraying someone or something.
I don't think so Ted...
by trishy1010 November 4, 2012 10:41 AM
Trish - I appreciate your passion, but treason is not a word to be thrown around lightly in my opinion, not to mention that there's no established nexus between the Senators' actions and the making available of al Harsi.
I believe that Benghazi will wind up demonstrating that wishful thinking is not a foreign policy - a lesson this country seems to have to re-learn from time to time.
But incompetence, imprudence, and treason are not the same thing - and in my view bringing the "T-word" into a conversation prematurely doesn't benefit the position you are advocating.
I say this as a friend, not a detractor.
by MichiganTed November 4, 2012 11:01 AM
I understand your comment but if you look at the totality of what the Obama administration has done from start to finish...in my opinion it is treason.
1. Failure to protect Amb after repeated requests before the attack
2. Refusal to supply back up for Navy Seals when back up was requested repeatedly during the 8 hour attack.
3. Lying and covering up the FACT this was a terrorist attack and not an attacked based on a video from a mob.
4. Not gaining access to interrogate the one terrorist detained.
These are not accidents. It is a blatant cover up in order to protect Obama's re-election.
Therefore it is a deliberate betrayal of the American people = Treason
by trishy1010 November 4, 2012 11:15 AM
I have never been a detractor. I have been an advocate of a medically induced normalcy.
It is not tiring us Trish...it is starting to worry us.
You are a welcome and beloved member of the community. The descent is obvious to us. Please make it obvious to yourself.
I know women who have lost an only child that are not as diminished by that act as you are by this one.
by turdly November 4, 2012 11:42 AM
There is someone on this board who has been very quiret about the realms of a battle, the plans the sacrifice. It is not me.
Someone here was a corpsman and had to decide, in the filed, the chances of a man living, viablity, and what actions benefitted the greater group at the time or in the future.
Sacrifices are made. Your inability to at least accept a suggestion that this death may have been intentional is too bizarre.
People accept that there may be a god, may be alien life on earth and mars, a heaven, yet you cannot grasp that a plan may have been implemented, or changed to capitalize on the circumstance.
I'm not saying it's true becasue first I don't care, and secondarily and on and on, it is of no concern of mine if I did care. But that this man may have been killed by mars aliens to hide their base under his house in Amsterdam is as viable as your one-sided glance at the few and mere facts presented to you as fact by word-sellers whos main objective is to sell soap.
Just take a breath, and spread out a bit.
by turdly November 4, 2012 11:48 AM
Turd you're on fire today. I would agree treason is too harsh. I believe this president took a look at the situation and at the looming election and made a decision. Sometimes the offensive coordinator calls for the hail Mary pass not realizing the defense plans a quarterback blitz.
by Dr. Branker November 4, 2012 11:58 AM
Us = Turdly in his singularity.
The rest of his second post is simply idiotic and skewed.
by Lex Parsimoniae November 4, 2012 11:58 AM
Turd... I take the destruction of my country seriously.
Thanks for the concern...it is not necessary.
By the way your rants make it clear that the concern should be directed to yourself.
by trishy1010 November 4, 2012 11:59 AM
trishy is correct. turdly is a pud and thinks he's the welcome wagon to the grapevine, what a shmuck. a woman that would have had an incompetent malicious birthing doctor would understand clearly. mi. ted just wants to see more facts.
by dark pool November 4, 2012 12:05 PM
Yes, my stabilty is questionable.
I pick haughty topics provided by news feeds and make them a priority mission of mine becasue I must inject myself in to international politics.
I must fixate on one small part of a large plan and cry and wring hands and not let people more in the know worry of things I do not know. I must make sure that this miserable mission is invading my time, my sanity, and my entire thought process. Until move to another....
by turdly November 4, 2012 12:12 PM
Please tell me what part of my second post was idiotic.
Explaining triage in the simplest of terms I could muster
That I support the whole fox vs msnbc thing you all mention, but I say they are both soap sellers that will say anything to get you tune in to the same soap sale the next day.
That the concept of heaven is questioned but not this particular small instance.
Which is it. You confused me.
by turdly November 4, 2012 12:15 PM
"I pick haughty topics provided by news feeds and make them a priority mission of mine becasue I must inject myself in to international politics.
I must fixate on one small part of a large plan and cry and wring hands and not let people more in the know worry of things I do not know. I must make sure that this miserable mission is invading my time, my sanity, and my entire thought process. Until move to another...."
by turdly November 4, 2012 12:12 PM
Some people obsess over sports scores and fantasy football teams, some have long discussions over fishing and every possible type of lure and their possible effects.
Some like to pay attention to what's going on in this country, and when seeing governmental faults, abuse, or any other aberration, discuss it.
Your response seems to basically say, it's all above your head and you prefer to remain in ignorance.
Thank goodness our forefathers ruled by King George didn't possess your political apathy.
by Lex Parsimoniae November 4, 2012 12:40 PM
'Some people obsess over sports scores and fantasy football teams, some have long discussions over fishing and every possible type of lure and their possible effects.'
And if they speak of such on the level and verve that Trish speaks of this, I would say it was as unhealthy.
And about King George;
Yes indeed, Canada is a HORRIBLE HORRIBLE dark place ran by toads and worms of all sorts without a bright spot in it.
I love the revolution used as a political excuse...because...well...Canadia is just so awful and all those other provinces/outposts are so dismal.
Australia is a worm infested monster of a whole of dismal financial dispair.
by turdly November 4, 2012 1:04 PM
Your response seems to basically say, it's all above your head and you prefer to remain in ignorance. Thank goodness our forefathers ruled by King George didn't possess your political apathy.
by Lex Parsimoniae November 4, 2012 12:40 PM
it's obviously above his pay grade, so he likes us to believe. but when you see his "I'm not political" mantra on his posts, yet his approach is as liberal as they come!? he pushes obama's agenda without pronouncing such matters lol! you are such a shrewd one mr. poop.
by dark pool November 4, 2012 1:21 PM
And there are sports fanatics that, too get into fights, brawls etc. over their teams.
The subject and the person are two independent issues.
BTW, Canada exists, as it is, because of, like a number of our other allies because of the U.S.
Very poor example. Try harder.
by Lex Parsimoniae November 4, 2012 3:43 PM
Britain did not ruin Canada anymore than it would have ruined us.
That is my only point to the example.
I haven't the slightest political agenda. To label me a liberal is just about absolutely proof you lack comprehension/memory skills or you don't read very well.
by turdly November 4, 2012 10:24 PM
Then you point is idiotic.
Canada also wasn't an English colony, retaken by force after harsh autocratic rule.
Canada belonged to France until the 7 years war (or the French-Indian War as some call it), England got control through the end of war negotiations. Later then abandoned Canada not seeing any value in it.
Canada's existence today is because the US Military covers their ass.
Again, bad example, apples and oranges,
really not even close to the same situations.
by Lex Parsimoniae November 5, 2012 8:46 AM
And South Africa [minus the racial crap]?
And the French with Tahiti?
And the U.S. with Guam?
All ruined beyond repair.
You reach back 200+ years for an example that is propogandist.
by turdly November 5, 2012 10:19 AM
No, Turdly, I didn't. This tangent started because you responded inanely to the comment I made "Thank goodness our forefathers ruled by King George didn't possess your political apathy."
Which was valid. Then you began drawing false comparisons.
The four you list above, again, false comparisons, and they are no where near the US as far as global power, personal liberty, etc.
Why you pick Guam, absolutely makes no sense in this context.
Same with South Africa or Tahiti.
Australia? Britain's penal colony so far removed from the empire it was financially draining them (same as Canada earlier), Britain was recovering from the first WW and couldn't maintain a sovereign control over these outlying colonies. Especially Australia, who could no longer depend on British imports do to Britain's lack of ability to supply them.
Besides the early 20th century was completely different reality than the 18th century when Britain intended to retain control of America, primarily due to it's commerce and resources and was willing to go to war over them.
You really should check your history before making presumptive and inane comparisons.
by Lex Parsimoniae November 5, 2012 11:26 AM
Besides the early 20th century was completely different reality than the 18th century....
It took me this long to get you to say how inane your King George reference was.
Unless you would like to now argue that as the 18th century and the early 20th century were so different, that now the 18th century and the 21st century are so similar as to warrant comparison. I didn't know where you were going with the propogandist view you selected, and I sure don't know where you'll go now.
by turdly November 5, 2012 12:19 PM
No, it took this long for you to again demonstrate the whole conversation is over your head.
And you'll defend you inane (btw I do appreciate you appropriating the word from my earlier post) comparisons with all the ignorance you can muster.
If you don't understand something in context,
it's ok to admit it. Really, it is.
by Lex Parsimoniae November 5, 2012 1:32 PM
As you wish.
by turdly November 5, 2012 6:23 PM