zapatos Posted October 5, 2012 Posted October 5, 2012 Integrity and honor? You obviously know nothing of the two words and seem to be like most liberals I am acquainted with at the moment. Why? Because I did the EXACT SAME THING as you did?
rigney Posted October 5, 2012 Author Posted October 5, 2012 Why? Because I did the EXACT SAME THING as you did? No! Mine were asked as questions, yours accusations. There is definitely a difference.
zapatos Posted October 5, 2012 Posted October 5, 2012 No! Mine were asked as questions, yours accusations. There is definitely a difference. Which ones of these were not questions? "What role did Rigney play in the molestation of the 10 year old girl at St. Mark's school on April 23rd of this year? Is Rigney hiding something? Why haven't we heard from him on this issue yet? Has he gone through a police lineup yet? Why hasn't he submitted to a lie detector test? Is this a first time thing? Has Rigney ever done this before?"
rigney Posted October 5, 2012 Author Posted October 5, 2012 NO! Just stop it! I am so tired of this ploy of yours, asking one unreasoned question, getting it answered fully, and then posting some quote-mined hatchet-job video that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING!!! Trying to discuss these issues with you is like digging holes in the ocean. No! You only want the discussion to be on your terms. My questions were legitimate and ones that could be easily answered without compromising the family jewels. Believe me, the clandestine behavior I suspect of happening in this fiasco will soon come to light.
John Cuthber Posted October 5, 2012 Posted October 5, 2012 (edited) No! My questions were legitimate and ones that could be easily answered without compromising the family jewels. Believe me, the clandestine behavior I suspect of happening in this fiasco will soon come to light. Stop whining. Zapatos asked essentially the same sorts of things of you that you asked of others. If you think it looks like an accusation then you ought to accept that it looked that way when you did it. In the meantime, do you think the CIA can possibly know of every rioter and bunch of terrorists and loonies? If not then you have to accept that the most likely answer to the question "what did they know before it happened?" was Sod all. The video had nothing to do with the issues so it's not a meaningful reply. Asking for a sensible answer isn't a matter of "You only want the discussion to be on your terms." it's a matter of wanting any meaningful debate at all. It's also part of the forum rules. Edited October 5, 2012 by John Cuthber
rigney Posted October 5, 2012 Author Posted October 5, 2012 Stop whining. Zapatos asked essentially the same sorts of things of you that you asked of others. If you think it looks like an accusation then you ought to accept that it looked that way when you did it. In the meantime, do you think the CIA can possibly know of every rioter and bunch of terrorists and loonies? If not then you have to accept that the most likely answer to the question "what did they know before it happened?" was Sod all. The video had nothing to do with the issues so it's not a meaningful reply. Asking for a sensible answer isn't a matter of "You only want the discussion to be on your terms." it's a matter of wanting any meaningful debate at all. It's also part of the forum rules. There's no whining and the questions I asked will be answered before election day.
Phi for All Posted October 5, 2012 Posted October 5, 2012 No! You only want the discussion to be on your terms. No, I demand that it stay on topic and not stray to some two year old video with absolutely no relevance. 1
rigney Posted October 11, 2012 Author Posted October 11, 2012 No, I demand that it stay on topic and not stray to some two year old video with absolutely no relevance. Is straying back 5 days too far?Phi for All, on 5 October 2012 - 08:40 AM, said: NO! Just stop it! I am so tired of this ploy of yours, asking one unreasoned question, getting it answered fully, and then posting some quote-mined hatchet-job video that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING!!! Trying to discuss these issues with you is like digging holes in the ocean. As I said, you only want to discuss the problem on your terms. My questions were legitimate and ones that could be easily answered without compromising the family jewels. Believe me, the clandestine behavior I suspect of happening in this fiasco will soon come to light.
John Cuthber Posted October 11, 2012 Posted October 11, 2012 No. We want you to actually discuss the problem, rather than digging up some irrelevant video clip from years ago. If you suddenly feel that has become urgent, start another thread for it. But, in this thread, answer the questions you have been asked instead of changing the subject.
rigney Posted October 11, 2012 Author Posted October 11, 2012 (edited) No. We want you to actually discuss the problem, rather than digging up some irrelevant video clip from years ago. If you suddenly feel that has become urgent, start another thread for it. But, in this thread, answer the questions you have been asked instead of changing the subject. Initially I asked questions that you and a few others tried to down play, but it backfired. I let it lay for a few days hoping you might see the problem. Have you? With all of the political B.S. handed out by the Prez and his staff in trying to stifle this fire they've started with their lies, what do you find now that riings of truth? zapatos: LeptonWhat has the cabinet said that does not ring of the truth to you? rigney, on 3 October 2012 - 01:16 PM, said: Who murdered our Ambassador in Benghazi, Libya? I know he is dead along with 3 of his comrades, but why? It has been a month now and Obama's cabinet has said nothing that rings of truth. Or are the Republicans still just grasping at straws to hurt this administration during the coming election campaign? i'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion on the issue. Edited October 11, 2012 by rigney
zapatos Posted October 11, 2012 Posted October 11, 2012 What's this "WE" crap, you got a mouse in your pocket? The problem is, all of the political B.S. handed out by the Prez and his staff this entire month. That is my answer as of now. you work on it! I am included in the 'we'. The problem is all the political B.S. handed out by you this entire month. And I'm tired of working on it.
rigney Posted October 11, 2012 Author Posted October 11, 2012 (edited) I am included in the 'we'. The problem is all the political B.S. handed out by you this entire month. And I'm tired of working on it. Moi!? I take it that you are an honest and liberal democrat? For the most part, only a very few of you are the "WE". So, now you're gonna' dis- me to go out and find something constructive to do? If so, then "Bless your little pea pickin' heart". Otherwise, if it's my political views that disgust you, then that's your problem. Edited October 11, 2012 by rigney
zapatos Posted October 11, 2012 Posted October 11, 2012 Moi!? I take it that you are an honest and liberal democrat? For the most part, only a very few of you are the "WE". So, now you're gonna' dis- me to go out and find something constructive to do? If so, then "Bless your little pea pickin' heart". Otherwise, if it's my political views that disgust you, then that's your problem. No, I am an independent. Fiscally conservative. Socially liberal. Right about in the middle. I think that most of our elected officials are honestly doing what they think is best whether I agree with it or not, which keeps me from taking potshots at them. I have no problem with political views that don't coincide with mine. My problem is people who are not fair and honest.
rigney Posted October 11, 2012 Author Posted October 11, 2012 No, I am an independent. Fiscally conservative. Socially liberal. Right about in the middle. I think that most of our elected officials are honestly doing what they think is best whether I agree with it or not, which keeps me from taking potshots at them. I have no problem with political views that don't coincide with mine. My problem is people who are not fair and honest. My problem is in dealing with political views I disagree with. Not to say I am always right. Heck, I voted for both Carter and Nixon. Right now I am a staunch republican, but through the years have voted for both democratic and republican. My initial questions concerning Benghazi were only to ask just what had gone wrong that caused this loss of American life. Did it make a difference to me which party was in power? Hell no! Had it been a republican president I would have been just as angry and questioning. I'm not accusing anyone of doing anything wrong. But something has to be done quickly to erase this stink. By the way, I am liberal to a fault concerning my fellow man. Just not a greedy one.
John Cuthber Posted October 11, 2012 Posted October 11, 2012 " I'm not accusing anyone of doing anything wrong. But something has to be done quickly to erase this stink." What "stink"? What is it that stinks but isn't an accusation of someone doing something wrong? You seem to have contradicted yourself.
rigney Posted October 11, 2012 Author Posted October 11, 2012 " I'm not accusing anyone of doing anything wrong. But something has to be done quickly to erase this stink." What "stink"? What is it that stinks but isn't an accusation of someone doing something wrong? You seem to have contradicted yourself. Don't try putting words in my mouth. Can't you smell the crap that's being handed out?
Sergeant Bilko Posted October 12, 2012 Posted October 12, 2012 Don't try putting words in my mouth. Can't you smell the crap that's being handed out? Yep, and most of it is coming from your direction. 1
Phi for All Posted October 12, 2012 Posted October 12, 2012 Don't try putting words in my mouth. Can't you smell the crap that's being handed out? How is he putting words in your mouth? He quoted what you said and asked you to clarify it. It DOES seem contradictory to say you're not accusing anyone of wrongdoing and then claim there is a "stink" that needs to be erased. Who caused the stink if no one did anything wrong? I think the real stink is coming from Romney's campaign. Why anyone would want to vote for a man who would take a cheap political shot at the tragic death of one of our ambassadors is beyond me. This is one of those situations that are far too easy to exploit, since technically you could always say that not enough was done to protect ANYONE who gets killed. To use it to imply some kind of intentional negligence is criminal and unworthy of someone who wants to lead the country. Congratulations, Mitt Romney, you have justified the accusations of all those who claimed Bush was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. 1
rigney Posted October 12, 2012 Author Posted October 12, 2012 How is he putting words in your mouth? He quoted what you said and asked you to clarify it. It DOES seem contradictory to say you're not accusing anyone of wrongdoing and then claim there is a "stink" that needs to be erased. Who caused the stink if no one did anything wrong? I think the real stink is coming from Romney's campaign. Why anyone would want to vote for a man who would take a cheap political shot at the tragic death of one of our ambassadors is beyond me. This is one of those situations that are far too easy to exploit, since technically you could always say that not enough was done to protect ANYONE who gets killed. To use it to imply some kind of intentional negligence is criminal and unworthy of someone who wants to lead the country. Congratulations, Mitt Romney, you have justified the accusations of all those who claimed Bush was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Just a couple questions. When more men were requested to protect the embassy, why was such a request denied? And Me not being a politician asked the same question immediately when I found out what had happened. Why was the protection stripped that was needed to combat such an attack in a volital area? Yes! It is a hot potato the democrats wish had not came out of the oven at this time.
iNow Posted October 12, 2012 Posted October 12, 2012 (edited) Let's set some context here. This is what was requested... a plane: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/email-shows-state-department-rejecting-request-of-security-team-at-us-embassy-in-libya/ the State Department denied a request from the security team at the Embassy of Libya to retain a DC-3 airplane in the country to better conduct their duties. <snip> No one has yet to argue that the DC-3 would have definitively made a difference for the four Americans killed that night. The security team in question, after all, left Libya in August. ...and this is what the response was: Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy “has determined that support for Embassy Tripoli using the DC-3 will be terminated immediately. Post’s request to continue use of the plane in support of the SST was considered. However, it was decided that, if needed, NEA will charter a special flight for their departure.” <...> “the DC-3 was pulled from Iraq and moved to support Libya early on when there was no commercial airline service into Libya. When commercial service was re-established in Libya, the aircraft was reassigned to other State Department business. We use our aircraft when no commercial flights exist.” So... let's get something straight here, because I'm tired of people being so loose with their facts and so quick with their vitriol. More men were NOT requested and denied. What was requested and denied was a private plane to do what they could also do using a commercial plane. Edited October 12, 2012 by iNow 1
Phi for All Posted October 12, 2012 Posted October 12, 2012 When more men were requested to protect the embassy, why was such a request denied? More men were not requested. What was requested was that a special operations team of 16 be left in place instead of removed as per procedure. They had already been there on assignment after the revolution, and a request for a 3-month extension of their presence had already been granted. The second request for another 3 months is the one that had been denied. A request for a plane was also made, and that was denied but provisions for domestic flight arrangements were made. Why was the protection stripped that was needed to combat such an attack in a volital area? The special ops team is probably not used as normal guard troops. They usually come in with a mission of securing an area, training the local forces and closing any security risks. Once they come in and do their thing, it's usually time for regular troops to take over on the day-to-day routine. This is speculation on my part, though. I have no idea if that's the actual procedure used here. The other problem is that you're imagining these guys being "stripped" from surrounding Ambassador Stevens with a wall of armed protection against exactly this kind of attack. The reality is, even when the team was deployed in Libya, they spent most of their time in Tripoli, no matter where the ambassador was. Chances are they wouldn't have been near Benghazi. And even if some of them had been in Benghazi, it's doubtful they would have changed much, unless they carry oxygen with them and could've prevented the ambassador's death from smoke inhalation. I would imagine SOP is to get the ambassador into the safe room ASAP. That's what happened. If you want to ask questions and point fingers, tell my why the embassy safe room could become filled with smoke. Aren't those supposed to be designed with a siege in mind? "Smoke 'em out" seems practically elementary tactics on the invader's part. Anticipating rigney's next question, I have no idea why the Democrats install such shoddy safe rooms whenever they gain power. I guess they should have just left the old Republican safe room that Bush installed in Benghazi after replacing Clinton's Democrat model.
rigney Posted October 12, 2012 Author Posted October 12, 2012 Let's set some context here. This is what was requested... a plane: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/email-shows-state-department-rejecting-request-of-security-team-at-us-embassy-in-libya/ ...and this is what the response was: So... let's get something straight here, because I'm tired of people being so loose with their facts and so quick with their vitriol. More men were NOT requested and denied. What was requested and denied was a private plane to do what they could also do using a commercial plane. Then I suppose the requests for more protection were lies?http://www.newsy.com/videos/benghazi-attack-reports-scrutinized
Phi for All Posted October 12, 2012 Posted October 12, 2012 Then I suppose the requests for more protection were lies? http://www.newsy.com...rts-scrutinized The only verifiable requests I could find were the ones to keep the SST team for another three months (approved extension in February, but second request for extension was denied so the SST team left in August), and the one requesting a DC-3 plane for the SST team. I've heard many claims for more troops being denied, but I have seen no actual evidence, like memos or even State Dept acknowledgement, of those requests.
Sergeant Bilko Posted October 12, 2012 Posted October 12, 2012 Maybe if Romney and people like him paid more than 14% in tax, the state department would have enough money to approve these requests without having to worry about the budgetary constraints placed upon them. But then again, Rigney will no doubt have another conspiracy theory to flog on here.
rigney Posted October 12, 2012 Author Posted October 12, 2012 More men were not requested. What was requested was that a special operations team of 16 be left in place instead of removed as per procedure. They had already been there on assignment after the revolution, and a request for a 3-month extension of their presence had already been granted. The second request for another 3 months is the one that had been denied. A request for a plane was also made, and that was denied but provisions for domestic flight arrangements were made. The special ops team is probably not used as normal guard troops. They usually come in with a mission of securing an area, training the local forces and closing any security risks. Once they come in and do their thing, it's usually time for regular troops to take over on the day-to-day routine. This is speculation on my part, though. I have no idea if that's the actual procedure used here. The other problem is that you're imagining these guys being "stripped" from surrounding Ambassador Stevens with a wall of armed protection against exactly this kind of attack. The reality is, even when the team was deployed in Libya, they spent most of their time in Tripoli, no matter where the ambassador was. Chances are they wouldn't have been near Benghazi. And even if some of them had been in Benghazi, it's doubtful they would have changed much, unless they carry oxygen with them and could've prevented the ambassador's death from smoke inhalation. I would imagine SOP is to get the ambassador into the safe room ASAP. That's what happened. If you want to ask questions and point fingers, tell my why the embassy safe room could become filled with smoke. Aren't those supposed to be designed with a siege in mind? "Smoke 'em out" seems practically elementary tactics on the invader's part. Anticipating rigney's next question, I have no idea why the Democrats install such shoddy safe rooms whenever they gain power. I guess they should have just left the old Republican safe room that Bush installed in Benghazi after replacing Clinton's Democrat model. I'm not on a witch hunt Phi, and personally I don't give a damned who is in office when something like this happens. And since nothing will be resolved until after the election, it's just a matter of: Who shot John? But the truth will eventually come out.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now