The thread for discussing exactly what it says in the title. Let's get to it CBR!
Printable View
The thread for discussing exactly what it says in the title. Let's get to it CBR!
[URL="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/apr/30/jeremy-paxman-quit-newsnight-bbc"]After 25 years as BBC Newsnight's chief rottweiler, Jeremy Paxman is retiring.[/URL]
Politicians across the UK breathe a sigh of relief.
How about some more news about the only Canadian politician people outside Canada have heard about?
[URL="http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/rob-ford-taking-leave-of-absence-seeking-help-for-substance-abuse-1.2627832"]Rob Ford to take leave of absence and seek help for substance abuse.[/URL]
[QUOTE]Toronto Mayor Rob Ford is taking a leave of absence to seek help for substance abuse amid reports that two new recordings — one of unruly behaviour, the other of apparent drug use — have surfaced.
"I have decided to take a leave from campaigning and from my duties as mayor to seek immediate help," Ford said in a statement released shortly before 11 p.m. ET Wednesday.
"I have a problem with alcohol and the choices I have made while under the influence. I have struggled with this for some time."
Later in the statement, the mayor said, "I know that I need professional help."
Ford does not plan to drop out of the election, according to his lawyer, Dennis Morris, who spoke to CBC News earlier in the evening.
The news comes amid reports that two new recordings of Ford have surfaced. The Toronto Sun reported late Wednesday it had obtained a new and "raunchy" audio recording of Ford "ranting and swearing" in a Toronto-area bar on Monday night.
The Globe and Mail claims to have seen a second video, shot last weekend, of Ford smoking what the paper said "a self-professed drug dealer" described as crack cocaine.
The news comes amid a rocky re-election campaign in which Ford has repeatedly described himself as a changed man who has learned from the mistakes of his first term as mayor.
His leave of absence appears to leave Deputy Mayor Norm Kelly in charge, though city council already handed Kelly many of Ford’s mayoral powers last fall.
The Sun posted its recording online. It was reportedly made Monday night at Sullie Gorman's, a restaurant in Toronto's west end — deep in Ford's home territory and across the street from a park named for his father, Doug Ford Sr.
On the recording, a person alleged to be the mayor is heard being unruly, complaining about his wife, Renata, and making lewd comments about mayoral contender Karen Stintz.
Ford is reported to have said, "I'd like to f-----g jam her," in reference to Stintz.
Ford also complains about Ontario's political leaders' decision to fly a flag "ahead of our Canadian flag" — presumably alluding to the rainbow flag flown at the provincial legislature during the Sochi Olympics to support gay rights.
Specifically, he criticizes Ontario Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak for voting in favour of the motion to fly the flag.
"Tim Hudak comes out and says, 'Yeah, I agree with all the gays,'" Ford is heard to say. "Right there, he lost my vote."
[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/royal-mail-selloff-vince-cable-on-the-run-as-mps-attack-carveup-9308882.html"]Commons continues to throw a fit over the Royal Mail sell-off, as the hedge fund involvement turns out to be worse than previously thought. [/URL] And quite right too, what a **** up.
[QUOTE=Puppetmaker Grae;7516][URL="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/apr/30/jeremy-paxman-quit-newsnight-bbc"]After 25 years as BBC Newsnight's chief rottweiler, Jeremy Paxman is retiring.[/URL][/QUOTE]
I hope "rottweiler-in-chief" was his actual job title. I want to live in that world.
[URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-27233712"]Gerry Adams has been arrested over the 1972 murder of Jean McConville (he voluntarily handed himself in and claims his innocence). [/URL]
[QUOTE=Charles RB;7720][URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-27233712"]Gerry Adams has been arrested over the 1972 murder of Jean McConville (he voluntarily handed himself in and claims his innocence). [/URL][/QUOTE]
There was an interview on BBC Radio 4's Today program this morning with one of Jean McConville's sons, in which he said although he knows the identies of her kidnappers he would not speak to the police for fear of endangering the lives of his family, even after 40 years.
Jesus.
Oh, and I saw a grand [I]two[/I] papers running with Adams as a main headline and one as a sub-headline. The Independent has a small section buried in it. The [I]head of a UK and Eire political party has been arrested for a particularly nasty murder[/I], and that's all we fucking get? Might as well put up a headline saying "Northern Ireland Ruled Unimportant; 'If Important They'd Be English', Say Editors"
To be fair, it was headline news on the BBC this morning, but then by teatime it was all about Peaches Geldof and Nigel Farage being hit by an egg.
I think it's crap that the US House couldn't get non-redacted emails/papers regarding the ongoings of the White House staff in regards to the attack of the US Embassy in Benghazi and it took a lawsuit from Judicial Watch to get these documents to the public.
[URL="http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-benghazi-documents-point-white-house-misleading-talking-points/"]http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-benghazi-documents-point-white-house-misleading-talking-points/[/URL]
[QUOTE]“Now we know the Obama White House’s chief concern about the Benghazi attack was making sure that President Obama looked good,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “And these documents undermine the Obama administration’s narrative that it thought the Benghazi attack had something to do with protests or an Internet video. Given the explosive material in these documents, it is no surprise that we had to go to federal court to pry them loose from the Obama State Department[/QUOTE]
This just shows us the two political parties are in it for themselves. It also shows us the majority of the media is in the tank. As far as I'm concerned, this Rhodes moron needs to be thrown out of public service.
[QUOTE=king mob;12453]To be fair, it was headline news on the BBC this morning, but then by teatime it was all about Peaches Geldof and Nigel Farage being hit by an egg.[/QUOTE]
Well, beyond the arrest nothing's going to move fast in this case. The PSNI will keep their cards close to their chest, and Adams will make his usual denials, believed by no-one in either the UK or Ireland regardless of political allegiance, that he's ever had anything to do with the IRA. Meanwhile the news-cycle rolls on...
[QUOTE=CenturianSpy;12649]I think it's crap that the US House couldn't get non-redacted emails/papers regarding the ongoings of the White House staff in regards to the attack of the US Embassy in Benghazi and it took a lawsuit from Judicial Watch to get these documents to the public.
[URL="http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-benghazi-documents-point-white-house-misleading-talking-points/"]http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-benghazi-documents-point-white-house-misleading-talking-points/[/URL]
This just shows us the two political parties are in it for themselves. It also shows us the majority of the media is in the tank. As far as I'm concerned, this Rhodes moron needs to be thrown out of public service.[/QUOTE]
How does he know what the documents say if they're redacted?
[QUOTE=Michael P;12834]How does he know what the documents say if they're redacted?[/QUOTE]Judicial Watch sued to get the redactions elimininated. Not all the emails/documents were un-redacted, but the ones that were showed a clear attempt by the White House AND Pres. Obama's re-election staff to change the narrative on the attack. They willingly lied to us (using Susan Rice- who I think was a dupe in this) and then continued to cover it up by redacting non-secretive emails/documents. They thwarted Congress by refusing to give them the unredacted memos showing this, and it took a judge to force them to do this YEARS later. All for the glory and re-election of Pres. Obama.
The government has maintained that cuts to Legal Aid will not effect access to justice, however: [URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27238201"]A judge has halted a serious fraud trial after defendants claimed they could not get adequate representation because of cuts to legal aid. Alex Cameron QC - the prime minister's brother, working free of charge on the bid to halt the case - said the defendants would not get a fair trial.[/URL]
[QUOTE] Solicitors acting for the men in this case approached 70 sets of barristers' chambers - and only found one QC willing to act - before he pulled out the very next day. What's clear is that counsel who have previously undertaken this kind complex work have dug their heels in and are refusing to accept the 30% cut. [/QUOTE]
This can't be good, and if it filters down to 'less complex' cases, the coalition's tough on crime credentials will take a serious dent. Though it's tempting to say it serves them right, it's in no-one's interest for criminal trials to start collapsing all over the place.
One of those unexpected consequences we absolutely should have expected. And once there's a precedent, expect to see dodgy bastards (assuming this lot aren't themselves dodgy bastards) claiming they can't get proper lawyers in order to gum up their trials.
[QUOTE=Puppetmaker Grae;12790] Adams will make his usual denials, believed by no-one in either the UK or Ireland regardless of political allegiance, that he's ever had anything to do with the IRA. [/QUOTE]
The impression I got was that Adams admits to being involved in the IRA in a vague general sense but somehow [i]never[/i] had any involvement in or knowledge of any specific act of IRA violence. Nice, [i]safe[/i] ex-terrorist. (or am I thinking of McGuinness?)
While many thought the militia groups aiding Cliven Bundy scored a victory, time has shown that in fact, the federal government may have done the smartest thing possible... letting the rancher host daily press conferences where he embarrassed himself in racist rants, while his militia allies?
[URL="http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2014/04/30/back-at-the-bundy-ranch-its-oath-keepers-vs-militiamen-as-wild-rumors-fly/"]
Well, they've started panicking about fantasy drone strikes coming from Eric Holder (that are, y'know, their own paranoid delusions), and opting to instead, turn their attention towards threatening to kill each other.[/URL]
[QUOTE]Paranoid rumors are not only common at gatherings of antigovernment “Patriots,” they’re practically the entire raison d’etre for them. So when a wild and paranoid rumor began circulating – that Attorney General Eric Holder was preparing a drone strike on the armed militiamen who gathered at Cliven Bundy’s ranch in Nevada – it unleashed a rift within the camp, which is brimming with fear, rage, testosterone and firearms.
Vicious infighting among those remaining at the camp – estimated at less than a hundred – broke out a little more than two weeks after heavily armed militiamen forced federal agents to back down from a planned roundup of Bundy’s illegally grazing cattle from public lands. After vowing to stay on and protect Bundy – who then stumbled on the national stage with an outpouring of racist commentary – the remaining “Patriots,” who have been raising fear levels among local residents, have begun feuding. And it has been revealing.
Apparently, someone within one of the major factions at the camp, the Oath Keepers, relayed word of the imminent drone attack to his leaders. Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes responded by pulling his people out of what they called “the kill zone” (the area the supposed drone would be striking). When the other militiamen learned that the Oath Keepers had pulled out, they were outraged.
As you can see in the video below, the angry militiamen – led by a Montana “Patriot” named Ryan Payne, who has been acting as the spokesman for the militiamen at the ranch – held an impromptu gathering at the camp to discuss the situation. They openly talk about shooting Rhodes and other Oath Keepers leaders – because in their view, the Oath Keepers’ actions constituted “desertion” and “cowardice” – and describe how “the whole thing is falling apart over there.” At the end, they vote unanimously to oust the Oath Keepers, or at least its leadership, from the Bundy Ranch camp.[/QUOTE]
Stewart Rhodes, meanwhile, is claiming he's been assaulted physically, and that the two factions have drawn weapons on each other (that video recording was featured on NBC News' Rachel Maddow Show on Thursday).
The only real losers in this... are all the ordinary people living in Bunkerville, who have to dive for cover if and when a shootout between these nuts takes place.
Gawd those "patriots" "defending" Bundy are morons.
[QUOTE=worstblogever;16000]While many thought the militia groups aiding Cliven Bundy scored a victory, time has shown that in fact, the federal government may have done the smartest thing possible... letting the rancher host daily press conferences where he embarrassed himself in racist rants, while his militia allies?
[URL="http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2014/04/30/back-at-the-bundy-ranch-its-oath-keepers-vs-militiamen-as-wild-rumors-fly/"]
Well, they've started panicking about fantasy drone strikes coming from Eric Holder (that are, y'know, their own paranoid delusions), and opting to instead, turn their attention towards threatening to kill each other.[/URL]
Stewart Rhodes, meanwhile, is claiming he's been assaulted physically, and that the two factions have drawn weapons on each other (that video recording was featured on NBC News' Rachel Maddow Show on Thursday).
The only real losers in this... are all the ordinary people living in Bunkerville, who have to dive for cover if and when a shootout between these nuts takes place.[/QUOTE]
The entire situation just isn't sustainable. It will have to fizzle out eventually and everyone will go home. Bundy will have to make some sort of deal if he wants to continue to manage his ranch. These militia people are just to thick headed to see it.
[QUOTE=Dr. Kusa San;16018]Gawd those "patriots" "defending" Bundy are morons.[/QUOTE]
Patriots would have to be to defend some one claiming their government doesn't have the right to exist...
[QUOTE=dupersuper;16702]Patriots would have to be to defend some one claiming their government doesn't have the right to exist...[/QUOTE]
And who also [URL="http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/bundy-ranch-uncensored"]claims to be receiving revelations from God[/URL].
[ATTACH=CONFIG]505[/ATTACH]
"Any documented occasion when some yahoo claims God has spoken to them, they're speaking to me. [B]Or they're talking to themselves.[/B]"
[QUOTE=worstblogever;16000]While many thought the militia groups aiding Cliven Bundy scored a victory, time has shown that in fact, the federal government may have done the smartest thing possible... letting the rancher host daily press conferences where he embarrassed himself in racist rants, while his militia allies?
[URL="http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2014/04/30/back-at-the-bundy-ranch-its-oath-keepers-vs-militiamen-as-wild-rumors-fly/"]
Well, they've started panicking about fantasy drone strikes coming from Eric Holder (that are, y'know, their own paranoid delusions), and opting to instead, turn their attention towards threatening to kill each other.[/URL]
[/QUOTE]
Why, it's almost as if people who gather in groups to amass huge stockpiles of weapons with the aim of overthrowing their country's democratically elected government, and actually believe they can succeed in this aim, are mentally unbalanced in some fashion!
[QUOTE=Charles RB;14813]The impression I got was that Adams admits to being involved in the IRA in a vague general sense but somehow [i]never[/i] had any involvement in or knowledge of any specific act of IRA violence. Nice, [i]safe[/i] ex-terrorist. (or am I thinking of McGuinness?)[/QUOTE]
I think that McGuinness admits to being a former IRA commander, but elaborates no further. Adams maintains a credibility stretching denial of any involvement ever. As far as I can tell, infuriation with this, along with opposition to Sinn Fein's role in the peace process, has led to several former IRA members naming Adams as a senior commander.
[QUOTE=Spike-X;17690]Why, it's almost as if people who gather in groups to amass huge stockpiles of weapons with the aim of overthrowing their country's democratically elected government, and actually believe they can succeed in this aim, are mentally unbalanced in some fashion![/QUOTE]
The hell you say, sir. The hell you say.
[QUOTE=worstblogever;16000]While many thought the militia groups aiding Cliven Bundy scored a victory, time has shown that in fact, the federal government may have done the smartest thing possible... letting the rancher host daily press conferences where he embarrassed himself in racist rants, while his militia allies?
[URL="http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2014/04/30/back-at-the-bundy-ranch-its-oath-keepers-vs-militiamen-as-wild-rumors-fly/"]
Well, they've started panicking about fantasy drone strikes coming from Eric Holder (that are, y'know, their own paranoid delusions), and opting to instead, turn their attention towards threatening to kill each other.[/URL]
Stewart Rhodes, meanwhile, is claiming he's been assaulted physically, and that the two factions have drawn weapons on each other (that video recording was featured on NBC News' Rachel Maddow Show on Thursday).[/QUOTE]
So all the US government has to do is sit back, get some popcorn, and watch Darwin take his course.
[QUOTE=Charles RB;19383]So all the US government has to do is sit back, get some popcorn, and watch Darwin take his course.[/QUOTE]The US Govt. is complicit in this one- by sending dozens of armed Federal agents to settle a tax debt is abhorrent. How could they NOT know that it would set off these idiots? They could have accomplished the same thing by putting a lien on Bundy's property, a tactic that they do EVERY day to other businesses. So, why didn't they do this? I think the answer is somewhere in Harry Reid and his son's business dealings in that area. And all those patriots need to quit playing war and get back to their jobs.
[QUOTE=worstblogever;16000]While many thought the militia groups aiding Cliven Bundy scored a victory, time has shown that in fact, the federal government may have done the smartest thing possible... letting the rancher host daily press conferences where he embarrassed himself in racist rants, while his militia allies?
[URL="http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2014/04/30/back-at-the-bundy-ranch-its-oath-keepers-vs-militiamen-as-wild-rumors-fly/"][/URL]
[....][/QUOTE]
Amazing how ownership of property has no value when it's the government that owns that property.
[I]Those sonsabitches don't pay me rent, I'm going after them!
Why should I have to pay the government any rent?[/I]
[QUOTE=thespianphryne;19533]Amazing how ownership of property has no value when it's the government that owns that property.
[I]Those sonsabitches don't pay me rent, I'm going after them!
Why should I have to pay the government any rent?[/I][/QUOTE]I think the questions raised are: how much of the land in a State can be owned by the Federal Govt? & Who could manage it better? There's no question that the land Bundy was using is the Federal Govt's, this IS part of Nevada's constitution- a caveat FORCED on them by the Federal Govt. for them to be able to enter the Union. I think that's messed up. I think it is time for most of federally-owned land to revert back to the states, if they want it. At the same time, the Federal Govt. does need certain parcels for military bases and national parks.
[QUOTE=CenturianSpy;13133]Judicial Watch sued to get the redactions elimininated. Not all the emails/documents were un-redacted, but the ones that were showed a clear attempt by the White House AND Pres. Obama's re-election staff to change the narrative on the attack. They willingly lied to us (using Susan Rice- who I think was a dupe in this) and then continued to cover it up by redacting non-secretive emails/documents. They thwarted Congress by refusing to give them the unredacted memos showing this, and it took a judge to force them to do this YEARS later. All for the glory and re-election of Pres. Obama.[/QUOTE]
So what exactly would have caused President Obama to lose his reelection campaign here? Maintaining the same level of protection for our embassies as every one of his predecessors in office? Didn't seem to hurt anyone before him. Being in office while one of our embassies was attacked? Reagan coasted to reelection after the attack in Beirut.
Or is this really a pathetic attempt by those on the right to drum up any kind of controversy they can, despicably using the deaths of our diplomats for political gain, in the absence of any real controversy? The truth is the economy was improving and the administration was making gains in their foreign policy (even if you ignore the death of Bin Laden). The Republican's best chance at taking the President down was attacking the ACA and they chose the worst possible candidate to do that.
This was a last-ditch effort to sling mud at the President that failed, and only continues because they still have no legitimate arguments or controversies other than traditional partisan differences. Well, this and trying 50 times to kill the ACA.
[QUOTE=CenturianSpy;19627]I think the questions raised are: how much of the land in a State can be owned by the Federal Govt? & Who could manage it better? There's no question that the land Bundy was using is the Federal Govt's, this IS part of Nevada's constitution- a caveat FORCED on them by the Federal Govt. for them to be able to enter the Union. I think that's messed up. I think it is time for most of federally-owned land to revert back to the states, if they want it. At the same time, the Federal Govt. does need certain parcels for military bases and national parks.[/QUOTE]
My main argument against reverting control back to states (and the reason I oppose most states rights arguments) is that this is exactly what large multinational corporations want. It's much easier and cheaper to manipulate local and state governments to roll back regulations, sell land for development that would better serve the population undeveloped, and generally get their way than it would be if they had the Federal Government to contend with. Divide and conquer.
And in Bundy's case specifically, he's not going to start paying tax if the state owns the land. He might not even "believe in" the state, not with [URL="http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/radical-racist-context-missed-in-rancher-hype-236481603620"]his only-the-county-sheriff views.[/URL]
[URL="http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/bundy-neighbors-to-militia-time-to-leave-243582019766"]Rachel Maddow interviews Representative Horsford (who covers Bundyland) and there's also a really funny clip of Very Serious militiamen talking about how scared they were of other militiamen carrying guns around.[/URL] And a less funny claim that one of the militias has said they only pull people over "if we have probable cause" - random fuckers with no legal authority and that aren't from Nevada.
[QUOTE=CenturianSpy;13133]Judicial Watch sued to get the redactions elimininated. Not all the emails/documents were un-redacted, but the ones that were showed a clear attempt by the White House AND Pres. Obama's re-election staff to change the narrative on the attack. They willingly lied to us (using Susan Rice- who I think was a dupe in this) and then continued to cover it up by redacting non-secretive emails/documents. They thwarted Congress by refusing to give them the unredacted memos showing this, and it took a judge to force them to do this YEARS later. All for the glory and re-election of Pres. Obama.[/QUOTE]
Hopefully this will torpedo Hillary"What difference does it make?" Clinton from running. Thats why that story about her hating the press came out yesterday to make it look like the media has it out for her. If " What difference does it make?" is her take on 4 people getting killed , they should go after her.
[QUOTE=Charles RB;20546]And in Bundy's case specifically, he's not going to start paying tax if the state owns the land. He might not even "believe in" the state, not with [URL="http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/radical-racist-context-missed-in-rancher-hype-236481603620"]his only-the-county-sheriff views.[/URL][/QUOTE]
I bet he'd quickly stop believing in the county if the land was given to it by the Feds.
[QUOTE=CSTowle;20197]So what exactly would have caused President Obama to lose his reelection campaign here? Maintaining the same level of protection for our embassies as every one of his predecessors in office? Didn't seem to hurt anyone before him. Being in office while one of our embassies was attacked? Reagan coasted to reelection after the attack in Beirut.[/QUOTE]We can't possibly know what effect the truth of what happened in Benghazi would have had on the election (probably very little). What we do know is the White House and Obama's re-election committe conspired to change the narrative, then covered it up, and now are being dismissive of what they did. If the White House and Obama re-election staff DIDN'T think it would harm their chances, they wouldn't have pulled all these hijinks.
[QUOTE=CSTowle;20197]Or is this really a pathetic attempt by those on the right to drum up any kind of controversy they can, despicably using the deaths of our diplomats for political gain, in the absence of any real controversy? The truth is the economy was improving and the administration was making gains in their foreign policy (even if you ignore the death of Bin Laden). The Republican's best chance at taking the President down was attacking the ACA and they chose the worst possible candidate to do that.
This was a last-ditch effort to sling mud at the President that failed, and only continues because they still have no legitimate arguments or controversies other than traditional partisan differences. Well, this and trying 50 times to kill the ACA.[/QUOTE]Or the argument: The White House/State Dept were warned this would/could happen, did nothing to prevent it (actually told forces NOT to help)/was too inept to stop it, and then duped the American public using Susan Rice into making the attack all about a video. I find the ignoring/minimizing of memos that warned the White House/State Dept of an attack, the failure to help during the attack, the concerted misdirection after the attack, the cover-up and thwarting of Congress during the investigation, and the fact that it took a private concern suing the Govt. to get non-redacted memos/emails/documents into the public's view to be what is "pathetic".
[QUOTE=CSTowle;20245]My main argument against reverting control back to states (and the reason I oppose most states rights arguments) is that this is exactly what large multinational corporations want. It's much easier and cheaper to manipulate local and state governments to roll back regulations, sell land for development that would better serve the population undeveloped, and generally get their way than it would be if they had the Federal Government to contend with. Divide and conquer.[/QUOTE]There is NO larger multinational corporation than the US Federal Govt. and just like a state government, it only takes one powerful special interest group to manipulate it. I rather the people who are being manipulated and doing the manipulation to be nearer to the people that are getting hosed.
[QUOTE=CSTowle;20197]So what exactly would have caused President Obama to lose his reelection campaign here? Maintaining the same level of protection for our embassies as every one of his predecessors in office? Didn't seem to hurt anyone before him. Being in office while one of our embassies was attacked? [B]Reagan coasted to reelection after the attack in Beirut.[/B]Or is this really a pathetic attempt by those on the right to drum up any kind of controversy they can, despicably using the deaths of our diplomats for political gain, in the absence of any real controversy? The truth is the economy was improving and the administration was making gains in their foreign policy (even if you ignore the death of Bin Laden). The Republican's best chance at taking the President down was attacking the ACA and they chose the worst possible candidate to do that.
This was a last-ditch effort to sling mud at the President that failed, and only continues because they still have no legitimate arguments or controversies other than traditional partisan differences. Well, this and trying 50 times to kill the ACA.[/QUOTE]
Reagan took responsibility instead of blaming it on a video.
bengahzi, bengazhi, benghazi.
nothing has changed, the c.i.a. came up with the narrative while they were still trying to figure out what happened.
[URL="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/05/gop-benghazi-fever-issa-boehner-ben-rhodes"]Why There Is No Cure for the GOP's Benghazi Fever[/URL]
[QUOTE][...]
A-ha! cried the Benghazi truthers. Here's proof that the White House schemed to convince the public that the tragic attack—which claimed the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans—was merely the result of protests spurred by an anti-Islam video made by some American wacko, not the doing of Al Qaeda or its allies. President Obama and his comrades, the Benghazi truthers insist, wanted to cover up the politically inconvenient fact that Al Qaeda-ish terrorism was responsible for the killing of four Americans, since acknowledgment of this would have tainted the counter-terrorism credentials of Obama, the Bin Laden slayer, and decreased his chances of reelection.
But as we know now, the CIA and the State Department took the lead in fashioning the talking points. A year ago, the release of internal White House emails about the drafting of the talking points clearly showed there had been no White House effort to shape the narrative in a devious manner. (It appeared the CIA and the State Department were more concerned about their own bureaucratic imperatives.) And the new email from Rhodes is pretty standard stuff, indicating a White House desire to justify its policy on the Arab Spring in the face of troubling events. Rhodes was encouraging Rice to present the case that the anti-video protests that had occurred in various places in the Muslim world were sort of a one-off event, not an indication that the overall Obama approach toward the region was misguided. Note that Rhodes referred to "protests," plural, when making this point. That week there had been violent anti-video uprisings in Egypt, Yemen, and Sudan, not just Libya. So all the fuss about the Rhodes email—which quickly passed through membrane between Fox News and the rest of the media, receiving airtime on CNN, ABC News, and elsewhere—is smoke, not fire.
Moreover, the Rhodes email is a reminder of how far off the rails the Benghazi-bashers have gone. At the bottom of the second page of his four-page memo is proposed language for discussing the Benghazi attack: "The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the [anti-video] protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US Consulate and subsequently its annex." According to the internal White House emails released last year, this was how the CIA had asked for the event to be described.
[...]
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=7thangel;21084]bengahzi, bengazhi, benghazi.
nothing has changed, the c.i.a. came up with the narrative while they were still trying to figure out what happened. [/QUOTE]The documents have shown the CIA did indeed come up with multiple theories in the beginning INCLUDING the prevailing 'video theory' in the first briefing. BUT, they quickly (within 4 hours) dismissed the 'video theory'. The White House & Obama re-election staff decided to stay with that narrative because it suited their strategy for re-election.
[QUOTE=Hanson724;20857]Reagan took responsibility instead of blaming it on a video.[/QUOTE]
And in the process precluded the court marshals and the firing that were due the idiots whom made it possible with the idiotic rules of engagement, rules of engagement that came form the military not the State department
MERS in the US:
[URL="http://time.com/#86243/cdc-confirms-first-case-of-mers-infection-in-u-s/"]http://time.com/#86243/cdc-confirms-first-case-of-mers-infection-in-u-s/[/URL]
[QUOTE=Hanson724;20717]Hopefully this will torpedo Hillary"What difference does it make?" Clinton from running. Thats why that story about her hating the press came out yesterday to make it look like the media has it out for her. If " What difference does it make?" is her take on 4 people getting killed , they should go after her.[/QUOTE]
The Republican party is basically "what difference does it make" about getting over thousands Americans killed over a lie, So u you really think they will get traction over four in Benghazi?
?
they have been going after her, they have managed to repeatedly make them selves look like the fools they are by going after her, I really hope they continue to shoot themselves in the foot with a line that has become fodder for comics
[QUOTE=CenturianSpy;21592]The documents have shown the CIA did indeed come up with multiple theories in the beginning INCLUDING the prevailing 'video theory' in the first briefing. BUT, they quickly (within 4 hours) dismissed the 'video theory'. The White House & Obama re-election staff decided to stay with that narrative because it suited their strategy for re-election.[/QUOTE]
okay, since the last post was deleted
[url]http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/benghazi2014/benghazi.pdf#page=65[/url]
here is the special investigative report not only showing that it was the c.i.a. talking points, but that there was no conspiracy. now, i know it's impossible for certain people to believe, and i know certain people just can't accept the current reality, but it's beyond silly