|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Who you going to believe? /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1467126882 Message started by raydawg on 06/28/16 at 08:14:42 |
|
Title: Who you going to believe? Post by raydawg on 06/28/16 at 08:14:42 Eyewitnesses say no protest ever took place prior to the storming of the embassy in Bengazi. They report it was a full scale invasion. Why did the Obama administration spend time on a supposition, or lie, trying to have internet providers pull the video before they even sent support into the embassy? Clinton was not even at the meetings to begin with, yet, Obama decided this story of a video was the way to address this? Leon Panetta even reports that this was a major fail. Why did they keep up this story about the video when they knew it was not TRUE? Did Obama tie Clinton to this lie? I agree, hindsight is 20/20, and the invasion caught some napping, or discounting it, however..... Lying to cover your own azz is chicken chickensheet |
|
Title: Re: Who you going to believe? Post by Serowbot on 06/28/16 at 09:48:33 Republicans want a tempest in a teapot... Facts are,.. early assumptions were that it was related to a simultaneous event occurring in Egypt... This would be a reasonable assumption... as intel came in, it became clear that it wasn't... What you tell people privately, and what you announce in a public statement as a representative of your government, can differ over any given time period. Nothing about this would have changed anything on the ground... The stated goal here,.. was to hurt Hillary's chances. Nothing more... Here's where McCarthy got a little too full of himself, and spilled the beans,... on Fox of of all places... ;D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jIJ0g8EPs0 [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jIJ0g8EPs0[/media] |
|
Title: Re: Who you going to believe? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/28/16 at 10:37:12 What were Her Goals that made lying to America necessary? If I tell the truth in order to expose a liar, how does that diminish the truth? |
|
Title: Re: Who you going to believe? Post by raydawg on 06/28/16 at 10:42:54 Yep, McCarty was trying to sell himself, and you will take his self promotion and attach it to everyone else, I see.... However, if you look at the factual time line of the event, it was Obama who tried to save his arse, by cooking up this story based on assumptions. I believe Hillary got caught in obama's lies, myself... |
|
Title: Re: Who you going to believe? Post by verslagen1 on 06/28/16 at 14:30:20 What does it matter now anyway? She got caught mishandling secret documents. she lied to support her pres. she failed to support her staff in the field. maybe she was smoking cigars with the interns at the time. The FBI found her deleted emails, I wonder if that's what cost him his job. |
|
Title: Re: Who you going to believe? Post by old.indian on 06/28/16 at 16:45:26 The whole thing is a tangled mess of lies, cover ups, self-serving statements and "news leaks", political finger pointing and general all around BULL S$#T. It does do is expose a lack of leadership and sense of responsibility in the administration. It is readily apparent that politics is more important that the lives of the people they are responsible for. Perhaps nothing would have helped, but at least an effort could have been made. Instead all the effort was expended on "political spin".... Is it any wonder that we always said that when it hit the fan, the only one you could depend on was the guy next to you. |
|
Title: Re: Who you going to believe? Post by pg on 06/28/16 at 17:48:11 OI, you are too kind, they left those people there to die. Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Who you going to believe? Post by oldNslow on 06/28/16 at 18:43:54 Quote:
And a whole sh*t load of other things not even remotely related to this particular subject. But it doesn't matter a doggone bit now. She's gonna be the next President regardless. By hook, or by crook, or by the unbelievable stupidity of the voters, I'm afraid that she's got this one in the bag. And, astonishing as it might seem, half the country is going to celebrate. |
|
Title: Re: Who you going to believe? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/28/16 at 19:13:05 554244484757250 wrote:
I think Stevens decided that he didn't wanna hand weapons to the supposed enemy, said No,, and she hadda watch them die. Or get busted... |
|
Title: Re: Who you going to believe? Post by raydawg on 06/29/16 at 04:42:40 Old chief, we sleep'n n same teepee ;D Yes, what a cluster fruck. The very scorn of the system Obama campaigned against with hop'n and change..... Only to see him extend it! Yes, half will celebrate prolly the most corrupt player ever to get elected on divisional motivation as to why. Totally escaping from them is the insanity of their actions. Celebration will be short lived as it will quickly turn to a defensive mode, with anger being their companion and misery resulting.... Life will be as such, they will watch reality TV shows to anchor them to despair...... Rinse and repeat, every couple of years. In all honesty, it really isn't much different that coming to this sight and spewing forth personal beliefs as if they have some value and the ability to help others see the error of their ways.... It might, chances are, it won't, cuz those in opposition to me come here for the same motivation ;D I think it's fair to say participation here has dwindled as folks come to see its a waste of time, and I can almost swallow that too, but I get this nagging thought that is exactly the the "power brokers " want, a subdued citizenry, so they by default, will have absolute power, and blame us for giving it to them..... You know, sorta like how we blame the gun for the destruction it visits on us.... TUNE IN, DROP OUT........ DROP DEAD. Vote to let someone else, do it :-[ And, at 4 in the morning west cost, how is your day? ;D |
|
Title: Re: Who you going to believe? Post by WebsterMark on 06/29/16 at 04:50:13 Let's remember; if it wasn't for this investigation, Hilary would have gotten away with her email scam. If uncovered during a later investigation (and you know they'll be another) it likely would have been buried. We all know if she had an R by her name, modern day Woodward and Bernsteins would have gotten so many "journalism" awards, they could have built houses out of them! Here's something else to consider: if Hilary, who lives on the protective cocoon the main stream media surrounds her with, is so dishonest and incompetent that even they can't cover her tracks, how awful must she really be?! |
|
Title: Re: Who you going to believe? Post by WebsterMark on 06/29/16 at 04:58:54 My newspaper, one of the vast number Pro-Hilary "news" outlets, ran the headline "No smoking gun" for the Bengazi story. No surprise there. But close analysis by those not wearing the same team jersey, shows a few thongs that are more than a little disturbing. From WSJ We also learn that on the day of the attack, in a 5 p.m. meeting that included Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Mr. Obama said the U.S. should use all available resources. After that meeting, Mr. Panetta returned to the Pentagon to discuss what military resources were available. The Defense Secretary then issued an order to deploy military assets to Libya. But nothing was sent to Benghazi, and nothing was even in route when the last two Americans were killed almost eight hours after the attacks began. The holdup seems to have been caused in part by something else we learn from this report: a 7:30 p.m. teleconference of Defense and State officials, including Mrs. Clinton. Ostensibly they were sharing intelligence and coordinating responses. But they debated whether they needed Libya’s permission to deploy American troops to defend endangered Americans, whether Marines should wear uniforms or civilian clothes, and so on. |
|
Title: Re: Who you going to believe? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/29/16 at 05:08:50 ut they debated whether they needed Libya’s permission to deploy American troops to defend endangered Americans, whether Marines should wear uniforms or civilian clothes, and so on Ahhh, yazz,, must respect the nation,, More Strain out the gnat, swallow the camel... Disingenuous anyone? Build a House out of the awards,, Golden, |
|
Title: Re: Who you going to believe? Post by WebsterMark on 06/29/16 at 05:10:44 But this is the smoking gun. This is why she should never be president. Now I know our liberal friend Sew will say this was just a diplomatic strategy. That what you say in public is not what you say in private sometimes if you want to get things done, I agree with that at times, I've done it and in fact I have a work situation today where I'm going to do that very same thing. But this is different and heres why. This attack was just another in a long line of attacks from groups with the same belief system driving them. We had another one yesterday in Turkey, we had one a couple weeks ago in Orlando. Obama and Clinton were / still are in denial. She lied to us when everyone knew she was lying and she stuck with that lie even when it was ridiculous to do so. She considers us expendable, useful idiots. Sew, if you were there and the narrative needed to be continued, you die. WSJ Mrs. Clinton referred to the video more than once in her public statements. At 10:08 p.m. on the night of the attack, she issued a public statement on Benghazi: “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.” She repeated the point the next day at the State Department. That’s not what she was saying in private. On the night of the attack, at 6:49 p.m. Washington time, Mrs. Clinton called Libya’s president to say the attack on the diplomatic compound in Benghazi was planned and that an Islamist terror group had claimed responsibility. A few hours later, she emailed her daughter that “an Al Qaeda-like group” was responsible. The next afternoon Mrs. Clinton was even more categorical. In a phone call with the Egyptian Prime Minister, she said the Benghazi attack “had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack—not a protest.” She added that the Benghazi attackers were believed affiliated with al Qaeda. |
|
Title: Re: Who you going to believe? Post by Serowbot on 06/29/16 at 07:58:24 Only the "Trumpet" wing cares... Not votes will change. Whether you called it this or that, then or later makes no difference. How many fairies can dance on the head of a pin?... :-? |
|
Title: Re: Who you going to believe? Post by WebsterMark on 06/29/16 at 10:01:25 aw..... the old it doesn't mean anything argument..... Wow, I'll bet Nixon wishes he'd gotten a pass like that! what's one little hotel break-in when you figure there were probably 1 million across the country that year. What's one more? It really didn't mean anything in the big picture, did it? But I'm not sure you're right on this one. normally, Hillary's protection detail known as the mainstream media (not to be confused with her other protective detail aka secret service agents), would do enough damage control and spin that it wouldn't really ever get out to the masses and it's true form. But I think little doubts keep piling up in people's mind that Hillary is just flat out a dishonest person. I think that's beginning to overwhelm the average voter. |
|
Title: Re: Who you going to believe? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/29/16 at 13:04:52 5442554850454853270 wrote:
Ohh, it's not that few care. Tons of people Care. But, we've pretty much seen that the evidence doesn't Matter. Why anyone would continue to support what's so obviously an evil person is just baffling. The speeches and the money, looks like money laundering to me. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/inside-the-clinton-paid-speech-machine-223395 Really, $285,000 dollars... wow.. “Once I got a cartoon in the mail when I was fighting out that Whitewater business,” he reminisced in front of about 60 Chinese investors and 150 American business people gathered to discuss bilateral investment opportunities in late March 2015 — two weeks before Hillary Clinton officially declared her candidacy. “And Jiang Zemin and I are sitting together at a state dinner, and in the first frame, I say to President Jiang, I said, ‘You know, you're doing great economically, but our country has more human rights.’ And he looked at me and he said, ‘Yes, and if you were the leader of China, Ken Starr would be in prison making running shoes.’” A self-deprecating Clinton admitted of those scandal-tarred days of his presidency: “I saved that cartoon for a long time. I must say there were days when I wondered who had the better model.” Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/inside-the-clinton-paid-speech-machine-223395#ixzz4D07EjLbx Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook Just stuff a guy says ... |
|
Title: Re: Who you going to believe? Post by pg on 06/29/16 at 18:35:54 3E2127203D3A0B3B0B33212D66540 wrote:
I think Stevens decided that he didn't wanna hand weapons to the supposed enemy, said No,, and she hadda watch them die. Or get busted... [/quote] More than likely that is probably correct, they let them die for a reason. :-X Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Who you going to believe? Post by Paraquat on 06/30/16 at 06:17:19 This was one of JoG's conspiracies come true. He said it was an arms deal, before any of these articles came out: http://www.examiner.com/node/56425081 http://www.ijreview.com/2014/04/132087-bombshell-report-obama-admin-allowed-al-qaeda-arms-deal-prevented-benghazi/ http://www.allenbwest.com/allen/exclusive-confidential-source-reveals-really-happened-benghazi http://www.businessinsider.com/the-secret-cia-mission-in-benghazi-2013-5 http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/finally-revealed-what-ambassador-in-benghazi-was-really-doing/#! Tell you what, if I knew Stevens could name names, I'd have sat idle. --Steve |
|
Title: Re: Who you going to believe? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/30/16 at 07:43:57 Questioning the statements of known liars isn't often foolish. Ooohhh, mustnt risk Offending the people or the soon to be killed leader of the country. Spain-based Marines trying to respond to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, were delayed for three hours as U.S. government officials debated whether they should wear their uniforms and carry weapons, according to Tuesday's report from the House Benghazi Committee. http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2016/06/28/marines-responding-benghazi-were-held-up-debate-weapons-and-uniforms-commander-says/86478466/ If someone Can't see what this is, I can't help them. And thanks for the accolades, Steve. |
|
Title: Re: Who you going to believe? Post by Serowbot on 06/30/16 at 08:41:21 Yes,.. who are you going to believe?... The one that's admitted purpose is to trash Hillary, of course... ::) ...both these points were in the same article... Quote:
Quote:
|
|
Title: Re: Who you going to believe? Post by LostArtist on 06/30/16 at 18:47:31 26393F3825221323132B39357E4C0 wrote:
depends on the value of the truth, so far it's just that she's lazy and maybe a bit paranoid... woo hoo |
|
Title: Re: Who you going to believe? Post by raydawg on 07/01/16 at 03:35:01 092A36310437312C3631450 wrote:
depends on the value of the truth, so far it's just that she's lazy and maybe a bit paranoid... woo hoo[/quote] In a court of law, a judge will instruct a jury that if a witness impeaches themselves, through their testimony, that they are not bound to ANY of testimony, and can disregard ALL of it. I feel her server was to protect the Clinton Foundation activities, and this is why Bill pulled the stunt on Loretta. She should have refused, but Clinton is smooth, and just how do you tell an ex-president to bug off.......Seriously, how? Sounds easy, but you know its not. This turkey is sly, he could be setting up a diverging of the investigation by this stunt, tainting it, that a new one will be ordered, and the delay, well, justice delayed, is justice denied ;) |
|
Title: Re: Who you going to believe? Post by raydawg on 07/01/16 at 03:43:32 Oh sweet, just broke....... The Clinton's..... Stay tuned for more. The America saga of how capitalism, congress, and the quest for power and money under the umbrella of a caring democracy works.... STATE DEPARTMENT State Department seeks 27-month delay for release of Clinton Foundation emails NOW PLAYING Should AG Lynch recuse herself from Clinton email probe? The State Department has sought to delay the court-ordered release of emails between four of Hillary Clinton's top aides and officials at the Clinton Foundation and a closely associated public relations firm. The motion, filed in federal court by the Justice Department late Wednesday, seeks to put off the release of the emails by 27 months. It was first reported on by The Daily Caller. In the filing, the State Department says it originally estimated that approximately 6,000 emails and other documents were exchanged between the aides — identified as former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Michael Fuchs, former Ambassador-At-Large Melanne Verveer, Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, and Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin — and the Clinton Foundation and Teneo Holdings, a communications shop that former President Bill Clinton helped launch. However, the State Department said that due to errors in the initial document search, the number of "potentially responsive documents" was in fact more than 34,000. The department estimated that it had more than 13,000 pages still left to review. U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras had previously ordered the State Department to release the requested documents by July 21. If the State Department request is granted, the emails would not be released until October 2018, nearly halfway through the first term of a potential Hillary Clinton presidency. The documents are being sought by the conservative nonprofit group Citizens United. "The American people have a right to see these emails before the election," Citizens United President David Bossie told The Daily Caller, adding that the delay was "totally unacceptable." The motion was filed two days after Attorney General Loretta Lynch met Bill Clinton at the Phoenix airport. Lynch denied the meeting was anything other than a chance encounter, but Republicans and Democrats have criticized her for at least creating the appearance of a conflict of interest in the midst of a federal investigation into Hillary Clinton's time as America's top diplomat. On Thursday, State Department spokesman John Kirby cited a surge in Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests in explaining the State Department extension request. "The Department handles FOIA in an entirely nonpartisan manner," Kirby said. The former secretary of state has come under scrutiny over whether she used her position to aid corporate and foreign government donors to the Clinton Foundation. In addition, Abedin worked as an employee at Teneo while simultaneously working at the State Department while Mills held a position at the Clinton Foundation while also serving in the State Department. Both matters have been flagged by Congress as possible conflicts of interest. Up next, fairies and pinheads, Bill stacks em' tight! ;D |
|
Title: Re: Who you going to believe? Post by Paraquat on 07/01/16 at 09:23:48 6C7375726F6859695961737F34060 wrote:
Credit, where credit is due. --Steve |
|
Title: Re: Who you going to believe? Post by pg on 07/01/16 at 14:23:36 I would like to see a thread with JOGs top 10 conspiracies and let's see how many have come to fruition. :o Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Who you going to believe? Post by raydawg on 07/01/16 at 16:59:09 6D7A7C707F6F1D0 wrote:
Does Santa Clause count? |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |