rigney

Lets face it, Rigney isn't going to back up his claims, and there's a very simple reason: he can't.

 

It's the usual Right wing ploy- say something vague but insulting about the opposition and bluster and try to distract attention if you are called to account for it.

 

I wonder which version of distraction he's going to try this time.

No distraction! I'll just wait until after 11/6/12 to hear the "alas, woe is me", and the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

OK rigney, I will try again

 

Unless you are accusing someone of handing it out, there's no way I could smell the crap is there?

That's my point.

You are contradicting yourself.

 

So, lets get this straight

Exactly what crap are you saying is being handed out?

Who is doing it?

What evidence is there to back up your accusation (even if you insist that it's not an accusation)?

 

I predict a non-answer- go on- be a devil- prove me wrong and actually answer the questions.

Answers to your questions have been evident for the past month. Last night's rhetoric by Obama was a perfectr example.

You have failed to address the question. It was a simple question. Please answer it.

If you are insinuating that Mohammed Magarief is in charge, forget it.

To the last two posters: With whom precisely do you suppose we are at war in Libya?

 

Let me ask this another way to ensure absolute clarity and encourage a clear mature response.

 

If we signed a peace treaty to end this aforementioned war, whose signature would be on the document beside our own?

To answer your question of:

With whom precisely do you suppose we are at war (with) in Libya?

Personally I dont believe it is with the Libyan people in general, only those who murdered our Diplomat and his aides. The question is, why did the murders happen at all? That's easy! There was no protection in a place that had been, and still remains a potential war zone.

War killed your ambassador, you're at war in Libya!

 

War killed your ambassador, you're at war in Libya!

I believe the Obama administration is finally getting that message.

Who do you think won the debate and why?

Uncle Joe by a "smile"!

 

Well, telling easily verifiable lies was already taken.

Joe did have the harder lies to tell, but he did it so easily with a smile you'd think it almost comes natural to him, "Bless his heart".

It really seems like it, rigney. I just don't understand where you're going with all this. I think a mistake was made trying to link this incident to a movie protest, but I still remember hearing early on that a protest may have provided some cover for the attack, so there may have been some confusion early on. But to now suggest that the White House knew there was going to be an attack and purposely denied extra security is just insane, I mean who would that possibly benefit? It's not like Obama is itching to invade Libya so he lets us be attacked to gain voter sympathy for yet another war.

 

All other reasons seem equally insane until you get to political maneuvers, and that seems to fit the bill. This is an attempt to make the president look bad by capitalizing on a tragedy that was no where near his purview as POTUS. If you want to blame someone, blame Paul Ryan et alii for not approving the requested embassy budgets.

I can only take into consideration what I read and hear. The following link has to do with Libya and primarily about the mess in Benghazi. I don't know exactly what the truth is, but tell me; how can we have 50 to 100s of military personnel attached to embassies as in France and other free nations, but only a handfull at a consulate that may likely come under attack?

 

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.

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

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.

" 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?

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.

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.

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: Lepton

What 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.

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.

Life is merely a result from the origin-processes of the formation from 'nothing' of this universe. Incidently, from the pov of a self-aware life entity that is able to speculate about the future, for that life entity: IT ALL ENDS BADLY!!!!!!!... ;*

Personally I believe life is inexplicable with no irrefutable proof in either the scientific or religious field to justify any findings of how life actually began. While science has the upper hand with down to earth answers, let's not shortchange those who put their faith in religion. Life is an an illusion shared by all living things, but only as that individual entity views it.

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.

A liar?

Or listen in amazement to a 4 year old B.S. story.

Romney needs to wipe that smarmy, self-satisfied grin off his face when he's not talking. Also he needs to stop blinking so much. At one point I counted 64 blinks per minute. Who needs to blink that much?!

Evidently with that rapt interest you found in his eyes, you didn't listning to much of the debate. And would you have rather he scowl as Obama began to do after about five minutes into the session? 'course if I was getting my ass kicked as Obama was, I'd begin to scoul myself. Or was that an awkward look of amazement to think that someone would challange His Lordship?

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.

Why? Because I did the EXACT SAME THING as you did?

No! Mine were asked as questions, yours accusations. There is definitely a difference.

Huh? What do mean? Is there something I missed, or is everybody supposed to get what seems like an inside joke? The truth of that debate was that Obama was off his game and Romney jumped on it.

 

I particularly enjoyed the exchange in which Obama claimed that Romney was getting a tax break for moving companies over seas. Romney was correct in denying that. Not that he wasn't getting a tax break for moving companies, but with the way Obama worded it, he was correct in denying it. When looked at a little closer, Romney does recieve tax breaks for moving a company, but what the left would have you believe is that it is only a break for moving a company overseas, when in reality the break comes from moving a company anywhere, whether domestically or internationally the tax break is the same. This is why when Obama said it was a break for moving a company overseas, Romney was correct in saying that in his 20 plus years of being in business that he had never heard of such a thing. Another thing that struck me as negative by Obama was his reprimand of the moderator, saying that he would have had 5 more seconds if he wasn't interuppted, then proceeded to take 20 more seconds to finish. It just seemed a little pompass to me. All in all I would say that Romney came out on top in that debate, although I would have to agree with most of the commentators that I've heard, and say that it was by no means a game changer.

I agree that the debate wasn't a game changer. Obama was simply caught with his pants down around his knees. Believe me, he will be more than ready for the next face-off.

Evidently YOU have no honor. You have no problem calling into question the integrity of others without indication they have actually done anything wrong, yet you object when someone does the same to you.

 

 

And I'm still curious as to what you know about the molestation of the 10 year old girl at St. Marks. I'm sure we will eventually get believable facts. Question is, how true will they be?

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. Matter of fact, you seem to have the same mien as that of Shultz.

 

"But then, I’m still curious as to what and when the administration knew of this slaughter in Benghazi, prior to its happening?"

Why do you suppose that they knew anything?

It wouldn't make sense.

Neither spontaneous gangs of rioters nor terrorists are in the habit of emailing the US administration to warn them.

So it doesn't make sense.

 

If, by fair means or foul, they had known about it, they would have done something about it.

 

Your question would only make sense in some bizarre world where terrorists and rioters give fair warning: why did you ask it?

That's why we have CIA agents in such areas. To get at the bottom of what's happening.

I know, but it implies the administration did something wrong, even though you did not claim they did. If conjecture has no impact, then you shouldn't mind me asking the question "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?"

 

Simply conjecture. No harm in me asking, right?

While I don't particulary care for you using me in your analysis, it is pretty descriptive. I’ve always considered conjecture as an honorable discussion between two or more parties on an issue? Evidently honor has nothing to do with it. Shows how much I know. Think I'll just copy and keep it for further reference?

But then, I’m still curious as to what and when the administration knew of this slaughter in Benghazi, prior to its happening? I'm sure we will eventually get believable facts. Qiuestion is, how true will they be? I sent your verbiage to a friend for his take on it and he sent this link back. Now my question is, how can the Democratic party allow such a creep, so full of hate; to speak for them? Is this guy still around?

I was not poking fun. I was trying to show that in the absence of evidence, asking questions like that makes the questioner seem biased. My question about the Republicans is a valid as your question about the Obama administration. In other words, a misleading and biased question.

My question was aimed at conjecture, not something that might compromise national security.