Minnesota Shooting (Lets Start Over)

peacenik · Jul 14, 2016

He was cleared as the facts clearly show.

As for writing before knowing all the facts, some of your fellow right wingers on this forum said that the Orlando attacker was an al-Qaeda or ISIS terrorist before all the facts were ascertained. Some even assumed that the black victims of police crimes were guilty before all the facts were shown. Still others have ''convicted'' Hillary of imaginary crimes. All of these being examples of forum right wing political correctness [sic].

Sinnerman · Jul 15, 2016

peacenik said:

And you wove a talel about a vicious assault on a jogger in NYC that was nowhere near being factual and you added an attack on the police officers involved, who did nothing wrong.

Hillary Clinton has been one of the most dishonest politicians of modern times. That is not "convicting" her. It is stating a fact. Democrats agree with this fact and say it will not stop them from voting for her. They might feel dishonesty is part of the job description. Some polls show that two thirds of voters believe Hillary is dishonest and is not trustworthy.

Hillary once stated she was named after Sir Edmond Hillary the man famous for climbing Mt. Everest. She was then confronted by a reporter who pointed out that she was born prior to him climbing Mt. Everest.

Hillary was working for the Rose Law Firm with Web Hubbell, whom Bill Clinton appointed as assistant attorney general. The firm was investigated during the Whitewater scandal. Papers that were under subpoena were shredded. One particular document that was subpoenaed showed up on a table in the White House, outside of Hillary's bedroom, I believe. Hillary stated she had no idea how the document got there. Web Hubbell was convicted of a felony and went to prison.

Hillary hung out at a health club in Little Rock when her husband was governor. She visited with the CEO, I believe, of Tyson Chicken. He gave her inside information she used to turn $5k into a quick profit of over $100k.

Remember the statement she made about being under sniper fire when visiting the Balkans. Video showed her walking along peacefully on the tarmac.

The White House knew that the attack in Benghazi was a terrorist attack within hours. Hillary stated for days, and stood face to face with the dead men's families and repeated that the attack was the result of a anti-muslim video. Later, some of her emails showed that it was part of a strategy, to lie to the American people, because the State Department thought they could win the hearts and minds of the Libyan people by keeping a low profile and not increasing security at the embassy. The country has since collapsed despite the strategy.

It was discovered that Hillary was using a private server in order to keep her emails from being seen. She has told so many lies about her intentions and how many devices she used and how many top secret emails she sent or received, it is difficult to quote a number. When told the server was not secure, she stated it was because she had secret service men standing guard outside the room it was in. She seriously said that. She actually seemed to believe a cyber attack happens by people entering the actual building a server is in.

Hillary had over 30,000 emails on her server permanently deleted. When asked if she scrubbed the server, she answered by saying; what, you mean like with a cloth? Democrats seem amused by her condescending tone and endless lies. Most of the rest of us are less amused. Hillary stated that most of the deleted emails were not important. She decided that on her own. She said they were mostly emails about her daughter's child and about yoga classes. Does Hillary look like she does a lot of yoga?

The FBI stated Hillary lied on numerous occasions. Most of these lies as well as her actions amounted to little more than misdemeanors, and therefore did not merit an indictment, they felt. It is not the same thing as saying she was truthful.

You can pick straws about conservatives suggesting a Muslim sympathizer is a Muslim, when he is merely sympathetic to their cause of Jihad. I would tend to be more forgiving of someone who jumps to that conclusion. Defending Islamic extremists these days is a tough thing to do. The person who foolishly jumped into this thread from Paris, and told me I was acting the same as Voldermort, had previously come onto this forum after the Paris terrorist attacks and tried to speak on behalf of Muslims in France, saying they were outraged. I think it's best to let Muslims speak for themselves. They were amazingly quiet in the aftermath of 9/11. Few stood up and stated they were outraged. Many Muslims in France and Syria and throughout the Middle East were filmed jumping up and down and celebrating the terrorist attack on the United States. Some of us have not forgotten. Some of you liberal apologists keep getting it wrong, while pointing out a few conservatives are too reactionary. We don't want to make the same type of mistakes that Neville Chamberlin made, now do we? Liberal apologists tend to take actions that get a lot of people killed.

Sirk · Jul 15, 2016

peacenik said:

You have turned this thread into an issue of rule of law....and you only apply it to favor your particular brand of politics. I thought it was important to point out....but you are stuck in an ideology. Do you know why lady justice with the scales in her hands has a blindfold on?

hornetguy · Jul 15, 2016

This is what you posted. I pointed out that "good character" never enters the picture.

You seem to be the only one arguing this point. He did have a CHL. He did not have to demonstrate he had good character, as you tried to claim he did. He could have been a low life scumbag and still qualified for a CHL.

Desdichado · Jul 15, 2016

It appears that Minnesota is fairly rigorous in its requirements for a CCP.

peacenik · Jul 16, 2016

Sinnerman said:

And you wove a talel about a vicious assault on a jogger in NYC that was nowhere near being factual and you added an attack on the police officers involved, who did nothing wrong.

Hillary Clinton has been one of the most dishonest politicians of modern times. That is not "convicting" her. It is stating a fact. Democrats agree with this fact and say it will not stop them from voting for her. They might feel dishonesty is part of the job description. Some polls show that two thirds of voters believe Hillary is dishonest and is not trustworthy.

Hillary once stated she was named after Sir Edmond Hillary the man famous for climbing Mt. Everest. She was then confronted by a reporter who pointed out that she was born prior to him climbing Mt. Everest.

Hillary was working for the Rose Law Firm with Web Hubbell, whom Bill Clinton appointed as assistant attorney general. The firm was investigated during the Whitewater scandal. Papers that were under subpoena were shredded. One particular document that was subpoenaed showed up on a table in the White House, outside of Hillary's bedroom, I believe. Hillary stated she had no idea how the document got there. Web Hubbell was convicted of a felony and went to prison.

Hillary hung out at a health club in Little Rock when her husband was governor. She visited with the CEO, I believe, of Tyson Chicken. He gave her inside information she used to turn $5k into a quick profit of over $100k.

Remember the statement she made about being under sniper fire when visiting the Balkans. Video showed her walking along peacefully on the tarmac.

The White House knew that the attack in Benghazi was a terrorist attack within hours. Hillary stated for days, and stood face to face with the dead men's families and repeated that the attack was the result of a anti-muslim video. Later, some of her emails showed that it was part of a strategy, to lie to the American people, because the State Department thought they could win the hearts and minds of the Libyan people by keeping a low profile and not increasing security at the embassy. The country has since collapsed despite the strategy.

It was discovered that Hillary was using a private server in order to keep her emails from being seen. She has told so many lies about her intentions and how many devices she used and how many top secret emails she sent or received, it is difficult to quote a number. When told the server was not secure, she stated it was because she had secret service men standing guard outside the room it was in. She seriously said that. She actually seemed to believe a cyber attack happens by people entering the actual building a server is in.

Hillary had over 30,000 emails on her server permanently deleted. When asked if she scrubbed the server, she answered by saying; what, you mean like with a cloth? Democrats seem amused by her condescending tone and endless lies. Most of the rest of us are less amused. Hillary stated that most of the deleted emails were not important. She decided that on her own. She said they were mostly emails about her daughter's child and about yoga classes. Does Hillary look like she does a lot of yoga?

The FBI stated Hillary lied on numerous occasions. Most of these lies as well as her actions amounted to little more than misdemeanors, and therefore did not merit an indictment, they felt. It is not the same thing as saying she was truthful.

You can pick straws about conservatives suggesting a Muslim sympathizer is a Muslim, when he is merely sympathetic to their cause of Jihad. I would tend to be more forgiving of someone who jumps to that conclusion. Defending Islamic extremists these days is a tough thing to do. The person who foolishly jumped into this thread from Paris, and told me I was acting the same as Voldermort, had previously come onto this forum after the Paris terrorist attacks and tried to speak on behalf of Muslims in France, saying they were outraged. I think it's best to let Muslims speak for themselves. They were amazingly quiet in the aftermath of 9/11. Few stood up and stated they were outraged. Many Muslims in France and Syria and throughout the Middle East were filmed jumping up and down and celebrating the terrorist attack on the United States. Some of us have not forgotten. Some of you liberal apologists keep getting it wrong, while pointing out a few conservatives are too reactionary. We don't want to make the same type of mistakes that Neville Chamberlin made, now do we? Liberal apologists tend to take actions that get a lot of people killed.

Hillary lied? Big deal. Bush lied and caused tens of thousands to die. And many more will die because of his lies that were so strenuously defended by the deluded apologists of the far right.

From all appearances, Hillary will be your next president. Are you going to pray for her success as required in the Christian Bible?

peacenik · Jul 16, 2016

hornetguy said:

He certainly did if he was qualified to work in a school where there are children. By the way, those children mourned his death as shown on local tv. So far, nobody is showing much sympathy here for the trigger happy cop who killed him.

Desdichado · Jul 16, 2016

peacenik said:

If only people found it in their heart to have sympathy for both.

Sinnerman · Jul 17, 2016

peacenik said:

As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton was given information about the attack in Benghazi. She was told, immediately, that it was a terrorist attack. She sent an email to her daughter saying it was a terrorist attack. She then lied to the media, to the American people, and to the surviving family members, saying the deaths were a result of an anti-Islam video made by someone in California, who they planned to prosecute.

As President of the United States, George Bush was briefed by U.S. intelligence. They told him that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction. They also told him that foreign intelligence agencies had concluded the same thing. In light of the 16 or 17 or 18 different U.N. resolutions that Iraq had violated, and in light of Iraq refusing to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to do their jobs, and in light of the risk to U.S. national security, and to the safety and security of our greatest ally in the Middle East, the President chose to go to war and disarm Saddam. Both he and Colin Powell repeated the intelligence findings they were given.

Hillary knowingly lied in order to protect a failed foreign policy in Libya that led to many thousands of deaths and a collapsed government. President Bush repeated intelligence that was possibly true, but difficult to prove either way. You are agreeing Hillary lied and suggested lying by a democrat is no big deal if the only people who died are Libyans and a U.S. ambassador and few other U.S. personnel in Benghazi. That doesn't include the many thousands of Libyans who our foreign policy turned into Jihadists who had joined ISIS and murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.

Hillary will almost certainly be the next U.S. President. I will pray that she doesn't allow Social Security to go bankrupt during her term in office, so that my wife and I might have access to money we earned and the government set aside for us. I do not wish her success in increasing the levels of infanticide that democrats so dearly embrace. Those represent not tens of thousands of deaths, but tens of millions of deaths of the most innocent and defenseless among us. If you choose to celebrate that accomplishment of the democrats, I would both weep for you and curse you.

KimPetras · Jul 17, 2016

Sinnerman said:

I disagree with the woman that compares you to Voldemort. You are nothing like Voldemort. He has mastered the ability to disagree civilly and accept responsibility when he is wrong. Not an ounce of pride or malice in his posts.

The only thing you did similar to Voldemort was assume the Minnesota man pulled out his gun on his own will (on his lap), assume that is "the last" thing you do when pulled over by an officer, and assume the gun on his lap was a threat to the police officer.

You're free to attack all the posters who make judgments before the facts are out, but you are guilty of the same exact thing and refuse to admit it. Drop the chip on your shoulder. Then, take the plank out of your own eye and you will see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

peacenik · Jul 17, 2016

Sinnerman said:

Bush lied as he fully knew there were no WMD as determined by Hans Blix of the IAEA. All the pretenses made by his apologists are nothing more than complicity in his political crimes of imperialistic terrorism against Iraqis and Middle Eastern Muslims. Bush and his defenders initially credited him for the Arab Spring. Then when it was defeated and resulted in greater violence and instability they all tried to distance themselves from his crimes.

As we have discussed and conclusively proven on this forum enough times, Hillary was found NOT to have been at fault in Benghazi as shown by the Republican party dominated House:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/29/us/politics/hillary-clinton-benghazi.html

Ending one of the longest, costliest and most bitterly partisan congressional investigations in history, the House Select Committee on Benghazi issued its final report on Tuesday, finding no new evidence of culpability or wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton in the 2012 attacks in Libya that left four Americans dead.

The 800-page report delivered a broad rebuke of the Defense Department, the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department — and the officials who led them — for failing to grasp the acute security risks in Benghazi, and especially for maintaining outposts there that they could not protect.

The committee, led by Representative Trey Gowdy, Republican of South Carolina, also harshly criticized an internal State Department investigation that it said had allowed officials like Mrs. Clinton, then the secretary of state, to effectively choose who would examine their actions. In addition, it included some new details and context about the night of the attacks on the American diplomatic compound and reiterated Republicans’ complaints that the Obama administration had sought to thwart the investigation by withholding witnesses and evidence.
The report, which included perhaps the most exhaustive chronology of the attacks to date, did not dispute that United States military forces stationed in Europe could not have reached Benghazi in time to rescue the personnel who died — a central finding of previous inquiries.

Still, it issued stinging criticism of the overall delay in response and the lack of preparedness on the part of the government.
“The assets ultimately deployed by the Defense Department in response to the Benghazi attacks were not positioned to arrive before the final, lethal attack,” the committee wrote. “The fact that this is true does not mitigate the question of why the world’s most powerful military was not positioned to respond.”

But the lack of any clear finding of professional misconduct or dereliction of duty was certain to fuel further criticism of the length of the investigation — more than two years — and the expense, estimated at more than $7 million. It also bolstered Democrats’ allegations that the inquiry was specifically intended to damage Mrs. Clinton’s presidential prospects.
Continue reading the main story

After a campaign stop in Denver, Mrs. Clinton said that the investigation had uncovered nothing to contradict past findings, and that the House committee’s work had assumed a “partisan tinge.”

“I’ll leave it to others to characterize this report,” she said, “but I think it’s pretty clear it’s time to move on.”

Yet even as Mrs. Clinton seemed eager to press forward, she must still contend with the fallout from the committee’s most significant, if inadvertent, discovery: that she exclusively used a private email server during her four years as secretary of state. That revelation has spurred separate investigations into whether classified material was mishandled, including a continuing inquiry by the F.B.I.

In a sign that Mr. Gowdy was also facing pressure from the right, two of the committee’s conservative members, Representatives Jim Jordan of Ohio and Mike Pompeo of Kansas, wrote a 48-page addendum including somewhat harsher criticism of Mrs. Clinton and the Obama administration.

U.S. & POLITICS By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS 1:59Gowdy Says Washington Erred on Benghazi

VideoGowdy Says Washington Erred on Benghazi

After a report found no new evidence of wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton in the 2012 attacks in Libya, Representative Trey Gowdy of South Carolina criticized Washington’s actions at the time.
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS on Publish DateJune 28, 2016. Photo by Al Drago/The New York Times. Watch in Times Video »

After the attack, “with the presidential election just 56 days away, rather than tell the American people the truth and increase the risk of losing an election, the administration told one story privately and a different story publicly,” Mr. Jordan and Mr. Pompeo wrote.

Technically, the report is not final until the full committee formally votes to accept it, which it is scheduled to do July 8.
Among the committee’s chief findings:
■ Despite authorization from President Obama, no American military forces were deployed to Benghazi on the night of the attacks, and Marines stationed in Spain repeatedly received conflicting orders.

■ The Libyan forces that helped evacuate Americans from a C.I.A. annex to the Benghazi airport were not part of militias allied with the United States, but were fighters previously loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya.

■ Susan E. Rice, then the United States ambassador to the United Nations, made numerous false statements about the Benghazi attack on television that one State Department press officer described in an email as “off the reservation on five networks!”

■ Senior State Department officials — including Mrs. Clinton’s chief of staff, Cheryl D. Mills — exerted too much influence over the Accountability Review Board that conducted the department’s own inquiry, casting doubt on its independence and findings.

■ The Obama administration repeatedly sought to obstruct the select committee’s investigation by delaying or refusing to respond to requests for documents and testimony.

The committee made scant mention of procedures put in place since the Benghazi attacks, which fundamentally changed the way American embassies and consulates operate.

The State Department has taken a maximalist approach to security that some diplomats now say makes it difficult for them to carry out their responsibilities. The Defense Department has increased the number of Marine guards at diplomatic posts and created new crisis-response teams.

Democrats on the committee complained that they had been excluded from decisions on the report, and noted that the Benghazi investigation haddragged on longer than the inquiries into the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks; the assassination of President John F. Kennedy; the attack on Pearl Harbor; and the response to Hurricane Katrina.
In the most dramatic confrontation over the two years of the investigation, Mrs. Clinton testified before the committee for more than eight hours in October. The hearing was widely perceived to have backfired on Republicans, as she answered their questions and coolly deflected their attacks.

By PAUL VOLPE and QUYNHANH DO 3:00Watch the Benghazi Hearing in 3 Minutes

VideoWatch the Benghazi Hearing in 3 Minutes

By PAUL VOLPE and QUYNHANH DO on Publish DateOctober 22, 2015.Photo by Doug Mills/The New York Times.Watch in Times Video »

By the time of her testimony, Mrs. Clinton had already taken responsibility for the State Department’s handling of the attacks.

Previous investigations concluded that State Department officials had erred in not better securing the diplomatic compound amid reports of a deteriorating security situation. But they also determined that the attacks had come with little warning and that it would have been difficult to intervene once they had begun.

The investigations generally concluded that after the attack, the Obama administration’s talking points were flawed but not deliberately misleading.

The Pentagon had no forces that could be readily sent to Benghazi when the crisis began. The closest AC-130 gunship was in Afghanistan. There were no armed drones within range of Libya. There was no Marine expeditionary unit, a large seaborne force with its own helicopters, in the Mediterranean Sea.

The Africa Command also did not have on hand a force able to respond rapidly to emergencies. Every other regional command had one at the time. The Pentagon was caught unprepared for this type of crisis.

On the night of the attacks, the Pentagon was able to divert an unarmed Predator drone operating 90 miles away to Benghazi, and the C.I.A. later used it to help plan an escape route for the surviving Americans. But other military forces were too far away or could not be mobilized in time, military commanders have said.

The unclassified version of an independent 2012 report, headed by Thomas R. Pickering, a former diplomat, concluded that “there simply was not enough time, given the speed of the attacks, for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference.”
But that report did not address whether it would have been prudent to station quick-reaction forces in the region, a step the Pentagon has since taken.

At a news conference at the Capitol on Tuesday, Mr. Gowdy praised as heroes the Americans who died in the attacks on Sept. 11, 2012. They included Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and Sean Smith, a State Department information officer, who were killed at the main American diplomatic compound in Benghazi by a mob of militia fighters who had been incited by an American-made video deriding the Prophet Muhammad. The fighters were apparently further inflamed by news of an assault on the American Embassy in Cairo.

Two other Americans, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen A. Doherty, who were contractors for the C.I.A., died later when a separate annex run by the agency was hit by mortars. The attacks spanned about eight hours.
At the time the select committee was created, there had been at least seven congressional inquiries into the Benghazi attacks in addition to the State Department’s review, with all of them reaching much the same conclusion.

Mr. Gowdy urged Americans to read all 800 pages of the report. “You can read this report from pillar to post in less time than our fellow Americans were under attack in Benghazi,” he said.

It is utter NONSENSE to continue to harp on the politically correct right wing nonsense that blames Hillary when the Congress has already settled this issue.

As for "bankrupting" Social Security, it is well established that the SSA fund is well endowed until at least the year 2030 or thereabouts. If anyone is going to bankrupt it, it will be the Republicans who love the wealthy but hate the poor.

[SUB]As for killing babies, it was your Republicans who voted as they did in Roe v Wade making your party the greatest killers in human history. I have already supplied this forum with the proof. So keep your hate and threats to yourself.[/SUB]

Sinnerman · Jul 18, 2016

peacenik said:

Bush lied as he fully knew there were no WMD as determined by Hans Blix of the IAEA.
All the pretenses made by his apologists are nothing more than complicity in his political crimes of imperialistic terrorism against Iraqis and Middle Eastern Muslims. Bush and his defenders initially credited him for the Arab Spring. Then when it was defeated and resulted in greater violence and instability they all tried to distance themselves from his crimes.

As we have discussed and conclusively proven on this forum enough times, Hillary was found NOT to have been at fault in Benghazi as shown by the Republican party dominated House:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/29/us/politics/hillary-clinton-benghazi.html

Ending one of the longest, costliest and most bitterly partisan congressional investigations in history, the House Select Committee on Benghazi issued its final report on Tuesday, finding no new evidence of culpability or wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton in the 2012 attacks in Libya that left four Americans dead.

The 800-page report delivered a broad rebuke of the Defense Department, the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department — and the officials who led them — for failing to grasp the acute security risks in Benghazi, and especially for maintaining outposts there that they could not protect.

The committee, led by Representative Trey Gowdy, Republican of South Carolina, also harshly criticized an internal State Department investigation that it said had allowed officials like Mrs. Clinton, then the secretary of state, to effectively choose who would examine their actions. In addition, it included some new details and context about the night of the attacks on the American diplomatic compound and reiterated Republicans’ complaints that the Obama administration had sought to thwart the investigation by withholding witnesses and evidence.
The report, which included perhaps the most exhaustive chronology of the attacks to date, did not dispute that United States military forces stationed in Europe could not have reached Benghazi in time to rescue the personnel who died — a central finding of previous inquiries.

Still, it issued stinging criticism of the overall delay in response and the lack of preparedness on the part of the government.
“The assets ultimately deployed by the Defense Department in response to the Benghazi attacks were not positioned to arrive before the final, lethal attack,” the committee wrote. “The fact that this is true does not mitigate the question of why the world’s most powerful military was not positioned to respond.”

But the lack of any clear finding of professional misconduct or dereliction of duty was certain to fuel further criticism of the length of the investigation — more than two years — and the expense, estimated at more than $7 million. It also bolstered Democrats’ allegations that the inquiry was specifically intended to damage Mrs. Clinton’s presidential prospects.
Continue reading the main story

After a campaign stop in Denver, Mrs. Clinton said that the investigation had uncovered nothing to contradict past findings, and that the House committee’s work had assumed a “partisan tinge.”

“I’ll leave it to others to characterize this report,” she said, “but I think it’s pretty clear it’s time to move on.”

Yet even as Mrs. Clinton seemed eager to press forward, she must still contend with the fallout from the committee’s most significant, if inadvertent, discovery: that she exclusively used a private email server during her four years as secretary of state. That revelation has spurred separate investigations into whether classified material was mishandled, including a continuing inquiry by the F.B.I.

In a sign that Mr. Gowdy was also facing pressure from the right, two of the committee’s conservative members, Representatives Jim Jordan of Ohio and Mike Pompeo of Kansas, wrote a 48-page addendum including somewhat harsher criticism of Mrs. Clinton and the Obama administration.

U.S. & POLITICS By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS 1:59Gowdy Says Washington Erred on Benghazi

VideoGowdy Says Washington Erred on Benghazi

After a report found no new evidence of wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton in the 2012 attacks in Libya, Representative Trey Gowdy of South Carolina criticized Washington’s actions at the time.
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS on Publish DateJune 28, 2016. Photo by Al Drago/The New York Times. Watch in Times Video »

After the attack, “with the presidential election just 56 days away, rather than tell the American people the truth and increase the risk of losing an election, the administration told one story privately and a different story publicly,” Mr. Jordan and Mr. Pompeo wrote.

Technically, the report is not final until the full committee formally votes to accept it, which it is scheduled to do July 8.
Among the committee’s chief findings:
■ Despite authorization from President Obama, no American military forces were deployed to Benghazi on the night of the attacks, and Marines stationed in Spain repeatedly received conflicting orders.

■ The Libyan forces that helped evacuate Americans from a C.I.A. annex to the Benghazi airport were not part of militias allied with the United States, but were fighters previously loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya.

■ Susan E. Rice, then the United States ambassador to the United Nations, made numerous false statements about the Benghazi attack on television that one State Department press officer described in an email as “off the reservation on five networks!”

■ Senior State Department officials — including Mrs. Clinton’s chief of staff, Cheryl D. Mills — exerted too much influence over the Accountability Review Board that conducted the department’s own inquiry, casting doubt on its independence and findings.

■ The Obama administration repeatedly sought to obstruct the select committee’s investigation by delaying or refusing to respond to requests for documents and testimony.

The committee made scant mention of procedures put in place since the Benghazi attacks, which fundamentally changed the way American embassies and consulates operate.

The State Department has taken a maximalist approach to security that some diplomats now say makes it difficult for them to carry out their responsibilities. The Defense Department has increased the number of Marine guards at diplomatic posts and created new crisis-response teams.

Democrats on the committee complained that they had been excluded from decisions on the report, and noted that the Benghazi investigation haddragged on longer than the inquiries into the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks; the assassination of President John F. Kennedy; the attack on Pearl Harbor; and the response to Hurricane Katrina.
In the most dramatic confrontation over the two years of the investigation, Mrs. Clinton testified before the committee for more than eight hours in October. The hearing was widely perceived to have backfired on Republicans, as she answered their questions and coolly deflected their attacks.

By PAUL VOLPE and QUYNHANH DO 3:00Watch the Benghazi Hearing in 3 Minutes

VideoWatch the Benghazi Hearing in 3 Minutes

By PAUL VOLPE and QUYNHANH DO on Publish DateOctober 22, 2015.Photo by Doug Mills/The New York Times.Watch in Times Video »

By the time of her testimony, Mrs. Clinton had already taken responsibility for the State Department’s handling of the attacks.

Previous investigations concluded that State Department officials had erred in not better securing the diplomatic compound amid reports of a deteriorating security situation. But they also determined that the attacks had come with little warning and that it would have been difficult to intervene once they had begun.

The investigations generally concluded that after the attack, the Obama administration’s talking points were flawed but not deliberately misleading.

The Pentagon had no forces that could be readily sent to Benghazi when the crisis began. The closest AC-130 gunship was in Afghanistan. There were no armed drones within range of Libya. There was no Marine expeditionary unit, a large seaborne force with its own helicopters, in the Mediterranean Sea.

The Africa Command also did not have on hand a force able to respond rapidly to emergencies. Every other regional command had one at the time. The Pentagon was caught unprepared for this type of crisis.

On the night of the attacks, the Pentagon was able to divert an unarmed Predator drone operating 90 miles away to Benghazi, and the C.I.A. later used it to help plan an escape route for the surviving Americans. But other military forces were too far away or could not be mobilized in time, military commanders have said.

The unclassified version of an independent 2012 report, headed by Thomas R. Pickering, a former diplomat, concluded that “there simply was not enough time, given the speed of the attacks, for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference.”
But that report did not address whether it would have been prudent to station quick-reaction forces in the region, a step the Pentagon has since taken.

At a news conference at the Capitol on Tuesday, Mr. Gowdy praised as heroes the Americans who died in the attacks on Sept. 11, 2012. They included Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and Sean Smith, a State Department information officer, who were killed at the main American diplomatic compound in Benghazi by a mob of militia fighters who had been incited by an American-made video deriding the Prophet Muhammad. The fighters were apparently further inflamed by news of an assault on the American Embassy in Cairo.

Two other Americans, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen A. Doherty, who were contractors for the C.I.A., died later when a separate annex run by the agency was hit by mortars. The attacks spanned about eight hours.
At the time the select committee was created, there had been at least seven congressional inquiries into the Benghazi attacks in addition to the State Department’s review, with all of them reaching much the same conclusion.

Mr. Gowdy urged Americans to read all 800 pages of the report. “You can read this report from pillar to post in less time than our fellow Americans were under attack in Benghazi,” he said.

It is utter NONSENSE to continue to harp on the politically correct right wing nonsense that blames Hillary when the Congress has already settled this issue.

As for "bankrupting" Social Security, it is well established that the SSA fund is well endowed until at least the year 2030 or thereabouts. If anyone is going to bankrupt it, it will be the Republicans who love the wealthy but hate the poor.

[SUB]As for killing babies, it was your Republicans who voted as they did in Roe v Wade making your party the greatest killers in human history. I have already supplied this forum with the proof. So keep your hate and threats to yourself.[/SUB]

Do you even bother to read the stuff you post.

Last thing first. You and I know that conservative republicans have tried for decades to overturn Roe V Wade. Democrats support abortion, even late term abortion. They like to refer to murdering 70 million innocent unborn as women's health care. If only Hitler had such great PR.

Wow, so you are a warrior as well. You hate the rich. They don't deserve to keep any of their earnings. The people who don't want to work should be entitled to other peoples money. President Obama and his team have made certain that SS will not make it to 2030. They kept unemployment numbers looking acceptable by taking loads of people off of unemployment and putting them on SSDI. It doubled in the number of people on it during his terms. But it did allow him to say unemployment is down, even though the number of people working hit record lows and millions quit looking for work.

Not true. Let me guess, you can read people's minds and you were able to discern this sort of like the amazing Kreskin?

First, it's best not to use the words "no WMD". The words you should use are there were very few WMD's found buried in Iraq. I believe it was the Canadians that discovered the first buried WMD's along a road side. Next, let's talk about Hans Blix. He determined little to nothing in regards to WMD's. Remember, it was Hans Blix that stated conclusively that North Korea had no nuclear weapons capability. Then Jimmy Carter won a Nobel peace prize for affirming this after he actually said that he took Kim Jong-Il's word that he had no nuclear weapons. Oops. Blix stated that Saddam refused to allow him to check various locations and also demanded that he be given 24 hours notice of other sites the U.N. inspectors wanted to search. If I had something to hide and you told me you were going to search my house in 24 hours, that would give me plenty of time to move it, wouldn't it?

Here is a history lesson you obviously need.

In operation desert storm, U.S, intelligence agencies felt that Saddam was about six years away from having WMD's and a viable way to deliver them. After the fighting ended and inspectors were allowed into the country, they discovered intelligence reports were wrong. Saddam was within six months of having both WMD's and the ability to put them on rockets. So, when George W. Bush sent U.S. forces into Iraq, he was told that the best intelligence reports suggested Saddam was once again six months from being able to deliver his WMD's against his enemies. After Iraq fell, inspectors and intelligence personnel discovered they were wrong again and that Saddam was more like six years from having a operational WMD's program. Nobody was lying to anyone. Intelligence is not a science. It is difficult to know what secretive governments are doing at all times. Sort of like today with Iran. They are building nuclear weapons and we are pretending they are not. We won't realize our mistake until it is too late. Millions will likely die as a result. President Bush was not willing to error on the side of massive loss of life of Americans and Israelis. History lesson over.

Sinnerman · Jul 18, 2016

History Lesson Pt. II for Peacenik

These are not right-wingers. These are left-wing Democrats speaking out in favor of removing Saddam Hussein.

[SIZE=-1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction[/SIZE]

Posted on ‎1‎/‎5‎/‎2004‎ ‎12‎:‎28‎:‎26‎ ‎AM by freedom44

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

peacenik · Jul 18, 2016

You need to overcome your politically correct right wing delusionalism and mysticism. I am not going to repeat my posts about Roe v Wade as you can easily click on search to prove that it is your party that made that judicial decision and confirmed it in the Casey decision. No political party in history has killed more innocents than has your party and that is God's truth whether you choose to believe it or not.

As shown in the writings of political CONSERVATIVE Anthony Sutton, it was your hero Prescott Bush who helped finance Hitler.

You hate the poor.

By contrast, I'm looking for a wealthy wife.

The USA signed the UN Treaty and the IAEA works with it. Therefore, the USA is obligated to defer to its findings. Anything less is a violation of the law. Traitor Bush disregarded its findings and that is why there is so much war and instability in the Middle East.

Those who hate peace and love war like you do continue to defend traitor Bush because of the agenda you have to undermine this great country.

peacenik · Jul 18, 2016

Re: History Lesson Pt. II for Peacenik

Sinnerman; said:

All made BEFORE Hans Blix made his report which traitor Bush disregarded.

peacenik · Jul 18, 2016

Downing Street Memo:

There is now in the public record a large body of evidence that vividly illustrates:

Bush’s long-standing intent to invade Iraq
Bush’s willingness to provoke Saddam (in a variety of ways) into providing a pretext for war
The fact that the war effectively began with an air campaign nearly a year before the March 2003 invasion and months before Congressional approval for the use of force
The administration’s widespread effort to crush dissent andmanipulate information that would counter its justification for war
The lack of planning for the war’s aftermath and a fundamental lack of understanding of the Iraqi society

The Downing Street Memo :: What is it?

Defending traitor Bush's actions is TREASON.

Sinnerman · Jul 18, 2016

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

Was Hans Blix right about North Korea not having nuclear weapons? Was Jimmy Carter right about North Korea not having nuclear weapons? Hans Blix can tell people that he didn't think Iraq had WMD's, but he also told us that he was not able to carry out inspections. The U.N. resolutions were violated by Iraq, again and again. They were not in compliance. What were they hiding? If you were ruling Iraq and knew twenty armies were going to invade your country if you refused to comply with inspections and U.N. resolutions, and that you would likely be killed if you refused to comply, the best and only course of action is to allow inspections and live. Unless you had something to hide.

President Bush is to be commended for removing a murdering tyrant and supporter of terrorism, as all Democrats stated he should. President Obama has acted quite differently. He drew a red line in Syria and stated he would stop the killings if Assad used chemical weapons on his people. Assad used chemical weapons on his people. Obama backed down and let hundreds of thousands die and many more had to flee to Europe. Some have become terrorists. At the same time, President Bush said Russia would not be allowed to invade the Ukraine. It was meaningless. He allowed Libya to collapse and create a haven for terrorists. He stated Yemen was an example of the U.S. working successfully with it's Arab allies. That was just weeks before the country collapsed and terrorists took over.

I do not hate the poor. Don't falsely accuse me. I also don't hate the rich.

There are nine supreme court justices. Killing the unborn is not an indictment against all conservatives. It is an indictment against the men who voted in favor of it. Currently. almost all Democrats support abortion as part of women's health care. Democrats could care less if dead baby parts are being sold by Planned Parenthood. Republicans and conservatives are outraged. Do you support abortion? I do not.

The report on Benghazi that you posted stated quite clearly:

You remind me of the line in Three Days of the Condor, when Robert Redford's character says to the CIA boss; You think that not getting caught in a lie is the same as telling the truth?

Hillary is dishonest and untrustworthy, according to what Democrat voters think, and according to what Republican voters think. She lies. She lies so often that people like you get use to it and it no longer bothers you, if it ever did.

Sinnerman · Jul 18, 2016

Re: History Lesson Pt. II for Peacenik

peacenik said:

Presidents make decisions based on intelligence reports. They are not obliged to take counsel from some lawyer who once stated North Korea had no nuclear weapons program. President Obama also receives intelligence reports, like the ones stating ISIS was a real and growing threat. His decision was to ignore the threat and make public statements calling ISIS the JV team. Our President is not concerned about national security. I'm thankful President Bush was concerned about national security and took actions against those who would harm us. You would have praised Neville Chamberlin for appeasing Adolf Hitler, which led to 54 million people being killed.

peacenik · Jul 19, 2016

Re: History Lesson Pt. II for Peacenik

Sinnerman said:

Which lawyer is that?

Hans Blix said he suspected NKorea of having nukes:

Blame Bush for North Korea's Nukes

And he tried to stop it from creating nukes. It was your hero traitor Bush who helped them get those weapons. As always it is the anti-USA Republicans who create the problem but blame everyone else for the trouble they cause.

Why do Republicans and their supporters hate America as much as they do?

Sinnerman · Jul 19, 2016

Re: History Lesson Pt. II for Peacenik

peacenik said:

I'll get back to whatever topic we are discussing in a moment. I always think of this one quote from "Manhunter" (the prequel to Silence of the Lambs, when I'm on this site, especially if I wander into the conspiracy forum;

It's How I view a few of my discussions on these forums. People never make a lot of sense and rarely talk facts. It's almost all emotion. In your case, I'd say it goes back to the Bush v Gore election. Like a marriage counselor friend of mine says, people aren't angry about a burnt piece of toast or their wife changing the channel on the tv. They just can't get over something that happened years earlier and use any opportunity to express their anger, even if it's a burnt piece of toast.

Sorry to place hot coals on your forehead, but Al Gore could have won the 2000 Presidential election. He had a double digit lead in Florida a little over a month before the election. He just had to bring in his secret weapon, Bill Clinton, to lock down Florida. Thank you Mr. Gore, for being the dope we all know you are. He dropped over 2 points per week after Bill Clinton campaigned for him in Florida. At least Hillary has learned to keep Bill on a short leash. Gore panicked so much he sent over 200 lawyers to Florida to prepare for a partial recount in only strong democrat precincts, if the vote was close. Gore never wanted a recount. He only wanted to add some votes in the strong democrat parts of the state. But he lost anyway, and democrats have been crying ever since, blaming wars and terrorism and jobless numbers and angry blacks and even global warming on George Bush. They get so angry that it's debilitating. Just look at you. You are still mad about that election. You still believe Gore won. You can't get over it and every political discussion you have somehow relates to your hatred of President Bush. It's rather amusing. Maybe counseling would help. The traitor thing is also amusing. I know you are convinced of it. You must be upset that democrats won the White House and had majorities in both houses of congress, and didn't try to charge President Bush with war crimes. I wish they would have tried. It would have forced democrats into testifying they totally supported going to war and removing Saddam.

So how has life been these last eight years? Wars, wars, and more wars. It's not easy being a peacenik. It's almost foolish. I have a history book that documents man's history on this planet. The one theme that exists throughout the ages is war. It's how man has always resolved his major disputes. To be a peacenik, is to lack understanding of how the world functions. To be a peacenik who claims to believe the Bible is God's word, you would be failing to understand that God did not come to make peace. You really need to reevaluate your life and quit creating these areas of stress. As Stanley Kubrick taught us in Dr. Strangelove....How I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb.

Minnesota Shooting (Lets Start Over)

Senior Member

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned

KimPetras

Guest

Senior Member

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

Banned