I rent from a farmer. He uses the stuff to blow dams. I just happened to find it. It did look like silly putty though. Must've tasted pretty good too. C4 baked beans. Damn I'd like to try that. Bet it'd be great with a drunk chicken and cold silver bullet
The ARB was YOUR measure of a full investigation, not mine. Hillary testified and said exactly....nothing. Well, okay, she did ask, "what does it matter at this point?" I found that to be insulting. There is so much shenanigans that have happened since September 11 of 2012. If you are willing to accept a report that was issued prior to Christmas, that's okay for you. Me? Well, not so much. Things I wonder about are, why did the talking points get scrubbed so severely? "Mike Morrell, deputy director of the CIA, made broad changes to the draft afterwards. Morrell cut all or parts of four paragraphs of the six-paragraph talking points—148 of its 248 words. Gone were the reference to “Islamic extremists,” the reminders of agency warnings about al Qaeda in Libya, the reference to “jihadists” in Cairo, the mention of possible surveillance of the facility in Benghazi, and the report of five previous attacks on foreign interests. So what the public was left with, was "a bunch of bad guys did this." No shyte. Do you suppose there's a reason why the official talking points didn't include the specific reference to Ansar al Sharia? Wouldn't want peeps to know we were doing business with them, I'm sure. It can be tough to explain that the US is arming one branch of terrorists to fight another. The focus on the Embassy there was all wrong to begin with. The safehouse was doing all the work. Why do you think 2 government contractors, and former Navy SEALS were there? This was a CIA operation, not a State Department tea party. From Philip Giraldi, former CIA officer, "Benghazi has been described as a U.S. consulate, but it was not. It was an information office that had no diplomatic status. There was a small staff of actual State Department information officers plus local translators. The much larger CIA base was located in a separate building a mile away. It was protected by a not completely reliable local militia. Base management would have no say in the movement of the ambassador and would not be party to his plans, nor would it clear its own operations with the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli. In Benghazi, the CIA’s operating directive would have been focused on two objectives: monitoring the local al-Qaeda affiliate group, Ansar al-Sharia, and tracking down weapons liberated from Colonel Gaddafi’s arsenal. Staff consisted of CIA paramilitaries who were working in cooperation with the local militia. The ambassador would not be privy to operational details and would only know in general what the agency was up to. When the ambassador’s party was attacked, the paramilitaries at the CIA base came to the rescue before being driven back into their own compound, where two officers were subsequently killed in a mortar attack." Hillary was able to stay "out of the loop" because the senior CIA rep in Libya reported to Langley, not the State Department. It seems I may not be the only one who still questions what happened in Benghazi, or who isn't satisfied with a generic, toothless report to explain the loss of 4 American lives amidst some of the most advanced technology on Earth and plenty of witnesses who haven't even been identified or interviewed. These people also have questions and are supporting a House Bill to go further....http://wolf.house.gov/uploads/sos_benghazi_letter.pdf
Hey, this is a serious thread, about a serious topic, and it should be taken seriously, dam it. They are seriously cute though,.. I'm blaming the derail on vball.
If he likes seeing uncle Si blow up some beaver, just think how much he'd love seeing you and Sensa blow some up.
I don't doubt any of the things you are saying, as a matter of fact it all seems plausible enough. That said, nothing of what you said implies that there was a scandal or a cover-up. I mean, you find me an administration that hasn't white washed some talking points in order to protect our human interests on the ground. What exactly are you trying to say here? Should we be pissed that the administration, in conjunction with the CIA and State Department, cleaned up some talking points in order to NOT blow the entire operation? I am obviously being hypothetical with my last sentence but I'm not following what your last post was supposed to convey. We are talking about your insistence that there was some scandalous cover up by the administration in collusion with the state department, which I'll point out you have failed miserably to prove or provide credible evidence for. Now you are talking about something totally different so stop deflecting and answer my question: What did the administration or the State Department do wrong? Specifically what did the President or the Secretary of State do wrong? The link you provided was signed by 700 former special operations soldiers. Do you realize that constitutes about a tenth of a percent or less of the total number of men who have served in special forces in the past twenty years or so? Further, this absolutely confirms for me that you are a lunatic. The names listed on this letter are retired, Vietnam era special operations guys who have an agenda and that's no secret. This letter has zero credibility.
