Latest Diablo 3 News
DiabloWiki Updates
Page 5 of 14 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 135
  1. #41
    IncGamers Member jmervyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    12,936

    Re: Pigford, or what's wrong with America.

    Quote Originally Posted by krischan View Post
    Calling something a fact isn't equal to it being a fact,
    Okaaay, but you didn't answer the question. The cover up, in broad terms, is a proven fact. The Benghazi facility was deliberately under-protected, the circumstances of the attack were immediately clear to most of those concerned, the CIA's talking points were changed 12 times, they weren't changed by the CIA, the false claims in them were reiterated repeatedly by Susan Rice, Petraeus knew they were wrong and said so, Petraeus' life was exploded in scandal immediately following his saying so, and finally that Obama and Hillary lied on several occasions and even over the corpses of the attack in trying to lay the blame on the video rather than the enemy.
    Quote Originally Posted by krischan View Post
    No matter if true or wrong, rude or nice, good or bad, you are always responsible for what you say.
    Ok, so given the FACTS laid out above, why are you determined to not hold Hillary or Obama responsible for what they've said, even over the fresh corpses they caused?
    Quote Originally Posted by krischan View Post
    No, I won't do that. You certainly believe in your accusation of treason, but you still have to present solid evidence if you accuse others in public, ethically spoken. If your words cause damage, you may have to pay or suffer punishment for it, like (not related to this case) when telling a blind person that the traffic light shows "walk" when it doesn't.
    Treason is what the actions constitute. It's not clear who committed them at this time. The inquiry board claimed it was lower level employees, and that's a possibility, though it's becoming far more remote.

    In the interests of fairness, I'd throw Techno a bone - Elijah Cummings, who I think might be lower than snake shyte, wants the inquiry board members to testify in public, while Darryl Issa (who is reputedly even lower) wants them in private. The motivation is everything here - if public, then the questions cannot include National Security matters like the arms smuggling to Al Quaeda affiliates in Syria directed by the ambassador, which is a fundamental key to this whole affair. At the same time, however, this all needs to be aired and there can't be any he-said/she-said left. This isn't just a matter of political one-upsmanship, as Techno claims. This is the level of "high crimes and misdemeanours", so whoever it traces back to has grounds for impeachment or imprisonment even without the different considerations of aiding the enemy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Technomancer View Post
    Sadly, this has become the sole agenda of American conservatives. That, and tax cuts for rich people, because they all know that rich people create jobs, not something silly like demand.
    Yah, and binders full of women. You're pitiful. Plus, I love how you believe that Gov't spending creates jobs, or that creating jobs is in and of itself the goal. The USSR had 100% employment!

  2. #42
    IncGamers Member Stevinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    chicagoland
    Posts
    5,003

    Re: Pigford, or what's wrong with America.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmervyn View Post
    If all is as it appears after yesterday's testimony, it amounts to a single thing.

    TREASON.

    Aiding the enemy. The equivocations made by the traitor(s) for their reasons are immaterial.
    How? Obama didn't want to be attacked, it was very politically inconvenient for him. That's why they did the talking point dance. No one is dead because of him or hillary or anything like that. They're dead because Al Sharia or whatever attacked us. You act like we attacked ourselves. Silliness.

    AND by the way, I don't know how many people died, but I certainly recall embassies being attacked under Bush's term--and I didn't think he should be blamed for that iether, so it's not like I'm being partisan, you're just being crazy.


    What difference does it make that four American officers are dead in the line of duty, and a massive cover-up engineered to deflect criticism and blame? Ok, Hillary-vinator, I get your claims, and I call them vile B.S.
    Again, Obama's administration neither wanted that to happen, nor caused it. That's like blaming Bush for 9-11 or other terrorist attacks during his term.

    Nobody died during Watergate, but with your hypocritical view, Nixon would have been a two-term President. High-ranking members of the administration screwed the pooch in a massive way for several months, their subordinates died because of it, cover-ups and whistle-blower intimidation were authorized at the highest levels, and a grotesque lie propagated by the Executive Branch.
    Nixon committed a crime.

    I want whoever did this convicted of treason, which is the appropriate legal charge. If it had been a conservative, rather than THE WON, you'd be screaming for his head on a silver platter. However, since it is obviously either the current Executive or the one you hope for in 2016, you'd rather have lying murder-abetting filth in high office and instead you'll hyperventilate over the Pope and binders full of women.
    Again, I didn't vote for Obama, actually, I've never voted for him for any office. Furthermore, I didn't blame Bush for attacks when he was in office (though I did vote for Bush once). So your charge of partisanship is both off base (and you knew it was because I have repeated here for whom I voted, whom I supported, and that I never voted for obama prior). So basically, this accusation makes you a liar. By your standard, we should charge you with treason--because apparently twisting the facts to make your side look better is now a crime.


    The fact that you can't recognize how corrupted your moral compass is speaks volumes.
    My moral compass? you're blatantly partisan, and unfair at every turn. You're not interested in justice. You're more concerned about winning. I don't think you give a "rat's feck" as you say about the country at all.


    What would be the fallout from Obama being impeached and convicted of whatever you think the crime was--changing talking points to look better before an election? Blaming a video that had nothing to do with anything? Acting like an *** that night in the debate (though it looked like he won, even though romney was right--and i said as much at the time--you can go back and find it). Those are douchey things, but they're not illegal. The worst charge you have against him was deciding not to send air support or whatever you think he could have sent, and then going to bed. We don't know if that was even suggested, we don't know what factored into that decision. It may have been wrong, but he wouldn't be the first president to do something the citizens disagreed with.

    So what would happen? Joe Biden becomes president. We once again become the laughing stock of the world, and for what? A politician that lied to get elected? Sorry to break it to you, but Romney was up there lying too, so has every presidential candidate in my lifetime. This is trumped up nonsense and if you get treason out of it you're just being crazy. Of all the things Obama does that you should be mad about, and instead you chose this one. Silliness.

  3. #43
    IncGamers Member jmervyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    12,936

    Re: Pigford, or what's wrong with America.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    How? Obama didn't want to be attacked, it was very politically inconvenient for him. That's why they did the talking point dance.
    Of COURSE Obama didn't want to be attacked. He just didn't realize that the terrorists who he was trafficking arms to aren't the ones he knows & loves; Al Quaeda isn't a cohesive group even though it shares ideology. They're fully capable of biting the hands that feed them - or worse. Do you really think the American voter would support a President who puts weapons in the hands of corpse-eating Al Quaeda members?


    This isn't Iran-Contra. Not by a long shot.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    No one is dead because of him or hillary or anything like that. They're dead because Al Sharia or whatever attacked us. You act like we attacked ourselves. Silliness.
    Why would someone hire Al Quaeda affiliates to protect the consulate? Why would they only allow a minimal security attachment to the Ambassador? Why would they refuse to allow for greater offensive presence despite multiple requests? Most importantly, why would they refuse a priori to allow a response force, even if it might not arrive in time to save anyone?

    I'm talking facts, you're talking shyte.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    AND by the way, I don't know how many people died, but I certainly recall embassies being attacked under Bush's term--and I didn't think he should be blamed for that iether, so it's not like I'm being partisan, you're just being crazy.
    By pointedly ignoring even the findings of the pandering, limp 9/11 commission (they were at war with us) you're being far more than partisan <or> crazy.

    Khobar Towers had a death toll of 20. The embassy bombings had a death toll of about 300. Both were under Clinton's regime.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    That's like blaming Bush for 9-11 or other terrorist attacks during his term.
    As you just tried and failed to do.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    Nixon committed a crime.
    Obama's administration has committed the same actions, and many more, including use of IRS to investigate political enemies and leak their information, and illegally wiretapping the media. However, since he's your boy, he can't have committed a crime so nobody better even ask?

    You see nothing wrong with that thinking, but I'm the insane one.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    So your charge of partisanship is both off base (and you knew it was because I have repeated here for whom I voted, whom I supported, and that I never voted for obama prior).
    Who you claim to have voted for has nothing whatsoever to do with the issues. Even if you're telling the truth, which we've established I have no reason to expect of you, you're defending and excusing far worse and illegal actions by this administration than those by the Reagan, Bush, Nixon, and Clinton administrations.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    So basically, this accusation makes you a liar. By your standard, we should charge you with treason--because apparently twisting the facts to make your side look better is now a crime.
    You always charge me with twisting facts, while never even knowing what the facts really are. Sadly, you don't quite get how ashamed you ought to be of this. You bring the laughingstock mantle upon yourself.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    My moral compass? you're blatantly partisan, and unfair at every turn. You're not interested in justice. You're more concerned about winning. I don't think you give a "rat's feck" as you say about the country at all.
    Yes, your moral compass. I hated Johnson, Nixon (unfairly), loved Carter, disliked what Reagan did in Iran-Contra, disliked Bush 1, hated Clinton, and felt queasy about Bush 2. You're flacking for this scandal-riddled, thoroughly corrupt administration without having any reason so to do, and without bothering to find out the underlying truths involved. You're far more the unfair partisan than I, and you don't give a rat feck about the dead, where I grew up around such people and still know a couple (not Sean Smith himself, happily).
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    Those are douchey things, but they're not illegal. The worst charge you have against him was deciding not to send air support or whatever you think he could have sent, and then going to bed
    Arming Al-Quaeda, and then blaming a video maker to cover up the fact that the administration knew full well that they were attacked by their own "hires"?
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    It may have been wrong, but he wouldn't be the first president to do something the citizens disagreed with.
    Intimidating political enemies with the IRS, or bugging the AP? That's not just something citizens disagree with.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    So what would happen? Joe Biden becomes president. We once again become the laughing stock of the world, and for what? A politician that lied to get elected? Sorry to break it to you, but Romney was up there lying too, so has every presidential candidate in my lifetime. This is trumped up nonsense and if you get treason out of it you're just being crazy. Of all the things Obama does that you should be mad about, and instead you chose this one. Silliness.
    In other words, Biden would be worse, and Ambassadors die all the time, so shut up. Because, Racist!

    No wonder you dislike shame. You ought to be embarrassed to be visible in daylight.

    LOL - and here I said I wouldn't let you bait me into another wall of text. [color=Pink]Get the pink paint![/color]

  4. #44
    Europe Trade Moderator krischan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Hamburg, Germany
    Posts
    33,217

    Re: Pigford, or what's wrong with America.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmervyn View Post
    Okaaay, but you didn't answer the question. The cover up, in broad terms, is a proven fact. (...)
    There's a difference between failure to provide sufficient protection and calling that an act of treason. It needs the will to aid the enemy or accepting that to call it like that. Not even cold-blooded, terrible acts like purposely sending innocents into certain death to gain a small, unrelated advantage for the country would be treason. After all, there are hundreds of millions of innocents, so losing a dozen isn't noticeable when applying just cold, steely, cruel calculation. You could call deciding like that being a scumbag, however.

    Besides, Obama is no active army officer in the proper military branch, but a policitian. He probably has no idea about what's needed to protect a military camp or to leave it insuffiently protected, and he doesn't have to know that. I don't know to which extent he can be made responsible for the amount of idiots and scumbags around him. That issue is certainly debatable and also abused for the agenda of other arseho... err policitians, lawyers, lobbyists and industry tycoons.

    For me, the accusation of treason is just a part of the constant, notorious "throw mud at him, a bit of it will stick" strategy which is applied to US presidents during all of their time in office. It happened to Bush and now it happens to Obama. I despise that and I think it's particularly bad in the US, but if both the president and the people are used to it, well... *shrug*
    D3 Trading Forums: Europe - America
    Diablo Wiki / Arreat Summit / ATMA / Forum Rules / Adria
    You know I'm born to lose / and gambling is for fools / but that's the way I like it, baby / I don't want to live forever!

  5. #45
    IncGamers Member jmervyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    12,936

    Re: Pigford, or what's wrong with America.

    Quote Originally Posted by krischan View Post
    There's a difference between failure to provide sufficient protection and calling that an act of treason. It needs the will to aid the enemy or accepting that to call it like that.
    Well, there's specific portions of the facts that need investigation to determine if the individual specifics and parties involved would or wouldn't constitute treason. First, the gun-running, which is what the whole secrecy angle is, and if I put on a tinfoil hat, might be the cause for the gunny-sacking of all the other incidents. There's little chance of a charge of treason for Nixonian actions.

    In other words, treason was committed, but by who & how remains hidden. The review board pretended it hadn't, which is why the GOP is now confident in attacking it.
    Quote Originally Posted by krischan View Post
    Not even cold-blooded, terrible acts like purposely sending innocents into certain death to gain a small, unrelated advantage for the country would be treason.
    Whereas, excusing an enemy's action and allowing him escape for personal political gain <IS> under the header of "support for the enemy", though it too would need to be adjudicated. That's the specific charge I mention as already having been committed; the perpetrators of the attacks were allowed continued safe haven in the area and even reciprocity was prevented. That's also why the charge of treason against John Kerry is legitimate, though it was excused by Carter's mass pardon; an officer cannot meet in time of war with the enemy without authorization (surrender or battlefield negotiation are specific exclusions) and Kerry was negotiating to support American "surrender" to Vietnam.
    Quote Originally Posted by krischan View Post
    Besides, Obama is no active army officer in the proper military branch, but a policitian.
    You foreigners. Obama is the Commander in Chief. He's the supreme officer in the chain of command. Likewise, Hillary is the supreme officer of the State Department, of which Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith were subordinate officers (though the consideration of the two Navy SEALS on the team is probably more of a technicality, like calling a sergeant a "Non-Commissioned Officer". I grew up among such State Department "officers".
    Quote Originally Posted by krischan View Post
    I don't know to which extent he can be made responsible for the amount of idiots and scumbags around him.
    . So you think the sign on his desk isn't "The Buck Stops Here", but "I Didn't Do It!" It doesn't work that way. His SOLE responsibility is as the Commander in Chief, because the Founders knew that an army needed Unity of Command; all the rest is window dressing and assumed power.
    Quote Originally Posted by krischan View Post
    It happened to Bush and now it happens to Obama. I despise that and I think it's particularly bad in the US, but if both the president and the people are used to it, well... *shrug*
    It happened to Bush, yes. Did you ever really contemplate the claims? It happened to Clinton as well, and the charges <there> were just as spurious, which is why (since he's a Democrat) they rarely saw the light of day. However, in this case what you're seeing, and to a lesser extent condoning, is more than obvious:

    Last edited by jmervyn; 14-05-2013 at 15:52. Reason: clarity

  6. #46
    IncGamers Member Stevinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    chicagoland
    Posts
    5,003

    Re: Pigford, or what's wrong with America.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmervyn View Post
    Okaaay, but you didn't answer the question. The cover up, in broad terms, is a proven fact. The Benghazi facility was deliberately under-protected, the circumstances of the attack were immediately clear to most of those concerned, the CIA's talking points were changed 12 times, they weren't changed by the CIA, the false claims in them were reiterated repeatedly by Susan Rice, Petraeus knew they were wrong and said so, Petraeus' life was exploded in scandal immediately following his saying so, and finally that Obama and Hillary lied on several occasions and even over the corpses of the attack in trying to lay the blame on the video rather than the enemy.
    I take umbrage with "deliberately under-protected". Their request for security was denied. As were the many many other requests from all over the world. No one said, hey, if we remove the security, then we'll get the opportunity to deal with a terrorist attack right before the election! That's just outright stupid. Security wasn't reduced, it just was not increased due to cost concerns. Very different.

    As for the talking points, I don't particularly care, that was just CYA. If you want to be mad at someone, be mad at candy for making this a non-issue in the debates (she was the one who awarded the point to obama incorrectly, imho).

    You are probably right about petraeus. We have no proof that that's why the scandal broke, but it certainly looked like suspicious timing. Then again, who knows. If you had some evidence that BO himself was involved in blackmailing or ordering the blackmailing of petraeus you might have a case for impeachment there. I don't think you'll ever have such evidence though, so....yeah.

    And like I said above, lying about the video is not a crime (he's still talking about the video). Lying about whether you knew who did it is not a crime.

    Ok, so given the FACTS laid out above, why are you determined to not hold Hillary or Obama responsible for what they've said, even over the fresh corpses they caused?
    Treason is what the actions constitute. It's not clear who committed them at this time. The inquiry board claimed it was lower level employees, and that's a possibility, though it's becoming far more remote.
    Responsible how? None of that is treason. The only crime you have a wisp at is circumstantial at best, conspiratorial at worst. There's no grounds for charging him with treason. You're just making yourself look crazy.

    In the interests of fairness, I'd throw Techno a bone - Elijah Cummings, who I think might be lower than snake shyte, wants the inquiry board members to testify in public, while Darryl Issa (who is reputedly even lower) wants them in private. The motivation is everything here - if public, then the questions cannot include National Security matters like the arms smuggling to Al Quaeda affiliates in Syria directed by the ambassador, which is a fundamental key to this whole affair. At the same time, however, this all needs to be aired and there can't be any he-said/she-said left. This isn't just a matter of political one-upsmanship, as Techno claims. This is the level of "high crimes and misdemeanours", so whoever it traces back to has grounds for impeachment or imprisonment even without the different considerations of aiding the enemy.
    We aid all sorts of unsavory people. I'm not sure I think it's fair to pretend the syrians are the same people that attacked us on 9-11, it's a complicated region, and we often have to choose between which groups we want to help today to accomplish our goals for now.


    Yah, and binders full of women. You're pitiful. Plus, I love how you believe that Gov't spending creates jobs, or that creating jobs is in and of itself the goal. The USSR had 100% employment!
    Well actually, government can create jobs. Lots of people work for the government. That's actually part of the problem. Creating jobs should be the goal with unemployment is as high as it is and with so many people displaced so quickly. I don't want 100% employment, as that would lead to an inflationary spiral, but certainly I'd like the number of unemployed to creep down to the amounts we're reporting (if it was actually 7-9% the country would be in great shape), and the underemployed to be reduced.

    This again is the problem with idealogues. you say things that I really hope you don't actually mean. YOU work for the government. Government spending created and sustains YOUR job! Of course government spending creates jobs. The problem is those aren't the jobs we want, they're inefficient, non-expansionary things. Don't you do tech support for a school or something? That doesn't make growth, it's sustaining infrastructure. The jobs we want need to come from the sciences, R&D, maybe building some new infrastructure. Some of those could be government jobs, but we have to be careful not to just hire of bunch of people doing your job, or the whole thing turns out to be a big drain on the rest of the economy. No offense but if we had a lot less of you, and a lot more people building high speed rail or broadband internet, or nuclear power plants, or space travel, etc that wouldn't have been built/done by market forces, I think you'd find that our return on our spending would be much better. Ideally, we'd find ways to allow you to support even more students/teachers and take some of the people doing your job and put them on a project that could benefit the country.

    When Tech and you make those silly blanket statements, it exposes that you have only a rudimentary grasp of how the economy works. A lot has been figured out since Adam Smith, maybe some of that time you spent misreading lord of the flies should have been spent on learning how your country works.

    ***

    And Tech, where do you think that demand comes from? Where does that government spending come from? At some point we need workers & capital (and other resources) to be productive.

    ***

    I have so much more, but I have to run.

  7. #47
    IncGamers Member jmervyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    12,936

    Re: Pigford, or what's wrong with America.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    I take umbrage with "deliberately under-protected". Their request for security was denied. As were the many many other requests from all over the world.
    Garbage. Repeated, urgent requests for security were denied even as hybrid cars were being purchased for other embassies.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    No one said, hey, if we remove the security, then we'll get the opportunity to deal with a terrorist attack right before the election! That's just outright stupid.
    However, the idea that keeping a low profile in order to not undercut the idea of Obama's Majickal Foreign Policy Skillz certainly was. Likewise, Hillary's image as BeST SECr3T@ry of STATE EVAHH!!!! So the same decision making process that caused "Blackhawk Down" has been established as being in play here. Yet no, that's not treasonous, not even the part where the Administration offered sympathy for the attackers while claiming they were just upset about the video, nor are these any of the glaring issues that need to be adjudicated.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    Security wasn't reduced, it just was not increased due to cost concerns. Very different.
    Very different, as in complete bullshyte, as were the excuses offered. Furthermore, State not only refused the requests but then knowingly lied about the requests. As stated previously (link that was snuffed) but here's another link stuffing the "cost" claims down your pie-hole. NO COSTS WERE CUT, by the GOP or otherwise; the funding was covered under the continuing resolution.


    The fact is, Hillary lied with Dick "Pol Pot" Durbin's assistance, and you slurped it up. Did it taste like Crow?
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    As for the talking points, I don't particularly care, that was just CYA. If you want to be mad at someone, be mad at candy for making this a non-issue in the debates (she was the one who awarded the point to obama incorrectly, imho).
    So if you're murdered by your Dad's drinking buddy, and your Dad lies to your Mom over your corpse and blamed it on Iron Man 3, you're okay with that? Interesting.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    If you had some evidence that BO himself was involved in blackmailing or ordering the blackmailing of petraeus you might have a case for impeachment there. I don't think you'll ever have such evidence though, so....yeah.
    Not my concern. My partisanship on the issue is much like that of someone else you never even heard about nor wanted to. It's not about politics, but your determined oblivious attitude IS.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    And like I said above, lying about the video is not a crime (he's still talking about the video). Lying about whether you knew who did it is not a crime.
    However, lying repeatedly in order to cover up the fact that you hired an enemy to do the job IS a crime. That's like your Dad giving the gun to his drinking buddy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    Responsible how? None of that is treason. The only crime you have a wisp at is circumstantial at best, conspiratorial at worst. There's no grounds for charging him with treason. You're just making yourself look crazy.
    Let me know if you bother to pull your head out of your arse. I've detailed the three "counts"; it's now a matter of finding out who knew and to a lesser extent why they did it. The first "count" is far worse than Iran/Contra, because we weren't at war with Iran at the time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    I'm not sure I think it's fair to pretend the syrians are the same people that attacked us on 9-11,
    What's that? Your voice is muffled, what with your head being shoved up your arse. THE GUY WE HIRED WAS A GITMO DETAINEE.

    Oh, but that's right, I forgot.


  8. #48
    Europe Trade Moderator krischan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Hamburg, Germany
    Posts
    33,217

    Re: Pigford, or what's wrong with America.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmervyn View Post
    You foreigners. Obama is the Commander in Chief
    I know. I still think it needs more of a politician as president than of a general.
    D3 Trading Forums: Europe - America
    Diablo Wiki / Arreat Summit / ATMA / Forum Rules / Adria
    You know I'm born to lose / and gambling is for fools / but that's the way I like it, baby / I don't want to live forever!

  9. #49
    IncGamers Member jmervyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    12,936

    Re: Pigford, or what's wrong with America.

    Quote Originally Posted by krischan View Post
    I know. I still think it needs more of a politician as president than of a general.
    Who's the Commander in Chief of German armed forces? The Wehrmacht was fully cognizant of the concept, so one would presume that the Bundeswehr is not stupid. That person, who-ever it is, would fall under military law (your Article 96 II, according to Wiki) and so would be treated just like any other officer.


    *********************************
    ARTICLE WORTH READING IN FULL

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Steyn
    Throughout the all-night firefight in Benghazi, Washington’s priority seems to have been to do everything possible to deny that what was actually happening was happening at all. To send “soldiers” on a “mission” to “fight” the “enemy” was at odds with the entire Obama narrative of the Arab Spring and the broader post-Bush Muslim world. And so the entire U.S. military was stood down in support of the commander-in-chief’s fiction.


    As Mr. Hicks testified, his superiors in Washington knew early that night that a well-executed terrorist attack with the possible participation of al-Qaeda elements was under way. Instead of responding, the most powerful figures in the government decided that an unseen YouTube video better served their political needs. And, in the most revealing glimpse of the administration’s depravity, the president and secretary of state peddled the lie even in their mawkish eulogies to their buddy “Chris” and three other dead Americans. They lied to the victims’ coffins and then strolled over to lie to the bereaved, Hillary telling the Woods family that “we’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video.” And she did. The government dispatched more firepower to arrest Nakoula Basseley Nakoula in Los Angeles than it did to protect its mission in Benghazi. It was such a great act of misdirection Hillary should have worn spangled tights and sawn Stevens’s casket in half.


    The dying Los Angeles Times reported this story on its homepage (as a sidebar to “Thirteen Great Tacos in Southern California”) under the following headline: “Partisan Politics Dominates House Benghazi Hearing.” In fact, everyone in this story is a Democrat or a career civil servant. Chris Stevens was the poster boy for Obama’s view of the Arab Spring; he agreed with the president on everything that mattered. The only difference is that he wasn’t in Vegas but out there on the front line, where Obama’s delusions meet reality. Stevens believed in those illusions enough to die for them. One cannot say the same about the hollow men and women in Washington who sent him out there unprotected, declined to lift a finger when he came under attack, and in the final indignity subordinated his sacrifice to their political needs by lying over his corpse. Where’s the “partisan politics”? Obama, Clinton, Panetta, Clapper, Rice, and the rest did this to one of their own. And fawning court eunuchs, like the ranking Democrat at the hearings, Elijah Cummings, must surely know that, if they needed, they’d do it to them, too. If you believe in politics über alles, it’s impressive, in the same way that Hillary’s cocksure dismissal — “What difference, at this point, does it make?” — is impressive.


  10. #50
    Europe Trade Moderator krischan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Hamburg, Germany
    Posts
    33,217

    Re: Pigford, or what's wrong with America.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmervyn View Post
    Who's the Commander in Chief of German armed forces?
    The minister of defense. The chancellor assigns and fires the ministers, however. Any participation in a war needs the approval of the Bundestag. The chancellor is elected by the Bundestag which is elected by the people.

    That person, who-ever it is, would fall under military law (your Article 96 II, according to Wiki) and so would be treated just like any other officer.
    The minister of defense isn't a part of the army, he's just in command of the army. BTW, we may only have separate military courts in case we are attacked (Verteidigungsfall) or on soldiers in foreign countries or on ships and having them isn't a must. It will be ranked below the Supreme Court, a non-military court.

    Besides, members of the parliament are immune to legal prosecution. That immunity would have to be lifted by the Bundestag before.
    D3 Trading Forums: Europe - America
    Diablo Wiki / Arreat Summit / ATMA / Forum Rules / Adria
    You know I'm born to lose / and gambling is for fools / but that's the way I like it, baby / I don't want to live forever!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •