koheesti

Haven't a lot of Westerners just been taken hostage in Mali or someplace nearby? I expected to see something on the World News forum because that would seem like pretty big news...

What this is REALLY about is simply the latest phase of acting out of the segment of American society (wacky conspiracy theories, birthers and such) who will never accept Obama is their president:

The parallels between Obama and Nixon are amazing. Someone should make a graphic showing them all.

The 'they' I am referring to is the government.

Nixon and Co. wanted to break into the Watergate. Obama, Clinton and Co. probably didn't want to kill an ambassador.

Watergate was about covering up a crime committed by the President's re-election campaign representatives.

It is obviously too early to tell because the investigation is still underway but it is believed by some that Benghazi is about covering up a crime committed by a terror group on Sept 11th of all days, that was made possible by the President's admin representatives ignoring calls for additional security leading up to the event, ignoring pleas for help during the 9-hour attack, and then with the help of the President's re-election campaign representatives, lying to the American people about what happened to keep from making the President look bad and jeopardizing the election.

The scapegoats so far in Benghazi are the Libyans, residents of Benghazi in particular and a "film maker" in California. The victims - other than those murdered - are CIA Director Petraeus who had his long-known about affair "leaked" just days before he was to testify bringing his career to an embarrassing end.

Hillary is probably another victim. Back in October she took a bullet for the admin by taking full responsibility as her position dictated she do at the time. Since then, for the past three months, she has avoided testimony by being overseas, then upon returning suffering an apparent concussion, then a blod clot appears which some medical professionals say could have been caused by stress. They just won the election and she was about to retire, what stress could there possible be? Oh, yeah, covering up for her soon to be ex-boss under oath, before the nation and flushing her chances at the presidency down the toilet. Even if all that is found out not to be true, it would make a good movie.

He's a defense lawyer, his job is to defend using the tools at his disposal, which is sexism.

So the best defense he could come up with is...yes, my clients raped and murdered that girl but it wasn't really their fault because she "was asking for it". From the back of what cereal box did he cut his law degree?

I actually don't care whether it was an angry mob or whether it was pre-planned or a combo. It's of academic interest but on the list of what SHOULD be high priorities for the American people it rates almost nothing.

Pushing that lies about the angry mob is insulting the locals.

I actually never thought about it that way but, you're right.

An angry mob is just regular local people pushed to the point of being very angry. So angry that they go out attack a consulate and kill the ambassador? If I were a local in Benghazi I would be pissed about that. I guess that explains whey there were counter protests just two days after the attack.

Libyans hold peaceful demonstrations decrying the Benghazi attacks [PHOTOS]

Although, while Nixon won the election, I don't remember anyone saying, "Nixon won, get over it!". No, there was an investigation then, and there should be one now

But there is an investigation now, isn't there? Both Senate and Congressional hearings are underway I think?

Yes, there are. But Democrats and their supporters (especially around here) have been calling it a waste of time, Republican revenge, etc. I'm surprised the Dem-controlled Senate Foreign Relations Committee is having also having an investigation Maybe they are doing it just so the Rep-controlled House doesn't have a monopoly on the "facts".

Instead of reporting drone strikes, we should deny having anything to do with them and spread the rumor among the Afghan population that those mysterious strikes from the sky are really Allah punishing the bad Muslims known as the Taliban. It's always best to talk to primitives in a way they understand.

When you think about it, all the troubles in the Middle East could really be sold as being punishment from Allah. The West is so advanced and wealthy because Allah is pleased with them! I mean, if there really is an Allah, you'd think that with all the praying 5 times/day, and following the Koran so closely, etc that they would be doing better than they are. Obviously they have angered the Big Guy upstairs.

Who do you think are assisting the US in identifying the targets for the drone strikes?

The US & allies have failed to choke off the Tabilban flow of funds from heroin production and their sponsors, destroy the poppy fields, assist & protect the villagers with alternate money crops and the list goes on. Whilst the Taliban subscribe to a cruel ideology I would not call them primitive. Or are we saying primitives and been able to out maneuver some of the most sophisticated and modern societies in the world.

Being "primitive" can be an advantage when trying to avoid the technologically superior. The '96 Atlanta Olympics bomber avoided US authorities for 5 years in the Smokey Mountains just a few hours' drive from Washington DC and he was living in a cave too.

You really have to pity the civilians in Afghanistan who currently are looking at the abyss of another Taliban dictatorship.

I do, very much so. But I'm feeling more pity for our soldiers (& their families) being murdered by locals they thought they could trust.

And yes, if the foreign occupiers leave the country it's highly likely that the installed regime will fall and the collaborators and quislings will face some consequences.

Get real, EVERY Afghan will face consequences. Not just collaborators. Not just politicians, soldiers or police. But women, children, farmers, kite flyers, men who don't want to grow a beard, people who want to dance, pretty much everyone type who is considered such a good liberal in the West will suffer - artists, writers, painters, sculptors gays, women rights activists, athiests, non-Muslims, etc.

After more than a decade, I say, "so what?". We tried, got little local help and the regular Afghan people don't even know why we are there in the first place. Leave the country, and if for any lame reason at all they piss us off in the future, send in a drone/tomahawk/special forces/whatever and kill them that way...it's cheaper and we won't risk our own lives anymore.

Just send a bucket of instant sunshine and be done with it, it will serve as a reminder to any others thinking of going down the same path.

Instead of reporting drone strikes, we should deny having anything to do with them and spread the rumor among the Afghan population that those mysterious strikes from the sky are really Allah punishing the bad Muslims known as the Taliban. It's always best to talk to primitives in a way they understand.

When you think about it, all the troubles in the Middle East could really be sold as being punishment from Allah. The West is so advanced and wealthy because Allah is pleased with them! I mean, if there really is an Allah, you'd think that with all the praying 5 times/day, and following the Koran so closely, etc that they would be doing better than they are. Obviously they have angered the Big Guy upstairs.

Ted Nuggent made such statements indirectly implicating the president and I stated this was hyperbole also.

No, he never threatened or implied he would do any harm to President Obama.

The things you guys focus on . . .

Please see word "indirectly" in my sentence above. Here is what I wrote including part you left out:

"Ted Nuggent made such statements indirectly implicating the president and I stated this was hyperbole also. Government ultimately found same and did not indict so I apparently have a grasp on interpretation of such matters."

Now read articles. Many viewed what he said as an "indirect" threat to the president under 18 U.S.C. 871. The issue was sufficient to warrant an interview with and an investigation by the secret service.

Like I said when it happened, Ted's statement did not met definition of "true threat" pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 871. His statement was hyperbole.

http://foxnewsinside...iminal-charges/

http://www.cnn.com/2...eech/index.html

http://www.thesuperf...a-again-04-2012

You could have saved yourself a lot of link posting just by admitting that you weren't truthful or accurate in your representation of what Ted said.

^^ and there lies the nub of the matter.....and she can't squirm out as she has taken responsibility already.

She took responsibility back in October before all the other testimony blasting the State Dept.

But there are two issues here;

1) lack of security at the Benghazi consulate despite requests,

2) the admin covering up the attack to protect their election chances.

This wouldn't be the first time that a sitting president tried to cover-up a problem to get re-elected. Today, most Americans (including Republicans) will agree that finding out the truth behind that break-in at The Watergate 40 years ago just months before the 1972 election was very important even though a break-in where no one was hurt is certainly no big deal and certainly not national news. Today's Democrats are behaving like Republicans back then. Although, while Nixon won the election, I don't remember anyone saying, "Nixon won, get over it!". No, there was an investigation then, and there should be one now. 40 years ago, it took one year for the evidence to pile up and that was with a media who wasn't protecting the president. Today, who knows? But whatever the outcome, we shouldn't let the admin off with a free pass just like we didn't back then.

In the meantime, move on, confirm Kerry as Sec of State, get a new Senator up in Massachusetts (preferably Scott Brown!) and let Hillary get some much needed rest away from the public eye for the first time in 20-30 years.

The Dreamliner, operated by Japan Airlines and carrying 181 passengers on board, was about to take off from Boston's Logan International Airport when a pilot from another aircraft advised air traffic control of a leakage from a wing. The control tower then informed the aircraft's crew.

They had to be told by a pilot from another aircraft? Shouldn't there be a little red light or alarm going off in the cockpit if there is a fuel leak? Yikes!

Look at the debate again. I think it is near the one minute spot when the male guest suggests Piers should get an assault weapon and go "pop him". This comment brought much hilarity to both Piers and his other guests.

In the context of this particular conversation "pop him" would mean to shoot him in the US.

I guess seeing the difference between hyperbole by a talk show host versus threats from nut case who actually has guns and is perhaps dead serious about using them if he does not get his way eludes some.

Do you think the Secret Service would have your clear vision if someone on a talk show suggested get an "assault" rifle and "popping" President Obama? Yeah, yeah, I know... that isn't the same because he is part of the protected elite and he really does have to worried about nutjobs trying to do him harm...or his children harm and that's why it's OK for his children and the children of other elites to have armed guards at school but not OK for anyone else.

Ted Nuggent made such statements indirectly implicating the president and I stated this was hyperbole also.

No, he never threatened or implied he would do any harm to President Obama.

i was to busy chuckling at his accent to get incensed over its content

I agree. It took me quite a while to realize he was speaking English. :-) While his statement sounds outrageous ,

I think that is a somewhat standard rape defense. I wonder if he uses the same defense for acid attacks.....

Maybe in India, but that is not the standard rape defense in civilized cultures. His statement is a reflection of a cultural issue wherein it apparently is okay to forceably rape or gang rape a women if you have the subjective belief that she deserves it.

A defense is they did not do it or she consented.

OK, assuming the jury believes that the woman did deserve to be raped...how will they feel about murder? The woman did die as a result of the attack after all. Even in India, isn't murder of a female by several males considered bad?

I don't know what I feel worse about...

- the horrible state of the judicial system in India if this idiot attorney's defense strategy is accepted as valid reasoning

or

- the defendants who will surely hang (instead of getting 25-life in prison) based on this idiot attorney's defense strategy

You would feel bad about the hanging of these rapist-murderers? Not me. I'll learn their names, go to a bar, order one shot for each of them, make a toast in their names individually expressing my happiness that justice has prevailed and if there is a Hell they will be burning in it for eternity.

Let that happen to his daughter & let's see what tune he will be singing. What an idiot.

He'd probably set her on fire or something for disgracing the family.

and not one post....from anyone

Sorry, that's lame. Complain that no one has posted yet don't offer an opinion of your own. Which show you have nothing to say about it either, the only difference is you took the time to tell everyone else that you have nothing to say about it. Lame.

Here's my take...three Kurdish activists were killed execution style. Who wants to kill Kurdish activists? Turks. So was it a hit ordered by the Turkish gov't? Or just some unhappy Turk living in Paris?

Oh dear, two people shot in a school in California . . . a school which had an armed guard . . . who had called in a sickie because he couldn't get to work due to snow.

Guess what, two peopel injured and the teachers actually talked the guy into giving himself up.

Now, if some rent-a-cop had begun blasting back I wonder how many casualties there would have been

The shooter was a kid who had been bullied and was there to shoot two specific people. If he were a regular nut just wanting to kill anyone, the casualty list could have been much higher. There actually is a big anti-bullying campaign in America but the natural fact is that kids are cruel to each other and will always bully the weaker or the strange. No stopping human nature.

Take away access to guns and no-one would have been shot

More bumper sticker wisdom that, unfortunately, is not true. The only one you can take guns away from are law-abiding citizens. This will lead to overall more gun crime than before. The stats and facts back that up.

There is a process for amending the Constitution. Issuing an executive order to repeal one of the original Bill of Rights is NOT the way to do it. If done, that will be the start of the revolution for sure.

I'm not sure if this link has already been posted or not but since it is actually on topic, here you go...

Ex-SEAL one-ups NRA wth tougher, safer plan

Oh dear, two people shot in a school in California . . . a school which had an armed guard . . . who had called in a sickie because he couldn't get to work due to snow.

Guess what, two peopel injured and the teachers actually talked the guy into giving himself up.

Now, if some rent-a-cop had begun blasting back I wonder how many casualties there would have been

The shooter was a kid who had been bullied and was there to shoot two specific people. If he were a regular nut just wanting to kill anyone, the casualty list could have been much higher. There actually is a big anti-bullying campaign in America but the natural fact is that kids are cruel to each other and will always bully the weaker or the strange. No stopping human nature.

To the people saying armed guards are the solution, it might be worth highlighting that security guards have been known to shoot people also.

Example: John Lennon.

The killer was a schizophrenic, with a history of depression, who had had stints in a mental hospital. Yet he still got a job as a security guard, and a gun licence. He bought the gun legally and everything...

Another great example that the problem is crazy people off their meds.

And to the idiots saying they want every school to have armed guards. Do they honestly think the possibility of abduction for their kids is the same as the children of diplomats, or billionaires, or the president's. That's comparing apples and oranges.

Clearly, schools for children not of the diplomats, or billionaires, or the president's get shot up every now and then by crazy people while the privileged children have never been attacked at school. How do you like them apples?

But if you get your way, please say the guards will be required to pass some form of mental health examination.

Amen to that.

Armed Guards for Returning Sandy Hook Students

By Susan Jones

January 3, 2013

(CNSNews.com) - When children from Sandy Hook Elementary school return to class in neighboring Monroe, Conn. today, they'll be entering "the safest school in America," according to the Associated Press.

"Law enforcement officers have been guarding the new school, and by the reckoning of police, it is 'the safest school in America,'" the AP reported Thursday.

"I think right now it has to be the safest school in America," Monroe police Lt. Keith White was quoted as saying.

http://cnsnews.com/n...y-hook-students

I'm sorry but I simply cannot see how a school for primary school children that has armed guards on its premises is 'the safest school in America'. Surely the safest school in America would be a school that didn't required armed guards on its premises at all?

Like the ones the rich, famous, politicians and celebrities send their kids to?

"Surely the safest school in America would be a school that didn't required armed guards on its premises at all?"

Do you not agree with that?

Sure, and the best hospitals are the ones that require fewer doctors.