Us Ambassador Chris Stevens Killed In Libya

[LomSak27]

uh, with the news coming out about The General and the (somewat) Psycho mistress, I expect all the blather of the last 24 to 48 hours by right wingnuts will fade, and they will go back to scouting for FEMA death camps, or waiting for that Zombie Bin Laden with his lobster army armed with confiscated ameriican firearms to attack the Vatican.

It was a fun ride though wasn't it?!

Anything to keep them from taking a hard look at why they got spanked in the recent election.

[geriatrickid]

I am well aware that Congress has subpoena powers. I am also well aware that Obama isn't the President until he is sworn in on 20 January 2013. Until then he is the incoming President.

Could the administration be dragging their collective feet on yet another delaying tactic? You're the lawyer, you tell us?

Edit in: Obama can invoke Executive Privilege and anybody can invoke self incrimination. Congress can grant individual immunity from prosecution but could still not compel anyone to testify. Failure to testify, after immunity is granted, would only carry a charge of Contempt of Congress. How successful was that in holding Eric Holder responsible for Fast & Furious? Still a blank wall of testimony.

<deleted>? The Presidential term ends January 20th of the year following the election. Bush remained POTUS after Obama was elected. Mr. Obama is still the legitimate POTUS and he would have remained Potus until January 20, 2013 had Romney been elected. That is why Romney had his website with the title "President Elect" and not President.

The attempt to politically lynch AG Holder failed because the Republican controlled hearings could not make a compelling case, the same way you can not make a case in this matter.

[lomatopo]

I am also well aware that Obama isn't the President until he is sworn in on 20 January 2013. Until then he is the incoming President.

So who's President now? Oh right, that Muslim guy who was born in Kenya.

Like I said, that Lincoln statement was definitely lost on you.

[chuckd]

Anyone want to know how it feels to stand up against the entire EU and British Commonwealth?

Just ask me.

[mania]

That's why we have you, isn't it? And Faux News of course.

Sorry it is a get it yourself kind of thing

You will have to do it yourself

faux news? Seems the only folks here who watch & quote it are folks like yourself.

That wont help you either sorry to say.

Edited November 11, 2012 by mania

[chuckd]

What's to explain? As you've so adroitly highlighted this is a, "result of an alleged plot by a covert group or organization or, more broadly, the idea that important political, social or economic events are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public."

You're not supposed to be able to figure these things out? Is there a "Deep Throat" helping you?

I will remain silent on your query.

Care to point out where I made this claim you have assigned to me?

"result of an alleged plot by a covert group or organization or, more broadly, the idea that important political, social or economic events are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public."

[mania]

C'mon Chuck, you know as we as we all do that Congress can compel anyone to testify.

No actually they cannot compel someone to testify against themselves or if their testimony may incriminate them.

[keemapoot]

C'mon Chuck, you know as we as we all do that Congress can compel anyone to testify.

No actually they cannot compel someone to testify against themselves or if their testimony may incriminate them.

Sorry to correct you, but they can subpeona anyone to appear to testify. That person can then invoke his fifth amendment right not to incriminate himself, but that act in itself can often appear incriminating, and you must invoke the privilege as to each and every question you wish not to answer, which gets ridiculous in practice. (Ever watch any of the McCarthy Commie or Organized Crime hearings? - how long have you been been a mafia boss? I refuse to answer...etc..) There are limited other instances, such as executive privilege that may protect the President from testifying. If I remember correctly. Please anyone correct me if wrong.

Edited November 11, 2012 by keemapoot

[mania]

C'mon Chuck, you know as we as we all do that Congress can compel anyone to testify.

No actually they cannot compel someone to testify against themselves or if their testimony may incriminate them.

Sorry to correct you, but they can subpeona anyone to appear to testify. That person can then invoke his first amendment right not to incriminate himself, but that act in itself can often appear incriminating. (Ever watch any of the McCarthy Commie hearings? - how long have you been beating your wife? I refuse to answer...etc..) There are limited other instances, such as executive privilege that may protect the President from testifying. If I remember correctly. Please anyone correct me if wrong.

No that is basically correct & why I replied to your statement that

specifically said they can compel anyone to testify

As stated in your original post quoted above mine.

Yes they can subpoena but not compel you to testify

Yes taking the 5th can be seen as having something to hide.

But it is not always seen that way.

[chuckd]

<snip>

http://en.wikipedia..../F_Super_Hornet

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Turn off Fox and look up some of this on the internet.

Remember what Abraham Lincoln famously said..."It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

Says the person quoting Wikipedia as irrefutable fact.

Good lord.

http://uk.eurosport....-163209537.html

Please note the reference to a "popular web-based encyclopedia".

Why stop beating around the bush and simply refute Wikipedia in those sites I listed? It ain't rocket science.

Edited November 11, 2012 by chuckd

[keemapoot]

C'mon Chuck, you know as we as we all do that Congress can compel anyone to testify.

No actually they cannot compel someone to testify against themselves or if their testimony may incriminate them.

Sorry to correct you, but they can subpeona anyone to appear to testify. That person can then invoke his first amendment right not to incriminate himself, but that act in itself can often appear incriminating. (Ever watch any of the McCarthy Commie hearings? - how long have you been beating your wife? I refuse to answer...etc..) There are limited other instances, such as executive privilege that may protect the President from testifying. If I remember correctly. Please anyone correct me if wrong.

No that is basically correct & why I replied to your statement that

specifically said they can compel anyone to testify

As stated in your original post quoted above mine.

Yes they can subpoena but not compel you to testify

Yes taking the 5th can be seen as having something to hide.

But it is not always seen that way.

Yes, sorry the fifth amendment. Doing 3 things at once. In terms of appearances, it is often damaging to take the 5th, and Congress knows it. These folks could also refuse to answer based on national security, and in that case, I think it goes into closed chambers or something? I forgot.

[chuckd]

OBE. My post was on the first v. fifth amendment question.

Edited November 11, 2012 by chuckd

[keemapoot]

C'mon Chuck, you know as we as we all do that Congress can compel anyone to testify.

No actually they cannot compel someone to testify against themselves or if their testimony may incriminate them.

Sorry to correct you, but they can subpeona anyone to appear to testify. That person can then invoke his fifth amendment right not to incriminate himself, but that act in itself can often appear incriminating, and you must invoke the privilege as to each and every question you wish not to answer, which gets ridiculous in practice. (Ever watch any of the McCarthy Commie or Organized Crime hearings? - how long have you been been a mafia boss? I refuse to answer...etc..) There are limited other instances, such as executive privilege that may protect the President from testifying. If I remember correctly. Please anyone correct me if wrong.

The fifth amendment covers self incrimination, not the first amendment.

The first amendment provides freedom of speech and freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

PS: Separation of Church and state is not mentioned in the US Constitution.

Yes, I know. I was writing without thinking, something all of us share from time to time on here.

[chuckd]

Sorry to correct you, but they can subpeona anyone to appear to testify. That person can then invoke his fifth amendment right not to incriminate himself, but that act in itself can often appear incriminating, and you must invoke the privilege as to each and every question you wish not to answer, which gets ridiculous in practice. (Ever watch any of the McCarthy Commie or Organized Crime hearings? - how long have you been been a mafia boss? I refuse to answer...etc..) There are limited other instances, such as executive privilege that may protect the President from testifying. If I remember correctly. Please anyone correct me if wrong.

The fifth amendment covers self incrimination, not the first amendment.

The first amendment provides freedom of speech and freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

PS: Separation of Church and state is not mentioned in the US Constitution.

Yes, I know. I was writing without thinking, something all of us share from time to time on here.

We were two ships passing in the night.

[Chicog]

<snip>

http://en.wikipedia..../F_Super_Hornet

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Turn off Fox and look up some of this on the internet.

Remember what Abraham Lincoln famously said..."It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

Says the person quoting Wikipedia as irrefutable fact.

Good lord.

http://uk.eurosport....-163209537.html

Please note the reference to a "popular web-based encyclopedia".

Why stop beating around the bush and simply refute Wikipedia in those sites I listed? It ain't rocket science.

Why not stop beating around the bush and forget closed hearings altogether. Just tell them to publish all those national security details on Wikipedia. Fox will probably edit them anyway.

[chuckd]

<snip>

http://en.wikipedia..../F_Super_Hornet

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Turn off Fox and look up some of this on the internet.

Remember what Abraham Lincoln famously said..."It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

Says the person quoting Wikipedia as irrefutable fact.

Good lord.

http://uk.eurosport....-163209537.html

Please note the reference to a "popular web-based encyclopedia".

Why stop beating around the bush and simply refute Wikipedia in those sites I listed? It ain't rocket science.

Why not stop beating around the bush and forget closed hearings altogether. Just tell them to publish all those national security details on Wikipedia. Fox will probably edit them anyway.

Does the word "Fox" appear at random on your input or do you actually have to dream up a sentence to include it?

How about them facts on Wikipedia? When are you going to refute the irrefutable or are you hoping it will go away, just as Obama is hoping the Benghazi cover up will go away.

Dear readers, we are watching Chicogo politics in action on Benghazi.

[Chicog]

Does the word "Fox" appear at random on your input or do you actually have to dream up a sentence to include it?

How about them facts on Wikipedia? When are you going to refute the irrefutable or are you hoping it will go away, just as Obama is hoping the Benghazi cover up will go away.

Dear readers, we are watching Chicogo politics in action on Benghazi.

You are asking me to refute 'facts' on Wikipedia? Most of the external references are to other websites. How about you tell me how a publicly editable web-based encyclopedia will play *any* part in the investigation?

And please try the sheep-like "we" argument, or do you have a supporters club on here?

I believe that the operational and technical details of what was available and how it was deployed is not the sort of information that should be made public, hence the private hearings. You quoting a few aircraft and bases on Wikipedia really doesn't say anything other than that you can use Wikipedia.You have yet to offer *any* evidence of wrongdoing in the Whitehouse over the Benghazi attack, yet you continue to point the finger of blame and are happy to quote any source that supports your viewpoint.

I believe that too much faith was placed in local assets by the CIA, and this failing led to an inability to respond in a timely or appropriate fashion.

That is based on what has been released in private briefings to the international news media.

There is no politics here, I've already told you if Clinton deliberately ignore vital communications she deserves what she gets.

But neither you nor I are aware of what those communications are.

And for dam_n sure, Wikipedia doesn't.

Offer me some fact and I wouldn't be able to refute it.

Offering Wikipedia is frankly laughable.

[lomatopo]

What's to explain? As you've so adroitly highlighted this is a, "result of an alleged plot by a covert group or organization or, more broadly, the idea that important political, social or economic events are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public."

You're not supposed to be able to figure these things out? Is there a "Deep Throat" helping you?

I will remain silent on your query.

Care to point out where I made this claim you have assigned to me?

"result of an alleged plot by a covert group or organization or, more broadly, the idea that important political, social or economic events are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public."

You seemed to be implying something akin to a conspiracy with this post:

Now can any of you Obamaites explain away any of the following?

1. Five days before he is to testify before Congress, the CIA Director resigns over a leaked FBI investigation about adultery. The leak allegedly comes from inside the FBI. The FBI is a department of the Justice Department with Eric Holder, an Obama stooge, in charge. He would have known this information since the investigation began, allegedly some months ago. Coincidence that it broke on 11/10?

2. Hillary Clinton will not be able to testify since she will be in Australia attending a conference. Coincidence?

3. Leon Panetta will also not be able to testify since he will be in attendance at the same conference in Australia. Yep..coincidence?

Now we have three of the four top players in the Benghazi attack that are magically too busy, or too unemployed, to attend a Congressional oversight committee to tell under oath what happened. The only one left is Obama and he hasn't told the truth in years.

and the quote was obviously not attributed to you, it was far too intelligible.

So yes, I was trying to "explain away" your "understanding" of the situation.

There are no coincidences. Surely you "know" that?

Edited November 11, 2012 by lomatopo

[lomatopo]

That's why we have you, isn't it? And Faux News of course.

Sorry it is a get it yourself kind of thing

You will have to do it yourself

faux news? Seems the only folks here who watch & quote it are folks like yourself.

That wont help you either sorry to say.

Unfortunately TrueVisions does not carry Fox News, so I really only get to see it on Comedy Central.

[chuckd]

What's to explain? As you've so adroitly highlighted this is a, "result of an alleged plot by a covert group or organization or, more broadly, the idea that important political, social or economic events are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public."

You're not supposed to be able to figure these things out? Is there a "Deep Throat" helping you?

I will remain silent on your query.

Care to point out where I made this claim you have assigned to me?

"result of an alleged plot by a covert group or organization or, more broadly, the idea that important political, social or economic events are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public."

You seemed to be implying something akin to a conspiracy with this post:

Now can any of you Obamaites explain away any of the following?

1. Five days before he is to testify before Congress, the CIA Director resigns over a leaked FBI investigation about adultery. The leak allegedly comes from inside the FBI. The FBI is a department of the Justice Department with Eric Holder, an Obama stooge, in charge. He would have known this information since the investigation began, allegedly some months ago. Coincidence that it broke on 11/10?

2. Hillary Clinton will not be able to testify since she will be in Australia attending a conference. Coincidence?

3. Leon Panetta will also not be able to testify since he will be in attendance at the same conference in Australia. Yep..coincidence?

Now we have three of the four top players in the Benghazi attack that are magically too busy, or too unemployed, to attend a Congressional oversight committee to tell under oath what happened. The only one left is Obama and he hasn't told the truth in years.

and the quote was obviously not attributed to you, it was far too intelligible.

So yes, I was trying to "explain away" your "understanding" of the situation.

I "seemed to be implying"??? Now that's a statement that is indisputable.

I am sorry if you find my posts unintelligible. Perhaps you should place me on ignore so you won't have your mind in a constant state of befuddlement.

I have re-read my post and cannot find the word "conspiracy" anywhere in it. I did find the word "coincidence" several times.

While I appreciate your attempt to explain away my "understanding" of the situation, it might be best to get your "Superman Mind Reading Decoder Ring" checked out. It seems to have outlived its usefulness.

Edited November 11, 2012 by chuckd

[chuckd]

What's to explain? As you've so adroitly highlighted this is a, "result of an alleged plot by a covert group or organization or, more broadly, the idea that important political, social or economic events are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public."

You're not supposed to be able to figure these things out? Is there a "Deep Throat" helping you?

I will remain silent on your query.

Care to point out where I made this claim you have assigned to me?

"result of an alleged plot by a covert group or organization or, more broadly, the idea that important political, social or economic events are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public."

You seemed to be implying something akin to a conspiracy with this post:

Now can any of you Obamaites explain away any of the following?

1. Five days before he is to testify before Congress, the CIA Director resigns over a leaked FBI investigation about adultery. The leak allegedly comes from inside the FBI. The FBI is a department of the Justice Department with Eric Holder, an Obama stooge, in charge. He would have known this information since the investigation began, allegedly some months ago. Coincidence that it broke on 11/10?

2. Hillary Clinton will not be able to testify since she will be in Australia attending a conference. Coincidence?

3. Leon Panetta will also not be able to testify since he will be in attendance at the same conference in Australia. Yep..coincidence?

Now we have three of the four top players in the Benghazi attack that are magically too busy, or too unemployed, to attend a Congressional oversight committee to tell under oath what happened. The only one left is Obama and he hasn't told the truth in years.

and the quote was obviously not attributed to you, it was far too intelligible.

So yes, I was trying to "explain away" your "understanding" of the situation.

I "seemed to be implying"??? Now that's a statement of that is indisputable.

I am sorry if you find my posts unintelligible. Would more one syllable words help?

I have re-read my post and cannot find the word "conspiracy" anywhere in it. I did find the word "coincidence" several times.

While I appreciate your attempt to explain away my "understanding" of the situation, it might be best to get your "Superman Mind Reading Decoder Ring" checked out. It seems to have outlived its usefulness.

[Chicog]

2. Hillary Clinton will not be able to testify since she will be in Australia attending a conference. Coincidence?

3. Leon Panetta will also not be able to testify since he will be in attendance at the same conference in Australia. Yep..coincidence?

As with Petraeus, can they not be asked to appear at a later hearing?

[lomatopo]

I have re-read my post and cannot find the word "conspiracy" anywhere in it. I did find the word "coincidence" several times.

Yes, you used "coincidence" three times, and "magically" just once. You've got to admit that you were thinking it is a conspiracy? Come on. No need to hide it.

You must understand when you make a statement like this:

The only one left is Obama and he hasn't told the truth in years.

that it is very challenging to take anything you say seriously?

2. Hillary Clinton will not be able to testify since she will be in Australia attending a conference. Coincidence?

3. Leon Panetta will also not be able to testify since he will be in attendance at the same conference in Australia. Yep..coincidence?

As with Petraeus, can they not be asked to appear at a later hearing?

Of course, but in Patraeus's case they'll have to wait until he recovers from the boot his wife leaves lodged in his behind.

Edited November 11, 2012 by lomatopo

[chuckd]

Does the word "Fox" appear at random on your input or do you actually have to dream up a sentence to include it?

How about them facts on Wikipedia? When are you going to refute the irrefutable or are you hoping it will go away, just as Obama is hoping the Benghazi cover up will go away.

Dear readers, we are watching Chicogo politics in action on Benghazi.

You are asking me to refute 'facts' on Wikipedia? Most of the external references are to other websites. How about you tell me how a publicly editable web-based encyclopedia will play *any* part in the investigation?

And please try the sheep-like "we" argument, or do you have a supporters club on here?

I believe that the operational and technical details of what was available and how it was deployed is not the sort of information that should be made public, hence the private hearings. You quoting a few aircraft and bases on Wikipedia really doesn't say anything other than that you can use Wikipedia.You have yet to offer *any* evidence of wrongdoing in the Whitehouse over the Benghazi attack, yet you continue to point the finger of blame and are happy to quote any source that supports your viewpoint.

I believe that too much faith was placed in local assets by the CIA, and this failing led to an inability to respond in a timely or appropriate fashion.

That is based on what has been released in private briefings to the international news media.

There is no politics here, I've already told you if Clinton deliberately ignore vital communications she deserves what she gets.

But neither you nor I are aware of what those communications are.

And for dam_n sure, Wikipedia doesn't.

Offer me some fact and I wouldn't be able to refute it.

Offering Wikipedia is frankly laughable.

Since I have already wasted more time on you than I did raising my first cat, that's all you're going to get from me tonight.

You're the one that started this particular part of the discussion by claiming the secrets of armaments and weapons on military aircraft and Navy ships was somehow secret to the rest of the world and little to no information was available to terrorists. You expressed an obvious dislilke for Wikipedia.

Having worked in the defense industry in the Middle East for nearly 30 years, I can honestly state you know nothing of which you speak.

Weapons systems of the world are widely reported on.

Try this to gain some education. Buy a subscription and you will get some information that is over and above Wikipedia, who gets their information from Janes Information Group.

http://www.janes-def...efence weekly~e

Or if you ever dreamed of joining the Navy and seeing the world there is always this...

http://www.janes.com/products/janes/defence/det-products/fighting-ships.aspx

Ta.

[chuckd]

Can you give me the rest of the night off. "The Voice" is coming on and I find it infinitely more interesting than a discourse with you two "Guardians of the Throne".

[Chicog]

Try this to gain some education. Buy a subscription and you will get some information that is over and above Wikipedia, who gets their information from Janes Information Group.

http://www.janes-def...efence weekly~e

Or if you ever dreamed of joining the Navy and seeing the world there is always this...

http://www.janes.com...ting-ships.aspx

Ta.

Janes I would at least trust to an extent.

Care to link to the specifics I described above?

Thought not.

Sleep well.

[lomatopo]

While I appreciate your attempt to explain away my "understanding" of the situation, it might be best to get your "Superman Mind Reading Decoder Ring" checked out. It seems to have outlived its usefulness.

Hah. Clearly you are out of touch with all of the public information available regarding "Mind Reading Decoder Rings".

I have worked in the Mind Reading Decoder Ring industry, a division of Raytheon, for well over 70 years, both here on Earth and in off-planet locations. These are Alien inventions, Superman has had some input but there is no way we'd put his brand name on these. And the battery lasts for 200 years so it has not outlived its usefulness. And here I thought you had been read in on these developments.

[chuckd]

While I appreciate your attempt to explain away my "understanding" of the situation, it might be best to get your "Superman Mind Reading Decoder Ring" checked out. It seems to have outlived its usefulness.

Hah. Clearly you are out of touch with all of the public information available regarding "Mind Reading Decoder Rings".

I have worked in the Mind Reading Decoder Ring industry, a division of Raytheon, for well over 70 years, both here on Earth and in off-planet locations. These are Alien inventions, Superman has had some input but there is no way we'd put his brand name on these. And the battery lasts for 200 years so it has not outlived its usefulness. And here I thought you had been read in on these developments.

I have searched for years on the internet for input on the Decoder Rings.

Alas, my searches have been as unsuccessful as Mr. Chicog's attempts at finding virtually anything on the internet.

I shall keep striving to gain further knowledge on our chosen subjects and can only pray both myself and Chicog will someday be successful in our quest.

Anybody want to go tilt some windmills? Chicog???

It's on my Bucket List.

[keemapoot]

So, we are seeing some signs that Congress is getting more interested in this Petraeus situation, and several Senators and Congressmen from both parties have said they "have not ruled out calling Petraeus to testify." However, there is one sticking point for the Republicans who could be the ones pressing this issue, and that has to do with the good general's own political affiliation - Republican. I suppose they need to think twice before dragging not only a Republican, but a national hero through this muck.

Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss, the top Republican on the Senate intelligence committee, called Petraeus "a great leader" who did right by stepping down and still deserves the nation's gratitude. He also didn't rule out calling Petraeus to testify on Benghazi at some point.

WASHINGTON—Members of Congress said Sunday they want to know more details about the FBI investigation that revealed an extramarital affair between ex-CIA Director David Petraeus and his biographer, questioning when the retired general popped up in the FBI inquiry, whether national security was compromised and why they weren't told sooner.

"We received no advanced notice. It was like a lightning bolt," said Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, who heads the Senate Intelligence Committee.

http://www.mercuryne...petraeus-affair

[keemapoot]

And, here's the mystery woman who's part of the love triangle of this randy general. dam_n, if I had known Washington had such swinger parties, I would have spent much more time there than I did.

From L to R) Natalie Khawam, Gen. David Petraeus, Dr. Scott Kelley, his wife Jill Kelley and Holly Petraeus, the wife of Gen. David Petraeus, watching the Gasparilla parade from the comfort of tent on the Kelleys front lawn on Jan. 30. 2010, in Tampa, Fla

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ap-source-target-emails-petraeus-paramour-state-department-military-liaison-article-1.1200299#ixzz2BxkQaJV0