Ulysses G. Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 (edited) It will be big AFTER the election. The mainstream media will likely mostly try to ignore it for the next few weeks. Edited October 27, 2012 by Ulysses G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maidu Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 is it bigger news than R and R wanting to increase military spending by 1 to 2 trillion $$'s (increases the military isn't asking for), and don't know where the money will come from (maybe China?). as for the 'October surprise,' we get the quote; "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need" .......is that suprise material? Two negatives in a sentence, make a positive. So it can be deciphered to read: The CIA was not told not to help (that's still 2 negatives) Was it told to help? Where's the 'surprise'? The CIA is just one of many US security forces, and it is not a police or military unit. It is 'intel-gathering' mainly. The CIA does not have standing units, like SWAT teams, standing by to take military action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 According to The Hill, Madonna took her shirt off and pulled her pants down at one point to reveal that "OBAMA" was written on her lower back. Should have been written a tad lower if you ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 (edited) The Fox News crowd who ALREADY support Willard M. Romney will be eating it up! Other people, way too complicated and dodgy to be a "scandal" of any impact. In any case, this election isn't about foreign policy anyway. Edited October 27, 2012 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mania Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 The CIA does not have standing units, like SWAT teams, standing by to take military action. I don't know about this new article but as far as your statement above I think the targets of all drones in Pakistan would disagree. Also you should look into SAD ( Special Activities Division ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteeleJoe Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 Only have a few minutes (time to put the kids to bed) but while I am NOT giving credence to this "October Surprise", dismissing it or venturing any opinion at all at this time I have to say this: I know a bit about this topic and I can confirm the CIA has a whole range of paramilitary options and configurations: Loads of the very best operators (mostly either former or current -- sheepdipped -- SpecOps). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 In any case, this election isn't about foreign policy anyway. Correct. It is about the economy. The voters trust Mitt Romney to do a better job handling the economy. In the economy, Mitt Romney leads President Obama. 52% to 43%. http://www.examiner.com/article/gallup-poll-romney-opens-up-a-significant-5-lead-over-obama Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asiantravel Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 (edited) OK boys and girls, the past several pages of back-and-worth have now been rendered meaningless. The October Surprise is hear and it IS BIG... BREAKING: CIA Requested Help During Benghazi Battle, Were Denied Three Times (Updated) Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that three urgent requests from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. Consulate and subsequent attack nearly seven hours later were denied by officials in the CIA chain of command — who also told the CIA operators to “stand down” rather than help the ambassador’s team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11. http://pjmedia.com/t...singlepage=true and Petraeus Throws Obama Under the Bus Breaking news on Benghazi: the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, has put out this statement: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ” http://www.weeklysta...bus_657896.html It is very hard for liberals to argue now based on these new facts that this is still not as bad as Watergate was… I hope the Senate committee doesn't leave a single stone unturned Edited October 27, 2012 by Asiantravel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteeleJoe Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 Also you should look into SAD ( Special Activities Division ) Won't go into this as much as I'm tempted to but I found myself thinking about this post a lot,in part because we just passed the 11th anniversary of the death of the first American killed in Afghanistan: Johnny Spann: SAD/SOG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiangmaikelly Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 OK boys and girls, the past several pages of back-and-worth have now been rendered meaningless. The October Surprise is hear and it IS BIG... BREAKING: CIA Requested Help During Benghazi Battle, Were Denied Three Times (Updated) Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that three urgent requests from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. Consulate and subsequent attack nearly seven hours later were denied by officials in the CIA chain of command — who also told the CIA operators to “stand down” rather than help the ambassador’s team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11. http://pjmedia.com/t...singlepage=true and Petraeus Throws Obama Under the Bus Breaking news on Benghazi: the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, has put out this statement: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ” http://www.weeklysta...bus_657896.html It is very hard for liberals to argue now based on these new facts that this is still not as bad as Watergate was… I hope the Senate committee doesn't leave a single stone unturned Us Americans are used to being abandoned by the government. Lima 85 Laos. Some of us will never forget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 If Obama wins re-election, he might not last until Inauguration Day before he is impeached by the House of Representatives... 0U Gunship was On-Scene in Benghazi, Obama Admin Refused to Let It Fire (Updated) http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/10/26/ac-130u-gunship-was-on-scene-in-benghazi-obama-admin-refused-to-let-it-fire/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 It is very hard for liberals to argue now based on these new facts that this is still not as bad as Watergate was… I hope the Senate committee doesn't leave a single stone unturned The big difference is nobody died in the Watergate incident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asiantravel Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 (edited) and now there is this...... naughty Democrats VA Congressman's Son Nabbed on Video in Voter Fraud Scandal Resigns from Campaign It is becoming increasingly difficult for liberals and leading Democrats to continue to push the false narrative that election fraud is a "phantom" problem when Democratic campaigns keep getting nabbed in election fraud scandals. @ProjectVeritas_ : Jim Moran's (D-Va.) Field Director Conspires to Commit Voter Fraud, Forge Docs ! Edited October 27, 2012 by Asiantravel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiangmaikelly Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 If Obama wins re-election, he might not last until Inauguration Day before he is impeached by the House of Representatives... 0U Gunship was On-Scene in Benghazi, Obama Admin Refused to Let It Fire (Updated) http://pjmedia.com/t...to-let-it-fire/ Impeachment is really no big deal. Bill got impeached. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 If Obama wins re-election, he might not last until Inauguration Day before he is impeached by the House of Representatives... 0U Gunship was On-Scene in Benghazi, Obama Admin Refused to Let It Fire (Updated) http://pjmedia.com/t...to-let-it-fire/ Besides the C-130s from Tripoli, Sigonella was an hour away. Panetta's excuse that they didn't know enough about the situation on the ground to deploy US forces is extremely weak, just like the excuses the administration has been trying to skate on for 16 days. They were getting real time feeds in Washington from drones. The failures started with a non reinforced physical structure the administration was calling a Consulate, to the security of the grounds, to the lack of adequate US security forces and finally to the lack of leadership in both the State Department and the White House. Somebody could have and should have tried to save these men. If the Executive Branch and the State Department don't have the nerve to do it then get out of the way and let the military take care of it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 If Obama wins re-election, he might not last until Inauguration Day before he is impeached by the House of Representatives... 0U Gunship was On-Scene in Benghazi, Obama Admin Refused to Let It Fire (Updated) http://pjmedia.com/t...to-let-it-fire/ Impeachment is really no big deal. Bill got impeached. True, but Obama will get the full spectrum of definitions, all the way through being booted from office. This will be Biden's only chance to be president, and he might nominate Hillary as his VP, clearing the way for her to the Presidency in 2016. At least now it makes sense why Clinton has gone out of his way to help Obama. He knows how deep the man is in this scandal (his wife is Sec of State after all). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 Also today, the State Department shut down questions from reporters about Libya at a press briefing in Washington. The administration, as a whole, seems to have decided to say nothing further about Benghazi until after election--except for Petraeus, who was directly implicated by charges that the CIA failed to help, and who was thereby compelled to provide a response that points, inexorably, to the man in the Oval Office. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/26/Petraeus-on-Benghazi-It-Wasnt-Me 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 (edited) After all it is a Presidential election. If nothing else the campaign ads of presidential hopefuls & the sitting president should not need to use sexual innuendo to make a point. Seems like fair game to me.The predictably asexual pro-Romney version: Edited October 27, 2012 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 The pro Obama ad targeted at young women that is driving "conservatives" bait sheit: Curious to know jingers, why is it driving them around the bend. Seems harmless enough? Why? My guess is because its a great ad that's going to be effective in informing young women about important issues related to their lives and values, motivating them to vote both for Obama and against the threat represented by Romney.http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/10/26/lena_s_dunham_s_your_first_time_video_sex_joke_sparks_conservative_hysteria.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 The pro Obama ad targeted at young women that is driving "conservatives" bait sheit: Curious to know jingers, why is it driving them around the bend. Seems harmless enough? Why? My guess is because its a great ad that's going to be effective in informing young women about important issues related to their lives and values, motivating them to vote both for Obama and against the threat represented by Romney.http://www.slate.com...e_hysteria.html Where is it being aired? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 (edited) The pro Obama ad targeted at young women that is driving "conservatives" bait sheit: Curious to know jingers, why is it driving them around the bend. Seems harmless enough? Why? My guess is because its a great ad that's going to be effective in informing young women about important issues related to their lives and values, motivating them to vote both for Obama and against the threat represented by Romney. I hope the ad includes informing young women that if they or their husbands/boyfriends work overseas for the State Dept or CIA and get into a life-or-death fire fight with terrorists that President Obama will refuse helping them. If he wins in Nov the only bright side will be enjoying the impeachment proceedings and watch him leave the White House in disgrace. We also learned that, in those first moments of the attack, a request for military back-up was made by U.S. staff on the ground but was denied by Washington. It had planes and special forces less than 500 miles away in southern Italy — or about the same distance as Washington to Boston. They could have been there in less than two hours. Yet the commander-in-chief declined to give the order. So Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods fought all night against overwhelming odds, and died on a rooftop in a benighted jihadist hellhole while Obama retired early to rest up before his big Vegas campaign stop. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/331806/incredible-shrinking-president-mark-stey n Edited October 27, 2012 by koheesti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keemapoot Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 The Fox News crowd who ALREADY support Willard M. Romney will be eating it up! Other people, way too complicated and dodgy to be a "scandal" of any impact. In any case, this election isn't about foreign policy anyway. Well, given the source, Fox News, or as Jon Stewart calls it - Bullshit Mountain, it's not surprising that the mainstream media hasn't taken this too seriously. There are reports about Obama denying it, and Panetta, and CIA, and that's about it. I haven't seen any big breaking news stories on it this morning, nor anyone yelling "impeach him" over this allegation by objective Fox News (known for its massive global reach more so than BBC or CNN), and its truly impressive amount of sources on the ground. As Steelejoe said earlier, I don't know if it's true either, and sure it's plausible, but then any story would be now. Mostly, it's probably just another last ditch effort by Romney's media arm (Fox) before the election. I notice the Guardian and other UK papers are of the opinion that Obama will be re-elected and that the betting markets in the UK are heavily favoring Obama. But then again, as long as we read and watch the mainstream media and not Fox, we will never get the true story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maidu Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 If Obama wins re-election, he might not last until Inauguration Day before he is impeached by the House of Representatives... 0U Gunship was On-Scene in Benghazi, Obama Admin Refused to Let It Fire Impeachment is really no big deal. Bill got impeached. Clinton went through impeachment proceedings, but wasn't impeached. He stayed through his full 2nd term, .....and now he's a roundly respected int'l statesman, still very bright and influential. It is very hard for liberals to argue now based on these new facts that this is still not as bad as Watergate was… I hope the Senate committee doesn't leave a single stone unturned The big difference is nobody died in the Watergate incident. In case you forgot, Watergate was a standing president (Nixon) ordering ex-CIA thugs to break in to his opponent's HQ with the express purpose of bolloxing up his opponent's campaign. Lucky for Nixon and Halderman and Erlechman (they sound like SS names), were able to keep the news from blowing up until CREEP (Commitee to RE-Elect the President) took its 2nd dump on the American populace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keemapoot Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Interesting, watching Real Time now, and Michael Steele is a guest. Maher pointed out that the only moderates in the Republican party are 90 years old now, and everyone is encouraging Steele to seek a greater role as Moderate in the Republican party. Further, very accurately, the panelists point out that the Romney is showing that his new moderate position is very popular, his pivot to the center is what is behind Romney's momentum now in the election. Romney is impersonating a moderate Republican to get elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteeleJoe Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 (edited) Clinton went through impeachment proceedings, but wasn't impeached. He stayed through his full 2nd term, .....and now he's a roundly respected int'l statesman, still very bright and influential. In case you forgot, Watergate was a standing president (Nixon) ordering ex-CIA thugs to break in to his opponent's HQ with the express purpose of bolloxing up his opponent's campaign. Lucky for Nixon and Halderman and Erlechman (they sound like SS names), were able to keep the news from blowing up until CREEP (Commitee to RE-Elect the President) took its 2nd dump on the American populace. No, Bill Clinton was impeached. "Impeachment" IS the process. It doesn't mean removal. (Just "trial" doesn't mean the same as "conviction"). As for the precise reasons for Watergate - we still don't know that for certain as the central issue became he cover-up and the abuse of power and law breaking involved in that. (One of the plausible theories is worse than you describe). Edited October 28, 2012 by SteeleJoe 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteeleJoe Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 (edited) Interesting, watching Real Time now, and Michael Steele is a guest. Maher pointed out that the only moderates in the Republican party are 90 years old now, and everyone is encouraging Steele to seek a greater role as Moderate in the Republican party. Further, very accurately, the panelists point out that the Romney is showing that his new moderate position is very popular, his pivot to the center is what is behind Romney's momentum now in the election. Romney is impersonating a moderate Republican to get elected. I think he should have Lorenzo Lamas on and see what he thinks...or maybe Dolf Lungren? Edited October 28, 2012 by SteeleJoe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maidu Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Further, very accurately, the panelists point out that the Romney is showing that his new moderate position is very popular, his pivot to the center is what is behind Romney's momentum now in the election. Romney is impersonating a moderate Republican to get elected. Yes. Romney and his image factory are doing a slick job of packaging him to appeal to as many voters as possible. Most voters, however, know enough about politicians to know that if Romney were to get elected (which he won't) he will revert to his real self - and that's far right of center: massive borrowing, massive spending, outlaw abortion, etc. Ryan is spookier still, if that's possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteeleJoe Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 (edited) The Fox News crowd who ALREADY support Willard M. Romney will be eating it up! Other people, way too complicated and dodgy to be a "scandal" of any impact. In any case, this election isn't about foreign policy anyway. Well, given the source, Fox News, or as Jon Stewart calls it - Bullshit Mountain, it's not surprising that the mainstream media hasn't taken this too seriously. There are reports about Obama denying it, and Panetta, and CIA, and that's about it. I haven't seen any big breaking news stories on it this morning, nor anyone yelling "impeach him" over this allegation by objective Fox News (known for its massive global reach more so than BBC or CNN), and its truly impressive amount of sources on the ground. As Steelejoe said earlier, I don't know if it's true either, and sure it's plausible, but then any story would be now. Mostly, it's probably just another last ditch effort by Romney's media arm (Fox) before the election. I notice the Guardian and other UK papers are of the opinion that Obama will be re-elected and that the betting markets in the UK are heavily favoring Obama. But then again, as long as we read and watch the mainstream media and not Fox, we will never get the true story. True. The other source being cited here? Another source famous for objectivity: PJ Media. Which proceeds to make a claim in the headline that doesn't appear in the article let alone is it elaborated on or backed up. Even Fox doesn't make the same claim. Edited October 28, 2012 by SteeleJoe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Obama needs at least 38 percent of the caucasion vote to win re-election and he doesn’t have it. That’s a huge problem for the Obama campaign, who must now rely on massive minority turnout to win 270 electoral votes. Obama’s support among caucasion voters has fallen beneath the range consistent with reelection, even if minorities vote at the same rate that they did four years ago. Polls have found decreased enthusiasm among the young and Latino voters necessary for Obama to win. It looks like this election will be real squeaker, but things are looking up for Romney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 he will revert to his real self - and that's far right of center: You mean, the Massachusetts moderate? Romney is anything but far right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts