• Welcome!
    Logout|My Dashboard

Compare attacks at Benghazi and Beirut - The Galveston County Daily News: Friendswood

September 25, 2016

Compare attacks at Benghazi and Beirut

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
  • 2 Don't Threaten or Abuse. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated. AND PLEASE TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
  • 3 Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
  • 4 Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 5 Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 6 Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Welcome to the discussion.


  • bvresident posted at 7:59 am on Fri, May 16, 2014.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    Here's a quick difference for the excusers on the Left. Benghazi came after a long period of understanding what Al Quaeda is willing to do. It was a prolonged attack with ample time to respond. Your president had repeatedly claimed he had Al Quaeda "on the run" and so just released emails now prove the White House was more interested in protecting the president's image than telling the truth.

    The facts show that former Sec. of State Clinton was well aware of the requests by the Ambassador for increased security. Every other country had pulled their staff because of security concerns. The president and Clinton knew the video excuse was another flat-out lie being told to the American people to conceal their incompetence and disregard for the military and our overseas staff.

    Your president and everyone he has in his administration is a phony and a liar.

  • gecroix posted at 9:50 am on Fri, May 16, 2014.

    gecroix Posts: 6177

    The idea is to learn from mistakes, not repeat them.
    So the sycophants for the current bunch of John Banner types in the White House have run out of Bush errors, so need to back up to Reagan.
    At some point the childish, immature, narcissistic, incompetent, duplicitous, mendacious, feckless, petulant, divisive, excuse making has to stop.
    That goes for the President, too...

  • gecroix posted at 10:55 am on Fri, May 16, 2014.

    gecroix Posts: 6177

    After an hour of searching on Al Gore's invention, admittedly just a 'smidgen' of the possible info to be found, I have been unable to find a reference to repeated requests for additional security from the folks in Beirut (turned down/ignored). I also don't see where not long after that attack Reagan went to a fundraiser party while the dead bodies were still warm. Nor is there any indication that the President at the time and his Administration deliberately lied about it and was still covering it up nearly two years after the fact.
    The devil is always in the details...and the coverup...
    The actual comparison value is....zero.

    Maybe I was just looking in the wrong place...

  • mytoby3113 posted at 9:10 pm on Fri, May 16, 2014.

    mytoby3113 Posts: 429

    Nobody is a biger lier than the Bush/Channy team. WMD? death at the DOME.

    People left to die on the Bridge in New Orlean, while no one did anything to send

    help. and you want to talk about President Obama., he is still cleaning up

    Bush/Chenny mess. Just saying. You know it is the truth. You all are angry

    because a BLACK MAN is the President. Get Over it he has been ELECTED

    TWICE. It is a disgrace how mean and hateful people have been. JUST

    SAYING. [sad] [sad]

  • mytoby3113 posted at 9:19 pm on Fri, May 16, 2014.

    mytoby3113 Posts: 429

    If President Obama had went to a fund raiser after the killings like Regan , the GOP

    would have a field day. They complain when he went on VACATION>. when we

    know that the GOP PRESIDENTS went on maany more vacation. CRAWFORD

    .RANCH was called the little WHITE HOUSE..

    GOP lies , lies , lies,. [beam] [beam] [beam]

  • gecroix posted at 9:52 pm on Fri, May 16, 2014.

    gecroix Posts: 6177

    If you can't read the facts yourself or look them up yourself, get somebody to do it for you. Or, keep fooling yourself, and being fooled.
    I don't care.
    And the 4 dead men aren't talking much these days. And their families still have no answers from or the satisfaction of seeing any responsible parties actually punished by what passes for a President and a former Sec. of State.
    I'm guessing the deceased would have rather been at a fundraiser in Vegas, too, than shot dead and defiled in a US consolate in Lybia while begging for help for some 7 hours.
    The only help apparently foremost in Administration minds was how to lie out of it and cast false blame 'until after the election'.
    Fine job with that...

  • DottyOA posted at 10:54 pm on Fri, May 16, 2014.

    DottyOA Posts: 273

    There is help out there for those who keep with this racist bull. Seek that help (many of us pay for this help in our taxes and don't mind if it helps you control your anger and lack of understanding that we have moved on from the 1700's, 1800's and first half of the 1900's) and perhaps you may calm your nerves. People who claim racism, like you do, don't have an argument, just anger. Your kind splits our country apart instead of having a decent argument. Argue with your peers with a cognitive message but keep the racist crap to yourself. It is old and so unnecessary. Just saying. Yeah, just saying, Dude. Did I mention JUST SAYING?

  • DottyOA posted at 10:58 pm on Fri, May 16, 2014.

    DottyOA Posts: 273

    Wow. Really? Check your grammar next time. I can understand a misspelled word or two but your grammar is atrocious. JUST SAYING.

  • DottyOA posted at 11:16 pm on Fri, May 16, 2014.

    DottyOA Posts: 273

    Ben Carson might win the R spot for President. A black man who is a conservative. Will you vote for him or will you vote for the thunder kankle white lady? I already know the answer. There goes you "just saying" BS.

  • jtpatlan posted at 8:35 am on Sat, May 17, 2014.

    jtpatlan Posts: 34

    Ben Carson???? Who is he?? No way will the Rs nominate him>

  • gecroix posted at 11:13 am on Sat, May 17, 2014.

    gecroix Posts: 6177

    Fact is, Barack Hussein Obama got elected because he played up his half black side as a qualification for office, which about half of the country decided was better PC to follow than voting in a woman.
    His color has nothing to do with his incompetence, arrogance, divisiveness, demonizing, duplicity, mendacity, fecklessness, narcissism, and putting 1/3 of the country on food stamps and millions more into the fast food industry as a 'permanent' job. Other Presidents previously have had one or more of those atrributes/faults, and caused the economy to tank further than it should have. They did it because of who they were and did, nto because they were white. However, not until now has ANY President so totally encapsulated ALL of those things into one.
    Great Job...like the Titanic was Great Sinking...
    There it is.
    Don't like it?
    Then tell the Fundamental Changer in Chief to stop it...it's his call....

  • bvresident posted at 2:05 pm on Sat, May 17, 2014.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    Watch out Dotty, you'll get called racist next.

  • jtpatlan posted at 2:30 pm on Sat, May 17, 2014.

    jtpatlan Posts: 34

    Thanks babe. I did not know we were in such dire straits. I appreciate you informing us all about our situation. Longing for Mitt--- or McCain --or Sarah P :)

  • carlosrponce posted at 2:44 pm on Sat, May 17, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6189

    Mytoby, WMD, WMD, WMD, WMD, WMD, WMD, WMD, WMD That's how many times President Clinton used "weapons of Mass Destruction" as the reason for his bombing of Iraq in Operation Desert Fox in his December 16, 1998 speech.
    And that's just ONE speech. The only people who bring up Barack Obama's race are Liberals. We judge him on his performance not on the color of his skin.
    George W. Bush made some mistakes, Conservatives admit that. What disease do Liberals have to think President BO and his administration is beyond criticism?

  • sverige1 posted at 7:38 am on Mon, May 19, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to mytoby3113 posted at 9:19 pm on Fri, May 16, 2014:

    You have an excellent point regarding GW Bush's Crawford ranch that he called "The Western White House". Back in those days, he was actually called in question for having dictatorial qualities for having his employees replicate the Pentagon's sign and inserting "Western White House". The true White House has been in Washington since 1800, after being in New York and Philadelphia for awhile. Anyone can look this up in Wikipedia. As wonderful as our state is, it is blasphemous to call any part of our state as a vestige of The White House.

    Yes, it is racist to say that Obama achieved electoral success because he "played up on his half-blackness". I often think there is a bulk of forum posters here who simply still live in the 1950s, and have let life pass them by. It's the "bitterness and despair" phase of Erikson's psychosocial development model.

    Hillary will be our next President. Whoop!!!

  • carlosrponce posted at 8:57 am on Mon, May 19, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6189

    Is your memory slipping sverige? I've already explained that "Western White House" has been used by various Presidents: Johnson,Nixon, Reagan. Only YOU and a few other hardnoses see anything wrong with it. SO WHAT! Get Over IT! Was it blasphemous when LBJ called the Johnson Ranch "The Western White House" and also "The Texas White House"? Why do you HATE?
    And again, it is only the LEFT that points out Barack's ancestry. We on the Right judge him on his performance not on the color of his skin. I note when those on the Left cannot articulate a sound argument they raise a baseless claim of racism. I pray for the health and well being of President BO. I also pray that he govern with wisdom and cast aside party politics, which so far, he has not.

  • gecroix posted at 9:51 am on Mon, May 19, 2014.

    gecroix Posts: 6177

    Obama played up his own ancestry as a qualification for both selling books and giving votes.
    If he hadn't, if he'd gone strictly by experience and skills, and a legislative record as Senator of voting 'present' over 90% of the time, Hillary Clinton would have been first woman President.
    That little gender distinction would no doubt have come up sooner or later in the national narrative.
    Considering that Hillary, when asked what her most significant accomplishment after 4 years as Sec. of State was, said, of herself, it was 'passing the baton'..... As a Senator, I believe she co-sponsored one bill.
    AND, when the 'call came at 3am', turns out she was just as lost as the guy who beat her out for top job.
    See, she's every bit as qualified to lead as the current POTUS is.
    ALL else is secondary, if even worth consideration. If a candidate wants to be judged on their merits alone, then let them do things meritorious, and skip resorting to the fodder for the base. If not, they can't whine about getting back at them exactly what they flung at others....
    So far, the current President's Administration has been found to be VERY 'shovel ready', although the contents of the shovel are not quite what was promised...
    With the same lacking skill set, and another 14 years of age, I expect that shovel to get bigger and bigger....

  • sverige1 posted at 2:00 pm on Mon, May 19, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    The bitterness is uncanny on these forums. I would hasten to say that under each Presidents' watch and their corresponding underlings, there has always been world-wide acts of terrorism, ambushes, murders. Not one of these forum posters blame Bush #2 for 911.

    Hillary Clinton is no different of a public servant. It's easy for us regular folk to criticize what these leaders should be doing. Tragic occurances have degrees of their death and land destruction tolls. Beirut can be a "miidpoint" of destruction with its 220 death count. Now, we could ensue with the, "Say THAT to the hundreds of families who suffered loss of loved one." With 911, "Say THAT to the thousands of families who suffered loss of loved one." With Benghanzi, "Say THAT to the 10s of familes who suffered loss of loved one."

    Then, there's other accidents that may not be perceived as such either: drunk driver running over a bicyclist (which seems to be a common theme this week in the news). Do we blame the car manufacturers, Schwinn bicycle company, the President and his Cabinet? A tragedy is a tragedy. As much as some folks don't want a Black man as President or a strong-minded woman like Hillary to be our Secy. of State, none of these individuals caused the tragedy. Again, no one is blaming Bush #2 for 911. Now, really: How much blame did Reagan get for Beiruit suicide bombings? [crickets chirp]

  • oledad posted at 2:16 pm on Mon, May 19, 2014.

    oledad Posts: 74

    You would of thought they might have learned something from the past especially when there is a cry for help.

  • kevjlang posted at 2:44 pm on Mon, May 19, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    I don't think anyone's necessarily blaming Hillary or Obama for the attack on the embassy. The bitterness is more about the questions of why the embassy wasn't protected better, and why response to the attack was delayed so much. I don't think that anyone served the embassy officials up to the terrorists, but it is reasonable to expect a thorough investigation to find out what went wrong, and determine what, if anything, can be done in the future to make a repeat less likely.

    Maybe the political attacks against the administration have been over the top. Maybe not harsh enough. Maybe the administration has been as open as they could be, and maybe not. On thing seems certain, though, is that the perception of the handling of the incident doesn't appear, at least to many in this country, to have been as clear, open, and transparent as many feel is deserved.

    I seem to recall pointed questions being asked even as far back as the siege on Olympic Village in 1972. Maybe the questions are a bit more pointed now after we've dealt with image after image and increased frequency of this kind of senselessness over the past 40+ years.

  • carlosrponce posted at 2:53 pm on Mon, May 19, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6189

    That's the difference between Conservatives and Liberals. Conservatives hold all elected officials and their subordinates responsible for what happens under their watch. Liberals only hold Republicans responsible. I have held Nixon, Reagan, both Bush I and II to what happened during their administrations. I have heard little criticism said about the Democratic "gods" from the left: Carter, Clinton, Obama. Do you think lightning will fall from the sky if you dare point out their foibles? And there you go again sverige, NO ONE brings up Obama's ancestry except the Left. It's a out of tune drumbeat, a noisy gong, nothing but noise when you CONSTANTLY bring it up!

  • sverige1 posted at 3:03 pm on Mon, May 19, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to carlosrponce posted at 8:57 am on Mon, May 19, 2014:

    Well, I've never heard of "The Windy City White House", nor Clinton's "The Ouachita Arkansas Mountain White House". I don't think Reagan even had a "Rancho de Cielo White House".

  • sverige1 posted at 3:06 pm on Mon, May 19, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Then again, Ronald Wilson Reagan may have had "Rancho de Cielo" as his 2nd base, but he didn't blasphemously have folks create an emblem that closely resembled the Pentagon signs.

  • jtpatlan posted at 3:38 pm on Mon, May 19, 2014.

    jtpatlan Posts: 34

    Good golly I did not know Bush made some mistakes. :)

  • oledad posted at 4:13 pm on Mon, May 19, 2014.

    oledad Posts: 74

    Calling Hillary strong-minded is an enormous stretch. That's like saying that young lady flight director over the Columbia incident was strong-minded. No! They just didn't do their job and it cost innocent people their lives even when they were reaching out for help from the very person that could protect them. Hillary, I don't know how she can sleep at night.

  • kevjlang posted at 4:23 pm on Mon, May 19, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    No one is a dangerous word. All sverige1 has to do is come up with 1 conservative that has mentioned Obama's ancestry, and your argument takes a hit.

    One thing we hear little of from both sides is attempts to give credit to the things that the opposing party's presidents have done. Conservatives do begrudgingly acknowledge some positives from Clinton, but their positive words about Carter and Obama are far less plentiful that the few the liberals have about GW Bush. All in all, I'd have to say that neither side concerns itself with giving credit. With the money at stake in politics these days, there's not much point in trying to appear cognizant of good ideas or accomplishments from the other side.

    Conservatives weren't looking to blame GW Bush for 9/11. They were expecting him to be responsible for finding who did it, and for figuring out how to keep it from happening again. I'm sure there were Democrats wanting to figure out what the Bush administration did to cause the attacks. Just as there are conservatives wanting to know what Obama and Hillary did to cause Benghazi.

  • rukidden posted at 4:30 pm on Mon, May 19, 2014.

    rukidden Posts: 203

    You just don't get it sverige1, it is the lying and the cover-up.

    They asked for help, whether there was time or not to help is one thing and should be investigated, we will just have to live with it.

    It was the cover-up and the lying that has made many of us as mad as hell.

  • gecroix posted at 5:02 pm on Mon, May 19, 2014.

    gecroix Posts: 6177

    "Maybe the administration has been as open as they could be, and maybe not."
    Come now, kevjlang, that's like saying that maybe you'll die if at ground zero of an atom bomb blast, and maybe you won't...[wink]

  • gecroix posted at 5:35 pm on Mon, May 19, 2014.

    gecroix Posts: 6177

    The problem with the Admin's phony claims of no time to send aid is that they could not possibly have known how long the attack would last when help was called for. It may have been seven minutes, the seven HOURS that it turned out to be, or seven days.
    The scoundrels back here DID NOT send help, not because there was no time to do so, because that was not known until the attack ended, as a willful decision not to.
    So, ask why?
    What would cause pleas for help from an American Ambassador under attack at an American Embassy to go unacted on by his boss...why?
    Pleas unacted on by a military that has a history of at least TRYING to get help to people desperately in need of it, which, for some reason, did not act this time...why?
    What would cause an entire Administration, top down, to lie through their teeth about a phony internet video nexxus story AFTER they aleady KNEW that it was a terrorist attack...why?
    What would cause an Administration to force the survivors of the attack to sign non-disclosure agreements, and refuse access to them as witnesses...why"
    Why has, to this day, NOBODY been brought to task for it, despite assurances from POTUS that the guilty could not escape...why? Could it be Maybe we'll find out, 'after the next election'.

  • carlosrponce posted at 5:44 pm on Mon, May 19, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6189

    sverige, if having a sign reading "Western White House" bothers you that much, sorry we can't help you. Get over it. It really doesn't bother 99.999% of the world! If I become President, you'll hate my "Galveston County White House" sign. In the vernacular of my students "Quit Hatin'!"
    And "Rancho de Cielo" was called Reagan's Western White House.

  • kevjlang posted at 7:00 pm on Mon, May 19, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    I don't think we know whether the administration could have or couldn't have done anything to intervene. I think that's where the source of frustration comes in. Because we feel that there isn't full transparency, our minds fill in the gaps with details that may or may not be true. Until we believe we're getting the full scoop, it's hard to believe anything.

  • kevjlang posted at 7:08 pm on Mon, May 19, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    How dare MLB call their championship a "World Series"? Does it bother anyone here that there has never been a team from Latin America or Japan or any other baseball playing region even invited to play into our playoffs?

    I guess that we Americans may have a habit of presuming too much. However, if the worst we can do is call a ranch in Crawford, TX the "Western White House", or 7 games played between all US teams a "World Series", we probably aren't doing too bad. If we want to focus on issues like that, it's no wonder we can't tackle the debt or peace in the Middle East, or even how to get our political parties to treat each other as fellow Americans. :-)

  • kevjlang posted at 7:14 pm on Mon, May 19, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    I make it a point to wear lead suits with kevlar linings and freon loops and asbestos underwear anytime I go to ground zero of an atom bomb blast [beam]

    I try to make sure I have the asbestos underwear on when I join in these conversations :-)

    Just because we think they're being evasive doesn't necessarily mean they haven't been open. We just might not be smart enough to tell the difference :-)

  • carlosrponce posted at 7:28 pm on Mon, May 19, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6189

    I agree, kevjlang, without the full transparency promised by this President all we can do is suspect they are hiding something. A question that can be answered, where was the president when the attack was going on? Former Communications Director for the National Security Council Tommy Vietor says Mr. Obama was not in the Situation Room where the President should have been given the circumstances. Although he was physically in the White House, why did he determine this situation not important enough to be in the Situation Room? Where was he?

  • gecroix posted at 7:54 pm on Mon, May 19, 2014.

    gecroix Posts: 6177

    Sure...that could be it....
    The last 64 months, after all, have set a new record for amount of transparency...
    Tthe fact that it's inverse, is something we'll just worry about tomorrow, because "After all, tomorrow is another day.” .
    Goodnight, Scarlett...[beam][beam][beam][beam][beam][beam][beam][beam]

  • DottyOA posted at 11:27 pm on Mon, May 19, 2014.

    DottyOA Posts: 273

    Yes, we do know the full scoop, we absolutely do know. We did NOTHING and it stops right there!! When did the Hussein Obama Administration know the attack was going to end? Does it even matter if it was for 1 hour or 5 hours or 10 hours? Why weren't our armed forces sent to respond? Certainly the Hussein Obama Administration knew there were CIA agents there who would give their lives (and 2 did) to protect their fellow Americans yet our armed forces did nothing to help our fellow Americans from the animals in Benghazi because, well, what DIFFERENCE did it make? Drones were in the air transmitting live and you ask for transparency from this Administration? Really? Well, transparency tells us that B Hussein Obama was prepared to leave for Las Vegas the following morning for a fundraiser. He wasn't involved and obviously did not care. Can you think of a sorrier excuse for the leader of our country who would not do his utmost to protect our people on a mission for the USA, not to mention the free world?. Do you really need more transparency that that? What is it that doesn't make you angrier than all get out that we left our people to be murdered and raped by savages without military support to try and save them? Oh, wait, I forget, Ms. Thunder Thighs said, at one point, what difference does it make? In reality, when we do think about it in disgust what real difference does it make as long as B. Hussein Obama and his team are in charge. You got it...Nothing! You are blowing smoke, sir. Blow it somewhere else. I am still pissed after almost two years that the murder of our fellow Americans is being discussed as we don't have full transparency. REALLY?

  • kevjlang posted at 12:02 am on Tue, May 20, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    Do you know for a fact that there were options available that would have saved lives and not just added to the death toll? Not "might have", or "perhaps could have if it was Sunday the 5th at 11:00 am with a 7/8 moon and total solar eclipse with intense thundersnow". I don't know the exact positioning of people that might have been able to take effective positions against the attack.

    As for the politicking in the wake or this, please don't place me in the fan category. The reality is that a few dead people is nowhere near enough to stop people from campaigning despite it, nor campaigning on the backs of the dead. I don't see your use of the dead as fodder for a political attack on the administration to be any more valuable than the continuance of the politicking in Vegas.

  • carlosrponce posted at 6:04 am on Tue, May 20, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6189

    U.S. diplomats in Libya repeatedly asked the Obama administration for more security in Benghazi in the run-up to the Sept. 11 attack on the consulate but were "denied these resources."

  • carlosrponce posted at 6:17 am on Tue, May 20, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6189

    Blasphemy Definition n. noun 1. A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity. 2.he act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God. 3. An irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct.
    No blasphemy here. Don't visit the Johnson Ranch, sverige. The signs proclaiming it the "Texas White House" and "The Western White House" just might put you in a tizzy. Funny you ignore the Johnson Ranch. Was it because it was before your time or because Johnson was a DEMOCRAT. You have a tendency to do that.

  • kevjlang posted at 7:42 am on Tue, May 20, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    I'm not sure that anyone was asking for enough extra support to fend off a massive attack, like this one. If there was intelligence that the treat could have been this big, it seems to me the most practical option wouldn't have been to add security but to close the embassy and evacuate everyone.

    At this point, I don't think there's any intent to investigate for any purpose other than to score political points and to feed a political lynch mob.

  • sverige1 posted at 7:58 am on Tue, May 20, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to carlosrponce posted at 6:04 am on Tue, May 20, 2014,
    Response to kevjlang posted at 7:42 am on Tue, May 20, 2014:

    So, if there were repeated pleas for "upped" security and the pleas were not answered, why didn't all that make the NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams? Or FOX?

  • kevjlang posted at 9:35 am on Tue, May 20, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    I think it has been reported. I can't remember where I heard it. I haven't heard of any deep dives into those reports to see just how much pleading was done, how desperate those pleas were, or how repeated they were. I also don't think it's been said whether they were looking for 1 or 2 more security personnel, or if they were looking for 50 or 200. Those would all be nice details to have available. As well as any rationale given for denying the requests.

  • gecroix posted at 10:36 am on Tue, May 20, 2014.

    gecroix Posts: 6177

    I guess it depends on the people involved.
    The character, as such, of the one's in charge we're discussing has been made abundantly clear for years now.
    When I heard a radio call for help at any of the incidents at the refinery, I went to see if I could help, and left the analyzing and details sorting to the folks tasked with doing so. The job of front line responders is to act using their initiative and training, and any one worth the money spent to train them is READY to go do so, and wants to. It takes being ordered NOT to go, to stop them.
    And, sometimes, that doesn't even stop 'em, because of 'radio trouble'...[wink][wink]
    NOTHING excuses the laim 'there wasn't enough time', because NOBODY knew how much time there was.
    THAT is ALL we need to know to know that there was a total pooch scr_w of this at high levels. WHY, and to WHAT LEVEL, are being covered up and info stonewalled. THAT should make anyone with a functioning brain ask WHY, when the Commander in Chief on national TV PROMISED a complete accounting and the responsible parties dealt with, and the perpetrators brought to justice.
    Most people get tired of being lied to after a while....and waiting until 'after the election' for everything.

  • sverige1 posted at 11:27 am on Tue, May 20, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to gecroix posted at 10:36 am on Tue, May 20, 2014,
    Response to kevjlang posted at 9:35 am on Tue, May 20, 2014:

    I just think that if there were even an inkling of the danger, and it was repeatedly reported (with documentation of contact times/days), that the FOX media would have been on it like a duck on a junebug.

  • rukidden posted at 12:01 pm on Tue, May 20, 2014.

    rukidden Posts: 203

    NBC Nightly News, when have you ever seen anything that would reflect badly on this administration on the NBC, CBS or ABC news? If that is where you get all your information and form your opinions then now I know why you think like you do. NBC News, give me a break, that's hilarious. [beam]

  • sverige1 posted at 1:58 pm on Tue, May 20, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    That's why I on purposely inserted FOX news as well. So, where was FOX, and why didn't they get on this immediately, before the said tragedy?

  • carlosrponce posted at 4:08 pm on Tue, May 20, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6189

    Hey sverige, Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman starred in a film called "Casablanca" which means "White House". Would you call that "Blasphemy"?
    The town was originally called "Casa Branca" in 1515 which in Portuguese means "White House". In Washington, the official name was "The Executive Mansion" Unofficial names were :the "President's Palace", "Presidential Mansion", or "President's House". The public began calling it "The White House" in 1811. It wasn't until 1901 that President Theodore Roosevelt renamed the "Executive Mansion" "The White House". But while visiting Mexico I kept hearing about Presidents Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush speaking from "La Casa blanca". Even now on Spanish TV, President Obama speaks from "La Casa blanca". Play it again, sverige.

  • carlosrponce posted at 4:15 pm on Tue, May 20, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6189

    It was reported, sverige, it was. Interesting that President BO gets his information from news networks and not staff reports like other presidents. He must get his news from MSNBC and not FOX, otherwise he would be more knowledgeable. So sad, so tragically sad.

  • carlosrponce posted at 4:57 pm on Tue, May 20, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6189

    I figured it out, Barack Obama must be one of those low information voters we keep hearing about![rolleyes]

  • mytoby3113 posted at 6:08 pm on Tue, May 20, 2014.

    mytoby3113 Posts: 429

    I am a die hard lady that votes the way I feel, and H. Clinton is what I am feeling.

    To all that haters on anything a woman tries to do , GET OVER IT. She is comin

    GO mrs. Clinton you go girl. [beam] [beam] [beam] [beam]

  • mytoby3113 posted at 6:10 pm on Tue, May 20, 2014.

    mytoby3113 Posts: 429

    You must have been able to read it, because you responded to it.. Since when did they say you had to be a writer and a good speller to get yopur point across . [beam]

  • mytoby3113 posted at 6:13 pm on Tue, May 20, 2014.

    mytoby3113 Posts: 429

    Hey Dottie, are you a racist, I am. [beam]

  • mytoby3113 posted at 6:17 pm on Tue, May 20, 2014.

    mytoby3113 Posts: 429

    You guys never want to be wrong at any time. I feel sorry for you all. Nobody is alway right.

    Sorry you feel like you know so much.Take a deep breath and exhale. [beam]

  • mytoby3113 posted at 6:21 pm on Tue, May 20, 2014.

    mytoby3113 Posts: 429

    I think I am learning good on this computer. It has its draw backs but I seems to be doing ok. [beam]

  • carlosrponce posted at 6:32 pm on Tue, May 20, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6189

    mytoby3113, did you feel that strongly about Governor Sarah Palin or did you hate on what that woman tried to do? What about Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, Governor Mary Fallin, Governor Nikki Haley or Governor Susana Martínez?

  • mytoby3113 posted at 6:37 pm on Tue, May 20, 2014.

    mytoby3113 Posts: 429

    There is help for everyone, including you. This is a place for a person to say what is on their mind. You can not control what a person wants to say as long as he/she is not being nasty. JUST SAYING get a grip and relax, it sounds as if you might need it.

    JUST SAYING [beam] [beam]

  • gecroix posted at 8:42 pm on Tue, May 20, 2014.

    gecroix Posts: 6177

    This is all really quite moot,unfortunately... at least for now.
    The Incompetent in Chief will just have his toadies delay and obfuscate even more for the next 2 years, aided by an Attorney general that makes Janet Reno look positively wonderful by comparison. The MM will ignore as much as they possibly can so their ideological investment in the Oval Office can be free to continue to make a royal, pun intended, mess of everything he touches, except...making a mess. Most of the Republicans will be like Issa and McCain and Graham and spend more time trying to get in front of a camera than get in front of the Benghazi facts.
    I think Trey Gowdy has the smarts and ability to get to the bottom of the whole mess, but even he can't climb over the stonewall that the 'transparent' Obama Administration has erected in front of EVERY attempt to learn anything about anything that the Campaigner in Chief might find to be an inconvenient truth, and he can't thwart the pathetic Congressional Democrats who have shown themselves, repeatedly, to be more interested in elections than in the deaths of Americans and the burning of an embassy
    POTUS will probably soon attempt to change the circumstances of the narrative on Benghazi by belatedly claiming that 'he found out only when he heard about it on the news', just like he has done about the NSA spying and the IRS conservative targeting and even the VA debacle (I can hardly wait for the Arrogant A in Chief to publicly call THAT one a 'phony scandal').
    So, I guess the citizens should just give up, and call Benghazi a wash, and the NSA and IRS and even the VA despicable actions all a wash, blame it all on Bush or Anybody But Obama, and we all just forget about it and try to soldier on for another two years of Jimmy Carter/Richard Nixon reborn into one body.
    Time to give up.
    NO WAY.
    Decent people CARE about those dead Americans, about an out of control NSA, about an IRS used for partisan politics just like Nixon used them for his own ends, and about our nation's soldiers crapped on by the government health care system that's supposed to help them.
    It's obvious to even Stevie Wonder by now, in fact to even a whole bunch of 'progressives' if the polsl are any indication, that the guy is utterly incapable of being President, unless that job is now just to give speeches and go to parties.
    Main thing, conservatives, avoid your great ability to lose, again, when you should win by getting behind ONE good candidate in every race, and send the 'fundamental changers' back to Chicago. That place is perfect for them all.

  • DottyOA posted at 11:56 pm on Tue, May 20, 2014.

    DottyOA Posts: 273

    I suppose you wouldn't. I must be a lot older than you, kevjlang. It seriously pains me to see my fellow Americans killed while asking for help and my country did nothing. Don't you think we should have tried? Our armed forces are ashamed of what our President didn't do while our fellow Americans were killed by those animals and while being attacked asked for help. Wait, election is a few months away and Hussein is up for re-election but he has specifically said that Al Qaida is dead and gone...But they weren't and we all knew it, didn't we? However, in the long run, as you say, it's just a few dead people. Just a few, really, like only four so it's not so bad? Pretty disappointing to hear an American say that. Yep, pretty darn disappointing but I am not surprised.

  • DottyOA posted at 11:59 pm on Tue, May 20, 2014.

    DottyOA Posts: 273

    Carlosponce...you are wasting you time. Ignore him/her.

  • DottyOA posted at 12:10 am on Wed, May 21, 2014.

    DottyOA Posts: 273

    4 of my fellow Americans died in Benghazi. My country did nothing when the Ambassador and his staff asked for additional help before and during the attack. What did your country do to help them? You should be ashamed, as I am, of when our country did nothing, then blame it on a video that had nothing to do with it, yet so many bought into it even though the murders happened on what day? Do you reckon it happened on 9-11-12? Wonder what significance that day has to the animals of Al Qaida?

  • DottyOA posted at 12:16 am on Wed, May 21, 2014.

    DottyOA Posts: 273

    I am a conservative who was against the Iraq invasion. Against the Libya intervention. I wanted Afghanistan blasted into the days of the dinosaurs and still do with any Al Qaida operative in the middle of the big boom. You should want that, too. . I also want my country to protect our citizens we ask to represent our country in hostile environments. That's not politics. No, it is what our country should have done and not made excuses for not doing exactly that. Super nostril Panetta should be in jail.

  • kevjlang posted at 7:20 am on Wed, May 21, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    DottyOA, I'm not privvy to enough details to know what the options might have been. If I had the details, I'd probably have a better idea of whether they should have even been there in the first place, or if I'd have tried to get some troops there to try to do something. At this point, I just don't know if anyone, other than the terrorist that attacked, could have done anything differently to change the outcome. I wish I did, but I don't. I'm just not going to jump in with both feet into an all-out tirade about incompetence, or worse, of our leaders unless I have the facts, rather than supposition, to support it.

  • bvresident posted at 9:43 am on Wed, May 21, 2014.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    FOX News isn't charged with protecting this country or its overseas diplomatic personnel. That's the job of your president and the secretary of state who at the time was billary Clinton.

  • sverige1 posted at 5:49 pm on Wed, May 21, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to DottyOA posted at 11:56 pm on Tue, May 20, 2014:

    Relax, Dotty. As the song in "My Fair Lady" sang, "They can still rule the land without you". This too shall pass. Your dreaded President will be gone by January 2017, and you can lament about what "that woman" Hillary is going to do to help further put this country to hell in a handbasket.

    I think the severe criticizers here are speaking in "could woulda shoulda" language. It was a security situation in which any Secy. of State wouldn't be even directly involved. There was not enough intelligence to know what was happening. Even diplomat Pickering made this claim.

  • gecroix posted at 9:54 pm on Wed, May 21, 2014.

    gecroix Posts: 6177

    This Mexican Jumping Bean format for postings, rather than sequential, time ordered ones, makes it easy to overlook stuff...

    And, speaking of stuff, we have this stuff...
    "Do you know for a fact that there were options available that would have saved lives and not just added to the death toll? Not "might have", or "perhaps could have..."

    Kevjlang,. when you dial 911 and ask for help to be sent, do the responding Police/Fire/Ambulance personnel KNOW for fact they will be able to prevail over your attacker/save your life and home from fire/prevent you from progressing into a more serious medical state?
    Do they KNOW for a fact that something bad or unfortunate will NOT happen to them as they are enroute to your aid?
    That they will not be injured or killed?
    That they will not be burned or crushed?
    That they will not be exposed to a deadly disease or contaminated needle stick?
    They do not.
    They come because they've vowed to do so.
    They come hoping to be successful, and pretty confident of it, because of their training, and great desire to carry out their mission of helping others and mitigating emergency situations.
    They are sent by their superiors to aid you because THAT'S THEIR PURPOSE, and their bosses know that if they are not sent, then the citizenry is on their own, with the resultant likely negative outcome. Any screwups, any bad things happen to the responders, their superior is himself the responsible paryy for sending them. Still, send them he does, because that's HIS job...the one he was hired to do, just as they were...the one citizens expect him/them to do.

    Imagine if the Police Captain sent no officers to a robbery or home invasion in progress.
    If the Fire Chief rolled no apparatus and crews to a home or business on fire, and occupants trapped inside.
    If the entity, civil or private, running the EMT/Ambulance services sent no medical aid to a call of possible heart attack with CPR in progress, or a multiple car collison with numerous injuries.

    The President, and the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense sent NOBODY to try and help US citizens under attack at a U.S. consolate...U.S. soil...then have spent the next 1 1/2 years BS'g about it.
    With all due respect to someone with at least enough stones to not hide out on the interent, would YOU spend a year and a half trying to come up with excuses for why somebody failed to come to YOUR dire need for aid, or your family's, when they didn't even make the first step of an effort?
    Then why the heck do you expect, or seem to, any citizen worth being called a good citizen to do so, or this hand/that hand/other hand it ad infinitum, when a 5 year old could grasp that there's no telling how many cookies are in the jar, until they are actually all gone...same for how long an unknown duration event will/would last.
    For this President and his Administration and cabinet members, it's just one more in a long series of screwups, incompetencies, disregarding threats, lies, and coverups, and/or placing elections at higher priority than anything else except protecting this POTUS from any directly attributable criticism.
    Isn't ANYONE who voted for this guy tired of that yet? Are ideology and PC really more valuable to so many people than honesty and competency and the best interests of the nation are?
    To the families of those 4 DEAD Americans, I'm guessing that's a big, fat 'NO'....
    Or, are all of them


  • kevjlang posted at 11:25 pm on Wed, May 21, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    I know for a fact that the emergency responders aren't going to have to deal with foreign government's coordinate with other sovereign nations for permission to land troops, run aerial missions, and the like. I know for a fact that the likelihood of the roads they'd have to travel would not be scattered with mines.

    My point is merely that we don't know the logistics THEY had to deal with, or had to consider dealing with. If you dig through US history, you'll find LOTS of occasions where military help was not sent despite the fact that people were screaming for help. Take the Alamo, for instance. The few "reinforcements" that did make it there wound up helping increase the death toll, but did matter much in the attack. How about how we sent choppers to try to rescue the hostages in Iran, and how Carter was skewered because that rescue attempt only added casualties. Or how about Black Hawk against the Somalis?

    We love Rambo-type rescues when they work. We skewer the imbeciles that dream them up when they fail.

    That's why we need to gather FACTS. Understand the full situation. Did we have 5,000 soldiers within 2 hours of there, or would we have had to spend 2 weeks to even get them within a day's trek? We know what's been reported, and we know what has been released. We don't know if there were some classified operations underway that may never be revealed. We know that nothing was done in time to save them, and we know that nothing was done before the attackers ended their siege. We know little else.

    Facts, Faults, Remedies. Then political attacks and fallout. Trying to change the order just means less likelihood of getting the key things discovered and understood. Perhaps that's the intent of both sides? My observation of the aftermath of Benghazi is that there was virtually no attempt at fostering a climate for true fact-finding. The political attacks began just about as soon as the first reports of a siege on the embassy came out. Is that the kind of environment you fostered at the plants when you had to conduct investigations?

  • kevjlang posted at 11:26 pm on Wed, May 21, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036


    The few "reinforcements" that did make it there wound up helping increase the death toll, but did NOT matter much in the attack.

  • carlosrponce posted at 6:17 am on Thu, May 22, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6189

    Thank you for the analogy kevjlang. When the Hillaryites say "What difference does it make!" the rally cry from those who believe American lives should be defended overseas will be "Remember Benghazi!"

  • kevjlang posted at 7:11 am on Thu, May 22, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    We should remember. We should find out what happened, too, and learn what to do different next time. And, if there is proof of gross negligence or misbehavior or utter stupidity, heads should roll.

    I'm not opposed to political skewering. I'd just like the skewering to be fact-based. At this point, the closest thing to fact we have is that we don't have the facts on Benghazi that we should have. Those that have stood in the way of us having those facts should be skewered on those grounds. To the extent that Hillary is responsible for this lack of facts, I think that's fair game, and should be exploited.

    I'm against politics by innuendo and shaky accusation. Using facts against an opponent is perfectly clean as far as I'm concerned.

    We certainly should Remember Benghazi. However, we should learn WHY the embassy was vulnerable to attack; whether an attack of that size was considered, and if so, why it was determined that the staff should stay there; what was the rationale behind the determination that we couldn't/wouldn't respond; etc. Remember. Not just THAT it happened, but WHY it happened, WHAT to do better, and WHAT to do next time to prevent another attack of this type.

  • kevjlang posted at 7:18 am on Thu, May 22, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    DottyOA, I don't think you're citing anything that I oppose. I don't know if Panetta should be in jail, since there have been no charges brought, evidence presented, or jurors deliberated.

  • mickphalen posted at 7:37 am on Thu, May 22, 2014.

    mickphalen Posts: 754

    As much as I would like to know why our country did not respond to a prolonged attack on American citizens, on American soil, I am much more curious about the President's policy that had an apparent gun running operation going - - collecting guns and ammo used in the overthrow of one terrorist in Libya, and supplying them to Al Qaeda terrorists in Syria.

    Syria, isn't that the place where Saddam buried his WMD's before Bush II "brought him to justice".

  • gecroix posted at 8:00 am on Thu, May 22, 2014.

    gecroix Posts: 6177

    Permission to land troops?
    With our own citizens and embassy under attack?

    It's no wonder this nation is in the mess it's in.

  • kevjlang posted at 11:27 am on Thu, May 22, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    So, it would be OK for Iraq to just barge in here to protect their people here from being charged with terrorism? Are another country's borders somewhat less sovereign than ours? We do want people to respect our borders, don't we? I guess we could be hypocritical. If I remember correctly, we actually went through those channels to get permissions to stage troops for Desert Storm and for the invasion of Afghanistan. Of course, we didn't ask for permission from Afghanistan or Iraq to storm their borders, but, then, we were at war with them. Were we at war with Libya?

  • sverige1 posted at 12:28 pm on Thu, May 22, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to bvresident posted at 9:43 am on Wed, May 21, 2014:

    On the contrary, the media assumes the responsibility of raising the awareness of our country's (and our world's) need to be informed. This is especially true nowadays since events (and news) occurs 24/7. There is actually a term coined "media responsibility". "Media responsibility" is the belief that mass media has basic responsibility to help strengthen/support the democratic process. Although it's a debatable concept regarding the notion that the media should or should not play "watchdog", the media are still gatekeepers of the dissemination of necessary information.

    That's why it is a viable inquiry to pose the question as to why more of the media did not grasp the developing events in the aforementioned Benghazi embassy location. News sources love to get stories, develop the details, and broaden their reader base. For these reasons, it's difficult to place blame on the US Department of State, when information regarding the dangers were unbeknowngst and sketchy.

  • gecroix posted at 1:51 pm on Thu, May 22, 2014.

    gecroix Posts: 6177

    "So, it would be OK for Iraq to just barge in here to protect their people here from being charged with terrorism?"
    That's a joke, right?
    You're just messing with me?
    If not, then do you not understand that our embassy people in Lybia were not 'being charged with terrorism', THEY WERE BEING KILLED in real time, and the host country was making no move to aid them!
    Is there no distinction in your world?
    Do you REALLY think that Pakistan gave SEAL Team 6 permission to go into bin Laden's compound?

  • kevjlang posted at 4:05 pm on Thu, May 22, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    Yes, they were under attack. However, there are still rules we have to play by. Would you have preferred the Libyan government shooting F-16s out of the sky because they had no idea what they were doing there? Then, you'd be calling the administration to task for not advising the Libyan government what we were up to.

    If the reason we didn't get anyone there to save them was because we got bogged down in diplomatic processes, then we should work on improving the diplomatic processes.

    While we had advised the Pakistani government that if we had credible intelligence that bin Laden was in Pakistan that we would go in and get him, we still faced a lot of diplomatic heat for actually doing so. The Pakistani government was not at all happy with us. It was a risky mission. However, what would you be saying about it had it failed and either the Pakistani military intervened, or bin Laden were ready for the attack, and we wound up with an entire SEAL team come back in coffins?

    I have no idea whether getting permission from Libya was a consideration or a bottleneck, or a factor of any kind with Benghazi. However, in the scenario you presented, I noted that there were no borders to cross, so therefore, no diplomatic considerations whatsoever, whether necessary, or beg for forgiveness later.

  • gecroix posted at 5:33 pm on Thu, May 22, 2014.

    gecroix Posts: 6177

    Too many hands for me...I only have two.
    I am happy that most of the time the people we rely on to save our bacon in so many ways do so without analyzing the potential outcome until success is assured, or abandoning the response if it can't be.
    And that at least about half the folks don't expect them to...quite the opposite...
    Might be great for a techy or a desk jockey, but it's NWAS for much of anything else...

  • carlosrponce posted at 8:36 pm on Thu, May 22, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6189

    If there is such a thing as "media responsibility" then MSNBC should turn off the lights and turn in their broadcasting license. You get more news from CBN (Christian Broadcast News) in 5 minutes than in 24 hours of MSNBC. And MSNBC is so skewed to the left it might as well call itself Правда - Pravda.

  • kevjlang posted at 7:30 am on Fri, May 23, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    I think it's perfectly reasonable to want to know why we didn't have adequate security, or why we didn't get help there. It seems unreasonable to not answer those questions. It's also unreasonable to not be willing to consider whatever answers might come out of it. There may very well be plausible reasons why things happened the way they did. Obviously, unless you were the band of terrorists, nothing happened that should have happened. We certainly need to look at everything. We should not be stressing pre-conceived notions of who's stupid, dishonest, incompetent, or utterly criminal. We should be stressing fact gathering, analysis, and corrective actions.

  • mytoby3113 posted at 2:36 pm on Fri, May 23, 2014.

    mytoby3113 Posts: 429

    I like MSNBC, because Fox &Friends are ways complaining.. A person has a right to look at what station they choose to. and it is no body business.[beam]

  • gecroix posted at 3:14 pm on Fri, May 23, 2014.

    gecroix Posts: 6177

    "MSNBC averaged a paltry 112,000 viewers for its total day coverage in April, its worst showing since May 2007.
    As usual, Fox News dominated, averaging 988,000 for its total day coverage for the month. CNN had 431,000.
    The disparity was even greater in primetime:
    Fox News averaged just fewer than two million viewers for a weeknight average. That was about three times the total audience for MSNBC, 710,000, and almost four times the audience for CNN, 564,000. Still, in April, CNN eked out second place among the 25-54 group, 200,000 viewers to 176,000 for MSNBC. Fox News was again well ahead, with 370,000."

  • sverige1 posted at 3:48 pm on Fri, May 23, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to gecroix posted at 3:14 pm on Fri, May 23, 2014:

    The high viewer ratings for FOX can be translated to the large populace who fear the modern, progressive mindset. The typical FOX News viewers are the unyielding, religious right. Many of those simply don't enjoy life in the outside world, so they hole themselves up in their living rooms (decorated with doilies, deer heads and rifles) and clap their hands when they are fed the propogandizing, fear-mongering, anti-immigration, anti-social liberating suggestions.

    That interestingly was a new interest story in which a woman was interviewed regarding the toxicness of FOX News. She said that while she was a young girl, on up to adulthood that her father was a loving and kind gentleman. But, after years of her Dad's watching of FOX News, by the time the daughter reached middle age (and Daddy old age), he had become embittered and impossible to be around. That's the harmful suggestiveness and subliminal mind-bending qualities (and subsequent results) of FOX News watching that millions, unfortunately, are drawn to. Very similar to that little girl in "Poltergeist" who got sucked into the living room TV.

  • jtpatlan posted at 4:52 pm on Fri, May 23, 2014.

    jtpatlan Posts: 34

    What a long string of posts and opinions. Get happy guys the sun will rise tomorrow.. :) :)

  • carlosrponce posted at 5:23 pm on Fri, May 23, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6189

    So you like MSNBC. That explains a lot of your posts. I personally think Elisabeth Hasselbeck, Brian Kilmeade, and Steve Doocy make a good team and only complain about things that bother all Americans. But they don't complain ALL the time.

  • gecroix posted at 6:08 pm on Fri, May 23, 2014.

    gecroix Posts: 6177

    Yep. The sun WILL rise tomorrow, and shine on the Administration people covering up the whys and hows of the deaths of 4 Americans, one an ambassador, and the burning of a US consolate, in a terorist attack, and the whereabouts of the CIC during and after that time (before jetting off to the Vegas fundraiser party...).
    It will rise on the families of the dead, who will have the same no answers they've had since being promsied a 'full accounting', and the perpetrators 'brought to bear".
    While there is much in life to smile about, for the rest of us, this situation is not one of them.
    Go right ahead if you want to, but I'll pass on the smiling about Benghazi...

  • carlosrponce posted at 6:28 pm on Fri, May 23, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6189

    sverige, my reaction to your diatribe on FOX news:[yawn][yawn][yawn][yawn]

  • mytoby3113 posted at 7:12 pm on Sat, May 24, 2014.

    mytoby3113 Posts: 429

    To Carlosrponce 5-23-14 I like MSNBC, you like Fox. Again I must say I have a right to look any TV station . What makes you think you are always right. JUST ASKING . [beam] [beam]

  • carlosrponce posted at 7:37 pm on Sat, May 24, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6189

    You do have a right to watch anything you want. But it's been proven that MSNBC does not provide complete news coverage and its viewers are uninformed on important topics. I get my news from a variety of sources, not just FOX but I had to cross MSNBC off my list when I could plainly see their presentations were highly skewed. And I don't think I'm always right but my views are to the right.

  • bvresident posted at 10:11 pm on Sat, May 24, 2014.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    Servitude, you're a kook. Seriously.