Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (783053)	5/1/2014 10:23:00 PM
From: TopCat	Respond to of 1583478

You'd like it to be but no way is it stale.

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (783053)	5/1/2014 11:05:33 PM
From: joseffy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583478

Obama is very stale now. He will be remembered as President Benghazi.

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (783053)	5/2/2014 12:31:56 AM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1583478

major scandals that will taint President Barack Obama's legacy We've got Benghazi, IRS Scandal, F&F, misappropriation of Obama care funds and lies about Obamacare implementation, Syria and the non existent red line, the weakening of US defense, Iran...and the list goes on.

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (783053)	5/2/2014 12:50:10 AM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Respond to of 1583478

The Benghazi Scandal Is Finally Blowing Up Big-Time .............................................................................................. ClashDaily.com ^ \| 5/1/14 \| Donald Joy Suddenly, the investigation into the 9/11/2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi has taken an astonishing turn toward exposing the Obama administration’s cynical fraud and dereliction of duty in the weeks just before the last presidential election. Yesterday, in a rare occurrence of mainstream journalistic integrity, ABC’s Jon Karl discovered his inner reporter and opened up a can of bitch-slap on Obama’s press prostitute, Jay Carney, over the damning revelations contained in emails which have finally been released. Carney’s lies got no traction as Karl delivered withering fire without letting up. Watch the glorious smackdown here: Suddenly, the investigation into the 9/11/2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi has taken an astonishing turn toward exposing the Obama administration’s cynical fraud and dereliction of duty in the weeks just before the last presidential election. youtube.com There’s more. Just this morning, former military commanders testified before congress that based on the totality of their intelligence, they knew immediately on the night in question that the incident was an organized, planned, Al-Qaeda related terrorist attack. They also testified that they knew the ensuing White House story about a protest over a video was completely bogus, and that the imperative that night should have been to try to get help to Stevens and the others at once, instead of standing down as they were ordered by the administration. The bottom line is that the presidential election was less than two months away, and the democrats could not afford to have Obama’s claim that “GM is alive, and Al-Qaeda is vanquished!” be exposed to be the lie that it was. Nor could the administration afford to have the incident escalate even further, into a full-blown military combat operation, by sending help to the SEALS–that would draw unwanted attention to the still-looming problem of Obama’s and Clinton’s total bungling of the entire situation across the Muslim world–not good for Obama’s re-election prospects. So Obama, Clinton, Rice, Jarrett, and the entire administration and democrat party all lied, and our men died. The video in question, which they insisted over and over was “reprehensible” and “heinous” and “extremely offensive” is actually none of these, as far as I can tell. I tried to watch it, but found it so boring and inconsequential that I couldn’t stay with it long enough to discover what alleged offenses it contains (but then, I consider any material which is anti-Islamic and anti-Mohammed to be good and true and right). Hillary Clinton got in the Benghazi victims’ families’ faces and declared, with disgustingly feigned outrage, that the administration would “get” the maker of the video and “bring him to justice”, as if that was the heart of the matter–not the fact that our men were murdered by Muslim terrorists! She lied right to the families, with the bodies of their loved ones lying in caskets only feet away. The hapless “Innocence of Muslims” movie-maker sits rotting in his U.S. jail cell over a technicality, and not a single one of the Benghazi terrorist attackers has been captured and brought to justice, despite ample opportunity to nail them. What difference, at this point, does it make? In Hillary Clinton’s now-famous tirade before the senate, I’d like you to notice something that nobody seems to have pointed out. She screams her implied position that it really doesn’t make any difference as to the cause of the fatal incident in Benghazi. But in the very same breath (her immediate next words, in fact), she pounds the table and screeches, “It is our job to figure out what happened…” youtube.com Well, which is it, Hillary? If it doesn’t really matter what happened, then why does she simultaneously exclaim that they are there to find out what happened? I say it makes all the difference in the world, considering that another pathological liar might possibly become the next president of the United States.

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (783053)	5/2/2014 12:54:36 AM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1583478

Internal Emails: State Dept. Immediately Attributed Benghazi Attacks to Terrorist Group ........................................................................................ sharylattkisson.com ^ \| May 1, 2014 \| by Sharyl Attkisson, A newly-released government email indicates that within hours of the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on Americans in Benghazi, Libya; the State Department had already concluded with certainty that the Islamic militia terrorist group Ansar al Sharia was to blame. The private, internal communication directly contradicts the message that President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice and White House press secretary Jay Carney repeated publicly over the course of the next several weeks. They often maintained that an anti-Islamic YouTube video inspired a spontaneous demonstration that escalated into violence. The email is entitled “Libya update from Beth Jones. ” Jones was then-Assistant Secretary of State to Hillary Clinton. According to the email, Jones spoke to Libya’s Ambassador at 9:45am on Sept. 12, 2012 following the attacks. “When [the Libyan Ambassador] said his government suspected that former Qaddafi regime elements carried out the attacks, I told him the group that conducted the attacks—Ansar Al Sharia—is affiliated with Islamic extremists,” Jones reports in the email. There is no uncertainty assigned to the assessment, which does not mention a video or a protest. The State Department provided the email to Congress in Aug. of 2013 under special conditions that it not be publicly released at that time. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) sought and received permission to release it Thursday. “If the video was a cause, why did Beth Jones of the State Department tell the Libyan Ambassador that Ansar Al Sharia was responsible for the attack?” said Chaffetz. Among those copied on the emails: Deputy Secretary William Burns; Under Secretary for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman; Jake Sullivan, then-Deputy Chief of Staff (now promoted to national security advisor to Vice President Joe Biden); Under Secretary of State Patrick Kennedy; Cheryl Mills, then-Secretary Clinton’s Chief of Staff (now on the board of directors of the global investment firm BlackRock); and Victoria Nuland, then-State Dept. spokesperson (now promoted to Asst. Secretary of State). Two days after the email, documents show that Nuland raised concerns about an early draft of talking points in which the C.I.A. disclosed that it had warned of possible impending attacks. Nuland wrote that the C.I.A.’s disclosure to the public "could be abused by members of Congress to beat the State Department for not paying attention to [C.I.A.] warnings so why would we want to seed the Hill." The language about prior warnings was subsequently removed by then-Deputy C.I.A. Director Mike Morell over the objection of his then-boss, C.I.A. Director David Petraeus. That's according to testimony last month from Morell, who has since been hired by Beacon Global Strategies, a PR communications firm dominated by former Clinton and Obama officials, and also works as an analyst for CBS News (where I was employed until March). Petraeus retired just after President Obama’s re-election amid allegations of a sex scandal. Another State Department email sent at 5:55pm on Tues. Sept. 11, 2012, while the attacks were underway, includes a report that “the extremist group Ansar Al Sharia has taken credit for the attack in Benghazi” and that U.S. officials asked the offices of the [Libyan] President and [Prime Minister] to pursue Ansar al Sharia.” Four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed in the Benghazi attacks. The following month, the State Department designated Ansar al Sharia as “an alias” for the terrorist group “Al-Qaeda” in the Arabian Peninsula. In Jan. of 2014, the State Department designated the Benghazi chapter of Ansar Al Sharia as a foreign terrorist organization. Two days after the State Department told Libyan officials that Ansar al Sharia was at fault, Secretary of State Clinton instead evoked the YouTube video at the ceremonial return of the victims’ bodies. “This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with,” said Clinton. Obama administration officials have not fully explained who was responsible for deciding to advance the incorrect video narrative eight weeks before the Presidential election. They have said that they were acting on “the best intelligence available at the time” and that they clarified the story as they got more information. However, the vast majority of government witnesses and documents released over the past year and a half indicate there was widespread belief from the start that the attacks were the work of terrorists, not protesters.

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (783053)	5/2/2014 1:19:02 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583478

Looks as though the media other than Fox are just now starting to take interest. Those who have argued there is no there there are obviously looking pretty foolish at this point. Whether the media will jump on board to attack their messiah is a different matter.

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (783053)	5/2/2014 6:48:32 AM
From: longnshort	3 Recommendations Recommended By FJB Taro TideGlider Respond to of 1583478

Krauthammer: Benghazi Memo Reopened Scandal The Same Way Watergate Tapes Did (Video) 8 nicedeb really stale ? if we had a real press Obama would be impeached. the press today is a lapdog not a watch dog

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (783053)	5/2/2014 6:54:03 AM
From: longnshort	2 Recommendations Recommended By FJB joseffy Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1583478

Bombshell Video: NSA Spokesman Says Obama Never Entered The Situation Room During Benghazi Attack 8 sooper

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (783053)	5/2/2014 8:07:11 AM
From: Brumar89	2 Recommendations Recommended By FJB TideGlider Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1583478

Could You Lie to a Bereaved Father? Hillary could! Written By : Mona Charen May 2, 2014 The Ben Rhodes memo revealing the duplicity of this administration on the subject of Benghazi reminds us about the character of those involved. That President Barack Obama could lie so evenly and so passionately (remember the second presidential debate?) is not perhaps surprising at this stage. But let’s not forget what it took for Hillary Clinton to lie to the grieving father of an American hero. ........... As soon as the next morning, Congressman Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, described the attack as a “commando-style event” with “coordinated fire, direct fire, (and) indirect fire.” A few days later the Libyan president said that it was a planned terrorist attack. He also said that the idea it was a “spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous.” Yet a well-orchestrated disinformation campaign by the Obama administration managed to put the press off the story and mislead the American people. The brazenness and scope of the disinformation would make any KGB colonel sigh with admiration. At 10:32 on the night of the attack, Clinton issued a statement deploring violence in response to “inflammatory material posted on the Internet.” In the days that followed, the president and his spokesman repeatedly invoked the supposedly offensive video as the cause of the attack. The president and secretary of state even filmed commercials to play in Muslim countries denouncing the video while also upholding America’s tradition of religious and political freedom. “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others,” said the president. “But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence.” But as the State Department finally disclosed a month after the attack (and as had been widely reported before then), there was no protest outside the American consulate in Benghazi. Nothing. Not a peep. As the Rhodes memo makes clear, the president sent his U.N. ambassador to the Sunday shows to lie. Susan Rice was “to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.” Rice did as she was told. The election was less than two months away. A foreign policy failure would not be politically convenient, so it would be made to go away. It’s one of the minor injustices of this sorry story that Rice has received more condemnations than the president or secretary of state, who pulled the strings. Clinton began to peddle the “Internet video” story from the first moments after the guns went silent in Benghazi. When the Libyan ambassador to the U.S. apologized to her on Sept. 13, 2012, for the “terror attack,” she ignored this and burbled on about “the innocence of Muslims.” The president, vice president and Clinton welcomed the bodies of Stevens, Tyrone Woods, Sean Smith and Glen Doherty to Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland on Sept. 14. According to Woods’ father, the vice president used remarkably offensive locker room talk about the deceased Navy SEAL, but Clinton stayed on message. She greeted the man whose son had bravely attempted to fight off far more numerous and better-armed terrorists on the roof of the CIA annex and who gave his life. Did she praise the courage and self-sacrifice of the decorated Navy SEAL? Did she express regret that he had been left nearly alone to fight off the Islamist terrorists? No. Not even the flag-draped coffins spread before Clinton could shake her iron determination to stick with the script. She told Woods they would catch the guy who made the Internet film and make sure he was punished. Most politicians are capable of stretching the truth on occasion. But this question, this setting and this egregious a lie suggest that Clinton’s conscience — if she ever had one — is growing flaccid from disuse. http://www.rightwingnews.com/column-2/could-you-lie-to-a-bereaved-father/