CSNbbs

http://samuel-warde.com/2015/10/cia-trey...y-clinton/

Who should be arrested again?

Redacting someone's name is "altering docs"?

So what was altered again?

we shall see my friend. Elijah Cummings? c'mon man.

(10-19-2015 03:41 PM)No Bull Wrote: [ -> ]we shall see my friend. Elijah Cummings? c'mon man.

Curious, why do you trust Gowdy, but not Cummings?

(10-19-2015 03:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-19-2015 03:41 PM)No Bull Wrote: [ -> ]we shall see my friend. Elijah Cummings? c'mon man.

Curious, why do you trust Gowdy, but not Cummings?

I trust neither. You are educated. I trust you don't either. Also, hope you aren't implying anything about race... right?

(10-19-2015 03:30 PM)Ole Blue Wrote: [ -> ]http://samuel-warde.com/2015/10/cia-trey...y-clinton/

Who should be arrested again?

Liberal rag website, fail

(10-19-2015 04:13 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-19-2015 03:30 PM)Ole Blue Wrote: [ -> ]http://samuel-warde.com/2015/10/cia-trey...y-clinton/

Who should be arrested again?

Liberal rag website, fail

Making a good faith effort to interact with the community, fail.

(10-19-2015 04:28 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-19-2015 04:13 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-19-2015 03:30 PM)Ole Blue Wrote: [ -> ]http://samuel-warde.com/2015/10/cia-trey...y-clinton/

Who should be arrested again?

Liberal rag website, fail

Making a good faith effort to interact with the community, fail.

Good faith effort to carry Dem water, keep trying but failing Tom. They don't care about you.
You are nameless pawn. Clinton's have billions. That is a liberal rag, just a guy with a website.

On a side note, Gowdy is creepy.

He's up next in the bathroom with a 'wide stance.'

(10-19-2015 08:23 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ]On a side note, Gowdy is creepy.

He's up next in the bathroom with a 'wide stance.'

I highly doubt it. If the supporters of entrenched SCGOP member Bob Inglis couldn't dig that dirt up in 2010 it doesn't exist.

The reason he seems creepy is because he may well be the only truly honest man in Congress. My wife is friends with someone who worked in the 7th Circuit Solicitor's Office for two years and she claims he's the most honest man she has ever met. She would have loved to continue to work for him but her husband's job brought her back to Columbia.

I honestly wish that Gowdy would challenge Liberal Graham for his Senate seat, but everything I have heard Gowdy wants to get back to the courtroom and out of Washington.

Let's face it, in this stage of our culture, honest people ARE creepy.

(10-19-2015 03:36 PM)Smaug Wrote: [ -> ]Redacting someone's name is "altering docs"?

No idea who Gowdy is; however, redacting names is done all the time. Is this just another deflection?

They still don't understand how classified works.

(10-20-2015 08:09 AM)Paul M Wrote: [ -> ]They still don't understand how classified works.

Obviously. Actually, I don't think they really care.

The Democrats have Stonewalled this issue for so long They have had ample time to destroy real evidence and rewrite history. It's what they do best.

You all are missing the point. He conveyed that the CIA redacted names in the document, indicating their highly-classified status. They didn't redact the names, he did that. That's the issue.

(10-20-2015 08:49 AM)Ole Blue Wrote: [ -> ]You all are missing the point. He conveyed that the CIA redacted names in the document, indicating their highly-classified status. They didn't redact the names, he did that. That's the issue.

So, your thread title is a misrepresentation, intentional or otherwise.

(10-20-2015 08:09 AM)Paul M Wrote: [ -> ]They still don't understand how classified works.

I know, right? It doesn't mean what most people think it means.

The problem with this from the beginning has been that the administration's sole objective has been to circle the wagons and sell the idea that nobody screwed up, while the republicans' sole objective has been to prove that the person who screwed up was Hillary Clinton. I think both may be wrong.

Somebody--or a number of people--clearly screwed up and screwed up very badly. Things like this don't happen without major screw-ups.

The whole focus on the stand-down order or lack thereof is badly misplaced IMO, and kind of a microcosm for the whole problem. Quite frankly, had I been on-scene commander, from everything that I have been able to learn of the situation, there would have been a stand-down order, and I can say that without a doubt because I would have been the person to issue it. The problem is that forces were ill-deployed to respond to anything going wrong in what was clearly a particularly high-risk situation on a particularly high-risk date. Whoever issued the orders that resulted in being so ill-prepared needs to fry. I don't know who that is. We've had numerous "hearings" and no answer to that question. That pretty much proves that those "hearings" were circle-the-wagons cover-up whitewash jobs, not legitimate hearings.

There was, for example, the investigation that concluded that there had been "no intel failures." That's simply and clearly a lie. Things like this don't happen without intel failures. Furthermore, the whole video sidetrack was either an intel failure (intel got it wrong) or a deliberate and intentional lie (intel got it right, but politics dictated that a different spin be put on things, at least temporarily). I don't know which is the case. But I do know that one or the other is true. That's the only way you can get to that result.

I think republicans are so intent on pinning this on Hillary that they are ignoring what are surely obvious signs that should be followed up in order to determine who is really to blame. If it doesn't point to Hillary, republicans are not interested in checking it out. And democrats are perfectly willing to let them run down all those rabbit trails, because that lets them perpetuate the lie that nobody screwed the pooch on this one.