(06-12-2013 02:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Perhaps...but really...are you going to be able to find any credible evidence anywhere that the guy went to a prostitute in a park in Belgium...and an underage one at that?

You think it's easy for an Ambassador of the United States with a security detail to slip out unnoticed for such a thing?

Quote:Not saying he didn't, but we do normally require evidence before throwing people to the wolves...generally anyway.

How do you get evidence if the investigation is stopped? Convenient huh?

(06-12-2013 02:11 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 02:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Perhaps...but really...are you going to be able to find any credible evidence anywhere that the guy went to a prostitute in a park in Belgium...and an underage one at that?

You think it's easy for an Ambassador of the United States with a security detail to slip out unnoticed for such a thing?

Quote:Not saying he didn't, but we do normally require evidence before throwing people to the wolves...generally anyway.

How do you get evidence if the investigation is stopped? Convenient huh?

Intentionally ditching or leaving without his Security Detail is enough to get a report to DC, especially after Benghazi.

Well, at this point, what difference does it make?!?

Maybe he is not doing any of that. Maybe he is just selling state secrets.

(06-12-2013 02:11 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 02:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Perhaps...but really...are you going to be able to find any credible evidence anywhere that the guy went to a prostitute in a park in Belgium...and an underage one at that?

You think it's easy for an Ambassador of the United States with a security detail to slip out unnoticed for such a thing?

Quote:Not saying he didn't, but we do normally require evidence before throwing people to the wolves...generally anyway.

How do you get evidence if the investigation is stopped? Convenient huh?

At this point we don't actually know that the investigation was totally stopped.

And I was implying that you aren't going to find any evidence as prostitutes aren't normally readily available witnesses

Also, if he ditched the detail, they wouldn't have likely seen anything.

And yes ditching the detail is not the right thing to do, but he is in Belgium...not Iraq or Egypt after all.

(06-12-2013 03:02 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 02:11 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 02:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Perhaps...but really...are you going to be able to find any credible evidence anywhere that the guy went to a prostitute in a park in Belgium...and an underage one at that?

You think it's easy for an Ambassador of the United States with a security detail to slip out unnoticed for such a thing?

Quote:Not saying he didn't, but we do normally require evidence before throwing people to the wolves...generally anyway.

How do you get evidence if the investigation is stopped? Convenient huh?

At this point we don't actually know that the investigation was totally stopped.

And I was implying that you aren't going to find any evidence as prostitutes aren't normally readily available witnesses

Also, if he ditched the detail, they wouldn't have likely seen anything.

And yes ditching the detail is not the right thing to do, but he is in Belgium...not Iraq or Egypt after all.

To get recalled for a meeting and read the riot act by Patrick Kennedy.. Well he must have done something pretty stupid.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/...ith_minors

Well, given what happened to Christopher Stevens, you'd think State would try a little harder to keep up with their remaining ambassadors.

(06-12-2013 03:07 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Well, given what happened to Christopher Stevens, you'd think State would try a little harder to keep up with their remaining ambassadors.

Stevens death had more to do with the CIA then state IMO. And how many ambassadors do you think we actually have? You make it sound like there's only 5 or 6 of them

(06-12-2013 03:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 03:07 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Well, given what happened to Christopher Stevens, you'd think State would try a little harder to keep up with their remaining ambassadors.

Stevens death had more to do with the CIA then state IMO. And how many ambassadors do you think we actually have? You make it sound like there's only 5 or 6 of them

Getting one killed is too many.

Isn't it worth the extra scrutiny if it saves JUST. ONE. AMBASSADOR?

(06-12-2013 03:05 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 03:02 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 02:11 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 02:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Perhaps...but really...are you going to be able to find any credible evidence anywhere that the guy went to a prostitute in a park in Belgium...and an underage one at that?

You think it's easy for an Ambassador of the United States with a security detail to slip out unnoticed for such a thing?

Quote:Not saying he didn't, but we do normally require evidence before throwing people to the wolves...generally anyway.

How do you get evidence if the investigation is stopped? Convenient huh?

At this point we don't actually know that the investigation was totally stopped.

And I was implying that you aren't going to find any evidence as prostitutes aren't normally readily available witnesses

Also, if he ditched the detail, they wouldn't have likely seen anything.

And yes ditching the detail is not the right thing to do, but he is in Belgium...not Iraq or Egypt after all.

To get recalled for a meeting and read the riot act by Patrick Kennedy.. Well he must have done something pretty stupid.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/...ith_minors

That's a horrible site to use for a link...lol...all I can see is this stupid blob to sign up for that site.

(06-12-2013 03:23 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 03:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 03:07 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Well, given what happened to Christopher Stevens, you'd think State would try a little harder to keep up with their remaining ambassadors.

Stevens death had more to do with the CIA then state IMO. And how many ambassadors do you think we actually have? You make it sound like there's only 5 or 6 of them

Getting one killed is too many.

Isn't it worth the extra scrutiny if it saves JUST. ONE. AMBASSADOR?

Is it? That's the point I've made time and time again with Benghazi that none of you seem willing to address.

Do we spend more money and risk more lives to have and protect ambassador's all over the world, or do we bring them all home?

(06-12-2013 03:27 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 03:23 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 03:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 03:07 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Well, given what happened to Christopher Stevens, you'd think State would try a little harder to keep up with their remaining ambassadors.

Stevens death had more to do with the CIA then state IMO. And how many ambassadors do you think we actually have? You make it sound like there's only 5 or 6 of them

Getting one killed is too many.

Isn't it worth the extra scrutiny if it saves JUST. ONE. AMBASSADOR?

Is it? That's the point I've made time and time again with Benghazi that none of you seem willing to address.

Do we spend more money and risk more lives to have and protect ambassador's all over the world, or do we bring them all home?

That's right, the familiar blame Republicans refrain.

Are the people in charge ever responsible in your world, Tom?

(06-12-2013 03:36 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 03:27 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 03:23 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 03:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 03:07 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Well, given what happened to Christopher Stevens, you'd think State would try a little harder to keep up with their remaining ambassadors.

Stevens death had more to do with the CIA then state IMO. And how many ambassadors do you think we actually have? You make it sound like there's only 5 or 6 of them

Getting one killed is too many.

Isn't it worth the extra scrutiny if it saves JUST. ONE. AMBASSADOR?

Is it? That's the point I've made time and time again with Benghazi that none of you seem willing to address.

Do we spend more money and risk more lives to have and protect ambassador's all over the world, or do we bring them all home?

That's right, the familiar blame Republicans refrain.

Are the people in charge ever responsible in your world, Tom?

I didn't do that whatsoever. You guys really need to check your partisanship. It's becoming overwhelming lately.

(06-12-2013 03:36 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Are the people in charge ever responsible in your world, Tom?

Prolly when there is an R by the name.

(06-12-2013 03:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 03:07 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Well, given what happened to Christopher Stevens, you'd think State would try a little harder to keep up with their remaining ambassadors.

Stevens death had more to do with the CIA then state IMO. And how many ambassadors do you think we actually have?

The CIA isn't who ignored his multiple requests for more security there. The CIA isn't who kept him there in spite of the British and the Red Cross pulling out. The CIA isn't who put him back at a compound that was attacked months earlier with no security upgrades to address the original issue.

(06-12-2013 03:39 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 03:36 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 03:27 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 03:23 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 03:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Stevens death had more to do with the CIA then state IMO. And how many ambassadors do you think we actually have? You make it sound like there's only 5 or 6 of them

Getting one killed is too many.

Isn't it worth the extra scrutiny if it saves JUST. ONE. AMBASSADOR?

Is it? That's the point I've made time and time again with Benghazi that none of you seem willing to address.

Do we spend more money and risk more lives to have and protect ambassador's all over the world, or do we bring them all home?

That's right, the familiar blame Republicans refrain.

Are the people in charge ever responsible in your world, Tom?

I didn't do that whatsoever. You guys really need to check your partisanship. It's becoming overwhelming lately.

You typed that with a straight face, didn't you?

(06-12-2013 03:39 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 03:36 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 03:27 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 03:23 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 03:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Stevens death had more to do with the CIA then state IMO. And how many ambassadors do you think we actually have? You make it sound like there's only 5 or 6 of them

Getting one killed is too many.

Isn't it worth the extra scrutiny if it saves JUST. ONE. AMBASSADOR?

Is it? That's the point I've made time and time again with Benghazi that none of you seem willing to address.

Do we spend more money and risk more lives to have and protect ambassador's all over the world, or do we bring them all home?

That's right, the familiar blame Republicans refrain.

Are the people in charge ever responsible in your world, Tom?

I didn't do that whatsoever. You guys really need to check your partisanship. It's becoming overwhelming lately.

The irony of this post is what is overwhelming.

(06-12-2013 03:43 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 03:39 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 03:36 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 03:27 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 03:23 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Getting one killed is too many.

Isn't it worth the extra scrutiny if it saves JUST. ONE. AMBASSADOR?

Is it? That's the point I've made time and time again with Benghazi that none of you seem willing to address.

Do we spend more money and risk more lives to have and protect ambassador's all over the world, or do we bring them all home?

That's right, the familiar blame Republicans refrain.

Are the people in charge ever responsible in your world, Tom?

I didn't do that whatsoever. You guys really need to check your partisanship. It's becoming overwhelming lately.

You typed that with a straight face, didn't you?

**** off.

(06-12-2013 03:43 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 03:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 03:07 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Well, given what happened to Christopher Stevens, you'd think State would try a little harder to keep up with their remaining ambassadors.

Stevens death had more to do with the CIA then state IMO. And how many ambassadors do you think we actually have?

The CIA isn't who ignored his multiple requests for more security there. The CIA isn't who kept him there in spite of the British and the Red Cross pulling out. The CIA isn't who put him back at a compound that was attacked months earlier with no security upgrades to address the original issue.

That's not what I was talking about.
http://consortiumnews.com/2012/12/20/the...-attack-2/

(06-12-2013 03:50 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 03:43 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 03:39 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 03:36 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(06-12-2013 03:27 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Is it? That's the point I've made time and time again with Benghazi that none of you seem willing to address.

Do we spend more money and risk more lives to have and protect ambassador's all over the world, or do we bring them all home?

That's right, the familiar blame Republicans refrain.

Are the people in charge ever responsible in your world, Tom?

I didn't do that whatsoever. You guys really need to check your partisanship. It's becoming overwhelming lately.

You typed that with a straight face, didn't you?

**** off.

Now, Tommy. That's not nice.