Clinton & Panetta Should be GONE. FIRED. TOAST.

[AZGrizFan]

The difference is, these are all FACTS.

If you say so. I'm not saying that you are wrong, but I'm still not convinced.

Convinced of what? That Obama/Clinton/Panetta/Rice fucked this beyond belief and continue to cover up their fuck ups and ineptitude?

[BlueHen86]

If you say so. I'm not saying that you are wrong, but I'm still not convinced.

Convinced of what? That Obama/Clinton/Panetta/Rice fucked this beyond belief and continue to cover up their fuck ups and ineptitude?

Yes. Do you have another source other than Fox News? I have no faith in them. I'm not saying the story is false, but I'm not buying into anything Fos News says either. I trust wikipedia more than I trust Fox News.

[AZGrizFan]

Convinced of what? That Obama/Clinton/Panetta/Rice fucked this beyond belief and continue to cover up their fuck ups and ineptitude?

Yes. Do you have another source other than Fox News? I have no faith in them. I'm not saying the story is false, but I'm not buying into anything Fos News says either. I trust wikipedia more than I trust Fox News.

You expect MSNBC or CNN to cover this? If you trust things like the NY Times, you'd never know this even HAPPENED.

[kalm]

Yes. Do you have another source other than Fox News? I have no faith in them. I'm not saying the story is false, but I'm not buying into anything Fos News says either. I trust wikipedia more than I trust Fox News.

You expect MSNBC or CNN to cover this? If you trust things like the NY Times, you'd never know this even HAPPENED.

I was watching Morning Joe yesterday and Scarborough and Mika confronted Obama about it in an interview on the campaign trail. The story was also everywhere over the weekend.

The source comes from Fox so yeah, it's kind of questionable and bordering less on facts at this point. Plus, the stormicane coverage nocked it to the back burner. If it has legs, the Republicans will call for investigations, and the facts will come out.

Carry on.

[LeadBolt]

You expect MSNBC or CNN to cover this? If you trust things like the NY Times, you'd never know this even HAPPENED.

I was watching Morning Joe yesterday and Scarborough and Mika confronted Obama about it in an interview on the campaign trail. The story was also everywhere over the weekend.

The source comes from Fox so yeah, it's kind of questionable and bordering less on facts at this point. Plus, the stormicane coverage nocked it to the back burner. If it has legs, the Republicans will call for investigations, and the facts will come out.

Carry on.

I was in college during Watergate. My roommate subscribed to the Washington Post and NY Times whom made Watergate sound like NBD for a long time. I subscribed to the Richmond Times-Dispatch which made Watergate out to be a BFD and wrote extensively about it. The RTD was discredited because supposedly NYT and WP were so much more creditable and the RTD editor, James J. Kilpatrick had a known conservative political agenda.

Eventually the administration couldn't keep their criminal activities covered up and the liberal media had to cover this. The irony is that the WP got credit for breaking a story they initially ignored, but only after the guilty incumbent was re-elected and the country wasted two years and a ton of time and energy on what should have been taken care of at the ballot box.

It would be better to handle this at the ballot box Tuesday and not waste two years on it.

[kalm]

I was watching Morning Joe yesterday and Scarborough and Mika confronted Obama about it in an interview on the campaign trail. The story was also everywhere over the weekend.

The source comes from Fox so yeah, it's kind of questionable and bordering less on facts at this point. Plus, the stormicane coverage nocked it to the back burner. If it has legs, the Republicans will call for investigations, and the facts will come out.

Carry on.

I was in college during Watergate. My roommate subscribed to the Washington Post and NY Times whom made Watergate sound like NBD for a long time. I subscribed to the Richmond Times-Dispatch which made Watergate out to be a BFD and wrote extensively about it. The RTD was discredited because supposedly NYT and WP were so much more creditable and the RTD editor, James J. Kilpatrick had a known conservative political agenda.

Eventually the administration couldn't keep their criminal activities covered up and the liberal media had to cover this. The irony is that the WP got credit for breaking a story they initially ignored, but only after the guilty incumbent was re-elected and the country wasted two years and a ton of time and energy on what should have been taken care of at the ballot box.

It would be better to handle this at the ballot box Tuesday and not waste two years on it.

Yes, it's always better when we decide based on speculation than allowing the facts to come out. You do realize the contradiction within your own post right?

[LeadBolt]

I was in college during Watergate. My roommate subscribed to the Washington Post and NY Times whom made Watergate sound like NBD for a long time. I subscribed to the Richmond Times-Dispatch which made Watergate out to be a BFD and wrote extensively about it. The RTD was discredited because supposedly NYT and WP were so much more creditable and the RTD editor, James J. Kilpatrick had a known conservative political agenda.

Eventually the administration couldn't keep their criminal activities covered up and the liberal media had to cover this. The irony is that the WP got credit for breaking a story they initially ignored, but only after the guilty incumbent was re-elected and the country wasted two years and a ton of time and energy on what should have been taken care of at the ballot box.

It would be better to handle this at the ballot box Tuesday and not waste two years on it.

Yes, it's always better when we decide based on speculation than allowing the facts to come out. You do realize the contradiction within your own post right?

The point is that Libya only speculation to partisan Democrats today as Watergate was only speculation to partisan Republicans 40 years ago. Facts are facts, except to ideologues...

[kalm]

Yes, it's always better when we decide based on speculation than allowing the facts to come out. You do realize the contradiction within your own post right?

The point is that Libya only speculation to partisan Democrats today as Watergate was only speculation to partisan Republicans 40 years ago. Facts are facts, except to ideologues...

[LeadBolt]

Discrediting sources and deriding opponents is usually the last bastion of the guilty because no other defense is tenable, once their deception is exposed.

[kalm]

Discrediting sources and deriding opponents is usually the last bastion of the guilty because no other defense is tenable, once their deception is exposed.

I really dont have a dog in this fight. There are many other reasons to not vote for Obama. Try reading my previous posts on this thread. Then...stand in front of a mirror.

[LeadBolt]

Discrediting sources and deriding opponents is usually the last bastion of the guilty because no other defense is tenable, once their deception is exposed.

Try reading my previous posts on this thread. Then...stand in front of a mirror.

I have no problem with standing in front of a mirror, how about you?

[kalm]

Try reading my previous posts on this thread. Then...stand in front of a mirror.

I have no problem with standing in front of a mirror, how about you?

Nope. Go back and read my earlier posts. I agreed with Baldy for christ's sake. Put that in your "opponent's pipe and smoke it.

I'm also skeptical enough to not trust one story from ANY media source and let the facts play out!

[Ibanez]

I have no problem with standing in front of a mirror, how about you?

Nope. Go back and read my earlier posts. I agreed with Baldy for christ's sake. Put that in your "opponent's pipe and smoke it.

I'm also skeptical enough to not trust one story from ANY media source and let the facts play out!

Anyone that gets their news from one source is a hack.

[kalm]

Nope. Go back and read my earlier posts. I agreed with Baldy for christ's sake. Put that in your "opponent's pipe and smoke it.

I'm also skeptical enough to not trust one story from ANY media source and let the facts play out!

Anyone that gets their news from one source is a hack.

Unless its Rolling Stone!

[Ibanez]

Anyone that gets their news from one source is a hack.

Unless its Rolling Stone!

The Weekly Standard is an even keeled news site.

[BDKJMU]

I was in college during Watergate. My roommate subscribed to the Washington Post and NY Times whom made Watergate sound like NBD for a long time. I subscribed to the Richmond Times-Dispatch which made Watergate out to be a BFD and wrote extensively about it. The RTD was discredited because supposedly NYT and WP were so much more creditable and the RTD editor, James J. Kilpatrick had a known conservative political agenda.

Eventually the administration couldn't keep their criminal activities covered up and the liberal media had to cover this. The irony is that the WP got credit for breaking a story they initially ignored, but only after the guilty incumbent was re-elected and the country wasted two years and a ton of time and energy on what should have been taken care of at the ballot box.

It would be better to handle this at the ballot box Tuesday and not waste two years on it.

Yes, it's always better when we decide based on speculation than allowing the facts to come out. You do realize the contradiction within your own post right?

Ok, all the facts will come out over the next yr or 2. Well just make our decision at the ballot box after they have all come out....oops, we've got an election in 1 week. So unless the election is postponed for a yr or 2, we have to decide based on what is known NOW.

[kalm]

Yes, it's always better when we decide based on speculation than allowing the facts to come out. You do realize the contradiction within your own post right?

Ok, all the facts will come out over the next yr or 2. Well just make our decision at the ballot box after they have all come out....oops, we've got an election in 1 week. So unless the election is postponed for a yr or 2, we have to decide based on what is known NOW.

NOW? Well ok then.

So if it breaks this week that the reports of this being mishandled are erroneous, I'm sure you and LB will be voting for Obama...right?

[GannonFan]

Ok, all the facts will come out over the next yr or 2. Well just make our decision at the ballot box after they have all come out....oops, we've got an election in 1 week. So unless the election is postponed for a yr or 2, we have to decide based on what is known NOW.

NOW? Well ok then.

So if it breaks this week that the reports of this being mishandled are erroneous, I'm sure you and LB will be voting for Obama...right?

Well, a US ambassador was assassinated on the anniversary of 9/11. That by itself is evidence that his security was mishandled. I don't think any report is going to come out that says we did everything right and no mistakes were made. If no mistakes were made, he'd still be alive. I think what needs to be resolved is what mistakes were made and how severe of poor judgement went into making those mistakes. We don't know about that yet and it will be sometime before that is resolved.

[kalm]

NOW? Well ok then.

So if it breaks this week that the reports of this being mishandled are erroneous, I'm sure you and LB will be voting for Obama...right?

Well, a US ambassador was assassinated on the anniversary of 9/11. That by itself is evidence that his security was mishandled. I don't think any report is going to come out that says we did everything right and no mistakes were made. If no mistakes were made, he'd still be alive. I think what needs to be resolved is what mistakes were made and how severe of poor judgement went into making those mistakes. We don't know about that yet and it will be sometime before that is resolved.

Totally agree. The other question is how far up the mistakes go? It's a legit question, hence my agreement with Baldy on the issue. There's some legitimate concerns.

[BlueHen86]

Yes, it's always better when we decide based on speculation than allowing the facts to come out. You do realize the contradiction within your own post right?

The point is that Libya only speculation to partisan Democrats today as Watergate was only speculation to partisan Republicans 40 years ago. Facts are facts, except to ideologues...

Not everyone is a partisan. As an American I would like to know what happened in Libya. Fix the problem so that it doesn't happen again and if that means getting rid of people becasue they are negligent/incompetent/criminal then so be it.

But I'm not going to trust one source, expecially when everyone knows that source is heavily biased.

[DSUrocks07]

The point is that Libya only speculation to partisan Democrats today as Watergate was only speculation to partisan Republicans 40 years ago. Facts are facts, except to ideologues...

Not everyone is a partisan. As an American I would like to know what happened in Libya. Fix the problem so that it doesn't happen again and if that means getting rid of people because they are negligent/incompetent/criminal then so be it.

But I'm not going to trust one source, especially when everyone knows that source is heavily biased.

People who go by only one source are usually the "torches and pitchforks" crowd

[AZGrizFan]

You expect MSNBC or CNN to cover this? If you trust things like the NY Times, you'd never know this even HAPPENED.

I was watching Morning Joe yesterday and Scarborough and Mika confronted Obama about it in an interview on the campaign trail. The story was also everywhere over the weekend.

The source comes from Fox so yeah, it's kind of questionable and bordering less on facts at this point. Plus, the stormicane coverage nocked it to the back burner. If it has legs, the Republicans will call for investigations, and the facts will come out.

Carry on.

This hurricane/nor'easter was the best possible thing that could have happened for the Obama campaign a week before elections.

[AZGrizFan]

The difference is, these are all FACTS.

If you say so. I'm not saying that you are wrong, but I'm still not convinced.

Which facts, exactly, are you not convinced about? Because most of what was in that article is readily available information.

[BDKJMU]

If you say so. I'm not saying that you are wrong, but I'm still not convinced.

Which facts, exactly, are you not convinced about? Because most of what was in that article is readily available information.

If Fox said the sky was blue and grass was green he would probably question it.

[LeadBolt]

Ok, all the facts will come out over the next yr or 2. Well just make our decision at the ballot box after they have all come out....oops, we've got an election in 1 week. So unless the election is postponed for a yr or 2, we have to decide based on what is known NOW.

NOW? Well ok then.

So if it breaks this week that the reports of this being mishandled are erroneous, I'm sure you and LB will be voting for Obama...right?

Nope. I've never been a one issue voter and probably never will be. I tend to vote for the more moderate candidate, in this case Romney. I'm in St. Thomas on vacation and have already voted absentee.