Why do we need the CIA and NSA when we have; Nate from Pleasant Grove, UTWho obviously listens to AM radio talk shows --
Therefore -- He knows everything the CIA is doing, on
the other side of the world in Benghazi, Libya, and better yet, Why they
are doing it? And if you don't believe him, it's
because YOU don't know because it's a secret, cabal, cover-up,
conspiracy.Just like fluoride, the moon landings, contrails, and
Obama's birth certificate.
Circular Reasoning? Good golly miss molly. Since the idea of a CIA outpost in
a foreign nation seems to be a bit confusing here, lets enumerate.1)
why we had CIA agents on foreign soil is something likely they can't talk
about.2) who they were interfacing with locally.... probably secret as
their lives would be in danger3) the extent of our capabilities in Libya,
probably something we don't want to disclose to the who would do ill to our
country.4) the level of our involvement in overturning the Libyan
dictator, probably something we don't want to broadcast to that region5) what surveillance capability did we have, and still have in that
countryNeed we really go on? Yes, asking why the CIA is in any
foreign land is going to get you a circular answer. Why would you expect
anything less. Posting national secrets in the media would be rather counter
productive. Your need to know... versus national security and the fight against
terrorist groups... let me decide..............
@radically_independentThanks, circular reasoning was just what I was
hoping for. They are being secretive because their operation was covert. Very
helpful.What were they hiding?
@Nate.... because they are CIA agents, and the reason they were there is
covert.... how hard is that to understand? Part of their job is to keep
national secrets. They were not there to plant backyard gardens, or hand out
milk to kids.Ask any CIA agent why they were in a foreign land in an
armed compound.... your going to get the same answer.... "I can't tell
@LDS Liberal "So, will you follow the prophet, or Rush Limbaugh, Sean
Hannity or Glenn Beck?"I'll follow the truth, whoever
happens to be telling it. And the truth about Benghazi is that CIA employees
with knowledge about what happened there are being forced by the administration
to sign legal documents barring them from talking about it. I would like to know
Good grief Red, I didn't say it way about conservative issues. I said it
was about things like which President was Republican and which was Democrat, who
favors tax cuts for the rich, and who favors business, who is against abortion
etc. etc. The survey had nothing to do with who is informed about the facts of
current affairs. Also now they are left leaning and not to be trusted. BTW
that's a fact from your statement and an inference about your intentions.
No kidding, Democrats are likely to dump you, when you get all
exercised about Bengazi, one of fifteen such attacks. The IRS where the manager
has said I did it. Talking about death panels with Obamacare. Continuing to
claim the annual deficit is continuing to skyrocket.
To "LDS Liberal" why does education matter to comment on politics? If
that is true, then unless you are hypocrite, you cannot comment more on politics
because you have no degrees in politics. If you are allowed to comment on
political issues and you feel that you have educated yourself, why can't
Rush do the same?Do you hold Obama to the same Military standard?
He never served in the military, yet is allowed to command them. Should Obama
defer all military commands to somebody in his administration who served in the
military.Do you hold Obama to the same drug standards. He is a self
admitted drug addict.You accept anything Obama says about poverty
when he has never been poor.You have no problem with Obama telling
you to tighten your belt while he lives like royalty golfing with celebrities
and holding concerts at the WH.You implicitly trust Obama, even
after he was caught lying in his own biography.You hold Rush to a
higher standard than you hold Obama to. You should hold your guys to the same
standard that you hold conservatives.
To "pragmatistferlife" that was the "What the Public Knows about the
Political Parties" that tell us that Republicans are more informed than
Democrats. You realize that Pew is left leaning, so I doubt your accusation
that it was a survey about conservative issues.It is "Social
Networking Sites and Politics" also by Pew that states that liberals are
more likely to unfriend people that disagree with them. If you look at the
report, liberals are more likely to dump you on a SNS site if you post about
politics or disagree with them.Are you going to "unfriend"
@jsfCenterville, UTTo often in the discussions on these
threads, statements like the following are made "Why do so many people
listen and parrot everything they hear from college drop-outs on AM radios."
It smacks of intolerance. ===== OK, let's single
out Rush Limbaugh then..."Why do so many people listen and
parrot everything they hear from a; college drop-out, who has NEVER
served this Country in uniform, a multi-millionaire who does create any
jobs, a self admitted drug addict, married and divorce 3 times, with NO children, and while single - caught with a bottle of Viagra on
a trip to a contry famous for it's prostitution, lecturing Americans
about God and Family Values, on the AM radio."
@UtahBlueDevil my point exactly, using the have or have not of a college degree
is not a valid part of a civil discussion. To often in the discussions on these
threads, statements like the following are made "Why do so many people
listen and parrot everything they hear from college drop-outs on AM radios."
It smacks of intolerance. A comment of , why do so many people listen and
parrot everything they hear on AM radios, would be less arrogant and elitist.
But then the same argument could be made why do so many people parrot the
talking points of liberal media. Neither statement addresses the facts.
Brilliant minds and great understanding are not limited to a paper or lambskin
certificate in a black frame hanging on a wall. As far as Glenn
Beck is concerned, at least in most issues he tell the audience they are
responsible to follow up and search it out. But yes he is an entertainer also.
RedShirt, "The survey questioned knowledge of political party platforms and
the political party affiliation of some elected individuals. It says nothing
about current events or being open-minded or tolerant." That's exactly
what the survey is about and concludes. The study simply concludes
that Republicans are better informed that Republicans are against gay marriage,
high taxes, and that Regan was a Republican, and Clinton was a Democrat.
Everything else is right wing distortion.
RedShirtMIT, at least you got the facts right. Something the author
didn't. A team actually was dispatched and did arrive in time to help
secure the area where the consulate folks had gathered. So the premise so
loudly touted by the likes of the author that help was denied is absolutely
false. Help was sent and did arrive. As to your question about
additional help, look at Maudine's list of similar attacks and tell me how
many anti-terrorist teams were sent in real time, or how many aircraft were sent
to give cover. In some of these case Maudine mentions we actually had prior
warning. My point is not to blame Bush but to show that embassy, and consulate
protection is not done with guns a blazing seal teams or rocket launching
F16's. It's a different world. It's a small piece of America
purposefully placed in the middle of a sovereign country.
To "Maudine" the Star Tribune came up with the same conclusions. Take a
look at "Liberals, take a long look in the mirror". I looked at the
study, and it does show that Republicans are better informed. The article from
the Star Tribune also referrs to another study where they find that
conservatives are more tolerant too.Unless you want to fit the
liberal profile described by the study, I think you should actually go to the
Pew website and read what they have to say about it.
@NatePleasant Grove, UT@LDS LiberalWhen you
can't engage the argument, attack credentials.4:54 p.m. Sept. 16,
2013========= No, I just said follow the prophet -
don't go astray.The LDS Church does not push for a total ban on
ALL abortions - like the GOP.The LDS Church does not consider abortion a
"murder".The LDS Church is politically neutral on the matter.Everything else is rebel rousing scare tactics heard on a political talk
show.So, will you follow the prophet, or Rush
Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck?
If you will notice... you and the other 11 ultra-lib posters always get ~11
likes. That's because the same 11 people run around liking each other. I
hope you don't think it means your opinion is any more valid than anyone
elses.Do you remember Conservative folks claiming "If you
criticize the President you're Un-American"? Do you remember left
saying "it's our DUTY to question the President and the
Government".My how quickly times have changed. Now the same
people say it's despicable to question the President of this Nation. What
changed?Just pointing out how brain washed people can become when
defending their political heroes and questioning their political enemies.It's something I hope we can all overcome someday.
Why are we talking about Benghazi? Perhaps because the GOP is fresh out of
ideas. What have we heard from the Republicans lately? Defund Obamacare, without
putting forth any sort of plan to replace it. Before that it was "We will
not raise taxes on millionaires because they are the job creators and they
won't create jobs if we increase their taxes by 4 percent." Well, we
raised taxes on them, and they still gained ground on the rest of the workforce.
The gap between rich and rest is now the widest since 1928. Yes, Benghazi was
unfortunate, just like many other unfortunate losses we've suffered abroad.
But they all pale in comparison to the real crisis in America: rapidly expanding
inequality. If you think the financial collapse of 2008 was fun, just wait for
the encore that we're brewing by sending nearly all the wealth gains to the
top 1 percent. Let's start dealing with the biggest problem, which, by the
way, is the source of the debt we're piling up. The debt is a symptom.
Inequality is the malady.
@KJB1:"President Obama won. Romney lost."No, no. You
got it wrong. Obama won, the people lost.@2 bits:"I'm
happy to say that I have learned from the mistakes President Bush made."The mistakes were not Bush's. At least, not his alone. Any
mistakes were the mistakes of the US Congress as well. Remember, the US cannot
go to war without the approval and funding of the US Congress. If you want to
blame someone, blame the Democrats, including John Kerry, Hilary Clinton, and
Joe Giden for voting authorization to use military force. Keep that in mind.
ECR and those who liked:I don't know why you would have 11
likes. I saw that it was addressed to someone(s) else and so I was respectful
enough not to read it. Are there 11 editors who liked it? Or are there a bunch
of you reading someone else's mail?
@JSF.... by the way.... last comment.... I wanted to be clear I was not
supporting LDS Liberals statement either. Yes, there are a lot of people who
rely on FoxNews and radio talking heads for their information. There are
equally those that rely on liberal biased sources for their information.
Where someone has a college degree makes no difference to their honesty, and
often knowledge of the subject matter.Everyone is entitled to their
opinion. Speaking that opinion also requires that person to tolerate other
peoples opinions. It is through that dialog, sometimes miracles happen and
common understanding pops out of the other end of the process. Agreement isn't even necessary... but understanding often helps a lot in
resolving disputes. So no intention of personal attack on you.... I just
didn't get you point. Yes - there are a ton of very smart people who are
not college educated..... and there are a lot of idiots who are college
educated....That is just my opinion.... you are free and encouraged
2 bits - Yeah. But I got 11 Likes.
@ Redshirt: The Daily Caller put an interesting spin on that survey. The
survey questioned knowledge of political party platforms and the political party
affiliation of some elected individuals. It says nothing about current events
or being open-minded or tolerant.
@LDS LiberalWhen you can't engage the argument, attack
@JSF... not sure what you point is other than you don't like educated
liberals. Are educated conservatives ok though? Or is it just the educated
part you have issues with? Or will being educated be ok when a democrat
isn't President? Just trying to figure out what you problem with
To "FreedomFighter41" you are wrong. Conservatives are actually the
most informed.See "Surveys: Republicans more open-minded, better
informed than Democrats" - Daily Caller. That article was written using a
April 2012 Pew Research Center survey -- "What the Public Knows about the
Political Parties". Apparently Conservatives really are better informed AND
are more tolerant.
Hey, I agree with the letter writer that these are valid questions and valid
incredulity. The bottom line is, Obama has no coherent foreign policy and has
an odd world view that he has never explained.
Why? Because his enemies make up stupid imaginary scenarios for the purpose of
defaming him. And because he is not perfect.Benghazi happens
hundreds of times every day in America. Americans are being killed brutally and
gently and the only difference is that the killers in America pretend to be our
friends. No one cries about these crimes and spends billions of
dollars to advertise them, but the four Americans killed in the line of duty in
a foreign mission rate so much glory because they were made to be political gun
fodder. Where is the Congressional investigation for the people
killed by the bad peanut butter, the people killed by the bad medicine, and the
hundreds, thousands, millions of people killed by medical malpractice and
@ JSF"Why do so many liberals equate college graduates as the
only source of knowledge?"Why do conservative trust big business
and loud blowhards on Fox/Am radio over scientists, academics, and other
experts? Since when have religious zealots, industrial giants, and propagandists
been right about anything?
How can we have civil dialog in this country if this is what we have to deal
with?A century ago, a french academic came through our country and
admired how informed our farmers were. It was the key to our Democracy. My how
things have changed! Now our farmers and conservatives in general are the least
informed out there. Science has lost propaganda has won. Democracy
is destroyed, Oligarchy reigns. The people have lost big business/industry has
taken our country away. Civil INFORMED dialog is ignored loud obnoxious noise is
heard. So sad.
I don't know for sure, because we don't have the information about
where the president was, or what he was doing, but I think he is smart enough to
only go places where he can do it by surprise, so he has a better chance of
winning. In Benghazi, any help he sent would have been expected, so he
couldn't have surprised the enemy, er protesters. It might have got the men
he sent to help, killed. Then the president would have looked bad, so he
didn't send them.
ECR,Sorry I drifted off topic. I just read your "Why would you
promote such vile hatred towards the leader of our nation", comment and it
struck me how much Democrats have UN-Learned since the Bush days (when the
Right-wing was making these same type of comments defending our then
President).It's just a little funny where we find ourselves
today (the left defending decisions to go to war, and pretending to be shocked
at anybody who would question the President of our Nation)... when the
Right-wing was saying the same things just a few years ago, and got lectured by
the left (who insisted it is not only their "right" but their DUTY to
question the President). But now... if you question the President... your
Wow, the uninformed lemmings on the left are really out today. The problem is
that the facts don't back up what Hillary or others have said.The first question is why was the Ambassador going to a consulate located in a
highly unstable area in the first place? Next, some of you say that nothing
could be done, but official documents show that there was a team that was able
to get close to the consulate by 1AM. The attacks started at 9 PM. They
didn't get into where the Ambassador was located until 4 AM. Are you
saying that in 7 hours they couldn't get anti-terrorist teams or aircraft
from Spain, Italy, or anywhere else in Europe to give the Consulate cover fire?
Really you only took those names out of the list. I don't propose they are
experts on every subject but maybe, those you discredit have more information
and have studied a subject more than you. Just because you disagree with their
positions and they don't have a college degree does not mean they have
nothing to offer. This is true liberal hypocrisy. I don't think you with
a college degree have more to offer about Syria than anyone else. "There are a lot more without degrees that have far more credibility"
"They also have no military experience. They also have no
experience in national public service. The sum of their experience is they spew
their opinions on TV and radio for ratings." Are you talking about Obama?
2 bits - Thanks to you for your "rant" too. But what does it have to do
... We don't know what will result from limited strikes in Syria (long or
short term).Asad said his reaction would be something America would
never expect. They may not be able to attack us, but what if they start
attacking their own people (he's been known to do that). What if they
target Christians in the region (they've been known to do that). What if
they combine with their leaders in the region and attack Israel (we know they
WANT to do that).I'm just saying... you don't know what
their reaction would be, so your "limited" strike may lead to something
you aren't expecting. You can't tell us for sure that it will end at
limited strikes (that's what I learned).I at least learned
something from our mistakes. It seems YOU have learned nothing and possible
even UN-Learned what you knew during the Bush administration.You are
playing political games here IF you were against what Bush did in Iraq and are
FOR what Obama is doing in Syria. That's all I'm saying. I think
this is my last post so don't expect a reply.
ECR,I couldn't help laughing just a little while reading your rant.
Because it reminded me so much of myself and others back after 9/11 trying to
defend what President Bush was doing in Iraq (all the while pretending we were
patriots and anybody who questioned the President in a time of war was
"unAmerican"). Your rant was word for word the same stuff
you used to get from the Republican defenders back then. It's almost
comical how quickly and completely the shoe has switched to the other foot
now... (now that there's a Democrat President making the tough
decisions).I'm happy to say that I have learned from the
mistakes President Bush made. I didn't realize they were mistakes as they
were being made, but what I learned is.. you can't guarantee what will
result from an attack, even a limited attack. I think he thought it would be
over after the shock-and-awe and the vote, but when the Iraqi people started
looting the museums and killing each other for being Sunni or Shiite.... We
had to stay and provide security. The same goes for limited strikes
@JSF..... no one is talking about these people. Can say I have seen Michael
Dell comment on Libya..... have you? the ones we have heard from, Glenn Beck
for one, the mouth from the south Rush Limbaugh for another.... demonstrably
have no college education. They also have no military experience. They also
have not experience in public service. The sum of their experience is they
spew their opinions on the radio for ratings, just like Howard stern and his
crowd.Jon Bon Jovi.... are you kidding me.... a rocker without a
college degree..... totally shocked. There are a lot more without degrees that
have far more credibility than the likes of jimmy Kimmel.
My question is simple: Why do so many liberals equate college graduates as the
only source of knowledge? Are these all not worth listening to their wisdom
based on the lack of college degree? John D. Rockefeller, Richard Branson,
Abraham Lincoln, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Henry Ford, Dave Thomas, Pete
Cashmore, Rachael Ray, Sean Connery, Steve Jobs, Thomas Edison, Larry Ellison of
Oracle, Paul Allen of Microsoft, Dustin Moskovitz of Facebook, Michael Dell of
Dell Computers, Brian Dunn of Best Buy, Anna Wintour of Vogue, Barry Diller of
IAC, John Mackey of Whole Foods, David Geffen, Ralph Lauren, Ted Turner,.David
Plouffe, Scott Walker, governor of Wisconsin, Jan Brewer of Arizona, Gary
Herbert of Utah, Maya Angelou, Gore Vidal, August Wilson, Mark Twain, William
Faulkner, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Robert Frost, Joseph Brodsky, Harper Lee, Woody
Allen, Clint Eastwood, James Cameron, Robert Redford, Michael Moore, Sidney
Pollack, George Clooney, Hillary Swank, Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, Oprah Winfrey,
Larry King, Ellen DeGeneres, Jimmy Kimmel, Joy Behar, Rosie O'Donnell,
Brian Williams, Peter Jennings, Walter Cronkite, John Chancellor, Nina Totenberg
of NPR, Carl Bernstein of The Washington Post, William Safire, Alicia Keys,
Bruce Springsteen, Bob Dylan, Joan Baez, Steve Earle, Jon Bon Jovi.
Ah, yes, another uninformed rant about Benghazi. A hardy perennial on the DN
Congress cut funding for embassy security worldwide. Maybe that's why.
Maudine - it is because this is about politics. Not ethics. Not morals. Not
actual historical events. This is about political talking points, and taking
advantage of the deaths of 4 men to gain political points. Flash
back to the Pat Tillman event... where he was killed by friendly fire.
Americans killed Americans. And then the then current administration tried to
cover it up. It was only later it was found out that the story initially put
forward was not true.This Benghazi side show that has been
created..... purposely trying to twist these events that occurred when there
were literally dozens of like events going on in the region. it is not only
distasteful, but makes a mockery of these mens lives. Tillman's life....
no big deal. The 4,000 other lives lost. No biggie. The 100,000 plus
civilian lives.... we can get over those. A singular event that we
didn't have assets in theatre to prevent.... this rises to treason for
some.Must be nice.....
@ Diane: Let me get this straight...2002, US Consulate in Karachi,
Pakistan attacked, 10 killed2004, US Embassy in Uzbekistan bombed, 2
killed, 9 injured2004, US Consulate in Saudi Arabia stormed, 8 killed 2006, US Embassy in Syria attacked, 1 killed2007, US Embassy in Athens
grenade launched into 2008, US Embassy in Serbia set fire to2008, US
Embassy in Yemen bombed, 10 killedand not a peep from you about the
injured and dead from these attacks or the US response to them.My
question is simple: Why?
DANGER - listening to large doses of radio broadcasts featuring loud mouths
with microphones and agendas to sell in order to sucker people into sending
money into their already huge bank accounts can have deleterious effects on the
There is only one explanation for this letter - FOX "news" and this
newspaper's increasingly uncritical embrace of far-right politics.
President Obama won.Romney lost.Time to get over it.
The election was only a few weeks away. Pres. Obama couldn't risk his
chances by sending in planes and troops to rescue our Ambassador Stevens and
others. So he put out a cockamamie story about a spontaneous uprising due to a
video offensive to Muslims.
Because you are not privy to the same information as the president. That is why.
My question is simple: Why do so many people listen and parrot everything they
hear from college drop-outs on AM radios?
"My question is simple: Why?"Why? Because your whole premise
is totally faulty.
My comment today is not directed toward the author of this letter. It is clear
what her motive is. My question is to the editors of the DN Editorial page. I
know you have a number of letters to choose from when deciding which ones to
publish on this page. Why on earth would you print this letter that is so
uninformed about what really happened in Benghazi and what the motivations of
the president were. Why would you promote such vile hatred towards the leader
of our nation when your heading states that you "encourage a civil dialogue
among (your) readers". Is this letter encouraging such civility or is it
just inciting outrage on both sides of the issue. Does it offer understanding
of the facts; does it bring us together as a nation in coming to a common
understanding of the dark forces working against us and how we can, together,
work to rid this world of such evil forces? When you encourage irresponsible
rhetoric that does nothing to enlighten us you only reduce your own stature in
the journalistic profession. Is this letter representative of the best you had
to choose from?
Even John Bolton, the furthest right of the right wing defense hawks admitted
that, in real time, it would have been impossible to determine whether to pull
security away from our embassy in Tripoli and shift it to the consulate in