Sign in to follow this  
moneymakers

I guess this is okay?

Recommended Posts

CNSNews.com) - On the day after the U.S. Ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were killed in Benghazi, the White House on Wednesday morning released a schedule showing that President Obama would continue with his planned campaign trip to Las Vegas.

 

Obama has no time?

Edited by moneymakers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's he supposed to do?

 

 

He's supposed to use these deaths to attack his opponent in hopes of gaining some sort of political advantage. Oh, I’m sorry….I thought we were talking about someone else. Nevermind.

Edited by SayItAintSoJoe
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think moneymakers is saying this means like with 9-11, we should use this act as a pretense to attack an unrelated Muslim country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Clermont County Fairgrounds over in Owensville are the only proper place to mourn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of what's going on, I find the significant amount of time that a currently employed politician wastes on campaigning for his next job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of what's going on, I find the significant amount of time that a currently employed politician wastes on campaigning for his next job.

 

Don't you mean all incumbent politicians except those not running for re-election?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He still hasn't found out where da white wimmin are at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hope

 

 

What better place to hope than Las vegas?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm departing to Vegas on Friday, glad he'll have left the area by then and be back in Denver before I go so McCarran and DIA aren't a complete security clusterfark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of what's going on, I find the significant amount of time that a currently employed politician wastes on campaigning for his next job.

So now that you have found it, what are you going to do with it?
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have to agree here!

 

BTW I also hate how politicians waste so much time and money campaigning. Particularly the ones that get elected to one office, and almost immediately start campaigning for a higher office. And I really hate how when they lose they can go back to their current/old job and continue working.

 

What other job allows you to spend so much of your time looking for another job, while being paid to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been thinking that it would be beneficial if people all over the world joined hands and started a Love Train, Love Train.

 

 

Tell all the folks in Russia, and China too, don't you know that it's time to get on board, and let this train keep on riding, riding on through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd tell Romney to shut up but hes doing such a great job of losing he election...

Edited by Pope Flick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CNSNews.com) - On the day after the U.S. Ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were killed in Benghazi, the White House on Wednesday morning released a schedule showing that President Obama would continue with his planned campaign trip to Las Vegas.

 

Obama has no time?

 

 

Thanks for that link. I found lots of good information on that website...so much so....I donated to their website. Thanks again! :tup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would anyone happen to know if it will be long now?

 

 

No, no it won't...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the White House calendar, there is no public record of President Barack Obama attending his daily intelligence briefing--known as the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB)--in the week leading up to the attacks on the U.S. embassy in Cairo and the murder of U.S. Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens and three American members of his staff:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the White House calendar, there is no public record of President Barack Obama attending his daily intelligence briefing--known as the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB)--in the week leading up to the attacks on the U.S. embassy in Cairo and the murder of U.S. Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens and three American members of his staff:

 

 

Meh... shrub was at his briefings but chose to ignore the warnings

 

 

The Deafness Before the Storm

By KURT EICHENWALD

Published: September 10, 2012

 

On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning's "presidential daily brief" — the top-secret document prepared by America's intelligence agencies — featured the now-infamous heading: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal.

 

On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document's significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda's history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.

 

That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration's reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.

 

The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that "a group presently in the United States" was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be "imminent," although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.

 

But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives' suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.

 

In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.

 

"The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden," the daily brief of June 29 read, using the government's transliteration of Bin Laden's first name. Going on for more than a page, the document recited much of the evidence, including an interview that month with a Middle Eastern journalist in which Bin Laden aides warned of a coming attack, as well as competitive pressures that the terrorist leader was feeling, given the number of Islamists being recruited for the separatist Russian region of Chechnya.

 

And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed. Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have "dramatic consequences," including major casualties. On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had been delayed, but "will occur soon." Some of the briefs again reminded Mr. Bush that the attack timing was flexible, and that, despite any perceived delay, the planned assault was on track.

 

Yet, the White House failed to take significant action. Officials at the Counterterrorism Center of the C.I.A. grew apoplectic. On July 9, at a meeting of the counterterrorism group, one official suggested that the staff put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place, two people who were there told me in interviews. The suggestion was batted down, they said, because there would be no time to train anyone else.

 

That same day in Chechnya, according to intelligence I reviewed, Ibn Al-Khattab, an extremist who was known for his brutality and his links to Al Qaeda, told his followers that there would soon be very big news. Within 48 hours, an intelligence official told me, that information was conveyed to the White House, providing more data supporting the C.I.A.'s warnings. Still, the alarm bells didn't sound.

 

On July 24, Mr. Bush was notified that the attack was still being readied, but that it had been postponed, perhaps by a few months. But the president did not feel the briefings on potential attacks were sufficient, one intelligence official told me, and instead asked for a broader analysis on Al Qaeda, its aspirations and its history. In response, the C.I.A. set to work on the Aug. 6 brief.

 

In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush officials attempted to deflect criticism that they had ignored C.I.A. warnings by saying they had not been told when and where the attack would occur. That is true, as far as it goes, but it misses the point. Throughout that summer, there were events that might have exposed the plans, had the government been on high alert. Indeed, even as the Aug. 6 brief was being prepared, Mohamed al-Kahtani, a Saudi believed to have been assigned a role in the 9/11 attacks, was stopped at an airport in Orlando, Fla., by a suspicious customs agent and sent back overseas on Aug. 4. Two weeks later, another co-conspirator, Zacarias Moussaoui, was arrested on immigration charges in Minnesota after arousing suspicions at a flight school. But the dots were not connected, and Washington did not react.

 

Could the 9/11 attack have been stopped, had the Bush team reacted with urgency to the warnings contained in all of those daily briefs? We can't ever know. And that may be the most agonizing reality of all.

 

Kurt Eichenwald, a contributing editor at Vanity Fair and a former reporter for The New York Times, is the author of "500 Days: Secrets and Lies in the Terror Wars."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, can someone spalin how this political censorship thing works on the huddle anyway?

 

 

His last post is spam - just paste to google. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moneymakers now doesn't like the pizza Bush himself cooked (but he did before BC) though I'd like to see a link to Obama's pizza since I do believe mm isn't smart on anything except youth soccer games. Hence he's makig this up.

 

4 more pizzas!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His last post is spam - just paste to google. :lol:

 

Moneymakers is the Huddle's aunt Doris.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, can someone spalin how this political censorship thing works on the huddle anyway?

 

 

Right wing tripe is a-OK, it's just when someone from the left posts an argument, that's totally unacceptable and has to go.

Edited by Chavez
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.