Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Routes Available | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

What went wrong, and why

January 28, 2013

During the weeks before the November presidential election, questions about the Sept. 11 attack that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans came primarily from Republicans....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(48)

JackAaah

Jan-28-13 8:48 AM

In order to move forword, we just must continue to ask ourselves "what difference does it make?"

And we must also ask "what difference does it make?" if we hear ANYTHING about Sen. Robert Menendez(D) going out of country to have s e x with underage posstitutes.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WorriedAmerican

Jan-28-13 9:11 AM

Yes, just like the original 9/11/2001 investigations! When did the administration know about it, and why didn't they prevent it, and who is responsible for it?

2 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JackAaah

Jan-28-13 11:57 AM

What difference does it make........

8 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

OldCat

Jan-28-13 12:29 PM

Yes-What difference does it make at this point in time? a terrorist or drive by shooting? --the cover-up--only one that I can see is this MDN editorial in the litter box.

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

OldCat

Jan-28-13 2:56 PM

60 minutes showed her "outburst" --fist pounding and all-trying to make her point about trying to prevent this kind of happening again. Walrus will never give up his attitudes including mocking other bloggers.

2 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JackAaah

Jan-28-13 10:35 PM

oldcat-"Wally Russ"...now there's another Hillsboro resident I feel I will never see at the Hillsboro Free-Lunch Counter Café....

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WorriedAmerican

Jan-29-13 11:21 AM

Why didn't the house release the security money that was already budgeted for these embassies? Why not an investigation on that? Looks to me more like a political "revenge party". Sec. Clinton kept refering the investigating commission to read the classified version of the events. I wonder if any one of them did? If they had any evidence of any cover up at all it would have been brought out long before the election! It was a bureauacratic screw up between the state dept. and the DOD and the house budget commitee which cost those lives of our four Americans.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WorriedAmerican

Jan-29-13 1:58 PM

h4c do you actually BELIEVE any politician or sitting President would sacrifice the lives of Americans just to win an election?

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WorriedAmerican

Jan-29-13 2:30 PM

h4c did you read the classified documents? Of course not? So we do not know all of the facts do we? So not knowing the fact means there must be a cover up. RIGHT! Could it be they cannot release certain information in order to catch the one responsible for the attack? I have never saw such a bunch of so called Americans quick to throw their leaders under the bus! Why is it that all of you believe everything this administration does has an evil plot to destroy America? What would be the purpose? Who would gain from this? Who would President Obama be working with? Please explain the so called logic behind this?

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Jan-29-13 3:30 PM

Worried, nobody said anything about "sacrificing Americans to win an election." What I see is that 1) the American public was not told the truth for several days after the event, and 2) Mrs. Clinton's testimony seemed to further cloud an already questionable issue.

Does it make a difference now? Well, yes. Mostly because the spin was aggressive, as Susan Rice gave out the story about the video on more than one talk show.

So, if Ms. Rice didn't know anything, like Mrs. Clinton almost implied, why did she speak as though she did, that what happened was the fault of a video?

It looks funny, OK? It leads a person to think "where there's smoke, there's fire."

This one's free: if gov't officials don't want cynical citizens, they should just up and tell the truth once in a while.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

OldCat

Jan-29-13 5:17 PM

Obviously the "TRUTH" about rioting Islamic mobs was not nearly as effective as militant Islamic terrorists or how about Weapons of Mass Destruction. Your right about being cynical loco-if they could just tell the truth. My litter box is well contained H4C-its not spread all around like yours.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

OldCat

Jan-29-13 7:44 PM

h4c muck raking tusks at it again-same blubber different day.

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

OldCat

Jan-29-13 8:43 PM

no explanation required-self evident.

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WorriedAmerican

Jan-29-13 9:30 PM

lorexx says, "Any Commander in Chief that is worth his salt never sends troops into harms way without a back up and an escape plan."

These people were not troops! They were state dept personel along with CIA operatives! We don't know all the details! Because they are CLASSIFIED!!!!

What was Bush's exit plan in Iraq?

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WorriedAmerican

Jan-30-13 9:24 AM

Why did Dick Cheney say that we would be greated as "Liberators"! They did not have an exit statedgy when they went in originally and that is why we got bogged down in Iraq!!! You know that as a fact! You can try and spin it like all you repubs like to spin your failures!!

0 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WorriedAmerican

Jan-30-13 9:32 AM

Bush & Cheney had no idea about the different tribal differences in Iraq and the civil war that would develop there. All they saw as Rumsfeld said was easy targets to use their new so called "smart bombs" for their "shock and awe"! My two sons were there from the start and had to wear those biochemical suits during the invasion and found out there wasn't any chemical weapons!

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WorriedAmerican

Jan-30-13 11:18 AM

lorexxx we have been messing with the middle east for decades! Wasn't it in the 70's we were helping the Sha of Iran and then he fell and the Reagan came in and with the help of Cheney and Rumsfeld propped up Hussien in Iraq and we supported him against Iran. Funny how we continue to screw things up!

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WorriedAmerican

Jan-30-13 11:42 AM

lorexxx That is your argument? really?

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WorriedAmerican

Jan-30-13 11:46 AM

lorexxx if the superrich are suffering so? Why is the stock market at its highest level in years?

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WorriedAmerican

Jan-30-13 11:49 AM

CEO's were handed out 9.5 million dollar bonuses from companies that were recently bailed out from the Bush TARP program back in 2008 by Sec. of Treas. Paulson

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WorriedAmerican

Jan-30-13 12:08 PM

lorexxx I find your argument unbelieveable. When the Bush Tax Cuts went into effect we lost jobs so the reverse effect happened? These so called super rich job creators got their tax breaks and the country received a large deficeit in return. The middle class incomes were stagnant at best. The upper class incomes increased 120% Wall Street benefited and Main Street paid the price and is still paying the price.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Jan-30-13 4:41 PM

"If you're so smart -- put your hat in the ring."

Anyone has the freedom to do it.

Question: did Thomas Paine run for any elected office?

How about Mark Twain?

Ed Schultz?

Tom Brokaw?

Some people talk. Some people respond. Not all run for office.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JackAaah

Jan-30-13 5:37 PM

....I'll Grant you that.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WorriedAmerican

Jan-30-13 6:04 PM

lorexxx says, "According to supply-side economics, tax cuts will increase consumer spending enough to make up for the revenue loss. That's because consumers and businesses will spend enough of the tax cuts to increase demand and create jobs. This creates so much economic growth that tax revenues ultimately rise. The same effect doesn't occur with increased government spending, according to the theory." According to the Bush TAX Cuts the exact opposite occured did it not? Jobs were lost and the economic market collapsed! So much for that theory!! We tried that "trickle down theory" before with Reagan! It only benefited the few at the expense of the many!

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WorriedAmerican

Jan-30-13 6:17 PM

lorexxx, Mr. critique, you're always getting on Pres. Obama's case about picking winner's and loser's during the economic crisis. I never heard you say anything about then Pres. Bush and then Sec. Tres. Paulson picking winner's and loser's in the financial district of Wall Street during the economic collapse in 2008? Why is that? Do you suppose the increase in Gov't spending due to the TARP started all this so called supply side economic policy theory to unravel and plunge us into the "worst economic disaster ever!"

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 48 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web