The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 4 of 18 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 355
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Nov. 4, 2003
    Location
    Sanger, TX, USA
    Posts
    4,967

    Default

    FYI, there was a "gun running" program under Bush called Wide Receiver where the guns were fitted with tracking devices and the Mexican government was involved with the program. It did lead to some capture of bad guys but then the bad guys figured out the guns had the devices and began removing them, so the program was discontinued, I think, in 2007.


    5 members found this post helpful.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Sep. 24, 2004
    Location
    Piedmont Triad, North Carolina
    Posts
    2,382

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LexInVA View Post
    Furthermore, the gun problem is not Obama's fault. Project Gunrunner - the actual name of the ATF program that many people incorrectly assume is Operation Fast and Furious because of bad reporting - was started under the Bush administration and went unchecked well into the Obama administration. F&F was merely the tail-end of the program where it snowballed due to the investigation.
    Lex ... They were two separate programs. Bush's "gunrunner" was co-ordinated with Mexico. Obama's FnF was not.

    Quote:

    ATF is deploying its resources strategically on the Southwest Border to deny firearms, the "tools of the trade," to criminal organizations in Mexico and along the border, and to combat firearms-related violence affecting communities on both sides of the border. In partnership with other U.S. agencies and with the Government of Mexico, ATF refined its Southwest Border strategy. ATF developed Project Gunrunner to stem the flow of firearms into Mexico and thereby deprive the narcotics cartels of weapons. The initiative seeks to focus ATF's investigative, intelligence and training resources to suppress the firearms trafficking to Mexico and stem the firearms-related violence on both sides of the border.


    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/...#ixzz2Aij7YO3H


    3 members found this post helpful.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jun. 26, 2001
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,358

    Default

    LexinVa, doesn't a machine gun nest on top of the building kind of say they had arms? Serious arms? This is what the two seals were using to fight off the forces. They had a laser lock on the mortor fire location and were calling in it for a precision air strike. Nope, nothing happened. They were killed by the mortor fire.

    If Libya told the administration to stand down and that's that . . . then why won't the Obama administration come out and say that? And if they have I must have missed it, I have been busy.

    There was a CIA annex located 1 mile away, and apparently they were armed to the teeth. So I am having a hard time buying this Libya says no no to arms story. Those two seals didn't enter into a fire fight with their toothbrushes!
    Lions and Tigers and Bears, oh my!!


    4 members found this post helpful.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jun. 26, 2001
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hosspuller View Post
    Lex ... They were two separate programs. Bush's "gunrunner" was co-ordinated with Mexico. Obama's FnF was not.

    Quote:

    ATF is deploying its resources strategically on the Southwest Border to deny firearms, the "tools of the trade," to criminal organizations in Mexico and along the border, and to combat firearms-related violence affecting communities on both sides of the border. In partnership with other U.S. agencies and with the Government of Mexico, ATF refined its Southwest Border strategy. ATF developed Project Gunrunner to stem the flow of firearms into Mexico and thereby deprive the narcotics cartels of weapons. The initiative seeks to focus ATF's investigative, intelligence and training resources to suppress the firearms trafficking to Mexico and stem the firearms-related violence on both sides of the border.


    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/...#ixzz2Aij7YO3H
    You are so right on this. Bush's program (I believe) also involved tracking devices on the specific weapons that were sold over the border. Then they were immediately grabbed by the authorities and returned. Obama's program, no tracking devices, hell no tracking period. They just let the guns go and never found them again until they started showing up at murder scenes. Including Border Agent Brian Terry's murder. The F&F program stunk to high heavens and the executive order to seal the records smells even worse!!

    Maybe just maybe if Gov. Romney wins will be actually find out who is behind that debacle also. Geez how many of these do people need to say enough is enough?
    Lions and Tigers and Bears, oh my!!


    6 members found this post helpful.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Aug. 25, 2007
    Posts
    9,210

    Default

    It's not that there's a "coverup" on Libya (or Fast and Furious for that matter), but more of a "group refusal to publish information adverse to the Administration" by the bulk of the mainstream media.

    And some, like NPR, go out of their way to excuse any Administration faux pas whatsoever.

    G.
    Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão


    6 members found this post helpful.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jul. 20, 2007
    Posts
    286

    Default

    How anyone on this thread thinks they have all the information needed to make a call on how this all should have been done is beyond me. None of you have access to all the information. NONE of you.

    To armchair quarterback the situation is ridiculous!

    To acuse the POTUS or anyone else of purposefully witholding support when there were feasable options is nuts. Think about it? Why would anyone do such a thing? Aside from the normal human response to help, it would be political suicide to do what you are acusing him of doing. So whether you believe his motivations are good or bad, there is no plausible reason to do what you are saying. It just doesn't even pass the sniff test.

    These situations are much more complicated than any of us sitting here can imagine.

    As far as misleading the public? Unless you have top security clearance, there is no reason for you to know in real time what was going on. There are too many factors involved.


    6 members found this post helpful.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jul. 20, 2007
    Posts
    286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brookes View Post
    LexinVa, doesn't a machine gun nest on top of the building kind of say they had arms? Serious arms? This is what the two seals were using to fight off the forces. They had a laser lock on the mortor fire location and were calling in it for a precision air strike. Nope, nothing happened. They were killed by the mortor fire.

    If Libya told the administration to stand down and that's that . . . then why won't the Obama administration come out and say that? And if they have I must have missed it, I have been busy.

    There was a CIA annex located 1 mile away, and apparently they were armed to the teeth. So I am having a hard time buying this Libya says no no to arms story. Those two seals didn't enter into a fire fight with their toothbrushes!
    Did it ever occur to people that we WERE doing something, just not something we want to publicly admit? They might not have been successful at preventing the unfortunate casualties, but there was likely something going on. It's the only thing that makes any sense.

    the old "the CIA disavows any knowledge" is not just for movies.....


    5 members found this post helpful.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Oct. 28, 2007
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    4,431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LexInVA View Post
    Libya forbade the US from having armed security forces at that location. Armed PMCs - which are what the US uses to provide security in dangerous foreign countries these days - are forbidden from operating on Libyan soil and US armed forces are forbidden from being on the ground or in the air above Libya without the consent of the Libyan government. The Benghazi compound was being used for backdoor dealings with the same Islamic militants who attacked it and because of the sensitive nature of the business being conducted there by the US and other regional influences who wanted to use them against Syria, they did not want to press the issue when it came to securing the location and it came back to bite them in the ass. The only security they could put in place were some DSS guys armed with pop guns and some unarmed guards from a security company.
    So what are we doing backing the take down of the Syrian government via the backdoor.
    Very IranContra.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Dec. 31, 2000
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    13,016

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sunny59 View Post
    Did it ever occur to people that we WERE doing something, just not something we want to publicly admit? They might not have been successful at preventing the unfortunate casualties, but there was likely something going on. It's the only thing that makes any sense.

    the old "the CIA disavows any knowledge" is not just for movies.....
    The "blaming the attack on a youtube video" for 2 weeks afterwards, in spite of knowing that it wasn't because of that, pretty much screams COVER UP to me. The failure to answer questions screams COVER UP.


    7 members found this post helpful.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Sep. 24, 2004
    Location
    Piedmont Triad, North Carolina
    Posts
    2,382

    Default

    To address the idea that Libya didn't allow US air assets in their country...

    We bombed the Libya 's troops a short time ago. Remember? we were trying to force Muammar Gaddafi out of power. Without Congress's approval Obama sent warplanes to attack another state. So why not when US territory (A consulate is US Soil) is under attack we can't defend it with warplanes?


    There is no liberal logic... just feelings.


    4 members found this post helpful.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Jul. 20, 2007
    Posts
    286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jetsmom View Post
    The "blaming the attack on a youtube video" for 2 weeks afterwards, in spite of knowing that it wasn't because of that, pretty much screams COVER UP to me. The failure to answer questions screams COVER UP.
    cover up of what exactly?


    2 members found this post helpful.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Jun. 26, 2001
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sunny59 View Post
    How anyone on this thread thinks they have all the information needed to make a call on how this all should have been done is beyond me. None of you have access to all the information. NONE of you.

    To armchair quarterback the situation is ridiculous!

    To acuse the POTUS or anyone else of purposefully witholding support when there were feasable options is nuts. Think about it? Why would anyone do such a thing? Aside from the normal human response to help, it would be political suicide to do what you are acusing him of doing. So whether you believe his motivations are good or bad, there is no plausible reason to do what you are saying. It just doesn't even pass the sniff test.

    These situations are much more complicated than any of us sitting here can imagine.

    As far as misleading the public? Unless you have top security clearance, there is no reason for you to know in real time what was going on. There are too many factors involved.
    Sunny I understand what you are saying, however there is enough information out there to certainly make educated responses to the situation. Why won't the administration share what they know with Congress?? Why are they keeping them out of the loop? Why all the lies and denials still? Is this administration so screwed up that they can't even get us some of the right information instead of telling us about some trumped up movie trailer for weeks on end? That had absolutely nothing to do with it. Liars that watched the whole thing unfold in real time in the situation room and then told us there was an impromptu demonstration that went awry??? Really? Have you seen the videos? There is no demonstration, just terrorists armed to the teeth attacking our embassy on let's say it again 9/11!!!!!!!!!

    I have been listening to a number of military personnel speaking clearly on tv that under no circumstances would a situation like this ever be handled this way in the past. Why now? Why didn't one of those special ops teams (that were in place and ready to rock) get the go ahead to go in and try a rescue effort?

    We have done much worse in this world than try to go in and rescue our people on our soil. All of a sudden it's a no no? Since freaking when? Like Hoff mentioned we were just bombing the crap out of them on the president's orders. But now the president suddenly gets shy and won't rescue americans? Why? You're right this doesn't pass the sniff test. And I smell a rat. A big fat Obama administration rat!
    Lions and Tigers and Bears, oh my!!


    6 members found this post helpful.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Dec. 31, 2000
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    13,016

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brookes View Post
    Sunny I understand what you are saying, however there is enough information out there to certainly make educated responses to the situation. Why won't the administration share what they know with Congress?? Why are they keeping them out of the loop? Why all the lies and denials still? Is this administration so screwed up that they can't even get us some of the right information instead of telling us about some trumped up movie trailer for weeks on end? That had absolutely nothing to do with it. Liars that watched the whole thing unfold in real time in the situation room and then told us there was an impromptu demonstration that went awry??? Really? Have you seen the videos? There is no demonstration, just terrorists armed to the teeth attacking our embassy on let's say it again 9/11!!!!!!!!!

    I have been listening to a number of military personnel speaking clearly on tv that under no circumstances would a situation like this ever be handled this way in the past. Why now? Why didn't one of those special ops teams (that were in place and ready to rock) get the go ahead to go in and try a rescue effort?

    We have done much worse in this world than try to go in and rescue our people on our soil. All of a sudden it's a no no? Since freaking when? Like Hoff mentioned we were just bombing the crap out of them on the president's orders. But now the president suddenly gets shy and won't rescue americans? Why? You're right this doesn't pass the sniff test. And I smell a rat. A big fat Obama administration rat!
    Exactly.


    4 members found this post helpful.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Jul. 20, 2007
    Posts
    286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brookes View Post
    Sunny I understand what you are saying, however there is enough information out there to certainly make educated responses to the situation. Why won't the administration share what they know with Congress?? Why are they keeping them out of the loop? Why all the lies and denials still? Is this administration so screwed up that they can't even get us some of the right information instead of telling us about some trumped up movie trailer for weeks on end? That had absolutely nothing to do with it. Liars that watched the whole thing unfold in real time in the situation room and then told us there was an impromptu demonstration that went awry??? Really? Have you seen the videos? There is no demonstration, just terrorists armed to the teeth attacking our embassy on let's say it again 9/11!!!!!!!!!

    I have been listening to a number of military personnel speaking clearly on tv that under no circumstances would a situation like this ever be handled this way in the past. Why now? Why didn't one of those special ops teams (that were in place and ready to rock) get the go ahead to go in and try a rescue effort?

    We have done much worse in this world than try to go in and rescue our people on our soil. All of a sudden it's a no no? Since freaking when? Like Hoff mentioned we were just bombing the crap out of them on the president's orders. But now the president suddenly gets shy and won't rescue americans? Why? You're right this doesn't pass the sniff test. And I smell a rat. A big fat Obama administration rat!
    Give me one plausible reason for the administration doing what you claim they did.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Aug. 21, 2007
    Posts
    679

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sunny59 View Post
    Give me one plausible reason for the administration doing what you claim they did.
    Oh, something about, let's see, "And Al Queada is on the run." That's probably not exact but how do you, as President, claim that we are winning the war on terror, when our ambassador is sodomized and then murdered by the very terrorists that you claim are on the run? It's far better politically to say it was caused by a spontaneous demonstration that got out of hand than it was a planned, coordinated attack.

    If he is going to claim the credit for Bin Laden, then he needs to accept the responsibility for this.

    Seven hours of conflict and we did nothing. I am appalled.


    7 members found this post helpful.

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Dec. 31, 2000
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    13,016

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sunny59 View Post
    Give me one plausible reason for the administration doing what you claim they did.
    i think they didn't send additional security in advance because the whole time Obama has been saying that Al Queida is no longer an issue since bin Laden was killed. Needing to increase security due to terror threats from them would be admitting that there still is a threat there.
    Then I think the administration didn't send in forces to help during the attack, because if it wasn't successful, then Obama would look bad weeks before an election.
    And the cover up blaming it on a film I think was them hoping that people would believe the "film excuse" for 7 weeks or so, to give him enough time to get elected before the tough questions started.

    But I will also say that there is no reason not to have increased security there before 9-11 anniversary. To not provide it is what started the ball rolling. The rest could just be trying to cover his ass, and it snowballed. .


    4 members found this post helpful.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Aug. 25, 2007
    Posts
    9,210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sunny59 View Post
    Give me one plausible reason for the administration doing what you claim they did.
    Somebody in the security apparatus of DepState made a call not to increase security in the face of a threat. Just who did what, and based upon what, is not yet public information. SecState, herself, said the responsibility for the call is her's, not the CinCs. In this she is quite correct. I don't expect the CinC to sign off on every security change.

    Yet one report has the attack going on for several hours with multiple calls of "Hey Rube." If this is true then there is some responsibility up the chain of command. Did SecState send the calls for help up? If not, why not? If she did and they were not addressed then why was that? These are questions that are not being asked and answered in a timely manner, at least in public.

    Compare this to the "Maersk Alabama Incident." The difference is rather stark.

    Again, maybe there was a big time Charlie Foxtrot and maybe there wasn't. Nobody in the mainstream press is pushing very hard to find out.

    G.
    Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão


    4 members found this post helpful.

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Jun. 26, 2001
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,358

    Default

    Sunny that is the whole question right there "why". That is what we would like to know "why?" Why no sharing info with congress or the heads of the national intelligence committee? Why must they be called to capital hill to testify? Why isn't this "transparent" administration even letting them in on things? What is the big secret?

    Why has Hillary suddenly vaporized? Why is she lawyering up? (supposedly) Why when asked a direct question by a reporter to Obama "Was an order given to stand down?" President Obama waffles, weaves and um um um u h u h u h's himself all over the place.

    Why all the senseless stories in the beginning about demonstrations etc. being the cause?

    That is why many people believe there is something else going on here. Because there are too many unanswered questions and there has been plenty of time to get answers. Good lord reporters were rummaging around the burned about embassy building and not one representative from the US government had yet to show up to even see if any critical information was lying around. That alone reeks of incompetence. When a CNN reporter accesses this embassy and takes Ambassador Steven's diary!!!! Where the hell was the military, CIA, FBI, boy scouts anyone????? No where to be found. Why not???

    That is what we want to know! You don't leave a sensitive out post in a hot bed foreign country unmanned with sensitive documents just sitting there. No other country in the world would do that. Think about it. Isn't that putting other lives in danger? Isn't that a possibility? Yet that is exactly what happened.

    So I think the cover up is simply gross incompetence on behalf of the Obama administration and that is what they don't want anyone to see. So they dance and pontificate thinking we will let it slide. Not buying it. Somebody screwed up big time somewhere and I for one would like to know who and why. Wouldn't you Sunny? Don't you think that answers to at least the question why didn't they secure the embassy after the attack happen be on the table by now?
    Lions and Tigers and Bears, oh my!!


    7 members found this post helpful.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Jul. 20, 2007
    Posts
    286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cheval convert View Post
    Oh, something about, let's see, "And Al Queada is on the run." That's probably not exact but how do you, as President, claim that we are winning the war on terror, when our ambassador is sodomized and then murdered by the very terrorists that you claim are on the run? It's far better politically to say it was caused by a spontaneous demonstration that got out of hand than it was a planned, coordinated attack.

    If he is going to claim the credit for Bin Laden, then he needs to accept the responsibility for this.

    Seven hours of conflict and we did nothing. I am appalled.
    OK, let's separate the issues first.

    I'm not talking about the percieved notion that we were purposefully misled about the attack.

    Let's leave that for now, although there are all kinds of reasons for this. We can come back to that.

    My specific question is for those folks that claim the administration purposefully let people die without intervening.

    Why? What plausible reason is there for this occuring?

    If you can come up with a plausible reason, then we can debate whther or not that reason was valid given the knowledge of the circumstances at the time of the attack.

    You can not criticize the actions during the attack without doing this exercise.

    What I'm hearing is that the president is just some big dumb ninny who sat and watched and didn't do anything or worse yet, kept something from happening because for some unknown and nefarious reason he thought that was the right thing to do. Sorry, don't buy it, and I wouldn't buy it if it were Romney or another pub in the same position.


    5 members found this post helpful.

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Jul. 20, 2007
    Posts
    286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brookes View Post
    Sunny that is the whole question right there "why". That is what we would like to know "why?" Why no sharing info with congress or the heads of the national intelligence committee? Why must they be called to capital hill to testify? Why isn't this "transparent" administration even letting them in on things? What is the big secret?

    Why has Hillary suddenly vaporized? Why is she lawyering up? (supposedly) Why when asked a direct question by a reporter to Obama "Was an order given to stand down?" President Obama waffles, weaves and um um um u h u h u h's himself all over the place.

    Why all the senseless stories in the beginning about demonstrations etc. being the cause?

    That is why many people believe there is something else going on here. Because there are too many unanswered questions and there has been plenty of time to get answers. Good lord reporters were rummaging around the burned about embassy building and not one representative from the US government had yet to show up to even see if any critical information was lying around. That alone reeks of incompetence. When a CNN reporter accesses this embassy and takes Ambassador Steven's diary!!!! Where the hell was the military, CIA, FBI, boy scouts anyone????? No where to be found. Why not???

    That is what we want to know! You don't leave a sensitive out post in a hot bed foreign country unmanned with sensitive documents just sitting there. No other country in the world would do that. Think about it. Isn't that putting other lives in danger? Isn't that a possibility? Yet that is exactly what happened.

    So I think the cover up is simply gross incompetence on behalf of the Obama administration and that is what they don't want anyone to see. So they dance and pontificate thinking we will let it slide. Not buying it. Somebody screwed up big time somewhere and I for one would like to know who and why. Wouldn't you Sunny? Don't you think that answers to at least the question why didn't they secure the embassy after the attack happen be on the table by now?
    oh how I love conspiracy theory! Gotta go feed horses, will check in later....


    2 members found this post helpful.

Similar Threads

  1. Dressage in the Media Now!
    By babecakes in forum Dressage
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Jun. 20, 2012, 12:25 PM
  2. Fun naming thread.. liberal use of the word Puck
    By horse-loverz in forum Hunter/Jumper
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: Nov. 19, 2011, 12:06 AM
  3. Gas prices and the Media
    By bigbaytb in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: Apr. 24, 2011, 09:36 AM
  4. The media blitz needs to STOP NOW!!
    By Velvet in forum Favorites
    Replies: 157
    Last Post: Sep. 20, 2001, 07:19 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •