Despite what you think about Obama, he and his family aren't viewed as Uncle Toms not because their hip or cool, or modern. Its because he expanded his career by beating the streets of Chicago especially in some of the most violent, depressed, crime ridden areas of the city and tried to improve peoples living situations. He isn't even from Chicago but he wanted to make a different And for the most part, he wasn't making much money doing it either. People respect that more, then someone who mingles with the 1% and says crazy shit about his own people. Shit even some people are starting to look at Jay-Z as a Modern Uncle Tom, someone who has forgotten where they have come from, throws his closest people under the bus that helped his fame, and talks down to poor blacks.
Joe Biden
- Thread starter Herd Fever
- Start date
So I will translate all this once again, even though I was just as accurate before......
"Avg black people want successful black people to pander to them because of their skin color, whether it makes the avg black man better off or not (as proven by the streets of Chicago). Black people who demand the pandering, also demand that racial strife be the central theme to their victimology. They don't really want more than their mediocre existence anyway. It's safer and easier to remain on the plantation where Uncle Govt will keep them happily ignorant and enslaved. As long as they get the free phone, welfare check, grocery ebt and have as many fatherless babies as their uteruses can handle...it justifies our cries of racial injustice and the brain dead mocking of uncle tom types."
No wonder the Michael Jordan's of the world don't acknowledge this. Its a complete loser mentality. It appears Michael and others like him have adopted the philosophy and books of Napoleon Hill. You may want to pick them up. I've read them all myself. They would be very beneficial for someone trying to better their life or career.
"Avg black people want successful black people to pander to them because of their skin color, whether it makes the avg black man better off or not (as proven by the streets of Chicago). Black people who demand the pandering, also demand that racial strife be the central theme to their victimology. They don't really want more than their mediocre existence anyway. It's safer and easier to remain on the plantation where Uncle Govt will keep them happily ignorant and enslaved. As long as they get the free phone, welfare check, grocery ebt and have as many fatherless babies as their uteruses can handle...it justifies our cries of racial injustice and the brain dead mocking of uncle tom types."
No wonder the Michael Jordan's of the world don't acknowledge this. Its a complete loser mentality. It appears Michael and others like him have adopted the philosophy and books of Napoleon Hill. You may want to pick them up. I've read them all myself. They would be very beneficial for someone trying to better their life or career.
The antithesis of MLK's message. No wonder they had him killed. Dems needed the chains and shackles in place.
As I have explained before, this actually happens a lot at the State Department.
It is a different world, nothing like your military world. Many State employees are de facto intelligence agents. EVERYTHING is reported. Dumb shit, like even what some foreign prick had for lunch during a meeting. Sometimes, seemingly dumb shit turns out to be classified. Usually, it is just something a contact said. But yeah, it is common in State. Granted, that type of stuff would very, very rarely ever be pushed up to SecState before being classified.
I still think everyone has missed the point of Beghanzi. These hearings just serve to further hide it. There were 35 CIA contract ops there. Those are ex-special forces guys. Something dirty was going on there. The official investigation said they were monitoring arms trade; I say bullshit, they were participating in it. We know for a fact CIA has funded and channeled arms to the resistance in Syria. The fvck you think those arms came from? Thin air?
Your first point is spot on. The gathering of small, non-sexy info can eventually build to relevant intel that could retroactively become classified. What one guy on here, not you, Raoul, is arguing doesn't fit that type of progression though. Hillary had SATINT about N. Korean missiles which would be highly classified from inception. She also had summarized info that came from a classified source. She using the defense that it wasn't marked is BS. The Army calls it "spillage", I think intel guys call it "air gaps", but summarizing classified material doesn't change the sensitivity of it. It's really not hard to grasp.
Agree on your second point, too. Libya and Stephens had a history of gun running together and that's why there's been such misdirection about the attack. That shit is commonplace but it's never brought to light. The attack brought the pucker factor to State and Intel communities, there was a scramble to give some BS answer and it backfired. The admin shouldn't have rushed to give a statement and in doing so threw CIA and its cutouts under the bus. There was already enough bad blood between the intel community and the WH. In the eyes of CIA Benghazi just twisted that knife.
Agree on your second point, too. Libya and Stephens had a history of gun running together and that's why there's been such misdirection about the attack. That shit is commonplace but it's never brought to light. The attack brought the pucker factor to State and Intel communities, there was a scramble to give some BS answer and it backfired. The admin shouldn't have rushed to give a statement and in doing so threw CIA and its cutouts under the bus. There was already enough bad blood between the intel community and the WH. In the eyes of CIA Benghazi just twisted that knife.
I don't think the WH had a choice. The truth sure was not an option. "Yeah, the ambassador was up to his dick running arms with known terrorists so we can fight a shadow war" isn't exactly the kind of stuff we are going to admit, although yes it is commonplace. Same as Reagan wasn't going to admit the CIA was running cocaine to finance the Contras.
A House report on the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya, concludes that the Central Intelligence Agency and U.S. military responded properly and that Obama administration “talking points” were flawed, but didn’t find that administration officials attempted to mislead the public.
The two-year-long investigation by the Republican-led House intelligence committee is the latest congressional probe to examine the attacks, and its conclusions deflate allegations suggesting misconduct by the Obama administration.http://www.wsj.com/articles/house-report-cia-military-acted-properly-in-benghazi-attacks-1416616698
Sept. 16: Libya President Mohamed Magariaf says on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” that the attack on the U.S. consulate was planned months in advance. But Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, tells CBS News’ Bob Schieffer: “We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.” She says it began “spontaneously … as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo,” and “extremist elements” joined in the protest. (It was later learned that Rice received her information from talking points developed by the CIA.)
Update, May 16, 2013: The talking points given to Rice were extensively revised, largely at the request of the State Department. The original CIA talking points said, “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” And they said that “nitial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia.” References to al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia were removed. However, all of the drafts say the attack began “spontaneously” in response to the Cairo protest. Read our article “Benghazi Attack, Revisited” for more information on what changes were made to the talking points.
Update, May 16, 2013: The talking points given to Rice were extensively revised, largely at the request of the State Department. The original CIA talking points said, “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” And they said that “nitial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia.” References to al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia were removed. However, all of the drafts say the attack began “spontaneously” in response to the Cairo protest. Read our article “Benghazi Attack, Revisited” for more information on what changes were made to the talking points.
"Rice used talking points written by the CIA that said the attack — which killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens — started “spontaneously” as a protest."
"There has been no evidence showing an election-year cover-up."
"It has been known since at least late November that Rice’s talking points were changed. CBS News reported on Nov. 20, 2012, that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence — not the White House nor the State Department — removed references to al Qaeda and terrorism from talking points given to Rice."
"The Senate Committee on Homeland Security issued a bipartisan report on Dec. 30, 2012, confirming that the talking points had been changed, and that the White House and State Department were not involved."
___from your article
"There has been no evidence showing an election-year cover-up."
"It has been known since at least late November that Rice’s talking points were changed. CBS News reported on Nov. 20, 2012, that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence — not the White House nor the State Department — removed references to al Qaeda and terrorism from talking points given to Rice."
"The Senate Committee on Homeland Security issued a bipartisan report on Dec. 30, 2012, confirming that the talking points had been changed, and that the White House and State Department were not involved."
___from your article
What part of the white house and state department not being involved in the revisions do you not understand?
I believe the media was the first to claim that. Here's what Hillary said:"Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet." This was said after both the Cairo riots and Benghazi attack.
I don't know. According to what I've read, the protesters in Cairo said they were protesting the video.
Cairo happened just hours before Benghazi. That's probably why the media claimed the Benghazi attack was video related. It may not be true, but it was a fairly reasonable assumption.
What lie would have better? We both know the truth was not an option.
And I don't see the chosen lie as appeasing the public. That sounded worse than just calling it a terrorist attack. Admitting we cannot defend against a spontaneous protest turned violent is kind of unsettling.
I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Being unprepared for an attack is the whole argument against the admin.
And how isn't a YouTube filmmaker, who was hauled into custody, not an appeasement? A film that 99% of the world population has never seen covered the admin as a reason for the attack. It gave cover for the vulnerability of Amb Stephens, and then was proven to be a lie.
"Reuters and Fox News have obtained copies of an email sent about two hours after the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in which the White House, Pentagon and other agencies are told that the Islamist militant group Ansar al-Sharia had "claimed responsibility."
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...ly-claimed-responsibility-for-benghazi-attack
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...ly-claimed-responsibility-for-benghazi-attack
I suppose for the same reason that Greta Van Susteren, Brett Baier, Dan Perino, and the rest of Fox along with the AP were reporting the attacks in Cairo and Benghazi were the result of a video.
