Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Staff who served in Libya with Gregory Hicks, the GOP’s primary “whistleblower” in this week’s hearing on the Benghazi terror attacks, undercut his story that State Department officials demoted him as retribution for speaking out, instead telling ThinkProgress about a man who one described as “the worst manager I’ve ever seen in the Foreign Service.”
Of course... given the fact that his testimony turned out to ultimately be so harmless, who really cares?
Federal whistle-blower legislation includes a statute protecting all government employees, 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 2302(b)(8), 2302(b)(9). In the federal civil service, the government is prohibited from taking, or threatening to take, any personnel action against an employee because the employee disclosed information that he or she reasonably believed showed a violation of law, gross mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public safety or health. In order to prevail on a claim, a federal employee must show that a protected disclosure was made, that the accused official knew of the disclosure, that retaliation resulted, and that there was a genuine connection between the retaliation and the employee's action.
No one that has come before any Congressional committee has met that definititon.
Mark Mardell, the BBC's North American editor, issued a mea culpa of sorts today after Jonathan Karl at ABC News dropped his bombshell that proves beyond any doubt that the Obama Administration lied about its involvement in editing the CIA's talking points surrounding the September 11 attack on our consulate in Libya.
If the rest of the mainstream media shows the integrity Mr. Mardell just did, the Obama Administration is about to finally be held accountable for an unforgivable coverup that started back in September and has lasted straight through to today.
But, but, how can this be? We were told by libs that the whole thing was a manufactured non-issue by faux news sources! Even one of the so-called non-biased moderators at the debates last year conveniently jumped in to help O! And Jay tells us it was a long time ago, while Hillary says it makes no difference!
There was no confusion. It was nothing more than a lame lie. Nobody thought it was about a YouTube video. Nobody and if they did they need removed from their position for being so stupid.
That is not correct. The news highlights showed demonstrations when talking about both attacks.
Not many knew the complete story on day 1. I didn't. I saw the news reports showing demostrations when the two attacks were being reported about. The reasons news outlets gave in their early accounts for the demonstrations was because of the video. Not until some days later, did the News outlets stop showing demonstrations when reporting on the Benghazi attack.
There was no confusion. It was nothing more than a lame lie. Nobody thought it was about a YouTube video. Nobody and if they did they need removed from their position for being so stupid.
Your omniscience regarding what other people think is confounded by your complete ignorance regarding the fog of war. You are a sort of idiot savant of partisan buffoonery.
Your omniscience regarding what other people think is confounded by your complete ignorance regarding the fog of war. You are a sort of idiot savant of partisan buffoonery.
Said the guy obviously not reading the facts concerning the subject. The initial reports were that this was a terrorist attack and then politicians changed those reports to it being about a YouTube video.
We will again note the fact that those who have to resort to name calling do that because they know they have no argument to stand behind.
Said the guy obviously not reading the facts concerning the subject. The initial reports were that this was a terrorist attack and then politicians changed those reports to it being about a YouTube video.
And now you have to stop making **** up.
As one of the very few people on this forum who actually has been shot at during a terrorist attack, I can assure that you can pick any three people who were there and you will get three very different accounts of what was taking place. Even after more than 30 years there are things that we never figured out about our attack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
We will again note the fact that those who have to resort to name calling do that because they know they have no argument to stand behind.
And even Thomas Jefferson would just make more fun of you.
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions."
As one of the very few people on this forum who actually has been shot at during a terrorist attack, I can assure that you can pick any three people who were there and you will get three very different accounts of what was taking place. Even after more than 30 years there are things that we never figured out about our attack.
And not a single one has said anything about a YouTube video.
Quote:
And even Thomas Jefferson would just make more fun of you.
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions."
As I said, you have no position to stand on and in your insecurity feel you must resort to name calling.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
