Benghazi Hearings (Page 8)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() tri42 - 2013-05-14 8:28 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-14 9:20 PM tri42 - 2013-05-14 4:11 PM ChineseDemocracy - 2013-05-13 8:29 PM KateTri1 - 2013-05-13 7:18 PM tuwood - 2013-05-13 6:21 PM KateTri1 - 2013-05-13 4:48 PM scoobysdad - 2013-05-10 2:39 PM GomesBolt - 2013-05-10 12:52 PM I saw the comment. "..." was a much smarter choice. KateTri1 - 2013-05-10 12:00 PM powerman - 2013-05-10 12:53 PM scoobysdad - 2013-05-10 9:14 AM Finally, one of the major non-Fox News networks is paying attention. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-tal... As a bonus watch the segment following the one about the edits, featuring Hillary Clinton's testimony at the original hearings. Kind of puts a whole new light on her "heartfelt" words and the fawning media attention on her getting choked up about the four dead Americans to know now that she lied directly to the faces of the victims' family members, doesn't it? Remember, she was told directly by Greg Hicks at 2am the same night of the attacks that there was no protest outside the consulate due to any video, which was a "non-event in Libya". Yet she sold the story and attempted to prevent witnesses from providing their observations to a congressional investigation. She lied, she covered up. Of course, what difference, at this point, does it make, right? Ya, and same thing about the piece... "this could be used to beat up Hillary or beat up the state department"... How about instead of "beat up" how about "hold accountable". Or... here is an even more novel idea... instead of adding adjectives to spin your story, how about you just report the facts, and then let your audience decide. That would be awesome. ... Why'd you delete that? It was fine. But I agree completely with "..." as well Wow. That comment was on for tops, about 4 minutes. Were you guys doing a 30 second refresh of the thread or something? I get email notifications whenever anyone responds. So, it's kind of like the recalled email syndrome. Any time somebody edits their thread with a "never mind" or a ... like in your case I just go to my email to read it. Oh, and I didn't think your comment was bad. Well, it was a light hearted joke toward Hillary. But given the topic, I felt .. it was a bit disrespectful. Hence the the change.. didn't really have anything smart to add.. lol.. I guess it's better to be quiet and thought a fool than speak up and have it confirmed. I didn't know about the possibility of email notifications on these threads.. interesting. On the Hillary side of things, it wasn't long ago that the Fox News commentators were accusing Hillary of faking a head injury to avoid testifying on Benghazi. ...and that's what Stewart and Colbert are probably blasting the most. It does not appear as if fact-finding is the m.o. here. As you've seen in countless posts in this thread...either the president and/or Hillary is lying, or their incompetence is to blame for the Benghazi mess. It's just the latest false choice scenario with more soon to come I'm sure.
Like it or not, truth or not, the Obama admin is now hip dip in defending itself in ever-widening investigations. DOJ phone # grab on AP reporters, Benghazi, and IRS targeting conservative groups. With the media in his pocket this should be no problem to defend or push aside, IF THEY DID NOTHING WRONG. I do not buy that all the media wants is a story. They would have covered this long ago if that was the case. For the record, this is not the GOP's fault or the Republicans fault... if there really is nothing there then it will be obvious that it was only politically motivated and will be seen as a farce.....I think we're long past that honestly. Did you just seriously say "truth or not"? Yup. You did. "Truth or not, the Obama admin is hip dip in defending itself..." Thanks for making my point for me. This has nothing to do with the truth and never did. This is about getting the Obama administration on the defensive and keeping them there for as long as they can. Intelligence does not always trump eyesight, at least. If you don't understand what I posted and what that means, I can't help you. Seriously. I have no desire to see Obama smeared, get to the truth. Do you honestly think the Administration had nothing to do with all 3 things ? Really ? If it was the Bush admin in place now, I wouldn't like to say it but I would have a hard time defending that they were completely oblivious. LOL.... still can't believe you think I'm contradicted myself because of the truth or not statement.... think long enough and you may figure it out. I think you're missing my point. You think this investigation is about getting to the truth and it isn't. If the truth is what matters to you,your ire should be directed at the GOP, who you've definitively let off the hook in your earlier post, as much as it is at the administration. You think that when you have people saying that this is worse than Watergate plus Iran-contra times ten that this is going to be anything but a dog-and pony show? I'm not saying that they had nothing to do with any of it, but the GOP begins with the conclusion and then seeks to prove it. And if they can't, they make sure that their version "truth or not" is what resonates. Lets have a legitimate investigation and maybe we will get to the truth, but that's not what this is. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-14 9:36 PM Lets have a legitimate investigation and maybe we will get to the truth, but that's not what this is. In hindsight, did Hillary and Obama screw this up framing wise, yes. In the following months though, was there already an investigation? Hell yes. 11 hearings. 25,000 documents turned over. Were changes made as a result? yes. Was it a tragedy? yes. Was it an act of terror? yes. Would it have been a less of a terror attack and less devastating had it been a result of an angry protest mob who stormed the Consulate at Bengazzi? no. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() KateTri1 - 2013-05-14 9:45 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-14 9:36 PM Lets have a legitimate investigation and maybe we will get to the truth, but that's not what this is. In hindsight, did Hillary and Obama screw this up framing wise, yes. In the following months though, was there already an investigation? Hell yes. 11 hearings. 25,000 documents turned over. Were changes made as a result? yes. Was it a tragedy? yes. Was it an act of terror? yes. Would it have been a less of a terror attack and less devastating had it been a result of an angry protest mob who stormed the Consulate at Bengazzi? no. Angry protest mobs don't storm Consulates that are properly guarded. Angry protest mobs usually break up at the first sound of gunfire. Been there. So who investigates this? The Admin kept the FBI out of the scene for weeks after the attack even with Marine Fast Teams ready to escort them to the Consulate. And we've seen that this Admin likes to edit official documents before they go out. S who do you suppose should investigate this? The 9/11 commission was pretty effective in finding out what happened there. The Baker Commission on Iraq was dead wrong. They said a surge would have no effect-Wrong. So who investigates? And how do we make sure the findings are as close to true as possible? |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() GomesBolt - 2013-05-14 11:59 PM KateTri1 - 2013-05-14 9:45 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-14 9:36 PM Lets have a legitimate investigation and maybe we will get to the truth, but that's not what this is. In hindsight, did Hillary and Obama screw this up framing wise, yes. In the following months though, was there already an investigation? Hell yes. 11 hearings. 25,000 documents turned over. Were changes made as a result? yes. Was it a tragedy? yes. Was it an act of terror? yes. Would it have been a less of a terror attack and less devastating had it been a result of an angry protest mob who stormed the Consulate at Bengazzi? no. Angry protest mobs don't storm Consulates that are properly guarded. Angry protest mobs usually break up at the first sound of gunfire. Been there. So who investigates this? The Admin kept the FBI out of the scene for weeks after the attack even with Marine Fast Teams ready to escort them to the Consulate. And we've seen that this Admin likes to edit official documents before they go out. S who do you suppose should investigate this? The 9/11 commission was pretty effective in finding out what happened there. The Baker Commission on Iraq was dead wrong. They said a surge would have no effect-Wrong. So who investigates? And how do we make sure the findings are as close to true as possible? Since the Republicans in the house voted to cut $300m from the embassy security budget (and, if I can borrow your tinfoil hat for a second--perhaps they did so in the hope that an Embassy would be put at risk, thereby negating some of Obama's OBL momentum in Middle East policy) so don't they bear some responsibility if the embassy wasn't sufficiently guarded? Your question about the investigation is a good one. To be honest, I'm not sure that in this political climate, with both sides focused far more on the next election cycle than the real truth that it's even possible to have a nonpartisan investigation that has the goal of finding out what really happened. We've had several hearings on it already. The first ones determined that there was no coverup, the latest one will probably, on some level, at least leave an impression that there was. And the truth will probably be somewhere in the middle. It's a shabby tribute to Christopher Stevens and the others either way. Honestly, considering that 95% of Americans had their minds made up (or in some cases 'made up for them') months ago, maybe the truth doesn't really matter much after all. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-15 5:46 AM GomesBolt - 2013-05-14 11:59 PM Since the Republicans in the house voted to cut $300m from the embassy security budget (and, if I can borrow your tinfoil hat for a second--perhaps they did so in the hope that an Embassy would be put at risk, thereby negating some of Obama's OBL momentum in Middle East policy) so don't they bear some responsibility if the embassy wasn't sufficiently guarded? Your question about the investigation is a good one. To be honest, I'm not sure that in this political climate, with both sides focused far more on the next election cycle than the real truth that it's even possible to have a nonpartisan investigation that has the goal of finding out what really happened. We've had several hearings on it already. The first ones determined that there was no coverup, the latest one will probably, on some level, at least leave an impression that there was. And the truth will probably be somewhere in the middle. It's a shabby tribute to Christopher Stevens and the others either way. Honestly, considering that 95% of Americans had their minds made up (or in some cases 'made up for them') months ago, maybe the truth doesn't really matter much after all. KateTri1 - 2013-05-14 9:45 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-14 9:36 PM Lets have a legitimate investigation and maybe we will get to the truth, but that's not what this is. In hindsight, did Hillary and Obama screw this up framing wise, yes. In the following months though, was there already an investigation? Hell yes. 11 hearings. 25,000 documents turned over. Were changes made as a result? yes. Was it a tragedy? yes. Was it an act of terror? yes. Would it have been a less of a terror attack and less devastating had it been a result of an angry protest mob who stormed the Consulate at Bengazzi? no. Angry protest mobs don't storm Consulates that are properly guarded. Angry protest mobs usually break up at the first sound of gunfire. Been there. So who investigates this? The Admin kept the FBI out of the scene for weeks after the attack even with Marine Fast Teams ready to escort them to the Consulate. And we've seen that this Admin likes to edit official documents before they go out. S who do you suppose should investigate this? The 9/11 commission was pretty effective in finding out what happened there. The Baker Commission on Iraq was dead wrong. They said a surge would have no effect-Wrong. So who investigates? And how do we make sure the findings are as close to true as possible? ahem, tinfoil hats are only allowed on the right btw, the whole budget thing is spin at it's finest. Here's an article describing the whole thing: Notable quotes from the article:
I know Clinton tried to make it an issue, but IMHO she failed miserably. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() The Embassy Security Funding thing has been proven to be a false claim. Last time I heard the claim was $30 MM from DOS as a whole, not line specified for security. Libya was still able to be funded through the same funding mechanism funding the war in Afghanistan. If they were purposely not billing that security to Defense to keep their narrative then thats on them. So if they truly wanted more security, they could have it without Congress. How did Clinton fund the evacuation of 2 embassies during the "government shutdown" on his watch? If you want more security you can always get it. Also, it's hard to defend the DOS security when they spend $300k for electric car charging stations in Vienna. That's ludicrous in a city where the public transportation is the primary mover and where the Marine Security Guards prefer to either use that public transportation or run to the embassy during an IA drill. They had an old beater van when I lived there and they never needed more. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() GomesBolt - 2013-05-15 7:41 AM The Embassy Security Funding thing has been proven to be a false claim. Last time I heard the claim was $30 MM from DOS as a whole, not line specified for security. Libya was still able to be funded through the same funding mechanism funding the war in Afghanistan. If they were purposely not billing that security to Defense to keep their narrative then thats on them. So if they truly wanted more security, they could have it without Congress. How did Clinton fund the evacuation of 2 embassies during the "government shutdown" on his watch? If you want more security you can always get it. Also, it's hard to defend the DOS security when they spend $300k for electric car charging stations in Vienna. That's ludicrous in a city where the public transportation is the primary mover and where the Marine Security Guards prefer to either use that public transportation or run to the embassy during an IA drill. They had an old beater van when I lived there and they never needed more. There are almost 300 US embassies throughout the world. (Benghazzi is not one of them, it's a consulate) The issues with security had to do with the regional detail within Libya. no? Washington does not make all the day to day decisions I'm thinking, does it? |
![]() ![]() |
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() What kind of government would we have if members of a political party held their own to the same standards as they demand of the other?
|
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() ChineseDemocracy - 2013-05-14 6:12 PM scoobysdad - 2013-05-14 8:03 AM Interesting article about how Obama never really specifically called the Libyan consulate attack "terrorism" in the days following the incident, much as he's trying to sell that now. Vaguely referring to an "act of terror" in the general sense is not the same thing. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-... Really Rich? He didn't "vaguely" refer to an act of terror. He specifically used the words, "act of terror." I don't understand how that is vague. Heck, I think it may even be a bit too much as the 3 separate times he used the terminology were extremely close to September 11th...within what, 2 days of the event? Personally, I'd want a thorough investigation into exactly what caused the attack prior to describing it in any manner. You're missing the point, Brian. In the precisely chosen words of Washington (and if you'll remember, in his speech in the Rose Garden the day following the attack, Obama only read a prepared speech and took no questions, so every word he delivered was carefully pre-scripted), an "act of terror" does not equal an "act of terrorism". After all, anyone can commit an "act of terror" regardless of motivation. Anyone with violent intentions can create "acts of terror". Jason Voorhees commits "acts of terror" but he has no motivation based on ideology behind it. Obama also used his selected phrase in the most general sense... "America doesn't tolerate acts of terror". He never came anywhere near saying, "Last night's attacks were committed by terrorists" or even "Last night's attacks were acts of terror." In not clarifying the "who" and "why" behind the attacks, he allowed the narrative of the "protest that got out of hand" to be perpetuated which is precisely what he wanted. Then on this Monday he tries to sell the idea that "The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism". He tried to "evolve" what he said. It's a flat-out lie and was labelled as such with a four-Pinocchio rating by the Washington Post. |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Goosedog - 2013-05-15 9:14 AM What kind of government would we have if members of a political party held their own to the same standards as they demand of the other?
What kind of government would we have if there were severe spending limits on political campaigns? |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() ChineseDemocracy - 2013-05-14 7:12 PM scoobysdad - 2013-05-14 8:03 AM Interesting article about how Obama never really specifically called the Libyan consulate attack "terrorism" in the days following the incident, much as he's trying to sell that now. Vaguely referring to an "act of terror" in the general sense is not the same thing. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-... Really Rich? He didn't "vaguely" refer to an act of terror. He specifically used the words, "act of terror." I don't understand how that is vague. Heck, I think it may even be a bit too much as the 3 separate times he used the terminology were extremely close to September 11th...within what, 2 days of the event? Personally, I'd want a thorough investigation into exactly what caused the attack prior to describing it in any manner. The Washington Post even called this one a lie. 4 Pinocchios... 8 day after the attack he was asked on Univision: QUESTION: “We have reports that the White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Do you have information indicating that it was Iran, or al-Qaeda was behind organizing the protests?” OBAMA: “Well, we’re still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.” If it was truly a terrorist attack, and he meant that in his Rose Garden speech then why not come out and say YES to a direct question? On The View almost 2 weeks after the attacks: QUESTION: “It was reported that people just went crazy and wild because of this anti-Muslim movie -- or anti-Muhammad, I guess, movie. But then I heard Hillary Clinton say that it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say?” OBAMA: “We are still doing an investigation. There is no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. Now, we don’t have all the information yet so we are still gathering.” Again, a perfect opportunity to say "yes this was an act of terrorism" and he did not. Edited by TriRSquared 2013-05-15 8:59 AM |
|
![]() ![]() |
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() KateTri1 - 2013-05-15 9:58 AM Goosedog - 2013-05-15 9:14 AM What kind of government would we have if members of a political party held their own to the same standards as they demand of the other? What kind of government would we have if there were severe spending limits on political campaigns? You hypothetical requires, possibly unconstitutional, laws. Mine just requires that people stop acting like mindless drones. Edited by Goosedog 2013-05-15 9:05 AM |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Goosedog - 2013-05-15 10:02 AM KateTri1 - 2013-05-15 9:58 AM Goosedog - 2013-05-15 9:14 AM What kind of government would we have if members of a political party held their own to the same standards as they demand of the other? What kind of government would we have if there were severe spending limits on political campaigns? You hypothetical requires, possibly unconstitutional, laws. Mine just requires that people stop acting like mindless drones. Honestly, both are pretty improbable... |
![]() ![]() |
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() TriRSquared - 2013-05-15 10:24 AM Honestly, both are pretty improbable... That's a bit optimistic.
|
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Goosedog - 2013-05-15 10:02 AM KateTri1 - 2013-05-15 9:58 AM Goosedog - 2013-05-15 9:14 AM What kind of government would we have if members of a political party held their own to the same standards as they demand of the other? What kind of government would we have if there were severe spending limits on political campaigns? You hypothetical requires, possibly unconstitutional, laws. Mine just requires that people stop acting like mindless drones. Why would spending limits be unconstitutional? |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Goosedog - 2013-05-15 10:33 AM TriRSquared - 2013-05-15 10:24 AM Honestly, both are pretty improbable... That's a bit optimistic.
See, I think "assuming" the vast majority of our population is "mindless" would require the kind of government that is highly unconstitutional. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() ChineseDemocracy - 2013-05-14 6:12 PM scoobysdad - 2013-05-14 8:03 AM Interesting article about how Obama never really specifically called the Libyan consulate attack "terrorism" in the days following the incident, much as he's trying to sell that now. Vaguely referring to an "act of terror" in the general sense is not the same thing. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-... Really Rich? He didn't "vaguely" refer to an act of terror. He specifically used the words, "act of terror." I don't understand how that is vague. Heck, I think it may even be a bit too much as the 3 separate times he used the terminology were extremely close to September 11th...within what, 2 days of the event? Personally, I'd want a thorough investigation into exactly what caused the attack prior to describing it in any manner. An angry, spur of the moment. disorganized mob responding to a youtube video can commit an "act of terror"...which is the story the Administration tried to pawn off on us. That is a totally different animal than a well-establish, known terrorist group planning and carrying out an attack on us in Benghazi...i.e. "a terrorist attack" |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() scoobysdad - 2013-05-15 9:33 AM ChineseDemocracy - 2013-05-14 6:12 PM You're missing the point, Brian. In the precisely chosen words of Washington (and if you'll remember, in his speech in the Rose Garden the day following the attack, Obama only read a prepared speech and took no questions, so every word he delivered was carefully pre-scripted), an "act of terror" does not equal an "act of terrorism". After all, anyone can commit an "act of terror" regardless of motivation. Anyone with violent intentions can create "acts of terror". Jason Voorhees commits "acts of terror" but he has no motivation based on ideology behind it. Obama also used his selected phrase in the most general sense... "America doesn't tolerate acts of terror". He never came anywhere near saying, "Last night's attacks were committed by terrorists" or even "Last night's attacks were acts of terror." In not clarifying the "who" and "why" behind the attacks, he allowed the narrative of the "protest that got out of hand" to be perpetuated which is precisely what he wanted. Then on this Monday he tries to sell the idea that "The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism". He tried to "evolve" what he said. It's a flat-out lie and was labelled as such with a four-Pinocchio rating by the Washington Post. scoobysdad - 2013-05-14 8:03 AM Interesting article about how Obama never really specifically called the Libyan consulate attack "terrorism" in the days following the incident, much as he's trying to sell that now. Vaguely referring to an "act of terror" in the general sense is not the same thing. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-... Really Rich? He didn't "vaguely" refer to an act of terror. He specifically used the words, "act of terror." I don't understand how that is vague. Heck, I think it may even be a bit too much as the 3 separate times he used the terminology were extremely close to September 11th...within what, 2 days of the event? Personally, I'd want a thorough investigation into exactly what caused the attack prior to describing it in any manner. You're making it sound bad that he read a prepared speech the day following the attack. He could have taken questions, but when the investigation is still active, what kind of answers would you expect? There would be a lot of, "We don't know at this time." "An investigation is under way to determine who is responsible/what happened, etc." It all leads us back to the question, "Do you trust the President?" Those who don't will think conspiracy, those who do will think it's prudent to figure out what's going on before speaking prematurely. Heck, wasn't this the attack that Romney jumped on 1st playing politics before the dust even settled? I think it was. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() ChineseDemocracy - 2013-05-15 6:42 PM scoobysdad - 2013-05-15 9:33 AM ChineseDemocracy - 2013-05-14 6:12 PM You're missing the point, Brian. In the precisely chosen words of Washington (and if you'll remember, in his speech in the Rose Garden the day following the attack, Obama only read a prepared speech and took no questions, so every word he delivered was carefully pre-scripted), an "act of terror" does not equal an "act of terrorism". After all, anyone can commit an "act of terror" regardless of motivation. Anyone with violent intentions can create "acts of terror". Jason Voorhees commits "acts of terror" but he has no motivation based on ideology behind it. Obama also used his selected phrase in the most general sense... "America doesn't tolerate acts of terror". He never came anywhere near saying, "Last night's attacks were committed by terrorists" or even "Last night's attacks were acts of terror." In not clarifying the "who" and "why" behind the attacks, he allowed the narrative of the "protest that got out of hand" to be perpetuated which is precisely what he wanted. Then on this Monday he tries to sell the idea that "The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism". He tried to "evolve" what he said. It's a flat-out lie and was labelled as such with a four-Pinocchio rating by the Washington Post. scoobysdad - 2013-05-14 8:03 AM Interesting article about how Obama never really specifically called the Libyan consulate attack "terrorism" in the days following the incident, much as he's trying to sell that now. Vaguely referring to an "act of terror" in the general sense is not the same thing. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-... Really Rich? He didn't "vaguely" refer to an act of terror. He specifically used the words, "act of terror." I don't understand how that is vague. Heck, I think it may even be a bit too much as the 3 separate times he used the terminology were extremely close to September 11th...within what, 2 days of the event? Personally, I'd want a thorough investigation into exactly what caused the attack prior to describing it in any manner. You're making it sound bad that he read a prepared speech the day following the attack. He could have taken questions, but when the investigation is still active, what kind of answers would you expect? There would be a lot of, "We don't know at this time." "An investigation is under way to determine who is responsible/what happened, etc." It all leads us back to the question, "Do you trust the President?" Those who don't will think conspiracy, those who do will think it's prudent to figure out what's going on before speaking prematurely. Heck, wasn't this the attack that Romney jumped on 1st playing politics before the dust even settled? I think it was. All I'm saying is that every word he delivered that day was precisely chosen. He or whoever wrote his speech purposefully used vague, non-clarifying terms that could be "spun". However, now-- this Monday-- Obama said he described the attack on that day following the attacks as an "act of terrorism", not an "act of terror". He did not. It was a flat out lie and the Washington Post called him on it. He's trying to revise what he actually said but he's not getting away with it. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Well, look at this new article. It appears 100's of e-mails were released and that it was the CIA that revised its own talking points on September 14th from "attacks" to "demonstrations." http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/under-fire-white-house-releases-benghazi-talking-points-211835318.html Any thoughts? I'm guessing Hannity, et al won't be apologizing for the accusations of cover-up. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() ChineseDemocracy - 2013-05-15 7:08 PM Really? That's what you got out of it??? As I read it, someone told them to change it, then they were written by committee.Well, look at this new article. It appears 100's of e-mails were released and that it was the CIA that revised its own talking points on September 14th from "attacks" to "demonstrations." http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/under-fire-white-house-releases-benghazi-talking-points-211835318.html Any thoughts? I'm guessing Hannity, et al won't be apologizing for the accusations of cover-up. Again, the points went from exactly right to dead wrong... I also noticed a lot of "pro words" used in that email between Patraeus and whoever sent the final email for "concurrence" which Patraeus never really gave. Guess you haven't been around too many situations where discoverable emails are written in certain code. I guarantee there was at least 3 phone calls before, during, and after that email. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() GomesBolt - 2013-05-15 8:16 PM ChineseDemocracy - 2013-05-15 7:08 PM Really? That's what you got out of it??? As I read it, someone told them to change it, then they were written by committee.Well, look at this new article. It appears 100's of e-mails were released and that it was the CIA that revised its own talking points on September 14th from "attacks" to "demonstrations." http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/under-fire-white-house-releases-benghazi-talking-points-211835318.html Any thoughts? I'm guessing Hannity, et al won't be apologizing for the accusations of cover-up. Again, the points went from exactly right to dead wrong... I also noticed a lot of "pro words" used in that email between Patraeus and whoever sent the final email for "concurrence" which Patraeus never really gave. Guess you haven't been around too many situations where discoverable emails are written in certain code. I guarantee there was at least 3 phone calls before, during, and after that email. Hmm, this sentence stuck out to me in that article: "Victoria Nuland, who serves as a State Department spokeswoman, expressed some concerns about the talking points, including a reference to prior attacks in Benghazi, which Nuland said could suggest security warnings were ignored. Senior administration officials said Wednesday that CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell had supported those changes independently prior to being aware of Nuland's concerns." So now you're accusing the CIA Deputy Director of being involved in your alleged "cover up?" |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ChineseDemocracy - 2013-05-15 5:08 PM Well, look at this new article. It appears 100's of e-mails were released and that it was the CIA that revised its own talking points on September 14th from "attacks" to "demonstrations." http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/under-fire-white-house-releases-benghazi-talking-points-211835318.html Any thoughts? I'm guessing Hannity, et al won't be apologizing for the accusations of cover-up. Wasn't it Carney in the press briefing Friday that said "If tell someone to make changes and they make the changes then they made the changes". |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() Anyone who let those talking points go from true to false was in on the intentional deception. I.e. Patraeus, deputy, Nuland, POTUS, all of them. My point is that it's quite clear to anyone used to watching what they say in Email that those messages are full of code words screaming "this is BS!" It takes some serious suspension of disbelief for anyone to see these emails and say "oh see, they were the intel community's notes." |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() ChineseDemocracy - 2013-05-15 7:08 PM Well, look at this new article. It appears 100's of e-mails were released and that it was the CIA that revised its own talking points on September 14th from "attacks" to "demonstrations." http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/under-fire-white-house-releases-benghazi-talking-points-211835318.html Any thoughts? I'm guessing Hannity, et al won't be apologizing for the accusations of cover-up. That's your takeaway? Interesting. The White House released 94 pages of emails, which represents a tiny fraction of the total related to Benghazi. Here is what they reveal: -- After the CIA's "final draft" was sent to "interagency", all references to Al Qaeda, Ansar al Sharia and Islamic extremists were removed. Who weighed in at "interagency"? -- There was never ANY MENTION of a Youtube video until the meeting on Saturday morning, the day before Susan Rice went on the Sunday morning news shows and five days after the attacks occurred. Who suddenly decided to include that and why? -- WH Press Secretary Jay Carney claimed that the only revision the WH and State Department made was to change the word "consulate" to "diplomatic facility". That has been shown to be a complete lie. An email from a CIA official reveals "The State Department had major reservations with much or most of the document. We revised the document with their concerns in mind." See Cruse's post above. The CIA may have made the changes in the Carney-esque sense, but they were directed to do so by the State Department. This finding also contradicts testimony by HRC that she gave at her hearing. -- Petraeus' emails also note that the "State Department had major concerns" and that issues would have to be revisited at a high-level meeting. Again, this contradicts Carney and State Department claims that they had little input. After the talking points were rewritten at that meeting, Petraeus wrote, "Frankly, I'd just as soon not use this." -- HRC and Obama claim they played no role in the talking points. Yet HRC's Deputy Chief of Staff relays to State Department Spokesperson Victoria Nuland that he's spoken with Obama's spokesman at the National Security Council and that "We'll work through ion the morning" and "We can make edits". |
|