Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Benghazi - Just the Facts, Ma'am (Page 11)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 25 pages: 1  2  3  ...  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  ...  23  24  25   
Author Topic: Benghazi - Just the Facts, Ma'am
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
I agree, the Administration did try to put the best face on the situation. But this e-mail does not prove they did so by trying to "pin" the event on the video.

This e-mail does not prove it, what proves it is that this is the basis of Rice's briefing and Rice explicitly did so on her round of talk shows. If that was not the message intended are you suggestting there couldn't have been a course correction during the round as they realized she was overstating the case? Or that they couldn't have immediately clarified. Honestly, you're expecting us to accept a lot if that's the case.
quote:
They told the truth as they knew it at the time, even if they tried to use that truth to put themselves in the best light.
And see, I don't believe that. Are you now asserting that they honestly believed the video was behind it? I think we just had a general testify that that it was quickly dismissed, the CIA previously testified that it was quickly dismissed.

But thank you for your answer, that this is not enough for you. I think we're long past the point were doubt here makes since, Clinton would have apologized and moved on ages ago. It's hubris on the part of the Adminstration that they can not admit any error, but only explain how others are to blame.
quote:
Originally posted by Kmbboots:
Really? Really? You are comparing this, at worst - if all you are saying is true, possible and brief attempt at face saving over an intelligence failure with a years long accumulation of deliberate lies that deliberately led us into a war that has left so far hundreds of thousands of people dead and literally countless thousands maimed, cost trillions of dollars, untold damage to our reputation? Really?

Nope. Comparing the standard people are applying in determining who they believe. I've never seen anything that is even remotely convincing that the Bush administration didn't expect they would find WMD and be able to retro-actively prove their justfication. Plenty that demonstrates how errors were made, how people interpretted things based on their own preconceptions and how certain intelligence assets manipulated the process to force the war.

But I don't know what really happened in their heads, maybe they did know. What I do know is that its dishonest not to hold both sides to a similar standard.

Or to put it another way, if this the Bush White House he'd already be impeached, and you guys would be holding pitchforks over his obvious perfidity. Can you honestly say otherwise?

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If this was the Bush White House, the incident would have been forgotten already.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
This e-mail does not prove it, what proves it is that this is the basis of Rice's briefing and Rice explicitly did so on her round of talk shows.
Can you explain why that's a problem?

quote:
I think we just had a general testify that that it was quickly dismissed, the CIA previously testified that it was quickly dismissed.
I think it often takes a while for opinions to get from generals and the CIA to PR flacks, especially once the PR strategy has already been published and initiated.

quote:
f this the Bush White House he'd already be impeached, and you guys would be holding pitchforks over his obvious perfidity. Can you honestly say otherwise?
Yes. Because people with a brain don't give a damn about Benghazi, and too many Democrats have brains to make an issue out of it. You might get the 9/11 Truthers to harp on it, but they don't exactly have legislative support. The only reason people are still talking about this is that Obama's in the White House, and it serves Republican narratives to keep this alive in the minds of stupid folk.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
This e-mail does not prove it, what proves it is that this is the basis of Rice's briefing and Rice explicitly did so on her round of talk shows.
Can you explain why that's a problem?
You mean other than the dozens of posts already explaining it?

So, a briefing to prepare for a talk show circulate, sets up the Admin's favorite lie, then Rice passes the lie off "accidentally" and no one corrects it, but it was all good faith and honest and notwithstanding the express damage control purpose, it wasn't related to damage control.
quote:
quote:
I think we just had a general testify that that it was quickly dismissed, the CIA previously testified that it was quickly dismissed.
I think it often takes a while for opinions to get from generals and the CIA to PR flacks, especially once the PR strategy has already been published and initiated.
I thought this was the CIA's idea, how long did it take to get there again? Funny how the false message moved like lightening and the retraction like molasses.
quote:
Yes. Because people with a brain don't give a damn about Benghazi, and too many Democrats have brains to make an issue out of it.
No, people who see political benefit for their team don't care about. I guess this will be like the NFA issues, evil when its the Repubs, doing the best they can and necessary when its the Dems. Lol.
quote:
The only reason people are still talking about this is that Obama's in the White House, and it serves Republican narratives to keep this alive in the minds of stupid folk.
Or because you have an adminstration that thinks nothing of lieing to us when its in their benefit, and it makes people wonder what else it lies about. This Administration has been caught time and again lieing, yet no big deal, who cares, only bad people would hold them accountable. Lol.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
This e-mail does not prove it, what proves it is that this is the basis of Rice's briefing and Rice explicitly did so on her round of talk shows. If that was not the message intended are you suggestting there couldn't have been a course correction during the round as they realized she was overstating the case? Or that they couldn't have immediately clarified.
So the scandal is that they didn't correct themselves fast enough for you? [Confused]

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They told the truth as they knew it at the time, even if they tried to use that truth to put themselves in the best light.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And see, I don't believe that. Are you now asserting that they honestly believed the video was behind it?

I'm not sure I asserted anything else. The CIA told the Administration on Sept. 14 that the #1 possible reason for the attack was a spontaneous the protests (which were about the video). They ran with it.

If the CIA told President Bush that Iraq had WMD, and later on it was shown that they did not, would you say the President "lied" about it at the time and "pinned" the invasion on that lie? Or would you just say that he was misinformed at the time? [Wink]

quote:
I think we just had a general testify that that it was quickly dismissed, the CIA previously testified that it was quickly dismissed.
Could you show me the quotes, and when it was "quickly dismissed?" Because Obama did start using the word "terrorist" fairly soon after the attacks, and that may coincide to when it was dismissed.
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
No, though that's an interesting strawman version. My contention is that this Whitehouse thought they could sell a lie that made them look good because they had just enough evidence that they thought it couldn't be disproven, at least before the election. They miscalculated.
By tricking Rice into lying by not explicitly putting an "except for Benghazi" note on information about how to respond to questions about the protests over the video?

If you want to say that she was instructed to lie, then you need to at least some kind of instruction to lie or present false information. A briefing on what to say about concurrent events that ended up being unrelated doesn't suggest that she was told to lie- unless, you're saying that the intent was to confuse into mixing up different events.

quote:
(for instance there's better evidence here that in the 501c4 charity cases, yet you have no problem ascribing all kinds of malicious intent there based on innuendo
There is solid evidence that 501c4 organizations are spending unprecedented amounts of untraceable money on political ads. That's not innuendo of any sort. That's a provable thing that's happening now. OR are you suggesting that the current news reports of massive amounts of third party spending from groups that don't need to disclose their donors on current Senate races are just innuendo?
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I thought this was the CIA's idea, how long did it take to get there again?
The CIA's initial report was communicated very quickly. How quickly, though, do you think the CIA should have gotten around to communicating a change of opinion, and how long do you think it did take? (Note: there is an answer to the second half of this question. You can Google it. How long did it take for the CIA to tell the State Department that their assessment had changed?)
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
DD,

"It sounds like exactly what I observed: PR Speak proves evil, notwithstanding the actual content. Here's an exercise for you: try to imagine other plausible reasons for this purported redaction. "...

Here is an exercise for you; justify these initial statements :

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3Nu6VZ9DeVc

(1:35) - "Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is no justification to this type of senseless violence... none. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject this brutal act. "

- Why was this blamed on religious "denigration", rather the anniversary of 9-11, and the presence of Al-Qaeda whose flag flew over the Benghazi courthouse, and throughout the city?
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sIrshtYKNs4

(2:48) - "Both Secretary Clinton, and I, relied deeply upon his [Ambassador Stevens] knowledge of the situation on the ground there. "

- Why didn't they rely heavily enough upon "his knowledge of things on the ground there" (and numerous other ground agents) to disregard CIA deputy director Morell's acceptance of a D.C. desk jockey's analysis, or provide the additional security which he plead for over the months preceding his death?

- Why did the administration embellish Morell's report with the anti-Islamic video canard, tell the family members of victims that the video was the proximate cause of their loved ones deaths, and push for imprisonment of the video maker for one year on a "parol violation".

(4:35) - "We will not waiver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act, and make no mistake... justice will be done. "

- Where is the "justice" given we have known the identities of the terrorists for over a year (they were video taped)? Is it because (gasp) they are Al-Qaeda operatives?

Why do liberals lament the "two-year old" standing of the terrorist attack, when Barry originally insisted that he "would not waiver in (his) commitment to see justice is done"?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Why was this blamed on religious "disrespect", rather the anniversary of 9-11, and the presence of Al-Qaeda whose flag flew over the Benghazi courthouse, and throughout the city?
You're suggesting that Al Qaeda does not, at least nominally, present itself as motivated by religion? I'm not sure what you mean by blaming anything on disrespect, rather than simply pointing out that it's not disrespectful of religion to call out religious organizations that have stepped over a line from holding beliefs to using violence to force others to conform to their world view.

quote:
Why didn't they rely heavily enough upon "his knowledge of things on the ground there" (and numerous other ground agents) to disregard CIA deputy director Morell's acceptance of a D.C. desk jockey's analysis, or provide the additional security which he plead for over the months preceding his death?
With limited resources to apply and in the face of congressional budget cuts, why didn't they put a full Marine division in every US associate building in the world? PArticularly when the CIA was likely actively leaning on them to keep this particular low priority backwater under the radar because of the covert operations that it was actually a front for.

quote:
Where is the "justice" given we have known the identities of the terrorists for over a year (they were video taped)?
Possibly because working to trace the leadership of the organizations responsible and working to dismantle them takes longer and is more practical and effective way of delivering justice than violating Libyan sovereignty just for the sake of craning up the short term bod count, as it seems you're suggesting he should have done.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
This e-mail does not prove it, what proves it is that this is the basis of Rice's briefing and Rice explicitly did so on her round of talk shows. If that was not the message intended are you suggestting there couldn't have been a course correction during the round as they realized she was overstating the case? Or that they couldn't have immediately clarified.
So the scandal is that they didn't correct themselves fast enough for you? [Confused]
No, the lack of correction is corroboration of my view as to their intent.
quote:
quote:
And see, I don't believe that. Are you now asserting that they honestly believed the video was behind it?
I'm not sure I asserted anything else. The CIA told the Administration on Sept. 14 that the #1 possible reason for the attack was a spontaneous the protests (which were about the video). They ran with it.
Tom asked about timelines. I saw several that indicated the CIA had included langauge that the linkage between the video and the attack was inconclusive within 3 hours of the first circulation. It's clear references to terrorists were also stripped out.
quote:
If the CIA told President Bush that Iraq had WMD, and later on it was shown that they did not, would you say the President "lied" about it at the time and "pinned" the invasion on that lie? Or would you just say that he was misinformed at the time? [Wink]
I did say he was misinformed, and that did in fact happen. Of course you had years of reports from multiple agencies, and innumberable fact finding missions on that. Here you had a need to get a political defense out before the other side could take advantage, but hey I can totally see how those are exactly equivalent after all the political party difference has to sit on the balance scale.
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
By tricking Rice into lying by not explicitly putting an "except for Benghazi" note on information about how to respond to questions about the protests over the video?

Yeah, it was absolutely and totally unpredicatable that telling someone the video is behind the protests and that attack arose from the protests would be something they'd link together when you're briefing them to go on five talk shows in an afternoon to provide the adminstration response to a terrorist attack. I can't imagine why I would have thought otherwise, in other news I'm shocked to discover water is wet.
quote:
If you want to say that she was instructed to lie, then you need to at least some kind of instruction to lie or present false information.
Changing the game? Where did I say she was instructed to lie? For all I know she believed it, it's absolutely clear though that her briefing was designed to get that result.
quote:
A briefing on what to say about concurrent events that ended up being unrelated doesn't suggest that she was told to lie- unless, you're saying that the intent was to confuse into mixing up different events.
It was the Admin's intent, to sell the claim this was spontaneous and not premeditated terrorism. They flat out admitted that, not sure why you are arguing. The only possible debate is that you believe they believed it, notwithstanding their efforts to tailor the message away from other reasonable theories without any good reason.

Exactly on the 501(c)(4)'s you don't have evidence of motive, you impute it. Just like there is absolute certainty that the Adminstration sold a politically convenient untruth, and notwithstanding clear notes of a damage control effort you refuse to inpute intent.

If I ever an on trial, I hope you guys are on the jury, I can't imagine any way that anyone would get convicted without an in court confession.

You have motive here, you have oppurtunity, you have actual implemenation, you have evidence of intent to manipulate, RICO cases have brought down crime families with less proof.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyrtolin,

That post was directed to DD.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Yeah, it was absolutely and totally unpredicatable that telling someone the video is behind the protests and that attack arose from the protests would be something they'd link together when you're briefing them to go on five talk shows in an afternoon to provide the adminstration response to a terrorist attack. I can't imagine why I would have thought otherwise, in other news I'm shocked to discover water is wet.
You're saying that like there weren't several protests about the video going on across Africa and the Middle East at the same time. Why, exactly, would giving her information about how to respond to those imply that she was being tricked into lying about Benghazi?

quote:
Exactly on the 501(c)(4)'s you don't have evidence of motive, you impute it. Just like there is absolute certainty that the Adminstration sold a politically convenient untruth, and notwithstanding clear notes of a damage control effort you refuse to inpute intent.
If I were saying that 501c4s were going to spend untraceable money on political advertising without evidence that they were doing it, sure. But there's no need for motive to be at play. 501c4s are demonstrably spending untraceable money on political advertising. That's an outright fact, no motive needed.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I saw several that indicated the CIA had included langauge that the linkage between the video and the attack was inconclusive within 3 hours of the first circulation.
Now keep going. When did the White House PR staff get that update?

------

quote:
Exactly on the 501(c)(4)'s you don't have evidence of motive, you impute it.
Just one quibble: when determining appropriate taxation, motive does not actually matter. Even if you don't mean to misreport your taxes, you are still liable.

------

quote:
RICO cases have brought down crime families with less proof.
Can you cite an example?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seriati,

"If I ever an on trial, I hope you guys are on the jury, I can't imagine any way that anyone would get convicted without an in court confession. "...

You had better hope there is not some sort of liberal qualm de jour associated with your case. The brains of these people re-engage fairly rapidly. [Smile]

DD,

... Still waiting for that response...

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
No, the lack of correction is corroboration of my view as to their intent.
The Obama Administration did correct it.

quote:
Tom asked about timelines. I saw several that indicated the CIA had included langauge that the linkage between the video and the attack was inconclusive within 3 hours of the first circulation. It's clear references to terrorists were also stripped out.
Could you please provide a link to at least one of these timelines? I would like to compare them to the ones I've seen.
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Could you please provide a link to at least one of these timelines? I would like to compare them to the ones I've seen. "...

How about a fourteen day delay :

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sE7pHhpbW8M

Barry begins with a eulogy to Chris Stevens, and then goes into a ten minute dissertation expounding the virtues of self-determination before he says this :

(10:23) - "That is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, as a crude, and disgusting, video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world... Now I have made it clear that the United States Government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity...

(13:44) - ... "There is no speech that justifies mindless violence. There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no *video* that justifies an attack upon an embassy."

[And there is no foreign policy screw-up that will get in the way of my re-election.) [Wink]

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's not a timeline.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Does it answer the question?
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think it does, no. You referenced "several" timelines. Wayward asked if you could provide a link. You responded with a single event and time.

I'm curious myself to see relatively complete timeline. I haven't really been following closely, but it feels like a politically amplified event that absent tribalism is likely not really a big deal in either direction, but I have only a superficial awareness of it.

A timeline would help me sort that out. "Obama said it was the video 14 days later" doesn't really help me do that.

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You first, noel.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Me "first" what Donald?
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If you're going to harass me to respond to you, it would behoove you to respond first to the post that you were mimicking, no?
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ah, then I better start behooving. You want me to "try to imagine other plausible reasons for this purported redaction." ...

Done!

But I doubt my "imaginings" will match yours. You must have some compelling excuse in mind for the continual delays, and misrepresentations, by the administration to produce an explanation. Are you thinking "national security"?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jack Squat
Member
Member # 6910

 - posted      Profile for Jack Squat   Email Jack Squat       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
"Could you please provide a link to at least one of these timelines? I would like to compare them to the ones I've seen. "...

How about a fourteen day delay :

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sE7pHhpbW8M

Barry begins with a eulogy to Chris Stevens, and then goes into a ten minute dissertation expounding the virtues of self-determination before he says this :

(10:23) - "That is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, as a crude, and disgusting, video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world... Now I have made it clear that the United States Government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity...

(13:44) - ... "There is no speech that justifies mindless violence. There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no *video* that justifies an attack upon an embassy."

[And there is no foreign policy screw-up that will get in the way of my re-election.) [Wink]

What's the issue here?
Posts: 278 | Registered: Apr 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"What's the issue here? "

Ansar al-Sharia, a rebel loosely bound group affiliated with Al-Qaeda, was known to be responsible for the coordinated Benghazi attack within hours of the event by all credible ground observers. Details of the murderous assault strategy were give-aways to many (including me) in the absence of testimony, but liberal members of this board have been perpetually oblivious to the facts.

Now we have testimony entered into the public record.

There was no "protest demonstration" as claimed by Susan Rice on Sunday news programs the day after, nor was there a motive attributable to the vilified anti-Islamic video that went viral. Barry's appearance before the U.N. fourteen days later was a sham... He lied his butt off.

The reason was the upcoming election, which could easily have turned given Barry's erroneous claim to have "decimated" Al-Qaeda. In fact, Obama's policy resulted in a resurgence of the terror network which continues to this day.

He took a crisis that was military in nature, and sacrificed American lives for the sake of a short-sighted political objective. It was the worst form of leadership imaginable in a war environment.

Some here may remember that Barry left Panetta in charge of the ongoing conflict while he attended a political ralley in Las Vegas.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So it's just delusion on your part, then? I guess it's good to be clear.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not delusional. I think one thing we can all agree on is that there were multiple Benghazis. The one that Noel and some others know about could have been prevented if the military hadn't been told to stand down. That one has an ongoing deeply nefarious plot so thick you couldn't cut it with a military laser cannon on the Death Star. It may be time to call in the Jedi Knights.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The reason was the upcoming election, which could easily have turned given Barry's erroneous claim to have "decimated" Al-Qaeda.
Do you really think there were a lot of people that were casting their votes based on whether they believed Obama had decimated Al Qaeda?
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Brian
Member
Member # 588

 - posted      Profile for Brian   Email Brian   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Noel:
quote:
There was no "protest demonstration"
None at all? The first time a marine looked over the wall at the gathering crowd he said 'holy crap! look at all those weapons! we are about to be attacked'?

My understanding was that an unarmed mob was demonstrating in front of the compound for a few hours before the attack began.

Posts: 359 | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" I think one thing we can all agree on is that there were multiple Benghazis. "...

Al, this is genuine news if true. Please cite your references.

"Do you really think there were a lot of people that were casting their votes based on whether they believed Obama had decimated Al Qaeda? "...

Matt, there did not need to be "a lot" of independents persuaded that Barry had failed in his advertised success against Al-Qaeda in order to lose re-ection. Romney made quite a point of Barry's foreign policy failure, and Rhodes' email is proof that the administration agreed with that political vulnerability.

"quote:
There was no "protest demonstration"

None at all? The first time a marine looked over the wall at the gathering crowd he said 'holy crap! look at all those weapons! we are about to be attacked'? "...

Brian; no, not a single "marine looked over the wall", because there was *no* Marine guard protecting the Benghazi embassy.

"My understanding was that an unarmed mob was demonstrating in front of the compound for a few hours before the attack began. "...

Yes, that was the administrations story line. It is pure crap.

The "mob" was armed to the teeth, and organized. It followed the rescuers to the CIA annex, where a jihadist mortar team landed second, and third round direct hits (at night, and from behind cover), onto the Annex. This is when the two ex-seal contractors were killed. Anyone that knows anything about the mechanics of this feat understands that there was *nothing* spontaneous about it, the trajectory was pre-calculated. It was instantly obvious that the administration was lying to the American people, as this would have been an achievement by even a practiced mortar team in daylight.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Matt, there did not need to be "a lot" of independents persuaded that Barry had failed in his advertised success against Al-Qaeda in order to lose re-ection. Romney made quite a point of Barry's foreign policy failure, and Rhodes' email is proof that the administration agreed with that political vulnerability.
You're saying that Romney made a huge deal out of the failure and deception associated with the Administration's handling of Benghazi. Even with the lies and distortions and the steady drumbeat of whining and insisting that it wouldn't have happened with a Republican President in office...Romney lost anyway (despite you predicting the election a landslide in his favor just one day before he lost).

What do you make of that? One inference you might draw is that Obama was under siege by an army of conservative right wingnuts and Republican political hacks who were determined to undermine his Presidency and handling of foreign policy on behalf of all Americans, and he acted with some political measures to confront the assault.

Please provide references that show there were no Republican distortions or misrepresenations by people who you happen to agree with politically.

[ May 02, 2014, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Please provide references that show there were no Republican distortions or misrepresenations by people who you happen to agree with politically. "...

Al, do you understand even the basics of logic? You want proof affirming an "E" proposition?

I am anxious to see some references documenting "many Benghazi' " (an "I" proposition). It is within logical possibility, and you sounded quite certain about it.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
noel, I don't remember if the riot started before the attack proper on the embassy, but there was one during it. It's really good way to impede air support.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Ansar al-Sharia, a rebel loosely bound group affiliated with Al-Qaeda, was known to be responsible for the coordinated Benghazi attack within hours of the event by all credible ground observers. Details of the murderous assault strategy were give-aways to many (including me) in the absence of testimony, but liberal members of this board have been perpetually oblivious to the facts. ...

There was no "protest demonstration" as claimed by Susan Rice on Sunday news programs the day after, nor was there a motive attributable to the vilified anti-Islamic video that went viral. Barry's appearance before the U.N. fourteen days later was a sham... He lied his butt off.

The reason was the upcoming election, which could easily have turned given Barry's erroneous claim to have "decimated" Al-Qaeda. In fact, Obama's policy resulted in a resurgence of the terror network which continues to this day.

Well, noel, I don't know what you are doing, but you are definitely wasting your talent. You should be working for CIA's Office of Terrorism Analysis. Because they need you, desperately.

I mean, if you had only been there, you could have prevented this memo from being sent, the one that reads:

quote:
The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. diplomatic post and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.
Those words were written on Sept. 14, almost 3 days after the attack. Almost 3 days! While you would have known it was Al Qaeda within hours of the event. Hours! It's just amazing.

In fact, you should probably be President, because you are obviously far more insightful than Obama ever was.

Unfortunately, we are stuck with Obama for the next few years. And, unfortunately, Obama is not as insightful and profoundly knowledgeable as noel. Because, apparently, Obama believed those ne'er-do-wells at the CIA who told him, in writing, that the demonstrations evolved into the direct assault at the Embassy. What's worse, he had the arrogance to tell the American public what the CIA had told him. You'd think he'd be smarter than that, since he'd know that there are noels out there who know so much better than him and the CIA about what the actual situation at Benghazi really was. The fool!

So he kept telling this blatant lie to save himself from the Nov. 2 election, not admitting it was actually a terrorist attack until well past the time when it could actually affect the outcome--which happens to be Sept. 21, when Clinton first called it a "terrorist attack." Or perhaps it was Sept. 26, when Carney called it a "terrorist attack." Or perhaps Sept. 27, when Panetta called it a "terrorist attack." But it certainly was Oct. 2, when Carney blamed the intelligence community for the misinformation.

But, as Obama was well aware, informatin leaked a month before an election can have absolutely no influence on how people vote on that election. It's a well-know fact! He would have been horrified to find out that voters could react within 30 days of finding out he lied! [Eek!]

You really are wasting your talents here, noel. We need you in a position where your keen insight helps protect us all from incompetent and insidious politicians everywhere. Send your resume to the CIA this instant!

Or, noel, you could just admit that the scenario you've embraced simply doesn't fit the obvious available facts. [Razz]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Brian; no, not a single "marine looked over the wall", because there was *no* Marine guard protecting the Benghazi embassy.
Because Marines are only stationed at embassies that store confidential documents, or at least have some strategic or diplomatic significance, not at backwater, podunk buildings that mostly only exist at all as a cover for CIA operations.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Those words were written on Sept. 14, almost 3 days after the attack. Almost 3 days! While you would have known it was Al Qaeda within hours of the event. Hours! It's just amazing. "...

WS, that is the "report" from the D.C. "desk jockey", referenced earlier. It is the source that deputy director Morell deferred to in order to avoid "embarrassing" the State Department. General Ham made the administration aware of the ground situation, and was fired... but virtually any trained soldier, or marine, could have told Barry the same thing.

The problem was not a paucity of information, it was a lying commander-in-chief.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It followed the rescuers to the CIA annex, where a jihadist mortar team landed second, and third round direct hits (at night, and from behind cover), onto the Annex.
It didn't follow anyone anywhere, the attack on the annex was a discrete, separate event that happen hours after the initial Embassy attack. Many of the same people may have been involved, but your description there implies something very different from what happened according to any of the available timelines.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So you are saying that memo is a lie and didn't come from the CIA? Or that the CIA is lying, too? That everyone in the Administration is part of the cover-up?

So we have a lying Commander-in-Chief, with a lying CIA which sent that memo--at least twice!--to the White House. Yep, it's all clear. They're all liars.

Oh, BTW, what is you source that tells you they are lying? I have written memos released from the White House. I have a timeline that shows that the Administration admitted it was terrorists behind the attack at least a month before the election. What have you got?

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wayward:
quote:
What have you got?
Certainty.

Noel:
quote:
"Please provide references that show there were no Republican distortions or misrepresenations by people who you happen to agree with politically. "...

Al, do you understand even the basics of logic? You want proof affirming an "E" proposition?

I am anxious to see some references documenting "many Benghazi' " (an "I" proposition). It is within logical possibility, and you sounded quite certain about it.

[Smile] Open your mind, Noel, open your mind. You have closed it like a sphincter around your closely held beliefs. Show me a reference that says otherwise...
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So even MS-LSD is now admitting there is more to Benghazi and even they are attacking the administration.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 25 pages: 1  2  3  ...  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  ...  23  24  25   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1