- Joined
- Mar 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,235
- Reaction score
- 1,453
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Wow! Based on solid hearsay evidence from "other Libyans" alleged by a single NYT reporter.
Figures.:lamo
Wow! Based on solid hearsay evidence from "other Libyans" alleged by a single NYT reporter.
Here is a tip for you. Don't play the horses.:lamo
And Beefheart, if you think anybody in the entire galaxy takes you seriously on ANY topic, then I need for you to start sharing some of that stuff you've been smokin' and I want it NOW!
Here is a tip: Don't make claims you can't back up.
But you conveniently overlook the fact that the mastermind of the Benghazi attack stated after he was arrested that it was the video that set him off.
Whoopsie.
NYT: Captured Suspect Said Benghazi Attack Was Revenge For Anti-Islam Video
Well, if you want to get personal, you're quite right:I am witty, in fact a great deal wittier than you...and smarter...and much better looking. I am much more experienced than you. I have worked harder than you and I have had a great deal more success than you. Say, do you still live at home with you folks? You're not on food stamps are you? Food stamps AND a computer. You probably even have some of those REALLY neat tats, right?
Do you think of yourself as a "Useful Idiot?"
Wow! Based on solid hearsay evidence from "other Libyans" alleged by a single NYT reporter.
In less than 24 hours after the attack on Benghazi, there's an email from Hillary to a ME official clearly stating that she knew it was a planned attack. yet after that point, everyone made their pubic speeches about how it was the Internet video. That's after they already stated they knew the attack was a planned one and not in response to an Internet video.
So, Whoopsie on yours.
Are you married? Go tell your wife what to do.
The State Department only knew what the CIA told them and even they weren't sure what the attack was about in the first hours or even days of the attack. That is not unusual in the chaos of civil unrest or war.In less than 24 hours after the attack on Benghazi, there's an email from Hillary to a ME official clearly stating that she knew it was a planned attack. yet after that point, everyone made their pubic speeches about how it was the Internet video. That's after they already stated they knew the attack was a planned one and not in response to an Internet video.
So, Whoopsie on yours.
Here, have some more. Pretty solid case that the video did, indeed, have something to do with it.
A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times
They did not lie they were following CIA protocol. It was the CIA who blamed the video and testified as such on Capital hill. I guess you missed that. If you want to say the CIA lied to Rice and Clinton and they repeated it that is what happened.
T A Benghazi Scandal That Has Already Been Revealed: The Media’s Role
The State Department only knew what the CIA told them and even they weren't sure what the attack was about in the first hours or even days of the attack. That is not unusual in the chaos of civil unrest or war.
So it begs the question....WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE??? What difference does it make if the attack was inspired by a video or a planned attack? Do you think the people inside the compound gave a crap why they were being attacked? Or were they more concerned with trying to get the CIA that were located only five minutes away to come and help them?
Read more @: Benghazi Committee Gets Nothing New From Talk Radio Caller ‘John From Iowa’
Its time to wrap up this committee. Actually, its been long overdue to wrap up this committee. This is nothing but a political charade that has shown itself to be a complete waste of time and mostly used as a campaign stunt. [/FONT]
But, of course, your dumbed down version doesn't tell the whole story. And a planned attack can still be due to the video.
A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times
Careful! The above link has big words and requires nuanced thought and reflection.
One has it that the video, which was posted on YouTube, inspired spontaneous street protests that got out of hand. This version, based on early intelligence reports, was initially offered publicly by Susan E. Rice, who is now Mr. Obama’s national security adviser.
I was military intelligence at the time of this attack. In fact, this forum had, at that time, a poster who had literally just left the Libya Embassy, where he had served in the Defense Attache office (and who himself was a rock-solid progressive).
From the article:
As someone who read those intelligence reports, both before and after, this is incorrect. Given the NYTimes political predilections, it seems they are attempting to cover for the Administration here.
The idea that the CIA fooled State isn't credible for someone who is more familiar with how an Embassy functions. The Chief of Station and the Chief of Mission approve reporting that is exiting the country (DOD reporting, for example, that occurs under Title 50 Authorities (there are a few venues in which this occurs) flows through the CoS, as does other reporting, depending on how tightly the CoM wants to control DOD activities in-country). This doesn't mean they read every report, but they set the conditions, and monitor. The CIA's awareness of what was happening in Libya was coming from their people who would have been working with and through State Department presence. And, of course, we see that in the email traffic of SECSTATE shortly after the attack.
The guy from the DAT's office (he had been restationed to my neck of the woods, and we had gotten into contact over SIPR) was apoplectic watching the Administration - the administration he had supported and defended - respond to this event. He knew, as I did, that it was an attack, that it was premeditated, that it was planned, that we had warning it was coming, and that the video bit was a convenient narrative based on the mobs in Egypt. It was, we agreed, an extreme temptation on our careers. He quit the forum in disgust shortly thereafter .
Nice.But, of course, your dumbed down version doesn't tell the whole story. And a planned attack can still be due to the video.
A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times
Careful! The above link has big words and requires nuanced thought and reflection.
The State Department only knew what the CIA told them and even they weren't sure what the attack was about in the first hours or even days of the attack. That is not unusual in the chaos of civil unrest or war.
So it begs the question....WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE??? What difference does it make if the attack was inspired by a video or a planned attack? Do you think the people inside the compound gave a crap why they were being attacked? Or were they more concerned with trying to get the CIA that were located only five minutes away to come and help them?
At what point does an investigation change from a search for the truth into a politically motivated search for anything even slightly damning?
Personally, I don't trust Clinton much at all, but that doesn't mean she's done everything she has been accused of...
But, of course, your dumbed down version doesn't tell the whole story. And a planned attack can still be due to the video.
A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times
Careful! The above link has big words and requires nuanced thought and reflection.
32 hearings, 11 published reports, 50 briefings and over 70,000 pages of documents equals $4.7 million in taxpayer money. And two different discredited leaders of the 'investigations'.
Yawn. Same old rubes coming into the same old tent enticed by the same old side-show barkers.
Think about how much money would have been saved if the Obama Administration would have cooperated from the beginning, by turning over all the documents requested by congress, and allowing the actual witnesses to testify.
No. Since I did not make a claim, I don't need proof.I'm afraid you'll need to provide a link for that.