repeter
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2009
- Messages
- 3,445
- Reaction score
- 682
- Location
- California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
I thought you knew Rice, who had no role in Obama's Benghazi Massacre, went out to lie instead of the Secretary of State who did play a role in Obama's Benghazi Massacre. I apologize for not recognizing that you argue from a position of ignorance. It is probably willful.
It figures that you couldn't do that right either.Now that was a great idea. I ran your response through it. The translator said you have nothing.
You have to try pretty darned hard to get it wrong at this point. So don't try attitude with me.Are you actually implying that Rice's lack of proper talking points implies that the Administration wanted Ambassador Stevens and 3 bodyguards to die?
By the way, cut the personal attacks.
It figures that you couldn't do that right either.
You have to try pretty darned hard to get it wrong at this point. So don't try attitude with me.
I speculate on why Stevens was killed.
What three bodyguards? Do you have any idea just how full of crap you are? Get some of the basic facts straight before you respond.
I get it. You are a partisan spokesman on the wrong side of history. Have a nice day.There's nothing to get wrong. Stop getting worked up over something as pointless as an argument on the internet and keep it civil.
There are a million different things I've heard about what "really happened" in Benghazi. Please tell me, in explicit terms, what your specific claim is.
I misspoke, 2 security personnel and 1 information management officer. Again, keep it civil; that was well across the line of what's acceptable on DP.
I get it. You are a partisan spokesman on the wrong side of history. Have a nice day.
I see no point in continuing a discussion with someone who brings their own"facts" without regard to truthfulness.Yes, it's probably best you retire from this thread before you say something that really merits a visit from a Moderator. I would say it was nice debating you, but I can't for the life of me find a claim you made besides saying Rice lied for Clinton, whatever that means.
I see no point in continuing a discussion with someone who brings their own"facts" without regard to truthfulness.
Why did Rice get sent out to lie when she had no role in Obama's Benghazi Massacre?
Why didn't Clinton go out to lie instead? She was actually involved in Obama's Benghazi Massacre.
Why did Obama continue to lie about a "hateful video" for weeks after he failed to respond to his massacre?
Do you think it is usual for a narcissist who never lacks for a photo op to disappear during his Massacre? Where did Obama go?
How many more months of investigation do you think it will take before Obama finds out what he did or failed to do during his Benghazi Massacre?
You are behaving as if Obama's Benghazi Massacre had just now occurred, this very minute and we know practically nothing about it. I am sure you realize how frustrating it is to deal with people who behave like this. The factual foundation already exists. Granted the Marxist has been concealing and covering up as much as he possibly can. Fortunately there have been some random acts of journalism along the way.Your personal attacks and baiting doesn't hide your lack of a factual foundation.
Is that your defense? Rice was too stupid to know she was lying so it wasn't really a lie? Really? That is your argument? Fantastic! (I went to charm school where I learned to say "fantastic" instead of BS)For Rice to have been lying, she would be required to know what had actually happened, and there would need to be some form of evidence showing she was given instructions to not tell the truth. Give me evidence beyond reasonable doubt that both criteria are satisfied; you have certainly not done so anywhere on this thread.
For Obama to lie about the video (I'm assuming you're position is that he said the video was responsible, and that the attack was not a deliberate act of terror), he would have had to say he thought the attack was caused by that video.
The only person, anywhere in the government, that I can find saying the attack was caused by the video was Susan Rice. Obama, the day after the attack said it was likely a deliberate act, and the investigation was ongoing.
Well, no.Two days after Rice went on the air, Clinton came out to cement the understanding that the State Department views the attack as an act of terror. I'm working off this timeline of the attack and administration's response.
Well, where are his photos? Why did no one have contact with the Dear Leader? Why did he disappear, allowing his Benghazi Massacre to occur unhindered?You can ask baseless, conspiratorial questions all you want, but until you have some facts, hell, ONE fact to back up your suspicions, then this discussion can progress.
Here I presume your position shifts to saying the Obama admin had actionable intelligence to suggest an attack was imminent, or that during the attack Obama could have done something to have counter-attacked or stopped it. This timeline of the military response shows that by the time the aircraft that could've been carrying a 4-man Green Beret team arrives, the attack was over, and we pulled out more people. There were no assets in range of Benghazi, and unless you can show that we knew, and by knew I mean we had actionable intelligence that President Obama was aware of, you logically cannot hold him responsible for not preparing for an attack he didn't know about.
I have given you answers, though I doubt you'll that they are both factual and against you. I can't wait for you to respond with the obligatory, "you provided no real facts" ploy. Maybe you could shake things up, break the stereotype of a person in your position, and give a factual counterclaim and source.
Before I start, let me work through who said what. President Obama, the day after the attack, referred to it as an, "act of terror" in an address, and in an interview stated that it didn't "sound like your normal demonstration." Then on Sept. 16, Rice says it was because of a mob. Secretary Clinton stated 2 days after Rice that it was a terrorist attack.
The only person to have said it was not an attack from the start was Rice, therefore I will assume you take issue with this statement.
I'm working off this timeline, FYI.
You mean Gregory Hicks. Before you put any words in my mouth, the miscommunication I'm referring to is between Clinton and Rice. Rice clearly was not given the most up to date talking points, and said the wrong thing on the record.
Spare me your personal attacks.
People make mistakes. Unless you're implying that government can perfectly execute anything they wish to do, which is obviously false. Again, the miscommunication was within the State Department. Not sure why you're pulling the military into this.
Yeah, they did know, and they said that almost immediately. They never said anything to refute that it was anything but a deliberate attack on the Consulate/Annex.
If you could keep irrelevant commentary to a minimum, that'd be great.
Coupled with the article at the beginning of this thread, I'm convinced the stone walling is about the CIA operation, and not the attack.
A cover-up of what exactly? I don't see what, besides this a potential CIA operation, is being covered up. Obama and Clinton went on the record saying it was a terrorist attack. Susan Rice, who might've not been given any talking points and came to her own conclusions, said it was because of a mob. This isn't a big deal.
Just to say it again, this sort of commentary is entirely irrelevant.
EDIT: I found an organizational chart of the State Department for you. The information about Benghazi went up the ladder to Clinton, bypassing Rice, and we don't know that it came back down to Rice at all.
You are behaving as if Obama's Benghazi Massacre had just now occurred, this very minute and we know practically nothing about it. I am sure you realize how frustrating it is to deal with people who behave like this. The factual foundation already exists. Granted the Marxist has been concealing and covering up as much as he possibly can. Fortunately there have been some random acts of journalism along the way.
Is that your defense? Rice was too stupid to know she was lying so it wasn't really a lie? Really? That is your argument? Fantastic! (I went to charm school where I learned to say "fantastic" instead of BS)
I suppose it is possible that you are the last remaining person on Earth to not know that the Marxist is a slippery SOB. “The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.”
Glenn Kessler objects, giving the statement four Pinocchios in the Washington Post today. The Rose Garden speech, Kessler reports — again — addressed terrorism in general, not the Benghazi attack. Over the next several days, Obama had three opportunities to call it a terrorist attack, but declined to do so.[/INDENT]
Four Pinocchios for Obama on Benghazi terror claim « Hot Air
Also on Sept. 20, Obama at a town hall meeting says: “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.”[/INDENT]
WHITE HOUSE INSIDER: Obama’s Benghazi Lie – Valerie Jarrett’s West Wing Meltdown - The Ulsterman Report
Sept. 21: Clinton says “what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack,” highest official until then to say so.
(NOTE: Within 24hrs of Barack Obama telling America the video was to blame and calling it a “natural protest” Hillary Clinton goes on record with the term “terrorist attack”. Clinton and Obama are now in direct opposition – though publicly still circling their own wagons against growing accusations of a cover-up.
Clinton acknowledged the obvious on September 21st, not on September 13th. CBS, part of the state run media, is not to be believed after the fact.
Then I assked, "Do you think it is usual for a narcissist who never lacks for a photo op to disappear during his Massacre? Where did Obama go?"
Well, where are his photos? Why did no one have contact with the Dear Leader? Why did he disappear, allowing his Benghazi Massacre to occur unhindered?
Presume what you wish. The Marxist was told of the attack around 5 PM and he promptly disappeared until the following morning, then headed off to a fundraiser.
He claimed he would have a full investigation. It has been about a year. How many more months will it take (of investigation) before Obama finds out what he did, and failed to do during the attack?
You will have to do better than to give us the Obama talking points 11 months later.
You can't use Obama's generic reference to " terror " and then dismiss Susan Rice's multiple Sunday Morning lies, Jay Carney's multiple and very self assured proclamations that this was because of a " protest ".
I'm telling you, almost as soon as the attack commenced, those on the ground knew it wasn't a " protest ", those in the WH situation room ( Obama included ) knew it wasn't a protest, Hillary Clinton knew it wasn't a protest. Yes Gregory Hicks ( my bad ) testified under oath that the attack was never perceived as a protest gone awry.
Here's Obama's mistake, and the Democrats. They think, they've made a calculated decision that their voters are idiots or hard core ideologues. who use their ideology to define the truth, not the other way around. Voters that will believe anything their told.
If you can't be convinced over Benghazi, that it was a attempt at a cover up, nothing will convince you and your'e just the kind of voter that Obama and Hillary concocted this huge lie over.
Hillary's, IMO is a despicable lying bitch, a sub-human, scum who looked into the eyes of the Parents who lost their Sons in Benghazi and said " we'll arrest the man that made that video " Sorry, but I set my standards a bit higher for the representatives I vote for.
The good news is that getting to the truth does not require your assent.Please, your commentary is entirely irrelevant, you don't need to waste your time writing it.
The good news is that getting to the truth does not require your assent.
I am done with you.
It is not possible to debate with you. You have your own very special set of "facts" tht have no relationship with the truth.I had a feeling you were going to give up the debate.
But you're right, getting to the truth does not require your assent, so it's probably best if you return to your dogma.
It is not possible to debate with you. You have your own very special set of "facts" tht have no relationship with the truth.
Bring some facts that we can agree are facts and let's see.
Good point. Bye.I really enjoy how you continue to respond after you unconditionally stated, "I am done with you." If you believe CBS to not have a relationship to truth, while presenting The Ulsterman Report as having one, I would repeat, it is best if you return to your dogma.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?