ocean515
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2013
- Messages
- 36,760
- Reaction score
- 15,468
- Location
- Southern California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Really, you think he suffered the full heft of the US govt?
Talk about a weak tangent.
Yes, and Nuland's TRUE concern was right there too, that she did not want all of that intel released for security reasons, she wanted any and all leads to remain intact.
It was not done for political reasons as implied by the leak to ABC, and even Petraeus confirmed that back in November.
You can follow any tangent you like, the point still is that ABC ran with a story on leaked false info from anon GOP sources, spinning Nuland's reasons for not releasing all of the intel on the attack.
Prove this silly tangent.You think he didn't?
The Secretary of State of the United States of America, Hilary Clinton, tells a family member of one the murdered Benghazi victims on the tarmac were the bodies are being unloaded they are going to get the guy responsible for the video, and you don't think that represents the full weight and measure of the US?
Talk about an alarming and totally delusional attempt to minimize the situation.
You are trying to argue about "objectivity" while pushing a meme that this is really all a conspiracy by the WH....to cover up an email.....that ABC did not even have a hard copy of but they reported as being true....from an anon source?Re-read your post, and then think about the accusations and labels you have applied to the GOP on this issue.
Objectivity shouldn't be a concept that is so difficult to comprehend...
Prove this silly tangent.
Um, I seriously doubt the FBI is the only investigative office involved in finding who attacked the compounds, but that aside, this has zero bearing on what ABC reported and what actually was written by Nuland.The FBI was running the investigation, not Nuland and the State Department. The FBI, as you can see in the emails, didn't have a problem with the early versions of the points.
The GOP released fake emails that hadn't been released?
Oh, so you have zero to back up your claim.:shock:
I think I'll just let you believe your take, so you can continue to post it for others to read.
Keep dancing guys. GOP operatives altered evidence. The only issue is not who is going to resign in the GOP leadership, but who's going to jail. Evidence tampering is a crime.
Um, I seriously doubt the FBI is the only investigative office involved in finding who attacked the compounds, but that aside, this has zero bearing on what ABC reported and what actually was written by Nuland.
You are trying to argue about "objectivity" while pushing a meme that this is really all a conspiracy by the WH....to cover up an email.....that ABC did not even have a hard copy of but they reported as being true....from an anon source?
I wouldn't blame the GOP. Just maybe some of it's members (if what the ABC reported said is true).
Oh, so you have zero to back up your claim.
You certainly live up to the conservative standard.
Could someone please point out where it says the Republicans altered the emails? I can't find it.
Could someone please point out where it says the Republicans altered the emails? I can't find it.
So if Benghazi is like Watergate, and according to you Watergate wasn't that serious....Ergo, Benghazi isn't all that serious.
What leads? Um, specific groups and individuals associated in the attack which multiple agencies are tracking.Then what "leads" were you suggesting Nuland was concerned about?
BTW, you're right, the FBI wasn't the only agency investigating what happened. There were dozens of reporters all over the compound well before FBI got there because nobody in the government bothered to investigate until some reporter came up with Stevens' diary.
You can follow any tangent you like, the point still is that ABC ran with a story on leaked false info from anon GOP sources, spinning Nuland's reasons for not releasing all of the intel on the attack.
What leads? Um, specific groups and individuals associated in the attack which multiple agencies are tracking.
You really needed me to explain that to you?
"The CIA agreed with the concerns raised by the State Department and revised the talking points to make them less specific than the CIA's original version, eliminating references to al Qaeda and affiliates and earlier security warnings."
So, you're saying that the minority party is really running the show, because the president is too weak and incompetent to make his own decisions?
Yeah, you have no obligation to back up anything, but the point still stands, you choose not to, ergo it is funny to see you whining about "objectivity" when you can't point to any objective evidence for your silly claim.Geeze. There is a ton of evidence to back up my claim. It's been in the news. I have no obligation to help you catch up.
I didn't know that spinning unfounded stories is "running the show", thanks for the GOP/con viewpoint!So, you're saying that the minority party is really running the show, because the president is too weak and incompetent to make his own decisions?
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?