• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The “Phony” Scandal That Just Won’t Go Away

So you admit that the original " stand down order" spewed by the 'conservative entertainment complex' was a lie. Its a start.

Or they ignored the stand down order. Good grief, liberals just can't admit the President and his administration dropped the ball here. :shrug:
 
There it is , the crux of the lying republican narrative. What were President Obama’s ‘actions’ that upset you so? Remembering that the CIA talking points said “spontaneously inspired” from the very first draft. Remembering of course that throughout all the “investigations” republicans aren’t asking the CIA why they said that . Remembering of course that all the republican narratives about “coverups” and “stand down” orders were lies. Please be specific.

And read this very slowly. I am not pointing to the actions of Bush to justify what President Obama has done. President Obama did nothing wrong. I point to bush’s lies about WMDs to show you what lying looks like and prove what hypocrites conservatives are.

Lying Republican Narrative? What is wrong with you people? What bothers me is that Obama want on a campaign trip when one of our Ambassadors was being killed and let Susan Rice go on TV and give a false narrative. What is there about Obama that creates people like you who defend the indefensible?

Bush didn't lie about WMD regardless of how many times you say it as that is what the world believed. He was wrong in some regards although chemical weapons were found and that is a WMD. Too bad you cannot get over the brainwashing you and others received nor can you admit that Obama is wrong on any issue.
 
Liar, you are claiming he 'changed the facts' for political gain.



See, you just proved me right. and he didnt change the facts in the talking points. he felt that the talking points shouldn't be specific. remember, they were talking points. we werent trying to invade iraq or anything. And a key piece of your lying narrative is that the President Obama forced the CIA to say those things. How come that accusation has not come out in the numerous 'investigations'? because even the silly pubs arent that stupid. Again, every time you post you prove you cannot criticize President Obama honestly and intelligently.

Lets parse your accusation of Rice's lies. She said exactly what the CIA talking points said from the very first draft. some people disagreed with that statement hence you accuse her and President Obama of lying. Bush actually lied about what the WMD intel said and alot of people disagreed and you call that an innocent mistake.


Who changed the Benghazi talking points?
By Sharyl Attkisson / CBS News/
November 28, 2012


Who within the Obama administration deleted mention of "terrorism" and "al-Qaeda" from the CIA's talking points on the deadly Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi?

It isn't the only unanswered question in the wake of the tragedy, but it's proven to be one of the most confounding.

Susan Rice fails to satisfy GOP senators' questions
.
The question was first raised 12 days ago when former CIA Director General David Petraeus told members of Congress that his original talking points cleared for public dissemination included the likely involvement by terrorists and an al-Qaeda affiliate. Petraeus said somebody removed the references before they were used to inform the public.

The Obama administration has declined to directly answer who made the edits. And the nation's top intelligence officials appear either confused or not forthcoming about the journey their own intelligence took.

Who changed the Benghazi talking points? - CBS News

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Deputy CIA director Michael Morell retires - Reid J. Epstein ...

www.politico.com/story/2013/06/michael-morell-cia-retirement-92671...

Deputy CIA Director Michael Morell, who took the blame for editing the Obama administration’s Benghazi talking points, announced his retirement Wednesday.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

WASHINGTON: Benghazi emails show CIA deputy director did …[/FONT]


www.newsobserver.com/.../2895329/administration-releases-benghazi.html

Benghazi emails show CIA deputy director did most ... points by Michael J. Morell, the deputy director of the CIA, ... the State Department requested the ...

I submit that it is you that are trying to obfuscate the facts. Michael Morell changed the talking points and not Petraeus. He did that at the behest of the State Dept. (Hillary Clinton) and of course the White House (Obama). His reward for taking the heat and resigning was the job in the Obama administration.
 
Point out why Susan Rice went on TV five days after the attack and even gave those talking points?
Explain how letting the world know it was a terrorist attack it would hurt his re-election chances? Also, why should we tell the terrorists we know exactly who did it?

From the ABC transcript:

TAPPER: So, first of all, what is the latest you can tell us on who these attackers were at the embassy or at the consulate in Benghazi? We're hearing that the Libyans have arrested people. They're saying that some people involved were from outside the country, that there might have even been Al Qaida ties. What's the latest information?

RICE: Well, Jake, first of all, it's important to know that there's an FBI investigation that has begun and will take some time to be completed. That will tell us with certainty what transpired.

But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous -- not a premeditated -- response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to -- or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in -- in the wake of the revolution in Libya are -- are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there.

We'll wait to see exactly what the investigation finally confirms, but that's the best information we have at present.​
 
Explain how letting the world know it was a terrorist attack it would hurt his re-election chances? Also, why should we tell the terrorists we know exactly who did it?

From the ABC transcript:

TAPPER: So, first of all, what is the latest you can tell us on who these attackers were at the embassy or at the consulate in Benghazi? We're hearing that the Libyans have arrested people. They're saying that some people involved were from outside the country, that there might have even been Al Qaida ties. What's the latest information?

RICE: Well, Jake, first of all, it's important to know that there's an FBI investigation that has begun and will take some time to be completed. That will tell us with certainty what transpired.

But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous -- not a premeditated -- response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to -- or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in -- in the wake of the revolution in Libya are -- are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there.

We'll wait to see exactly what the investigation finally confirms, but that's the best information we have at present.​

Do you even read what you post or are you so blinded by an ideology that you would allow someone else to make an absolute fool out of you? Susan Rice had no business going on TV and she didn't do it on her own. This was 5 days after the attack and it was known at that time it was a terrorist attack so Susan Rice lied

But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous -- not a premeditated -- response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

Current best assessment? Five days after the fact? Stop carrying the water for this incompetent Administration
 
Explain how letting the world know it was a terrorist attack it would hurt his re-election chances? Also, why should we tell the terrorists we know exactly who did it?

From the ABC transcript:

TAPPER: So, first of all, what is the latest you can tell us on who these attackers were at the embassy or at the consulate in Benghazi? We're hearing that the Libyans have arrested people. They're saying that some people involved were from outside the country, that there might have even been Al Qaida ties. What's the latest information?

RICE: Well, Jake, first of all, it's important to know that there's an FBI investigation that has begun and will take some time to be completed. That will tell us with certainty what transpired.

But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous -- not a premeditated -- response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to -- or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in -- in the wake of the revolution in Libya are -- are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there.

We'll wait to see exactly what the investigation finally confirms, but that's the best information we have at present.​

Nearly a year later and we have yet to see a report much less one arrest related to Benghazi. In fact we haven't even got any information from the survivors of the attack. Oops I forgot we do know one survivor is still hospitalized and may still lose a leg, because it took nearly a full day to medivac him out of Benghazi.
 
Or they ignored the stand down order.

there it is. the magic fact that all conservatives need to continue their lying agendas. Please back up the assertion you literally just made up to reply to my post. (why why why do cons think they can post as fact any fantasy that pops into their heads?)

Good grief, liberals just can't admit the President and his administration dropped the ball here. :shrug:

We are not discussing the documented lapses in security. We are talking about the documented lies republicans are spewing. try to keep up.


Point out why Susan Rice went on TV five days after the attack and even gave those talking points?

Because those were the CIA talking points. It seems the CIA was trying to hide the fact what they knew. maybe that's why the CIA took out references to al aqaeda. Maybe one of the dozen or so republican 'investigations' should ask that very question. Now here's a question for you (cons never answer questions. that's the first thing they teach them at 'con school'.) Don't you find that odd that republicans are not trying to determine "why" and "who" of those talking points?

Now read this slowly so you cant pretend to not understand . If President Obama is responsible for Susan Rice saying something that turned out not to be true, then certainly by your newfound standards of integrity, President Bush is responsible for Colin Powel lying to the UN about "mobile WMDs" in Iraq. And they knew when they sent Colin they were sending him to lie. I don't think President Obama knew the talking points were wrong. And here's the best part, when he found out they were wrong he didn't stick to the "spontaneously inspired". And nobody died because of the talking points. People died because of Bush's lies.

Oh and here's another bush lie. He was told to stop saying "Iraq is trying to buy uranium" because they couldn't verify and didn't believe it. Read that slowly: they didn't believe it. But bush kept saying it.

Based on the analyst’s comments, the ADDI drafted a memo for the NSC outlining the facts that the CIA believed needed to be changed, and faxed it to the Deputy National Security Advisor and the speech writers. Referring to the sentence on uranium from Africa the CIA said, “remove the sentence because the amount is in dispute and it is debatable whether it can be acquired from the source. We told Congress that the Brits have exaggerated this issue. Finally, the Iraqis already have 550 metric tons of uranium oxide in their inventory.”

REPORT ON THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY'S PREWAR INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENTS ON IRAQ

just so you know Con, that's two documented lies about WMDs that Bush spewed with the full knowledge it wasn't true.
 
I submit that it is you that are trying to obfuscate the facts. Michael Morell changed the talking points and not Petraeus. He did that at the behest of the State Dept. (Hillary Clinton) and of course the White House (Obama). His reward for taking the heat and resigning was the job in the Obama administration.

Yet another con post that argues something I didn't say. I didn't say Petraeus changed them. I clearly stated Morell changed the talking points. He even gave the reason for changing them. The "he changed them at the behest of the State Dept" is just another narrative that you so easily believe. Just add it to the list of Benghazi lies republicans tell and obedient cons believe.
 
Do you even read what you post or are you so blinded by an ideology that you would allow someone else to make an absolute fool out of you? Susan Rice had no business going on TV and she didn't do it on her own. This was 5 days after the attack and it was known at that time it was a terrorist attack so Susan Rice lied



Current best assessment? Five days after the fact? Stop carrying the water for this incompetent Administration

What did the Talking Points approved by the CIA (David Petraeus) say? How would Obama saying it was a terrorist attack 8 weeks before the election have hurt his re-election chances? He won by 5 million votes!!
 
Nearly a year later and we have yet to see a report much less one arrest related to Benghazi. In fact we haven't even got any information from the survivors of the attack. Oops I forgot we do know one survivor is still hospitalized and may still lose a leg, because it took nearly a full day to medivac him out of Benghazi.
You are blaming President Obama and not the military for the delay?
 
Nearly a year later and we have yet to see a report much less one arrest related to Benghazi. In fact we haven't even got any information from the survivors of the attack. Oops I forgot we do know one survivor is still hospitalized and may still lose a leg, because it took nearly a full day to medivac him out of Benghazi.

Why the military. Didn't Obama task the FBI with the investigation?
I'm talking about the man's leg, did you forget?
 
What did the Talking Points approved by the CIA (David Petraeus) say? How would Obama saying it was a terrorist attack 8 weeks before the election have hurt his re-election chances? He won by 5 million votes!!

Please post the exact quote of Obama that claimed it was a terrorist attack? You seem to believe that an act of Terrorism is the same as a terrorist attack yet the only comparison is the word terror in both. Stop buying the rhetoric and think for a change.
 
Please post the exact quote of Obama that claimed it was a terrorist attack? You seem to believe that an act of Terrorism is the same as a terrorist attack yet the only comparison is the word terror in both. Stop buying the rhetoric and think for a change.

Please post the reason why it matters if he said it was a terrorist attack or not. If you think it would have reduced his chances of winning the election, then probably you are not thinking logically. You may have not have noticed, but I've stopped buying your rhetoric almost 3 years ago.
 
Indeed using the Daily Kos as a source of integrity is really a stretch of reality.
:lamo:lamo:lamo

I cannot begin to tell you how hard and how loud I laughed at YOU criticizing someone's sources. You, the person who posts clearly biased and even outright false articles from extreme right-wing sources most people have never even heard of it, are criticizing the source someone else uses.

Unbelievable.
 
CNN: We Were Able to Interview Lead Benghazi Suspect for 2 Hours​

And he hasn't been contacted by the FBI.

By DANIEL HALPER
Jul 31, 2013


John King reported this morning that a reporter from CNN was able to interview a lead suspect in the Benghazi terror attack for two hours:




The FBI has reportedly not been able to track-down the suspect, but CNN had no problem talking to him for two hours.

"It is interesting," says King. "The FBI has put some photos up on its website of people of interest, but they haven't arrested anybody. And I'll tell you this: We've been working on a project here at CNN for a special due out later ... And Arwa Damon, our great correspondent, went back to Benghazi. She sat down with one of the people the FBI says is a lead suspect for 2 hours. He says he's never been contacted by the Libyan government, never been contacted by the FBI, so that is why you have this exasperation among some leading Republicans in the Congress."

As King notes, the Benghazi 9/11 terror attack took place almost a year ago.

The interview will air at a later date.

Read more:
CNN: We Were Able to Interview Lead Benghazi Suspect for 2 Hours | The Weekly Standard

 
Last edited:
:lamo:lamo:lamo

I cannot begin to tell you how hard and how loud I laughed at YOU criticizing someone's sources. You, the person who posts clearly biased and even outright false articles from extreme right-wing sources most people have never even heard of it, are criticizing the source someone else uses.

Unbelievable.

I only returned the criticism I have received many times . That fact is as you can see, I don't use just one source to post but many.
 
Last edited:
I was only returning the criticism I have received many times .
But you were using it to attack what he said, thus you have no point here.

That fact is as you can see, I don't use just one source to post but many.[/B]
Who cares how many extreme and dishonest right-wing sources you use if they are all dishonest and extreme? Using more stupid sources doesn't validate what you're saying, if anything, it does the exact opposite.
 
But you were using it to attack what he said, thus you have no point here.

Who cares how many extreme and dishonest right-wing sources you use if they are all dishonest and extreme? Using more stupid sources doesn't validate what you're saying, if anything, it does the exact opposite.

Aren't you making false assumptions by claiming I am using "all dishonest and extreme" sources, especially when I've included Huffington Post, New York Times, Washington Post and others included in my sources.
 
Aren't you making false assumptions by claiming I am using "all dishonest and extreme" sources
No. I've read many of the threads you've started with articles from ridiculous sources, albeit many times unintentionally.

Not false assumptions.

especially when I've included Huffington Post, New York Times, Washington Post and others included in my sources.
Could you please provide the statistics which show the number of times you use recognized sources to start threads versus the number of times you use obviously biased sources?

I'll help you out. This thread counts as an unrecognized and likely biased source. So right now it's 1 for stupid sources and 0 for recognized sources. Go.
 
Aren't you making false assumptions by claiming I am using "all dishonest and extreme" sources, especially when I've included Huffington Post, New York Times, Washington Post and others included in my sources.




I will never 'buy' anything that you post if you link to The Bible.
 
But you were using it to attack what he said, thus you have no point here.

Who cares how many extreme and dishonest right-wing sources you use if they are all dishonest and extreme? Using more stupid sources doesn't validate what you're saying, if anything, it does the exact opposite.

It appears that like you, the person that questioned my source(s) cannot justify his use of dishonest, extreme and stupid sources, they would have replied on their own. Go peddle your garbage somewhere else.
 
Please post the reason why it matters if he said it was a terrorist attack or not. If you think it would have reduced his chances of winning the election, then probably you are not thinking logically. You may have not have noticed, but I've stopped buying your rhetoric almost 3 years ago.

You made the claim, Susan Rice said it was a spontaneous demonstration and you claimed Obama said it was a terrorist attack. Either way both were lying and it isn't a phony scandal it is a real scandal of incompetence.

I can certainly understand why facts always get in the way of your opinion. You classify yourself as a liberal which means that you are naive, gullible, and very poorly informed, influenced by rhetoric. I know for a fact that you would have never survived the private sector world with the attitude and rhetoric you display here.
 
Back
Top Bottom