- Joined
- Feb 26, 2012
- Messages
- 56,981
- Reaction score
- 27,029
- Location
- Chicago Illinois
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Private
He did not say on the 12th in the Rose Garden that the act of terror was a result of protests.
And lets make this clear, the House intel committee requested that the CIA begin an investigation, they came back with the preliminary finding that it was a result of protests. This is the basis of your so called "lie". In the weeks following the CIA modified their findings as new intel was made available.
Again, Superman Obama with his x-ray vision was supposed to be able to see over the horizon that the CIA intel was incorrect less than 24hrs after the event.....because that would have made a difference?
Oooowh...I sure you keep up with the international press, I'm sure you are VERY sensitive for slights against the Libyan leadership.....in fact I bet you were cheering on the admin when Qaddaffi was being ousted....by NATO and the US.
Cry me a river.
I still waiting for the logic here, the admin covered up something and lied about something and this something lead to .......what?
On September 12 U.S. President Barack Obama condemned "this outrageous attack" on U.S. diplomatic facilities[135] and stated that "What complete BS.
Um, so you don't know about the protests in the ME over the video, which is what the CIA identified as the cause?The WEEKS after the event, Clinton and Obama kept referring over and over and over to a video that no one had ever seen as the cause of this "spontaneous demonstration" that turned violent. They did not call it a planned terrorist attack for a long time.
LOL....your timing is so messed up, but that is what happens when you watch Fox.In fact, their harping of this video actually got people in the Middle East riled up to watch, and THAT led to demonstrations elsewhere that led to more death and casualties. That blood is directly on Clinton and Obama.
I guess accusing someone of "cover ups" and "lying" when neither has happened makes one look like an adult?Quit defending this. You look childish.
Dude, I already showed you the conflicting lines you posted, you can't bring yourself to acknowledge the errors, let alone yours.Yeah go back and read the timeline, since evidently you missed it the first time.....It's all there in black and white. Then get back with me once you learn what the facts are. Remember now that's Fact Check. Org. Politi-Fact, UK Daily Mail, and Oh try Newslines Fact Checker. Until then you are like way way behind on the info.
"Oh" and heres a tissue for that issue.
So your argument is that the admin should release all information before it is fully vetted?Seems the MSM in the US didn't want to focus on that which took place with the Embassy in Yemen but that one day. Despite foreign new sources covering events for a 90 day period.
Do you think that's due to to False and misleading information, not getting the whole story out from the beginning. That might have led to the cause?
Considering we have Team Obama holding up the release of documents, giving conficiting statements have all contributed to......as to why this issue is still going on?
Dude, I already showed you the conflicting lines you posted, you can't bring yourself to acknowledge the errors, let alone yours.
Um, I pointed out that on the 12th he said that is was an act of terror, the very next line stated "the POTUS never said it was an act of terror."Dude you showed me what Fact Check. Org showed you.....I can't help it you didn't see the part where Obama stated it wasn't a Pre planned attack. I can't help it you didn't pay attention to those dates. Perhaps you should go and re-read it. Then note the Dates. Plus what was Stated. There is no mistaking putting 1 + 1 together.
Um, I pointed out that on the 12th he said that is was an act of terror, the very next line stated "the POTUS never said it was an act of terror."
You posted it, I reposted pointing out the obvious error, and you can't even admit to this.
Obviously, the PRESIDENT did label the event "an act of terror", you posted it. You cannnot say, as you did in the last line that the president did not call it "an act of terror"Sept.12: Obama Labels Attack ‘Act of Terror,’ Not ‘Terrorism’
Sept. 14: Clinton spoke at Andrews Air Force Base at a ceremony to receive the remains of those killed in Benghazi. She remarked that she received a letter from the president of the Palestinian Authority praising Stevens and “deploring — and I quote — ‘an act of ugly terror.’ ” She, however, did not call it an act of terror or a terrorist attack and neither did the president.
So your argument is that the admin should release all information before it is fully vetted?
Is that not what happened in this case? They went with early info from the CIA and now you guys, purely for political reasons, are hypocritically saying they got it wrong.
I'll try one more time to get you to admit to your previous error, but I know you will not acknowledge it. You posted:Obviously, the PRESIDENT did label the event "an act of terror", you posted it. You cannnot say, as you did in the last line that the president did not call it "an act of terrorism"
Are you capable of admitting this error, or are you going to do another quote dump to cover this up?
Ironic.
I'll try one more time to get you to admit to your previous error, but I know you will not acknowledge it. You posted:Obviously, the PRESIDENT did label the event "an act of terror", you posted it. You cannnot say, as you did in the last line that the president did not call it "an act of terror"
Are you capable of admitting this error, or are you going to do another quote dump to cover this up?
Ironic.
On September 12 U.S. President Barack Obama condemned "this outrageous attack" on U.S. diplomatic facilities[135] and stated that "ince our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others."[135] After referring to "the 9/11 attacks," "troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan", and "then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi"[135] the President urged, "As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it."[135] He then went on to say, "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."[135]
Um, so you don't know about the protests in the ME over the video, which is what the CIA identified as the cause?
Sad.
LOL....your timing is so messed up, but that is what happens when you watch Fox.
I guess accusing someone of "cover ups" and "lying" when neither has happened makes one look like an adult?
I understand your contention, that is not the error I am pointing out, you are avoiding the error, along with avoiding the fact that the admin went with un-vetted info which you want them to do.Try again.....he said it was an Act or terror. Not Terrorism. That's what Fact Check has down and so do all the rest. They Mean Obama did not label it a act of terrorism.
Right Exactly on the 14th Both Obama and Clinton did not refer to it act of terror or terrorism. Which Obama Had Labeled it an Act of Terror On the Sept 12th. Got that part now.....Obama labeled it an Act of Terror on.....Sept 12. Are you still confused?
I understand your contention, that is not the error I am pointing out, you are avoiding the error, along with avoiding the fact that the admin went with un-vetted info which you want them to do.
I realize that admitting any error on your part is impossible for you, and that it has not dawned on you that the difference between "terror" and "terrorism" is. With the later, you have an firm understanding of who did the "terror". You want the President to state who did it before it was known, but hypocritically criticize him for using intel that was not complete.
Um, the CIA, or anyone else beyond those who did the act knew EXACTLY who was involved, we still do not have high certainty who all attacked the compounds.No actually I think if the President just would have admitted the truth from the get go. He would have United the country together. Then this BS wouldn't be dragging out and those responsible would either be captured or dead. Our Heroes would have been honored and then there wouldn't have been any political games on his part. He chose not to.
No, she did not and neither did anyone beyond those who carried out the attack.Not quite. Hillary knew 2 hours after the attack it was Planned and Ansar Al Shariah was involved. Which she stated she spoke to the President One time and one time only.
No, that is YOUR claim, strawman.So you are saying She either did or didn't tell him.
Another perfect example of garbled writing, garbled thinking.Which if she didn't tell him.....guess where that leaves Hillary. Also I would take a look around and note whats Up with Panetta and Gen Dempesy saying they never talked to Hillary at all. Nor did they get any request from the State Dept. Plus Hicks testifying the only time she talked to anyone in Libya was at 2 am.
More straw, this is your claim.So Now you Are trying to say either Hillary Was derelict in her Duty.
More garbled thought and writing.Which would be to inform the President that there was an attack on our Embassy and it was planned by Terrorists. Or that she never told him. While at the same time saying Obama didn't know anything or couldn't have.
If you had any hope of understanding words and their usage, this would be ironic....but since you don't, it is just sad.As you can see it can't go both ways. I would recommend reading whats up rather than trying to play with semantics of already known facts.
Um, the CIA, or anyone else beyond those who did the act knew EXACTLY who was involved, we still do not have high certainty who all attacked the compounds.
No, she did not and neither did anyone beyond those who carried out the attack.
No, that is YOUR claim, strawman.
Another perfect example of garbled writing, garbled thinking.
More straw, this is your claim.
More garbled thought and writing.
If you had any hope of understanding words and their usage, this would be ironic....but since you don't, it is just sad.
Your whole argument is an objection to semantics, the semantics of "terror" and "terrorism" and you can bring yourself to face this. You cannot face up to the fact that you want the President to "bring out information", which the administration did, which was not fully formed, and then you criticize him for doing so.
It is all confused, pointless and thoughtless argument from you, and nothing will bring you understand this.
Threats Against Benghazi Whistleblowers Alleged
Dude, I already showed you the conflicting lines you posted, you can't bring yourself to acknowledge the errors, let alone yours.
30 pages
293 posts
and still no one is able to identify just what were the ...
i hear youHere.....you must have missed it yesterday. Plus most have moved over to those threads and the more current events.
and yet not one document introduced directing hicks NOT to speak with the congressional investigation staff(1) Murdered US Ambassador Chris Stevens' second in command, Gregory Hicks, was instructed not to speak with a Congressional investigator by Sec. Hillary Clinton's chief of staff, Cheryl Mills. Hicks said he'd "never" faced a similar demand at any point during his distinguished 22-year diplomatic career. When he refused to comply with this request, the State Department dispatched an attorney to act as a "minder," who insisted on sitting in on all of Hicks' discussions with members of Congress (higher quality video is available here):
and nothing in writing proving any such demotion(2) When Hicks began to voice strenuous objections to the administration's inaccurate talking points with State Department higher-ups, the administration turned hostile. After being lavishly praised by the president and the Secretary of State for his performance under fire, Assistant Secretary of State Beth Jones instantly reversed course and launched into a "blistering critique" of Hicks' leadership. He was subsequently "effectively demoted." Hicks called Rice's talking points "stunning" and "embarrassing.".....snip~
http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...ere-comes-finally-rest-story-benghazi-15.html
i hear you
spent the afternoon watching faux news
they kept leaving the hearing
at one time insisted they would show more republican questioning ... but never returned to the live hearing
when even faux avoided showing the hearing, it was obvious there was nothing coming out to aid the network's anti-Obama propagnda
and yet not one document introduced directing hicks NOT to speak with the congressional investigation staff
and nothing in writing proving any such demotion
be assured. if hicks was demoted, it would have been in writing
so, what we are left with is a disgruntled employee who is unable to document anything that he is alleging against his co-workers
hicks was 'threatened' by a state department representative sitting in on a discussion about what happened in benghazi. amazing that a 'diplomat' would be threatened by routine behavior
y'all got as much here as you did with the birth certificate
But within days, Mr. Hicks said, after raising questions about the account of what had happened in Benghazi offered in television interviews by Susan E. Rice, the United Nations ambassador, he felt a distinct chill from State Department superiors. “The sense I got was that I needed to stop the line of questioning,” said Mr. Hicks, who has been a Foreign Service officer for 22 years.
He was soon given a scathing review of his management style, he said, and was later “effectively demoted” to desk officer at headquarters, in what he believes was retaliation for speaking up.
House Republican leaders made the hearing the day’s top priority, postponing floor votes so that the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform could continue without interruption. The Obama administration appeared focused on the testimony, with senior officials at the White House, the State Department and the Pentagon responding through the day to Republican accusations of incompetence and cover-up in campaign war room style.
In the balance, in the view of both Democrats and Republicans, is not just the reputation of Mr. Obama but also potentially the prospects for the 2016 presidential election as well, since Mrs. Clinton, who stepped down in February, is the Democratic Party’s leading prospect. If the testimony did not fundamentally challenge the facts and timeline of the Benghazi attack and the administration’s response to it, it vividly illustrated the anxiety of top State Department officials about how the events would be publicly portrayed.
Mr. Hicks offered an unbecoming view of political supervision and intimidation inside the Obama administration. When Representative Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah, visited Libya after the attack, Mr. Hicks said his bosses told him not to talk to the congressman. When he did anyway, and a State Department lawyer was excluded from one meeting because he lacked the necessary security clearance, Mr. Hicks said he received an angry phone call from Mrs. Clinton’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills.
“So this goes right to the person next to Secretary of State Clinton. Is that accurate?” asked Representative Jim Jordan, Republican of Ohio. Mr. Hicks responded, “Yes, sir.”
A State Department official said Mr. Hicks had been free to talk to Mr. Chaffetz, but that department policy required a department lawyer to be present during interviews for any Congressional investigation.
In a statement late Wednesday, a State Department spokesman, Patrick H. Ventrell, said the department had not and would not retaliate against Mr. Hicks. Mr. Ventrell noted that Mr. Hicks “testified that he decided to shorten his assignment in Libya following the attacks, due to understandable family reasons.” He said that Mr. Hicks’s current job was “a suitable temporary assignment” at the same salary, and that he had submitted his preferences for his next job.....snip~
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/u...a-of-benghazi-attack.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
How Ridiculous.....not one document. He testified under Oath.....are you saying he is purposely committing an act of Perjury. Why is it no one believes what the NY Times says the WH spokesperson is saying about Hicks being demoted to Desk officer?
Ventrell said Hicks testified that he decide to shorten his time in Libya? Guess you didn't pick up on that while having a way out perception of the what took place. Care to Elaborate where Hicks testified to such before his testimony yesterday? Considering he is a whistleblower? Plus had not testified anywhere else.
BTW they will have a record of his statements under oath. So there will be one Document alleging all he said about Mills and the other.
doesn't change a thing
all we have is a disgruntled employee without ANY documentation to substantiate his allegations of wrong doing and threats
so far, we have seen nothing inappropriate
issa comes up empty again
Hicks had no absolute knowledge of who the attackers were at "2am". Your claim was that everyone knew who attacked the compound, no one beyond those who did it knew.Yes she did.....Hicks testified yesterday, he talked to Hillary at 2am. It is down for the record. Plus we have the Video Up from Panetta and General Dempsey testimony. Hillary's timeline for phones is covered. You are behind and need to look at what else is up.
You are engaging in semantic argument and you don't realize it, you ignore the fact that your sources that you quote have obvious errors, you want "all information" and when the information was incorrect, you blame the WH and Cabinet for stating information supplied by the CIA.If I took you out of context.....then I was mistaken. But really you are not even close with what you are saying. You can check the other threads. The material is up with Links and Videos. As clearly you are lacking facts. But you can go and ahead and have the last word. Since you know now you can't debunk those Fact Checkers nor Obama and Hillary's own words.
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?