- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 41,104
- Reaction score
- 12,202
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
What you think you know and what you can prove to any reasonable certainty is two different things.
It's the internet -- people can be whoever they want to be.
I looked at the JW documents; none of it would meet the legal or actionable definition of a conspiracy. In fact most of it seemed to paint the administration as stressing that the 'YouTube story' was preliminary, subject to an ongoing investigation and subject to review/change.
Again, right wing conspiracy theory fail.
According to three contractors selling a new book. Sure there was... Obama called it in personally because he hates Americans :lamo
Sarcogito.I was sad to lose him - he was good people.
That does seem to be what the other poster (below) is saying. Problem is, he's not offering any type of pertinent evidence or rational reasoning to support that claim.So everyone else is just a simple liar, and only you have the truth eh? [...]
1. I have known that the Administration was lying about this event since the day after it occurred. [...]
Hate is not a rebuttal.[...] Not to mention that you hang your hat repeatedly on semantics, and legal wormholes that allow you to squirm through the slime with ease....This is why many can't stand "progressives" .... Hell, they can't even be honest about who they really are.
It's the internet -- people can be whoever they want to be.
Hate is not a rebuttal.
What you think you know and what you can prove to any reasonable certainty is two different things.
It's the internet -- people can be whoever they want to be.
I looked at the JW documents; none of it would meet the legal or actionable definition of a conspiracy.
Yeah CPW.....he was good people. Like you.....I didn't like seeing us lose him from around here. I was talking to him and when he had said he was being sent back to Libya. I remember telling him to watch his 6. Especially there.
It's the internet -- you can be whoever you want to be :shrug::shrug: I was military intelligence at the time. We knew exactly who it was - heck, I was briefing it to my boss. [...]
It has already been shown that your claim can't be proven. Repeating it won't help that case, but it does help establish a case that the talk media right cannot accept reality, which lends an air of disreputability to pronouncements such as yours and the other poster's. You know what they say -- you are what you eat[...] conspiracy: a secret plan made by two or more people to do something that is harmful or illegal
Wrong.
The administration chose to lie to the American people about a terrorist attack in order to steer domestic politics. [...]
You miss the point. A tactic is to claim a persona of experience or authority in order to substantiate a point. That is a logical fallacy (typically an appeal to authority), which means it is a false argument.I've generally found that people are exactly who they want to be. It usually takes a little time, but it inevitably comes out. There's no fineness or accuracy to suppression. You hold one thing down, you necessarily hold down all the adjoining. I notice it, so I assume others do as well. There is no requirement to submit a resume in order to post - in the belief that the truth will become obvious over time. Such posters are generally shunned in the end - left or right. Doesn't matter.
It's the internet -- you can be whoever you want to be :shrug:
If you have some factual evidence you can present, then please do so. Otherwise, 'because I say so' won't cut it... at least outside the right wing echo chamber.
I'm not disputing that, in hindsight, the attack appears to have been pre-meditated. However, that the administration's first explanation was wrong does not mean that they lied. Sorry.[...] Benghazi Timeline
The long road from "spontaneous protest" to premeditated terrorist attack.
The question won’t go away: Did President Obama and administration officials mislead the public when they initially claimed that the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi began “spontaneously” in response to an anti-Muslim video? But, at this point, we do know that Obama and others in the administration were quick to cite the anti-Muslim video as the underlying cause for the attack in Benghazi that killed four U.S. diplomats, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens. And they were slow to acknowledge it was a premeditated terrorist attack, and they downplayed reports that it might have been. [...]
You miss the point. A tactic is to claim a persona of experience or authority in order to substantiate a point. That is a logical fallacy (typically an appeal to authority), which means it is a false argument.
This tactic is used when the person presenting the argument has no pertinent facts to back it up. Even if the person is who they claim to be, that so-called 'authority' still does not substitute for facts or evidence. If an argument is valid, no personal identity, experience, or 'secret information which cannot be disclosed' is necessary to support it.
As to shunning, that also has no bearing on the truth or validity of anything. If fact, over the course of history those actually telling the truth are the ones shunned, at least in the initial stages. Truth, facts, and evidence are not a popularity contest.
General suggestion for all: if you're going to debate, you should study up a bit on it. At least if success is the goal. Most of the arguments presented here would be laughed out of the room in a formal debate setting (speaking college/high school, not political).
I'm not disputing that, in hindsight, the attack appears to have been pre-meditated. However,Sorry.that the administration's first explanation was wrong does not mean that they lied.
They may have even leaned in one direction instead of the other. Even for political reasons. That's not lie either. Sorry. They could only be telling a lie once they knew for certain that the attacks were not in response to the video, but premeditated. Eventually they did come around to that explanation. If the Republicans haven't managed, by now, to parse that close enough to legally establish that a lie has been told then it is unlikely they ever will. If the evidence showed it then they would be filing legal charges over the matter. They are not, so right wing media is instead still their viewers around by their noses with baseless accusations in order to maintain the general inflammation factor against Obama for reason of politics, not facts.
The context that the right wing echo chamber always leaves out is that there were demonstrations elsewhere -- Egypt, for example -- that were reportedly in response to the YouTube video. Once you acknowledge that, your argument flies out the window... which is why it is always omitted in right wing coverage on this event. Monday-morning quarterbacking is one thing; intentionally omitting similar events in other regions actually is lying -- just that they are accusing Obama of. Tsk, tsk, tsk... pot, meet kettle.
I'm not disputing that, in hindsight, the attack appears to have been pre-meditated. However, that the administration's first explanation was wrong does not mean that they lied. Sorry.
They may have even leaned in one direction instead of the other. Even for political reasons. That's not lie either. Sorry. They could only be telling a lie once they knew for certain that the attacks were not in response to the video, but premeditated. Eventually they did come around to that explanation. If the Republicans haven't managed, by now, to parse that close enough to legally establish that a lie has been told then it is unlikely they ever will. If the evidence showed it then they would be filing legal charges over the matter. They are not, so right wing media is instead still their viewers around by their noses with baseless accusations in order to maintain the general inflammation factor against Obama for reason of politics, not facts.
The context that the right wing echo chamber always leaves out is that there were demonstrations elsewhere -- Egypt, for example -- that were reportedly in response to the YouTube video. Once you acknowledge that, your argument flies out the window... which is why it is always omitted in right wing coverage on this event. Monday-morning quarterbacking is one thing; intentionally omitting similar events in other regions actually is lying -- just that they are accusing Obama of. Tsk, tsk, tsk... pot, meet kettle.
Where'd they get it from ... to your satisfaction, that is ... and assuredly enough to spend weeks making the claim.
Looks like they didn't ask the guys on site.
And there were no similar events anywhere else.
No CIA annex attacked ... no ambassadors killed ... no consulates sacked.
It's the internet -- you can be whoever you want to be
If you have some factual evidence you can present, then please do so.
You'll have to refresh my memory on that. (Re: Chatter). Regardless, 3 or 4 CIA operatives on the ground as indicated in the FoxNews piece and one on-scene high ranking official who made an on-scene judgment call not to engage the enemy does not constitute an official directive coming from CIA HQ, the State Department, DoD nor the White House to stand-down. That's all I'm trying to get across to you folks.
I'd imagine that the on-scene supervisor is no different than a squad leader or platoon commander calling the shoots during combat prior to calling HQ for an air strike. I see no difference here. Nonetheless, I can agree there was a stand-down order given. However, it didn't come from the top brass which is what Rep. Issa and Co. (Republicans) have been clamoring for as the smoking gun of ineptitude from the Obama Administration since 9/11/12.
The worst part is that he's so damn good at it and it doesn't seem to bother him at all.The protests in other ME cities were a convenient excuse for a President on the campaign trail that was touting "GM alive, and OBL dead, with AQ on the run"....Can't rightly claim that when there is pictures of your own consulate burning during an attack by AQ affiliates....Nothing this President does is truthful, or above board. It is all political bull ****.
BS????
That we knew instantly that it was a terrorist attack instead of a youtube video? That has been just about pretty much the uniform testimony of everyone involved in national security who has been called to testify on these matters, from General Hamm on down to the guys in the OP.
First, Chaffetz voted to cut funding for embassy security.....
"...Chaffetz himself has been criticized for politicizing the Benghazi incident, acknowledging in an interview with CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien that he had "voted to cut the funding for embassy security" and that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010. "Absolutely," Chaffetz said. "Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country."..."
Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: 'You Have To Prioritize Things'
After the attacks, Chaffetz calls for hearing on Benghazi security....
Congressmen Call Hearing On Libya Security Measures - US News
During the hearing, Chaffetz exposes the entire CIA operation in Benghazi putting hundreds of lives at risk and ruining any chance for diplomatic presence in Libya....
Dana Milbank: Letting us in on a secret - The Washington Post
Chaffetz would look lovely in an orange jumpsuit, don't you agree? I mean really, who needs enemies when we have republican congressmen?
:shrug: you are free to say so. You are also free to check with any of the members here who have known me for more than a decade at this point, who knew me before I enlisted in the Marine Corps, and have been with me since. Or, if you like, you can check with American, who actually picked me up when I was going through an intel course in his home-area. We went out to a wine festival
That we knew instantly that it was a terrorist attack instead of a youtube video? That has been just about pretty much the uniform testimony of everyone involved in national security who has been called to testify on these matters, from General Hamm on down to the guys in the OP.
The Benghazi Transcripts: Top Defense officials briefed Obama on ‘attack,’ not video or protest
Newly declassified Benghazi testimony: Pentagon told Obama it was terrorism
AFRICOM commander: We knew almost immediately Benghazi was a terrorist attack
Etc. etc. so on and so forth.
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?