- Joined
- Mar 17, 2014
- Messages
- 43,759
- Reaction score
- 10,985
- Location
- Earth
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
how do we know that there were no cover ups? fox and the rest of the media didn't approach the other ones like the CTers dissect 9/11.
anyway, i just don't care. you all know what you're doing deep down. that's why you come into these threads and spend half your lives quote farming to pretend you are actually seeking justice for the tragedy. in reality, you're using this tragedy as a foothold to attack a president that you hate and a mediocre, dynastic candidate who might run for president that you also hate.
if just one of you would admit that, it would restore some of my faith in our stupid two party system.
come on. someone just come out and admit it.
Of course the Administration was exonerated of any crimes otherwise there would be impeachment hearings. The questions have all been answered and because you don't like those answers you are in denial. But I hope they keep it up it though. It makes the Republicans look REALLY partisan and stupid.
B.S. The truth is that none of the questions have been answered. A stonewalled inquiry does not amount to an exoneration. And yoI think you are fibbing about hoping that the investigations continue. It's quite obvious that you are very scared at the prospect of these inquiries continuing through the 2014 midterm election campaign season.
Of course they were. The whole world was aware of Innocence of Muslims. It was released in JulyIt would appear that the White House was aware of this video before these attacks even began. I'm not sure what this means in the greater scheme of things. Anyone care to weigh in?
All this "most transparent ever" administration needs to do is hand over the documents and answer the questions and this goes away.
I know many lefties dont care, but I dont believe our govt should lie to its people. And to honor those who died, and to prevent more from joining them-I think we need to know what happened.
Its going to happen, regardless of what you think.
By "no one" I mean no one ESPECIALLY the middle east and the State Department who KNEW the attacks had absolutely **** to do with the you tube video which again...NO ONE was watching. No one was paying attention to. No one knew about it to care about it. Including you.If by "no one" you mean "everyone," then yes, no one was talking about it prior to the attack.
https://www.google.com/search?q="in...=cdr:1,cd_min:8/11/2012,cd_max:9/10/2012&tbm=
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
By "no one" I mean no one ESPECIALLY the middle east and the State Department who KNEW the attacks had absolutely **** to do with the you tube video which again...NO ONE was watching. No one was paying attention to. No one knew about it to care about it. Including you.
Yep. Even the state departments own reports admitted there was NO ACTIVITY at the Libyan Embassy. None. No protests, no sad panda Muslims angry and upset about a video which none of them had seen. The WH talking points admit the told Rice to stick to the cover story...blame the video and NOT the presidents failed middle east policy.Heya VM. :2wave: That's correct and as the GOP aptly put it.....it caused confusion and influence over policymakers.
Initially, it was reported[15] that the Benghazi attack was a spontaneous protest, triggered by an anti-Muslim video, Innocence of Muslims. According to Finding #9 of the Senate Intelligence report, "press reports on protests...were simply copied into intelligence products" of the intelligence community and that these "erroneous reports" "caused confusion and influenced the public statements of policymakers."[16]
On August 6, 2013, it was reported that the U.S. had filed criminal charges against several individuals, including militia leader Ahmed Abu Khattala, for alleged involvement in the attacks.[17] Khattala has been described by Libyan and U.S. officials as the Benghazi leader of Ansar al-Sharia.[18][19] To date, a few arrests have been made (none by the FBI).[citation needed] As of May 2014, no one has yet been prosecuted.
Before the attack, the CIA was monitoring Ansar al-Sharia and suspected members of Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, as well as attempting to define the leadership and loyalty of the various militias present and their interaction with the Salafi elements of Libyan society.[25] By the time of the attack, dozens of CIA operatives were on the ground in Benghazi.[30] In addition, it has been reported that in the summer of 2012, American Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) missions had begun to target Libyan militias linked to the Al-Qaeda network of Yasin al-Suri.[26]:58 By the time of the attack, a composite US Special Operations team with two JSOC members was already in Libya working on their mission profile independently of the CIA and State department operations.[26]:58[31]
Multiple anonymous sources reported that the diplomatic mission in Benghazi was used by CIA as a cover to smuggle weapons from Libya to anti-Assad rebels in Syria.[26]:56[30][32][33][34] Seymour Hersh cites a source among intelligence officials, saying The consulate’s only mission was to provide cover for the moving of arms. It had no real political role. The attack allegedly brought end to active US involvement, but did not stop the smuggling.[35] In January 2014, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence reported that "All CIA activities in Benghazi were legal and authorized. On-the-record testimony establishes that CIA was not sending weapons ... from Libya to Syria, or facilitating other organizations or states that were transferring weapons from Libya to Syria."[36].....snip~
2012 Benghazi attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yep. Even the state departments own reports admitted there was NO ACTIVITY at the Libyan Embassy. None. No protests, no sad panda Muslims angry and upset about a video which none of them had seen. The WH talking points admit the told Rice to stick to the cover story...blame the video and NOT the presidents failed middle east policy.
Well sure. And they post as proof this evidence about a newspaper story which SURELY chronicles the upset over the video as the source and cause of the attack. An attack which occurred on the 11th of September. And the Article appeared in print on the 15th. And admits that the 'protests' COULD have been about the video...or maybe about the extraordinarily high youth unemployment rate in the ME.Yeah and the other thing that trips them up.....is the Timeline with the War on Terror too. Which explains what was going on in Libya at the time before and after the Benghazi issue, and to this current day.
But you do have to remember now.....they do self profess on being elites. :roll:
Well sure. And they post as proof this evidence about a newspaper story which SURELY chronicles the upset over the video as the source and cause of the attack. An attack which occurred on the 11th of September. And the Article appeared in print on the 15th. And admits that the 'protests' COULD have been about the video...or maybe about the extraordinarily high youth unemployment rate in the ME.
But she's a witch!
i can hold the obama administration accountable for what happened before the benghazi attack, specifically the state department and C.I.A for bureaucratic mistakes, bad management and questionable malice.
i also hold the administration accountable for what happened after the attack. However, my blame is specifically targeted at the disjointed explanations by the state department and CIA provided during multiple inquiries. i don't see that as evidence of engaging in a coverup in pursuit of some political goal, i see it as a consequence of the CIA and state department not getting a coherent picture of what had happened before they tried to explain what had happened.
As for the night of the attack, i cannot blame anyone of willful negligence because i believe that no one had a clear understanding of what was happening. i know it sounds like a copout but i think the fog of war played a part in influencing our response to the events unfolding several timezones away. i think we were slow to react because we simply lacked enough information to respond quickly.
but you have not shown us that we were actually lied to by the administration
if you are able to do so, please post your proof of it
Yeah and the other thing that trips them up.....is the Timeline with the War on Terror too. Which explains what was going on in Libya at the time before and after the Benghazi issue, and to this current day.
But you do have to remember now.....they do self profess on being elites. :roll:
nopeI was speaking in a larger context.
But in regards to Benghazi/YouTube: the people there, you know, on the ground in Benghazi, Libya have said there was no protest before the attack & ransacking of the consulate. But if you'd prefer to take the narrative of people that were not there & 5,000+ miles away, well, that's your prerogative.
To put it in different terms, what C.I.A. Headquarters & Obama administration did to the survivors is akin to this: imagine you, your friends & family are among hundreds of other witnesses all throughout your town that see a non man made aerial vehicle and you know it's not man made. What's the end result? The government will go into their U.F.O. "explanation" book and say, even though they were not there to witness it for themselves, that it was one among theses: swamp gas, weather balloon, optical illusion, mass hallucination, atmospheric refraction, satellite, a formation of F-16's (or variation thereof), flares, meteor, comet, another planet, a cloud, ball lightening… you get the point. The government is not & will not acknowledge what you, people you like & love & hundreds of other people saw in the sky.
Peeps gotta learn to see through the bull**** & deception.
nope
no need to make up crap that didn't happen
No pretending here. I guarantee that I would be just as pissed if a conservative president were in charge and screwed the pooch in Benghazi as bad as the Obama administration has. I did not have much use for President Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s and was horrified at how badly he handled the embassy hostage ordeal...however when he finally got off his ass and attempted a rescue mission, even though it failed...I supported the mission. Had the Obama administration attempted a rescue mission in Benghazi.....I would have supported it. No rescue attempt was arranged. I would like to know why. I would also like to know why the administration lied to us for two weeks and blamed the attack on a you tube video. In any case, I am not going to layoff merely because someone may shout partisanship over any criticism of the Obama administration.
some other embassy attacks that warrant examination :
Attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
which of the attacks between 2001 and 2009 did you follow closely and demand an investigation of?
That's what pisses me off & is extremely disappointing - being (consistently) lied to by the government.
Trust is the primary ingredient in a relationship.
Yet, internally, the government looks at people who distrust them suspiciously, as if we're not supposed to be upset about being lied to & just blindly trust every single word they have to say. As George Carlin would say, "The government wants us to be obedient."
In my household when I was growing up, honesty was rewarded & dishonesty was punished.
Been happening my entire life. I'm used to it.
I wouldn't limit the scope of investigation to just 2001-09. The two Beirut bombings in the early eighties are certainly mentionable. The Iran Hostage Crisis is too. The simultaneous embassy bombings on 8/7/98 could be examined.
The problem is that they kept claiming it was the result of a video when all the evidence said otherwise. The State Department and the Commander in Chief should know better than to guess at what's going on anyway.
They also kept qualifying the statement by adding "according to the best information we have now". We now know that was a reference to the CIA who wanted that story to be told simply to cover themselves for not catching the terrorists planned attack, or whatever. That is what you guys find so sinister? The CIA covering itself for screwing up? You'd think you would have been used to it after GW. Are you sure it isn't that Romney lost the election? He did so deal with it.
Personally, I am not going to keep silent about how badly this white house handled Benghazi just because many on the left are going to label my comments as "partisan". It would be different if it were not for the fact that the white house has been stonewalling every investigation about Benghazi. They have been basically trying to ride it out by stammering: "Move on....there is nothing to see here". The problem is.....in the very least, the administration outright lied to the American public for two solid weeks following the attacks and as of yet, none of the terrorists who committed the act have been captured or killed. Nevermind the partisan politics....I just want answers.
Now Obama is promising to get to the bottom of the VA deaths as he did about Fast and Furious, the IRS and Benghazi, Hurricane Sandy relief delays and so on.
Obama: Shinseki stays for now, but VA misconduct will be punished - CNN.com
Does anyone still believe this incompetent?
Just because you accept it, makes it all acceptable? I hardly think so. Shouldn't we be raising expectations and demanding our leaders meet or exceed those expectations? I sure think so.
I never said I accepted it, or that it was acceptable.
i have no problem with investigating an embassy attack. what i do have a problem with is selecting one attack for two years of saturation coverage in order to to use it as a tool against a political opponent.
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?