There's nothing in the linked article from the OP to conclude that the WH knew of the video that was initially blamed for starting the Benghazi attack or that the WH knew of the attack beforehand.
WH officials contacting Goggle/YouTube officials blasting them for airing the video isn't proof they knew about it before it aired.
I can also agree with some of the sentiments you shared. I have no faith that any investigation by any party or committee in Washington DC will get to the bottom of anything. However the idea someone must link you to an online source where someone demanded an investigation of an embassy attack between 2001 and 2009? Does not hold water. As they say, that dog don't hunt as an excuse or rationale for why the Benghazi attack is different from previous ones. First off every embassy attack in that time period was investigated; they all are no matter what year they occur in. This is just standard procedure.
In the case of Benghazi the early attempts to spin the attack and the possible coverup that resulted in the aftermath? Stand out in stark contrast to pretty much every attack ever mounted against a US Embassy before it. Had previous embassy attacks found the White House so obviously involved in trying to alter the facts about the attack, just prior to a election? Are you saying such a occurrence would not have had calls for investigation and cries of coverup? Particularly when at such length after the attack, previously withhold subpenaed material that includes disturbing and possibly damning information and evidence contrary to the White House spin has just been forced from the administration by court order? Because that claim or stance is absurd on its face.
what i'm saying is that my opinion is that the vast majority of Republicans who are pushing the Benghazi story are doing so for political reasons. because of this, i won't spend much time with any poster who can't show me that he or she supported serious inquiries into the embassy attacks which occurred during the Bush administration.
The reason the White House acted as they did is for political reasons. Right before an election too. Since all embassy attacks are investigated as a matter of routine, why should anyone need to show you that they redundantly supported that which has already occurred? Which embassy attack that occurred in the Bush years is it that you are claiming was not investigated seriously? Which you say unless posters at DP prove to you they supported or did not, at the time, means you won't engage in the here and now about Benghazi for?what i'm saying is that my opinion is that the vast majority of Republicans who are pushing the Benghazi story are doing so for political reasons. because of this, i won't spend much time with any poster who can't show me that he or she supported serious inquiries into the embassy attacks which occurred during the Bush administration.
Threats and attacks on embassies are sadly routine. I spent 18 years in eight assignments serving in them. It is the lethality of Benghazi that puts it in a different category.eace
Care to share some of those nations you were in?
The reason the White House acted as they did is for political reasons. Right before an election too. Since all embassy attacks are investigated as a matter of routine, why should anyone need to show you that they redundantly supported that which has already occurred? Which embassy attack that occurred in the Bush years is it that you are claiming was not investigated seriously? Which you say unless posters at DP prove to you they supported or did not, at the time, means you won't engage in the here and now about Benghazi for?
So because you say the media is all about politics, and the republicans and the White House are all about politics too? Unless a poster can prove to you that they supported the investigations of prior embassy attacks, even though their support or opposition is meaningless because the investigations occur regardless, you won't spend much time with us DP members? Well if I understand your message, uhm, ok. :thinking
You hadnt even heard of that video til it was deliberately offered as a lie about the attack. But you go ahead on and pretend that you did. :lamoThat's a mighty sizable claim you got there. Care to back it up?
Anyway, your strawman (that being that I personally cared about it) is a particularly bizarre red herring. After a while you just kind of expect that if somebody bad mouths Islam somebody's going to set a flag on fire or something.
You hadnt even heard of that video til it was deliberately offered as a lie about the attack. But you go ahead on and pretend that you did. :lamo
Sorry, but that's against the rules. Continents only: Africa and Europe.eace
I demand a full and thorough investigation of every embassy attack that occurs. Period. Does not matter to me who the POTUS is. Now since a through investigation of embassy attacks occurs as a matter of routine and by the way, law? Which embassy attack is it that you hold was not thoroughly investigated during the Bush years? Then I can tell you what I thought about it at the time. My identity on another site? Let's not add paranoia to an already irrational stance. Maybe it is a good idea that you don't condescend to "spend time" with other DP posters who can't meet your odd criteria for conversation on political message boards?:boltwas there a link there that i missed? should be easy enough to prove that you demanded a full and thorough investigation of a Bush era embassy attack. do so in a PM if you don't want to reveal your identity on another site. then i'll respond.
I demand a full and thorough investigation of every embassy attack that occurs. Period. Does not matter to me who the POTUS is. Now since a through investigation of embassy attacks occurs as a matter of routine and by the way, law? Which embassy attack is it that you hold was not thoroughly investigated during the Bush years? Then I can tell you what I thought about it at the time. My identity on another site? Let's not add paranoia to an already irrational stance. Maybe it is a good idea that you don't condescend to "spend time" with other DP posters who can't meet your odd criteria for conversation on political message boards?:bolt
No no, seriously don't worry. As they say, my bad. No need to just double down in a buffalo stance, trust me I'm happy to let you gloat or whatever else you do after this post. The slightly disturbing paranoid turn of your last post has convinced me, well to continue beyond here would be my bad. I'll let you get back to being the guy who won't waste his time on a political message board with posters who are about politics. And accuses some of them of I guess stalking him or something like that, from a different message board to this one. :screwyjust link me to a post of yours questioning the official explanation and calling for further investigation of any of them. i understand that you want every embassy attack to be investigated fully. should be easy enough to prove that's the case, and then i'll know that your interest in this attack isn't mostly partisan.
:lamoCare to back that up?
When you have to resort to mind reading you've lost.
No no, seriously don't worry. As they say, my bad. No need to just double down in a buffalo stance, trust me I'm happy to let you gloat or whatever else you do after this post. The slightly disturbing paranoid turn of your last post has convinced me, well to continue beyond here would be my bad. I'll let you get back to being the guy who won't waste his time on a political message board with posters who are about politics. And accuses some of them of I guess stalking him or something like that, from a different message board to this one. :screwy
The lie about the Benghazi attacks being caused by a you tube video are quite blatant. You cannot wish this one away just because your party is in hot water.
Now you say nothing personal meant, little too late for that. I did not realize that you are a moderator here until now. I find it disturbing that a moderator would engage in this kind of obviously inflammatory crap such as suggesting I stalked you from some other website. Do you employ this modus operandi at another site or sites? Since you are a moderator, and you can see when I joined, where I post from and what my IP is, why are you asking me to post links for you to events between 2001 and 2009? Assuming I did post redundant messages of support for already underway investigation into embassy attacks in that time period, am I supposed to do so from elsewhere? The nebulous unnamed "other website" you alluded to before? From five to thirteen years ago? Or is that plus the fact you know I was not a member here in that time period your "ace card" or "out" for not meeting this esoteric criteria? Then you don't have to get into politics at a politics message board you are a moderator at? I'm frankly torn here as to if I should take some actions which seem to be ones I should not have to with you. This has honestly become straight up weird. :shock:no gloating. just not going to waste time on partisan exploitation of a tragedy. didn't like it when the dems used shootings as a political tool; i also don't like it when repubs try to use Benghazi. i understand that some people have a partisan identity, and i get that. however, i just can't stomach that nonsense anymore.
no personal stuff meant, either. hope that you had a good weekend.
Now you say nothing personal meant, little too late for that. I did not realize that you are a moderator here until now. I find it disturbing that a moderator would engage in this kind of obviously inflammatory crap such as suggesting I stalked you from some other website. Do you employ this modus operandi at another site or sites? Since you are a moderator, and you can see when I joined, where I post from and what my IP is, why are you asking me to post links for you to events between 2001 and 2009? Assuming I did post redundant messages of support for already underway investigation into embassy attacks in that time period, am I supposed to do so from elsewhere? The nebulous unnamed "other website" you alluded to before? From five to eight years ago? Or is that plus the fact you know I was not a member here in that time period your "ace card" or "out" for not meeting this esoteric criteria of yours being met? Then you don't have to get into politics at a politics message board you are a moderator at? I'm frankly torn here as to if I should take some actions which seem to be ones I should not have to with you. This has honestly become straight up weird. :shock:
As I've already pointed out and you have repeatedly ignored, I did not have to demand an investigation occur. Chiefly because they did occur and as far as I know nobody has questioned them. Maybe though, you can show us some links that prove otherwise? I think you meant to say, the circle is now complete. And it is.i'm suspecting that you didn't demand a full and thorough investigation of any of the embassy attacks which occurred between 2001 and 2009. this means that our discussion is complete.
As I've already pointed out and you have repeatedly ignored, I did not have to demand an investigation occur. Chiefly because they did occur and as far as I'm nobody that I know of has questioned them. Maybe though, you can show us some links that prove otherwise? I think you meant to say, the circle is now complete. And it is.
Second time asked, now I can understand ahead of time if you still don't have a sensible answer. None exist, but this time give it the college try!so there was two years of saturation coverage of an embassy attack between 2001 and 2009, and you called for further investigation? ok. links, please.
Second time asked, not I can understand ahead of time if you still don't have a sensible answer. None exist, but this time give it the college try!
Assuming I did post redundant messages of support for already underway investigation into embassy attacks in that time period, am I supposed to do so from elsewhere? The nebulous unnamed "other website" you alluded to before? From five to thirteen years ago?
Rather than indulging your proffered strawman? Or the idea that you "heard" something I never typed or posted at a text based website? Let's review already covered ground you keep running away from, in order to land on sinister internet stalking theories based up to 13 years ago about instead. Since a thorough investigation of embassy attacks occurs as a matter of routine and by the way, law? Which embassy attack is it that you hold was not thoroughly investigated during the Bush years? Which "official explanation" from any of the embassy attacks between 2001 and 2009 is it you think or you think the rest of us should have questioned either then or now?so what i'm hearing here is that you did not call for a full and thorough investigation of an embassy attack during the Bush administration, and you also did not question the official explanation of any of these attacks :
Attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
correct?
Rather than indulging your proffered strawman? Or the idea that you "heard" something I never typed or posted at a text based website? Let's review already covered ground you keep running away from, in order to land on sinister internet stalking theories based up to 13 years ago about instead. Since a thorough investigation of embassy attacks occurs as a matter of routine and by the way, law? Which embassy attack is it that you hold was not thoroughly investigated during the Bush years? Which "official explanation" from any of the embassy attacks between 2001 and 2009 is it you think or you think the rest of us should have questioned either then or now?oke That you now use as an excuse dejour for not talking "politics" on a "political message" board you moderate at, as obviously dizzy at that contortion is.
EDIT: This is starting to invoke the image of Al Swearengen trying to wrestle common sense out of E.B. Farnum at this point. With all apropos language justified!
If it comes without the X-Files conspiracy "other website" dope you keep asking for? While you run run run away from anything approaching rational discourse and virtually every question put to you? What can I say but the obvious? OK.:mrgreen:as much as i love Deadwood, i still have to accept that you are not providing me with any evidence that you rejected the official explanation and called for a thorough investigation of any of the embassy attacks which occurred under Bush's watch. you have had several chances to provide a link in this thread or via PM, and have failed to do so. because of this, i won't be discussing Benghazi with you from this point forward.
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?