Benghazi
-
What I'm particularly enjoying how last go around, during the election, this same information that we heard repeated again today was used an attack on Barack Obama. He was responsible.
Now go to Fox News and Drudge. Both feature pictures of Hillary. She's the focus now. Now it's Hillary's fault. Even though it's quite literally the same information we had in October.
Anyone want to guess why that is?
And anyone want to tell me what the scandal supposedly is? Because I don't get it. Lots of people don't. It's just the conservative bubble colliding with the real world once again, and wondering why everyone else doesn't see what they see, while everyone outside the bubble thinks, "Oh, no. Not this again."
-
And remember: last time the scandal was that the White House handlers changed the talking points to ...make Obama look better somehow. To protect his election bid. We had to go through that for weeks. Remember?
Except that turned out not to be true. At all.
So now what is it?
-
thats ok... you just tow the line- your job will be safe....lol
Atkisson's is not apparently
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/05/the-posts-sharyl-attkisson-piece-163496.html
The Washington Post's Paul Farhi has written a glowing profile of Sharyl Attkisson, the Emmy award-winning CBS correspondent who has been the mainstream media's most persistent investigator of the events surrounding last year's attack in Benghazi, Libya.
Farhi's piece places Attkisson in a David-vs.-Goliath narrative, wherein the Obama administration is Goliath: "Attkisson, who holds a third-degree black belt in taekwondo, takes a fighting stance when she feels she’s being stonewalled. Which is exactly what she thinks the White House has done to her on Benghazi," Farhi writes.But from where Attkisson is sitting, there are actually two Goliaths, one of which is almost entirely absent from the Post profile.
The second Goliath is CBS News, which has grown increasingly frustrated with Attkisson's Benghazi campaign. CBS News executives see Attkisson wading dangerously close to advocacy on the issue, network sources have told POLITICO. Attkisson can't get some of her stories on the air, and is thus left feeling marginalized and underutilized. That, in part, is why Attkisson is in talks to leave CBS ahead of contract, as POLITICO reported in April. -
Attkisson is still eyeing an exit, according to sources -- and provide important context for today's piece
-
I'll try again. Here are some examples:
Valerie Plame - that was a scandal because there was allegations of criminal wrongdoing, i.e. blowing the identity of a covert CIA agent for political purposes. That was the charge.
The U.S. Attorneys scandal alleged that federal prosecutors were dismissed mid-term for not pursuing political prosecutions. (And it was about voter fraud - they didn't have the evidence that it existed!) That was the charge - political interference in the judicial system.
What's the charge here? That we didn't have enough embassy security in Benghazi? We know that part. That Susan Rice was working off talking points given to her by the intelligence community? We know that part, too.
What's the scandal part? Anyone?
-
On Fox right now:
Will Benghazi impact Hillary Clinton's political future?
And: Clinton’s Candidacy May Ride on Benghazi
-
-
And no headlines about Obama. Gee, I wonder what they're up to...
-
This is about to blow up on them.
I am not rooting for it, but they deserve it. They sacraficed those people for no reason other then getting elected.
-
CBS News executives see Attkisson wading dangerously close to advocacy on the issue, network sources have told POLITICO
interesting choice of wording dont you think?
-
hmmmm...
-
This thread is a poor attempt of spinning the same old main stream shit that we have heard the Obama woeshipping media do time and time again.
Did anyone watch the hearings today? If not then shut the fuc up. everyone knows Obama went to sleep while the calls came in for help.
This one makes a great campaign sticker
-
I'll try again. Here are some examples:
Valerie Plame - that was a scandal because there was allegations of criminal wrongdoing, i.e. blowing the identity of a covert CIA agent for political purposes. That was the charge.
The U.S. Attorneys scandal alleged that federal prosecutors were dismissed mid-term for not pursuing political prosecutions. (And it was about voter fraud - they didn't have the evidence that it existed!) That was the charge - political interference in the judicial system.
What's the charge here? That we didn't have enough embassy security in Benghazi? We know that part. That Susan Rice was working off talking points given to her by the intelligence community? We know that part, too.
What's the scandal part? Anyone?
I'll try again. Here are some examples:
Valerie Plame - that was a scandal because there was allegations of criminal wrongdoing, i.e. blowing the identity of a covert CIA agent for political purposes. That was the charge.
The U.S. Attorneys scandal alleged that federal prosecutors were dismissed mid-term for not pursuing political prosecutions. (And it was about voter fraud - they didn't have the evidence that it existed!) That was the charge - political interference in the judicial system.
What's the charge here? That we didn't have enough embassy security in Benghazi? We know that part. That Susan Rice was working off talking points given to her by the intelligence community? We know that part, too.
What's the scandal part? Anyone?
Not enough embassy security? The real question is why wasn't reinforcement allowed to come in and help? I usually get the excuse that they wouldn't got there in time. That doesn't even make sense. How did they know how long the attack would last? The attack could have went on for 12+ hours, but the excuse for why no one else was allowed to come help because they knew it would be too late. No they didn't, unless they can predict the future.
Rice's talking points didn't come from anyone in an intelligent community. Common sense says that there is no way a spontaneous crowd operated and launched a pin point accurate mortar attack for 7+ hours. It takes trained combatants to accurately and effectively hit targets with a mortar. Any change in air pressure, wind speed, even a big change in temperature completely changes the trajectory of a mortar and would require all of the calculation to be redone and adjustments to be made. I'm supposed to believe every day people who were enraged to the point of murder were able to carry out such a devastating mortar attack.
Not to mention the President of Libya and the 3 whistleblowers all confirmed that it was obviously a terrorist attack from the moment it started. I'm not sure anyone really believed protestors did this except maybe Chris Matthews.
The truth behind why the administration claimed it was because of Youtube needs to be revealed. Whether or not it was an intentional and complete cover-up doesn't matter at this point - as Clinton would say. Obama promised the most transparent administration in US history and we can't even get just for 4 murdered Americans.
-
Still not hearing anything new here, anything that makes this different from before.
I hear a lot of the same bad information, though.
-
What's new, is that Rice, and Clinton, and Obamao have been
dramatically proven to be liars for political benefit. They let those people die,
and lied about it being the youtube video protest.
And they kept lying. That last part is not new....
-
And you guys wonder why no one takes you seriously.
-
Still not hearing anything new here, anything that makes this different from before.
I hear a lot of the same bad information, though.
Still not hearing anything new here, anything that makes this different from before.
I hear a lot of the same bad information, though.
What bad information?
And who said anything is supposed to different from before? The fact that the same questions have be being asked for 8 months and still the only people that are willing to help answer them are the whistle blowers is the issue at hand.
-
Well, for one you're saying "Rice's talking points didn't come from anyone in an intelligent community." But they did. They were cleared through the interagency process, which involved intelligence agencies. Here, I can even show them to you:
The CIA's talking points read as follows:
- "The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.
- This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.
- The investigation is on-going, and the US Government is working with Libyan authorities to bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of US citizens.
So were you right about that or wrong? Was that bad information?
Second of all, you're back to claiming that the scandal will be revealed when we reveal "The truth behind why the administration claimed it was because of Youtube."
Except 1) we already know how the talking points came together, and 2) there's no scandal even someone thought it was the YouTube video might have had something to do with it on that day, and said so.
Honestly, you think the reason this is of vital importance - again, since we already did this last year - is because Susan Rice said spontaneous demonstration, and we need to find out who told her to say YouTube because that would mean ....what again?
Really, I don't get it. I can't follow how this is some nefarious scheme to cover up, especially when the President had already called it an act of terror, and Rice was issuing some typically bland Sunday morning fair because they didn't have all the information yet. Could she have been more precise at that point? I suppose. What difference would it have made? Beats the fuck out of me.
This whole thing boggles the mind. I have no idea what you think you have here.
-
Well, for one you're saying "Rice's talking points didn't come from anyone in an intelligent community." But they did. They were cleared through the interagency process, which involved intelligence agencies. Here, I can even show them to you:
The CIA's talking points read as follows:
- "The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.
- This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.
- The investigation is on-going, and the US Government is working with Libyan authorities to bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of US citizens.
So were you right about that or wrong? Was that bad information?
Second of all, you're back to claiming that the scandal will be revealed when we reveal "The truth behind why the administration claimed it was because of Youtube."
Except 1) we already know how the talking points came together, and 2) there's no scandal even someone thought it was the YouTube video might have had something to do with it on that day, and said so.
Honestly, you think the reason this is of vital importance - again, since we already did this last year - is because Susan Rice said spontaneous demonstration, and we need to find out who told her to say YouTube because that would mean ....what again?
Really, I don't get it. I can't follow how this is some nefarious scheme to cover up, especially when the President had already called it an act of terror, and Rice was issuing some typically bland Sunday morning fair because they didn't have all the information yet. Could she have been more precise at that point? I suppose. What difference would it have made? Beats the fuck out of me.
This whole thing boggles the mind. I have no idea what you think you have here.
Well, for one you're saying "Rice's talking points didn't come from anyone in an intelligent community." But they did. They were cleared through the interagency process, which involved intelligence agencies. Here, I can even show them to you:
The CIA's talking points read as follows:
- "The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.
- This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.
- The investigation is on-going, and the US Government is working with Libyan authorities to bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of US citizens.
So were you right about that or wrong? Was that bad information?
Second of all, you're back to claiming that the scandal will be revealed when we reveal "The truth behind why the administration claimed it was because of Youtube."
Except 1) we already know how the talking points came together, and 2) there's no scandal even someone thought it was the YouTube video might have had something to do with it on that day, and said so.
Honestly, you think the reason this is of vital importance - again, since we already did this last year - is because Susan Rice said spontaneous demonstration, and we need to find out who told her to say YouTube because that would mean ....what again?
Really, I don't get it. I can't follow how this is some nefarious scheme to cover up, especially when the President had already called it an act of terror, and Rice was issuing some typically bland Sunday morning fair because they didn't have all the information yet. Could she have been more precise at that point? I suppose. What difference would it have made? Beats the fuck out of me.
This whole thing boggles the mind. I have no idea what you think you have here.
Yeah, everything you said can be torn to pieces just based on the whistleblowers hearings today.
1) I never claimed it is a cover up directly orchestrated by Obama or anything of the sort. I think you're assuming I just want to get Obama dragged into a mess. Nope. I just want the truth to get out.
2) Hicks said it was very clear it was a terrorist attack as it was happening. He was "stunned" when he heard Rice claim it was a video. Which raises the question, where did the "blame the video" claim came from. Nobody in Libya at the time blamed a video. The prime Minister of Libya, not Hicks, literally nobody. Everyone knew it was a planned attack. The obvious step is to get to the bottom of who claimed it was a video. Asking Rice who told her would do a lot in answering the question.
3) Thompson said that he requested for help, it was denied and he still doesn't know why.
4) You don't see why we need to find the full truth, but even Elijah Cummings says we need to continue the investigation.
I just want justice for the 4 dead Americans. There is no acceptable reason that Rice was told to claim a video how anything to do with it. We need to find out who told her that BS and why. We also need to know why help was denied. Sweeping problems under the rug may protect the image of important people, but it doesn't solve problems or serve justice for the murdered.
-
Wait a minute. You just said that Rice talking points didn't come from anyone in the intelligence community. Was that true or false? Was that not bad information? You seemed to have skipped over that. Maybe you didn't know that. Does it change your mind now that you do?
As for your claims.
1) It doesn't seem that way to me.
2) We already know the answer to these questions. And even if we didn't, what happens when you get to the bottom of who claimed it had something to with the video? Look above, friend. There's the CIA, telling Susan Rice to say that it had something to do with the video. And then she went out and basically said what they told her to say. That ended up not being accurate. This is what nobody gets. You act like we're discovering who killed Kennedy, when you're talking about analysts from CIA and State and others putting together a set of generic talking points while working off of incomplete information. What's the fucking issue here?
It happens every Sunday.
3) Yes, we do. the Pentagon has given their answer as to why the help wasn't provided. You just don't like the answer.
4) Yes, that's what Darrell Issa is after - the truth.
As for the "I just want justice" crap, justice is finding the people who killed four Americans. It's making sure the mistakes that were made are corrected. It's not the third go around of a show trial starring Darrell Issa produced by Fox News, designed to wound Hillary's eventual presidential campaign, and to give the base something to scream.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login