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.
-
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.
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.
I said "intelligent community", not "intelligence". That wasn't a typo. I was saying no one belonging to the "intelligent community" would honestly believe it was a video. So that's a false. Of course it was bad info, if you think I skipped over than then you simply didn't read what I wrote.
1) I'm not even a republican. I'm an independent who general likes the libertarian philosophy. you can think what you want, but just stop trying to pin me to just trying to destroy Obama.
2) Who from the CIA told her that? That's what we need to know because they were obviously not doing there job. No one it Libya thought it was from a video. Furthermore, Clinton called Hicks, but didn't even bothering asking him who committed the attacks. Assuming it was an honest mistake to not think that was a good question to ask the man, it led to the false narrative of blaming a video being pushed for 2 weeks. These are problems that can't happen the first time. But they did and it needs to be fixed.
3) Really? I said Thompson claimed he wasn't told, and your best response is to blame me for not liking something about the pentagon. This has nothing to do with me being told, Mr. Thompson was never told and he still hasn't been.
4) Again, don't blame me, Cummings is a Democrat who wants to learn more from the whistleblowers.
Did you watch any of the whistleblowers testimony at all? Your responses to 3 and 4 make it hard to believe you will truthfully answer "yes".
Yes, icing on the cake. Accuse my desire for justice as 'crap". Those 2 SEALS gave their lives saving 30 people in one of the most heroic acts a US serviceman has ever done. Yes, what those 2 SEALS did are up there with the must heroic acts in US serviceman history. They were ordered to stand down, but just as a true hero would do, went to battle to save lives anyway. I'm not a Republican and neither of the 3 whistleblowers are there as Republicans. They are there as people who have served this great country for years just trying to get justice for the people who died serving the US.
We can't find those who did it when we are blaming a protestor when it was actually a terrorist. I support an investigation to uncover the full truth to fix the problems and Clinton screams is doesn't really matter.
-
Okay, 1) I don't care what party you belong to. You've got to be right on this and you're not. I appreciate that you've been following this stuff, and it's nice to talk to someone who writes in complete sentences for a change, but that doesn't change the fact that your suppositions are mostly wrong and you're chasing a conspiracy that isn't there.
As for this: "We can't find those who did it when we are blaming a protestor when it was actually a terrorist." It feels like something someone wrote eight months ago. I have no idea what relevance it has now.
As for your calls for "justice" I just thought it was funny coming from a message board poster. A little too much Hollywood speechifying for my tastes. That's all.
2) You're really spinning your wheels here. Unless you're pretending that the CIA and the State Department and the rest of the intelligence community are somehow not part of your "intelligent community" those talking points were signed off on by the entire intelligence community, including by David Petraeus himself. Are you suggesting that he's part of some cover up, too? The entire intelligence community?
The references to terrorism were removed from the talking points for a specific reason, which we learned from Petraeus himself all the way back in November. Are you unaware of this? It seems so. But we know this.
And the reason they were removed, and then given to Rice in the form you see above, was for the CIA's own reasons - to avoid tipping off the groups they suspected were responsible. You keep looking for this individual who changed it as if it's some independent actor that we need to ferret out. It's not. It's the entire fucking agency doing that. And Petraeus explained why.
So you can forget this point you're pushing: "Who from the CIA told her that? That's what we need to know because they were obviously not doing there job. No one it Libya thought it was from a video." Unless you want to suggest that Petraeus is in on this, too, while he testifies to lawmakers that there was no political interference, and the intelligence people did this intentionally. Is that what you're doing?
You said "someone wasn't doing their job." It's quite the contrary - they were making a call on what they wanted to publicly disclose for their own reasons. And it's got nothing to do with what the people on the ground in Libya thought. This isn't about that. There is no conspiracy here. You have people on the ground saying it was a terrorist attack, the CIA putting that in their initial assessment, and then making the call to take that part out of public statements for reasons specific to their hunt for those responsible. Does this answer not suffice for you?
Well, it should.
And from there your huge mistake that needs to be fixed is that Susan Rice when out and said 'we think it started with the video, and then extremist elements took advantage of that and it became something bigger.' That's some sort of huge gaffe mistake and we absolutely positively need to know how that happened? Really?
A) we do know how that happened. It's obvious.
it doesn't really matter to anyone, unless you're proving that this was altered for political reasons, and there's zero proof of that. None. Seriously, go back and read Rice's transcript. Tell me which part is so, so awful that it must never happen again. Because again, I don't get it.
And just let me know: are you willing to look at the evidence and come to the conclusion that there is nothing scandalous here, or are you vested in the notion that something nefarious and conspiratorial happened? Because if you're as into this as you seem to be, you also seem to be willfully overlooking answers to your questions that are already there.
And no, didn't watch the testimony. I read the reports.
-
Also, you do know that initially the intelligence agencies had contradictory information, some saying that it was an Al Qaeda affiliate and some saying it grew out of the protests about the video, right? This was later changed, but initially even Petraeus was telling lawmakers that it might have had something to do with the video. And then they gave Rice talking points saying:
- "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.
And then Rice goes on Face the Nation and says pretty much exactly what's in those two bullet points.
Which is why everyone is wondering where the scandal is, when it's clear people like Sen. McCain, Sen. Graham, and others, who stated at the time that she should have known not to say this, and that it was terrorism, later saw these talking points from the intelligence community that she was working off of and had to eat shit because she repeated them almost verbatim.
Your contention - and correct me if I'm wrong - seems to be that she shouldn't have worked off this interagency draft, the one that clears all the intelligence agencies and is prepared specifically for this purpose, and that she should have freelanced going off the information she received from people on the ground in Libya? Because that's the assessment of the "intelligent community."
Really?
- "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.
-
Here, you can even read the article:
Petraeus Says U.S. Tried to Avoid Tipping Off Terrorists After Libya Attack
WASHINGTON — David H. Petraeus, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, told lawmakers on Friday that classified intelligence reports revealed that the deadly assault on the American diplomatic mission in Libya was a terrorist attack, but that the administration refrained from saying it suspected that the perpetrators of the attack were Al Qaeda affiliates and sympathizers to avoid tipping off the groups.
Mr. Petraeus, who resigned last week after admitting to an extramarital affair, said the names of groups suspected in the attack — including Al Qaeda’s franchise in North Africa and a local Libyan group, Ansar al-Shariah — were removed from the public explanation of the attack immediately after the assault to avoiding alerting the militants that American intelligence and law enforcement agencies were tracking them, lawmakers said. -
So we know the answers to your question:
Who from the CIA told her that?
The entire agency did, when they made the decision to remove the names of the AQ-affiliated groups.
That's what we need to know because they were obviously not doing there job.
Yes, they were.
No one it Libya thought it was from a video.
But that's not why they removed it. Additionally, at the time there were multiple intelligence reports that it did have something to do with the video. You're focusing on the specific people who thought it was 100% terrorism and no one else, leaving you with an incomplete picture.
Furthermore, Clinton called Hicks, but didn't even bothering asking him who committed the attacks.
This doesn't strike me as odd. She's talking to him at 2:00 AM on the night of the attacks.
Assuming it was an honest mistake to not think that was a good question to ask the man, it led to the false narrative of blaming a video being pushed for 2 weeks. These are problems that can't happen the first time. But they did and it needs to be fixed.
I really don't share your sense of immediacy, nor imagine that there's not going to be a fair amount of confusion when an embassy comes under attack on a night when there are anti-US protests all over the Muslim world.
You act as if the worst thing to happen here is that someone suggested the video had something to do with it, even while saying that we're still investigating, even while they had information that the video did have something to do with it. So, it's yet another place where most people see the usual amounts of after-action period confusion, with people try to nail down what happened, with lots of different agencies involved, which complicates the narrative. Whereas there's another side that says everyone should have accepted the version certain people had, and right away, and discount all the other information people had, and right away, and deliver that information to the public within days.
This is why the whole affair is such a head scratcher for most of us, until you factor in what everyone assumes is the real reason we're doing this all over again.
-
so let's say the attempt to shelter the Obama campaign from any real scrutiny is just a coincidence. Why then do you suppose the CIA made up such a ridiculous crock of shit to hand the unsuspecting Susan Rice? Especially, if its true like you tell us, the president knew it was a terror attack from the very minute it occurred.
WSS
-
Clapper was the last to testisfy on the validity of the "talking points" coming from the CIA.
CIA maintains that they included language that stated the presence of Al Queda in Libya AND Benghazi area.
Petraeus testified that much as well.
Seems that we need to hear from the CIA about this (yet again...)
To me - James Clapper is the gatekeeper to the propaganda spewed out from the national security advisors....
ya Obama knew.... He watched 4 men die .... he lied.... how much more of your spin do we have to WADE through?
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