Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 156

Thread: Fascinating testimony regarding Benghazi

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    It's amazing to me that no one is asking what "F"Ambassador Stevens was there in the first place with minimal security? How did the terrorists know he was there or if they knew at all. The CIA had a bldg close by and it does appear that was the intended target. No one wants to know this because that would not be political enough and it wouldn't screw Hillary?
    ??

    "It's amazing to me that no one is asking why the f the rape victim was wearing a tank top and short shorts in the first place . . ."

    What in the world does Stevens' decision to be there have to do with anything?

  2. #62
    State department scrubbed the talking points:

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...or-references/

    ABC is reporting there were 12 revisions of the CIA talking points, that the State Department was directly involved in scrubbing them.

    Some quotes from the video on that site:

    "I have obtained 12 different versions of those talking points that show they were dramatically edited by the administration."

    "What was taken out? All references to al-Qaeda, and all references to CIA warnings, before the attack, about the terror threat in Benghazi"

    "I have had e-mails read to me that show that many of these changes were directed by Hillary Clinton's spokesperson at the State Department, Victoria Nuland. In one e-mail, she said that information about the CIA warnings 'could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that . . .' After that e-mail, all of those references were deleted."

    And, from the article, here's what the White House Spokesman, Jay Carney, said about it in the fall:

    “Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened,” Carney told reporters at the White House press briefing on November 28, 2012. “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    Which of the embassy attacks on Bush's watch ought to have triggered questions similar to the three being raised about the Libya attack?
    All of them OUGHT TO HAVE.

  4. #64
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,559
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    It's amazing to me that no one is asking what "F"Ambassador Stevens was there in the first place with minimal security? How did the terrorists know he was there or if they knew at all. The CIA had a bldg close by and it does appear that was the intended target. No one wants to know this because that would not be political enough and it wouldn't screw Hillary?
    If you bothered to pay attention, you would know that this question has been asked. Several times.

  5. #65
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,559
    Quote Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan View Post
    And you claim I missed the point(s) of your post

    But its good to know you can amuse yourself much in the same way that a child finds amusement in watching adults talk without understanding their conversation.
    Irony overload

  6. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by JetPotato View Post
    You're missing the point completely, as usual. Only this time you're missing two of them.

    First of all, as already stated, these hearings are not about the fact that we were attacked.

    Second, the next time you criticize the current administration without tacking on some mention of the previous will be the first. Calling people out for non-original thought, then re-posting more of the same is beyond ironic. It's amazing you can't see the comedy you bring here.
    Dig through the archives and find the threads you started attacking the Bush Administration for their mistakes. Or is the "truth" only important to you when it concerns a President that is a democrat.

  7. #67
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,559
    Quote Originally Posted by FF2® View Post
    All of them OUGHT TO HAVE.
    Really? Pick one, and detail for us the similarities, please.

  8. #68
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,559
    Quote Originally Posted by revischrist View Post
    Dig through the archives and find the threads you started attacking the Bush Administration for their mistakes. Or is the "truth" only important to you when it concerns a President that is a democrat.
    I could maybe do that if I had ever posted in this forum during that train wreck of an administration.

    Again, I 'm not concerned with the politics or the noise of this. I tune it all out as best I can. I don't let my feelings for MSNBC or FoxNews prevent me from being curious about serious topics simply because one or the other is running with the story. My primary concern is getting answers from my government. I don't care one iota about the political implications. Seems most people can't or won't get past that.

  9. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by FF2® View Post
    All of them OUGHT TO HAVE.
    Really? Why? What about it (beyond merely being an attack) ought to have triggered questions?

  10. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by JetPotato View Post
    I could maybe do that if I had ever posted in this forum during that train wreck of an administration.

    Again, I 'm not concerned with the politics or the noise of this. I tune it all out as best I can. I don't let my feelings for MSNBC or FoxNews prevent me from being curious about serious topics simply because one or the other is running with the story. My primary concern is getting answers from my government. I don't care one iota about the political implications. Seems most people can't or won't get past that.
    I am still left wondering what exactly do you think will come from all of this? I have yet to see anything that would lead me to believe that Obama will get impeached. We have yet to hear what he has done wrong.

    Were there lapses in judgment? I'm sure. How do you think soldiers die in combat in Afghanistan all the time? When the sh!t hits the fan bad stuff happens. Leaders make bad judgments but we don't spend millions on hearings every time that happens.

    Again, i am just wondering what people want to come from this. The truth? sure that's great. Where is the truth behind what happened to every american soldier that died in Iraq/Afghanistan? I am sure some were killed due to some level of incompetence by the Bush/Obama administrations.

    Seems like a colossal waste of money that will amount to nothing.

  11. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by revischrist View Post
    I am still left wondering what exactly do you think will come from all of this? I have yet to see anything that would lead me to believe that Obama will get impeached. We have yet to hear what he has done wrong.

    Were there lapses in judgment? I'm sure. How do you think soldiers die in combat in Afghanistan all the time? When the sh!t hits the fan bad stuff happens. Leaders make bad judgments but we don't spend millions on hearings every time that happens.

    Again, i am just wondering what people want to come from this. The truth? sure that's great. Where is the truth behind what happened to every american soldier that died in Iraq/Afghanistan? I am sure some were killed due to some level of incompetence by the Bush/Obama administrations.

    Seems like a colossal waste of money that will amount to nothing.


    It has nothing to do with Obama. It has all to do with Hillary Clinton and 2016.
    "After all, what difference does it make? They're dead!"

    A KIA in battle IS different from an embassy attack in which potential help is told to "stand down".

  12. #72
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,559
    Quote Originally Posted by revischrist View Post
    I am still left wondering what exactly do you think will come from all of this? I have yet to see anything that would lead me to believe that Obama will get impeached. We have yet to hear what he has done wrong.

    Were there lapses in judgment? I'm sure. How do you think soldiers die in combat in Afghanistan all the time? When the sh!t hits the fan bad stuff happens. Leaders make bad judgments but we don't spend millions on hearings every time that happens.

    Again, i am just wondering what people want to come from this. The truth? sure that's great. Where is the truth behind what happened to every american soldier that died in Iraq/Afghanistan? I am sure some were killed due to some level of incompetence by the Bush/Obama administrations.

    Seems like a colossal waste of money that will amount to nothing.
    I don't see it as amounting to nothing. I want to know. I value knowing. I've numerous times now stated what I want. Please stop putting words in my mouth. I haven't asked for the impeachment of Obama, not close. Sure, that's what Darryl Issa might want, but again, why are we discussing him? He's not the story. Look back at this thread and I believe you're the only one to bring Obama's name into this at all in fact.

    You keep bringing up past administrations. They have nothing to do with the current topic. They are no longer in a position to do damage. I'm purely interested in my current government. The one that I currently pay taxes to. The one that is supposed to protect me. The one that represents us all. Why is this so hard to understand? If you hate politics so much, why is it so in the forefront of your mind? Things like this go waaaay beyond politics. This particular topic goes much deeper.

    But if you insist, if anything, now that we know major transgressions have occurred, shouldn't your political focus of "why is the GOP talking about this" shift to "why are Democrats refusing to"?

  13. #73
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,929
    Quote Originally Posted by revischrist View Post
    Seems like a colossal waste of money that will amount to nothing.
    You are correct that tangibly speaking the investigation will most likely "amount to nothing." However, your passive attitude toward knowing "the truth" and exposing blatant lies is troublesome and naive. Transparency in a modern democracy is very valuable.

  14. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    ??

    "It's amazing to me that no one is asking why the f the rape victim was wearing a tank top and short shorts in the first place . . ."

    What in the world does Stevens' decision to be there have to do with anything?
    You're serious with that example? Stevens was a American Diplomat who had a permant security team, yet why would he put himself in such a dangerous place on 9-11? It was a warzone.

  15. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    You're serious with that example? Stevens was a American Diplomat who had a permant security team, yet why would he put himself in such a dangerous place on 9-11? It was a warzone.
    Point is it's completely, wholly, entirely irrelevant.

    Did Stevens make a poor decision? Apparently. Does that in any way negate or otherwise impact the failures of prevention, reaction, and candor that are at issue? No, not at all.

    So what place does it have in this discussion? It's about as useful as the "if we weren't in Libya . . ." crap that Winston brought up. True or false, it's a completely separate issue.

  16. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    State department scrubbed the talking points:

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...or-references/

    ABC is reporting there were 12 revisions of the CIA talking points, that the State Department was directly involved in scrubbing them.

    Some quotes from the video on that site:

    "I have obtained 12 different versions of those talking points that show they were dramatically edited by the administration."

    "What was taken out? All references to al-Qaeda, and all references to CIA warnings, before the attack, about the terror threat in Benghazi"

    "I have had e-mails read to me that show that many of these changes were directed by Hillary Clinton's spokesperson at the State Department, Victoria Nuland. In one e-mail, she said that information about the CIA warnings 'could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that . . .' After that e-mail, all of those references were deleted."

    And, from the article, here's what the White House Spokesman, Jay Carney, said about it in the fall:
    Not a doubt in my mind that there was an concerted effort to cover up and deflect this event, based on the political ramifications feared by the Administration.

    Judge them as you wish for that choice.

  17. #77
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,559
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    Point is it's completely, wholly, entirely irrelevant.

    Did Stevens make a poor decision? Apparently. Does that in any way negate or otherwise impact the failures of prevention, reaction, and candor that are at issue? No, not at all.

    So what place does it have in this discussion? It's about as useful as the "if we weren't in Libya . . ." crap that Winston brought up. True or false, it's a completely separate issue.
    Not only are you correct, but the question he's asking has been already answered. He'll probably change his tune dramatically when he finally reads up and sees what the answer was.

  18. #78
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,559
    Quote Originally Posted by parafly View Post
    You are correct that tangibly speaking the investigation will most likely "amount to nothing." However, your passive attitude toward knowing "the truth" and exposing blatant lies is troublesome and naive. Transparency in a modern democracy is very valuable.
    Thank you

  19. #79
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    11,586
    Quote Originally Posted by revischrist View Post
    I am still left wondering what exactly do you think will come from all of this? I have yet to see anything that would lead me to believe that Obama will get impeached. We have yet to hear what he has done wrong.

    Were there lapses in judgment? I'm sure. How do you think soldiers die in combat in Afghanistan all the time? When the sh!t hits the fan bad stuff happens. Leaders make bad judgments but we don't spend millions on hearings every time that happens.

    Again, i am just wondering what people want to come from this. The truth? sure that's great. Where is the truth behind what happened to every american soldier that died in Iraq/Afghanistan? I am sure some were killed due to some level of incompetence by the Bush/Obama administrations.

    Seems like a colossal waste of money that will amount to nothing.
    They lied to shield themselves from political fallout. It's reprehensible.

    Unfortunately, I think the days where we expect better of the Obama administration are long gone.

    But in contrast to what others are saying, in order for this to be reflected in your vote, you've got to believe pretty emphatically that the alternative is better with regards to telling the truth when it hurts. And I don't think that existed at the time. If the R's can legitimately find that in a candidate that can survive their own primary, I do think they will significantly improve their chances in 2016, especially against Hillary.

  20. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    Point is it's completely, wholly, entirely irrelevant.

    Did Stevens make a poor decision? Apparently. Does that in any way negate or otherwise impact the failures of prevention, reaction, and candor that are at issue? No, not at all.

    So what place does it have in this discussion? It's about as useful as the "if we weren't in Libya . . ." crap that Winston brought up. True or false, it's a completely separate issue.
    It's complete relevant because the CIA and the State Dept both knew of the growing dangers within Benghazi, ie attacks on other diplomats. Stevens was in the position of power and he chose to ignore all of the warnings? Embassies and compounds are closed all of the world because of the dangers of being in a country during conflicts.

    A rape victim is not an American official who has a security detail and is briefed on a daily basis of threats within the region.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us