Benghazi

[GG]

So to recap: Obama might have lied (even though there is no evidence that he did), he might have misconstrued the cause for the benefit of his reelection (again, no evidence other than hearsay and conspiracy), but whatever actions were taken in the hours after the attack did not have bearing on how those events unfolded.

 

If you had made this statement in the week after the event, then it would have been believable. But to say this now, after much evidence of exactly what the CIA and state department knew at the time, is beyond laughable. If there really was so much confusion about what was going on, why was Susan Rice paraded on each Sunday morning news program with a specific story line? She could have easily said, "We are still gathering information on the exact nature and motives of the events. But it's been difficult due to the lack of organization of the new Libyan government." But that's not exactly what she said, was it?

 

And knowing what we know now, how can anyone not conclude that she was flat out lying?

 

How does this relate to Bush and Iraq? It's actually really easy to put two and two together if you're willing to look beyond your partisan blinders. Either Bush lied about WMD or he had misleading intelligence. Same thing with Benghazi -- only Bush's (potential) lie forced multiple countries into a ten year campaign that cost over 200,000 lives and counting. Obama's (potential) lie was about which bad guys attacked us and why in order to save face.

 

It's really not that complicated.

 

Bush's "lie" included definitive international intelligence reports that were vetted by bipartisan committees in Congress.

[Deranged Rhino]

If you had made this statement in the week after the event, then it would have been believable. But to say this now, after much evidence of exactly what the CIA and state department knew at the time, is beyond laughable.

I watched Morell's public testimony. Did you?

 

Bush's "lie" included definitive international intelligence reports that were vetted by bipartisan committees in Congress.

And Obama's "lie" came from the mouth of CIA / DSS / and people on the ground at the time.

[GG]

I watched Morell's public testimony. Did you?

 

 

And Obama's "lie" came from the mouth of CIA / DSS / and people on the ground at the time.

 

You mean Mike Morell, who's now working on Hillary's campaign? And we're supposed to believe that he selectively made the edits to the talking points without any involvement from State or West Wing, while in the Iraq War example, it was the opposite, that the West Wing altered a report that was given to them by intelligence? Is that basically your point?

 

And actually, if you listened to Morrell's testimony, you would know he basically admitted that he overrode the opinion of the analysts on the ground.

Edited April 16, 2014 by GG

[Deranged Rhino]

And actually, if you listened to Morrell's testimony, you would know he basically admitted that he overrode the opinion of the analysts on the ground.

I did listen and that is not what Morell said.

 

So, for those keeping score: all you have is conspiracy. No proof that there was any lies or misdeeds in terms of Benghazi EXCEPT for hearsay and speculation.

 

Here's the question, why is it okay for you to state definitively something happened when you have offered nothing but conspiracy and conjecture to support your case while it's considered fraud for someone on the left to claim the same thing was done on a much more massive (and costly scale) in Iraq with only has conspiracy to back up their case up?

 

I'll save you the headache. The answer is politics. Which is all Benghazi is. If you had an honest intellectual bone in your body, you'd admit it to.

Edited April 16, 2014 by GreggyT

[3rdnlng]

Prior to the terrorist attack the State Department refused requests for more security. The CIA had warned the State Department numerous times regarding the deteriorating situation in Libya. This little fact was taken out of the talking points.

 

After learning of the attacks, no help was sent. There are no pictures of Obama sitting with his minions watching the events in real time like when they got Osama. Again I repeat, no help was sent.

 

The personnel on the ground at the time reported that it was an organized terrorist attack that had to have been planned well in advance.

 

Morrell decided for political reasons to give cover to the administration by falsifying the talking points.

 

The administration knew early on that it was a well organized terrorist attack but continued for weeks to blame it on a video. They even made sure that the film maker ended up in jail, while the real perps are left alone.

 

Anyone who thinks that the administration didn't lie but was confused has lost their sense of smell---this stinks to high heaven.

 

I did listen and that is not what Morell said.

 

So, for those keeping score: all you have is conspiracy. No proof that there was any lies or misdeeds in terms of Benghazi EXCEPT for hearsay and speculation.

 

Here's the question, why is it okay for you to state definitively something happened when you have offered nothing but conspiracy and conjecture to support your case while it's considered fraud for someone on the left to claim the same thing was done on a much more massive (and costly scale) in Iraq with only has conspiracy to back up their case up?

 

I'll save you the headache. The answer is politics. Which is all Benghazi is. If you had an honest intellectual bone in your body, you'd admit it to too.

 

Fixed for crying out loud. You're a writer, act like one.

[IDBillzFan]

A narrative that's been backed up and reinforced by congressional testimony, not diminished.

 

No one testified in Congress that the Youtube video had anything to do with the terror attack, and in fact the WH continued the Youtube lie for weeks (including his speech to the UN) after everyone knew the video had nothing to do with it.

 

And if that is not enough, consider your quote here....

 

it is not clear that Obama lied about anything.

 

Remember that this is a man who called together a globally televised special session of Congress where he intentionally lied about keeping/losing your doctor and health care plan.

 

While the statists like gator will argue that it's okay for Obama to lie because that's what presidents do, I would argue that his lie was most blatant and most embarrassing, and anyone who would openly lie directly to the face of the American people like that wouldn't think twice when it comes to lying about a terrorist attack where the president and state department left four people to die...and then did absolutely nothing to bring people to justice for those deaths.

 

So, for those keeping score: all you have is conspiracy

 

You keep telling yourself that, Skippy.

[Deranged Rhino]

Prior to the terrorist attack the State Department refused requests for more security. The CIA had warned the State Department numerous times regarding the deteriorating situation in Libya. This little fact was taken out of the talking points.

Hundreds of intelligence reports and requests are submitted every hour. It's been established as a conceded point that Obama / State could not have prevented the attack without prescience -- same for any other administration including Clinton and Bush re the WTC (two times).

 

This is a political argument being made to make the dems look bad. That's all it is. There's no fire beneath that smoke.

 

After learning of the attacks, no help was sent. There are no pictures of Obama sitting with his minions watching the events in real time like when they got Osama. Again I repeat, no help was sent.

 

Conspiracy without proof. If there was such a picture it'd be everywhere 24/7. There is no such picture.

 

 

The personnel on the ground at the time reported that it was an organized terrorist attack that had to have been planned well in advance.

 

Also untrue. Personnel on the ground were conflicted as their reports showed in every single investigation done by this congress, any claim to the contrary is unfounded and unprovable. The intelligence was not clear or in lockstep and any claim to the contrary without proof is pure conjecture.

 

So far, no proof has been offered and every round of testimony only makes this point more clear.

 

Morrell decided for political reasons to give cover to the administration by falsifying the talking points.

 

You're speculating without proof.

 

The administration knew early on that it was a well organized terrorist attack but continued for weeks to blame it on a video. They even made sure that the film maker ended up in jail, while the real perps are left alone.

 

Anyone who thinks that the administration didn't lie but was confused has lost their sense of smell---this stinks to high heaven.

 

And yet with this whole post you've offered nothing but hearsay, speculation and conspiracy. No better than the ones on the left who do the same to "prove" W lied us into war. You're perpetrating the same sin. And, you've also made my point clear that this isn't about Benghazi or dead Americans, it's about the fact you don't like the current administration and want any excuse to bash him.

 

Again, the only ones who still think this is an issue are the tin foil hat conspiracy folks.

 

 

Remember that this is a man who called together a globally televised special session of Congress where he intentionally lied about keeping/losing your doctor and health care

One has nothing to do with the other. You like to call people names for sticking to their political convictions in the face of stupidity. You should look in the mirror on this issue. You just proved my point.

[IDBillzFan]

It's been established as a conceded point that Obama / State could not have prevented the attack without prescience

 

You're absolutely, positively and completely wrong on this. Here is Diane Feinstein and the Senate Intelligence Committee report saying it absolutely COULD have been prevented.

 

One has nothing to do with the other. You like to call people names for sticking to their political convictions in the face of stupidity. You should look in the mirror on this issue. You just proved my point.

 

Character. He's liar of all liars. Why should anyone believe anything he says after how he intentionally and blatnatly lied about ACA?

[GG]

I did listen and that is not what Morell said.

 

So, for those keeping score: all you have is conspiracy. No proof that there was any lies or misdeeds in terms of Benghazi EXCEPT for hearsay and speculation.

 

Here's the question, why is it okay for you to state definitively something happened when you have offered nothing but conspiracy and conjecture to support your case while it's considered fraud for someone on the left to claim the same thing was done on a much more massive (and costly scale) in Iraq with only has conspiracy to back up their case up?

 

I'll save you the headache. The answer is politics. Which is all Benghazi is. If you had an honest intellectual bone in your body, you'd admit it to.

 

Here's a far from a right wing reporting of Morrell's testimony. Sure sounds like a wacko conspiracy, doesn't it? Never mind that Morrell's story has changed several times since Sept 2012.

[3rdnlng]

Hundreds of intelligence reports and requests are submitted every hour. It's been established as a conceded point that Obama / State could not have prevented the attack without prescience -- same for any other administration including Clinton and Bush re the WTC (two times).

 

This is a political argument being made to make the dems look bad. That's all it is. There's no fire beneath that smoke.

 

 

 

Conspiracy without proof. If there was such a picture it'd be everywhere 24/7. There is no such picture.

 

 

 

 

Also untrue. Personnel on the ground were conflicted as their reports showed in every single investigation done by this congress, any claim to the contrary is unfounded and unprovable. The intelligence was not clear or in lockstep and any claim to the contrary without proof is pure conjecture.

 

So far, no proof has been offered and every round of testimony only makes this point more clear.

 

 

 

You're speculating without proof.

 

 

 

And yet with this whole post you've offered nothing but hearsay, speculation and conspiracy. No better than the ones on the left who do the same to "prove" W lied us into war. You're perpetrating the same sin. And, you've also made my point clear that this isn't about Benghazi or dead Americans, it's about the fact you don't like the current administration and want any excuse to bash him.

 

Again, the only ones who still think this is an issue are the tin foil hat conspiracy folks.

 

 

One has nothing to do with the other. You like to call people names for sticking to their political convictions in the face of stupidity. You should look in the mirror on this issue. You just proved my point.

 

This thread is on its 57th page and your contentions have been discussed here and refuted already. If you want to see those discussions read the thread instead of doing a drive-by, and expecting people who have already spent a good deal of their time on this to discuss it with you.

[Deranged Rhino]

You're absolutely, positively and completely wrong on this. Here is Diane Feinstein and the Senate Intelligence Committee report saying it absolutely COULD have been prevented.

It's a conceded point within the thread in terms of culpability. We can discuss the practical limitations of real time global intelligence and its benefits and perils -- but that's a different discussion. I'd argue it's the discussion we should have been having all along, at least after the elections were done. But instead it's a witch hunt, one driven by intense dislike for the commander in chief and his party -- not by love of country or a sense of duty.

 

Which is what your post, and any inclusion of the ACA in this discussion, drives home. You can't separate your distaste for the man from the events In Benghazi. And you're not alone, there are millions of people who agree with you. But that's no way to run an investigation into the deaths of four Americans. They deserve better than that, they deserve an investigation that's driven by the search for truth and not the search for political points.

 

Don't they?

 

This thread is on its 57th page and your contentions have been discussed here and refuted already.

That's also not true.

 

 

 

Here's a far from a right wing reporting of Morrell's testimony. Sure sounds like a wacko conspiracy, doesn't it? Never mind that Morrell's story has changed several times since Sept 2012.

Did you listen to his complete testimony? Or do you always outsource your thinking to political rags? Just curious.

[GG]

Did you listen to his complete testimony? Or do you always outsource your thinking to political rags? Just curious.

 

In this case, there is no need to listen to the testimony to gain the truth, because the testimony on its own will not tell you the story. The testimony as part of a fuller set of data points, will get you closer to the truth. And it does, by exposing the gaps in his explanation compared to what was said in 2012 and the changed accounts of the events.

 

But basically, you are calling Morrell an upstanding citizen, and McCain and Graham are liars. Yet now he's employed by an outfit that's helping a presidential candidate who would be extremely damaged by any negative revelations about Benghazi. I see absolutely nothing there. It's all a grand GOP witch hunt.

[IDBillzFan]

They deserve better than that, they deserve an investigation that's driven by the search for truth and not the search for political points.

 

Don't they?

 

And that investigation will take place when, exactly? Any idea? I mean, CNN literally interviewed one of the suspects, and he's still at large. Most Americans feel like the president and state dept. would do well to spend more time bringing the murderers to justice and less time fundraising and passing time trying to convince the American people that there is this mythical gender pay gap.

 

Most every thinking American would agree; it's very easy to have a distaste for this administration.

[boyst]

it's just his way of getting laughs by posting nonsense and drawing amusement from the subsequent incredulity. the more we respond, the more he enjoys it.

I can't agree with that anymore. I used to think he was trolling and I used to think he did it out of pleasure but I truly believe he cannot help himself.

[Azalin]

I can't agree with that anymore. I used to think he was trolling and I used to think he did it out of pleasure but I truly believe he cannot help himself.

you may be right. it's as good an explanation as anything I can come up with. either way, attempts at discussion are pointless. it's just embarrassing that it took me so long to finally realize it.

[3rdnlng]

It's a conceded point within the thread in terms of culpability. We can discuss the practical limitations of real time global intelligence and its benefits and perils -- but that's a different discussion. I'd argue it's the discussion we should have been having all along, at least after the elections were done. But instead it's a witch hunt, one driven by intense dislike for the commander in chief and his party -- not by love of country or a sense of duty.

 

Which is what your post, and any inclusion of the ACA in this discussion, drives home. You can't separate your distaste for the man from the events In Benghazi. And you're not alone, there are millions of people who agree with you. But that's no way to run an investigation into the deaths of four Americans. They deserve better than that, they deserve an investigation that's driven by the search for truth and not the search for political points.

 

Don't they?

 

 

That's also not true.

 

 

Did you listen to his complete testimony? Or do you always outsource your thinking to political rags? Just curious.

 

Greg, you are smarter than this. Your remarks though are reminding me of the misinformed posters in the Trayvon Martin thread. You need to do a better job researching the facts. Some of us who have been with this since the incident have no desire to spoon feed you the real story. We've already done it too often. Read the thread.

[Tiberius]

 

Bush's "lie" included definitive international intelligence reports that were vetted by bipartisan committees in Congress.

Really? Like the aluminum tubing garbage? How about you answer that lie first, there are a few hundred more, but just answer that one first

 

So, for those keeping score: all you have is conspiracy. No proof that there was any lies or misdeeds in terms of Benghazi EXCEPT for hearsay and speculation.

 

 

6-4-3 Double play!

 

In this case, there is no need to listen to the testimony to gain the truth, because the testimony on its own will not tell you the story. The testimony as part of a fuller set of data points, will get you closer to the truth. And it does, by exposing the gaps in his explanation compared to what was said in 2012 and the changed accounts of the events.

 

But basically, you are calling Morrell an upstanding citizen, and McCain and Graham are liars. Yet now he's employed by an outfit that's helping a presidential candidate who would be extremely damaged by any negative revelations about Benghazi. I see absolutely nothing there. It's all a grand GOP witch hunt.

Yes! And next can we talk about how Bush brought down the twin towers on purpose! Edited April 17, 2014 by gatorman

[3rdnlng]

Really? Like the aluminum tubing garbage? How about you answer that lie first, there are a few hundred more, but just answer that one first

 

 

 

6-4-3 Double play!

 

Yes! And next can we talk about how Bush brought down the twin towers on purpose!

 

You have nothing but a clown act--and a poor one at that.

[OCinBuffalo]

Bush didn't just lie, he got 19 intelligence organizations in the US alone - never mind the foreign ones - to believe all his lies.

 

The guy's an evil genius. Smartest president we've ever had, to pull off a maskirovka like that.

"But Bush is an idiot, he's the dumbest president we'eve ever had.

But he got all these people to believe his lies, he must be the smartest president we've ever had.

 

No, Bush is an idiot, he's too dumb to do that.

But, he did do it, how else could this have happened, if not for Bush being an evil genius.

 

Bush is an idiot, and I don't care what you say, because I know he's an idiot.

Bush lied so well, he got Hillary to believe it, so I don't care what you say, because the only way he could have tricked Hillary is by being pretty smart, because, you know, she's definitely a genius. Look at how well she did as Secretary of State!"

 

- The inane babbling that goes on in the head of a leftist, since only there can things that are polar opposites both be true at the same time. It's a magical place, that spawns so much magical thinking, like the notion that Obamacare can be both a tax, and not a tax, at the same time. But it's main feature is the absolutist, and child-like approach to complex concepts, reducing all things to the 1st-grade reading level.

 

Fixed for crying out loud. You're a writer, act like one.

What the hell are you talking about? You've never heard of artisitic license?

 

That's what's going on here: GreggyT's impressionist approach to the topic. This is all flourish, rhetorical flourish. And sissone, a piroutte, and if he doesn't cut it out he's gonna get piqued. It's impressionist, but at least it's not free association. That is gatorman's domain.

 

Christ, if you want the non-fiction section you should be reading \GoBillsinDallas/, or perhaps B-Man....although there will be crying about the sources with that.

[3rdnlng]

"But Bush is an idiot, he's the dumbest president we'eve ever had.

But he got all these people to believe his lies, he must be the smartest president we've ever had.

 

No, Bush is an idiot, he's too dumb to do that.

But, he did do it, how else could this have happened, if not for Bush being an evil genius.

 

Bush is an idiot, and I don't care what you say, because I know he's an idiot.

Bush lied so well, he got Hillary to believe it, so I don't care what you say, because the only way he could have tricked Hillary is by being pretty smart, because, you know, she's definitely a genius. Look at how well she did as Secretary of State!"

 

- The inane babbling that goes on in the head of a leftist, since only there can things that are polar opposites both be true at the same time. It's a magical place, that spawns so much magical thinking, like the notion that Obamacare can be both a tax, and not a tax, at the same time. But it's main feature is the absolutist, and child-like approach to complex concepts, reducing all things to the 1st-grade reading level.

 

 

What the hell are you talking about? You've never heard of artisitic license?

 

That's what's going on here: GreggyT's impressionist approach to the topic. This is all flourish, rhetorical flourish. And sissone, a piroutte, and if he doesn't cut it out he's gonna get piqued. It's impressionist, but at least it's not free association. That is gatorman's domain.

 

Christ, if you want the non-fiction section you should be reading \GoBillsinDallas/, or perhaps B-Man....although there will be crying about the sources with that.

 

Are you nuts? Or blind? Greg used "to" instead of "too", and I was busting his balls.