It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The father of a Benghazi victim destroys CNN's Costello's attempts to deflect for Hilary.

page: 6
59
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: projectvxn

It's unfortunate that higher level military people disagree with you, like Gen. Petraeus.


The guy who was convicted of transporting confidential information, like Hillary?


But he's a military expert at the highest level.

Shouldn't we believe him?

That is the logic of our resident "experts".
edit on 2-8-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Patraeus and I are two totally different people with two totally different perspectives.

I'm not beholden to political influence.

He is.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 08:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Tucket

A decent conspiracy has an element of fact.

The nuts tend to dismiss fact.

Not my problem.


Fact: Multiple Units within half an hour response time weren't utilized.

Fact: AC-130 orbiting the area and no authorization given to engage

Fact: Lied about cause of attack.

Fact: No Marines guarding the embassy.

Fact: American's left to die in Benghazi.


Keep up with the nonsense.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: introvert

Patraeus and I are two totally different people with two totally different perspectives.

I'm not beholden to political influence.

He is.





It appears you have missed the point.

You expect me to believe your words because of your experience and at the same time dismiss the experience and knowledge of someone at a much higher level of experience and knowledge because you think he is beholden to a political influence.

And you expect me to believe that you are not?

What a crock of #. That is cognitive dissonance at it's finest. Or at least a boat load of hypocrisy.

Take your pick. Either way, you have no credibility.

Congratulations.

edit on 2-8-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 09:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: introvert

Patraeus and I are two totally different people with two totally different perspectives.

I'm not beholden to political influence.

He is.





It appears you have missed the point.

You expect me to believe your words because of your experience and at the same time dismiss the experience and knowledge of someone at a much higher level of experience and knowledge because you think he is beholden to a political influence.

And you expect me to believe that you are not?

What a crock of #. That is cognitive dissonance at it's finest. Or at least a boat load of hypocrisy.

Take your pick. Either way, you have no credibility.

Congratulations.


And yet you blindly believe the experience and knowledge of someone at a much higher level of experience without the "proof" you're asking of this member?

And what did you define cognitive dissonance as?



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

They have access to the information to make that determination.

Our fellow member does not.




posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 09:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: EternalSolace

They have access to the information to make that determination.

Our fellow member does not.



And you would know that with absolute certainty how?

A boat load of hypocrisy?

Seems your credibility is lost.

Congratulations.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace



And you would know that with absolute certainty how?


Because he is a 4 star General with 37 years experience and was director of the CIA at the time of the incident, not to mention the other things he commanded.

He had access to that info.
edit on 2-8-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Once again I wasn't an Obama Administration appointed CIA chief.

I'm a soldier with on the ground experience and have intimate knowledge of how these operations are supposed to be carried out.

The fact that they weren't carried out is a problem for me.




edit on 2 8 16 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 09:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: introvert

Once again I wasn't an Obama Administration appointed CIA chief.

I'm a soldier with on the ground experience and have intimate knowledge of how these operations are supposed to be carried out.



And that is all you know.

All due respect.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

That is correct.

Which is far more than you know.

I have responded to these kinds of attacks and I know what we are supposed to do in these situations once the call is made.

You just want to be right soooo bad that you are willing to ignore any and all facts. You cherry pick information that you don't even understand and then you call me a hypocrite for not taking a political operatives word on the matter.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 09:43 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

You appealed to a logical fallacy and I am only pointing out that your expertise is limited compared to those that have more expertise and experience on the issue.

Following your logic, we should believe a higher ranked individual that actually oversaw the event in question.

You don't actually see how you shot yourself in the foot on this issue, do you?
edit on 2-8-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 09:51 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




You appealed to a logical fallacy and I am only pointing out that your expertise is limited compared to those that have more expertise and experience on the issue.


Because SOP wasn't followed. In fact it was outright ignored in this case. 12 hours of ZERO support for a damned embassy. Why don't you understand that?




Following your logic, we should believe a higher ranked individual that actually oversaw the event in question.


Yeah, a guy who is incompetent with classified material(seems to be a problem with the Obama/Hillary camp), lies and is an appointee of the Obama administration who was also responsible for lying about the cause.

To his credit at least he admitted that it was a terror attack and not a protest gone wrong.




You don't actually see how you shot yourself in the foot on this issue, do you?


You keep saying that. Which is kind of funny considering how many times you interjected your uninformed opinion on how military operations are supposed to be carried out.

With this train of logic, Hillary's email scandal had nothing illegal going on..Nevermind that with my clearance and access to information I'd be in jail right now if I had done the same thing.

Are we to take Hillary's example in how I should handle classified info? I mean, she's in a higher position than I am and certainly had access. Right?

Same goes for Patraeus.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 09:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: projectvxn

You appealed to a logical fallacy and I am only pointing out that your expertise is limited compared to those that have more expertise and experience on the issue.

Following your logic, we should believe a higher ranked individual that actually oversaw the event in question.

You don't actually see how you shot yourself in the foot on this issue, do you?



Why didn't obama say go help them?

Hey, isn't he bombing Libya at this moment because of isis?

Seems like only last year a bunch of guys got their heads cut off on the beach there.

Yup! Good job Hillary!!




posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 09:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
Gotta love the Clinton News Network.

I love how she was trying to pigeonhole him into saying something he doesn't even want to talk about. Hillary Clinton was responsible for what happened in Benghazi and she lied to the families and she lied to America.

But let's make that about Trump.

And don't forget ... she called the families of the dead ... liars.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 09:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: introvert




You appealed to a logical fallacy and I am only pointing out that your expertise is limited compared to those that have more expertise and experience on the issue.


Because SOP wasn't followed. In fact it was outright ignored in this case. 12 hours of ZERO support for a damned embassy. Why don't you understand that?




Following your logic, we should believe a higher ranked individual that actually oversaw the event in question.


Yeah, a guy who is incompetent with classified material(seems to be a problem with the Obama/Hillary camp), lies and is an appointee of the Obama administration who was also responsible for lying about the cause.

To his credit at least he admitted that it was a terror attack and not a protest gone wrong.




You don't actually see how you shot yourself in the foot on this issue, do you?


You keep saying that. Which is kind of funny considering how many times you interjected your uninformed opinion on how military operations are supposed to be carried out.

With this train of logic, Hillary's email scandal had nothing illegal going on..Nevermind that with my clearance and access to information I'd be in jail right now if I had done the same thing.

Are we to take Hillary's example in how I should handle classified info? I mean, she's in a higher position than I am and certainly had access. Right?

Same goes for Patraeus.


I can get to qatar from HK in less time, flying commercial.



Hell, I think it was 14hrs from O'hare to HK non stop. We went over the N.Pole, that time.




edit on 8 2 2016 by burgerbuddy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn



You keep saying that. Which is kind of funny considering how many times you interjected your uninformed opinion on how military operations are supposed to be carried out.


What's funny is that you expect me to believe your anecdotal evidence, yet dismiss that of a 4 star General that has more experience and knowledge than you.





With this train of logic, Hillary's email scandal had nothing illegal going on..Nevermind that with my clearance and access to information I'd be in jail right now if I had done the same thing.


Incorrect. 80% of those sorts of cases are dropped unless intent can be proven. Are you really that misinformed?



Are we to take Hillary's example in how I should handle classified info? I mean, she's in a higher position than I am and certainly had access. Right?


Educate yourself on the law and previous cases, including SCOTUS opinions. It's not that hard.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 10:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
What's funny is that you expect me to believe your anecdotal evidence, yet dismiss that of a 4 star General that has more experience and knowledge than you.

Did you not see where projectvxn stated that he had served on a QRF? When was the last time you've heard of a General Officer in such a role? So there!!


The only QRF Petraeus served on was the one where he got to bang some chick who, wasn't his wife, while spilling classified information ... a felony offense that he got over on Big Time.

ETA: And this whole thing about trump and Khan ... it's nothing more than the 'business as usual' attempt to distract. The Benghazi victim's families have got the goods on Hillary and they are trashing the s# out of her campaign with every appearance.

Trump ... landslide. No doubt about it. Wait'll Trump thinks the time is right to sling mud on Hillary himself.

Ahhhhahahahahaha!!
edit on 282016 by Snarl because: ETA



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 10:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

What are you talking about?

What does Trump have to do with this?


Are you guys desperate?



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




What's funny is that you expect me to believe your anecdotal evidence, yet dismiss that of a 4 star General that has more experience and knowledge than you.


Who was also a political appointee and a lying sack of #.




top topics



 
59
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join