Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

5 of 8 Republicans skip Benghazi hearing; complain about lack of information on Benghazi

page: 3
48
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by digital01anarchy
This article conveniently leaves out Romney but states its a a courtesy usually extended to the opposing party's nominees once they are formally nominated

nominees = plural means more then one there is only one nominee for vice president and one nominee for president President Obama is already president and Biden is already vice president.
edit on 16-11-2012 by digital01anarchy because: (no reason given)


Wow...everytime I show a claim of yours to be factually incorrect you move on to a new claim...well OK...Now that you acknowledge that Romney got intelligence briefings...You are now complaining he didn't get them soon enough?

Off topic, but I will indulge here. Intelligence briefings are extended as a courtessy by the intelligence agencies and if they chose to wait until there was a single GOP Nominee until briefing them, good for them. Did you see the maniac crew that was running for the nomination? Herman Cain??? Rick Perry couldn't even name the branches of government! I will give the CIA a pass if the held off sharing our nations secrets with those folks until there was at least one moron to deal with rather than a dozen.

edit on 16-11-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)


nail coffin lol

www.cbsnews.com...

(CBS News) WASHINGTON -- Mitt Romney does not currently receive national security briefings, his campaign confirmed to CBS News today.

Typically, presidential candidates begin receiving briefings after securing their party's nomination, which Romney did in Tampa two weeks ago.

"It's a long-standing practice for presidential candidates and select advisers to be provided intelligence briefings following the party's nominating convention," Shawn Turner, the spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, told CNN in June. "During the last presidential campaign, all the candidates began receiving briefings in September following the conventions."

what was that you said again indigo?




posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by jjkenobi
 


Like being in an interview to complain about Benghazi, at the same time the Benghazi hearing was going on? You mean like those 'scheduled' appointments?



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by digital01anarchy
 


Looks like that's been debunked!!!!! Great work!



I needed the laugh anyway next time don't be a child and search for fact checks yourself: Washington Post Blog/ Fact Checker
edit on 16-11-2012 by NoJoker13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by digital01anarchy
 


that story is from september 12 it was announced the next day that romney would be receiving briefings beginning the following week
the presidential debates didnt begin until october

thehill.com...

....and indigo5 already provided you with this information
edit on 16-11-2012 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by digital01anarchy

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by digital01anarchy
This article conveniently leaves out Romney but states its a a courtesy usually extended to the opposing party's nominees once they are formally nominated

nominees = plural means more then one there is only one nominee for vice president and one nominee for president President Obama is already president and Biden is already vice president.
edit on 16-11-2012 by digital01anarchy because: (no reason given)


Wow...everytime I show a claim of yours to be factually incorrect you move on to a new claim...well OK...Now that you acknowledge that Romney got intelligence briefings...You are now complaining he didn't get them soon enough?

Off topic, but I will indulge here. Intelligence briefings are extended as a courtessy by the intelligence agencies and if they chose to wait until there was a single GOP Nominee until briefing them, good for them. Did you see the maniac crew that was running for the nomination? Herman Cain??? Rick Perry couldn't even name the branches of government! I will give the CIA a pass if the held off sharing our nations secrets with those folks until there was at least one moron to deal with rather than a dozen.

edit on 16-11-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)


nail coffin lol

www.cbsnews.com...

(CBS News) WASHINGTON -- Mitt Romney does not currently receive national security briefings, his campaign confirmed to CBS News today.

Typically, presidential candidates begin receiving briefings after securing their party's nomination, which Romney did in Tampa two weeks ago.

"It's a long-standing practice for presidential candidates and select advisers to be provided intelligence briefings following the party's nominating convention," Shawn Turner, the spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, told CNN in June. "During the last presidential campaign, all the candidates began receiving briefings in September following the conventions."

what was that you said again indigo?


Romney started receiving intelligence briefings on Sept 17th, the first debate was Oct 3rd. Did you even check the date on the article you posted?

Reuters..Romney receives first intelligence briefings Sept 17

Presidental debate schedule. First debate Oct 3



edit on 16-11-2012 by Connector because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by digital01anarchy
reply to post by Kali74
 


here's a link with an article written by the Washington post. This is all the proof anyone needs

www.abovetopsecret.com...




President Obama is touting his foreign policy experience on the campaign trail, but startling new statistics suggest that national security has not necessarily been the personal priority the president makes it out to be. It turns out that more than half the time, the commander in chief does not attend his daily intelligence meeting. The Government Accountability Institute, a new conservative investigative research organization, examined President Obama’s schedule from the day he took office until mid-June 2012, to see how often he attended his Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) — the meeting at which he is briefed on the most critical intelligence threats to the country. During his first 1,225 days in office, Obama attended his PDB just 536 times — or 43.8 percent of the time. During 2011 and the first half of 2012, his attendance became even less frequent — falling to just over 38 percent. By contrast, Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush almost never missed his daily intelligence meeting.


Ok kali now I have provided a link for you twice please answer this where is your outrage now? LOL
edit on 16-11-2012 by digital01anarchy because: (no reason given)



Try again this article is in the opinion section. Besides that the author has his own agenda.



Marc A. Thiessen- Opinion Writer

Marc Thiessen writes a weekly column for The Post on foreign and domestic policy and contributes to the PostPartisan blog. He is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Thiessen served as a chief speechwriter to President George W. Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and before that as a senior aide to Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms
www.washingtonpost.com...



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


what can be more important on their schedules than finding out what happened in benghazi, when all they have been doing for the last 3 weeks is boarding on impeachment.

i think their strategy is to avoid the truth so they can keep saying whatever crap comes out of their mouth and not be held accountable.

as soon as they see the video, know all the facts, they'll see there wasn't much that could have been done, besides levelling the place with missiles and killing everything, including the ambassador.

the second option would have been to send troops which would have opened fire on everybody. basically declaring war on libya.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   
GOP...UM yeah we arent comming to the meeting to get the information you have because there isnt enough information on the subject. What a crock of SH*T.

Thats like saying Im not going to school because I dont know what they are teaching today.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Connector

Originally posted by digital01anarchy

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by digital01anarchy
This article conveniently leaves out Romney but states its a a courtesy usually extended to the opposing party's nominees once they are formally nominated

nominees = plural means more then one there is only one nominee for vice president and one nominee for president President Obama is already president and Biden is already vice president.
edit on 16-11-2012 by digital01anarchy because: (no reason given)


Wow...everytime I show a claim of yours to be factually incorrect you move on to a new claim...well OK...Now that you acknowledge that Romney got intelligence briefings...You are now complaining he didn't get them soon enough?

Off topic, but I will indulge here. Intelligence briefings are extended as a courtessy by the intelligence agencies and if they chose to wait until there was a single GOP Nominee until briefing them, good for them. Did you see the maniac crew that was running for the nomination? Herman Cain??? Rick Perry couldn't even name the branches of government! I will give the CIA a pass if the held off sharing our nations secrets with those folks until there was at least one moron to deal with rather than a dozen.

edit on 16-11-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)


nail coffin lol

www.cbsnews.com...

(CBS News) WASHINGTON -- Mitt Romney does not currently receive national security briefings, his campaign confirmed to CBS News today.

Typically, presidential candidates begin receiving briefings after securing their party's nomination, which Romney did in Tampa two weeks ago.

"It's a long-standing practice for presidential candidates and select advisers to be provided intelligence briefings following the party's nominating convention," Shawn Turner, the spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, told CNN in June. "During the last presidential campaign, all the candidates began receiving briefings in September following the conventions."

what was that you said again indigo?


Romney started receiving intelligence briefings on Sept 17th, the first debate was Oct 3rd. Did you even check the date on the article you posted?

Reuters..Romney receives first intelligence briefings Sept 17

Presidental debate schedule. First debate Oct 3



edit on 16-11-2012 by Connector because: (no reason given)





Which answers the question that Republicans are complaining about....Why didn't Romney try to hammer Obama on Benghazi after that first debate or bring it up on the campaign trail after that? Cuz Romney knew that dog would not hunt. He knew the Obama adminstration didn't ef up. He had intelligence that Congress did not and knew that the GOP were headed for egg on thier face by politicizing this. If ever there was a question of wether the GOP was more interested in exploiting dead Americans than uncovering the truth, this OP ends that question... Giving a news conference about "wanting answers" while skipping the briefing where answers are being provided.


First off why would Romney be briefed on a subject that at the time was thought to be caused by an internet video? #2 Even though his indigo's dates are factual except for the link to his blog lol his insinuation was that Romney had been briefed on the subject but evidence shows he didn't get briefing till after the event had gone and passed hence the timeline debate. And the real question is was Romney briefed about Benghazi? i mean why brief someone about an event that has already past especially if at first it wasn't considered a terrorist attack?



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by digital01anarchy
 


The point of my post was to show that you were factually wrong whist trying to be smug about it.

I am here for facts only, hence no partisanship or opinion in my post.

Also, some more tid-bits, the administration acknowledged the attack was indeed terrorist in nature on Sept 28th. 5 days before the first debate.

Wiki on Bengahzi attack


On September 28, U.S. intelligence stated "In the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo. We provided that initial assessment to Executive Branch officials and members of Congress . . . . As we learned more about the attack, we revised our initial assessment to reflect new information indicating that it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists. It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attack, and if extremist group leaders directed their members to participate."[107]
edit on 16-11-2012 by Connector because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by digital01anarchy
 




And the real question is was Romney briefed about Benghazi?


Probably not by anyone's choice. He chose however to run his mouth on FOX BS rumors on Benghazi during the 2nd debate. I'm guessing he was kindly told to stfu about it promptly after. Romney however has little to do with the topic of the thread. The topic is, the GOP has been jumping the shark left and right regarding Benghazi... at the very least they're looking for something to impeach Obama over... my feeling is they know they can't if they have actual facts or they know their crap is gonna be found floating in the toilet. There is absolutely NO logical reason for any of them to have missed the classified briefing.

I think if any heads are going to roll in this, they will be of the GOP variety.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
They are Bought and paid for,
they have too much to loose
to get involved in this .

The Administration has serious dirt on them all,
because they ALL belong to a club
I like to call the 3 - C club.

Corrupt
Compromised
Complacent



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by drock905
 


Obviously Fox news is not the only media reporting on it. RT?? Alternative?? U been watching too much MSNBC of course they don't report on it.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 01:42 AM
link   
Stop being retarded. Enough of this conservative vs liberal bullcrap. Fact is they covered it up, Petraeus has already admitted that he watched the attacks happened live. All the questions were done behind closed doors. The only thing that is clear is that only certain questions were allowed to be asked, and these questions were changed last minute. That is all there is for now.

Petraeus testified probably cause he was trying to clear the name of the CIA as the CIA was completely blamed at first.

Either way Benghazi was a major screw up for not just republicans and democrats but for the whole US government.

Good going guys....turning this into political bullcrap when we should be questioning what is really going on behind the scenes.

Why are you so quick to blindly support someone without any questions? I don't care what your political affiliation is. As an American citizen are you not concerned at wth the government is doing?

Defend Obama and his aides all you want. Defend the GOP all you want. But in the end they are all pompous asses
edit on 17-11-2012 by Svipdagr because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 05:10 AM
link   
What I can't get with all this Benghazi outrage is the Hipocracy... I'm frankly getting RACKED OFF with everyone on about what should of been done... blah, blah...
Just a few points:
Republicans shouting the odds.... Who remembers 9/11 you had warning about that in advance....
Anyone else in America that wonders how it happened..... Your soldiers are NOT super soldiers and you cannot beam in soldiers like they do on Star Trek. Get A Grip

ATS has a saying it serves a purpose...
Deny Ignorance

edit on 17-11-2012 by DreamerOracle because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by digital01anarchy
 


I didn't read through this whole thread, so I don't know if it has already been brought up, but McCain has a reason beyond and above just partisanship and sour grapes: apparently because of term limits of committee chairmanships and seniority of other Republican senators, McCain will have no chance to be the Republican head/chairman of a Senate committee besides the one on Indian Affairs, which isn't a very high status one or of much interest to him, even though he is a Senator for a state with a lot of indigenous people. What he is angling for is a special committee, akin to the one created for Watergate, for investigating the Benghazi attacks, the Libyan military intervention and related issues. Besides giving him a high-status committee, this would be a chance to lob partisan attacks as well as to give Obama, his former presidential opponent, grief -- sorta like a Ken Starr investigation of Bill Clinton.

However, given that the Democrats control the senate, and there are several other committees that feel their jurisdictions cover Benghazi -- the Senate Intelligence and Foreign Affairs Committees -- it is unlikely that Senator GET-OFF-MY-LAWN! will get his wish. Boo f'n hoo.

And to the person or persons here claiming that the Dem's are intentionally scheduling hearings to conflict with Republicans' schedules: even if this were true, it is the responsibility of the Senators to make themselves available for their senate duties first, before they start scheduling their own press conferences for patisan political gain.

That these Republicans who are making a big deal out of the Benghazi incident and making bold, unsubstantiated claims about the incident and WH officials who have gone on record; but then don't bother to attend informational/fact-finding hearings on these matters; are showing their true colors. They don't care about getting to the bottom of the matter; they just want to stir up trouble for political purposes. This is very shameful conduct on their parts and I hope their constituents are made aware of it next time these sleaze bags are up for re-election.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Svipdagr
Stop being retarded. Enough of this conservative vs liberal bullcrap. Fact is they covered it up, Petraeus has already admitted that he watched the attacks happened live. All the questions were done behind closed doors. The only thing that is clear is that only certain questions were allowed to be asked, and these questions were changed last minute. That is all there is for now.

Petraeus testified probably cause he was trying to clear the name of the CIA as the CIA was completely blamed at first.

Either way Benghazi was a major screw up for not just republicans and democrats but for the whole US government.

Good going guys....turning this into political bullcrap when we should be questioning what is really going on behind the scenes.

Why are you so quick to blindly support someone without any questions? I don't care what your political affiliation is. As an American citizen are you not concerned at wth the government is doing?

Defend Obama and his aides all you want. Defend the GOP all you want. But in the end they are all pompous asses
edit on 17-11-2012 by Svipdagr because: (no reason given)


If they were closed hearings, how do you know what Petraeus said? And Patraeus certainly didn't watch the whole attack live, because drones only got their sometime after it started. You are claiming there's a cover-up, but you have no proof.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Svipdagr
 





Fact is they covered it up, Petraeus has already admitted that he watched the attacks happened live.


According to...?



All the questions were done behind closed doors.


Yes and 5 of the 8 Republicans (they're ones screaming) did not show up for this closed doors briefing. If they wanted answers perhaps they should have gone?



Petraeus testified probably cause he was trying to clear the name of the CIA as the CIA was completely blamed at first.


No the CIA wasn't blamed at first or at all even. Initial intelligence reported that it was terrorists taking advantage of a protest. Other protests at other US government sites throughout the ME were experiencing intense protests about the same time, regarding the youtube video. How heavily involved the CIA was at that site didn't come out til much later.



Good going guys....turning this into political bullcrap when we should be questioning what is really going on behind the scenes.


I'm pretty sure it wasn't anyone on ATS that turned it into political BS. I suppose though that some people from FOX and Friends could be members. I/We are questioning the situation maybe just not in the way prefer.



Why are you so quick to blindly support someone without any questions? I don't care what your political affiliation is. As an American citizen are you not concerned at wth the government is doing?


Who am I supporting here? Yes I'm concerned about it, if I weren't I never would have commented on the tragedy and I wouldn't be asking now why people who were supposed to attend a classified briefing, did not.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Star for you OP.This shows that the fake outrage is all about ankle biting politics..Boo effing hoo.Hey GOP you lost this election.Get over it,and stop politicizing everything..
Btw,Poor Mccain can't get over he lost in 2008..Bitter/sour graped old fool.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   
All they were going to get fro the Benghazi hearing was WH talking points






top topics



 
48
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join