What exactly was "covered up" in Benghazi?

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by DistantRumor

 

An attack against America on September 11th.
And you're telling us the motive wasn't known for Weeks??!
This is ludicrous. My 11 year old can see through this crap.

Maybe you should apply to the CIA.

I don't know what to tell you, that was the information the CIA released. What was the Obama administration do, ignore the CIA intel and declare on their own what they thought the motive was?

They always stated this was very preliminary and the investigation was ongoing and this was just the best information from the intelligence community they have at the time.

So what's your issue with that? What would you have liked them to do?

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by DistantRumor

 

An attack against America on September 11th.
And you're telling us the motive wasn't known for Weeks??!
This is ludicrous. My 11 year old can see through this crap.

Is a symbolic date all you really need to satisfy yourself that something can be classified as "known?" Man, you're easily led.

What if I just wanted to hide my identity by orchestrating an attack on the 9-11 anniversary just to throw law enforcement off my trail?

Your 11 yr. old gets a free ride on this one, he/she is still a child after all.

Oh good lord. Go spin this crap somewhere else. Please.

I don't need to hear about how the administration got it wrong again.
Each and every time an administration effs crap up, or wants to outright lie, to the American People, the ole' "bad Intel" excuse comes up.
Same with the stupid war that got us into this mess in the first place...under BUSH.
Don't make this a left, right issue when it is obvious that the scapegoat is always the same, regardless the party.

"We can blatantly lie to the people to get what we want and if we get called on it, we can just blame the CIA. Not like the people can, or will, do anything to actually hold us accountable.
If we get called to testify we will simply refuse."
Or in this latest case, call in sick twice and then proceed to shout down investigators on the stand...pretty much showing the checks and ballances are gone.

What the hell ever man. This entire issue is disgusting and I don't give a DAMN who is in the Whitehouse.

I would be thinking along the lines of some kind of illegal, black market oriented activity, being ued as a blackmail tool and a wedge, to influence certain deals pertaining to oil leases and such....weapons deals, things of this nature, backing the next preferred, hand-picked leader.....

This is, after all, a large part of the reason that the "black market" not only exists, but is allowed to thrive, because of all the potentials of coercion that can make those potentials actualities, and thereby assert a great deal of hidden control....the best kind: pretneding you are not in power when you are.

My however many cents, whatever that's worth.

Hillary Clinton should have been held in Contempt of Court for shouting at lawmakers while on the stand.
If it had been me, I woulda been damn handcuffed in three seconds.
Period.

Originally posted by DistantRumor

Originally posted by Pladuim
reply to post by Flatfish

 

Great, if you think that then he definitely lied in the UN speech.

Pladuim

What don't you understand about this.

It being a terrorist attack and it being caused by the protests are not two mutually exclusive items.

What was it(Event): Terrorist Attack
Why(Motive): Protest

We now know that is wrong and it really is.

What was it(Event): Terrorist Attack
Why(Motive): Pre-planned attack to make a statement on 9/11


The Right Wing media has successfully twisted the two to make them interchangable and has confused the lot of you. But essentially you guys are all arguing and outraged over people not immediately knowing the MOTIVE of the terrorist attack.


That is what it is reduced to...you are all outraged because the initial motive that the CIA claimed was wrong, the Obama administration shared that intel with the public because that was the best they had. When better intel came in, guess what, they shared that as well and correct the initial reports.

It was always addressed as a terrorist attack...the motive wasn't clear for a few weeks. But that doesn't change the fact that Obama always called it a terrorist attack.

There is another word I have never used in my posts "outraged".

And Obama did NOT always call it a terrorist attack and it NEVER had anything to do with any youtube video which was repeated over and over again by his administration. You can try to twist this all you want but those are the facts.

Pladuim

reply to post by Pladuim

And Obama did NOT always call it a terrorist attack and it NEVER had anything to do with any youtube video which was repeated over and over again by his administration. You can try to twist this all you want but those are the facts.

Obama called it a terrorist attack the very next day in the Rose Garden...the video and transcripts have been posted over and over.

And no, it wasn't his administration that claimed it was due to protests...it was the CIA and their best intelligence.

No twisting from me...I don't need to, the facts speak for themselves. That is why there have been hearing after hearing and testimony after testimony and still the Republicans have absolutely nothing.

reply to post by DistantRumor

And no, it wasn't his administration that claimed it was due to protests...it was the CIA and their best intelligence.

That is a bold-face lie. It's already been proven that the CIA narrative was altered and scrubbed TWELVE TIMES by the State Department. By the assistant and deputy secretary. Hillary's top two aides. What do you think the media has been reporting ALL DAY???

Dude your talking points are about 48 hours out of date. Educate yourself:

www.abovetopsecret.com.

AND HERE:

www.abovetopsecret.com.

reply to post by JayinAR


Won t even attempt to claim this is the same as the Intel Bush had available. The two are fundamentally different. 34 nations had the same intel, two prior administrations had the same Intel, and it's now known the WMD was shuttled to Syria aboard passenger jets on the eve of the invasion with the help of the Russians.

Did you not know or remember all this or are you purposely trying to rewrite history?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by DistantRumor

 

And no, it wasn't his administration that claimed it was due to protests...it was the CIA and their best intelligence.

That is a bold-face lie. It's already been proven that the CIA narrative was altered and scrubbed TWELVE TIMES by the State Department. By the assistant and deputy secretary. Hillary's top two aides. What do you think the media has been reporting ALL DAY???

Thank you.... You say it so the rest of us don't have to.

These "nothing to see here.... move along now... think happy thoughts" threads are getting as tiresome as the pathetic attempts to explain what testimony has already shown to be outright false. It's like some folks didn't watch or read a word of what was said before Congress this week, eh?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


And someone alert the mods to check the IP address of the member I just responded to with that post. This member has 30 something posts and the posting style with the same two sentence parsing is the EXACT same style as the banned OP author. I cannot because I use a phone to post on the site.

Alert the mods please.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by DistantRumor

 

And no, it wasn't his administration that claimed it was due to protests...it was the CIA and their best intelligence.

That is a bold-face lie. It's already been proven that the CIA narrative was altered and scrubbed TWELVE TIMES by the State Department. By the assistant and deputy secretary. Hillary's top two aides. What do you think the media has been reporting ALL DAY???

Thank you.... You say it so the rest of us don't have to.

These "nothing to see here.... move along now... think happy thoughts" threads are getting as tiresome as the pathetic attempts to explain what testimony has already shown to be outright false. It's like some folks didn't watch or read a word of what was said before Congress this week, eh?

You know what, I'm just fed up with the lies, the abuse of power, and the zombies who cover and protect this slime ball administration at all costs. These same dirtballs would he screaming for impeachment if it had been Bush.

Dammit, either you stand for truth, honor, justice and accountability or you're a political hack with no soul. These things aren't just of critical importance when the other team is in the White House, and when your guy is there he gets a nod and a wink. This corruption needs to end and we need to hold the corrupt accountable I regard less of which party they represent.

The fact that they put a homosexual ambassador in a land of Muslim based laws where if he were a citizen there he would likely be killed, maybe that is the willful ignorance?

I keep thinking that the cover up was an unprepared helicopter pilot.

Oh, and the news covered up everything at the first chance because of all the problems in trying to pass the buck of responsibility. Executive privilege gets in the way and in the propaganda game if it gets out in the press who really was responsible, someone at the CIA would be getting chewed out and maybe fired for causing their country to lose international face. If a politician or military boss is to blame, their tantrum would knock down entire agencies.

Blame the killers just to be safe. Maybe the local law enforcement wasn't being bribed enough and dropped their guard.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by DistantRumor

 

And no, it wasn't his administration that claimed it was due to protests...it was the CIA and their best intelligence.

That is a bold-face lie. It's already been proven that the CIA narrative was altered and scrubbed TWELVE TIMES by the State Department. By the assistant and deputy secretary. Hillary's top two aides. What do you think the media has been reporting ALL DAY???

Dude your talking points are about 48 hours out of date. Educate yourself:

www.abovetopsecret.com.

AND HERE:

www.abovetopsecret.com.

edit on 11-5-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

I am honestly lost for words.

Yes, the CIA intel was revised 12 times....that still doesn't change the FACT that they CIA included in that intel that they thought the attack was inspired by the protests.

You can't pick and choose, if you are going to use the right wing echo chamber talking point of "it was changed 12 times", then you have to concede that the CIA did say that it was the protest at first.

reply to post by Sandalphon

I'm honestly curious....

The fact that they put a homosexual ambassador in a land of Muslim based laws where if he were a citizen there he would likely be killed, maybe that is the willful ignorance?

Do you have anything, anywhere which confirms he was gay? I just spent a good bit of time reading through dozens of search hits and saw plenty of blogs, Facebook pages and ant-gay reports in general that draw his name into it. I even saw one that, in a grave tone, declared Christopher Stevens and Obama were gay roommates. Umm.. What I didn't see was a single LGBT group or person mourning his loss as a member of the community or other source, not trying to make him look bad by it, who indicates he was gay?

I did see plenty of Libyans on both his memorial page and other locations who mourned his death as someone who deeply cared for the people there. However....no mentioned there either? So if there is any truth, at all, to that rumor? I'm really interested in seeing it...or putting the ugly thing to bed... either way. I'll check back when I get up.

Personally, I'm presently considering the 'Stevens was gay' rumor as about as out of place as talk about reports regarding the treatment of his body. Rumor...until otherwise verified? While staying open ...in case such verification would come?

They ARE, as it happens, killing people for that in Libya..so I suppose, it has some relevance, if something other than hateful reporting shows it to be factual?

reply to post by DistantRumor

So........ You believe everything the CIA says now?

The testimony by men who were THERE ...and not just reporting it from media, this week, indicates they knew in near real time, this had absolutely nothing to do with protest.

The fact the CIA lied to the public isn't new, different or newsworthy. That people here would hold the CIA out as some super-source of truth and authority above that of people with nothing to gain and quite a lot to lose by saying the opposite? Is staggering...

Indeed... It's...rather contrary to the Motto of this site, if I may share that as my personal opinion of the sentiment.

O K!
Let's drop everything else in Washinton.
Nothing else could be of more importance at this moment in time.

There should be a full, complete, and exhaustive investigation of every witt and tittle of anything and everything which can be connected to the circumstances leading up to these events and all the cables, phone calls, and emails afterward between the Whitehouse, Benghazi, the Dept. of State and the CIA.
Anyone found to be lying or attempting to spin or cover-up the absolute truth of any part or parts of this affair should be relieved of their positions and prosecuted to the fullest extent of any applicable laws.
After having done this, and setting a permanent presedent for the handling of any officials who would lie to the American people, we should then look back, to who have done similar acts in the past. It should not matter if these people are still living or dead, we should strive to set the records of our nations history straight and point out those who have used their various offices for other than the true and faithful service to the American people and our national interests, rather than their own or that of any of their friends or associates.

reply to post by DistantRumor


"Right Wing talking point"?????

The story was broken by ABC NEWS!!!!

Originally posted by teamcommander
O K!
Let's drop everything else in Washinton.
Nothing else could be of more importance at this moment in time.

There should be a full, complete, and exhaustive investigation of every witt and tittle of anything and everything which can be connected to the circumstances leading up to these events and all the cables, phone calls, and emails afterward between the Whitehouse, Benghazi, the Dept. of State and the CIA.
Anyone found to be lying or attempting to spin or cover-up the absolute truth of any part or parts of this affair should be relieved of their positions and prosecuted to the fullest extent of any applicable laws.
After having done this, and setting a permanent presedent for the handling of any officials who would lie to the American people, we should then look back, to who have done similar acts in the past. It should not matter if these people are still living or dead, we should strive to set the records of our nations history straight and point out those who have used their various offices for other than the true and faithful service to the American people and our national interests, rather than their own or that of any of their friends or associates.

Well, call John Boehner's office then. He's the one preventing a special committee with subpoena powers and a special prosecutor.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by DistantRumor

 

So........ You believe everything the CIA says now?

The testimony by men who were THERE ...and not just reporting it from media, this week, indicates they knew in near real time, this had absolutely nothing to do with protest.

The fact the CIA lied to the public isn't new, different or newsworthy. That people here would hold the CIA out as some super-source of truth and authority above that of people with nothing to gain and quite a lot to lose by saying the opposite? Is staggering...

Indeed... It's...rather contrary to the Motto of this site, if I may share that as my personal opinion of the sentiment.

But the CIA didn't lie. Their original assessment was changed and scrubbed 12 times by the State Department because the actual retail of events was inconvenient for the admin during a presidential campaign.