What exactly was "covered up" in Benghazi?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Of course we know Iraq had WMDs. We sold them to them afterall. But that isn't what I am talking about. I am talking about lies such as "Iraq bought yellow cake uranium from Niger."
Or various other lies implicating them with 9-11.
Off topic a little, but I thought it fits, considering each time they lie the ole' Bad Intel spiel comes up. And that is regardless the administration's political party.

The tactics are the same. They don't feel they should be held accountable. Under Bush they just flat out refused to testify. Now, Clinton only shows up at her convenience and proceeds to scream at a panel of lawmakers.

reply to post by 48e18


The Go To Defense of Obama when he screws up or gets caught doing something shady is to say " Bush did it, too." So that makes lying and breaking the law okay? So Obama is another Bush?
Seriously, of course the GOP will try to take Obama down over this, it was a legitimate screw up and indefensible behavior from the clowns in charge. That doesn't mean Obama should be let off the hook, Hillary either.
You hold Obama to the lowest possible standards then the next guy will do even worse, dem or repub.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I have let my feelings and opinions know to several in Washington, both in and out of government.
I have yet to find anyone who holds the good of this country above their own partizan interests.
I am currently just sitting back, waiting for enough people to get as tired as I am about the way "these people" are running my country into the grave.
When, not if, this happens I would not want to be a politician. I only hope to be alive to watch.
If things were to go as they really should, it would be beyond the scale of French history.

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.

Can you feel yourself backing up those goalposts?

It's always something...but never a concession that maybe someone is wrong and that there is no conspiracy. That is the biggest problem with conspiracy theorists...they have already made up their mind and NOTHING will convince them otherwise...they are just waiting and hoping to have thier conspiracy theory validated.

Obama and his administration used the CIA intel to go off of, that is all they had. And, they made sure to make it clear that this was preliminary intel very early in the investigation. And yet you guys act like the Obama admin came out, made up a story on their own that tried to cover up the attack...which never happened.

So fine, you don't trust the CIA...and you don't trust the Obama admin....so that is full admission from you that no matter what comes out, you aren't going to believe. So what is the point of you wanting them to answer questions if you aren't going to even believe them (unless it is what you want to hear)?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by DistantRumor

 

"Right Wing talking point"?????

The story was broken by ABC NEWS!!!!

I don't think you know what a "talking point" is.

It doesn't mean it isn't true information or that it had to originate on Fox News. It is a talking point....it is something the Right Wing makes sure to talk about over and over and over.

Which is exactly what this is...you are proving it since you are including the "it was changed 12 times" in almost every reply of yours....YOU are using talking points.

As evidenced from this thread, there is no evidence. Except of the bush administration covering things up, so yes I agree with your statement that this is all conjured up by the right, to incite turmoil in an administration that should be noted with a historical economic recovery.

reply to post by DistantRumor


Except "conspiracy theory" is conjecture or accusation without facts to support it. This isn't a conspiracy whatsoever, the facts have been flooding in since Wednesday. So much so that now even the left media is not only reporting this scandal, but as with Jay Carnet yesterday, openly criticizing the White House and Hillary's State department.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

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.

Correct...they didn't lie...their initial assessment was that the attack was inspired by the protests happening across the Middle East.

Glad you finally admitted it.

reply to post by DistantRumor

I think I've made pretty clear, my interest here is seeing the record be correct ..and not in being "right", in my own take on things. In fact, I've repeatedly noted that we don't have all the facts and that IS the whole problem. It's not I who pushes for an end to inquiry or investigation when so many who were a part of this, directly, have not been heard from and go through many obstacles....deliberately placed there...in order to be heard. This week saw a few of the dozens both in Benghazi and outside, but involved in what happened, have their say and give their testimony.

I'm not pushing any agenda but finding the truth. This started, ended and happened 100% under the watch of President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton. It leaves no others to blame, in the ultimate chain of command and that really burns some people. I understand that. It is what it is though.

Having said that, I'll repeat for your benefit, I don't believe Obama had much, if anything, to do with the total failures in security for the months that led up to this. A President delegates..they don't generally manage down to the level of individual properties, operated by the State Department. Clinton MAY have had direct, hands on involvement with decisions here. I don't know. That's the whole point.

You see a conspiracy pushed in the need to investigate. I see the conspiracy in the very obvious push NOT to investigate and "move on" with so much left unknown in an event of staggering meaning, if not literal body count (Although it very nearly was that too, if those two hadn't rescued the staffers, like they did)

So...Which way should we go? Search for truth and let the chips fall where they may? Or cover cover ...and pretend this has no meaning and should not be looked into any further? I know my position and reasons ...I don't understand or quite know yours.

Originally posted by DistantRumor

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by DistantRumor

 

"Right Wing talking point"?????

The story was broken by ABC NEWS!!!!

I don't think you know what a "talking point" is.

It doesn't mean it isn't true information or that it had to originate on Fox News. It is a talking point....it is something the Right Wing makes sure to talk about over and over and over.

Which is exactly what this is...you are proving it since you are including the "it was changed 12 times" in almost every reply of yours....YOU are using talking points.

Oh... well why didn't you just say "facts" rather than "talking points"? It's much less confusing to call a spade a spade don't you think?

Originally posted by DistantRumor
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

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.

Correct...they didn't lie...their initial assessment was that the attack was inspired by the protests happening across the Middle East.

Glad you finally admitted it.

Get this straight. As of Wednesday we learned there was NEVER a protest outside the consulate. It was a coordinated attack from Al Qaida. And the CIA knew beforehand that an attack was imminent on the consulate.

No mention of all the other CIA details that were scrubbed? Interesting. What about the State department comments that the original CIA details were inconvenient for the administration? What about that aspect?

Nothing to see here, move along?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by DistantRumor

 

Except "conspiracy theory" is conjecture or accusation without facts to support it. This isn't a conspiracy whatsoever, the facts have been flooding in since Wednesday. So much so that now even the left media is not only reporting this scandal, but as with Jay Carnet yesterday, openly criticizing the White House and Hillary's State department.

Ok...let's see those "facts".

This should be interesting.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

I'm not pushing any agenda but finding the truth. This started, ended and happened 100% under the watch of President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton. It leaves no others to blame, in the ultimate chain of command and that really burns some people. I understand that. It is what it is though.

And they have both said they take responsibility for what happened.

But that isn't enough for you or others on the Right...they don't only want them to take responsibility...they want it to be their direct fault...whether it is true or not...they want to use this to first defeat Obama (Failed) and now use it to derail Clinton 2016.

Ironically, it is just backfiring because they are just keeping Clinton in the public eye...and they have absolutely nothing scandalous to pin on her....so just free publicity at this point.

Originally posted by DistantRumor

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by DistantRumor

 

Except "conspiracy theory" is conjecture or accusation without facts to support it. This isn't a conspiracy whatsoever, the facts have been flooding in since Wednesday. So much so that now even the left media is not only reporting this scandal, but as with Jay Carnet yesterday, openly criticizing the White House and Hillary's State department.

Ok...let's see those "facts".

This should be interesting.

ABC News has them on their website. You can see them on the Blaze as well. Or check out Breitbart. FOX has them.

Take your pick. Have you even been paying attention to any of this since Wednesday? There are even three threads here on ATS going about the information that was made public Wednesday, and especially Friday on ABC News's website. Jay Carney was being HAMMERED by the White House press corps over this new public information.

You really haven't been paying attention to the events this week?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by DistantRumor

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by DistantRumor

 

"Right Wing talking point"?????

The story was broken by ABC NEWS!!!!

I don't think you know what a "talking point" is.

It doesn't mean it isn't true information or that it had to originate on Fox News. It is a talking point....it is something the Right Wing makes sure to talk about over and over and over.

Which is exactly what this is...you are proving it since you are including the "it was changed 12 times" in almost every reply of yours....YOU are using talking points.

Oh... well why didn't you just say "facts" rather than "talking points"? It's much less confusing to call a spade a spade don't you think?

I did call a spade a spade...this is a Right Wing talking point.

No one is denying the CIA intel was revised 12 times before it was released for the public...that is common practice, there are some things that were in the intel that shouldn't have been released AT THAT TIME...everything was eventually released.

So yes, it is a talking point...but one you (and other Right Wingers) obviously don't understand and are using incorrectly.

Originally posted by Maskander
As evidenced from this thread, there is no evidence. Except of the bush administration covering things up, so yes I agree with your statement that this is all conjured up by the right, to incite turmoil in an administration that should be noted with a historical economic recovery.

All conjured up by the Right huh?

Please tell when ABC News became a "Right"-wing news outlet. Friday apparently?

reply to post by DistantRumor


So I'll ask you the same question. When did the left-wing ABC News move to the "Right"??

Friday morning?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Get this straight. As of Wednesday we learned there was NEVER a protest outside the consulate. It was a coordinated attack from Al Qaida. And the CIA knew beforehand that an attack was imminent on the consulate.

We knew before Wednesday that there was no protest. And when that intel came out, the Obama administration corrected their earlier assessment. That is how intel works...you revise it as new information comes to light...this is not a new process.

And the CIA did not have specific information about a attack on that consulate for that day. The are in LIBYA during a civil war...they have had threats for the entire time that was going on.

What you are trying to say is that since there were threats in the past, and then there was an attack that Obama knew about it and did nothing...right????

Prove those specifics.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by DistantRumor

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by DistantRumor

 

Except "conspiracy theory" is conjecture or accusation without facts to support it. This isn't a conspiracy whatsoever, the facts have been flooding in since Wednesday. So much so that now even the left media is not only reporting this scandal, but as with Jay Carnet yesterday, openly criticizing the White House and Hillary's State department.

Ok...let's see those "facts".

This should be interesting.

ABC News has them on their website. You can see them on the Blaze as well. Or check out Breitbart. FOX has them.

Take your pick. Have you even been paying attention to any of this since Wednesday? There are even three threads here on ATS going about the information that was made public Wednesday, and especially Friday on ABC News's website. Jay Carney was being HAMMERED by the White House press corps over this new public information.

You really haven't been paying attention to the events this week?

Why is it so hard for you to just say what those "facts" are.

Revising intel before revising it is not a earth shattering revelation.

So...what are these "facts" that are so damaging?

reply to post by DistantRumor

We knew before Wednesday that there was no protest. And when that intel came out, the Obama administration corrected their earlier assessment. That is how intel works...you revise it as new information comes to light...this is not a new process.

More lies. As of Wednesday, and especially yesterday with the released correspondence from Hillary's deputy secretary we know that the Administration knew from the first hours of the attack that it was coordinated and there were warnings and pleas for additional security that were refused. And Obama, Hillary, and Ambassador Rice told the lie of a protest over a YouTube video for two weeks after the attack. They all bold-faced lied constantly for the next TWO WEEKS.