Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by rivergator, Jan 15, 2014.
Was he lying? You tell me.
Why did Obama and Clinton lie in the first place if it made no difference in their deaths? The families have a right to know how and why their loved one's died. Instead they were lied to. Why are you so happy to accept that?
What I don't understand is the President was in the middle of a reelection campaign. The American people traditionally rally around the Commander in Chief when the country is attacked from foreign sources. And knowing that they knew it was a terrorist attack almost immediately, why have Susan Rice lie to the American people about it?
It seems like the truth would have helped his campaign better than the lies did.
How about the fact that the CIC needs to watch what he says on sensitive natsec issues as to not potentially inspire copycats?
So blaming it on a you tube video wouldn't "inspire" Muslims all around the world? That's it, let's call attention to a video people without an internet connection would never see so we can have protests all over the Muslim world so we don't give away the fact that it was a terrorist attack in Benghazi.
Makes perfect sense to me.
Not even our intelligence community knew immediately that it was a terrorist attack. They didn't change their assessment about the video intel for nearly two weeks after. Also, as has been crystal clear and supported by honest reporting, it was the CIA that provided Susan Rice and the WH with the unclassified talking points for her to use, which she stated almost verbatim on each of the shows, the same exact ones given to both the House and Senate Intel committees.
In other words, right wing claims about Rice and/or the President lying have been debunked. In fact, the pubs on the Intel committees knew all along that what Rice and WH were saying was coming from the CIA intelligence.
Unclassified CIA Talking Points
If they said the attack was done by little green men from Mars, what difference does it make to anyone truly involved at the end of the day?
Your guy Barry claimed in a debate he called it a terrorist attack the next day when Candy Crowley set him up. I happen to think that helped him with any American voter who was simple minded enough to believe her and him without looking at the quote in context. So which is it? Did he know it was a terrorist attack and called it such on Sep12, or did he go with the "CIA intelligence" after being told by Panetta, Ham and many others it was a terrorist attack? BTW, do you have a link for that "debunking" of yours? When I tried to search for any info like that all I come up with is this from October 2012..
"The CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington within 24 hours of last month's deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate that there was evidence it was carried out by militants, not a spontaneous mob upset about an American-made video ridiculing Islam's Prophet Muhammad, U.S. officials have told The Associated Press."
you sure about that jdr?
a different perspective:
In hindsight, I think you're right that the truth would have been better, but the OA didn't see it that way at the time. It was important not to acknowledge any facts that contradicted the "terror under control, AQ on the run" narrative.
Join the military and do something for your country. If you don't want to, do something else for your country for four years.
FYI - I NEVER SAID THAT ANYONE HATES THE COUNTRY. WHAT I SAID WAS THAT HILLARY CLINTON'S STATEMENT IS A SLAP IN THE FACT TO EVERYONE, ESPECIALLY THOSE WHOSE HUSBANDS/FATHERS/SONS WERE MURDERED.
I HAVE FRIENDS WHO DIED, AND I DON'T GIVE A DAMN WHAT PARTY THEY WERE IN. I GIVE A DAMN THAT PEOPLE WHO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF WHAT WAS FOUGHT FOR SPIT IN THEIR FACES.
RIGHT: I BELIEVE IN MY CHILDRENS' FUTURE, THE FUTURE OF MY GRANDCHILDREN AND NOT SADDLING THEM WITH DEBT BECAUSE SOME ARE WILLING TO STEAL FROM THEM. I BELIEVE IN NOT SPENDING MORE THAN YOU MAKE.
Thanks, Bill. After considering the article and doing a bit of research, I don't believe it undercuts anything I wrote earlier. The author however seems to me to want to continue pushing debunked claims such as the WH pushed the video (the WH relied on CIA intel) and that the WH altered the talking points (the Senate investigation found that not to be the case).
My response to the claim about military officials saying it was terrorism is that even if such officials "believed" it was a terrorist attack, and even if officials told the president this is what they believed, nothing confirms that the military officials claims were substantiated by intel at that time.
From page 34 & 35 of the report
I spent nearly six years on active duty in the Navy and received an honorable discharge at the end of my enlistment.
I provided you with HRC's actual comments in context, since taking her words out of context like you did changes the entire meaning of what she said. To me, this echoed other smears coming from the right. My sincerest apologies though if I misinterpreted your intentions.
It's funny that people love to run to the polls and vote for a political party that has mostly draft dodgers and non-veterans as members. The chickenhawk GOP.
it does not take a rocket scientist to see what the regime did
Bill, at what point do you stop getting played like a sucker and abandon "news" sources that just flat out-and-out invent scandals and baseless accusations for political purposes?
The suckers are those who voted for President Pinochio....twice. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I did not get fooled at all. I knew exactly what he was. An empty suit raised by communists who was a recipient of affirmative action at each step in his life. He is a fraud.
This is funny on a couple of levels.