DescentBB

vision wrote:The volume of words written about Benghazi is disproportionate to the problem. There are bigger issues that need more attention.

CUDA wrote:so are you implying that we should ignore the actions (or lack of) of this administration that the end results was the death of 4 Americans, which appears might have been prevented if action was taken by this administration during the attack, and also ignore the Multiple lies perpetrated by said administration to cover up said errors. just so they could win an election?

vision wrote:The volume of words written about Benghazi is disproportionate to the problem. There are bigger issues that need more attention.

Top Gun wrote:

CUDA wrote:so are you implying that we should ignore the actions (or lack of) of this administration that the end results was the death of 4 Americans, which appears might have been prevented if action was taken by this administration during the attack, and also ignore the Multiple lies perpetrated by said administration to cover up said errors. just so they could win an election?

If you have anything resembling a clear list of these "multiple lies," instead of a bunch of hearsay over the confusion surrounding the aftermath of the incident, I'd like to see them, becuase I've yet to discover anything as such myself. The only thing this all smells like is a prolonged witch-hunt that's more than overstayed its welcome.

The Weekly Standard obtained a timeline briefed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence detailing the heavy substantive revisions made to the CIA’s talking points, just six weeks before the 2012 presidential election, and additional information about why the changes were made and by whom. The emails prove the Obama administration knew within hours the Benghazi attacks were carried out by radical Muslims and were not the result of a Youtube video.

vision wrote:The volume of words written about Benghazi is disproportionate to the problem. There are bigger issues that need more attention.

Top Gun wrote:More to the point, I'd love to know in what bizarro universe that an administration having knowledge of a threat and ongoing attack, but then not responding to said threat effectively, would be construed as helping to win an election. Wouldn't the negative result of said inaction directly counteract said election prospects? If there was a feasible chance of heading off such an attack, or stopping it in-progress, no politician in their right mind would knowingly choose not to do so, as it would be political suicide. That justification for this narrative makes absolutely no sense.

Top Gun wrote:Are there any other sources corroborating that briefing? You'll excuse me if I don't take the word of a neocon dish-rag at face value.

CUDA wrote:

Top Gun wrote:Are there any other sources corroborating that briefing? You'll excuse me if I don't take the word of a neocon dish-rag at face value.

uhm SORRY MSNBC isn't reporting on the story so if you choose to dismiss it then nothing else I post would cause you to believe the story anyways. I gave you the story and the source.

CUDA wrote:Just because YOU don't consider the source credible is irrelevant to this discussion. and your approval of the source doesn't change the facts that have been presented. and your blind denial doesn't absolve those involved from their responsibility. maybe it would be in your best interest to follow the truth no matter where it leads you. but obviously you are not concerned with the truth of the matter.

Spidey wrote:The obvious mistake you are making TG is…assuming anything a politician does/says has to make sense.

vision wrote:The volume of words written about Benghazi is disproportionate to the problem. There are bigger issues that need more attention.

CUDA wrote:Just because YOU don't consider the source credible is irrelevant to this discussion. and your approval of the source doesn't change the facts that have been presented. and your blind denial doesn't absolve those involved from their responsibility. maybe it would be in your best interest to follow the truth no matter where it leads you. but obviously you are not concerned with the truth of the matter.

Krom wrote:Hmmm. This is beginning to sound like a standard play in the Republican book: impeach a second term democrat president on anything they can find (and use an unlimited bottomless endless budget to find or create anything necessary) in order to prevent that person from accomplishing as much and hopefully open the door for a republican president on the next election...

MD-1118 wrote:

CUDA wrote:Just because YOU don't consider the source credible is irrelevant to this discussion. and your approval of the source doesn't change the facts that have been presented. and your blind denial doesn't absolve those involved from their responsibility. maybe it would be in your best interest to follow the truth no matter where it leads you. but obviously you are not concerned with the truth of the matter.

I had a conversation with a guy the other day that went something like this. He kept quoting from some ancient tome.

CUDA wrote:

MD-1118 wrote:

CUDA wrote:Just because YOU don't consider the source credible is irrelevant to this discussion. and your approval of the source doesn't change the facts that have been presented. and your blind denial doesn't absolve those involved from their responsibility. maybe it would be in your best interest to follow the truth no matter where it leads you. but obviously you are not concerned with the truth of the matter.

I had a conversation with a guy the other day that went something like this. He kept quoting from some ancient tome.

And that has what to do with this subject?

MD-1118 wrote:

CUDA wrote:

MD-1118 wrote:

CUDA wrote:Just because YOU don't consider the source credible is irrelevant to this discussion. and your approval of the source doesn't change the facts that have been presented. and your blind denial doesn't absolve those involved from their responsibility. maybe it would be in your best interest to follow the truth no matter where it leads you. but obviously you are not concerned with the truth of the matter.

I had a conversation with a guy the other day that went something like this. He kept quoting from some ancient tome.

And that has what to do with this subject?

Sources not unanimously accepted as credible. I thought that was obvious.

CUDA wrote:

MD-1118 wrote:

CUDA wrote:

MD-1118 wrote:

CUDA wrote:Just because YOU don't consider the source credible is irrelevant to this discussion. and your approval of the source doesn't change the facts that have been presented. and your blind denial doesn't absolve those involved from their responsibility. maybe it would be in your best interest to follow the truth no matter where it leads you. but obviously you are not concerned with the truth of the matter.

I had a conversation with a guy the other day that went something like this. He kept quoting from some ancient tome.

And that has what to do with this subject?

Sources not unanimously accepted as credible. I thought that was obvious.

and yet the question remains

and yet the question remains

Well, which sources related to the original topic do you consider credible? (Would you look at that, answer a question with a question and problem solved)

Wrong. The highest crime against humanity is willful ignorance.

CUDA wrote:

and yet the question remains

Well, which sources related to the original topic do you consider credible? (Would you look at that, answer a question with a question and problem solved)

Wrong. The highest crime against humanity is willful ignorance.

you should take heed to your own words

WASHINGTON (AP) — Two hours after the U.S. Consulate came under attack in Benghazi, Libya, the White House was told that a militant group was claiming responsibility for the violence that killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.

A State Department email sent to intelligence officials and the White House situation room said the Islamist group Ansar al-Sharia claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter, and also called for an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli.

CBS News has reported that a series of email alerts received late Tuesday evening provides additional information that was known by Obama administration officials shortly after the attack commenced. The messages were also independently obtained by ABC News. Although names of individual recipients were redacted, the source who requested anonymity said it appears they were sent to the State Department Operations Center to distribution lists and email accounts of top security officials at the State Department, Pentagon, the FBI, the White House Situation Room and the office of the Director of National Intelligence.

The first alert with a subject line “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack” which arrived from Tripoli just 25 minutes after the attack began describes an assault on the compound by 20 armed people firing shots, with explosions heard as well. It reported that Ambassador Stevens and four COM (Chief of Mission) personnel were sequestered in the compound safe haven with the 17th of February militia providing security support. Another email arriving about one-half hour later reported that shooting had stopped and that the response team was attempting to locate COM personnel.

A third email received two hours after the attack commenced updated officials that Ansar al-Sharia, a terrorist group, claimed responsibility for the Benghazi attack on Facebook and Twitter, and had also threatened to attack the Tripoli embassy. The Facebook claim was subsequently denied by the group at a news conference in the following days, but not entirely convincingly, saying: “We are saluting our people for this zeal in protecting their region, to grant victory to the prophet. The response has to be firm.”

CUDA wrote:nope I'm saying you're being willfully ignorant by not looking into it yourself.

they knew within 2 hours it was a terrorist attack, so then why did they report it as being cause by a video. and why did the president go before the UN 2 weeks later and say the same thing 6 times. the administration lied

WASHINGTON (AP) — Two hours after the U.S. Consulate came under attack in Benghazi, Libya, the White House was told that a militant group was claiming responsibility for the violence that killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.

A State Department email sent to intelligence officials and the White House situation room said the Islamist group Ansar al-Sharia claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter, and also called for an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli.

http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-told- ... itics.html

willfully ignorant.

CBS News has reported that a series of email alerts received late Tuesday evening provides additional information that was known by Obama administration officials shortly after the attack commenced. The messages were also independently obtained by ABC News. Although names of individual recipients were redacted, the source who requested anonymity said it appears they were sent to the State Department Operations Center to distribution lists and email accounts of top security officials at the State Department, Pentagon, the FBI, the White House Situation Room and the office of the Director of National Intelligence.

The first alert with a subject line “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack” which arrived from Tripoli just 25 minutes after the attack began describes an assault on the compound by 20 armed people firing shots, with explosions heard as well. It reported that Ambassador Stevens and four COM (Chief of Mission) personnel were sequestered in the compound safe haven with the 17th of February militia providing security support. Another email arriving about one-half hour later reported that shooting had stopped and that the response team was attempting to locate COM personnel.

A third email received two hours after the attack commenced updated officials that Ansar al-Sharia, a terrorist group, claimed responsibility for the Benghazi attack on Facebook and Twitter, and had also threatened to attack the Tripoli embassy. The Facebook claim was subsequently denied by the group at a news conference in the following days, but not entirely convincingly, saying: “We are saluting our people for this zeal in protecting their region, to grant victory to the prophet. The response has to be firm.”

willfully ignorant

Top Gun wrote:So getting an unverified posting from a terrorist group claiming responsibility--a posting that said group later retracted--and not immediately running with it as the gospel truth of the situation now constitutes "lying"? Do I really need to explain how many two-bit militia groups jump at trying to attach their name to every single notable attack out there, for publicity's sake? Those sorts of immediate claims are notoriously unreliable, and very difficult to verify conclusively. If you're going to suggest that this should have been the administration's public story from the very beginning, then I'm not the one being "willfully ignorant."

CUDA wrote:

Top Gun wrote:So getting an unverified posting from a terrorist group claiming responsibility--a posting that said group later retracted--and not immediately running with it as the gospel truth of the situation now constitutes "lying"? Do I really need to explain how many two-bit militia groups jump at trying to attach their name to every single notable attack out there, for publicity's sake? Those sorts of immediate claims are notoriously unreliable, and very difficult to verify conclusively. If you're going to suggest that this should have been the administration's public story from the very beginning, then I'm not the one being "willfully ignorant."

if thats all you got out of those posts then YES you are being willfully ignorant. I guess it's just too hard to have those on the left look into an issue like this. I know understanding facts is not their strong suit, and you cant vilify the right in their "witch hunt" when reality says otherwise. its hard to discuss a subject with anyone that just blanket ignores an issue. you have to want the truth on this subject. 4 people died who gives a ****. who cares that the administration lied in the aftermath just to get re-elected. who cares that they might have been able to save those lives since evidence is showing that they had a detachment less then an hour away, Who cares that they knew about the attack the minute it started and did nothing, and the attack went on for 8 hours. who cares that they continued to lie about it for 2 weeks after the fact. who cares.

Top Gun wrote:So getting an unverified posting from a terrorist group claiming responsibility--a posting that said group later retracted--and not immediately running with it as the gospel truth of the situation now constitutes "lying"? Do I really need to explain how many two-bit militia groups jump at trying to attach their name to every single notable attack out there, for publicity's sake? Those sorts of immediate claims are notoriously unreliable, and very difficult to verify conclusively. If you're going to suggest that this should have been the administration's public story from the very beginning, then I'm not the one being "willfully ignorant."

CUDA wrote:

Top Gun wrote:So getting an unverified posting from a terrorist group claiming responsibility--a posting that said group later retracted--and not immediately running with it as the gospel truth of the situation now constitutes "lying"? Do I really need to explain how many two-bit militia groups jump at trying to attach their name to every single notable attack out there, for publicity's sake? Those sorts of immediate claims are notoriously unreliable, and very difficult to verify conclusively. If you're going to suggest that this should have been the administration's public story from the very beginning, then I'm not the one being "willfully ignorant."

if thats all you got out of those posts then YES you are being willfully ignorant. I guess it's just too hard to have those on the left look into an issue like this. I know understanding facts is not their strong suit, and you cant vilify the right in their "witch hunt" when reality says otherwise. its hard to discuss a subject with anyone that just blanket ignores an issue. you have to want the truth on this subject. 4 people died who gives a ★■◆●. who cares that the administration lied in the aftermath just to get re-elected. who cares that they might have been able to save those lives since evidence is showing that they had a detachment less then an hour away, Who cares that they knew about the attack the minute it started and did nothing, and the attack went on for 8 hours. who cares that they continued to lie about it for 2 weeks after the fact. who cares.

woodchip wrote:So running with a video as the cause is not being untruthful?

MD-1118 wrote: I don't consider Facebook or Twitter to be very credible sources, though.

Top Gun wrote:Welp, now that you've decided to jump into a full-fledged hate-on, I think we're done here.

Duper wrote:People have short memories.

Exclusive: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference

When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story.

ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.

Top Gun wrote:...
I think there's a pretty clear difference between making an initial assumption that turned out to be incorrect and deliberately lying.

Top Gun wrote:Given how much furor had been stirred up by that video in the region on the same day, having the embassy attack arise from a similar situation would have made sense; it was only further investigation that showed this wasn't the case.

Prior to the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi late in the evening on Sept. 11, there was no protest outside the compound, a senior State Department official confirmed today, contradicting initial administration statements suggesting that the attack was an opportunistic reaction to unrest caused by an anti-Islam video.

In a conference call with reporters Tuesday, two senior State Department officials gave a detailed accounting of the events that lead to the death of Amb. Chris Stevens and three other Americans. The officials said that prior to the massive attack on the Benghazi compound by dozens of militants carrying heavy weaponry, there was no unrest outside the walls of the compound and no protest that anyone inside the compound was aware of.

In fact, Stevens hosted a series of meetings on the compound throughout the day, ending with a meeting with a Turkish diplomat that began at 7:30 in the evening, and all was quiet in the area.

"The ambassador walked guests out at 8:30 or so; there was nobody on the street. Then at 9:40 they saw on the security cameras that there were armed men invading the compound," a senior State Department official said. "Everything is calm at 8:30 pm, there is nothing unusual. There had been nothing unusual during the day outside."

CUDA wrote:

Duper wrote:People have short memories.

NO, people have selective memories