- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 29, 2012 at 11:39 pm #777263
JoBParticipantHMCRich
Are you trying to tell us that Susan Rice gave the American people information that was contrary to the CIA briefing she was given?
because that would be the only way SHE could lie.
“To lie is to deliver a false statement to another person which the speaking person knows is not the whole truth, intentionally.”
From wiki
If that’s the briefing the CIA gave her,
it’s the one they gave her.
November 30, 2012 at 8:36 am #777264
HMC RichParticipantObama is lying. His Secretary of State repeatedly blamed the video. His spokesperson (Rice) blamed the video. Jay Carney blamed the video.
Then the story changed. wow. And they have not said who changed it other than finally saying it was the admin, no the FBI, no the CIA.
Funny how misinformation works.
Wakeflood, Ever hear the movie title. THAT WAS THEN, THIS IS NOW? BTW, Clinton could have nailed Bin Laden and didn’t. Now that would have changed the future. Bomb any Chinese Embassies lately.
No. You are defending an administration that is not being clear. There was a skewing of the narrative. They changed the story. Deal with it.
November 30, 2012 at 8:57 am #777265
HMC RichParticipantDobro. Why does there need to be this investigation? It is really on the Administration to come clean. But they won’t and that is why I am complaining.
It’s pretty obvious that Susan Rice was a pawn. But why? Why the story about a video causing the attack and the death?
Because, the admin was pushing a line of cock and bull that Al Qaida had been minimized. Obviously not and it was counter to the administrations propoganda machine.
When the acting Libyan President says it was a preplanned terrorist attack, why then did the CIA talking points get repeated for a few more days. Why would the Admin, Carney and crew not call it a Terrorist Attack?
Because it would hurt the President’s re-election.
Here is what he said nine days afterwards. QUESTION: “We have reports that the White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Do you have information indicating that it was Iran, or al-Qaeda was behind organizing the protests?”
OBAMA: “Well, we’re still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”
— President Obama, Univision Town Hall, Sept. 20
At the UN General Assembly, 14 days after the attack.
“That is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.”
— Obama, speech to the U.N. General Assembly, Sept. 25
Then on Sept 26 Jay Carney said that the President said it was a Terror Attack
It took the President 15 days to change the story (with as much damage control as possible).
At least Hillary changed her story earlier.
I think the President owes the American people an apology.
November 30, 2012 at 2:16 pm #777266
JoBParticipantHMCRich
You are really invested in the concept of the BIG LIE aren’t you?
It really is too bad you do’t apply the same standards to the fellas on what you consider to be your side of the political aisle.
your outrage would be both more believable and understandable if you did.
November 30, 2012 at 3:14 pm #777267
redblackParticipantNovember 30, 2012 at 3:41 pm #777268
wakefloodParticipantWow, really Rich? Oy. OK guys, I’m out. There’s no point in beating this one further…
November 30, 2012 at 4:03 pm #777269
JanSParticipantRich, when did you drink the kool-aid.? Wow…such paranoia !
November 30, 2012 at 4:36 pm #777270
redblackParticipanti don’t want to talk about him like he’s not here, jan, but rich seems desperate to find something – anything – to shatter the president’s cool, calculating teflon appearance.
i think his reelection will advance cases of obama derangement syndrome into full-blown conspiracy paranoia, where sufferers see richard daley – or maybe even karl marx! – and an army of syndicalist goons behind every rock, bush, tree, and news presenter.
November 30, 2012 at 4:43 pm #777271
JoBParticipantNovember 30, 2012 at 5:01 pm #777272
dobroParticipant“Why does there need to be this investigation? It is really on the Administration to come clean.”
Indeed, why have an investigation? After all, we have the 3 Repub stooges who were there and saw the whole thing and…well,maybe not, but you know Obama sits all day in front of his magic TV that showed the whole thing and…well, maybe not,but the CIA people were there…oh, we’re not gonna believe them!
“It’s pretty obvious that Susan Rice was a pawn.”
That’s not what Crusty McCain and his amigos were saying 3 weeks ago. She was a mastermind. It looks like their story has changed. Repeatedly. Maybe they need some investigatin’ too.
November 30, 2012 at 6:07 pm #777273
wakefloodParticipantWatch what McCain, Graham, and even Snow have to say about A)Rice and B)John Kerry. They all practically begged Obama to appt. Kerry instead of Rice. (I mean BEGGED.) First and most importantly, that opens up a Mass. senate seat for their boy Scotty Brown to level the playing field against Warren. And secondly, it takes Kerry out of play for Sec. of Defense where he would likely take recommend taking huge chunk out of the war budget.
Kills two birds with one appointment.
This has less to do with Rice than they’re letting on.
December 1, 2012 at 5:13 am #777274
JoBParticipantDecember 1, 2012 at 5:21 am #777275
wakefloodParticipantShocked! Shocked I say! :-)
December 1, 2012 at 9:07 pm #777276
c@lbobMemberJon Stewart showed the tape of Condoleeza Rice on a Sunday show telling us about how aluminum tubes in Iraq could only be used for making weapons grade plutomium.
Everybody in the Bush administration senior military and foreign policy establishment had information that that was not so.
Rs are hypocrites, not suprisingly.
December 1, 2012 at 9:44 pm #777277
JKBParticipantKerry in play for SecDef? Mister Winter Soldier himself? That might be the Worst Idea Ever.
December 4, 2012 at 7:45 am #777278
HMC RichParticipantKerry won’t get swift boated this time.
JanS, I don’t like Kool-Aid and would not follow Jim Jones, but I will I will have a shot or two of Makers Mark.
When you guys “attack” I know I am on the right track making some uncomfortable.
OK, lets re-assess the situation because I have dug deeper to understand some nuances to this story.
From the beginning there were news reports that the Building in Benghazi was a “Consulate”. It was not. It was a US Mission. From what I can tell it was obviously not an Embassy nor a Consulate. It was something else not considered US Territory.
The President called it a US Mission. They obviously knew it was not “Sovereign US Territory”. This explains a couple of things. No Marines, Not fully funded.
A consulate or embassy would have been staffed with a better security force.
The administration and CIA were happy to have a storyline that did not show that this was basically a CIA outpost. It was a place to meet all kinds of people of various interests in the region such as some diplomats or persons of interest and even “freedom fighters” good and bad.
From what I have been able to tell, the CIA also used this place and possibly the Annex to deal with the Syrian conflict and or possible black ops and interrogation (but this is not clear).
Remember, Putin draws a line in the sand regarding Syria. If the US were to send above board help to the anti-Assad elements, Russia and the US could have a major problem. But covert action would be preferable to the US if this is partially about ending Assad’s reign. And today the President drew a line in the sand regarding chemical weapons in Syria.
The accounts of what happen had elements of truth but also had references to throw people off. The reason why the administration did not offer full transparency is most likely due to the fact that it was NOT a Consulate. It was a CIA outpost for the region which they did not want very much information to come out, and it showed that government agencies make mistakes.
The other issue is that the press in many cases called it a Consulate. This threw me off. Consulates are sovereign territory. This is why I was irritated about the security teams or lack of them.
Also, at first there were conflicting reports on how Ambassador Stevens died and how he was treated before he died.
Also, I am appalled that any of you thought race was part of this. I did not know what Susan Rice’s ethnicity was/is nor do I give a rats ass what color somebodies skin is. Grow up. It just shows how petty you are.
The bottom line is the Ambassador and three other Americans were killed. This was a CIA outpost of some sort. The talking points were changed to protect classified information. The CIA knew it was a planned terrorist attack but the administration and State Department did not want to actually say that and tried to deflect that information with a fake narrative about the video There are discrepancies on how much information was known ahead of time, but there had been warnings. Ambassador Stevens requests were turned down.
All in all a misinformation campaign with elements of truth to throw people off. A patriot gets caught in a personal personal problem which helps deflect blame. Basically all sides trying to cover up the real story and their butts so as not to get the full blame.
The best we can hope for is that the government can learn from this disaster and avoid future similar issues.
December 4, 2012 at 10:10 am #777279
JanSParticipantbullcrap…who made you the information guru re: Benghazi…?
December 4, 2012 at 1:44 pm #777280
redblackParticipanteeeasy, jan. put down the mallet and back away slowly. :) i think rich has finally taken a conciliatory tone here and done some homework instead of repeating the party line.
hey, rich. that narrative makes much more sense than the flurry of b.s. that’s been coming from the teevee and innertoobz. thanks.
what are your sources?
and, for the record, i’d never accuse you of racism. but some of those (mostly republican) crackers in congress have thinly-veiled opinions about women and blacks. the only reason they don’t come right out with their true feelings is that they’re political animals, and they know what would happen to their careers.
do they believe that racism is really wrong, though? hell no they don’t.
December 4, 2012 at 4:23 pm #777281
dobroParticipant“Basically all sides trying to cover up the real story and their butts so as not to get the full blame.”
Funny how everybody seems to forget there’s still a war going on. Any of you patriots remember “loose lips sink ships”? In your narrative you seem to have finally realized that these activities involved the CIA, secret operations, terrorism and Syria. Do you now think it would have been a great idea to broadcast classified info to the nation on Meet the Press?
No mention either of the Repubs who immediately politicized the situation to attack Obama during the election.But credit, at least, for some research and original thinking.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.