New Disclosures on Benghazi

Status
Not open for further replies.
Argument by "nothing to see here."

Interesting that was exactly the same spin from the administration yesterday.

Today though at least randfan confirms that the talking points were edited to remove the references to al Quaeda and Ansar al Sharia.

Nothing to see here folks. Nothing at all.
 
16.5 said:
Argument by "nothing to see here."

Interesting that was exactly the same spin from the administration yesterday.

Today though at least randfan confirms that the talking points were edited to remove the references to al Quaeda and Ansar al Sharia.

Nothing to see here folks. Nothing at all.
Click to expand...

Who edited what in the talking points, and what was left in, 16.5?
 
16.5 said:
Argument by "nothing to see here."

Interesting that was exactly the same spin from the administration yesterday.

Today though at least randfan confirms that the talking points were edited to remove the references to al Quaeda and Ansar al Sharia.

Nothing to see here folks. Nothing at all.
Click to expand...
Things get edited all the time.

Who edited the talking points and why?

Until you answer those questions you are acting like a conspiracy theorist.
 
RandFan said:
Things get edited all the time.

Who edited the talking points and why?
Click to expand...

It sounds like we need Congressional Hearings to determine those things...

Until you answer those questions you are acting like a conspiracy theorist.
Click to expand...

Oh. Right. You object to congress asking those questions too.
 
RandFan said:
To what end?

A tu quoque is when you try and justify an action with another. I have said over and over that if there was lying then I would want someone to be held accountable. I have not tried to justify anything. I have demonstrated that outrage is fake. There was no outrage about diplomatic deaths under Bush.
Click to expand...
Did the Bush admin attempt to place blame for them on a utube video?

ps. Just more off topic deflection.

CBS agrees with Obamaniacs; Don't Talk About Benghazi.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guyben...pondents-thorough-benghazi-reporting-n1591242
 
AlBell said:
Did the Bush admin attempt to place blame for them on a utube video?
Click to expand...
Hang on, now we are moving goal posts. I thought lying in the memo was the problem? So you are saying there was a cover up. To what end?
 
If I just assume Obama read and modified the talking points, what was the point of doing so?

What was it supposed to accomplish? Did it?

I'm having a hard time understanding what the fuss is about. Please tell me it isn't just one of these, "See? I told you so," meant to support a larger narrative about Obama's true character or something. Lie to me if you have to.
 
ANTPogo said:
There have been Congressional hearings on those things.
Click to expand...
The attack was in September. It's now May. We've had 3 hearings and plenty of time for investigations to know if something actionable happened. Where is the evidence?

The last time I visited the 9/11 truther forum there were calls for hearings. How many hearings do we need?
 
RandFan said:
The attack was in September. It's now May. We've had 3 hearings and plenty of time for investigations to know if something actionable happened. Where is the evidence?

The last time I visited the 9/11 truther forum there were calls for hearings. How many hearings do we need?
Click to expand...

The difference being is that Congress is still holding new hearing and questioning new people.

Amazing! New information may even come out!
 
Newtons Bit said:
The difference being is that Congress is still holding new hearing and questioning new people.
Click to expand...

Yes, because Issa's previous fishing expeditions have consistently failed to come up with anything, so he's going to keep trying.

Amazing! New information may even come out!
Click to expand...

May come out? Isn't that what yesterday's circus was supposed to be for? Did we learn any new information?
 
RandFan said:
Things get edited all the time.

Who edited the talking points and why?

Until you answer those questions you are acting like a conspiracy theorist.
Click to expand...

NOW WE ARE GETTING SOMEWHERE!

The ORIGINAL draft of the CIA talking points memo contained references to Al Quaeda and Ansar al Sharia. They were deleted.

Lets first talk about what else the original CIA draft said! The CIA draft also suggested that the facilities had been the subject of surveillance and offered a reminder that in the previous six months there had been “at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy.”

Rand Fan asks: Who did it.

Well, we know that too!

The references to Ansar al Sharia were deleted following distribution of the draft and after the CIA received comments from State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland. What happened next? Nuland was still unhappy and told the CIA that State Department leadership was contacting National Security Council officials directly. At virtually the same time, White House officials responded by stating that the State Department’s concerns would have to be taken into account.

Hmmm, that escalated quickly.

/conspiracy theory? DRINK!
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
NOW WE ARE GETTING SOMEWHERE!

The ORIGINAL draft of the CIA talking points memo contained references to Al Quaeda and Ansar al Sharia. They were deleted.

Rand Fan asks: Who did it.

Well, we know that too!
Click to expand...

Yes, we do. And we know that references to al Qaeda were deleted before anyone outside the CIA saw the memo.

Lets first talk about what else the original CIA draft said!
Click to expand...

Yes, let's.

What did the original CIA draft say about the origins of the attack, and how was that verbiage changed and by who, 16.5?
 
16.5 said:
NOW WE ARE GETTING SOMEWHERE!

The ORIGINAL draft of the CIA talking points memo contained references to Al Quaeda and Ansar al Sharia. They were deleted.

Lets first talk about what else the original CIA draft said! The CIA draft also suggested that the facilities had been the subject of surveillance and offered a reminder that in the previous six months there had been “at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy.”

Rand Fan asks: Who did it.

Well, we know that too!

The references to Ansar al Sharia were deleted following distribution of the draft and after the CIA received comments from State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland. What happened next? Nuland was still unhappy and told the CIA that State Department leadership was contacting National Security Council officials directly. At virtually the same time, White House officials responded by stating that the State Department’s concerns would have to be taken into account.

Hmmm, that escalated quickly.

/conspiracy theory? DRINK!
Click to expand...

You didn't list specific names for State Department leadership or National Security Council officials. Thus, conspiracy theory!

Trying to find out who those people are is also conspiracy theorizing!

Trying to figure out why the State Department removed specific references to terrorist groups is conspiracy theorizing!
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
NOW WE ARE GETTING SOMEWHERE!

The ORIGINAL draft of the CIA talking points memo contained references to Al Quaeda and Ansar al Sharia. They were deleted.

Lets first talk about what else the original CIA draft said! The CIA draft also suggested that the facilities had been the subject of surveillance and offered a reminder that in the previous six months there had been “at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy.”

Rand Fan asks: Who did it.

Well, we know that too!

The references to Ansar al Sharia were deleted following distribution of the draft and after the CIA received comments from State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland. What happened next? Nuland was still unhappy and told the CIA that State Department leadership was contacting National Security Council officials directly. At virtually the same time, White House officials responded by stating that the State Department’s concerns would have to be taken into account.

Hmmm, that escalated quickly.

/conspiracy theory? DRINK!
Click to expand...

ANTPogo said:
Yes, we do. And we know that references to al Qaeda were deleted before anyone outside the CIA saw the memo.

Yes, let's.

What did the original CIA draft say about the origins of the attack, and how was that verbiage changed and by who, 16.5?
Click to expand...
Not sure how many times you can ask a question and have it ignored.
 
ANTPogo said:
Yes, we do. And we know that references to al Qaeda were deleted before anyone outside the CIA saw the memo.

Yes, let's.

What did the original CIA draft say about the origins of the attack, and how was that verbiage changed and by who, 16.5?
Click to expand...

I already answered that, it was changed in response to comments of Nuland.

But we are just one quarter of the way through the story!

What happened after Nuland said State Department were going to the council and the White House told the CIA to take the State Departments comments into account?

What happened next is that Ben Rhodes top adviser to President Obama on national security and foreign policy—further advised the group that the issues would be resolved in a meeting of top administration officials the following morning at the White House.
 
16.5 said:
You waited 8 whole minutes for that post. Thanks, Rand Fan!
Click to expand...
??? What the hell does that have to do with anything? My post was about events not time. You've been asked these questions over and over.
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
i already answered that, it was changed in response to comments of nuland.

But we are just one quarter of the way through the story!

What happened after nuland said state department were going to the council and the white house told the cia to take the state departments comments into account?

What happened next is that ben rhodes top adviser to president obama on national security and foreign policy—further advised the group that the issues would be resolved in a meeting of top administration officials the following morning at the white house.
Click to expand...

omg 16.5, who was typing on the computer! That is the important part!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom