New Disclosures on Benghazi

Status
Not open for further replies.
16.5 said:
GREAT POINT! I am terribly sorry, I had thought I had deleted that reference. That was my mistake. Please allow me to atone.

A senior White House official was fired
Click to expand...

What about my other question? Why would an NSC non-proliferation director working on the US's negotiations with Iran have "inside information" about the State Department's response to Benghazi and its internal investigative report?
 
plague311 said:
I apologize, let me break it down again.

You stated that (without the stuff inbetween):

That's what you said in your last post. You then backed up the hilited part with:

That doesn't match up. You're implying that she changed the report to mean something else. They really didn't, the chairman said that there was at least one instance where the language was changed. There was no factual change, there was no distortion. They churched it up, and that happens in everything. From the private sector to government.

You also implied that two hours was a MASSIVE amount of time for a briefing on the report of Bengahzi. I didn't see that as really being that long. I have 2 hour meetings at work about high school schedule changes that are about 3 pages long. 2 hours is a warmup.

Does that help?
Click to expand...

Yes thank you very much! I am having a difficult time recalling that discussion, but i believe that the point of my original post was to show that the Panel was not independent.

Thanks for your questions.
 
ANTPogo said:
What about my other question? Why would an NSC non-proliferation director working on the US's negotiations with Iran have "inside information" about the State Department's response to Benghazi and its internal investigative report?
Click to expand...

Because he was a senior White House Official working on the President's National Security Council.
 
ANTPogo said:
So, the latest "new disclosure on Benghazi" is that, among the many rude, abrasive tweets made by this rude, abrasive jackass who got fired, two can be cherrypicked to sorta maybe kinda, if you squint really hard, imply that the Republican nonsense narrative is correct?

I see.
Click to expand...

Par for the course.
 
NoahFence said:
Par for the course.
Click to expand...

One does not have to "squint" very hard, in fact at all, if one reads the actual quote:

"Look, Issa is an ass, but he's on to something here with the @HillaryClinton whitewash of accountability for Benghazi," he tweeted.

/I did find the reference to "cherry picking" hilarious though.
 
16.5 said:
One does not have to "squint" very hard, in fact at all, if one reads the actual quote:

"Look, Issa is an ass, but he's on to something here with the @HillaryClinton whitewash of accountability for Benghazi," he tweeted.

/I did find the reference to "cherry picking" hilarious though.
Click to expand...

So you're saying the only problem you and the other Benghazi anti-Obama/Hillary mob has with this ordeal is that they were caught in CYA mode?
 
Unabogie said:
I think many of us avid readers are still waiting for an explanation of exactly what the accusation actually is. It sounds like a whole lot of JAQing off, with a healthy dose of goal post shifting. Perhaps now is a good time to remind avid readers what you think all of this proves?
Click to expand...

Hillary Bad.™
 
remirol said:
Hillary Bad.™
Click to expand...

I get that. But if you asked me to explain what I think was wrong about the Iraq war, I can easily list out the bad actors and what they did.

1. Bush claimed that the evidence showed WMDs.
2. Cheney went so far as to claim there were "no doubts".
3. Rumsfeld said the whole thing would take six weeks and not ten years.
4. Rumsfeld said "we know where the weapons are".
5. Thousands of Americans died there, tens of thousands maimed, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed and maimed.
6. Abu Ghraib was a stain on our national honor.
7. The whole thing was a war of choice since the inspectors were told to leave before they finished their work, which would have shown there to be zero WMDs.

Ok, now. Make me a list like this for Benghazi so we can test it out.
 
Unabogie said:
I get that. But if you asked me to explain what I think was wrong about the Iraq war, I can easily list out the bad actors and what they did.
Click to expand...

Judging from this thread so far, you are never going to get a response containing such a list. It's just a JAQ-fest.

Ok, now. Make me a list like this for Benghazi so we can test it out.
Click to expand...

Assuming you are talking to 16.5 here, though replying to me. My opinion is that the list (much like Issa's list, were you able to ask him to do the same and somehow compel him to reply) consists of one two-word item, which I have previously stated in this thread.
 
remirol said:
Judging from this thread so far, you are never going to get a response containing such a list. It's just a JAQ-fest.



Assuming you are talking to 16.5 here, though replying to me. My opinion is that the list (much like Issa's list, were you able to ask him to do the same and somehow compel him to reply) consists of one two-word item, which I have previously stated in this thread.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
16.5 said:
CNN has obviously turned its attention to the failures in Benghazi.

Most will recall Hillary Clinton's arrogant "testimony", during which she claimed:

"Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they’d go kill some Americans," Clinton said. "What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?"

In what appears to be a fairly non-partisan article, CNN's John King publishes a piece that answers Hillary Clinton's question entitled: "Why Benghazi Matters."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/06/politics/king-benghazi/index.html

While King claims that there are three critical issues that remain unresolved, avid readers of this thread know that there are at least three more:

4. Why the CIA/State Department/White House claim that the attack spontaneously arose out of a non-existent anti-video protest rally outside the Consulate, when there is no evidence that there was any such protest rally?

5. Why did the Administration persist in the spontaneous protest cover story long after it had been proven preposterous?

6. Why are three Executive agencies refusing to cooperate with the investigation, and in fact are actively trying to thwart it? State (through their non-disclosure agreements) DoD (by refusing to cooperate in making its ON DUTY personnel available for testimony) and the Director of National Intelligence (through the CIA's abusive intimidation tactics designed to prevent anyone talking to Congress.)
Click to expand...

Thought I'd bump this post regarding why Benghazi matters.

Good stuff.
 
16.5 said:
1. Why the CIA/State Department/White House claim that the attack spontaneously arose out of a non-existent anti-video protest rally outside the Consulate, when there is no evidence that there was any such protest rally?

2. Why did the Administration persist in the spontaneous protest cover story long after it had been proven preposterous?

3. Why are three Executive agencies refusing to cooperate with the investigation, and in fact are actively trying to thwart it? State (through their non-disclosure agreements) DoD (by refusing to cooperate in making its ON DUTY personnel available for testimony) and the Director of National Intelligence (through the CIA's abusive intimidation tactics designed to prevent anyone talking to Congress.)
Click to expand...

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. Three actual claims.

1. Why would it matter if the attack arose out of a protest over a video or was just an attack from people who hated us for other reasons?

2. What is "long" after? Are you saying a week or two is a long time? We're not talking years here, are we? And why is it a cover story instead of merely the fog of an unplanned attack?

3. This is all moot, right? Everyone and their sister has testified, so this was just grandstanding over nothing.
 
Unabogie said:
Ok, now we're getting somewhere. Three actual claims.

1. Why would it matter if the attack arose out of a protest over a video or was just an attack from people who hated us for other reasons?

2. What is "long" after? Are you saying a week or two is a long time? We're not talking years here, are we? And why is it a cover story instead of merely the fog of an unplanned attack?

3. This is all moot, right? Everyone and their sister has testified, so this was just grandstanding over nothing.
Click to expand...

That was posted three months ago in this thread, there are six items, and you have managed mangle factually the three you bothered to mention.
 
16.5 said:
That was posted three months ago in this thread, there are six items, and you have managed mangle factually the three you bothered to mention.
Click to expand...

Edify me. Because from my viewpoint, it looks like partisan bullcrap, but I'm willing to have you explain in terms I can understand.
 
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom