- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 96,114
- Reaction score
- 33,461
- Location
- SE Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
So now you're attacking the credibility of the article that YOU posted?
I see you are worried.
So now you're attacking the credibility of the article that YOU posted?
To "administration personnel" not to "The Administratoin". While you may not like it Adam, that is a legitimate difference. "Administration personnel" at times refers not specifically to the POTUS himself but the staff underneath him. I'ts not about being "wrong" or "inartfully word", it's about having a generalized understanding of how things are referenced within the government beuracracy.
It absolutely could be that Patreaus was suggesting that in the morning the CIA had it as part of their report but it was taken out prior to their submission of it to the administratoin.
It also could absolutely be that Patreaus was suggesting that the CIA had it in their report they submitted, but at the point when the official report went out to the administrations officials it was no longer there.
Simply because you dislike that option doesn't make it not plausible nor legitimate. Just because you wish to reword it yourself into "The Administration" rather than "Administration Officials" doesn't make it the truth. And the reality is, it's a one line summary of a testimony that is stated in a way that leaves WHO made the change 100% unanswered and ambiguous. There is not only "one way" one can "logically" read the line about info being taken out because it does not in any way clearly indicate who took that information out. You are GUESSING based on the information present, same as everyone else...unlike some of us though, you're foolishly suggesting that the interpritation favorable to your desires is the only "real" way it could possibly mean.
I see you are worried.
To "administration personnel" not to "The Administratoin".
Worried about you.
Ahh yes, a person attack. That'll prove Obama isn't a clown.
Haha -- good self parody.
Try concentrating on the facts of the case. Patraeus didn't say what everyone thought he would.
Rubio said, “I think increasingly the focus is going to be on the fact that despite a growing and significant amount of information being provided to the State Department about the growing risk in the Benghazi area, they did not take adequate enough security measures in order to secure the facility and the personnel within it.”
“I think that’s what the growing amount of inquiries should be about in the days to come.”
Petraeus testifies that Benghazi attack was terrorist act, lawmaker says - The Washington Post
There is one simple conclusion to all of this. No one really cares. Fact is obama himself could have issued a " stand down " order and covered it up after SHTF. People will. Be mad, but nothing can be done. Ultimately " mission accomplished " delay the facts past the election.
So the CIA tricked Obama into telling Rice to go on all those morning shows and blame it on a video?
Obama 'could have' issued a stand down order? He also could be from the Planet Mars, too.
You're so anxious to blame something on Obama, you have lost all credibility here. I understand they're still looking for somebody to blame for not notifying the Titanic that they were about to hit a iceberg. What did the President know about that?
I don't need anything else to blame Obama. He said in the debate the buck stops with him and why shouldn't he - you, and his supporters don't care that 4 men are dead, one a US ambassador that was not adequately protected. I've been in our consulates, our embassies, and the one in France is far more protected then the one in Benghazi - imagine that competence (lack there of). Obama is already a total failure to me so I don't need any further information to cast blame on him. His administration failed. He has taken no action other then to "investigate" and delay to get relected. No one was been fired even the woman who testified she personally turned down requests for more security. Since obama and his administration can't even find it necessary to replace such incredible failures I can cast the blame on him - but I will reiterate - people are dead and the left in America is proving beyond any doubt - they don't care!
No, somebody gave them crap advice. Why in God's name would anybody tell Rice to go and tell a story that couldn't possibly be maintained if they knew it was a lie?
How did you feel about the 3000 dead because the Bush administration ignored CIA warnings about a Bin Laden attack? It seems to me that this proves the right doesn't care about America.
This is the part that confuses the hell out of me. What real advantage would any of these supposed deceptions given the WH for the election? It really doesn’t make sense. That goes for Petraeus getting the boot, too. The election impact of that has to be pretty close to nil (Petraeus being a known GOP member, and had even been the subject of idle speculation of the GOP nomination for Prez being in his future).After four long years of Obama, do you really have to ask such a silly question? The answer is: For political advantage in the election, of course!
This is the part that confuses the hell out of me. What real advantage would any of these supposed deceptions given the WH for the election?
I don't need anything else to blame Obama. He said in the debate the buck stops with him and why shouldn't he - you, and his supporters don't care that 4 men are dead, one a US ambassador that was not adequately protected. I've been in our consulates, our embassies, and the one in France is far more protected then the one in Benghazi - imagine that competence (lack there of). Obama is already a total failure to me so I don't need any further information to cast blame on him. His administration failed. He has taken no action other then to "investigate" and delay to get relected. No one was been fired even the woman who testified she personally turned down requests for more security. Since obama and his administration can't even find it necessary to replace such incredible failures I can cast the blame on him - but I will reiterate - people are dead and the left in America is proving beyond any doubt - they don't care!
Where is there any certainty that the CIA took the line out? I don't see anything that says who exactly took that out. That's one of the big questions now.....who removed the stuff about terrorists?
And don't forget there were people watching this live.
I'm just curious as to if you held Bush accountable for the 9-11 attacks when we were attacked on US soil and over 3000 died in one day. Where you also as critical of Bush when he started a war on bad intel about the WMD where we ended on in a decade long war killing thousands of our troops.
Personally, I'm not happy when Americans die, but I also know it is impossible to prevent every attack. Congress reduced the funds spent on security for our ambassadors. While it's horrible we lost 4 Americans in the Benghazi attack, it is far from the worst thing that has happened to the US and I see no reason to blame Obama for it.
I'm just curious as to if you held Bush accountable for the 9-11 attacks when we were attacked on US soil and over 3000 died in one day. Where you also as critical of Bush when he started a war on bad intel about the WMD where we ended on in a decade long war killing thousands of our troops.
Personally, I'm not happy when Americans die, but I also know it is impossible to prevent every attack. Congress reduced the funds spent on security for our ambassadors. While it's horrible we lost 4 Americans in the Benghazi attack, it is far from the worst thing that has happened to the US and I see no reason to blame Obama for it.
Apparently the CIA report was scrubbed, the question is who exactly scrubbed it and then who told them to do so. IMO this goes right to the top.
Wherever it goes, I want to know where.