• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Petraeus testifies CIA's Libya talking points were changed, lawmaker says

Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

The real shame, in this whole discussion, is that the problem is not specifically who made a successful attack, but that ANY attack was possible, and very likely to succeed, with the super lax security in a super dangerous place. Who denied the request to upgrade security (and WHY), who authorized the prior downgrade of security (and WHY), who "ignored" the Obama order (during the lenghty attack) to help those under siege (and WHY)? These are, IMHO, the important things to be determined, not so much which specific band of thugs did the deed. These attacks are far from "odd" or "unusual" in that part of the lawless world. If the U.S. gov't insists on placing its personnel in harms way, the very least that they are owed is reasonable security (with backup). Obama seems to feel that "eventually" bringing "those responsible" to "justice" makes it all just fine and dandy, better not to "show disrespect" for those in Libya that are not really in control, than to assign security that makes our doubt of their capability obvious. USA, USA, USA...
 
Zyphlin said:
To "administration personnel" not to "The Administratoin".
Click to expand...

That's a rather absurd distinction to make, as there's obviously no way to transfer something an amorphous "administration" without actually transferring it to "administration personnel". You're bending over backwards to find ambiguity where none exists.
 
AdamT said:
Haha -- good self parody.
Click to expand...

Try concentrating on the facts of the case. Patraeus didn't say what everyone thought he would.
 
American said:
Try concentrating on the facts of the case. Patraeus didn't say what everyone thought he would.
Click to expand...

He certainly doesn't appear to have said what you thought he did when you posted the thread -- that's for sure.
 
We should also keep in mind that most of we're hearing isn't what Petraeus said, but rather what Peter King says he said. King is a hard core Obama critic and Tea Partier.

From what others are saying, it sounds to me like they will be getting away from the conspiracy theories about a supposed cover up to the real issue, which is what happened with security arrangements leading up to the attack.

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
Click to expand...
 
CalGun said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Bronson said:
So the CIA tricked Obama into telling Rice to go on all those morning shows and blame it on a video?
Click to expand...

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?

We leave that sort of crap to the Far Right.
 
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!

Wiggen said:
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?
Click to expand...
 
CalGun said:
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
Wiggen said:
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?
Click to expand...

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!
 
You mean like BJ Clinton playing golf instead of giving the green light to kill osama bin laden and handing off an inept intelligence community that ignored radical isalm even after the USS Cole, the African Embassy bombings, and Somolia. That you want to pin on Bush because he didn't have jets flying around the WTC that day because an intelligence briefing said someone was studying flying but not landing? That is the best you got? That it woefully inept to putting an ambassador alone in a complex that has already been attacked twice, in a city where the Brits and Red Cross had to leave because of the threat; you have failed to make your point just like obama failed to protect our people. Why do you care? obama said the buck stops with him or don't you believe him? The left does not care they placate the deaths of these four people as "oh well those evil radicals" while not casting a single stone at the administration which is at best inept and at worst wanted to make a mockery of it calling it a riot induced threat instead of al queda. NO political intent there - and since that dribble didn't fly just go into stall model because that 47% really doesn't care - they just want their bennies.


Wiggen said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Diogenes said:
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!
Click to expand...
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).

I don’t see how it is any sort a big flipping deal that the words “al qaeda” weren’t used in the public description very early on when they still just suspected the link. When you aren’t yet confident you keep it vague on the details you do not feel sure of, yet. Otherwise you end up like Rice, giving the impression of deception or something to hide when you have to roll back parts.

Rice, for her part, I just don’t know. Part of all of this is that there was plenty of confusion by reporters and media outlets, conflating between what happened in Egypt and what happened in Libya. Rice might have been somewhat victim of that, too. Or she saw/heard some speculation that ultimately wasn’t cleared to go public, for the reasons I give in the paragraph above, but tinged how she was describing things. *shrug*
 
Dwight said:
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?
Click to expand...

Obama has been campaigning for the last four years, and part of his stump speech has been that "al Quaeda is on the run." The guy has a mental block against using the terms "Islamist terrorists" or "Islamic extremists" and just cannot bring himself to admit, even to himself, that his apology tour and "reset" to the Muslim world has been an abject failure. Moreover, the decision was probably made by his brain trust (Valerie Jarrett); the only decision Obama seems capable of making is to vote "present."

As for Susan Rice, anyone who is willing to be a sock puppet for Obama can have no credibilty on the world stage, and it would be a national embarassment for her to represent us.
 
CalGun said:
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
American said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, at this point we don't know who took it out. Did someone at CIA change it after Petraeus saw it? Someone at the White House? Someone at NDI or elsewhere? Safe money is on the CIA or the WH.

This is more serious than partisan politics. If a person or office stopped the POTUS from seeing this information then that is serious. While this particular event of withholding information from the POTUS did not cost lives, it makes one wonder what else has been withheld from him that senior intelligence officers deemed worthy of the POTUS' attention. This is same type of crap that was pulled in the Bush administration where the POTUS was insulated from the information he needed by the people around him.

That sh!t has got to stop.
 
Hairytic said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think it is the lying that is the problem...always is...one would think by now the politicians would have figured that out.
 
No true partisan hack would blame their beloved; clearly not for anything. I guess you didn't listen to obama in the debate he said the buck stopped with him and still you give him a pass.

As for the first 9-11 the tragedy began under BJ Clinton and was ignored by both BJ Clinton and GW Bush. Both I'm sure believe they could have done things different and changed things and I've seen that in their discussions. What do I see out of obama - lies - blame - not me - and even worse running out the clock for the big game.

As to failed intel for Iraq I disagree with the conventional theory there were no WMD's. I could debate it with you all day long. Just because you don't have a barrel of some horrible chemical doesn't mean he didn't have a chemist that was ready to make it, and if you don't believe me ask a Kurd - they'll tell you first hand how Saddam had WMD's and used them. Or maybe you are a greater expert than our CIA, British Intelligence, the UN, Hillary, BJ Clinton, and just about everyone else that agreed there was a threat of WMD's with Saddam.


Hairytic said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
sawyerloggingon said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wherever it goes, I want to know where.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom