Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 34

Thread: The Benghazi Talking Points And how they were changed to obscure the truth

  1. #11
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,926

    Re: The Benghazi Talking Points And how they were changed to obscure the truth

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    I'm going to Favorite that link so I can read it later -- too long right now.

    But!! How very interesting that the article is dated May 13, 2013. Weird.
    Probably not. Magazines sometimes date their issues ahead this way. Not saying that this is the case here, but it might be.

  2. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: The Benghazi Talking Points And how they were changed to obscure the truth

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    I am less concerned right now with what he did the day before the attack, than I am the day of, and after. What strategy sessions did he and others have discussing duping the American people and covering their own actions so as not to effect the campaign.
    Well see that's why I am narrowing it down.....as his schedule for that Day is wiped Clean. On the 10th he was speaking at a College In Florida. The Media had him trailing in Polls and losing ground to Romney with the Election. According to what was up Prior with his schedule.....he was to fly out west for a Fundraiser. The Attack took place at 6pm on the 11th. AQ releases their statement 18hrs before the attack.

    So he may have been in flight when the call came in.....could have been landing. Or even got the call and said Warp speed to DC. As all we know for sure is that Panetta Validated he had spoke to him by phone.

    Moreover.....all we need do is remember what Obama was talking about with the Election. Which Libya and Benghazi had not come up until the Debate with Romney. Which would be afterwards. So we do know that nothing about Libya and Benghazi was on his mind at the time he is giving the speech to those Florida students. As there is not One mention of either in any coverage at that time.

  3. #13
    Educating the Ignorant
    zimmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:04 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,484
    Blog Entries
    12

    Re: The Benghazi Talking Points And how they were changed to obscure the truth

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    And Bush wasn't discussing aircraft crashing into New York City because it hadn't freaking happened yet. Are you seriously criticizing Obama for a lack of precognition?
    No... we are criticizing Obama and Clinton for not providing enough protection for a Consulate in an area with terrorists.

    We are criticizing Obama for lying about the cause of the strike... stating it was a video.

    We are beyond criticizing Obama and Clinton for covering up, lying to the families of the dead, and delaying this as if it's some bit of junk mail.

    And we are criticizing the administration for threatening those who wanted to tell the truth.

    The buck stops where in this administration?
    The Clintons are what happens...
    when you have NO MORAL COMPASS.

  4. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: The Benghazi Talking Points And how they were changed to obscure the truth

    Yeah, this has been staring in their face all along and Hillary knows Ansar Al Sharia provides security for that Part of Libya.

    Witnesses and the authorities have called Ahmed Abu Khattala one of the ringleaders of the Sept. 11 attack on the American diplomatic mission here. But just days after President Obama reasserted his vow to bring those responsible to justice, Mr. Abu Khattala spent two leisurely hours on Thursday evening at a crowded luxury hotel, sipping a strawberry frappe on a patio and scoffing at the threats coming from the American and Libyan governments.

    few, like the militia group Ansar al-Shariah that is linked to Mr. Abu Khattala and that officials in Washington and Tripoli agree was behind the attack, have embraced an extremist ideology hostile to the West and nursed ambitions to extend it over Libya. But also troubling to the United States is the evident tolerance shown by other militias allied with the government, which have so far declined to take any action against suspects in the Benghazi attack.

    Although Mr. Abu Khattala said he was not a member of Al Qaeda, he declared he would be proud to be associated with Al Qaeda’s puritanical zeal for Islamic law. And he said that the United States had its own foreign policy to blame for the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. “Why is the United States always trying to impose its ideology on everyone else?” he asked. “Why is it always trying to use force to implement its agendas?”

    Although Mr. Abu Khattala’s exact role remains unclear, witnesses have said they saw him directing other fighters that night. Libyan officials have singled him out, and officials in Washington say they are examining his role.

    Witnesses, Benghazi residents and Western news reports, including those in The New York Times, have described Mr. Abu Khattala as a leader of Ansar al-Shariah, whose trucks and fighters were seen attacking the mission. Mr. Abu Khattala praised the group’s members as “good people with good goals, which are trying to implement Islamic law,” and he insisted their network of popular support was vastly underestimated by other brigade leaders who said the group had fewer than 200 fighters.

    “It is bigger than a brigade,” he said. “It is a movement.”

    Mr. Abu Khattala said he was close to the group but was not an official part of it. Instead, he said, he was still the commander of an Islamist brigade, Abu Obaida ibn al-Jarrah. Some of its members joined Ansar al-Shariah, but Mr. Abu Khattala said that even though his brigade had disbanded he could still call it together. “If the individuals are there, the brigade is there,” he said.....snip~

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/wo...nted=all&_r=1&

    Yeah Zimmer.....I have been sitting on this for quite some time. Had it from some other New Sources. Course I knew the Left would cry about the Source. Until I found the NY Times link. So much for no AQ presence? So much for not knowing where one of the Attackers was all along.....huh?

    See Obama and his Team thought they could Muddy the waters so to speak. Hide behind terminology. Move goal-posts and deflect with anything they can. They have been hoping all along the news cycle would push this All under the rug.

    That they could just get out of it with charges of Negligence and Incompetency. Managerial Failures.

    I think it is funny that Team Obama and the Democrats aren't smiling anymore when the name Benghazi pops up.....Note: Obama did lose that **** eating grin 2 days ago. Do you think they can see the writing on the Wall, yet?

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1061767781

  5. #15
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    Re: The Benghazi Talking Points And how they were changed to obscure the truth

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    Right away to the deflection with Bush and whatever mistake he made.....huh? Here is an answer for that. Does two wrong make it Right? See everytime those on the left want to deflect with what Bush did that was wrong. How does this argument stop the any other wrong that comes after Bush? The Answer is.....it Doesn't. So you see in the reality of things.....the Bush deflection isn't really a good argument from the get go. 2 wrongs.....Don't make it Right.

    Are you attempting to say that you don't think.....that while out partying, Fundraising, speaking at a College University over talking points around why he should be re-elected. That for some reason.....that he forgot about 911? That while the media was throwing up Polls of him trailing or losing ground to Romney? That for some reason.....he just was not focused on so much overseas at the time? Or were you saying that his different than other human being placed into the same situation?

    Do you think he can deny AQ Prime released a Statement? Which was released 18 hrs prior to the Benghazi attack?
    So, let's clarify. You're upset about the president's actions regarding an attack that hadn't happened yet?

    What do you think he should have done differently on September 10th?

  6. #16
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: The Benghazi Talking Points And how they were changed to obscure the truth

    democrat congressman stephen lynch of south, blue collar boston, on fns this morning with chris son-of-60-minutes-mike wallace

    Democratic congressman Stephen Lynch said this morning on TV that Susan Rice used "scrubbed" talking points on Benghazi to deliver "false information" to the American people:

    "Absolutely, they were false, they were wrong," said Lynch, after being asked about Steve Hayes's report on "The Benghazi Talking Points."

    "There were no protests outside the Benghazi compound there. This was a deliberate and strategic attack on the consulate there," said the Democratic congressman.

    "It was false information. There's no excuse for that."
    Dem Rep. on Benghazi Talking Points: 'It Was Scrubbed ... It Was False Information. There's No Excuse For That.' | The Weekly Standard

    and yes, congressman lynch is indeed a member in good standing on evil darrel issa's offensive oversight cmte which is conducting wednesday's hearing

    Committee On Oversight & Government Reform

    it turns out evil issa has the emails---on saturday, 9-14, the day before un ambassador susan rice famously toured the 5 sunday talks to blame the video, the cia put together talking points with information intended for the american public

    that advisory contained language ultimately scrubbed by state dept spokesperson victoria nuland, the chris carney, essentially, of foggy bottom

    evil issa's emails show that ms nuland had "serious concerns about the draft," she was "worried that some members of congress would use the talking points to criticize the state dept for not paying attention to agency warnings"

    her "superiors," she did not say which ones, "were unhappy"

    the language which was removed (congressman lynch says "scrubbed") was "islamic extremists with ties to al qaeda," and "ansar al sharia" and "jihad"

    the state dept also changed the word "attack" to "demonstration"

    and the list of previous attacks and warnings contained in the original advisory was erased

    The Benghazi Talking Points | The Weekly Standard

    do you know how evil issa got the icky emails

    read the link (bottom of page one)

    even at that, the revisionists at foggy bottom weren't done

    the final talking points approved by all the correspondents issa itemizes---seniors at state, nsc, odni (offfice director natl intel), cia and the white house---do NOT mention the video ms rice trumpeted all over town the next morning

    that is, they were still making up and trying to get straight their story in what must have been some rather hectic morning hours before ms rice even put on her makeup

    these people are not only dangerously dishonest and reckless, they're embarrassingly incompetent and amateur

    congressman lynch: the info put out by the white house "certainly wasn't accurate"

    "i don't know what the process was"

    issa does, he read the emails

    stay tuned

  7. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: The Benghazi Talking Points And how they were changed to obscure the truth

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    So, let's clarify. You're upset about the president's actions regarding an attack that hadn't happened yet?

    What do you think he should have done differently on September 10th?
    Say what.....you mean to tell me you still cant figure out that part about AQ's release of a statement. That Comes in on the 10th while Obama is giving a speech to a college university in Florida. 18hrs BEFORE the Attack on Benghazi. <<<<<Did this Part confuse you any?

    " Clarify What".....you still haven't figured out that part about being upset that Obama dropped the ball on the Anniversary of 911? That Obama let the Country Down. That Obama let Americans in Libya Down. Can't quite ascertain how his Team Screwed up and then was found to be Negligent, Incompetent and were found Lacking of Not being able to muster up to those that had come before them that worked in the same field they do. That did the same thing they do.

    Kinda difficult for your mind to grasp.....that you can't figure out what a persons mindset was the Day before a certain date. That you can't think of behavior, body language, and even the Statements out of Ones mouth to show.....that Their Mind was nowhere on what AQ had stated. That there is nothing to even show that Obama called for tightening up Security leading into 911.

    You must have believed all that BS by Obama how he had AQ on the Run. That AQ wasn't a strength like they use to be.....huh?

  8. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: The Benghazi Talking Points And how they were changed to obscure the truth

    Why does this matter? If these reports from Libyan sources are true, then the attack was a major al Qaeda operation. Indeed, the largest that the terror network has mounted outside the Afghan-Pakistan region in more than a decade. In short, an act of war — not a peaceful demonstration that went awry, as the Obama Administration initially said. This has led activists, bloggers and other critics of the president to ask: Did the president ignore an act of war in order to win the 2012 election?

    If this suspicion is wrong, the survivors are uniquely placed to dispel this poisonous notion.

    If, on the other hand, the attack was an act of war, then the President has a real responsibility to hunt down the enemy and bring them to justice. To date, none of the attackers have been killed or captured.

    Indeed, the official investigation is moving with remarkable slowness. The FBI was granted a single 3-hour interview with one “person of interest” in Libya, according to Congressman Wolf. That same individual was interviewed by a New York Times correspondent weeks before the FBI got to him. It took the FBI weeks to visit the building complex where U.S. Ambassador Stevens died, when any evidence would have long since been spoiled. By contrast, local reporters were inside the complex walls within 24 hours of the deadly attack.

    Nor have any State department or intelligence personnel been fired, demoted or transferred, although three State department officials did resign. “Six months later not a single American official has been held accountable or lost their job over the inadequate consulate security, intelligence failures, or the administration’s abysmal response during the terrorist attack,” Rep. Wolf said. What Wolf is saying is that no official appointed by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate has been disciplined for the Benghazi atrocities, despite ample warnings in the spring and summer of 2012.....snip~

    Are Benghazi Survivors Hiding In A Washington, D.C. Hospital? - Forbes

  9. #19
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    Re: The Benghazi Talking Points And how they were changed to obscure the truth

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    Say what.....you mean to tell me you still cant figure out that part about AQ's release of a statement. That Comes in on the 10th while Obama is giving a speech to a college university in Florida. 18hrs BEFORE the Attack on Benghazi. <<<<<Did this Part confuse you any?

    " Clarify What".....you still haven't figured out that part about being upset that Obama dropped the ball on the Anniversary of 911? That Obama let the Country Down. That Obama let Americans in Libya Down. Can't quite ascertain how his Team Screwed up and then was found to be Negligent, Incompetent and were found Lacking of Not being able to muster up to those that had come before them that worked in the same field they do. That did the same thing they do.

    Kinda difficult for your mind to grasp.....that you can't figure out what a persons mindset was the Day before a certain date. That you can't think of behavior, body language, and even the Statements out of Ones mouth to show.....that Their Mind was nowhere on what AQ had stated. That there is nothing to even show that Obama called for tightening up Security leading into 911.

    You must have believed all that BS by Obama how he had AQ on the Run. That AQ wasn't a strength like they use to be.....huh?
    America gets threats about all sorts of things all the time. What you seem to be suggesting is that a President should constantly look worried about each of them. That he can't even appear to take his mind off them long enough to deliver a speech.
    Last edited by Deuce; 05-05-13 at 04:10 PM.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  10. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: The Benghazi Talking Points And how they were changed to obscure the truth

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    America gets threats about all sorts of things all the time. What you seem to be suggesting is that a President should constantly look worried about each of them. That he can't even appear to take his mind off them long enough to deliver a speech.
    Well....did you think that you could really explain away a Decade of being on point around 911. As America gets threats to all Sorts of things.

    Not at All.....I am suggesting that Obama was derelict in his Duty. I am also suggesting that Obama was to Worried about his Re-election, and was to worried about running out West Coast to go and Party. (fundraise) That he then decided to deflect when most knew he was playing catch up.....hence Both Clinton and Him Blaming the Anti Muslim Video. Then Obama's Major mistake of calling his then UN Ambassador to come home and make the TV rounds on a Sunday. The Un-impressive Susan Rice.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •