Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 80

Thread: Diplomat Says Questions Over Benghazi Led to Demotion

  1. #61
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,324

    Re: Diplomat Says Questions Over Benghazi Led to Demotion

    Quote Originally Posted by Napoleon View Post
    The man basically admitted he was negligent, which is a pretty good
    reason for being demoted. Why invent a conspiracy?
    So Hicks rewrote the Benghazi talking points ?

  2. #62
    Guru

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,488

    Re: Diplomat Says Questions Over Benghazi Led to Demotion

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    So Hicks rewrote the Benghazi talking points ?
    I don't think most people care who "rewrote" the Benghazi talking points.

  3. #63
    Sage

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

    Re: Diplomat Says Questions Over Benghazi Led to Demotion

    Why invent a conspiracy?
    LOL!

    why don't you ask wapo and the nyt?

  4. #64
    Sage

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

    Re: Diplomat Says Questions Over Benghazi Led to Demotion

    even the chairman of the hearing, Darrel Issa, admitted that the only thing new they found was that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack
    that's as dumb as something cummings would say

    why, the nyt reported breaking news in the op (how can you miss the very op you're discussing?)---hicks was demoted for testifying

    that hicks was directed by ms mills NOT to speak to chaffetz, that hicks was directed to be accompanied at all times by a state dept attorney---also breaking

    Benghazi witness: State Department told me not to speak to members of Congress | WashingtonExaminer.com

    wapo yesterday (link above):

    The testimony provided new details on the Sept. 11, 2012, assaults on U.S. installations in Benghazi and their aftermath. But the new information failed to break the political logjam the attacks spawned, with Republicans and Democrats offering starkly different interpretations of what happened and who within the U.S. government is to blame.

    But in expanding the narrative of the intensely politicized episode, the witnesses raised fresh questions about whether then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and her deputies were sufficiently engaged in assessing the security posture of diplomatic posts last year.
    also new, potential bombshell, courtesy wapo:

    Clinton was planning to travel to Libya later in the year and had signaled that she wanted the United States to turn its temporary mission in Benghazi into a formal diplomatic post.
    which is why, according to regional security officer (rso) eric nordstrom, ambassador stevens was in libya (which failed to meet state dept security standards) in the first place

    Testimony: Stevens Went to Benghazi Mission on 9/11/12 So Clinton Could Announce on Upcoming Libyan Visit It Had Become Permanent U.S. Post | CNS News

    you really need to shut up and read, else you'll always be ignorant

    in addition to serious new questions of substance, yesterday's hearing also failed to answer the questions that have been at the center of this disaster since the beginning and even before, such as:

    in the weeks and months before the deadly attack, when the city was subject to at least 5 serious incidents of terrorism, including an assassination attempt against the british ambassador and the blowing of a hole in the wall of the us consulate, exactly WHO at state denied so many documented requests for increased security, including those from chris stevens himself, and WHY?

    why was the security team at Benghazi stripped from 16 members to only 4, after a pair were carjacked, "shortly before the attack," according to wapo above?

    who made THAT call?

    exactly who ordered lt col gibson to stand down and exactly why?

    why was no plane sent from souba, exactly what are our response capabilities?

    and if that's the best we can do, why?

    why wasn't fest put into operation?

    who changed the cia's original talking points, which advised the american people about the danger posed by "islamic extremists with ties to al qaeda," which called out "ansar al sharia" and "jihadists," and why were such accurate descriptors scrubbed from intel's initial explanation?

    why are truth tellers being punished and intimidated, threatened and demoted, why does state insist one of its lawyers accompany whistle blowers wherever they go?

    why did pickering and mullen, authors arb, refuse to testify?

    with whom did they speak and with whom did they not?

    where are the survivors, why are they kept secret?

    where was hillary all day and all nite, exactly what was she doing?

    why did her boss go to bed?

    y'know, elijah cummings has NO comeback (as of now) to any of the above

    yesterday, my side was able to say pretty much anything we wanted, and our opposition just sat there and took it

    i can tell you personally that i know that cummings is nowhere near smart enough for what you're coming up against, you need to find someone else (but you're stuck with him)

    look forward to more hearings, lots of them, the loyal opposition is just getting started

    you better get your lies and alibis in a row, a very long, almost endless row

    boehner's gonna go special committee, nothing's gonna be able to stop em

    62% of House GOP Now Co-Sponsoring Bill for Special Committee on Benghazi | CNS News

    there's a great deal more i know that you don't but you can only handle so much at a time

    stay tuned

  5. #65
    Sage
    poweRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    35,099

    Re: Diplomat Says Questions Over Benghazi Led to Demotion

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    I didn't vote for Sanford. And youv'r got some room to talk calling Obama's and Hillary's blatant lies and their deeriliction a right wing tactic.

    There is nothing honest about the democrat party,hasn't been for years.
    Substance? Just asking because again, your post is just whiny unsubstantiated opinion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    The sad fact is that having a pedophile win is better than having a Democrat in office. I'm all for a solution where a Republican gets in that isn't Moore.

  6. #66
    Sage

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

    Re: Diplomat Says Questions Over Benghazi Led to Demotion

    your post is just whiny unsubstantiated opinion.
    link?

    LOL!

  7. #67
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,634

    Re: Diplomat Says Questions Over Benghazi Led to Demotion

    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    Nonsense. Obama and Hillary used that video as a scapegoat because they knew they screwed the pooch horribly, and right before an election no less. Sad that you are ignoring the testimonies of those that were actually there. The facts are all in front of you, and you choose to close your eyes and and look the other way. Integrity is rare.
    And yet other right wing folks are claiming the Obama Administration pointed to the video before they knew what exactly had happened, too bad you ignore the timeline and put far more weight on the Republican politicians opinions than anything else.

    But you are correct, integrity is rare, even among the Right wing partisans

  8. #68
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Diplomat Says Questions Over Benghazi Led to Demotion

    Quote Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
    And yet other right wing folks are claiming the Obama Administration pointed to the video before they knew what exactly had happened, too bad you ignore the timeline and put far more weight on the Republican politicians opinions than anything else.

    But you are correct, integrity is rare, even among the Right wing partisans
    Seems FactCheck.Org disagrees with you on that Timeline and your talking point......as they have those dates down.

    We cannot say whether the administration was intentionally misleading the public. We cannot prove intent. There is also more information to come — both from the FBI, which is conducting an investigation, and Congress, which has been holding hearings.

    But, at this point, we do know that Obama and others in the administration were quick to cite the anti-Muslim video as the underlying cause for the attack in Benghazi that killed four U.S. diplomats, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens. And they were slow to acknowledge it was a premeditated terrorist attack, and they downplayed reports that it might have been.

    What follows is a timeline of events that we hope will help put the incident into perspective. We call attention in particular to these key facts:

    ◾There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests in Egypt and elsewhere. The State Department disclosed this fact Oct. 9 — nearly a month after the attack.
    ◾Libya President Mohamed Magariaf insisted on Sept. 16 — five days after the attack — that it was a planned terrorist attack, but administration officials continued for days later to say there was no evidence of a planned attack.
    ◾Magariaf also said the idea that the attack was a “spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous.” This, too, was on Sept. 16. Yet, Obama and others continued to describe the incident in exactly those terms — including during the president’s Sept. 18 appearance on the “Late Show With David Letterman.”
    ◾Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, was the first administration official to call it “a terrorist attack” during a Sept. 19 congressional hearing. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did the same on Sept. 20. Even so, Obama declined opportunities to call it a terrorist attack when asked at a town hall meeting on Sept. 20 and during a taping of “The View” on Sept. 24.

    Sept.12: Obama Labels Attack ‘Act of Terror,’ Not ‘Terrorism’

    Sept. 13: ‘Clearly Planned’ or ‘Spontaneous’ Attack?

    Sept. 14: White House Says No Evidence of Planned Attack

    Sept. 15-16: Susan Rice Contradicts Libyan President

    Sept. 17: State Defends Rice and ‘Initial Assessment’

    Sept. 18: Obama Says ‘Extremists’ Used Video As ‘Excuse’

    Sept. 19: Olsen Calls It a ‘Terrorist Attack’

    Oct. 24: White House, State Department Emails on Ansar al-Sharia

    Oct. 24: Reuters reports the White House, Pentagon and other government agencies learned just two hours into the Benghazi attack that Ansar al-Sharia, an Islamic militant group, had “claimed credit” for it. The wire service report was based on three emails from the State Department’s Operations Center. One of the emails said, “Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripol.” The article also noted, “Intelligence experts caution that initial reports from the scene of any attack or disaster are often inaccurate.” (It should be noted that Reuters first reported on Sept. 12 that unnamed U.S. officials believed that Ansar al-Sharia may have been involved.).....snip~


    FactCheck.org : Benghazi Timeline

    Which now we know that All knew it was a planned attack with Ansar al Sharia being involved. 2 hrs after the battle began. Which Rice went on the Sunday Talk Shows a week later and still stated what she did out her mouth. Despite knowing already what everyone else knew at that time. Which it was a terrorist attack. Politi-fact's timeline and UK Daily Mails also have the same .

  9. #69
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,940

    Re: Diplomat Says Questions Over Benghazi Led to Demotion

    Quote Originally Posted by Napoleon View Post
    I don't think most people care who "rewrote" the Benghazi talking points.
    I do. Tomorrow marks 8 months. If the Admin had been forthcoming, we might not be having this discussion now. But it wasn't. The Admin lied. So now I want to know exactly who did what and exactly where the buck stops.

  10. #70
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,634

    Re: Diplomat Says Questions Over Benghazi Led to Demotion

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    Seems FactCheck.Org disagrees with you on that Timeline and your talking point......as they have those dates down.

    We cannot say whether the administration was intentionally misleading the public. We cannot prove intent. There is also more information to come — both from the FBI, which is conducting an investigation, and Congress, which has been holding hearings.

    But, at this point, we do know that Obama and others in the administration were quick to cite the anti-Muslim video as the underlying cause for the attack in Benghazi that killed four U.S. diplomats, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens. And they were slow to acknowledge it was a premeditated terrorist attack, and they downplayed reports that it might have been.

    What follows is a timeline of events that we hope will help put the incident into perspective. We call attention in particular to these key facts:

    ◾There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests in Egypt and elsewhere. The State Department disclosed this fact Oct. 9 — nearly a month after the attack.
    ◾Libya President Mohamed Magariaf insisted on Sept. 16 — five days after the attack — that it was a planned terrorist attack, but administration officials continued for days later to say there was no evidence of a planned attack.
    ◾Magariaf also said the idea that the attack was a “spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous.” This, too, was on Sept. 16. Yet, Obama and others continued to describe the incident in exactly those terms — including during the president’s Sept. 18 appearance on the “Late Show With David Letterman.”
    ◾Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, was the first administration official to call it “a terrorist attack” during a Sept. 19 congressional hearing. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did the same on Sept. 20. Even so, Obama declined opportunities to call it a terrorist attack when asked at a town hall meeting on Sept. 20 and during a taping of “The View” on Sept. 24.

    Sept.12: Obama Labels Attack ‘Act of Terror,’ Not ‘Terrorism’

    Sept. 13: ‘Clearly Planned’ or ‘Spontaneous’ Attack?

    Sept. 14: White House Says No Evidence of Planned Attack

    Sept. 15-16: Susan Rice Contradicts Libyan President

    Sept. 17: State Defends Rice and ‘Initial Assessment’

    Sept. 18: Obama Says ‘Extremists’ Used Video As ‘Excuse’

    Sept. 19: Olsen Calls It a ‘Terrorist Attack’

    Oct. 24: White House, State Department Emails on Ansar al-Sharia

    Oct. 24: Reuters reports the White House, Pentagon and other government agencies learned just two hours into the Benghazi attack that Ansar al-Sharia, an Islamic militant group, had “claimed credit” for it. The wire service report was based on three emails from the State Department’s Operations Center. One of the emails said, “Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripol.” The article also noted, “Intelligence experts caution that initial reports from the scene of any attack or disaster are often inaccurate.” (It should be noted that Reuters first reported on Sept. 12 that unnamed U.S. officials believed that Ansar al-Sharia may have been involved.).....snip~


    FactCheck.org : Benghazi Timeline

    Which now we know that All knew it was a planned attack with Ansar al Sharia being involved. 2 hrs after the battle began. Which Rice went on the Sunday Talk Shows a week later and still stated what she did out her mouth. Despite knowing already what everyone else knew at that time. Which it was a terrorist attack. Politi-fact's timeline and UK Daily Mails also have the same .
    Lots of 20/20 hindsight to all your post. Many times groups take credit for things that the facts DON'T support and during the confused period, the so-called fog time the 'facts' come in contradicting each other. Was there an attack on Tripoli for instance? THAT makes it sound like the terrorists didn't actually do the attacks but want others to carry them out.

    We didn't 'know' anything but there were reports, huge difference.

    For instance, BushII 'knew' the al-queeras and Saddam's security folks met in Prague. That yellow cake was bought in Africa, that 122 rocket tubes were infact rods for refining uranium...

    It is easy after the fact to go through a deluge of reports and pick the correct ones... the trick has and will remain being able to do so as the event unfolds.

    As far as sending more people into the cluster foxtrot, even a teary and emotional Mr. Hicks admits he wasn't easily available when the attack started in Benghazi, and when he learned where Ambassador Stevens was, the hospital, he balked at sending anyone fearing it was a trap.

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 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
  •