• 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!

White House holds OFF-THE-RECORD briefing with reporters on Benghazi

Slyfox696 said:
:lol:

You're right, the only possible thing which could have been happening is a conspiracy between the White House and the news organizations. Nevermind the fact it's not uncommon to have these background meetings, the only conclusion which involves the least assumptions is a massive conspiracy which is being covered up in plain sight, while the same administration is already being accused politically of another cover up. Good argument.


White House holds 'deep background' Benghazi briefing - POLITICO.com

[/INDENT]So the simplest explanation is the meeting was exactly what it was...it was a meeting to give deeper background to the reporters before the press conference.


So...to avoid getting caught redhanded in a secret meeting behind closed doors, they announce to the world a closed door secret meeting? That makes sense to you?

Why or how would I explain it? How about you ask the White House? My guess would be the answer would be far more innocuous than you want to believe. Hell, according to your information the Wall Street Journal was represented, as was the AP, so it's not like you can say it was full of sympathetic "liberal media" outlets.

I am, and common sense would also tell you that there is absolutely NO WAY any intelligent person would hold a conspiratorial meeting, which is announced ahead of time, in the White House, with people whose jobs and fame hinges on getting the next big story, in a time like this when the Administration is already under political attack for a supposed cover-up.

I am big on common sense. Do you really think your position is common sense and not looking for conspiracy? Do you really think intelligent politicians would really hold a conspiracy meeting in the White House, announced ahead of time, at a time like this? I would hope your common sense would tell you this meeting was not likely to be anything more than what it was called.

If the attack hadn't happened, no one would have known or cared all along the way. And that includes everyone, from the State department to Congressional Republicans to the President. The only reason this has become a big deal is because there was an attack.

The sad part is, and I've mentioned this already, but we still don't know what security is like in other places. I've never heard Republicans (or Democrats) call for additional Congressional inquiries into assessing the strength of other bases. When do you think Republicans will get around to that?

I have no idea what you mean.

No, let's LEARN from our past and recent screw-ups and let's use that knowledge to fix the problems. THAT is what is important. How about you and Republicans come around to that?
Click to expand...

When a magician tricks you he often tells you he is about to do magic right in front of your face.
 
Slyfox696 said:
:lol:

You're right, the only possible thing which could have been happening is a conspiracy between the White House and the news organizations. Nevermind the fact it's not uncommon to have these background meetings, the only conclusion which involves the least assumptions is a massive conspiracy which is being covered up in plain sight, while the same administration is already being accused politically of another cover up. Good argument.


White House holds 'deep background' Benghazi briefing - POLITICO.com

[/INDENT]So the simplest explanation is the meeting was exactly what it was...it was a meeting to give deeper background to the reporters before the press conference.


So...to avoid getting caught redhanded in a secret meeting behind closed doors, they announce to the world a closed door secret meeting? That makes sense to you?

Why or how would I explain it? How about you ask the White House? My guess would be the answer would be far more innocuous than you want to believe. Hell, according to your information the Wall Street Journal was represented, as was the AP, so it's not like you can say it was full of sympathetic "liberal media" outlets.

I am, and common sense would also tell you that there is absolutely NO WAY any intelligent person would hold a conspiratorial meeting, which is announced ahead of time, in the White House, with people whose jobs and fame hinges on getting the next big story, in a time like this when the Administration is already under political attack for a supposed cover-up.

I am big on common sense. Do you really think your position is common sense and not looking for conspiracy? Do you really think intelligent politicians would really hold a conspiracy meeting in the White House, announced ahead of time, at a time like this? I would hope your common sense would tell you this meeting was not likely to be anything more than what it was called.

If the attack hadn't happened, no one would have known or cared all along the way. And that includes everyone, from the State department to Congressional Republicans to the President. The only reason this has become a big deal is because there was an attack.

The sad part is, and I've mentioned this already, but we still don't know what security is like in other places. I've never heard Republicans (or Democrats) call for additional Congressional inquiries into assessing the strength of other bases. When do you think Republicans will get around to that?

I have no idea what you mean.

No, let's LEARN from our past and recent screw-ups and let's use that knowledge to fix the problems. THAT is what is important. How about you and Republicans come around to that?
Click to expand...


Did you figure out that part of the Meeting being with only certain media sources? Do you think all media sources in the Press Corps should have been allowed to attend that meeting?

Did Team Obama say how they determined which Media Sources they wanted to talk to while keeping out certain others? Just how did they Cherry Pick as to who they wanted there?
 
Slyfox696 said:
So Obama can do magic now. Got it.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty shoddy deflect to the simple comparison I'm trying to make. Are you telling me one of the things maybe in a politicians bag of tricks isn't tricks? You cant imagine politicians snorting coke of a 3rd worlds child's head while smokin' a cigar and sayin', "Don't worry Ill get this done for you." As he rubs 3 fingers together suggesting money.
 
Deuce said:
Way to completely miss the point. "Off the record" discussions between the white house and reporters are not some new sinister thing that should make one terrified of the media. They happen all the time.
Click to expand...

Nope, just the same old misinformation tactic. Thanks for proving it's ok with you as long as you agree with the goal behind it though.
 
mtm1963 said:
the handlers of the president have to find a way to control the narrative about benghazi in the press.

this is a good way to do so, off the record meeting.
Click to expand...


You say that like it's not disgusting.
 
justabubba said:
Correction: An earlier version of this post incorrectly referred to the meeting as "off the record." Though the existence of the meeting was off the record, it was conducted on "deep background."
Click to expand...


White House holds 'deep background' Benghazi briefing - POLITICO.com
Click to expand...


Translation: "Part of the off-the-record meeting with the White House was orders to call the meeting "deep background" rather than off the record."

So where are all the news reports of the new "deep" information given at that "deep background" press briefing?

More importantly, where is the transcript of that meeting?
 
Last edited:
jmotivator said:
Translation: "Part of the off-the-record meeting with the White House was orders to call the meeting "deep background" rather than off the record."


So where are all the news reports of the new "deep" information given at that "deep background" press briefing?
Click to expand...

Heya JM.....It wasnt a meeting.....they were just having Coffeethoughts. :lamo
 
Slyfox696 said:
Why or how would I explain it? How about you ask the White House? My guess would be the answer would be far more innocuous than you want to believe. Hell, according to your information the Wall Street Journal was represented, as was the AP, so it's not like you can say it was full of sympathetic "liberal media" outlets.

I am, and common sense would also tell you that there is absolutely NO WAY any intelligent person would hold a conspiratorial meeting, which is announced ahead of time, in the White House, with people whose jobs and fame hinges on getting the next big story, in a time like this when the Administration is already under political attack for a supposed cover-up.

I am big on common sense. Do you really think your position is common sense and not looking for conspiracy? Do you really think intelligent politicians would really hold a conspiracy meeting in the White House, announced ahead of time, at a time like this? I would hope your common sense would tell you this meeting was not likely to be anything more than what it was called.

If the attack hadn't happened, no one would have known or cared all along the way. And that includes everyone, from the State department to Congressional Republicans to the President. The only reason this has become a big deal is because there was an attack.

The sad part is, and I've mentioned this already, but we still don't know what security is like in other places. I've never heard Republicans (or Democrats) call for additional Congressional inquiries into assessing the strength of other bases. When do you think Republicans will get around to that?

I have no idea what you mean.

No, let's LEARN from our past and recent screw-ups and let's use that knowledge to fix the problems. THAT is what is important. How about you and Republicans come around to that?
Click to expand...
If you believe that the meeting which didn't happen is innocuous, great. I'm waiting for press releases attributed to anonymus white house sources through those outlets the Obama administration chose to provide background. I'm willing to bet I don't have a long wait.

Your argument stems from your hope that some systemic failure can be blamed for the attack in Benghazi. Sorry. There was no systemic failure. There were policy and procedural failures, and these are the direct result of people, and not systems or mechanisms. People in responsible positions made the decisions which resulted in the attack, and people made the subsequent attempt to hide those decisions - thereby attempting to avoid any culpability. The first step in correcting this is to identify the people who made the decisions, and remove them from positions which require sound judgement and the authority to make decisions involving the well-being of our personel serving abroad. As Americans, we don't leave our ambassadors and security twisting in the wind with no recourse but death. We don't let the attackers walk away with no consequence for their acts. That some are resorting to endless contortions to avoid that admission speaks volumes about the level to which this administration will sink to diminish and deny the role they played in a debacle of their own making. You know there are lies we hear everyday and we laugh about them and dismiss them. This event in Benghazi is not one of those. The truth is important here, and no amount of lying in order to achieve a political "victory" here will be a victory at all, unless you consider political advantage based on a lie to be a virtue. I don't.

While I'm on my soapbox here, I should also mention that the decision not to send help, whether it arrived in time to save lives or not, is one of the most coldly calculating and cruel decisions I can imagine. I can't speak for others, but I know that if I had been on that rooftop in Benghazi fighting for my life and that of others, I would've welcomed the knowledge that help was on the way, that there would be some consequence for the attack in which justice played a role. We didn't even give them that. Not even that, Sly. That's beyond despicable.

What we are seeing here in Benghazi is the failure of the Obama Administration's ME foreign policy writ large. You can deny that all you want. The results are apparent, and "rewriting" the story isn't going to change the truth.
 
humbolt said:
If you believe that the meeting which didn't happen is innocuous, great. I'm waiting for press releases attributed to anonymus white house sources through those outlets the Obama administration chose to provide background. I'm willing to bet I don't have a long wait.

Your argument stems from your hope that some systemic failure can be blamed for the attack in Benghazi. Sorry. There was no systemic failure. There were policy and procedural failures, and these are the direct result of people, and not systems or mechanisms. People in responsible positions made the decisions which resulted in the attack, and people made the subsequent attempt to hide those decisions - thereby attempting to avoid any culpability. The first step in correcting this is to identify the people who made the decisions, and remove them from positions which require sound judgement and the authority to make decisions involving the well-being of our personel serving abroad. As Americans, we don't leave our ambassadors and security twisting in the wind with no recourse but death. We don't let the attackers walk away with no consequence for their acts. That some are resorting to endless contortions to avoid that admission speaks volumes about the level to which this administration will sink to diminish and deny the role they played in a debacle of their own making. You know there are lies we hear everyday and we laugh about them and dismiss them. This event in Benghazi is not one of those. The truth is important here, and no amount of lying in order to achieve a political "victory" here will be a victory at all, unless you consider political advantage based on a lie to be a virtue. I don't.

While I'm on my soapbox here, I should also mention that the decision not to send help, whether it arrived in time to save lives or not, is one of the most coldly calculating and cruel decisions I can imagine. I can't speak for others, but I know that if I had been on that rooftop in Benghazi fighting for my life and that of others, I would've welcomed the knowledge that help was on the way, that there would be some consequence for the attack in which justice played a role. We didn't even give them that. Not even that, Sly. That's beyond despicable.

What we are seeing here in Benghazi is the failure of the Obama Administration's ME foreign policy writ large. You can deny that all you want. The results are apparent, and "rewriting" the story isn't going to change the truth.
Click to expand...

Good morning, humbolt. :2wave:

Excellent! You speak for so many of us that just want the truth. One wonders what the attitude would be if those who are attempting to trivialize this were in the same position as those we turned our backs on when they were pleading for assistance that never arrived. I can't imagine the final thoughts of those who died. Did they wonder WHY? What goes around comes around, and if you want to call it justice, or karma, or something else, it will be repaid in kind at some point. It always is. :shock: ...sad...
 
polgara said:
Good morning, humbolt. :2wave:

Excellent! You speak for so many of us that just want the truth. One wonders what the attitude would be if those who are attempting to trivialize this were in the same position as those we turned our backs on when they were pleading for assistance that never arrived. I can't imagine the final thoughts of those who died. Did they wonder WHY? What goes around comes around, and if you want to call it justice, or karma, or something else, it will be repaid in kind at some point. It always is. :shock: ...sad...
Click to expand...
Good morning, Pol, and happy Mothers Day. The "why" is looking more and more like it was completely political. A presidential election may cost a lot in dollars and cents, but it shouldn't include the lives of innocent people, whether it's a president Romney or a president Obama. I don't think enough of either one of them to justify that.
 
MMC said:
Did you figure out that part of the Meeting being with only certain media sources?
Click to expand...
Did you bother to read my post?
dirtpoorchris said:
That's a pretty shoddy deflect to the simple comparison I'm trying to make.
Click to expand...
No, it's an entirely appropriate response to the nonsense flying wildly in this thread.
humbolt said:
If you believe that the meeting which didn't happen is innocuous, great.
Click to expand...
If you really believe the White House publicly called a conspiratorial meeting in plain sight, then I would suggest you re-evaluate just how much you dislike Democrats/Obama.

Your argument stems from your hope that some systemic failure can be blamed for the attack in Benghazi.
Click to expand...
It already has been. Have you not been paying attention to the world? Have you been so caught up in conspiracy theories you've missed the truth?

People in responsible positions made the decisions which resulted in the attack, and people made the subsequent attempt to hide those decisions - thereby attempting to avoid any culpability. The first step in correcting this is to identify the people who made the decisions, and remove them from positions which require sound judgement and the authority to make decisions involving the well-being of our personel serving abroad.
Click to expand...
Does that include all the House Republican Congress people who voted to decrease the money given for the defense? Does that include the current Republican Senators who still are not asking about current defense in other places?

What happened was tragic, everyone knows this. But what happened was the result of poor preparation, nothing else. Once the attack started, nothing could have saved Stevens and Smith, and it would have been a miracle if Woods and Doherty were still alive. The failure lied in the appropriate preparations for security, that's all. And most likely, the decisions which were made were made to not bolster security were made for legitimate reasons. I find it very hard to believe any American wanted other Americans to die.

Let's quit trying to find someone to fire, especially since Clinton, Patraeus and Panetta are not even in their positions anymore. Let's instead focus our efforts on making sure we minimize the risk of this happening again.

As Americans, we don't leave our ambassadors and security twisting in the wind with no recourse but death.
Click to expand...
But you are! You're so worried about four people who died months ago you're not paying the slightest bit of attention to those who are still in danger! Your statement here is completely false!

We don't let the attackers walk away with no consequence for their acts.
Click to expand...
What? Who has done that?

That some are resorting to endless contortions
Click to expand...
And doing so purely for political gain...I mean, we're to the point where Republicans are whining about e-mails in the immediate aftermath of the attack. It's pathetic people are still listening to anything they say.

This event in Benghazi is not one of those. The truth is important here
Click to expand...
You're right, the truth is important. Here's the truth.

1) There were breakdowns in preparation for the Benghazi residence.
2) Those breakdowns have been identified, and according to Clinton during her testimony in January, are being resolved.
3) Once the attack started, NOTHING could have saved Stevens or Smith
4) Only by the most idealistic scenarios, which many times push reality to the absolute brink, could anything have been done to save Woods and Doherty.
5) The fact is what happened in Benghazi was tragic and avoidable beforehand, but impossible to save once the attack has started.
6) So we need to spend more time making sure our preparation in other locations prevents attacks, not whining endlessly about e-mails and nearly impossible scenarios.

While I'm on my soapbox here, I should also mention that the decision not to send help, whether it arrived in time to save lives or not, is one of the most coldly calculating and cruel decisions I can imagine. I can't speak for others, but I know that if I had been on that rooftop in Benghazi fighting for my life and that of others, I would've welcomed the knowledge that help was on the way, that there would be some consequence for the attack in which justice played a role. We didn't even give them that. Not even that, Sly. That's beyond despicable.
Click to expand...
I just read this article this morning. Perhaps your distaste will subside once you read a common sense account of what happened:

Benghazi (II): A military analysis of the Fox mystery man's fantasy rescue plan | The Best Defense

Once you realize that, perhaps you'll realize that endangering more American lives, just for someone to welcome the news, is not only not cold and cruel, but sensitive to the fact risking more American lives which likely would not have saved any in the first place is not only bad policy, it just does not make sense.


EDIT: By the way, help WAS sent. A CIA team from the annex came to the consulate, along with members of Libya's security forces and they removed Smith's body. The team from Tripoli arrived to the annex at about 1:30 a.m., and the surivivng Americans at the annex were evacuated at around 7:30 and 10:30 a.m. Benghazi time.

So not only is your disgust completely lacking in facts, it's downright false.

What we are seeing here in Benghazi is the failure of the Obama Administration's ME foreign policy writ large.
Click to expand...
No, what we're seeing with Benghazi is just how far political parties will stoop to gain power. Any other conclusion but that is false.
 
Last edited:
Slyfox696 said:
Did you bother to read my post?
Uhm.....
glasses12.gif
Yeah.....do you think it must have been something you said in order for you to get a response?

Did you seem confused over the fact that no matter what Carney called it.....that others were excluded from it? Can this fact be changed that there were only select people invited? Also the other fact is......all those breakdowns, have NOT been Identified. Which if all listened to the Left and the Democrats. We wouldn't even known the Intel Agencies knew all along like as been validated by both left and right sources.

For if they didn't know something that caused a breakdown. Then surely they cannot address what they do not know, "now".....can they?
rolleyes.png
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
MMC said:
do you think it must have been something you said in order for you to get a response?
Click to expand...
If you had read my post, you would have had your answer. So unless it's your position you like to ask questions which have already been answered (which is entirely possible), you didn't read my post.

Did you seem confused over the fact that no matter what Carney called it.....that others were excluded from it?
Click to expand...
Were you confused by the fact you would have to ask them how the 14 news agencies were determined? Were you confused by the fact there were conservative leaning news organizations there also?

Also the other fact is......all those breakdowns, have NOT been Identified.
Click to expand...
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf

Please do more reading than just your simple conservative opinion pieces. You can start with the posts of mine that you quote.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Were you confused by the fact you would have to ask them how the 14 news agencies were determined? Were you confused by the fact there were conservative leaning news organizations there also?

.
Click to expand...
Do you have a source to what you are calling a fact i would like to see who was in that meeting
 
trfjr said:
Do you have a source to what you are calling a fact i would like to see who was in that meeting
Click to expand...
humbolt said:
According to Gawker, here's the list of attendees: Ben Feller (Associated Press), Jonathan Weisman and Laura Meckler (Wall Street Journal), Michael Shear and Scott Wilson (Washington Post), Caren Bohan (Reuters), David Jackson (USA Today), Carol Lee (Politico), Peter Nicholas (Tribune Co.), Margaret Talev (McClatchy), and Julianna Goldman (Bloomberg).
Click to expand...


I'm just going by what the Republican earlier in the thread said Gawker said. Of course, Gawker didn't even have the full list, because Carney said about 14 news agencies were represented.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Did you bother to read my post?
No, it's an entirely appropriate response to the nonsense flying wildly in this thread.
If you really believe the White House publicly called a conspiratorial meeting in plain sight, then I would suggest you re-evaluate just how much you dislike Democrats/Obama.

It already has been. Have you not been paying attention to the world? Have you been so caught up in conspiracy theories you've missed the truth?

Does that include all the House Republican Congress people who voted to decrease the money given for the defense? Does that include the current Republican Senators who still are not asking about current defense in other places?

What happened was tragic, everyone knows this. But what happened was the result of poor preparation, nothing else. Once the attack started, nothing could have saved Stevens and Smith, and it would have been a miracle if Woods and Doherty were still alive. The failure lied in the appropriate preparations for security, that's all. And most likely, the decisions which were made were made to not bolster security were made for legitimate reasons. I find it very hard to believe any American wanted other Americans to die.

Let's quit trying to find someone to fire, especially since Clinton, Patraeus and Panetta are not even in their positions anymore. Let's instead focus our efforts on making sure we minimize the risk of this happening again.

But you are! You're so worried about four people who died months ago you're not paying the slightest bit of attention to those who are still in danger! Your statement here is completely false!

What? Who has done that?

And doing so purely for political gain...I mean, we're to the point where Republicans are whining about e-mails in the immediate aftermath of the attack. It's pathetic people are still listening to anything they say.

You're right, the truth is important. Here's the truth.

1) There were breakdowns in preparation for the Benghazi residence.
2) Those breakdowns have been identified, and according to Clinton during her testimony in January, are being resolved.
3) Once the attack started, NOTHING could have saved Stevens or Smith
4) Only by the most idealistic scenarios, which many times push reality to the absolute brink, could anything have been done to save Woods and Doherty.
5) The fact is what happened in Benghazi was tragic and avoidable beforehand, but impossible to save once the attack has started.
6) So we need to spend more time making sure our preparation in other locations prevents attacks, not whining endlessly about e-mails and nearly impossible scenarios.

I just read this article this morning. Perhaps your distaste will subside once you read a common sense account of what happened:

Benghazi (II): A military analysis of the Fox mystery man's fantasy rescue plan | The Best Defense

Once you realize that, perhaps you'll realize that endangering more American lives, just for someone to welcome the news, is not only not cold and cruel, but sensitive to the fact risking more American lives which likely would not have saved any in the first place is not only bad policy, it just does not make sense.


EDIT: By the way, help WAS sent. A CIA team from the annex came to the consulate, along with members of Libya's security forces and they removed Smith's body. The team from Tripoli arrived to the annex at about 1:30 a.m., and the surivivng Americans at the annex were evacuated at around 7:30 and 10:30 a.m. Benghazi time.

So not only is your disgust completely lacking in facts, it's downright false.

No, what we're seeing with Benghazi is just how far political parties will stoop to gain power. Any other conclusion but that is false.
Click to expand...
I did read your post, and like this one, it's about as I summarized previously. I'm not going to bother with a point by point response. Just a quick look at the number of lies told, the people who told them, and the frequency with which they were delivered is enough to discount much of what you contend. Forgive me for mentioning that the help sent was useless. You're all about not understanding that an effort should have been mounted the moment the attack began. Nobody guarantees success, but I can guarantee failure if nothing is done. And stop with the common sense BS. Common sense dictates that one should refuse to believe a known liar - or in this case, liars. It's all unraveling Sly. If you have a shred of decency, you'll stop defending the indefensible.
 
Slyfox696 said:
I'm just going by what the Republican earlier in the thread said Gawker said. Of course, Gawker didn't even have the full list, because Carney said about 14 news agencies were represented.
Click to expand...
What Carney says is rarely confused with the truth. I am not a republican, BTW. Never have been, and never will be. What meeting was that, anyway? I was given to understand that because it was off record, it really didn't happen.
 
humbolt said:
Just a quick look at the number of lies told, the people who told them, and the frequency with which they were delivered is enough to discount much of what you contend.
Click to expand...
No, they are completely unrelated. My point of contention is we need to focus on what can be done to prevent future tragedies. My point is there was virtually nothing which could be done once the attack started.

Nothing changes those two truths. And we agree preparation should have been better leading up to the attack. You're engaging in partisan games.

Forgive me for mentioning that the help sent was useless.
Click to expand...
That's not what you said and you cannot change what you said because you were wrong. You said no help was sent. Your exact words were "I should also mention that the decision not to send help" You are wrong, help was sent, in three different ways. Quit making this about political parties and just get to speaking about truth.

You're all about not understanding that an effort should have been mounted the moment the attack began.
Click to expand...
IT WAS! Why are you ignoring the truth to continue in political attacks?!

Nobody guarantees success, but I can guarantee failure if nothing is done.
Click to expand...
Success would have been all but impossible, did you actually read what I linked you to? All that would have been done is put more American lives on the line.

And stop with the common sense BS.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm well aware the Republican Party hates people using common sense.

Common sense dictates that one should refuse to believe a known liar - or in this case, liars.
Click to expand...
Common sense dictates weighing the facts and then making a decision. That's what I'm doing. You're bringing up irrelevant information and using that to make unfounded and downright false claims.

It's all unraveling Sly.
Click to expand...
What's unraveling? E-mails with changed talking points? How soon the intelligence community knew it was a terrorist attack? Nothing else is unraveling, we already know what happened. Please come out of your hyper-partisan bubble.

If you have a shred of decency, you'll stop defending the indefensible.
Click to expand...
You have lied about your own words, used unrelated information to make provably false claims and ignored the truth in front of you, and you're asking me to stop defending the indefensible? Really?
 
Slyfox696 said:
I'm just going by what the Republican earlier in the thread said Gawker said. Of course, Gawker didn't even have the full list, because Carney said about 14 news agencies were represented.
Click to expand...

so some so called "republican" from some gossip rag says so it is a FACT?
 
Slyfox696 said:
You have lied about your own words, used unrelated information to make provably false claims and ignored the truth in front of you, and you're asking me to stop defending the indefensible? Really?
Click to expand...
I'm not bothering with all that repetition. You're asking a public that can fly from NY to LA in less than 6 hours to believe that help could not have arrived in time in Benghazi. That's not only false Sly, it's downright stupid. I can buy a ticket, pack, get to the airport, and arrive in LA in less than 7 hours from right now here on the east coast. That's civilian aircraft, Sly. Don't tell me the military can't do better than that when I know they can. Anyhow, continue without me. I've reached my BS exposure limit for the day.
 
humbolt said:
I did read your post, and like this one, it's about as I summarized previously. I'm not going to bother with a point by point response.
Click to expand...
excellent call
appears you recognize you are without the ammunition to do so


Just a quick look at the number of lies told,
Click to expand...
all we have are lies from the reich wing media and a disgruntled employee who insists he was demoted when the facts tell us otherwise

... the people who told them,
Click to expand...
hicks and the reich wing propaganda organs have the freedom to lie

... and the frequency with which they were delivered is enough to discount much of what you contend.
Click to expand...
and yet you are able to provide no facts to discount one syllable of what was posted; hence, your inclination not to

Forgive me for mentioning that the help sent was useless.
Click to expand...
no. forgiving stupidity only breeds more stupidity
it would be stupid to place more American lives at risk for an adventure that faces no prospects for success

You're all about not understanding that an effort should have been mounted the moment the attack began.
Click to expand...
that means we would have to borrow your crystal ball, so that we could have known the attack was imminent

Nobody guarantees success, but I can guarantee failure if nothing is done.
Click to expand...
you advocate stupidity
placing more lives at risk when the calculus showed there was no possibility for success
that stupid action would be the essence of failure


And stop with the common sense BS.
Click to expand...
common sense is not BS; unfortunately, it is not all that common ... as your posts evidence

Common sense dictates that one should refuse to believe a known liar - or in this case, liars.
Click to expand...
those with common sense and the powers of observation can see for themselves that hicks and faux news are lying
hicks for insisting he was demoted when the facts prove that he was not
and faux news for pushing such unsubstantiated tripe in its efforts to gin up opposition to the Obama administration
but it does require common sense to understand that

It's all unraveling Sly.
Click to expand...
it is
not a single revelation has come out of the benghazi hearings

If you have a shred of decency, you'll stop defending the indefensible.
Click to expand...
excellent point
only stupid people would continue to believe the faux news propaganda when the factual circumstances are known
 
Slyfox696 said:
If you had read my post, you would have had your answer. So unless it's your position you like to ask questions which have already been answered (which is entirely possible), you didn't read my post.

Were you confused by the fact you would have to ask them how the 14 news agencies were determined? Were you confused by the fact there were conservative leaning news organizations there also?

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf

Please do more reading than just your simple conservative opinion pieces. You can start with the posts of mine that you quote.
Click to expand...



Look all you had to do.....was to Admit all New Sources were NOT Represented. Wasn't that difficult to do. So truly it doesn't matter how many Right leaning News Sources.

Like I said could you change that fact.....which truthfully we already know you couln't.

Also Next time look around in all the Benghazi threads......that way you wont be confused at to who was putting Up Conservatives New Sources. While I pound away with Fact Checkers and overseas Sources. That which many cannot get round.
 
justabubba said:
excellent call
appears you recognize you are without the ammunition to do so



all we have are lies from the reich wing media and a disgruntled employee who insists he was demoted when the facts tell us otherwise


hicks and the reich wing propaganda organs have the freedom to lie


and yet you are able to provide no facts to discount one syllable of what was posted; hence, your inclination not to


no. forgiving stupidity only breeds more stupidity
it would be stupid to place more American lives at risk for an adventure that faces no prospects for success


that means we would have to borrow your crystal ball, so that we could have known the attack was imminent


you advocate stupidity
placing more lives at risk when the calculus showed there was no possibility for success
that stupid action would be the essence of failure



common sense is not BS; unfortunately, it is not all that common ... as your posts evidence


those with common sense and the powers of observation can see for themselves that hicks and faux news are lying
hicks for insisting he was demoted when the facts prove that he was not
and faux news for pushing such unsubstantiated tripe in its efforts to gin up opposition to the Obama administration
but it does require common sense to understand that


it is
not a single revelation has come out of the benghazi hearings


excellent point
only stupid people would continue to believe the faux news propaganda when the factual circumstances are known
Click to expand...
Bubba, just because some fool posts a particular spin redolent with falsities does not require me to address them any more than I'm required to address this mess above. I've already outlined your problem, and it starts with lying. I fully expect that your hysteria is going to grow exponentially as the truth slowly dribbles out. Even the New Yorker (!) has called Carney a liar. Your post proves where the partisanship resides in this issue, and it's going to be your undoing in the end. Truth is not a partisan issue.
 
humbolt said:
Bubba, just because some fool posts a particular spin redolent with falsities does not require me to address them any more than I'm required to address this mess above. I've already outlined your problem, and it starts with lying. I fully expect that your hysteria is going to grow exponentially as the truth slowly dribbles out. Even the New Yorker (!) has called Carney a liar. Your post proves where the partisanship resides in this issue, and it's going to be your undoing in the end. Truth is not a partisan issue.
Click to expand...

the lies are from the reich wing
but where were they and their outrage during the republican administration when our diplomats were under attack:

June 14, 2002, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide bomber kills 12 and injures 51.

February 20, 2003, international diplomatic compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Truck bomb kills 17.

February 28, 2003, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Gunmen on motorcycles killed two consulate guards.

July 30, 2004, U.S. embassy in Taskkent, Uzbekistan
Suicide bomber kills two.

December 6, 2004, U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Militants stormed and occupied perimeter wall. Five killed, 10 wounded.

March 2, 2006, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide car bomber killed four, including a U.S. diplomat directly targeted by the assailants.


what we have is a rovian effort to preempt hillary's 2016 presidential bid
that it also enables the wingers to fleece their ignorant sycophants is only a GOP bonus
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom