• 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!

Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video [W:212]

Re: Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video’ ex

Not all liberals are obtuse.

The leaders aren't, they know what's going on, but their followers certainly are.
 
Re: Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video’ ex

Not all liberals are obtuse.

Paradoxical paradigm NB?????
dontknow.gif
.....
f_whistle.gif
 
Re: Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video’ ex

Just as previously thought, and expressed by ANYONE with eyes, and ears....

Yeah. Didn't we already know this?
 
Re: Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video’ ex

What was the 'disgusting failure?' I'm serious - we've been attacked overseas many times, often with deaths, thousands of Americans have died by all kinds of methods. Our embassies/civilian facilities have been attacked repeatedly, with deaths. What is different about this event that makes it a 'disgusting failure?'

Are you kidding here Jasper? What is disgusting about this event? How about, the FACT that the administration/State Dept. knew that other embassies, and consulates had been attacked, like the Brits, and they pulled out? How about, the repeated requests, no, pleas for increased security that went unheeded, or flat out denied? How about, the misguided policy of using locals for security forces in possibly the most dangerous 'hot spot' in the world at the time, and because the administration wanted to campaign on a policy of "OBL dead, and GM alive" meme that is utter Bull! Just look at the downright ability to lie right to the face of a grieving family without missing a beat all over a campaign.....That takes some serious sociopathic ability...Yet, you come in here and still defend the lie as if it were told enough, if you just continue to repeat it, then all will be true...That to me is a break from reality.
 
Re: Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video’ ex

One is left to wonder....if there will come a time that the rabid GOP can accept that the horse is dead.

You guys are embarrassing to the sane wing.

I wonder if they buried that dead horse with the four DEAD Americans including an Ambassador? You people will stop at nothing to defend the indefensible which is this incompetent Administration. Doesn't appear that you have any problem with Obama and his staff making a fool out of you.
 
Re: Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video’ ex

Yes...that argument is stupid. Almost as stupid as making assumptions and placing words into the mouths of others.

Glad we both agree your argument is stupid. That's a nice non-sequiter you got there. Are you trying to say I've made assumptions and placed words into your mouth? It might be easier to understand you if you didn't write so passively. Perhaps if you were a bit more clear, straight, and honest with your thoughts people wouldn't have to make what you consider "assumptions" in your arguments. I percieve your utilization of passive and indirect statements as purposefully leaving your meaning vague. By doing so, you force people to make at least a small assumption of your meaning and you can always jump in and criticize them for simply trying to understand you as best as they can. If your goal is to have your arguments ignored by people who might care to understand or engage you in debate, that is a surefire way to do it.
 
Last edited:
Re: Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video’ ex

You asked for quotes from the email and I gave them to you. Are there any you feel are incorrect or are sources rather than content more important to you.

Everyone knew. or should have known, that it was never about a video. There are dozens of videos on the internet that cast Muslims in a bad light.That the left actually believed it says a lot about the respect the WH has for their Democrat supporters, knowing that they'll believe anything they're told. The left apparently has no shame.

First, if there is a quote in the emails for her to hide what was known, it's a simple matter to cut and paste it. I missed that quote.

And the reason I'm asking you to tell me, today, 18 months later why they attacked that consulate on that day is because you can't KNOW what was NOT the reason until you know the reason. And you can't or won't tell me why they attacked that location on that day, or how long it was planned. You know it wasn't the video, even though other protests in the region were in response to the video, and BBC interviewed a local at the consulate who said it was the video. But it wasn't - everyone KNEW this before any investigation. So SCANDAL!! because goodness knows when you are speculating about the motives of unknown terrorists for their latest attack, you had damn sure better speculate accurately!

One other thing - there have been hundreds or thousands of terrorists attacks, many against U.S. interests or involving Americans. I don't generally give a shate why they attacked us - if it wasn't a video, it was what the CIA was doing. If not that, a general hatred of the West, or maybe retaliation for some real or imagined slight somewhere else in the world. Why in the hell THAT reason is central to any kind of analysis of the attack 18 months later is a mystery. We've had dozens of attacks on our facilities - can you name the reason why for ANY of them - pick any one?
 
Re: Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video’ ex

Just as previously thought, and expressed by ANYONE with eyes, and ears....

The most damning thing about this story is that this particular email was provided to congress a long time ago as part of the investigation discovery. The reason that we are only hearing about it today is that WH council redacted all the passages in the email about Benghazi spin control before send it to congress.

That is, quite literally, a cover up.
 
Re: Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video’ ex

Are you kidding here Jasper? What is disgusting about this event? How about, the FACT that the administration/State Dept. knew that other embassies, and consulates had been attacked, like the Brits, and they pulled out? How about, the repeated requests, no, pleas for increased security that went unheeded, or flat out denied? How about, the misguided policy of using locals for security forces in possibly the most dangerous 'hot spot' in the world at the time, and because the administration wanted to campaign on a policy of "OBL dead, and GM alive" meme that is utter Bull! Just look at the downright ability to lie right to the face of a grieving family without missing a beat all over a campaign.....That takes some serious sociopathic ability...Yet, you come in here and still defend the lie as if it were told enough, if you just continue to repeat it, then all will be true...That to me is a break from reality.

I wasn't here during the Bush years, but I have a hard time believing that the 10-15 attacks on our embassies got the same scrutiny, or the thousands of dead soldiers because of our misguided Iraq and Afghanistan policies, or the in general decades of mucking around in the ME, deposing leaders we don't like, propping up those we do, which has created all this blowback. I read this stuff on Benghazi and it appears like the only mistakes we've made in the ME were by Hillary, Rice and Obama.

Even on the security thing - you're aware that the Ambassador turned down extra security offered by the military? We don't know why, but it was offered. And of course in hindsight the security was poorly handled, because there was an attack and people died, including the ambassador, who for some reason traveled to an insecure location on 9/11 without additional backup. All you've done is look at the conclusion, and without any actual knowledge of the decision making by dozens of officials at CIA, State, and the military, observed the failure and then concluded that this failure is somehow uniquely "disgusting" among the hundreds/thousands of other failures leading to deaths of U.S. military or civilians on that region.
 
Re: Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video’ ex

Time to dust off the Hatch Act.
 
Re: Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video’ ex

Not all liberals are obtuse.

Certainly not, but it seems most are mightily trying.
 
Re: Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video’ ex

I wasn't here during the Bush years, but I have a hard time believing that the 10-15 attacks on our embassies got the same scrutiny, or the thousands of dead soldiers because of our misguided Iraq and Afghanistan policies, or the in general decades of mucking around in the ME, deposing leaders we don't like, propping up those we do, which has created all this blowback. I read this stuff on Benghazi and it appears like the only mistakes we've made in the ME were by Hillary, Rice and Obama.

Even on the security thing - you're aware that the Ambassador turned down extra security offered by the military? We don't know why, but it was offered. And of course in hindsight the security was poorly handled, because there was an attack and people died, including the ambassador, who for some reason traveled to an insecure location on 9/11 without additional backup. All you've done is look at the conclusion, and without any actual knowledge of the decision making by dozens of officials at CIA, State, and the military, observed the failure and then concluded that this failure is somehow uniquely "disgusting" among the hundreds/thousands of other failures leading to deaths of U.S. military or civilians on that region.

Stevens declined the offer by Gen. Ham of a detachment because the State Department was still dithering on the request. Accepting the General's offer while State was still deciding would have been seen as bypassing the Secretaries office on a request. Hindsight being 20/20 it seems strange that Stevens would turn down the offer, but at the time Stevens was simply abiding by the State Department process.
 
Re: Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video’ ex

I wasn't here during the Bush years, but I have a hard time believing that the 10-15 attacks on our embassies got the same scrutiny, or the thousands of dead soldiers because of our misguided Iraq and Afghanistan policies, or the in general decades of mucking around in the ME, deposing leaders we don't like, propping up those we do, which has created all this blowback. I read this stuff on Benghazi and it appears like the only mistakes we've made in the ME were by Hillary, Rice and Obama.


Trying to conflate this to include US interests in the greater ME over decades is an obfuscation, and deflection of the facts concerning THIS event...Muddying the water will not help you here.

Even on the security thing - you're aware that the Ambassador turned down extra security offered by the military? We don't know why, but it was offered. And of course in hindsight the security was poorly handled, because there was an attack and people died, including the ambassador, who for some reason traveled to an insecure location on 9/11 without additional backup. All you've done is look at the conclusion, and without any actual knowledge of the decision making by dozens of officials at CIA, State, and the military, observed the failure and then concluded that this failure is somehow uniquely "disgusting" among the hundreds/thousands of other failures leading to deaths of U.S. military or civilians on that region.

jmotivator has addressed this.
 
Re: Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video’ ex

The findings found no link to the WH, but those who want that will keep trying, but the majority have moved on.

I guess you must enjoy being lied to by your president and his administration. I'm puzzled why you feel that this is acceptable. Care to shed any light on that?

Crickets.
 
Re: Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video’ ex

67165654d1398882959-benghazi-emails-suggest-white-house-aide-involved-prepping-rice-video-explan-rhoades-email.jpg


So who do we see addressed on this email?

It's a mix of people from the reelection campaign and senior White House staffers. The purpose of this email was to craft a political message with the disposition of making the administration look better, or at least not any worse, because of this event.

Since when are senior government officials in the White House allowed to engage in election politics? It's been observed that this is a felony, in violation of The Hatch Act, as no government officials, beside the president and vice president, are allowed to engage in election politicking, and this email clearly demonstrates that they are.
 
Re: Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video’ ex

Four dead Americans might be a dead horse to a left winger like you, Obama and Hillary but not to most Americans.

It always amazes me when people like Navy Pride feign "outrage" over 4 dead Americans, yet sit silent and cheer "bring it on" for the thousands that died as a result of GWB using them as pawns.
 
Re: Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video’ ex

It always amazes me when people like Navy Pride feign "outrage" over 4 dead Americans, yet sit silent and cheer "bring it on" for the thousands that died as a result of GWB using them as pawns.

It always amazes me that people always hit on that 1/2 of the issue, and ignore the other 1/2, perhaps even more significant part, of the issue.
 
Re: Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video’ ex

It always amazes me when people like Navy Pride feign "outrage" over 4 dead Americans, yet sit silent and cheer "bring it on" for the thousands that died as a result of GWB using them as pawns.

Lol....Not only did Democrats vote to go to war but multiple Democrat Politicians agreed he had WMDs and thought we needed to do something about it.

John Kerry in 2003 specifically said his Yes vote was to give the President the authority to use FORCE.
 
Re: Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video’ ex

What percentage of Americans are still interested in Benghazi? Not many in my opinion.

Exactly. Your beloved administration understands that its voting bloc has the comprehension and attention span of a gnat. It DEPENDS on it.

So they blamed the whole thing on an internet video, and you people drank it up like Kool-aid in Guyana.
 
Re: Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video’ ex

Lol....Not only did Democrats vote to go to war but multiple Democrat Politicians agreed he had WMDs and thought we needed to do something about it.

John Kerry in 2003 specifically said his Yes vote was to give the President the authority to use FORCE.

I never said that Democrats aren't at fault as well. What remains amazing however is those that are most vocal about 4 dead in Benghazi are remarkably silent about the thousands dead in Iraq...or even worse...
 
Re: Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video’ ex

Trying to conflate this to include US interests in the greater ME over decades is an obfuscation, and deflection of the facts concerning THIS event...Muddying the water will not help you here.

I'm pointing out inconsistencies and hypocrisy, not muddying the water. If you want to get exercised about this event, but accept with a shrug similar events or events with far GREATER tragic outcomes, then it's incumbent on you to explain why this event is fundamentally different than those others, beyond the fact that this event involved hated democrats who it's to the advantage of partisans to attack.

Like I said, I have no idea what your view of the Iraq war was, but in most of my discussions about this, the same idiots who blindly supported Bush throughout that war and tens of thousands dead, $trillions spent, etc. suddenly found the capacity for outrage with Benghazi. It was OK to lie about WMD and yellow cake and Saddam/AQ allegiances and torture and black sites, and all the rest, but when Obama lies about WHY some terrorists attacked a CIA outpost, NOW they're furious. Does it make sense to you? No. Furthermore, I see the operational failures in light of all the thousands of other operational failures throughout the years, and can't really see what is unique here - people failed to heed warnings and people died. This isn't unique in our RECENT history, as in the 2000s. Thousands dead, tens of thousands injured, many of them from people making stupid decisions.

jmotivator has addressed this.

I made several points - he addressed them all? OK...
 
Re: Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video’ ex

I heard on the news about a potential smoking gun on Benghazi. I kind of shrugged and moved on. Being as old as I am I guess I always figured the Obama Administration was trying to cover up something here, in the IRS and other scandals too. It is just what administrations do when they do not want the public to find out something embarrassing, usually political. Yeah, I read about LBJ using the IRS to get back at his political enemies, attempting to use the IRS was one of the counts used to bring down Nixon, etc. etc. Even my hero Eisenhower lied and tried to cover up the U-2 over flights over Russia.

So I begin to wonder how many others thought there was a cover up and really don’t care or have come to expect cover ups as business as usual in Washington D.C.? I found a few polls that asked if you think the Obama administration is trying to cover up something on Benghazi.
One in January of 2013 where 60% said there was a cover up, 25% no cover up
In May of 2013, where 60% believed in a cover up, 28% didn’t believe there was one.
The one in August of 2013 showed 62% thought there was a cover up, 27% said no
And the one taken on April 17, 2014 where 61% says there was a cover up, 26% says no.

So I am not alone in thinking there was a cover up. But how many people did as I did, shrugged their shoulders and consider it no big thing, cover ups is just what those in Washington do. I couldn’t find any polls on that. I also couldn’t find any polls on changing one’s vote if one thought there was a cover up or if a person would think less of the president if there was one. Perhaps most of us have become so use to cover ups and being lied to by those in Washington, we consider that to be no big deal as that is just what politicians do. I did find a poll on ethics, only 14% of Americans viewed politicians as ethical, as comparison used car salesmen came in at 9%, Lawyers were at 20%, banks at 27%, topping the list was nurses at 82% and grade school teachers at 70%. Lobbyist were at the bottom with only 4% of the American public thinking them ethical.

So I guess I am back to my original question, do any of us really care if our elected leaders engage in cover ups and lies to us? Perhaps one only care if it is a member of the opposite party doing the cover up and telling the lies? Maybe, just maybe, we all have become immune to this stuff. It has been done it seems since forever. Cover up or not, proved or not, I really doubt if it would change the way people vote in November much either way.
 
Re: Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video’ ex

67165654d1398882959-benghazi-emails-suggest-white-house-aide-involved-prepping-rice-video-explan-rhoades-email.jpg


So who do we see addressed on this email?

It's a mix of people from the reelection campaign and senior White House staffers. The purpose of this email was to craft a political message with the disposition of making the administration look better, or at least not any worse, because of this event.

Since when are senior government officials in the White House allowed to engage in election politics? It's been observed that this is a felony, in violation of The Hatch Act, as no government officials, beside the president and vice president, are allowed to engage in election politicking, and this email clearly demonstrates that they are.

If this is a violations of the Hatch Act, then nearly every employee of the WH staff violates the Hatch Act with every email, press conference, etc. You're claiming politicians being political is a crime. Every time a WH official appears on TV or the radio - crime. Drafts a press release - crime, etc. It's absurd, and a standard that has never before applied to activities like this, common as dirt since the founding, by Executive branch employees.
 
Re: Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video’ ex

So I guess I am back to my original question, do any of us really care if our elected leaders engage in cover ups and lies to us? Perhaps one only care if it is a member of the opposite party doing the cover up and telling the lies? Maybe, just maybe, we all have become immune to this stuff. It has been done it seems since forever. Cover up or not, proved or not, I really doubt if it would change the way people vote in November much either way.

Yes, I think there was a coverup. The CIA was doing something we don't know about, and I suspect was targeted in direct retaliation for whatever those activities were. They can never say what those activities were, because they were classified. So the cover up is of those activities, basically. Do I care? I guess, but no more than I can care about all the rest our spooks do overseas that I don't know about. I care less about them than the BIG lie which is the sort of wrapper around our entire ME policy. It's not about security or terrorism in my view, but much broader and raw power related than that - some form of hegemony.

What confuses me here is the 'cover up' isn't like Iran Contra, for example, where the WH actively hid illegal acts by Executive branch officials, acts they sanctioned directly violating laws addressing those actions. That might have happened here, depending on what the CIA was doing there. But that's not the 'scandal' - the scandal is some weird coverup of the MOTIVE of some terrorists who attacked us, and that the lie wasn't "it was a random act of terror" which would have been a 'good' lie, but allegedly the 'bad lie that it was in retaliation for the video which is for some reason unacceptable. They're both likely lies - the motive was CIA - but the scandal is the WH used a lie that arguably, for a few days, made them look a bit better in the press than claiming the lie this was just a random target of 'terrorists.' I just cannot figure out why I'm supposed to care more than intellectually - yeah, WH spins events to their advantage, and water is wet.
 
Back
Top Bottom