• 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!

Ex-White House Official On Benghazi: 'Dude, This Was Like Two Years Ago'

Bush 1 and 2 aren't relevent to the Obama administration using the deaths of 4 Americans for their Political benefit.
Bwcause thats exactly what they did.
Focusing on the past is your game and we'll just have to remind the American people what has happened with your GOPs also.
Time to reopen the books on past GOP administrations that Obama stupidly closed in 2009 to bring the Nation closer together .
 
GOP Chair Buck McKeon chastized the idiot General and with that, I$$A.
There is nothing new here and you will lose this battle over a faux negative, as you keep losing all the others, like ACA .
Don't look like you nor any from the left can even come in and save the day with Benghazi neither.....MMC is on the J.O.B. ;)

No left or right here, just correct and the GOP .
 
How many of your fellow marines were killed on Reagan's watch?
Only to have Reagan illegally sell arms to those who killed our Marines.
DEMs continue to make the mistake they are posting with honest GOPs .

Don't deflect now
nono.gif
.....this is about Benghazi not anyone elses other mistakes. Just Team BO's mistakes now. There are no other tangents. JUST BO and his Dog erm I mean team and their own words and actions.
icon_thumright.gif
 
Focusing on the past is your game and we'll just have to remind the American people what has happened with your GOPs also.
Time to reopen the books on past GOP administrations that Obama stupidly closed in 2009 to bring the Nation closer together .

Shouldn't people be held accountable for their mistakes ?

Just in general ? No matter their Political affiliation ?

Why do you make distinctions based on Party at all ?

This endless mitigation, these desperate lies to cover lies aren't helping the Democrats case.

They're making things worse because its causing a never ending trickle of hidden data that slowly affirms the charges brought against them.

That leads to the impression, right or wrong, that the entire Democrat Party is corrupt absolutely.

That these 8 years were literally filled with scandals.

Why you people disregard the power in truth is beyond me.
 
Lol ! No body except for People loyal to the Democrat party thought it was about a video when it happened.

And no one thinks it's currently about a video.

I mean if that were the case Jay Carney shoukd have just said yesterday that the Benghazzi attack was over a video.

Yep, that Email on the 12th kinda puts Morell's words into proper perspective. Well really blows his excuse out of the Water. Even if it was changed later. We should go with a Special Select Committee. Kind of like the Demos do. Select Choice don't you think. :lol:
 
Don't deflect now
nono.gif
.....this is about Benghazi not anyone elses other mistakes. Just Team BO's mistakes now. There are no other tangents. JUST BO and his Dog erm I mean team and their own words and actions.
icon_thumright.gif

Precedent has been set in the past.
You don't get off that easy.
This is about winning the Senate aqnde impeaching Obama .
 
Incompetence did abound. Negligence did take place as well as dereliction of duty. All falls on Team BO with No place else to go. ;)

If it was negligence then it falls on the CIA for not protecting Ambassador Stevens and for not heeding the warnings in the first place. Stevens went to Benghazi to act as interpreter for the CIA who were trying to negotiate with the local militants to give up their arms. If that isn't risking one's life, then I don't know what is.

The CIA's mission in Benghazi was to clear a mile area around the compound to make it safe for the diplomats. They needed an interpreter to communicate with the locals and Amb. Stevens knew the language. The compound where Amb. Stevens was staying actually belonged to the CIA. That's why in the emails the state department requested they change the word "consulate" to "compound" suggesting they didn't want the blame for a failed CIA mission. The CIA were supposed to protect Amb. Stevens and the compound. They failed.

It was no secret that Benghazi was a dangerous place if all the other foreign diplomats had abandoned their consulates days, weeks prior to Amb. Stevens arrival. So Amb. Stevens must have known he was risking his life when he went to Benghazi. In some circles that would make him a hero, not a victim.
 
Last edited:
Precedent has been set in the past.
You don't get off that easy.
This is about winning the Senate aqnde impeaching Obama .

Well you are Right the precedent was set in the past.

Wherein Susan Rice and the Democrats allowed a US Ambassador to be killed and had security problems with Embassies. Back then they said they fixed all the problems with the new measures and here we are again with the Demos throwing security out the window.....not listening to the people who they hired to help out.....and pretty much proving why they don't belong in Foreign Policy.....EVER!
 
If it was negligence then it falls on the CIA for not protecting Ambassador Stevens and for not heeding the warnings in the first place. Stevens went to Benghazi to act as interpreter for the CIA who were trying to negotiate with the local militants to give up their arms.

The CIA's mission in Benghazi was to clear a mile area around the compound to make it safe for the diplomats. They needed an interpreter to communicate with the locals and Amb. Stevens knew the language. The compound where Amb. Stevens was staying actually belonged to the CIA. That's why in the emails the state department requested they change the word "consulate" to "compound" suggesting they didn't want the blame for a failed CIA mission. The CIA were supposed to protect Amb. Stevens and the compound. They failed.

It was no secret that Benghazi was a dangerous place if all the other foreign diplomats had abandoned their consulates days, weeks prior to Amb. Stevens arrival. So Amb. Stevens must have known he was risking his life when he went to Benghazi. In some circles that would make him a hero, not a victim.

No they weren't trying to get local militia to give up arms. He met the Turks envoy. Since the Turks had closed up their embassy back when the fighting with Gadhafi was going on.

Which was Validated that they were on the Streets seen 2hrs before the attack. That's when the Turk Left. Which again that needs to be pursued as to how he got out.

After that meeting and not more than a few days Later a Libyan Freighter shows up off the coast of Syria and does not dock in any major port. Which we now all know was loaded with the weapons the Cia had confiscated from Gadhafi.
 
Precedent has been set in the past.
You don't get off that easy.
This is about winning the Senate aqnde impeaching Obama .

You mentioned the senate, you remember back in 2012 when I said the election would be decided in the east. That if Romney lost any one of three states, Virginia, Florida and Ohio, that one should just go to bed because the election is over. All three states were must win states for Romney.

I think the senate is coming close to that, being decided in the east again. With a net gain of six seats needed by the GOP to take control there are 4 states/seats they must win in the east to accomplish that, West Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia and Kentucky. Lose any one of them the odds skyrocket against them gaining control of the senate, win all 4 and the odd of them gaining the senate a excellent. They would have protected the only two states the democrats had a chance of winning and won one state they should win and one that is a toss up. moving to the Central time zone, they now need only 4. Arkansas, Louisiana tossups, but very winnable, South Dakota and Montana, states like west Virginia should easily go to the GOP. We haven't even mentioned Alaska, Colorado, Michigan or Iowa.

So I think if the GOP wins those 4 eastern states, they will eventually gain the senate by days end. If they lose one, time to go to bed, they ain't gonna do it.
 
Yep, that Email on the 12th kinda puts Morell's words into proper perspective. Well really blows his excuse out of the Water. Even if it was changed later. We should go with a Special Select Committee. Kind of like the Demos do. Select Choice don't you think. :lol:

Harry Ried called the Special Committee a "Partisan Circus".

Why would Harry Reid be opposed to a objective investigation if Obama and the Democrats have nothing to hide and did nothing wrong ?
 
Did you read the email in the link I offered? Clinton knew it was a terrorist attack - perhaps an attack of opportunity - but ostensibly since one of her senior aides knew it within hours of the attack, Clinton surely did as well. There is no evidence of a protest in Benghazi. There's plenty of evidence of a terrorist attack given that Ansar al Sharia claimed responsibility with other players shortly after the attack.

A lot of people consider an attack against US interests abroad as protests. Prior to 9/11 it was so frequent that people just got used to calling it 'collateral damage'. It really doesn't make any difference whether the attack was pre-planned or not if it was done in protest. So until they catch the guys who did it and they admit their motive....then it's all just speculation.



One man's idea of violent protest is another man's idea of terror. Neither are mutually exclusive.
 
Last edited:
Harry Ried called the Special Committee a "Partisan Circus".

Why would Harry Reid be opposed to a objective investigation if Obama and the Democrats have nothing to hide and did nothing wrong ?

Because there is no way that the Demos or Repubs can stop any charges that come out of the Special. Harry knows this.....so he just did what all the rest did. Play on the aspect it was a witchhunt.

But then they forgot about the MS Media and their own words and who told who what and those overseas then they were left with no out. Actions and Body language and behaviors then all come into play.
 
No, American. The blatant arrogance belongs to those who have been passionately screaming "Benghazi" for political points the last few years, yet don't give one flying **** about those who died.

One of the few positives imo of the two political parties is if one does something corrupt and tries to cover up, the other investigates. It is the same with Christie.
 
:laughat:

We will see. If the evidence is there, prosecute. No objection from me. But to date, it's just been noise with no substance. And really, all you had was a couple of weeks of a false narrative. The trouble came long before that, and has already been admitted to by Hillary (that errors were made). So, its not like there is a criminal act. At worse, there's merely a false narrative that was unsuccessfully portrayed.

Merely a false narrative? This is the difference between the deniers and everyone else. They either reject the notion that any wrong doing occurred at all, or they believe their own tripe to make it more palatable to swallow.
 
No they weren't trying to get local militia to give up arms.
Yes, they were. You helped to prove it when you mentioned the Lybian cargo ship full of Lybian arms waiting off the coast.



He met the Turks envoy. Since the Turks had closed up their embassy back when the fighting with Gadhafi was going on.

Which was Validated that they were on the Streets seen 2hrs before the attack. That's when the Turk Left. Which again that needs to be pursued as to how he got out.

So you help prove that Stevens knew the dangers of being in Benghazi. Ntl, his main reason for being there was to act as interpreter and help the CIA negotiate with the local militants to give up their arms. He was not there on a state mission, he was there on a CIA mission. Hence, its all classified...top secret....hush hush, and congress is sworn not to tell.

After that meeting and not more than a few days Later a Libyan Freighter shows up off the coast of Syria and does not dock in any major port. Which we now all know was loaded with the weapons the Cia had confiscated from Gadhafi.
That's makes sense. But it doesn't negate the fact that Stevens was working for the CIA when the compound was attacked...or that he didn't know the danger before he went to Benghazi and that he still chose to go.
 
Last edited:
Then it would be the CIA's fault for not providing him adequate security. One of the issues (besides the lies from the regime here in America) is that a US Ambassador didn't have adequate security measures; if you want to suggest he was working on a CIA op they should have provided him adequate security. I believe its been reported the Stevens had, in writing, asked for more security for the Benghazi mission well ahead of this and he was turned down. In a time when people actually cared about the lives of others a person in the employ of our government that failed to adequately assess the security needs of such an ambassador would at least be fired. A "twerp" idiot moron that appears on national TV and say "dude" it was "like" two years ago would be looking for a burger flipping opportunity because that is ALL he should be doing.


Yes, they were. You helped to prove it when you mentioned the Lybian cargo ship full of Lybian arms waiting off the coast.





So you help prove that Stevens knew the dangers of being in Benghazi. Ntl, his main reason for being there was to act as interpreter and help the CIA negotiate with the local militants to give up their arms. He was not there on a state mission, he was there on a CIA mission. Hence, its all classified...top secret....hush hush, and congress is sworn not to tell.

That's makes sense. But it doesn't negate the fact that Stevens was working for the CIA when the compound was attacked...or that he wasn't there by his own choice.
 
Yes, they were. You helped to prove it when you mentioned the Lybian cargo ship full of Lybian arms waiting off the coast.





So you help prove that Stevens knew the dangers of being in Benghazi. Ntl, his main reason for being there was to act as interpreter and help the CIA negotiate with the local militants to give up their arms. He was not there on a state mission, he was there on a CIA mission. Hence, its all classified...top secret....hush hush, and congress is sworn not to tell.

That's makes sense. But it doesn't negate the fact that Stevens was working for the CIA when the compound was attacked...or that he didn't know the danger before he went to Benghazi and that he still chose to go.


Not that night they weren't. Which Lt Col Wood testified too.

Note-2-in-Benghazi-guard-caught-taking-pictures-car-322.png


Lt. Col Wood was the Commander in Charge of the American security detail in Libya & he testified.....

“I feel duty bound to come forward in order to inform and provide a portion of ground truth information. I feel a sense of honor for those individuals who have died in the service of their country.

I realize much of my work in Libya was entangled in sensitive government work… The killing of a US Ambassador is a rare and extraordinary thing and requires our attention as a people.

As a citizen I made the determination that this outweighs all other interests and will risk whatever circumstances may result from my testimony”.....snip~
 
More from Stevens Himself.....


Before death, Amb. Stevens warned of "violent" Libya landscape.....

(CBS News) In the weeks before his death, U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens sent the State Department several requests for increased security for diplomats in Libya.....

Steven's memos to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is investigating attacks, show he personally pressed for strengthened security.

On July 9, 2012, Stevens sent a "request for extension of tour of duty (TDY) personnel." That refers to a 16-man military temporary security team with expertise in counter terrorism. They were set to leave in August, but Stevens asked to keep them "thru mid-September."

On August 2, six weeks before he died, Stevens requested "protective detail bodyguard potions," saying the added guards "will fill the vacuum of security personnel currently at post who will be leaving with the next month and will not be replaced." He called "the security condition in Libya ... unpredictable, volatile and violent." It's not known what happened to that request.

On August 8, as the special security teams left Libya, another cable from Stevens says "a series of violent incidents has dominated the political landscape" and calls them "targeted and discriminate attacks."

Then on September 11 -- the day the Ambassador lost his life -- he sent this Benghazi weekly report. It expressed Libyans' "growing frustration with police and security forces who were too weak to keep the country secure."

Colonel Andrew Wood led the U.S. military team that left Libya in August. He testified before Congress last week.

He told CBS News that Stevens fought losing another security team.....snip~

Before death, Amb. Stevens warned of "violent" Libya landscape - CBS News

Which now here is a lil clue for all.....Ansar al Sharia threaten to kill Stevens in June of 2012 after their trial run on the Annex the first time round.

Also, the attacks Stevens was referring to was the Assassination attempt on the Brit Ambassador and the Italians. Then the Red Cross Offices were hit.....plus there were a bunch of Libyan political assassinations.
 
Last edited:
Then it would be the CIA's fault for not providing him adequate security. One of the issues (besides the lies from the regime here in America) is that a US Ambassador didn't have adequate security measures; if you want to suggest he was working on a CIA op they should have provided him adequate security. I believe its been reported the Stevens had, in writing, asked for more security for the Benghazi mission well ahead of this and he was turned down.
If Stevens was denied adequate security....then why did he go? It was the 9/11 anniversary, protests all over the ME, Benghazi was in a state of anarcy, Lybia's president says he warned of an attack three days in advance, almost all the foreign diplomats and NGOs had evacuated and relocated to Tripoli..... so who told Ambassador that it was safe to go to Benghazi? It had to be the CIA....who else?



In a time when people actually cared about the lives of others a person in the employ of our government that failed to adequately assess the security needs of such an ambassador would at least be fired. A "twerp" idiot moron that appears on national TV and say "dude" it was "like" two years ago would be looking for a burger flipping opportunity because that is ALL he should be doing.
Heads did roll. They don't call him "former" CIA director for nothing.
 
Dude, did a DEM. US Senator ever call GWB a scumbag?

I don't know. Do you? I'm certain they did, but I have no idea if it's recorded for posterity. Maybe they didn't use those precise words because it's a stretch for someone like Harry Reid to put two syllables together in that fashion. It's certainly not in Pelosi's lexicon, although she did manage "Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi..." which I thought was a triumph for her. Dude.
 
A lot of people consider an attack against US interests abroad as protests. Prior to 9/11 it was so frequent that people just got used to calling it 'collateral damage'. It really doesn't make any difference whether the attack was pre-planned or not if it was done in protest. So until they catch the guys who did it and they admit their motive....then it's all just speculation.



One man's idea of violent protest is another man's idea of terror. Neither are mutually exclusive.

Complete BS. WWII was a protest then. We entered WWII as a protest against the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. No speculation involved. And "until they catch the guys who did it" is a joke. Reporters interviewed them on the streets of Tripoli, and you're maintaining that we can't find them? Heh.
 
If Stevens was denied adequate security....then why did he go? It was the 9/11 anniversary, protests all over the ME, Benghazi was in a state of anarcy, Lybia's president says he warned of an attack three days in advance, almost all the foreign diplomats and NGOs had evacuated and relocated to Tripoli..... so who told Ambassador that it was safe to go to Benghazi? It had to be the CIA....who else?

Heads did roll. They don't call him "former" CIA director for nothing.


What don't you get Moot.....he was Ordered to go. He can't refuse a direct order.

Also, we have the dispute between the CIA and State over the emails. Here are the 12 ABC was brought up about.


Benghazi e-mails show clash between State Department, CIA.....
Published: May 10, 2013


New details from administration e-mails about last year’s attacks on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya, demonstrate that an intense bureaucratic clash took place between the State Department and the CIA over which agency would get to tell the story of how the tragedy unfolded.

That clash played out in the development of administration talking points that have been at the center of the controversy over the handling of the incident, according to the e-mails that came to light Friday.

Friday’s revelations — ABC News published 12 versions of the talking points — produced the latest round of Benghazi post-mortems in the eight months since the attacks. Senior administration officials said in a briefing for reporters that none of Obama’s political advisers were involved in discussions around the original talking points, only national security staff officials.

According to various drafts of the talking points, shaped before the final editing by the White House and other agencies, State Department officials raised concerns that the CIA-drafted version could be used by members of Congress to criticize diplomatic security preparedness in Benghazi.

One version of the talking points, drafted by the CIA, noted that unknown gunmen had carried out at least five recent attacks in and around Benghazi against “foreign interests.” The final version, however, did not include those warnings after Victoria Nuland, the State Department’s chief spokeswoman at the time, protested in e-mails to White House national security staff and other agencies involved in editing the talking points.

CIA officials said in the weeks after the Benghazi attack that Ansar al-Sharia, a group affiliated with al-Qaeda, was not mentioned in the final talking points because the information was classified — even though the early versions made public this week showed that the agency initially intended to name the group.

Reports about the e-mails surfaced two days after three State Department officials appeared before Congress on Wednesday and criticized administration actions before, during and after the September assaults.

But White House officials were directly involved in developing the talking points through discussions with the CIA, the State Department, the FBI, the Justice Department, and elements of the Pentagon.....snip~

Benghazi e-mails show clash between State Department, CIA - The Washington Post
 
Last edited:
Remember now that was ABC that brought out the earlier discrepancies.

In a statement, Jen Psaki, the State Department’s chief spokesperson, said Friday that the department first reviewed the talking points on the evening of Sept. 14, two days before Rice delivered them on a series of talk shows. She said Nuland raised two concerns. “First that the points went further in assigning responsibility than preliminary assessments suggested and there was concern about preserving the integrity of the investigation,” Psaki said. “Second, that the points were inconsistent with the public language the administration had used to date — meaning members of Congress would be providing more guidance to the public than the administration.”

In November, both Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. and former CIA director David H. Petraeus briefed the intelligence committees about the talking points. After that testimony, DNI spokesman Shawn Turner told reporters that the intelligence community was solely responsible for “substantive” changes in the talking points.

A bipartisan report on Benghazi released by the Senate homeland security committee in December said that a senior CIA analyst had advocated including the al-Qaeda reference.....snip~

Benghazi e-mails show clash between State Department, CIA - The Washington Post
 
You mentioned the senate, you remember back in 2012 when I said the election would be decided in the east. That if Romney lost any one of three states, Virginia, Florida and Ohio, that one should just go to bed because the election is over. All three states were must win states for Romney.
Remember when Romney first jumped on Benghazi, making it an election issue?
What did DEMs do on the original 9/11/2001?
They were expected to act like Patriotic lemmings for the party of the Patriotic, the GOP, and they did.

There will never be peace in foreign policy, as there will never be peace with any GOP faux issue.
Even if the GOP impeaches another DEM President, it will not satisfy their hatred of the DEMs over Watergate.

Your icon Goldwater is turning over in his grave on Benghazi.
Imagine how Goldwater would have responded if DEMs tried to pull this **** on Beirut in the 80's, when he was still in the Senate .
 
Back
Top Bottom