Page 17 of 40 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 398

Thread: Top CIA officer in Benghazi delayed response to terrorist attack [W:222]

  1. #161
    Sage
    Karl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    12-18-14 @ 09:35 AM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,561

    re: Top CIA officer in Benghazi delayed response to terrorist attack [W:222]

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    [...] conspiracy: a secret plan made by two or more people to do something that is harmful or illegal

    Wrong.

    The administration chose to lie to the American people about a terrorist attack in order to steer domestic politics. [...]
    It has already been shown that your claim can't be proven. Repeating it won't help that case, but it does help establish a case that the talk media right cannot accept reality, which lends an air of disreputability to pronouncements such as yours and the other poster's. You know what they say -- you are what you eat

    That's why we hear all the complaints about the mainstream media not following up on these conspiracy theories -- they don't have any substance, and the usual sources have a demonstrated lack of credibility. The mainstream media is being prudent and rational... which doesn't work at all for the Obama haters.

  2. #162
    Sage
    Karl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    12-18-14 @ 09:35 AM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,561

    re: Top CIA officer in Benghazi delayed response to terrorist attack [W:222]

    Quote Originally Posted by humbolt View Post
    I've generally found that people are exactly who they want to be. It usually takes a little time, but it inevitably comes out. There's no fineness or accuracy to suppression. You hold one thing down, you necessarily hold down all the adjoining. I notice it, so I assume others do as well. There is no requirement to submit a resume in order to post - in the belief that the truth will become obvious over time. Such posters are generally shunned in the end - left or right. Doesn't matter.
    You miss the point. A tactic is to claim a persona of experience or authority in order to substantiate a point. That is a logical fallacy (typically an appeal to authority), which means it is a false argument.

    This tactic is used when the person presenting the argument has no pertinent facts to back it up. Even if the person is who they claim to be, that so-called 'authority' still does not substitute for facts or evidence. If an argument is valid, no personal identity, experience, or 'secret information which cannot be disclosed' is necessary to support it.

    As to shunning, that also has no bearing on the truth or validity of anything. If fact, over the course of history those actually telling the truth are the ones shunned, at least in the initial stages. Truth, facts, and evidence are not a popularity contest.

    General suggestion for all: if you're going to debate, you should study up a bit on it. At least if success is the goal. Most of the arguments presented here would be laughed out of the room in a formal debate setting (speaking college/high school, not political).
    Last edited by Karl; 09-07-14 at 02:34 PM.

  3. #163
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    re: Top CIA officer in Benghazi delayed response to terrorist attack [W:222]

    Quote Originally Posted by Karl View Post
    It's the internet -- you can be whoever you want to be

    If you have some factual evidence you can present, then please do so. Otherwise, 'because I say so' won't cut it... at least outside the right wing echo chamber.

    Here ya go.....you really should read it. Before discussing what you couldn't figure out.....that which all the Fact-Checkers did. Just sayin.


    Benghazi Timeline
    The long road from "spontaneous protest" to premeditated terrorist attack.

    The question won’t go away: Did President Obama and administration officials mislead the public when they initially claimed that the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi began “spontaneously” in response to an anti-Muslim video? 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:.....snip~

    Benghazi Timeline

  4. #164
    Sage
    Karl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    12-18-14 @ 09:35 AM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,561

    re: Top CIA officer in Benghazi delayed response to terrorist attack [W:222]

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    [...] Benghazi Timeline
    The long road from "spontaneous protest" to premeditated terrorist attack.

    The question won’t go away: Did President Obama and administration officials mislead the public when they initially claimed that the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi began “spontaneously” in response to an anti-Muslim video? 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. [...]
    I'm not disputing that, in hindsight, the attack appears to have been pre-meditated. However, that the administration's first explanation was wrong does not mean that they lied. Sorry.

    They may have even leaned in one direction instead of the other. Even for political reasons. That's not lie either. Sorry. They could only be telling a lie once they knew for certain that the attacks were not in response to the video, but premeditated. Eventually they did come around to that explanation. If the Republicans haven't managed, by now, to parse that close enough to legally establish that a lie has been told then it is unlikely they ever will. If the evidence showed it then they would be filing legal charges over the matter. They are not, so right wing media is instead still their viewers around by their noses with baseless accusations in order to maintain the general inflammation factor against Obama for reason of politics, not facts.

    The context that the right wing echo chamber always leaves out is that there were demonstrations elsewhere -- Egypt, for example -- that were reportedly in response to the YouTube video. Once you acknowledge that, your argument flies out the window... which is why it is always omitted in right wing coverage on this event. Monday-morning quarterbacking is one thing; intentionally omitting similar events in other regions actually is lying -- just that they are accusing Obama of. Tsk, tsk, tsk... pot, meet kettle.

  5. #165
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    18,267

    re: Top CIA officer in Benghazi delayed response to terrorist attack [W:222]

    Quote Originally Posted by Karl View Post
    You miss the point. A tactic is to claim a persona of experience or authority in order to substantiate a point. That is a logical fallacy (typically an appeal to authority), which means it is a false argument.
    I was not familiar with Sarcogito. You weren't either. I defer to those who were.

    This tactic is used when the person presenting the argument has no pertinent facts to back it up. Even if the person is who they claim to be, that so-called 'authority' still does not substitute for facts or evidence. If an argument is valid, no personal identity, experience, or 'secret information which cannot be disclosed' is necessary to support it.
    See above.

    As to shunning, that also has no bearing on the truth or validity of anything. If fact, over the course of history those actually telling the truth are the ones shunned, at least in the initial stages. Truth, facts, and evidence are not a popularity contest.
    Neither is the dismissal of all with which you disagree.

    General suggestion for all: if you're going to debate, you should study up a bit on it. At least if success is the goal. Most of the arguments presented here would be laughed out of the room in a formal debate setting (speaking college/high school, not political).
    There is a forum here for that kind of debate if you're interested. I'm not. Others are. Have at it.

  6. #166
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,313

    re: Top CIA officer in Benghazi delayed response to terrorist attack [W:222]

    Quote Originally Posted by Karl View Post
    I'm not disputing that, in hindsight, the attack appears to have been pre-meditated. However,
    that the administration's first explanation was wrong does not mean that they lied.
    Sorry.

    They may have even leaned in one direction instead of the other. Even for political reasons. That's not lie either. Sorry. They could only be telling a lie once they knew for certain that the attacks were not in response to the video, but premeditated. Eventually they did come around to that explanation. If the Republicans haven't managed, by now, to parse that close enough to legally establish that a lie has been told then it is unlikely they ever will. If the evidence showed it then they would be filing legal charges over the matter. They are not, so right wing media is instead still their viewers around by their noses with baseless accusations in order to maintain the general inflammation factor against Obama for reason of politics, not facts.

    The context that the right wing echo chamber always leaves out is that there were demonstrations elsewhere -- Egypt, for example -- that were reportedly in response to the YouTube video. Once you acknowledge that, your argument flies out the window... which is why it is always omitted in right wing coverage on this event. Monday-morning quarterbacking is one thing; intentionally omitting similar events in other regions actually is lying -- just that they are accusing Obama of. Tsk, tsk, tsk... pot, meet kettle.
    Where'd they get it from ... to your satisfaction, that is ... and assuredly enough to spend weeks making the claim.
    Looks like they didn't ask the guys on site.
    And there were no similar events anywhere else.
    No CIA annex attacked ... no ambassadors killed ... no consulates sacked.

  7. #167
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    re: Top CIA officer in Benghazi delayed response to terrorist attack [W:222]

    Quote Originally Posted by Karl View Post
    I'm not disputing that, in hindsight, the attack appears to have been pre-meditated. However, that the administration's first explanation was wrong does not mean that they lied. Sorry.

    They may have even leaned in one direction instead of the other. Even for political reasons. That's not lie either. Sorry. They could only be telling a lie once they knew for certain that the attacks were not in response to the video, but premeditated. Eventually they did come around to that explanation. If the Republicans haven't managed, by now, to parse that close enough to legally establish that a lie has been told then it is unlikely they ever will. If the evidence showed it then they would be filing legal charges over the matter. They are not, so right wing media is instead still their viewers around by their noses with baseless accusations in order to maintain the general inflammation factor against Obama for reason of politics, not facts.

    The context that the right wing echo chamber always leaves out is that there were demonstrations elsewhere -- Egypt, for example -- that were reportedly in response to the YouTube video. Once you acknowledge that, your argument flies out the window... which is why it is always omitted in right wing coverage on this event. Monday-morning quarterbacking is one thing; intentionally omitting similar events in other regions actually is lying -- just that they are accusing Obama of. Tsk, tsk, tsk... pot, meet kettle.


    Nice try but as usual when it comes to left wing I can't comprehend reality chamber.....intent always outweighs the outcomes. That's why words like.....Slow to respond and downplayed were used. Although never understood by those of the left. As to the context of their meaning.

    Oh and BO peep knew all along.....which later he would bring out with his explanation about the Chatter. Then have Petraeus speak on the issue.

    Naturally the rest of the Planet was able to figure it out.


    Benghazi US consulate attack: Timeline

    After initially saying the attack may have been spontaneous, US authorities now say it was a pre-planned strike. Libyan authorities have said militants probably used an anti-US protest as cover for the attack, and may have had help from inside the country's security services.....snip~

    BBC News - Benghazi US consulate attack: Timeline


    Yes, 23 Countries rose up, protesting the US, Embassies, Schools and US Business. All with Social media used by the Sunni Cleric in Egypt. Who was never taken into custody. Which its already been disproved that the Egyptian Protest had nothing to do with Libya. Some called it the Arab Spring.

    Tsk tsk.....to bad those Fact Checkers with the timelines just don't lie and from overseas sources too. All pointing out how BO and his Team changed their stories.

    Next!

  8. #168
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,326

    re: Top CIA officer in Benghazi delayed response to terrorist attack [W:222]

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    Where'd they get it from ... to your satisfaction, that is ... and assuredly enough to spend weeks making the claim.
    Looks like they didn't ask the guys on site.
    And there were no similar events anywhere else.
    No CIA annex attacked ... no ambassadors killed ... no consulates sacked.
    The protests in other ME cities were a convenient excuse for a President on the campaign trail that was touting "GM alive, and OBL dead, with AQ on the run"....Can't rightly claim that when there is pictures of your own consulate burning during an attack by AQ affiliates....Nothing this President does is truthful, or above board. It is all political bull ****.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  9. #169
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    re: Top CIA officer in Benghazi delayed response to terrorist attack [W:222]

    Quote Originally Posted by Karl View Post
    It's the internet -- you can be whoever you want to be
    you are free to say so. You are also free to check with any of the members here who have known me for more than a decade at this point, who knew me before I enlisted in the Marine Corps, and have been with me since. Or, if you like, you can check with American, who actually picked me up when I was going through an intel course in his home-area. We went out to a wine festival

    If you have some factual evidence you can present, then please do so.
    That we knew instantly that it was a terrorist attack instead of a youtube video? That has been just about pretty much the uniform testimony of everyone involved in national security who has been called to testify on these matters, from General Hamm on down to the guys in the OP.

    The Benghazi Transcripts: Top Defense officials briefed Obama on ‘attack,’ not video or protest

    Newly declassified Benghazi testimony: Pentagon told Obama it was terrorism

    AFRICOM commander: We knew almost immediately Benghazi was a terrorist attack

    Etc. etc. so on and so forth.

  10. #170
    Left the building
    Fearandloathing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada Dual citizen
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,492

    re: Top CIA officer in Benghazi delayed response to terrorist attack [W:222]

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    You'll have to refresh my memory on that. (Re: Chatter). Regardless, 3 or 4 CIA operatives on the ground as indicated in the FoxNews piece and one on-scene high ranking official who made an on-scene judgment call not to engage the enemy does not constitute an official directive coming from CIA HQ, the State Department, DoD nor the White House to stand-down. That's all I'm trying to get across to you folks.

    I'd imagine that the on-scene supervisor is no different than a squad leader or platoon commander calling the shoots during combat prior to calling HQ for an air strike. I see no difference here. Nonetheless, I can agree there was a stand-down order given. However, it didn't come from the top brass which is what Rep. Issa and Co. (Republicans) have been clamoring for as the smoking gun of ineptitude from the Obama Administration since 9/11/12.


    And the point of THAT is?

    Look, nuances are "old news"...

    This splitting of hairs on the details is dishonest, especially in light of Hillary's testimony on that very question.

    In the end, a sitting American ambassador was assassinated for the first time in 30 years, and the TERRORISTS, whom The One claimed were dead, walk free, bragging to the world that Americans, even ones in high positions, can assassinated with impunity.

    Because this evidence does not draw a straight line to an administration that insisted for weeks it was a spontaneous demonstration over a stupid video is no reason to either trust the word of these Nixon-style liars or to automatically accept the nauseating claims of the White House that it was "old news", "nothing there", and "a Republican witch hunt". If Obama had any sense of right and wrong, he would have called his own investigation like Bush did over 911. Instead he has been trying to hide it, "let Americans forget'.

    Now that we see there is more than a little evidence the truth has been hidden, you cannot simply point to one lack of a thread and say "nothing there" for as surely as H.R Bob Haldeman was a Watergate conspirator, there definitely IS something very much here, something I suspect is way worse than anything Nixon did
    ""You know, when we sell to other countries, even if they're allies -- you never know about an ally. An ally can turn."
    Donald Trump, 11/23/17

Page 17 of 40 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... 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
  •