Page 39 of 40 FirstFirst ... 2937383940 LastLast
Results 381 to 390 of 398

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

  1. #381
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,322

    Re: Top CIA officer in Benghazi delayed response to terrorist attack US security team

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Why don't you read it and tell me what it says.
    I have read it, do your own reading...
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  2. #382
    Sage
    poweRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    35,099

    Re: Top CIA officer in Benghazi delayed response to terrorist attack US security team

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    OJ confessed he didn't murder Nicole.
    And Ted Bundy confessed to killing several girls. Guess that renders your point useless.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    The sad fact is that having a pedophile win is better than having a Democrat in office. I'm all for a solution where a Republican gets in that isn't Moore.

  3. #383
    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 APACHERAT View Post
    [...] Hillary Fired For “Lying, Unethical Behavior” on Watergate Committee... [...]
    Not true. She was laid off at the same time as some other people when the investigation shut down after Nixon's resignation.

    I'd think you guys would eventually wise up on the veracity of your right wing echo chamber sources after being burned sooooo many times.

    BOORTZ: You fired her, didn't you?

    ZEIFMAN: Well, let me put it this way. I terminated her, along with some other staff members who were -- we no longer needed [...]

    Limbaugh repeats assertion by Watergate committee counsel Zeifman that he "fired" Clinton -- an assertion reportedly contradicted by Zeifman himself | Research | Media Matters for America

  4. #384
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,142

    Re: Top CIA officer in Benghazi delayed response to terrorist attack US security team

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    A simple remedy for that is for you to stop spinning my argument and making up strawmen to argue against.
    you agreed with the premise of my question.

    So you really do believe her, huh?
    I think that between the two of you, one of them does this as a profession, and the other is a bit of a known partisan

  5. #385
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,142

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    We knew who did it? That's news to me....
    yes. we did.

    I don't believe it was part of a protest.
    then you would be correct.

    So the idea here is it was planned, but otherwise random and not in response to CIA activities, but because we had facilities there and that's reason enough.
    That's correct. To a certain extent, the target here wasn't even the annex so much as it was social media. The desire is to have an IO campaign centered around a successful serious attack on a major western interest. A US Ambassador made the best target.

    And the big scandal here is that the terrorist attack wasn't a random attack in response to a video, but a random attack in response to nothing at all but that there were Americans in some buildings and so were attacked.
    No. Attacking Americans is what all of these groups plan to do. The scandal is that the administration chose to lie about it.

    Ever since this whole thing started, I have yet to figure out why my give a damn meter should ever tick off about 2 on a 10 point scale.
    It's the WoT's Gulf of Tonkin Incident - an administration lying about an attack in order to shape domestic politics.

    You know they hoped to kill the Ambassador how? He wasn't stationed there, so any speculation he was the target is just that
    They had pretty good collection on the facility and persons they targeted - and the Ambassador wasn't in the Annex when they originally hit him. They targeted him, and it's a lot easier to follow an Ambassador than (as you are claiming) a covert CIA mission.

    And if it was to get access to the "Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility" ( I assume that's what you meant) then you're making my point. The admin can't say that's the reason because the world wasn't supposed to know those facilities were CIA outposts doing spook stuff
    All Embassies "do spook stuff". It's one of the reasons we have them. If we have an embassy, it's collecting. Every embassy they have in our country? Also collecting.

    Do you expect the various agencies to sign off on talking points that blow a CIA operation in the immediate aftermath of an attack?
    the plan was to hit and kill Americans, specifically they seem to have targeted the Ambassador, and they wanted access to the SCIF. The idea (again) that there was a CIA presence in Libya is sort of akin to the notion that we have a military presence in Afghanistan - it's not exactly an unknown.

    Question 2 is "what the hell was CIA doing in Benghazi?" which was and still is presumably classified information
    Most open-source speculation is that they were involved in a buy-back program designed to try to capture some of Gaddafi's more dangerous weaponry that had fallen into VEO hands.

    And if the Admin knew that was the reason for the attack and then blamed it on a random attack , it's also a lie, just a different one. Which is my point. You're effectively demanding that they tell a BETTER lie or a DIFFERENT lie, in the immediate aftermath of an attack.
    No. I am saying that they should not have lied. All they had to say was that it was a terrorist attack (which it was) by an AQ affiliate (which it was), and leave it at that. You don't have to release any CIA operational data in order to accurately describe the attack.

  6. #386
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,142

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Texmex View Post
    Unless you can post a credible source defending what you say about yourself
    check with American, Boo, TGND, or any of the other old Whistlestopper folk who came over. I used to post for them live from Fallujah . American actually physically came and picked me up from intel school for a pretty good day of wine-drinking. Or, if you like, speak to any of the other Marines on this forum (we have quite a few). Any of them (and especially all of them together) would have spotted me long ago if I was faking.

  7. #387
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

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

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    There was a lot of bull **** taking place to bring down Nixon. It was the agenda of the "New Left" to destroy Nixon.

    Wait a sec, Hillary Rodham Clinton is part of the radical "New Left" and played a part on bringing down Nixon.

    Hillary Fired For “Lying, Unethical Behavior” on Watergate Committee...

    >" Hillary Clinton might have a pretty hefty scandal brewing.

    It turns when she was an attorney working on the Watergate investigation, she was fired by her supervisor for “lying, unethical behavior.”

    Jerry Zeifman, who said he is a lifelong Democrat, was a supervisor for 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. When the investigation was complete, Zeifman said he fired Hillary and refused to give her a recommendation.

    “Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality...."<

    1974 Diary Surfaces: Hillary Fired For
    Wow! You dug way deep in the Way Back Machine for that nugget. I'm sure if she runs for the 2016 presidency we'll see signs that read "Hillary is a Liar from Watergate to Benghazi" all over the place.
    "A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground

  8. #388
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Wow! You dug way deep in the Way Back Machine for that nugget. I'm sure if she runs for the 2016 presidency we'll see signs that read "Hillary is a Liar from Watergate to Benghazi" all over the place.
    I want to see where Chelsea Clinton tells her Secret Service detail that "Mom and dad calls you guys pigs."

    Or when Hillary was walking down the hallways of the White House and a General greets Hillary with a "Good morning Ms. Clinton" and Hillary response was "**** you."

  9. #389
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:54 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,472

    Re: Top CIA officer in Benghazi delayed response to terrorist attack US security team

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    you agreed with the premise of my question.


    I think that between the two of you, one of them does this as a profession, and the other is a bit of a known partisan
    Ad homs are usually a good indicator that you don't have an argument left to defend. Sooo I guess that means we're done here, eh.

  10. #390
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,843

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

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    yes. we did.
    No. We didn't. We could guess, but they didn't even have a look at the video for a week or more.

    That's correct. To a certain extent, the target here wasn't even the annex so much as it was social media. The desire is to have an IO campaign centered around a successful serious attack on a major western interest. A US Ambassador made the best target.
    You're speculating, and what we KNOW about that now certainly wasn't KNOWN at the time in the immediate aftermath.

    No. Attacking Americans is what all of these groups plan to do. The scandal is that the administration chose to lie about it.
    You're conflating all attacks for all kinds of reasons into one big category of "terrorist" attack. That's a huge mistake IMO.


    It's the WoT's Gulf of Tonkin Incident - an administration lying about an attack in order to shape domestic politics.
    You can't be serious. This is exactly why I quit taking BENGHAZI!!! seriously long ago. They are not in the same universe, and efforts to equate them are just obvious BS. We effectively declared war after the GoT incident, causing deaths of over a million Vietnamese, about 60,000 U.S. dead, another 150,000 wounded. This "lie" lasted two or three WEEKS and it's effect on the big picture was nil.


    All Embassies "do spook stuff". It's one of the reasons we have them. If we have an embassy, it's collecting. Every embassy they have in our country? Also collecting.
    This wasn't an embassy. And if it was routine, why did Petraeus skip the memorial for his own dead employees?

    the plan was to hit and kill Americans, specifically they seem to have targeted the Ambassador, and they wanted access to the SCIF. The idea (again) that there was a CIA presence in Libya is sort of akin to the notion that we have a military presence in Afghanistan - it's not exactly an unknown.
    But you can't say even years later what the CIA was doing, or if what they were doing was the actual target of the attack. You're speculating.

    No. I am saying that they should not have lied. All they had to say was that it was a terrorist attack (which it was) by an AQ affiliate (which it was), and leave it at that. You don't have to release any CIA operational data in order to accurately describe the attack.
    OK, so on the front end the WH spun the story, and in 2 or 3 weeks they gave the story you wanted. Again, I'll concede in an election year this hits the "Give a damn" meter but why it pegs 10 and stays there two years later, and coming up on two years after that election, is a mystery. Or it would be if the reason wasn't obviously to hang this on Hillary, and continue to beat Obama about the head with it.

Page 39 of 40 FirstFirst ... 2937383940 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
  •