• 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!

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

What you think you know and what you can prove to any reasonable certainty is two different things.


It's the internet -- people can be whoever they want to be.


I looked at the JW documents; none of it would meet the legal or actionable definition of a conspiracy. In fact most of it seemed to paint the administration as stressing that the 'YouTube story' was preliminary, subject to an ongoing investigation and subject to review/change.

Again, right wing conspiracy theory fail.

So everyone else is just a simple liar, and only you have the truth eh? Not to mention that you hang your hat repeatedly on semantics, and legal wormholes that allow you to squirm through the slime with ease....This is why many can't stand "progressives" .... Hell, they can't even be honest about who they really are.
 
Sarcogito. :( I was sad to lose him - he was good people.


Yeah CPW.....he was good people. Like you.....I didn't like seeing us lose him from around here. I was talking to him and when he had said he was being sent back to Libya. I remember telling him to watch his 6. Especially there.
 
So everyone else is just a simple liar, and only you have the truth eh? [...]
That does seem to be what the other poster (below) is saying. Problem is, he's not offering any type of pertinent evidence or rational reasoning to support that claim.

1. I have known that the Administration was lying about this event since the day after it occurred. [...]
 
[...] Not to mention that you hang your hat repeatedly on semantics, and legal wormholes that allow you to squirm through the slime with ease....This is why many can't stand "progressives" .... Hell, they can't even be honest about who they really are.
Hate is not a rebuttal.
 
It's the internet -- people can be whoever they want to be.

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.
 
What you think you know and what you can prove to any reasonable certainty is two different things.

:shrug: I was military intelligence at the time. We knew exactly who it was - heck, I was briefing it to my boss.

It's the internet -- people can be whoever they want to be.

Actually I got some independent confirmation on his identity. Feel free to check out his history, it's Sarcogito. Not exactly a plant :).

I looked at the JW documents; none of it would meet the legal or actionable definition of a conspiracy.

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. Someone who actually gave a crap about the ideology mentioned in your avatar would care about that.
 
Last edited:
Yeah CPW.....he was good people. Like you.....I didn't like seeing us lose him from around here. I was talking to him and when he had said he was being sent back to Libya. I remember telling him to watch his 6. Especially there.

Well if so he's out now - that's a one year pump at most, and we've evacuated Libya. Hope he's well, he went to some effort to help me figure out a good career path.
 
:shrug: I was military intelligence at the time. We knew exactly who it was - heck, I was briefing it to my boss. [...]
It's the internet -- you can be whoever you want to be :shrug:

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.
 
[...] 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.
 
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:
It's the internet -- you can be whoever you want to be :shrug:

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
 
[...] 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!
 
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 ****.
 
It's the internet -- you can be whoever you want to be

:shrug: 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.
 
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
 
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 ****.
The worst part is that he's so damn good at it and it doesn't seem to bother him at all.
Pretty sad when you have a President who believes politics is an end that justifies any means.
 
Re: Top CIA officer in Benghazi delayed response to terrorist attack US security team



First, Chaffetz voted to cut funding for embassy security.....


"...Chaffetz himself has been criticized for politicizing the Benghazi incident, acknowledging in an interview with CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien that he had "voted to cut the funding for embassy security" and that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010. "Absolutely," Chaffetz said. "Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country."..."

Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: 'You Have To Prioritize Things'


After the attacks, Chaffetz calls for hearing on Benghazi security....

Congressmen Call Hearing On Libya Security Measures - US News


During the hearing, Chaffetz exposes the entire CIA operation in Benghazi on TV and put hundreds of lives at risk and ruined any chance for diplomatic presence in Libya....

Dana Milbank: Letting us in on a secret - The Washington Post




Chaffetz would look lovely in an orange jumpsuit, don't you agree? I mean really, who needs enemies when we have republican congressmen?
 
Last edited:
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.

I don't know whether we knew the motives of unknown attackers from day one or not. Seems to me unlikely since without knowing WHO did it, guessing WHY would have been just that - a guess. The big problem seems to be that the initial speculation - and it was labeled speculation, subject to investigation, etc. etc. - was wrong and they didn't walk that back for a matter of weeks. Sorry, but that just doesn't seem to me to rise to the level of conspiracy or anything close to it. This isn't Watergate where Nixon went months, fired people, hindered the investigation, etc. to bury a story. It's not Iran-Contra, where multiple officials committed perjury, obvious perjury, under oath. We're talking about the MOTIVES of terrorists whose identity was unknown to us at that time.

That's first. Second, the fact is it was CIA outposts attacked, doing spook work, that we still don't fully understand as a public. Petraeus wanted the CIA role in those facilities hidden enough that he skipped the memorial for his own dead employees. The point is my guess, and it's only a guess, is that the attacks weren't 'terrorism' but were more akin to an act of war, where our facilities were attacked because of what our spooks were doing in Benghazi. If that's the case and it seems more likely than some random 'terrorists' planned a "terrorist attack" against the U.S. for no particular reason other than they were "U.S. faclities" then the ONLY honest explanation is something like: "We had the CIA in Benghazi doing X ___________________ (and then lay that out in detail) and the bad guys in the area found out and attacked the people doing X to force them to quit doing X." Well, that's not going to happen and everyone knows it.

So what could the spies and intelligence people say in the days and weeks afterward that was NOT a lie? Nothing really. At best they say, "We have no dang idea what it was or why." Or maybe just blame it on random "terrorist. " But "we don't know why" or "random attack.." are just as big of lies as blaming it on the video, just different.
 
Re: Top CIA officer in Benghazi delayed response to terrorist attack US security team

First, Chaffetz voted to cut funding for embassy security.....


"...Chaffetz himself has been criticized for politicizing the Benghazi incident, acknowledging in an interview with CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien that he had "voted to cut the funding for embassy security" and that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010. "Absolutely," Chaffetz said. "Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country."..."

Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: 'You Have To Prioritize Things'


After the attacks, Chaffetz calls for hearing on Benghazi security....

Congressmen Call Hearing On Libya Security Measures - US News


During the hearing, Chaffetz exposes the entire CIA operation in Benghazi putting hundreds of lives at risk and ruining any chance for diplomatic presence in Libya....
Dana Milbank: Letting us in on a secret - The Washington Post




Chaffetz would look lovely in an orange jumpsuit, don't you agree? I mean really, who needs enemies when we have republican congressmen?


I guess you just ignored this:

QUESTION: It has been suggested that budget cuts were responsible for a lack of security in Benghazi. And I'd like to ask Ms. Lamb, you made this decision personally. Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?

DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE CHARLENE LAMB: No, sir.

Barbara Boxer’s claim that GOP budgets hampered Benghazi security - The Washington Post

So is that all you got Moot?
 
:shrug: 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 :)



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.


How about simply some copies of The Guardian Newspaper, who the same day were reporting not only that it was a terrorist attack, but quoted from eye witnesses and documented classified CIA documents were blowing in the wind in the still smoldering ruins.

As Jay Carney was sneering at reporters brave enough to go off page, about "old news", The Guardian was following a trail back to the State Department, none of which saw the light of day in US Media...not even Fox.

This is not unexpected, like the peace movement of the late sixties and early seventies, the White House claims of it being a "fad under the control of communists" the burr in the saddle that Benghazi is refuses to die in spite of the tremendous might of the White House to secretly crucify it. And contrary to Mr. Carney's absolute oath, life history has told me than when something like this refuses to die when stabbed, shot, hanged and drowned, there is "something there."

And we will never find out if no one looks
 
Back
Top Bottom