Page 5 of 33 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 325

Thread: Newly released Benghazi documents reinforce that White House was pushing that video w

  1. #41
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    18,265

    Re: Newly released Benghazi documents reinforce that White House was pushing that vid

    Quote Originally Posted by Empirica View Post
    Are you really surprised that these people know so little about the Benghazi story???

    Have you ever checked out the sources where they get all of their information???

    It isn't just Media Matters; the Main Stream Media also keeps them in total darkness and denial_
    No, I'm not. I'm just surprised that they continue with nonsense and BS.

  2. #42
    feckless bon vivant

    radioman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    lotusland
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 08:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    3,761

    Re: Newly released Benghazi documents reinforce that White House was pushing that vid

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    So, why then, several days later, did Susan Rice report "the best information" they had at the time saying otherwise?
    Hey, mac.
    Sorry about the delayed response.
    I've been hanging out in the conspiracy forum....I'm a little woozy.
    To your point....maybe at the time of the attack, that WAS the best info/guess they had.
    The bad info was wrong.
    No matter how cynical I become toward politicians, it's never enough.

  3. #43
    Transcend~
    Empirica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Lost at Sea
    Last Seen
    11-24-17 @ 07:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,662

    Re: Newly released Benghazi documents reinforce that White House was pushing that vid

    Quote Originally Posted by humbolt View Post
    No, I'm not. I'm just surprised that they continue with nonsense and BS.
    I'm sure they will do much better when they find something new to continue with_
    When a crime is ignored ~ it becomes flagrant;
    When a crime is rewarded ~ it becomes epidemic:

    No Amnesty No Exception

  4. #44
    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: Newly released Benghazi documents reinforce that White House was pushing that vid

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    They are more honest than a right wing publication.
    How did "High Times" spin the Benghazi terrorist attacks ?

  5. #45
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    18,265

    Re: Newly released Benghazi documents reinforce that White House was pushing that vid

    Quote Originally Posted by Empirica View Post
    I'm sure they will do much better when they find something new to continue with_
    I'm sure they'll change the subject, that the media will attempt to bury it, and a new social war will be declared. There is absolutely no reason why someone who can't count to ten shouldn't be making $22 per hour. Vote for Elizabeth Warren. Hillary is toast.

  6. #46
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    Re: Newly released Benghazi documents reinforce that White House was pushing that vid

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    How did "High Times" spin the Benghazi terrorist attacks ?
    Like a dreidel?

  7. #47
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,620

    Re: Newly released Benghazi documents reinforce that White House was pushing that vid

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    There were two facilities, consulate and annex. The attack was on the consulate. The Ambassador was there because that's where he had an office. CIA personnel acted heroically, coming to the support of the consulate and then bringing survivors back to their own compound, where they fought off a second attack.
    Again differing POVs here. No doubt there is 'an office' in the diplomatic mission, but why was the Ambassador there on 9-11 at night with no meaningful security detail? IMO his office is in Tripoli, not some out house far from the capital. So just how much time did the Ambassador spend in Benghazi prior to that night? How often while a CIA operation was running weapons in and out of the annex?

    Now the naysayers claim it wasn't spontaneous but a well planned attack by al-Quaida so how did these guys know the ambassador would overnite there? My money is on they didn't, but they did know weapons were being stockpiled there EVERY nite. They knew only a handful of mercs were on guard. They knew all of this because they and their supporters were in that compound almost daily.

    The consulate compound held more than the ambassador's 'office'... the Tactical Operation Command Building and the militia HQ. I see it as a two wave attack, first the symbol of the Foreign presence was attacked- hence the hand carried fuel to burn the buildings but just as importantly the Tac center. What was there... three or four men in that complex?

    Second wave was the annex- first softened up by fire and then there would be a ground assault but the CIA hauled ass out before that attack launched.

    By why was the CIA there? Why did the Turkish ambassador meet in Benghazi and not Tripoli? Why was the consulate a empty shell of a building?

    Because the CIA wanted a presence in Benghazi, not the State dept. The CIA was running a weapons op out of the annex. The CIA hired former seals as mercs to guard the annex but not the Consulate because 90% of the time the Consulate compound was used by the militia not the State dept.

    Benghazi was a CIA OP gone south and that was why the initial cover story of riots instead of an attack by some of the very militias the USofA through the CIA were doing business with.

  8. #48
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,867
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Newly released Benghazi documents reinforce that White House was pushing that vid

    Quote Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
    Again differing POVs here. No doubt there is 'an office' in the diplomatic mission, but why was the Ambassador there on 9-11 at night with no meaningful security detail? IMO his office is in Tripoli, not some out house far from the capital. So just how much time did the Ambassador spend in Benghazi prior to that night? How often while a CIA operation was running weapons in and out of the annex?

    Now the naysayers claim it wasn't spontaneous but a well planned attack by al-Quaida so how did these guys know the ambassador would overnite there? My money is on they didn't, but they did know weapons were being stockpiled there EVERY nite. They knew only a handful of mercs were on guard. They knew all of this because they and their supporters were in that compound almost daily.

    The consulate compound held more than the ambassador's 'office'... the Tactical Operation Command Building and the militia HQ. I see it as a two wave attack, first the symbol of the Foreign presence was attacked- hence the hand carried fuel to burn the buildings but just as importantly the Tac center. What was there... three or four men in that complex?

    Second wave was the annex- first softened up by fire and then there would be a ground assault but the CIA hauled ass out before that attack launched.

    By why was the CIA there? Why did the Turkish ambassador meet in Benghazi and not Tripoli? Why was the consulate a empty shell of a building?

    Because the CIA wanted a presence in Benghazi, not the State dept. The CIA was running a weapons op out of the annex. The CIA hired former seals as mercs to guard the annex but not the Consulate because 90% of the time the Consulate compound was used by the militia not the State dept.

    Benghazi was a CIA OP gone south and that was why the initial cover story of riots instead of an attack by some of the very militias the USofA through the CIA were doing business with.
    Too many factual errors to discuss. There were never weapons at the consulate except for the ambassador's security escort. The ambassador was there because he was personally confident he could handle himself. No one hauled ass out of the annex. State wanted the consulate in Benghazi because that is where the uprising against Qadhafi had begun and it was tribally/politically important.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  9. #49
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Newly released Benghazi documents reinforce that White House was pushing that vid

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    The documents in question say otherwise.
    I've been reading them. Explain what's new.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  10. #50
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,620

    Re: Newly released Benghazi documents reinforce that White House was pushing that vid

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    Too many factual errors to discuss. There were never weapons at the consulate except for the ambassador's security escort. The ambassador was there because he was personally confident he could handle himself. No one hauled ass out of the annex. State wanted the consulate in Benghazi because that is where the uprising against Qadhafi had begun and it was tribally/politically important.
    Too much deflection to discuss... let's let's try... I NEVER said the weapons were in the Consulate- you are making crap up. I said the Consulate held the tac center, dso building and militia hq, not just the Ambassador's residence. The ambassador was there to meet a Turkish liaison on the weapons operation, he traveled without a security team because he didn't want one- his fatal mistake. The CIA 'rescue' team missed Ambassador Stevens- it was Libyans who rescued him, took him to a hospital.

    Immediately after the mortars hit the roof of the annex, killing two men, and wounding several others- a Predator drone spotted a 'large mass of men' and the evac was on...

    I'd love a link backing the need to have the Consulate in Benghazi because that is where Ghadaffi started... please include where it was the State dept who wanted that... that just seems so odd State wanted it but never manned it. It seems like putting a target in the middle of badguy country, not guarding it but the ambassador going in naked on a random visit and a two pronged very effective attack just happens to hit that night.

    It was the CIA op that drew the attack and not the Ambassador....

Page 5 of 33 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... 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
  •