• 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!

Benghazi Committee Gets Nothing New From Talk Radio Caller ‘John From Iowa’

Quazimodo said:
And Beefheart, if you think anybody in the entire galaxy takes you seriously on ANY topic, then I need for you to start sharing some of that stuff you've been smokin' and I want it NOW!
Click to expand...

Gosh, you sure are witty...:lamo

sock....
 
Tanngrisnir said:
But you conveniently overlook the fact that the mastermind of the Benghazi attack stated after he was arrested that it was the video that set him off.

Whoopsie.

NYT: Captured Suspect Said Benghazi Attack Was Revenge For Anti-Islam Video
Click to expand...

In less than 24 hours after the attack on Benghazi, there's an email from Hillary to a ME official clearly stating that she knew it was a planned attack. yet after that point, everyone made their pubic speeches about how it was the Internet video. That's after they already stated they knew the attack was a planned one and not in response to an Internet video.

So, Whoopsie on yours.
 
Well, if you want to get personal, you're quite right:I am witty, in fact a great deal wittier than you...and smarter...and much better looking. I am much more experienced than you. I have worked harder than you and I have had a great deal more success than you. Say, do you still live at home with you folks? You're not on food stamps are you? Food stamps AND a computer. You probably even have some of those REALLY neat tats, right?

Do you think of yourself as a "Useful Idiot?"
 
Quazimodo said:
Well, if you want to get personal, you're quite right:I am witty, in fact a great deal wittier than you...and smarter...and much better looking. I am much more experienced than you. I have worked harder than you and I have had a great deal more success than you. Say, do you still live at home with you folks? You're not on food stamps are you? Food stamps AND a computer. You probably even have some of those REALLY neat tats, right?

Do you think of yourself as a "Useful Idiot?"
Click to expand...

He is only qualified for half of that job.:lamo
 
eohrnberger said:
In less than 24 hours after the attack on Benghazi, there's an email from Hillary to a ME official clearly stating that she knew it was a planned attack. yet after that point, everyone made their pubic speeches about how it was the Internet video. That's after they already stated they knew the attack was a planned one and not in response to an Internet video.

So, Whoopsie on yours.
Click to expand...

But, of course, your dumbed down version doesn't tell the whole story. And a planned attack can still be due to the video.

A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times

Careful! The above link has big words and requires nuanced thought and reflection.
 
And The New York Times has NEVER, EVER done anything to prop up a socialist, communist inspired political machine. I'm starting to think you're not gonna buy me a new keyboard.
 
coldjoint said:
Are you married? Go tell your wife what to do.
Click to expand...

Go make up some more claims that you can't back up or prove...because that really makes you look like you know what you are talking about.
 
eohrnberger said:
In less than 24 hours after the attack on Benghazi, there's an email from Hillary to a ME official clearly stating that she knew it was a planned attack. yet after that point, everyone made their pubic speeches about how it was the Internet video. That's after they already stated they knew the attack was a planned one and not in response to an Internet video.

So, Whoopsie on yours.
Click to expand...
The State Department only knew what the CIA told them and even they weren't sure what the attack was about in the first hours or even days of the attack. That is not unusual in the chaos of civil unrest or war.

So it begs the question....WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE??? What difference does it make if the attack was inspired by a video or a planned attack? Do you think the people inside the compound gave a crap why they were being attacked? Or were they more concerned with trying to get the CIA that were located only five minutes away to come and help them?
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
They did not lie they were following CIA protocol. It was the CIA who blamed the video and testified as such on Capital hill. I guess you missed that. If you want to say the CIA lied to Rice and Clinton and they repeated it that is what happened.

T A Benghazi Scandal That Has Already Been Revealed: The Media’s Role
Click to expand...

They did lie, and now your'e lying.

Hillary told Chelsea that it was a Al Qaeda like group the night of the attack

Hillary Clinton?s Email to Chelsea Stars in Benghazi Hearing - Washington Wire - WSJ
 
Moot said:
The State Department only knew what the CIA told them and even they weren't sure what the attack was about in the first hours or even days of the attack. That is not unusual in the chaos of civil unrest or war.

So it begs the question....WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE??? What difference does it make if the attack was inspired by a video or a planned attack? Do you think the people inside the compound gave a crap why they were being attacked? Or were they more concerned with trying to get the CIA that were located only five minutes away to come and help them?
Click to expand...



Lies....

Hillary Clinton?s Email to Chelsea Stars in Benghazi Hearing - Washington Wire - WSJ
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: Benghazi Committee Gets Nothing New From Talk Radio Caller ‘John From Iowa’

Its time to wrap up this committee. Actually, its been long overdue to wrap up this committee. This is nothing but a political charade that has shown itself to be a complete waste of time and mostly used as a campaign stunt. [/FONT]
Click to expand...

No. The political charade that was a campaign stunt was the original decision to lie - willfully lie - about the attack. Watching that happen was probably the greatest temptation of my career.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
But, of course, your dumbed down version doesn't tell the whole story. And a planned attack can still be due to the video.

A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times

Careful! The above link has big words and requires nuanced thought and reflection.
Click to expand...

I was military intelligence at the time of this attack. In fact, this forum had, at that time, a poster who had literally just left the Libya Embassy, where he had served in the Defense Attache office (and who himself was a rock-solid progressive).

From the article:

One has it that the video, which was posted on YouTube, inspired spontaneous street protests that got out of hand. This version, based on early intelligence reports, was initially offered publicly by Susan E. Rice, who is now Mr. Obama’s national security adviser.
Click to expand...

As someone who read those intelligence reports, both before and after, this is incorrect. Given the NYTimes political predilections, it seems they are attempting to cover for the Administration here.

The idea that the CIA fooled State isn't credible for someone who is more familiar with how an Embassy functions. The Chief of Station and the Chief of Mission approve reporting that is exiting the country (DOD reporting, for example, that occurs under Title 50 Authorities (there are a few venues in which this occurs) flows through the CoS, as does other reporting, depending on how tightly the CoM wants to control DOD activities in-country). This doesn't mean they read every report, but they set the conditions, and monitor. The CIA's awareness of what was happening in Libya was coming from their people who would have been working with and through State Department presence. And, of course, we see that in the email traffic of SECSTATE shortly after the attack.

The guy from the DAT's office (he had been restationed to my neck of the woods, and we had gotten into contact over SIPR) was apoplectic watching the Administration - the administration he had supported and defended - respond to this event. He knew, as I did, that it was an attack, that it was premeditated, that it was planned, that we had warning it was coming, and that the video bit was a convenient narrative based on the mobs in Egypt. It was, we agreed, an extreme temptation on our careers. He quit the forum in disgust shortly thereafter :(.
 
cpwill said:
I was military intelligence at the time of this attack. In fact, this forum had, at that time, a poster who had literally just left the Libya Embassy, where he had served in the Defense Attache office (and who himself was a rock-solid progressive).

From the article:



As someone who read those intelligence reports, both before and after, this is incorrect. Given the NYTimes political predilections, it seems they are attempting to cover for the Administration here.

The idea that the CIA fooled State isn't credible for someone who is more familiar with how an Embassy functions. The Chief of Station and the Chief of Mission approve reporting that is exiting the country (DOD reporting, for example, that occurs under Title 50 Authorities (there are a few venues in which this occurs) flows through the CoS, as does other reporting, depending on how tightly the CoM wants to control DOD activities in-country). This doesn't mean they read every report, but they set the conditions, and monitor. The CIA's awareness of what was happening in Libya was coming from their people who would have been working with and through State Department presence. And, of course, we see that in the email traffic of SECSTATE shortly after the attack.

The guy from the DAT's office (he had been restationed to my neck of the woods, and we had gotten into contact over SIPR) was apoplectic watching the Administration - the administration he had supported and defended - respond to this event. He knew, as I did, that it was an attack, that it was premeditated, that it was planned, that we had warning it was coming, and that the video bit was a convenient narrative based on the mobs in Egypt. It was, we agreed, an extreme temptation on our careers. He quit the forum in disgust shortly thereafter :(.
Click to expand...

I love reading posts by people who know what they're talking about. :thumbs:
 
Tanngrisnir said:
But, of course, your dumbed down version doesn't tell the whole story. And a planned attack can still be due to the video.

A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times

Careful! The above link has big words and requires nuanced thought and reflection.
Click to expand...
Nice.
Moot said:
The State Department only knew what the CIA told them and even they weren't sure what the attack was about in the first hours or even days of the attack. That is not unusual in the chaos of civil unrest or war.
Click to expand...

Given that Gaddafi had given up his MWDs (chemical), was cooperating with the West and the UN, why did Obama / Hillary decide to destabilize Libya? Where exactly did the weapons with which the consulate and the CIA annex were attacked with come from?

Moot said:
So it begs the question....WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE??? What difference does it make if the attack was inspired by a video or a planned attack? Do you think the people inside the compound gave a crap why they were being attacked? Or were they more concerned with trying to get the CIA that were located only five minutes away to come and help them?
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's not what the people in Libya did, it's what the people in DC did. That's the problem. DC.
 
The Mark said:
At what point does an investigation change from a search for the truth into a politically motivated search for anything even slightly damning?

Personally, I don't trust Clinton much at all, but that doesn't mean she's done everything she has been accused of...
Click to expand...

I'm afraid you'll need to provide a link for that.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
But, of course, your dumbed down version doesn't tell the whole story. And a planned attack can still be due to the video.

A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times

Careful! The above link has big words and requires nuanced thought and reflection.
Click to expand...

It takes most folks longer to show them-self as a pompous jackass but you brought your game with you, didn't you.
Yessir ... right out of the box ... in every post
 
Tanngrisnir said:
32 hearings, 11 published reports, 50 briefings and over 70,000 pages of documents equals $4.7 million in taxpayer money. And two different discredited leaders of the 'investigations'.

Yawn. Same old rubes coming into the same old tent enticed by the same old side-show barkers.
Click to expand...

Think about how much money would have been saved if the Obama Administration would have cooperated from the beginning, by turning over all the documents requested by congress, and allowing the actual witnesses to testify.
 
Grim17 said:
Think about how much money would have been saved if the Obama Administration would have cooperated from the beginning, by turning over all the documents requested by congress, and allowing the actual witnesses to testify.
Click to expand...

This about how this wasn't a purely partisan Kabuki Theater witch hunt on the part of the republicans, all that money would have been saved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom