Yes and no. They are definitely pushing it over political motives from what I think, but I also think that there is likely lies and stuff that needs to be investigated on the Administration's end as well.
Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
In response to:
As I outlined in that post (#115):
- There is a strong consensus among military experts that nothing could have been done to rescue the Ambassador once the attack was underway. So nothing there to cover up.
- Within two weeks of the attack, both top WH counterterrorism officials and Secretary Clinton made public statements that were widely reported linking AQ affiliates to the attack. So the idea that the administration was misleading anyone in order to maintain a fiction about AQ being "on the run" simply makes no sense. Of course, the whole thing makes no sense at all since AQ has surely been nothing but "on the run" since Sept 2001.
So I'm still wondering what it is that was being covered up.
And so you feel Israel is now threatened by Egypt. You wanted us to continue to side with a rather brutal dictator when a democracy movement was exploding in the streets of the most important Arab nation. Well, I suppose as long as we didn't do it in a weak, feckless, indecisive way, things would have turned out OK. Ya just need t' get in there boldly, with plenty o' feck.
Speaking of John Christopher, I never did get a response to my enquiry regarding what you Obama haters would think of Stevens if he hadn't been killed. Oh well, a heroic figure in death at least.
The Democratic party has three things that come to mind at the moment: the WH, the Senate, and a higher level of party identification than Republicans.
"The intelligence community’s inability to collect, analyze and assess the value of information that is not secret has been a dangerous weakness of American spook services for a long time. It’s not just that the CIA is bad at catching errors in public news reports. The agency also has a bad track record at finding and prioritizing accurate information that originates not from highly secret sources but from publicly available ones.
A famous example of the agency’s blindness to facts that aren’t secret came when India tested a nuclear weapon in May 1998, catching American policy makers off-guard even though Indian politicians had publicly said they intended to go nuclear. That blindness has apparently continued in the age of Facebook. In the case of Benghazi, the SSCI reported that the CIA missed open source communications in social media around Benghazi that “could have flagged potential security threats." — A Benghazi Scandal That’s Already Been Revealed: The CIA Believed A Media Mistake
Senate report: Waterboarding didn't lead to Osama bin Laden," USA Today, Mar 31, 2014
My guess is yer talking about AQ affiliates — this "morphing" that Clapper testified about.
Exhaustive review finds no link between Saddam and al Qaida
I don't think I've ever come across a crowd so full of accusations and so devoid of substantive evidence. (And my family has set a high standard there.) "The guy's a liar — can't you see that?" Ahhh, … well, … can ya show me something? Anything?
Are the Republicans exploiting Benghazi? I don’t know and at this point I really do not care. I suppose the answer to that question will be what they find out if anything. If this special investigation committee uncovers something new and relevant, then the answer will be no. If not, then the answer is yes. So I prefer to sit, listen, watch and wait. Until this thing is over, it will be just something that is there, something that is ongoing that has no effect on my daily life and something I will not pay much attention to if at all. I would say 90% or more of America isn’t paying any attention to this either. That is unless your politically active, like the posters on DP here are, most just don’t care. Now a revelation of wrong doing may bring their attention back, if nothing is found that really stands out and puts the world on edge, it probably will be just a waste of time, money and energy. But time will tell. For me this is nothing to get upset about or to avidly back it. It politics as normal in a very partisan divided Washington we have today. Get used to it, these type of things are not going to go away.
Early voting in Georgia. On the 20th of October this old Goldwater conservative voted against both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton by casting my vote for Gary Johnson. Neither Trump or Clinton belong within a million miles of the Oval Office.
Actually the attack began at the known State Department facility, then the terrorists followed CIA operatives who tried the stop the attack back to a CIA station a few blocks away. And the attack continued there.
Yes AQ was in Iraq. Anyone who says different is a lying anti-USA zealot.
Last edited by Muhammed; 05-11-14 at 06:30 AM.
Can't hardly wait til 2016 to see who they put forth as their front runner for prez., it'll probably be someone they can't stand or stomach, like mittens.
Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaAllegations of a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda were made by U.S. Government officials who claimed that a highly secretive relationship existed between former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the Islamist militant organization Al-Qaeda from 1992 to 2003, specifically through a series of meetings reportedly involving the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS). In the lead up to the Iraq War, U.S. President George W. Bush alleged that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and militant group al-Qaeda might "conspire to launch terrorist attacks on the United States", basing the administration's rationale for war, in part, on this allegation and others.
The consensus of intelligence experts has been that Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda were in contact but it never led to an operational relationship, and that consensus is backed up by reports from the independent 9/11 Commission and by declassified Defense Department reports as well as by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, whose 2006 report of Phase II of its investigation into prewar intelligence reports concluded that there was no evidence of ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Critics of the Bush Administration have said Bush was intentionally building a case for war with Iraq without regard to factual evidence. On April 29, 2007, former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet said on 60 Minutes, "We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period."