• 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!

Diplomat Says Questions Over Benghazi Led to Demotion

this is clearly round three for the truthers. from truther to birther to this. all under scored with the nonstop fearmongering of Obama is going to take your guns, economic doom is impending along with the zombie apocalypse. You all must subsist on no doze because there is no way such scared and fearful people could ever actually sleep.
 
So why the instant blame on a video that nobody had ever heard of?

There were plenty of demonstrations and violence across the Arab world that were because of the video and then there's the fact that the CIA has admitted to writing that "cover story" for their own reasons. But you don't really care do you?
 
Are you folks allergic to integrity and character ?.


that's rich, coming on the heals of the mark Sanford victory.
 
The Obama Team used the video for 10 days to explain away their failure, because it was politicallly expediant.

5 TIMES Rice went out and publicized the video. How is that burrying " the video".

Are you folks allergic to integrity and character ?

You said you were in the military ? Doing what ? Pushing pencils ? Because your no soldier. A soldier wouldn't sell out his fellow buddies just to perpetuate the lies of a politician.

I do believe that the video was not one of the topics of the hearing.

Face it even the chairman of the hearing, Darrel Issa, admitted that the only thing new they found was that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. By the way that fact was nothing new.

If you want to insist that the administration is pretending Benghazi was not a terrorist attack, then I have three words for you

"Please proceed govenor"
 
There were plenty of demonstrations and violence across the Arab world that were because of the video and then there's the fact that the CIA has admitted to writing that "cover story" for their own reasons. But you don't really care do you?

The Arab world would demonstrate over a bag of pork rinds. The video is a convenient political excuse for a major f-up. Period.
 
yet you still have not offered up anything but your opinions. they are not even good opinions based on reliable people.

So what the hell have you offered. Your opinion. You haven't even provided so much as a link.
 
that's rich, coming on the heals of the mark Sanford victory.

I didn't vote for Sanford. And youv'r got some room to talk calling Obama's and Hillary's blatant lies and their deeriliction a right wing tactic.

There is nothing honest about the democrat party,hasn't been for years.
 
any notion that former mission chief gregory hicks, now desk officer, was demoted because he didn't do his job are bogus and must emit from mouths uninformed by eyes that read yesterday, for instance, the ny times

For his leadership that night when four Americans were killed, Mr. Hicks said, he subsequently received calls from both Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and President Obama.

But within days, Mr. Hicks said, after raising questions about the account of what had happened in Benghazi offered in television interviews by Susan E. Rice, the United Nations ambassador, he felt a distinct chill from State Department superiors. “The sense I got was that I needed to stop the line of questioning,” said Mr. Hicks, who has been a Foreign Service officer for 22 years.

He was soon given a scathing review of his management style, he said, and was later “effectively demoted” to desk officer at headquarters, in what he believes was retaliation for speaking up.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/u...ount-from-libya-of-benghazi-attack.html?_r=1&

similarly, if you didn't read yesterday's wapo, you are uninformed, or in other words, ignorant, which never stopped you before from lecturing your neighbors who know so much more than you

Hicks, a 22-year veteran of the department, said senior U.S. leaders, including President Obama and Clinton, lauded his performance during the crisis. After he questioned why Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, had delivered talking points that linked the attack to a demonstration, his superiors turned on him, Hicks testified.

At Benghazi hearing, State Dept. officials challenge administration review of attacks - The Washington Post

the less you know the more you talk

ie, it all comes down to character

shut up and read
 
any notion that former mission chief gregory hicks, now desk officer, was demoted because he didn't do his job are bogus and must emit from mouths uninformed by eyes that read yesterday, for instance, the ny times

The man basically admitted he was negligent, which is a pretty good reason for being demoted. Why invent a conspiracy?
 
The man basically admitted he was negligent, which is a pretty good
reason for being demoted. Why invent a conspiracy?

So Hicks rewrote the Benghazi talking points ?
 
even the chairman of the hearing, Darrel Issa, admitted that the only thing new they found was that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack

that's as dumb as something cummings would say

why, the nyt reported breaking news in the op (how can you miss the very op you're discussing?)---hicks was demoted for testifying

that hicks was directed by ms mills NOT to speak to chaffetz, that hicks was directed to be accompanied at all times by a state dept attorney---also breaking

Benghazi witness: State Department told me not to speak to members of Congress | WashingtonExaminer.com

wapo yesterday (link above):

The testimony provided new details on the Sept. 11, 2012, assaults on U.S. installations in Benghazi and their aftermath. But the new information failed to break the political logjam the attacks spawned, with Republicans and Democrats offering starkly different interpretations of what happened and who within the U.S. government is to blame.

But in expanding the narrative of the intensely politicized episode, the witnesses raised fresh questions about whether then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and her deputies were sufficiently engaged in assessing the security posture of diplomatic posts last year.

also new, potential bombshell, courtesy wapo:

Clinton was planning to travel to Libya later in the year and had signaled that she wanted the United States to turn its temporary mission in Benghazi into a formal diplomatic post.

which is why, according to regional security officer (rso) eric nordstrom, ambassador stevens was in libya (which failed to meet state dept security standards) in the first place

Testimony: Stevens Went to Benghazi Mission on 9/11/12 So Clinton Could Announce on Upcoming Libyan Visit It Had Become Permanent U.S. Post | CNS News

you really need to shut up and read, else you'll always be ignorant

in addition to serious new questions of substance, yesterday's hearing also failed to answer the questions that have been at the center of this disaster since the beginning and even before, such as:

in the weeks and months before the deadly attack, when the city was subject to at least 5 serious incidents of terrorism, including an assassination attempt against the british ambassador and the blowing of a hole in the wall of the us consulate, exactly WHO at state denied so many documented requests for increased security, including those from chris stevens himself, and WHY?

why was the security team at Benghazi stripped from 16 members to only 4, after a pair were carjacked, "shortly before the attack," according to wapo above?

who made THAT call?

exactly who ordered lt col gibson to stand down and exactly why?

why was no plane sent from souba, exactly what are our response capabilities?

and if that's the best we can do, why?

why wasn't fest put into operation?

who changed the cia's original talking points, which advised the american people about the danger posed by "islamic extremists with ties to al qaeda," which called out "ansar al sharia" and "jihadists," and why were such accurate descriptors scrubbed from intel's initial explanation?

why are truth tellers being punished and intimidated, threatened and demoted, why does state insist one of its lawyers accompany whistle blowers wherever they go?

why did pickering and mullen, authors arb, refuse to testify?

with whom did they speak and with whom did they not?

where are the survivors, why are they kept secret?

where was hillary all day and all nite, exactly what was she doing?

why did her boss go to bed?

y'know, elijah cummings has NO comeback (as of now) to any of the above

yesterday, my side was able to say pretty much anything we wanted, and our opposition just sat there and took it

i can tell you personally that i know that cummings is nowhere near smart enough for what you're coming up against, you need to find someone else (but you're stuck with him)

look forward to more hearings, lots of them, the loyal opposition is just getting started

you better get your lies and alibis in a row, a very long, almost endless row

boehner's gonna go special committee, nothing's gonna be able to stop em

62% of House GOP Now Co-Sponsoring Bill for Special Committee on Benghazi | CNS News

there's a great deal more i know that you don't but you can only handle so much at a time

stay tuned
 
I didn't vote for Sanford. And youv'r got some room to talk calling Obama's and Hillary's blatant lies and their deeriliction a right wing tactic.

There is nothing honest about the democrat party,hasn't been for years.

Substance? Just asking because again, your post is just whiny unsubstantiated opinion.
 
Nonsense. Obama and Hillary used that video as a scapegoat because they knew they screwed the pooch horribly, and right before an election no less. Sad that you are ignoring the testimonies of those that were actually there. The facts are all in front of you, and you choose to close your eyes and and look the other way. Integrity is rare.

And yet other right wing folks are claiming the Obama Administration pointed to the video before they knew what exactly had happened, too bad you ignore the timeline and put far more weight on the Republican politicians opinions than anything else.

But you are correct, integrity is rare, even among the Right wing partisans
 
And yet other right wing folks are claiming the Obama Administration pointed to the video before they knew what exactly had happened, too bad you ignore the timeline and put far more weight on the Republican politicians opinions than anything else.

But you are correct, integrity is rare, even among the Right wing partisans

Seems FactCheck.Org disagrees with you on that Timeline and your talking point......as they have those dates down.

We cannot say whether the administration was intentionally misleading the public. We cannot prove intent. There is also more information to come — both from the FBI, which is conducting an investigation, and Congress, which has been holding hearings.

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:

◾There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests in Egypt and elsewhere. The State Department disclosed this fact Oct. 9 — nearly a month after the attack.
◾Libya President Mohamed Magariaf insisted on Sept. 16 — five days after the attack — that it was a planned terrorist attack, but administration officials continued for days later to say there was no evidence of a planned attack.
◾Magariaf also said the idea that the attack was a “spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous.” This, too, was on Sept. 16. Yet, Obama and others continued to describe the incident in exactly those terms — including during the president’s Sept. 18 appearance on the “Late Show With David Letterman.”
◾Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, was the first administration official to call it “a terrorist attack” during a Sept. 19 congressional hearing. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did the same on Sept. 20. Even so, Obama declined opportunities to call it a terrorist attack when asked at a town hall meeting on Sept. 20 and during a taping of “The View” on Sept. 24.

Sept.12: Obama Labels Attack ‘Act of Terror,’ Not ‘Terrorism’

Sept. 13: ‘Clearly Planned’ or ‘Spontaneous’ Attack?

Sept. 14: White House Says No Evidence of Planned Attack

Sept. 15-16: Susan Rice Contradicts Libyan President

Sept. 17: State Defends Rice and ‘Initial Assessment’

Sept. 18: Obama Says ‘Extremists’ Used Video As ‘Excuse’

Sept. 19: Olsen Calls It a ‘Terrorist Attack’

Oct. 24: White House, State Department Emails on Ansar al-Sharia

Oct. 24: Reuters reports the White House, Pentagon and other government agencies learned just two hours into the Benghazi attack that Ansar al-Sharia, an Islamic militant group, had “claimed credit” for it. The wire service report was based on three emails from the State Department’s Operations Center. One of the emails said, “Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripol.” The article also noted, “Intelligence experts caution that initial reports from the scene of any attack or disaster are often inaccurate.” (It should be noted that Reuters first reported on Sept. 12 that unnamed U.S. officials believed that Ansar al-Sharia may have been involved.).....snip~


FactCheck.org : Benghazi Timeline

Which now we know that All knew it was a planned attack with Ansar al Sharia being involved. 2 hrs after the battle began. Which Rice went on the Sunday Talk Shows a week later and still stated what she did out her mouth. Despite knowing already what everyone else knew at that time. Which it was a terrorist attack. Politi-fact's timeline and UK Daily Mails also have the same .
 
I don't think most people care who "rewrote" the Benghazi talking points.

I do. Tomorrow marks 8 months. If the Admin had been forthcoming, we might not be having this discussion now. But it wasn't. The Admin lied. So now I want to know exactly who did what and exactly where the buck stops.
 
Seems FactCheck.Org disagrees with you on that Timeline and your talking point......as they have those dates down.

We cannot say whether the administration was intentionally misleading the public. We cannot prove intent. There is also more information to come — both from the FBI, which is conducting an investigation, and Congress, which has been holding hearings.

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:

◾There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests in Egypt and elsewhere. The State Department disclosed this fact Oct. 9 — nearly a month after the attack.
◾Libya President Mohamed Magariaf insisted on Sept. 16 — five days after the attack — that it was a planned terrorist attack, but administration officials continued for days later to say there was no evidence of a planned attack.
◾Magariaf also said the idea that the attack was a “spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous.” This, too, was on Sept. 16. Yet, Obama and others continued to describe the incident in exactly those terms — including during the president’s Sept. 18 appearance on the “Late Show With David Letterman.”
◾Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, was the first administration official to call it “a terrorist attack” during a Sept. 19 congressional hearing. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did the same on Sept. 20. Even so, Obama declined opportunities to call it a terrorist attack when asked at a town hall meeting on Sept. 20 and during a taping of “The View” on Sept. 24.

Sept.12: Obama Labels Attack ‘Act of Terror,’ Not ‘Terrorism’

Sept. 13: ‘Clearly Planned’ or ‘Spontaneous’ Attack?

Sept. 14: White House Says No Evidence of Planned Attack

Sept. 15-16: Susan Rice Contradicts Libyan President

Sept. 17: State Defends Rice and ‘Initial Assessment’

Sept. 18: Obama Says ‘Extremists’ Used Video As ‘Excuse’

Sept. 19: Olsen Calls It a ‘Terrorist Attack’

Oct. 24: White House, State Department Emails on Ansar al-Sharia

Oct. 24: Reuters reports the White House, Pentagon and other government agencies learned just two hours into the Benghazi attack that Ansar al-Sharia, an Islamic militant group, had “claimed credit” for it. The wire service report was based on three emails from the State Department’s Operations Center. One of the emails said, “Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripol.” The article also noted, “Intelligence experts caution that initial reports from the scene of any attack or disaster are often inaccurate.” (It should be noted that Reuters first reported on Sept. 12 that unnamed U.S. officials believed that Ansar al-Sharia may have been involved.).....snip~


FactCheck.org : Benghazi Timeline

Which now we know that All knew it was a planned attack with Ansar al Sharia being involved. 2 hrs after the battle began. Which Rice went on the Sunday Talk Shows a week later and still stated what she did out her mouth. Despite knowing already what everyone else knew at that time. Which it was a terrorist attack. Politi-fact's timeline and UK Daily Mails also have the same .

Lots of 20/20 hindsight to all your post. Many times groups take credit for things that the facts DON'T support and during the confused period, the so-called fog time the 'facts' come in contradicting each other. Was there an attack on Tripoli for instance? THAT makes it sound like the terrorists didn't actually do the attacks but want others to carry them out.

We didn't 'know' anything but there were reports, huge difference.

For instance, BushII 'knew' the al-queeras and Saddam's security folks met in Prague. That yellow cake was bought in Africa, that 122 rocket tubes were infact rods for refining uranium...

It is easy after the fact to go through a deluge of reports and pick the correct ones... the trick has and will remain being able to do so as the event unfolds.

As far as sending more people into the cluster foxtrot, even a teary and emotional Mr. Hicks admits he wasn't easily available when the attack started in Benghazi, and when he learned where Ambassador Stevens was, the hospital, he balked at sending anyone fearing it was a trap.
 
Lots of 20/20 hindsight to all your post. Many times groups take credit for things that the facts DON'T support and during the confused period, the so-called fog time the 'facts' come in contradicting each other. Was there an attack on Tripoli for instance? THAT makes it sound like the terrorists didn't actually do the attacks but want others to carry them out.

We didn't 'know' anything but there were reports, huge difference.

For instance, BushII 'knew' the al-queeras and Saddam's security folks met in Prague. That yellow cake was bought in Africa, that 122 rocket tubes were infact rods for refining uranium...

It is easy after the fact to go through a deluge of reports and pick the correct ones... the trick has and will remain being able to do so as the event unfolds.

As far as sending more people into the cluster foxtrot, even a teary and emotional Mr. Hicks admits he wasn't easily available when the attack started in Benghazi, and when he learned where Ambassador Stevens was, the hospital, he balked at sending anyone fearing it was a trap.

Well, considering Fact Check updated the Time line in Nov. and well after all the facts that had come out by then. It would be obvious how they got it down in chronological order. Which is why we did know for those that were up on it.

As for the Rest.....it just confirms more of what we already knew.

(3) Secretaries Clinton and Rice (the president's hand-selected messenger on Benghazi to the American people) repeatedly stated that the attack arose from "spontaneous protests" over an obscure YouTube video. This was never true. Hicks called the YouTube a "non-event" in Libya. He and others on the ground -- including Amb. Stevens -- recognized the raid as a coordinated terrorist attack from the very beginning. Hicks testified that he personally told Sec. Clinton as much at 2 am on the night of the attack, along with her senior staff. [UPDATE - Rep. Trey Gowdy also revealed an email sent on 9/12 in which Assistant Sec. Jones confirmed to a Libyan official that the attack had been carried out by terrorist organization Ansar al-Sharia]. Days later, Rice recited bogus talking points on five American television networks, and Clinton denounced the video while standing next to the flag-draped coffins of the fallen. Hicks said there he never mentioned any "spontaneous demonstrations" related to a video in his phone call with Clinton:

Questions: How, why, and by whom did the administration's talking points get scrubbed and re-written? Why did the president refuse to identify the attack as terrorism in an interview with CBS News on September 12, and why did he allow Sec. Rice to disseminate patently false information on his behalf?.....snip~

The Damning Dozen: Twelve Revelations from the Benghazi Hearings - Guy Benson

Which, is why it led to those questions.
 
Well, considering Fact Check updated the Time line in Nov. and well after all the facts that had come out by then. It would be obvious how they got it down in chronological order. Which is why we did know for those that were up on it.

As for the Rest.....it just confirms more of what we already knew.

(3) Secretaries Clinton and Rice (the president's hand-selected messenger on Benghazi to the American people) repeatedly stated that the attack arose from "spontaneous protests" over an obscure YouTube video. This was never true. Hicks called the YouTube a "non-event" in Libya. He and others on the ground -- including Amb. Stevens -- recognized the raid as a coordinated terrorist attack from the very beginning. Hicks testified that he personally told Sec. Clinton as much at 2 am on the night of the attack, along with her senior staff. [UPDATE - Rep. Trey Gowdy also revealed an email sent on 9/12 in which Assistant Sec. Jones confirmed to a Libyan official that the attack had been carried out by terrorist organization Ansar al-Sharia]. Days later, Rice recited bogus talking points on five American television networks, and Clinton denounced the video while standing next to the flag-draped coffins of the fallen. Hicks said there he never mentioned any "spontaneous demonstrations" related to a video in his phone call with Clinton:

Questions: How, why, and by whom did the administration's talking points get scrubbed and re-written? Why did the president refuse to identify the attack as terrorism in an interview with CBS News on September 12, and why did he allow Sec. Rice to disseminate patently false information on his behalf?.....snip~

The Damning Dozen: Twelve Revelations from the Benghazi Hearings - Guy Benson

Which, is why it led to those questions.

Again you use monday morning quarterbacking to 'prove' something that was not clear at the time. You use the very biased sources that don't give such informantion like what all was in the informantion stream at that time and how did that match up with other reports. Sure now the Congressman can say 'oh look' like at a trial but at the time did the cops know this one tip was THE tip in a steady stream of them that needed checking.

It is like a hot line for an abducted child, thousands come in and have to be checked, quite often the first police line of investigation proves untrue...

But I keep referring you to past massive events and the failed 'knowledge' that lead to the deaths of thousands of our citizens. You seem quite intent on pretending that 'what we know now is not what we knew then and we didn't know what we knew was true or not til now' (Rumspeak you remember that?) has a long history of not being the final answer.

This will make fine theater for the rabid right, but in the end will not hurt Hillary or Obama. Those who believe have already decided who they will vote for in 2016.

But enjoy the show.... :2wave:
 
And yet other right wing folks are claiming the Obama Administration pointed to the video before they knew what exactly had happened, too bad you ignore the timeline and put far more weight on the Republican politicians opinions than anything else.

But you are correct, integrity is rare, even among the Right wing partisans

Looks like even ABC, of all media, is calling Obama a liar.

Exclusive: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference - ABC News

When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story.
ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.

There's some integrity for you.
 
Again you use monday morning quarterbacking to 'prove' something that was not clear at the time. You use the very biased sources that don't give such informantion like what all was in the informantion stream at that time and how did that match up with other reports. Sure now the Congressman can say 'oh look' like at a trial but at the time did the cops know this one tip was THE tip in a steady stream of them that needed checking.

It is like a hot line for an abducted child, thousands come in and have to be checked, quite often the first police line of investigation proves untrue...

But I keep referring you to past massive events and the failed 'knowledge' that lead to the deaths of thousands of our citizens. You seem quite intent on pretending that 'what we know now is not what we knew then and we didn't know what we knew was true or not til now' (Rumspeak you remember that?) has a long history of not being the final answer.

This will make fine theater for the rabid right, but in the end will not hurt Hillary or Obama. Those who believe have already decided who they will vote for in 2016.

But enjoy the show.... :2wave:


Yeah, but as usual I noticed you didn't put that part with the same time as the Timeline. Which is exactly what the FactCheckers do. Get all the Facts and then put them in order and reference all sources to do so. Which since here you were trying to explain about a Timeline. I only put up that link to show you what you were saying. or attempting to deny. Was already Validated.

Your past massive events and trying to explain mistakes from another time. Has no justification for this argument here. As clearly the idea is not to keep doing the wrong thing.

Funny how those Democrats that are writing thinking and worrying that something will Hurt Hillary. Might have more insight than you. Look Up Lanny Davis. I doubt you can call him a Conservative. :roll:
 
why, the nyt reported breaking news in the op (how can you miss the very op you're discussing?)---hicks was demoted for testifying.

That is an unsubstantiated allegation. Hicks practically admitted his negligence in his testimony. He was too busy watching television to answer the Ambassador's phone calls and that is a pretty good reason for demotion.

Sept.12: Obama Labels Attack ‘Act of Terror,’ Not ‘Terrorism’

Bahaha. Thats some serious hair-splitting.
 
Back
Top Bottom