• 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]

Re: Top CIA officer in Benghazi delayed response to terrorist attack US security team

So, I take it your conclusion from this report is that Sevens risked his own life -- which was mostly my repeatedly-ignored point quite some posts ago -- speculatively as a result of political pressure. Actually he risked not only his own life, but that of everyone in the facility.

Yes, that's pretty much the take from the article...
 
Re: Top CIA officer in Benghazi delayed response to terrorist attack US security team

I suggest strongly that you actually read the article, and not just the headline that McClatchy want's you to put forth.
Why don't you read it and tell me what it says.
 
Nixon was never impeached.

You are correct. Congress never formally impeached former Pres. Nixon. So allow me to rephrase...

Nixon was investigated, was threatened to be impeached and most certainly would have been because he...(see post #364).
 
You are correct. Congress never formally impeached former Pres. Nixon. So allow me to rephrase...

Nixon was investigated, was threatened to be impeached and most certainly would have been because he...(see post #364).

There was a lot of bull **** taking place to bring down Nixon. It was the agenda of the "New Left" to destroy Nixon.

Wait a sec, Hillary Rodham Clinton is part of the radical "New Left" and played a part on bringing down Nixon.

Hillary Fired For “Lying, Unethical Behavior” on Watergate Committee...

>" Hillary Clinton might have a pretty hefty scandal brewing.

It turns when she was an attorney working on the Watergate investigation, she was fired by her supervisor for “lying, unethical behavior.”

Jerry Zeifman, who said he is a lifelong Democrat, was a supervisor for 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. When the investigation was complete, Zeifman said he fired Hillary and refused to give her a recommendation.

“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality...."<

1974 Diary Surfaces: Hillary Fired For
 
Re: Top CIA officer in Benghazi delayed response to terrorist attack US security team

So, I take it your conclusion from this report is that Sevens risked his own life -- which was mostly my repeatedly-ignored point quite some posts ago -- speculatively as a result of political pressure. Actually he risked not only his own life, but that of everyone in the facility.

So, you're saying he got what he deserved? :roll:
 
Re: Top CIA officer in Benghazi delayed response to terrorist attack US security team

Why don't you read it and tell me what it says.

I have read it, do your own reading...
 
Re: Top CIA officer in Benghazi delayed response to terrorist attack US security team

OJ confessed he didn't murder Nicole.

And Ted Bundy confessed to killing several girls. Guess that renders your point useless.
 
[...] Hillary Fired For “Lying, Unethical Behavior” on Watergate Committee... [...]
Not true. She was laid off at the same time as some other people when the investigation shut down after Nixon's resignation.

I'd think you guys would eventually wise up on the veracity of your right wing echo chamber sources after being burned sooooo many times.

BOORTZ: You fired her, didn't you?

ZEIFMAN: Well, let me put it this way. I terminated her, along with some other staff members who were -- we no longer needed [...]

Limbaugh repeats assertion by Watergate committee counsel Zeifman that he "fired" Clinton -- an assertion reportedly contradicted by Zeifman himself | Research | Media Matters for America
 
Re: Top CIA officer in Benghazi delayed response to terrorist attack US security team

A simple remedy for that is for you to stop spinning my argument and making up strawmen to argue against.

you agreed with the premise of my question.

So you really do believe her, huh?

I think that between the two of you, one of them does this as a profession, and the other is a bit of a known partisan ;)
 
We knew who did it? That's news to me....

yes. we did.

I don't believe it was part of a protest.

:shrug: then you would be correct.

So the idea here is it was planned, but otherwise random and not in response to CIA activities, but because we had facilities there and that's reason enough.

That's correct. To a certain extent, the target here wasn't even the annex so much as it was social media. The desire is to have an IO campaign centered around a successful serious attack on a major western interest. A US Ambassador made the best target.

And the big scandal here is that the terrorist attack wasn't a random attack in response to a video, but a random attack in response to nothing at all but that there were Americans in some buildings and so were attacked.

No. Attacking Americans is what all of these groups plan to do. The scandal is that the administration chose to lie about it.

Ever since this whole thing started, I have yet to figure out why my give a damn meter should ever tick off about 2 on a 10 point scale.

:shrug: It's the WoT's Gulf of Tonkin Incident - an administration lying about an attack in order to shape domestic politics.

You know they hoped to kill the Ambassador how? He wasn't stationed there, so any speculation he was the target is just that

They had pretty good collection on the facility and persons they targeted - and the Ambassador wasn't in the Annex when they originally hit him. They targeted him, and it's a lot easier to follow an Ambassador than (as you are claiming) a covert CIA mission.

And if it was to get access to the "Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility" ( I assume that's what you meant) then you're making my point. The admin can't say that's the reason because the world wasn't supposed to know those facilities were CIA outposts doing spook stuff

All Embassies "do spook stuff". It's one of the reasons we have them. If we have an embassy, it's collecting. Every embassy they have in our country? Also collecting.

Do you expect the various agencies to sign off on talking points that blow a CIA operation in the immediate aftermath of an attack?

:shrug: the plan was to hit and kill Americans, specifically they seem to have targeted the Ambassador, and they wanted access to the SCIF. The idea (again) that there was a CIA presence in Libya is sort of akin to the notion that we have a military presence in Afghanistan - it's not exactly an unknown.

Question 2 is "what the hell was CIA doing in Benghazi?" which was and still is presumably classified information

Most open-source speculation is that they were involved in a buy-back program designed to try to capture some of Gaddafi's more dangerous weaponry that had fallen into VEO hands.

And if the Admin knew that was the reason for the attack and then blamed it on a random attack , it's also a lie, just a different one. Which is my point. You're effectively demanding that they tell a BETTER lie or a DIFFERENT lie, in the immediate aftermath of an attack.

No. I am saying that they should not have lied. All they had to say was that it was a terrorist attack (which it was) by an AQ affiliate (which it was), and leave it at that. You don't have to release any CIA operational data in order to accurately describe the attack.
 
Unless you can post a credible source defending what you say about yourself

:shrug: check with American, Boo, TGND, or any of the other old Whistlestopper folk who came over. I used to post for them live from Fallujah :). American actually physically came and picked me up from intel school for a pretty good day of wine-drinking. Or, if you like, speak to any of the other Marines on this forum (we have quite a few). Any of them (and especially all of them together) would have spotted me long ago if I was faking.
 
There was a lot of bull **** taking place to bring down Nixon. It was the agenda of the "New Left" to destroy Nixon.

Wait a sec, Hillary Rodham Clinton is part of the radical "New Left" and played a part on bringing down Nixon.

Hillary Fired For “Lying, Unethical Behavior” on Watergate Committee...

>" Hillary Clinton might have a pretty hefty scandal brewing.

It turns when she was an attorney working on the Watergate investigation, she was fired by her supervisor for “lying, unethical behavior.”

Jerry Zeifman, who said he is a lifelong Democrat, was a supervisor for 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. When the investigation was complete, Zeifman said he fired Hillary and refused to give her a recommendation.

“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality...."<

1974 Diary Surfaces: Hillary Fired For

Wow! You dug way deep in the Way Back Machine for that nugget. I'm sure if she runs for the 2016 presidency we'll see signs that read "Hillary is a Liar from Watergate to Benghazi" all over the place.
 
Wow! You dug way deep in the Way Back Machine for that nugget. I'm sure if she runs for the 2016 presidency we'll see signs that read "Hillary is a Liar from Watergate to Benghazi" all over the place.

I want to see where Chelsea Clinton tells her Secret Service detail that "Mom and dad calls you guys pigs."

Or when Hillary was walking down the hallways of the White House and a General greets Hillary with a "Good morning Ms. Clinton" and Hillary response was "**** you."
 
Re: Top CIA officer in Benghazi delayed response to terrorist attack US security team

you agreed with the premise of my question.


I think that between the two of you, one of them does this as a profession, and the other is a bit of a known partisan ;)

Ad homs are usually a good indicator that you don't have an argument left to defend. Sooo I guess that means we're done here, eh. :bright:
 
yes. we did.

No. We didn't. We could guess, but they didn't even have a look at the video for a week or more.

That's correct. To a certain extent, the target here wasn't even the annex so much as it was social media. The desire is to have an IO campaign centered around a successful serious attack on a major western interest. A US Ambassador made the best target.

You're speculating, and what we KNOW about that now certainly wasn't KNOWN at the time in the immediate aftermath.

No. Attacking Americans is what all of these groups plan to do. The scandal is that the administration chose to lie about it.

You're conflating all attacks for all kinds of reasons into one big category of "terrorist" attack. That's a huge mistake IMO.


It's the WoT's Gulf of Tonkin Incident - an administration lying about an attack in order to shape domestic politics.

You can't be serious. This is exactly why I quit taking BENGHAZI!!! seriously long ago. They are not in the same universe, and efforts to equate them are just obvious BS. We effectively declared war after the GoT incident, causing deaths of over a million Vietnamese, about 60,000 U.S. dead, another 150,000 wounded. This "lie" lasted two or three WEEKS and it's effect on the big picture was nil.


All Embassies "do spook stuff". It's one of the reasons we have them. If we have an embassy, it's collecting. Every embassy they have in our country? Also collecting.

This wasn't an embassy. And if it was routine, why did Petraeus skip the memorial for his own dead employees?

the plan was to hit and kill Americans, specifically they seem to have targeted the Ambassador, and they wanted access to the SCIF. The idea (again) that there was a CIA presence in Libya is sort of akin to the notion that we have a military presence in Afghanistan - it's not exactly an unknown.

But you can't say even years later what the CIA was doing, or if what they were doing was the actual target of the attack. You're speculating.

No. I am saying that they should not have lied. All they had to say was that it was a terrorist attack (which it was) by an AQ affiliate (which it was), and leave it at that. You don't have to release any CIA operational data in order to accurately describe the attack.

OK, so on the front end the WH spun the story, and in 2 or 3 weeks they gave the story you wanted. Again, I'll concede in an election year this hits the "Give a damn" meter but why it pegs 10 and stays there two years later, and coming up on two years after that election, is a mystery. Or it would be if the reason wasn't obviously to hang this on Hillary, and continue to beat Obama about the head with it.
 
Re: Top CIA officer in Benghazi delayed response to terrorist attack US security team

Ad homs are usually a good indicator that you don't have an argument left to defend. Sooo I guess that means we're done here, eh. :bright:

:) Excuse making doesn't change the fact that you are insisting that you know - without any special information or expertise - better than those who actually perform these functions for a living.
 
Re: Top CIA officer in Benghazi delayed response to terrorist attack US security team

:) Excuse making doesn't change the fact that you are insisting that you know - without any special information or expertise - better than those who actually perform these functions for a living.

Heya CPW :2wave: .....are they still trying to figure out who suffered any consequences yet?
 
No. We didn't.

Yes. We did. That has come to public light as we have begun to see the debriefs and testimony of the AFRICOM personnel involved, including General Hamm.

We could guess, but they didn't even have a look at the video for a week or more.

You're speculating, and what we KNOW about that now certainly wasn't KNOWN at the time in the immediate aftermath.

Actually I am not. I knew at the time who it was, and that information has since been made publicly available - as I linked earlier.

As for the intent of the attack, that is sort of modern terrorism 101. Ayman al-Zawahiri - "despite all of this, I say to you: that we are in a battle, and that more than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media. And that we are in a media battle in a race for the hearts and minds of our Umma."

A tactical objective of stopping CIA activities? :shrug: perhaps. Why they would need to launch that kind of assault against a buy-back program is rather beyond me.

You're conflating all attacks for all kinds of reasons into one big category of "terrorist" attack. That's a huge mistake IMO.

Not really - I am pointing out that terrorism has common features, especially across like groups.

You can't be serious. This is exactly why I quit taking BENGHAZI!!! seriously long ago. They are not in the same universe, and efforts to equate them are just obvious BS. We effectively declared war after the GoT incident, causing deaths of over a million Vietnamese, about 60,000 U.S. dead, another 150,000 wounded. This "lie" lasted two or three WEEKS and it's effect on the big picture was nil.

It's effect on the big picture may have been to save a presidential campaign. I agree that the impact of that is not the same as the impact of the Vietnam war, it is like only in its nature and intent.

This wasn't an embassy. And if it was routine, why did Petraeus skip the memorial for his own dead employees?

:) Consulates, too, especially in non-ally nations. As for Petraeus skipping the memorial, I don't know. I don't know what the CIA's policy is - I know that generally they refuse to acknowledge if someone is, is not, was, or was not an employee; that may be part of it. Nor am I sure that what you are attempting to argue logically follows - do you think that the Presidents' refusal to send a representative to attend the funeral of General Greene was an attempt on his part to deny that there is a conflict in Afghanistan?

But you can't say even years later what the CIA was doing, or if what they were doing was the actual target of the attack. You're speculating.

:roll:

Secretary Clinton already included that in her testimony - they were trying to soak up the Gaddafi regime weapons, particularly MANPADS through a buy-back program.

OK, so on the front end the WH spun the story, and in 2 or 3 weeks they gave the story you wanted.

On the contrary - they waited until safely after the election to come clean.

Again, I'll concede in an election year this hits the "Give a damn" meter but why it pegs 10 and stays there two years later, and coming up on two years after that election, is a mystery.

:shrug: I don't know of anyone who considers it a 10 - and I know quite a few people who are... pretty bitter...

But it is a legitimate story, it is a serious scandal, it is worthy of notice, and yes, it does still belong on the give-a-damn meter.

Or it would be if the reason wasn't obviously to hang this on Hillary, and continue to beat Obama about the head with it.

:shrug: If Hillary runs, this will certainly get more play. As it should - in 2008 she ran as the woman whom Americans wanted answering the 2 am phone call. She at the very least would owe (if she wanted to be President) an accounting of how she went about answering it when that call came.
 
Re: Top CIA officer in Benghazi delayed response to terrorist attack US security team

Heya CPW :2wave: .....are they still trying to figure out who suffered any consequences yet?

:shrug: Moot has one trick-pony. It's dead, but she's not going to let that stop her from trying to ride it.
 
:shrug: check with American, Boo, TGND, or any of the other old Whistlestopper folk who came over. I used to post for them live from Fallujah :). American actually physically came and picked me up from intel school for a pretty good day of wine-drinking. Or, if you like, speak to any of the other Marines on this forum (we have quite a few). Any of them (and especially all of them together) would have spotted me long ago if I was faking.

You were one of the better Mod's at WS.
 
Re: Top CIA officer in Benghazi delayed response to terrorist attack US security team

No Americans were killed in Benghazi because America "no boots on the ground" in Libya to get killed in the first place.

/sarcasm
 
Back
Top Bottom