• 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]

jet57 said:
Well, one who was there turned out to be a fallacious liar and got a very good 60 Minutes journalist fired. Secondly, of those who were there, credible journalism and government investigations found that there was no vast conspiracy to lie and hide any truth whatsoever. It is only the goofy right-wing and Fox Nes that are pushing some sort of meme designed to break Hillary Clinton and the Democrats for this upcoming House elections and 2016.It's all BS dude. Nobody with any common snese believes you.
Click to expand...
We'll see what happens when those who were there, and those politicians and bureaucrats who were ultimately responsible, are questioned under oath.
 
vesper said:
[...] all three agree that if they hadn't been delayed, Stevens and Smith would be alive today. [...]
Click to expand...
Do you believe that?
 
Grant said:
Do you not believe them? Did you see the interview?
Click to expand...

I believe them. But they aren't saying anything new that wasn't already reported in the ARB report.
 
Karl said:
Do you believe that?
Click to expand...

I have no reason to believe otherwise especially when you include all the testimony and evidence unveiled in the House hearings. I look forward to watching part II tonight even though it is going to interfere with the OSU game. Cheers!
 
jet57 said:
Uh, no, Nixon was invloved in the conspiracy to commit the crime: Daniel Elsbergs "Pentagon Papers" were the target and Nixon feared what they would have revealed about him. Then Nixon conspired to obstruct investigations. The ad hoc attack on the Benghazi embassy, was not a major attack on the United States; your hyperbole is very amusing and a very large reason that your version of it has no credibility in the world. And Bush did pull a stunt like that!! he and his thugs lied their asses off and got nearly 6,000 Americans killed for nothing and opened up the door for ISIS.

I think peraps you should revisit your position.
Click to expand...

:shrug: That's possible - I've haven't spent much time studying the history of the Nixon era (unlike the Middle East, where I have spent some considerable time both academically and professionally). However, the point remains - that the Administration chose to lie to the American people about a significant terrorist attack in the middle of an election in order to shape domestic politics is hardly a non-issue.
 
cpwill said:
[...] However, the point remains - that the Administration chose to lie to the American people about a significant terrorist attack in the middle of an election in order to shape domestic politics is hardly a non-issue.
Click to expand...
Be careful; if you guys keep coming up with / repeating these conspiracy theories you might start believing them yourself . . . . . ;)
 
Moot said:
What did they cover up? A talking point?
Click to expand...

No, they lied, repeatedly and deliberately to the American people. Hillary looked the families of the fallen in the face and lied to them directly. They lied to us about the source of the attack because they wanted to make the Administration look better than it was.

Calling this a "talking point" is like calling Bush's claim that Iraq had WMD's "a speech line".

I mean it's not like anyone tried to break into a private office to steal political oppenents private information.... or covertly sold arms to Iran during an embargo in exchange for drug money or anything.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Can you imagine how insane it would be if this administration were involved in an incompetent attempt to sell weapons to America's enemies? That would be crazy. I mean, that would be almost as crazy as if they illegally broken into others information in order to search for private data. I'm so glad we don't have to worry about that. :roll:
 
Karl said:
Be careful; if you guys keep coming up with / repeating these conspiracy theories you might start believing them yourself . . . . . ;)
Click to expand...

1. I have known that the Administration was lying about this event since the day after it occurred. So did the guy who was here who was at that embassy. Bit of a lefty fellow, he got pretty jaded throughout the whole process, watching the administration he supported lie about his friends. Ended up quitting here shortly thereafter.

2. We actually have the documents of the people in the White House conspiring to push the "youtube video" story.
 
cpwill said:
No, they lied, repeatedly and deliberately to the American people. Hillary looked the families of the fallen in the face and lied to them directly. They lied to us about the source of the attack because they wanted to make the Administration look better than it was.

Calling this a "talking point" is like calling Bush's claim that Iraq had WMD's "a speech line".
Click to expand...
Even if Rice had said it was an attack instead of a protest in the first place....it still wouldn't have saved Amb. Stevens. So what difference does it make?


Yeah. Can you imagine how insane it would be if this administration were involved in an incompetent attempt to sell weapons to America's enemies? That would be crazy.
Click to expand...
Didn't that program start under Bush?


I mean, that would be almost as crazy as if they illegally broken into others information in order to search for private data. I'm so glad we don't have to worry about that. :roll:
Click to expand...
Yeah, that was bad and I don't condone it....but the motives were completely different. Nixon wanted to find dirt on his political oppenents and Obama wanted to find whoever was leaking classified information to the media. Politcal agenda vs National security. See the difference?

"...Still, the Obama administration is facing intense pressure to identify and make examples of any officials who helped bring to light a series of recent disclosures — including new information about the Obama administration’s drone strikes, a joint effort by the United States and Israel to damage Iranian nuclear equipment with a computer virus, and the foiling of a terrorist plot with help from a double agent. (The reports appeared in several recent books and articles, including some by The New York Times.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/10/us/for-us-inquiries-on-leaks-a-difficult-road-to-prosecution.html
 
cpwill said:
1. I have known that the Administration was lying about this event since the day after it occurred. So did the guy who was here who was at that embassy. Bit of a lefty fellow, he got pretty jaded throughout the whole process, watching the administration he supported lie about his friends. Ended up quitting here shortly thereafter.

2. We actually have the documents of the people in the White House conspiring to push the "youtube video" story.
Click to expand...

Re #1, who was that? Just curious.
 
MMC said:
Its simple.....BO and his team at first stated they didn't know what was going on. It was a lie. Then they deflected with a Video and Lied about it. They were incompetent as they knew their security had been breached twice before that attack.
Click to expand...
It's too simple....the right wing are politicizing the deaths of four Americans to hurt Hillary.


Then to top it off.....Hillary and State hired Ansar al Sharia as Security for Benghazi. Who also attacked us and then Ambushed the escape route.
Click to expand...
You're the only one I've seen saying they hired Ansar al Sharia. Do you have a link?

The ARB report said they hired Libyan February 17 Martyrs’ Brigade (February 17) militia members and unarmed, locally contracted Blue Mountain Libya (BML) guards for security......

"...In the weeks and months leading up to the attacks, the response from post, Embassy Tripoli, and Washington to a deteriorating security situation was inadequate. At the same time, the SMC’s dependence on the armed but poorly skilled Libyan February 17 Martyrs’ Brigade (February 17) militia members and unarmed, locally contracted Blue Mountain Libya (BML) guards for security support was misplaced.
Although the February 17 militia had proven effective in responding to improvised explosive device (IED) attacks on the Special Mission in April and June 2012, there were some troubling indicators of its reliability in the months and weeks preceding the September attacks. At the time of Ambassador Stevens’ visit, February 17 militia members had stopped accompanying Special Mission vehicle movements in protest over salary and working hours.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf


Also then there is the Issue of the Turk Envoy meeting Stevens in Benghazi.....while the Turks had no Embassy in Libya, Period. Which involves a weapons transfer and to Syria. (yet not Brought out into the open) Even tho the Rebels in Syria admitted they received Weapons and ManPads from Libya.

Which is another reason why Gowdy is taking those depositions.
Click to expand...
Ahh, so conservatives are just trying to make the facts fit their assumptions. Got it. Geezus, is there anything you aren't blaming Hillary for?

The British didn't have an embassy in Benghazi either but they were allowed to park their cars at the compound. Period? The right wing was screaming for Obama to arm the Syrian rebels against Assad so I really don't see the problem with transferring arms from Libya to Syria. They were probably originally from the US anyway. <shrug>
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
"...Still, the Obama administration is facing intense pressure to identify and make examples of any officials who helped bring to light a series of recent disclosures — including new information about the Obama administration’s drone strikes, a joint effort by the United States and Israel to damage Iranian nuclear equipment with a computer virus, and the foiling of a terrorist plot with help from a double agent. (The reports appeared in several recent books and articles, including some by The New York Times.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/10/us/for-us-inquiries-on-leaks-a-difficult-road-to-prosecution.html
Click to expand...
Now he and the rest of the righties know one of the ponts of the President's strategy.
Never tell the GOP anything BEFORE you do it, as with the current ISIL bombing, and taking out the Somali terrorist Leader.

Too bad it took Mr. Obama SIX long years to change his strategy with GOPs, even though he knew what he was dealing with .
 
NIMBY said:
Now he and the rest of the righties know one of the ponts of the President's strategy.
Never tell the GOP anything BEFORE you do it, as with the current ISIL bombing, and taking out the Somali terrorist Leader.

Too bad it took Mr. Obama SIX long years to change his strategy with GOPs, even though he knew what he was dealing with .
Click to expand...

That's right, he probably wouldn't have gotten OBL if the GOP knew the plan before hand. lol
 
They've been gloating for months how they're gonna kick the Dems ass in Nov, while I've kept my feelings about success close to the vest.

After the dreadful week they just had--Kansas Senate candidate Orman, great Obama trip overseas, McConnell campaign manager resigning,
Obama not taking the bait on Immigration, with a very large etc, they're back to all their faux scandals . :lamo
Moot said:
That's right, he probably wouldn't have gotten OBL if the GOP knew the plan before hand. lol
Click to expand...
 
cpwill said:
No, they lied, repeatedly and deliberately to the American people. Hillary looked the families of the fallen in the face and lied to them directly. They lied to us about the source of the attack because they wanted to make the Administration look better than it was.

Calling this a "talking point" is like calling Bush's claim that Iraq had WMD's "a speech line". Yeah. Can you imagine how insane it would be if this administration were involved in an incompetent attempt to sell weapons to America's enemies? That would be crazy. I mean, that would be almost as crazy as if they illegally broken into others information in order to search for private data. I'm so glad we don't have to worry about that. :roll:
Click to expand...
Too bad the Obamists won't read any of that. Facts interfere with their beliefs.
 
Moot said:
Even if Rice had said it was an attack instead of a protest in the first place....it still wouldn't have saved Amb. Stevens. So what difference does it make?
Click to expand...
Those who were actually there say he could have been saved. Does the truth mean less to you than your political party?
 
Grant said:
Those who were actually there say he could have been saved. Does the truth mean less to you than your political party?
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with Rice saying it was a protest instead of an attack?
 
Just entering the topic so maybe somebody else has brought it up, but...
This is in no way new information. I read about this a long time ago. I'd have to say at least around the end of 2012.

The CIA annex had a 10-man (or so) security team present but it was ordered to stand down and not get involved. I don't know why but my guess would be to protect the secret of the CIA's operation there, hoping that the attack would only hit the diplomatic portions of the complex.

Doherty and Woods eventually both disobeyed the stand down order and went to help with the evacuation.

And I've been wondering for a long time why the investigation didn't seem to pay any attention towards that. My guess is because there's no Democrat blood in the water if they go that direction.
 
Grant said:
Those who were actually there say he could have been saved. Does the truth mean less to you than your political party?
Click to expand...

Yeah, if he'd stayed with his escort and didn't run off to die from a fire, he might have lived.

Heck, with the CIA's presence there I'm more than a little suspicious that maybe he went off on his own to make sure information was destroyed or something.
 
Re: Top CIA officer in Benghazi delayed response to terrorist attack US security team

Moot said:
Chaffetz is the twit that politicized and started all this bs about Benghazi.
Click to expand...
BS????:confused:
 
Moot said:
It's too simple....the right wing are politicizing the deaths of four Americans to hurt Hillary.


You're the only one I've seen saying they hired Ansar al Sharia. Do you have a link?

The ARB report said they hired Libyan February 17 Martyrs’ Brigade (February 17) militia members and unarmed, locally contracted Blue Mountain Libya (BML) guards for security......

"...In the weeks and months leading up to the attacks, the response from post, Embassy Tripoli, and Washington to a deteriorating security situation was inadequate. At the same time, the SMC’s dependence on the armed but poorly skilled Libyan February 17 Martyrs’ Brigade (February 17) militia members and unarmed, locally contracted Blue Mountain Libya (BML) guards for security support was misplaced.
Although the February 17 militia had proven effective in responding to improvised explosive device (IED) attacks on the Special Mission in April and June 2012, there were some troubling indicators of its reliability in the months and weeks preceding the September attacks. At the time of Ambassador Stevens’ visit, February 17 militia members had stopped accompanying Special Mission vehicle movements in protest over salary and working hours.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf


Ahh, so conservatives are just trying to make the facts fit their assumptions. Got it. Geezus, is there anything you aren't blaming Hillary for?

The British didn't have an embassy in Benghazi either but they were allowed to park their cars at the compound. Period? The right wing was screaming for Obama to arm the Syrian rebels against Assad so I really don't see the problem with transferring arms from Libya to Syria. They were probably originally from the US anyway. <shrug>
Click to expand...

Actually it was the left that politicized the deaths and from BO's election.....also when Hillary told the one guy's father they were going after the guy who made the video.

Now how does the Conservatives come into the play, when it was the Syrian Rebels who Admitted to getting the Weapons from Libya? That would be the MB backed rebels of the Syrian National Council that Team BO was sending Aid to. You didn't think there was anyway around that fact that's known by most in the ME and around the Planet, did ya?

Oh and that's Right.....the Turks didn't have an Embassy as their people were all pulled out of Libya. So why again was The Turk Envoy meeting Stevens in Benghazi? You didn't want to say it was over some diplomatic work in Benghazi did you? Whats so funny is when the left doesn't pick up all that News from overseas. Then they ended up missing all those other little details. Did you forget Hillary testifying that her Dept was taking over Gadhafi's Warehouses and that they were accumulating Man-pads?

Why did the Syrian Rebels say they received specifically.....US ManPads?


State Department's own guards attacked U.S. Benghazi mission

The recently released Senate report on the Benghazi attack reveals that the Islamic militia hired to protect the fated U.S. special mission had “vandalized” and “attacked” the mission in the months prior to Sept. 11, 2012. The new detail raises the question of why the State Department, headed at the time by Hillary Clinton, would continue to employ the 17th of February Martyrs Brigade, an al-Qaida-linked organization, to provide external security to the U.S. facility. The 88-page Senate report, reviewed in full by WND, states the U.S. Benghazi mission “had been vandalized and attacked in the months prior to the September 11-12 attacks by some of the same guards who were there to protect it.” That piece of information was not mentioned in the State Department-sanctioned Accountability Review Board, or ARB, investigating the attack.

WND reported Tuesday the Senate report also for the first time reveals the 17th of February Brigade militia refused to “provide cover” for the U.S. security team that was trapped inside the compound. The ARB paints a picture of the 17th of February Brigade as largely aiding in the evacuation of the U.S. personnel at the mission. The 17th of February Brigade operates under the Ansar-Al-Sharia banner. Ansar al-Sharia, tied to al-Qaida, has been implicated in carrying out the attack. The role of Ansar al-Sharia’s 17th of February Brigade in providing security at the compound may prompt more questions following the naming last week of senior Ansar leader Abu Sufian bin Qumu as a ringleader in the Benghazi attack.....snip~

State Department’s own guards attacked U.S. Benghazi mission

Oh yeah.....you remember Qumo Right? That would be Bin Laden's Driver. Imagine that!
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
Even if Rice had said it was an attack instead of a protest in the first place....it still wouldn't have saved Amb. Stevens. So what difference does it make?
Click to expand...

It would not have been a lie to the American people in a desperate attempt to cover up the fact that the Presidents' touted victories against Al Qaeda had not, in fact, materialized in gains on the ground?

Didn't that program start under Bush?
Click to expand...

Nope.

Yeah, that was bad and I don't condone it....but the motives were completely different. Nixon wanted to find dirt on his political oppenents and Obama wanted to find whoever was leaking classified information to the media. Politcal agenda vs National security. See the difference?
Click to expand...

:shrug: Crime is crime regardless of motive. If your argument is that Nixon was bad because he sanctioned a break-in.... :shrug:
 
cpwill said:
1. I have known that the Administration was lying about this event since the day after it occurred. [...]
Click to expand...
What you think you know and what you can prove to any reasonable certainty is two different things.

cpwill said:
So did the guy who was here who was at that embassy. Bit of a lefty fellow, he got pretty jaded throughout the whole process, watching the administration he supported lie about his friends. Ended up quitting here shortly thereafter.
Click to expand...
It's the internet -- people can be whoever they want to be.

cpwill said:
2. We actually have the documents of the people in the White House conspiring to push the "youtube video" story.
Click to expand...
I looked at the JW documents; none of it would meet the legal or actionable definition of a conspiracy. In fact most of it seemed to paint the administration as stressing that the 'YouTube story' was preliminary, subject to an ongoing investigation and subject to review/change.

Again, right wing conspiracy theory fail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom