• 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!

Exclusive: Dozens of C.I.A. operatives on the ground during Benghazi attack

Re: CNN Reports Dozens of CIA Operatives on the Ground During Benghazi Attack

I thought you knew Rice, who had no role in Obama's Benghazi Massacre, went out to lie instead of the Secretary of State who did play a role in Obama's Benghazi Massacre. I apologize for not recognizing that you argue from a position of ignorance. It is probably willful.

Are you actually implying that Rice's lack of proper talking points implies that the Administration wanted Ambassador Stevens and 3 bodyguards to die?

By the way, cut the personal attacks.
 
Re: CNN Reports Dozens of CIA Operatives on the Ground During Benghazi Attack

Now that was a great idea. I ran your response through it. The translator said you have nothing.
It figures that you couldn't do that right either.
 
Re: CNN Reports Dozens of CIA Operatives on the Ground During Benghazi Attack

Are you actually implying that Rice's lack of proper talking points implies that the Administration wanted Ambassador Stevens and 3 bodyguards to die?

By the way, cut the personal attacks.
You have to try pretty darned hard to get it wrong at this point. So don't try attitude with me.

I speculate on why Stevens was killed. What three bodyguards? Do you have any idea just how full of crap you are? Get some of the basic facts straight before you respond.
 
Re: CNN Reports Dozens of CIA Operatives on the Ground During Benghazi Attack

You have to try pretty darned hard to get it wrong at this point. So don't try attitude with me.

There's nothing to get wrong. Stop getting worked up over something as pointless as an argument on the internet and keep it civil.

I speculate on why Stevens was killed.

There are a million different things I've heard about what "really happened" in Benghazi. Please tell me, in explicit terms, what your specific claim is.

What three bodyguards? Do you have any idea just how full of crap you are? Get some of the basic facts straight before you respond.

I mispoke, 2 security personnel and 1 information management officer. Again, keep it civil; that was well across the line of what's acceptable on DP.
 
Re: CNN Reports Dozens of CIA Operatives on the Ground During Benghazi Attack

There's nothing to get wrong. Stop getting worked up over something as pointless as an argument on the internet and keep it civil.
There are a million different things I've heard about what "really happened" in Benghazi. Please tell me, in explicit terms, what your specific claim is.
I misspoke, 2 security personnel and 1 information management officer. Again, keep it civil; that was well across the line of what's acceptable on DP.
I get it. You are a partisan spokesman on the wrong side of history. Have a nice day.
 
Re: CNN Reports Dozens of CIA Operatives on the Ground During Benghazi Attack

I get it. You are a partisan spokesman on the wrong side of history. Have a nice day.

Yes, it's probably best you retire from this thread before you say something that really merits a visit from a Moderator. I would say it was nice debating you, but I can't for the life of me find a claim you made besides saying Rice lied for Clinton, whatever that means.
 
Re: CNN Reports Dozens of CIA Operatives on the Ground During Benghazi Attack

Yes, it's probably best you retire from this thread before you say something that really merits a visit from a Moderator. I would say it was nice debating you, but I can't for the life of me find a claim you made besides saying Rice lied for Clinton, whatever that means.
I see no point in continuing a discussion with someone who brings their own"facts" without regard to truthfulness.

Why did Rice get sent out to lie when she had no role in Obama's Benghazi Massacre?
Why didn't Clinton go out to lie instead? She was actually involved in Obama's Benghazi Massacre.

Why did Obama continue to lie about a "hateful video" for weeks after he failed to respond to his massacre? Do you think it is usual for a narcissist who never lacks for a photo op to disappear during his Massacre? Where did Obama go? How many more months of investigation do you think it will take before Obama finds out what he did or failed to do during his Benghazi Massacre?

Do you have any answers? If so respond. If not...
 
Re: CNN Reports Dozens of CIA Operatives on the Ground During Benghazi Attack

I see no point in continuing a discussion with someone who brings their own"facts" without regard to truthfulness.

Your personal attacks and baiting doesn't hide your lack of a factual foundation.

Why did Rice get sent out to lie when she had no role in Obama's Benghazi Massacre?
Why didn't Clinton go out to lie instead? She was actually involved in Obama's Benghazi Massacre.

For Rice to have been lying, she would be required to know what had actually happened, and there would need to be some form of evidence showing she was given instructions to not tell the truth. Give me evidence beyond reasonable doubt that both criteria are satisfied; you have certainly not done so anywhere on this thread.

Why did Obama continue to lie about a "hateful video" for weeks after he failed to respond to his massacre?

For Obama to lie about the video (I'm assuming you're position is that he said the video was responsible, and that the attack was not a deliberate act of terror), he would have had to say he thought the attack was caused by that video. The only person, anywhere in the government, that I can find saying the attack was caused by the video was Susan Rice. Obama, the day after the attack said it was likely a deliberate act, and the investigation was ongoing. Two days after Rice went on the air, Clinton came out to cement the understanding that the State Department views the attack as an act of terror. I'm working off this timeline of the attack and administration's response.

Do you think it is usual for a narcissist who never lacks for a photo op to disappear during his Massacre? Where did Obama go?

You can ask baseless, conspiratorial questions all you want, but until you have some facts, hell, ONE fact to back up your suspicions, then this discussion can progress.

How many more months of investigation do you think it will take before Obama finds out what he did or failed to do during his Benghazi Massacre?

Here I presume your position shifts to saying the Obama admin had actionable intelligence to suggest an attack was imminent, or that during the attack Obama could have done something to have counter-attacked or stopped it. This timeline of the military response shows that by the time the aircraft that could've been carrying a 4-man Green Beret team arrives, the attack was over, and we pulled out more people. There were no assets in range of Benghazi, and unless you can show that we knew, and by knew I mean we had actionable intelligence that President Obama was aware of, you logically cannot hold him responsible for not preparing for an attack he didn't know about.

Do you have any answers? If so respond. If not...[/QUOTE]

I have given you answers, though I doubt you'll that they are both factual and against you. I can't wait for you to respond with the obligatory, "you provided no real facts" ploy. Maybe you could shake things up, break the stereotype of a person in your position, and give a factual counterclaim and source.
 
Re: CNN Reports Dozens of CIA Operatives on the Ground During Benghazi Attack

Your personal attacks and baiting doesn't hide your lack of a factual foundation.
You are behaving as if Obama's Benghazi Massacre had just now occurred, this very minute and we know practically nothing about it. I am sure you realize how frustrating it is to deal with people who behave like this. The factual foundation already exists. Granted the Marxist has been concealing and covering up as much as he possibly can. Fortunately there have been some random acts of journalism along the way.

I then wrote, "Why did Rice get sent out to lie when she had no role in Obama's Benghazi Massacre?
Why didn't Clinton go out to lie instead? She was actually involved in Obama's Benghazi Massacre."

For Rice to have been lying, she would be required to know what had actually happened, and there would need to be some form of evidence showing she was given instructions to not tell the truth. Give me evidence beyond reasonable doubt that both criteria are satisfied; you have certainly not done so anywhere on this thread.
Is that your defense? Rice was too stupid to know she was lying so it wasn't really a lie? Really? That is your argument? Fantastic! (I went to charm school where I learned to say "fantastic" instead of BS)

We continued on, "Why did Obama continue to lie about a "hateful video" for weeks after he failed to respond to his massacre?"

For Obama to lie about the video (I'm assuming you're position is that he said the video was responsible, and that the attack was not a deliberate act of terror), he would have had to say he thought the attack was caused by that video.

I suppose it is possible that you are the last remaining person on Earth to not know that the Marxist is a slippery SOB.
“The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.”

Glenn Kessler objects, giving the statement four Pinocchios in the Washington Post today. The Rose Garden speech, Kessler reports — again — addressed terrorism in general, not the Benghazi attack. Over the next several days, Obama had three opportunities to call it a terrorist attack, but declined to do so.​
Four Pinocchios for Obama on Benghazi terror claim « Hot Air

The only person, anywhere in the government, that I can find saying the attack was caused by the video was Susan Rice. Obama, the day after the attack said it was likely a deliberate act, and the investigation was ongoing.

It is a lie oft repeated. See above. And from that article:
KROFT: “Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?”

OBAMA: “Well, it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.”​

And,
So, given three opportunities to affirmatively agree that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack, the president obfuscated or ducked the question. …

During the campaign, the president could just get away with claiming he said “act of terror,” since he did use those words — though not in the way he often claimed.​
Also on Sept. 20, Obama at a town hall meeting says: “What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”​
WHITE HOUSE INSIDER: Obama’s Benghazi Lie – Valerie Jarrett’s West Wing Meltdown - The Ulsterman Report
The evidence of the lie is overwhelming and conclusive. Except for those who want to cling to the narrative, the lie, the cover-up.

Two days after Rice went on the air, Clinton came out to cement the understanding that the State Department views the attack as an act of terror. I'm working off this timeline of the attack and administration's response.
Well, no.
Sept. 21: Clinton says “what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack,” highest official until then to say so.
(NOTE: Within 24hrs of Barack Obama telling America the video was to blame and calling it a “natural protest” Hillary Clinton goes on record with the term “terrorist attack”. Clinton and Obama are now in direct opposition – though publicly still circling their own wagons against growing accusations of a cover-up.​

Clinton acknowledged the obvious on September 21st, not on September 13th. CBS, part of the state run media, is not to be believed after the fact.

Then I assked, "Do you think it is usual for a narcissist who never lacks for a photo op to disappear during his Massacre? Where did Obama go?"

You can ask baseless, conspiratorial questions all you want, but until you have some facts, hell, ONE fact to back up your suspicions, then this discussion can progress.
Well, where are his photos? Why did no one have contact with the Dear Leader? Why did he disappear, allowing his Benghazi Massacre to occur unhindered?

I also asked this, "How many more months of investigation do you think it will take before Obama finds out what he did or failed to do during his Benghazi Massacre?"

Here I presume your position shifts to saying the Obama admin had actionable intelligence to suggest an attack was imminent, or that during the attack Obama could have done something to have counter-attacked or stopped it. This timeline of the military response shows that by the time the aircraft that could've been carrying a 4-man Green Beret team arrives, the attack was over, and we pulled out more people. There were no assets in range of Benghazi, and unless you can show that we knew, and by knew I mean we had actionable intelligence that President Obama was aware of, you logically cannot hold him responsible for not preparing for an attack he didn't know about.

Presume what you wish. The Marxist was told of the attack around 5 PM and he promptly disappeared until the following morning, then headed off to a fundraiser. He claimed he would have a full investigation. It has been about a year. How many more months will it take (of investigation) before Obama finds out what he did, and failed to do during the attack?

I have given you answers, though I doubt you'll that they are both factual and against you. I can't wait for you to respond with the obligatory, "you provided no real facts" ploy. Maybe you could shake things up, break the stereotype of a person in your position, and give a factual counterclaim and source.

You will have to do better than to give us the Obama talking points 11 months later.
 
Re: CNN Reports Dozens of CIA Operatives on the Ground During Benghazi Attack

Before I start, let me work through who said what. President Obama, the day after the attack, referred to it as an, "act of terror" in an address, and in an interview stated that it didn't "sound like your normal demonstration." Then on Sept. 16, Rice says it was because of a mob. Secretary Clinton stated 2 days after Rice that it was a terrorist attack.

The only person to have said it was not an attack from the start was Rice, therefore I will assume you take issue with this statement.

I'm working off this timeline, FYI.



You mean Gregory Hicks. Before you put any words in my mouth, the miscommunication I'm referring to is between Clinton and Rice. Rice clearly was not given the most up to date talking points, and said the wrong thing on the record.



Spare me your personal attacks.



People make mistakes. Unless you're implying that government can perfectly execute anything they wish to do, which is obviously false. Again, the miscommunication was within the State Department. Not sure why you're pulling the military into this.



Yeah, they did know, and they said that almost immediately. They never said anything to refute that it was anything but a deliberate attack on the Consulate/Annex.



If you could keep irrelevant commentary to a minimum, that'd be great.



Coupled with the article at the beginning of this thread, I'm convinced the stone walling is about the CIA operation, and not the attack.



A cover-up of what exactly? I don't see what, besides this a potential CIA operation, is being covered up. Obama and Clinton went on the record saying it was a terrorist attack. Susan Rice, who might've not been given any talking points and came to her own conclusions, said it was because of a mob. This isn't a big deal.



Just to say it again, this sort of commentary is entirely irrelevant.

EDIT: I found an organizational chart of the State Department for you. The information about Benghazi went up the ladder to Clinton, bypassing Rice, and we don't know that it came back down to Rice at all.


You can't use Obama's generic reference to " terror " and then dismiss Susan Rice's multiple Sunday Morning lies, Jay Carney's multiple and very self assured proclamations that this was because of a " protest ".

Go ahead, keep the blinders on, the rest of the world who either doesn't worship the scum in the WH or who have learned what Obama, Hillary and the ilk they drug in with them.

I'm telling you, almost as soon as the attack commenced, those on the ground knew it wasn't a " protest ", those in the WH situation room ( Obama included ) knew it wasn't a protest, Hillary Clinton knew it wasn't a protest.

Yes Gregory Hicks ( my bad ) testified under oath that the attack was never perceived as a protest gone awry.

Here's Obama's mistake, and the Democrats. They think, they've made a calculated decision that their voters are idiots or hard core ideologues. who use their ideology to define the truth, not the other way around. Voters that will believe anything their told.

Here's a timeline of my own....( well, not my video but a video timeline of the Democrats lies )


If you can't be convinced over Benghazi, that it was a attempt at a cover up, nothing will convince you and your'e just the kind of voter that Obama and Hillary concocted this huge lie over.

Hillary's, IMO is a despicable lying bitch, a sub-human, scum who looked into the eyes of the Parents who lost their Sons in Benghazi and said " we'll arrest the man that made that video "

Sorry, but I set my standards a bit higher for the representatives I vote for.
 
Re: CNN Reports Dozens of CIA Operatives on the Ground During Benghazi Attack

You are behaving as if Obama's Benghazi Massacre had just now occurred, this very minute and we know practically nothing about it. I am sure you realize how frustrating it is to deal with people who behave like this. The factual foundation already exists. Granted the Marxist has been concealing and covering up as much as he possibly can. Fortunately there have been some random acts of journalism along the way.

The problem is you're so sure of your own ways, it frustrates you that there are facts time fly directly in the face of your prejudices.

Is that your defense? Rice was too stupid to know she was lying so it wasn't really a lie? Really? That is your argument? Fantastic! (I went to charm school where I learned to say "fantastic" instead of BS)

The information that came up the ladder to Clinton didn't have to go through Rice. Unless you can show she was given a briefing on Benghazi before she went on the record, you cannot logically claim she was lying without making assumptions, because it is just as likely that she hadn't been briefed.

I suppose it is possible that you are the last remaining person on Earth to not know that the Marxist is a slippery SOB. “The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.”

There are at about 58 million Americans who disagree with your prejudicial statement. But that's fair enough, Obama didn't specifically call it an act of terror. He specifically said, "We're still investigating exactly what happened. I don't want to jump the gun on this. But you're right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt. And my suspicion is, that there are folks involved in this, who were looking to target Americans from the start."

He's a President, he should not make unconditional statements when he doesn't personally know what happened. I can believe Clinton knew what had happened, and she was probably convinced it was a terrorist attack from the get-go, based on Gregory Hicks' statements. Obama, however, has to wait for more information. As he said, he can't jump the gun.

Glenn Kessler objects, giving the statement four Pinocchios in the Washington Post today. The Rose Garden speech, Kessler reports — again — addressed terrorism in general, not the Benghazi attack. Over the next several days, Obama had three opportunities to call it a terrorist attack, but declined to do so.[/INDENT]
Four Pinocchios for Obama on Benghazi terror claim « Hot Air

Yeah, Obama didn't use the word terrorist. Big whoop. Obviously he implied that it was likely a deliberate attack, but again, he cautioned that we don't have all the facts yet.

Also on Sept. 20, Obama at a town hall meeting says: “What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”[/INDENT]
WHITE HOUSE INSIDER: Obama’s Benghazi Lie – Valerie Jarrett’s West Wing Meltdown - The Ulsterman Report

To me that means that he's saying there was a riot, and that was used as cover for their attack. I can't wait for you to disagree.

Sept. 21: Clinton says “what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack,” highest official until then to say so.
(NOTE: Within 24hrs of Barack Obama telling America the video was to blame and calling it a “natural protest” Hillary Clinton goes on record with the term “terrorist attack”. Clinton and Obama are now in direct opposition – though publicly still circling their own wagons against growing accusations of a cover-up.​

Hardly. I've already refuted both points above. Again, the day after, Obama opened the door to it being an attack, and hedged saying we don't know what happened. Clinton went on after Rice to clear the air and confirm it was a terrorist attack. Clearly Clinton went on because of the confusion Rice caused.

Clinton acknowledged the obvious on September 21st, not on September 13th. CBS, part of the state run media, is not to be believed after the fact.

Yeah, saying you don't agree with them because you don't like them doesn't work.

Then I assked, "Do you think it is usual for a narcissist who never lacks for a photo op to disappear during his Massacre? Where did Obama go?"

Well, where are his photos? Why did no one have contact with the Dear Leader? Why did he disappear, allowing his Benghazi Massacre to occur unhindered?

Presume what you wish. The Marxist was told of the attack around 5 PM and he promptly disappeared until the following morning, then headed off to a fundraiser.

That's like me asking where Rand Paul was on 9/11 (WTC attack, just a random example). I don't know, so who is to say he didn't somehow have something to do with it? Do you see how ridiculous you sound?

He claimed he would have a full investigation. It has been about a year. How many more months will it take (of investigation) before Obama finds out what he did, and failed to do during the attack?

What do you want to know about what happened? Clearly you believe you know everything that was "covered-up." And even if there was

You will have to do better than to give us the Obama talking points 11 months later.

Please, your commentary is entirely irrelevant, you don't need to waste your time writing it.
 
Re: CNN Reports Dozens of CIA Operatives on the Ground During Benghazi Attack

You can't use Obama's generic reference to " terror " and then dismiss Susan Rice's multiple Sunday Morning lies, Jay Carney's multiple and very self assured proclamations that this was because of a " protest ".

Obama opened the door from the beginning to the attack being deliberate. Prove Susan Rice was in the loop. Source Carney's statements, in context.

I'm telling you, almost as soon as the attack commenced, those on the ground knew it wasn't a " protest ", those in the WH situation room ( Obama included ) knew it wasn't a protest, Hillary Clinton knew it wasn't a protest. Yes Gregory Hicks ( my bad ) testified under oath that the attack was never perceived as a protest gone awry.

That's great for Hicks and those on the ground. That got up the chain of command very quickly, shown by the timeline. Being higher up requires confirmation of facts. We believed one source about Iraq having WMD's and look where that got us. Until the claim is properly verified, and a cohesive timeline is developed, we can not and should not expect the President to make unconditional statements.

Here's Obama's mistake, and the Democrats. They think, they've made a calculated decision that their voters are idiots or hard core ideologues. who use their ideology to define the truth, not the other way around. Voters that will believe anything their told.

That's neither here nor there.

If you can't be convinced over Benghazi, that it was a attempt at a cover up, nothing will convince you and your'e just the kind of voter that Obama and Hillary concocted this huge lie over.

I'm beginning to believe that there was a covert CIA operation, but there's no cover-up to discover, and no truth to your arguments, as I've demonstrated several times on this thread.

Hillary's, IMO is a despicable lying bitch, a sub-human, scum who looked into the eyes of the Parents who lost their Sons in Benghazi and said " we'll arrest the man that made that video " Sorry, but I set my standards a bit higher for the representatives I vote for.

Thanks for disclosing your prejudicial and partisan nature, I don't even need to discredit your argument now.
 
Re: CNN Reports Dozens of CIA Operatives on the Ground During Benghazi Attack

Please, your commentary is entirely irrelevant, you don't need to waste your time writing it.
The good news is that getting to the truth does not require your assent.

I am done with you.
 
Re: CNN Reports Dozens of CIA Operatives on the Ground During Benghazi Attack

The good news is that getting to the truth does not require your assent.

I am done with you.

I had a feeling you were going to give up the debate.

But you're right, getting to the truth does not require your assent, so it's probably best if you return to your dogma.
 
Re: CNN Reports Dozens of CIA Operatives on the Ground During Benghazi Attack

I had a feeling you were going to give up the debate.

But you're right, getting to the truth does not require your assent, so it's probably best if you return to your dogma.
It is not possible to debate with you. You have your own very special set of "facts" tht have no relationship with the truth.

Bring some facts that we can agree are facts and let's see.
 
Re: CNN Reports Dozens of CIA Operatives on the Ground During Benghazi Attack

It is not possible to debate with you. You have your own very special set of "facts" tht have no relationship with the truth.

Bring some facts that we can agree are facts and let's see.

I really enjoy how you continue to respond after you unconditionally stated, "I am done with you." If you believe CBS to not have a relationship to truth, while presenting The Ulsterman Report as having one, I would repeat, it is best if you return to your dogma.
 
Re: CNN Reports Dozens of CIA Operatives on the Ground During Benghazi Attack

I really enjoy how you continue to respond after you unconditionally stated, "I am done with you." If you believe CBS to not have a relationship to truth, while presenting The Ulsterman Report as having one, I would repeat, it is best if you return to your dogma.
Good point. Bye.
 
Back
Top Bottom