• 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!

Newly released Benghazi documents reinforce that White House was pushing that video w

Re: Newly released Benghazi documents reinforce that White House was pushing that vid

pbrauer said:
nope, media matters dots their "i"s and cross their "t"s
Click to expand...

bwaaahhahahaha
 
Re: Newly released Benghazi documents reinforce that White House was pushing that vid

bubbabgone said:
A side-by-side view of the redacted and unredacted versions would be interesting.
Click to expand...

According to Lindsay Graham, the one's supplied to Congress were so redacted that they were worthless. Now, that's Lindsay Graham, soooo we'll just have to see. I haven't looked, but I'm certain they're available somewhere.
 
Re: Newly released Benghazi documents reinforce that White House was pushing that vid

notquiteright said:
Hmmm I guess people can remember things differently- I recall major themes of the GOP war on women, the CON defense of marriage, and snide remarks about 47% of the nation.

I understand the CON whine about defining 'on the run', I'd say they are on the run, and like any group of cockroaches flushed out some can find a new haven to start anew and 'on the run' doesn't mean dead and gone. Receding doesn't mean a rogue wave or two can't still get your feet wet, but it does mean the tide is going out. Doesn't mean an occasional home grown nut job, or a renegade pilot won't commit an act of terror, but hopefully it means if an FBI field report hits a desk on suspicious activities, that report sees timely action instead of a yawn.

I believe the 'story' was to protect a botched CIA OP. The attack wasn't on the Embassy but a CIA arsenal masquerading as a Consulate far from the capital. I have ZERO understanding what the Ambassador was doing there and without any real escort detail... bad timing and thought process there. But the attack was on the CIA, it's operation that now can be seen as poorly managed, and a cache of weapons- not an embassy.

Kinda like crooks seeing a poorly guarded bank stuffed full of money and the security detail are the much hated Pinkertons...
Click to expand...

There were two facilities, consulate and annex. The attack was on the consulate. The Ambassador was there because that's where he had an office. CIA personnel acted heroically, coming to the support of the consulate and then bringing survivors back to their own compound, where they fought off a second attack.:peace
 
Re: Newly released Benghazi documents reinforce that White House was pushing that vid

mac said:
No, it was the best information they claimed to have at the time. Later proven to be a false claim. Besides, didn't you guys claim the President Obama called it an act of terror in the Rose Garden speech?
Click to expand...

The day after the attacks, the Prez, in the Rose Garden, said..."No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation......"
Now it's possible that he was referencing something other than Benghazi.
But on the day after the Benghazi attack, what other "acts of terror" would he have been talking about?
 
Re: Newly released Benghazi documents reinforce that White House was pushing that vid

American said:
Newly released Benghazi documents reinforce that White House was pushing that video was to blame – The Lead with Jake Tapper - CNN.com Blogs



Damn, this just won't go away will it?
Click to expand...
Regardless how hard the Obama Administration and the Main Stream Media tries; they just can't make it go away_

Unfortunately by the time this does finally reach America no one will remember what the heck Benghazi even was_

The Main Stream Media has sanitized, under-reported and ignored the Benghazi story to the point of irrelevance_

pbrauer said:
Sorry American, but according to Media Matters there is nothing new here.

The Ben Rhodes Email: Fox's New (False) Benghazi Attack | Blog | Media Matters for America
Click to expand...
I happen agree with you PB; there is actually no breaking news flash here_

This is all old news to some of us although Main Stream America still knows very little to nothing about it_

The reason being is their obsessive dependence on Main Stream Media for the majority of their information_
 
Re: Newly released Benghazi documents reinforce that White House was pushing that vid

radioman said:
The day after the attacks, the Prez, in the Rose Garden, said..."No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation......"
Now it's possible that he was referencing something other than Benghazi.
But on the day after the Benghazi attack, what other "acts of terror" would he have been talking about?
Click to expand...

So, why then, several days later, did Susan Rice report "the best information" they had at the time saying otherwise?
 
Re: Newly released Benghazi documents reinforce that White House was pushing that vid

pbrauer said:
He resigned because someone told him that if he were impeached by the House, there was likely enough votes in the Senate (67) to remove him from office.
Click to expand...
Hand picking a successor that will quid pro quo with a Presidential Pardon is also a big motivator_ :giggle1:
 
Re: Newly released Benghazi documents reinforce that White House was pushing that vid

Well ... looks like they've chosen this approach ... hard to see what else they could do.

circle the wagons - nothing new.jpg
 
Re: Newly released Benghazi documents reinforce that White House was pushing that vid

Jack Hays said:
Except there was no protest in Libya.:peace
Click to expand...

Correct, I meant to say Cairo

But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous -- not a premeditated -- response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

'This Week' Transcript: U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice - ABC News
 
Re: Newly released Benghazi documents reinforce that White House was pushing that vid

pbrauer said:
Correct, I meant to say Cairo

But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous -- not a premeditated -- response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

'This Week' Transcript: U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice - ABC News
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. No protest, ever, in Libya.:peace
 
Re: Newly released Benghazi documents reinforce that White House was pushing that vid

APACHERAT said:
Well using "The Atlantic" is a few yards above "Media Matters" but "The Atlantic" is a liberal bias publication.

What's next, "Mother Jones" ? :lamo
Click to expand...
They are more honest than a right wing publication.
 
Re: Newly released Benghazi documents reinforce that White House was pushing that vid

humbolt said:
So the memo from the WH that was a PREP CALL for Susan Rice which outlines her talking points for her numerous TV appearances that Sunday is just an accident. That she repeated all of the points stated in the memo FROM THE WHITE HOUSE is really coincidental. Damn. You haven't read it, have you? You just ran to MM and took their crap laced pablum for the truth rather than look at the freaking document yourself?
Click to expand...
Are you really surprised that these people know so little about the Benghazi story???

Have you ever checked out the sources where they get all of their information???

It isn't just Media Matters; the Main Stream Media also keeps them in total darkness and denial_
 
Re: Newly released Benghazi documents reinforce that White House was pushing that vid

pbrauer said:
Correct, I meant to say Cairo

But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous -- not a premeditated -- response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

'This Week' Transcript: U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice - ABC News
Click to expand...

Heavy mortars were employed with precision in the attack. Nobody carries a mortar around for spontaneous demonstrations. Mortar rounds are not dropped on anything accurately without first knowing the range exactly, unless they are under duress. These guys were the attackers, in numbers, and not under duress. There was nothing spontaneous about it.
 
Re: Newly released Benghazi documents reinforce that White House was pushing that vid

Empirica said:
Are you really surprised that these people know so little about the Benghazi story???

Have you ever checked out the sources where they get all of their information???

It isn't just Media Matters; the Main Stream Media also keeps them in total darkness and denial_
Click to expand...

No, I'm not. I'm just surprised that they continue with nonsense and BS.
 
Re: Newly released Benghazi documents reinforce that White House was pushing that vid

mac said:
So, why then, several days later, did Susan Rice report "the best information" they had at the time saying otherwise?
Click to expand...

Hey, mac.
Sorry about the delayed response.
I've been hanging out in the conspiracy forum....I'm a little woozy.
To your point....maybe at the time of the attack, that WAS the best info/guess they had.
The bad info was wrong.:shrug:
 
Re: Newly released Benghazi documents reinforce that White House was pushing that vid

humbolt said:
No, I'm not. I'm just surprised that they continue with nonsense and BS.
Click to expand...
I'm sure they will do much better when they find something new to continue with_
 
Re: Newly released Benghazi documents reinforce that White House was pushing that vid

Empirica said:
I'm sure they will do much better when they find something new to continue with_
Click to expand...

I'm sure they'll change the subject, that the media will attempt to bury it, and a new social war will be declared. There is absolutely no reason why someone who can't count to ten shouldn't be making $22 per hour. Vote for Elizabeth Warren. Hillary is toast.
 
Re: Newly released Benghazi documents reinforce that White House was pushing that vid

APACHERAT said:
How did "High Times" spin the Benghazi terrorist attacks ?
Click to expand...
Like a dreidel?
 
Re: Newly released Benghazi documents reinforce that White House was pushing that vid

Jack Hays said:
There were two facilities, consulate and annex. The attack was on the consulate. The Ambassador was there because that's where he had an office. CIA personnel acted heroically, coming to the support of the consulate and then bringing survivors back to their own compound, where they fought off a second attack.
Click to expand...

Again differing POVs here. No doubt there is 'an office' in the diplomatic mission, but why was the Ambassador there on 9-11 at night with no meaningful security detail? IMO his office is in Tripoli, not some out house far from the capital. So just how much time did the Ambassador spend in Benghazi prior to that night? How often while a CIA operation was running weapons in and out of the annex?

Now the naysayers claim it wasn't spontaneous but a well planned attack by al-Quaida so how did these guys know the ambassador would overnite there? My money is on they didn't, but they did know weapons were being stockpiled there EVERY nite. They knew only a handful of mercs were on guard. They knew all of this because they and their supporters were in that compound almost daily.

The consulate compound held more than the ambassador's 'office'... the Tactical Operation Command Building and the militia HQ. I see it as a two wave attack, first the symbol of the Foreign presence was attacked- hence the hand carried fuel to burn the buildings but just as importantly the Tac center. What was there... three or four men in that complex?

Second wave was the annex- first softened up by fire and then there would be a ground assault but the CIA hauled ass out before that attack launched.

By why was the CIA there? Why did the Turkish ambassador meet in Benghazi and not Tripoli? Why was the consulate a empty shell of a building?

Because the CIA wanted a presence in Benghazi, not the State dept. The CIA was running a weapons op out of the annex. The CIA hired former seals as mercs to guard the annex but not the Consulate because 90% of the time the Consulate compound was used by the militia not the State dept.

Benghazi was a CIA OP gone south and that was why the initial cover story of riots instead of an attack by some of the very militias the USofA through the CIA were doing business with.
 
Re: Newly released Benghazi documents reinforce that White House was pushing that vid

notquiteright said:
Again differing POVs here. No doubt there is 'an office' in the diplomatic mission, but why was the Ambassador there on 9-11 at night with no meaningful security detail? IMO his office is in Tripoli, not some out house far from the capital. So just how much time did the Ambassador spend in Benghazi prior to that night? How often while a CIA operation was running weapons in and out of the annex?

Now the naysayers claim it wasn't spontaneous but a well planned attack by al-Quaida so how did these guys know the ambassador would overnite there? My money is on they didn't, but they did know weapons were being stockpiled there EVERY nite. They knew only a handful of mercs were on guard. They knew all of this because they and their supporters were in that compound almost daily.

The consulate compound held more than the ambassador's 'office'... the Tactical Operation Command Building and the militia HQ. I see it as a two wave attack, first the symbol of the Foreign presence was attacked- hence the hand carried fuel to burn the buildings but just as importantly the Tac center. What was there... three or four men in that complex?

Second wave was the annex- first softened up by fire and then there would be a ground assault but the CIA hauled ass out before that attack launched.

By why was the CIA there? Why did the Turkish ambassador meet in Benghazi and not Tripoli? Why was the consulate a empty shell of a building?

Because the CIA wanted a presence in Benghazi, not the State dept. The CIA was running a weapons op out of the annex. The CIA hired former seals as mercs to guard the annex but not the Consulate because 90% of the time the Consulate compound was used by the militia not the State dept.

Benghazi was a CIA OP gone south and that was why the initial cover story of riots instead of an attack by some of the very militias the USofA through the CIA were doing business with.
Click to expand...

Too many factual errors to discuss. There were never weapons at the consulate except for the ambassador's security escort. The ambassador was there because he was personally confident he could handle himself. No one hauled ass out of the annex. State wanted the consulate in Benghazi because that is where the uprising against Qadhafi had begun and it was tribally/politically important.
 
Re: Newly released Benghazi documents reinforce that White House was pushing that vid

mac said:
The documents in question say otherwise.
Click to expand...

I've been reading them. Explain what's new.
 
Re: Newly released Benghazi documents reinforce that White House was pushing that vid

Jack Hays said:
Too many factual errors to discuss. There were never weapons at the consulate except for the ambassador's security escort. The ambassador was there because he was personally confident he could handle himself. No one hauled ass out of the annex. State wanted the consulate in Benghazi because that is where the uprising against Qadhafi had begun and it was tribally/politically important.
Click to expand...

Too much deflection to discuss... let's let's try... I NEVER said the weapons were in the Consulate- you are making crap up. I said the Consulate held the tac center, dso building and militia hq, not just the Ambassador's residence. The ambassador was there to meet a Turkish liaison on the weapons operation, he traveled without a security team because he didn't want one- his fatal mistake. The CIA 'rescue' team missed Ambassador Stevens- it was Libyans who rescued him, took him to a hospital.

Immediately after the mortars hit the roof of the annex, killing two men, and wounding several others- a Predator drone spotted a 'large mass of men' and the evac was on...

I'd love a link backing the need to have the Consulate in Benghazi because that is where Ghadaffi started... please include where it was the State dept who wanted that... that just seems so odd State wanted it but never manned it. It seems like putting a target in the middle of badguy country, not guarding it but the ambassador going in naked on a random visit and a two pronged very effective attack just happens to hit that night.

It was the CIA op that drew the attack and not the Ambassador....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom