Benghazi - the gift that keeps on giving

[MooseNSquirrel]

Originally Posted by monovillage

Fixed it for you Moosie.

Another story out.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/...-hero-on-your/

Im hard for rational thought and evidence based decision making along with careful consideration of possible outcomes without narrow minded thinking.

You on the other hand get quite aroused by newspaper comedy pieces from sunny San Diego.

[monovillage]

Originally Posted by MooseNSquirrel

Im hard for rational thought and evidence based decision making along with careful consideration of possible outcomes without narrow minded thinking.

You on the other hand get quite aroused by newspaper comedy pieces from sunny San Diego.

I like San Diego, it's far cheaper than San Francisco and the Mexican food is better.

[rockyct]

Originally Posted by MooseNSquirrel

Im hard for rational thought and evidence based decision making along with careful consideration of possible outcomes without narrow minded thinking.

You on the other hand get quite aroused by newspaper comedy pieces from sunny San Diego.

I'm from San Diego and while the county does have a slight Republican tilt and the city itself has more Democrats than Republicans, the "powers that be" are typically very conservative. The newspaper was just bought by a politically motivated conservative and they've been pretty open that they are making the UT into a paper with conservative op-eds. They're basically excusing the slant because they're just op-eds and not real articles.

[monovillage]

Originally Posted by rockyct

I'm from San Diego and while the county does have a slight Republican tilt and the city itself has more Democrats than Republicans, the "powers that be" are typically very conservative. The newspaper was just bought by a politically motivated conservative and they've been pretty open that they are making the UT into a paper with conservative op-eds. They're basically excusing the slant because they're just op-eds and not real articles.

If you like your bias tilted the other way, but even further, you can get the L.A. Times, or you can go more Libertarian and go the Orange County Register. The funny part is that the only lying paper about their bias is the L.A. Times and it's supporters.

[boomerang]

Obama: We Leave Nobody Behind

Unless they're in Benghazi. Commander in Chief - what a joke. Let's help him improve his golf game. Two days.

[Incorruptible]

Originally Posted by boomerang

Obama: We Leave Nobody Behind

Unless they're in Benghazi. Commander in Chief - what a joke. Let's help him improve his golf game. Two days.

obama doesn't care since after he went for some fundraiser/special event

This man needs to be defeated since his policies wont fix the economy

[Abraxas]

Originally Posted by TerryMathews

And it wasn't the only possibility the administration had access to. So that is the truth. And the honest response to give.

So to clarify, the President should avoid making definitive declarations if anyone has an alternate theory, even if the CIA tells him it is probably X?

[Abraxas]

Originally Posted by Attic

Could that be your true colors of bias showing? Read the link I posted. It's not hard to get a few no biased neurons working properly. Don't start hollering about factually impaired from your bunker of half truths, misrepresentations of facts and Fud on this one. We all saw the response of this admin and the timeline from my link simply calls that response into question.

Bitch and main about the facts that run contrary to your stance all you want, but don't think for an instant anyone but the blind thinks there aren't any facts here.

I never said there aren't any facts out there, in fact I said much the opposite. The Fact is the CIA said the video was responsible, it had been for many other protests that day, and so the administration cited that as the cause. That is not an unreasonable response. I know you think the timeline shows some coverup or conspiracy to hide the truth, but all it really shows is an evolving understanding of the situation as more and more information reached the intelligence community. You see malice there because you want to see malice there.

[TerryMathews]

Originally Posted by Abraxas

So to clarify, the President should avoid making definitive declarations if anyone has an alternate theory, even if the CIA tells him it is probably X?

Well, it would avoid the embarrassment of this particular situation. And to be fair, George W. Bush was told that Iraq "probably" had WMDs. I fail to see how this situation is any different with regard to truthful assertions.

[Abraxas]

Originally Posted by TerryMathews

Well, it would avoid the embarrassment of this particular situation. And to be fair, George W. Bush was told that Iraq "probably" had WMDs. I fail to see how this situation is any different with regard to truthful assertions.

Because, first of all, he told the CIA to come back and tell him he had WMDs whereas Obama gave no such direction to the CIA in this case, it was an independently arrived at conclusion, and second, because much of the intelligence we had directly contradicted the idea he had WMDs. Further, when the information changed within a period of days, his stance on what happened changed and did not take action on the basis of it being the video, he gave time for it to play out whereas Bush went and charged into Iraq. The CIA had not, at the time the remarks were made as far as any information made available thusfar, indicated any other likely alternatives. The situations really are not comparable.

[TerryMathews]

Originally Posted by Abraxas

Because, first of all, he told the CIA to come back and tell him he had WMDs whereas Obama gave no such direction to the CIA in this case, it was an independently arrived at conclusion, and second, because much of the intelligence we had directly contradicted the idea he had WMDs. Further, when the information changed within a period of days, his stance on what happened changed and did not take action on the basis of it being the video, he gave time for it to play out whereas Bush went and charged into Iraq. The CIA had not, at the time the remarks were made as far as any information made available thusfar, indicated any other likely alternatives. The situations really are not comparable.

"The investigation is ongoing." We dont know what direction(s) were given to the CIA, either directly or indirectly.

[EagleKeeper]

We have no idea what Obama or State asked of the CIA or to what extent the information was filtered

[Fern]

Originally Posted by Bowfinger

Naturally, you and the O'Bashers ignore this part of the same article:
So they didn't formally convene the CSG because it was being led at a higher level ... but CSG members were included.

Once again, it sounds like we have Obama haters cherry-picking details out of context to support their preordained conclusions. It's possible Vietor is lying, of course, but you fail to present any evidence of that.

You have also cherry picked.

The other sources quoted in the article do not confirm what the spokesman claims.

Fern

[Bowfinger]

Originally Posted by Fern

You have also cherry picked.

The other sources quoted in the article do not confirm what the spokesman claims.

Fern

Say what? They "do not confirm" it? OK? Do they confirm water is wet and the sun rises in the east?

The relevant issue is do they contradict it? If so, please provide specific quotes denying "the response effort was handled by the most senior national security officials in governments" and that " Members of the CSG" were involved. I saw people complaining that the full CSG wasn't convened, or that they personally weren't included, but nobody denied the claims I quoted. If you see something different, let's see the specifics.

In a similar vein, you've yet to address my challenge about the testimony provided to Congress. You've insinuated that testimony is quite damning to the administration, yet once again you've neglected to document specifics. Consequently, it's just more meaningless hand-waving, something this thread has way too much of already. I offered several specific examples from the testimony I read. As one of the few conservatives here who actually uses his head, I was looking to you to do the same. Please fill in the blanks and back your claims with specific, factual information. TIA.

[Jaskalas]

Heads should roll for Benghazi. The problem is we do not know whose head.

We do not have our answers. The President is well aware of this, he can and does give orders to this effect. This is a cover up. The President is responsible for the cover up. It's time for him to face consequences instead of a yet-to-be-named fall guy. Impeach him.

[DominionSeraph]

Originally Posted by Jaskalas

Heads should roll for Benghazi. The problem is we do not know whose head.

How about those responsible?

[ivwshane]

Originally Posted by DominionSeraph

How about those responsible?

Like the brain dead idiot that he is, he has already determined who is responsible, despite the facts currently present.

[IGBT]

in office or out if it leaks he was in the war room he's criminally culpable.

[Incorruptible]

Originally Posted by DominionSeraph

How about those responsible?

obama supported the rebels at the start and didn't declare war, the US shouldn't have even been in Lybia

[Todd33]

How's the conspiracy theory going? Is impeachment immanent?

[sigurros81]

Originally Posted by boomerang

White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack: emails



Obama knew.

Hope the purchase of that $35 million estate on the North Shore is going to be completed because the Obama's will be ready to occupy it early next year.

Huge turnout at Red Rocks in CO for a Romney/Ryan rally last night where thousands were turned away.

What's the point of this article besides fear-mongering. We all knew about the attack 2 hours after it happened, so what? The only people who's making a fuss about this whole thing are conservative attention whores. Even Romney is letting the topic rest because he realized he had no ammunition with it.

[EagleKeeper]

Originally Posted by sigurros81

What's the point of this article besides fear-mongering. We all knew about the attack 2 hours after it happened, so what? The only people who's making a fuss about this whole thing are conservative attention whores. Even Romney is letting the topic rest because he realized he had no ammunition with it.

Ammo is being locked up by the WH until after the election.

[sigurros81]

Originally Posted by EagleKeeper

Ammo is being locked up by the WH until after the election.

Do you ever think before making random comments that make zero sense.

[werepossum]

Originally Posted by Socio

At minimum this article demonstrates our current leadership is unfit to lead!

http://www.cbsnews.c...nsulate-attack/

Wow. Hard to see that as anything but incompetence. I suppose Team Obama finds itself so incredible that it can't conceive of anyone else having anything useful to contribute on any subject.

Still, the major screw-up - the one that killed Stevens and Smith - was denying American security before the event. I doubt that went up the chain to Obama, so I suspect this is merely political damage control to prevent the Pubbies from gaining anything useful. But then, I thought that of Fast and Furious too, and Obama undeniably took ownership of that so YMMV.

[EagleKeeper]

Originally Posted by sigurros81

Do you ever think before making random comments that make zero sense.

Is it my fault that you have a comprehension problem