• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Benghazi - the gift that keeps on giving

Page 22 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
18,044
9,519
136
Geez, somebody finally gets it. Yeah, lets blow the whole cover for probably something like where helping the rebels might be going on. But, who cares, let's trash Obama, fuck the operation.
The Chaffetz Play! Popular in the House...

Sure it could lead to more Americans and assets dying, but that's just more blame we can throw at Obama! Brilliant!
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Jump to conclusions much?

White House officials maintained that the emails don’t contradict what the White House believed at that point, based on the intelligence community’s assessment of the attack. The views of the intelligence community are valued far more than Facebook and twitter claims, officials said, describing that email as an unclassified ops alert email, not a vetted intelligence assessment. It was not definitive, but rather the act of flagging open source reporting referencing a Facebook post, and – officials noted — on September 17, Ansar al-Sharia denied responsibility for the attack.
Swallow the WH talking points hook, line and sinker much?

None of that addresses what I posted about Carney. (And Sept 17 is irrelevant because the Carney remark I posted was made on the 14th.)

Carney said they had NO info indicating something other than a protest. That is demonstrably false.

fern
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
I'm curious for more specifics about what you learned from this sworn testimony. It doesn't seem to match what I learned, at least from the written statements submitted. In those statements I saw reference to all the security improvements and hardening done in Benghazi. I saw the assertion that extending the stay of the much-ballyhooed 16-man team would have made zero difference in Benghazi given that the team was stationed in Tripoli. I saw multiple comments about how this attack was "unprecedented" in its intensity. And so on.

So what did you read in that testimony that somehow contradicts this?
Fern? Care to share details about what you found in the Congressional testimony that refutes, or at least overrides, what I read?
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
0
0
Fern? Care to share details about what you found in the Congressional testimony that refutes, or at least overrides, what I read?
Did you not view the testimony video . Its here in this forum . Watch it . With the idea these people are telling the truth as the testimony is backed by doc.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Did you not view the testimony video . Its here in this forum . Watch it . With the idea these people are telling the truth as the testimony is backed by doc.
You've not answered my question in the least. I gave specific examples from the sworn testimony presented to Congress. You've given me more hand waving and vague insinuation. We have plenty of that in this thread already. Give us something concrete instead. Since you, like Fern, apparently believe there are major revelations in that testimony that either contradict my points, or at least undermine them, what are they? Be specific.
 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
Thank you so very much for pointing out your perceived flaws in our thought processes.
Your welcome. Recognition is the first step to correcting a problem. When you open with "administration deliberately ignoring the requests" perceptive readers will note you've already rendered verdict about what had happened, that their requests had been received and disregarded without consideration, before even weighing the discussion. You requested discussion to rationalize your already arrived at conclusion which is a mark of poor reasoning; something I'm sure you'll correct in the future.

Your first two paragraphs are based in your emotional involvement with Obama. They are not rooted in facts that are out there but have not and will not be presented at the news sources you frequent. But I am glad you got to the point quickly. We always appreciate a lecture from progressives no matter how long or how short.

Please remember that you will be free to love on Obama in any manner you choose regardless if he wins or not. Conversely, I am free to not love on Obama. We can attack Obama verbally and in print in the manner of our choosing in this country. If you feel that's not fair then grow up.
It is perfectly fair to attack Obama, so long as the attack itself is fair. Criticizing him, for, say, the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen through a completely opaque process, for one example, is entirely justified. Whining about how 92% of the jobs lost under Obama were women, on the other hand is not. It is not that he is attacked but the content of the attacks that determines whether they are fair.

You, and the rest of your ilk, have put me in a distinctly uncomfortable position. I don't much like the Democrats. I find them to be the same breed of bought and paid for puppets of monied interests that the Republicans are. The primary difference is the Democrats are at least willing to use lube and offer a reach around. What they don't have is the malignant streak of dogmatic crazy that so completely infests the American right. I don't see Democrats arguing against cutting spending the way Republicans argue against raising revenue. I don't see the Democrats arguing that everyone should be required to be in a union the way Republicans argue unions have no place in the world. I don't see Democrats arguing that the best findings our scientists can come up with should be ignored and hidden because they disagree with business interests or religious dogmas.

You have put me in the distinctly uncomfortable position not unlike when Superman has to team up with Lex Luthor to fight off Darkseid. Once the Republican threat has been dealt with I can return to giving the Democrats their due scorn.

I do understand that should he lose, that blame will have to be assessed and naturally, as progs are prone to do, there will be none directed at the candidate, the party, its policies, the way the election was run, etc. Your last paragraph reminds us all of that (as if we needed to be reminded).
On the contrary, Obama has only himself to blame if he loses this election. The Republican candidate was pitiful, their campaign was laughable, their beliefs are inane, and if Obama loses it will be because he chose not to act engaged during his first big show during the big presidential debate. That this is not a landslide for the democrats is a a testament to their deficiencies of their policies.
P.S. I offered to direct you to some information and you have failed to ask for it. Very telling.
Unless the information is different from all the other times it has been brought up that he felt safe, I have no need for another link pointing to it. I've seen several. All this "tells" I paid attention the first time.

If it makes you feel better to claim my arguments stem from love of the Democrats than actually address them, be my guest, after all, this thread is all about you. On the other hand, if you'd like to try again to refute my arguments, my post isn't going anywhere.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
0
0
You have put me in the distinctly uncomfortable position not unlike when Superman has to team up with Lex Luthor to fight off Darkseid.
um OK. You've convinced me. When I need an opinion on comics I'll be sure to ask you.
 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/white-house-responds-to-release-of-real-time-emails-about-benghazi-attack/

This statement in spite of previous attacks, threats of attack published prior to 9/11, emails from the consultate during the attack, claims of responsibility by the AQ affiliate previously making the threat etc.

Carney, officially speaking on behalf of the Admin clearly lied.

Fern
Fair enough. I will agree "no" may have been too strong a word. What he should have said was "no information except an email that turned out to be wrong and a handful of past incidents nothing like this". Would that have been better?

Every time anything bad happens to the US a dozen terrorist groups all try to claim credit. That one of them announced on Facebook of all places (even though some reports indicate they said no such thing) that they were responsible means SFA. The emails only indicated the presence of armed people, again, not evidence of a preplanned terrorist attack. Considering what happened here pretty much in no way resembled the previous attacks means that really isn't evidence for it either.

Perhaps no evidence was poor phrasing but so far all you have put forward incredibly weak evidence I don't doubt you'd be complaining just as hard if they had said “we have incredibly weak evidence at best information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack.”
 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
um OK. You've convinced me. When I need an opinion on comics I'll be sure to ask you.
While I appreciate the gesture, I'm sure if you give them enough time Limbaugh and Breitbart will let you know what your opinions are about comics too.
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
obama knew that it was a terrorist attack because two hours after they were told and he kept saying act of terror which I suspect is him being PC.

He blamed the movie and free speech when he should be criticizing the religion
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
29,258
9,452
136
obama knew that it was a terrorist attack because two hours after they were told and he kept saying act of terror which I suspect is him being PC.

He blamed the movie and free speech when he should be criticizing the religion
Oh yeah that's the fucking smart thing to do, blame a religion that has 1.5 Billion members including about 1.5 million of them in America.
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
Oh yeah that's the fucking smart thing to do, blame a religion that has 1.5 Billion members including about 1.5 million of them in America.
Its better than blaming the movie, why do so many followers say that the book allows for the killing of those who insult the prophet like the ones that were rioting
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
29,258
9,452
136
Its better than blaming the movie, why do so many followers say that the book allows for the killing of those who insult the prophet like the ones that were rioting
Is that some followers or all of them?




Holy shit people! Is there a stupid pill everyone is taking these days? WTF!
 

Socio

Golden Member
May 19, 2002
1,726
2
81
At minimum this article demonstrates our current leadership is unfit to lead!

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

Key task force not convened during Benghazi consulate attack
Counterterrorism sources and internal emails reviewed by CBS News express frustration that key responders were ready to deploy, but were not called upon to help in the attack.
Another senior counter terrorism official says a hostage rescue team was alternately asked to get ready and then stand down throughout the night, as officials seemed unable to make up their minds.

A third potential responder from a counter-terror force stationed in Europe says components of AFICOM -- the military's Africa Command based in Stuttgart, Germany -- were working on course of action during the assault. But no plan was put to use.



"Forces were positioned after the fact but not much good to those that needed it," the military source told CBS News.



"The response process was isolated at the most senior level," says an official referring to top officials in the executive branch. "My fellow counterterrorism professionals and I (were) not consulted."
 

buckshot24

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2009
9,916
85
91
Oh yeah that's the fucking smart thing to do, blame a religion that has 1.5 Billion members including about 1.5 million of them in America.
Yeah, it isn't Islam itself that is the problem it's the extreme pricks causing all the problems. Although you don't have this with significant wings of any other religion. There are fringes of course but it seems that militant Islam is a little more than a "fringe". I don't think this president or the press for that matter like to admit that these people are Islamic.
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,473
2
0
Neither have 1.4999 billion Muslims. What's your point?
My point was addressing the silent implication that we shouldn't talk about Islamic radicalism because of the number of members.

The number of members is irrevelant if it is truly the religion of peace.

No one stormed an embassy (oops consulate) over Piss Jesus.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
My point was addressing the silent implication that we shouldn't talk about Islamic radicalism because of the number of members.
Ah, then you should learn to read more carefully because the discussion was about attacking the whole Islamic religion, not the violent extremists who happen to be Muslim.


The number of members is irrevelant if it is truly the religion of peace.

No one stormed an embassy (oops consulate) over Piss Jesus.
Perhaps not, but Christian extremists have committed many other violent attacks in the name of Christianity. You can start with modern day bombings of abortion clinics and murders of doctors, then work your way back through history.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY