• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Republicans, please explain the Behghazi outrage to me

Page 30 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
UberNeuman said:
Why edit it out - was it that you presumed that I wouldn't take you at face value....

\try to be a little less angry, lrishman....
Click to expand...

I couldn't tell you....I don't know you at all. Given the trend of all these political threads I presumed I would be taken as a Republican since I remain skeptical of the whole affair. I'm really not a fan of either party.

What would be nice to see is a real investigation and less of a political shell game by our elected officials. This game is continually perpetuated by the comments of many on these forums. It's really foolish to align oneself with any political party to the point of taking focus from the real issues at hand.

I'd say I'm more disgusted than angry, Capt Picard. People really need to be skeptical right now and always regarding what the government is doing or not doing. Most folks don't give a shit at all and the remainder call each other lefty and righty on political forums.

What answer do you seek Captain?
 
Last edited:
Mxylplyx said:
I see fox news and some of my conservative associates go on and on about Benghazi, but for the life of me I cant see what the supposed conspiracy is based on. Usually a conspiracy is based on a motive, ie "Bush the oil man wants Iraq's oil". In the case of Behghazi, it seems to me that Republicans noticed that there were some conflicting messages coming out of the state department over the motives for the embassy attack, and started constructing a conspiracy around that. Given the proximity of the Libya attack with the Egyptian embassy attack that supposedly WAS related to the video, it doesn't seem all that implausible to assume they were related, though the state department should not operate off assumptions. What concrete facts have come out so far that suggests that this is some kind of cover up, as opposed to simply negligence? Also, do you believe that fox news being the only news organization to relentlessly cover this confirms their claims of a liberal media bias, or is fox news simply driving a story it's readers would like to believe?
Click to expand...

Not a Republican, but I used to play a game with alot of people I still hear from occasionally, and someone that many of them know was one of the Americans killed in the attack on the embassy. The reason we knew it wasn't an unorganized riot over a youtube video was because less than 24 hours afterwards, there were IRC chat logs posted where the guy was saying that there were local "guards" that were taking pictures of the compound that day, and that he was nervous about it.

(12:54:09 PM) vile_rat: assuming we don't die tonight. We saw one of our 'police' that guard the compound taking pictures
Click to expand...

The gaming community knew within 24 hours that it was likely that it was some sort of planned attack, which is why I was surprised when some time later, Obama came on national television saying that it was a riot over a youtube video. I think the reason many Republicans think of it as a dishonest claim (I haven't heard anyone call it a conspiracy, is that you trying to discredit this claim?), is because of the proximity to the election. And I believe that too. There is no way that a seated President wants to admit that there was a terrorist attack on Americans a short time before elections. I have no idea if it was Obama being dishonest, or if it was someone else, but we now know that there is no actual evidence ever found by the U.S. that would lead anyone to believe it was a riot over a youtube video. When you consider that a gaming community of hundreds of thousands of people internationally, knew less than a day afterward, that this was likely some sort of coordinated attack, it should give you pause when you hear the President saying that it was over a youtube, then later admitting that was not the case.
 
I have no idea if it was Obama being dishonest,
Click to expand...


Of course you don't and neither do any of the other people here and they don't even have any evidence of a lie.

The CIA created the talking points end of story. Obama doesn't run the CIA he only gets advice from it.


To pretend there is anything else to this story is dishonest and an obvious denial of facts.
 
ivwshane said:
Of course you don't and neither do any of the other people here and they don't even have any evidence of a lie.

The CIA created the talking points end of story. Obama doesn't run the CIA he only gets advice from it.


To pretend there is anything else to this story is dishonest and an obvious denial of facts.
Click to expand...

Shut up, you making too much sense. Go away.
 
ivwshane said:
Of course you don't and neither do any of the other people here and they don't even have any evidence of a lie.

The CIA created the talking points end of story. Obama doesn't run the CIA he only gets advice from it.


To pretend there is anything else to this story is dishonest and an obvious denial of facts.
Click to expand...

Well, ironically, your post isn't really that honest either. Do you believe that the CIA lied to the President for a week then decided to tell him the truth? Yes, the CIA tells people things, but I doubt the CIA told him it was over a youtube video, when they have evidence from an American in that compound who was worried about police taking pictures of them. There had been multiple requests for more support. The CIA fully knew that area was high risk, and that the Americans there wanted more personnel. It's far more likely that the CIA told someone, who told someone, who decided to tell the President something else, to save face for the impending election. I doubt Obama would flat out lie, but again, he's a politician. That's what they do.

The idea that someone in the White House was trying to save face is a very valid one. It's even very likely.
 
themusgrat said:
Well, ironically, your post isn't really that honest either. Do you believe that the CIA lied to the President for a week then decided to tell him the truth? Yes, the CIA tells people things, but I doubt the CIA told him it was over a youtube video, when they have evidence from an American in that compound who was worried about police taking pictures of them. There had been multiple requests for more support. The CIA fully knew that area was high risk, and that the Americans there wanted more personnel. It's far more likely that the CIA told someone, who told someone, who decided to tell the President something else, to save face for the impending election. I doubt Obama would flat out lie, but again, he's a politician. That's what they do.

The idea that someone in the White House was trying to save face is a very valid one. It's even very likely.
Click to expand...

No, the CIA talking points, if you listened to rice wasn't very clear on the exact cause, the talking points were changed and took out the certainty. Those in the know like Obama and Clinton both described it as a terrorist attack.
 
OrByte said:
🙂

I'm sorry republicans are butthurt on the benghazi thing...and no one cares about it.
Click to expand...

wow, see this is a crystal clear example of what is wrong with our country. this republican democrat thing has to stop.

im sorry dude but i find your post callous and trivializes the deaths of four brave men. republicans butthurt??? WHY ARE THE DEMS NOT BUT HURT???? Can your precious democrat fucktard leader do no god damn wrong in your pathetic eyes?

fuck me im so tired of this shit.

we should ban all political parties. people get stupid when it comes to political parties and its has totally fuck our country over.
 
ivwshane said:
No, the CIA talking points, if you listened to rice wasn't very clear on the exact cause, the talking points were changed and took out the certainty. Those in the know like Obama and Clinton both described it as a terrorist attack.
Click to expand...

So the CIA didn't tell Obama it was because of youtube? Why did he say that if the CIA told him they weren't certain?
 
themusgrat said:
So the CIA didn't tell Obama it was because of youtube? Why did he say that if the CIA told him they weren't certain?
Click to expand...

Read the report. Public officials get talking points from the intelligence agencies that are cleared of any classified information or anything else that they deem too important to release to the public. The talking points were cleared by the CIA and other intelligence agencies, of which one of them changed the talking point to be more vague.

If there is any blame to be had about any "lie" it would be the CIA and even that is pushing it unless you think classified info should be released just so the people know what's going on.
 
"3 Incredibly Outrageous Evasions by Hillary Clinton About Benghazi"

The scene reminded me of nothing so much as Oliver North's appearance before a joint Congressional committee investigating Iran-Contra back in the 1980s. Not because of anything Clinton said but the way that she carried herself and the ease with which she wrapped herself in the flag and tragedy to obscure the simple fact that she wasn't going to answer anything. North famously showed up to testify in a military uniform that had nothing to do with his day job of subverting the U.S. Constitution from the basement of the Reagan White House. Clinton couldn't repeat that fashion statement but she was able to pound the table and choke up at all the right moments to evade serious discussion not simply of major screw-ups, but major screw-ups that will go unaccounted for.
Click to expand...


http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/24/3-incredibly-outrageous-evasions-by-hill
 
ivwshane said:
Read the report. Public officials get talking points from the intelligence agencies that are cleared of any classified information or anything else that they deem too important to release to the public. The talking points were cleared by the CIA and other intelligence agencies, of which one of them changed the talking point to be more vague.

If there is any blame to be had about any "lie" it would be the CIA and even that is pushing it unless you think classified info should be released just so the people know what's going on.
Click to expand...

Right, well I haven't read the report, but do you remember what you said a few posts up? Did the CIA tell Obama to tell us it was because of youtube? I thought the CIA weren't certain themselves? So why did Obama say it was because of youtube? The CIA didn't tell him to say that.

In any case, the whole thing was just terrible. It just shows you how inefficient the entire government is that a ton of people knew it was preplanned several weeks before our President finally admitted to the nation that it was preplanned. Again, it's hard for me to believe that the CIA didn't know what happened very soon after. And it took a very long time for the President to confirm what had already been proven likely, by a few guys who game together... Maybe it's the CIA lying, maybe the President, or maybe it just takes weeks for information to travel to the top lol. I have no idea. But the entire handling of it makes you wonder; did the government really just absolutely horrifically mess that entire thing up? Or did they not want the public to know it was a terrorist attack?
 
Last edited:
themusgrat said:
That's actually a pretty spot on article. What does taking responsibility mean? It obviously means nothing. Her life will go on as if nothing happened. No consequences other than having to finally go to a hearing after citing this and that different reasons for not being able to attend.
Click to expand...

First let me address your previous post: I agree that there is some serious communication issues as well as some efficiency issues with the government and specifically with the state department but do you know who has been trying to fix that? Do you know who has worked to implement the recommendations after a formal investigation was done? Hilary Clinton. Do you know who has approved her requests to improve the state departments efficiency? Do you know who has and continues to cut or underfund the state department to keep things like Benghazi from happening again? The republicans.

Also note that some of those who were grilling her about info she received or communicated were covered in a briefing that they didn't even bother to show up at.

So while I can definitely appreciate that you just want the facts I advise you to do some research yourself otherwise you will fall for the same crap as these other clowns.

And don't take my word either, look it up and verify yourself.
 
monovillage said:
You did such a great job with your Walker predictions I can see where I'd give this prediction credence.

BTW grats to the Packers winning the Superbowl! ooops, wait.
Click to expand...

Let me predict that Walker is a one term Gov that's if he doesn't get incarcerated first.....
 
stlc8tr said:
Rand Paul to Clinton at the Benghazi hearings.

"the worst tragedy since 9/11"

🙄
Click to expand...

I loved it when that fucking moran said and I quote "If I were President"...I almost went fetal when I heard this.He makes Bush look like a member of MENSA.

385357_472890329413846_910341001_n.jpg
 
Last edited:
Incorruptible said:
Love how the shill has to resort to trolling and derailing with BS.

How many of you lefties are genuinely interested in getting to the bottom of the Benghazi attacks?
Click to expand...

This is why as in another thread there can't be a debate with conservatives. Bring up a direct relevant fact and this is what you get.

Again if Sen Johnson(uh-huh-huh-huh) was so interested in the truth why did he skip the security briefing??
 
HomerJS said:
This is why as in another thread there can't be a debate with conservatives. Bring up a direct relevant fact and this is what you get.

Again if Sen Johnson(uh-huh-huh-huh) was so interested in the truth why did he skip the security briefing??
Click to expand...

Your the one who is defending obama at all costs, you dont care about the killings but just the precious obama
 
HomerJS said:
This is why as in another thread there can't be a debate with conservatives. Bring up a direct relevant fact and this is what you get.

Again if Sen Johnson(uh-huh-huh-huh) was so interested in the truth why did he skip the security briefing??
Click to expand...
It would be interesting to compare the list of those who attended Issa's "Get Obama" witch hunt and this follow-up "Get Hillary" circus, with those who truly cared about the murders and attended the briefings instead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top