twa Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 “We’re portrayed by Republicans as either being lying or idiots,” said one Obama administration official who was part of the Benghazi response. “It’s actually closer to us being idiots.” http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57584921/officials-on-benghazi-we-made-mistakes-but-without-malice/?tag=socsh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 No mention of Terrorist though. I mean, we knew they were terrorists so why didn't we simply tell the truth instead of making up some story about a Video? 1. The protest in Cario were over the video. The initial CIA documents clearly link the protest in Cario to the attack in Bengahzi. 2. If you read the e-mails, people in the CIA raise the issue with whether or not known terrorists actually carried out the attack. There is a statement of something like, we know they were there, but do we know they actually attacked. How do we know they attacked? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 . How do we know they attacked? live video feeds of known members attacking, along with reports on the ground......I could understand a short delay,but the continued protest/video meme is a ****ing disgrace simply a added insult to the appalling lack of security Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted May 18, 2013 Share Posted May 18, 2013 live video feeds of known members attacking, along with reports on the ground......I could understand a short delay,but the continued protest/video meme is a ****ing disgrace simply a added insult to the appalling lack of security Peter is not asking how we know NOW that known terrorists attacked. He is recounting the CIA's statement. If you can understand why there was delay and confusion, then you are not really buying into the "Obama was lying" nonsense anymore, are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted May 18, 2013 Share Posted May 18, 2013 Peter is not asking how we know NOW that known terrorists attacked. He is recounting the CIA's statement.If you can understand why there was delay and confusion, then you are not really buying into the "Obama was lying" nonsense anymore, are you? How long do you think it took to identify? How long before they were certain there was no protest? Have I claimed Obama was lying?....Carney and Hillary certainly were deceitful.....Carney might plead ignorance though Continuing use of a discredited talking point does not reflect well on all involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted May 18, 2013 Share Posted May 18, 2013 live video feeds of known members attacking, along with reports on the ground......I could understand a short delay,but the continued protest/video meme is a ****ing disgrace simply a added insult to the appalling lack of security When did the live video feed start? What witnesses did they interview? How many told the same story? The interior minister of Libya was talking about having withdrawn troops to not upset and inflame the demonstrators the next day. And the NYT had "eye witness" testimony of people claming to actually be involved because they were upset over the video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted May 18, 2013 Share Posted May 18, 2013 When did the live video feed start?What witnesses did they interview? How many told the same story? The interior minister of Libya was talking about having withdrawn troops to not upset and inflame the demonstrators the next day. And the NYT had "eye witness" testimony of people claming to actually be involved because they were upset over the video. Nope. None of those things happened. Or something else also happened. Or something else should have happened. Or something. Look, there was deceit here. I can't really explain exactly what it is or why it would have been to anyone's advantage, but I certainly can say it over and over and over until everyone gets tired. Deceit. Lies. Cover-up. Scandal. Benghazigate. See how compelling that is? Hey, I'm just asking questions - don't we have a right to the truth? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted May 18, 2013 Share Posted May 18, 2013 First untrue claim. Completely true statement as a matter of fact. Show me where the original text, released to the public, suggests this was a terrorist act. It's not there and the statement I made earlier is absolutely true. You've had your nose rubbed in this quote, now, at least twice. Certainly not by you but I'm open to seeing what you think equates to a rubbed nose is. Go ahead, show me. ---------- Second untrue claim. Another false claim on your part. Obama, himself, is claiming that he called it an act of terror in the Rose Garden address. Now, I don't really agree that he said that but that is what he is claiming he said. Are you now saying that the President is also lying? You've had your nose rubbed in that quote, now, I believe, four times. Whatever. This is completely untrue but hey, it's your story. ---------- Third untrue claim. We didn't "make up some story about a Video". It was the CIA's original theory as to what happened. According to the link which you, yourself, picked out. No. No mention of a video was ever present in the CIA's original talking points. No mention at all. Show me where it mentions the Video. ---------- Post added May-17th-2013 at 07:44 PM ---------- 1. The protest in Cario were over the video. The initial CIA documents clearly link the protest in Cario to the attack in Bengahzi.2. If you read the e-mails, people in the CIA raise the issue with whether or not known terrorists actually carried out the attack. There is a statement of something like, we know they were there, but do we know they actually attacked. How do we know they attacked? The actual language was that we SUSPECT it to be linked. Now, that's a reasonable statement at the time but the CIA did suggest that the attack in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. We now know that, in fact, it was not a situation that was linked to the Cairo demonstrations but we do know that at no point in the revised talking points was terrorism suggested. The language released to the public was scrubbed of any mention of terrorism. Clearly, the original report state that it was linked to terrorism definitively. The first talking points actually pointed this out and pointed to the fact that the weapons used were to readily available for it to be anything but uncoordinated. I think it is unrealistic to believe that terrorists were present, weapons were present in abundance and coordinated efforts were executed by a MOB but I can not make you believe this. I guess you have to come to your own conclusions there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted May 18, 2013 Share Posted May 18, 2013 When did the live video feed start?What witnesses did they interview? How many told the same story? The interior minister of Libya was talking about having withdrawn troops to not upset and inflame the demonstrators the next day. And the NYT had "eye witness" testimony of people claming to actually be involved because they were upset over the video. the ones on the ground or the drone?....ground is still classified the guards,militia,Hicks(including reports while under attack) and others there in the consulate Interior minister ...this toad http://www.tripolipost.com/articledetail.asp?c=1&i=10224 is about as worthwhile as the NYT's interview curious you mention the Interior minister and neglect what Libya's Deputy Ambassador said, or what the Libyan President said. I'd suggest looking at the earlier thread if you are really interested....but frankly I don't care Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 18, 2013 Share Posted May 18, 2013 Completely true statement as a matter of fact. Show me where the original text, released to the public, suggests this was a terrorist act. It's not there and the statement I made earlier is absolutely true. Already have. Multiple times. They didn't use THE EXACT WORD terrorist. They used the word "extremist". That your definition of a lie, now? Not using the exact word which you demand, later, that they should have used? Another false claim on your part. Obama, himself, is claiming that he called it an act of terror in the Rose Garden address. Now, I don't really agree that he said that but that is what he is claiming he said. Are you now saying that the President is also lying? Obama used the phrase "act of terror", in a Rose Garden address, DAYS AFTER those talking points which you claim were lies because "we knew they were terrorists". If, on Monday, I say X, and, on Thursday, I say Y, this is not proof that I lied on Monday because I knew Y. And frankly, your "Obama lied" crusade is even lamer than that. The CIA said X and Y. A few hours later, the administration said X and Y. Days later, in the Rose Garden, Obama said X and Y. Months later, along comes ABQ. He looks at day 1, where the White House said both X and Y. Pretends that they only said X. He looks at day 4 (or whatever day Rose Garden was), where Obama said both X and Y. Pretends that he only said Y. Announces that Obama lied on day 1, when he said X (even though he actually said both), because, on day 4, when he said Y, (he actually said both), this proves that (on day 1), he KNEW that Y was true. No. No mention of a video was ever present in the CIA's original talking points. No mention at all. Show me where it mentions the Video. In the opening sentence. The one that I'm now about to rub your nose in, for the fifth time. We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US Consulate and subsequently its annex. See that phrase " the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo"? THOSE protests were about a video. Are we now back to "well, the original CIA document didn't use THE EXACT WORD 'video'"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted May 18, 2013 Share Posted May 18, 2013 Already have. Multiple times. They didn't use THE EXACT WORD terrorist. They used the word "extremist". That your definition of a lie, now? Not using the exact word which you demand, later, that they should have used? Obama used the phrase "act of terror", in a Rose Garden address, DAYS AFTER those talking points which you claim were lies because "we knew they were terrorists". No he said No "acts of terror" Speaking in a broad general sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadium-Armory Posted May 18, 2013 Share Posted May 18, 2013 Who cares about all this nonsense. Let's talk about umbrellas! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted May 18, 2013 Share Posted May 18, 2013 the ones on the ground or the drone?....ground is still classifiedthe guards,militia,Hicks(including reports while under attack) and others there in the consulate Interior minister ...this toad http://www.tripolipost.com/articledetail.asp?c=1&i=10224 is about as worthwhile as the NYT's interview curious you mention the Interior minister and neglect what Libya's Deputy Ambassador said, or what the Libyan President said. I'd suggest looking at the earlier thread if you are really interested....but frankly I don't care I know what the President said, but my point is that there were mixed messages. And Hicks was pulling information off the Ansar al-sharia facebook and twitter. He's actually the early report that came in early that they were involved, but he didn't actually know that first hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 From Bob Woodward , that staunch conservative from WG fame. "You look at the whole Benghazi thing. You look at those talking points and the initial draft by the CIA very explicitly said we know that activists who have ties to Al-Qaeda were involved in the attack. Then you see what comes out a couple of days later and there is no reference to this. This is a business where you have to tell the truth and that did not happen here." http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/05/19/Woodward-White-House-Lied Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 From Bob Woodward , that staunch conservative from WG fame. "You look at the whole Benghazi thing. You look at those talking points and the initial draft by the CIA very explicitly said we know that activists who have ties to Al-Qaeda were involved in the attack. Then you see what comes out a couple of days later and there is no reference to this.. . . Unfortunately for the narrative, yes, there was reference to this. The opening paragraph of the final version of the official talking points: The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post and subsequently it's annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 I believe he was referring to the AQ/terrorist part.....the truth ....instead we got the error. or if you prefer...the politically correct whatever you want to call it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 I believe he was referring to the AQ/terrorist part.....the truth ....instead we got the error.or if you prefer...the politically correct whatever you want to call it I believe what he claimed was " there is no reference to this.. . ." And there was. And what "we got" WAS "the truth". But don't let that stop y'all from trying to push the claim that the video a) was ALL that the talking points mentioned, and trying to label it as a lie. Neither of the things y'all are trying to push are true. And you, yourself, posted the proof of that, over a week ago. But don't let it stop you from trying to push it, anyway. Act like the you didn't notice it when it was pointed out, for the fourth time, that it isn't true. Wait a day or so, and then make the same claim for a fifth time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 I believe he was referring to the AQ/terrorist part.....the truth ....instead we got the error.or if you prefer...the politically correct whatever you want to call it Have you looked at the e-mails or read much, including this thread to understand why they were taken out (because I actually explained why at least once)? And the final version still mentions extremists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 But with all of these things, when these things happen, you seem to send out officials many times who don't even seem to know what has happened. And I use as an example of that Susan Rice who had no connection whatsoever to the events that took place in Benghazi, and yet she was sent out, appeared on this broadcast, and other Sunday broadcasts, five days after it happens, and I'm not here to get in an argument with you about who changed which word in the talking points and all that. The bottom line is what she told the American people that day bore no resemblance to what had happened on the ground in an incident where four Americans were killed.CBS’s Bob Schieffer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 You mean, SHE TURNED OUT, LATER, TO BE MOSTLY WRONG? Well, gee. NOW I understand why the Republicans have had like six congressional committees (and the Republicans in the Senate have tried t create six more, they just failed), for over a year, and STILL can't come up with a coherent claim as to what they've been feigning outrage over for a year. After all, it's a well established fact that whenever an administration says something, even if only for a few days, that turns out later to be wrong, why then, that's the definition of THE PRESIDENT LIED. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 Have you looked at the e-mails or read much, including this thread to understand why they were taken out (because I actually explained why at least once)?And the final version still mentions extremists. Tell it to the two Bobs....my puppets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 If the Sunday shows are an indication of what's happening now, the GOP saw low ROI here and have moved on. Fox didn't spend a ton of time on it. They started asking for where physically the President was, but that's pretty much it. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/05/20/fox-newss-chris-wallace-picks-over-carcass-of-benghazi-issue/) Meanwhile, somehow with all of this......Obama's number have gone up within the margin of error. So, It'll be interesting on why people think most folks didn't buy it as a scandal, or if they felt the GOP overreached and went all "Crossroads" on the topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckus Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 Jesus. How did I miss this? GOP doctored the Benghazi e-mails. WH Benghazi emails have different quotes than earlier reported http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57584947/wh-benghazi-emails-have-different-quotes-than-earlier-reported/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 Jesus. How did I miss this?GOP doctored the Benghazi e-mails. WH Benghazi emails have different quotes than earlier reported http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57584947/wh-benghazi-emails-have-different-quotes-than-earlier-reported/ It was in this thread, which has been entertaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 Jesus. How did I miss this?GOP doctored the Benghazi e-mails. WH Benghazi emails have different quotes than earlier reported http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57584947/wh-benghazi-emails-have-different-quotes-than-earlier-reported/ According to this article, this was actually an easily understood error by Jonathan Karl of ABC News. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/348744/pfeiffer-stretches-truth-benghazi-emails-jonathan-strong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.