or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Blood on His Hands: Our President is Getting Americans Killed
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Blood on His Hands: Our President is Getting Americans Killed - Page 4

post #121 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Retired Lt. Col:  Obama watched the attack personally.  

 

 

If this is true, I am beyond disgusted.  

Will you admit that this isn't true?  Or will this be another Iraq & WMDs case of evidence not swaying you?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #122 of 242
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

He could certainly be aware of the strategy without knowing who executed it if that happened outside his agency.

 

He could certainly be aware of what strategy?  You're saying that he knew the talking points were supposed to be changed and knew why they were changed, but didn't know who actually made the decision to change them?  AYFKM?  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Will you admit that this isn't true?  Or will this be another Iraq & WMDs case of evidence not swaying you?

 

Snopes.com?  LOL. That might be a first here.   As for it being true, I even stated:  "If this is true, I am beyond disgusted."   And by the way, that might be the most convoluted and unclear Snopes explanation I've ever seen.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #123 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

He could certainly be aware of the strategy without knowing who executed it if that happened outside his agency.

 

He could certainly be aware of what strategy?  You're saying that he knew the talking points were supposed to be changed and knew why they were changed, but didn't know who actually made the decision to change them?  AYFKM?  

 

The strategy to try to avoid alerting suspect organizations. Why would you expect the originating organization necessarily to know who, precisely, in downstream processing, does what? How about a little patience to see how this plays out, rather than your letting your desperation for all this to be driven by an evil Democratic conspiracy lead you to keep making wild assertions?

post #124 of 242
Thread Starter 
You're unbelievable.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #125 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You're unbelievable.

 

Because I'm pointing out that we have insufficient information to draw conclusions?

post #126 of 242
Thread Starter 
Yes, actually. The evidence that someone manipulated this attack for political reasons, and lied about it intentionally is overwhelming. The only question is who.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #127 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Yes, actually. The evidence that someone manipulated this attack for political reasons, and lied about it intentionally is overwhelming. The only question is who.

 

I must have missed the overwhelming evidence. Could you point it out?

post #128 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Yes, actually. The evidence that someone manipulated this attack for political reasons, and lied about it intentionally is overwhelming. The only question is who.

File your wild conspiracy theory in the same bin as Bush White House was involved in the 911 attack. Both rubbish.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #129 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Yes, actually. The evidence that someone manipulated this attack for political reasons, and lied about it intentionally is overwhelming. The only question is who.

File your wild conspiracy theory in the same bin as Bush White House was involved in the 911 attack. Both rubbish.

 

I don't think that he is claiming that they were involved in the attack - just that they were incompetent in allowing it to happen and that they tried to cover up the nature of the attack for political reasons.

post #130 of 242
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I must have missed the overwhelming evidence. Could you point it out?

 

The CIA knew the attack was terrorism within hours.  So did the FBI.  The President claims he called it an act of terror the next day.  Then they blamed it on the video and a non-existent mob for over two weeks.  The White House sent Susan Rice on five Sunday talk shows to claim it was not a preplanned attack, and that it was in response to the video, when we KNOW the administration knew this wasn't true.  Petraeus testified that for some reason, their talking points were changed to downplay terrorism.  

 

Someone lied at the highest levels.  Come on..do the math.  

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone View Post

File your wild conspiracy theory in the same bin as Bush White House was involved in the 911 attack. Both rubbish.

 

What's happening here is not even remotely comparable to those crackpot theories.  The administration spread a false narrative, and did so deliberately.  It may not even be the President himself.  But how do you conclude otherwise?  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #131 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I must have missed the overwhelming evidence. Could you point it out?

 

The CIA knew the attack was terrorism within hours.  So did the FBI.  The President claims he called it an act of terror the next day.  Then they blamed it on the video and a non-existent mob for over two weeks.  The White House sent Susan Rice on five Sunday talk shows to claim it was not a preplanned attack, and that it was in response to the video, when we KNOW the administration knew this wasn't true.  Petraeus testified that for some reason, their talking points were changed to downplay terrorism.  

 

Someone lied at the highest levels.  Come on..do the math.  

 

None of that rules out the explanation that it was done for intelligence reasons. As Peter King noted - it apparently left the CIA with the Al Qaeda background included and passed through the DOD, DOJ, State and White House. Rhodes says that they made only minor edits at that end.

 

Aside from that, if, in your view, modifying released information for NS reasons constitutes "lying at the highest levels", then yes, someone did. And, in fact, they do it all the time - you generally just don't find out about it until it is declassified. I assume that you know that.

post #132 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Yes, actually. The evidence that someone manipulated this attack for political reasons, and lied about it intentionally is overwhelming. The only question is who.

 

I must have missed the overwhelming evidence. Could you point it out?

Really SDW. Let's hear that over whelming evidence because what seems to be coming out on both sides ( with the exception of a few Republicans with an agenda ) is that it was a security matter. You know SDW the same thing you used to excuse some Bush items in Iraq.1wink.gif http://news.msn.com/politics/reid-to-mccain-no-need-for-special-libya-panel

 

As you can see though it's not going anywhere as both Reed and Boehner aren't buying it.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #133 of 242
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

None of that rules out the explanation that it was done for intelligence reasons. As Peter King noted - it apparently left the CIA with the Al Qaeda background included and passed through the DOD, DOJ, State and White House. Rhodes says that they made only minor edits at that end.

 

Aside from that, if, in your view, modifying released information for NS reasons constitutes "lying at the highest levels", then yes, someone did. And, in fact, they do it all the time - you generally just don't find out about it until it is declassified. I assume that you know that.

 

You seem to be accepting at face value the claim that the editing was not done for political reasons.  This was Petraeus's claim.  However, he doesn't know who modified it after it left the CIA.  Well guess who that leaves?  The White House, State Dept and Justice...all of whom have a vested interest in preventing Obama/the admin from looking bad.  You've become an apologist on this.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Really SDW. Let's hear that over whelming evidence because what seems to be coming out on both sides ( with the exception of a few Republicans with an agenda ) is that it was a security matter. You know SDW the same thing you used to excuse some Bush items in Iraq.1wink.gif http://news.msn.com/politics/reid-to-mccain-no-need-for-special-libya-panel

 

As you can see though it's not going anywhere as both Reed and Boehner aren't buying it.

 

It's not going anywhere?  The way you brush off 4 dead Americans is disturbing.  We have an administration that clearly lied to the American people.  This does not even begin to equate to Iraq, where you thought the administration was lying.  We know for a fact that the administration knew what it was saying after the attack was not true.  We know for a fact they were never told this was a mob action gone wrong.  We know for for a fact that high level officials reviewed the video feed within hours of the attack, with some watching unfold in real time.  We know for a fact that the administration knew what Susan Rice was saying was not true when the WH sent her to give the official story.    

 

But in typical fashion, you don't care.  If this was the Bush Administration, you'd be screaming that "Bush Lied, People Died" and saying that he was either incompetent or lying.   

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #134 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

None of that rules out the explanation that it was done for intelligence reasons. As Peter King noted - it apparently left the CIA with the Al Qaeda background included and passed through the DOD, DOJ, State and White House. Rhodes says that they made only minor edits at that end.

 

Aside from that, if, in your view, modifying released information for NS reasons constitutes "lying at the highest levels", then yes, someone did. And, in fact, they do it all the time - you generally just don't find out about it until it is declassified. I assume that you know that.

 

You seem to be accepting at face value the claim that the editing was not done for political reasons.  This was Petraeus's claim.  However, he doesn't know who modified it after it left the CIA.  Well guess who that leaves?  The White House, State Dept and Justice...all of whom have a vested interest in preventing Obama/the admin from looking bad.  You've become an apologist on this.  

 

No, I've repeatedly said that the explanation is not implausible and the evidence that I have seen does not contradict it, but that we do not know enough to draw conclusions. It is you who is accepting a hypothesis as proven when it is not.

post #135 of 242

Political tribalism rears it's ugly head. A heroic general and CIA director lies hoping the president will return the favor by covering up a legacy killing affair, ambassador to the UN compromises her integrity to get her boss reelected, a president that swaggers to the tune of drone strikes and seal team 7 raids covers up a terrorist strike before an election because it strikes and ill chord.

 

It's all smoke and mirrors of a bitter and vast right wing conspiracy.

post #136 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 The way you brush off 4 dead Americans is disturbing.  

The American public brushes off and is numb to reports of Americans killed in the Middle East on a weekly basis. 10 dead here, 4 dead there, 15 dead elsewhere. You are trying to sensationalize this because there was an ambassador killed so somehow it is different. Everyone over there in the conflict areas knows they are living in harms way. Shit happens, and often, over there. Nobody wanted these Americans to die except the enemy combatants. Stop making it out to be some calculated political maneuver on the part of the Democrats. It wasn't a benefit or a disadvantage in the election, it was just another tragedy in the Middle East's ever widening conflict which is not anyone's fault except the Islamic fundamentalists. That right wing religious movie certainly didn't help matters.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #137 of 242

How many Americans have died in the US since the Libya attack, at the hands of Americans?  Murder, reckless driving, DUI, negligence.  Where is the outrage?

 

Thousands of American service men and women have died, more than the number of Americans killed on 9/11, in Afghanistan and Iraq since Bush started his wars, one a fabricated lie.  "I'm a war president."  Where is the outrage?

 

Consistency is important.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #138 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

How many Americans have died in the US since the Libya attack, at the hands of Americans?  Murder, reckless driving, DUI, negligence.  Where is the outrage?

 

Thousands of American service men and women have died, more than the number of Americans killed on 9/11, in Afghanistan and Iraq since Bush started his wars, one a fabricated lie.  "I'm a war president."  Where is the outrage?

 

Consistency is important.

 

If you would show some that would be great. Rather you change your tune based on if there is a "D" or and "R" after the presidents name.

post #139 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

How many Americans have died in the US since the Libya attack, at the hands of Americans?  Murder, reckless driving, DUI, negligence.  Where is the outrage?

 

Thousands of American service men and women have died, more than the number of Americans killed on 9/11, in Afghanistan and Iraq since Bush started his wars, one a fabricated lie.  "I'm a war president."  Where is the outrage?

 

Consistency is important.

 

I'm completely consistent on that. I pointed out repeatedly that more people would die from driving drunk just in the state of California per year than would die fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #140 of 242

He's either the Commander-In-Chief or he's not...make up your mind or his. He brags about 'pulling the trigger' to kill Bin Laden but he didn't 'pull the trigger' to save Americans trapped in Benghazi. If not for the courageous Navy Seals there would be an additional 30 dead (the consulate staff). 

post #141 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lesismor View Post

He's either the Commander-In-Chief or he's not...make up your mind or his. He brags about 'pulling the trigger' to kill Bin Laden but he didn't 'pull the trigger' to save Americans trapped in Benghazi. If not for the courageous Navy Seals there would be an additional 30 dead (the consulate staff). 

 

That's not really what the argument is about - it's about information provided after the event. In any case, the two events that you mention are not comparable; one was planned and rehearsed for since back when President Bush was hunting him, and was initiated by the US on Presidential authority, while the other was a sudden and short-duration hostile act on foreign territory. I doubt Obama even made the tactical decisions on the latter, but we'll know the details soon enough.

post #142 of 242

Not the same thing as Obama leaving Ambassador Stevens in a dangerous situation, refusing to upgrade security and then refusing to send recsue. When an Ambassador is missing, when a consulate is under attack, the President  knows about it. In fact, he admits he knew. It was streamed live into the WH, Pentagon, and State Dept. The bottom line is that Obama was more interested in his campaign than in the lives of those he endangered in Benghazi. 

 

Then he lied about it and sent Amb. Rice out to lie about it. Then he lied about lying. If he was a republican you would be jumping up and down screaming for an special investigator. 

post #143 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lesismor View Post

Not the same thing as Obama leaving Ambassador Stevens in a dangerous situation, refusing to upgrade security and then refusing to send recsue. When an Ambassador is missing, when a consulate is under attack, the President  knows about it. In fact, he admits he knew. It was streamed live into the WH, Pentagon, and State Dept. The bottom line is that Obama was more interested in his campaign than in the lives of those he endangered in Benghazi. 

 

Then he lied about it and sent Amb. Rice out to lie about it. Then he lied about lying. If he was a republican you would be jumping up and down screaming for an special investigator. 

 

Apart from Obama being informed when the attack occurred, I can't see a single assertion in that post that even the Republican Party is promoting. If there was negligence or worse here then it will emerge from the inevitable investigations. And please don't add to your litany of nonsense by telling me what I would do under other circumstances. 

post #144 of 242
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

The American public brushes off and is numb to reports of Americans killed in the Middle East on a weekly basis. 10 dead here, 4 dead there, 15 dead elsewhere. You are trying to sensationalize this because there was an ambassador killed so somehow it is different. Everyone over there in the conflict areas knows they are living in harms way. Shit happens, and often, over there. Nobody wanted these Americans to die except the enemy combatants. Stop making it out to be some calculated political maneuver on the part of the Democrats. It wasn't a benefit or a disadvantage in the election, it was just another tragedy in the Middle East's ever widening conflict which is not anyone's fault except the Islamic fundamentalists. That right wing religious movie certainly didn't help matters.

 

If you don't think that a protest-gone-wrong sounds better than a successful attack on the anniversary of 9/11, you're absolutely delusional.   

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #145 of 242
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Apart from Obama being informed when the attack occurred, I can't see a single assertion in that post that even the Republican Party is promoting. If there was negligence or worse here then it will emerge from the inevitable investigations. And please don't add to your litany of nonsense by telling me what I would do under other circumstances. 

 

Let's take the claims one by one:  

 

 

 

 

Quote:

Not the same thing as Obama leaving Ambassador Stevens in a dangerous situation,

 

 

Obama didn't do so personally, but he must have been aware of the previous attacks.  It's his responsibility in the end.  

 

 

Quote:
refusing to upgrade security

 

More of a State Dept issue, but one could make the argument Obama is ultimately responsible as CIC.  

 

 

Quote:
and then refusing to send recsue

 

More of a CIA issue, though see above on Obama's ultimate responsibility.  

 

 

 

Quote:
When an Ambassador is missing, when a consulate is under attack, the President  knows about it.

 

Most likely true.  

 

 

 

Quote:
In fact, he admits he knew.

 

I'm not sure what he admitted knowing, and when he knew it.  

 

 

 

Quote:
It was streamed live into the WH, Pentagon, and State Dept. 

 

I don't know that the WH and Pentagon got a live feed.  My understanding it was only the State Dept and CIA.  

 

 

 

Quote:
The bottom line is that Obama was more interested in his campaign than in the lives of those he endangered in Benghazi.

 

I find that hard to believe.  

 

 

 

 

Quote:

Then he lied about it and sent Amb. Rice out to lie about it.

 

Then he lied about lying.

 

That certainly seems to be the case.  We know that the administration new this was terror within mere hours.  There was no evidence of any kind that this was a protest or mob action gone wrong.  Yet, Rice and other officials parroted this line on five Sunday talk shows, in other interviews, etc.  Hillary Clinton blamed the video and renounced it.  Obama blamed the video at the UN.  Someone definitely changed the story, and it appears to be for political reasons.  

 

 

Quote:
If he was a republican you would be jumping up and down screaming for an special investigator.

 

I don't know what muppetry would do, but I imagine the media would make it bigger than Watergate and Iran-Contra combined.  

 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #146 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Apart from Obama being informed when the attack occurred, I can't see a single assertion in that post that even the Republican Party is promoting. If there was negligence or worse here then it will emerge from the inevitable investigations. And please don't add to your litany of nonsense by telling me what I would do under other circumstances. 

Let's take the claims one by one:  

Quote:

Not the same thing as Obama leaving Ambassador Stevens in a dangerous situation,

Obama didn't do so personally, but he must have been aware of the previous attacks.  It's his responsibility in the end.  

Quote:
refusing to upgrade security

More of a State Dept issue, but one could make the argument Obama is ultimately responsible as CIC.  

Quote:
and then refusing to send recsue

More of a CIA issue, though see above on Obama's ultimate responsibility.  

Quote:
When an Ambassador is missing, when a consulate is under attack, the President  knows about it.

Most likely true.  

Quote:
In fact, he admits he knew.

I'm not sure what he admitted knowing, and when he knew it.  

Quote:
It was streamed live into the WH, Pentagon, and State Dept. 

I don't know that the WH and Pentagon got a live feed.  My understanding it was only the State Dept and CIA.  

Quote:
The bottom line is that Obama was more interested in his campaign than in the lives of those he endangered in Benghazi.

I find that hard to believe.  

Quote:

Then he lied about it and sent Amb. Rice out to lie about it.

 

Then he lied about lying.

That certainly seems to be the case.  We know that the administration new this was terror within mere hours.  There was no evidence of any kind that this was a protest or mob action gone wrong.  Yet, Rice and other officials parroted this line on five Sunday talk shows, in other interviews, etc.  Hillary Clinton blamed the video and renounced it.  Obama blamed the video at the UN.  Someone definitely changed the story, and it appears to be for political reasons.  

Quote:
If he was a republican you would be jumping up and down screaming for an special investigator.

I don't know what muppetry would do, but I imagine the media would make it bigger than Watergate and Iran-Contra combined.  

 

 

I agree that it is most unlikely that he would put political gain ahead of saving lives in Benghazi, mostly because that makes no sense. The political capital that he would have made had he been able to take credit for a rescue operation would have been huge.

 

I'm still unconvinced by the "lying" accusation, since the modification of information deemed sensitive before release is very commonplace. We don't usually regard that as lying. If it were for political gain then that would be different, but that has not been demonstrated, and also seems improbable since there was no possibility that the lie could remain undiscovered.

 

Comparing this event to Watergate or Iran-Contra kills any attempt at a credible argument.

post #147 of 242
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I agree that it is most unlikely that he would put political gain ahead of saving lives in Benghazi, mostly because that makes no sense. The political capital that he would have made had he been able to take credit for a rescue operation would have been huge.

 

I'm still unconvinced by the "lying" accusation, since the modification of information deemed sensitive before release is very commonplace. We don't usually regard that as lying. If it were for political gain then that would be different, but that has not been demonstrated, and also seems improbable since there was no possibility that the lie could remain undiscovered.

 

Comparing this event to Watergate or Iran-Contra kills any attempt at a credible argument.

 

OK, muppetry.  How about you provide a reasonable explanation for why the administration blamed a non-existent mob for the attack?  

 

And on Watergate, realize this clearly:  No one died in Watergate.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #148 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I agree that it is most unlikely that he would put political gain ahead of saving lives in Benghazi, mostly because that makes no sense. The political capital that he would have made had he been able to take credit for a rescue operation would have been huge.

 

I'm still unconvinced by the "lying" accusation, since the modification of information deemed sensitive before release is very commonplace. We don't usually regard that as lying. If it were for political gain then that would be different, but that has not been demonstrated, and also seems improbable since there was no possibility that the lie could remain undiscovered.

 

Comparing this event to Watergate or Iran-Contra kills any attempt at a credible argument.

 

OK, muppetry.  How about you provide a reasonable explanation for why the administration blamed a non-existent mob for the attack?  

 

And on Watergate, realize this clearly:  No one died in Watergate.  

 

You have heard their explanations for concealing the Al Qaeda connection. Whether or not they are true has not been established, but your continuing disingenuous efforts to pretend that they haven't been made are becoming very tiresome. None of which has to do with the issue of the event that led to those casualties. No one died as a result of the questionable information release after the event.

post #149 of 242
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

You have heard their explanations for concealing the Al Qaeda connection. 

 

No, I've heard speculation.  No one has come forward and stated "this is why it was changed."  There have only been vague denials concerning changing the talking points for political reasons.  We still don't know why Ambassador Rice, the President and Secretary of State all repeated something that was clearly not true for two weeks.  We've had no explanation of that whatsoever.  

 

Quote:
Whether or not they are true has not been established, but your continuing disingenuous efforts to pretend that they haven't been made are becoming very tiresome.

 

What I find tiresome is your continued dispassionate "ho-humness" in the face of being lied to.  We know what Ambassador Rice et al said on five Sunday talk shows was not true.  We know that there was no evidence of a mob or spontaneous attack.  This was not the initial belief...not of anyone.   Who told Rice to make the claims she did?  Why did Joe Biden claim that intelligence officials initially told the White House it was a spontaneous attack, when we know that's not true?  What did the President know?  When did he know?  Was he aware of previous attacks?  If not, why?  Why did he not order additional security after those attacks?  

 

These questions are all unanswered.  The American people were told a story that was false.  

 

 

 

Quote:
 None of which has to do with the issue of the event that led to those casualties. No one died as a result of the questionable information release after the event.

 

That is true, with the exception of the previous attacks on the consulate.  We also know the British pulled their ambassador, and humanitarian services left as well.  Why was our ambassador left relatively unprotected?  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #150 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

What I find tiresome is your continued dispassionate "ho-humness" in the face of being lied to.  We know what Ambassador Rice et al said on five Sunday talk shows was not true.  We know that there was no evidence of a mob or spontaneous attack.  This was not the initial belief...not of anyone.   Who told Rice to make the claims she did?  Why did Joe Biden claim that intelligence officials initially told the White House it was a spontaneous attack, when we know that's not true?  What did the President know?  When did he know?  Was he aware of previous attacks?  If not, why?  Why did he not order additional security after those attacks?  

 

These questions are all unanswered.  The American people were told a story that was false.  

 

Because they will be answered. The truth will emerge, and then we will know whether this was reasonable, unreasonable, justified or unjustified. I prefer to wait and see rather than indignantly blowing hot air.

 


Quote:
 None of which has to do with the issue of the event that led to those casualties. No one died as a result of the questionable information release after the event.

 

That is true, with the exception of the previous attacks on the consulate.  We also know the British pulled their ambassador, and humanitarian services left as well.  Why was our ambassador left relatively unprotected?  

 

 

That is a reasonable question, and if you would just have a little patience I'm sure the committees will figure it out.

post #151 of 242

As the Commander in Chief it is Obama's primary responsibility to secure the the safety of Americans here and abroad. He is the only one who could have given the order to 'send in the marines' in a foreign country and he didn't! 

 

All the excuses in the world don't change the fact that he was willing to let Ambassador Stevens and his staff of 30 die. Why? If you say he didn't know, he should have, that's his job.

 

We know Obama lied, Patraeus lied, Amb. Rices lied and Clinton lied so the only question is why. Was is to cover incompetence or something more sinister?

 

Stop making excuses and look at this with unbiased eyes. Imagine your own reaction if this had happened during the Bush administration. 

post #152 of 242

George W Bush had 30 minutes after the first hijacking to scramble jets.  He had 15 minutes after the first plane hit to take out the second.  According to your logic, George W Bush is responsible for those 3000 lives.  Please follow your argument to its logical conclusion.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #153 of 242
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Because they will be answered. The truth will emerge, and then we will know whether this was reasonable, unreasonable, justified or unjustified. I prefer to wait and see rather than indignantly blowing hot air.

 


 

 

That is a reasonable question, and if you would just have a little patience I'm sure the committees will figure it out.

 

They won't be answered if every time the question is asked, the Congressional Black Caucus screams "racism and sexism!!!!"   They won't be answered by those who are advocating the questions are not asked at all.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

George W Bush had 30 minutes after the first hijacking to scramble jets.  He had 15 minutes after the first plane hit to take out the second.  According to your logic, George W Bush is responsible for those 3000 lives.  Please follow your argument to its logical conclusion.

 

I assume that's not directed at me, correct?  I certainly don't agree that Obama "let" people die.  His actions or inactions may be responsible, particularly after the prior attacks.  Others in the chain of command probably could have done much more, but that doesn't mean he "let" people die either.  No, my concern is more about why the American people were told something that was not true, and why when it was discovered to be untrue, why we were told something else untrue.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #154 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Because they will be answered. The truth will emerge, and then we will know whether this was reasonable, unreasonable, justified or unjustified. I prefer to wait and see rather than indignantly blowing hot air.

 

That is a reasonable question, and if you would just have a little patience I'm sure the committees will figure it out.

 

They won't be answered if every time the question is asked, the Congressional Black Caucus screams "racism and sexism!!!!"   They won't be answered by those who are advocating the questions are not asked at all.  

 

I have no idea to what you are referring here, but this topic seems to be rushing headlong towards hysteria. What do racism and sexism have to do with this, and who (who actually has a say in this) is advocating not asking the questions?

post #155 of 242
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I have no idea to what you are referring here, but this topic seems to be rushing headlong towards hysteria. What do racism and sexism have to do with this, and who (who actually has a say in this) is advocating not asking the questions?

 

MSNBC:  Racism behind "attacks" on Susan Rice

 

Democratic Women in Congress Lash Out at "Racism and Sexism" over Libya Questions

 

Clyburn:  Calling Rice "Incompetent" is Racist

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #156 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I have no idea to what you are referring here, but this topic seems to be rushing headlong towards hysteria. What do racism and sexism have to do with this, and who (who actually has a say in this) is advocating not asking the questions?

 

MSNBC:  Racism behind "attacks" on Susan Rice

 

Democratic Women in Congress Lash Out at "Racism and Sexism" over Libya Questions

 

Clyburn:  Calling Rice "Incompetent" is Racist

 

Interesting. I'd like to see the Wolffe interview in full, but it those quotes are accurate then his comments were ill-advised IMO. Luckily he's just a news guy. The House members seem unhappy about McCain and Graham threatening to "scuttle" Rice's nomination on the grounds that she is "unqualified and untrustworthy", which, if true, they should not have said, but it doesn't excuse pulling the racism card on them. Clyburn looks to be in the same category.

 

However, that seems all to be just about Rice, and however much those people (and I'd include McCain and Graham if they really said that) are not helping, none of this has any chance of getting in the way of the investigations into the event.

post #157 of 242
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Interesting. I'd like to see the Wolffe interview in full, but it those quotes are accurate then his comments were ill-advised IMO. Luckily he's just a news guy.

 

Ah.  Just a news guy.  Yes, why should we demand our "news guys" stop race baiting?  

 

 

 

 

Quote:
 The House members seem unhappy about McCain and Graham threatening to "scuttle" Rice's nomination on the grounds that she is "unqualified and untrustworthy", which, if true, they should not have said,

 

Why?  She said things that were not true...repeatedly.  Do we know she's trustworthy?  Qualified?  

 

 

 

Quote:
but it doesn't excuse pulling the racism card on them. Clyburn looks to be in the same category.

 

Nothing excuses that.  

 

 

 

Quote:
However, that seems all to be just about Rice, and however much those people (and I'd include McCain and Graham if they really said that) are not helping, none of this has any chance of getting in the way of the investigations into the event.

 

Let's hope so.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #158 of 242

Adding to the Twitter fights over Clinton's recent health issues (relative to the Benghazi inquiries) is a new Euro report - based on Russian sources - claiming she was injured during a recent secret trip to Iran.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #159 of 242

I never will trust Russian sources about this information about Clinton.
 

post #160 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Adding to the Twitter fights over Clinton's recent health issues (relative to the Benghazi inquiries) is a new Euro report - based on Russian sources - claiming she was injured during a recent secret trip to Iran.

 

I never bought the whole, "Dehydrated and fell" story.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Blood on His Hands: Our President is Getting Americans Killed