Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:


    Can you read this?:

    David H. Petraeus, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, told lawmakers on Friday that classified intelligence reports revealed that the deadly assault on the American diplomatic mission in Libya was a terrorist attack, but that the administration refrained from saying it suspected that the perpetrators of the attack were Al Qaeda affiliates and sympathizers to avoid tipping off the groups.

     

     



    Of course I can read it.  It`s a great excuse.  "Tipping off what groups"?  BWaaaaaaaaa! This is what you`re hanging your hat on?  After testimony stating clearly that documents were "tampered with" and "terrorists" and "al Qaeda" were removed and deliberately lied about,..........this is what you believe?  A Y K M ?




    This is what Petraeus said.  He is much closer to the situation than any right tighty fool was.  An you have no information to the contrary.  So you are believing rumors from people away fromn the wsituation and with obvious political agendas.

     

    By the way, how are your polls looking for the election?  Still think Romney is a slam dunk?

     

    You believe what you want to believe based on ideology alone.  Fact are completely secondary.



    Did you read the 2 links you stupid b a stard?  Are you this f vcking dumb?  Are you going to continue the "polls" crap like a 12-year old?

    Let me help you stupid............Patreaus testified that from day 1........check that......HOUR 1, he KNEW it was al Qaeda.  The documents and talking points were changed.  Changed by people as high up as the Incompetent himself.......

    Can you read?  Do you watch the news?  And, I don`t mean FOX.  I mean CNN, USA Today, all day today.  Are you drunk?

     Are you not seeing that every media outlet is reporting this?  You are completely wrong.  go watch the news, read a paper, sober up............and then apologize for being a moron will ya?



Your profane diatribe seals the deal as far as your credibility is concerned.  Insult is the lowest form of debate.  Thank you for revealing your intellectual inadequacies. 

 

How are those polls you supported throug  out the recent contest.  You know, the ones that proved Romney was going to win? 

 

You only look at information that supports your preexisting conclusion.  Par for the course for a profane and intellectually vapid ideologue.

 

Now run along.

 

 

 
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Did you read the 2 links you stupid b a stard?  Are you this f vcking dumb?  Are you going to continue the "polls" crap like a 12-year old?

    Let me help you stupid............Patreaus testified that from day 1........check that......HOUR 1, he KNEW it was al Qaeda.  The documents and talking points were changed.  Changed by people as high up as the Incompetent himself.......

    Can you read?  Do you watch the news?  And, I don`t mean FOX.  I mean CNN, USA Today, all day today.  Are you drunk?

     Are you not seeing that every media outlet is reporting this?  You are completely wrong.  go watch the news, read a paper, sober up............and then apologize for being a moron will ya?

    [/QUOTE]

    Your profane diatribe seals the deal as far as your credibility is concerned.  Insult is the lowest form of debate.  Thank you for revealing your intellectual inadequacies. 

     

    How are those polls you supported throug  out the recent contest.  You know, the ones that proved Romney was going to win? 

     

    You only look at information that supports your preexisting conclusion.  Par for the course for a profane and intellectually vapid ideologue.

     

    Now run along.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    How is the "deal sealed" for this topic you liar?  You`re WRONG, you know you`re WRONG, and your only response is to bring up........."oh yah, you thought Romney would win so you stink, nah-nah-nah-nah-nah-na".  Man, I used to think you had half a brain.

    Your incompetent b oob president watched al Qaeda kill 4 people on Sep 11, lied about it, ran off to the buffet in Vegas, sent Hillary out to lie, Susan Rice out to lie, Jay Carney out to lie, Joe Biden out to lie, .......and doooooosh bags like you sucked it up like a Hoover vacum cleaner. Now the truth is coming out and the COVER UP will be a problem.  Just like I said.  

    [/QUOTE]


    It sealed the deal as to your ability to be at all objective on the matter.  Anybody who engages in profane insulting rants is obviously too intellectually impaired to be taken seriously.  Come back and have a chat when you grow up.  Now run along.

    Think Romney has a chance?  The Electoral College hasn't met yet.  How do your polls look?

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:


    Can you read this?:

    David H. Petraeus, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, told lawmakers on Friday that classified intelligence reports revealed that the deadly assault on the American diplomatic mission in Libya was a terrorist attack, but that the administration refrained from saying it suspected that the perpetrators of the attack were Al Qaeda affiliates and sympathizers to avoid tipping off the groups.

     

     



    Of course I can read it.  It`s a great excuse.  "Tipping off what groups"?  BWaaaaaaaaa! This is what you`re hanging your hat on?  After testimony stating clearly that documents were "tampered with" and "terrorists" and "al Qaeda" were removed and deliberately lied about,..........this is what you believe?  A Y K M ?




    This is what Petraeus said.  He is much closer to the situation than any right tighty fool was.  An you have no information to the contrary.  So you are believing rumors from people away fromn the wsituation and with obvious political agendas.

     

    By the way, how are your polls looking for the election?  Still think Romney is a slam dunk?

     

    You believe what you want to believe based on ideology alone.  Fact are completely secondary.



    Did you read the 2 links you stupid b a stard?  Are you this f vcking dumb?  Are you going to continue the "polls" crap like a 12-year old?

    Let me help you stupid............Patreaus testified that from day 1........check that......HOUR 1, he KNEW it was al Qaeda.  The documents and talking points were changed.  Changed by people as high up as the Incompetent himself.......

    Can you read?  Do you watch the news?  And, I don`t mean FOX.  I mean CNN, USA Today, all day today.  Are you drunk?

     Are you not seeing that every media outlet is reporting this?  You are completely wrong.  go watch the news, read a paper, sober up............and then apologize for being a moron will ya?




    I guarantee you Petraeus never said anything about Al Qaeda.  He said Ansar al Sharia, and Peter King translated that into "Al Qaeda linked militants" when he went running from a closed door hearing to the nearest microphone.  

    And guess what?  The Washington Post is now reporting that it all started with the video ...

    The Washington Post reported that, since the attack, the CIA and other intelligence analysts have settled on a hybrid view of the attack, suggesting that the Cairo protest sparked militants in Libya, who quickly mobilized the assault on U.S. facilities in Benghazi.[235] Details about possible al-Qaeda links were not in initial talking points used by both Petraeus and UN Ambassador Susan Rice because they were preliminary and based on classified sources, intelligence officials said.



    Do you guys just make stuff up?  I know it`s Saturday and people are busy with other things but, turn on your TV, pick up the paper, look at the links (some from this morning) that I`ve posted in this very thread.  Patreaus said EXACTLY "al Qaeda", from DAY ONE......in fact, within hours of the attack.

    Stop the lies!

    Jeeeezzzzus:

    David Petraeus is going to tell members of Congress that he "knew almost immediately after the September 11th attack, that the group Ansar al Sharia, the al Qaeda sympathizing group in Libya was responsible for the attacks," CNN reports.




  •  

    Are you even reading your own posts?  An "al Qaeda sympathizing group" is not Al Qaeda.  Ansar al Sharia is not Al Qaeda.  They cared more about a youtube video than they did Osama bin Laden.  Your narrative is done.  Your coverup angle is history.   Susan Rice has been exonerated.  Your "stand down" report has been edited (withoug a correction!) to remove glaring inaccuracies.  Do you know how damning that is to a news agency's credibility - to edit an article without issuing a correction?

    It's over - you fought a good fight, but now you're just swinging at shadows.  It's time to put it all to rest.

     

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    Well, what you lack in knowledge, you make up for in tenacity :)

    Talking points are always edited - but both versions referenced spontaneous protests linked to the video.

    What you don't seem willing to grasp is that spontaneous protests and acts of terror are not mutually exclusive.  As Washington Post reported, and I have been saying all along - the protests in Cairo sparked action by heavily armed militants.  Do the militants have links to Al Qaeda?  I'm sure some of them do - and some to Hezbollah and some to Hamas.  

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    In response to jmel's comment:

    It just keeps getting better.............

    House Intel Chief Rogers Suggests Obama Told of Petraeus Affair Before Election Day    

     




    Excuse me jmel it was Eric Cantor who knew about the affair and he kept quiet !

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

    In response to jmel's comment:

    It just keeps getting better.............

    House Intel Chief Rogers Suggests Obama Told of Petraeus Affair Before Election Day    

     



    Excuse me jmel it was Eric Cantor who knew about the affair and he kept quiet !



    Really?  I did not know that.  Frankly, I don`t care about the General`s affair.  I think it should be out of the dialogue.  I do care that we may have been lied to by the president.  I do believe that this is a cover up that goes right to the oval office.  




    jmel you brought up the Petraeus's Affair .

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    Well, what you lack in knowledge, you make up for in tenacity :)

    Talking points are always edited - but both versions referenced spontaneous protests linked to the video.

    What you don't seem willing to grasp is that spontaneous protests and acts of terror are not mutually exclusive.  As Washington Post reported, and I have been saying all along - the protests in Cairo sparked action by heavily armed militants.  Do the militants have links to Al Qaeda?  I'm sure some of them do - and some to Hezbollah and some to Hamas.  




    With respect, there`s only one of us lacking "knowledge", and it isn`t me.  Did you watch ANY Sunday shows?  Have you read ANY papers?  EVERYONE today said, very clearly, CIA had the facts and "someone at the highest level" changed the report.  Rice WILL be called to testify.....and you are VERY wrong!

    Go read something before you spew nonsense.  It was al Qaeda, Rice knew, Patreaus knew, Hillary knew, the Incompetent knew, Carney knew, CIA on the ground knew, Libyan officials knew........EVERY FREAKIN AMERICAN KNEW!

    Just stop........you`re making a fool of yourself.

    Jmel - these are the complete CIA talking points, final edited version ...

     

      • "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 in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.

     

      • This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.

     

    • The investigation is on-going, and the US Government is working with Libyan authorities to bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of US citizens."

     

     

    These talking points are exactly in line with what Susan Rice and the administration have been saying all along.  Change "extremists" to "terrorists", "Ansar al Sharia", "Al Qaeda", "the boy scouts" or "the 69 Mets" and it still completely backs up everything the white house has been saying all along.

    How can you possibly keep your coverup delusions alive at this point?  You have to cling to a one-word edit in a document that contradicts everything you have said for the past nine weeks!

     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    Well, what you lack in knowledge, you make up for in tenacity :)

    Talking points are always edited - but both versions referenced spontaneous protests linked to the video.

    What you don't seem willing to grasp is that spontaneous protests and acts of terror are not mutually exclusive.  As Washington Post reported, and I have been saying all along - the protests in Cairo sparked action by heavily armed militants.  Do the militants have links to Al Qaeda?  I'm sure some of them do - and some to Hezbollah and some to Hamas.  




    With respect, there`s only one of us lacking "knowledge", and it isn`t me.  Did you watch ANY Sunday shows?  Have you read ANY papers?  EVERYONE today said, very clearly, CIA had the facts and "someone at the highest level" changed the report.  Rice WILL be called to testify.....and you are VERY wrong!

    Go read something before you spew nonsense.  It was al Qaeda, Rice knew, Patreaus knew, Hillary knew, the Incompetent knew, Carney knew, CIA on the ground knew, Libyan officials knew........EVERY FREAKIN AMERICAN KNEW!

    Just stop........you`re making a fool of yourself.

    Jmel - these are the complete CIA talking points, final edited version ...

     

      • "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 in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.

     

      • This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.

     

    • The investigation is on-going, and the US Government is working with Libyan authorities to bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of US citizens."

     

     

    These talking points are exactly in line with what Susan Rice and the administration have been saying all along.  Change "extremists" to "terrorists", "Ansar al Sharia", "Al Qaeda", "the boy scouts" or "the 69 Mets" and it still completely backs up everything the white house has been saying all along.

    How can you possibly keep your coverup delusions alive at this point?  You have to cling to a one-word edit in a document that contradicts everything you have said for the past nine weeks!

     




    That it was caused by locals stirred up by a video?

    She went out on 5 Sunday talk shows and said the attacks were caused by a video.

    I watched her.

    When everyone on the planet knew it wasn't.

    They watched the security cameras and the shots from the drone in real time they knew who it was immediately, they knew it wasn't from any silly video.

    Now the wagons are circled we're supposed to believe what ever the hell you people tell us like we're all stupid.

     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from BilltheKat. Show BilltheKat's posts

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    Well, what you lack in knowledge, you make up for in tenacity :)

    Talking points are always edited - but both versions referenced spontaneous protests linked to the video.

    What you don't seem willing to grasp is that spontaneous protests and acts of terror are not mutually exclusive.  As Washington Post reported, and I have been saying all along - the protests in Cairo sparked action by heavily armed militants.  Do the militants have links to Al Qaeda?  I'm sure some of them do - and some to Hezbollah and some to Hamas.  




    With respect, there`s only one of us lacking "knowledge", and it isn`t me.  Did you watch ANY Sunday shows?  Have you read ANY papers?  EVERYONE today said, very clearly, CIA had the facts and "someone at the highest level" changed the report.  Rice WILL be called to testify.....and you are VERY wrong!

    Go read something before you spew nonsense.  It was al Qaeda, Rice knew, Patreaus knew, Hillary knew, the Incompetent knew, Carney knew, CIA on the ground knew, Libyan officials knew........EVERY FREAKIN AMERICAN KNEW!

    Just stop........you`re making a fool of yourself.

    Jmel - these are the complete CIA talking points, final edited version ...

     

      • "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 in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.

     

      • This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.

     

    • The investigation is on-going, and the US Government is working with Libyan authorities to bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of US citizens."

     

     

    These talking points are exactly in line with what Susan Rice and the administration have been saying all along.  Change "extremists" to "terrorists", "Ansar al Sharia", "Al Qaeda", "the boy scouts" or "the 69 Mets" and it still completely backs up everything the white house has been saying all along.

    How can you possibly keep your coverup delusions alive at this point?  You have to cling to a one-word edit in a document that contradicts everything you have said for the past nine weeks!

     




    That it was caused by locals stirred up by a video?

    She went out on 5 Sunday talk shows and said the attacks were caused by a video.

    I watched her.

    When everyone on the planet knew it wasn't.

    They watched the security cameras and the shots from the drone in real time they knew who it was immediately, they knew it wasn't from any silly video.

    Now the wagons are circled we're supposed to believe what ever the hell you people tell us like we're all stupid.

     



    Well actually while you come off as stupid, you're allowed to get the benefit of the doubt.

    However you keep on doing the stupid thing so you're wearing down the benefit.

    Get it? If not, not sure you should keep at it.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    Well, what you lack in knowledge, you make up for in tenacity :)

    Talking points are always edited - but both versions referenced spontaneous protests linked to the video.

    What you don't seem willing to grasp is that spontaneous protests and acts of terror are not mutually exclusive.  As Washington Post reported, and I have been saying all along - the protests in Cairo sparked action by heavily armed militants.  Do the militants have links to Al Qaeda?  I'm sure some of them do - and some to Hezbollah and some to Hamas.  




    With respect, there`s only one of us lacking "knowledge", and it isn`t me.  Did you watch ANY Sunday shows?  Have you read ANY papers?  EVERYONE today said, very clearly, CIA had the facts and "someone at the highest level" changed the report.  Rice WILL be called to testify.....and you are VERY wrong!

    Go read something before you spew nonsense.  It was al Qaeda, Rice knew, Patreaus knew, Hillary knew, the Incompetent knew, Carney knew, CIA on the ground knew, Libyan officials knew........EVERY FREAKIN AMERICAN KNEW!

    Just stop........you`re making a fool of yourself.

    Jmel - these are the complete CIA talking points, final edited version ...

     

      • "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 in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.

     

      • This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.

     

    • The investigation is on-going, and the US Government is working with Libyan authorities to bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of US citizens."

     

     

    These talking points are exactly in line with what Susan Rice and the administration have been saying all along.  Change "extremists" to "terrorists", "Ansar al Sharia", "Al Qaeda", "the boy scouts" or "the 69 Mets" and it still completely backs up everything the white house has been saying all along.

    How can you possibly keep your coverup delusions alive at this point?  You have to cling to a one-word edit in a document that contradicts everything you have said for the past nine weeks!

     




    That it was caused by locals stirred up by a video?

    She went out on 5 Sunday talk shows and said the attacks were caused by a video.

    I watched her.

    When everyone on the planet knew it wasn't.

    They watched the security cameras and the shots from the drone in real time they knew who it was immediately, they knew it wasn't from any silly video.

    Now the wagons are circled we're supposed to believe what ever the hell you people tell us like we're all stupid.

     




    By "you people" you mean the CIA, right?  At this point, the only way to hold on to your coverup angle is if the CIA was in on it.  

    If you don't think the CIA was in on it, you can start a new "why were the talking points edited" conspiracy if you like, but not without acknowledging that Obama and Susan Rice were speaking consistently with the intelligence reports from day one, and that everything you've been saying for nine weeks is unadulterated cr8p.  

    You have to accept the CIA talking points before using them in your next charade.

     

     

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    Those on the right who are trying to make this into a scandal are simply engaging in partisan political games. Blaming Obama for the deaths in Benghazi is the equivalent of blaming Bush for 9/11. It's simply partisan games.


    I saw Ambassador Rice on all the talk shows the Sunday following the attack. It was very clear she was acting on the intelligence received. Heck..if I remember correctly there were no shortage of threads in this forum debating the video. The point is most people thought the same thing.  The administration had several credible reports that it was related to the protests over the video. If you stop and think about everything that was going on in the middle east over the course of those days..it's was a perfectly logical conclusion to make.

    Those on this site and on the media who are trying to come up with scandals and conspiracies are pathetic and with every word they type...they reveal how little they know about investigations and national security.


    In this matter...no one knows who knew what..and when..and where the breakdowns were.  Was it a breakdown in process..?? Or human error..?? Did someone lie/coverup..? I don't know the answer to any of these questions..and neither does anyone else on this site. I prefer to let the investigation take place first and then comment on the findings.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    Those on the right who are trying to make this into a scandal are simply engaging in partisan political games. Blaming Obama for the deaths in Benghazi is the equivalent of blaming Bush for 9/11. It's simply partisan games.


    I saw Ambassador Rice on all the talk shows the Sunday following the attack. It was very clear she was acting on the intelligence received. Heck..if I remember correctly there were no shortage of threads in this forum debating the video. The point is most people thought the same thing.  The administration had several credible reports that it was related to the protests over the video. If you stop and think about everything that was going on in the middle east over the course of those days..it's was a perfectly logical conclusion to make.

    Those on this site and on the media who are trying to come up with scandals and conspiracies are pathetic and with every word they type...they reveal how little they know about investigations and national security.


    In this matter...no one knows who knew what..and when..and where the breakdowns were.  Was it a breakdown in process..?? Or human error..?? Did someone lie/coverup..? I don't know the answer to any of these questions..and neither does anyone else on this site. I prefer to let the investigation take place first and then comment on the findings.



    mscricket:  The 2nd 9/11 was nothing like the 1st 9/11.  For one thing, Bush swung into action on the first 9/11.  On the second, we get an interesting little artifact of how Obama manages foriegn policy.  the operative term seems to be... "stand down".

    I really don't see this as partisan.  Obama, his administration, or him personally, failed the 3 A.M. test, spectacularly.  they need to be stop the stonewalling.  key question:

    Who pushed the video as the excuse, and when did they push it?

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share