Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. 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 slomag's comment:

    When the news broke about the Benghazi attack, the coverup theory was that Obama was making up a story about a video and connecting Benghazi to it for political gain.

    When Petraeus first testified on 9/14 that the administration was speaking consistently with the current assessment, it got zero attention from the right.

    When Fox News issued a report fraught with inaccuracies that there were cries to "stand down" and "cries for help", the CIA refuted that report with a detailed and specific timeline, the right decided the CIA could not be trusted.

    When Petraeus's extra-marital affair came to light days after the election, the right decided he had been blackmailed into giving the testimony on 9/14 that they had up to that point ignored.

    When it was discovered that Glen Doherty, one of the ex-Navy seals killed in Benghazi, was in Tripoli at the time the consulate was attacked, there was no reversal of the "cries for help" narrative.  No mea culpa.  No sign of integrity at any level.

    When Petraeus testified a second time that the administration had been speaking consistently with the intelligence assessments of the time, the right turned it's attention to some minutia within the talking points about whether it was "terrorists" or a specific terrorist group, or "extremists" as in the final version.  "Who edited the talking points!" they all shouted.  Coverup! Coverup!

    And now that it is being reported that the talking points were in fact edited within the intelligence community, the right insists that it is a lie to protect Obama's coverup.

    So basically, the only time the right believed anthing said by the intelligence community was the idea that their talking points had been edited.




    Um.........Patreaus spoke on the 12th (not the 14th) and he said exactly what CIA on the ground and the  Libyan officials said..................."terrorist attack, al Qaeda, affiliates of al Qaeda".  Put it in his report, swore to it under oath, and sticks to it today.  Don`t understand why you don`t get this?

     



    ABC News’ John R. Parkinson and Sunlen Miller report:

    The attack that killed four Americans in the Libyan consulate began as a spontaneous protest against the film â€ÂÂœThe Innocence of Muslims,” but Islamic militants who may have links to Al Qaeda used the opportunity to launch an attack, CIA Director David Petreaus told the House Intelligence Committee today according to one lawmaker who attended a closed-door briefing.

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/al-qaeda-took-advantage-of-libyan-protest-cia-chief-says/

    published 9/14

     




    So, to be clear, his under oath testimony, his day after (SEP 12th) written talking points, mean nothing.  You`ve found a statement fromsep 14th and that trumps all?

    "The intelligence community assessed from the very beginning that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack." DNI spokesman Shawn Turner tells CBS News. That information was shared at a classified level -- which Rice, as a member of President Obama's cabinet, would have been privy to.

     

    An intelligence source says the talking points were passed from the CIA to the DNI, where the substantive edits were made, and then to FBI, which made more edits as part of "standard procedure."

     

    Slomag, you`re a good person.  Thank you for a nice back and forth.  I`m dropping from this one.  Hope I didn`t get too carried away and name-call.  If I did, it was probaly some of my later-night posts when I was just being a d ick.  When this a s s hole Angry FREAK jumps in and destroys a good thread, it just ruins it for everyone.  This FREAK show kills more good conversations than anyone I`ve seen here since 2005.  I can`t post without insulting back cuz the FREAK is so bad.

    I still think this one will be investigated and people will be called to testify.  Things will come out eventually.




    September 14th was a House intelligence hearing - just like last week's testimony.  But he's been saying the same thing all along - terrorism yes, but sparked by the protests in Cairo over the video.  Susan Rice is privy to a lot of classified information, but when she goes on talk shows, she'd better stick to the talking points.

    All right jmel - have a good Thanksgiving.  I'll leave you with some of Susan Rice's original comments to see she was faithful to everything the intelligency community had given her.

    SUSAN RICE: --sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that-- in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.

     

    BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?

     

    SUSAN RICE: We do not-- we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

     

    BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you agree or disagree with him that al Qaeda had some part in this?

     

    SUSAN RICE: Well, we'll have to find out that out. I mean I think it's clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we'll have to determine.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20'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:

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    When the news broke about the Benghazi attack, the coverup theory was that Obama was making up a story about a video and connecting Benghazi to it for political gain.

    When Petraeus first testified on 9/14 that the administration was speaking consistently with the current assessment, it got zero attention from the right.

    When Fox News issued a report fraught with inaccuracies that there were cries to "stand down" and "cries for help", the CIA refuted that report with a detailed and specific timeline, the right decided the CIA could not be trusted.

    When Petraeus's extra-marital affair came to light days after the election, the right decided he had been blackmailed into giving the testimony on 9/14 that they had up to that point ignored.

    When it was discovered that Glen Doherty, one of the ex-Navy seals killed in Benghazi, was in Tripoli at the time the consulate was attacked, there was no reversal of the "cries for help" narrative.  No mea culpa.  No sign of integrity at any level.

    When Petraeus testified a second time that the administration had been speaking consistently with the intelligence assessments of the time, the right turned it's attention to some minutia within the talking points about whether it was "terrorists" or a specific terrorist group, or "extremists" as in the final version.  "Who edited the talking points!" they all shouted.  Coverup! Coverup!

    And now that it is being reported that the talking points were in fact edited within the intelligence community, the right insists that it is a lie to protect Obama's coverup.

    So basically, the only time the right believed anthing said by the intelligence community was the idea that their talking points had been edited.




    Um.........Patreaus spoke on the 12th (not the 14th) and he said exactly what CIA on the ground and the  Libyan officials said..................."terrorist attack, al Qaeda, affiliates of al Qaeda".  Put it in his report, swore to it under oath, and sticks to it today.  Don`t understand why you don`t get this?

     



    ABC News’ John R. Parkinson and Sunlen Miller report:

    The attack that killed four Americans in the Libyan consulate began as a spontaneous protest against the film â€ÂÂÂœThe Innocence of Muslims,” but Islamic militants who may have links to Al Qaeda used the opportunity to launch an attack, CIA Director David Petreaus told the House Intelligence Committee today according to one lawmaker who attended a closed-door briefing.

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/al-qaeda-took-advantage-of-libyan-protest-cia-chief-says/

    published 9/14

     




    So, to be clear, his under oath testimony, his day after (SEP 12th) written talking points, mean nothing.  You`ve found a statement fromsep 14th and that trumps all?

    "The intelligence community assessed from the very beginning that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack." DNI spokesman Shawn Turner tells CBS News. That information was shared at a classified level -- which Rice, as a member of President Obama's cabinet, would have been privy to.

     

    An intelligence source says the talking points were passed from the CIA to the DNI, where the substantive edits were made, and then to FBI, which made more edits as part of "standard procedure."

     

    Slomag, you`re a good person.  Thank you for a nice back and forth.  I`m dropping from this one.  Hope I didn`t get too carried away and name-call.  If I did, it was probaly some of my later-night posts when I was just being a d ick.  When this a s s hole Angry FREAK jumps in and destroys a good thread, it just ruins it for everyone.  This FREAK show kills more good conversations than anyone I`ve seen here since 2005.  I can`t post without insulting back cuz the FREAK is so bad.

    I still think this one will be investigated and people will be called to testify.  Things will come out eventually.




    September 14th was a House intelligence hearing - just like last week's testimony.  But he's been saying the same thing all along - terrorism yes, but sparked by the protests in Cairo over the video.  Susan Rice is privy to a lot of classified information, but when she goes on talk shows, she'd better stick to the talking points.

    All right jmel - have a good Thanksgiving.  I'll leave you with some of Susan Rice's original comments to see she was faithful to everything the intelligency community had given her.

    SUSAN RICE: --sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that-- in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.

     

    BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?

     

    SUSAN RICE: We do not-- we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

     

    BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you agree or disagree with him that al Qaeda had some part in this?

     

    SUSAN RICE: Well, we'll have to find out that out. I mean I think it's clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we'll have to determine.



    There was no spontaneous protest.  Has that not been disproven at this point?

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from AlleyCatBruin. Show AlleyCatBruin's posts

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    When the news broke about the Benghazi attack, the coverup theory was that Obama was making up a story about a video and connecting Benghazi to it for political gain.

    When Petraeus first testified on 9/14 that the administration was speaking consistently with the current assessment, it got zero attention from the right.

    When Fox News issued a report fraught with inaccuracies that there were cries to "stand down" and "cries for help", the CIA refuted that report with a detailed and specific timeline, the right decided the CIA could not be trusted.

    When Petraeus's extra-marital affair came to light days after the election, the right decided he had been blackmailed into giving the testimony on 9/14 that they had up to that point ignored.

    When it was discovered that Glen Doherty, one of the ex-Navy seals killed in Benghazi, was in Tripoli at the time the consulate was attacked, there was no reversal of the "cries for help" narrative.  No mea culpa.  No sign of integrity at any level.

    When Petraeus testified a second time that the administration had been speaking consistently with the intelligence assessments of the time, the right turned it's attention to some minutia within the talking points about whether it was "terrorists" or a specific terrorist group, or "extremists" as in the final version.  "Who edited the talking points!" they all shouted.  Coverup! Coverup!

    And now that it is being reported that the talking points were in fact edited within the intelligence community, the right insists that it is a lie to protect Obama's coverup.

    So basically, the only time the right believed anthing said by the intelligence community was the idea that their talking points had been edited.




    Um.........Patreaus spoke on the 12th (not the 14th) and he said exactly what CIA on the ground and the  Libyan officials said..................."terrorist attack, al Qaeda, affiliates of al Qaeda".  Put it in his report, swore to it under oath, and sticks to it today.  Don`t understand why you don`t get this?

     



    ABC News’ John R. Parkinson and Sunlen Miller report:

    The attack that killed four Americans in the Libyan consulate began as a spontaneous protest against the film â€ÂÂÂÂœThe Innocence of Muslims,” but Islamic militants who may have links to Al Qaeda used the opportunity to launch an attack, CIA Director David Petreaus told the House Intelligence Committee today according to one lawmaker who attended a closed-door briefing.

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/al-qaeda-took-advantage-of-libyan-protest-cia-chief-says/

    published 9/14

     




    So, to be clear, his under oath testimony, his day after (SEP 12th) written talking points, mean nothing.  You`ve found a statement fromsep 14th and that trumps all?

    "The intelligence community assessed from the very beginning that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack." DNI spokesman Shawn Turner tells CBS News. That information was shared at a classified level -- which Rice, as a member of President Obama's cabinet, would have been privy to.

     

    An intelligence source says the talking points were passed from the CIA to the DNI, where the substantive edits were made, and then to FBI, which made more edits as part of "standard procedure."

     

    Slomag, you`re a good person.  Thank you for a nice back and forth.  I`m dropping from this one.  Hope I didn`t get too carried away and name-call.  If I did, it was probaly some of my later-night posts when I was just being a d ick.  When this a s s hole Angry FREAK jumps in and destroys a good thread, it just ruins it for everyone.  This FREAK show kills more good conversations than anyone I`ve seen here since 2005.  I can`t post without insulting back cuz the FREAK is so bad.

    I still think this one will be investigated and people will be called to testify.  Things will come out eventually.




    September 14th was a House intelligence hearing - just like last week's testimony.  But he's been saying the same thing all along - terrorism yes, but sparked by the protests in Cairo over the video.  Susan Rice is privy to a lot of classified information, but when she goes on talk shows, she'd better stick to the talking points.

    All right jmel - have a good Thanksgiving.  I'll leave you with some of Susan Rice's original comments to see she was faithful to everything the intelligency community had given her.

    SUSAN RICE: --sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that-- in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.

     

    BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?

     

    SUSAN RICE: We do not-- we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

     

    BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you agree or disagree with him that al Qaeda had some part in this?

     

    SUSAN RICE: Well, we'll have to find out that out. I mean I think it's clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we'll have to determine.



    There was no spontaneous protest.  Has that not been disproven at this point.



    Who cares? Thurston Howell lost the election. Get over it.

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

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    In response to AlleyCatBruin's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    When the news broke about the Benghazi attack, the coverup theory was that Obama was making up a story about a video and connecting Benghazi to it for political gain.

    When Petraeus first testified on 9/14 that the administration was speaking consistently with the current assessment, it got zero attention from the right.

    When Fox News issued a report fraught with inaccuracies that there were cries to "stand down" and "cries for help", the CIA refuted that report with a detailed and specific timeline, the right decided the CIA could not be trusted.

    When Petraeus's extra-marital affair came to light days after the election, the right decided he had been blackmailed into giving the testimony on 9/14 that they had up to that point ignored.

    When it was discovered that Glen Doherty, one of the ex-Navy seals killed in Benghazi, was in Tripoli at the time the consulate was attacked, there was no reversal of the "cries for help" narrative.  No mea culpa.  No sign of integrity at any level.

    When Petraeus testified a second time that the administration had been speaking consistently with the intelligence assessments of the time, the right turned it's attention to some minutia within the talking points about whether it was "terrorists" or a specific terrorist group, or "extremists" as in the final version.  "Who edited the talking points!" they all shouted.  Coverup! Coverup!

    And now that it is being reported that the talking points were in fact edited within the intelligence community, the right insists that it is a lie to protect Obama's coverup.

    So basically, the only time the right believed anthing said by the intelligence community was the idea that their talking points had been edited.




    Um.........Patreaus spoke on the 12th (not the 14th) and he said exactly what CIA on the ground and the  Libyan officials said..................."terrorist attack, al Qaeda, affiliates of al Qaeda".  Put it in his report, swore to it under oath, and sticks to it today.  Don`t understand why you don`t get this?

     



    ABC News’ John R. Parkinson and Sunlen Miller report:

    The attack that killed four Americans in the Libyan consulate began as a spontaneous protest against the film â€ÂÂÂÂÂÂœThe Innocence of Muslims,” but Islamic militants who may have links to Al Qaeda used the opportunity to launch an attack, CIA Director David Petreaus told the House Intelligence Committee today according to one lawmaker who attended a closed-door briefing.

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/al-qaeda-took-advantage-of-libyan-protest-cia-chief-says/

    published 9/14

     




    So, to be clear, his under oath testimony, his day after (SEP 12th) written talking points, mean nothing.  You`ve found a statement fromsep 14th and that trumps all?

    "The intelligence community assessed from the very beginning that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack." DNI spokesman Shawn Turner tells CBS News. That information was shared at a classified level -- which Rice, as a member of President Obama's cabinet, would have been privy to.

     

    An intelligence source says the talking points were passed from the CIA to the DNI, where the substantive edits were made, and then to FBI, which made more edits as part of "standard procedure."

     

    Slomag, you`re a good person.  Thank you for a nice back and forth.  I`m dropping from this one.  Hope I didn`t get too carried away and name-call.  If I did, it was probaly some of my later-night posts when I was just being a d ick.  When this a s s hole Angry FREAK jumps in and destroys a good thread, it just ruins it for everyone.  This FREAK show kills more good conversations than anyone I`ve seen here since 2005.  I can`t post without insulting back cuz the FREAK is so bad.

    I still think this one will be investigated and people will be called to testify.  Things will come out eventually.




    September 14th was a House intelligence hearing - just like last week's testimony.  But he's been saying the same thing all along - terrorism yes, but sparked by the protests in Cairo over the video.  Susan Rice is privy to a lot of classified information, but when she goes on talk shows, she'd better stick to the talking points.

    All right jmel - have a good Thanksgiving.  I'll leave you with some of Susan Rice's original comments to see she was faithful to everything the intelligency community had given her.

    SUSAN RICE: --sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that-- in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.

     

    BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?

     

    SUSAN RICE: We do not-- we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

     

    BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you agree or disagree with him that al Qaeda had some part in this?

     

    SUSAN RICE: Well, we'll have to find out that out. I mean I think it's clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we'll have to determine.



    There was no spontaneous protest.  Has that not been disproven at this point.



    Who cares? Thurston Howell lost the election. Get over it.




    What's the latest version of what transpired??

    The latest cover-up lie?

    My side and my contention has always had one version - that  Rice was trotted out on Sept. 14 with what everyone with a half of a brain knew was a lie, and a false story.

    Everyone (except Obama lemmin and their corrupt media friends) knew Al Qaeda was behind the planned attack.

    Now we know that Obama, Rice and Clinton knew instantly watching the drone broadcast live and security cameras.

    But all of them -  Rice, Clinton and Obama talked about the mob and Video for Benghazi which they all knew was a total fabrication.

    The creator of the video sits in jail, Obama's Uncle runs the streets of Boston free.

    Now we find out the story was changed before delivered to the American public.

    But by who and by who's orders?????

    AND - who turned down the consulate's request for more security and assistance the night of the attack??

    4 dead Americans, 2 + months no clear answers.

    Keep spinning.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from AlleyCatBruin. Show AlleyCatBruin's posts

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    Now Mitt is reduced to blaming Christie for his loss. Apparently, millions of people who would have voted for Romney were convinced to vote for Obama when Christie behaved like a decent human being post-hurricane.



    Romney was such a poor candidate that I don't think Christie's comments, as much as I enjoyed them, made any real difference.  The republicans may not win the White House back for a very long time because they are seen as the crazy party.

     

     

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

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    What's the latest version of what transpired??

    The latest cover-up lie?

    My side and my contention has always had one version - that  Rice was trotted out on Sept. 14 with what everyone with a half of a brain knew was a lie, and a false story.

    Everyone (except Obama lemmin and their corrupt media friends) knew Al Qaeda was behind the planned attack.

    Now we know that Obama, Rice and Clinton knew instantly watching the drone broadcast live and security cameras.

    But all of them -  Rice, Clinton and Obama talked about the mob and Video for Benghazi which they all knew was a total fabrication.

    The creator of the video sits in jail, Obama's Uncle runs the streets of Boston free.

    Now we find out the story was changed before delivered to the American public.

    But by who and by who's orders?????

    AND - who turned down the consulate's request for more security and assistance the night of the attack??

    4 dead Americans, 2 + months no clear answers.

    Keep spinning.

    [/QUOTE]


    This is all conservative spin.  You don't have the facts so you make up a story that paints the president as a liar.  Very predictable spin.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

     

     




    What's the latest version of what transpired??

    The latest cover-up lie?

    My side and my contention has always had one version - that  Rice was trotted out on Sept. 14 with what everyone with a half of a brain knew was a lie, and a false story.

    Everyone (except Obama lemmin and their corrupt media friends) knew Al Qaeda was behind the planned attack.

    Now we know that Obama, Rice and Clinton knew instantly watching the drone broadcast live and security cameras.

    But all of them -  Rice, Clinton and Obama talked about the mob and Video for Benghazi which they all knew was a total fabrication.

    The creator of the video sits in jail, Obama's Uncle runs the streets of Boston free.

    Now we find out the story was changed before delivered to the American public.

    But by who and by who's orders?????

    AND - who turned down the consulate's request for more security and assistance the night of the attack??

    4 dead Americans, 2 + months no clear answers.

    Keep spinning.




    This is all conservative spin.  You don't have the facts so you make up a story that paints the president as a liar.  Very predictable spin.




Great point Einstein.

No one has the real facts.

Gee I wonder why.

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

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    Now Mitt is reduced to blaming Christie for his loss. Apparently, millions of people who would have voted for Romney were convinced to vote for Obama when Christie behaved like a decent human being post-hurricane.




    Romney couldn't beat Santa Claus.

    7 million voters who earn less then 30k per year voted for Santa, who won by 3 1/2 mil.

    Why do you think they voted for Santa?

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

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    In response to AlleyCatBruin's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    When the news broke about the Benghazi attack, the coverup theory was that Obama was making up a story about a video and connecting Benghazi to it for political gain.

    When Petraeus first testified on 9/14 that the administration was speaking consistently with the current assessment, it got zero attention from the right.

    When Fox News issued a report fraught with inaccuracies that there were cries to "stand down" and "cries for help", the CIA refuted that report with a detailed and specific timeline, the right decided the CIA could not be trusted.

    When Petraeus's extra-marital affair came to light days after the election, the right decided he had been blackmailed into giving the testimony on 9/14 that they had up to that point ignored.

    When it was discovered that Glen Doherty, one of the ex-Navy seals killed in Benghazi, was in Tripoli at the time the consulate was attacked, there was no reversal of the "cries for help" narrative.  No mea culpa.  No sign of integrity at any level.

    When Petraeus testified a second time that the administration had been speaking consistently with the intelligence assessments of the time, the right turned it's attention to some minutia within the talking points about whether it was "terrorists" or a specific terrorist group, or "extremists" as in the final version.  "Who edited the talking points!" they all shouted.  Coverup! Coverup!

    And now that it is being reported that the talking points were in fact edited within the intelligence community, the right insists that it is a lie to protect Obama's coverup.

    So basically, the only time the right believed anthing said by the intelligence community was the idea that their talking points had been edited.




    Um.........Patreaus spoke on the 12th (not the 14th) and he said exactly what CIA on the ground and the  Libyan officials said..................."terrorist attack, al Qaeda, affiliates of al Qaeda".  Put it in his report, swore to it under oath, and sticks to it today.  Don`t understand why you don`t get this?

     



    ABC News’ John R. Parkinson and Sunlen Miller report:

    The attack that killed four Americans in the Libyan consulate began as a spontaneous protest against the film â€ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂœThe Innocence of Muslims,” but Islamic militants who may have links to Al Qaeda used the opportunity to launch an attack, CIA Director David Petreaus told the House Intelligence Committee today according to one lawmaker who attended a closed-door briefing.

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/al-qaeda-took-advantage-of-libyan-protest-cia-chief-says/

    published 9/14

     




    So, to be clear, his under oath testimony, his day after (SEP 12th) written talking points, mean nothing.  You`ve found a statement fromsep 14th and that trumps all?

    "The intelligence community assessed from the very beginning that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack." DNI spokesman Shawn Turner tells CBS News. That information was shared at a classified level -- which Rice, as a member of President Obama's cabinet, would have been privy to.

     

    An intelligence source says the talking points were passed from the CIA to the DNI, where the substantive edits were made, and then to FBI, which made more edits as part of "standard procedure."

     

    Slomag, you`re a good person.  Thank you for a nice back and forth.  I`m dropping from this one.  Hope I didn`t get too carried away and name-call.  If I did, it was probaly some of my later-night posts when I was just being a d ick.  When this a s s hole Angry FREAK jumps in and destroys a good thread, it just ruins it for everyone.  This FREAK show kills more good conversations than anyone I`ve seen here since 2005.  I can`t post without insulting back cuz the FREAK is so bad.

    I still think this one will be investigated and people will be called to testify.  Things will come out eventually.




    September 14th was a House intelligence hearing - just like last week's testimony.  But he's been saying the same thing all along - terrorism yes, but sparked by the protests in Cairo over the video.  Susan Rice is privy to a lot of classified information, but when she goes on talk shows, she'd better stick to the talking points.

    All right jmel - have a good Thanksgiving.  I'll leave you with some of Susan Rice's original comments to see she was faithful to everything the intelligency community had given her.

    SUSAN RICE: --sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that-- in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.

     

    BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?

     

    SUSAN RICE: We do not-- we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

     

    BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you agree or disagree with him that al Qaeda had some part in this?

     

    SUSAN RICE: Well, we'll have to find out that out. I mean I think it's clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we'll have to determine.



    There was no spontaneous protest.  Has that not been disproven at this point.



    Who cares? Thurston Howell lost the election. Get over it.




    What's the latest version of what transpired??

    The latest cover-up lie?

    My side and my contention has always had one version - that  Rice was trotted out on Sept. 14 with what everyone with a half of a brain knew was a lie, and a false story.

    Everyone (except Obama lemmin and their corrupt media friends) knew Al Qaeda was behind the planned attack.

    Now we know that Obama, Rice and Clinton knew instantly watching the drone broadcast live and security cameras.

    But all of them -  Rice, Clinton and Obama talked about the mob and Video for Benghazi which they all knew was a total fabrication.

    The creator of the video sits in jail, Obama's Uncle runs the streets of Boston free.

    Now we find out the story was changed before delivered to the American public.

    But by who and by who's orders?????

    AND - who turned down the consulate's request for more security and assistance the night of the attack??

    4 dead Americans, 2 + months no clear answers.

    Keep spinning.



    Susan Rice will be the Secretary of State, and Thurston Howell lost. Get over it it.

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

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    In response to AlleyCatBruin's comment:

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    In response to AlleyCatBruin's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    When the news broke about the Benghazi attack, the coverup theory was that Obama was making up a story about a video and connecting Benghazi to it for political gain.

    When Petraeus first testified on 9/14 that the administration was speaking consistently with the current assessment, it got zero attention from the right.

    When Fox News issued a report fraught with inaccuracies that there were cries to "stand down" and "cries for help", the CIA refuted that report with a detailed and specific timeline, the right decided the CIA could not be trusted.

    When Petraeus's extra-marital affair came to light days after the election, the right decided he had been blackmailed into giving the testimony on 9/14 that they had up to that point ignored.

    When it was discovered that Glen Doherty, one of the ex-Navy seals killed in Benghazi, was in Tripoli at the time the consulate was attacked, there was no reversal of the "cries for help" narrative.  No mea culpa.  No sign of integrity at any level.

    When Petraeus testified a second time that the administration had been speaking consistently with the intelligence assessments of the time, the right turned it's attention to some minutia within the talking points about whether it was "terrorists" or a specific terrorist group, or "extremists" as in the final version.  "Who edited the talking points!" they all shouted.  Coverup! Coverup!

    And now that it is being reported that the talking points were in fact edited within the intelligence community, the right insists that it is a lie to protect Obama's coverup.

    So basically, the only time the right believed anthing said by the intelligence community was the idea that their talking points had been edited.




    Um.........Patreaus spoke on the 12th (not the 14th) and he said exactly what CIA on the ground and the  Libyan officials said..................."terrorist attack, al Qaeda, affiliates of al Qaeda".  Put it in his report, swore to it under oath, and sticks to it today.  Don`t understand why you don`t get this?

     



    ABC News’ John R. Parkinson and Sunlen Miller report:

    The attack that killed four Americans in the Libyan consulate began as a spontaneous protest against the film â€ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂœThe Innocence of Muslims,” but Islamic militants who may have links to Al Qaeda used the opportunity to launch an attack, CIA Director David Petreaus told the House Intelligence Committee today according to one lawmaker who attended a closed-door briefing.

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/al-qaeda-took-advantage-of-libyan-protest-cia-chief-says/

    published 9/14

     




    So, to be clear, his under oath testimony, his day after (SEP 12th) written talking points, mean nothing.  You`ve found a statement fromsep 14th and that trumps all?

    "The intelligence community assessed from the very beginning that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack." DNI spokesman Shawn Turner tells CBS News. That information was shared at a classified level -- which Rice, as a member of President Obama's cabinet, would have been privy to.

     

    An intelligence source says the talking points were passed from the CIA to the DNI, where the substantive edits were made, and then to FBI, which made more edits as part of "standard procedure."

     

    Slomag, you`re a good person.  Thank you for a nice back and forth.  I`m dropping from this one.  Hope I didn`t get too carried away and name-call.  If I did, it was probaly some of my later-night posts when I was just being a d ick.  When this a s s hole Angry FREAK jumps in and destroys a good thread, it just ruins it for everyone.  This FREAK show kills more good conversations than anyone I`ve seen here since 2005.  I can`t post without insulting back cuz the FREAK is so bad.

    I still think this one will be investigated and people will be called to testify.  Things will come out eventually.




    September 14th was a House intelligence hearing - just like last week's testimony.  But he's been saying the same thing all along - terrorism yes, but sparked by the protests in Cairo over the video.  Susan Rice is privy to a lot of classified information, but when she goes on talk shows, she'd better stick to the talking points.

    All right jmel - have a good Thanksgiving.  I'll leave you with some of Susan Rice's original comments to see she was faithful to everything the intelligency community had given her.

    SUSAN RICE: --sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that-- in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.

     

    BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?

     

    SUSAN RICE: We do not-- we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

     

    BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you agree or disagree with him that al Qaeda had some part in this?

     

    SUSAN RICE: Well, we'll have to find out that out. I mean I think it's clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we'll have to determine.



    There was no spontaneous protest.  Has that not been disproven at this point.



    Who cares? Thurston Howell lost the election. Get over it.




    What's the latest version of what transpired??

    The latest cover-up lie?

    My side and my contention has always had one version - that  Rice was trotted out on Sept. 14 with what everyone with a half of a brain knew was a lie, and a false story.

    Everyone (except Obama lemmin and their corrupt media friends) knew Al Qaeda was behind the planned attack.

    Now we know that Obama, Rice and Clinton knew instantly watching the drone broadcast live and security cameras.

    But all of them -  Rice, Clinton and Obama talked about the mob and Video for Benghazi which they all knew was a total fabrication.

    The creator of the video sits in jail, Obama's Uncle runs the streets of Boston free.

    Now we find out the story was changed before delivered to the American public.

    But by who and by who's orders?????

    AND - who turned down the consulate's request for more security and assistance the night of the attack??

    4 dead Americans, 2 + months no clear answers.

    Keep spinning.



    Susan Rice will be the Secretary of State, and Thurston Howell lost. Get over it it.




     

    I hope she is.

    Wait until the confirmation process when she goes in front of congress and gets drilled for days for honest answers on her Benghazi involvement.

    What she knows, when she knew it, who she got her talking points from.

    Who made up the video/spontaneous mob bs.

    Why the video? When they knew that it was Al Qaeda.

    Why were the folks in the consulate denied support when they requested it?

    On national television. Lindsey Graham in her face, a must see.

    I just can't wait. 

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

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    [/QUOTE]


    This is all conservative spin.  You don't have the facts so you make up a story that paints the president as a liar.  Very predictable spin.

    [/QUOTE]


    Great point Einstein.

    No one has the real facts.

    Gee I wonder why.

    [/QUOTE]


    You admit you have no facts and yet you blather on.  Point taken.

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

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:




    This is all conservative spin.  You don't have the facts so you make up a story that paints the president as a liar.  Very predictable spin.




    Great point Einstein.

    No one has the real facts.

    Gee I wonder why.




  • You admit you have no facts and yet you blather on.  Point taken.

    And you defend an administration that stonewalls the truth.

    2 + months no answers. 4 dead Americans

    And any American who questions Rice is branded a racist.

    We need a special prosecutor we won't get the truth from these people. Ever.

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

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I hope she is.

    Wait until the confirmation process when she goes in front of congress and gets drilled for days for honest answers on her Benghazi involvement.

    What she knows, when she knew it, who she got her talking points from.

    Who made up the video/spontaneous mob bs.

    Why the video? When they knew that it was Al Qaeda.

    Why were the folks in the consulate denied support when they requested it?

    On national television. Lindsey Graham in her face, a must see.

    I just can't wait. 

    [/QUOTE]

    You don't get it.  There is less here than meets the eye.  She was given talking points to discuss.  She did not prepare them and was not privy to all information on the ongoing investigation.  She is part of the diplomatic service not the intelligence community. She has been scapegoated on the matter and Graham and McCain look foolish.

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

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

     

    I hope she is.

    Wait until the confirmation process when she goes in front of congress and gets drilled for days for honest answers on her Benghazi involvement.

    What she knows, when she knew it, who she got her talking points from.

    Who made up the video/spontaneous mob bs.

    Why the video? When they knew that it was Al Qaeda.

    Why were the folks in the consulate denied support when they requested it?

    On national television. Lindsey Graham in her face, a must see.

    I just can't wait. 



    You don't get it.  There is less here than meets the eye.  She was given talking points to discuss.  She did not prepare them and was not privy to all information on the ongoing investigation.  She is part of the diplomatic service not the intelligence community. She has been scapegoated on the matter and Graham and McCain look foolish.




  • I get it entirely you idiot.

    The administration knew immediately after it happened  who was responsible including her.

    They watched in real time the drone and security videos from Bengahzi in the situation room but we won't see photos of that with Obama in his bomber jacket will we?

    The story has changed numerous times already.

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

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

     

    I hope she is.

    Wait until the confirmation process when she goes in front of congress and gets drilled for days for honest answers on her Benghazi involvement.

    What she knows, when she knew it, who she got her talking points from.

    Who made up the video/spontaneous mob bs.

    Why the video? When they knew that it was Al Qaeda.

    Why were the folks in the consulate denied support when they requested it?

    On national television. Lindsey Graham in her face, a must see.

    I just can't wait. 



    You don't get it.  There is less here than meets the eye.  She was given talking points to discuss.  She did not prepare them and was not privy to all information on the ongoing investigation.  She is part of the diplomatic service not the intelligence community. She has been scapegoated on the matter and Graham and McCain look foolish.




    And also why when/if she is up for SOS she will be drilled for the truth, which she knows.

    She went out on Sept 14 THREE DAYS after the attack when HER BOSS (OBAMA) knew as it was occuring who was responsible and that this video fairy tale was pure BS.

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

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    My name is Rueben the taxpayers pay for my pension in it's entirety.

    I am a loyal democrat.

    I want free stuff.

    I voted for Obama.

    Keep the gravy coming.

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

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    Rueben hates the mean Republicans because they want him to pay for his own pension.

    Those evil rich people who don't pay their fair share should be taxed higher to pay for Rueben's pension.

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

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:




    This is all conservative spin.  You don't have the facts so you make up a story that paints the president as a liar.  Very predictable spin.




    Great point Einstein.

    No one has the real facts.

    Gee I wonder why.




    You admit you have no facts and yet you blather on.  Point taken.

    And you defend an administration that stonewalls the truth.

    2 + months no answers. 4 dead Americans

    And any American who questions Rice is branded a racist.

    We need a special prosecutor we won't get the truth from these people. Ever.



    What "truth"?  You just don't like the answers that have been provided.  You want to tear down Obama and are desperate to find something, anything to do it.  So you pretend there is a "truth" that you have no facts to support, but it somehow exists even so.  That is not racism just ideological idiocy.

     

     

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

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    So many posts by the clown..  Repeating yourself over and over does not make your statements any closer to being correct. 

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

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    Rueben hates the mean Republicans because they want him to pay for his own pension.

    Those evil rich people who don't pay their fair share should be taxed higher to pay for Rueben's pension.




    Now you are being just plain stupid.  I pay quite alot into that pension system.  And I was a Republican, have voted for them in the past and may well do so in the future if they discard their more ridiculous policies. 

    And none of this has ANYTHING to do with Benghazi.

    Mindless rants are your life apparently.

    Clown.

     
  • 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:

    Rueben hates the mean Republicans because they want him to pay for his own pension.

    Those evil rich people who don't pay their fair share should be taxed higher to pay for Rueben's pension.



    I didn't hear Romney talking about pension reform.  I'm a liberal, and I know we need pension reform - but this was not an issue in this election.

    I didn't hear about any cuts to wellfare or social security either.  The only talks about medicare was Romney pretending that Obama would cut it, and he would save it.

    I did hear Romney promise to cut everybody's taxes, increase military spending by $200 billion, bring us 12 million new jobs, make us energy independent, improve our education system and give us 4% GDP growth.

    Which one did you say was Santa?

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

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    Rueben hates the mean Republicans because they want him to pay for his own pension.

    Those evil rich people who don't pay their fair share should be taxed higher to pay for Rueben's pension.



    I didn't hear Romney talking about pension reform.  I'm a liberal, and I know we need pension reform - but this was not an issue in this election.

    I didn't hear about any cuts to wellfare or social security either.  The only talks about medicare was Romney pretending that Obama would cut it, and he would save it.

    I did hear Romney promise to cut everybody's taxes, increase military spending by $200 billion, bring us 12 million new jobs, make us energy independent, improve our education system and give us 4% GDP growth.

    Which one did you say was Santa?



    Yes, Thurston Howell did act like he was Santa too:)...............

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

    Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I didn't hear Romney talking about pension reform.  I'm a liberal, and I know we need pension reform - but this was not an issue in this election.

    I didn't hear about any cuts to wellfare or social security either.  The only talks about medicare was Romney pretending that Obama would cut it, and he would save it.

    I did hear Romney promise to cut everybody's taxes, increase military spending by $200 billion, bring us 12 million new jobs, make us energy independent, improve our education system and give us 4% GDP growth.

    Which one did you say was Santa?

    [/QUOTE]

    Romney wanted ot be Santa for rich folks.

     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share