Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What about the factcheck Bengahzi timeline? It says nothing.
In terms of the cover up, generally speaking a terrorist attack causes the public to rally around our nation's commander in chief. So, it is not very clear that saying it was a pre planned attack versus an attack that occurred at an opportune moment would make much difference.
But you keep on believing.
If I was a partisan and just making ish up I would have done lost the battle a long time ago. What posses you folks off is that your usually go-to websites aren't at all backing your assertion that the Harvard Law Review and CFR were incompetent claims.
You apparently don't have the mental function understand how a terrorist attack from a group on the run without a leader a few weeks before the election could affect that election.
The reason for the coverup, or misleading narrative to be kinder, is obvious to anyone who's not an Obama fanatic.
It was better politically weeks before an election to have Rice blame the attack on a spontaneous protest that spun out of control because of extremist elements. Why would he want words like terrorism, Al Qaeda, terrorist groups, premeditated, tossed around. Add the troubling questions about prior requests for added security, he had good reason to maximize the folks went crazy narrative.
Nothing impeachable, but won't go away.
0bama chose to send out Susan Rice specifically because, as he said, she knew nothing about Benghazi. This way no one could ask her to elaborate, and go beyond her talking points, because she did not know anything beyond her talking points.
If I was a partisan and just making ish up I would have been lost the battle a long time ago. What posses you folks off is that your usually go-to websites aren't at all backing your assertion that the Harvard Law Review and CFR were incompetent claims.
You did lose the battle.
The spokesperson for the intelligence agencies who handled the report that Susan Rice was given to publicize has stated outright that it was them who chose to change the language for legal and national security reasons and it had nothing to do with politics.
It says nothing? I know the reading skills of Obamaites is several lacking but what part of ignoring facts this admin. did is so hard to understand?
It doesn't say facts were ignored. It literally doesn't make any conclusions. It is just a collection of reports of who said what and on what day. In any situation, there may be some conflicting reports or statements.
Aw, don't go posting a perfect set-up line like that and not expect a response. (The answer, by the way, judging from the number of threads and posts about this non-issue, is pretty damn dumb.)
If I was a partisan and just making ish up I would have been lost the battle a long time ago. What posses you folks off is that your usually go-to websites aren't at all backing your assertion that the Harvard Law Review and CFR were incompetent claims.
You are being partisan. The underlying reasons for the make believe that this is a cover up can't exist outside of the partisan mind.
Partisan minds miss the forest for the trees. You are focusing on the words extremists and spontaneous. You are focusing on the President said act of terror instead of terrorist attacks.
There are questions about security at the consulate about the response time once the attacks occurred, about how we failed to anticipate the attack.
Instead conservatives use this tragedy as yet another President Obama hates America and loves the terrorists, muslims etc nonsense.
Those 30 seats hold no sway anymore. Democrats hold the White House and the upper body of Congress. The once-obstructionist House have no more cards to play and have been rendered impotent to pass a lick of their agenda.
2014 and 2016 will take care of those 30 seats.
And that will go exactly as predicted. When all of your social safety nets, ie ponzu schemes, are in dire straits you'll be expecting to blame someone else for their failures when history shows us that republicans reluctantly did all within their power to keep them afloat disregarding their obvious ponzu scheme'ness.
Apparently you're not one of the big brains that has obviously seen this coming and the only out you have is to suck hundreds of billions of dollars out of the economy just as would be expected of the sucubus you are.
You are being partisan. The underlying reasons for the make believe that this is a cover up can't exist outside of the partisan mind.
Partisan minds miss the forest for the trees. You are focusing on the words extremists and spontaneous. You are focusing on the President said act of terror instead of terrorist attacks.
There are questions about security at the consulate about the response time once the attacks occurred, about how we failed to anticipate the attack.
Instead conservatives use this tragedy as yet another President Obama hates America and loves the terrorists, muslims etc nonsense.
This was a spontaneous attack by people who saw a YouTube video.
No, this wasn't a spontaneous attack provoked by a YouTube video and this was a planned terrorist attack by AQ and it involved intricate planning.
Apparently you have a hard time seeing the truth in this manner. You, along with the Harvard Law Review and CFR just couldn't quite grasp these events.
This was a spontaneous attack by people who saw a YouTube video.
No, this wasn't a spontaneous attack provoked by a YouTube video and this was a planned terrorist attack by AQ and it involved intricate planning.
Apparently you have a hard time seeing the truth in this manner. You, along with the Harvard Law Review and CFR just couldn't quite grasp these events.
It was initially believed the protests in Libya happened as a response to the violent protests in Cairo and that extremists used that as an opportune time to attack the consulate.
The initial belief has been corrected to reflect what is now believed that it was a planned terrorist attack. So again what is the cover up that they said it was an attack of opportunity instead of planned?
The spokesperson for the intelligence agencies who handled the report that Susan Rice was given to publicize has stated outright that it was them who chose to change the language for legal and national security reasons and it had nothing to do with politics.
Period.
It's over.
You lose.
So you have taken the words of Shawn Turner who works for the man who said that al Qaeda had ceased to be any kind of power. What did Clapper say about the Muslim Brotherhood at the time of the overthrow in Egypt?
I think that when you people, along with Clapper, have called Petraeus and King liars you need something to prove that they didn't tell the whole story. You people are trying very hard but I think we better wait a day or two. Did Petraeus resign when he did to make I Won happy and to help protect him or what was the timing when it was all about.
This thread has lots of fun in it for me and I have only read 2 pages of it so far. Oh well, when you have a Democrat Representative standing up for them and busy calling the Republicans liars, along with Petraeus, surely you have nothing but truth flowing from them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(The answer, by the way, judging from the number of threads and posts about this non-issue, is pretty damn dumb.)
