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.
Where was the President, since he wasn't in the situation room at that time? It's been reported that he was being prepped for the debate. If that took priority over what was going in Benghazi, with Benghazi being pushed to a back burner, I can see why it would be viewed as abandonment while our people were being massacred.
The president was in the White House. And once he ordered the military to use all available resources to rescue everyone at the Benghazi compound, his proper role was to move back, let those with career experience in the military do what they had to do, and receive updates. And this is what he did. Him being in the Situation Room is unimportant, since the Sit Room would provide him with whatever intelligence and secured communications he would need anywhere in the White House - that's the primary purpose of the Sit Room.
Quote:
Thorough investigation of death is never "exploitation". We have a responsibility to those who died, their families, and the citizens of this country to dig for the truth, and especially ever more persistently when there is partisan opposition to the investigation.
It's too bad republicans are playing word games, rather than investigating anything of significance. And it's remarkably bad that they're wasting time and money investigating claims that can be easily refuted simply by looking at publicly available data. There are reasonable questions here, such as "how far along is State in implementing the security recommendations they were given?" Or "How far along are we in capturing the people responsible for the Benghazi attacks?" But "who in the White House ordered a cover up?" is a stupid question, since the evidence shows that no such cover up exists in the first place.
The president was in the White House. And once he ordered the military to use all available resources to rescue everyone at the Benghazi compound, his proper role was to move back, let those with career experience in the military do what they had to do, and receive updates. And this is what he did. Him being in the Situation Room is unimportant, since the Sit Room would provide him with whatever intelligence and secured communications he would need anywhere in the White House - that's the primary purpose of the Sit Room.
It's too bad republicans are playing word games, rather than investigating anything of significance. And it's remarkably bad that they're wasting time and money investigating claims that can be easily refuted simply by looking at publicly available data. There are reasonable questions here, such as "how far along is State in implementing the security recommendations they were given?" Or "How far along are we in capturing the people responsible for the Benghazi attacks?" But "who in the White House ordered a cover up?" is a stupid question, since the evidence shows that no such cover up exists in the first place.
The issue here with respect has nothing to do with where the president was.
It has to do with only 2 things.
1. The policy decisions that led to the laps
2. MOST IMPORTANTLY the Presidential level decisions to cover up the CAUSE to insure his election.
Obama knew from the day it happened that this was a terrorist attack. He then sent Rice out to tell the world it was a protest gone wrong in the wake of a video by and idiot.
THAT is the issue here. Our President lied to us about the cause of American deaths at the hands of terrorists to insure he got re-elected.
The president was in the White House. And once he ordered the military to use all available resources to rescue everyone at the Benghazi compound, his proper role was to move back, let those with career experience in the military do what they had to do, and receive updates. And this is what he did. Him being in the Situation Room is unimportant, since the Sit Room would provide him with whatever intelligence and secured communications he would need anywhere in the White House - that's the primary purpose of the Sit Room.
Either you were there or are remarkably clairvoyant. Which is it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadoken
It's too bad republicans are playing word games, rather than investigating anything of significance. And it's remarkably bad that they're wasting time and money investigating claims that can be easily refuted simply by looking at publicly available data.
This is the new liberal talking point. There's nothing to see here these aren't the droids you're looking for, move along.
The administration had to be ordered to release these emails. They held them back for 20 months, making the "available data" incomplete. Again, the magnitude of a Benghazi cover-up would dwarf Watergate, and Nixon resigned over that.
The issue here with respect has nothing to do with where the president was.
Yes, I know that, so tell it to people like Southward Bound and steven_h.
Quote:
It has to do with only 2 things.
1. The policy decisions that led to the laps
This is fully worth investigating - except it has already been investigated, and four people in the Department of State have resigned as a result of the findings.
Quote:
2. MOST IMPORTANTLY the Presidential level decisions to cover up the CAUSE to insure his election.
This would be worth investigating, if there were any evidence that it happened. But since the evidence points in the opposite direction, showing that the White House did it's best to let Americans know what happened, there's no point in this.
Quote:
Obama knew from the day it happened that this was a terrorist attack. He then sent Rice out to tell the world it was a protest gone wrong in the wake of a video by and idiot.
Those are not contradictory statements. A terrorist attack can be in response to a video.
More importantly, we know, and have long known, that the CIA at the time thought that the attack was a response to the video "The Innocence of Muslims", and that they knew that this was only a preliminary assessment, which is exactly what Susan Rice said on the various unimportant Sunday shows.
Yes, I know that, so tell it to people like Southward Bound and steven_h.
This would be worth investigating, if there were any evidence that it happened. But since the evidence points in the opposite direction, showing that the White House did it's best to let Americans know what happened, there's no point in this.
Those are not contradictory statements. A terrorist attack can be in response to a video.
More importantly, we know, and have long known, that the CIA at the time thought that the attack was a response to the video "The Innocence of Muslims", and that they knew that this was only a preliminary assessment, which is exactly what Susan Rice said on the various unimportant Sunday shows.
NO the evidence does NOT point in the opposite direction. WE KNOW that everyone knew it was a terrorist attack the day it happened. We know this because we know what they were saying.
We also know that Susan Rice was summoned to the Whitehouse, was briefed and sent to the Sunday Talk shows to say it was that stupid video that had nothing to do with it.
WE KNOW THESE THINGS AND THIS IS WHAT THE EVIDENCE SAYS.
this is nonsense and we know it is but that wont stop liberals from spouting the company line. its what you do. its what matters. Republicans need to take notice, and start playing the game by the rules the liberals have created.
I appreciate that you think there are still unanswered questions about Benghazi, but Mr Gowdy is not seeking answers, he's seeking re-election, and he's seeking any way he can to keep Benghazi in the spotlight to help him win re-election.
Which is all good and well, it is after all politics. But when the bill comes down for this special committee, and how much this investigation costs the US taxpayers, I'd really like a discussion of accountability. Because if nothing new comes of this investigation, and I doubt anything really earth-shaking will come of it, will it be worth the cost? Will Gowdy's re-election campaign pay the costs? Answer: no. But this is all about his re-election.
How does anyone know for sure that the attack was not video related. There were many attackers and who is to say that there were not attackers that were pissed off about the video. No one has interviewed the attackers themselves have they? There was such a cloud as to what was actually happening.
SHOW ME PROOF THERE WERE NOT ATTACKERS THERE BECAUSE OF THE VIDEO.
As a merchant I fell victim to credit card fraud and the FBI wouldn't touch anything under 50k. I finally convince the Secret Service to get involved and they brought in the Sheriffs. 800k is huge to you and I, but chump change to the government. I believe the MAX sentence for this crime is 4 years.
I believe the video had been on youtube for 9 months prior to Benghazi.
The point was his video had nothing to do with Benghazi, and it never did.
Without looking it up, I believe his sentence was around 5 years. He got out on a parole from that sentence and promptly violated the conditions of the parole. As I wrote earlier odds are that if his film hadn't gained world wide attention no one would have realized that he violated his parole. Making the film the way he did and posting it on the internet were violations of his parole.
I was responding to your statement that: "This 'small time criminal" did nothing to incite an international incident." His film was used to spark multiple international incidents with numerous deaths and assaults on multiple U.S. Diplomatic facilities. https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid...66defab9&msa=0
I never claimed that Benghazi was the result of the video. The CIA asserted that Benghazi was linked to Cairo. Cairo was linked to the video. Susan Rice in her comments on the infamous Sunday Talk shows referenced the video in relationship to Cairo, which the CIA had linked to Benghazi. The CIA didn't change their assessment for around 2 weeks.
The issue here with respect has nothing to do with where the president was.
Perhaps you need to consider changing your audience. More Republicans need that message than Democrats or Independents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd
It has to do with only 2 things.
1. The policy decisions that led to the laps
2. MOST IMPORTANTLY the Presidential level decisions to cover up the CAUSE to insure his election.
Oh... and you were doing so well.
The second point here is the most cretinous stupid of all of them. By every rational measure, if that was a cover up it was the most cavalier coverup in the history of cover ups, considering that it lasted mere days, that the story was completely clarified more than a month before the election, and that even the most recent emails verify that nothing was being concealed.
Ever since Watergate, it has been a Republican wet dream to catch a democratic President pulling a Nixon. Alas, this is another false alarm. Sorry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd
Obama knew from the day it happened that this was a terrorist attack. He then sent Rice out to tell the world it was a protest gone wrong in the wake of a video by and idiot.
You've never had a bullet fired at you in anger have you? Because I assure you, anybody who believed that knew what happened from the day it happened is a liar. The real world grants that level of omniscience to no one. I am probably one of very few forum members here who have ever been the target of a terrorist attack. This was in 1980. Thirty-four years later we still don't have a perfectly clear picture of what happened that day.
Given the events in the rest of the Muslim world at that time, the video was an obvious and reasonable catalyst to consider.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd
THAT is the issue here. Our President lied to us about the cause of American deaths at the hands of terrorists to insure he got re-elected.
No. That is what cynical right wing politicos wish was the issue here. And so they shamelessly engage in the most ghoulish dancing on the graves of murdered Americans I have seen since the Palestinians celebrated the original 9/11.
it wont happen the way I want but what I want is simple.
Get down to the single focused thing about Bengazi that is sick
The President of the United States, covered up the cause of American getting killed so he could get re-elected.
It is clear that that this happened because of POLICY, but in the heat of the campaign Obama and team deflected blame to some idiot who made a movie that had no impact whatsoever in the Bengazi attack.
THIS is the issue. Its sick. Its disgusting and every American deserves to know that Barak Obama danced in the blood of American patriots to win an election.
Prove it. The evidence produced so far indicates that the characterization of the attack in Benghazi didn't come from Obama or his election team, it came from the CIA.
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.
