U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-08-2016, 03:30 PM
 
Location: Alameda, CA
7,465 posts, read 3,960,175 times
Reputation: 1369

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981 View Post
forget it.
You requested that I listen to the dribble in that video and now you say forget it? Are you just admitting that there was a lot of misinformation in the video?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-08-2016, 03:36 PM
 
Location: Alameda, CA
7,465 posts, read 3,960,175 times
Reputation: 1369
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama View Post
You're avoiding the whole issue that I keep trying to get you to address. Why didn't the WH address the al-Qaida terrorist elements involved in their public statements. Why didn't they mention revenge for the death of the al-Qaida leader as a possible motivator in both Egypt and Libya. Those were in early IC analyses. Did Clinton and the WH stop hearing about those updated assessments. If the answer is for security and investigative reasons, fine. Otherwise, the public statements were not consistent with the IC analyses.


Ben Rhodes understood that total blame on the video, spontaneous attacks by protesting Libyans, was a lot better than introducing organized terrorist organizations into the equation.
They were receiving mixed intelligence on who was involved. I'm unaware that the Obama Administration ever denied that terrorists or Islamic extremists were involved. In fact to this day, its not clear to me that the intelligence services know exactly everyone involved. However, perhaps they are just not making that information public.

To which Ben Rhodes statement are you referring?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2016, 03:41 PM
 
Location: Newport Beach, California
33,290 posts, read 20,103,715 times
Reputation: 12998
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth View Post
You requested that I listen to the dribble in that video and now you say forget it? Are you just admitting that there was a lot of misinformation in the video?
Because I realized that what you said is what you believed. No need to convince you otherwise. So forget it. Fair?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2016, 03:43 PM
 
Location: Secure Bunker
5,464 posts, read 2,499,789 times
Reputation: 5242
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth View Post
They were receiving mixed intelligence on who was involved. I'm unaware that the Obama Administration ever denied that terrorists or Islamic extremists were involved. In fact to this day, its not clear to me that the intelligence services know exactly everyone involved. However, perhaps they are just not making that information public.

To which Ben Rhodes statement are you referring?

You miss the point. They lied about the motivation. Had nothing to do with a video.

Maybe it had something to do with Obama and Hillary's gun running operation in Libya. Whaddya think?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2016, 04:19 PM
 
9,529 posts, read 4,870,157 times
Reputation: 3876
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth View Post
They were receiving mixed intelligence on who was involved. I'm unaware that the Obama Administration ever denied that terrorists or Islamic extremists were involved. In fact to this day, its not clear to me that the intelligence services know exactly everyone involved. However, perhaps they are just not making that information public.

To which Ben Rhodes statement are you referring?
If you don't think a reference to terrorists with ties to al-Qaida was important to mention, so be it. According to Morell's testimony:


"The critically important point is that the analysts considered this a terrorist attack from the very beginning."

If the words 'terrorist attack' don't have special significance our Gov't. officials wouldn't be so careful to avoid them.


There also were reports that Panetta informed Senators of both parties that it was a planned terrorist attack within three days.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2016, 04:40 PM
 
12,718 posts, read 3,225,977 times
Reputation: 1579
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama View Post
If you don't think a reference to terrorists with ties to al-Qaida was important to mention, so be it. According to Morell's testimony:

"The critically important point is that the analysts considered this a terrorist attack from the very beginning."

If the words 'terrorist attack' don't have special significance our Gov't. officials wouldn't be so careful to avoid them.

There also were reports that Panetta informed Senators of both parties that it was a planned terrorist attack within three days.
Can't say I'm any kind of government insider, but I would be very surprised if protocol is not to announce to the public that terrorism is cause for such events only after solidly confirmed and/or verified. Nothing too hard to understand about that I don't think...

Not like Trump's protocol, I might add, as he announces acts of terrorism before anyone else can! The truth of the matter can wait until later!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2016, 04:44 PM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,218 posts, read 6,796,734 times
Reputation: 2034
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyster View Post
If it weren't for the Benghazi investigation we never would have known that the administration lied about the attack and that Hillary Clinton was grossly negligent (and maybe criminal) in her handling of highly classified information.

I'd say the investigation was a win.
That's they way you are going to spin it, by all means.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2016, 05:56 PM
 
9,529 posts, read 4,870,157 times
Reputation: 3876
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981 View Post
well, I will agree with the "left" on one thing

The Benghazi hearing was a self-destructive, partisan embarrassment

I would have asked different questions.
They need Judicial Watch to conduct hearings and investigations on their behalf.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2016, 06:09 PM
 
9,529 posts, read 4,870,157 times
Reputation: 3876
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe View Post
Can't say I'm any kind of government insider, but I would be very surprised if protocol is not to announce to the public that terrorism is cause for such events only after solidly confirmed and/or verified. Nothing too hard to understand about that I don't think...

Not like Trump's protocol, I might add, as he announces acts of terrorism before anyone else can! The truth of the matter can wait until later!
Changed your mind about calling it a day

What does Trump have to do with this ?

I see, it's A-Ok to blame the video, though it never was mentioned in the IC analysis, but protocol to not mention terrorists referred to in the IC analysis.

I'm willing to accept an argument that Obama, Clinton, the WH could not mention terrorist links publicly because of security or investigative concerns. That's not what you and other excuse-makers do. It's obvious that within days the intelligence information leaned more toward a terrorist-linked attack than a bunch of upset Libyans who went home to get their machine guns, grenades, rocket propelled grenades, and mortars to avenge insults to Muhammad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2016, 06:30 PM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,218 posts, read 6,796,734 times
Reputation: 2034
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama View Post
They need Judicial Watch to conduct hearings and investigations on their behalf.
Lol.... Just keep throwing money at until you get the answer you seek huh?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top