Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 02-12-2014, 11:33 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,495,743 times
Reputation: 27720

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
So whats the point of this thread then ? the second I point out the flaw in the Republican argument, you say you cant trust the report.

There is no point.
Because we won't know what really happened for 50 years when the real truth becomes declassified.
That is how we operate in the US. Just read your history for verification of that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-12-2014, 11:37 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles County, CA
29,094 posts, read 26,013,345 times
Reputation: 6128
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812 View Post
The left will blame Stevens all day long and never, ever, even hint at blaming Hilary
It is similar to blaming a rape victim for a rape.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2014, 11:38 AM
 
924 posts, read 667,400 times
Reputation: 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier View Post
It is similar to blaming a rape victim for a rape.
Don't worry, if it's a legitimate slander, the GOP has a way of working that out.

- Todd Akin
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2014, 11:39 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles County, CA
29,094 posts, read 26,013,345 times
Reputation: 6128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecstatic Magnet View Post
Don't worry, if it's a legitimate slander, the GOP has a way of working that out.

- Todd Akin
Your post makes no sense whatsoever.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2014, 12:13 PM
 
Location: Alameda, CA
7,605 posts, read 4,846,404 times
Reputation: 1438
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Well now do you think they are going to say it was a covert operation gone bad ?
We're weren't supposed to be shipping arms to the Syrian rebels..just bandaids and food.
There may very well be reasons why the CIA put out a false scenario. I'm not sure what the value is to the CIA to put out a false scenario that would be proven to be wrong in a short time period.

My personally opinion is that it was just confusion between the CIA agents in the field and CIA analysts in Washington. If you read the initial CIA assessment in the initial CIA talking points its pretty open ended. I think the CIA analysts didn't want to be accused of missing anything, so the included all the possibilities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2014, 12:24 PM
Status: "everybody getting reported now.." (set 24 days ago)
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,560 posts, read 16,548,014 times
Reputation: 6042
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Because we won't know what really happened for 50 years when the real truth becomes declassified.
That is how we operate in the US. Just read your history for verification of that.
Which reinforces my point, If you are going to make that claim, then what is the point of this thread then ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2014, 12:33 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,495,743 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
Which reinforces my point, If you are going to make that claim, then what is the point of this thread then ?
To debate and voice opinions. Sometimes they do serve to sway one's thinking.
And given the history of the US and some of their nefarious schemes I'm considering both stories.

The CIA was going to murder Americans citizens in our streets to provoke a war.
How sick is that ?
The CIA was going to pay someone in Castro's government to launch an attack on Guantanamo Bay and kill Americans.
How sick is that ?

JFK refused to approve.
JFK got assassinated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2014, 12:35 PM
Status: "everybody getting reported now.." (set 24 days ago)
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,560 posts, read 16,548,014 times
Reputation: 6042
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
To debate and voice opinions. Sometimes they do serve to sway one's thinking.
And given the history of the US and some of their nefarious schemes I'm considering both stories.

The CIA was going to murder Americans citizens in our streets to provoke a war.
How sick is that ?
The CIA was going to pay someone in Castro's government to launch an attack on Guantanamo Bay and kill Americans.
How sick is that ?

JFK refused to approve.
JFK got assassinated.

So you believe in that the military/CIA assassinated JFK ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2014, 05:28 PM
 
9,470 posts, read 6,971,219 times
Reputation: 2177
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth View Post
Both the characterization of Benghazi as a spontaneous attack and connecting it to the video came from the CIA.
No, they did not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2014, 05:33 PM
 
9,470 posts, read 6,971,219 times
Reputation: 2177
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth View Post
There may very well be reasons why the CIA put out a false scenario.
No, it did not. The administration made it up and had the CIA people write it down so as to keep the WH fingerprints of the lie, in case the inevitable investigation got too close. This IS the "Chicago thug politician" modus operadi.

Quote:
I'm not sure what the value is to the CIA to put out a false scenario that would be proven to be wrong in a short time period.
It was asked for so the administration could continue to lie with a straight face.

Quote:
My personally opinion is that it was just confusion between the CIA agents in the field and CIA analysts in Washington.
Climbing a tree to tell a lie, when you can stand on the ground to be truthful? Doesn't make the slightest sense.

Quote:
If you read the initial CIA assessment in the initial CIA talking points its pretty open ended. I think the CIA analysts didn't want to be accused of missing anything, so the included all the possibilities.
The purpose was to provide cover to the White House, so it could continue with the "al qaeda is on the run" rhetoric during an election.

The president has now co-opted our intelligence agencies as propaganda producers for the Democrat Party.
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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:20 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top