Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
anyone notice that the hearings were behind closed doors today? No?
What a bunch of moronic fucktards the rightwingloonies are.
anyone notice that the hearings were behind closed doors today? No?
What a bunch of moronic fucktards the rightwingloonies are.
Obama told people to lie to cover up the true nature of a terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11 that resulted in the deaths of 4 Americans including the US Ambassador.
Yeah, no problem there.
Got any proof?
Former CIA Director David Petraeus stoked the controversy over the Obama administration's handling of the Libya terror attack, testifying Friday that references to "Al Qaeda involvement" were stripped from his agency's original talking points -- while other intelligence officials were unable to say who changed the memo, according to a top lawmaker who was briefed.
Read more: Intel officials unable to say who changed CIA talking points on Libya, lawmaker says | Fox News
I really do not understand why some of us are so hung up on the issue of what EXACTLY motivated that terrorist attack.
Coming as it did very after the outrage over that movie became an international issue, it seems possible that the movie gave the terrorists an excuse for that specific attack.
Of course, given that US embassies and property are and have been attacked regularly over the last score of years, anyway, the timing of the attack could have been purely coincidental, too.
But per usual, the right wing kooks are seeking to turn a molehill into a mountain of faux outrage over some goofy notion that FOX news lying-heads fed them.
It WAS NOT about the movie, they insist, as though that was the only germane issue of the attack.
Who cares what the specific motivation was? I ask myself, " Given that Islamic fundmentalists need no specific motivation to attack us other than the same hate for the USA they have had for the last 30+ years."
There is and there has ALWAYS BEEN a classified briefing and a non classified briefing on events such as this and such as the events of 9/11/2001.... I have absolutely no idea why all of you think that this is not the case? Or that this is not protocol?
sure, I can agree that I want to know EVERYTHING right when it is happening and don't want the unclassified version, but want the CLASSIFIED version immediately! But what I want and what is the reality of what we are always given...the unclassified version, isn't going to change anytime soon is my best guess.
and another thing, General petraus is now saying that he thought and knew immediately it was a terrorist attack....he didn't know by who, and didn't know how it fit in with the rioting, but he knew it was a terrorist attack..... so tell me, why are the republicans, that were on the intelligence select committees saying that General Petraus never said that to them when he was briefing them? Yet Petraus says he did say this to them when he was briefing them?
Does the Intelligence select committees get a watered down version and are they not told the full classified version as the Democrats claimed when it came to 9/11/2001 briefing that you all swore up and down was a lie by the Democrats? Did congress vote for giving Bush the power to go to war against Iraq on incomplete classified information as the Dems claimed back then....and you all mocked?
Was this bush/cheney's decision to NOT brief the intelligence select committees with all of the classified information so that they could get the vote they wanted that would give them the power to send our troops to war?
If so, how do you all feel about that...?
I suppose there are reasons why we the people, are always given an unclassified versions of events and that we are unaware of the behind the scene intelligence/security reasons of why.... Is this truly unreasonable to those of you on the right?
Again, King is saying that the intelligence select committees were told something different by Petraus when he briefed them....they got the SAME story that Susan rice was using to inform us? Yet petrayus says that's not true?
That part is confusing to me and I guess we will just have to wait and see what else comes out....?
The fact that the attack is terrorism was never classified. Even if it was, Obama claims he let the cat out of the bag the day after the attack. There is no need to pretend that the video was the cause even if the was a reason to keep the terrorist affiliation classified. Arguing that we do not have a right to know what happened because of national security when everyone already knows just makes you look stupid.
On the other hand, it is nice to see that you are finally asking the questions that need to be asked.
yes, the details of it WAS classified information at the time....I don't know why, and YOU don't know why...and that's a fact....
anything you say or I say on the subject beyond that, is simply speculation on both our parts
The recently resigned spy chief explained that references to terrorist groups suspected of carrying out the violence were removed from the public explanation of what caused the attack so as not to tip off the groups that the U.S. intelligence community was on their trail, according to lawmakers who attended the private briefings.
The recently resigned spy chief explained that references to terrorist groups suspected of carrying out the violence were removed from the public explanation of what caused the attack so as not to tip off the groups that the U.S. intelligence community was on their trail, according to lawmakers who attended the private briefings.
Petraeus: U.S. didn't reveal role of terrorists in Benghazi to avoid tipping them off - San Jose Mercury News
Today, Patreus admitted that the administration was telling the public what he had told them, which included initial reports that the attack could have come out of a protest.
Later, he discovered that wasn't the case as the information got more clear and adjusted to reality, just like the administration did.
What we need to know is the time in-between what Patreus knew and how long he sat on some information, since he did say something about wanting to keep some information classified early on.
I am having a hard time tracking the story I am supposed to believe.
CNN: Petraeus Knew "Almost Immediately" That Benghazi Was Terrorism | RealClearPolitics
- Obama tells everyone that the attack was a protest over the video.
- He then insists he said it was terrorism from the beginning.
- UN Ambassador Susan Rice goes on multiple talk shows saying it was a protest over the video.
- Does anyone notice this directly contradicts what Obama says he said?
- Obama insists that we should question him if we have a problem with his story.
- He continues to hide behind a press that is willing to cover for him leaving those of us that want to question him wondering how that is supposed to happen.
- Sources back up the fact that Rice was lied to by CIA.
- Petreaus is set to testify that CIA knew almost immediately that attack was not about video.
This leads to new questions that I will be accused of being a racist sexist bigot for even thinking about.
I am having a hard time tracking the story I am supposed to believe.
CNN: Petraeus Knew "Almost Immediately" That Benghazi Was Terrorism | RealClearPolitics
- Obama tells everyone that the attack was a protest over the video.
- He then insists he said it was terrorism from the beginning.
- UN Ambassador Susan Rice goes on multiple talk shows saying it was a protest over the video.
- Does anyone notice this directly contradicts what Obama says he said?
- Obama insists that we should question him if we have a problem with his story.
- He continues to hide behind a press that is willing to cover for him leaving those of us that want to question him wondering how that is supposed to happen.
- Sources back up the fact that Rice was lied to by CIA.
- Petreaus is set to testify that CIA knew almost immediately that attack was not about video.
This leads to new questions that I will be accused of being a racist sexist bigot for even thinking about.
Basically you are finding "scandal" by splitting hairs.
It's disgusting. And it won't solve shit.
Quite the opposite. It makes it harder to govern.
But then again..you folks absolutely hate the government when people you don't like are running it.
Basically, I am trying to hold the government accountable for what it says to us, just like you pretend to do, but only if the guy in the oval office is named Bush.
The recently resigned spy chief explained that references to terrorist groups suspected of carrying out the violence were removed from the public explanation of what caused the attack so as not to tip off the groups that the U.S. intelligence community was on their trail, according to lawmakers who attended the private briefings.
Petraeus: U.S. didn't reveal role of terrorists in Benghazi to avoid tipping them off - San Jose Mercury News
you meant Petraeus didn't want to tell the terrorists they were terrorists>>> how fucking creative.. dayuuuummm
Petraeus: U.S. didn't reveal role of terrorists in Benghazi to avoid tipping them off - San Jose Mercury NewsThe recently resigned spy chief explained that references to terrorist groups suspected of carrying out the violence were removed from the public explanation of what caused the attack so as not to tip off the groups that the U.S. intelligence community was on their trail, according to lawmakers who attended the private briefings.
What it 'said' to us..was what it was told. I find it really interesting that the jury's still out on the "motivation". The attackers may have been pissed by the stupid video.
The reality is..that there were multiple protests on the same day all across the region that were DEFINITELY a result of the vid. Was that vid the beginning and end of why people in that region are pissed at us? Of course not.
They are pissed because we install governments, grab their resources and keep our military bases in their region.
Adding insult to that injury is making fun of their culture and religion.
Do the fucking math.
They haven't caught those responsible for the attack yet but now it's ok to let the bad guys know we are onto them and say we know terrorists committed the attack.
They haven't caught those responsible for the attack yet but now it's ok to let the bad guys know we are onto them and say we know terrorists committed the attack.
Most criminals assume the police are looking for them, even if they aren't. It is the one thing cops have going for them, which is why police lie to reporters all the time about having leads and to knowing more than they do.
Given that the attackers were driving around in trucks that were pained in their colors and with their logo on the fucking sides, they would have to be idiots to think that nobody knew who they were. They obviously did not care, yet you still are arguing that they didn't know we knew who they were, and that it is better to pretend we are idiots than to pretend we know more than we do.
Want to actually try to defend that position right here and now?
They haven't caught those responsible for the attack yet but now it's ok to let the bad guys know we are onto them and say we know terrorists committed the attack.
Most criminals assume the police are looking for them, even if they aren't. It is the one thing cops have going for them, which is why police lie to reporters all the time about having leads and to knowing more than they do.
Given that the attackers were driving around in trucks that were pained in their colors and with their logo on the fucking sides, they would have to be idiots to think that nobody knew who they were. They obviously did not care, yet you still are arguing that they didn't know we knew who they were, and that it is better to pretend we are idiots than to pretend we know more than we do.
Want to actually try to defend that position right here and now?
CIA knew almost immediately that attack was terrorism
