CIA knew almost immediately that attack was terrorism

[Quantum Windbag]

Ok. Though I admit this is a pointless excercise I will attempt to explain this in small words. An "asset" is a person with information who can tell us stuff. If you say you know something and the bad men know only so many people could have told you, that tells them who the asset might be. So smart national security people try not to let the bad guys know what they know in order to protect who is telling them stuff. That way, those people can continue to tell them stuff rather than be shot by the bad guys.

I can only assume you don't work in any kind of classified position, which should be a relief for us all.

The Libyan government publicly announced that it was an act of terror, and that it was preplanned, the day after the attack.

If Obama is worried about protecting assets why didn't he make sure the doctor who helped us identify bin Laden was safe before he announced the attack? Why didn't he send people into the consulate the next day to gather up classified materials, including the names of "assets" in the local militia groups? Do you have any reasonable explanation of how it would have endangered assets to admit the self evident truth when everyone in the world knows we have cell phones, and that we actually rescued the people that were in Benghazi before Obama tried to blame the video? Do you think it is reasonable to presume that the people who were under attack were aware that there was no demonstration before the attack?

Seriously dude, stop rationalizing, it's pathetic.

Think what you like. I said I knew it was a pointless exercise.

Is it pointless because you prefer to bury your head in the sand rather than ask questions?

 

[Freemason9]

Easy to sum it up, the CIA told everyone one thing, and the White House came up with a different story they liked better.

Even if this is utterly true, what fucking difference does it make??

You don't have a problem with the leader of the free world concocting a lie, looking you in the eye and then lying? Really? Cuckold. Do you feel really safe now? welldoyahuh? And, then the bastard stood right there willing to let Petraeus fall on the sword.

(1) All American politicians lie to varying degrees. Did you not know this?
(2) Really.
(3) Why are you calling me a cuckold?
(4) I never felt insecure to begin with. I don't ever buy into government-induced hysteria.
(5) Don't care about generals, they presumably can take care of themselves.

 

[WillowTree]

Even if this is utterly true, what fucking difference does it make??

You don't have a problem with the leader of the free world concocting a lie, looking you in the eye and then lying? Really? Cuckold. Do you feel really safe now? welldoyahuh? And, then the bastard stood right there willing to let Petraeus fall on the sword.

(1) All American politicians lie to varying degrees. Did you not know this?
(2) Really.
(3) Why are you calling me a cuckold?
(4) I never felt insecure to begin with. I don't ever buy into government-induced hysteria.
(5) Don't care about generals, they presumably can take care of themselves.

so to you it's okay for a leader of the free world to stand before his citizenery and lie about a four star general? really?

 

[bitterlyclingin]

General Jack Keane (Ret) on Fox: Petraeus was asked to supply the Administration with a list of unclassified talking points they could use regarding Benghazi. After handing them over he lost track of them. Who in the administration changed what is unknown at this moment? Keane didn't think it was anyone at State or DOD who did it.
"We've got an election to win1 We can't let this out!"

Governments lie to their people from time to time. The Japanese fleet retired to the harbor at Okinawa after their disastrous encounter with the American Navy in the Battle Of The Phillipine Sea. The sailors onboard the surviving ships were restricted shipboard for fear news of the catastrophe might leak out and somehow find its way back to the Japanese people on the Home Islands. The Obama administration is behaving exactly the same way Democrat Ted Kennedy did after driving his car off the bridge at Chappaquiddick, leaving Mary Joe Kopechne inside the submerged car to drown, returning home, lawyering up in advance of notifying the police some twelve hours after the event happened.

 

[Care4all]

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....?

 

[koshergrl]

In other words, Care doesn't care. Whatever the admin did was A-OK, and it was probably someone else's fault.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

 

[Dreamy]

You gotta admit the lefty loons are extremely adept at twisting themselves like pretzels in order to convince themselves Barry & Co. haven't lied their asses off and continue to.

They want to believe his rose garden words specifically referred to Benghazi, not 9/11/01. Fine. So why then did Rice continually insist, four days later, on the Sunday shows it was because of the video? And why did Barry say the same thing a couple of days later on Letterman? And why two weeks after the incident did he blame the video in front of the world at the UN?

He and members of his administration have lied themselves right into a corner, and the stooges among us are proving once again there are none so blind as those who will not see.

I would very much like to know the truth about what happened in Benghazi. However, there are a lot of people here who are not interested in the truth. They are more interested in damaging the President as much as possible. We know this by the fact they have spewed a torrent of lies and bogus conspiracy theories themselves.

Liars and conspiracy nutters don't get to judge anyone else. They are hypocrites because they are liars themselves.

Obama's fuckups in Benghazi probably won't reach the level they are hoping for, and so they have to exaggerate and lie.

Gee, he made the wrong call in public about the attack. He said it was the fault of the video instead of a terrorist attack. Not quite impeachment-worthy, so let's start making up lies that would make him look a lot worse.

You know what? Obama alternated between the video and terrorist act in the days immediately following the attack.

And?

Should the consulate have been better protected? Well, it was 9/11 all over the world, and we don't have enough resources to protect every one of our sites to the level of being able to withstand a mortar attack.

The people of our Foreign Service know going in that it is a very dangerous job.

This was a tragedy. Lessons can and should be learned.

But the howling mob of moronic lying piss drinkers do not get to control the conversation. Some people have a serious lack of impulse control and are incapable of waiting for the facts. When they find themselves in an information vacuum, they feel the need to fill it with fantasies.

Any judgement they pass isn't worth a wooden nickel.

.


.

I would very much like to know the truth about what happened in Benghazi. However, there are a lot of people here who are not interested in the truth.

Don't be so pompous or think you rise above the rest of us on this issue. Put myself and many other American citizens down as people seeking the truth and finding anything but based on the manner and timing this was presented to us by the WH, the President himself and his various mouthpieces and administration front people.

According to Deputy State Department Spokesperson Victoria Nuland, the U.S. government spent $70,000 to air a television advertisement on seven Pakistani television stations. The ad featured Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama condemning the YouTube video.

US spends $70k on ads denouncing anti-Islam film

 

[Ravi]

I almost feel sorry for the nutters. Talk about hysterical fauxrage.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Liberal scum will point to any distraction to protect their criminal leaders....

"Petreaus had an affair."
"Gen Allen accused of dirty emails."
"There were protests in Egypt."

Blah, blah, blah

 

[Care4all]

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

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Can you imagine if Bush or any Republican even tried to lie like Obama is lying?

 

[Dreamy]

I almost feel sorry for the nutters. Talk about hysterical fauxrage.

Okay Rav, no one is hysterical here nor nearing anything close to rage, faux or otherwise. Your next lesson is to look up the word "hyperbole".

I almost feel sorry for those who bring little substance to this thread, but not too sorry, well except for the sorrow that this country suffers because they actually vote using the brain that lacks honest critical thinking.

 

[Valerie]

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....?

Because of the timing right in the middle of a Presidential election, the public reaction to this event has totally jumped the shark IMO...



http://www.usmessageboard.com/middl...embassador-to-lybia-killed-7.html#post5972977


http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...bate-poll-thursday-10-16-a-2.html#post6172281

 

[bitterlyclingin]

[Reporter Joy Ann Reid:"So they took the word 'Terrorism' out! I don't see what the scandal is?"

As the author of the linked article also states "The universities of today are nothing more than Marxist breeding grounds"

The author of another article "Is Obama Sabotaging America" on fr also posits Huma Abedin, former NY Democratic Representative Anthony "twitter pics of your genitalia to strangers" Weiner's wife, Hillary Clinton's administrative assistant at State, as well as the daughter of two Muslim Brotherhood principals in Egypt, might be the culprit for the changes. Hil and the Obambi might have gone to her for guidance in how to make the CIA's talking points less offensive to Muslims, according the Administrations established policy of "Letting the Muslims win" and she graciously made the final changes so no Muslims would be offended.]

"Consider this possibility … the talking points came from the CIA, and they were altered by the campaign people in Chicago. The coverup has been about hiding the sharing of classified information with campaign officials who don’t have the proper clearance. This sharing of information could also be the source of the earlier leaks such as the virus in Iran’s nuclear program.

I’ve always wondered why David Axelrod appeared on news programs to talk about the administration’s official policies when he was a campaign official. Those of us old enough to remember Watergate will recall the mixing of official administration business with CREEP (Committee to Reelect the President) activities and the Democrat’s outrage at the time. Perhaps we are seeing the results of a similar improper mix.


I suspect too that, if true, this is more than just an “improper mix.” Legal lines may have been crossed here with a political campaign redacting or helping to redact classified material it should never have seen in the first place.

What may emerge is a kind of government by cabal, a super-government composed of David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, Eric Holder, and possibly a few others who operated, in the service of the president, above and beyond our legal and constitutional systems — all the time thinking what they did was for the better good of our country.

Watergate anyone? Of course as we all know, no one died during that scandal."

Benghazi-gate…What Did They Know & When Did They Know It? | Flopping Aces

 

[koshergrl]

I almost feel sorry for the nutters. Talk about hysterical fauxrage.

Okay Rav, no one is hysterical here nor nearing anything close to rage, faux or otherwise. Your next lesson is to look up the word "hyperbole".

I almost feel sorry for those who bring little substance to this thread, but not too sorry, well except for the sorrow that this country suffers because they actually vote using the brain that lacks honest critical thinking.

I just assumed ravtard was talking about herself..."hysterical" and "rav" just naturally go together.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

 

[Moonglow]

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?

 

[Dreamy]

I almost feel sorry for the nutters. Talk about hysterical fauxrage.

Okay Rav, no one is hysterical here nor nearing anything close to rage, faux or otherwise. Your next lesson is to look up the word "hyperbole".

I almost feel sorry for those who bring little substance to this thread, but not too sorry, well except for the sorrow that this country suffers because they actually vote using the brain that lacks honest critical thinking.

I just assumed ravtard was talking about herself..."hysterical" and "rav" just naturally go together.

I don't even know the person but she seems to think she knows me and the actual emotions of people on this thread might be feeling. Funny shit.

Back on topic:

Benghazi is a legitimate issue to discuss.


It highlights the very crux of Obama’s style of governance including his foreign policy expertise or lack of, his ability to tell the truth and his truly reckless mixing of politics and national security.

The fact that the election came so soon after the attacks and he was able to evade and deflect and deceive in the weeks following speaks to the man's lack of integrity as CIC.

 

[Ravi]

anyone notice that the hearings were behind closed doors today? No?

What a bunch of moronic fucktards the rightwingloonies are.