Who really killed our Ambassador to Libya?

[D H]

Innuendo my a--.

Innuendo, and piles and piles of it, is all that you and Fox have put forth in this issue. You yourself earlier admitted that it is pure innuendo:

 

What can I say? Everything I've enumerated on this topic has nothing to do with being factual, only supposition.

 

rigney, you have yet to answer any of the questions put forth to you in this thread.

• What, exactly, is the Obama administration guilty of?
  (Correct answer: They're guilty of not being able to foresee the future, and of initially incorrectly reading things due to the fog of war.)
  
• How, exactly, does the Obama administration benefit from Petraeus's resignation?
  (Correct answer: They don't.)

 

Here's a new question:

Why weren't you and Fox News calling for Bush's ouster after the 12 post-9/11 attacks on US embassies and consulates during the Bush administration?

[rigney]

Again, innuendo, if you have a specific source of specific information please tell us... People all over the world have that capability, people down the street from me have that capability, hell I do given a few basic ingredients I can get from my local hardware store, I just lack motivation and like minded friends.

 

If they had specific information about an immanent attack how about showing us they did or at least who is making the claim they did. And yes, Fox News has shown it's self to be suspect in nearly everything they say, even truth is spun so far out of reality is is difficult to recognize... especially telling in the self touted so called No Spin Zone...

 

What do you consider specific information, someone kicking you in the gonads before you get the message that they are pi-s-d at you? You and your group can't accept proof of any kind unless it it is written in blood which most of you seems to have shed very little. Even the Feinstein gal from California wants answers to this dammned facade and she is a staunch democrat.. Enough crap is coming from this administration to overfill an outhouse. Your kind of folks seem to be those who would hold onto a hot horseshoe for minutes and not realizing they were being burned. And why did you not include this link? http://www.thedailyb...nniversary.html

Innuendo, and piles and piles of it, is all that you and Fox have put forth in this issue. You yourself earlier admitted that it is pure innuendo:

 

rigney, you have yet to answer any of the questions put forth to you in this thread.

• What, exactly, is the Obama administration guilty of?
  (Correct answer: They're guilty of not being able to foresee the future, and of initially incorrectly reading things due to the fog of war.)
  
• How, exactly, does the Obama administration benefit from Petraeus's resignation?
  (Correct answer: They don't.)

My my, the fog of war! And who really gives a damned about Petraeus retiring. Should the gal in question, and perhaps others he seems to have had liaisons with, should be considered foreign agents just because he admits having an affair with this particular one?

 

Here's a new question:

Why weren't you and Fox News calling for Bush's ouster after the 12 post-9/11 attacks on US embassies and consulates during the Bush administration?

Trying to add apples and orange won't do it! But since you seem to have all of the answers friend, from where do you get your unquestionable information? Edited November 12, 2012 by rigney

[Phi for All]

But that is the big difference! Neither Bush, the CIA , FBI, or his cabinet were aware of the Trade Towers or the Pentagon been struck until it happened. Obama and his crew "did know" of the possibility of an attack on that embassay-(ette) months before the coup d'état was completed.

Um, guess what? Obama and his crew, like Bush, the CIA, FBI or his cabinet with regard to 9/11/2001, didn't know the embassy had been attacked until it happened. And Bush, the CIA, FBI and his cabinet knew of the possibility of an attack by bin Laden, knew of the possibility of the use of airplanes in that attack, and knew that bin Laden was determined to strike the US, most likely in NYC. In fact, Bush got that intelligence in a memo a month before the attack, and then proceeded to take one of the longest vacations in presidential history.

 

 

By the way, like me; some of you misinformed lefties should also use Fox News as a means of enhancing your ignorance.

Your FOX is showing. Most of us don't want our ignorance to be as enhanced as yours is.

[D H]

Even the Feinstein gal from california wants answere to this dammned facade.

What facade? Be very specific. Feinstein said nothing about a facade. "Read the transcript."

 

The only facade I see is the one that Republicans have erected to shift blame from themselves. It is the House Republicans who are largely at fault here. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011. In February 2011, Secretary Clinton warned those House Republicans that "cuts of that level will be detrimental to America's national security." The House's response was to cut the administration's request by $331 million for fiscal 2012. These cuts did reduce security at our embassies, and the fiasco at Benghazi is the result.

[rigney]

Um, guess what? Obama and his crew, like Bush, the CIA, FBI or his cabinet with regard to 9/11/2001, didn't know the embassy had been attacked until it happened. And Bush, the CIA, FBI and his cabinet knew of the possibility of an attack by bin Laden, knew of the possibility of the use of airplanes in that attack, and knew that bin Laden was determined to strike the US, most likely in NYC. In fact, Bush got that intelligence in a memo a month before the attack, and then proceeded to take one of the longest vacations in presidential history.

Yes, Obama's vacation was much shorter and "possibly" regarded as a fund raiser, but it happened immediately after the fact; not before and is absolutely the truth.

 

Your FOX is showing. Most of us don't want our ignorance to be as enhanced as yours is.

I would rather my ignorance be enhanced by FOX NEWS than just being plain ignorant as some of you seem to be. Edited November 12, 2012 by rigney

[Phi for All]

I would rather my ignorance be enhanced by FOX NEWS than just being plain ignorant as some of you seem to be.

Your ignorance is enhanced by not having any facts. You rely on supposition, innuendo and hazy recollection, while everyone else posting to your thread is providing links to actual testimony and articles that provide insight. The only links you've given support the fact that our embassy was at risk, like every embassy we have in areas where violence is a threat. Where you really fail is trying to pin this on the Obama administration when there are at least four other sources that are more culpable, including the Republican House and Ambassador Stevens himself.

 

I would rather my ignorance be enhanced by FOX NEWS than just being plain ignorant as some of you seem to be.

Evidence supports the concept that plain ignorance is better than FOX News-enhanced ignorance.

[rigney]

Your ignorance is enhanced by not having any facts. You rely on supposition, innuendo and hazy recollection, while everyone else posting to your thread is providing links to actual testimony and articles that provide insight. The only links you've given support the fact that our embassy was at risk, like every embassy we have in areas where violence is a threat. Where you really fail is trying to pin this on the Obama administration when there are at least four other sources that are more culpable, including the Republican House and Ambassador Stevens himself.

 

 

Evidence supports the concept that plain ignorance is better than FOX News-enhanced ignorance.

Of what evidence do you speak?

[D H]

My my, the fog of war!

Yes, fog of war. The CIA and the Pentagon were initially confused by the protests at other embassies over that silly movie.

 

And who really gives a damned about Petraeus retiring.

You were the one to bring it up. So does this mean you are backing down from a supposed connection between Petraeus' resignation and the upcoming Senate hearings?

 

Fox has been trying from day one to make this tragedy into something worse than a tragedy. Almost everything put out by Fox News on this matter has been half truths, innuendo, and lies. The claim that "CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack" (see

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say) was a lie. Read the CIA and Pentagon timelines. So what did Fox do when confronted with the lie? Simple: Forget the old one, create some new lies to take its place.

[Phi for All]

Of what evidence do you speak?

Evidence supports the concept that plain ignorance is better than FOX News-enhanced ignorance.

 

The above ^^^^ is a link to a study. Click it (with your mouse pointer) and it will take you to the article that mentions the study. Read the article. Look at the graphs.

 

Then, I guess, just blow it off like you do the rest of the substance we've presented that doesn't confirm your bias.

[Moontanman]

Of what evidence do you speak?

 

 

Rigney you old hillbilly, you need to come down out of the hills, the flatlanders have some pretty good ideas from time to time, you've been up a holler way too long, time to pipe in a little sunshine and pipe out some of that moonshine, listen to someone other than other holler dwellers...

 

Haven't you wondered why the Conservatives on here haven't exactly fallen all over themselves to support you? Intelligence isn't limited to Liberals but you won't find it on Fox News...

 

Come on over to the middle of the road, easier to see both sides from here...

 

Yeah, go ahead and claim there are no Conservatives on here...

[rigney]

Rigney you old hillbilly, you need to come down out of the hills, the flatlanders have some pretty good ideas from time to time, you've been up a holler way too long, time to pipe in a little sunshine and pipe out some of that moonshine, listen to someone other than other holler dwellers...

 

Haven't you wondered why the Conservatives on here haven't exactly fallen all over themselves to support you? Intelligence isn't limited to Liberals but you won't find it on Fox News...

 

Come on over to the middle of the road, easier to see both sides from here...

 

Yeah, go ahead and claim there are no Conservatives on here...

you say that there actually conservatives on this forum? Believe me Moon, I wish it were that easy. But when Ruther's backs up practically everything I have attested to confirm my suspicions; I'm at a loss trying to convince you further. You guys on the left just keep on carrying the ball, but there's likely to soon be a huge brick wall in your path.

 

Evidence supports the concept that plain ignorance is better than FOX News-enhanced ignorance.

 

The above ^^^^ is a link to a study. Click it (with your mouse pointer) and it will take you to the article that mentions the study. Read the article. Look at the graphs.

 

Then, I guess, just blow it off like you do the rest of the substance we've presented that doesn't confirm your bias.

Substance, Mouse pointer! what's are those? Graphs to me are like pigeon droppings, where the biggest pile is formed, it will usually get the most attention. Edited November 12, 2012 by rigney

[D H]

But when Ruther's backs up practically everything I have attested to confirm my suspicions; I'm at a loss trying to convince you further.

What's Ruther's? Did you mean Reuters?

 

You have attested to nothing. Multiple people have asked you many times what you think happened in Benghazi and in the political aftermath here in the US. So, one more time, what exactly did the Obama administration do that was wrong?

 

Fox has changed its story a number of times, but they don't have the fog of war as an excuse. Their only excuse is that they have been caught in one lie after another. Initially Fox claimed that the attack was sudden. They suddenly switched this to claiming that militants were rooting about for several hours before the attack. The latter claim is an out-and-out lie. Fox claimed that the CIA was told to stand down. That too is an out-and-out lie. The CIA quickly drove from that closeby CIA annex to the consulate, and further support was flown in from Tripoli. This latter group was slowed down by bureaucratic issues, not a stand down order. Fox has also claimed that it was a continuous seven hour long fire fight. Yet another out and out lie. What happened was three separate firefights, the first assault that killed Stevens, a second one an hour or so later on the CIA operatives who were dispatched from that CIA annex, and a third one five hours later at that CIA annex itself.

 

One more time, what do you think happened?

[John Cuthber]

Does it really matter what Rigney thinks happened?

 

He wasn't there. He doesn't know and his source of "information" is Fox, without whom he would probably be better off .

If we really want to know what he thinks, we can have a look on Fox "news".

 

Or, we can look at things like the CIA's reports and the eye witness testimony and the evidence and Reuters and find something near the truth.

[ydoaPs]

You have attested to nothing. Multiple people have asked you many times what you think happened in Benghazi and in the political aftermath here in the US. So, one more time, what exactly did the Obama administration do that was wrong?

 

It's been 15 pages; I doubt we'll ever get an answer from him. He'll give plenty of vague, vacuous innuendo, though.

[rigney]

It's been 15 pages; I doubt we'll ever get an answer from him. He'll give plenty of vague, vacuous innuendo, though.

ydoaPs, since you value my input as total ignorance; please direct me in the right direction. As I understand it you are now one of the moderators? Please conduct yourself accordingly rather than trashing me as an incompetent.

Edited November 12, 2012 by rigney

[uncool]

ydoaPs, since you value my input as total ignorance; please direct me in the right direction. As I understand it you are now one of the moderators? Please conduct yourself accordingly rather than trashing me as an incompetent.

He's not trashing you as incompetent. In fact, he's pointing out that you are competently doing exactly what you intended to do.

=Uncool-

[ydoaPs]

As I understand it you are now one of the moderators?

 

I am? Sweet! No one told me yet.

 

That's similar to how I got 2nd Class Petty Officer. I kept getting congratulated and I had no idea why.

[Phi for All]

you say that there actually conservatives on this forum? Believe me Moon, I wish it were that easy. But when Ruther's backs up practically everything I have attested to confirm my suspicions; I'm at a loss trying to convince you further. You guys on the left just keep on carrying the ball, but there's likely to soon be a huge brick wall in your path.

Things seem so simple in your worldview. Everyone is either left or right, and no amount of conservative leaning on any other topic will make you believe someone who doesn't think Obama is the devil isn't "on the left".

 

You condemn Obama for a mid-level State Department snafu that cost four American lives, but you defend Bush on a national-level terrorist threat that ended up killing 2,752 people, brought down the World Trade Center and caused the costliest war in American history. Even with a great deal of historical hindsight to sharpen your vision, your stance seems to have a great deal of blind, unreasoning hatred behind it that has left you with little foundation for your accusations.

 

Substance, Mouse pointer! what's are those? Graphs to me are like pigeon droppings, where the biggest pile is formed, it will usually get the most attention.

OK, sorry, I just thought graphs would be easier for you. Look at the numbers instead. In a statistically significant sample, people who didn't watch the news at all did better answering questions about world events than people who only watch FOX News. No spin, no hype, same questions asked of all groups. Evidence to support that watching only FOX News is worse than nothing at all.

[LaurieAG]

Who murdered our Ambassador in Benghazi, Libya? I know he is dead along with 3 of his comrades, but why? It has been a month now and Obama's cabinet has said nothing that rings of truth. Or are the Republicans still just grasping at straws to hurt this administration during the coming election campaign? i'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion on the issue.

 

He was asphyxiated while destroying equipment, the CIA was in control of the Libyan embassy at the time and the head of the CIA has recently resigned.

[rigney]

He was asphyxiated while destroying equipment, the CIA was in control of the Libyan embassy at the time and the head of the CIA has recently resigned.

I know it's a FOX NEWS guy doing the interview of Sen. Feinstein, but it is good information on the matter.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/11/feinstein-hill-inquiry-into-libya-attack-will-include-questions-on-petraeus-fbi/

Edited November 13, 2012 by rigney

[D H]

I know it's a FOX NEWS guy doing the interview of Sen. Feinstein, but it is good information on the matter.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/11/feinstein-hill-inquiry-into-libya-attack-will-include-questions-on-petraeus-fbi/

Fox New Sunday is one of the few reliable programs from Fox News. Chris Wallace is one of the few Fox News personalities who does not countenance the excrement normally promulgated on that network. So, what does this article say?

 

Feinstein said she sees “absolutely” no connection between the director’s resignations and the unanswered questions about the Sept. 11 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, in which Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed.

 

She said other major questions the committee will investigate include whether the United States adequately processed previous threats and attacks to increase security around the U.S. Consulate and nearby CIA annex in Benghazi.

 

So rather than look at the nonsense questions being raised by Fox News, let's ask some saner questions.

 

Should there be congressional hearings regarding Benghazi? Absolutely. US soil was breached and an ambassador was killed. That's serious stuff.

 

Was there any kind of conspiracy on the part of the Obama administration regarding what happened in Benghazi? That's nonsense. Almost all conspiracy theories are nonsense, and this fits into the nonsense category. There's nothing here, despite what Fox News says.

 

Was there confusion over what transpired in Benghazi? Of course. That's par for the course. The nonsense at Fox News over the claim that the administration knew within hours exactly which group was responsible is just that -- nonsense. Terrorist groups claiming responsibility for acts of terror that they did not commit is SOP. For example, a rather large number of terrorists groups claimed responsibility for the first 9/11 attack on the twin towers, some within hours of the attack. The intelligence community has to discount those claims, at least initially.

 

Should there be congressional hearings regarding the Petraeus affair? Maybe, maybe not. This is verging more on the "inquiring minds need to know" problem that plagues some lesser news print outlets, but also plagues Fox News.

 

Was there any kind of conspiracy on the part of the Obama administration regarding what happened with Petraeus? This too is nonsense. On the other hand, why the investigation proceeded after it became clear that there were no breaches of security, and why Eric Cantor apparently knew about this beforehand are worthy of investigation.

 

 

One last question, this one aimed at you, rigney: What do you think happened in Benghazi, and in the aftermath here in the US? I've asked this umpteen times and you have yet to give any clue as to why you think this event has any political significance.

[rigney]

Fox New Sunday is one of the few reliable programs from Fox News. Chris Wallace is one of the few Fox News personalities who does not countenance the excrement normally promulgated on that network. So, what does this article say?

 

Feinstein said she sees “absolutely” no connection between the director’s resignations and the unanswered questions about the Sept. 11 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, in which Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed.

 

She said other major questions the committee will investigate include whether the United States adequately processed previous threats and attacks to increase security around the U.S. Consulate and nearby CIA annex in Benghazi.

 

So rather than look at the nonsense questions being raised by Fox News, let's ask some saner questions.

 

Should there be congressional hearings regarding Benghazi? Absolutely. US soil was breached and an ambassador was killed. That's serious stuff.

 

Was there any kind of conspiracy on the part of the Obama administration regarding what happened in Benghazi? That's nonsense. Almost all conspiracy theories are nonsense, and this fits into the nonsense category. There's nothing here, despite what Fox News says.

 

Was there confusion over what transpired in Benghazi? Of course. That's par for the course. The nonsense at Fox News over the claim that the administration knew within hours exactly which group was responsible is just that -- nonsense. Terrorist groups claiming responsibility for acts of terror that they did not commit is SOP. For example, a rather large number of terrorists groups claimed responsibility for the first 9/11 attack on the twin towers, some within hours of the attack. The intelligence community has to discount those claims, at least initially.

 

Should there be congressional hearings regarding the Petraeus affair? Maybe, maybe not. This is verging more on the "inquiring minds need to know" problem that plagues some lesser news print outlets, but also plagues Fox News.

 

Was there any kind of conspiracy on the part of the Obama administration regarding what happened with Petraeus? This too is nonsense. On the other hand, why the investigation proceeded after it became clear that there were no breaches of security, and why Eric Cantor apparently knew about this beforehand are worthy of investigation.

 

One last question, this one aimed at you, rigney: What do you think happened in Benghazi, and in the aftermath here in the US? I've asked this umpteen times and you have yet to give any clue as to why you think this event has any political significance.

 

To answer your last question aimed at me. Yes! I believe terrorist were responsible for using the date 9/11 to set in motion an attack on this outpost in Benghazi because they knew it was poorly defended. Having probed it earlier and bombing its walls with little or no consequence probably led them to believe it was an easy mark. But I would like to know how many bodies of their fellow terrorist were dragged away during and following the attack because of those two Navy Seals? "SEMPER FI". And yes! Dribs and drags of the information now coming to light suggests that there was a high level of government culpibility that perhaps made this attack much worse than it should have been. Will the outcome effect Obama? As president, I hope not. But as Harry Truman used to say "The Buck Stops Here". Will we ever know exactly what happened? Likely not, but perhaps Feinstein's group and the inquiry will give us a better understanding.

#1 3 October 2012 - 06:16 PM rigney Baryon

The questions I first asked to begin this thread were:

Who murdered our Ambassador in Benghazi, Libya? I know he is dead along with 3 of his comrades, but why? It has been a month now and Obama's cabinet has said nothing that rings of truth. Or are the Republicans still just grasping at straws to hurt this administration during the coming election campaign? I'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion on the issue.

Yes! After those questions, and the crap started to flow; I was pissed. I had done nothing more than post an inquiry asking for possible answers. but after a couple of months of stonewalling loaded with BS, I did question the present administrations involvement. After the first few replies on the forum to these questions I realized it was only a matter of which party you were affiliated with. After 2 months and having come up with your own opinions, you now demand answers from me when yours are only well thought out supposition and no closer to the facts than mine. Cheers

Edited November 13, 2012 by rigney

[ydoaPs]

are the Republicans still just grasping at straws to hurt this administration during the coming election campaign?

 

The answer to that question is exceedingly obviously "yes".

[rigney]

The answer to that question is exceedingly obviously "yes".

Do you actually believe the Democratic Party is more special than the Republican Party?

[Phi for All]

Yes! After those questions, and the crap started to flow; I was pissed. I had done nothing more than post an inquiry asking for possible answers. but after a couple of months of stonewalling loaded with BS, I did question the present administrations involvement. After the first few replies on the forum to these questions I realized it was only a matter of which party you were affiliated with. After 2 months and having come up with your own opinions, you now demand answers from me when yours are only well thought out supposition and no closer to the facts than mine. Cheers

Consider this perspective. It had nothing to do with what "party" people are affiliated with. It has to do with facts vs assumptions on a science forum. You had questions, but they were all FOX News "loaded" questions, the type that imply something is wrong without actually stating that something is wrong. The type that makes viewers want to click the link to find out if there really is something wrong.

 

I've done this thousands of times, and not just with FOX News. It's classic profit-based hype masquerading as journalism. "Is our drinking water as safe as officials are telling us?" "The real reason why this German manufacturer won't sell to the US." "Invisibility cloak now a reality, scientists say." And when you frantically click to see "the truth", you find out that yes, our drinking water is indeed as safe as officials are telling us, and that the German manufacturer has discontinued a certain model and won't be selling it to any country anymore, and finally that this "cloak" that you thought made people invisible when you wear it isn't a really piece of clothing at all.

 

And that's exactly what your posts seem to do, rigney. They seemed to interject some kind of inference that President Obama pulled the security detail from Ambassador Stevens or secretly gave the order for the CIA to have him killed under the guise of a false attack on the embassy. When we asked for facts and clicked your links, we got nothing of substance, just suppositions being inserted like suppositories. Even your title sounded like some hokey tabloid sensationalism. So I hope you can see that it wasn't partisan politics that prompted the reactions here, it was your "nothing to do with being factual, only supposition" approach that raised the hackles of the science-minded.