Who really killed our Ambassador to Libya?

[rigney]

I have, so to speak, a dog in this fight because I'm a member of this discussion forum.

 

Wouldn't you find it easier to just answer the questions, rather than ranting bout me being English?

 

Exactly what did they say which they knew to be untrue?

 

Exactly what crap are you saying is being handed out?

Who is doing it?

What evidence is there to back up your accusation (even if you insist that it's not an accusation)?

Ranting about you being English? Perish the thought! Some of my best friends, including the most removed of my relatives are, or were English. Wish I had known Churchill a bit better. I believe he and I smoked the same brand of cigars at one time.

[John Cuthber]

Ranting about you being English? Perish the thought! Some of my best friends, including the most removed of my relatives are, or were English. Wish I had known Churchill a bit better. I believe he and I smoked the same brand of cigars at one time.

Why don't you answer the questions?

[rigney]

Why don't you answer the questions?

What questions? I have no idea what you're talking about. Edited November 24, 2012 by rigney

[Phi for All]

I don't quite relate to the smart and objective part of your comment Phi but I get a lot of heat for my own views and precption on many issues. My prowess is no where near the caliber of intellect I witness on the forum.

It's not really any lack of prowess, rigney, but part of it is what you choose to attach importance to. Just like your response to my post. Why did you key on my compliment to D H when it was the only part that wasn't directed at you? Why ignore all the other things I said that did refer to you?

 

But to refer to someone as dense, stupid, lame or loony for their interpretation of a matter, only limits my respect for them to that of being an educated idiot. At the same time it intensifies my resolve to treat them as such.

It's perfectly allowable to use terms like that with regard to someone's argument, their stance or perspective on an issue. It's NOT allowable to refer to the person that way, and if you feel that's happened you should report it.

 

Only when I get pissed at crap someone puts out as gospal, expecting me to believe, do I resort to unflattering remarks.

Yet you watch FOX News exclusively?! That hardly makes sense. They are neither fair nor balanced, and have been proven to lie in their stories in a court of law.

 

As for the navigator? Other than this post I've not had the pleasure But he is very articulate and quite knowledgeable of the unrelenting depths of how rhetoric works. I'm very glad he's around to help keep the wolves away.

Re-read the last few pages of this thread and see how many times "quite knowledgeable" was wrong.

[D H]

I see, and you are looking at irrefutabvle conversational evidence such as this, to trip up a conservative long enough to call them a loony?

 

And then, I suppose this being put out by some right wing conservative looney nuts, make it untrue?

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/10/24/they-knew-they-lied-p-e-r-i-o-d-irrefutable-evidence-that-president-obama-and-hillary-clinton-lied/

That article is exemplary of the lying excrement that the right wing media is putting out on the Benghazi attack. There are two huge lies in this article, both in the title:

 

• Irrefutable Evidence That President Obama and Hillary Clinton Lied
  
• Not only did they lie – They Watched Them Die

 

Politicians and partisans know that one of the best ways to lie is to tell a half-truth. Yes, the White House did receive an email that Ansar al-Sharia had claimed responsibility for the attack. The article however does not say that Ansar al-Sharia has denied responsibility for the attack. So which is true? Were Ansar al-Sharia members involved, or was it someone else? Untangling this mess is why an investigation is needed.

 

(Note: Both claims can be true. Members of a terrorist groups often act without approval of the leadership; sometimes terrorist cells act against the dicta of the leadership. Just because the leadership of Ansar al-Sharia did not plan or sanction the attack does not mean that individuals associated with the group didn't do it.)

 

Omitting this other half of the equation is essentially a lie. Even worse of a lie is claiming that this email is "irrefutable evidence" is Obama and Clinton knew that the attack was an organized terrorist attack from the onset.

 

 

Regarding the second part of the title, "they watched them die". The article doesn't discuss this at all. This is a bald assertion in the title of the article that is never bolstered by the body of the article. It's a lie.

Edited November 24, 2012 by D H

[John Cuthber]

What questions? I have no idea what you're talking about.

Exactly what did they say which they knew to be untrue?

 

Exactly what crap are you saying is being handed out?

Who is doing it?

What evidence is there to back up your accusation (even if you insist that it's not an accusation)?

[rigney]

Exactly what did they say which they knew to be untrue?

 

Exactly what crap are you saying is being handed out?

Who is doing it?

What evidence is there to back up your accusation (even if you insist that it's not an accusation)?

Refresh me! Your questioning seems to have been going on as long as this post. Give me a post # and I'll do my best to give you an answer.

 

That article is exemplary of the lying excrement that the right wing media is putting out on the Benghazi attack. There are two huge lies in this article, both in the title:

 

• Irrefutable Evidence That President Obama and Hillary Clinton Lied
  
• Not only did they lie – They Watched Them Die

 

Politicians and partisans know that one of the best ways to lie is to tell a half-truth. Yes, the White House did receive an email that Ansar al-Sharia had claimed responsibility for the attack. The article however does not say that Ansar al-Sharia has denied responsibility for the attack. So which is true? Were Ansar al-Sharia members involved, or was it someone else? Untangling this mess is why an investigation is needed.

But before it ever became entangled, action should have been take, not wallowed around like a gum drop. And Yes! This happens quite frequently on the forum. But why? Each of us rationalize an issue as we see it, hopefully for nothing more or less. My honest opinion? Someone or somebodies are responsible for this debachle in Benghazi.

 

(Note: Both claims can be true. Members of a terrorist groups often act without approval of the leadership; sometimes terrorist cells act against the dicta of the leadership. Just because the leadership of Ansar al-Sharia did not plan or sanction the attack does not mean that individuals associated with the group didn't do it.)

 

Omitting this other half of the equation is essentially a lie. Even worse of a lie is claiming that this email is "irrefutable evidence" is Obama and Clinton knew that the attack was an organized terrorist attack from the onset.

 

 

Regarding the second part of the title, "they watched them die". The article doesn't discuss this at all. This is a bald assertion in the title of the article that is never bolstered by the body of the article. It's a lie.

Edited November 24, 2012 by rigney

[Phi for All]

But before it ever became entangled, action should have been take, not wallowed around like a gum drop.

Don't you think it started out pretty tangled? How could action have been taken before it started? And how can you continue to say this isn't a witchhunt when you're requiring the people involved to use their magic to tell the future?

 

My honest opinion? Someone or somebodies are responsible for this debachle in Benghazi.

I agree. I think it was the terrorists.

[rigney]

Don't you think it started out pretty tangled? How could action have been taken before it started? And how can you continue to say this isn't a witchhunt when you're requiring the people involved to use their magic to tell the future?

 

I agree. I think it was the terrorists.

 

Don't poke fun. And while magic doesn't do it, neither does, 'well; let's see what happens after the fact". This thing had been spelled out for months, yet no action had been taken to increase protection for this counselet. Fact is, what little protection had been there was reduced to nothing. But why? Doesn't that make you want to ask questions? Being sure of this weakness, terrorist waited for an oppurtune moment to pounce on 9/11. I have no idea if you've ever been in the military, but things like this just don't happen per chance to any of the branchs. And in a case such as this, "Vigilance" is the only word. Edited November 24, 2012 by rigney

[Phi for All]

This thing had been spelled out for months, yet no action had been taken to increase protection for this counselet.

That's bullshit and we've been over this already three times. We don't have the funding or the manpower over there to respond to every request for added security, we just don't. You have tunnel-vision over this, assuming Benghazi is the only consulate in dicey territory that would have felt safer with a few more guards. That 16 man special team that spent most of the year assigned to Libya would probably be dead right now if they'd stayed.

 

Fact is, what little protection had been there was reduced to nothing. But why? Doesn't that make you want to ask questions? Being sure of this weakness, terrorist waited for an oppurtune moment to pounce on 9/11. I have no idea if you've ever been in the military, but things like this just don't happen per chance to any of the branchs. And in a case such as this, "Vigilance" is the only word.

A friend of mine who finished his second tour of Iraq a few years back told me that, in his military opinion, it would have been stupid to send any amount of men short of a full company into a situation where you didn't know what you're facing. Sure, every grunt would've happily volunteered to defend that consulate, but their commanders are not fond of throwing lives away on dicey intel.

 

In his opinion, this was neither a spontaneous attack nor a long-term, thoughtfully planned assault with Stevens as the target. And it's one of the most difficult to defend against, since it has enough organization and manpower to be difficult to stop, yet not enough time for the intelligence community to really get any decent information about. Add in everything else, from Stevens being there in the first place on that day of all days, his cell calls that weren't recognized, the protests in other cities, the militia guards being completely overwhelmed by trucks bearing militia logos, the lean security budgets everywhere, the lean security in this particular post, the ambiguity on who had the major security tasks between State, the CIA and the local police and militias, and it is anything but an open and shut case.

[John Cuthber]

Refresh me! Your questioning seems to have been going on as long as this post. Give me a post # and I'll do my best to give you an answer.

 

I first asked as post 55 in response to your comment in post 41

 

And, I wonder if I can ask the other people here for a favour?

As it stands, this thread is 24 pages long and is debating Rigney's original starting point. However, he hasn't actually clearly stated what that point was.

May I respectfully request that others' don't post until Rigney has clearly answered the question and told us what this whole tread is actually about.

I'm concerned that, if anyone posts something he will reply to that and ignore the fact that he hasn't yet told us what wrong he is claiming was done and by whom.

It's kind of difficult to address that.

So I'd like the next post to be from Rigney, clearly spelling out:

1 who did something wrongly?

2 What they did?

And

3 why he thinks this is so?

 

Once we have that we can comment on it- otherwise this thread isn't going anywhere.

Edited November 25, 2012 by John Cuthber

[D H]

And, I wonder if I can ask the other people here for a favour?

As it stands, this thread is 24 pages long and is debating Rigney's original starting point. However, he hasn't actually clearly stated what that point was.

May I respectfully request that others' don't post until Rigney has clearly answered the question and told us what this whole tread is actually about.

You are asking rigney to do something he apparently is incapable of doing. Press rigney too hard and you're going to get a response like this one in his Nothing from nothing leaves nothing thread:

 

It is a blathering rant, rigney. The title has nothing to do with the post, and the post is so full of hyperbolic excess that it's hard to tell what you are writing about. Why don't you for once try to write clearly and succinctly so that we can read what you wrote rather than having to try to read your mind?

Did you get up on the "right side" of the bed for a change, or are you always this nasty? Nostradamus wrote in quatrain, yet people of character and wisdom, not necessarily intellect; understood him. While I am no Nostradamus, where does that leave you? See if you might find some meaning in the following:

 

Into this life we are let

First only asking, then to our fame

Oh! So quickly do we leave

Taking not, but as we came.

 

I actually tried being succinct once with my wife and she slapped hell out of me. What I'm saying is, never tell a woman that a size 10 would fit her ass much better than a size 8. Actually, I've never known a "ginch" not to feel that way.

 

Asking rigney to write clearly and succinctly will have about as much success as

• Herding cats.
  
• Nailing jello to a tree.
  
• Pushing a rope uphill.
  
• Asking the sun not to shine.
  
• Emptying the ocean with a bucket.
  
• Catching the wind in a net.
  
• Carrying water with a sieve.
  
• Selling tea to China.
  
• Taking coal to Newcastle.
  
• Bringing owls to Athens.
  
• Need I go on?

 

 

In the thread at hand, I did try to read rigney's mind back in post #342. In that post I tried to answer rigney's original question ("Who really killed our ambassador to Libya?") and playing devil's advocate, I also tried to make the case against Obama as portrayed in Fox News and other right wing media outlets:

 

Terrorists did. Obviously.

 

That's obviously not the answer you were looking for, rigney. What you appear to want is for all of us to admit that

1. Prior to the attack, the Obama administration repeatedly ignored requests for improved security at the Benghazi consulate.
   
2. The CIA held prisoners at that nearby CIA annex.
   
3. The attack was a carefully planned Al Qaeda operation.
   
4. The attack was a near-continuous, seven hour long fire fight.
   
5. The administration watched the attack live from the White House situation room.
   
6. The CIA and DoD were told from the highest levels to stand down during the attack.
   
7. The administration knew from the onset that this was an Al Qaeda attack.
   
8. The administration blatantly lied about the nature of the attack for weeks after the attack.

Except for #3 (which we don't know yet), these are all lies put out by Fox News.

 

There's an issue #0 that needs to be added to that list: The Obama administration completely bolluxed the negotiations with Iraq regarding a permanent US troop presence in Iraq, and as a result we now have a 15,000 member private army in Iraq.

 

This private army is funded by and under the control of the State Department rather than the Department of Defense. This is a huge problem. It is, (personal opinion) the cause of the pressure that kept requests for enhanced security at the Benghazi consulate from bubbling up the chain of command, issue #1 in my devil's advocate list. It is (also personal opinion) a recipe for future disaster. Freelance soldiers are problematic even when they are under the command of people who know how to command militarily. Putting freelance soldiers under the command of people who do not understand the military mind and who disdain the military (i.e., the State Department) is just asking for trouble.

[rigney]

That's bullshit and we've been over this already three times. We don't have the funding or the manpower over there to respond to every request for added security, we just don't. You have tunnel-vision over this, assuming Benghazi is the only consulate in dicey territory that would have felt safer with a few more guards. That 16 man special team that spent most of the year assigned to Libya would probably be dead right now if they'd stayed. A friend of mine who finished his second tour of Iraq a few years back told me that, in his military opinion, it would have been stupid to send any amount of men short of a full company into a situation where you didn't know what you're facing. Sure, every grunt would've happily volunteered to defend that consulate, but their commanders are not fond of throwing lives away on dicey intel.

Tunnel vision my a--. The above is also lines of B.S. we will likely hear until this thing blows over. Tell me, If the Government, FBI, CIA and our military all knew the damned place couldn't be defended and had been probed with lesser attacked on two different occasions, why in hell were those thirty or forty counsulet people left in there? Knowing this, why had the place been left open at all? The answer might be; selling sno cones to the Eskimos. Making a case for stupidity is just plain stupid.

I keep hearing lame assed poormouth excuses justifying those murders to the point where they gag me, but I just ain't buying it no more than those congressional panels doing the investigating. And your friend? Thank him for his service, but his opinions are no more than those of us poor slobs still here in the dark.

Edited November 25, 2012 by rigney

[John Cuthber]

DH, I think you may well be right. It's perfectly possible that Rigney can't actually answer the question.

If that's the case then we might as well close the thread and forget it since there's no way of knowing what the OP was about.

However, I think part of the problem is that he just has a very short attention span so he only responds to the last post.

 

So, once again, may I respectfully request that others' don't post until Rigney has clearly answered the question and told us what this whole tread is actually about.

I'm concerned that, if anyone posts something he will reply to that and ignore the fact that he hasn't yet told us what wrong he is claiming was done and by whom.

It's kind of difficult to address that.

So I'd like the next post to be from Rigney, clearly spelling out:

1 who did something wrongly?

2 What they did?

And

3 why he thinks this is so?

 

Once we have that we can comment on it- otherwise this thread isn't going anywhere.

[rigney]

DH, I think you may well be right. It's perfectly possible that Rigney can't actually answer the question.

If that's the case then we might as well close the thread and forget it since there's no way of knowing what the OP was about.

However, I think part of the problem is that he just has a very short attention span so he only responds to the last post.

 

So, once again, may I respectfully request that others' don't post until Rigney has clearly answered the question and told us what this whole tread is actually about.

I'm concerned that, if anyone posts something he will reply to that and ignore the fact that he hasn't yet told us what wrong he is claiming was done and by whom.

It's kind of difficult to address that.

So I'd like the next post to be from Rigney, clearly spelling out:

1 who did something wrongly?

2 What they did?

And

3 why he thinks this is so?

 

Once we have that we can comment on it- otherwise this thread isn't going anywhere.

Whether this thread goes any farther rests strictly the perogative of those involved. But I see you're still carry that mouse around in your pocket John boy. The "WE" thing you keep referring to reminds me of someone afraid of the dark or unable to sleep alone. As for your questions? Since you seem to have all of the right answers, you certainly don't need my dull input. Edited November 25, 2012 by rigney

[iNow]

Who did something wrongly?

What specifically did they do?

What precisely makes you think this (what information or evidence led you to that conclusion)?

[rigney]

Who did something wrongly?

Our entire government got it wrong, knowing this risk existed and doing nothing about it except hope the problem would go away.

What specifically did they do?

Not a thing except take away what little security that was there and knowing the possibility of such an attack.

What precisely makes you think this (what information or evidence led you to that conclusion)?

Everything I have read and heard since that following morning of 9/12

[iNow]

Who did something wrong. You said our entire government. You said they knew the risk existed and did nothing other than hope it would go away.

What specifically did they do. You said they took away security despite knowledge that attacks were possible.

What information or evidence makes you think this. You said everything you've read in the past 3 months.

 

Do you realize these claims have been debunked here in this very thread more than once? Do you understand that those things fall into the set of "everything you've read since 9/12?" It's as if people are telling you that 2+2 equals 4, but you keep asserting instead that 2+2 equals pancakes. It would be funny if it weren't so indicative of political discourse as a whole in the US right now.

[rigney]

Who did something wrong. You said our entire government. You said they knew the risk existed and did nothing other than hope it would go away.

What specifically did they do. You said they took away security despite knowledge that attacks were possible.

What information or evidence makes you think this. You said everything you've read in the past 3 months.

 

Do you realize these claims have been debunked here in this very thread more than once? Do you understand that those things fall into the set of "everything you've read since 9/12?" It's as if people are telling you that 2+2 equals 4, but you keep asserting instead that 2+2 equals pancakes. It would be funny if it weren't so indicative of political discourse as a whole in the US right now.

Those claims haven't been debunked at all, just glossed over. Did our government not know the consulate had been compromised on two different occasions? Wasn't the meager protection they had, taken away from them? And knowing this, why were drones not used full time for their protection?

Tell me, from where does all of this privileged information you posess come, and of which I am definitely not privy? Certainly not from the right.

Edited November 25, 2012 by rigney

[iNow]

Those claims haven't been debunked at all, just glossed over.

Correction. Those claims haven't been established as true. They remain little more fantasies in peoples heads. We may as well be trying to debunk the assertion that the farts of pink unicorns cause erections in leprechauns.

 

Did our government not know the consulate had been compromised on two different occasions? Wasn't the meager protection they had, taken away from them?

If you've been reading this thread, you would have answers to these questions that are clear, concise, and supported by evidence.

 

Tell me, from where do you get this irrefutable information of which I'm not privy? Definitely not from the right?

I don't understand your question. I get my information from sources that support their claims with evidence and logic, regardless of their ideology or leaning on the political spectrum. It's not my fault that one side has a greater tendency to lie and make shit up in ways that make them less credible overall.

[rigney]

Correction. Those claims haven't been established as true. They remain little more fantasies in peoples heads. We may as well be trying to debunk the assertion that the farts of pink unicorns cause erections in leprechauns.

 

If you've been reading this thread, you would have answers to these questions that are clear, concise, and supported by evidence.

 

I don't understand your question. I get my information from sources that support their claims with evidence and logic, regardless of their ideology or leaning on the political spectrum. It's not my fault that one side has a greater tendency to lie and make shit up in ways that make them less credible overall.

Please tell me then, what is this enigmatic source of your unbiases and truthful information? I only listen to the rediculous lies and bull crap republicans keep spouting. Edited November 25, 2012 by rigney

[iNow]

Please tell me then, what is this enigmatic source of your unbiases and truthful information? I only listen to the rediculous lies and bull crap republicans keep spouting.

I don't have one sole source of my information. I look at information from numerous sources and review it for accuracy and coherence. I thought I made this clear in my previous post. I'm sorry if I didn't. It should be clear now. I review information from numerous sources and form my own opinions based on the strength of the various arguments and the evidence in their favor.

[John Cuthber]

I guess it's some sort of progress.

 

"Our entire government got it wrong, knowing this risk existed and doing nothing about it except hope the problem would go away."

OK, so we ignore the hyperbole about "our entire government" because it's silly. The guy who washed the tea cups is part of the government, but he's not responsible.

So I guess you mean "At least some people high up in government (maybe including the President?) got it wrong."

 

OK, now you need to say what they got wrong.

What risk did they ignore?

Was there some specific indication of a threat to the embassy that they knew about and ignored?

How do you know that they knew about it?

Was if because they said so on Fox?

 

If they did nothing then you need to explain that this situation was in some way different from plenty of other threats faced by embassies round the world.

There simply are not the resources to make them all fortresses and, even if there were, it would be inconsistent with their diplomatic status.

After all, they probably also didn't beef up security al all the other embassies that week. How could they?

Unless you can show that they were aware of some specific threat to the embassy in Benghazi, then they didn't do anything wrong.

 

It's like going to a bank the day after it was robbed and telling them it's their own fault because they didn't hire lots of extra security that day. How could they have known about the robbery in advance?

 

In the same way, this "Not a thing except take away what little security that was there and knowing the possibility of such an attack" is a serious allegation, but you need to be able to show that they knew about the attack in advance in such a way that they could have prevented it. There's always some threat of attack, so saying that they knew there was doesn't add anything. And, as I said, there are many calls on the resources. You can't tell in advance where you are going to need them

I have already pointed out that terrorist groups (and random rabbles too) are not in the habit of emailing the white house in advance of an attack.

 

So, other than a so-called news channel, have you any evidence about that statement?

 

Are there emails that we can look at?

Is there a record of the president talking about the attack before it happens?

Is there any evidence at all that he knew?

 

Or is it just something Fox made up?

[navigator]

The problem here is many posters fail to see the obvious and claim that facts have been debunked.

 

There were previous attacks in Benghazi.

 

June 6, 2012

 

U.S. citizens are advised that there was an improvised explosive device (IED) attack on the U.S. Office in Benghazi during the early morning hours of June 6. There were no casualties. No one has yet claimed responsibility for the attack. This incident is a reminder of the fluid security situation in Libya.

 

June 11, 2012

 

Britain's ambassador to Libya was in a convoy of cars attacked in the eastern city of Benghazi, a British embassy spokeswoman has said.

 

On May 22, a rocket-propelled grenade hit the offices of the International Committee of the Red Cross in the city, blasting a small hole in the building but causing no casualties.

 

Questions are being asked about the preparedness of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, after it was revealed that there were four attacks on diplomatic targets in the Libyan city in the months leading up to the killing of the U.S. ambassador on Wednesday.

 

Despite President Obama's administration claiming that there was no 'actionable intelligence' before the attack, on June 6th an IED was thrown at the perimeter of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi and on August 5th, just over a month before the deadly assault an International Committee of the Red Cross building in the city was hit by rocket propelled grenades.

 

There were warnings of more attacks to come.

 

One day before September 11, al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahri posted a 42-minute video on Jihadist forums urging Libyans to attack Americans to avenge the death of Abu Yahya al-Libi, the terror organization's second-in-command, whom U.S. drones killed in June of 2012 in Pakistan. In the video, al-Zawahri said al-Libi's "blood is calling, urging and inciting you to fight and kill the Crusaders," leading up to a date heralded and celebrated by radical Islamists."

 

According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and "lockdown", under which movement is severely restricted.

 

Three days before the deadly assault on the United States consulate in Libya, a local security official says he met with American diplomats in the city and warned them about deteriorating security.

Jamal Mabrouk, a member of the February 17th Brigade, told CNN that he and a battalion commander had a meeting about the economy and security.

He said they told the diplomats that the security situation wasn't good for international business.

"The situation is frightening, it scares us," Mabrouk said they told the U.S. officials. He did not say how they responded

 

Security was reduced in Benghazi weeks before 9\11.

 

Security for U.S. diplomats in Libya was cut in the weeks before the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, despite the North African country’s high-risk environment, according to a member of the security team assigned to U.S. Embassy in Tripoli.

 

“I felt like we were being asked to play the piano with two fingers,” Army Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, who headed a Special Forces site security team in Tripoli, told CBS News. “We felt we needed more, not less.”

 

The former security officer who testified, Eric A. Nordstrom, said he was told in a phone call in July that the deployment of the site security team, a 16-member American military unit based in Tripoli, could not be prolonged.

 

The military command that oversaw the unit, the Africa Command, was willing to extend it. But the State Department decided that it was not necessary.

 

“It was abundantly clear: we were not going to get resources until the aftermath of an incident,” Mr. Nordstrom said. “And the question that we would ask is, again, how thin does the ice have to get before someone falls through?”

 

I have posted links previously that show the streets were quiet shortly before the attack, The State Dept., CIA chief stationed in Tripoli and the president of Benghazi all said it was a terrorist attack, within 24 hours, and made no mention of a mob protest in Benghazi. So who came up with the mob protesting a video talking points? Maybe the re-election committee?

 

The only shred of evidence in this thread that it was a mob protest was one administration official claimed there were 20 intel reports that said it was a mob protest. And yet you guys use that one peice of hearsay as evidence to claim it debunks the numerous intel reports that said otherwise.

 

Add to that the lack of support during the attack, the half hearted attempt to evacute American personel after the attack and the lack of an investigation to this day, show where this event falls on Obamas priority list.

 

I am zealous about this because I liked Obama in '08. He campaigned for a transparent administration and campaign reform, among other issues that I liked his stance on, but what I am now learning, was more accurately, just rhetoric to get elected. The longer he is POTUS, the more the criticisms from the right seem accurate.

Edited November 25, 2012 by navigator

[rigney]

Regardless of the answers I might give, they would be quickly negated by B.S. deeper than anything FOX can put out. But I'll try with some questions of my own.

 

D H, on 15 November 2012 - 08:06 AM, said:

Terrorists did. Obviously.

That's obviously not the answer you were looking for, rigney. What you appear to want is for all of us to admit that1. Prior to the attack, the Obama administration repeatedly ignored requests for improved security at the Benghazi consulate.

Were these requests for added protection not denied?

2.The CIA held prisoners at that nearby CIA annex.

Did they?

 

3.The attack was a carefully planned Al Qaeda operation.

Was it?

4.The attack was a near-continuous, seven hour long fire fight.

Was it?

 

5.The administration watched the attack live from the White House situation room.

Did they?

 

6.The CIA and DoD were told from the highest levels to stand down during the attack.

Ditto

 

7.The administration knew from the onset that this was an Al Qaeda attack.

Again, Did they know?

 

8.The administration blatantly lied about the nature of the attack for weeks after the attack.

It started to look that way.

Except for #3 (which we don't know yet), these are all lies put out by Fox News.

You see, that is what I consider a blatent accusation, making it an unfounded lie.

Edited November 25, 2012 by rigney