Who really killed our Ambassador to Libya?

[Moontanman]

Perhaps if you had come down to the beach a couple of years back, you would have known for sure?

 

rigney, you were staying at an expensive resort and I couldn't afford the gasoline to get there, give me a break...

[Iggy]

I live in the Deep South, I can categorically (more or less) say three things about this Place, The republicans are generally the party of angry old white men... The democrats are generally the party of angry old black men... and having money makes both those things disappear when the two interact on a personal basis...

If you're being ironic, that is brilliant. A few years ago I heard the question "why are so many blacks becoming conservative?" (this was before Obama). The speaker thought the answer was simple. It's the first generation of black millionaires. That is apparently inevitably as deep as the conversation can get in a topic like this. Trading pejorative stereotypes and arguing over who does it more flagrantly.

 

---

 

Actually, I DO think there is something wrong with being uneducated and angry.

Some of the cleverest people I know are uneducated through no fault of their own. They had to support a younger brother and stepmom through high school and couldn't go to college. That type of thing. It would be snobbish and wrong to argue that there is a defect in that struggle just because it isn't the struggle to become educated.

 

Rigney is of course just as wrong to imply that educated people don't work hard to get their education.

 

There's nothing wrong with being angry either. An author you admire said, "anger is an emotion without which the human species couldn't do" and I'm sure you've posted many angry videos of his on this site, so...

 

I sort of doubt you really think there is anything wrong with those two things.

[rigney]

You don't seem to get that there are only a tiny few in this country who "want something for nothing," yet you assume these folks make up the entire group.

The VAST majority of the rest who fall into that 47% you're implicitly describing here who receive benefits and don't pay federal income taxes are military personnel, elderly people who have paid into the system their entire lives, people who were laid off through no fault of their own and cannot find work despite submitted scores of resumes each day... people who DO pay state and local and retail taxes.

How easy to take a thing out of context giving it a different meaning. You mention a statistical percentage of unfortunate people who somehow seem being denied an invitation into that well heeled supposed 1%. Well, let me tell you; I also fall into that 47% catagory, but rest assured, I am not an angry white, black, asian or any other group of bitter people. I'm an 80 year old and happily work at McDonalds 3 days a week.(evnings) By the grace of Allah and a frugal enterprising hillbilly wife, our home is mortgage free and between the two of us, have enough income to stay afloat. Believe me, I am blessed.

 

IggyPosted Today, 12:03 AM

Rigney is of course just as wrong to imply that educated people don't work hard to get their education.

Where did I make that implication Iggy?

Now! Can we please get back on the topic of who killed our ambassador to Libya.

Edited November 14, 2012 by rigney

[iNow]

How easy to take a thing out of context giving it a different meaning. You mention a statistical percentage of unfortunate people who somehow seem being denied an invitation into that well heeled supposed 1%. Well, let me tell you; I also fall into that 47% catagory, but rest assured, I am not an angry white, black, asian or any other group of bitter people. I'm an 80 year old and happily work at McDonalds 3 days a week.(evnings) By the grace of Allah and a frugal enterprising hillbilly wife, our home is mortgage free and between the two of us, have enough income to stay afloat. Believe me, I am blessed.

Rigney - That comment there did not pertain to anger or skin color, so your biographical information about working in fast food at 80 and having no mortgage is irrelevant. My comment pertained to you discussing those who "want something for nothing." I suggested that this group is a rather tiny bunch, yet they have been elevated as the cause of all that ails us by your manufactured reality information sources.

 

Tell us... who "wants something for nothing," rigney... and how many people are we talking about here? I ask because you're dismissing everyone who voted for Obama as being a part of that group.

[rigney]

Rigney - That comment there did not pertain to anger or skin color, so your biographical information about working in fast food at 80 and having no mortgage is irrelevant. My comment pertained to you discussing those who "want something for nothing." I suggested that this group is a rather tiny bunch, yet they have been elevated as the cause of all that ails us by your manufactured reality information sources.

 

Tell us... who "wants something for nothing," rigney... and how many people are we talking about here? I ask because you're dismissing everyone who voted for Obama as being a part of that group.

Honestly, did you actually read what you wrote before posting it? Edited November 14, 2012 by rigney

[iNow]

Honestly, did you actually read what you wrote before posting it?

When did you stop beating your wife?

 

Oh, also... how long have you been having a love affair with an albino dolphin?

 

And why do you keep saying that brunette children should be allowed to be taken as slaves? I can't believe you would support such a thing!

[rigney]

When did you stop beating your wife?

 

Oh, also... how long have you been having a love affair with an albino dolphin?

 

And why do you keep saying that brunette children should be allowed to be taken as slaves? I can't believe you would support such a thing!

And you a college, (university?) graduate? Thank goodness my formal education ended with High School! But hang on, you will eventually get over your extemporized eloquence. Edited November 14, 2012 by rigney

[Moontanman]

I suggest that everyone put rigney on ignore until he stops being so lose with the truth...

[iNow]

And you're a college, (university?) graduate? Thank goodness my formal education ended with High School! You will eventually get over your extemporized education.

Speaking of flatulence from home brewed beer, did you know that Romney wants to make coffee illegal for people with fewer than 22 teeth? It's a pitiful state. Where are the real patriots to argue that only people with ingrown toenails should have access to diesel fuel?

[rigney]

I suggest that everyone put rigney on ignore until he stops being so lose with the truth...

Moon, if things are that bad, I suggest rigney be kicked off in toto! Edited November 14, 2012 by rigney

[uncool]

When did you stop beating your wife?

 

Oh, also... how long have you been having a love affair with an albino dolphin?

 

And why do you keep saying that brunette children should be allowed to be taken as slaves? I can't believe you would support such a thing!

Technically, rigney's question is one which can be answered in any situation; an answer of "yes" is sufficient. That's different from your questions, which have no answer in some situations.

=Uncool-

[iNow]

Technically, rigney's question is one which can be answered in any situation; an answer of "yes" is sufficient. That's different from your questions, which have no answer in some situations.

Why, however, would I bother to answer any of his questions when he's failed to offer that same courtesy to anyone else in this community despite nearly 350 posts of trying?

[rigney]

Why, however, would I bother to answer any of his questions when he's failed to offer that same courtesy to anyone else in this community despite nearly 350 posts of trying?

Tell you what! Let's close this rag as of today since I am unable to a-- kiss in regard to your inquiries. I could play along with a Yea Massa, No Massa compliance, but since many of us hasn't your intellect, let's close this post. Agreed?

 

I live in the Deep South, I can categorically (more or less) say three things about this Place, The republicans are generally the party of angry old white men... The democrats are generally the party of angry old black men... and having money makes both those things disappear when the two interact on a personal basis...

Don't play games Moon. You don't live in the deep south, but in a refined and intellectual neighborhood of Wilmington, N.C. Perhaps even the Outer Banks? A lad from W.V. with your intelligence and rock star quality shouldn't take on airs of such deportment. Be a little more humble and congenial my friend. Edited November 14, 2012 by rigney

[iNow]

Tell you what! Let's close this rag as of today since I am unable to a-- kiss in regard to your inquiries.

Nobody has asked you to kiss any asses. They've asked you to address specific clarifying questions and to support assertions. You're free to your own opinions, rigney, but not your own facts.

[Moontanman]

Don't play games Moon. You don't live in the deep south, but in a refined and intellectual neighborhood of Wilmington, N.C. Perhaps even the Outer Banks? A lad from W.V. with your intelligence and rock star quality shouldn't take on airs of such deportment. Be a little more humble and congenial my friend.

 

 

No, actually i do not live in Wilmington, I live in Castle Hayne, and yes the immediate area of Wilmington is a bit more liberal than surrounding areas, believe it or not i have not sat in a house in Wilmington watching the world go by for the last 40 years.

 

I worked for DuPont for 25 years, our plant was in the middle of Brunswick Co. democrat hell... I worked with, fished with, partied with, and lived around the people in this area and yes they are for the most part decent people... as long as you don't do anything overtly liberal in front of them like maybe suggest the world isn't 6000 years old, they tolerate us liberals...

[rigney]

No, actually i do not live in Wilmington, I live in Castle Hayne, and yes the immediate area of Wilmington is a bit more liberal than surrounding areas, believe it or not i have not sat in a house in Wilmington watching the world go by for the last 40 years.

 

I worked for DuPont for 25 years, our plant was in the middle of Brunswick Co. democrat hell... I worked with, fished with, partied with, and lived around the people in this area and yes they are for the most part decent people... as long as you don't do anything overtly liberal in front of them like maybe suggest the world isn't 6000 years old, they tolerate us liberals...

Holy Crap! You mean to tell me it's older than that? And myself, I thought it was only 5,700 or maybe 5.800 hundred years old. "Just shows to go ya'". Edited November 14, 2012 by rigney

[D H]

Now! Can we please get back on the topic of who killed our ambassador to Libya.

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.

[rigney]

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.

When I first asked, it was only a question? I suppose that me not caring for Obama's political views gave some of you reason to doubt my sincerity, but it had nothing to do with Obama personally. Then, after all of the see-sawing back and forth as to who was telling the truth from administration officials and none seeming to be match, yes; I became very suspicious. And then since the forum seemed so disinterested, I thought the question should be asked. As much as I dislike our presidents politics, I wish this sh-t sandwich was easier to swallow.

[Phi for All]

As much as I dislike our presidents politics, I wish this sh-t sandwich was easier to swallow.

Stop letting the liars at FOX News fix your lunch.

[D H]

When I first asked, it was only a question? I suppose that me not caring for Obama's political views gave some of you reason to doubt my sincerity, but it had nothing to do with Obama personally. Then, after all of the see-sawing back and forth as to who was telling the truth from administration officials and none seeming to be match, yes; I became very suspicious. And then since the forum seemed so disinterested, I thought the question should be asked. As much as I dislike our presidents politics, I wish this sh-t sandwich was easier to swallow.

Dang it, rigney, what sandwich are you talking about? The sandwich made out of lies put out by Fox News? There's an easy solution: Get a better, more truthful news source. Taking a deeper look at my list,

 

• Prior to the attack, the Obama administration repeatedly ignored requests for improved security at the Benghazi consulate.
  False. The administration did bolster security to some extent. Whether they could have done more is grounds for a Congressional hearing. Whether the could have done more is also grounds for a Congressional hearing, but the primary recipient of this line of questioning will be Congress itself, and in particular, House Republicans. They are the ones who responsible for the huge cuts in the administration's budget request. A good portion of the blame for the inadequate security lies with the Republicans.
   
  
• The CIA held prisoners at that nearby CIA annex.
  False. The CIA has denied this Fox News claim repeatedly. In no uncertain terms.
   
  
• The attack was a carefully planned Al Qaeda operation.
  Not quite false, but to claim unequivocally that this was a carefully planned attack is a lie. The truth is that we don't know.
   
  
• The attack was a near-continuous, seven hour long fire fight.
  False. What happened was three separate attacks. The first was a very short duration one in which Stevens was killed. The second occurred about 45 minutes later when help arriving from that nearby CIA annex was partially rebuffed. Then final one occurred a full five hours later at that CIA annex.
   
  
• The administration watched the attack live from the White House situation room.
  False. No matter how many times Hannity et al repeat this, it's a lie. There was no live video feed.
   
  
• The CIA and DoD were told from the highest levels to stand down during the attack.
  False. The State Department, CIA, and Pentagon timelines show this to be false.
   
  
• The administration knew from the onset that this was an Al Qaeda attack.
  False. Yes, an Al Qaeda group did claim responsibility shortly afterwards. That's par for the course. These claims by terrorist groups cannot be taken at face value for the simple reason that terrorist groups lie. They always claim responsibility for all kinds of calamities, and only rarely for stuff that they did.
   
  
• The administration blatantly lied about the nature of the attack for weeks after the attack.
  False. The administration labeled this as a terror incident from the onset. They initially (mistakenly) connected it with all of those other demonstrations and incidents on 9/11 regarding that silly movie. Use your head. This connection was a natural conclusion, not a conspiracy. The administration did say that the incident was an out-and-out terrorist attack once enough intelligence had been gathered.

 

There is perhaps some blame to attach to the administration. Whether they took seriously all the pre-9/11 intelligence that strongly hinted of problems is in question, as is some of what transpired after the fact. Some of the problems are just problems that can't be solved except by pouring huge amounts of money into security or by sticking our heads in the sand. Neither is something that saner parts of both parties are willing to do.

Edited November 15, 2012 by D H

[rigney]

Dang it, rigney, what sandwich are you talking about? The sandwich made out of lies put out by Fox News? There's an easy solution: Get a better, more truthful news source. Taking a deeper look at my list,

 

• Prior to the attack, the Obama administration repeatedly ignored requests for improved security at the Benghazi consulate.
  False. The administration did bolster security to some extent. Whether they could have done more is grounds for a Congressional hearing. Whether the could have done more is also grounds for a Congressional hearing, but the primary recipient of this line of questioning will be Congress itself, and in particular, House Republicans. They are the ones who responsible for the huge cuts in the administration's budget request. A good portion of the blame for the inadequate security lies with the Republicans.
   
  
• The CIA held prisoners at that nearby CIA annex.
  False. The CIA has denied this Fox News claim repeatedly. In no uncertain terms.
   
  
• The attack was a carefully planned Al Qaeda operation.
  Not quite false, but to claim unequivocally that this was a carefully planned attack is a lie. The truth is that we don't know.
   
  
• The attack was a near-continuous, seven hour long fire fight.
  False. What happened was three separate attacks. The first was a very short duration one in which Stevens was killed. The second occurred about 45 minutes later when help arriving from that nearby CIA annex was partially rebuffed. Then final one occurred a full five hours later at that CIA annex.
   
  
• The administration watched the attack live from the White House situation room.
  False. No matter how many times Hannity et al repeat this, it's a lie. There was no live video feed.
   
  
• The CIA and DoD were told from the highest levels to stand down during the attack.
  False. The State Department, CIA, and Pentagon timelines show this to be false.
   
  
• The administration knew from the onset that this was an Al Qaeda attack.
  False. Yes, an Al Qaeda group did claim responsibility shortly afterwards. That's par for the course. These claims by terrorist groups cannot be taken at face value for the simple reason that terrorist groups lie. They always claim responsibility for all kinds of calamities, and only rarely for stuff that they did.
   
  
• The administration blatantly lied about the nature of the attack for weeks after the attack.
  False. The administration labeled this as a terror incident from the onset. They initially (mistakenly) connected it with all of those other demonstrations and incidents on 9/11 regarding that silly movie. Use your head. This connection was a natural conclusion, not a conspiracy. The administration did say that the incident was an out-and-out terrorist attack once enough intelligence had been gathered.

 

There is perhaps some blame to attach to the administration. Whether they took seriously all the pre-9/11 intelligence that strongly hinted of problems is in question, as is some of what transpired after the fact. Some of the problems are just problems that can't be solved except by pouring huge amounts of money into security or by sticking our heads in the sand. Neither is something that saner parts of both parties are willing to do.

Other than the four men dying in Benghazi, Petraeus is the only concern now. And regardless of if being FOX, Sen. Feinstein ot cabinet personnel who are lying, to lose such a vast amount of military savvy over a little piece of tail is total B.S. Dad always told me: "Son, the more you stir sh-t the worse it stinks, no matter who did it". Edited November 15, 2012 by rigney

[navigator]

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.

 

I lurk here from time to time to find what the left wing talking points currently are and I am rarely dissapointed, it is always amazing to see the

alternate reality many posters on this board live in, this post is a good example.

 

1. abc news

"Republicans on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform have released new documents backing up claims by security personnel previously station in Libya that there was a shortage of security personnel in Benghazi.

The documents contain previously unreleased cables from Ambassador Stevens and his staff reflecting concerns about safety in the country."

 

washingtontimes

 

Obama knew about the attack, ignored three requests for help.

 

 

2. Many news outlets have reported the statements made by Mrs. Broadwell that the CIA was holding prisoners, thats what news agencies do.

washingtonpost

usatoday

guardian

 

3. Hard to see anybody, with any military experience, that objectively looks at the details of the attack, come to a different conclusion.

 

4. Are you claiming the attack did'nt take place over seven hour period? There are testimonies and timelines that show it did.

AP

 

5. I guess you were unaware that there was a drone overhead during the attack.

 

The attack began at about 9:40 p.m. local time in Benghazi. Less than 20 minutes later, the U.S. military began moving an unarmed drone to a position over Benghazi, so it could provide real time intelligence to the CIA team on the ground. The CIA team went to aid the Americans at the consulate. The drone arrived shortly after 11 p.m. By 11:30 p.m., a CIA team was able to get all the Americans out of the compound.

 

See the AP link in #4

 

6. Not sure about the CIA or DOD, but a quick seach for General Carter Ham and you will find evidence that he was relieved of his duties for preparing a rescue team after ignoring an order told to stand down.

 

7. There is little evidence to support this, but there are some that claimed to know very early.

 

In the days after the assault, counterterrorism officials expressed dismay over what they interpreted as the Obama Administration's unwillingness to acknowledge that the attack was terrorism; and their opinion that resources which could have helped were excluded.

 

Counterterrorism officials from two agencies said they concluded almost immediately that the attack was by terrorists and was not spontaneous. "I came to this conclusion as soon as I heard the mortar rounds were impacting on top of the building our people were occupying," says one. "The position of the mortar must be plotted on a map, the target would have to be plotted, computations would be calculated that would result in the proper mortar tube elevation and the correct number of powder bags to be attached to the rounds."

 

cbs news

 

8. Two weeks after the attack, Obama went in front of the UN blaming the video, blatanly lieing about the nature of the attack.

Edited November 15, 2012 by navigator

[D H]

Other than the four men dying in Benghazi, Petraeus is the only concern now. And regardless of if being FOX, Sen. Feinstein ot cabinet personnel who are lying, to lose such a vast amount of military savvy over a little piece of tail is total B.S. Dad always told me: "Son, the more you stir sh-t the worse it stinks, no matter who did it".

While you might understand what you wrote here, I sure don't. What are you saying?

 

It's probably best to start a new thread on Petraeus' sins and misfortunes; they have nothing to do with Benghazi.

 

The only ones out there who think that Benghazi represents an impeachable act are nutcases on the right, and a few congresscritters who have had one sip too many of that nutcase tea. My prediction: These hearings are going to turn up a whole lot of nothing, and finding that there is nothing there will have cost the Republicans a whole lot of political currency. Elections have consequences (something that the Republicans apparently have yet to learn), as do wild goose chases.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

6. Not sure about the CIA or DOD, but a quick seach for General Carter Ham and you will find evidence that he was relieved of his duties for preparing a rescue team after ignoring an order told to stand down.

This is an unsubstantiated rumor. A quick Google search shows that General Ham is still in command, and Panetta says Ham opposed intervention.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57540712/military-response-to-benghazi-attack-questioned/

[rigney]

While you might understand what you wrote here, I sure don't. What are you saying?

 

It's probably best to start a new thread on Petraeus' sins and misfortunes; they have nothing to do with Benghazi.

 

The only ones out there who think that Benghazi represents an impeachable act are nutcases on the right, and a few congresscritters who have had one sip too many of that nutcase tea. My prediction: These hearings are going to turn up a whole lot of nothing, and finding that there is nothing there will have cost the Republicans a whole lot of political currency. Elections have consequences (something that the Republicans apparently have yet to learn), as do wild goose chases.

I do understand that coming from an uneducated Hill Billy, my remarks as you interpret them do not warrent semantics. But navigator laid out a pretty good framework as to why the whole schlemiel should continue to be investigated.

 

I lurk here from time to time to find what the left wing talking points currently are and I am rarely dissapointed, it is always amazing to see the

alternate reality many posters on this board live in, this post is a good example.

 

1. abc news

 

 

washingtontimes

 

 

 

 

2. Many news outlets have reported the statements made by Mrs. Broadwell that the CIA was holding prisoners, thats what news agencies do.

washingtonpost

usatoday

guardian

 

3. Hard to see anybody, with any military experience, that objectively looks at the details of the attack, come to a different conclusion.

 

4. Are you claiming the attack did'nt take place over seven hour period? There are testimonies and timelines that show it did.

AP

 

5. I guess you were unaware that there was a drone overhead during the attack.

 

 

 

See the AP link in #4

 

6. Not sure about the CIA or DOD, but a quick seach for General Carter Ham and you will find evidence that he was relieved of his duties for preparing a rescue team after ignoring an order told to stand down.

 

7. There is little evidence to support this, but there are some that claimed to know very early.

 

 

 

cbs news

 

8. Two weeks after the attack, Obama went in front of the UN blaming the video, blatanly lieing about the nature of the attack.

No one really knows for sure at this time other than those involved? But any blame game prodders or coverup participants caught lying, shoud be held accountable; regardless.