The most natural question is this

[Bonestorm]

Again, then describe it yourself. What happened? Some dudes broke in, Nixon tried to cover it up.

Some dudes broke in. Awesome.

Well, that depends on what he knew and when. Hence the reality, the question is valid. Many questions are valid, but this one is certainly one of them.

Why don't you just say what it is you believe the president knew and when and what happened as a result of his action or inaction. Quit beating around the bush, you little tease. What do you think he knew and when? You clearly have some thoughts on the matter. Care to share them with us? Or are you too much of a coward to lay it out and intend instead to lob vague grenades that hint at impeachable (at the very least improper) conduct on the the part of the President?

Mostly because reports tell me that the Intel that this was a "protest that escalated into spontaneous violence" was never there, it was unsupported by the facts that we currently know that they knew... Thus misdirection.

What reports? Link them up. The actual news reports as of today reveal that contemporaneous with Ambassador Rice's public statements the CIA circulated a memorandum that said exactly what you have in the quotes there, Damo. Here's a direct quote from the CIA memorandum:

“The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/01/the-intel-behind-obama-s-libya-line.html

Basically, there's a divergence between the CIA and the State Department as to what occurred in Benghazi. We now know that the State Department view was correct and that the CIA was wrong. That doesn't mean that the CIA's assessment at the time was misdirection or that Ambassador Rice, in recounting the CIA's assessment as of that time was a lie. It just means that the CIA was wrong.

Why should I "spare you"? This is the best post I've gotten from you in many moons, and I'd really like to know what happened? Did you just get lazy and think that all that backslapping after a quick ad hom meant it was a really good argument?

FARGLE BARGLE.

 

[Damocles]

Some dudes broke in. Awesome.

I've asked twice, you haven't done any better. Awesome.

Why don't you just say what it is you believe the president knew and when and what happened as a result of his action or inaction. Quit beating around the bush, you little tease. What do you think he knew and when? You clearly have some thoughts on the matter. Care to share them with us? Or are you too much of a coward to lay it out and intend instead to lob vague grenades that hint at impeachable (at the very least improper) conduct on the the part of the President?

Well, I won't know until we actually answer that question. Only the deliberately ignorant presume to "know" without asking and reject even the necessity to ask the question.

What reports? Link them up. The actual news reports as of today reveal that contemporaneous with Ambassador Rice's public statements the CIA circulated a memorandum that said exactly what you have in the quotes there, Damo. Here's a direct quote from the CIA memorandum:

Basically, there's a divergence between the CIA and the State Department as to what occurred in Benghazi. We now know that the State Department view was correct and that the CIA was wrong. That doesn't mean that the CIA's assessment at the time was misdirection or that Ambassador Rice, in recounting the CIA's assessment as of that time was a lie. It just means that the CIA was wrong.

Mmm... Hence the question, when did he know that his representation was incorrect? It is important.

FARGLE BARGLE.

Yeah.

 

[Timshel]

Obama's to into loving muslims to see anything other than what he wants. I think it's funny how so many women love him, and yet if they only knew what kind of life he would have them live if he got the chance.

Please. Does this show in his treatment of Michelle or his two daughters? He may be a little too passive in his response but this is just hyperbole.

 

[Bonestorm]

Well, I won't know until we actually answer that question. Only the deliberately ignorant presume to "know" without asking and reject even the necessity to ask the question.

Surely you have some ideas of what you believe to be the case. Don't be a coward. Share them with us. You've already said that the Administration engaged in misdirection so you have to have some idea of what you think they knew about what and when. You also seem to have some idea of what resulted from the Administration's action or inaction. By all means, share.

Or you can be a non-committal coward.

Mmm... Hence the question, when did he know that his representation was incorrect? It is important.

But you've already concluded that the President engaged in misdirection and you're surprised that people don't care about it. Hence, my original post.

 

[Damocles]

Surely you have some ideas of what you believe to be the case. Don't be a coward. Share them with us. You've already said that the Administration engaged in misdirection so you have to have some idea of what you think they knew about what and when. You also seem to have some idea of what resulted from the Administration's action or inaction. By all means, share.

Or you can be a non-committal coward.




But you've already concluded that the President engaged in misdirection and you're surprised that people don't care about it. Hence, my original post.

I'll say again that I think he may have engaged in misdirection (mostly because IMO he wants everybody to believe that Al Qaeda has no power and he's been super successful in making them weak), hence the question is valid. It deserves a bit more than a mocking dismissal, especially because it was a rather large coordinated attack by a group who is supposed to be unable to do large coordinated attacks nowadays... and people died.

There are a great many questions that need answers, even Congress thinks so. Only the zombies believe that we shouldn't even ask the question.

 

[Timshel]

I've asked twice, you haven't done any better. Awesome.

How about starting with why they broke in?

 

[zappasguitar]

No, I am pointing out what somebody said, in this thread. That the QUESTION itself was something bad. Do you understand that my point is about the question, not about what we'll find out once it is answered, or are you assuming a conclusion for me then pretending that I shouldn't be surprised that people wish to purposefully remain ignorant?

Do you think you can make me suddenly afraid to speak if you mock something I haven't said? Seriously, I've asked this more and more often in the past year, What happened to you? At one point you used to be able to actually present an argument. Now all you have is this sad BS.

I think his condition can be traced back to the days when you stopped being objective and morphed into just another water carrying, partisan hack.

Seriously Damo, don't you remember the days when you could be counted on to answer a question without resorting to partisan spin?

I sure do...during the first few months after I joined this site.

 

[Haiku]

Says the person who thinks asking questions is supposedly "crazy" and believes that as long as the government says so, we should just shut up... Well, at least so long as a Democrat says so.

Where did I say any of that? Link??

 

[zappasguitar]

Link us up to somebody who defended Nixon. I'd like to see that.

Charles William Sandman, Jr. (October 23, 1921 – August 26, 1985) was an American Republican Party politician who represented New Jersey's 2nd congressional district in the United States House of Representatives and was the party's candidate for Governor of New Jersey in 1973.


In 1974, Sandman was serving on the House Judiciary Committee when it considered articles of impeachment against President Richard Nixon. Unlike most Republicans on the committee, Sandman defended Nixon almost throughout the proceedings.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

I think his condition can be traced back to the days when you stopped being objective and morphed into just another water carrying, partisan hack.

Seriously Damo, don't you remember the days when you could be counted on to answer a question without resorting to partisan spin?

I sure do...during the first few months after I joined this site.

So glad you don't spin for the democrat party

 

[Damocles]

Where did I say any of that? Link??

I mixed you and hazlnut. Sorry 'bout that.

 

[Damocles]

Charles William Sandman, Jr. (October 23, 1921 – August 26, 1985) was an American Republican Party politician who represented New Jersey's 2nd congressional district in the United States House of Representatives and was the party's candidate for Governor of New Jersey in 1973.


In 1974, Sandman was serving on the House Judiciary Committee when it considered articles of impeachment against President Richard Nixon. Unlike most Republicans on the committee, Sandman defended Nixon almost throughout the proceedings.

So, nobody here then. Gotcha. You have poorly represented CrashK... He was specifically talking about this thread. Nobody here has defended Nixon. Shoot, IMO, Nixon is just an aside. My point is that the question isn't for "crazy" people, as Congress isn't all just "crazy" people... They are working on the answer to that question as we type.

 

[Damocles]

I think his condition can be traced back to the days when you stopped being objective and morphed into just another water carrying, partisan hack.

Seriously Damo, don't you remember the days when you could be counted on to answer a question without resorting to partisan spin?

I sure do...during the first few months after I joined this site.

Do you have anything to say on the topic, or are you here to just make up stuff about people in the thread?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Their desperation continues to grow and the arguments will only increase in frequency and shrillness until November finally gets here..

and along comes the derision.....

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I think his condition can be traced back to the days when you stopped being objective and morphed into just another water carrying, partisan hack.

Seriously Damo, don't you remember the days when you could be counted on to answer a question without resorting to partisan spin?

I sure do...during the first few months after I joined this site.

more derision and insults and nothing about the thread topic

LOL

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

since the hearings are still proceeding, we will find out more. on the way home today, i heard that gibbs admitted the admin could have provided more security. i also heard that there were numerous requests made for extra security, but none was provided. i heard a plethora of other things, but since it was talk radio, i take it with a grain of salt.

this much is clear though. it was about the anti muhammad video as obama and his admin would have had us believe. if liberals want to claim bush lied about WMD's in iraq, then they must also admit obama lied here. regardless, obama most likely knew it had nothing to do with the video, in fact, should have known, given the requests for extra security.

at best, this shows gross ineptitude on obama's part....at best.