GOP's Benghazi Smoking Gun Goes Up in Smoke

bravo said:
Watch the news and read the papers sonny.....he and his staff lied, misled, and mis-characterized the thing for weeks...No matter how many times you deny it, the facts won't change.
Click to expand...

Proof?
 
bravo said:
Watch the news and read the papers sonny.....he and his staff lied, misled, and mis-characterized the thing for weeks...
No matter how many times you deny it, the facts won't change.
Click to expand...

I have read everything you and others have presented old timer. You have nothing. Since all you have left now is a discussion of personalities, let's go there...

Your "watching" rather than reading is a big part of the problem. You watch and listen to biased sources only. They filter it so you will come to the conclusion they want. It is the same thing bac did above, with his "stop right there." To me that was a hint that he was about to start misleading. He acts like he is some sort of expert on what is happening in Benghazi and above the "stupid Americans." But, that's just absurd and he is reliant on the same sources of information that we are. He likes to read more left wing conspiracy crap but that's hardly the bastion of truth. His narrative of why there might be a cover up is far more coherent than anything the right wing idiots at Fox have offered but still, that's proof and not very conclusive.

Even when you listen to the source uncut you have trained your own brain to tune out the parts that don't fit your narrative. You are especially susceptible to that error in thinking when you only rely on auditory sources. But it is QUITE clear that you have the same problem when you read. In the last couple months I have repeatedly pointed out to you and others the pieces of information you were ignoring in this story and in several others. I have called attention to examples of your errors numerous times. It does not seem to help any as you just seem to take it personally and pout.

On the other hand I pay attention to my learning processes and I am quite aware of the different traps that I might fall into. I work in a field that requires that I continue to learn, I am very good at it and I like it. I remain an observant student and I have always been very good at taking tests.

Too many people in this country have given up on doing their own thinking and rely on others to do it for them. Instead of realizing that sources need to be balanced they have turned away from any source that does not support their position from the start. It's lazy and stupid and only leads to error.
 
Every time we bring in the transcripts the proof offered by the right wing and other wackos has disappeared. It should be obvious to them that they need to watch their filters more closely but they just continue to rant and ignore their errors.

Again, I don't care much for the administration's language seeming to threaten free speech. I am very sensitive to that. But there is no policy that has been advanced due to it.

There is no proof of a cover up or any conspiracy. That's the story you guys have been going with. You seem to be trying to change it to the idea that thye made mistakes or that there might be some reason to second guess them, but that is just Monday morning quarterbacking.
 
TheRocketSurgeon said:
I have read everything you and others have presented old timer. You have nothing. Since all you have left now is a discussion of personalities, let's go there...

Your "watching" rather than reading is a big part of the problem. You watch and listen to biased sources only. They filter it so you will come to the conclusion they want. It is the same thing bac did above, with his "stop right there." To me that was a hint that he was about to start misleading. He acts like he is some sort of expert on what is happening in Benghazi and above the "stupid Americans." But, that's just absurd and he is reliant on the same sources of information that we are. He likes to read more left wing conspiracy crap but that's hardly the bastion of truth. His narrative of why there might be a cover up is far more coherent than anything the right wing idiots at Fox have offered but still, that's proof and not very conclusive.

Even when you listen to the source uncut you have trained your own brain to tune out the parts that don't fit your narrative. You are especially susceptible to that error in thinking when you only rely on auditory sources. But it is QUITE clear that you have the same problem when you read. In the last couple months I have repeatedly pointed out to you and others the pieces of information you were ignoring in this story and in several others. I have called attention to examples of your errors numerous times. It does not seem to help any as you just seem to take it personally and pout.

On the other hand I pay attention to my learning processes and I am quite aware of the different traps that I might fall into. I work in a field that requires that I continue to learn, I am very good at it and I like it. I remain an observant student and I have always been very good at taking tests.

Too many people in this country have given up on doing their own thinking and rely on others to do it for them. Instead of realizing that sources need to be balanced they have turned away from any source that does not support their position from the start. It's lazy and stupid and only leads to error.
Click to expand...

Then lets compare what we KNOW...and ask the questions.....
These are no idle claims, these are facts.

Drones (2) covered the attack in real time, with a LIVE feed to Washington DC....everyone
there that had the code to assess the live feed could watch it as it happened.....
Do you think Obama and the Joint Chiefs, CIA and others had that code and were watching
the attack as it happened ?

Obama said on TV that he gave orders to protect the Ambassador and his staff.....
Who got those orders and why didn't they carry them out.....?
Or is Obama full of shit in the first place......?
Someone must take responsibility, don't you think.

Were the drones armed ?.....No one will reveal that....don't you wonder why ?
If they were, why weren't they used ?

The attack lasted about 8 hours I think.....why wasn't a C130 gunship flown in to give
cover to those at the Annex......

There was a carrier in the Med. with dozens of attack planes....why weren't they used....
if only to try to scare the attackers away if nothing else.....

Don't you have any fuckin' questions about the way this was handled ?
 
bravo said:
Then lets compare what we KNOW...and ask the questions.....
These are no idle claims, these are facts.

Drones (2) covered the attack in real time, with a LIVE feed to Washington DC....everyone
there that had the code to assess the live feed could watch it as it happened.....
Do you think Obama and the Joint Chiefs, CIA and others had that code and were watching
the attack as it happened ?

Obama said on TV that he gave orders to protect the Ambassador and his staff.....
Who got those orders and why didn't they carry them out.....?
Or is Obama full of shit in the first place......?
Someone must take responsibility, don't you think.

Were the drones armed ?.....No one will reveal that....don't you wonder why ?
If they were, why weren't they used ?

The attack lasted about 8 hours I think.....why wasn't a C130 gunship flown in to give
cover to those at the Annex......

There was a carrier in the Med. with dozens of attack planes....why weren't they used....
if only to try to scare the attackers away if nothing else.....

Don't you have any fuckin' questions about the way this was handled ?
Click to expand...

No they don't. Osama bin laden is dead. That is all they know and it is all their puny brains can comprehend
 
Rice made the rounds of the Sunday morning talk shows on Sept. 16, five days after the attack in the Libyan city, and in each one she said the fatal assault appeared to have stemmed from a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam video.

This is undeniable fact.

In an interview Monday (10/15) with The Washington Post, Rice said she relied on daily updates from intelligence agencies in the days before her television appearances and on a set of talking points prepared for senior members of the administration by intelligence officials. She said there was no attempt to pick and choose among possible explanations for the attack.

Intelligence agencies deny they ever blamed any foolish video......that leaves the set of talking points prepared for senior members of the administration by who ?
No one has come forward as yet to claim they made the connection between the video and the attack....ergo, it was bullshit from the get go.....
As a matter of fact the "spontaneous protest" crap was denied from the people on the ground being attacked.....yet that what Rice repeated over and over.....
she got that crap from somewhere....
What did Hillary claim the next day, 9/12/2012 ? the same thing ? spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam video. ?

And them Obama 6 times at the UN weeks later.....and on TV after that.....

Susan Rice, on the September 16th, the president on the 18th and the 25th, kept talking about an attack inspired by a video.”........lies....
 
Dixie said:
And THIS is where the left goes when it is confronted with undeniable facts about a serious matter.

Predictable.
Click to expand...

No, Dixie.
The undeniable facts are that 53% of Americans are racist in one way or another, 23% admit to believing white people are superior to black people in some way.
Romney started this race with NO POLICIES of his own. He had to wait til polls showed him which way to go. THAT IS NOT POLITICS, mister. Romney believes in such arrant nonsense in his religion,in which he is or was a bishop,that he cannot possibly make rational,unbiased judgements about allies and enemies. His knowledge of geography is worse than bush's. Like the man he follows, Joseph Smith, he is an opportunist.
Obama has been attacked by the right wing of the republican party since the evening of his inauguration. Despite this and despite the fact that he is held hostage to the global economy he has done what the previous republican incumbent could not do.
I know, Dixie, that you are not unintelligent. BUT weighing the pros and cons of each candidate with the future safety and wellbeing of America no one can side with the right on policies alone.
If we take away policies what are we left with?
A white guy and a half white guy.
Don't ever tell be that this election is not about race. This election is showing the world what revolting, ignorant people many Americans are. Is that the side you choose?
The figures I posted the other day were not conjured out of the blue by an anti Romney clique, they were the result of a poll. (You believe in polls, don't you?)
Romney could well be the most dangerous choice any American can make at this time. And it's all about the white guy.
 
The undeniable facts are that 53% of Americans are racist in one way or another.
Click to expand...

This HAS to be false because Obama could have never been elected president if this were true.

The thread is about Benghazi and the cover-up, not your fucked in the head bigotry regarding Americans.
 
Dixie said:
This HAS to be false because Obama could have never been elected president if this were true.

The thread is about Benghazi and the cover-up, not your fucked in the head bigotry regarding Americans.
Click to expand...

No Dixie. Once again you are wrong. This thread is yet another attempt by colour prejudiced yanks ,who have NO IDEA of what politics means, to denigrate your president.
What policies did Romney enter the race with? Leave this Benghazi crap. The important thing is that someone got killed and, in fairness, you are not going to pin that assassination on Obama, try as you might.
Now, once again,
WHAT POLICIES DID ROMNEY BRING WITH HIM INTO THE RACE?
What is/was the reason an anti black, anti science, anti sense man entered the race?
Sure as hell he had/has NO INTENTION of making your life better. He can't even spell altruism.
 
Dixie said:
This HAS to be false because Obama could have never been elected president if this were true.

The thread is about Benghazi and the cover-up, not your fucked in the head bigotry regarding Americans.
Click to expand...




because 47% of white people and all of the other people who are Americans voted him into office and kicked your racists ass
 
Lowaicue said:
No Dixie. Once again you are wrong. This thread is yet another attempt by colour prejudiced yanks ,who have NO IDEA of what politics means, to denigrate your president.
What policies did Romney enter the race with? Leave this Benghazi crap. The important thing is that someone got killed and, in fairness, you are not going to pin that assassination on Obama, try as you might.
Now, once again,
WHAT POLICIES DID ROMNEY BRING WITH HIM INTO THE RACE?
What is/was the reason an anti black, anti science, anti sense man entered the race?
Sure as hell he had/has NO INTENTION of making your life better. He can't even spell altruism.
Click to expand...

Thread's about Benghazi... you wanna talk Romney policy, start a new one. Sorry.
 
and your party lied and lied about Benghazi to scoire political points off the backs of dead men while their bodies were still warm.
 
TheRocketSurgeon said:
Does America really want these idiots in charge of the military? Is it really preferrable to rush in to action and put more people in harm's way?

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/10/benghazi-libya-state-emails

There's only one problem—well, actually, there are many, but one big one: The email appears to have been incorrect. Ansar al-Sharia in Benghazi, the group suspected of attacking the consulate, never claimed responsibility for the assault. In fact, according to Aaron Zelin, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who monitors jihadist activity online, Ansar al-Sharia in Benghazi didn't post about the attack on its Facebook or Twitter page until September 12, the day after the attack. They expressed their approval of the incident, but they didn't take credit; they did imply members of the group might have been involved, according to Zelin, stating, "Katibat Ansar al-Sharia [in Benghazi] as a military did not participate formally/officially and not by direct orders." The statement also justifies the attack by implicitly alluding to the anti-Islam video linked to unrest in other parts of the Middle East, saying, "We commend the Libyan Muslim people in Benghazi [that were] against the attack on the [Muslim] Prophet [Muhammad]."

"It is possible staffers were mistaken in the heat of the moment," wrote Zelin in an email to Mother Jones. "Not only was there no statement from ASB until the following morning, but it did not claim responsibility." (Zelin provided Mother Jones with screenshots of AAS's Twitter feed and Facebook page, which he also provided to CNN. It's possible the posts could have been deleted, but there's no way to prove that.)

Even if the State Department email had been accurate, conservatives pounced on it eagerly without underlying corroboration, thereby providing a pretty good example of how complicated intelligence analysis can be and why it's a bad idea to simply jump on a piece of information that fits your preconceived biases. The email was just one piece of information gathered in the aftermath of the attack. While the White House's initial explanation that the attack had begun as a protest turned out to be wrong, the email itself doesn't bear on two of the major remaining questions: what role the video played and whether the attack was planned or spontaneous.

You'd think that this would be obvious, but in the future it's a good idea to remember that just because someone posts something on Facebook, that doesn't necessarily mean it's true. Even better: Just because someone said someone posted something on Facebook doesn't mean it's true. Even if you really, really want it to be.
Click to expand...



face facts fro one damned time in your life
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top