If accurate... wow...

Dungheap said:
It amazes me how casually you can smear people. I mean, Ben Sherwood has worked for ABC News since the late 1980s and was named its president in 2010 after 20+ years working there is various capacities while his sister worked in the Clinton Administration in the State Department in various capacities, has taught at some of the best schools in the country and in some of the most prestigous think tanks before going to work for then Senator Biden, whom she followed when he became VP by working in the State Department for European Affairs.

But I guess it's a whole lot easier to just lob accusations about nepotism and cover ups absent evidence.
Click to expand...

Ok Dung... nothing to see here... move along... your standard MO
 
Superfreak said:
Ok Dung... nothing to see here... move along... your standard MO
Click to expand...


LOL. Uh, when did I say that? How about some actual evidence of wrong-doing before you go around smearing people? Last I checked there wasn't anything wrong with being born into a family of successful people and being successful yourself.
 
Superfreak said:
Except that they were not. That was not the best intel at the time. That is what they changed it to. The CIA gave them the talking points that stated it was a terrorist attack with links to Al Queda. The White House and State Dept then altered the intel to fit the story they wanted to tell, rather than tell what really occurred.
Click to expand...

It would seem to me to be the height of arrogance for a CPA from Colorado to profess to know more than the CIA and the State Dept about what was "the best intel at the time".

Then again, this board is populated with quite a few arrogant Righties.
 
I Love America said:
Lie #1 - The attack on Benghazi was because of a YouTube video
Lie #2 - The White House only changed one word of the CIA talking points
Lie #3 - The military couldn't have made it there in time, they could have.

I don't care if you are willing to defend the black guy to your death. He is going down and down hard. There is no stopping this now. Thank God.
Click to expand...
SO you have the quotes where the President told these lies?
 
ZappasGuitar said:
It would seem to me to be the height of arrogance for a CPA from Colorado to profess to know more than the CIA and the State Dept about what was "the best intel at the time".

Then again, this board is populated with quite a few arrogant Righties.
Click to expand...

1) I am not a CPA
2) I am not professing to know more than the CIA... I am reiterating what the CIA has stated. The CIA is the one that said State and the WH altered its original talking points. The CIA is the one that stated the original talking points referenced a terrorist attack with links to Al Queda. How many times must this be said before it sinks in for you?
 
Superfreak said:
Then you are either being dishonest now or you simply haven't read what has been posted.

1) The admin had multiple warnings that security was lax in that known hotspot.
2) The admin deliberately kept spinning a lie about the attack being due to a video.
3) The admin continues to lie about the changes made to the CIA talking points, that deliberately removed the intel that it was a terrorist attack and linked to Al Queda.
Click to expand...

So, lets pretend that all of the above is true... So what? What is to be done about it now? It would not be the first time an administration 1) failed regarding security, 2) spun a story to benefit them, 3)minimized the way a campaign affected an after the fact story... None of that justifies the outrage and anger the R's are currently manufacturing.
 
Dungheap said:
LOL. Uh, when did I say that? How about some actual evidence of wrong-doing before you go around smearing people? Last I checked there wasn't anything wrong with being born into a family of successful people and being successful yourself.
Click to expand...

LMAO... another straw man?

No one said there was anything wrong with being successful you half wit.

CBS News President David Rhodes and ABC News President Ben Sherwood, both of them have siblings that not only work at the White House, that not only work for President Obama, but they work at the NSC on foreign policy issues directly related to Benghazi. Let’s call a spade a spade.
Click to expand...
Let’s also show you why CNN did not go very far in covering these hearings because the CNN deputy bureau chief, Virginia Moseley, is married to Hillary Clinton’s deputy, Tom Nides.
Click to expand...

What I did say is that there IS something wrong when you have a deliberate attempt by State and the WH to alter intel talking points. Add in the fact that Obama has the siblings of the President of two major networks in his employ and Hilary has the spouse of another network, that doesn't make it hard to comprehend why the media went so easy on Obama once it was found out the Admin was full of shit with regards to the video NOT being the cause of the 'spontaneous protest' as so adamantly proclaimed by the Obama admin.
 
Shorter SF:

I'm not saying. I'm just saying. *wink wink*.

By the way, the CIA said the attacks were spontaneously inspired by the events in Cairo (which were about the video), which is what the final talking points (CIA approved) also said. So, you probably want to be a little more careful with your claims lest you look like someone that doesn't really know what the hell he's talking about but wants to attack the President anyway.
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO... another straw man?

No one said there was anything wrong with being successful you half wit.



What I did say is that there IS something wrong when you have a deliberate attempt by State and the WH to alter intel talking points. Add in the fact that Obama has the siblings of the President of two major networks in his employ and Hilary has the spouse of another network, that doesn't make it hard to comprehend why the media went so easy on Obama once it was found out the Admin was full of shit with regards to the video NOT being the cause of the 'spontaneous protest' as so adamantly proclaimed by the Obama admin.
Click to expand...


Hey, I've gotta give you credit - the bolded is really filled with hard, indisputable facts that clearly detail manipulation and a cover-up. So well-researched and documented. Very nice.
 
I Love America said:
So you think the attack was because of a YouTube video? You believe that story? You also believe that the White House had nothing to do with making changes to the CIA document?

You believe those things do you?
Click to expand...

The anti-Islamic video caused violent protests in 20 countries. A logical person would make the connection.

But, you NEED to answer my questions. The attack occured 8 months and 2 days ago...244 days. So by now we must know who did it. Names, organization(s), motive(s), etc.

SO TELL ME...WHO did it? WHY?? What were all the motives???
 
Dungheap said:
Shorter SF:

I'm not saying. I'm just saying. *wink wink*.

By the way, the CIA said the attacks were spontaneously inspired by the events in Cairo (which were about the video), which is what the final talking points (CIA approved) also said. So, you probably want to be a little more careful with your claims lest you look like someone that doesn't really know what the hell he's talking about but wants to attack the President anyway.
Click to expand...

LMAO... so the CIA coming out and saying that it was State and the WH that made those changes is your proof that it is CIA approved? fucking hilarious.

yes... the CIA bowed down to the WH and 'approved' its version. Despite the fact that they knew otherwise... wonder how that happened.
 
Jarod said:
So, lets pretend that all of the above is true... So what? What is to be done about it now? It would not be the first time an administration 1) failed regarding security, 2) spun a story to benefit them, 3)minimized the way a campaign affected an after the fact story... None of that justifies the outrage and anger the R's are currently manufacturing.
Click to expand...

So you are choosing to ignore reality and simply continue to scream Benghazi...
 
Superfreak said:
Except that they were not. That was not the best intel at the time. That is what they changed it to. The CIA gave them the talking points that stated it was a terrorist attack with links to Al Queda. The White House and State Dept then altered the intel to fit the story they wanted to tell, rather than tell what really occurred.
Click to expand...

Let me ask you a question. Is it the job of the President, the FBI, the CIA and the State Department to ELEVATE any band of attackers to the level of al Qaeda?

The little-known militant group Ansar al-Sharia, who claimed credit for the attack would LOVE to be ELEVATED to the level of al Qaeda.
 
Superfreak said:
What reality am I ignoring Garud? Let me guess, you are pretending to be intelligent again? Or is that intiligant?
Click to expand...

The reality that there is no scandal here...

The White House framed things in a way that looked best for them at the time... Is that even news to anyone that a white house does that? Has a White House going back to Lincoln not done that? Seriously the false outrage is getting silly. Especially when its done in the shadow of the Bush Administration, and these hearings are being pushed by those who defended truly heinous mischaracterizations that led to hundreds of thousands of deaths, brought about at our hands.
 
If the name Clinton were not tangentially related to this, and if it did not happen just prior to an election, you would not hear a peep from the Republicans about this.
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO... so the CIA coming out and saying that it was State and the WH that made those changes is your proof that it is CIA approved? fucking hilarious.

yes... the CIA bowed down to the WH and 'approved' its version. Despite the fact that they knew otherwise... wonder how that happened.
Click to expand...


Here's the CIA first bullet point as it first appeared and as it last appeared at the end of the process:

We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests as the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex.
Click to expand...


And how it appeared at the end of the process:

The currently available information suggests that that demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. diplomatic post and subsequently its annex.
Click to expand...


I understand the "Al Qaeda" reference scrubbing as a legitimate gripe (not that I agree with it), but I'm not sure what the big deal is with this one.
 
The problem isn't the attack so much as the "It's all due to the video!" nonsense that followed, a compliant media supported one of the stupidest explanations ever given feeding the low information voter some of the most obvious disingenuous nonsense I've encountered since Nixon.

Now we find out the IRS is doing the same crap it was doing for Nixon for this guy too... His latest "I didn't know" crap even reminded me of Nixon's "I am not a crook" speech.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top