Benghazi - Wing Nuts Want a Conspiracy So badly.....

Focus, Guy, focus. Benghazi is the topic of this thread.

 

Ya Guy! The wing nuts have brought up Kennedy, Clinton, A movie, a camel, and some professor so far but now you get the lecture about focusing because you dared to compare the exact same type of incident with far greater consequences that had to do with the Right-wing God his holiness Ronnie Reagan.

 

https://soundcloud.com/mike-in-raleigh/motel-fox-benghazi​

​

​

 

You really think I am going to "log in"?

 

And you brought up Iraq, Bush, chicken bone, Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, Syria, United Kingdom, Romney, Australia, Lewinsk, Beiru, Reagan, etc.

Now, back to the topic at hand. Nixon covered up Watergate and, as a result, Nixon went bye-bye. No one died in Watergate. Obama covered up Benghazi. 4 died in Benghazi. What do you think should happen to Obama? And why is it any different than Watergate?

 

I bring it up because I don't see a cover-up. I asked twice for evidence of a cover-up and lying, and twice I've been directed elsewhere. Beirut wasn't a cover-up either...it was a F&%# up by the admin to recognize a threat. I'm not saying Obama didn't mess up. I'm asking where the lies are. As for Watergate, get real...it was a lie that harmed nobody. Show me a single president that hasn't lied, and I'll show you a liar.

 

Again;

Those are just a small portion of the lies. Who? Clinton, Rice (i.e. Clinton), Obama. And all have been proven. Now if you choose to ignore the proof, I cannot change that.

 

Let us just address two of your silly statements and see how you respond to non-emotional facts. Or should I say non-FOX supplied "facts"?

NY Times: People Who Attacked Libya Consulate Said They Were Motivated By Anti-Islam Film

NY Times: Attackers Said They Struck U.S. Consulate In Benghazi "In Retaliation For the Video." An October 15 New York Times article reported that the people who attacked the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi said that an anti-Muslim film prompted the attack. Furthermore, Libyans "who witnessed the assault and know the attacks" also said the video was the catalyst for the attack:

To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier. And it is an explanation that tracks with their history as a local militant group determined to protect Libya from Western influence.​

[...]​

The fighters said at the time that they were moved to act because of the video, which had first gained attention across the region after a protest in Egypt that day. The assailants approvingly recalled a 2006 assault by local Islamists that had destroyed an Italian diplomatic mission in Benghazi over a perceived insult to the prophet. In June the group staged a similar attack against the Tunisian Consulate over a different film, according to the Congressional testimony of the American security chief at the time, Eric A. Nordstrom.​

At a news conference the day after the ambassador and three other Americans were killed, a spokesman for Ansar al-Shariah praised the attack as the proper response to such an insult to Islam. "We are saluting our people for this zeal in protecting their religion, to grant victory to the Prophet," the spokesman said. "The response has to be firm." Other Benghazi militia leaders who know the group say its leaders and ideology are all homegrown. Those leaders, including Ahmed Abu Khattala and Mohammed Ali Zahawi, fought alongside other commanders against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. Their group provides social services and guards a hospital. And they openly proselytize for their brand of puritanical Islam and political vision.​

They profess no interest in global fights against the West or distant battles aimed at removing American troops from the Arabian Peninsula. [The New York Times, 10/15/12]​

​

​

 

You're still sticking by the "anti-Islam video" excuse? Hoo boy! Are you ignorant or just dumb?

 

I guess that you just know more than the reporters on the ground. Forgive me for assuming that you were just regurgitating FOX talking points again....Oh wait, you were just regurgitating Fox talking points again.

Just curious, and feel perfectly free to not answer again, but why is everything we say an excuse but everything you guys say a fact even though every single story you and Fox put out there has a giant "IF" contained in it?

It is sort of precious the way news sources outside of your Right-wing bubble are completely dismissed and ignored by you three. Just darling!

 

It was not the reporters who refute the film BS. It was the person in charge of the embassy in Libya. If you had listened to the hearing he both stated the he personally told Hillary in person directly that the attacks were forewarned, and preplanned by Al Qaeda. And he said that the film was a non-event in Libya. That is specifically why we needed the hearing and need more.

 

If you would get your nose out of the blogs and actually listen to some news you might actually pick up some facts.

 

I love this interview. All you need to know about why we are still listening to these wing nuts talk about Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi...


http://mediamatters.org/video/2013/05/08/msnbcs-all-in-highlights-foxs-failed-attempt-to/193976

 

Here are a couple lies I picked from their "coverage".
"Obama never called it terror" - well, for 2 weeks, he did not and continued to lie to us.
"and they said of course, come back" except for those who wanted to testify and Hillary.
"Fox news has shown no interest in finding out how we can prevent this from happening" first, you really have to figure out what happened before you can prevent anything.

Now, how about refuting what Hicks et al testified to yesterday in stead of this BS.

 

It's hard not to notice that Dicky just completely ignores anything that proves his FOX supplied talking point to be nothing more than FOX lies?
Let me summarize... The attackers themselves and the people that knew them both admitted that the video was motivation for the attack and that there was no warning.
Dicky just keeps spewing his nonsense no matter what revelations come out. His mind is like a steel trap, nothing gets in.
How is it even possible to have a rational conversation with someone this wedded to conspiracy theories, false narratives, and easily disprovable lies that he refuses to acknowledge? Answer, roll your eyes and move on.

 

Yep! You are right. I ignored anything Fox supplied. I got my FACTS from the Congressional hearings and mostly from the man in charge of our Libyan attachment. Oh, and the Libyan Prime Minister.

BTW, you do realize that you are contradicting Obama/Clinton in their latest line, don't you. Both have since admitted that the film had nothing to do with Benghazi. I even remember YOU saying that Obama had called it terrorism in his first press conference after the attacks

 

Don't believe the hearings, now even some of your lame street media is joining in.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...t-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/

 

And here is the ACTUAL CIA talking points. Are you telling me they are wrong? Again, not Fox. http://news.yahoo.com/read-12-versions-infamous-benghazi-talking-points-122538975.html

 

What a moron! Nobody from day 1 said that the testimonial statements had not been edited, but editing for substance was not done, editing for security was admitted. Big deal! You still can't point to one edit that tried to cover anything up. Not one! But that is the innuendo you and FOX seem to be pushing.

You and the rest of the wing nuts just want a scandal so badly that you are will to read anything into every meaningless detail of this tragedy.

 

This isn't "editing for security", this IS "editing substance"!

ABC News Exclusive: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference​

​

When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story.

ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.

White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.

That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points in November.

“Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened,” Carney told reporters at the White House press briefing on November 28, 2012. “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”

Summaries of White House and State Department emails — some of which were first published by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard — show that the State Department had extensive input into the editing of the talking points.
State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland raised specific objections to this paragraph drafted by the CIA in its earlier versions of the talking points:

“The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.”

In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned …”

The paragraph was entirely deleted.

Like the final version used by Ambassador Rice on the Sunday shows, the CIA’s first drafts said the attack appeared to have been “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo” but the CIA version went on to say, “That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” The draft went on to specifically name the al Qaeda-affiliated group named Ansar al-Sharia.

​

​

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/benghazi/2013/05/10/abc-news-exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-terror-reference#ixzz2Su01vsQa​