CBS Apologizes for Something FOX Does Every Day - Benghazi!

You are assuming EVERYTHING in the complete absence of any proof because you have provided none. I have assumed nothing either way. You ask questions then assume guilt. You give nothing but innuendo and assume it to be fact. You have nothing. If you did, you'd certainly be happy to spell it out here but again, you have nothing to spell out but conjecture. Old fool.

 

Apparently rlm's cents has yet to learn how to use google, and wants to be spoon fed information. Some things never change, I guess.

I hope he doesn't need burping now. I hate getting puke on my shoulder.

 

I used to spend my time trying the educate him but it was a pointless endeavor. Never learned a thing. I read that when ideologues are shown proof of their false narratives by someone they perceive as the other side, it only strengthens their belief in the false narrative. Now I just let them wallow in their own ignorance. Why waste my time?

 

The last time I checked, none of the "that multiple key witnesses to the attack have already testified before Congress" were the survivors. NONE!

So you proved Obama lied about doing everything they could to help.

"CIA's Office of Terrorism" is not a "who". Maybe it was and maybe it was not. Point being that Obama is covering it up - again and still.

 

Last time you checked what?

 

What would you prefer? Huffington, Fox, Daily Mail, The Examiner, Kerry, Graham, etc. Try reading some real news. You mist learn wha t is really happening.

 

Try checking somewhere besides Bullshit Mountain, and you may learn something, rlm's cents.

Alec Henderson was the Regional Security Officer stationed at Benghazi at the time of the attack. He testified in Congress last month. As well, CIA officers who were at the agency’s Benghazi base on the night of the attack, including one of those that responded to the attack, testified in Congress several months ago. Tomorrow, some more of those who responded will be testifying. But do tell: who are the survivors who you think should have testified?

Perhaps, but contrary to your earlier assertion, that information was not hidden by the administration. Nice attempt to change the subject, though.

This non sequitur doesn't address the fact that we do know where the idea came from, contrary to your earlier assertion. That information is not "hidden": We know that it was the CIA, and not anybody in the administration. Second attempt to change the subject noted.

That "point" is a bald assertion, completely unsupported and a failure. If the issues I've addressed are the basis for your "point," you'd be better off looking for new ones.

 

I agree...but you left out that the Administration actually caused the death of these brave Americans to further political ambitions. That's what's so stunningly shocking about this affair. The cover-up in no less shocking! Anything Richard Nixon ever did pales in comparison.

Joe, you claim that you will "call out" your party and your President when they/he does something wrong. Your silence is deafening.

 

...found by searching for images of "Obama-Dementia"...

 

Yet, you can offer no, zero, zip, nada in the way of proof of your wild theories but you don't let that stop you from assuming guilt. This has been a reckless witch hunt from the very beginning. It isn't even done well. This is what the Right does during every modern Democratic presidency. They take some relentless fanatic like Issa and turn him lose the administration in order to try to delegitimize the presidency. This is just how low they are willing to sink because deep down they feel that America is so stupid that the electorate will not see their cynical ploy. To use dead Americans has to be the lowest of the lows. There simply is no low that they won't sink to. This is why I could never be a Repuke. They make me ill.

 

So now the conspiracy bug has you by the balls. Figures.

 

Takiji laid out a timeline of similar embassy attacks on page #1. Al Qaeda published their attack plans for Benghazi on their web site weeks before the attack. The embassy folks asked for additional protection and were denied. The Administration sends Ambassador Stevens into this volatile area on the anniversary of 911. You would have to be a colossal idiot not to provide some level of heightened security under these conditions...yet they didn't.

1. That was bad...but mistakes (even incredibly stupid ones) happen.

2. What has everyone so incensed is that, even though the Administration knew the night of the attack who did it and why, they covered it up for weeks...calling it a "spontaneous popular uprising over a blasphemous video".

3. On top of all that, the Administration won't release any of the documents requested by Congress that would put this whole matter to rest. If it walks like a Duck and quacks like a Duck...it's a DUCK!

Come on Joe, if you won't hold the Administration accountable on Benghazi (I'm not saying guilty or innocent...just "accountable"), you won't hold them accountable for anything.

 

I offered no theories. I merely asked questions. It would be very simple to eliminate those theories. Release the facts!!!!

 

Perhaps when you get the "facts" you can agree with you will finally be happy. Agreeing with "facts" as you'd like them to be is always just the best. Perhaps you could keep asking questions and assuming guilt. Yeah, that will work.

 

Now, after 12 days, CBS retracted the entire story. See CBS! That is what happens when you try to enter the Right-wing echo chamber and try to make any sense of the disinformation BS of the mouthpiece of the GOP. Right-wing media is the capital of Bullshitistan. Don't go there.

 

I don't know about you, but I consider moving the goal posts, as you've just done, to be admission that one's points have been completely addressed. I went to the trouble (as usual) to make sure that my links were colored blue, so you couldn't miss them. If you think that the information in them is suspect, then it's up to you to support your position. Failing that, we're looking at hollow bluster and willful ignorance.

I did no such thing. I did, however, agree that it's possible that that is the case. Somehow you missed the adverb "perhaps" with which I began that sentence. Please try to pay better attention in the future.

This discussion is not taking place in a vacuum. I am describing commonly available knowledge that is a matter of public record, and which no reasonable person disputes. The fact is that the CIA was responsible for producing the talking points. If you dispute that, it's up to you to give sound reasons, and bring evidence to support your position. Otherwise, this is yet another instance of you bumptiously belching out hot air.

The CIA is not known for producing that sort of information merely because some blow-hard pursuing a partisan agenda thinks that they should. Best of luck convincing them to make an exception.

Here's some home work for you, for a change: Produce some evidence that somebody in the CIA decided to lie to the American public about this. I've decided I'm through doing your research for you on this topic.

The testimony of the survivors and those on the ground who made decisions has given us (by "us" I mean those who deal in reality rather than politically motivated conspiracy theories) a fairly clear picture of what happened. It's not their fault that you refuse to accept it. Again, you can bluster and bleat and move the goal posts all you want, but you haven't presented anything which supports your position.

 

You cannot get a reasoned argument from him. If so, I'd have gotten one by now. I mostly just ignore his nonsense. He seems like an angry old white guy determined to fight one more fight to make himself feel relevant. Why should I help him with that? He needs to get a hobby or get on with the business of dying.

 

They really don't seem to be wanting to engage you on this issue, Yakpoo, do they?

 

If you mean debunking the same lies again, then no, nobody wants to engage Yaky. It gets old and trying to convince ideologues of anything is pretty much pointless.