U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in Rocket Attack (3 Viewers)

[shader]

This thread is absolutely horrible for someone just trying to figure out what the heck happened. One side is throwing any and everything at the wall, desperate for something to stick. The other side just puts their hands over their ears, laughs at the hilarity of it all and downplays the whole thing. Maybe one of the two sides is right. I'd just be interested to know what a "center" viewpoint would be.

That's the problem with today's political climate and the need to equate everything on one side to something on the other side. The side being insane benefits as instead of being called out, they are seen as simply 1 side of the issue. Meanwhile the side being rationale gets equated to morons and baffoons.

I agree. There are times when a "side" can be completely right.

 

[timschochet]

This thread is absolutely horrible for someone just trying to figure out what the heck happened. One side is throwing any and everything at the wall, desperate for something to stick. The other side just puts their hands over their ears, laughs at the hilarity of it all and downplays the whole thing. Maybe one of the two sides is right. I'd just be interested to know what a "center" viewpoint would be.

A "center" viewpoint would be this:

1. The State Department screwed up. The screw up MAY have contributed to the deaths, or may not have- we'll never be certain of it.

2. The screw up was most likely low level, for the logical reason that high level officials (like Obama and Hillary) don't have time to bother with diplomatic security issues. However, there was likely a cover-up of the screw-up, and this went a little higher (still very unlikely that it reached high levels.)

3. The Republican party is trying to use this story to embarrass the Obama Administration, and in particular Hillary Clinton, whom they fear will be the next Democratic candidate. To the GOP, this is just a partisan game; if this story did not exist, they would find or create another one to embarrass the White House. If a Republican were in the White House, the Democrats would find a story to attack the Republican. There has not been a Presidency, either Republican or Democrat, without at least two or more scandals in my lifetime. Usually it's an average of one every couple of years.

4. To the conservative base. this is NOT a game. They believe this is a serious issue which may (they hope) bring down the President. They are encouraged to this belief by talk show hosts, the Internet, and various conspiracy theories. The hope that Obama will be brought down is somewhat contradicted by another belief, just as strong, that the "liberal media" will cover up the truth and never allow Obama to be brought down.

5. Tommy has it exactly right: because of the partisan nature of Congress, there's no way to have a fair hearing. Somebody DID do something wrong here- I don't believe on purpose, though it's possible. But we'll never going to find out who and why, and these hearings are really a big waste of taxpayer money IMO.

 

[shader]

This thread is absolutely horrible for someone just trying to figure out what the heck happened. One side is throwing any and everything at the wall, desperate for something to stick. The other side just puts their hands over their ears, laughs at the hilarity of it all and downplays the whole thing. Maybe one of the two sides is right. I'd just be interested to know what a "center" viewpoint would be.

A "center" viewpoint would be this:

1. The State Department screwed up. The screw up MAY have contributed to the deaths, or may not have- we'll never be certain of it.

2. The screw up was most likely low level, for the logical reason that high level officials (like Obama and Hillary) don't have time to bother with diplomatic security issues. However, there was likely a cover-up of the screw-up, and this went a little higher (still very unlikely that it reached high levels.)

3. The Republican party is trying to use this story to embarrass the Obama Administration, and in particular Hillary Clinton, whom they fear will be the next Democratic candidate. To the GOP, this is just a partisan game; if this story did not exist, they would find or create another one to embarrass the White House. If a Republican were in the White House, the Democrats would find a story to attack the Republican. There has not been a Presidency, either Republican or Democrat, without at least two or more scandals in my lifetime. Usually it's an average of one every couple of years.

4. To the conservative base. this is NOT a game. They believe this is a serious issue which may (they hope) bring down the President. They are encouraged to this belief by talk show hosts, the Internet, and various conspiracy theories. The hope that Obama will be brought down is somewhat contradicted by another belief, just as strong, that the "liberal media" will cover up the truth and never allow Obama to be brought down.

5. Tommy has it exactly right: because of the partisan nature of Congress, there's no way to have a fair hearing. Somebody DID do something wrong here- I don't believe on purpose, though it's possible. But we'll never going to find out who and why, and these hearings are really a big waste of taxpayer money IMO.

Interesting Tim. Thanks! What are your thoughts on whether this was or wasn't a terrorist attack by Al-Qaeda, or protesters that were mad at a Youtube video. Do you think this line of reasoning has any relevance?

 

[timschochet]

This thread is absolutely horrible for someone just trying to figure out what the heck happened. One side is throwing any and everything at the wall, desperate for something to stick. The other side just puts their hands over their ears, laughs at the hilarity of it all and downplays the whole thing. Maybe one of the two sides is right. I'd just be interested to know what a "center" viewpoint would be.

A "center" viewpoint would be this:

1. The State Department screwed up. The screw up MAY have contributed to the deaths, or may not have- we'll never be certain of it.

2. The screw up was most likely low level, for the logical reason that high level officials (like Obama and Hillary) don't have time to bother with diplomatic security issues. However, there was likely a cover-up of the screw-up, and this went a little higher (still very unlikely that it reached high levels.)

3. The Republican party is trying to use this story to embarrass the Obama Administration, and in particular Hillary Clinton, whom they fear will be the next Democratic candidate. To the GOP, this is just a partisan game; if this story did not exist, they would find or create another one to embarrass the White House. If a Republican were in the White House, the Democrats would find a story to attack the Republican. There has not been a Presidency, either Republican or Democrat, without at least two or more scandals in my lifetime. Usually it's an average of one every couple of years.

4. To the conservative base. this is NOT a game. They believe this is a serious issue which may (they hope) bring down the President. They are encouraged to this belief by talk show hosts, the Internet, and various conspiracy theories. The hope that Obama will be brought down is somewhat contradicted by another belief, just as strong, that the "liberal media" will cover up the truth and never allow Obama to be brought down.

5. Tommy has it exactly right: because of the partisan nature of Congress, there's no way to have a fair hearing. Somebody DID do something wrong here- I don't believe on purpose, though it's possible. But we'll never going to find out who and why, and these hearings are really a big waste of taxpayer money IMO.

Interesting Tim. Thanks! What are your thoughts on whether this was or wasn't a terrorist attack by Al-Qaeda, or protesters that were mad at a Youtube video. Do you think this line of reasoning has any relevance?

We know there were protesters all over the Arab world that were angry about the video. We also know that Muslim leaders all over the world spoke out about the video, and the radical ones called for death to Americans as a result of it, and we know that this all happened on the same couple of days within hours of the Benghazi attacks. It is reasonable for US officials to have assumed these attacks were the result of that video, and to have maintained that assumption even as evidence mounted to the contrary? I think it is. Is it reasonable to assume that once having made the mistake, they stuck with it for far too long, out of a reluctance to admit they had screwed up? I think it is. Is it reasonable to assume that the whole thing was a conspiracy, that the government covered up the truth in order to help get Obama elected, or that the government WANTED the killings to happen for some nefarious reason? Only if you're an extreme partisan.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

This thread is absolutely horrible for someone just trying to figure out what the heck happened. One side is throwing any and everything at the wall, desperate for something to stick. The other side just puts their hands over their ears, laughs at the hilarity of it all and downplays the whole thing. Maybe one of the two sides is right. I'd just be interested to know what a "center" viewpoint would be.

A "center" viewpoint would be this:

1. The State Department screwed up. The screw up MAY have contributed to the deaths, or may not have- we'll never be certain of it.

2. The screw up was most likely low level, for the logical reason that high level officials (like Obama and Hillary) don't have time to bother with diplomatic security issues. However, there was likely a cover-up of the screw-up, and this went a little higher (still very unlikely that it reached high levels.)

3. The Republican party is trying to use this story to embarrass the Obama Administration, and in particular Hillary Clinton, whom they fear will be the next Democratic candidate. To the GOP, this is just a partisan game; if this story did not exist, they would find or create another one to embarrass the White House. If a Republican were in the White House, the Democrats would find a story to attack the Republican. There has not been a Presidency, either Republican or Democrat, without at least two or more scandals in my lifetime. Usually it's an average of one every couple of years.

4. To the conservative base. this is NOT a game. They believe this is a serious issue which may (they hope) bring down the President. They are encouraged to this belief by talk show hosts, the Internet, and various conspiracy theories. The hope that Obama will be brought down is somewhat contradicted by another belief, just as strong, that the "liberal media" will cover up the truth and never allow Obama to be brought down.

5. Tommy has it exactly right: because of the partisan nature of Congress, there's no way to have a fair hearing. Somebody DID do something wrong here- I don't believe on purpose, though it's possible. But we'll never going to find out who and why, and these hearings are really a big waste of taxpayer money IMO.

Interesting Tim. Thanks! What are your thoughts on whether this was or wasn't a terrorist attack by Al-Qaeda, or protesters that were mad at a Youtube video. Do you think this line of reasoning has any relevance?

We know there were protesters all over the Arab world that were angry about the video. We also know that Muslim leaders all over the world spoke out about the video, and the radical ones called for death to Americans as a result of it, and we know that this all happened on the same couple of days within hours of the Benghazi attacks. It is reasonable for US officials to have assumed these attacks were the result of that video, and to have maintained that assumption even as evidence mounted to the contrary? I think it is. Is it reasonable to assume that once having made the mistake, they stuck with it for far too long, out of a reluctance to admit they had screwed up? I think it is. Is it reasonable to assume that the whole thing was a conspiracy, that the government covered up the truth in order to help get Obama elected, or that the government WANTED the killings to happen for some nefarious reason? Only if you're an extreme partisan.

I see you missed a post or 2 in your reading..

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=655857&page=43entry15560721

 

[tommyGunZ]

This thread is absolutely horrible for someone just trying to figure out what the heck happened. One side is throwing any and everything at the wall, desperate for something to stick. The other side just puts their hands over their ears, laughs at the hilarity of it all and downplays the whole thing. Maybe one of the two sides is right. I'd just be interested to know what a "center" viewpoint would be.

I think my views are pretty center, but in having conversations in real life with people from both extremes, the liberals think it is silly that this is even a story (as if an ambassador being killed overseas is a non-story), and the conservatives don't like hearing that the Republicans are the ones who cut funding for security and are generally acting like jackasses about the whole thing. I guess you know that you are in the center when people from both extremes take issue with your stance.

I can't speak for the liberals you have conversations with, but I don't know a single liberal who would suggest that "an ambassador being killed is a non-story". That's not what these hearings are about - they're about the administration's characterizations of the attack immediately afterward.

Hearings about what happened and how to prevent it from happening in the future are fine. Hearing about why Susan Rice used the talking points that were given to her after being vetted by the intelligence agencies is a non-story.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

This thread is absolutely horrible for someone just trying to figure out what the heck happened. One side is throwing any and everything at the wall, desperate for something to stick. The other side just puts their hands over their ears, laughs at the hilarity of it all and downplays the whole thing. Maybe one of the two sides is right. I'd just be interested to know what a "center" viewpoint would be.

I think my views are pretty center, but in having conversations in real life with people from both extremes, the liberals think it is silly that this is even a story (as if an ambassador being killed overseas is a non-story), and the conservatives don't like hearing that the Republicans are the ones who cut funding for security and are generally acting like jackasses about the whole thing. I guess you know that you are in the center when people from both extremes take issue with your stance.

I can't speak for the liberals you have conversations with, but I don't know a single liberal who would suggest that "an ambassador being killed is a non-story". That's not what these hearings are about - they're about the administration's characterizations of the attack immediately afterward.

Hearings about what happened and how to prevent it from happening in the future are fine. Hearing about why Susan Rice used the talking points that were given to her after being vetted by the intelligence agencies is a non-story.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/

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.

The "intelligence agency" (The CIA) gave them information on the terrorist threat before the attack, and the terrorist element involved in the attack. It was the state department, otherwise known as the 'United States federal executive department', or if you prefer, The Department that is led by the Secretary of State, who is nominated by the President, that edited that information out.

 

[SmoovySmoov]

This thread is absolutely horrible for someone just trying to figure out what the heck happened. One side is throwing any and everything at the wall, desperate for something to stick. The other side just puts their hands over their ears, laughs at the hilarity of it all and downplays the whole thing. Maybe one of the two sides is right. I'd just be interested to know what a "center" viewpoint would be.

I think my views are pretty center, but in having conversations in real life with people from both extremes, the liberals think it is silly that this is even a story (as if an ambassador being killed overseas is a non-story), and the conservatives don't like hearing that the Republicans are the ones who cut funding for security and are generally acting like jackasses about the whole thing. I guess you know that you are in the center when people from both extremes take issue with your stance.

I can't speak for the liberals you have conversations with, but I don't know a single liberal who would suggest that "an ambassador being killed is a non-story". That's not what these hearings are about - they're about the administration's characterizations of the attack immediately afterward.

Hearings about what happened and how to prevent it from happening in the future are fine. Hearing about why Susan Rice used the talking points that were given to her after being vetted by the intelligence agencies is a non-story.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/

>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.

The intelligence agency (The CIA) gave them information on the terrorist threat before the attack, and the terrorist element involved in the attack. It was the state department, otherwise known as the 'United States federal executive department', or if you prefer, The Department that is led by the Secretary of State, who is nominated by the President, that edited that information out.

I bet if you keep saying it over and over, it will be true.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

This thread is absolutely horrible for someone just trying to figure out what the heck happened. One side is throwing any and everything at the wall, desperate for something to stick. The other side just puts their hands over their ears, laughs at the hilarity of it all and downplays the whole thing. Maybe one of the two sides is right. I'd just be interested to know what a "center" viewpoint would be.

I think my views are pretty center, but in having conversations in real life with people from both extremes, the liberals think it is silly that this is even a story (as if an ambassador being killed overseas is a non-story), and the conservatives don't like hearing that the Republicans are the ones who cut funding for security and are generally acting like jackasses about the whole thing. I guess you know that you are in the center when people from both extremes take issue with your stance.

I can't speak for the liberals you have conversations with, but I don't know a single liberal who would suggest that "an ambassador being killed is a non-story". That's not what these hearings are about - they're about the administration's characterizations of the attack immediately afterward.

Hearings about what happened and how to prevent it from happening in the future are fine. Hearing about why Susan Rice used the talking points that were given to her after being vetted by the intelligence agencies is a non-story.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/

>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

.

The intelligence agency (The CIA) gave them information on the terrorist threat before the attack, and the terrorist element involved in the attack. It was the state department, otherwise known as the 'United States federal executive department', or if you prefer, The Department that is led by the Secretary of State, who is nominated by the President, that edited that information out.

I bet if you keep saying it over and over, it will be true.

It's a direct quote from the link.. But bury your head in the sand if you like.. No skin off my back..

 

[SmoovySmoov]

This thread is absolutely horrible for someone just trying to figure out what the heck happened. One side is throwing any and everything at the wall, desperate for something to stick. The other side just puts their hands over their ears, laughs at the hilarity of it all and downplays the whole thing. Maybe one of the two sides is right. I'd just be interested to know what a "center" viewpoint would be.

I think my views are pretty center, but in having conversations in real life with people from both extremes, the liberals think it is silly that this is even a story (as if an ambassador being killed overseas is a non-story), and the conservatives don't like hearing that the Republicans are the ones who cut funding for security and are generally acting like jackasses about the whole thing. I guess you know that you are in the center when people from both extremes take issue with your stance.

I can't speak for the liberals you have conversations with, but I don't know a single liberal who would suggest that "an ambassador being killed is a non-story". That's not what these hearings are about - they're about the administration's characterizations of the attack immediately afterward.

Hearings about what happened and how to prevent it from happening in the future are fine. Hearing about why Susan Rice used the talking points that were given to her after being vetted by the intelligence agencies is a non-story.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/

The intelligence agency (The CIA) gave them information on the terrorist threat before the attack, and the terrorist element involved in the attack. It was the state department, otherwise known as the 'United States federal executive department', or if you prefer, The Department that is led by the Secretary of State, who is nominated by the President, that edited that information out.

>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

.

I bet if you keep saying it over and over, it will be true.

It's a direct quote from the link.. But bury your head in the sand if you like.. No skin off my back..

I thought ABC News was part of the evil liberal lamestream media machine? Oh, that's only when their stories don't support your warped world view. Got it. If I bury my head in the sand, will you stop talking?

 

[tommyGunZ]

Do you understand the difference between "requested" and "edited"?

 

[shader]

It's clear that there was some shady business in the editing, probably done to keep the election looking good. Is that an impeachable offense? If so, every politician in the world would go down. They all try to cover their butts.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Do you understand the difference between "requested" and "edited"?

Yes, means someone from the state department told someone else to remove the information..

You stooping to arguing semantics now that it's clear the state department was involved in hiding information?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

It's clear that there was some shady business in the editing, probably done to keep the election looking good. Is that an impeachable offense? If so, every politician in the world would go down. They all try to cover their butts.

Is that the aim here?

I had no clue anyone was attempting to have anyone impeached.. I'm sure there are far right loons who think this is going to get the president impeached, there are crazies on both sides (like the ones who are ignoring the obvious facts here) but, as far as I can tell, the intent here is to uncover the real story and out the shenanigans to the public. Obviously there are political implications, but the motives of politicians don't preclude the need to get the truth out.

 

[tommyGunZ]

It's clear that there was some shady business in the editing, probably done to keep the election looking good. Is that an impeachable offense? If so, every politician in the world would go down. They all try to cover their butts.

Why is it clear that something was shady? The intelligence agencies have all come out and stated that Susan Rice's comments on the Sunday morning shows squared with the talking points they analyzed and approved. The idea that CIA didn't want specific details divulged so early in the aftermath isn't surprising.

 

[Slapdash]

Do you understand the difference between "requested" and "edited"?

Yes, means someone from the state department told someone else to remove the information.. You stooping to arguing semantics now that it's clear the state department was involved in hiding information?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

This thread is absolutely horrible for someone just trying to figure out what the heck happened. One side is throwing any and everything at the wall, desperate for something to stick. The other side just puts their hands over their ears, laughs at the hilarity of it all and downplays the whole thing. Maybe one of the two sides is right. I'd just be interested to know what a "center" viewpoint would be.

I think my views are pretty center, but in having conversations in real life with people from both extremes, the liberals think it is silly that this is even a story (as if an ambassador being killed overseas is a non-story), and the conservatives don't like hearing that the Republicans are the ones who cut funding for security and are generally acting like jackasses about the whole thing. I guess you know that you are in the center when people from both extremes take issue with your stance.

I can't speak for the liberals you have conversations with, but I don't know a single liberal who would suggest that "an ambassador being killed is a non-story". That's not what these hearings are about - they're about the administration's characterizations of the attack immediately afterward.

Hearings about what happened and how to prevent it from happening in the future are fine. Hearing about why Susan Rice used the talking points that were given to her after being vetted by the intelligence agencies is a non-story.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/

The intelligence agency (The CIA) gave them information on the terrorist threat before the attack, and the terrorist element involved in the attack. It was the state department, otherwise known as the 'United States federal executive department', or if you prefer, The Department that is led by the Secretary of State, who is nominated by the President, that edited that information out.

>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

.

I bet if you keep saying it over and over, it will be true.

It's a direct quote from the link.. But bury your head in the sand if you like.. No skin off my back..

I thought ABC News was part of the evil liberal lamestream media machine? Oh, that's only when their stories don't support your warped world view. Got it. If I bury my head in the sand, will you stop talking?

O, are we on a different argument now? Your team was outed for being deceptive and covering up information, now it's time to attack a strawman.. I never said that ABC was a biased news outlet.. Link?

MSNBC is obviously biased, Fox is obviously biased

 

[Carolina Hustler]

It's clear that there was some shady business in the editing, probably done to keep the election looking good. Is that an impeachable offense? If so, every politician in the world would go down. They all try to cover their butts.

Why is it clear that something was shady? The intelligence agencies have all come out and stated that Susan Rice's comments on the Sunday morning shows squared with the talking points they analyzed and approved. The idea that CIA didn't want specific details divulged so early in the aftermath isn't surprising.

The State Department requested the edits.. The CIA passed the documents to the state department including the warnings, and the Terrorist involvement..

If you go to the link, he shows you it all in black and white on the news clip video..

 

[Zegras11]

Anyone know if there are any future bets on Obama getting impeached? I want to make that bet ASAP.

Jim Jordan on CNN with numerous, valid points.

 

[Jutz]

There is definitely a lot of partisan politics that are at play regarding this story. Me being a strong supporter of Republicans, it is difficult for me to keep my jackassery in check... but I have been trying. The things that are helping me keep myself in check are the way that some of the people directly involved in the situation are handling themselves.

The father of one of the military men that lost their life in the attack was on Hannity a few times in the past week or so. I witnessed Hannity desperately attempt to bait this guy into hating Obama and the democrats with his line of quesitons. Time after time after time, the father repeatedly said he is not interested in turning this into a political debate and completely, and gratiously steered clear of any political bashings. I really respect the guy for staying out of it while appearing on one of the most partisian shows on TV. I think he was kind of making Hannity mad because he wouldn't stoop to his level. The guy just kept saying that all he wanted was for the truth about the situation to come out, and was very appreciative of the whistleblowers that came forward to tell their story.

The main whistleblower that came forward (I think it was Hicks) also appears on the surface to not be interested in partisian politics. His stance since the beginning so far as I can tell was... I was there, I survived, and I just want to tell my story.

I think the relatives of those that died actually do deserve the truth to come out. I feel bad for them that they have to witness the politicians and talk show hosts turn this story into the mess that it has become. But my pont is that, despite all the douchbaggery going on, I actually believe there are some people involved in this story that have good intentions, and are good people. And I think the work they are doing is valid and important.

Whenever I think about this story I try my best to just focus on the father of the dead soldier, and the whistleblower as examples that there still are some good people out there that have the ability to deflect the partisian hacks in order to get the real story. There are a few others that have maintained an aire of dignity (other wistleblowers and other family members) and I try and focus on them in order to keep my head from exploding.

I think there was a cover up, and I think that is not a good thing, but I can't deny that I believe any politician no matter what their party affiliation would probably do the same thing. That is the sad part about the story. The fact that a politician alledgedly attempted to cover up the story just seems normal to me. I don't even think I'm mad at Obama or Hilary... but I am glad that these hearings might give some sense of closure to the family members of those that died.

 

[drummer]

What exactly did they cover up?

 

[drummer]

This thread is absolutely horrible for someone just trying to figure out what the heck happened. One side is throwing any and everything at the wall, desperate for something to stick. The other side just puts their hands over their ears, laughs at the hilarity of it all and downplays the whole thing. Maybe one of the two sides is right. I'd just be interested to know what a "center" viewpoint would be.

I think my views are pretty center, but in having conversations in real life with people from both extremes, the liberals think it is silly that this is even a story (as if an ambassador being killed overseas is a non-story), and the conservatives don't like hearing that the Republicans are the ones who cut funding for security and are generally acting like jackasses about the whole thing. I guess you know that you are in the center when people from both extremes take issue with your stance.

I can't speak for the liberals you have conversations with, but I don't know a single liberal who would suggest that "an ambassador being killed is a non-story". That's not what these hearings are about - they're about the administration's characterizations of the attack immediately afterward.

Hearings about what happened and how to prevent it from happening in the future are fine. Hearing about why Susan Rice used the talking points that were given to her after being vetted by the intelligence agencies is a non-story.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/

The intelligence agency (The CIA) gave them information on the terrorist threat before the attack, and the terrorist element involved in the attack. It was the state department, otherwise known as the 'United States federal executive department', or if you prefer, The Department that is led by the Secretary of State, who is nominated by the President, that edited that information out.

>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

.

I bet if you keep saying it over and over, it will be true.

It's a direct quote from the link.. But bury your head in the sand if you like.. No skin off my back..

I thought ABC News was part of the evil liberal lamestream media machine? Oh, that's only when their stories don't support your warped world view. Got it. If I bury my head in the sand, will you stop talking?

O, are we on a different argument now? Your team was outed for being deceptive and covering up information, now it's time to attack a strawman.. I never said that ABC was a biased news outlet.. Link?

MSNBC is obviously biased, Fox is obviously biased

People still do this?

 

[Jutz]

It appears to me that they attempted to cover up that it was a terrorist attack by pushing the story that the video caused the attack. According to the whistleblower, Hicks, the video was never a story to those people on the ground. He even said that the video story was in direct contrast to what the Libyan president reported as the cause. As an ambassador, contradicting the leader of the country you are attempting to be an ambassador for, puts a strain on the relationsihp. I think the biggest unanswered question to date regarding this story is 'who pushed the video'. But I also think this question will eventually be answered.

 

[drummer]

It appears to me that they attempted to cover up that it was a terrorist attack by pushing the story that the video caused the attack. According to the whistleblower, Hicks, the video was never a story to those people on the ground. He even said that the video story was in direct contrast to what the Libyan president reported as the cause. As an ambassador, contradicting the leader of the country you are attempting to be an ambassador for, puts a strain on the relationsihp. I think the biggest unanswered question to date regarding this story is 'who pushed the video'. But I also think this question will eventually be answered.

The already have had all kinds of hearings over this. Is this all about who to blame?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

What exactly did they cover up?

Before the election, the current administration did not what the public to know that the attack was committed by known terrorists, and that the CIA had warned of the possibility of the attack before hand.

#1, the administration wanted to continue to claim they had "broken the back" or Al-qaeda.

#2, the current administration did not want the opposition to be able to point out that Americans were killed, after we were warned.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

This thread is absolutely horrible for someone just trying to figure out what the heck happened. One side is throwing any and everything at the wall, desperate for something to stick. The other side just puts their hands over their ears, laughs at the hilarity of it all and downplays the whole thing. Maybe one of the two sides is right. I'd just be interested to know what a "center" viewpoint would be.

I think my views are pretty center, but in having conversations in real life with people from both extremes, the liberals think it is silly that this is even a story (as if an ambassador being killed overseas is a non-story), and the conservatives don't like hearing that the Republicans are the ones who cut funding for security and are generally acting like jackasses about the whole thing. I guess you know that you are in the center when people from both extremes take issue with your stance.

I can't speak for the liberals you have conversations with, but I don't know a single liberal who would suggest that "an ambassador being killed is a non-story". That's not what these hearings are about - they're about the administration's characterizations of the attack immediately afterward.

Hearings about what happened and how to prevent it from happening in the future are fine. Hearing about why Susan Rice used the talking points that were given to her after being vetted by the intelligence agencies is a non-story.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/

The intelligence agency (The CIA) gave them information on the terrorist threat before the attack, and the terrorist element involved in the attack. It was the state department, otherwise known as the 'United States federal executive department', or if you prefer, The Department that is led by the Secretary of State, who is nominated by the President, that edited that information out.

>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

.

I bet if you keep saying it over and over, it will be true.

It's a direct quote from the link.. But bury your head in the sand if you like.. No skin off my back..

I thought ABC News was part of the evil liberal lamestream media machine? Oh, that's only when their stories don't support your warped world view. Got it. If I bury my head in the sand, will you stop talking?

O, are we on a different argument now? Your team was outed for being deceptive and covering up information, now it's time to attack a strawman.. I never said that ABC was a biased news outlet.. Link?

MSNBC is obviously biased, Fox is obviously biased

People still do this?

Evidently..

I was emphasizing the the point.. He has picked a side, and that is his team, they can do no wrong..

 

[shader]

It's clear that there was some shady business in the editing, probably done to keep the election looking good. Is that an impeachable offense? If so, every politician in the world would go down. They all try to cover their butts.

Why is it clear that something was shady? The intelligence agencies have all come out and stated that Susan Rice's comments on the Sunday morning shows squared with the talking points they analyzed and approved. The idea that CIA didn't want specific details divulged so early in the aftermath isn't surprising.

This isn't what's being reported. Not saying that means anything though.

 

[drummer]

This thread is absolutely horrible for someone just trying to figure out what the heck happened. One side is throwing any and everything at the wall, desperate for something to stick. The other side just puts their hands over their ears, laughs at the hilarity of it all and downplays the whole thing. Maybe one of the two sides is right. I'd just be interested to know what a "center" viewpoint would be.

I think my views are pretty center, but in having conversations in real life with people from both extremes, the liberals think it is silly that this is even a story (as if an ambassador being killed overseas is a non-story), and the conservatives don't like hearing that the Republicans are the ones who cut funding for security and are generally acting like jackasses about the whole thing. I guess you know that you are in the center when people from both extremes take issue with your stance.

I can't speak for the liberals you have conversations with, but I don't know a single liberal who would suggest that "an ambassador being killed is a non-story". That's not what these hearings are about - they're about the administration's characterizations of the attack immediately afterward.

Hearings about what happened and how to prevent it from happening in the future are fine. Hearing about why Susan Rice used the talking points that were given to her after being vetted by the intelligence agencies is a non-story.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/

The intelligence agency (The CIA) gave them information on the terrorist threat before the attack, and the terrorist element involved in the attack. It was the state department, otherwise known as the 'United States federal executive department', or if you prefer, The Department that is led by the Secretary of State, who is nominated by the President, that edited that information out.

>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

.

I bet if you keep saying it over and over, it will be true.

It's a direct quote from the link.. But bury your head in the sand if you like.. No skin off my back..

I thought ABC News was part of the evil liberal lamestream media machine? Oh, that's only when their stories don't support your warped world view. Got it. If I bury my head in the sand, will you stop talking?

O, are we on a different argument now? Your team was outed for being deceptive and covering up information, now it's time to attack a strawman.. I never said that ABC was a biased news outlet.. Link?

MSNBC is obviously biased, Fox is obviously biased

People still do this?

Evidently..

I was emphasizing the the point.. He has picked a side, and that is his team, they can do no wrong..

And what a way to show you're "above it all".

 

[drummer]

What exactly did they cover up?

Before the election, the current administration did not what the public to know that the attack was committed by known terrorists, and that the CIA had warned of the possibility of the attack before hand.

#1, the administration wanted to continue to claim they had "broken the back" or Al-qaeda.

#2, the current administration did not want the opposition to be able to point out that Americans were killed, after we were warned.

And where does this speculation come from?

Just to let you know, I posted in this thread when it happened. I'm just trying to understand the outrage that is continuing months later.

 

[SmoovySmoov]

This thread is absolutely horrible for someone just trying to figure out what the heck happened. One side is throwing any and everything at the wall, desperate for something to stick. The other side just puts their hands over their ears, laughs at the hilarity of it all and downplays the whole thing. Maybe one of the two sides is right. I'd just be interested to know what a "center" viewpoint would be.

I think my views are pretty center, but in having conversations in real life with people from both extremes, the liberals think it is silly that this is even a story (as if an ambassador being killed overseas is a non-story), and the conservatives don't like hearing that the Republicans are the ones who cut funding for security and are generally acting like jackasses about the whole thing. I guess you know that you are in the center when people from both extremes take issue with your stance.

I can't speak for the liberals you have conversations with, but I don't know a single liberal who would suggest that "an ambassador being killed is a non-story". That's not what these hearings are about - they're about the administration's characterizations of the attack immediately afterward.

Hearings about what happened and how to prevent it from happening in the future are fine. Hearing about why Susan Rice used the talking points that were given to her after being vetted by the intelligence agencies is a non-story.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/

The intelligence agency (The CIA) gave them information on the terrorist threat before the attack, and the terrorist element involved in the attack. It was the state department, otherwise known as the 'United States federal executive department', or if you prefer, The Department that is led by the Secretary of State, who is nominated by the President, that edited that information out.

>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

.

I bet if you keep saying it over and over, it will be true.

It's a direct quote from the link.. But bury your head in the sand if you like.. No skin off my back..

I thought ABC News was part of the evil liberal lamestream media machine? Oh, that's only when their stories don't support your warped world view. Got it. If I bury my head in the sand, will you stop talking?

O, are we on a different argument now? Your team was outed for being deceptive and covering up information, now it's time to attack a strawman.. I never said that ABC was a biased news outlet.. Link?

MSNBC is obviously biased, Fox is obviously biased

People still do this?

Evidently..

I was emphasizing the the point.. He has picked a side, and that is his team, they can do no wrong..

Please link to where I said my team can do no wrong. Are you of the assumption that they can do no right?

 

[Slapdash]

What exactly did they cover up?

Before the election, the current administration did not what the public to know that the attack was committed by known terrorists, and that the CIA had warned of the possibility of the attack before hand. #1, the administration wanted to continue to claim they had "broken the back" or Al-qaeda. #2, the current administration did not want the opposition to be able to point out that Americans were killed, after we were warned.

So this conspiracy is all about the initial spin?

 

[drummer]

What exactly did they cover up?

Before the election, the current administration did not what the public to know that the attack was committed by known terrorists, and that the CIA had warned of the possibility of the attack before hand. #1, the administration wanted to continue to claim they had "broken the back" or Al-qaeda. #2, the current administration did not want the opposition to be able to point out that Americans were killed, after we were warned.

So this conspiracy is all about the initial spin?

Apparently this had a lot to do with Romney losing the election.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

And what a way to show you're "above it all".

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=655857&page=44entry15562131

 

[Carolina Hustler]

What exactly did they cover up?

Before the election, the current administration did not what the public to know that the attack was committed by known terrorists, and that the CIA had warned of the possibility of the attack before hand. #1, the administration wanted to continue to claim they had "broken the back" or Al-qaeda. #2, the current administration did not want the opposition to be able to point out that Americans were killed, after we were warned.

So this conspiracy is all about the initial spin?

The stiffing of information was for political reasons.. The election was weeks away..

 

[drummer]

And what a way to show you're "above it all".

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=655857&page=44entry15562131

But I'm not calling teams here. So you're reaching once more.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

What exactly did they cover up?

Before the election, the current administration did not what the public to know that the attack was committed by known terrorists, and that the CIA had warned of the possibility of the attack before hand.

The president mentioning actually calling the Benghazi attack an act of terror the day after the attack completely discredits that mime.

 

[drummer]

What exactly did they cover up?

Before the election, the current administration did not what the public to know that the attack was committed by known terrorists, and that the CIA had warned of the possibility of the attack before hand. #1, the administration wanted to continue to claim they had "broken the back" or Al-qaeda. #2, the current administration did not want the opposition to be able to point out that Americans were killed, after we were warned.

So this conspiracy is all about the initial spin?

The stiffing of information was for political reasons.. The election was weeks away..

And who is speculating this again?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I thought ABC News was part of the evil liberal lamestream media machine? Oh, that's only when their stories don't support your warped world view. Got it. If I bury my head in the sand, will you stop talking?

It's a direct quote from the link.. But bury your head in the sand if you like.. No skin off my back..

O, are we on a different argument now? Your team was outed for being deceptive and covering up information, now it's time to attack a strawman.. I never said that ABC was a biased news outlet.. Link?

MSNBC is obviously biased, Fox is obviously biased

People still do this?

Evidently..

I was emphasizing the the point.. He has picked a side, and that is his team, they can do no wrong..

Please link to where I said my team can do no wrong. Are you of the assumption that they can do no right?

My position is that both teams are bad, more so than good...

You insinuated that this was a lie, that everyone is repeating it to wish it into existence. That position has been pretty much debunked before you even posted it. It's obvious you have party affiliation you're clinging to when you are shown proof and you choose to ignore it..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

What exactly did they cover up?

Before the election, the current administration did not what the public to know that the attack was committed by known terrorists, and that the CIA had warned of the possibility of the attack before hand.

The president mentioning actually calling the Benghazi attack an act of terror the day after the attack completely discredits that mime.

An 'act of terror' can be committed by anyone.. A terrorist attack is by definition committed by terrorists..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

What exactly did they cover up?

Before the election, the current administration did not what the public to know that the attack was committed by known terrorists, and that the CIA had warned of the possibility of the attack before hand. #1, the administration wanted to continue to claim they had "broken the back" or Al-qaeda. #2, the current administration did not want the opposition to be able to point out that Americans were killed, after we were warned.

So this conspiracy is all about the initial spin?

The stiffing of information was for political reasons.. The election was weeks away..

And who is speculating this again?

You read or watch news much?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

And what a way to show you're "above it all".

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=655857&page=44entry15562131

But I'm not calling teams here. So you're reaching once more.

I'm unaffiliated, so I can mock the partisan teamsmanship all I want.. For both sides..

 

[drummer]

And what a way to show you're "above it all".

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=655857&page=44entry15562131

But I'm not calling teams here. So you're reaching once more.

I'm unaffiliated, so I can mock the partisan teamsmanship all I want.. For both sides..

Ok, now I can agree with that.

 

[drummer]

What exactly did they cover up?

Before the election, the current administration did not what the public to know that the attack was committed by known terrorists, and that the CIA had warned of the possibility of the attack before hand. #1, the administration wanted to continue to claim they had "broken the back" or Al-qaeda. #2, the current administration did not want the opposition to be able to point out that Americans were killed, after we were warned.

So this conspiracy is all about the initial spin?

The stiffing of information was for political reasons.. The election was weeks away..

And who is speculating this again?

You read or watch news much?

Again, you'll find me in this thread at the time this happened. It's not that hard.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

This has to be one of the five worst threads in the past year, and we had the election last fall. Think about that.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

What exactly did they cover up?

Before the election, the current administration did not what the public to know that the attack was committed by known terrorists, and that the CIA had warned of the possibility of the attack before hand.

The president mentioning actually calling the Benghazi attack an act of terror the day after the attack completely discredits that mime.

An 'act of terror' can be committed by anyone.. A terrorist attack is by definition committed by terrorists..

 

[tommyGunZ]

And what a way to show you're "above it all".

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=655857&page=44entry15562131

But I'm not calling teams here. So you're reaching once more.

I'm unaffiliated, so I can mock the partisan teamsmanship all I want.. For both sides..

LOL. Yeah, you're unaffiliated, you just so happen to always have opinions from the same POV.

 

[jamny]

What exactly did they cover up?

Before the election, the current administration did not what the public to know that the attack was committed by known terrorists, and that the CIA had warned of the possibility of the attack before hand.

The president mentioning actually calling the Benghazi attack an act of terror the day after the attack completely discredits that mime.

We all know that politicians and lawyers choose their words wisely, probably none more than Obama.

Does the term "act of terror" equal "act of terrorism" or "terrorist act"? I would say that Aurora and Sandy Hook are acts of terror but not acts of terrorism or terrorist acts.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

And what a way to show you're "above it all".

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=655857&page=44entry15562131

But I'm not calling teams here. So you're reaching once more.

I'm unaffiliated, so I can mock the partisan teamsmanship all I want.. For both sides..

LOL. Yeah, you're unaffiliated, you just so happen to always have opinions from the same POV.

Yea, my POV is always the opposite of yours because mine is always right

Your perspective is always from the left, so anything not in agreement with your perspective is going to apear to be coming from the right..

 

[squistion]

What exactly did they cover up?

Before the election, the current administration did not what the public to know that the attack was committed by known terrorists, and that the CIA had warned of the possibility of the attack before hand.

The president mentioning actually calling the Benghazi attack an act of terror the day after the attack completely discredits that mime.

We all know that politicians and lawyers choose their words wisely, probably none more than Obama.

Does the term "act of terror" equal "act of terrorism" or "terrorist act"? I would say that Aurora and Sandy Hook are acts of terror but not acts of terrorism or terrorist acts.

I seriously doubt that anybody listening to what Obama said the day after the attack concluded, "Oh, he is saying that this was not an act of terrorism because he didn't call it that and used the words act of terror instead."

 

[jamny]

What exactly did they cover up?

Before the election, the current administration did not what the public to know that the attack was committed by known terrorists, and that the CIA had warned of the possibility of the attack before hand.

The president mentioning actually calling the Benghazi attack an act of terror the day after the attack completely discredits that mime.

We all know that politicians and lawyers choose their words wisely, probably none more than Obama.

Does the term "act of terror" equal "act of terrorism" or "terrorist act"? I would say that Aurora and Sandy Hook are acts of terror but not acts of terrorism or terrorist acts.

I seriously doubt that anybody listening to what Obama said the day after the attack concluded, "Oh, he is saying that this was not an act of terrorism because he didn't call it that and used the words act of terror instead."

Do you seriously doubt that he chose those words for a reason?