Petraeus just testified that he knew AlQueda was involved and that his statements to that fact were taken out of talking points. It's starting to become more and more clear that the White House was afraid of how this would affect the election.
FlirtynFun Photography wrote: Petraeus just testified that he knew AlQueda was involved and that his statements to that fact were taken out of talking points. It's starting to become more and more clear that the White House was afraid of how this would affect the election.
It is sad that reality does not sink in for Right Wing extremists.
President Obama will be the President until Jan 2017.
No wishing for impeachment, the Death Star, comet Numnum hitting the planet will change that reality.
In the sheer desperation to avoid REALITY, increasing fervent HOPE that some wild imaginary act of God or alien invasion will alleviate the ache like four aspirin, it will not happen.
Hall Photo wrote: He said (according to Rep. King) Al Qaeda involvement was suspected. And it appears that that remains just a suspicion.
Peter King makes up shit all the time. He has no shame.
He has been exposed for peddling nonsense on multiple occasions, yet he won't stop pontificating the theories in the dark recesses of his mind.
Hall Photo
Posts: 12,331
Boston, Massachusetts, US
UnoMundo wrote: Peter King makes up shit all the time. He has no shame.
He has been exposed for peddling nonsense on multiple occasions, yet he won't stop pontificating the theories in the dark recesses of his mind.
I doubt he'd outright lie about something Petraeus said, but I agree he's not the most reliable narrator. I'm sure he skedaddled out of there as fast as he could so he could put his own spin on it.
Gianantonio
Posts: 7,619
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
FlirtynFun Photography wrote: Petraeus just testified that he knew AlQueda was involved and that his statements to that fact were taken out of talking points. It's starting to become more and more clear that the White House was afraid of how this would affect the election.
It is sad that reality does not sink in for Right Wing extremists.
President Obama will be the President until Jan 2017.
No wishing for impeachment, the Death Star, comet Numnum hitting the planet will change that reality.
In the sheer desperation to avoid REALITY, increasing fervent HOPE that some wild imaginary act of God or alien invasion will alleviate the ache like four aspirin, it will not happen.
FlirtynFun Photography wrote: Petraeus just testified that he knew AlQueda was involved and that his statements to that fact were taken out of talking points. It's starting to become more and more clear that the White House was afraid of how this would affect the election.
Either you or Fox News had distorted the General's testimony.
1. Petraeus originally testified before Congress that the attack was spontaneous and not planned: "The account Petraeus gave was different from the description the Obama administration gave on September 14, King said. Then, the attack was described as "spontaneous," the result of a protest against an anti-Muslim film that got out of control outside the compound."
Let me emphasize that: the head of the CIA told Congress that the attacks were spontaneous and not planned, and they were a result of the video. That's what Petraeus originally told Congress.
2. Intelligence Agencies (including the CIA) provided a range of reports to officials. Over 20 of the said that the video was responsible in some form (by inspiring the Egyptian assault which inspired others, or simply as a direct form of outrage).
"Meanwhile, separate intelligence indicated the violence at the consulate was inspired by protests in Egypt over an ostensibly anti-Islam film that was privately produced in the United States. The movie, "Innocence of Muslims," portrayed the Prophet Mohammed as a womanizing buffoon. There were 20 intelligence reports that indicated that anger about the film may be to blame, the official said.The CIA eventually disproved those reports, but not before Petraeus' initial briefing to Congress the day after the attack when he discussed who might be behind the attack and what prompted it. During that briefing, he raised Ansar al Sharia's possible connection as well as outrage about the film, the official said."
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/16/politics/ … ?hpt=hp_t1
3. Even after Petraeus testimony, there is still confusion about what caused the attack on the consulate and the annex. Here is commentary from someone who heard Petraeus' closed testimony:
"After the hearing, Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, D-Maryland, blamed confusion over two seemingly different versions of the consulate violence -- was it caused by a protest or by terrorists? He said there were essentially two threads of violence: one caused by the protest, which was chaotic, and a second that was orchestrated by terrorists, which was highly coordinated. There were "two different types of situations at play," Ruppersberger said, explaining that in the hours and days after the attack, it was naturally difficult to clearly discern what happened."
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/16/politics/ … ?hpt=hp_t1
So to summarize, Petraeus originally told Congress that the video was a factor, that it came out of a spontaneous demonstration and your conclusion from that is that Obama lied?
afplcc wrote: So to summarize, Petraeus originally told Congress that the video was a factor, that it came out of a spontaneous demonstration and your conclusion from that is that Obama lied?
Ed
Obama at the UN 2 weeks after the attack... and also 2 weeks after he knew the actual truth:
Either you or Fox News had distorted the General's testimony.
1. Petraeus originally testified before Congress that the attack was spontaneous and not planned: "The account Petraeus gave was different from the description the Obama administration gave on September 14, King said. Then, the attack was described as "spontaneous," the result of a protest against an anti-Muslim film that got out of control outside the compound."
Let me emphasize that: the head of the CIA told Congress that the attacks were spontaneous and not planned, and they were a result of the video. That's what Petraeus originally told Congress.
2. Intelligence Agencies (including the CIA) provided a range of reports to officials. Over 20 of the said that the video was responsible in some form (by inspiring the Egyptian assault which inspired others, or simply as a direct form of outrage).
"Meanwhile, separate intelligence indicated the violence at the consulate was inspired by protests in Egypt over an ostensibly anti-Islam film that was privately produced in the United States. The movie, "Innocence of Muslims," portrayed the Prophet Mohammed as a womanizing buffoon. There were 20 intelligence reports that indicated that anger about the film may be to blame, the official said.The CIA eventually disproved those reports, but not before Petraeus' initial briefing to Congress the day after the attack when he discussed who might be behind the attack and what prompted it. During that briefing, he raised Ansar al Sharia's possible connection as well as outrage about the film, the official said."
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/16/politics/ … ?hpt=hp_t1
3. Even after Petraeus testimony, there is still confusion about what caused the attack on the consulate and the annex. Here is commentary from someone who heard Petraeus' closed testimony:
"After the hearing, Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, D-Maryland, blamed confusion over two seemingly different versions of the consulate violence -- was it caused by a protest or by terrorists? He said there were essentially two threads of violence: one caused by the protest, which was chaotic, and a second that was orchestrated by terrorists, which was highly coordinated. There were "two different types of situations at play," Ruppersberger said, explaining that in the hours and days after the attack, it was naturally difficult to clearly discern what happened."
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/16/politics/ … ?hpt=hp_t1
So to summarize, Petraeus originally told Congress that the video was a factor, that it came out of a spontaneous demonstration and your conclusion from that is that Obama lied?
Ed
one of these days Ed I'll see a less than war and peace description of events from you. It seems we have conflicting information...and all evidence points to the Obama Administration lying. Spin it any way you want it.
Former CIA Director David Petraeus stoked the controversy over the Obama administration's handling of the Libya terror attack, testifying Friday that references to "Al Qaeda involvement" were stripped from his agency's original talking points -- while other intelligence officials were unable to say who changed the memo, according to a top lawmaker who was briefed.
Well, from the sounds of your beef with Benghazi, I'd have thought you'd be all upset by 4 of our guys getting killed in Texas yesterday.
I've heard over and over "4 of our guys got killed!!!" so I assumed this was the problem, since if the ambassador and 3 other guys hadn't been killed, there wouldn't be a story, right?
What about these 4 dead veterans? Our "guys"? No story? No inquiry by Issa? Not even any feigned indignance? These guys fought for your freedom to make posts on MM, and now they are dead.
Well, from the sounds of your beef with Benghazi, I'd have thought you'd be all upset by 4 of our guys getting killed in Texas yesterday.
I've heard over and over "4 of our guys got killed!!!" so I assumed this was the problem, since if the ambassador and 3 other guys hadn't been killed, there wouldn't be a story, right?
What about these 4 dead veterans? Our "guys"? No story? No inquiry by Issa? Not even any feigned indignance? These guys fought for your freedom to make posts on MM, and now they are dead.
that should be a seperate thread...maybe you could focus on the topic.
Hall Photo
Posts: 12,331
Boston, Massachusetts, US
FlirtynFun Photography wrote: one of these days Ed I'll see a less than war and peace description of events from you.
"And now, my war and peace description of events."
FlirtynFun Photography wrote: It seems we have conflicting information...
We have from the start. Republicans have let themselves get tied up in knots over who said what when rather than accept that there was conflicting information, as tends to happen in fast-moving events half a world away, and ask the important questions about security and what changes (if any) need to be made going forward.
FlirtynFun Photography wrote: and all evidence points to the Obama Administration lying.
If it all did, you'd think there would be enough for you to have presented some.
Hall Photo wrote: We have from the start. Republicans have let themselves get tied up in knots over who said what when rather than accept that there was conflicting information, as tends to happen in fast-moving events half a world away, and ask the important questions about security and what changes (if any) need to be made going forward.
The facts are quite clear that there wasn't "conflicting information" at all, and that Obama put all Americans at risk by blaming the incident on an American-made video rather than on the terrorists.
Damon Banner
Posts: 83,589
Hayward, California, US
Lightcraft Studio wrote:
The facts are quite clear that there wasn't "conflicting information" at all, and that Obama put all Americans at risk by blaming the incident on an American-made video rather than on the terrorists.
You have a very murky description of the word "Fact." For example, the sentence I'm quoting. BUT, that seems to be an issue that some on the right keep clinging on for dear life. I'm sure their knuckles are milk white.
Hall Photo
Posts: 12,331
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Lightcraft Studio wrote: The facts are quite clear that there wasn't "conflicting information" at all, and that Obama put all Americans at risk by blaming the incident on an American-made video rather than on the terrorists.
FlirtynFun Photography wrote: that should be a seperate thread...maybe you could focus on the topic.
So... what you're saying, in a nutshell,
is that you know for sure the act was carried out by Al Qaeda,
and that the president refuses to go along with that (before the investigation is complete)?
Not only did we know right away who was behind the attack, but we saw it coming beforehand... and actually reduced security as a result of that information. The big question is "why".
Not only did we know right away who was behind the attack, but we saw it coming beforehand... and actually reduced security as a result of that information. The big question is "why".
I definitely think mistakes were made here and there needs to be changes. It's just unfortunate that individuals see this as an opportunity to try to take down an administration that you just don't like. It's obvious that you and others are overreaching on this.
Not only did we know right away who was behind the attack, but we saw it coming beforehand... and actually reduced security as a result of that information. The big question is "why".
Your link doesn't even back up what you just said, let alone your assertion that there wasn't conflicting information. All you have to say to Ed's evidence of conflicting information (with links) is the unsupported assertion that it's unreliable? That's not a particularly convincing argument.
The facts are quite clear that there wasn't "conflicting information" at all, and that Obama put all Americans at risk by blaming the incident on an American-made video rather than on the terrorists.
I'm at risk? Who knew?
The answer is: American made video & acts of terror
It always was. Bases covered.
What if there would have been an earthquake in Benghazi, and in the confusion and chaos, someone took the opportunity to light the embassy on fire? It's conceivable.
What we're really finding out is that they are employing a new strategy of being prepared at a moment's notice, but using something bigger to hide within - and possibly anticipating what that big moment will be, like the anniversary of 9/11, which will probably always have protests.
A more relevant intelligence question might be: Why Benghazi?
Smedley Whiplash wrote: What if there would have been an earthquake in Benghazi, and in the confusion and chaos, someone took the opportunity to light the embassy on fire? It's conceivable.
This wasn't a natural disaster... this was a preventable man-made disaster, and Obama gets full credit for the outcome, and needs to start taking some responsibility for his decisions.
Unless, that is, the Senate creates a brand-new select committee. On Wednesday, McCain, flanked by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), proposed just that: a select committee with extensive authority to investigate the Benghazi, Libya, attack and the U.S. government's response.
Sorry but none of this matters. All this finger pointing and placing blame won't change anything. Regardless of whether AQ was involved or not the Obama administration couldn't have stopped the attack or saved the lives of those lost. The only way it could have been prevented was to have enough soldiers to repel the attack or to have pulled the personnel out beforehand.
This wasn't a natural disaster... this was a preventable man-made disaster, and Obama gets full credit for the outcome, and needs to start taking some responsibility for his decisions.
Preventable like 9/11?
How about this preventable attack:
On July 30, 2004, suicide bombers struck the entrances of the US and Israeli embassies in Tashkent. Two Uzbek security guards were killed in both bombings. The IJU again claimed responsibility.
Foreign commentators on Uzbek affairs speculated that the 2004 violence could have been the work of the IMU, Al-Qaeda, Hizb ut-Tahrir, or some other radical Islamic organization.
What about this preventable attack and intel failure?
"A minor terrorist attack occurred in the early morning of January 12, 2007. No casualties were reported. A rocket propelled grenade was fired into the embassy's modern, glass-fronted building. The Greek public order minister, Byron Polydoras, said an anonymous phone call claiming to be from the left-wing terror group Revolutionary Struggle had taken responsibility. On January 25, 2007, Revolutionary Struggle announced in local news outlets they took responsibility for the attack. On March 20, the Government of Greece and the United States Rewards for Justice Program announced equal, parallel rewards for information leading to the perpetrators - Greece offering 800,000 Euros and the US "up to $1 million or more"
and more:
1964 United States Libreville, Gabon 1964 United States Embassy in Libreville bombings
1965 United States Saigon, South Vietnam 30 March 1965 Saigon Embassy bombing
1968 United States Saigon, South Vietnam Saigon Embassy attack
1979 United States Tehran, Iran Iran hostage crisis
1979 United States Islamabad, Pakistan 1979 U.S. Embassy Burning in Islamabad
1979 United States Tripoli, Libya 1979 U.S. Embassy Burning in Libya
1983 United States Beirut, Lebanon 1983 United States Embassy bombing
1983 United States Kuwait City, Kuwait 1983 Kuwait bombings
1986 United States Jakarta, Indonesia (See: Japanese Red Army)
1987 United States Rome, Italy (See: Japanese Red Army)
1990 United States Tel Aviv, Israel 1990 US Embassy attack in Tel Aviv
1998 United States Nairobi, Kenya 1998 United States embassy bombings
1998 United States Dar es Salaam, Tanzania 1998 United States embassy bombings
1999 United States Beijing, People's Republic of China
2002 United States Karachi, Pakistan 2002 US consulate bombing in Karachi
2004 United States Tashkent, Uzbekistan Tashkent embassy bombings
2004 United States Jeddah, Saudi Arabia Jeddah consulate attack
2006 United States Damascus, Syria Damascus terrorist attacks
2007 United States Athens, Greece Embassy of the United States in Athens
2007 United States Vienna, Austria [citation needed]
2008 United States Istanbul, Turkey 2008 United States consulate in Istanbul attack
2008 United States San‘a’, Yemen 2008 American Embassy attack in Yemen
2011 United States Damascus, Syria 2011 Syrian uprising
2011 United States Kabul, Afghanistan 2011 Kabul Attacks
2011 United States Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
2012 United States Cairo, Egypt 2012 attack on the American Embassy in Egypt
2012 United States Benghazi, Libya 2012 attack on the American Consulate in Libya
2012 United States Sanaa, Yemen 2012 attack on the American Embassy in Yemen
2008 USA Belgrade, Serbia 2008 Serbia protests
Lightcraft Studio wrote: Yea, you seem to have a very difficult time focusing on the topic at hand.
Are you suggesting that 2012 is the year that magically all embassy attacks cease, or we categorically catch and identify the attackers, and punish them?
You classified this attack as "preventable".
To me, that means you assume we have perfected our security, intel gathering, etc
I have shown you that embassies have been regularly attacked since 1964, and that very few times have we prevented, identified, caught, and punished those attackers. (let alone accurately describe what and who)
What happened in 2012 that was supposed to magically reverse a half-century of trend?
Smedley Whiplash wrote: You classified this attack as "preventable".
To me, that means you assume we have perfected our security, intel gathering, etc
When you're clearly warned of the danger in advance, several times... with locations of the threatening Al Qaeda cells... and you respond by REDUCING security... yea, I would say this one was preventable.
Smedley Whiplash wrote: I think Perrry's gonna fall for that thing yesterday.
4 of our guys got killed on a float in Texas.
I wanna what he knew, and when he knew it. I wanna know why he hasn't used the word "terrorist" yet. I want Daryl Issa to crawl up his ass.
Those were veterans. On Texan soil.
Are you talking about the veterans who were killed when their parade float was on the train tracks (where it should not have been at the time) and was struck by a train?
| 
| 
| edu