Democrats now critical of Rice's Benghazi explanation, amid more damaging evidence

  • Thread starter Thread starter livingwordunity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
EmperorNapoleon said:
We weren’t paying our diplomats in Libya to torture and murder people.

Yes, we are. The claim is that we have to uncover some diabolical conspiracy to coverup the deaths of four Americans or some example of gross negligence and we need lots and lots of hearings to do it. Fine. When do the hearings on Cheney’s negligence in rendering the East coast un-defendable by air start? Or how about hearings on Condalezza Rice’s lie before Congress and the American people that they never imagined terrorists would use planes as missiles? Nearly 3,000 Americans died on 9/11. Or are we going to whitewash those pieces of the puzzle because they aren’t Democrats and their last names aren’t Clinton?
Click to expand...
Sure, if you want argue that to do the right thing now, we must go back and do what you deem equitable.

We can investigate Clinton, Bush 1, Reagan, Carter, and go as ar back as is deemed fair.

Congress has had numerous chances to revisit events as they have occurred, and have said there is no need. The Democrats didn’t investigate Iraq with hearings because they by and large endorsed the war using the same information and intel. They likely didn’t hold hearings for Abu Ghraib because it was investigated properly, no made up stories that were shown to be false (at higher levels of government), and many people were fired and held accountable.

Contrast that to Benghazi, where not only was no one held accountable (including a perpetrator!), but some of the principles were given congratulatory Secretary fo State nominations.

Also contrast the whistleblowers of wednesday to those involved in the Valerie Plame affair. Time magazine gave those whistleblowers “Persons of the Year” awards, and it was throughly investigated.

Most people who want to downplay this with a “nothing to see here” simply want to gloss over it because as it is investigated, more and more info appears that looks bad for those involved.

Most democrats want to downplay it b
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
So the lives of 4 Americans are worth more than the lives of over 500 Iraqis?
Click to expand...
Did the Benghazi terror attacks deserve far less mainstream media coverage than the near endless mainstream media frenzy over Abu Ghraib? Are you saying that the Benghazi terror attacks deserved to be ignored by the mainstream media because it was only 4 Americans that died?
 
livingwordunity said:
Did the Benghazi terror attacks deserve far less mainstream media coverage than the near endless mainstream media frenzy over Abu Ghraib?
Click to expand...
Absolutely. The Benghazi incident should receive as much coverage as the Karachi incident did. Which is to say, not much.
livingwordunity said:
Are you saying that the Benghazi terror attacks deserved to be ignored by the mainstream media because it was only 4 Americans that died?
Click to expand...
I’m saying that the Benghazi incident should be put to rest, but it wont be because the Republicans are chomping at the bit at the idea of smearing Hillary Clinton.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
So the lives of 4 Americans are worth more than the lives of over 500 Iraqis?
Click to expand...
Wow you’ve got all the usual suspects, strawmen aflame, shooting the messengers, and bread & circuses.

It is clear that the attack was Islamist in nature. It is clear that Stevens and others were concerned about the volatile situation and requested more security. It is clear that when help was requested it was turned down. Is is clear that four Americans were killed and many more injured.

It is now clear that both the WH and State Dept knew all of the above and deliberately altered the original CIA report. Carney claims it was “stylistic” in nature but ABC is reading both the various versions and the email from Victoria Neuland stating that they must scrub all references to the nature of the attack because the information regarding the security requests was “out there” and they didn’t want Republicans to be able to take advantage of this knowledge for political reasons.

OK for political reasons we will lie to the Amreican people, we will lie to Congress and we will lie to the world. It WAS a long time ago…🤷

Lisa
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
Absolutely. The Benghazi incident should receive as much coverage as the Karachi incident did. Which is to say, not much.

I’m saying that the Benghazi incident should be put to rest, but it wont be because the Republicans are chomping at the bit at the idea of smearing Hillary Clinton.
Click to expand...
Again, please address the facts presented here, and not your speculations as to motivation.
 
livingwordunity said:
Did the Benghazi terror attacks deserve far less mainstream media coverage than the near endless mainstream media frenzy over Abu Ghraib? Are you saying that the Benghazi terror attacks deserved to be ignored by the mainstream media because it was only 4 Americans that died?
Click to expand...
Why are w going down this rabbit hole? it has nothing to do with the fact the administration lied about Benhghazi for political purposes, retaliated against those who exposed them and are still trying to cover it up.

Lets not let the classic “tu toque” dodge derail the thread.
 
estesbob said:
Why are w going down this rabbit hole? it has nothing to do with the fact the administration lied about Benhghazi for political purposes, retaliated against those who exposed them and are still trying to cover it up.

Lets not let the classic “tu toque” dodge derail the thread.
Click to expand...
👍
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
So the lives of 4 Americans are worth more than the lives of over 500 Iraqis?
Click to expand...
You have been asked to provide backup of this allegation and have submitted nothing, honestly.

I’d read that website of I believe McNamara or someone called Anti-War.com, back in the day, even before Bush 43 was president, that website would say our embargoes were killing all kinds of children in Iraq.
 
estesbob said:
Why are w going down this rabbit hole? it has nothing to do with the fact the administration lied about Benhghazi for political purposes, retaliated against those who exposed them and are still trying to cover it up.

Lets not let the classic “tu toque” dodge derail the thread.
Click to expand...
You are right, I think what it was was EN is claiming this is just a witch hunt which respectfully, Rachel Maddow and others are asserting as well.

So, I brought this up, possibly in error, that what happened when Bush was looked at, heck go back to Col. Oliver North at that.
 
qui_est_ce said:
Uh, did you read their words?? IT WAS A VIDEO, No it was the “fog of war”
Click to expand...
Still waiting for evidence that these were “lies” instead of intelligence assessments as presented to them. Instead, I get conspiracy theories about President Obama and Hillary Clinton. And allegations from a man who claims he was demoted for asking questions instead of the fact that he was too busy watching television to answer the Ambassador’s phone calls
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
Still waiting for evidence that these were “lies” instead of intelligence assessments as presented to them. Instead, I get conspiracy theories about President Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Click to expand...
No, you aren’t waiting for evidence.

When you and OldCelt say that, you at the same time say the investigations into that very notion is a witch hunt or a waste of time.

If you are truly interested and waiting, you’ll let things proceed. If you don’t want to see if there is evidence, you’ll object to the investigations.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
Still waiting for evidence that these were “lies.” Instead, I get conspiracy theories about President Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Click to expand...
bing.com/search?q=lies+hillary+clinton&form=OSDSRC

Take it or leave it.

Also, why was Susan Rice’s name withdrawn as being a candidate for Secretary of State. She went on those 5 talk shows.

So you are basically claiming a lack of knowledge on the news or denial. Do you want this in google? Or is bing good enough?
bing.com/news/search?q=lies+hillary+clinton&qpvt=lies+hillary+clinton&FORM=EWRE
Click to expand...
542 results
Click to expand...
 
BroomWagon said:
Take it or leave it.
Click to expand...
Oh goody, Michelle Malkin unhinged. I’ll leave it, but I’m sure we’d have all kinds of fun results searching for the Roswell coverup. Just because someone writes an article leveling accusations doesn’t make them true.
 
Stephanie Cutter during the election campaign, basically accused Mitt Romney of being involved in denying that miner’s wife health care and said disparaging things. Cutter, an Obama insider.

That Sanford fellow in Virginia may not have acted with integrity, it was reported.
Now, getting away from this nonsense and back to the story, there may be some possibility here of real friction between the Clintons and Obama here, not a savory enticing situation for their supporters.

I think Estes Bob is correct, not looking at this story as “how bad for Obama or Clinton” and partisanship but looking at it as what it is. If I go steal a car, that’s a crime. So, I’m not saying a crime but we should look at this scenario as it seems our attention is somewhat averted from it, back to the main story.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
Still waiting for evidence that these were “lies” instead of intelligence assessments as presented to them. Instead, I get conspiracy theories about President Obama and Hillary Clinton. And allegations from a man who claims he was demoted for asking questions instead of the fact that he was too busy watching television to answer the Ambassador’s phone calls
Click to expand...
You obviously didn’t access the links provided in this thread. There are actual copies of the various versions of the talking points. There are emails stating that the original explanation of the attack must be scrubbed or “Lawmakers could use the information to criticize State (and thereby the Obama adminsitration) for their lack of attention to security concerns.” This email has been published and read on several news reports.

There are also numerous videos with Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton and President Obama claiming that the attack was the result of a spontaneous video. There is video of Hillary saying she was unaware of the security requests.

That sounds like lies to me. I am not depending on sworn testimony but written and published material along with videos that I am sure you have watched.

You’re like the little boy with fingers in his ears saying neener neener I can’t hear you.

OK they say ignorance is bliss!
Lisa
 
LisaA said:
That sounds like lies to me.
Click to expand...
Do you have any evidence at all that Hillary Clinton or President Obama ordered the talking points to be rewritten? In order to prove that someone lied you must prove that they knew what they were saying was not true. Still waiting.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
Do you have any evidence at all that Hillary Clinton or President Obama ordered the talking points to be rewritten? In order to prove that someone lied you must prove that they knew what they were saying was not true. Still waiting.
Click to expand...
If you were actually waiting, you follow subsequent hearings more closely and wait for the results instead of railing against said hearings in an effort to clear up an obviously inconsistent and murky situation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top