Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry V
Could you be more condescending Please??? It's so hard to be humble when you are as great as you are...but why should we cowtow to someone so supercilious as you? So kindly take your little round ball a do as prescribed on so many outhouse walls.
UB
Sorry to have offended you Bill. Here is a modified version. I hope the tone and content meet your standards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Bill
I recently reviewed many of the posts in the 10 pages of this thread and the 28 pages of the "Security at the Libyan Embassy in Benghazi" thread. Both these threads seem to provide strong evidence of what former Bush speech writer David Frum calls the influence of the right wing entertainment complex (google right wing entertainment complex if interested. There are many stories). One could argue that this is the latest shiny ball that is being dangled in front of the right-wing audience to capture their attention. Sort of like the many stories on the fast and furious operation, Obama is a muslim/socialist/Kenyan, Romney will win in a landslide, Romney lost because he did not go far enough to the right, etc. Periodically the ball is shaken to make sure folks continue to pay attention. In these threads almost all the references are fox news or the blaze and some continue to defend reports that are proven wrong.
Regarding the Benghazi consulate tragedy the American public does deserve to know what happened and folks need to be held accountable, but the right wing seems to be overreacting for political motivation. The entire media complex seems to be over reacting to the Petraeus affair. If it did not have any national security implications let's leave the private lives of these people alone.
This being said, there is a tremendous amount of hypocrisy coming from the right on the Benghazi attacks. During the Bush administration there were 12 attacks on U.S. consulates and embassies which resulted in the deaths of 60 people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrori...tic_facilities. I searched these forums and found no references to these attacks much less multiple page threads of speculation. If these attacks were discussed, please send me the links. If this is not evidence of hypocrisy please help me understand the specific differences between the Benghazi attack and all these other attacks that make the situation so newsworthy and worth "watergate" style investigation.
The question is why was the request for more security denied when it had been asked for repeatedly. If the request had been granted there may not have been 4 lives lost and many more still in the hospital. Someone made the decision not to grant it and we know from the testimony at the hearings it didn't have anything to do with the budget. The request was denied just like the talking points were changed, Someone is responsilble. It spells cover up.
Been thinking about the Petraeus testimony that does seem to put the ball back in the WH's court.
I'm wondering ... if Petraeus had gone along with the WH "story", and they had put the info about his affair in front of him to persuade him to do so. Then as the situation evolved, perhaps his conscience finally got the better of him ... and then he decided to publicly admit to the affair and resign, knowing that he would be called upon to testify further and would not be able to perpetuate the untruth. The credibility of his second testimony would be damaged due to the previous lie, but it would also provoke further investigation by Congress to determine which was the truth.
It still would have been much more honorable had he told the truth the first time. It could have changed the course of the election had he done so.
Looks sorta like Petraeus is off the hook, as well as the WH. However, the CIA had to "sign off" on the final version, and this does not necessarily mean that the WH did not know of the terrorist connection.
Quote:
(CBS News) WASHINGTON - CBS News has learned that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) cut specific references to "al Qaeda" and "terrorism" from the unclassified talking points given to Ambassador Susan Rice on the Benghazi consulate attack - with the agreement of the CIA and FBI. The White House or State Department did not make those changes.
There has been considerable discussion about who made the changes to the talking points that Rice stuck to in her television appearances on Sept. 16 (video), five days after the attack that killed American Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, and three other U.S. nationals.
Republicans have accused her of making misleading statements by referring to the assault as a "spontaneous" demonstration by extremists. Some have suggested she used the terminology she did for political reasons.
However, an intelligence source tells CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan the links to al Qaeda were deemed too "tenuous" to make public, because there was not strong confidence in the person providing the intelligence. CIA Director David Petraeus, however, told Congress he agreed to release the information -- the reference to al Qaeda -- in an early draft of the talking points, which were also distributed to select lawmakers.
"The intelligence community assessed from the very beginning that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack." DNI spokesman Shawn Turner tells CBS News. That information was shared at a classified level -- which Rice, as a member of President Obama's cabinet, would have been privy to.
An intelligence source says the talking points were passed from the CIA to the DNI, where the substantive edits were made, and then to FBI, which made more edits as part of "standard procedure."