Well, you are one of the leading right wing trolls here repeating the approved talking points, so I guess you are the expert when it comes to that.
What does Drudge or whoever tell you to outraged about today? Again, where was your faux outrage for all those other attacks?
These were strong claims. The CIA usually qualifies its assessments, providing policymakers a sense of whether the conclusions of its analysis are offered with high confidence, moderate confidence, or low confidence. That first draft signaled confidence, even certainty: We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack. ABC News.
Is anyone able to refute that available information in Benghazi was covered up?
Have you been in a coma since 2001? Your ignorance of history and current events is just as bad as your poor reading comprehension. You're giving Incorruptible a run for the "Dumbest Guy in P&N" award.
I'm just going to bump myself (ooh!) since so many people still seem to be relying on the tards' misrepresentation of the ABC article instead of its actual content. Pay specific attention to the quote I bolded above. While you'd never guess it from the squawking of the Obama haters, it was copied directly from that ABC piece.Did you read that ABC article? It doesn't support the hysterical claims of the Obama haters. Most notably, it confirms that from the very beginning, the CIA stated the attack appeared, "spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo". So no matter how much the nutters screech about "lying about a tape on the Internet," the simple fact is that's what the CIA said. It was not something Rice or Obama invented.
It also reveals the State Department's rationale for their extensive changes. First, they felt that naming specific terrorist groups would prejudice the investigation. The email said something to the effect that they weren't allowed to make those claims internally, so it would not be appropriate to make them publicly. That seems potentially reasonable.
Their other objection was much more self-serving. They felt the CIA was trying to throw DoS under the bus by saying they ignored the CIA's warnings. Not surprisingly, State didn't want that criticism, and wanted those statements removed. Saving face is not a legitimate reason for suppressing information.
What is absent from any of this is the White House making changes, or any comments whatsoever that any of the parties involved in changes were thinking about the election. That doesn't surprise me. If I were in that position, I'd never put that in writing either. The point, however, is that this shocking!!!!! ABC news story does NOT support the accusations of the Obama bashers. If one actually reads the ABC report -- the whole thing, not just cherry-picked pieces -- one sees yet again that the partisan screeching doesn't match the facts presented.
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?So when Bush publicly lied about not water-boarding....I guess that should have had a congressional hearing right?
I mean he lied publicly and often about water-boarding....where is your faux outrage for that? i don't recall you screaming about investigations then.
Oh right....Fox said it was OK, and Fox says this isn't.
I'm just going to bump myself (ooh!) since so many people still seem to be relying on the tards' misrepresentation of the ABC article instead of its actual content. Pay specific attention to the quote I bolded above. While you'd never guess it from the squawking of the Obama haters, it was copied directly from that ABC piece.
I'm just going to bump myself (ooh!) since so many people still seem to be relying on the tards' misrepresentation of the ABC article instead of its actual content. Pay specific attention to the quote I bolded above. While you'd never guess it from the squawking of the Obama haters, it was copied directly from that ABC piece.
That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qaida participated in the attack. The draft went on to specifically name the al Qaeda-affiliated group named Ansar al-Sharia.
Saving face is not a legitimate reason for suppressing information.
Again.
Just because something isn't a lie does not mean that it isn't deceptive. A liar knows that he is a liar, but one who speaks mere portions of truth in order to deceive is a craftsman of destruction.
― Criss Jami
The talking points were doctored to be deceptive in what they brought to the American public. This was done for political reasons at the expense of the country. This can't be defended by expecting to pass on mere portions of the truth (when looked at in isolation from other more important available information) as the paramount altruistic truth to the matter here. It's still deception, clearly so.
It's funny, or not, but you are using the same tactic as the administration.
basically, "we had conflicting information so we couldn't go out with definitive information, other than that we'll confirm we have every reason to believe this was spontaneous and the result of a youtube video". It was not an arbitrary choice to delete certain information and highlight other information, it was done to deceive. I don't see how that could be any more clear at this point in time given what we know those involved knew from the very earliest time period in this event.
And the report goes on to say:
I will give you kudos for your criticisms
That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qaida participated in the attack. The draft went on to specifically name the al Qaeda-affiliated group named Ansar al-Sharia.
And yes, Fox news and the right is blowing it out of proportion. They went on and on about it for weeks and have picked right back up on it. This not 10 times worse that Watergate. But how much of that was because of the lefts continued efforts to sweep it under the rug?
And you know that was later found to be incorrect right?
It wasn't Ansar al-Sharia?
Wait, I thought you cared about why four Americans died? What does talking points after the fact have to do with their deaths?
The talking points were edited to provide a false narrative about what occurred and what led to 4 deaths. It's becoming clear that this was done to avoid backlash over failures of policy and chain of command in dealing with a terrorist attack that had warning signs prior to the attack. Folks entrusted in a position of leadership do not get a pass for their conduct here simply because the deaths are at this point irreversible.
Then niether should those that voted for budget cuts that lead to the state department not being properly staffed to combat the potential attacks from those warnings.
No matter how you cut it, there is plenty of blame to go around and instead of making political hay it would be wiser to correct the issues. But that's coming from someone who actually cares about how people died and how to prevent the same thing from happening again. Because you know, attacks on embassies have been happening for decades.
I think you are wrong on this because you insist on passing the buck. I believe you and I would both expect the truth regarding a dead family member. Beyond this, regarding policy measures as it relates to budget for security measures at Benghazi, either adjust and send more security or remove assets. If this is not possible for whatever reason, when people die it is unacceptable to cover up information through the use of releasing and promoting deceptive information relative to what is known in order to avoid being held accountable.
Your stance advocates a system of simple blaming somebody else to a point of absurdity. I realize this happens all the time in business and politics. My world view leads me to believe such a stance leads to a number of problems. I'd like to see less of this in politics because I believe it would save lives amongst other benefits to the country and its citizens.
One of the ugly truths is this is not a R or D thing, its business as usual in Washington. Blame somebody else rather than act like a true leader and take responsibility for a failure.
I think you misunderstood Attic's point. It wasn't that no fingers should be pointed at all; rather, I believe his point was that it's absurd to trace it all the way back to when the first butterfly flapped its wings in Africa.I was doing what everyone else was doing, pointing fingers at someone else. If you are interested in the truth and holding people accountable then you hold everyone accountable and that was my point (I'm glad you see how ridculous the finger pointing was). I'm not interested in using escape goats or trying to score political points for "my team".
That's why I believe if this isn't a politically motivated investigation then it should be about finding out what the problems were and fixing them. If their was willful negligence then that should be dealt with (the ARB report didn't find any).
Anything else is bullshit.
I think that definition is too lenient. A lie is any statement or action intended to deceive. A statement that is factually accurate can still be a lie if its intent is to deceive.Again.
“Just because something isn't a lie does not mean that it isn't deceptive. A liar knows that he is a liar, but one who speaks mere portions of truth in order to deceive is a craftsman of destruction.”
― Criss Jami
But this is where I'm not yet convinced. Be clear, I am NOT asserting the Obama administration did not lie. Rather, I am saying that I don't think we yet have enough evidence to determine if there was an intent to deceive or not.The talking points were doctored to be deceptive in what they brought to the American public. This was done for political reasons at the expense of the country. This can't be defended by expecting to pass on mere portions of the truth (when looked at in isolation from other more important available information) as the paramount altruistic truth to the matter here. It's still deception, clearly so.
I believe that's because you tried to read between the lines of my comments instead of considering what I actually said. I try to be pretty precise with my comments. In an earlier post I explained very specifically why I thought the ABC article did not support the hyperbolic accusations of the Obama bashers. I also acknowledged that the Obama administration might have also altered the talking points due to political considerations, but that if so they were savvy enough to keep any incriminating evidence out of the emails that have been released.It's funny, or not, but you are using the same tactic as the administration.
As I've stated at least a couple of times before, if that's the "lie" you see, your issue is with the CIA and not Obama. That claim, right or wrong, came straight from the CIA. Once again, it was in the first draft of the talking points they wrote.basically, "we had conflicting information so we couldn't go out with definitive information, other than that we'll confirm we have every reason to believe this was spontaneous and the result of a youtube video". It was not an arbitrary choice to delete certain information and highlight other information, it was done to deceive. I don't see how that could be any more clear at this point in time given what we know those involved knew from the very earliest time period in this event.
That diversion has already been tried several times in this thread, but I'll help you out anyways...Have I mentioned that Benghazi ravers are idiots, blinded by partisanship?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/13-benghazis-that-occurre_b_3246847.html
Where was the outrage back then?
That diversion has already been tried several times in this thread, but I'll help you out anyways...
1. Is there any evidence to suggest that those attacks were the result of negligent decisions made at the Department of State?
2. More importantly, following those attacks, was anyone in the White House or DoS party to blatantly deceiving the world with regards to the identity of the attackers and the cause of the attack?
3. Were several months of CIA warnings consciously ignored by DoS officials prior to those attacks?
4. No US Ambassadors were killed.
5. How many requests for additional security were denied prior to reach of those attacks?
As you already knew before attempting to deflect, the outrage over the current Benghazi situation is a combination of all of the above. It is therefore dishonest and ridiculously amateur to attempt to compare it to any previous attack.
Again, though, I know that you knew all of that before you even posted...
I expect there were investigations. They were simply not reported by Fox and not turned into a circus by Democrats.We don't know the answers to those questions because no investigations were done so...