The Truth About Benghazi

[punked]

Nor does the Obama administration, nor do you.

1 - It was claimed that the attacks were spontaneous because of the movie that was released.

2 - The movie was found to be month old and could NOT have been the reason for a spontaneous attack.

3 - The story moved to a coordinated attack, but did not know who the attackers were.

4 - Hearings let slip out that there was a CIA annex either at the consulate grounds or a mile away (still not quit sure about that)

Yet that is what the CIA and all Intelligence talking points put out said. Better fire the head of the CIA the organization whose fault all your problems seem to lie with......WAIT ALREADY GONE. Guess you will be happy then and WAIT FOR THE FACTS!!!!

Again the attack can both be spontaneous and a terrorist attack. I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU CAN NOT UNDERSTAND. They aren't mutually exclusive as more and more FACTS come it it appears that might be what it was. Want to tell me why you think otherwise? In fact that yesterday at the closed door hearing it is reported to have been said.

"I don't think these were nice guys who loved America before they saw the video, But there is a lot of evidence to suggest that the timing of the attack might have been suggested because of the protests in Cairo"

So they wanted to have a terrorist attack but had no planned date. 3 to 5 hours before the attack they here about the other 19 protests around the Arab world because of some video. They then decide right then and there to attack in the next few hours. If that is what happened and I am not saying it is because I AM WAITING FOR THE FACTS. Then yes that is a spontaneous attack would you not agree?

We do know

1 - Stevens was a key player in helping the NTC

2 - With helping the NTC NATO helped arm and fund the rebels with known Al-Queda.

3 - Strange case to find NATO on the same side as Al-Queda in order to help bring down Gadaffi.

4 - Those rebels (with elements of Al-Queda) attacked the 'consulate' or CIA Annex (again the status and type of the facility is still in question)

You are getting your facts mixed up here. Yes there was a CIA Annex and there was a Consulate. They were not the same place there were two different and separate places in Benghazi. You should do more research you are muddying the waters again so we will never know what really happened. Come back when you have your facts straight.

This all sounds like a case of blowback to me. It's not like helping the enemy of your enemy has ever come back to bite the USA in the ass. Oh right, the Muhajedeen in Afghanistan which turned into Al-Queda with the CIA/USAs help. Then that same organization came back to destroy buildings in NYC.

We can agree on this being blowback at least.

What does this really look like to you Punked? We have to go back about a year at the start of the Arab Spring and the 'revolution' that took down Gadaffi. He as others have claimed foreign fighters were causing the trouble. And a good number of those were found to be Al-Queda. Also it is important to note that a key player in the downfall of Gaddafi was/is an Al-Queda member, also that man spent some time at GITMO. And I made the claim that it seems that GITMO could be what the CIA uses in order to train these 'terrorists' to start the Arab Spring.

I think you again are making things up out of your head and I really need some facts on such wild accusations. There is enough evidence out there and enough people in the know that if what you claim is true it will come out.

Al-Queda does not do anything spontaneously. While you are waiting for 'facts' that will never support your argument, many have really begun to question the whole event. Check out the comments on the article you posted. Only a few are swallowing what the Obama administration is saying. Clinton stepped down? Hmm convenient. Same with Patreaus. An affair? Please.

This is how these people operate.

Republicans did not wait for the facts when Iraq was invaded. It does not matter if it's Democrats or Republicans. They are part of the same team, same government and end up working together but claim to be different enough to fool people into thinking there are two sides to this story. It's a damn circus and we have front row seats.

I have drawn up my own conclusion based on the facts and the inconsistencies of the talking points the Obama administration has dumped out there. Maybe Obama could have waited for the facts himself before he claimed it was spontaneous or a coordinated attack.

The only ones muddying the water here are the ones who are attempting to hide something. And the only people having that power to hide those facts are someone in the Obama administration, or a high military official, or someone in the intelligence communities.

Patreaus' story seems to be quite consistent. The official story has had to change several times to fit the facts that have been exposed.

You went off the rails man. You are making things up out of your head and because of that no one can take you seriously. Just like most people in this thread.

Edited November 17, 2012 by punked

[GostHacked]

Yet that is what the CIA and all Intelligence talking points put out said. Better fire the head of the CIA the organization whose fault all your problems seem to lie with......WAIT ALREADY GONE. Guess you will be happy then and WAIT FOR THE FACTS!!!!

Punked, many facts have already been exposed. You just don't want to see it. This is the kind of resistance I get when facts are presented. It's also the kind of resistance I get when I do my best at using logic exposing the hypocrisy/inconsistencies of a story. It's a defence mechanism to protect your current worldview. Anything counter to that is met with much hostility as it prevents one from actually looking at the time line of events and understanding what is really going on here.

Again the attack can both be spontaneous and a terrorist attack. I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU CAN NOT UNDERSTAND. They aren't mutually exclusive as more and more FACTS come it it appears that might be what it was. Want to tell me why you think otherwise?

It was not spontaneous for the reasons of the movie. That was the first lie tosses out by the administration. Remember at first it was a spontaneous attack on both the consulate in Libya and the consulate in Egypt. Now those two attacks cannot be related because they were both said to be spontaneous acts because of the movie. And we know that is now debunked.

Might be a good thing to check out what happened at the embassy in Egypt. Could be something important there as well. But no one died there so it did not seem like a big deal. Was not reported much after that.

You are getting your facts mixed up here. Yes there was a CIA Annex and there was a Consulate. They were not the same place there were two different and separate places in Benghazi. You should do more research you are muddying the waters again so we will never know what really happened. Come back when you have your facts straight.

2 Minute mark Obama talks about Stevens role with the rebels and new Libya,

-He was made ambassador to the new Libyan government.

Seems odd to praise such a man who seems to be a key player in bringing about a new Libya.

Obama talks about the country trying to recover from the war , in which NATO helped start. Oh right, quickly people forget about things. Recall the bull with Italy and the small oil dispute against Libya? Turned out to be a small portion of what Italy gets from other sources? Remember France getting on board calling for the invasion of Libya? Remember the no fly zone implemented? Remember NATO planes (some Canadians involved too) doing bombing runs in Libya? Remember the story quickly changing to humanitarian aide being a reason to invade?

We bomb them, make a humanitarian crisis in which we now all of a sudden need to correct. Where is your disconnect here?

What was Stevens real role here? And why were the pleas of more security ignored? And why did it have to happen on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks in NYC.

We can agree on this being blowback at least.

If you agree with the blowback bit, then you know there is something that is prevented from getting out that would possibly expose others within this operation, Clinton is not getting a lot of media coverage lately. Maybe grilling her more on this would be prudent. The Patreaus affair could simply be a distraction from something else the administration would love to just have swept under the rug.

I think you again are making things up out of your head and I really need some facts on such wild accusations. There is enough evidence out there and enough people in the know that if what you claim is true it will come out

I have documented many of those facts in this thread, the Patreaus thread and others related to the Arab Spring and events/timelines in Libya. If you want to call me out on it, I suggest going through those threads and tear it apart. Maybe we will both learn something.

You went off the rails man. You are making things up out of your head and because of that no one can take you seriously. Just like most people in this thread.

What I can't take seriously is how you are able to defend such an obvious blunder right from the get go.

[punked]

Punked, many facts have already been exposed. You just don't want to see it. This is the kind of resistance I get when facts are presented. It's also the kind of resistance I get when I do my best at using logic exposing the hypocrisy/inconsistencies of a story. It's a defence mechanism to protect your current worldview. Anything counter to that is met with much hostility as it prevents one from actually looking at the time line of events and understanding what is really going on here.

Nope there have been many facts I am sure but they are tied up with so many lies I can not take them seriously. I want facts not some facts attached to a mountain of lies that is what has happened time and time again in this thread.

It was not spontaneous for the reasons of the movie. That was the first lie tosses out by the administration. Remember at first it was a spontaneous attack on both the consulate in Libya and the consulate in Egypt. Now those two attacks cannot be related because they were both said to be spontaneous acts because of the movie. And we know that is now debunked.

Again if this attack happened because the attack in Egypt happened then the movie was the cause of the Egypt attack and the Egypt attack of Benghazi. I am willing to cut them some slack figuring that out. Seems like that is more semantics and details then anything else. I expect those reasons to take time.

“I don’t think anyone is suggesting these were nice guys who loved America before they saw the video,”

Might be a good thing to check out what happened at the embassy in Egypt. Could be something important there as well. But no one died there so it did not seem like a big deal. Was not reported much after that.

I have no idea what you are saying here.

2 Minute mark Obama talks about Stevens role with the rebels and new Libya,

-He was made ambassador to the new Libyan government.

Seems odd to praise such a man who seems to be a key player in bringing about a new Libya.

Obama talks about the country trying to recover from the war , in which NATO helped start. Oh right, quickly people forget about things. Recall the bull with Italy and the small oil dispute against Libya? Turned out to be a small portion of what Italy gets from other sources? Remember France getting on board calling for the invasion of Libya? Remember the no fly zone implemented? Remember NATO planes (some Canadians involved too) doing bombing runs in Libya? Remember the story quickly changing to humanitarian aide being a reason to invade?

More crazy speculation which has very little to do with the attack sorry. Muddy those waters though. We will never know what happened if you keep doing that.

We bomb them, make a humanitarian crisis in which we now all of a sudden need to correct. Where is your disconnect here?

What was Stevens real role here? And why were the pleas of more security ignored? And why did it have to happen on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks in NYC.

It looks the date of the attack happened because of the other 19 PROTESTS IN THE ARAB WORLD. At least at this time.

If you agree with the blowback bit, then you know there is something that is prevented from getting out that would possibly expose others within this operation, Clinton is not getting a lot of media coverage lately. Maybe grilling her more on this would be prudent. The Patreaus affair could simply be a distraction from something else the administration would love to just have swept under the rug.

I think most terrorist attacks are blowback, I think that is a thing most people agree with. Although the rest of this paragraph is stuff you are making up out of your head with NO SUPPORT. Not one piece of evidence. I can not get behind that.

I have documented many of those facts in this thread, the Patreaus thread and others related to the Arab Spring and events/timelines in Libya. If you want to call me out on it, I suggest going through those threads and tear it apart. Maybe we will both learn something.

What I can't take seriously is how you are able to defend such an obvious blunder right from the get go.

I am saying their are clearly failures that have taken place. However this isn't 9/11, this isn't even the USS Cole. Terrorist attacks happen to the US when they are in places doing things the locals don't like. That is blowback. Security failings happen if you want that to stop you should bring every American who is working against the interest of some small group in every country home. It is the cost of being the worlds police. That is not what Republicans who want to hang a Democrat are looking for though is it? That is an argument I can see being made and could even get behind but that is a very different thing then is happening in Washington.

Is this any different then 9/11? How about the Intel failures that got American in the Iraq war? What about Bombing of U.S. Embassy in Beirut?

What I am saying is this is tragic but it is the price of war. If you don't want blowback maybe don't operate a CIA outpost in the middle of the city right? That is not what the other side is saying. They are saying yes terrorist attack and intel failures have happened in the past and when they did they were the price of doing business but this time it is different because we don't like this President. We refuse to wait for the facts we will just make up lies and speculate and hope the muddy the waters just enough so we don't look stupid. That is the wrong to handle national security.

[GostHacked]

What I am saying is this is tragic but it is the price of war. If you don't want blowback maybe don't operate a CIA outpost in the middle of the city right? That is not what the other side is saying. They are saying yes terrorist attack and intel failures have happened in the past and when they did they were the price of doing business but this time it is different because we don't like this President. We refuse to wait for the facts we will just make up lies and speculate and hope the muddy the waters just enough so we don't look stupid. That is the wrong to handle national security.

This Cutter woman attempting to drown out the logic the CNN host is putting forth is quite similar to you using caps to talk over what I am attempting to put forth here. It's no different. It's like a 'shut up and listen to me, wait for the facts'. As the facts are being shown to her an the inconsistencies of what Obama himself said (well put forth in this clip)... Cutter just shouts over her.

Edited November 17, 2012 by GostHacked

[punked]

This Cutter woman attempting to drown out the logic the CNN host is putting forth is quite similar to you using caps to talk over what I am attempting to put forth here. It's no different. It's like a 'shut up and listen to me, wait for the facts'. As the facts are being shown to her an the inconsistencies of what Obama himself said (well put forth in this clip)... Cutter just shouts over her.

Yah can imagine waiting for the facts. If you did you wouldn't like an idiot like this Republican on CNN yesterday.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93MtwI-xEpY&feature=player_embedded

Look we can both post videos that don't relate to what we are talking about but come close to the subject matter.

I am still waiting for those facts instead of one or two facts that have already been explained then some crazy off the rails conspiracy theory to go along with it.

Edited November 17, 2012 by punked

[GostHacked]

Punked, but this IS part of it.

You seem compartmentalized and slightly ADHD'ish. in your thinking and cannot see how all these events are related and intertwine with each other.

But your CNN video is proving my points, the official story sucks and the facts they presented so far have been trashed and thrown out the door. So while you wait for your facts, we can review the 'facts' they already put forth and judge them on that. SO far it's not looking good for all parties involved.

And looks like the Obama administration hung Susan Rice out to dry. That's another thing that does not look good on them.

[punked]

Punked, but this IS part of it.

You seem compartmentalized and slightly ADHD'ish. in your thinking and cannot see how all these events are related and intertwine with each other.

But your CNN video is proving my points, the official story sucks and the facts they presented so far have been trashed and thrown out the door. So while you wait for your facts, we can review the 'facts' they already put forth and judge them on that. SO far it's not looking good for all parties involved.

And looks like the Obama administration hung Susan Rice out to dry. That's another thing that does not look good on them.

No it does not look like the Obama admin hung anyone out to dry. It looks like the Intel community put out a bunch of talking points and asked Congress to give them sometime to catch the terrorist and the Republicans didn't want to do that. Instead they outed all the CIA and CIA informants in Lybia making it much harder to get the terrorists. Those talking points did not have all the facts we can agree on that. That is a poor reflection on the CIA and Intel Community and that is where it stops.

[GostHacked]

No it does not look like the Obama admin hung anyone out to dry. It looks like the Intel community put out a bunch of talking points and asked Congress to give them sometime to catch the terrorist and the Republicans didn't want to do that. Instead they outed all the CIA and CIA informants in Lybia making it much harder to get the terrorists. Those talking points did not have all the facts we can agree on that. That is a poor reflection on the CIA and Intel Community and that is where it stops.

But if Susan Rice had no knowledge of anything, who gave her bogus information to put forth and then take a fall for it? That simply does NOT make any sense.

And of course the CIA and intel communities are involved. They are all involved.

We also know this woman who had the affair with Patreaus might possibly have had a bigger part in the whole Benghazi thing. Now that is still to be determined but I guess we should look at who she is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Broadwell

She was said to be just some simple author, but looking at her credits, she is much more than just an author. Seems like the FBI was interested in hiring her.

[punked]

But if Susan Rice had no knowledge of anything, who gave her bogus information to put forth and then take a fall for it? That simply does NOT make any sense.

What Bogus information would that be? You still haven't made this clear.

And of course the CIA and intel communities are involved. They are all involved.

We also know this woman who had the affair with Patreaus might possibly have had a bigger part in the whole Benghazi thing. Now that is still to be determined but I guess we should look at who she is.

http://en.wikipedia....Paula_Broadwell

She was said to be just some simple author, but looking at her credits, she is much more than just an author. Seems like the FBI was interested in hiring her.

Again I have no idea what you are talking about. This has nothing to do with what you are saying. I think you are confused and need to get out of the bubble and look at the FACTS.

[GostHacked]

Again, Fox is the only one reporting on this incident.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/18/hill-lawmakers-spar-over-import-rices-remarks-involvement-in-libya-aftermath/

Capitol Hill lawmakers disagreed Sunday on the importance of U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice’s role in the aftermath of the fatal Libya attacks, with independent Sen. Joe Lieberman arguing Republicans are taking a short-sighted approach by focusing on her public explanation of events.

Rice said publicly five days after the Sept. 11 attacks on two U.S. outposts in Benghazi, Libya, that the strikes were “spontaneous” and sparked by outrage over an anti-Islamic film.

Evidence including Capitol Hill testimony last week by former CIA Director David Petraeus showed that U.S. officials knew almost immediately that terrorist-related groups were involved.

“Nobody could deny … it was a terrorist attack,” Lieberman said on "Fox News Sunday." "But I think we are focusing on questions that are ... not the most significant. Of course, there was a terrorist attack.”

So even Rice was confused about being a spontaneous or planned attack. She also blamed it on the movie .... the circus continues.

[sharkman]

This has been a circus from the start. The Benghazi attack happened on 9/11, and the very first thing from the administration wasn't, "We have a team on the ground looking into it" or " These investigations take time and we can't comment until we know more". No, they knew immediately that it wasn't premeditated and it was because of an obscure Youtube video that had been released in May. Except that the CIA told them differently, so now we know that the administration had the data doctored and sent out a patsy, Rice, to spread the propaganda. She had no knowledge of the incident except what info she was told to say. What a joke.

Then The US president, in the next 2 weeks, goes on Letterman and the View, and keeps repeating the lie that it was the video that caused it all. This cover up, and the Petraeus affair cover up were both done to aid the campaign.

[GostHacked]

This has been a circus from the start. The Benghazi attack happened on 9/11, and the very first thing from the administration wasn't, "We have a team on the ground looking into it" or " These investigations take time and we can't comment until we know more". No, they knew immediately that it wasn't premeditated and it was because of an obscure Youtube video that had been released in May. Except that the CIA told them differently, so now we know that the administration had the data doctored and sent out a patsy, Rice, to spread the propaganda. She had no knowledge of the incident except what info she was told to say. What a joke.

Then The US president, in the next 2 weeks, goes on Letterman and the View, and keeps repeating the lie that it was the video that caused it all. This cover up, and the Petraeus affair cover up were both done to aid the campaign.

That is what I get out of it. And now that Obama is on for a second term, it really does not matter what the findings are unless they are bad enough to warrant impeachment of Obama.

In guess we still need to wait for the 'facts' regardless of how many times the facts have changed since the attack in Benghazi.

[sharkman]

It's just that it's sleazy, and Obama may be many things, but I never thought he would allow something like this to be attached to his administration.

[cybercoma]

It's sleazy that the administration would try to keep a confidential CIA operation confidential?

[punked]

It's just that it's sleazy, and Obama may be many things, but I never thought he would allow something like this to be attached to his administration.

Like what? I still don't know what you guys are angry about. Explain it to me like I am 5 years old

[punked]

This has been a circus from the start. The Benghazi attack happened on 9/11, and the very first thing from the administration wasn't, "We have a team on the ground looking into it" or " These investigations take time and we can't comment until we know more". No, they knew immediately that it wasn't premeditated and it was because of an obscure Youtube video that had been released in May. Except that the CIA told them differently, so now we know that the administration had the data doctored and sent out a patsy, Rice, to spread the propaganda. She had no knowledge of the incident except what info she was told to say. What a joke.

Then The US president, in the next 2 weeks, goes on Letterman and the View, and keeps repeating the lie that it was the video that caused it all. This cover up, and the Petraeus affair cover up were both done to aid the campaign.

Run through the time line please because everything you are saying is wrong.

[punked]

It's sleazy that the administration would try to keep a confidential CIA operation confidential?

Its not even that bad. All the Administration did was report that non confidential talking points the INTELLIGENCE agencies gave them telling them if they reported more they would be making it easier for the terrorist that did these acts to get away from them, and put the Libyans who were helping them catch these guys in danger. I have no idea what the outrage is about.

Was it poor Intel? Yes it was. It was poor Intel for about 2 weeks while the Intelligence agencies got their acts together. Was it poor Intel reported over a period of a year that started a war that killed 3000 Americans and 60000 Iraqies? No it wasn't. I will wait for Sharkmans outrage to be proportional on both sides before I call him anything other then a Hypocrite.

[GostHacked]

Its not even that bad. All the Administration did was report that non confidential talking points the INTELLIGENCE agencies gave them telling them if they reported more they would be making it easier for the terrorist that did these acts to get away from them, and put the Libyans who were helping them catch these guys in danger. I have no idea what the outrage is about.

Was it poor Intel? Yes it was. It was poor Intel for about 2 weeks while the Intelligence agencies got their acts together. Was it poor Intel reported over a period of a year that started a war that killed 3000 Americans and 60000 Iraqies? No it wasn't. I will wait for Sharkmans outrage to be proportional on both sides before I call him anything other then a Hypocrite.

So, why did the Whitehouse and all the people involved not wait for the facts when they made the initial claim that it was spontaneous attacks ? Why did they change their story several times since then?

Also if you want to see timelines that reflect reality, read this thread.. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=21451&hl=benghazi

[punked]

So, why did the Whitehouse and all the people involved not wait for the facts when they made the initial claim that it was spontaneous attacks ? Why did they change their story several times since then?

Also if you want to see timelines that reflect reality, read this thread.. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=21451&hl=benghazi

They were giving the American people the best information they had at least the time. It is called bei g transparent and treating the American public with respect.

[sharkman]

They were giving the American people the best information they had at least the time. It is called bei g transparent and treating the American public with respect.

How can you say that? It is now public knowledge as testified by Petraeus, that the information the CIA gave the administration was altered. That means that they were not giving the public the best info they had. And the video had nothing to do with it, yet for almost 2 weeks, they kept pushing the video with Obama going on Letterman and The View.

Every time they say something public, another unintended truth pops out. Like when Holder recently had his presser and said that they analyzed the emails/situation of the Petraeus affair, and were confident that no breach of national security was taking place. So then, why when the FBI raided Broadwell's home after the resignation did they seize classified documents? And more on her computer? That by itself puts national security in the hands of someone who does not have the pay grade to handle it. Then she was videoed saying things that were classified, like the CIA annex which had taken 2 Libyan prisoners.

The Administration should just shut the hell up. Every time they say something it reveals another whopper.

Edited November 19, 2012 by sharkman

[GostHacked]

They were giving the American people the best information they had at least the time. It is called bei g transparent and treating the American public with respect.

How do you expect anyone else to wait for the facts when they did not wait for those facts befor they had to change their story several times as new facts came out?

[punked]

How can you say that? It is now public knowledge as testified by Petraeus, that the information the CIA gave the administration was altered. That means that they were not giving the public the best info they had. And the video had nothing to do with it, yet for almost 2 weeks, they kept pushing the video with Obama going on Letterman and The View.

Every time they say something public, another unintended truth pops out. Like when Holder recently had his presser and said that they analyzed the emails/situation of the Petraeus affair, and were confident that no breach of national security was taking place. So then, why when the FBI raided Broadwell's home after the resignation did they seize classified documents? And more on her computer? That by itself puts national security in the hands of someone who does not have the pay grade to handle it. Then she was videoed saying things that were classified, like the CIA annex which had taken 2 Libyan prisoners.

The Administration should just shut the hell up. Every time they say something it reveals another whopper.

You have no clue what you are talking about.

[GostHacked]

You have no clue what you are talking about.

I think the real timelines and the posts we have made in these 3 threads combined show that we do know what we are talking about. I'd rather hope you were simply honestly ignorant and not just playing ignorant.

[GostHacked]

http://security.blog...nity/?hpt=hp_t2

The intelligence community - not the White House, State Department or Justice Department - was responsible for the substantive changes made to the talking points distributed for government officials who spoke publicly about the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, the spokesman for the director of national intelligence said Monday.

The unclassified talking points on Libya, developed several days after the the deadly attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, were not substantively changed by any agency outside of the intelligence community, according to the spokesman, Shawn Turner.

Republican criticism of the talking points intensified last Friday following a closed door hearing with former CIA Director David Petraeus.

Rep. Peter King, R-New York, told reporters after the hearing that the original talking parts drafted by the CIA had been changed and it was unclear who was responsible.

"The original talking points were much more specific about al Qaeda involvement and yet final ones just said indications of extremists," King said.

Looks like my suspicion came true that it was someone within the intelligence community that changed the talking points of the whole affair. Too bad Obama, Rice, Clinton et-al did not wait for the facts.

Edited November 20, 2012 by GostHacked

[punked]

http://security.blog...nity/?hpt=hp_t2

Looks like my suspicion came true that it was someone within the intelligence community that changed the talking points of the whole affair. Too bad Obama, Rice, Clinton et-al did not wait for the facts.

They reported the facts as they knew then to the AMERICAN PEOPLE in an opinion and transparent way saying this is what we know right now and it could change. If they didn't give the details as they knew them you have screamed cover up at the time. Do us all a favor and and take your constantly changing position and stuff them. I would love it if my government told me in real time the reports they got from the people doing the job and treated me like an adult. You I guess are different and want your government to pretend intelegence doesn't exist because the full story isn't know even if it takes years.

Btw this isn't what you have been saying the whe thread. This is what I have been saying and you have been yelling at me about the whole thread. You aren't Mitt Romney you didn't save the car industry and you make no sense with you double speak.

Edited November 20, 2012 by punked