The Truth About Benghazi

[GostHacked]

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.

But instead of waiting for the 'facts' as you have hammered home in the past couple pages, the White House ran with the notion it was due to those movies. Damage was already done, and yet you seem to want to attack me for their screw ups. So I don't quite understand why I have to wait for the facts while they did not do the same.

If they didn't give the details as they knew them you have screamed cover up at the time.

Oh come on. Wait for the facts, or run with what we got and risk looking stupid. The latter happened, and I'd expect better from these people. These are the people running the USA.

Do us all a favor and and take your constantly changing position and stuff them.

You can take THEIR constantly changing position and stuff them. Why not wait for the facts? Or do you want to backtrack on that bit?

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.

You should be upset with them and not me. I am not the one calling the shots. I am not the one who changed the story several times. I am not the one who changed the talking points to make Obama look stupid (which really is not that hard to do).

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.

Well I thank you for the compliment. I am indeed not Mitt Romney. I don't support Romney or Obama. And yelling? Double speak? Who's using the caps(internet yelling)?

But in the end, you are not reading, paying attention or willfully ignoring the three threads related to this topic which have clearly laid out the timeline and documented all the changes in the story since the incident happened.

Let's start back at the beginning of this other thread I started.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=21451&hl=%2Blibya+%2Battacks

My opening post was this ....

Now this is an interesting turn of events.

Apparently a film shown in Egypt and Libya was directed and produced by the Quran Burner himself Pastor Terry Jones.

http://abcnews.go.co...55#.UFB6U1Fpk99

So I admit I was duped by the talking points coming out of Obama and Clinton. Again, don't blame me for their screw ups.

And a few pages later we find out that Jones had nothing to do with it. But that is what was presented at the time. But as we waited for more facts, the facts kept changing. And now we know that seems to stem right from the start with the intelligence communities (more specific some one within) purposefully changing the talking points to that which Obama , Clinton and others ran with at the start.

You are asking a lot from me, but not asking the same from the leaders/people who are actually involved in this affair and who are directly responsible for these men who died in the attack.

Let's check one of your posts on Page 1 of that same thread.

Know what President Romney's response to this would be? Well just like Bush. He would invade Iran trillion dollar war. Good thing there is still an adult in the Whitehouse. Sorry conservatives but Romney would be worse.

[punked]

But instead of waiting for the 'facts' as you have hammered home in the past couple pages, the White House ran with the notion it was due to those movies. Damage was already done, and yet you seem to want to attack me for their screw ups. So I don't quite understand why I have to wait for the facts while they did not do the same.

They are still trying to figure out all the facts. You expect them to never tell the American people what they know to the best of their ability? The 9/11 report took almost 6 years you expect them to never to tell the American people something like that for 6 years? Wow that is an insane position. Again I want my government to tell me what they think they know even if it is wrong and as an adult I will forgive them for being wrong and correcting the story but I want to know what they know. That is what a transparent government does and that is important to me.

Oh come on. Wait for the facts, or run with what we got and risk looking stupid. The latter happened, and I'd expect better from these people. These are the people running the USA.

Yes the people running the USA tell the American people who they serve what they know when they know. This is what you have a problem with?

You can take THEIR constantly changing position and stuff them. Why not wait for the facts? Or do you want to backtrack on that bit?

They had facts. They reported them, then more facts came out and they reported them. So what is your point?

You should be upset with them and not me. I am not the one calling the shots. I am not the one who changed the story several times. I am not the one who changed the talking points to make Obama look stupid (which really is not that hard to do).

Go back and read this thread. This is not what we were arguing about 2 weeks ago. You are the one who looks stupid now.

Well I thank you for the compliment. I am indeed not Mitt Romney. I don't support Romney or Obama. And yelling? Double speak? Who's using the caps(internet yelling)?

But in the end, you are not reading, paying attention or willfully ignoring the three threads related to this topic which have clearly laid out the timeline and documented all the changes in the story since the incident happened.

Let's start back at the beginning of this other thread I started.

http://www.mapleleaf...+libya +attacks

My opening post was this ....

So I admit I was duped by the talking points coming out of Obama and Clinton. Again, don't blame me for their screw ups.

And a few pages later we find out that Jones had nothing to do with it. But that is what was presented at the time. But as we waited for more facts, the facts kept changing. And now we know that seems to stem right from the start with the intelligence communities (more specific some one within) purposefully changing the talking points to that which Obama , Clinton and others ran with at the start.

You are asking a lot from me, but not asking the same from the leaders/people who are actually involved in this affair and who are directly responsible for these men who died in the attack.

Let's check one of your posts on Page 1 of that same thread.

Yep an adult in the whitehouse who thinks the American people are entitled to the best intelligence at the time. I agree with that. Apparently you want to be treated like a child. Have fun with your Nanny state.

[Shady]

The worst part about this whole affair, is the that the ambassador requested help several times in the months leading up to September. Twice terrorist attacks too place, once blowing a hole in the exterior wall of the embassy. Yet no help or extra security was ever sent. It's total incompetence on the administration's part, aside from their multiple stories.

[punked]

The worst part about this whole affair, is the that the ambassador requested help several times in the months leading up to September. Twice terrorist attacks too place, once blowing a hole in the exterior wall of the embassy. Yet no help or extra security was ever sent. It's total incompetence on the administration's part, aside from their multiple stories.

The worst part about this is the ambassador saying he needed help and more money to be spent to do his job and the GOP cutting that budget by 300 million. You don't get to "starve the beast" then complain the system doesn't work Shady I am sorry.

[Shady]

The worst part about this is the ambassador saying he needed help and more money to be spent to do his job and the GOP cutting that budget by 300 million. You don't get to "starve the beast" then complain the system doesn't work Shady I am sorry.

Shifting some military support doesn't require congressional approval.

[punked]

Shifting some military support doesn't require congressional approval.

Then you are shifting from the place where it was before and needed before. You cut the support for these people then get mad that it becomes hard for them to do their job. Deal with it Shady your side created a situation where it was lose, lose and someone got killed because of it. If you truly supported these people in their very dangerous job you would be putting the blame where it should be, the cuts you cheered for. Welcome to the third law (every action has a reaction).

Welcome to the reality based society where science and polling it correct and you can't lie to yourself to change reality. I suggest your side embrace it because it could tough for your side if you don't soon.

Edited November 21, 2012 by punked

[GostHacked]

They are still trying to figure out all the facts. You expect them to never tell the American people what they know to the best of their ability? The 9/11 report took almost 6 years you expect them to never to tell the American people something like that for 6 years?

And still questions about 9/11 remain.

Wow that is an insane position. Again I want my government to tell me what they think they know even if it is wrong...

That kind of mentality gets people killed. They should have taken your advice and wait for the facts.

The government also told us what they thought they knew regarding Saddam's WMD program after the first gulf war in which their capacity to make WMDs was destroyed. They never were able to get it going again. Turned out they were wrong about their initial reports and a couple thousand US troops dead and countless more wounded and massive Iraqi civilians dead. This is what happens when they tell you what they think they know, even if it's wrong.

and as an adult I will forgive them for being wrong and correcting the story but I want to know what they know.

Patreaus in the hearings testified that the talking points aka 'facts', were altered from the start. This was deliberate, this was not an accident. So there is no excuse to defend Obama, Clinton and others who ran with those 'facts' at the start.

That is what a transparent government does and that is important to me.

Transparent? Do you know what the CIA and other intelligence communities do? If anything they are not transparent. They have not been transparent at all.

They had facts. They reported them, then more facts came out and they reported them. So what is your point?

And those facts turned out to be false. And the facts that they changed them to, also turned out to be false. And still you seem to be hounding on me more than the people who are actually involved in covering up something.

Go back and read this thread. This is not what we were arguing about 2 weeks ago. You are the one who looks stupid now.

The only ones who look stupid are the people in the White House who ran with the intelligence communities deliberate changes in the talking points regarding the whole incident.

Yep an adult in the whitehouse who thinks the American people are entitled to the best intelligence at the time. I agree with that. Apparently you want to be treated like a child. Have fun with your Nanny state.

But you seem to ignore that the facts that were put out by Obama and Clinton turned out to be false because of the deliberate manipulation of the facts by the intelligence communities.

The only one acting like a child is you. Nanny state? Come on Punked, you are better than this... I hope.

Edited November 21, 2012 by GostHacked

[punked]

And still questions about 9/11 remain.

That kind of mentality gets people killed. They should have taken your advice and wait for the facts.

Informing your public on what you know does not get people killed. Not following up and presenting facts as they become clear because you are scaed some person will jump on it with crazy conspricy theories instead of treating the public like adults gets people killed. (The later is you punishing the admin for correcting the facts as they became clear for no reason what so ever)

The government also told us what they thought they knew regarding Saddam's WMD program after the first gulf war in which their capacity to make WMDs was destroyed. They never were able to get it going again. Turned out they were wrong about their initial reports and a couple thousand US troops dead and countless more wounded and massive Iraqi civilians dead. This is what happens when they tell you what they think they know, even if it's wrong.

Yep bad Intel when it is not researched or corrected is just plain stupid. That is not this situation which was corrected over a mater of weeks.

Patreaus in the hearings testified that the talking points aka 'facts', were altered from the start. This was deliberate, this was not an accident. So there is no excuse to defend Obama, Clinton and others who ran with those 'facts' at the start.

I agree the president presenting the Intel to the American people as it becomes clear is a good thing.

Transparent? Do you know what the CIA and other intelligence communities do? If anything they are not transparent. They have not been transparent at all.

Your problem is clearly with the system and not the Admin. Your anger is and has always been misplaced so next time maybe wait a little bit before you go off because you clearly wrong.

And those facts turned out to be false. And the facts that they changed them to, also turned out to be false. And still you seem to be hounding on me more than the people who are actually involved in covering up something.

No one is covering anything up. That much is quite clear stop being crazy.

The only ones who look stupid are the people in the White House who ran with the intelligence communities deliberate changes in the talking points regarding the whole incident.

Yah so stuipd that no one talking about this and the story has died because there is no story. Sure look stupid.

But you seem to ignore that the facts that were put out by Obama and Clinton turned out to be false because of the deliberate manipulation of the facts by the intelligence communities.

Yep right after the attack they got the story wrong then went back and corrected it. Big deal there were 20 other incidents on that day at American embassies around the world as well. I will cut them slack on that one. Seems like you and Shady are the only ones still talking about this because now that all the facts are out we see the Admin did its job. Great.

[GostHacked]

No one is covering anything up. That much is quite clear stop being crazy.

You ever play connect the dots when you were a kid? The dots seemed well, random until they were all connected to reveal the bigger picture.

Yah so stuipd that no one talking about this and the story has died because there is no story. Sure look stupid.

As this gets swept under the rug and conveniently forgotten by other news. Typical of the ADHD crowd when consuming news.

Yep right after the attack they got the story wrong then went back and corrected it. Big deal there were 20 other incidents on that day at American embassies around the world as well. I will cut them slack on that one. Seems like you and Shady are the only ones still talking about this because now that all the facts are out we see the Admin did its job. Great.

What you seem to fail to understand is that the talking points were deliberately changed by people on the inside and presented as fact.. And it's not just one person, only a fool would believe that.This is a systematic deliberate attempt at deceiving the public on what really happened.

Now, since we have established that there are elements in the intelligence community purposefully altering the facts in their reports, you have to wonder what else was changed/missed when it comes to other intelligence failures. Something is quite rotten on the inside. This is not the first time, and wont be the last time.

[Shady]

Now, since we have established that there are elements in the intelligence community purposefully altering the facts in their reports, you have to wonder what else was changed/missed when it comes to other intelligence failures. Something is quite rotten on the inside. This is not the first time, and wont be the last time.

Exactly. Not only that, but one has to wonder why, when the ambassador asked for more help regarding threats, the administration did nothing. They were asked on three seperate occasions for more help. Yet nothing. Somehow Obama can go to war with Libya without congressional approval, but he can't redeploy a few more marines to a threatened embassy? Riiiight.

Punked is in his usual, Obama-spinning love fest for Dear Leader.

Edited November 22, 2012 by Shady

[BubberMiley]

It's important to pretend there is a controversy, even after the election, if only to save face.

And I can see why. That election was quite the face-palming.

[Shady]

It's important to pretend there is a controversy, even after the election, if only to save face.

And I can see why. That election was quite the face-palming.

Anything to protect Dear Leader eh?

[punked]

Anything to protect Dear Leader eh?

Shady man the election is over you lost our side is ready to compromise just get over it so we can all meet in the middle.

[BubberMiley]

Anything to protect Dear Leader eh?

Absolutely. I know how to pick a winner.

[Merlin]

The news said that Obama was denying the attack as a terrorist attack for a long time even after the public knew it was.

[BubberMiley]

Wouldn't killing an ambassador always be considered a terrorist attack, whether or not the Republicans want to use it as a pretend scandal to win an election?

Which, BTW, they lost.

Badly.

[GostHacked]

Wouldn't killing an ambassador always be considered a terrorist attack, whether or not the Republicans want to use it as a pretend scandal to win an election?

Which, BTW, they lost.

Badly.

I don't think it was a question of classifying it as a terror attack. To me the real issue, and Romney could have pressed on Obama to clarify if it was spontaneous or planned. Romney missed a huge opportunity.

[punked]

I don't think it was a question of classifying it as a terror attack. To me the real issue, and Romney could have pressed on Obama to clarify if it was spontaneous or planned. Romney missed a huge opportunity.

Why they still think it was spontaneous GostHacked so you still have no clue what you are talking about I see.

[GostHacked]

Why they still think it was spontaneous GostHacked so you still have no clue what you are talking about I see.

The only ones who don't have a clue what is going on is Obama and co. See my past posts for the reasons why as you continue to chase your tail. Then when you get to the end of the thread go back and start over.

[dre]

What you seem to fail to understand is that the talking points were deliberately changed by people on the inside and presented as fact.. And it's not just one person, only a fool would believe that.This is a systematic deliberate attempt at deceiving the public on what really happened.

Now, since we have established that there are elements in the intelligence community purposefully altering the facts in their reports, you have to wonder what else was changed/missed when it comes to other intelligence failures. Something is quite rotten on the inside. This is not the first time, and wont be the last time.

The problem is that the political fallout over whether this was classified as a terrorist attack or demonstration does not seem worthy of any coverup.

But one thing that MIGHT be worth trying to cover up, is that the CIA was using its annex there as a secret prison or interrogation center. IF this was the case then what the CIA told the administration would make pretty good sense, because a secret torture center in the annex there would have been a violation of the presidents January 2009 order to close torture... errr... "interogation" camps abroad.

Edited November 23, 2012 by dre

[GostHacked]

The problem is that the political fallout over whether this was classified as a terrorist attack or demonstration does not seem worthy of any coverup.

Good point.

But one thing that MIGHT be worth trying to cover up, is that the CIA was using its annex there as a secret prison or interrogation center. IF this was the case then what the CIA told the administration would make pretty good sense, because a secret torture center in the annex there would have been a violation of the presidents January 2009 order to close torture... errr... "interogation" camps abroad.

That is interesting and does make sense. That would fall into play as to what Broadwell was saying about the facility. Checking some links and it's a half and half thing. ..... if your notion turns out to be correct . . . i hope the fallout is huge.

[cybercoma]

FOX couldn't end this interview with Tom Ricks fast enough. haha

[Shady]

FOX couldn't end this interview with Tom Ricks fast enough. haha

Ricks is a leftwing hack.

Anyway, the left has now stooped to calling anyone questioning Susan Rice as racist. Pathetic.

[GostHacked]

I dont think its a matter of left/right .. but the guy played right into it. Both the host and the guest. This is how real news gets sidelined.

[GostHacked]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...canada-20519384

A US diplomat hotly tipped to replace Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has admitted releasing incorrect information after September's attack on the American consulate in Libya.

UN Ambassador Susan Rice said there had been no attempt to mislead the public, but Republicans were unconvinced.

After meeting Ms Rice on Tuesday, senators said they were troubled.

The envoy said her initial line that the Benghazi attack appeared to have sprung from a protest had been wrong.

Colour me surprised!!!

She knew the information and says that there was no attempt to mislead the public. That's some fine smelling bullcrap right there. But let's wait for the 'facts'.

Edited November 28, 2012 by GostHacked