Benghazi--"All Talk and No Stick" indeed

[Anonymous]

Why would you insist on the video story when you don't know what happened.? Answer.... You are a liar.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Why would you insist on the video story when you don't know what happened.? Answer.... You are a liar.

You might insist on the video story because the CIA told you that was what happened. Anyone who at this point doesn't realize that the CIA made this claim simply isn't paying attention or just doesn't want to know.

[Anonymous]

If they were going to do a conspiracy, you think they would do something big.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:White House releases Benghazi emails, documents show 'Al Qaeda' flagged in early versions

You realize that al-Qaida didn't do it don't you? The group behind it was Ansar Al-Sharia.

Are they linked to al-Qaida?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It makes sense when they were going back and forth about Al Qaeda. We know that someone claimed credit but then the group denied involvement

So, we rely on al Qaeda for our intelligence?

Can you recall situations when Al Qaeda did not take credit for things they consider to be terrorist accomplishments?

This is the problem in the initial days. http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/24/us/libya-benghazi-e-mails

Someone posts a message on Facebook. The next day Ansar Al-Sharia denies involvement. Why would they not take credit for something they would consider a victory?

So when you are trying to tell the public what happened and you have multiple conflicting pieces of information, you may be going back and forth on what to say to the public until you can determine which sources are true and which ones are false.

You think that there was not enough information within 24 hours to know what was going on? Really?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:White House releases Benghazi emails, documents show 'Al Qaeda' flagged in early versions

You realize that al-Qaida didn't do it don't you? The group behind it was Ansar Al-Sharia.

Are they linked to al-Qaida?

Are they linked to the US supported Libyan opposition?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would you insist on the video story when you don't know what happened.? Answer.... You are a liar.

You might insist on the video story because the CIA told you that was what happened. Anyone who at this point doesn't realize that the CIA made this claim simply isn't paying attention or just doesn't want to know.

As usual, Jeff ignores the time lag between the CIA stating that was what happened (and it was vague at that) and when the Administration started using this talking point and the amount of time they used it.

But if you want to continue insisting that Obama, Clinton, et al are woefully uninformed, I can go there.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:White House releases Benghazi emails, documents show 'Al Qaeda' flagged in early versions

You realize that al-Qaida didn't do it don't you? The group behind it was Ansar Al-Sharia.

Are they linked to al-Qaida?

Are they linked to the US supported Libyan opposition?

I asked if they were linked to al-Qaida since you were using that to prove the poster wrong - i.e., splitting hairs. The fact you won't answer me shows me I am correct. Back to your word-games.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
You think that there was not enough information within 24 hours to know what was going on? Really?

There was obviously not enough information within 24 hours to know what was going on. You are basing your opinion solely on Hicks' testimony, yet ignoring the numerous others that have discussed the confusion. Hicks has been shown to still be confused about aspects of what happened even months after the event.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would you insist on the video story when you don't know what happened.? Answer.... You are a liar.

You might insist on the video story because the CIA told you that was what happened. Anyone who at this point doesn't realize that the CIA made this claim simply isn't paying attention or just doesn't want to know.

As usual, Jeff ignores the time lag between the CIA stating that was what happened (and it was vague at that) and when the Administration started using this talking point and the amount of time they used it.

But if you want to continue insisting that Obama, Clinton, et al are woefully uninformed, I can go there.

Obama receives his information from the CIA. What else do you expect of him? Do you really want a president who is surfing The Blaze and Twitchy for his information? Never mind that, I know you would love that to be the case. There was no time lag between the finalization of the talking points and their use. Go read the 100 emails just released and that will be confirmed for you.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You think that there was not enough information within 24 hours to know what was going on? Really?

There was obviously not enough information within 24 hours to know what was going on. You are basing your opinion solely on Hicks' testimony, yet ignoring the numerous others that have discussed the confusion. Hicks has been shown to still be confused about aspects of what happened even months after the event.

Hicks was not at all confused about the phone call he received from Stevens saying they were under attack. Hicks was not at all confused about the fact he received no phone call from Hicks saying that there were demonstrations. In fact, they did know within those first 24 hours there were no demonstrations. Furthermore, Obama and Rice didn't start their talk show circuit until the 16th.

Even Tom Brokaw at MSNBC recognizes that.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would you insist on the video story when you don't know what happened.? Answer.... You are a liar.

You might insist on the video story because the CIA told you that was what happened. Anyone who at this point doesn't realize that the CIA made this claim simply isn't paying attention or just doesn't want to know.

As usual, Jeff ignores the time lag between the CIA stating that was what happened (and it was vague at that) and when the Administration started using this talking point and the amount of time they used it.

But if you want to continue insisting that Obama, Clinton, et al are woefully uninformed, I can go there.

Obama receives his information from the CIA. What else do you expect of him? Do you really want a president who is surfing The Blaze and Twitchy for his information? Never mind that, I know you would love that to be the case. There was no time lag between the finalization of the talking points and their use. Go read the 100 emails just released and that will be confirmed for you.

Obama himself said he receives the news at the same time we do. So you ask him what you expect of him

Do I believe that? Not at all. He's full of crap in that regard. The fact is, the American people were lied to about the video, etc. That's been proven and picked up on by every news organization, including those at MSNBC, which is pretty remarkable actually.

You can keep believing he's squeaky clean in all this. I feel that any President who's absent after 5:30 PM on the night his Ambassador and three other men are killed, well, something's up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You think that there was not enough information within 24 hours to know what was going on? Really?

There was obviously not enough information within 24 hours to know what was going on. You are basing your opinion solely on Hicks' testimony, yet ignoring the numerous others that have discussed the confusion. Hicks has been shown to still be confused about aspects of what happened even months after the event.

Hicks was not at all confused about the phone call he received from Stevens saying they were under attack. Hicks was not at all confused about the fact he received no phone call from Hicks saying that there were demonstrations. In fact, they did know within those first 24 hours there were no demonstrations. Furthermore, Obama and Rice didn't start their talk show circuit until the 16th.

Even Tom Brokaw at MSNBC recognizes that.

Change bolded to Stevens. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would you insist on the video story when you don't know what happened.? Answer.... You are a liar.

You might insist on the video story because the CIA told you that was what happened. Anyone who at this point doesn't realize that the CIA made this claim simply isn't paying attention or just doesn't want to know.

As usual, Jeff ignores the time lag between the CIA stating that was what happened (and it was vague at that) and when the Administration started using this talking point and the amount of time they used it.

But if you want to continue insisting that Obama, Clinton, et al are woefully uninformed, I can go there.

Obama receives his information from the CIA. What else do you expect of him? Do you really want a president who is surfing The Blaze and Twitchy for his information? Never mind that, I know you would love that to be the case. There was no time lag between the finalization of the talking points and their use. Go read the 100 emails just released and that will be confirmed for you.

Obama himself said he receives the news at the same time we do. So you ask him what you expect of him

Do I believe that? Not at all. He's full of crap in that regard. The fact is, the American people were lied to about the video, etc. That's been proven and picked up on by every news organization, including those at MSNBC, which is pretty remarkable actually.

You can keep believing he's squeaky clean in all this. I feel that any President who's absent after 5:30 PM on the night his Ambassador and three other men are killed, well, something's up

Your entire argument is predicated on "I just don't believe the President and he's full of crap." Ok. That's awesome. But it's not going to convince anyone who disagrees. People have explained to you why they disagree, over and over again, but there's really no arguing with "I think he's lying and full of crap." I wonder how much time you have spent going in circles with people that you could have been doing something better with your time.

[Anonymous]

The question is:
Is he incompetent or lying?