- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Darrell Issa suffers a Benghazi slap; GOP chair exonerates Obama and Clinton
Posted on 4/15/14 at 5:04 pm to NHTIGER
Posted on 4/15/14 at 5:04 pm to NHTIGER
quote:
It's not a matter of semantics, it's a matter of intent and Obama chose to use "act(s) of terror" for political reasons.
Do you agree that Republicans insisting he should have used the word "terrorist" was also for political reasons?
Isn't it a bit silly to allege a coverup when that's what terrorists do, commit acts of terror? If Republicans can't link words is that the fault of the President?
2
Posted on 4/15/14 at 5:10 pm to Rex
They all lied, everyone knows it, but it won't matter cause they have gotten away with it, and Obama was re-elected. No fair press in the USA. Repubs have to buy out and control the media, or they are done. The left can do whatever they want, and it goes unchecked...Obama's administration controls the media, game/set/match.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 5:24 pm to Rex
quote:
quote:
It's not a matter of semantics, it's a matter of intent and Obama chose to use "act(s) of terror" for political reasons.
Do you agree that Republicans insisting he should have used the word "terrorist" was also for political reasons?
Isn't it a bit silly to allege a coverup when that's what terrorists do, commit acts of terror?
The administration was pushing the scenario that an "act of terror" grew out of a protest demonstration. That theoretically could happen. An individual among a protest crowd could commit an act of terror during the demonstration. That premise would entail the crowd gathering for a peaceful demonstration and then having the demonstration compromised/sabotaged by one or more individuals committing an act of terror while blending in with regular protestors.
What occurred in Benghazi was a gathering of terrorists for the purpose of committing terrorist acts. Their actions were observed from the very first moment by Alec Henderson, and they were an "attack crowd" in attack mode from the very first moment.
So there was no way an "act of terror" grew out of a protest demonstration that night. A group of armed terrorists forced their way into the compound and they were in attack mode from the very first moment.
They were terrorists, and everyone knew it from Moment One.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 5:29 pm to Rex
quote:Sourcing regarding that claim remains to be seen.
That was the info the CIA gave them.
Michael Morell's credibility on this is dubious at best.
Panetta refuses to clarify what information he specifically passed to the POTUS on Sept. 11, 2012.
All indications are that Panetta was told this was an attack pure and simple, not a protest gone awry, and he says his impression was it was clearly an act of terrorism
In fact, at no time was there a fraction of a scintilla of evidence of any demonstration or video related protest in Benghazi.
Nothing.
Zip.
Nada.
Ziltch.
Zero.
So unless Michael Morell's job was to formulate disinformation for public consumption, there was no basis whatsoever for the "Spontaneous Protest in Benghazi Thesis".
Was that his job? To formulate disinformation?
Perhaps so. But then the question is from where and why did the disinformation directive emanate.
Was it political or was it strategic?
But the notion that ANYONE in our Defense/Intel Government loop believed Susan Rice presented the "best evidence we had at the time" is absolute fantasy. Even the Sunday News Hosts were incredulous at her account that morning. The evidence of an organized attack sans protest was overwhelming at that point.
This post was edited on 4/15/14 at 7:51 pm
Posted on 4/15/14 at 5:38 pm to NHTIGER
quote:
He had no contact with Defense Secretary Panetta or any military personnel, after approximately 5:30 PM on the 11th through the next morning.
How convenient.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 5:40 pm to NHTIGER
quote:
He had no contact with Defense Secretary Panetta or any military personnel, after approximately 5:30 PM on the 11th through the next morning.
Needed his rest. Partying in Vegas with Beyonce and Jay Z is serious business.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 5:50 pm to NHTIGER
quote:Which raises an equally damning question as to WTF he was doing.
He had no contact with Defense Secretary Panetta or any military personnel, after approximately 5:30 PM on the 11th through the next morning.
On the one hand we are to believe Obama thought all hell was breaking loose against US assets throughout the Arab world d/t a video. He supposedly believed that had led to a breach of the Consulate in Libya. Yet, he sought no other contact regarding status after 5:30pm on September 11th ?????
Pause and give that some thought for a moment.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 6:00 pm to NHTIGER
But you didn't answer my questions.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 6:02 pm to Rex
quote:
But you didn't answer my questions.
1. no
2. no
Posted on 4/15/14 at 6:11 pm to NHTIGER
quote:Right.
He had no contact with Defense Secretary Panetta or any military personnel, after approximately 5:30 PM on the 11th through the next morning.
The attack began at 3:42pm Washington DC time.
Obama met with Panetta around 4:00pm.
As Panetta told the Senate Armed Services Committee in February of last year, he informed Obama that "there was an attack going on in Benghazi."
Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla: "Secretary Panetta, do you believe that unequivocally at that time we knew that this was a terrorist attack?"
Panetta: "There was no question in my mind that this was a terrorist attack."
Posted on 4/15/14 at 6:21 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Obama met with Panetta around 4:00pm.
N.C., just clarifying, it was actually from 5:00 PM to 5:30 PM EST that he met with Panetta and Dempsey.
By the way, neither Panetta nor Dempsey had any communication with Secretary of State Clinton between the beginning of the attack at the diplomatic facility and the morning mortar attack on the annex.
This post was edited on 4/15/14 at 6:25 pm
Posted on 4/15/14 at 6:32 pm to NHTIGER
quote:
1. no 2. no
Of course you wouldn't.
A therapist performs acts of therapy. A rapist commits acts of rape. A terrorist commits acts of terror.
It's not Obama's fault that Republicans are bad at word meanings.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 6:33 pm to Rex
Your the king of not answering questions rex so be happy 
Posted on 4/15/14 at 6:40 pm to Rex
But if I said the guy committed an act of rape because he just watched a vile movie and the party got out of hand, when I knew the movie had nothing to do with it, and I knew the guy showed up at the party with some roofies what would that be.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 6:48 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Pause and give that some thought for a moment.
c'mon - he was busy planning the lies he would tell at the Vegas fund-raiser that day.
He would leave it all to his sycophants to weave a 'plausible denial' for him to use for whatever the facts would come to show.
Gotta get that $$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Posted on 4/15/14 at 6:52 pm to OleWar
That would be a lie not analogous to what really happened, and of very little palliative consequence to the victim.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 7:34 pm to Rex
quote:
It's not Obama's fault that Republicans are bad at word meanings
I know right.
"You can keep your plan...you can keep your doctor". BHO
Crazy words
Posted on 4/15/14 at 7:37 pm to goatmilker
Corpseman
Posted on 4/15/14 at 7:40 pm to Rex
quote:
A therapist performs acts of therapy. A rapist commits acts of rape. A terrorist commits acts of terror.
The words "terrorism" and "terrorist" have specific legal meaning with the Code of Federal Regulations which governs the FBI. From that very first day, the administration has stated that the FBI is the investigating agency of record on Benghazi, and all other departments and activities yield to FBI jurisdiction.
A requisite part of that definition reads :
"Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping;"
The Pennsylvania high schooler's knife attack, a true "act of terror" by any account, does not meet either ii. or iii. above, and may not even meet i.
The United States Government officially recognizes "terrorism" and "terrorist" as specific acts and "actors". Many acts of terror are committed that do not come anywhere near the requisite definitions. The Government has gone to great lengths regarding Benghazi to emphasize that the FBI and its actions trump all others.
quote:
It's not Obama's fault that Republicans are bad at word meanings.
I am a Republican.
And I am quite "good" at word meanings.
Checkmate.
LINK
Page 8 of 10
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News