I don't understand. The tin foil hat crowd of right wing loonies swore he was removed from his post, solely to prevent him from telling what they think is some hidden truth on the tragedy in Libya. They might have to change their story yet again to continue to politicize this tragic event.
-
-
Removed from his position???
he resigned, he was not removed
Hussein may have tried to blackmail him to lie about Benghazi or Hussein would leak the affair.
The General got in front of the story and resigned instead.
who knows what other secrets the President may hold.
If Patraeus testifies the White House did nothing and watched while 4 americans were killed, the lame stream media will cry "sour grapes, Patraeus is just trying to hurt the administration"Comment -
Unlike you, who claims to be a moderate and is the furthest thing from it, Petreus is going to tell the truth, and absolve the administration of any blame in this tragedy. Then the wingnuts will turn on him and say he was bribed, forced to lie, etc., because the truth doesn't fit the narrative they've tried to gin up.Originally posted by Let's Go RangersComment -
The right wingers will say his testimony is false and coerced.Comment -
Af he tells the absolute truth or at least what can/cant be proven it is simple and clean for both sides regarding the day of the attack so this wont be anything major. Its the after story that gets murky and he has no testimonial role in that decision making coming from the White House and State.
He will say something similar to this - Sure we had intel of possible attacks leading up but nothing specific enough to act on and embassy security is not in our lane, that is State's call. The real time surveillance fell under AFRICOM out of Germany since they had the drone footage and the info we filtered down to Ambassador Rice that went on the talk show circuit was based on other assets and not a totality of the information since we I didnt yet receive a report on the drone footage. So in hindsight we made some mistakes in information but it was not intentional.
He's covered tomorrow. PIO will make certain of it...plausible deniability boys...its what happens when so many links are between ground to top leadership.Comment -
Petraeus will tell members of Congress that he knew Al Quada was responible for the attack,
( Why POTUS was still blaming a video for weeks I can only guess )
He will also say he had his own talking points (marching orders ) separate from Rice.
Rice got her talking points from someone in the Hussein administration ( Of course it won't be Hussein himself....wink, wink )Comment -
How do people know what the general is going to say before he says it? Let's hear what he said then evaluate it. Gez. If the people calling for heads to roll on this took the same attitude to the cluster fuk that was the Bush intel on Iraq WMD's half the bush admin. would still be doing time.
And I'm still confused why Susan Rice is the fall person here. Because she gave a briefing based on the intel she was given? Colin Powel went to the UN and said we know Saddam has Chem. WMD's, showed a small vile of baby powder "this much anthrax could wipe out this building." Turns out we never found any anthrax. So obvious base on the standard being applied to Rice et el Powell lied! Lock that muthu' up! Shit speaking of Rices, didn't Condi Rice go arund talking about the impending "mushroom clouds" we were going to see if we didn't invade Iraq? Turns out Saddam was no where near a nuke and had shut the program down after the first gulf war. So she lied! Lock her up!
Or we could just be reasonable and see what the investigation reveals and hold people who made mistakes and or over looked warning signs responsible. Nah, that's not the way we roll these day.Comment -
If they lied as part of a cover upthen they certainly should be jailed.
Whether that is either Rice or Powell.
Ig Patraeus testifies that the CIA knew it was AlQuada, it would be reasonable to assume that they passed that on.
so any comments afterwards would either be lies, or people woefully inadequate and inept in doing their jobComment -
Or Rice, Rice and Powell were given bad intel and they passed it along.Originally posted by Let's Go Rangers
Intel isn't science or at least isn't an exact science. I think mistakes were made here, probably costs US lives. Mistakes were made in Iraq from going in to the way it was run over and over. People should be held accountable for this type of shit.
On this particular incident I think the intel sector was giving people more then one story. One agency said this and another said that, maybe differing reports from within the same agency. But that all likely happened as the event was "fluid." Okay so lets find out what happened and why. But stop all this hyperbole and grandstanding. The way some of these people are talking you'd think Susan rice, who or UN Ambass. said "let me go out there and tell them some BS, that'll shut them up and put an end to this whole mess." She's the UN Ambass, she'll likely got asked to present some info she was given and she did. How's that her fault? I think the folks on the ground and in the intel sector sending out these intel reports should be questioned as to why they were coming up with these conflicting reports.
In the end I'd really like to know why the requests from Libya asking for more security were not granted. Seems like a no brainer to me. Who made that call? that's the important issue in my mind and the rest of this amounts to a dog and pony show which in the end is distracting everyone from getting down to the nuts and bolts of what exactly went wrong and why?Comment -
What do you really think is the cover up? What was there to gain?Originally posted by Let's Go RangersComment -
Intel certainly is not always reliable when coming from oitside sources.
Verification is key
If we resumed the Gulf war ONLY because of the WMD intel, then Rice, Powell, Bush Admin would have to be questioned as far as motives.
We resumed the gulf war after Hussein ( Saddam, not Barry ) continued to fail to obide by the UN sanctions put in place to obtain the cease fire in 92.
Now Benghazi we may learn there is video of the attack, claims of responsibility and CIA CONFIRMATION of an attack by Al Quada.
If this is true, it isn't bad intel....
It is a coverupComment -
So what's the motive?Comment -
Well Hussein had campaigned on Killing Bin Laden, Al Quada weakened and on the run....Originally posted by Andy117
If in fact this was admitted to being an Al Quada terrorist attack, it would be hard to continue to campaign on Al Quada weakened and on the runComment -
Originally posted by Let's Go Rangers
I nailed it just about 100 percent
CIA knew right away it was terrorism....
Patraeus comments edited down...
Rices comments were " sanitized"...
Even the most stupid lemming must now realize this is a cover upComment -
Good call!Originally posted by Let's Go RangersI nailed it just about 100 percent
CIA knew right away it was terrorism....
Patraeus comments edited down...
Rices comments were " sanitized"...
Even the most stupid lemming must now realize this is a cover up
Comment -
I don't see how you predicting he'd say that proves it is a cover up. Rep. King stated after the briefing that the general had given different statement about the events prior so he's confused by the testimony. Your I predicted "A and B and I think it's a cover up therefore A+B= cover up" logic fails on many levels simply because there are too many other A and B equal ________ possibilities. It could still add up to poor intel and poor communications between the agencies involved and the politician wanting answers. Part of the problem could be politicians demanding answers in real time as event unfolded. And your claim that motive was Obama couldn't campaign on being tough on Al Qaeda if there were an attack is really a reach. After killing OBL, short of Al Qeada blowing up Disney World, Obama had the "I'm tough on terrorism issue in his bag." An attack on an Embassy with four casualties in a country 75% of the nation not find on a map wasn't going to change that.Originally posted by Let's Go RangersI nailed it just about 100 percent
CIA knew right away it was terrorism....
Patraeus comments edited down...
Rices comments were " sanitized"...
Even the most stupid lemming must now realize this is a cover up
Your logic remains me of all the people trying to claim 9-11 was an inside job. They used this A+B= Bush did it logic. Stuff like I'll bet you none of Bush's, Cheney's families or even their friend were in the towers when they went down. They'd research it and not find any one connected to either man on the lists of victims and it'd be "Ah Ha! I told you! See even you have to admit bush did it or at least knew about it."
I'm not saying there isn't a cover up, just that your logic sucks. There may be a cover up. The public doesn't know enough to know either way. I still go back to the 'why wasn't the Embassy provided better security?' That seems stupid that they weren't. Stupid on the level of anything Bush did or didn't do.Comment -
Why wasn't the Embassy provided better security
because that might offend Muslims, and Al Quada is weakened and no longer a threat
who else might attack an embassy in Libya?
Hussein helped with overthrowing Qaddafi, & these people who are now in power are the residue of Husseins taking sidesComment -
I think it's a conspiracy. Almost certain. I know from serving in the military and talking with friends (and my daughter) who are currently serving that the military and probably the CIA prefer GOP members of congress and in the WH. So I think, pretty much know, they cooked up several conflicting stories and threw them out the to WH all at once, just to make Obama look bad. And predict the GOP House and Senate members will continue to push this issue regardless of the answers they get for at least another month. If I'm right and they do that will prove it's all an inside job to make Obama look bad. That's my theory. Can't wait to find out if I'm right.Comment -
Nice try...
what about the streaming video in real time from the drone?
what about the emails within hours?
where was anything conflicting?Comment -
there is one thing that i don't understand about Benghazi: who the penetrate cares?Comment -
Originally posted by Let's Go Rangers
here, I will help
Ambassador Stevens was also in on it.
he just finished reading an old article on Patty Hearst, and he thought " why don't I fake my own kidnapping"
he then asked for added security, but somebody along the way somebody didn't pass the message.
all the pieces were in place, they just had to wait for a " Muslim rioting" moment ...
( these come as frequently as your inner city brown type riots )
as the election neared, there were no riots in sight.
so ambassador Stevens add to create 1.
he called on his friends back in the United States and George Bush, Karl Rove, and Rush Limbaugh made the anti Muslim movie.
this movie was funded by Halliburton, and of course filmed at Fox Studios
it was released just in time for 911 , and the riots took place.
Ambassador Stevens was supposed to only be kidnapped, but George Bush, Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh double crossed himComment -
Not really, we hit them 20+ times and they hit back once doesn't mean that they're not weakened.Originally posted by Let's Go RangersComment -
they are definitely on the run and shitting in their pants, they are hiding in caves they hardly ever come out and they are weakened. to think that they will stop all actions is ridiculous, of course some attacks will occur but compared to other time periods they are not nearly as strong.
now you might think that an independent moderate would see that, wouldn't you. hmmmComment -
I'll bet at least four families care.Originally posted by BiffTFinancial
On a larger scale I understand your point. This is getting blown way out of scale for what it was. Have no idea if you're old enough to remember but back when I was in the military two Marine barracks in Beirut were bomb by two separate truck bombs. 240 (+/-, my memory isn't what it once was) service men were killed. it was, at the time, the largest single day loss of life for the Marine Corp. since WWII, Iwo Jima I think. I remember Tipp O'Niell and Reagan both on the TV in the days following. O'Niell said this was not the time to be pointing finger, placing blame and trying to score political points. Reagan made a commitment not to be Bullied out of the region and vowed to keep US forces in place. That was in the fall of '83, by Dec. Reagan all US service out of Beirut. So he withdrew. or as the GOP would call it today he "cut and ran." There was an investigation but nothing like the current three ring circus you're seeing today. I'm sure those in charge of security on the site were probably given career ending something. No one tried to claim "Reagan knew this was a problem and didn't do jack to stop it. If he didn't know he should have!' He's in on it or he's an incompetent idiot, IMPEACH HIM NOW!"
Look I'm all for holding people accountable but this is just getting silly.Comment -
Try, what do you mean? I really think I'm on to something here, it's completely plausible. I think tomorrow I'll start posting it on the Daily Kos and any other liberal site/blog I can find. Then just sit back and wait for MSNBC to ask the question "is it possible high level anit-Obama military officers purposely skewed the intel? That's what some people are saying...."Originally posted by Let's Go Rangers
Video from a drone, Pfft. The military can produce hours of them any time they want. What do you want it look like happening?
Emails? Hell I can produce an e-mail from Ann Romney saying how much she like blowing me and that horse she owns. What date would like on it?
Conflicting? Just a lot of people with basic logic and basic morals.Comment -
man i wish the conservative crowd was this concerned about lying and covering up when that bullshit about iraq having WMDs. could have saved the US billions and thousand of americans lives. it's almost like politicians use the inherent bias of the populace to get them on their side. it's almost like the politicians know citizens are lemmings who can be easily persuade to eat whatever bullshit they need to feed them. weird.Comment -
Originally posted by antifoil
I wish the right would have been this concerned about deficit and spending during the Iraq war. Back then it was Deficits don't matter. They never had any plan to pay for the war. Even if the war was the greatest idea since indoor plumbing not figuring out how to pay for it and rather borrow for it and kick it down the road seems like a bad idea. I mean we went to war, borrowed the money for that and gave everyone a tax cut. I've read many places we're the first nation ever to go to war and cut taxes. I really don't know if that's true. I do know the wars weren't funded, weren't on budget and taxes went down all at the same time. Basically the right wanted a war but they didn't want to pay for it. And they talk about the left wanting free stuff.Comment
