Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 17 Nov '12 00:21
    http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012/11/16/us/politics/ap-us-libya-attack.html?_r=0


    WASHINGTON (AP) — Testifying out of sight, ex-CIA Director David Petraeus told Congress Friday that classified intelligence showed the deadly raid on the U.S. Consulate in Libya was a terrorist attack but the administration withheld the suspected role of al-Qaida affiliates to avoid tipping them off.

    The recently resigned spy chief explained that references to terrorist groups suspected of carrying out the violence were removed from the public explanation of what caused the attack so as not to alert them that U.S. intelligence was on their trail, according to lawmakers who attended Petraeus' private briefings.

    He also said it initially was unclear whether the militants had infiltrated a demonstration to cover their attack.

    (snip)

    "The general was adamant there was no politicization of the process, no White House interference or political agenda," said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. "He completely debunked that idea."

    (snip)

    In fact, Petraeus told lawmakers that protesters literally walked in and set fire to the facility, according to a congressional official who attended the briefing. U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens died from smoke inhalation. Petraeus said security at the CIA annex was much better, but the attackers had armaments to get in.


    In other news retired GEN Petraeus said he resigned of his own accord simply due to the affair.


    Lawmakers said he did not discuss that scandal except to express regret about the circumstances of his departure and say that Benghazi had nothing to do with his decision to resign.
  2. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    17 Nov '12 00:34
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012/11/16/us/politics/ap-us-libya-attack.html?_r=0


    WASHINGTON (AP) — Testifying out of sight, ex-CIA Director David Petraeus told Congress Friday that classified intelligence showed the deadly raid on the U.S. Consulate in Libya was a terrorist attack [b]but the administration withheld the suspected rol ...[text shortened]... his departure and say that Benghazi had nothing to do with his decision to resign.
    What?

    Funny, I read an article that said the talking points provided by the CIA were edited to downplay the role of terrorism. If that's really the explanation, if that's the real, truthful answer, these clowns are even more Keystone Kops than I thought.
  3. 17 Nov '12 00:48
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    What?

    Funny, I read an article that said the talking points provided by the CIA were edited to downplay the role of terrorism. If that's really the explanation, if that's the real, truthful answer, these clowns are even more Keystone Kops than I thought.
    You didn't read an article. You read yet another blog post from some wing-nut hyper partisan site.
  4. 17 Nov '12 00:58
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    You didn't read an article. You read yet another blog post from some wing-nut hyper partisan site.
    Army Parachuter you need to quit reading junk from your communist sources. They write that stuff to throw the simpletons off so they will have no idea what is going on under their noses. You have about as much of a grasp on reality as that King David dude.
  5. 17 Nov '12 01:05 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    Army Parachuter you need to quit reading junk from your communist sources. They write that stuff to throw the simpletons off so they will have no idea what is going on under their noses. You have about as much of a grasp on reality as that King David dude.
    This is for sane people. Not you tinfoil hat morons who will slam every source from the Congressional Budget Office, to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, to widely accepted scientific polling agencies when they don't support your world view.

    It's the New York Times, not some loosely ran partisan blog.
  6. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    17 Nov '12 01:17
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    This is for sane people. Not you tinfoil hat morons who will slam every source from the Congressional Budget Office, to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, to widely accepted scientific polling agencies when they don't support your world view.

    It's the New York Times, not some loosely ran partisan blog.
    Yeah. The New York Times is a paragon of objectivity.
  7. Subscriber KingDavid403
    King David
    17 Nov '12 01:19
    Boy the tea party freaks sure are quite now. What happened??? Truth must have shed some light once again. God is Good.
  8. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    17 Nov '12 01:22
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    This is for sane people. Not you tinfoil hat morons who will slam every source from the Congressional Budget Office, to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, to widely accepted scientific polling agencies when they don't support your world view.

    It's the New York Times, not some loosely ran partisan blog.
    Here, Dopey. Chicago Tribune. Not exactly the Red State News.
    http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-73328924/
  9. 17 Nov '12 01:29
    Here's what John McCain, who was at the forefront of the Susan Rice conspiracy theory, who has been trolling the press incessantly, who MISSED a closed door meeting with Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (of which he's a member) discussing Benghazi - so he can hold a press conference complaining about the lack of information about Benghazi.... here's what he had to say immediately following the meeting with Petraeus.

    "He described his actions and that of his agency, their interactions with other agencies and I appreciate his service and his candor"

    He looked extremely long faced and he immediately turned around and walked away taking no questions.

    Congressman Peter King (R)

    Q: Did he say why it ws taken out of the talking points that it was Al Qaeda related?

    A: He didn't know.

    Q: He didn't know? How could he not know?

    A: It was done, the process was completed and they said 'OK, go with those talking points'

    Q: Did he give you the impression that he was upset it was taken out?

    A: No.

    Q: You said the CiA said "OK" to the revised report -

    A: No they.. well.. they said - that - in the process they OK'd it to go. They didn't see.. yeah they OK'd it to go.
  10. 17 Nov '12 01:32
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    Here, Dopey. Chicago Tribune. Not exactly the Red State News.
    http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-73328924/
    Broken link,

    Also, Republican Congressman King said in an interview immediately following the meeting that the CIA removed Al Qaeda from the unclassified reports they gave to Susan Rice. It's on tape.
  11. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    17 Nov '12 01:32
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    Here's what John McCain, who was at the forefront of the Susan Rice conspiracy theory, who has been trolling the press incessantly, who MISSED a closed door meeting with Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (of which he's a member) discussing Benghazi - so he can hold a press conference complaining about the lack of informati ...[text shortened]... at - in the process they OK'd it to go. They didn't see.. yeah they OK'd it to go.
    They serve at the pleasure of the President. What else was CIA going to say? No?
  12. 17 Nov '12 01:37 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    They serve at the pleasure of the President. What else was CIA going to say? No?
    David Patraeus no longer holds any official position and thus serves no one. But your implication that retired GEN Petraeus is a liar is duly noted.

    As I said, when one conspiracy is squashed in comes another conspiracy. You desire to smear the President and you have no interest in the truth. Your hatred for Obama vastly outweighs your supposed love of country.
  13. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    17 Nov '12 01:41
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    David Patraeus no longer holds any official position and thus serves no one. But your implication that retired GEN Petraeus is a liar is duly noted.

    As I said, when one conspiracy is squashed in comes another conspiracy. You desire to smear the President and you have no interest in the truth. Your hatred for Obama vastly outweighs your supposed love of country.
    Blah blah blah liberal bs.
  14. 17 Nov '12 01:42
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    Blah blah blah liberal bs.
    "David Patraeus no longer holds any official position and thus serves no one. But your implication that retired GEN Petraeus is a liar is duly noted."

    is liberal bs?

    lol
  15. 17 Nov '12 02:25 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    WASHINGTON (AP) — Testifying out of sight, ex-CIA Director David Petraeus told Congress Friday that classified intelligence showed the deadly raid on the U.S. Consulate in Libya was a terrorist attack [b]but the administration withheld the suspected role of al-Qaida affiliates to avoid tipping them off.

    The recently resigned spy chief exp ...[text shortened]... igence was on their trail, according to lawmakers who attended Petraeus' private briefings.[/b]
    Um, I don't know why the Administration would want to avoid "tipping off" the terrorists. The terrorists already knew that our government knew that they carried out the attack for three reasons. First, the terrorists gloated about their involvement in the attack in front of innocent bystanders. Second, the terrorists claimed responsibility for attack on internet blogs. Third, the terrorists' vehicles bore the logo of their group's name. Surely our government didn't need to play dumb under these circumstances; the terrorists probably expected retaliation from our government notwithstanding our official press releases.

    Moreover, the bold portion of the article that you rely on is suspect because it vaguely mentions the source of the information. That is, the article cites lawmakers generally without telling the reader which specific lawmakers the author got his information from. How do we know the author isn't fudging or misstating information? Certainly the author could have cited specific lawmakers since he did so in other parts of the article.