Top Defense officials briefed Obama on ‘attack,’ not video or protest

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

PapaG

Banned User
BANNED
Joined
Sep 23, 2008
Messages
32,870
Likes
291
Points
0
Another Benghazi thread.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ficials-briefed-obama-on-attack-not-video-or/

Minutes after the American consulate in Benghazi came under assault on Sept. 11, 2012, the nation's top civilian and uniformed defense officials -- headed for a previously scheduled Oval Office session with President Obama -- were informed that the event was a "terrorist attack," declassified documents show. The new evidence raises the question of why the top military men, one of whom was a member of the president's Cabinet, allowed him and other senior Obama administration officials to press a false narrative of the Benghazi attacks for two weeks afterward.

Gen. Carter Ham, who at the time was head of AFRICOM, the Defense Department combatant command with jurisdiction over Libya, told the House in classified testimony last year that it was him who broke the news about the unfolding situation in Benghazi to then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The tense briefing -- in which it was already known that U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens had been targeted and had gone missing -- occurred just before the two senior officials departed the Pentagon for their session with the commander in chief.

According to declassified testimony obtained by Fox News, Ham -- who was working out of his Pentagon office on the afternoon of Sept. 11 -- said he learned about the assault on the consulate compound within 15 minutes of its commencement, at 9:42 p.m. Libya time, through a call he received from the AFRICOM Command Center.

"My first call was to General Dempsey, General Dempsey's office, to say, 'Hey, I am headed down the hall. I need to see him right away,'" Ham told lawmakers on the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation on June 26 of last year. "I told him what I knew...

continued at link
 
Ding ding ding! Your 30th Benghazi thread!

You win the beautiful set of white patio furniture, as soon as you pay for the shipping and income tax withholding.

Now get out of Hollywood.
 
Mods, please merge with all the other Ben Gauzy threads into one super-sized thread of indiscernable value.
 
This is the 3rd Benghazi thread I've started in the last 7 months, not the 30th.

jlprk has never been one to actually find out the truth before he posts, though. :dunno:
 
Yes, incurious people and hyper-partisans tend to dismiss factual news reporting based solely on the source, be it FauxNews or MSNBC.

It's why we're a nation of low-info voters. Thanks for letting me know I can pretty much disregard anything that you post that pertains to politics, the economy, etc. etc.

https://www.google.com/search?q=abc...m=122&ie=UTF-8#q=benghazi+attack+declassified

That's just it, Fox "News" (nor MSNBC) are not credible news sources.

That said, please ignore myself and curious others who choose to seek out credible news sources, and for my part, I will ignore the rightie propaganda you forward to the forum. Sounds like a deal to me.
 
Hey guys have you heard all this stuff about Chris Chri--BENGHAZI!!!
 
This is the 3rd Benghazi thread I've started in the last 7 months, not the 30th.

jlprk has never been one to actually find out the truth before he posts, though. :dunno:

You can't count, either? It's at least the 10th, and there were about 20 before that, because I started making fun of your nasty little habit.
 
Should have made the thread title "binders of women" so certain people would take it seriously.
 
Ya got any pictures of naked bound women?
 
You can't link to a Sportstwo search on Sportstwo. It appears you made no headway in libelling me a liar.
 
You can't link to a Sportstwo search on Sportstwo. It appears you made no headway in libelling me a liar.

The link worked fine for me. You're lying about the amount of threads you said I've started about Benghazi. I'll call you a liar all day and night on that one, because you're lying.
 
Prove it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
 
Prove it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I already proved it. If you can't figure out how to click a link or conduct a thread search, that's a you problem.
 
I didn't know you're Italian. Eh, paisano.
 
Mods, please merge with all the other Ben Gauzy threads into one super-sized thread of indiscernable value.

naw, This is new news.

It is proof that we have been lied to and mislead on this issue.
 
That's just it, Fox "News" (nor MSNBC) are not credible news sources.

That said, please ignore myself and curious others who choose to seek out credible news sources, and for my part, I will ignore the rightie propaganda you forward to the forum. Sounds like a deal to me.

I dont understand why you or anyone would turn a blind eye to this subject. To simply label it as being "rightie propaganda" as a way of excusing the subject matter baffles me.

I dont see this a s right or left issue. I see it as a serious if not treasonous act in a deliberate plan to mislead the public. Is this the leadership you would defend? I dont care to be lied to..
 
I dont understand why you or anyone would turn a blind eye to this subject. To simply label it as being "rightie propaganda" as a way of excusing the subject matter baffles me.

I dont see this a s right or left issue. I see it as a serious if not treasonous act in a deliberate plan to mislead the public. Is this the leadership you would defend? I dont care to be lied to..

You mean there are politicians that don't lie?
 
I dont understand why you or anyone would turn a blind eye to this subject. To simply label it as being "rightie propaganda" as a way of excusing the subject matter baffles me.

I dont see this a s right or left issue. I see it as a serious if not treasonous act in a deliberate plan to mislead the public. Is this the leadership you would defend? I dont care to be lied to..

How does choosing to obtain my news from credible news sources, rather than those sources which are politically skewed in one direction or another, constitute turning "a blind eye" to a subject or topic? The issue is bipartisan, but the particular report is skewed. If you would you blindly defend a right-wing commentary network, believing everything they throw at you is the pure truth, then it would appear you do, in fact, care to be lied to. As I've said, it's all about credibility of the source. Fox "News" simply lacks the credibility. Period. As I previously stated, MSNBC is of the same ilk, though to the opposite side of the aisle, so don't think for a second I am defending them.

If it is a "serious if not treasonous act in a deliberate plan to mislead the public" by this administration, then yes, I certainly am concerned. I'm also concerned by the previous administration's "serious if not treasonous act in a deliberate plan to mislead the public" in regards to the absence of WMDs which our then president used to justify an invasion of Iraq. How many American servicemen and women lost their lives because of that lie? The coin flips both ways.
 
How does choosing to obtain my news from credible news sources, rather than those sources which are politically skewed in one direction or another, constitute turning "a blind eye" to a subject or topic? The issue is bipartisan, but the particular report is skewed. If you would you blindly defend a right-wing commentary network, believing everything they throw at you is the pure truth, then it would appear you do, in fact, care to be lied to. As I've said, it's all about credibility of the source. Fox "News" simply lacks the credibility. Period. As I previously stated, MSNBC is of the same ilk, though to the opposite side of the aisle, so don't think for a second I am defending them.

If it is a "serious if not treasonous act in a deliberate plan to mislead the public" by this administration, then yes, I certainly am concerned. I'm also concerned by the previous administration's "serious if not treasonous act in a deliberate plan to mislead the public" in regards to the absence of WMDs which our then president used to justify an invasion of Iraq. How many American servicemen and women lost their lives because of that lie? The coin flips both ways.

Perhaps your memory is too short, reach back a tad.

 
How does choosing to obtain my news from credible news sources, rather than those sources which are politically skewed in one direction or another, constitute turning "a blind eye" to a subject or topic? The issue is bipartisan, but the particular report is skewed. If you would you blindly defend a right-wing commentary network, believing everything they throw at you is the pure truth, then it would appear you do, in fact, care to be lied to. As I've said, it's all about credibility of the source. Fox "News" simply lacks the credibility. Period. As I previously stated, MSNBC is of the same ilk, though to the opposite side of the aisle, so don't think for a second I am defending them.

If it is a "serious if not treasonous act in a deliberate plan to mislead the public" by this administration, then yes, I certainly am concerned. I'm also concerned by the previous administration's "serious if not treasonous act in a deliberate plan to mislead the public" in regards to the absence of WMDs which our then president used to justify an invasion of Iraq. How many American servicemen and women lost their lives because of that lie? The coin flips both ways.

The headline story at foxnews.com

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/01/14/court-strikes-down-fccs-net-neutrality-rule/

Do tell what's not credible.
 
Perhaps your memory is too short, reach back a tad.



I'm talking about the Bush administration's lie regarding the false evidence of WMDs in Iraq in 2003, not Clinton's remarks in 1998. That is a separate issue entirely. Let's not forget that the Bush administration's lie cost nearly 4,500 american servicemen and women their lives.

But since I'm feeling gracious today, I'll aid you in your comprehension by giving you a couple links:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-schwarz/colin-powell-wmd-iraq-war_b_2624620.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/18/panorama-iraq-fresh-wmd-claims
 
LOL at HuffPost being a credible source.
 
How does choosing to obtain my news from credible news sources, rather than those sources which are politically skewed in one direction or another, constitute turning "a blind eye" to a subject or topic?

What do you consider a 'credible news source?'
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top