Benghazi Attack for Dummies.

Wahhh! The CIA made me do it!! You can’t blame me-- the CIA hid coded messages in my talking points, and I was unable to filter them out. I said it, but I didn’t want to say it, so it’s the same as if I didn’t say it.

Waah! This isn’t going to kill Hillary’s presidential chances after all! There’s no way we can cherry-pick or distort the facts to make it happen! I can’t use this as evidence that the Dems are just as bad as the Reps! Waaah!

For pity’s sake, John. :rolleyes:

Jesus, John…you’ve been better than this kind of naked bullshit for years. What happened here?

Look, I’m on record as saying the Republicans are trumping up this whole Benghazi thing, making a mountain out of a mole hill. But that doesn’t mean I’m not going to call bullshit when I see it. That post was simple double-speak. The administration didn’t say it, even though they did, and besides, it was the CIA that made them do it!!

Say what you will about the Republicans, but the idea that the administration didn’t initially blame the attack on protests over the video is nonsense.

OK, and if we were to stipulate that, in what way have we advanced the discussion? Does it make any difference if one side offers two grams of disinformation and the other deals in carload lots?

He’s been like this ever since Zapp Brannigan attacked the Neutral Planet.

And professionals, who know more about deploying soldiers than you do, or ever will, say that sending American soldiers in without solid intelligence simply isn’t done.

http://thehill.com/video/sunday-shows/299213-gates-defends-benghazi-response-says-critics-have-cartoonish-view-of-military

This is you he’s talking about. You think deploying troops is easy because you don’t understand the complexities of the real world task. Please stop bringing up this point, because it’s highly misleading, because you blankly assume that your ignorance is all there is to the issue.

There is no common sense or reason in the above remarks. The CIA made nobody do anything. Members of Congress were asking for talking points as well as the White House from the CIA n order to be as accurate as possible when asked questions by reporters about the deaths in Benghazi.

Would Mace have the Admin and each political party in Congress establish and run their own worldwide intelligence agencies?

What else could be Mace’s argument in this debate?

All you need to do Mace, is show the forum readers the quote where the “attack” was blamed on the video. The truth is that the CIA first reported that a crowd had gathered outside the location in Benghazi where Ambassador Stevens and one other was killed and it was surmised to be related to the earlier events in Cairo.

It’s on record Mace that the Administration blamed extremists that brought heavy weapons to the protest/gathered crowd and attacked and killed our Ambassador.

So where is your source for your claim, Mace?

Dude, you started a whole thread on that subject, got your ass handed to you, so there’s no need to go there again.

Robert Gates is a good man - and was a superb Secretary of Defense.

And a Reagan-Bush(I) appointment at that.

It continues that John Mace’s preferred method of argument is one of personal attack rather than provide the source for John Mace’s claim/repetition of conservative talking points that the Administration blamed the killing of Ambassador and three others on the youTube video.
What thread was that anyway?

That is exactly the point. Why is Magiver, a conservative, making the point based upon no actual knowledge of or reports of what happened on September 11 in Benghazi?

As a conservative I’d think Magiver would have respect for a Reagan-Bush appointee.

I’d hope that silly line of attack would shrivel up and die, given that it’s demonstrably rubbish, but I doubt it.

What a complete load of bullshit. Police officers are called into situations every day that endanger them. Not special ops troops specifically trained, every day officers.

We knew what the environment was, we knew what the threat was and we had a drone in the air providing real-time feeds of the situation. Police officers should get this kind of intelligence during an assault.

About the only thing they didn’t have were autographed pictures of the attackers.

Ghod, I hate to say it, but…cite please?

cite what? We knew they were under attack, we knew where the attack was taking place. We knew who was under attack. It was viewed in real time by drones.

Like second marriages, the triumph of hope over experience.

Ok then, more precisely:

Who’s “we?”

What was the environment? Cite that “we” knew at the time what that was?

Cite that “we” knew what the threat was?

To who was the drone providing real-time information? What was the nature and quality of that information?

Those’d be a good start on my ignorance. Thanks!