Raz and Strix Benghazi monkey shitfight thread

[Razgovory]

Raz, I doubt you are naive enough to think that the FBI forced Obama's hand or that the timing was pure coincidence.  Panetta is on his way out and now the CIA head, Obama will be able to place to sycophants in place without issue.

You remind of of the Arabs when they ask if we are really so "Naive" as to believe that the Mossad isn't directing shark attacks.  If this was some sort of conspiracy to direct attention from Benghazi, why wouldn't they have done it a month ago?  You know, before the election.  Instead they drop the news at the end of the week, when people usually release stuff hoping that the press isn't paying attention.

[Razgovory]

Why would them attempting a rescue piss off the Administration?  That makes no sense.

Have you ever worked in government? Little of what they do makes sense. Best guess, the White House/State Department didn't take the attack seriously initially, so they didn't want to upset people in the region by coming in guns blazing. This is why the timeline is so important. The White House was trying to cover up any proof or suggestion that they might have delayed military action.

From the sounds of it, they were having a two hour meeting concerning options while the Ambassador and others were dying.

Do you have nay proof of this?

[Razgovory]

Not that I want to assist Strix any, but Raz, the media has been having more and more of a field day over Benghazi in the past week or two.

And?

[garbon]

You just sounded dismissive when you mentioned the Benghazi story which arguably is more of a scandal now then when it happened.

[Razgovory]

You just sounded dismissive when you mentioned the Benghazi story which arguably is more of a scandal now then when it happened.

I am dismissive.  I'm not sure what the scandal is.  Because the Media is reporting it, doesn't mean it's actually some sort of cover up.  I mean the media reported the chick in Aruba disappearing for over a year, yet that's hardly notworthy.

[Strix]

You just sounded dismissive when you mentioned the Benghazi story which arguably is more of a scandal now then when it happened.

I am dismissive.  I'm not sure what the scandal is.  Because the Media is reporting it, doesn't mean it's actually some sort of cover up.  I mean the media reported the chick in Aruba disappearing for over a year, yet that's hardly notworthy.

True, it's nothing more than a bump in the road. 

[garbon]

I am dismissive.  I'm not sure what the scandal is.  Because the Media is reporting it, doesn't mean it's actually some sort of cover up.  I mean the media reported the chick in Aruba disappearing for over a year, yet that's hardly notworthy.

But it also doesn't mean it isn't. The media is being rather tenacious with regards to Benghazi and the inability of the administration to come forth with a story to quite them all day seems a little odd.

[Razgovory]

I am dismissive.  I'm not sure what the scandal is.  Because the Media is reporting it, doesn't mean it's actually some sort of cover up.  I mean the media reported the chick in Aruba disappearing for over a year, yet that's hardly notworthy.

But it also doesn't mean it isn't. The media is being rather tenacious with regards to Benghazi and the inability of the administration to come forth with a story to quite them all day seems a little odd.

Not really.  Have you ever know the media to be quite?

[Razgovory]

You just sounded dismissive when you mentioned the Benghazi story which arguably is more of a scandal now then when it happened.

I am dismissive.  I'm not sure what the scandal is.  Because the Media is reporting it, doesn't mean it's actually some sort of cover up.  I mean the media reported the chick in Aruba disappearing for over a year, yet that's hardly notworthy.

True, it's nothing more than a bump in the road. 

So in other words, you have nothing.

[Strix]

So in other words, you have nothing.

There are to many stories by to many media sources for me to post them all. I suggest taking your head out of the hole in the sand once in awhile.

[garbon]

You just sounded dismissive when you mentioned the Benghazi story which arguably is more of a scandal now then when it happened.

I am dismissive.  I'm not sure what the scandal is.  Because the Media is reporting it, doesn't mean it's actually some sort of cover up.  I mean the media reported the chick in Aruba disappearing for over a year, yet that's hardly notworthy.

True, it's nothing more than a bump in the road. 

So in other words, you have nothing.

Funny, that's what was clear with regards to you after responding to my last post.

[Razgovory]

So in other words, you have nothing.

There are to many stories by to many media sources for me to post them all. I suggest taking your head out of the hole in the sand once in awhile.

I'm sure there are.  But I don't listen to Alex Jones.

[Razgovory]

You just sounded dismissive when you mentioned the Benghazi story which arguably is more of a scandal now then when it happened.

I am dismissive.  I'm not sure what the scandal is.  Because the Media is reporting it, doesn't mean it's actually some sort of cover up.  I mean the media reported the chick in Aruba disappearing for over a year, yet that's hardly notworthy.

True, it's nothing more than a bump in the road. 

So in other words, you have nothing.

Funny, that's what was clear with regards to you after responding to my last post.

I don't have to have anything, I'm not trying to prove something.  All I need to do is shoot down wild speculations.  It was Strix who was making assertions.

[Strix]

I'm sure there are.  But I don't listen to Alex Jones.

You must considering you are probably one of the few who know who he is? Who is he by the way?

Try the New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, USA Today, Chicago Tribune, and Miami Herald to name a few...

[frunk]

Why would them attempting a rescue piss off the Administration?  That makes no sense.

Have you ever worked in government? Little of what they do makes sense. Best guess, the White House/State Department didn't take the attack seriously initially, so they didn't want to upset people in the region by coming in guns blazing. This is why the timeline is so important. The White House was trying to cover up any proof or suggestion that they might have delayed military action.

From the sounds of it, they were having a two hour meeting concerning options while the Ambassador and others were dying.

So you are speculating on a supposed coverup, and your proof of the reason for the coverup is more speculation?  Until there's any information this is a non-story.  As far as I can tell the worst that can be pinned on the Administration is confusion over a rapidly evolving situation that they (supposedly) might have reacted poorly to.