ABC reveals Benghazi talking points changes time line

[swampy]

Obviously, Ted, you did not watch the Congressional hearing.

[Ted King]

swampy wrote:
Obviously, Ted, you did not watch the Congressional hearing.

I am not the one making claims about what was said. I'm not going to do your work for you. I found the link for the transcript to make it easier for you, though, to find evidence for your claims.

[$tevie]

swampy wrote:
Quit trying to make this about politics, $tevie. I'm trying to keep this about facts. The testimony, The documents.

This IS about politics. Stop deluding yourself.

[Ted King]

swampy wrote:
This YouTube video of Hick's testimony that he received email THE DAY AFTER THE ATTACK from the State Department (Ms Jones) telling HIM who was responsible for the attack. So if State knew the day after, why did they change the story?

As for the clip of Hillary denying any direct knowledge of the situation... How can she not remember talking to Hicks
That night?

That is not what you claimed that I was asking about earlier.

I watched the clip that you linked to. I heard Clinton say that she couldn't comment on any one particular conversation, but that it was days later that they concluded that there were no protests involved at all. Where does she deny "direct knowledge" of the situation?

Mostly what I saw in that clip was characterizations of what happened by Rep. Gowdy. I have no reason to believe that those characterizations are accurate.

[Lemon Drop]

check out this ad that the RNC had prepared for the 2012 election, but never aired because Romney objected. No, nothing political about this at all.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/201...never-ran/

Now this IRS thing? That's a scandal, it could get pretty nasty actually if it can be shown that Democrats somehow used the IRS to target their political opponents. Why would low level employees in one office do this? Just for kicks? It's a pretty weird story.

[swampy]

Ted, I've done the leg work and left links for you to follow. I find you too intelligent to need more hand holding.

$tevie, it became political when policy makers stepped in and diverted the truth and changed the narration. In this case we can't follow the money, but we can certainly speculate who would benefit from a coverup. If you want to make it political I can only assume that you don't have anything else to add to the discussion in the way of fact finding.Where is the harm in getting to the truth? Would you have the families of those that died believe their sons died over some protest of a YouTube video?

[swampy]

If Hillary can't remember her call tp Tripoli on the night of 9/11/12 while her ambassador is missing and bullets are flying, maybe she isn't ready to be the Commander in Chief. I saw the ad on YouTube when it was released and agreed with it then and still do.

The policy makers involved in the Benghazi scandal are not low level drones. Nuland, Jones and Patrick Kennedy are among those already mentioned.

[swampy]

Ted, "Mostly what I saw in that clip was characterizations of what happened by Rep. Gowdy. I have no reason to believe that those characterizations are accurate."

I have no reason to believe they are not accurate.

[Ted King]

swampy wrote:
Ted, I've done the leg work and left links for you to follow. I find you too intelligent to need more hand holding.

The problem is that I have worked to check out many of your claims in the past - sometimes it's been quite a bit of work - only to find that you have mischaracterized what was done and/or said. And then when I point out that that your claim does not seem to be accurate, you very often just move on to another claim. For example, you didn't answer my original questions about your claims and instead brought up a different claim where you say a video shows Clinton saying something that the video doesn't show her saying. If you hadn't provided a link to a video that supposedly showed what you were claiming I probably would have watched and read a whole bunch of stuff for nothing because the evidence for your claim about Clinton wasn't even in the clip you provided.

I have never said that nothing untoward happened in the administration with respect to Benghazi. I have stated in this forum that I think it quite plausible that political considerations did enter into the administrations actions. But the Republicans are throwing truck loads of spaghetti against the wall so I'm asking questions to see which claims might be ones that stick.

[Ted King]

swampy wrote:
Ted, "Mostly what I saw in that clip was characterizations of what happened by Rep. Gowdy. I have no reason to believe that those characterizations are accurate."

I have no reason to believe they are not accurate.

So it's veracity is undetermined which means that we shouldn't draw conclusions one way or the other about what he said. That's fine with me and pretty much the attitude I took toward what he was saying.