Deadly Attack in Libya Was Major Blow to C.I.A. Efforts

Just wondering... Does it say, "Dozen CIA operatives" in what you just posted?

 

If you have some proof of your assertion please post it, anything else is simply rhetorical hot gas.

 

Exactly like your sources.

When you post conclusive proof alleged in either article, then we can talk, until then YOU are the one posting/passing rhetorical hot gas.

 

I posted it, if you care to dispute the information with facts of your own feel free to do so. The President's daily schedule is public record and is even published on the White House website. Grab your calculator and have at it, prove 'em wrong.

 

There is nothing to dispute. Your thread and the allegations made therein have never been proved.

The president's published schedule doesn't include a lot of things that take up his day. You nor anyone else can prove conclusively, that the president didn't receive intelligence briefings or the supposed timing for these briefings.

This thread OP is the epitome of passing "rhetorical hot gas".

 

It's not my problem you refuse to accept the proof I've offered, yet refuse to offer any proof refuting it. FAIL.

 

You didn't offer any proof, only unproven rumors and innuendo from "unnamed sources".
That is the colossal fail of this thread.

 

Where do you get this stuff from, the ozone?

They got it from the President's daily schedule which is published on the White House website. Is that the "unnamed" source you speak of?

You got nuthin do ya.

 

Just because an Intelligence briefing doesn't show up on the published White House schedule webpage doesn't mean the President didn't get one.
POST SOME CONCLUSIVE PROOF!!

"Nuthin" is what you started with and it's hard to refute "nuthin".

 

If you think the White House is lying about the President's schedule, you'll need to take it up with them. The Government Accountability Institute is going by the information the Obama White House published THEMSELVES. Sorry.

 

Don't be sorry for posting a crappy troll thread, you're very good at it.

I never claimed the White House was lying about the President's schedule. What I did claim and what you can't prove, one way or another, is IF every item of the President's daily agenda is posted to the webpage.

Until you can post CONCLUSIVE PROOF that the President missed ANY Intelligence briefings, you have NO substantive reason for posting rumors.

 

Real question man. Do you really think Obama is a greater threat to this nation, then the actual intelligence agencies that are completely rouge elements to anyone who is paying attention?

The problem isn't that Obama was supposed to give some order to military forces to increase security, the problem is that their was massive intelligence rolling in before the attack, and no one told the president we have intel that points to a imminent attack.

If you claim to be a sane person, then the idea that Obama would say he was too busy campaigning to try to win re-election, to deal with a issue that could cost him re-election, then you live in Bizzarro world.

 

Can you prove that or is it pure speculation on your part? I just want to clear up whether you speaking your own opinion or is it based in facts in any way?

BTW jobs and the economy will cost him the election alone, this just adds to it.

 

The Government Accountability Institute is going by the information the Obama White House published THEMSELVES. Is there some part of that you don't understand?

 

Can you prove that he did?

Weird how that works huh?

Obama is going to win re-election, and you are living in a alternate reality if you think otherwise.

Second worse thing that could have happened to this country, but still factually correct.

 

They are assuming as are you, that the President's published schedule contains every item on his agenda. It is foolish and foolhardy to assume any such thing, but look who I'm talking to.

 

Exactly, right after the disaster in Libya the video was released on the 47 percent comment by Romney. That got 100 percent more coverage than Libya. It was like it never happened! They let him slide on Libya on that joke show, 60 minutes. They actually let him get away with the 'bump' comment. The in-depth, in your face interviews by Mike Wallace types are long gone. All of these guys are nothing but sissy boys for the liberal agenda. They are not journalists, they are pathetic jokes with no cred and they don't even care.

 

As I have said before, if Obama picked such crappy people to run his administration they failed to inform him of an such an imminent threat, then he really doesn't deserve to be President at all let alone get re-elected.

http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm

Click the link above to see where Americans priorities are and get back to me.

 

So the White House is lying on their website?

 

You wear that mask and make naive comments like that? You are actually defending Obama after this disaster and giving him a pass, how easy for you.

 

Pretty sure that the people responsible for delivering this info aren't appointed by Obama.

Does this logic also apply to Bush and 9-11, BTW?

No need, just look at the polling in the swing states. It hasn't been close for months now, and no, 4-5% in swing states isn't close.

If you really want proof, look no further then the left's nut huggers on the idiot box, and just watch how cocky they are these days.

 

I hate Obama with a passion, and one of the few things I hate more is that most conservatives hate Obama based on BS, because what there really is to hate him on, are the actions on behalf of the same special interests the republican's are beholden to.

To put it another way, the only thing I hate more then Obama, are the lemming's that make me defend him in the name of factually based debate!

 

You'd like to think so, but the facts and reality elude you.

 

Who is the CIA Director and who appointed him?

Does that logic apply to Bush and the WMD's?

What exactly did you expect Bush to do in 3 or 4 months that Clinton couldn't accomplish in 2 years? Be specific.

 

Pretty sure the CIA director doesn't submit material, and determine if a attack is imminent. I believe this job would be done by a analyst.

You really going to answer my question with a question. That is just amateur hour, you would be better off with changing the headline.

Respond to the sourced evidence we have that shows he was told an attack was imminent.

I mean if you have this equivalent evidence for Obama, I am more than willing to condemn him for not acting!

I just find it more likely our intelligence services were being used as pawns by special interests.