Benghazi e-mails show clash between State Department, CIA

[Gerald]

http://i1358.photobucket.com/albums/q764/gasturbin/2013-05-10T210128Z_01_WAS711_RTRIDSP_3_USA-BENGHAZI_zps8da41c89.jpg (http://s1358.photobucket.com/user/gasturbin/media/2013-05-10T210128Z_01_WAS711_RTRIDSP_3_USA-BENGHAZI_zps8da41c89.jpg.html)
Joshua Roberts/Reuters - White House spokesman Jay Carney was peppered with questions about the Benghazi attacks during a news conference at the White House on Friday.

New details from administration e-mails about last year’s attacks on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya, demonstrate that an intense bureaucratic clash took place between the State Department and the CIA over which agency would get to tell the story of how the tragedy unfolded.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/benghazi-emails-show-tension-cia-state-department-article-1.1345525?localLinksEnabled=false

Note: 5.10.13

[Onkel Neal]

Hmmm.... this is beginning to smell like Watergate. :hmmm:

[Red October1984]

Hmmm.... this is beginning to smell like Watergate. :hmmm:

:arrgh!:

Hopefully it has the same outcome too. :03:

[nikimcbee]

Hmmm.... this is beginning to smell like Watergate. :hmmm:
where is Yubba when you need him? On a side note, I think the stuff about the IRS is scary. If there's one government department that needs a leash on it, it's the IRS:dead:.

[Jimbuna]

Link not working (in the UK anyway).

[Skybird]

The whole story stunk from day one on.

Heck, it already stunk for some time ahead of the event.

Delusional Clinton created big, big poopoo there. So far by all what I have read about it in past months I credit here with the lion's share of responsibility.

[Tchocky]

Hmmm.... this is beginning to smell like Watergate. :hmmm:


Is it?

Not seeing much of any top-level involvement here, which would be a big difference to Watergate.


Of course I'm forgetting that every scandal must be compared to Watergate at every possible moment.

"It just stinks on every level. This makes Watergate look like child's play,

Bachmann on Solyndra.

[Skybird]

Tchocky, Clintons involvement in prohibiting reinforcements to the embassy and her demand that no security measures worth the name are to be run there, has been reported already months ago. Use the search button, I either ran a dedicated thread on that or at least linked some articles in some threads's reply of mine.

There is involvement - at the very top of the hierarchy. I mean only the president is above her, right!?

What we see now is a hedging and squirming of her group, because she wants to become the next president. And for that mission, such a total failure like over the Benghazi terror attack does not really serve as a recommendation. Some Islamic thug may have pulled the trigger and ran the torturing of Americans during that plot (qhich was coming with an early warning note, btw.) - but the responsibility to leave the victims exposed and unprotected and to ignore the warnings, is Clinton's.

The early warnings of the intel srvrices hardly were ordered by Obama, he hardly told them to produce the kind of evidence and clues he needed to justify any action, like Bush had instructed the CIA to construct a case against Hussein, which they did, and later, when the blame game began, the CIA was left alone and Bush hid behind it. The early warnings from Benghazi do not compare to that kind of plot. What various subordinate instances now seem to have been told - last but not least by Clinton -, is to not reveal the truth behind the terror attack. And it seems that this time the CIA was no easily complying with that, at least internally.

[mookiemookie]

Hey remember when the Republicans got all pissed and demanded hearings and impeachment and whatnot when Bush, Cheney, et. al. lied about WMDs in Iraq and 4,500 U.S. soldiers and 100,000 Iraqi civilians died? No?

Hey remember when the embassies and consulates was attacked in India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia again, Pakistan again, Syria, Greece, Yemen twice, as well as the numerous attacks on the embassy in Iraq, all during Bush's term in office - remember when Republicans got all pissed about that and demanded hearings and impeachment? No?

It's disgusting that the GOP is parading the corpses of these four Americans around for purely political purposes. They don't give two craps about them because they're dead Americans. They care about them because they can be used to attack Obama.

[Tribesman]

Is it?

No, its just a side affect from a set of undercover operations that didn't go well.

Tchocky, Clintons involvement in prohibiting reinforcements to the embassy and her demand that no security measures worth the name are to be run there, has been reported already months ago.
Since none of the buildings was an embassy what difference does reinforcements to an embassy make?
Since the consulate was stripped of staff it doesn't merit extra security to staff and as the "annex" has no official standing it isn't the State Deps. job to provide security for it.

[Skybird]

Obama.
Not Mr. Obama.

Correct name is Mr. Buticannot.

:D

===

In the end about the very old stories you listed, may they be however they have been, we cannot do anything anymore. But the Benghazi issue is still up-to-date and must be adressed, because the one person responsible for it wants to become the next president. That is what gives this story a greater interest, a present validity currently, than some embassy attack ten years ago. I shreddered Bush, Wolfowitz and Cheney and Rumsfeld. Now its time to annoy Clinton, and Buticannot.

[AVGWarhawk]

It's disgusting that the GOP is parading the corpses of these four Americans around for purely political purposes. They don't give two craps about them because they're dead Americans. They care about them because they can be used to attack Obama.

Dems are parading as well. But, it is not the dead bodies that are paraded. It is the lies, deception and self-serving demonstrated at the highest level of government in question.

[mookiemookie]

If you consider politicians lying to be a scandal, then that's a grand and intoxicating innocence. I guess we can update the old Bush-era liberal bumper sticker: "No one died when Susan Rice lied"

[Gerald]

@Thanks Jim for link update :03:

[Jimbuna]

No problem :up:

[August]

It's disgusting that the GOP is parading the corpses of these four Americans around for purely political purposes. They don't give two craps about them because they're dead Americans. They care about them because they can be used to attack Obama.

Yeah like the Dems really care about dead soldiers or school children. You just don't like the taste of your parties own medicine.

If the Democrats were true to their principles they would stop circling the wagons and start accepting responsibility for their own actions.

[Ducimus]

It's disgusting that the GOP is parading the corpses of these four Americans around for purely political purposes. They don't give two craps about them because they're dead Americans.

Is that any different the Democrats parading around corpses of dead children and grieving parents for political purposes? It's also safe to say they don't give a crap either. They said it themselves, "never let a good crises go to waste."

[AVGWarhawk]

If you consider politicians lying to be a scandal, then that's a grand and intoxicating innocence. I guess we can update the old Bush-era liberal bumper sticker: "No one died when Susan Rice lied"

Any lies are a scandal, Mookie. The entire system is a scandal. What is your point?

[AVGWarhawk]

Is that any different the Democrats parading around corpses of dead children and grieving parents for political purposes? It's also safe to say they don't give a crap either. They said it themselves, "never let a good crises go to waste."

Fine point Ducimus. :yeah:

[AVGWarhawk]

If the Democrats were true to their principles they would stop circling the wagons and start accepting responsibility for their own actions.

:har::har::har::har::har::har:

Now that's funny.

[Wolferz]

Muddy waters and we're expected to drink the Kool-Aid made from it.

Now they act like children with the fingers pointing at each other because they got caught tossing when they should have been doing their jobs.


So whose fault is it?
State Department?
Al CIAda? <--- BINGO!


Suffice it to say that a dead horse isn't going to run. No matter how much you whip it. The buck won't stop at the desk in the oval office, that's for sure.

There'll be a large lump under the rug as usual.:hmmm:

[CaptainHaplo]

Hey remember when the Republicans got all pissed and demanded hearings and impeachment and whatnot when Bush, Cheney, et. al. lied about WMDs in Iraq and 4,500 U.S. soldiers and 100,000 Iraqi civilians died? No?

Ahhh yes... WMD - Weapons of Mass Destruction.
So your saying that Saddam Hussein did not have a pressure cooker or two, some explosives and nails? After all, that is what the President's Federal Government (the DoJ) calls a WMD. Doubt it?

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, has been charged by federal prosecutors with using a weapon of mass destruction and could face the death penalty.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/17/us/boston-bombing-developments.html?_r=0

So once and for all, pipe down on your "well Bush lied about WMD's". Your own hero's government says that a IED qualifies. Saddam had plenty of explosives.....

The reality is you have a president who doesn't want to say the word terrorist, doesn't want to blame anything on Islamic nutjobs, is ok with the IRS being used as a political tool, has the DoJ doing the same thing to the press, and has his HHS boss trying to extort "donations" to save the boondoggle that Obummercare is. And that is just the stuff we have heard about....

Meanwhile real unemployment (U-5) is still at 13.9 percent and that is even without counting the labor force participation rate. Yet he has spent more time golfing than he has in jobs meetings. He is more concerned about amnesty for illegals and taking the rights of people to have guns than he is about the fact that more people are on welfare (both number and percentage-wise). He would rather talk about how those evil republicans won't hike taxes than reign in gross overspending by the government.

His watch - his responsibility - and he has done jack squat to fix any of the real issues of our day.

I just don't know if impeachment is the right course. I mean, I would be all for it - except for hearing "President Biden" on the nightly news!

[mookiemookie]

Ahhh yes... WMD - Weapons of Mass Destruction.
So your saying that Saddam Hussein did not have a pressure cooker or two, some explosives and nails? After all, that is what the President's Federal Government (the DoJ) calls a WMD. Doubt it?


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/17/us/boston-bombing-developments.html?_r=0

So once and for all, pipe down on your "well Bush lied about WMD's". Your own hero's government says that a IED qualifies. Saddam had plenty of explosives.....




You seriously just argued that Saddam Hussein has access to a pressure cooker and some nails, so the Iraq War was justified.

Seriously.

Is that any different the Democrats parading around corpses of dead children and grieving parents for political purposes? It's also safe to say they don't give a crap either. They said it themselves, "never let a good crises go to waste."

Probably not, but this isn't the gun control thread, so I didn't veer on to that topic.

I just don't know if impeachment is the right course.

This country has gone full retard.

[CaptainHaplo]

You seriously just argued that Saddam Hussein has access to a pressure cooker and some nails, so the Iraq War was justified. Seriously.

Show me where I said the war was justified because of that. You can't. Nice strawman attempt though.

You claimed Bush lied about WMD's. I have proven you wrong based upon the Obama administrations definition of what a WMD is, as demonstrated by DoJ charges. So all I said was your claim of "Bush lied" is blatantly false - and then proved it.

If you want to ask about Iraqi war justification, I will point you here instead:

Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis.
and
Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power.
http://wais.stanford.edu/Iraq/iraq_deathsundersaddamhussein42503.html

While you want to bleat about 100k deaths in Iraq - you lump them all on the head of the forces there - but how many of those dead are killed not by military forces who are there by permission of the duly elected government, but were and are instead killed by Islamic terrorists?

Or are you going to claim that its not the fault of the nutjob that straps a bomb to himself and runs into a crowded market to blow himself to smithereens? Is he just a helpless victim of western oppression?

Seriously?

[AVGWarhawk]

This country has gone full retard.

Nailed it! :yeah:

[AVGWarhawk]

I just don't know if impeachment is the right course. I mean, I would be all for it - except for hearing "President Biden" on the nightly news!

Notice that Biden is strangely absent from the news on these new pimples on Washington DC's face. :hmmm:

[mookiemookie]

Show me where I said the war was justified because of that. You can't. Nice strawman attempt though.

You claimed Bush lied about WMD's. I have proven you wrong based upon the Obama administrations definition of what a WMD is, as demonstrated by DoJ charges. So all I said was your claim of "Bush lied" is blatantly false - and then proved it.

If you want to ask about Iraqi war justification, I will point you here instead:


and

http://wais.stanford.edu/Iraq/iraq_deathsundersaddamhussein42503.html

While you want to bleat about 100k deaths in Iraq - you lump them all on the head of the forces there - but how many of those dead are killed not by military forces who are there by permission of the duly elected government, but were and are instead killed by Islamic terrorists?

Or are you going to claim that its not the fault of the nutjob that straps a bomb to himself and runs into a crowded market to blow himself to smithereens? Is he just a helpless victim of western oppression?

Seriously?

If the mental gymnastics that you just performed in order to justify the Iraq War there were real gymnastics, you could be in Cirque du Soleil.

[CaptainHaplo]

If the mental gymnastics that you just performed in order to justify the Iraq War there were real gymnastics, you could be in Cirque du Soleil.

The only gymnastics being performed are the ones your doing to avoid the point...

According to Obama's DOJ definition of a WMD, Bush/Cheney et al. did not lie about Saddam having WMD's. Simple as that.

Yet you continue to repeat what you know is a lie. Because it fits your political narrative.

[AVGWarhawk]

Neutral corners men.

[Jimbuna]

Lets stay cool please...nothing like a good debate.

[Tribesman]

You claimed Bush lied about WMD's. I have proven you wrong based upon the Obama administrations definition of what a WMD is, as demonstrated by DoJ charges. So all I said was your claim of "Bush lied" is blatantly false - and then proved it.

You certainly proved one thing there.:rotfl2:
If you want to ask about Iraqi war justification, I will point you here instead:

Errrr ....wasn't Anfal done at the time when he was your buddy:yep:
Didn't your government try and blame Iran for the slaughter even though they knew it was Saddam.
If you want to point at some nasty crap by others for justification you probably shouldn't point to a pile of excrement you are standing in the middle of.



This country has gone full retard.
Come on Mookie, you can't label the whole country retarded just on the basis of a few examples.

[Ducimus]

Probably not, but this isn't the gun control thread, so I didn't veer on to that topic.


Probably not? How about there is No difference instead. Now, you appear to have been pulling a partisan party point the finger claim the moral high ground political type stuff there. I responded with a political counter point to illustrate that the democrats are no better. I wasn't talking gun control, i was talking politics. Just like you were. :O:

All i'm saying, is don't go pretending the democrats are all that and a bag of chips. Their political scumbags, just like everyone else in DC. There is no moral high ground to claim.

[AVGWarhawk]

Come on Mookie, you can't label the whole country retarded just on the basis of a few examples.

There are numerous examples and these do not necessarily stem from Washington DC. :up:

[Tribesman]

There are numerous examples and these do not necessarily stem from Washington DC. :up:
Is that covered by local politics?

[mookiemookie]

All i'm saying, is don't go pretending the democrats are all that and a bag of chips. Their political scumbags, just like everyone else in DC. There is no moral high ground to claim.

Never did. There's lots of instances of politicians using dead people as clubs to beat their opponents with. This happened to be the thread that discusses where the GOP is attempting to use four dead Americans to go after Obama, so I merely pointed that fact out. If I were to point out and comment on every case ever of it happening in politics, I'd be doing nothing else in my life but that.

[CaptainHaplo]

Never did. There's lots of instances of politicians using dead people as clubs to beat their opponents with. This happened to be the thread that discusses where the GOP is attempting to use four dead Americans to go after Obama, so I merely pointed that fact out. If I were to point out and comment on every case ever of it happening in politics, I'd be doing nothing else in my life but that.

The problem is Mookie, that you only want to point it out when its the GOP doing it. Heck, as I demonstrated above, your willing to repeat fallacies of the past to somehow malign the actions of people today.

If you can show me where you were yelling at Democrats to not enact more gun control because of the recent publicized shootings, then go ahead. Or any other thing for that matter where you took the left to task for their actions.

Otherwise - your just acting like a political hack, bashing people (sometimes knowingly inaccurate) for the sake of a political agenda.

[Sailor Steve]

While everybody is ganging up on Mookie, try not to forget that most of you have done the same thing at times in the past, from your own side. How many right-wingers on this forum ever took Bush to task? How many of you went out of your way to defend him?

Way back when the Clinton impeachment happened I noticed this. It wasn't that Clinton did what he did, or that he lied about it. The point was that it was so obviously a Republican witch-hunt that it was laughable. Lest anyone think I'm being one-sided myself, I also felt the same way about Democrat attempts to "get" Reagan through Oliver North.

My point is that rather than argue the points with Mookie everyone seems bent on dismissing him by impugning his alleged one-sidedness when you have shown yourselves to be equally one-sided on multiple occasions.

[mookiemookie]

If you can show me where you were yelling at Democrats to not enact more gun control because of the recent publicized shootings, then go ahead. Or any other thing for that matter where you took the left to task for their actions.


Game, set, match:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2013877&postcount=25

But really, I don't really have strong feelings one way or another on that topic. I doubt that the left is trying to take everyone's guns away. I don't think they ever will. If AR-15's are banned, I wouldn't really be that concerned though. I don't see the need for them. But I don't necessarily believe that banning guns will solve anything though. I've always been of the opinion that expanded access to mental health care would go a lot further than a gun ban. So you can lump me in with the NRA because I guess that's their party line.

But in any case, I don't really care. Your puny semi-automatic anything isn't going to be the last bastion of freedom if the government decided to take over the country. You'd be drone fodder before you ever had a target to shoot at.

So on that, I think both sides are stupid. So I excused myself from the whole subject.

Take the left to task? Sure, where do you want to start? Gitmo? Warrantless wiretapping? Heck, warrantless EVERYTHING? Drone strikes on U.S. soil?

All of that concerns me greatly, and I've said as much over the years.

[August]

My point is that rather than argue the points with Mookie everyone seems bent on dismissing him by impugning his alleged one-sidedness when you have shown yourselves to be equally one-sided on multiple occasions.

Well maybe one reason everyone is piling on him because that's a typical Democrat mantra. Anything and everything can be excused by just accusing the other side of similar transgressions in the past. Don't you think that argument is getting kind of old?

[Sailor Steve]

Well maybe one reason everyone is piling on him because that's a typical Democrat mantra. Anything and everything can be excused by just accusing the other side of similar transgressions in the past. Don't you think that argument is getting kind of old?
Yes I do, and I've said so many times, to both sides.

[Tribesman]

Heck, as I demonstrated above, your willing to repeat fallacies of the past to somehow malign the actions of people today.


Someone doesn't know what a fallacy is:yep:
Someone doesn't know what they demonstrated:har:

[mookiemookie]

Yes I do, and I've said so many times, to both sides.

The corollary to that is why act so outraged over it when the other side does it when you didn't act outraged about it when your side did it in the past?

And the piling on is because it's a far-right echo chamber here. The piling on is fully expected when you tell the emperor he has no clothes.

[eddie]

Most Americans have moved on concerning what happened in Libya. And this stuff being gone over by Congress again and again, just shows why most Americans think Congress stinks.
We've got more important concerns that Congress needs to work on, like say a budget, the economy, etc.
But no, they just continue to show the country just how really worhtless they are!!

[AVGWarhawk]

And the piling on is because it's a far-right echo chamber here.

Or posts like #9. :hmmm: Not far and balanced like FOX. :O: But by and large, the last sentence kind of lit the fuse.

[mookiemookie]

Or posts like #9. :hmmm: Not far and balanced like FOX. :O: But by and large, the last sentence kind of lit the fuse.

:D :arrgh!:

[Tribesman]

And the piling on is because it's a far-right echo chamber here. The piling on is fully expected when you tell the emperor he has no clothes.
Not quite.
The piling on is fully expected because the Benghazi nonsense failed in the election and has failed again.
Some people became so convinced that they had a golden bullet with the story they still keep making the same noise even though they are only firing blanks.

[AVGWarhawk]

Not quite.
The piling on is fully expected because the Benghazi nonsense failed in the election and has failed again.
Some people became so convinced that they had a golden bullet with the story they still keep making the same noise even though they are only firing blanks.


So why are they bringing it up now?

[Ducimus]

The problem is Mookie, that you only want to point it out when its the GOP doing it.

Exactly. All politicians do morally or ethically questionable acts. If one is quick to point fingers at one side, while overlooking the other, then well, yeah, there's all sorts of negative connotations with that.

While everybody is ganging up on Mookie, try not to forget that most of you have done the same thing at times in the past, from your own side.

But ahh, what if your beliefs are not represented by neither Dumbo or Eeyore?

EDIT:

And the piling on is because it's a far-right echo chamber here.

Mookie, this forum is far far away from an echo chamber of either Left or Right. There's a bit of a mix here. If you want to see a far left echo chamber, go to democratic underground. If you want to see a far right echo chamber, go visit any gun forum.

[Tribesman]

So why are they bringing it up now?
Anger that the e-mails don't tell the story they wanted to hear?

[AVGWarhawk]

Anger that the e-mails don't tell the story they wanted to hear?

The emails show the CIA has changing talking points. I think the point is...the emails demonstrated some cover up. But why? Effectively Benghazi got Rice out of the driver's seat for Sec of State. Something I believe the Repugs wanted. Hillary, she is looking after her next bid for POTUS. Resign/retire from the position. Bump her head. It's all just so fuzzy for her. :88)

[CaptainHaplo]

Game, set, match:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2013877&postcount=25

That post does not take any liberal to task. It instead targets the NRA and promotes universal healthcare - both positives in the liberal view. If your going to claim you do something, you might ought to back it up with more than a link that doesn't even speak to your claim, but rather reinforces your partisanship.

Take the left to task? Sure, where do you want to start? Gitmo? Warrantless wiretapping? Heck, warrantless EVERYTHING? Drone strikes on U.S. soil?

All of that concerns me greatly, and I've said as much over the years.

Gitmo and Warrantless Wiretaps were started with the GOP - and I agree with you they are wrong. You being against them isn't you calling out the left for wrongdoing. No drone strike has ever occurred on US soil - against a foreigner or a US citizen, so there is no real topic to discuss - and thus nothing for you to "blast".

[Sailor Steve]

But ahh, what if your beliefs are not represented by neither Dumbo or Eeyore?
Then by all means make them known. My own feelings are a mix of left and right and everything in between. I intentionally said "some", not "all". Everybody is guilty of it from time to time, just as we're all guilty of other failings and mistakes. I just take notice when anyone accuses somebody of being one-sided when they've done the same themselves.

[mookiemookie]

That post does not take any liberal to task. It instead targets the NRA and promotes universal healthcare - both positives in the liberal view. If your going to claim you do something, you might ought to back it up with more than a link that doesn't even speak to your claim, but rather reinforces your partisanship.



Gitmo and Warrantless Wiretaps were started with the GOP - and I agree with you they are wrong. You being against them isn't you calling out the left for wrongdoing. No drone strike has ever occurred on US soil - against a foreigner or a US citizen, so there is no real topic to discuss - and thus nothing for you to "blast".

http://officiallyscrewed.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Moving-The-Goalposts.jpg

[Tribesman]

The emails show the CIA has changing talking points. I think the point is...the emails demonstrated some cover up. But why?
The why was obvious from the moment questions were asked about the embassy.....consulate....errrr...."annex".
There are things that shouldn't be broadcast to the world until after it has all been tidied up.
The fate of health workers in Pakistan are a good example of why you shouldn't necesarily announce to the world what you have been doing in an area.

[AVGWarhawk]

The why was obvious from the moment questions were asked about the embassy.....consulate....errrr...."annex".
There are things that shouldn't be broadcast to the world until after it has all been tidied up.


Sometimes the tidied up goes a bit to far. When done, it is a cover up.

[Gerald]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDloyo3dJBQ

[Platapus]

Lets stay cool please...nothing like a good debate.

Some times reading GT is like listening to children fight

"Your side did it!"
"Well, your side did it too!"
"Well your side did it first!"
"Well your side did it more!"

Crikey.

Of course for Steve, it should be written "You're side" :up:

[Red October1984]

Some times reading GT is like listening to children fight

"Your side did it!"
"Well, your side did it too!"
"Well your side did it first!"
"Well your side did it more!"

Crikey.

Of course for Steve, it should be written "You're side" :up:

:rotfl2:

Truest post i've read in a while.

[Wolferz]

Please stop dredging up the past battles of my two children.

Getting caught with a hand in the cookie jar and attempting deflection of the punishment by pointing out previous transgressions of the sibling will not solve the problem, nor will it deflect the punishment.
There is always three sides to every story...
1.The right one.
2.The wrong one.
3.The truth.

Ah, memories.:hmmm:

In regard to Benghazi,
All parties involved have repeatedly omitted some important facts,
Like the fact that the attaché refused additional security citing that it would compromise his mission.
The other fact that our consulates are guests of a host country that determines if and when security can be used on their soil.
With a transitional government still in fledgling status in Libya, bad things were inevitable.

Our democrapic and repugnican Gila mobsters need to let go of this issue because the sun set on it some time ago.:down:

[Onkel Neal]

Is it?

Not seeing much of any top-level involvement here, which would be a big difference to Watergate

[/I]

Well, when Watergate started, it only involved some nameless political foot soldiers. There was a cover up, it was brought out as time passed.



Hey remember when the Republicans got all pissed and demanded hearings and impeachment and whatnot when Bush, Cheney, et. al. lied about WMDs in Iraq and 4,500 U.S. soldiers and 100,000 Iraqi civilians died? No?

Hey remember when the embassies and consulates was attacked in India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia again, Pakistan again, Syria, Greece, Yemen twice, as well as the numerous attacks on the embassy in Iraq, all during Bush's term in office - remember when Republicans got all pissed about that and demanded hearings and impeachment? No?

It's disgusting that the GOP is parading the corpses of these four Americans around for purely political purposes. They don't give two craps about them because they're dead Americans. They care about them because they can be used to attack Obama.

Maybe so. Maybe Obama's opposition would be willing to use any excuse to beat him up. I think that has something to do with it. But, what if there was some misuse of power, or neglect of duties? Should that be overlooked? Do you think the Democrats would fess up if they were guilty of gross neglect, that led to the casualties in Benghazi?

I don't understand the outrage. You had your foot mashing the accelerator to the floor when Bush was doing his misdeeds.

And can't we discuss this without getting super-excited? (not anyone in particular, just you in the general sense).

[mookiemookie]

Well, when Watergate started, it only involved some nameless political foot soldiers. There was a cover up, it was brought out as time passed.





Maybe so. Maybe Obama's opposition would be willing to use any excuse to beat him up. I think that has something to do with it. But, what if there was some misuse of power, or neglect of duties? Should that be overlooked? Do you think the Democrats would fess up if they were guilty of gross neglect, that led to the casualties in Benghazi?

I don't understand the outrage. You had your foot mashing the accelerator to the floor when Bush was doing his misdeeds.

And can't we discuss this without getting super-excited? (not anyone in particular, just you in the general sense).

#1) I'll start by saying that the death of four Americans is a tragedy. Of course. And embassy/consulate security needs to be reexamined here. Absolutely.

#2) But the best I can come up with here if you want to believe this is a "scandal" is that the President, Susan Rice and Hilary Clinton strategized on how to frame the attack on national TV. Was it a terrorist attack or not? What was the root cause? It was a very fluid situation at the time and of course the object of any political communication is to put the best spin on it as possible. And that's what they did. But really, so what?

The point, to me, is that none of the "would have said" "should have said" "could have said" garbage in the world would have prevented the attack from happening. Hindsight is 20/20 and if you want to say there should have been more security there, then yeah, I go with you there. But again, it's woulda/shoulda/coulda talk at this point, and refer back to #1.

So the only "scandal" I see here is that politicians gonna politic. No more, no less. To try and assign any more significance to it than that smacks of a politically driven witchhunt.

Benghazi? More like Benghazzzzzzzz :zzz:

[CaptainHaplo]

#1) I'll start by saying that the death of four Americans is a tragedy. Of course. And embassy/consulate security needs to be reexamined here. Absolutely.
........
So the only "scandal" I see here is that politicians gonna politic. No more, no less. To try and assign any more significance to it than that smacks of a politically driven witchhunt.

So the fact that multiple sources have come out and stated that the US Military was within range to assist before the second attack (which is the one in which the Ambassador was killed) and were ordered to NOT secure our personnel is "a politically driven witch hunt"? The fact that C110 was available and could have been there before the second attack to save lives doesn't matter, does it? The fact that there were 15 SF and specially trained State Dept. Security staff an hour away in Tripoli, trained and with equipment available to help - and were not used to save American lives - we just can't count that, now can we? Is that just an "oops" we should forget?

You say the loss of life was a tragedy - but the people who could have made a difference were not given the go word - and that fact somehow is just not so important? If it was a tragedy those lives were lost - then its a travesty that there was no attempt to save those lives by the government they were there representing.

And that, my friend Mookie, is no political witch hunt.

Nor are the IRS political harassment or AP wiretap or the HHS extortion issues.

[Onkel Neal]

#2) But the best I can come up with here if you want to believe this is a "scandal" is that the President, Susan Rice and Hilary Clinton strategized on how to frame the attack on national TV. Was it a terrorist attack or not? What was the root cause? It was a very fluid situation at the time and of course the object of any political communication is to put the best spin on it as possible. And that's what they did. But really, so what?

I don't "want to believe" anything, I just want to known what happened. And if there was negligence, accountability.

[AVGWarhawk]

Of course there is negligence with added cover up. And a defunct SoS who bumped her head and wears thick black glasses as a result, hoping for the sympathy vote. It is all just fuzzy to her. Convenient. The entire situation and resulting responses was handled poorly. More so it is looking to be another self-serving handling of a very bad situation that caught up with them. But, the ending will be like all the others. Thousands spent on congressional review. Nothing resolved. Americans move on to the next episode of Honey Boo Boo.

Then there is the added IRS debacle. AP wiretaps. Just wondering what's coming next. And Holder, does this guy know of any operations going on in his department? The guy has no knowledge of anything but is collecting a check just the same.

[Tribesman]

So the fact that multiple sources have come out and stated that the US Military was within range to assist before the second attack (which is the one in which the Ambassador was killed)
Now colour me surprised, but why are simple facts made backwards?
You would have thought that someone who is clearly passionate about the topic could get simple facts straight.
It does suggest that either they are making stuff up, which means they have no point, or they are showing they don't know what they are talking about, which means they have no point.

[AVGWarhawk]

You would have thought that someone who is clearly passionate about the topic could get simple facts straight.


Yes, just like the passionate WH and SoS...no wait......:shifty:

[Ducimus]

I wonder whatever happened to integrity. It's a trait that I highly value, and seems to be disturbingly absent in today's society in America. Whatever it is, it's always someone else's fault isn't it?

My point is, regardless if this president had any personal knowledge, he IS responsible. Why? It happened on his watch.

I'll give a real life example as i know it. Before i was working remotely, I was the sole person on a swing shift schedule at my work. In other words, I locked up the building at night and set the alarm. When the last manager left for the day, for all intents and purposes, it was my building! I had the keys. I had the alarm code. I had the watch.

Often, some of the cubicle dwellers took advantage of my working late, to finish up stuff late themselves. Say for example one of those schumcks left a coffee pot on over night after they left and it started a fire. Who's fault is it?

Mine. Because i was in charge, and it was my building.

Same goes for Bengazi.

[AVGWarhawk]

My point is, regardless if this president had any personal knowledge, he IS responsible. Why? It happened on his watch.

Except if your name is Eric Holder who has no knowledge of anything. Therefore he is exempt from any wrong doing but collects a check as head of the department just the same.

[Gerald]

Another side of the pitch, the current opinions.

The events surrounding the deaths of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012, look dramatically different depending on your politics. Republicans tend to see a cover-up and a scandal. Democrats see an attempt to damage President Obama and former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton. A Pew poll suggests that the public is divided as well, with 40 percent saying the administration has been dishonest, 37 percent saying it has told the truth, and 23 percent saying they’re not sure. Let’s assess what we do and don’t know.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-benghazi/2013/05/16/3baac71c-bcd1-11e2-9b09-1638acc3942e_story.html?hpid=z2#



Note: Update record,16 may

[August]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/936773_304177469715438_714363573_n.jpg

[AVGWarhawk]

And in other news....Holder does not know what Holder is doing and is relinquished for any wrong doing or dereliction of duty. He is, after all, just the head AG. :88)

[mookiemookie]

I don't "want to believe" anything, I just want to known what happened. And if there was negligence, accountability.

I was using the general "you" like you were. :up:

[donna52522]

And in other news....Holder does not know what Holder is doing and is relinquished for any wrong doing or dereliction of duty. He is, after all, just the head AG. :88)

I don't follow the politics much, but how did Holder get his job, who had final say about his position?

[CaptainHaplo]

I believe he was put forth by the President for consideration and subsequently confirmed by the Senate. That is the usual process for that type of position.

[donna52522]

I believe he was put forth by the President for consideration and subsequently confirmed by the Senate. That is the usual process for that type of position.

Ok thank you.

One more thing.....where do I apply for such a position? :D

[AVGWarhawk]

I don't follow the politics much, but how did Holder get his job, who had final say about his position?

POTUS nominates Congress approves.

[AVGWarhawk]

Ok thank you.

One more thing.....where do I apply for such a position? :D

How much did you contribute to BO campaign? :hmmm:

[Red October1984]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/936773_304177469715438_714363573_n.jpg

Haha! I just saw that picture on Facebook a few minutes ago. :rotfl2:

Love it. :har:

[soopaman2]

I do not want to come across as an Obama shill, because all should be held accountable....


I want to know what he did to deserve the malice?

What crime did he commit to deserve impeachment, as some righties want.?

Why is the right trying to turn this into some kind of Waterloo?
When he had little to do with what happened in Benghazi.

He honestly didn't even know where Benghazi was, before a bunch a morons killed some Americans.
(durr)


This has turned into the Salem witch trials.


I only wish our legislative branch would give so much attention to the banks, rather than trying to solidify their 2016 (r) president bid.

How can you not see this is all about the power, and not our power?

Keep us distracted, so we do not turn our attention and thoughts on the true oppressors...

Ourselves.
The cons we elect.
How we allow big money to rule politics.
Lobbying, which in any other country is called bribery.
Corps are people, except when it comes to being prosecuted for crimes, or paying for losing bad investments that crashed the economy.

etc....

I cannot say I am encouraging a revolt (no sir mister patriot act, sir, you is my massa), but I theorize that only blood can fix us, since you have to be rich to even try to run for office.

What we are is not a constitutional republic as you think...

No, it is an,
ol·i·gar·chy

1
: government by the few
2
: a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also: a group exercising such control .


I dare you to prove me wrong.:D

Everyone love harping on what the founding fathers "intended".

Certainly not this.

The complete opposite of this...

This is what we bled and died to shrug off...

I cannot believe most of you even know what being American means.

[AVGWarhawk]

Simply put, it is a cover-up.

A cover-up is an attempt, whether successful or not, to conceal evidence of wrongdoing, error, incompetence or other embarrassing information. In a passive cover-up information is simply not provided; in an active cover-up deception is used.

The expression is usually applied to people in positions of authority who abuse their power to avoid or silence criticism or to deflect guilt of wrongdoing. Those who initiate a cover up (or their allies) may be responsible for a misdeed, a breach of trust or duty or a crime.

Talking points were changed. Emails changed. People given gag orders. All on Obama's watch. A 9/11 attack on 4 Americans should at least get the POTUS out of bed. Don't you think? SoS is under POTUS and reports same. Do you think perhaps there was some conversation between the two on that day? You betcha.

[soopaman2]

I am not taking sides on this, no they are all dirty.

I just would have thought the patriot act would have kicked up more hate than this incident did.

But look at the Dixie Chicks, they trashed Bush after 9-11 and were seen as unpatriotic.

But fast forward, and trashing Obama has become a right wing pasttime.

Where is the respect for the office now? especially the second term in, neither of them "approved" by the SCOTUS.

[mookiemookie]

Where is the respect for the office now? especially the second term in, neither of them "approved" by the SCOTUS.

There isn't. The 24 hour news media makes a living feeding the life or death struggle against the "enemy" party who's trying to destroy the American way of life we've known forever. It's a race and a battle, with winners and losers and casualties.

The apocalyptic imagery that's constantly being screwed into your brain by the Fox/MSNBC/CNNs of the world has shaped public opinion to a point where vitriol and extremism holds sway. Add in a heavy dose of the internet where any and every whacked out and stupid opinion is given equal weight to everyone elses, and where you can seek out like minded loonys, no matter how loony you are, and there you have it.

[CaptainHaplo]

I want to know what he did to deserve the malice?

Let us answer that using your statement below.

I only wish our legislative branch would give so much attention to the banks.

You mean the evil banks that combined made 51.9 Billion dollars last year on the backs of the poor and middle class?

Before government starts raking private business over the coals, it needs to look at itself. Did you know that the government makes 50 Billion dollars on JUST student loans this year?
That means the government will profit by about $50 billion this year.
http://money.msn.com/now/post.aspx?post=8903e0e6-b1a3-4158-a625-774b319de08b

Did you know that student loan indebtedness has increased 250% in the time that Obama has been in office? You want to know about malice? He says he is for the poor, then robs them of the few coppers they have. He says he is for the middle class, then sticks it to them with crap like Obamacare that raises their health care costs. He denounces "profits" all while raking it in on those least able to pay it - college kids or recent grads looking for work. Oh yea - lets not forget he has done all this while seeing real unemployment continue to grow, just as the rolls of welfare do. Capitalism is the way out of the poorhouse - but Obama is doing all he can to stifle business and then blames the problems on capitalism even as he hamstrings it. Exxon didn't even make that much all year long!

Oh - and the 50 Billion that his government makes in profit off of all those student loans? You seriously didn't think that went to doing something like paying toward our debt, did you? Debt problem? His government doesn't have a debt problem, remember? Their only problem is spending - as in they are not able to throw away our money fast enough apparently.

How can you not see this is all about the power, and not our power?

Your right - its about power for the left. Get your Obama-phone today! Sign up for welfare asap! Better hurry before they amnesty in all the illegals!

As for the rest - we have dug ourselves a hole to be sure. Which is why getting back to constitutional principles would help solve a lot of the problems.


But look at the Dixie Chicks, they trashed Bush after 9-11 and were seen as unpatriotic.
But fast forward, and trashing Obama has become a right wing pastime.

Lets not have selective memory here Soopa. The left did more than just trash Bush - not only did you have the insults to his intelligence, you had people writing about assassinating him - and the left celebrated it.

There are 4 scandals right NOW going on - all under his watch. When you add in the past idiocies, from Solyndra's green jobs to Fast and Furious, it is either an absolute demonstration of the most inept kind, or it is something more sinister. Either way, you cannot deny that there has been a rather frequent and disturbing pattern of "mismanagement" or over-reaches during his presidency.

[mookiemookie]

If Obama really did half of the things that people blame him for, I wonder when he'd have the time to even sleep.

[soopaman2]

Let us answer that using your statement below.



You mean the evil banks that combined made 51.9 Billion dollars last year on the backs of the poor and middle class?

Before government starts raking private business over the coals, it needs to look at itself. Did you know that the government makes 50 Billion dollars on JUST student loans this year?

http://money.msn.com/now/post.aspx?post=8903e0e6-b1a3-4158-a625-774b319de08b

Did you know that student loan indebtedness has increased 250% in the time that Obama has been in office? You want to know about malice? He says he is for the poor, then robs them of the few coppers they have. He says he is for the middle class, then sticks it to them with crap like Obamacare that raises their health care costs. He denounces "profits" all while raking it in on those least able to pay it - college kids or recent grads looking for work. Oh yea - lets not forget he has done all this while seeing real unemployment continue to grow, just as the rolls of welfare do. Capitalism is the way out of the poorhouse - but Obama is doing all he can to stifle business and then blames the problems on capitalism even as he hamstrings it. Exxon didn't even make that much all year long!

Oh - and the 50 Billion that his government makes in profit off of all those student loans? You seriously didn't think that went to doing something like paying toward our debt, did you? Debt problem? His government doesn't have a debt problem, remember? Their only problem is spending - as in they are not able to throw away our money fast enough apparently.



Your right - its about power for the left. Get your Obama-phone today! Sign up for welfare asap! Better hurry before they amnesty in all the illegals!

As for the rest - we have dug ourselves a hole to be sure. Which is why getting back to constitutional principles would help solve a lot of the problems.



Lets not have selective memory here Soopa. The left did more than just trash Bush - not only did you have the insults to his intelligence, you had people writing about assassinating him - and the left celebrated it.

There are 4 scandals right NOW going on - all under his watch. When you add in the past idiocies, from Solyndra's green jobs to Fast and Furious, it is either an absolute demonstration of the most inept kind, or it is something more sinister. Either way, you cannot deny that there has been a rather frequent and disturbing pattern of "mismanagement" or over-reaches during his presidency.

Great post. Re-posted the whole thing for being articulate.

I voted for Bush twice. I bash him here, but he was clearly the lesser of 2 evils, and deep down I believe he is a good man, and did the best he could with the pile of crap he was handed, just like I believe President O is doing the same. These guys have to deal with crap that is un-imaginable to us, no matter how politically savvy we think are.

I just have trouble as seeing this Benghazi thing as something worth impeaching (STFU Rand Paul)

[CaptainHaplo]

The Oath of Office for the President of the United States:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

If he does not deserve impeachment for failing to live up to his Oath of office - it would mean that he has - to the best of his Ability - fulfilled it. In that case - he should be run out of town for being so inept.

On the other hand, many see his actions as having (intentionally or not) significantly undermine the Constitution - and as such he has failed in his Oath and should be removed from office.

[soopaman2]

The Oath of Office for the President of the United States:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

If he does not deserve impeachment for failing to live up to his Oath of office - it would mean that he has - to the best of his Ability - fulfilled it. In that case - he should be run out of town for being so inept.

On the other hand, many see his actions as having (intentionally or not) significantly undermine the Constitution - and as such he has failed in his Oath and should be removed from office.

But a crime has to be commited Capt.

What clear crime was commited?

They tried to impeach Clinton for cheating on his wrinkly nasty old wife. Yet no one says anything about (r) Larry Craig, who was arrested for soliciting men in a male bathroom under a stall.
Party of god defender that he was...

I mean look at Hillary7, I would diddle the fat girl too.

Righties are prone to witchhunts, anything to stay in power.

They both need to be sterilized, but the right has swung so far right , Bachman, Palin, Cruz, Rubio, Rand and Ron Paul your representatives only makes sense to low information voters or religious lunatics who think the earth is 6000 years old, despite carbon dating evidence by top scientists...

Aesops fables=bible

Same morals, just that Aesop didn't attempt to brand his morals as a way of life worth murdering over, right Crusaders?

[AVGWarhawk]

If Obama really did half of the things that people blame him for, I wonder when he'd have the time to even sleep.

He has no time for sleep between the vacations and hitting the links. :haha:

[August]

They tried to impeach Clinton for cheating on his wrinkly nasty old wife.

Not to derail you but actually they tried to impeach Clinton for lying on the witness stand, perjury. A slightly more serious matter than nailing some bimbo on the side.

[soopaman2]

But he clearly stated he did not have sex with that pig....err uh woman....:D

You don't think Billy boy was lying do ya?

No one in government ever lies.

We all know what he did, and most of us, cannot blame him, my point was the witchhunt over that, when no one questioned the patriot act, which reeks of being in violation of numerous bill of right amendments.

So yeah, he lied about a blowjob, what about the patriot act? or is that BJ to a DEM so much more important.

No matter what any righty throws at me, I will say Patriot act, no one seems to have an explanation for that Cheney/Halliburton/Xe money making bill..

But Obama on Benghazi, biggest scum since Hitler.

Spare me.

[AVGWarhawk]

(USA PATRIOT) that stands for Uniting (and) Strengthening America (by) Providing Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept (and) Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001.

Abused by both sides of the isle. :03:

[CaptainHaplo]

We all know what he did, and most of us, cannot blame him, my point was the witchhunt over that, when no one questioned the patriot act, which reeks of being in violation of numerous bill of right amendments.

No matter what any righty throws at me, I will say Patriot act, no one seems to have an explanation for that Cheney/Halliburton/Xe money making bill..

But Obama on Benghazi, biggest scum since Hitler.

Spare me.

Does the date Feb. 24, 2010 ring a bell with you Soopa? That is the day that the Democrat controlled Senate passed the unamended extension to the Patriot act. The Democrat controlled House had already passed it earlier. Oh - and the Democrat president - Barak Obama - signed it into law.

No matter what "righty" throws at you, your going to sling back an act that pretty much all us common folk disagree with, but both sides - lefty included - has upheld unchanged.

You might want to find a better argument - one that doesn't tar the left quite so much too.

but the right has swung so far right , Bachman, Palin, Cruz, Rubio, Rand and Ron Paul your representatives only makes sense to low information voters or religious lunatics who think the earth is 6000 years old

The problem with this is that some of the folks you mentioned - Cruz and Rubio specifically - are not far right. So are you saying that Pelosi, Boxer, Reid, Wasserman-Schultz, etc are all only moderately left? The left has had its extremists for decades - the "lion" (or was that "lyin") Kennedy among them. When something has been so far to one side for so long, maybe its extremism (like wanting ok partial birth abortions) just doesn't seem so extreme after a while.....

[Wolferz]

Try not to lean left or right. Lean forward...
http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb295/Wolferz_2007/Better-Left-Unpublished.png (http://s205.photobucket.com/user/Wolferz_2007/media/Better-Left-Unpublished.png.html)

[August]

But he clearly stated he did not have sex with that pig....err uh woman....:D

You don't think Billy boy was lying do ya?

No one in government ever lies.

We all know what he did, and most of us, cannot blame him, my point was the witchhunt over that, when no one questioned the patriot act, which reeks of being in violation of numerous bill of right amendments.[

So yeah, he lied about a blowjob, what about the patriot act? or is that BJ to a DEM so much more important.

What does one have to do with the other?

No matter what any righty throws at me, I will say Patriot act, no one seems to have an explanation for that Cheney/Halliburton/Xe money making bill..

But Obama on Benghazi, biggest scum since Hitler.

Spare me.

Maybe the difference is because the left supported the Patriot Act as much as the right did. Kinda takes the wind out of the opposition sails, especially when after 4 years of government control they still haven't repealed it.

As for Bill the sexual predator though, lying is one thing, but lying under oath in a court of law is quite another. I don't care who he is schtupping, not one little bit, but I do expect the President of the United States of all people to be honorable enough not to lie on the witness stand.

In fact lying is what's behind this Benghazi thing. In both cases honesty would have been the best policy but that doesn't seem to be the Democratic parties default answer to anything anymore. They've gone from being the party of "the buck stops here" to being the party of "the buck stops anywhere else but here".

[Tribesman]

I would say it is pretty certain that the terrorists in Benghazi are laughing their tits off at the silly arguements in America over their attack.

[eddie]

So the fact that multiple sources have come out and stated that the US Military was within range to assist before the second attack (which is the one in which the Ambassador was killed) and were ordered to NOT secure our personnel is "a politically driven witch hunt"? The fact that C110 was available and could have been there before the second attack to save lives doesn't matter, does it? The fact that there were 15 SF and specially trained State Dept. Security staff an hour away in Tripoli, trained and with equipment available to help - and were not used to save American lives - we just can't count that, now can we? Is that just an "oops" we should forget?

You say the loss of life was a tragedy - but the people who could have made a difference were not given the go word - and that fact somehow is just not so important? If it was a tragedy those lives were lost - then its a travesty that there was no attempt to save those lives by the government they were there representing.

And that, my friend Mookie, is no political witch hunt.

Nor are the IRS political harassment or AP wiretap or the HHS extortion issues.

DoD says the US Military couldn't have saved them.

http://www.rttnews.com/2113670/us-forces-could-not-have-arrived-in-time-to-save-americans-in-benghazi-pentagon.aspx

[CaptainHaplo]

Ahh, so the DoD, headed by the Secretary of Defense - at the time by Leon Pannetta, he of the "oops I didn't know I stuck these classified documents from the Clinton era in my pants", has his department say "oh yea, we couldn't have done anything for them.".

Of course, Chuck Hagel, the current SoD, answering to the President, is going to say the same to support the administration line.

However, isn't it odd that the very article you reference states that some of the personnel in Tripoli did in fact make it to Benghazi (and on site witnesses credit them with saving numerous lives) -while the rest were ORDERED not to go.... How many more lives could have been saved had they been allowed to? The idea that they couldn't have made a difference is disproved by the efforts of the two that went.

There is no question that forces were ready to go and were told no. Ambassador Stevens deputy, Gregory Hicks, stated as much, as well as what would have happened if even a fighter-bomber would have made an appearance.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57583014/diplomat-u.s-special-forces-told-you-cant-go-to-benghazi-during-attacks/

Eyes on the ground - with direct knowledge of the issue - and sourced from a news outlet that isn't "fox". Instead of a coverup and denial by a bunch of suits in Washington with a vested interest in saving their backside....

Yea - who is more credible? The people there who lost friends, or the people we have already found out have been lying to us the whole time?

I know where my money would go if I was a betting man.

[eddie]

This whole thing has lost traction already. Only to be kept going by those with an agenda. If someone has to be held accountable, let the chips fall where they may.

Its funny how a certain group of people will keep on bringing these deaths up all the time, but show no compassion or even say a damn thing about the doxen plus Americans killed in Afghanistan recently. Not a word. That's more then pathetic, its just plain crap. Nothing more then a political agenda.

A lot of us who are members of the Corps, want to know why there wasn't this same type of outcry when Reagon sent 200 Marines into Beirut with no support. Got them all killed but wasn't held accountable. Funny how that works. We are still sickened by that President!! Bet on it!!

[Tribesman]

However, isn't it odd that the very article you reference states that some of the personnel in Tripoli did in fact make it to Libya
Is it more odd that you do not know that Tripoli is in Libya?

[Catfish]

[...] A lot of us who are members of the Corps, want to know why there wasn't this same type of outcry when Reagon sent 200 Marines into Beirut with no support. Got them all killed but wasn't held accountable. Funny how that works. We are still sickened by that President!! Bet on it!!

Reagan and 230 Marines in Beirut, i remember this.
And to have something for the media and back up his position, Mr. Reagan suddenly found a marxist 'threat' in Grenada.
Imho the following 'invasion' was a public relations ploy, to distract America from the two hundred and thirty U.S. Marines that died in Beirut because of a terrorist bomb. Grenada was Reagan's scheme to increase his popular ratings. How many died there ?

It becomes really difficult to decide what is real information, truth, or just convincing deception, plausible deniability, in one word desinformation.
:nope:

[MH]

Grenada was Reagan's scheme to increase his popular ratings. How many died there ?
You think so or are disinformed?

[mookiemookie]

Its funny how a certain group of people will keep on bringing these deaths up all the time, but show no compassion or even say a damn thing about the doxen plus Americans killed in Afghanistan recently. Not a word. That's more then pathetic, its just plain crap. Nothing more then a political agenda.



http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz200/pepper2010_bucket/nail.gif

[Catfish]

You think so or are disinformed?

No you misunderstand.
A Seal is p ... 'd off by this invasion and senseless deaths, so he openly voices it and is being officially thrown out, without honours. Now there's a trained man being available to be recruited by the USSR or terrorists, and the CIA has a new mole. Best practice.
:O:

[August]

Hmm speaking about Afghanistan losses I noticed that just as soon as a certain group of people took power their media lapdogs stopped the daily casualty count and the war, like Guantanamo was relegated to the back pages.

Y'see apparently the people that don't care about Benghazi don't really care any more for dead Soldiers in Afghanistan or for that matter dead Marines in Beirut. Only if there is a republican in the white house do such things matter.

[nikimcbee]

No blood for Afghani oil.

Did I miss the protest?
Well, back to work.

[CaptainHaplo]

Is it more odd that you do not know that Tripoli is in Libya?


No - what is odd is that apparently you are not smart enough to figure out that I made a minor error in discussion - since the intended location was clear (especially within context). It has been corrected.

But then again - I shouldn't be surprised that your still following me around making your little snide comments. Got life yet? Oh - guess not.

[Onkel Neal]

What we need to do here is make our arguments, not focus on each other.

[Tribesman]

No - what is odd is that apparently you are not smart enough to figure out that I made a minor error in discussion
What is not that odd is the many errors made in this discussion.
What is perhaps odd is the many errors made from the same viewpoint.
I read a piece earlier about why this Benghazi story is failing to gain traction.
It put it down to the flow of leaping through assumption presumption and accusation unaccompanied by fact logic and proportion while saddled with plenty of factual errors.
I suppose it could be likened to creationism, they have the answer they want to get to and need to fit questions and "fact" to the answer they have already assumed is correct.

What we need to do here is make our arguments, not focus on each other.
I focus on what is written. For example anyone could have written that earlier pressure cooker nonsense and it would still be ranked as just about the craziest nonsense possible in trying to stretch a point, no matter who wrote it.

[CaptainHaplo]

I suppose it could be likened to creationism, they have the answer they want to get to and need to fit questions and "fact" to the answer they have already assumed is correct.

And yet again you attack a religious view of many without it ever being part of the subject. This had nothing to do with the conversation, you just felt a need to again demean people of faith for their belief that you personally disagree with.

I focus on what is written.
Really - then why even bring up creationsim? It was not a subject in this discussion - but instead of being able to rebut the sourced arguments, you instead try to change topics and insult.

@Neal - how long are these random, unrelated insults going to be continually allowed? Its one thing to discuss a topic and vehemently disagree, its another to jump subjects just to bash a group of people over a religious matter that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

[mookiemookie]

@Neal - how long are these random, unrelated insults going to be continually allowed? Its one thing to discuss a topic and vehemently disagree, its another to jump subjects just to bash a group of people over a religious matter that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

I don't see anything wrong with ripping someone's arguments and logic, which is exactly what Tribesman has done here.

He makes a very valid point - when you set out with a conclusion in your head and you make the evidence fit it, no matter how much you have to stretch it in order to do so, you end up with an argument such as the one we're having, filled with logical fallacies. Creationists and political partisans tend to do that. It's a valid point.

[Onkel Neal]

@Neal - how long are these random, unrelated insults going to be continually allowed? Its one thing to discuss a topic and vehemently disagree, its another to jump subjects just to bash a group of people over a religious matter that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Cap, you should know by now there are some people who are not worth the trouble to talk with. I strongly suggest putting them on your ignore list. Unless there is a direct and clear insult, the forum moderators cannot take any action.

[Tribesman]

And yet again you attack a religious view of many without it ever being part of the subject. This had nothing to do with the conversation, you just felt a need to again demean people of faith for their belief that you personally disagree with.

It is drawing a comparison.
If you feel the comparison is incorrect then feel free to challenge it on those grounds.
As for bringing in "outside" subjects to the topic...Iraq, Healthcare, Welfare, Education, Immigrants, Guns, Banks, Dixie Chicks:hmmm:
But anyway you make a claim that is factually incorrect, the religious view of which you wish to become offended by its raising was already brought into this topic long before I made the comparison.

Really - then why even bring up creationsim?
It was used in this instance because it works as a valid comparison. Unless of course you can show otherwise.

It was not a subject in this discussion
Tell that to the person who first raised it.
You may have a problem there though as he did raise it as part of a valid critique of some politicians.
The fact that you didn't even bat an eyelid at the post which brought it into the topic but instead raised the issue of abortion does suggest that your complaints about what is written have nothing to do with what is written and are solely based who has written them.

but instead of being able to rebut the sourced arguments
Read the sourced arguement. It rebuts the point you tried to fix to it.




I strongly suggest putting them on your ignore list.
Thats another thing that is odd, I could have sworn that individual made a big point of putting me on the ignorance feature.
It is rather strange that he is replying to posts he said he would not read.

[Takeda Shingen]

The corollary to that is why act so outraged over it when the other side does it when you didn't act outraged about it when your side did it in the past?

And the piling on is because it's a far-right echo chamber here. The piling on is fully expected when you tell the emperor he has no clothes.

With fear of government, paranoia over firearm confiscation, references to the Georgia standing stones, FEMA death camps, Obama Hitler youth, Jewish Zionist global conspiracies, homosexuality as a socialist conspiracy to topple western civilization, people needlessly antagonizing law enforcement and even their fellow citizens in order to assert "their rights", drone attack conspiracies, truthers, anarcho-capitalist propaganda, militia talk and various Patriot Movement propaganda, this website is practically InfoWars Lite. I came back to reestablish contact with some friends, and having done that, I am working on breaking the 13-year habit of reading this site. I've gone from hourly to every few days. Next maybe once a week, then once a month and then eventually not at all. The draw of interwebs argument is very strong, but I think I have the willpower to beat back this addiction.

[August]

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/php/galleries/image.php/1983/12/12.jpg

[nikimcbee]

Which scandal do you think is bigger? Benghazi or the IRS scandal?

[nikimcbee]

http://blogs.denverpost.com/opinion/files/2013/05/obama-nixon-cartoon-sack-495x374.jpg



http://blogs.denverpost.com/opinion/files/2013/05/obama-nixon-cartoon-cole-495x397.jpg
From the Startribune



http://www.startribune.com/opinion/206687621.html

[CaptainHaplo]

I don't see anything wrong with ripping someone's arguments and logic, which is exactly what Tribesman has done here.

He makes a very valid point - when you set out with a conclusion in your head and you make the evidence fit it, no matter how much you have to stretch it in order to do so, you end up with an argument such as the one we're having, filled with logical fallacies. Creationists and political partisans tend to do that. It's a valid point.

Mookie, the problem here is that there is no call to insult folks who have a belief system that is disagreed with.

Lets look at this - I responded to eddie's post where he posted a link trying to back up his position. I used that same article to point out that the article demonstrated some people were in fact in range and not allowed to go help. I then used another link - from CBS - to point out that one of the people with direct knowledge indicated that the ok would have made a difference. Eddie's original link showed that while 2 people did go, at least 4 were not allowed to. So the claim by DoD that no one was close enough to deploy is demonstrably false.

Know what the flight time for a F16 out of Italy to Benghazi is? 2 hours at subsonic speeds. The attack lasted 7. And we know that at least 2 Americans (someone was still fighting, likely the 2 SF folks) were alive about 6 hours in.

I used 2 links - one provided by another user and one I provided - to make the point above. That is debate. A rebuttal using the same facts, or sourcing others and laying out logical reasoning is how a debate occurs. Trying to bring in other subjects and disparage people for a belief that has nothing to do with the subject is diversion. It is done because someone could not fault the logical path of reasoning and could not argue against the facts that if 2 people could make it from Tripoli, others could as well.

So no, the "point" isn't valid, because it isn't a point. It is a diversion - and a trolling insult. There was no alternative logic provided, just a "well that can't be right so your making it up - like some religious nut". There was no counterargument or flaw in the logic made. Just an insult and a diversion. Which is what that particular person does all the time.

Want to debate the point. Explain how when 2 people from Tripoli could make it to Benghazi, why 4 others could not have done the same. Go ahead, offer us some reasonable argument that makes such a conclusion impossible. Or side with someone who can't form a logical argument and instead has to result to insults and diversions.

[mookiemookie]

Ooh, ooh, is it post dumb editorial comic time? Can I play?

http://media.cagle.com/184/2013/05/19/131972_600.jpg

[Tribesman]

So the claim by DoD that no one was close enough to deploy is demonstrably false.

Wrong dept.
What one dept did has no bearing on what another dept could do

Know what the flight time for a F16 out of Italy to Benghazi is?
Soveriegnty issues.
Try asking a government if you can go and bomb their city.

Explain how when 2 people from Tripoli could make it to Benghazi, why 4 others could not have done the same.
So simple.
Hiring a private plane
Allowing a foriegn military flight.
Not the same things at all are they.

[nikimcbee]

Ooh, ooh, is it post dumb editorial comic time? Can I play?



Yes.

[MH]

Want to debate the point. Explain how when 2 people from Tripoli could make it to Benghazi, why 4 others could not have done the same. Go ahead, offer us some reasonable argument that makes such a conclusion impossible. Or side with someone who can't form a logical argument and instead has to result to insults and diversions
Good point....It like they had to penetrate Russian airspace.
Lack of action/leadership or/and confusion might be the issue here.

[Tribesman]

Good point....It like they had to penetrate Russian airspace.

Look how long it took them to clear airport security after they landed in Benghazi.
Not exactly anything remotely like penetrating enemy airspace is it.

[CaptainHaplo]

Good point....It like they had to penetrate Russian airspace.
Lack of action/leadership or/and confusion might be the issue here.

MH - exactly. 2 people acted - the other 4 could have made it - but the LACK of leadership is what kept that from happening. In other words - confusion or lack of action resulted in deaths - and instead of saying "We didn't know enough to go" - you have the administration, and its department heads claiming that no one was close enough - when 2 people proved differently.

Its the lie and the attempt at the cover-up that make this an issue.

[Tribesman]

MH - exactly. 2 people acted - the other 4 could have made it
Its wierd, I thought they said the hired private plane took 8 people to Benghazi not 2.
So many details seem to be amiss in someones posts.:hmmm:

[Gerald]

I can imagine that U.S. citizens want the correct answer now.

The spin that the American people aren’t interested in Benghazi or that it’s only Republicans who think something is fishy isn’t faring too well in a plethora of other polls.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/05/22/benghazi-turns-out-to-be-a-big-deal-and-not-for-just-republicans/

Note: Update record, May 22, 2013 at 10:30 am

[CaptainHaplo]

I can imagine that U.S. citizens want the correct answer now.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/05/22/benghazi-turns-out-to-be-a-big-deal-and-not-for-just-republicans/

Note: Update record, May 22, 2013 at 10:30 am

Between the Benghazi coverup, the IRS coverup, and the continuing press scandals - its going to be a bumpy time for the left.

[Gerald]

That for sure.