This guy here... Brigadier General Robert Lovell, U.S. Air Force (Retired) told the House Oversight Committee yesterday, under oath, that the military knew immediately Benghazi was terrorist attack and not a “protest gone awry.
That isn't what he said. He said that the military knew it was a hostile action, and not a protest "...gone awry...".
Are you honestly going to misrepresent your own sources just to force a tired point?
This guy here... Brigadier General Robert Lovell, U.S. Air Force (Retired) told the House Oversight Committee yesterday, under oath, that the military knew immediately Benghazi was terrorist attack and not a “protest gone awry.
That isn't what he said. He said that the military knew it was a hostile action, and not a protest "...gone awry...".
Are you honestly going to misrepresent your own sources just to force a tired point?
Um... what on Elvis' bunghole are you talking about?
EDIT: you objecting the "Terrorist Attack" line, when I should've stated "hostile action"???
Um... what on Elvis' bunghole are you talking about?
EDIT: you objecting the "Terrorist Attack" line, when I should've stated "hostile action"???
I am saying that your interpretation of Lovell's words is wrong, on its face.
He said:
“Nor did we completely understand what we had in front of us, be it kidnapping, rescue, recovery, protracted hostile engagement, or any or all the above. But, what we did know quite early on was that this was a hostile action. This was not demonstration gone terrible awry. To the point of what happened, the facts led to the conclusion of a terrorist attack. The Africom J2 was focused on attribution. The attacks became attributable very soon after the event.”
You know. I find it funny how politicians are using Benghazi as a international crime against the president. You know ignoring the fact that we have people dying. IT also seems to be that this is entirely the republician side.
You do not see Marxists or anarchists saying Benghazi was Obama's fault.
In fact most often it is not even as large as an issue as the foreign affairs issues we currently have. I've read the reports. And I think the Republican party is assuming too much on too little of evidence.
I've started watching this happen for a while. Anything small or inconvenient that the republicans see as something bad that the President did is immediately a great time to attack, like dogs for a dinner. even if it wasn't his fault.
Last time I checked you did not attack Eisenhower for the murder of innocent people by american soldiers during world war 2. We did not blame bush for killing innocent civilians because of some crazy soldier went on a gun rampage.
We can see that the Secretary of State admitted that it was her fault. She admitted she did something wrong, or one of her subordinates did.
“Nor did we completely understand what we had in front of us, be it kidnapping, rescue, recovery, protracted hostile engagement, or any or all the above. But, what we did know quite early on was that this was a hostile action. This was not demonstration gone terrible awry. To the point of what happened, the facts led to the conclusion of a terrorist attack. The Africom J2 was focused on attribution. The attacks became attributable very soon after the event.”
It was not a terrorist attack. It was a hostile action. If a mobster attacks a united states embassy. It is not a Terrorist Attack it is a hostile action. A bunch of angry mob people attacking an embassy. Is not a terrorist attack, a terrorist attack means it was fully planned and it was done for the intention of terrorizing a populace. Now before you correct me and say I am wrong. Here is a little reasoning as to why I see the difference. These two things are very different, you can't call a battle a war. These are two very different tactical ideas.
Terrorism are the acts persecuted to use as a weapon of fear to bring about change. (I.E bombs and armed raids by notable terrorist organizations)
A Hostile Action is when there is no intention to bring about fear, just change.
Also I would like to think that the politicians on both sides need to be retaught political science and what that actually means to be a politician.
Asherian Command wrote: You know. I find it funny how politicians are using Benghazi as a international crime against the president.
Que?? Against the President?
Source please? I've yet to see anyone, let alone Republicans, believes that Obama broke international crime with respect to the events that transpired in Benghazi.
Are you referring to the possible gun-running theory during the Syrian event?
You know ignoring the fact that we have people dying.
It's because people have died. o.O How is it not?
Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Ty Woods and Glen Doherty deserve no less than for the American people to know the absolute, unvarnished truth of what happened that night and for someone actually responsible ... not some ridiculous crappy YouTube guy ... to be held to account.
The fact that this recent email that a FEDERAL JUDGE forced the administration to release shed some light on that night... is telling.
IT also seems to be that this is entirely the republician side.
Well gee... it's an embarrassing event.
If it's not a big deal, the Democrats would want this opportunity to release all the details over this event...
If it's such a nuthingburger, as you seem to buy in... then Obama can order the release to ALL pertinant information and fething be like drop'n mic and kick'n down the door on this gak ALL DAY, EVERY DAY, rubbing it in the Republican's face:
You do not see Marxists or anarchists saying Benghazi was Obama's fault.
How is this even relevant in this discussion?
In fact most often it is not even as large as an issue as the foreign affairs issues we currently have. I've read the reports. And I think the Republican party is assuming too much on too little of evidence.
That's the problem... the released evidence is very thin so far. There's still a feth ton of information the needs to be released and this administration is taking their sweet assed time. Documents still under the subpoena'ed review... taking about 19/20 months still. If this was any other subpoena request, no judge in America would tolerate this slow release.
I've started watching this happen for a while. Anything small or inconvenient that the republicans see as something bad that the President did is immediately a great time to attack, like dogs for a dinner. even if it wasn't his fault.
Well... yeah, that's the nature of American politics unfortunately.
Did you pay attention to Clinton's Presidency? Bush's Presidency??
Last time I checked you did not attack Eisenhower for the murder of innocent people by american soldiers during world war 2. We did not blame bush for killing innocent civilians because of some crazy soldier went on a gun rampage.
Just hold off... this fething line of attack is ridiculous.
A) Wasn't even born during WW2... B) Erm... how old are you? THere are folks out there that hold Bush personally responsible for that (and, well, everything else too! Just read MeanGreenStompa's early posts).
We can see that the Secretary of State admitted that it was her fault. She admitted she did something wrong, or one of her subordinates did.
Yeah... and what was it? What was at fault and who/what was held to account?
You have to keep in mind, that it's a PR strategy designed to detach her from this event.
It's working pretty good if I may add... and I'm totally resigned that she'll be the next President. (honestly, do you see any Republican yahoo capable of taking her on?)
“Nor did we completely understand what we had in front of us, be it kidnapping, rescue, recovery, protracted hostile engagement, or any or all the above. But, what we did know quite early on was that this was a hostile action. This was not demonstration gone terrible awry. To the point of what happened, the facts led to the conclusion of a terrorist attack. The Africom J2 was focused on attribution. The attacks became attributable very soon after the event.”
It was not a terrorist attack. It was a hostile action.
Let me stop you here and point out the highlight words above....
Jihadin wrote: I have to seriously have to hand to Hillary to leave Obama strap hanging big time on this
I know... right?!?!
People would look at me all squirrelly when I say this, but tell me it's not true: "Never bet against a Clinton... if HRC runs, who can bring her down?"
“Nor did we completely understand what we had in front of us, be it kidnapping, rescue, recovery, protracted hostile engagement, or any or all the above. But, what we did know quite early on was that this was a hostile action. This was not demonstration gone terrible awry. To the point of what happened, the facts led to the conclusion of a terrorist attack. The Africom J2 was focused on attribution. The attacks became attributable very soon after the event.”
How am I wrong again?
Lovell specifically mentions that the military was immediately aware that the event was a hostile action, and then goes on to say that the facts lead to the conclusion of a terrorist attack.
This does not mean the military immediately knew it was a terrorist attack. In fact, it means precisely the opposite of that.
If it's not a big deal, the Democrats would want this opportunity to release all the details over this event...
That is a horrible precedent to set, and I suspect that it would do no good at all because the people it would be relevant to (you) wouldn't believe the state was completely forthcoming.
I don't believe anyone's suggesting the attack was the President's fault.
Some people (myself included) find it extremely shady that the President and his administration continued to tell a politically advantageous story about Benghazi long after they knew what really happened.
If it's not a big deal, the Democrats would want this opportunity to release all the details over this event...
That is a horrible precedent to set, and I suspect that it would do no good at all because the people it would be relevant to (you) wouldn't believe the state was completely forthcoming.
Are you implying that if the President would just release his birth certificate, that they would just start saying it was photoshopped and he's still a Kenyan? Sir, have you no decency? How dare you imply bad faith! These are just honest Americans with no agenda asking simple questions, and to whom a simple answer would forever end the matter with no goalpost moving at all.
“Nor did we completely understand what we had in front of us, be it kidnapping, rescue, recovery, protracted hostile engagement, or any or all the above. But, what we did know quite early on was that this was a hostile action. This was not demonstration gone terrible awry. To the point of what happened, the facts led to the conclusion of a terrorist attack. The Africom J2 was focused on attribution. The attacks became attributable very soon after the event.”
How am I wrong again?
Lovell specifically mentions that the military was immediately aware that the event was a hostile action, and then goes on to say that the facts lead to the conclusion of a terrorist attack.
This does not mean the military immediately knew it was a terrorist attack. In fact, it means precisely the opposite of that.
So you want to quibble about the fething meaning of "immediate"??
They knew that it was a terrorist attack when they felt they had all the necessary information. No protest whatsoever as it was a sophisticated coordinated attack.
Point being, the administration KNEW it was not spawned from any protest and calculated that it was a political problem.
If it's not a big deal, the Democrats would want this opportunity to release all the details over this event...
That is a horrible precedent to set, and I suspect that it would do no good at all because the people it would be relevant to (you) wouldn't believe the state was completely forthcoming.
If it's really a nuthingburger... the folks like me would have eggs on our faces. So why not take that opportunity to do so?
If it's not a big deal, the Democrats would want this opportunity to release all the details over this event...
That is a horrible precedent to set, and I suspect that it would do no good at all because the people it would be relevant to (you) wouldn't believe the state was completely forthcoming.
Are you implying that if the President would just release his birth certificate, that they would just start saying it was photoshopped and he's still a Kenyan? Sir, have you no decency? How dare you imply bad faith! These are just honest Americans with no agenda asking simple questions, and to whom a simple answer would forever end the matter with no goalpost moving at all.
As all the information and intel flows in. No one bother to ask or verified the final product? If I am told the final product was produced by analyst here and the military has a conflicting report...
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi rebuffed calls from her party for Democrats to boycott a newly announced Benghazi investigation, saying Tuesday that the so-called select committee should have bipartisan members.
"If this review is to be fair, it must be truly bipartisan," Pelosi said in a written statement.
She went a step further, calling for the committee to be "equally divided between Democrats and Republicans as is done on the House Ethics Committee."
It's unclear whether Republican leaders would agree to that request. Republicans pointed out that despite Pelosi's call for an equally divided panel, the breakdown of a prior select committee on climate change, engineered by the California Democrat, included nine Democrats and six Republicans.
Details of the proposed Benghazi committee have not yet been released, except for Monday's decision to name Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., as chairman. A formal vote to establish the investigative committee is expected by the end of the week.
On Sunday, Democratic California Rep. Adam Schiff called for fellow Democrats to sit out the investigation.
"I think it's a colossal waste of time," Schiff told "Fox News Sunday." "I don't think it makes sense, really, for Democrats to participate."
Pelosi reiterated complaints from others in her party that there have already been several investigations, including "four partisan reviews" in the House.
But she signaled she does want members of her party on the panel. "It should require that witnesses are called and interviewed, subpoenas are issued, and information is shared on a bipartisan basis. Only then could it be fair," she said.
Republican leaders say the select committee, something long called for by rank-and-file members, is now necessary after emails surfaced last week showing additional White House involvement in shaping the public explanation of the Benghazi attacks. One email stressed the role of an anti-Islam video, though the White House claims this was in reference to other protests in the region.
Gowdy told Fox News on Monday that he is going to examine "every single solitary, relevant" document on Benghazi so the truth about the attacks can be determined once and for all.
Gowdy, R-S.C., said on "On the Record" he is going to examine any and all documents relating to the 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate, even those which may end up not even being relevant.
"You can't draw conclusions if you don't have all the facts," Gowdy, a former federal prosecutor, said. "What this committee is going to do is once and for all lay out all the facts and then your jury can draw whatever inferences and conclusions they want to."
Gowdy also responded to criticism of the committee by House Democrats including Schiff. Gowdy said the committee's detractors need to give it a chance to prove its usefulness before declaring it pointless.
"At least let us have a hearing before you judge it. I mean at least let the committee be constituted and the rules be adopted before you declare it to be a political exercise," he said.
cincydooley wrote: So...are we really going to liken Clinton's impeachment for getting a BJ to this? I mean, maybe I'm just a simpleton, but getting some illicit oval office head seems a bit more tame than anything that happened in Benghazi.....
He didn't get impeached for a having a BJ, he got impeached for lying about it under oath. Perjury, oddly, is not to be taken lightly.
Perjury is ridiculously difficult to prosecute...so, there were pretty damning evidences against Clinton.
I'll say it again... I really don't believe what happened in Benghazi is an "impeachable" offence.
I think the whole thing is a clusterfeth and the administration was embarrassed. Hence the ridiculous initial response to blaming the attacks on that Youtube director.
Wait whembly you said this?
Huh. I agree they should say we did something wrong. And we are sorry for letting these four Americans die. But it does not mean we are evil and wanted this to happen.
They knew that it was a terrorist attack when they felt they had all the necessary information. No protest whatsoever as it was a sophisticated coordinated attack.
Point being, the administration KNEW it was not spawned from any protest and calculated that it was a political problem.
Well, no, that's what the military knew. Whether or not the Administration chose to believe the military is another issue altogether.
You're attributing malice to a series of actions which can easily be explained by stupidity, or simple error.
If it's really a nuthingburger... the folks like me would have eggs on our faces. So why not take that opportunity to do so?
Because only folks like you would care, and folks like you wouldn't believe the evidence. As such there is no point in setting a precedent for the release of information due to popular pressure.
Like it or not, most people give 0 feths about Benghazi.
There probably were individuals in positions of importance who took it upon themselves, influencing the "final", product to shield Obama during the re-election. I do not believe Obama gave verbal and/or written/email guidance on "his" version of the attack.
Though one is WRONG if one depends on one source of intel.
cincydooley wrote: So...are we really going to liken Clinton's impeachment for getting a BJ to this? I mean, maybe I'm just a simpleton, but getting some illicit oval office head seems a bit more tame than anything that happened in Benghazi.....
He didn't get impeached for a having a BJ, he got impeached for lying about it under oath. Perjury, oddly, is not to be taken lightly.
Perjury is ridiculously difficult to prosecute...so, there were pretty damning evidences against Clinton.
I'll say it again... I really don't believe what happened in Benghazi is an "impeachable" offence.
I think the whole thing is a clusterfeth and the administration was embarrassed. Hence the ridiculous initial response to blaming the attacks on that Youtube director.
Wait whembly you said this?
Yup. It isn't an impeachable offence.
Huh. I agree they should say we did something wrong. And we are sorry for letting these four Americans die.
Right... the issue is two-fold:
a) Why the coverup? Here's the dealio... all of this can be nipped at the bud and would re-energize the Democratic base (which the mid-term'ed Democrats desperately needs)...
There is a thing the President receives every morning called the Presidential Daily Briefing.
It is a WRITTEN list of concerns with intel input on world situations and the intel community's rating of importance and credibility.
If there is nothing to hide, and there was no COVER UP of the apparent terrorist group instead of a protest due to a video, these briefings would prove it one way or another.
PRODUCEthe Presidential Daily Briefings that Obama received around 9/11 and this could all be put to rest if they have not done anything wrong. (ie, provide the source to blame this ordeal on that youtube video)
Even President Bush released some of his Presidential Daily Briefing when the Democrats were holding their own OVERSIGHT HEARINGS when they held the House about Iraq.
b) And more importantly imo, has a thorough investigation been done to ensure that something like this doesn't happen again? Were SOP revised because of this? Did anyone even throw some fething lean six sigma at this?
But it does not mean we are evil and wanted this to happen.
Jihadin wrote: There probably were individuals in positions of importance who took it upon themselves, influencing the "final", product to shield Obama during the re-election. I do not believe Obama gave verbal and/or written/email guidance on "his" version of the attack.
Though one is WRONG if one depends on one source of intel.
To play devil's advocate. Lets assume he knew everything and controlleds the situation minute by minute. And?
I think everyone on the planet knows the event was bungled, and then later covered over for election purposes. And?
My buddy Vilerat died in benghazi... you people who claim it is something to be ignored/not a big deal are somethingawful indeed.
Thank you everyone who actually gives a hoot, I would love it if everyone actually cared about holding people accountable for depicting events like this accuratly, or at the very least, updating those accounts once more info is available.
I will say it again, what happened in Benghazi was horrible and the administrations response was inadequate, but all this is moot as this is being used purely for political gain. This is something that should have been finished a while ago and the only reason it is being talked about is political motivation.
easysauce wrote: My buddy Vilerat died in benghazi... you people who claim it is something to be ignored/not a big deal are somethingawful indeed.
Thank you everyone who actually gives a hoot, I would love it if everyone actually cared about holding people accountable for depicting events like this accuratly, or at the very least, updating those accounts once more info is available.
Its a big deal to you. I can understand that. Its not a big deal to others.
Again, what would you do about it? Obama's not going anywhere.
easysauce wrote: My buddy Vilerat died in benghazi... you people who claim it is something to be ignored/not a big deal are somethingawful indeed.
Thank you everyone who actually gives a hoot, I would love it if everyone actually cared about holding people accountable for depicting events like this accuratly, or at the very least, updating those accounts once more info is available.
Its a big deal to you. I can understand that. Its not a big deal to others.
Again, what would you do about it? Obama's not going anywhere.
For Obama? Nothing can be done. It ain't like it's an impeachable event.
He's just protecting his legacy.
*shrug*
Now what I am interested on what Hillary was doing, or at least her subordinates.
Numerous compelling new questions emerged in recent days about the crumbling White House version of the Benghazi tragedy.
They include the faux meme about a "hateful video," who concocted it, why did Obama stick to that fiction so long, why weren't rapid response troops in position on 9/11 of all days, why were U.S. diplomats even in Benghazi after other consuls abandoned the dangerous city, why was Benghazi security reduced in the days leading up to the well-planned terrorist attack and why were Amb. Chris Stevens' security pleas ignored and no rescue attempted?
The upcoming Select House Committee on Benghazi will no doubt pursue these and other lines of obvious inquiry. And the answers will certainly play a large role in 2015-16 politics if, as expected, ex-Secy. of State Hillary Clinton decides to seek her party's nomination.
But for us the most pressing, curious and disturbing question today remains: Where was the Commander-in-Chief and what was he doing during an eight-hour attack that left four government employees unprotected, abandoned and dead?
We know now, thanks to Bret Baier's recent interview with ex-Obama aide Tommy Vietor, that the president was not in the Situation Room, the secure, in-house command post where presidents usually go to oversee crises. Remember the Osama bin Laden assassination-night photo with Obama back in the corner and others riveted to a real-time video screen?
Clinton and then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta have both said they talked with Obama by phone that awful evening. And Obama's said he ordered all necessary security for American facilities and representatives abroad.
But that's it! Nothing more.
Not until the next morning when Obama emerged into the Rose Garden with a silent Clinton to denounce the attack, cite the video and vow quick justice to the perpetrators. Then, he flew off to Las Vegas campaign fundraisers before the bodies were cold. Justice remains undelivered 600 days later.
Now, recall the contemporary context: Six weeks out from his reelection. Months into his comforting meme that he had al Qaeda on the run, decimated its leadership and sent Bin Laden to sleep with the fishes.
Mitt Romney was warning that indecision and lack of preparation were great threats to national security. Obama would mock him as uninformed and outdated for his prescient warnings about Russia remaining a strategic foe of the United States.
The last thing the Chicago crowd wanted was terrorism to interrupt its campaign narrative.
Every White House seeks to appear on top of the news and in charge of everything. Especially this one. Yes, Obama was days late recognizing the seriousness of the Gulf oil spill.
But since, not a single snowstorm blusters through, not the smallest flood flows by, every landslide, school shooting, even earthquakes that do no damage during an Obama golf game prompt a briefing of this president. We even get details on briefings of Obama about things that haven't yet happened, like wildfire seasons.
When Bin Laden perished, we were treated to a detailed "tick-tock," what every White House knows it must provide Washington media after major events. A minute-by-minute recounting of what the president was doing at the time.
There's no way for even conscientious reporters to check all the hand-fed, self-serving details. So, they are passed on to the public as gospel of how our nation's leader addressed the issue, always with seriousness, deliberation and, in the end, calm decisiveness.
But, curiously, not Benghazi.
Not a word from him on his whereabouts or activities surrounding the murder of the first U.S. ambassador in three decades and three other brave Americans. Vietor can't remember if he changed certain words in Susan Rice's Benghazi talking points. "Dude, that was two years ago!"
But says he's quite sure Obama was somewhere in the residence that night. Obama has said nothing.
Obama's sensitivity to late-night national emergencies is understandable. Clinton scored huge political points in 2008 noting that John McCain had a lifetime of experience in preparation for 3 a.m. crisis calls. As did she. But Obama had only an anti-Iraq war speech from 2002.
This president does love speech-making, often on minute public issues. Why the suspicious silence on his Benghazi doings?
So, let's turn the question around:
What could President Barack Hussein Obama have possibly been doing that deadly night, what could his physical and mental condition have been that's so terrible and shocking that the know-everything chief executive would rather Americans think he was asleep at the national security switch?
That's something to awaken any American at 3 a.m. -- or earlier.
easysauce wrote: My buddy Vilerat died in benghazi... you people who claim it is something to be ignored/not a big deal are somethingawful indeed.
Its a big deal to you. I can understand that. Its not a big deal to others.
Again, what would you do about it? Obama's not going anywhere.
I dont know what I can personally do about it to be honest... I just wish that the only people who could do something about it, even somthing as minor as owning up to it, should be, but are not.
Not so much that I even think anything can be done... hell maybe I just need to vent...... too many memories of CS beta .1 crashing and lowtax going insane as usual.
sigh...Im probably just being too sensitive, lost too many buddies to political crap like this in the last decade, you would think I would be numb to it by now.
the United States' single largest intelligence failure of her 200+ year history
I don't know man. Billy Mitchells was all like "yo I think the Japanese gonna bomb pearl harbor on a sunday morning and then they're totally gonna invade the Philippines" and everyone else was like "lolwut?"
He said it in 1921.
To be fair everyone knew the Japanese had their eyes on the Philippines, its one of the better ports and island bases in the western pacific.
And Billy Mitchell wanted to prove the paint that air power could defeat fleets, so of course he would say something like "Our fleet is vulnerable to bombing, so you should totally invest in more planes for my fledgling AAC to defend it."
The issue for Mitchells is that like certain other military men of the 20's, he was way ahead of his time. He knew how powerful air power was going to be in the next war, but even when he successfully demonstrated air superiority over conventional warships, everyone wrote him off as a crazy who overestimated air power (then they drummed him our of the military in a drum trial). Everyone knew Japan wanted the Phillipines, but no one thought they could actually pull it off without disabling Pearl which was deemed not possible.
The White House asked for this investigation by not telling the truth in the first place.
"Diversion, subterfuge, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. ...Why aren't we talking about something else?" House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi complained last week.
Here's why: An e-mail has surfaced from a deputy national security adviser to Susan Rice on how to characterize the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on Sunday news programs. He advised Rice, then ambassador to the U.N., that her primary goal was to "underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy." The e-mail was redacted when the most-transparent-administration-in-history provided Benghazi documents to Congress earlier, but was found through a Freedom of Information Act request.
Democrats are furious that the House will hold a vote to create a select committee to investigate the administration's response to the attack in Libya that left four Americans dead. They know this won't end well.
Though White House officials say they were operating on the best intelligence available, they were willfully ignoring information that the attack was preplanned by groups with terrorist links, a fact that undermined President Obama's re-election claim that "al-Qaeda is on the run." Cherry-picking intelligence is a big no-no.
It took real effort for the White House to overlook the tsunami of evidence that contradicted its campaign talking points. Before Rice's appearances on Sept. 16, 2012, National Public Radio reported that Libya's president had told NPR that al-Qaeda was responsible for the "precalculated, preplanned attack." Former deputy CIA director Mike Morell testified last month, "Analysts said from the get-go that al-Qaeda was involved."
A former deputy chief of mission in Libya, Gregory Hicks, testified last year his "jaw dropped" when he watched Rice blame the video. Retired general Robert Lovell, on duty at U.S. Africa Command at the time, testified last week, "What we did know ... was that this was a hostile action … a terrorist attack." Last week, Fox News' Bret Baier asked former national security spokesman Tommy Vietor how the administration came up with its video tale. Vietor replied that there were "guys quoted in newspapers saying (the video is why) they were there." So much for operating on the best intelligence. [whembly: !!!]
White House spokesman Jay Carneyimprobably claimed that the Rhodes advice was not "explicitly" about Benghazi but about protests throughout the Middle East. CNN's Jake Tapper called Carney's comments "dissembling, obfuscating and … insulting." He was being generous. Rice was dispatched to discuss Benghazi, which is why she was grilled about it on every show.
White House officials brought this House investigation on themselves. They could have avoided it by simply telling the truth. Unfortunately, that was too much to ask.
What? Doesn't Chicago has it's own distinctive brand of politics?
Every city has its own distinctive brand of politics but the phrase "Chicago crowd" is one which has repeatedly been trotted out against Obama, and anyone who doesn't actively oppose his actions, when the speaker had no argument except "Lol, Obama!"
What? Doesn't Chicago has it's own distinctive brand of politics?
Every city has its own distinctive brand of politics but the phrase "Chicago crowd" is one which has repeatedly been trotted out against Obama, and anyone who doesn't actively oppose his actions, when the speaker had no argument except "Lol, Obama!"
Eh... I'll buy that. Conversely there is some truth in that... that, it's being used all to often as a lazy shorthand to discredit "x" Chicagoan Politician.
easysauce wrote: So what is the legal reason why kerry can just ignore a subpoena?
I was under the impression it was illegal to just ignore those...
I think its under the case of "catch me if you can." It would be cool to see the congressional sergeant of arms et al tangle with the Secret Service when they come to physically remand him.
You do not see Marxists or anarchists saying Benghazi was Obama's fault.
To be fair, I usually get immediately bored whenever an anarchist is saying anything to me other than "would you like to make that a large for another 39 cents?"
Automatically Appended Next Post: And really, that's boring too. If I WANTED a large, I would have ordered it that way.
The fact that it's not some trumped up evil Republican scheme to falsely discredit this administration. That this is a genuine issue.
What is the genuine issue?
That it is important to use dead Americans in a political puppet show while pretending that you are angry about people using dead Americans in a political puppet show?
The fact that it's not some trumped up evil Republican scheme to falsely discredit this administration. That this is a genuine issue.
What is the genuine issue?
That it is important to use dead Americans in a political puppet show while pretending that you are angry about people using dead Americans in a political puppet show?
Also, accusing others of "putting politics first," which is always in itself a poltical tactic.
easysauce wrote: So what is the legal reason why kerry can just ignore a subpoena?
I was under the impression it was illegal to just ignore those...
Eh... remember, Congress, The Executives and Judiciary are co-equal branch.
Kerry could claim executive privilege
In which case, Congress can then go to a Federal Judge to get a ruling.
Judge could even ask to review the document in question, and release it to Congress as appropriate.
and traditionally, the courts are extremely loath to get into what they call "politcal questions," which an internal message about how to craft policy is. It's also exactly the sort of thing executive privilege is meant to protect.
But, the good congressmen know that. They also know that telling their base "the White House wont' release the documents!" will make them happy.
So Obama face with an option on giving up the individual who changed the talking points. That individual who changed the intel being fed to the WH is being protected by the WH. That individual cost four American lives.
easysauce wrote: So what is the legal reason why kerry can just ignore a subpoena?
I was under the impression it was illegal to just ignore those...
Eh... remember, Congress, The Executives and Judiciary are co-equal branch.
Kerry could claim executive privilege
In which case, Congress can then go to a Federal Judge to get a ruling.
Judge could even ask to review the document in question, and release it to Congress as appropriate.
and traditionally, the courts are extremely loath to get into what they call "politcal questions," which an internal message about how to craft policy is. It's also exactly the sort of thing executive privilege is meant to protect.
But, the good congressmen know that. They also know that telling their base "the White House wont' release the documents!" will make them happy.
Yes. This has been prudent in the past and a policy they should keep doing.
The fact that it's not some trumped up evil Republican scheme to falsely discredit this administration. That this is a genuine issue.
What is the genuine issue?
That it is important to use dead Americans in a political puppet show while pretending that you are angry about people using dead Americans in a political puppet show?
Ironically, that could apply to both sides in the case of Benghazi.
The fact that it's not some trumped up evil Republican scheme to falsely discredit this administration. That this is a genuine issue.
What is the genuine issue?
That it is important to use dead Americans in a political puppet show while pretending that you are angry about people using dead Americans in a political puppet show?
The fact that it's not some trumped up evil Republican scheme to falsely discredit this administration. That this is a genuine issue.
What is the genuine issue?
That it is important to use dead Americans in a political puppet show while pretending that you are angry about people using dead Americans in a political puppet show?
Ironically, that could apply to both sides in the case of Benghazi.
I doubt you meant it that way, though.
Superficially at best. I'm not sure how Democrats are engaging in the issue in any manner other than damage control.
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said the special committee he'll lead on Benghazi could continue into the 2016 campaign, when Hillary Clinton might be running for the White House.
Asked about that possibility Wednesday on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," Gowdy said the length of his work would depend on the administration’s level of cooperation.
“It would be shame on us if we intentionally dragged this out for political expediency,” said Gowdy, the special committee's chairman. “On the other hand, if an administration is slow-walking document production, I can’t end a trial simply because the defense won’t cooperate.”
Clinton is a core figure in the Benghazi story, since she was the secretary of State when terrorists attacked the U.S. diplomatic annex in Benghazi, Libya. The attack left four Americans dead, including Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens.
Some Democrats suspect Republicans want to keep Benghazi in the news to try to hurt Clinton if she runs for the White House in 2016, as expected.
Gowdy said a memo that came to light last week, in which deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes set out “goals” for the administration’s response, but which was not turned over by the administration earlier, was evidence of a cover-up.
He also told host Joe Scarborough that Deputy CIA Director Michael Morell changed the talking points about the attack to shield the administration.
“The memo, I think, is evidence of a cover-up,” Gowdy said. “Joe, you also have to keep in mind every change that Mike Morell made to the talking points sanitized or immunized the administration from criticism.”
Morell has explained the removal of references to al Qaeda from the talking points by testifying that the sources used to connect the attack to al Qaeda-linked groups were classified.
He said his number one question, though, is why warnings before the attack were not heeded: “We were placed on actual notice that Benghazi is a dangerous place, why were we still there?”
Gowdy, for a second day in a row, rejected a Democratic proposal for the new select committee investigating the Benghazi attack to be evenly split between the parties.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has called for the panel to be evenly split, but Republicans have set it at seven GOP members to five Democrats.
“As the president loves to say, ‘Elections have consequences,’ and one of the consequences would be that there are more Republicans in the House than Democrats,” Gowdy said.
Gowdy made it clear during that interview that the scope of this committee won’t be limited to just the post-attack politicization of the event... which is what some folks are complaining about...
Hopefully...we'll get a firmer picture on what the feth was going on in Libya when Gadhafi was overthrown, what Amb. Stevens was doing in Benghazi and probe why the administration allowed a country in which it initiated military operations to slide into chaos?
Polonius wrote: Superficially at best. I'm not sure how Democrats are engaging in the issue in any manner other than damage control.
I think knowingly putting out a false narrative in the hopes of keeping it from becoming an election issue would qualify as engaging.
Well, I suppose that is the issue, though, right?
I hear words like "political puppet show" and I don't think of the actual problem, I think of the grandstanding surrounding the problem. Of which there is plenty, but pretty limited to one side of the aisle.
And look man, I get how angry you are. How you feel about Benghazi is pretty much how 40% of the country felt for the entire Iraq war.
Polonius wrote: I think knowingly putting out a false narrative in the hopes of keeping it from becoming an election issue would qualify as engaging.
Well, I suppose that is the issue, though, right?
I hear words like "political puppet show" and I don't think of the actual problem, I think of the grandstanding surrounding the problem. Of which there is plenty, but pretty limited to one side of the aisle.
And look man, I get how angry you are. How you feel about Benghazi is pretty much how 40% of the country felt for the entire Iraq war.
I'm not at all angry. I fully expect politicians to pull bs like Benghazi. I don't think we could have done anything differently in terms of the actual meaningful (read: military) reaction, though I certainly would have scrambled something out of Aviano just to fly over with wet cans and scare the gak out of people, and who knows, maybe that would've made a difference.
Yes, I expect politicians to try and manage the aftermath. Even lie about it outright, as in this case. But when they happen to hold political views I find abhorrent, I'm all about hoping they get nailed for it each and every time.
“Seventy-two percent continue to believe that it is important to find out exactly what happened in the Benghazi matter, with 46 percent who say it is Very Important.' Twenty-five percent consider more information about the Benghazi case unimportant, up from 19 percent in January, but that includes just 7 percent who say it is Not At All Important ”
So, it isn't like some vocal minority pushing for this ya know...
Seaward wrote: But when they happen to hold political views I find abhorrent, I'm all about hoping they get nailed for it each and every time.
Fair enough. But it really doesn't look like its gonna happen here.
Dunno about that... depends on how Gowdy handles the investigation.
If he goes apegak crazy, then it'll be easy for the Democrats to discredit this.
I guess I mean... what will happen? Does Obama have to put his head on his desk for all of the fourth period or something?
What is the goal for the Republicans here, other than try to damage Hilary's chances in 2016?
How about some fething mea culpa?
Benghazi is not an ordinary scandal... I'm mean, let's face it... it's nothing like a President getting a BJ in the Oval Office, or even some political aides breaking into the opposition's office.
Let's keep some perspective here:
It involves, by definition, an act of war in which our ambassador, was murdered along with three other Americans under circumstances where security was appallingly inadequate for unknown reasons...
It also involves the administration did not just lie about what happened to the american public for two weeks... oh no, but actually trumped up a prosecution that violated the First Amendment in order to bolster this lie.
ALL. IN. THE. NAME. to protect this administration's fragile Foreign Policy perception of strength (ie, We got OBL!, Al Queda is on the run!, deposed Libyan dictator) in a hotly contested election season.
You can argue some sort of understanding that this is what we expect our politician would do... but, I hope that the public (voters, journalists, you & me) would not let our politicians do this unscathed.
I've stated before... this isn't an impeachable offence. I've stated that I believed that some campaign official panicked... and pushed for this type of response.
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't stop our endeavor to find out the truths.
Because once the truth is out, we'll see how history will treat this administration in that respect.
So, to answer you question... here's what I want:
a) a thorough investigation that lead up to the attack. Why was the consulate so vulnerable, after repeated requests to increase security. Found the breakdown of that chain of command, reprimand accordingly and ensure that the SOP is updated, if necessary.
b) investigate the night of the attack and bring the perp to justice. This just boggles my mind... why hasn't there been an arrest yet? Or even a fething Obama Drone™.
c) who suggested to blame the attack on the anti-muslim video and perpetuated this lie? This is why I don't think the administration will release the Daily Presidential security briefings during this time... if the administration state that the protest information came from intelligence agencies, it'd be in those hand written security briefings.
In the case of HRC's potential Presidency (which I think will happen... the Clintons are too teflon )... I do NOT want my President who would callously disrespect those men by participating in all of these deceptions. As Pat Smith stated at one of the congressional hearings:
“I was told a few things and they were all lies,” Smith said. “Obama, and Hillary, and Panetta, and Susan [Rice] all came up to me at the casket ceremony – every one of them came up to me, gave me a big hug – and I asked them what happened.”
“And every one of them says, ‘it was the video,’ and we all know that it wasn’t the video,” she continued. “Even at that time, they knew it wasn’t the video.”
“So, they all lied to me,” Smith continued.
So now you know gist of why I'm such a honey badger on this topic... such that, I have a dakka meme on this.
Benghazi is not an ordinary scandal... I'm mean, let's face it... it's nothing like a President getting a BJ in the Oval Office, or even some political aides breaking into the opposition's office.
Watergate is much worse than Benghazi as far as democracy goes*. In the Benghazi case, no one is trying to systematically undermine the ability of political adversaries to conduct politics and ultimately subvert democracy itself. You're using Watergate as a bat to give weight that doesn't exist to a scandal that isn't anywhere near as serious.
*Just to be explicit, that doesn't mean I think that the people killed doesn't matter or anything similar, only that overall Watergate was a much bigger threat to the US than Benghazi.
I think the Admin of Obama need to "Pony the Hell up" and found out who changed the talking point, who influence the data coming into the WH, and who was it the gave the final approve version of the situation report to Obama
Right now that/those individuals are still in position of authority. Why is the Admin protecting them. Just saying that's the perception their vibing out
Benghazi is not an ordinary scandal... I'm mean, let's face it... it's nothing like a President getting a BJ in the Oval Office, or even some political aides breaking into the opposition's office.
Watergate is much worse than Benghazi as far as democracy goes*. In the Benghazi case, no one is trying to systematically undermine the ability of political adversaries to conduct politics and ultimately subvert democracy itself. You're using Watergate as a bat to give weight that doesn't exist to a scandal that isn't anywhere near as serious.
*Just to be explicit, that doesn't mean I think that the people killed doesn't matter or anything similar, only that overall Watergate was a much bigger threat to the US than Benghazi.
Nixon also resigned over Watergate. Nothing here...
It involves, by definition, an act of war in which our ambassador, was murdered along with three other Americans under circumstances where security was appallingly inadequate for unknown reasons...
It also involves the administration did not just lie about what happened to the american public for two weeks... oh no, but actually trumped up a prosecution that violated the First Amendment in order to bolster this lie.
Benghazi is not an ordinary scandal... I'm mean, let's face it... it's nothing like a President getting a BJ in the Oval Office, or even some political aides breaking into the opposition's office.
Watergate is much worse than Benghazi as far as democracy goes*. In the Benghazi case, no one is trying to systematically undermine the ability of political adversaries to conduct politics and ultimately subvert democracy itself. You're using Watergate as a bat to give weight that doesn't exist to a scandal that isn't anywhere near as serious.
*Just to be explicit, that doesn't mean I think that the people killed doesn't matter or anything similar, only that overall Watergate was a much bigger threat to the US than Benghazi.
True... Not all scandles are equal.
And yes I'm using watergate as a bat because I can. Something to think about though... I bet you a million space bucks that the Nixon aides are looking at how the media generally treats the Obama Administration with such envy.
And yes I'm using watergate as a bat because I can. Something to think about though... I bet you a million space bucks that the Nixon aides are looking at how the media generally treats the Obama Administration with such envy.
EDIT: dammit iPad autocorrect messing me up
Probably not, actually. They're probably thanking their lucky stars that blogging wasn't a thing back then, or the story would have broken far, far sooner.
And yes I'm using watergate as a bat because I can. Something to think about though... I bet you a million space bucks that the Nixon aides are looking at how the media generally treats the Obama Administration with such envy.
EDIT: dammit iPad autocorrect messing me up
Probably not, actually. They're probably thanking their lucky stars that blogging wasn't a thing back then, or the story would have broken far, far sooner.
That's true... It would broke regardless.
So where's the Walter Cronkite now? Sheryl Akitssin????
And yes I'm using watergate as a bat because I can. Something to think about though... I bet you a million space bucks that the Nixon aides are looking at how the media generally treats the Obama Administration with such envy.
EDIT: dammit iPad autocorrect messing me up
Probably not, actually. They're probably thanking their lucky stars that blogging wasn't a thing back then, or the story would have broken far, far sooner.
That's true... It would broke regardless.
So where's the Walter Cronkite now? Sheryl Akitssin????
Have you ever considered that there might not be anything to break?
And yes I'm using watergate as a bat because I can. Something to think about though... I bet you a million space bucks that the Nixon aides are looking at how the media generally treats the Obama Administration with such envy.
EDIT: dammit iPad autocorrect messing me up
Probably not, actually. They're probably thanking their lucky stars that blogging wasn't a thing back then, or the story would have broken far, far sooner.
That's true... It would broke regardless.
So where's the Walter Cronkite now? Sheryl Akitssin????
Have you ever considered that there might not be anything to break?
And yes I'm using watergate as a bat because I can. Something to think about though... I bet you a million space bucks that the Nixon aides are looking at how the media generally treats the Obama Administration with such envy.
EDIT: dammit iPad autocorrect messing me up
Probably not, actually. They're probably thanking their lucky stars that blogging wasn't a thing back then, or the story would have broken far, far sooner.
That's true... It would broke regardless.
So where's the Walter Cronkite now? Sheryl Akitssin????
Have you ever considered that there might not be anything to break?
Sure...
Have you considered that something will break??
Sure, which is why I haven't really formed an opinion on the issue yet.
And yes I'm using watergate as a bat because I can. Something to think about though... I bet you a million space bucks that the Nixon aides are looking at how the media generally treats the Obama Administration with such envy.
EDIT: dammit iPad autocorrect messing me up
Probably not, actually. They're probably thanking their lucky stars that blogging wasn't a thing back then, or the story would have broken far, far sooner.
That's true... It would broke regardless.
So where's the Walter Cronkite now? Sheryl Akitssin????
Have you ever considered that there might not be anything to break?
Sure...
Have you considered that something will break??
Sure, which is why I haven't really formed an opinion on the issue yet.
That's a fair stance... I think many of us need to step back (including me) and see what this gowdy committee finds...
Jihadin wrote: We've been at war with them for like over ten years. Al Qaeda
Whether or not a state can engage a non-state actor in war is a matter of debate, but even if is possible the US was not at war with the militant group in Libya.
Like it or not, all groups claiming to be associated with Al Qaeda are not created equal.
Here comes Watergate, 21st-century style—except this time around, innocent people died.
When the White House, in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by the fearless private watchdog group Judicial Watch, turned over an email about constructing the appropriate narrative response to the tragedy at Benghazi written by Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser to President Obama, and investigators from the House of Representatives realized that they had subpoenaed that email and not received it, they knew that there was far more to learn about the affair than met the eye.
The affair consisted of an organized, fatal assault on the American consulate in that Libyan city that resulted in the deaths of the American ambassador and three State Department contractors assigned to protect him. It also includes a White House-orchestrated cover-up involving profoundly misleading statements after the attack, followed by an only-in-Washington cover-up of the cover-up.
The attack on the consulate occurred on Sept. 11, 2012, the 11th anniversary of 9/11, just as the American presidential election campaign between Barack Obama and Gov. Mitt Romney was getting under way. Two weeks prior to the attack, Obama had assured his political supporters for the hundredth time that al-Qaida was on the run, its leadership had been subdued, and that he was the cause of that. The last thing his campaign managers wanted to confront in the middle of September was an al-Qaida-orchestrated attack on American property in the Middle East in which our ambassador was murdered.
Yet, that's what confronted the Obama campaign managers. So, they concocted a narrative that they could comfortably live with and that they believed the American public would accept. Susan Rice, then the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, relayed the narrative. Rice either permitted herself to become a political tool or materially lied to the American public when she told five Sunday morning talk shows on Sept. 16, 2012, that the attacks in Benghazi were not acts of terror and were not aimed at the ambassador, but rather were the spontaneous and unplanned reaction of a street crowd to a cheap, anti-Muslim Internet clip that some jerk in California had made earlier that summer.
For a while, this seemed successful. The president was able to continue misleading the electorate with his claim that al-Qaida was on the run, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was able to distance herself from the failure of her State Department to protect its own employees, and Romney and the Republicans would not discover the truth, or at least would not develop a narrative sufficient to contradict the White House narrative, until after the election.
It worked.
Now, with the discovery of the Rhodes email, it appears that the White House did use the instruments of government to aid the president's re-election campaign by deceiving the American people and telegraphing that proposed deception to the president's campaign officials. Using government personnel and assets to coordinate a political campaign, even if done truthfully and above board, violates federal criminal statutes.
Huh? Not sure agree with that last paragraph.
As if that were not bad enough, it now appears that the State Department had special operations forces in close proximity to Benghazi, and the White House ordered them to stand down rather than confront the attackers, meet force with force, and endeavor to save the lives of the ambassador and others, though at the risk of contradicting the president's political boast.
When the truth—that the Benghazi attack was an al-Qaida-organized assault complete with military hardware and sophisticated planning—became known, and when the apparent deception by the president, the White House, and the State Department was discovered, Republicans were furious.
Then the cover-up of the cover-up began, as the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform learned when it tried to determine who told the U.S. forces to stand down, who dispatched Rice to tell lies, who certified that the Rhodes email did not exist, and who then eventually released it. The committee wanted to know whether Rice was duped or was part of a plot to use the instruments of government to lie and deceive and enhance Obama's chances of defeating Romney.
So, the Oversight Committee issued subpoenas and held hearings and concluded—a conclusion with which even the Democrats now agree—that the Benghazi attack was part of an organized terrorist assault, and the consulate was undefended.
Then Judicial Watch revealed the reply to its FOIA request of the White House, which included the Rhodes email, and a political firestorm broke loose. Speaker John Boehner addressed that firestorm by asking the House to form a Select Committee—one whose sole goal is to get to the bottom of this—and to grant it a serious budget and a full legal and investigative staff, and to set it loose upon the administration's deceivers.
Already, the administration has declared that many of the documents the Select Committee will seek have been classified as top secret, and the president is free to classify any document he wants for any reason he chooses. Legally, that argument is correct. Frustrated congressional Republicans have no one to blame but themselves here, as they gave that legal power to President George W. Bush.
Okay... so what goes around, comes around...eh?
Nevertheless, can the Select Committee subpoena the president and his records to find out where he was during the eight-hour attack, who gave the order to stand down and permit murder rather than suffer political embarrassment, and who concocted the Rice deceptions? Yes. And he will claim executive privilege, and a federal judge will make the call.
Yep... that's where it's going to land.
And so, here comes Watergate, 21st-century style—except this time around, innocent people died. This time around, will it have the same outcome?
Where Bengazhi and Watergate are the same (and really, most scandals follow this mold) is that there was some act, followed by a presidential coverup. Come to think of it, that's how nearly all problems happen, but I digress.
The difference is that Watergate wasn't shocking because Nixon tried to cover it up, but because he personally ordered a criminal act to help his own campaign. And not just an abuse of power criminal act, but literal burglary! In Benghazi, there was a failure. (I get that some see the potential for not engaging in hopes of furthering the message that Al-Qaeda is on the run, but that seems specious. Wouldn't a successful interception of a street gang show how weak Al-Qaeda had become?)
Still, the cover up is, in many ways, the worse part. And that's where the whole "its like watergate, except people died!" narrative flames out. It's like watergate, in that the White House tried to cover up a scandal, but nobody died because of the scandal. They died because of attack, which the State deparment and/or white house may have had some intel on. And making an executive call, even a bad one, is not a crime. It's so painfully difficult to seperate out legitimate discretion from abuse of power in a situation like that, and the courts have always deferrerd to the exectutive.
So, the question becomes (pre-attack): what did we know? Who knew it? When did they know it? The answer, as it always is, will be "that's classified, to protect sources and assets in the field." Which is a good rule for anybody that doesn't want to see George Bush tried at the Hague. There's seperation of powers, but we have no choice but to trust the executive to make decisions.
Polonius wrote: Where Bengazhi and Watergate are the same (and really, most scandals follow this mold) is that there was some act, followed by a presidential coverup. Come to think of it, that's how nearly all problems happen, but I digress.
True... it's generally the cover-up activities is what get's ya..
The difference is that Watergate wasn't shocking because Nixon tried to cover it up, but because he personally ordered a criminal act to help his own campaign. And not just an abuse of power criminal act, but literal burglary!
I do get that... that's why I've always said this isn't impeachable. Even if it was gross incompetent by all parties... still wouldn't justify impeachment or the President's resignation. The absolute highest should be at Clinton's feet, as it's her responsibility as Secretary of State.
In Benghazi, there was a failure. (I get that some see the potential for not engaging in hopes of furthering the message that Al-Qaeda is on the run, but that seems specious. Wouldn't a successful interception of a street gang show how weak Al-Qaeda had become?)
The political campaign operatives panicked. It seemed that they believed that this would shatter, or at least maligned Obama's Foreign Policy credentials during the election (which I highly doubt that it would've). Remember, the first debate hasn't happened yet. Thus, it was viewed and acted on as a political problem.
Still, the cover up is, in many ways, the worse part.
Yes and no. It's a "yes" because it certainly damaged the trust between this administration and the people. That's really the "cost" of spinning this lie to the American People. (I still think Obama would've still won over Romney fwiw).
It's a "no" because the worst part is that 4 Americans died because of what appears to be incompetence on so many levels. I'd want a thorough examination of what happened, policies revised so that it doesn't happen again and the perp brought to justice.
And that's where the whole "its like watergate, except people died!" narrative flames out. It's like watergate, in that the White House tried to cover up a scandal, but nobody died because of the scandal. They died because of attack, which the State deparment and/or white house may have had some intel on. And making an executive call, even a bad one, is not a crime. It's so painfully difficult to seperate out legitimate discretion from abuse of power in a situation like that, and the courts have always deferrerd to the exectutive.
You do have a point... don't get me wrong. But, I think many of us is using the Watergate comparison to convey how serious this is... rather than trying to compare the minute details between the two scandals. Know what I mean?
So, the question becomes (pre-attack): what did we know? Who knew it? When did they know it?
Sure, that's some of the questions.
The answer, as it always is, will be "that's classified, to protect sources and assets in the field."
You see... I disagree with that premise, just as I disagree with how the Bush Administration vigorously pursued this Executive Privilege as well.
Which is a good rule for anybody that doesn't want to see George Bush tried at the Hague.
Now why would Bush be sent to the Hague in the first place? If you believe Bush should be tried... then the Hague would have an easier time convicting Obama with his Droning Policies.
There's seperation of powers, but we have no choice but to trust the executive to make decisions.
Up to a point... yes.
But, given enough will, Congress should ALWAYS have the power to conduct oversight over the Executive Branch. It is one of it's Congressional role afterall. Which generates a "Constitutional Crisis" where the Judiciary would have to wade through (and yes, they really loath to get involved... which isn't necessarily bad stance to take).
And that's where the whole "its like watergate, except people died!" narrative flames out. It's like watergate, in that the White House tried to cover up a scandal, but nobody died because of the scandal. They died because of attack, which the State deparment and/or white house may have had some intel on. And making an executive call, even a bad one, is not a crime. It's so painfully difficult to seperate out legitimate discretion from abuse of power in a situation like that, and the courts have always deferrerd to the exectutive.
You do have a point... don't get me wrong. But, I think many of us is using the Watergate comparison to convey how serious this is... rather than trying to compare the minute details between the two scandals. Know what I mean?
Except, by your own admission, they aren't the same level of seriousness. Watergate fundamentally changed the way the US viewed it's leaders, it lead to a resignation, and had a trick down effect of increased professional responsibilty (or ethics) training for attornies. these aren't minute details. By your line of thinking, the difference between ebola and a cold are minute details. Except one will kill you, and the other won't.
What you're trying to say is that both are Big Deals, much like White Water or the Valerie Plume incidents. And that's why it's been a story. It's not a bigger story mostly because it's not a bigger story (at least not yeat).
And that's where the whole "its like watergate, except people died!" narrative flames out. It's like watergate, in that the White House tried to cover up a scandal, but nobody died because of the scandal. They died because of attack, which the State deparment and/or white house may have had some intel on. And making an executive call, even a bad one, is not a crime. It's so painfully difficult to seperate out legitimate discretion from abuse of power in a situation like that, and the courts have always deferrerd to the exectutive.
You do have a point... don't get me wrong. But, I think many of us is using the Watergate comparison to convey how serious this is... rather than trying to compare the minute details between the two scandals. Know what I mean?
Except, by your own admission, they aren't the same level of seriousness. Watergate fundamentally changed the way the US viewed it's leaders, it lead to a resignation, and had a trick down effect of increased professional responsibilty (or ethics) training for attornies. these aren't minute details. By your line of thinking, the difference between ebola and a cold are minute details. Except one will kill you, and the other won't.
Except that we definitively know now that Obama and crew lied to cover their asses... in a big way.
So, the comparison is much closer than what you're discounting.
What you're trying to say is that both are Big Deals, much like White Water or the Valerie Plume incidents. And that's why it's been a story. It's not a bigger story mostly because it's not a bigger story (at least not yet).
I'll be frank. I proffer the recent revelation that 10% of Tea Party donaters have been audited is a much bigger deal. Its using the organs of government to punish opponents which was the hallmark of the allegations against Nixon.
Benghazi is a big deal in that we need to exterminate the terrorists and their supporters in violent visual fashion as a warning to others. But we have to remember, the US didn't do it. Terrorists did that. Not Obama. Not Clinton. Terrorists.
Frazzled wrote: I'll be frank. I proffer the recent revelation that 10% of Tea Party donaters have been audited is a much bigger deal. Its using the organs of government to punish opponents which was the hallmark of the allegations against Nixon.
Benghazi is a big deal in that we need to exterminate the terrorists and their supporters in violent visual fashion as a warning to others. But we have to remember, the US didn't do it. Terrorists did that. Not Obama. Not Clinton. Terrorists.
Frazzled wrote: Benghazi is a big deal in that we need to exterminate the terrorists and their supporters in violent visual fashion as a warning to others. But we have to remember, the US didn't do it. Terrorists did that. Not Obama. Not Clinton. Terrorists.
I've been sitting back through most of this thread, because there have been to my mind, good points from both sides of this debate.
I thought this was interesting, though and thought I'd share it. Sorry if it's already been posted or mentioned, but 14 pages is a fair bit to sift:
Goliath wrote: I thought that Dakka had showed me some ridiculous conservative positions and opinions, but then I read the comments on that page.
I was wrong. So so wrong.
Never read the comments section. It's a place where the tinfoil hat crowd come to meet and breed. You have your obvious trogs, but you also have "plants" from the other side coming in just to stir things up and make everyone look bad (you'd think that wouldn't be possible or necessary, right?). Even if you have a big tub of popcorn with you, things can escalate so quickly and you may find yourself shivering under your bed, fearful of the day the weiner legion comes to take your queso.
But seriously, stay away from any political site's discussion/comments section.
Breotan wrote: But seriously, stay away from any political site's discussion/comments section.
Every time I do this, and I sometimes do, I always regret it within - tops - 5 posts. I kind of involuntarily sit back in my chair, and think, "what am I doing" before closing the tab.
I mean, we talk about how bad some of the arguments in the OT are but there is just no comparison.
Breotan wrote: But seriously, stay away from any political site's discussion/comments section.
Every time I do this, and I sometimes do, I always regret it within - tops - 5 posts. I kind of involuntarily sit back in my chair, and think, "what am I doing" before closing the tab.
I mean, we talk about how bad some of the arguments in the OT are but there is just no comparison.
Lol, so true I think YouTube comments are the worst though I've never seen so much sexism, racism, plain stupidity, etc than on a YouTube comments section.
I always think that they keep the comment section open to serve as flypaper so that people get stuck there and stay away from the rest of the internet...
Essentially... Panetta and Morell are saying, in effect... that they have nothing to hide. Panetta in terms of the lack of a military response and Morell in terms of an intelligence failure and/or an intelligence doctoring.
It's interesting that the House Democrats are balking at participating the Select Committee. Perhaps they’re more concerned that the facts will tend to exonerate Panetta and Morell... and put the blame directly on State and the White House.
I think Democrats aren't participating because the panel is unbalanced number-wise in favor of Republicans, so politically it looks better to not participate because doing so will lend an air of legitimacy to it.
Yes, I know Democrats have done the unbalanced panel thing in the past, no I'm not defending it for either side so lets not run down that tangent.
Ouze wrote: I think Democrats aren't participating because the panel is unbalanced number-wise in favor of Republicans, so politically it looks better to not participate because doing so will lend an air of legitimacy to it.
Yes, I know Democrats have done the unbalanced panel thing in the past, no I'm not defending it for either side so lets not run down that tangent.
Select committees operate on different rules than other established panels (ie, Ethic Committees are equal), and they aren’t typically made up of an equal number of members from each party. When Pelosi was speaker in 2006, the panel she convened to investigate climate change had nine Democrats and six Republicans. The 1973 committee on Watergate had four Democrats and three Republicans.
Yes, I do believe that I covered that exact example in my post
I was explaining the strategy, not endorsing it. Much like the ACA, they want to say that it was ram-rodded through without any meaningful participation while leaving out the fact that they could have, and chose not to, participate because they couldn't have won what they wanted. It's the least-bad play out of no good choices.
Ouze wrote: Yes, I do believe that I covered that exact example in my post
I was explaining the strategy, not endorsing it. Much like the ACA, they want to say that it was ram-rodded through without any meaningful participation while leaving out the fact that they could have, and chose not to, participate because they couldn't have won what they wanted. It's the least-bad play out of no good choices.
Yes... my point was that if Panetta and Morell is endorsing this new Committee, the Democrats merely sitting out won’t be enough to protect either State or the White House. They wouldn't have the forum to counter any message out of the Committee if they don't participate.
Ouze wrote: They don't want to counter any message the committee might send because doing so would allow them to beg the question, as I believe the phrase goes.
The stock answer is going to be "it's a partisan witch hunt" regardless of what they find.
Eh... we'll see.
This isn't your standard committee... it's empowered with a massive (unlimited?) budget and subpoena power where the members can even review classified documents.
I'll admit... Trey Gowdy does serve up juicy red meat.
Gowdy begins his powerful statement by immediately quoting, word-for-word, Obama’s promise to the nation following the attacks:
“We will not waiver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act in Benghazi. And make no mistake, justice will be done.” That was the President of the United States over a year ago. “We’re investigating exactly what happened, but my biggest priority now is bringing those folks to justice.” That was the President of the United States over a year ago.
Gowdy points out that that both of Obama’s promises are broken as no one has been brought to justice, explaining that the Obama administration has prohibited witnesses from testifying about Benghazi. “No one has been brought to justice. We don’t even have access to witnesses,” Gowdy said.
Gowdy then went into his classic questioning mode, telling them that while he’s not trying to tell the media how to do their job, if they don’t know the answers to these questions, in regards to Benghazi, then he would leave them to draw their own conclusions:
I’m not telling you how to do your job, but I’m going to ask you some questions, and if you can’t answer these questions, then I’ll leave you to draw whatever conclusions you want to draw about whether the media has provided sufficient oversight: --Can you tell me why [Ambassador] Chris Stevens was in Benghazi that he was killed? Do you know? Does it bother you whether or not you know why Chris Stevens was in Benghazi?
--Do you know why we were the last flag flying in Benghazi, after the British had left and the Red Cross had been bombed?
--Do you know why requests for additional security were denied? Do you know why an ambassador asking for more security, days and weeks before he was murdered and those requests went unheeded? Do you know the answer to why those requests went unheeded?
--Do you know why no assets were deployed during the siege? And I’ve heard the explanation, which defies logic, frankly, that we could not have gotten there in time. But you know they didn’t know when it was going to end, so how can you possibly cite that as an excuse?
--Do you know whether the president called any of our allies and said, can you help, we have men under attack? Can you answer that?
--Do any of you know why Susan Rice was picked [to go on five Sunday talk shows after the attacks]? The Secretary of State [Hillary Clinton] did not go. She says she doesn’t like Sunday talk shows. That’s the only media venue she does not like, if that’s true. Why was Susan Rice on the five Sunday talk shows?
--Do you know the origin of this mythology, that it was spawned as a spontaneous reaction to a video? Do you know where that started?
--Do you know where we got from no evidence on that, to that being the official position of the administration?
Gowdy then concludes his brief statement by blasting the press for not doing their job, while getting a last jab in at Obama, Hillary Clinton and Jay Carney:
In conclusion, Congress is supposed to provide oversight, the voters are supposed to provide oversight, and you were supposed to provide oversight. That’s why you have special liberties and that’s why you have special protections.
I’m not surprised that the President of the United States called this a phony scandal. I’m not surprised that Secretary Clinton would ask what difference does it make. I’m not even surprised that Jay Carney said it happened a long time ago. I’m just surprised at how many people bought it.
Bottomline...A boycott in this instance would be self-satisfying for all of one or two news cycles. If Democrats want to compete for media attention past that on this Benghazi Committee, they have to participate.
