But... what? Sure there's some similarities... but isn't this more naivety than concerted effort to mislead?
...snippet:
Watergate caught numerous public officials lying, including the president of the United States, but Benghazigate has all that and more.
It involves the terrorist murder (not an electorally irrelevant burglary) of government officials, their reckless endangerment, the undermining of the Bill of Rights and free speech by our own administration in response to Islamist threats, and, ultimately, the complicity of that same administration, consciously or unconsciously, in the downfall of Western civilization.
Meanwhile, the mainstream media function as their more-than-willing accomplices in this downfall, in essence as Obama’s court eunuchs.
For over forty years now, the Watergate scandal — the June 1972 break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters and the subsequent cover-up by the Nixon administration — has been the sine qua non of American political malfeasance. It has been followed by myriad other “gates” affecting both parties but has never been superseded.
Until now.
Benghazi or Benghazigate, as some call it, is worse. Far worse. Incomparably worse.
Watergate caught numerous public officials lying, including the president of the United States, but Benghazigate has all that and more.
It involves the terrorist murder (not an electorally irrelevant burglary) of government officials, their reckless endangerment, the undermining of the Bill of Rights and free speech by our own administration in response to Islamist threats, and, ultimately, the complicity of that same administration, consciously or unconsciously, in the downfall of Western civilization.
Meanwhile, the mainstream media function as their more-than-willing accomplices in this downfall, in essence as Obama’s court eunuchs.
Sound excessive?
Hear me out.
But first a word from Democratic pollster Pat Caddell, who evidently feels the same way:
First of all, we’ve had 9 days of lies.…If a president of either party…had had a terrorist incident and gotten on an airplane [after remarks] and flown off to a fundraiser in Las Vegas, they would have been crucified…it should have been, should have been, the equivalent, for Barack Obama, of George Bush’s “flying over Katrina” moment. But nothing was said at all. Nothing will be said. [...] It is [unacceptable] to specifically decide that you will not tell the American people information they have a right to know. [The MSM] has made themselves the enemy of the American people. It is a threat to the very future of the country; we’ve crossed a new and frightening line on the slippery slope, and it needs to be talked about. (h/t: The Anchoress)
Not to mention Democratic pundit Kirsten Powers:
There are so many unanswered questions, not just about Libya, but also about Cairo. Who is it that Rice thinks “widely disseminated” this “movie?” Surely she can’t believe that the Egyptian Coptic Christian who made the video had the capacity or even desire to put it in the hands of the people who did the inciting. Also, has the administration noticed that the mob in Cairo, so spontaneously upset about the video, just happened to be carrying an Islamist flag to hoist over our embassy? On 9/11. What a massive coincidence…. They say curiosity killed the cat. In this case, lack of curiosity on the part of the American media very well may kill more Americans. (h/t: Hot Air)
And so on. There’s more at both of these links. Watergate is child’s play by comparison.
What really is going on here? Terrorism and rioting broke out all over the Muslim world on 9/11. What caused it? We thought Osama bin Laden was supposed to be dead. But apparently the assassination of bin Laden meant little. Actually, only an idiot would think otherwise.
(“Obama, Obama, we are all Osama!” Evidently.)
Obviously, an ideology is at play — a gigantic, uncompromising ideology — that our government refuses to confront or even recognize. And our media, with a few exceptions, barely looks at it either. Nevertheless, a direct line exists from the denial of Islamic influence in the Ft. Hood massacre (even though Major Hasan yelled “Allahu Akbar” in the process of killing or maiming forty-two of his fellow soldiers) and what occurred in Benghazi, Cairo, and elsewhere.
Our government, more than ever under Obama, has never named our enemy, making it all the more likely that enemy will engulf us. Indeed, as has been described here at PJ Media, government directives exist to avoid imputation of Islamic or even Islamist terror motivation by the State Department, Defense Department, or the FBI.
You could say that is appeasement. Unfortunately, I am beginning to think it is more than that. It is, on the part of some, intentional.
We can trace that back, among other places, to Obama’s famous Cairo speech. That speech was naïve, yes, but even more it was subversive in its intentions. Obama wanted to make outreach to and common cause with an Islamic culture that is misogynistic, homophobic, and in favor of the ascendancy of religious Sharia law over state law across a globe ruled by an Islamic caliphate — in other words, against the very fabric of everything on which this country was founded, not to mention Western civilization, the Enlightenment, etc.
Think of that, my fellow Americans. That is what Barack Obama did on our behalf — and the media lapped up unquestioningly.
Liberals, most of all, you would think would abhor this. But they don’t. They have been brainwashed out of their ideology — that is, assuming they ever had one.
And that, of course, is the work our media. They say Islam is a “shame culture,” but we have become one too. Our media is too ashamed to admit they made a mistake about Barack Obama, so ashamed they are willing to look the other way at every occasion.
So what do we do if, as Pat Caddell says, channeling Ibsen, the MSM is the new “enemy of the people”? How do we respond? Well, we yell and scream as loud as we can, for one thing. That’s what I’m attempting to do now.
In his 1978 book The Fate of Empires and the Search for Survival, Sir John Glubb describes the life cycle of empires in seven stages. Part 7 is “The age of decline and collapse.” I don’t want to think we’ve reached that point. I’m going all in — at least for a few more weeks — to try and disrupt the message.
So say it loud and say it proud: Benghazi worse than Watergate! (Maybe our countrymen will hear us.)
Facts are still coming out and the sequence of events is still being analyzed. One thing is for sure: comparing Benghazi to Watergate is a stupid, stupid thing to do.
Facts are still coming out and the sequence of events is still being analyzed. One thing is for sure: comparing Benghazi to Watergate is a stupid, stupid thing to do.
.
True... the Watergate comparison is a head scratcher...
I think at worst, it's incompentence and naivety than anything.
Facts are still coming out and the sequence of events is still being analyzed. One thing is for sure: comparing Benghazi to Watergate is a stupid, stupid thing to do.
.
True... the Watergate comparison is a head scratcher...
I think at worst, it's incompentence and naivety than anything.
Shouldnt need to scratch heads too long over this one. If Obama can be made to look really bad over Benghazi then he may look worse than Romney in November.
The killing of the US ambassador to Libya is rapidly becoming election fodder, as Republicans seize on confusion over the circumstances of Chris Stevens' death in Benghazi three weeks ago and accuse the Obama administration of covering up an al-Qaeda connection.
US officials reiterated on on Friday that they regard the killing of Stevens and three other Americans working for the state department at the US consulate in Benghazi as an assault by terrorists who planned the attack. But a dearth of real information about the exact circumstances of the assault has left open the question of whether such planning was merely the work of a few hours, to take advantage of a spontaneous anti-US protest over a short internet video that prompted demonstrations across the Middle East by offended Muslims, or weeks and months, to mark the 11th anniversary of al-Qaeda's 9/11 attacks on the US.
Disagreement over that question is dividing along political lines.
Earlier this week, Republican senators wrote to the US ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, demanding that she explain her statement, five days after the killings, that they were part of a spontaneous anti-US protest. Four senators signed the letter, including John McCain, which said Rice made "several troubling statements that are inconsistent with the facts and require explanation".
The former New York mayor Rudolf Giuliani, who sought the Republican nomination for the presidency in 2008, went further, accusing the White House of a cover-up.
Speaking to Fox News, Giuliani said: "This is a deliberate attempt to cover up the truth, from an administration that claimed it wanted to be the most transparent in history. And it's the worst kind of cover-up: the kind of cover-up that involves our national security. This is a cover-up that involves the slaughter of four Americans."
Rice's explanation of a spontaneous assault by a well-armed Libyan militia was maintained by the administration until 10 days ago when Matthew Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Centre, called the killings a terrorist attack.
Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, and the defence secretary, Leon Panetta, this week shifted away from the initial line. Clinton on Wednesday hinted that the al-Qaeda offshoot in North Africa may be tied up with the Benghazi assault.
"Now with a larger safe haven and increased freedom to manoeuvre, terrorists are seeking to extend their reach and their networks in multiple directions," Clinton told a meeting of international leaders at the UN which discussed the crisis in North Africa, including the seizure of northern Mali by armed Islamist forces. "And they are working with other violent extremists to undermine the democratic transitions under way in North Africa, as we tragically saw in Benghazi."
Administration officials were careful to say afterwards that Clinton was not claiming firm evidence of a link. Olsen was similarly cautious in speaking to senators this week.
"The picture that is emerging is one where a number of different individuals were involved, so it's not necessarily an either/or proposition," he said.
Officials say that while there is some evidence that individual members of the local militia responsible for the attack, Ansar al-Shariah, may have been in touch with extremist elements in other countries, no hard information has so far emerged of a direct foreign or al-Qaeda link to the attack in Benghazi.
The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Martin Dempsey, on Thursday said there "was a thread of intelligence reporting that groups in the environment in eastern Libya were seeking to coalesce but there wasn't anything specific". He added that there was no intelligence indicating a looming attack.
Officials say US intelligence picked up a call by a member of al-Qaeda in North Africa celebrating the attack, but that is not hard evidence of a link.
Panetta said on Thursday that there was some preplanning involved in the assault.
"As we determined the details of what took place [in Benghazi], and how that attack took place it became clear that there were terrorists who had planned that attack," he said.
But whether that was over the proceeding hours, when the militia realised it could take advantage of the existing protest outside the consulate, or over the previous days and weeks remains a question investigators are struggling to answer. At present, the Americans are unable even to establish how large the protest was and how long it went on.
Administration officials continue to maintain that if there was preplanning, it was not long term. But some Republicans argue that there is already evidence, circumstantial and otherwise, of a plot. For a start, they say it is no coincidence that the assault on the Benghazi consulate was on 11 September...
Anyway, that article has a good overview. The guy you started with is a gak-thrower and his time would be better employed doing highway and bridge reconstruction work.
The reason IMO, that Watergate is way worse than this so-called "scandal" is that trying to screw over the democratic process and then lying about it is an actual danger to a democratic society, as opposed to explaining that the US does not agree with the views of a gakky movie, which is the proper thing to do in such a situation.
dogma wrote: I like how "Al-Qaeda" is still being used as a buzz word.
?? what do you mean by that?
Are you referring to the "Al Qaeda-linked" group? Things like that?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The reason IMO, that Watergate is way worse than this so-called "scandal" is that trying to screw over the democratic process and then lying about it is an actual danger to a democratic society, as opposed to explaining that the US does not agree with the views of a gakky movie, which is the proper thing to do in such a situation.
So... you think subverting a democratic process is worst than a potential coverup for the reason the lead to the death of 4 American?
Remember, they're still investigating this...
So, if it comes out that all these administration responses where due to "lets not do this that'll make Obama look bad because of the upcoming election"... then, there's a problem.
dogma wrote: I like how "Al-Qaeda" is still being used as a buzz word.
Al Qaeda is still a rather large, but disorganized group today. It has many factions spread throughout the middle-east/africa/central asia. It's hardly a "buzz word".
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The reason IMO, that Watergate is way worse than this so-called "scandal" is that trying to screw over the democratic process and then lying about it is an actual danger to a democratic society, as opposed to explaining that the US does not agree with the views of a gakky movie, which is the proper thing to do in such a situation.
Whether or not the US agrees with the views of a gakky movie has nothing at all to do with why the piece Whembly linked to compares this to Watergate.
The concern is that the administration seems to have clearly known this was not a protest gone wrong, but instead a planned act of terrorism, within twenty-four hours of the event occurring, yet continued to insist, publicly, that it was the former. There are also allegations that the ambassador was concerned/dissatisfied with the security available at the consulate, and a growing consensus that we were far too cavalier with security in Libya in general. All of which, it is alleged, the administration is trying to sweep under the rug, because foreign policy is currently Obama's biggest selling point.
dogma wrote: I like how "Al-Qaeda" is still being used as a buzz word.
?? what do you mean by that?
Are you referring to the "Al Qaeda-linked" group? Things like that?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The reason IMO, that Watergate is way worse than this so-called "scandal" is that trying to screw over the democratic process and then lying about it is an actual danger to a democratic society, as opposed to explaining that the US does not agree with the views of a gakky movie, which is the proper thing to do in such a situation.
So... you think subverting a democratic process is worst than a potential coverup for the reason the lead to the death of 4 American?
Remember, they're still investigating this...
So, if it comes out that all these administration responses where due to "lets not do this that'll make Obama look bad because of the upcoming election"... then, there's a problem.
Bingo. Whether or not the administration could have taken steps to prevent the attack still has to be resolved, but all indications were that the administration knew a lot about what happened, and were yet still touting the line that this was not a preplanned attack for several days after that. They were spreading misinformation. I won't use the term lies yet, because it may be plausible to the intel director was trying to cover his own ass as well, not giving the rest of the admin the story.
I for one though do not have a hard time believing that a President who has made a career out of campaigning would think of what was best for his campaign first.
What? The information we have says that within the intelligence community, some folks were discussing it as a terrorist attack and/or labeling it as such, at least to unlock specific resources which are reserved for use in investigating terrorism.
The administration recognized that there was a lack of information about exactly what happened, and their repeated and (mostly) consistent comments, were that they didn't want to commit to summarizing it as one specific label until they had more information. It does look like at a couple of points (like Rice's comments) one person or another was slightly inconsistent with their phrasing. But that doesn't make this a cover up. It looks to me like there was a protest, and a terrorist attack which used that protest as cover for their strike. Initially that was one of the theories, which some of the intelligence personnel were investigating, alongside the possibility that the violence had grown from the protest and was not a pre-planned terrorist action. Remember that Libya just had a revolution, and a lot of their militia personnel may have access to military weapons like RPGs.
whembly wrote: K... Ragnar... did you watch the Brett Beier piece?
What about it? It doesn't contain any particularly different information than the article I linked, although the video includes comments from at least one or two unidentified people.
whembly wrote: K... Ragnar... did you watch the Brett Beier piece?
What about it? It doesn't contain any particularly different information than the article I linked, although the video includes comments from at least one or two unidentified people.
I just thought it was a nice summary... that's all. It really shows that there's a lot more unanswered questions here...
Mannahnin wrote: What? The information we have says that within the intelligence community, some folks were discussing it as a terrorist attack and/or labeling it as such, at least to unlock specific resources which are reserved for use in investigating terrorism.
The administration recognized that there was a lack of information about exactly what happened, and their repeated and (mostly) consistent comments, were that they didn't want to commit to summarizing it as one specific label until they had more information. It does look like at a couple of points (like Rice's comments) one person or another was slightly inconsistent with their phrasing. But that doesn't make this a cover up. It looks to me like there was a protest, and a terrorist attack which used that protest as cover for their strike. Initially that was one of the theories, which some of the intelligence personnel were investigating, alongside the possibility that the violence had grown from the protest and was not a pre-planned terrorist action. Remember that Libya just had a revolution, and a lot of their militia personnel may have access to military weapons like RPGs.
Nope.
They knew it was a terrorist attack immediately afterwards. They'd tracked the culprits immediately afterwards. Rice's comments weren't "inconsistent," they were outright false based on information had at the time they were made. Either someone didn't tell her, or...
Also, quit with the protest bit. There wasn't one. Libya's said it, our intel guys have said it.
Al Qaeda is still a rather large, but disorganized group today. It has many factions spread throughout the middle-east/africa/central asia. It's hardly a "buzz word".
Indeed, it is large and disorganized. So large and disorganized that it is no longer a group. Many terrorist groups just call themselves "Al-Qaeda" because it means the West will give them credence. Of course Al-Qaeda is fine with this because it cuts both ways*.
What is generally being discussed when we discuss "Al-Qaeda" are general terrorists. The name is a buzz word because it draws attention, and that is why it is used.
Mannahnin wrote: What? The information we have says that within the intelligence community, some folks were discussing it as a terrorist attack and/or labeling it as such, at least to unlock specific resources which are reserved for use in investigating terrorism.
The administration recognized that there was a lack of information about exactly what happened, and their repeated and (mostly) consistent comments, were that they didn't want to commit to summarizing it as one specific label until they had more information. It does look like at a couple of points (like Rice's comments) one person or another was slightly inconsistent with their phrasing. But that doesn't make this a cover up. It looks to me like there was a protest, and a terrorist attack which used that protest as cover for their strike. Initially that was one of the theories, which some of the intelligence personnel were investigating, alongside the possibility that the violence had grown from the protest and was not a pre-planned terrorist action. Remember that Libya just had a revolution, and a lot of their militia personnel may have access to military weapons like RPGs.
Nope.
They knew it was a terrorist attack immediately afterwards. They'd tracked the culprits immediately afterwards. Rice's comments weren't "inconsistent," they were outright false based on information had at the time they were made. Either someone didn't tell her, or...
You have the facts backward. Rice was inconsistent in that at one point she said it WAS a terrorist attack, when the day after that Obama was still saying they weren't sure. Edit: I apologize. I misremembered. She did say it was a spontaneous attack. That does look bad. I don't think it's indicative of a deliberate cover-up, though. It was still four days after the attack, and early in the investigation.
By "tracking the culprits" do you mean people involved in the protest, people who entered the compound, people who fired RPGs, people who specifically and directly killed Chris Stevens or the other Americans there? I have no doubt that intelligence services were tracking at least some of these people very quickly after the incident. Whether they knew exactly who did what and who was part of a terrorist organization immediately seems unlikely.
Seaward wrote: Also, quit with the protest bit. There wasn't one. Libya's said it, our intel guys have said it.
Please provide a good source for this claim. Even the Fox video Whembly posted says there was a protest going on first.
Seaward wrote: Edit: I apologize. I misremembered. She did say it was a spontaneous attack. That does look bad. I don't think it's indicative of a deliberate cover-up, though. It was still four days after the attack, and early in the investigation.
By "tracking the culprits" do you mean people involved in the protest, people who entered the compound, people who fired RPGs, people who specifically and directly killed Chris Stevens or the other Americans there? I have no doubt that intelligence services were tracking at least some of these people very quickly after the incident. Whether they knew exactly who did what and who was part of a terrorist organization immediately seems unlikely.
By "tracking the culprits" I mean the group responsible for the attack - according to intelligence sources, they had a good idea of who was responsible for it within the first twenty-four hours. They were not tracking protesters, because it's extremely doubtful that there was a protest.
]Please provide a good source for this claim. Even the Fox video Whembly posted says there was a protest going on first.
Its a bit more complicated than that. The Libyan President is claiming that there were no protesters prior to the attack, and the guard is claiming the same. The narrative being disputed is that the attack grew out of the protest, but what appears to be the case is that the protest was organized in order to screen the attack.
There's also an issue regarding commentary on the event because people frequently the Libyan case with the Egyptian one.
dogma wrote: Its a bit more complicated than that. The Libyan President is claiming that there were no protesters prior to the attack, and the guard is claiming the same. The narrative being disputed is that the attack grew out of the protest, but what appears to be the case is that the protest was organized in order to screen the attack.
There's also an issue regarding commentary on the event because people frequently the Libyan case with the Egyptian one.
That doesn't seem to be the case, no.
The guard is saying there was no protest, period - that everyone who came to the compound was an attacker. The other sources do not dispute that, saying it was purely an attack, and that there was no protest.
The guard is saying there was no protest, period...
No he isn't, come off it:
“....there wasn’t a single ant outside,” he said – until about 9:35 p.m., when as many as 125 armed men descended on the compound from all directions.
That doesn't mean there was no protest, it means that any protest which occurred was based on the attack. There weren't 125 armed men unless "armed" means holding rocks. 125 men with assault weapons and/or RPG7s means that a building ceases to exist. I also wonder why he picked "125" given that he had to estimate a time.
He doesn't know what happened and is giving answers because he's being pressed and doesn't know what else to do.
The guard is saying there was no protest, period...
No he isn't, come off it:
“....there wasn’t a single ant outside,” he said – until about 9:35 p.m., when as many as 125 armed men descended on the compound from all directions.
That doesn't mean there was no protest, it means that any protest which occurred was based on the attack. There weren't 125 armed men unless "armed" means holding rocks. 125 men with assault weapons and/or RPG7s means that a building ceases to exist. I also wonder why he picked "125" given that he had to estimate a time.
He doesn't know what happened and is giving answers because he's being pressed and doesn't know what else to do.
Just so we're clear, there's not a single eye witness account of a protest taking place at any point at or near the consulate, before, during, or after the attack. There are multiple eye witness accounts directly stating that there was no protest.
Is it possible there was a protest and no one noticed? Yes. It is also possible there is a protest going on outside my house right now and I just haven't noticed it yet. Anything is possible. "Likely" is a whole other story.
dogma wrote: I like how "Al-Qaeda" is still being used as a buzz word.
Its become almost synonymous with terrorist. Not just in the media either some pretty legit analysts in the .mil have used AQ or AQI to bring attention to reports about groups that clearly have no ties whatsoever to Al Qaeda.
Worst case this was a deliberate and coordinated attack by anti-American elements in Libya, and an official in the State Department may have knowingly framed it as something else?
Yeah, who cares?
This goes with Fast and Furious in "scandals" that don't really have any there there once you actually know all the facts.
Here's my quick take: The State Department probably didn't want to come out and say "TERRORIST ATTACK" without all the evidence to back it up since there was literally nothing to gain from doing so, outside of legitimizing the attack and potentially alienating potential friends of the United States in Libya.
But, yeah, I hope the Right keeps bringing this up and gets upset by it.
Four more years! Four more years! Four more years! Four more years!
Fast and Furious was a legit scandal. This looks iffy, at least. There's legitimate grounds for people being suspicious and wanting more answers and more openness from the administration. I don't think there's necessarily enough info to justify screams of "cover up", but I can definitely understand why alarm bells are sounding for some folks, more than just partisan politics.
Kind of you to say, but I do certainly make mistakes; one of which Seaward pointed out.
I do try to look honestly at the data in front of me, though, and I don't have a problem calling something a Dem or a Dem administration does as shameful or shady if it appears so to me. There are reasons why I'm Independent and not a Dem.
What part of Fast and Furious was a legit scandal? The part where DOJ tried to monitor the transport of illegal guns to cartels, and in doing so let guns that would have otherwise have found their way to the cartels anyhow get to them?
If those on the right actually cared about crime in Mexico and how it spills over into Arizona and other border states, they would try to restrict the sale of guns in the states and legalize drugs. They don't and just want to make political hay over an attempt to slow the inexorable sale of guns to these cartels.
And, yes, I'd like to know more about what happened in Libya. I just can't be bothered to care about the opinions of those that want to use what happened in Libya as a political weapon while simultaneously conflating Libya and Egypt.
I'd have more sympathy about any bias in the media if the right's reaction to everything wasn't to get increasingly insane and detached from reality. It allows the Democratic Party to be flaccid weenies who advance awful neoliberal bs without there being a credible mainstream opposition.
Here's a brief primer for you on what make Patrick Caddell basically someone to be ignored:
Patrick Caddell's Wikipedia Entry since I'm not feeling like digging too much to educate Whembly wrote:Biography
He has worked for Democratic presidential candidates George McGovern in 1972, Jimmy Carter in 1976 and 1980, Gary Hart in 1984, Joe Biden in 1988, and Jerry Brown in 1992. He also worked for Colorado Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff in 2010.[1]
He has served as a consultant to various movies and television shows, most notably the movies Running Mates, Air Force One, Outbreak, In the Line of Fire, and the serial drama The West Wing. He was also a marketing consultant on Coca-Cola's disastrous New Coke campaign.[2]
In 1988, Caddell left the Democratic Party after an acrimonious lawsuit with a Democratic consulting firm, Caddell, Doak and Shrum. Republicans would often cite Caddell's tirades against the Democratic Party when they spoke on the floor of the House and the Senate.[3][4][5]
According to researchers, Caddell had wide influence in the Carter White House, and was the chief advocate of what later became known as Carter's "malaise speech".[6]
His analysis on polls and campaign issues often puts him at odds with the current leadership of the Democratic Party. He has been criticized for predicting the downfall of the Democratic party.[7][8] Critics point out that he has defended the Bush administration by arguing that Republicans did not exploit the issue of gay marriage in the presidential election of 2004.[citation needed] He also denounced Democrats in the House who voted against the Palm Sunday Compromise, which sought to reinstate Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, as "cold blooded,"[citation needed] and called environmentalism "a conspiracy 'to basically deconstruct capitalism.'"[1]
Caddell is a regular guest on the Fox News Channel, and he is listed as an official 'Fox News Contributor'. This has earned him the label of a "Fox News Democrat" by critics such as liberal opinion magazine Salon.com[1] He has also frequently appeared on the conservative website Ricochet.com discussing politics.[9][10][11]
According to Slate, Caddell was involved in identifying people willing to participate in the anti-Obama film The Hope and the Change, produced by Citizens United. Currently Caddell takes almost exclusively pro-Republican positions, so in many political circles, he is now considered a Republican.
So yeah. Not a big fan of him, and using him as a source for anything where you then claim his statements are indicative of the "death of democracy" is a tad bit overdramatic.
There are outcries now, just not as much as Republicans want there to be. It's a big deal, but there have been no whatevergates, no matter how much they are trying to turn things into one.
There were plenty of scandals during Bush too, but no career ending whatevergates.
d-usa wrote: Republicans have been looking for a huge scandal to throw at Obama since day 1.
And what's more, they've invented a few along the way.
Or are we conveniently forgetting "DEATH PANELS"?
So... if all this occured on a Republican President watch... there be an outcry... right?
"Outcry" about what?
If a Democratic candidate came and declared it to be something when it was specifically stated that they were beginning to investigate it, etc and would not conclusively call it such--then yes, I'd be quite irked like I am with Romney and the Republicans right now.
The simple crux of the matter and what you (and the loudmouthed debutantes at Fox News and in the Republican Party) seem to be failing to grasp is that this is something which is being investigated without boots on the ground, by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. They did not deem it a "terrorist attack" originally because to do so would be to label Libya as a nation which cannot protect itself from such insurgencies and activities. They did not deem it a "terrorist attack" originally because they also were not entirely clear as to whether it was a spur of the moment event which utilized the current "scandal" of the "Life of Mohammed" as cover or whether it was planned and executed in a manner which was to make it very abundantly obvious that it was a sign that while Osama bin Laden was dead that the "legacy" he left behind remained strong by executing an attack on an American diplomatic compound on an anniversary of one of the worst terrorist attacks in American history.
But no. The Republicans just had to open their mouths and start chestthumping as soon as possible, claiming that there was "no excuse!" or "why was there no protection!", etc, etc.
Kanluwen wrote: He was the marketing consultant on the "New Coke" ad campaign.
That's all I really need to say.
Okay then...
Moving on...
No That's pretty bang on. Did you ever wonder why Coke says "Classic" on it? Did you ever actually try New Coke or Coke II, let me answer for you: No, because "everyone" hated it. 77 days either a shockingly bad marketing campaign and research or the most genius idea to revitalize a brand ever. The only dumber idea I ever experienced in person was Pesi Crystal or Clear or WTF ever.
Mannahnin wrote:Kind of you to say, but I do certainly make mistakes; one of which Seaward pointed out.
I do try to look honestly at the data in front of me, though, and I don't have a problem calling something a Dem or a Dem administration does as shameful or shady if it appears so to me. There are reasons why I'm Independent and not a Dem.
It sounded better than "I agree" since we commonly find ourselves on different, if not necessarily "opposite" sides of issues.
Mannahnin wrote:Kind of you to say, but I do certainly make mistakes; one of which Seaward pointed out.
I do try to look honestly at the data in front of me, though, and I don't have a problem calling something a Dem or a Dem administration does as shameful or shady if it appears so to me. There are reasons why I'm Independent and not a Dem.
It sounded better than "I agree" since we commonly find ourselves on different, if not necessarily "opposite" sides of issues.
Well, thanks. Always good to take an opportunity to find common ground; helps to make the disagreements more agreeable.
There's a fair amount to potentially cry out about if you do some digging into it. We were warned about possible hostile attacks against American personnel in Benghazi, we had a severely under-secured consulate that we knew to be under-secured, we may well have attempted to fabricate a cover story about a non-existent protest despite intelligence to the contrary in order to protect a reelection attempt, etc.
As I favor neither the Democrat nor Republican parties, I think I can sit safely in the middle here and say that if this had been a Bush-era situation, a lot of the folks currently playing it off with, "Well, we don't know..."-style approaches would be having strokes.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and as far as Fast and Furious goes...that's a legit scandal, and I think it's going to have a more considerable impact than most people are aware of. Some of the deepest digging on it is being done by Univision, which is quite popular with Hispanics in the US. Obama's Latino vote may not be as robust as it could be.
Indeed, everything about the administration’s response to the latest Islamic assault on civilized diplomatic norms is bunk, from the Cairo embassy’s initial tweets blaming the video for the riots to the press secretary’s bald-faced lying to the press corps, to the spectacle of the Office of National Intelligence volunteering as a scapegoat to protect the president’s reputation.
So behold the wreckage: not just the consulate in Libya, but the entire Obama foreign-policy “reset,” including his conciliatory 2009 speech to the Muslim world in Cairo.
With the debris still smoldering, the FBI, which has investigatory jurisdiction in these cases, is still not in Benghazi yet.
No rush — plenty of time to do that after the election.
Because I can't get worked up on the current outrageously, outraged of Obama's racial speech in 2007... so... meh....
Easy E wrote: This just seems like a really desperate attempt to make some hay around election time, Whembly.
I have no issue with that. It just smells desperate, and no body wants to vote for a campaign that smells desperate.
I look forward to seeing if this meme comes up in the debates.
Back on topic...
I think this is a real problem for Obama... just today, the house committee stated:
Based on information provided to the Committee by individuals with direct knowledge of events in Libya, the attack that claimed the ambassador’s life was the latest in a long line of attacks on Western diplomats and officials in Libya in the months leading up to September 11, 2012,” House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and subcommittee chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, wrote Clinton today. They dismissed out-of-hand the suggestion that the attack ever could have been regarded as a spontaneous protest gone awry.
“In addition, multiple U.S. federal government officials have confirmed to the Committee that, prior to the September 11 attack, the U.S. mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi,” Issa and Chaffetz added (my emphasis). “The mission in Libya, however, was denied these resources by officials in Washington.”
So let's review that Benghazi Was Obama's 3 a.m. Call:
The U.S. ignores warnings of a parlous security situation in Benghazi. Nothing happens because nobody is really paying attention, especially in an election year, and because Libya is supposed to be a foreign-policy success. When something does happen, the administration's concerns for the safety of Americans are subordinated to considerations of Libyan "sovereignty" and the need for "permission." After the attack the administration blames a video, perhaps because it would be politically inconvenient to note that al Qaeda is far from defeated, and that we are no more popular under Mr. Obama than we were under George W. Bush. Denouncing the video also appeals to the administration's reflexive habits of blaming America first. Once that story falls apart, it's time to blame the intel munchkins and move on.
It was five in the afternoon when Mr. Obama took his 3 a.m. call. He still flubbed it.
That's right. The Dept. of Upcoming Surprise Attacks neglected to warn the President, who psychically knew the attack was coming, and went to Vegas anyway!!
As far as a 3AM call, we'll have to get the corroboration from whoever else was in bed with you and the President.
The "Dept. of Upcoming Surprise Attacks"??? Good one...
Is it possible there was a protest and no one noticed? Yes. It is also possible there is a protest going on outside my house right now and I just haven't noticed it yet. Anything is possible. "Likely" is a whole other story.
I think the most like scenario is that all people present became "armed" once shots were fired.
If you are running an "Herp Derp Obama" thread and Frazzled isn't going all frenzied Dachshund in it, then there is probably not much substance to it.
Bummer...
Hey Frazzled... littleHELP buddy?
The Title of this thread mostly makes me not want to check it. Benghazi worse than Beirut maybe...but comparing it to Watergate. The conservative supervillians do not approve.
In rare fashion I'm waiting to find out more details, it sounds a great deal like there was some lapse in security. What no one is saying is why the Ambassador chose 9/11 to be at the consulate instead of the embassy, or at least I haven't heard it yet. It's kind of like leaving your castle to sleep in a tent in the woods on the day the Vikings sent you a note to say they would raid your demesne. So there may be failures on some levels that reach back to Washington but the guy on the ground carries some of the burden here, him being dead doesn't change that. I'm sorry that's a bit callus,
Within hours of last month's attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya, President Barack Obama's administration received about a dozen intelligence reports suggesting militants connected to al Qaeda were involved, three government sources said.
Yes, and reading beyond the bolded text like any sensible person would brings this out:
The Obama administration has strongly defended its public accounts of what happened in Benghazi, and said its understanding has evolved as additional information came in.
"At every step of the way, the administration has based its public statements on the best assessments that were provided by the intelligence community. As the intelligence community learned more information, they updated Congress and the American people on it," said White House spokesman Jay Carney.
Some officials said U.S. spy agencies tried to avoid drawing premature conclusions about how the violence began and who organized it.
"Unless you have very good reports that strongly suggest who was behind the attack for sure, it is prudent to be careful, because placing emphasis publicly, even tentatively, on any one group or groups too soon can lead everyone down the wrong path," said one official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Republicans have sought to make the shifting stories told by administration officials about the attack, and inadequate security precautions at the U.S. diplomatic site in Libya, a major issue in the presidential campaign leading up to the November 6 election.
Two House Republicans said they would hold Congress' first hearing on the matter on October 10.
It's not as damning of a news story as you seem to think.
Intelligence officials pointed to the statement issued Sept. 28 by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) that raised additional concern about the administration’s apparent mishandling of intelligence. The ODNI statement said that “in the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo.”
Officials say the ODNI’s false information was either knowingly disseminated or was directed to be put out by senior policy officials for political reasons, since the statement was contradicted by numerous intelligence reports at the time of the attack indicating it was al Qaeda-related terrorism.
...
Officials with access to intelligence reports, based on both technical spying and human agents, said specific reporting revealed an alarming surge in clandestine al Qaeda activity months before the attack in Benghazi.
Yet the Obama administration sought to keep the information from becoming public to avoid exposing what the officials say is a Middle East policy failure by Obama.
You have one blood hand print from anybody. There's no sign of an attack. The report said RPG's and mortars. Yet the rooms does not look to have RPG hit or the mortar round punch through. There's no bullet holes in the walls or brass on the ground. There's no sign of a mass attack from protesters.
Jihadin wrote: You have one blood hand print from anybody. There's no sign of an attack. The report said RPG's and mortars. Yet the rooms does not look to have RPG hit or the mortar round punch through. There's no bullet holes in the walls or brass on the ground. There's no sign of a mass attack from protesters.
Hmmm good point...
The only thing I found were that VAN and Burning building...
That vehicle pic you posted Whembly is questionable. Its not one of the vehicles that was in front of the building.
edit
More to it if an investigation was launch after the attack. Right now its finger pointing but it makes sense. It was a perfect environment to take out a few americans. Problem though is no one claiming it. Rumor is the guy that lead the attack was a former GITMO resident. FBI has hit the ground but only stayed three hours. Which should be no fault of their own since the attack happen quite awhile ago. The other problem is with our administration. No one on the same sheet. Why did the Consulate only have two contract security guards? There was already attempts on US lives there.
in a conference call with reporters Tuesday, two senior State Department officials gave a detailed accounting of the events that lead to the death of Amb. Chris Stevens and three other Americans. The officials said that prior to the massive attack on the Benghazi compound by dozens of militants carrying heavy weaponry, there was no unrest outside the walls of the compound and no protest that anyone inside the compound was aware of.
In fact, Stevens hosted a series of meetings on the compound throughout the day, ending with a meeting with a Turkish diplomat that began at 7:30 in the evening, and all was quiet in the area.
"The ambassador walked guests out at 8:30 or so; there was nobody on the street. Then at 9:40 they saw on the security cameras that there were armed men invading the compound," a senior State Department official said. "Everything is calm at 8:30 pm, there is nothing unusual. There had been nothing unusual during the day outside."
Confirmation that it has nothing to do with that youtube.
I did some investimagation, and this stumps me. The only angle I can see them arguing is that they're saying Susan Rice is not part of the State Department, since Obama upgraded her position to a cabinet level position.
I wanted to read the actual report, but I can't seem to find it on the State Department website. The news agencies seem to be cherry picking, so can't get the full thing.
I did some investimagation, and this stumps me. The only angle I can see them arguing is that they're saying Susan Rice is not part of the State Department, since Obama upgraded her position to a cabinet level position.
I wanted to read the actual report, but I can't seem to find it on the State Department website. The news agencies seem to be cherry picking, so can't get the full thing.
WEll all they have to do is repeat the statement ten times and it will be come the truth. You won't see the MsM scratching their heads on that much.
WEll all they have to do is repeat the statement ten times and it will be come the truth. You won't see the MsM scratching their heads on that much.
So you're saying that Fox isn't part of the "Mainstream Media"?
That seems like and odd claim, unless you agree that "MSM" is misleading shorthand for "liberal media".
And yes, where spin is concerned repetition creates truth. Note how you and many others like you repeatedly use the concept of mainstream media as though it only related to liberal media. Repeat that conflation often enough, and it eventually becomes the truth.
Well, at least the truth in the sense of being accepted as fact.
I did some investimagation, and this stumps me. The only angle I can see them arguing is that they're saying Susan Rice is not part of the State Department, since Obama upgraded her position to a cabinet level position.
What they'll say is that they never actually reached a conclusion, but instead were speaking from the perspective of an ongoing investigation. Its the distinction between saying something appears to be the case, and that something is the case.
Frazzled wrote: I'm saying one channel on cable doesn't mean jack.
What about several extremely popular websites that have been attacking the administration's claims?
"Mainstream" doesn't just mean TV anymore. Hell, its been years since broadcast news has been anything beyond explicit reporting outside of local interest stories.
If you want journalistic content, you watch Fox, MSNBC, or CNN; or you read.
...it’s hard to argue that the cover-up is worse than the “crime” of incompetence that led up to it. After all, four people died in that attack, and perhaps even a higher level of security might not have prevented it. It has become clear, though, that the State Department didn’t recognize that Benghazi and its environs had become a nest of the very terrorists we now fight in places like Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, and other hot spots, and that this was no ordinary case for consular security. Instead of listening to people on the ground and acting to provide some kind of extraordinary security, the Benghazi mission was left to just “hope that everything would get better.”
As in, the right will cling to it like angry weiner dogs, while everyone else just kind of shuffles on in a zombie like stare?
Since you mentioned wiener dogs. She Who Must Be Obeyed called to tell me she has renamed TBone "snackwhore" for his unceasing efforts in his bucket list to gain 12 lb before the C finally gets him.
As in, the right will cling to it like angry weiner dogs, while everyone else just kind of shuffles on in a zombie like stare?
Since you mentioned wiener dogs. She Who Must Be Obeyed called to tell me she has renamed TBone "snackwhore" for his unceasing efforts in his bucket list to gain 12 lb before the C finally gets him.
I was under the impression that the administration has been saying that the attack was not because of the movie pretty early on.
The only connection they said it had to the movie protest was that they used it as a diversion, with more and more evidence shoving that there was no protest.
d-usa wrote: I was under the impression that the administration has been saying that the attack was not because of the movie pretty early on.
The only connection they said it had to the movie protest was that they used it as a diversion, with more and more evidence shoving that there was no protest.
Nah, they kept up the, "It was a protest gone bad!" line for at least five days after they had strong evidence it was terrorist activity, and that there was no protest.
d-usa wrote: I was under the impression that the administration has been saying that the attack was not because of the movie pretty early on.
You mentioned that before, but I couldn't find any evidence of that. I think with what happened in Egypt, the DoS kinda wrap them together.
The only connection they said it had to the movie protest was that they used it as a diversion, with more and more evidence shoving that there was no protest.
No protest, no diversion. Simply a sophisticated attack.
Mark Steyn writes:
The State Department has now conceded that there was no movie protest at all. and that it was, in fact, one of the most sophisticated military attacks ever launched at a diplomatic facilityBoth these very obvious points were surely known to Washington by 6 a.m. Eastern on Wednesday September 12, by which time the surviving consulate staff had been evacuated to Tripoli. Yet Ambassador Rice, President Obama, et al., were still blaming the video days later. Obama and Secretary Clinton always refer to Ambassador Stevens as “Chris” — Chris this, Chris that — as if he were a treasured friend or intimate. Yet they and the sad hollow men around them dishonor their “friend” in death.
Quite aside from the wrongness of lying, generally and specifically, in this case, and quite aside from the motivation to lie — I'm going to presume, without more, it was campaign politics — why did Obama think he could get away with this lie long enough, and why was he not daunted by the risk entailed in going on and on, doubling down on the lie, and even lying in a U.N. speech? How did he have the nerve to co-opt our U.N. ambassador, Susan Rice, and subvert her credibility and honor? How did he get this millstone around the neck of Hillary Clinton, who has such a strong interest in her independent career and who knows a thing or two about the devastation of getting caught lying? (And this lie can't be waved away as as lie "about sex." It's a lie at the very heart of our trust in the President.)
Now, I have a few more questions, focusing on the choice to construct the lie out of that "Innocence of Muslims" video. Here's a montage of statements that were made about the video:
OBAMA: I don't care how offensive this video was, it was terribly offensive and we should shun it.
HILLARY: This video is disgusting and reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose, to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage.
CARNEY: Let's be clear. These protests were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region.
OBAMA: You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character, an extremely offensive video.
CARNEY: The unrest we've seen has been in reaction to a video.
OBAMA: A crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.
RICE: It was a spontaneous, not a premeditated response, a direct result of a heinous and offensive video.
OBAMA: I know there are some who ask, "Why don't we just ban such a video?" The answer is enshrined in our laws. Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.
Was this just the nearest lame excuse, like the dog ate my homework? The President must have known that the truth about the attack on the embassy would eventually emerge. He couldn't have assumed that those called to testify in congressional hearings would commit perjury. Even if everyone would be willing to commit perjury, how could they think they could credibly pull off lies about protests — vivid public events — that never took place? Maybe Obama's only concern was that the truth not emerge before the election, but given the risk that it would, why wasn't he afraid of how bizarre and outrageous the video story was?
The video story, moreover, put Obama in a position where he had to present caring for the feelings of violent foreigners as something that challenges our commitment to free speech, as if it were a difficult matter to brood over. He made it sound as though he would ban the video — or take the proposal to ban it seriously — if only the Constitution didn't stand in his way. Was he interested in making a show of respect for constitutional law? It didn't come off as too respectful, especially when they arrested the filmmaker (who was, conveniently, on parole and thus arrestable). This was the worst sort of scapegoating. Obama called this man — this erstwhile nonentity — "a shadowy character."
And this inane and unnecessary display of concern for the feelings of Muslims depended on thinking about Muslims as a bunch of idiots and criminals. It wasn't respectful at all to promote this caricature of Muslims as people who look at a stupid video and lose their minds, take to the streets, and work themselves up into a murderous rage. The video story could only work as a cover for the truth if it could be leveraged on an offensive stereotype of Muslims. It is the story about the response to the video — far more the video itself — that has "a deeply cynical purpose, to denigrate a great religion"! Why didn't Obama care that he was insulting Muslims in this weird charade about caring for Muslims?
Why was any of this worth doing, even cynically? Even if you assume Obama put his own reelection first, how could he possibly have selected this lie and thought it was a good idea? Yes, the planned terrorist attack in Libya hurts the image he would like to have as the vanquisher of al Qaeda, but the truth about that has already come out, with 3 weeks left to go before the election. By handling the matter the way he did, we have — on top of the damage to the vanquisher of al Qaeda image — a glaring lie and plain evidence of extremely poor judgment.
Is there a possibility that they wanted to keep what they knew pretty low key since there was still an active investigation and they didn't want the bad guys to know how much we did know?
Basically the whole "national security, we have to keep secret" tagline that conservatives usually like to use?
d-usa wrote: 5 days is not exactly a very long time though.
Is there a possibility that they wanted to keep what they knew pretty low key since there was still an active investigation and they didn't want the bad guys to know how much we did know?
Basically the whole "national security, we have to keep secret" tagline that conservatives usually like to use?
It seems unlikely, given that the investigation was...belated, at best. NBC was wandering around picking up classified documents, after all, with nary so much as a mall ninja in sight.
d-usa wrote: 5 days is not exactly a very long time though.
Is there a possibility that they wanted to keep what they knew pretty low key since there was still an active investigation and they didn't want the bad guys to know how much we did know?
Basically the whole "national security, we have to keep secret" tagline that conservatives usually like to use?
It seems unlikely, given that the investigation was...belated, at best. NBC was wandering around picking up classified documents, after all, with nary so much as a mall ninja in sight.
Have we had any actual boots on the ground there yet? I know last I heard about it they were still waiting "until things were safer".
This probably is the biggest foreign events screw-up of this administration.
Don't you think this whole thing was bizarre? It just strikes me that the Administration had political motives (albeit, strange ones) with this whole ordeal...
Don't you think this whole thing was bizarre? It just strikes me that the Administration had political motives (albeit, strange ones) with this whole ordeal...
Waiting until you know the facts doesn't have to equal political motives.
Saying "we were attacked by terrorists" is not something you want to take lightly.
d-usa wrote: 5 days is not exactly a very long time though.
Is there a possibility that they wanted to keep what they knew pretty low key since there was still an active investigation and they didn't want the bad guys to know how much we did know?
Basically the whole "national security, we have to keep secret" tagline that conservatives usually like to use?
It seems unlikely, given that the investigation was...belated, at best. NBC was wandering around picking up classified documents, after all, with nary so much as a mall ninja in sight.
Thats why no one saw them, they were using mall ninjas. No one ever sees the master mall ninja.
d-usa wrote: Surely if the government says no classified info was lost then that is the truth.
Or they need a special decoder ring to read the info.
How would they know? They never bothered to go look. We do know
*Names of people working with the US clandestinely were believed lost.
*A CNN reporter wandering around found the Ambassador's diary. The scene was never secured.
Its like watching the Carter adminstration in action.
Biden made the patently false and outrageous claim that no one in the Obama administration knew that requests for extra security had been made by our Libyan ambassador, Christopher Stevens, and other members of our consulate in Benghazi.
To emphasize his lie, Biden actually said it twice on the VP debate.
The claim is absolutely false. So false in fact, that his pals at MSNBC called him out on it:
If you think about the aftermath of the attack, 30, 000 people attacking a terrorist base, others running into the building to save the ambassador, and the crowd celebrating because they thought he could yet be saved, it seems silly to say there was a mass protest against the movie.
Relapse wrote: If you think about the aftermath of the attack, 30, 000 people attacking a terrorist bas[b]e, others running into the building to save the ambassador, and the crowd celebrating because they thought he could yet be saved[/b], it seems silly to say there was a mass protest against the movie.
Relapse wrote: If you think about the aftermath of the attack, 30, 000 people attacking a terrorist bas[b]e, others running into the building to save the ambassador, and the crowd celebrating because they thought he could yet be saved[/b], it seems silly to say there was a mass protest against the movie.
Yeah... we need more of this.
They chased any known or suspected terrorist straight to hell out of Dodge in the week following.
Frazzled wrote: I saw MSNBC and then I had to stop. You're such a comedian this morning!
There's a difference between journalism and reporting. Journalism involves the presentation of opinion, or additional relevant information, in order to contextualize a particular event. Reporting merely involves describing the event.
Fox and MSNBC both stand on roughly equal footing when it comes to bias in journalism, with CNN sitting somewhere in between. The major broadcast networks essentially only report.
Hillary has nothing to do with the decision making on additional security though. Thats handle by whoever is the contract specialist that deals with that. I think whoever is the "Mission Support Specialist" and superviser are at fault. Obama goes this route then we really need a new President.
Seeing as this regards Hillary Clinton and is coming from Ed Klein, it should be taken with a massive grain of salt. When the National Review says that your biographical attacks on Hillary Clinton are unfair, you know you've done something very wrong.
Jihadin wrote: I don't think american lives got hunged on Rumsfield neck though
Well, he was basically blamed for insisting on an approach to the Iraq invasion which was said to have cost too many American lives. It seems comparable to me.
Rumsfield did not have Operational control of the invasion as is Hillary not being the deciding factor for additional security for Benghazi. Only person in our time frame who committed a screw up of a similiar caliber with all the email train and documents literally pointing the finger was Aspin for the armored support in Somalia
Jihadin wrote: Rumsfield did not have Operational control of the invasion as is Hillary not being the deciding factor for additional security for Benghazi.
Wait, I'm not clear on what you're saying here. Are you equating the two - i.e. saying they both can't be responsible for every little detail - or contrasting them?
Hillary is not the deciding factor for the additional security. Thats Dept of State Mission Control Specialist in the dept. Rumsfield did not dictate how the US Military were to invade Iraq. That was lead by Gen. Tommy Franks. The only individual that actually got involved in a decision making process for mission support was Aspin in Somalia. Neither Hillary nor Rumsfield made those type of decision at the operational level like Aspin did.
"Hillary Clinton: she was unable to protect 4 Americans in her department, how can we trust her to protect all Americans as President?" - I am (generic republican candidate for president) and I approve this message.
d-usa wrote:"Hillary Clinton: she was unable to protect 4 Americans in her department, how can we trust her to protect all Americans as President?" - I am (generic republican candidate for president) and I approve this message.
Yeah, that would be pretty damning, but I think a more realistic portrayal would be:
"Hillary Clinton: she's not even a man! Hurrrrrrrrr durrrrrrrr derp! -I am (generic republican candidate for president) and I approve this message."
Even though I don't like Hillary's politics... she is definately a savvy politician... and, hypothetically, if I had a choice between Hillary and Obama... I'd go with Hillary.
Anyhoo... looks like this isn't going to die down anytime soon:
STATEMENT BY SENATORS McCAIN, GRAHAM AND AYOTTE ON SECRETARY CLINTON’S COMMENTS THIS EVENING ON BENGHAZI ATTACK
October 15, 2012
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) today released the following statement on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s comments this evening regarding the terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi on September 11, 2012:
“We have just learned that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has claimed full responsibility for any failure to secure our people and our Consulate in Benghazi prior to the attack of September 11, 2012. This is a laudable gesture, especially when the White House is trying to avoid any responsibility whatsoever.
“However, we must remember that the events of September 11 were preceded by an escalating pattern of attacks this year in Benghazi, including a bomb that was thrown into our Consulate in April, another explosive device that was detonated outside of our Consulate in June, and an assassination attempt on the British Ambassador. If the President was truly not aware of this rising threat level in Benghazi, then we have lost confidence in his national security team, whose responsibility it is to keep the President informed. But if the President was aware of these earlier attacks in Benghazi prior to the events of September 11, 2012, then he bears full responsibility for any security failures that occurred. The security of Americans serving our nation everywhere in the world is ultimately the job of the Commander-in-Chief. The buck stops there.
“Furthermore, there is the separate issue of the insistence by members of the Administration, including the President himself, that the attack in Benghazi was the result of a spontaneous demonstration triggered by a hateful video, long after it had become clear that the real cause was a terrorist attack. The President also bears responsibility for this portrayal of the attack, and we continue to believe that the American people deserve to know why the Administration acted as it did.”
Clinton did not, and cannot, take the fall for the false statements by the Obama administration about what happened in Benghazi. The State Department, which was following events there in real time, knew that this was a terrorist attack, not a protest. Yet, days after the attack, the administration mischaracterized it as a protest that spun out of control against a movie. That’s on Obama, not Clinton.
whembly wrote: The President also bears responsibility for this portrayal of the attack, and we continue to believe that the American people deserve to know why the Administration acted as it did.”
Clinton did not, and cannot, take the fall for the false statements by the Obama administration about what happened in Benghazi. The State Department, which was following events there in real time, knew that this was a terrorist attack, not a protest. Yet, days after the attack, the administration mischaracterized it as a protest that spun out of control against a movie. That’s on Obama, not Clinton.
Everyone loves the absence of temporal specificity.
dogma wrote:Everyone loves the absence of temporal specificity.
But... but he quoted a blog! With the words "power" and "line" in its name. The "power" is self-evident, and the "line" is clearly a reference to its direct form of communications! I don't see how it can't be a credible source of information!
Gee.... how'd that saying go?
Oh Yeah.
"Herpa Derpty Durp" *Loosely translated from Liberalese:
"Pay no attention to the (responsible) man(s) behind the curtain."
dogma wrote:Everyone loves the absence of temporal specificity.
But... but he quoted a blog! With the words "power" and "line" in its name. The "power" is self-evident, and the "line" is clearly a reference to its direct form of communications! I don't see how it can't be a credible source of information!
Hey... we have whackadoos... and so do you!
Anyhow... I'm surprise this isn't dying down though... *shrugs*
Here's someone's take that "Today is day one of campaign 2016."
There has been a lot of back and forth about “Will Barack Obama Throw Hillary under the Bus over Benghazi?” or vice-versa this week .
It was quite a situation, If Obama threw Hillary under the bus would the Clintons work subrosa against him? (I maintain they already have been.) If Hillary threw Obama under the bus would the African-American community make her pay in 2016, it’s one thing for them to be pissed off at Obama, it’s quite another for some white lady to beat up on him.
What do you do? Well Hillary has threaded the needle in a way that accomplishes everything she needed to thus.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Monday tried to douse a political firestorm around the deadly assault on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya, saying she is responsible for the security of American diplomatic outposts.
“I take responsibility” for the protection of U.S. diplomats, Clinton said during a visit to Peru. But she said an investigation now under way will ultimately determine what happened in the attack that left four Americans dead.
The moment I heard this I had one thought: This is the move of a political master. Consider what this accomplishes:
Seemingly:
It is a statesman like move, going forward and not ducking responsibility in a way nobody has been willing to do.
In Reality:
It covers her, by taking responsibility it heads off all kinds of stories that might come up with a theme of finding fault. Why should congress investigate to pin blame when it’s already been accepted?
Seemingly:
It supports the president, by taking the blame she shields the first Black president both showing herself a good soldier to the party and most importantly to the black community.
In Reality:
It undermines Obama by making her look strong, and him look weak. He is now forced to make some kind of statement second as a response. It’s the 3 AM phone call with her answering while he goes to Vegas.
Seemingly:
It ends press coverage on what the Obama Administration should do next, blame assigned move on.
In Reality:
It doesn’t end coverage it changes it. What will the president do about this? It puts Obama in a box. Blame is assigned so what is the punishment? If Hillary is responsible does he ask for her resignation, does he fire her? With his electoral prospects already sinking he dare not do either, and God help him if she resigns on her own. It would be another example of her acting while he is paralyzed. It is the final act of Carterization of the president. [edit: ]
Seemingly:
It makes her vulnerable as every commentator on the right calls for her head in the hope of embarrassing Obama and taking her down a peg.
In Reality:
It gets her in good with the base of her party. I can see the fundraising e-mails now. “She’s taken responsibility and those nasty right wingers are piling on” This will coin money for her. That doesn’t even take into account how the press will react. [edit. genius!]
Seemingly:
It hurts her 2016 election prospects after all she is responsible for an attack on the US on the Anniversary of 9/11 no less.
In Reality:
Not only does this make her look presidential (Expect comparisons to JFK’s Bay of Pigs speech from the MSM) but it neutralizes her primary opponents on the subject, in fact for the second time in twelve years she will be able to paint herself as the victim of the irresponsibility of a man who should have known better. [edit: whoa!!! epic! ]
Seemingly:
It hands President Romney a ready-made issue in 2016 to use.
In Reality:
It puts Romney in a box. Every president has foreign policy failures and Mitt will have his share. Imagine the debate answer: “President Romney is right. I was secretary of state during the Benghazi debacle and I took full responsibility for it. What I would like to know is when the president will take responsibility for (insert relevant issue here)”. It will put and keep Mitt on the defensive.
The Bottom line is forgetting all the national security and moral issues involved. Hillary has done the thing that most helps her in the long run while all the time managing to undermine her foes on both the left and the right in one fell swoop.
That doesn’t mean it wasn’t the right thing to do, it IS but as usual the right thing is generally the smart thing and this was the smartest thing anyone in this administration has done in a while.
This story may continue, but in terms of its negative impact there will be little if any on Hillary Clinton from this point on.
Simply amazing. [edit: yup]
Update: Stacy Smithy gets it:
Why am I not a Presidential candidate? Because if I was Mitt, I’d be all: “I’d like to congratulate the President on his choice of Secretary of State. After the better part of four years, somebody in the Administration finally took responsibility the way leaders do, on one of those hopefully rare occasions when it involves confessing a shortcoming. In this case, one that involved the butchery of four Americans. Hopefully this President isn’t too old to learn something from all this. Better leaders plan so as to minimize these sorts of tragedies. Lesser men play the Casablanca card and locate a usual suspects for a round-up. How is Nakoula doing these days, Mr. President?”
Update 2: On Morning Joe Hillary Clinton compared to JFK. Think about it, in under 12 hours Hillary goes from: “The person responsible for a disaster” to JFK saying “defeat is an orphan”.
Today is day one of campaign 2016.
Update 3: Captain Ed Morrissey (he will always be Captain Ed to me) NAILS it:
It’s a jaw-dropping display of a leadership vacuum, which Hillary ended up having to fill herself. This is exactly what Hillary warned voters about in 2008. The contrast between her moment of leadership in this crisis and Obama’s lack of leadership since the very beginning of it will not help Obama make the case for another four years of buck-passing at the top, not even when Obama showed leadership on the Nicki Minaj-Mariah Carey feud.
dogma wrote:Everyone loves the absence of temporal specificity.
But... but he quoted a blog! With the words "power" and "line" in its name. The "power" is self-evident, and the "line" is clearly a reference to its direct form of communications! I don't see how it can't be a credible source of information!
Hey... we have whackadoos... and so do you!
You're right. The difference, is that I (we?) do not bother to post their blogs. Could you please refrain from effectively just re-blogging things here? I'd be more interested to hear your opinion than those of the owner of that blog.
dogma wrote:Everyone loves the absence of temporal specificity.
But... but he quoted a blog! With the words "power" and "line" in its name. The "power" is self-evident, and the "line" is clearly a reference to its direct form of communications! I don't see how it can't be a credible source of information!
Hey... we have whackadoos... and so do you!
You're right. The difference, is that I (we?) do not bother to post their blogs. Could you please refrain from effectively just re-blogging things here? I'd be more interested to hear your opinion than those of the owner of that blog.
Hrmph... good point... me just being lazy I guess...
What did you think of the one just recently posted though?
I think that after the VP debate, I'd almost want to see Biden 2016.
I can't remember the last time a candidate completely schooled another one like that in a televised debate. (and despite what the pundits claim, Biden destroyed Ryan.)
azazel the cat wrote: I think that after the VP debate, I'd almost want to see Biden 2016.
I can't remember the last time a candidate completely schooled another one like that in a televised debate. (and despite what the pundits claim, Biden destroyed Ryan.)
Using THIS logic; I can only assume you have been holding a "Romney for Pres" sign on your street corner. Seeing how he SPANKED the pres like a little.....
Biden saying Obamacare doesn't effect religuos organizations is one set up.
Hillary threw the ball in Obama court for taking responsibility for the four deaths. So basically she answered the 3AM call while he couldn't or wouldn't.
Obama hasn't thrown Hillary under the bus She removed that option for him. Obama either has to leave it alone or ask for Hillary resignation. Obama and rest threw the CIA under the bus but Hillary covered them by "Fog of War" analog and mentioning "subject to change" on the breifing. She basically put distance between herself and the issue, covered the CIA, and left Obama on the limb.
edit
D you miss the part where a mission specialist and supervisor screwed up I mention earlier?
I think it's more that she threw herself under the bus to help the Dems.... a Martyr if you will.
Besides; now that a black president has screwed the pooch for 4 years, she knows the chances of having a woman president in the next 12 years or so is pretty much shot.
azazel the cat wrote: I think that after the VP debate, I'd almost want to see Biden 2016.
I can't remember the last time a candidate completely schooled another one like that in a televised debate. (and despite what the pundits claim, Biden destroyed Ryan.)
Using THIS logic; I can only assume you have been holding a "Romney for Pres" sign on your street corner. Seeing how he SPANKED the pres like a little.....
What you are referring to is not logic; it is wild assumption. You seem to be assuming that I would vote for whoever won any given debate. This is not the case. My statement was made in reference to seeing the lesser of two donkey-caves call the other on his outright bs; quite refreshing to see from a political party not known for going on the attack. This is something I would like to see more of.
I'm Canadian, and up here both Obama and Romney would never have even the slightest chance of being elected, because we don't have a broken two-party system and generally don't tolerate leaders who are extremely socially conservative. However, between the two of them, the only reason I'm so opposed to Romney/Ryan is my dislike for smug, self-righteous, ultra-conservative hypocritical misogynistic bigots who believe people's human and labour rights should be done away with in a fire sale.
gregor_xenos wrote:I think it's more that she threw herself under the bus to help the Dems.... a Martyr if you will.
Besides; now that a black president has screwed the pooch for 4 years, she knows the chances of having a woman president in the next 12 years or so is pretty much shot.
Uh, Republican congress that overtly said on camera that their goal was to make sure nothing got done. (not that I don't disagree with your statement: I think a lot has been done, despite the GOP's best efforts, and not all of it has been positive... Like the NDAA)
Well then. Consider yourself ignored in this thread. That is; till the cantidates begin talking about a violent takeover of the syrup production of AMericas hat. Lol
Well then. Consider yourself ignored in this thread. That is; till the cantidates begin talking about a violent takeover of the syrup production of AMericas hat. Lol
Uh, no. I'd hazard a guess that on the whole, Canadians are more likely to be well-informed than more than most of the US, simply because we do not receive the propaganda that you do, and our education system is not almost defunct.
oh, and "America's hat" only works if you wear hats the size of your car.
d-usa wrote: Because most of the country thinks that a black president screwed the pooch for 4 years....
*sigh*
D... It was a passing comment about acts of terror in general, it was not a claim that this was a result of a terrorist attack. Nobody believed at that Rose Garden speech that the president was suggesting that particular attack was an act of terror.
Heck... even CNN's Candy Crowley admits Mitt Romney 'was right in the main' when he called out President Obama's claim that he immediately called the deadly attack on the Libyan consulate a terrorist act. Even, though she first agreed with Obama at the Debate last night and cut short Romney's response... so... there is that...
So... in the end both Hillary (stoke of genious IMO) and Obama now belatedly says they're should be held accountable...
Which is fine and dandy... I just hope a thorough and proper review of the policy/procedures with regards to Embassy/Consulate safety is done and not given just "lip service".
Well then. Consider yourself ignored in this thread. That is; till the cantidates begin talking about a violent takeover of the syrup production of AMericas hat. Lol
Uh, no. I'd hazard a guess that on the whole, Canadians are more likely to be well-informed than more than most of the US, simply because we do not receive the propaganda that you do, and our education system is not almost defunct.
oh, and "America's hat" only works if you wear hats the size of your car.
Oh yeah?! Well, its a fact that all canuks grow Kenny Rodgers beards (the women too)! ... lol. You must not be familiar with the size of the cowboy hats worn in the south. Of course; our educational system would have us believe that canadians have flapping heads, and therefore wouldnt be able to keep them on anyway. I'm assuming South Park is educational? No? That's aboot it then buddy.
Well then. Consider yourself ignored in this thread. That is; till the cantidates begin talking about a violent takeover of the syrup production of AMericas hat.