Under questioning from South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta could not explain why President Barack Obama spoke with him only once on Sept. 11, 2012 during the Benghazi terrorist attack, and never called back for any updates for over seven hours.
Here’s the exchange between Graham, Gen. Martin Dempsey and Sec. Panetta at a Senate Committee on Armed Services hearing on Thursday:
SEN. GRAHAM: Your testimony, as I understand it, Secretary Panetta, that you talked to the president of the United States one time.
SEC. PANETTA: I talked to him on Sept. 11 with regards to the fact that we were aware this attack was taking place.
SEN. GRAHAM: One time.
SEC. PANETTA: Right.
SEN. GRAHAM: What time did you tell him that?
SEC. PANETTA: I think that was approximately about 5 o’clock?
GEN. DEMPSEY: Yeah, about 5 o’clock.
SEC. PANETTA: About 5 o’clock.
SEN. GRAHAM: General Dempsey, did you ever talk to the president of the United States at all?
GEN. DEMPSEY: I was with the secretary when — at that same time.
SEN. GRAHAM: Did you talk to the president?
GEN. DEMPSEY: Yes.
SEN. GRAHAM: You talked to him how many times.
GEN. DEMPSEY: The same — one time.
SEN. GRAHAM: How long did the conversation last?
GEN. DEMPSEY: We were there in the office for probably 30 minutes.
SEN. GRAHAM: So you talked to him for 30 minutes, one time, and you never talked to him again, either one of you.
GEN. DEMPSEY: Until afterwards.
SEN. GRAHAM: Until after the attack was over.
GEN. DEMPSEY: That’s right.
SEN. GRAHAM: Thank you.
Were there any AC-130 gunships within a thousand miles of Benghazi, Libya?
GEN. DEMPSEY: No, sir.
SEN. GRAHAM: Were there any AC-130 gunships within 2,000 miles of Benghazi, Libya?
GEN. DEMPSEY: I have to go back and look at a map and figure out the distance.
Later in the hearing, Graham asked Panetta if he thought it was “typical” for a commander in chief to make no follow-up phone calls.
SEN. GRAHAM: Are you surprised that the president of the United States never called you, Secretary Panetta, and say, ‘how’s it going?’
SEC. PANETTA: I — you know, normally in these situations –
SEN. GRAHAM: Did he know the level of threat that –
SEC. PANETTA: Let — well, let me finish the answer. We were deploying the forces. He knew we were deploying the forces. He was being kept updated –
SEN. GRAHAM: Well, I hate to interrupt you, but I got limited time. We didn’t deploy any forces. Did you call him back — wait a minute –
SEC. PANETTA: No, but the event — the event was over by the time we got –
SEN. GRAHAM: Mr. Secretary, you didn’t know how long the attack would last. Did you ever call him and say, Mr. President, it looks like we don’t have anything to get there anytime soon?
SEC. PANETTA: The event was over before we could move any assets.
SEN. GRAHAM: It lasted almost eight hours. And my question to you is during that eight-hour period, did the president show any curiosity about how’s this going, what kind of assets do you have helping these people? Did he ever make that phone call?
SEC. PANETTA: Look, there is no question in my mind that the president of the United States was concerned about American lives and, frankly, all of us were concerned about American lives.
SEN. GRAHAM: With all due respect, I don’t believe that’s a credible statement if he never called and asked you, are we helping these people; what’s happening to them? We have a second round, and we’ll take it up then.
SEC. PANETTA: As a former chief of staff to the president of the United States, the purpose of staff is to be able to get that kind of information, and those staff were working with us.
SEN. GRAHAM: So you think it’s a typical response of the president of the United States to make one phone call, do what you can and never call you back again and ask you, how’s it going, by the way, showing your frustration we don’t have any assets in there to help these people for over seven hours?
SEC. PANETTA: The president is well-informed about what is going on. Make no mistake about it.
SEN. GRAHAM: Well, that is interesting to hear.
So... according to their testimonies:
-Not one aircraft had been deployed during the attack
-Not one boot left the ground outside of Libya
-As far as the 281 concurrent threat reports that Panetta and Dempsey claimed kept them from considering Benghazi a special threat, Graham asks how many of those cables came from US Ambassadors stating specifically (as Stevens’ did) that an American installation was incapable of defending itself against a sustained attack and that government buildings nearby were flying al-Qaeda flags — “because I want to know about them, if they do,” Graham adds. Dempsey tries to push that off to State, at which time Graham informs Dempsey that Hillary Clinton claimed never to have seen that cable, even though Dempsey clearly had, which he admits is “surprising.”
But not much media attention... nope... move along, this was a nothingburger.
No... the story is that on 9/11 during an attack on Americans in Benghazi (including a person he knew personally) the President of the United States was uninterested.
The empty chair is in the White House, we as a nation put it there…
Clint Eastwood was a genius...
whembly wrote: No... the story is that on 9/11 during an attack on Americans in Benghazi (including a person he knew personally) the President of the United States was uninterested.
The empty chair is in the White House, we as a nation put it there…
Clint Eastwood was a genius...
(took week off babysitting doggies while everyone else is skiiing) and happened to have that on when it came up.
Wo, say what?
whembly wrote: Don't worry Frazz... no one wants to hold anyone accountable anymore...
Is this a change from how things have been for the past...all of human history?
Look... point is that there is a difference of great importance between wanting to understand what happened in Benghazi and wanting to turn Benghazi into a massive scandal towards the administration.
We know there were feth ups along the way...
I want to be assured that this doesn't happen AGAIN.
Instead, everyone doesn't want to "look bad" and does everything they can to deflect/bury this issue. The aftermath of this was just absolutely perplexing.
We understand what happened in Benghazi, this isn't about that, and hasn't been for some time. This is about blaming people and settling scores against political enemies.
Ahtman wrote: We understand what happened in Benghazi, this isn't about that, and hasn't been for some time. This is about blaming people and settling scores against political enemies.
Quite well put Ahtman.
Whembly where was your worrying during the 11 (I think) embassy attacks that happened during the Bush administration?
Face it, its a thinly veiled attempt to go after Obama for something. Completely missing all of his glaring faults and instead to trying to drum up fake patriotism because American's died.
Why do the Republicans want to go after Obama so badly on this non-issue, when it would be very, very easy to go after him for the "kill you with a drone strike because you didn't prove you weren't a terrorist" policy.
The Republicans want to use Benghazi, because it is a way to lash out at Obama without collapsing a very bad policy (drone strikes) that they also want to have the power to use.
You do see that these hearings have nothing to do with protecting Americans overseas and everything to do with very petty partisanship, right?
Grey Templar wrote: That may be true, but it doesn't excuse the screw up that happened. One wrong doesn't mean you should excuse another.
What does that even mean? What do you think should happen here honestly? Impeach Obama?
If it's found that he committed an impeachable offense, then yes. But it's hard to find out the facts with all of this dancing around the issue his administration is doing.
Grey Templar wrote: That may be true, but it doesn't excuse the screw up that happened. One wrong doesn't mean you should excuse another.
What does that even mean? What do you think should happen here honestly? Impeach Obama?
If it's found that he committed an impeachable offense, then yes. But it's hard to find out the facts with all of this dancing around the issue his administration is doing.
And you honestly think that this of all things this President and all before him have done is really impeachment worthy? Or are you just anti-Obama?
Ahtman wrote: We understand what happened in Benghazi, this isn't about that, and hasn't been for some time. This is about blaming people and settling scores against political enemies.
I beg to differ...
Do you think there's any accountability to this? I honestly wanna know what you think.
Ahtman wrote: We understand what happened in Benghazi, this isn't about that, and hasn't been for some time. This is about blaming people and settling scores against political enemies.
Quite well put Ahtman.
He does write really, really well...
Whembly where was your worrying during the 11 (I think) embassy attacks that happened during the Bush administration?
Of course! (and it was more than 11 attacks).
Face it, its a thinly veiled attempt to go after Obama for something. Completely missing all of his glaring faults and instead to trying to drum up fake patriotism because American's died.
I'm sure there are those who are using this an opportunity to ding Obama as much as they can... but, that still doesn't excuse the Administration's handling of this.
But where was this months long outrage when any of those other embassies were attacked? Thats the point. This is political grandstanding, nothing less.
Why do the Republicans want to go after Obama so badly on this non-issue,
Wow... that's the problem here... 4 Americans died is a "non-issue". Those are you words man.
when it would be very, very easy to go after him for the "kill you with a drone strike because you didn't prove you weren't a terrorist" policy.
Um... have you not been following the news? This Drone policy HAS been getting attention from BOTH Republicans and Democrats.
The Republicans want to use Benghazi, because it is a way to lash out at Obama without collapsing a very bad policy (drone strikes) that they also want to have the power to use.
Okay, I can see where it appears to be... (shoot, John Bolten applauded Obama's Drone Policy )
You do see that these hearings have nothing to do with protecting Americans overseas and everything to do with very petty partisanship, right?
Let me ask YOU something... how else do Congress hold the administration accountable (on anything for matter)?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DutchKillsRambo wrote: But where was this months long outrage when any of those other embassies were attacked? Thats the point. This is political grandstanding, nothing less.
Because they didn't flub the aftermath in such a way like the current adminstration did.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: But where was this months long outrage when any of those other embassies were attacked? Thats the point. This is political grandstanding, nothing less.
You have any evidence that the Bush administration tried to cover those up? No, they rightfully called it for what it was, didn't go on weekend morning talkshows saying it wasn't what it obviously was, and then spend the next several months trying everything they could to not answer questions.
Your attempt at deflecting the issue is failing.
Yeah, I don't like Obama, but that has nothing to do with this issue. And apparently simply lying under oath was an impeachable offense. So IF the investigation finds something more serious, then yes he should be. I'm not saying there is, I just want to know all of the facts, and have this "most open administration ever" stop trying to hide as much as they can.
d-usa wrote: Obama: We screwed up.
Hillary: We screwed up.
GOP: We will not rest until somebody admits that they screwed up. There will be hearings, there will be tribunals, there will be justice!!!!!11!!!1!!!
Everybody else: WTF?
When did Obama say "We screwed up"? Source?
Hillary was actually the only one who said she's accountable, but she said that when she was in Chile (or somewhere in South America).
It's probably impossible at this point, but I just wish someone would relay what REALLY happened... WHY it happenend... and most importantly HOW things will be different from this point forward. I'm not looking for Obama's head on a platter.... I'm looking for an honest appraisal (not just lip service) and honest attempt to learn from whatever mistakes.
Realize that this can be an ugly/nasty business... but lives are at stake and it looked like the reactions were politically driven (remember, this was during the election).
So... according to their testimonies:
-Not one aircraft had been deployed during the attack
-Not one boot left the ground outside of Libya
What do you think mobilization would have accomplished?
We went down this road some months ago. I pointed to thousands of instances of shows of force by our aircraft deterring and ending attacks, some airmchair general said that all of the data supporting this was wrong, for no reason at all, turned into a big long argument... don't really want to rehash it.
We went down this road some months ago. I pointed to thousands of instances of shows of force by our aircraft deterring and ending attacks, some airmchair general said that all of the data supporting this was wrong, for no reason at all, turned into a big long argument... don't really want to rehash it.
First, I'm not sure you know what the phrase "armchair general" means. Because, unless one of us happened to be directly involved in the military action being discussed, we're all armchair generals.
Second, this isn't a discussion of general principle regarding deterrence. This is a discussion regarding the Obama Administration's response to the Benghazi attack. In that context, what would military mobilization have accomplished?
We went down this road some months ago. I pointed to thousands of instances of shows of force by our aircraft deterring and ending attacks, some airmchair general said that all of the data supporting this was wrong, for no reason at all, turned into a big long argument... don't really want to rehash it.
First, I'm not sure you know what the phrase "armchair general" means. Because, unless one of us happened to be directly involved in the military action being discussed, we're all armchair generals.
Second, this isn't a discussion of general principle regarding deterrence. This is a discussion regarding the Obama Administration's response to the Benghazi attack. In that context, what would military mobilization have accomplished?
Well had a mobilization occured, I would have been involved that night, since I was on shift and the KC-135's launched from the UK or Azorres would have been involved, and their flight control would have been from my unit.
But, military mobilization would have shown that the Obama administration was attempting to do something about the situation. F-16's were no more then 30 minutes away from Benghazi, they could have flown the 340 miles as quickly as 20 minutes. They could have had aircrews alerted and in the air in maybe an hour, possibly quicker given that the US military was on a slightly higher alert given the fact that it was 9/11. The attack took place over 8 hours, there is no reason we could not have had F-16's over Benghazi well before we reached the halfway mark. Maybe not in time to save the Ambassador, but definitely in time to save the others who died at the annex complex.
That being said, everyone sat on their hands about it, from what I've read. Every team that attempted to respond was met with red tape, or no support at all from higher levels. The general sense of antipathy that this hearing shows seems to indicate why. Had the administration simply utilized the tools that they had, it is highly likely that Americans who died that day may not have. And then we wouldn't be doing this dance today. That is what mobilization could have done.
We went down this road some months ago. I pointed to thousands of instances of shows of force by our aircraft deterring and ending attacks, some airmchair general said that all of the data supporting this was wrong, for no reason at all, turned into a big long argument... don't really want to rehash it.
First, I'm not sure you know what the phrase "armchair general" means. Because, unless one of us happened to be directly involved in the military action being discussed, we're all armchair generals.
First of all, djones520 is in the military, so he knows a little bit about this stuff...
Second, this isn't a discussion of general principle regarding deterrence. This is a discussion regarding the Obama Administration's response to the Benghazi attack. In that context, what would military mobilization have accomplished?
Secondly, they had resources within the hour... the fire-fight lasted at least for 8 hours....
We went down this road some months ago. I pointed to thousands of instances of shows of force by our aircraft deterring and ending attacks, some airmchair general said that all of the data supporting this was wrong, for no reason at all, turned into a big long argument... don't really want to rehash it.
First, I'm not sure you know what the phrase "armchair general" means. Because, unless one of us happened to be directly involved in the military action being discussed, we're all armchair generals.
First of all, djones520 is in the military, so he knows a little bit about this stuff...
I'll be the first to argue that being in the military doesn't automatically qualify you to talk about this stuff. I just happen to have a job in the military that is intricately tied into nearly every aspect of our aircrafts missions, and I'm also stationed at the largest Air Operations Center in the US Military (possibly the world, not 100% on that one).
We went down this road some months ago. I pointed to thousands of instances of shows of force by our aircraft deterring and ending attacks, some airmchair general said that all of the data supporting this was wrong, for no reason at all, turned into a big long argument... don't really want to rehash it.
First, I'm not sure you know what the phrase "armchair general" means. Because, unless one of us happened to be directly involved in the military action being discussed, we're all armchair generals.
First of all, djones520 is in the military, so he knows a little bit about this stuff...
I'll be the first to argue that being in the military doesn't automatically qualify you to talk about this stuff. I just happen to have a job in the military that is intricately tied into nearly every aspect of our aircrafts missions, and I'm also stationed at the largest Air Operations Center in the US Military (possibly the world, not 100% on that one).
Which is why I qualified that with "a little bit".
Well had a mobilization occured, I would have been involved that night, since I was on shift and the KC-135's launched from the UK or Azorres would have been involved, and their flight control would have been from my unit.
Fair enough, and that was sloppy on my part. However, I would still call you an armchair general because you weren't making the higher decisions; minding that I am no better.
Had the administration simply utilized the tools that they had, it is highly likely that Americans who died that day may not have. And then we wouldn't be doing this dance today. That is what mobilization could have done.
And if they utilized those tools, and Americans still died?
The demonstration would have been for the Americans. As Whembly pointed out, this reeks of pre-election coverrup. Had the administration done something, there would have been no need for all the smoke and mirrors.
They could just have said, "Look, when this went down, we launched our fighters, we provided as much support as we could for our ground teams in Triploi to get to Benghazi and provide support, but unfortunately in the end they were unable to prevent the loss of life."
That, while unfortunate, would have been acceptable. No response period, and then months and months of fighting to reveal all of the facts. Not acceptable.
And this is just my thoughts, but the fact that all of this happened just before the election, thats what really upsets me. I know they pulled this act, because it happened just before the election.
I don't buy into the conspiracies that they let those people die purposefully. I feel it was just a general sense of antipathy. There was no real effort to find out how dire the situation was, and that lack of urgency got upchanneled all the way to the top, and that is why nothing was done. But as I said, what really upsets me about it all was the appearance that they tried to cover it up to save their asses pre-election.
I guess my question is why would the Obama administration purposely cover this up on 9/11? What did they have to gain by making this not a terrorist action? Clearly Obama lied horrendously about pulling out the troops and being transparent, but how did "covering" this up help their election? I'm honestly asking as I've never seen any answers to that. Only that Obama was trying to cover it up before the elections to increase his re-electability. Completely forgetting the massive upsurge in popularity after 9/11 Bush received mind.
So why would they have any reason to cover up the fact that the people we're still at war with hate us?
whembly wrote: No... the story is that on 9/11 during an attack on Americans in Benghazi (including a person he knew personally) the President of the United States was uninterested.
The empty chair is in the White House, we as a nation put it there…
Clint Eastwood was a genius...
Surely, with this bombshell, Romney will win the election now!
whembly wrote: No... the story is that on 9/11 during an attack on Americans in Benghazi (including a person he knew personally) the President of the United States was uninterested.
The empty chair is in the White House, we as a nation put it there…
Clint Eastwood was a genius...
Surely, with this bombshell, Romney will win the election now!
Hey... if Obama allows me to discharge my school loans through bankruptcy, I'll vote for him for his 3rd therm.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: I guess my question is why would the Obama administration purposely cover this up on 9/11? What did they have to gain by making this not a terrorist action? Clearly Obama lied horrendously about pulling out the troops and being transparent, but how did "covering" this up help their election? I'm honestly asking as I've never seen any answers to that. Only that Obama was trying to cover it up before the elections to increase his re-electability. Completely forgetting the massive upsurge in popularity after 9/11 Bush received mind.
So why would they have any reason to cover up the fact that the people we're still at war with hate us?
That's the question. What did they have to gain by it? I think it's because they were trying to show that they didn't drop the ball. Of all days that we should have been most aware of an attack on us, 9/11 should have been it. And we completely missed it.
Who changed Susan Rice's notes? The CIA said it was a terrorist attack, so why did she go on several differant shows and say it wasn't? Why was she, someone who really had no reason to be doing that, on those shows pushing that story? It took two weeks for the administration to admit what the CIA was saying the next day. Why were they doing that?
I think it basically just comes down to an Administration that can't admit it made a mistake. Obama still hasn't come forth and said he was wrong on the Iraqi surge, even after signing off on a similar plan for Afghanistan (just an example of the point I'm making, not in itself related to the issue).
Clearly Obama is a horrible incompetent monster and the enemy of everything American and pure.
And the GOP still lost the presidential elections as well as seats in both houses.
Maybe instead if banging the drum to raise the rallying cries of their shrinking base to march against the enemy, they should take a look at themselves.
If you give the people a choice between a guy who craps on the lives of Americans and wipes his butt with the constitution or a freedom and liberty loving God fearing patriot, and they choose the a-hole, then maybe it's you. Could be time to stop painting the other turd a darker shade of brown and to start polishing your turd.
But I grew up in socialist Europe, so what do I know.
The Benghazi "scandal" is the biggest real-life game of trying to make fetch happen that I've ever seen.
20 Americans were killed during the Bush administration during 7 different attacks. Not a peep out of John McCain then.
Let me know when the hearings start over the extrajudicial use of drones, the status of the detainees still held at Guantanamo Bay or the failure to jail a single wall street executive nearly 6 years later are, or something like that, happen.
d-usa wrote: Clearly Obama is a horrible incompetent monster and the enemy of everything American and pure.
And the GOP still lost the presidential elections as well as seats in both houses.
Maybe instead if banging the drum to raise the rallying cries of their shrinking base to march against the enemy, they should take a look at themselves.
If you give the people a choice between a guy who craps on the lives of Americans and wipes his butt with the constitution or a freedom and liberty loving God fearing patriot, and they choose the a-hole, then maybe it's you. Could be time to stop painting the other turd a darker shade of brown and to start polishing your turd.
But I grew up in socialist Europe, so what do I know.
Who are you talking to?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: The Benghazi "scandal" is the biggest real-life game of trying to make fetch happen that I've ever seen.
20 Americans were killed during the Bush administration during 7 different attacks. Not a peep out of John McCain then.
Let me know when the hearings start over the extrajudicial use of drones, the status of the detainees still held at Guantanamo Bay or the failure to jail a single wall street executive nearly 6 years later are, or something like that, happen.
Reference my previous post where this straw man was already used.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: I guess my question is why would the Obama administration purposely cover this up on 9/11? What did they have to gain by making this not a terrorist action? Clearly Obama lied horrendously about pulling out the troops and being transparent, but how did "covering" this up help their election? I'm honestly asking as I've never seen any answers to that. Only that Obama was trying to cover it up before the elections to increase his re-electability. Completely forgetting the massive upsurge in popularity after 9/11 Bush received mind.
So why would they have any reason to cover up the fact that the people we're still at war with hate us?
Dutch... djones520 is responding to this much better than I...
But, Obama administration made a decision early on to stop referring to the Benghazi debacle as a successful terrorist attack. Acknowledging what really happened would have utterly destroyed one of Obama’s main campaign themes (which admittedly at the time, was Obama's most effective tact), that through his own personal heroism he had al Qaeda on the run with numerous chest thumping of "getting" Bin Ladin (which, I really don't fault him). Instead, Obama chose to pretend that Benghazi was an unfortunate but essentially meaningless mob uprising, prompted by a YouTube video.
Do you see where I'm coming from?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: He's just referring to other failures of the Obama admin Whembly.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: I guess my question is why would the Obama administration purposely cover this up on 9/11? What did they have to gain by making this not a terrorist action? Clearly Obama lied horrendously about pulling out the troops and being transparent, but how did "covering" this up help their election? I'm honestly asking as I've never seen any answers to that. Only that Obama was trying to cover it up before the elections to increase his re-electability. Completely forgetting the massive upsurge in popularity after 9/11 Bush received mind.
So why would they have any reason to cover up the fact that the people we're still at war with hate us?
That's the question. What did they have to gain by it? I think it's because they were trying to show that they didn't drop the ball. Of all days that we should have been most aware of an attack on us, 9/11 should have been it. And we completely missed it.
Who changed Susan Rice's notes? The CIA said it was a terrorist attack, so why did she go on several differant shows and say it wasn't? Why was she, someone who really had no reason to be doing that, on those shows pushing that story? It took two weeks for the administration to admit what the CIA was saying the next day. Why were they doing that?
I think it basically just comes down to an Administration that can't admit it made a mistake. Obama still hasn't come forth and said he was wrong on the Iraqi surge, even after signing off on a similar plan for Afghanistan (just an example of the point I'm making, not in itself related to the issue).
Well I guess the difference between me and you as you see that as something different for a president. I see it as par for the course. There's a reason I will only vote 3rd party and its antics like this. Clearly you're not one of the ones foaming at the mouth to take down Obama because he's Obama. And you're clearly not one of the bat-gak crazy retards that think Obama is any real "change" from the Bush administration when it comes to foreign policy.
You're military, and active duty with a huge view of the situation I don't have so I respect your view. I just don't know why this matters. Obama is the same as any other President. All talk, all bs. If he didn't go down for gaking on the Right to Assemble he's not going down for this. This really is just politics. How many Americans have died overseas since Benghazi? How many died from handguns and were outlawing rifles? Tis all bs grandstanding. Obama did nothing special any other president would have done.
Still haven't heard a real reason besides "it would hurt his re-election chances" as a reason to involve a massive government coverup over something that people really wouldn't have cared about otherwise too.
I don't want to build a quote tree, but in response to Whembly:
1.) Re: response - No, I don't think reaction was peachy. But that's the cost of doing business, frankly, when you have embassies all over the world, including some in politically unstable areas where we are unpopular. It has been for generations. 17 Americans killed under Reagan, 8 under Clinton, etc. Sure, it's a tragedy that 4 Americans are dead, but that's an average weekend in Chicago - have some proportion.
2.) Re: "was I paying attention during Bush administration" Let me repeat what I said. Under the Bush administration, 7 attacks, 20 dead Americans, not a peep out of John McCain. There, I bolded the relevant part. Now he's been on TV for months screaming this is a bigger scandal then Watergate, FFS.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: But, Obama administration made a decision early on to stop referring to the Benghazi debacle as a successful terrorist attack. Acknowledging what really happened would have utterly destroyed one of Obama’s main campaign themes
Please stop making things up. Unless we're seriously going to get into an argument about how referring it as an "act of terror" isn't the same as calling it a "terrorist attack"; which would of course be a most Clintoneque "meaning of is is" argument and not worthy of anyone here's time.
Ouze wrote: I don't want to build a quote tree, but in response to Whembly:
1.) Re: response - No, I don't think reaction was peachy. But that's the cost of doing business, frankly, when you have embassies all over the world, including some in politically unstable areas where we are unpopular. It has been for generations. 17 Americans killed under Reagan, 8 under Clinton, etc. Sure, it's a tragedy that 4 Americans are dead, but that's an average weekend in Chicago - have some proportion.
2.) Re: "was I paying attention during Bush administration" Let me repeat what I said. Under the Bush administration, 7 attacks, 20 dead Americans, not a peep out of John McCain. There, I bolded the relevant part. Now he's been on TV for months screaming this is a bigger scandal then Watergate, FFS.
Don't you know? Because they didn't say terrorism right off the bat it means there was a cover up. Nevermind the fact that terrorism is the word du jour.
Ouze wrote: I don't want to build a quote tree, but in response to Whembly:
1.) Re: response - No, I don't think reaction was peachy. But that's the cost of doing business, frankly, when you have embassies all over the world, including some in politically unstable areas where we are unpopular. It has been for generations. 17 Americans killed under Reagan, 8 under Clinton, etc. Sure, it's a tragedy that 4 Americans are dead, but that's an average weekend in Chicago - have some proportion.
2.) Re: "was I paying attention during Bush administration" Let me repeat what I said. Under the Bush administration, 7 attacks, 20 dead Americans, not a peep out of John McCain. There, I bolded the relevant part. Now he's been on TV for months screaming this is a bigger scandal then Watergate, FFS.
1) I understand where you're coming from... I really do. But, there's 2 major distinction that makes this different:
A) This was on 9/11
B) This was right before the election
A+B=really, REALLY distasteful.
2) McCain REGULARLY ding'ed Bush... he was the first one to advocate for the 1st SURGE in Iraq/Afganistan! You know... Maverick and all...
I will be happy to wait while you find a video, transcript, or quote from John McCain denouncing Bush's failures in allowing an attack on a US embassy in which Americans died. I freely admit I have not researched this and this is a golden opportunity for you to make me look stupid, and I will admit I was wrong and you were right.
Remember - specifically about any one of the 7 embassy attacks under Bush's watch.
Please stop making things up. Unless we're seriously going to get into an argument about how referring it as an "act of terror" isn't the same as calling it a "terrorist attack"; which would of course be a most Clintoneque "meaning of is is" argument and not worthy of anyone here's time.
Seriously... He said that, "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for" but did not say that the Benghazi attack qualified or was being pursued as one.
Context matters dude.
And he fething went to Las Vega for a campaign shindig with Jay-Z & Beoncyee right fething after that rose garden speech!
I will be happy to wait while you find a video, transcript, or quote from John McCain denouncing Bush's failures in allowing an attack on a US embassy in which Americans died. I freely admit I have not researched this and this is a golden opportunity for you to make me look stupid, and I will admit I was wrong and you were right.
Remember - specifically about any one of the 7 embassy attacks under Bush's watch.
So, because he did specifically denounce Bush, then Obama is hereforth immune to any criticism.
whembly wrote: Seriously... He said that, "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for" but did not say that the Benghazi attack qualified or was being pursued as one.
"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America" By the very next sentence, he mentioned the 4 dead embassy staff. Are we now going to pretend that this was some generic speech unrelated to the attack, and I'm trying to take a single line out of context? I mean, seriously, this is what it's devolved to?
I will be happy to wait while you find a video, transcript, or quote from John McCain denouncing Bush's failures in allowing an attack on a US embassy in which Americans died. I freely admit I have not researched this and this is a golden opportunity for you to make me look stupid, and I will admit I was wrong and you were right.
Remember - specifically about any one of the 7 embassy attacks under Bush's watch.
So, because he did specifically denounce Bush, then Obama is hereforth immune to any criticism.
Gotcha.
You're moving the goalposts. Let me recap. I said embassy attacks under Bush, 20 dead Americans, not a peep out of Johnny Mac, you said it happened all the time, was I not paying attention? I said Ok, show me. That's where we are. Feel free to scroll up if that's an inaccurate recap.
whembly wrote: Seriously... He said that, "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for" but did not say that the Benghazi attack qualified or was being pursued as one.
"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America" By the very next sentence, he mentioned the 4 dead embassy staff. Are we now going to pretend that this was some generic speech unrelated to the attack, and I'm trying to take a single line out of context? I mean, seriously, this is what it's devolved to?
I will be happy to wait while you find a video, transcript, or quote from John McCain denouncing Bush's failures in allowing an attack on a US embassy in which Americans died. I freely admit I have not researched this and this is a golden opportunity for you to make me look stupid, and I will admit I was wrong and you were right.
Remember - specifically about any one of the 7 embassy attacks under Bush's watch.
So, because he did specifically denounce Bush, then Obama is hereforth immune to any criticism.
Gotcha.
You're moving the goalposts. Let me recap. I said embassy attacks under Bush, 20 dead Americans, not a peep out of Johnny Mac, you said it happened all the time, was I not paying attention? I said Ok, show me. That's where we are. Feel free to scroll up if that's an inaccurate recap.
Sorry I wasn't clear... John McCain regularly butt heads with Bush... that's all I was trying to say.
I guess my bottom line is that I'm sorry those people died, but I don't think it's a scandal. I'm sure the WH made mistakes, just like every one before or since had, but that doesn't make it Watergate. There are plenty of things I really would like to see Congress investigate; and I hate seeing them just focus on this because it smells like a partisan witch-hunt to me.
"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for." But the context of that statement suggests strongly that President Obama was referring to terror in general, not specifically to the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi or the violent demonstrations at the U.S. embassy in Cairo.
This is most certainly NOT the Clintonian definition of "is".
Again, lemme rephrase that because I keep getting the same instance response that I'm wrong: At no point was it clear that he was using that term to describe the attack in Benghazi. He’d also spent the previous two paragraphs discussing the 9/11 attacks and the aftermath. “Acts of terror” could have just as easily been a reference to that. Or maybe it wasn’t a direct reference to anything, just a generic, reassuring line he’d added into a speech which did take place, after all, the day after the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. I do have to give Obama (or his speech writers) promps as this was effective wordsmithing.
Remember... this is during his re-election campaign...
Calling it a terrorist attack would have given Obama powers under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) to use military action, including drone warfare, against the bad guys. If he were serious about “bringingto justice the killers,” which he vowed to do in the speech, then labeling this incident a terrorist attack (if he believed that’s what it was) would have been critical. So... where are the bad guys?
Ahtman ain't winning this one dude.
But sure, we're cool.
Awesome brah! Where do you game?
I guess my bottom line is that I'm sorry those people died, but I don't think it's a scandal. I'm sure the WH made mistakes, just like every one before or since had, but that doesn't make it Watergate. There are plenty of things I really would like to see Congress investigate; and I hate seeing them just focus on this because it smells like a partisan witch-hunt to me.
I know dude... me too. Bottom line, I want any mistakes identified and the policy/procedures updated so that something like this doesn't happen again.
whembly wrote: " But the context of that statement suggests strongly that President Obama was referring to terror in general, not specifically to the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi or the violent demonstrations at the U.S. embassy in Cairo.
You appear to have made your 2+ invulnerable save to reason. You are arguing that he wasn't talking specifically the attack in Benghazi in a speech he delivered the day after the attack, which mentioned Libya 11 times, Benghazi 4 times, in a speech which was titled "Remarks by the President on the Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in Libya".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Again, lemme rephrase that because I keep getting the same instance response that I'm wrong: At no point was it clear that he was using that term to describe the attack in Benghazi. He’d also spent the previous two paragraphs discussing the 9/11 attacks and the aftermath. “Acts of terror” could have just as easily been a reference to that. Or maybe it wasn’t a direct reference to anything, just a generic, reassuring line he’d added into a speech which did take place, after all, the day after the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. I do have to give Obama (or his speech writers) promps as this was effective wordsmithing.
The transcript of the remarks was already linked, but I'll link it again. Your contention that he spent the previous two praragraphs talking about 9/11 is simply a fabrication made out of whole cloth. He did not. This is not a matter of opinion. The end.
whembly wrote: Calling it a terrorist attack would have given Obama powers under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) to use military action, including drone warfare, against the bad guys. If he were serious about “bringingto justice the killers,” which he vowed to do in the speech, then labeling this incident a terrorist attack (if he believed that’s what it was) would have been critical.
No, it wouldn't have. The executive already has a good habit of making power grabs, lets not allow them to pretend the AUMF requires him to use a secret code word like a magic ring to transform him into a superhero with unlimited powers ("form of... MQ-9 Reaper!"). The AUMF was very clearly and unambiguously worded to allow force against the planners of the 9/11 attacks. It's like 3 paragraphs.
He wouldn't need the AUMF anyway. He's free to bomb the living gak out of them and simply ask Congress for authorization later, depending if you think the War Powers act is lawful or not (opinions vary).
whembly wrote: " But the context of that statement suggests strongly that President Obama was referring to terror in general, not specifically to the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi or the violent demonstrations at the U.S. embassy in Cairo.
You appear to have made your 2+ invulnerable save to reason. You are arguing that he wasn't talking specifically the attack in Benghazi in a speech he delivered the day after the attack, which mentioned Libya 11 times, Benghazi 4 times, in a speech which was titled "Remarks by the President on the Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in Libya".
"Acts of Terror"... that's what we're talking about. Used ambiguously...
ANd yes, I'm a Shadow Field toting mutha F'n Archon!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Again, lemme rephrase that because I keep getting the same instance response that I'm wrong: At no point was it clear that he was using that term to describe the attack in Benghazi. He’d also spent the previous two paragraphs discussing the 9/11 attacks and the aftermath. “Acts of terror” could have just as easily been a reference to that. Or maybe it wasn’t a direct reference to anything, just a generic, reassuring line he’d added into a speech which did take place, after all, the day after the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. I do have to give Obama (or his speech writers) promps as this was effective wordsmithing.
The transcript of the remarks was already linked, but I'll link it again. Your contention that he spent the previous two praragraphs talking about 9/11 is simply a fabrication made out of whole cloth. He did not. This is not a matter of opinion. The end.
Wanna try that again? Here's the quote for your reading pleasure:
Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.
As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.
whembly wrote: Calling it a terrorist attack would have given Obama powers under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) to use military action, including drone warfare, against the bad guys. If he were serious about “bringingto justice the killers,” which he vowed to do in the speech, then labeling this incident a terrorist attack (if he believed that’s what it was) would have been critical.
No, it wouldn't have. The executive already has a good habit of making power grabs, lets not allow them to pretend the AUMF requires him to use a secret code word like a magic ring to transform him into a superhero ("form of... MQ-9 Reaper!"). The AUMF was very clearly and unambiguously worded to allow force against the planners of the 9/11 attacks. It's like 3 paragraphs.
You are really splitting hairs....the AUMF provides ANOTHER justifications for miliary use to address terrorist activites.
whembly wrote: Wanna try that again? Here's the quote for your reading pleasure:
You're right; I was looking at the wrong place.
No problem... I mess up all the time too.
We all get snookered into these sorts of political discourse, that we need to sometime take a step back.
All I want is for someone to honestly assess what went wrong and make the necessary adjustments so that these sorts of things are mitigated in the future.
Well, on that I can agree. I don't think there was a huge scandal here, or any sort of you know, Machiavellian plot to cover it up - but that doesn't mean it was OK, either. There are lessons to be learned here regardless of your political leanings.
djones520 wrote: The demonstration would have been for the Americans. As Whembly pointed out, this reeks of pre-election coverrup. Had the administration done something, there would have been no need for all the smoke and mirrors.
They could just have said, "Look, when this went down, we launched our fighters, we provided as much support as we could for our ground teams in Triploi to get to Benghazi and provide support, but unfortunately in the end they were unable to prevent the loss of life."
So you're saying the Obama Administration should have used the military in order to placate voters?
I mean, I get that you don't like what you perceive as cover-up, but what you're saying now merely indicates a desire for a different cover-up.
djones520 wrote: The demonstration would have been for the Americans. As Whembly pointed out, this reeks of pre-election coverrup. Had the administration done something, there would have been no need for all the smoke and mirrors.
They could just have said, "Look, when this went down, we launched our fighters, we provided as much support as we could for our ground teams in Triploi to get to Benghazi and provide support, but unfortunately in the end they were unable to prevent the loss of life."
So you're saying the Obama Administration should have used the military in order to placate voters?
I mean, I get that you don't like what you perceive as cover-up, but what you're saying now merely indicates a desire for a different cover-up.
I was trying to answer both of your points at once. Where you were asking the "what if" scenario as well. I wasn't advocating that he lied about sending us in.
Also, I have a hard time taking Republicans (Especially McCain) seriously on this after they were "too busy" to go to the special briefing on the matter.
You're a country of 300 million people. And it's a dangerous world out there. Every so often in the course of running a country of 300 million stuff will go wrong and some people will die.
Now that might sound like a blasé approach to the death of some people, but can anyone tell me how many American security staff died in Iraq? Because I'd think if the deaths of some Americans employed by their government demanded an investigation and talk of an impeachment... then people would at least know, maybe even to the nearest dozen, how many Americans died protecting facilities in Iraq.
But no-one knows, because that kind of thinking at its core is ridiculous. It's a country of 300 million, and it's a dangerous world out there. Bad gak will happen sometimes.
But when bad gak happens while the other tribe is in the big, well let's launch investigations and haul everyone in and ask them nonsense questions.
The thing that makes Benghazi more significant than some of the other attacks is the fact that the ambassador was killed, and we haven't had an ambassador killed in an embassy or consulate attack since 1979 in Afghanistan.
Hordini wrote: The thing that makes Benghazi more significant than some of the other attacks is the fact that the ambassador was killed, and we haven't had an ambassador killed in an embassy or consulate attack since 1979 in Afghanistan.
Add in the length of time the attack took. It wasn't a simple drive by or bombing, it was an assault that took several hours and had weapons like mortars firing in support of the infantry conducting the assault.
d-usa wrote: So the 20 killed during Bush didn't warrant any hearings because their job descriptions were not important enough?
From 2006 on the Dems controlled the House and the Senate. Perhaps they were happy with how Bush and his team handled the incidents.
Write Pelosi and Reid and ask them why it wasn't an issue for them. Maybe the 9-11 hearings earlier took the steam out of them.
By the way, even in the worst of those attacks (Yemen), the host nation security forces did what they were supposed to do, that didn't happen in this one.
And out of curiosity (honest question, not trying to be a smart ass but don't have time to do the research this morning), where are you getting that 20 killed number? I found the following:
Like in 2002 when the US Consulate in the Karachi, Pakistan, was attacked and 10 were killed?
Or in 2004 when the US embassy in Uzbekistan was attacked and two were killed and another nine injured?
How about in 2004, when the US Consulate in Saudi Arabia was stormed and 8 lost their lives?
There is more: In 2006, armed men attacked the US Embassy in Syria and one was murdered.
Then in 2007 a grenade was thrown at the US Embassy in Athens.
In 2008, the US Embassy in Serbia was set on fire.
In 2008, bombings in the US Embassy in Yemen killed 10.
But most of those were not US citizens (for example, in the Pakistan attack no US cits were killed).
Maybe democrats realized that embassies in dangerous countries are dangerous, and didn't play political football with the lives lost?
Of course this foaming at the mouth scapegoat hunt is one of the reasons the GOP is alienating voters. Besides the not caring avoid attacks that happened when Bush was in charge, or not showing up to the hearings you demanded.
You mean the consistent record with which the democrats attacked the attacks on embassies during Bush and Obama?
Of were the democrats in charge able to prevent McCain from asking questions in 2006, and did Democrats prevent McCain from walking over to the hearing about the current attacks when he was busy screaming at the media about not having any hearings?
A shocking new book makes dramatic claims about the motives behind the 9/11 terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that left Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead. It also claims former CIA director David Petraeus was the victim of an internal coup by some of his deputies and bodyguards, who arranged for his extramarital affair to be investigated by the FBI, a highly unusual course of action.
The book, Benghzai: The Definitive Report, was written by Brandon Webb, a retired Navy SEAL, and Jack Murphy, a retired Green Beret. The two are editors of SOFREP.com, a site devoted to news and stories written by current and former special-operations commandos.
According to a preview of the book in Britain’s Daily Mail newspaper:
The September 11 Benghazi terrorist attack that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, was retaliation by Islamist militants who had been targeted by covert U.S. military operations.
The book claims that neither Stevens nor even Petraeus knew about the raids by American special operations troops, which had ‘kicked a hornet’s nest’ among the heavily-armed fighters after the overthrow of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi.
John Brennan, President Barack Obama’s Deputy National Security Adviser, had been authorizing ‘unilateral operations in North Africa outside of the traditional command structure,’ according to the e-book. Brennan is Obama’s pick to replace Petraeus as head of the CIA.
If true, much would be explained about why the Benghazi consulate was targeted and why the administration has been so anxious to avoid congressional and media scrutiny of the first assassination of a U.S. ambassador in over 30 years.
The book’s authors also claim that:
Senior CIA officers targeted Petraeus [for exposure] because they didn’t like the way he was running the agency — focusing more on paramilitary operations than intelligence analysis. They used their political clout and their connections to force an FBI investigation of his affair with Paul Broadwell and make it public . . .
“It was high-level career officers on the CIA who got the ball rolling on the investigation. It was basically a palace coupe to get Petraeus out of there,’ Jack Murphy, one of the authors, told MailOnline. . . .
“It was well known to Petraeus’s Personal Security Detachment (bodyguards) that he and Broadwell were having an affair. He wasn’t the only high-ranking Agency head or general engaged in extramarital relations, but when the 7th floor wanted Petraeus out, they cashed in their chips,” Webb and Murphy write. . . .
“It’s almost like they wanted him not just to resign but that they wanted him kicked out of the political game for at least a number of years,” Murphy told MailOnline. . . .
The authors say that Kelley’s report may have started in the FBI investigation — but CIA officers pressured the Justice Department to keep the inquiry open. . . .
Petraeus was furious, they say, because he was kept in the dark about the raids being conducted without his knowledge by the Pentagon’s Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) across Libya and North Africa.
Webb and Murphy claim that the September 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. consulate and a CIA outpost in Benghazi proved to Petraeus that he was an outsider in the Obama administration and that he would remain marginalized as long as he was at the CIA.
A lot of fact-checking will have to be done to substantiate the claims by Webb and Murphy. But from my own reporting, I have learned that no one runs afoul of senior CIA officials — or John Brennan — lightly or without peril. CIA officials angry at the Bush administration’s treatment of the agency in 2006 helped elevate the Valerie Plame affair into a national scandal and crippled much of the White House’s ability to conduct foreign policy. In the end, there was precious little evidence of any real security breach or wrongdoing beyond a perjury conviction of Scooter Libby, a top aide to Vice President Cheney.
Hordini wrote: The thing that makes Benghazi more significant than some of the other attacks is the fact that the ambassador was killed, and we haven't had an ambassador killed in an embassy or consulate attack since 1979 in Afghanistan.
Are you telling me that if this was just 4 regular diplomatic personel this inquiry wouldn't be happening?
And if you look at the case in 1979, you see an ambassador who was kidnapped and killed in a bungled rescue by Soviet & Afghani forces. But what you don't see is any effort to blame the Secretary of State of any of their staff for what happened. Because 1979 was a different time in US politics, and partisan politics doesn't mix with the basic value of governance. And governance knows that the world is a dangerous place, and sometimes security systems will fail.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: For feths sake... do you believe whatever Obama says... 'cuz, he's Obama?
No, but the point is you have to look at a book and its authors and apply some critical reasoning. A book written by some guys who claim to fame is that they're former soldiers who run a website... is not a seal of academic excellence.
I just find it hard to believe anyone would look at Bengahzi today and what's been reported so far and say "things are squared, lets move on...".
I refuse to believe that the events warrant anything like the attention the Republicans are trying to give the issue.
whembly wrote: For feths sake... do you believe whatever Obama says... 'cuz, he's Obama?
No, but the point is you have to look at a book and its authors and apply some critical reasoning. A book written by some guys who claim to fame is that they're former soldiers who run a website... is not a seal of academic excellence.
Sure... that's why I emphasized the "A lot of fact-checking will have to be done to substantiate the claims by Webb and Murphy" bit...
The milblogs are staying on top of that... they're not outright dismissing it.
I just find it hard to believe anyone would look at Bengahzi today and what's been reported so far and say "things are squared, lets move on...".
I refuse to believe that the events warrant anything like the attention the Republicans are trying to give the issue.
Sure... there's be some over reaction on both sides (it's the current political environment now).
whembly wrote: Sure... that's why I emphasized the "A lot of fact-checking will have to be done to substantiate the claims by Webb and Murphy" bit...
Sure, I got that. And while we both agree on that, I think the difference comes in what we think of the claims while they're not verified. I think 'well this is just another political theory that will probably disappear like all the rest', where you seem to be thinking 'well this could just check out'.
Sure... there's be some over reaction on both sides (it's the current political environment now).
The whole thing is distateful...
This invented contraversy is really all on the Republicans. Honestly, it's probably worse than Whitewater (less contrived, but more distasteful).
Chuck Hagel hasn't been confirmed yet as the GOP is filibustering this...
The Nuke Option on the table?
When the GOP claim there hasn't been enough time to vet Hagel... when he was a senator in their own party for 12 years just shows how much bs is going on.
Chuck Hagel hasn't been confirmed yet as the GOP is filibustering this...
The Nuke Option on the table?
When the GOP claim there hasn't been enough time to vet Hagel... when he was a senator in their own party for 12 years just shows how much bs is going on.
It is a grand standing move anyway. They know that he only needs 51 votes soon so they are able to "block" it for fancy soundbites during the next campaign while knowing that they really didn't Filibuster the first cabinet appointment.
Chuck Hagel hasn't been confirmed yet as the GOP is filibustering this...
The Nuke Option on the table?
When the GOP claim there hasn't been enough time to vet Hagel... when he was a senator in their own party for 12 years just shows how much bs is going on.
It is a grand standing move anyway. They know that he only needs 51 votes soon so they are able to "block" it for fancy soundbites during the next campaign while knowing that they really didn't Filibuster the first cabinet appointment.
Yeah... he'll get confirmed.
This is all political... Dems did the same thing against John Bolten for UN Ambassador(?).
I was just being pithy with my comments because I get a bit annoyed when people are shocked at the death of Americans; especially Americans who were doubtlessly aware of the risks they were taking.
Hordini wrote: The thing that makes Benghazi more significant than some of the other attacks is the fact that the ambassador was killed, and we haven't had an ambassador killed in an embassy or consulate attack since 1979 in Afghanistan.
Are you telling me that if this was just 4 regular diplomatic personel this inquiry wouldn't be happening?
And if you look at the case in 1979, you see an ambassador who was kidnapped and killed in a bungled rescue by Soviet & Afghani forces. But what you don't see is any effort to blame the Secretary of State of any of their staff for what happened. Because 1979 was a different time in US politics, and partisan politics doesn't mix with the basic value of governance. And governance knows that the world is a dangerous place, and sometimes security systems will fail.
I'm not saying it wouldn't be happening or that it wouldn't still be a big deal, I'm saying it's a bigger deal because the ambassador got killed.
I was just being pithy with my comments because I get a bit annoyed when people are shocked at the death of Americans; especially Americans who were doubtlessly aware of the risks they were taking.
Looks like I stand corrected. I guess for SecInt they consider that it wasn't a filibuster because it didn't actually work due to not having 41 votes.
In the US "filibuster" generally refers to any extension of debate, which can be brought to a close by way of cloture. So, to take Kempthorne as an example, a few Senators may force a cloture motion because they continue to extend the debate; despite mass agreement by the rest of the Senate.
To my mind this is filibuster because, despite the weakness of the action, it was still an action to obstruct.
Lindsey Graham really only had a few simple questions, and I think it's reasonable to demand answers to them, and to withhold the vote until they're adequately answered. From the hearing:
1.) Could God create a boulder so heavy He could not lift it?
2.) If a train left Philadelphia going 120 miles an hour, and a train left New York going 80 miles an hour, why does Obama hate America so much?
3.) Which is the correct ending for the film "Inception"?
4.) When did you stop beating your wife?
5.) Do you think Lindsey is kind of a girls name?
Looks like I stand corrected. I guess for SecInt they consider that it wasn't a filibuster because it didn't actually work due to not having 41 votes.
In the US "filibuster" generally refers to any extension of debate, which can be brought to a close by way of cloture. So, to take Kempthorne as an example, a few Senators may force a cloture motion because they continue to extend the debate; despite mass agreement by the rest of the Senate.
To my mind this is filibuster because, despite the weakness of the action, it was still an action to obstruct.
I didn't mean to disagree with what you are saying. Just trying to think of why that wasn't considered a filibuster by some. I just figured it was some weird technicality because nobody likes the label unless they can paint somebody else with it.
Hordini wrote: I'm not saying it wouldn't be happening or that it wouldn't still be a big deal, I'm saying it's a bigger deal because the ambassador got killed.
Which is fair, it is a bigger deal than it would be if it was four embassy grunts that were killed. I just don't believe that makes it enough of a big deal as to be worthy of the attention the Republicans have given the issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: Lindsey Graham really only had a few simple questions, and I think it's reasonable to demand answers to them, and to withhold the vote until they're adequately answered. From the hearing:
1.) Could God create a boulder so heavy He could not lift it?
2.) If a train left Philadelphia going 120 miles an hour, and a train left New York going 80 miles an hour, why does Obama hate America so much?
3.) Which is the correct ending for the film "Inception"?
4.) When did you stop beating your wife?
5.) Do you think Lindsey is kind of a girls name?
I didn't mean to disagree with what you are saying. Just trying to think of why that wasn't considered a filibuster by some. I just figured it was some weird technicality because nobody likes the label unless they can paint somebody else with it.
Well, yeah. The term "filibuster" doesn't have a precise meaning. In the US, in the popular present, it is often used to denote action with the intention of obstruction. That's fair, because that's basically what it means, but in a highly partisan nation that renders the term dirty. So you apply it to your opposition in order to paint them in a bad light.
I just wish people would stop calling it "bigger than Watergate". No matter how botched and flawed the handling of the Embassy event has been it doesn't compare to an attempt to spy on your political adversaries in order to get yourself elected. Even if the Obama administration tried to cover the whole thing up (which doesn't make sense, but let's pretend it does and that they did) it wouldn't compare to a premeditated, intentional cheating in a democratic election. It's just not the same.
I don't think Frazzled has ever taken nuking congress off the table. I believe he actively encourages it.
Nuke the site from orbit. Its the only way to be sure.
To the immediate topic of filibuster. Looks like they put a hold on until Senate meets again (to review the material whatever the hell that is). Graham is really tryign to hold to get more stuff on Benghazi. But it looks like the filibuster breaks in two weeks. Again, absent something like being caught being in bed with Putin, cabinet positions should not be filibustered.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I just wish people would stop calling it "bigger than Watergate". No matter how botched and flawed the handling of the Embassy event has been it doesn't compare to an attempt to spy on your political adversaries in order to get yourself elected. Even if the Obama administration tried to cover the whole thing up (which doesn't make sense, but let's pretend it does and that they did) it wouldn't compare to a premeditated, intentional cheating in a democratic election. It's just not the same.
This will be bigger than Watergate!
Regarding Hagel, are the Repubs playing right into the Presidents hands after his "I dare you to pay the Political Price to stop me" SOTU address? I mean, the president in 2014 can point to the Repubs and say, 'They wouldn;t even confrim a former member of thier own party to be Secretary of Defense! What do you expect me to do with these guys?"
Edit: I'm not even sure this point makes any sensee, so if anyone can state it more clearly I would appreciate it.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I just wish people would stop calling it "bigger than Watergate".
Well... its similar considering both administration attempted to coverup the truth.
No matter how botched and flawed the handling of the Embassy event has been it doesn't compare to an attempt to spy on your political adversaries in order to get yourself elected.
So... you're saying that trying to steal information to help your re-election campaign is WORST than the lives of 4 americans?
Even if the Obama administration tried to cover the whole thing up (which doesn't make sense, but let's pretend it does and that they did) it wouldn't compare to a premeditated, intentional cheating in a democratic election. It's just not the same.
It does makes sense...
This occurred during the election (like Watergate).
The true account of events undercut the president's claim during the campaign that al Qaeda (or, in this case general terrorism) was severely weakened in the aftermath of the killing of bin Laden. During the campaign, Obama's foreign policy was touted as his strength. That's why they were so defensive about the whole thing and attempted to deflect their actions (again, like Watergate) by initially blaming it on that youtube video that spawned the protest at Cairo. Yet, the administration had an inkling that this was a terrorist attack from the beginning.
While the true account of what really happened in Benghazi that night is still fuzzy...the president and his top national-security advisers did not treat a lethal attack on Americans as a crisis. As revealed during this senate hearing, the commander in chief not only didn't convene a meeting in the Situation Room... he didn't even bother to call his Defense secretary or the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Not a single presidential finger was lifted to help Americans under attack.
What made this whole reaction more distasteful to me was that after the Rose Garden speech on 9/12, Obama went to a fund raising gala in Las Vegas on the same day, while he and his staff blamed the whole event on that youtube video.
Here's what I thing really happened... it looked like our people in Bengahzi were overwhelmed and doomed, so there was shock, sadness, and acceptance. But then the fight went on for 7 or 8 hours. The White House folk decided there was nothing to do but accept the inevitable, and then they witnessed a valiant fight which they had done nothing to support. It was always too late to help. It was too late after one hour, then too late after 2 hours, then too late after 3 hours.... When were these people going to die already? After that was all over, how do you explain what you did? Hence the weird responses shortly afterwards.
The answer should be... that is NEVER too late to respond, even if it's just an appearance.
Does this help?
EDIT: This is an example of a silly comparison to Watergate...
whembly wrote: Well... its similar considering both administration attempted to coverup the truth.
Having a standard that you will launch a congressional inquiry every time a politician doesn't tell the whole truth is a pretty ludicrous standard.
So... you're saying that trying to steal information to help your re-election campaign is WORST than the lives of 4 americans?
So everytime 4 Americans die while serving their country you want an investigation? 128 US policemen died in 2012. Do you want 32 congressional inquiries for those deaths?
whembly wrote: During the campaign, Obama's foreign policy was touted as his strength.
The only real noise made about foreign policy during the 2012 campaign was made by Republicans touting Obama's as a failure, mostly as a result of Benghazi.
Here's what I thing really happened... it looked like our people in Bengahzi were overwhelmed and doomed, so there was shock, sadness, and acceptance.
If you're going to be upset about anything it should be the absence of a response to an assault on the position (not the person) of a US Ambassador. You should also probably be angry at the deceased Ambassador for going to Benghazi.
Just read a piece that sums nicely the problem I've had with the Hagel nomination - the apparent problems with him has been some really, really stupid nonsense.
And I think that's really the point that's gotten lost in much of the debate - blocking a nomination is okay when there's some substance behind. Robert Bork's quashed nomination is generally seen as the turning point in nominations, as the Democrats didn't just oppose the nomination, but did it very publically.
But dammit even if you thought Bork was a good pick for the job at least you had to recognise the Democrat's complaints had some kind of substance to them, some kind of basis in the politics of the day. The concerns about Hagel are just stupid nonsense.
Just read a piece that sums nicely the problem I've had with the Hagel nomination - the apparent problems with him has been some really, really stupid nonsense.
And I think that's really the point that's gotten lost in much of the debate - blocking a nomination is okay when there's some substance behind. Robert Bork's quashed nomination is generally seen as the turning point in nominations, as the Democrats didn't just oppose the nomination, but did it very publically.
But dammit even if you thought Bork was a good pick for the job at least you had to recognise the Democrat's complaints had some kind of substance to them, some kind of basis in the politics of the day. The concerns about Hagel are just stupid nonsense.
What Ted Cruz said in particular was just... amateur hour. Which makes sense considering he is a rookie.
Basically, the Repubs are holdign up Hagel because he didn't tow the party line 100% of the time as a Repub and now must pay the political price.
whembly wrote: Well... its similar considering both administration attempted to coverup the truth.
Having a standard that you will launch a congressional inquiry every time a politician doesn't tell the whole truth is a pretty ludicrous standard.
Well... I'm not actually calling for any congressional inquiry as they rarely find anything anyways...
I'm calling for proper accountant from the administration. That's all.
So... you're saying that trying to steal information to help your re-election campaign is WORST than the lives of 4 americans?
So everytime 4 Americans die while serving their country you want an investigation? 128 US policemen died in 2012. Do you want 32 congressional inquiries for those deaths?
Staw man much?
Those 128 US policemen's death were probably investigated with satisfactory results.
whembly wrote: During the campaign, Obama's foreign policy was touted as his strength.
The only real noise made about foreign policy during the 2012 campaign was made by Republicans touting Obama's as a failure, mostly as a result of Benghazi.
No... I distinctly remember that during the campaign (prior to 9-11) that Obama's foreign policy was a great contrast to Romney's (who had none).
Here's what I thing really happened... it looked like our people in Bengahzi were overwhelmed and doomed, so there was shock, sadness, and acceptance.
If you're going to be upset about anything it should be the absence of a response to an assault on the position (not the person) of a US Ambassador. You should also probably be angry at the deceased Ambassador for going to Benghazi.
I am... why was the Ambassador in Benghazi on 9-11 of all days in a reportedly unsafe city? Via diplomatic cables, he asked for more security.
Just read a piece that sums nicely the problem I've had with the Hagel nomination - the apparent problems with him has been some really, really stupid nonsense.
And I think that's really the point that's gotten lost in much of the debate - blocking a nomination is okay when there's some substance behind. Robert Bork's quashed nomination is generally seen as the turning point in nominations, as the Democrats didn't just oppose the nomination, but did it very publically.
But dammit even if you thought Bork was a good pick for the job at least you had to recognise the Democrat's complaints had some kind of substance to them, some kind of basis in the politics of the day. The concerns about Hagel are just stupid nonsense.
Bah...rubbage...
But. I'd agree that Republicans blocking Hagel is generating bad optics here. Obama won his re-election... let him have his guys.
Easy E wrote: Yeah, and getting bad optics IS bad politics.
Well... to be fair, Sec of Defense IS a political position. I'd just rather the (R) keep their "filibuster powdah" dry for more important things... like, I dunno... a Supreme Court position? (Ginsberg and Breyer ain't getting younger).
What I find interesting is that Congress has asked to speak with the survivors of the Benghazi attack, but so far nobody has seen or heard from ANY of them since the attack....
whembly wrote: Well... I'm not actually calling for any congressional inquiry as they rarely find anything anyways...
I'm calling for proper accountant from the administration. That's all.
Do you think having the other party give press statements about the issue and have their team's pundits call the issue bigger than Watergate increases or decreases the chances of a proper, non-politically motivated addressing of the issue?
Staw man much?
Those 128 US policemen's death were probably investigated with satisfactory results.
It isn't a straw man, in so far as you stated "So... you're saying that trying to steal information to help your re-election campaign is WORST than the lives of 4 americans?" Well, lots more than four people died. 32 times that number died as policemen just last year. So obviously there's a point where we accept death happens and that we don't need to investigate every instance of it at the highest levels of our government.
Also, do you think the proper investigation of each of those police killings was more or less likely to be achieved if a political party was trying to make a political show of the issue?
No... I distinctly remember that during the campaign (prior to 9-11) that Obama's foreign policy was a great contrast to Romney's (who had none).
Yes, and the contrast was almost entirely established by the GOP attacking Obama's foreign policy, even prior to Benghazi (though Benghazi was an amplifier). As with many issues during the campaign "Romney has nothing." was a matter of illustrating the absence of positive GOP arguments...absent the crazy.
whembly wrote: Well... I'm not actually calling for any congressional inquiry as they rarely find anything anyways...
I'm calling for proper accountant from the administration. That's all.
Do you think having the other party give press statements about the issue and have their team's pundits call the issue bigger than Watergate increases or decreases the chances of a proper, non-politically motivated addressing of the issue?
Well... how else do we hold them accountable?
Staw man much?
Those 128 US policemen's death were probably investigated with satisfactory results.
It isn't a straw man, in so far as you stated "So... you're saying that trying to steal information to help your re-election campaign is WORST than the lives of 4 americans?" Well, lots more than four people died. 32 times that number died as policemen just last year. So obviously there's a point where we accept death happens and that we don't need to investigate every instance of it at the highest levels of our government.
Still... not a good comparison.
Local police deaths ARE investigated and the purpetrators are held responsible by LOCAL authorities.
The Ambassadors + staff are employees of the FEDERAL BRANCH. Their deaths should be investigated as to why it happened. Why is this so hard to understand?
Also, do you think the proper investigation of each of those police killings was more or less likely to be achieved if a political party was trying to make a political show of the issue?
No... I distinctly remember that during the campaign (prior to 9-11) that Obama's foreign policy was a great contrast to Romney's (who had none).
Yes, and the contrast was almost entirely established by the GOP attacking Obama's foreign policy, even prior to Benghazi (though Benghazi was an amplifier). As with many issues during the campaign "Romney has nothing." was a matter of illustrating the absence of positive GOP arguments...absent the crazy.
CHARLOTTE, N.C. — President Obama and his allies made the case for him as commander in chief Thursday night, saying he was a steady hand in a dangerous world, while accusing Mitt Romney of outsourcing his policy to “neocon advisers” who would lead a return to the reckless adventurism of the Bush administration.
Mr. Obama framed the choice as being between “leadership that has been tested and proven” and a Republican team that is “new to foreign policy,” with a worldview he said was stuck in a “cold war time warp.”
whembly wrote: Well... how else do we hold them accountable?
Your assumption that there is an issue here for which someone needs to be held to account is a big part of the problem.
Things screw up. It happens. Afterwards you look at it, figure out what happened and see if there's a way to make it much less likely to happen again. Generally that means identifying processes and practices that didn't work, and reforming them. Other times it's just a thing you couldn't really sensibly avoid, and you just move on.
Very rarely one person, or a collection of people, just plain fethed up. Normally when that's the case it's pretty clear early on. Here in Australia, the screw up who bungled the Victorian bushfires was known, and what they did to screw up was known by about the end of the second day.
A very public series of questions that is all about finding someone to be made accountable, when there's no evidence that anyone actually screwed anything up... that's called a witchhunt.
CHARLOTTE, N.C. — President Obama and his allies made the case for him as commander in chief Thursday night, saying he was a steady hand in a dangerous world, while accusing Mitt Romney of outsourcing his policy to “neocon advisers” who would lead a return to the reckless adventurism of the Bush administration.
Mr. Obama framed the choice as being between “leadership that has been tested and proven” and a Republican team that is “new to foreign policy,” with a worldview he said was stuck in a “cold war time warp.”
Romney had been talking about Obama's foreign policy since 2011. This isn't a thing Obama ran on, its a thing Republicans forced him (and Democrats) to address despite the fact that Romney was weak on it.
Congress has congressional oversite over the Executive Branch... no? Couldn't they theoretically subpena them?
They could, but there would be a massive inter-branch fight.
In this particular case what legislative purpose would Congress have to underpin its subpoena (ie. Why should the Supreme Court grant additional strength to implied powers?)? Will it debate a law that the President can't let Ambassadors go to dangerous places?
whembly wrote: Well... how else do we hold them accountable?
Your assumption that there is an issue here for which someone needs to be held to account is a big part of the problem.
Things screw up. It happens. Afterwards you look at it, figure out what happened and see if there's a way to make it much less likely to happen again. Generally that means identifying processes and practices that didn't work, and reforming them. Other times it's just a thing you couldn't really sensibly avoid, and you just move on.
Very rarely one person, or a collection of people, just plain fethed up. Normally when that's the case it's pretty clear early on. Here in Australia, the screw up who bungled the Victorian bushfires was known, and what they did to screw up was known by about the end of the second day.
A very public series of questions that is all about finding someone to be made accountable, when there's no evidence that anyone actually screwed anything up... that's called a witchhunt.
And this "when there's no evidence that anyone actually screwed anything up"... is where I object your honor.
Congress has congressional oversite over the Executive Branch... no? Couldn't they theoretically subpena them?
They could, but there would be a massive inter-branch fight.
In this particular case what legislative purpose would Congress have to underpin its subpoena (ie. Why should the Supreme Court grant additional strength to implied powers?)? Will it debate a law that the President can't let Ambassadors go to dangerous places?
The Intelligence Committee for one...
Dogma, please... take a critical view of the whole event and the administration's responses. Keep in mind that this was during the re-election campaign.
Do you think it could be something like this: "well, crap... that didn't go well. Let's make sure that this doesn't make us look bad because we have an election to worry about". Do you think that crossed their mind... anywhere?
Step back and take a critical view of the event yourself, Whembly.
Do you know how many "threats" the intelligence community likely had regarding attacks on 9/11?
Do you know how many of those "threats" were likely idle chatter or from prospective informants looking for a payday?
Until we start having psychic intelligence gathering networks, there will be some attacks slipping through.
It's a simple fact of the matter that we will not catch wind of every single attack in a situation like this.
Kanluwen wrote: Step back and take a critical view of the event yourself, Whembly.
Do you know how many "threats" the intelligence community likely had regarding attacks on 9/11?
Do you know how many of those "threats" were likely idle chatter or from prospective informants looking for a payday?
Until we start having psychic intelligence gathering networks, there will be some attacks slipping through.
It's a simple fact of the matter that we will not catch wind of every single attack in a situation like this.
I understand that what happened may not have been prevented. It's just that the administration's behavior IMO was left wanting.
Look, I'm fustrated about this... so, I'm going to address this head-on since we seem to be dancing around this issue:
If you want to know why some of us have lost faith in the so-called mainstream media, you need to ask the following question: Where is the Benghazi feeding frenzy?
I think journalists tend to act on their instincts (as they should). Which, collectively, the mainstream media’s instincts run liberal, making groupthink inevitable.
Case in point:
1) In 2000, a Democratic operative orchestrated an “October surprise” attack on George W. Bush, revealing that, 24 years earlier, he’d been arrested for drunk driving. The media went into a feeding frenzy.
2) In September 2004, Dan Rather pushed the story about Bush’s service in the National Guard. His instincts were so powerful, he/CBS didn’t thoroughly check the documents he relied on, which were proven to be forgeries.... but the general media ate it up.
3) Let's not forget In 2008, the media feeding frenzy over John McCain’s running mate, Sarah Palin. Yes, she was woefully inexperienced, but did she really deserve all that acrimony?
4) And really... the mainstream media have generally treated Occupy Wall Street as idealistic, the “tea parties” as racist and terrifying.
5) To be fair, the Right do it too... John Kerry's SwiftBoat ordeal comes to mind and Obama's associates like Ayers and his Pastor.
The point is, the Bengahzi situation is news... it hasn't been treated as such because Obama was trying to win the election and the administration reacted to Bengahzi with that in mind. THAT'S why I keep harping this and I believe some in the mainstream media are complicit.
Kanluwen wrote: Sarah Palin was looked at not because she was "woefully inexperienced" but because she was ridiculously ill-informed and pants on head crazy.
whembly wrote: And this "when there's no evidence that anyone actually screwed anything up"... is where I object your honor.
But obviously I'm not going to change your mind.
Yeah, I think we're at something of a deadend here.
But just to clarify, because I don't think I worded very well in my last post, I'm not saying 'nothing to see here, move on, don't investigate this at all.' I am saying that first things first, you investigate the situation through internal processes, and get a real understanding of what happened. From there, you can assess what processes might stop this happening next time.
But when you ignore that and go straight to standing in front of cameras and talking about getting to the bottom of the issue, well I'm inclined to suspect that it has nothing to do with making sure it doesn't happen again, and everything to do with scoring a political win.
whembly wrote: And this "when there's no evidence that anyone actually screwed anything up"... is where I object your honor.
But obviously I'm not going to change your mind.
Yeah, I think we're at something of a deadend here.
But just to clarify, because I don't think I worded very well in my last post, I'm not saying 'nothing to see here, move on, don't investigate this at all.' I am saying that first things first, you investigate the situation through internal processes, and get a real understanding of what happened. From there, you can assess what processes might stop this happening next time.
But when you ignore that and go straight to standing in front of cameras and talking about getting to the bottom of the issue, well I'm inclined to suspect that it has nothing to do with making sure it doesn't happen again, and everything to do with scoring a political win.
Seb... that's reasonable. Any politician would use any excuse to claim "the king of the hill" for publicity. It's sickening (see Sandy Hook shooting)... but that shouldn't deter any hard questioning on the issue at hand.
This is one of the best timeline of the event I've seen so far... check it out.
I guess I wished we had leaders who would own up to things... you know... being a "leader". But alas, those days a long gone.
Rather than agreeing to some Democratic senators’ demands for full access to the classified legal memos on the targeted killing program, Obama administration officials are negotiating with Republicans to provide more information on the lethal attack last year on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, according to three Congressional staff members.
The strategy is intended to produce a bipartisan majority vote for Mr. Brennan in the Senate Intelligence Committee without giving its members seven additional legal opinions on targeted killing sought by senators and while protecting what the White House views as the confidentiality of the Justice Department’s legal advice to the president.
Again...
Now, I'm curious as to what's in those Drone program memos...
Hmmm... maybe it'll be damaging to our allies in Pakistan?
You realize that the results of any subpoena issued by the SSCI would never be made public, right?
In any case, you're right. I forgot the meaning of "legislative purpose". However, the remainder of my point stands: what do you think will come of the investigation? There certainly aren't going to be any criminal indictments, and a change in actual law is not at all likely.
Dogma, please... take a critical view of the whole event and the administration's responses. Keep in mind that this was during the re-election campaign.
Do you think it could be something like this: "well, crap... that didn't go well. Let's make sure that this doesn't make us look bad because we have an election to worry about". Do you think that crossed their mind... anywhere?
Of course it did, but why should that matter? The nature of democratic politics forces politicians to minimize the damage any particular event might cause to their campaigns because the opposition will certainly be attempting the opposite.
I mean, that's not even something worth trying to determine. It should merely be an assumption.
The point is, the Bengahzi situation is news... it hasn't been treated as such because Obama was trying to win the election and the administration reacted to Bengahzi with that in mind.
How were the Benghazi attacks not treated as news? Or do you mean the following investigation? If the investigation, then the reason its been largely relegated to electronic media is that the event itself is old news, and the investigation is merely a political stunt.
)
