Benghazi worse than Watergate...

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**TheHammer**

What part of Fast and Furious was a legit scandal? The part where DOJ tried to monitor the transport of illegal guns to cartels, and in doing so let guns that would have otherwise have found their way to the cartels anyhow get to them?

If those on the right actually cared about crime in Mexico and how it spills over into Arizona and other border states, they would try to restrict the sale of guns in the states and legalize drugs. They don't and just want to make political hay over an attempt to slow the inexorable sale of guns to these cartels.

And, yes, I'd like to know more about what happened in Libya. I just can't be bothered to care about the opinions of those that want to use what happened in Libya as a political weapon while simultaneously conflating Libya and Egypt.

**whembly**

Pat Caddell absolutely eviscerates the media on this (it's long, but worth it):

This is dangerous. This is how democracies die.

**Kanluwen**

whembly wrote:

Pat Caddell absolutely eviscerates the media on this (it's long, but worth it):

This is dangerous. This is how democracies die.

Take off the tin foil hat. Take a deep breath.

And for the love of all that's sane and rational, stop quoting Star Wars.

Also:
Megalols for using Pat Caddell as a "source" for this.

What next, Big Bird?

**whembly**

Dude... it's about 30minutes long... watch it.

EDIT: And... he hammers the republicans and Romney too! Bet you'd like that

**Kanluwen**

I don't have to. It's Pat Caddell.

And for that matter, please stop with the huge videos as "sources". Don't just blindly take the word of the person in the video. Do your own research.

If you had any clue at all, you would know why that video is laughable.

**whembly**

??? What's wrong with Pat Caddell?

And I know you haven't taken the time to look at this video...

After watching it, you may then "clue me in" if you wish.

**Kanluwen**

He was the marketing consultant on the "New Coke" ad campaign.

That's all I really need to say.

**whembly**

Kanluwen wrote:
He was the marketing consultant on the "New Coke" ad campaign.

That's all I really need to say.

Okay then...

Moving on...

**TheHammer**

I'm just surprised you're not a big Ron Paul or LaRouche fan, whembly. You source your information like one :(

**whembly**

TheHammer wrote:
I'm just surprised you're not a big Ron Paul or LaRouche fan, whembly. You source your information like one :(

Naw... not a big fan. *shrugs*

Have you watched the video? (give it a shot, you'd be surprised)

**TheHammer**

I made it a minute into the video, and ehhhhh

I'd have more sympathy about any bias in the media if the right's reaction to everything wasn't to get increasingly insane and detached from reality. It allows the Democratic Party to be flaccid weenies who advance awful neoliberal bs without there being a credible mainstream opposition.

**Kanluwen**

Clearly you missed the joke.

Here's a brief primer for you on what make Patrick Caddell basically someone to be ignored:

Patrick Caddell's Wikipedia Entry since I'm not feeling like digging too much to educate Whembly wrote:Biography

He has worked for Democratic presidential candidates George McGovern in 1972, Jimmy Carter in 1976 and 1980, Gary Hart in 1984, Joe Biden in 1988, and Jerry Brown in 1992. He also worked for Colorado Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff in 2010.[1]

He has served as a consultant to various movies and television shows, most notably the movies Running Mates, Air Force One, Outbreak, In the Line of Fire, and the serial drama The West Wing. He was also a marketing consultant on Coca-Cola's disastrous New Coke campaign.[2]

In 1988, Caddell left the Democratic Party after an acrimonious lawsuit with a Democratic consulting firm, Caddell, Doak and Shrum. Republicans would often cite Caddell's tirades against the Democratic Party when they spoke on the floor of the House and the Senate.[3][4][5]

According to researchers, Caddell had wide influence in the Carter White House, and was the chief advocate of what later became known as Carter's "malaise speech".[6]

His analysis on polls and campaign issues often puts him at odds with the current leadership of the Democratic Party. He has been criticized for predicting the downfall of the Democratic party.[7][8] Critics point out that he has defended the Bush administration by arguing that Republicans did not exploit the issue of gay marriage in the presidential election of 2004.[citation needed] He also denounced Democrats in the House who voted against the Palm Sunday Compromise, which sought to reinstate Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, as "cold blooded,"[citation needed] and called environmentalism "a conspiracy 'to basically deconstruct capitalism.'"[1]

Caddell is a regular guest on the Fox News Channel, and he is listed as an official 'Fox News Contributor'. This has earned him the label of a "Fox News Democrat" by critics such as liberal opinion magazine Salon.com[1] He has also frequently appeared on the conservative website Ricochet.com discussing politics.[9][10][11]

According to Slate, Caddell was involved in identifying people willing to participate in the anti-Obama film The Hope and the Change, produced by Citizens United. Currently Caddell takes almost exclusively pro-Republican positions, so in many political circles, he is now considered a Republican.

So yeah. Not a big fan of him, and using him as a source for anything where you then claim his statements are indicative of the "death of democracy" is a tad bit overdramatic.

**whembly**

Thanks Kan... I knew that already.

So... yeah... still haven't watched the video I'm sure...

**d-usa**

Republicans have been looking for a huge scandal to throw at Obama since day 1.

**Kanluwen**

d-usa wrote:
Republicans have been looking for a huge scandal to throw at Obama since day 1.

And what's more, they've invented a few along the way.

Or are we conveniently forgetting "DEATH PANELS"?

**whembly**

Kanluwen wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Republicans have been looking for a huge scandal to throw at Obama since day 1.

And what's more, they've invented a few along the way.

Or are we conveniently forgetting "DEATH PANELS"?

So... if all this occured on a Republican President watch... there be an outcry... right?

**d-usa**

There are outcries now, just not as much as Republicans want there to be. It's a big deal, but there have been no whatevergates, no matter how much they are trying to turn things into one.

There were plenty of scandals during Bush too, but no career ending whatevergates.

**Kanluwen**

whembly wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Republicans have been looking for a huge scandal to throw at Obama since day 1.

And what's more, they've invented a few along the way.

Or are we conveniently forgetting "DEATH PANELS"?

So... if all this occured on a Republican President watch... there be an outcry... right?

"Outcry" about what?

If a Democratic candidate came and declared it to be something when it was specifically stated that they were beginning to investigate it, etc and would not conclusively call it such--then yes, I'd be quite irked like I am with Romney and the Republicans right now.

The simple crux of the matter and what you (and the loudmouthed debutantes at Fox News and in the Republican Party) seem to be failing to grasp is that this is something which is being investigated without boots on the ground, by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. They did not deem it a "terrorist attack" originally because to do so would be to label Libya as a nation which cannot protect itself from such insurgencies and activities. They did not deem it a "terrorist attack" originally because they also were not entirely clear as to whether it was a spur of the moment event which utilized the current "scandal" of the "Life of Mohammed" as cover or whether it was planned and executed in a manner which was to make it very abundantly obvious that it was a sign that while Osama bin Laden was dead that the "legacy" he left behind remained strong by executing an attack on an American diplomatic compound on an anniversary of one of the worst terrorist attacks in American history.

But no. The Republicans just had to open their mouths and start chestthumping as soon as possible, claiming that there was "no excuse!" or "why was there no protection!", etc, etc.

**d-usa**

We can blame the culture of "news now, facts later" for that as well though.

**AustonT**

whembly wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
He was the marketing consultant on the "New Coke" ad campaign.

That's all I really need to say.

Okay then...

Moving on...

No That's pretty bang on. Did you ever wonder why Coke says "Classic" on it? Did you ever actually try New Coke or Coke II, let me answer for you: No, because "everyone" hated it. 77 days either a shockingly bad marketing campaign and research or the most genius idea to revitalize a brand ever. The only dumber idea I ever experienced in person was Pesi Crystal or Clear or WTF ever.

Mannahnin wrote:Kind of you to say, but I do certainly make mistakes; one of which Seaward pointed out.

I do try to look honestly at the data in front of me, though, and I don't have a problem calling something a Dem or a Dem administration does as shameful or shady if it appears so to me. There are reasons why I'm Independent and not a Dem.

It sounded better than "I agree" since we commonly find ourselves on different, if not necessarily "opposite" sides of issues.

**Frazzled**

Nah. A bit of a coverup yes. Watergate level, no.

**Mannahnin**

AustonT wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:Kind of you to say, but I do certainly make mistakes; one of which Seaward pointed out.

I do try to look honestly at the data in front of me, though, and I don't have a problem calling something a Dem or a Dem administration does as shameful or shady if it appears so to me. There are reasons why I'm Independent and not a Dem.
It sounded better than "I agree" since we commonly find ourselves on different, if not necessarily "opposite" sides of issues.

Well, thanks. Always good to take an opportunity to find common ground; helps to make the disagreements more agreeable.

**Seaward**

Kanluwen wrote:
"Outcry" about what?

There's a fair amount to potentially cry out about if you do some digging into it. We were warned about possible hostile attacks against American personnel in Benghazi, we had a severely under-secured consulate that we knew to be under-secured, we may well have attempted to fabricate a cover story about a non-existent protest despite intelligence to the contrary in order to protect a reelection attempt, etc.

As I favor neither the Democrat nor Republican parties, I think I can sit safely in the middle here and say that if this had been a Bush-era situation, a lot of the folks currently playing it off with, "Well, we don't know..."-style approaches would be having strokes.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and as far as Fast and Furious goes...that's a legit scandal, and I think it's going to have a more considerable impact than most people are aware of. Some of the deepest digging on it is being done by Univision, which is quite popular with Hispanics in the US. Obama's Latino vote may not be as robust as it could be.

**Easy E**

whembly wrote:
So... you think subverting a democratic process is worst than a potential coverup for the reason the lead to the death of 4 American?

Yes. The democratic process is more important in the long term than 4 people's lives.

Cold but true.

**whembly**

Ouch...

Indeed, everything about the administration’s response to the latest Islamic assault on civilized diplomatic norms is bunk, from the Cairo embassy’s initial tweets blaming the video for the riots to the press secretary’s bald-faced lying to the press corps, to the spectacle of the Office of National Intelligence volunteering as a scapegoat to protect the president’s reputation.

So behold the wreckage: not just the consulate in Libya, but the entire Obama foreign-policy “reset,” including his conciliatory 2009 speech to the Muslim world in Cairo.

With the debris still smoldering, the FBI, which has investigatory jurisdiction in these cases, is still not in Benghazi yet.

No rush — plenty of time to do that after the election.

.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/wheels_coming_off_uOnuODm7bwRX33t0JilbkN#ixzz283BJsNIM

**Easy E**

This just seems like a really desperate attempt to make some hay around election time, Whembly.

I have no issue with that. It just smells desperate, and no body wants to vote for a campaign that smells desperate.

I look forward to seeing if this meme comes up in the debates.

**whembly**

Because I can't get worked up on the current outrageously, outraged of Obama's racial speech in 2007... so... meh....

Easy E wrote:
This just seems like a really desperate attempt to make some hay around election time, Whembly.

I have no issue with that. It just smells desperate, and no body wants to vote for a campaign that smells desperate.

I look forward to seeing if this meme comes up in the debates.

Back on topic...

I think this is a real problem for Obama... just today, the house committee stated:

Based on information provided to the Committee by individuals with direct knowledge of events in Libya, the attack that claimed the ambassador’s life was the latest in a long line of attacks on Western diplomats and officials in Libya in the months leading up to September 11, 2012,” House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and subcommittee chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, wrote Clinton today. They dismissed out-of-hand the suggestion that the attack ever could have been regarded as a spontaneous protest gone awry.

“In addition, multiple U.S. federal government officials have confirmed to the Committee that, prior to the September 11 attack, the U.S. mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi,” Issa and Chaffetz added (my emphasis). “The mission in Libya, however, was denied these resources by officials in Washington.”

So let's review that Benghazi Was Obama's 3 a.m. Call:

The U.S. ignores warnings of a parlous security situation in Benghazi. Nothing happens because nobody is really paying attention, especially in an election year, and because Libya is supposed to be a foreign-policy success. When something does happen, the administration's concerns for the safety of Americans are subordinated to considerations of Libyan "sovereignty" and the need for "permission." After the attack the administration blames a video, perhaps because it would be politically inconvenient to note that al Qaeda is far from defeated, and that we are no more popular under Mr. Obama than we were under George W. Bush. Denouncing the video also appeals to the administration's reflexive habits of blaming America first. Once that story falls apart, it's time to blame the intel munchkins and move on.

It was five in the afternoon when Mr. Obama took his 3 a.m. call. He still flubbed it.

Check out this telegraph post http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/concoughlin/100183452/did-the-white-house-order-a-cover-up-over-the-murder-of-libyas-us-ambassador/. On a funny note, check out the comments... my favorite was this:

That's right. The Dept. of Upcoming Surprise Attacks neglected to warn the President, who psychically knew the attack was coming, and went to Vegas anyway!!
As far as a 3AM call, we'll have to get the corroboration from whoever else was in bed with you and the President.

The "Dept. of Upcoming Surprise Attacks"???

Good one...

**d-usa**

Pro-tip:

If you are running an "Herp Derp Obama" thread and Frazzled isn't going all frenzied Dachshund in it, then there is probably not much substance to it.

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
Pro-tip:

If you are running an "Herp Derp Obama" thread and Frazzled isn't going all frenzied Dachshund in it, then there is probably not much substance to it.

Bummer...

Hey Frazzled... little HELP buddy?

**sebster**

whembly wrote:
Watch this video by Brett Beier because he summarizes the timeline really well:

Yeah, I'd just like to point out that's advice no-one should ever take. Brett Beier lies for a living, and no-one should pretend otherwise.