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.
1) *shudder* straya. It haunts us even from over there.
Oh? Sorry it's insulting... if it helps, I've been saying that with love. What's the desired nickname then?
Oh I'm more complaining than anything. 'straya is how the stereotypical 'bogan' says it. Bogans are stereotypically racist, criminal, etc. So I guess it's kind of like 'Murica!. No one is actually insulted by it, but you can still cringe a bit at it ha.
Exhibit A. There's a lot more, but they all include language inappropriate for this forum
Oh... that is cringe worthy. Thanks for 'splain'n dat to this ignorant rednecked 'Murrican!
2) You can hold people accountable, make a lesson, without spending this much time and money on it. Make a note of it on the floor, you must have some kind of 'this is a formal shaming of X' procedure. Do that. Do that, make a media statement or two about it, but don't waste this much time and money on an attempt to make the other side look bad.
There is no formal shaming method... unless it's the non-binding "vote of no confident".
*shrugs*
Again, let me rephrase, no one has been held accountable in any way shape or form. Not yet at least...
How much time is acceptable for them to take to hold someone accountable then? Another year? Two? Another month? Where do you draw the line and say 'ok, now you're just wasting time to make them look bad at the election, regardless of whether or not they receive any legal or otherwise official sanction'. Or are you ok with them wasting time and money chasing someone to the election, because that person totally deserves it and its more important that they chase them to the election than work on actual lawmaking and fixing the country?
It's the nature of both how our divided government and the system of check & balances operate.
As to your question on "how long does it take"? That answer is: as long as it takes. Otherwise, nothing changes and then, Snake Plissken would be right:
3) I don't think it was because of the video, but at this point it is irrelevant. If they wanted to make a lesson of someone, they've been dragging names through the mud for a good long while now. They've made their point, given their lesson, but they refuse. They need it to keep going into the election, and that's where it crosses the line from 'doing the public a service by keeping the people in power accountable' to 'neglecting their jobs in favour of keeping their jobs'. Governance of a county is probably the only place I can think of where that is a viable option, and that's a big problem in and of itself.
It's totally relevant as my own administration LIED to me in my face for more than two weeks. Purposeful misinformation in attempt to deflect criticism during a hotly contest election campaign.
So how long is it relevant. Is it relevant until someone goes to jail. Until they get a vote of no confidence. Until they lose an election. Where do you draw the line in going after someone at the expense of time that could most definitely be used for things more important to the national interest.
It's relevant because we don't know the genesis of this idea.
I'll pose a question back at you. Do you think this is the best way that these people who are chasing this story could have been serving their people? Because if you do, then we are at opposite ends of this argument.
Well... it's the only way for the public to demand accountability, besides voting them out of the office.
If there were truly no malfeasance by this administration over this ordeal... do you think they'd stonewall/spin is hard as they have been?
Yes, I think governments will always be reluctant to relinquish anything to the other side that is damaging in any way to them. Whether it's malfeasance (nice word), incompetence, or just a minor hiccup that caused something sad, they don't want to give the other side anything. Because that's the climate that has been fostered by all this 2 party nonsense, that the other side is without a doubt the enemy and needs to be denied at every turn. If this climate didn't exist, the R's wouldn't have jumped on this like starving dogs, the D's wouldn't have shelled up like an agoraphobic turtle, documents would have been released to show either issues or just bad luck, and everyone would have gotten on with the running of the country. Instead, somehow, it's become more desirable for this to happen. Which is really, really sad. Anyway, I'm going to leave it there whembly, I try and not get sucked into OT arguments (as hard as that is to do). Thanks for the chat, and I'll of course read your rebuttal of these points.
Seriously, it simply was an obvious reaction in the heat of a re-election campaign. It's even understandable why they reacted in such fashion... but, I want my President (and Administration) to be above that.
Frankly, I think the IRS scandal is even a bigger deal, as it's potentially criminal in the same vein as Watergate.
Whereas the Benghazi ordeal was likely an event that key decision makers panicked, and reacted to the situation through the lens of "how do we mitigate potential fallouts", as opposed to actually doing a genuine, honest job.
Ever deal with the State Department and it becomes a frak up situation they have a tendency to have major brain farts afterwards.
Edit
Oh D-USA about the Basement Secrets..that's on Sub Level 29.....
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/17 03:33:52
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Gowdy Opening Statement at Benghazi Select Committee Hearing 1
As prepared for delivery
Gowdy: A little over two years ago, four Americans were killed serving our country in Benghazi, Libya. Two were killed when a facility emblematic of our country was set on fire. Two were killed because they dared to fight back and defend themselves and others. Sean Smith, Chris Stevens, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty represented us. They represented our country and our values. We sent them to do that. They were killed in an attack rooted in the animus some people hold toward us, simply because we are us.
To the family, friends, and loved ones of those killed, we can never adequately express our condolences and gratitude. As you have helped us understand, the four killed were more than just pictures on a TV screen. They were sons, husbands, fathers, brothers, and friends. And they were our fellow Americans.
I remain hopeful there are still things left in our country that can transcend politics. I remain convinced our fellow citizens deserve all of the facts of what happened before, during, and after the attacks in Benghazi and they deserve an investigative process worthy of the memory of those who died and worthy of the trust of our fellow citizens.
Some question the need for this committee. I respect your right to disagree, but the mark of a professional, indeed the mark of character, is to do a good job even if you do not think the task should have been assigned in the first place. Given the gravity of the issues at hand, I am willing to risk answering the same question twice rather than risk not answering it once. I am willing to reconsider previously held beliefs in light of new, additional, complimentary or contradictory evidence. I am willing to approach anew witnesses previously interviewed in light of the real possibility that additional questions may be warranted. As we are keenly aware, all documents responsive to congressional requests have not been produced. Moreover, there are witnesses with information or access to information with whom no committee of Congress has spoken. I am optimistic the vast and varied backgrounds of our colleagues can be put to great use on behalf of our fellow citizens. The House of Representatives constituted this committee to find all of the facts, and I intend to do so fully and in a manner worthy of the people we serve.
Our fellow citizens have legitimate and high expectations:
(1) They expect us to protect and defend those we send to represent us,
(2) They expect us to move heaven and earth to help those representing us who are in harm’s way;
(3) They expect government to tell the truth in the aftermath of a tragedy;
(4) They expect we will not continue to make the same mistakes over and over again.
Which leads to this hearing.
Benghazi was not the first time our diplomatic facilities and people have been attacked. The barracks in Beirut, our facilities in Tanzania and Kenya are a few that come to mind amid too many others. And after those attacks, groups came together and made recommendations on how to prevent future attacks. That is the process seemingly followed. An attack takes place, we commission a group to study how to make sure it doesn’t happen again, we pronounce it is time to move on and yet it happens again. So to those who believe it is time to move on, that there is nothing left to discover, that all questions have been asked and answered, that we have learned the lessons to be learned— we have heard that before. And yet the attacks and the tragedies keep coming.
It is stunning to see the similarities in the recommendations made decades ago and the recommendations made after Benghazi. If you doubt that, compare the recommendations made nearly 25 years ago with those made after Benghazi. We do not suffer from a lack of recommendations. We do not suffer from a lack of boards, commissions and blue ribbon panels. We suffer from a lack of implementing and enacting those recommendations. That must end.
So it is appropriate to review the recommendations of the most recent ARB and Rep. Adam Schiff is to be credited for suggesting we do so. It is also fair for us to ask why have we not done a better job implementing recommendations made decades ago. Why does it take an attack on our people and facilities for us to make recommendations? Why not evaluate the threat before the attack? Why not anticipate rather than react?
The people we work for yearn to see the right thing done, for the right reasons, and in the right way. They want to know that something can rise above the din of politics. They want to trust the institutions of government. So to fulfill the duties owed to those we serve and in honor of those who were killed perhaps we can be what those four brave men were: neither Republican nor Democrat. We can just be Americans in pursuit of the facts, the truth, and justice no matter where that journey takes us.
Jihadin wrote: Ever deal with the State Department and it becomes a frak up situation they have a tendency to have major brain farts afterwards.
Edit
Oh D-USA about the Basement Secrets..that's on Sub Level 29.....
My clearance only goes to sub level 18, I have plausible deniability!
Wait.....Infirmary is on sub level 21...Janet Fraiser
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
A State Department whistleblower has come forward to say the details of a former colleague’s account of the sifting of Benghazi-related documents to identify damaging material “ring true.”
The Daily Signal reported Monday on Raymond Maxwell, a former deputy assistant secretary at the State Department who says he observed an unusual after-hours session in a basement operations room of the agency’s headquarters in Washington in October 2012.
Maxwell said a State Department office director told him those present were ordered to separate out any documents related to the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attacks on Americans in Benghazi that could prove damaging to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. While he was present, Maxwell said, Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills and Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan stopped by.
“Document reviews at State following a significant event are not unheard of,” writes department veteran Peter Van Buren in The American Conservative, adding that “an affected office needs to recap how it got to where it is.”
Van Buren continues:
Conducting such a review in secret, on a Sunday, with some of the Secretary’s most senior advisors personally overseeing things, is in fact unheard of. The details of Maxwell’s story ring true, the place, the procedures.
In short, he concludes, “I think Ray Maxwell is credible.”
Van Buren, an author and 24-year veteran of the State Department, was himself a whistleblower. He weighs in on Maxwell’s allegations—and the subsequent attempts to discredit him—in a commentary published today.
“People will claim [Maxwell] is nothing more than a disgruntled employee with an agenda. I don’t think that’s true. Because I was once in his place,” Van Buren writes.
Van Buren also addresses efforts to disparage Maxwell and his story by those who point to the fact that he did not go public sooner:
For whistleblowers to go public, there is a calculus of pain and gain, and working it out takes time. You try to go through channels: Congressman Jason Chaffetz [R-Utah] says Maxwell first told lawmakers his full story privately some time ago. Then you wait in hopes the information will come out without you, that someone else might speak up first; you hint at the truth, hoping someone will take the bait, but instead see faux investigations and bleats about ‘it’s just politics’ further bury it.
Van Buren spent a year leading Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Iraq. He blew the whistle on “incompetence and waste of taxpayer money” as well as “near-complete lack of interest by the [State] Department.”
“In my case, I was ignorant of what would happen once I blew the whistle,” Van Buren adds. “Ray Maxwell had examples to learn from. He likely calculated he needed to securely retire from State before taking Team Clinton head-on.”
After he wrote a book exposing what he saw, Van Buren recalls, “my security clearance was pulled; my case was sent to the Department of Justice for prosecution; I was frog-marched out of my office and forbidden to enter any State Department facility; I was placed on a Secret Service watch list as a potential threat to Mrs. Clinton; the pension I earned over a long career was threatened.”
He continues:
There was a two-year gap between much of what I saw in Iraq and my public coming out. The same was true for [Edward] Snowden and other whistleblowers. You don’t just wake up one morning and decide to turn your own life, and that of your family, upside down, risking financial ruin, public shaming and possibly jail time. It is a process, not an event. You have to wonder what your fate will be once the media grows bored with your story, how far your actions will follow you. Fear travels with you on your journey of conscience.
Mills, Sullivan and Clinton offered no comment on Maxwell’s allegations. The State Department this week did not interview Maxwell to investigate details, and instead responded by saying the Accountability Review Board had unfettered and direct access to State Department people and documents.
Van Buren concludes his commentary:
Checks of State Department entry and exit records and room use requests should establish the basic facts. Proving what happened at that document review will be much, much harder and will focus in large part on Maxwell’s own credibility.
Is Maxwell a disgruntled employee with an agenda? Possibly, but whistleblowers act on conscience, not revenge; the cost is too high for that, and in this day revenge is available much cheaper via a leak or as an unnamed source. Going public and disgruntlement often coincide but are not necessarily causally connected. Knowing the right thing to do is easier than summoning the courage and aligning one’s life to step up and do it.
I think Ray Maxwell is credible. I don’t think his timing suggests he is not. We’ll see, paraphrasing Clinton’s own words on Benghazi, if it really matters anymore, and what difference it does make.
Not really, they started out with a ridiculous lie about a video and stuck to their guns knowing it was a lie. There were several other instances of stonewalling and deflection in that pattern by the Obama administration to the point it's doubtful if we ever have the real truth.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/20 17:01:24
Not really, they started out with a ridiculous lie about a video and stuck to their guns knowing it was a lie. There were several other instances of stonewalling and deflection in that pattern by the Obama administration to the point it's doubtful if we ever have the real truth.
Didn't they actually think it was the video at first? I'm not really all that well up on this stuff.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Not really, they started out with a ridiculous lie about a video and stuck to their guns knowing it was a lie. There were several other instances of stonewalling and deflection in that pattern by the Obama administration to the point it's doubtful if we ever have the real truth.
Didn't they actually think it was the video at first? I'm not really all that well up on this stuff.
That was the original story, but it was later found out they knew it was not a video that caused the incident.
Not really, they started out with a ridiculous lie about a video and stuck to their guns knowing it was a lie. There were several other instances of stonewalling and deflection in that pattern by the Obama administration to the point it's doubtful if we ever have the real truth.
Didn't they actually think it was the video at first? I'm not really all that well up on this stuff.
That was the original story, but it was later found out they knew it was not a video that caused the incident.
OK then.
At this point, however, I think the Bengahzi thing is purely partisan.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told MSNBC that he knew Benghazi attack on 9-11-2012 was a terrorist attack.
“You know, I didn’t have any specific information but, the fact was, when you bring grenade launchers to a demonstration there’s something else going on. And, I just from the very beginning sensed that this was an attack. This was a terrorist attack. “
The Obama re-election campaign/administration insisted it was a protest from the beginning... because reason.
They had a campaign to win and it didn’t fit their Narrative ™.
Isn't it about time Romney feed some crow to Candy Crowley??
whembly wrote: Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told MSNBC that he knew Benghazi attack on 9-11-2012 was a terrorist attack.
“You know, I didn’t have any specific information but, the fact was, when you bring grenade launchers to a demonstration there’s something else going on. And, I just from the very beginning sensed that this was an attack. This was a terrorist attack. “
He said that he "sensed" that it was an attack, not that he "knew" that it was an attack.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
whembly wrote: Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told MSNBC that he knew Benghazi attack on 9-11-2012 was a terrorist attack.
“You know, I didn’t have any specific information but, the fact was, when you bring grenade launchers to a demonstration there’s something else going on. And, I just from the very beginning sensed that this was an attack. This was a terrorist attack. “
He said that he "sensed" that it was an attack, not that he "knew" that it was an attack.
Anyone with at least two neurons to rub together would "sense" that.
I find it odd that Panetta would do this now ( I know he has a book to sell )... because of his proximity to the "Clinton Clan".
Anyone with at least two neurons to rub together would "sense" that.
Sense what? That you used the word "knew" instead of the word "sensed" and did so because you were attempting to support a point based on a long-term agenda?
Anyone with at least two neurons to rub together would "sense" that.
Sense what? That you used the word "knew" instead of the word "sensed" and did so because you were attempting to support a point based on a long-term agenda?
Michael Bay in Talks to Direct Benghazi Movie '13 Hours' (Exclusive)
Chuck Hogan, the author of 'The Town' and 'The Strain,' wrote the script for the Paramount film
In a massive change of pace, Michael Bay is going from toy tentpole to a Benghazi political drama.
Bay is in negotiations to direct 13 Hours, the adaptation of Mitchell Zuckoff’s book about the attack on an American compound in Libya that left U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens dead.
See more Highly Paid Film Stars
Chuck Hogan wrote the script adapting the book, which details how on Sept. 11, 2012, terrorists attacked the U.S. State Department Special Mission Compound in Benghazi. The focus is on six members of a security team that valiantly fought to defend the many Americans stationed there. They only partially succeeded: Stevens and a foreign service worker were killed in one attack, and two contract workers were killed during a second assault on a CIA station nearby.
Erwin Stoff is producing the Paramount film.
Bay has spent the better part of almost a decade in the land of Transformers movies, which have budgets of more $200 million, if not $250 million, each. He also took time to do a passion project, 2013’s Pain & Gain, which had a budget of around $26 million. Sources say that 13 Hours would be budgeted in the $30 to $40 million range.
Bay's last Transformers film, Age of Extinction, grossed over a billion dollars worldwide. He is repped by WME.
In other news... how in the did 'Age of Extinction' grossed over a billion??!??!?! o.O
In other news... how in the did 'Age of Extinction' grossed over a billion??!??!?! o.O
China and/or India, would be my guess. 60% of an American movie's money is made overseas these days and mindless explosions and gunfire are pretty easy to translate.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/30 20:55:38
Emperor's Eagles (undergoing Chapter reorganization)
Caledonian 95th (undergoing regimental reorganization)
Thousands Sons (undergoing Warband re--- wait, are any of my 40K armies playable?)
I wonder if a more cynical person would be wondering why a Republican controlled house releases a report that directly contradicts one of their biggest talking points for the last two years two weeks after the midterm elections.
If I hear the word Benghazi one more time, I will personally row the Atlantic just to introduce my left foot to the butt of a certain Benghazi obsessed individual!
Mind you, I'd probably get gun downed first
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
d-usa wrote: I wonder if a more cynical person would be wondering why a Republican controlled house releases a report that directly contradicts one of their biggest talking points for the last two years two weeks after the midterm elections.
Maybe it's time for BenghaziGateGate!
*sigh* I just can't resist...
Call it the Gruberizing of the report. I see that all of the liberal/left-leaning news sites followed AP’s lead on this story, but the problem was that they completely mislead with the headline, and then try to cleverly write the story to infer that the report debunks a lot of the previous claims.
The report seems to back up all of the allegations. The main findings? The CIA did provide adequate security for their compound, but were not responsible for the security of the State Department.
Duh... different departments.
“The report did conclude, however, that the State Department diplomatic compound where Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed had inadequate security and had needed CIA assistance.” That is not anything new, it is confirming that the State Department fell down by not providing adequate security.
The other major finding? “The committee also found that there was “no intelligence failure prior to the attacks” as the US mission was aware of the worsening security situation in Benghazi but not of a specific planned attack.” That is also well known. The problem has been that DESPITE all those warnings and knowledge the STATE DEPARTMENT failed to acknowledge this and in fact turned down the Ambassador’s repeated requests for additional security, and beefing up the compound static security.
Another claim...“”The CIA received all military support that was available,” it added.” The question has been, why wasn’t more military support available over a 9 hour period (or was it 12 hours)? The administration failed to prepare for 9/11, despite the intelligence, and then decided early on that it would be over before they could send military assistance, so they did not. And then they have systematically removed and hidden the military leaders that did not agree with them.
This report was by the Intelligence committee and overall did not find much to fault in Intelligence. And I don’t think that has really been in dispute (other than the Susan Rice piece)... in that the intelligence was good before the attacks, and they rightly said it was a Terrorist attack right off the bat. The political operatives were the ones that kept up the “video” story for weeks/months.
And it's the political operatives that need to be held account. That's where Trey Gowdy comes in with the Select Committee.
What is important here is that 4 of my fellow Americans are dead, including an ambassador because the Dept of State ignored sage advice to provide more protection or remove them from the country.
In the end, the buck stops somewhere for this decision. And the answer isn’t “gak happens”.
It's all about politics. The people perusing this are not doing this out of some innate desire to protect our ambassadors, they are doing this out of petty party politics. It's just like when they tried to impeach Clinton. Or how they are now suing Obama. It's not about what's right, it's about getting what they want, and what they want is getting rid of this president.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
did 'Age of Extinction' grossed over a billion??!??!?! o.O
Emperor's Eagles (undergoing Chapter reorganization)
Caledonian 95th (undergoing regimental reorganization)
Thousands Sons (undergoing Warband re--- wait, are any of my 40K armies playable?) 
