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.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
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.

How do you know that?

 Hordini wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
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.

How do you know that?

By observation and reason. It's kind of obvious.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
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.

Nah... we do not want to get rid of this president.

We wouldn't want to do that... cause, if we did, then it'd be President Joe Biden.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
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.

How do you know that?

By observation and reason. It's kind of obvious.

In your opinion.

Yes it's my opinion, but that's only because for me to prove it I would have to be able to read the minds of the congresspeople.
But do you honestly think that this isn't about politics?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
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.

How do you know that?

By observation and reason. It's kind of obvious.

So you don't think there is anyone who has legitimate concerns that the State Department dropped the ball on security, leading to the death of an ambassador (which is a pretty big deal)? Or that there isn't anyone who has legitimate concerns about Clinton lying under oath?

Now, I'm not saying that there aren't people who are using these things to further party politics, but that doesn't mean there aren't those who have legitimate, non-political issues with both cases.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
But do you honestly think that this isn't about politics?

I do think for some people it is, but I don't think that that's the case for everyone involved.

I agree, not everybody, but the majority. It was hijacked by the Rs as a campaign thing to excite their base. Fox news reported the hell out of it, to an excessive amount. It was used to attack Obama and H.C.

I think for the people who complain about this event but ignored all the other embassy attacks over the years it is politically driven.

 Ahtman wrote:
I think for the people who complain about this event but ignored all the other embassy attacks over the years it is politically driven.

Here is one viewpoint that might give some insight to why this is the case:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2013/05/10/why-werent-embassy-attacks-under-bush-clinton-investigated/

Relapse wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
I think for the people who complain about this event but ignored all the other embassy attacks over the years it is politically driven.

Here is one viewpoint that might give some insight to why this is the case:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2013/05/10/why-werent-embassy-attacks-under-bush-clinton-investigated/

Yep.

Worth repeating...

The answer you will keep getting is this: because the Obama team lied about it.

 whembly wrote:

The answer you will keep getting is this: because the Obama team lied about it.

You have to assume they lied for political gain before the rest makes any sense, and I haven't seen compelling evidence that that is the case, at least beyond a general dislike for the President. This still puts us at politically motivated to keep harping on it. Being wrong is not new for anyone, White House or otherwise, nor is lying to the public for national security reasons. If we can find an article that isn't a blog and/or an article not written by someone for a religious website then we might be on to something.

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:

The answer you will keep getting is this: because the Obama team lied about it.

You have to assume they lied for political gain before the rest makes any sense, and I haven't seen compelling evidence that that is the case, at least beyond a general dislike for the President. This still puts us at politically motivated to keep harping on it. Being wrong is not new for anyone, White House or otherwise, nor is lying to the public for national security reasons. If we can find an article that isn't a blog and/or an article not written by someone for a religious website then we might be on to something.

Except there was no reason to lie about this except to save face right before an election. And honestly telling the truth wouldn't have hurt them much, thats why them lying is a big deal.

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:

The answer you will keep getting is this: because the Obama team lied about it.

You have to assume they lied for political gain before the rest makes any sense,

I think that's the only thing that make sense...

and I haven't seen compelling evidence that that is the case, at least beyond a general dislike for the President.

It's proven that they knew it wasn't about that youtube video... and YET for weeks they kept pushing that ridiculous idea. This was a tactical political decision during a hotly contested re-election campaign.

This still puts us at politically motivated to keep harping on it. Being wrong is not new for anyone, White House or otherwise, nor is lying to the public for national security reasons. If we can find an article that isn't a blog and/or an article not written by someone for a religious website then we might be on to something.

So... there should be no consequences for being wrong?

Do you hear yourself?

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:

The answer you will keep getting is this: because the Obama team lied about it.

You have to assume they lied for political gain before the rest makes any sense, and I haven't seen compelling evidence that that is the case, at least beyond a general dislike for the President. This still puts us at politically motivated to keep harping on it. Being wrong is not new for anyone, White House or otherwise, nor is lying to the public for national security reasons. If we can find an article that isn't a blog and/or an article not written by someone for a religious website then we might be on to something.

I didn't notice religion being brought into the opinion piece.

I'm not sure what will honestly happen if they are successful. You can't get rid of the head of the state department (Kerry wasn't it ASAIR), your not going to impeach obama over this (hopefully), and they didn't do anything illegal.

 whembly wrote:
I think that's the only thing that make sense...

From a perverse, biased perspective I suppose. For most people that isn't true.

 whembly wrote:
So... there should be no consequences for being wrong?

Of course, and there has been. The problem here isn't that you are upset that they were wrong, it is that you are imagining and assuming the motivation for why, and continually harping about it with no evidence beyond political motivation.

 whembly wrote:
Do you hear yourself?

If only you were capable of taking your own advice.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm not sure what will honestly happen if they are successful. You can't get rid of the head of the state department (Kerry wasn't it ASAIR), your not going to impeach obama over this (hopefully), and they didn't do anything illegal.

I really don't envision Obama being impeached, either, since he's been given free passes on other things that were bigger than Watergate.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm not sure what will honestly happen if they are successful. You can't get rid of the head of the state department (Kerry wasn't it ASAIR), your not going to impeach obama over this (hopefully), and they didn't do anything illegal.

They placate their base and hope for a White House and Congressional win in the next election. Being right is less important than winning sits, especially yours: Political Bread and Circus.

Relapse wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm not sure what will honestly happen if they are successful. You can't get rid of the head of the state department (Kerry wasn't it ASAIR), your not going to impeach obama over this (hopefully), and they didn't do anything illegal.

I really don't envision Obama being impeached, either, since he's been given free passes on other things that were bigger than Watergate.

Impeachment?

feth no.

A black mark on his presidency? You betcha!

If anything, it should fall in Hillary's lap. But, she's teflon... so that ain't happening.

Relapse wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm not sure what will honestly happen if they are successful. You can't get rid of the head of the state department (Kerry wasn't it ASAIR), your not going to impeach obama over this (hopefully), and they didn't do anything illegal.

I really don't envision Obama being impeached, either, since he's been given free passes on other things that were bigger than Watergate.

What was bigger than watergate?

Some things to keep in mind...

• Both Mike Rogers and Dutch Ruppersberger are members of the Congressional Gang of Eight. They are the ONLY authors.

• This is not a House Intelligence “Committee” report on Benghazi. This is only two committee members writing a report based on prior information.

• Both Rogers and Ruppersberger would have been briefed on the CIA operations in Benghazi during 2011/2012 as the covert operation began.

• President Obama signed a finding memo in 2011 permitting Operation Zero Footprint to begin, which the annex in Benghazi was part of. The congressional “gang of eight” held oversight responsibilities.

• Rogers, Ruppersberger along with Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Saxby Chambliss and Diane Feinstein would have been notified of the presidential authorization. In 2011 they were the congressional Gang of Eight. Their lack of oversight reflected a willful blindness to the operation.

In short: Mike Rogers is trying to hide his willful blindness.

Heh... Lindsey Graham thinks this report is "full of crap".

Also... one of the CIA dude there... calls BS:

So this BS report came out.....i don't think these weak congressman understand our resolve..i promise i will bring them all down!!! #13hours
8:05 PM - 21 Nov 2014 Miami Beach, FL, United States

 whembly wrote:
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.

Chris Stevens was a long-time member of State, and served under State in his capacity as ambassador to Libya. This former State Department employee elected to go to Benghazi despite State's refusal to provide additional security.

 whembly wrote:

Also... one of the CIA dude there... calls BS:

So this BS report came out.....i don't think these weak congressman understand our resolve..i promise i will bring them all down!!! #13hours
8:05 PM - 21 Nov 2014 Miami Beach, FL, United States

While selling a book, and persona. Funny how Paronto makes no specific claim regarding the event itself.

Who needs facts when you can have hashtags #truthiness

Lindsey Graham is clamoring for a Senate Select Committee on this... seems redundant to me...

He should clamor for Senate Select Committee over the IRS ordeal.

 whembly wrote:
Lindsey Graham is clamoring for a Senate Select Committee on this... seems redundant to me...

He should clamor for Senate Select Committee over the IRS ordeal.

So you admit that Benghazi is a waste of time?

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Lindsey Graham is clamoring for a Senate Select Committee on this... seems redundant to me...

He should clamor for Senate Select Committee over the IRS ordeal.

So you admit that Benghazi is a waste of time?

Nope.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Lindsey Graham is clamoring for a Senate Select Committee on this... seems redundant to me...

He should clamor for Senate Select Committee over the IRS ordeal.

So you admit that Benghazi is a waste of time?

Do you ever think that he will?

He's so far gone down the path of the Republican ideology at this point that it is best to just put him on ignore and be done with it.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Lindsey Graham is clamoring for a Senate Select Committee on this... seems redundant to me...

He should clamor for Senate Select Committee over the IRS ordeal.

So you admit that Benghazi is a waste of time?

Do you ever think that he will?

Said by someone so fervently in the Democratic tank.

He's so far gone down the path of the Republican ideology at this point that it is best to just put him on ignore and be done with it.

Hey now.

I'm a South Park Conservative™. Not a Republican lapdog.

You choice to put me on Ignore, so I'll take that as a tactical retreat from the Arena of Ideas™, aka The OT Thunderdome.

 whembly wrote:


I'm a South Park Conservative™. Not a Republican lapdog.

Q: Are you two guys liberal or conservative? Me and my friends have had debates about this.
Parker: We avoid extremes but we hate liberals more than conservatives and we hate them [conservatives].
Stone: I hate conservatives but I really fething hate liberals.

 LordofHats wrote:

 whembly wrote:


I'm a South Park Conservative™. Not a Republican lapdog.

Q: Are you two guys liberal or conservative? Me and my friends have had debates about this.
Parker: We avoid extremes but we hate liberals more than conservatives and we hate them [conservatives].
Stone: I hate conservatives but I really fething hate liberals.

Dats Right!

It's funny, because their politics seem to have markedly shifted the past few years