U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in Rocket Attack (1 Viewer)

[Sam Quentin]

It's almost cult-like the way peopel seem to think the administration's actions in thye matter are in any way defensible. The consulate had been attacked sevral times in the past and the UK and red cross evacuate and our response is to reduce security. The consulate is attacked, and the WH xoes nothing to defend it or our people. After the news breaks they come up with a BS story trying to blame it on some guy who posted a YouTube video -- after which they go out of their way to get that guy sent to prison. You may support tye guy for other reasons, but this whole episode is outrageous.

What I don't get is the Republican obsession over Obama blaming the Youtube video. I don't see anyone claiming that there was advance notice for the Benghazi attack so why does it matter if he blamed the video or if it was 9/11-related?If Obama screwed up the response to the attacks that's where the questions should be, not on moronic debates on about what he attributed the attacks to.

part of the reason people voted for him was to "restore our credibility" around the world and here we are caught is a blatant and stupid lie. Yes there was plenty of advance notice - the consulate had already been attacked; the Libyans had warned us three days in advance; the UK ambassador left over security concerns.

 

[pittstownkiller]

So McCain and Graham are crazies but Rice is the smartest woman ever; gotcha, talking points noted.

 

[FootballDummy]

So McCain and Graham are crazies but Rice is the smartest woman ever; gotcha, talking points noted.

I'm losing respect for you by the post. Question: If it were absolutely provable that Obama and Clinton had nothing to do with what happened, would you still care?Be honest.

 

[CrossEyed]

So McCain and Graham are crazies but Rice is the smartest woman ever; gotcha, talking points noted.

I'm losing respect for you by the post. Question: If it were absolutely provable that Obama and Clinton had nothing to do with what happened, would you still care?Be honest.

If government officials, regardless of party, tried to coverup something that was tied to the preventable deaths of 4 Americans, I would hope that we would all care.

 

[Green and Gold]

The really sad thing about this topic is that if it had been a sitting Republican president, the roles would be completely reversed in this thread. Republican supporters would be defending the administration's handling of the issue, and Democrats would be the ones freaking out. With very few exceptions.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

The really sad thing about this topic is that if it had been a sitting Republican president, the roles would be completely reversed in this thread. Republican supporters would be defending the administration's handling of the issue, and Democrats would be the ones freaking out. With very few exceptions.

The roles were reversed. That attack was on 9/11/2001. I don't recall a mass movement by people to call for hearings about the White House's role in that "growing political scandal." I don't recall Congress asking for "Watergate style hearings" about who was to blame and how to elevate things to impeachment proceedings. This whole thing is a joke, and McCain's last grasp at being relevant just flew out the window by missing a classified hearing in order to hold some kind of look-at-me press conference. Seriously, we might have to start asking if he's mentally fit for office at this point. He's acting in a way that would make Alex Jones blush.

 

[CrossEyed]

The really sad thing about this topic is that if it had been a sitting Republican president, the roles would be completely reversed in this thread. Republican supporters would be defending the administration's handling of the issue, and Democrats would be the ones freaking out. With very few exceptions.

The roles were reversed. That attack was on 9/11/2001. I don't recall a mass movement by people to call for hearings about the White House's role in that "growing political scandal." I don't recall Congress asking for "Watergate style hearings" about who was to blame and how to elevate things to impeachment proceedings. This whole thing is a joke, and McCain's last grasp at being relevant just flew out the window by missing a classified hearing in order to hold some kind of look-at-me press conference. Seriously, we might have to start asking if he's mentally fit for office at this point. He's acting in a way that would make Alex Jones blush.

What are you talking about? Did anyone from our government suspect that there would be an attack on buildings using planes in 2001?And you realize that Watergate wasn't a big deal because of the initial actions, but because of the coverup that followed, don't you?

 

[Rohn Jambo]

I abide by the law and pay every cent of my taxes by April 15th every year.

I know who is a good American, and Obama, no matter how many Five Guys burgers he chomps down, is not a good American.

 

[moleculo]

The really sad thing about this topic is that if it had been a sitting Republican president, the roles would be completely reversed in this thread. Republican supporters would be defending the administration's handling of the issue, and Democrats would be the ones freaking out. With very few exceptions.

The roles were reversed. That attack was on 9/11/2001. I don't recall a mass movement by people to call for hearings about the White House's role in that "growing political scandal." I don't recall Congress asking for "Watergate style hearings" about who was to blame and how to elevate things to impeachment proceedings. This whole thing is a joke, and McCain's last grasp at being relevant just flew out the window by missing a classified hearing in order to hold some kind of look-at-me press conference. Seriously, we might have to start asking if he's mentally fit for office at this point. He's acting in a way that would make Alex Jones blush.

we had promised a military response immediately after 9/11, we were in Afghanistan within a month. I'm still waiting for a response for the Benghazi beyond finger wagging and lamenting a youtube movie.

 

[Politician Spock]

So McCain and Graham are crazies but Rice is the smartest woman ever; gotcha, talking points noted.

I'm losing respect for you by the post. Question: If it were absolutely provable that Obama and Clinton had nothing to do with what happened, would you still care?Be honest.

I would. In fact I think the likelyhood that Obama and/or Clinton screwed it up is pretty low. Somebody screwed up though. We shouldn't just move on so that the somebody can keep their job.

 

[Politician Spock]

The really sad thing about this topic is that if it had been a sitting Republican president, the roles would be completely reversed in this thread. Republican supporters would be defending the administration's handling of the issue, and Democrats would be the ones freaking out. With very few exceptions.

The roles were reversed. That attack was on 9/11/2001. I don't recall a mass movement by people to call for hearings about the White House's role in that "growing political scandal." I don't recall Congress asking for "Watergate style hearings" about who was to blame and how to elevate things to impeachment proceedings. This whole thing is a joke, and McCain's last grasp at being relevant just flew out the window by missing a classified hearing in order to hold some kind of look-at-me press conference. Seriously, we might have to start asking if he's mentally fit for office at this point. He's acting in a way that would make Alex Jones blush.

What movie did the Bush Administration and the CIA blame 9/11 on for two weeks?

 

[pantherclub]

The really sad thing about this topic is that if it had been a sitting Republican president, the roles would be completely reversed in this thread. Republican supporters would be defending the administration's handling of the issue, and Democrats would be the ones freaking out. With very few exceptions.

The roles were reversed. That attack was on 9/11/2001. I don't recall a mass movement by people to call for hearings about the White House's role in that "growing political scandal." I don't recall Congress asking for "Watergate style hearings" about who was to blame and how to elevate things to impeachment proceedings. This whole thing is a joke, and McCain's last grasp at being relevant just flew out the window by missing a classified hearing in order to hold some kind of look-at-me press conference. Seriously, we might have to start asking if he's mentally fit for office at this point. He's acting in a way that would make Alex Jones blush.

What movie did the Bush Administration and the CIA blame 9/11 on for two weeks?

I am having a hard time understanding what it matters who or what was blamed for the attacks?The only reasoning I heard is from Glen Beck and he said Obama was covering for the Muslim Brotherhood. So if you want to hitch your wagon to that then good luck

 

[FootballDummy]

The really sad thing about this topic is that if it had been a sitting Republican president, the roles would be completely reversed in this thread. Republican supporters would be defending the administration's handling of the issue, and Democrats would be the ones freaking out. With very few exceptions.

The roles were reversed. That attack was on 9/11/2001. I don't recall a mass movement by people to call for hearings about the White House's role in that "growing political scandal." I don't recall Congress asking for "Watergate style hearings" about who was to blame and how to elevate things to impeachment proceedings. This whole thing is a joke, and McCain's last grasp at being relevant just flew out the window by missing a classified hearing in order to hold some kind of look-at-me press conference. Seriously, we might have to start asking if he's mentally fit for office at this point. He's acting in a way that would make Alex Jones blush.

What movie did the Bush Administration and the CIA blame 9/11 on for two weeks?

This is honestly the stupidest talking point ever. Yeah, it was crazy that they thought it was because of a video. Because Muslims would never riot/hate America/do violent things because of a video. Oh wait.

 

[Politician Spock]

The really sad thing about this topic is that if it had been a sitting Republican president, the roles would be completely reversed in this thread. Republican supporters would be defending the administration's handling of the issue, and Democrats would be the ones freaking out. With very few exceptions.

The roles were reversed. That attack was on 9/11/2001. I don't recall a mass movement by people to call for hearings about the White House's role in that "growing political scandal." I don't recall Congress asking for "Watergate style hearings" about who was to blame and how to elevate things to impeachment proceedings. This whole thing is a joke, and McCain's last grasp at being relevant just flew out the window by missing a classified hearing in order to hold some kind of look-at-me press conference. Seriously, we might have to start asking if he's mentally fit for office at this point. He's acting in a way that would make Alex Jones blush.

What movie did the Bush Administration and the CIA blame 9/11 on for two weeks?

I am having a hard time understanding what it matters who or what was blamed for the attacks?The only reasoning I heard is from Glen Beck and he said Obama was covering for the Muslim Brotherhood. So if you want to hitch your wagon to that then good luck

Were you okay with Bush using 9/11 as a reason for invading Iraq?

 

[squistion]

The really sad thing about this topic is that if it had been a sitting Republican president, the roles would be completely reversed in this thread. Republican supporters would be defending the administration's handling of the issue, and Democrats would be the ones freaking out. With very few exceptions.

The roles were reversed. That attack was on 9/11/2001. I don't recall a mass movement by people to call for hearings about the White House's role in that "growing political scandal." I don't recall Congress asking for "Watergate style hearings" about who was to blame and how to elevate things to impeachment proceedings. This whole thing is a joke, and McCain's last grasp at being relevant just flew out the window by missing a classified hearing in order to hold some kind of look-at-me press conference. Seriously, we might have to start asking if he's mentally fit for office at this point. He's acting in a way that would make Alex Jones blush.

What are you talking about? Did anyone from our government suspect that there would be an attack on buildings using planes in 2001?And you realize that Watergate wasn't a big deal because of the initial actions, but because of the coverup that followed, don't you?

Not planes specfically, but there was this:

Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US

Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US was the President's Daily Brief prepared by the Central Intelligence Agency and given to U.S. President George W. Bush on August 6, 2001. The brief warned of terrorism threats from Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda 36 days before the September 11, 2001 attacks.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US

 

[FootballDummy]

The really sad thing about this topic is that if it had been a sitting Republican president, the roles would be completely reversed in this thread. Republican supporters would be defending the administration's handling of the issue, and Democrats would be the ones freaking out. With very few exceptions.

The roles were reversed. That attack was on 9/11/2001. I don't recall a mass movement by people to call for hearings about the White House's role in that "growing political scandal." I don't recall Congress asking for "Watergate style hearings" about who was to blame and how to elevate things to impeachment proceedings. This whole thing is a joke, and McCain's last grasp at being relevant just flew out the window by missing a classified hearing in order to hold some kind of look-at-me press conference. Seriously, we might have to start asking if he's mentally fit for office at this point. He's acting in a way that would make Alex Jones blush.

What movie did the Bush Administration and the CIA blame 9/11 on for two weeks?

I am having a hard time understanding what it matters who or what was blamed for the attacks?The only reasoning I heard is from Glen Beck and he said Obama was covering for the Muslim Brotherhood. So if you want to hitch your wagon to that then good luck

Were you okay with Bush using 9/11 as a reason for invading Iraq?

Th:e:re's a poll you should be in.

 

[pantherclub]

The really sad thing about this topic is that if it had been a sitting Republican president, the roles would be completely reversed in this thread. Republican supporters would be defending the administration's handling of the issue, and Democrats would be the ones freaking out. With very few exceptions.

The roles were reversed. That attack was on 9/11/2001. I don't recall a mass movement by people to call for hearings about the White House's role in that "growing political scandal." I don't recall Congress asking for "Watergate style hearings" about who was to blame and how to elevate things to impeachment proceedings. This whole thing is a joke, and McCain's last grasp at being relevant just flew out the window by missing a classified hearing in order to hold some kind of look-at-me press conference. Seriously, we might have to start asking if he's mentally fit for office at this point. He's acting in a way that would make Alex Jones blush.

What movie did the Bush Administration and the CIA blame 9/11 on for two weeks?

I am having a hard time understanding what it matters who or what was blamed for the attacks?The only reasoning I heard is from Glen Beck and he said Obama was covering for the Muslim Brotherhood. So if you want to hitch your wagon to that then good luck

Were you okay with Bush using 9/11 as a reason for invading Iraq?

slight difference no?

 

[cstu]

And you realize that Watergate wasn't a big deal because of the initial actions, but because of the coverup that followed, don't you?

Interesting. I thought it was a big deal because the President hired people to commit a felony.

 

[pantherclub]

The really sad thing about this topic is that if it had been a sitting Republican president, the roles would be completely reversed in this thread. Republican supporters would be defending the administration's handling of the issue, and Democrats would be the ones freaking out. With very few exceptions.

The roles were reversed. That attack was on 9/11/2001. I don't recall a mass movement by people to call for hearings about the White House's role in that "growing political scandal." I don't recall Congress asking for "Watergate style hearings" about who was to blame and how to elevate things to impeachment proceedings. This whole thing is a joke, and McCain's last grasp at being relevant just flew out the window by missing a classified hearing in order to hold some kind of look-at-me press conference. Seriously, we might have to start asking if he's mentally fit for office at this point. He's acting in a way that would make Alex Jones blush.

we had promised a military response immediately after 9/11, we were in Afghanistan within a month. I'm still waiting for a response for the Benghazi beyond finger wagging and lamenting a youtube movie.

In your opinion whats an appropriate response?

 

[FootballDummy]

The really sad thing about this topic is that if it had been a sitting Republican president, the roles would be completely reversed in this thread. Republican supporters would be defending the administration's handling of the issue, and Democrats would be the ones freaking out. With very few exceptions.

The roles were reversed. That attack was on 9/11/2001. I don't recall a mass movement by people to call for hearings about the White House's role in that "growing political scandal." I don't recall Congress asking for "Watergate style hearings" about who was to blame and how to elevate things to impeachment proceedings. This whole thing is a joke, and McCain's last grasp at being relevant just flew out the window by missing a classified hearing in order to hold some kind of look-at-me press conference. Seriously, we might have to start asking if he's mentally fit for office at this point. He's acting in a way that would make Alex Jones blush.

we had promised a military response immediately after 9/11, we were in Afghanistan within a month. I'm still waiting for a response for the Benghazi beyond finger wagging and lamenting a youtube movie.

In your opinion whats an appropriate response?

Nuke Mecca. Right after Obama is impeached.

 

[cstu]

It's almost cult-like the way peopel seem to think the administration's actions in thye matter are in any way defensible.

The consulate had been attacked sevral times in the past and the UK and red cross evacuate and our response is to reduce security. The consulate is attacked, and the WH xoes nothing to defend it or our people. After the news breaks they come up with a BS story trying to blame it on some guy who posted a YouTube video -- after which they go out of their way to get that guy sent to prison.

You may support tye guy for other reasons, but this whole episode is outrageous.

What I don't get is the Republican obsession over Obama blaming the Youtube video. I don't see anyone claiming that there was advance notice for the Benghazi attack so why does it matter if he blamed the video or if it was 9/11-related?If Obama screwed up the response to the attacks that's where the questions should be, not on moronic debates on about what he attributed the attacks to.

part of the reason people voted for him was to "restore our credibility" around the world and here we are caught is a blatant and stupid lie. Yes there was plenty of advance notice - the consulate had already been attacked; the Libyans had warned us three days in advance; the UK ambassador left over security concerns.

Is this your warning of the attack?Link

Three days before the deadly assault on the United States consulate in Libya, a local security official says he met with American diplomats in the city and warned them about deteriorating security.

Jamal Mabrouk, a member of the February 17th Brigade, told CNN that he and a battalion commander had a meeting about the economy and security.

He said they told the diplomats that the security situation wasn’t good for international business.

“The situation is frightening, it scares us,” Mabrouk said they told the U.S. officials. He did not say how they responded.

 

[Politician Spock]

The really sad thing about this topic is that if it had been a sitting Republican president, the roles would be completely reversed in this thread. Republican supporters would be defending the administration's handling of the issue, and Democrats would be the ones freaking out. With very few exceptions.

The roles were reversed. That attack was on 9/11/2001. I don't recall a mass movement by people to call for hearings about the White House's role in that "growing political scandal." I don't recall Congress asking for "Watergate style hearings" about who was to blame and how to elevate things to impeachment proceedings. This whole thing is a joke, and McCain's last grasp at being relevant just flew out the window by missing a classified hearing in order to hold some kind of look-at-me press conference. Seriously, we might have to start asking if he's mentally fit for office at this point. He's acting in a way that would make Alex Jones blush.

What movie did the Bush Administration and the CIA blame 9/11 on for two weeks?

I am having a hard time understanding what it matters who or what was blamed for the attacks?The only reasoning I heard is from Glen Beck and he said Obama was covering for the Muslim Brotherhood. So if you want to hitch your wagon to that then good luck

Were you okay with Bush using 9/11 as a reason for invading Iraq?

slight difference no?

If Obama just blamed it on the video, and left it at that, then I'd say they are completely different. But Obama decided to use the blame to make a religious political statement as well, and even went so far as to make the arrest of the video producer a public political spectacle. That doesn't make them EXACTLY the same obviously. There are still many differences. But categorically they both meet the shared aspect of being a false accusation that is used for another political agenda.

 

[pantherclub]

/\ good luck with that

 

[cstu]

If Obama just blamed it on the video, and left it at that, then I'd say they are completely different. But Obama decided to use the blame to make a religious political statement as well, and even went so far as to make the arrest of the video producer a public political spectacle. That doesn't make them EXACTLY the same obviously. There are still many differences. But categorically they both meet the shared aspect of being a false accusation that is used for another political agenda.

Was the video not the reason for the attack in Egypt? Benghazi may have been planned but there was enough reason initially to think the video had something to do with it.

 

[Politician Spock]

If Obama just blamed it on the video, and left it at that, then I'd say they are completely different. But Obama decided to use the blame to make a religious political statement as well, and even went so far as to make the arrest of the video producer a public political spectacle. That doesn't make them EXACTLY the same obviously. There are still many differences. But categorically they both meet the shared aspect of being a false accusation that is used for another political agenda.

Was the video not the reason for the attack in Egypt? Benghazi may have been planned but there was enough reason initially to think the video had something to do with it.

For all we know, those who knew about the pending attack at Benghazi are the ones that translated the video to Arabic, and gave it to the TV stations knowing it would trigger riots that would make people think the Benghazi attack was just another riot that got more violent.I'm still waiting to hear who translated the video and gave it to the TV stations over there.

 

[pantherclub]

If Obama just blamed it on the video, and left it at that, then I'd say they are completely different. But Obama decided to use the blame to make a religious political statement as well, and even went so far as to make the arrest of the video producer a public political spectacle. That doesn't make them EXACTLY the same obviously. There are still many differences. But categorically they both meet the shared aspect of being a false accusation that is used for another political agenda.

Was the video not the reason for the attack in Egypt? Benghazi may have been planned but there was enough reason initially to think the video had something to do with it.

For all we know, those who knew about the pending attack at Benghazi are the ones that translated the video to Arabic, and gave it to the TV stations knowing it would trigger riots that would make people think the Benghazi attack was just another riot that got more violent.I'm still waiting to hear who translated the video and gave it to the TV stations over there.

youtube?

 

[FootballDummy]

If Obama just blamed it on the video, and left it at that, then I'd say they are completely different. But Obama decided to use the blame to make a religious political statement as well, and even went so far as to make the arrest of the video producer a public political spectacle. That doesn't make them EXACTLY the same obviously. There are still many differences. But categorically they both meet the shared aspect of being a false accusation that is used for another political agenda.

Was the video not the reason for the attack in Egypt? Benghazi may have been planned but there was enough reason initially to think the video had something to do with it.

For all we know, those who knew about the pending attack at Benghazi are the ones that translated the video to Arabic, and gave it to the TV stations knowing it would trigger riots that would make people think the Benghazi attack was just another riot that got more violent.I'm still waiting to hear who translated the video and gave it to the TV stations over there.

youtube?

Nope. Obama. He did it himself.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

McCain is looking like a serious loon over this.

Did you hear his comments to CNN yesterday when they asked him why he wasn't at the testimonies he was so loudly calling for? I've probably said this before and will say it again, but within government he is known as absolutely the biggest ####### of them all. Difficult, moody, nasty and demanding. He's done some great things for his country but he really has to go, he's the best example of what is wrong with the Senate. Actually I think almost all of them are terrible, but McCain has definitely run his course.

DD, your entitled to your opinion and some will agree with you but if you believe what the White House has spun together as a timeline and story on Benghazi I would really question your sharpness and I tend to view you as one of the sharpies in here even though we don't see eye to eye on everything. This is not a 1 up game, I don't practice that so I will just say that Petreaus says 3 days after the attack it was a reaction to the video/movie when we now have clear evidence he initially said it was likely AQ, that got hushed hushed...then a sudden FBI investigation with a 5:00 PM report to the President on the day of the election...if anyone believes that they should take a step back and stop trying to pick Left/Right, use your head people...then Petreaus has to step down, now he says it was definitely AQ...this man served under Bush and Obama and in charge of basically everything going on in IRAQ during the surge, then Afghanistan...people may not like what Petreaus has done in the last week or two but he is far far far from stupid, guy would run laps around this place. I guess what I'm saying DD, don't go attack McCain because I think he just wants to know the truth, my instincts tell me he may already know quite a bit behind closed doors, I do think there needs to be an investigation into the whole thing, none if it is meant as a smear on Obama but I think everyone deserves to know exactly what happened. Why were these people under attack for 7 hours and nobody in the region could come to their aid? There are a lot fo unanswered questions and the CIA/FBI/Petreaus is just the backdrop. The whole timing is far more than a coincidence, in fact reports are the affair ended 4 months ago so why did it take so long to surface? The answer is it really didn't. Most of the people around Petreaus had a good idea about it already, certainly the FBI would have known when they probed his background before he was made CIA director. The more people scream for folks like McCain to shut up and not ask questions, the more questions I start to have and want to know why we can't get some straight answers. Thanks DD, I really appreciate your posts and sharing what you know from the seat you sit in.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

The really sad thing about this topic is that if it had been a sitting Republican president, the roles would be completely reversed in this thread. Republican supporters would be defending the administration's handling of the issue, and Democrats would be the ones freaking out. With very few exceptions.

The roles were reversed. That attack was on 9/11/2001. I don't recall a mass movement by people to call for hearings about the White House's role in that "growing political scandal." I don't recall Congress asking for "Watergate style hearings" about who was to blame and how to elevate things to impeachment proceedings. This whole thing is a joke, and McCain's last grasp at being relevant just flew out the window by missing a classified hearing in order to hold some kind of look-at-me press conference. Seriously, we might have to start asking if he's mentally fit for office at this point. He's acting in a way that would make Alex Jones blush.

What are you talking about? Did anyone from our government suspect that there would be an attack on buildings using planes in 2001?And you realize that Watergate wasn't a big deal because of the initial actions, but because of the coverup that followed, don't you?

Sing it CE, I love the way Pickles is acting like he speaks for 90% of the folks out there in the viewing/listening audience. This is such a divisive issue and it shouldn't be. Nothing adds up, the BS talking points got blown to smithereens, the 4 star General suddenly has a sex scandal and then says one thing erroneous 3 days later when he damn well had better answers and then once the #### hit the fan he suddenly is singing that is was definitely AQ. But let Pickles have his say, I'm sure he'll do the usual "What?" "Are you crazy?" as he acts like he is the FBG University President with degrees in all social and international matters and the rest of us are just peasants and lucky to be able to use the YMCA pool down the block.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

And you realize that Watergate wasn't a big deal because of the initial actions, but because of the coverup that followed, don't you?

Interesting. I thought it was a big deal because the President hired people to commit a felony.

:EricHolderDown:

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I pointed this out last year or some time ago and Jon Stewart kind of touched on this recently. We are currently in the era circa late 1950s where we have a bunch of conspiracy theorists, anti-government loons and witch hunters looking for something to investigate regardless of the evidence. Seems like this thread has a lot of those people. Patreaus gets caught in an affair. IT MUST BE RELATED TO BENGHAZI, THERE IS NO OTHER EXPLANATION! NOW HE WON'T TESTIFY!Then Petreaus testifies...HE CHANGED IT! (although we the public have no idea what the details were because it was a classified briefing but we'll jump to conclusions anyway) SO EVERYONE IS LYING!!!! THEY HAVE TO BE LYING!!!!!!!!

Democratic lawmakers emerging from the sessions with Petraeus said it was clear Rice had been speaking from talking points that were approved by the U.S. intelligence community when she discussed the Benghazi attack.In five Sunday talk show appearances on September 16, Rice said the assault was prompted by an anti-Muslim video and then morphed into a more violent act. But she also told CBS's "Face the Nation" that day that it was "clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence.""I don't think she should be pilloried for this," said Feinstein, who was carrying a copy of the talking points that were probably given to Rice and read them aloud to journalists."She did what I would have done, or anyone else would have done, that is going on a weekend show. You would have said, 'What talking points can I use?'" Feinstein said. "It's almost as if the intent is to assassinate the character."Senator Saxby Chambliss, the intelligence committee's top Republican, told reporters the problem with Rice's talk show appearances was that she did not stick with the talking points she was given on the Benghazi attack."She knew at that point in time that al Qaeda was very likely responsible in part or in whole for the death of Ambassador Stevens," he said."

So now we are down from a complete government cover-up by Obama to Susan Rice not following talking points on a Face the Nation interview. Ok. SOMEONE MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE!!!!!! I SAY SUSAN RICE, LET'S GET HER BOYS (and Michelle Bachman)!!!!!!!

 

[moleculo]

The really sad thing about this topic is that if it had been a sitting Republican president, the roles would be completely reversed in this thread. Republican supporters would be defending the administration's handling of the issue, and Democrats would be the ones freaking out. With very few exceptions.

The roles were reversed. That attack was on 9/11/2001. I don't recall a mass movement by people to call for hearings about the White House's role in that "growing political scandal." I don't recall Congress asking for "Watergate style hearings" about who was to blame and how to elevate things to impeachment proceedings. This whole thing is a joke, and McCain's last grasp at being relevant just flew out the window by missing a classified hearing in order to hold some kind of look-at-me press conference. Seriously, we might have to start asking if he's mentally fit for office at this point. He's acting in a way that would make Alex Jones blush.

we had promised a military response immediately after 9/11, we were in Afghanistan within a month. I'm still waiting for a response for the Benghazi beyond finger wagging and lamenting a youtube movie.

In your opinion whats an appropriate response?

hell, I don't know. I'm not privy to all the classified information, and I'm not going to pretend to know what the right course of action is. I do know what I think is not an appropriate response though, and that's doing nothing - especially the first few hours after the attack when Americans lives could have been saved.

 

[pantherclub]

The really sad thing about this topic is that if it had been a sitting Republican president, the roles would be completely reversed in this thread. Republican supporters would be defending the administration's handling of the issue, and Democrats would be the ones freaking out. With very few exceptions.

The roles were reversed. That attack was on 9/11/2001. I don't recall a mass movement by people to call for hearings about the White House's role in that "growing political scandal." I don't recall Congress asking for "Watergate style hearings" about who was to blame and how to elevate things to impeachment proceedings. This whole thing is a joke, and McCain's last grasp at being relevant just flew out the window by missing a classified hearing in order to hold some kind of look-at-me press conference. Seriously, we might have to start asking if he's mentally fit for office at this point. He's acting in a way that would make Alex Jones blush.

we had promised a military response immediately after 9/11, we were in Afghanistan within a month. I'm still waiting for a response for the Benghazi beyond finger wagging and lamenting a youtube movie.

In your opinion whats an appropriate response?

hell, I don't know. I'm not privy to all the classified information, and I'm not going to pretend to know what the right course of action is. I do know what I think is not an appropriate response though, and that's doing nothing - especially the first few hours after the attack when Americans lives could have been saved.

thats quite funny to me

 

[moleculo]

The really sad thing about this topic is that if it had been a sitting Republican president, the roles would be completely reversed in this thread. Republican supporters would be defending the administration's handling of the issue, and Democrats would be the ones freaking out. With very few exceptions.

The roles were reversed. That attack was on 9/11/2001. I don't recall a mass movement by people to call for hearings about the White House's role in that "growing political scandal." I don't recall Congress asking for "Watergate style hearings" about who was to blame and how to elevate things to impeachment proceedings. This whole thing is a joke, and McCain's last grasp at being relevant just flew out the window by missing a classified hearing in order to hold some kind of look-at-me press conference. Seriously, we might have to start asking if he's mentally fit for office at this point. He's acting in a way that would make Alex Jones blush.

we had promised a military response immediately after 9/11, we were in Afghanistan within a month. I'm still waiting for a response for the Benghazi beyond finger wagging and lamenting a youtube movie.

In your opinion whats an appropriate response?

hell, I don't know. I'm not privy to all the classified information, and I'm not going to pretend to know what the right course of action is. I do know what I think is not an appropriate response though, and that's doing nothing - especially the first few hours after the attack when Americans lives could have been saved.

thats quite funny to me

I'm glad I can amuse?

 

[Ministry of Pain]

I pointed this out last year or some time ago and Jon Stewart kind of touched on this recently. We are currently in the era circa late 1950s where we have a bunch of conspiracy theorists, anti-government loons and witch hunters looking for something to investigate regardless of the evidence. Seems like this thread has a lot of those people. Patreaus gets caught in an affair. IT MUST BE RELATED TO BENGHAZI, THERE IS NO OTHER EXPLANATION! NOW HE WON'T TESTIFY!Then Petreaus testifies...HE CHANGED IT! (although we the public have no idea what the details were because it was a classified briefing but we'll jump to conclusions anyway) SO EVERYONE IS LYING!!!! THEY HAVE TO BE LYING!!!!!!!!

Democratic lawmakers emerging from the sessions with Petraeus said it was clear Rice had been speaking from talking points that were approved by the U.S. intelligence community when she discussed the Benghazi attack.In five Sunday talk show appearances on September 16, Rice said the assault was prompted by an anti-Muslim video and then morphed into a more violent act. But she also told CBS's "Face the Nation" that day that it was "clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence.""I don't think she should be pilloried for this," said Feinstein, who was carrying a copy of the talking points that were probably given to Rice and read them aloud to journalists."She did what I would have done, or anyone else would have done, that is going on a weekend show. You would have said, 'What talking points can I use?'" Feinstein said. "It's almost as if the intent is to assassinate the character."Senator Saxby Chambliss, the intelligence committee's top Republican, told reporters the problem with Rice's talk show appearances was that she did not stick with the talking points she was given on the Benghazi attack."She knew at that point in time that al Qaeda was very likely responsible in part or in whole for the death of Ambassador Stevens," he said."

So now we are down from a complete government cover-up by Obama to Susan Rice not following talking points on a Face the Nation interview. Ok. SOMEONE MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE!!!!!! I SAY SUSAN RICE, LET'S GET HER BOYS (and Michelle Bachman)!!!!!!!

Great, you and JS have a n opinion about the late 1950s. Everything you are posting is simply being put there to shut the other side up. Personally, I don't want to be associated with either side anymore however I do want some straight answers. The sex scandal is not the cause of the Benghazi attack, no clear thinking person would associate those two events. But what does seem to be in question is if there was an ongoing investigation and if there were folks behind the curtains telling Petreaus that if he wanted to get out of this alive with his job and dignity that he better go along with the "talking points"...I think that is a fair question and that is mostly what skeptics on this topic are asking about. We're not trying to impeach the President, we're not trying to say the election was swindled, the Obama supporters should relax and allow things to play out. It may turn out that it happened just like the White House reports...but 5 days later they sent the UN Ambassador out on the talk circuit and they damn well knew it was not about a video at that point. Why did they lie about it, what was there to cover up? Were they afraid that people would not vote for Obama in what could have been a tight race? Are we not allowed to ask questions as Americans?

 

[cstu]

And you realize that Watergate wasn't a big deal because of the initial actions, but because of the coverup that followed, don't you?

Interesting. I thought it was a big deal because the President hired people to commit a felony.

:EricHolderDown:

If you're referring to F&F, it was a risky method but the only realistic way to get to the people at the top. It's a tactic used by law enforcement all the time. Cartels are going to get guns either way and I don't think it matters that the specific ones we let through killed people or they got them somewhere else.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

You're out of your depth here MOP. Move along.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

I'm glad I can amuse?

Yo Mole, I am curious. You are talking about a response and I also feel that if we now know it was AQ, what kind of response should we make? We already have killed the leader, many of the directs underneath him, it took them 7 hours to finally kill this conselute and the CIA ops there, we've destroyed a lot of their network, they fired back a shot. In 2001 they killed 2.606 Americans, in 2012 they managed to kill 4. I like a heavy handed government to send a message but short of hunting all those involved down 1 by 1, what could we do here? I'm not trying to trick, I would like to hear your thoughts.

 

[moleculo]

what has the US response been so far? Anything beyond a stern reprimand and finger-wagging?

What would you like it to be? I'd like for O or Hilary to say, "We're sorry that the abuses that sometimes occur in a free society with freedom of expression have offended the religious sensibilities of so many. I hope we can see our way past these differences, unalterable ones in our case."

I don't know. US consulates are considered American soil, and representatives of the US government, acting on official duty, were killed. these are overt acts of war. I don't know what the proper thing to do is, but I know that I want a military response.

By whom? Generally it's a good idea to have a justifiable target for a military action.

story linked earlier

One of the groups to emerge in post-revolution Libya, Ansar al-Sharia, claimed responsibility Wednesday for the attack in Benghazi, which has been condemned by the country's new government.

certainly, we know something about these guys, no?

I don't think you have to worry about there not being an effort to find and deal with the people responsible.

ok, it's been almost a month. Has there been anything done to find and deal with the people responsible? Where are we with this?

looks like I missed the two month bump.

 

[Apple Jack]

what has the US response been so far? Anything beyond a stern reprimand and finger-wagging?

What would you like it to be? I'd like for O or Hilary to say, "We're sorry that the abuses that sometimes occur in a free society with freedom of expression have offended the religious sensibilities of so many. I hope we can see our way past these differences, unalterable ones in our case."

I don't know. US consulates are considered American soil, and representatives of the US government, acting on official duty, were killed. these are overt acts of war. I don't know what the proper thing to do is, but I know that I want a military response.

By whom? Generally it's a good idea to have a justifiable target for a military action.

story linked earlier

One of the groups to emerge in post-revolution Libya, Ansar al-Sharia, claimed responsibility Wednesday for the attack in Benghazi, which has been condemned by the country's new government.

certainly, we know something about these guys, no?

I don't think you have to worry about there not being an effort to find and deal with the people responsible.

ok, it's been almost a month. Has there been anything done to find and deal with the people responsible? Where are we with this?

looks like I missed the two month bump.

I'll let you know after my afternoon national security briefing.

 

[moleculo]

I'm glad I can amuse?

Yo Mole, I am curious. You are talking about a response and I also feel that if we now know it was AQ, what kind of response should we make? We already have killed the leader, many of the directs underneath him, it took them 7 hours to finally kill this conselute and the CIA ops there, we've destroyed a lot of their network, they fired back a shot. In 2001 they killed 2.606 Americans, in 2012 they managed to kill 4. I like a heavy handed government to send a message but short of hunting all those involved down 1 by 1, what could we do here? I'm not trying to trick, I would like to hear your thoughts.

this was not al-queda. It was an al-queda affiliate. The latest I heard is that some of these guys were detained by the Libyans and others, but we haven't been able to get at them. Maybe we have, but I haven't heard a damn thing about it, but then again I'm not he most informed peach in the stand.It has angered me since day 1 that US sovereignty was attacked, our representatives acting on official duty were killed, and our response immediately afterwards was to express how some sentiment about freedom of speech. There's got to be something else.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

what has the US response been so far? Anything beyond a stern reprimand and finger-wagging?

What would you like it to be? I'd like for O or Hilary to say, "We're sorry that the abuses that sometimes occur in a free society with freedom of expression have offended the religious sensibilities of so many. I hope we can see our way past these differences, unalterable ones in our case."

I don't know. US consulates are considered American soil, and representatives of the US government, acting on official duty, were killed. these are overt acts of war. I don't know what the proper thing to do is, but I know that I want a military response.

By whom? Generally it's a good idea to have a justifiable target for a military action.

story linked earlier

One of the groups to emerge in post-revolution Libya, Ansar al-Sharia, claimed responsibility Wednesday for the attack in Benghazi, which has been condemned by the country's new government.

certainly, we know something about these guys, no?

I don't think you have to worry about there not being an effort to find and deal with the people responsible.

ok, it's been almost a month. Has there been anything done to find and deal with the people responsible? Where are we with this?

looks like I missed the two month bump.

My linkI think they have a very good idea of who planned and the leaders on the ground who carried it out, but I think you're going to find that they recruited some folks on the ground who have disappeared now. What people don't understand is that you have so many people in these countries who will turn it on for one or two days, then go back to normal life. Maybe a good comparison is to a local militia in the revolutionary times although their intentions are not necessarily nationalistic as they are derived from a pan-Islamic mindset.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

You're out of your depth here MOP. Move along.

I'm not in here playing the 1 up game with every TD&H, I think there are many legitimate questions and concerns, you want to hitch your wagon to a nightly political comedian as the basis for your position, go for it. I believe the people you have issue with are going to dig in and there eventually is going to be a hearing. I also do not think Rice will get the Sec of Sate post as a result of this now which is gonna make Obama look even weaker. You can bump this post and laugh at me later on, I don't keep up in this thread everyday because of a lot of the posts form others are just total nonsense but when I saw you go after McCain and Pickles aiding the effort, really struck a nerve with me. I have no persuasion with most in here, so if I am fired up about this it comes from a deep belief and information I have looked into on sites I deem to be somewhere in the middle not Right/Left as so many who want to start the 1 ups in here which I am not accusing you of. I don't think I am out of my league here Donny and it's ironic because you are doing the same thing I accused Pickles of a few posts up. Where do you all get off thinking you are smarter than everyone on everything? It's offensive to some folks. And you're not justified, some of us are just asking questions. I don't claim to have any of the answers but to believe what the White House has put out there shows a total lack of critical thinking IMO.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

You're out of your depth here MOP. Move along.

You can bump this post and laugh at me later on

Sounds good.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

You're out of your depth here MOP. Move along.

You can bump this post and laugh at me later on

Sounds good.

 

[Limp Ditka]

You're out of your depth here MOP. Move along.

You can bump this post and laugh at me later on

Sounds good.

Not sure why he's pointing this out. It's the MO for all of his posts.

 

[pantherclub]

I'm glad I can amuse?

Yo Mole, I am curious. You are talking about a response and I also feel that if we now know it was AQ, what kind of response should we make? We already have killed the leader, many of the directs underneath him, it took them 7 hours to finally kill this conselute and the CIA ops there, we've destroyed a lot of their network, they fired back a shot. In 2001 they killed 2.606 Americans, in 2012 they managed to kill 4. I like a heavy handed government to send a message but short of hunting all those involved down 1 by 1, what could we do here? I'm not trying to trick, I would like to hear your thoughts.

this was not al-queda. It was an al-queda affiliate. The latest I heard is that some of these guys were detained by the Libyans and others, but we haven't been able to get at them. Maybe we have, but I haven't heard a damn thing about it, but then again I'm not he most informed peach in the stand.It has angered me since day 1 that US sovereignty was attacked, our representatives acting on official duty were killed, and our response immediately afterwards was to express how some sentiment about freedom of speech. There's got to be something else.

How did Bush respond back during his term when our consulates were attacked?

 

[moleculo]

I'm glad I can amuse?

Yo Mole, I am curious. You are talking about a response and I also feel that if we now know it was AQ, what kind of response should we make? We already have killed the leader, many of the directs underneath him, it took them 7 hours to finally kill this conselute and the CIA ops there, we've destroyed a lot of their network, they fired back a shot. In 2001 they killed 2.606 Americans, in 2012 they managed to kill 4. I like a heavy handed government to send a message but short of hunting all those involved down 1 by 1, what could we do here? I'm not trying to trick, I would like to hear your thoughts.

this was not al-queda. It was an al-queda affiliate. The latest I heard is that some of these guys were detained by the Libyans and others, but we haven't been able to get at them. Maybe we have, but I haven't heard a damn thing about it, but then again I'm not he most informed peach in the stand.It has angered me since day 1 that US sovereignty was attacked, our representatives acting on official duty were killed, and our response immediately afterwards was to express how some sentiment about freedom of speech. There's got to be something else.

How did Bush respond back during his term when our consulates were attacked?

all my info is from wiki, so pardon me for any inaccuracies, and feel free to add more:2008 Attack on Istanbul consulate:

United States - White House spokesman, Tony Fratto said, "We strongly condemn the attack." However, he did add "I'm not yet in a position to comment on the facts or nature of the attack." US Ambassador to Turkey Ross Wilson called the assault by gunmen on a guardpost outside the US consulate in Istanbul "an obvious act of terrorism" aimed at the United States. In remarks about the death of the three police officers he said, "The persons who lost their lives are Turkish citizens and we are very sad about that."[8] He added that "The Turkish police responded quickly and effectively. We are deeply grateful for the work that they do to protect our official U.S. government establishments here."[2] In response to the attack, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said, "Obviously first of all the United States deeply regrets the loss of life and condolences go out to the families of those who were killed. I know that some policemen were among those who died and we very much appreciate what was clearly a very rapid and proper response from the government to try to deal with the security situation in front of our consulate."[2]

Before that was three attacks in Karachi, all allegedly from Al-queda. As we were already engaged in Afghanistan, I think these attacks could be categorized as part of the larger, on-going war, the response includes taking out Bin Laden (eventually). Should the Libya events be placed in the same category, and wouldn't that mean we should be launching attacks on purported terrorist strong holds there as well?

 

[FlapJacks]

The really sad thing about this topic is that if it had been a sitting Republican president, the roles would be completely reversed in this thread. Republican supporters would be defending the administration's handling of the issue, and Democrats would be the ones freaking out. With very few exceptions.

The roles were reversed. That attack was on 9/11/2001. I don't recall a mass movement by people to call for hearings about the White House's role in that "growing political scandal." I don't recall Congress asking for "Watergate style hearings" about who was to blame and how to elevate things to impeachment proceedings. This whole thing is a joke, and McCain's last grasp at being relevant just flew out the window by missing a classified hearing in order to hold some kind of look-at-me press conference. Seriously, we might have to start asking if he's mentally fit for office at this point. He's acting in a way that would make Alex Jones blush.

What movie did the Bush Administration and the CIA blame 9/11 on for two weeks?

Maybe Bush should have apologized for whatever offense may have caused the terrorists to kill our people....

 

[FlapJacks]

The really sad thing about this topic is that if it had been a sitting Republican president, the roles would be completely reversed in this thread. Republican supporters would be defending the administration's handling of the issue, and Democrats would be the ones freaking out. With very few exceptions.

The roles were reversed. That attack was on 9/11/2001. I don't recall a mass movement by people to call for hearings about the White House's role in that "growing political scandal." I don't recall Congress asking for "Watergate style hearings" about who was to blame and how to elevate things to impeachment proceedings. This whole thing is a joke, and McCain's last grasp at being relevant just flew out the window by missing a classified hearing in order to hold some kind of look-at-me press conference. Seriously, we might have to start asking if he's mentally fit for office at this point. He's acting in a way that would make Alex Jones blush.

What movie did the Bush Administration and the CIA blame 9/11 on for two weeks?

This is honestly the stupidest talking point ever. Yeah, it was crazy that they thought it was because of a video. Because Muslims would never riot/hate America/do violent things because of a video.

Oh wait.

but they alrady knew it wasn't because of a video. Who brings a mortar rocket to a spontaneous demonstration?