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

[moleculo]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57583014/diplomat-u.s-special-forces-told-you-cant-go-to-benghazi-during-attacks/

wow that took all of 5 seconds,

The deputy of slain U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens has told congressional investigators that a team of Special Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi during the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks was forbidden from doing so by U.S. Special Operations Command Africa.

You are a bit behind on this one. They wouldn't have arrived until after the fighting and when most of the assets had already left. They were going to secure the airport which was apparently heavily secured by Libyan troops. But you can keep firing if you'd like.

>>The U.S. Souda Bay Naval Base is an hour's flight from Libya.

>ockquote>

So you have testimony that they could have gotten there in time. Because I have testimony saying they wouldn't.

Since we are talking real-time, how did they know when the attack would end, or if there was going to be a third?

yes, this is the part I don't get. If my house is being robbed and I call the cops, I don't want to hear the 911 operator tell me that sending a patrolman won't do any good because by the time they get there, the perp will already be gone.

In an emergency situation, which this clearly is, every second counts and there is absolutely no compelling reason that the closest assets weren't placed on scene ASAP, even if it were a few hours late.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

In an interesting report from Roll Call, GOP aides are apparently criticizing House Republicans, slamming their rhetoric in regards to the Obama administration’s handling of the attacks in Benghazi last year. The aides are arguing that the Party needs to change its focus to more substantive issues.

According to the report, Republican aides are saying the GOP is getting sidetracked chasing unsubstantiated accusations.

“We have got to get past that and figure out what are we going to do going forward,” a GOP aide told Roll Call. “Some of the accusations, I mean you wouldn’t believe some of this stuff. It’s just — I mean, you’ve got to be on Mars to come up with some of this stuff.” Another aide slammed the idea that military forces weren’t properly deployed during the night of the attacks:

“There are some real issues and then there is just some crazy stuff,” the senior House GOP aide said. “The crazy stuff is, you know, the airman in Ramstein that knew that the Predator was armed. There are no armed Predators in the region there. They does not allow us to fly them armed, and everybody knows it.”

GOP aides described another criticism aired at a recent House Oversight Committee hearing that there were four security officers at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli who were ordered to remain in the capital for several hours after the first reports of an attack, rather than being scrambled to assist the consulate in Benghazi.

“The stand-down order was for four guys,” the GOP aide said. “When you step back and say how were the people killed at the annex, they were killed by an indirect fire mortar round. Four more M-4s [rifles] inside the annex doesn’t change that outcome. In fact, they might have just created more casualties. We have got to get down to what really happened on the DoD side and for us the DoD side was not properly postured, why?”

Further, there has been some criticism of U.S. military officials in Europe overseeing Africa Command who may not have reacted directly to the attacks. But they are not permitted to launch offensive operations across borders without civilian authorization.

 

[sporthenry]

In an interesting report from Roll Call, GOP aides are apparently criticizing House Republicans, slamming their rhetoric in regards to the Obama administration’s handling of the attacks in Benghazi last year. The aides are arguing that the Party needs to change its focus to more substantive issues.

According to the report, Republican aides are saying the GOP is getting sidetracked chasing unsubstantiated accusations.

“We have got to get past that and figure out what are we going to do going forward,” a GOP aide told Roll Call. “Some of the accusations, I mean you wouldn’t believe some of this stuff. It’s just — I mean, you’ve got to be on Mars to come up with some of this stuff.” Another aide slammed the idea that military forces weren’t properly deployed during the night of the attacks:

“There are some real issues and then there is just some crazy stuff,” the senior House GOP aide said. “The crazy stuff is, you know, the airman in Ramstein that knew that the Predator was armed. There are no armed Predators in the region there. They does not allow us to fly them armed, and everybody knows it.”

GOP aides described another criticism aired at a recent House Oversight Committee hearing that there were four security officers at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli who were ordered to remain in the capital for several hours after the first reports of an attack, rather than being scrambled to assist the consulate in Benghazi.

“The stand-down order was for four guys,” the GOP aide said. “When you step back and say how were the people killed at the annex, they were killed by an indirect fire mortar round. Four more M-4s [rifles] inside the annex doesn’t change that outcome. In fact, they might have just created more casualties. We have got to get down to what really happened on the DoD side and for us the DoD side was not properly postured, why?”

Further, there has been some criticism of U.S. military officials in Europe overseeing Africa Command who may not have reacted directly to the attacks. But they are not permitted to launch offensive operations across borders without civilian authorization.

A very good posting. If only the GOP aides were actually in charge. They seem knowledgeable and fair. Besides what they mention, Pickering has already say the whole stand down thing is pretty much a non issue. They wouldn't have arrived until most assets were already on their way to Libya. Sure, I guess you can keep with the whole, well we didn't know things would end. But this is just Monday Morning QBing. Alright, they didn't know things were over but they certainly seemed to have made the right call and who knows if they were already planning on evacuating at the time the order was given. But no, we'll play worse case scenario and prosecute them as if the something worse actually happened.

I'd be interested to hear what the GOP aides had in mind, and more importantly, why it wasn't properly secured. But I'm so tired of this whole thing, as I imagine most Americans are, that i just suppose put the whole thing behind us. Republicans don't seem to realize that you only get one shot and you have to make it count. Even if they find their huge conspiracy on the 100th try, they'll sit there and think they won while the rest will have moved on.

 

[FlapJacks]

et tu WaPo?

When the White House last week released all of its e-mails, it became clear that Rhodes was responding at the tail end of a series of e-mail exchanges that largely discussed the State Department concerns.

In other words, the summary would have been fairly close if the commas had been removed and replaced with brackets: “We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities [including those of the State Department] and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation.”

The Facts

Under pressure, the White House in March provided the e-mails to Capitol Hill Republicans surrounding the development of its talking points on the Benghazi attack when John Brennan was nominated to be CIA director. The talking points became an issue because they were used by U.N. Ambassador Susan E. Rice on the Sunday public affairs shows the week after the attack. Republicans, however, were not permitted to have copies of e-mails, but could only take notes on them.

In other words, the summary would have been fairly close if the commas had been removed and replaced with brackets: “We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities [including those of the State Department] and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation.”

Moreover, the full disclosure of e-mails makes it clear that White House officials were concerned about the State Department’s objections.

ouch

 

[matuski]

It isn't funny anymore. These nutjob GOP'ers are just plain asinine now.

Please bring someone or something to the table that can balance the game again. Repeatedly shooting yourself in the face over talking points that were never relevant in the first place is getting old.

This admin now knows its best strategy on anything is to let the right have the mic - "Step right up". How many more times are we going have to watch this disaster?

 

[FlapJacks]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/05/21/clintons-role-in-the-benghazi-fiasco-and-blame-shifting/​

​

The decision to place Maxwell on administrative leave was made by Clinton’s chief of staff Cheryl Mills, according to three State Department officials with direct knowledge of the events. On the day after the unclassified version of the ARB’s report was released in December, Mills called Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Beth Jones and directed her to have Maxwell leave his job immediately.

“Cheryl Mills directed me to remove you immediately from the [deputy assistant secretary] position,” Jones told Maxwell, according to Maxwell.

The decision to remove Maxwell and not Jones seems to conflict with the finding of the ARB that responsibility for the security failures leading up to the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi should fall on more senior officials.

From the Daily Beast’s report

Also, he believes that Clinton’s staff, not the ARB, was in charge of the review of the attack that took place during her watch.

“The flaws in the process were perpetrated by the political leadership at State with the complicity of the senior career leadership,” he said. “They should be called to account.”

oof, so much for an independent review

 

[Lutherman2112]

It isn't funny anymore. These nutjob GOP'ers are just plain asinine now.

Please bring someone or something to the table that can balance the game again. Repeatedly shooting yourself in the face over talking points that were never relevant in the first place is getting old.

This admin now knows its best strategy on anything is to let the right have the mic - "Step right up". How many more times are we going have to watch this disaster?

Impossible. The right wing knows all they have to do is suggest impropriety, and the low information voters gobble it up. These low information losers don't care about facts, they just know something is wrong. And six months down the road when the truth comes out, the low information losers completely disregard the facts and are still locked into the false fable that was spun months earlier.

They don't care about America, just their side of it.

 

[FlapJacks]

It isn't funny anymore. These nutjob GOP'ers are just plain asinine now.

Please bring someone or something to the table that can balance the game again. Repeatedly shooting yourself in the face over talking points that were never relevant in the first place is getting old.

This admin now knows its best strategy on anything is to let the right have the mic - "Step right up". How many more times are we going have to watch this disaster?

Impossible. The right wing knows all they have to do is suggest impropriety, and the low information voters gobble it up. These low information losers don't care about facts, they just know something is wrong. And six months down the road when the truth comes out, the low information losers completely disregard the facts and are still locked into the false fable that was spun months earlier.

They don't care about America, just their side of it.

are you, BST, Drimmer Matuski etc bringong any facts into this thread orjust the usual nonsense,. Your side is still trying to seel this YouTube fantasy.

 

[sporthenry]

It isn't funny anymore. These nutjob GOP'ers are just plain asinine now.

Please bring someone or something to the table that can balance the game again. Repeatedly shooting yourself in the face over talking points that were never relevant in the first place is getting old.

This admin now knows its best strategy on anything is to let the right have the mic - "Step right up". How many more times are we going have to watch this disaster?

Impossible. The right wing knows all they have to do is suggest impropriety, and the low information voters gobble it up. These low information losers don't care about facts, they just know something is wrong. And six months down the road when the truth comes out, the low information losers completely disregard the facts and are still locked into the false fable that was spun months earlier.

They don't care about America, just their side of it.

are you, BST, Drimmer Matuski etc bringong any facts into this thread orjust the usual nonsense,. Your side is still trying to seel this YouTube fantasy.

B/c Carolina Hustler and Co. are full of facts. What facts do you want?

ETA: Just ask Carolina about the 30 people saved at the Consulate.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Which scandal is this thread?

I get so confused, Fast and Furious is fixing to become first page news again.

Guess we will have to start another one.

May as well start one on Lois Lerner while we are at it. Pleading the fifth ALWAYS helps with transparency and honesty.

What a corrupt mother####er.

 

[drummer]

Which scandal is this thread?

I get so confused, Fast and Furious is fixing to become first page news again.

Guess we will have to start another one.

May as well start one on Lois Lerner while we are at it. Pleading the fifth ALWAYS helps with transparency and honesty.

What a corrupt mother####er.

Post some #### pics.

 

[pantherclub]

Which scandal is this thread?

I get so confused, Fast and Furious is fixing to become first page news again.

Guess we will have to start another one.

May as well start one on Lois Lerner while we are at it. Pleading the fifth ALWAYS helps with transparency and honesty.

What a corrupt mother####er.

and yet nobody cares

 

[Todd Andrews]

oh my god......yawn......kook......what.....

 

[Statorama]

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE???? <pound desk>

 

[pantherclub]

Stat gets it

 

[Statorama]

ok, so this administration gave guns to mexican drug cartels that were used to kill Americans, and gave stinger missles to Al-Q which were used to kill Americans.

But....PBS/Big Bird....Binders full of women....those are the real scandals.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

ok, so this administration gave guns to mexican drug cartels that were used to kill Americans, and gave stinger missles to Al-Q which were used to kill Americans.

But....PBS/Big Bird....Binders full of women....those are the real scandals.

During an election you can tell which side is losing by watching who's criticizing the polls.

After an election you can tell which side is losing by watching who just can't believe the American people are so stupid that they don't care about [insert pet scandal] or won't support [insert most important policy ever].

Guess which side is losing Stat?

 

[JuniorNB]

This may be the saddest state the Republican Party has ever been in. One faux-Scandal after another. False outrage. Calling the public dumb. Reeks of desperation.

 

[timschochet]

Which scandal is this thread?

I get so confused, Fast and Furious is fixing to become first page news again.

Guess we will have to start another one.

May as well start one on Lois Lerner while we are at it. Pleading the fifth ALWAYS helps with transparency and honesty.

What a corrupt mother####er.

and yet nobody cares

This is apparently true:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/off-to-the-races/republicans-hatred-of-obama-blinds-them-to-public-disinterest-in-scandals-20130520

Red-faced Republicans, circling and preparing to pounce on a second-term Democratic president they loathe, do not respect, and certainly do not fear. Sound familiar? Perhaps reminiscent of Bill Clinton’s second term, after the Monica Lewinsky story broke? During that time, Republicans became so consumed by their hatred of Clinton and their conviction that this event would bring him down that they convinced themselves the rest of the country was just as outraged by his behavior as they were. By the way, what was Clinton’s lowest Gallup job-approval rating in his second term, throughout the travails of investigations and impeachment? It was 53 percent. The conservative echo machine had worked itself into such a frenzy, the GOP didn’t realize that the outrage was largely confined to the ranks of those who never voted for Clinton anyway.

These days, the country is even more polarized, and the conservative echo chamber is louder than ever before. Many conservatives made it all the way to Election Day last November unaware that their White House nominee was falling short. How could Mitt Romney possibly lose when everyone they knew was voting for him? Except that he did lose, and it wasn’t even a very close race. Five other post-World War II presidential elections had closer outcomes.

The simple fact is that although the Republican sharks are circling, at least so far, there isn’t a trace of blood in the water. A new CNN/ORC survey of 923 Americans this past Friday and Saturday, May 17-18, pegged Obama’s job-approval rating at 53 percent, up a statistically insignificant 2 points since their last poll, April 5-7, which was taken before the Benghazi, IRS, and AP-wiretap stories came to dominate the news and congressional hearing rooms. His disapproval rating was down 2 points since that last survey.

In Gallup’s tracking poll, Obama’s average job-approval rating so far this year is 50 percent. For this past week, May 13-19, his average was 49 percent, the same as the week before. The most recent three-day moving average, through Sunday, May 19, was also 49 percent. Over the past two weeks, even as these three stories/scandals have dominated the news, they have had precisely zero effect on the president’s job-approval numbers. His ratings are still bouncing around in the same narrow range they have been for weeks.

Maybe that will change. Maybe these allegations will start getting traction with voters. But it might just be that Americans are more focused on an economy that is gradually coming out of the longest and deepest economic downturn since the Great Depression. Most economists say the current quarter will show a slowdown in economic growth from the first quarter’s 2.5 percent pace, but they expect the economy to be stronger in the second half of this year. People may be encouraged by housing prices rising and the stock market setting record highs—and their retirement accounts may actually be looking better. The University of Michigan’s widely watched Consumer Sentiment Index is at the highest level since 2007, before the recession. The Conference Board’s more volatile Consumer Confidence Index is also generally moving up, although it isn’t at the record level of the Michigan index. The National Federation of Independent Business’s Index of Small Business Optimism, which took a deep plunge after the election, increased last month and is on an upward trend since the beginning of the year. Maybe the people and businesses polled have written off Washington as a political cesspool, and so these stories don’t affect them much. Perhaps they see this town as a place that can’t seem to get anything right.

One wonders how long Republicans are going to bark up this tree, perhaps the wrong tree, while they ignore their own party’s problems, which were shown to be profound in the most recent elections. Clearly none of these recent issues has had a real impact on voters yet. Republicans seem to be betting everything on them, just as they did in 1998—about which even Newt Gingrich (who was House speaker that year) commented recently to NPR, “I think we overreached in ’98.”

Republicans and conservatives who are so consumed by these “scandals” should ask themselves why, despite wall-to-wall media attention and the constant focus inside the Beltway—some are even talking about grounds for impeachment—Obama’s job-approval needle hasn’t moved. The CNN/ORC poll suggests that people are aware of and watching the news, but they aren’t reacting, at least not yet. Clearly Republicans hope the public will begin to respond. But at what point do they decide that maybe voters might be more interested in other issues or worries than about politicians on one side pointing fingers and throwing allegations at those on the other side? At what point might the GOP conclude that it is just digging the hole a little deeper?

 

[pantherclub]

ok, so this administration gave guns to mexican drug cartels that were used to kill Americans, and gave stinger missles to Al-Q which were used to kill Americans.

But....PBS/Big Bird....Binders full of women....those are the real scandals.

woah woah woah, pump the brakes here kid

 

[pantherclub]

This may be the saddest state the Republican Party has ever been in. One faux-Scandal after another. False outrage. Calling the public dumb. Reeks of desperation.

they know this is the end on a national level. Hillary is on deck for 2016 and there is nothing they can do about it. Nobody in their party can run against her. The GOP is too stupid and too arrogant to run someone as qualified as Huntsman, Paul or Christie. Instead they will trot a newt replica or maybe Rick Santoram again.

 

[Slapdash]

ok, so this administration gave guns to mexican drug cartels that were used to kill Americans, and gave stinger missles to Al-Q which were used to kill Americans.

But....PBS/Big Bird....Binders full of women....those are the real scandals.

Glad to see the loons are finally out of their shell after the election loss.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Uh oh. Another scandal. And this one is going to be big...

While he explained that “natural tornadoes” do exist and that he’s not sure if a government “weather weapon” was involved in the Oklahoma disaster, Jones warned nonetheless that the government “can create and steer groups of tornadoes.”

According to Jones, this possibility hinges on whether people spotted helicopters and small aircraft “in and around the clouds, spraying and doing things.” He added, “if you saw that, you better bet your bottom dollar they did this, but who knows if they did. You know, that’s the thing, we don’t know.”

 

[Statorama]

ok, so this administration gave guns to mexican drug cartels that were used to kill Americans, and gave stinger missles to Al-Q which were used to kill Americans. But....PBS/Big Bird....Binders full of women....those are the real scandals.

During an election you can tell which side is losing by watching who's criticizing the polls. After an election you can tell which side is losing by watching who just can't believe the American people are so stupid that they don't care about [insert pet scandal] or won't support [insert most important policy ever]. Guess which side is losing Stat?

Herein lies the problem. You view things as "sides". Your struggle to view these scandals outside of the narrow view of your "side" winning or losing the argument says a lot more about you than it does me.That said, "your guy" is being exposed as a thug punk and I couldn't be enjoying this week more.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Uh oh. Another scandal. And this one is going to be big...

While he explained that “natural tornadoes” do exist and that he’s not sure if a government “weather weapon” was involved in the Oklahoma disaster, Jones warned nonetheless that the government “can create and steer groups of tornadoes.”According to Jones, this possibility hinges on whether people spotted helicopters and small aircraft “in and around the clouds, spraying and doing things.” He added, “if you saw that, you better bet your bottom dollar they did this, but who knows if they did. You know, that’s the thing, we don’t know.”

Yep, I am sure this is going to get a lot of play when the nightly newscasts are showing Lois Lerner taking the 5th; then again, I am sure John Stewart will lead with it.

 

[Statorama]

Hate typing on an iPad so this will be my placeholder for posting later that the government has enough information to detain the terrorists responsible, but refuses to do so because it makes Obama look bad (re: gitmo)

 

[JuniorNB]

ok, so this administration gave guns to mexican drug cartels that were used to kill Americans, and gave stinger missles to Al-Q which were used to kill Americans. But....PBS/Big Bird....Binders full of women....those are the real scandals.

During an election you can tell which side is losing by watching who's criticizing the polls. After an election you can tell which side is losing by watching who just can't believe the American people are so stupid that they don't care about [insert pet scandal] or won't support [insert most important policy ever]. Guess which side is losing Stat?

Herein lies the problem. You view things as "sides". Your struggle to view these scandals outside of the narrow view of your "side" winning or losing the argument says a lot more about you than it does me.That said, "your guy" is being exposed as a thug punk and I couldn't be enjoying this week more.

"This week' has been nothing more than a GOP pep rally. It's had ZERO affect on his ratings and zero affect anywhere outside the usual suspects with conservative ties. I'm glad you're enjoying it, but it's basically a circle jerk between you and your buddies.

 

[timschochet]

Hate typing on an iPad so this will be my placeholder for posting later that the government has enough information to detain the terrorists responsible, but refuses to do so because it makes Obama look bad (re: gitmo)

So what you're suggesting is that we know where these terrorists are, and could capture them, but won't do it because to do so might hurt Obama's popularity?

 

[Statorama]

Hate typing on an iPad so this will be my placeholder for posting later that the government has enough information to detain the terrorists responsible, but refuses to do so because it makes Obama look bad (re: gitmo)

So what you're suggesting is that we know where these terrorists are, and could capture them, but won't do it because to do so might hurt Obama's popularity?

Close, but it has nothing to do with his popularity. He just doesn't want to look bad. More of an ego and hubris thing.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

ok, so this administration gave guns to mexican drug cartels that were used to kill Americans, and gave stinger missles to Al-Q which were used to kill Americans. But....PBS/Big Bird....Binders full of women....those are the real scandals.

During an election you can tell which side is losing by watching who's criticizing the polls. After an election you can tell which side is losing by watching who just can't believe the American people are so stupid that they don't care about [insert pet scandal] or won't support [insert most important policy ever]. Guess which side is losing Stat?

Herein lies the problem. You view things as "sides". Your struggle to view these scandals outside of the narrow view of your "side" winning or losing the argument says a lot more about you than it does me.That said, "your guy" is being exposed as a thug punk and I couldn't be enjoying this week more.

"This week' has been nothing more than a GOP pep rally. It's had ZERO affect on his ratings and zero affect anywhere outside the usual suspects with conservative ties. I'm glad you're enjoying it, but it's basically a circle jerk between you and your buddies.

I think someone has already posted a link showing most of American considers the Obama administration to be lying or covering something up..

 

[JuniorNB]

ok, so this administration gave guns to mexican drug cartels that were used to kill Americans, and gave stinger missles to Al-Q which were used to kill Americans.

But....PBS/Big Bird....Binders full of women....those are the real scandals.

During an election you can tell which side is losing by watching who's criticizing the polls.

After an election you can tell which side is losing by watching who just can't believe the American people are so stupid that they don't care about [insert pet scandal] or won't support [insert most important policy ever].

Guess which side is losing Stat?

Herein lies the problem. You view things as "sides". Your struggle to view these scandals outside of the narrow view of your "side" winning or losing the argument says a lot more about you than it does me.That said, "your guy" is being exposed as a thug punk and I couldn't be enjoying this week more.

"This week' has been nothing more than a GOP pep rally. It's had ZERO affect on his ratings and zero affect anywhere outside the usual suspects with conservative ties. I'm glad you're enjoying it, but it's basically a circle jerk between you and your buddies.

I think someone has already posted a link showing most of American considers the Obama administration to be lying or covering something up..

I read a link that shows ZERO change in Obama's approval rating since all these faux-scandals were introduced by the conservatives.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

This may be the saddest state the Republican Party has ever been in. One faux-Scandal after another. False outrage. Calling the public dumb. Reeks of desperation.

they know this is the end on a national level. Hillary is on deck for 2016 and there is nothing they can do about it. Nobody in their party can run against her. The GOP is too stupid and too arrogant to run someone as qualified as Huntsman, Paul or Christie. Instead they will trot a newt replica or maybe Rick Santoram again.

You and I can say we partially agree on something.

The reality of that situation is not stupidity, or arrogance, it's that a guy like Ron Paul will fix things.. The Dems and Repubs have the system exactly the way they like it.. Lots of broken.. They're all crooked..

 

[timschochet]

Hate typing on an iPad so this will be my placeholder for posting later that the government has enough information to detain the terrorists responsible, but refuses to do so because it makes Obama look bad (re: gitmo)

So what you're suggesting is that we know where these terrorists are, and could capture them, but won't do it because to do so might hurt Obama's popularity?

Then wouldn't Obama just have them all killed and look like a hero??

Apparently, according to Stat, that would hurt Obama's ego. I'm having trouble following his logic on this.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

ok, so this administration gave guns to mexican drug cartels that were used to kill Americans, and gave stinger missles to Al-Q which were used to kill Americans.

But....PBS/Big Bird....Binders full of women....those are the real scandals.

During an election you can tell which side is losing by watching who's criticizing the polls.

After an election you can tell which side is losing by watching who just can't believe the American people are so stupid that they don't care about [insert pet scandal] or won't support [insert most important policy ever].

Guess which side is losing Stat?

Herein lies the problem. You view things as "sides". Your struggle to view these scandals outside of the narrow view of your "side" winning or losing the argument says a lot more about you than it does me.That said, "your guy" is being exposed as a thug punk and I couldn't be enjoying this week more.

"This week' has been nothing more than a GOP pep rally. It's had ZERO affect on his ratings and zero affect anywhere outside the usual suspects with conservative ties. I'm glad you're enjoying it, but it's basically a circle jerk between you and your buddies.

I think someone has already posted a link showing most of American considers the Obama administration to be lying or covering something up..

I read a link that shows ZERO change in Obama's approval rating since all these faux-scandals were introduced by the conservatives.

I read a link that shows the majority of Americans think the Obama administration is involved in a coverup and deceiving the public..

 

[pantherclub]

ok, so this administration gave guns to mexican drug cartels that were used to kill Americans, and gave stinger missles to Al-Q which were used to kill Americans. But....PBS/Big Bird....Binders full of women....those are the real scandals.

During an election you can tell which side is losing by watching who's criticizing the polls. After an election you can tell which side is losing by watching who just can't believe the American people are so stupid that they don't care about [insert pet scandal] or won't support [insert most important policy ever]. Guess which side is losing Stat?

Herein lies the problem. You view things as "sides". Your struggle to view these scandals outside of the narrow view of your "side" winning or losing the argument says a lot more about you than it does me.That said, "your guy" is being exposed as a thug punk and I couldn't be enjoying this week more.

this post doesnt even make sense

 

[pantherclub]

ok, so this administration gave guns to mexican drug cartels that were used to kill Americans, and gave stinger missles to Al-Q which were used to kill Americans.

But....PBS/Big Bird....Binders full of women....those are the real scandals.

During an election you can tell which side is losing by watching who's criticizing the polls.

After an election you can tell which side is losing by watching who just can't believe the American people are so stupid that they don't care about [insert pet scandal] or won't support [insert most important policy ever].

Guess which side is losing Stat?

Herein lies the problem. You view things as "sides". Your struggle to view these scandals outside of the narrow view of your "side" winning or losing the argument says a lot more about you than it does me.That said, "your guy" is being exposed as a thug punk and I couldn't be enjoying this week more.

"This week' has been nothing more than a GOP pep rally. It's had ZERO affect on his ratings and zero affect anywhere outside the usual suspects with conservative ties. I'm glad you're enjoying it, but it's basically a circle jerk between you and your buddies.

I think someone has already posted a link showing most of American considers the Obama administration to be lying or covering something up..

I read a link that shows ZERO change in Obama's approval rating since all these faux-scandals were introduced by the conservatives.

I read a link that shows the majority of Americans think the Obama administration is involved in a coverup and deceiving the public..

could you re-link that for us please or at least tell us what page its on here

 

[JuniorNB]

ok, so this administration gave guns to mexican drug cartels that were used to kill Americans, and gave stinger missles to Al-Q which were used to kill Americans. But....PBS/Big Bird....Binders full of women....those are the real scandals.

During an election you can tell which side is losing by watching who's criticizing the polls. After an election you can tell which side is losing by watching who just can't believe the American people are so stupid that they don't care about [insert pet scandal] or won't support [insert most important policy ever]. Guess which side is losing Stat?

Herein lies the problem. You view things as "sides". Your struggle to view these scandals outside of the narrow view of your "side" winning or losing the argument says a lot more about you than it does me.That said, "your guy" is being exposed as a thug punk and I couldn't be enjoying this week more.

this post doesnt even make sense

I think what he's saying is, the problem with politics today is that people are biased and see things as 'them vs. us' and he wishes people would be more reasonable and stop making it seem like some battle between sides. Then he ended by saying 'your guy' is a thug punk.

 

[glock]

Hate typing on an iPad so this will be my placeholder for posting later that the government has enough information to detain the terrorists responsible, but refuses to do so because it makes Obama look bad (re: gitmo)

So what you're suggesting is that we know where these terrorists are, and could capture them, but won't do it because to do so might hurt Obama's popularity?

Then wouldn't Obama just have them all killed and look like a hero??

Apparently, according to Stat, that would hurt Obama's ego. I'm having trouble following his logic on this.

 

[Statorama]

Hate typing on an iPad so this will be my placeholder for posting later that the government has enough information to detain the terrorists responsible, but refuses to do so because it makes Obama look bad (re: gitmo)

So what you're suggesting is that we know where these terrorists are, and could capture them, but won't do it because to do so might hurt Obama's popularity?

Then wouldn't Obama just have them all killed and look like a hero??

Apparently, according to Stat, that would hurt Obama's ego. I'm having trouble following his logic on this.

Links are forthcoming, simply too difficult to do on the iPad (I'm old)

 

[Carolina Hustler]

It isn't funny anymore. These nutjob GOP'ers are just plain asinine now.

Please bring someone or something to the table that can balance the game again. Repeatedly shooting yourself in the face over talking points that were never relevant in the first place is getting old.

This admin now knows its best strategy on anything is to let the right have the mic - "Step right up". How many more times are we going have to watch this disaster?

Impossible. The right wing knows all they have to do is suggest impropriety, and the low information voters gobble it up. These low information losers don't care about facts, they just know something is wrong. And six months down the road when the truth comes out, the low information losers completely disregard the facts and are still locked into the false fable that was spun months earlier.

They don't care about America, just their side of it.

False Fables? Like the one where the IRS issue was just a couple rogue agents? Or the one where Benghazi was an attack by protesters?

 

[Statorama]

It isn't funny anymore. These nutjob GOP'ers are just plain asinine now. Please bring someone or something to the table that can balance the game again. Repeatedly shooting yourself in the face over talking points that were never relevant in the first place is getting old. This admin now knows its best strategy on anything is to let the right have the mic - "Step right up". How many more times are we going have to watch this disaster?

Impossible. The right wing knows all they have to do is suggest impropriety, and the low information voters gobble it up. These low information losers don't care about facts, they just know something is wrong. And six months down the road when the truth comes out, the low information losers completely disregard the facts and are still locked into the false fable that was spun months earlier. They don't care about America, just their side of it.

False Fables? Like the one where the IRS issue was just a couple rogue agents? Or the one where Benghazi was an attack by protesters?

Very well stated

 

[Carolina Hustler]

"This week' has been nothing more than a GOP pep rally. It's had ZERO affect on his ratings and zero affect anywhere outside the usual suspects with conservative ties. I'm glad you're enjoying it, but it's basically a circle jerk between you and your buddies.

I think someone has already posted a link showing most of American considers the Obama administration to be lying or covering something up..

I read a link that shows ZERO change in Obama's approval rating since all these faux-scandals were introduced by the conservatives.

I read a link that shows the majority of Americans think the Obama administration is involved in a coverup and deceiving the public..

could you re-link that for us please or at least tell us what page its on here

I'm not going to search the forum for it but I'll google it for you....

The Washington Times 60 percent think Obama administration is trying to cover up Benghazi attack: pollABC news

sharply reject the targeting of conservative groups by the Internal Revenue Service, suspect an administration cover-up of the Benghazi incident and express substantial distrust of the federal government more generally.

Yet the national survey also finds no backlash against Barack Obama, at least at this point. His job approval rating is stable, albeit at a tepid 51 percent; he’s aided by accelerating economic optimism as well as by comparison with the much less-popular Republicans in Congress.

Longer-term impacts of contentious current issues remain to be seen, but there’s potential for significant damage to the administration. Americans by a vast 74-20 percent see the IRS’ behavior as inappropriate, with most feeling that way strongly – and 56 percent see it as a deliberate attempt to harass conservative organizations, not a mere administrative error.

The public divides on whether or not the administration is honestly disclosing what it knows about the IRS’ actions; 45 percent suspect a cover-up, 42 percent instead see full transparency. And more than a third overall in this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, think these actions not only are inappropriate, but illegal.

Further, on the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, last fall, suspicions of a cover-up rise to a majority, 55 percent. And in this case only a third of Americans are persuaded that the Obama administration is disclosing honestly what it knows about what occurred.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

And the Presidents approval rating has not slipped in the last 2 months, but slipped in March, during the Benghazi heatup, and has yet to recover.. Currently the trend is downward.. We'll see what happens...

Clinton's approval ratting is 62% per polling..

Obviously with all the "but the polls say" claims in here, we'll have to keep a monitor on those...

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

ok, so this administration gave guns to mexican drug cartels that were used to kill Americans, and gave stinger missles to Al-Q which were used to kill Americans. But....PBS/Big Bird....Binders full of women....those are the real scandals.

During an election you can tell which side is losing by watching who's criticizing the polls. After an election you can tell which side is losing by watching who just can't believe the American people are so stupid that they don't care about [insert pet scandal] or won't support [insert most important policy ever]. Guess which side is losing Stat?

Herein lies the problem. You view things as "sides". Your struggle to view these scandals outside of the narrow view of your "side" winning or losing the argument says a lot more about you than it does me.That said, "your guy" is being exposed as a thug punk and I couldn't be enjoying this week more.

I don't struggle at all. I just think you're crazy.

 

[sporthenry]

Wrong, they wouldn't have arrive to the consulate before that incident, but very likely they would have arrived at the annex for that battle. The annex where the guys there were told to stand down but refused and went to the consulate anyways and rescued 30 people and brought them back alive..

Now you'll say there weren't enough of them to actually make an impact.. Yet 3-5 men who disobeyed orders to stand down made a huge impact for 30 people who they brought back from the consulate..

You are so ####### wrong. First, what 30 people are you talking about? Secondly, the 7 people they did send arrived between the fights. All testimony says the guys told to stand down wouldn't have arrived in time.

The guys at the annex where told to stand down, but refused, and went to the consulate anyways. They brought all of the survivors they could find back from the consulate..You haven't a clue do you?

Well for one, the whole standing down thing, is again, conjecture.

>The CIA official there organized his force and the Libyan guards at the annex. Some tried to find heavy machine guns to bring along to the consulate, about a mile away. One of the CIA operatives waiting to leave grew increasingly angry, convinced they were being told to "stand down" on two occasions, according to Fox News .

CIA officials in Washington strongly deny there was any order not to mount a rescue mission. And the source tells NPR there was never an order to stay put. It was all about getting ready, not delaying. Within 24 minutes, the American and Libyan team moved out toward the cons

ulate.

Maybe this is more correct.Woods overrode the objections of the CIA chief of base and promptly organized a seven-man GRS rescue

team.

But that is a stand down order from someone on the ground. So I guess if you want to go after the CIA chief of base.

And then the 31 people. So they got all 31 people into 2 Toyota Land Cruisers? There were 31 people at the Consulate? I'd love to see that link.

So now we're quoting un-named sources? Was there something in the rest of that article you didn't want us to see?Oh, so you actually have named sources? I'd like to see that.Just to recap, these are things you allege but haven't backed up at all.

1.) 31 Americans rescued at the consulate.

2.) The Special Ops would have arrived before the attack on the annex.

3.) The CIA team at the annex was told to stand down

As for nothing else to see in the article, swing and a miss. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/11/02/164140811/u-s-offers-new-details-of-deadly-libya-attack

The article actually backs up more of my argument about the military doing everything they could with little if any interference coming from the White House or State Department as so alleged.

Hey Carolina, now that you are back. Would you like to take a swing at these? You are apparently full of facts. I give you credit. For someone so wrong, you keep coming back.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Oh, so you actually have named sources? I'd like to see that.

Just to recap, these are things you allege but haven't backed up at all.

1.) 31 Americans rescued at the consulate.

2.) The Special Ops would have arrived before the attack on the annex.

3.) The CIA team at the annex was told to stand down

As for nothing else to see in the article, swing and a miss. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/11/02/164140811/u-s-offers-new-details-of-deadly-libya-attack

The article actually backs up more of my argument about the military doing everything they could with little if any interference coming from the White House or State Department as so alleged.

Hey Carolina, now that you are back. Would you like to take a swing at these? You are apparently full of facts. I give you credit. For someone so wrong, you keep coming back.

#1

#2

#3

There is tons of info out there.. Not sure why you didn't just look it up yourself

Both the agents at the annex, and the agents 2 hours away were told to stand down.. The agents at the annex disobeyed orders.. There were approx 30 Americans saved by the few agents that were there in time to help..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

...... oof

That fantasy lasted a day or two for you.. Sorry to ruin your fun..

 

[sporthenry]

Oh, so you actually have named sources? I'd like to see that.

Just to recap, these are things you allege but haven't backed up at all.

1.) 31 Americans rescued at the consulate.

2.) The Special Ops would have arrived before the attack on the annex.

3.) The CIA team at the annex was told to stand down

As for nothing else to see in the article, swing and a miss. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/11/02/164140811/u-s-offers-new-details-of-deadly-libya-attack

The article actually backs up more of my argument about the military doing everything they could with little if any interference coming from the White House or State Department as so alleged.

Hey Carolina, now that you are back. Would you like to take a swing at these? You are apparently full of facts. I give you credit. For someone so wrong, you keep coming back.

#1

#2

#3

There is tons of info out there.. Not sure why you didn't just look it up yourself

Both the agents at the annex, and the agents 2 hours away were told to stand down.. The agents at the annex disobeyed orders.. There were approx 30 Americans saved by the few agents that were there in time to help..

I guess you don't see the difference between 30 people at the consulate and this.

a reference to a safe house about a mile from the consulate, where approximately 30 Americans had taken cover

Just so you know, of the 33 Americans who were at the Annex, that includes the 7 CIA agents who had flown in from Tripoli. As for who was at the Diplomatic Mission when the attack happened, there were 7 people. Stevens and Smith along with 5 RSOs. The CIA team came with about 6 guys in two vehicles. When they got there, the RSOs left b/c they didn't have the weaponry so the CIA team stayed and looked for Stephens until they suffered smoke exhaustion. I guess this might be a minor detail but just wanted to see if you actually knew details before spouting off that the CIA saved 30 people at the Consulate.

As for the 2nd link, nobody disagrees that the 4 guys in Tripoli were told to stand by. What they disagree with is that they wouldn't have gotten there in time to do anything and the airport in Benghazi was already secured by Libya forces. The team of 7 who left there hours before got there minutes before the next attack (actually some think them arriving is what triggered the 2nd attack). And at the time they were told to stand down, who knows if the evacuation orders were already given. But either way, I'm not sure what blame goes around if they didn't send the troops and nothing happened as a result of it. Maybe it could have bit them in the ### but it didn't so I'm not sure what precedence there is to go down this whole, "well what if there was another attack" line of thinking.

As for the 3rd link, well this becomes a game of "he said, he said." Sure, it makes for a great narrative that Woods disobeyed orders but if that was the case, why are most of the articles 7 months old. I figure that would be a bigger issue if this was the case. This doesn't take anything away from what Woods did in saving 5 lives and recovering Smith. Everyone still displayed massive amounts of courage and deserves all the recognition they have received. But all I can put back is this, which is in direct response to the Fox News allegation.

The CIA official there organized his force and the Libyan guards at the annex. Some tried to find heavy machine guns to bring along to the consulate, about a mile away. One of the CIA operatives waiting to leave grew increasingly angry, convinced they were being told to "stand down" on two occasions, according to Fox News.

CIA officials in Washington strongly deny there was any order not to mount a rescue mission. And the source tells NPR there was never an order to stay put. It was all about getting ready, not delaying. Within 24 minutes, the American and Libyan team moved out toward the consulate.

And don't you think if this was still the case, we'd have heard more about this stand down when we had a hearing just to hear about 4 guys held back 600 miles away.

 

[timschochet]

So Carolina Hustler, since you have posted so much in this thread, and since you are so critical of Obama over this issue, I would like to know the following:

1. What do you think actually happened? Please be specific, and if possible give your reasons for your conclusions.

2. If you were in charge of Congress and/or our judicial system, how would you handle this situation? Would you impeach Obama, remove him from office, and charge him with a crime over this? What would you do?

tia

 

[Statorama]

Tough to do from an iPad Benghazi suspects identified, but not yet arrested

WASHINGTON — The U.S. has identified five men who might be responsible for the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, last year, and has enough evidence to justify seizing them by military force as suspected terrorists, officials say. But there isn't enough proof to try them in a U.S. civilian court as the Obama administration prefers.

The decision not to seize the men militarily underscores the White House aim to move away from hunting terrorists as enemy combatants and holding them at the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

It's all about the optics. He could grab them now as enemy combatants, but doesn't.