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

[Stinger Ray]

I love how people pretend this is about something other than 1) trying to make Obama look bad and 2) trying to find something, ANYTHING, to make Hilary look bad in 2016.

Oh wait, I don't love it, I actually find it sad and pathetic.

 

[DocHolliday]

I love how people pretend this is about something other than 1) trying to make Obama look bad and 2) trying to find something, ANYTHING, to make Hilary look bad in 2016.

Oh wait, I don't love it, I actually find it sad and pathetic.

Obama and Hilary made themselves look bad.

Obama lied to the people that he is supposed to be serving and defending. It is not like he lied the next day when the details were supposed to be sketchy. He lied 2 weeks later after most of the world knew the truth.

 

[FlapJacks]

Rocket Propelled Grenades. Syrians take their protesting seriously.

indeed

 

[dickey moe]

Have we impeached yet?

You missed your chance with Dubya.

 

[jonessed]

We would simply be rewarding the obfuscation if we let it go. I don't want to see that. There has to be a price for lying about something like this.

 

[Slapdash]

Still not seeing the problem, Sand. Why couldn't they have believed it was a terrorist attack, yet that it had been caused by the video? (That's actually what I supposed directly afterwards.)

Look at the email at pages 56-57. - It's clearly stated they don't know that it was connected to the video. As to whether it was an "organized terrorist attack," bottom of page 56 it clearly states that it was "a complex attack."

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/1919_production-4-17-14.pdf#page=14

OK. Now here is the part that I might agree with you on: is it possible that, given the fact that President Obama was right in the middle of re-election, and that the defeat of al-Qaeda as an effective terrorist organization was one of his selling points, that his administration was extremely careful in how they chose to characterize this attack? That they deliberately parsed words, calling it in Obama's speech an "act of terror" but never acknowledging that it was an "organized terrorist attack"? And that they might have done this for political reasons?

My answer is yes, of course that's possible. And it wouldn't surprise me. This sort of thing is typical in politics. And while it's not good, it's not that big a deal either. And it has no bearing on the accusation that somehow President Obama was either complicit in or was otherwise responsible for the attack, which is the point that some conservatives seem to want to believe.

There is a lot of noise that has gone on around this.

There are criticisms and lessons learned for all around:

We should have had many more men guarding the consulate. Blame it on Congress' cuts or State.

Rice who had no knowledge and involvement in the area went out and parroted what was given her

The NSA is involved on the political side of things, which is not good for the country or anyone.

The NSA also has its own stake in this - they are compromised, because they did not have the intelligence, they failed and so they have a stake in framing this as a video issue, because that let's them off the hook. - Think about that.

I've come around on this, but I do think we have incompetence on the administration here, yet I also don't see the manipulation of details by the Obama team to fit their campaign themes, which on the face of things might have made sense. As a nation unfortunately this reveals even bigger systemic problems.

I just don't see any of this as the big deal that you do. Some mischaracterizations, a few screw-ups, probably some people in the State Department or the NSA covering their butts afterwards- none of this is particularly unusual nor does it suggest bigger issues.

This type of nonchalant attitude towards the problems Saints described is part of the reason we allow them to grow even larger.

And I think you and he look way too much for deliberate action rather than simply assume there's going to be a certain level of chaos. Which is why we keep disagreeing so much on these sorts of issues.

I think you're turning a blind eye to how politics in large organizations actually works.

 

[Hang 10]

I love how people pretend this is about something other than 1) trying to make Obama look bad and 2) trying to find something, ANYTHING, to make Hilary look bad in 2016.

Oh wait, I don't love it, I actually find it sad and pathetic.

Right. It's nothing like the people downplaying the whole situation because the truth might damage their party.

 

[ArbyMelt]

I love how people pretend this is about something other than 1) trying to make Obama look bad and 2) trying to find something, ANYTHING, to make Hilary look bad in 2016.

Oh wait, I don't love it, I actually find it sad and pathetic.

I love how people don't realize that if the shoes were reversed (and they have been), we'd see the same thing happening. Its all about politics, both sides do it. That is what is sad and pathetic.

 

[jamny]

Any updates on the hunt to find those responsible?

 

[Chaka]

I love how people pretend this is about something other than 1) trying to make Obama look bad and 2) trying to find something, ANYTHING, to make Hilary look bad in 2016.

Oh wait, I don't love it, I actually find it sad and pathetic.

I love how people don't realize that if the shoes were reversed (and they have been), we'd see the same thing happening. Its all about politics, both sides do it. That is what is sad and pathetic.

I never said both sides didn't do it.

It's still pathetic. The attack and loss of life was a tragedy that deserves to be treated with respect not used as a foil for political ambitions.

Pathetic.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I love how people pretend this is about something other than 1) trying to make Obama look bad and 2) trying to find something, ANYTHING, to make Hilary look bad in 2016.

Oh wait, I don't love it, I actually find it sad and pathetic.

I love how people don't realize that if the shoes were reversed (and they have been), we'd see the same thing happening. Its all about politics, both sides do it. That is what is sad and pathetic.

I never said both sides didn't do it.

It's still pathetic. The attack and loss of life was a tragedy that deserves to be treated with respect not used as a foil for political ambitions.

Pathetic.

Speaking really deferentially here with all due respect and no judgements on anything you say - would you please look at the emails at pages 14 and 56-57 and tell me what you think?

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/1919_production-4-17-14.pdf#page=14

 

[RCon]

Can't speak for Gunz, but Obama has certainly lied IMO on several occasions. That being said, I find him to be more truthful, as a general rule, than his predecessor.

Wait, what? Sure, you can call Bush 43 dumb, but a deliberate liar (to use your words)? I'm not seeing it on anywhere near the scale of the current administration.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Can't speak for Gunz, but Obama has certainly lied IMO on several occasions. That being said, I find him to be more truthful, as a general rule, than his predecessor.

Wait, what? Sure, you can call Bush 43 dumb, but a deliberate liar (to use your words)? I'm not seeing it on anywhere near the scale of the current administration.

If anyone wants to make a call here - I see similarities between the CIA's and NSA's handiwork in the run-up to Iraq and the NSA's involvement in the Benghazi situation. They shouldn't be politically involved.... but there it is, they are.

 

[RCon]

I have no idea either. I assume that somebody screwed up. I also assume it was on a much lower level than the Presidency or the Secretary of State. I strongly doubt they are in charge of deciding how much to spend on an embassy.

Do we know yet who screwed up and why/how? If not, then this is, in fact, "still ongoing". Stop thinking of this in terms of left versus right, and start thinking of it in terms of people versus government.

 

[timschochet]

Can't speak for Gunz, but Obama has certainly lied IMO on several occasions. That being said, I find him to be more truthful, as a general rule, than his predecessor.

Wait, what? Sure, you can call Bush 43 dumb, but a deliberate liar (to use your words)? I'm not seeing it on anywhere near the scale of the current administration.

The decision to invade Iraq was, by far, the most momentous decision of his Presidency, and IMO the most momentous decision of any Presidency since the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964. President Bush lied to the American people regarding his reasons for that invasion, and maintained that lie throughout the rest of his Presidency. That, in my mind, makes him the most dishonest President since Richard Nixon.

 

[RCon]

Can't speak for Gunz, but Obama has certainly lied IMO on several occasions. That being said, I find him to be more truthful, as a general rule, than his predecessor.

Wait, what? Sure, you can call Bush 43 dumb, but a deliberate liar (to use your words)? I'm not seeing it on anywhere near the scale of the current administration.

The decision to invade Iraq was, by far, the most momentous decision of his Presidency, and IMO the most momentous decision of any Presidency since the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964. President Bush lied to the American people regarding his reasons for that invasion, and maintained that lie throughout the rest of his Presidency. That, in my mind, makes him the most dishonest President since Richard Nixon.

Gotcha. You're one of those.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Can't speak for Gunz, but Obama has certainly lied IMO on several occasions. That being said, I find him to be more truthful, as a general rule, than his predecessor.

Wait, what? Sure, you can call Bush 43 dumb, but a deliberate liar (to use your words)? I'm not seeing it on anywhere near the scale of the current administration.

The decision to invade Iraq was, by far, the most momentous decision of his Presidency, and IMO the most momentous decision of any Presidency since the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964. President Bush lied to the American people regarding his reasons for that invasion, and maintained that lie throughout the rest of his Presidency. That, in my mind, makes him the most dishonest President since Richard Nixon.

Tim, the NSA is at the root of the email instructing Rice what to say on the tv talk shows.

The Bush administration - and Senators like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden and John Kerry - relied on CIA and NSA intelligence estimates in much the same way (though Hillary went the extra mile by offering her own insights and experience from her time as a wife in Bill Clinton's administration).

 

[Stinger Ray]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/01/military-official-should-have-tried-to-help-americans-during-benghazi-attack/

Retired Brig. Gen. Robert Lovell, who at the time of the attacks was the intelligence director at AFRICOM, questioned the merits of the ongoing debate over whether U.S. military forces could have responded in time. Leading Pentagon and other military officials previously have argued that additional U.S. assets were not deployed to assist Americans under attack that night because they weren't close enough.

"The point is we should have tried," Lovell told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, in his opening statement. "As another saying goes -- always move to the sound of the guns."

He later said the military "could have made a response of some sort." Lovell made clear repeatedly that the military was waiting for clearance from the State Department to intervene in Benghazi.

Lovell also sharply countered claims that the intelligence community and military initially thought this was a protest over an anti-Islam video gone awry. He said U.S. officials knew this was a "hostile action" from the outset, even though they didn't know how long the attack would last.

"This was no demonstration gone terribly awry," Lovell said. "The facts led to the conclusion of a terrorist attack."

Under questioning, he also said the Internet video was "briefly discussed" on the ground but "dismissed" as a motive shortly afterward. He said officials soon concluded that Islamic militant group Ansar al-Sharia was involved.

 

[timschochet]

I have no idea either. I assume that somebody screwed up. I also assume it was on a much lower level than the Presidency or the Secretary of State. I strongly doubt they are in charge of deciding how much to spend on an embassy.

Do we know yet who screwed up and why/how? If not, then this is, in fact, "still ongoing". Stop thinking of this in terms of left versus right, and start thinking of it in terms of people versus government.

Well that seems to be the problem, because I don't think in those terms, at least not in the way you do. I think in terms of people, all of us, including those in government, vs. ineptitude and stupidity.

And I'm forced to think about THIS situation in terms of left vs. right, because I strongly question the motives of those who are doing the "investigating".

 

[timschochet]

Can't speak for Gunz, but Obama has certainly lied IMO on several occasions. That being said, I find him to be more truthful, as a general rule, than his predecessor.

Wait, what? Sure, you can call Bush 43 dumb, but a deliberate liar (to use your words)? I'm not seeing it on anywhere near the scale of the current administration.

The decision to invade Iraq was, by far, the most momentous decision of his Presidency, and IMO the most momentous decision of any Presidency since the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964. President Bush lied to the American people regarding his reasons for that invasion, and maintained that lie throughout the rest of his Presidency. That, in my mind, makes him the most dishonest President since Richard Nixon.

Gotcha. You're one of those.

One of what?

 

[timschochet]

Can't speak for Gunz, but Obama has certainly lied IMO on several occasions. That being said, I find him to be more truthful, as a general rule, than his predecessor.

Wait, what? Sure, you can call Bush 43 dumb, but a deliberate liar (to use your words)? I'm not seeing it on anywhere near the scale of the current administration.

The decision to invade Iraq was, by far, the most momentous decision of his Presidency, and IMO the most momentous decision of any Presidency since the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964. President Bush lied to the American people regarding his reasons for that invasion, and maintained that lie throughout the rest of his Presidency. That, in my mind, makes him the most dishonest President since Richard Nixon.

Tim, the NSA is at the root of the email instructing Rice what to say on the tv talk shows.

The Bush administration - and Senators like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden and John Kerry - relied on CIA and NSA intelligence estimates in much the same way (though Hillary went the extra mile by offering her own insights and experience from her time as a wife in Bill Clinton's administration).

Regarding your first point, I don't know if that's true, but as I have repeated numerous times, it was quite reasonable to assume that the Benghazi attacks were tied to the video protest, and still is, IMO.

As to your second point, there is much evidence that the Bush administration knew that there were no WMD's in Iraq, but this information was not given to the senators you mentioned. But in the very unlikely event that President Bush believed that there were WMDs, he still lied to the public, because that was not his motive for invasion.

 

[RCon]

Can't speak for Gunz, but Obama has certainly lied IMO on several occasions. That being said, I find him to be more truthful, as a general rule, than his predecessor.

Wait, what? Sure, you can call Bush 43 dumb, but a deliberate liar (to use your words)? I'm not seeing it on anywhere near the scale of the current administration.

The decision to invade Iraq was, by far, the most momentous decision of his Presidency, and IMO the most momentous decision of any Presidency since the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964. President Bush lied to the American people regarding his reasons for that invasion, and maintained that lie throughout the rest of his Presidency. That, in my mind, makes him the most dishonest President since Richard Nixon.

Gotcha. You're one of those.

One of what?

"Bush deliberately lied, there were never any WMD, and he knew it all along, he just wanted to finish the job his dad left unfinished, etc." It's ridiculous.

When an Obama statement comes up that's a lie, like "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan, period." or "We don't have a domestic spying program.", you bend over backwards to say it wasn't a "deliberate lie", but rather an omission, a misstatement, an accident, a matter of interpretation, etc. Why do you treat Bush differently?

 

[RCon]

As to your second point, there is much evidence that the Bush administration knew that there were no WMD's in Iraq, but this information was not given to the senators you mentioned. But in the very unlikely event that President Bush believed that there were WMDs, he still lied to the public, because that was not his motive for invasion.

He personally told you his motive?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Can't speak for Gunz, but Obama has certainly lied IMO on several occasions. That being said, I find him to be more truthful, as a general rule, than his predecessor.

Wait, what? Sure, you can call Bush 43 dumb, but a deliberate liar (to use your words)? I'm not seeing it on anywhere near the scale of the current administration.

The decision to invade Iraq was, by far, the most momentous decision of his Presidency, and IMO the most momentous decision of any Presidency since the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964. President Bush lied to the American people regarding his reasons for that invasion, and maintained that lie throughout the rest of his Presidency. That, in my mind, makes him the most dishonest President since Richard Nixon.

Tim, the NSA is at the root of the email instructing Rice what to say on the tv talk shows.

The Bush administration - and Senators like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden and John Kerry - relied on CIA and NSA intelligence estimates in much the same way (though Hillary went the extra mile by offering her own insights and experience from her time as a wife in Bill Clinton's administration).

Regarding your first point, I don't know if that's true, but as I have repeated numerous times, it was quite reasonable to assume that the Benghazi attacks were tied to the video protest, and still is, IMO.

As to your second point, there is much evidence that the Bush administration knew that there were no WMD's in Iraq, but this information was not given to the senators you mentioned. But in the very unlikely event that President Bush believed that there were WMDs, he still lied to the public, because that was not his motive for invasion.

Tim, look at the email - it's in the posted link a little further up. It's also discussed in the news stories. See for yourself or just don't read the words because it hurts too much.

On the lying front, Bush had less reason to believe to believe there were no WMD in Iraq than Obama had to know that people would be losing their policies, coverage and physicians in the runup to the ACA. Everyone gets their 1 trillion dollar bustup costing lives these days I guess.

 

[Chaka]

I love how people pretend this is about something other than 1) trying to make Obama look bad and 2) trying to find something, ANYTHING, to make Hilary look bad in 2016.

Oh wait, I don't love it, I actually find it sad and pathetic.

I love how people don't realize that if the shoes were reversed (and they have been), we'd see the same thing happening. Its all about politics, both sides do it. That is what is sad and pathetic.

I never said both sides didn't do it.

It's still pathetic. The attack and loss of life was a tragedy that deserves to be treated with respect not used as a foil for political ambitions.

Pathetic.

Speaking really deferentially here with all due respect and no judgements on anything you say - would you please look at the emails at pages 14 and 56-57 and tell me what you think?

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/1919_production-4-17-14.pdf#page=14

Just read them. And?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I love how people pretend this is about something other than 1) trying to make Obama look bad and 2) trying to find something, ANYTHING, to make Hilary look bad in 2016.

Oh wait, I don't love it, I actually find it sad and pathetic.

I love how people don't realize that if the shoes were reversed (and they have been), we'd see the same thing happening. Its all about politics, both sides do it. That is what is sad and pathetic.

I never said both sides didn't do it.

It's still pathetic. The attack and loss of life was a tragedy that deserves to be treated with respect not used as a foil for political ambitions.

Pathetic.

Speaking really deferentially here with all due respect and no judgements on anything you say - would you please look at the emails at pages 14 and 56-57 and tell me what you think?

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/1919_production-4-17-14.pdf#page=14

Just read them. And?

Give your opinion? I'm interested to hear it. Thanks.

 

[Stinger Ray]

Can't speak for Gunz, but Obama has certainly lied IMO on several occasions. That being said, I find him to be more truthful, as a general rule, than his predecessor.

Wait, what? Sure, you can call Bush 43 dumb, but a deliberate liar (to use your words)? I'm not seeing it on anywhere near the scale of the current administration.

The decision to invade Iraq was, by far, the most momentous decision of his Presidency, and IMO the most momentous decision of any Presidency since the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964. President Bush lied to the American people regarding his reasons for that invasion, and maintained that lie throughout the rest of his Presidency. That, in my mind, makes him the most dishonest President since Richard Nixon.

Tim, the NSA is at the root of the email instructing Rice what to say on the tv talk shows.

The Bush administration - and Senators like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden and John Kerry - relied on CIA and NSA intelligence estimates in much the same way (though Hillary went the extra mile by offering her own insights and experience from her time as a wife in Bill Clinton's administration).

Regarding your first point, I don't know if that's true, but as I have repeated numerous times, it was quite reasonable to assume that the Benghazi attacks were tied to the video protest, and still is, IMO.

Not according to testimony today by a senior military official and the top CIA official in Libya at the time of the attack.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Can't speak for Gunz, but Obama has certainly lied IMO on several occasions. That being said, I find him to be more truthful, as a general rule, than his predecessor.

Wait, what? Sure, you can call Bush 43 dumb, but a deliberate liar (to use your words)? I'm not seeing it on anywhere near the scale of the current administration.

The decision to invade Iraq was, by far, the most momentous decision of his Presidency, and IMO the most momentous decision of any Presidency since the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964. President Bush lied to the American people regarding his reasons for that invasion, and maintained that lie throughout the rest of his Presidency. That, in my mind, makes him the most dishonest President since Richard Nixon.

Tim, the NSA is at the root of the email instructing Rice what to say on the tv talk shows.

The Bush administration - and Senators like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden and John Kerry - relied on CIA and NSA intelligence estimates in much the same way (though Hillary went the extra mile by offering her own insights and experience from her time as a wife in Bill Clinton's administration).

Regarding your first point, I don't know if that's true, but as I have repeated numerous times, it was quite reasonable to assume that the Benghazi attacks were tied to the video protest, and still is, IMO.

Not according to testimony today by a senior military official and the top CIA official in Libya at the time of the attack.

Jeezloueeze Tim is thick.

Tim, read the damn emails - it says in black and white what they believed in 9/11 and 9/12, and no one said it was definitively video related, they said it was possible but more likely that it was terrorist related.

Do I have to quote it?

 

[timschochet]

Can't speak for Gunz, but Obama has certainly lied IMO on several occasions. That being said, I find him to be more truthful, as a general rule, than his predecessor.

Wait, what? Sure, you can call Bush 43 dumb, but a deliberate liar (to use your words)? I'm not seeing it on anywhere near the scale of the current administration.

The decision to invade Iraq was, by far, the most momentous decision of his Presidency, and IMO the most momentous decision of any Presidency since the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964. President Bush lied to the American people regarding his reasons for that invasion, and maintained that lie throughout the rest of his Presidency. That, in my mind, makes him the most dishonest President since Richard Nixon.

Gotcha. You're one of those.

One of what?

"Bush deliberately lied, there were never any WMD, and he knew it all along, he just wanted to finish the job his dad left unfinished, etc." It's ridiculous.

When an Obama statement comes up that's a lie, like "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan, period." or "We don't have a domestic spying program.", you bend over backwards to say it wasn't a "deliberate lie", but rather an omission, a misstatement, an accident, a matter of interpretation, etc. Why do you treat Bush differently?

No, I'm not one of those people. I just don't accept his motives for invading Iraq, and yes, I believe the motives he gave was a deliberate lie. But it wasn't some huge conspiracy.

 

[timschochet]

Can't speak for Gunz, but Obama has certainly lied IMO on several occasions. That being said, I find him to be more truthful, as a general rule, than his predecessor.

Wait, what? Sure, you can call Bush 43 dumb, but a deliberate liar (to use your words)? I'm not seeing it on anywhere near the scale of the current administration.

The decision to invade Iraq was, by far, the most momentous decision of his Presidency, and IMO the most momentous decision of any Presidency since the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964. President Bush lied to the American people regarding his reasons for that invasion, and maintained that lie throughout the rest of his Presidency. That, in my mind, makes him the most dishonest President since Richard Nixon.

Tim, the NSA is at the root of the email instructing Rice what to say on the tv talk shows.

The Bush administration - and Senators like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden and John Kerry - relied on CIA and NSA intelligence estimates in much the same way (though Hillary went the extra mile by offering her own insights and experience from her time as a wife in Bill Clinton's administration).

Regarding your first point, I don't know if that's true, but as I have repeated numerous times, it was quite reasonable to assume that the Benghazi attacks were tied to the video protest, and still is, IMO.

Not according to testimony today by a senior military official and the top CIA official in Libya at the time of the attack.

Jeezloueeze Tim is thick.

Tim, read the damn emails - it says in black and white what they believed in 9/11 and 9/12, and no one said it was definitively video related, they said it was possible but more likely that it was terrorist related.

Do I have to quote it?

Reading them now.

 

[Chaka]

I love how people pretend this is about something other than 1) trying to make Obama look bad and 2) trying to find something, ANYTHING, to make Hilary look bad in 2016.

Oh wait, I don't love it, I actually find it sad and pathetic.

I love how people don't realize that if the shoes were reversed (and they have been), we'd see the same thing happening. Its all about politics, both sides do it. That is what is sad and pathetic.

I never said both sides didn't do it.

It's still pathetic. The attack and loss of life was a tragedy that deserves to be treated with respect not used as a foil for political ambitions.

Pathetic.

Speaking really deferentially here with all due respect and no judgements on anything you say - would you please look at the emails at pages 14 and 56-57 and tell me what you think?

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/1919_production-4-17-14.pdf#page=14

Just read them. And?

Give your opinion? I'm interested to hear it. Thanks.

My opinion is there doesn't seem to be much to see. What am I supposed to be outraged about?

That less than a day after the attack they thought it was because of a video and two days later they were unsure?

 

[timschochet]

OK Saints, I read the emails. I don't see them as the smoking gun you do. In fact, the second email suggests to me quite the opposite. Directly after it's reported that Toria can't confirm one way or another if the video was the cause for the attacks, the email goes on to say that Pastor Jones refused to withdraw his support for the video.

This indicates to me that the Administration honestly believed there was a clear connection between the video and the attacks, and that it was not something they chose to fabricate later on. They were clearly concerned that Pastor Jones was fanning the flames, and to discuss it in the same email should be obvious to everyone that this was indeed their thinking at the time. Anyhow, that's how I see it.

 

[Slapdash]

Can't speak for Gunz, but Obama has certainly lied IMO on several occasions. That being said, I find him to be more truthful, as a general rule, than his predecessor.

Wait, what? Sure, you can call Bush 43 dumb, but a deliberate liar (to use your words)? I'm not seeing it on anywhere near the scale of the current administration.

The decision to invade Iraq was, by far, the most momentous decision of his Presidency, and IMO the most momentous decision of any Presidency since the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964. President Bush lied to the American people regarding his reasons for that invasion, and maintained that lie throughout the rest of his Presidency. That, in my mind, makes him the most dishonest President since Richard Nixon.

Tim, the NSA is at the root of the email instructing Rice what to say on the tv talk shows.

The Bush administration - and Senators like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden and John Kerry - relied on CIA and NSA intelligence estimates in much the same way (though Hillary went the extra mile by offering her own insights and experience from her time as a wife in Bill Clinton's administration).

Sure, but faulty intelligence was not the reason for invading Iraq. It was a useful tool to convince skeptics and provide political cover.

Iraq was pretty clearly about oil; its invasion was plotted well before 9/11 for those ends. Not that I expect any of our conservative friends to agree... :ducks:

 

[Stinger Ray]

This indicates to me that the Administration honestly believed there was a clear connection between the video and the attacks, and that it was not something they chose to fabricate later on.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I love how people pretend this is about something other than 1) trying to make Obama look bad and 2) trying to find something, ANYTHING, to make Hilary look bad in 2016.

Oh wait, I don't love it, I actually find it sad and pathetic.

I love how people don't realize that if the shoes were reversed (and they have been), we'd see the same thing happening. Its all about politics, both sides do it. That is what is sad and pathetic.

I never said both sides didn't do it.

It's still pathetic. The attack and loss of life was a tragedy that deserves to be treated with respect not used as a foil for political ambitions.

Pathetic.

Speaking really deferentially here with all due respect and no judgements on anything you say - would you please look at the emails at pages 14 and 56-57 and tell me what you think?

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/1919_production-4-17-14.pdf#page=14

Just read them. And?

Give your opinion? I'm interested to hear it. Thanks.

My opinion is there doesn't seem to be much to see. What am I supposed to be outraged about?

That less than a day after the attack they thought it was because of a video and two days later they were unsure?

You don't need to be outraged, just trying to establish a basic fact. Look at page 56-57, from 9/12/12:

Responding to a question about whether the attack was linked to the Mohammed video, she said that she could not confirm a connect as we simply don't know - and won't know until there's an investigation.

 

[timschochet]

This indicates to me that the Administration honestly believed there was a clear connection between the video and the attacks, and that it was not something they chose to fabricate later on.

Do you have another explanation why they're concerned about Pastor Jones in that email?

 

[timschochet]

I love how people pretend this is about something other than 1) trying to make Obama look bad and 2) trying to find something, ANYTHING, to make Hilary look bad in 2016.

Oh wait, I don't love it, I actually find it sad and pathetic.

I love how people don't realize that if the shoes were reversed (and they have been), we'd see the same thing happening. Its all about politics, both sides do it. That is what is sad and pathetic.

I never said both sides didn't do it.

It's still pathetic. The attack and loss of life was a tragedy that deserves to be treated with respect not used as a foil for political ambitions.

Pathetic.

Speaking really deferentially here with all due respect and no judgements on anything you say - would you please look at the emails at pages 14 and 56-57 and tell me what you think?

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/1919_production-4-17-14.pdf#page=14

Just read them. And?

Give your opinion? I'm interested to hear it. Thanks.

My opinion is there doesn't seem to be much to see. What am I supposed to be outraged about?

That less than a day after the attack they thought it was because of a video and two days later they were unsure?

You don't need to be outraged, just trying to establish a basic fact. Look at page 56-57, from 9/12/12:

Responding to a question about whether the attack was linked to the Mohammed video, she said that she could not confirm a connect as we simply don't know - and won't know until there's an investigation.

Yes, and what comes directly after that?

 

[timschochet]

Saints, the only way to read that entire email logically is that, while Toria couldn't confirm the connection between the attack and the video, the Administration was convinced that the two were in fact connected. Otherwise the reference to Pastor Jones makes no sense.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

OK Saints, I read the emails. I don't see them as the smoking gun you do. In fact, the second email suggests to me quite the opposite. Directly after it's reported that Toria can't confirm one way or another if the video was the cause for the attacks, the email goes on to say that Pastor Jones refused to withdraw his support for the video.

This indicates to me that the Administration honestly believed there was a clear connection between the video and the attacks, and that it was not something they chose to fabricate later on. They were clearly concerned that Pastor Jones was fanning the flames, and to discuss it in the same email should be obvious to everyone that this was indeed their thinking at the time. Anyhow, that's how I see it.

Holy cow, Tim, the pastor has nothing to do with the situation - this is what it says about the administration's knowledge of the situation.

Responding to a question about whether the attack was linked to the Mohammed video, she said that she could not confirm a connect as we simply don't know - and won't know until there's an investigation.

Responding to a question about whether it was an organized terror attack, Toria said she couldn't speak to the identity of the perpetrators but that it was clearly a complex attack. There will be a full investigation with which the FBI is assisting.

That was on September 12th.

Not knowing does not equal knowing.

At no point could the administration say it was because of the stupid video.

But they said it, ignored the information about the nature of the attack - and not only that Obama personally kept repeating the video business for another 2 weeks.

 

[Stinger Ray]

This indicates to me that the Administration honestly believed there was a clear connection between the video and the attacks, and that it was not something they chose to fabricate later on.

Do you have another explanation why they're concerned about Pastor Jones in that email?

I am not concerned about the emails.

The CIA’s station chief during the Benghazi attack testified in a classified session before Congress. He told lawmakers on the committee that his assessment for the entire week of the attack was that the Benghazi incident was a terrorist attack and not a mob that had gotten out of control. The Senate Intelligence Committee came to a similar conclusion in its report on Benghazi as well.

And you still want to think it's reasonable to think the video led to the attack on 9-11.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This indicates to me that the Administration honestly believed there was a clear connection between the video and the attacks, and that it was not something they chose to fabricate later on.

Do you have another explanation why they're concerned about Pastor Jones in that email?

I am not concerned about the emails.

The CIA’s station chief during the Benghazi attack testified in a classified session before Congress. He told lawmakers on the committee that his assessment for the entire week of the attack was that the Benghazi incident was a terrorist attack and not a mob that had gotten out of control. The Senate Intelligence Committee came to a similar conclusion in its report on Benghazi as well.

The pastor thing was just another foray by the administration into pinning this thing on the video when they had absolutely no reason to do so.

You are completely correct about the station chief, another point ignored.

 

[Chaka]

OK Saints, I read the emails. I don't see them as the smoking gun you do. In fact, the second email suggests to me quite the opposite. Directly after it's reported that Toria can't confirm one way or another if the video was the cause for the attacks, the email goes on to say that Pastor Jones refused to withdraw his support for the video.

This indicates to me that the Administration honestly believed there was a clear connection between the video and the attacks, and that it was not something they chose to fabricate later on. They were clearly concerned that Pastor Jones was fanning the flames, and to discuss it in the same email should be obvious to everyone that this was indeed their thinking at the time. Anyhow, that's how I see it.

Holy cow, Tim, the pastor has nothing to do with the situation - this is what it says about the administration's knowledge of the situation.

Responding to a question about whether the attack was linked to the Mohammed video, she said that she could not confirm a connect as we simply don't know - and won't know until there's an investigation.

Responding to a question about whether it was an organized terror attack, Toria said she couldn't speak to the identity of the perpetrators but that it was clearly a complex attack. There will be a full investigation with which the FBI is assisting.

That was on September 12th.

Not knowing does not equal knowing.

At no point could the administration say it was because of the stupid video.

But they said it, ignored the information about the nature of the attack - and not only that Obama personally kept repeating the video business for another 2 weeks.

That was on the 14th. And? Right now all I am seeing is a big fat excuse to politicize a tragedy by the right (I am sure it would go the other way in other circumstances but in this specific instance the right is behaving shamefully).

 

[timschochet]

OK, we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. IMO, mentioning the Pastor on the email directly after Toria's statement is a clear indication that the Administration believed the video was responsible. They couldn't prove it, but that's what they thought. And if that's true, there was no deliberate intent to mislead the public.

You guys want to see it another way, fine. But that's how I see it.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

OK Saints, I read the emails. I don't see them as the smoking gun you do. In fact, the second email suggests to me quite the opposite. Directly after it's reported that Toria can't confirm one way or another if the video was the cause for the attacks, the email goes on to say that Pastor Jones refused to withdraw his support for the video.

This indicates to me that the Administration honestly believed there was a clear connection between the video and the attacks, and that it was not something they chose to fabricate later on. They were clearly concerned that Pastor Jones was fanning the flames, and to discuss it in the same email should be obvious to everyone that this was indeed their thinking at the time. Anyhow, that's how I see it.

Holy cow, Tim, the pastor has nothing to do with the situation - this is what it says about the administration's knowledge of the situation.

Responding to a question about whether the attack was linked to the Mohammed video, she said that she could not confirm a connect as we simply don't know - and won't know until there's an investigation.

Responding to a question about whether it was an organized terror attack, Toria said she couldn't speak to the identity of the perpetrators but that it was clearly a complex attack. There will be a full investigation with which the FBI is assisting.

That was on September 12th.

Not knowing does not equal knowing.

At no point could the administration say it was because of the stupid video.

But they said it, ignored the information about the nature of the attack - and not only that Obama personally kept repeating the video business for another 2 weeks.

That was on the 14th. And? Right now all I am seeing is a big fat excuse to politicize a tragedy by the right (I am sure it would go the other way in other circumstances but in this specific instance the right is behaving shamefully).

That quoted portion is on page 56-57, which the 12th.

I get your overall point and agree to a good extent because I do not buy the "conspiracy" angle, I think it would be good if everyone could just agree to some basic facts.

 

[tom22406]

Not sure if this was posted yet but Jay Carney is very good at what he does.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/04/30/jon_karl_challenges_jay_carney_over_new_benghazi_email.html

An ABC reporter not happy with this?

I thought Fox was the only ones who cared?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

OK, we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. IMO, mentioning the Pastor on the email directly after Toria's statement is a clear indication that the Administration believed the video was responsible. They couldn't prove it, but that's what they thought. And if that's true, there was no deliberate intent to mislead the public.

You guys want to see it another way, fine. But that's how I see it.

And Pres. Obama personally kept repeating the line for 2 weeks after, why?

Ramsey made the call based on the same assumption and leap that the administration did, but none of them were acting based on actual analysis or facts on the ground when they did so. It wasn't long after that they should have stopped.

Let's leave the "conspiracy" & "Benghazi!" stuff out of this, yelling that critics are secretly conspiring is as bad as the original charge and just intended to deflect, especially as it originally comes form the administration.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Can't speak for Gunz, but Obama has certainly lied IMO on several occasions. That being said, I find him to be more truthful, as a general rule, than his predecessor.

Wait, what? Sure, you can call Bush 43 dumb, but a deliberate liar (to use your words)? I'm not seeing it on anywhere near the scale of the current administration.

The decision to invade Iraq was, by far, the most momentous decision of his Presidency, and IMO the most momentous decision of any Presidency since the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964. President Bush lied to the American people regarding his reasons for that invasion, and maintained that lie throughout the rest of his Presidency. That, in my mind, makes him the most dishonest President since Richard Nixon.

Tim, the NSA is at the root of the email instructing Rice what to say on the tv talk shows.

The Bush administration - and Senators like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden and John Kerry - relied on CIA and NSA intelligence estimates in much the same way (though Hillary went the extra mile by offering her own insights and experience from her time as a wife in Bill Clinton's administration).

Regarding your first point, I don't know if that's true, but as I have repeated numerous times, it was quite reasonable to assume that the Benghazi attacks were tied to the video protest, and still is, IMO.

Not according to testimony today by a senior military official and the top CIA official in Libya at the time of the attack.

Good call. The administration should have ignored all of the input from the CIA, State, NSA, DOJ, DOE, etc. and instead just taken the opinion of these two guys.

 

[Stinger Ray]

Can't speak for Gunz, but Obama has certainly lied IMO on several occasions. That being said, I find him to be more truthful, as a general rule, than his predecessor.

Wait, what? Sure, you can call Bush 43 dumb, but a deliberate liar (to use your words)? I'm not seeing it on anywhere near the scale of the current administration.

The decision to invade Iraq was, by far, the most momentous decision of his Presidency, and IMO the most momentous decision of any Presidency since the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964. President Bush lied to the American people regarding his reasons for that invasion, and maintained that lie throughout the rest of his Presidency. That, in my mind, makes him the most dishonest President since Richard Nixon.

Tim, the NSA is at the root of the email instructing Rice what to say on the tv talk shows.

The Bush administration - and Senators like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden and John Kerry - relied on CIA and NSA intelligence estimates in much the same way (though Hillary went the extra mile by offering her own insights and experience from her time as a wife in Bill Clinton's administration).

Regarding your first point, I don't know if that's true, but as I have repeated numerous times, it was quite reasonable to assume that the Benghazi attacks were tied to the video protest, and still is, IMO.

Not according to testimony today by a senior military official and the top CIA official in Libya at the time of the attack.

Good call. The administration should have ignored all of the input from the CIA, State, NSA, DOJ, DOE, etc. and instead just taken the opinion of these two guys.

Yeah...no reason to listen to the Head of the CIA on the ground in Libya at the time of the attack because it didn't fit their agenda to blame the video.

 

[FlapJacks]

Can't speak for Gunz, but Obama has certainly lied IMO on several occasions. That being said, I find him to be more truthful, as a general rule, than his predecessor.

Wait, what? Sure, you can call Bush 43 dumb, but a deliberate liar (to use your words)? I'm not seeing it on anywhere near the scale of the current administration.

The decision to invade Iraq was, by far, the most momentous decision of his Presidency, and IMO the most momentous decision of any Presidency since the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964. President Bush lied to the American people regarding his reasons for that invasion, and maintained that lie throughout the rest of his Presidency. That, in my mind, makes him the most dishonest President since Richard Nixon.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Can't speak for Gunz, but Obama has certainly lied IMO on several occasions. That being said, I find him to be more truthful, as a general rule, than his predecessor.

Wait, what? Sure, you can call Bush 43 dumb, but a deliberate liar (to use your words)? I'm not seeing it on anywhere near the scale of the current administration.

The decision to invade Iraq was, by far, the most momentous decision of his Presidency, and IMO the most momentous decision of any Presidency since the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964. President Bush lied to the American people regarding his reasons for that invasion, and maintained that lie throughout the rest of his Presidency. That, in my mind, makes him the most dishonest President since Richard Nixon.

Tim, the NSA is at the root of the email instructing Rice what to say on the tv talk shows.

The Bush administration - and Senators like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden and John Kerry - relied on CIA and NSA intelligence estimates in much the same way (though Hillary went the extra mile by offering her own insights and experience from her time as a wife in Bill Clinton's administration).

Regarding your first point, I don't know if that's true, but as I have repeated numerous times, it was quite reasonable to assume that the Benghazi attacks were tied to the video protest, and still is, IMO.

Not according to testimony today by a senior military official and the top CIA official in Libya at the time of the attack.

Good call. The administration should have ignored all of the input from the CIA, State, NSA, DOJ, DOE, etc. and instead just taken the opinion of these two guys.

Turns out they did ignore a good amount of the input they were getting.

However none of that input assigned the cause for the attack to the movie.