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

[Sand]

If only the administration would concede this point. I think their defensiveness has helped lead everyone down this path.

This I completely agree with.

There was nothing wrong with saying, "give us a few days to find out everything we can about this attack before we jump to conclusions," but once they knew what the story was they should have said so.

IMO we'd still be exactly where we are today though.

This is exactly right. The administration could have handled this much better, but NOTHING that they did would have prevented these investigations, because they are largely politically motivated.

Of course they could have prevented these investigations. If they would have come out and said that there were two plausible explanations - one the video and one Islamic extremist terrorism and then figured it out later there would be much less political impact. Now there are still questions about why Stevens was there on 9/11 to begin with and why the rescue mission was canned that still need to be answered, but the blame game on the political side would be much more muted.

 

[cstu]

And what's truly embarrassing is that, over a year and a half later, after 9 separate government investigations costing millions of dollars concluded that there is no "there" there, this remains such a supposedly huge issue.

And you continue your ignorance that the administration did not comply with the subpoena in turning over all of the evidence requested. Any conclusions drawn were done so with incomplete information and are null and void. The R's are not the ones causing this to drag out as much as you like to believe.

If Obama would just hand over the original, un-photoshopped version of his birth certificate this whole birther thing would just go away.

Didn't he actually ultimately do this, at least he granted the HI Department of Vital Records (whoever held the birth certificate) to do that?

And it's funny you mention this, because it leads back to the theme of Obama creating a lot of these messes himself. In 1991 his literary agent puts out that he was born in Kenya, still published as such online until 2007 then takes the info down, but come 2008 and he acts all surprised and offended and asks people where they got that crazy idea.

Here Congress acts for documents, the Senate says they don't have much to go on so their findings are incomplete, and lo and behold different documents that get closer to the heart of the matter are later produced in a court case. And now people are supposed bad guys for being somewhat skeptical about how forthcoming the WH has been.

Obama was supposed to know about every promotional booklet that got made about him?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

And what's truly embarrassing is that, over a year and a half later, after 9 separate government investigations costing millions of dollars concluded that there is no "there" there, this remains such a supposedly huge issue.

And you continue your ignorance that the administration did not comply with the subpoena in turning over all of the evidence requested. Any conclusions drawn were done so with incomplete information and are null and void. The R's are not the ones causing this to drag out as much as you like to believe.

If Obama would just hand over the original, un-photoshopped version of his birth certificate this whole birther thing would just go away.

Didn't he actually ultimately do this, at least he granted the HI Department of Vital Records (whoever held the birth certificate) to do that?

And it's funny you mention this, because it leads back to the theme of Obama creating a lot of these messes himself. In 1991 his literary agent puts out that he was born in Kenya, still published as such online until 2007 then takes the info down, but come 2008 and he acts all surprised and offended and asks people where they got that crazy idea.

Here Congress acts for documents, the Senate says they don't have much to go on so their findings are incomplete, and lo and behold different documents that get closer to the heart of the matter are later produced in a court case. And now people are supposed bad guys for being somewhat skeptical about how forthcoming the WH has been.

Obama was supposed to know about every promotional booklet that got made about him?

No. Goodness the hijack possibility is scarey here the point just being that his bio info was up for 16 years, put out by his own publisher, and the whole time that little nugget was left out of the equation. I also don't think Obama is responsible for every little (or major) misstep here, including not providing all the documents in teh first place.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Of course they could have prevented these investigations.

Nonsense.

 

[FlapJacks]

wow, bill maher is pretty ignorant

 

[Todd Andrews]

Oh noes!

 

[timschochet]

A little lengthy, but this article from Politico is the most comprehensive study of this story that I've read:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/hillarys-nightmare-the-benghazi-industrial-complex-106332_Page2.html#.U3BNzE1OXIU

Some highlights:

How does all this connect with the facts? It doesn’t seem to matter that the gradually emerging story about Benghazi has, if anything, only seemed to back the administration’s original account of the violence against Stevens and the other Americans. Recall that the central issue for the critics was — and is — whether the “talking points” mainly drafted by the CIA and provided to Susan Rice for her appearances on the Sunday talk shows accurately reflected what the U.S. intelligence community knew at the time, or whether the administration knowingly misrepresented this intelligence. Accurately summing up the CIA talking points, Rice had said in her TV interviews that the administration believed that the attacks were to some degree spontaneous, partly motivated by demonstrations in Cairo and other cities against a U.S.-made video lampooning the Prophet Mohammad. Still, Rice noted that “extremist elements” might have taken part—again reflecting the intelligence community’s contemporaneous assessment (though Rice might have emphasized the video more than the talking points warranted).


The balance of evidence today, according to intelligence officials and corroborating news reports, is that the terrible events of Sept. 12, 2012, pretty much played out in the way Rice said back then. Authorities still believe that extremist groups opportunistically exploited the anti-American demonstrations in the region to launch the attacks. True, intelligence officials did get one major thing wrong. It took a week or so after Rice’s TV appearances to clarify, for certain, that there had been no protests in Benghazi itself before the assault on the compound—and that, as the office of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said in a statement on Sept. 28, two weeks after Rice appeared, “it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists.”
But there is no evidence that the administration substantially misrepresented what it knew at the time. Or that Clinton, Obama, Rhodes or anyone else covered up or even downplayed any evidence of a planned al Qaeda attack—as Republicans have consistently alleged—so that the president could continue to boast of his success against terrorism on the campaign trail. If the talking points were extensively edited after an interagency consultation, that was fairly normal procedure too. Shortly after the Benghazi attacks, Republicans also made much of news reports that the White House and State Department had been tipped within hours that al Qaeda-linked terrorists were involved (“Smoking gun!” tweeted conservative blogger Jennifer Rubin—of course). In fact, however, it took a long time for authorities to identify any actual culprits, and the administration responsibly handed the investigation over to the FBI. (It wasn’t until August of 2013 that the FBI had enough evidence to file the first charges.) Lacking solid evidence, Obama even avoided the temptation of ordering what would have been a politically popular “October surprise”—a counterattack on the terrorists responsible for the assault—before the 2012 election. Another popular meme on the right—trotted out again by Issa at last week’s hearing—is that the Obama administration failed to act militarily to save Stevens and the others, but even the Republican majority on House Armed Services Committee, in a report issued in February, says that is untrue.

And what of the new claims of a cover-up generated by Judicial Watch’s release of the Rhodes memo and other previously undisclosed emails? Trey Gowdy, the South Carolina House Republican named to head the new select committee on Benghazi, told Fox News on Friday that he has evidence that not only is the White House hiding information, “there is an intent to hide it.” But that probably won’t stand up to scrutiny either. An Obama administration official told Politico that the White House didn’t supply the emails previously because Congress never asked for them. A May 2013 subpoena from the Oversight Committee sought any communications between Rice and a specific group of State Department aides, but did not mention senior White House officials such as Rhodes.

Above all, Rhodes’ just-released memo does not really conflict with the overall narrative we are familiar with, although it does suggest that the White House was more involved in shaping Rice’s TV remarks than it has let on. The memo reaffirms that the administration’s main concerns that week were the demonstrations taking place in Libya and around the Islamic world, and it reflects the natural desire of any administration spinmeister—Rhodes was head of communications—to put the best possible face on the government’s handling of things. Rhodes said in his memo that he wanted “to underscore that these protests are rooted in an internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.” So what? The memo was part of a “very mundane process, just sending a note around to the crew saying what the goals were for the week,” former National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor recalled in an interview.

Vietor added that the fears of unknown dangers that dominated the administration in those days went way beyond Benghazi, provoked by anti-American protests across the region on the anniversary of 9/11. “Pakistan was terrifying,” Vietor said. “That’s the reason we wanted someone on the shows who was a senior diplomat that could speak to the work that these diplomats do in dangerous places. ... Clinton hates doing Sunday shows, always has. And [israeli Prime Minister] Bibi Netanyahu was going to be on, so we also wanted someone out there who could deal with whatever he said about Iran.” Susan Rice drew the short straw.
That doesn’t add up to much of a scandal. But it’s already too late for the truth. Benghazi has taken on a cultural life of its own on the right

 

[Rohn Jambo]

Tim, we do not need evidence. Every single administration lied to the American people.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Tim, we do not need evidence. Every single administration lied to the American people.

So that isn't the issue.

 

[timschochet]

If you read that article with an open mind, you can't help but come to the conclusion that there is NOTHING THERE.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Yeah, that article is about as clear and on point as any summary I've read.

This is beyond silly. I thought republicans were supposed to be fiscal conservatives who hated waste?

 

[cstu]

Yeah, that article is about as clear and on point as any summary I've read.

This is beyond silly. I thought republicans were supposed to be fiscal conservatives who hated waste?

Well, yeah, unless it doesn't help their political agenda.

 

[Todd Andrews]

KooKLogic:

If you are waging a war against an enemy who attacked you, and then the stale but somewhat current intel tells you that a different sovereign nation has WMD, it is ok to divert your warmaking resources and invade and occupy that second nation for a decade, and you are excused and forgiven if there really werent any WMD although hundreds of thousands of people died at a cost of trillions.

If the current contemporaneous intel tells you that there were possibly multiple reasons why a tragic event occurred where a US ambassador was killed.....then YOU L1ED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Nice collation of 14 fact-checks on Benghazi-related items over the last couple years.

FWIW, his take on things looks pretty strong with the benefit of hindsight (he called out Susan Rice on 9/17 for example).

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

A little lengthy, but this article from Politico is the most comprehensive study of this story that I've read:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/hillarys-nightmare-the-benghazi-industrial-complex-106332_Page2.html#.U3BNzE1OXIU

If you read that article with an open mind, you can't help but come to the conclusion that there is NOTHING THERE.

Just some notes here from the article:

the terrible events of Sept. 12, 2012

They occurred on September 11th, that's damn important because, you know, it' a key fact and well 9/11 is an important date to terrorists as opposed to people who are just wrongly ticked about a movie.

The chyron “Benghazi” is almost as much of a permanent fixture on Fox as “Breaking News” is on CNN.

I agree. Other current reality themes include the Malaysian jet crash on CNN and The Christie Show on msnbc.

In fact, however, it took a long time for authorities to identify any actual culprits ... .

Look at the actual emails posted here. The undersecretary reporting to SOS Clinton was told the identity of the attackers by the Libyan government on 9/11 or 9/12. As Gunz pointed out, the video is not even discussed.

True, intelligence officials did get one major thing wrong. It took a week or so after Rice’s TV appearances to clarify, for certain, that there had been no protests in Benghazi itself before the assault on the compound—and that, as the office of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said in a statement on Sept. 28, two weeks after Rice appeared, “it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists.”

Obama himself continued to refer to the video one week after this though.

But there is no evidence that the administration substantially misrepresented what it knew at the time.

Can someone tell me why we're supposed to be happy or relieved or glad that, no, instead of deliberately lying the administration just f'd up and was completely incompetent???

Lacking solid evidence, Obama even avoided the temptation of ordering what would have been a politically popular “October surprise”—a counterattack on the terrorists responsible for the assault—before the 2012 election.

Why is everyone ok with this? The idea is that we should not be making decisions politically. Ok I agree, why is it ok or a good idea on a structly military or diplomatic basis that we have never attacked these bstrds at any time whatsoever???? It's good policy to have no repercussions for these attacks at all, why? And why is it ok or not a bad idea to have an NSA person (Rhodes) writing a political memo with an eye towards satisfying political goals?





One thing in this story you can point me too: where does it report that Obama & Co. were specifically told by actual intelligence analysis that the video was at the root of the attack? There's no quote there, I don't see it, do you? If so please quote from the source documents when the administration was told the video was at the source of the attack.

 

[TPW]

http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2014/05/11/the-day-obamas-presidency-died/#more-36595

The curious thing about September 11, 2012 — the day of the Benghazhi attack — is that for some reason it marks the decline of the Obama presidency as clearly as a milepost. We are told by the papers that nothing much happened on that day. A riot in a far-away country. A few people killed. And yet … it may be coincidental, but from that day the administration’s foreign policy seemed inexplicably hexed. The Arab Spring ground to a halt. The Secretary of State ‘resigned’. The CIA Director was cast out in disgrace. Not long after, Obama had to withdraw his Red Line in Syria. Al-Qaeda, whose eulogy he had pronounced appeared with disturbing force throughout Africa, South Asia and the Arabian Peninsula. Almost as if on cue, Russia made an unexpected return to the world stage, first in Syria, then in the Iranian nuclear negotiations.

Worse was to follow. America’s premier intelligence organization, the National Security Agency, was taken apart in public and the man who took its secrets, Edward Snowden, decamped to Moscow with a laptop full of secrets. But it was all just a curtain raiser to the dismemberment of Ukraine and the disaster in Eastern Europe.

Let us now return to Parshall’s observation that ”all military failures fall into three basic categories: failure to learn from the past, failure to anticipate what the future may bring, and failure to adapt to the immediate circumstances on the battlefield. ” It’s possible that Obama did exactly that on the night of September 11, 2012. He didn’t see the double cross coming; he had no Plan B for Syria, for al-Qaeda, having bet the farm on Plan A and he covered failure up.

He went and committed all three categories of failure. ”Finally, at the apex of failure stand those rare events when all three basic failures occur simultaneously-an event known as catastrophic failure. In such an occurrence, the result is usually a disaster of such scope that recovery is impossible.”

And now he’s living with the consequences of having to pursue a strategic assumption he knows is wrong but does not dare denounce.

 

[tommyGunZ]

One thing in this story you can point me too: where does it report that Obama & Co. were specifically told by actual intelligence analysis that the video was at the root of the attack? There's no quote there, I don't see it, do you? If so please quote from the source documents when the administration was told the video was at the source of the attack.

Corporal Barnes, you mean to tell me there is no page in this book that tells me where the mess hall is???!!

 

[tommyGunZ]

And what of the new claims of a cover-up generated by Judicial Watch’s release of the Rhodes memo and other previously undisclosed emails? Trey Gowdy, the South Carolina House Republican named to head the new select committee on Benghazi, told Fox News on Friday that he has evidence that not only is the White House hiding information, “there is an intent to hide it.” But that probably won’t stand up to scrutiny either. An Obama administration official told Politico that the White House didn’t supply the emails previously because Congress never asked for them. A May 2013 subpoena from the Oversight Committee sought any communications between Rice and a specific group of State Department aides, but did not mention senior White House officials such as Rhodes.

Can we finally stop the silly "Why was the White House not turning over documents that they were supposed to?!?!?!?" nonsense?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Oops. Wrong e-mail.

 

[TobiasFunke]

If only the administration would concede this point. I think their defensiveness has helped lead everyone down this path.

This I completely agree with.

There was nothing wrong with saying, "give us a few days to find out everything we can about this attack before we jump to conclusions," but once they knew what the story was they should have said so.

IMO we'd still be exactly where we are today though.

This is exactly right. The administration could have handled this much better, but NOTHING that they did would have prevented these investigations, because they are largely politically motivated.

And the actions by the Administration that night and after the attack were politically motivated with a presidential election coming up.

I don't really follow this story, because it's not worth following, so can someone explain to me this part of the argument? What exactly was the political motivation for supposedly being evasive or mischaracterizing the nature of attacks? Is the argument that characterizing it as an act of terrorism would be bad for the sitting president? Have people never looked at what happens to polling numbers of presidents after terrorist attacks on the United States? Here's a pre-Benghazi piece in the NY Times about rally effects. And it's not just massive calamities or success stores that trigger it either- Kennedy got a huge bump after Bay of Pigs, for chrissakes. A terrorist attack is much more of a rallying point than random act of mob violence; calling it such would almost certainly benefit the sitting president, no?

There's more to it than this, right? Please tell me there is. Because I'd hate to think that this massive boondoggle is not just silly and wasteful but is based on a false premise too.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for an answer to this.

Not only is there scant evidence of a conspiracy or cover-up, there's also no motive.

 

[FlapJacks]

If only the administration would concede this point. I think their defensiveness has helped lead everyone down this path.

This I completely agree with.

There was nothing wrong with saying, "give us a few days to find out everything we can about this attack before we jump to conclusions," but once they knew what the story was they should have said so.

IMO we'd still be exactly where we are today though.

This is exactly right. The administration could have handled this much better, but NOTHING that they did would have prevented these investigations, because they are largely politically motivated.

And the actions by the Administration that night and after the attack were politically motivated with a presidential election coming up.

I don't really follow this story, because it's not worth following, so can someone explain to me this part of the argument? What exactly was the political motivation for supposedly being evasive or mischaracterizing the nature of attacks? Is the argument that characterizing it as an act of terrorism would be bad for the sitting president? Have people never looked at what happens to polling numbers of presidents after terrorist attacks on the United States? Here's a pre-Benghazi piece in the NY Times about rally effects. And it's not just massive calamities or success stores that trigger it either- Kennedy got a huge bump after Bay of Pigs, for chrissakes. A terrorist attack is much more of a rallying point than random act of mob violence; calling it such would almost certainly benefit the sitting president, no?

There's more to it than this, right? Please tell me there is. Because I'd hate to think that this massive boondoggle is not just silly and wasteful but is based on a false premise too.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for an answer to this.

Not only is there scant evidence of a conspiracy or cover-up, there's also no motive.

I don't really follow this story, because it's not worth following, so can someone explain to me this part of the argument? What exactly was the political motivation for supposedly being evasive or mischaracterizing the nature of attacks? Is the argument that characterizing it as an act of terrorism would be bad for the sitting president? Have people never looked at what happens to polling numbers of presidents after terrorist attacks on the United States? Here's a pre-Benghazi piece in the NY Times about rally effects. And it's not just massive calamities or success stores that trigger it either- Kennedy got a huge bump after Bay of Pigs, for chrissakes. A terrorist attack is much more of a rallying point than random act of mob violence; calling it such would almost certainly benefit the sitting president, no?

There's more to it than this, right? Please tell me there is. Because I'd hate to think that this massive boondoggle is not just silly and wasteful but is based on a false premise too.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for an answer to this.

Not only is there scant evidence of a conspiracy or cover-up, there's also no motive.

Maybe we should have some hearings to get to the answer to your question....

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

One thing in this story you can point me too: where does it report that Obama & Co. were specifically told by actual intelligence analysis that the video was at the root of the attack? There's no quote there, I don't see it, do you? If so please quote from the source documents when the administration was told the video was at the source of the attack.

Corporal Barnes, you mean to tell me there is no page in this book that tells me where the mess hall is???!!

Ok I appreciate the reference - but everyone knows where the mess hall is; no one knows where the WH was directly told by actual intelligence personnel on the ground or information from there that the video was the cause for the attack. - A better military reference would be SNAFU.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

If only the administration would concede this point. I think their defensiveness has helped lead everyone down this path.

This I completely agree with.

There was nothing wrong with saying, "give us a few days to find out everything we can about this attack before we jump to conclusions," but once they knew what the story was they should have said so.

IMO we'd still be exactly where we are today though.

This is exactly right. The administration could have handled this much better, but NOTHING that they did would have prevented these investigations, because they are largely politically motivated.

And the actions by the Administration that night and after the attack were politically motivated with a presidential election coming up.

I don't really follow this story, because it's not worth following, so can someone explain to me this part of the argument? What exactly was the political motivation for supposedly being evasive or mischaracterizing the nature of attacks? Is the argument that characterizing it as an act of terrorism would be bad for the sitting president? Have people never looked at what happens to polling numbers of presidents after terrorist attacks on the United States? Here's a pre-Benghazi piece in the NY Times about rally effects. And it's not just massive calamities or success stores that trigger it either- Kennedy got a huge bump after Bay of Pigs, for chrissakes. A terrorist attack is much more of a rallying point than random act of mob violence; calling it such would almost certainly benefit the sitting president, no?

There's more to it than this, right? Please tell me there is. Because I'd hate to think that this massive boondoggle is not just silly and wasteful but is based on a false premise too.

I'll take a crack at this (though I have not been saying this is a political conspiracy).

I agree with the premise here - I thought at the time of the incident there would be a 'rally `round the president' moment then, and I'd probably be right there agreeing on an attack. I would still like to see some kind of attack. That's one of my criticisms.

However, if there was a conspiracy (you asked after all) it is possible that there was a political calculus performed that decided that the "rally" option would have played more negatively among the base and that the harm done to the 'terrorism/AQ is defeated' theme would have been greater than the short term benefit of rallying public support.

There is also the personal distaste that Obama appears to have for the "T" word. He doesn't like the phrase 'war on terror', or essentially talk about what has been an actual ongoing war against terrorists that he has continued on from Bush while hardly ever referring to it by name. That whole conceptualization seems to be at cross-purposes from the standpoint of our national interests, this attack being a prime example.

I think if you look at the Rhodes email you can see the political goals of the president's campaign lined up right there, if you want a reference. Now, again, this is just me personally, I don't think that kind of thing should be coming from the NSA for any president. As Gunz has pointed out, it probably has happened with others, and again I would think we would hope or expect that it should not.

I'd say the final explanation is "Confirmation Bias" - I think Obama and Mrs. Clinton had it in their head it was the video, the political people told them it was the video, and they never bothered to let actual, on the ground intelligence or analysis enter that little world of theirs, and people who worked closely to them were too scared to tell them they had gotten it wrong. My guess is this explains why Obama of all people went on and on about it for 2 weeks. It also explains why Rice was sent out when she wasn't in State and really had no clue about the real facts.

You also mention the Bay of Pigs. I think this was one of the first well known studies on political management. How did such a bright president, Kennedy, with so many intelligent advisers make such a mistake? This may have been where the term Groupthink originated.

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

 

[BigSteelThrill]

If only the administration would concede this point. I think their defensiveness has helped lead everyone down this path.

This I completely agree with.

There was nothing wrong with saying, "give us a few days to find out everything we can about this attack before we jump to conclusions," but once they knew what the story was they should have said so.

IMO we'd still be exactly where we are today though.

This is exactly right. The administration could have handled this much better, but NOTHING that they did would have prevented these investigations, because they are largely politically motivated.

And the actions by the Administration that night and after the attack were politically motivated with a presidential election coming up.

I don't really follow this story, because it's not worth following, so can someone explain to me this part of the argument? What exactly was the political motivation for supposedly being evasive or mischaracterizing the nature of attacks? Is the argument that characterizing it as an act of terrorism would be bad for the sitting president? Have people never looked at what happens to polling numbers of presidents after terrorist attacks on the United States? Here's a pre-Benghazi piece in the NY Times about rally effects. And it's not just massive calamities or success stores that trigger it either- Kennedy got a huge bump after Bay of Pigs, for chrissakes. A terrorist attack is much more of a rallying point than random act of mob violence; calling it such would almost certainly benefit the sitting president, no?

There's more to it than this, right? Please tell me there is. Because I'd hate to think that this massive boondoggle is not just silly and wasteful but is based on a false premise too.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for an answer to this.

Not only is there scant evidence of a conspiracy or cover-up, there's also no motive.

I don't really follow this story, because it's not worth following, so can someone explain to me this part of the argument? What exactly was the political motivation for supposedly being evasive or mischaracterizing the nature of attacks? Is the argument that characterizing it as an act of terrorism would be bad for the sitting president? Have people never looked at what happens to polling numbers of presidents after terrorist attacks on the United States? Here's a pre-Benghazi piece in the NY Times about rally effects. And it's not just massive calamities or success stores that trigger it either- Kennedy got a huge bump after Bay of Pigs, for chrissakes. A terrorist attack is much more of a rallying point than random act of mob violence; calling it such would almost certainly benefit the sitting president, no?

There's more to it than this, right? Please tell me there is. Because I'd hate to think that this massive boondoggle is not just silly and wasteful but is based on a false premise too.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for an answer to this.

Not only is there scant evidence of a conspiracy or cover-up, there's also no motive.

Maybe we should have some hearings to get to the answer to your question....

At that horrendous mind-set... everyone, everything, everywhere will be in hearings.

Stupid as ####.

 

[Sand]

If only the administration would concede this point. I think their defensiveness has helped lead everyone down this path.

This I completely agree with.

There was nothing wrong with saying, "give us a few days to find out everything we can about this attack before we jump to conclusions," but once they knew what the story was they should have said so.

IMO we'd still be exactly where we are today though.

This is exactly right. The administration could have handled this much better, but NOTHING that they did would have prevented these investigations, because they are largely politically motivated.

And the actions by the Administration that night and after the attack were politically motivated with a presidential election coming up.

I don't really follow this story, because it's not worth following, so can someone explain to me this part of the argument? What exactly was the political motivation for supposedly being evasive or mischaracterizing the nature of attacks? Is the argument that characterizing it as an act of terrorism would be bad for the sitting president? Have people never looked at what happens to polling numbers of presidents after terrorist attacks on the United States? Here's a pre-Benghazi piece in the NY Times about rally effects. And it's not just massive calamities or success stores that trigger it either- Kennedy got a huge bump after Bay of Pigs, for chrissakes. A terrorist attack is much more of a rallying point than random act of mob violence; calling it such would almost certainly benefit the sitting president, no?

There's more to it than this, right? Please tell me there is. Because I'd hate to think that this massive boondoggle is not just silly and wasteful but is based on a false premise too.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for an answer to this.

Not only is there scant evidence of a conspiracy or cover-up, there's also no motive.

I don't really follow this story, because it's not worth following, so can someone explain to me this part of the argument? What exactly was the political motivation for supposedly being evasive or mischaracterizing the nature of attacks? Is the argument that characterizing it as an act of terrorism would be bad for the sitting president? Have people never looked at what happens to polling numbers of presidents after terrorist attacks on the United States? Here's a pre-Benghazi piece in the NY Times about rally effects. And it's not just massive calamities or success stores that trigger it either- Kennedy got a huge bump after Bay of Pigs, for chrissakes. A terrorist attack is much more of a rallying point than random act of mob violence; calling it such would almost certainly benefit the sitting president, no?

There's more to it than this, right? Please tell me there is. Because I'd hate to think that this massive boondoggle is not just silly and wasteful but is based on a false premise too.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for an answer to this.

Not only is there scant evidence of a conspiracy or cover-up, there's also no motive.

Maybe we should have some hearings to get to the answer to your question....

At that horrendous mind-set... everyone, everything, everywhere will be in hearings.

Stupid as ####.

If we can have senate hearings on stupid #### like steroids in baseball we can have hearings to delve into this.

 

[Quez]

I haven't been following the recent developments. Did it come out yet that they were shipping weapons to Syria from Benghazi?

 

[squistion]

I haven't been following the recent developments. Did it come out yet that they were shipping weapons to Syria from Benghazi?

You haven't missed anything. Still nothing to see here.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

This I completely agree with.

There was nothing wrong with saying, "give us a few days to find out everything we can about this attack before we jump to conclusions," but once they knew what the story was they should have said so.

IMO we'd still be exactly where we are today though.

This is exactly right. The administration could have handled this much better, but NOTHING that they did would have prevented these investigations, because they are largely politically motivated.

And the actions by the Administration that night and after the attack were politically motivated with a presidential election coming up.

I don't really follow this story, because it's not worth following, so can someone explain to me this part of the argument? What exactly was the political motivation for supposedly being evasive or mischaracterizing the nature of attacks? Is the argument that characterizing it as an act of terrorism would be bad for the sitting president? Have people never looked at what happens to polling numbers of presidents after terrorist attacks on the United States? Here's a pre-Benghazi piece in the NY Times about rally effects. And it's not just massive calamities or success stores that trigger it either- Kennedy got a huge bump after Bay of Pigs, for chrissakes. A terrorist attack is much more of a rallying point than random act of mob violence; calling it such would almost certainly benefit the sitting president, no?

There's more to it than this, right? Please tell me there is. Because I'd hate to think that this massive boondoggle is not just silly and wasteful but is based on a false premise too.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for an answer to this.

Not only is there scant evidence of a conspiracy or cover-up, there's also no motive.

I don't really follow this story, because it's not worth following, so can someone explain to me this part of the argument? What exactly was the political motivation for supposedly being evasive or mischaracterizing the nature of attacks? Is the argument that characterizing it as an act of terrorism would be bad for the sitting president? Have people never looked at what happens to polling numbers of presidents after terrorist attacks on the United States? Here's a pre-Benghazi piece in the NY Times about rally effects. And it's not just massive calamities or success stores that trigger it either- Kennedy got a huge bump after Bay of Pigs, for chrissakes. A terrorist attack is much more of a rallying point than random act of mob violence; calling it such would almost certainly benefit the sitting president, no?

There's more to it than this, right? Please tell me there is. Because I'd hate to think that this massive boondoggle is not just silly and wasteful but is based on a false premise too.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for an answer to this.

Not only is there scant evidence of a conspiracy or cover-up, there's also no motive.

Maybe we should have some hearings to get to the answer to your question....

At that horrendous mind-set... everyone, everything, everywhere will be in hearings.

Stupid as ####.

If we can have senate hearings on stupid #### like steroids in baseball we can have hearings to delve into this.

The 109th Congress, led in both houses with a Republican majority?

Yep. Exactly.

 

[Daywalker]

The big winner here is Obamacare. Whether Benghazi is an issue or not, no one cares. That the Republicans are not laser-focused on Obamacare at this point is very telling.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Deja Vu:

Republicans cant actually really govern because they have traditionally been a minority opposition party in modern times, which is why the American people only trust them with all three branches of government every 50 years or so (look what happened in 2007-2008 after the last all GOP US government was in power for almost 6 years).

So, because they cant govern, they came up with the brilliant government-by-prosecution strategy in the 90's when they had Congressional investigations of every one of Bill Clinton's foreskin moles while they screamed redfaced about Lewinski on TV and then secretly sexted with 17 year old page boys.

Here we go again....KooKGovernment.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

So obvious even The 25% should be able to make the connection... Benghazi, Part II -- Nigerian Boogaloo:

On Fox News last week, Elisabeth Hasselbeck attributed the attack to Clinton’s failure to put the group on a list of foreign terrorist organizations when she was secretary of state. That “perhaps could have saved these girls earlier,” Hasselbeck declared.

Rush Limbaugh, on his radio show, suggested that Clinton didn’t designate the group as terrorist because its members are black.

Fox’s Megyn Kelly floated the idea that Clinton didn’t put the group on the list because doing so would have “angered them,” and a guest on her show said Clinton gave Boko Haram a “green light.”

House intelligence committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and others argued that the Twitter campaign raising awareness of the kidnappings, #BringBackOurGirls, was evidence of the toothless foreign policy favored by Clinton and President Obama. Clinton, who along with first lady Michelle Obama participated in the campaign, was derided for trying “to fight Boko Haram with hashtags.”

Former congressman Allen West, always a step ahead, asserted that focus on the kidnapping is a “wag the dog” conspiracy by the Obama administration to distract attention from the Benghazi, Libya, investigation (of which Clinton is also a target).

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich called for congressional hearings — which would also provide the opportunity to explore whether Clinton suffered a brain injury, as Karl Rove has alleged, and whether she orchestrated the Monica Lewinsky article in Vanity Fair, as Lynne Cheney suggested.

 

[pantagrapher]

So obvious even The 25% should be able to make the connection... Benghazi, Part II -- Nigerian Boogaloo:

On Fox News last week, Elisabeth Hasselbeck attributed the attack to Clinton’s failure to put the group on a list of foreign terrorist organizations when she was secretary of state. That “perhaps could have saved these girls earlier,” Hasselbeck declared.

Rush Limbaugh, on his radio show, suggested that Clinton didn’t designate the group as terrorist because its members are black.

Fox’s Megyn Kelly floated the idea that Clinton didn’t put the group on the list because doing so would have “angered them,” and a guest on her show said Clinton gave Boko Haram a “green light.”

House intelligence committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and others argued that the Twitter campaign raising awareness of the kidnappings, #BringBackOurGirls, was evidence of the toothless foreign policy favored by Clinton and President Obama. Clinton, who along with first lady Michelle Obama participated in the campaign, was derided for trying “to fight Boko Haram with hashtags.”

Former congressman Allen West, always a step ahead, asserted that focus on the kidnapping is a “wag the dog” conspiracy by the Obama administration to distract attention from the Benghazi, Libya, investigation (of which Clinton is also a target).

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich called for congressional hearings — which would also provide the opportunity to explore whether Clinton suffered a brain injury, as Karl Rove has alleged, and whether she orchestrated the Monica Lewinsky article in Vanity Fair, as Lynne Cheney suggested.

Another two years of this. Ugh.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Another two ten years of this. Ugh.

FYP

 

[FlapJacks]

So obvious even The 25% should be able to make the connection... Benghazi, Part II -- Nigerian Boogaloo:

On Fox News last week, Elisabeth Hasselbeck attributed the attack to Clinton’s failure to put the group on a list of foreign terrorist organizations when she was secretary of state. That “perhaps could have saved these girls earlier,” Hasselbeck declared.

Rush Limbaugh, on his radio show, suggested that Clinton didn’t designate the group as terrorist because its members are black.

Fox’s Megyn Kelly floated the idea that Clinton didn’t put the group on the list because doing so would have “angered them,” and a guest on her show said Clinton gave Boko Haram a “green light.”

House intelligence committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and others argued that the Twitter campaign raising awareness of the kidnappings, #BringBackOurGirls, was evidence of the toothless foreign policy favored by Clinton and President Obama. Clinton, who along with first lady Michelle Obama participated in the campaign, was derided for trying “to fight Boko Haram with hashtags.”

Former congressman Allen West, always a step ahead, asserted that focus on the kidnapping is a “wag the dog” conspiracy by the Obama administration to distract attention from the Benghazi, Libya, investigation (of which Clinton is also a target).

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich called for congressional hearings — which would also provide the opportunity to explore whether Clinton suffered a brain injury, as Karl Rove has alleged, and whether she orchestrated the Monica Lewinsky article in Vanity Fair, as Lynne Cheney suggested.

Another two years of this. Ugh.

maybe that time would be better spent talking about New Jersey traffic....

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So obvious even The 25% should be able to make the connection... Benghazi, Part II -- Nigerian Boogaloo:

On Fox News last week, Elisabeth Hasselbeck attributed the attack to Clinton’s failure to put the group on a list of foreign terrorist organizations when she was secretary of state. That “perhaps could have saved these girls earlier,” Hasselbeck declared.

Rush Limbaugh, on his radio show, suggested that Clinton didn’t designate the group as terrorist because its members are black.

Fox’s Megyn Kelly floated the idea that Clinton didn’t put the group on the list because doing so would have “angered them,” and a guest on her show said Clinton gave Boko Haram a “green light.”

House intelligence committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and others argued that the Twitter campaign raising awareness of the kidnappings, #BringBackOurGirls, was evidence of the toothless foreign policy favored by Clinton and President Obama. Clinton, who along with first lady Michelle Obama participated in the campaign, was derided for trying “to fight Boko Haram with hashtags.”

Former congressman Allen West, always a step ahead, asserted that focus on the kidnapping is a “wag the dog” conspiracy by the Obama administration to distract attention from the Benghazi, Libya, investigation (of which Clinton is also a target).

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich called for congressional hearings — which would also provide the opportunity to explore whether Clinton suffered a brain injury, as Karl Rove has alleged, and whether she orchestrated the Monica Lewinsky article in Vanity Fair, as Lynne Cheney suggested.

Another two years of this. Ugh.

I think another question is when did Liberals stop being liberal?

MAHER: Where it becomes dangerous is that liberals like yourself do not stand up for liberalism. Liberalism means, one, mostly equality for women, free speech, no death threats. You know?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/05/10/maher_islamophobic_is_a_word_created_by_fascists_and_used_by_cowards_to_manipulate_morons.html

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I think another question is when did Liberals stop being liberal?

1980

But by 2020 they'll be back. And by 2050 they'll have accomplished what they got elected for (universal health care, re-regulation of the financial industry, restoration of a more progressive tax code, etc), started to use their legislative power to excess and the pendulum will swing back the other way again.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I think another question is when did Liberals stop being liberal?

1980

But by 2020 they'll be back. And by 2050 they'll have accomplished what they got elected for (universal health care, re-regulation of the financial industry, restoration of a more progressive tax code, etc), started to use their legislative power to excess and the pendulum will swing back the other way again.

And defense of democracy and fundamental rights home and abroad, primarily against islamists?

MAHER: You know, speaking of the campus, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, we all know Ayaan Hirsi Ali, right? A brilliant woman. She was born in Somalia, underwent gentile mutilation.

HUFFINGTON: At the age of 5.

MAHER: Which almost all woman do in that country, and many other Muslim countries.

HUFFINGTON: And a fatwa against her.

MAHER: Right. So, you know, that's not a good thing. So, she was going to speak at Brandeis, but she called Islam the new fascism, so they said she could not speak. And they said she is Islamophobic, who my friend Sam Harris reminded me today our deceased friend Christopher Hitchens said Islamophobic is a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons.

Because to be phobic means to be scared of something that you're not usually scared of, like the great outdoors. But to be phobic about honor killings, about throwing acid in girls' faces, or marrying them off when they are eight-years-old.

Whither that?

 

[glock]

So obvious even The 25% should be able to make the connection... Benghazi, Part II -- Nigerian Boogaloo:

On Fox News last week, Elisabeth Hasselbeck attributed the attack to Clinton’s failure to put the group on a list of foreign terrorist organizations when she was secretary of state. That “perhaps could have saved these girls earlier,” Hasselbeck declared.

Rush Limbaugh, on his radio show, suggested that Clinton didn’t designate the group as terrorist because its members are black.

Fox’s Megyn Kelly floated the idea that Clinton didn’t put the group on the list because doing so would have “angered them,” and a guest on her show said Clinton gave Boko Haram a “green light.”

House intelligence committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and others argued that the Twitter campaign raising awareness of the kidnappings, #BringBackOurGirls, was evidence of the toothless foreign policy favored by Clinton and President Obama. Clinton, who along with first lady Michelle Obama participated in the campaign, was derided for trying “to fight Boko Haram with hashtags.”

Former congressman Allen West, always a step ahead, asserted that focus on the kidnapping is a “wag the dog” conspiracy by the Obama administration to distract attention from the Benghazi, Libya, investigation (of which Clinton is also a target).

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich called for congressional hearings — which would also provide the opportunity to explore whether Clinton suffered a brain injury, as Karl Rove has alleged, and whether she orchestrated the Monica Lewinsky article in Vanity Fair, as Lynne Cheney suggested.

Another two years of this. Ugh.

maybe that time would be better spent talking about New Jersey traffic....

If that controlling, petty fat ******* indeed gave the go ahead to purposely tie up traffic at the busiest motor vehicle bridge in the WORLD he should be made to wear that around his neck...

 

[Parrothead]

So obvious even The 25% should be able to make the connection... Benghazi, Part II -- Nigerian Boogaloo:

On Fox News last week, Elisabeth Hasselbeck attributed the attack to Clinton’s failure to put the group on a list of foreign terrorist organizations when she was secretary of state. That “perhaps could have saved these girls earlier,” Hasselbeck declared.

Rush Limbaugh, on his radio show, suggested that Clinton didn’t designate the group as terrorist because its members are black.

Fox’s Megyn Kelly floated the idea that Clinton didn’t put the group on the list because doing so would have “angered them,” and a guest on her show said Clinton gave Boko Haram a “green light.”

House intelligence committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and others argued that the Twitter campaign raising awareness of the kidnappings, #BringBackOurGirls, was evidence of the toothless foreign policy favored by Clinton and President Obama. Clinton, who along with first lady Michelle Obama participated in the campaign, was derided for trying “to fight Boko Haram with hashtags.”

Former congressman Allen West, always a step ahead, asserted that focus on the kidnapping is a “wag the dog” conspiracy by the Obama administration to distract attention from the Benghazi, Libya, investigation (of which Clinton is also a target).

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich called for congressional hearings — which would also provide the opportunity to explore whether Clinton suffered a brain injury, as Karl Rove has alleged, and whether she orchestrated the Monica Lewinsky article in Vanity Fair, as Lynne Cheney suggested.

Another two years of this. Ugh.

maybe that time would be better spent talking about New Jersey traffic....

If that controlling, petty fat ******* indeed gave the go ahead to purposely tie up traffic at the busiest motor vehicle bridge in the WORLD he should be made to wear that around his neck...

bigot

 

[FlapJacks]

Plamegate may have been phoniest scandal ever. The only payoff was Russert swearing under oath that he could not remember a whole bunch of stuff like saying his "first time in 100 years" catchphrase...

 

[FlapJacks]

So obvious even The 25% should be able to make the connection... Benghazi, Part II -- Nigerian Boogaloo:

On Fox News last week, Elisabeth Hasselbeck attributed the attack to Clinton’s failure to put the group on a list of foreign terrorist organizations when she was secretary of state. That “perhaps could have saved these girls earlier,” Hasselbeck declared.

Rush Limbaugh, on his radio show, suggested that Clinton didn’t designate the group as terrorist because its members are black.

Fox’s Megyn Kelly floated the idea that Clinton didn’t put the group on the list because doing so would have “angered them,” and a guest on her show said Clinton gave Boko Haram a “green light.”

House intelligence committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and others argued that the Twitter campaign raising awareness of the kidnappings, #BringBackOurGirls, was evidence of the toothless foreign policy favored by Clinton and President Obama. Clinton, who along with first lady Michelle Obama participated in the campaign, was derided for trying “to fight Boko Haram with hashtags.”

Former congressman Allen West, always a step ahead, asserted that focus on the kidnapping is a “wag the dog” conspiracy by the Obama administration to distract attention from the Benghazi, Libya, investigation (of which Clinton is also a target).

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich called for congressional hearings — which would also provide the opportunity to explore whether Clinton suffered a brain injury, as Karl Rove has alleged, and whether she orchestrated the Monica Lewinsky article in Vanity Fair, as Lynne Cheney suggested.

Another two years of this. Ugh.

maybe that time would be better spent talking about New Jersey traffic....

If that controlling, petty fat ******* indeed gave the go ahead to purposely tie up traffic at the busiest motor vehicle bridge in the WORLD he should be made to wear that around his neck...

you guys are hilarious

 

[timschochet]

Saints, Maher was absolutely correct. But your tie in is not, because Hillary's decision not to name Boko Haram a terrorist organization had nothing to do with how liberals regard Islam. The State Department's majority view was at the time that naming Boko Haram would give them greater notoriety and actually increase their membership among disaffected Nigerians and other Africans. The trade off wasn't worth it. In hindsight this may not have been the best decision, but attempting to tie it to what Maher was discussing is simply false.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

OMG... please, please, please run with this latest bunch of hooey you ####### loons. You really will have her approval rating in the 70s by November '16.

Just when you think it can't possibly get any more stupid -- BAM!

 

[timschochet]

To me it's just depressing. We really do have a lot of stuff the government needs to be dealing with: jobs, energy, the deficit, healthcare,immigration, infrastructure, urban renewal, education, etc. These are all complex problems requiring immediate but thoughtful attention, and yet we waste our time on this nonsense. Awful.

 

[glock]

So obvious even The 25% should be able to make the connection... Benghazi, Part II -- Nigerian Boogaloo:

On Fox News last week, Elisabeth Hasselbeck attributed the attack to Clinton’s failure to put the group on a list of foreign terrorist organizations when she was secretary of state. That “perhaps could have saved these girls earlier,” Hasselbeck declared.

Rush Limbaugh, on his radio show, suggested that Clinton didn’t designate the group as terrorist because its members are black.

Fox’s Megyn Kelly floated the idea that Clinton didn’t put the group on the list because doing so would have “angered them,” and a guest on her show said Clinton gave Boko Haram a “green light.”

House intelligence committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and others argued that the Twitter campaign raising awareness of the kidnappings, #BringBackOurGirls, was evidence of the toothless foreign policy favored by Clinton and President Obama. Clinton, who along with first lady Michelle Obama participated in the campaign, was derided for trying “to fight Boko Haram with hashtags.”

Former congressman Allen West, always a step ahead, asserted that focus on the kidnapping is a “wag the dog” conspiracy by the Obama administration to distract attention from the Benghazi, Libya, investigation (of which Clinton is also a target).

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich called for congressional hearings — which would also provide the opportunity to explore whether Clinton suffered a brain injury, as Karl Rove has alleged, and whether she orchestrated the Monica Lewinsky article in Vanity Fair, as Lynne Cheney suggested.

Another two years of this. Ugh.

maybe that time would be better spent talking about New Jersey traffic....

If that controlling, petty fat ******* indeed gave the go ahead to purposely tie up traffic at the busiest motor vehicle bridge in the WORLD he should be made to wear that around his neck...

you guys are hilarious

It will cost him his bid for the nom- now that's hilarious.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

OMG... please, please, please run with this latest bunch of hooey you ####### loons. You really will have her approval rating in the 70s by November '16.

Just when you think it can't possibly get any more stupid -- BAM!

Ok that was a non-political post about statements by Bill Maher and self-avowed socialist Chris Hitchens about the willingness of US liberals and progressives to defend their own principles about women, free speech and the death penalty, but whatever.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

To me it's just depressing. We really do have a lot of stuff the government needs to be dealing with: jobs, energy, the deficit, healthcare,immigration, infrastructure, urban renewal, education, etc. These are all complex problems requiring immediate but thoughtful attention, and yet we waste our time on this nonsense. Awful.

Yeah, know what you mean, feels like we've been spinning our wheels on health care and doing little else as a country since 2007.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Saints, Maher was absolutely correct. But your tie in is not, because Hillary's decision not to name Boko Haram a terrorist organization had nothing to do with how liberals regard Islam. The State Department's majority view was at the time that naming Boko Haram would give them greater notoriety and actually increase their membership among disaffected Nigerians and other Africans. The trade off wasn't worth it. In hindsight this may not have been the best decision, but attempting to tie it to what Maher was discussing is simply false.

Actually I think the Boko issue belongs in the other thread.

MAHER: Where it becomes dangerous is that liberals like yourself do not stand up for liberalism. Liberalism means, one, mostly equality for women, free speech, no death threats. You know?

I was really alluding to our president and SOS coming out and condemning the movie at the same time as condemning the attacks in Egypt & Libya. We, especially liberals like Obama and Mrs. Clinton, should be defending free speech and the right of Basille to make the movie in the first place. Instead they assailed the movie as offensive and jailed the filmmaker.

And the opposition to Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

I will add the fact that Basille is a Coptic Christian, a minority group that has been subjected to something very close to ethnic cleansing in Egypt.

 

[FlapJacks]

To me it's just depressing. We really do have a lot of stuff the government needs to be dealing with: jobs, energy, the deficit, healthcare,immigration, infrastructure, urban renewal, education, etc. These are all complex problems requiring immediate but thoughtful attention, and yet we waste our time on this nonsense. Awful.

The other day, I saw a law enforement officer writing up a parking ticket and I was like with all of the unsolved murders, burglaries and whatnot why are we wasting time writing tickets?

 

[timschochet]

To me it's just depressing. We really do have a lot of stuff the government needs to be dealing with: jobs, energy, the deficit, healthcare,immigration, infrastructure, urban renewal, education, etc. These are all complex problems requiring immediate but thoughtful attention, and yet we waste our time on this nonsense. Awful.

The other day, I saw a law enforement officer writing up a parking ticket and I was like with all of the unsolved murders, burglaries and whatnot why are we wasting time writing tickets?

If each parking ticket costs 50 million dollars to write and involved the entire detective unit to pass out, then your analogy would be a good one.