U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in Rocket Attack (5 Viewers)

[Carolina Hustler]

What exactly did they cover up?

Before the election, the current administration did not what the public to know that the attack was committed by known terrorists, and that the CIA had warned of the possibility of the attack before hand.

The president mentioning actually calling the Benghazi attack an act of terror the day after the attack completely discredits that mime.

We all know that politicians and lawyers choose their words wisely, probably none more than Obama.

Does the term "act of terror" equal "act of terrorism" or "terrorist act"? I would say that Aurora and Sandy Hook are acts of terror but not acts of terrorism or terrorist acts.

I seriously doubt that anybody listening to what Obama said the day after the attack concluded, "Oh, he is saying that this was not an act of terrorism because he didn't call it that and used the words act of terror instead."

You don't see his wording as an attempt to soften the terrorism quotient? They were still saying it was sparked by a protest over a video at that point... You are making a pretty far fetched argument here..

 

[timschochet]

So if the Administration had stated right away that the Benghazi attacks were an act by al-Qaida, that would have caused Romney to win the election?

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

What exactly did they cover up?

Before the election, the current administration did not what the public to know that the attack was committed by known terrorists, and that the CIA had warned of the possibility of the attack before hand.

The president mentioning actually calling the Benghazi attack an act of terror the day after the attack completely discredits that mime.

We all know that politicians and lawyers choose their words wisely, probably none more than Obama.

Does the term "act of terror" equal "act of terrorism" or "terrorist act"? I would say that Aurora and Sandy Hook are acts of terror but not acts of terrorism or terrorist acts.

I seriously doubt that anybody listening to what Obama said the day after the attack concluded, "Oh, he is saying that this was not an act of terrorism because he didn't call it that and used the words act of terror instead."

You don't see his wording as an attempt to soften the terrorism quotient? They were still saying it was sparked by a protest over a video at that point... You are making a pretty far fetched argument here..

You are delusional.

 

[jamny]

So if the Administration had stated right away that the Benghazi attacks were an act by al-Qaida, that would have caused Romney to win the election?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

What exactly did they cover up?

Before the election, the current administration did not what the public to know that the attack was committed by known terrorists, and that the CIA had warned of the possibility of the attack before hand.

The president mentioning actually calling the Benghazi attack an act of terror the day after the attack completely discredits that mime.

We all know that politicians and lawyers choose their words wisely, probably none more than Obama.

Does the term "act of terror" equal "act of terrorism" or "terrorist act"? I would say that Aurora and Sandy Hook are acts of terror but not acts of terrorism or terrorist acts.

I seriously doubt that anybody listening to what Obama said the day after the attack concluded, "Oh, he is saying that this was not an act of terrorism because he didn't call it that and used the words act of terror instead."

You don't see his wording as an attempt to soften the terrorism quotient? They were still saying it was sparked by a protest over a video at that point... You are making a pretty far fetched argument here..

You are delusional.

Me? Ok buddy..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

So if the Administration had stated right away that the Benghazi attacks were an act by al-Qaida, that would have caused Romney to win the election?

Pretty silly huh? So it was a pretty stupid move.. Wasn't going to effect anything one way or the other.. Why the deception?

 

[Lutherman2112]

Paging P.T.Barnum. P.T. Barnum to the courtesy phone.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Paging P.T.Barnum. P.T. Barnum to the courtesy phone.

wow

 

[squistion]

What exactly did they cover up?

Before the election, the current administration did not what the public to know that the attack was committed by known terrorists, and that the CIA had warned of the possibility of the attack before hand.

The president mentioning actually calling the Benghazi attack an act of terror the day after the attack completely discredits that mime.

We all know that politicians and lawyers choose their words wisely, probably none more than Obama.

Does the term "act of terror" equal "act of terrorism" or "terrorist act"? I would say that Aurora and Sandy Hook are acts of terror but not acts of terrorism or terrorist acts.

I seriously doubt that anybody listening to what Obama said the day after the attack concluded, "Oh, he is saying that this was not an act of terrorism because he didn't call it that and used the words act of terror instead."

Do you seriously doubt that he chose those words for a reason?

Calling something an act of terror or an act of terrorism is not that much different to me. Figured there was some political/religious motive behind it, but the exact labeling at the time was (and is) irrelevant to me.

 

[tommyboy]

So awesome

. We had an "attack" on the embassy in Turkey on Hillary's last day as SOS. How many of these "attacks" had fire fights that lasted several hours and had terrorists killing our ambassador?

During GWB presidency we had over 50 attacks and 13 americans dead. How many hearings did we have over it????? 0

How many times did Bush hang Americans out to dry and refuse to help?

How many times has Obama done that? I'd love to hear how he refused to help or hung them out to dry.

according to white house logs, Obama made zero phone calls the night of Benghazi attacks.

edit to add:

The White House admitted today that President Obama made no phone calls–none, zero–on the evening of September 11, 2012, during the seven or eight hours when Americans were being murdered in Benghazi. He didn’t talk to Leon Panetta, or any military personnel, or Hillary Clinton. What was he doing that night?

 

[tommyboy]

I sure hope this investigation clears up why the Republican appropriation in Congress gave the administration $300 million less than it asked for for the State Department, including funding for security.

Security that would have perhaps prevented this from happening.

once again, one of the top State dept people debunked this myth in sworn testimony before Congress last winter:

But would more money have prevented the attacks?
Apparently not, at least according to one senior State Department official who would certainly seem to know.
In testimony Wednesday before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, was asked, “Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?”
Lamb responded, “No, sir.”
Recall that Lamb is the person who denied requests from the top diplomatic security officer in Libya to retain a 16-man team of military personnel who had been protecting diplomats.
http://www.thedailyb...-suggested.html

 

[pittstownkiller]

What exactly did they cover up?

Before the election, the current administration did not what the public to know that the attack was committed by known terrorists, and that the CIA had warned of the possibility of the attack before hand.

The president mentioning actually calling the Benghazi attack an act of terror the day after the attack completely discredits that mime.

Even Crowley backed off of that crap.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The president mentioning actually calling the Benghazi attack an act of terror the day after the attack completely discredits that mime.

If there's one thing everybody hates, it's a discredited mime.

 

[tommyGunZ]

What exactly did they cover up?

Before the election, the current administration did not what the public to know that the attack was committed by known terrorists, and that the CIA had warned of the possibility of the attack before hand.

The president mentioning actually calling the Benghazi attack an act of terror the day after the attack completely discredits that mime.

Even Crowley backed off of that crap.

Here is the quote from Obama in the Rose Garden the day after the attack:

“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for”

I wonder what Obama was referring to?

 

[tommyGunZ]

So if the Administration had stated right away that the Benghazi attacks were an act by al-Qaida, that would have caused Romney to win the election?

Pretty silly huh? So it was a pretty stupid move.. Wasn't going to effect anything one way or the other.. Why the deception?

CHustler: "This was about politics - Obama and Co. tried to cover this up b/c of the upcoming election!"

tim: "Really? Would Romney have won the election had this been declared an Al Qaeda terrorist attack from the jump?"

CHustler: "Of course not, which is why this is so stupid. It wasn't going to change the election at all. It wasn't politics, so why the deception??"

 

[jamny]

So awesome

. We had an "attack" on the embassy in Turkey on Hillary's last day as SOS. How many of these "attacks" had fire fights that lasted several hours and had terrorists killing our ambassador?

During GWB presidency we had over 50 attacks and 13 americans dead. How many hearings did we have over it????? 0

Link?Remember, we're talking Americans killed in Embassy/consulate attacks. Just to be specific.

Why? The attack in Benghazi was not an attack on an embassy/consulate.

Again, not what I asked. You seem to do that a lot.

 

[jamny]

So who here thinks it's absolutely impossible that the Obama Administration would have sought to minimize what happened in Benghazi? No way ! No how!

 

[Fennis]

So who here thinks it's absolutely impossible that the Obama Administration would have sought to minimize what happened in Benghazi? No way ! No how!

Is that why there are multiple congressional hearings?

 

[sporthenry]

So who here thinks it's absolutely impossible that the Obama Administration would have sought to minimize what happened in Benghazi? No way ! No how!

Actually, the more that comes out, the more it seems the WH had very little to do with it all. It seems it was just a pissing match between the CIA and State Department with both trying to cover their ###.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

What exactly did they cover up?

Before the election, the current administration did not what the public to know that the attack was committed by known terrorists, and that the CIA had warned of the possibility of the attack before hand.

The president mentioning actually calling the Benghazi attack an act of terror the day after the attack completely discredits that mime.

Even Crowley backed off of that crap.

Here is the quote from Obama in the Rose Garden the day after the attack:

>“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for”

I wonder what Obama was referring to?

Obviously he was talking about Carolina Hustlers postings.

 

[Slapdash]

What exactly did they cover up?

Before the election, the current administration did not what the public to know that the attack was committed by known terrorists, and that the CIA had warned of the possibility of the attack before hand.

The president mentioning actually calling the Benghazi attack an act of terror the day after the attack completely discredits that mime.

We all know that politicians and lawyers choose their words wisely, probably none more than Obama.Does the term "act of terror" equal "act of terrorism" or "terrorist act"? I would say that Aurora and Sandy Hook are acts of terror but not acts of terrorism or terrorist acts.

I seriously doubt that anybody listening to what Obama said the day after the attack concluded, "Oh, he is saying that this was not an act of terrorism because he didn't call it that and used the words act of terror instead."

Yeah. It was pretty clear it was a terrorist attack from the getgo.

 

[jamny]

So who here thinks it's absolutely impossible that the Obama Administration would have sought to minimize what happened in Benghazi? No way ! No how!

Is that why there are multiple congressional hearings?

So who here thinks it's absolutely impossible that the Obama Administration would have sought to minimize what happened in Benghazi? No way ! No how!

Actually, the more that comes out, the more it seems the WH had very little to do with it all. It seems it was just a pissing match between the CIA and State Department with both trying to cover their ###.

so are these yes or no?

 

[pittstownkiller]

What exactly did they cover up?

Before the election, the current administration did not what the public to know that the attack was committed by known terrorists, and that the CIA had warned of the possibility of the attack before hand.

The president mentioning actually calling the Benghazi attack an act of terror the day after the attack completely discredits that mime.

Even Crowley backed off of that crap.

Here is the quote from Obama in the Rose Garden the day after the attack:

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for

I wonder what Obama was referring to?

He's clearly (or as clear as he wants to be) referring to 9/11 and the people who have fought for the country after that attack; implying that the four died, because they were in harm's way, in the ongoing struggle from 9/11 - wrong place wrong time. The President never refers to an attack from the enemy that we have been fighting for more than a decade, instead he alludes to the previous dispatch of "an uprising". He started off his speech saying that the United States respects all faiths; where does that come from, if this was another coordinated al-Qaeda attack - I think a-Q doesn't care about that. I guess the condemnations from the President and the SOS about the film, not to mention a nighttime raid and arrest of the filmmaker, were just coincidence.

From the beginning of his RG speech:

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

 

[tommyGunZ]

So awesome

. We had an "attack" on the embassy in Turkey on Hillary's last day as SOS. How many of these "attacks" had fire fights that lasted several hours and had terrorists killing our ambassador?

During GWB presidency we had over 50 attacks and 13 americans dead. How many hearings did we have over it????? 0

Link?Remember, we're talking Americans killed in Embassy/consulate attacks. Just to be specific.

Why? The attack in Benghazi was not an attack on an embassy/consulate.

Again, not what I asked. You seem to do that a lot.

Almost as often as you ask leading questions and then play dumb when your POV is addressed.

 

[tommyGunZ]

What exactly did they cover up?

Before the election, the current administration did not what the public to know that the attack was committed by known terrorists, and that the CIA had warned of the possibility of the attack before hand.

The president mentioning actually calling the Benghazi attack an act of terror the day after the attack completely discredits that mime.

Even Crowley backed off of that crap.

Here is the quote from Obama in the Rose Garden the day after the attack:

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand

for

I wonder what Obama was referring to? He's clearly (or as clear as he wants to be) referring to 9/11 and the people who have fought for the country after that attack; implying that the four died, because they were in harm's way, in the ongoing struggle from 9/11 - wrong place wrong time. The President never refers to an attack from the enemy that we have been fighting for more than a decade, instead he alludes to the previous dispatch of "an uprising". He started off his speech saying that the United States respects all faiths; where does that come from, if this was another coordinated al-Qaeda attack - I think a-Q doesn't care about that. I guess the condemnations from the President and the SOS about the film, not to mention a nighttime raid and arrest of the filmmaker, were just coincidence.

From the beginning of his RG speech:

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

Your opinion is that he was talking about 9/11/2001, and not 9/11/2012 with that remark?

 

[jamny]

So awesome

. We had an "attack" on the embassy in Turkey on Hillary's last day as SOS. How many of these "attacks" had fire fights that lasted several hours and had terrorists killing our ambassador?

During GWB presidency we had over 50 attacks and 13 americans dead. How many hearings did we have over it????? 0

Link?Remember, we're talking Americans killed in Embassy/consulate attacks. Just to be specific.

Why? The attack in Benghazi was not an attack on an embassy/consulate.

Again, not what I asked. You seem to do that a lot.

Almost as often as you ask leading questions and then play dumb when your POV is addressed.

How is it a leading question when I was asking him to verify his claim?

 

[cstu]

Anyone got an impeachment petition I can sign?

 

[Todd Andrews]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/

Exclusive: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference

When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story.

ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attac

White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.

That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points in November.

“Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened,” Carney told reporters at the White House press briefing on November 28, 2012. “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”

Summaries of White House and State Department emails — some of which were first published by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard — show that the State Department had extensive input into the editing of the talking points.

State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland raised specific objections to this paragraph drafted by the CIA in its earlier versions of the talking points:

“The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.”

In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned …”

The paragraph was entirely deleted.

Like the final version used by Ambassador Rice on the Sunday shows, the CIA’s first drafts said the attack appeared to have been “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo” but the CIA version went on to say, “That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” The draft went on to specifically name the al Qaeda-affiliated group named Ansar al-Sharia.

Once again, Nuland objected to naming the terrorist groups because “we don’t want to prejudice the investigation.”

In response, an NSC staffer coordinating the review of the talking points wrote back to Nuland, “The FBI did not have major concerns with the points and offered only a couple minor suggestions.”

After the talking points were edited slightly to address Nuland’s concerns, she responded that changes did not go far enough.

“These changes don’t resolve all of my issues or those of my buildings leadership,” Nuland wrote.

In an email dated 9/14/12 at 9:34 p.m. — three days after the attack and two days before Ambassador Rice appeared on the Sunday shows – Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes wrote an email saying the State Department’s concerns needed to be addressed.

“We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation. We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.”

Related: Diplomat Says Requests For Benghazi Rescue Were Rejected

After that meeting, which took place Saturday morning at the White House, the CIA drafted the final version of the talking points – deleting all references to al Qaeda and to the security warnings in Benghazi prior to the attack.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said none of this contradicts what he said about the talking points because ultimately all versions were actually written and signed-off by the CIA.

“The CIA drafted these talking points and redrafted these talking points,” Carney said. “The fact that there are inputs is always the case in a process like this, but the only edits made by anyone here at the White House were stylistic and nonsubstantive. They corrected the description of the building or the facility in Benghazi from consulate to diplomatic facility and the like. And ultimately, this all has been discussed and reviewed and provided in enormous levels of detail by the administration to Congressional investigators, and the attempt to politicize the talking points, again, is part of an effort to, you know, chase after what isn’t the substance here.”

UPDATE: A source familiar with the White House emails on the Benghazi talking point revisions say that State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland was raising two concerns about the CIA’s first version of talking points, which were going to be sent to Congress: 1) The talking points went further than what she was allowed to say about the attack during her state department briefings; and, 2) she believed the CIA was attempting to exonerate itself at the State Department’s expense by suggesting CIA warnings about the security situation were ignored.

In one email, Nuland asked, why are we suggest Congress “start making assertions to the media [about the al Qaeda connection] that we ourselves are not making because we don’t want to prejudice the investigation?”

One other point: The significant edits – deleting references to al Qaeda and the CIA’s warnings – came after a White House meeting on the Saturday before Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on five Sunday shows. Nuland, a 30-year foreign service veteran who has served under Democratic and Republican Secretaries of State, was not at that meeting and played no direct role in preparing Rice for her interviews.

O, wait, ...

I thought this was accidentally mislabeled...

Wasn't this just a protest... that evolved into rockets and machine guns? (because everyone carries a rocket launcher to a protest)

KooK says what?

 

[jamny]

KooK says what?

Are you trying to trademark that or something? I don't get it. Why is the second K capital?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

The president mentioning actually calling the Benghazi attack an act of terror the day after the attack completely discredits that mime.

If there's one thing everybody hates, it's a discredited mime.

Ok, so now the leftist position is to suggest the administration was not continuing to push the protest/video angle after the 2nd day? Because he said the word terror? And even when documents are discovered showing them scrubbing the words terrorist, and al-qaeda, and any mention of the forewarning, you guys are still trying to insist they were completely forthcoming, and weren't trying to hide anything? You know, you guys are never going to get out of that 'my side' politics...

 

[Carolina Hustler]

What exactly did they cover up?

Before the election, the current administration did not what the public to know that the attack was committed by known terrorists, and that the CIA had warned of the possibility of the attack before hand.

The president mentioning actually calling the Benghazi attack an act of terror the day after the attack completely discredits that mime.

Even Crowley backed off of that crap.

Here is the quote from Obama in the Rose Garden the day after the attack:

>“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for”

I wonder what Obama was referring to?

So you're saying he admits to a terrorist lead attack there and is now brushing off the notion that this was a video based protest gone all rocket launcher crazy?

So, I shouldn't be able to find mention of the video protest narrative after the 2nd day then right?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

The president mentioning actually calling the Benghazi attack an act of terror the day after the attack completely discredits that mime.

If there's one thing everybody hates, it's a discredited mime.

Ok, so now the leftist position is to suggest the administration was not continuing to push the protest/video angle after the 2nd day? Because he said the word terror? And even when documents are discovered showing them scrubbing the words terrorist, and al-qaeda, and any mention of the forewarning, you guys are still trying to insist they were completely forthcoming, and weren't trying to hide anything? You know, you guys are never going to get out of that 'my side' politics...

Initial responses are just that, initial.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The president mentioning actually calling the Benghazi attack an act of terror the day after the attack completely discredits that mime.

If there's one thing everybody hates, it's a discredited mime.

Ok, so now the leftist position is to suggest the administration was not continuing to push the protest/video angle after the 2nd day? Because he said the word terror? And even when documents are discovered showing them scrubbing the words terrorist, and al-qaeda, and any mention of the forewarning, you guys are still trying to insist they were completely forthcoming, and weren't trying to hide anything? You know, you guys are never going to get out of that 'my side' politics...

Initial responses are just that, initial.

What the hell, guys?

 

[drummer]

The president mentioning actually calling the Benghazi attack an act of terror the day after the attack completely discredits that mime.

If there's one thing everybody hates, it's a discredited mime.

Ok, so now the leftist position is to suggest the administration was not continuing to push the protest/video angle after the 2nd day? Because he said the word terror? And even when documents are discovered showing them scrubbing the words terrorist, and al-qaeda, and any mention of the forewarning, you guys are still trying to insist they were completely forthcoming, and weren't trying to hide anything? You know, you guys are never going to get out of that 'my side' politics...

Initial responses are just that, initial.

What the hell, guys?

They keep digging to get to China.

 

[Christo]

This thread is absolutely horrible for someone just trying to figure out what the heck happened. One side is throwing any and everything at the wall, desperate for something to stick. The other side just puts their hands over their ears, laughs at the hilarity of it all and downplays the whole thing. Maybe one of the two sides is right. I'd just be interested to know what a "center" viewpoint would be.

A "center" viewpoint would be this:

1. The State Department screwed up. The screw up MAY have contributed to the deaths, or may not have- we'll never be certain of it.

2. The screw up was most likely low level, for the logical reason that high level officials (like Obama and Hillary) don't have time to bother with diplomatic security issues. However, there was likely a cover-up of the screw-up, and this went a little higher (still very unlikely that it reached high levels.)

3. The Republican party is trying to use this story to embarrass the Obama Administration, and in particular Hillary Clinton, whom they fear will be the next Democratic candidate. To the GOP, this is just a partisan game; if this story did not exist, they would find or create another one to embarrass the White House. If a Republican were in the White House, the Democrats would find a story to attack the Republican. There has not been a Presidency, either Republican or Democrat, without at least two or more scandals in my lifetime. Usually it's an average of one every couple of years.

4. To the conservative base. this is NOT a game. They believe this is a serious issue which may (they hope) bring down the President. They are encouraged to this belief by talk show hosts, the Internet, and various conspiracy theories. The hope that Obama will be brought down is somewhat contradicted by another belief, just as strong, that the "liberal media" will cover up the truth and never allow Obama to be brought down.

5. Tommy has it exactly right: because of the partisan nature of Congress, there's no way to have a fair hearing. Somebody DID do something wrong here- I don't believe on purpose, though it's possible. But we'll never going to find out who and why, and these hearings are really a big waste of taxpayer money IMO.

How much are the hearings costing the taxpayers? Congressmen don't receive overtime.

 

[Todd Andrews]

KooK says what?

Are you trying to trademark that or something? I don't get it. Why is the second K capital?

Exactly: it distinctively designates the source of my services in the mind of the consumer.

 

[timschochet]

This thread is absolutely horrible for someone just trying to figure out what the heck happened. One side is throwing any and everything at the wall, desperate for something to stick. The other side just puts their hands over their ears, laughs at the hilarity of it all and downplays the whole thing. Maybe one of the two sides is right. I'd just be interested to know what a "center" viewpoint would be.

A "center" viewpoint would be this:

1. The State Department screwed up. The screw up MAY have contributed to the deaths, or may not have- we'll never be certain of it.

2. The screw up was most likely low level, for the logical reason that high level officials (like Obama and Hillary) don't have time to bother with diplomatic security issues. However, there was likely a cover-up of the screw-up, and this went a little higher (still very unlikely that it reached high levels.)

3. The Republican party is trying to use this story to embarrass the Obama Administration, and in particular Hillary Clinton, whom they fear will be the next Democratic candidate. To the GOP, this is just a partisan game; if this story did not exist, they would find or create another one to embarrass the White House. If a Republican were in the White House, the Democrats would find a story to attack the Republican. There has not been a Presidency, either Republican or Democrat, without at least two or more scandals in my lifetime. Usually it's an average of one every couple of years.

4. To the conservative base. this is NOT a game. They believe this is a serious issue which may (they hope) bring down the President. They are encouraged to this belief by talk show hosts, the Internet, and various conspiracy theories. The hope that Obama will be brought down is somewhat contradicted by another belief, just as strong, that the "liberal media" will cover up the truth and never allow Obama to be brought down.

5. Tommy has it exactly right: because of the partisan nature of Congress, there's no way to have a fair hearing. Somebody DID do something wrong here- I don't believe on purpose, though it's possible. But we'll never going to find out who and why, and these hearings are really a big waste of taxpayer money IMO.

How much are the hearings costing the taxpayers? Congressmen don't receive overtime.

I have no idea how much it costs. I imagine there are investigators, and all kinds of excess charges. Seems like a waste to me.

 

[jamny]

KooK says what?

Are you trying to trademark that or something? I don't get it. Why is the second K capital?

Exactly: it distinctively designates the source of my services in the mind of the consumer.

for what it's worth...I know it's you when I see it. KooK

 

[Christo]

This thread is absolutely horrible for someone just trying to figure out what the heck happened. One side is throwing any and everything at the wall, desperate for something to stick. The other side just puts their hands over their ears, laughs at the hilarity of it all and downplays the whole thing. Maybe one of the two sides is right. I'd just be interested to know what a "center" viewpoint would be.

A "center" viewpoint would be this:

1. The State Department screwed up. The screw up MAY have contributed to the deaths, or may not have- we'll never be certain of it.

2. The screw up was most likely low level, for the logical reason that high level officials (like Obama and Hillary) don't have time to bother with diplomatic security issues. However, there was likely a cover-up of the screw-up, and this went a little higher (still very unlikely that it reached high levels.)

3. The Republican party is trying to use this story to embarrass the Obama Administration, and in particular Hillary Clinton, whom they fear will be the next Democratic candidate. To the GOP, this is just a partisan game; if this story did not exist, they would find or create another one to embarrass the White House. If a Republican were in the White House, the Democrats would find a story to attack the Republican. There has not been a Presidency, either Republican or Democrat, without at least two or more scandals in my lifetime. Usually it's an average of one every couple of years.

4. To the conservative base. this is NOT a game. They believe this is a serious issue which may (they hope) bring down the President. They are encouraged to this belief by talk show hosts, the Internet, and various conspiracy theories. The hope that Obama will be brought down is somewhat contradicted by another belief, just as strong, that the "liberal media" will cover up the truth and never allow Obama to be brought down.

5. Tommy has it exactly right: because of the partisan nature of Congress, there's no way to have a fair hearing. Somebody DID do something wrong here- I don't believe on purpose, though it's possible. But we'll never going to find out who and why, and these hearings are really a big waste of taxpayer money IMO.

How much are the hearings costing the taxpayers? Congressmen don't receive overtime.

I have no idea how much it costs. I imagine there are investigators, and all kinds of excess charges. Seems like a waste to me.

So you don't know if it costs anything.

 

[jamny]

So who here thinks it's absolutely impossible that the Obama Administration would have sought to minimize what happened in Benghazi? No way ! No how!

So is it safe to say that everyone realizes that someone in his administration could have done what people are saying was done? That information might have been deliberately altered so as to make the attack seem more like a random incident than a coordinated attack

 

[drummer]

Just think if they had oversight hearings during the Bush Admin!

 

[Doctor Detroit]

So who here thinks it's absolutely impossible that the Obama Administration would have sought to minimize what happened in Benghazi? No way ! No how!

So is it safe to say that everyone realizes that someone in his administration could have done what people are saying was done? That information might have been deliberately altered so as to make the attack seem more like a random incident than a coordinated attack

Like I said 40 pages ago, somebody ####ed up and it has everything to do with the preparation/planning/lack of operational security. I don't know how we are still talking about a cover-up after what I heard at those hearings, it was just something that they were completely unprepared for. That should have never happened, but those mistakes are at an operational level of the State Department. The after-action phase was handled poorly but I really don't think there is any malice. State is fairly well run but they are full of bravado in the middle ranks, lots of heroes thinking they know better. Well...they didn't know better.

 

[jamny]

So who here thinks it's absolutely impossible that the Obama Administration would have sought to minimize what happened in Benghazi? No way ! No how!

So is it safe to say that everyone realizes that someone in his administration could have done what people are saying was done? That information might have been deliberately altered so as to make the attack seem more like a random incident than a coordinated attack

Like I said 40 pages ago, somebody ####ed up and it has everything to do with the preparation/planning/lack of operational security. I don't know how we are still talking about a cover-up after what I heard at those hearings, it was just something that they were completely unprepared for. That should have never happened, but those mistakes are at an operational level of the State Department. The after-action phase was handled poorly but I really don't think there is any malice. State is fairly well run but they are full of bravado in the middle ranks, lots of heroes thinking they know better. Well...they didn't know better.

I don't criticize anyone about the events that lead up to the attack. No idea what's involved there. An attack can happen anytime, anywhere.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

So who here thinks it's absolutely impossible that the Obama Administration would have sought to minimize what happened in Benghazi? No way ! No how!

So is it safe to say that everyone realizes that someone in his administration could have done what people are saying was done? That information might have been deliberately altered so as to make the attack seem more like a random incident than a coordinated attack

Like I said 40 pages ago, somebody ####ed up and it has everything to do with the preparation/planning/lack of operational security. I don't know how we are still talking about a cover-up after what I heard at those hearings, it was just something that they were completely unprepared for. That should have never happened, but those mistakes are at an operational level of the State Department. The after-action phase was handled poorly but I really don't think there is any malice. State is fairly well run but they are full of bravado in the middle ranks, lots of heroes thinking they know better. Well...they didn't know better.

I don't criticize anyone about the events that lead up to the attack. No idea what's involved there. An attack can happen anytime, anywhere.

Then I think you're looking at it all wrong. We should not put our citizens in harm's way, especially those conducting critical foreign operations. Everyone is watching the wrong shell here, the ball is under the one that says "operational security." What caused the deaths is what is important, seems like a lot of folks (politicians in particular) have lost sight of that.

 

[jamny]

So who here thinks it's absolutely impossible that the Obama Administration would have sought to minimize what happened in Benghazi? No way ! No how!

So is it safe to say that everyone realizes that someone in his administration could have done what people are saying was done? That information might have been deliberately altered so as to make the attack seem more like a random incident than a coordinated attack

Like I said 40 pages ago, somebody ####ed up and it has everything to do with the preparation/planning/lack of operational security. I don't know how we are still talking about a cover-up after what I heard at those hearings, it was just something that they were completely unprepared for. That should have never happened, but those mistakes are at an operational level of the State Department. The after-action phase was handled poorly but I really don't think there is any malice. State is fairly well run but they are full of bravado in the middle ranks, lots of heroes thinking they know better. Well...they didn't know better.

I don't criticize anyone about the events that lead up to the attack. No idea what's involved there. An attack can happen anytime, anywhere.

I think this actually highlights the differences in the criticisms. I was never being critical of the Obama Administrations preparedness for Benghazi, just the response. If the Republicans were being such glory hounds you would see more condemnation about the Boston bombing. No one is touching that. It was handled well overall.

There is smoke here. Republicans think there is fire. Democrats want it to go away. It may not be major but I think there were some improprieties. Typical political bull#### but we can't just let it go, left or right. Always be vigilant. Both sides are scheming a-holes.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

So who here thinks it's absolutely impossible that the Obama Administration would have sought to minimize what happened in Benghazi? No way ! No how!

So is it safe to say that everyone realizes that someone in his administration could have done what people are saying was done? That information might have been deliberately altered so as to make the attack seem more like a random incident than a coordinated attack

Like I said 40 pages ago, somebody ####ed up and it has everything to do with the preparation/planning/lack of operational security. I don't know how we are still talking about a cover-up after what I heard at those hearings, it was just something that they were completely unprepared for. That should have never happened, but those mistakes are at an operational level of the State Department. The after-action phase was handled poorly but I really don't think there is any malice. State is fairly well run but they are full of bravado in the middle ranks, lots of heroes thinking they know better. Well...they didn't know better.

I don't criticize anyone about the events that lead up to the attack. No idea what's involved there. An attack can happen anytime, anywhere.

I think this actually highlights the differences in the criticisms. I was never being critical of the Obama Administrations preparedness for Benghazi, just the response. If the Republicans were being such glory hounds you would see more condemnation about the Boston bombing. No one is touching that. It was handled well overall.

There is smoke here. Republicans think there is fire. Democrats want it to go away. It may not be major but I think there were some improprieties. Typical political bull#### but we can't just let it go, left or right. Always be vigilant. Both sides are scheming a-holes.

No doubt, good post.

 

[sporthenry]

So who here thinks it's absolutely impossible that the Obama Administration would have sought to minimize what happened in Benghazi? No way ! No how!

So is it safe to say that everyone realizes that someone in his administration could have done what people are saying was done? That information might have been deliberately altered so as to make the attack seem more like a random incident than a coordinated attack

Like I said 40 pages ago, somebody ####ed up and it has everything to do with the preparation/planning/lack of operational security. I don't know how we are still talking about a cover-up after what I heard at those hearings, it was just something that they were completely unprepared for. That should have never happened, but those mistakes are at an operational level of the State Department. The after-action phase was handled poorly but I really don't think there is any malice. State is fairly well run but they are full of bravado in the middle ranks, lots of heroes thinking they know better. Well...they didn't know better.

I don't criticize anyone about the events that lead up to the attack. No idea what's involved there. An attack can happen anytime, anywhere.

Then I think you're looking at it all wrong. We should not put our citizens in harm's way, especially those conducting critical foreign operations. Everyone is watching the wrong shell here, the ball is under the one that says "operational security." What caused the deaths is what is important, seems like a lot of folks (politicians in particular) have lost sight of that.

That is all that matters to me. Well that and the allegations that Obama and the rest of the military sat idle while others were killed, but for the most part, that seems to have been debunked. As for the actual operation, that is what questions I would like to see asked. What was that building being used for? Was the lack of security on purpose so as to blend in? When permanent outposts are being set up, is it common to send it a team early without proper security?From the timeline, it seems like Stephens was just stopping by because he had to do a report on what was needed to transition it into a full time "consulate" and while he was initially scheduled to go in October, he went in September because they had a 2 week gap with the old guy leaving and new guy being 2 weeks away and the FY ending in September.As for the talking points, that just seems like Washington being Washington WRT the different agencies covering their own asses. The CIA wanted to absolve themselves of all blame. The State Department wanted to absolve themselves of all blame. They were in the initial parts of the investigation and seemed like they just wanted to scrub all details before they actually knew the truth. Why they didn't scrub the youtube part is beyond me but if Rice and Co. just went on TV and didn't mention anything and just said it is a terrorist attack of some sort and we are investigating it, would people have been happy?

 

[matuski]

I couldn't stop laughing at Rush yesterday.

He hated so much to acknowledge the "liberal" media coverage of this, but at the same time couldn't resist taking full credit for all of it.

Pure gold.

 

[matuski]

Also another example of how sadly desperate the right is.

If this is the Straw they grasp at for the long term, they once again do more damage to themselves than Obama/Hillary ever could on their own accord.

Would be nice if there were a level headed conservative that could come up with a real issue to motivate debate... but these seem harder and harder to come by these days.

 

[Mark Davis]

Just checking back in to this. Whatever happened to the guy they perp walked who had posted that YouTube video?