U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in Rocket Attack (4 Viewers)

[BigSteelThrill]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19562688

11 September, 2012

 

[pittstownkiller]

They had to make a statement.... and were still figuring out details. Move on.

When you are trying to figure something out it is helpful to not to jump to conclusions, like "it was in response to a video".

I agree. They scrubbed everything from their statement but this. They should have scrubbed this. However, the video was about the only thing left after every agency got done covering their ### that was left. But as David Brooks said on MTP, everyone looks at the CIA and Intelligence Community as being these pure entities who aren't involved in the politics when that isn't true. Their initial statements were probably extremely one sided shifting all the blame away from them. The State Department wasn't going to take it all so they went through a ton of revisions. Why the video part wasn't scrubbed? I don't know. Should it have been? Yes, they should have been very vague and said the investigation was ongoing (although that probably would have pissed people off as well). But do I think it is a giant conspiracy coming from Hillary or Barack? No, it is just the business of politics with every agency seeking to cover their ###.

I do not think if there is any stink from this that Hillary can truly distance herself from it; she was the head of the State Department after all.

I'd say it is pretty easy to distance herself. She already has. Most Americans have already moved on and unless they directly tie her to a cover up, which just seems more like a turf war at this point, she should be fine. And the beauty of it, is that the CIA did call it a spontaneous attack inspired by Egypt. So I guess that is the CIA's fault? Even if the administration acknowledged al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia, they still thought it was sparked by the Egypt protest and video. So would people still be angry if that was the case?

Not angry. Just extremely sad if people in charge really thought that silly video was truly the reason. Honestly I'd feel better if it was a deliberate lie.

You mean, the same video which was the reason our embassy in Cairo was breached?

Yes, months after it was released and coincidently happening on 9/11.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

What does the time of video release have to do with the attackers/protesters picking a high profile protest date?

Oh yeah, you guys just keep making #### up. There is no end.

 

[Mark Davis]

They had to make a statement.... and were still figuring out details. Move on.

When you are trying to figure something out it is helpful to not to jump to conclusions, like "it was in response to a video".

I agree. They scrubbed everything from their statement but this. They should have scrubbed this. However, the video was about the only thing left after every agency got done covering their ### that was left. But as David Brooks said on MTP, everyone looks at the CIA and Intelligence Community as being these pure entities who aren't involved in the politics when that isn't true. Their initial statements were probably extremely one sided shifting all the blame away from them. The State Department wasn't going to take it all so they went through a ton of revisions. Why the video part wasn't scrubbed? I don't know. Should it have been? Yes, they should have been very vague and said the investigation was ongoing (although that probably would have pissed people off as well). But do I think it is a giant conspiracy coming from Hillary or Barack? No, it is just the business of politics with every agency seeking to cover their ###.

I do not think if there is any stink from this that Hillary can truly distance herself from it; she was the head of the State Department after all.

I'd say it is pretty easy to distance herself. She already has. Most Americans have already moved on and unless they directly tie her to a cover up, which just seems more like a turf war at this point, she should be fine. And the beauty of it, is that the CIA did call it a spontaneous attack inspired by Egypt. So I guess that is the CIA's fault? Even if the administration acknowledged al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia, they still thought it was sparked by the Egypt protest and video. So would people still be angry if that was the case?

Not angry. Just extremely sad if people in charge really thought that silly video was truly the reason. Honestly I'd feel better if it was a deliberate lie.

You mean, the same video which was the reason our embassy in Cairo was breached?

Yes, months after it was released and coincidently happening on 9/11.

What I found amazing was that anyone took that as a plausible explanation. It was 9/11. I'm not even joking I'd feel better if it was a deliberate lie rather than a true belief. I can handle someone stating something for their political gain, we get that all the time. If you are truly that naive about the people who want to do us harm though then you don't have very much sense and it's scary someone like that can be in a position of authority.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

They had to make a statement.... and were still figuring out details. Move on.

When you are trying to figure something out it is helpful to not to jump to conclusions, like "it was in response to a video".

It stated that in his speech?

A: No, it didn't.

lol... So that never happened? The administration never suggested to us that this was all the fault of a video maker who was denigrating the Muslim religion?

O' wait, you mean Obama never mentioned it directly in his speech?

I wonder why when addressing the attack on our consulate he feels the need to say this..

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.

Has nothing to do with the video narrative though does it..? Yea, keep playing ignorant..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

What does the time of video release have to do with the attackers/protesters picking a high profile protest date?

Oh yeah, you guys just keep making #### up. There is no end.

So now they were protesters again?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

They had to make a statement.... and were still figuring out details. Move on.

When you are trying to figure something out it is helpful to not to jump to conclusions, like "it was in response to a video".

It stated that in his speech?

A: No, it didn't.

lol... So that never happened? The administration never suggested to us that this was all the fault of a video maker who was denigrating the Muslim religion?

O' wait, you mean Obama never mentioned it directly in his speech?

I wonder why when addressing the attack on our consulate he feels the need to say this..

>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.

Has nothing to do with the video narrative though does it..? Yea, keep playing ignorant..

Do you have any understanding what was going on at the time in Middle East?

You do understand that video was having some backlash on those very days?

You couldn't turn on the media (even Fox and Rush) and not hear about that video and the disturbance it was causing in the middle east.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

What does the time of video release have to do with the attackers/protesters picking a high profile protest date?

Oh yeah, you guys just keep making #### up. There is no end.

So now they were protesters again?

In Egypt? They had both, that's why I added the "/".

 

[Carolina Hustler]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19562688

11 September, 2012

I missed the part where they brought rocket launchers and machine guns instead of signs and killed everyone inside... Can you refer me to that part please..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

They had to make a statement.... and were still figuring out details. Move on.

When you are trying to figure something out it is helpful to not to jump to conclusions, like "it was in response to a video".

It stated that in his speech?

A: No, it didn't.

lol... So that never happened? The administration never suggested to us that this was all the fault of a video maker who was denigrating the Muslim religion?

O' wait, you mean Obama never mentioned it directly in his speech?

I wonder why when addressing the attack on our consulate he feels the need to say this..

>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.

Has nothing to do with the video narrative though does it..? Yea, keep playing ignorant..

Do you have any understanding what was going on at the time in Middle East?

You do understand that video was having some backlash on those very days?

You couldn't turn on the media (even Fox and Rush) and not hear about that video and the disturbance it was causing in the middle east.

Rocket and machine gun attack, killing everyone.. Show me where else that happened (due to the video) please..

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Now your sticking point is what weapons they had? Especially in a country under recent military upheaval?

Look at Mark Davis, prime example. 1) He said nobody thought it was video. 2) Shown attacks where it was because of video. 3) Then he calls people naive.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

What does the time of video release have to do with the attackers/protesters picking a high profile protest date?

Oh yeah, you guys just keep making #### up. There is no end.

So now they were protesters again?

In Egypt? They had both, that's why I added the "/".

hmm.. attackers..

In Cairo, Egypt a group scaled the embassy wall and tore down the American flag to replace it with a black Islamic flag.

brutal..

 

[BigSteelThrill]

What does the time of video release have to do with the attackers/protesters picking a high profile protest date?

Oh yeah, you guys just keep making #### up. There is no end.

So now they were protesters again?

In Egypt? They had both, that's why I added the "/".

hmm.. attackers..

>In Cairo, Egypt a group scaled the embassy wall and tore down the American flag to replace it with a black Islamic flag.

brutal..

Yep, they had some attackers. And some protestors. Hard for anyone on this side of thew world to sort 'em out. Especially you.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Yeah, I don't get the argument that the video explanation was implausible. Seems like the reason the administration pushed it was because of how plausible it was.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Now your sticking point is what weapons they had? Especially in a country under recent military upheaval?

Look at Mark Davis, prime example. 1) He said nobody thought it was video. 2) Shown attacks where it was because of video. 3) Then he calls people naive.

Pretty strong point when you consider rocket launchers and machine guns have a violent intent, and protest signs don't..

There were protestors who clashed with riot police... That caused deaths.. There were no other instances where there was an organized attack with rockets and guns where "protestors" killed non combatant American civilians and their body guards..

You're grasping at straws now..

The worst thing I can find attributed to protestors is clashes with riot police, setting some trees on fire and stealing some flags...

 

[Carolina Hustler]

What does the time of video release have to do with the attackers/protesters picking a high profile protest date?

Oh yeah, you guys just keep making #### up. There is no end.

So now they were protesters again?

In Egypt? They had both, that's why I added the "/".

hmm.. attackers..

>In Cairo, Egypt a group scaled the embassy wall and tore down the American flag to replace it with a black Islamic fla

g.

brutal..

Yep, they had some attackers. And some protestors. Hard for anyone on this side of thew world to sort 'em out. Especially you.

What did they "attack"? A flag? whatever buddy..

 

[tommyGunZ]

They had to make a statement.... and were still figuring out details. Move on.

When you are trying to figure something out it is helpful to not to jump to conclusions, like "it was in response to a video".

I agree. They scrubbed everything from their statement but this. They should have scrubbed this. However, the video was about the only thing left after every agency got done covering their ### that was left. But as David Brooks said on MTP, everyone looks at the CIA and Intelligence Community as being these pure entities who aren't involved in the politics when that isn't true. Their initial statements were probably extremely one sided shifting all the blame away from them. The State Department wasn't going to take it all so they went through a ton of revisions. Why the video part wasn't scrubbed? I don't know. Should it have been? Yes, they should have been very vague and said the investigation was ongoing (although that probably would have pissed people off as well). But do I think it is a giant conspiracy coming from Hillary or Barack? No, it is just the business of politics with every agency seeking to cover their ###.

I do not think if there is any stink from this that Hillary can truly distance herself from it; she was the head of the State Department after all.

I'd say it is pretty easy to distance herself. She already has. Most Americans have already moved on and unless they directly tie her to a cover up, which just seems more like a turf war at this point, she should be fine. And the beauty of it, is that the CIA did call it a spontaneous attack inspired by Egypt. So I guess that is the CIA's fault? Even if the administration acknowledged al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia, they still thought it was sparked by the Egypt protest and video. So would people still be angry if that was the case?

Not angry. Just extremely sad if people in charge really thought that silly video was truly the reason. Honestly I'd feel better if it was a deliberate lie.

You mean, the same video which was the reason our embassy in Cairo was breached?

Yes, months after it was released and coincidently happening on 9/11.

What I found amazing was that anyone took that as a plausible explanation. It was 9/11. I'm not even joking I'd feel better if it was a deliberate lie rather than a true belief. I can handle someone stating something for their political gain, we get that all the time. If you are truly that naive about the people who want to do us harm though then you don't have very much sense and it's scary someone like that can be in a position of authority.

What's not plausible Mark? You understand that that exact same "implausible explanation" was actually happening in Cairo that same day, right?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

What I found amazing was that anyone took that as a plausible explanation. It was 9/11. I'm not even joking I'd feel better if it was a deliberate lie rather than a true belief. I can handle someone stating something for their political gain, we get that all the time. If you are truly that naive about the people who want to do us harm though then you don't have very much sense and it's scary someone like that can be in a position of authority.

What's not plausible Mark? You understand that that exact same "implausible explanation" was actually happening in Cairo that same day, right?

wow.. You're kidding right?

In Cairo, it was a protest. With signs and demonstrations. They stole an American flag. There were clashes with the riot police, no one was killed.. No rocket launchers, no Americans murdered..

Not one sign, not one protestor in Benghazi. No riot police, just a coordinated militant terrorist attack with rocket launchers and guns. Nice try though..

 

[pantherclub]

Carolina Hustler never lets you down

 

[pittstownkiller]

Yeah, I don't get the argument that the video explanation was implausible. Seems like the reason the administration pushed it was because of how plausible it was.

Uhmm, the attackers were strafing the compound with towed anti-aircraft machine guns behind trucks bearing the markings of Ansar al-Sharia and were launching mortar shells into the compound and the annex.

 

[sporthenry]

Just so people understand, the State Department and White House didn't introduce the whole video/protest aspect. That was part of the initial briefing sent out by the CIA. I'm sure most don't see a difference but that flies in the face of the administration making up the protest aspect.

 

[tommyGunZ]

What I found amazing was that anyone took that as a plausible explanation. It was 9/11. I'm not even joking I'd feel better if it was a deliberate lie rather than a true belief. I can handle someone stating something for their political gain, we get that all the time. If you are truly that naive about the people who want to do us harm though then you don't have very much sense and it's scary someone like that can be in a position of authority.

What's not plausible Mark? You understand that that exact same "implausible explanation" was actually happening in Cairo that same day, right?

wow.. You're kidding right?

In Cairo, it was a protest. With signs and demonstrations. They stole an American flag. There were clashes with the riot police, no one was killed.. No rocket launchers, no Americans murdered..

Not one sign, not one protestor in Benghazi. No riot police, just a coordinated militant terrorist attack with rocket launchers and guns. Nice try though..

And you knew all of this, in real time, on 9/11/12?

 

[tommyGunZ]

Just so people understand, the State Department and White House didn't introduce the whole video/protest aspect. That was part of the initial briefing sent out by the CIA. I'm sure most don't see a difference but that flies in the face of the administration making up the protest aspect.

The CIA should just call Carolina Hustler next time we have an incident in the Middle East. He's extremely dialed in.

 

[Mark Davis]

They had to make a statement.... and were still figuring out details. Move on.

When you are trying to figure something out it is helpful to not to jump to conclusions, like "it was in response to a video".

I agree. They scrubbed everything from their statement but this. They should have scrubbed this. However, the video was about the only thing left after every agency got done covering their ### that was left. But as David Brooks said on MTP, everyone looks at the CIA and Intelligence Community as being these pure entities who aren't involved in the politics when that isn't true. Their initial statements were probably extremely one sided shifting all the blame away from them. The State Department wasn't going to take it all so they went through a ton of revisions. Why the video part wasn't scrubbed? I don't know. Should it have been? Yes, they should have been very vague and said the investigation was ongoing (although that probably would have pissed people off as well). But do I think it is a giant conspiracy coming from Hillary or Barack? No, it is just the business of politics with every agency seeking to cover their ###.

I do not think if there is any stink from this that Hillary can truly distance herself from it; she was the head of the State Department after all.

I'd say it is pretty easy to distance herself. She already has. Most Americans have already moved on and unless they directly tie her to a cover up, which just seems more like a turf war at this point, she should be fine. And the beauty of it, is that the CIA did call it a spontaneous attack inspired by Egypt. So I guess that is the CIA's fault? Even if the administration acknowledged al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia, they still thought it was sparked by the Egypt protest and video. So would people still be angry if that was the case?

Not angry. Just extremely sad if people in charge really thought that silly video was truly the reason. Honestly I'd feel better if it was a deliberate lie.

You mean, the same video which was the reason our embassy in Cairo was breached?

Yes, months after it was released and coincidently happening on 9/11.

What I found amazing was that anyone took that as a plausible explanation. It was 9/11. I'm not even joking I'd feel better if it was a deliberate lie rather than a true belief. I can handle someone stating something for their political gain, we get that all the time. If you are truly that naive about the people who want to do us harm though then you don't have very much sense and it's scary someone like that can be in a position of authority.

What's not plausible Mark? You understand that that exact same "implausible explanation" was actually happening in Cairo that same day, right?

We get attacked on 9/11 and does anyone really believe that type attack was related to a Youtube video? I get Cairo, but you also understand the importance of anniversaries to the extremists as well as I do. It should never be a shock when our foreign interests are attacked on such a date. I disagree a lot with the Republicans on social policy and yes some of this is obviously political grandstanding, but the whole Youtube angle that was floated out there was never plausible to me. When news broke of that attack the first thing in my mind is "well it is 9/11". If I'm too cynical then so be it, but in this case that cynicism turned out to be valid.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Just so people understand, the State Department and White House didn't introduce the whole video/protest aspect. That was part of the initial briefing sent out by the CIA. I'm sure most don't see a difference but that flies in the face of the administration making up the protest aspect.

It has been testified to that the initial CIA briefing listed Ansar al-Sharia and noted previous attacks, along with the possibility of this being a pre-planned attack.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Just so people understand, the State Department and White House didn't introduce the whole video/protest aspect. That was part of the initial briefing sent out by the CIA. I'm sure most don't see a difference but that flies in the face of the administration making up the protest aspect.

We also know that the CIA said:

“[W]e do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.”

 

[Carolina Hustler]

What I found amazing was that anyone took that as a plausible explanation. It was 9/11. I'm not even joking I'd feel better if it was a deliberate lie rather than a true belief. I can handle someone stating something for their political gain, we get that all the time. If you are truly that naive about the people who want to do us harm though then you don't have very much sense and it's scary someone like that can be in a position of authority.

What's not plausible Mark? You understand that that exact same "implausible explanation" was actually happening in Cairo that same day, right?

wow.. You're kidding right?

In Cairo, it was a protest. With signs and demonstrations. They stole an American flag. There were clashes with the riot police, no one was killed.. No rocket launchers, no Americans murdered..

Not one sign, not one protestor in Benghazi. No riot police, just a coordinated militant terrorist attack with rocket launchers and guns. Nice try though..

And you knew all of this, in real time, on 9/11/12?

They did have footage of the attack via drone cameras... And the description of events by now dead people who described what was going on as the pleaded for help..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Yeah, I don't get the argument that the video explanation was implausible. Seems like the reason the administration pushed it was because of how plausible it was.

Uhmm, the attackers were strafing the compound with towed anti-aircraft machine guns behind trucks bearing the markings of Ansar al-Sharia and were launching mortar shells into the compound and the annex.

Meh.. Typical protester activity..

Same thing happened in Cairo, as per sporthenry & tommyGunZ

 

[sporthenry]

Yeah, I don't get the argument that the video explanation was implausible. Seems like the reason the administration pushed it was because of how plausible it was.

Uhmm, the attackers were strafing the compound with towed anti-aircraft machine guns behind trucks bearing the markings of Ansar al-Sharia and were launching mortar shells into the compound and the annex.

Meh.. Typical protester activity..

Same thing happened in Cairo, as per sporthenry & tommyGunZ

We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex.

That is what the CIA said. Yes, they went on to acknowledge al-Qaeda, Ansar al-Sharia, and the previous attacks, but the whole protest in Cairo came from the CIA. So the whole narrative that the administration changed al-Qaeda for the video is incorrect. The video was always acknowledged, at least tacitly with the Egypt reference.

So if we are to bring up that the CIA originally mentioned al-Qaeda, we must also acknowledge they originally mentioned Egypt too.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Oh my god....I....but......Bengh.......yawn......zzzzzzzzzzzz......zzz.....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....................

KooKs!!!!!!!

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Yeah, I don't get the argument that the video explanation was implausible. Seems like the reason the administration pushed it was because of how plausible it was.

Uhmm, the attackers were strafing the compound with towed anti-aircraft machine guns behind trucks bearing the markings of Ansar al-Sharia and were launching mortar shells into the compound and the annex.

Meh.. Typical protester activity..

Same thing happened in Cairo, as per sporthenry & tommyGunZ

>We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex.

That is what the CIA said. Yes, they went on to acknowledge al-Qaeda, Ansar al-Sharia, and the previous attacks, but the whole protest in Cairo came from the CIA. So the whole narrative that the administration changed al-Qaeda for the video is incorrect. The video was always acknowledged, at least tacitly with the Egypt reference.

So if we are to bring up that the CIA originally mentioned al-Qaeda, we must also acknowledge they originally mentioned Egypt too.

They didn't say it was the same thing.. They said the attacks may have been inspired by..

At no time did they ever say The Benghazi attack was anything similar to what happened in Cairo.. Cairo included protestors with signs, a few stealing an American flag, some minor clashes with riot police, no deaths, no heavy artillery.. Benghazi was an attack with guns and artillery, and murders, not protestors, no signs, no riot police.. They never said there was a protest in Benghazi.. They called it an attack that may have been inspired by the protest in Cairo.. They also said it was an organized attack, that included a terrorist element, but we didn't get to hear that part from the administration.. There were also warnings leading up to the attack, and requests for more security, but we didn't get to hear about that part either..

 

[Ghost Rider]

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.

Not really on either side here necessarily, but I wouldn't characterize an administration blatantly lying to try to mislead the public so they could look good politically as grasping for straws. The Republicans have made a lot of mistakes, but even the most staunch Obama honks need to realize he messed up here. What would you be saying if this was GW Bush? I don't think you would be looking at it this way.

This DID happen under GWBush. 13 times. And there were 3 hearings total.

There have been 9 hearings already about Benghazi.

All true, but how many of those 13 attacks under W. resulted in the death of an ambassador overseas?

This is another thing that I don't get and actually sort of infuriates me. Why do you need to qualify it with an ambassador? Why not just say, how many resulted in the death of Americans?

Because, while the killing of any American in a terrorist attack is gonna be (or should be) met with serious payback, killing an ambassador is a bigger deal, just like it would be an even bigger deal if the president or member of his cabinet were killed.

 

[sporthenry]

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.

Not really on either side here necessarily, but I wouldn't characterize an administration blatantly lying to try to mislead the public so they could look good politically as grasping for straws. The Republicans have made a lot of mistakes, but even the most staunch Obama honks need to realize he messed up here. What would you be saying if this was GW Bush? I don't think you would be looking at it this way.

This DID happen under GWBush. 13 times. And there were 3 hearings total.

There have been 9 hearings already about Benghazi.

All true, but how many of those 13 attacks under W. resulted in the death of an ambassador overseas?

This is another thing that I don't get and actually sort of infuriates me. Why do you need to qualify it with an ambassador? Why not just say, how many resulted in the death of Americans?

Because, while the killing of any American in a terrorist attack is gonna be (or should be) met with serious payback, killing an ambassador is a bigger deal, just like it would be an even bigger deal if the president or member of his cabinet were killed.

Alright, well then we'll open it up to diplomats as an ambassador is just a high ranking diplomat and voila, you have a diplomat killed in Karachi, three killed in Gaza and a diplomat in Khartoun, Sudan were all killed under Bush. Do they matter? Or do they have to be ambassadors as well?

 

[pittstownkiller]

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.

Not really on either side here necessarily, but I wouldn't characterize an administration blatantly lying to try to mislead the public so they could look good politically as grasping for straws. The Republicans have made a lot of mistakes, but even the most staunch Obama honks need to realize he messed up here. What would you be saying if this was GW Bush? I don't think you would be looking at it this way.

This DID happen under GWBush. 13 times. And there were 3 hearings total. There have been 9 hearings already about Benghazi.

All true, but how many of those 13 attacks under W. resulted in the death of an ambassador overseas?

This is another thing that I don't get and actually sort of infuriates me. Why do you need to qualify it with an ambassador? Why not just say, how many resulted in the death of Americans?

Because, while the killing of any American in a terrorist attack is gonna be (or should be) met with serious payback, killing an ambassador is a bigger deal, just like it would be an even bigger deal if the president or member of his cabinet were killed.

Alright, well then we'll open it up to diplomats as an ambassador is just a high ranking diplomat and voila, you have a diplomat killed in Karachi, three killed in Gaza and a diplomat in Khartoun, Sudan were all killed under Bush. Do they matter? Or do they have to be ambassadors as well?

I'm not really following you; are you trying to make the point that if something similar enough happened during other administrations, it is somehow okay?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Well.. Well... Well.. But George Bush did...

PMSL... George Bush is what you want to compare Obama to? Lets compare him to a real president and see how he fairs..

This administration screwed up, and instead of admitting it you want to change the subject to George Bush... Obamas legacy... 'Better than George Bush'.. 'maybe'... Your Team vs Their Team..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

http://www.the-free-foundation.org/tst5-13-2013.html

What No One Wants to Hear About BenghaziCongressional hearings, White House damage control, endless op-eds, accusations, and defensive denials. Controversy over the events in Benghazi last September took center stage in Washington and elsewhere last week. However, the whole discussion is again more of a sideshow. Each side seeks to score political points instead of asking the real questions about the attack on the US facility, which resulted in the death of US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

Republicans smell a political opportunity over evidence that the Administration heavily edited initial intelligence community talking points about the attack to remove or soften anything that might reflect badly on the president or the State Department.

Are we are supposed to be shocked by such behavior? Are we supposed to forget that this kind of whitewashing of facts is standard operating procedure when it comes to the US government?

Democrats in Congress have offered the even less convincing explanation for Benghazi, that somehow the attack occurred due to Republican sponsored cuts in the security budget at facilities overseas. With a one trillion dollar military budget, it is hard to take this seriously.

It appears that the Administration scrubbed initial intelligence reports of references to extremist Islamist involvement in the attacks, preferring to craft a lie that the demonstrations were a spontaneous response to an anti-Islamic video that developed into a full-out attack on the US outpost.

Who can blame the administration for wanting to shift the focus? The Islamic radicals who attacked Benghazi were the same people let loose by the US-led attack on Libya. They were the rebels on whose behalf the US overthrew the Libyan government. Ambassador Stevens was slain by the same Islamic radicals he personally assisted just over one year earlier.

But the Republicans in Congress also want to shift the blame. They supported the Obama Administration’s policy of bombing Libya and overthrowing its government. They also repeated the same manufactured claims that Gaddafi was “killing his own people” and was about to commit mass genocide if he were not stopped. Republicans want to draw attention to the President’s editing talking points in hopes no one will notice that if the attack on Libya they supported had not taken place, Ambassador Stevens would be alive today.

Neither side wants to talk about the real lesson of Benghazi: interventionism always carries with it unintended consequences. The US attack on Libya led to the unleashing of Islamist radicals in Libya. These radicals have destroyed the country, murdered thousands, and killed the US ambassador. Some of these then turned their attention to Mali which required another intervention by the US and France.

Previously secure weapons in Libya flooded the region after the US attack, with many of them going to Islamist radicals who make up the majority of those fighting to overthrow the government in Syria. The US government has intervened in the Syrian conflict on behalf of the same rebels it assisted in the Libya conflict, likely helping with the weapons transfers. With word out that these rebels are mostly affiliated with al Qaeda, the US is now intervening to persuade some factions of the Syrian rebels to kill other factions before completing the task of ousting the Syrian government. It is the dizzying cycle of interventionism.

The real lesson of Benghazi will not be learned because neither Republicans nor Democrats want to hear it. But it is our interventionist foreign policy and its unintended consequences that have created these problems, including the attack and murder of Ambassador Stevens. The disputed talking points and White House whitewashing are just a sideshow.

 

[sporthenry]

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.

Not really on either side here necessarily, but I wouldn't characterize an administration blatantly lying to try to mislead the public so they could look good politically as grasping for straws. The Republicans have made a lot of mistakes, but even the most staunch Obama honks need to realize he messed up here. What would you be saying if this was GW Bush? I don't think you would be looking at it this way.

This DID happen under GWBush. 13 times. And there were 3 hearings total. There have been 9 hearings already about Benghazi.

All true, but how many of those 13 attacks under W. resulted in the death of an ambassador overseas?

This is another thing that I don't get and actually sort of infuriates me. Why do you need to qualify it with an ambassador? Why not just say, how many resulted in the death of Americans?

Because, while the killing of any American in a terrorist attack is gonna be (or should be) met with serious payback, killing an ambassador is a bigger deal, just like it would be an even bigger deal if the president or member of his cabinet were killed.

Alright, well then we'll open it up to diplomats as an ambassador is just a high ranking diplomat and voila, you have a diplomat killed in Karachi, three killed in Gaza and a diplomat in Khartoun, Sudan were all killed under Bush. Do they matter? Or do they have to be ambassadors as well?

I'm not really following you; are you trying to make the point that if something similar enough happened during other administrations, it is somehow okay?

I was responding to someone saying that Bush somehow not presiding over any ambassadors dying somehow makes his presidency better. I didn't start the comparison, but if you really want to go down the whole, "how many American died" or "how many Ambassadors died" then I'll do that with you.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Well.. Well... Well.. But George Bush did... PMSL... George Bush is what you want to compare Obama to? Lets compare him to a real president and see how he fairs.. This administration screwed up, and instead of admitting it you want to change the subject to George Bush... Obamas legacy... 'Better than George Bush'.. 'maybe'... Your Team vs Their Team..

A conservatives started this line of thinking in this thread... jerome.

 

[sporthenry]

Yeah, I don't get the argument that the video explanation was implausible. Seems like the reason the administration pushed it was because of how plausible it was.

Uhmm, the attackers were strafing the compound with towed anti-aircraft machine guns behind trucks bearing the markings of Ansar al-Sharia and were launching mortar shells into the compound and the annex.

Meh.. Typical protester activity..

Same thing happened in Cairo, as per sporthenry & tommyGunZ

>We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against U.S. Consulate and subsequently its

annex.

That is what the CIA said. Yes, they went on to acknowledge al-Qaeda, Ansar al-Sharia, and the previous attacks, but the whole protest in Cairo came from the CIA. So the whole narrative that the administration changed al-Qaeda for the video is incorrect. The video was always acknowledged, at least tacitly with the Egypt reference.

So if we are to bring up that the CIA originally mentioned al-Qaeda, we must also acknowledge they originally mentioned Egypt too.

They didn't say it was the same thing.. They said the attacks may have been inspired by..

At no time did they ever say The Benghazi attack was anything similar to what happened in Cairo.. Cairo included protestors with signs, a few stealing an American flag, some minor clashes with riot police, no deaths, no heavy artillery.. Benghazi was an attack with guns and artillery, and murders, not protestors, no signs, no riot police.. They never said there was a protest in Benghazi.. They called it an attack that may have been inspired by the protest in Cairo.. They also said it was an organized attack, that included a terrorist element, but we didn't get to hear that part from the administration.. There were also warnings leading up to the attack, and requests for more security, but we didn't get to hear about that part either..

The CIA said it was spontaneously inspired by Cairo/the protests over the youtube video. They didn't really say it was or wasn't similar to the protests in Egypt. However, your whole assertion that somehow the use of rocket launchers and mortars make this look obvious was refuted by the CIA when they said the "wide availability of weapons and experienced fighters...contributed to the lethality of the attacks." So it seems the CIA saw the weapons and still argued that it could have been spontaneous.

Now the CIA did acknowledge that they can't "rule out that individuals had previously surveilled the US facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks." That is far from saying it was a planned attack though.

The 3 things that seemingly changed the most in the talking points were, ignoring the previous attacks, not mentioning al-Qaeda, and not mentioning Ansar al-Sharia. I'm not really sure why mentioning Ansar al-Sharia matters much since most Americans have or at least had not heard of them. Additionally, the CIA said the group leadership released a statement saying they had nothing to do with it, but didn't rule out some of its members may have participated. Then you have them scrubbing al-Qaeda. Yes, the CIA was very affirmative in their mentioning of al-Qaeda but the common narrative seems to be that Obama changed it when the two changes by the WH had nothing to do with al-Qaeda. Sure, the administration could have told the State Department to change it, but again, I'd need proof.

But it seems that the thing went through so many revisions that it was hacked to pieces that as Petraeus said, they were essentially "useless," because the message was so convoluted at that point, that the spontaneous attack went from one of many details to the only detail that Rice and Co. had to work with. Quite frankly, Rice got screwed and left out to dry, but such is politics.

Then again, we are back about talking about the talking points which most in here have already agreed, they don't really give a ####. You can continue to go ahead and make it your "Watergate" if you like but the American public has seemingly moved on especially after so many cried wolf this week saying this would be the Administration's worst week or throwing around the impeach word.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

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.

Not really on either side here necessarily, but I wouldn't characterize an administration blatantly lying to try to mislead the public so they could look good politically as grasping for straws. The Republicans have made a lot of mistakes, but even the most staunch Obama honks need to realize he messed up here. What would you be saying if this was GW Bush? I don't think you would be looking at it this way.

This DID happen under GWBush. 13 times. And there were 3 hearings total. There have been 9 hearings already about Benghazi.

All true, but how many of those 13 attacks under W. resulted in the death of an ambassador overseas?

This is another thing that I don't get and actually sort of infuriates me. Why do you need to qualify it with an ambassador? Why not just say, how many resulted in the death of Americans?

Because, while the killing of any American in a terrorist attack is gonna be (or should be) met with serious payback, killing an ambassador is a bigger deal, just like it would be an even bigger deal if the president or member of his cabinet were killed.

Alright, well then we'll open it up to diplomats as an ambassador is just a high ranking diplomat and voila, you have a diplomat killed in Karachi, three killed in Gaza and a diplomat in Khartoun, Sudan were all killed under Bush. Do they matter? Or do they have to be ambassadors as well?

I'm not really following you; are you trying to make the point that if something similar enough happened during other administrations, it is somehow okay?

I was responding to someone saying that Bush somehow not presiding over any ambassadors dying somehow makes his presidency better. I didn't start the comparison, but if you really want to go down the whole, "how many American died" or "how many Ambassadors died" then I'll do that with you.

The initial prompt was, "well, lets check the previous administration, see how many hearings they've had vs attacks/deaths"

nice try though

 

[sporthenry]

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.

Not really on either side here necessarily, but I wouldn't characterize an administration blatantly lying to try to mislead the public so they could look good politically as grasping for straws. The Republicans have made a lot of mistakes, but even the most staunch Obama honks need to realize he messed up here. What would you be saying if this was GW Bush? I don't think you would be looking at it this way.

This DID happen under GWBush. 13 times. And there were 3 hearings total. There have been 9 hearings already about Benghazi.

All true, but how many of those 13 attacks under W. resulted in the death of an ambassador overseas?

This is another thing that I don't get and actually sort of infuriates me. Why do you need to qualify it with an ambassador? Why not just say, how many resulted in the death of Americans?

Because, while the killing of any American in a terrorist attack is gonna be (or should be) met with serious payback, killing an ambassador is a bigger deal, just like it would be an even bigger deal if the president or member of his cabinet were killed.

Alright, well then we'll open it up to diplomats as an ambassador is just a high ranking diplomat and voila, you have a diplomat killed in Karachi, three killed in Gaza and a diplomat in Khartoun, Sudan were all killed under Bush. Do they matter? Or do they have to be ambassadors as well?

I'm not really following you; are you trying to make the point that if something similar enough happened during other administrations, it is somehow okay?

I was responding to someone saying that Bush somehow not presiding over any ambassadors dying somehow makes his presidency better. I didn't start the comparison, but if you really want to go down the whole, "how many American died" or "how many Ambassadors died" then I'll do that with you.

The initial prompt was, "well, lets check the previous administration, see how many hearings they've had vs attacks/deaths"

nice try though

I don't even know what you are accusing me of.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Yeah, I don't get the argument that the video explanation was implausible. Seems like the reason the administration pushed it was because of how plausible it was.

Uhmm, the attackers were strafing the compound with towed anti-aircraft machine guns behind trucks bearing the markings of Ansar al-Sharia and were launching mortar shells into the compound and the annex.

Meh.. Typical protester activity..

Same thing happened in Cairo, as per sporthenry & tommyGunZ

>We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against U.S. Consulate and subsequently its

annex.That is what the CIA said. Yes, they went on to acknowledge al-Qaeda, Ansar al-Sharia, and the previous attacks, but the whole protest in Cairo came from the CIA. So the whole narrative that the administration changed al-Qaeda for the video is incorrect. The video was always acknowledged, at least tacitly with the Egypt reference.

So if we are to bring up that the CIA originally mentioned al-Qaeda, we must also acknowledge they originally mentioned Egypt too.

They didn't say it was the same thing.. They said the attacks may have been inspired by..

At no time did they ever say The Benghazi attack was anything similar to what happened in Cairo.. Cairo included protestors with signs, a few stealing an American flag, some minor clashes with riot police, no deaths, no heavy artillery.. Benghazi was an attack with guns and artillery, and murders, not protestors, no signs, no riot police.. They never said there was a protest in Benghazi.. They called it an attack that may have been inspired by the protest in Cairo.. They also said it was an organized attack, that included a terrorist element, but we didn't get to hear that part from the administration.. There were also warnings leading up to the attack, and requests for more security, but we didn't get to hear about that part either..

The CIA said it was spontaneously inspired by Cairo/the protests over the youtube video. They didn't really say it was or wasn't similar to the protests in Egypt. However, your whole assertion that somehow the use of rocket launchers and mortars make this look obvious was refuted by the CIA when they said the "wide availability of weapons and experienced fighters...contributed to the lethality of the attacks." So it seems the CIA saw the weapons and still argued that it could have been spontaneous.

Now the CIA did acknowledge that they can't "rule out that individuals had previously surveilled the US facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks." That is far from saying it was a planned attack though.

The 3 things that seemingly changed the most in the talking points were, ignoring the previous attacks, not mentioning al-Qaeda, and not mentioning Ansar al-Sharia. I'm not really sure why mentioning Ansar al-Sharia matters much since most Americans have or at least had not heard of them. Additionally, the CIA said the group leadership released a statement saying they had nothing to do with it, but didn't rule out some of its members may have participated. Then you have them scrubbing al-Qaeda. Yes, the CIA was very affirmative in their mentioning of al-Qaeda but the common narrative seems to be that Obama changed it when the two changes by the WH had nothing to do with al-Qaeda. Sure, the administration could have told the State Department to change it, but again, I'd need proof.

But it seems that the thing went through so many revisions that it was hacked to pieces that as Petraeus said, they were essentially "useless," because the message was so convoluted at that point, that the spontaneous attack went from one of many details to the only detail that Rice and Co. had to work with. Quite frankly, Rice got screwed and left out to dry, but such is politics.

Then again, we are back about talking about the talking points which most in here have already agreed, they don't really give a ####. You can continue to go ahead and make it your "Watergate" if you like but the American public has seemingly moved on especially after so many cried wolf this week saying this would be the Administration's worst week or throwing around the impeach word.

CIA said, it APPEARED ti be INSPIRED by cairo protests...

The State Department is run by the white house... Clinton heads it up... Clinton, appointed by Obama, Clinton's people that scrubbed Alqaeda and terrorist from the transcript.. YES it WAS them..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Well.. Well... Well.. But George Bush did...

PMSL... George Bush is what you want to compare Obama to? Lets compare him to a real president and see how he fairs..

This administration screwed up, and instead of admitting it you want to change the subject to George Bush... Obamas legacy... 'Better than George Bush'.. 'maybe'... Your Team vs Their Team..

A conservatives tarted this line of thinking in this thread... jerome.

nope..

 

[sporthenry]

Yeah, I don't get the argument that the video explanation was implausible. Seems like the reason the administration pushed it was because of how plausible it was.

Uhmm, the attackers were strafing the compound with towed anti-aircraft machine guns behind trucks bearing the markings of Ansar al-Sharia and were launching mortar shells into the compound and the annex.

Meh.. Typical protester activity..

Same thing happened in Cairo, as per sporthenry & tommyGunZ

>We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against U.S. Consulate and subsequently its

annex.That is what the CIA said. Yes, they went on to acknowledge al-Qaeda, Ansar al-Sharia, and the previous attacks, but the whole protest in Cairo came from the CIA. So the whole narrative that the administration changed al-Qaeda for the video is incorrect. The video was always acknowledged, at least tacitly with the Egypt reference.

So if we are to bring up that the CIA originally mentioned al-Qaeda, we must also acknowledge they originally mentioned Egypt too.

They didn't say it was the same thing.. They said the attacks may have been inspired by..

At no time did they ever say The Benghazi attack was anything similar to what happened in Cairo.. Cairo included protestors with signs, a few stealing an American flag, some minor clashes with riot police, no deaths, no heavy artillery.. Benghazi was an attack with guns and artillery, and murders, not protestors, no signs, no riot police.. They never said there was a protest in Benghazi.. They called it an attack that may have been inspired by the protest in Cairo.. They also said it was an organized attack, that included a terrorist element, but we didn't get to hear that part from the administration.. There were also warnings leading up to the attack, and requests for more security, but we didn't get to hear about that part either..

The CIA said it was spontaneously inspired by Cairo/the protests over the youtube video. They didn't really say it was or wasn't similar to the protests in Egypt. However, your whole assertion that somehow the use of rocket launchers and mortars make this look obvious was refuted by the CIA when they said the "wide availability of weapons and experienced fighters...contributed to the lethality of the attacks." So it seems the CIA saw the weapons and still argued that it could have been spontaneous.

Now the CIA did acknowledge that they can't "rule out that individuals had previously surveilled the US facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks." That is far from saying it was a planned attack though.

The 3 things that seemingly changed the most in the talking points were, ignoring the previous attacks, not mentioning al-Qaeda, and not mentioning Ansar al-Sharia. I'm not really sure why mentioning Ansar al-Sharia matters much since most Americans have or at least had not heard of them. Additionally, the CIA said the group leadership released a statement saying they had nothing to do with it, but didn't rule out some of its members may have participated. Then you have them scrubbing al-Qaeda. Yes, the CIA was very affirmative in their mentioning of al-Qaeda but the common narrative seems to be that Obama changed it when the two changes by the WH had nothing to do with al-Qaeda. Sure, the administration could have told the State Department to change it, but again, I'd need proof.

But it seems that the thing went through so many revisions that it was hacked to pieces that as Petraeus said, they were essentially "useless," because the message was so convoluted at that point, that the spontaneous attack went from one of many details to the only detail that Rice and Co. had to work with. Quite frankly, Rice got screwed and left out to dry, but such is politics.

Then again, we are back about talking about the talking points which most in here have already agreed, they don't really give a ####. You can continue to go ahead and make it your "Watergate" if you like but the American public has seemingly moved on especially after so many cried wolf this week saying this would be the Administration's worst week or throwing around the impeach word.

CIA said, it APPEARED ti be INSPIRED by cairo protests...

The State Department is run by the white house... Clinton heads it up... Clinton, appointed by Obama, Clinton's people that scrubbed Alqaeda and terrorist from the transcript.. YES it WAS them..

See, we have all this evidence about the State Department changing it, Obama not calling anyone the night of, etc. Surely, there is evidence that the directive came from Obama right? At the moment, the two changes the WH apparently made were changing it from a "consulate" to a "diplomatic post" which seems fair since it wasn't a consulate and a syntax error. If there is more proof the WH did something, I'd like to see it.

As for the State Department, the narrative that the State department wanted to cover their ### works for me. It seems Nuland did a lot of the changes b/c they didn't want to admit fault as the CIA absolved themselves off all their responsibility. Again, links to Kennedy or Clinton don't exist with changing the talking points, and I sort of do the whole "innocent, until proven guilty" stuff so proof or carry on with your baseless allegations.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I was responding to someone saying that Bush somehow not presiding over any ambassadors dying somehow makes his presidency better.

Who said that? I don't need a link to this very thread; the post number will do.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

CIA said, it APPEARED ti be INSPIRED by cairo protests...

The State Department is run by the white house... Clinton heads it up... Clinton, appointed by Obama, Clinton's people that scrubbed Alqaeda and terrorist from the transcript.. YES it WAS them..

See, we have all this evidence about the State Department changing it, Obama not calling anyone the night of, etc. Surely, there is evidence that the directive came from Obama right? At the moment, the two changes the WH apparently made were changing it from a "consulate" to a "diplomatic post" which seems fair since it wasn't a consulate and a syntax error. If there is more proof the WH did something, I'd like to see it.

As for the State Department, the narrative that the State department wanted to cover their ### works for me. It seems Nuland did a lot of the changes b/c they didn't want to admit fault as the CIA absolved themselves off all their responsibility. Again, links to Kennedy or Clinton don't exist with changing the talking points, and I sort of do the whole "innocent, until proven guilty" stuff so proof or carry on with your baseless allegations.

Whether you do it, or someone you've entrusted with the responsibility, it's still your responsibility..

I'm a general contractor. My primary line of buisness is high end remodeling and additions. If someone hires me to remodel their bath, and one of my carpenters shoots nails through a water line when installing some moldings, do I get to say, "it wasn't me"... "it was Joe, the carpenter"? You think I'd be off the hook? I didn't do it.. One of my employees did..

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Rep. Darrell Issa, car thief arsonist convicted felon chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, planned on Monday to seek depositions from retired Ambassador Thomas Pickering and retired Adm. Mike Mullen. Issa, who is leading Republicans’ investigations into the attacks on a State Department consulate last September, said he wants to know with whom the pair spoke to reach their conclusion that then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton did not direct the response to the pair of nighttime attacks in Libya.

BENGAZHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!!!!!111111111111111111111 all the way to 2016.

 

[Slapdash]

Carolina Hustler never lets you down

Wow, didn't know this thread could get worse...

 

[Runningman]

CIA said, it APPEARED ti be INSPIRED by cairo protests...

The State Department is run by the white house... Clinton heads it up... Clinton, appointed by Obama, Clinton's people that scrubbed Alqaeda and terrorist from the transcript.. YES it WAS them..

See, we have all this evidence about the State Department changing it, Obama not calling anyone the night of, etc. Surely, there is evidence that the directive came from Obama right? At the moment, the two changes the WH apparently made were changing it from a "consulate" to a "diplomatic post" which seems fair since it wasn't a consulate and a syntax error. If there is more proof the WH did something, I'd like to see it.

As for the State Department, the narrative that the State department wanted to cover their ### works for me. It seems Nuland did a lot of the changes b/c they didn't want to admit fault as the CIA absolved themselves off all their responsibility. Again, links to Kennedy or Clinton don't exist with changing the talking points, and I sort of do the whole "innocent, until proven guilty" stuff so proof or carry on with your baseless allegations.

Whether you do it, or someone you've entrusted with the responsibility, it's still your responsibility..

I'm a general contractor. My primary line of buisness is high end remodeling and additions. If someone hires me to remodel their bath, and one of my carpenters shoots nails through a water line when installing some moldings, do I get to say, "it wasn't me"... "it was Joe, the carpenter"? You think I'd be off the hook? I didn't do it.. One of my employees did..

LOL, and your response would be the carpenter is fired and I am here with new carpenters and plumbers to fix the damage. Not "This happened so long ago who cares?" or as you say "it wasn't me!". It is amazing that after all we have been through as a country in the last 20 years people still lick up being lied to and defend their sides lying with but but Bush or but but Clinton. We have gone completely off the rails as a political populace. Our politicians always have lied to us but it seems there was a time when we cared.

And to relate it to another scandal, Clinton did not get impeach because he got a BJ in the oval office, he got impeach because he lied UNDER OATH about getting a BJ. If instead of saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." he said "I did have sexual relations but I am sorry and apologize now." he would never have been impeached and it would have saved a lot of time and energy and he might have got more done. Even in so harmless an episode if you can't see the damage the lying does when the President does it, there really can't be much more said.

 

[3C's]

CIA said, it APPEARED ti be INSPIRED by cairo protests...

The State Department is run by the white house... Clinton heads it up... Clinton, appointed by Obama, Clinton's people that scrubbed Alqaeda and terrorist from the transcript.. YES it WAS them..

See, we have all this evidence about the State Department changing it, Obama not calling anyone the night of, etc. Surely, there is evidence that the directive came from Obama right? At the moment, the two changes the WH apparently made were changing it from a "consulate" to a "diplomatic post" which seems fair since it wasn't a consulate and a syntax error. If there is more proof the WH did something, I'd like to see it.

As for the State Department, the narrative that the State department wanted to cover their ### works for me. It seems Nuland did a lot of the changes b/c they didn't want to admit fault as the CIA absolved themselves off all their responsibility. Again, links to Kennedy or Clinton don't exist with changing the talking points, and I sort of do the whole "innocent, until proven guilty" stuff so proof or carry on with your baseless allegations.

Whether you do it, or someone you've entrusted with the responsibility, it's still your responsibility..

I'm a general contractor. My primary line of buisness is high end remodeling and additions. If someone hires me to remodel their bath, and one of my carpenters shoots nails through a water line when installing some moldings, do I get to say, "it wasn't me"... "it was Joe, the carpenter"? You think I'd be off the hook? I didn't do it.. One of my employees did..