This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Right the same (NYT) reporter that did the original leak based shoddy reporting comes back later to buttress his original conclusions, what else was going to happen.
I hate to defend Bush but put in context those quotes aren't bad. His main point is valid.
In all my best objectivity, I think Pres. Bush Jr., the team portrayed in 0-Dark, and Pres. Obama and we as a country did our absolute dead level best to get that SOB and we got him, together, as a team and as a nation, which is awesome. There were mistakes (Tora Bora was a biggie, but then so were other missed opportunities), but again the effort level was huge.
And the report found no culpability on the part of Hillary.
It did not directly assign blame to her, no. It did determine that it was preventable though. Since the White House refused to release a whole lot of documents related to Benghazi, it was impossible to assign specific blame in the State Department.
Also, pretty interesting that apparently they have discrepancies about their public statements as well.
ETA: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/05/us/leaders-of-9-11-panel-say-attacks-were-probably-preventable.html
Yeah, essentially every attack will be seen as preventable in the eyes of these people. So saying that a committee finds it preventable doesn't really hold much weight. This report really added very little that we didn't know. If anything, the report suggests that Stevens played a bigger part in his own demise than originally thought, someone I'm sure neither side wants to believe.
How can we blame Hillary? It's not like Libya was a high-profile/high-risk/volatile situation or anything
I'm sure Obama and Hillary are on board with that. Anything to cover up their incompetence, even at the expense of American lives.
You know Diane Feinstein said that al Queda was involved and that there was no demonstration, right?
No I didn't. Well I certainly find her credible (though many here don't, especially with regard to the NSA.) Again, what did she specifically say? (Just for the record, the NY Times article referred to an offshoot of al Qaeda but not the direct group. There's a lot of confusion when it comes to al Qaeda- conservatives tend to treat it as a unified group when in fact there are a whole range of different grass roots organizations within different countries which use that name.)
Yeah, but it did name Ansar al- Sharia which is a Libyan group connected with LOCAL, not international al Qaeda.
I said bigger role. Perhaps you can accuse me of playing semantics but the report doesn't really mention how big the certain roles were. But it specifically mentions that Stevens twice declined Ham for extra support. The one article said this was reported last year but I must have missed that. But yes, I would say twice declining extra support would make him at least somewhat culpable. Especially if people want to continue with the story line that Stevens said it was growing more dangerous. Why would he do this and then decline security?
And to be fair, the NYT didn't blame it on the video, at least completely.GroveDiesel said:
The report doesn't necessarily refute this report. Neither side says its a spontaneous attack. The report says that a local news source picked up the spontaneous attack and nobody did any fact checking. Either way, both sides say it was at least somewhat planned but it would be impossible to tell if the looters, etc. joined in b/c of the video or they really were part of the attack.
Did you read that article? She says "loose groups associated with al Qaeda, which again all depends on your definition. Also:GroveDiesel said:
So you're arguing this point?
I'm not arguing anything. Just noting that Feinstein didn't say anything about it, and I don't recall the NY Times contradicting that either. What the Times article said was that the video was at least part of the impetus for the attack. And there WERE protests all over that day, as reported. So the confusion is pretty understandable, isn't it?
There were no protests according to the Senate report. The one written by the Senate Intelligence Committee. The Committee chaired by Dianne Feinstein.And of course there's no evidence of a coverup other than the White House refusing to turn over huge amounts of material that has been requested that would give us an idea of who in the White House knew what and when they knew it.
OK. Apparently you want to find a contradiction. I don't think there is one.
I think that was pretty obvious from the start.GroveDiesel said:
only slightly surprised that the WH used a racist trope to sell it as something else...
Exactly. Like I said, it supports the thinking that there was an organized attack.
This is huge.Rove! said:
Someone better get the arsonist Congressman from Grand Theft Auto on it, stat.
IMO, it's just a matter of time. I envision Joe Biden, behind the scenes, pushing this whole thing forward in a Frank Underwood-like manner.He's a wily one... Obama and the GOP are just pawns in his masterful plan.
Not sure what Topes's tak eon it is, but I would think that it hasn't gone well. We've had a major international incident that we've basically been lied to about from day one. We still don't know what and why. We don't know why our armed forces were not engaged. We don't know what the motive behind the attack was. We haven't captured anybody responsible for the attack. We haven't held anybody accountable for the pathetically inept lack of security.
That's called a textbook definition of "putting words in someones mouth."
