Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
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!
U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in Rocket Attack (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Topes
- Start date
Max Power
Footballguy
I tried to participate in this thread as things were happening, but both sides were too close minded reason with. I stopped caring over time because most of this is just political jockeying for people's next promotion or election. Or to prove some dems vs republicans bullcrap.
In a time where information is rushed to the masses, some information was misrepresented or just not fully vetted. Some people probable stuck with a story longer than they should have with hopes that it would "go away". But its sad that we are so determined to tear ourselves apart over who knew what and when.
In a time where information is rushed to the masses, some information was misrepresented or just not fully vetted. Some people probable stuck with a story longer than they should have with hopes that it would "go away". But its sad that we are so determined to tear ourselves apart over who knew what and when.
cstu
Footballguy
This is apparently the smoking gun:
What has confused me from the beginning about this story is that I don't see anything unexpected from a political standpoint. Yes, the administration framed the story initially to appear that it wasn't a failure on their part but I wouldn't construe that as a cover up.
Last edited by a moderator:
Benghazi is to Fox News as Malaysia flight 370 is to CNN. They hate to let the story die because their obsessed viewers love the stuff.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
In sane America it blew over a long long time ago.
The only people paying attention to this now are the same ~25% that think Obama was born in Kenya, ACA has a "death panels" provision, and that Cliven Bundy is something other than a racist welfare queen.
Last edited by a moderator:
They were underscoring the protests when they already knew that Benghazi wasn't a protest, but a coordinated strike. That is why it is a smoking gun.It shows that the direction to mislead came from the White House.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
It would be nice to approach this objectively.
I think there was some incompetence from the administration, then some embarrassment in terms of answering questions.... which fueled opponents.
Ayotte is not at all a Cruz type, she appears to genuinely care about the facts.
Frankly, I think we have had a president who is quite frequently out campaigning, or doing related events or work, and is simply out of pocket when a lot of stuff is going down and is insulated from real events and knowledge. This isn't just Obama, this has been going on more and more and more since Nixon, presidents get further away from real decision making, and have become more brands that raise money.
We have the decision to send out Rice - yes she was being slated for SOS but she had zero knowledge of the facts on the ground, she was handed a talking points memo. She should not have been the one out explaining things, Hillary should have been or someone in a position of knowledge and responsibility under her.
Obama continued to push the video/spontaneous protest line for a while after this happened, and really it looks more and more like incompetence, a dichotomy between policy and politics, the policy and intelligence arms did not penetrate the campaign people writing the speeches.
Obama personally promised vengeance on the perpetrators to the family members - this was a personal commitment and it was apparently a completely false promise made up on the spot for political reasons. That's a shame.
As for the guy who made the movie, "Innocence of the Muslims", I think it's a shame he was put in jail for this. I realize he had a court order to stay off a computer because of his fraud conviction, yada yada, but let's face it he was just speaking freely about his view of islam. What the USA did by jailing him for this was and is wrong.
This is also a big concern or should be for liberals, progressives and conservatives alike:
Just forget about Libya for a second and think about the NSA's domestic spying program - the NSA should not be remotely concerned or interested in politics. Their job is intelligence and protecting America. We cannot have an agency collecting our personal data interested in any way in political issues or balances at home, IMO this is very dangerous.
Last edited by a moderator:
Chaka
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Hang 10
Footballguy
You don't think concocting a false narrative to cover up the truth about a failed policy for political reasons is a cover up?
Last edited by a moderator:
Apes with Guns
Footballguy
i saw some people on facebook who added Benghazi to their names. did something big happen, or are they just cray?
Eephus
Footballguy
Sand
Footballguy
Or maybe CBS News?cstu said:
Not confusing - intelligence people right after this thing tell the admin that it was terrorism and not a mob protest. White House then invents and promulgates the story about protests over some obscure video.cstu said:
I'd still like to see the raw emails on this, though.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
You are either insane or not paying attention. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and go with the latter.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I cannot understand why someone/anyone would object to Congress requesting emails from the WH.
I also cannot understand any good reason why the WH would fail to produce an email that turned up in a separate FOIA request by another group much later in time.
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
It makes me sick how the GOP Congress cut funding for the State Department budget. Unbelievable how little they care about American life.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
The point the administration makes about funding for the embassy/security is a good one.
Since the attacks on the embassies in the late 90's at least I don't understand how we could underprotect any embassy/consulate anywhere. How many people did we have defending it? like 7 or 10 or something like that? Ridiculous, we shouldn't have to rely on air support on the other side of the Med to defend a consulate. That one is on Congress.
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
Sand
Footballguy
Ookie Pringle
Footballguy
The White House knew it wasn't due to the video the night of the attack. What's insane is those that actually think the video caused the attack.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Thomas Morell, acting director of the CIA, testified under oath that the White House did not "make any substantive changes to the talking points".
The only one inventing stuff is you.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Ookie Pringle
Footballguy
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
Ookie Pringle
Footballguy
Sand
Footballguy
"the Sept. 14, 2012, email shows that White House Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes advised Rice to focus on a YouTube video as the cause of a spontaneous protest, though transcripts have since been revealed to show that senior defense officials had informed the administration on the night of the event that the assault was a terrorist attack."
I guess they shouldn't have left a paper trail, huh?
3C's
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Still not seeing the problem, Sand. Why couldn't they have believed it was a terrorist attack, yet that it had been caused by the video? (That's actually what I supposed directly afterwards.)
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Gunz, just have an open mind and read the email from Rhodes, page 14 here:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/1919_production-4-17-14.pdf#page=14
Rhodes is with the NSA.
Now look at the "Goals" at the top of the email.
I don't know that the administration had to tweak anything if the NSA had already framed it in a political manner.
I said this earlier but I said it again - the NSA should not be involved in politics whatsoever but here they clearly are. If they start with a slate of stated goals they then then proceed to prepare talking points to fit those goals. Rice received a political briefing, not an intelligence briefing.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ookie Pringle
Footballguy
Anyone that thinks that video caused an attack like that with all the threats that led up to the attack is delusional.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Those senior defense officials signed off on Rice's talking points and testified under oath that the WH did not make any substantive changes.
You're trying to invent a boogie man that doesn't exist. It's beyond silly at this point.
timschochet
Footballguy
Those who want to dismiss the video, or accuse the White House of fabricating the video story, seem to forget that there were literally dozens of protests going on that day because of that video, and all of them seemingly directed at American embassies within the Arab world. And these weren't exactly the most peaceful protests either: burning the American flag, shouting "Death to the USA"- in several places, police had to disperse people who actually tried to get into the embassy.
Given these facts, can we really blame the White House for assuming that the video had something to do with this? Wouldn't you?
Given these facts, can we really blame the White House for assuming that the video had something to do with this? Wouldn't you?
timschochet
Footballguy
I guess I'm delusional then, because given everything that happened that day (all of the other protests) it made sense to me then and still does.
Ookie Pringle
Footballguy
What about the fact they expressed their concerns about safety prior to those protests?
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
It's even bigger than that tim. Everything Rice said on MTPress, This Week, etc. was signed off on by ALL of the intelligence agencies. They read the talking points and approved.
Again, this is beyond silly.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Look at the email at pages 56-57. - It's clearly stated they don't know that it was connected to the video. As to whether it was an "organized terrorist attack," bottom of page 56 it clearly states that it was "a complex attack."
http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/1919_production-4-17-14.pdf#page=14
Last edited by a moderator:
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Which is probably why Rice issued caveat after caveat along the lines of "to the best of our knowledge"....."based on what we know now" etc.
Ookie Pringle
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Again, I'm not seeing how believing that it resulted from the video meant that it was not a terrorist attack. I don't see it as an "either-or" situation.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Read the email. Rice - using the memo provided by Rhodes (note my post above) - does go on the show and ascribe the attack to the video, but they did not have that information. She did not have to do that.
As I said read my post further up. To me we have a systemic problem with the NSA getting into politics which to me is worse than what Obama is accused of, but this all starts with that briefing from Rhodes.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
OK. Now here is the part that I might agree with you on: is it possible that, given the fact that President Obama was right in the middle of re-election, and that the defeat of al-Qaeda as an effective terrorist organization was one of his selling points, that his administration was extremely careful in how they chose to characterize this attack? That they deliberately parsed words, calling it in Obama's speech an "act of terror" but never acknowledging that it was an "organized terrorist attack"? And that they might have done this for political reasons?
My answer is yes, of course that's possible. And it wouldn't surprise me. This sort of thing is typical in politics. And while it's not good, it's not that big a deal either. And it has no bearing on the accusation that somehow President Obama was either complicit in or was otherwise responsible for the attack, which is the point that some conservatives seem to want to believe.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Gunz, look at this objectively, this is what Rice said:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/49051097/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/t/september-benjamin-netanyahu-susan-rice-keith-ellison-peter-king-bob-woodward-jeffrey-goldberg-andrea-mitchell/#.U2F671c69JI
Ookie Pringle
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
What do you think happened here, Ookie? Go ahead and speculate. What crime do you believe President Obama and his administration are guilty of?
Ookie Pringle
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
There is a lot of noise that has gone on around this.
There are criticisms and lessons learned for all around:
We should have had many more men guarding the consulate. Blame it on Congress' cuts or State.
Rice who had no knowledge and involvement in the area went out and parroted what was given her
The NSA is involved on the political side of things, which is not good for the country or anyone.
The NSA also has its own stake in this - they are compromised, because they did not have the intelligence, they failed and so they have a stake in framing this as a video issue, because that let's them off the hook. - Think about that.
I've come around on this, but I do think we have incompetence on the administration here, yet I also don't see the manipulation of details by the Obama team to fit their campaign themes, which on the face of things might have made sense. As a nation unfortunately this reveals even bigger systemic problems.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
