U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in Rocket Attack (2 Viewers)

[timschochet]

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?

What about the fact they expressed their concerns about safety prior to those protests?

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.

Of course you aren't seeing it.

What do you think happened here, Ookie? Go ahead and speculate. What crime do you believe President Obama and his administration are guilty of?

Lying. They do it quite well.

What specifically do you think they lied about, why did they lie about it, and what do you think should happen as a result?

 

[timschochet]

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.)

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

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.

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.

I just don't see any of this as the big deal that you do. Some mischaracterizations, a few screw-ups, probably some people in the State Department or the NSA covering their butts afterwards- none of this is particularly unusual nor does it suggest bigger issues.

I honestly think the reason that this became a big story (and still is in certain circles), is because the conservative movement in this country hates President Obama so much, they were looking for ANYTHING to pin on him. Obama is a more honest sort than Clinton was, so they don't have all the little sleazy things to attack Obama with the way they did with Clinton (Whitewater, Vince Foster, Travelgate, FBI Files, etc.). So they struggled to find something they could grab onto. Fast and Furious? That went nowhere, and anyway Bush started it. The Birther nonsense? Too extreme for most reasonable people, and it fizzled quickly as well. But Benghazi was better- there were open questions, and ways to accuse the White House of conspiracy. And now we also have the IRS scandal too, and also the NSA. But the purpose of all of this is the same- get Obama! Pin this on Obama, destroy his Presidency, impeach him or make him resign in disgrace- that is the ultimate goal.

 

[tommyGunZ]

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.)

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

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.

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.

How is the NSA getting into politics? Attempting to cover your agency's ### isn't inherently political, it's the very nature of virtually every job in any industry.

ALL of the intelligence agencies approved the talkign points Saints. All of them.

 

[Lutherman2112]

From The Corner at National Review Online:

Krauthammer’s right that what we have here was obvious all along: On the totality of the evidence, the White House took the intelligence community and diplomatic community’s estimate, which was relatively uncertain, bereft of much detail, and turned out days later to be quite wrong, and played up certain parts of it to avoid questions about their counterterror strategy and the situation in Libya. That isn’t being as straightforward with the American public as they could or probably should have been; it’s also not a lie or a cover-up. Whether what we have adds up to the “serious offense” Krauthammer calls it is a subjective judgment — what’s not subjective is the facts we have.

That's the concluding paragraph of the piece entitled: What the New Benghazi E-mails Show, and What They Don’t

Please take some time to read the article and check the links.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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.)

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

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.

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.

I just don't see any of this as the big deal that you do. Some mischaracterizations, a few screw-ups, probably some people in the State Department or the NSA covering their butts afterwards- none of this is particularly unusual nor does it suggest bigger issues.

I honestly think the reason that this became a big story (and still is in certain circles), is because the conservative movement in this country hates President Obama so much, they were looking for ANYTHING to pin on him. Obama is a more honest sort than Clinton was, so they don't have all the little sleazy things to attack Obama with the way they did with Clinton (Whitewater, Vince Foster, Travelgate, FBI Files, etc.). So they struggled to find something they could grab onto. Fast and Furious? That went nowhere, and anyway Bush started it. The Birther nonsense? Too extreme for most reasonable people, and it fizzled quickly as well. But Benghazi was better- there were open questions, and ways to accuse the White House of conspiracy. And now we also have the IRS scandal too, and also the NSA. But the purpose of all of this is the same- get Obama! Pin this on Obama, destroy his Presidency, impeach him or make him resign in disgrace- that is the ultimate goal.

I think my point was that we have had some failures on this and the "controversies" that have been raised have caused everyone to miss some key points about what happened in what was and continues to be a very tragic situation. The end result is that we have learned nothing that can help us prevent this kind of thing in the future.

Hillary was wrong, it very much matters.

I will add as I said it's a shame the perpetrators have not been brought to justice and that the maker of the video is in jail for what is essentially in this country free speech.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

From The Corner at National Review Online:

Krauthammer’s right that what we have here was obvious all along: On the totality of the evidence, the White House took the intelligence community and diplomatic community’s estimate, which was relatively uncertain, bereft of much detail, and turned out days later to be quite wrong, and played up certain parts of it to avoid questions about their counterterror strategy and the situation in Libya. That isn’t being as straightforward with the American public as they could or probably should have been; it’s also not a lie or a cover-up. Whether what we have adds up to the “serious offense” Krauthammer calls it is a subjective judgment — what’s not subjective is the facts we have.

That's the concluding paragraph of the piece entitled: What the New Benghazi E-mails Show, and What They Don’t

Please take some time to read the article and check the links.

I agree.

And I agree with this:

... “pushing the video” was playing up a questionable and politically convenient unclassified intelligence assessment after a horrible tragedy, not making something up or engaging in a cover-up. The most straightforward thing, if the White House eschewed all political considerations, would have been to say it was a horrible event, heavily armed terrorists were involved, and an investigation was under way. Nothing more was known for sure.

 

[Dr Oadi]

BeNGHAzZZIIIIiiIIIiI!!,!,!!!!!!

 

[Dr Oadi]

This is apparently the smoking gun:

In the email, Rhodes says Rice should “underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."

He also says the White House hoped the appearance would “reinforce the president and administration's strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges."

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/204771-gop-lawmakers-smoking-gun-e-mails-show-benghazi-story-shaped#ixzz30Lh4E8JJ

Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

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.

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.

No one cares. Deal with it.

 

[tommyGunZ]

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.)

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

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.

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.

I just don't see any of this as the big deal that you do. Some mischaracterizations, a few screw-ups, probably some people in the State Department or the NSA covering their butts afterwards- none of this is particularly unusual nor does it suggest bigger issues.

I honestly think the reason that this became a big story (and still is in certain circles), is because the conservative movement in this country hates President Obama so much, they were looking for ANYTHING to pin on him. Obama is a more honest sort than Clinton was, so they don't have all the little sleazy things to attack Obama with the way they did with Clinton (Whitewater, Vince Foster, Travelgate, FBI Files, etc.). So they struggled to find something they could grab onto. Fast and Furious? That went nowhere, and anyway Bush started it. The Birther nonsense? Too extreme for most reasonable people, and it fizzled quickly as well. But Benghazi was better- there were open questions, and ways to accuse the White House of conspiracy. And now we also have the IRS scandal too, and also the NSA. But the purpose of all of this is the same- get Obama! Pin this on Obama, destroy his Presidency, impeach him or make him resign in disgrace- that is the ultimate goal.

I think my point was that we have had some failures on this and the "controversies" that have been raised have caused everyone to miss some key points about what happened in what was and continues to be a very tragic situation. The end result is that we have learned nothing that can help us prevent this kind of thing in the future.

Hillary was wrong, it very much matters.

I will add as I said it's a shame the perpetrators have not been brought to justice and that the maker of the video is in jail for what is essentially in this country free speech.

Funny that you basically reiterate exactly Hillary's point, while repeating the out of context FoxNews talking point "It doesn't matter".

"It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator."

Isn't that EXACTLY what we should focus on?

 

[Dr Oadi]

Phony scandal.

 

[rockaction]

Phony scandal.

I guess when the head of the AP, John King, and others are calling for more information, we're all right-wing idiots.

Judicial Watch FOIA = idiot.

Think Progress = thank God that's over.

Why don't we all sit back and wait? That's all I ask.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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.)

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

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.

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.

I just don't see any of this as the big deal that you do. Some mischaracterizations, a few screw-ups, probably some people in the State Department or the NSA covering their butts afterwards- none of this is particularly unusual nor does it suggest bigger issues.

I honestly think the reason that this became a big story (and still is in certain circles), is because the conservative movement in this country hates President Obama so much, they were looking for ANYTHING to pin on him. Obama is a more honest sort than Clinton was, so they don't have all the little sleazy things to attack Obama with the way they did with Clinton (Whitewater, Vince Foster, Travelgate, FBI Files, etc.). So they struggled to find something they could grab onto. Fast and Furious? That went nowhere, and anyway Bush started it. The Birther nonsense? Too extreme for most reasonable people, and it fizzled quickly as well. But Benghazi was better- there were open questions, and ways to accuse the White House of conspiracy. And now we also have the IRS scandal too, and also the NSA. But the purpose of all of this is the same- get Obama! Pin this on Obama, destroy his Presidency, impeach him or make him resign in disgrace- that is the ultimate goal.

I think my point was that we have had some failures on this and the "controversies" that have been raised have caused everyone to miss some key points about what happened in what was and continues to be a very tragic situation. The end result is that we have learned nothing that can help us prevent this kind of thing in the future.

Hillary was wrong, it very much matters.

I will add as I said it's a shame the perpetrators have not been brought to justice and that the maker of the video is in jail for what is essentially in this country free speech.

Funny that you basically reiterate exactly Hillary's point, while repeating the out of context FoxNews talking point "It doesn't matter".

"It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator."

Isn't that EXACTLY what we should focus on?

It is impossible to do a lessons learned for anything unless the lesson is learned. The only way to prepare for the future is realize what was done wrong in the past.

Hillary Clinton is the same woman who stashed legal billing records in a White House closet while claiming for years they had been shredded.

 

[greenroom]

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?

What about the fact they expressed their concerns about safety prior to those protests?

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.

Of course you aren't seeing it.

What do you think happened here, Ookie? Go ahead and speculate. What crime do you believe President Obama and his administration are guilty of?

Lying. They do it quite well.

Show me any politician that is not lying. hint they all do and all do it well!!

 

[rct]

Hillary Clinton is the same woman who stashed legal billing records in a White House closet while claiming for years they had been shredded.

That definitely sounds worse than Benghazi (probably even Watergate). Why wasn't there a special prosecutor for that? Did Ken Starr have too much on his plate to look into this felony along with all of Hillary's numerous other crimes?

 

[Ookie Pringle]

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?

What about the fact they expressed their concerns about safety prior to those protests?

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.

Of course you aren't seeing it.

What do you think happened here, Ookie? Go ahead and speculate. What crime do you believe President Obama and his administration are guilty of?

Lying. They do it quite well.

Show me any politician that is not lying. hint they all do and all do it well!!

Tell that to some of those that don't think Obama has ever lied. Tim and Gunz are two of them.

 

[pizzatyme]

It's frustrating to me that many can't put political views aside and look at this objectively. The mere fact that it is still ongoing should be cause for alarm. Instead, we resort to "everybody lies", etc.

Americans died that night. Seems reasonable that we should get to the bottom of what was known. Who enjoys possibly being lied to?

Some things are beyond party lines. I believe this is one of them.

 

[timschochet]

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?

What about the fact they expressed their concerns about safety prior to those protests?

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.

Of course you aren't seeing it.

What do you think happened here, Ookie? Go ahead and speculate. What crime do you believe President Obama and his administration are guilty of?

Lying. They do it quite well.

Show me any politician that is not lying. hint they all do and all do it well!!

Tell that to some of those that don't think Obama has ever lied. Tim and Gunz are two of them.

Can't speak for Gunz, but Obama has certainly lied IMO on several occasions. That being said, I find him to be more truthful, as a general rule, than his predecessor.

 

[timschochet]

It's frustrating to me that many can't put political views aside and look at this objectively. The mere fact that it is still ongoing should be cause for alarm. Instead, we resort to "everybody lies", etc.

Americans died that night. Seems reasonable that we should get to the bottom of what was known. Who enjoys possibly being lied to?

Some things are beyond party lines. I believe this is one of them.

But your statement is in itself a partisan position, Pizzatyme. I have tried to look at this situation objectively. I read what the White House and State Department has said and came to the conclusion that there really isn't anything more substantial to learn about this. When you write "it is still ongoing", that IMO only means that Republicans in Congress, for political reasons, won't let it go. But they should.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

It's frustrating to me that many can't put political views aside and look at this objectively. The mere fact that it is still ongoing should be cause for alarm. Instead, we resort to "everybody lies", etc.

Americans died that night. Seems reasonable that we should get to the bottom of what was known. Who enjoys possibly being lied to?

Some things are beyond party lines. I believe this is one of them.

I have tried to look at this situation objectively.

 

[Stinger Ray]

Interesting to hear what Obama said one week after the attack.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/30/what_the_president_said_about_benghazi_116299.html

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Interesting to hear what Obama said one week after the attack.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/30/what_the_president_said_about_benghazi_116299.html

This is astounding.

It's been established.

Obama kept repeating the "video theme" 2 weeks after.

I am willing to accept that he was just that clueless though, he's constantly campaigning. He skips defense briefings, he was fundraising when the sht went down, he's constantly fundraising.

Btw - this is Obama:

the prophet Muhammad

Is that really necessary?

 

[MaxThreshold]

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?

What about the fact they expressed their concerns about safety prior to those protests?

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.

Of course you aren't seeing it.

What do you think happened here, Ookie? Go ahead and speculate. What crime do you believe President Obama and his administration are guilty of?

Lying. They do it quite well.

Show me any politician that is not lying. hint they all do and all do it well!!

Tell that to some of those that don't think Obama has ever lied. Tim and Gunz are two of them.

Can't speak for Gunz, but Obama has certainly lied IMO on several occasions. That being said, I find him to be more truthful, as a general rule, than his predecessor.

So...he's a more truthful liar?

 

[tommyGunZ]

It's frustrating to me that many can't put political views aside and look at this objectively. The mere fact that it is still ongoing should be cause for alarm. Instead, we resort to "everybody lies", etc.

Americans died that night. Seems reasonable that we should get to the bottom of what was known. Who enjoys possibly being lied to?

Some things are beyond party lines. I believe this is one of them.

. LOL. A tragedy no doubt, but let's keep things in perspective. Remember when Bush and Cheney fought against the 9/11 commission and investigation?

 

[pizzatyme]

It's frustrating to me that many can't put political

views aside and look at this objectively. The mere fact that it is still ongoing should be cause for alarm. Instead, we resort to "everybody lies", etc.

Americans died that night. Seems reasonable that we should get to the bottom of what was known. Who enjoys possibly being lied to?

Some things are beyond party lines. I believe this is one of them.

But your statement is in itself a partisan position, Pizzatyme. I have tried to look at this situation objectively. I read what the White House and State Department has said and came to the conclusion that there really isn't anything more substantial to learn about this. When you write "it is still ongoing", that IMO only means that Republicans in Congress, for political reasons, won't let it go. But they should.

Tim, have you watched the press conference where Jay Carney danced around the ABC reporter's questions? That ABC reporter is not a republican congressman. And there are more than Republican congressmen still inquiring. My statement was far from partisan.

And for you to say that there's nothing more to learn. How can you possibly know that??? There is #### still coming out like this email.

 

[MaxThreshold]

It's frustrating to me that many can't put political views aside and look at this objectively. The mere fact that it is still ongoing should be cause for alarm. Instead, we resort to "everybody lies", etc.

Americans died that night. Seems reasonable that we should get to the bottom of what was known. Who enjoys possibly being lied to?

Some things are beyond party lines. I believe this is one of them.

. LOL. A tragedy no doubt, but let's keep things in perspective. Remember when Bush and Cheney fought against the 9/11 commission and investigation?

Hah-hah! It's funny that Americans died! Let's ignore it!

 

[pizzatyme]

It's frustrating to me that many can't put political views aside and look at this objectively. The

mere fact that it is still ongoing should be cause for alarm. Instead, we resort to "everybody lies", etc.

Americans died that night. Seems reasonable that we should get to the bottom of what was known. Who enjoys possibly being lied to?

Some things are beyond party lines. I believe this is one of them.

. LOL. A tragedy no doubt, but let's keep things in perspective. Remember when Bush and Cheney fought against the 9/11 commission and investigation?

What is there to laugh about? Did I say Bush and Cheney were in the right?Don't deflect. Both sides should be accountable. PERIOD.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Interesting to hear what Obama said one week after the attack.http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/30/what_the_president_said_about_benghazi_116299.html

This is astounding.

It's been established.

Obama kept repeating the "video theme" 2 weeks after.

I am willing to accept that he was just that clueless though, he's constantly campaigning. He skips defense briefings, he was fundraising when the sht went down, he's constantly fundraising.

Btw - this is Obama:

the prophet Muhammad

Is that really necessary?

Again, you have the benefit of hindsight. This wasn't settled two weeks after the fact.

 

[FlapJacks]

We should have had many more men guarding the consulate. Blame it on Congress' cuts

all of the stuff that they waste money on and they cut security at the US embassy in one of the hottest hot spots in the world? I'm sorry, but that one excuse that was put forth may be the weakest excuse for a screw-up ever put forth by any administration in my lifetime and its troublesome that there's people shameless enough to say things like that.

 

[MaxThreshold]

We should have had many more men guarding the consulate. Blame it on Congress' cuts

all of the stuff that they waste money on and they cut security at the US embassy in one of the hottest hot spots in the world? I'm sorry, but that one excuse that was put forth may be the weakest excuse for a screw-up ever put forth by any administration in my lifetime and its troublesome that there's people shameless enough to say things like that.

According to CrazyToddAndrews, it was the GOP Congress. Not sure which GOP Congress he's talking about, though.

 

[FlapJacks]

I honestly think the reason that this became a big story (and still is in certain circles), is because the conservative movement in this country hates President Obama so much, they were looking for ANYTHING to pin on him. blah blah blah blah

I wouldn't be surprised if Mrs Clinton wasn't orchestrating the cover story while the President was busy campaigning

 

[Stinger Ray]

Interesting to hear what Obama said one week after the attack.http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/30/what_the_president_said_about_benghazi_116299.html

This is astounding.

It's been established.

Obama kept repeating the "video theme" 2 weeks after.

I am willing to accept that he was just that clueless though, he's constantly campaigning. He skips defense briefings, he was fundraising when the sht went down, he's constantly fundraising.

Btw - this is Obama:

the prophet Muhammad

Is that really necessary?

Again, you have the benefit of hindsight. This wasn't settled two weeks after the fact.

Huh? Obama was still using the video excuse when they knew it wasn't the truth.

 

[tommyGunZ]

It's frustrating to me that many can't put political views aside and look at this objectively. The

mere fact that it is still ongoing should be cause for alarm. Instead, we resort to "everybody lies", etc.

Americans died that night. Seems reasonable that we should get to the bottom of what was known. Who enjoys possibly being lied to?

Some things are beyond party lines. I believe this is one of them.

. LOL. A tragedy no doubt, but let's keep things in perspective. Remember when Bush and Cheney fought against the 9/11 commission and investigation?

What is there to laugh about? Did I say Bush and Cheney were in the right?Don't deflect. Both sides should be accountable. PERIOD.

We had hearings and investigations dude. There is no conspiracy. Get over it.

 

[Stinger Ray]

It's frustrating to me that many can't put political views aside and look at this objectively. The

mere fact that it is still ongoing should be cause for alarm. Instead, we resort to "everybody lies", etc.

Americans died that night. Seems reasonable that we should get to the bottom of what was known. Who enjoys possibly being lied to?

Some things are beyond party lines. I believe this is one of them.

. LOL. A tragedy no doubt, but let's keep things in perspective. Remember when Bush and Cheney fought against the 9/11 commission and investigation?

What is there to laugh about? Did I say Bush and Cheney were in the right?Don't deflect. Both sides should be accountable. PERIOD.

We had hearings and investigations dude. There is no conspiracy. Get over it.

The gift that keeps on giving

 

[FlapJacks]

It's frustrating to me that many can't put political views aside and look at this objectively. The mere fact that it is still ongoing should be cause for alarm. Instead, we resort to "everybody lies", etc.

Americans died that night. Seems reasonable that we should get to the bottom of what was known. Who enjoys possibly being lied to?

Some things are beyond party lines. I believe this is one of them.

But your statement is in itself a partisan position, Pizzatyme. I have tried to look at this situation objectively. I read what the White House and State Department has said and came to the conclusion that there really isn't anything more substantial to learn about this. When you write "it is still ongoing", that IMO only means that Republicans in Congress, for political reasons, won't let it go. But they should.

so Tim, why did we keep cutting back security in Benghazi? Stevens wanted more, UK evacuated and we cut back security....Just seems out of place...if you seem to know everything then explain this.

and don't posit the money excuse, because that would be like me telling my boss I didn't get a huge project done because I was too busy logging my hours and getting coffee for the office

 

[FlapJacks]

It's frustrating to me that many can't put political views aside and look at this objectively. The

mere fact that it is still ongoing should be cause for alarm. Instead, we resort to "everybody lies", etc.

Americans died that night. Seems reasonable that we should get to the bottom of what was known. Who enjoys possibly being lied to?

Some things are beyond party lines. I believe this is one of them.

. LOL. A tragedy no doubt, but let's keep things in perspective. Remember when Bush and Cheney foughtagainst the 9/11 commission and investigation?

What is there to laugh about? Did I say Bush and Cheney were in the right?Don't deflect. Both sides should be accountable. PERIOD.

We had hearings and investigations dude. There is no conspiracy. Get over it.

you're adorable

 

[timschochet]

It's frustrating to me that many can't put political views aside and look at this objectively. The mere fact that it is still ongoing should be cause for alarm. Instead, we resort to "everybody lies", etc.

Americans died that night. Seems reasonable that we should get to the bottom of what was known. Who enjoys possibly being lied to?

Some things are beyond party lines. I believe this is one of them.

But your statement is in itself a partisan position, Pizzatyme. I have tried to look at this situation objectively. I read what the White House and State Department has said and came to the conclusion that there really isn't anything more substantial to learn about this. When you write "it is still ongoing", that IMO only means that Republicans in Congress, for political reasons, won't let it go. But they should.

so Tim, why did we keep cutting back security in Benghazi? Stevens wanted more, UK evacuated and we cut back security....Just seems out of place...if you seem to know everything then explain this.

and don't posit the money excuse, because that would be like me telling my boss I didn't get a huge project done because I was too busy logging my hours and getting coffee for the office

I'd much rather hear your explanation. Why do YOU think we kept cutting back security?

 

[FlapJacks]

It's frustrating to me that many can't put political views aside and look at this objectively. The mere fact that it is still ongoing should be cause for alarm. Instead, we resort to "everybody lies", etc.

Americans died that night. Seems reasonable that we should get to the bottom of what was known. Who enjoys possibly being lied to?

Some things are beyond party lines. I believe this is one of them.

But your statement is in itself a partisan position, Pizzatyme. I have tried to look at this situation objectively. I read what the White House and State Department has said and came to the conclusion that there really isn't anything more substantial to learn about this. When you write "it is still ongoing", that IMO only means that Republicans in Congress, for political reasons, won't let it go. But they should.

so Tim, why did we keep cutting back security in Benghazi? Stevens wanted more, UK evacuated and we cut back security....Just seems out of place...if you seem to know everything then explain this.

and don't posit the money excuse, because that would be like me telling my boss I didn't get a huge project done because I was too busy logging my hours and getting coffee for the office

I'd much rather hear your explanation. Why do YOU think we kept cutting back security?

I have no clue, but should think we should get to the root cause of this colossal #### up. If we don't learn from history, we're bound to repeat it; and we don't need a repeat of this....

 

[Slapdash]

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.)

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

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.

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.

I just don't see any of this as the big deal that you do. Some mischaracterizations, a few screw-ups, probably some people in the State Department or the NSA covering their butts afterwards- none of this is particularly unusual nor does it suggest bigger issues.

This type of nonchalant attitude towards the problems Saints described is part of the reason we allow them to grow even larger.

 

[timschochet]

I have no idea either. I assume that somebody screwed up. I also assume it was on a much lower level than the Presidency or the Secretary of State. I strongly doubt they are in charge of deciding how much to spend on an embassy.

 

[timschochet]

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.)

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

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.

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.

I just don't see any of this as the big deal that you do. Some mischaracterizations, a few screw-ups, probably some people in the State Department or the NSA covering their butts afterwards- none of this is particularly unusual nor does it suggest bigger issues.

This type of nonchalant attitude towards the problems Saints described is part of the reason we allow them to grow even larger.

And I think you and he look way too much for deliberate action rather than simply assume there's going to be a certain level of chaos. Which is why we keep disagreeing so much on these sorts of issues.

 

[cstu]

This is apparently the smoking gun:

In the email, Rhodes says Rice should “underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."

He also says the White House hoped the appearance would “reinforce the president and administration's strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges."

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/204771-gop-lawmakers-smoking-gun-e-mails-show-benghazi-story-shaped#ixzz30Lh4E8JJ

Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

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.

You don't think concocting a false narrative to cover up the truth about a failed policy for political reasons is a cover up?

If they knew for a fact at the time that it was a premeditated attack then it would be a cover up, but I don't believe they knew anything for sure. The administration made an initial statement that made them look good, but as information came out that it was in fact a planned attack they didn't try to hide that fact.

 

[FlapJacks]

I have no idea either. I assume that somebody screwed up. I also assume it was on a much lower level than the Presidency or the Secretary of State. I strongly doubt they are in charge of deciding how much to spend on an embassy.

Consider how high profile the Libya situation was, and that the Ambassador was requesting more security, do you think the top level officials should have had a more active role?

 

[pizzatyme]

I have no idea either. I assume that somebody screwed up. I also assume it was on a much lower level than the Presidency or the Secretary of State. I strongly doubt they are in charge of deciding how much to spend on an embassy.

Well, of course not Tim. However, is it reasonable to expect that the POTUS and SoS know what the top 50 "hot spots" are in the world as it relates to security concerns? And wouldn't it stand to reason that they give a directive to secure such places?

If 20 Secret Service called in sick one day on White House duty, do you think the POTUS or SoS would be aware of this?

A hot spot was left under protected, then disaster happened and talking heads rolled out the internet video theory knowing full well that's not what it was. The talking points were a joke. I'd expect any reasonable person to be pissed about this and how it played out. Not trying to brush it under the rug or "LOL" conversation about it.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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.)

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

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.

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.

I just don't see any of this as the big deal that you do. Some mischaracterizations, a few screw-ups, probably some people in the State Department or the NSA covering their butts afterwards- none of this is particularly unusual nor does it suggest bigger issues.

This type of nonchalant attitude towards the problems Saints described is part of the reason we allow them to grow even larger.

And I think you and he look way too much for deliberate action rather than simply assume there's going to be a certain level of chaos. Which is why we keep disagreeing so much on these sorts of issues.

Two weeks later?

The president was still repeating this idiocy about the video 2 weeks later. Look I'm not in the "deliberate lie" camp but It's one thing for Rice to be repeating lines from a talking points memo, it's a whole other for the President to be doing so and to keep on doing so for 2 weeks more.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Interesting to hear what Obama said one week after the attack.http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/30/what_the_president_said_about_benghazi_116299.html

This is astounding.

It's been established.

Obama kept repeating the "video theme" 2 weeks after.

I am willing to accept that he was just that clueless though, he's constantly campaigning. He skips defense briefings, he was fundraising when the sht went down, he's constantly fundraising.

Btw - this is Obama:

the prophet Muhammad

Is that really necessary?

Again, you have the benefit of hindsight. This wasn't settled two weeks after the fact.

Gunz look at the damn email - the actual email that the administration has provided - and you can see on 9/11 and 9/12 they were not internally definitely ascribing it to the video, at best you can say they were putting the whole thing "under investigation" but at no point did the President have any business personally saying it was definitely the video yet he said it repeatedly. I'm not talking conspiracy, I'm talking plain incompetence.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Remember in Dumb and Dumber when Lloyd closes his eyes, sticks his fingers in his ears and sings, "la la la," over and over to drown out something he doesn't want to hear? Yeah, that is GunZ right now.

 

[Dr Oadi]

It's frustrating to me that many can't put political

views aside and look at this objectively. The mere fact that it is still ongoing should be cause for alarm. Instead, we resort to "everybody lies", etc.

Americans died that night. Seems reasonable that we should get to the bottom of what was known. Who enjoys possibly being lied to?

Some things are beyond party lines. I believe this is one of them.

But your statement is in itself a partisan position, Pizzatyme. I have tried to look at this situation objectively. I read what the White House and State Department has said and came to the conclusion that there really isn't anything more substantial to learn about this. When you write "it is still ongoing", that IMO only means that Republicans in Congress, for political reasons, won't let it go. But they should.

Tim, have you watched the press conference where Jay Carney danced around the ABC reporter's questions? That ABC reporter is not a republican congressman. And there are more than Republican congressmen still inquiring. My statement was far from partisan.

And for you to say that there's nothing more to learn. How can you possibly know that??? There is #### still coming out like this email.

Let it go!!!! The science is settled

 

[DocHolliday]

Obama lied. Is this news any more? Will he win the biggest liar contest again this year?

 

[pantagrapher]

Have we impeached yet?

 

[Chaka]

I love how people pretend this is about something other than 1) trying to make Obama look bad and 2) trying to find something, ANYTHING, to make Hilary look bad in 2016.

Oh wait, I don't love it, I actually find it sad and pathetic.