U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in Rocket Attack (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

I am making three assumptions here:

1. When situations like this happen, there is a demand for instant answers from the government. But the government always gets conflicting information. The job of various people well below the executive level is to examine the conflicting information and come up with the answers. President Obama and Hillary Clinton are never going to examine all of the information themselves; they are going to turn to one or two trusted advisors, who are going to tell them what the facts likely are.

2. In this case, advisors to Obama and Clinton looked at the conflicting information and came to the conclusion that the video was connected to the Benghazi attack. As I have pointed out over and over again, this was a completely reasonable conclusion to make.

3. There were people, some of them high up and very important, who disagreed with this analysis. This accounts for the emails and statements that so many of you are harping on. But these people were in the minority, and it took some time, longer than 2 weeks after the attack, for the advisors to Obama and Clinton to reassess the matter and change their opinion. And that's what I think happened, completely consistent with the facts as we know them.

I realize that some of you don't want to hear this. It's much more interesting to believe that the administration knew all along, conclusively, that the video had nothing to do with it, and that they knowingly lied to the American public and the victims' families. But my analysis is much more likely, and I believe much closer to the truth.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

I am making three assumptions here:

1. When situations like this happen, there is a demand for instant answers from the government. But the government always gets conflicting information. The job of various people well below the executive level is to examine the conflicting information and come up with the answers. President Obama and Hillary Clinton are never going to examine all of the information themselves; they are going to turn to one or two trusted advisors, who are going to tell them what the facts likely are.

2. In this case, advisors to Obama and Clinton looked at the conflicting information and came to the conclusion that the video was connected to the Benghazi attack. As I have pointed out over and over again, this was a completely reasonable conclusion to make.

3. There were people, some of them high up and very important, who disagreed with this analysis. This accounts for the emails and statements that so many of you are harping on. But these people were in the minority, and it took some time, longer than 2 weeks after the attack, for the advisors to Obama and Clinton to reassess the matter and change their opinion. And that's what I think happened, completely consistent with the facts as we know them.

I realize that some of you don't want to hear this. It's much more interesting to believe that the administration knew all along, conclusively, that the video had nothing to do with it, and that they knowingly lied to the American public and the victims' families. But my analysis is much more likely, and I believe much closer to the truth.

Delusional

 

[timschochet]

I am making three assumptions here:

1. When situations like this happen, there is a demand for instant answers from the government. But the government always gets conflicting information. The job of various people well below the executive level is to examine the conflicting information and come up with the answers. President Obama and Hillary Clinton are never going to examine all of the information themselves; they are going to turn to one or two trusted advisors, who are going to tell them what the facts likely are.

2. In this case, advisors to Obama and Clinton looked at the conflicting information and came to the conclusion that the video was connected to the Benghazi attack. As I have pointed out over and over again, this was a completely reasonable conclusion to make.

3. There were people, some of them high up and very important, who disagreed with this analysis. This accounts for the emails and statements that so many of you are harping on. But these people were in the minority, and it took some time, longer than 2 weeks after the attack, for the advisors to Obama and Clinton to reassess the matter and change their opinion. And that's what I think happened, completely consistent with the facts as we know them.

I realize that some of you don't want to hear this. It's much more interesting to believe that the administration knew all along, conclusively, that the video had nothing to do with it, and that they knowingly lied to the American public and the victims' families. But my analysis is much more likely, and I believe much closer to the truth.

Delusional

OK, why? What do you have that would contradict this?

 

[timschochet]

For what I wrote above to be "delusional", you need to demonstrate:

1. There was a consensus at any time during the first two weeks among the State Department and administration officials that the video was not related to the attack.

2. There is evidence that President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton chose to deliberately lie to the American public and victims' families for political purposes.

If you have evidence of either of these points- an email, testimony, whatever- then it will repudiate everything I have written. But if all you have are certain people disagreeing with the consensus at the time then that proves nothing.

 

[tommyboy]

2. In this case, advisors to Obama and Clinton looked at the conflicting information and came to the conclusion that the video was connected to the Benghazi attack. As I have pointed out over and over again, this was a completely reasonable conclusion to make.

lets just focus on this one. What would a protest and riot in Egypt have to do with no protest and a coordinated/well organized 2-wave attack in Benghzi? Other than 9/11?

This was never a reasonable conclusion.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Just to clarify, do people believe that Obama still thought the attack was the result of the video 2 weeks after it happened?

I think the one alternative is that Obama is just that incompetent and consumed with personal p.r. and fundraising and he is just that disconnected from his job and removed from the facts underlying his own administration. And yes I think that's possible.

And it's possible with the gross prevarication that went on with the ACA and the insane "keep your policy and Dr & oh by the way your premiums will reduce by 2500" promises - the horrible, terrible possibility is that political people write stuff for Obama and he just goes out and parrots it. And while he may shape some policies or make some decisions he really knows nothing about what is really going on in his administration and he doesn't want to know because that's not his job, his job is to go sell what they tell him to sell. Now that is a scary thought, scarier than any conspiracy to me.

Umm, there are several other alternatives as well, one being that he believed it was LIKELY the video, because the State Department believed it, and because the conflicting information had not reached his level yet. I use the word "likely" because from the very beginning the administration stated publicly that while they thought the video was the source, they weren't 100% sure. And they also declared it an act of terror from the very beginning.Everything we know about President Obama indicated that when it comes to foreign affairs he has been extraordinary competent, from the killing of Osama Bin Laden, to the various trade deals, to the current negotiations with Iran. So I have no idea where you're getting your narrative, but it is demonstrably false.

The State Department DID NOT believe it was the video the night of the attack.

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2014/05/02/bombshell-state-dept-knew-benghazi-terrorist-attack/

Tim here's the email:

http://chaffetz.house.gov/sites/chaffetz.house.gov/files/US%20Department%20of%20State%20-%20Beth%20Jones%20emails_0.pdf

Jones was then-Assistant Secretary of State to Hillary Clinton. According to the email, Jones spoke to Libya’s Ambassador at 9:45am on Sept. 12, 2012 following the attacks.

“When [the Libyan Ambassador] said his government suspected that former Qaddafi regime elements carried out the attacks, I told him the group that conducted the attacks—Ansar Al Sharia—is affiliated with Islamic extremists,” Jones reports in the email.

“the extremist group Ansar Al Sharia has taken credit for the attack in Benghazi”

Dated September 11, 2012. This woman actually worked for Hillary Clinton, directly underneath.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Just to clarify, do people believe that Obama still thought the attack was the result of the video 2 weeks after it happened?

I think the one alternative is that Obama is just that incompetent and consumed with personal p.r. and fundraising and he is just that disconnected from his job and removed from the facts underlying his own administration. And yes I think that's possible.

And it's possible with the gross prevarication that went on with the ACA and the insane "keep your policy and Dr & oh by the way your premiums will reduce by 2500" promises - the horrible, terrible possibility is that political people write stuff for Obama and he just goes out and parrots it. And while he may shape some policies or make some decisions he really knows nothing about what is really going on in his administration and he doesn't want to know because that's not his job, his job is to go sell what they tell him to sell. Now that is a scary thought, scarier than any conspiracy to me.

Umm, there are several other alternatives as well, one being that he believed it was LIKELY the video, because the State Department believed it, and because the conflicting information had not reached his level yet. I use the word "likely" because from the very beginning the administration stated publicly that while they thought the video was the source, they weren't 100% sure. And they also declared it an act of terror from the very beginning.Everything we know about President Obama indicated that when it comes to foreign affairs he has been extraordinary competent, from the killing of Osama Bin Laden, to the various trade deals, to the current negotiations with Iran. So I have no idea where you're getting your narrative, but it is demonstrably false.

The State Department DID NOT believe it was the video the night of the attack.

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2014/05/02/bombshell-state-dept-knew-benghazi-terrorist-attack/

Tim here's the email:

http://chaffetz.house.gov/sites/chaffetz.house.gov/files/US%20Department%20of%20State%20-%20Beth%20Jones%20emails_0.pdf

Jones was then-Assistant Secretary of State to Hillary Clinton. According to the email, Jones spoke to Libya’s Ambassador at 9:45am on Sept. 12, 2012 following the attacks.

“When [the Libyan Ambassador] said his government suspected that former Qaddafi regime elements carried out the attacks, I told him the group that conducted the attacks—Ansar Al Sharia—is affiliated with Islamic extremists,” Jones reports in the email.

Dated September 11, 2012. This woman actually worked for Hillary Clinton, directly underneath.

How is this conclusive proof that the video wasn't involved?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Just to clarify, do people believe that Obama still thought the attack was the result of the video 2 weeks after it happened?

I think the one alternative is that Obama is just that incompetent and consumed with personal p.r. and fundraising and he is just that disconnected from his job and removed from the facts underlying his own administration. And yes I think that's possible.

And it's possible with the gross prevarication that went on with the ACA and the insane "keep your policy and Dr & oh by the way your premiums will reduce by 2500" promises - the horrible, terrible possibility is that political people write stuff for Obama and he just goes out and parrots it. And while he may shape some policies or make some decisions he really knows nothing about what is really going on in his administration and he doesn't want to know because that's not his job, his job is to go sell what they tell him to sell. Now that is a scary thought, scarier than any conspiracy to me.

Umm, there are several other alternatives as well, one being that he believed it was LIKELY the video, because the State Department believed it, and because the conflicting information had not reached his level yet. I use the word "likely" because from the very beginning the administration stated publicly that while they thought the video was the source, they weren't 100% sure. And they also declared it an act of terror from the very beginning.Everything we know about President Obama indicated that when it comes to foreign affairs he has been extraordinary competent, from the killing of Osama Bin Laden, to the various trade deals, to the current negotiations with Iran. So I have no idea where you're getting your narrative, but it is demonstrably false.

The State Department DID NOT believe it was the video the night of the attack.

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2014/05/02/bombshell-state-dept-knew-benghazi-terrorist-attack/

Tim here's the email:

http://chaffetz.house.gov/sites/chaffetz.house.gov/files/US%20Department%20of%20State%20-%20Beth%20Jones%20emails_0.pdf

Jones was then-Assistant Secretary of State to Hillary Clinton. According to the email, Jones spoke to Libya’s Ambassador at 9:45am on Sept. 12, 2012 following the attacks.

“When [the Libyan Ambassador] said his government suspected that former Qaddafi regime elements carried out the attacks, I told him the group that conducted the attacks—Ansar Al Sharia—is affiliated with Islamic extremists,” Jones reports in the email.

Dated September 11, 2012. This woman actually worked for Hillary Clinton, directly underneath.

How is this conclusive proof that the video wasn't involved?

It's conclusive proof that a woman who was Assistant Secretary under SOS Clinton had already verified that it was a terrorist attack. They do not mention the video (ie the movie) because the video was not involved.

 

[Lutherman2112]

It's conclusive proof that a woman who was Assistant Secretary under SOS Clinton had already verified that it was a terrorist attack. They do not mention the video (ie the movie) because the video was not involved.

She didn't verify anything. She reported:

xxredactedxx said his team reports that the extremist group Ansar Al Sharia has taken credit for the attacks in Benghazi. He heard reports that the February 17 Brigade is currently engaged in a running battle with Ansar Al Sharia; he asked the offices of the President and PM to pursue Ansar Al Sharia.

That was dated September 11, 2012, 5:55 pm

And what followed at 6:07 pm on the same day?

A third email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time, carried the subject line: "Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack."

The message reported: "Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli."

 

[FlapJacks]

Tim, it's not like they had to make a guess here

They had multiple people/sources on the ground in Benghazi telling them what was happening. They had phone contact. I'm sure it didn't take long to get drone video within a a few days....

 

[D_House]

https://medium.com/the-nib/76367b337d53

 

[BigSteelThrill]

https://medium.com/the-nib/76367b337d53

The answer is always Benghazi.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

It's conclusive proof that a woman who was Assistant Secretary under SOS Clinton had already verified that it was a terrorist attack. They do not mention the video (ie the movie) because the video was not involved.

She didn't verify anything. She reported:

xxredactedxx said his team reports that the extremist group Ansar Al Sharia has taken credit for the attacks in Benghazi. He heard reports that the February 17 Brigade is currently engaged in a running battle with Ansar Al Sharia; he asked the offices of the President and PM to pursue Ansar Al Sharia.

That was dated September 11, 2012, 5:55 pm

And what followed at 6:07 pm on the same day?

A third email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time, carried the subject line: "Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack."

The message reported: "Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli."

Imagine that.

 

[-fish-]

This is pretty much my favorite thread here. Good work, fellas.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Just to clarify, do people believe that Obama still thought the attack was the result of the video 2 weeks after it happened?

I think the one alternative is that Obama is just that incompetent and consumed with personal p.r. and fundraising and he is just that disconnected from his job and removed from the facts underlying his own administration. And yes I think that's possible.

And it's possible with the gross prevarication that went on with the ACA and the insane "keep your policy and Dr & oh by the way your premiums will reduce by 2500" promises - the horrible, terrible possibility is that political people write stuff for Obama and he just goes out and parrots it. And while he may shape some policies or make some decisions he really knows nothing about what is really going on in his administration and he doesn't want to know because that's not his job, his job is to go sell what they tell him to sell. Now that is a scary thought, scarier than any conspiracy to me.

Umm, there are several other alternatives as well, one being that he believed it was LIKELY the video, because the State Department believed it, and because the conflicting information had not reached his level yet. I use the word "likely" because from the very beginning the administration stated publicly that while they thought the video was the source, they weren't 100% sure. And they also declared it an act of terror from the very beginning.Everything we know about President Obama indicated that when it comes to foreign affairs he has been extraordinary competent, from the killing of Osama Bin Laden, to the various trade deals, to the current negotiations with Iran. So I have no idea where you're getting your narrative, but it is demonstrably false.

The State Department DID NOT believe it was the video the night of the attack.

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2014/05/02/bombshell-state-dept-knew-benghazi-terrorist-attack/

Tim here's the email:

http://chaffetz.house.gov/sites/chaffetz.house.gov/files/US%20Department%20of%20State%20-%20Beth%20Jones%20emails_0.pdf

Jones was then-Assistant Secretary of State to Hillary Clinton. According to the email, Jones spoke to Libya’s Ambassador at 9:45am on Sept. 12, 2012 following the attacks.

“When [the Libyan Ambassador] said his government suspected that former Qaddafi regime elements carried out the attacks, I told him the group that conducted the attacks—Ansar Al Sharia—is affiliated with Islamic extremists,” Jones reports in the email.

Dated September 11, 2012. This woman actually worked for Hillary Clinton, directly underneath.

How is this conclusive proof that the video wasn't involved?

Or aliens...? Right? I mean, how does this prove that this wasn't the fault of extra terrestrial interference? I like where you're going with this T-Gunny!

 

[Ookie Pringle]

For what I wrote above to be "delusional", you need to demonstrate:

1. There was a consensus at any time during the first two weeks among the State Department and administration officials that the video was not related to the attack.

2. There is evidence that President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton chose to deliberately lie to the American public and victims' families for political purposes.

If you have evidence of either of these points- an email, testimony, whatever- then it will repudiate everything I have written. But if all you have are certain people disagreeing with the consensus at the time then that proves nothing.

You have and will continue to ignore the evidence and common sense about this. And show us statements from people that were directly involved that night that prove the consensus is that the video caused the attack. There are links to several military people and the head of the CIA in Libya that night that said the attack wasn't due to the video. You continue to ignore those that were the most closely involved to that night including people that watched that attack for 7 hours. I have yet to hear from anyone that witnessed that attack say the video had anything to do with it.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

This is pretty much my favorite thread here. Good work, fellas.

Only thing worse in the past five years were the Sarah Palin threads and Otis' diet/home improvement threads. But it's close.

 

[jamny]

Just to clarify, do people believe that Obama still thought the attack was the result of the video 2 weeks after it happened?

Yes, I absolutely believe this. There is no reason NOT to believe it. Even now, I have trouble believing that, given the large amount of protests that occurred the very same day, that the video was not a factor. If it wasn't, it has to be one of the most bizarre coincidences I have ever heard of.

Why would it have to be a coincidence? They could very well have used the confusion around the world regarding the video as cover for the attack. It might have bought them enough time very early on for the element of surprise. Hell, the whole video angle is so bizarre I wouldn't be shocked if Ansar Al Sharia was behind it's creation and whipped up the faux outrage in other parts of the world. Sadly and unfortunately, the US was caught off guard and responded poorly. I think in the days following there could easily be confusion over the event but I have a hard time believing that two weeks later the President still didn't know the cause. It's either lying or incompetence.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I think the Admin weaseled about "terrorist attack" for a few weeks, but that's what we're talking about here. Typical political chiseling for a short period of time.

You'd have thought that putting a Clinton at the center of an obvious show trial might seem like a bad idea to Republicans given how things played out with Bill in the 90s -- but what can you do? By the time the Republicans are done Hillary's approval rating might be in the 70s too. Turns out people recognize political grandstanding when they see it. All except The 25% that is.

Also, there are reports from the scene of the attacks the night it happened that some of the participants were referencing the video. But it looks like they were the 2nd wave in.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I think the Admin weaseled about "terrorist attack" for a few weeks, but that's what we're talking about here. Typical political chiseling for a short period of time.

You'd have thought that putting a Clinton at the center of an obvious show trial might seem like a bad idea to Republicans given how things played out with Bill in the 90s -- but what can you do? By the time the Republicans are done Hillary's approval rating might be in the 70s too. Turns out people recognize political grandstanding when they see it. All except The 25% that is.

Also, there are reports from the scene of the attacks the night it happened that some of the participants were referencing the video. But it looks like they were the 2nd wave in.

I think this is a fair post, the GOP is in danger of overreaching for sure. If they stick to fact finding they could and would be doing the right thing. They may not be able to restrain themselves, I think Demos being on the committee would be good for everyone.

Typical political chiseling for a short period of time.

If only the administration would concede this point. I think their defensiveness has helped lead everyone down this path. I was just watching CNN and the Demo Rep who appeared as a guest was without an answer as to why the most recent emails were withheld the first time. Deceptions cause major problems of distrust in relationships, regardless of the reason, same is true in politics.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It's conclusive proof that a woman who was Assistant Secretary under SOS Clinton had already verified that it was a terrorist attack. They do not mention the video (ie the movie) because the video was not involved.

She didn't verify anything. She reported:

xxredactedxx said his team reports that the extremist group Ansar Al Sharia has taken credit for the attacks in Benghazi. He heard reports that the February 17 Brigade is currently engaged in a running battle with Ansar Al Sharia; he asked the offices of the President and PM to pursue Ansar Al Sharia.

That was dated September 11, 2012, 5:55 pm

And what followed at 6:07 pm on the same day?

A third email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time, carried the subject line: "Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack."

The message reported: "Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli."

Imagine that.

So, yes, I agree, thank you, I am very much agreeing that "reporting" is the right word because to me that means a basic relaying of known facts. This shows that the Undersecretary for SOS Clinton determined that:

• Libyan officials reported it was a terrorist attack
• The terrorist group itself took credit for the attack

Amazingly we've all reached agreement on this.

It's 9/11 and 9/12 and State had confirmed it was a terrorist attack. Who does the administration send out to report to the American people? Someone not from State.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

If only the administration would concede this point. I think their defensiveness has helped lead everyone down this path.

This I completely agree with.

There was nothing wrong with saying, "give us a few days to find out everything we can about this attack before we jump to conclusions," but once they knew what the story was they should have said so.

IMO we'd still be exactly where we are today though.

 

[timschochet]

If only the administration would concede this point. I think their defensiveness has helped lead everyone down this path.

This I completely agree with.

There was nothing wrong with saying, "give us a few days to find out everything we can about this attack before we jump to conclusions," but once they knew what the story was they should have said so.

IMO we'd still be exactly where we are today though.

This is exactly right. The administration could have handled this much better, but NOTHING that they did would have prevented these investigations, because they are largely politically motivated.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

If only the administration would concede this point. I think their defensiveness has helped lead everyone down this path.

This I completely agree with.

There was nothing wrong with saying, "give us a few days to find out everything we can about this attack before we jump to conclusions," but once they knew what the story was they should have said so.

IMO we'd still be exactly where we are today though.

This is exactly right. The administration could have handled this much better, but NOTHING that they did would have prevented these investigations, because they are largely politically motivated.

The administration could have handled this much better

Exactly.

 

[Stinger Ray]

If only the administration would concede this point. I think their defensiveness has helped lead everyone down this path.

This I completely agree with.

There was nothing wrong with saying, "give us a few days to find out everything we can about this attack before we jump to conclusions," but once they knew what the story was they should have said so.

IMO we'd still be exactly where we are today though.

This is exactly right. The administration could have handled this much better, but NOTHING that they did would have prevented these investigations, because they are largely politically motivated.

And the actions by the Administration that night and after the attack were politically motivated with a presidential election coming up.

 

[glock]

This whole pissing match reminds me of the run up to the war in Iraq.

The Bush administration decides to run with very limited intel suggesting the existence of WMDs, while there was substantial evidence suggesting the contrary- some would say overwhelming evidence. Bush & Co. instead sold what fit their world view at the time and all involved insist to this day- again, in spite of what was discovered later to be true- that their decision was entirely justifiable. Even though they were wrong.

Did they lie as people died?

Was stating that video outrage fueled the act of terrorism on the embassy a mistake, when there was intel that suggested it was a coordinated strike by terrorists? Maybe. Are they mutually exclusive? Hardly. Even if the attack had absolutely nothing to do with the video- the hatred is the same. Apparently in this case, a possible error in judgment AFTER the fact has to be a lie, or the Right won’t let it die.

188,000+ dead in Iraq later- with no true threat of WMD's found- can the right say “At this point, what difference does it make?”

Hillary can. And she’s right.

 

[timschochet]

If only the administration would concede this point. I think their defensiveness has helped lead everyone down this path.

This I completely agree with.

There was nothing wrong with saying, "give us a few days to find out everything we can about this attack before we jump to conclusions," but once they knew what the story was they should have said so.

IMO we'd still be exactly where we are today though.

This is exactly right. The administration could have handled this much better, but NOTHING that they did would have prevented these investigations, because they are largely politically motivated.

And the actions by the Administration that night and after the attack were politically motivated with a presidential election coming up.

Fine. Can we move on now?

 

[TobiasFunke]

If only the administration would concede this point. I think their defensiveness has helped lead everyone down this path.

This I completely agree with.

There was nothing wrong with saying, "give us a few days to find out everything we can about this attack before we jump to conclusions," but once they knew what the story was they should have said so.

IMO we'd still be exactly where we are today though.

This is exactly right. The administration could have handled this much better, but NOTHING that they did would have prevented these investigations, because they are largely politically motivated.

And the actions by the Administration that night and after the attack were politically motivated with a presidential election coming up.

I don't really follow this story, because it's not worth following, so can someone explain to me this part of the argument? What exactly was the political motivation for supposedly being evasive or mischaracterizing the nature of attacks? Is the argument that characterizing it as an act of terrorism would be bad for the sitting president? Have people never looked at what happens to polling numbers of presidents after terrorist attacks on the United States? Here's a pre-Benghazi piece in the NY Times about rally effects. And it's not just massive calamities or success stores that trigger it either- Kennedy got a huge bump after Bay of Pigs, for chrissakes. A terrorist attack is much more of a rallying point than random act of mob violence; calling it such would almost certainly benefit the sitting president, no?

There's more to it than this, right? Please tell me there is. Because I'd hate to think that this massive boondoggle is not just silly and wasteful but is based on a false premise too.

 

[matuski]

If only the administration would concede this point. I think their defensiveness has helped lead everyone down this path.

This I completely agree with.

There was nothing wrong with saying, "give us a few days to find out everything we can about this attack before we jump to conclusions," but once they knew what the story was they should have said so.

IMO we'd still be exactly where we are today though.

I remain baffled that people still don't get it.

The administration wants this to stay around. They would and will do anything they can to keep the extreme right in the media. As long as nutjobs are the face of your party, the left coasts to POTUS. See Palin, see birthers, etc, etc.

The dumbest political move they could ever make is to concede anything.. if anything they will do what they can to periodically rile up the kooks.

The "defensiveness" angle is hilariously reminiscent of the whole "what is he hiding" tactic from the birthers. They aren't hiding or being defensive about anything, they are simply playing the media, and playing the crazies on the right.

 

[glock]

If only the administration would concede this point. I think their defensiveness has helped lead everyone down this path.

This I completely agree with.

There was nothing wrong with saying, "give us a few days to find out everything we can about this attack before we jump to conclusions," but once they knew what the story was they should have said so.

IMO we'd still be exactly where we are today though.

This is exactly right. The administration could have handled this much better, but NOTHING that they did would have prevented these investigations, because they are largely politically motivated.

And the actions by the Administration that night and after the attack were politically motivated with a presidential election coming up.

I don't really follow this story, because it's not worth following, so can someone explain to me this part of the argument? What exactly was the political motivation for supposedly being evasive or mischaracterizing the nature of attacks? Is the argument that characterizing it as an act of terrorism would be bad for the sitting president? Have people never looked at what happens to polling numbers of presidents after terrorist attacks on the United States? Here's a pre-Benghazi piece in the NY Times about rally effects. And it's not just massive calamities or success stores that trigger it either- Kennedy got a huge bump after Bay of Pigs, for chrissakes. A terrorist attack is much more of a rallying point than random act of mob violence; calling it such would almost certainly benefit the sitting president, no?

There's more to it than this, right? Please tell me there is. Because I'd hate to think that this massive boondoggle is not just silly and wasteful but is based on a false premise too.

Sorry, but it is. :(

 

[glock]

If only the administration would concede this point. I think their defensiveness has helped lead everyone down this path.

This I completely agree with.

There was nothing wrong with saying, "give us a few days to find out everything we can about this attack before we jump to conclusions," but once they knew what the story was they should have said so.

IMO we'd still be exactly where we are today though.

I remain baffled that people still don't get it.

The administration wants this to stay around. They would and will do anything they can to keep the extreme right in the media. As long as nutjobs are the face of your party, the left coasts to POTUS. See Palin, see birthers, etc, etc.

The dumbest political move they could ever make is to concede anything.. if anything they will do what they can to periodically rile up the kooks.

Good point. The right certainly won't gain any new voters...

 

[jamny]

If only the administration would concede this point. I think their defensiveness has helped lead everyone down this path.

This I completely agree with.

There was nothing wrong with saying, "give us a few days to find out everything we can about this attack before we jump to conclusions," but once they knew what the story was they should have said so.

IMO we'd still be exactly where we are today though.

I remain baffled that people still don't get it.

The administration wants this to stay around. They would and will do anything they can to keep the extreme right in the media. As long as nutjobs are the face of your party, the left coasts to POTUS. See Palin, see birthers, etc, etc.

The dumbest political move they could ever make is to concede anything.. if anything they will do what they can to periodically rile up the kooks.

Especially if it takes the focus off the real issue. What have they done to find those involved?

 

[TobiasFunke]

If only the administration would concede this point. I think their defensiveness has helped lead everyone down this path.

This I completely agree with.

There was nothing wrong with saying, "give us a few days to find out everything we can about this attack before we jump to conclusions," but once they knew what the story was they should have said so.

IMO we'd still be exactly where we are today though.

This is exactly right. The administration could have handled this much better, but NOTHING that they did would have prevented these investigations, because they are largely politically motivated.

And the actions by the Administration that night and after the attack were politically motivated with a presidential election coming up.

I don't really follow this story, because it's not worth following, so can someone explain to me this part of the argument? What exactly was the political motivation for supposedly being evasive or mischaracterizing the nature of attacks? Is the argument that characterizing it as an act of terrorism would be bad for the sitting president? Have people never looked at what happens to polling numbers of presidents after terrorist attacks on the United States? Here's a pre-Benghazi piece in the NY Times about rally effects. And it's not just massive calamities or success stores that trigger it either- Kennedy got a huge bump after Bay of Pigs, for chrissakes. A terrorist attack is much more of a rallying point than random act of mob violence; calling it such would almost certainly benefit the sitting president, no?

There's more to it than this, right? Please tell me there is. Because I'd hate to think that this massive boondoggle is not just silly and wasteful but is based on a false premise too.

Sorry, but it is. :(

I know it's silly and wasteful. I'm trying to figure out if it's also based on a false premise.

 

[glock]

If only the administration would concede this point. I think their defensiveness has helped lead everyone down this path.

This I completely agree with.

There was nothing wrong with saying, "give us a few days to find out everything we can about this attack before we jump to conclusions," but once they knew what the story was they should have said so.

IMO we'd still be exactly where we are today though.

I remain baffled that people still don't get it.

The administration wants this to stay around. They would and will do anything they can to keep the extreme right in the media. As long as nutjobs are the face of your party, the left coasts to POTUS. See Palin, see birthers, etc, etc.

The dumbest political move they could ever make is to concede anything.. if anything they will do what they can to periodically rile up the kooks.

Especially if it takes the focus off the real issue. What have they done to find those involved?

I imagine that they haven't done anything to find those involved. What do you think?

 

[tommyGunZ]

The irony with re to Benghazi is off the charts. "You guys spun the facts on Benghazi for almost two weeks for political gain, so we're going to spin the facts for the next two years for political gain!"

 

[FlapJacks]

This whole pissing match reminds me of the run up to the war in Iraq.

The Bush administration decides to run with very limited intel suggesting the existence of WMDs, while there was substantial evidence suggesting the contrary- some would say overwhelming evidence.

The head of the CIA said it was a "slam dunk." That does not suggest limited intel. Everybody from Bill Clinton to Al Gore to Madelaine Albright to Joe Wilson believed he had them.

The UN approved the resoltion

Congress overwhelmingly aprroved it

The burden was on Saddam to prove he didn't have them

 

[glock]

This whole pissing match reminds me of the run up to the war in Iraq.

The Bush administration decides to run with very limited intel suggesting the existence of WMDs, while there was substantial evidence suggesting the contrary- some would say overwhelming evidence.

The head of the CIA said it was a "slam dunk." That does not suggest limited intel. Everybody from Bill Clinton to Al Gore to Madelaine Albright to Joe Wilson believed he had them.

The UN approved the resoltion

Congress overwhelmingly aprroved it

The burden was on Saddam to prove he didn't have them

Tell that to the 188,000 dead and their kin.

 

[squistion]

Oops: GOP's #Benghazi committee chairman says he's leading a 'trial'

byJed LewisonFollow forDaily Kos

I'll give GOP #Benghazi Chairman Trey Gowdy points for honesty here, but this is the kind of thing you're not supposed to admit in public:

Asked by MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough about the possibility that his panel’s work would continue into the 2016 election campaign,
Gowdy replied that “if an administration is slow-walking document production, I can’t end a trial simply because the defense won’t cooperate.”

You see, you're supposed to say stuff like "we're just trying to get the facts, here." Or "the only thing that matters to us is uncovering the truth." But such statements would be lies, and it's actually kind of refreshing to hear Gowdy admit that he thinks that he's a prosecutor conducting a trial against a criminal defendant.

Unfortunately for Gowdy, the good news is that his committee won't actually be a trial—at best, it'll be a kangaroo court, with Republicans acting as judges and their base serving as jurors. And the rest of the country will be either ignoring it or wondering why on Earth these congressional buffoons are wasting their time by still talking about Benghazi as if it were the biggest scandal in American history.

 

[timschochet]

The reason that the invasion of Iraq keeps coming up in this thread is because it points out the utter irrelevancy of the Benghazi attacks by comparison. I already posted a list of several attacks on embassies that occurred during the Bush years, and none of them received anything close to this amount of scrutiny. Benghazi has gotten more attention and more demand for investigation than all of those attacks, not to mention the buildup to the Iraq invasion. Even the failure of President Bush to anticipate and circumvent the 9/11 attack, as big as that story was, did not result in as many demands by credible politicians for investigations. If you listen to John Boehner and the rest of the GOP leadership, the Benghazi attack is bigger than all of those stories combined.

And what's truly embarrassing is that, over a year and a half later, after 9 separate government investigations costing millions of dollars concluded that there is no "there" there, this remains such a supposedly huge issue.

 

[Short Corner]

And what's truly embarrassing is that, over a year and a half later, after 9 separate government investigations costing millions of dollars concluded that there is no "there" there, this remains such a supposedly huge issue.

And you continue your ignorance that the administration did not comply with the subpoena in turning over all of the evidence requested. Any conclusions drawn were done so with incomplete information and are null and void. The R's are not the ones causing this to drag out as much as you like to believe.

 

[TobiasFunke]

And what's truly embarrassing is that, over a year and a half later, after 9 separate government investigations costing millions of dollars concluded that there is no "there" there, this remains such a supposedly huge issue.

And you continue your ignorance that the administration did not comply with the subpoena in turning over all of the evidence requested. Any conclusions drawn were done so with incomplete information and are null and void. The R's are not the ones causing this to drag out as much as you like to believe.

If Obama would just hand over the original, un-photoshopped version of his birth certificate this whole birther thing would just go away.

 

[timschochet]

And what's truly embarrassing is that, over a year and a half later, after 9 separate government investigations costing millions of dollars concluded that there is no "there" there, this remains such a supposedly huge issue.

And you continue your ignorance that the administration did not comply with the subpoena in turning over all of the evidence requested. Any conclusions drawn were done so with incomplete information and are null and void. The R's are not the ones causing this to drag out as much as you like to believe.

My "ignorance" seems to be shared by the findings of the bipartisan Senate committee. Actually, it's only in your little right wing talk radio bubble that I am ignorant.

 

[Stinger Ray]

And what's truly embarrassing is that, over a year and a half later, after 9 separate government investigations costing millions of dollars concluded that there is no "there" there, this remains such a supposedly huge issue.

And you continue your ignorance that the administration did not comply with the subpoena in turning over all of the evidence requested. Any conclusions drawn were done so with incomplete information and are null and void. The R's are not the ones causing this to drag out as much as you like to believe.

My "ignorance" seems to be shared by the findings of the bipartisan Senate committee. Actually, it's only in your little right wing talk radio bubble that I am ignorant.

 

[Slapdash]

And what's truly embarrassing is that, over a year and a half later, after 9 separate government investigations costing millions of dollars concluded that there is no "there" there, this remains such a supposedly huge issue.

Misleading the public is a huge issue, no matter what the context.

 

[tommyGunZ]

And what's truly embarrassing is that, over a year and a half later, after 9 separate government investigations costing millions of dollars concluded that there is no "there" there, this remains such a supposedly huge issue.

Misleading the public is a huge issue, no matter what the context.

Who is more guilty of misleading the public at this point, House Republicans or the Obama administration?

 

[Slapdash]

And what's truly embarrassing is that, over a year and a half later, after 9 separate government investigations costing millions of dollars concluded that there is no "there" there, this remains such a supposedly huge issue.

Misleading the public is a huge issue, no matter what the context.

Who is more guilty of misleading the public at this point, House Republicans or the Obama administration?

About Benghazi? The administration by far, IMO.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The reason that the invasion of Iraq keeps coming up in this thread is because it points out the utter irrelevancy of the Benghazi attacks by comparison. I already posted a list of several attacks on embassies that occurred during the Bush years, and none of them received anything close to this amount of scrutiny. Benghazi has gotten more attention and more demand for investigation than all of those attacks, not to mention the buildup to the Iraq invasion. Even the failure of President Bush to anticipate and circumvent the 9/11 attack, as big as that story was, did not result in as many demands by credible politicians for investigations. If you listen to John Boehner and the rest of the GOP leadership, the Benghazi attack is bigger than all of those stories combined.

And what's truly embarrassing is that, over a year and a half later, after 9 separate government investigations costing millions of dollars concluded that there is no "there" there, this remains such a supposedly huge issue.

I think another reason Iraq could be raised is that Obama partly ran on how wrong it was for the CIA to be involved on the political side for arguing for war and here we have the NSA and CIA still acting politically.

 

[Short Corner]

And what's truly embarrassing is that, over a year and a half later, after 9 separate government investigations costing millions of dollars concluded that there is no "there" there, this remains such a supposedly huge issue.

Misleading the public is a huge issue, no matter what the context.

Who is more guilty of misleading the public at this point, House Republicans or the Obama administration?

which side withheld evidence?

 

[Short Corner]

And what's truly embarrassing is that, over a year and a half later, after 9 separate government investigations costing millions of dollars concluded that there is no "there" there, this remains such a supposedly huge issue.

And you continue your ignorance that the administration did not comply with the subpoena in turning over all of the evidence requested. Any conclusions drawn were done so with incomplete information and are null and void. The R's are not the ones causing this to drag out as much as you like to believe.

My "ignorance" seems to be shared by the findings of the bipartisan Senate committee. Actually, it's only in your little right wing talk radio bubble that I am ignorant.

The findings based on incomplete information due to the fact that the White House decided not to comply with the subpoena? Those findings?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

And what's truly embarrassing is that, over a year and a half later, after 9 separate government investigations costing millions of dollars concluded that there is no "there" there, this remains such a supposedly huge issue.

And you continue your ignorance that the administration did not comply with the subpoena in turning over all of the evidence requested. Any conclusions drawn were done so with incomplete information and are null and void. The R's are not the ones causing this to drag out as much as you like to believe.

If Obama would just hand over the original, un-photoshopped version of his birth certificate this whole birther thing would just go away.

Didn't he actually ultimately do this, at least he granted the HI Department of Vital Records (whoever held the birth certificate) to do that?

And it's funny you mention this, because it leads back to the theme of Obama creating a lot of these messes himself. In 1991 his literary agent puts out that he was born in Kenya, still published as such online until 2007 then takes the info down, but come 2008 and he acts all surprised and offended and asks people where they got that crazy idea.

Here Congress acts for documents, the Senate says they don't have much to go on so their findings are incomplete, and lo and behold different documents that get closer to the heart of the matter are later produced in a court case. And now people are supposed bad guys for being somewhat skeptical about how forthcoming the WH has been.