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

[matuski]

Maybe the nutjobs can drop this and focus on the American we got back from the Taliban because Obama hates America.

Would at least be a fresh kooky instead of this tired kooky.

The nutjobs are the ones who see an American ambassador get killed and just sit there with their collective thumbs up their collective asses and say "oh well, what difference does it make?" And then they just stonewall every inquiry and shout names at people. It's truly a collective insanity.

 

[squistion]

Maybe the nutjobs can drop this and focus on the American we got back from the Taliban because Obama hates America.

Would at least be a fresh kooky instead of this tired kooky.

The nutjobs are the ones who see an American ambassador get killed and just sit there with their collective thumbs up their collective asses and say "oh well, what difference does it make?" And then they just stonewall every inquiry and shout names at people. It's truly a collective insanity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbOx8TyvUmI

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Rice's performance on the Sunday morning news shows after the Bergdahl trade sure puts her post-Libyan performance in a whole new light.

The same woman who said that Bergdahl had served honorably was the same woman who was throwing out the business about the "spontaneous protest."

Really, the GOP needs to stop saying this was a conspiracy. It wasn't - it was sheer incompetence. Rice was completely disconnected from the intelligence just as she had no clue what was in Bergdahl's personnel file. She has a total disconnect from knowledge of the facts and this is who the administration sends out to handle these sensitive issues. It's crazy.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Susan Rice is told what to say in these instances, so I don't blame her too much for these misspeaks.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Susan Rice is told what to say in these instances, so I don't blame her too much for these misspeaks.

"Misspeaks"?

She's on national tv explaining important events to the American public on behalf of the administration and she is just plain 180 degrees wrong.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Rice's performance on the Sunday morning news shows after the Bergdahl trade sure puts her post-Libyan performance in a whole new light.

The same woman who said that Bergdahl had served honorably was the same woman who was throwing out the business about the "spontaneous protest."

Really, the GOP needs to stop saying this was a conspiracy. It wasn't - it was sheer incompetence. Rice was completely disconnected from the intelligence just as she had no clue what was in Bergdahl's personnel file. She has a total disconnect from knowledge of the facts and this is who the administration sends out to handle these sensitive issues. It's crazy.

Her talking points for Benghazi were vetted and approved by ALL of the intelligence agencies. Please stop with this silliness.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Rice's performance on the Sunday morning news shows after the Bergdahl trade sure puts her post-Libyan performance in a whole new light.

The same woman who said that Bergdahl had served honorably was the same woman who was throwing out the business about the "spontaneous protest."

Really, the GOP needs to stop saying this was a conspiracy. It wasn't - it was sheer incompetence. Rice was completely disconnected from the intelligence just as she had no clue what was in Bergdahl's personnel file. She has a total disconnect from knowledge of the facts and this is who the administration sends out to handle these sensitive issues. It's crazy.

Her talking points for Benghazi were vetted and approved by ALL of the intelligence agencies. Please stop with this silliness.

Who told Rice that Bergdahl served with "honor and distinction"? I'm guessing that's not in the ol' file. Even Obama and Carney wouldn't back her on that when asked.

As for Libya, we've seen a political memo written by Ben Rhoades at the NSA which starts off with a summary of the president's political goals. That's not exactly real intelligence there. That's a political memo by a political guy at the NSA, which by law isn't supposed to be political.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Rice's performance on the Sunday morning news shows after the Bergdahl trade sure puts her post-Libyan performance in a whole new light.

The same woman who said that Bergdahl had served honorably was the same woman who was throwing out the business about the "spontaneous protest."

Really, the GOP needs to stop saying this was a conspiracy. It wasn't - it was sheer incompetence. Rice was completely disconnected from the intelligence just as she had no clue what was in Bergdahl's personnel file. She has a total disconnect from knowledge of the facts and this is who the administration sends out to handle these sensitive issues. It's crazy.

Her talking points for Benghazi were vetted and approved by ALL of the intelligence agencies. Please stop with this silliness.

Who told Rice that Bergdahl served with "honor and distinction"? I'm guessing that's not in the ol' file. Even Obama and Carney wouldn't back her on that when asked.

As for Libya, we've seen a political memo written by Ben Rhoades at the NSA which starts off with a summary of the president's political goals. That's not exactly real intelligence there. That's a political memo by a political guy at the NSA, which by law isn't supposed to be political.

This is your problem. You assume you know more about Bergdahl's file than Susan Rice.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Susan Rice is told what to say in these instances, so I don't blame her too much for these misspeaks.

"Misspeaks"?

She's on national tv explaining important events to the American public on behalf of the administration and she is just plain 180 degrees wrong.

I was being diplomatic.

Rice's performance on the Sunday morning news shows after the Bergdahl trade sure puts her post-Libyan performance in a whole new light.

The same woman who said that Bergdahl had served honorably was the same woman who was throwing out the business about the "spontaneous protest."

Really, the GOP needs to stop saying this was a conspiracy. It wasn't - it was sheer incompetence. Rice was completely disconnected from the intelligence just as she had no clue what was in Bergdahl's personnel file. She has a total disconnect from knowledge of the facts and this is who the administration sends out to handle these sensitive issues. It's crazy.

Her talking points for Benghazi were vetted and approved by ALL of the intelligence agencies. Please stop with this silliness.

Who told Rice that Bergdahl served with "honor and distinction"? I'm guessing that's not in the ol' file. Even Obama and Carney wouldn't back her on that when asked.

As for Libya, we've seen a political memo written by Ben Rhoades at the NSA which starts off with a summary of the president's political goals. That's not exactly real intelligence there. That's a political memo by a political guy at the NSA, which by law isn't supposed to be political.

This is your problem. You assume you know more about Bergdahl's file than Susan Rice.

Do you think Susan Rice knows more about Bergdahl than those who served with him?

 

[tommyGunZ]

Susan Rice is told what to say in these instances, so I don't blame her too much for these misspeaks.

"Misspeaks"?

She's on national tv explaining important events to the American public on behalf of the administration and she is just plain 180 degrees wrong.

I was being diplomatic.

Rice's performance on the Sunday morning news shows after the Bergdahl trade sure puts her post-Libyan performance in a whole new light.

The same woman who said that Bergdahl had served honorably was the same woman who was throwing out the business about the "spontaneous protest."

Really, the GOP needs to stop saying this was a conspiracy. It wasn't - it was sheer incompetence. Rice was completely disconnected from the intelligence just as she had no clue what was in Bergdahl's personnel file. She has a total disconnect from knowledge of the facts and this is who the administration sends out to handle these sensitive issues. It's crazy.

Her talking points for Benghazi were vetted and approved by ALL of the intelligence agencies. Please stop with this silliness.

Who told Rice that Bergdahl served with "honor and distinction"? I'm guessing that's not in the ol' file. Even Obama and Carney wouldn't back her on that when asked.

As for Libya, we've seen a political memo written by Ben Rhoades at the NSA which starts off with a summary of the president's political goals. That's not exactly real intelligence there. That's a political memo by a political guy at the NSA, which by law isn't supposed to be political.

This is your problem. You assume you know more about Bergdahl's file than Susan Rice.

Do you think Susan Rice knows more about Bergdahl than those who served with him?

About Bergdahl's collective military performance history? Absolutely. I doubt those who bunked with him have access to his reviews, performance metrics, etc.

 

[Rove!]

Susan Rice is told what to say in these instances, so I don't blame her too much for these misspeaks.

"Misspeaks"?

She's on national tv explaining important events to the American public on behalf of the administration and she is just plain 180 degrees wrong.

I was being diplomatic.

Rice's performance on the Sunday morning news shows after the Bergdahl trade sure puts her post-Libyan performance in a whole new light.

The same woman who said that Bergdahl had served honorably was the same woman who was throwing out the business about the "spontaneous protest."

Really, the GOP needs to stop saying this was a conspiracy. It wasn't - it was sheer incompetence. Rice was completely disconnected from the intelligence just as she had no clue what was in Bergdahl's personnel file. She has a total disconnect from knowledge of the facts and this is who the administration sends out to handle these sensitive issues. It's crazy.

Her talking points for Benghazi were vetted and approved by ALL of the intelligence agencies. Please stop with this silliness.

Who told Rice that Bergdahl served with "honor and distinction"? I'm guessing that's not in the ol' file. Even Obama and Carney wouldn't back her on that when asked.

As for Libya, we've seen a political memo written by Ben Rhoades at the NSA which starts off with a summary of the president's political goals. That's not exactly real intelligence there. That's a political memo by a political guy at the NSA, which by law isn't supposed to be political.

This is your problem. You assume you know more about Bergdahl's file than Susan Rice.

Do you think Susan Rice knows more about Bergdahl than those who served with him?

About Bergdahl's collective military performance history? Absolutely. I doubt those who bunked with him have access to his reviews, performance metrics, etc.

But, after being willfully sent out to lie ti the world about Benghazi, how much credibility does she have left?

 

[East Coast Bias]

Susan Rice is told what to say in these instances, so I don't blame her too much for these misspeaks.

"Misspeaks"?

She's on national tv explaining important events to the American public on behalf of the administration and she is just plain 180 degrees wrong.

I was being diplomatic.

Rice's performance on the Sunday morning news shows after the Bergdahl trade sure puts her post-Libyan performance in a whole new light.

The same woman who said that Bergdahl had served honorably was the same woman who was throwing out the business about the "spontaneous protest."

Really, the GOP needs to stop saying this was a conspiracy. It wasn't - it was sheer incompetence. Rice was completely disconnected from the intelligence just as she had no clue what was in Bergdahl's personnel file. She has a total disconnect from knowledge of the facts and this is who the administration sends out to handle these sensitive issues. It's crazy.

Her talking points for Benghazi were vetted and approved by ALL of the intelligence agencies. Please stop with this silliness.

Who told Rice that Bergdahl served with "honor and distinction"? I'm guessing that's not in the ol' file. Even Obama and Carney wouldn't back her on that when asked.

As for Libya, we've seen a political memo written by Ben Rhoades at the NSA which starts off with a summary of the president's political goals. That's not exactly real intelligence there. That's a political memo by a political guy at the NSA, which by law isn't supposed to be political.

This is your problem. You assume you know more about Bergdahl's file than Susan Rice.

Do you think Susan Rice knows more about Bergdahl than those who served with him?

About Bergdahl's collective military performance history? Absolutely. I doubt those who bunked with him have access to his reviews, performance metrics, etc.

His squad leader would have likely written his reviews.

 

[timschochet]

I don't think Susan Rice, or any member of the Obama Administration, willfully lied about Benghazi. What they did wrong is stick with the same storyline about the video far too long after it became apparent that the video wasn't the main cause. In the case of Bergdahl, I really don't think Rice knew about the desertion, which is rather incomprehensible. (Though again, this is not on Rice as much as it is on whoever wrote the speech for her.)

Again and again we see this repeated: this White House is simply incompetent, IMO, when it comes to messaging. They did an awful job with Benghazi, an awful job with the ACA rollout, an EXTREMELY awful job on this Bergdahl mess. Now, for me personally, messaging is a pretty minor part of evaluating overall governance. I approve of most of President Obama's actual foreign policy. But as for how he and his people tell us about it- oof.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Rice's performance on the Sunday morning news shows after the Bergdahl trade sure puts her post-Libyan performance in a whole new light.

The same woman who said that Bergdahl had served honorably was the same woman who was throwing out the business about the "spontaneous protest."

Really, the GOP needs to stop saying this was a conspiracy. It wasn't - it was sheer incompetence. Rice was completely disconnected from the intelligence just as she had no clue what was in Bergdahl's personnel file. She has a total disconnect from knowledge of the facts and this is who the administration sends out to handle these sensitive issues. It's crazy.

Her talking points for Benghazi were vetted and approved by ALL of the intelligence agencies. Please stop with this silliness.

Who told Rice that Bergdahl served with "honor and distinction"? I'm guessing that's not in the ol' file. Even Obama and Carney wouldn't back her on that when asked.

As for Libya, we've seen a political memo written by Ben Rhoades at the NSA which starts off with a summary of the president's political goals. That's not exactly real intelligence there. That's a political memo by a political guy at the NSA, which by law isn't supposed to be political.

This is your problem. You assume you know more about Bergdahl's file than Susan Rice.

As of the moment she went on tv this past Sunday?

I think you probably know more than she does.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I don't think Susan Rice, or any member of the Obama Administration, willfully lied about Benghazi. What they did wrong is stick with the same storyline about the video far too long after it became apparent that the video wasn't the main cause. In the case of Bergdahl, I really don't think Rice knew about the desertion, which is rather incomprehensible. (Though again, this is not on Rice as much as it is on whoever wrote the speech for her.)

Again and again we see this repeated: this White House is simply incompetent, IMO, when it comes to messaging. They did an awful job with Benghazi, an awful job with the ACA rollout, an EXTREMELY awful job on this Bergdahl mess. Now, for me personally, messaging is a pretty minor part of evaluating overall governance. I approve of most of President Obama's actual foreign policy. But as for how he and his people tell us about it- oof.

Yes, and I will add (my opinion only) a good part of that occurs when the message deviates from reality.

 

[Sand]

I don't think Susan Rice, or any member of the Obama Administration, willfully lied about Benghazi. What they did wrong is stick with the same storyline about the video far too long after it became apparent that the video wasn't the main cause.

Then, by definition, it became willful lying after it became apparent they were spewing bull####.

 

[timschochet]

I don't think Susan Rice, or any member of the Obama Administration, willfully lied about Benghazi. What they did wrong is stick with the same storyline about the video far too long after it became apparent that the video wasn't the main cause.

Then, by definition, it became willful lying after it became apparent they were spewing bull####.

No I don't believe that's so. More like a willfull refusal to accept the fact that they were wrong. That is bad in itself, but it's not the same as willfull deceit- unless you consider it willful self-deceit.

 

[tommyboy]

no, it was just plain old lying

But it turns out there is much more. Citing “multiple sources,” Bret Baier and James Rosen report that the terrorists who attacked our facilities in Benghazi used cell phones seized from State Department personnel during the attacks, and that U.S. spy agencies overheard them contacting more senior terrorist leaders to report on the success of the operation.

One of their sources is Eric Stahl. He’s the Air Force major who commanded and piloted the aircraft used to transport the corpses of the four casualties from the Benghazi attacks. Stahl told Fox News that members of a CIA-trained Global Response Staff who raced to the scene of the attacks were “confused” by the administration’s repeated implication of the video as a trigger for the attacks, because “they knew during the attack…who was doing the attacking.”

How did they know? Because “right after [the CIA personnel] left the consulate in Benghazi and went to the [CIA] safehouse, they were getting reports that cell phones, consulate cell phones, were being used to make calls to the attackers’ higher ups.”

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/06/benghazi-not-so-foggy-after-all.php

 

[Sand]

I don't think Susan Rice, or any member of the Obama Administration, willfully lied about Benghazi. What they did wrong is stick with the same storyline about the video far too long after it became apparent that the video wasn't the main cause.

Then, by definition, it became willful lying after it became apparent they were spewing bull####.

No I don't believe that's so. More like a willfull refusal to accept the fact that they were wrong. That is bad in itself, but it's not the same as willfull deceit- unless you consider it willful self-deceit.

Given the scrubbing, meetings, analysis, and polling that goes on over everything released from the WH (particularly such a major event) calling this "willful self-deceit" is beyond any reasonable belief. This was a very clear tactical decision to try and bury it.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I don't think Susan Rice, or any member of the Obama Administration, willfully lied about Benghazi. What they did wrong is stick with the same storyline about the video far too long after it became apparent that the video wasn't the main cause.

Then, by definition, it became willful lying after it became apparent they were spewing bull####.

No I don't believe that's so. More like a willfull refusal to accept the fact that they were wrong. That is bad in itself, but it's not the same as willfull deceit- unless you consider it willful self-deceit.

Key word highlighted there.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I don't think Susan Rice, or any member of the Obama Administration, willfully lied about Benghazi. What they did wrong is stick with the same storyline about the video far too long after it became apparent that the video wasn't the main cause.

Then, by definition, it became willful lying after it became apparent they were spewing bull####.

No I don't believe that's so. More like a willfull refusal to accept the fact that they were wrong. That is bad in itself, but it's not the same as willfull deceit- unless you consider it willful self-deceit.

Given the scrubbing, meetings, analysis, and polling that goes on over everything released from the WH (particularly such a major event) calling this "willful self-deceit" is beyond any reasonable belief. This was a very clear tactical decision to try and bury it.

Have to say, looking at this administration across the board it's possible they are just that incompetent.

I think this president from health care to Bergdahl to a whole variety of things is just disconnected from the facts underlying the speeches, pronouncements and executive orders he is issuing.

It's possible that insulation of the person of the president and the post-Nixonian maxim of plausible deniability has just reached an insane level of disconnect.

 

[tommyboy]

I don't think Susan Rice, or any member of the Obama Administration, willfully lied about Benghazi. What they did wrong is stick with the same storyline about the video far too long after it became apparent that the video wasn't the main cause.

Then, by definition, it became willful lying after it became apparent they were spewing bull####.

No I don't believe that's so. More like a willfull refusal to accept the fact that they were wrong. That is bad in itself, but it's not the same as willfull deceit- unless you consider it willful self-deceit.

Given the scrubbing, meetings, analysis, and polling that goes on over everything released from the WH (particularly such a major event) calling this "willful self-deceit" is beyond any reasonable belief. This was a very clear tactical decision to try and bury it.

Have to say, looking at this administration across the board it's possible they are just that incompetent.

I think this president from health care to Bergdahl to a whole variety of things is just disconnected from the facts underlying the speeches, pronouncements and executive orders he is issuing.

It's possible that insulation of the person of the president and the post-Nixonian maxim of plausible deniability has just reached an insane level of disconnect.

I don't. I think its all part of his promise to "fundamentally change America"; words he spoke 6 years ago repeatedly

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hillary Clinton offers a detailed account of the deadly attack on the American embassy in Benghazi — and a pointed rebuttal to Republican critics who’ve laced into her over the incident — in a much-anticipated chapter of her forthcoming book, “Hard Choices,” obtained by POLITICO.

...Clinton defends the intelligence at the time preceding the attack on the American compound in Benghazi. An anti-Islamic video that had sparked a protest at an embassy in Cairo was proved in “later investigation and reporting,” including by The New York Times, to have been “indeed a factor” in what happened in Benghazi, Clinton writes.

That point is among those that has been debated during hearings into the attacks.

“There were scores of attackers that night, almost certainly with differing motives,” she writes. “It is inaccurate to state that every single one of them was influenced by this hateful video. It is equally inaccurate to state that none of them were. Both assertions defy not only the evidence but logic as well.”

...

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/hillary-clintons-benghazi-chapter-107240.html#ixzz33FcRZifq

Tim, I finally got to look at this at a bookstore last night and I thought I would take a perusal.

I was wrong when I said earlier that Hillary was doubling down. I was wrong because it was based on Politico's reporting.

Looking at the book, Hillary does not say that there were mixed messages at the time. Far from it, she reports that the first thing she and State learned was from the "Operations Center" which stated that there was an attack by Ansar Al-Sharia which she plainly describes as a terrorist group or militia.

Go look at it for yourself - it's on Page 395 (IIRC).

Again, Hillary says nothing about intelligence about a "spontaneous protest." She says nothing about that, only that intelligence reported that it was a terrorist attack. The reporting on her book above is puzzling considering this and it continues to be absolutely bizarre in retrospect that the administration was ever saying anything about a spontaneous protest when Hillary herself says that it was reported to them as a terrorist attack by the militia group.

 

[timschochet]

I'm planning on reading the book. I have to say that both this and the Bergdahl matter seem minor in the face of what is now happening in Iraq. I predict the latter is going to occupy most of our attention in the upcoming months.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I'm planning on reading the book. I have to say that both this and the Bergdahl matter seem minor in the face of what is now happening in Iraq. I predict the latter is going to occupy most of our attention in the upcoming months.

Yes, true; but on the other hand I think the handling of the Benghazi affairs unfortunately may be of a piece and may prove in retrospect to have been a window into how this administration has mishandled foreign policy in general. It appears among other things to show a disconnect from hard intelligence, an under-appreciation of the realities of terrorism and the strength of some of these groups and their impact on American security, and a lack of attention to these affairs by the president himself.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I'm planning on reading the book. I have to say that both this and the Bergdahl matter seem minor in the face of what is now happening in Iraq. I predict the latter is going to occupy most of our attention in the upcoming months.

Yes, true; but on the other hand I think the handling of the Benghazi affairs unfortunately may be of a piece and may prove in retrospect to have been a window into how this administration has mishandled foreign policy in general. It appears among other things to show a disconnect from hard intelligence, an under-appreciation of the realities of terrorism and the strength of some of these groups and their impact on American security, and a lack of attention to these affairs by the president himself.

From Rush's mouth straight to your posts.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I'm planning on reading the book. I have to say that both this and the Bergdahl matter seem minor in the face of what is now happening in Iraq. I predict the latter is going to occupy most of our attention in the upcoming months.

Yes, true; but on the other hand I think the handling of the Benghazi affairs unfortunately may be of a piece and may prove in retrospect to have been a window into how this administration has mishandled foreign policy in general. It appears among other things to show a disconnect from hard intelligence, an under-appreciation of the realities of terrorism and the strength of some of these groups and their impact on American security, and a lack of attention to these affairs by the president himself.

From Rush's mouth straight to your posts.

Gunz really. Terrible. I haven't heard Limbaugh's voice except maybe when msnbc makes fun of him since lord I don't know how long, maybe it's been before 2008 since I actually heard his program.

If I listen to news radio in the car it's NPR or sports, and I am rarely if ever in my car at that time of day anyway, thank you.

By the way, pick up the book yourself, tell me I'm wrong. Page 395.

 

[timschochet]

I'm planning on reading the book. I have to say that both this and the Bergdahl matter seem minor in the face of what is now happening in Iraq. I predict the latter is going to occupy most of our attention in the upcoming months.

Yes, true; but on the other hand I think the handling of the Benghazi affairs unfortunately may be of a piece and may prove in retrospect to have been a window into how this administration has mishandled foreign policy in general. It appears among other things to show a disconnect from hard intelligence, an under-appreciation of the realities of terrorism and the strength of some of these groups and their impact on American security, and a lack of attention to these affairs by the president himself.

I'm not seeing this, but then, I've never interpreted the Benghazi data in the same way you do. And I don't believe the administration has mishandled foreign policy in general. (They may have mishandled Iraq, though.)

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I'm planning on reading the book. I have to say that both this and the Bergdahl matter seem minor in the face of what is now happening in Iraq. I predict the latter is going to occupy most of our attention in the upcoming months.

Yes, true; but on the other hand I think the handling of the Benghazi affairs unfortunately may be of a piece and may prove in retrospect to have been a window into how this administration has mishandled foreign policy in general. It appears among other things to show a disconnect from hard intelligence, an under-appreciation of the realities of terrorism and the strength of some of these groups and their impact on American security, and a lack of attention to these affairs by the president himself.

I'm not seeing this, but then, I've never interpreted the Benghazi data in the same way you do. And I don't believe the administration has mishandled foreign policy in general. (They may have mishandled Iraq, though.)

The part with Rice going on tv and saying Bergdahl served with honor and distinction reads like someone who had not even opened the actual file or has been briefed by people who have not. It is so disconnected from reality. It would explain a lot about the administration, the people doing the talking aren't talking to the people who are doing.

 

[MaxThreshold]

I'm planning on reading the book. I have to say that both this and the Bergdahl matter seem minor in the face of what is now happening in Iraq. I predict the latter is going to occupy most of our attention in the upcoming months.

Yes, true; but on the other hand I think the handling of the Benghazi affairs unfortunately may be of a piece and may prove in retrospect to have been a window into how this administration has mishandled foreign policy in general. It appears among other things to show a disconnect from hard intelligence, an under-appreciation of the realities of terrorism and the strength of some of these groups and their impact on American security, and a lack of attention to these affairs by the president himself.

From Rush's mouth straight to your posts.

Is that what your MSNBC masters told you to say?

 

[pantagrapher]

One suspect apprehended in another Obama ploy to distract from Benghazi.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

One suspect apprehended in another Obama ploy to distract from Benghazi.

Yeah, unfortunately for Obama (and everybody else) I don't think he has any shortage of distractions from Benghazi these days. No need to manufacture any.

 

[Rove!]

One suspect apprehended in another Obama ploy to distract from Benghazi.

what difference does it make

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

One suspect apprehended in another Obama ploy to distract from Benghazi.

Yeah, unfortunately for Obama (and everybody else) I don't think he has any shortage of distractions from Benghazi these days. No need to manufacture any.

This stuff is so sad:

U.S. forces working with the FBI captured a key suspect in the 2012 attack on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, a U.S. official told CNN Tuesday.

Libyan militia leader Ahmed abu Khattalah was captured over the weekend, the official said. His is the first arrest in connection with the attack.

He is now being held in a location outside Libya, the official said.

Last year, federal prosecutors filed sealed charges against Khattalah over the Benghazi attack, in which scores of militants using rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons attacked the compound.

U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other U.S. citizens died in the attack, which later became a political flashpoint.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/17/world/africa/benghazi-suspect-captured/index.html

This is Hillary in her book:

“There were scores of attackers that night, almost certainly with differing motives,” she writes.

The arrest of the Libyan militia leader refutes this, he is a military/militia/terrorist leader, they aren't arresting him for participating in a "spontaneous protest."

 

[cstu]

Hillary Clinton offers a detailed account of the deadly attack on the American embassy in Benghazi — and a pointed rebuttal to Republican critics who’ve laced into her over the incident — in a much-anticipated chapter of her forthcoming book, “Hard Choices,” obtained by POLITICO.

...Clinton defends the intelligence at the time preceding the attack on the American compound in Benghazi. An anti-Islamic video that had sparked a protest at an embassy in Cairo was proved in “later investigation and reporting,” including by The New York Times, to have been “indeed a factor” in what happened in Benghazi, Clinton writes.

That point is among those that has been debated during hearings into the attacks.

“There were scores of attackers that night, almost certainly with differing motives,” she writes. “It is inaccurate to state that every single one of them was influenced by this hateful video. It is equally inaccurate to state that none of them were. Both assertions defy not only the evidence but logic as well.”

...

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/hillary-clintons-benghazi-chapter-107240.html#ixzz33FcRZifq

Tim, I finally got to look at this at a bookstore last night and I thought I would take a perusal.

I was wrong when I said earlier that Hillary was doubling down. I was wrong because it was based on Politico's reporting.

Looking at the book, Hillary does not say that there were mixed messages at the time. Far from it, she reports that the first thing she and State learned was from the "Operations Center" which stated that there was an attack by Ansar Al-Sharia which she plainly describes as a terrorist group or militia.

Go look at it for yourself - it's on Page 395 (IIRC).

Again, Hillary says nothing about intelligence about a "spontaneous protest." She says nothing about that, only that intelligence reported that it was a terrorist attack. The reporting on her book above is puzzling considering this and it continues to be absolutely bizarre in retrospect that the administration was ever saying anything about a spontaneous protest when Hillary herself says that it was reported to them as a terrorist attack by the militia group.

Here's what I believe based on the timeline I read:

- While the attack was going on a militant group took credit for it

- Without time to verify the group's claims, Hillary announced the attack was due to the video

- Obama comes out the next day and sticks with Hillary's version while saying we are investigating but leaves open the possibility that it was pre-planned:

And my suspicion is, is that there are folks involved in this, who were looking to target Americans from the start.

- The administration took to long to state conclusively that it was a pre-planned attack.

Final take - this is a stupid story.

 

[DocHolliday]

Final take. This is just another lie.

 

[pantagrapher]

Final take. This is just another lie.

If this dude says he participated in the attack in part because of the video, then we're going to face a tinfoil shortage.

 

[tommyGunZ]

One suspect apprehended in another Obama ploy to distract from Benghazi.

Yeah, unfortunately for Obama (and everybody else) I don't think he has any shortage of distractions from Benghazi these days. No need to manufacture any.

This stuff is so sad:

U.S. forces working with the FBI captured a key suspect in the 2012 attack on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, a U.S. official told CNN Tuesday.

Libyan militia leader Ahmed abu Khattalah was captured over the weekend, the official said. His is the first arrest in connection with the attack.

He is now being held in a location outside Libya, the official said.

Last year, federal prosecutors filed sealed charges against Khattalah over the Benghazi attack, in which scores of militants using rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons attacked the compound.

U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other U.S. citizens died in the attack, which later became a political flashpoint.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/17/world/africa/benghazi-suspect-captured/index.html

This is Hillary in her book:

“There were scores of attackers that night, almost certainly with differing motives,” she writes.

The arrest of the Libyan militia leader refutes this, he is a military/militia/terrorist leader, they aren't arresting him for participating in a "spontaneous protest."

We arrest one of the guys responsible for these murders and you jump right back to arguing about what people called the attack shortly after it went down.

And we're supposed to believe that you don't listen to conservative talk radio and/or FoxNews? C'mon bro.

 

[Bucky86]

One suspect apprehended in another Obama ploy to distract from Benghazi.

Yeah, unfortunately for Obama (and everybody else) I don't think he has any shortage of distractions from Benghazi these days. No need to manufacture any.

This stuff is so sad:

U.S. forces working with the FBI captured a key suspect in the 2012 attack on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, a U.S. official told CNN Tuesday.

Libyan militia leader Ahmed abu Khattalah was captured over the weekend, the official said. His is the first arrest in connection with the attack.

He is now being held in a location outside Libya, the official said.

Last year, federal prosecutors filed sealed charges against Khattalah over the Benghazi attack, in which scores of militants using rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons attacked the compound.

U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other U.S. citizens died in the attack, which later became a political flashpoint.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/17/world/africa/benghazi-suspect-captured/index.html

This is Hillary in her book:

“There were scores of attackers that night, almost certainly with differing motives,” she writes.

The arrest of the Libyan militia leader refutes this, he is a military/militia/terrorist leader, they aren't arresting him for participating in a "spontaneous protest."

We arrest one of the guys responsible for these murders and you jump right back to arguing about what people called the attack shortly after it went down.

And we're supposed to believe that you don't listen to conservative talk radio and/or FoxNews? C'mon bro.

He and Maxthreshold are two peas in a pod.

 

[timschochet]

One suspect apprehended in another Obama ploy to distract from Benghazi.

Yeah, unfortunately for Obama (and everybody else) I don't think he has any shortage of distractions from Benghazi these days. No need to manufacture any.

This stuff is so sad:

U.S. forces working with the FBI captured a key suspect in the 2012 attack on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, a U.S. official told CNN Tuesday.

Libyan militia leader Ahmed abu Khattalah was captured over the weekend, the official said. His is the first arrest in connection with the attack.

He is now being held in a location outside Libya, the official said.

Last year, federal prosecutors filed sealed charges against Khattalah over the Benghazi attack, in which scores of militants using rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons attacked the compound.

U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other U.S. citizens died in the attack, which later became a political flashpoint.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/17/world/africa/benghazi-suspect-captured/index.html

This is Hillary in her book:

There were scores of attackers that night, almost certainly with differing motives, she writes.

The arrest of the Libyan militia leader refutes this, he is a military/militia/terrorist leader, they aren't arresting him for participating in a "spontaneous protest."

I don't understand your conclusion here. Just because the one guy had one motive doesn't mean there weren't others with different motives. How does it contradict Hillary?

 

[Widbil83]

Anybody just see that interview on CNN with one of the victims mothers? Holy #### Obama and Hillary are #######s! Unreal.

 

[Rove!]

Final take. This is just another lie.

If this dude says he participated in the attack in part because of the video, then we're going to face a tinfoil shortage.

doen't matter why he participated in the attack. Fact is, this was a organozed, preplanned attack by a group with ties to Al Qaeda and this what the intelligence said as the attack was occurring and not some spontaneous protest that got "out of hand" as we wer led to believe for up to two weeks until that narrative fell apart.

 

[RBM]

Anybody just see that interview on CNN with one of the victims mothers? Holy #### Obama and Hillary are #######s! Unreal.

Details please

 

[matuski]

Who would have guessed this would bite the nut jobs in the rear?

 

[Chaka]

Pathetic.

 

[Jules Winnfield]

Final take. This is just another lie.

If this dude says he participated in the attack in part because of the video, then we're going to face a tinfoil shortage.

doen't matter why he participated in the attack. Fact is, this was a organozed, preplanned attack by a group with ties to Al Qaeda and this what the intelligence said as the attack was occurring and not some spontaneous protest that got "out of hand" as we wer led to believe for up to two weeks until that narrative fell apart.

Say what? Spell check is your friend

 

[pantagrapher]

Final take. This is just another lie.

If this dude says he participated in the attack in part because of the video, then we're going to face a tinfoil shortage.

doen't matter why he participated in the attack. Fact is, this was a organozed, preplanned attack by a group with ties to Al Qaeda and this what the intelligence said as the attack was occurring and not some spontaneous protest that got "out of hand" as we wer led to believe for up to two weeks until that narrative fell apart.

Say what? Spell check is your friend

Basically: no new information matters.

 

[Chaka]

Final take. This is just another lie.

If this dude says he participated in the attack in part because of the video, then we're going to face a tinfoil shortage.

doen't matter why he participated in the attack. Fact is, this was a organozed, preplanned attack by a group with ties to Al Qaeda and this what the intelligence said as the attack was occurring and not some spontaneous protest that got "out of hand" as we wer led to believe for up to two weeks until that narrative fell apart.

Don't you get it by now? No one gives a #### about that man. You know why? Because it isn't the huge deal you are hoping and praying it will become. Accept it and move on already.

Holding on to this narrative and hoping it will somehow damage the administration and the democratic party reeks of desperation. If it hasn't by now, then it never will. And now that they have captured one of the leaders of the attack it will become even more difficult to manufacture the scandal you are praying for. The funny part is all the posts in here asking what the administration has been doing to bring these guys to justice, which seemed oh so important to many of you, are now being pretty much ignored. Nothing this administration does will ever make some of you happy and that is truly sad.

It would be nice if the Benghazi scandaliers put this much energy into improving the Republican party.

 

[squistion]

http://www.dailykos....ha-just-kidding

With suspect under arrest, GOP finally decides to praise Obama on Benghazi. Ha ha, just kidding

By Jed Lewiston for Daily Kos

Last month, Sen. John McCain released a statement with his sidekick Sens. Kelly Ayotte and Lindsey Graham accusing the Obama administration of sitting on its hands while letting Benghazi suspect Ahmed abu Khatallah roam freely. "Since we know where Ahmed abu Khattala is," they asked, "why hasn’t he been detained?"

Well, Khatallah has now been detained and is en route to the U.S. where he will face justice. Moreover, we've learned that far from sitting on its hands, the administration had a plan to capture him late last year, but postponed it because the operation would have been too risky.

So given those facts, McCain and his pals should be pleased, and maybe even apologize for suggesting that Obama wasn't trying hard enough to capture Khatallah, right? Of course not.

A pair of hawkish Republican senators [McCain and Graham] who have been outspoken critics of the Obama administration's response to the deadly attacks in Benghazi, Libya, swiftly called Tuesday for a captured suspect in the attacks to be held at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.

Yes, this is the same McCain who just last year vowed to close Guantanamo, saying in a joint statement with Sen. Dianne Feinstein that he would "take the steps necessary to make that happen." And it's the same Lindsey Graham who along with McCain had falsely accused the administration of letting Khatallah off the hook. But they've got a president to attack, and that's more important than being consistent or conceding that they've been wrong at every step.

Ayotte is no better, releasing a statement in which she suggested the administration was more concerned with legal process than protecting the nation:

Ayotte has absolutely zero evidence to suggest that the Obama administration is doing anything that would make future attacks more likely, but that didn't stop her from raising the possibility that the president is effectively on the terrorists' side. And both Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner are saying the same thing.

Rather than rushing to read him his Miranda rights and telling him he has the right to remain silent, I hope the administration will focus on collecting the intelligence necessary to prevent future attacks and to find other terrorists responsible for the Benghazi attacks.

For two years they've been attacking Obama for not capturing anyone responsible for Benghazi, but now that Khatallah has been captured in a flawless operation, they've decided its time to launch a new attack. Their collective response should make it clear to anyone who had any doubts that the GOP's Benghazi attacks aren't really about Benghazi: They're about the GOP's opposition to Obama, no matter what he does.

 

[Chaka]

http://www.dailykos....ha-just-kidding

With suspect under arrest, GOP finally decides to praise Obama on Benghazi. Ha ha, just kidding

By Jed Lewiston for Daily Kos

Last month, Sen. John McCain released a statement with his sidekick Sens. Kelly Ayotte and Lindsey Graham accusing the Obama administration of sitting on its hands while letting Benghazi suspect Ahmed abu Khatallah roam freely. "Since we know where Ahmed abu Khattala is," they asked, "why hasn’t he been detained?"

Well, Khatallah has now been detained and is en route to the U.S. where he will face justice. Moreover, we've learned that far from sitting on its hands, the administration had a plan to capture him late last year, but postponed it because the operation would have been too risky.

So given those facts, McCain and his pals should be pleased, and maybe even apologize for suggesting that Obama wasn't trying hard enough to capture Khatallah, right? Of course not.

A pair of hawkish Republican senators [McCain and Graham] who have been outspoken critics of the Obama administration's response to the deadly attacks in Benghazi, Libya, swiftly called Tuesday for a captured suspect in the attacks to be held at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.

Yes, this is the same McCain who just last year vowed to close Guantanamo, saying in a joint statement with Sen. Dianne Feinstein that he would "take the steps necessary to make that happen." And it's the same Lindsey Graham who along with McCain had falsely accused the administration of letting Khatallah off the hook. But they've got a president to attack, and that's more important than being consistent or conceding that they've been wrong at every step.

Ayotte is no better, releasing a statement in which she suggested the administration was more concerned with legal process than protecting the nation:

Ayotte has absolutely zero evidence to suggest that the Obama administration is doing anything that would make future attacks more likely, but that didn't stop her from raising the possibility that the president is effectively on the terrorists' side. And both Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner are saying the same thing.

Rather than rushing to read him his Miranda rights and telling him he has the right to remain silent, I hope the administration will focus on collecting the intelligence necessary to prevent future attacks and to find other terrorists responsible for the Benghazi attacks.

For two years they've been attacking Obama for not capturing anyone responsible for Benghazi, but now that Khatallah has been captured in a flawless operation, they've decided its time to launch a new attack. Their collective response should make it clear to anyone who had any doubts that the GOP's Benghazi attacks aren't really about Benghazi: They're about the GOP's opposition to Obama, no matter what he does.

Truly pathetic.