View Full Version : U.S. Ambassador and three others killed in Libya.
They changed the Constitution so that the Presidential nominees could pick a VP
That is false. The 12th Amendment made electors cast a separate vote for a president and for a vice-president. It was not designed to prop up a two party system.
Papewaio
09-27-2012, 04:55
A two party system is only one step better than a one party system.
Two party systems have a tendency to smother anything that upsets a gravy train. It isn't a system like in law where you have two opposing forces of prosecuter and defender with a judge and jury (arguably a 4 party system).
Two party systems create binary answers to issues, polarizing even simple issues where teamwork makes sense and a very black or white solution set. Have only a hammer and all your problems are nails. Have a two party system and you see through a lens of us vs them.
Some issues in life are that simple, but I'd they are that simple you don't need a specialized leadership to deal with them. You have a specialized leadership to deal with complex problems. Having more then two parties allows voters to more closely vote for a party that represents them the best instead of selecting one out of fear of the other guy.
Most of us wouldn't care how you vote. Except your relationships with foreign nations generally comes across as little more nuanced then "You're with us or against us", have a difference of opinion and it's not a pretty sight.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-27-2012, 13:06
The video is the smokescreen that the bourgeoise use in order to exploit the proletariat.
YOU FOOLS
No - it's the Church trying to control the masses.
Their rivalry was one of the main reasons it was changed. And heck, just look at all the presidents who have died in office (8 I think).
What does Presidents dieing in Office have to do with anything? That's only a problem if the VP is a loon from the fringe of the party picked to keep the party cohesive - oh wait.
That's a problem with the current system, not the one it replaced.
A two party system is ideal, so you're going to have be more explicit about what you think is corrupt.
A two-party system is not ideal because...
Our problems are when our "common sense" traditions are faulty, and when radicals (left-liberals and libertarians usually) puke their ideology all over the place.
...you get this. The natural result of two parties is divergence from the mean while the natural result of multiple parties is convergence on topics of common interest.
He has consistently made it about the video. Goodness.
And the video didn't trigger the protests, and certainly not the killings, as he suggests in that clip and has been suggesting.
The video filtered out - it's on the front of youtube, it triggered the protests the way a spark triggers a blowout in a coal mine.
That is false. The 12th Amendment made electors cast a separate vote for a president and for a vice-president. It was not designed to prop up a two party system.
It was changed because parties wanted "teams" - if they had sucked it up like proper statesmen you wouldn't have a problem, but they decided to be fractious and have become ever more so since.
It was changed because parties wanted "teams" - if they had sucked it up like proper statesmen you wouldn't have a problem, but they decided to be fractious and have become ever more so since.
False. Candidates started running in "teams" decades after the amendment was ratified.
The Washington Post has put up a timeline (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/from-video-to-terrorist-attack-a-definitive-timeline-of-administration-statements-on-the-libya-attack/2012/09/26/86105782-0826-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html) of administration statements about the Benghazi attacks and they put forth a motive for why they'd try to hide the fact that it was indeed a terror attack....
For political reasons, it certainly was in the White House’s interests to not portray the attack as a terrorist incident, especially one that took place on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. Instead the administration kept the focus on what was ultimately a red herring — anger in the Arab world over anti-Muslim video posted on You Tube.
I still don't get it. It'd be mind-blowingly stupid to really think they could hide the real progression of events. So did they think they could lessen the fallout by keeping the public on the wrong track for as long as possible? Or are they just mind-blowingly stupid? Or is it something else entirely?
EDIT:
It just keeps getting better and better. Two weeks later, and the FBI still hasn't gotten onsite to investigate anything. Why? Bureaucratic infighting. From CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/26/world/africa/libya-investigation/index.html):
"They had difficulty, and we understand there was some bureaucratic infighting between the FBI and Justice Department on the one hand, and the State Department on the other, and so it took them longer than they would have liked to get into country. They've now gotten there. But they still are unable to get permission to go to Benghazi."
FBI agents have made a request through the U.S. State Department for the crime scene to be secured, Townsend said, but that has not happened. Meanwhile, anyone including CNN reporters, can stroll thru the site and sift thru whats left apparently without issue. :no:
Odd, what do Hindu temples have to do with the movie, but in Bangladesh people with culture are attacking them.
Leftist people know, for a fact, that it has nothing to do with islam. Needs different words, moderate muslims should be classified as 'non-radical' instead of 'moderate' as islam is extreme by nature.
Yes, all the Muslims that don't feel like killing people all the time are obviously not real believers (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takfiri)!
...people with culture...
I love this term.
Major Robert Dump
09-30-2012, 22:28
I think the administration was in a no-win situation, and would have been criticized either way.
On one hand, you have Obama sort of thinking he repaired muslim-US relations in a few years with some catchy speeches, and to suggest otherwise might bring into question our participation in Libya or passivity in allowing the MB to rise. But I would think that blaming only the film would hurt muslim-US reolations and cause them to digress, as it undermines any and all other causes and makes muslims look like 8 year old throwing a tantrum
You also have a situation that for a terrorist attack, the admin will look folly and incompetent for not being prepared, it was after all, sept 11 which is a fairly obvious day.
Basically, in our no-win political climate, Obama was going to be criticized no matter what position he took. While I find that sad and pathetic, I am not defending the lies. It's not like the lies got more people killed, or was some form of cronyism for profit that we could tangibly point to and assess damages. Rather, it was typical figure head telling typical untruth to guard against typical fallout, all too common IMO. The admin was misguided and buffoonish on this, very amatuer.
I love this term.
Best thing about leftist lingo is that you get to get really sarcastic
Vladimir
10-03-2012, 12:53
News update:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10/benghazi/
They might as well have painted a target on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. During the spring and summer, militants attacked the American diplomatic outpost and other symbols of Western influence over and over again, according to a new letter from top congressional investigators. Yet security at the consulate remained light, with only a small coterie of contract guards assigned to defend it. No wonder guerrillas — widely assumed to be connected to al-Qaeda — were able to overwhelm the consulate, and kill the American ambassador there.
No doubt this will baffle some here.
It keeps getting better...
Despite Threats, U.S. Cut Security in Libya Before Attacks (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/04/despite-threats-u-s-cut-security-in-libya-before-attacks.html)
Even as American outposts in Benghazi appeared to be at risk, the State Department trimmed the number of security guards on the ground. Eli Lake reports on the latest allegations.
And from the Washington Post:
Sensitive documents left behind at U.S. diplomatic post in Libya (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/sensitive-documents-left-behind-at-american-mission-in-libya/2012/10/03/11911498-0d7e-11e2-bd1a-b868e65d57eb_story.html)
More than three weeks after attacks in this city killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans, sensitive documents remained only loosely secured in the wreckage of the U.S. mission on Wednesday, offering visitors easy access to delicate information about American operations in Libya.
Documents detailing weapons collection efforts, emergency evacuation protocols, the full internal itinerary of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens’s trip and the personnel records of Libyans who were contracted to secure the mission were among the items scattered across the floors of the looted compound when a Washington Post reporter and an interpreter visited Wednesday.
The US has pretty much completely abandoned Benghazi. The FBI team sent to investigate the assassination has yet to be allowed on site. Apparently anyone can walk into the compound and gather classified documents- as the Washington Post reporter was able to....
What is going on??
Nobody really knows
Fragony said something with which I completely agree. This is one of the signs of the End Times.
https://i.imgur.com/ertqx.jpg
Major Robert Dump
10-05-2012, 02:03
I like how the State Dept attacks CNN over the diary..... as if they committed a horrible crime and the book would have been much better off in random Libyan hands. Oh, wait, it was, and CNN bought it back. Those terrible, terrible people.
Cross anyone in an administration and they turn into blabbering idiots, apparently
Fragony said something with which I completely agree. This is one of the signs of the End Times.
https://i.imgur.com/ertqx.jpg
Inhale slowly
The news keeps trickling in, this time from CBS....
Ex-U.S. security team leader in Libya: "We needed more, not less" security staff (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57527659/ex-u.s-security-team-leader-in-libya-we-needed-more-not-less-security-staff/)
The former head of a Special Forces "Site Security Team" in Libya tells CBS News that in spite of multiple pleas from himself and other U.S. security officials on the ground for "more, not less" security personnel, the State Department removed as many as 34 people from the country in the six months before the terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others.
Lt. Col. Andy Wood will appear this week at a House Oversight Committee hearing that will examine security decisions leading up to the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi.
Speaking to CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, Wood said when he found out that his own 16-member team and a six-member State Department elite force were being pulled from Tripoli in August - about a month before the assault in Benghazi - he felt, "like we were being asked to play the piano with two fingers. There was concern amongst the entire embassy staff."
Major Robert Dump
10-09-2012, 23:23
What is amazing is that one-issue Obama type voters do not get the fuss over issues like this embassy thing. I seriously had a girl say "so what? he suports gay marriage!" sigh oh sigh
He really thought he fixed the middle east with some speeches I suppose. While I happen to agree with what he said in those speeches, its pretty amatuer to think that words solved anything with certain types of people
Seamus Fermanagh
10-10-2012, 22:41
What is amazing is that one-issue Obama type voters do not get the fuss over issues like this embassy thing. I seriously had a girl say "so what? he suports gay marriage!" sigh oh sigh
He really thought he fixed the middle east with some speeches I suppose. While I happen to agree with what he said in those speeches, its pretty amatuer to think that words solved anything with certain types of people
Actually, I would suspect that Obama and any number of his administration members thought that he had solved it by having Bin Ladin killed. We have always had a preference for reducing problems to simple form -- head gone, snake dies -- even when we really know better. It's a pretty natural tendency in US culture. I suppose you could ding him for thinking about it this simplistically -- since we hope our Presidents and key players don't take the easy way out in problem analysis -- but I suspect the tendency was natural enough.
Papewaio
10-10-2012, 23:13
Because we all know Russia won the Cold War with Kennedy's assassination. :smoking:
Seamus Fermanagh
10-11-2012, 01:22
Because we all know Russia won the Cold War with Kennedy's assassination. :smoking:
I did say that such simplification was a common tendency, not a correct or laudable one.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-11-2012, 05:28
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=A3ldyGsZ1Io
Wrenching.
Vladimir
10-11-2012, 13:34
Another update:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10/benghazi-hearing/
State Department: We Monitored Libya Attack ‘in Almost Real Time’
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-letting-us-in-on-a-secret/2012/10/10/ba3136ca-132b-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_story.html
When House Republicans called a hearing in the middle of their long recess, you knew it would be something big, and indeed it was: They accidentally blew the CIA’s cover.
The purpose of Wednesday’s hearing of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee was to examine security lapses that led to the killing in Benghazi last month of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three others. But in doing so, the lawmakers reminded us why “congressional intelligence” is an oxymoron.
Through their outbursts, cryptic language and boneheaded questioning of State Department officials, the committee members left little doubt that one of the two compounds at which the Americans were killed, described by the administration as a “consulate” and a nearby “annex,” was a CIA base. They did this, helpfully, in a televised public hearing.
:laugh4:
Vladimir
10-11-2012, 17:43
I don't get it. He's saying that someone may have possibly identified a vacant building that may have been operated by another government agency. Maybe even the *gasp* CIA?
Didn't State abandon the building and forbid anyone from going near it? Isn't the building already compromised? Looks like someone is trying to play the gotcha game. Logic fail?
Edit: It also looks like the State Department guy is the one who spilled the beans with the congressman cluing everyone in. WaPo opinion piece.
Fisherking
10-11-2012, 18:00
ha ha , yeha right…
You know that is more the fault of the person being questioned than the questioner. It could easily be misinformation.
There is a protocol for handling sensitive questions and this person didn’t fallow it. Sounds like handling the other party to me.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-11-2012, 18:13
That was reported on weeks ago--that the attack had crippled the CIA effort in the area by destroying the building they had stored their gathered intelligence in.
Papewaio
10-11-2012, 21:21
CIA flies drones against militants, does this move the line of the site from civilian to para-military?
In other words was this an all out assault because local militants found out that was a CIA base?
After all another CIA operation was compromised when the double agent turned into a suicide bomber beside his handlers.
Not really related directly but worth a watch, Syria. http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2012/10/kijktip_russische_repo_over_sy.html#comments
Islamrealists (leftist people furiously scream islamphobe) seem to understand things better than islamphiles it seems..
Vladimir
10-12-2012, 13:06
CIA flies drones against militants, does this move the line of the site from civilian to para-military?
In other words was this an all out assault because local militants found out that was a CIA base?
After all another CIA operation was compromised when the double agent turned into a suicide bomber beside his handlers.
All embassies are CIA bases, SVR bases, whatever the French call themselves bases. They attacked it because it was a weakly defended symbol of America.
Fragony, I'm sorry, but that's a very linear view of the civil war. The rebel side is very fragmented and saying that it's being justified as a holy war is very misguided and, additionally, it you try to completely delegitimise the Syrian resistance movement, parts of which (note, parts) have very justifiable grounds to be opposed to the Assad regime
EDIT: I just saw the entire video. I don't think anyone can seriously defend the idea that there are no elements of jihadism within the Syrian opposition movement. However, and this is a major caveat, the Syrian opposition is far from a centralised organisation. There are many, many different groups operating under the banner of the "Free Syian Army", some of which are less honourable than others. I don't know. And you don't either.
Major Robert Dump
10-12-2012, 14:21
Oh Drudge....
So earlier in the week, we see stories of the "emotional" Romney saying he had met one of the deceased SEALS
Then the mans mom comes out and tells him to please stop, and one of his friends interviewed says that Romney came off as corney in the meetings, and was very obviously trying to kiss butt....
Drudge pulls original story. Doesn't run story about mom.
I used to like Drudge report
Fragony, I'm sorry, but that's a very linear view of the civil war. The rebel side is very fragmented and saying that it's being justified as a holy war is very misguided and, additionally, it you try to completely delegitimise the Syrian resistance movement, parts of which (note, parts) have very justifiable grounds to be opposed to the Assad regime
EDIT: I just saw the entire video. I don't think anyone can seriously defend the idea that there are no elements of jihadism within the Syrian opposition movement. However, and this is a major caveat, the Syrian opposition is far from a centralised organisation. There are many, many different groups operating under the banner of the "Free Syian Army", some of which are less honourable than others. I don't know. And you don't either.
True, I don't know. What I do know though is that quality media picked a side
I used to like Drudge report
The 1990s called and wanted you to know that it's Hammer Time (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otCpCn0l4Wo).
Major Robert Dump
10-12-2012, 15:49
Yeah, it's kind of funny. I eventually gave up on all the major sites, and Drudge was sort of my last holdout.
The headlines (links) are typically highly misleading. Like after Obamas speech at the UN, where he said the future does not belong to those who insult Islam, the headline was something like "Cowering to Islam" when in fact Obama also said the future does not belong to epople who insult Christians, and he gave a very eloquent "Eff-U" to the people calling for blasphemny laws, basically telling them to get over themselves.
Anyway, as a young college student I got hooked on the AP Wire. I stopped visitng a while back, but it looks like thats where I will end up again, as most stories start there in their full form, and get watered down from there by whatever BS agenda the agency has. A recent example of that would be the Cleveland Tx "One year later" story about the 12 year old girl who was gangraped by 20 guys. Most left leaning news sources watered this story down to like 3 paragraphs, leaving ouyt the most damning facts and information.
Oh well, OT so I will stop and go back to "work"
Can't touch this
You are doing it wrong http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=vIRQf0S3oD0&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DvIRQf0S3oD0
I saw this headline today from Reuters: White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack: emails (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-usa-benghazi-emails-idUSBRE89N02C20121024)
Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.
So yeah.... Can we now safely say that the Obama administration was being dishonest in the weeks after the attack when they claimed all information pointed to a protest that spun out of control as the reason for the attacks? After this, it's hard to see their story as anything besides a lie. :no:
So long as we can establish that no extremist or militant group ever claimed responsibility for something they didn't do, then yes! We do not even need to have an investigation! Oh, wait (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/10/24/163531442/reports-militant-group-quickly-claimed-responsibility-for-benghazi-attack) ...
"Terrorist organizations often quickly claim responsibility after incidents such as the Benghazi attack — sometimes when they were not actually involved. And such claims may be among many pieces of sometimes conflicting evidence."
Major Robert Dump
10-24-2012, 15:19
It was not uncommon for third-rate thugs to claim ties to the Taliban or AQ in order to gain street cred. This makes me no less annoyed with the administrations handling of the incident and persistent blaming on the film
Vladimir
10-25-2012, 16:44
I saw this headline today from Reuters: White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack: emails (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-usa-benghazi-emails-idUSBRE89N02C20121024)
So yeah.... Can we now safely say that the Obama administration was being dishonest in the weeks after the attack when they claimed all information pointed to a protest that spun out of control as the reason for the attacks? After this, it's hard to see their story as anything besides a lie. :no:
Yes. Or to be generous, they saw what they wanted to like with the Iraq WMDs. In that case there was plenty of evidence supporting their existence, no proof of their destruction, but simple and key elements of the primary source's story were easily falsifiable. No doubt the White House clung feverishly to those reports that supported their position and were skeptical of the rest.
Their problem is that they can't be seen as weak during a closely contested election.
More information, this from FoxNews. I'll be interested to see if any other news agencies corroborate this.
CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/)
Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command -- who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.
Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The rescue team from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.
At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied.
If this is true, the only reason anyone at the consulate survived looks to be because CIA operators ignored orders to stand down and evacuated them...
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-27-2012, 10:49
More information, this from FoxNews. I'll be interested to see if any other news agencies corroborate this.
CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/)
If this is true, the only reason anyone at the consulate survived looks to be because CIA operators ignored orders to stand down and evacuated them...
Or...
The Libyan SpecOps team?
If true, damning. If false, just more scare-mongering by Murdoch news
What isn't immediatly rectified is usually true no?
HopAlongBunny
10-27-2012, 20:08
What isn't immediatly rectified is usually true no?
Fox exists on its own planet and reports to those inhabitants; I'll wait for a news organization to report.
Fox exists on its own planet and reports to those inhabitants; I'll wait for a news organization to report.
Fox news ain't so bad, it are their opinion programs that are off
Fox is kind of famous for large scale deception during the Bush years. They have no credibility on their own, although they have been making strides.
They don't seem all that bad compared to others, thing is that if you use them as a scource here you will be stripped of your pipe and sandals, your beard will be shaved and your sociology-degree will be shredded because that's neinneinnein-territory aka not done. But the news-crew seems pretty professional they usually have it right.
Fisherking
10-28-2012, 14:24
Someone please show me any news source without bias?
Likely if you cite one it will only show your own biases.
Nothing at all on the BBC or Guardian about it, there is a piece on the Telegraph which was done two weeks ago saying the CIA had intel that militants did it, not a mob. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9620177/Early-CIA-report-blamed-militants-for-Benghazi-attack.html)
But that is old-news stuff from then. Nothing anywhere recently about CIA being denied support.
The Fox news article is going on about "Exclusive", so I am guessing they got superdupersecretinfo that no one else in the world has access too. I guess inventing stories is a sure way to fire up the Republican propaganda machine.
Sorry, but this whole thing is beginning to have a whiff of trutherism about it.
Consider that intel is almost always conflicting, and rarely, if ever, 100% clear.
Consider that to prove the Republican case, you need to establish that there was overwhelming and clear evidence, to which the admin had access in the first week.
Consider that the sitting Prez name-checked terrorism in his first announcement, and then declared the attack to be a terrorist act 24 hours later. (So the whole "who hit the 'terrorism' button first" thing is a bit of a non-starter for anyone who isn't on Fox and Friends.)
Consider how much time and energy Drudge, Limbaugh, Daily Caller, Fox News, and the rest of the conservative-media-complex have spent on this subject in the last month. Then compare to how much traction the conspiracy theory is gaining in the public sphere.
And then carry on as you see fit.
What conspiracy theory are we talking about exactly? That the administration was reducing diplomatic security in Libya over the objections of people on the ground leading up to the anniversary of 9/11? Or is it that the administration continued to attribute it to a poorly made anti-Islam film when there was no evidence to support that claim? Or are you talking about something else entirely?
Edit:
Consider how much time and energy Drudge, Limbaugh, Daily Caller, Fox News, and the rest of the conservative-media-complex have spent on this subject in the last month. Then compare to how much traction the conspiracy theory is gaining in the public sphere.For the record, I posted one link to FoxNews- the others are well-sourced. Here's (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/libyan-witnesses-recount-organized-benghazi-attack) an AP story from Saturday- the AP isn't generally considered part of the right-wing echo chamber.
The Obama administration has sent out muddled messages whether it was a planned attack or a mob protest that got out of control. A day after the attack, President Barack Obama referred to "acts of terror." He told CBS' "60 Minutes" in an interview aired the following Sunday that he believed those involved "were looking to target Americans from the start."
Within 24 hours of the attack, both the embassy in Tripoli and the CIA station chief sent word to Washington that it was a planned militant attack. Still, days later, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, said the attack began as a spontaneous protest over the film.
The best case for the Obama administration is that the attacks and their incoherent public responses to it are due to incompetence- the reasons can only get uglier from there. But as you say, carry on as you see fit.
What conspiracy theory are we talking about exactly? [...]
The best case for the Obama administration is that the attacks and their incoherent public responses to it are due to incompetence- the reasons can only get uglier from there.
Self-answering post is self-answering.
So... Obama administration incompetent = conspiracy theory?
I'm sorry, I thought "the reasons can only get uglier from there." Dum-dum-DUM!
If you follow the conservative-media-complex, you would think that nothing but Benghazi has happened in the last month. You would believe it is the ultimate scandal destined to pull down the mighty tower of corruption and incompetence that is the Obama administration. You would see a frenzied conservative base desperately overplaying a weak hand, in other words.
Apparently every incompetent scoundrel from the Bush 43 admin believes that Beghazigate is a get-out-of-jail-free card as well. Witness FEMA's old director, Michael Brown (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/ex-fema-director-michael-brown-criticizes-obama-reacting-202803013.html), using it to ... do something or another.
Former FEMA director Michael Brown, who was heavily criticized for the agency's failure to prepare for Hurricane Katrina, has criticized President Obama for responding to Hurricane Sandy too early.
In an interview with Denver Westword, Brown said, "One thing [President Obama's] gonna be asked is, why did he jump on [Hurricane Sandy] so quickly and go back to D.C. so quickly when in ... Benghazi, he went to Las Vegas? Why was this so quick? ... At some point, somebody's going to ask that question."
Brown said the president may have had a more positive effect had he waited until Sunday afternoon to address the storm instead of holding a press conference that morning.
Brown's insinuation that Obama responded too early is a gutsy move considering his role in the 2005 disaster. Brown, who was famously called "Brownie" by President George W. Bush, was seen as a symbol of government failure to protect and evacuate people from the path of Katrina.
Greyblades
10-31-2012, 14:44
Remember when this was the republican party had redemptive qualities like being the anti slavery party? Me neither.
In an interview with Denver Westword, Brown said, "One thing [President Obama's] gonna be asked is, why did he jump on [Hurricane Sandy] so quickly and go back to D.C. so quickly when in ... Benghazi, he went to Las Vegas? Why was this so quick? ... At some point, somebody's going to ask that question."
Priceless. Too bad it wasn't televised.
I'm sorry, I thought "the reasons can only get uglier from there." Dum-dum-DUM!I'm willing to withhold judgement on the "Who knew what when & why wasn't help sent in faster?" portion of this debacle- there could be a lot of explanations for it and many could be perfectly reasonable.
What speaks to incompetence is that they had Susan Rice & Jay Carney telling the media that the attack was a result of protests gone wild when there was little evidence of that in the first place and they continued peddling that line long after it proved false. If you're sending a surrogate out to give the administration's line on the Sunday news shows, why wouldn't you make sure they have the latest information?
The bigger issue however, is why on earth the administration thought it was a good idea to pare down diplomatic security in Libya and try to replace it with paramilitary militias, like the Feb17 Matyrs Brigade? They had a steady stream of intel that showed a deteriorating security situation in Benghazi- including a bombing that blew a 12 foot hole in the wall of the consulate on June 6. The British closed their diplomatic mission in Benghazi because it was so unsafe there- we cut security... :dizzy2:
Sasaki Kojiro
11-02-2012, 00:30
For the record, I posted one link to FoxNews- the others are well-sourced. Here's (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/libyan-witnesses-recount-organized-benghazi-attack) an AP story from Saturday- the AP isn't generally considered part of the right-wing echo chamber.
also:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57544026/sources-key-task-force-not-convened-during-benghazi-consulate-attack/?tag=socsh
In the days after the assault, counterterrorism officials expressed dismay over what they interpreted as the Obama Administration's unwillingness to acknowledge that the attack was terrorism; and their opinion that resources which could have helped were excluded.
Counterterrorism officials from two agencies said they concluded almost immediately that the attack was by terrorists and was not spontaneous. "I came to this conclusion as soon as I heard the mortar rounds were impacting on top of the building our people were occupying," says one. "The position of the mortar must be plotted on a map, the target would have to be plotted, computations would be calculated that would result in the proper mortar tube elevation and the correct number of powder bags to be attached to the rounds."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-benghazi-questions-the-administration-must-answer/2012/10/30/02d02538-22e2-11e2-8448-81b1ce7d6978_story.html
The attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi has become a political football in the presidential campaign, with all the grandstanding and misinformation that entails. But Fox News has raised questions about the attack that deserve a clearer answer from the Obama administration.
Anyway, with the media its "pick your echo chamber".
I'm willing to withhold judgement on the "Who knew what when & why wasn't help sent in faster?" portion of this debacle- there could be a lot of explanations for it and many could be perfectly reasonable.
We probably won't know for a long time :shrug:
What speaks to incompetence is that they had Susan Rice & Jay Carney telling the media that the attack was a result of protests gone wild when there was little evidence of that in the first place and they continued peddling that line long after it proved false. If you're sending a surrogate out to give the administration's line on the Sunday news shows, why wouldn't you make sure they have the latest information?
I think a bigger part of it is that they really think its important to tell americans that stuff like the video is bad and to show muslims that they are condemning it. They believe that has real value. That would probably have been their response to just the cairo protests. And since they didn't want to talk about the libya attack really they just talked like the would have if it had just been the cairo protest.
Apparently, almost two months after the attack, you can still wonder into the site and pick up sensitive documents that are lying around.... The folks at Foreign Policy (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/11/01/troubling_surveillance_before_benghazi_attack?page=full) did.
More than six weeks after the shocking assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi -- and nearly a month after an FBI team arrived to collect evidence about the attack - the battle-scarred, fire-damaged compound where Ambassador Chris Stevens and another Foreign Service officer lost their lives on Sept. 11 still holds sensitive documents and other relics of that traumatic final day, including drafts of two letters worrying that the compound was under "troubling" surveillance and complaining that the Libyan government failed to fulfill requests for additional security.
When we visited on Oct. 26 to prepare a story for Dubai based Al Aan TV, we found not only Stevens's personal copy of the Aug. 6 New Yorker, lying on remnants of the bed in the safe room where Stevens spent his final hours, but several ash-strewn documents beneath rubble in the looted Tactical Operations Center, one of the four main buildings of the partially destroyed compound. Some of the documents -- such as an email from Stevens to his political officer in Benghazi and a flight itinerary sent to Sean Smith, a U.S. diplomat slain in the attack -- are clearly marked as State Department correspondence. Others are unsigned printouts of messages to local and national Libyan authorities. The two unsigned draft letters are both dated Sept. 11 and express strong fears about the security situation at the compound on what would turn out to be a tragic day. They also indicate that Stevens and his team had officially requested additional security at the Benghazi compound for his visit -- and that they apparently did not feel it was being provided.
Why on earth haven't they secured/destroyed this stuff already? Perhaps it's for the best since it's pretty much the only way we're getting this information....
Strike For The South
11-02-2012, 01:48
what about the supposed 300 million dollars worth of cuts to security that have been alluded to?
I could look it up, but Im drunk
Why on earth haven't they secured/destroyed this stuff already? Perhaps it's for the best since it's pretty much the only way we're getting this information....
Nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
Montmorency
11-02-2012, 03:29
what about the supposed 300 million dollars worth of cuts to security that have been alluded to?
I could look it up, but Im drunk
Don't all administrations have a go at cutting embassy security - until the next disaster strikes? No one really cares about the Inman Report until bombs go off.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/11/01/troubling_surveillance_before_benghazi_attack?page=full
Nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
Or maybe secure the site while the intel people gather and/or destroy the documents that are just lying around.... :idea2:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-...ack/?tag=socsh
I read that CBS article last night- it's very damning in that it shows how inept and indecisive the response to the attacks were... Not using the systems and personnel that are in place to deal with attacks... telling the hostage rescue team to get ready to deploy, then stand down, then get ready to deploy, then stand down, ect...
Sasaki Kojiro
11-06-2012, 20:44
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/a-cbs-news-obama-libya-scandal-certainly/2012/11/05/db258e94-278f-11e2-9972-71bf64ea091c_blog.html
From september 12th, regarding the rose garden speech:
KROFT: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya Attack, do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?
OBAMA: Well it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.
OBAMA: Well it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.
WHY DOES HE HATE AMERICA?
Vladimir
11-07-2012, 15:40
WHY DOES HE HATE AMERICA?
Because he hates freedom?
Foreign Policy (http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/11/06/on_to_the_next_one) takes a smackdown stick to y'all. (Obviously, Middle East experts hate freedom too.)
What about Benghazi? In retrospect, I suspect that the intense focus on Benghazi hurt Romney more than Obama. I suspect that most voters quickly recognized Benghazi for the Republican pseudo-scandal it always was, and received it at roughly the same wavelength as Donald Trump demanding a birth certificate. The prospect of a hammer blow to bring down the incumbent enemy may have thrilled the base, but the very fact of its identification with Fox News and the right wing bubble limited its ability to travel farther. So did the fact that it fairly clearly was not a "scandal" of any significance. Yes, the tragic deaths revealed serious, relatively low-level, issues with inter-agency coordination and communication, and more major issues about intelligence and the changing nature of al-Qaeda's strategy and organization. But it was never the scandal which Republicans so desperately wanted it to be, nor Libya the failure so many believe it to be. Hopefully the real issues can now be addressed outside of the partisan frenzy.
At the same time, by sucking up an unbelievable amount of the air in the foreign policy debate, Benghazi crowded out a much more serious debate which might have taken place about Syria, Egypt and the Arab spring.
Well, the Accountability Review Board has released its report on the Benghazi attacks. And it's pretty damning (http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-east-north-africa/273665-benghazi-report-could-damage-clintons-legacy-at-state-dept). I could sum up the findings as "inadequate security, inadequate intel, and inadequate leadership".
“The Board found that certain senior State Department officials ... in critical positions of authority and responsibility in Washington demonstrated a lack of proactive leadership and management ability appropriate for the State Department’s senior ranks,” the report concludes in its section on accountability of personnel.
The findings start around page 29. The timeline of attack precedes it and is pretty harrowing.
This will likely have a negative impact on any future political ambitions that Hillary Clinton may have had. Resignations (http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/19/us/state-benghazi-report/index.html) at the State Dept have already begun.
Seems like a good time to necro this thread.... Some new reporting from ABC....
Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/)
When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story.
ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.
White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.
That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points in November.Remember to just keep telling yourselves that it's all a partisan GOP witch hunt... nothing to see here. :creep:
Remember to just keep telling yourselves that it's all a partisan GOP witch hunt... nothing to see here. :creep:
Also please remember that Benghazi is ten times bigger than Watergate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal) and Iran Contra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair) put together. For reals (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/dec/12/rep-king-benghazi-10-times-bigger-watergate-iran-c/)!
“I believe that it’s a lot bigger than Watergate, and if you link Watergate and Iran-Contra together and multiply it times maybe 10 or so, you’re going to get in the zone where Benghazi is,” says Rep. Steve King, R.
Or to put it a little more straightforwardly: "Vee are nihilists, vee believe in nah-zing."
http://youtu.be/Y5J_kao6mwA
-edit-
Oh, look, Karl Rove's group, Crossroads, already has a Benghazi-themed ad out slamming HC. Nothing creepy about that, no sir. Remember kids: We must hold nine or ten hearings about Benghazi because maybe the Dems used it for political gain (in a completely unclear manner—nobody seems to be able to answer the basic question, cui bono (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cui_bono)?). But if you jump all over Benghazi for political gain and you happen to be Republican, that's okay, because you are a patriot and you cry bald eagle tears and love 'Murica.
http://youtu.be/DqFtEtpy9G8
So far, two things are pretty obvious:
1. The GOP wants to crush any chance Hillary has for 2016. It's nice to see the Clintons' can still inspire such rage.
2. Hillary and State screwed up big time.
I'm glad I get to laugh at both. Nice marmot.
Fisherking
05-10-2013, 16:50
Lets not get all Party V Party again.
It happened during the election campaign. It was a big cluster. Yes there was a cover up.
Now, clear the air. Obama won, so address the issues honestly. Make sure it doesn’t happen again.
So much for a transparent administration but could we still get something leaning toward the appearance of honesty and openness in politics?
Maybe someone can explain why they still need to pretend that their version was true?
[A]ddress the issues honestly. Make sure it doesn’t happen again.
Make sure what doesn't happen again? Diplomats put in harm's way? No more cutting funding for diplomatic security? Executive spokespeople will never bungle their CIA/State Dept talking points? Kenyan Socialist Fake-Presidents will never Do Bad Things? What?
If these nine hearings have been about a massive conspiracy, let's hear it—the onus of proof is on the person wearing the tinfoil hat. I haven't even heard a coherent theory of this conspiracy.
Moreover, I don't get any sense of context at all. Here's a list of terror attacks on USA diplomatic missions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_attacks_on_U.S._diplomatic_facilities). Note that nothing is being discussed except Benghazi, which does not on the face of it seem like an exceptional incident. Body count from the 2002 Karachi attack: 12. Body count from the 2008 Yemen attack: 16. And all of this in an environment of cutting funding to diplomatic security.
There's a serious conversation to be had, but it ain't the one that's happening.
How much danger are we willing to tolerate for our diplomats? How much security is enough? What's the cost/risk assessment of putting a diplomat on the ground in an unstable situation? What's the cost of not putting someone on the ground? What's the cost of turning our embassies and consulates into fortresses? What functions do we want them to serve, and are we getting return on that investment?
This, IMHO, is where the conversation would go if we wanted to play grown-up. (And like I said, if there's a WATERGATE AND IRAN CONTRA TIMES 10 (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/dec/12/rep-king-benghazi-10-times-bigger-watergate-iran-c/) conspiracy, put up or shut up.)
-edit-
Here's a good summation (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/05/09/the-real-lesson-of-benghazi/?tid=socialss) of the GOP/Fox problem. How do you sell a conspiracy narrative when you have no coherent narrative?
[I]t’s not just a demand for scandal, but how easily the customers accept anything presented to them. The result — and Alex Pareene is very good on this today — is that they don’t bother putting together a “coherent or convincing narrative.” [...]
[T]here’s no need for these scandals to make sense; the conservative press will run with them either way. And there might even be an advantage to incoherence. After all, if the accusations are gibberish, the neutral reporters will tend to ignore them — and then conservatives can go on conservative talk radio and Fox News and charge the rest of the press of ignoring these extremely important charges.
All of which means that Republican politicians have little incentive, and perhaps even some real disincentives, for doing the hard work of government oversight — or even the hard work of first-rate scandal-mongering. No wonder they get lazy!
Unfortunately, that leaves us with hyped-up accusations, but no real government oversight — no one really probing for real mistakes, or even real malfeasance, from the Obama Administration. There’s just no reason to bother. And that leaves everyone worse off — except perhaps those reaping profits in the conservative marketplace.
How much danger are we willing to tolerate for our diplomats? How much security is enough? What's the cost/risk assessment of putting a diplomat on the ground in an unstable situation? What's the cost of not putting someone on the ground? What's the cost of turning our embassies and consulates into fortresses? What functions do we want them to serve, and are we getting return on that investment?So, if warning signs of an attack were ignored... that's not worthy of discussion? If political priorities overrode the truth in the aftermath of the attacks, that's a non-issue?
I'm just trying to understand your position here, because based on how I understand it, it's mystifying.
Major Robert Dump
05-10-2013, 20:46
In Total War series, you send diplomat to dangerous area without military escort, the ninja kill. State Department play Total War on very easy setting. State Department join multiplayer game all countries rage quit.
I'm just trying to understand your position here, because based on how I understand it, it's mystifying.
We are on the same page then, for I find your credulity confounding.
There is no coherent narrative of this conspiracy theory. That is why the rightwing echo-chamber is unable to get the rest of the nation to take this seriously. You cannot even answer the simplest of questions: Who benefits from this conspiracy?
It certainly looks as though State massaged their talking points to avoid talking about terrorism. This is, at absolute best, a venal sin. And it certainly doesn't rise to the threshold of Watergate plus Iran Contra times ten.
Nor do I hear anyone even attempting to explain why we are paying so much attention to Benghazi, and so little to any of the other confirmed terror attacks on consulates and embassies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_attacks_on_U.S._diplomatic_facilities). Nor is anyone talking about restoring the cuts made to embassy security. It's very, very hard to take this incoherent ginned-up outrage seriously.
The relentless focus on Benghazi, without any attempt to talk seriously about consulate security or force protection ... well, it's a bit nihilist. Okay, a lot nihilist.
-edit-
P.S.: If you're hungry for an Obama scandal, and you aren't picky (and anybody on the Benghazi train is clearly not choosy), then try this on for size (http://news.yahoo.com/irs-apologizes-targeting-conservative-groups-144349480.html). Much better scandal, much better documented, a clear case of cui bono, and the appearance of serious wrongdoing. I mean, sheesh. Y'all should be a lot more discriminating about which scandals you choose to elevate to Watergate Plus Iran Contra Times Ten (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/dec/12/rep-king-benghazi-10-times-bigger-watergate-iran-c/).
classical_hero
05-10-2013, 21:45
The thing with Benghazi is that there were plenty of warning signs that were not heeded. By far the biggest warning sign was the fact that every other nation that had consulates there had been long gone for at least 4 months due to the security situation, so for that reason alone you have to wonder why the Americans stayed when everyone else left. Another problem is that how on earth did the attackers no where the safe house was? That is a big security breach for that to happen. Those two reason are very big and they need to be resolved, which so far they haven't.
Greyblades
05-11-2013, 00:48
That anyone can make any sense out of this is mystifying in and of itself.
Papewaio
05-11-2013, 02:24
In Total War series, you send diplomat to dangerous area without military escort, the ninja kill. State Department play Total War on very easy setting. State Department join multiplayer game all countries rage quit.
I use my diplomats to go province window shopping and to flush out enemy ninjas...
From the Christian Science Monitor:
Has Benghazi become the Obama administration’s Watergate? (http://news.yahoo.com/benghazi-become-obama-administration-watergate-191836494.html)
The drip-drip-drip of trouble for the administration regarding Benghazi continued Friday when ABC News reported State Department e-mails showing that official talking points on the attack were “extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.”
“Summaries of White House and State Department emails … show that the State Department had extensive input into the editing of the talking points,” ABC reported.
In a piece headlined “Spinning Benghazi,” the New Yorker’s Alex Koppelman writes: “For a long time, it seemed like the idea of a cover-up was just a Republican obsession. But now there is something to it.”
“It’s striking to see the twelve different iterations that the talking points went through before they were released to Congress and to United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice,” Koppelman writes. “Over the course of about twenty-four hours, the remarks evolved from something specific and fairly detailed into a bland, vague mush.”
Much of what comes out of political spokesman (and politicians themselves) is spin. But this was about an event in which an American ambassador and others were killed in an apparently preplanned and coordinated attack that revealed failures in intelligence and security preparations.If the New Yorker is starting to come around on this, god help the Obama administration.....
Also, for Lemur:3 Reasons Benghazi Still Matters (http://reason.com/reasontv/2013/05/10/3-reasons-benghazi-still-matters)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-xmKpFZcNA
It certainly looks as though State massaged their talking points to avoid talking about terrorism. This is, at absolute best, a venal sin. And it certainly doesn't rise to the threshold of Watergate plus Iran Contra times ten.So, the CIA puts out it's initial assessment citing a terrorist attack. High ranking State Department officials "massage" it to remove all references to a terror attack and instead blame it on a Youtube video. You think that's no big deal? That strikes me as partisan blindness. How big a deal did you think Bush dismissing DAs was? How big a deal did you think the Valerie Plame scandal was? You can use the search function and refresh your memory. How were those worthy of news coverage and investigation where an attack resulting in the first death of an ambassador in decades is not?
Of course they're trying to play it to their advantage. The Democrats would do no different if roles were reversed. The fallacy that's running through the left-wing echo chamber is that because the GOP is trying to make political hay with it, it means there is no merit to the investigation. That does not follow. :no:
Fisherking
05-12-2013, 11:45
You know, there is no direct US media coverage where I live. No Republican propaganda etc.
You and others are still talking the same trash, .R vs. D. Frankly you have know way of assessing who believes what because the media on both sides of the issue are just reporting what they want you to think.
I am not basing my opinion on a cover up because of any hearings. I base it on the fact that survivors were never named or interviewed. Not all were CIA unless all the local security was dismissed from the consulate.
Everyone should be at least mildly interested in what happened and why. Instead we get the same political divisiveness we always do, which brings us no closer to the truth of the matter.
Both sides are likely lying to one extent or another. My guess is you only believe who you have chosen to believe and have not looked very closely at what either side is saying.
As to which side is winning, just know that is not you the individual. You are just another cultivated mushroom.
Was there also an investigation every time Bush didn't tell the truth right away? Didn't he modify the truth a bit to start the Iraq war and how is that not worse than lying about the reasons for an attack other people committed?
Of course lying is always wrong, but it seems blown out of proportion to me.
an attack resulting in the first death of an ambassador in decades
An interesting point, and I'm unclear on how you arrived at it. Anne Smedinghoff was killed last month, no investigations.
And how are you ignoring John Granville, US diplomat, assassinated in Khatroum in 2008?
The three USA diplomats killed by roadside bombs in Gaza in 2003?
The 9 US citizens (among 196 other fatalities) from the Riyadh diplomatic compound attack in 2003?
But according to you, the reason this incident is deserving of nine-plus hearings (none of which have produced a smoking gun) is that this is the "first death of an ambassador in decades," which is obviously, provably wrong.
Fascinating. "Echo chamber" has a specific meaning; repeating it but adding "leftwing" at the front does not do what you think it does.
You are just another cultivated mushroom.
I thought this was brilliantly absurd, and then I realized you were piggybacking on the old saying about mushroom cultivation. Which changed it from gloriously weird to ho-hum.
-edit-
Also, may I point out that unlike the rest of you, I had a close relative who was, in fact, an diplomat, and who was, in fact, assassinated. No hearings. Not nine, not eight, not seven, not even one.
Also please note the complete lack of any emphasis on planning, prevention, embassy security, in the current circus. This sort of empty posturing may provide a satisfying meal to red-meat true believers, but it sure looks like empty calories from here.
-edit of the edit-
Oh, wait, I get it—you're restricting the definition to "ambassadors," ignoring consuls, diplomats, and so forth. So by paring it down to people with the title "ambassador," you can arrive at your talking point. 'Cause we don't give a damn if diplomats, intelligence attaches, consuls or other folks get assassinated. I also note, looking at the list of ambassadors killed (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/the-7-us-ambassadors-killed-in-the-line-of-duty-photos.php), that my aunt Barbara isn't listed. So I guess she was a consul or something, and therefore does not exist for Xiahou's purposes.
So, the day before Rice went on the Sunday shows, CIA director Petreus saw the final version of the many-time revised talking points and said he felt they were useless and said he would prefer they not be used, but said it was the White House's decision. We all know what they decided....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEzN9TuN4G8
Oh, wait, I get it—you're restricting the definition to "ambassadors," ignoring consuls, diplomats, and so forth.Yes, and that was no arbitrary distinction. An ambassador is the highest ranking US official stationed in a country.
Yes, and that was no arbitrary distinction.
On behalf of every State Department employee killed overseas while not having the title ambassador: Thank you. God bless.
Now impeach the Obomination! Impeach!
On behalf of every State Department employee killed overseas while not having the title ambassador: Thank you. God bless.
Now impeach the Obomination! Impeach!
And you're left with emotional appeals as your argument falls apart....
Tell me Lemur, suppose a soldier is killed overseas and the the president is assassinated while visiting a foreign country. Which is deserving of more investigation as to the security breakdowns that allowed the death to occur?
Greyblades
05-13-2013, 03:28
Wanna get Obama where it hurts? Get a Republican coalition together that wants to close Gitmo and stand up for Civil Liberties, use the giant media monstrosity known as Fox to get that message out, and Obama would be done. But because Republicans stand in a morally shaky place to begin with, we just get this Benghazi crap over and over. If at first the people aren't outraged about what you want them to be outraged about... try, try again..?
Gitmo is a republican made issue that obama inherited, the republican party wont attack it because they want the bay open.
In a way obama got lucky with that, even if he gets preassured into trying to close gitmo the republicans wont let it happen, all the blame would go to them even while obama gets to keep using it... hmm, makes me wonder why he doesn't, actually.
Papewaio
05-13-2013, 09:36
Warnings of terrorist attacks against US embassies are so rare that each occasion warrants evacuation of the Embassy and all staff each escorted out by a unit of Marines.
If that is the stance you want to take on this. Fair enough.
You will need more marines then you have current defence personal. USA embassies will be permantely shut down. USA will lose all diplomatic clout as all US diplomats will be within US borders as even Canada will be deemed to be too unsafe, due to all the fifteen year olds pranking the Embassy with "Aboot the bomb".
But everyone will be alive... Except the ones who slit their wrists due to excessive tedium.
What I find interesting from an Org perspective is that when it comes to politics, Xiahou does not post, respond, or engage unless he is absolutely sure he has a winner. If you see his name in the Backroom, you can rest assured he believes he has all of his ducks in a row and all angles nailed down.
So I find it intriguing that he is posting about Benghazi, a subject that has noticeably failed to gain traction outside of the rightwing echo chamber (http://youtu.be/elvm7MPquBE). (Not to mention resting so much of his argument on the distinction between "ambassador" and, say, "consul" or "diplomat.") By the mere fact that he's talking about it, Xiahou apparently believes Benghazi is a slam-dunk, no-further-questions-your-honor kinda thing.
Not sure what to make of that.
And still irritated by the lack of any conversation about, oh, actual cost/benefit of security v. access with our diplomats and diplomatic facilities. Yes, the Repubs should score as many political points as they reasonably can for an administration screw-up, but the overreach is clear and obvious, and the "oversight" part of the equation is completely missing.
Noone is really blowing anything out of proportion here, move along (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-8-2013/the-big-benghazi-theory).
I'm not sure what's the bigger issue though, the whole unknown thing that's going to come out during any of the next 300 hearings they will have on the event or that they supposedly wrongfully blamed that horrible video for what was apparently/supposedly (I've honestly lost track about whether that was even confirmed) a long-planned Al-Queda attack. And then there is the issue of embassy security which is apparently related to the first issue but was obviously just as much if not even more of an issue under Bush unless we say the life of an ambassador is worth more than the lives of hundreds of other Americans working for the State Department in foreign countries. Is the life of the President also worth more than the lives of a hundred senators or do we need to stick with comparing apples and oranges (presidents and soldiers)?
I don't know how I survived without Wonkette.
GOP TO IMPEACH OBAMA FOR BENGHAZI JUST AS SOON AS THEY CAN FIND IT ON MAP (http://wonkette.com/516074/gop-to-impeach-obama-for-benghazi-just-as-soon-as-they-can-find-it-on-map)
https://i.imgur.com/bHwW5HO.jpg
While voters overall may think Congress’ focus should be elsewhere there’s no doubt about how mad Republicans are about Benghazi. 41% say they consider this to be the biggest political scandal in American history to only 43% who disagree with that sentiment. Only 10% of Democrats and 20% of independents share that feeling. [...]
One interesting thing about the voters who think Benghazi is the biggest political scandal in American history is that 39% of them don't actually know where it is. 10% think it's in Egypt, 9% in Iran, 6% in Cuba, 5% in Syria, 4% in Iraq, and 1% each in North Korea and Liberia with 4% not willing to venture a guess.
So which is the bigger scandal:
State Dept CYA on the Bengazi attack.
IRS performing a little electoral manipulation.
Justice Dept fishing 2 months worth of AP reporters' phone records.
Not a good month for the administration.
Not a good month for the administration.
Pretty normal for second terms. Kinda makes you wonder why every President wants one.
Kadagar_AV
05-14-2013, 04:06
Uh... Isn't this more about Hillary Clinton than anything else?
I mean, republicans desperately want to slam her before the next election as they know they have absolutely nothing compared.
AMIRIGHT!?
Warnings of terrorist attacks against US embassies are so rare that each occasion warrants evacuation of the Embassy and all staff each escorted out by a unit of Marines.
If that is the stance you want to take on this. Fair enough.With a few amendments.
If your ambassador is stationed in an unfortified consulate that's been subject to prior attacks, it's the anniversary of 9/11, you have intel suggesting further attacks, and other nations diplomatic staff have already left the city due to the deteriorating security situation. The maybe... just maybe, some additional safety measures should be taken. Like actually withdrawing to the embassy?
You seem confused on that point. They weren't in the embassy- that was in Tripoli. And quite a bit more secure than the consulate.
Papewaio
05-14-2013, 22:46
The thing is death threats are not uncommon for embassies. So to sort the actual and credible from the trolls is not a very easy thing.
What I would be looking at who funded security and why it has been pulled down over the years.
I'd also rethink stationing CIA within consulate and embassy grounds. CIA are now a para military organization that uses military assets to assassinate people. That makes buildings with them a quasi military base.
Charles Krauthammer has a weird an inexplicable moment of moderation (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/05/14/krauthammer_to_gop_stop_calling_everything_a_watergate_be_quiet_and_present_the_facts.html):
"[T]he one advice I give to Republicans is stop calling [Benghazi] a huge scandal. Stop saying it’s a Watergate. Stop saying it’s Iran Contra. Let the facts speak for themselves. Have a special committee, a select committee. The facts will speak for themselves. Pile them on but don’t exaggerate, don’t run ads about Hillary. It feeds the narrative for the other side that it’s only a political event. It’s not. Just be quiet and present the facts."
Kadagar_AV
05-16-2013, 03:32
The thing is death threats are not uncommon for embassies. So to sort the actual and credible from the trolls is not a very easy thing.
What I would be looking at who funded security and why it has been pulled down over the years.
I'd also rethink stationing CIA within consulate and embassy grounds. CIA are now a para military organization that uses military assets to assassinate people. That makes buildings with them a quasi military base.
GAH!!
THIS, just THIS is the reason people want to blow you up.
"We should separate the carrot from the stick so that people think we don't carry sticks."
Coca Cola Cowboys.
Why don't you put more military work on private contractors, so that people don't also get the "false" assumption that it is YOU doing something wrong?
The WH released a stack of Benghazi emails (http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/05/politics/white-house-benghazi-emails/index.html). Anyone up for some light reading?
I'd also rethink stationing CIA within consulate and embassy grounds.It wasn't. It was over a mile away.
Seamus Fermanagh
05-16-2013, 16:22
I'd say rethinking the CIA is more like it.
How so?
Scrap it and go with NRO only?
Make it more of a HUMINT only, no special actions?
Make it more like the old OSS -- dirty tricks galore?
Greyblades
05-16-2013, 17:45
Step one: find a way for it to be impartial and corruption proof.
Step 2: cure cancer because you're apparently god to get past step 1.
If you get rid of Varys, then it really won't be King's Landing anymore.
If you get rid of Varys, then it really won't be King's Landing anymore.
I think the CIA is more Little Finger than Varys. I think Varys is more FBI.
Greyblades
05-16-2013, 22:04
Erm... I dont think varys would be the FBI, I don't remember varys ruining the lives of people, just because he thought they had differing philosophies regardless of actual proof.
Papewaio
05-16-2013, 22:11
Because Hoover would never amass files on people, blackmail them or crush their careers...
... and this is what happens (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57584947/wh-benghazi-emails-have-different-quotes-than-earlier-reported/) when you overreach. It appears that the GOP substantially altered the raw emails before sending them to the press. Way to get on Santa's naughty list.
CNN has broke a new wrinkly in the Benghazi story...
Dozens of CIA operatives on the ground during Benghazi attack (http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/01/exclusive-dozens-of-cia-operatives-on-the-ground-during-benghazi-attack/)
Sources now tell CNN dozens of people working for the CIA were on the ground that night, and that the agency is going to great lengths to make sure whatever it was doing, remains a secret.
CNN has learned the CIA is involved in what one source calls an unprecedented attempt to keep the spy agency's Benghazi secrets from ever leaking out.
A source now tells CNN that number was 35, with as many as seven wounded, some seriously.So... does this qualify as a coverup yet?
Papewaio
08-02-2013, 05:34
Does it count as an embassy anymore if it its an unlawful prison or a command post for drone strikes or a communication structure for rendition, torture or other quasi-military setup.
Big difference between being a black ops outpost and a place to get a passport visa.
=][=
Just read the link. This is possibly another Iran-Contra affair.
Except it was Libya-Syria
Sarmatian
08-02-2013, 08:08
I hate to say it, but if it was anything of the sort then it sounds more like a military target than an embassy.
All embassies do a little spying on the side. It's a tried Cold War practice.
If it's in a hotspot, then they do more spying than usual.
Fisherking
08-02-2013, 08:31
The presence of CIA should not be over reacted to. Not everything an Intelligence Agency does is James Bond- Mission Impossible stuff.
Most of it is mundane information gathering that a tourist could do.
Finding the mood of the people and political leanings is a part of that. Not very much of what they do is clandestine black ops Hollywood junk.
Papewaio
08-02-2013, 09:24
CIA became a military organization the moment they moved from just intelligence to operating drone strikes.
If I use an ambulance for a drive by its no longer an ambulance. And if I paint a Red Cross on a tank it isn't an ambulance either.
The CIA chooses not to declare which ones are fighting therefore they are all non uniformed combatants. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
TheLastDays
08-02-2013, 09:27
CIA became a military organization the moment they moved from just intelligence to operating drone strikes.
If I use an ambulance for a drive by its no longer an ambulance. And if I paint a Red Cross on a tank it isn't an ambulance either.
The CIA chooses not to declare which ones are fighting therefore they are all non uniformed combatants.
I agree with that and I want to add that I think it is a dangerously stupid and irresponsible move to make an embassy that surely involves quite a few civilians and diplomats as well a military target and then blame the enemy when they target it :crazy:
Can't have your cake and eat it too.
Infact I can and I did, just yesterday ~:smoking:
Papewaio
08-02-2013, 09:35
Now that you have ate your cake do you still have it or has it gone from its plate?
TheLastDays
08-02-2013, 09:45
I still have it. I am kinda metaphysical... but we shouldn't derail the thread over a stupid joke of mine I guess, my apologies :bow:
Just read the link. This is possibly another Iran-Contra affair.
Except it was Libya-SyriaCNN sure seems to be making that allegation. :yes:
Syria is another one of those conflicts where it seems like there aren't any good guys. I really wouldn't be to thrilled to hear we were shipping surface-to-air missiles to Al Qaeda affiliates in Syria. That should be an obviously bad idea to anyone.
TheLastDays
08-02-2013, 15:59
CNN sure seems to be making that allegation. :yes:
Syria is another one of those conflicts where it seems like there aren't any good guys. I really wouldn't be to thrilled to hear we were shipping surface-to-air missiles to Al Qaeda affiliates in Syria. That should be an obviously bad idea to anyone.
Like backing the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan?
Several "exclusive sources" talking to reporters in relation to Benghazi have been ... shall we say, less than truthful (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/05/so-who-lied-abc-news-about-benghazi-emails/65350/).
I would wait for serious corroborating evidence before taking, as Xiahou's linked article puts it, "a source with deep inside knowledge of the agency's workings" at face value.
I'm not saying this is a fabrication, but I am saying that there have been confirmed fabrications about Benghazi, so let's see if the latest thing gets substantiated.
'60 Minutes' did a feature on the Benghazi attacks this week. Better late than never I guess. :shrug:
Here's (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50157981n) a link to the video, here's (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57609479/60-minutes-benghazi/) one to the transcript.
A few pullouts:
When Chris Stevens was killed in Benghazi, Libya, on the anniversary of September 11th last year, it was only the sixth time that the United States had lost an ambassador to its enemies.
Contrary to the White House's public statements, which were still being made a full week later, it's now well established that the Americans were attacked by al Qaeda in a well-planned assault.
But on his first drive through Benghazi, he noticed the black flags of al Qaeda flying openly in the streets and he grew concerned about the guard forces as soon as he pulled up to the U.S. compound.Read/watch the whole thing. Then tell us why this is a bunch of trumped up balogna that isn't worthy of a serious investigation.
Benghazi seems very overblown to me.
It definitely seems like some one didn't do their job properly. But "big scandel led by Obama" just makes me tilt my head to the side and go "Huh?"
I think Obama's obvious inability to reign in the NSA is the big scandal.
Being honest, I think there will be a huge surge in job applicants to the NSA and other foreign equals. Even though it is big and bad, people are drawn to the lust of power and the idea they can snoop into everyones gmail accounts for giggles and the like.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-29-2013, 20:50
T:
The folks I knew/met who were NSA weren't anything like that at all. Tended to be a bit humorless and a touch stodgy. Their corporate culture is close-mouthed to a fault -- a bit of an antithesis to what you suggest.
T:
The folks I knew/met who were NSA weren't anything like that at all. Tended to be a bit humorless and a touch stodgy. Their corporate culture is close-mouthed to a fault -- a bit of an antithesis to what you suggest.
I know a lot of the younger generation interested in such for the reasons I said. They properly do turn out to be those humourless types if they do end up in such positions.
It definitely seems like some one didn't do their job properly. But "big scandel led by Obama" just makes me tilt my head to the side and go "Huh?"
I think it's entirely plausible that political considerations, not logistical ones, led to lax security and also played a role during the attack and in it's aftermath. I could be wrong, but the administration's deliberate obfuscation and, frankly, lies (http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/) about what transpired isn't making it look any better for them.
I'm not saying this is a fabrication, but I am saying that there have been confirmed fabrications about Benghazi, so let's see if the latest thing gets substantiated.
'We were wrong': CBS's Lara Logan apologizes for Benghazi report (http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/08/politics/cbs-benghazi/)
A primary source for the "60 Minutes" report on October 27 was a security contractor using the pseudonym "Morgan Jones," later identified as Dylan Davies. Davies told CBS he was able to reach the Benghazi compound on the night of September 11, 2012, scale a wall and even fight off a militant.
That story cast doubt on whether the Obama administration sent all possible help to try to save Stevens and his three colleagues. The "60 Minutes" story was cited by congressional Republicans who have demanded to know why a military rescue was not attempted. [...]
"What we know now is, he told the FBI a different story to what he told us," Logan said. "That was the moment for us when we realized that we no longer had confidence in our source and we were wrong to put him on air, and we apologize to our viewers." [...]
The apology comes a day after CBS issued a statement saying, "60 Minutes has learned of new information that undercuts the account told to us by Morgan Jones of his actions on the night of the attack on the Benghazi compound. We are currently looking into this serious matter to determine if he misled us, and if so, we will make a correction."
Seamus Fermanagh
11-08-2013, 22:49
Ultimately, any such diplomatic posting puts the people so posted in harm's way. Short of an armed presence in battalion strength, no cadre of Embassy Marines or DoS Security folks can completely protect our diplomats.
The decision to keep security measures as minimal as possible was a political decision, but the whole purpose of a diplomatic mission IS politics, so political considerations trumping security are likely inevitable.
International punitive missions against the Harmonious Fists are a thing of the past. Dips are out on a limb and sometimes they will get the chop.
That said, I am still not happy at the lethargy of response nor the cover up aspects of this particular fiasco.
The Senate finally released its long-awaited bipartisan report. They place blame on the State Department and the Intelligence community (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/senate-report-attack-on-us-compound-in-benghazi-could-have-been-prevented/2014/01/15/5e197224-7de9-11e3-95c6-0a7aa80874bc_story.html).
The bipartisan report lays out more than a dozen findings regarding the assaults on Sept. 11 and 12, 2012 on the diplomatic compound and a CIA annex in the Libyan city of Benghazi. It says the State Department failed to increase security at the sites despite warnings, and faults intelligence agencies for not sharing information about the existence of the CIA outpost with the U.S. military.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.