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.
Printable View
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.
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?
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
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. 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 conspiracy, put up or shut up.)
-edit-
Here's a good summation 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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I'm just trying to understand your position here, because based on how I understand it, it's mystifying.
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.
We are on the same page then, for I find your credulity confounding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
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. 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. 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.
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.
That anyone can make any sense out of this is mystifying in and of itself.
I use my diplomats to go province window shopping and to flush out enemy ninjas...Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
From the Christian Science Monitor:
Has Benghazi become the Obama administration’s Watergate?If the New Yorker is starting to come around on this, god help the Obama administration.....Quote:
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.
Also, for Lemur:3 Reasons Benghazi Still Matters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-xmKpFZcNA
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
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:
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 interesting point, and I'm unclear on how you arrived at it. Anne Smedinghoff was killed last month, no investigations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
-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, 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
Yes, and that was no arbitrary distinction. An ambassador is the highest ranking US official stationed in a country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
On behalf of every State Department employee killed overseas while not having the title ambassador: Thank you. God bless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Now impeach the Obomination! Impeach!
And you're left with emotional appeals as your argument falls apart....Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
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?
Gitmo is a republican made issue that obama inherited, the republican party wont attack it because they want the bay open.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
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.
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. (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.
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
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.
Pretty normal for second terms. Kinda makes you wonder why every President wants one.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
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!?
With a few amendments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
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.
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:
"[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."
GAH!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
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. Anyone up for some light reading?
It wasn't. It was over a mile away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio