Democrats & Liberals Archives

Benghazigate Investigation Continues

This week, House committee meetings continued in regards to the happenings of the 9/11/2012 attacks in Benghazi. Once again fingers are pointing the blame on the former Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton. The whole agenda in this investigation is fueled by Republican interrogation to place responsibility on Obama.

Senator Rand Paul proclaims Hilary Clinton is "absolutely responsible" for the 9/11 attacks in Benghazi. Paul added, "Benghazi proves that Hilary Clinton should never hold high office again."

What's next for the committee is getting answers from victims and witnesses who were present during the attacks. Republicans are banking on someone eventually revealing what happened.

This isn't the first time since 9/11/01, that Americans have died in an attack. What about the 20 people killed in 2008 at the US Embassy in Yemen? Democrats were labeled unpatriotic if they pointed blame of President Bush for the attacks. How is this any different?

Yemen certainly isn't the only example, but apparently it's a patriotic thing to do if Republicans question Democrats.

Posted by obamaluv at May 10, 2013 5:12 PM
Comments
Comment #365634

“…but apparently it’s a patriotic thing to do if Republicans question Democrats.”

This is exactly right. Remember that the right (especially the TEA Party right) operates under the presumption that they represent traditional, correct Americanism and it’s the Democrats who seek to change America and to tear down what it stands for. It’s the Republican’s jobs to protect their imaginary vision of America from their imaginary vision of what the Democrats would have us do. You can see this view expressed nearly every day by conservatives on this site.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at May 10, 2013 9:08 PM
Comment #365636

BOO HOO BOO HOO, mean old conservatives. BOO HOO BOO HOO. Quit your crying you little girls.

Posted by: KAP at May 10, 2013 9:14 PM
Comment #365637

Like I said on the other side you Democrats don’t want the truth but conservatives do and things are starting to stink at the State Dept. and W.H. Even Jay Carney was doing the umm umm today.

Posted by: KAP at May 10, 2013 9:46 PM
Comment #365639

It is not so much the mistakes that Obama and Clinton made. It is that they covered up and lied about them.

As they said in Watergate, it is not the original act, but the cover-up that gets people in trouble. It will count among Hilary’s “achievements” that she didn’t succeed with Russia or China, failed to take advantage of changes in the Islamic world and then this as the final achievement. On the other hand, she did travel a lot. Something might have happened on all those travels.

Posted by: CJ at May 10, 2013 10:23 PM
Comment #365641

KAP: “Like I said on the other side you Democrats don’t want the truth but conservatives do…”

Hilarious. Yes, truth. That’s all you want. Hilarious.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at May 10, 2013 11:32 PM
Comment #365642

What’s the matter Ducker you afraid of the truth? Or is it you wouldn’t know the truth if it hit you in your liberal face. You’ve believed the lies from Obama so much the truth is something foreign to you. What’s hilarious is YOU believing those lies. Go back to your liberal fantasy world Ducker.

Posted by: KAP at May 10, 2013 11:48 PM
Comment #365643

By the way Ducker It’s not hilarious it’s down right sad liberals like you defend the cover up of Obama and Hillary. Four people died and it was covered up by your little god in the W.H. SAD very SAD you defend this low life and his administration.

Posted by: KAP at May 11, 2013 12:04 AM
Comment #365645

KAP:

Any more insults and phony outrage you’d like to share with us? You’ve got no facts and no evidence. All you have is the collective outrage of the lunatic right hell bent on discrediting the President of the United States at all costs.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at May 11, 2013 12:21 AM
Comment #365647

Lol.
Benghazi Conspiracy Fever!
Catch it!

Posted by: phx8 at May 11, 2013 1:29 AM
Comment #365673

Explain why after a week Ducker Obama has the U.N. Ambassador say on 5 different T.V. shows that the attack was a spontaneous event because of a YOU TUBE Video, Tell me why Obama goes In front of the UN and appologizes for the same video and also why Hillary appologizes for the same Knowing full well it wasn’t. And you dumb liberals continue to support this low life of a president. You so put down Bush for the Iraq war calling him guilty of war crimes. But the lying sob ion the W.H. now you give a pass, SAD very SAD Ducker.

Posted by: KAP at May 11, 2013 7:28 AM
Comment #365676

KAP:

Rice and Clinton’s statements were based on information from the CIA. Rice was specifically speaking on the 16th based on CIA talking points revised on the 15th. We know the CIA talking points were revised at least 12 times and each and every draft contains the suggestion that the attacks “were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo” in the top bullet point.

You can’t pretend Rice or the Obama administration in general simply made this idea up and that Rice and Clinton said it knowing it wasn’t true. That is not supported by the facts available.

I’m not sure what your issue is with President Obama bringing up the protests sparked by the video at the UN. Read the speech again and tell me what he said about the video that was false or misleading.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at May 11, 2013 10:30 AM
Comment #365677

Benghazi talking points modified 12 times…let’s blame…yeah…let’s blame…the CIA.

This whole thing has the left shook up; it’s no longer just the investigative reporters at FOX or the Blaze. We now have the MSM jumping on board. Jay Carney was visibly uncomfortable at yesterday’s press conference. We will see how much info was dumped yesterday.

I’m just curious; if it was Adam Ducker’s or phx8’s brother, son, or father who was one of those killed in Benghazi; would they want to blow it off, or would they want to know the truth?

The families of those killed are demanding to know what happened. Should we now attack the families as being right-wing extremist trouble makers who want to bring Obama down?

This mess can be laid right at the feet of Obama. His arrogance and belief that he is above mere mortal people has created this fiasco. Wouldn’t it have been better to just tell the truth when it happened? There is no one who believes an obscure video, produce by a nobody producer is the reason for the attack at Benghazi. Nobody believes this, and yet this is the direction Obama chose to go. The truth is, Obama cannot say the word “Islamic Terrorists”; therefore the attacks could not be “terrorist” related, but they were. Obama had his “Mission Accomplished” moment and it came back to bite him in the ass.

But I will say, I’m sure Obama appreciates surrogates like Adam, phx8, and Stephen Daugherty carrying the water bucket for him. Keep up the good work boys, don’t worry that it makes you look like idiots.

Posted by: CasperWY at May 11, 2013 10:54 AM
Comment #365678

I hear this “this is worse than Watergate” thing all the time. It’s sort of like “New and Improved”, and “From the something something of something something comes the epic tale of heroism to beat all epic sagas”

It’s button pushing marketing, in essence. What Republicans are selling is the feeling of a scandal, but their real trouble here is that there’s no real scandal. There’s no reasonable way help could have gotten to these people in time, and securing the other diplomatic station was not only a more feasible option, but a smarter one, given that there was an overall security problem.

There were protests going on, near-riots, with people jumping the Egypt embassy walls. Do the folks on the right remember that little detail, the generalized anger over that video?

Of course not.

People on the right have decided that scandals are a cheap way of gaining political traction and discrediting their enemies. They also seem to want to have revenge for Watergate, even though Nixon, ultimately, brought it on himself.

The real question, ultimately, is whether this is really getting the traction it used to. Scandal Mongering is practically to be expected. If it’s always to be expected, what does it really mean anymore? If it’s Tuesday, Republicans are alleging huge corruption in a scandal that goes all the way to the top.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 11, 2013 11:03 AM
Comment #365680

Correct me if I’m wrong, but who makes policy; is it the CIA or is it the WH and State Department? What you are trying to tell us Adam, is that the CIA, who investigates and brings the results of the investigation to the Obama and his administration, then creates policy by changing or deleting the investigative material. They would not change the results of their investigation, unless told to.

Posted by: DSP2195 at May 11, 2013 11:17 AM
Comment #365681

“I hear this “this is worse than Watergate” thing all the time.”

Americans didn’t die at Watergate; but perhaps you don’t care that Americans died?

“What Republicans are selling is the feeling of a scandal…

People on the right have decided that scandals are a cheap way of gaining political traction and discrediting their enemies. They also seem to want to have revenge for Watergate, even though Nixon, ultimately, brought it on himself.”

Welcome to the real world Stephen, boo hoo. The left never deals with emotion…right.

But this is interesting; I have never heard this “revenge for Watergate”. Is this the latest talking point from the left. Stephen, I know you didn’t with this thought; so it must be a liberal talking point put out by the WH.

“The real question, ultimately, is whether this is really getting the traction”

What determines if it is getting traction Stephen? Being picked up by ABC, NBC, or CBS? Or perhaps, if it makes the Sunday talk shows?

Posted by: DSP2195 at May 11, 2013 11:29 AM
Comment #365682

Regarding traction:

From the liberal NYT:

“WASHINGTON — A long-simmering dispute over the White House’s account of the deadly assault on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, flared up on Friday, with a disclosure of e-mails that show the White House was more deeply involved in revising talking points about the attack than officials have previously acknowledged.

The e-mails, which the administration turned over to Congress, show the White House coordinating an intensive process with the State Department, the C.I.A., the F.B.I. and other agencies to obtain the final version of the talking points, used by Susan E. Rice, the ambassador to the United Nations, in television appearances after the attack.

The State Department, in particular, pushed to remove references to Al Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia, the Libyan militant group suspected of carrying out the attack as well as warnings about other potential terrorist threats from the C.I.A., which drafted the initial talking points.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/us/politics/benghazi-e-mails-put-white-house-on-the-defensive.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0

From RCP:

“At his daily briefing with the White House press corps, White House Press secretary Jay Carney was hammered with questions from the media about ABC News’ report that the talking points on the Benghazi attack were revised 12 times”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/05/11/full_video_jay_carney_grilled_about_benghazi_at_friday_press_briefing.html

From the Weekly Standard:

“CIA director David Petraeus was surprised when he read the freshly rewritten talking points an aide had emailed him in the early afternoon of Saturday, September 15. One day earlier, analysts with the CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis had drafted a set of unclassified talking points policymakers could use to discuss the attacks in Benghazi, Libya. But this new version​—​produced with input from senior Obama administration policymakers​—​was a shadow of the original.

The original CIA talking points had been blunt: The assault on U.S. facilities in Benghazi was a terrorist attack conducted by a large group of Islamic extremists, including some with ties to al Qaeda.

These were strong claims. The CIA usually qualifies its assessments, providing policymakers a sense of whether the conclusions of its analysis are offered with “high confidence,” “moderate confidence,” or “low confidence.” That first draft signaled confidence, even certainty: “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack.”

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/benghazi-scandal-grows_722032.html

Exactly as I said; the CIA does not make policy, they provide facts, and the administration provides the policy.

Posted by: DSP2195 at May 11, 2013 11:44 AM
Comment #365684

As far as I can see, there is exactly zero evidence that Rice or anyone else had any intelligence that contradicted the hypothesis that the bigoted video was a factor in the attack. The video was definitely a factor for the simultaneous attack in Cairo so it isn’t surprising that officials might be tempted to link the two.

The 12 revisions seem to be a result of tit-for-tat between Langley and Foggy Bottom rather than election season politics.

See here for more re: the dispute between the CIA & State Dept

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 11, 2013 12:14 PM
Comment #365685

BTW, it seems that the source of the interdepartmental blame game seems to be the fact that the facility was not a consulate at all, but was actually a clandestine CIA facility. So there’s a little bit of a dispute regarding who was responsible for security.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 11, 2013 12:18 PM
Comment #365687

“There were protests going on, near-riots, with people jumping the Egypt embassy walls. Do the folks on the right remember that little detail, the generalized anger over that video?”

That video has been debunked as a cause. Testimony has been given.

Stephen, why do you continue to spew the parroting of such garbage, trash, lies and distortions that “your people” continue to sent forth. You should know by now that this administration is “transforming America” into the dung heap of society.

Heavyweight Clinton will not run in 2016!!
Her usefullness is over. She will continue to make an attempt to reach into the bottom of the barrell to come up with some way to save her day. There will be other heads to roll too and rightfully so.

Back to your desire to lean on the video for reference to the cause of the murders of 4 Americans. The testimony given from the 3 wtnesses was that it was adamantly a no as the cause. This is from people on the ground who had experience and the ability to analyze the situation. But you Stephen decide to go with the ALC (amin liars club).

Posted by: tom humes at May 11, 2013 12:38 PM
Comment #365688
That video has been debunked as a cause.

No it hasn’t. It is still thought that the video was the primary instigator for the violence in Cairo that day.

The testimony given from the 3 wtnesses was that it was adamantly a no as the cause.

But is this due to intelligence that was available on Sept 16? Or is this only after a more thorough investigation?

Never mind the fact that David Petraeus has said that the Administration avoided explicitly linking the attack to Al Qaeda affiliates in to avoid tipping them off.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 11, 2013 12:46 PM
Comment #365692

“The 12 revisions seem to be a result of tit-for-tat between Langley and Foggy Bottom rather than election season politics.

See here for more re: the dispute between the CIA & State Dept”

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 11, 2013 12:14 PM

So you are saying the state department does not answer to Obama?

Posted by: CasperWY at May 11, 2013 1:08 PM
Comment #365694

WP
You just don’t understand real time conversation. Intel had it that the video absolutely no cause for the Benghazi attack.
All that ocured on the 11th and 12h was given in real time and at no time was a video the blame for the attack. The video was part of the lies and coverup that has since happened.
Now who are those who “thought that the video was the primary instigator for the violence in Cairo that day.”
Even those in the Middle East don’t buy into that narrative.
I don’t know where you fit into this pix, but to start with it is right in line with SD. And that is not pleasant company.
Of course there are many more facts that are part of the coverup and lies that accompany those facts.
For example. Who told those people to stand down when they were very well qualified to do the job. Whoever gave the order will have 4 peoples blood on their hands as well as those up the chain of command.

Posted by: tom humes at May 11, 2013 1:19 PM
Comment #365695
you are saying the state department does not answer to Obama?

Obama is commander in chief, so the buck stops with him when it comes to both the State Dept AND the CIA. But both agencies’ civil servants have quite a bit of latitude to do their jobs correctly. Is there any direct evidence that the White House specifically made any changes without a legitimate reason? All I see so far is a blame game between Langley & Foggy Bottom.

You just don’t understand real time conversation. Intel had it that the video absolutely no cause for the Benghazi attack. All that ocured on the 11th and 12h was given in real time and at no time was a video the blame for the attack.

The first draft of talking points leaked to Jonathan Karl state quite clearly:

We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. consulate and subsequently its annex.
throughout every revision made by the CIA and State Dept, this remained the top talking point.

Now who are those who “thought that the video was the primary instigator for the violence in Cairo that day.” Even those in the Middle East don’t buy into that narrative.
What planet are you living on? The Cairo embassy attackers EXPLICITLY mentioned the video as their motivation. There is ZERO evidence that anything other than the video was involved. Posted by: Warren Porter at May 11, 2013 2:13 PM
Comment #365702

DSP2195: “What you are trying to tell us Adam, is that the CIA, who investigates and brings the results of the investigation to the Obama and his administration, then creates policy by changing or deleting the investigative material.”

I don’t believe I came even close to suggesting such a thing.

“They would not change the results of their investigation, unless told to.”

I don’t have a clue what you’re asking. The talking points were drafted before the investigation as a way to talk about the attack early on. They didn’t change the results of their investigation as far as I can tell.

“Exactly as I said; the CIA does not make policy, they provide facts, and the administration provides the policy.”

I’m not sure that is in dispute, is it?

Posted by: Adam Ducker at May 11, 2013 3:45 PM
Comment #365704

Warren, Did you ever hear of diversionary tactics? You cause a disturbance someplace but the real target. We all know there has been trouble in Benghazi prior to the 9/11 attack so why did the Obama administration not follow the lead of the British and the red cross who got their people out of there because of security risks? Were people killed in Cairo? No, at least not Americans. Did any of the protesters in Cairo carry Rocket propelled Granades? No. If you believe that a video sparked this attack, I put you in the same category I put S.D. and A.D. in, but I think you may be smarter than that, or at least I hope so. Obama and Hillary screwed up and they don’t want to admit it, they are trying to blame everything under the sun but there own incompetence in this matter.

Posted by: KAP at May 11, 2013 3:48 PM
Comment #365705

CasperWY: “Benghazi talking points modified 12 times…let’s blame…yeah…let’s blame…the CIA.”

I’m not sure I care about the modifications of if I blame anyone for it. The talking points were revised by various people for several different reasons. It’s not really something you blame anyone for.

“I’m just curious; if it was Adam Ducker’s or phx8’s brother, son, or father who was one of those killed in Benghazi; would they want to blow it off, or would they want to know the truth?”

You’re assuming by default that there is truth covered up, and we don’t want it revealed because we care more about President Obama than we do the dead. I could pretend to be outraged at such a notion but that’s typical right wing nonsense and I’m used to it.

The truth is there was no coverup. There hasn’t been anything to hide. At best there was a downplaying of information about those responsible early on but we’re talking about days, maybe a week before everything substantial about the events leading up to the attack was known. All we keep getting now are the tiny little details that the right thinks might damage the president and then a rehashing of previously debunked garbage about Susan Rice, the video, etc.

“This mess can be laid right at the feet of Obama. His arrogance and belief that he is above mere mortal people has created this fiasco.”

What is it you were saying about us looking like idiots? That’s what I think when I see you say something as silly as that.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at May 11, 2013 3:57 PM
Comment #365706

Tom Humes: “The video was part of the lies and coverup that has since happened.”

So the CIA talking points from the 14th suggesting the attackers “were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo” is part of that coverup? Is that what you believe?

Posted by: Adam Ducker at May 11, 2013 4:01 PM
Comment #365707
Did you ever hear of diversionary tactics? You cause a disturbance someplace but the real target.

So are you alleging that the attacks in Cairo, Sana’a and elsewhere were unrelated to the video? That Al-Qaeda had been planning this massive coordination of demonstration for months and the video was just a red herring?

We all know there has been trouble in Benghazi prior to the 9/11 attack so why did the Obama administration not follow the lead of the British and the red cross who got their people out of there because of security risks?

Now there’s a legitimate question. With 4 Americans dead, we need to reexamine past decisions and judge their results.

But this isn’t the crux of the hearings. Instead, the Right is pushing a ridiculous allegation that the WH deliberately suppressed evidence that the incident was a premeditated attack by an Al-Qaeda affiliates.

However, if we return to your question, I have a feeling that the reason why the facility was not evacuated was that the consulate really wasn’t a consulate. It was a clandestine CIA outpost that was there to combat nearby groups with Al-Qaeda sympathies. One doesn’t retreat from battle the moment things become unsafe; one keeps fighting despite the risks as long as victory is still tenable.

If you believe that a video sparked this attack
I believe the video was responsible for the attacks in Cairo, Sana’a and other places. In Benghazi, there were also demonstrations, which gave a bunch of opportunistic terrorists a chance to inflict harm upon Americans. But my opinion is not set in stone; I am certain it will change as more evidence comes to light. However, I am certain that no evidence has been withheld so far without legitimate reasons. Posted by: Warren Porter at May 11, 2013 5:35 PM
Comment #365708


I am consistently amazed, and not just a little amused, at the total omniscience of some of the posters here. Through the Internet we all have access to the same sources of information, but where most of us see innuendo, speculation, and rumor, some see indisputable fact.

It seems the latest word to have it’s definition changed is “if”.

KAP,

For the last 5 years the fringe right has been peddling outrage like it was crack, and, with that level of rancour, it’s going to be hard to maintain the buzz.

There were 54 attacks on US embassies and consulates during the Bush administration, with more than a dozen deaths as a result, yet the outrage was directed at those that committed the acts, and the outcry against Bush for those acts rarely rose above a murmur. There were 3, count them, 3 investigations.

Since Sept, 11, there have been 9 Congressional investigations, that have revealed pretty much squat we didn’t already know.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at May 11, 2013 5:46 PM
Comment #365710

“For example. Who told those people to stand down when they were very well qualified to do the job. Whoever gave the order will have 4 peoples blood on their hands as well as those up the chain of command.”

According to Congressional testimony, it was Special Operations Africa that told the team to stay in Tripoli and help with the evacuation there. The Pentagon also noted that the four man team was not kitted for battle, was not going to engage in the firefight but rather help with the Benghazi airport evacuation and could not have arrived in time to help with the firefight in any case. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/05/bengazi-pentagon/

The assertion that ordering the special ops team to stay in Tripoli and help with the Tripoli evacuation rather than the Benghazi evacuation was somehow a causal factor in the deaths of four Americans is ludicrous.

The Africa command was concerned about the entire region. Its limited special ops resources needed to be allocated appropriately. Stripping Tripoli of limited resources could have been a greater disaster if there had been a follow-on attack on the Tripoli embassy.

Posted by: Rich at May 11, 2013 5:56 PM
Comment #365713

Rocky & Rich

I don’t believe the Obama folks or Hilary Clinton did anything particularly wrong in the actual event. They were not very good at their jobs, but it was within the usual bounds of competence. It certainly was not handled well, however.

Where I fault them is for lying afterwards. It is clear that they knew or should have know it was an organized attack, not something prompted spontaneously by a video.

It is indicative that they had to send Susan Rice to do the talking on the Sunday programs. They probably could not find a professional willing to do that deed. Think about this. Why should the politically appointed UN Ambassador, with no particular expertise in the region, be the one to comment on a situation in Libya. Hilary wisely stayed away from it.

I really see no reason to publicly humiliate our president over such things as this. It is much easier to criticize hard decisions after the fact than to make them at the time. I do, however, think this should be remembered as part of Hilary’s record should she run for office in future.

Posted by: CJ at May 11, 2013 6:55 PM
Comment #365714

DSP2195-
If Warren Porter is right, then the first draft of the talking points explicitly link the video to the attack.

So, if your charge is she lied about what was told to her by the CIA, you’re lying.

As for Traction, Traction and attention are different things, especially as far as the public goes.

It’s a stupid controversy, a continuation of a political stunt by the losing candidate of the last election. That Republicans have maintained this obsession for this long just tell us how out of touch they are with the needs of the American people, because there are dozens of issues of greater importance that have been shoved aside for the sake of what seems to be a politically motivated witch hunt aimed at a potential Democratic candidate for the presidency.

We’re talking about a scandal built on a simple choice of talking points. That’s all. It’s the thought police on patrol, and nothing grander, more important than that. This isn’t a defiance of Congress and an arm sale to our enemy, this isn’t the burglarizing of your opponent’s political headquarters in the name of political chicanery, and elsewhere in the name of plugging up leaks.

It’s a choice of words. It’s a choice of when to say what.

You all need to look at the ruins of your party, and realize that you cannot continue to coast on tearing apart the public reputations of your enemies.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 11, 2013 7:53 PM
Comment #365715

I agree CJ it was the lying afterwards that have some other than the Obama lovers angry. This isn’t the first time he has lied and isn’t the last we now have the IRS thing. I wonder who will be thrown under the Bus for that. Then we have the arm chair military people who know only from the books they read and not from experience telling us how things were done or supposed to have been done. I also agreed that it was Susan Rice who played the stooge to save Hillary’s butt. I am confident that this round of hearings will bring out more about the TRUE facts about Benghazi. Heck even the liberal MSM is up in arms about it.

Posted by: KAP at May 11, 2013 8:00 PM
Comment #365716
If Warren Porter is right

Stephen, there’s no need to hedge; my earlier comment links to the talking points as well as every revision.

it was the lying afterwards that have some other than the Obama lovers angry.

How can it be lying if one maintains fidelity to the talking points produced by the CIA & State Dept? Obviously, the intelligence community came to a few incorrect conclusions initially, but that’s hardly scandalous.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 11, 2013 8:10 PM
Comment #365717

Stephen, At the other places the protest were about some stupid video MAYBE but I doubt. That may also have been a random excuse to stage a protest to divert from their real target. It seems rather strange no mortors or any other weapons were used at other than Benghazi. The Benghazi counsulate has been the target of other random attacks. Yet NO support other than what was present was sent knowing that it was a HOT SPOT. As testified this last time by the one who was there on the ground and made the call to Hillary was stunded that she and her boss refered to a You Tube video and had Susan Rice say that on 5 no less TV shows the following Sunday.

Posted by: KAP at May 11, 2013 8:14 PM
Comment #365719

Warren

Either they are lying or really stupid. No experienced person would have read those points publicly with any confidence at all. It just didn’t and doesn’t make sense that a “spontaneous” demonstration would be so organized and would bring enough firepower to do what they did.

I don’t think they are that stupid.

A circumspect person would have refused to deliver those talking points. Even in the most charitable interpretation, there was not enough information to make a definitive statement. At best, Rice had no business going on such an offensive.

We are also finding out from testimony from professionals that Hilary Clinton knew more about it than she was letting on.

Re the actual event - I am the only consistent person writing here. I understood the uncertainty and defended Bush from liberal attacks and I do the same for Obama. But in what they did after they are responsible.

Posted by: CJ at May 11, 2013 8:23 PM
Comment #365722

Who will take the hit for the IRS fiasco???? The low level employees will take the hit.

Susan Rice was sacrifice; the CIA is blamed; and last of all, Hillary will be thrown under the bus.

Most of the Muslim world didn’t even know about the video until Obama and Clinton made a video of their own condemning it. Of course Obama had to even apologize for the fact that we have 1st Amendment freedom of speech in America.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lpcr7NaKW8

“Here’s a question: While the president and Secretary of State are sending a message of America’s religious tolerance to the world — a principle embedded in the First Amendment to the Constitution — why not add a message about another bedrock constitutional principle, free speech? The same First Amendment that says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” also prohibits Congress from “abridging the freedom of speech…” That would include the right to make an anti-Muslim video, or create a musical mocking Mormons, or an “artwork” insulting Christianity, or any of the other religious provocations that are routinely allowed in the United States.

Obama and Clinton appear determined to show Muslim radicals that the United States respects their beliefs. But what about also suggesting that those Muslim radicals should respect the bedrock American belief in free speech? You can watch the new U.S. government ad over and over, and you’ll never hear a word about that.”

http://washingtonexaminer.com/citing-founders-obama-clinton-tout-religious-freedom-but-ignore-free-speech/article/2508656

Posted by: CasperWY at May 11, 2013 9:27 PM
Comment #365723

It’s funny that any time folks on the right get their anti-Obama screeds criticized, they play the Obama worship card. If you aren’t agreeing with their FOXNews poop-scoop, you think he’s the messiah.

Folks, your stuff is bull****. Your moves are transparent, they’re complete copies of what you tried to do with more success with Clinton. Obama’s won a second term, Just like Clinton did, and your folks just want to find some way to kick him out or castrate his power.

The folks who so helpfully point out what a stupid, corrupt etc. administration Obama’s people are strike me as the same folks who spent years and years and years using the same insults and the same contempt to defend Bush’s actions. Only now that a Democrat is in office are they concerned about reducing deficits. They were just fine with fiscal stimulus in 2008. Only when a Democrat offered one that wasn’t a tax break did Republicans turn on the idea.

And now, they’re very helpfully telling us how terrible Benghazi is, how horrible it is that the Obama Administration didn’t come to a perfect conclusion immediately and, oh, by the way, just insist on calling it a terrorist attack simply on kneejerk reflex alone.

This nation needs mature leaders, not folks who gravitate towards trying to cancel out the verdict of the voters by scandal-mongering and hyperbole.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 12, 2013 12:01 AM
Comment #365724

Well finally I can agree with one thing you said Stephen, We need mature leaders. To bad we don’t have any in D.C. and I include Republicans in the mix. You guys were so intent on bringing Bush up on charges of War Crimes now that the shoe is on the other foot you are pulling out all stops to save Obama. Somebody screwed up Stephen and it’s time we found out who is at fault, and this time you can’t blame Bush.

Posted by: KAP at May 12, 2013 12:19 AM
Comment #365725

One of the reasons I stopped believing in conspiracy theories is that very often, I was asked to believe something was possible based on a complete absence of evidence. I stopped believing, in essence, because it occurred to me that people can be and often are wrong, and that very often, people have to go through rounds of correction, based on evidence, based on research, in order to arrive at the better, more accurate answer to what happened.

When I look at the Benghazi conspiracy theories, I have to ask, what’s the point of what they’re alleging? It’s such a small difference, in real terms. At the end of the day, those Libyans/foreigners killed an American Ambassador. Pretending it was just people rioting over the video wouldn’t change the severity of the failure, one way or another. It is just as bad for rioters to kill our people as terrorists. The Republican led house, though, wants to believe that somehow, it would have been less politically damaging if rioters, rather than al Qaeda affiliates (however remote) did this.

Really? If Libya is supposed to be a triumph for Democrats, the argument might go, then doesn’t this flare-up make it look like the country’s unstable, since they were unable to prevent rioters, much less militia men from attacking us?

And really, it doesn’t un-kill Bin Laden, or imply a general resurgence of al-Qaeda if an ambassador is attacked in Libya. Obama knew this.

If Obama had tried to pretend that an attack had never happened, tried to allege that the fire was some kind of freak accident, that would have been a cover-up. Merely telling people what your people think is the case now is not a cover-up.

If you really think about it, this supposed cover-up is so fricking thin you can floss your teeth with it. What inaccurate impression was made that wasn’t corrected days later?

It’s almost as if Republicans are relitigating this, months after the election, in an attempt to rewrite history. Their candidate screwed the pooch trying to trap Obama and got burned for it. So now they keep on trying to make that candidate’s point, more than half a year after he lost, alleging that Obama wasn’t willing or able to face the full truth about what happened, or have it come out.

Give it rest, guys.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 12, 2013 12:31 AM
Comment #365727

Stepehen

RE “The folks who so helpfully point out what a stupid, corrupt etc. administration Obama’s people are strike me as the same folks who spent years and years and years using the same insults and the same contempt to defend Bush’s actions.”

This is exactly - exactly - what many have pointed out that you do. We can even use nearly your exact works, changing only the targets of your wrath or the objects of your defense.

RE - “One of the reasons I stopped believing in conspiracy theories …” You stopped believing in conspiracy theories on the left. Remember what you said about the Plame case? Or you still believe that Bush cooked up information re WMD, don’t you?

Speaking of conspiracy theories in general, the good rule of thumb is to never attribute to malice of forethought what is probably the result of incompetence or stupidity.

This is how I would describe Obama folks reactions in this case. They were caught flat footed. They were slow and a little incompetent. They covered up as a kind of instinct in order to not have the issue come up so close to the election. It was not an elaborate conspiracy. They simply failed to ask the right questions or dig deep and much of this failure was the result of the mindset at the time. It is not a conspiracy; it is a syndrome of bad decision making.

In fact, it is very similar to the Plame affair in this respect, although the Obama mistake had deadlier results. In both cases there was a lot of incompetence and inappropriate reaction. In neither case was there a conspiracy. In both cases opponents thought there was one.

In the first case, people like you were doing the attacking. I told you at the time that it would be best to let the investigation go on, but don’t expect any grand revelations. I was right. I would give the same advice here to my conservative friends. But you behaved as they did back then … and will again when there is a problem on the right.

Posted by: CJ at May 12, 2013 7:33 AM
Comment #365729

C&J,

“In fact, it is very similar to the Plame affair in this respect, although the Obama mistake had deadlier results.”

I don’t know.

It seems to me that the whole “Iraq has WMDs” thing led to the death of thousands of American military, and possibly hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

Just saying.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at May 12, 2013 8:45 AM
Comment #365730

What makes me so angry about this whole Benghazi thing is NOBODY wants to just say I’m sorry we made a mistake. Obama and company may have gotten a lot of wrath but at least they would have been seen as credible. Instead they try to blame a YOUTUBE VIDEO. That is what makes me angry over this whole fiasco, all that needed to be said is WE SCREWED UP. American people are tired of the lies and they want the truth out of our leaders, some have grown to accustom of being told a line of BS that they believe it, and I include both sides in that statement.

Posted by: KAP at May 12, 2013 9:42 AM
Comment #365731

Rocky

The Iraq mistake was much more consequential. That is true. But there is no indication that there was a conspiracy to manipulate the facts. Like this smaller version, there was probably a suspension of critical thought. This, BTW, was shared widely, including among people like Hilary Clinton and John Kerry.

The Plame affair is more closely parallel. There was some bad judgement, but nothing illegal that it set off. Once out there, people were embarrassed on the one side and vindictive on the other, leading to a lot of sound and fury that ended up with nothing on the original charge.

Posted by: CJ at May 12, 2013 9:43 AM
Comment #365732

KAP, I’m not sure why you’re having such difficulty on the basic facts about the attack. If you’re going to pretend the YouTube video wasn’t even the source of the Cairo protests and riots, let alone any protests in Benghazi, then I guess you’re just going to continue to fabricate your own reality in relation to this entire conversation.

You’re asking the administration to admit mistakes? They have. But it’s just for the mistakes they actually made in the allocation of security resources. They aren’t going to come out and admit to all the false things the right has accused them of. Why would they? In what world does that make sense?

Posted by: Adam Ducker at May 12, 2013 11:36 AM
Comment #365733

Ducker, I have difficulty because of dumb ass comments like yours. You readily Blame Bush for all the faults of this administration yet YOUR PEOPLE will not take RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR SCREW UPS. Benghazi was just one of the many lies of this administration, now we have the IRS thing are YOU Ducker going to blame Bush and the Tea Party for that? As I stated earlier YOU and YOUR PEOPLE were ready to hang Bush and some in his administration for crimes yet YOU can’t see the crimes of YOUR PARTY. When YOU and YOURS can admit that there were screw ups and wrong info put out then and only then Ducker will I have some respect for YOU and YOUR PEOPLE til then, SORRY ABOUT YOUR DAMN LUCK.

Posted by: KAP at May 12, 2013 11:59 AM
Comment #365734

Anyone see Gates on Face the Nation?

Don’t watch, conservatives. Former Secretary of Defense Gates will make you cry. But here are some quotes from this respected Republican anyway. Get out your hankies, cause he might hurt you’re feelings. Sit down, put the back of your hand to your forehead, and then rapidly fan yourself, just in case you’re suddenly overcome by a case of the vapors.

“Frankly, had I been in the job at the time, I think my decisions would have been just as theirs were.”

“… Getting somebody there in a timely way would have been very difficult, if not impossible.”

“I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi…”

And my favorite:

“Another suggestion posed by some critics of the administration, to, as Gates said, “send some small number of special forces or other troops in without knowing what the environment is, without knowing what the threat is, without having any intelligence in terms of what is actually going on on the ground, would have been very dangerous.”

“It’s sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces,” he said. “The one thing that our forces are noted for is planning and preparation before we send people in harm’s way, and there just wasn’t time to do that.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57584087/gates-some-benghazi-critics-have-cartoonish-view-of-military-capability/

Bad day for those infected with Benghazi Conspiracy Fever.


Posted by: phx8 at May 12, 2013 12:52 PM
Comment #365735

KAP: “Benghazi was just one of the many lies of this administration…”

What lie? Be specific.

“…now we have the IRS thing are YOU Ducker going to blame Bush and the Tea Party for that?”

I don’t know much about the IRS thing since it’s still unfolding. Unlike some on the right, I prefer not to speak too early on this one and look like a fool.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at May 12, 2013 1:18 PM
Comment #365736

Not a bad day phx8, that’s one man’s idea, he wasn’t the one who got the 2 am call Hillary did. Planning and preparation, we have forces that can go at a moments notice, so you can gloot all you want, the fact remains someone screwed up. By the way you don’t have time for planning and preparation when a gun fight takes place and people are getting killed, you react!!!!

Posted by: KAP at May 12, 2013 1:20 PM
Comment #365737

Fast and furious comes to mind, This will be a transparent administration comes to mind, that’s just 2 for starters DUCKER. Now about the IRS thing people already have admitted to targeting tea party and forms with patriot on them. I guess maybe the liberal MSM hasn’t got the news yet Ducker.

Posted by: KAP at May 12, 2013 1:29 PM
Comment #365738

Adam answers to the question:

“I’m just curious; if it was Adam Ducker’s or phx8’s brother, son, or father who was one of those killed in Benghazi; would they want to blow it off, or would they want to know the truth?”

You’re assuming by default that there is truth covered up, and we don’t want it revealed because we care more about President Obama than we do the dead. I could pretend to be outraged at such a notion but that’s typical right wing nonsense and I’m used to it.

The truth is there was no coverup.”

Sorry Adam, no cigar; you failed to answer the question. But, I did hear a mother of one of the dead pleading to know what happened to her son. She said she was a mother just like Michelle O, and on this mother’s day, Michelle O has her children but that she didn’t. Kind of put’s a real life picture to the scenario, doesn’t it? But, as Adam says, there’s probably no cover up; why would anyone believe that?

What your attitude does show, is a complete lack of compassion or concern for the parents and siblings of those who died in Benghazi. This is more of that liberal compassion for all folks.

What Adam, phx8, and Stephen are doing, is to try to run interference for Obama. Every point they have made is straight from the democrat talking points book.

Hillary: “their dead, who cares how they died”

Jay Carney: “that happened a long time ago, who cares”

Obama: “we’re going to get to the bottom of this and hold the CRIMINALS responsible”

Reality: “if we stall long enough, the unlearned masses will forget all about it”.

Posted by: CasperWY at May 12, 2013 1:31 PM
Comment #365739

Casper,
You lost credibility when you made this statement:

“The price of food and fuel has remained high for the past 3 years. There has been no seasonal fluctuation.”

Wow.

There have been plenty of doozies that seriously undermine your credibility, but this might be the best, referring to Sanford in South Carolina:

“Let’s talk about the great victory for the Republicans in SC.”

Ah well. The weird statements about how people are somehow unconcerned about truth and the deaths at the consulate discredit you so thoroughly, I really see no need to respond. I see what you post. It makes you look so bad, I really can’t add to it. You are your own worst enemy.

Posted by: phx8 at May 12, 2013 1:55 PM
Comment #365740

“just insist on calling it a terrorist attack simply on kneejerk reflex alone.”

SD
Shame on you for such idiotic comments.

Hillary told face to face to one of the survivors when his body came home to Dover that the video was the problem.
She sure learned to lie as a very learned student of the lie from one of the experts on lying, one Hillbilly Bill, her husband.
This whole situation is so full of lies, coverup and all the related trash that goes with it.

The running thread from SD, AD, et al is that they have not done their homework on the subject. They take the talking points that have those key words, “video”, “Hillary”, “Obama”, “Newland”, “Caney”, just for starters and they take what is said and count it truth when the proof is not in their so called truth.

Posted by: tom humes at May 12, 2013 3:02 PM
Comment #365741

The talking points that were changed 12 times is directly attributed to the WH. If you think that anybody else makes this the policy you are mistaken. The WH must approve of those remarks. That is a fact.

Posted by: tom humes at May 12, 2013 3:06 PM
Comment #365742

phx8, evidently you haven’t bought food or fuel for the past 3 years. Of course, who cares, fuel and food are not figured into inflation are they?

Sanford’s win in SC must have been a great victory for the Republican Party; had Colbert won, it would have been declared a great victory for the Democrats, right?

In fact, I have no doubt, we would have had reoccurring articles written b SD and AD telling of the great of the Democrats, had Colbert won.

Your ignorance makes you your own worse enemy. Are you supposed to be the wittier side of the liberals on WB? Very sad.

Posted by: CasperWY at May 12, 2013 5:07 PM
Comment #365743

“MSNBC Stunner: Benghazi Cover-up ‘Clintonian,’ Talks of Impeachment”

“MSNBC aired one of the most surreal discussions ever to have taken place on the far-left network. It proves the intense heat that mainstream media and the White House are feeling on Benghazi.

The panel includes Buzzfeed’s Ben Smith, the Daily Beast’s Michael Tomasky, the Washington Post’s Nia-Malika Henderson and Luke Russert guest hosting for Alex Wagner.

The following is a transcript of the conversation, with select editorial comments in brackets:

RUSSERT: I just want to go to the panel real quick. Politically, this is not good for the White House right now. Does it stick?

SMITH: I mean, sure, they look terrible. They… I mean, there have been comparisons to Watergate. They did not, in fact, try to kill people [red herring argument, no one claimed they did]. I mean, they didn’t try to get their staff killed. [But did they try hard enough to save them?] Alright? That, this was them trying to save face after something terrible had happened and try to prevent what looks like the accurate perception that they had not been careful enough in Benghazi. That they had been sloppy about security, that they had ignored warnings.

Looks like this, I mean, when you read that the State Department is very concerned about this. At one point, reportedly the State Department official Victoria Nuland says the leadership of her building is really worried about this, and the way it points to Hillary Clinton and her top deputies. The White House kind of deferring to them.

RUSSERT: Does this then become an election politics thing? [No, it becomes a dead four people at Benghazi, Libya thing.] We’ve talked about the connection to Hillary Clinton, which the GOP is trying to push forward. But also, did the President try to sit on this, because the election was only a few weeks away when this attack occurred?

TOMASKY: Sure, it becomes an election issue. It becomes a 2014 issue, it becomes a 2016 issue, it becomes a potential — should I even say the word that starts with ‘I’? – that I think we all know, a three-syllable word, comes, you know the word? (Say it — followed by laughter.) A potential impeachment issue as long as the Republicans are in control of the House.

HENDERSON: I… I think for Clinton, it looks ‘Clintonian.’ It kind of reminds you of, you ,know, that era of politics, and sort of the secrecy and sort of the slippery, uh, things that came out of that administration. And also, I think it reminds us that there is only one person that the far right-wing hates more than Obama, and that’s Hillary Clinton. Uh, and I think if she is somewhere trying to figure out whether or not she wants to run for president, then this is what she would face.

RUSSERT: To put it in a political lens, this will be the first line of attack against her, that the GOP will run, and I’m sure we’ll see a lot of Super-PAC ads if Hillary wants to do that, in Iowa about this story.

Apparently, this was not a hacking of MSNBC’s live feed, so there is no need to contact the authorities. Since there was scant discussion of President Obama, this conversation may have been a way of throwing Hillary Clinton under “The Beast” and backing up a few times.”


http://www.ijreview.com/2013/05/51757-msnbc-panel-obama-administrations-benghazi-cover-up-clintonian-talks-of-impeachment/

The best comment was, “The rats are abandoning the sinking SS Obama”

Posted by: DSP2195 at May 12, 2013 5:29 PM
Comment #365744

KAP:

What did they lie about on Fast and furious? As far as transparency goes that’s a matter of opinion and a bit hard to measure. At most it’s a broken campaign promise which is not a lie at all. What about Benghazi though? What did the president lie about?

Posted by: Adam Ducker at May 12, 2013 6:33 PM
Comment #365745

CasperWY: “Sorry Adam, no cigar; you failed to answer the question.”

You didn’t read carefully enough then because the point is there is no more truth to find. These aren’t investigations and they shouldn’t be mistaken for one. If you assume falsely there is a conspiracy then of course you want to dig into the facts until you can twist reality to match your preconceived notions about President Obama.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at May 12, 2013 6:39 PM
Comment #365746

DSP2195:

Don’t hold your breath waiting for this to hurt President Obama or Hillary Clinton. It may not be too late to return your pom poms and get the full price back.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at May 12, 2013 6:57 PM
Comment #365747

Tom Humes: “The WH must approve of those remarks. That is a fact.”

Approve, yes. What’s the point?

Posted by: Adam Ducker at May 12, 2013 7:02 PM
Comment #365748

DUCKER, Out a supposedly grown man I have never read so much dumb assed comments. You either live in a fantasy world or in some hick town that never gets news. Or You have got to be a kid pretending to be older with the comments you come up with, or you are so brainwashed by liberal media you don’t know if it’s a lie or the truth. As far as fast and furious where was the truth? As far as transparency, I’ve seen more transparency through Glass block.

Posted by: KAP at May 12, 2013 8:29 PM
Comment #365750

KAP, you are dealing with children. I came to the conclusion long ago that Stephen Daugherty and Adam Ducker are nothing more than impotent teenagers who’s life consists of playing video games, watching syfy movies, and hiding behind a computer screen.

You will notice they have no concept of reality. They simply babble on about Obama. They don’t like it when you accuse them of Obama worship; but what else can you call it? They believe every word that comes out of his mouth is divinely inspired.

They think this Benghazi thing is going away simply because Obama and his talking heads say it will. Huckabee believes this will take down Obama’s presidency; I’m not sure about that, but I do believe he has been castrated. He will get nothing passed, simply because everything he wants to pass goes against our freedoms and rights. They will continue to blame obstruction on the Republicans, but he won’t even have the support of his own democrats, i.e. gun control.

There is an election coming next year, at about the time obamacare kicks in, and the dems may be able to pull a national election scam, but they won’t be able to control the State and local elections in red states. And there are a lot more red states than there are blue.

We simply thank God for the NRA, the House controlled by Republicans, and an incompetent, elitist president who is making it impossible for Democrats to get elected next year.

Posted by: DSP2195 at May 12, 2013 8:55 PM
Comment #365751

DSP, YEP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: KAP at May 12, 2013 9:00 PM
Comment #365755

KAP,

You have run out of arguments so you resort to name-calling instead?

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 12, 2013 11:42 PM
Comment #365756

Warren, Nope not run out of arguments, You can’t argue dumbass comments. Besides I didn’t name call only the comments did I call almost infantile from a supposed grown man and supposedly educated to. I hope you don’t resort to the dumb crap.

Posted by: KAP at May 12, 2013 11:59 PM
Comment #365757

C&J-
You know, when I make an argument, I fit logic and fact together, I don’t just symbolically swap one argument with another, unless I am trying to make a distinction that is critically dependent on the comparison.

You want something meatier? Try the Valerie Plame affair. Somebody in the Bush Administration actually was convicted of obstruction of justice in that one. The danger to our agents abroad was real, and the cost, in terms of a front that was destroyed, was real, too.

We have good information that tells us that regardless of the legal consequences, we did have Bush Administration officials shopping around this information in an effort do discredit their critics. Fudged talking points on one hand, and the deliberate exposure of an American CIA agent for the sake of trying to shut up a critic.

Want to know why I don’t think well of this whole Benghazi thing? Well, there you have it. A much worse cover-up, where actual information about who was responsible was concealed, behavior that was legally questionable, and in one guy’s case, legally provable as criminal behavior used to conceal it.

Look at Watergate. This wasn’t merely the burying of information about the Vietnam War, like what Daniel Ellsberg exposed with the Pentagon papers, this was the use of taxpayer dollars and political contributions to break the law in order to prevent and discredit further leaks, and to promote the political fortunes of the President. Actual felonies, convicted in a court of law, were perpetrated not only by the people that Nixon’s folks sent to do the jobs, but also by Nixon’s own staff. Gerald Ford’s pardoning of Nixon doesn’t exactly cover Nixon in glory, because it indicates that by all measures, Nixon’s successor believed he had broken the law, or could be prosecuted in the years afterwards for what he did.

Iran Contra? We were ransoming hostages, something that only encourages their further kidnapping, we were arming Iran, an enemy of our nation, to further a foreign policy that Congress had specifically outlawed. And by the way, we weren’t exactly covering ourselves in glory with what was happening in Central America.

So, what do you have in Benghazi? Talking points that changed over the course of an investigation, that might have been shifted for political reasons.

I mean, really, are you just trying to make it obvious that you’re on a fishing expedition, with a fleet of trawlers going over every detail, hauling up all the muck in the hopes of getting something?

If you had something, we wouldn’t be going through this extended, painstaking parsing of everything. You’d have something to point to, and actually say, this is why there’s a scandal. This was the illegal behavior that deserves punishment.

You’re just trying to settle scores and cheat your way back to the White House. But you know something, there’s something you ought to consider: If Republicans had been less dependent on trying to scandalmonger their way back into the White House, they might have picked a better candidate. They did not. They picked poor candidates, and then counted on propaganda and an emphasis on hardball politics to get them elected.

And then what? Eight years of continually degrading results, making people forget all the contention of the Clinton years. The economy recovered, but in a dysfunctional way that left many out of work, and then depended on a overheated real estate market to prop up an overall stagnant economy.

I know you would be tempted to say that about Obama, but so far what Obama’s done has created jobs, and the Republican’s measureable effect has been to prevent further stimulus, introduce several periods of economic and monetary uncertainty, and actually kill jobs on account of cuts made in Washington and elsewhere.

In the end, there’s only so much you can do to talk people into ignoring the fact that while you promised job, your only legislation has been bad for jobs, in direct and indirect ways. Republicans are counting on policy alchemy to save them, counting on the counterintuitive policy outcomes they’re used to believing are true to happen, and save this country.

That hasn’t happened.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 13, 2013 12:53 AM
Comment #365787

Stephen

In the Plame affair we KNOW who leaked. That person was not punished because what he did was not illegal. Check your facts before you write again. There was NO underlying crime. The investigation itself produce one conviction for the cover up, as might yet happen in the Libya affair.

The Libya affair is similar in that it is unlikely anybody did anything illegal, but they covered and obfuscated to hide their screw ups. This will eventually finish Hilary’s ambition for higher office.

Posted by: CJ at May 13, 2013 5:56 AM
Comment #365789

KAP-
First things first: this was a video whose director deliberately made the movie to be as provocative as possible (whether he directed it to be as stupid as possible is another story, but who does?)

That may seem silly to us, people who are bombarded by stuff we feel is terrible every day, but to somebody who doesn’t have free speech, who lives in a country where this is literally a crime, and anti-American fervor is high, and things go beyond “It’s just a Youtube video.” In fact, putting it on Youtube may have been just as deliberate, a way to get past the fact that as awful as it was, it wasn’t going to be seen.

But folks on the right don’t want to admit that this strategy of being deliberately provocative is dangerous, because their own people are doing this all the time, and that wouldn’t reflect well on them.

You can repeat all the boilerplate political revolutionary, the good people are on the rise to put things right kind of Rhetoric, but at the end of the day, it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the terrorists involved wanted to time their provocative act to coincide with the response to that other provocative act, perhaps to spur wider violence in their cause. Otherwise, I think it actually seems oddly coincidental that the attack and the protests come together so neatly.

I think this is the way of the world: if we let it, the idiots of the world will provoke each other to no end. While I have no desire to get in the way of somebody else’s free speech, I think it’s high time people on the right realize that the right to be stupidly provocative is not the obligation to be stupidly provocative.

By the way, have you noticed how fevered your text makes you sound like? For somebody who insists on knocking people for being partisan, you seem pretty fervently on one side yourself. You’re about as independent as a baseball hit by a bat. You say just what the people who have turned the Republican Party into something you can’t be a part of want you to say. That’s why I’ve never had much respect for your independence. You don’t seem to think for yourself, just repeat the same damn talking points over and over and wonder why Democrats aren’t falling over themselves to agree.

Well, here’s a clue: those talking points aren’t for our benefit, they’re for yours. They are to keep you angry, even about trivial things, and keep you from voting for anything else than a Republican. Even if you barely like them at all, if you hate the Democrats, fear their governance, then they keep you as a voter, without having to earn your trust or your admiration back.

You’ve let them limit your options as to what you believe. And so calling you an independent would be an improper use of the term. Whatever you believe, you don’t act like one.

CasperWY-
The funny thing is, for all your melodramatic appeals to the parents and everything, you don’t really have anything. You don’t have an explicitly criminal act or failure that got covered up, but has now been revealed. No, instead all you have is the insistence that if you go looking for something, you will find it. You haven’t found it yet, but you know it’s there, don’t you?

But you don’t have it yet, and yet again, the Republican Party is taking America on a fishing expedition in order to sink the popularity of a President, and a possible candidate to the Presidency.

This has always been about politics, and little else.

The reality is this: “If we destroy our political opponents enough with our slander, we won’t have to go through the trouble of giving people a good candidate. We can put another Bush-like fellow in the White House who will rubberstamp our agenda.”

You want back in, just like you did with Clinton. So scandals are a must. The 2000 election would have never been so close if it hadn’t been for the impeachment, the constant degrading attacks on the President.

You talk of compassion, I don’t see compassion. I see the lockstep promotion of the Republican Political Party, on the backs of the dead.

As for Sanford?

I wonder, if he hadn’t pushed the Pelosi button, how much people would have ignored the fact that the man acted like a complete moron, and continues to behave in such a way. That’s part of the real purpose of this constant storm of outrage and offense on the part of the right, the constant criticism and defamation of anybody on the left: It makes it easier to get Republicans elected, and to keep people electing Republicans out of fear and disgust towards the imaginary left.

But the side effect is, more and more the quality of the candidates goes down. As your side heightens the fear and loathing towards the left, it in fact becomes almost required that they become less compromising, less politically creative, more in tune with simple-minded prejudice against their political counterparts. You practically guarantee that your side is going to be filled with folks who are better at Bashing Democrats and their policies, than at coming up with stuff themselves.

Karl Rove politics, really. Don’t bother with trying to be the better person, just be the vicious person who keeps people on the defensive 24/7.

But there is a price to be paid for being on the attack on anything about everything. You lose meaning, you pay for the unwise attacks, and people begin to assume that you just do it for cynical reasons.

DSP2195-
It’s funny how we start with the allegation, and not with any evidence in this case.

It boils down to this: the Right Wing wants to paint what happened with the first reports that the Administration gave about the causes of Benghazi as a deliberate lie, as a politically motivated obfuscation of the truth, rather than as a first draft of the conclusions drawn from available evidence, with the qualification that the story could change as they learned more from the investigation.

You don’t even really have a lie open before you to accuse them of. Instead, what you have is the repeated assertion that the lie was told, with an endless investigation in order to find the lie. The Obama administration, in your heavily biased opinion, is guilty until proven innocent.

This isn’t like the Valerie Plame Affair, where we had the outing of a CIA agent, a real event. This isn’t like the case for war, where something obviously went systematically wrong with that case. This isn’t like the Attorneys Firing case even, where you had the Administration kicking out US attorneys who didn’t abuse their office for the President’s political gain.

Everything’s backwards. Usually, you start with something coming to light, and then the connection is made. But in this case, the connection is made, and then we’re expected to sit quietly, while your people busy themselves wasting taxpayer dollars trying to find the pretext to make this a Presidential, rather than simply an Executive branch scandal. Hell, as you try to justify it being a scandal at all!

I mean, when Darrel Issa came to the fore, he promised a scandal a week, practically. Does that sound like somebody who waits for actual evidence of wrongdoing to surface, or does that sound like somebody who thinks that it’s a marvelous use of taxpayer dollars to abuse his office for the sake of promoting Republican Political fortunes?

You folks need to give it a rest. Americans want jobs, they want an economy back on its feet, they don’t want Congress farting around with fake scandals, wasting precious time padding their own nests.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 13, 2013 8:38 AM
Comment #365790

KAP: “DUCKER, Out a supposedly grown man I have never read so much dumb assed comments.”

Thank you. I do strive to be the best at whatever it is I do well.

DSP2195: “I came to the conclusion long ago that Stephen Daugherty and Adam Ducker are nothing more than impotent teenagers…”

I’ll add that to the growing list of laughably wrong things you’ve said.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at May 13, 2013 8:54 AM
Comment #365793

There are many stories here and lots of “facts” that have spilled over into political space. And we all know what political facts are like…

One of the more interesting stories is how the press has covered this story to date. Without the Republican political ploys I doubt there would have ever been any investigative reporting of the Administration. Now it’s in full gear and Mr. Carney’s career is probably shot as a result of his blantant lies. His friend Mark Halperin called it a serious mis-representation of the of facts, but in flyover country we are a little more clear on this one.

Also on Morning Joe you had Carl Bernstein saying that the press was right to ignore this story and it doesn’t compare in the least to Watergate because the Nixon Administration was criminal and this was not criminal. So Watergate should have been investigated because Nixon was criminal and Benghazi should not be investigated because the Obama Administration is not. And somehow he knew this to be true BEFORE either investigation! That man has zero journalistic credibility.

Kudos to the Weekly Standard for leading on this one. It’s clear that NBC and the NY Times were going to try and wait this one out, but even their hands have been called.


Posted by: George in SC at May 13, 2013 9:55 AM
Comment #365794

Stephen, Would it be the same if Christians or Jews were featured in a video of the same nature of which they have? Do you think if Christians or Jews protested in front of the Saudi embassy or any other Islamic countries embassy would be molly coddled like the Benghazi terror group has been? What outrage would there be? Stephen, You are bombarded by comments that are not so nice as are us conservatives, all you have to do is read some of the comments by the left and right wing lunatics on this site. Stephen we deserve answers to Benghazi, why people got killed, was it incompetence? Was it a stupid mistake? Who was at fault? Who authorized the stupid excuse that it was because of a video? Well we know that answer IMO both Hillary and Obama had a hand in that it was an excuse of convenience, the only one they had they didn’t want to admit they screwed up. This video is on YouTube so lets blame it. Does this sound familiar Stephen? All the talking points the left did during the Bush administration? Now that the shoe is on the other foot isn’t it Stephen, YOUR SIDE is catching the flack now.

Posted by: KAP at May 13, 2013 10:23 AM
Comment #365796

For peats sake SD and for the sake of your sanity, the video has nothing to do with the Libyan question.

I find it to be so ignorant for you to continue to use the video and other misinformation to base your position on.

It is almost like trying to convince you that shit really does stink but you would comback with the argument that the source is what matters.

“But folks on the right don’t want to admit that this strategy of being deliberately provocative is dangerous, because their own people are doing this all the time, and that wouldn’t reflect well on them.”

Of course the left never, ever puts out anything evil or vile. You live in self denial.

As for the Valerie Plame affair. You are writing from the perspecitve of fiction and make believe.

Your “facts” (False Accounting Concerning The Source) just don’t add up to the truth.

Posted by: tom humes at May 13, 2013 12:46 PM
Comment #365798

George in SC-
Watergate surrounded a ****ing burglary. I’m not sure of the laws in your state, but in my state, breaking and entering to steal stuff is a felony.

Then they paid these people money to buy their silence. That, right there, is obstruction of justice. Nixon was caught dead to rights helping to direct the cover-up. People in that administration went to jail over what they did!

So if you’re saying Carl Bernstein has no credibility because he said that behavior during Watergate was criminal, and this is not, I think you’re the one with the credibility problem. What is it, do you think what Nixon and his people did was legal, or should be legal because it served your cause?

You know, the thing about these sorts of scandals, and the reason I don’t have much respect for conspiracy theories, is this: usually, real scandals start because somebody talks. In the Case of Watergate, it was James McCord mentioning that he used to work for CIA in his arraignment hearing for that “third-rate burglary”. From there, they followed his connection to Nixon’s re-election campaign. Howard Hunt’s name showed up in two of the Burglar’s address books, found on their person.

My view is, the facts have a way of spreading out evidence of what we do, and who we’re connected to, even when we don’t mean them to. Nobody really has the knowledge or the foresight to cut all the connections they need to cut to keep everything secret. Disinterest in facts nobody knows to look for protects more than active efforts to cover things up.

In fact, it’s the cover up that often nails people. Nothing links you to information more surely than your attempts to destroy it.

But there has to be something there. If there’s something there, it will link to something else, or lead people to be on the look out for the important information. Things will get scrutinized that would otherwise get left alone.

Your trouble with Benghazi is that at best we’re talking about a matter of opinion, and a preliminary opinion at that. Your most grievous charge, apart from the nonsensical idea that a President would think that leaving four Americans to die would be the preferable outcome in PR terms, is that the President didn’t hit the American people with the harshest possible presentation of what happened. It’s not even like the Iraq war case, where you could say “Bush lied, people died. Instead, your claim is basically, People died, then Obama lied after the fact.

But events in Benghazi were public knowledge, and connections to the video riots were common speculation.

Looking at those transcripts, also, we see Ambassador Rice qualifying what she said as preliminary results. Later on, the Obama Administration released investigation talking points that minimize the role of the video, and emphasize the jihadist nature of the attackers.

Even years after that burglary, Nixon’s people were still concealing critical evidence.

In the case of Iran Contra, the leak from a dissident cleric in the Iranian government to a Lebanese magazine touched things off. Then there was a crash in Nicaragua, and one of the folks in that crash spoke up and said that his fellow passengers were CIA. Things unraveled from there, as the Iranian government confirmed on their end, and the President acknowledge that some arrangement had been undertaken.

Then… Well, Oliver North, now a famous pundit and media personality, Jammed a paper shredder trying to destroy the evidence, but it came back to haunt him anyways. Funny how that works. G. Gordon Liddy was one of the Watergate Burglars, and he became a media personality, too.

So on and so forth. But usually, it’s the revelation of something of the criminal behavior itself that starts things. The burglary of the DNC headquarters got coverage before the White House did, the revelation of the Arms trade got attention before the link to folks in the White House did.

But in this case, we’re starting from an allegation of a cover-up, with nothing really there to say this happened or that happened. We’re supposed to wait around to find out the link to the President, the big, illegal matter than is supposed to be worth impeaching him over.

It’s a manufactured scandal. It begins with a manufactured bit of outrage over a press release from the Cairo Embassy, which Mitt Romney said was appeasement to the attackers at Benghazi, and has continued on that vein of artificial outrage ever since.

But what is this thing that was supposed to be covered up? At best, it’s a fudged intelligence talking point. If that’s the case, it’s not exactly admirable, but it’s nowhere near illegal, and not worth millions of dollars of American Taxpayer money to deal with.

It’s just ridiculous to compare Watergate and Iran/Contra, when those were scandals where the illegal actions were revealed first, and the connection made later.

KAP-
Oh, if wishes were fishes, I’d have a bucket full of them for lunch every day. We would like folks in the Middle East not to regard the protection of religion from defamation as a state matter, or for them to have a better opinion of America. We would like them to be just like we are, the product of an enlightenment that put some distance between church and the state in the 1700s.

It hasn’t been much longer than a century since the time where Jews had to flee for their lives from nations of the west. It’s only been several decades since the Nazis rose up, and had their little riots over ethic matters. And how long has it been since there were tensions in the Slavic world over these things?

To answer your question, when I spoke out against the Bush Administration, **** had already happened. Things had already gone wrong, and I was calling for accountability based on the failures, correction for the bad policies.

We knew what we were looking for.

You folks just know you are looking for something, and if you dig hard enough, long enough, you might find something.

They’ve already admitted they screwed up, that more could have been done in security on site, but your side seems to want to make some grand conspiracy out of it. It’s just stupid.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 13, 2013 1:17 PM
Comment #365800

tom humes-
Well, for Pete’s sake, mister, don’t just say so, come up with a source, non-partisan if you can find it that says so.

I can acknowledge without being overwhelmed by cognitive dissonance, that these guys had an attack like this planned. I’m not even going to say I think this motivated them much. They could have used any number of comments by the jackass politicians we see around Washington as their provocation, or perhaps even the next Terry Jones Qur’an burning. In fact, I’d say that the clerics who prompt these demonstrations might just be cynically looking for these pretexts.

What I’d say is that they probably thought this would be a nice time to do it, that it might serve their purpose by making it appear as if it’s in solidarity with the protestors elsewhere. I don’t think it’s a coincidence, but I also don’t think it’s a cause, in and of itself.

As for Valerie Plame?

Let me take a second here and just focus on something you’re doing here. Look, you know I have my opinion and you have yours. So logically speaking, neither of us are going to change our minds without a good reason.

I want you to give me good reasons. You can make all the pronouncements you want my way, but I don’t want to agree with crap that turns out to be wrong later.

If you’re going to have a debate with me here, then have the decency to assume you have something to prove.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 13, 2013 1:45 PM
Comment #365801

Stephen, Christians get bashed here on this blog. Are we going to go to Carmen’s home and picket or blow his home up? Of course not. What has the distance between Church and state have to do with some assholes blowing s**t up? Guess what Stephen **** has already started in this administration to as did in the Clinton, Bush 41, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower and so on and so forth. So your point is? I’ll say one thing at least Nixon took responsibility and resigned for his screw up. Obama doesn’t want to take responsibility for his screw ups he pushes it to one of his lowly servants such as Rice, now the IRS thing, I’m sure Obama didn’t have anything to do with that, it was just thought up by some lowly IRS employee. YEA RIGHT, Nothing is Obama fault it was Bush or someone else. Come on Stephen grow some gonads and take responsibility. YOUR PEOPLE aren’t the squiky clean you portray them to be.

Posted by: KAP at May 13, 2013 2:15 PM
Comment #365802

The President is either in the information loop or not. If he is, he is culpable; if he is not, shame on him for dereliction of duty. Plausible deniability is a political device that seldom works.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 13, 2013 3:09 PM
Comment #365803

KAP,
The Obama administration is one of the cleanest in American history. That’s a fact.

That doesn’t mean it is perfect. Obama has already called the problem at the IRS “outrageous,” and a IG is already inspecting it. Heads will roll. I’d prefer to have more information before demanding those heads on a platter, but generally speaking, no one likes the IRS, and no one finds the use of the IRS to target political opponents acceptable. No one.

The Benghazi Conspiracy Theory is just what Obama described: “a political circus.” In a poll just taken:

“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.”

Those are your fellow conservatives, KAP. But by all means, I hope conservatives continue to talk nothing but Benghazi for the next year. There’s no content to it, and I’d far rather see that absorb bandwidth rather than the problem at the IRS.

How have conservatives done so far with Benghazi Conspiracy Theory?

“Voters trust Hillary Clinton over Congressional Republicans on the issue of Benghazi by a 49/39 margin and Clinton’s +8 net favorability rating at 52/44 is identical to what it was on our last national poll in late March. Meanwhile Congressional Republicans remain very unpopular with a 36/57 favorability rating.”
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/05/voters-trust-clinton-over-gop-on-benghazi.html

Posted by: phx8 at May 13, 2013 3:13 PM
Comment #365804

It is always easy to spot hyperbole when someone compares an individual politicians polling numbers with a large group such as congress. phx8 should know better.

“The Benghazi Conspiracy Theory is just what Obama described: “a political circus.”

If it is a circus obama will play the leading clown. Only now has the mainstream media picked up on all the administration coverup and obfuscation.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 13, 2013 3:24 PM
Comment #365805

Yea phx8 and Bush was a saint that was even stupider than some of Ducker’s and Stephen’s comments. You Obama lovers never cease to amaze me with DUMBASS comments.

Posted by: KAP at May 13, 2013 3:26 PM
Comment #365806

I’m neutral on this.
Not going to jump on the Obama/clinton lied train, and not going to be a part of trying to end the investigation simply because they are liberals.
I can wait for the facts to hopefully come out.

Interesting, but not surprising, to see leftists trying to sway public opinion by promoting it is nothing but conspiracy theory though.
LOL! You guys are something else.

Posted by: kctim at May 13, 2013 3:32 PM
Comment #365807

KAP,
Surely you can do better.

kctim,
The Senate Republicans already declared themselves “satisfied” with the Benghazi account and they have dropped the matter.

Hmmm.

The key to identifying this issue as a purely partisan political conspiracy is to look at the person pushing it, Darrell Issa.

You might remember Issa from the Fast and Furious investigation. He found nothing, declared there must be a cover-up, and pushed the Republican Congress to cite AG Holder for contempt. It was a purely political, partisan move. There was no cover-up, and nothing to cover up in the first place. Nothin’ but conspiracy theory. Nice going, Issa!

Issa really made himself famous with the investigation into contraception. He denied women such as Sandra Fluke the opportunity to testify as primary witnesses, and lined up five religious old men at a table to given their opinions. The photograph of those old men talking about birth control became the most famous, iconic issue depicting the Republican War on Women. Nice going, Issa!

Today, even after the Republican Senators have declared themselves satisfied, Issa continues to push the conspiracy. Only the hardline conservatives buy into it, and the net result so far is… is…

Nothing.

I don’t mind if the House Republicans keep pushing it. It didn’t help them eight months ago, it didn’t help them in the 2012 election, and best of all, it lured Romney into making the biggest mistake of the debates (remember how he got caught citing a right wing accusation, and even the moderator Candy Crowley knew he was repeating made-up baloney). So… Please proceed, Republicans. Don’t stop now!

Posted by: phx8 at May 13, 2013 3:59 PM
Comment #365808

I don’t believe they need your permission or persuasion phx8. Let’s see where it leads before dismissing it.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 13, 2013 4:08 PM
Comment #365809

Stephen, I just bypass a lot of your BS comments, but I found this one interesting:

“The 2000 election would have never been so close if it hadn’t been for the impeachment, the constant degrading attacks on the President”

The Impeachment of Clinton was for lying under oath; you realize that, don’t you? In your opinion, what should Clinton’s punishment have been for lying under oath?

Regarding Sanford; sour grapes on your side.

May I comment on this idiotic comment by phx8:

“KAP,
The Obama administration is one of the cleanest in American history. That’s a fact.”


It is an idiotic comment!!!

The truth is that as the facts begin to surface, the truth will be known.

As the facts come out about Benghazi we will see that Obama and the liberal talking heads (especially those on WB) have tried their best to make this look like it was nothing. The truth is, when liberals become shrill and squeal like little girls, then you know they are really worried. SD, AD, and phx8 are squealing like little girls right now.

Secondly, Obama has the IRS problem being dumped right in his lap. This one won’t go away either. The IRS is the long arm of the law for the Democratic Party; it is the IRS that collects the taxes for the lefts spending programs. The whole thing with the IRS has to go away fast and the MSM will help Obama as much as they can. 16k new IRS agents have been hired to enforce Obamacare and Obamacare is dependent upon taxing Americans to pay for it. So the IRS problem will try to be resolved right away. Of course we have Obama’s statement today that “this is wrong and will be dealt with severely, the American people have the right to know that the IRS is not targeting them”. Thank you Mr. President for worrying about the American people and government control over our lives.

On top of all this, we have the Gosnell thing in Philly. He has been found guilty of 1st degree murder on 3 counts so far. He is a Planned Parenthood doctor and PPH came out today condemning their own doctor and throwing him under the bus. The MSM completely ignored one of the biggest murder trials of the past 50 years, since it dealt with abortion murders. The refusal to cover the murder trial was done to protect abortion and the PPH.

I see the Obama administration falling apart. The talking points are now falling on deaf ears. The liberals on WB are beginning to sound like ignorant parrots repeating the same things over and over. Obama is asked a question and he blatantly lies and the liberals on WB repeat the Obama talking points. They are really sounding ridiculous.

The biggest price will be paid by the Democrats in the 2014 elections.

Posted by: CasperWY at May 13, 2013 4:29 PM
Comment #365810

Phx8

The key to identifying any issue like this is facts, so I reserve judgement until all the facts are known. And since there are still people coming forward, I am going to keep an open mind, just as I did when the left was creating conspiracy theories concerning President Bush.

When it comes to matters like this, I just don’t get how you all can excuse or condemn based solely on political party.

Posted by: kctim at May 13, 2013 4:31 PM
Comment #365811

phx8, I’m listening to McCain I don’t think the senate republicans are done with this yet.

Posted by: KAP at May 13, 2013 4:36 PM
Comment #365812

I am too KAP, he don’t seem to be done on this. He also said the families are not happy with the answers. So phx8 appears to be talking out hi butthole; but I am sure he is just repeating the daily liberal talking points.

kctim, you mean like when the left had Zimmerman tried, convicted, and ready to be hung in FL?

Posted by: CasperWY at May 13, 2013 4:44 PM
Comment #365813

In terms of actual developments, the Benghazi issue is at the same place it was eight months ago. Why did this come up again?

Things were going very badly for conservatives last month. They were being blamed for the sequester, the stock market was setting all-time record highs, unemployment dropped, and the housing market was doing well.

Suddenly, Darrell Issa surprised everyone by announcing over social media that he was going to bring some “damaging” surprises in a hearing the next day. No one knew what he was talking about, and he wouldn’t release the material. The hearings occurred and… whoops! Nothing new. We’re at exactly the same place we were eight months ago.

On the plus side for conservatives, flogging Benghazi Conspiracy Theory should be good for fleecing GOP rubes for donations.

On the minus side, a real scandal surrounding the IRS has fallen from heaven and landed in the GOP’s lap, but conservatives are distracted by their chase of Benghazi conspiracies. Once again, Issa screwed up. That guy is the gift that just keeps on giving.

Casper.
You write: “The IRS is the long arm of the law for the Democratic Party; it is the IRS that collects the taxes for the lefts spending programs.”

Wow. Just… wow.

Posted by: phx8 at May 13, 2013 4:52 PM
Comment #365814

kctim…one can keep an open mind, but I smell a coverup.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 13, 2013 4:54 PM
Comment #365815

CasperWy. The same thing happened with the Marines at Hadaythia the left had them guilty and hung before they had their day in court. Murtha was very vocal about that one.

Posted by: KAP at May 13, 2013 4:55 PM
Comment #365817
The Obama administration is one of the cleanest in American history. That’s a fact.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/is-the-obama-administrati_2_b_3094454.html

When the World Bank scored the U.S. on “Control of Corruption” in the 2009, 2010, and 2011 (or Obama-era) versions of their “Worldwide Governance Indicators,” the U.S. performance wasn’t even as good as it had been in the previous, 1996-2008, rankings. Whereas the U.S. had scored consistently at the bottom of the top 10% (and near the bottom of the developed countries) prior to Obama, the U.S. has scored at the bottom of the top 15% (and the very bottom of the developed countries) since Obama came into office in 2009.

A more detailed picture of the corruption-performance of the United States, internationally, is provided by the most recent rankings from the World Economic Forum, “The Global Competitiveness Report 2012-2013.” That report rates 144 countries, on a wide range of factors concerning global economic competitiveness; and the U.S. scores below all other industrialized countries (of which there are about thirty) on most of the corruption-related factors. (Furthermore, that rating has likewise declined while Obama has been in office.) Here is America’s international performance on the WEF factors relating to corruption:

On “Diversion of Public Funds [due to corruption],” the U.S. ranks #34 (down from #28 in their 2009-2010 report). On “Irregular Payments and Bribes” (which is perhaps an even better measure of lack of corruption) we are #42 (not rated in 2009). On “Public Trust in Politicians,” we are #54 (down from #43 in 2009). On “Judicial Independence,” we are #38 (down from #26). On “Favoritism in Decisions of Government Officials” (otherwise known as governmental “cronyism”), we are #59 (down from #48). On “Organized Crime,” we are #87 (down from #72). On “Ethical Behavior of Firms,” we are #29 (down from #22). On “Reliability of Police Services,” we are #30 (down from #21). On “Transparency of Governmental Policymaking,” we are #56 (down from #31). On “Efficiency of Legal Framework in Challenging Regulations,” we are #37 (down from #35). On “Efficiency of Legal Framework in Settling Disputes,” we are #35 (down from #33). On “Burden of Government Regulation,” we are #76 (down from #53). On “Wastefulness of Government Spending,” we are also #76 (down from #68). On “Property Rights” protection (the basic law-and-order measure), we are #42 (down from #30).

And here is how we perform for protecting non-elite, non-inside, investors (as opposed to insiders): On “Strength of Investor Protection,” we are #5 (same as in 2009). On “Protection of Minority Shareholders’ Interests,” we are #33 (not rated in 2009). On “Efficacy of Corporate Boards,” we are #23 (down from #20). On “Reliance on Professional Management,” we are #19 (down from #11). On “Strength of Auditing and Reporting Standards,” we are #37 (down from #39). On “Venture Capital Availability,” we are #10 (down from #7). On “Intellectual Property Protection,” we are #29 (down from #19). On “Soundness of Banks,” we are #80 (up from #108). On “Regulation of Securities Exchanges,” we are #39 (up from #47). On “Country Credit Rating,” we are #11 (not rated in 2009). On “Government Debt [as a % of GDP],” we are #136 (down from #114). On “Effectiveness of Anti-Monopoly Policy,” we are #17 (down from #11). On “Extent of Market Dominance,” we are #9 (down from #7).

The U.S. is down on 19 of these WEF factors, up on 2, and unchanged on 1, during the period while Obama has been in office. This overall finding, of declining U.S. performance, is entirely in line with the similar findings from the World Bank: Corruption in the United States is increasing significantly during Obama’s Presidency.


But even more than this will be needed: repudiation of Obama, personally, by the Democratic Party. He is a historic stain upon the Party, much like George W. Bush is upon the Republicans; and the later that this stain is cleansed by our Party, the worse it will be for our Party, and not just for our nation. Republicans don’t repudiate Bush, because he represents them. Does Obama represent us? Really?

The rot is on both sides now. Let’s see if our side will clamp down against it - as Senator Warren obviously wishes to do. Are we with her, or are we with Obama? That question does not concern a white woman versus a black man; it concerns a nation of equality under law, versus a champion of “Too Big To Fail.” In fact, Obama has been disastrous for Blacks, and not just for the rest of “the 99%.”

The Democratic Party will have to show where it stands - and with whom, and for whom.

The Republican Party has already failed its test regarding Bush. Will the Democratic Party fail its test regarding Obama?

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 13, 2013 5:03 PM
Comment #365819

Nick Gillespie wrote in 2011

Our problem isn’t with modern rhetoric. It’s with the politicization of every part of our lives, no matter how elevated or base, not for a higher purpose or broader fight but for the cheapest moment-by-moment partisan advantage. Both left and right embrace a totalist mentality that says the most important aspect of everything is whether it helps or hurts your party of choice.

What Gallup and Harris are measuring is not just party registration; it’s about how Americans see themselves. It’s a cultural identity, like rooting for the Mets or the Yankees. Rejecting that identity is even more basic than declining to register for a major political party.

Stalwart partisans no doubt will blame apathy and self-involvement for their declining market and mind shares. But Americans have always sought refuge from, not expansion of, politics. Faced with major parties and their backers bending every news story, consumer trend, heat wave, snow storm, box office hit or bomb—you name it—to a political narrative, is it any wonder that fewer people want to be affiliated with Democrats or Republicans? We want to get on with life, and certainly with more important things than party politics.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 13, 2013 5:39 PM
Comment #365820

Heard a good one about Hillary’s comment about Benghazi…”What difference does it make?”

That is called a “non-denial, denial.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 13, 2013 5:42 PM
Comment #365821

THIS is an example of what the Obama Administration thinks of ‘freedom of information’ and transparency.

“The American Civil Liberties Union was curious about warrantless government snooping on citizens’ text messages. So the group filed a Freedom of Information Act request to the Justice Department. Here’s what they got back:

A memo header: “Guidance for the Minimization of Text Messages over Dual-Function Cellular Telephones” and then 15 pages, completely blacked out.”

http://reason.com/archives/2012/11/14/obama-transparently-disappointing

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 13, 2013 5:49 PM
Comment #365822

This just keeps getting better and better, Benghazi, the IRS, now the justice department secretly spying on the AP. Phx8 says this is the cleanest administration LOLOLOLOL.

Posted by: KAP at May 13, 2013 5:52 PM
Comment #365823
Instead, what you get so often—from the IRS to Benghazi—is what I like to call “La La La La I Can’t Hear You” Journalism. Because Republicans are inherently irritating and unhinged (oh hey look, here’s the lead NYT editorial today: “Who Can Take Republicans Seriously?”), because adversarial politics and congressional hearings by definition produce hyperbole as well as information, then stories conservatives care about are assumed to be non-stories until some entity (preferably governmental) produces a preponderance of evidence.

Sometimes journalists slip up and let this decidedly anti-journalistic calculus find its way into print. For instance, here’s Alex Koppelman writing about Benghazi in The New Yorker:

For a long time, it seemed like the idea of a coverup was just a Republican obsession. But now there is something to it.

Well, don’t tell that to The New York Times editorial board, which headlined its reaction to the dramatic congressional hearings on the subject like this: “The Republicans’ Benghazi Obsession.” Read this section of the lead paragraph, and ask yourself who’s obsessesed with who:

[T]he hearing showed, yet again, that sober fact-finding is not their mission. Common sense and good judgment have long given way to conspiracy-mongering and a relentless effort to discredit President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Journalism defenders like to tell you that they practice the “discipline of verification.” But this looks an awful lot more like straight-up defense of Democratic power against the conservative hordes. Or maybe the Times is just discovering that every new revelation of administration misbehavior merely verifies what they’ve known all along: Republicans are crazy.

Previously at Reason, Damon Root highlighted a remarkable 2012 NYT editorial about Tea Party targeting, headlined “The I.R.S. Does Its Job.”

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 13, 2013 5:54 PM
Comment #365824

Rhinehold, thanks for the link. Is it difficult to understand why the public has lost trust in government? The Justice Dept. and the IRS have become political tools. Congress and our individual states have ceded much of their Constitutional authority to the president, and the Supreme Court is no longer bipartisan and make non-constitutional rulings.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 13, 2013 6:01 PM
Comment #365826

Glad to hear that the “baby butcher” has been found guilty of murder. I hope the SOB gets the death penalty.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 13, 2013 6:07 PM
Comment #365827

Royal, the use of the IRS isn’t new, unfortunately. Kennedy and Nixon are the most famous, as is Hillary early in the Clinton White House. Even FDR was known to abuse the IRS for political gain.

The problem is not so much with the abuse of the power, it is that the power exist in the first place.

As Jesse Walker noted earlier, recent revelations about the targeting of Tea Party and small-government groups by the Internal Revenue Service may mean that “we’re looking at some old-fashioned, deliberate, Kennedy- or Nixon-style political harassment via the taxman.” In fact, the use of the ever-intrusive and inquisitorial IRS as a political bludgeon by whichever party controls the executive branch has a long history, starting, apparently, as far back as the administration of Frankling Delano Roosevelt. In New Deal or Raw Deal, author Burton Fulsom, Jr. (admittedly, no FDR fan) devoted a chapter to the early use of the IRS as a political hit squad.

The chapter delves at some length into the politicization of tax collectors under the Roosevelt administration, including not only its use as a hit squad against critics, but the tight leash on which it was put when friends of the administration were involved. But perhaps most telling is a comment by Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s own son:

“My father,” Elliott Roosevelt observed of his famous parent, “may have been the originator of the concept of employing the IRS as a weapon of political retribution.”

Keep in mind that the IRS isn’t dangerous and politicized because it’s wielded by the Obama administration. The tax agency has been abused and used against political enemies by presidents of both parties. The IRS is dangerous because of its vast, almost unaccountable powers, and the temptations those pose for politicians.

This has lead to NY Times columnist Ross Douthat identifying a ‘Brown Scare’. Sort of like the Red scare of the 50s.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/12/opinion/sunday/douthat-the-taxman-vs-the-tea-party.html?pagewanted=all

I’m willing to guess this much: Even though an American Civil Liberties Union official described their excessive interest in right-wing groups as “about as constitutionally troubling as it gets,” the bureaucrats in question probably thought they were just doing their patriotic duty, and giving dangerous extremists the treatment they deserved.

Where might an enterprising, public-spirited I.R.S. agent get the idea that a Tea Party group deserved more scrutiny from the government than the typical band of activists seeking tax-exempt status? Oh, I don’t know: why, maybe from all the prominent voices who spent the first two years of the Obama era worrying that the Tea Party wasn’t just a typically messy expression of citizen activism, but something much darker — an expression of crypto-fascist, crypto-racist rage, part Timothy McVeigh and part Bull Connor, potentially carrying a wave of terrorist violence in its wings.

As Jesse Walker states:

Douthat is speculating here, and this is hardly the only possible explanation for what happened at the IRS. Best-case scenario, the employees really were just choosing the most inept and unconstitutional method available to sort the legitimate 501(c)(4) applicants from the fakers. Worst-case scenario, we’re looking at some old-fashioned, deliberate, Kennedy- or Nixon-style political harassment via the taxman. And of course all sorts of combinations of motive are possible, too. I look forward to reading the inspector general’s report, and I hope a serious Congressional investigation follows.

But the IRS scandal is really just the article’s newshook. I don’t think Douthat’s larger point is the possibility that a Brown Scare explains the agency’s behavior; it’s the fact that we were drifting into Brown Scare territory in the first place. It may be a few years late, but it’s still good to see a New York Times columnist pushing back against the factually dubious narrative of “rising right-wing violence” that seemed to seize the paper’s op-ed page in 2009 and 2010. Douthat even throws in a link to a Frank Rich article — not one of Rich’s pieces in the Times, naturally, but it’s not hard to guess what Douthat thinks about his former colleague’s columns on the subject.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 13, 2013 6:14 PM
Comment #365828

The site will not let me post. ‘Too many submissions’ etc. Just want to note the article on corruption applies to the US as a whole, including all political parties, all levels of government, businesses, and so on. In addition, it only rates 30 countries, and while we might rank low among the top 30 ‘socialist’ countries, we’re far ahead of a lot of others.

I specifically said “the Obama administration.” Interesting link, but irrelevant.

An objective and measureable criteria would be the number of indictments and convictions. Not surprisingly, the Reagan administration has been the most corrupt administration in the modern era.

Posted by: phx8 at May 13, 2013 6:15 PM
Comment #365829

phx8, it depends on what you call ‘corrupt’. Do you mean indictments or do you mean things like this:

Tamara Keith of National Public Radio reported, on Tuesday, April 16th, that “Congress moved to undo large parts of the STOCK [Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge] Act last week.” This had been the law that was passed just a year ago, and which President Obama signed into law at a White House ceremony with TV cameras on and great fanfare. The law - which had been pushed by progressive Democrats since 2006, and which finally became law on 4 April 2012 - required members of Congress and their staffs, and the Executive Branch, to avoid insider trading. Until this law was passed, buying or selling stock on the basis of insider information had been fully legal for these federal officials, but not for anyone else; and the STOCK Act was supposed to end that and prohibit political insiders from buying and selling stock on the basis of their privileged knowledge of upcoming legal changes.

That investment-advantage they enjoyed had been substantial: one study by economist Alan Ziobrowski, “Abnormal Returns from the Common Stock Investments of the U.S. Senate,” showed that U.S. Senators’ stock-investments outperformed the general market by about 12% per year; and another study by him, “Abnormal Returns From the Common Stock Investments of Members of the U.S. House of Representatives,” showed that U.S. Representatives’ stock-investments outperformed the general market by about 6% per year. In other words, the investments of these people were growing at around twice the normal rate. Members of Congress were probably making more money from their personal investments than they did from their official salaries. The bill that Obama quietly signed into law on 15 April 2013 made the STOCK Act that he had signed the year before virtually unenforceable. Members of Congress can thus resume drawing a major part of their incomes from cheating outside investors, who don’t know the things that these officials are privileged to know.

NPR continued: “In the House, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., shepherded the bill through” at a time when “many members had already left for the weekend or were on their way out. The whole process took 30 seconds. There was no debate.” Then, at the White House, “when the president signed a bill reversing big pieces of the law, the emailed announcement was one sentence long. There was no fanfare last week, either, when the Senate and then the House passed the bill in largely empty chambers using a fast-track procedure known as unanimous consent. … ‘There weren’t too many members of Congress who were aware of this legislation,’ says Craig Holman, the government affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen.”

Basically, only the leadership knew what was happening. This included the President. He knew what was in the legislation, and that’s why he signed it so inconspicuously (by contrast to the way that he had signed the STOCK Act into law a year before).

Not every government official was corrupt, but the “right” ones were. Perhaps that’s how they had risen to become the “right” ones: the leaders of Congress are chosen by the members of Congress, and represent those members - nobody else (except the financial backers of their local re-election campaigns).

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 13, 2013 6:24 PM
Comment #365831

KAP-
Quit hyperventilating.

The separation between church and state means that if somebody bashes any given religion, the government is not obligated to jump to its defense, and the expectation for most people in this country, is that this won’t happen. You can’t go to jail for declaring yourself an atheist or for publically denouncing your church.

In other countries, though, such behavior is not tolerated, at least for Islam.

As far as resignation? Give me a break. People working for him sent folks to burglarize DNC headquarters, among other places. Then he had people bribing those burglars to remain silent.

That’s what Nixon resigned for. You want Obama to resign because he didn’t immediately say that the attack was by a terrorist group, when even the original CIA reporting didn’t say that.

As for the IRS problem? If true it’s more than outrageous, its stupid.

But there’s a small problem with your theory, and it relates to a little bit of political theatre. One of the Republican Congressmen asked for Obama to fire the man who was in charge of that office of the IRS.

Well, the irony is twofold: one, the man in charge at the time is already gone.

Two, the man was a Bush appointee. The deniability doesn’t get any more plausible than that!

You’re on a witch hunt. You have your conclusion ready, and finding the evidence of actual wrongdoing is secondary. And as I explained, the two scandals compared to this one both started with the revelation of the wrongdoing in question, the Burglary in Watergate, the deal with the Iranians and the arms shipment in Central America with Iran/Contra.

Here, we’re starting with an assumption, and no facts, and going after the facts.

Quit acting like you’re a tough debater. Capital letters do not intimidate me. Neither does constant insistence that I have some supernatural level of loyalty to Obama. I just don’t like BS scandal mongering.

CasperWY-
The perjury of President Clinton was admittedly a self-inflicted wound, as was his affair with Monica Lewinsky. But we only got an independent counsel interested in it because of Whitewater, Which, as far as I can tell, began almost as soon as Clinton was elected.

Similarity there: Nobody could say what the illegal action in Whitewater was, only that Clinton did something suspicious. From there, through year after year, we got… What? Not much. Nothing. The President disgraced himself after the fact, due to his dishonesty at the Paula Jones Sexual harassment case, which the Republicans, through various foundations and think tanks, made sure remained an open wound on the Presidency.

There’s no denying Clinton harmed himself, but he did so in the context of yet another witch hunt, and an investigation into a real estate deal that somehow turned into an investigation into the President’s sex life.

As for Sanford? I am looking forward to him embarrassing the GOP. They asked for it, literally, and I’m fairly certain they’re going to get it.

As for this?

As the facts come out about Benghazi we will see that Obama and the liberal talking heads (especially those on WB) have tried their best to make this look like it was nothing. The truth is, when liberals become shrill and squeal like little girls, then you know they are really worried. SD, AD, and phx8 are squealing like little girls right now.

As the facts come out, we will?

You mean you don’t have the facts at hand right now to back your claim?

Look, when Democrats got angry over the Valerie Plame affair, we had somebody leaking the classified identity of an American CIA agent. There was an obvious wrong. When we got angry over Iraq and the nonexistent WMD, we had, on the record, all the bad claims they made, and the reasons it turned out that they were not true. We also had reports of people being pressured to back the Administration’s case.

Even with the Attorneys firing scandal came up, it was the result of Talking Points Memo noting two or three different stories on unusual firings, which seemed to have more to do with political matters than professional.

In other words, rather than start with an assumption and proceed, these scandals started with something suspicious, something that went wrong, and then unfolded from there.

As for the IRS Problem, like I told KAP, the man in charge of that office at the time was a Bush appointee, which would turn out to be real funny if it turned out this was one of the appointments that Republicans dragged their feet on.

The 16K agents to enforce Obamacare is BS and you know it. That one’s been debunked several times.

As for Gosnell? He had nothing to do with the Obama Administration, and I’m pretty sure he was in operation long before Obama was in office.

As for the rest? You know, you believe that the media is under an obligation to report everything that hurts liberal causes, and I’m under no illusion that it has to do either you or me any favors.

You guys always see Obama falling apart, or losing or whatever. You’re like folks who trash talk on the basketball court, but get dunked on right and left.

Let’s face it: reality has not caught up with your inflated expectations. Problem is, you forget how many times you make these claims, and I don’t forget, so I remember how many times you get things wrong.

Rhinehold-
Look, you can talk about repudiations, but these people haven’t met a simple burden of proof. They can only talk about what they might find, IF they’re allowed to continue investigating.

I remember this rather vulgar joke in The Long Kiss Goodnight, where the great actor Brian Cox informs the woman I assume is his wife that his appetite, and the dog licking its own ass are mutually exclusive. He then goes on to say, it’s been licking there for thirty minutes, and and whatever was there is either gone for good, or there to stay.

So I’d submit this: either they’ve found what they’re going to find, or they’ve found nothing, and to continue this witch hunt will only serve to impede the function of the government. There’s scrutiny and oversight, and then there’s the use of public resources for the sake of promoting a private political party.

You tell me: are you ready to admit that the Republicans may just be abusing their offices for political benefit, or are you too biased against the Obama Administration to say that?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 13, 2013 6:37 PM
Comment #365832

Stephen, From 2000 to 2008 we heard calls to impeach Bush, Hang Cheney, put Carl Rove in prison and a host of other BS. Now that the shoe is on the other foot you are crying like a little girl. You are finding out Obama and company are not the Saints that you think they are and Democrats are just as bad as republicans when it comes to Scandals. By the way that Bush appointee to the IRS is a Democrat.

Posted by: KAP at May 13, 2013 6:48 PM
Comment #365833

Well maybe Shulman wasn’t a registered democrat but after a google search I find that he has donated to the Democrats.

Posted by: KAP at May 13, 2013 7:05 PM
Comment #365834

It doesn’t matter which political party Shulman voted with…he was the administrations man and served at their pleasure.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 13, 2013 7:08 PM
Comment #365835

Stephen, It don’t matter who appointed him he worked for OBAMA not Bush when the scandal hit. Sorry you can’t blame Bush for this one.

Posted by: KAP at May 13, 2013 7:13 PM
Comment #365841

“CasperWY-
The perjury of President Clinton was admittedly a self-inflicted wound, as was his affair with Monica Lewinsky. But we only got an independent counsel interested in it because of Whitewater, Which, as far as I can tell, began almost as soon as Clinton was elected”

Okay Stephen, stop with all the dumbass talk and answer one question: why was Clinton impeached? I will just keep it to one simple question because you can’t handle more than one. Why was he impeached???

Now here is the answer:

The Impeachment concerned two basic charges. That “the President provided perjurious, false, and misleading testimony to the grand jury regarding the Paula Jones case and his relationship with Monica Lewinsky,” and, “the president obstructed justice in an effort to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence related to the Jones case.” According to the Impeachment document, by doing this, “William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.”

George Will of ABC News is furious that Obama would allow the IRS to go after Conservative and Jewish groups and is calling for an investigation.

Bob Beckel, and well known liberal, wants to know “who told the rescuers in Benghazi to stand down”, and he is also furious that the IRS would go after conservatives.

Tom Brokaw of NBC, said we need to have real answers about Benghazi.

And now the Associated Press wants to know why their phones were tapped by the Justice Department.

There is a real problem with the Obama administration; they had the liberal press in their hip pocket, but now they are pissing everyone off. This is why the WH Press is finally asking tough questions. They have been played for suckers. Jay Carney, who was once a reporter, has the embarrassing job of trying to cover for Obama’s blatant lies. I don’t envy his job. Perhaps if Obama had Stephen Daugherty, Adam Ducker, of phx8 as his official press secretary, they would be able to spin the lies as they do on WB.

Posted by: CasperWY at May 13, 2013 8:55 PM
Comment #365843

Regarding Benghazi; the Obama Administration and the left have been trying to make the death of 4 Americans of no consequence since last September. It was because of a video; it was low level employees; it is the “Republicans fault” (Obama’s comment); “death is part of living” (Rep Elijah Cumming’s comment); “what difference does it make” (Hillary’s comment); and the list goes on. The liberals crying “it’s all about making Obama look bad”, “it’s about politics and elections”, or perhaps we could go with Stephen Daugherty’s comment “the families have no right to know what happened to their sons, husbands, and fathers”.

Posted by: DSP2195 at May 13, 2013 9:11 PM
Comment #365849

When CIA people die in the line of duty, the families have no right to know what happened to their sons, husbands, and fathers. That is harsh, but that is how it is.

“The U.S. effort in Benghazi was at its heart a CIA operation, according to officials briefed on the intelligence. Of the more than 30 American officials evacuated from Benghazi following the deadly assault, only seven worked for the State Department. Nearly all the rest worked for the CIA, under diplomatic cover, which was a principal purpose of the consulate, these officials said.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204712904578092853621061838.html

Posted by: phx8 at May 14, 2013 2:01 AM
Comment #365853

I’m not sure anymore that DSP2195 can write a comment without a lie or a distortion in it. He writes for instance that Clinton was trying to say the four deaths were of no consequence by saying “what difference does it make?” Intentionally using a quote that far out of context would be considered a lie by most standards. Perhaps he just needs to see the context?

With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.

Clinton in full context does not state that the deaths do no matter, but rather all that matters is the four dead and how to prevent that from happening. This is going to be used over and over against Clinton if she runs for president and each time will be more dishonest and misleading than the next.

I don’t know anymore. Maybe DSP2195 and other conservatives here are actually so polluted by right wing media garbage that they actually really think the Republicans give a damn about “the truth.”

Posted by: Adam Ducker at May 14, 2013 7:50 AM
Comment #365874

Adam Ducker, get off you righteous high horse. All that Hillary cares about is her own political ass. I listened to all her comments several times and what I saw was false outrage that the Senate would even have the audacity to question her. She doesn’t care about their deaths, and the idea that she would want to know how to prevent it from happening again is simply a talking point from the left to kick the can of responsibility down the road. Obama has said the same thing and Hillary is simply repeating his talking points.

“Clinton in full context does not state that the deaths do no matter, but rather all that matters is the four dead and how to prevent that from happening. This is going to be used over and over against Clinton if she runs for president and each time will be more dishonest and misleading than the next.

I don’t know anymore. Maybe DSP2195 and other conservatives here are actually so polluted by right wing media garbage that they actually really think the Republicans give a damn about “the truth.”


Yes, it will be used against her. She was the one trying to convince us that a 3AM call to her, rather than Obama, would be a call to someone of experience that could handle the emergency. It turns out that she is as incompetent as Obama. Your side wants to shift the blame from everywhere but the “truth”. Hillary was involved up to her eyeballs in Benghazi. She knew what was going on, and she knew that help was denied to these men. But there’s no sense in going over all this again because we will have to listen to the same old leftist talking points. Hillary’s political career was finished when she chose to protect Obama.

There are now 3 major scandals rocking the Obama administration:

1. Violation of 1st Amendment freedom of speech; by going after the AP and taping their phone calls. The AP is furious about this. This is an abuse of power and Obama has gone after the very liberal media who has carried his water since he came on the scene. The press will now learn, they have no special treatment from Obama. This is a threat to any whistleblowers who would contact the press. This will not go away.

2. The IRS going after conservatives for tax exempt status. At first the left said it was low level employees in Cincinnati; and now it’s spread to DC and California. It was investigations that only went after groups that used the words “Tea Party”, “Constitutional”, and “Patriot”; groups with the name “Move-On” or “Progressive” were ignored. This is another abuse of power, since at the same time this was happening; the administration was verbally condemning the “Tea Party” and “Conservatives”. It shows a pattern, and it appears to go back several years, not just in 2012.

3. The Benghazi affair; Obama is infuriating Americans and lawmakers by calling it a “circus”. He spread misinformation that was advantageous to his run for president 6 weeks before the election. No matter how much you want to shift the blame, this story is not going away. Obama allowed 4 men to die after they were abandoned in Benghazi. Once again, it is an abuse of power.

phx8 said:

“When CIA people die in the line of duty, the families have no right to know what happened to their sons, husbands, and fathers. That is harsh, but that is how it is”

That may be true phx8; but explain why misinformation was put out from the very beginning. When the Obama administration started putting out information to cover their own asses, they opened the whole incident to be clarified. By their own comments they opened this up to investigation. You guys can cry foul all you want; but you know as well as I that had this happened under a Republican administration, your side would have been calling for a complete investigation. You went nuts over Iraqi WMD’s based on CIA information, and now you want to hide behind the silence of CIA information? I don’t think so.

So phx8, you , Adam, and Stephen can blow smoke all you want; you can act, as AD does, that our side is diluted or filled with right-wing propaganda; but it’s nothing more than a liberal attempt to make us look foolish. It won’t work. We expect Obama and his administration to be held to the same standard as Bush was held to for 12 years; 8 years as president and 4 more years taking the blame for Obama’s screw-ups.

On top of all this, we now have another scandal and investigation of Kathleen Sibelius attempting to shake down companies for money to fund Obamacare. Another abuse of power. At what point does the left say enough of this dictatorship? It is never ending.

Posted by: DSP2195 at May 14, 2013 10:10 AM
Comment #365879

When the media is asking questions and demanding answers, it shows the administration is in trouble. Bob Beckel is about as far left as you can get and I have been listening to his responses on Fox’s “The Five”, and I have been shocked at his comments. He is actually questioning Obama.

kctim, you are correct, the left continues to call for investigations and criminal charges against the Bush people from up to 12 years ago and yet what happened 6 months ago is somehow “old news”.

DSP is correct; this is an abuse of power and it is not going away. Obama is so arrogant that he believes he can say anything he wants and people will shut-up. Obama is going after the very media who has supported him from the beginning. The left politicians have been handing their own power and authority over to Obama since he came in office, and now they are outraged..go figure on that.

Posted by: CaserWY at May 14, 2013 10:22 AM
Comment #365885

DSP2195: “…but it’s nothing more than a liberal attempt to make us look foolish.”

Sorry, but you do that just fine without our help. When you say things like, “She doesn’t care about their deaths,” you’re just giving your opinion and it’s not based on facts. Then you say something like, “Hillary’s political career was finished when she chose to protect Obama.” Your ability to be wrong about almost every thing you say bodes well for Clinton and her supporters.

“There are now 3 major scandals rocking the Obama administration…”

Let me guess. This is Watergate + Iran Contra + Teapot Dome + Death of Lincoln + Exxon Valdez + Pokemon x 1 million times bigger?

Posted by: Adam Ducker at May 14, 2013 12:08 PM
Comment #365887
Look, you can talk about repudiations, but these people haven’t met a simple burden of proof. They can only talk about what they might find, IF they’re allowed to continue investigating.

Kind of like most of the calls for investigations during the Bush years… It’s not anything new, Stephen.

He then goes on to say, it’s been licking there for thirty minutes, and and whatever was there is either gone for good, or there to stay.

Watergate took over a year to investigate, most of it coming early on from the press. Nixon went on to re-election while the story was still breaking, calling for an end to the ‘year long Watergate nonsense’ during his innagural address… Time is irrelevant, the question is are there still unanswered questions. You may think there aren’t, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t.

So I’d submit this: either they’ve found what they’re going to find, or they’ve found nothing, and to continue this witch hunt will only serve to impede the function of the government.

Again, sounds just like the argument made by Nixon…

You tell me: are you ready to admit that the Republicans may just be abusing their offices for political benefit, or are you too biased against the Obama Administration to say that?

I am fully willing to admit it and I can say that many of them are. They are also in worse shape now because of crying wolf for so long. But those things are irrelevant in deciding if something is there or not, those only obfuscate the issues. They are used by partisans to deflect.

You have Democrats now admitting that there is ‘something there’ and others trying to get the Democratic party to denounce many of the actions of this administration or be compared to the Bush administration that they despise. The things coming out now are not inconsequential, no matter how many partisans on either side made idiots of themselves.

As was said the other day, all accusations of the sort we are seeing are going to lend themselves to hyperbole, especially ‘senate hearings’. But that doesn’t mean that they don’t provide good information as well and in the end the information will either lock you away or set you free. The Obama administration should play the long game and look for the vindication that they are sure is coming, right?

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 14, 2013 1:31 PM
Comment #365889

KAP-
What you should care about is not which shoe is on whose foot, it’s what the general state of the law and policies are.

Take this recent AP thing. Despite the tone some are taking indicates, what the Justice Department did, as far as we can tell, was perfectly legal. Disturbing? I agree. But legal. Not only that, but it’s legal, in part, because people like Darrel Issa, and his colleagues in the Senate deliberately blocked the bill. It was one of the many casualties of the Republican Filibuster.

As for the people responsible for the IRS controversy? the leads on it were Bush appointees. Again, a policy problem at its heart.

But Republicans are jumping on these things for political benefit. They’ll once again impede legitimate tax collection and policy based on a scandal where nobody got audited, and nobody was refused their application. The unequal attention is illegitimate, as the law should apply equally to everybody, but the habit of making it a bigger matter than it is doesn’t do us much good, because we end up missing the real problem, and perhaps creating more by following the hype.

And hype is what’s so destructive here, because instead of dealing with real problems, the real problems become a pretext for doing something completely different.

We got the security recommendations months ago. All this crap about Benghazi now is just basically political grandstanding. I wonder if they’ve even given the State department the budget to deal with this, or whether they’re outrage is hollow on that count, too.

CasperWY-
And the Jones case was promoted by a number of right wing groups, including the Rutherford Institute, which has strong links to the Religious Right. Without their help, the case would have likely been settled long before.

Additionally, the Supreme Court had to rule on the notion of whether or not a sitting President should be made to go through all that, for a case that involved things that occurred before his time in office. They thought it wouldn’t affect his ability to carry out his duties as President. They were wrong.

The reality is, if things had been left to their own momentum, we might not have ever heard of Monica Lewinsky.

I remember all kinds of things being said about the Clintons, from that whole shameful episode about Vince Foster, to the allegations that Clinton’s attacks on al-Qaeda were meant as a distraction to the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

It’s one of the benefits of having not bought into the BS Right Wing media. Your memory doesn’t get rewritten every few months to suit the agenda of the day.

Also, I don’t seem to remember Obama ever getting a break from the Mainstream media as you describe it. If they really wanted to give him a break, they could take pages from the Conservative playbook and spin wild conspiracy theories about the Republicans. They could have pointed out to the audience that the Republicans were filibustering bill after bill, and questioned why the Republicans were holding Obama’s appointees back. They could have delved deeper into the Tea Party phenomena, and really torn your movement to pieces.

But the irony is, your movement’s basically cut the media’s balls off on the subject, and your movement’s too insular to realize it now. All these charges of left-wing bias have the media walking on eggshells around Republicans and their dealings, not calling them out on very atypical, dysfunctional behavior.

You think you have it hard, but really Republicans and conservatives make it hard for themselves by basically having no inhibition about basically hiring political hacks to be their representatives and senators. Competence, intelligence, moderation have been discarded as virtues, and those that do have competence live in fear of being called out if they even so much as look sideways at the tea party agenda.

The brake lines have been cut on the GOP, and stopping stupidity before it runs off the road is no longer an option.

And all people like you can do is insult people. If you really had faith the facts were on your side, you would stick to them. But you don’t. You feel you have to destroy me personally, in order to win.

Me? I think its sufficient just to show people how wrong you are. You have to comment on my masculinity. I don’t give a crap about yours. You have to invent all kinds of details about what I’m supposed to believe, while I tell people what I believe and why just fine by myself.

You have to pretend you are some sort of objective axis for the world, while I can be honest with people, and say, yes, I do have an opinion, and here’s why I believe things.

You talk about lies you haven’t even found yet. You get outraged about a connection you can’t even prove.

DSP2195-
Those deaths were of consequence, video or not, and appropriate investigations were undertaken.

You have a lot of gall saying this was about making their deaths significant. You folks didn’t even care about doing what they were doing, you berated the President for intervening in Libya, called it illegal and everything. There were there to help free the Libyan people.

You only cared once they were zipped up in body bags, and your Presidential candidate, who was supposed to be your savior from four more years of Obama, had stepped in it by trying to exploit their deaths.

You basically accuse the former Sec. of State of deliberately leaving those people to die. Any evidence? Or is this just another of a million unsubstantiated charges that as a heroic right wing blowhard you feel entitled to make, regardless of how poorly you’ve proven it?

Hell, if you follow the polls, you’ll find most people trust Obama more on Benghazi than the Republicans in Congress.

They see through it. What’s more, they’re wondering what the hell they’re actually paying your people for. I think most Americans would like their government back, when the Republicans are through wasting their time with it.

Rhinehold-
What I keep on pointing out is that we knew a crime had been committed from the start with Watergate and Iran/Contra. We didn’t have to wait through a long fishing expedition to get anything, and mainly people being reluctant to cooperate with the investigation at that.

America needs their government to take care of their business, the Public good. There are plenty of things the State Department is dealing with now that deserve much more attention.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 14, 2013 2:48 PM
Comment #365891

Stephen, You are affraid that your precious Obama and Democrats are looking BAD. You don’t remember when you and all your liberal hacks were wanting Bush hung, Cheney crucified and Rove dead. So now that the shoe is on the other foot you make all kinds of lame excuses. It’s a bitch aint it to find out your precious party is just as screwed up as the republicans. Aint it a bitgh to find out that Obama is corrupt and so is your party after you praise them for all those years. Stephen,you can always become an independent. LOLOLOLOLOLOL

Posted by: KAP at May 14, 2013 3:31 PM
Comment #365892

This can go back and forth for a long time; but this I do know, Obama and the Democrats are running scared on this one. You squeal like little girls. So I guess we will have to wait and see. It won’t be long; more things are coming out hourly.

Posted by: CasperWY at May 14, 2013 3:38 PM
Comment #365895

KAP-
Look, you might think politics is everything here, but I don’t. I joined this site because I was interested in government as a practical matter. I saw crap happening that wasn’t getting properly reported. But it always started from that. Getting revenge on Bush? Who the **** cares about getting revenge for Clinton.

I mean, really, to the extent that Republicans fed a hunger in the media for political scandal, circumstances got their revenge for me.

But these scandals your people drum up? They’re forced. You even have Darrel Issa announcing beforehand that he’s going to be exposing a scandal a week, or something like that. What does that tell you, that he’s actually promising scandals? If they were real, he wouldn’t be doling them out weak by week, he’d be able to just slap the whole lot down, and Obama would be finished.

You’ve never had the goods on him, not like we had on Bush. We had the WMDS that Bush never found. We had New Orleans drowned on national television, and hundreds of bloated dead in the flooded streets. We had the soldiers getting killed in their unarmored Humvees. We had the thousands that died because of the insurgency. We had Abu Ghraib, the pictures of torture and prisoner mistreatment. We had the Enron collapse, and all the friendly things that Bush did for Kenny-boy.

In short, when we complained about all the things that got ****ed up, we weren’t sitting around crowing about the shoe being on the other foot, while insisting that we should get more time to fine actual evidence to prove a scandal was merited. We had substantive proof that a wrong had been done.

And you know what people like you did during that time? You rationalized it. Faced with evidence that Soldiers were going around in underarmored vehicles, you lashed out at the media for covering it, ironically in the name of supporting the troops! Faced with the truth that we didn’t find WMDs, you said they’d been carted off to Syria. Faced with evidence that Republican economic policies have failed, Republicans have spun a mythology that excuses Wall Street, and puts the blame on big government.

Again and again, people like you stonewalled and rationalized matters like Valerie Plame’s exposure, or the various policy failures.

But now, you come up to us, celebrating because your right-wing hacks have raised up a dust storm, and are laughing, saying “ha, the shoes on the other foot!”

That’s funny. I don’t see a shoe. I see a massive flip flop of Republicans on accountability. Accountability is for your political enemies. There’s always a reason why things went wrong under Republicans that has nothing to do with them.

CasperWY-
I think you spend a lot of time talking about how new stuff is coming out by the hour to help you with the fact that it’s not, and that you really have nothing new. You have a oil tanker full of warm, liquid IF. You argue future, unprovable things, because you don’t have anything you can prove in the here and now to serve the purpose.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 14, 2013 5:08 PM
Comment #365897

Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard got caught. He published a faked e-mail altered to try to put the State Department in a bad light. ABC News picked it up in turn and treated it as if it were a big scoop. Did Hayes fabricate the e-mail, or did someone provide the fake to him? In a wild and no doubt unconnected coincidence, Hayes is the official biographer of Dick Cheney.

Tough day for those infected with Benghazi Conspiracy Fever.

Posted by: phx8 at May 14, 2013 5:15 PM
Comment #365899

Interesting, phx8, but after some time searching I’ve seen no such thing anywhere, perhaps you could provide a link to this assertion that the email was fake?

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 14, 2013 6:22 PM
Comment #365901

Here.

It’s not so much that the whole thing was faked, but that it was edited in order to create a misleading impression.

I got to explain something here: If I’m cynical about Republican talking points, it’s because every time I begin to buy into one, I research and find that some basic factual error has been introduced into things.

I quite watching Fox News, for one example, because I kept tuning in during the Iraq War to find that they reported that we found the WMDs, only to see the headline disappear, and learn later that the reports were false. After a few repetitions of this, I figured that I had decent enough information from other sources, and left FOXNews alone.

I don’t like being manipulated. If you’re going to give me a reason to go along with you, you better be honest with me.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 14, 2013 6:31 PM
Comment #365903

The only thing I could find on the fake emails was on the Daily kos and Salon.com; I’m sure we can count these links as truth.

I’m sure that Stephen Hayes made no mistakes, he is a good reporter.

In fact, his investigative report can be found here, where he speaks of 2 emails, the original talking points and the scrubbed talking points:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/author/stephen-f.-hayes

phx8 may have had an orgasm too early; perhaps he should read the original post by Hayes instead of the “scrubbed” version by Salon or Kos.

Posted by: DSP2195 at May 14, 2013 6:41 PM
Comment #365904

The CNN report on the misleading leaks:

http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/14/cnn-exclusive-white-house-email-contradicts-benghazi-leaks/

Posted by: Rich at May 14, 2013 6:44 PM
Comment #365905

This comment by Stephen Daugherty needs to go down as one of the funniest comments ever made on WB:

“If I’m cynical about Republican talking points, it’s because every time I begin to buy into one”

Stephen, you have NEVER bought into any Republican talking point. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

From Stephen’s link:

“Update: A spokesman for ABC News tells the Washington Post: “Assuming the email cited by Jake Tapper is accurate, it is consistent with the summary quoted by [ABC’s] Jon Karl.”

Late Update: ABC’s Jon Karl responds:


I asked my original source today to explain the different wording on the Ben Rhodes e-mail, and the fact that the words “State Department” were not included in the e-mail provided to CNN’s Tapper.

This was my source’s response, via e-mail: “WH reply was after a long chain of email about State Dept concerns. So when WH emailer says, take into account all equities, he is talking about the State equities, since that is what the email chain was about.”

Posted by: DSP2195 at May 14, 2013 6:53 PM
Comment #365906

Stephen, You don’t like being manipulated, now that’s funny. Politicians have been manipulating since this country was formed. My people drumed up scandals? I don’t think so Obama did this one on his own. As far as drumming up scandals, you have no room to talk YOUR PEOPLE are experts at fabricating scandals. Stephen, lets look at the stupid shit Obama has done 1, Solyndra, 2, Fast and furious, 3, Benghazi, 4, IRS, 5, AP. You keep defending him for his lies. I never defended Bush, I didn’t like Bush, I didn’t vote for him neither did I vote for the 2 assholes YOUR PEOPLE put up against him. The Plame thing I could care less about. 4 dead americans who died because of an incompetent A** in the W.H., THAT I CARE ABOUT unlike you and those like you. To bad people like you don’t have the gonads to defend this country like those brave americans who died at Benghazi all you can do is bitch when someone wants to know the truth not just the lies that come from YOUR god Obama.

Posted by: KAP at May 14, 2013 6:59 PM
Comment #365907
I quite watching Fox News, for one example

I have as well (over a decade really), though I have also quit watching MSNBC, as well as reading TPM, DailyKOS, CNS and a variety of other ‘news outlets’ that are routinely getting things wrong. At least, not without doublechecking anything they post with outside sources that are more stable. That is why I was asking about the link that phx8 was mentioning, as I needed to research the issue myself, it was obvious I wasn’t going to get factual reporting from him or many of his sources.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 14, 2013 7:03 PM
Comment #365921

Here is the original e-mail:

“Sorry to be late to this discussion. We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.

There is a ton of wrong information getting out into the public domain from Congress and people who are not particularly informed. Insofar as we have firmed up assessments that don’t compromise intel or the investigation, we need to have the capability to correct the record, as there are significant policy and messaging ramifications that would flow from a hardened mis-impression.

We can take this up tomorrow morning at deputies.”

Here is the altered version. Note the inserted reference to State:

“We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation. We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.”

The Weekly Standard article with the false e-mail was posted on 5/13. I’m not going to post a link for them. Anyone who believes Stephen Hayes is “a good reporter” didn’t follow his articles re Iraq. He was a primary conduit for misinformation and outright lies about WMD in Iraq. His biggest push was for connections between Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein, which simply did not exist. In addition, Hayes suggested Saddam Hussein participated in the 9/11 attack.

He is a horrendous liar. Anyone care to debate it, using neurtral sources? Just let me know.

Word. Stay away from Stephen Hayes. And avoid calling people names based on (mis)information from Stephen Hayes.

Posted by: phx8 at May 14, 2013 8:48 PM
Comment #365934

Stephen

“I don’t like being manipulated. If you’re going to give me a reason to go along with you, you better be honest with me.”

IF this is the truth, they why do you blindly follow leftist talking points?
We’re told Bush intentionally lied to us about WMDs, but Dems took no action.
We’re told Bush intentionally let thousands die in New Orleans simply because they were black, but Dems took no action.
We’re told Bush is solely responsible for Abu G., but Dems took no action.
We’re told Bush did all these unethical and illegal things for his buddies, but Dems took no action.

Tell us Stephen, IF you “have the goods” on Bush, why have you done nothing?

Are Democratic reps incompetent? Do they lack evidence? Did they create such accusations for political gain?

“Again and again, people like you stonewalled and rationalized matters “

Now why does that sound so familiar? LOL!

Posted by: kctim at May 15, 2013 9:33 AM
Comment #365947

Rhinehold-
The text as originally written is very different from what was leaked.

DSP2195-
Iraq War is pretty big. Laissez faire economics, pretty big. I don’t particularly mind making government more efficient, less wasteful, what I do mind is people promising what they can’t deliver in terms of results from the free markets. If, as it turns out, you can’t trust pharmaceutical companies to avoid pushing drugs with dangerous, common side effects on the market, well then, I want the regulations back in place.

On the subject of that e-mail, Karl’s full of it. You don’t get to insert references that inherently bias the meaning of the e-mail in. If you saw the original e-mail, you’d see no reference to the State Department. Putting in that reference made it look more like a cover-up, which may have been the point of what the source did in the first place.

Ah, but he must be an excellent reporter! Well, excellent Reporters report what’s real, not things they made up, or their sources made up.

They also made up the part where the talking points are foregrounded to become the major subject of that deputies’ meeting.

Do you care, or do you just want people to report what you read into things. If so, then what business do you have complaining about bias, when you positively wallow in yours?

kctim-
Until Jan. 2007, the Democrats didn’t have control of any of the relevant committees. And honestly? We pushed a huge effort to defeat him in the 2004 election, and then to defeat the Republican majority in 2006, which we did successfully.

We took our action. Then we took back the White House, and people like you haven’t stopped being outraged about it since.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 15, 2013 2:38 PM
Comment #365948

Stephen, Why can’t you answer a question asked of you instead of comming up with BS that dosen’t even come close to what was asked?

Posted by: KAP at May 15, 2013 2:45 PM
Comment #365950

KAP-
Because I don’t like answering loaded questions that are point-blank obviously the product of your daily overdose of Republican talking points. So, I will do my best to clear up what I think are the facts in the matter, and let the other BS just lie.

I mean, you could rephrase it as, “Why, Stephen, are you so colossally stupid that you don’t just instantly agree with me?”

Well, because I get news sources that present more than one side of the story, and print stuff that is inconvenient not just to one side, but the other.

You take the bait, like Solyndra, without even bothering to question the premise. I mean, that’s one company out of many of the ones the Government gave grants and other help to, but you only hear about the failures.

I mean, why would a party that’s full of people defending the oil and gas industry want to provide a distorted picture of the Green energy sector, and Obama’s relationship with it, by singling out its failure?

With Fast and Furious, other reports indicate that the only gun shipment actually, deliberately walked were deliberately walked by the whistleblower. Other straw-buys were simply let go because the Background check information sharing process is so archaic, that by the time we know to flag these purchases, they’re already across the border.

Not to mention how difficult it is to prosecute straw-buyers.

Not to mention the antipathy towards tightening and reforming gun laws in order to actually make it legally practical to prosecute straw-buyers, and get ahead of their shipments.

3) Benghazi was a crock and a farce from the start. It’s Republicans continuing to bash the Obama administration over talking points from just days after the event, based on an investigation that made that theory obsolete.

I actually take the AP and IRS stories seriously, and consider them major misjudgments. I am not so concerned about Conservative media bias that I don’t recognize that even a blind pig finds an acorn, and a stopped clock can be right twice a day. Biased accounts aren’t necessarily wrong ones.

But what I won’t do is jump with the Republicans to conclusions about what happened. The question is, will you be willing to accept findings that don’t fit the theory that Obama is persecuting the right in this country? That he’s some sort of dictator waiting for the chance to pounce?

That’s where bias becomes an issue: where it separates your conclusions from what an more generous, more skeptical and disinterested look at the facts would yield.

As for the rest of that comment?

You’re wrong. I care a lot. That’s why I’m particularly nasty about this scandal, because in my view, you’re pissing on their graves with your opportunism. You call it brave. Oh, damn, you’re brave for repeating what a bunch of self-interested talk-show hosts and politicians say in order to demean their rivals.

I want the truth. But you? Looking at what you’re writing, it’s clear you think you already know what the truth is, you just want everybody to come around and agree with you on it. It doesn’t occur to you that you’ve taken a big leap to a conclusions that others don’t see the merits in. Insulting people about there not being ballsy or non-partisan enough to agree with you won’t work if they consider your account wrong, and if your talking points so clearly resemble those of the people you claim to be independent from.

You don’t strike me as brave or ballsy. You strike me as obnoxious and naïve. I want to know the truth. But I’m waiting for information that really does change things, and isn’t a crock of crap itself before I come to those conclusions.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 15, 2013 3:26 PM
Comment #365951

Stephen

So, despite all the “goods” Dems have on Bush criminal activity, they were and still are unable to present it? But Republicans who have no “goods” are able to get investigations anytime they want them? LOL! Oooook.

And we know all about your “huge efforts” to win elections. You take your “goods,” which are really just partisan opinions, and broadcast them non-stop as if they are facts.

Yes Stephen, you took your action. You called your President a liar, a criminal, a racist, a torturer and a murderer based on the “goods” you had on him. “Goods” that weren’t credible enough to warrant investigations through legal channels, but were great for liberal talk shows, papers and blogs.

“people like you haven’t stopped being outraged about it since.”

So since you have no valid answer as to why your people can’t prove your conspiracy theories about Bush, that means you have to resort to trying to change the subject to the elections? Using words like “outraged” in hopes to dismiss the question all together?
Please.

Posted by: kctim at May 15, 2013 4:07 PM
Comment #365952

“because in my view, you’re pissing on their graves with your opportunism”

Which is “different” than pissing on the graves of 16 children.
It’s always somehow “different” when self-righteous liberals are behind it.

Posted by: kctim at May 15, 2013 4:21 PM
Comment #365954

It’s a shame Stephen Daugherty, phx8, and Adam Ducker can’t be advisers to Steny Hoyer. They could help him keep all the scandals straight, LOL. This is harlarious.

“In scandal-plagued Washington, lawmaker struggles to keep track of issues

With the rumbling of so much scandal ripping through Washington this week—woeful stories about Benghazi, the DOJ subpoena of journalists’ phone records and the IRS unfairly targeting conservative groups—it’s hard to keep track of all the terrible.

Even lawmakers sometimes struggle.

At Rep. Steny Hoyer’s weekly meeting with reporters on Tuesday, the Maryland Democrat was asked if he was concerned about the DOJ seizing phone records from Associated Press journalists working in the House press gallery in the Capitol building.

Hoyer’s answer was well-delivered: Articulate, clear, firm and precise.

One problem: He responded to the wrong scandal.

“The IRS activity was inappropriate, inconsistent with our policies and practices as a country, very concerning, needs to be reviewed carefully,” Hoyer, one of the top-ranking House Democrats, said in response to a question from Fox News’ Chad Pergram about the DOJ. “We need to ensure that this does not happen again, and we need to find out how long it continued, when it was stopped. It is my understanding—there was a front-page story on this at the [Washington] Post—it’s my understanding that [IRS official] Lois Lerner, who was apparently overseeing this, at some point in time found out about this and said …”

When Hoyer named Lerner, Pergram interrupted.

“We’re talking about two things,” Pergram, who apparently had not heard the first mention of the IRS, said from across the table, “You said Lois Lerner and the IRS.”

Another reporter sitting closer to Hoyer, Public Radio International’s Todd Zwillich, learned over and said softly, “He’s talking about the AP story.”

“Oh, I’m sorry, I’m sorry, excuse me,” Hoyer said, pausing briefly. “Whatever happened, we need to find out why it happened. But clearly it should not have happened. I don’t know enough about whether there was a warrant sought.”

Boom. He nailed it!”


http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/scandal-plagued-washington-lawmaker-struggles-keep-track-issues-175311063.html

Charlie Rangel tells Obama to come clean:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/charlie-rangel-irs-associated-press-comments-91398.html?hp=r6

Axelrod advises Obama to release the emails:

Breaking News….WH releases 100 emails, so maybe we will know what they really said now.

Posted by: DSP2195 at May 15, 2013 5:25 PM
Comment #365957

Stephen, I’ve asked you simple yes or no questions 7 years ago til now the you either ignored or gave some BS answer that was irrelivant to the question. Why don’t you just admit that you can’t in good faith criticize YOUR PEOPLE and give honest answers to their screw ups.

Posted by: KAP at May 15, 2013 6:06 PM
Comment #365958

I don’t know DSP, Obama may have doctored them some how to save his sorry A**, after all he 8 months to fix them.

Posted by: KAP at May 15, 2013 6:10 PM
Comment #365961

DSP2195-
One problem with having folks who are demanding attention for all these scandals all at once is that none of them gets full focus. But then, your side is simply in a rush to get a lot of soundbites out to make themselves look good, and that’s really what this is about.

I know you like to think that you have the upper hand, but aren’t you glossing over the fact that your side just got caught up short on Benghazi?

The President’s going to put the information out, it’s going to have the investigations. But I think that won’t satisfy Republicans.

I knew that when your party was re-elected to the majority in the house that this would commence, in no small part because I’ve been through it all before, almost twenty years ago. This is what the Republicans do instead of having to actually do their jobs. This is what they considered priority over confronting al-Qaeda.

By the way, and I could have told you this once I heard that the acting commissioner hadn’t spoken up about it to Congress, but that guy is out as of today. No Heckuva job Brownie here.

Of course, your people will probably start complaining that he threw people under the bus. But that’s the way you work. First you tell Obama that he’s amiss in not vigorously pursuing national security leaks, and then when his justice department takes extraordinary lengths to find them, it’s shocking and frightening.

Conservatives use the IRS as a bludgeon against liberals, and are shocked, shocked when their own groups get a microscope up the rear.

Maybe your party and my party need to work on bipartisan rules which will make such conduct, in both the AP and IRS cases, illegal, or which will better define ways of applying scrutiny fairly.

But you can’t have your people vote against a Democratic Proposals that would have covered that, and then turn around and rage at the administration for those things.

Arguing about hypocrisy without doing something about the rules that govern us in common just invites further hypocrisy, as both side play for advantage. You want virtue, it’s got to be virtue shared, and virtue codified in the law by Congress.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 15, 2013 6:38 PM
Comment #365964

I hate it when Stephen crys. All these years he praises his Democrap party and now they let hiom down. Sorry Stephen we’ve been telling you that democraps are just as bad as republicraps.

Posted by: KAP at May 15, 2013 6:47 PM
Comment #365971

There were several actions of the White House were a positive step forward today, I give them credit for changing the tone of the issues and getting in front of it.

By firing the IRS chief, in a way that is done in anger and leaving themselves open to reprisals from him, it shows that they a) have nothing to worry about in terms of reprisals and b) they are more concerned about fixing what is wrong. Had they handled this any other way, I think they would have been in more trouble, but I think this helps them tremendously. There WILL be more investigation into this and most likely more people will be fired/jailed.

Secondly, they released 100 emails (though there is word that there is more) that support their assertions as well as call some things into question. It doesn’t answer all the questions, but it does give a better picture. It looks more like there was a concern between the CIA and State in preventing some info being released for ‘some reasons’, what those are we aren’t 100% sure about. It appears more likely it was because of an ongoing initial investigation rather than political though, at this time. We’ll see how things fall out as investigations continue (as they should). There are still other questions, as I said before, but those aren’t being addressed at this point.

Finally, the AP scandal is getting short shrift. I’m not particularly happy about this, especially considering that the AP is reporting they were given the go ahead on writing the story that led to hundreds of reporters phone records being subpoenaed, many not having anything to do with the specific story. I’m with the ACLU on this one and would rather see protections be put/remain in place for all Americans (not just journalists) so I don’t think the administration has helped itself here, ironically it is the one area where they are the most vulnerable since it comes back on them directly where the other two scandals are more tangential to them.

I am sure that more will be coming out on these ongoing situations.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 15, 2013 8:20 PM
Comment #365973
the AP scandal is getting short shrift

Ever heard of the little boy who called wolf? The constant slinging of mud from the Right ensures that any legitimate scandal remains buried among the sludge of fake scandals dreamed up by conservative conspiracy theorists.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 15, 2013 9:07 PM
Comment #365975

Warren, I’m not sure what rock you live under but all three of these scandals are ‘legitimate’ ones. Whether or not they lead to the White House and Obama are irrelevant as to their legitimacy.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 15, 2013 9:23 PM
Comment #365977

”..especially considering that the AP is reporting they were given the go ahead on writing the story…”

Yea, but that still left the person(s) who leaked the story unidentified and free to do it again, possibly with a less positive outcome.

It also should be noted that this was not an isolated leak. The Stuxnet disclosures and other leaks may have provided an alarming context within which this investigation occurred.

We also don’t know the rationale of the DOJ in issuing the subpoenas. It seems on its face to be overly broad, a fishing expedition in violation of DOJ rules and an abusive intrusion on the freedom of the press.

The positive outcome is that Congress might finally pass a federal shield law establishing a limited privilege and providing definitive procedures and criteria for requiring disclosure of confidential sources and related material.

Posted by: Rich at May 15, 2013 10:08 PM
Comment #365983

“I knew that when your party was re-elected to the majority in the house that this would commence…”

Stephen, are we talking about when the Democrats controlled the complete Congress during the last 2 years of Bush’s presidency?

I find it interesting that 15 minutes after the 100 emails on Benghazi were released; Obama announced he was going to speak to the public about the IRS scandal. Sorry, but I smell a rat. Obama has lied so much to us; he is not credible at all. The side of me that does not trust Obama (99.9%), believes he is talking about the IRS to move the center of attention off Benghazi.

Regarding the firing of Steven Miller; according to Miller, his assignment was over in June. So he’s not really being fired after all.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325223/Obama-fires-acting-IRS-commissioner-pressure-grows-surrounding-political-targeting-conservative-groups-sought-tax-exempt-status.html

Obama has shone such pseudo-rage over the IRS targeting conservative groups, requiring confidential information, and then releasing it to liberal organizations to be used against conservatives; yet, are we surprised when Obama’s chosen people do exactly what he wants them to do.

If Stephen Daugherty or Adam Ducker were working for Obama and had Obama assigned them to positions of authority, I would not be shocked to find out that SD and AD would carry out Obama’s bidding. The people that work for Obama think just like Obama. Let’s take SD and AD as examples; they are in complete agreement with Obama; they believe the IRS should target conservative groups (this is what Harry Reid said and I’m sure they support Harry Reid); AD and SD are in complete agreement with Obama’s attempt to cover up Benghazi; and SD and AD are incomplete agreement with Eric Holder’s invasion of privacy with the AP. SD and AD are perfect examples of leftist; they are in complete agreement with Obama and his policies; they are a perfect example of Obama employees…so why should we be shocked when Obama’s employees carry out Obama’s wishes. If Obama opens his mouth, or if his lips are moving, he is lying. He is not upset that the IRS targeted conservatives because these people did exactly what Obama wanted.

Posted by: DSP2195 at May 15, 2013 11:28 PM
Comment #365987

Here is a really interesting exchange between Chris Matthews and Jonathan Alter:

“CHRIS MATTHEWS: Sometimes the best advisers are not sycophants, they don’t depend on you for emotional response. They’re willing to say: I’m only here for six months, to help you, I’m a pro. But sometimes, a professional or elected president says: I got elected, not you. I’m the boss. You know, it’s hard to get the boss to come down from his ladder and say, you know, I need some help.

JONATHAN ALTER: [President Obama] in some ways kind of infantilizes the people around him. A lot of them are young. Some of them are very smart and talented. But they’re all in awe of the president. They have an unhealthy love for him. Yes, they do sometimes tell him the bad news, which he says he wants. They’re not all sycophants. But he has not figured out how to get some other people in. And, you know, we can go over a list of names. I think there are some very talented people who could help him with more creative ideas for getting on top of it.”

The people that surround Obama are like Stephen Daugherty, Adam Ducker, and Warren Porter (who I believe was once Warpted Reality). They are in awe of Obama and like the
infantile sycophants Obama surrounds himself with; it is impossible for them to see any faults in Obama. Not only can they not see Obama’s faults; they cannot report to Obama any faults. Obama is the naked king who is told by the people who surround him how good he looks in his invisible clothing.

Posted by: DSP2195 at May 15, 2013 11:45 PM
Comment #365988
Warren Porter (who I believe was once Warpted Reality)

I also believe Warren Porter was once Warped Reality.

As for the rest of your drivel: you can believe what you want in your own fantasyland, but your hallucinations don’t mean a whit here on planet Earth.

all three of these scandals are ‘legitimate’ ones

Benghazi, Fast & Furious, allegations that Obama was born in Kenya, ACORN, etc are all distractions from recall scandals like what happened at the IRS and with the AP.

I’m furious that the same guy who says “trust me” when it comes to assassinating Americans in Yemen cannot be trusted to keep his own bureaucrats from abusing their power (I’m talking about the IRS and AP scandals only).

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 16, 2013 12:05 AM
Comment #365995

“Drivel”, we will see. Obama has been castrated. Why he may be safe; his party is facing elections next year. Let’s see how fast those Democrats in red states abandon their leader. None of these scandals are going anywhere.

You may change your name; but your still the same inexperienced kid who’s head has been filled full of mush.

Posted by: DSP2195 at May 16, 2013 2:15 AM
Comment #365998

KAP-
Go find some Yahoo comments section to troll. I’ve offered a mutual disarmament in both cases, admitted that what happened was wrong. Did I get that from Republicans when I talked about what their administration did wrong? No.

I don’t why you feel like you’re not in there with the “Republicraps” (Your word, not mine). If you say the same things, attack the same targets, you’re no more independent than anybody who still calls themselves a member of a GOP, but complains about their party.

Rhinehold-
I think dismissing him was the only sane option. He’d failed to mention this scandal to Obama or to Congress. Clear reason to fire anybody.

I think people should do their jobs. It’s a basic premise of mine, in part because I got an almost physiological distaste for dysfunction in the world around me. I want things to work.

As for the AP scandal? The Administration is pushing an old shield law bill that they had from the late Bush years. Maybe this time it will get to the President’s desk, rather than be filibustered.

DSP2195-
You believe he’s talking about the IRS scandal to distract from Benghazi? Why not go further, accuse him of engineering the scandal as a distraction?

Seriously, it’s just that you’re peddling so many scandals at once that even the lawmakers can’t keep track. Simple rule of human attention: we are only capable of paying conscious attention to one thing at a time. If you want Benghazi 24/7, you might want to hold back on the other sources of your partisan rage!

I think Obama is pissed off. He’s having to deal with three scandals at a time on top of everything else.

As for that last paragraph in comment 365983? My God.

I’ve explicitly said, no, the IRS should not target groups. I don’t agree that there is any substance to the Benghazi coverup theory, but there’s not much evidence to support that anyways, especially since the documentation shows that the original CIA talking points include the claims you said were Obama’s self-serving lies.

I’ve also said, here and elsewhere that the AP investigation is genuinely disturbing, though, mostly likely not illegal, thanks to the efforts of your party.

But you ignore this, because you want your nice, neat, prepackaged propaganda to come out nice and smooth, without the necessity of you actually having to revise and nuance your Rush Limbaugh talking points.

As for what would happen if we didn’t carry out the President’s policy, if he hired us? I’m sure that would get us fired. If you accept a job with the President, it’s only common sense that you either carry out his policy, or find another job. So, if I agreed to work for the President, surprisingly enough, I would be agreeing to work for the President, rather than trying to undermine his authority. Shocking how that works.

As for that exchange? Typical village twaddle. More analysis than news gathering. I can see the faults with Obama. I just don’t choose to join you in making those faults grounds for constant attack and belittlement.

I have an autism spectrum disorder, so it’s experience rather than intuition that taught me that when somebody is as hostile as you are, concessions get taken and blown out of proportion. So, you don’t get many free ones, and from my experience, you don’t notice the concessions I make in the first place. So why should I go out of my way to tell you about my doubts and reservations, especially when they are outweighed by the bulk of my agreement with Obama and the Democrats?

By the way, Your party is as castrated as you think Obama is. All those nice little red-meat bills designed to impress extremists like yourselves have generally gone nowhere.

And the sequester? Amazing how that works: Republicans deliberately triggering cuts that were supposed to be arbitrary and stupid to make the parties look bad, dumping the blame for what goes wrong on Obama, and taking credit for the cuts. Nice racket if you can find it.

As for that election?

We’ll see. Trouble for you is, Obama doesn’t generate his own bad press the way Bush does. Your people have to keep up the tiresome drumbeat themselves. And you know what? That takes energy, and people will wonder why that energy hasn’t gone to solving what they think is a real problem.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 16, 2013 8:41 AM
Comment #366000

“I’m furious that the same guy who says “trust me” when it comes to assassinating Americans in Yemen cannot be trusted to keep his own bureaucrats from abusing their power (I’m talking about the IRS and AP scandals only).”

Warren Porter, I believe you proved DSP’s point. The bureaucrats are Obama’s own people and when would an employee do something other than what his boss wanted?

As for the release of 100 IRS related emails; they covered a short window in time and certainly did not go back to the first emails.

Regarding Stephen’s comments on the IRS. Why can’t Mr. Daugherty discuss any of Obama’s shortcomings without invoking Bush? Stephen’s link to Salon talks about 1 progressive church in CA; not a consorted effort to silence 100’s of conservative groups. I fail to see the connection between Bush and Obama. For Mr. Daugherty to use Salon as proof would be like me using Rush Limbaugh as proof. Are their any liberals who would accept Rush Limbaugh as proof?

Of all the scandals, I consider the Benghazi to be the worse simply because it costs the lives of 4 Americans. It’s a fact that Obama wanted to protect the election, he wanted to protect his so called victory over terrorism, it’s a fact that the talking points were changed, and it’s a fact that Rice and Clinton were used to cover for Obama.

The latest release of emails are meant to sacrifice the state department.

It is amazing that Obama will go to all lengths to blame someone/anyone else for his failures. And once again we have Mr. Daugherty blaming Bush for Obama’s failures. I agree with DSP, if Mr. Daugherty worked for the Obama administration, he would act no different than he does now. So the question is; what qualifies Mr. Daugherty to be a objective writer on WB? Mr. Daugherty seems to have a strange “love affair” for Obama.

Posted by: CasperWY at May 16, 2013 8:57 AM
Comment #366001

If Issa was actually interested in the truth about Benghazi, then he would certainly invite Admiral Mullen and Ambassador Pickering to testify before his Committee as to their findings on the matter. After all, they did conduct a lengthy investigation of the issue conducting far more interviews and reviewing far more documents than his Committee.

However, Issa doesn’t want their testimony and particularly doesn’t want their public testimony. Why? Could it be that the actual facts don’t fit the Issa narrative? That they would quickly take the air out of the more sensational speculative balloons of his Committee?

Oh well, lets not let the facts get in the way of a good “fair and balanced” narrative.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/16/politics/libya-benghazi-hearing/

Posted by: Rich at May 16, 2013 9:05 AM
Comment #366002

DSP2195: “They are in awe of Obama and like the infantile sycophants Obama surrounds himself with; it is impossible for them to see any faults in Obama.”

I am no more in awe of President Obama than the supporters of President Bush were. We like our president. He represents us a great deal more than President Bush did. I voted for the man twice but I did not support him in the 2008 Democratic Primary. The man doesn’t walk on water and he’s not my messiah. You hear that a lot from conservatives on this site. I don’t take it personally. I know that’s just the only way you folks know to respond when you’re the party out of power and have voted in a series of clowns to represent you in Congress.

When you tumble out of your clown car you have nothing useful to add to the conversation so you’d rather talk about me or Stephen or Warren instead. And it’s no surprise that about 99% of what you say about us has no grounding in reality and is only good for furthering your own imaginary views of us. You don’t know us and don’t care to since you already have us figured out. Good for you. Now honk your nose and return to flip flapping around in your oversize shoes.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at May 16, 2013 9:19 AM
Comment #366003
After all, they did conduct a lengthy investigation of the issue conducting far more interviews and reviewing far more documents than his Committee.

And yet they didn’t answer some questions that many Americans want answers to, which is why we are still talking about it and still holding investigations. Reason put together a list of 3 questions that are still unanswered that we should be able to get answers to (though we may not like the answers).

1. We still don’t know what really happened.

The Benghazi attack marked the first time in “more than three decades” that a U.S ambassador was killed in the field. Yet after these hearings and the State Department’s own “accountability review,” we still don’t know why the consulate was so poorly protected and why the military didn’t or couldn’t respond in a timely fashion. Pleading incompetence or “the fog of war” isn’t an answer.

2. U.S. officials keep attacking free speech as the cause of the attack.

Even after it became clear that the YouTube video “The Innocence of Muslims” had nothing to do with the Benghazi attack, Hillary Clinton invoked it as the cause of the attack at a memorial service for the slain Americans. And President Obama told the United Nations that everyone should condemn “those who slander the Prophet of Islam.”

3. We still don’t have a foreign policy in the Middle East - or anywhere else.

How does the murder of an ambassador to a country we helped liberate reflect on the way in which we got involved in Libya: President Obama dispatched forces without consulting Congress. As U.S. involvment in Syria and elsewhere heats up, the absolute lack of a coherent – much less constitutional - foreign policy will only lead to more tragedies both in the Middle East and throughout the world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=V-xmKpFZcNA

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 16, 2013 10:54 AM
Comment #366005

Stephen,I’m not in with either party. When I was your age and younger yes I voted democrat. That squashed when Dennis Kuchnich was mayor of cleveland. He was the cause of the downturn of Cleveland. Then when he was in congress I asked for him to help with a problem he refused, so I vowed to see him get out of congress. No small task because of being in a Democrat strong hold. Most people here are like you blindly pull the democrat handle. I vote conservative regardless of party, if a conservative democrat runs he may get my vote. Stephen you are so blindly democrat you woiuldn’t condemn any democrat even if he committed murder you would say it was Bush’s fault or another republicans.

Posted by: KAP at May 16, 2013 11:30 AM
Comment #366011

KAP,

Quit your trope of faux independence. You carry the conservatives’ water as much as Stephen carries Democrats’. Sure, you condemn the occasional Republican of “not being conservative enough”, but that’s a cowardly way of criticizing one’s party. If you actually were the independent thinker that you claim to be, you would occasionally admit that conservative policy prescriptions do more harm than good, but you don’t.

Rhinehold,

You know what; you are right. I’m outraged right now regarding Obama’s handling of Benghazi. I cannot believe that he had the balls to lie to the American people from the Rose Garden on Sept 12 as well as twice more on the next two days. Calling the incident an “Act of Terror” was reprehensible. The talking points produced by our nation’s top intelligence experts clearly state that the consensus hypothesis at the time was that the blame for the attacks lay with the demonstrations against the “Innocence of Muslims” film. Obama should have stuck to those talking points instead of making spurious speculations.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 16, 2013 2:30 PM
Comment #366013

Warren, it’s a shame you aren’t willing to look at all of the facts and instead rely upon debunked talking points for your outrage. Unfortunately, with that mindset there is little hope in showing you the facts…

Obama never called the specific incident an ‘act of terrorism’ on Sept 12. He did use the words ‘act of terror’ but in more broad strokes. Which of course allows you to not be outraged at his words then, so that is some good news for you then I suppose…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-he-called-benghazi-an-act-of-terrorism/2013/05/13/7b65b83e-bc14-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html

For instance, on Sept. 12, immediately after the Rose Garden statement the day after the attack, Obama sat down with Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes and acknowledged he purposely avoided the using the word “terrorism:” 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.”

OBAMA: “Right.”

KROFT: “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.”

(D)uring an interview on ABC’s “The View” on Sept. 25, Obama appeared to refuse to say it was a terrorist attack:

QUESTION: “It was reported that people just went crazy and wild because of this anti-Muslim movie — or anti-Muhammad, I guess, movie. But then I heard Hillary Clinton say that it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say?”

OBAMA: “We are still doing an investigation. There is no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. Now, we don’t have all the information yet so we are still gathering.”

Now, we know some things here.

1) The people on the ground in Libya knew it was a terrorist act at that time. There were no demonstrations going on outside of the compound.

2) The head of the CIA knew it was a terrorist act at the time. He has stated such since he left office.

3) References to the specific terrorist group were removed from the talking points by State.

Which leads us to ask, how did the CIA get it so wrong? What led them to include the demonstrations going on in Egypt with the attack that occurred in Libya? Who was at fault with this information breakdown, what caused it and how can we prevent it from happening again?

Finally, twice the military was told to stand down in response to the attack. Why? It has been said that we know now that help would not have arrived in time, but we didn’t know that then, we didn’t know if further attacks were coming, we didn’t know if we were going to need to take the compound back, we didn’t know a lot of things. Why would we stand down in that case? I’m not suspecting a ‘big conspiracy’, most likely something more to do with politics overruling military, but any military person who hears this story is asking that question and has not yet been given an adequate answer at all.

There are many unanswered questions that need addressed here, and unfortunately too man politicians on both sides are more interested in their political careers than in getting at those answers.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 16, 2013 3:03 PM
Comment #366014

“When you tumble out of your clown car you have nothing useful to add to the conversation so you’d rather talk about me or Stephen or Warren instead… You don’t know us and don’t care to since you already have us figured out. Good for you…”

Posted by: Adam Ducker at May 16, 2013 9:19 AM

Actually Adam, I am beginning to have a somewhat change of heart regarding Warren Porter. I believe Warren is beginning to ask legitimate questions about the Obama administration. From Comment #365988, “I’m furious that the same guy who says “trust me” when it comes to assassinating Americans in Yemen cannot be trusted to keep his own bureaucrats from abusing their power (I’m talking about the IRS and AP scandals only).” Then again in Comment #366011, “You know what; you are right. I’m outraged right now regarding Obama’s handling of Benghazi. I cannot believe that he had the balls to lie to the American people from the Rose Garden on Sept 12 as well as twice more on the next two days. Calling the incident an “Act of Terror” was reprehensible. The talking points produced by our nation’s top intelligence experts clearly state that the consensus hypothesis at the time was that the blame for the attacks lay with the demonstrations against the “Innocence of Muslims” film. Obama should have stuck to those talking points instead of making spurious speculations.”

Perhaps there is hope for some of America’s misguided youth; but as for you and Stephen Daugherty…you are both Obama apologists. The point I make goes beyond your support or vote for Obama. No matter what allegations come out, whether Obama knew of it or not, your first words are to defend Obama, even when you don’t know how much he was involved. You don’t want to know the facts, because the facts may prove you wrong.

The point I made about you and SD working for Obama is that you would do exactly what his people did, you would falsify facts, you would go after conservative groups, and you would provide this information to the enemies of conservatives. This is what Obama’s people did, and their acts cannot be separated from Obama’s own desires. His outrage about the IRS intruding into the lives of conservatives is false. This is the mind of a liberal. Many liberal Senators, Congressmen and women, liberal talking heads, and Obama himself have called for the IRS to investigate conservatives and conservative groups.

This is not Obama’s fault per se; it is the mindset of the liberal… to intrude, to control, to dominate, to intimidate, and to take Constitutional rights away from people. You will say, your nuts; but I say, show me a state or city that has been controlled by liberals fro an length of time, and I will show you a state of city that exhibits everything I mentioned.

So, Adam, you and Stephen, if working for Obama, would do just as Obama’s surrogates have done; and it’s for this reason neither of you can look at anything objectively, because you see nothing wrong in anything Obama has done.

Adam, I don’t know you or Stephen personally, but I do know liberals and all liberals think alike; therefore, I can come to some conclusions about both of you. I will say about Warren Porter, he has enough intelligence to question some things.

Regarding Rich’s claim that;

“If Issa was actually interested in the truth about Benghazi, then he would certainly invite Admiral Mullen and Ambassador Pickering to testify before his Committee as to their findings on the matter. After all, they did conduct a lengthy investigation of the issue conducting far more interviews and reviewing far more documents than his Committee.”

How could they complete an investigation without interviewing Hillary Clinton regarding the claims that the video was the cause of the Benghazi attacks? When they were asked why they didn’t interview Clinton, their answer was “we already knew the video was the cause of the protest at Benghazi”, why should we have asked her? So they base the conclusion of the investigation on the false reports being made by Hillary and Rice.

Posted by: DSP2195 at May 16, 2013 3:59 PM
Comment #366015
References to the specific terrorist group were removed from the talking points by State.

Actually, it was done by Michael J. Morrell, who was #2 at the CIA after Petraeus.

Obama never called the specific incident an ‘act of terrorism’ on Sept 12. He did use the words ‘act of terror’ but in more broad strokes.

Twist yourself into a pretzel all day if you want. The fact remains that Obama characterized the incident as an “Act of Terror”. Remember that on Sept 12, Obama was not privy to the facts we know now, which is why he hedged all his statements because the investigation was ongoing.

There were no demonstrations going on outside of the compound.

This was not confirmed by the intelligence community until much later. Virtually every diplomatic facility in the Muslim world hosted violent demonstrations, so it is certainly strange to assume that Benghazi did not have one.

The head of the CIA knew it was a terrorist act at the time. He has stated such since he left office.
Yes, but Petraeus has also recommended that we not reveal this to avoid tipping off our enemies:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/17/world/africa/benghazi-not-petraeus-affair-is-focus-at-hearings.html?_r=0


twice the military was told to stand down in response to the attack. Why?

Legitimate questions for sure. Why doesn’t Issa invite Admiral Mullen to testify? Oh right, Issa doesn’t want to answer these questions, he wants to keep them unanswered so that he can continue to sling mud at Obama.

Nevertheless, I think right now there are some things that aren’t giving adequate attention now:

1. Susan Rice is entirely blameless for anything that transpired. Her only role was to repeat talking points that had been generated by others. Her career was unjustifiably derailed by this fake scandal. She was a competent and loyal public servant who would have made a fine secretary of state and it is a tragedy to see her treated this way just so he Republicans can score a few political points.

2. The “Innocence of Muslims” video sparked a large number of violent protests across the Islamic world. Diplomatic facilities in Sana’a, Cairo, Pakistan and elsewhere were all targeted by spontaneous violence that day.

3. The “consulate” in Benghazi was a farce and as really a clandestine CIA outpost. Keeping clandestine CIA operations a secret very well could be a factor for much of the secrecy here.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 16, 2013 4:02 PM
Comment #366016

Warren, I don’t claim Republican nor do I claim independent or democrat, I am conservative. I will cuss you out and call you a dumba** no matter what party you belong to. There were alot of things I didn’t like about Bush and what the republicans were doing. But unlike you and Stephen I will bash whoever despite party affilliation. Obama screwed up yet you and Stephen will not admit to it, you protect at all cost. As I said I didn’t vote for Bush nor did I vote for the 2 idiots you put up against him. When you and Stephen grow up and realize Democrats and republicans are both alike, in it for the money and perks and could care less about you or me. You can say all you want about me, I could care less but I do know one thing Obama is in over his head and he is scared now and you and the other liberal hacks are just as scared. 2014 will tell!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: KAP at May 16, 2013 4:04 PM
Comment #366017
References to the specific terrorist group were removed from the talking points by State.
Actually, it was done by Michael J. Morrell, who was #2 at the CIA after Petraeus.

Yes, but why when Petraeus says they shouldn’t have been. Where was the breakdown and why did he remove them? What information did he have, or not have, that caused their removal?

The fact remains that Obama characterized the incident as an “Act of Terror”.

No, he didn’t. And he clarified that in interviews given after the speech as I quoted. He says repeatedly that he couldn’t say if it was an act of terror or not because they didn’t have enough information.

There were no demonstrations going on outside of the compound.
This was not confirmed by the intelligence community until much later. Virtually every diplomatic facility in the Muslim world hosted violent demonstrations, so it is certainly strange to assume that Benghazi did not have one.

It was confirmed by the people THERE. It was known by Petraeus. Why did the rest of the CIA not have that information? Where was the failure? Are you beginning to see the point here, how did this intelligence failure happen?

Yes, but Petraeus has also recommended that we not reveal this to avoid tipping off our enemies

And perhaps that is the answer, but if so why was it done in such a piss-poor way? Again, I am not suggesting a big conspiracy here, I just want to get those answers, they are IMPORTANT questions that we need answers to.

Why doesn’t Issa invite Admiral Mullen to testify? Oh right, Issa doesn’t want to answer these questions, he wants to keep them unanswered so that he can continue to sling mud at Obama.

Because, as I said and as you said, this is about politics ON BOTH SIDES. I have heard that Admiral Mullen was invited to testify but declined, but I don’t have confirmation on that.

Susan Rice is entirely blameless for anything that transpired.

I agree, I don’t think anyone legitimately looking at this is suggesting that she was doing anything other than repeating the talking points she was given.

were all targeted by spontaneous violence that day.

BS. The ‘movie’ had been out for some time, the reason that the riots were taking place on that day was because certain leaders ordered them to take place. Please forgive me for not being that naive… It was the anniversary of 9/11, which is the most likely cause for that date to be picked, and we don’t know if there was some coordination going on here with the attackers in Libya and the Imams that ordered the protests, but don’t insult everyone’s intelligence that the riots were ‘spontaneous’.

The “consulate” in Benghazi was a farce and as really a clandestine CIA outpost. Keeping clandestine CIA operations a secret very well could be a factor for much of the secrecy here.

Possibly but it leads to other inconsistencies, like why was the CIA ok with the name of the terrorist group to be included in the talking points but the State had it removed? Again, we should be given that information, it wasn’t until recently that we even knew that the outpost was a CIA building. We will eventually get those answers, unless the people who want to defend their political butts keep trying to act like ‘there is nothing here we need to know’.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 16, 2013 4:15 PM
Comment #366018

KAP,

The simple truth is you use ideology as your litmus test. If something is construed as “conservative” you will support it. If something is construed as “liberal” you will oppose it.

You occasionally through a Republican under the bus for not being conservative enough. Stephen occasionally throws a Democrat under the bus for not being liberal enough. There is no substantial difference between you two; one is merely the reflection of the other.

Contrast that with my policy positions. I freely criticize liberal entitlement programs and I endorsed conservative policy prescriptions such as Romney’s Health Care reform in MA.

Name one instance where you bucked the ideological bandwagon and I’ll concede, but until that happens, you are simply an instrument for repeating conservative talking points in my mind.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 16, 2013 4:18 PM
Comment #366019
References to the specific terrorist group were removed from the talking points by State.
Actually, it was done by Michael J. Morrell, who was #2 at the CIA after Petraeus.

Actually, I missed this in my previous response, you are actually wrong here.

Morrell removed references to an attack by a terrorist group, but the name of the group was still listed in the talking points as a possible group who committed the violence. It was the State department that removed that name.

The emails are here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/141729513/White-House-Benghazi-Emails

On page 95, you see Patraeus say that ‘frankly, I’d just as soon not use this then’.

Also, you will note that they state the FBI is investigating. Why the FBI?

Sir - We’ve tried to work the draft talking points for HPSCI through the coordination process but have run into major problems. Perhaps as a result of the afternoon teleconference, a number of agencies have been looped in. The White House cleared quickly, but State has major concerns. The Bereau cleared with a few comments but asked that Justice, which would handle any criminal prosecution, be brought in. It is evident that this will not happen tonight, and Ben Rhodes has asked that this issue be reviewed tomorrow morning at the Deputies’ meeting.

So, State has ‘major concerns’, but you are saying that they didn’t make but one minor change?

What was discussed on the teleconference and during the meetings? Is what was discussed there lead to the talking points stating things that the CIA knew at the time were wrong?

As I said, still a lot of questions. Suggesting that ‘this isn’t an issue’ is a slap in the face of most military people who know something is up, as well as the families of those who died…

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 16, 2013 4:34 PM
Comment #366020

I have a golf game to play, but I will try to make this quick. Rhinehold is correct about the Muslim world already knowing about the video. In fact, it was the Obama administration who heard about the video from a Muslim cleric (no sure of name). It was after this that Rice came out with the talking points and that Obama and Clinton made an apology video, at a cost of $70k to tax payers, and broadcast it all over the Islamic world. This video helped to enrage the Muslims even more; so Obama and Clinton did nothing to quell the problem.

Posted by: DSP2195 at May 16, 2013 4:36 PM
Comment #366021
It was confirmed by the people THERE. It was known by Petraeus.

When? In case you didn’t notice, once we got more intelligence, the official story was changed to be more accurate. So your concern is only with the initial week after the attack. Timing is the key here; so far the complaint seems to be, “why didn’t people know then what we know now?”, which I think is completely ridiculous. It takes time to conduct an investigation properly and until it is completed, Obama had every right to hedge when discussing whether or not it was a terrorist attack or not.

I just want to get those answers, they are IMPORTANT questions that we need answers to.
Is it really our business to make every detail of the CIA’s clandestine operations public information? Couldn’t answering these questions endanger the lives of our operatives? Right now the big secret is we don’t know what the CIA was doing in Benghazi, and it might be best that we don’t find out. Posted by: Warren Porter at May 16, 2013 4:41 PM
Comment #366022

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/benghazi-emails-talking-points-changed-state-depts-request/story?id=19187137#.UZVEMLWG3_d

After months of demands from Republicans in Congress, the White House has released emails related to what the administration said in the days after the terrorist attack in Benghazi.

The emails confirm the ABC News report that the so-called “talking points” written by the CIA on the attack underwent extensive revisions – 12 versions – and that substantial changes were made after the State Department expressed concerns.

The early versions of the talking points, drafted entirely by the CIA, included references to the al Qaeda affiliate Ansar al-Sharia and to previous CIA warnings about terror threats in Benghazi. State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland expressed concerns about including those references in the talking points.

In one email, previously reported by ABC News, Nuland said that including the CIA warnings “could be used by Members [of Congress] to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings so why do we want to feed that? Concerned …”

After some changes were made, Nuland was still not satisfied.

“These don’t resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership,” Nuland wrote.

A senior administration official said that Deputy CIA Director Mike Morrell agreed with Nuland’s concerns and made the changes himself. There is no email record, however, showing that Morrell shared Nuland’s concerns.

All 12 versions of the talking points, as previously reported by ABC News, say that the attack in Benghazi was “spontaneously inspired by protest in Cairo.” In other words, all the talk of protests – which proved to be wrong – started with the CIA. What did get removed was the CIA’s saying that it believed Ansar al-Sharia took part in the attack and that the CIA had warned of the terror threat.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 16, 2013 4:43 PM
Comment #366024
When? In case you didn’t notice, once we got more intelligence, the official story was changed to be more accurate.

Not by the people ON THE GROUND in Libya. I’m not sure, but it doesn’t appear that you have been paying attention…

Also, there was a CIA outpost a mile away from the consulate, but they were not the same building, I think people are getting those confused.

The second building attacked in the Benghazi attack was a CIA building. The first one was a proper consulate…

There were drones flying overhead, but after CIA agents on the ground asked twice to assist, they were told to stand down.

Military assets were two hours away but were not scrambled or utilized.

It actually looks like some decision by someone high up was made to ‘let them die’ for some reason. What was that reason?

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 16, 2013 4:50 PM
Comment #366025
Refuting the Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s claim yesterday that there simply wasn’t enough information to responsibly deploy forces to Libya at the time of the attack, sources on the ground claim that communication was open throughout the attack.

Indeed, one member of the CIA team who was on the roof of the annex was in possession of a laser to guide aerial targets including drones and repeatedly requested backup from a Specter gunship to take out an attacker firing mortars.

According to sources familiar with the situation, the operative had visual contact with the Libyan mortar team and in addition was able to pinpoint positions from where the consulate attackers were firing from.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2223747/CIA-agents-Benghazi-twice-asked-permission-help-Ambassador-Chris-Stevens-bullets-flying-twice-told-stand-down.html#ixzz2TUVg2i62

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 16, 2013 4:53 PM
Comment #366026
Is it really our business to make every detail of the CIA’s clandestine operations public information?

Every detail? Maybe, maybe not. But colossal failures such as this one? Most definitely.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 16, 2013 4:55 PM
Comment #366027
Actually, I missed this in my previous response, you are actually wrong here.

Morrell removed references to an attack by a terrorist group, but the name of the group was still listed in the talking points as a possible group who committed the violence. It was the State department that removed that name.

I don’t have time to actually wade through the 100 emails. I trust that you are correct here.

The truth will come out eventually; one way or another.

Suggesting that ‘this isn’t an issue’
You agree with me that “this isn’t an issue” in the manner expressed by Issa? I’m not going to say that it isn’t worthwhile to investigate why 4 Americans died; this is something that needs to be prevented in the future. However, the grandstanding from the GOP has made this into a “Boy Who Cried Wolf” scenario. Any legitimate questions are buried underneath the mounds of mud flung at Obama by the GOP. Posted by: Warren Porter at May 16, 2013 5:00 PM
Comment #366028
Not by the people ON THE GROUND in Libya.

People on the ground reported conflicting things. Issa has only invited the ones that support his version of events to testify. Local media reported differently:

There are conflicting accounts of what happened in Benghazi. One of the demonstrators told the Libya Herald that the protest was entirely peaceful until the police and local security forces tried to end it by firing into the air. That angered the protestors who then turned on the police, the demonstrator claimed. One of them, he said, then went to his car, got out a rocket propelled grenade launcher and fired at a police vehicle. However, he missed and the RPG hit the building on Venezia Street instead.

Nowadays, we know this reporter was mistaken, but I don’t think we knew that until weeks after the attack happened and the investigation actually began to bear fruit.

There were drones flying overhead
I think the drones were unarmed surveillance ones. Posted by: Warren Porter at May 16, 2013 5:17 PM
Comment #366037

“Finally, twice the military was told to stand down in response to the attack. Why? It has been said that we know now that help would not have arrived in time, but we didn’t know that then, we didn’t know if further attacks were coming, we didn’t know if we were going to need to take the compound back, we didn’t know a lot of things.”

Rhinehold,

That question has already been asked and answered by the military. They have said in Congressional testimony that the order was not to “stand down” but to stay in Tripoli and assist with the evacuation there. The orders came from the Africa Command for Special Operations.

The subject of this dispute was a four man special operations team that had been initially tasked with accompanying a Libyan C-130 whose mission was to evacuate US personnel from the airport at Benghazi. Quick in and out. It was never intended that they support or intercede in the firefight.

The military command made a decision about the allocation of limited resources that night. Should it send those remaining resources to assist with an evacuation of Benghazi or use them to assist in the evacuation of a much larger contingent of personnel in Tripoli? Was there the possibility of an attack in Tripoli following the Benghazi attacks? Could they have actually assisted in the firefight?

The evacuations from both Benghazi and Tripoli were efficient and textbook. Critics seem to forget that.

The military command made a decision based on the reality of the situation, its resources and the need to protect and evacuate remaining US personnel in Libya.

Do you honestly believe that the military command or the Obama administration would actually fail to employ a gunship if it was available to defend the compounds in Benghazi? Do you honestly believe that military resources were deliberately withheld from Benghazi and four Americans allowed to die for no good reason?

These type of allegations are way over the top. They are without merit and despicable. Yet, they seem to have traction with some extreme conservatives who seem to think that all sorts of military assets were available despite repeated denials by the Pentagon.

Sure, deputy ambassador Hicks and the special ops team leader were dismayed by the stay in place order. That’s understandable. They wanted to rush into the fire to rescue the US personnel. But, the higher command recognized that it was too late and they were needed to prevent an even greater calamity.

Posted by: Rich at May 16, 2013 6:42 PM
Comment #366038

Reference for my previous post. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/05/08/top-diplomat-in-tripoli-pentagon-told-special-forces-to-stand-down

Posted by: Rich at May 16, 2013 6:46 PM
Comment #366041

Rich
How did they know when the order was given to stand down that the next time frame from one second to 12 hours would be known by anybody. Nobody knew about the future in real time.

Posted by: tom humes at May 16, 2013 7:16 PM
Comment #366044

Tom,

The Pentagon has said that the order was not to “stand down” but rather to stay in Tripoli and assist with the evacuation there rather than go with the Libyan C-130 to assist with the evacuation at Benghazi. They weren’t told to go home and go to bed. You are needed in Tripoli not Benghazi was the message.

Contrary to what many seem to be saying, the higher command was indeed concerned about what the near future would bring. They wanted their resources allocated to handle any contingencies in Tripoli as well as in Benghazi. First and foremost was the orderly evacuation of not only the personnel in Benghazi but the entire embassy staff in Tripoli.

Let me ask you this. Would you not reserve some of your very limited resources to assist in the main evacuation and to protect any possible attacks on the Tripoli contingent?

Posted by: Rich at May 16, 2013 7:34 PM
Comment #366055

Quick comment, before I get to my longer response:

Are people on the right just completely unaware of what exactly high explosives do? Your average predator drone carries hellfire missiles, which are either capped with Anti-tank or thermobaric warheads.

The key here is that have a real capacity for collateral damage, both of our allies the Libyans, and of our own people. It’s not much use to employ fighters or drones to rescue our personnel that could very well end up killing our personnel in the process of that rescue. What would have been ideal is a special forces team or a squad of regular soldiers who could distinguish friend from foe on the ground, and not kill our Ambassador and his people trying to drive off the attackers.

If you want to win battles, it’s not simply a matter of killing the enemy, but of defeating their aims, and furthering our own. If their aim was to kill our ambassador and his people, aerial attacks that might accidentally kill them would be literally self-defeating.

The military didn’t have enough intelligence on the ground to determine where the friendlies were, whether the attackers had taken hostages, etc. Not knowing these things can be the difference between winning in a real sense, and being defeated, either by their forces, or by our own screw-ups.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 16, 2013 8:58 PM
Comment #366056

CBS essentially said that the talking points the Republicans used about the talking points were based on substantial revisions of what was originally written in the e-mails.

Why anybody’s taking ABC’s butt-covering seriously is beyond me. It’s damage control. We’ve shown the substantial differences.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 16, 2013 9:02 PM
Comment #366057

Rhinehold-
What occurs to me is that you don’t have an appreciation for how what people first “know” can be wrong.

That is not to say we dismiss what people on the ground say, but we can’t rely on eyewitness evidence alone, and we can’t simply pick one guy out, and say, “we believe that guy”.

The point of an investigation is to move past first impressions, which can be misleading, and start to really account for things. After that, yes, there may be plenty of people who turn out to be right. But then again, you can also see plenty of people who turn out to be wrong, especially as they live through what isn’t exactly a conducive set of events for clearly observing and noting everything.

We cannot simply assume that people know what’s right from the start. We have to be skeptical, and examine the evidence, especially since it can lead us in directions that our we didn’t have the imagination to include in our preconceived notions.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 16, 2013 9:11 PM
Comment #366061

SD
Straight from a variety of talking points memos that were prepared by those who have never been in those kinds of situations only from some fictional observation which they think they have some sembalance of knowledge of their form of “facts and truth”.

To make my statement shorter, you are depending on too much fiction

Posted by: tom humes at May 16, 2013 11:16 PM
Comment #366062

Stephen, Your stupidity of military weapons is astounding. Do you realize that just because a drone or plane can be fitted with Hell Fire missles, they to can made to carry a less lethal weapon. There are a varity of weapons that can be used on a Drone. Hell Fire is just one. You best check your facts before you show your stupidity of the military.

Posted by: KAP at May 16, 2013 11:33 PM
Comment #366063
What would have been ideal is a special forces team or a squad of regular soldiers who could distinguish friend from foe on the ground, and not kill our Ambassador and his people trying to drive off the attackers.

And we had a tactical unit there pointing out where the mortors were being shot from and could have directed air cover to take them out. But they were told to stand down.

The military didn’t have enough intelligence on the ground to determine where the friendlies were, whether the attackers had taken hostages, etc?

The military? not exactly, but there was a special forces/cia team on the scene who was in contact with central command and was trying to direct air fire to the mortor locations.

That is not to say we dismiss what people on the ground say, but we can’t rely on eyewitness evidence alone, and we can’t simply pick one guy out, and say, “we believe that guy”.

But that is EXACTLY WHAT WE DID with the talking points. The choice was made to go with the ‘spontaneous riots’ which was later to be proven wrong and all references to the targeted attack was scrubbed.

And that’s my exact point. If they didn’t know what the facts were, DON’T MAKE SHIT UP. Just say ‘we’re not sure what is going on and until we are sure we aren’t going to speculate’. Seems simple to me.

No, instead the State Department had ‘severe concerns’ that they were being made to look incompetent so they asked for any reference to the targeted attack to be removed.

CBS essentially said that the talking points the Republicans used about the talking points were based on substantial revisions of what was originally written in the e-mails.

Unlike you, I’ve actually looked through the emails that were released. When you want to talk about them and not about what the news media says about them, let me know.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 17, 2013 12:16 AM
Comment #366064

“We cannot simply assume that people know what’s right from the start. We have to be skeptical, and examine the evidence, especially since it can lead us in directions that our we didn’t have the imagination to include in our preconceived notions.”

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 16, 2013 9:11 PM

Stephen, you have to be one of the most ignorant people I have ever seen.

Which one of the Obama stories do you want to examine. His stories change by the hour. Preconceived notions; you mean the one in which Obama is telling the truth and everyone else is a liar; or the one where everyone just wants to ruin his dictatorship? You have no desire to examine any evidence; grow up, you sound like some spoiled kid. And quit acting like you are an expert on everything. You don’t know squat about the military or weapons.

Posted by: DSP2195 at May 17, 2013 12:33 AM
Comment #366068

“And we had a tactical unit there pointing out where the mortors were being shot from and could have directed air cover to take them out. But they were told to stand down.”

What is your reference for the allegation that the CIA and contractors that were engaged in the firefight at Benghazi were told to “stand down.” Who is alleged to have ordered them to “stand down?” Perhaps you mean that they were denied air support. If so, what is your reference for that?

As far as I can tell from the Issa hearings, the only allegation of a “stand down” order was related to a second team of four special ops troops that were to accompany a Libyan C-130 tasked with evacuating personnel from Benghazi but were told to stay in Tripoli and perform that task there.


Posted by: Rich at May 17, 2013 7:40 AM
Comment #366075

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2223747/CIA-agents-Benghazi-twice-asked-permission-help-Ambassador-Chris-Stevens-bullets-flying-twice-told-stand-down.html

ex-Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, who was part of a small team at the CIA annex about a mile from the consulate, asked his superiors if he could go and assist the embattled diplomatic compound. However, they were told to ‘stand down’ and according to sources who spoke to the news channel were told to ‘stand down’ again after asking for a second time to help Ambassador Stevens and his staff.

Ignoring these orders, Woods and two others heroically made their way to the consulate which by now was ablaze and began firing on the attackers.

The quick reaction force which Woods was part of helped an evacuation of the main building and recovered the body of State Department staff member Sean Smith who had died in the initial attack.

However, the team from the CIA annex could not locate Ambassador Stevens and returned to their own base at around midnight where they came under attack themselves.

Immediately calling for assistance from Sigonella Air base in Italy which is two hours away, it is claimed that two separate special operations teams and air support were told to wait - despite the gun battle raging for four hours.

It is not known who denied the request for help for the CIA operatives on the ground at Benghazi.

Refuting the Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s claim yesterday that there simply wasn’t enough information to responsibly deploy forces to Libya at the time of the attack, sources on the ground claim that communication was open throughout the attack.

Indeed, one member of the CIA team who was on the roof of the annex was in possession of a laser to guide aerial targets including drones and repeatedly requested backup from a Specter gunship to take out an attacker firing mortars.

According to sources familiar with the situation, the operative had visual contact with the Libyan mortar team and in addition was able to pinpoint positions from where the consulate attackers were firing from.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 17, 2013 10:54 AM
Comment #366082

“U.S. officials are using the details to rebut some news reports that said the CIA told its personnel to “stand down” rather than go to the consulate to help repel the attackers. Fox News reported that when CIA officers at the annex called higher-ups to tell them the consulate was under fire, they were twice told to “stand down.” The CIA publicly denied the report, laying out a timeline that showed CIA security officers left their annex and headed to the consulate less than 25 minutes after receiving the first call for help.”

“The intelligence officials told reporters Thursday that when the CIA annex received a call about the assault, about a half dozen members of a CIA security team tried to get heavy weapons and other assistance from the Libyans. But when the Libyans failed to respond, the security team, which routinely carries small arms, went ahead with the rescue attempt. At no point was the team told to wait, the officials said.

Instead, they said the often outmanned and outgunned team members made all the key decisions on the ground, with no second-guessing from senior officials monitoring the situation from afar.”

Posted by: Rich at May 17, 2013 4:12 PM
Comment #366083

“U.S. officials are using the details to rebut some news reports that said the CIA told its personnel to “stand down” rather than go to the consulate to help repel the attackers. Fox News reported that when CIA officers at the annex called higher-ups to tell them the consulate was under fire, they were twice told to “stand down.” The CIA publicly denied the report, laying out a timeline that showed CIA security officers left their annex and headed to the consulate less than 25 minutes after receiving the first call for help.”

“The intelligence officials told reporters Thursday that when the CIA annex received a call about the assault, about a half dozen members of a CIA security team tried to get heavy weapons and other assistance from the Libyans. But when the Libyans failed to respond, the security team, which routinely carries small arms, went ahead with the rescue attempt. At no point was the team told to wait, the officials said.

Instead, they said the often outmanned and outgunned team members made all the key decisions on the ground, with no second-guessing from senior officials monitoring the situation from afar.” http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/11/02/us-libya-embassy-benghazi/1676657/

Posted by: Rich at May 17, 2013 4:14 PM
Comment #366084

Sorry about the double posting.

Posted by: Rich at May 17, 2013 4:15 PM
Comment #366088

One of the difficult issues related to Benghazi is the role of the CIA and the use of the State Department as cover for its operations and operatives.

In the above link that I provided, it notes that the two ex-Seals (Woods and Doherty) who died in the conflict were originally reported as contractors of the State Department. In fact, they were actually part of the CIA operation and that the CIA had initially asked news media to not link them to the CIA as that would endanger operations elsewhere. The combat reinforcements from Tripoli which did arrive in time to participate the defense of the CIA annex were exclusively CIA.

It should also be noted that it was not the Whitehouse that was pushing for the initial anti-Muslim film outrage explanation and downplaying reference to al-Qaeda affiliated groups but rather the CIA. They [CIA] had a good idea but weren’t sure and didn’t want to jeopardize the investigation and response, yada, yada, yada. The Whitehouse has repeatedly said that they were providing the information as advised by the CIA. Were they wrong?

It happened, as we now know, right under the noses of the large CIA station in Benghazi. They apparently had no clue. Yet, the focus of the Issa hearings is on an alleged Whitehouse political coverup and the alleged abandonment of the Americans trapped in the conflict. Very little of the focus has been on the CIA. It’s operations in Benghazi. It’s responsibilities for security. It’s failure to predict the attack or warn of the danger. The role that the State Department was providing in Benghazi as cover for the CIA operations.

Posted by: Rich at May 17, 2013 6:21 PM
Comment #366091
It should also be noted that it was not the Whitehouse that was pushing for the initial anti-Muslim film outrage explanation and downplaying reference to al-Qaeda affiliated groups but rather the CIA. They [CIA] had a good idea but weren’t sure and didn’t want to jeopardize the investigation and response, yada, yada, yada. The Whitehouse has repeatedly said that they were providing the information as advised by the CIA. Were they wrong?

A few issues with this paragraph…

First, just because the CIA was pushing the film doesn’t mean that they didn’t know what was going on, they could have been creating an alternative story for some reason. It is also unclear if in fact the CIA was pushing the film suggestion at all. I think more investigation into that needs to be made.

From the emails that were released the other day by the White House, it is clear that the references in the talking points to the al qaeda linked group that was responsible, which were originally in the talking points, were removed at the request of the State Department. In fact, one email from Patraeus at the end of the exchange (page 95 of 100) shows him saying that he doesn’t see any point in using the talking points anymore as they are now useless, but it was the White House’s call.

There are several inconsistencies that lead people to conclude that something is going on here. Is it due to a deflection from the CIA? Was it do to the State Department wanting to remove all reference to terrorists? Why did the State Department not take Greg Hick’s call for several days? Etc, etc…

Rich, I know you want to say that there is nothing here and we should all just forget it and move on, but that isn’t going to happen until all of the facts come out and these inconsistencies are resolved.

As for using the CIA as the definitive source for what was going on that night, are you really expecting anyone to do that as you are suggesting? The CIA says there was no order to stand down, so there must not have been one, the CIA doesn’t lie, right? Maybe they aren’t lying about that, but when we see so many other deceptions going on, it just isn’t enough.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 17, 2013 7:19 PM
Comment #366093
The chairman of the House Oversight committee has issued a subpoena to compel the co-chairman of the independent review board that investigated last year’s attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, to answer questions about its findings in closed session.

California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa issued the subpoena on Friday to retired veteran diplomat Thomas Pickering to force him to appear at a deposition next Thursday.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/benghazi-probe-co-chair-subpoenaed-house-panel

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 17, 2013 7:32 PM
Comment #366101

Rhinehold,

On the Pickering testimony, both Pickering and Admiral Mullen have said that they want to testify. However, they want to testify before an open session. Issa wants it before a closed session. Pickering and Issa had a blow out about that issue on Meet the Press this past Sunday. What do you think, open or closed?

I don’t disagree with your point that something was amiss with the Benghazi incident. Everybody agrees with that assessment. I just disagree with the allegations that the administration deliberately left four Americans to twist in the wind and failed to use available military resources to protect them and repulse the attack. There just is no evidence of that. Indeed, from the evidence presented thus far, all parties reacted to a bad situation with courage and dispatch. Unless, of course, you completely distrust the Pentagon.

The problem, from my perspective, is that the Ambassador was put or put himself in an untenable position. Why was he in Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11? To plan for the expansion of the consulate is the explanation and on that date due to scheduling requirements.

But, he must have known of the security risks. On the other hand, maybe he didn’t fully appreciate them. After all, he was visiting a site that was primarily a CIA facility. It was not a simple low level consulate post. Did he, to his detriment, trust that the CIA would have adequately warned him if there was an imminent danger or that the CIA would be an adequate supplement to the security at the consulate site? Remember, the CIA contractors (former highly trained Seals)were initially identified as State Department security.

The more I think about this, the more I am flabbergasted by the absence of any serious questioning of the role of the CIA. What were they doing there? Why weren’t they aware of the threat? They didn’t even know about the attack until the consulate called.


Posted by: Rich at May 17, 2013 9:22 PM
Comment #366140

Rich
You are flabbergasted because CIA affairs are normally conducted behind closed doors. The line of questioning in open session would be a waste of the 5 minutes allotted to each member.

Posted by: tom humes at May 18, 2013 11:29 AM
Comment #366158

Tom,

I have no idea whether or not the CIA role in Benghazi would be of interest to Issa. He certainly hasn’t made it his focus thus far. He probably wouldn’t since the released emails are not favorable to Issa’s theories of a Whitehouse coverup.

Pickering and Mullen have said simply that they would be willing to testify to Congress. They would like the public to know their responses. Simple as that.

Posted by: Rich at May 18, 2013 10:04 PM
Comment #366233
He probably wouldn’t since the released emails are not favorable to Issa’s theories of a Whitehouse coverup.

I think we are reading different emails…

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 20, 2013 10:28 AM
Comment #366235

There is no THERE there.

Posted by: Joe Coughlin at May 20, 2013 10:42 AM
Comment #366247

KAP-
How much smaller does one get than a Hellfire? Enlighten me. I’ve heard of the notion of outfitting the drones with guns, but not on an operational basis. Most of the drone kills I’ve heard about were achieved with those missiles, and they seem to cause significant collateral casualties.

The test for your argument becomes twofold: first, are smaller missiles or guns loaded at all onto drones in action, and were any such drones available in Libya?

Then we get into the issues of what the drone operator can actually see. Even if you have smaller missiles/rockets, what kind of video feed is the drone’s operator seeing, and can you tell the difference between embassy personnel, the good guys, and the bad guys?

I’d say my basic point is, there’s little substitute in certain situations for a person who can see things on the ground, and recognize the friendlies.

Ah, but if you wanted to transport them, what would you put them on? What kind of time would it take to fuel it up, prepare it for take-off? Even if it could leave that instant, it would be late, if it were a c-130 gunship or one of our faster helicopters. And, whether or not it could get there on time, what sort of welcome would it receive in the skies?

Good military planners and leaders have to take this into account.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 20, 2013 4:58 PM
Comment #366251

Stephen, A simple google search will tell you there are other weapons that can be fitted to the drones. You have to be a real dumbass to think that Hell Fire is the only thing a drone will carry.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 20, 2013 5:25 PM
Comment #366288

Stephen, the 3 types of munitions the Drone can carry Hell fire, Stinger [air to air] and the Griffin which is a low collateral damage missle or bomb. They are working on a Drone that will be able to carry more of a payload that will employ a retractable gun.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 21, 2013 1:19 PM
Comment #366340

Rich KAPitan-
Well, we can leave out the drone they’re working on, and stick to what you’ve set out: Hellfire missiles are known for their collateral casualties, so they’re out.

So, what’s the difference between that Griffin and a Hellfire missile? about seven pounds worth of explosives, and I’ll bet you it’s not keyed so much to punching through armor. But still, 13 pounds of high explosive is not a huge difference from 20 pounds, if it blows up right next to you.

Let me hash this out for you. I’m willing to bet that in the years before 9/11, the primary notion of what drones were supposed to do revolved around dealing with conventional military forces. Now, if you take out a tank with a hellfire missile in a conventional warzone, it’s more likely to have a bunch of soldiers around it than a bunch of civilians. So, when applied to assassinating an al-Qaeda leader in the midst of a gathering of people, or on a city street, or something else like that, innocent people are going to get killed.

Using it in a rescue mission might be a nice idea, if the enemy decides to all crowd together and remain without hostages or anything like that. The Griffin only somewhat lessens the threat of killing your hostage. To put that in perspective, an M67 fragmentation grenade has about six and a half ounces of explosive in it, and that sucker’s deadly to anything within fifteen feet of it when it goes off.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 22, 2013 2:19 PM
Comment #366341

Stephen, the point is that you claimed that Hellfire was the only munition that drones carried. Yes innocent people get killed in a war zone that is the hazzards of war. That is why the Griffin was developed to minimize the collateral damage being it is more of a precision munition than Hellfire. We can go on and on about the use of certain types of munitions but the fact remains that Obama is the one who has been authorizing the use of Drones to take out certain targets.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 22, 2013 2:47 PM
Comment #366348

Rich KAPitan-
My point was that hellfire missiles were what the Predator Drones tended to carry. Stingers are Air to Air, so that’s out, so the last thing you mention is the Griffin.

Okay, fine, but I went to Wikipedia and looked up the specifications on that weapon, and while it’s warhead only has 13 pounds of explosives, that’s still a significant fraction of the 20 pounds carried by the Hellfire. Arguably a difference, if it were deployed there, but enough to make it safe for a potential hostage situation, or to go after terrorists/militia men who are on the embassy’s doorstep?

That’s my key point. Current models of the Predator drone are relatively more surgical than the cruise missiles we used to lob at terrorists, but they’re not exactly a scalpel themselves, and if you have assets on the ground you don’t want to harm, and if you’re trying not to kill a bunch of citizens of your newly allied country in the process, it might not be the attractive option that the movies make it look like.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 22, 2013 5:06 PM
Comment #366349

Also Stephen more weapons are being developed that are less lethal than even the Griffin so that if situations like Benghazi arise or the need to take out certain elements that are a threat to the U.S. and it’s allies can be done with even less collateral damage.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 22, 2013 5:09 PM
Comment #366350

Stephen, Who’s talking about movies? How many Drone kills has the Obama administration been guilty of? How many innocent citizens have been killed by the Obama administration’s use of Drones? Now you are worried if some innocents are killed if he used them in Benghazi. The point is collateral damage is inevitable. How much damage occurs is why Drones are being fitted with less lethal weapons than the Hellfire and even the Griffin.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 22, 2013 5:19 PM
Comment #366368

Rich KAPitan-
You’re still talking about a moving platform hundreds of feet up going at significant speed, observing its targets through a video camera. You’re talking in vague terms about collateral damage being inevitable.

No, it’s not. It’s a choice.

You choose to attack a target, with a weapon you know will endanger such and such a number of people. Now, the moral equation isn’t always simple, and sometimes, it’s a necessary evil.

But in the case of Benghazi, one overriding constraint was this: you don’t want to end up killing your own ambassador, right? Or his staff, or his security guards. We wouldn’t send men, drones, or jets hundreds of miles just to take out our own people. We also had a security situation in Tripoli, so you had a choice between being effective where you were, or being ineffective in two different places at once

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 23, 2013 12:29 AM
Comment #366426

Stephen, It isn’t hard to detect a crowd of attackers. I’m sure those drone pilots can tell the difference from people and a building so lets stop with the BS. Of course you always try to minimize the collateral damage but shit happens. Stephen, do you think for one minute those 3 men that were fighting gave a crap who they shot at while under attack, they aimed at a charging bunch of people and fired. Same goes for the drone those cameras on them have more gadgets than you can shake a stick at so those pilots probably have a better view of what’s going on than those on the ground and can better pick a target, and I’m sure those pilots know the difference between a charging gang of people and a building.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 23, 2013 10:08 AM
Comment #366460

Rich KAPitan-
And if that group of people you’re aiming at has hostages mixed among them? Can you distinguish between the people who are trying to kill State Dept. Employees, and those trying to help them?

As for having a better view than those on the ground? Yes and no. If we’re talking infra-red at night, they have a better view of the people out there, can see further, but if you’ve ever seen somebody on one of those cameras, they show up as a white blur. They tried to ID Bin Laden based on one of those camera shots, and they couldn’t.

Maybe you can ignore optics, or ignore the limitations of resolution on video cameras. Maybe you can imagine that the people responsible would deliberately wear different clothes than the other civilians so they would stand out for your missile shot, or that the Civilians, who may be helping out in the defense, would kindly leave their weapons at home.

Truth of the matter is, and the Iraq war should have taught you this, sometimes there’s no good substitute for boots on the ground, for a human being who can think, who can discern, who can figure out a situation, and who, most importantly, can shoot a hostage taker without shooting the hostage.

Unfortunately, we couldn’t possibly get those people there in time, owing to the fact that any air transport would be too slow to cover the 400 mile distance. If we had killed the good guys among the Libyans, or had State Department employees as collateral casualties, I wonder if Obama would have escaped a scandal there.

I don’t think so. You’ve been looking to find fault from the start.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 23, 2013 1:49 PM
Comment #366462

As I said Stephen quit with the BS. There were no hostages. As far as Optics they could pick a flee on a dogs back. So get real Stephen Obama screwed up, was asleep at the wheel, and you would defend his actions if he committed murder. Like I asked how many of the drone flights that he authorized killed innocents? Now you are worried about collateral damage. Spare the BULLS**T Stephen.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 23, 2013 2:58 PM
Comment #366489

Rich KAPitan-
I know about optics. I’ve dealt with video cameras. What your field of view? Get too zoomed in, and you lose awareness of the situation outside that boxed. Too zoomed out, though, and you loses sight of the clues that will tell you what’s going on. And if you’re dealing with infrared vision, then I’m sorry, but the visual contrasts we expect will not show up.

You can capitalize whatever you want to in your argument, but the fact is, I don’t buy into the myth that a predator drone, much less a jet fighter, is a magical solution to what is essentially a guerilla infantry attack in an urban setting. The question of who we’re firing on is not an idle question, no matter how much you play your well overused “Stephen is an Obama Apologist” card.

It’s an essential question for the mission, because the mission is protecting the people in question. Fail to do that, and you might as well not sent anybody.

You, in your zeal to bash Obama simply will not admit that given the initial conditions, we probably couldn’t have saved Ambassador Stevens, that a drone attack wouldn’t have been the magic bullet you wanted to, and in fact could have killed staff. You’re savvy enough to attempt an armor piercing question with the accusation, true enough, that Obama drone attacks have killed civilians, but too partisan to realize that this would be a failure of any rescue mission if it were embassy staff, and a set back for relations with the Libyans on our side if they were killed while trying to help, which in fact they were.

It’s always easy to pretend that situations have clarity after the fact, when you’re going after your political enemies. My attitude is, if you’re going to critique that kind of policy, then you have to make a fact-based case.

I think I’ve made enough of a fact-based case to make it plain that there was no getting the kinds of soldiers who could really help them over to Benghazi at that locations on time. I believe I’ve made it clear that if you send a drone in there to strike at enemies, there’s a good chance you could inflict unacceptable collateral casualties on either Americans or friendly Libyans.

I am not going to yield to a bunch of twaddle about how I’m biased for Obama or anything like that. I’m not basing my argument mainly on the fact that you are obviously steeped in Republican propaganda. Why? Because you don’t have to be unbiased to be right. No, I am pointing out technical matters, things like the size of the explosion you might get from shooting one of these at the street, in order to refute the factual argument that drones could have saved the Ambassador and his people. And that, after I demonstrated with simple math that a C-130 or Blackhawk chopper with special forces soldiers couldn’t have reached them in time.

I’m not unbiased, true enough, but you have yet to have proven me wrong, and all you offer instead is just sour anti-liberalism.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 24, 2013 1:13 AM
Comment #366507

Stephen, You are an Obama apologist, that’s fact. The question is where was Obama? Something more could have been done than just sitting back and letting 4 people die. You might buy into that Tripoli would be compromised BS but I don’t. Obama knew and Clinton knew something was brewing but chose to do nothing long before things happened and could have prepared for it. Relations with Lybia???? We have no foreign relations per say. Most of the Islamic countries deem Obama as WEAK, and they are right.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 24, 2013 10:55 AM
Comment #366539

Stephen,
As much as you like to think of yourself as an expert on all things, military tactics is a subject that you are exceptionally weak on.

With the risk of telling another “war story”, let me relate an experience I had in Vietnam. At the time I was a small arms advisor to a Vietnamese Regional Force Unit, assigned to a Mobile Advisory Team (MAT Team) We had scrounged parts and bilt a 50 caliber machine gun and loaned it to the Vietnamese unit we were with. We built up their defenses and taught them tactics and were being transferred to another unit, a popular force unit which is much smaller and much weaker who had been attacked a couple of weeks before. We loaned the 50 cal to the Regional force with the understanding that we would reclaim it when we got the Popular Force team secure enough to use it. We claimed the gun and all seemed well until we went back to our providence headquarters to get supplies and no Americans were there except for the 5 of us. The Regional force who were providing security for the compound locked the gate and refused to let us leave until we gave up the 50 cal. BTW, There was a village next to the compound and several civilians working within the compound. We called our Colonal and advised him of the situation. After having us wait about 5 or 10 minutes, he told us to lock and load, key our mike on our radio and drive slowly out of the compound breaking the gate if we had to. He said he told his counterpart that we were leaving and he was monitoring our radio and if he heard ons shot, he would scramble a fireteam of jet fighters and completely destry the entire area, cillage and all. I have no doubt that he would have carried thru with his threats.
THAT IS THE WAY TO PROTECT YOUR MEN.

Sorry for the long post.

Posted by: tdobson at May 24, 2013 6:51 PM
Comment #366540

Sorry about all the typos in my post above. I get kind of emotional when talking about the war.

Posted by: tdobson at May 24, 2013 6:55 PM
Comment #366560

tdobson-
Well I’m glad your negotiations went so well, because if somebody had shot on you, and your Commander did call in an air strike, you might not be alive here to write this war story.

Walk back through it. Did he tell you to put a gun to the other guy’s head? No. Did he tell you to bust out of there? No. What he did was show that you meant business, and that you were going to carry out your orders, and there’d be consequences for him if he didn’t comply.

He wasn’t simply threatening the airstrike to make you feel warm and fuzzy. He was doing that to put that dumb son of a *****’s back against the wall. Maybe he would have done it, maybe not. But if he did, your people could have been among the casualties, along with Civilians, all over an argument over a single machine gun.

It was less, of course, about the machine gun, and more about asserting some kind of authority. I don’t think he was wrong to do that.

The reports make it obvious that there should have been more security there in Benghazi. But military options, especially of the kind that could save the Ambassador were limited, and our understanding of what was on the ground was limited, too. Your commanding officer had you there, able to tell him in clear detail what was going on. He evidently knew his counterpart, knew who to talk to get things done.

Rich KAPitan, though, has fantasies about sending in drones, like some video game, to surgically pick off terrorists with high explosive rockets. Now I can understand the strategic value of threatening such a thing, if we had armed Predators in the sky, but really, it all comes down to whether you’re shooting at the right targets.

I mean, let me ask the question: who were we supposed to bomb? Who were we supposed to take out with Predator drones. How much information did we have on our targets?

I just don’t have much respect for this emotional melodrama that seems to revolve mostly around the hope that if we launched some kind of attack, it would save the day.

Simple fact is, we need more people on the ground, the consulate was a poorly defended and constructed target to begin with (just basically an office complex).

The problem is, nobody’s talking about beefing up security. They’re perseverating on talking points and fantasizing about military equipment they don’t understand. They’ve got this movie-based understanding about aircraft, their speeds, their fuel needs, time on target, and things like that, and they pretend that with a “stronger” leader, it might not have happened.

Of course, before Benghazi, the complaint was that Obama had rushed in, without giving Congress much input, and had helped Libyan rebels topple Qaddafi by blowing the hell out of his armor and artillery units, his communications, and his other military assets.

Lastly, I think it’s worth noting that our approach to Vietnam, either under LBJ or under Nixon left something to be desired. We were passive aggressive in that war, too overbearing in some cases, but in others, trying to use military forces to send messages, which so far as I know the enemy took the option of ignoring entirely. Military force, in my opinion, shouldn’t be used like Western Union.

My argument to Rich KAPitan essentially boils down to this: military force shouldn’t be employed in disregard of the consequences. Ineffective use of military force can embolden enemies. Collateral damage can have political costs for the mission, especially if it’s our own people we end up killing.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 25, 2013 11:43 AM
Comment #366564

Stephen, The fantasy is yours. Obama has used Drones in populated areas to take out people like Alwalki. It’s OK to do that isn’t it Stephen but to protect and defend our own you take objection to it. So Stephen IMO you can go stick your head and comments up Obama A** and be the good little democrat apologist that you are.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 25, 2013 2:44 PM
Comment #366575

“Well I’m glad your negotiations went so well, because if somebody had shot on you, and your Commander did call in an air strike, you might not be alive here to write this war story.”
I am too, Stephen, however the point I am making and you don’t understand is that a good leader sometimes has to gamble with people’s lives.

“Walk back through it. Did he tell you to put a gun to the other guy’s head? No.”

Trust me Stephen, When an American soldier locks and loads, he absolutely has a gun to someone’s head.

” Did he tell you to bust out of there? No. What he did was show that you meant business, and that you were going to carry out your orders, and there’d be consequences for him if he didn’t comply.”

He wasn’t simply threatening the airstrike to make you feel warm and fuzzy. He was doing that to put that dumb son of a *****’s back against the wall. Maybe he would have done it, maybe not. But if he did, your people could have been among the casualties, along with Civilians, all over an argument over a single machine gun.”

He absolutely would have done it and it would have been the right decision, and yes with the overwhelming odds against us, we most probably would have been killed.

“It was less, of course, about the machine gun, and more about asserting some kind of authority. I don’t think he was wrong to do that.”

It was about keeping respect. If we had given up that gun, no other Vietnamese unit would trust us to advise them. Much like the Libians won’t trust us now that they see how easily we gave up our own.

“The reports make it obvious that there should have been more security there in Benghazi.”

Was there not calls for more security before the attack and the calls were dismissed?

“But military options, especially of the kind that could save the Ambassador were limited, and our understanding of what was on the ground was limited, too. Your commanding officer had you there, able to tell him in clear detail what was going on. He evidently knew his counterpart, knew who to talk to get things done.”

And I heard that one of the ex seals was on the roof and had a lazer on the morter position. A Navy Seal has the training and know how to direct fire from a drone or other aircraft. I believe the personnel there could have provided enough information to help with a rescue mission. As in my case, it might not have succeded, but it would have been better than nothing.

“Rich KAPitan, though, has fantasies about sending in drones, like some video game, to surgically pick off terrorists with high explosive rockets.”

It’s not fantasies and it’s not a video game. You seem to be the one who always compares life to a video game or a movie.

“Now I can understand the strategic value of threatening such a thing, if we had armed Predators in the sky, but really, it all comes down to whether you’re shooting at the right targets.”

And sometimes you have to make the best decision based on the knowledge that you have. I personally think it is worth the gamble.

“I mean, let me ask the question: who were we supposed to bomb?”

The bad guys that our spotter directed us to bomb.

“Who were we supposed to take out with Predator drones. How much information did we have on our targets?”

We had an ex Navy Seal on the ground who could give that information. Was he supposed to sneak up on the morter crew and stick a smoke grenade up their ass?

“I just don’t have much respect for this emotional melodrama that seems to revolve mostly around the hope that if we launched some kind of attack, it would save the day.”

I don’t think you have much respect for the military in general

“Simple fact is, we need more people on the ground, the consulate was a poorly defended and constructed target to begin with (just basically an office complex).”

I agree, and security should have been beefed up before the attack. It seems that it wasn’t beefed up so President Obama could claim that Al Quada was mostly defeated.

“The problem is, nobody’s talking about beefing up security. They’re perseverating on talking points and fantasizing about military equipment they don’t understand.”

This sounds more like you.

“They’ve got this movie-based understanding about aircraft, their speeds, their fuel needs, time on target, and things like that, and they pretend that with a “stronger” leader, it might not have happened.”

And you have your talking points and understand nothing about military capability. With a stronger leader, it probably would not have happened.

“Of course, before Benghazi, the complaint was that Obama had rushed in, without giving Congress much input,”

He did

“and had helped Libyan rebels topple Qaddafi by blowing the hell out of his armor and artillery units, his communications, and his other military assets.”

I don’t think I commented on this.

“Lastly, I think it’s worth noting that our approach to Vietnam, either under LBJ or under Nixon left something to be desired. We were passive aggressive in that war, too overbearing in some cases, but in others, trying to use military forces to send messages, which so far as I know the enemy took the option of ignoring entirely. Military force, in my opinion, shouldn’t be used like Western Union.”

That’s another thread. We’e talking about Benghazi now.

“My argument to Rich KAPitan essentially boils down to this: military force shouldn’t be employed in disregard of the consequences. Ineffective use of military force can embolden enemies. Collateral damage can have political costs for the mission, especially if it’s our own people we end up killing.”

And my argument to you is that you wouldn’t recognize if the use of militare force would have beed effective or not.

Posted by: tdobson at May 25, 2013 7:18 PM
Comment #366591

Rich KAPitan-
The mission in those cases was to kill the terrorists, and just to kill the terrorists. But if we were also protecting somebody, then shooting that missile near where the friendlies were would be a bad idea, no?

Even in those cases, the Obama Administration is revising its policy, in no small part because there’s been an international relations cost to all the collateral casualties.

You only see people to be killed. You don’t see that if you kill the wrong people, it can compromise the success of a mission. Especially if the point of it is to save the people you just killed. Has it occurred to you that we’re not Gods, that we can’t save everyone and everything?

tdobson-
A rescue mission isn’t exactly a resounding success if you end up killing some of the people you were supposed to protect yourself. We weren’t bargaining with these people such that we could simply bluff them.

Regarding the Libyans? On what basis are you talking about their state of mind?

Regarding drones, there actually weren’t any armed drones in the area.

Regarding jets? The jet aircraft that could do a sortie over that territory were based in Northern Italy, a thousand miles away over not only the Mediterranean, but the Adriatic Sea as well.

Regarding guns to the head? With all due respect, there is a difference between the locking and loading of a weapon, without pointing it at anybody, and pointing that weapon at somebody to display the intent to kill them. Any person teaching gun safety could tell you that.

As for not having any respect for military?

First, answer this question: what is it about the right wing and being a******s about politics these days? Does it ever occur to you that not everything about people is as you imagine?

There’s a picture of me in the third grade wearing a T-Shirt with Airborne on it. I am the grandchild of a man who served in the Signal Corps of the 82nd Airborne. And I grew up admiring him, and the military in general. I’m skeptical about military policy, but that doesn’t mean I can’t live with our country blowing the crap out of our enemies.

My sense, though, is that our enemies win if we get sloppy.

One thing to keep in mind, first and foremost, is that information doesn’t always travel smoothly and uniformly. Another thing to keep in mind is that until very recently, America had no interest in defending anything on Libyan soil.

So, a lot of what we’re talking about are the delays that come from having assets all over the Mediterranean and Southern Europe, trying to respond to an event that was over before many of the transports were able to get there.

If you don’t accept logistical arguments, if you just push with these “points for trying” arguments, then I’m not sure I should respect that point of view.

I find it interesting that you say “I did not comment on this” when I brought up that Obama’s efforts were genuinely successful. If you want my opinion, Obama did right with Libya what Bush did wrong with Iraq. Obama left most of the ground fighting to the Libyan people, letting them own their own territory, instead of coming in and conquering it ourselves. We furthered our aim of stopping Qadaffi by taking away his advantages, by stripping him of the ability to overpower the rebels. We minimized casualties among our own, and weren’t left owning Libya for the next decade or so. And it cost us incredibly little! We also used our alliances in order to shift the burden off America, and to allow ourselves a nice, graceful withdrawal.

You might question what I consider the best use of military force. Well, let me put it in simple terms: if somebody comes after you with a knife, which is better, bruising that knife arm, or breaking it? Too much military policy today revolves around the idea of vague message-sending. My sense is that the clearest message is to disable, or to threaten that destruction as a fighting force with clear backup.

Sending statements with armed forces is, in my opinion, strategically unwise. The point of what the military does is a concrete effect. If it can be easily recovered from, you’re doing it wrong. That’s why attrition tactics failed in Iraq and Vietnam, and why they’d probably fail here if the government went fascist and tried to take over by force.

I dislike indecisive strategies, strategies that depend on protracted attempts to wear down willpower That might work if you’re on defense, but if you’re the expeditionary force, all the factors work against you. You are paying huge sums of money to keep forces in the field, to keep equipment and personnel fresh, while their costs are much lower. Even the high technology part only does you so much good, while raising the cost of maintaining the war.

Even in ancient times, mounting an expeditionary force for foreign fights was a risky, expensive, politically problematic proposition. But to perseverate on it, while obsessing over the apparent reality that if you leave, you’ll lose? Well if you lose because you leave, you didn’t really win, did you? My sense is that you need to leave whoever you need to be coopted, killed, surrendered, or otherwise defeated as an enemy basically defeated.

Of course, waiting to do this, perseverating on “staying the course” for years on end just leaves you weaker and weaker, so when you finally do get realistic about your position, you end up leaving a muddled conclusion.

I thought Republicans would be smarter than that, given what they claimed, but they weren’t. They were more interested in winning some sort of cultural/media war than solving the problem itself.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 26, 2013 1:13 PM
Comment #366593

Stephen, If the mission was to kill terrorist at that time, then the mission would be the same at Benghazi. Collateral damage happens no matter what. The problem is, is that something could have been done prior to and during but NOTHING was done and that young man is the question WHY!!! If there was knowledge prior to the attack that something was brewing in that area, a good indication something was a foul the British and Red Cross evacuated their people, Why in GODS name didn’t Clinton or Obama do something to either evacuate or bolster the security in that area. Granted Stephen you may have book learning knowledge but you can have all that knowledge but experience is a better teacher. In my experience with 2 trips to Viet Nam this administration F**KED UP royally.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 26, 2013 2:21 PM
Comment #366600

tdobson & Rich KAPitan,

The day after the CIA facility in Benghazi was attacked, thousands of Libyans gathered in the streets in solidarity with the USA and against the terrorists. Many chanted pro-US slogans. Do you think this would have happened if we bombed the enemy mortars at the expense of a dozen civilian lives? There is a broader strategic picture to take into account here.

Unfortunately, the wars we fight today are not total wars, but limited wars. If we fought a total war instead of a limited one, we would lose our moral high ground and simply become another imperial power like the those of the past (USSR, Britain, France, etc). Why do we fight these wars? We are not simply defending American lives at home because none of these enemies actually pose a threat to us. We fight these wars because we want to maintain America’s position as a hyperpower with the ability to project influence far and wide, but without the baggage of imperialism.

I admit that I am not qualified to make these sorts of decisions, and your experiences in Vietnam certainly shed some light on the situation, but I believe our top generals & admirals at the DoD are much better qualified than you. Here’s what they have said:

In February, the Joint Chiefs chairman, Gen. Martin Dempsey, was asked by Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-New Hampshire, why F-16s at Aviano Air Base in Italy weren’t deployed to Benghazi that night. “This is the middle of the night now, these are not aircraft on strip alert,” Dempsey said. “They’re there as part of our commitment to NATO and Europe. And so, as we looked at the time line , it was pretty clear that it would take up to 20 hours or so to get them there. Secondly, senator, importantly, it was the wrong tool for the job.”
Then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta testified that “unfortunately, there was no specific intelligence or indications of an imminent attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi. And frankly, without an adequate warning, there was not enough time given the speed of the attack for armed military assets to respond. “That’s not just my view or General Dempsey’s view. It was the view of the Accountability Review Board that studied what happened on that day,” he added. “This is not 9/11,” Panetta said in a February interview on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “You cannot just simply call and expect within two minutes to have a team in place. It takes time. That’s the nature of it. Our people are there, they’re in position to move, but we’ve got to have good intelligence that gives us a heads up that something’s going to happen.”
Panetta, in his February testimony defending officials’ actions, said, “The bottom line is this, that we were not dealing with a prolonged or continuous assault, which could have been brought to an end by a U.S. military response, very simply, although we had forces deployed to the region. Time, distance, the lack of an adequate warning, events that moved very quickly on the ground prevented a more immediate response. “Despite the uncertainty at the time, the Department of Defense and the rest of the United States government spared no effort to do everything we could to try to save American lives. Before, during and after the attack, every request the Department of Defense received we did, we accomplished.”

There is ZERO indication that this is a situation where our top military brass recommended a particular course of action, but were overruled by Obama or someone from Foggy Bottom. Any decision not to deploy any assets was made by the military, and that ultimately means it was the call of Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 26, 2013 6:17 PM
Comment #366602

Warren, I’ll ask you the same question I asked Stephen, How many innocents have been killed by the Obama authorized Drone strikes so far? At least 4 Americans have been killed by Obama’s own admission. Obama and Clinton had ample opportunity to either pull people out of Benghazi or bolster the security people that were there. I get sick and tired of your liberal BULLS**T talking points. Obama and Clinton screwed up and are trying to cover it up, and you who never served a day defending of this country can stick your comments where the sun don’t shine.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 26, 2013 7:30 PM
Comment #366606

Warren, If Panetta was right that no intelligence that indicated an attack Why then did the British and Red cross pull their people out of the area? After small attacks on the facility prior to the 9/11 attack weren’t an indication that something was going to happen. Panetta must have been one dumbass secdef along with Obama’s intelligence gatherers.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 26, 2013 8:01 PM
Comment #366619

Rich Kapitan-
Collateral damage, or as I would like to call it, killing innocent people on accident or on purpose doesn’t just happen. It’s not like people in Pakistan get forecasts where it says the high is going to be 68 degrees with a 30% chance of fragment-laden explosion.

Somebody has to pull the trigger. Somebody has to drop the bomb, or fire the missile.

People like yourself, you always think you know the truth. The answer to you is as simple as “terrorist”, and you wonder why everybody doesn’t just assume this. The fact that there might be some other potential suspects, and that catching the right people or otherwise stopping them might rely on nailing the right people doesn’t enter into your head. You’ve learned nothing from the mistake of Iraq.

My opinion on that particular matter isn’t that people in the Bush Administration necessarily lied, though I would put it past them. Much of the evidence I see looks like the Bush Administration wanted to prove a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, wanted to prove the continued ownership of WMDs. They also wanted to make sure people agreed with them, and went to great lengths to both cut their critics off at the knees, and make information they knew to be thin look more reliable.

Very often, the overwrought need to be seen as right overwhelms the consideration of the factors involved in actually being right. I don’t respect your opinion that much because you don’t seem to be a very disciplined thinker, and you seem to take a lot of what the people you mistrust say at face value, while dismissing the folks, who, as an independent, you might be better off paying heed to, if you want to be a functional independent- that is, somebody who actually CAN make decisions and assessments independent of party, instead of just a nominal one.

The one advantage of book learning is that you can learn from other people’s mistakes. You should read The Best and The Brightest sometime. When I read that, it was scary how much the mistakes of LBJ resembled those of George W. Bush.

You seem to think that just because people can be killed during drone strikes, that they must, that we should expect and be willing to have that outcome in order to make sure a bunch of terrorists die. That’s how your thinking seems to run.

Personally, I think that’s a ham-handed, ignorant way of doing things, whatever your personal experience is. You can ask how many innocents have died in drone strikes, but maybe the Administration has seen how unpopular it makes it in ostensibly friendly countries, and has decided that reducing such casualties, especially in friendly countries, is a good idea.

But if what the military is saying, that the Predator drones were not armed is true, then your fantasy of a surgical drone strike is really screwed.

You don’t seem to register any evidence that would be mutually exclusive of your conclusion. You call them BS liberal talking points, but don’t even bother to ascertain their truth, and given their truth, their implications. You might think you don’t los and argument if you don’t admit things are true, but really, the logic remains as it is.

As for the question concerning what the British and the Red Cross were doing?

According to this article:

1) The Benghazi Mission was trying to keep a low profile, not to have a bunch of Armed Americans. The Administration itself will admit that they erred too much on the side of maintaining a light foot print

2) They were installing new cameras, but they had only just arrived when the attack beat them to the punch.

3)Intelligence tripwires were set up, with a mind to evacuating the Consulate, should certain reports come in. But there was no clear warning flag sent up for them.

I just have to comment on your tone. Why is it that you expect people to take criticism well, when you employ this nasty tone, especially when you are disagreed with? You don’t acknowledge facts, you don’t give in on the falsity of talking points, even though, ostensibly, you have no stake in defending them. You left that party, after all, if you were ever in it.

My sense, really, is that you want this to be true. You want Obama to be as callous and cowardly as you believe him to be. Your stake isn’t in a political party, it’s in a picture of your rivals, your adversaries in American political life.

The trouble is, and you will find this out as the years wear on, is that the conservative political movement has become increasingly reliant on those who age and years of political pressure have set in their ways. You think I’m bad, but I speak as a Democrat whose party helped balance the budget, whose military adventures were largely more successful, and whose policies have improved the economy, and reduced the deficit substantially in this time.

You speak as a Republican-leaning independent that could get the right war or the wrong war done right, whose economic policies culminated in disaster, and whose fiscal policies completely and utterly undid everything that had worked during the 90’s.

Being critical, finding fault is necessary for the Right these days, because otherwise, the weight of their failures tips the balance against them. The Obama administration has to be incredibly wrong all the time, or the Bush Administration ends up drawing unwelcome attention to what happened the last time we did things the Republican’s way.

So, we must lose, so that you can say, see, we’re not the only incompetent bastards in town. Only problem is, things have gone better in reality than your assertions would have us believe. Obama isn’t wrecking the economy. Obamacare hasn’t done much of the mischief Republicans promised it would. The economy, while not growing fast enough, is only growing slowly as it is because some morons thought now would be a good time to reduce the deficit. Obama hasn’t had a major military fiasco. His risks have been measured.

Meanwhile, he’s done a lot of what he’d say he’d do.

The simple truth is, Obama has had a much more successful, much less scandal plagued administration. He’s had his problems, but much of them come from having to deal with a rival party that’s simply not content to take the hint that Americans want change from their policies.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 27, 2013 10:30 AM
Comment #366625

Stephen, People like you who are ignorant of the Military and war except what you read from the MSM always try to tell people who have experience in such matters on what to do. You are like the Sunday afternoon quarterbacks during football season. You still haven’t explained why Obama used Drones killing innocents and 4 Americans yet he couldn’t help 4 Americans who where getting killed in Benghazi. Seems to me you just don’t want to say your god Obama picks and chooses who he wants to target. Or you know he screwed up and you don’t want to admit it. Which is it Stephen?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 27, 2013 11:50 AM
Comment #366626

And why do you bring up Bush all the time, Stephen? It’s the Obama administration now and has been for over 4 years. Time to take responsibility for YOUR PEOPLE’S screw ups now.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 27, 2013 11:54 AM
Comment #366633

Rich KAPitan, you didn’t answer my question:

The day after the CIA facility in Benghazi was attacked, thousands of Libyans gathered in the streets in solidarity with the USA and against the terrorists. Many chanted pro-US slogans. Do you think this would have happened if we bombed the enemy mortars at the expense of a dozen civilian lives?

How many innocents have been killed by the Obama authorized Drone strikes so far? At least 4 Americans have been killed by Obama’s own admission.
Dozens have been killed, maybe hundreds even. But each of those strikes were premeditated; each was carefully planned before being enacted. There is no comparison with the situation in Benghazi where we were reacting to a surprise attack where the fog of war hindered our ability to ascertain what was going on. At the time, intelligence suggested that the attack might have simply been a devolution of what began as a demonstration against the YouTube video. The revelation that the attackers were probably affiliated with Islamists came much later.

Lastly, there is the separate issue that there is zero evidence that we even had any armed drones deployed in the area. The drone mentioned in the testimony was a small unarmed surveillance drone and not one with offensive capabilities.

If Panetta was right that no intelligence that indicated an attack Why then did the British and Red cross pull their people out of the area? After small attacks on the facility prior to the 9/11 attack weren’t an indication that something was going to happen. Panetta must have been one dumbass secdef along with Obama’s intelligence gatherers.
I don’t think this is what Panetta said. However, I think the reason we didn’t pull out of Benghazi was because our presence there was not for diplomatic/humanitarian purposes like the UK or IRC. Our “consulate” was cover for a covert CIA operation that neither you nor I know anything about. Posted by: Warren Porter at May 27, 2013 2:28 PM
Comment #366634

Warren, We have Military stationed all over Europe, especially Italy and Sicily so the BS that help couldn’t arrived in time is PURE BULLS**T. Also we had a trained Seal on site that had a Laser pointer that pinpoint targets for air support. I don’t give a rats ass if that was a covert facility for the CIA or not something was going on there that should have been addressed, protection of our overseas facilities is priority one especially where this one was and considering the fact that attacks have happened prior to 9/11. You and Stephen just don’t want to admit that Obama and Hillary screwed up on this one. Obama’s incompetence showed big time and Hillary, I don’t know what her problem was unless she was following her boss’ orders and is covering for him.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 27, 2013 3:00 PM
Comment #366649

Rich KAPitan,

Did you not read what I quoted earlier?

In February, the Joint Chiefs chairman, Gen. Martin Dempsey, was asked by Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-New Hampshire, why F-16s at Aviano Air Base in Italy weren’t deployed to Benghazi that night. “This is the middle of the night now, these are not aircraft on strip alert,” Dempsey said. “They’re there as part of our commitment to NATO and Europe. And so, as we looked at the time line , it was pretty clear that it would take up to 20 hours or so to get them there. Secondly, senator, importantly, it was the wrong tool for the job.”

Our assets in Italy simply could not be used. General Dempsey is many times more qualified than you to make these sorts of decisions.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 27, 2013 10:01 PM
Comment #366651

Warren, There is a base called NAS Sigonella. Aviano is NOT the only base in Italy. By the way Dempsey is a fool stating that it’s the middle of the night. I guess he doesn’t know that our military runs 24/7/365. I guess he doesn’t know that there is always and I mean always planes ready to go at a moments notice. Dempsey is an idiot and if you believe him your an idiot to. He is following orders of his so called CinC. Planes could have been over Benghazi in hours and NOT 20. They could have been scrambled from Sigonella, Sicily which is a little over 400 miles from Benghazi. Dempsey is IMO part of the cover up, It was the middle of the night and I didn’t want to wake our poor boys up to go save our Ambassador and those 3 other guys. Boo Hoo Boo Hoo!! BUILLS**T!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 27, 2013 10:41 PM
Comment #366652

By the way Warren, for your info there are over 100 military bases in Italy and a good part are in Sicily.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 27, 2013 10:47 PM
Comment #366656
Dempsey is a fool

Dempsey is a career soldier and many times more qualified on these matters than either you or me, so I suggest that you quit being an armchair general and let the professionals do their job.

http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/05/02/benghazi_ii_a_military_analysis_of_the_fox_mystery_mans_fantasy_rescue_plan

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 27, 2013 11:56 PM
Comment #366659

Warren, I have enough military experience to say Dempsey is not only wrong but only following orders from his boss which happens to be Obama. You on the other hand are less qualified than either Dempsey or me. That is why I question Dempsey, any career military man unless ORDERED by his superior to stand down, would make every attempt to rescue or counter attack those who would attack sovereign U.S. soil which Benghazi was. We went through the same crap during Viet Nam, Foreign policy over American lives. I can say with all confidence and experience more could have been done and I don’t give a crap what Dempsey says, he is covering up for his boss’ incompetence, and you know who that is.

Posted by: Eich KAPitan at May 28, 2013 12:24 AM
Comment #366668

So a retired guy from Cleveland is more qualified than Dempsey at commanding our armed forces? I doubt it.

Obama gave the military the order to do everything possible to rescue those in Benghazi. A rescue team was assembled, but they didn’t reach Sigonella until after the firefight in Benghazi was over. Panetta, Dempsey and other military officials have repeatedly said that it would be extremely foolish to scramble planes from Aviano or Sigonella and I trust their words.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 28, 2013 12:28 PM
Comment #366670

Warren, So much BULLS**T has come from this administration about Benghazi, I don’t trust anyone associated with Obama and anyone of his subordinates, and that includes Dempsey. You keep talking rescue teams, I’m not. I’m saying that if there was any Fighter Jet, Helicopter, Drone, from Rota, Spain, Sigonella, or LPH in the area that could have been used, they should have done that. Rescue teams later. I know for fact something was close by that could have been used, Foreign Policy be DAMNED. Our people are more important!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 28, 2013 1:16 PM
Comment #366673
Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
~Sun Tzu

Your prescription is for hasty reaction instead of cautious contemplation and planning. Obama and his deputies are not rash, they think about the consequences before they act.

Even if Jet Fighters from Europe could have travelled to Benghazi fast enough to help, what would they do? Drop a 1,000 lb bomb and cause dozens of civilian casualties? That probably wouldn’t save any American lives, but it would convert thousands of Libyans from pro-USA to anti-USA stances. The next day wouldn’t have featured pro-US rallies and demonstrations if Rich KAPitan called the shots that day.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 28, 2013 4:38 PM
Comment #366674

Warren, One of the X Seals had a laser pointed at the mortar position. Warren you are as ignorant as Stephen is on what munitions could have been used to stop the attack. Obama can use Drones to target people and cause innocents to die but that’s OK to you. But to send help to protect our own that couldn’t be done. Piss poor excuses that’s all I have to say.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 28, 2013 4:54 PM
Comment #368755

Dan Ford’s iconic your old watches ‘T’ relating to his sunglasses is mostly a subtle symbol that discussions class and additionally 激安オークリー elegance. Some of the エアジョーダン11 models equally feature all the trademark ‘cross bridge’ and anyone who knows anything on the fashion country will be aware of the stamping on Dan Ford frame!

For 2010, the Dan Ford spring/summer arranged brings you will those favorite favourites much like the Jennifer, Whitney, Lilliana and additionally Miranda. You’ll find new creations too NIKE AIR FOAMPOSITE PRO who are inventive エアジョーダンCP3 and additionally fresh, much like the Peter, Claude and additionally Martine. Even all the classic Genius design is actually given a fabulous makeover to convey these ‘wraparounds’ a fabulous subtle retro physical appearance.

Posted by: NIKE AIR FOAMPOSITE PRO at July 23, 2013 11:10 PM
Comment #378735

Great blog and I love what you have to say and I think I will tweet this out to my friends so they can check it out as well. I like what you have to say Pollen and Bleu | Pollen & Bleu | Rivertrees Residences | Rivertrees | coco palms pasir ris | coco palms | coco palms condo | the rise @ oxley | the rise @ oxley residences | rise @ oxley | handbags | handbags Singapore | ladies bags excellent article.

Posted by: the rise @ oxley residences at May 25, 2014 12:14 AM
Post a comment