Media ignores Hillary lies on Benghazi [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

mostpost

04-25-2013, 06:11 PM

This accusation has been around more than 24 hours. SA from CBS is being ignored

Last I heard lying to Congress was a crime
Let's start with the fact that Sharyl Attkisson is not doing any investigative reporting of her own here. She is merely passing along excerpts from the Congressional Report. Then let's remember that it really isn't the Congressional Report. It's an interim report published by the Republicans on the various committees looking into the matter. Published without any input from the Democrats.

Most importantly, let's consider the fact that one of the members of the State Department's Accountability Review Board characterized the "Congressional Report as "Bullshit, total bullshit."
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/04/25/benghazi-review-panel-member-fox-promoted-gop-c/193773
Every single cable going out is signed 'Clinton,' it is the normal procedure," Shinnick said. "Millions of cables come into the operation center every year, not thousands, millions. And they are all addressed Hillary Clinton."

"So you can make a story that Hillary saw a cable and didn't act on it or sent a cable out; it's all bullshit, it's all total bullshit," Shinnick stressed. "I can't be any clearer than that. I read those stories and fortunately or unfortunately the people on the ARB understood that.

http://news.yahoo.com/democrat-calls-boehner-retract-libya-report-184144755.html
Democrat Elijah Cummings of Maryland called on John Boehner to retract the report in as much as it contains misleading and untrue statements.

According to Cummings:
his staff reviewed the cable, and it does not bear Clinton's signature. The cable includes only her typed name at the bottom of the page next to the word "signature," just as thousands of other cables sent each year from the State Department do.

Cummings went on to say that even a rudimentary check of State Department protocols would have cleared up the matter, but Republicans neglected to do even that.

A signature is when a person takes a pen and signs their name on a document. Or it is when an authorized robot signs that name using a template provided by the person. Typing someone's name is not a signature.

The thing is I am sure the Republicans know that, yet they chose to portray it in the way they did because they hoped that no one else did. Sadly, it is obvious that some of you are not that bright.

mostpost

04-25-2013, 06:16 PM

I just googled this story and came up with a source about as reliable as FOX News. Story is two hours old.
_______________________________________

Benghazi Review Panel Member: Fox-Promoted GOP Claims Against Clinton Are "Total Bullshit"

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/04/25/benghazi-review-panel-member-fox-promoted-gop-c/193773
Your source is actually much more reliable than FOX News, because there are two sources confirming the fact that all cables sent by the State Department have the name Hillary Clinton typed on them; Mr. Shinnick from the ARB and Congressmen Cummings' office. In addition to that it can be confirmed by anyone who cares to inquire of the State Department itself or look at any cables that have been sent out.

Capper Al

04-25-2013, 07:34 PM

Thanks Mostpost for the research.

PaceAdvantage

04-25-2013, 08:42 PM

Thanks Mostpost for the research. :lol:

Tom

04-25-2013, 09:23 PM

:lol:
:lol: :lol:

delayjf

04-25-2013, 10:53 PM

OK - so they use auto pen, that doesn't prove she wasn't aware of the security requests.

mostpost

04-26-2013, 12:33 AM

OK - so they use auto pen, that doesn't prove she wasn't aware of the security requests.
This was not even auto pen. It was her name TYPED on the cable as it is typed on every cable-millions of them per year.

Yes, we can't prove that she was unaware of the security requests and neither can you prove she was aware of them. Use your common sense. The job of the Secretary of State is to represent the United States in negotiations with foreign governments. She is not the director of Human Resources. We have embassies in hundreds of countries and in each of those countries we have delegations, consulates, legations, missions and all manner of diplomatic thingys-to use a technical term.

That is why there is a State Department official-in this case, Charlene Lamb-who makes those decisions. If you were to argue that ms Lamb made a poor decision, I would be hard pressed to dispute that. But the evidence is thin to non-existent that Clinton made those decisions or was even aware of them.

HUSKER55

04-26-2013, 05:18 AM

SO HILLARY IS ONLY RESPONSIBLE WHEN THINGS GO HER WAY?

fast4522

04-26-2013, 06:22 AM

What we can expect from this lame duck administration:

A.) With over three full years to go in his second term, several more failures will give the people their fill.

B.) We will feel the impact of those 20 ++ trillions of debt.

C.) When Hillary finally does the mirror mirror on the wall routine the mirror will be honest.

Capper Al

04-26-2013, 06:59 AM

:lol: :lol:

Sang to the tune of The Sound of Music:

The forum is alive with the sounds of cronies. :lol: :lol:

Tom

04-26-2013, 08:12 AM

I was thinking more along the lines of the Fool on the Hill.

PaceAdvantage

04-26-2013, 10:43 AM

Sang to the tune of The Sound of Music:

The forum is alive with the sounds of cronies. :lol: :lol:You have cronies as well, don't you? I mean, it's not like others don't share your point of view (or some version of it) around here...should I point out your cronies whenever they post and agree with you?

Wouldn't that be such fun? :rolleyes:

JustRalph

04-26-2013, 10:45 AM

DJofSD

04-26-2013, 10:57 AM

I just can't see Hillary as an effective CIC.

Capper Al

04-26-2013, 01:17 PM

You have cronies as well, don't you? I mean, it's not like others don't share your point of view (or some version of it) around here...should I point out your cronies whenever they post and agree with you?

Wouldn't that be such fun? :rolleyes:

The guys who agree with me give reasons and facts. A lot of your guys just give digs. That's the difference. None of our team attacks anyone's character except me when I finally get fed up with the digs your guys are handing out. Just read the posts. It's all there. Funny that you notice mine and not theirs.

Tom

04-26-2013, 03:51 PM

You ignore important facts - there were multiple incidents leading up to the 9/11 attack to suggest increased security was needed.

Increased security was indeed requested.

The requests were denied.

There was an attack, a terror attack, and we did NOTHING in response, except blame a "video."

Our people were MURDERED.

Four days afterwards, CNN strolled into the crime scene and picked up a diary containing sensitive information - 4 days and the scene was not secured.

The only "fact" your side has offered is that FOX is out to strip up trouble.
Our side is looking for answers - we need to know this complete breakdown is being investigated and will not be allowed to happen again. YOUR side is totally opposed to any investigated - your side is content to shrug of the deaths of Americans - our side is not.

That's the facts, Jack.
No Scotter Libby's here.

Greyfox

04-26-2013, 04:20 PM

A lot of your guys just give digs. .

If C. Northcote Parkinson had lived during the age of internet posting he would have told you:

"The number of digs a poster receives is inversely proportional to the wisdom of the post."

DJofSD

04-26-2013, 04:23 PM

If C. Northcote Parkinson had lived during the age of internet posting he would have told you:

"The number of digs a poster receives is inversely proportional to the wisdom of the post."

See: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/c/c_northcote_parkinson.html

riskman

04-26-2013, 04:49 PM

It is disturbing how so few Americans are paying attention to the Benghazi situation. When they do pay attention, they do not know whether they should believe what they are reading and watching because their belief is that the government is a "good" authority. This belief is part of a belief and value system that has been indoctrinated in them for years.
It takes years to clean out such a system,and most people don't do this.The Obama administration doesn't want anyone second-guessing its policies, and that includes Congress. Congress is just a bunch of slow witted dim wits in the making and control over policy anyway.They do not represent us, they are only concerned with the next election and what interests will bankroll them for another two years. Pathetic.

NJ Stinks

04-26-2013, 06:05 PM

If her names on it........she damn well better know about it.

This crap wouldn't fly in the military, yet when it comes to the Barack admin a everybody is untouchable

The campaign commercials for 2016 are already floating around in people's heads. Especially the one where the phone is ringing at 3 a.m. And Barack is partying in Vegas and Hill is sleeping next to Weiners wife with a face mask on

Letters were sent out all the time in the IRS with either a District Director's name on it or some other hotshot's name on it. No way the hotshot knew anything about the examination either starting or finishing. Standard operating procedure. No crap anywhere.

This whole thing is now about 2016 IMO. We'll see how it all works out for Republicans in a few years.

mostpost

04-26-2013, 06:30 PM

You ignore important facts - there were multiple incidents leading up to the 9/11 attack to suggest increased security was needed.
There were multiple incidents around Benghazi but most of them were not near or related to the US Mission.

Increased security was indeed requested.
One thing you got right. Congratulations

The requests were denied.
They were denied, but at the time of the attack the security contingent at Benghazi was exactly what security officials had requested. They had requested that five agents be assigned to Benghazi. There were three agents there who were assigned permanently and two others who accompanied Amb. Stevens.

Two important points: the Benghazi mission was attacked by 125 to 150 heavily armed men. Five security officers was not sufficient to counter the threat. Ten would not have been sufficient, nor fifteen, nor twenty.
Second, there is no credible evidence that Hillary Clinton was ever in the loop as to determining staffing levels at the mission.

There was an attack, a terror attack, and we did NOTHING in response, except blame a "video."
The initial reports were of a demonstration against the video, with the attack rising out of that, but very early on I heard that the attackers were not a part of that original group. Then later it was determined that the video had nothing to do with it. But that doesn't matter because despite what you claim we acted quickly to try to determine who was behind the attacks. You say we did nothing. What would you have us do? Attack a random town in Libya or wait until we learn who is really responsible.

Our people were MURDERED.

Four days afterwards, CNN strolled into the crime scene and picked up a diary containing sensitive information - 4 days and the scene was not secured.
One hundred and twenty-five to One hundred and fifty heavily armed men stormed the mission site. They killed the ambassador and the PIO. They burned the buildings. The rescue team to heavy fire rescuing the survivor. Local Libyan forces refused or were unable to help. Two more Americans died at the CIA annex before reinforcements arrive. And you are worried about a diary.

The site was not secured because all Americans in Benghazi were evacuated to Tripoli on the night of the attack.

The only "fact" your side has offered is that FOX is out to strip up trouble.
Our side is looking for answers - we need to know this complete breakdown is being investigated and will not be allowed to happen again. YOUR side is totally opposed to any investigated - your side is content to shrug of the deaths of Americans - our side is not.

That's the facts, Jack.
No Scotter Libby's here.
You are not looking for answers. You are looking for something to blame on Barack Obama or to blame on Hillary Clinton. You don't care how feeble the evidence or how disreputable the source, the end justifies any means.

OUR side is not opposed to any investigated-i mean investigation. We are opposed to witch hunts.

There are indeed no Scotter Libby's here. No Scooter Libby's either. There are also no Scooter Libby's in prison where there should be at least one.

Greyfox

04-26-2013, 06:36 PM

This whole thing is now about 2016 IMO. We'll see how it all works out for Republicans in a few years.

Hillary may be a Presidential candidate in 2016.
You are suggesting that GOP is starting early to stain her race.
Yes. There could be motivation there.
But I'm more interested in the truth about Benghazi coming out and justice for the Ambassador and his staff than who or who doesn't run in 2016.
I think that the person sleeping at the switch in the Benghazi tragedy will not be running in 2016.

elysiantraveller

04-26-2013, 06:48 PM

You are not looking for answers. You are looking for something to blame on Barack Obama or to blame on Hillary Clinton. You don't care how feeble the evidence or how disreputable the source, the end justifies any means.

OUR side is not opposed to any investigated-i mean investigation. We are opposed to witch hunts.

There are indeed no Scotter Libby's here. No Scooter Libby's either. There are also no Scooter Libby's in prison where there should be at least one.

Where was our air?

PaceAdvantage

04-26-2013, 06:49 PM

The guys who agree with me give reasons and facts. A lot of your guys just give digs. That's the difference. None of our team attacks anyone's character except me when I finally get fed up with the digs your guys are handing out. Just read the posts. It's all there. Funny that you notice mine and not theirs.No sir...not true.

The real truth is neither side pays attention to the other. Each side merely wants to say their piece and let it go at that...You don't give a rats ass what Tom or Ralph or anyone on the right has to say...I actually believe those on the right here are more tolerant of what the left has to say here than the other way around.

You lefties are so intolerant of the right-leaner...so condescending...that it is totally beneath you to give even a serious thought to what they write here.

That's why it is so frustrating having a discussion with most lefties here. They don't respond to facts...and if they do (like mostpost), it's with such off-the-wall stuff, that it's sometimes hard to believe he writes such things with a straight face.

And then other lefties (we'll call them mostpost's cronies, to use the vernacular of one Capper Al) jump in and pat mostpost on the back and tell him how smart he is.... :lol:

It's actually hilarious in a very sad sort of way...

woodtoo

04-26-2013, 07:19 PM

Letters were sent out all the time in the IRS with either a District Director's name on it or some other hotshot's name on it. No way the hotshot knew anything about the examination either starting or finishing. Standard operating procedure. No crap anywhere.

This whole thing is now about 2016 IMO. We'll see how it all works out for Republicans in a few years.

Please clean up your nest,:blush:I can smell it from here.:faint:

Really.......

NJ Stinks

04-26-2013, 07:28 PM

No sir...not true.

The real truth is neither side pays attention to the other. Each side merely wants to say their piece and let it go at that...You don't give a rats ass what Tom or Ralph or anyone on the right has to say...I actually believe those on the right here are more tolerant of what the left has to say here than the other way around.

You lefties are so intolerant of the right-leaner...so condescending...that it is totally beneath you to give even a serious thought to what they write here.

That's why it is so frustrating having a discussion with most lefties here. They don't respond to facts...and if they do (like mostpost), it's with such off-the-wall stuff, that it's sometimes hard to believe he writes such things with a straight face.

And then other lefties (we'll call them mostpost's cronies, to use the vernacular of one Capper Al) jump in and pat mostpost on the back and tell him how smart he is.... :lol:

It's actually hilarious in a very sad sort of way...

It's hard not be condescending. Something dumb will be posted from some lame conservative website and righties will pile on with thumbs up as if that makes whatever it is valid. This thread is a good example. So I post something that shows what utter BS this gotcha of Hillary is and Mostpost goes further with a concise post addressing the argument against Hillary. After Mostpost's typically great rebuttal, all we get is conservatives here telling us they care more about the good old USA then us lefties do. Except maybe Ralph who swung and missed as far as I'm concerned.

Then you top things off by telling us it's frustrating having a discussion with lefties here.

You've got to be kidding.

Greyfox

04-26-2013, 07:59 PM

After Mostpost's typically great rebuttal, all we get is conservatives here telling us they care more about the good old USA then us lefties do.

Excuse me NJ Stinks, where was that ever said in any of the posts after Mostposts?

NJ Stinks

04-26-2013, 08:23 PM

Excuse me NJ Stinks, where was that ever said in any of the posts after Mostposts?

The whole idea that you (conservatives/Republicans) want to get to the truth about Benghazi but lefties apparently don't implies that you care more about the death of the Americans there than we do on the left.

We had hearings in Congress about this. Hillary was there. Trying to resurrect the villain Hillary based on this flimsy piece of garbage pomoted by FOX News is only going to work with your base. Because your side wants so desperately to believe it was Hillary's fault.

Greyfox

04-26-2013, 08:55 PM

.

Answer the question that was asked please.

Rookies

04-26-2013, 09:09 PM

No sir...not true.

The real truth is neither side pays attention to the other. Each side merely wants to say their piece and let it go at that...You don't give a rats ass what Tom or Ralph or anyone on the right has to say...I actually believe those on the right here are more tolerant of what the left has to say here than the other way around.:lol: :lol:

You lefties are so intolerant of the right-leaner...so condescending...that it is totally beneath you to give even a serious thought to what they write here.

That's why it is so frustrating having a discussion with most lefties here. They don't respond to facts...and if they do (like mostpost), it's with such off-the-wall stuff, that it's sometimes hard to believe he writes such things with a straight face.

And then other lefties (we'll call them mostpost's cronies, to use the vernacular of one Capper Al) jump in and pat mostpost on the back and tell him how smart he is.... :lol:

It's actually hilarious in a very sad sort of way...

Well, the highlighted part was hilarious. More than one person on the right responds with viciousness on any manner of subjects. Not all, mind you... but that statement is simply false imho. I wouldn't say that any of the converses were true either.

I'd say it was a wash.

johnhannibalsmith

04-26-2013, 09:37 PM

You are not looking for answers. You are looking for something to blame on Barack Obama or to blame on Hillary Clinton...

Some of us are willing to concede that no amount of crying and pounding will ever get the truth out of these people.

But, we have counted on that from day one and the truth is secondary. What is primary is that the crying and pounding will be a persistent reminder that some of us would rather just have the administrations of this country come clean when a mistake is made instead of concocting bogus tales and flimsy "evidence" to support those tales in lieu of admitting a mistake or a failure.

I don't need nor expect the "whole truth". But, I'll gladly settle for admissions that the lies and deceit in the name of politics were total bullshit if that's what a bunch of pressure can produce, even if those admissions appear more in the form of retreat and avoidance.

PaceAdvantage

04-26-2013, 09:39 PM

It's hard not be condescending. Something dumb will be posted from some lame conservative website and righties will pile on with thumbs up as if that makes whatever it is valid. This thread is a good example. So I post something that shows what utter BS this gotcha of Hillary is and Mostpost goes further with a concise post addressing the argument against Hillary. After Mostpost's typically great rebuttal, all we get is conservatives here telling us they care more about the good old USA then us lefties do. Except maybe Ralph who swung and missed as far as I'm concerned.

Then you top things off by telling us it's frustrating having a discussion with lefties here.

You've got to be kidding.I'm not kidding one bit. There is not one lefty here who has raised any concerns about the failure in Benghazi. Not one. Not one lefty here has thought about what went wrong and why a US Ambassador was MURDERED in his own consulate.

Not one of you has taken any member of this administration to task for this tragic national strategic embarrassment. Not a one of you.

Yet, to this day, to a man, you'll trot out the "bin Laden determined to attack" memo...if the circumstances surrounding both events weren't so sad and tragic, it would be absolutely hilarious watching you guys operate.

PaceAdvantage

04-26-2013, 09:41 PM

The whole idea that you (conservatives/Republicans) want to get to the truth about Benghazi but lefties apparently don't implies that you care more about the death of the Americans there than we do on the left. Why do you folks on the left continually try and paint this as a "who cares more?"

It's not about that AT ALL. It's about ACCOUNTABILITY...you remember that, don't you? Wasn't it your side that wanted the Bush administration ACCOUNTABLE FOR EVERYTHING that went wrong in the world related to US Policy?

Yes you were. But now, with that magical (D) administration in the White House, you give a pass to everything, no matter the magnitude.

Like I said, hilarious to watch and read...

Tom

04-26-2013, 10:16 PM

Originally Posted by NJ Stinks
After Mostpost's typically great rebuttal, all we get is conservatives here telling us they care more about the good old USA then us lefties do.

It seems pretty obvious - read the posts since about 2001.
Find me one single lefty who has EVER deviated fro the party line.
While Obama is not transparent, you guys sure are.

NJ Stinks

04-27-2013, 01:01 AM

Why do you folks on the left continually try and paint this as a "who cares more?"

It's not about that AT ALL. It's about ACCOUNTABILITY...you remember that, don't you? Wasn't it your side that wanted the Bush administration ACCOUNTABLE FOR EVERYTHING that went wrong in the world related to US Policy?

Yes you were. But now, with that magical (D) administration in the White House, you give a pass to everything, no matter the magnitude.

Like I said, hilarious to watch and read...

Magnitude means:

1. Greatness of rank or position
2. Greatness in size or extent
3. Greatness in significance or influence

Demanding accountability from our Administration for airplanes being hijacked in the U.S. and being flown into U.S. buildings resulting in thousands dead is a most reasonable demand.

Demanding accountability from our Administration for a war we started that cost thousands of lives because of imaginary WMD is a most reasonable demand.

Demanding accountability from our Administration for the death of four Americans in a war-torn Middle Eastern country is reasonable to an extent. Libya is dangerous place. Everybody knows it - including Americans who volunteer to serve our country there. What happened in Benghazi in no way compares to 9/11 or the Iraqi War.

Benghazi is simply not the same magnitude.

mostpost

04-27-2013, 01:08 AM

I'm not kidding one bit. There is not one lefty here who has raised any concerns about the failure in Benghazi. Not one. Not one lefty here has thought about what went wrong and why a US Ambassador was MURDERED in his own consulate.
Both you and Tom capitalized all the letters in "Murdered." Why? To emphasize your phony outrage? The truth is you do not care one bit about those dead people. What you care about is placing the blame where you want it to be placed with no regard as to whether it belongs there. Spare me your crocodile tears.

Not one of you has taken any member of this administration to task for this tragic national strategic embarrassment. Not a one of you.
If you would like me to I can point you to a number of post in which I stated the persons responsible for denying additional security should be disciplined. The ones responsible, not the ones you don't like.

Yet, to this day, to a man, you'll trot out the "bin Laden determined to attack" memo...if the circumstances surrounding both events weren't so sad and tragic, it would be absolutely hilarious watching you guys operate.

It has been mentioned several times-maybe by you; maybe not-that those responsible for the security staffing decisions have not been disciplined and are still working at the State Department albeit in different roles. The facts are that both Eric Boswell and Charlene Lamb, in addition to another, unnamed official resigned in mid December.

And get of bin Laden already. The truth is your guys did not stop him from toppling the World Trade Center Towers and your guys did not kill or capture him at Bora Bora. Our guys made sure he is now sleeping with the fishes.

mostpost

04-27-2013, 01:11 AM

Magnitude means:

1. Greatness of rank or position
2. Greatness in size or extent
3. Greatness in significance or influence

Demanding accountability from our Administration for airplanes being hijacked in the U.S. and being flown into U.S. buildings resulting in thousands dead is a most reasonable demand.

Demanding accountability from our Administration for a war we started that cost thousands of lives because of imaginary WMD is a most reasonable demand.

Demanding accountability from our Administration for the death of four Americans in a war-torn Middle Eastern country is reasonable to an extent. Libya is dangerous place. Everybody knows it - including Americans who volunteer to serve our country there. What happened in Benghazi in no way compares to 9/11 or the Iraqi War.

Benghazi is simply not the same magnitude.

They are not interested in accountability, they are interested in blame. They know where they want the blame to be placed and they will place it there, facts by damned.

newtothegame

04-27-2013, 01:27 AM

It has been mentioned several times-maybe by you; maybe not-that those responsible for the security staffing decisions have not been disciplined and are still working at the State Department albeit in different roles. The facts are that both Eric Boswell and Charlene Lamb, in addition to another, unnamed official resigned in mid December.

And get of bin Laden already. The truth is your guys did not stop him from toppling the World Trade Center Towers and your guys did not kill or capture him at Bora Bora. Our guys made sure he is now sleeping with the fishes.

??? WT! are you talking about?? Since when is an elite military team "our guys" (referrencing the left)????

newtothegame

04-27-2013, 01:29 AM

This was not even auto pen. It was her name TYPED on the cable as it is typed on every cable-millions of them per year.

Yes, we can't prove that she was unaware of the security requests and neither can you prove she was aware of them. Use your common sense. The job of the Secretary of State is to represent the United States in negotiations with foreign governments. She is not the director of Human Resources. We have embassies in hundreds of countries and in each of those countries we have delegations, consulates, legations, missions and all manner of diplomatic thingys-to use a technical term.

That is why there is a State Department official-in this case, Charlene Lamb-who makes those decisions. If you were to argue that ms Lamb made a poor decision, I would be hard pressed to dispute that. But the evidence is thin to non-existent that Clinton made those decisions or was even aware of them.

Why would WH spokesman Carney refertence her "signature" being on documents? I have never seen someone refer to a typed out name as a "signature"....

Greyfox

04-27-2013, 01:56 AM

Demanding accountability from our Administration for a war we started that cost thousands of lives because of imaginary WMD is a most reasonable demand.

Benghazi is simply not the same magnitude.

For the record, NJ Stinks I was not posting on this board when the second Iraq war started, and I never thought it should have been launched.
But as I recall, hands from both sides of the aisle were put on the dagger that started that fiasco.

Of course Benghazi is not of the same magnitude, but does it make the principle of accountability there of any less importance?
I don't think so.

Tom

04-27-2013, 10:57 AM

He sleeps with the fishes because OUR guys water boarded and got a key lead.

What stinky says about the danger of the situation is correct.
Which is why we need to find WHY the administration did not listen to the please for help. OUR guys have a pretty good idea.
And btw, wasn't it Obama who helped make the situation all the more dangerous in the first place? He shoots of his big mouth than goes off to play golf while our people there doing their jobs are left at risk?

NJ Stinks

04-27-2013, 01:00 PM

For the record, NJ Stinks I was not posting on this board when the second Iraq war started, and I never thought it should have been launched.
But as I recall, hands from both sides of the aisle were put on the dagger that started that fiasco.

Of course Benghazi is not of the same magnitude, but does it make the principle of accountability there of any less importance?
I don't think so.

Both sides of the aisle were told by our Administration that Iraq had WMD. Based on that belief, the majority on both sides of the aisle voted to go to war.

Congress held hearings about Benghazi and some people at the State Department resigned because of what happened at Benghazi. I would say there has been accountability. Apparently, according to Republicans, the only thing missing is Hillary's hand on the imaginary dagger.

PaceAdvantage

04-27-2013, 01:31 PM

It has been mentioned several times-maybe by you; maybe not-that those responsible for the security staffing decisions have not been disciplined and are still working at the State Department albeit in different roles. The facts are that both Eric Boswell and Charlene Lamb, in addition to another, unnamed official resigned in mid December.

And get of bin Laden already. The truth is your guys did not stop him from toppling the World Trade Center Towers and your guys did not kill or capture him at Bora Bora. Our guys made sure he is now sleeping with the fishes.I can assure you my outrage is certainly not phony. But growing all the time as yet another Obama failure is trying to be swept under the rug.

PaceAdvantage

04-27-2013, 01:34 PM

Magnitude means:

1. Greatness of rank or position
2. Greatness in size or extent
3. Greatness in significance or influence

Demanding accountability from our Administration for airplanes being hijacked in the U.S. and being flown into U.S. buildings resulting in thousands dead is a most reasonable demand.

Demanding accountability from our Administration for a war we started that cost thousands of lives because of imaginary WMD is a most reasonable demand.

Demanding accountability from our Administration for the death of four Americans in a war-torn Middle Eastern country is reasonable to an extent. Libya is dangerous place. Everybody knows it - including Americans who volunteer to serve our country there. What happened in Benghazi in no way compares to 9/11 or the Iraqi War.

Benghazi is simply not the same magnitude.Now that your little rant is over, I'll simply point out that I never claimed Benghazi was the same, and in fact, went out of my way to explicitly state the difference in magnitude more than once in order to avoid the kind of unnecessary response quoted above by one NJ Stinks.

You can thank me later.

Capper Al

04-27-2013, 01:37 PM

They are not interested in accountability, they are interested in blame. They know where they want the blame to be placed and they will place it there, facts by damned.

Agree. And Fox News wants to have a prepared attack in the wings should Hillary decide to run. It doesn't matter if the argument has legs or not. Noise is all that counts, and that's what the blind troops (our local cronies) provide.

JustRalph

04-27-2013, 01:56 PM

Mostie, seems to forget that one of "his guys" passed on arresting Bin Laden up to 11 times ( depending on who you believe) prior to 9-11

Tom

04-27-2013, 03:41 PM

Perhaps you could direct us to (3) cases where FOX attacked anyone - other than reporting the truth.

JustRalph

04-29-2013, 09:19 PM

Now the Admin is threatening whistle blowers

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/04/29/report-obama-admin-has-issued-threats-against-the-benghazi-whistleblowers/

rastajenk

04-29-2013, 10:26 PM

At least it's transparent about it.

NJ Stinks

04-29-2013, 10:57 PM

Now the Admin is threatening whistle blowers

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/04/29/report-obama-admin-has-issued-threats-against-the-benghazi-whistleblowers/

Victoria Toensing may or may not be as reliable as Dick Morris. But FOX News, etc. will latch on her every word for whatever it's worth. :rolleyes:

Tom

04-29-2013, 11:12 PM

NJ Stinks

04-29-2013, 11:27 PM

Again, you guys on the left totally ignore fact sand go for Blame FOX BS.
You do know how silly you sound when you so obviously spin reality into you stupid hatred of a TV station? Is that ALL you got? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

If you knew anything about the lawyer behind the allegations, you would have dropped a bunch of those icons.

Or maybe not. :rolleyes:

PaceAdvantage

04-30-2013, 03:01 AM

Victoria Toensing may or may not be as reliable as Dick Morris. But FOX News, etc. will latch on her every word for whatever it's worth. :rolleyes:I wonder which left-leaner would have been the first to post the following interview had it been done on MSNBC with Bush as President...

Ya'll KNOW MSNBC would be reporting on Benghazi every moment of every day if this had happened under the Bush admin...

Anyway, the link:

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report-bret-baier/videos#p/86927/v/2338534550001

Tom

04-30-2013, 09:39 AM

Could be an interesting report released today.....

mostpost

04-30-2013, 04:38 PM

I wonder which left-leaner would have been the first to post the following interview had it been done on MSNBC with Bush as President...

Ya'll KNOW MSNBC would be reporting on Benghazi every moment of every day if this had happened under the Bush admin...

Anyway, the link:

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report-bret-baier/videos#p/86927/v/2338534550001
Zero credibility here. A guy claims to be a "Special Operator." But we have no proof that he is anything of the sort. No Identification, no proof. He could be an employee of Fox.

Even if he is what he says he is. Even if did debrief some of those involved, neither he nor they are cognizant of the big picture. He says that the force training in Croatia was four to six hours away, but does he know if they were in an area near an airport? Does he know if there was an aircraft available at that airport capable of transporting them? Does he know if they would have been able to receive permission form the Libyan government to enter Libya?
(That is an important question. Libya is a sovereign nation. We do not have the right to send our military forces into a sovereign nation without its permission-no matter what Tom thinks)

The following is from the Report on Benghazi put out by House Republicans-not exactly fans of President Obama.

12:00-2:00 a.m. Secretary Panetta convenes a series of meetings in the Pentagon with
senior officials including General Dempsey and General Ham. They discuss
additional response options for Benghazi and for the potential outbreak of further
violence throughout the region, particularly in Tunis, Tripoli, Cairo, and Sana’a.
During these meetings, Secretary Panetta authorizes: 40
A Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST) platoon, stationed in Rota,
Spain, to prepare to deploy to Benghazi, and a second FAST platoon, also
stationed in Rota, Spain, to prepare to deploy to the Embassy in Tripoli.
A EUCOM special operations force, which is training in Central Europe,
to prepare to deploy to an intermediate staging base in southern Europe.
A special operations force based in the United States to prepare to deploy
to an intermediate staging base in southern Europe.

I suspect the special ops team the so-called Special Operator was referring in to was the one I placed in bold above.

Anyway, later in the report we find this.
7:57 p.m. The EUCOM special operations force, and associated equipment, arrives at an
intermediate staging base in southern Europe.
That is 7:57 PM. Eighteen hours after the first orders went out. It took this team eighteen hours to get from one friendly base to another friendly base.
Yet you think they could gather all their personnel, all their equipment, devise a strategy for the particular situation and be in Benghazi in four to six hours.
Anyone who thinks that is delusional.

If you were in a court of law would you ever have a defense witness that the prosecution was not only not allowed to cross examine, but was not even allowed to learn the identity of. Could the prosecution present a witness and not allow the defense to cross examine that witness. This is exactly what is happening here. We have someone who's credentials we can not examine making statements he cannot confirm. Yet we are supposed to take them as gospel, even as the official timeline as constructed by the Republicans themselves is severely at variance with those statements.

mostpost

04-30-2013, 04:48 PM

Victoria Toensing may or may not be as reliable as Dick Morris. But FOX News, etc. will latch on her every word for whatever it's worth. :rolleyes:

What do you mean she is not reliable? Does leading the charge against Monica Lewinsky make her unreliable? Does claiming that Valerie Plame was not a covert operator make her unreliable? Does a lifetime as a shill for Republicans make her unreliable? YES, IT DOES.

PaceAdvantage

04-30-2013, 04:53 PM

Zero credibility here. A guy claims to be a "Special Operator." But we have no proof that he is anything of the sort. No Identification, no proof. He could be an employee of Fox. I knew you were going to say this. I'm not even going to dignify you with a response.

If you think Fox's rep is bad among libs now, can you imagine what would happen if they were caught interviewing a fake SpecOp? Come on mostpost. Give your head a shake.

You honestly believe the guy is an actor?

If so, there really is no reasoning with a person like you.

mostpost

04-30-2013, 05:33 PM

I knew you were going to say this. I'm not even going to dignify you with a response.

If you think Fox's rep is bad among libs now, can you imagine what would happen if they were caught interviewing a fake SpecOp? Come on mostpost. Give your head a shake.

You honestly believe the guy is an actor?

If so, there really is no reasoning with a person like you.
But you did dignify me with a response. It's quoted right above. Frankly, I don't think Fox gives a hoot what libs think. They know their base and they will pander to that base.

Anyway, you as usual, picked out the smallest, least significant part of my response and ignored the rest.

fast4522

04-30-2013, 07:57 PM

Zero proof this or liberal horseshit that, there is good reason the decision was made at the very top of our government to NOT protect the Ambassador and our embassy. The fact is that just one elite team of our best in place would have meant hundreds of Muslims would be slaughtered instead of our Americans. Now you go back and forth doing the chicken and the egg bullshit, why do you just admit that our people were an acceptable loss to this administration instead of an international incident where we laid down some heavy lead.

PaceAdvantage

04-30-2013, 08:52 PM

Anyway, you as usual, picked out the smallest, least significant part of my response and ignored the rest.On the contrary...if that guy is fake, then it is the BIGGEST, MOST SIGNIFICANT part of your response...because if he's not fake, I value HIS thoughts on the matter FAR MORE than I could ever value yours...no offense...

mostpost

04-30-2013, 09:07 PM

On the contrary...if that guy is fake, then it is the BIGGEST, MOST SIGNIFICANT part of your response...because if he's not fake, I value HIS thoughts on the matter FAR MORE than I could ever value yours...no offense...
If the guy is fake it is the BIGGEST, MOST SIGNIFICANT part of the story. How much you value my thoughts is of no concern to me, because I don't think much of your opinions.

PaceAdvantage

04-30-2013, 09:29 PM

How much you value my thoughts is of no concern to me, because I don't think much of your opinions.Really? On every subject?

How about when I defended you from those who attacked your prior occupation?

I have to tell you...I'm a tad crushed... :(

HUSKER55

04-30-2013, 11:25 PM

WELL...............DAMN IT! :D

delayjf

05-01-2013, 01:35 AM

I find it hard to that there was no Navy carrier group or Marine MEU close enough to support.

Greyfox

05-01-2013, 11:54 PM

Carney says Benghazi happened a long time ago.:rolleyes:

"Let's be clear," said Carney. "Benghazi happened a long time ago. We are unaware of any agency blocking an employee who would like to appear before Congress to provide information related to Benghazi."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/carney-benghazi-happened-long-time-ago_720428.html

JustRalph

05-02-2013, 12:29 AM

Sheryl Atkisson says more info to come soon.........

woodtoo

05-02-2013, 02:58 AM

Breaking story by Terence P.Jeffrey at cnsnews.com if some one can link it.

fast4522

05-02-2013, 05:53 AM

It was and always has been the Chief Executive's plan to wait it out, and so the lame duck President now has the turn to being waited out.

fast4522

05-02-2013, 05:59 AM

What this link?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/militia-hired-state-dept-warned-it-wouldn-t-protect-stevens-movements-benghazi

woodtoo

05-02-2013, 09:19 AM

What this link?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/militia-hired-state-dept-warned- (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/militia-hired-state-dept-warned-it-wouldn-t-protect-stevens-movements-benghazi)

it-wouldn-t-protect-stevens-movements-benghazi (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/militia-hired-state-dept-warned-it-wouldn-t-protect-stevens-movements-benghazi)

Thats it,thanks.

fast4522

05-03-2013, 06:18 AM

Senator Rand Paul is real clear and concise in this link:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/05/02/rand_paul_hillary_clinton_is_guilty_of_dereliction _of_duty_on_benghazi.html

DJofSD

05-05-2013, 12:51 PM

13 minutes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_8MsvUilT0

New information revealed.

Cover up?

Greyfox

05-05-2013, 01:16 PM

13 minutes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_8MsvUilT0

New information revealed.

Cover up?

Thank you. :ThmbUp: Interesting video and spot on comments about Secretary Rice.

I think that it's worth reposting in the following format rather than just the link as more people will likely view it.

W_8MsvUilT0

dartman51

05-05-2013, 02:42 PM

You guys do realize that Mosty will be along shortly, to tell you why Hicks is not a credible witness, because he was caught reading Mein Kampf, in the 9th grade. :rolleyes:

JustRalph

05-05-2013, 07:13 PM

PaceAdvantage

05-05-2013, 07:29 PM

Why nobody is bringing up that it was less than two months till Election Day is the funny part. Somebody say itBingo bango...

Then again, it worked, didn't it? Mission accomplished....four more years at any cost...

JustRalph

05-05-2013, 08:53 PM

Sheryl Atkisson is now reporting that Hicks specifically asked fr military help from Aviano It. Was denied!

That makes you feel good as a diplomat huh? You're on your own if it might make Obama look bad.

newtothegame

05-05-2013, 08:58 PM

And to top it off, now that the election is over and "new" details are emerging...dems are trying to separate themselves as far from this as they can...including throwing Rice and the WH under the bus......:lol:

Lets see, run from Obamacare...now running from Benghazi.....hell I can see why the dems will keep power for (what was it)...another 100 years!!! :lol:

mostpost

05-05-2013, 09:01 PM

The world is going to love us after Obama is elected ........no fear

The Anti Hillary campaign commercials almost make themselves.

Why nobody is bringing up that it was less than two months till Election Day is the funny part. Somebody say it
Spoken in a whiny Republican voice: "They said it was a demonstration, but it was a terrorist attack yada yada yada" Hillary Clinton said it best when some bozo Republican kept yammering away on this. "What difference does it make, you 4*^&ing indiot?" OK she did not say that last part but she should have. Demonstration, no demonstration, Demonstration and attack, attack with no demonstration, makes no difference.

The reason Obama won the election was not because voters were fooled into thinking the attack was or was not a part of a demonstration. It was because the sensible majority did not care. We cared about those who died, but we could see that everything possible was done to help them.

Besides, our only other choice was Mitt Romney. :rolleyes:

JustRalph

05-05-2013, 09:03 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/05/clinton-sought-end-run-around-counterterrorism-bureau-on-night-benghazi-attack/

newtothegame

05-05-2013, 09:05 PM

Spoken in a whiny Republican voice: "They said it was a demonstration, but it was a terrorist attack yada yada yada" Hillary Clinton said it best when some bozo Republican kept yammering away on this. "What difference does it make, you 4*^&ing indiot?" OK she did not say that last part but she should have. Demonstration, no demonstration, Demonstration and attack, attack with no demonstration, makes no difference.

The reason Obama won the election was not because voters were fooled into thinking the attack was or was not a part of a demonstration. It was because the sensible majority did not care. We cared about those who died, but we could see that everything possible was done to help them.

Besides, our only other choice was Mitt Romney. :rolleyes:
It makes a HUGE difference.......
If you recall, the U.S was "mislead" on Iraq and it got us into a war...(that's what all you lefties say about the bush admin).......
Now, here we are, being "mislead" again on what was a TERRORIST attack...yet wonder why the administration was scrubbing this??? Why lie to the American people......????

Yeah, nothing to see here...move along people...lol

JustRalph

05-05-2013, 09:09 PM

The reason Obama won the election was not because voters were fooled into thinking the attack was or was not a part of a demonstration. It was because the sensible majority did not care. We cared about those who died, but we could see that everything possible was done to help them.
Besides, our only other choice was Mitt Romney. :rolleyes:

You don't care about anybody who dies. You care about keeping Dear Leader in power. End of story.

Obama will begin the process of throwing Hill under the bus, in about 10 min from now. You think it's a coincidence that he decided to not be involved? No phone calls etc? Just fly off to Vegas.

Going to be an interesting week. I predict the defense starts on
"Morning Joe" at 6a tomorrow. The full court press to blame Hillary will begin immediately after the testimony

Tom

05-05-2013, 09:30 PM

Thank you. :ThmbUp: Interesting video and spot on comments about Secretary Rice.

I think that it's worth reposting in the following format rather than just the link as more people will likely view it.

Hey, Bobby, mostie.....this ain't FOX..it's cBS.
I thought this whole thing was a FOX deal?

mostpost

05-05-2013, 09:36 PM

It makes a HUGE difference.......
If you recall, the U.S was "mislead" on Iraq and it got us into a war...(that's what all you lefties say about the bush admin).......
Now, here we are, being "mislead" again on what was a TERRORIST attack...yet wonder why the administration was scrubbing this??? Why lie to the American people......????

Yeah, nothing to see here...move along people...lol
There is also a huge difference between a war and an attack; between four people dying and four thousand- a thousandfold difference. To the families of the four who died in Benghazi, that was a terrible moment, but you need to multiply that by a thousand to understand what happened in Iraq.

There is another difference. Ambassador Rice said there was no evidence of a planned attack at the time. She did not say there was no planned attack. Not long after she spoke, President Obama called the attack a terrorist attack.

How did this compare with what happened in the runup to the Iraq. The Bush administration wanted to establish a connection between Sadaan Hussein and the attacks on the WTC etc. The problem was there was no connection. Hussein and bin Laden hated each other and the intelligence community knew this. There was also no physical evidence of a connection.

So administration officials, especially Dick Cheney began pressuring the intellingence community to find one; to interpret the data in a different way. They misinterpreted information. They relied on forged documents. They lied to Congress and the United Nations. They did so before any people died. Their actions caused people to die. Four thousand Americans.

Greyfox

05-05-2013, 09:45 PM

You guys do realize that Mosty will be along shortly, to tell you why Hicks is not a credible witness, because he was caught reading Mein Kampf, in the 9th grade. :rolleyes:

Bingo twice. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

newtothegame

05-05-2013, 10:40 PM

There is also a huge difference between a war and an attack; between four people dying and four thousand- a thousandfold difference. To the families of the four who died in Benghazi, that was a terrible moment, but you need to multiply that by a thousand to understand what happened in Iraq.

There is another difference. Ambassador Rice said there was no evidence of a planned attack at the time. She did not say there was no planned attack. Not long after she spoke, President Obama called the attack a terrorist attack.

How did this compare with what happened in the runup to the Iraq. The Bush administration wanted to establish a connection between Sadaan Hussein and the attacks on the WTC etc. The problem was there was no connection. Hussein and bin Laden hated each other and the intelligence community knew this. There was also no physical evidence of a connection.

So administration officials, especially Dick Cheney began pressuring the intellingence community to find one; to interpret the data in a different way. They misinterpreted information. They relied on forged documents. They lied to Congress and the United Nations. They did so before any people died. Their actions caused people to die. Four thousand Americans.

Perspective means everything......especially if you are one of the families....

Bottom line is it (Benghazi) was deflected and a BOLD lie to the American people......
Question is, if it was a terrorist attack....which they KNEW then and we now know to be true, what was the point of the lie?? Why go through all the trouble to scrub and clean?? Had they come out and said it was terrorist, what would of been the harm??? I mean it seems to me this administration went to great lengths to hide that fact early on.......
Things that make ya go hmmmmmmmm !!!!!!!

Greyfox

05-05-2013, 11:16 PM

Bottom line is it (Benghazi) was deflected and a BOLD lie to the American people......
Question is, if it was a terrorist attack....which they KNEW then and we now know to be true, what was the point of the lie??

Question: If it was a terrorist attack?..what was the point of the lie??

Answer:
1. Benghazi was a terrorist attack.
It was deliberately down played as a reaction to a film clip deriding the Prophet Mohammed.
The Obama administration still describes the Boston bombers as:
"self-radicalization." (Whatever that term means?:confused: )
No possibility of course that one of the brothers was influenced in his trip back to the Caucasians and why he went or was allowed to go there is part of their "self-radicalization." :rolleyes:

When Obama came to office, the War on Terror was declared over.
The term Islamic Terrorist was not to be used in trying to explain or understand any violent events involving Muslim perpetrators around the world, either in the Middle-East, Europe, or North America.
(Of course in China, that sort of terrorism happens seldom. It's dealt with swiftly and silently.)

2. The point of the lie, (or was it just a deception?) was Obama decided much earlier that " there is no such thing as Islamic terrorists." Supposedly Al Qaeda had been disemboweled and their remnants scattered. (From what I've read, these fervent Muslim lemmings have multiplied and are more dangerous than ever.)
How else could Government underlings report what happened?
They were prohibited from using the word "terrorist."
Of course, the fact that the Presidential election was coming up weighed heavily on what was to be given to the media and then the American public was also paramount.
After all the idea that "Perception is reality" is more important than truth.

newtothegame

05-05-2013, 11:42 PM

Question: If it was a terrorist attack?..what was the point of the lie??

Answer:
1. Benghazi was a terrorist attack.
It was deliberately down played as a reaction to a film clip deriding the Prophet Mohammed.
The Obama administration still describes the Boston bombers as:
"self-radicalization." (Whatever that term means?:confused: )
No possibility of course that one of the brothers was influenced in his trip back to the Caucasians and why he went or was allowed to go there is part of their "self-radicalization." :rolleyes:

When Obama came to office, the War on Terror was declared over.
The term Islamic Terrorist was not to be used in trying to explain or understand any violent events involving Muslim perpetrators around the world, either in the Middle-East, Europe, or North America.
(Of course in China, that sort of terrorism happens seldom. It's dealt with swiftly and silently.)

2. The point of the lie, (or was it just a deception?) was Obama decided much earlier that " there is no such thing as Islamic terrorists." Supposedly Al Qaeda had been disemboweled and their remnants scattered. (From what I've read, these fervent Muslim lemmings have multiplied and are more dangerous than ever.)
How else could Government underlings report what happened?
They were prohibited from using the word "terrorist."
Of course, the fact that the Presidential election was coming up weighed heavily on what was to be given to the media and then the American public was also paramount.
After all the idea that "Perception is reality" is more important than truth.

Oh, I understand Grey......I was just really curious how mosty and his fellow libs would spin this one.....
Hey libs, still think your girl Hillary is running in 2016??? Obama is taking care of that as we speak!!! lol

mostpost

05-05-2013, 11:47 PM

Oh, I understand Grey......I was just really curious how mosty and his fellow libs would spin this one.....
Hey libs, still think your girl Hillary is running in 2016??? Obama is taking care of that as we speak!!! lol
Running and winning!!!!! This whole Benghazi was a demonstration/Benghazi was a terror attack controversy is only a controversy in your mind. We don't care. We care about getting to the bottom of who was responsible and punishing them. This other nonsense is not important.

JustRalph

05-05-2013, 11:50 PM

newtothegame

05-06-2013, 12:01 AM

Running and winning!!!!! This whole Benghazi was a demonstration/Benghazi was a terror attack controversy is only a controversy in your mind. We don't care. We care about getting to the bottom of who was responsible and punishing them. This other nonsense is not important.
Oh I am all for getting who is responsible, please don't mistake that!!!
Problem is you and I totally disagree with WHO is responsible......
I seem to recall some statement about the buck stopping somewhere.....question is where!!!

johnhannibalsmith

05-06-2013, 12:14 AM

Mostpost is playing the old bob and weave. What matters is punishing the perpetrators. Therefore nothing else in the entire scenario is important. Only one thing can be important. And he, like the stoic other Dem apologists, care about the most important thing, justice for our ambassador and his peers. To possibly focus even a minute amount on any other facet of this episode reveals how misguided you must be.

It's a crock political-style rebuttal. I can't stand Issa, McCain, Graham, or the rest of them, but I hope they make damn sure that these lying politicos looking out for themselves don't forget that they don't actually run the world and get to shape reality according their whims. **** them and their bullshit lies for political gain. I'm sick of pathetic scheming scumbag elected officials that have been made untouchable and have forgotten who they work for and if it takes other pathetic scheming scumbag elected officials to piss on a few of them, good.

JustRalph

05-06-2013, 12:41 AM

Hillary invented the "3 a.m. Phone call" ad and she is the one who will suffer from it the most.

Irony abounds

PaceAdvantage

05-06-2013, 12:46 AM

Spoken in a whiny Republican voice: "They said it was a demonstration, but it was a terrorist attack yada yada yada" Hillary Clinton said it best when some bozo Republican kept yammering away on this. "What difference does it make, you 4*^&ing indiot?" OK she did not say that last part but she should have. Demonstration, no demonstration, Demonstration and attack, attack with no demonstration, makes no difference.

The reason Obama won the election was not because voters were fooled into thinking the attack was or was not a part of a demonstration. It was because the sensible majority did not care. We cared about those who died, but we could see that everything possible was done to help them.

Besides, our only other choice was Mitt Romney. :rolleyes:One probably could have made a similar argument in favor of Nixon over Watergate.

Of course, I'm sure there was someone like you mostpost (only he was the Republican version of mostpost), who did just that.

PaceAdvantage

05-06-2013, 12:47 AM

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/05/clinton-sought-end-run-around-counterterrorism-bureau-on-night-benghazi-attack/Guy better watch his back. Dem Clintons have a way of making people disappear... :eek:

PaceAdvantage

05-06-2013, 12:50 AM

Bob Schieffer using the word coverup is an epochIt's gonna be fun to watch mostpost gradually stop posting about this topic as it becomes apparent that even he can't spin it around any longer.

NJ Stinks

05-06-2013, 01:44 AM

It's gonna be fun to watch mostpost gradually stop posting about this topic as it becomes apparent that even he can't spin it around any longer.

The real question is how long can FOX News and it's merry band of Republican Congressmen keep it spinning? Kind of reminds me of a trainer who enters 5 horses in the Derby every year. One of these years something may stumble home first.

johnhannibalsmith

05-06-2013, 01:48 AM

The real question is how long can FOX News and it's merry band of Republican Congressmen keep it spinning? ...

Geeeez and here I was thinking how clever it was of Issa & Co. to go on CBS and Schieffer with this newest bit instead of repaying loyal old FOX just to keep guys like you from hitting your knee.

mostpost

05-06-2013, 01:53 AM

It's gonna be fun to watch mostpost gradually stop posting about this topic as it becomes apparent that even he can't spin it around any longer.
I may stop posting but it won't because of spinning. I just get tired of explaining the facts to a bunch of blockheads.

mostpost

05-06-2013, 01:57 AM

Originally Posted by dartman51
You guys do realize that Mosty will be along shortly, to tell you why Hicks is not a credible witness, because he was caught reading Mein Kampf, in the 9th grade.
Reply by Greyfox

Bingo twice.
And you posted that after I posted my reply which said nothing about Hicks or Mein Kampf or the 9th grade. I also did not offer any opinion of whether he was a credible witness.
Amazing!

Anyway it was seven hours between Dartman's post and my reply. That does not fit my definition of shortly.

PaceAdvantage

05-06-2013, 02:01 AM

I may stop posting but it won't because of spinning. I just get tired of explaining the facts to a bunch of blockheads.No, you'll stop posting when it becomes clear to you that even you can't defend any longer.

I love when there are still references to FOX even after this most recent post from CBS with good ol' Presidential Debate moderator Bob Schieffer.

Good to know even Bob is part blockhead....

Keep on keeping on mostpost...keep the faith...

Tom

05-06-2013, 12:24 PM

The real question is how long can FOX News and it's merry band of Republican Congressmen keep it spinning? Kind of reminds me of a trainer who enters 5 horses in the Derby every year. One of these years something may stumble home first.

How do you explain the cBS story, then?
When you make false accusations like you just did, it helps if no one else is covering the story. Obviously, FOX is not alone, just in your imagination.

woodtoo

05-06-2013, 06:26 PM

This is not about foxnews,though home here try to sway it that way.
There are much darker forces at work in this Travesty.:bang:

Tom

05-07-2013, 01:43 PM

mostpost

05-07-2013, 05:32 PM

Good point brought out today - the Obama incompetents kept saying there was no time to get help on the scene, but at the time it was unfolding, how did anyone know how long it would last?

They could not have known that. They just decided to do nothing.
I'll start with the last part of your post. You obviously have not read either the ARB or the Congressional report. Certainly you did not read the timeline.

There were several sources of help deployed during the crisis. The closest was from the CIA annex. That contingent learned of the attack between 9:45 and 9:50 PM. They left for the SMC (Special Mission Compound) at 10:07. The delay was not because they received, then disobeyed orders to stand down. It was because they tried to get backup from local militia. Having failed that they proceeded to the SMC. By the time they got there Amb. Stevens and Information Officer Smith were either already dead or in extremis.
That was the closest and even they could not arrive in time to save Stevens and Smith.

Next closest was the Security team at Embassy Tripoli. They were notified at about 9:50 PM of the attack. This team took off from the Tripoli airport at 12:30 AM. If you think there is a long period of time between notification and takeoff, you are not thinking.

A plane had to be chartered; chances are that plane had to fueled and otherwise prepared; a pilot had to be obtained; the team itself had to be assembled, weapons issued, a tactical plan decided on-at least in general.
A permission to take off, fly and land needed to be given.

But, at last, the team landed at the Benghazi airport. I do not know how far it is from the Benghazi airport to the SMC. What I do know that, according to the official timeline, the time did not arrive at the CIA annex until 5:00 AM. That was six and one half hours after Smith's body was found and three plus hours after Stevens was declared dead at the hospital.

TJDave

05-07-2013, 05:42 PM

A permission to take off, fly and land needed to be given.

Permission from whom?

mostpost

05-07-2013, 06:01 PM

Good point brought out today - the Obama incompetents kept saying there was no time to get help on the scene, but at the time it was unfolding, how did anyone know how long it would last?

They could not have known that. They just decided to do nothing.
Continuing with my rebuttal.
Around midnight in Libya (5:00 PM in Washington) Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta ordered two FAST platoons in Rota, Spain to prepare to deploy-one to Tripoli and one to Benghazi. Despite the belief by military "experts" on this board, the team bound for Tripoli did not arrive in that city until 8:56 PM the evening of September 12, 2013. By that time, all the Americans involved in the attacks, including the deceased, were on an airplane approaching Ramstein, Germany.

At the same time, Panetta order a EUCOM special ops team training in Central Europe to prepare to deploy to an intermediate staging base in southern Europe. He gave the same orders to a special ops team in the USA.
These teams arrived at 7:57 PM and 9:28 PM respectively. Again, many hours after the attacks were over.

You said Obama and his administration did nothing. I have just shown you clearly and concisely what they did. Six different groups were set in motion to aid the ambassador and his group.
One of them made it to the SMC in time to evacuate the survivors, although not in time to save Smith and Stevens. A second team made it to the CIA annex. Again they were two late to prevent the deaths of two Americans, but they were able to evacuate the remaining persons.

So, instead of no one being sent, six separate groups were sent. Two of them arrived in time to be of some help. The others would not have arrived in time had they been sent when the attacks began.

mostpost

05-07-2013, 06:04 PM

Permission from whom?
The government of the sovereign nation of Libya. The permission to fly through their airspace and not fly into other planes.

JustRalph

05-07-2013, 06:52 PM

The fact that you're in this thread tap dancing and trying to convince people is testimony of the incompetence of your argument. You act as if Obama and Hillary already knew the timelines.......

I see you fail to mention the aircraft that were specifically asked for? Don't give me the crap about launching tankers etc. They had the assets to get it done.

mostpost

05-07-2013, 08:36 PM

The fact that you're in this thread tap dancing and trying to convince people is testimony of the incompetence of your argument. You act as if Obama and Hillary already knew the timelines.......
God give me patience!! The point of the timelines is to show that the Obama administration was taking action from the start to aid the SMC and the CIA annex. Six different groups were sent.

When they said there was not enough time to get most of the rescue groups to Benghazi they were not saying they did not bother to try. They were reporting that their attempts did have the time to succeed. They were reporting a fact, not making a prediction.

I see you fail to mention the aircraft that were specifically asked for? Don't give me the crap about launching tankers etc. They had the assets to get it done.
This is a typical response from you. Nothing but generalities. What freakin' aircraft are you talking about? B-52 bombers to level Benghazi? Surveillance craft? So typical of you to be unspecific. After all, I can't refute what I don't know.

woodtoo

05-07-2013, 08:59 PM

The buck ultimately stops with the President.
.The chain of command ends with him.
Chain of command to gain verbal permission to send special-forces in must have occurred.
SOCAFRICA commander Lieutenant Col. Gibson would have contacted a desk officer at the time,asking for that permission.
That desk officer would have called Marine Corps Col. George Bristol, then in command of S.O.T.F. Trans-Sahara.From there,Bristol would have made contact with Rear Admiral Brian Losey,then Commander of Spec.Ops. Command Africa.Losey would have contacted four star General Carter Ham,
commander of U.S.AFRICOM at the time.
Ham answers directly to the POTUS,not the State Department.

woodtoo

05-07-2013, 11:10 PM

This is a typical response from you. Nothing but generalities. What freakin' aircraft are you talking about? B-52 bombers to level Benghazi? Surveillance craft? So typical of you to be unspecific. After all, I can't refute what I don't know.

You do realize there was a drone overhead,I' m only assuming it captured real time images :eek:

Tom

05-08-2013, 07:45 AM

Ghazi-gate hearings today........

ArlJim78

05-08-2013, 02:43 PM

At the very least you can stick a fork in Hillary Clintons political career after today.

Saratoga_Mike

05-08-2013, 03:11 PM

At the very least you can stick a fork in Hillary Clintons political career after today.

I really doubt that. I'm not defending her in anyway, but unless you can show she was behind the attack, this isn't going to impact her.

It's simple: it happened in Libya. Americans view Libya as a really dangerous place where this type of thing can happen. You can say she failed at every turn handling it, which may be 100% true, but it doesn't change how Americans view Libya. Therefore, it won't have much of an impact, imo.

JustRalph

05-08-2013, 03:11 PM

At the very least you can stick a fork in Hillary Clintons political career after today.

Not a chance. She will be defended on all fronts. The media won't let her career die. Remember, the left doesn't care about those who died. They care about maintaining power and Obama's legacy. There will be those who want to throw Hill under the bus, but the media won't let it happen

fast4522

05-08-2013, 03:18 PM

I tend to agree with JR, facts are that those people will get into bed with anyone.
If the woman is healthy in three and a half years from now, that could be the nail in the coffin.

ArlJim78

05-08-2013, 04:38 PM

Not a chance. She will be defended on all fronts. The media won't let her career die. Remember, the left doesn't care about those who died. They care about maintaining power and Obama's legacy. There will be those who want to throw Hill under the bus, but the media won't let it happen
she's finished Ralph.
she lied to congress, her department obstructed justice.
of course media may want to sweep all this under the rug, but it won't fly.
she's unfit for any office and if she runs any and all opponents will drive that point home.

ArlJim78

05-08-2013, 04:44 PM

even worse than all of that, she lied to the country and to the family members who perished in Libya, by claiming this was all about a video, and that we would get those responsible. she knew and everyone else now knows it was not about a video.
imagine the ads that will come out showing her talking on and on about a video, contrasted with the testimony of the man on the hill today who personally talked to Hillary that evening about an attack on the compound.
she is the one who boasted about being able to handle the 3am phone call.
well she got her phone call and tried to create a cover story after not authorizing sufficient protection for her own staff.
this is the action of a commander-in-chief? haha
TOAST.

Saratoga_Mike

05-08-2013, 05:21 PM

johnhannibalsmith

05-08-2013, 05:38 PM

Political observation: the matter is too complicated for most people - sad, but true. The commission says one thing; another gentleman says something else. Libya - it's a very dangerous place. No one believes she wanted diplomats to die. The commercial you envision will never happen.

Agree. As a watcher and reader of mainstream news with reasonable regularity, the only attention this story even gets more often than not is painted with the brush that suggest evil, hateful, racist, sexist republicans out to torture poor Obama and Hillary with a make-believe story. If this event as it stands now were to sway anyone from their default political leaning, I'd be pretty astounded.

People spent days actually believing that "islamaphobia" caused the whole thing, defying all belief, gulping down the fairy tale they were told as though they lack any instinct or brain function whatsoever. Rather than being upset that they were obviously deceived, I guess they realize that they are idiots and feel empathy for the idiots that sold them on the story under the pretense that they too were misled. I think at this point if they had a surveillance video of Obama loading a rocket launcher and Hillary firing it at the compound, the media would still successful sell it as 100% poli-witchhunt non-story.

newtothegame

05-08-2013, 06:24 PM

I am a little torn as to my thoughts on her career (Hillary). On one hand I understand those who say the media will protect here and most Americans don't understand...I get that!

So how does one justify Weiner? Seemed the public outcry did him in!
Or is it a case of "It's a Clinton?"

Providing she makes a run at office in 16', I can see numerous ads in regards to the misinformation and lies......How can a president (potential) stand up under that scrutiny? If they lie about deaths and how it transpired, how can they be entrusted to now be in charge of a country?

I seriously think she is done as to the office of the pres.......but her career? Nahh, she will be paid millions for speaking engagements!

Just my thoughts!

johnhannibalsmith

05-08-2013, 06:30 PM

...So how does one justify Weiner? Seemed the public outcry did him in! ...

He's baaaaaaaaaaaaack!!!!

http://nyopoliticker.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/nypost-weiner.jpg

Greyfox

05-08-2013, 08:34 PM

Most of the Media is spending the day covering killer Jodi Arias and also the three kidnap victims in Cleveland.

Whatever stench is coming from Washington is being snuffled out by those stories.

mostpost

05-08-2013, 08:52 PM

There are three basic claims made by the Republicans about Benghazi.
One, that the administration insisted that the attack was a result of a video and not a terrorist attack.
This is as non starter, because while some Obama officials were saying the video was involved, most, including President Obama called it a terrorist attack from the beginning. And, officials from the intelligence services have testified that it was their belief, in the beginning, that a demonstration over the video was involved. In any case, nobody cares about this part except a few out of touch Republicans.

Second is the claim that the State Department failed to supply sufficient security and that it was Hillary Clinton who denied those requests. The requests were indeed denied, but not only is there no evidence that Hillary had any hand in those denials,there is testimony and evidence that she was not involved in any way.

Lastly, there is the accusation that the Obama administration did nothing to help those who were victims of the attack.
1. It was alleged that the CIA team at the CIA annex was told to stand down.

The CIA has said they gave no such orders. Considering that the CIA team arrived at the SMC within 25 minutes, I tend to believe them.

2. The claim was made that four Special Forces soldiers were preparing to board a plane to Benghazi when they were ordered to not board the plane. The supposed reason was that the Obama administration did not want any military in Benghazi.

Two problems with that claim. The order was given, not by the State Department or the White House, but by the military on the scene. The second problem is that two members of that same Special Forces team had already accompanied a security force that had left Tripoli six hours earlier and was already in Benghazi.

3. It was claimed that there were f16s in Italy that could have helped, but they did not the range and tankers were not available.

Every claim made by the Republicans can refuted with the exception of the claim that the State Department did not approve sufficient security. Even in that case, the Republicans blame the wrong person. On the other hand, Charlene Lamb is not going to be running for President in 2016. :rolleyes:

Robert Goren

05-08-2013, 09:09 PM

Agree. As a watcher and reader of mainstream news with reasonable regularity, the only attention this story even gets more often than not is painted with the brush that suggest evil, hateful, racist, sexist republicans out to torture poor Obama and Hillary with a make-believe story. If this event as it stands now were to sway anyone from their default political leaning, I'd be pretty astounded.

People spent days actually believing that "islamaphobia" caused the whole thing, defying all belief, gulping down the fairy tale they were told as though they lack any instinct or brain function whatsoever. Rather than being upset that they were obviously deceived, I guess they realize that they are idiots and feel empathy for the idiots that sold them on the story under the pretense that they too were misled. I think at this point if they had a surveillance video of Obama loading a rocket launcher and Hillary firing it at the compound, the media would still successful sell it as 100% poli-witchhunt non-story.Because that is what it is. The GOP knows that it can NOT beat Hillary if she decides to run with their usual bad candidate. The only hope they have is drag her name through the mud. They tried it before and it not did work and it won't work this time, no how many hearing the house holds and how many post there are on this site. They should stop this foolishness and starting hunting for a candidate that is not total disaster like the last two.

Greyfox

05-08-2013, 09:23 PM

Every claim made by the Republicans can refuted with the exception of the claim that the State Department did not approve sufficient security.

And that's a minor claim, right? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

johnhannibalsmith

05-08-2013, 09:47 PM

Because that is what it is. ...

Go figure, Hillary was my top choice among the potentials during the 2008 primaries from both parties. In 2016, I expect I'll pull Johnson again or someone else from a third party that I can get behind. Yet, I'm happy to see these lying untouchables have their little facades pecked at. I want to see something resembling hell to pay for orchestrated deceit and deceit of the worst possible kind - incitement against our first amendment and scapegoating in a divisive way in an already peptic religious schism, all in the name of politics. **** them, regardless of party. That shit is low rent and should be a noteworthy blemish, at a minimum.

NJ Stinks

05-08-2013, 11:22 PM

This is not about foxnews,though home here try to sway it that way.
There are much darker forces at work in this Travesty.:bang:

No there isn't.

From the Washington Post website today:
_______________________________

Another way to phrase it might be “The Fox News Bombshell Hearing on Benghazi.” Cable’s leading news network, after all, helped break bureaucratic gridlock (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/05/01/fox-news-credited-by-lawyer-for-benghazi-whistleblower/) for lawyers representing the whistleblowers at the hearing. It broke news on what sort of testimony would emerge at the hearing. And it spent a goodly portion of this morning teeing up the hearing, like a Super Bowl pregame show.
_______________________________

Full story at the link below:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/05/08/benghazi-hearing-what-about-fox-newss-commandeered-jet/

JustRalph

05-09-2013, 02:06 AM

Anyone defending the State Department and Obama in this case are despicable people. Take it for what it's worth.

There are days around here that are disappointing.

rastajenk

05-09-2013, 07:22 AM

woodtoo

05-09-2013, 08:28 AM

No there isn't.

From the Washington Post website today:
_______________________________

Another way to phrase it might be “The Fox News Bombshell Hearing on Benghazi.” Cable’s leading news network, after all, helped break bureaucratic gridlock (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/05/01/fox-news-credited-by-lawyer-for-benghazi-whistleblower/) for lawyers representing the whistleblowers at the hearing. It broke news on what sort of testimony would emerge at the hearing. And it spent a goodly portion of this morning teeing up the hearing, like a Super Bowl pregame show.
_______________________________

Full story at the link below:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/05/08/benghazi-hearing-what-about-fox-newss-commandeered-jet/

Please,don't shoot the messenger.They didn't order no stand down,did they.

Greyfox

05-09-2013, 09:33 AM

Please,don't shoot the messenger.They didn't order no stand down,did they.

Where did you get that notion?

Joel Pollak is reporting the hearing for Breitbart.

He claims the inquiry was told of 2 stand down orders during the Benghazi attack.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/05/08/Five-Key-Points-from-Today-s-Benghazi-Hearing-So-Far

Tom

05-09-2013, 09:44 AM

The crime scene was unsecured for 18 days.
The FBI was not allowed on site because the Libyans were angered over being embarrassed by Susan Rice who went on 5 talk shows and lied about the attacks. They knew in real time it was NOT a protest.

Words have meaning, and they also have consequences.

I thought Obama was going to restore the faith in us the Bush destroyed? :lol::lol::lol:

FantasticDan

05-09-2013, 10:33 AM

Jon Stewart:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-8-2013/the-big-benghazi-theory

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-8-2013/the-big-benghazi-theory----if-

Saratoga_Mike

05-09-2013, 10:34 AM

woodtoo

05-09-2013, 10:39 AM

Please,don't shoot the messenger.They didn't order no stand down,did they.

The messenger,as in fox didn't order the stand down.
POTUS is the only one who has that authority.

PaceAdvantage

05-09-2013, 10:57 AM

Jon Stewart:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-8-2013/the-big-benghazi-theory

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-8-2013/the-big-benghazi-theory----if-Oh Shit..that does it for me..Jon Stewart has put us all in our place... :lol: :lol:

FantasticDan

05-09-2013, 11:04 AM

Oh Shit..that does it for me..Jon Stewart has put us all in our place... :lol: :lol:I know :lol: .. what else is new, right? :blush:

johnhannibalsmith

05-09-2013, 11:28 AM

I know :lol: .. what else is new, right? :blush:

It's actually a pretty good clip as far as news/comedy taking the "other side". But again, he is pretty much cherry picking the components of the story that serve to make it a good clip and ignoring others.

If you just want to debate whether the administration could have done more to save lives or to react, it seems like a useless argument rooted in hypotheticals (which he spoofs pretty well in the "if that is the case..." portion) and I do see the "political theater" side of that.

But there are things that we do know, or at least, I would think that most of us should know that are worthy of criticism. He ignores that side of it, which maybe isn't even a problem since those pursuing the issue seem to facilitate that with their own lack of distinct attention to that element. Ridiculous lies were told in the immediate aftermath. I don't think that's even disputed anymore. And because it isn't disputed, it's as though that makes it politically irrelevant for some odd reason considering it remains basically unresolved.

I'd sure like to see the "outrage" narrowed somewhat to that single element and then maybe "if that is the case..." will or will not stand on its own. The intel at hand was changed to create what was obviously perceived to be a desirable political explanation. I can't see any other plausible explanation for the perception but simple domestic political benefit. I've tried - it surely wasn't preferable to go that route from a security or foreign relations perspective. I can't begin to come up with any other sensible rationale for the lies about motive.

Lie to me, keep things classified, slither around in enemy grass if it is arguably in my best interest and the best interest of the nation in general. If it is in YOUR best interest and YOUR best interest alone, and the lies and slithering actually affect me negatively, then take your deserved lumps and apologize instead of relying on Jon Stewart and Arianna to read the story aloud to the class while skipping chapters at their whim.

mostpost

05-09-2013, 12:59 PM

Anyone defending the State Department and Obama in this case are despicable people. Take it for what it's worth.

There are days around here that are disappointing.
Mr. Despicable here, continuing to defend Obama and Hillary Clinton, although not necessarily every part of the State Department. The despicable people are those who are using the deaths of four Americans to push their political agenda.

Every one of their post Benghazi accusations has been proven either groundless or aimed at the wrong people. Sworn testimony has contradicted them and testimony by those supporting their charges has been proven to either misrepresented or wrong.

Despite the fact that we disagree, I do not consider you to be despicable; merely sad.

Saratoga_Mike

05-09-2013, 01:01 PM

Most - you have to be the biggest partisan hack on the board, and that's saying a lot.

HUSKER55

05-09-2013, 01:04 PM

mostpost

05-09-2013, 01:05 PM

And that's a minor claim, right? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
It is not. Had the Republicans focused on that, I would have been more sympathetic. But they tried to place blame where it did not belong. They tried to make an issue of the non issue was it a demonstration or an attack. They tried to claim that nothing was done to help those being attacked. All of those claims are false.

Also false is that those who were responsible for denying security were never punished. I take that back, they were never punished. The Republicans who voted to cut $128M in State Department security funding in 2011 and a greater amount in 2012 are still serving in Congress.

mostpost

05-09-2013, 01:23 PM

The messenger,as in fox didn't order the stand down.
POTUS is the only one who has that authority.
That is not true. In the case of the CIA, there was no stand down order given by anyone. In the case of the Special Forces troops in Tripoli who were told not to board the plane, the order came from within the military chain of command. A stand down order can be given by anyone who is authorized to give any order. Of course it can be countermanded by a higher authority.

BTW. You could have avoided Greyfox's confusion had you just written "Fox news did not order the stand down. Don't assume that everyone will get your references.

mostpost

05-09-2013, 01:45 PM

No kidding. If one can't smell the cover-up yet, one is either incredibly dense or unimaginably stubborn. No one got killed at Watergate, and that brought down an administration. This situation is exponentially worse.
Watergate began with a criminal act; the burglary of the Democratic offices at the Watergate. That burglary was an attempt by Republican operatives to subvert the election process, by obtaining sensitive knowledge of Democratic strategy.

The burglary by itself would not have brought the Nixon administration down.
The Nixon administration tried to cover up criminal activity by its minions. They denied knowledge of the activities. They denied that Nixon had any knowledge of the burglary or the coverup. Unfortunately for them there were these tapes that got out.

What is the criminal act involved in Benghazi. That Susan Rice told talk shows that it was their opinion that a demonstration sparked the attack? That Hillary Clinton testified to the same before Congress? That was the information they had at the time.

The notion that they were trying to protect Obama's reelection at the time and Hillary's possible run in 2016 is preposterous.

NJ Stinks

05-09-2013, 01:56 PM

You know what the real problem is? It does not matter what side of the aisle you are on,...nobody gives a damn.

Until the public stands up and says enough it don't matter. Remember the old adage, nothing changes until the rat dies?

there is no way this ever goes to trial and that is a travesty. What is scary is that neither side can muster enough people to do anything. Pretty quick there will be vigilante groups vying for control.

What the hell are you talking about? Who exactly is supposed to go on trial besides the terrorists that did the actual killing?

Saratoga Mike says Mostpost is "the biggest partisan hack on the board". What a joke that is.

mostpost

05-09-2013, 02:01 PM

Who was the idiot in the Obama admin that thought they needed to cover-up what really happened in Benghazi? If they were completely truthful, this tragic event still would have had ZERO impact on the outcome of the presidential election. I can't imagine a political advisor think differently.
Your sentence, which I placed in bold, is the key to this whole thing. If you can see that a cover up would be counterproductive, don't you see that someone in the Obama administration would also see that?

I think they presented the information which they believed to be accurate at the time. Unfortunately, some of that information turned out to be incorrect. That provided Republicans the opportunity issue spurious charges of a cover up.

Tom

05-09-2013, 02:03 PM

Mr. Despicable here, continuing to defend Obama and Hillary Clinton, although not necessarily every part of the State Department. The despicable people are those who are using the deaths of four Americans to push their political agenda.

Every one of their post Benghazi accusations has been proven either groundless or aimed at the wrong people. Sworn testimony has contradicted them and testimony by those supporting their charges has been proven to either misrepresented or wrong.

Despite the fact that we disagree, I do not consider you to be despicable; merely sad.

Just the opposite. Testimony has proven the administration lied about the attack.

Tom

05-09-2013, 02:05 PM

Also false is that those who were responsible for denying security were never punished. I take that back, they were never punished. The Republicans who voted to cut $128M in State Department security funding in 2011 and a greater amount in 2012 are still serving in Congress.

Wrong again. This had no effect. The defense expenses for Ben Gahzi do not come from that budget.

Tom

05-09-2013, 02:07 PM

The notion that they were trying to protect Obama's reelection at the time and Hillary's possible run in 2016 is preposterous.

No, it is obvious.

mostpost

05-09-2013, 02:12 PM

Most - you have to be the biggest partisan hack on the board, and that's saying a lot.
Partisan? Yes, I am partisan because the alternative would be to be bi-partisan, which would mean agreeing with some Republican policies. That I cannot do.

Hack? That is a more difficult question. It is true that I always defend Obama, Clinton etc. etc. on this forum. I do not always agree with everything they do nor with every policy they espouse. The problem is that so many of the charges and accusations presented here are so bizarre, so off the wall, that they demand a response.

Tom

05-09-2013, 02:30 PM

Partisan? Yes, I am partisan because the alternative would be to be bi-partisan, which would mean agreeing with some Republican policies. That I cannot do.

Wrong again. The alternative is to not view this as a political event, which it is not. Part of the reasons for it may be politically motivated, but the main issue here is what happened, why, and who is responsible. Americans were murdered in the line of duty and their superiors reacted by lying about it. As citizens, we demand to know why. You demand to not investigate, just you demand to not debate global warming. You are the hack here.

johnhannibalsmith

05-09-2013, 02:34 PM

...
I think they presented the information which they believed to be accurate at the time. Unfortunately, some of that information turned out to be incorrect. ...

Let me ask you a simple question, if possible. An honest, direct answer to such a simple question would be ideal.

When you learned that on September 11, RPGs and mortars were fired upon our facility in an area of the world known (to those who choose to be informed beyond the scope of stump speeches) to harbor Al Qaeda sympathizers and affiliates - did you need to be told the motive behind what happened? Did you read/hear that a protest about a video spiraled out of control and think 'ah, now that makes sense'? Was your first and only reaction NOT that it was obviously a terrorist-style attack based upon the date, the methods, and the location considering the population?

I really don't understand how anyone with a shred of brainpower and honesty can actually type crap like what you posted above sincerely. That was the information that they had? Really? You believe that? For real?????????

Tom

05-09-2013, 02:50 PM

A key Benghazi whistle-blower, responding to Democratic claims that the prolonged scrutiny over the administration's botched talking points is unwarranted, testified Wednesday that the early mischaracterization of the attack may have actually hurt the FBI's investigation. "I definitely believe that it negatively affected our ability to get the FBI team quickly to Benghazi," said Greg Hicks, the deputy chief of mission in Libya who became the top U.S. diplomat in the country after Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed. He claimed the Libyan president was angered by the mischaracterization, in turn slowing the U.S. probe.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/08/whistle-blowers-testify-on-benghazi-attacks/#ixzz2Sp58tKpO

Greyfox

05-09-2013, 03:24 PM

They tried to claim that nothing was done to help those being attacked. All of those claims are false.

.

Refresh my memory.
What was done to help Ambassador Stevens and his staff while they were being attacked?

mostpost

05-09-2013, 03:25 PM

Let me ask you a simple question, if possible. An honest, direct answer to such a simple question would be ideal.

When you learned that on September 11, RPGs and mortars were fired upon our facility in an area of the world known (to those who choose to be informed beyond the scope of stump speeches) to harbor Al Qaeda sympathizers and affiliates - did you need to be told the motive behind what happened? Did you read/hear that a protest about a video spiraled out of control and think 'ah, now that makes sense'? Was your first and only reaction NOT that it was obviously a terrorist-style attack based upon the date, the methods, and the location considering the population?

I really don't understand how anyone with a shred of brainpower and honesty can actually type crap like what you posted above sincerely. That was the information that they had? Really? You believe that? For real?????????
What I heard originally was that there was a demonstration to protest the video at the SMC in Benghazi. That, while the demonstration was going on separate group of approximately heavily armed men arrived. That upon the arrival of that armed force, the demonstrators dispersed and the attack commenced. At the time, that seemed a logical progression of events. I never thought that those who were involved in the original demonstration escalated to the attack.

The question is, what is the benefit of the administration to characterize this as a demonstration gone bad? The theory posited by Republicans is that the administration was trying to push a narrative of a successful Libyan revolution and the attack would have damaged that narrative. Yet they can point to no concerted effort to push that narrative.

ArlJim78

05-09-2013, 03:27 PM

they deliberately mislead. nobody on site reported anything about a demonstration. like everything else they fabricate whatever they please because it goes largely unchallenged. these people are the lowest of the low, telling the parents of those killed that it was about a film and that they would seek justice. it was about incompetence, covering up what was going on there and the election.

JustRalph

05-09-2013, 03:30 PM

Two families of those killed have reported that Hillary Clinton told them to their faces (remember the bogus ceremony in the hanger with the flag draped coffins where she promised to get to the bottom of the video?) that the video was the cause. They also say she refused to take their calls afterwards.

Despicable

Greyfox

05-09-2013, 03:31 PM

The question is, what is the benefit of the administration to characterize this as a demonstration gone bad? .

For starters Obama has declared it "verboten" to mention the word terrorist anywhere, especially the possibility of Muslim terrorist.
If Muslim terrorists do not exist, it can't be an act of terror- it had to be a demonstration gone bad.
Secondly, note how he will not refer to the Boston bombers as terrorists.
They are radicalists. Self-radicalized individuals if you wish.
They certainly aren't Muslim Terrorists , according to him.

johnhannibalsmith

05-09-2013, 03:37 PM

...

The question is, what is the benefit of the administration to characterize this as a demonstration gone bad?...

Thank you. And if people would divorce themselves from the remainder of what happened or should have happened, at least temporarily, perhaps we could figure that out - if for no other reason than to ensure future administrations, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, whatever - do not concoct damaging theories that are in direct contradiction to known information as well as every ounce of human logic and instinct. Again, there is a suitable time and place for deceit, but like you, I can see of no tangible benefit other than perceived domestic political gain. I know that you phrased your comment in such a way as to use the words as an implication that they honestly believed it, but I don't even think you buy that. The fact that the question is "what is the benefit..." doesn't imply that there was no benefit, just that there wasn't a good one. The fact that it may never be shown or proven what the administration's motives were doesn't acquit them of deserving scrutiny for explaining those motives, because I have to believe that in full view of the actual scenario from the time of the incident to the ten days afterwards, in this particular context, there is little to no doubt that this was much more a matter of deniable fabrications than it was bad intel.

Tom

05-09-2013, 03:43 PM

The guy who made the "alleged" video is still being held without bail.
The guy who kidnapped those girls in Ohio has had bail set.

Tom

05-09-2013, 03:50 PM

Hey mostie, did you just call up the Sean Hannity show?
The guy sounded just like you and it was a funny call. :lol:

mostpost

05-09-2013, 04:54 PM

Wrong again. This had no effect. The defense expenses for Ben Gahzi do not come from that budget.
Then please enlighten us as to where they do come from. :rolleyes:

Saratoga_Mike

05-09-2013, 05:17 PM

Your sentence, which I placed in bold, is the key to this whole thing. If you can see that a cover up would be counterproductive, don't you see that someone in the Obama administration would also see that?

I think they presented the information which they believed to be accurate at the time. Unfortunately, some of that information turned out to be incorrect. That provided Republicans the opportunity issue spurious charges of a cover up.

Surely you recognize politicians and their advisors often make panic-driven decisions that make little or no sense in hindsight. You know the "cover-up ends up being much worse than the original crime/transgression" stuff.

At this point, if you can't see Susan Rice went out and lied on all the Sunday talk shows, there's no hope for you. None. And why was she doing the Sunday shows? Prior to all of this, I had really grown to respect Hillary while still disagreeing with her on many issues.

mostpost

05-09-2013, 05:27 PM

Refresh my memory.
What was done to help Ambassador Stevens and his staff while they were being attacked?

~10:07 p.m. A U.S. security team departed the Annex for the TMF. The security team tried to secure heavy weapons from militia members encountered along the route, and faced some resistance in getting to the TMF. Even in the face of those obstacles, the Annex security team arrived, under enemy fire, within 25 minutes of the beginning of the initial assault. Over the course of the following hour, the Annex security team joined the TMF security officers in searching for Ambassador Stevens and Mr. Smith. Together, they repelled sporadic gunfire and RPG fire and assembled all other U.S. personnel at the facility. Officers retrieved the body of Mr. Smith, but did not find Ambassador Stevens.

~11:15 p.m. After about 90 minutes of repeated attempts to go into the burning building to search for the Ambassador, the Annex security team assessed that the security situation was deteriorating and they could not continue their search. The Annex security team loaded all U.S. personnel into two vehicles and departed the TMF for the Annex. The exiting vehicles left under heavy gunfire and faced at least one roadblock in their route to the Annex. The first vehicle left around 11:15 p.m. and the second vehicle departed at about 11:30 p.m. All surviving American personnel departed the facility by 11:30 p.m

12:00-2:00 a.m. Secretary Panetta convenes a series of meetings in the Pentagon with senior officials including General Dempsey and General Ham. They discuss additional response options for Benghazi and for the potential outbreak of further violence throughout the region, particularly inTunis,Tripoli, Cairo, and Sana’a. During these meetings, Secretary Panetta authorizes:
A Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST) platoon, stationed in Rota,
Spain, to prepare to deploy to Benghazi, and a second FAST platoon, also
stationed in Rota, Spain, to prepare to deploy to the Embassy in Tripoli.
See entry at 8:56 below.
A EUCOM special operations force, which is training in Central Europe,
to prepare to deploy to an intermediate staging base in southern Europe.
A special operations force based in the United States to prepare to deploy
to an intermediate staging base in southern Europe
See entry at 7:57 PM

12:30 a.m. A seven-man security team from U.S. Embassy Tripoli, including two DoD personnel, departs for Benghazi.
~1:15 a.m. The American security team from Tripoli lands in Benghazi. (DoD timeline)

5:15 a.m. At around 5:15 a.m., within 15 minutes of the Tripoli team’s arrival at the Annex
from the airport, a short but deadly coordinated terrorist attack began at the
Annex. The attack, which included small arms, rocket-propelled grenade (RPG), and well-aimed mortar fire, killed two American security officers, and severely wounded two others.

8:56 p.m. The FAST platoon, and associated equipment, arrives in Tripoli.

7:57 p.m. The EUCOM special operations force, and associated equipment, arrives at an intermediate staging base in southern Europe.

The significance of the last two quotes is that it took sixteen or seventeen hours to get from where they were to where they were sent. Which kind of defeats the argument that there was help readily available.

The quotes above come from the Congressional report on Benghazi, linked here:
http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Libya-Progress-Report-Final-1.pdf

Greyfox

05-09-2013, 05:39 PM

No mention of the size of that security team?

Two or three guards maybe??

fast4522

05-09-2013, 06:47 PM

Just for Mosty.

ArlJim78

05-09-2013, 07:10 PM

fast4522

05-09-2013, 07:24 PM

I almost posted the link to the Guess Who "no time" but could not do it, it is so very sad where we are today.

mostpost

05-09-2013, 08:38 PM

every single democrat at the hearing yesterday was reading from the same playbook, that there was not enough time to send help.how exactly did they determine this, that there was not enough time? how did they know how long a surprise terror attack (or a spontaneous extremely violent movie protest:rolleyes: ) was going to last?
it would seem that "there wasn't enough time" is simply a made up excuse that can only come in hindsight.

I saw a good question on twitter, had Chelsea Clinton or Sasha Obama been at that embassy, do you think they would have sent out several stand down orders when help was requested? do you think they would have said "oh well, there is no time"?
No one said there was no time to send help. Help was sent. None of it got there in time to save Stevens or Smith. The help from Tripoli arrived fifteen minutes before the two men were killed by the mortar attack on the annex. They were there but could not prevent the attack.

Three different anti terrorism teams were sent from Europe. This is in both the ARB and the congressional report. "There wasn't enough time" does not mean "There wasn't enough time so we did not bother to send anyone." It means "We sent someone, but there was not enough time for them to get there.

There were no stand down orders issued by the White House or the State Department or the CIA. The one stand down order-if you could call it that-was issued by the military and was for a group that was not going to the SMC or the CIA annex. Their orders were to secure the airport for an evacuation of American Personnel.

Greyfox

05-09-2013, 09:46 PM

There were no stand down orders issued by the White House or the State Department or the CIA.

Then who issued them? Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy? The Pentagon?

It is being reported today that two stand down orders were issued.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/05/08/Five-Key-Points-from-Today-s-Benghazi-Hearing-So-Far

ArlJim78

05-09-2013, 10:25 PM

No one said there was no time to send help. Help was sent. None of it got there in time to save Stevens or Smith. The help from Tripoli arrived fifteen minutes before the two men were killed by the mortar attack on the annex. They were there but could not prevent the attack.

Three different anti terrorism teams were sent from Europe. This is in both the ARB and the congressional report. "There wasn't enough time" does not mean "There wasn't enough time so we did not bother to send anyone." It means "We sent someone, but there was not enough time for them to get there.

There were no stand down orders issued by the White House or the State Department or the CIA. The one stand down order-if you could call it that-was issued by the military and was for a group that was not going to the SMC or the CIA annex. Their orders were to secure the airport for an evacuation of American Personnel.
the witnesses had a different accounting than the ass covering ARB report.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57583014/diplomat-u.s-special-forces-told-you-cant-go-to-benghazi-during-attacks/

is there any line you wouldn't cross to defend these despicable people? no need to answer. as I recall you're former military, your lapdog attitude and acceptance of the ass covering company line spewed by these politicians is somewhat sickening. you worship your political heroes so greatly that you virtually spit on these lifelong career service folks who worked in the trenches and now risk everything to set the record straight despite being threatened by powerful elected officials in Washington, and only because they don't want their friends and coworkers to have died for a lie.

riskman

05-09-2013, 11:16 PM

Five House Committees (Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, Judiciary, and Oversight and Government Reform) initiated their own inquiries soon after the attack. These five House Committees delivered an interim report on April 23, 2013. The interim report was critical of the Obama Administration's actions.

http://www.speaker.gov/report/benghazi-interim-report

After the May 8, 2013 testimony before Congress by the three "whistleblower" witnesses: Mark Thompson, acting deputy assistant Secretary of State for counterterrorism; Greg Hicks, former deputy chief of mission in Libya; and Eric Nordstrom, former regional security officer in Libya it is obvious the Obama Administration's actions before, during, and after the attack was deficient.

http://oversight.house.gov/hearing/benghazi-exposing-failure-and-recognizing-courage/

One could spend hours reading these reports. This administration screwed up. Hope at least they are fixing this situation if we insist on sticking our nose in the Middle East and all the blow-back that comes with it.

JustRalph

05-10-2013, 04:04 AM

http://cdnapi.kaltura.com/html5/html5lib/v1.6.12.27i/mwEmbedFrame.php/entry_id/0_i1wrewg1/wid/_483511/uiconf_id/3775332?referer=http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/rnc-scrapped-benghazi-ad-during-2012-campaign-19144859

The Ad Romney wouldn't use

PaceAdvantage

05-10-2013, 11:13 AM

The despicable people are those who are using the deaths of four Americans to push their political agenda. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh, you are a funny one mostpost. Thanks for the laugh!

(Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...as if mostpost, his cronies, and the entire left wing hasn't totally embraced the tactic of using the deaths of Americans killed in terrorist attacks to push a political agenda...holy cow I can't stop laughing....what a side-splitter you are mostpost...hell, you guys practically INVENTED the strategy during the Bush years....)

I don't know about despicable, but damn you are funny!

PaceAdvantage

05-10-2013, 11:23 AM

the witnesses had a different accounting than the ass covering ARB report.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57583014/diplomat-u.s-special-forces-told-you-cant-go-to-benghazi-during-attacks/

is there any line you wouldn't cross to defend these despicable people? no need to answer. as I recall you're former military, your lapdog attitude and acceptance of the ass covering company line spewed by these politicians is somewhat sickening. you worship your political heroes so greatly that you virtually spit on these lifelong career service folks who worked in the trenches and now risk everything to set the record straight despite being threatened by powerful elected officials in Washington, and only because they don't want their friends and coworkers to have died for a lie.
And these are the same folks who have no problem telling you Bush/Cheney were the second coming of Lucifer himself, and that every single thing they did was deceitful, wrong, criminal, etc. etc. etc.

Look how hard they are trying to defend/downplay Benghazi...imagine for a moment what they would be typing if this happened on Bush's watch...

Hell, they STILL to this day talk about the "bin Laden determined to attack" memo, blaming Bush for allowing 9/11 to happen, when he had such a detailed map of the attacks just sitting on his desk in August 2001... :rolleyes:

Like most partisans, right and left, mostpost and his cronies are now being royally exposed as the hypocrites that they naturally are...

Tom

05-10-2013, 11:39 AM

But they nailed that danged Scooter Libby! :lol::lol::lol:

FantasticDan

05-10-2013, 11:53 AM

Like most partisans, right and left, mostpost and his cronies are now being royally exposed as the hypocrites that they naturally are...I also find it hypocritical when royals expose themselves, but I make an exception with Kate Middleton :blush:

lamboguy

05-10-2013, 11:54 AM

DJofSD

05-10-2013, 11:58 AM

i don't know what's going on in these hearings, but Hillary's odds for 2016 have been going up lately. from a low of 5/2 she is now a 4-1 shot to be the next elected president.

it looks like she is losing support from gamblers all over the universe.
Reminds me of this verse in "Salt of the Earth:"

Raise your glass to the hard working people
Let's drink to the uncounted heads
Let's think of the wavering millions
Who need leaders but get gamblers instead

DJofSD

05-10-2013, 02:21 PM

Oh oh, more blood in the water.

Now, ABC's making points and raising questions in this (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/) video.

johnhannibalsmith

05-10-2013, 02:45 PM

...

Now, ABC's making points and raising questions in this (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/) video.

Boy, it sounds so much more legitimate when ABC says the same thing that most of us have been saying for most of a year. Twelve versions and a cleansing of all references to "Al Qaeda" and "prior warnings" because the State Dept. didn't want to have it used against them by Congress. Wait, what was the motive again? What did they have to gain again? Mosite?

Saratoga_Mike

05-10-2013, 02:57 PM

Boy, it sounds so much more legitimate when ABC says the same thing that most of us have been saying for most of a year. Twelve versions and a cleansing of all references to "Al Qaeda" and "prior warnings" because the State Dept. didn't want to have it used against them by Congress. Wait, what was the motive again? What did they have to gain again? Mosite?

Enough with your hateful right-wing rhetoric! :rolleyes:

johnhannibalsmith

05-10-2013, 03:14 PM

I don't know how many of the lefty sorts here read West Wing Reports or Paul Brandus (http://theweek.com/columnist/profile/paul-brandus/2) in general since I think the Week is the only semi-mainstream mag that publishes his work. But, having read his stuff before, even though he's pretty distinctly liberal, he has actually been critical of Obama, not of his principles, but for not being principled enough legislatively.

His piece today on this story actually caught me off-guard even though I consider him reasonably fair. It's pretty good. Probably the first good piece I've read about it.

For a long time, the Republican hunt for the truth surrounding the Benghazi terror attack has reminded me of one of President Reagan's favorite jokes. It concerns a little boy whose parents worried he was too optimistic. So they took him to a psychiatrist. Trying to dampen his spirits, the doctor led the boy into a room piled high with horse manure. The boy unexpectedly squealed with delight and began digging through it. "What on earth are you doing?" the psychiatrist asked.

"With all this manure," the boy replied, "there must be a pony in here somewhere."

And so it is with Benghazi. Republicans, convinced that the American people are being hoodwinked by the Obama administration, have been digging through the doo-doo for eight months. There must be a conspiracy and cover-up in here somewhere, they think. There must be.

The White House has scoffed at this witch hunt for months. But this week, it's looking like they're the ones standing in the doo-doo — playing politics, it seems, with tragedy.

...

There's a meatpacking-like quality to all this. You don't really want to know how your hamburger is processed, do you? The administration's defense — and it's looking thinner than ice on a late spring pond — is that government bureaucracy is messy and multi-layered and that's a big part of why Rice said what she did.

Benghazi occurred seven weeks before election day. The administration's strategy was simple: Downplay the terror attack, change the narrative, and run out the clock. And that's what it did.

But now the dam has burst. Carney's "here at the White House" comment has essentially thrown Clinton under the bus.

http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/244031/the-dam-bursts-on-benghazi

Tom

05-10-2013, 03:25 PM

I also find it hypocritical when royals expose themselves, but I make an exception with Kate Middleton :blush:

The Queen's orders are to shoot Harry if he even faces Las Vegas while he in the states this week.

johnhannibalsmith

05-10-2013, 03:47 PM

Poor Carney. Watching him try to answer questions about this now live and he reminds me of the days from high school when I had to give an oral report about a book that I never bothered reading. I actually feel badly for him trying to do his job as official apologist and not being able to do much other than shift the topic and filibuster off point whenever possible.

DJofSD

05-10-2013, 03:49 PM

Poor Carney. Watching him ... not being able to do much other than shift the topic and filibuster off point whenever possible.

I saw on the net earlier today, according to Jay Leno, it's a strategy called Hope and Change the Subject.

johnhannibalsmith

05-10-2013, 03:56 PM

"I accept that 'stylistic' may not describe precisely..."

:lol: :lol:

ArlJim78

05-10-2013, 05:12 PM

He blamed the IRS scandal on a Bush appointee and the Benghazi mess on Romney. you can't make this stuff up.

elysiantraveller

05-10-2013, 07:17 PM

Tom

05-10-2013, 11:17 PM

Tom

05-10-2013, 11:25 PM

Stand by your man.....

Greyfox

05-10-2013, 11:30 PM

I see a future for Carney on the Big Bang Theory.

Nope. Spielberg has first dibs on him for a new block buster called Pinocchio.

HUSKER55

05-11-2013, 09:22 AM

HEY TOM, wouldn't it be ironic if Bill had to stand beside Hillary when she says "I did not have real sex with the president". :D

Saratoga_Mike

05-11-2013, 01:44 PM

Its now front-page everywhere, well except MSNBC and Huffpo ;) , lets see the guys spin it now.

It even made the front page of today's Times. On last week's Chris Matthews Show, Chris laughed at Kathleen Parker when she said the Benghazi story was heating up. He said it was all in the minds of Fox News. I'm not waiting on Chris' apology - he's become a national joke, nothing more than a partisan hack.

fast4522

05-12-2013, 07:40 AM

Again Senator is spot on, NBC getting on on it.

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/11/18183010-rand-paul-challenges-hillary-clinton-in-key-iowa-speech?lite

Tom

05-12-2013, 08:41 AM

It is time now that anyone not covering the story is going to look pretty foolish.
One network blazed he trail on this one.....while the rest tried their best to deny it.

JustRalph

05-12-2013, 05:10 PM

Even Mo Dowd has flipped on this one. Even though she tries to soft pedal it

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/12/opinion/sunday/dowd-when-myths-collide-in-the-capital.html?_r=0

"After his Libyan intervention, President Obama knew he was sending diplomats and their protectors into a country that was no longer a country, a land rife with fighters affiliated with Al Qaeda.

Yet in this hottest of hot spots, the State Department’s minimum security requirements were not met, requests for more security were rejected, and contingency plans were not drawn up, despite the portentous date of 9/11 and cascading warnings from the C.I.A., which had more personnel in Benghazi than State did and vetted the feckless Libyan Praetorian Guard. When the Pentagon called an elite Special Forces team three hours into the attack, it was training in Croatia — decidedly not a hot spot.

Hillary Clinton and Ambassador Chris Stevens were rushing to make the flimsy Benghazi post permanent as a sign of good faith with Libyans, even as it sat ringed by enemies.

The hierarchies at State and Defense had a plodding response, failing to make any superhuman effort as the siege waxed and waned over eight hours.

In an emotional Senate hearing on Wednesday, Stevens’s second-in-command, Gregory Hicks, who was frantically trying to help from 600 miles away in Tripoli, described how his pleas were denied by military brass, who said they could not scramble planes and who gave a “stand-down” order to four Special Forces officers in Tripoli who were eager to race to Benghazi.

“My reaction was that, O.K., we’re on our own,” Hicks said quietly. He said the commander of that Special Forces team told him, “This is the first time in my career that a diplomat has more” chutzpah “than someone in the military.”

Btw, in spite of Mosties protestations, even M. Dowd admits a "stand down" order was issued

JustRalph

05-19-2013, 09:37 PM

Atkisson's latest follow up

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57584921/officials-on-benghazi-we-made-mistakes-but-without-malice/?tag=socsh

Good piece. quotes from insiders

TJDave

05-19-2013, 10:11 PM

Tom

05-19-2013, 11:14 PM

Yup - perfect set up - everyone build this up to a major deal, then throw some people under the bus and divert attention from the other stuff.

Ever listen to the menages of sound bytes Rush and Hanity play, where the exact same word or phrase is used over and over by the left wing media heads?
they are united in what they are told to say. :lol:

Greyfox

05-19-2013, 11:33 PM

I've been listening to interviews with democratic 'talking heads', Howard Dean among them. They all make the point in theorizing that of the recent scandals, The IRS is where the republicans shoul be concentrating their efforts, that Benghazi is a dead end.

So...a little light goes on in my head. :rolleyes:

What you are saying may be true from a political leverage viewpoint.:ThmbUp:
What the IRS did was undermine the trust of Americans in the tax service.
(You know more about that area, than I do.)

From a human moral perspective, the loss of lives in Benghazi, has been covered up and shovelled aside. Negligence was involved. That is not going away in the immediate future.

Also, the Justice Department's intrusion into the Associated Press reporter's records might be the tipping point that will have the Main Stream Media looking through a more unbiased spyglass at this WH Administration.

That it may have taken the latter revelation about the Associated Press records to lead to that, is unfortunate in my opinion.
The American public has deserved better from the "getgo" of the current regime.

JustRalph

05-20-2013, 12:14 AM

elysiantraveller

05-20-2013, 08:19 AM

Grey, After this weekends parties and leisure activities, and especially after Memorial Day, the press will have swilled and congregated enough to decide on whether they go after Obama or not.

The wick will either be turned up or they will decide that they cannot continue to criticize. They will fear staining Hilary too much in my opine and they will curtail their coverage for the sake of their personal political winds.

If some real journo can find somebody in the WH who can link the IRS scandal to the WH, that changes everything. They may be forced to join the party. Broadly speaking......

If they can somehow link the WH to the IRS scandal he is toast IMO. The reason being regardless of what the press thinks there are plenty of Democrats who do not like the current administration and with that much blood in the water its will be hard for that shark not to bite.