Republicans, please explain the Behghazi outrage to me

[werepossum]

I suppose you could conceivably misinterpret my posts that way. It takes quite a stretch, though not beyond what we see you routinely essay on this forum.

You SPECIFICALLY said Obama kept the consul in Benghazi to cover for the CIA.
You SPECIFICALLY called it a "sham mission".
You SPECIFICALLY said Obama did not provide security (not upgrade, which connotes that he had provided some security) for the consul in Benghazi to cover for the CIA, to give the impression there was nothing there of value.

Perhaps you did not think through the implications of your post, but there is no way one could think anything other than the Ambassador and the other Americas were placed at grave mortal risk, from which two died and two other Americans died trying to save them, merely to provide a cover for the CIA.

I believe Benghazi was a screw-up, plain and simple. Presidents have to juggle conflicting priorities such as this all the time, and sometimes a President (or more likely, someone down the chain attempting to carry out the President's wishes) will make a call that results in someone dying. It's sad, but no one, even the Messiah, can make every call correctly. Your explanation has Obama himself callously placing Americans at mortal risk just to provide a CIA cover, for only the President could order the State Department to place an ambassador in such a dangerous situation in a "sham mission", and then denying them security because it might tip off the opposition to the CIA's operation. (Which for some reason a nearby CIA base would not - not to mention that a US ambassador IS something of value and providing security wouldn't tip off anyone to anything other than that we protect our diplomats.) That requires Obama to knowingly sacrifice Americans, including an ambassador. In attempting to keep the Messiah in purest virgin white, you've unwittingly (and I think unfairly) cast him as something of a monster.

 

[ivwshane]

So what you are saying is that all CIA operations were directed by Obama and therefore all blame lies on him? That's interesting because I remember an incident that happened in the 80's and the president was let off the hook for things the CIA did.


Then again I have no idea what you are saying because your posts are all over the place.

You SPECIFICALLY said Obama kept the consul in Benghazi to cover for the CIA.
You SPECIFICALLY called it a "sham mission".
You SPECIFICALLY said Obama did not provide security (not upgrade, which connotes that he had provided some security) for the consul in Benghazi to cover for the CIA, to give the impression there was nothing there of value.

Perhaps you did not think through the implications of your post, but there is no way one could think anything other than the Ambassador and the other Americas were placed at grave mortal risk, from which two died and two other Americans died trying to save them, merely to provide a cover for the CIA.

I believe Benghazi was a screw-up, plain and simple. Presidents have to juggle conflicting priorities such as this all the time, and sometimes a President (or more likely, someone down the chain attempting to carry out the President's wishes) will make a call that results in someone dying. It's sad, but no one, even the Messiah, can make every call correctly. Your explanation has Obama himself callously placing Americans at mortal risk just to provide a CIA cover, for only the President could order the State Department to place an ambassador in such a dangerous situation in a "sham mission", and then denying them security because it might tip off the opposition to the CIA's operation. (Which for some reason a nearby CIA base would not - not to mention that a US ambassador IS something of value and providing security wouldn't tip off anyone to anything other than that we protect our diplomats.) That requires Obama to knowingly sacrifice Americans, including an ambassador. In attempting to keep the Messiah in purest virgin white, you've unwittingly (and I think unfairly) cast him as something of a monster.

 

[TerryMathews]

So what you are saying is that all CIA operations were directed by Obama and therefore all blame lies on him? That's interesting because I remember an incident that happened in the 80's and the president was let off the hook for things the CIA did.


Then again I have no idea what you are saying because your posts are all over the place.

Yes, and just like the situation today, no one with a functioning brain believes that Reagan didn't know.

 

[ShintaiDK]

In danish news media is was explained as they had captured some local guy and held him prison in the consulate. Local people wanted to free their friend and killed the americans.

If all of that is true. Then I assume it was CIA or whatever who illegally imprisoned someone from another country. That wouldnt be the first time. Plenty of CIA agents are already wanted on Interpol for abductions in europe.

I am also sure everyone at the consulate knew it. Meaning the only problem as such, seen with american eyes would have been the security at the consulate. But I dont believe there was any "innocent" people there that just got caught in the action.

In any way, I cant see any conspiracy as such with american eyes. Its been the norm for quite some time under both parties. Or perhaps the problem "only" was it went wrong?

Please correct me if thats not the case.

 

[airdata]

I love how right wingers are so anti conspiracy unless obama is in some form involved.

 

[TerryMathews]

I love how right wingers are so anti conspiracy unless obama is in some form involved.

I love how left wingers will forgive any indiscretion of their team.

Reagan and Bush Sr. were neck deep in Iran Contra. Ted Kennedy murdered Mary Jo Kopechne. Clinton lied to the American people.

Newt was a sleaze bag. So was John Edwards. W say high as a kite the whole time he was in the reserves and would've been in prison if it weren't for daddy.

Lyndon Johnson was the biggest liar of them all. General Westmoreland must have had a puppet hole for all the parroting he did.

Nixon really was a crook.

Guess what? Two lies don't cancel each other out.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yes, and just like the situation today, no one with a functioning brain believes that Reagan didn't know.

And just what, *exactly*, is it that Obama is supposed to have known about, anyway? What evidence can you offer to support the claim that there was something to know at all?

Notice that I said "evidence", not supposition, extrapolation, suspicion, innuendo, jumping to conclusions or just the usual Hate-um Obama! raving.

This is always what it comes down to, this is the central issue underlying the standard conspiracy theory, that there's something to cover up. Like what?

Like Iraqi WMD's?

Like Birtherism?

Like massive Voter Fraud?

Like all the other fringe-whack notions of the far Right?

 

[monovillage]

New story on Benghazi.
http://thehill.com/blogs/global-aff...ults-pentagon-state-dept-over-benghazi-attack

The report, titled “Flashing Red,” comes after a critical independent State Department-ordered review, and widens the blame for the assault, which left four Americans dead, to the Pentagon and White House.

I think it's also important for us all to pray for the good health of Hillary Clinton and the difficulties she's facing.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

I love how left wingers will forgive any indiscretion of their team.

Reagan and Bush Sr. were neck deep in Iran Contra. Ted Kennedy murdered Mary Jo Kopechne. Clinton lied to the American people.

Newt was a sleaze bag. So was John Edwards. W say high as a kite the whole time he was in the reserves and would've been in prison if it weren't for daddy.

Lyndon Johnson was the biggest liar of them all. General Westmoreland must have had a puppet hole for all the parroting he did.

Nixon really was a crook.

Guess what? Two lies don't cancel each other out.

Indeed 2 things can be equally true but comparing Iran Contra with Benghazi would be a false equivalence.

 

[monovillage]

Indeed 2 things can be equally true but comparing Iran Contra with Benghazi would be a false equivalence.

How would you know since there's been no completed investigation (according to Obama)?

 

[TerryMathews]

And just what, *exactly*, is it that Obama is supposed to have known about, anyway? What evidence can you offer to support the claim that there was something to know at all?

Notice that I said "evidence", not supposition, extrapolation, suspicion, innuendo, jumping to conclusions or just the usual Hate-um Obama! raving.

This is always what it comes down to, this is the central issue underlying the standard conspiracy theory, that there's something to cover up. Like what?

Like Iraqi WMD's?

Like Birtherism?

Like massive Voter Fraud?

Like all the other fringe-whack notions of the far Right?

The same things you're complaining about were also true of Clinton, Johnson, and Nixon before the truth came out.

It's still true of Reagan and Bush Sr.

To answer the top of your post, specifically, he knew that Susan Bush was flat out lying when she went on national television the Sunday after Benghazi.

 

[TerryMathews]

Indeed 2 things can be equally true but comparing Iran Contra with Benghazi would be a false equivalence.

Why? I think WRT Presidential involvement they are very similar. Suspected but unproven.

 

[TerryMathews]

New story on Benghazi.
http://thehill.com/blogs/global-aff...ults-pentagon-state-dept-over-benghazi-attack



I think it's also important for us all to pray for the good health of Hillary Clinton and the difficulties she's facing.

I look forward to reading that report.

 

[Jhhnn]

The same things you're complaining about were also true of Clinton, Johnson, and Nixon before the truth came out.

It's still true of Reagan and Bush Sr.

To answer the top of your post, specifically, he knew that Susan Bush was flat out lying when she went on national television the Sunday after Benghazi.

In other words, you got nothin'. She was lying about what, specifically?

 

[First]

^ yeah these guys still consistently wimping out of proving any lies or even making a compelling case.

Sad, but entertaining.

 

[TerryMathews]

In other words, you got nothin'. She was lying about what, specifically?

Protest over a YouTube video. Duh.

 

[Jhhnn]

Protest over a YouTube video. Duh.

Gawd. There were protests all over the Muslim world, with varying degrees of violence. Benghazi was the most extreme, with a local militia deciding to protest with guns, mortars, HMG's & RPG's. The video was an excuse, a flash point.

On Oct. 16, David Kirkpatrick of The New York Times reported from Cairo: To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck the United States Mission without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning al Qaida, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier. And it is an explanation that tracks with their history as members of a local militant group determined to protect Libya from Western influence. . . . The assailants approvingly recalled a 2006 assault by local Islamists that had destroyed an Italian diplomatic mission in Benghazi over a perceived insult to the prophet. In June the group staged a similar attack against the Tunisian Consulate over a different film . . . Other Benghazi militia leaders who know the group say its leaders and ideology are all homegrown. . . . They openly proselytize for their brand of puritanical Islam and political vision. They profess no interest in global fights against the West or distant battles aimed at removing American troops from the Arabian Peninsula.

Admin spokespeople were mistaken in claiming that the attack was part of a greater protest, and have said so, repeatedly.

But, of course, the usual conspiracy theorists want to find some deeper meaning when there is none. What is the Obama Admin covering up when they've admitted to having been mistaken about the true course of events?

Was it the CIA militarization of the Yeti being carried out in secret camps in the Libyan desert, or what?

 

[TerryMathews]

Gawd. There were protests all over the Muslim world, with varying degrees of violence. Benghazi was the most extreme, with a local militia deciding to protest with guns, mortars, HMG's & RPG's. The video was an excuse, a flash point.





Admin spokespeople were mistaken in claiming that the attack was part of a greater protest, and have said so, repeatedly.

But, of course, the usual conspiracy theorists want to find some deeper meaning when there is none. What is the Obama Admin covering up when they've admitted to having been mistaken about the true course of events?

Was it the CIA militarization of the Yeti being carried out in secret camps in the Libyan desert, or what?

No, I think the cover up was simply trying to avoid blame for a failure right before an election.

Potentially there could be more to this story a la Iran Contra, and we may never know what really happened.

No matter what, Susan Rice has a security clearance sufficient to have access to both the classified report and the unclassified report. I believe she knew on Sunday she was lying.

 

[monovillage]

I look forward to reading that report.

The "Immaculate Concussion"?

 

[ivwshane]

No, I think the cover up was simply trying to avoid blame for a failure right before an election.

Potentially there could be more to this story a la Iran Contra, and we may never know what really happened.

No matter what, Susan Rice has a security clearance sufficient to have access to both the classified report and the unclassified report. I believe she knew on Sunday she was lying.

Do you have access to classified information? I know I don't. Do you think if rice had classified information she should have spoke about it on national tv? I'd the information was classified do you think there was a very good reason for giving the talking points she gave?

Unless you think government officials have a responsibility of providing classified info to the public you only have two things left to continue your argument:


JACK
and
SHIT!

 

[TerryMathews]

Do you have access to classified information? I know I don't. Do you think if rice had classified information she should have spoke about it on national tv? I'd the information was classified do you think there was a very good reason for giving the talking points she gave?

Unless you think government officials have a responsibility of providing classified info to the public you only have two things left to continue your argument:


JACK
and
SHIT!

Your post is so disjointed I can't follow it.

We know that the original memos correctly identified this as an attack, were classified, and that the unclassified talking points memo changed from attack to demonstration.

No one disputes that.

So are you claiming:

A) the UN Ambassador Susan Rice had no security clearance

Or

B) that the original classified memos regarding Benghazi do not exist

My point is there was NO good reason to go on the Sunday talk circuit and lie except to perpetuate a cover up.

This wasn't the White House briefing room, and it wasn't the UN Security Council. She knowingly went somewhere she did not have to go, to peddle a lie to us on our own dime. I'm sure we paid her travel expenses.

Let me ask you this, since you have all the answers: what objective did Susan Rice achieve by selling such a transparent lie? Was it supposed to be counterintelligence? If so, I doubt it was effective. The lie was too transparent. There's no way that an organization on the level of Al Quaeda would believe that we had no idea what was going on.

The only objective achieved was a political one.

Edit: the way you do this right, the way Presidents with some wit have approached this problem in the past, is to have someone without a security clearance run an unrelated press briefing and plant the question via an anonymous high-level source. That way you have the plausible deniability that assistant undersecretary John G. Jumper couldn't have known he was lying, as he lacked the clearance to see the real version of events. And no one knew to brief him because the gaggle was on the Keystone pipeline.

 

[First]

Your post is so disjointed I can't follow it.

We know that the original memos correctly identified this as an attack, were classified, and that the unclassified talking points memo changed from attack to demonstration.

No one disputes that.

So are you claiming:

A) the UN Ambassador Susan Rice had no security clearance

Or

B) that the original classified memos regarding Benghazi do not exist

My point is there was NO good reason to go on the Sunday talk circuit and lie except to perpetuate a cover up.

This wasn't the White House briefing room, and it wasn't the UN Security Council. She knowingly went somewhere she did not have to go, to peddle a lie to us on our own dime. I'm sure we paid her travel expenses.

Let me ask you this, since you have all the answers: what objective did Susan Rice achieve by selling such a transparent lie? Was it supposed to be counterintelligence? If so, I doubt it was effective. The lie was too transparent. There's no way that an organization on the level of Al Quaeda would believe that we had no idea what was going on.

The only objective achieved was a political one.

You're a little slow on the uptake; no one knows the original classified info, except those with clearance. Since we know you certainly don't have clearance, you don't know how classified information colored rice's comments. The fact that the reasons went from demonstration due to video to organized terrorist attack isn't germane to the discussion about a supposed lie, or ivwshane's point about classified info you simply don't have.

 

[ivwshane]

Your post is so disjointed I can't follow it.

We know that the original memos correctly identified this as an attack, were classified, and that the unclassified talking points memo changed from attack to demonstration.

No one disputes that.

So are you claiming:

A) the UN Ambassador Susan Rice had no security clearance

Or

B) that the original classified memos regarding Benghazi do not exist

My point is there was NO good reason to go on the Sunday talk circuit and lie except to perpetuate a cover up.

This wasn't the White House briefing room, and it wasn't the UN Security Council. She knowingly went somewhere she did not have to go, to peddle a lie to us on our own dime. I'm sure we paid her travel expenses.

Let me ask you this, since you have all the answers: what objective did Susan Rice achieve by selling such a transparent lie? Was it supposed to be counterintelligence? If so, I doubt it was effective. The lie was too transparent. There's no way that an organization on the level of Al Quaeda would believe that we had no idea what was going on.

The only objective achieved was a political one.

Edit: the way you do this right, the way Presidents with some wit have approached this problem in the past, is to have someone without a security clearance run an unrelated press briefing and plant the question via an anonymous high-level source. That way you have the plausible deniability that assistant undersecretary John G. Jumper couldn't have known he was lying, as he lacked the clearance to see the real version of events. And no one knew to brief him because the gaggle was on the Keystone pipeline.

Why don't you ask the CIA or the intellegence community who created the talking points and made the changes before they were given to Rice?

You won't ask it and instead will blame the president for something he had no say in, you aren't interested in the truth and your posts prove it.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/politic...d801ac-5382-11e2-abc4-3d33329b6128_story.html

 

[TerryMathews]

This just in http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/12/31/benghazi-explanations-report/1801655/

"According to a senior IC (intelligence community) official, the timeline has not been delivered as promised because the administration has spent weeks debating internally whether or not it should turn over information considered 'deliberative' to the Congress," the report said."

Translation: can I exercise executive privilege over this like I did Fast and Furious?

 

[monovillage]

Why don't you ask the CIA or the intellegence community who created the talking points and made the changes before they were given to Rice?

You won't ask it and instead will blame the president for something he had no say in, you aren't interested in the truth and your posts prove it.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/politic...d801ac-5382-11e2-abc4-3d33329b6128_story.html

From your own link:

The committee, headed by independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, also said the director of national intelligence has been stonewalling the panel in holding back a promised timeline of the talking point changes.