The Benghazi Story goes critical

[Bowfinger]

I don't see what calling a spade a spade has to do with partisanship. I also don't see what is inflammatory about it, either. Some refuse to see past their ridiculous political affiliations, which prevents them from the reality that should they have their political affiliation dictate the actions here, nobody would be held accountable -- or, at least, nobody would know who the people who should be accountable are -- no further information would be obtained, and the people dropping the ball would continue to be in positions where they are given the ball. There is no excuse in my mind for acting as though a political affiliation is in any way more important than the lives of our citizens.

The processes that are occurring exist for a good reason, and I think this situation exemplifies it. I don't think anyone wants to live in a country where government officials are not held accountable for the decisions they make, especially when they involve others' lives. Perusing through probably any thread on this forum, I think there is ample evidence of that. Yet, you wouldn't know it by reading a significant number of the comments in this thread, because some want to claim it's political witch-hunt, all the while ignoring that there has been zero accountability, thus far. If a cop got information that a safe house was going to be hit or was likely to be attacked, yet did nothing, I'm pretty confident in saying the general consensus as to said cop's future would be that, in the least, he should be jobless. I see very little difference in this situation.

Someone was responsible for the deaths of our citizens (aside from the terrorists). The investigations found the deaths were preventable for a reason. I don't think it was intentional or anything of that nature, so that's why I say grossly incompetent. Perhaps if the matters were resolved more swiftly and it didn't take multiple investigations to find a little bit of information here, a little bit of information there, etc. I would probably have excused it as human error, which I've stated before. At this point, however, with still no accountability whatsoever, and with validation that the attacks were preventable, I find no valid argument to contradict that the party or parties who have been grossly incompetent should be removed from their positions of power, or have their positions of power reduced to those that are not responsible for the lives of others.

You are right about one thing, though: false premises lead to false conclusions pretty much every time.

All deaths are preventable when blessed with 20/20 hindsight. Behghazi is no different. If you bothered to read the Senate Select Committee report, you'll find it has numerous findings and recommendations for preventing such tragedies in the future. What is doesn't do is serve up the Obama administration blood you and your Fox brethren crave.

The fact is the entire Middle East is a dangerous place, not just Libya. The fact is that we had no advance warnings about imminent danger in Benghazi, contrary to the talking point. The fact is our Benghazi office was not an embassy or even a consulate. It was a tertiary outpost that never gets the same sort of security we give to full embassies. The fact is that Ambassador Stevens, more aware of the situation than almost anyone else, still chose to travel to Benghazi, strongly suggesting he also had no idea how bad things there had become. The fact is there were numerous protests across the Muslim world about that infamous video, and the CIA initially assumed the Benghazi attack was related to such demonstrations. The fact is the CIA included that assumption in the very first copy of its talking points sent to the White House and State Department. The fact is that although Rice did state they believed the attack was tied to those protests, she also consistently stated that they were just beginning the investigation and that they were looking at possible ties to terrorist groups.

Those are the facts. You state that this sixth inquiry is "crucial". Why? What truth will it find that the other five have not, especially given this one is being run by highly partisan politicians actively running for reelection? You lecture us about people blinded by partisanship, yet you rationalize that this purely partisan inquiry is somehow going to be productive. Another partisan inquiry is the exact opposite of what you claim to want. You are either confused or a dishonest hypocrite.

 

[Jhhnn]

Indeed, one can hope. Given an interview with Gowdy that I saw today, it sounds like he's already formed his conclusions and will be seeking evidence to support them. Perhaps that was simply posturing for the Republican base, and he will actually do his job honestly. We'll see.

True, but the formation of a select committee already puts the veracity of the "work" of Issa's committee very much in doubt. Had he done his job well, a select committee wouldn't be needed.

Dems can alter the tone of the whole thing in forcefully pointing that out. Under the spotlight like that, Gowdy can't ignore contrary evidence the same way as before. Repubs can't afford the same Issa style witch hunts as in the past- it's too obvious.

 

[bshole]

Someone was responsible for the deaths of our citizens (aside from the terrorists). The investigations found the deaths were preventable for a reason. I don't think it was intentional or anything of that nature, so that's why I say grossly incompetent. Perhaps if the matters were resolved more swiftly and it didn't take multiple investigations to find a little bit of information here, a little bit of information there, etc. I would probably have excused it as human error, which I've stated before. At this point, however, with still no accountability whatsoever, and with validation that the attacks were preventable, I find no valid argument to contradict that the party or parties who have been grossly incompetent should be removed from their positions of power, or have their positions of power reduced to those that are not responsible for the lives of others.

And the Republicans will get to the bottom of it by fundraising on it? It takes brass balls to investigate a supposed scandal while simultaneously pimping it for money. Given that the Republican constituents are about the most brain dead and partisan cretins on the earth, it has been quite effective.

Make no mistake, any intelligent, thinking person can see EXACTLY what this is all about..... exploiting tragedy for political gain. The Republicans are going to milk the withered dead teats of this decrepid sickly cow for a long time to come. The pity is that this scandalous behaviour on their part has so far gone unpunished.

 

[Jaskalas]

Geithner: White House Wanted Me to Lie on Sunday Shows

Sound familiar? We know the CIA properly informed the White House a day before Susan Rice took to the Sunday Shows. Yet the false narrative was carried. A pattern emerges where the White House pushes false information to the media.

What remains is subjected to partisan interpretation. Did they not have enough time to prep their talking heads, or was the false narrative more politically advantageous than the truth?

 

[TerryMathews]

What remains is subjected to partisan interpretation. Did they not have enough time to prep their talking heads, or was the false narrative more politically advantageous than the truth?

Clearly this was a short-term strategy intended to keep Romney from capitalizing on the failure. And it worked, largely.

I don't understand how anyone can objectively look at the situation and not come to that conclusion.

 

[Jhhnn]

Geithner: White House Wanted Me to Lie on Sunday Shows

Sound familiar? We know the CIA properly informed the White House a day before Susan Rice took to the Sunday Shows. Yet the false narrative was carried. A pattern emerges where the White House pushes false information to the media.

What remains is subjected to partisan interpretation. Did they not have enough time to prep their talking heads, or was the false narrative more politically advantageous than the truth?

Except that's not what Geithner actually said, is it?

Of course not. It's the Weakly Standard's rather desperate spin on his remarks.

Which has jack shit to do with Benghazi, anyway.

False narrative? As compared to what? WMD's, anybody? Linked to Terrarists? Trickle down economics? Anti-missile defense against imaginary Iranian nuclear missiles located in Poland?

 

[TerryMathews]

Except that's not what Geithner actually said, is it?

Of course not. It's the Weakly Standard's rather desperate spin on his remarks.

Which has jack shit to do with Benghazi, anyway.

Are you saying they're misquoting his memoirs?

 

[Daverino]

So when are we opening the investigation into the Beirut Barracks bombing?

 

[Jhhnn]

Are you saying they're misquoting his memoirs?

Geithner didn't say he was asked to lie.

 

[bshole]

From the article....

While the CIA would neither confirm nor deny the session on Capitol Hill, other sources familiar with the development told The Washington Times that committee members sought the station chief’s perspective on the talking points ahead of a long-anticipated public hearing Wednesday — during which former Deputy CIA Director Michael J. Morell is slated to testify.

Lawmakers say the hearing will delve into why Mr. Morell and other agency officials in Washington did not include the station chief’s assessments in claims by then-U.N. Ambassador Susan E. Rice to assert during several news talk shows that the Benghazi attacks grew out of a protest over an anti-islam video.

You have got to be FUCKING kidding me. They are about to spend millions of dollars to investigate what some politico said on a gawd damn talk show. For christ's sake, this is the best "scandal" they could come up with it? If the Republicans want to "investigate" this, they should be using their own campaign re-election funds and NOT taxpayer funds. It sticks in my craw that my tax dollars are being used to fund Southern Republicans re-election campaigns.

 

[kage69]

So when are we opening the investigation into the Beirut Barracks bombing?

Ideally right before Cheney and Co. get grilled over the manipulations and lies that led to thousands of Americans dying for no reason, point of order and all that. Wishful thinking too.

It does put the sockpuppet mindset in perspective, doesn't it? 241 Marines are murdered and Reagan pulls out, conservatives didn't and still don't seem to have a problem with that. I don't recall anyone getting witch hunted over the security at the barracks that day.

Office in Benghazi gets attacked, 4 dead and the GOP loses it's shit, repeatedly. Why oh why can't Obama be like Reagan? lol

 

[Jhhnn]

Gotta love the desperation- linking to the Washington Times for a story from anonymous sources, as if that's vaguely reliable.

In the minds of the True Believers, it must be the whole unadulterated truth, obviously.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

So when are we opening the investigation into the Beirut Barracks bombing?

It was already investigated by Congress, FBI and Defense Department and the administration at that time represented all facts accurately if I recall correctly.

BTW...if you're going to regurgitate a Daily Beast talking point, you should at least link it so we can all appreciate the mindless parroting for what it is.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/09/beirut-barracks-vs-benghazi.html

 

[TerryMathews]

Geithner didn't say he was asked to lie.

Its right in the link:

" I objected when Dan Pfeiffer wanted me to say Social Security didn’t contribute to the deficit. It wasn’t a main driver of our future deficits, but it did contribute. Pfeiffer said the line was a ‘dog whistle’ to the left, a phrase I had never heard before. He had to explain that the phrase was code to the Democratic base, signaling that we intended to protect Social Security."

Pfeiffer: say that SS doesn't contribute to the deficit
Geitner: I can't, it's a lie
Pfeiffer: no, its OK. It's not a lie its a dog whistle.
Geitner: what's a dog whistle

It's still a lie.

 

[boomerang]

Geithner: White House Wanted Me to Lie on Sunday Shows

Sound familiar? We know the CIA properly informed the White House a day before Susan Rice took to the Sunday Shows. Yet the false narrative was carried. A pattern emerges where the White House pushes false information to the media.

What remains is subjected to partisan interpretation. Did they not have enough time to prep their talking heads, or was the false narrative more politically advantageous than the truth?

The false narrative was the agenda. Controlling the message is of the utmost importance to this regime. We've seen it from the time Obama first announced his candidacy. There are things we don't know about a candidate Obama that we still don't know about a President Obama and we won't know until the day after he leaves office. I imagine a slew of books will become available on January 21, 2017. Geithner is one of many that have started running their mouths after leaving the regime.

Why is the Benghazi investigation needed? So that we maintain some semblance of accountability. We should all rejoice that a select committee has finally been formed. All of us. Because Democrats won't always control the White House. Anyone who thinks Democrats wouldn't be as ardently supporting the investigation were the political parties reversed is a fool. If they want Benghazi to go away, they take the chance of making government that much less accountable. I'm not certain that the majority of them have thought this through that far ahead.

I'm most interested in seeing where the responsibility stops. Who will shoulder the burden? Personally, based on the evidence available, I think the ultimate responsibility falls on Obama. But I'm convinced that Valerie Jarrett made the call to stand down (with no authority to do so) and to spin the story to make it about a video. Trying to throw her under the bus will get interesting because if she did what I suspect she did, there is no way to not ultimately blame Obama because if she acted outside of her authority, she did it with his blessing. She can't take the fall without implicating him. So an underling will have to fall on the sword. It can't be Hillary, even if she doesn't run because the Clinton name is not one to be sullied any more within the circles of D.C. politics. So, it has to be someone between Hillary and Obama. I don't know who that is, but I bet whomever it is knows it's them.

So this is what I suspect at this time based on the information we know. If the information had been forthcoming from the administration we'd know not only what happened, but that there was nothing that needed to be covered up. They withheld information so we know that there is something to hide. It's a no-brainer.

Oh, and these continuous attempts at drawing parallels with events from decades ago is juvenile. Stop it. There is nothing "fair" in politics. Wishing events had been dealt with differently in history does not change what is happening today.

 

[Jhhnn]

Its right in the link:

" I objected when Dan Pfeiffer wanted me to say Social Security didn’t contribute to the deficit. It wasn’t a main driver of our future deficits, but it did contribute. Pfeiffer said the line was a ‘dog whistle’ to the left, a phrase I had never heard before. He had to explain that the phrase was code to the Democratic base, signaling that we intended to protect Social Security."

Pfeiffer: say that SS doesn't contribute to the deficit
Geitner: I can't, it's a lie
Pfeiffer: no, its OK. It's not a lie its a dog whistle.
Geitner: what's a dog whistle

It's still a lie.

Not nearly. Geithner's remarks switch back & forth between past & future tense. "The deficit" (like for the year in question) is obviously not the same as "future deficits". The annual deficit is shrinking, btw. What year are we talking about, anyway? SS was still in the black as of 2009.

And, of course, it's utterly remarkable that Righties grant any credibility to Geithner's recollection of the conversation, anyway. Well, other than in terms of motivated reasoning. They're calling him a liar at the same time-

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/mitt-romney-adviser-tim-geithner-lie-106563.html

It's entirely immaterial to the subject of OMFG! BENGHAZI! in any event.

 

[Daverino]

It was already investigated by Congress, FBI and Defense Department and the administration at that time represented all facts accurately if I recall correctly.

BTW...if you're going to regurgitate a Daily Beast talking point, you should at least link it so we can all appreciate the mindless parroting for what it is.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/09/beirut-barracks-vs-benghazi.html

I can spare two, maybe three sentences on this tripe per day. I certainly won't get my back up to hyperlink over this Republican stirred nontroversy.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I can spare two, maybe three sentences on this tripe per day. I certainly won't get my back up to hyperlink over this Republican stirred nontroversy.

Then perhaps you should think twice about regurgitating this kind of liberal tabloid crap....it makes you look like an idiot.

 

[boomerang]

Trey Gowdy calls the media (and others) out on the carpet.

http://chicksontheright.com/posts/item/25851-oh-look-trey-gowdy-is-being-awesome-again

 

[Jaskalas]

It's entirely immaterial to the subject of OMFG! BENGHAZI! in any event.

It establishes a consistent pattern of the administration lying to the media.

 

[thraashman]

Trey Gowdy calls the media (and others) out on the carpet.

http://chicksontheright.com/posts/item/25851-oh-look-trey-gowdy-is-being-awesome-again

And Gowdy does everything he can to prove that he has ZERO intention of providing actual answers but instead fully intends to be as partisan as possible. If you can listen to that speech and believe for a second that he has ANY plans to get truth and not just partisan talking points, then you are a FUCKING RETARD.

 

[MongGrel]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqreRufrkxM

 

[boomerang]

And Gowdy does everything he can to prove that he has ZERO intention of providing actual answers but instead fully intends to be as partisan as possible. If you can listen to that speech and believe for a second that he has ANY plans to get truth and not just partisan talking points, then you are a FUCKING RETARD.

Quit whining.

 

[thraashman]

Quit whining.

No whining. Just pointing out what the intelligent of us have suspected from the beginning. That this is yet more bs from the far right that has nothing to do with finding any truth and is completely about partisan hackery. And I see you agree with me. The different is unlike you, I'm not ok with it.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

No whining. Just pointing out what the intelligent of us have suspected from the beginning. That this is yet more bs from the far right that has nothing to do with finding any truth and is completely about partisan hackery. And I see you agree with me. The different is unlike you, I'm not ok with it.

The difference is...despite the lies, total lack of cooperation, and blatant obfuscation efforts...you inherently trust this administation. Don't confuse trust with intelligence.