Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Benghazi - Just the Facts, Ma'am (Page 4)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 25 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ...  23  24  25   
Author Topic: Benghazi - Just the Facts, Ma'am
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
WS,

- "So saying the sequestration is entirely Obama's fault is disingenuous."...

Republicans never said they voted against it, although Boehner did say that he had "great reservations" about governing through this eleventh-hour Democratic proposal, which Republican budget staff literally pulled an all-nighter analyzing prior to the vote. Only a single individual has *denied* ownership, and that would be Barry.

The question that begs to be asked is "Why did Obama lie during the presidential debate?". The answer is that Mitt nailed him. Assuming Barry meant this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kuTG19Cu_Q , then the sequester is a *defense* cut. The out-going defense secretary has already said that further cuts to the military budget would seriously jeapordize our capability to defend U.S. interests, and the national debt which was below 1 trillion prior to the so-called Gephardt "rule" rose from 5-9 trillion during eight years of Bush, and from 9-16 trillion during the first term of Obama.

If Bush was "unpatriotic" for the debt he signed into law, how are we to define the Obama presidency?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The out-going defense secretary has already said that further cuts to the military budget would seriously jeapordize our capability to defend U.S. interests
It's interesting to me that this is what you're complaining about, noel, since there are so many other things also cut in a "we're too dumb to get a budget passed" scenario. If defense is indeed the only thing Republicans care about, can we agree that it was a good idea to include it in the sequester in order to actually incentivize Republicans?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom,

- "If defense is indeed the only thing Republicans care about, can we agree that it was a good idea to include it in the sequester in order to actually incentivize Republicans?"...

... Not if you also believe Barry, and follow the narrative he used in the last campaign. The reduced defense budget, as constituted at pre-sequester levels, was supposed to be the minimum *required* by Panetta standards. You could argue that he told the truth, and planned an end-run around that nasty "congressional" sequester to accomodate additional entitlement spending by lifting the debt ceiling, but that would be both "unpatriotic", and "irresponsible". It would also be unconstitutional; then again, Barry never explained how he could insure the sequester "wouldn't happen" under presidential authority. [Wink]

For what it is worth, his current talking points actually confirm irresponsibility as the order of the day. He calls it "paying your bills", because America is not a "deadbeat" nation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLnIu7QZU44 . There you have it... Congress "ordered" him to be "irresponsible". [DOH]

It is a shame that he cannot send Jack Lew, father of the sequester trigger, in proxy for his presidential press conferences. He is a much more convincing liar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMQwic-JdxQ

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Leaving aside what you believe Obama may have meant by what he may have said, do you agree that it was a good idea to include defense cuts in any sequestration proposal?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
- "Leaving aside what you believe Obama may have meant by what he may have said, do you agree that it was a good idea to include defense cuts in any sequestration proposal?"...

No.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What else, then, do you believe Republicans would have cared enough about to actually, well, care about? Speaking just for yourself, for example, what meaningful cuts would you have hated so much that you would have rather actually passed a freakin' budget?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Care about"?... Seniors that have become de-facto dependent upon Social Security, and Medicare, should not be thrown to the dogs. In many cases reckless federal policies which precipated the financhial crisis, beginning in 2007, devastated retirement accounts.

Those people needed indemnification. This excludes retirees of independent means, and the working population that still has time to provide for their own welfare in old-age.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So you believe that the Republican Party would be sufficiently concerned about threats to Medicare that they'd pass a budget?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
... To the scope of certain aspects of protection provided in both Medicare, and Social Security, absolutely. In saying this; both programs stand in need of healthy revision regarding coverage, and eligibility.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So you believe that if the sequestration proposal did not in fact threaten funding to anything but Medicare, Republicans would still feel as pressured to pass a budget? That cutting Medicare funding would be seen as a serious enough consequence that they'd finally be spurred to action?

[ February 16, 2013, 08:07 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
- "So you believe that if the sequestration proposal did not in fact threaten funding to anything but Medicare, Republicans would still feel as pressured to pass a budget?"...

Evidently I am not making myself understood. Republicans would defend Social Security, and Medicare, at a reduced level that means-tested recipients. The era of government largesse is over... Barry implied as much in his tepid sourse-funding proposals during the State of the Union address.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So what you're saying is that Republicans would only be motivated to defend Medicare from sequestration if the sequestration cut more than they wanted cut, which would almost certainly be more than the Democrats would want cut?

Hm. It sounds to me that this particular item would not be particularly useful as a bipartisan motivator, then. Can you suggest another one, perhaps?

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
- "Can you suggest another one, perhaps?"...

Sure, how about the destruction of consumer confidence, and consequent impact upon hiring decisions made by small business which pays 44% of total U.S. payroll, and hires half of all private sector employees. This is the natural Republican constituency that Barry had better be a little more concerned about.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If the destruction of consumer confidence were indeed a motivating factor, we would already have a budget. Are you unable to come up with any more cuts that Republicans -- disproportionately, relative to Democrats -- would not like to see?

If not, it seems to me that defense cuts were the only available option.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
- "If the destruction of consumer confidence were indeed a motivating factor, we would already have a budget. Are you unable to come up with any more cuts that Republicans -- disproportionately, relative to Democrats -- would not like to see?"...

This has always been a highly motivational hazard to Republicans. What may change things for Democrat legislators is first-hand observation of the cascade effect this will have upon their constituents. Unfortunately, once a head of panic momentum builds, recovery is not as simple as merely changing budgeting priorties.

Put the shoe on the other foot; since Barry refuses to touch entitlement spending, and insists upon raising the budget cap which is, by his own account, "irresponsible/unpatriotic", what will it take to move Democrats to compromise?

As I said already, conservatives should let them ride this debacle into the ground. There appears to be no other option.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
since Barry refuses to touch entitlement spending
This is rather astonishingly false.

quote:
what will it take to move Democrats to compromise?
Democrats have already compromised dramatically. What compromises have Republicans made?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
... And back to Benghazi; now that three of Barry's cabinet appointment nominees have been effectively stalled, do you think he will be "motivated" to cough-up details of administrative incompetence?
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
- "since Barry refuses to touch entitlement spending..."

"This is rather astonishingly false."...

Republicans will be so happy to learn this. What is he ready to cut?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
now that three of Barry's cabinet appointment nominees have been effectively stalled, do you think he will be "motivated" to cough-up details of administrative incompetence?
So you believe that his nominees are being stalled to extort state secrets from him? Why do you think Elizabeth Warren was stalled, a year before Benghazi happened?

quote:
What is he ready to cut?
What has he already not cut? Federal spending on non-defense items is at record lows.

[ February 17, 2013, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
- "So you believe that his nominees are being stalled to extort state secrets from him?"...

Barry doesn't get to have "state secrets". His ex-Secretary of State understood this as a youngster when she worked as an aid Bernie Nussbaum at the Watergate hearings.

"Why do you think Elizabeth Warren was stalled, a year before Benghazi happened?"...

Because she is an untrustworthy poser:

""Warren listed herself as part Native American in the Association of American Law Schools desk book, she says, in the hope of meeting others in her field with similar backgrounds. She did not, she insists, do so to gain any professional edge. Yet in 1992 she was hired to teach at Harvard, and when she became a permanent faculty member in 1995, Warren dropped the minority claim from her profile in the directory. Harvard, meanwhile, began counting Warren as a Native American in its diversity statistics, just as her previous employers had at the University of Texas and the University of Pennsylvania. Whatever her intent may have been, a former chair of the AALS confirms that minority listings in the organization’s directory were used in hiring decisions by members.“In the old days before the internet, you’d pull out the AALS directory and look up people. There are schools that if they were looking for a minority faculty member, would go to that list and might say, ‘I didn’t know Elizabeth Warren was a minority, ” George Mason University Law professor David Bernstein, a former chairman of the American Association of Law Schools, has told reporters."...

When Native American groups and others challenged Warren’s campaign to prove her bona fides as a minority, Warren’s campaign ultimately produced records from 1894 that list her great-great-great grandmother as “Cherokee,” making Warren 1/32 American Indian if “O.C. Sarah Smith” was full blooded. If Smith was claiming to be Cherokee based on the same degree of lineage that Warren used to justify her claim, of course… well, you see the problem. "...

http://ethicsalarms.com/2012/05/05/ethics-quiz-elizabeth-warrens-native-american-ancestry/

- "What has he already not cut? Federal spending on non-defense items is at record lows."...

Relative to what? If it was "low" enough, Barry would not be asking for an "unpatriotic/irresponsible" spending increase.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Okay, everyone. I'm going to leave these three answers up there, unadorned. I was writing replies when I realized there was nothing I could possibly say that would make the staggering venality of noel's beliefs more transparent than what he'd already said. So, um, I'm gonna rest my case. [Smile]

*drops mic and walks away*

[ February 17, 2013, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
- "So, um, I'm gonna rest my case... I realized there was nothing I could possibly say... "...

Um, you made a case?

Tom, you are singular in a style of substance-free rebuttal.

While I have some understanding of Ms. Warren's attraction to you, the fact that neither the Democratic-controlled Senate, nor Barry, were willing to carry her water should tell you something about your place in the cosmos.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So Benghazi, just what's going on here?
quote:
A special operations member who witnessed the attack on the U.S. Mission unfold in Benghazi, Libya on September 11 last year, as well as debriefed those who took part in the response, spoke with Fox News' Adam Housley on Monday night and revealed information that directly contradicts the administration's insistence that there was not enough time nor resources to send to Benghazi to help State Department employees, contractors, and intel operatives who were under a terrorist attack. FNC kept their source's identity hidden, as witnesses to the Benghazi attack have reportedly been intimidated by the administration into silence. The assault left four Americans dead, including U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens.

<snip>

The State Department could have called another station for help, as well. According to the source, there were at least 15 special forces and highly skilled State Dept. security staff in the Libyan capital of Tripoli who were not deployed even though they were trained as a quick response force. By air, the travel time between Tripoli and Benghazi is roughly over one hour.

And about the intimidation:
quote:
A former Justice Department official said unnamed members of the White House administration have threatened whistleblowers who want to speak on the terror attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
Victoria Toensing — who also served as a former Republican counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee — is representing one of the State Department workers who claims to have been threatened, Fox News reported.

“I am talking specifically about Benghazi; that people have been threatened,” she said on a Fox News broadcast. “People have been threatened and not just at the State Department. People have been threatened at the CIA.”

<snip>

Ms. Toensing described the threats to Fox News this way: “It’s frightening, and they’re doing some very despicable threats to people. Not ‘we’re going to kill you,’ or not ‘we’re going to prosecute you tomorrow,’ but they’re taking career people and making them well aware that their careers will be over,” if they cooperate with congressional investigators.

Obviously things are not what Barry wanted us to believe and he's apparently willing to do some pretty nasty things to people that don't parrot the approved party line.

[ April 30, 2013, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: G3 ]

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Linkie #1.

Linkie #2.

[ April 30, 2013, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: Wayward Son ]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Man, Fox is trying so hard on this one. It's kind of sad to watch.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I find it even more sad to watch how so many support the threats and intimidation of whistle blowers while accepting what is now transparently obvious lies. It truly is kind of sad to watch. Liberalism in action.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I find it even more sad to watch how so many support the threats and intimidation of whistle blowers...
Where is anyone doing that? We have Fox News quoting a lawyer and Republican lobbyist about a suit that has yet to be filed on behalf of an unnamed person, citing unspecified offenses, and a congressperson complaining that the administration has not made it easier for this lawyer, who has no security clearance, to review classified information on behalf of that client's suit.

Believe it or not, I'm sympathetic to the latter argument. But I found it a lot more persuasive when we were trying to sue on behalf of, say, innocent people who were actually wronged and imprisoned for years in Cuba, but could not even have a list of charges or evidence against them provided to their legal counsel (many of whom did have security clearances, but just not the right ones.)

[ May 01, 2013, 08:47 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Since the "No Bovine Feces" thread has deteriorated to--I don't know what [Eek!] --I thought I'd start a new thead on Benghazi, one specifically to address OSC's Civilization Watch column of Nov. 1.

quote:
Here is what we know for a fact about the attack on the U.S. Consulate on 11 September 2012:

1. There was no demonstration beforehand.

2. There was a live internet feed to the White House situation room, showing the attack from beginning to end.

3. The consular officials sent repeated emails and other communications asking for help; the State Department, the CIA, and the White House had full knowledge of the nature and progress of the attack from beginning to end.

4. The attack lasted for seven hours.

5. There were military forces in Italy and elsewhere that could have put boots on the ground within two hours.

6. There were jets that could have provided pinpoint air support to suppress enemy fire within twenty minutes' flying time.

7. There were trained U.S. Navy Seals and other combat-capable persons within walking distance of the U.S. Consulate, who were issued direct orders to stand down and not aid the Americans who were under attack.

8. Two of those Seals disobeyed that order, and died defending the consulate: Tyrone S. Woods and Glen A. Doherty.

9. U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and Foreign Service information officer Sean Smith were killed in the attack.

10. American consuls and embassies are, by international law and treaties, American soil, and we do not need permission from the local government or the cooperation of allies to have the right to defend them with all necessary force.

11. Only one person has the authority to authorize sending additional military forces in such a situation: the President of the United States.

I haven't been following the scandal, so I'm wondering, with what we know now, how many of those facts are still true?
Following the hearings, it seems that all those facts are essentially true. Yes, I know. A few of you will parse word definitions and torture it to find a way to make it not true but that is obvious desperation.

The threats and intimidation of the whistleblowers is also true.

People died, Barry lied. He ordered them left to die. He had to lie.

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
One interesting fact that has come up recently is proof that the White House did not come up with the idea that the attack on Benghazi was motivated by the anti-Islam video, supposedly to cover-up the real reason for the attack.

quote:
For months, the right-wing media has suggested that the Obama administration had for political purposes attempted to link the Benghazi attacks to an anti-Islam YouTube video. According to this theory, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, and other high-ranking members of the administration had highlighted the video as a "diversion tactic" to downplay the attack's connection to terrorism and cover up the supposed failure of American foreign policy that would indicate. But the original draft of talking points on the attacks generated by the CIA -- released last week by The Weekly Standard in an effort to demonstrate how those talking points were changed "to obscure the truth"-- prove that the intelligence community itself believed that such a link existed.

In the Weekly Standard article, Stephen F. Hayes highlighted how specifics about the involvement of members of an al Qaeda-linked terrorist group that were included in an initial September 14 draft of talking points by the CIA's Office of Terrorism Analysis were later removed by administration officials. Included in Hayes' report are images of the various versions of those talking points... Here's the first bullet point from what The Weekly Standard terms "Version 1":

quote:
We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex.
In the final version of the document, that bullet reads:

quote:
The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. diplomatic post and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.
The "protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo" were part of a series of global riots and protests in Muslim countries that came in response to increasing awareness of the anti-Islam video.

These talking points were used by Ambassador Rice for a series of September 16 television interviews. The right-wing media subsequently engaged in a witch hunt to portray her as untruthful and misleading for connecting the attack to the video. But as the Weekly Standard has now shown, it was the CIA's Office of Terrorism Analysis and not political appointees that introduced that link into the talking points.

If the CIA felt the video was so important as to make it the first talking point, I see no reason the Obama Administration should be blamed for repeating that claim.
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Doesn't matter. This is just political theater. The GOP has been claiming explosive new revelations all along and have never produced them. I heard Lindsay Graham say in an interview the other day that this isn't really about Benghazi, and admitting that the real reason is to tear down Obama's entire foreign policy. I think that he means that we should be pouring yet more $$billions and $$trillions into US military solutions to other countries' domestic religious, cultural and political agendas. WTF!

They're even using Bush's failures on intelligence in Iraq and elsewhere to insinuate that the Executive branch is afraid of war and has been for over a decade. Doesn't make much sense, frankly.

BTW, there were attacks against 54 US embassy and consulate offices during Bush's 8 years in office in which 13 US personnel were killed. There were a total of 3 Congressional hearings on all of them and nobody blamed Bush. There have been 9 hearings so far just on Benghazi and thousands of pages of testimony and reports both in government and the media. Yet, Republicans keep looking for a smoking gun so they can heap blame on Obama for something that may or may not have been preventable. It's like blaming him for each soldier's death in a war.

I am disgusted by Republican attempts to evade any and all responsibility for the weakened security in the foreign missions while still finding reason after reason to blame Obama personally for everything that has gone wrong in the world.

Pathetic, really.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
If the CIA felt the video was so important as to make it the first talking point, I see no reason the Obama Administration should be blamed for repeating that claim.

Yeah, sure. Right.

quote:
"When it became clear last fall that the CIA's now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story.
ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.

White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.

That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points in November.

"Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC's best assessments of what they thought had happened," Carney told reporters at the White House press briefing on November 28, 2012. "The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word 'consulate' to 'diplomatic facility' because 'consulate' was inaccurate."

Keep repeating the talking point; it could come true.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nevertheless, the first talking point from the CIA was:

quote:
We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex.
So apparently the idea that it was a protest that became an attack did not come from the White House, as some Republicans have suggested.

Apparently Jay Carney was wrong about how much editing the White House made to these talking points. But that does not change the fact above.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Apparently, Jay Carney lied. Let's be clear on that. Jay lied.

And hanging your hat on the first theory generated - that was proven incorrect within hours of its generation, is a rather disingenuous attempt to give the Obama regime a free pass. Barry allowed these guys to die, he did nothing to help them and left them twisting in the breeze. And then he lied to cover that up. That's the facts here.

[ May 10, 2013, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: G3 ]

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Barry allowed these guys to die, he did nothing to help them and left them twisting in the breeze. And then he lied to cover that up. That's the facts here.
Except that isn't really a "fact." It is an opinion, based (we assume) on facts.

Why should I believe you over Alex Pareene? Both of you have looked carefully at the facts, but have come to completely different opinions. In fact, the guy cites this article about the latest hearings:

quote:
"If we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split," Hicks told House Republican investigators.

But Hicks acknowledged that he was informed as the attack was unfolding that the military did not have refueling aircraft in the area that could have supported a roughly 1,800-mile round-trip flight by the closest fighter aircraft, based in Aviano, Italy...

Pentagon officials have said there was nothing the military could have done to respond in time to the attacks. A State Department accountability review board, led by former diplomat Thomas Pickering and Adm. Michael G. Mullen, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, backed that conclusion. Their report faulted State Department officials for inadequate security at the mission...

"There were military assets, there was military personnel, they were told to stand down," Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) said Monday on the Fox program "Fox and Friends." Chaffetz acknowledged in an interview published Monday with the Washington Post that they would have arrived after the attack on the CIA annex was over. He said they could have provided first aid.

(Emphasis mine.)

Perhaps you could supply some facts to support your view, G3. But right now, all we have is your word. And frankly I don't see why it should have any more weight than Alex's, or even as much.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Barry allowed these guys to die..."

Like I said, for some people it's All Obama All The Time. But G3 is a little out of step with the GOP attack machine this time. These hearings are targeting Hillary to pre-smear her in anticipation of her establishing herself as a player in 2014 or a candidate further down the road.

[ May 11, 2013, 07:30 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The fact that the lib deniers are ignoring the emails that surfaced is humorous in and of itself, but further proof that there is nothing but an ideological war here and that they are not interested in facts. I've heard the media actually going back and trying to bring up embassy attacks that happened under Bush, as if those matter?
We can spend our time saying, "oh, past Presidents were bad so Obama should get away with murder, or at least negligent homicide," but that people making these statements don't even realize how absurd they are.

The stand down order come have only come from the White House. When the military is under attack they do not stand down on their own even if they think they may not make it in time, keep in mind, no one had any idea of when the attack would be over or how long they would take.

Anyone who thinks attacks are scheduled like meetings or appointments and have a set end-time needs to have their head examined.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"The fact that the lib deniers are ignoring the emails that surfaced is humorous in and of itself, but further proof that there is nothing but an ideological war here and that they are not interested in facts. I've heard the media actually going back and trying to bring up embassy attacks that happened under Bush, as if those matter?"

Yes, you've put the finger on it. The only reason the GOP is flogging this dead horse is principled governance, and any and all attempts to deny that this is nothing more than a craven political cover-up by Democrats is utterly laughable. Am I right?

Do you agree with Republicans who say that "Benghazi" is far worse than Watergate or Iran-Contra? Steve King (R-IA) says it's 10 times worse than both of those combined.

OTOH, here's what Robert Gates, the former Secretary of Defense beloved by Republicans everywhere said yesterday:
quote:
“Frankly, had I been in the job at the time, I think my decisions would have been just as theirs were,” said Gates, now the chancellor of the College of William and Mary.

“We don’t have a ready force standing by in the Middle East, and so getting somebody there in a timely way would have been very difficult, if not impossible.” he explained.

Suggestions that we could have flown a fighter jet over the attackers to “scare them with the noise or something,” Gates said, ignored the “number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from [former Libyan leader] Qaddafi’s arsenals.”
[...]
Another suggestion posed by some critics of the administration, to, as Gates said, “send some small number of special forces or other troops in without knowing what the environment is, without knowing what the threat is, without having any intelligence in terms of what is actually going on on the ground, would have been very dangerous.”



[ May 13, 2013, 08:38 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
Barry allowed these guys to die, he did nothing to help them and left them twisting in the breeze. And then he lied to cover that up. That's the facts here.
Except that isn't really a "fact." It is an opinion, based (we assume) on facts.

Why should I believe you over Alex Pareene? Both of you have looked carefully at the facts, but have come to completely different opinions. In fact, the guy cites this article about the latest hearings:

quote:
"If we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split," Hicks told House Republican investigators.

But Hicks acknowledged that he was informed as the attack was unfolding that the military did not have refueling aircraft in the area that could have supported a roughly 1,800-mile round-trip flight by the closest fighter aircraft, based in Aviano, Italy...

Pentagon officials have said there was nothing the military could have done to respond in time to the attacks. A State Department accountability review board, led by former diplomat Thomas Pickering and Adm. Michael G. Mullen, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, backed that conclusion. Their report faulted State Department officials for inadequate security at the mission...

"There were military assets, there was military personnel, they were told to stand down," Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) said Monday on the Fox program "Fox and Friends." Chaffetz acknowledged in an interview published Monday with the Washington Post that they would have arrived after the attack on the CIA annex was over. He said they could have provided first aid.

(Emphasis mine.)

Perhaps you could supply some facts to support your view, G3. But right now, all we have is your word. And frankly I don't see why it should have any more weight than Alex's, or even as much.

Not true, not even remotely true. The people directly involved blow your "facts":

quote:
Hours later, according to excerpts of the account by the U.S. diplomat, Gregory Hicks, American officials in the Libyan capital sought permission to deploy four U.S. Special Operations troops to Benghazi aboard a Libyan military aircraft early the next morning. The troops were told to stand down.

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Again, you lib deniers try and use some common-sense here: does it make sense to order troops to stand down from assisting an attack with an excuse that "they probably won't get there in time" if you have no idea how long the attack will last?

Or are all of you so inundated with schedules in your lives that you think terrorists follow them too?

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seriously, honestly, will you be heartbroken if it turns out that nothing nefarious happened here? Will you stick to the party mantra in that case that "we were only just trying to get the facts"? Remember, 9 Congressional hearings and the Pickering report, and so far all you have is a mountain of documents that say that there was inadequate security at Benghazi, that we don't have control over events in that unstable region and **** happens.

[ May 13, 2013, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 25 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ...  23  24  25   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1