Mr. Speaker! We Need To Get Back To Benghazi

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Que]

Just because you and 26% of the public want to give the Administration a pass doesn't mean there is no scandal. It already is a scandal. You being less than scandalized is not relevant.

If it was no scandal, the administration (and you) would not be going to the lengths they are to protest too much.

Watergate was a scandal. Nixon fans understood that the Democratic party pursuing the matter had political benefits to them. It wasn't framed as "not a scandal" when it obviously was.

 

[RjThoughts]

Just because you and 26% of the public want to give the Administration a pass doesn't mean there is no scandal. It already is a scandal. You being less than scandalized is not relevant.

If it was no scandal, the administration (and you) would not be going to the lengths they are to protest too much.

Watergate was a scandal. Nixon fans understood that the Democratic party pursuing the matter had political benefits to them. It wasn't framed as "not a scandal" when it obviously was.

Watergate was a collection of crimes, idiot! God, you failed history.

Good bye

 

[Sean Renaud]

For Context.

Prove I said it, punk.

If your dad was a former Marine, which he isn't, the last thing he's do is admit a pudgy dope dealing midget sprang forth from his loins.

You admitted it. There's no way to search it. Former Marine? Once a Marine, always a Marine. Another hole in your bullshit story about you ever being enlisted. Oops!

You are just a liar that lost your family to alcoholism. Take your thrift store medals, turn them sideways and shove them up your needy day ass.

Not all of us are remotely that hardcore. Especially when speaking to civilians.

Listen junior, in my era the Corps was still a rough place. There was no room for non hackers, gay folks, or girls in the ranks. It was hardcore, it was about killing people, a place where sucking dick was a crime; the liberals weren't in charge yet, and every recruit was a "civilian piece of shit" until he was turned into a real Marine, which wasn't a sure thing. In Luke's case, his Drill Instructor would have washed him out with a simple notation on his 5x8 card.

I show up and back Vetteman and he attacks me.

The Corps is still a rough place, we've learned to work smarter, not harder and I promise you we'd kick your shit in for the same reason you'd anihilate the WWII generation. We know all your tricks and how to get around them. Fifty years of experience and technology is a bitch. I'm sorry you were there people were still bigots and sucking dick was a crime. I can't turn back time, I'm just as sorry that when you were a kid you thought all blacks were worthless and treated them like shit. Life moves on however and you should do the same.

Without clicking on this obvious deflection, I will say without reading the Armed Services Committee link that their effort was not to determine a possible dereliction of duty on the part of the President, on the motives behind the coordinated campaign to mislead the American people, and whether or not the motive for the cover-up was the protection of his re-election. I'm sure they didn't delve into why Hillary Clinton insisted on Stevens being in Benghazi at that late date, and whether that represented a policy failure that facilitated the killing of four Americans, and lastly, whether or not laws were broken.

I assume you have citation of Hillary insisting that Stevens stay in Benghazi? It seems that Stevens made his decision all on his own. There may have been some encouragement but the call was his, it's well documented that he felt safe in Benghazi and was actually liked by the the locals. We keep forgetting the whole riot they threw in his honor afterward. He had reason to feel safe.

Shit happens and it happened to him. End of discussion.

 

[Disgustipated]

Listen junior, in my era the Corps was still a rough place. There was no room for non hackers, gay folks, or girls in the ranks. It was hardcore, it was about killing people, a place where sucking dick was a crime; the liberals weren't in charge yet, and every recruit was a "civilian piece of shit" until he was turned into a real Marine, which wasn't a sure thing. In Luke's case, his Drill Instructor would have washed him out with a simple notation on his 5x8 card.

Prove it.

 

[Que]

~snip~I assume you have citation of Hillary insisting that Stevens stay in Benghazi? It seems that Stevens made his decision all on his own. There may have been some encouragement but the call was his, it's well documented that he felt safe in Benghazi and was actually liked by the the locals. We keep forgetting the whole riot they threw in his honor afterward. He had reason to feel safe.

Shit happens and it happened to him. End of discussion.

That is a very good point.

I have to admit I tend to forget about that when I am considering such things as whether we ought to have encouraged Ghadafi's ouster. It is often portrayed on either extreme as either there are Thomas Jeffersons afoot in Libya or a rat's nest of Islamist Terrorists. The truth is somewhere in between.

The whole "fog of war" obfuscation started by the Administration has made the whole event pretty muddled.

I get why the Administration needed to downplay the event at the time, and why they now kind of have to stick to that. They can't very well encourage people who were there or watched it to tell their stories and just leave out a few (in the scheme of things pretty minor) details.

The idiotic lie about the videotape precipitating the event IS pretty minor and WAS as is often pointed out a pretty minor plot point. It's a shame that the press in an effort to 'stand by their man' is so incurious about the entire night.

IF a quick reaction force was a bit closer and IF it had been asked to intervene and IF it had been successful, we would already have a movie about that night and Ambassador Stevens in the theaters to great acclaim.

Obama would have been a hero that night.

There were some great stories from that night of valor and courage that deserve to be told that have nothing to do with whether the Administration needs cover, or the Republicans need to hold the Administrations feet to the fire.

 

[Sean Renaud]

That is a very good point.

I have to admit I tend to forget about that when I am considering such things as whether we ought to have encouraged Ghadafi's ouster. It is often portrayed on either extreme as either there are Thomas Jeffersons afoot in Libya or a rat's nest of Islamist Terrorists. The truth is somewhere in between.

The whole "fog of war" obfuscation started by the Administration has made the whole event pretty muddled.

I get why the Administration needed to downplay the event at the time, and why they now kind of have to stick to that. They can't very well encourage people who were there or watched it to tell their stories and just leave out a few (in the scheme of things pretty minor) details.

The idiotic lie about the videotape precipitating the event IS pretty minor and WAS as is often pointed out a pretty minor plot point. It's a shame that the press in an effort to 'stand by their man' is so incurious about the entire night.

IF a quick reaction force was a bit closer and IF it had been asked to intervene and IF it had been successful, we would already have a movie about that night and Ambassador Stevens in the theaters to great acclaim.

Obama would have been a hero that night.

There were some great stories from that night of valor and courage that deserve to be told that have nothing to do with whether the Administration needs cover, or the Republicans need to hold the Administrations feet to the fire.

While I think Americans have a warm and fuzzy feeling for their Founders that isn't actually rooted in reality I don't think anybody really thinks the country is filled with a bunch of Jeffersons. Most, foolishly, think that it's a bunch of barbarians and we get to choose the lesser of two evils. Well the first step is realizing people in 99.999 ad infinitum are not evil. They want the same things we want and when they aren't getting what they feel is their due they get violent. They might mask it in religion or idelology or freedom or taxes or what not but the core is always the same. People unhappy with their lot in life look for a way out.

Whether or not we have any reason to help either side is an entirely different conversation.

There was nothing to downplay nor did the Administration do any such thing. They came right out on Day One and called it an act of terror possibly connected to a video. Depending on what reports you believe after that point either the video was a much larger part than anybody original thought providing not the spark that ignited the incident but the cover needed for the terrorists to move about comfortably or it was an unrelated incident occuring at the same time causing riots in other countries but Libyans don't have internet. Next you'll believe that Occupy, Tea Party, Arab Spring and the various riots in Europe weren't all part of the same movement of angry people not getting what they wanted. The fact that they all popped up during the Great Recession is coincidental. If you're a moron.

There are and were embassies and consulates all over the Middle East and the world. We can say all we want about if this one had had more troops available maybe this wouldn't have happened. Maybe it would have happened where ever we pulled troops from. Maybe if Stevens had gone and spent the weekend in Libya at the actual embassy instead of the Benghazi Consulate nothing would have happened. Obama however would not be a hero no matter what happened. If he didn't get made props for getting Osama he certainly wouldn't have gotten any praise for what at best would have been seen as an easily avoidable situation. It likely wouldn't have even been a big deal at all. Nothing Obama can ever do will make him a hero. Literally. If Aliens team up with Satan and OBama single handedly saves Heaven the only difference is the American Right will be come Satan Worshippers over night.

Our soldiers do great things all the time. Whether or not they deserve to be told isn't a discussion for me. But the fact that this wouldn't be an issue if it wasn't smear material for Obama and Hillary is simple fact.

It's gonna be boring in 2020 when Republicans take over and Democrats, pussies that they are, refuse to shut down the country out of sheer spite.

 

[Que]

Watergate was a collection of crimes, idiot! God, you failed history.

Good bye

Of course it was...such as using the weight of the IRS to intimidate and punish his enemies.

Oh wait...that is ANOTHER 'non-scandal' to you when this administration does it, right?

....and as long as a long, tedious court battle keeps the 'non-scandal' of arming Mexican Drug gangs from being traced INTO the White house....there are no proven crimes, right?

Just because the Administration has decided on a divide and conquer approach to all of it's many, inter-related scandals doesn't again make them "non-scandals."

I am not a huge fan of Wiki-cites but lets talk semantics shall we?

SCANDAL
A scandal is a widely publicized allegation or set of allegations that damages (or tries to damage) the reputation of an institution, individual or creed.[dubious – discuss] A scandal may be based on true or false allegations or a mixture of both.

From the Greek σκάνδαλον (skandalon), a trap or stumbling-block,[1] the metaphor is that wrong conduct can impede or "trip" people's trust or faith.[2]

You are still stuck in the "Scandal? What scandal?" deflection of the Administration.

It wasn't a scandal when a very newsworthy series of events was not "widely publicized". The fact that a lot of 'news" outlets including all of the ones you ever avail yourself of were carrying water is in and of itself an entirely separate scandal.

You are stuck in defending this in the "non-scandal' meme that was manufactured as cover including false claims that previous emails were fabricated to "make the administration look bad." We now have (some) of the emails available that they with-held because they would tend to "damage the reputation" of the White House, such as it is.

Again...you are free to dismiss the scandal as something that does not cause YOU to lose your unwavering confidence in the administration.

There were people that still thought "Tricky Dick" was a great president. That doesn't mean that Watergate wasn't a scandal just because SOME people thought the crimes unimportant.

For something that you are SO sure does not "scandalize" this Presidency, you and the very vocal 26% sure put a lot of effort into re-framing the debate.

 

[Que]

While I think Americans have a warm and fuzzy feeling for their Founders that isn't actually rooted in reality I don't think anybody really thinks the country is filled with a bunch of Jeffersons. Most, foolishly, think that it's a bunch of barbarians and we get to choose the lesser of two evils. Well the first step is realizing people in 99.999 ad infinitum are not evil. They want the same things we want and when they aren't getting what they feel is their due they get violent. They might mask it in religion or idelology or freedom or taxes or what not but the core is always the same. People unhappy with their lot in life look for a way out.

Whether or not we have any reason to help either side is an entirely different conversation.

There was nothing to downplay nor did the Administration do any such thing. They came right out on Day One and called it an act of terror possibly connected to a video. Depending on what reports you believe after that point either the video was a much larger part than anybody original thought providing not the spark that ignited the incident but the cover needed for the terrorists to move about comfortably or it was an unrelated incident occuring at the same time causing riots in other countries but Libyans don't have internet. Next you'll believe that Occupy, Tea Party, Arab Spring and the various riots in Europe weren't all part of the same movement of angry people not getting what they wanted. The fact that they all popped up during the Great Recession is coincidental. If you're a moron.

There are and were embassies and consulates all over the Middle East and the world. We can say all we want about if this one had had more troops available maybe this wouldn't have happened. Maybe it would have happened where ever we pulled troops from. Maybe if Stevens had gone and spent the weekend in Libya at the actual embassy instead of the Benghazi Consulate nothing would have happened. Obama however would not be a hero no matter what happened. If he didn't get made props for getting Osama he certainly wouldn't have gotten any praise for what at best would have been seen as an easily avoidable situation. It likely wouldn't have even been a big deal at all. Nothing Obama can ever do will make him a hero. Literally. If Aliens team up with Satan and OBama single handedly saves Heaven the only difference is the American Right will be come Satan Worshippers over night.

Our soldiers do great things all the time. Whether or not they deserve to be told isn't a discussion for me. But the fact that this wouldn't be an issue if it wasn't smear material for Obama and Hillary is simple fact.

It's gonna be boring in 2020 when Republicans take over and Democrats, pussies that they are, refuse to shut down the country out of sheer spite.

No the "simple fact' is that we wouldn't be discussing it at all at this point if the Obama administration didn't think that the events if widely discussed accurately would have hurt his re-election chances.

You are right that this started for political reasons. Your attribution is off.

Were the actual events, absent all spin, of necessity crippling to the Obama narrative? No.

Did they think they were? The actions they took seem to suggest so.

 

[Sean Renaud]

No the "simple fact' is that we wouldn't be discussing it at all at this point if the Obama administration didn't think that the events if widely discussed accurately would have hurt his re-election chances.

You are right that this started for political reasons. Your attribution is off.

Were the actual events, absent all spin, of necessity crippling to the Obama narrative? No.

Did they think they were? The actions they took seem to suggest so.

If he thought that for a single heart beat he's an idiot. Nothing shy of Jesus himself anointing Romney was going to fuck him.

My attribution is spot on. Their actions were not only not the the kind taken by desperate people they actually undermine much of what he's tried to build. How exactly does accusing Muslims of being the kind of animals who kill people over videos they find offensive further the goal of an administration who wants to step forward and work with Muslims? It does not. This is the exact opposite of the story Obama should have told if he was lying. The lie should have been about a small but well armed bunch of extremists determined to drive a wedge between us and our new allies.

I mean guess if you think Obama's not only a liar, but too stupid to tell a decent lie then there's no helping that.

 

[RjThoughts]

If he thought that for a single heart beat he's an idiot. Nothing shy of Jesus himself anointing Romney was going to fuck him.

My attribution is spot on. Their actions were not only not the the kind taken by desperate people they actually undermine much of what he's tried to build. How exactly does accusing Muslims of being the kind of animals who kill people over videos they find offensive further the goal of an administration who wants to step forward and work with Muslims? It does not. This is the exact opposite of the story Obama should have told if he was lying. The lie should have been about a small but well armed bunch of extremists determined to drive a wedge between us and our new allies.

I mean guess if you think Obama's not only a liar, but too stupid to tell a decent lie then there's no helping that.

The tin foil hat wearers have been bitching all along that Obama is an Islamic apologist. And when word comes down that he bitched them over a video, that's not good, not the right answer for the foil group.

At the end of the day, this is nothing more than a low brow, piss poor, Ken Star wannabe investigation.

 

[Que]

If he thought that for a single heart beat he's an idiot. Nothing shy of Jesus himself anointing Romney was going to fuck him.

My attribution is spot on. Their actions were not only not the the kind taken by desperate people they actually undermine much of what he's tried to build. How exactly does accusing Muslims of being the kind of animals who kill people over videos they find offensive further the goal of an administration who wants to step forward and work with Muslims? It does not. This is the exact opposite of the story Obama should have told if he was lying. The lie should have been about a small but well armed bunch of extremists determined to drive a wedge between us and our new allies.

I mean guess if you think Obama's not only a liar, but too stupid to tell a decent lie then there's no helping that.

Your words not mine. But yes it was stupid.

You think that while his entire foreign policy campaign meme was that his brilliant, target attacks had "Al Quaida on the run" was somehow bolstered by him admitting that they were not only not running but able to kill an ambassador on 9/11 no less?

Of course it was better to blame the 'spontaneous protests' on a 'despicable video'. He wasn't calling them animals he was siding with them in the intial pre-Benghazi attack State Department statement. While encouraging calmer heads to prevail (because reasoning with Islamists over their 4th century ideas has worked so well) he was expressing outrage WITH them at the video. Mind you he doesn't share any similar outrage at any negative media portrayal of any other religious discipline.

I suspect you just like to argue for the sake of argument.

His campaign at the time was "Detroit is alive, and Bin Laden is dead." The actual protestors in Cairo that raised an Al Queda flag over the embassy there were chanting "Obama, Obama, we are ALL Osama."

The Cairo spin about the video was to imply they were mad at a film-maker and NOT Obama's continuation of Bush's policies. Since they already had the exaggeration of the video's impact explanation in the works to shade Cairo when Benghazi happened they figured (correctly) that Americans would swallow the lumping together of two apparently separate events that both occurred in the same region. If the two event were related at all it was that Cairo was the diversion for the planned well in advance attack on Benghazi.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Your words not mine. But yes it was stupid.

Words you agree with however. I don't see any reason to think he's stupid. Naive and wanting to work with people who have no interest in working with him? Yep, stupid? Nope. If he was going to lie he'd tell the right lie. Especailly when it's such and obvious one.

 

[Que]

Words you agree with however. I don't see any reason to think he's stupid. Naive and wanting to work with people who have no interest in working with him? Yep, stupid? Nope. If he was going to lie he'd tell the right lie. Especially when it's such and obvious one.

You are right it is an obvious lie. It also has now, zero foundation for them to have believed it.

The video was never mentioned at all in the Securitys briefings that Obama didn't bother to attend (but we hope at least had someone read it to him) and by then Romney would have gotten. Romney knew Obama was lying and was prepared to call him on it until the third debater hauled out the careful parsing that you and others rely on to say that Obama (barely) used the words acts (plural) of terror (exactly once) before the debates. He was of course referring to the historical acts of terror in the past tense to imply that with his leadership they were a thing of the past.

I see no reason to think he is anywhere smart as his fawning admirers. Besides he was never going to get the approval of his detractors.

Both sides have a large portion of uninformed voters. Carvelle picked to be a Democratic Strategist because the Dem's low-info voters are easier to persuade than the Republican's low-info voters.

I think he is as smart as his voters.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I see no reason to think he is anywhere smart as his fawning admirers. Besides he was never going to get the approval of his detractors.

He doesn't have many fawning admirers. But your second part is spot on. It doesn't matter what Obama does you're not going to approve of him. So why does he continue trying instead of doing stuff so that the people who desperately want to like him can be proud of him?

 

[phrodeau]

Who calls the Benghazi attackers terrorists? Attacking an embassy or consulate is an act of war, not terror. Terrorists attack civilian crowds and public buildings.

Susan Rice called them "extremists with heavier weapons", which seems pretty accurate to me.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Who calls the Benghazi attackers terrorists? Attacking an embassy or consulate is an act of war, not terror. Terrorists attack civilian crowds and public buildings.

Susan Rice called them "extremists with heavier weapons", which seems pretty accurate to me.

Per the Geneva convention you need to meet certain criteria to qualify as an act of war. I forget the official designation for them but this technically isn't war. You are correct mind you but the accepted term for these guys has been terrorists.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Who calls the Benghazi attackers terrorists? Attacking an embassy or consulate is an act of war, not terror. Terrorists attack civilian crowds and public buildings.

Still terrorism; regardless of target, only a state actor can commit an act of war. Not that the two are mutually exclusive anyway, there are many instances of state terrorism, in fact that's what the word originally meant, back in the French Revolution (rebels using terror tactics were called not terrorists but "incendiaries").

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

I see the Clinton machine has talked Nancy Pelosi into appointing Democrats to the committee in order to protect Hillary's interests. You can expect them to object and obstruct the proceedings, especially when it comes time to swear in Hillary and Kennedy, both of whom escaped the oath last time around.

There were always going to be Democrats on the committee, dumbass. The only question was how many. Naturally the GOP wants to pack as many of theirs on the committee as possible to endure the "right" outcome with a majority able to outote any Democratic representation. The Democrats want equal numbers of each party.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Do you ever get used to being a stupid tool. The Democrats always want more than they themselves ever offered. That committee isn't stacked as bad as Pelosi stacked hers, dumbass.

The Senate investigation wasn't done by a "stacked" committee, they were done by the Senate Intelligence Committee, moron. 8 Democrats, 7 Republicans, and 2 Democrat and 2 Republican "Ex officio" members.

Care to try again?

 

[KingOrfeo]

I see the Clinton machine has talked Nancy Pelosi into appointing Democrats to the committee . . .

Of course there are going to be Democrats on the committee, you know that, that's how it works. Nobody had to talk Pelosi into anything.

 

[Que]

The Senate investigation wasn't done by a "stacked" committee, they were done by the Senate Intelligence Committee, moron. 8 Democrats, 7 Republicans, and 2 Democrat and 2 Republican "Ex officio" members.

Care to try again?

Pelosi was Speaker of the House...

Didn't really have much to do with 10 Democrats and 9 Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Your criticism that the House committee is "stacked' is based on numbers.

Last I checked 10 is larger than 9.