Kool Ade, Brother, quit drinking it and focus on serious questions of policy. You'll find that UT is pretty conservative in the WoT department. You go far to the right of him and you slip out of reality.

Adak, my first rule of business in these kinds of threads is, if you lead with the sarcastic snark, ya got nothing. You need to be able to argue seriously, not just play slap-battle. Anybody can do that, and it's a childish game, not for serious thinkers. Up your game.

Fog of war always applies, and you don't get to reject it based on the facts that came out to everyone well after the event. That is, by definition, how fog of war works: the facts are not immediately and perfectly available to all parties. Conjecture gets elevated to temporary fact since explanations are required.

If you feel differently, you may point me to the post you made on 9/12 saying that since this happened on 9/11 you are suspicious that it wasn't due to the video. In fact I'll be generous and allow you up to 9/14 to have thought of that. You don't have to be certain, just suspicious.

If you feel that all this was possible because the media was carrying water for Obama -- and they often have done so, certainly -- you must ask yourself why they stopped, since the first explanation was eventually rejected and that was quite harmful to the administration at a really bad point in time.

Lastly embassies are attacked all the time (26 attacks on US embassies in history), and in fact the worst such attack happened under Reagan. To make such an enormous amount out of this one is clearly partisan... and thus, causes us unforced errors in the WoT. Which is why I say partisanship politics, on any side, makes one dumber. And this is true of everyone. Up your game.

Fox News
This is the latest question the Republicans are pushing on to the American public.

But regardless of the FOX NEWS spin, Hicks testified yesterday that
he had been told to NOT meet with House investigators,
and yet he did ... [meet with them]...and spoke out about his opinions of the decisions made in D.C.

He is now whining that because he did go ahead and meet with the Congressman,
he has been "effectively demoted to a desk job"

From my experience, this is pretty much SOP for any government employee
that does not follow what his superiors have already ordered him to do or not do.

The rest is partisan (Republican) politics.

I seem to remember a few members of the GW Bush administration ducking a congressional subpoena.

I've been following this story and it looks like a great attack for Republicans in safe congressional districts. It will get the angry retired voter to the polls. When we get to the national election it will bite them in the ass. Hillary actually had a nice run as Sec. of State and a GOP focus on this single event may leave voters with a bad taste in their mouths.

Easy to separate whitewash extremist rhetoric from responsible (adult) reality. If extremist Republicans were making accusations as adults, then they also said who directed the attack. What was the attacker's name? They don't know and they don't care. If responsible, those extremist would say who did this attack - by name. And why we should have known an organized attack was coming.

Tomorrow is the day one of Mohammed's sons died. So we should expect an attack? Yes - according to extremist rhetoric.

They provide no facts. They use hindsight to prove Obama, et al should have known. And emotion to incite the most ignorant citizens. Wacko extremists invent myths and fiction to brainwash and inspire the naive. No facts. No numbers. Not even a name.

Extremist do not care about Americans or dead ambassadors. Screw the country. Political power by brainwashing naive citizens is far more important.

No facts. No numbers. No names. That alone says they purpose is only self serving. Ironically, these are the same people who destroyed American jobs by enriching the rich. Using similar myths based only in hearsay, wild speculation, or fiction. Wacko extremists.

Informed citizens understand another fundamental concept - "fog of war". We still do not even know who organized and directed this attack. Fog of war remains. And yet extremists, without relevant facts, would cast blame.

My bet is that Gates is setting up a wall to defend himself and DOD
from criticism for not having a "better plan for contingencies" in the Middle East,
starting back when he was Sec. of Defense under GWB.

He's no friend to Obama... and except for Petreus... keeping Gates on during first term,
was the first and worst mistake Obama made with respect to the military.

The Not-On-My-Watch rule supersedes all else, and we'll soon know
because certain Republicans have the smell of blood in their nostrils.

Oh noes! Umbrellagate!
http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/16/ob...ella-protocol/

:eek:

Wait, wait, wait... McCain and Graham will appear on tv shortly.

So Happy Monkey, now that we know that the CIA briefing to the president included words like "attack" and never included the word "demonstration", (and several other references like it), etc., and this was all changed to make it more palatable for Obama's chances for reelection. Do these facts change your opinion on this matter? Or are the facts now irrelevant, because they no longer fit the ideology you've held dear?

What we know is that the military personnel who had volunteered to go to Benghazi during the attack, were ordered to stand down. Only a few political response team members disregarded their orders, and went.

As one of the military members there said: "I've never seen the day that politicians had more balls than the military".

I don't have all the facts, but it appears that the State Dept. wanted a very limited response to the attack - and the Ambassador called it an ATTACK, not a demonstation. You don't bring explosives and mortars to a demonstration! When the state response team was told to stand down, most did, just a couple went on. They may have been on loan from the CIA, and felt they could defend themselves from later charges of insubordination.

All they could do with that limited amount of personnel, was evacuate the Benghazi compound. They knew the Ambassador was already dead, and were unable to get to his body.

Nothing from outside Libya - like the nearby Aviano Air Base in Italy, could be used, because it required explicit approval from the President, and he wouldn't give it.

Sign of the times:

Aviano Air Base used to have a motto on their webpage:
"Anywhere, Anytime", next to a large picture of an F-15 Eagle fighter.

Now their website has a picture of their swimming pool, etc, and promotes their Drive Safely and Environmental Impact work.

Dear gawd almighty! What's next? Bingo, perhaps a little Karaoke or Poker tournament?

http://www.aviano.af.mil/index.asp

:D :D :D :facepalm:

This is what I've come to expect from Adak.

Here's the link he is so excited about...

Renovated base pool reopens for summer
Posted 5/28/2013 Updated 5/28/2013

Aviano Air Base
by Airman Ryan Conroy
31st Fighter Wing Public Affairs

5/28/2013 - AVIANO AIR BASE, Italy

...you like to pretend you do.

Of course there was an attack; what was unclear, and what could not have been determined by a recon drone, was the identity of the perpetrators, and their motives. Like I said, drones can't read minds.

What Susan Rice said was that they thought there was a protest that got hijacked by extremists with heavy weapons (which were readily available to militia groups of all sorts in the aftermath of the war). She never denied an attack (obviously); she just said that they didn't think at that point that it was a premeditated, coordinated attack.

Rice: But we don’t see at this point signs this was a coordinated plan, premeditated attack. Obviously, we will wait for the results of the investigation and we don’t want to jump to conclusions before then.

FOX News: Obama says there was no attack!

Thats as much bullshit as blaming a fucking movie.
Sheesh.

..