The Benghazi Incident
The facts we know:
*four Americans were killed: 3 CIA (ex-Seal types) were there trying to secure the most dangerous weapons from the militias in Libyia, and our Ambassador to Libyia.
The CIA agents were told to evacuate - run away, from the attack on the Benghazi consulate. These three did not, they ran 1/3rd of a mile to get TO the consulate building that was under attack.
*repeated requests were made for help, as soon as the attack began. No help arrived until 14 hours later. We have a large air base that defended the City of Benghazi, one hour away, at Aviono, Italy. Their motto is "Anytime, Anywhere".
[ATTACH]41670[/ATTACH]
They were never asked to help.
*The attack lasted for 6 to 7 hours, with the last 2 hours or so, being monitored by a real time reconnaissance drone, which had no attack capability.
*Five days AFTER the attack, Susan Rice, our UN Ambassador, who knows NOTHING about the Benghazi attack, is repeating on several talk shows, info she's been given by the President: The attack was a demonstration against this video, that turned violent.
Everything she was told, was a lie. It never was understood to be a mere demonstration against a video - we're talking explosives, and mortars, etc. all used in the attack.
This is :( - the President doesn't want to lie, so he has Susan Rice lie for him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20334452
Now, Obama defends Rice for lying for him, and wants to promote her to Secretary of State, since Clinton is leaving that position.
John McCain, and a few other Senators have said "No!" won't approve Rice's nomination".
Obama says "that's outrageous! Wants to "take them on" in his fiery speech today, defending the lying mouthpiece he used, to deliver his message - Susan Rice.
IMO, Obama is a liar, who abandoned the Americans in our consulate in Benghazi, because he didn't want to admit that it was Al Qaeda affiliates and members, who were making the attack, before the election. That would make him look weak on national defense, to the voters.
Nixon and Clinton both faced impeachment, on FAR less egregious actions than what Obama is apparently guilty of.
IMO, John McCain is a jackass.
He and his equally scummy cohort Sen. John Kyl have been pushing SB2109, a bill that would strip water rights from from the Hopi and Navajo nations. They want to give them away to their corporate mining and and energy friends.
So, I really don't care what McCain's position is on Susan Rice. He and Kyl should be the ones to be impeached.
Wow! McCain's attempt to deprive the Hopi and Navajo people of their water rights is happening right in my own backyard, and I wasn't even aware of it. Thanks for the heads up, Blue!
From
Native News Network:
S.2109 and the "Settlement Agreement" deny the Navajo and Hopi people the resources and means to bank their own waters, or to recharge their aquifers depleted and damaged by the mining and energy corporations that S.2109 benefits. S.2109 and the "Settlement Agreement" require Navajo and Hopi to give Peabody Coal Mining Company and the Salt River Project and other owners of the Navajo Generating Station (NGS) tens of thousands of acre-feet of Navajo and Hopi water annually - without any compensation - and to force the extension of Peabody and NGS leases without Navajo and Hopi community input, or regard for past and continuing harmful impacts to public health, water supplies and water quality - as necessary pre-conditions to Navajo and Hopi receiving Congressional appropriations for minimal domestic water development.
This is coercive and wrong.
Yet one more example of the Republican's ongoing championship of big money interests to the detriment of everyone else. Peabody Coal has caused incredible ecological damage around here, not to mention the destruction of sites considered sacred by the Navajo and Hopi alike. Now McCain wants to reward Peabody for its misdeeds and add insult to injury to the members of both tribes by handing over tribal water rights with no consideration of the consequences for the people living in this land of little rain. I hope a skinwalker gets him! :mad:
Adak-you're looking like a troll.
Adak-you're looking like a troll.
And you're looking like a dimwit who doesn't give a damn that Americans were abandoned, killed, and our Ambassador's body (probably dead, but not confirmed), was dragged through the streets (for awhile), by Al Qaeda.
Do you really believe it's nothing? Ho hum, another Ambassador is attacked overseas, and we ignore their plea's for help, so he gets X'd out -- just another day at the ol' White House?
This isn't politics. This isn't just another dumber than dirt policy decision by our glorious leader. :p:
@Water rights for the Hopi and Navajo:
Why not start a thread on it? It's off topic here, but sounds like something people should be made aware of, and follow developments therein.
Wow! McCain's attempt to deprive the Hopi and Navajo people of their water rights is happening right in my own backyard, and I wasn't even aware of it. Thanks for the heads up, Blue!
From Native News Network:
I hadn't heard about this until now either. Thanks, bluecuracao! This is outrageous. There was a meeting yesterday in DC on it; apparently the Secretary of the Interior wants to force it through the lame-duck Congress in the next few weeks. Wtf! Without tribal agreement? I think this does deserve its own thread. Not because Adak says so, but because it would get more attention from intelligent Cellarites if not buried here.
So McCain is trashing this Rice after 4 people were killed and she spoke to the press with the info she was given at the time, but he approved Condi Rice after thousands were killed after she KNEW about the threats BEFORE it happened and did nothing. And then supported war against people who had NOTHING to do with it and got thousands MORE killed.
Adak, you are a moron.
But not, apparently, a mormon.
You know, I have lived overseas, in the middle east, and was employed by the US army, on a base. I worked for a year as a communications coordinator. I know how information from situations and other countries on the other side of the world comes in...bits and pieces and dribs and drabs.
There is confusion, conflicting information, missing information and some guesswork involved. As more and more information is received, the picture begins to develop and crystalize. But it isn't complete (or accurate) in an hour, or day, or even a month.
Unlike in the US, you can't just send personnel from point A to B and expect them to get there like an ambulance would do here!. There are unbelievable traffic situations, foreign military checkpoints to get through, tons of bureaucracy and red tape to navigate. Even if I, as a civilian, wanted to go to the grocery store off base, there was red tape. :rolleyes:
And then you have people all along the way who may have made mistakes and are covering ass. So they
may fudge and/or leave things out trying to protect themselves and their fellows.
I think it is absolutely absurd to expect the commanders, including the commander-in-chief, to have everything 100% accurate, immediately.
Additionally, Ambassador Stevens was not dragged through the streets by Al Qaeda. He was found in the safe room, nearly dead from smoke inhalation (which he did eventually die from) and rescued. The cheers in that video going around is because he was alive! I'd really refrain from going around calling people dimwits until you get your own facts straight, Adak. :eyebrow:
New York Times
“In the video, none say anything that shows ill will.
I swear, he’s dead,” one Libyan says, peering in.
“Bring him out, man! Bring him out,” another says.
“The man is alive. Move out of the way,” others shout. “Just bring him out, man.”
“Move, move, he is still alive!”
“Alive, Alive! God is great,” the crowd erupts, while someone calls to bring Mr. Stevens to a car.
Mr. Stevens was taken to a hospital, where a doctor tried to revive him, but said he was all but dead on arrival.
The only thing that matters. The thing that, had it not happened, would have prevented anything Adak could conjure.
The facts we know:
For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012.
THE REPUBLICANS KILLED THE AMBASSADOR AND HIS STAFF.
CASE CLOSED.
Yes, Spexxvet. It really burns my butt when people try to lay the blame on the President for this incident, when the REPUBLICAN'S refused to fund the additional security asked for BY THE PRESIDENT'S Administration.
J.F.C. :mad2:
... and our Ambassador's body (probably dead, but not confirmed), was dragged through the streets (for awhile), by Al Qaeda.
You're the first person I've heard this from. Cite? Any video?
So McCain is trashing this Rice after 4 people were killed and she spoke to the press with the info she was given at the time, but he approved Condi Rice after thousands were killed after she KNEW about the threats BEFORE it happened and did nothing. And then supported war against people who had NOTHING to do with it and got thousands MORE killed.
Adak, you are a moron.
A mouthpiece for a huge lie, is hardly someone to reward by giving them the Secretary of State position.
I am making no comparison with Condolezza Rice, and not defending Bush, either.
I did not support the invasion of Iraq. Crippling sanctions against him - yes; invasion and rebuilding for 10 years? No.
Yes, Spexxvet. It really burns my butt when people try to lay the blame on the President for this incident, when the REPUBLICAN'S refused to fund the additional security asked for BY THE PRESIDENT'S Administration.
J.F.C. :mad2:
The Republicans refused to allocate the funds, because the State Department already had millions of dollars in a "slush" fund, that they (Hillary), refused to spend.
But let me ask you:
Does the military have the money to fly in a few fighters and an A-10 or two to support the consulate when it's under attack?
Oh, yes they do! Aren't we the clever one's to have figured that out? :rolleyes:
We flew hundreds of missions out of Aviano Air Base, in support of the rebels - especially around Benghazi and Misrata.
And now what? We can't fly one more mission to save our Ambassador?
WTF?
You're the first person I've heard this from. Cite? Any video?
The recon drone that was relaying video of the attack, may have caught it. The video that was released doesn't show the dragging. As I understand it, it went like this:
The attackers were themselves being attacked by the locals, who did want to support the Ambassador (and some had been hired for that purpose).
The video shows the Ambassador being discovered barely alive, by the local defenders. But later, the terrorists regrouped, and grabbed Stevens (the Ambassador), and began dragging him down the street.
The videographer was driven off, since he was with the local defenders.
The local defenders saw this, and renewed their attack on the terrorists, and drove them off, recovering Stevens body - and took him straightaway to the hospital.
None of the others were dragged, or taken to the hospital, because the mortar shell that landed on the roof they were fighting from, mangled them so badly - it was clear they were dead.
The recon drone that was relaying video of the attack, may have caught it. The video that was released doesn't show the dragging. As I understand it, it went like this:
The attackers were themselves being attacked by the locals, who did want to support the Ambassador (and some had been hired for that purpose).
The video shows the Ambassador being discovered barely alive, by the local defenders. But later, the terrorists regrouped, and grabbed Stevens (the Ambassador), and began dragging him down the street.
The videographer was driven off, since he was with the local defenders.
The local defenders saw this, and renewed their attack on the terrorists, and drove them off, recovering Stevens body - and took him straightaway to the hospital.
None of the others were dragged, or taken to the hospital, because the mortar shell that landed on the roof they were fighting from, mangled them so badly - it was clear they were dead.
So, the drone video available to public scrutiny doesn't show it. The on-the-ground videographer didn't get video of it. There are no pictures that suggest this actually happened. So, in essence, the dragging of the body is hearsay, not fact. If a credible source confirms the unreleased portion of the video shows him getting dragged, that might change. Has a credible source said anything about it?
You know, I have lived overseas, in the middle east, and was employed by the US army, on a base. I worked for a year as a communications coordinator. I know how information from situations and other countries on the other side of the world comes in...bits and pieces and dribs and drabs.
There is confusion, conflicting information, missing information and some guesswork involved. As more and more information is received, the picture begins to develop and crystalize. But it isn't complete (or accurate) in an hour, or day, or even a month.
Unlike in the US, you can't just send personnel from point A to B and expect them to get there like an ambulance would do here!. There are unbelievable traffic situations, foreign military checkpoints to get through, tons of bureaucracy and red tape to navigate. ...
And then you have people all along the way who may have made mistakes and are covering ass. So they may fudge and/or leave things out trying to protect themselves and their fellows.
I think it is absolutely absurd to expect the commanders, including the commander-in-chief, to have everything 100% accurate, immediately.
Additionally, Ambassador Stevens was not dragged through the streets by Al Qaeda. He was found in the safe room, nearly dead from smoke inhalation (which he did eventually die from) and rescued. The cheers in that video going around is because he was alive! I'd really refrain from going around calling people dimwits until you get your own facts straight, Adak. :eyebrow:
New York Times
That's because the video you watched, was taken by the locals who were trying to defend the Ambassador. They weren't the terrorists who were attacking the consulate!
Those defenders were too little, and too late, to save the Ambassador. They were driven off after Stevens was found alive, by the terrorists. Then he was dragged briefly, before they re-grouped and drove the terrorists away, for the last time, and recovered Stevens. THEN they took him straightaway, to the hospital.
The intel was perfectly clear. Consulate had an "attack" alarm to let the Embassy in Tripoli know they were under attack. That was pressed as soon as the attack started.
Subsequent phone calls and emails were sent both by the Ambassador and by the ex-Seal type CIA agents who were 1/3rd of a mile away, on Consulate grounds, but in another building (the Annex). They could distinctly hear the gunfire, and called it in to their superiors, as well.
The CIA guys were told to evacuate with the Americans that they could get from the Consulate - away to the nearby airport and fly out on a plane that was standing by for them.
This is the article on the revised account given by the CIA on this:
When the team finally managed to secure transportation and an armed escort into Benghazi, they learned that Stevens “was almost certainly dead and that the security situation at the hospital was uncertain.” At that point they headed to the annex to help evacuate the Americans located there .
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/11/new-detailed-account-of-benghazi-attack-notes-cias-quick-response/
Did you notice the "he was almost certainly dead" part?
That's because they heard that Stevens body had been dragged before it was recovered and taken to the hospital.
They're not going to say "Oh yeah, Stevens body was bouncing right along the street there, for 1/2 a mile before it could be recovered".
That would not be PC, and would not CTAsses.
This timeline does appear to support a better response, from the Embassy in Tripoli, however. Dohan (killed on the annex roof with Woods), was from Tripoli's response team.
Re: name calling
You get what you give. You want name calling, you'll get it right back.
Re: facts
All the facts are not in. The above statements I made are believed accurate, but the CIA and State Department, and the White House, are all trying to CTAsses on this one - so the real truth is not clear yet.
Senate hearing on this begin next week.
Re: facts
All the facts are not in. The above statements I made are believed accurate, but the CIA and State Department, and the White House, are all trying to CTAsses on this one - so the real truth is not clear yet.
Of course all the facts are not in. All the facts are never in, we never have perfect knowledge, of anything, not even about ourselves or those in our immediate area of observation and understanding. Everybody, even you, like in this instance right now, thinks and acts on the information we each have at the moment. Sometimes, the action of choice is waiting. Sometimes it's something more dynamic. But we are always working with incomplete, imperfect information.
As this stream of information flows to us, we collect more of it. Evaluating the information for consistency, reliability, accuracy, pertinence helps us understand reality, what really happened. You say "the above statements I made are believed accurate"--a somewhat tortured construction "statements are believed accurate"? Meaning, I think, that someone believes them to be accurate. You clearly believe them to be accurate. I'm not persuaded without more background about your sources.
You've clearly disregarded several sources, the statements from the President, the CIA, the Pentagon; you've given your reasons for disbelieving them, fine. What are your sources? What evidence do you have to support your claims?
{Bites tongue}
Promised self to stay out of political threads.
Petraeus testified that he knew. Nothing concrete, but it sure looks bad.
I know what you mean. Can you say "Benghazigate"??
I heard a short clip from the leader of the torches and pitchforks gang, Senator John McCain, in which he said "that is the dumbest question I've ever heard" after being "asked" (setup) by some reporter-person who led him down the garden path ending with thousands of pages of classified material representing a national security risk, in which he said "four dead Americans". He said it about seven times in forty-five seconds. He's wound the hell up by this, by the loss of these four dead Americans.
Good on him.
But he looks and sounds like a bit of a drama queen when he skips the classified briefing yesterday to hold yet another press conference on the issue. How's he gonna get the facts offered there? And what about the four, no, wait, one hundred and four, or more dead Americans in the wake of the storm a couple weeks ago? Why so outraged by some dead Americans and so indifferent to some other dead Americans? Is it because they were attached to our armed services, as he is? Well, then why not grieve and tear his hair about the four dead Americans, Army and Marine veterans killed in a collision with a train? It's because there's no political mud to be slung.
They're all Americans. They're all dead. But he's focused on these because he thinks he can make his political opponent look bad by WHOOPING IT UP. Pathetic hypocrite.
Benghazigate will end up being less important than the White Water fiasco
of Ken Starr, but hopefully will be shorter and cost less Federal $ to complete.
But then, Lindsey and John have little else to do this term,
so they will grandstand each time there's a news camera in the proximity.
So do I understand this? There was a non-public, classified hearing, and we'll never know what happened in it, but now politicians are coming out and saying the testimony clearly supports their position?
That's what the Republican politicians are saying :rolleyes:
This CNN report seems to me to deflate all of the Republican criticism
of White House and Susan Rice regarding her "talking points" last Sept.
CNN
Pam Benson
November 19th, 2012
Official: Changes to Benghazi talking points made by intel community
The intelligence community
- not the White House, State Department or Justice Department -
was responsible for the substantive changes made to the talking points
distributed for government officials who spoke publicly about the attack
on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, [COLOR="DarkRed"]the spokesman for the director of national intelligence said Monday.
The unclassified talking points on Libya, developed several days after the the deadly attack
on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, were not substantively changed by any agency outside
of the intelligence community, according to the spokesman, Shawn Turner.[/COLOR]
Republican criticism of the talking points intensified last Friday following
a closed door hearing with former CIA Director David Petraeus.

Rep. Peter King, R-New York,
told reporters after the hearing that the original talking parts drafted by the CIA
had been changed and it was unclear who was responsible.
"The original talking points were much more specific about al Qaeda involvement
and yet final ones just said indications of extremists," King said.
<snip>
[COLOR="DarkRed"]The unclassified talking points were first developed by the CIA at the request of the House Intelligence Committee,[/COLOR]
whose members wanted to know what they could say publicly about the Benghazi attack.
The initial version included information linking individuals involved in the attack to al Qaeda,
according to a senior U.S. official familiar with the drafting of the talking points
But when the document was sent to the rest of the intelligence community for review,
there was a decision to change "al Qaeda" to "extremists."
The official said the change was made for legitimate intelligence and legal reasons,
not for political purposes.
"First, the information about individuals linked to al Qaeda was derived
from classified sources," the official said.
"Second, when links were so tenuous - as they still are - it makes sense
to be cautious before pointing fingers so you don't set off a chain of circular
and self-reinforcing assumptions.
Third, it is important to be careful not to prejudice a criminal investigation in its early stages."
Some Republican members of Congress suggested the change came from within the Obama administration
- from the White House, the Justice Department, or another government agency.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]Turner, the spokesman for National Intelligence Director James Clapper, said that was not the case.[/COLOR]
<snip>
ETA
Rep. Adam Schiff, D-California, told CNN on Monday that
Petraeus explained why the talking points were changed.
"[COLOR="DarkRed"]Gen. Petraeus made it clear that that change was made to protect classified sources of information,
not to spin it, not to politicize it and it wasn't done at the direction of the white house.[/COLOR]
That really ought to be the end of it, but it isn't.
So we have to continue to go around this merry go round,
but at a certain point when all the facts point in a certain direction,
we're going to have to accept them as they are and move on," Schiff said.
The Republicans are just looking around for something they can use to appear strong after the painful election results. This seems to have the best odds for them, so they are running with it. It's a non issue, but they are pounding at it, hoping to get some traction.
McCain vehemently demanded that Susan Rice, US Ambassador to the United Nations,
apologize for her public statements from the "unclassified version" of the talking points.
I wonder now if he will apologize ever to her ?
Maybe he will just change direction and demand that Mike Rogers,
Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, apologize for
requesting the "unclassified version" from the CIA in the first place.
Of course Lindsey Graham believes he is never wrong, so he could never apologize... [COLOR="White"] enough[/COLOR].
It's all just such bullshit. If these politicians honestly believe that the military leaders are going to regurgitate every tidbit of information (real, speculative, or classified), they are delusional. Honestly, back the fuck off and quit making this shit political. Get back to fixing the economy and civil issues and let the military experts do their best to keep our servicemen safe.
Oh and if they were so concerned about security, maybe they should have approved the requests for additional funding for extra security before all this happened. But because they denied the requests, they need to just STFU and quit acting like children having a tantrum trying to divert attention from their fuckup. How many goddamn times has this sort of incident occurred? And yet, they're trying to make this one special? Fucking fuck off and go do something useful for a fucking change.
I'm ashamed that these people are in charge and I'm embarrassed that they are representing my country to the world.
It's all just such bullshit. If these politicians honestly believe that the military leaders are going to regurgitate every tidbit of information (real, speculative, or classified), they are delusional. Honestly, back the fuck off and quit making this shit political. Get back to fixing the economy and civil issues and let the military experts do their best to keep our servicemen safe.
C'mon Stormie, tell us how you really feel. :haha:
No they don't. They know it takes time to find out what really happened, if ever. That's why the right wing blogs and pundits were spouting half truths and outright lies before the ashes were cold. Talking like this was a war zone battle scene where everything we got is in place.
Wailing about the Stevens being dragged through the streets, when absolutely no proof exists. I wonder if they pissed on his body... no, wait, that's an American thing.
It's the same as the original 9-11, why didn't they stop the second plane from hitting the WTC?
Oh and if they were so concerned about security, maybe they should have approved the requests for additional funding for extra security before all this happened.
In cheapshots and soundbyte accusations, they forget to include numbers. Since every consulate at risk requires a company of soldiers, then America does not have enough military. Oh. No wonder they want to spend so much more on military. Realities such as costs have no relevance. After all "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter".
Would it be smarter to not invade nations that were a threat to no one? Unfortunately, when we did that, then extremists (or insurgents) were inspired to attack us. Apparently we want to inspire extremists by maintaining many wars simultaneously every year of every decade. Then assign a company of soldiers to every US consulate. Of course, that means a military draft so that we have enough soldiers to povide protection.
TW: There are a great deal of people/companies that make a ton of money off of our military and our wars. It is in their interests that we be constantly fighting somewhere.
In 2012, the association representing makers of predator drones, AUVS, listed “Global Conflict – particularly U.S. and allied nation involvement in future conflicts” as one of the major drivers of “market growth.” In the boardroom, they’re calculating how much war they’ll need in order to make a profit next year.
War
The [defense] sector has leaned Republican in the past, but ultimately its contributions tend to go to whoever is in power.After the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress, the sector began to give over 65 percent of its contributions to the GOP. However, midway through the 2010 cycle, Democrats received 57 percent.
During the last two decades, the sector has contributed a total of $150.8 million, with 57 percent going to Republican candidates.
The sector also has a formidable federal lobbying presence, having spent $136.5 million in 2009 -- down from a high of $150.8 million the previous year. In 2009, more than 1,100 lobbyists represented nearly 400 clients. The amount spent on defense lobbying and the number of lobbyists has steadily increased during the last two decades.
The sector’s biggest companies include Center for Responsive Politics “Heavy Hitters” Lockheed Martin, Boeing and General Dynamics, as well as Northrop Grumman and Raytheon.
The main issue for the defense sector is securing government defense contracts and earmarks – they are often quite lucrative -- and influencing the defense budget. Sector favorites include House and Senate members who sit on the armed forces and appropriations committees that oversee military and defense spending.
Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee in 2010, has received nearly $1.4 million from the defense sector over the course of his career, including $212,000 during the 2008 campaign cycle.
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), another sector favorite who serves on the Senate Appropriations Committee, placed holds on dozens of President Barack Obama’s appointments in early 2010 to protest cuts in certain Air Force contracts. Shelby received nearly half a million dollars from the defense sector during the 2008 campaign cycle, and he has received $1.3 million during his career.
Lobbying
With this kind of money in the process, is it any wonder that Washington is corrupt?
Suggestion for next time something bad happens and you can't tell the truth yet because of national security: Use the words, "No comment."
McCain uses "Arm the rebels" for that purpose.
Before I give my $.02, has anyone here besides me served in a politically sensitive, small foot print place like the consolate in Benghazi? My second to last deployment I spent in Peshawar, Pakistan. My last very short deployment was to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, just got back last Saturday. I have an opinion on this whole Benghazi incident based on experience and a little bit of understanding of our agreements and lack there of with other countries.
If I would have had to shoot it out off the roof top of my team house in Pesh, the Cavalry would not have been called. There are serious issues of sovereignty and acts of war involved in sending troops or a fly over with an air strike. I understood going into a place like Pesh that I was at a higher risk, and would be on my own if shit went south. I suspect the guys in Benghazi knew the same. I really don't care bout the national politics, other then using the deaths of these brave men as a spring board for someones political aspirations. I don't like that.
I'm putting this out here because I think we shouldn't lie to ourselves about this. Most Americans don't seem to understand that we just cant send in an Infantry Battalion or a Seal Team when ever and where ever we want, or just maybe send in some fast movers for 3 guys in a building. There are places that it's not going to happen, it doesn't matter who the President is. Be angry about it if you want, but the facts are not going to change about this. I'm not a politician or a General trying to save my job at the expense of public opinion so I can be honest with ya'll. We got away with schwacking Bin Ladin in PK, the price of this you guys will never know, I'm sure it's going to be astronomical. If we had done a similar high profile action in a country like Russia, we might be trading misiles right now. Is it a tragedy? Yes. Regardless of whether it was riots over a video or an organized attack in country could it have gone different? I don't think so.
Thanks Joe, that's pretty much what I suspected.
That made stuff a lot clearer, thanks Joe.
Yeah, thank you for putting things in perspective. And thank YOU, Joe, for your service to our country out on the front lines of all this madness. Take care of yourself.
A letter to the editor about sex and military service.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/no-sex-permission-to-speak-freely-sir/2012/11/23/c0232650-3433-11e2-bfd5-e202b6d7b501_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop
General Order No. 1 prohibits sex (and alcohol consumption) on an Army deployment. Typical deployments last approximately one year, so if West Point graduates follow the academy’s rules, then they abstain for all four of their college years, plus the year-long deployment. Five years of abstinence is enough to make anyone crazy.
^Better suited to the "Another one bites the dust" thread.^
Reading the
author's website, she sounds like a expert. Actually she sounds obsessed about it. Of course being an commissioned officer, she could order privates to do her bidding. ;)
Now after Susan Rice has met with McCain, he is still trying his black balling of Rice "and every other nominee"
Obama now has to stand up to McCain, and nominate Rice for Sec of State
... even if Obama doesn't want her.
Obama had and still has every intention of nominating her. I wonder if that was the price she paid to get the nomination.
What price?
Go on tv, when they ask questions about xyz, rely on this briefing prepared by the intelligence agencies?
Yes, that one. She had the actual reports. She knew beforehand it was incorrect.
I'm not advocating her revealing classified info, but she blatantly knew what she was saying was not true. "We don't know, investigation underway" would have been better than the bullshit about blaming a video clip no one saw.
so you are saying she just sat there and lied? that she saw the reports said x and instead said y? That's not what I suggested. I'm saying she repeated what was in her briefing. You're saying she just made up some shit that was NOT in her briefing? I find that hard to believe.
would have been better than the bullshit about blaming a video clip no one saw.
What do you mean "blaming a video clip that no one saw"?
While the video didn't incite the attack in Libya, it did start protests in Egypt, Yemen, and about 10 other Islamic countries. It is not surprising that the video was initially blamed since it was known to be circulating in Islamic countries a few days before the attack.
so you are saying she just sat there and lied? that she saw the reports said x and instead said y? That's not what I suggested. I'm saying she repeated what was in her briefing. You're saying she just made up some shit that was NOT in her briefing? I find that hard to believe.
Either I am not being clear or you are intentionally twisting what I posted.
I find the latter extremely difficult to believe. Please try rereading my post.
What do you mean "blaming a video clip that no one saw"?
Did it? We have been told that it had. How did all those people suddenly see this video all at virtually the same time? Why did they all riot on THAT same night? How was this "video" spread? Yep, I got my conspiracy hat on.
Note that all interest in those issues & incidents has been dropped. Nothing to see here, move along. :right:
Look, I've got no more info than you or anyone else, but to blame a video that was out for MONTHS prior to all these incidents seems at least a little questionable.
Did it? We have been told that it had. How did all those people suddenly see this video all at virtually the same time? Why did they all riot on THAT same night? How was this "video" spread? Yep, I got my conspiracy hat on.
There isn't much information about it but here is a theory:
In Egypt, the protest was organized by Wesam Abdel-Wareth, a Salafist leader and president of Egypt's Hekma television channel, who called for a gathering on September 11 at 5 pm in front of the United States Embassy, to protest against a film that he thought was named Muhammad's Trial.[40][41] However, Eric Trager, an experts at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, has said that the protest was in fact announced on August 30 by Jamaa Islamiya, to release Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman.[citation needed] After the trailer for the film began circulating, Nader Bakkar, the Egyptian Salafist Nour Party's spokesman, and Muhammad al-Zawahiri, the brother of al-Qaeda leader Ayman al Zawihiri, called for Egyptians to assemble outside of the American embassy.[42]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_Innocence_of_Muslims
I do remember hearing about the video before the attacks. I'm guessing it was discovered by these groups a few weeks before 9/11 and thought it would be convenient to spread the video throughout Egypt the week before an already planned protest.
I don't know whether Libya is related at all or it is just coincidence.
Not at all, some things sit on youtube for a long time before going viral. When this video became known in the Islamic world, Aljazeera and other TV, as well as youtube, is available in those countries.
BTW,
An Egyptian court Wednesday sentenced seven Coptic Christians to death in absentia for making the anti-Islam film, The Innocence of Muslims, which was filmed here in Southern California.
My second to last deployment I spent in Peshawar, Pakistan.
Thank you for the whole of your update - it was very illuminating.
But most interesting me was your posting in Peshawar.
Wonderful cuisine in that area.
Peshwari naan is on the menu of most curry houses round here. Now that's not to my taste (too sweet) but I've had some fantastic lamb curries.
Not that I think with my belly or anything.
Your explanation for a team house, is completely different than it is for an embassy or consulate. We have treaties in place for the latter, but not for the former.
In fact, a military response team was sent to Benghazi, but they arrived some 15 hours after the attack began. Since Al Qaeda returned to the attack, one or two of the KIA, was from the response team.
The response was piss poor, everyone knows that. That is very bad, but by far the worst thing was to have the President's spokesperson (Rice), come out and spin her lies to us on no less than FIVE tv talk shows, that weekend.
Lies that she got, according to Obama, straight from him and his staff.
It wasn't the intelligence briefing that had the lie about it being a demonstration over a film - they never thought that was true in Libya. This was an attack from al Qaeda, not a film demonstration. It was confirmed with a recon drone, for god's sake.
If our Commander in Chief thinks he's going to lie to us, with impunity, over a military attack on our state department personnel, involving fatalities, our Commander in Chief, had better think again.
Of course, he lied to the families of those KIA, when Obama met them, as well (at Andrews Air Force Base).
I'm sure he's such a practiced liar that a few shed tears from a grieving widow, did not interrupt his lie, even a little bit.
Looks like Obama has been taking lying lessons from Clinton. At least Clinton's lies were banal, and you had to laugh. I loved his:
"It depends on what your definition of "is", is". -- such a classic! :D
It wasn't the intelligence briefing that had the lie about it being a demonstration over a film - they never thought that was true in Libya. This was an attack from al Qaeda, not a film demonstration. It was confirmed with a recon drone, for god's sake.
Drones can't read minds yet.
The intelligence briefing removed mention of al Qaeda due to lack of corroboration at the time. When they were confident enough, the briefings reflected that change.
Drones can't read minds yet.
The intelligence briefing removed mention of al Qaeda due to lack of corroboration at the time. When they were confident enough, the briefings reflected that change.
The briefings never indicated the incident in Benghazi was anything but an attack - it never was described as a demonstration over a film, a riot, etc.
And it was the anniversary of 9/11 --- .
Exactly what militia was attacking, wasn't known immediately, but THAT it WAS an attack, was very clear.
Why do you insist on calling it "Rain!", whenever Obama pees down your legs?
I don't get it - if ANY recent president except Obama did this crap, they'd be keel-hauled by the press and media.
But for Obama - it's golf and fun times, hey! :cool:
Fog of war applies.
Why would Obama lie about such a thing? What's the motivation, especially when more details were due to come out? It's been floated that the administration didn't want to admit that the "war on terror" is still a *thing*. But it's a much more likely explanation that someone speculated wrong early, and the explanation lingered awhile before the real details circulated to the top.
look at you and your occam's razor.
Fog of war applies.
Right! Fog of War!
Because we never heard of Al Qaeda in Libya, and we never knew that they might attack us on the anniversary of 9/11.
And we didn't have a recon drone there, watching the whole thing with a high resolution real time camera feed.
Oh, and we didn't receive those alarms and those phone calls, and those emails from the Consulate, saying that they were under ATTACK.
Right -- Fog of War! :rolleyes::rolleyes:
You'd have to be in a coma to believe that, my friend.
Why would Obama lie about such a thing? What's the motivation, especially when more details were due to come out? It's been floated that the administration didn't want to admit that the "war on terror" is still a *thing*. But it's a much more likely explanation that someone speculated wrong early, and the explanation lingered awhile before the real details circulated to the top.
Because Obama got a boost from killing Bin Laden - and this Benghazi incident took place just shortly before the election. If he has to admit that it was Al Qaeda that killed our Ambassador, that means he's not the Commander in Chief many thought he was.
If it comes out before the election, that he let our Ambassador and a few other service personnel die, because he wouldn't send in the troops, he loses still more votes. Now he would be broadly seen as a creepy un-American Commander in Chief, who won't support our Embassy personnel, when they are under attack.
For those readers of a younger generation, this is a classic strategy. BTW, that Al Qaeda is using. We used the same one against the Japanese in WWII.
Think of our Embassies like islands in the Pacific. And this time, we're the ones on those islands. It's easy to focus military force against ONE island at a time, and overrun it. The Japanese don't know which island will be hit next - although some are obvious (like Iwo Jima and Okinawa). Same with our Embassies. We don't know which one will be attacked next, and it's easy for Al Qaeda to focus their force against just one Embassy, and overrun it.
It's made that much easier if the "security relief force" only has a dozen or so guys on it, and they take 15 hours to get there - although they're just one hour away, by air.
:lame:
Totally :lame:
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
Has US diplomat Gregory Hicks suffered political retaliation
for revealing details of the lethal terrorist attack in Benghazi,
Libya, last Sept. 11?
That’s a big question raised by Wednesday’s House Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform.
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.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]I was instructed not to allow the RSO [Regional Security Officer],
the acting deputy chief of mission and myself to be personally interviewed
by Congressman Chaffetz.[/COLOR]
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.
Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a Bush appointee, said today on Face the Nation that some of the critics of the Obama administration’s response to the Benghazi attack have a “cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces.”
LinkMy 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.
:eek:
Wait, wait, wait... McCain and Graham will appear on tv shortly.
Drones can't read minds yet.
The intelligence briefing removed mention of al Qaeda due to lack of corroboration at the time. When they were confident enough, the briefings reflected that change.
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.aspAviano 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?
: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
-- After extensive renovations, the Aviano Air Base pool reopens for the summer
with a free pool party June 1 at 1 p.m.
This summer, U.S. identification card holders and their families can now enjoy
a few new perks that will improve their summer experience thanks to
the 31st Force Support and 31st Civil Engineer Squadrons.
"A lot of the renovations won't be visible because a lot of it went on behind the scenes,"
said April Marling, 31st Force Support Squadron community services flight chief.
"But we have a lot of great improvements that people will notice."
The 31st FSS and 31st Civil Engineer Squadron collaborated
to put forth these behind-the- scenes additions.
<snip>
I don't have all the facts, but it appears that...
...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.
No lamplighter, what I was disturbed by was the whole tone of the web site. Before it was emphasizing military power and readiness - and in fact, they flew many missions into Libya and the Balkans (during the Balkan conflict).
Now, the web site emphasizes environmental projects, base amenities, personnel issues, etc.
Their motto "Anywhere, Anytime", is no longer even displayed.
So far, you haven't convinced me.
There are a lot of mottos at Aviano AF Base, and at other military units.
[ATTACH]44201[/ATTACH]
but at least one of them had a sense of humor...
[ATTACH]44202[/ATTACH]
By the way, the Benghazi event is no longer of serious concern in Congress.
McCain has dropped it and gone on a secret mission to Syria.
We know it's was secret because he was not on the Sunday talk shows this past weekend.
Is he still agitating for us to arm Al Q?
Is he still agitating for us to arm Al Q?
I don't know, but if Obama is in favor, McCain will be agin it, and v/v.
:rolleyes:
Is he still agitating for us to arm Al Q?
...
again?
John McCain denies he knowingly posed with with 'rebel kidnappers' in Syria
No danger in getting better weapons to these guys though, because clearly we know who we're dealing with.
Obama in 2007: “No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime, no more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war…” While Obama publicly expressed outcry at monitoring of citizens protesting Iraq, his administration’s collection of Verizon phone records was broader. Unlike the Bush White House, which sometimes did not use a warrant, the Obama Administration had a warrant from a FISA judge. Obama goes on to mention that FISA court system, which he used to get his warrant for the broad seizing of Verizon records, works.
Al Gore and Rand Paul agree with Past Obama. This a real not a Benghazi.
The telling thing is that the leaks are now going to foreign press.
WASHINGTON —
The Obama administration is secretly carrying out a domestic surveillance program under which it is collecting business communications records involving Americans under a hotly debated section of the Patriot Act, according to a highly classified court order disclosed on Wednesday night. EFF put out a time line of the NSA Domestic Spying Program. This is how Presidencies should end. If only the GOP had a leg to stand on in the 4th Amendment department.
https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/timelineThose silly "liberals" and the ACLU have been warning of this for some time now.
When people are surprised and unhappy, maybe next time they'll pay attention.
Here is Ron Wyden (D- OR) last March...
[YOUTUBE]nCvetmBmTyg[/YOUTUBE]
Here he is speaking on extension of the Patriot Act back in May, 2011
YouTube (23 minutes)... vMAX_Frj8xM
If Democrats keep control of the Senate in 2014,
Wyden will become Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee
I suspect he will have some sway over which laws and budgets get passed.
Muddy Waters
The television network said that a CIA team was working in an annex near the consulate on a project to supply missiles from Libyan armouries to Syrian rebels.
So we're (by we're I mean our out of control executive) trying to arm radical Islamists in Syria but our operation gets trashed by radical Islamists in Lybia?
Wow.
I'd love to know who those "sources" are.
I bet Obama would too.
If the CIA was running an operation out of Benghazi, was the attack on the embassy aimed at them? Why would Islamist militants attack the CIA for supplying their brethren in another country trying to overthrow their dictator?
The
CNN story is thin as well. Obama's record says whistle-blowers keep your heads down.
We knew at the time this was not an embassy, or a consulate, but a CIA operations house. Hitchens went there to try to clear the place out, because it had no (relative)defenses, and he had good rapport with the locals.
What was the CIA was doing there? [SIZE="1"](heel-click)[/SIZE]CIA stuff, Sir. [SIZE="1"](salute)[/SIZE]
Muddy Waters
The television network said that a CIA team was working in an annex near the consulate on a project to supply missiles from Libyan armouries to Syrian rebels.
So we're (by we're I mean our out of control executive) trying to arm radical Islamists in Syria but our operation gets trashed by radical Islamists in Lybia?
Well yea, it's the middle east the MOST factious place in the world.
Well Joe, I guess you have to keep a sense of humor about some things. :right:
I suppose so, it's true though. Radical Islamists in one country and Radical Islamists in another country don't just equate to the same faction. They are broken into factions, groups, organizations, loose ties, no ties, families some only marginally related, some not related at all. In Syria alone there are hundreds of different groups and factions.
So yea, arm a group of Islamists in Syria and Islamists who don't give a crap about what we are doing in Syria might attack us in Lybia.
It's not rocket surgery to see this picture, it IS rocket surgery to try and figure out the link analysis.
Extremists will immediately *know* facts by entertaining their emotions. Or by being told by extremist talk show hosts how to think. Moderates first learn facts. Facts from Benghazi confirm what moderates were saying.
Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO's extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.
A fuller accounting of the attacks suggests lessons for the United States that go well beyond Libya. It shows the risks of expecting American aid in a time of desperation to buy durable loyalty, and the difficulty of discerning friends from allies of convenience in a culture shaped by decades of anti-Western sentiment. Both are challenges now hanging over the American involvement in Syria's civil conflict.
The legacy of Cheney, Mission Accomplished, and what happens when a government uses its extremist rhetoric rather then facts to attack another nation also inspired this attack and a resulting contempt for America. Problems made worse because American extremists also violated fundamental military concepts even defined 2000 years before Columbus.
The attack also suggests that, as the threats from local militants around the region have multiplied, an intensive focus on combating Al Qaeda may distract from safeguarding American interests.
Al Qaeda was not in Iraq - as a minority noted during Mission Accomplished. Unfortunately, too many still see Al Qaeda hiding under our beds rather than comprehending realities in that region. These same concepts, denied by American extremists, are relevant even in Syria.
In this case, a central figure in the attack was an eccentric, malcontent militia leader, Ahmed Abu Khattala, according to numerous Libyans present at the time. American officials briefed on the American criminal investigation into the killings call him a prime suspect. Mr. Abu Khattala declared openly and often that he placed the United States not far behind Colonel Qaddafi on his list of infidel enemies. But he had no known affiliations with terrorist groups, and he had escaped scrutiny from the 20-person C.I.A. station in Benghazi that was set up to monitor the local situation.
Mr. Abu Khattala, who denies participating in the attack, was firmly embedded in the network of Benghazi militias before and afterward. Many other Islamist leaders consider him an erratic extremist. But he was never more than a step removed from the most influential commanders who dominated Benghazi and who befriended the Americans. They were his neighbors, his fellow inmates and his comrades on the front lines in the fight against Colonel Qaddafi.
To this day, some militia leaders offer alibis for Mr. Abu Khattala. All resist quiet American pressure to turn him over to face prosecution. Last spring, one of Libya's most influential militia leaders sought to make him a kind of local judge.
Fifteen months after Mr. Steven's death, the question of responsibility remains a searing issue in Washington, framed by two contradictory story lines.
Reality is far too complex for soundbyte rhetoric inspired American extremists such as Limbaugh and the Tea Party. The
NY Times article entitled "A Deadly Mix in Benghazi" on 28 Dec 2013 demonstrates why reality requires long posts. Soundbytes from extremist rhetoric have clearly distorted and misrepresented what happened in a Benghazi attack that killed ambassador Stephens. Soundbyte propaganda did not even mention Khattala - instead accused a mythical Al Qaeda. Because such rhetoric works on those most easily manipulated by propaganda.
The other, favored by Republicans, holds that Mr. Stevens died in a carefully planned assault by Al Qaeda to mark the anniversary of its strike on the United States 11 years before.
Extremists need bogeymen to blame - Al Qaeda today as Hitler blamed the Jews 80 years ago and McCarthy blamed communists in the State Department and Hollywood.
The fixation on Al Qaeda might have distracted experts from more imminent threats. Those now look like intelligence failures. More broadly, Mr. Stevens, like his bosses in Washington, believed that the United States could turn a critical mass of the fighters it helped oust Colonel Qaddafi into reliable friends. He died trying.
As was true in Iraq ten years ago, Al Qaeda was a myth promoted by extremists such as Cheney. That myth lives on even in myths that discuss Syria. Many still deny the legacy and resulting hate created by lies and Mission Accomplished.
... Reality is far too complex for soundbyte rhetoric inspired American extremists such as Limbaugh and the Tea Party. ...
[COLOR="Red"][Limbaugh and the Tea Party] [/COLOR]How do we know you're not an Al Qaeda sleeper agent? [COLOR="red"][/Limbaugh and the Tea Party][/COLOR][COLOR="Red"][Limbaugh and the Tea Party] [/COLOR]How do we know you're not an Al Qaeda sleeper agent? [COLOR="red"][/Limbaugh and the Tea Party][/COLOR]
Put the t and w over each other. That is Arabic for Abu.
Hey hey, Abu Abu, let's find some pic-i-nic baskets.
The ridiculously partisan article which was written to help Hillary distance herself from her largest hurdle for the presidency. Her utter lack of leadership and her part in chosing to let them die. Where was Obama that night anyway? The NYT article, so uselessly quoted by the bloviating one, was resoundingly refuted by D's and R's alike on the intel committee. The strawman in his argument is also pathetic.
Moderate .... bwahahahahahahahaaaaaaa..... thanks for the laugh.
The ridiculously partisan article which was written to help Hillary distance herself from her largest hurdle for the presidency.
Amazing how honest facts that contradict wacko extremist rhetoric are relabeled "partisan".
Reality was not the first thing extremists were told; so it must be wrong.
Extremists even fear a mythical Al Qaeda. Because Benghazi also exposes an Al Qaeda myth, then it must be wrong. Al Qaeda remains another myth that survives only due to wacko extremism.
Same wacko extremism says torture (Nazi Gestapo style) is good. That was also the first thing extremists were told. So it must be true.
^and the typical divert/distract ploy... so predictable... so pathetic..
The ridiculously partisan article ...
Classic, if you had only included something about General Motors,
you would have gotten points for Adak#1, Adak#2 ... AND Adak#3.
Please do not, even jokingly, associate me with his nonsense.
Please do not, even jokingly, associate me with his nonsense.
Then post something based in facts and that actually contributes something useful.
I always post factually. Unfortunately for you, of course.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ecc3a300383445d5a90dd6ca764c9e15/house-intel-panel-debunks-many-benghazi-theories
WASHINGTON (AP) — A two-year investigation by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee has found that the CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and asserted no wrongdoing by Obama administration appointees.
Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria. Obviously the House Intelligence Committee, and the AP, are part of the conspiracy. :rolleyes:
A happy ending to the investigation just in time for the holidays. That's what we like to see from our representatives, thanks Congress! :rolleyes:
BeenGhazied
[ATTACH]49658[/ATTACH]
Obviously the House Intelligence Committee, and the AP, are part of the conspiracy.
The conclusion was obvious long ago to anyone not brainwashed by extremist talk show hosts.
One who knows only what they were told to believe saw a conspiracy. Intelligent moderates collected facts before knowing anything. Therefore got it right.
At this point, one would think everyone learned from Mission Accomplished. Even lying talk show host still refuse to apologize for a massacre they advocated of 5000 American servicemen. In fact, wacko extremist Paul Bremer said (last week) we should again invade Iraq. Wackos love thirty and fifty years wars. Since that gets extremists to support and enrich them. Or in the case of Limbaugh, pay for his oxycotin addiction.
Illegal, apparently not. But anyone who doesn't realize they intentionally tried to mislead with that bogus video crap is an idiot - yeh you.
The repubicans love to waste tax payer money
http://www.gop.gov/solution_content/benghazi/The repubicans love to waste tax payer money
http://www.gop.gov/solution_content/benghazi/
And I suppose you think they wasted money on those 50+ times they TRIED to repeal ACA.
Or maybe with the money being spent trying to impeach the President.
They did and they are. :-)
John Boehner will be appointing Trey Gowdy (R, SC) to head the investigation into Benghazi.
Because:
By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Monday, November 24, 2014
Saying there are still “far too many questions” unanswered, House Speaker John A. Boehner reappointed Rep. Trey Gowdy Monday to lead his chamber’s inquiry into the Benghazi terrorist attacks just a few days after a House committee cleared the CIA of most wrongdoing, in a move that signaled the GOP is not satisfied with those conclusions.
“Two years later, the American people still have far too many questions about what happened that night — and why,” Mr. Boehner said in a statement, saying the Gowdy investigation will be the “definitive report” on the attack that left four Americans dead.
FFS.
Also:
Lindsay Graham still hasn't found what he's looking for.
Sen. Lindsey Graham said Sunday that a report on the Benghazi attack released late last week is “full of crap.”
The GOP-led House committee’s report found no failures in intelligence in connection with the 2011 attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya and also found that any misinformation released after the attack was accidentally incorrect — not a deliberate attempt to mislead people.
But Mr. Graham, South Carolina Republican, said on CNN’s “State of the Union” that the report is inaccurate and that the House Intelligence Committee that released the report accepted a “bunch of garbage.”
“I’m saying the House Intelligence Committee is doing a lousy job policing their own,” he said.
He said the select committee lead by Rep. Trey Gowdy, South Carolina Republican, will get to the bottom of what really happened in the attack that killed four Americans.
What's happening with respect to Benghazi, at this point, is a smear campaign to impugn Hilary Clinton's name in advance of her possible presidential campaign. They just want to use it as a club to keep people distracted and uncertain and worried. What a load of fucking bullshit.
John Boehner will be appointing Trey Gowdy (R, SC) to head the investigation into Benghazi.
There is a affliction among some South Carolinian children that manifests
as a speech defect wherein there is a transposition of "n's" and "z's".
Usually the children out-grow it, and their use of language becomes normal.
But it can carry over in some adults as a juvenile behavioral manifestation.
We have seen it on TV, as shown here...
[YOUTUBE]3VwrCZa3aKo[/YOUTUBE]
.
There is such a double standard with a lot of these posts. I guess you "I told you so" people on Benghazi were the same people who said this should have been over a long time ago. Yet, I guess, you all also think the "Senate" report on torture is somehow still relevant many years later. What a hatchet job! Let's face it there are idiots i.e. political opportunists on both sides. The Dems got their clocks cleaned in the last election and they will resort to anything to switch the attention back to Bush/Cheyney. Enjoy the next two years! You deserve it!
We've had numerous reports about the "Benghazi incident" (tm). None of them turned up anything like the hoped-for scandal heavily promoted by Fox News and their ilk. Lots of looking, lots of investigation, and no evidence of wrongdoing.
The " "Senate" " (really? that needs ironic quotes? we're talking about the same Senate, right?) report on torture reveals new information, in stark contrast to the expected standard of behavior by the CIA. I don't see the double standard you're talking about.
Political opportunists on both sides? all sides. Hell yeah. But that should still not make a non-event worth worrying about (Benghazi) or excuse torture (CIA), regardless of the political motivations of the messenger.
How can anyone play the equivalency game with these two events? Oh yeah, Fox News. Nothing happened in Benghazi beyond a fuck up. American lowering its ethical standards to the level of say ISIS or North Vietnam, that is a goddamn news story.
How can anyone play the equivalency game with these two events? Oh yeah, Fox News. Nothing happened in Benghazi beyond a fuck up. American lowering its ethical standards to the level of say ISIS or North Vietnam, that is a goddamn news story.
I guess the families' of the 4 USxKIA take comfort in knowing it was only a "fuck up".
Would they feel better if it was a vast conspiracy?
Would they feel better if it was a vast conspiracy?
No, but I don't take the murder of 4 Americans, including an ambassador, lightly.
No, but I don't take the murder of 4 Americans, including an ambassador, lightly.
People die in fuck-ups. Doesn't make it light.
It's Issa's circus that is treating it lightly.
But that should still not make a non-event worth worrying about (Benghazi) .
Are you out of your fucking mind? Benghazi a non incident? The dfirst US Ambassador killed since the Peanut farmer was in office and thats a non-event to you? Srsly????
In that context, I took the use of the term non-event to mean not a scandal (i.e. not an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong) by the US government.
The government sends soldiers and diplomats into harm's way all the time. There are no guarantees of safety.
There is such a double standard with a lot of these posts. I guess you "I told you so" people on Benghazi were the same people who said this should have been over a long time ago. Yet, I guess, you all also think the "Senate" report on torture is somehow still relevant many years later. What a hatchet job! Let's face it there are idiots i.e. political opportunists on both sides. The Dems got their clocks cleaned in the last election and they will resort to anything to switch the attention back to Bush/Cheyney. Enjoy the next two years! You deserve it!
We've had numerous reports about the "Benghazi incident" (tm). None of them turned up anything like the hoped-for scandal heavily promoted by Fox News and their ilk. Lots of looking, lots of investigation, and no evidence of wrongdoing.
The " "Senate" " (really? that needs ironic quotes? we're talking about the same Senate, right?) report on torture reveals new information, in stark contrast to the expected standard of behavior by the CIA. I don't see the double standard you're talking about.
Political opportunists on both sides? all sides. Hell yeah. But that should still not make a non-event worth worrying about (Benghazi) or excuse torture (CIA), regardless of the political motivations of the messenger.
Would they feel better if it was a vast conspiracy?
In that context, I took the use of the term non-event to mean not a scandal (i.e. not an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong) by the US government.
The government sends soldiers and diplomats into harm's way all the time. There are no guarantees of safety.
sexobon's understanding of my meaning is precisely correct. well put, sexobon, thanks.
We've been talking about the relative scandalousness of these two events. One's been the subject of considerable investigation and no vast conspiracy uncovered. The other has had less investigation, but alarming evidence of wrongdoing has been found. That's the difference.
[ATTACH]50224[/ATTACH]
Yahoo News - Meredith Shiner - 1/27/15
Democrats accuse GOP of breaking promises on Benghazi panel
Democrats on the special House panel investigating the 2012 Benghazi attacks
have accused Republicans of conducting the committee’s work without them
and withholding information that would undermine the credibility of the panel itself,
according to three letters obtained by Yahoo News.
The previously unreported letters, sent by Democrats to the special select committee’s chairman,
Republican Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, underscore ongoing Democratic concerns that
the panel is a partisan witch hunt rather than a neutral attempt to uncover the truth.
At the same time, Democrats contend that the panel’s tactics reflect the heat
Republicans are feeling to [COLOR="Red"]produce an outcome different from those of the previous
seven congressional reports, [/COLOR]which debunked the conservative conspiracy theories
surrounding the attacks.
Hillary willing to testify before Benghazi panel
“With all due respect, the fact is, we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or because of guys out for a walk one night who decide to kill some Americans — what difference at this point does it make?” Clinton said. “It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.”
Story here [COLOR="DarkRed"][/COLOR]Rather than me typing it all over, I just quote Griff from last November.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ecc3a300383445d5a90dd6ca764c9e15/house-intel-panel-debunks-many-benghazi-theories
WASHINGTON (AP) — A two-year investigation by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee has found that the CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and asserted no wrongdoing by Obama administration appointees.
Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]This was the final report of the "Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee"[/COLOR]
@Classic: What needs to happen to put Benghazi to rest ?
Is the goal to discredit Hillary Clinton ?
Is the goal to impeach Barack Obama ?
If not these, specifically what is the goal ?
@Classic: What needs to happen to put Benghazi to rest ?
Some people will look for anything to justify cheapshots. Limbaugh is only one example.
@Lamp - why you asking me? I just noticed the article and thought it relevant. IMO, Hillary wasn't the problem as much as Obama.
Tommy boy - you are another example. Now kindly fuck right on off mmmkay?
@Lamp - why you asking me?
Followed by
IMO, Hillary wasn't the problem as much as Obama.
What problem?
They spent years trying to find a problem to pin on Obama or Hillary and failed. Now they're starting again.
What problem?
What problem? Neither Hillary nor Obama gave the investigating committees a single shred, not a hint of a shred, to build a case on. That's what problem. :haha:
Guys, would like the opinion of a guy who has been in a very similar country, under very similar conditions? What I mean is a country like Pakistan, where the threat is very high, in a city like...say Peshawar, away from the Embassy in the capital, with a small consulate, doing a job with a very small footprint with large political (home and geopolitical) implications for just about anything that happens?
I'm just going to tell you up front, if you are a Republican on a witch hunt, you won't want to hear what I have to say.
I'm not a republican. I'm not on a witch hunt. I'm very interested in what you have to say on the issue.
BigV, here goes. My $.02 based on some experience. I'm going to try to keep this brief and simple.
Back in '10 I spent time in Pakistan. I got back two days before they schwacked Bin Laden. I assure you that I had nothing to do with that, I have another job.
While I was living with 3-4 other guys in a house in a suburb of Peshawar, had we had to duke it out with the Taliban (or pick from a list of like Islamist trouble makers that all have loose affiliations with one another) from our roof top, can you guess who the cavalry would have been? That's right, we were the cavalry. We, and the men in Benghazi, volunteered, were selected and trained to do a tough job, with a VERY small footprint in a very dangerous place. We knew the odds going in if crap gets hairy, and we knew that the cavalry was us. 6 Months before I got to Pesh, two members of the CA community were killed in a suicide bombing north east of Pesh. Not many people know about this, there was no news or fanfare. We are professionals and understand the political implications, and don't expect this crap anyways. I worked on the same school that was destroyed at the bombing that killed these guys. I can't stress enough that we know the risks going in. If it were easy and low risk, shit, everyone would be doing it. It really pisses me off that the bravery of these men is being used as a spring board for political infighting. Rather than give them credit where credit is due, that they volunteered to walk into a tough, very risky place....and doing it anyways. Oh, and the Marines were doing what they are supposed to do: protect the Embassy. No Marine contingent was going to beat feet to my team house, if we were fighting it out.
The reports that DoD have submitted are true. We just don't have the kind of assets to drop a contingent of operators, or an infantry platoon (let alone the political fall out for violating sovereign states borders with more military personnel), especially in a highly fluid, dynamic, dangerous fight, too much is unknown. The right call was to sit it out rather than send in two or three choppers and get 1/2 of our "rescue" force killed on the insertion. These guys are way more valuable then to kill em off willy nilly.
The guys on the ground knew all of this going into that job. They went anyway. We should hold them up as examples of men willing to do some of the toughest, most dangerous work out there. Celebrate their bravery.
Joe, I appreciate all you have said in this post. I really do.
But at the same time, I don't see a connection with that and what is happening
in Washington, in the Congress, under the flag of "Benghazi"
How do you make the connection ?
So, shits going south...right now....and a very small contingent of men is under fire in a small country rife with danger. Hypothetically. The President immediately goes to the Joint Chiefs, the Head of the CIA and the Commander of SOCOM, SOCCENT, and CENTCOM. The President says "Guys, what can we do?". (This is exactly what he's supposed to do) They all say, give me five minutes. Five minutes later they say...not much. But, the real answer is they basically knew the answer to that last week.
What's going on in Congress right now is some guys trying to pin some kind of blame on the President and the head of DoS. I mean, we don't want to widen that blame to the CIA, Military and other guys..cause they are right wing darlings . Just calling like I see it. The fact is there is no blame to assign. Shit happens in the world and when you fight, you're gonna get hit. The champions know this and can take it.
Thank you, and thank you for your service.
... and not just because I agree with your thoughts in your 2nd posting.
...The fact is there is no blame to assign. Shit happens in the world...
Hell, like I said, it's just my opinion. Maybe I don't know shit. :)
I know what I know, that's my story and I'm sticking to it. Glad I'm not in politics. That looks like some tough shit right there.
Thank you Joe, you validated my gut feeling but I would have accepted your 2 cents had it been the opposite. You've been there, done that, and seen from the inside how the system works, for a very long time.
I'm so glad you're still here to have breakfast with the Easter Bunny, at the museum. :notworthy
Thank you for the insight Joe.
Joe, thanks for sharing your insight.
I am not a soldier. I don't have any of the first hand insight like you've had. I *am* a citizen, and I do take an active interest in what's going on in my city and my state and my country. I need input like yours to help me do my best. I strive to avoid restricting my exposure to what's going on and opinions about what's going on to points of view that harmonize with mine, though in this case, yours does.
I have to try to evaluate the motivations and expertise of the speakers and gauge what they say accordingly. You strike me as someone who has a strong command of the background and is not motivated by some greater, less obvious agenda. You present your opinion clearly and without hyperbole or rancor. This is why I consider your input highly valuable. Thank you, sir.
BigV, you ain't no patriot, cuz iffen you was, you'd get all you need to know from Sarah Palin. :lol2:
Who?
Iceland, that's who.
Why??
Well they've bad-mouthed Wall Street pretty good, but no, haven't attacked us... yet.
What???
They're building a new temple to the
Norse Gods.
Icelanders will soon be able to publicly worship at a shrine to Thor, Odin and Frigg with construction starting this month on the island’s first major temple to the Norse gods since the Viking age.
Worship of the gods in Scandinavia gave way to Christianity around 1,000 years ago but a modern version of Norse paganism has been gaining popularity in Iceland.
See, rejecting Christianity to turn back the clock 1000 years, so obviously they will be terrorists.
Tell fox! Tell Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity! Tell Palin!
Oh, and don't accept any wedding invitations in Iceland. :unsure:
It's Baaaaccck
[ATTACH]50528[/ATTACH]
For those of you that enjoy "Morning Joe", here is a pretty good 10 minute discussion...
[YOUTUBE]MR70UF4DuCA[/YOUTUBE]
On a somewhat different note, I find it amusing that Bob Woodward
is questioning the sources and twisting of the discussion,
when he is one of most famous of "historians" who use
vague "trust me" references for his own sources.
Should be almost as safe as being an Ambassador:
[SIZE="3"]Canadian military adviser killed in friendly fire in Iraq[/SIZE]
A Canadian special forces soldier was killed and three others wounded in a friendly fire incident in northern Iraq, ... Canadian troops training local forces had just returned to an observation post at the front line Friday night when they were mistakenly fired upon by Kurdish fighters, ...
... Canada has 69 special forces soldiers with Kurdish peshmerga fighters in what the government calls an advising and assisting role. They were sent to help train Kurdish fighters last September in a mission that was billed as noncombat with the elite troops working far behind the front lines. Harper told Parliament in late September that the soldiers would not accompany the Kurdish fighters, but a Canadian general said in January that they do 80 percent of the training and advising behind the front lines and about 20 percent right at the front lines.
The general also revealed then that Canadian soldiers have been helping the Kurdish fighters by directing coalition airstrikes against Islamic State fighters, a role generally considered risky because it means they are close to the battle against the militants.
The Canadians' efforts complement those of the United States, which has conducted the vast majority of the airstrikes against the Islamic State group. But in their new role, the Canadians are performing a task in targeting airstrikes that so far the U.S. has been unwilling to do. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has repeatedly said the U.S. would consider directing attacks from the ground but that it has not done so. ...
Not yet. Maybe.
That sucks. I'm sure we can pin that on Obama, The head of the DoS and others that have nothing to do with the event.
Forgive me for being a little bitter about the whole thing.
RIP, Canadian SF who are doing what we have been unwilling to do.
not comparable at all to predecessors
Hers was EXCLUSIVE USE.
illegal or unethical?
What a partisan hack this guy is. I couldn't take any more past the 4:25 minute mark.
Woodward is as bad, if not worse than Rove.
What happens to emails deleted via the server? Are they recoverable?