The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Politics

Politics Where we learn not to think less of others who don't share our views

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-15-2012, 01:10 PM   #16
Adak
Lecturer
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyber Wolf View Post
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.
Adak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 01:24 PM   #17
Cyber Wolf
As stable as a ring of PU-239
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: On a huge rock covered in water, highly advanced moss and 7 billion parasites
Posts: 1,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adak View Post
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?
__________________
"I don't see what's so triffic about creating people as people and then getting' upset 'cos they act like people." ~Adam Young, Good Omens

"I don't see why it matters what is written. Not when it's about people. It can always be crossed out." ~Adam Young, Good Omens
Cyber Wolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 02:03 PM   #18
Adak
Lecturer
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormieweather View Post
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.

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:
Quote:
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...uick-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.
Adak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 03:05 PM   #19
BigV
Goon Squad Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 27,063
Quote:
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?
__________________
Be Just and Fear Not.
BigV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 03:34 PM   #20
classicman
barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy.
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 23,401
{Bites tongue}
Promised self to stay out of political threads.

Petraeus testified that he knew. Nothing concrete, but it sure looks bad.
__________________
"like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt
classicman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 05:55 PM   #21
Big Sarge
Werepandas - lurking in your shadows
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 3,408
I know what you mean. Can you say "Benghazigate"??
__________________
Give a man a match, & he'll be warm for 20 seconds. But toss that man a white phosphorus grenade and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Big Sarge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 07:31 PM   #22
BigV
Goon Squad Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 27,063
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.
__________________
Be Just and Fear Not.
BigV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 07:36 PM   #23
Lamplighter
Person who doesn't update the user title
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods
Posts: 6,402
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.
Lamplighter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 08:01 PM   #24
glatt
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,717
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?
glatt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 08:30 PM   #25
Lamplighter
Person who doesn't update the user title
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods
Posts: 6,402
That's what the Republican politicians are saying
Lamplighter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2012, 07:34 PM   #26
Lamplighter
Person who doesn't update the user title
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods
Posts: 6,402
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
Quote:
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, 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.


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>
The unclassified talking points were first developed by the CIA at the request of the House Intelligence Committee,
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.

Turner, the spokesman for National Intelligence Director James Clapper, said that was not the case.
<snip>
ETA

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-California, told CNN on Monday that
Petraeus explained why the talking points were changed.

"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.

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.

Last edited by Lamplighter; 11-19-2012 at 08:08 PM.
Lamplighter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2012, 07:50 AM   #27
glatt
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,717
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.
glatt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2012, 08:20 AM   #28
Lamplighter
Person who doesn't update the user title
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods
Posts: 6,402
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... enough.
Lamplighter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2012, 10:36 AM   #29
Stormieweather
Wearing her bitch boots
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Floriduh
Posts: 1,181
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.
__________________
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
- Mahatma Gandhi
Stormieweather is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2012, 10:51 AM   #30
xoxoxoBruce
The future is unwritten
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 71,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormieweather View Post
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.

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?
__________________
The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.
xoxoxoBruce is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:55 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.