What REALLY happened in Benghazi

[CosmicCowboy]

article too long to cut and paste

http://abcnews.go.com/International/attack-benghazi-consulate-unprecedented-state-department-official/story?id=17438780#.UHVrrE3R58E




Though some administration officials had initially said that the attack grew out of protests over an anti-Muslim film, the senior State Department official told reporters today that "nothing was out of the ordinary" on the night of the attack.

At 8:30 p.m., the ambassador said goodnight to a visiting Turkish diplomat outside the compound and the streets were empty. But at 9:40 p.m., noises, gunfire and an explosion were heard by the agents located in the TOC and Building B.

The agent in the TOC looked at one of the camera feeds monitoring the perimeter and saw a large group of armed men entering the compound. Asked about the initial reports of the protests, the official said that while "others" in the administration may have said there were protests, the State Department did not.

"That was not our conclusion," the official said. "I'm not saying that we had a conclusion."

[CosmicCowboy]

Pretty much proves the White House was lying their ass off intentionally spinning it as a riot over a movie gone bad.

[boutons_deux]

if you think that's bad, Gecko and his neocons have great WAR plans for the planet

1. The First War: Return to Iraq

“In Iraq, the costly gains made by our troops are being eroded by rising violence, a resurgent Al-Qaeda, the weakening of democracy in Baghdad, and the rising influence of Iran. And yet, America’s ability to influence events for the better in Iraq has been undermined by the abrupt withdrawal of our entire troop presence. The President tried—and failed—to secure a responsible and gradual drawdown that would have better secured our gains.”

2. War number 2: Syria

“The President has failed to lead in Syria, where more than 30,000 men, women, and children have been massacred by the Assad regime over the past 20 months. Violent extremists are flowing into the fight. Our ally Turkey has been attacked. And the conflict threatens stability in the region.”
“we are missing an historic opportunity to win new friends who share our values in the Middle East—friends who are fighting for their own futures against the very same violent extremists, and evil tyrants, and angry mobs who seek to harm us. Unfortunately, so many of these people who could be our friends feel that our President is indifferent to their quest for freedom and dignity. As one Syrian woman put it, “We will not forget that you forgot about us.” It is time to change course in the Middle East . . . “

“In Syria, I will work with our partners to identify and organize those members of the opposition who share our values and ensure they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad’s tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets.”

3. The Third War is with Iran

“I will put the leaders of Iran on notice that the United States and our friends and allies will prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons capability. I will not hesitate to impose new sanctions on Iran, and will tighten the sanctions we currently have. I will restore the permanent presence of aircraft carrier task forces in both the Eastern Mediterranean and the Gulf region—and work with Israel to increase our military assistance and coordination.For the sake of peace, we must make clear to Iran through actions—not just words—that their nuclear pursuit will not be tolerated. I will reaffirm our historic ties to Israel and our abiding commitment to its security—the world must never see any daylight between our two nations. I will deepen our critical cooperation with our partners in the Gulf. “

4. The fourth war is in Afghanistan.
“President Obama would have you believe that anyone who disagrees with his decisions in Afghanistan is arguing for endless war. But the route to more war – and to potential attacks here at home – is a politically timed retreat that abandons the Afghan people to the same extremists who ravaged their country and used it to launch the attacks of 9/11.
I will evaluate conditions on the ground and weigh the best advice of our military commanders. And I will affirm that my duty is not to my political prospects, but to the security of the nation. ”


5. The small wars: Intervention in Yemen, Somalia, perhaps even Libya in a ‘war on terror.’

http://www.juancole.com/2012/10/romneys-five-wars.html

Gecko/Ryan war-marking will make dubya/dickhead look like Boy Scouts (and they certainly won't stop CIA drones or Petraeus/SOCOM murders or the US domestic police state). And of course, none of Gecko's five sons will sign up, although, like the father, "they really want to". :lol

[TeyshaBlue]

lol deflection

[boutons_deux]

TB :lol

House Repugs cut $500M from embassy security, the Senate cut it back to $300M.

[johnsmith]

if you think that's bad, Gecko and his neocons have great WAR plans for the planet

1. The First War: Return to Iraq

“In Iraq, the costly gains made by our troops are being eroded by rising violence, a resurgent Al-Qaeda, the weakening of democracy in Baghdad, and the rising influence of Iran. And yet, America’s ability to influence events for the better in Iraq has been undermined by the abrupt withdrawal of our entire troop presence. The President tried—and failed—to secure a responsible and gradual drawdown that would have better secured our gains.”

2. War number 2: Syria

“The President has failed to lead in Syria, where more than 30,000 men, women, and children have been massacred by the Assad regime over the past 20 months. Violent extremists are flowing into the fight. Our ally Turkey has been attacked. And the conflict threatens stability in the region.”
“we are missing an historic opportunity to win new friends who share our values in the Middle East—friends who are fighting for their own futures against the very same violent extremists, and evil tyrants, and angry mobs who seek to harm us. Unfortunately, so many of these people who could be our friends feel that our President is indifferent to their quest for freedom and dignity. As one Syrian woman put it, “We will not forget that you forgot about us.” It is time to change course in the Middle East . . . “

“In Syria, I will work with our partners to identify and organize those members of the opposition who share our values and ensure they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad’s tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets.”

3. The Third War is with Iran

“I will put the leaders of Iran on notice that the United States and our friends and allies will prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons capability. I will not hesitate to impose new sanctions on Iran, and will tighten the sanctions we currently have. I will restore the permanent presence of aircraft carrier task forces in both the Eastern Mediterranean and the Gulf region—and work with Israel to increase our military assistance and coordination.For the sake of peace, we must make clear to Iran through actions—not just words—that their nuclear pursuit will not be tolerated. I will reaffirm our historic ties to Israel and our abiding commitment to its security—the world must never see any daylight between our two nations. I will deepen our critical cooperation with our partners in the Gulf. “

4. The fourth war is in Afghanistan.
“President Obama would have you believe that anyone who disagrees with his decisions in Afghanistan is arguing for endless war. But the route to more war – and to potential attacks here at home – is a politically timed retreat that abandons the Afghan people to the same extremists who ravaged their country and used it to launch the attacks of 9/11.
I will evaluate conditions on the ground and weigh the best advice of our military commanders. And I will affirm that my duty is not to my political prospects, but to the security of the nation. ”


5. The small wars: Intervention in Yemen, Somalia, perhaps even Libya in a ‘war on terror.’

http://www.juancole.com/2012/10/romneys-five-wars.html

Gecko/Ryan war-marking will make dubya/dickhead look like Boy Scouts (and they certainly won't stop CIA drones or Petraeus/SOCOM murders or the US domestic police state). And of course, none of Gecko's five sons will sign up, although, like the father, "they really want to". :lol









You sure have become a lot like the very people you claim to hate.

[johnsmith]

TB :lol

House Repugs cut $500M from embassy security, the Senate cut it back to $300M.

And that obviously makes the lies ok in your book?

Again, you are just like DC politicians, all you want to do is play politics.....LOL

[jack sommerset]

Our brother Boutons is passionate about his team. God bless

[DarrinS]

Most transparent administration ever.

[TeyshaBlue]

TB :lol

House Repugs cut $500M from embassy security, the Senate cut it back to $300M.

You forgot the bitch slapping the last time you used this line? Not surprising.

They have a 20 billion dollar budget, idiot.

[CosmicCowboy]

TB :lol

House Repugs cut $500M from embassy security, the Senate cut it back to $300M.

Another Boutox lie. They cut 300 million from a 20 billion budget. After that it was the State department that budgeted for security. Saying "they could have spent that 300 million to protect the ambassador" to try to shift blame to Republicans is total bullshit.

[CosmicCowboy]

You forgot the bitch slapping the last time you used this line? Not surprising.

They have a 20 billion dollar budget, idiot.

In Boutox's defense, Nancy Pelositox made the same claim.

[RandomGuy]

Pretty much proves the White House was lying their ass off intentionally spinning it as a riot over a movie gone bad.

Meh. Go stand in the corner with the 9-11 nutters until you have proof of that conspiracy theory being more probable than a complex fast moving event that involved a lot of people with bits and pieces of information.

You are beginning to sound like the 9-11 nutters who start jabbering about "coincidences", and then get to "you know they did it".

If this really is a fuck up, that will become clear soon enough.

[TeyshaBlue]

Meh. Go stand in the corner with the 9-11 nutters until you have proof of that conspiracy theory being more probable than a complex fast moving event that involved a lot of people with bits and pieces of information.

You are beginning to sound like the 9-11 nutters who start jabbering about "coincidences", and then get to "you know they did it".

If this really is a fuck up, that will become clear soon enough.

abc news is in with the 9-11 nutters? Interesting.

I guess the bot's notion that the Republicans enabled this event is ok with you.

Whatever, dude.

[RandomGuy]

abc news is in with the 9-11 nutters? Interesting.

Read the article, and see if you can find where it flat out says the Obama administration deliberately lied. I'll wait.


Or just maybe, I was referring to CC's partisan (surprise!) interpretation of the information presented to him.

[TeyshaBlue]

Read the article, and see if you can find where it flat out says the Obama administration deliberately lied. I'll wait.


Or just maybe, I was referring to CC's partisan (surprise!) interpretation of the information presented to him.

That the report is in stark contrast to the official line has meaning. Pardon me if I don't patiently wait for a mea culpa from the most transparent administration in the universe.

[DarrinS]

Meh. Go stand in the corner with the 9-11 nutters until you have proof of that conspiracy theory being more probable than a complex fast moving event that involved a lot of people with bits and pieces of information.

You are beginning to sound like the 9-11 nutters who start jabbering about "coincidences", and then get to "you know they did it".

If this really is a fuck up, that will become clear soon enough.


I would say you are above this petty name calling, but then again...

[RandomGuy]

That the report is in stark contrast to the official line has meaning. Pardon me if I don't patiently wait for a mea culpa from the most transparent administration in the universe.

You will pardon me for being skeptical of an obviously partisan interpretation of the facts, without having a bit more solid proof. Your claim, your burden of proof.

I would be more than happy to ding those responsible, given sufficient evidence, if warranted.

[TeyshaBlue]

You will pardon me for being skeptical of an obviously partisan interpretation of the facts, without having a bit more solid proof. Your claim, your burden of proof.

I would be more than happy to ding those responsible, given sufficient evidence, if warranted.

I'm not drawing conclusions at this point. I'm also not dismissing them out of hand.

You don't know what you don't know.

[TeyshaBlue]

And lofuckingl @ abc interpreting partisan facts.

[RandomGuy]

I'm not drawing conclusions at this point. I'm also not dismissing them out of hand.

You don't know what you don't know.


There is a vast difference between being skeptical of a vitriolic partisan's interpretation of what he reads saying "I would prefer more proof", and outright dismissal. I hope you don't think that is what I am doing.

To be clear:

I think there is enough evidence at this point to reasonably conclude more could have been done, but wasn't. I also would expect that any administration would actively try to spin events for damage control.

What I don't see is anyone with enough proof to conclusively say there was some deliberate effort to cover up or actively lie about known facts.

[RandomGuy]

And lofuckingl @ abc interpreting partisan facts.

Meh. Go stand in the corner with him and Cosmored.

I would normally expect better of you, but if you want to roll with this conspiracy theory, that is your choice, I guess.

[TeyshaBlue]

Meh. Go stand in the corner with him and Cosmored.

I would normally expect better of you, but if you want to roll with this conspiracy theory, that is your choice, I guess.

Cowboy the fuck up. I'm not rolling with anything yet, slick.

[DarrinS]

Lol @ RG comparing this spin/coverup to 9/11 troofer nuttery. Fail.

[George Gervin's Afro]

If it's true that the administration received an initial assessment that was not true or incorrect.. then how could they have knowlingly lied?

[CosmicCowboy]

There is a vast difference between being skeptical of a vitriolic partisan's interpretation of what he reads saying "I would prefer more proof", and outright dismissal. I hope you don't think that is what I am doing.

To be clear:

I think there is enough evidence at this point to reasonably conclude more could have been done, but wasn't. I also would expect that any administration would actively try to spin events for damage control.

What I don't see is anyone with enough proof to conclusively say there was some deliberate effort to cover up or actively lie about known facts.

The White house was still claiming 10 days after the ambassador was killed that it appeared to be a protest about the movie that spun out of control. Are you claiming that for ten days the White House didn't ask the state department what happened?

[CosmicCowboy]

Do you think it's just circumstantial that the State department clarified the record in writing as the congressional investigation gets underway? Hillary is making damn sure this cover up shit doesn't stick to her.

[George Gervin's Afro]

A concurrent CIA memo obtained by The Associated Press cited intelligence suggesting the demonstrations in Benghazi "were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo" and "evolved into a direct assault" on the diplomatic posts by "extremists."


So I guess the CIA is in on the 'lie'...

[RandomGuy]

The White house was still claiming 10 days after the ambassador was killed that it appeared to be a protest about the movie that spun out of control. Are you claiming that for ten days the White House didn't ask the state department what happened?

I"m not the one claiming anything. You are. Shifting the burden of proof is a very common tactic among twoofers, by the by. Be careful when attempting to do so, lest you fall into the same intellectual traps.

To be fair:
You are paying far more attention to this than I am, at the moment, though. Although I am dubious as to your motivations and more extreme interpretations, your vehemence and what you have presented so far does indicate to me that there is a strong possibility of some sort of stinky-ness going on.

I simply require more proof than you do, as I have less hysterical hatred for the current administration.

[ElNono]

Not sure how the alleged reasons for the start of the attack change anything, tbh... unless the allegation is that this was an inside job? crofl

[CosmicCowboy]

Not sure how the alleged reasons for the start of the attack change anything, tbh... unless the allegation is that this was an inside job? crofl

Not surprising you wouldn't understand.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There were protests around the world. They probably had no intelligence that the group was planning the attack. i think that is pretty obvious unless you really think the State department just saw a clear and present danger and just said fuck it. CC probably wants to do that very much. I just do not believe that they would do that any more than I think that any other tragedies have been inside jobs. In that RG is right on to compare partisan individuals as such. I'm looking at you, CC, it's ignorant partisans that are a huge part of the problem.

Intelligence gather is difficult business especially when you have unrest over the entire region. Since the fuckup that was the Iraq war, funding to the intelligence community has been frozen or reduced. This combined with the privatization of our worldwide police force with the likes of Academi aka Blackwater and multinational corporatism run amok has led to a brain drain of talent from the national intelligence community.

Combine this with the typical fiefdoms between the state department, the CIA, the military, and our local police apparatus and you have a giant clusterfuck.

If any of you had been paying any attention to the intelligence community at all you would know that they had been talking about this for awhile and the type of position it puts us in multinationally. The response to the WMD fuckup should have been more attention and not less.

And surprise surprise, they didn't know what the hell happened just as they said their limited resources and structural issues predicted.

This is the rub partisan people. This is a structural issue that goes beyond who has been in the white house. Obama has done jack shit and if you think Romney is going to do jack shit you are kidding yourself. He wants to build more destroyers and tanks that the military doesn't even want. Bush created the downward trend and singlehandedly shamed the intelligence community and destroyed any semblance in support or trust.

[ChumpDumper]

Not surprising you wouldn't understand.Well, go ahead and help us all understand. No one is stopping you.

[ElNono]

Not surprising you wouldn't understand.

understand what?

[CosmicCowboy]

understand what?

Despite all the evidence to the contrary the White House kept trying to sell the narrative that it wasn't al quaida that killed the ambassador in a planned attack, it was just an unruly mob pissed off about some stupid movie and kept doing it LONG after it was obvious to any thinking person that followed world affairs that it was a bullshit story. They kept selling it LONG after they knew the truth because they knew there was a certain segment of the population that would believe it. And it worked. You and Chump are Exhibits A and B.

[mavs>spurs]

can we just bomb the entire middle east and get rid of them all already?

[CosmicCowboy]

Maybe we could cut a deal with the Russians and the Chinese to use neutron bombs to wipe them all out and then split the booty three ways. Sounds like a win, win, win.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Despite all the evidence to the contrary the White House kept trying to sell the narrative that it wasn't al quaida that killed the ambassador in a planned attack, it was just an unruly mob pissed off about some stupid movie and kept doing it LONG after it was obvious to any thinking person that followed world affairs that it was a bullshit story. They kept selling it LONG after they knew the truth because they knew there was a certain segment of the population that would believe it. And it worked. You and Chump are Exhibits A and B.

What evidence do you have of who knew what and when, or who they got it from. Were all the intelligence agencies in accord or even sharing information? Are the intelligence agencies in accord even now as to what the details of the attack were?

Further what on Earth benefit would the White House have from saying that it was the people of Libya that did it? If it was the other way around then your political hack ass would be decrying their support of a people that are killing our envoys.

FFS, you have a report of a WH official and a State Dept official having different reports and you have twisted that into one of them --which happens to be your idea of a political enemy-- has been intentionally lying to us all along.

If you had a modicum of sense you would realize that there is at some level a disconnect between the WH and the state department or with some other agency.

The WH has the State Department, the CIA, military intelligence, and every other US intelligence gathering agency reporting to them. The State Department has it's own division and doesn't have the authority to demand information from anyone else.

You are so ignorant to the structure it's sad. You are like WC talking about linear equations.

[ElNono]

Despite all the evidence to the contrary the White House kept trying to sell the narrative that it wasn't al quaida that killed the ambassador in a planned attack, it was just an unruly mob pissed off about some stupid movie and kept doing it LONG after it was obvious to any thinking person that followed world affairs that it was a bullshit story. They kept selling it LONG after they knew the truth because they knew there was a certain segment of the population that would believe it. And it worked. You and Chump are Exhibits A and B.

I don't think I've ever commented what I thought started the attack (I wasn't even in the country at the time)... so I'll take your comment for what is worth...nada

IMO, the biggest fuckup was not having enough security in an area which is basically a combat zone.

What started the attack changes nothing with regards to that...

[Nbadan]

This is what reeally happened in Benghazi

Letting us in on a secret
By Dana Milbank, Wednesday, October 10, 8:44 PM


When House Republicans called a hearing in the middle of their long recess, you knew it would be something big, and indeed it was: They accidentally blew the CIA’s cover.

The purpose of Wednesday’s hearing of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee was to examine security lapses that led to the killing in Benghazi last month of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three others. But in doing so, the lawmakers reminded us why “congressional intelligence” is an oxymoron.

Through their outbursts, cryptic language and boneheaded questioning of State Department officials, the committee members left little doubt that one of the two compounds at which the Americans were killed, described by the administration as a “consulate” and a nearby “annex,” was a CIA base. They did this, helpfully, in a televised public hearing.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) was the first to unmask the spooks. “Point of order! Point of order!” he called out as a State Department security official, seated in front of an aerial photo of the U.S. facilities in Benghazi, described the chaotic night of the attack. “We’re getting into classified issues that deal with sources and methods that would be totally inappropriate in an open forum such as this.”

More:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-letting-us-in-on-a-secret/2012/10/10/ba3136ca-132b-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_story.html

:bang

[mercos]

Republicans are desperate for a scandal to sink Obama. They tried and failed with Fast and Furious, and now they are pinning their hopes on the Benghazi attack. They are reaching, especially Romney, who has came up empty twice in his attempts to politicize this tragedy.

[Yonivore]

Why were the requests for additional security denied or ignored?

Why were the existing security arrangements pared down in the months leading up to September 11; especially in light of the more than 200 security incidents in Libya over the preceding 13 months?

Why did the administration try to pin the attack on an out-of-control mob reacting to an obscure YouTube video?

Why did the administration continue to try and pin the attack on an an out-of-control mob reacting to an obscure YouTube video even after they knew truth within 24 hours of the assassination?

Several careers need to end over the failure in Benghazi that costs the lives of 4 Americans -- A U. S. Ambassador among them; Barack Obama's, Hillary Clinton's, Jay Carney's, Ambassador Rice's, and that Lamb idiot that testified yesterday.

[Yonivore]

This is what reeally happened in Benghazi

Letting us in on a secret
By Dana Milbank, Wednesday, October 10, 8:44 PM
Uh, Dan, the cover was already blown give al Qaeda tracked the Americans down and killed them at the Safe House.

The question, BIGGER THAN DISCLOSING A CIA SAFE HOUSE, THE EXISTENCE OF WHICH THE ASSASSINS ALREADY KNEW, is why did the State Department remove security details from the region and either deny or ignore repeated requests for security in the months preceding the attack.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Why were the requests for additional security denied or ignored?

Why were the existing security arrangements pared down in the months leading up to September 11; especially in light of the more than 200 security incidents in Libya over the preceding 13 months?

Why did the administration try to pin the attack on an out-of-control mob reacting to an obscure YouTube video?

Why did the administration continue to try and pin the attack on an an out-of-control mob reacting to an obscure YouTube video even after they knew truth within 24 hours of the assassination?

Several careers need to end over the failure in Benghazi that costs the lives of 4 Americans -- A U. S. Ambassador among them; Barack Obama's, Hillary Clinton's, Jay Carney's, Ambassador Rice's, and that Lamb idiot that testified yesterday.

if only you asked the same questions of the Bush administtration after ZERO wmds were found.. ohh well it's a democrat..and you want answers now! lol


how about bush and the boys ignoring the intel briefs that terrorists were going to fly planes into buildings.. no you're not a hack lol

[Yonivore]

if only you asked the same questions of the Bush administtration after ZERO wmds were found.. ohh well it's a democrat..and you want answers now! lol


how about bush and the boys ignoring the intel briefs that terrorists were going to fly planes into buildings.. no you're not a hack lol
BUSH! :lmao

If only YOU were asking these questions of Obama, right along side me.

[George Gervin's Afro]

BUSH! :lmao

If only YOU were asking these questions of Obama, right along side me.

4000 + dead under bush you're silent..4 deaths under Obama you're outraged..lol

I will never be along side of you on any issue in this lifetime

[boutons_deux]

WMD are in Syria!

Still translating the documents!

Saddam was "bad man"

[jack sommerset]

4000 + dead under bush you're silent..4 deaths under Obama you're outraged..lol

I will never be along side of you on any issue in this lifetime

Brother, you should not make decisions when you are angry. Didn't your mother ever tell you to never say never. I'm starting to think you can't control your emotions. You told me the other day to go to hell. That's not very nice. God bless

[George Gervin's Afro]

Brother, you should not make decisions when you are angry. Didn't your mother ever tell you to never say never. I'm starting to think you can't control your emotions. You told me the other day to go to hell. That's not very nice. God bless

Let me clarify, I hope you burn in hell..

have a great day!

by the way, how are those little jacksommerset hypocrites doing today?

[RandomGuy]

Why...?

Why ...?

Why...?

Why ...?

.

Why am I 100% certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that you would not be worked up about this, if the president were a Republican?

What does that say about how much stock I should put in the validity of your concerns, all other things being equal?

What does that say about you?

Why does that implication not seem to bother you?

[RandomGuy]

BUSH! :lmao

If only YOU were asking these questions of Obama, right along side me.

Why did it take the Bush adminstration three full years and thousands of dead soldiers before they undertook a review of their strategy?

Why did they not have a winning strategy in place before they invaded Iraq?

Since we are asking whys, maybe you can amuse us all by attempting to defend the indefensible.

[CosmicCowboy]

:lmao

Iraq LOL

Attack of the strawmen!

http://www.stockbridge.musician.org.uk/photos/photos/chinagall/chimages/249%20Thurs%20straw%20men.jpg

[DarrinS]

Why did it take the Bush adminstration three full years and thousands of dead soldiers before they undertook a review of their strategy?

Why did they not have a winning strategy in place before they invaded Iraq?

Since we are asking whys, maybe you can amuse us all by attempting to defend the indefensible.


http://static.thepeoplescube.com/images/Forward_Obama_Bike.jpg

[George Gervin's Afro]

:lmao

Iraq LOL

Attack of the strawmen!

http://www.stockbridge.musician.org.uk/photos/photos/chinagall/chimages/249%20Thurs%20straw%20men.jpg

cc outraged over 4 deaths

cc quiet when 4000+ die

lol

it is quiet funny..

[George Gervin's Afro]

if you whore a war that was initiated from falsehoods and outright lies..you have zero credibility from ever criticizing anyone else about the same thing..

[George Gervin's Afro]

Why did it take the Bush adminstration three full years and thousands of dead soldiers before they undertook a review of their strategy?

Why did they not have a winning strategy in place before they invaded Iraq?

Since we are asking whys, maybe you can amuse us all by attempting to defend the indefensible.

It's like you're talking to a wall... or a 5 yr old with his hands over his ears.. lol

[DarrinS]

cc outraged over 4 deaths

cc quiet when 4000+ die




Lot's of silence ever since team blue took over, tbh.

[jack sommerset]

Let me clarify, I hope you burn in hell..

have a great day!

by the way, how are those little jacksommerset hypocrites doing today?

It's impressive to see a man feeding off his emotions, brother.

[jack sommerset]

Lot's of silence ever since team blue took over, tbh.

Brother, the last time an ambassador from the USA was murder was under Carter. It sure has been silent for a long time. God bless

[George Gervin's Afro]

Lot's of silence ever since team blue took over, tbh.

I think most blue teamers, myself included, will reserve the right to wait before we claim the Administration lied about the raid until all of the information is reviewed........................... novel concept for the red teamers but hey let's try and make it a scandal!

[RandomGuy]

:lmao

Iraq LOL

Attack of the strawmen!



That would be more effective if you understood what a strawman logical fallacy was. My assertion was not a strawman.

I will ask again, did you, or Yonivore start threads about the lack of armor, ask a lot of why questions, and have outrage about shit like this:

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/gallery/100312/GAL-10Mar12-4042/media/PHO-10Mar12-211348.jpg

Ryan Kelley survived that, albeit minus a limb or two.

How many didn't?

Do you have any outrage about this?

You want to piss and moan about a failure that killed 4 people, and I have a distinct memory of Republicans lining up to defend policies and an administration whose incompetence arguably cost a lot more.

Show me a thread you started about this failure, and I will take your outrage alot more seriously.

[jack sommerset]

I think most blue teamers, myself included, will reserve the right to wait before we claim the Administration lied about the raid until all of the information is reviewed........................... novel concept for the red teamers but hey let's try and make it a scandal!

Now you are acting rational. Brother, please for your own good admit you are a far left wing democrat and "darn proud of it". God bless

[George Gervin's Afro]

That would be more effective if you understood what a strawman logical fallacy was. My assertion was not a strawman.

I will ask again, did you, or Yonivore start threads about the lack of armor, ask a lot of why questions, and have outrage about shit like this:

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/gallery/100312/GAL-10Mar12-4042/media/PHO-10Mar12-211348.jpg

Ryan Kelley survived that, albeit minus a limb or two.

How many didn't?

Do you have any outrage about this?

You want to piss and moan about a failure that killed 4 people, and I have a distinct memory of Republicans lining up to defend policies and an administration whose incompetence arguably cost a lot more.

Show me a thread you started about this failure, and I will take your outrage alot more seriously.


SPC. THOMAS WILSON: We're digging pieces of rusted scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass that has already been shot up, dropped, busted-- picking the best out of this scrap to put on our vehicles go into combat.

We do not have proper armament vehicles to carry with us North.

DONALD RUMSFELD: As you know, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.

You can have all the armor in the world on a tank, and a tank can be blown up. And you can have an up-armored Humvee, and it can be blown up.

nope no outrage from the red teamers

[jack sommerset]

Obama had more thoughts on the Cambridge police for going to the Harvard professors house then he has on an USA Ambassador being murdered. God bless

[RandomGuy]

The assymetrical war of IEDS in Iraq was perfectly predictable. Hell, Cheney predicted it in the 1990's when he was Defense secretary defending the first Bush's decision not to depose Saddam. I was in intel during the break up of Yugoslavia after its strongman police state was removed. Iraq had a lot of eerie parallels.

If you go into a war, and put our soldiers in harms way, just as the Obama administration owes a debt to the embassy people to take care of them, you owe your troops decent, realistic planning, and the right equipment for the fight you know you are going to get into.

The fact that none of you red teamers are calling for an investigation into who knew what and how for the fucktarded Iraq occupation planning says all I need to know about how genuine you are.

[RandomGuy]

/bloody shirt rant.

[TeyshaBlue]

Investigating a war <> investigation of an attack on an embassy, tbh.

[DarrinS]

It was only 4 people? Oh, nevermind then.

[CosmicCowboy]

That would be more effective if you understood what a strawman logical fallacy was. My assertion was not a strawman.

I will ask again, did you, or Yonivore start threads about the lack of armor, ask a lot of why questions, and have outrage about shit like this:

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/gallery/100312/GAL-10Mar12-4042/media/PHO-10Mar12-211348.jpg

Ryan Kelley survived that, albeit minus a limb or two.

How many didn't?

Do you have any outrage about this?

You want to piss and moan about a failure that killed 4 people, and I have a distinct memory of Republicans lining up to defend policies and an administration whose incompetence arguably cost a lot more.

Show me a thread you started about this failure, and I will take your outrage alot more seriously.

Go fuck yourself. I have said repeatedly we shouldn't be over there.

[jack sommerset]

I think most blue teamers, myself included,!

Wait a cotton picking second here!!!! You did it, brother!!!! I'm so proud of you. This is the first time you admitted you're a democrat!! I'm very, very proud of you!!!! I'm sorry I missed it before. My prayer was answered. God bless

[TeyshaBlue]

Go fuck yourself. I have said repeatedly we shouldn't be over there.

There's a narrative at work here whether RG can admit it or not.

[johnsmith]

That would be more effective if you understood what a strawman logical fallacy was. My assertion was not a strawman.

I will ask again, did you, or Yonivore start threads about the lack of armor, ask a lot of why questions, and have outrage about shit like this:

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/gallery/100312/GAL-10Mar12-4042/media/PHO-10Mar12-211348.jpg

Ryan Kelley survived that, albeit minus a limb or two.

How many didn't?

Do you have any outrage about this?

You want to piss and moan about a failure that killed 4 people, and I have a distinct memory of Republicans lining up to defend policies and an administration whose incompetence arguably cost a lot more.

Show me a thread you started about this failure, and I will take your outrage alot more seriously.



RG, you know I think highly of you, but this post, and pretty much every post you've made in this thread just screams, "YOUR TEAM DID THIS TOO, SO IT'S OK IF WE DO TOO"!!!!!!

And really loud too.

Hell, if you have GGA on board the way he's jumped into the mix, you know the partisan politics angle is strong in here. That dude has never disagreed with a Democrats decision....EVER.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Wait a cotton picking second here!!!! You did it, brother!!!! I'm so proud of you. This is the first time you admitted you're a democrat!! I'm very, very proud of you!!!! I'm sorry I missed it before. My prayer was answered. God bless

it is the lesser of two evils

[clambake]

they could have beefed up security.

it would just be more dead.

[TeyshaBlue]

they could have beefed up security.

it would just be more dead.

....bad guys.

[clambake]

all guys.

[LnGrrrR]

Here's what I'd like to know... how often do embassies request extra security? Is it one of those situations where everybody requests security, and relatively often, and this attack just happened to coincide with a request? Or are requests rare, and therefore should have set off alarm bells when the request came in?

[jack sommerset]

it is the lesser of two evils

It must feel good not to hide it any longer. Good for you! God bless

[johnsmith]

it is the lesser of two evils

What's evil about your side? The Democrats?

[George Gervin's Afro]

What's evil about your side? The Democrats?

the lack of balls when dealing with entitlement spending ...anything else? they don't ignore science..

[johnsmith]

the lack of balls when dealing with entitlement spending ...anything else? they don't ignore science..

So they don't stand by their convictions enough for your liking then eh?

So really, you find nothing wrong with anything Democrats do except they aren't vocal enough? Their policies however are all ok in your book?

So you're a partisan hack.........cool.

[George Gervin's Afro]

So they don't stand by their convictions enough for your liking then eh?

So really, you find nothing wrong with anything Democrats do except they aren't vocal enough? Their policies however are all ok in your book?

So you're a partisan hack.........cool.

yeah because politics are simple, there are no nuances and if you keep it simple dumb asses like yourself can participate..

I try and keep it simple for people like you..Don't want to many things going oveer your head.. lol

democrats acknowledge the deficit has to handled with increasing revenues and cutting spending..

republicans believe all you have to do is lower taxes (revenue) and cut spending and the deficit will disappear

democrats actually want fewer abortions and are willing to provide low cost/free birth control to lower them.. republicans believe if you tell kids not to have sex they won't

Democrats realize not all muslims are terrorists and are actively trying to communicate to the world just that.. Republicans thin that we have to thump our chests and kill all bad muslims.. kill enough of them that they will like us..

[DarrinS]

uFf0dUH3OtU

[George Gervin's Afro]

uFf0dUH3OtU

'based on the infromation we hve now"..lol

It's not surprising you continualy miss that

[CosmicCowboy]

yeah because politics are simple, there are no nuances and if you keep it simple dumb asses like yourself can participate..

I try and keep it simple for people like you..Don't want to many things going oveer your head.. lol

democrats acknowledge the deficit has to handled with increasing revenues and cutting spending..

republicans believe all you have to do is lower taxes (revenue) and cut spending and the deficit will disappear

democrats actually want fewer abortions and are willing to provide low cost/free birth control to lower them.. republicans believe if you tell kids not to have sex they won't

Democrats realize not all muslims are terrorists and are actively trying to communicate to the world just that.. Republicans thin that we have to thump our chests and kill all bad muslims.. kill enough of them that they will like us..

You are so full of shit. you take the most extreme positions of the far right whacko republicans and then try to paint all republicans with the same brush.

And the sad part is, you are so fucking stupid or brainwashed by thinkprogress you actually seem to believe it.

[boutons_deux]

Right-Wing Media's Libya Consulate Security Mythology Falls Apart The conservative media talking point that the White House abdicated its responsibility to secure the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, took a hit Wednesday when CNN's Soledad O'Brien pressed Congressman Jason Chaffetz to acknowledge that he joined House Republicans in voting to cut funding for embassy security.

Since the September attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, the right-wing media (http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/09/26/myths-and-facts-about-the-benghazi-attack-and-p/190150#c) have attacked (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/04/Security-in-Benghazi-Cut-Prior-to-Sept-11-Attack) the Obama administration (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-admin-outsourced-us-security-benghazi-british-contractors_653311.html) for supposedly not having enough security at the compound. That myth is undermined by a State Department explanation (http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/09/u-s-official-sought-more-security-for-benghazi-post/) that "no reasonable security presence could have successfully fended" off the attack.

Chaffetz, a surrogate for Mitt Romney's presidential campaign (http://mediamatters.org/blog/190480) who is helping to lead an investigation into the attack, appeared to discuss that investigation on CNN's Starting Point with Soledad O'Brien. During the interview, Chaffetz echoed the right-wing media talking point that security was insufficient in Benghazi. But O'Brien pointed out the fundamental hypocrisy in this argument by noting that Chaffetz, like other Republicans in the House, voted to cut funding for embassy security.

O'Brien asked: "Is it true that you voted to cut the funding for embassy security?" Chaffetz responded: "Absolutely. Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country."

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/10/10/right-wing-medias-libya-consulate-security-myth/190508

[CosmicCowboy]

'based on the infromation we hve now"..lol

It's not surprising you continualy miss that


"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."

[RandomGuy]

RG, you know I think highly of you, but this post, and pretty much every post you've made in this thread just screams, "YOUR TEAM DID THIS TOO, SO IT'S OK IF WE DO TOO"!!!!!!

And really loud too.

Hell, if you have GGA on board the way he's jumped into the mix, you know the partisan politics angle is strong in here. That dude has never disagreed with a Democrats decision....EVER.



If you go into a war, and put our soldiers in harms way, just as the Obama administration owes a debt to the embassy people to take care of them, you owe your troops decent, realistic planning, and the right equipment for the fight you know you are going to get into.


There is a vast difference between being skeptical of a vitriolic partisan's interpretation of what he reads saying "I would prefer more proof", and outright dismissal. I hope you don't think that is what I am doing.

To be clear:

I think there is enough evidence at this point to reasonably conclude more could have been done, but wasn't. I also would expect that any administration would actively try to spin events for damage control.
What I don't see is anyone with enough proof to conclusively say there was some deliberate effort to cover up or actively lie about known facts.

It wasn't ok for the Bush administration to fuck up Iraq at the cost of thousands of dead GIs and it isn't ok for the Obama administration to fuck up security for the consulate, *IF* it turns out that is what happened.

What I have a problem with here is that the people who most want the latter to be the case have every motivation to lie about it, and interpret every possible fact in a way that suits them, for what I find to be rather crass political purposes.

Not that anyone shouldn't be outraged at the loss of life, or CC's concern isn't genuine at some level, I just find fault with with hand-wavy poo flinging over something so serious.

(edit)
I do hope the Republicans get at some better source documentation, as I am sure the administration will do some ass-covering. The truth deserves better, and in that I do think we should do enough digging to get at what happened to a reasonable degree.

[DarrinS]

'based on the infromation we hve now"..lol

It's not surprising you continualy miss that


They knew within 24 hours, but kept talking about the Youtube video. It's not surprising you won't admit that.

[RandomGuy]

Better?

[RandomGuy]

Go fuck yourself. I have said repeatedly we shouldn't be over there.

Go fuck yourself if you weren't screaming mad about this and demanding the administration be held accountable for fucking up the post war plans.

Were you?

(edit)

Or do you think the Bush administration did everything right for the first three years after Saddam was toppled?

If you think that, I have a *small* amount of material you should read.

[CosmicCowboy]

Go fuck yourself if you weren't screaming mad about this and demanding the administration be held accountable for fucking up the post war plans.

Were you?

I thought it sucked.

And feel free to search your ass off in the archives trying to prove me wrong.

[DarrinS]

Go fuck yourself if you weren't screaming mad about this and demanding the administration be held accountable for fucking up the post war plans.

Were you?

(edit)

Or do you think the Bush administration did everything right for the first three years after Saddam was toppled?

If you think that, I have a *small* amount of material you should read.


The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been giant clusterfucks that weren't worth the price (in lives and dollars) and, at the end of the day, haven't necessarily changed anything for the better.

[johnsmith]

yeah because politics are simple, there are no nuances and if you keep it simple dumb asses like yourself can participate..

I try and keep it simple for people like you..Don't want to many things going oveer your head.. lol

democrats acknowledge the deficit has to handled with increasing revenues and cutting spending..

republicans believe all you have to do is lower taxes (revenue) and cut spending and the deficit will disappear

democrats actually want fewer abortions and are willing to provide low cost/free birth control to lower them.. republicans believe if you tell kids not to have sex they won't

Democrats realize not all muslims are terrorists and are actively trying to communicate to the world just that.. Republicans thin that we have to thump our chests and kill all bad muslims.. kill enough of them that they will like us..

LOL, so you just keep proving my point. Everything Democrats do or say is ok in your book and everything that Republicans do or say is wrong. Again, you're a partisan hack that can't see beyond his party lines. It's cool, just admit it, move on, and accept that you are a really good example of what is wrong with American Government. Good job!

[RandomGuy]

I thought it sucked.

And feel free to search your ass off in the archives trying to prove me wrong.

Thinking it sucked, and demanding the heads of the incompetent mother fuckers who put troops in harms way without decent planning and preparation, and deployed them poorly are two different things.

I remember the red team's "stay the course" dissembling while troops were dying because of that leadership that was downright negligent.

It is still not too late to hold them accountable. Would you support trial or investigation into that?

[johnsmith]

Better?

Look, I could be wrong here because like you, I haven't been following the story all that close either, but I think the problem that people like CC have with this whole thing is that the Obama admin came out right away and said, "this was the result of a movie that was made". Instead of waiting for facts to roll in, like you are now asking everyone to do, they jumped to a conclusion immediately because it seems like, and this is my opinion only, that the current admin refuses to acknowledge that Al Queda is still alive and kicking and as a result of their "all knowing arrogance", refuse to say, "hey we fucked up, it didn't really have anything to do with the movie".

[RandomGuy]

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been giant clusterfucks that weren't worth the price (in lives and dollars) and, at the end of the day, haven't necessarily changed anything for the better.

Those "clusterfucks" cost thousands of our soldiers lives, and tens of thousands of Iraqi's and Afghans (at least) lives.

Are you going to demand someone be held accountable for fucking that up?

[johnsmith]

Thinking it sucked, and demanding the heads of the incompetent mother fuckers who put troops in harms way without decent planning and preparation, and deployed them poorly are two different things.

I remember the red team's "stay the course" dissembling while troops were dying because of that leadership that was downright negligent.

It is still not too late to hold them accountable. Would you support trial or investigation into that?

Troops were put in harms way, but I do believe there was plenty of planning and prep.....just not maybe the right planning.

[johnsmith]

Those "clusterfucks" cost thousands of our soldiers lives, and tens of thousands of Iraqi's and Afghans (at least) lives.

Are you going to demand someone be held accountable for fucking that up?

Still though, what does that have to do with the attack on the embassy? I feel like there are probably plenty of threads about the wars.

[johnsmith]

Also, RG, you are posting far more emotionally these days. What gives?

[RandomGuy]

Look, I could be wrong here because like you, I haven't been following the story all that close either, but I think the problem that people like CC have with this whole thing is that the Obama admin came out right away and said, "this was the result of a movie that was made". Instead of waiting for facts to roll in, like you are now asking everyone to do, they jumped to a conclusion immediately because it seems like, and this is my opinion only, that the current admin refuses to acknowledge that Al Queda is still alive and kicking and as a result of their "all knowing arrogance", refuse to say, "hey we fucked up, it didn't really have anything to do with the movie".

I think there was a lot of incomplete, conflicting information floating around, and people with different levels of knowledge about the immediate aftermath being asked shit they may or may not know about, not dissimilar to the chaos around a lot of fast-moving events.

I do understand some legitimate frustration at that. That is why I don't entirely dismiss it at this point. One has to be very careful to walk the line between a righteous call for accountability, and a partisan witch hunt in an election year.

Does anybody really doubt that the GOP will forgo the former to get the latter at this point?

[TeyshaBlue]

Thinking it sucked, and demanding the heads of the incompetent mother fuckers who put troops in harms way without decent planning and preparation, and deployed them poorly are two different things.

I remember the red team's "stay the course" dissembling while troops were dying because of that leadership that was downright negligent.

It is still not too late to hold them accountable. Would you support trial or investigation into that?

Anyone(s) in particular?

[RandomGuy]

Also, RG, you are posting far more emotionally these days. What gives?

Not enough sleep. stress.

Although this particular subject (iraq post war) has always pissed me off beyond words.

[TeyshaBlue]

Still though, what does that have to do with the attack on the embassy? I feel like there are probably plenty of threads about the wars.

Contrast. It's a good defense.

[TeyshaBlue]

Not enough sleep. stress.

Although this particular subject (iraq post war) has always pissed me off beyond words.

Do what I do. Sleep at work.:p:


Sadly, nobody knows the difference.:(

[johnsmith]

Do what I do. Sleep at work.:p:


Sadly, nobody knows the difference.:(

I would punch my mother in the face if someone would teach me the art of sleeping with my eyes open. I feel like work would be so much more tolerable with two 15 minute cat naps at different points in the day.

[johnsmith]

Not enough sleep. stress.

Although this particular subject (iraq post war) has always pissed me off beyond words.

Funny to me that after this many years of posting on this board that I can actually tell when something is wrong with another one of the posters......except for boutons, that dude has been depressed since I started on this site.

[RandomGuy]

Anyone(s) in particular?

You have a bad habit of chiming in with this time-consuming stuff right when I have little to give.

Quite a few people. I think we need a genuine investigation into it, because the more one learns, the worse it looks. Kinda like the event that inspired the thread.

Not that such an investigation wouldn't turn into a witch hunt either. (sighs)

[ElNono]

Did they translate the documents yet?

[TeyshaBlue]

You have a bad habit of chiming in with this time-consuming stuff right when I have little to give.

Quite a few people. I think we need a genuine investigation into it, because the more one learns, the worse it looks. Kinda like the event that inspired the thread.

Not that such an investigation wouldn't turn into a witch hunt either. (sighs)

lol...sorry.:lol:toast

[CosmicCowboy]

Those "clusterfucks" cost thousands of our soldiers lives, and tens of thousands of Iraqi's and Afghans (at least) lives.

Are you going to demand someone be held accountable for fucking that up?

Mistakes have been made in wars as long as wars have been fought. If you think there weren't clusterfucks and gross negligence in WWI and WWII you are just plain wrong. You can't prosecute every previous administrations for mistakes they made. And I haven't heard anyone demanding Obama be put on trial for the embassy bombings. your straw man is on fire.

[CosmicCowboy]

LOL, we know what the Blue team repeatbots will be saying tomorrow...


Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter said Thursday that the “entire reason” the terrorist attack at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that killed four Americans has “become the political topic it is” is because Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan talk about the attack.

STEPHANIE CUTTER: In terms of the politicization of this — you know, we are here at a debate, and I hope we get to talk about the debate — but the entire reason this has become the political topic it is, is because of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. It’s a big part of their stump speech. And it’s reckless and irresponsible what they’re doing.

BROOKE BALDWIN: But, Stephanie, this is national security. As we witnessed this revolution last year, we covered it–

CUTTER: It is absolutely national security–

BALDWIN: –it is absolutely pertinent. People in the American public absolutely have a right to get answers.

[DMC]

The state department knew, without a doubt, that the two SEALs were not part of the security detail at the embassy, and that in fact they were there to find missing anti-aircraft munitions. The president stated they were part of the security detail knowing full well they were not. That statement cast a hue of responsibility on those SEALs and took heat off the WH for not having adequate security at the embassy.

Furthermore, zero response to date.

[LnGrrrR]

Anyone(s) in particular?

I do think they should have held some investigations when Obama won the Presidency, things like how so much money wasn't accountable, how intel was so wrong and whether it was fixed, etc etc. Of course, those might have been fied, but we'll never know... STATE SECRETS!

[LnGrrrR]

I'm all for a witch hunt. It might prevent the next people from being so stupid. Of course, we can have a witch hunt to determine if Clinton lied about a BJ, but not a witch hunt to determine if, say, guys are giving guns to Mexican drug cartels or millions of dollars go missing in a warzone.

[George Gervin's Afro]

LOL, so you just keep proving my point. Everything Democrats do or say is ok in your book and everything that Republicans do or say is wrong. Again, you're a partisan hack that can't see beyond his party lines. It's cool, just admit it, move on, and accept that you are a really good example of what is wrong with American Government. Good job!

neversaid they were always wrong.. prove I said it...oh wait your making shit up again... great example of truth telling lol..... but but but you're what's wrong.. whiner!

I guess making shit up is going to prove your point.. lol just admit your making it up... admit you made it up and move on.. you proved my point that you lie on a regualr basis

[George Gervin's Afro]

Look, I could be wrong here because like you, I haven't been following the story all that close either, but I think the problem that people like CC have with this whole thing is that the Obama admin came out right away and said, "this was the result of a movie that was made". Instead of waiting for facts to roll in, like you are now asking everyone to do, they jumped to a conclusion immediately because it seems like, and this is my opinion only, that the current admin refuses to acknowledge that Al Queda is still alive and kicking and as a result of their "all knowing arrogance", refuse to say, "hey we fucked up, it didn't really have anything to do with the movie".

I could be wrong... really?

hey dumbass the intial intel assesment was that it was a spontaneous attack... you are a real bright guy.. but,but,but you're what's wrong with intelligence gathering.....idiot

they also pre empted every statement that is was based on the info up until then... godam I'm a partisan hack for not claiming they lied!

one more thing you piece of crap I am not an obama cheerleader..go find some posts to prove that I am his biggest fan... or admit you're making shit up.. I'll wait ...

[johnsmith]

neversaid they were always wrong.. prove I said it...oh wait your making shit up again... great example of truth telling lol..... but but but you're what's wrong.. whiner!

I guess making shit up is going to prove your point.. lol just admit your making it up... admit you made it up and move on.. you proved my point that you lie on a regualr basis

LOL, my favorite part of this post is that you don't refute the point I made when saying you think everything democrats do is ok in your book. You just attacked that you haven't said everything republicans do is wrong.

I'm not really sure what you think I made up, nor do I recall you making a point that I lie on a regular basis. But at least you got really mad. LOL

I'll wait for your obligatory, "I'm not mad just...." reply.

[johnsmith]

I could be wrong... really?

hey dumbass the intial intel assesment was that it was a spontaneous attack... you are a real bright guy.. but,but,but you're what's wrong with intelligence gathering.....idiot

they also pre empted every statement that is was based on the info up until then... godam I'm a partisan hack for not claiming they lied!

one more thing you piece of crap I am not an obama cheerleader..go find some posts to prove that I am his biggest fan... or admit you're making shit up.. I'll wait ...

LOL, temper tantrum.

[RandomGuy]

Mistakes have been made in wars as long as wars have been fought. If you think there weren't clusterfucks and gross negligence in WWI and WWII you are just plain wrong. You can't prosecute every previous administrations for mistakes they made. And I haven't heard anyone demanding Obama be put on trial for the embassy bombings. your straw man is on fire.

um, do you know what a strawman is?

Can you please explain how anything I have said here constitutes such?


(not sure you care, but you seem to be using the term incorrectly)

[RandomGuy]

Mistakes have been made in wars as long as wars have been fought. If you think there weren't clusterfucks and gross negligence in WWI and WWII you are just plain wrong. You can't prosecute every previous administrations for mistakes they made. And I haven't heard anyone demanding Obama be put on trial for the embassy bombings. your straw man is on fire.

There is a vast difference to reacting to some event, and deciding to invade a country. I would argue that one owes more than a little bit of diligence in planning such an event.

If you know you are going to undertake a large, complex, dangerous operation, such as invading a country, do you or do you not, undergo more than a little bit of planning for what comes afterwards?

Deciding or not to add a few guards is a very limited fuck up.

Deciding not to plan for how to run a country you invade, or give your troops the right tactics and strategy aims for accomplishing your (non)plan, is a whole other order of magnitude fuck up.

Re: Fhe counter insurgency manual

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/coin/repository/FM_3-24.pdf

If you undertook an extensive review of the failures of counterinsurgency doctrine in Vietnam, and then move 100,000+ troops into an OBVIOUS counter insurgency situation, why wait 3 years to put the doctrine you have worked up into place?

[boutons_deux]

"I haven't heard anyone demanding Obama be put on trial for the embassy bombings"

Fox Lies Network, Repugs and their fucktard base think Barry should forfeit office for Libya embassy disaster alone.

[RandomGuy]

bah..

This deserves its own thread.

Bush should be in jail, IMO, along with no few of his underlings.

If you or I wander into a crowded place, wave around a loaded gun like a toy then accidentally kill someone with a unplanned discharge of that weapon, we go to jail.

These asshats did that on a country-level scale, and got away with it, because one political party didn't want one (ok, lots) of their own held accountable.

[DarrinS]

RandomGuy beings the sad, downward slide of becoming boutons

[ErnestLynch]

I read that there more security at French Embassy in Paris than the embassy in Egypt. This does not seem like it was smart to me. What are the French up to we need this security ? I think they are hiding something from me. I am starting to question French people now.

[George Gervin's Afro]

RandomGuy beings the sad, downward slide of becoming boutons

boutons
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. darrins

[boutons_deux]

Gecko and Fox Liars Network think they got nigg@ killa issue with Benghazi, since they can't get the 8% and the economy to stick, but they're wrong again. Benghazi ain't gonna buy the WH for Gecko.

Gecko today trashing Joe on "style" points since he knows Joe totally trashed Ryan on content, lies, hypocrisy, 47%.

[Winehole23]

,
RandomGuy beings the sad, downward slide of becoming boutonswhereas you're the rock bottom, kneejerk red teamer.

congrats! you can't go any further down the ideological reflex scale. in that respect, you very much resemble what you claim to despise.

[Jacob1983]

Bush and Obama should share a cell together. Biden can bunk with Cheney.

[boutons_deux]

Bush and Obama should share a cell together. Biden can bunk with Cheney.

False equivalence

[boutons_deux]

After Benghazi Attack, Private Security Hovers as an Issue

Lost amid the election-year wrangling over the militants' attack on the United States Mission in Benghazi, Libya, is a complex back story involving growing regional resentment against heavily armed American private security contractors, increased demands on State Department resources and mounting frustration among diplomats over ever-tighter protections that they say make it more difficult to do their jobs.

The Benghazi attacks, in which the United States ambassador and three other Americans were killed, comes at the end of a 10-year period in which the State Department - sending its employees into a lengthening list of war zones and volatile regions - has regularly ratcheted up security for its diplomats. The aggressive measures used by private contractors eventually led to shootings in Afghanistan and Iraq that provoked protests, including an episode involving guards from an American security company, Blackwater, that left at least 17 Iraqis dead in Baghdad's Nisour Square.

The ghosts of that shooting clearly hung over Benghazi. Earlier this year, the new Libyan government had expressly barred Blackwater-style armed contractors from flooding into the country. "The Libyans were not keen to have boots on the ground," one senior State Department official said.

That forced the State Department to rely largely on its own diplomatic security arm, which officials have said lacks the resources to provide adequate protection in war zones.
On Capitol Hill this week, Democrats and Republicans sparred at a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing over what happened in Benghazi, whether security at the mission was adequate, and what - if anything - could have been done to prevent the tragedy.

But amid calls for more protection for diplomats overseas, some current and former State Department officials cautioned about the risks of going too far. "The answer cannot be to operate from a bunker," Eric A. Nordstrom, who until earlier this year served as the chief security officer at the United States Embassy in Tripoli, Libya, told the committee.

Barbara K. Bodine, who served as ambassador to Yemen when the destroyer Cole was bombed in 2000, said: "What we need is a policy of risk management, but what we have now is a policy of risk avoidance. Nobody wants to take responsibility in case something happens, so nobody is willing to have a debate over what is reasonable security and what is excessive."

For the State Department, the security situation in Libya came down in part to the question of whether it was a war zone or just another African outpost.

Even though the country was still volatile in the wake of the bloody rebellion that ousted Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, the State Department did not include Libya on a list of dangerous postings that are high priority for extra security resources.

Only the American Embassies in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are exempted from awarding security contracts to the lowest bidder. Dangerous posts are allowed to consider "best value" contracting instead, according to a State Department inspector general's report in February.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/10/13/world/africa/private-security-hovers-as-issue-after-embassy-attack-in-benghazi-libya.xml?f=19

Gecko/Ryan/Fox exploiting this tragedy for their own electioneering is much worse than the "crime" they're trying to stick on Barry.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

The Democratic party needs to learn from how the Republicans are politicizing the Libya attack. I know after an event like 9/11 that focusing on figuring out who's responsible and holding them accountable might be the American thing to do and it would be irresponsible to point fingers, but this is why they get shoved around by the Republicans so much. They shoulda been politicizing the fuck out of 9/11 the way Republicans like the OP are politicizing the Libya attacks.

The Republicans have even figured out a way to politicize unemployment rates and spin unemployment rates going down as a bad thing :lol

[DMC]

Gecko and Fox Liars Network think they got nigg@ killa issue with Benghazi, since they can't get the 8% and the economy to stick, but they're wrong again. Benghazi ain't gonna buy the WH for Gecko.

Gecko today trashing Joe on "style" points since he knows Joe totally trashed Ryan on content, lies, hypocrisy, 47%.

One almost needs an appendix of buzz words to even read the slime you post. Do you talk like this IRL? You're definitely a party whore, tailgater for the game.

[boutons_deux]

One almost needs an appendix of buzz words to even read the slime you post. Do you talk like this IRL? You're definitely a party whore, tailgater for the game.

IRL? and you trash me for buzzwords and acronyms? GFY

[DMC]

IRL? and you trash me for buzzwords and acronyms? GFY I didn't mention acronyms. It's your incessant use of derogatory terms like repugs and Barry and Gecko and shit like that. There's not even a hint of objectivity in your rants (that's all they are) ergo no one takes you seriously. However, it's obvious how you change my words to find something you can argue against (inserting the word "acronyms" when I never mentioned it). Everyone here knows what IRL means and most here can discuss politics without giving the impression that someone in the Republican party raided their camps and raped their wives.

[DMC]

It seems anytime there's a question of being undermanned and outgunned, a Dem is in office.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Were we undermanned or outgunned on 9/11?

[boutons_deux]

I didn't mention acronyms. It's your incessant use of derogatory terms like repugs and Barry and Gecko and shit like that. There's not even a hint of objectivity in your rants (that's all they are) ergo no one takes you seriously. However, it's obvious how you change my words to find something you can argue against (inserting the word "acronyms" when I never mentioned it). Everyone here knows what IRL means and most here can discuss politics without giving the impression that someone in the Republican party raided their camps and raped their wives.

I appreciate your appreciation, thank you. When the scumbag, extremist 1%-protecting REPUGS do ANYTHING for the 99%, I might give them a second look, but they won't. There's NOTHING in Gecko/Ryan platform nor Ryan's twice-passed budget for the 99%.

[DMC]

Were we undermanned or outgunned on 9/11?Neither. That's why there wasn't a question of either.

[Nbadan]

I know after an event like 9/11 that focusing on figuring out who's responsible and holding them accountable might be the American thing to do and it would be irresponsible to point fingers, but this is why they get shoved around by the Republicans so much. They shoulda been politicizing the fuck out of 9/11 the way Republicans like the OP are politicizing the Libya attacks.

I think politicizing 911 would have backfired on the democrats, although, it would have been nice if Congress or the Senate actually held someone in the Bush administration accountable....where were Ryan and Biden? Ryan was busy voting for 2 unfunded wars, the largest expansion in Medicare ever, and tax cuts for the rich which never materialized very many private sector jobs...

[Winehole23]

While details of the attack that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya last month may never be fully known, there is ample evidence neither the Obama administration’s initial accounts nor Republican portrayals of the incident are accurate.http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-16/evidence-points-to-hasty-strike-on-u-dot-s-dot-compound-in-libya

[George Gervin's Afro]

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-16/evidence-points-to-hasty-strike-on-u-dot-s-dot-compound-in-libya

It appears that this incident was 'planned' however it seems to be over the course of a few hours as opposed to a long term operation. Too many stories coming out from too many sources in the immediate aftermath has caused this situation to get out of hand. Besides the Congressional investigation (that I think needs to happen) should take many months to get to understand the incident... but

The GOP desperately want this to be solved in a matter of 4 1/2 weeks.... 'Cover up!', 'They Lied!'....

some local homicide cases take longer than 4.5 weeks to solve.....

[Winehole23]

WH spun it furiously, as if there were certainty about what happened, so it comes off no better in my eyes than the Republicans. Everyone had an axe to grind.

[George Gervin's Afro]

WH spun it furiously, as if there were certainty about what happened, so it comes off no better in my eyes than the Republicans. Everyone had an axe to grind.

The Administration is it's own worst enemey in this case..

[Winehole23]

yep

[boutons_deux]

What is the REPUG politicized investigation supposed to accomplish? They want heads to roll? "prove" that Barry is "weak" in NatSec.

Julie Annie is whining "provocative weakness"

How many brigades of Marines and how much equipment do the Repugs think should have been protecting the Ambassador? No specifics? of course not.

I notice that Fox Repug Propaganda network is pimping Benghazi furiously.

Why would Libyans want to kill the US Ambassador? "Why Do They Hate Us?"

[Winehole23]

What is the REPUG politicized investigation supposed to accomplish? They want heads to roll? "prove" that Barry is "weak" in NatSec.yep.

Sec'y Clinton just fell on her sword, wouldn't have guessed that a month ago.

[CosmicCowboy]

No kidding. Politically it's not a bad move. Shows she has more balls than Obama. Everybody knows it was a fuckup. Might as well fess up and take responsibility.

[Winehole23]

Shows she has more balls than Obama.she does bear more direct responsibility, so there is that. loyalty to an embattled chieftain might also play into it.

[CosmicCowboy]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/hillary-clinton-to-obama-in-2008-the-buck-stops

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took "responsibility" for the lack of security at U.S. consulate in Benghazi in an interview with CNN Monday night. In remarks from Peru, Clinton said that the "President and Vice President certainly wouldn't be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals."
Clinton's belated move to own the tragedy in Libya marked a departure from her 2008 sparring with candidate Obama over just such issues of responsibility. That year, then-Senator Clinton criticized then Senator Obama during the Democratic primary, seizing on comments Obama had made about being a President who would inspire and provide a vision for the country and not make sure "everything's running on time."
"Being President means being both CEO and COO of one of the largest and most complex organizations in the world," Clinton said.
"I know that we can get on top of this, but it's going to require strong presidential leadership — it's going to require a President who knows from day one you have to run a government and manage the economy," Hillary Clinton added, using the flailing economy to hit Obama. "The buck stops in the Oval Office."
Then Senator Obama's team hit back at Clinton's criticism comments made her sound like she was running for chief manager — not commander in chief.
"The truth is that we're not running for chief of staff. We're running for President of the United States," David Axelrod said, adding the President's role was to "provide direction and leadership."
"I think sometimes there's a relentless pursuit of the little picture over there at the Clinton campaign," Axelrod continued. "There are bigger issues at stake here."
Hillary Clinton also said at rally in Missouri in January, "I believe we need a president who believed what Harry Truman believed. That buck stopped in the Oval Office."

[Winehole23]

odd wrinkle, perhaps: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2215431/Death-U-S-ambassador-Chris-Stevens-revealed-AK-47s-grenade-attacks-smoke-filled-safe-room.html?ITO=1490

[Latarian Milton]

benghazi sounds like a person's name to me tbh, ben ghazi :lol

[RandomGuy]

What really happened in Benghazi:

Something Bad That Republicans Think They Can Score Political Points With, So They Will Play It Up For All The Political Points They Think They Can Score.

Perhaps I am being a bit cynical, but the more I see the GOP congress members grandstanding at the committee, and the endless Fox "news" coverage, the less I am inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Between this and the trumped up concerns about "voter fraud", I have become pretty disgusted with the GOP in general. It is one thing to be genuinely concerned about security lapses, and quite another to use someone's death as a political football.

[George Gervin's Afro]

What really happened in Benghazi:

Something Bad That Republicans Think They Can Score Political Points With, So They Will Play It Up For All The Political Points They Think They Can Score.

Perhaps I am being a bit cynical, but the more I see the GOP congress members grandstanding at the committee, and the endless Fox "news" coverage, the less I am inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Between this and the trumped up concerns about "voter fraud", I have become pretty disgusted with the GOP in general. It is one thing to be genuinely concerned about security lapses, and quite another to use someone's death as a political football.

keep in mind that many of the same republicans were silent well after the iraq invasion and never once asked for answers as to why we invaded (and lost thousands of lives over it). seems to me that these 4 lives lost are greater than (politically) that 4,000 + that died is Iraq.. it's a political winner!

[DarrinS]

What really happened in Benghazi:

Something Bad That Republicans Think They Can Score Political Points With, So They Will Play It Up For All The Political Points They Think They Can Score.

Perhaps I am being a bit cynical, but the more I see the GOP congress members grandstanding at the committee, and the endless Fox "news" coverage, the less I am inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Between this and the trumped up concerns about "voter fraud", I have become pretty disgusted with the GOP in general. It is one thing to be genuinely concerned about security lapses, and quite another to use someone's death as a political football.


Besides, it was only four people.

[johnsmith]

keep in mind that many of the same republicans were silent well after the iraq invasion and never once asked for answers as to why we invaded (and lost thousands of lives over it). seems to me that these 4 lives lost are greater than (politically) that 4,000 + that died is Iraq.. it's a political winner!

Which republicans were silent about it?

[CosmicCowboy]

At least Bush didn't send out the same autobot signed form letter to those 4000 troops families.

[RandomGuy]

At least Bush didn't bla bla bla.

Translation:

"Instead of admitting when Republicans fuck up, let's play the tit for tat game".

(sighs heavily)

Sure. You're right.

[CosmicCowboy]

Translation:

"Instead of admitting when Republicans fuck up, let's play the tit for tat game".

(sighs heavily)

Sure. You're right.

You must have awful reading comprehension. I have said over and over we fucked up going into Iraq.

[RandomGuy]

You must have awful reading comprehension. I have said over and over we fucked up going into Iraq.

Saying that we erred in going there in the first place, is not the same as saying that the post occupation up until the surge (and actually using the counterinsurgency doctrine that they had drawn up after that) was a soup sandwich. We had a counterinsurgency doctrine in 2003 that was ignored for years. It should have been the plan from day 1, not year 3 IF the ignorant dipshits had known what the fuck they were doing.

Did I miss something?

[TeyshaBlue]

Nope.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/17/bush.terror/ (stay the course) 2005

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/24/politics/main2117323.shtml (Bush drops it) 2006

I remember quite clearly noting how many disturbingly similar our tactics were in Iraq to the failures of vietnam, and screamed it quite vociferously in several political forums, only to be pooh-poohed by red teamers eager to downplay their presidents fuck ups, who accused Democrats and anybody who didn't go along with looking the other way as not being patriotic enough.

It was the height of frustration. Especially after I read the counterinsurgency field manual after being pointed to it, and that manual had all the things I had been saying needed to be done.

[RandomGuy]

One concrete example:

http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2012/10/rebuilding-iraqs-healthcare-system-in.html


The USAID initially appointed Frederick Burkle Jr., a deputy assistant manager at the Agency, to advise the Health Ministry. He had a master’s degree in public health, was a teacher at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health with expertise in disaster relief, and had worked in Kosovo, Somalia, and Kurdistan after the Gulf War. He was sent to Baghdad immediately after the fall of the regime. Within weeks of arriving however, he was told that he was going to be replaced by a political appointee from the White House. The new Health Ministry adviser was James Haveman Jr. He was formerly the community health director for a Republican governor of Michigan, John Engler, and had some foreign experience working for International Aid, a Christian relief group. Engler recommended Haveman to Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, who had him hired. Burkle was obviously far more qualified than Haveman. Not only that, but Burkle had worked in Iraq before in 1991 in Kurdistan, giving him some on the ground experience in the country. Since health was not a major priority, the Bush administration probably felt like it was okay to hand the task over to someone with political connections rather than a USAID official.

Haveman then went about causing a major conflict with the Iraqis. He wanted to completely change the country’s reliance upon hospitals, and build a series of small clinics that would concentrate upon preventive care. Haveman believed this would provide greater care to Iraqis. He also didn’t like the fact that healthcare was free in Iraq, and wanted people to pay for their services. Finally, Haveman pushed to privatize the importation and distribution of drugs in the country. This led to a series of bureaucratic battles with the Health Ministry. In the end, Haveman went ahead with his plans even though he never convinced the Iraqis of his point of view. This came at a bad time, because demand for emergency care was taking off in Iraq’s hospitals as violence started. People were regularly being brought in from bombings and shootings, while hospitals were not getting that much money, because Haveman wanted new clinics built instead.

Trying to reform how Iraq procured and handed out its medicine became a huge fiasco. Haveman was in charge of changing drug distribution when he worked in Michigan. He wanted to cut costs in the state, and decided to achieve that by limiting the number of drugs that doctors could prescribe to patients. He wanted to do the same in Iraq. There, roughly 4,500 medications were used, which Haveman wanted to slash. Furthermore, he wanted to stop Iraq from buying its medicines from Syria, Iran, and Russia, and have it purchase them from the United States instead.

Political purity was placed over expertise and competence for the post.

Rather oft-cited, but indicative of what went on. Ideology over pragmatism, at the expense of what worked.

[RandomGuy]

Ties to GOP Trumped Know-How Among Staff Sent to Rebuild Iraq

After the fall of Saddam Hussein's government in April 2003, the opportunity to participate in the U.S.-led effort to reconstruct Iraq attracted all manner of Americans -- restless professionals, Arabic-speaking academics, development specialists and war-zone adventurers. But before they could go to Baghdad, they had to get past Jim O'Beirne's office in the Pentagon.

To pass muster with O'Beirne, a political appointee who screens prospective political appointees for Defense Department posts, applicants didn't need to be experts in the Middle East or in post-conflict reconstruction. What seemed most important was loyalty to the Bush administration.

O'Beirne's staff posed blunt questions to some candidates about domestic politics: Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000? Do you support the way the president is fighting the war on terror? Two people who sought jobs with the U.S. occupation authority said they were even asked their views on Roe v. Wade .

Many of those chosen by O'Beirne's office to work for the Coalition Provisional Authority, which ran Iraq's government from April 2003 to June 2004, lacked vital skills and experience. A 24-year-old who had never worked in finance -- but had applied for a White House job -- was sent to reopen Baghdad's stock exchange. The daughter of a prominent neoconservative commentator and a recent graduate from an evangelical university for home-schooled children were tapped to manage Iraq's $13 billion budget, even though they didn't have a background in accounting.
ad_icon

The decision to send the loyal and the willing instead of the best and the brightest is now regarded by many people involved in the 3 1/2 -year effort to stabilize and rebuild Iraq as one of the Bush administration's gravest errors. Many of those selected because of their political fidelity spent their time trying to impose a conservative agenda on the postwar occupation, which sidetracked more important reconstruction efforts and squandered goodwill among the Iraqi people, according to many people who participated in the reconstruction effort.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/16/AR2006091600193.html

[RandomGuy]

That seems like it needs its own thread though.

(edit)

I think I have made a fair point about how foreign policy fuck ups get swept under the rug by red teamers when they find it convenient.

Four people die and they want answers. 100,000 die in Iraq... nuthin.

Given the lack of calls for investigations into those deaths, I think I have a fair reason for being somewhat suspicious of Republican motivations for this investigation.

Did the Democratic administration fuck up? Quite possibly, we will know soon enough.

Does anyone doubt that Republicans will make any fault try to seem larger than is fair?

[ChumpDumper]

At least Bush didn't send out the same autobot signed form letter to those 4000 troops families.What did he personally send to each of their families?

[RandomGuy]

What did he personally send to each of their families?

http://icasualties.org/

US casualties in Iraq: 2003-2008:


4222

US casualties in Iraq: 2009-2012


264

Whoopsies.

The robosigning faux outrage is the bullshit du jour in the right wing fucktardosphere, it would seem, based on a quick google search. Only a matter of time until Fox "news" picks up on it and starts strutting about it, no doubt.

Sorry to interrupt your dumping. By all means... continue. :D

[TeyshaBlue]

Chumping?:lol

[boutons_deux]

As Richard Clarke, a former counterterrorism adviser to Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton. and George W. Bush, as well as deputy assistant secretary of state for intelligence under President Ronald Reagan, so aptly put it in today’s Daily News: (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/romney-libya-shameful-article-1.1185889)

News media and members of Congress may want instant answers when something explodes, when Americans die, but national security professionals know that “first reports are always wrong.” That is why, when pressed by reporters to say what had happened, UN Ambassador Susan Rice qualified her response by saying that the investigation was ongoing. She then said what the intelligence community had reported to her at that time.

Indeed, as Clarke notes, every president since Ronald Reagan has suffered American casualties to terrorism, but Obama has kept terrorist groups on their toes;

he has kept the terrorist groups off balance by relentlessly attacking them. He has largely eliminated Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan as an effective fighting force. His use of drones and special forces has been aggressive and successful, including in Yemen and Somalia.

Romney will clearly continue on this specious warpath in the next debate on October 22, which focuses on foreign policy. The real question is why? As Clarke explains:

Karl Rove, the Republican evil genius of campaign slurs, is famous for advising candidates to attack an opponent’s strong suit. If Sen. John Kerry is a decorated war hero and your guy avoided going to Vietnam, then attack Kerry’s service record. If Sen. Max Cleland lost limbs fighting for America, question his patriotism.

The problem is that those two outrageous attacks worked, as have many others like them.

Why is the attack on Benghazi being talked about so much? It is not because the Republicans have a long record of caring about embassy security. House Republicans cut $128 million in fiscal year 2011 and an additional $331 million in fiscal year 2012 from what Secretary of State Clinton requested for embassy security.


No, it’s because their polling and focus groups show that voters believe that President Obama has done a very good job fighting terrorists. Therefore, the Rove theory says, you attack Obama on terrorism.

Romney’s attack on the minutiae of who said what, and when, is a petty distraction, a stab at politicizing a serious event, an attempt to take the spotlight off his utter lack of foreign policy knowledge and experience.

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/who-do-you-want-calling-the-shots-against-al-qaeda.html#ixzz29jf64JpO



And right-wingers here dance to and parrot the Fox Repug progaganda network tune. :lol

[Nbadan]

First Issa and his group of Congressional witch-hunters expose a secret CIA base in Bengazi now this...

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/10/19/issa_s_benghazi_document_dump_exposes_several_liby ans_working_with_the_us .........SNIP........ House


Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) compromised the identities of several Libyans working with the U.S. government and placed their lives in danger when he released reams of State Department communications Friday, according to Obama administration officials.

Issa posted 166 pages of sensitive but unclassified State Department communications related to Libya on the committee's website afternoon as part of his effort to investigate security failures and expose contradictions in the administration's statements regarding the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi that resulted in the death of Amb. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

[Th'Pusher]

No evidence found of Al Qaeda role in Libya attack (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-libya-attack-20121020,0,95514.story)

[DMC]

http://icasualties.org/

US casualties in Iraq: 2003-2008:


4222

US casualties in Iraq: 2009-2012


264


Whoopsies.

The robosigning faux outrage is the bullshit du jour in the right wing fucktardosphere, it would seem, based on a quick google search. Only a matter of time until Fox "news" picks up on it and starts strutting about it, no doubt.

Sorry to interrupt your dumping. By all means... continue. :D
Those number just moved to Afghanistan after Obama took office. Deaths are deaths.

Anyhow lol at self righteous assholes around here who never served, many anti-military in the 1st place who use combat related deaths as a talking point.

[Nbadan]

According to the CIA account,


... “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”

... “This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.” This may sound like self-protective boilerplate, but it reflects the analysts’ genuine problem interpreting fragments of intercepted conversation, video surveillance and source reports.

....

“We believe the timing of the attack was influenced by events in Cairo,” the senior official said, reaffirming the Cairo-Benghazi link. He said that judgment is repeated in a new report prepared this week for the House intelligence committee.
..
There’s no dispute, however, that it was “an act of terror,” as Obama described it the next day.
...
Here’s how the senior official described the jumble of events in Benghazi that day: “The attackers were disorganized; some seemed more interested in looting. Some who claimed to have participated joined the attack as it began or after it was under way. There is no evidence of rehearsals, they never got into the safe room . . . never took any hostages, didn’t bring explosives to blow the safe room door, and didn’t use a car bomb to blow the gates.”

The official said the only major change he would make now in the CIA’s Sept. 15 talking points would be to drop the word “spontaneous” and substitute “opportunistic.” He explained that there apparently was “some pre-coordination but minimal planning.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/benghazi-attack-becomes-political-ammunition/2012/10/19/e1ad82ae-1a2d-11e2-bd10-5ff056538b7c_story.html

[Edward]

You must have awful reading comprehension. I have said over and over we fucked up going into Iraq.
Yet I'm willing to bet my left testicle you voted for Bush in 2004.

The blood of every soldier who died after 2004 is on your hands. Congratulations.

[Clipper Nation]

Anyhow lol at self righteous assholes around here who never served, many anti-military in the 1st place who use combat related deaths as a talking point.

You know who else never served? Most of the warmongers who send our troops off to risk their lives, tbh...

Are you implying that being pro-peace is a bad thing? :lol

[DMC]

You know who else never served? Most of the warmongers who send our troops off to risk their lives, tbh...

Are you implying that being pro-peace is a bad thing? :lol
There is peace in solitary confinement, and that can be a bad thing. 7 billion people including hundreds of government systems are not going to ever agree, and some cultures take disagreement to mean one of you must die. If you want to be that person to die, you will find all the peace you can stand. Personally, I prefer to live so that means the other asshole has to die in many cases. Fortunately for most Americans there are others to do the killing and dying for you so that you can sit around and wax philosophical about the rigors of war and the injustices of the powerful.

[boutons_deux]

serial adulterer Noot Gingrich LYING, which is ALL THE REPUGS have. Watch the SPEW LIES, old and new, until the electon.


Gingrich Rewrites History, Claims Romney Acted Like Reagan After The Libya Attacks (http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/10/21/1054741/gingrich-rewrites-history-claims-romney-acted-like-reagan-after-the-libya-attacks/)

?But Gingrich is re-writing history in both counts. Romney’s early statement criticizing the U.S. embassy in Cairo and the Obama administration for failing to condemn violence and “apologizing” for America was premature and misunderstood the basic sequence of events. The embassy issued its initial remarks in an effort to calm protesters and before witnessing any violence. It later retracted its statement and Obama administration officials repeatedly condemned the attackers.

Unlike Romney, Reagan did not accuse (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/09/13/843551/reagan-bush-romney-iran-1980-election/) then-president Jimmy Carter of sympathizing with terrorists. Instead, during the Iranian hostage crisis, he called for national unity (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/history-lesson-what-ronald-reagan-said/2012/09/12/966e5ef4-fcf9-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_blog.html). “This is a difficult day for all of us Americans. … It is time for us…to stand united. It is a day for quiet reflection…when words should be few and confined essentially to our prayers,” he said. And while Reagan did criticize Carter’s foreign policy throughout the campaign, “he refrained from attacking the Iran issue during his debate with the president once he sealed the nomination.”

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/10/21/1054741/gingrich-rewrites-history-claims-romney-acted-like-reagan-after-the-libya-attacks/

Another proof that St Ronnie the Diseased is way to the left of the today's Repug extremist assholes.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yet I'm willing to bet my left testicle you voted for Bush in 2004.

The blood of every soldier who died after 2004 is on your hands. Congratulations.

Bush gave him yet another tax break and kept his entitlements. He doesn't care, he got his and with him that's all that really matters.

[boutons_deux]

After Benghazi Attack, Talk Lagged Behind Intelligence

Ms. Rice, the United States ambassador to the United Nations, has said that the judgments she offered on the five talk shows on Sept. 16 came from talking points prepared by the C.I.A., which reckoned that the attack that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans had resulted from a spontaneous mob that was angry about an anti-Islamic video that had set off protests elsewhere. That assessment, described to Ms. Rice in briefings the day before her television appearances, was based on intercepted communications, informants' tips and Libyan press reports, officials said.


Later that Sunday, though, American intelligence analysts were already sifting through new field reports that seemed to contradict the initial assessment. It would be several days, however, before the intelligence agencies changed their formal assessment based on those new reports, and informed administration officials about the change. Intelligence officials say such a lag is typical of the ever-changing process of piecing together shards of information into a coherent picture fit for officials' public statements.

Gov. Mitt Romney and Congressional Republicans have sharply criticized Ms. Rice's comments and the administration's shifting public positions on the cause of the attack, criticisms that Mr. Romney will probably reprise in the final presidential debate on Monday night.

On Sunday, Congressional Republicans cited the administration's response to the attack as symptomatic of larger leadership failings. "This is going to be a case study, studied for years, of a breakdown of national security at every level, failed presidential leadership - senior members of the Obama administration failed miserably," Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said on "Fox News Sunday."

The gap between the talking points prepared for Ms. Rice and the contemporaneous field reports that seemed to paint a much different picture illustrates how the process of turning raw field reports, which officials say need to be vetted and assessed, into polished intelligence assessments can take days, long enough to make them outdated by the time senior American officials utter them.

Intelligence officials, alarmed that their work has been turned into a political football, defend their approach, noting that senior administration officials receive daily briefings that reflect the consensus of the nation's array of intelligence agencies, but can also dip into the fast-moving stream of field reports, with the caveat that that information is incomplete and may be flat wrong.

"A demand for an explanation that is quick, definite and unchanging reflects a naïve expectation - or in the present case, irresponsible politicking," James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, said at an intelligence symposium on Oct. 9.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/us/politics/explanation-for-benghazi-attack-under-scrutiny.xml?f=19

The Dems gave the Repugs a pass on fucking up and allowing 9/11, but the Repugs think fabricating outrage about Benghazi will get their 0.1%er into the WH.

[Clipper Nation]

There is peace in solitary confinement, and that can be a bad thing.
False dilemma, tbh.... ending our ridiculous warmongering does not rule out the free trade and honest friendship among nations that our Founders intended..... nor does it prevent actual diplomacy, or less intrusive measures such as letters of marque and reprisal..... imho, since war is so deadly and expensive, it should ONLY be a last resort after all other options have been exhausted, with a just cause (i.e. not a pre-emptive war of aggression), and a full constitutional declaration....


Fortunately for most Americans there are others to do the killing and dying for you so that you can sit around and wax philosophical about the rigors of war and the injustices of the powerful.
Mainly because the draft was such an epic failure.... hmmm, I wonder why...

[CosmicCowboy]

And the truth comes out...they knew that night.

The emails to state, pentagon, FBI, and the white house

Don't read the spin. Read the actual e-mails

http://cnsnews.com/sites/default/files/documents/BENGHAZI-STATE%20DEPARTMENT-EMAILS.pdf

[TeyshaBlue]

To be fair, there probably quite a few emails flying around after that event. I'm not going to ding anyone for not latching on to an email chain and following it to ground while the situation continues to develop. The facebook/twitter activity was within 2 hours of the event.

[CosmicCowboy]

To be fair, there probably quite a few emails flying around after that event. I'm not going to ding anyone for not latching on to an email chain and following it to ground while the situation continues to develop. The facebook/twitter activity was within 2 hours of the event.

I seriously can cut them slack for 48-72 hours but the traditional standard line is "no comment until we have time to get the facts". You don't immediately come out with a scenario, claim that all currently known facts lead to that scenario, and continue to doggedly assert that scenario for two weeks against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It was very poorly played (an understatement) and even if it wasn't deliberate political spin the best you could say is that it was gross incompetence.

[Agloco]

Someone knew something. These are things we know.


Maybe we could cut a deal with the Russians and the Chinese to use neutron bombs to wipe them all out and then split the booty three ways. Sounds like a win, win, win.

:lol Neutron Bombs?

[George Gervin's Afro]

And the truth comes out...they knew that night.

The emails to state, pentagon, FBI, and the white house

Don't read the spin. Read the actual e-mails

http://cnsnews.com/sites/default/files/documents/BENGHAZI-STATE%20DEPARTMENT-EMAILS.pdf

So if I am correct the govt is still not sure if this group was involved

[Nbadan]

Fake emails....That Truetype font did not exist at the white house at that time...Just heard it on Drudge...

[ElNono]

3 emails? :lol

Yeah, that paints a complete picture. I know, I know... "connect the dots" :lol

[Agloco]

3 emails? :lol

Yeah, that paints a complete picture. I know, I know... "connect the dots" :lol

With the final one pointing to a FB/Twitter post claiming responsibility at that. shrug.

[ElNono]

With the final one pointing to a FB/Twitter post claiming responsibility at that. shrug.

I don't particularly find FB/Twitter credible, personally (don't discard the group was behind the attack though). Claiming attacks like this one are not that rare, and are a good recruiting tool for groups like that.

[boutons_deux]

Gecko's entire "foreign policy" agenda is hiding his felony tax evasion and fabricating outrage about Barry's Benghazi "cover up". :lol

[Agloco]

Doubts surface over e-mail on claim of responsibility for Benghazi attack


http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/24/doubts-surface-over-e-mail-on-claim-of-responsibility-for-benghazi-attack/?hpt=hp_t3


The often fiercely political debate over who knew what - and when - about the September 11 assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi has taken another turn with the disclosure of a series of e-mails sent from the State Department on the night of the attack.

But the most explosive of the e-mails - which were released late Tuesday - may have been inaccurate, a "spot report" on a rapidly evolving and highly confusing situation.

The disclosure of the e-mail has given new life to the already fevered debate over when the Obama administration learned that the attack was more than a protest that turned deadly but was the work of terrorists.

The e-mail carried the subject line: "Update 2: Ansar al Sharia Claims Responsibility For Benghazi Attack." The message said: "Embassy Tripoli reports the group has claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli."

That message was sent to a wide range of federal offices, including the FBI, from the State Department at 6:07 p.m. ET on September 11 - seven minutes into September 12 in Libya. At that time, the attack on the consulate was ongoing, and the subsequent assault on the annex building, in which two more Americans would be killed, had not begun........

READ MORE

[Agloco]

I don't particularly find FB/Twitter credible, personally (don't discard the group was behind the attack though). Claiming attacks like this one are not that rare, and are a good recruiting tool for groups like that.

Absolutely. But board conservatives would have you believe that the players and motives were crystal clear from the get go.

[TeyshaBlue]

Absolutely. But board conservatives would have you believe that the players and motives were crystal clear from the get go.

Not really.

[boutons_deux]

Gecko/Fox thinking they got Ms of votes out of fabricating outrage, distraction, conspiracy about Benghazi, really nailing Barry hard, but Gallup shows that voters put foreign affairs about 4th or 5th on their list of concerns. iow, no concern at all affecting their voting.

[Agloco]

Not really.

Apologies. I stand corrected.......SOME board conservatives (with the notable exception of TB) would have you believe...... :lol

[TeyshaBlue]

Apologies. I stand corrected.......SOME board conservatives (with the notable exception of TB) would have you believe...... :lol

lol @ notable.:lol

[Agloco]

lol @ notable.:lol

You've been noted!!!

[TeyshaBlue]

*Adds Noted By Agloco to signature*

[Agloco]

*Adds Noted By Agloco to signature*

rofl.......thought you were kidding. :lmao

[TeyshaBlue]

rofl.......thought you were kidding. :lmao

I'm a star now, baby!:lol

[JoeChalupa]

This was not handled well from the start. Not good at all.

[boutons_deux]

Condi Rice Pours Cold Water On ‘Benghazi-Gate’ (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/25/1089691/condi-rice-pours-cold-water-libya/)
RICE: But when things are unfolding very, very quickly, it’s not always easy to know what is really going on on the ground. And to my mind, the really important questions here are about how information was collected. Did the various agencies really coordinate and share intelligence in the way that we had hoped, with the reforms that were made after 9/11?


So there’s a big picture to be examined here. But we don’t have all of the pieces, and I think it’s easy to try and jump to conclusions about what might have happened here.

It’s probably better to let the relevant bodies do their work.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/25/1089691/condi-rice-pours-cold-water-libya/

weak, but beyond expectations for a war criminal

[DMC]

There will not be a response just as there was no response for the attack of the USS Cole and the first WTC bombing.

[boutons_deux]

Diana West: Benghazi Attack was a 'Fortunate Event' Because it Helps Romney

West: As you and I have discussed, I strongly feel that Benghazi is almost in a strange way a fortunate event. Not obviously having to do with any of the actual killing and destruction and harm it’s done to our country, but in the sense of grabbing people’s attention so that we can understand what’s wrong with the American ‘Arab Spring’ policy that Obama has been executing. In a sense that’s what I would have wanted in a Republican nominee to use Benghazi as a teaching school, taking it down the line, whether it’s presidential lies, administration lies, whether it’s security failure and whether it’s sort of the über-theme, the failure of supporting jihad, Muslim Brotherhood actors across the Middle East and how it comes back to bight you every time.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/diana-west-benghazi-fortunate-event-helps-romney

Some real garbage shit bags on the right.

"American ‘Arab Spring’ policy that Obama has been executing."

WTF is that? maybe: "supporting jihad, Muslim Brotherhood" :lol

uber? she's got the trendy lingo down

[boutons_deux]

McLiar lying his senile ass off. Repugs really think their fabricated Benghazi outrage is gonna win them the WH

McCain: Obama Response To Libya Attack Is Worse Than Watergate (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/28/1101691/another-libya-attack-line/)
MCCAIN: Also, by the way, he said he immediately ordered action to be taken, no action was taken over seven hours. Now we find out the Secretary of Defense decided not to take any action. You know what, somebody the other day said to me that this is as bad as Watergate. Well, nobody died in Watergate. But this is either a massive cover-up or an incompetence that is not acceptable service to the American people.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/28/1101691/another-libya-attack-line/

[dbestpro]

None of it seems to make much sense. The response is confusing and the response to the response is equally confusing.

It's kind of like the administration did something stupid and the response is you've got something to hide because no one can be that stupid.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Condi Rice Pours Cold Water On ‘Benghazi-Gate’ (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/25/1089691/condi-rice-pours-cold-water-libya/)
RICE: But when things are unfolding very, very quickly, it’s not always easy to know what is really going on on the ground. And to my mind, the really important questions here are about how information was collected. Did the various agencies really coordinate and share intelligence in the way that we had hoped, with the reforms that were made after 9/11?


So there’s a big picture to be examined here. But we don’t have all of the pieces, and I think it’s easy to try and jump to conclusions about what might have happened here.

It’s probably better to let the relevant bodies do their work.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/25/1089691/condi-rice-pours-cold-water-libya/

weak, but beyond expectations for a war criminal

She pretty much echoes what my take is.

[ChumpDumper]

There will not be a response just as there was no response for the attack of the USS Cole and the first WTC bombing.Since one suspect is already dead and another is in jail, I respectfully disagree.

[DMC]

Since one suspect is already dead and another is in jail, I respectfully disagree.
Right. That's a response? I prefer how Israel responds.

[boutons_deux]

"no response for the attack of the USS Cole and the first WTC bombing"

St Ronnie negotiated with the Iranians about the hostages, told them to hold the hostages until he was in office, so Carter got all the blame. Then St Ronnie didn't retaliate, other than supporting Saddam attacking Iran.

And St Ronnie told the Marines to tuck tail and get out of Lebanon after the barracks bombing.

[ChumpDumper]

Right. That's a response? I prefer how Israel responds.Lame jingosim tbh

[RandomGuy]

Those number just moved to Afghanistan after Obama took office. Deaths are deaths.

Anyhow lol at self righteous assholes around here who never served, many anti-military in the 1st place who use combat related deaths as a talking point.

I served 89-93. Intel analyst, US Army. FWIW. I knew what Iraq is/was, as well as what happened in Yugoslavia in the mid ninties after the police state there got removed and stopped preventing groups of people who hated each others guts from killing each other.

[TeyshaBlue]

I served 89-93. Intel analyst, US Army. FWIW.

Dude, I don't know how I missed this. Word.:toast

[RandomGuy]

Dude, I don't know how I missed this. Word.:toast

Thanks/you're welcome.

I happened to have the same take on the whole thing that the Defense Secretary at the time did regarding going into Iraq:

YENbElb5-xY

The seemed remarkably prescient when it comes to what was going to happen in 2003 when we decided to go in. I wish Bush had listened to this guy.

[boutons_deux]

" I wish Bush had listened to this guy."

dubya DID listen to dickhead and invaded Iraq for the oil.

[boutons_deux]

Old white male racist Repugs gonna get that uppity n!gg@ b!tch, yet

New GOP Attack On Susan Rice: She Should Have Manipulated The Intelligence Or Stayed Silent On Benghazi

Emerging from talks with U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, Senate Republicans have a new line of attack on Libya: if it was unclear what happened in Benghazi, why say anything at all in the aftermath?

The newest salvo comes from Sens. John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) after a very short-lived detente (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/11/25/1232511/mccain-backs-off-susan-rice-smear-campaign/) with the Obama administration on the response to the Sept. 11 assault in Libya.

The three met with Rice behind closed doors (http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2012/11/27/rice-to-meet-senators-whose-support-she-covets) on Capitol Hill today and emerged with a new attack campaign, declaring that they only had “more questions” about what the administration knew and when.

“The American people got bad information on Sept. 16,” Graham said during a press conference today, referring to Rice’s Sept. 16 appearances on the Sunday talk shows. “And the question is ‘Should they have been giving information at all?’ If you can give nothing but bad information, isn’t it better to give no information?”


Rather than acknowledging that the intelligence community had vetted and aided in the drafting (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/11/21/1226821/intel-official-libya-talking-points-were-not-edited-to-minimize-role-of-extremists/) of Rice’s unclassified talking points that day, the senators in the post-meeting press conference instead chose to fault Rice for not only failing to be more critical of the assessment she was given but for not potentially revealing classified information:

AYOTTE: What troubles me also, the changes made to the unclassified talking points were misleading. But just to be clear, when you have a position where you’re Ambassador to the United Nations, you go well beyond unclassified talking points in your daily preparation and responsibilities for that job. And that’s troubling to me as well, why she wouldn’t have asked “I’m the person that doesn’t know about this, I’m going on every single show?” But in addition, it’s not just the talking points that were unclassified, but clearly it was part of her responsibility as Ambassador to the United Nations to review much more than that.


http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/11/27/1242791/new-gop-libya-attack-rice-stayed-silent-manipulated-inte/ (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/11/27/1242791/new-gop-libya-attack-rice-stayed-silent-manipulated-inte/)

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, why did she blame it on something with no valid intel?

She is not qualified for the job!

[ChumpDumper]

She recited the talking points that were given to her by the intelligence community!

Burn the witch!

[RandomGuy]

Honestly, this whole thing seems to be great for Democrats.

The Republican obsession with pointless semantics makes them less and less credible with moderates and independents, IMO.

It would be interesting to see some polling on the matter.

To the GOP:

By all means... keep fanning the flames. :clap

[CosmicCowboy]

She recited the talking points that were given to her by the intelligence community!

Burn the witch!

Actually she recited the talking points that were given to her by the White house.

[RandomGuy]

Actually she recited the talking points that were given to her by the White house.

:clap

[ChumpDumper]

Actually she recited the talking points that were given to her by the White house.So do you understand what that means or do you think it fits in with your conspiracy?

[RandomGuy]

Actually she recited the talking points that were given to her by the White house.

Gasp... an embassador being a representative of the government, and communicating an official position?

I'm shocked, shocked I say!!!

Something must be done about this immediately!! This kind of behavior must stop.

I mean if ambassadors all go around representing their governments, what kind of world would that be?

[CosmicCowboy]

Gasp... an embassador being a representative of the government, and communicating an official position?

I'm shocked, shocked I say!!!

Something must be done about this immediately!! This kind of behavior must stop.

I mean if ambassadors all go around representing their governments, what kind of world would that be?

The white house can pick anyone they want to do the sunday talk shows.

I was just correcting the chumpster on who gave ambassador Rice the talking points.

[ChumpDumper]

The white house can pick anyone they want to do the sunday talk shows.

I was just correcting the chumpster on who gave ambassador Rice the talking points.You do know who approved the talking points, do you not?

[RandomGuy]

The white house can pick anyone they want to do the sunday talk shows.

I was just correcting the chumpster on who gave ambassador Rice the talking points.

I know, I was just going for the funny, and not really all that well, either. (sigh) Not one of my better bits.

[RandomGuy]

You do know who approved the talking points, do you not?

It certainly wouldn't have been anyone in the intelligence community. They had such conclusive proof instantly after the event that they had to be silenced by the political operatives at the white house.

[Spurminator]

“The American people got bad information on Sept. 16,” Graham said during a press conference today, referring to Rice’s Sept. 16 appearances on the Sunday talk shows. “And the question is ‘Should they have been giving information at all?’ If you can give nothing but bad information, isn’t it better to give no information?”

Yes, I'm sure Lindsey Graham would have been totally okay with there being no information given 5 days after the attacks. That wouldn't have been a political firestorm at all.

"The White House hasn't come to any conclusions? They must not have anything conclusive. We'll give them the benefit of the doubt." - Said no opposition party politician, ever.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It certainly wouldn't have been anyone in the intelligence community. They had such conclusive proof instantly after the event that they had to be silenced by the political operatives at the white house.

Be careful you may confuse him again.

[CosmicCowboy]

It certainly wouldn't have been anyone in the intelligence community. They had such conclusive proof instantly after the event that they had to be silenced by the political operatives at the white house.

There was a classified version and an unclassified version. The classified called it a terrorist attack. The unclassified version called it a riot over a movie gone bad. Susan Rice gave the unclassified version to the media. As Ambassador to the UN she would have had the security clearance to read the classified version. Did she? I sure don't know. I do know that when the dumb ass press secretary Carney at the White House was still calling it a riot over a movie ten days later they HAD to know by then it was a lie.

[ChumpDumper]

There was a classified version and an unclassified version. The classified called it a terrorist attack. The unclassified version called it a riot over a movie gone bad. Susan Rice gave the unclassified version to the media. As Ambassador to the UN she would have had the security clearance to read the classified version. Did she? I sure don't know. I do know that when the dumb ass press secretary Carney at the White House was still calling it a riot over a movie ten days later they HAD to know by then it was a lie.So you wanted them all to disclose classified information to the public?

L

O

L

That's OK. Republicans did that for them.

[CosmicCowboy]

So you wanted them all to disclose classified information to the public?

L

O

L

That's OK. Republicans did that for them.

Did I say that ankle biter? Nope. Just saying that she had the means to know she was telling a big fat lie. Don't know if she actually knew that Sunday Morning but Jay Carney damn well knew ten days later when he was trying to sell the same line of shit.

[ChumpDumper]

Did I say that ankle biter? Nope. Just saying that she had the means to know she was telling a big fat lie. Don't know if she actually knew that Sunday Morning but Jay Carney damn well knew ten days later when he was trying to sell the same line of shit.So you are you only wanted Carney to disclose classified information.

OK.

Keep trying to bite Obama's ankle. Does it make you feel better?

[CosmicCowboy]

So you are you only wanted Carney to disclose classified information.

OK.

Keep trying to bite Obama's ankle. Does it make you feel better?

:lmao @ you calling the fact that terrorists killed the Ambassador "classified information"

You are SUCH a ****.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What did she say in entirety and not just CC's lame characterization? All I get from it is that there was multiple intelligence sources giving conflicting reports that were --as usual-- slow to disseminate their information amongst themselves to come to a conclusion.

Classified versus unclassified has little import to me over WHO was saying what and when. Was it the CIA, DoD, DoS, NSA, or what? CC is just fluffing his GOP overlords as is typical.

[CosmicCowboy]

What did she say in entirety and not just CC's lame characterization? All I get from it is that there was multiple intelligence sources giving conflicting reports that were --as usual-- slow to disseminate their information amongst themselves to come to a conclusion.

Classified versus unclassified has little import to me over WHO was saying what and when. Was it the CIA, DoD, DoS, NSA, or what? CC is just fluffing his GOP overlords as is typical.

No, I'm just using my own critical thinking brain, bitch.

Talk about sticking to talking points...:lmao

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao @ you calling the fact that terrorists killed the Ambassador "classified information"

You are SUCH a ****.You are moving the goalposts so much it's difficult to keep track of what your actual conspiracy is now.

Do you remember who approved the talking points?

Do you remember what your original conspiracy theory was concerning one of those who approved the talking points?

[ChumpDumper]

lol critical thinking brain

Sum up what your conspiracy theory is now please. Your story has changed a lot.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No, I'm just using my own critical thinking brain, bitch.

Talk about sticking to talking points...:lmao

If by 'critical thinking' you mean literally parroting GOP characterizations of what she said rather than referring to what she said then I agree.

As chump said you are all over the place. You suck at sophistry too.

[Stringer_Bell]

Honest question here, not laying a trap, not trying to troll anyone...how does this story have any affect on the daily lives of Americans in any meaningful way? If I'm correct, the government in general (regardless of political party) has a history of spreading disinformation when it is convenient for them (for whatever reasons)...what makes THIS story so special?

[CosmicCowboy]

I will sum it up for you Chump.

A bunch of people lied.

Finding out who lied when, where, and how is pretty much impossible at this point.

you can keep calling it a conspiracy theory and demanding proof from someone that's not in a position to supply it all you want.

If you actually believe all the shit they fed you on face value you are even dumber than i thought.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I will sum it up as well: you have nothing to substantiate what you are claiming. You have no basis to believe that other than you being told to by your GOP overlords.

Can you even say who lied about what? I will channel chump here as well: be specific.

[ChumpDumper]

Honest question here, not laying a trap, not trying to troll anyone...how does this story have any affect on the daily lives of Americans in any meaningful way? If I'm correct, the government in general (regardless of political party) has a history of spreading disinformation when it is convenient for them (for whatever reasons)...what makes THIS story so special?The Republicans think they have an issue they can ride for a couple of months that includes a little Obama-is-a-secret-Muslim innuendo if some want to ride with that.

[ChumpDumper]

I will sum it up for you Chump.

A bunch of people lied.

Finding out who lied when, where, and how is pretty much impossible at this point.

you can keep calling it a conspiracy theory and demanding proof from someone that's not in a position to supply it all you want.

If you actually believe all the shit they fed you on face value you are even dumber than i thought.i call your bullshit a conspiracy theory precisely because you can't prove it.

You would actually prefer not to know anything more at this point since the information that has come out took a huge shit all over you when you had your big mouth open. You've been backtracking ever since but are still managing to be a whiny bitch about it.

[CosmicCowboy]

I will sum it up as well: you have nothing to substantiate what you are claiming. You have no basis to believe that other than you being told to by your GOP overlords.

Can you even say who lied about what? I will channel chump here as well: be specific.

Get back on the porch little puppy.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So you cannot. that's nice.

[CosmicCowboy]

So you cannot. that's nice.

Nope, I already owned you lock, stock, and barrel in the other thread. Not wasting any more time on stupid puppies.

[ChumpDumper]

lol CC's stealing WC's "waste my time" shtick and conspiracy puppies.

[ElNono]

Honest question here, not laying a trap, not trying to troll anyone...how does this story have any affect on the daily lives of Americans in any meaningful way? If I'm correct, the government in general (regardless of political party) has a history of spreading disinformation when it is convenient for them (for whatever reasons)...what makes THIS story so special?

It's important!

[DMC]

"no response for the attack of the USS Cole and the first WTC bombing"

St Ronnie negotiated with the Iranians about the hostages, told them to hold the hostages until he was in office, so Carter got all the blame. Then St Ronnie didn't retaliate, other than supporting Saddam attacking Iran.

And St Ronnie told the Marines to tuck tail and get out of Lebanon after the barracks bombing.




Nothing you said even remotely addressed what you quoted. Instead, you offered up a "you too" defense.