Who really killed our Ambassador to Libya?

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

Rigney

I have hidden your post with the video whilst the staff discuss whether we want to have it as content on our forum.

[rigney]

!

Moderator Note

Rigney I have hidden your post with the video whilst the staff discuss whether we want to have it as content on our forum.

 

 

rigney:This morning was my first look at the trailer and I was only mildly amused at best. I hope this is not censurship of a know fact to begin appeasing the feelings of other nations, while religious expression here in our own country is thrown to the curb and grossly defiled daily. And that, right here on the forum? While I will abide by your decision, there is no happiness in Mudville.

Edited November 20, 2012 by rigney

[navigator]

Can you please, please stop with the false dilemmas?

 

 

Can you stop blaming the messenger?

 

 

Actually, that's what Peter King said that Petraeus said in a closed hearing. That's a bit of selective hearing. Others heard more. For instance, that there were 20 intelligence reports that indicated that anger of the film may be to blame. It took time to disprove those alternate lines.

 

Link to the 20 intelligence reports?

 

 

 

2) That the CIA originally made the connection [between the film and the protests, and the protests and the killing].

 

The attack that killed four Americans in the Libyan consulate began as a spontaneous protest against the film “The Innocence of Muslims,” but Islamic militants who may have links to Al Qaeda used the opportunity to launch an attack, CIA Director David Petreaus told the House Intelligence Committee today according to one lawmaker who attended a closed-door briefing.

 

This was what David Petraeus' told Congress on September 14. See http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/al-qaeda-took-advantage-of-libyan-protest-cia-chief-says/

 

Yes, prior to resigning and being exposed for having an affair. Plenty of motive there for the Gen to stretch the truth. Now that he has resigned, I would think his testimony wold be more credible.

 

Besides, anybody with a shred of military experience knew it was a planned attack the next day when it was reported that mortar fire had killed the 2 seal agents.

 

Further, the next day, a Libyan official said it was clearly a planned attack.

 

 

4) The $330 million cut.

 

After poking around a bit more, it looks my statement of 22% cut is not correct. There are apparently two line items in the State Department budget related to embassy defense; I only found the bigger line item. Also, the final cut was not quite $330 million; the Senate restored some of the administration's request. Here's what CNN had to say on this, http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/12/politics/fact-check-benghazi-security/index.html:

 

Statement:

Biden: "The congressman here cut embassy security in his budget by $300 million below what we asked for."

 

The facts:

According to Democratic House Oversight Committee staff, the amount that the GOP-led House passed for two accounts that pay for embassy security in fiscal 2012 ($2.311 billion) was $330 million less than the Obama administration had requested ($2.641 billion).

 

A GOP House Appropriations Committee aide confirmed the House bill had less in these accounts than what the administration requested.

 

However, the final bill, after being worked on by the Democratic-led Senate, put in more money than what had passed in the House. The final bill, which passed with bipartisan support, gave a total of $2.37 billion to these accounts for fiscal 2012 -- about $270 million less than what the administration had requested.

 

Conclusion:

The GOP-led House did initially approve about $330 million less than what the administration requested, but in the final bill, passed with bipartisan support after adjustments by the Senate, put the amount a little closer to the administration's target.

 

Regardless, there were prior attacks to the consulate in Benghazi, requests for added security and warnings for retribution for the drone attack that killed Libyan terrorist months earlier. Obama made it pretty clear duringthe campaign he had al queda on the run and 4 Americans paid for this campaign lie with their lives.

[uncool]

Can you stop blaming the messenger?

You may want to look up what "blaming the messenger" means. It doesn't mean reacting negatively. Pointing out a false dilemma and asking the other person to at least try to not use them in the future is not blaming the messenger.

Link to the 20 intelligence reports?

DH didn't say he had 20 intelligence reports; he said that others at the hearing had heard that there were "20 intelligence reports that indicated that anger of the film may be to blame."

Yes, prior to resigning and being exposed for having an affair. Plenty of motive there for the Gen to stretch the truth.

Uh. What?

 

What, precisely, is that motive?

Now that he has resigned, I would think his testimony wold be more credible.

Again, please explain.

Besides, anybody with a shred of military experience knew it was a planned attack the next day when it was reported that mortar fire had killed the 2 seal agents.

 

Further, the next day, a Libyan official said it was clearly a planned attack.

Just because it was planned doesn't mean that the planners couldn't take advantage of a protest. Your response is irrelevant to the claim.

 

Regardless, there were prior attacks to the consulate in Benghazi, requests for added security and warnings for retribution for the drone attack that killed Libyan terrorist months earlier. Obama made it pretty clear duringthe campaign he had al queda on the run and 4 Americans paid for this campaign lie with their lives.

No, they didn't pay for the lie. The lie didn't cause them to die; whether or not Obama had said anything, the plan would still be in place and they still would have died. Therefore, whether or not Obama campaigned on that is irrelevant to the thread, which is supposed to be about who failed to adequately protect the ambassador. On the other hand, cutting $330 million in embassy security is obviously relevant; I don't see why you seem to be dismissing it out of hand.

=Uncool-

Edited November 21, 2012 by uncool

[navigator]

You may want to look up what "blaming the messenger" means. It doesn't mean reacting negatively. Pointing out a false dilemma and asking the other person to at least try to not use them in the future is not blaming the messenger.

 

Apologies, I was referring to the way DH blames the right-wing media.

 

DH didn't say he had 20 intelligence reports; he said that others at the hearing had heard that there were "20 intelligence reports that indicated that anger of the film may be to blame."

 

Ok, so does he have a link to that news?

 

 

Uh. What?

 

Yes, Petreaus resigned two days after Obama's re-election, due to an affair with his biographer.

 

What, precisely, is that motive?

 

Again, please explain.

 

Protecting his name and legacy as a General for starters.

 

Just because it was planned doesn't mean that the planners couldn't take advantage of a protest. Your response is irrelevant to the claim.

 

And Obama needed to protect the al queda on the run narrative, so they ran with the mob protest story instead.

 

No, they didn't pay for the lie. The lie didn't cause them to die; whether or not Obama had said anything, the plan would still be in place and they still would have died. Therefore, whether or not Obama campaigned on that is irrelevant to the thread, which is supposed to be about who failed to adequately protect the ambassador. On the other hand, cutting $330 million in embassy security is obviously relevant; I don't see why you seem to be dismissing it out of hand.

=Uncool-

 

Im not dismissing it out of hand, the funds that were appropriated could have been used more wisely. There were previous attacks, warnings of more attacks to come and yet the security in Benghazi was reduced just prior to 9\11, when all security in areas like Benghazi should be heightened the highest level.

Edited November 21, 2012 by navigator

[overtone]

And Obama needed to protect the al queda on the run narrative, so they ran with the mob protest story instead.

I don't recall hearing anyone officially "running with" the mob protest story.

 

Who did that, and on what venue?

[uncool]

Apologies, I was referring to the way DH blames the right-wing media.

Someone is no longer a messenger when they are part of crafting the message. Which is what DH is accusing the right-wing media of.

Ok, so does he have a link to that news?

DH, do you have an answer?

Yes, Petreaus resigned two days after Obama's re-election, due to an affair with his biographer.

Yes, I know this. That's not what the "what" was referring to.

Protecting his name and legacy as a General for starters.

That doesn't explain any kind of link between the affair and Petraeus's claims about Benghazi. In fact, it negates your original point - why would Petraeus now say anything different and therefore (according to your premise) act to ruin his name and legacy as a General?

 

What is your explicit link between the affair and your claim that Petraeus would lie or shade the truth?

And Obama needed to protect the al queda on the run narrative, so they ran with the mob protest story instead.

What relevance does this response have to what it's quoting?

Im not dismissing it out of hand, the funds that were appropriated could have been used more wisely. There were previous attacks, warnings of more attacks to come and yet the security in Benghazi was reduced just prior to 9\11, when all security in areas like Benghazi should be heightened the highest level.

Certainly seemed like dismissing it out of hand by saying "Regardless, [stuff about Obama]". You haven't even said a single word about House Republicans.

[D H]

Link to the 20 intelligence reports?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/16/politics/benghazi-hearings

The former CIA chief has said there was a stream of intelligence from multiple sources, including video at the scene, that indicated Ansar al Sharia was behind the attack, according to an official with knowledge of the situation.

 

Meanwhile, separate intelligence indicated the violence at the consulate was inspired by protests in Egypt over an ostensibly anti-Islam film clip that was privately produced in the United States. The movie, "Innocence of Muslims," portrayed the Prophet Mohammed as a womanizing buffoon.

There were 20 intelligence reports that indicated that anger about the film may be to blame, the official said.

 

The CIA eventually disproved those reports, but not before Petraeus' initial briefing to Congress when he discussed who might be behind the attack and what prompted it. During that briefing, he raised Ansar al Sharia's possible connection as well as outrage about the film, the official said.

 

Also see http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57550337/cia-talking-points-for-susan-rice-called-benghazi-attack-spontaneously-inspired-by-protests/

The CIA's talking points read as follows:

 

• The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi 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.
  
  
   
  
  
• The investigation is on-going, and the US Government is working with Libyan authorities to bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of US citizens.

Also see post #367. The intelligence services clearly had multiple sources that hinted at a connection between the protests elsewhere over that film clip and the violence in Benghazi.

 

Yes, prior to resigning and being exposed for having an affair. Plenty of motive there for the Gen to stretch the truth. Now that he has resigned, I would think his testimony wold be more credible.

Oh, please. This is pure nonsense.

 

 

Besides, anybody with a shred of military experience knew it was a planned attack the next day when it was reported that mortar fire had killed the 2 seal agents.

Not true.

 

First off, there were two separate attacks. The first was much more chaotic, less intense, and less advanced (e.g., no mortars) than the second. There was a four or five hour lull between those two attacks.

 

Let's go over some basics.

• Yes, it was a terrorist attack. Any attack on civilians is, by definition, a terrorist act.
  
• Just because it was a terrorist attack does not mean that it was Al Qaeda.
  
• Just because it was a terrorist attack does not mean that it was planned.
  
• Even if the second attack was planned (over that four or five hour lull), this does not mean that the first attack was planned.
  
• Those claims by Al Qaeda-associated organizations for responsibility had to be discounted to some extent. Terrorist organizations claim responsibility for things they do not do. You might be too young to remember the terrorism of the 1970s. Multiple groups claimed responsibility every time a plane was hijacked. Multiple groups claimed responsibility when planes crashed due to malfunctions rather than some terrorist act.

 

There are different levels of planning. That four or five hour lull indicates to me that the terrorists used this time to plan that second attack. The first attack may well have been unplanned, with the terrorists taking advantage of the chaos of the day. This was one of the many issues that the intelligence agencies had to address.

 

 

Obama made it pretty clear during the campaign he had al queda on the run and 4 Americans paid for this campaign lie with their lives.

BS.

 

Obama does have Al Qaeda on the run. This is not a lie. Al Qaeda have radically changed tactics because of the deaths of key personnel and destruction of key facilities. Even though Al Qaeda has been decimated, Al Qaeda, along with the viewpoints that it espouses, are not gone. A big problem with terrorism is that small groups can cause a lot of damage.

 

By analogy, look at our own home-brewed terrorism. George Metesky, acting all by himself, planted 33 bombs and injured 15 people in the 1940s and 1950s. Sam Melville, acting with a small group of cohorts, was responsible for at least 8 bombings and 20 injuries in the late 1960s. Ted Kaczynski, acting all by himself, killed three and injured 23 others. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, with no support from others, killed 168 people. It doesn't take a lot of wherewithal to wreak a lot of havoc. Terrorist groups don't have to be big, involved conspiracies.

[navigator]

I don't recall hearing anyone officially "running with" the mob protest story.

 

Who did that, and on what venue?

 

Obama did when he addressed the UN, appeared on The View, David Letterman and the Sixty Minutes interview.

 

 

That doesn't explain any kind of link between the affair and Petraeus's claims about Benghazi. In fact, it negates your original point - why would Petraeus now say anything different and therefore (according to your premise) act to ruin his name and legacy as a General?

 

What is your explicit link between the affair and your claim that Petraeus would lie or shade the truth?

 

The FBI ivestigation into the affair started eight months prior to his resignation, it is plausible that he was influenced by the fact that the administration held his fate, and legacy, in their hands. As long as they needed him to repeat the narrative, they kept quiet about the affair, as soon as the election was over, he was no longer needed.

 

Certainly seemed like dismissing it out of hand by saying "Regardless, [stuff about Obama]". You haven't even said a single word about House Republicans.

 

Because I agree, Funding obviously shouldn't have been cut, but it was also not appropriated very wisely. And maybe they too were getting drunk on the al queda on the run narrative and felt not as much security was needed.

[iNow]

On The View? No, not The View! Okay, that's it. I've heard enough. It's obviously time to impeach this clown.

[D H]

Obama did when he addressed the UN, appeared on The View, David Letterman and the Sixty Minutes interview.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong.

 

Here is what Obama actually said:

 

September 12, Sixty Minutes: “As I said, we’re still investigating exactly what happened. I don’t want to jump the gun on this. But you’re right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt. And my suspicion is, is that there are folks involved in this, who were looking to target Americans from the start.”

 

September 18, David Letterman: “Here’s what happened,” and began discussing the impact of the anti-Muslim video. He then said, “Extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the consulate in Libya.”

 

September 25, The View: “Well, we’re still doing an investigation. There’s no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. Now, we don’t have all the information yet, so we’re still gathering it. But what’s clear is that around the world, there’s still a lot of threats out there.”

 

September 25, UN: “The attacks on the civilians in Benghazi were attacks on America.”

 

 

I don't mind having a President who allows the intelligence agencies to take their time arriving at the right conclusion. I'd much rather have a President who allows the intelligence agencies time to get the facts straight than one who sends our sons and daughters off to war based on premature intelligence. With two sons in the military, the last thing I want is a President who calls things prematurely. If my sons are to give their lives for the country, I want their deaths to be for something that is real rather than erroneous, premature intelligence.

 

Remember that yellowcake uranium? It started a war. It never existed. What is obvious after the fact is that the initial intelligence that led to the Iraqi war was faulty. Note well: I am not saying that Bush lied. He did however send our country into an extremely expensive war based on faulty intelligence. The key lesson-learned by the intelligence agencies with regard to the non-existence of Iraqi WMD was that the intelligence agencies need to be very, very certain of intelligence that is actionable.

 

Two weeks to get the facts straight is not a long time.

[navigator]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/16/politics/benghazi-hearings

The former CIA chief has said there was a stream of intelligence from multiple sources, including video at the scene, that indicated Ansar al Sharia was behind the attack, according to an official with knowledge of the situation.

 

Meanwhile, separate intelligence indicated the violence at the consulate was inspired by protests in Egypt over an ostensibly anti-Islam film clip that was privately produced in the United States. The movie, "Innocence of Muslims," portrayed the Prophet Mohammed as a womanizing buffoon.

There were 20 intelligence reports that indicated that anger about the film may be to blame, the official said.

 

The CIA eventually disproved those reports, but not before Petraeus' initial briefing to Congress when he discussed who might be behind the attack and what prompted it. During that briefing, he raised Ansar al Sharia's possible connection as well as outrage about the film, the official said.

 

Also see http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57550337/cia-talking-points-for-susan-rice-called-benghazi-attack-spontaneously-inspired-by-protests/

 

Thanks.

 

The CIA's talking points read as follows:

 

• The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi 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.
  
  
   
  
  
• The investigation is on-going, and the US Government is working with Libyan authorities to bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of US citizens.

Also see post #367. The intelligence services clearly had multiple sources that hinted at a connection between the protests elsewhere over that film clip and the violence in Benghazi.

 

 

Oh, please. This is pure nonsense.

 

 

 

Not true.

 

First off, there were two separate attacks. The first was much more chaotic, less intense, and less advanced (e.g., no mortars) than the second. There was a four or five hour lull between those two attacks.

 

Let's go over some basics.

• Yes, it was a terrorist attack. Any attack on civilians is, by definition, a terrorist act.
  
• Just because it was a terrorist attack does not mean that it was Al Qaeda.
  
• Just because it was a terrorist attack does not mean that it was planned.
  
• Even if the second attack was planned (over that four or five hour lull), this does not mean that the first attack was planned.
  
• Those claims by Al Qaeda-associated organizations for responsibility had to be discounted to some extent. Terrorist organizations claim responsibility for things they do not do. You might be too young to remember the terrorism of the 1970s. Multiple groups claimed responsibility every time a plane was hijacked. Multiple groups claimed responsibility when planes crashed due to malfunctions rather than some terrorist act.

 

There are different levels of planning. That four or five hour lull indicates to me that the terrorists used this time to plan that second attack. The first attack may well have been unplanned, with the terrorists taking advantage of the chaos of the day. This was one of the many issues that the intelligence agencies had to address.

 

 

 

BS.

 

Obama does have Al Qaeda on the run. This is not a lie. Al Qaeda have radically changed tactics because of the deaths of key personnel and destruction of key facilities. Even though Al Qaeda has been decimated, Al Qaeda, along with the viewpoints that it espouses, are not gone. A big problem with terrorism is that small groups can cause a lot of damage.

 

By analogy, look at our own home-brewed terrorism. George Metesky, acting all by himself, planted 33 bombs and injured 15 people in the 1940s and 1950s. Sam Melville, acting with a small group of cohorts, was responsible for at least 8 bombings and 20 injuries in the late 1960s. Ted Kaczynski, acting all by himself, killed three and injured 23 others. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, with no support from others, killed 168 people. It doesn't take a lot of wherewithal to wreak a lot of havoc. Terrorist groups don't have to be big, involved conspiracies.

 

I do want to reply, but it deserves more time and attention than I have right now.

 

Cheers, and hope everyone has a great Thanksgiving!

Edited November 22, 2012 by navigator

[overtone]

I don't recall hearing anyone officially "running with" the mob protest story.

 

Who did that, and on what venue?

 

 

Obama did when he addressed the UN, appeared on The View, David Letterman and the Sixty Minutes interview.

No, he didn't.

 

If this kind of misrepresentation is your entire source of issue, best drop the matter. If it isn't, let's see the more legitimate stuff.

[uncool]

Obama did when he addressed the UN, appeared on The View, David Letterman and the Sixty Minutes interview.

Citation with quotes?

The FBI ivestigation into the affair started eight months prior to his resignation, it is plausible that he was influenced by the fact that the administration held his fate, and legacy, in their hands. As long as they needed him to repeat the narrative, they kept quiet about the affair, as soon as the election was over, he was no longer needed.

"he was no longer needed"? If what he said could be embarrassing before the election, it would be embarrassing after the election, too.

Because I agree, Funding obviously shouldn't have been cut, but it was also not appropriated very wisely. And maybe they too were getting drunk on the al queda on the run narrative and felt not as much security was needed.

You seem to really think that this "narrative" is central to everything about Benghazi, am I right?

=Uncool-

[iNow]

Obama didn't win reelection because they changed the Bengazi narrative to make it appear as if terrorism was decreasing. More likely is that he won reelection because people on the right wing so often fail to abandon false narratives and manufactured realities... sort of like the dead horse they continue to beat like mental patients off their meds regarding this Libya thing.

[Phi for All]

Because I agree, Funding obviously shouldn't have been cut, but it was also not appropriated very wisely.

"Not appropriated very wisely"? Seriously, you're playing the hindsight card on how the funding was allocated? Republican Jason Chaffetz, congressman from UT, member of both the Budget Committee and the committee on Oversight and Government Reform, when asked if he voted to reduce funding for embassy security, had this to say:

 

http://transcripts.c...0/10/sp.01.html

"Absolutely. Look, we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have -- think about this -- 15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, private army there for President Obama in Baghdad.

 

And we're talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces? When you're in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices how to prioritize this."

 

 

And maybe they too were getting drunk on the al queda on the run narrative and felt not as much security was needed.

Since there is only supposition and "maybes" and arguments from incredulity to support some kind of coverup on the part of the Obama administration, I think it's equally likely that House Republicans are using this blame-game to take the heat from their austerity measures and budget cutting. Why aren't Republicans outraged that their control of the House led to cutting security budgets that resulted in the deaths of four Americans? None of the coverup scenarios smeared on the Obama administration pass the stink test as well as covering up underfunding of security that leads to American deaths.

[rigney]

"Not appropriated very wisely"? Seriously, you're playing the hindsight card on how the funding was allocated? Republican Jason Chaffetz, congressman from UT, member of both the Budget Committee and the committee on Oversight and Government Reform, when asked if he voted to reduce funding for embassy security, had this to say:

 

http://transcripts.c...0/10/sp.01.html

 

Since there is only supposition and "maybes" and arguments from incredulity to support some kind of coverup on the part of the Obama administration, I think it's equally likely that House Republicans are using this blame-game to take the heat from their austerity measures and budget cutting. Why aren't Republicans outraged that their control of the House led to cutting security budgets that resulted in the deaths of four Americans? None of the coverup scenarios smeared on the Obama administration pass the stink test as well as covering up underfunding of security that leads to American deaths.

With all of the thousands of articles having been written on the Benghazi mess, the old adage "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with B.S." comes into play. Well, this congressman was definitely outgunned, coming up against a well known CNN newscaster with an even better line of B.S. (Turn my world) oops! I mean my words around.

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/10/rep-chaffetz-says-he-absolutely-cut-funding-for-embassy-security/

Edited November 23, 2012 by rigney

[swansont]

With all of the thousands of articles having been written on the Benghazi mess, the old adage "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with B.S." comes into play.

Ironic, given your level of bafflement-generation.

 

Thousands of articles by whom? The press? Isn't that their job? And how is that under the control of the government?

[rigney]

Ironic, given your level of bafflement-generation.

 

Thousands of articles by whom? The press? Isn't that their job? And how is that under the control of the government?

Perhaps I should have added verbal communication; like those of Carney, Rice and media lap dogs. Even Romney, Obama, Hillary and Biden had a few choice comments.

[D H]

Perhaps I should have added verbal communication; like those of Carney, Rice and media lap dogs. Even Romney, Obama, Hillary and Biden had a few choice comments.

Perhaps you could, just for once, write clearly and succinctly instead of using bafflement-generation.

[rigney]

Perhaps you could, just for once, write clearly and succinctly instead of using bafflement-generation.

Where did you learn "bafflement-generation"? or did you borrow the statement from Mr. T ? Ah! I see, you're wanting to play musical chairs again? Edited November 23, 2012 by rigney

[CaptainPanic]

rigney, please. We have asked multiple times now if you can please be a little more clear. We sometimes really don't understand what you are talking about, or how your comments are related to the previous posts.

 

So, on behalf of everyone else, could you please be more clear?

[rigney]

How much clearer can I be? I posted a link and commented on it as was done in the previous post.

 

Phi for All, on 22 November 2012 - 12:15 PM, said:

"Not appropriated very wisely"? Seriously, you're playing the hindsight card on how the funding was allocated? Republican Jason Chaffetz, congressman from UT, member of both the Budget Committee and the committee on Oversight and Government Reform, when asked if he voted to reduce funding for embassy security, had this to say:http://transcripts.c...0/10/sp.01.html

 

This was my reply. With all of the thousands of articles having been written on the Benghazi mess, the old adage "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with B.S." comes into play. Well, this congressman was definitely outgunned, coming up against a well known CNN newscaster with an even better line of B.S. (Turn my world) oops! I mean my words around.

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/10/rep-chaffetz-says-he-absolutely-cut-funding-for-embassy-security/

 

What is there not to be understood?

Edited November 23, 2012 by rigney

[navigator]

Citation with quotes?

 

DH did a fine job of cherry picking the quotes above, I will post links for context he so convienetly left out, shortly.

 

"he was no longer needed"? If what he said could be embarrassing before the election, it would be embarrassing after the election, too.

 

Doesn't matter after the election, its showing pattern of putting campaigning for re-election above whats best for the country. Petreuas misttress may have had access to classified info above her clearance, odd that they allowed it to stay under the carpet for so long. I can see no other explanation for Petraeus to change his testimoney from Sep. 14th, trying to save his job and legacy, to after resigning.

 

You seem to really think that this "narrative" is central to everything about Benghazi, am I right?

=Uncool-

 

I don't know at this point, but I did know better than to believe an attack on the Benghazi consulate on 9\11 was due to a mob protesting an obscure video. A mob celebrating the 9\11 anniversary would be easier to swallow.

 

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong.

 

Here is what Obama actually said:

 

September 12, Sixty Minutes: “As I said, we’re still investigating exactly what happened. I don’t want to jump the gun on this. But you’re right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt. And my suspicion is, is that there are folks involved in this, who were looking to target Americans from the start.”

 

September 18, David Letterman: “Here’s what happened,” and began discussing the impact of the anti-Muslim video. He then said, “Extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the consulate in Libya.”

 

September 25, The View: “Well, we’re still doing an investigation. There’s no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. Now, we don’t have all the information yet, so we’re still gathering it. But what’s clear is that around the world, there’s still a lot of threats out there.”

 

September 25, UN: “The attacks on the civilians in Benghazi were attacks on America.”

 

So you selectively cherry pick what Obama said, with no links for context, and claim those are the facts. Yet you accuse the right of a witch hunt LOL.

 

Lets start with the speech to the UN...

 

At time, the conflicts arise along the fault lines of race or tribe, and often they arise from the difficulties of reconciling tradition and faith with the diversity and interdependence of the modern world. In every country, there are those who find different religious beliefs threatening. In every culture, those who love freedom for themselves must ask themselves how much they're willing to tolerate freedom for others. And that is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, where a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well.

 

For as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and every faith. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion, we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe.

 

We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them. I know there are some who ask why don't we just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws. Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.

 

Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. As president of our country, and commander in chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so.

 

We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities. We do so because, given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech -- the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

 

I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that. But in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete.

 

The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence.

 

(APPLAUSE) There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.

 

washingtonpost

 

If you read the whole speech and cannot see that it was really a speech defending freedom of speech, because according to Obama, the video caused the attack, then check your blinders at the door and read it again.

 

I don't mind having a President who allows the intelligence agencies to take their time arriving at the right conclusion. I'd much rather have a President who allows the intelligence agencies time to get the facts straight than one who sends our sons and daughters off to war based on premature intelligence. With two sons in the military, the last thing I want is a President who calls things prematurely. If my sons are to give their lives for the country, I want their deaths to be for something that is real rather than erroneous, premature intelligence.

 

Remember that yellowcake uranium? It started a war. It never existed. What is obvious after the fact is that the initial intelligence that led to the Iraqi war was faulty. Note well: I am not saying that Bush lied. He did however send our country into an extremely expensive war based on faulty intelligence. The key lesson-learned by the intelligence agencies with regard to the non-existence of Iraqi WMD was that the intelligence agencies need to be very, very certain of intelligence that is actionable.

 

U.S. Secretly Takes Yellowcake From Iraq.

 

Either you are very un-informed, or so driven by political ideology, that being objective is not possible.

 

Two weeks to get the facts straight is not a long time.

 

You can choose to drink that kool-aid if you want, the bottom line is all the departments that reviewed the evidence take their orders from Obama. The President is the boss, and unless they want to loser their jobs, and possibly be charged with criminal charges of one sort or another, they pretty much have to do what the President says.

 

Telling everyone something that is an obvious lie is completely idiotic in this situation. If he just didn't want to say anything about it, he should have just said that they were investigating it, and weren't going to comment. Instead, they put out this nonsense story about the Benghazi attacks being caused by a Youtube video.

Edited November 23, 2012 by navigator

[Phi for All]

How much clearer can I be? I posted a link and commented on it as was done in the previous post.

So how do you think that link refutes my point? I gave you a transcript of the whole interview in MY link. How does your link support your position better than it supports mine? The Republican House cut embassy security budgets, and when that results in the loss of American lives, that's something they would want to keep from their ultra-conservative supporters. That's a much clearer reason for coverup than anything you've implied.

 

It should seem quite obvious to anyone who's been following this story objectively that this is one of those scenarios where many things went wrong, giving a chance for a larger misfortune to happen. Take out any single item and it may not have happened, or it may have been worse. Give them the special team support that they requested and they still would have been outnumbered 8 to 1. Maybe we'd have 20 deaths to mourn instead of four.

 

How much more security would you, in hindsight, have allocated to defend against 150 organized and well-trained terrorists? Now think about how, with tight budgets and all the rest of the mitigating circumstances, you would have justified such an allocation of resources based solely on the intelligence we had prior to the attack. Perhaps there is no witch for you to hunt here.

 

Either you are very un-informed, or so driven by political ideology, that being objective is not possible.

That's not the yellowcake that got us involved in Iraq. Your article states quite clearly that it was there, stored in the same barrels, since before 1991. The fictional yellowcake from Niger is what D H was referencing. Perhaps you have trouble understanding D H or are so driven by political ideology that being objective is not possible.

 

 

Telling everyone something that is an obvious lie is completely idiotic in this situation. If he just didn't want to say anything about it, he should have just said that they were investigating it, and weren't going to comment. Instead, they put out this nonsense story about the Benghazi attacks being caused by a Youtube video.

Yeah, you keep harping on that video when everyone else has realized it was just faulty early intelligence, backed up by officials in the Libyan government. It's been refuted as the cause, it was bad intel that got repeated because people wanted answers, at a time when giving up answers might endanger security at other installations. Why are you the only ones still blaming the Obama administration for using an explanation they had been given at the time?