Who really killed our Ambassador to Libya?

[navigator]

"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

 

I guess I shouldn't be surprised the way many posters here cherry pick the news that agrees with their political bent, but the lack of objectivity on a science forum is disheartening.

 

Rep. Chaffetz also said this...

 

“Absolutely. Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have… 15,0000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a 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 touch economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things.”

 

O’Brien responds, “Okay, so you’re prioritizing. So, when there are complaints that, in fact, that there was not enough security, you just said, ‘absolutely,’ that you cut, you were the one to vote against to increase security for the State Department, which would lead directly to Benghazi. That seems like you’re saying you have a hand in the responsibility to this. The funding of the security? How am I wrong?”

 

Rep. Chaffetz says, “When you’re in Libya, after a revolution… you [have to] prioritize things. And what clearly didn’t happen is Libya was not a priority. I believe what I heard is that it’s because they wanted the appearance of normalization. That’s what they wanted. And that fit with Obama narrative moving forward.”

 

cnnpressroom

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

The cuts were for all embassy's security, it is up to Obama to properly allocate the available funding. Despite previous attacks at the Benghazi consulate, requests for more security, warnings of more attacks, security was reduced, including just weeks before 9\11. Reports of diverting funding to beef up security, in places like Benghazi and Egypt prior to 9\11 would have disrupted the al queada on the run narrative and could have hurt his FP and campaign.

 

 

 

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.

 

Oh ok, right, it was the other yellow cake that supposedly came from Niger, I guess that means the yellow cake that was always in Iraq was not WMD's and nothing to worry about. Are you serious?

 

 

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?

 

And you keep harping the faulty initial intelligence when there are numerous reports that it had nothing to do with the video and that minutes before the attack began, the streets in Benghazi were quiet. And the Libyan President the day after said it was a planned attack and not a mob protest, were do you come up with this stuff?

 

I have only seen one report that one official said there were 20 intel reports pointing to the video as a cause, but there are no other specifics about the sources. There are numerous reports, with named sources, hours after the attack, that it was pre-planned terrorist attack.

 

Clearly, Obama cherry picked the intel to best suit his campaign, disregarding the facts and possible affects on our national security. The biggest problem I have is going forward, if all Obama can do is point the finger, he will never take responsibilty for his own errors and therefore these types of occurances will continue to happen. And the media has clearly shown its willingness to fall in line, lock-step

Edited November 23, 2012 by navigator

[rigney]

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.

This is no witch hunt, just trying to get to the bottom of a bad situation. I thought it was amusing how Solidad Obrien tried to turn the congressmans words on himself to justify her position. The senator was only making the case that a counselet in Berlin or Paris doesn't require nearly the protection of one in a potential war zone. Let's face it, that embassy-ette was definitely undermanned. Other than false accusations the congressman quickly refuted that embassy funding had been cut by $300,000,000.00 and knowing there was the possiblity of an attack, what else can be said? And 20 dead as compared to four? There isn't a serviceman alive worth his salt who would have had the slightest qualms of defending that hovel in Benghazi, regardless of cost.

[swansont]

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.

I was kind of hoping that you'd actually answer a question put to you. A longshot, I realize, but 'tis the season for hope. It wasn't rhetorical — are you seriously saying that the media writing/saying lots of things about a world event is both an attempt to confuse people, and that it's at the behest of the government?

[D H]

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

What part of "we’re still investigating exactly what happened," "there are folks involved in this, who were looking to target Americans from the start", and "that it wasn’t just a mob action" don't you understand?

 

 

Doesn't matter after the election, its showing pattern of putting campaigning for re-election above whats best for the country.

To me, you just characterized the Republicans to a T. I was a Republican for 25 years. Not any more. As far as I'm concerned, the party has abandoned me and, much worse, it has abandoned the country for the sake of partisan gain. Thankfully, that ploy didn't work.

 

 

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.

Who are "they"?

 

 

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.

Nonsense. Stop seeing conspiracies everywhere you look.

 

The correct answer is that on September 14, Petraeus was testifying as the head of an agency. People who do that don't (or shouldn't) give personal opinions. He did it right; he gave the best information that the agency had at that point in time. In his recent testimony, he was asked for his personal opinion on the matter. He did not change his testimony. He answered two very different questions, under two very different circumstances, and at very different times.

 

 

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 not due to a mob protesting an obscure video. A mob celebrating the 9\11 anniversary would be easier to swallow.

More nonsense. Do you even know how many other US diplomatic facilities were attacked on 9/11/2012 or shortly thereafter in protest over that YouTube video? The protest over Innocence of Muslims was very severe and was worldwide.

 

 

Lets start with the speech to the UN...

 

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.

By the time of this speech, the intelligence had become very clear. Please cite exactly where in that speech Obama said the video caused the attack on Benghazi.

 

Hint: He didn't.

 

 

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.

Read the article you yourself cited, emphasis mine:

 

Tuwaitha and an adjacent research facility were well known for decades as the centerpiece of Saddam's nuclear efforts.

 

Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War.

There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991

, the official said.

 

Or as the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/world/africa/07iht-iraq.4.14301928.html) put it, this "was not the same yellowcake that President George W. Bush claimed, in a now discredited section of his 2003 State of the Union address, that Saddam was trying to purchase in Africa."

 

The yellowcake uranium that was removed from Iraq in 2008 was already known to exist at the time of that State of the Union address that presaged our war with Iraq. The yellowcake uranium claimed in that State of the Union address did not exist. The yellowcake uranium addressed in the article you cited wasn't even under Hussein's control. It was under UN control.

 

 

You can choose to drink that kool-aid if you want ...

Given the above, I'm not the one drinking kool-aid.

 

 

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.

More nonsense. Do you know how independent agencies work?

[Phi for All]

I guess I shouldn't be surprised the way many posters here cherry pick the news that agrees with their political bent, but the lack of objectivity on a science forum is disheartening.

 

Rep. Chaffetz also said this...

Which was part of the transcript I linked to. The added comments by Chaffetz should only go to show that the House, the State Department and the White House all had to prioritize. When you do that, you run the risk of being wrong, and second-guessing after the fact by those interested in smearing the judgement of those involved is pointless and cowardly, imo. I certainly don't blame the Republicans for their mistakes in budgeting on embassy security, any more than I blame any single part of what went wrong.

 

 

The cuts were for all embassy's security, it is up to Obama to properly allocate the available funding. Despite previous attacks at the Benghazi consulate, requests for more security, warnings of more attacks, security was reduced, including just weeks before 9\11. Reports of diverting funding to beef up security, in places like Benghazi and Egypt prior to 9\11 would have disrupted the al queada on the run narrative and could have hurt his FP and campaign.

Wow, that's just... weak. I mean, they even had Ansar al-Sharia claiming responsibility two hours after the attack, so why not play up that it wasn't al Qaeda, or that Ansar al-Sharia is a rebranding of al Qaeda as they struggle to retain their power? Why make something up that obviously falls apart fairly quickly as more information comes in?

 

You seriously don't even consider that the Republicans would be much more worried about their austerity measures being linked to security failures that caused four American deaths, and that's why they pulled their patented "blame the other guy first" maneuver? You'd rather try to gain support for more unbelievable scenarios?

[navigator]

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

 

 

 

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?

 

Rigney, I wish I could say it was due to us hillbilly's being the only one's capable of connecting-the-dots, I understood the point you were conveying, unfortunately intellectual dishonesty is commom place around these parts. Obama and brilliance go together like oil and water, however he seems to enjoy dumping heaps of BS on the American people. All one has to due is look at how he criticized others for their lack of transparency during the '08 campaign and then compare it to the transparency of his own administration.

 

P.S. Check your PM's

Edited November 23, 2012 by navigator

[rigney]

I was kind of hoping that you'd actually answer a question put to you. A longshot, I realize, but 'tis the season for hope. It wasn't rhetorical — are you seriously saying that the media writing/saying lots of things about a world event is both an attempt to confuse people, and that it's at the behest of the government?

Refresh me! What question did I refuse to answer? It has never been my intent to evade or subvert a question, but to answer one of which I have little or no knowledge is hard for me. I'm certainly not witty ot sharp enough to parse words with many of you but taking something out of context to make another look bad, isn't my game. Edited November 23, 2012 by rigney

[navigator]

Which was part of the transcript I linked to. The added comments by Chaffetz should only go to show that the House, the State Department and the White House all had to prioritize. When you do that, you run the risk of being wrong, and second-guessing after the fact by those interested in smearing the judgement of those involved is pointless and cowardly, imo. I certainly don't blame the Republicans for their mistakes in budgeting on embassy security, any more than I blame any single part of what went wrong.

 

If the Obama administration had heeded the warnings of more attacks in Benghazi, the fact that 9\11 was approaching and previous attacks, instead of making campaigning a priority, then second guessing might be cowardly. If Obama reduced security in Benghazi, direcetly due to funding, he would have said so, but then that would have hurt his competence in foriegn policy, because most people don't allow their blinders to shape their opinion and would see that, inspite of the cuts, there was enough intel to support beefing up security in Benghazi.

 

Wow, that's just... weak. I mean, they even had Ansar al-Sharia claiming responsibility two hours after the attack, so why not play up that it wasn't al Qaeda, or that Ansar al-Sharia is a rebranding of al Qaeda as they struggle to retain their power? Why make something up that obviously falls apart fairly quickly as more information comes in?

 

He only needed a few weeks to get past the election. His statements of the Benghazi events changed depending on who his audience was.

 

 

 

You seriously don't even consider that the Republicans would be much more worried about their austerity measures being linked to security failures that caused four American deaths, and that's why they pulled their patented "blame the other guy first" maneuver? You'd rather try to gain support for more unbelievable scenarios?

 

If that was the case, Obama would have said so; all he knows is pointing a finger. Leaders take responsibilty, Obama is a good orator, not much else.

Edited November 23, 2012 by navigator

[Phi for All]

Rigney, I wish I could say it was due to us hillbilly's being the only one's capable of connecting-the-dots, I understood the point you were conveying, unfortunately intellectual dishonesty is commom place around these parts. Obama and brilliance go together like oil and water, however he seems to enjoy dumping heaps of BS on the American people. All one has to due is look at how he criticized others for their lack of transparency during the '08 campaign and then compare it to the transparency of his own administration.

 

P.S. Check your PM's

I hope you fully realize the complete and utter stupidity of a stance that, on one hand, touts your ability to "connect-the-dots" before all the facts are known, and on the other hand, questions the intellectual honesty of those you're discussing the matter with. It must be marvelous to have such an ingenious mind that you no longer need facts to support your conclusions. Why are you on a science site?

 

In questioning our intellectual honesty in pointing out the flaws in your premise, you have shown yourself to be a simple partisan hack. You have lost all the credibility I was according you as a participant in this discussion.

 

If the Obama administration had heeded the warnings of more attacks in Benghazi, the fact that 9\11 was approaching and previous attacks, instead of making campaigning a priority, then second guessing might be cowardly. If Obama reduced security in Benghazi, direcetly due to funding, he would have said so, but then that would have hurt his competence in foriegn policy, because most people don't allow their blinders to shape their opinion and would see that, inspite of the cuts, there was enough intel to support beefing up security in Benghazi.

How are those blinders working that make you oblivious to all the other embassies that were threatened that day? Are you assuming that just because this administration isn't blabbing about them that other threats didn't exist?

 

 

He only needed a few weeks to get past the election. His statements of the Benghazi events changed depending on who his audience was.

Ah, so impeachment when all the "lies" come out after the election wasn't worrying at all to the president. Got it.

 

 

 

If that was the case, Obama would have said so; all he knows is pointing a finger. Leaders take responsibilty, Obama is a good orator, not much else.

I feel at such a disadvantage discussing this with you, since you have such an absolute knowledge of what the president would have done, wouldn't have done, all he knows and all he doesn't know. You should at least tie one arm behind your back to make it fair.

[swansont]

Refresh me! What question did I refuse to answer? It has never been my intent to evade or subvert a question, but to answer one of which I have little or no knowledge is hard for me. I'm certainly not witty ot sharp enough to parse words with many of you but taking something out of context to make another look bad, isn't my game.

Oh FFS, I reposted it in the last post, and you still ingnored it!

 

Are you seriously claiming that the "thosands of articles" written by the media are an attempt to confuse, and further, that this is done at the direction of themgovernment?

[navigator]

Who are "they"?

 

The Obama administration.

 

Nonsense. Stop seeing conspiracies everywhere you look.

 

The correct answer is that on September 14, Petraeus was testifying as the head of an agency. People who do that don't (or shouldn't) give personal opinions. He did it right; he gave the best information that the agency had at that point in time. In his recent testimony, he was asked for his personal opinion on the matter. He did not change his testimony. He answered two very different questions, under two very different circumstances, and at very different times.

 

The CIA station chief in Tripoli and the State Department never said it had anything to do with a mob protest.

 

The best information his agency had? Wouldn't that include his own boots on the ground and the State Dept?

 

By the time of this speech, the intelligence had become very clear. Please cite exactly where in that speech Obama said the video caused the attack on Benghazi.

 

Hint: He didn't.

 

 

I have already linked the pertinant points in the speech that highlight the bolstering of the mob protesting an obscure video all the while implying it was an attack on free speech and ignoring it was terrorism. It is pretty simple to comprehend the impact any mention of terrorism could of had on his campaign.

 

I hope you fully realize the complete and utter stupidity of a stance that, on one hand, touts your ability to "connect-the-dots" before all the facts are known, and on the other hand, questions the intellectual honesty of those you're discussing the matter with. It must be marvelous to have such an ingenious mind that you no longer need facts to support your conclusions. Why are you on a science site?

 

Well thats comforting, kinda gives me a feeling of fitting in. I just wonder when some started believing everything the POTUS said, and the way the media reports it?

 

The BS misled the American people.

 

In questioning our intellectual honesty in pointing out the flaws in your premise, you have shown yourself to be a simple partisan hack. You have lost all the credibility I was according you as a participant in this discussion.

 

Because, despite the evidence, you fail to acknowledge that Obama was playing both sides of the fence.

 

How are those blinders working that make you oblivious to all the other embassies that were threatened that day? Are you assuming that just because this administration isn't blabbing about them that other threats didn't exist?

 

I wasn't oblivious or assuming either, the conversation never went that direction. I am curious why security at all embassies, in high risk locations, wasn't heightened?

 

 

Ah, so impeachment when all the "lies" come out after the election wasn't worrying at all to the president. Got it.

 

If he wasn't re-elected then there would be no reason to worry about impeachment.

[Phi for All]

I have already linked the pertinant points in the speech that highlight the bolstering of the mob protesting an obscure video all the while implying it was an attack on free speech and ignoring it was terrorism.

You call our intellectual honesty into question yet you call a video that sparked protests in 20 countries obscure?! Was it an obscure video that led to Pakistan blocking YouTube countrywide? Was it an obscure video that cost at least 49 human lives?

 

It is pretty simple to comprehend the impact any mention of terrorism could of had on his campaign.

Then why did President Obama say, the following day, that he would bring the killers to justice over this "act of terror"? It's pretty simple to comprehend that your assertion is false.

 

As long as any president is on top of things and shows a firm hand and a willingness to go after the perpetrators of an attack, his score would either remain the same or increase overall. Bush got elected to a second term despite misreading better and more detailed intelligence about the original 9/11 attack.

 

Well thats comforting, kinda gives me a feeling of fitting in. I just wonder when some started believing everything the POTUS said, and the way the media reports it?

So you think "let's investigate and get all the facts before we draw any conclusions" means "we believe EVERYTHING Obama and the media says"? Don't you think that's a strawman of what's really being said here?

 

Because, despite the evidence, you fail to acknowledge that Obama was playing both sides of the fence.

Please accuse more clearly. What exactly do you mean by "playing both sides of the fence"? Are you accusing him of being the president AND trying to win re-election?

 

 

I wasn't oblivious or assuming either, the conversation never went that direction. I am curious why security at all embassies, in high risk locations, wasn't heightened?

I don't know that it wasn't. I have a lot of objections to some of Obama's decisions, but I'm actually pretty happy about his treatment of security matters, especially about keeping security matters secure and not compromising intelligence assets.

 

 

If he wasn't re-elected then there would be no reason to worry about impeachment.

You still haven't shown me that a terrorist attack on his watch is automatically something bad he has to cover up. As I said, it's an opportunity to let us see his leadership in action. The hurricane helped him in the election because he takes federal bureaucracy seriously and uses it like a leader should. As far as I can see, he's taking this attack very seriously as well, he just knows he has good people and procedures in place and the investigation will tell him what he needs to know.

[navigator]

You call our intellectual honesty into question yet you call a video that sparked protests in 20 countries obscure?! Was it an obscure video that led to Pakistan blocking YouTube countrywide? Was it an obscure video that cost at least 49 human lives?

 

It was obscure, until it was needed to deflect attention, then Obama used Petreaus and Rice, the UN etc. to parrot the talking point.

 

Then why did President Obama say, the following day, that he would bring the killers to justice over this "act of terror"? It's pretty simple to comprehend that your assertion is false.

 

He also said it was a mob protest.

 

As long as any president is on top of things and shows a firm hand and a willingness to go after the perpetrators of an attack, his score would either remain the same or increase overall. Bush got elected to a second term despite misreading better and more detailed intelligence about the original 9/11 attack.

 

Would you consider taking a month just to get the FBI on the ground in Benghazi 'on top of it'?

 

So you think "let's investigate and get all the facts before we draw any conclusions" means "we believe EVERYTHING Obama and the media says"? Don't you think that's a strawman of what's really being said here?

 

Get all the facts? What else do you need to know?

 

1. The streets were quiet shortly before the attack began.

2. The State Dept. reported within hours it was a planned attack and made no mention of a mob protest.

3. The CIA station cheif in Tripoli reported within hours the same thing.

 

All within 24 hours.

 

Please accuse more clearly. What exactly do you mean by "playing both sides of the fence"? Are you accusing him of being the president AND trying to win re-election?

 

Obama misled people by claiming it was a mob protest, an attack on free speech, while other times correctly calling it an act of terrorism.

Edited November 23, 2012 by navigator

[rigney]

I was kind of hoping that you'd actually answer a question put to you. A longshot, I realize, but 'tis the season for hope. It wasn't rhetorical — are you seriously saying that the media writing/saying lots of things about a world event is both an attempt to confuse people, and that it's at the behest of the government?

Sorry about the delay in answering. But yes! Both! Edited November 23, 2012 by rigney

[D H]

I have already linked the pertinant points in the speech that highlight the bolstering of the mob protesting an obscure video all the while implying it was an attack on free speech and ignoring it was terrorism. It is pretty simple to comprehend the impact any mention of terrorism could of had on his campaign.

No, you didn't. You apparently are completely unaware of the large number of US embassies that were indeed protested, and sometimes attacked, over this video, starting with the embassy at Cairo on September 11.

 

 

If he wasn't re-elected then there would be no reason to worry about impeachment.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that is impeachable here. Nothing.

 

 

It was obscure, until it was needed to deflect attention, then Obama used Petreaus and rice, the UN etc. to parrot the talking point.

This is not only blatantly false, it is also amazingly ignorant of what transpired on 9/11/2012 and the days that followed. Violent protests broke out at the US embassies in Cairo (Egypt), Sana'a (Yemen), Khartoum (Sudan), Tunis (Tunisia), Islamabad (Pakistan), and at many other diplomatic missions. Non-violent protests occurred at even more US diplomatic missions.

 

 

He also said it was a mob protest.

No, he did not. Not once. Early on, in concordance with the best intelligence available at the time, he did say that the attack might have been associated with mob protests. He also said early on, in concordance with the best intelligence available at the time, that it wasn’t just a mob action, that there people involved in the attack were looking to target Americans from the start.

[iNow]

We spend so much time going around and around rebutting clear bullshit like this that nut jobs simply refuse to drop that we never get to focus on the things that matter and could actually improve our world.

 

Why bother with the economy, or jobs, or climate, or infrastructure, or education, or healthcare, or ad infinitum when we could instead spend 3 months arguing with idiots about non-issues and manufactured hysterias?

[Phi for All]

We spend so much time going around and around rebutting clear bullshit like this that nut jobs simply refuse to drop that we never get to focus on the things that matter and could actually improve our world.

 

Why bother with the economy, or jobs, or climate, or infrastructure, or education, or healthcare, or ad infinitum when we could instead spend 3 months arguing with idiots about non-issues and manufactured hysterias?

This is what neo-conservative obfuscation is all about. The whole point is to delay progress that doesn't serve your agenda or might hamper it. Pointing out every seeming weakness means you might get more money for private armies, more munitions deals and more opportunities for rabid fear-mongering.

 

Economy, jobs? The people who profit from waging war have plenty of money. Climate? Fixing that means hampering a lot of revenue streams and paying for regulatory compliance. Education? Ignore it long enough and, like other federal and state bureaucratic programs that maximize use of public funds, you can get Americans to vote to privatize it. Healthcare? If you let people see how much more efficiently it could be run, you lose out on all the extra profits Americans pay for health.

 

So you get people fixated on bullshit. It doesn't matter what it is as long as it stifles progress, keeps us angry at foreign countries, and makes us feel like we're unable to change anything for the better, so falling back on known traditional ways and morality will at least be second best.

[uncool]

 

Doesn't matter after the election, its

Where "it" refers to what?

showing pattern of putting campaigning for re-election above whats best for the country.

Just as you can say that cutting the funding was putting campaigning for re-election in the House above what's best for the country. Now, please answer the actual question that was asked.

Petreuas misttress may have had

"May have had" is nearly always a meaningless phrase.

access to classified info above her clearance,

Citation on anything indicating any chance that she would have such?

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.

Citation on claims changing?

 

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 not due to a mob protesting an obscure video.

Do you mean "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."? As you've written it, the sentence implies that you knew it was due to "a mob protesting an obscure video."

 

Further, "Obscure video", as pointed out, is inaccurate; it was alluded to by the US embassy in Egypt hours before the attacks on the embassy there on September 11. That alone makes it not obscure.

A mob celebrating the 9\11 anniversary would be easier to swallow.

And yet the question isn't about what's "easy to swallow", but what the truth is.

=Uncool-

[rigney]

Oh FFS, I reposted it in the last post, and you still ingnored it!

 

Are you seriously claiming that the "thosands of articles" written by the media are an attempt to confuse, and further, that this is done at the direction of themgovernment?

My honest answer is yes! Most of the crap I read and hear in any press release makes me want to barf. But on the forum, for some reason, probably 90% of the rhetoric is left leaning, no matter how well defined, thought out or written. To disagree with a post leaning in a liberal direction makes the objector or questioner out to be a crazy right wing loony. This Benghazi thing is a perfect example.

 

We spend so much time going around and around rebutting clear bullshit like this that nut jobs simply refuse to drop that we never get to focus on the things that matter and could actually improve our world.

 

Why bother with the economy, or jobs, or climate, or infrastructure, or education, or healthcare, or ad infinitum when we could instead spend 3 months arguing with idiots about non-issues and manufactured hysterias?

Yes, let's get off of the snow job of trying to erase the bad taste of four dead Americans and get back to something that makes even less sense at the moment. Other than the promise of mythical job creations, improved infrastructure, school loans, new schools, furthered education and $16 trillion dollars of debt, of which only one, (debt), has come to fruition after four years, what's next? Please, let's get on with this grand scheme of things. Edited November 24, 2012 by rigney

[John Cuthber]

I think what makes you look like a loony (right or left) is making vague assertions and refusing to clarify what you meant and why.

perhaps you would like to set that straight now. You may remember that I asked this a few times before.

 

Exactly what crap are you saying is being handed out?

Who is doing it?

What evidence is there to back up your accusation (even if you insist that it's not an accusation)?

[rigney]

I think what makes you look like a loony (right or left) is making vague assertions and refusing to clarify what you meant and why.

perhaps you would like to set that straight now. You may remember that I asked this a few times before.

 

Exactly what crap are you saying is being handed out?

Who is doing it?

What evidence is there to back up your accusation (even if you insist that it's not an accusation)?

I see, and you are looking at irrefutabvle conversational evidence such as this, to trip up a conservative long enough to call them a loony?

iNow, on 24 November 2012 - 12:44 AM, said:

We spend so much time going around and around rebutting clear bullshit like this that nut jobs simply refuse to drop that we never get to focus on the things that matter and could actually improve our world.

Why bother with the economy, or jobs, or climate, or infrastructure, or education, or healthcare, or ad infinitum when we could instead spend 3 months arguing with idiots about non-issues and manufactured hysterias?

And then, I suppose this being put out by some right wing conservative looney nuts, make it untrue?

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/10/24/they-knew-they-lied-p-e-r-i-o-d-irrefutable-evidence-that-president-obama-and-hillary-clinton-lied/

Edited November 24, 2012 by rigney

[Phi for All]

To disagree with a post leaning in a liberal direction makes the objector or questioner out to be a crazy right wing loony. This Benghazi thing is a perfect example.

For one thing, you and navigator keep harping on the administration lying about protests over the anti-Islamic video being part of the attack. I definitely think this was a mistake on their part, but only because the administration did what you and navigator are so proud of doing: they connected the dots without knowing all the facts. Other embassies were having violent protests over the video so they connected the dots and released that story. And they ended up being wrong.

 

navigator's stance requires that the video has to be obscure, otherwise it's not a dot he can connect, so he keeps arguing for that, even though others have shown that the video sparked protests in 20 countries that killed 49 people, a whole order of magnitude greater than we lost in Benghazi. If that video is obscure, what does that make the attack on our embassy?

 

You both have put forward evidence that has then been refuted. I look over this monster of a thread and I see the same things being repeated, and repeatedly refuted, and yet you wait a while and then repeat them again. It really has nothing to do with right wing/left wing, it's all about facts vs suppositions.

 

You've been asking all along if there was something that could have been done to prevent the attack on our embassy, and that's always been a good question, but it's plain to see that you simply haven't liked any of the answers given. You seem to prefer unsubstantiated supposition ("they watched the attack happening real time and did NOTHING!") rather than accept the facts as they are revealed (the drone arrived after the main assault was over).

 

I've appreciated the candid and objective input from D H, someone I know is definitely not a partisan liberal, and probably wouldn't consider himself to be even left-leaning. He is just being smart and objective, an intellectual person who knows that connecting the dots is just a justification for jumping to conclusions.

[John Cuthber]

 

And then, I suppose this being put out by some right wing conservative looney nuts, make it untrue?

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/10/24/they-knew-they-lied-p-e-r-i-o-d-irrefutable-evidence-that-president-obama-and-hillary-clinton-lied/

That website claims that Obama and Hillary lied.

Exactly what did they say which they knew to be untrue?

Or is this just another of your vague allegations?

 

 

(It's impossible to tell from the site since the video of them has been removed)

[rigney]

For one thing, you and navigator keep harping on the administration lying about protests over the anti-Islamic video being part of the attack. I definitely think this was a mistake on their part, but only because the administration did what you and navigator are so proud of doing: they connected the dots without knowing all the facts. Other embassies were having violent protests over the video so they connected the dots and released that story. And they ended up being wrong.

 

navigator's stance requires that the video has to be obscure, otherwise it's not a dot he can connect, so he keeps arguing for that, even though others have shown that the video sparked protests in 20 countries that killed 49 people, a whole order of magnitude greater than we lost in Benghazi. If that video is obscure, what does that make the attack on our embassy?

 

You both have put forward evidence that has then been refuted. I look over this monster of a thread and I see the same things being repeated, and repeatedly refuted, and yet you wait a while and then repeat them again. It really has nothing to do with right wing/left wing, it's all about facts vs suppositions.

 

You've been asking all along if there was something that could have been done to prevent the attack on our embassy, and that's always been a good question, but it's plain to see that you simply haven't liked any of the answers given. You seem to prefer unsubstantiated supposition ("they watched the attack happening real time and did NOTHING!") rather than accept the facts as they are revealed (the drone arrived after the main assault was over).

 

I've appreciated the candid and objective input from D H, someone I know is definitely not a partisan liberal, and probably wouldn't consider himself to be even left-leaning. He is just being smart and objective, an intellectual person who knows that connecting the dots is just a justification for jumping to conclusions.

I don't quite relate to the smart and objective part of your comment Phi but I get a lot of heat for my own views and precption on many issues. My prowess is no where near the caliber of intellect I witness on the forum. But to refer to someone as dense, stupid, lame or loony for their interpretation of a matter, only limits my respect for them to that of being an educated idiot. At the same time it intensifies my resolve to treat them as such. Many if not most of my statements are unrehersed when made and come primarily from what I have either read or heard pertaining to a subject. Only when I get pissed at crap someone puts out as gospal, expecting me to believe, do I resort to unflattering remarks. As for the navigator? Other than this post I've not had the pleasure But he is very articulate and quite knowledgeable of the unrelenting depths of how rhetoric works. I'm very glad he's around to help keep the wolves away.

 

That website claims that Obama and Hillary lied.

Exactly what did they say which they knew to be untrue?

Or is this just another of your vague allegations?

 

(It's impossible to tell from the site since the video of them has been removed)

Vague allegation!? You saw exactly what I did. And by the way John, everything you write is something of an accusation. Can I validate their supposed finding? No way! But yes, I wonder why the following video was removed. I also wonder at your bitterness, being such an upright and dignified English gentleman as you are? But then, chances are, you don't even have a dog in this fight. Edited November 24, 2012 by rigney

[John Cuthber]

I have, so to speak, a dog in this fight because I'm a member of this discussion forum.

 

Wouldn't you find it easier to just answer the questions, rather than ranting bout me being English?

 

Exactly what did they say which they knew to be untrue?

 

Exactly what crap are you saying is being handed out?

Who is doing it?

What evidence is there to back up your accusation (even if you insist that it's not an accusation)?