NYTimes: Al-Qaeda not behind Bengahzi attacks (video in part to blame)

[UberNeuman]

Decent people can't condone this kind of behavior.

ya, I searched the data banks of Anandtech and found you lacking in concern over attacks on Americans overseas in the past 10+ years...

\what is it like to be a jackal chewing on the bones?

 

[boomerang]

Well, that's nice.... Get something more than speculation to make your point.... or continue rambling on like the mad nutter with a sandwich board proclaiming "The End is Nigh!"

Anything interesting going on in your country we could talk about?

 

[Jhhnn]

You really need to take a course in remedial reading comprehension, dude. I'm not at all sure that there is a conspiracy or any egregious acts (as opposed to simple screw-ups) over which to conspire. I'm saying that for Republicans to come out ahead:
1. Something damaging to Obama and/or Hillary (assuming she runs in 2016) had to have happened which is known to some people.
2. If #1 is true, the Republicans have to find out about it.
3. If #1 & #2 are satisfied, the Republicans need some way to convince the public. Given that the public has no more reason to trust the Pubbies than the Dems and Obama, that requires eyewitnesses or persons otherwise having knowledge and provenance.
4. As these people are under Obama's chain of command, he would do everything reasonable to ensure they do not come forward.
5. If someone does come forward, the public would have no way of knowing whether he is telling the truth. Even people who are not politicians sometimes lie for political (or other) reasons. Therefore at least two or three would be needed unless it was someone of unimpeachable integrity as perceived by the public.
6. If #5 happened, the Obama attack machine would go into action to discredit the accusations.

To sum it all up, for the Republicans to come out ahead:
Obama and/or Hillary had to do something illegal, immoral or otherwise unethical; Republicans have to learn what it is; Republicans have to have witnesses with sufficient gravitas and provenance to be believed; and Republicans have to overcome the Democrat effort to discredit the claims.

Nothing about this assumes that there is anything to cover up. (In fact, perception being reality in politics that is arguably the least important element and the only one which could conceivably fail, yet leave the Pubbies coming out ahead on Benghazi by selling the notion that there is something to cover up when there is not.) All I'm saying is that IF there is something damaging to Team Obama, the Republicans would still face an uphill battle coming out on top and are unlikely to succeed. Since I see nothing particularly damaging to Obama or even Hillary, and I can see the uphill battle the Pubbies would face if there is something damaging, I see no way the Republicans come out ahead on Benghazi.

One could even make the argument that the Republicans stand a better chance of damaging Obama if there is no basis, for if there is information that is personally damaging Obama would surely expend a lot more energy keeping the eyewitnesses away from Republicans than if this is a knee-jerk reaction that nothing they say can help him and it might possibly hurt him whether or not he did anything wrong, so it's best these people are not accessible to Republican Congressional investigators.

Which is just another way of saying "Conspiracy!" & to represent nothing as something to keep that notion alive. Which is what I offered in the first place. You just said the same thing twice, once with an obfuscatory wall o' text.

It's like a little kid trying to explain how there really could be an Easter Bunny. It always was. Other than among delusional individuals in the Repub base, anybody who brings up the subject of Benghazi as you do gets tagged as an idiot by the voters. There's no "there" there.

Benghazi is an issue of rabid partisan delusion, and anybody with a lick of sense knew that long ago. So, uhh, wear that tag with pride, OK?

 

[First]

It's not far from over, it is over.

No doubt compuwiz will bitch out of manning up when the reality that Benghazi will make zero difference in Nov. 2014 comes to full fruition.

 

[werepossum]

Which is just another way of saying "Conspiracy!" & to represent nothing as something to keep that notion alive. Which is what I offered in the first place. You just said the same thing twice, once with an obfuscatory wall o' text.

It's like a little kid trying to explain how there really could be an Easter Bunny. It always was. Other than among delusional individuals in the Repub base, anybody who brings up the subject of Benghazi as you do gets tagged as an idiot by the voters. There's no "there" there.

Benghazi is an issue of rabid partisan delusion, and anybody with a lick of sense knew that long ago. So, uhh, wear that tag with pride, OK?

LOL

If it's any consolation, I can easily believe you really are honestly that stupid. I mean, in addition to being willfully stupid.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Other than among delusional individuals in the Repub base, anybody who brings up the subject of Benghazi as you do gets tagged as an idiot by the voters. There's no "there" there.

The polling I see says otherwise.

Far too many people think it's a serious issue for it to only be the Repub base (I can't imagine the Repub is anywhere near that large). But clearly by about 60/40 voters think immigration reform etc is now more important to focus on, but that doesn't mean it isn't a serious issue.

Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

The polling I see says otherwise.

Far too many people think it's a serious issue for it to only be the Repub base (I can't imagine the Repub is anywhere near that large). But clearly by about 60/40 voters think immigration reform etc is now more important to focus on, but that doesn't mean it isn't a serious issue.

Fern

What polling?

 

[Jhhnn]

LOL

If it's any consolation, I can easily believe you really are honestly that stupid. I mean, in addition to being willfully stupid.

Which what you always say when your propagandizing ways are pointed out.

 

[theeedude]

I don't know why Republicans are such Clinton haters. Clinton is basically Republican Lite, not too far from Mitt Romney politically.
I was staunchly pro-Clinton and anti-Obama in 2008, because I thought he would be the great compromiser, and Clinton would fight the Republicans at every turn. But I should not have worried. Obama reformed health care, something Clinton would not have attempted given her Hillary-care fiasco. And same Republicans and libertarians who were happy when Obama defeated Hillary are Obama haters now.
Having seen that, I am going to wait and see, unless I am convinced Hillary has become more liberal, I may have to go with Brian Schweitzer, given his support for universal single payer and his populism that I find very appealing. This country could use a truly populist president now. The average folks are getting squeezed, and I am not sure Hillary will fight for them and not try to split the middle with the corporatists.

 

[Incorruptible]

I don't know why Republicans are such Clinton haters. Clinton is basically Republican Lite, not too far from Mitt Romney politically.
I was staunchly pro-Clinton and anti-Obama in 2008, because I thought he would be the great compromiser, and Clinton would fight the Republicans at every turn. But I should not have worried. Obama reformed health care, something Clinton would not have attempted given her Hillary-care fiasco. And same Republicans and libertarians who were happy when Obama defeated Hillary are Obama haters now.
Having seen that, I am going to wait and see, unless I am convinced Hillary has become more liberal, I may have to go with Brian Schweitzer, given his support for universal single payer and his populism that I find very appealing. This country could use a truly populist president now. The average folks are getting squeezed, and I am not sure Hillary will fight for them and not try to split the middle with the corporatists.

Do people ever learn? Socialism doesn't work and the real answer is a free market healthcare system.

 

[compuwiz1]

I don't know why Republicans are such Clinton haters. Clinton is basically Republican Lite, not too far from Mitt Romney politically.
I was staunchly pro-Clinton and anti-Obama in 2008, because I thought he would be the great compromiser, and Clinton would fight the Republicans at every turn. But I should not have worried. Obama reformed health care, something Clinton would not have attempted given her Hillary-care fiasco. And same Republicans and libertarians who were happy when Obama defeated Hillary are Obama haters now.
Having seen that, I am going to wait and see, unless I am convinced Hillary has become more liberal, I may have to go with Brian Schweitzer, given his support for universal single payer and his populism that I find very appealing. This country could use a truly populist president now. The average folks are getting squeezed, and I am not sure Hillary will fight for them and not try to split the middle with the corporatists.

The ideology you subscribe to will never have it's way in this country, although it's growing close with this administration. Soon, however, there will be a huge correction, God willing. People like you need to have an opportunity to taste your own blood. You are an anti-American, socialist POS. Socialism has always failed, but you're too damn dumb to understand that. We'd be better served if you'd go spend your time pissing on electric cattle fences. What a fucking drip!

 

[IEC]

I don't know why Republicans are such Clinton haters. Clinton is basically Republican Lite, not too far from Mitt Romney politically.
I was staunchly pro-Clinton and anti-Obama in 2008, because I thought he would be the great compromiser, and Clinton would fight the Republicans at every turn. But I should not have worried. Obama reformed health care, something Clinton would not have attempted given her Hillary-care fiasco. And same Republicans and libertarians who were happy when Obama defeated Hillary are Obama haters now.
Having seen that, I am going to wait and see, unless I am convinced Hillary has become more liberal, I may have to go with Brian Schweitzer, given his support for universal single payer and his populism that I find very appealing. This country could use a truly populist president now. The average folks are getting squeezed, and I am not sure Hillary will fight for them and not try to split the middle with the corporatists.

Guess who is going to profit the most from Obamacare? Big insurance/big HMOs. You've been had hook, line, and sinker.

 

[theeedude]

Guess who is going to profit the most from Obamacare? Big insurance/big HMOs. You've been had hook, line, and sinker.

Obamacare got the ball rolling. Now that it's rolling, we are going to steer it to universal single payer. You rightwingers can decide where to steer it yourself, and we'll see where we end up.

 

[theeedude]

The ideology you subscribe to will never have it's way in this country, although it's growing close with this administration. Soon, however, there will be a huge correction, God willing. People like you need to have an opportunity to taste your own blood. You are an anti-American, socialist POS. Socialism has always failed, but you're too damn dumb to understand that. We'd be better served if you'd go spend your time pissing on electric cattle fences. What a fucking drip!

That's what I like about Schweitzer. He can run as a populist in frikken Montana and win. We need that guy.

 

[compuwiz1]

Obamacare got the ball rolling. Now that it's rolling, we are going to steer it to universal single payer. You rightwingers can decide where to steer it yourself, and we'll see where we end up.

No, you left wingers are fucked and the patriots are going to kick you out on your asses. You should move to the middle east. Oh, yeah, they don't like swine there.

 

[werepossum]

Which what you always say when your propagandizing ways are pointed out.

Depends on who does it. Some people make good points, which I'll cheerfully acknowledge. Others have slavish kneejerk reactions based purely on partisan politics. Having never (or at least very, very seldom) fallen into the first category, you have a distorted view of my ways.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

ooops...wrong thread

 

[werepossum]

The polling I see says otherwise.

Far too many people think it's a serious issue for it to only be the Repub base (I can't imagine the Repub is anywhere near that large). But clearly by about 60/40 voters think immigration reform etc is now more important to focus on, but that doesn't mean it isn't a serious issue.

Fern

I'll agree it's a serious issue in that Americans died, I just don't see how it plays out as an important factor in the election. Personally I doubt we'll ever find a big screw-up by one or a few people. There's a saying in aviation that a crash is seldom caused by one factor, but is usually a complication of two or more things going wrong. I think we may find that this is similar, a few people making decisions that in hindsight seem stupid but that at the time seemed reasonable given what they knew, or thought they knew, or assumed. Even if I'm wrong, I don't see Republicans getting to the truth and getting it out in time and in such a manner to convince enough people to matter. I'm a registered Republican and it would take quite a lot to convince me that Obama is directly responsible for some or all of these people being killed, and only a bit less for Hillary. I just see no reason to trust the Pubbies any more than the Dems, they're two faces of the same coin.

 

[TerryMathews]

I'll agree it's a serious issue in that Americans died, I just don't see how it plays out as an important factor in the election. Personally I doubt we'll ever find a big screw-up by one or a few people. There's a saying in aviation that a crash is seldom caused by one factor, but is usually a complication of two or more things going wrong. I think we may find that this is similar, a few people making decisions that in hindsight seem stupid but that at the time seemed reasonable given what they knew, or thought they knew, or assumed. Even if I'm wrong, I don't see Republicans getting to the truth and getting it out in time and in such a manner to convince enough people to matter. I'm a registered Republican and it would take quite a lot to convince me that Obama is directly responsible for some or all of these people being killed, and only a bit less for Hillary. I just see no reason to trust the Pubbies any more than the Dems, they're two faces of the same coin.

My position is, I dont fault them for making the wrong decision or one with an incomplete assessment of the situation on the ground. People are human, we all make mistakes, and those men knew the risks when they took that assignment.

I do fault the administration for how they handled the events of that day in the media. There are a dozen better ways they could have handled the situation then trying to explain it away as a spontaneous demonstration over a YouTube video. The truthful, straight-up way to deal with it would've been to say "The situation is fluid and there are a number of players and factors involved. It would be inappropriate of me to ascribe these events to one group with so much contradictory information coming out of the region. Whoever perpetrated this act will be dealt with, and I hope to share those details with you soon."

 

[werepossum]

My position is, I dont fault them for making the wrong decision or one with an incomplete assessment of the situation on the ground. People are human, we all make mistakes, and those men knew the risks when they took that assignment.

I do fault the administration for how they handled the events of that day in the media. There are a dozen better ways they could have handled the situation then trying to explain it away as a spontaneous demonstration over a YouTube video. The truthful, straight-up way to deal with it would've been to say "The situation is fluid and there are a number of players and factors involved. It would be inappropriate of me to ascribe these events to one group with so much contradictory information coming out of the region. Whoever perpetrated this act will be dealt with, and I hope to share those details with you soon."

I agree completely. That is exactly what they should have done. But to paraphrase Chris Rock, I don't say they SHOULD have lied, I'm just saying I understand why they lied. Team Romney (and he was my guy) was pushing the narrative that this was a failing of Obama when at the time (and indeed now) that was unsupportable. Holding yourself to a higher ethical standard than your opponent's is a luxury in politics and if my guy is spinning the truth, in all fairness my guy's opponent must be granted the same latitude.

 

[Fern]

What polling?

There are a number of polls out. I just googled it yesterday.

Here are some examples:

This tidbit in the poll indicates more than Repub base believes it a serious issue.

Respondents in the PPP poll were also evenly split (44 percent each way) over whether Benghazi or Iran-Contra was the bigger political scandal.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/05/13/183721498/poll-americans-split-over-benghazi-issue

Here's another poll that mentions it's serious, but most voters believe other issues are now more important.

Voters think Congress should be more focused on other major issues right now rather than Benghazi. By a 56/38 margin they say passing a comprehensive immigration reform bill is more important than continuing to focus on Benghazi, and by a 52/43 spread they think passing a bill requiring background checks for all gun sales should be a higher priority.

Fox appear to have done a poll that is on point. I.e., is Benghazi a serious issue? But because you guys generally won't accept anything connected to that name I didn't bother mentioning it yesterday. Nevertheless, here it is:

A Fox News national poll released Thursday finds that 78 percent of voters think the questions over the administration’s handling of the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi should be taken seriously. Just 17 percent call it a phony scandal.

Edit: Here's the Fox poll: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/int...rned-about-scandals-obamacare-implementation/

So, it appears that many find it a serious issue, an important issue but just not the most important (and I can't personally disagree with that). Thus your characterization that "anybody who brings up the subject of Benghazi as you do gets tagged as an idiot by the voters" is incorrect.

Fern

 

[compuwiz1]

You know, I can buy that people made mistakes in judgment or didn't completely understand the gravity of what was actually happening in Benghazi. I have a problem that it is now clear that we were lied to by Susan Rice, Obama and Hillary. I suppose it's also just a coincidence that Obama was running for his second term. The motives for coverup were definitely there. This issue is not dead.
Trey Gowdy is pretty fired up here, and with good reason. Watch the video.
http://www.examiner.com/article/gop...ror-attack-i-want-to-know-why-we-were-lied-to

 

[TerryMathews]

I agree completely. That is exactly what they should have done. But to paraphrase Chris Rock, I don't say they SHOULD have lied, I'm just saying I understand why they lied. Team Romney (and he was my guy) was pushing the narrative that this was a failing of Obama when at the time (and indeed now) that was unsupportable. Holding yourself to a higher ethical standard than your opponent's is a luxury in politics and if my guy is spinning the truth, in all fairness my guy's opponent must be granted the same latitude.

Then I think you and I agree: President Obama is not a moral person.

I get that his back was against the wall, but that's when you can see someone's true character.

 

[theeedude]

You know, I can buy that people made mistakes in judgment or didn't completely understand the gravity of what was actually happening in Benghazi. I have a problem that it is now clear that we were lied to by Susan Rice, Obama and Hillary. I suppose it's also just a coincidence that Obama was running for his second term. The motives for coverup were definitely there. This issue is not dead.
Trey Gowdy is pretty fired up here, and with good reason. Watch the video.
http://www.examiner.com/article/gop...ror-attack-i-want-to-know-why-we-were-lied-to

Trey Gowdy looks like a deranged Beverly Hillbilly in a suit.