Republicans, please explain the Behghazi outrage to me

[Fern]

Here is what we know:
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-73340980/

Now show me where your facts are that this admin lied?
I'll remind you that the CIA approved the revisions made to the CIA talking points which also approved some changes that were due to classified info.


Where is the lie fern? Show me facts not speculation!

That article is certainly carrying the Dem politicians' version .

Here is another: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57551116/dems-gop-spar-over-petraeus-testimony-on-benghazi/

Amazing how two people (actually more than that) can be in the same meeting and come away with such different versions.

The lie is beyond obvious: Everyone knew it was a terrorist attack from the get-go, yet we were fed BS by the Admin.

And hang on, this centipede is going to have more shoes drop.

Fern

 

[ivwshane]

Amusingly, the Democrats who are claiming Patreus's testimony has been "perfectly consistent" were previously arguing that it was a spontaneous uprising. Hard to see how "perfectly consistent" testimony has such radically different interpretations.

Nonetheless, it's pretty clear at this point that the CIA produced talking points indicating a terrorist attack, and that Justice, State, and/or Panetta morphed that into something more politically palatable. We'll never know who made that change. Still, at least it's just a screw-up and a cover-up - sad that four Americans died over it, but at least it isn't intentional evil like Fast and Furious.

What part of "the CIA signed off on the revised talking points" don't you understand?

You are still continuing with the bullshit conspiracy plot with zero facts!
Keep fucking that chicken!

 

[ivwshane]

That article is certainly carrying the Dem politicians' version .

Here is another: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57551116/dems-gop-spar-over-petraeus-testimony-on-benghazi/

Amazing how two people (actually more than that) can be in the same meeting and come away with such different versions.

The lie is beyond obvious: Everyone knew it was a terrorist attack from the get-go, yet we were fed BS by the Admin.

And hang on, this centipede is going to have more shoes drop.

Fern

Do you read the stuff you link to or do you just like being disingenuous? Right in your article it says it was a terrorist attack BUT the talking points were changed and approved by the CIA to state something different.

Where are the fucking lies fern!?


Also from your link:

CBS News obtained the CIA talking points given both to Rice and members of the House intelligence committee on Sept. 15, and they make no specific reference to "terrorism" being a likely factor in the assault. However, they did indicate that "extremists participated in the violent demonstrations."

 

[Fern]

What part of "the CIA signed off on the revised talking points" don't you understand?

You are still continuing with the bullshit conspiracy plot with zero facts!
Keep fucking that chicken!

Square these two facts:

1. Everyone is now on record as saying their initial assessment was that it was a terrorist attack.

2. For what, about 2 weeks the WH railed on about a demonstration gone out of hand.
-----------

From most reports I've heard/read, it's not clear that the CIA signed off on the revised memo nor who did the revision. In any case, all that sort of thing speaks to is who was responsible for the lie.

Fern

 

[Arkaign]

That article is certainly carrying the Dem politicians' version .

Here is another: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57551116/dems-gop-spar-over-petraeus-testimony-on-benghazi/

Amazing how two people (actually more than that) can be in the same meeting and come away with such different versions.

The lie is beyond obvious: Everyone knew it was a terrorist attack from the get-go, yet we were fed BS by the Admin.

And hang on, this centipede is going to have more shoes drop.

Fern

The PR aspect has almost no interest to me. I can't think of a President, not even Reagan or Ike or Kennedy, that was really honest 100% of the time with the American public.

Otoh, the actions that day have great interest to me. I'd like to know how the command structure as a whole reacted as it developed, who made X observation, who made X recommendation, and who made X command decision at each step.

Which is truly more important, the actions and inactions, mistakes and cold choices made that left the embassy with inadequate protection to begin with, and the development of the raid/firefight itself, or of a bunch of talking bobblehead politicians on the left and right bickering about nomenclature? Certainly the issue of inadequate protection bodes poorly for everyone, additional funding was something the Republicans either wanted to cut, or did in fact cut, and to their discredit, the Democrats apparently didn't find a fix for that situation either. On to the issue of the command decisions, we really don't know the story much at all as to who decided what, and on whose recommendation. If senior military commanders advised against escalation for reason X, Y, or Z, and that advice was followed, it wouldn't fall much on the admin as to why help wasn't sent. If the opposite is true, then it would be a tragic and stupid mistake instead that the admin didn't follow senion military command advice. These decisions aren't made in a vacuum any way you cut it. Read Black Hawk Down or anything about the Cuban Missile Crisis. There are tons of people consulted, arguments, advocation, etc. It's not as simple as one man with a button acting like a dictator. That's only in bad movies.

 

[ivwshane]

The PR aspect has almost no interest to me. I can't think of a President, not even Reagan or Ike or Kennedy, that was really honest 100% of the time with the American public.

Otoh, the actions that day have great interest to me. I'd like to know how the command structure as a whole reacted as it developed, who made X observation, who made X recommendation, and who made X command decision at each step.

Which is truly more important, the actions and inactions, mistakes and cold choices made that left the embassy with inadequate protection to begin with, and the development of the raid/firefight itself, or of a bunch of talking bobblehead politicians on the left and right bickering about nomenclature? Certainly the issue of inadequate protection bodes poorly for everyone, additional funding was something the Republicans either wanted to cut, or did in fact cut, and to their discredit, the Democrats apparently didn't find a fix for that situation either. On to the issue of the command decisions, we really don't know the story much at all as to who decided what, and on whose recommendation. If senior military commanders advised against escalation for reason X, Y, or Z, and that advice was followed, it wouldn't fall much on the admin as to why help wasn't sent. If the opposite is true, then it would be a tragic and stupid mistake instead that the admin didn't follow senion military command advice. These decisions aren't made in a vacuum any way you cut it. Read Black Hawk Down or anything about the Cuban Missile Crisis. There are tons of people consulted, arguments, advocation, etc. It's not as simple as one man with a button acting like a dictator. That's only in bad movies.

I agree. Do you see people like fern asking these questions? Nope, it's all about the PR aspect of it and looking for something that isn't there.

 

[ivwshane]

Square these two facts:

1. Everyone is now on record as saying their initial assessment was that it was a terrorist attack.

2. For what, about 2 weeks the WH railed on about a demonstration gone out of hand.
-----------

From most reports I've heard/read, it's not clear that the CIA signed off on the revised memo nor who did the revision. In any case, all that sort of thing speaks to is who was responsible for the lie.

Fern

Did Rice repeat the talking points she was given? Yes. Then she didn't lie. Period.


From your link the whitehouse made one change and stated what it was. Where are the lies fern?

 

[Arkaign]

Square these two facts:

1. Everyone is now on record as saying their initial assessment was that it was a terrorist attack.

2. For what, about 2 weeks the WH railed on about a demonstration gone out of hand.
-----------

From most reports I've heard/read, it's not clear that the CIA signed off on the revised memo nor who did the revision. In any case, all that sort of thing speaks to is who was responsible for the lie.

Fern

It's not beyond the realm of possibility that a local armed militia (tons of those already in Libya of course), opportunistically used the very real wide anger over the video (seen any videos of Cairo?) to engage a US target. Is it probable? Not in my opinion, but again this is more of an argument about wordplay, it has little interest. It is much more important to me to know the logistical reasons for the military gameplan (or lack of one) the night of the raid. If it WAS a political decision in realtime, and the administration somehow overruled all military advice and command structure, that's a serious issue that should be dealt with. If it's the opposite, well, this is all a bunch of stupid noise in the end.

Given that the Obama administration has a track record of putting in spec forces, drone strikes, etc, on a very aggressive overall usage, it seems somewhat unlikely to me that it would be the case that they'd skip a target of opportunity like that without striking. "We got hit by terrorists, we sent in reinforcements and secured the area, we lost X number of brave soldiers" would have obviously played better in the media than "4 people died in a long lonely pair of raids". Either way, I am really open to any number of possible truths in this situation.

 

[monovillage]

Did Rice repeat the talking points she was given? Yes. Then she didn't lie. Period.


From your link the whitehouse made one change and stated what it was. Where us the lie fern?

How do you know she used the talking points someone in Obama's administration gave her? She didn't use the ones given to the administration by the CIA. Someone lied, either Rice or someone else in Obama's administration.
Who's administration is it? Obama's.
Who is to blame? Obama.
You know, "the buck stops here" or "if you can't stand the heat...."

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Otoh, the actions that day have great interest to me. I'd like to know how the command structure as a whole reacted as it developed, who made X observation, who made X recommendation, and who made X command decision at each step.

Yes, me too.

And so far, the inconsistencies are disturbing. Obama has been repeating that he gave orders to do what it takes to keep those people safe. Yet apparently those orders weren't carried out.

I don't know if this inquiry will be able to get to bottom on what happened on all that. If I understand correctly, this committee only has jurisdiction over Intelligence matters and personnel. I.e., not the State Dept or military or WH. That's why McCain and others want a Select Committee. Under that type of hearing, if I understand correctly, you can bring together members of various committee constituting jurisdiction over all parties and get a complete picture of what happened.

Which is truly more important, the actions and inactions, mistakes and cold choices made that left the embassy with inadequate protection to begin with, and the development of the raid/firefight itself, or of a bunch of talking bobblehead politicians on the left and right bickering about nomenclature?

Clearly the former, but since the hearings are closed we/re left with the latter.

Certainly the issue of inadequate protection bodes poorly for everyone, additional funding was something the Republicans either wanted to cut, or did in fact cut, and to their discredit, the Democrats apparently didn't find a fix for that situation either.

Funding, or lack thereof, was dismissed as irrelevant by State Dept officials in their earlier testimony to the House. Somebody wanted Benghazi to appear "normalized", meaning not a bunch of security etc.

On to the issue of the command decisions, we really don't know the story much at all as to who decided what, and on whose recommendation. If senior military commanders advised against escalation for reason X, Y, or Z, and that advice was followed, it wouldn't fall much on the admin as to why help wasn't sent.

I agree, it would not fall on the admin. However, IMO, whoever was responsible for deciding not to send help is going to catch holy hell. They are going to be fiercely criticized by the military community and others. Too many people know what military assets we have, what capabilities we have, and where they are. You don't need an uber top secret SEAL team 6 type thing to go defend an embassy/consulate or provide some air support for our people lazering targets.

If the opposite is true, then it would be a tragic and stupid mistake instead that the admin didn't follow senion military command advice. These decisions aren't made in a vacuum any way you cut it. Read Black Hawk Down or anything about the Cuban Missile Crisis. There are tons of people consulted, arguments, advocation, etc. It's not as simple as one man with a button acting like a dictator. That's only in bad movies.

Any decision like that needs to be explained.

Fern

 

[ivwshane]

How do you know she used the talking points someone in Obama's administration gave her? She didn't use the ones given to the administration by the CIA. Someone lied, either Rice or someone else in Obama's administration.
Who's administration is it? Obama's.
Who is to blame? Obama.
You know, "the buck stops here" or "if you can't stand the heat...."

Holy fuck! Just stop, you obviously haven't been paying attention to anything anyone has said.

Both king and schiff said when petreus was asked wether or not the talking points rice used at the time were the same as the information GIVEN to her (or the white house or congress) and he said "yes".

The CIA was obviously hiding something classified and it made it difficult to put out accurate talking points but that doesn't mean Rice lied or Obamas admin lied.

 

[monovillage]

Bullshit, Obama knew it was terrorism before sending out Ambassador Rice to claim it was a spontaneous protest against the movie and she repeated it on 5 different Sunday shows. WTF do you need ? A signed affidavit? in blood? with a video to go with it?

 

[DominionSeraph]

The lie is beyond obvious: Everyone knew it was a terrorist attack from the get-go, yet we were fed BS by the Admin.

Everyone knows you shouldn't let conservative talk feed you your conclusions.

And so far, the inconsistencies are disturbing. Obama has been repeating that he gave orders to do what it takes to keep those people safe. Yet apparently those orders weren't carried out.

Did he order, "To any level of incompetence"?

You conservatards all seem to think that the military will rush to dump squads into a hostile situation of unknown size and scope with unknown rules of engagement, an ill-defined objective, no way to extract, and with very dubious reinforcement possibilities.

"Hey guys, uhhh... we haven't yet been told who you're looking for, where they are, or what their status is, but we're going to drop you into the middle of an Arab city anyway. Now, don't shoot anybody who's not a bad guy and don't make people into bad guys, and don't get yourself into trouble or make us look bad by getting captured and tortured and such, so if you're captured make sure it's by like good-guy police forces who'll be all understanding and helpful after you, you know, explain to them that you're on a good guy mission; if they are good guys and haven't turned into bad guys of course, which we don't know. So, yeah... find these guys and then, like, protect them or get them out or something. I guess we'll be seeing you after you've succeeded! Good luck!"

 

[ussfletcher]

Everyone knows you shouldn't let conservative talk feed you your conclusions.

That isn't conservative talk. The director of the CIA just said that they knew from the beginning that it was linked to Al-Qaeda. If you think for one second that, that information did not make it to the presidents ears within hours, then you are completely insane.

 

[nextJin]

I simply cannot believe you people are talking about this shit as opposed to why the hell we were in Libya in the first place. All 4 men would be alive today, and not a damn thing would be any different for Americans way of life.

 

[ivwshane]

That isn't conservative talk. The director of the CIA just said that they knew from the beginning that it was linked to Al-Qaeda. If you think for one second that, that information did not make it to the presidents ears within hours, then you are completely insane.

He also said that information was withheld. I don't know what stuff makes it to the president or not but I do know that the CIA creates talking points for government officials to use. So if the president knew it was a terrorist attack there was a reason according to the CIA that that information should not have been put out.

Again, no lies by Rice or by the Obama admin they all repeated what information they has been given.

 

[Balt]

I'm not going to read through every post in this thread, but I do want to point out that I think that Republican assumptions are based on a false premise. That false premise is that somehow a planned terrorist attack overseas would somehow have been a huge electoral blow to the president whereas a spontaneous terrorist attack overseas would not have been. For that reason, he decided to engage in willful deception.

Frankly, I just don't see the logic in that assumption. What is the typical response to an attack on a country's citizens, regardless of whether it was planned or not? The "rally round the flag effect". That helps an incumbent's support, it does not hurt it. People *ahem* in the past have often exploited this effect by pouring fuel on the fire and getting everyone to scream for blood. This unites people in a mob.

President Obama did not do that, though, despite the fact that it would have probably been politically advantageous for him to do so.

 

[Jhhnn]

When all this is said & done, what will come out of it for rational people is that Repubs are functioning, once again, on the level of motivated reasoning, a form of denial-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning

It's like Mitt leading in the election- they believe what they want to believe to protect their most cherished beliefs. When confronted with the truth, they find other forms of denial. They're incapable of self examination, of introspection, which renders them irrational & exploitable.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

How much was lied about to protect the administration and ensure the chance of a second term.

Everytime a new piece of info was revealed by sources to the public; the administration spun a different story.

On the surface the admin reaction seems to be designed to put off any disclosure until after the election and minimize/deflect what was exposed as twisted and irrelevant.

The whole problem with this theory is it works on the assumption that somehow a spontaneous demonstration/attack is less worse that a terrorist one from a political point of view.

Add in order to support that theory you have to manufacture a lot of speculation.

But no one has given any evidence of this message being less damaging politically, it was simply assumed because thats how the paranoid Republican media portrays these things.

 

[bozack]

So because she simply regurgitated her talking points and towed the company line without using her own facilites to think it out everyone here is willing to give her a pass?

Sorry but last I checked she is being billed as a professional in this space and being considered for ascention...if the suggestion by the majority here is that this position is simply that of a mouthpiece for the administration or the CIA and no critical thought or expertise required then maybe I could buy it...

But the reality on Rice is that she should have known better....

People deserved the truth that day, not lip service from the CIA or the Administration glossing it over and playing it off on some bullshit video story.

She had the choice that day and in the following weeks to either be a true professional and state what she personally felt happened, or a good corporate stooge and be a parrot for the line of shit the CIA was selling, and we still aren't sure why they were selling that line of shit in the first place

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I'm not a Republican, but I think I can explain the Benghazi outrage.

The Republican Party is intellectually bankrupt and has nothing to offer this nation other than to help the top 5% of the people become richer at the expense of the other 95% and to offer up a health care plan along the lines of, "Don't get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly."

It's much easier to focus on a relatively minor incident and to give it far, far more attention than it deserves than it is to address daunting problems that have much more immediacy on the American people such as health care, jobs, and the economy.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

If you want to go after Bush and WMD's, get in your time machine, go back to 2003 and start your own thread.

It's pathetic that the Republicans don't want to take ownership for the Bush Administration. Worse than that, they want to pretend the Bush Administration never existed.

 

[Nemesis 1]

What part of "the CIA signed off on the revised talking points" don't you understand?

You are still continuing with the bullshit conspiracy plot with zero facts!
Keep fucking that chicken!

Actually we have the other topic here . When this all started . It tells a differant story than what your saying ,, Don't let the facts get in the way of your agenda.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Yeah I've been wondering since this started what the end game here is?

I mean is it that the administration
May have tried to pawn it off on the video while knowing it was a terror attack?

Is that it?

NO they were gun running , Suppling weapons to enemies of america . These facts will come up later . The ambassador had to die. Or Obama would be tried for treason . As it is now . He should be charged with murder and treason

 

[Nemesis 1]

You guys make me sick. Keep trying to manufacture a scandal, it speaks volumes for your character.

You sir are the enemy of the state . Obummer was gun running just like he was in mexico.