• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

This guy is an ass... document dump by Congressman I.D.s Libyans working with U.S.

Status
Not open for further replies.

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,492
435
126
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/10/19/issa_s_benghazi_document_dump_exposes_several_libyans_working_with_the_us



UPDATE: A senior State Department official wrote in to The Cable to contest Hill's assertion the State Department had an opportunity to work with the committee to identity sensitive information in the documents before they were released by Issa.
"Many of the documents the committee posted weren't provided by State. So there wasn't any discussion about their sensitivity prior to the committee revealing them for all to see," the official said. "Had State been given that opportunity, we'd have taken it and pointed out what documents needed to be handled with extreme care so as not to endanger anyone."
Good going Representative Issa

It's one thing when an organization opposed to state secrets and whose very existence is geared toward revealing those secrets reveals documents.



At least Wikileaks offered to go over the documents with the state department before releasing them.
The Cable pointed out that even WikiLeaks had approached the State Department and offered to negotiate retractions of sensitive information before releasing their cables. Hill confirmed that Issa did not grant the State Department that opportunity but said it was the State Department's fault for not releasing the documents when they were first requested.
This guy going off on another witch-hunt is gunning for the most irresponsible federal official of the year award.


Here are a couple of the people who's lives he might have endangered.


One of the cables released by Issa names a woman human rights activist who was leading a campaign against violence and was detained in Benghazi. She expressed fear for her safety to U.S. officials and criticized the Libyan government.
"This woman is trying to raise an anti-violence campaign on her own and came to the United States for help. She isn't publicly associated with the U.S. in any other way but she's now named in this cable. It's a danger to her life," the administration official said.
Another cable names a Benghazi port manager who is working with the United States on an infrastructure project.

"When you're in a situation where Ansar al-Sharia is a risk to Americans, an individual like this guy, who is an innocent civilian who's trying to reopen the port and is doing so in conjunction with Americans, could be at risk now because he's publicly affiliated with America," the official said, referring to the group thought to have led the Benghazi attack.

One cable names a local militia commander dishing dirt on the inner workings of the Libyan Interior Ministry.
additionally according to this report the investigation hasn't finished determining what factors ultimately contributed to attack and in what proportion.

The latest seems to indicate that the video was a factor in that it provided cover for a group who wanted to attack a U.S. installation. It is yet unknown if the attack would have taken place without the opportunity provided by the outrage over the video.

If intelligence officials haven't reached a final conclusion over the reasons for the attack how it the Obama administration supposed to give U.S. citizens concrete answers during a press conference the next day?

Is he supposed to consult an f'ing psychic?

The latest intelligence assessment of the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi indicates there was little if any pre-planning for it and that it was in part an opportunistic response to the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.
Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the attack, which has become a political hot potato in the presidential campaign with questions over when the Obama administration called the attack an act of terrorism.


"Right now, there isn't any intelligence that the attackers pre-planned their assault days or weeks in advance," said a U.S. intelligence official. "The bulk of available information supports the early assessment that the attackers launched their assault opportunistically after they learned about the violence at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo." But the official added that "no one is ruling out that some of the attackers may have aspired to attack the U.S. in Benghazi."
If democratic congressional officials behaved towards President Bush after 9/11 as the hardline asstastic republicans are behaving toward the current President; President Bush would have been impeached for not preventing 9/11
 
Last edited:

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
It wasn't the terrorist act, it was the cover-up that started all this mess. No one acted like this about 9/11 because Bush never tried to cover anything up.

Cue the truthers.......
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,576
431
126
What's the lives of a few Libyans worth when you've got a Presidential election on the line?
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
26,721
12,055
136
It wasn't the terrorist act, it was the cover-up that started all this mess. No one acted like this about 9/11 because Bush never tried to cover anything up.

Cue the truthers.......
and we all know the Bush admin favored the 9/11 commission from the start....ooops
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
and we all know the Bush admin favored the 9/11 commission from the start....ooops
What does that have to do with anything? Bush never lied about the intelligence he was getting. That intelligence could have been incorrect, but he never stood up and said and denied having it in the first place. Bush may have acted on bad/false intelligence, but at least he acted. Oh, and he wasn't the only one convinced considering the fact Congress sided with him.

Obama, on the other hand, doesn't do shit when his ambassador is screaming for more security. He doesn't do shit with the intelligence that he is getting on the area and the likelihood that a hostile attack is imminent. Oh wait, that was Hillary's fault, my bad.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
26,721
12,055
136
What does that have to do with anything? Bush never lied about the intelligence he was getting. That intelligence could have been incorrect, but he never stood up and said he have had it in the first place. Bush may have acted on bad/false intelligence, but at least he acted. Oh, and he wasn't the only one convinced considering the fact Congress sided with him.

Obama, on the other hand, doesn't do shit when his ambassador is screaming for more security. He doesn't do shit when with the intelligence that he is getting on the area and the likelihood that a hostile attack is imminent. Oh wait, that was Hillary's fault, my bad.
There wasn't an outright lie. There was a lot of real time changing evidence. There was a released memo from the CIA indicating they thought the video was suspected early on.

With all the social media available these days there's no way anyone would think this could be kept secret.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,492
435
126
It wasn't the terrorist act, it was the cover-up that started all this mess. No one acted like this about 9/11 because Bush never tried to cover anything up.
It wasn't President Bush's invasion of Afghanistan in response to 9/11 that was war based on lies. After all Bin Laden was there at the time of the attacks.

It was the subsequent invasion of Iraq that was based on lies. How's that search for WMD's in Iraq going? I mean if there was any there they surely would have found them by now. Right?
There are only two reasonable conclusions one can reach in regards to the reasoning behind the invasion of Iraq

Either the Bush Administration was incredibly Incompetent in their analysis of Iraq or they were incredibly Dishonest.



As for the cover up. the second article in the OP indicates that the factors that contributed to the attack haven't been fully investigated to the intelligence communities' satisfaction.

Coverup? Really?
 
Last edited:

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
As for the cover up. the second article indicates that the factors that contributed to the attack haven't been fully investigated to the intelligence communities' satisfaction.
Then why are you so willing to compare this to 9/11 and Bush if we don't have all the pertinent information yet?
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
State pulled the initial stonewall.


Then Hillary steps in to finalize the cover-over for Obama's lack of knowledge.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,492
435
126
Then why are you so willing to compare this to 9/11 and Bush if we don't have all the pertinent information yet?
The point is the reaction to them. Democrats in Congress put aside their differences with the President in the weeks following the attack. Republicans are practically salivating over the possibility of using Benghazi as a political bludgeon.

Additionally WTF would you release documents that could be sensitive without reviewing them? Representative Issa could at least pretend to actually be running a credible investigation.
 
Last edited:

uclaLabrat

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2007
4,568
922
136
Darryl Issa is a KING SIZED D-BAG. He's the guy that started the recall against gray davis here in california, and bitched up a STORM when schwarzenegger decided to run and immediately whooped his ass in the polls. He saw an easy shot to become governor and whined like a bitch when it backfired on him.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
10,919
1,078
126
Issa is the person who most needs to be investigated in Congress. He has time and again released sensitive information for political gain. The man is the worst piece of shit Congress has had in its history.
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,434
84
91
Bring the outrage!

Like when Pvt. Manning release shitloads of documents he did not read through first to see if there was sensitive information that was going to be being released. For some reason though... he was a hero.
 

diesbudt

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2012
3,393
0
0
It wasn't the terrorist act, it was the cover-up that started all this mess. No one acted like this about 9/11 because Bush never tried to cover anything up.

Cue the truthers.......

Kinda hard to cover up airplanes hitting significant buildings on home soil, at similar time periods.
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
Kinda hard to cover up airplanes hitting significant buildings on home soil, at similar time periods.
Great duh-version. If only I had said the president tried to cover up the attack itself. Oh wait....

As with 9/11 it comes down to what was know and when it was known regardless of its accuracy after the fact.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY