Benghazi

[OCinBuffalo]

life actually does sometimes imitate art but not the art that you keep mentioning. truth is rarely so obvious, literal or linear. the explanation here is likely convoluted with many different players and interests involved. the right is presenting the coloring book version. it's easier to fathom and more importantly, to sell.

Yes, and the same was true with Iraq/WMDs....but we didn't see the left deferring to nuance there, did we? Was that truth any more linear, obvious, or literal? They presented their coloring book version, and are still doing it to this day. Actually coloring book is too fine. Bumper sticker is more like it. It was easier to fathom and sell as well.

 

Which, is how we ended up with the worst President in my lifetime in office. Say what you will about Bush, at least he did the job. At least he cared to do the job.

 

This medicine is of the left's making. You have no right to talk about "the good of the country", not when you have both a President and a Press Secretary lying, and continuing the lie, so poorly that it's almost embarrassing to even criticize them. What is the point? I am supposed to be taking either seriously?

 

They are jokes. And any contempt is only worth it for the humor value.

 

Obama is not completely irredeemable(Jay Carney is), but, he better start understanding that he has a real job to do. That this isn't community organizing on a large scale.

 

It's far past time to grow up, for Obama, and a whole lot of his supporters. Incompetence is not audacity, it's just incompetence.

Edited May 17, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[birdog1960]

Typical "progressive". When your hero is caught with his hand in the cookie jar, you come up with some way to try to complicate the matter. For heavens sake, they phucking lied for political reasons after having left people to die. Even the unwashed are getting that now. I see you've stayed away from the IRS and AP scandal threads. Then again, all you "progressive" are doing that. I wonder why?

not my hero...i'm pleased he passed healthcare reform albeit a compromise that i'm no where near entirely happy with. much of the rest of his accomplishments have been pretty disappointing. this event is pretty low on my disappointment list. it was a disaster but i highly doubt one that was preventable. the thing you don't seem to get is that typical and progressive don't often go together. that is very likely a political weakness. on the other hand, typical and ultra conservative ...

[3rdnlng]

not my hero...i'm pleased he passed healthcare reform albeit a compromise that i'm no where near entirely happy with. much of the rest of his accomplishments have been pretty disappointing. this event is pretty low on my disappointment list. it was a disaster but i highly doubt one that was preventable. the thing you don't seem to get is that typical and progressive don't often go together. that is very likely a political weakness. on the other hand, typical and ultra conservative ...

 

A typical progressive likes to tell other people what they should do. A typical conservative would say, hey do what you want, but you might want to consider the consequences. How do you think the IRS and AP scandals are shaping up, right when the MSM is being forced to report on the Benghazi abandonment and coverup? Then again, there's a whole bunch of used to be Obamacare supporters jumping ship on that CF. Interesting times, eh?

[birdog1960]

Yes, and the same was true with Iraq/WMDs....but we didn't see the left deferring to nuance there, did we? Was that truth any more linear, obvious, or literal? They presented their coloring book version, and are still doing it to this day. Actually coloring book is too fine. Bumper sticker is more like it. It was easier to fathom and sell as well.

 

Which, is how we ended up with the worst President in my lifetime in office. Say what you will about Bush, at least he did the job. At least he cared to do the job.

 

the difference being that bush' narrative was before the fact and not after. his was to effect ultimately harmful, expensive and damaging change. obama's was after the fact and whether it was meant to deceive is the current subject of debate. you've decided. i've not.

[3rdnlng]

the difference being that bush' narrative was before the fact and not after. his was to effect ultimately harmful, expensive and damaging change. obama's was after the fact and whether it was meant to deceive is the current subject of debate. you've decided. i've not.

 

What don't you get about the fact that Obama and Hillary deliberately abandoned embassy people for the sole reason of not having political harm come to their political careers? When the phone rang at 3:00am it was never answered, by either of them. They (tried) deceived the whole country for two weeks and the MSM media was even their lap dogs during the presidential debates over this. Damn, you're blind.

[birdog1960]

What don't you get about the fact that Obama and Hillary deliberately abandoned embassy people for the sole reason of not having political harm come to their political careers? When the phone rang at 3:00am it was never answered, by either of them. They (tried) deceived the whole country for two weeks and the MSM media was even their lap dogs during the presidential debates over this. Damn, you're blind.

two words: preventable, not. two more: induced, not. ok, 3 words in total then.

[3rdnlng]

two words: preventable, not. two more: induced, not. ok, 3 words in total then.

 

You have no idea if all of the deaths could have been prevented. They never even tried. How do you know that the weaknesses Obama has displayed didn't induce this?

[OCinBuffalo]

the difference being that bush' narrative was before the fact and not after. his was to effect ultimately harmful, expensive and damaging change. obama's was after the fact and whether it was meant to deceive is the current subject of debate. you've decided. i've not.

So we've run away from the "coloring book" analogy after only 1 of my posts? Yeah, it was a weak argument on your part, so that's fine by me.

 

Actually birdog, it's worse than that. Much worse. I've decided that's it's not worth it to try and convince you, because the only people who require that at this point, are the people who will refuse to ever be convinced, because their political beliefs.

 

It's wholly up to you whether you will set them aside, and see things as they are. I refuse to take any responsibility for that.

Edited May 17, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[birdog1960]

So we've run away from the "coloring book" analogy after only 1 of my posts? Yeah, it was a weak argument on your part, so that's fine by me.

 

Actually birdog, it's worse than that. Much worse. I've decided that's it's not worth it to try and convince you, because the only people who require that at this point, are the people who will refuse to ever be convinced, because their political beliefs.

 

It's wholly up to you whether you will set them aside, and see things as they are. I refuse to take any responsibility for that.

i don't see where the two posts are incompatible or contradictory...why would i have to abandon the coloring book point to remind you of the fact that iraq was a preemptive war?

[OCinBuffalo]

i don't see where the two posts are incompatible or contradictory...why would i have to abandon the coloring book point to remind you of the fact that iraq was a preemptive war?

Because...that's exactly what you did?

 

Because the coloring book analogy is just as valid for how Ds conducted themselves over Iraq, as how the Rs are over Benghazi?

 

If anything, the Rs are actually attempting to add some nuance, because many have said publicly they don't want to see "Hillary lied" ads, and just want to get to the only question that matters: who ordered Rice to 5 Sunday talk shows to tell a lie, and why? Why did they lie to the parents of the dead?

 

In contrast, there wasn't 1 D that said anything even approaching "hey, come on, we shouldn't make political hay out of Iraq". Cue Al Gore: "He preyed on our fears!"

 

And, for you next post, here's a preemptive

Edited May 17, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

[truth on hold]

 

 

You have no idea if all of the deaths could have been prevented. They never even tried. How do you know that the weaknesses Obama has displayed didn't induce this?

What weakness? The error was trying to be "strong" by supporting this misguided effort by the French to interfere in libya. You act like Benghazi is somehow isolated. Its not ....

 

"Fledgling government in Lybia unable to stop rise in violence by Islamists"

 

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/world/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/19/fledgling-libyan-government-unable-to-stop-rise-in-violence-by-islamics

Edited May 19, 2013 by Joe_the_6_pack

[B-Man]

Obama adminstration talking points scrubbed jihadists from Cairo as well as Benghazi

 

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/05/obama-adminstration-talking-points-scrubbed-jihadists-from-cairo-as-well-as-benghazi.php

 

 

 

 

 

 

"irrelevant" ---- today's word of the day.

Obama Aide: 'Irrelevant Fact' Where President Was During Benghazi Attacks

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-aide-irrelevant-fact-where-president-was-during-benghazi-attacks_724882.html

 

Obama Aide: 'Irrelevant' Who Edited Benghazi Talking Points

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-aide-irrelevant-who-edited-benghazi-talking-points_724894.html

[3rdnlng]

What weakness? The error was trying to be "strong" by supporting this misguided effort by the French to interfere in libya. You act like Benghazi is somehow isolated. Its not ....

 

"Fledgling government in Lybia unable to stop rise in violence by Islamists"

 

http://www.nationalp...nce-by-islamics

 

You're laughable. Obama is not a decisive person and has not shown any real strength to the world. You would never see him do something along the lines of what Reagan did with the ATC people. So, don't try to twist my words into your narrative.

[B-Man]

UPDATE: The relevance of “irrelevant.”

 

Can I make an empty-chair joke now? “In talking about Benghazi, the interviewer, Chris Wallace, is trying to extract a specific fact about the events, a fact that has not yet come out and that Pfeiffer might know. Pfeiffer blows out a tirade of truly irrelevant verbiage to distract us from the question asked, including the notion that the fact isn’t important. Who cares where the physical body of Obama was as long as he was ‘in touch’?

 

Well, some people would like to know, so tell us the fact and let us decide what use to make of it.

 

To withhold the fact — on the ground that, in your opinion, we don’t need it — is to make us think it would be damaging. . . . It must be relevant, we think, at least for political purposes, or Pfeiffer wouldn’t strain so hard to suppress it.”

 

What could that be? I can’t even imagine. An assignation at the Hay-Adams?

 

 

 

(where was Reggie that night?)

[meazza]

UPDATE: The relevance of “irrelevant.”

 

Can I make an empty-chair joke now? “In talking about Benghazi, the interviewer, Chris Wallace, is trying to extract a specific fact about the events, a fact that has not yet come out and that Pfeiffer might know. Pfeiffer blows out a tirade of truly irrelevant verbiage to distract us from the question asked, including the notion that the fact isn’t important. Who cares where the physical body of Obama was as long as he was ‘in touch’?

 

Well, some people would like to know, so tell us the fact and let us decide what use to make of it.

 

To withhold the fact — on the ground that, in your opinion, we don’t need it — is to make us think it would be damaging. . . . It must be relevant, we think, at least for political purposes, or Pfeiffer wouldn’t strain so hard to suppress it.”

 

What could that be? I can’t even imagine. An assignation at the Hay-Adams?

 

 

 

(where was Reggie that night?)

 

Personally i think it's not that relevant but the libs all know where GWB was on 9/11. Michael Moore made millions off of it.

[B-Man]

From The Daily Beast, Hillary’s Benghazi ‘Scapegoat’ Speaks Out:

Following the attack in Benghazi, senior State Department officials close to Hillary Clinton ordered the removal of a mid-level official who had no role in security decisions and has never been told the charges against him. He is now accusing Clinton’s team of scapegoating him for the failures that led to the death of four Americans last year.

 

Raymond Maxwell was placed on forced “administrative leave” after the State Department’s own internal investigation, conducted by an Administrative Review Board (ARB) led by former State Department official Tom Pickering.

Five months after he was told to clean out his desk and leave the building, Maxwell remains in professional and legal limbo, having been associated publicly with the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other American for reasons that remain unclear.

 

Maxwell, who served as deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs from August 2011 until his removal last December, following tours in Iraq and Syria, spoke publicly for the first time in an exclusive interview with The Daily Beast.

Only one of these people is laughing:

What difference does it make? Easy for you to laugh

 

Since the leave is not considered a formal disciplinary action, Maxwell has no means to appeal the status, as he would if he had been outright fired. To this day, he says, nobody from the State Department has ever told him why he was singled out for discipline. He has never had access to the classified portion of the ARB report, where all of the details regarding personnel failures leading up to Benghazi are confined. He also says he has never been shown any evidence or witness testimony linking him to the Benghazi incident.

 

Maxwell says he had planned to retire last September, but extended his time voluntarily after the Sept. 11 attack to help the bureau in its time of need. Now, he is refusing to retire until his situation is clarified. He is seeking a restoration of his previous position, a public statement of apology from State, reimbursement for his legal fees, and an extension of his time in service to equal the time he has spent at home on administrative leave.

 

The decision to place Maxwell on administrative leave was made by Clinton’s chief of staff Cheryl Mills, according to three State Department officials with direct knowledge of the events. On the day after the unclassified version of the ARB’s report was released in December, Mills called Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Beth Jones and directed her to have Maxwell leave his job immediately. .

[B-Man]

The AP’s Kimberly Dozier reports that officials have identified five suspects in last year’s Benghazi attacks, but because of the White House’s preferred protocol, they are unable to make any actual arrests:

 

The officials say they have enough evidence to justify seizing them by military force as suspected terrorists — but not enough proof to try them in a U.S. civilian court as the Obama administration prefers.

 

 

If this is true, it’s pretty devastating

[3rdnlng]

The AP’s Kimberly Dozier reports that officials have identified five suspects in last year’s Benghazi attacks, but because of the White House’s preferred protocol, they are unable to make any actual arrests:

 

The officials say they have enough evidence to justify seizing them by military force as suspected terrorists — but not enough proof to try them in a U.S. civilian court as the Obama administration prefers.

 

 

If this is true, it’s pretty devastating

Well they have enough proof to give them a good droning, don't they?

[DC Tom]

The AP’s Kimberly Dozier reports that officials have identified five suspects in last year’s Benghazi attacks, but because of the White House’s preferred protocol, they are unable to make any actual arrests:

 

The officials say they have enough evidence to justify seizing them by military force as suspected terrorists — but not enough proof to try them in a U.S. civilian court as the Obama administration prefers.

 

 

If this is true, it’s pretty devastating

 

Not necessarily a bad thing...I mean, if the Libyan government is so grabbastic that they can't arrest and extradite to the US, it's probably so fragile that you don't want to risk toppling it with any sort of military action in Libya. I'm not sure I agree with that...but I could understand that reasoning.

 

Somehow, though, I doubt the administration's policy is anywhere close to being reasoned. And AP should probably just hand over Dozier's phone records to DOJ right now and not bother waiting for the subpoena...