Benghazi

[3rdnlng]

Just a thought, 3rdloser, but since I OWN you, why would you be dumb enough to call me out?

 

Oh, wait... I forgot for a moment just how lame-brained you actually are.

 

Carry on, I'll go back to laughing at the endless right-wing circle jerk that is PPP.

 

(You really should clean some of that... stuff... off of you.)

 

How many times do I have to tell you guys at the kiddie table to keep it down?

[RI Bills Fan]

Partisan bickering aside, why is no one asking the basic question that if Pentagon felt it was necessary to establish an emergency response team, why was that team based in the US? I'm reading that since Bengazi, Pentagon has stepped up the quick strike teams in Africa & Europe, but why wasn't it obvious to them 2 years ago? 10 years ago?

 

This is actually a good question and I don't want it to get lost in the beatdown I'm going to put on 3rdloser later, when I have 30 seconds or so to waste.

 

P.S. The answer is lack of understanding of the political ramifications at the JCS level and money.

[birdog1960]

This how the media approaches it:

 

 

 

http://ace.mu.nu/

 

 

 

 

For those who don't like Conservative sites........from the NATIONAL JOURNAL:

 

The High Cost to the White House of Stonewalling on Benghazi.

 

 

 

 

.

demographics matter. the twitter reports you cite seem pretty silly and superficial, especially the characterizations of them give by the post. but, as i've mentioned before, the demographics from the last election are extremely important and i believe, predictive. republicans were very homogeneous (i'll leave further characterization to others). dems were very heterogeneous. the country is heterogeneous. so maybe dems really are "more like us" and repubs really are the "others" to much of the populace.

[3rdnlng]

This is actually a good question and I don't want it to get lost in the beatdown I'm going to put on 3rdloser later, when I have 30 seconds or so to waste.

 

P.S. The answer is lack of understanding of the political ramifications at the JCS level and money.

 

Wow, this has got to be a first for you............posting more than once in a thread that isn't about gay marriage. Continue with your little hissy fit. I understand. You didn't make my top 10 list of pusssies and ended up grouped with your ilk. I'd be pissed too, but it is what it is.

[IDBillzFan]

Nice breakdown here from Guy Benson.

 

I urge anyone who did not get a chance to watch the hearings to see them, if for no other reason that it becomes undeniably clear that the WH and State Dept. intentionally left Stevens and his crew for dead, and then lied about it for weeks.

 

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/05/09/the-damning-dozen-twelve-revelations-from-the-benghazi-hearings-n1591336

 

Oh, and even Politico is asking: Why is the film maker still in prison?

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/the-benghazi-patsy-91101.html

[Joe Miner]

demographics matter. the twitter reports you cite seem pretty silly and superficial, especially the characterizations of them give by the post. but, as i've mentioned before, the demographics from the last election are extremely important and i believe, predictive. republicans were very homogeneous (i'll leave further characterization to others). dems were very heterogeneous. the country is heterogeneous. so maybe dems really are "more like us" and repubs really are the "others" to much of the populace.

 

How can a supposedly heterogeneous group consider part of the population as "others"?

[DC Tom]

Nice breakdown here from Guy Benson.

 

I urge anyone who did not get a chance to watch the hearings to see them, if for no other reason that it becomes undeniably clear that the WH and State Dept. intentionally left Stevens and his crew for dead, and then lied about it for weeks.

 

http://townhall.com/...arings-n1591336

 

Oh, and even Politico is asking: Why is the film maker still in prison?

 

http://www.politico....atsy-91101.html

 

He's still in prison because he pleaded guilty to four charges related to parole violations, and was sentenced to a year in prison.

[RI Bills Fan]

Nice breakdown here from Guy Benson.

 

I urge anyone who did not get a chance to watch the hearings to see them, if for no other reason that it becomes undeniably clear that the WH and State Dept. intentionally left Stevens and his crew for dead, and then lied about it for weeks.

 

http://townhall.com/...arings-n1591336

 

Oh, and even Politico is asking: Why is the film maker still in prison?

 

http://www.politico....atsy-91101.html

 

Okay Class, all together now... and reach and stretch and twist and bend...

[Juror#8]

Me personally, I don't care about claims of videos and cover ups.

 

As I said in another thread, all these idiots cover up their misdeeds. I like to think that there is a national security purpose for the subterfuge since it's so prevalent - administration after administration, both republicant and democrap.

 

That said, the issue that I have with this bubble headed administration (really the State Department but that's an extension of the WH) is their innability to protect the consulate when it was APPARENT that it was in danger of attack. Whether the attack on Benghazi was background noise originating from similar-type demonstrations in Cairo precipitated by a video or whether it was premedidated months in advance is inconsequential to me.

 

I just know that folks there were reaching out to the SD and asking, rather begging, for guidance. They indicated in no uncertain terms that there was a marked safety concern. Other nations removed their officals in the months leading up to the Benghazi attacks because of the volume of violence attempts and terrorist movements in and around the consulate.

 

So for the SD to be so tone deaf was reckless in my opinion.

 

This administration has done a very good job of protecting US citizens on US soil from terrorist activity (even despite the Boston marathon bombings), but they were derelict on Benghazi and haven't accounted for it.

Edited May 9, 2013 by Juror#8

[B-Man]

The win-and-worry-later formula grows thin.................................

 

 

 

 

White House struggles to respond to new Benghazi revelations

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/8/white-house-stands-its-benghazi-story-hearing-unfo/

 

 

 

Benghazi shows Democrats at most desperate

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/8/hurt-benghazi-shows-democrats-most-desperate/

 

 

 

 

Why Benghazi is a Blow to Obama and Clinton

 

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/why-benghazi-is-a-blow-to-obama-and-clinton-20130509

 

The administration’s response to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on U.S. installations in eastern Libya was inaccurate, irresponsible and shrouded by campaign-style spin. It belied President Obama’s oft-broken promise to run a transparent government.

 

If nothing else, Benghazi is a blow to the credibility of the president and his potential successor, then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. This could be big.

 

Credibility is Obama’s strong suit, a key reason why his personal approval ratings continue to buoy soft job approval scores. He can’t afford to lose that trust.

 

Credibility is Clinton’s vulnerability, dating to the unjustified financial accusations that triggered the Whitewater investigation. Doubts persisted about her veracity and authenticity throughout the 2008 presidential campaign

 

 

.

[....lybob]

Me personally, I don't care about claims of videos and cover ups.

 

As I said in another thread, all these idiots cover up their misdeeds. I like to think that there is a national security purpose for the subterfuge since it's so prevalent - administration after administration, both republicant and democrap.

 

That said, the issue that I have with this bubble headed administration (really the State Department but that's an extension of the WH) is their innability to protect the consulate when it was APPARENT that it was in danger of attack. Whether the attack on Benghazi was background noise originating from similar-type demonstrations in Cairo precipitated by a video or whether it was premedidated months in advance is inconsequential to me.

 

I just know that folks there were reaching out to the SD and asking, rather begging, for guidance. They indicated in no uncertain terms that there was a marked safety concern. Other nations removed their officals in the months leading up to the Benghazi attacks because of the volume of violence attempts and terrorist movements in and around the consulate.

 

So for the SD to be so tone deaf was reckless in my opinion.

 

This administration has done a very good job of protecting US citizens on US soil from terrorist activity (even despite the Boston marathon bombings), but they were derelict on Benghazi and haven't accounted for it.

if you replace national security with job security you'd be dead on.

[IDBillzFan]

He's still in prison because he pleaded guilty to four charges related to parole violations, and was sentenced to a year in prison.

 

I'm sure he was about to get picked up for parole violations just before the WH and State Dept. chose to pin Stevens's death on him instead of, y'know, telling the truth.

[B-Man]

I'm sure he was about to get picked up for parole violations just before the WH and State Dept. chose to pin Stevens's death on him instead of, y'know, telling the truth.

 

 

 

OLD SPIN — NO STORY HERE.

 

NEW SPIN: ........................Benghazi: Incompetence, But No Cover-up.

 

The incompetence is beyond dispute. But so is the stonewalling, as noted in this National Journal piece. I still want to know why the Administration was so eager to pin things on an obscure YouTube filmmaker, stuck to that story for so long after it was clearly false, and worked so hard to see him hustled off to jail. I’d encourage investigators on the Hill to look into communications between the White House, and the DoJ in DC, and the U.S. Attorney’s office in LA.

 

 

 

 

Also a reminder: After the Benghazi attacks, academics and journalists supported Internet censorship based on false YouTube claim.

 

 

.

[PastaJoe]

'Gregory Hicks, the No. 2 U.S. diplomat in Libya the night Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed, was to be the star witness for Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the man leading the probe of the Obama administration’s handling of the attack on the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi.

 

But despite Issa’s incautious promise that the hearing’s revelations would be “damaging” to Hillary Rodham Clinton, Hicks didn’t lay a glove on the former secretary of state Wednesday.

 

Hicks was of little use to Republicans in their efforts to connect the lapses in the Benghazi response to Clinton or to the Obama White House. He said that he spoke to Clinton by phone at 2 a.m. that night and that she supported his actions. He undermined one of Issa’s claims — that Clinton had rejected an increase in security for the Libya facilities — when he agreed that the secretary of state’s name appears on all cables, even if she doesn’t write them.'

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-whistleblowers-yarn-fails-to-tie-benghazi-lapses-to-politics/2013/05/08/fb436cd4-b82e-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add_story.html

[Joe Miner]

'Gregory Hicks, the No. 2 U.S. diplomat in Libya the night Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed, was to be the star witness for Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the man leading the probe of the Obama administration’s handling of the attack on the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi.

 

But despite Issa’s incautious promise that the hearing’s revelations would be “damaging” to Hillary Rodham Clinton, Hicks didn’t lay a glove on the former secretary of state Wednesday.

 

Hicks was of little use to Republicans in their efforts to connect the lapses in the Benghazi response to Clinton or to the Obama White House. He said that he spoke to Clinton by phone at 2 a.m. that night and that she supported his actions. He undermined one of Issa’s claims — that Clinton had rejected an increase in security for the Libya facilities — when he agreed that the secretary of state’s name appears on all cables, even if she doesn’t write them.'

 

http://www.washingto...7add_story.html

 

lol, Hillary.

 

Right on cue.

[B-Man]

'Gregory Hicks, the No. 2 U.S. diplomat in Libya the night Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed, was to be the star witness for Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the man leading the probe of the Obama administration’s handling of the attack on the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi.

 

But despite Issa’s incautious promise that the hearing’s revelations would be “damaging” to Hillary Rodham Clinton, Hicks didn’t lay a glove on the former secretary of state Wednesday.

 

Hicks was of little use to Republicans in their efforts to connect the lapses in the Benghazi response to Clinton or to the Obama White House. He said that he spoke to Clinton by phone at 2 a.m. that night and that she supported his actions. He undermined one of Issa’s claims — that Clinton had rejected an increase in security for the Libya facilities — when he agreed that the secretary of state’s name appears on all cables, even if she doesn’t write them.'

 

http://www.washingto...7add_story.html

 

 

LOL...................... thats Dana Milbank's (minority) opinion.

 

I have no doubt that the majority of the article was written before the hearings even opened.

 

 

There's certainly no problem with posting an opinion piece to give your side Joey, I do it quite frequently myself,

 

but do your argument a favor and try and find someone else.............just google his last ten pieces and see how balanced (or unbalanced)he is......................lol

 

 

 

 

Here is what I have observed from the W.H press corps:

 

When an issue arises that they care about, they will hound the W.H press secretary so much so that it becomes the predominant political topic in the country, and that they apply so much pressure on the W.H that they are forced to give a real explanation or in some cases force them to shake things that causes and creates meaningful action regarding that particular topic. (Remember Valerie Plame?) or (Biden got in front of the president on gay Marriage?)

 

Obviously finding scandal with a conservative president tops the list. Or pushing the president on gay marriage issues, simply because that is a cause they believe is worth pushing.

 

So in this instance, this is a potential scandal with a Liberal president. The desire to seek the truth on this issue, isn't quite at the vociferous level that it would be with a conservative president. But, they have to at least pretend that they are doing their duty. So what they do is they will ask the standard questions, to sort of the check the box that they are, you know, doing their job, and then that's it. No follow up. Nothing. They've done their job.

 

The W.H understands this, they know that the W.H press corps is one of their allies, but they also realize that they have a duty to perform, so what they do is they send out prebuttals and talking points and attempt to create a narrative so that the media reports it with the narrative that they wish for them to report it as.

 

 

When the media believe that a provocative story will further their ideological predilections, they drive it to a high public profile through blazing headlines, prominent story placement, top-of-the-television news coverage, the use of vivid language, and repeated follow-up reports.

 

But when newsworthy events conflict with desired media narratives, coverage will usually be sporadic, buried, blandly headlined, matter-of-factly described, and dropped as soon as practicable.

 

 

.

Edited May 9, 2013 by B-Man

[meazza]

lol, Hillary.

 

Right on cue.

 

Every time something about Hillary is posted:

 

[GG]

Every time something about Hillary is posted:

 

Blucher?

[3rdnlng]

Blucher?

 

[Magox]

In other news, Benghazi is now a fading story, but Gun Control stories are back to trending higher again.