Benghazi Will Screw Obama, Which He Deserves

[giblets]

9 million openly racist people. Goodness knows how many who don't openly admit it. Yes, quite a lot.

Yeah, who knows how many crypto-racists might be around who just won't admit they're racist in a telephone poll. For all we know you might be one of them.

[Elok]

That's because you're a racist little dip**** who hasn't got the balls to admit that the scary coloured man in the White House just makes you uncomfortable.

The sheer quantity of lies that you ****ers use to defame this president are simply staggering. He could cure cancer tomorrow and you'd say that he had the cure for years and was holding it back to benefit his cronies and was actually responsible for millions of unnecessary deaths.

Seriously, there's so many things that you could oppose this president on and still maintain some integrity, but instead you attack him on literally every single thing he says, does or even implies. I was willing to give a lot of you the benefit of the doubt for a long time in case you were just hyper partisan dumbasses, but I've reached the conclusion that no, you actually are just racist ****s.

So, the "you" in question is...well, you don't say how many, to be fair. I assume how racist we are depends on how much we criticize the Prez, kinda like our treasonous sympathies could be gauged by our criticism of the last president.

[kentonio]

So, the "you" in question is...well, you don't say how many, to be fair. I assume how racist we are depends on how much we criticize the Prez, kinda like our treasonous sympathies could be gauged by our criticism of the last president.

Actually it was quite a targeted comment, although poorly phrased and mostly fueled by being quite drunk and pissed off at the time. I'd have probably just apologized to DD later for going overboard, but some of the posts in this thread have just left me feeling deeply disappointed in a number of people.

I'm going to leave you to it now, feel free to consider this thread a victory for brave colorblind America who's politics is free from any kind of racial discrimination.

[Elok]

I'm going to leave you to it now, feel free to consider this thread a victory for brave colorblind America who's politics is free from any kind of racial discrimination.

As nobody has argued for such a thing--we were all arguing against this one unhinged rant, AFAICT--we'll call it a draw.

Grib, Harry Potter is mostly useful for insights into the Anglican Church, what with Harry being Jesus in the last book and all. Did you know that, if you play the audiobook of Goblet of Fire backward, it says "Welby will be next Archbishop"?

[Felch]

So what did the bongo-playing twerps in the White House do that was so terrible? If I have it right they claimed the attacks were caused by a film when the attacks were just ordinary islamic terrorism? I don't see how this is worse than Watergate as some seem to be suggesting.

The Benghazi conspiracy theorists claim that:

a) Security was intentionally kept below what it needed to be
b) The military was prevented from intervening
c) The administration concealed these failures

A is a valid criticism, but it's not really criminal. It's more of a matter of strategy, where the right balance between risk and reward lies.

B is silly. America will usually shoot first and ask questions later but the military isn't ready to go invade Libya at the drop of a hat. That's a tough sell to Americans though. If our ambassador is murdered, we like to see the local population centers reduced to rubble. Maybe line the Capitol Beltway with crucified Libyans or something awesome and Roman like that.

C is obviously true, but it's also true of every big organization everywhere. GM didn't want Ralph Nader talking **** about their death traps, the Catholic Church tried to ignore pedophilia, and the Obama Administration didn't want to take the blame for losing an ambassador a month before an election.

I think it's pretty obvious that something obviously went wrong in Benghazi, and I think that it's reasonable for the Republicans to investigate it. Rufus fatuously compared it to the many earlier attacks, but none of those wound up in the complete destruction of a diplomatic mission and the death of an ambassador.

Of course, the real reason this is going on is to try to derail Clinton 2016.

[Tupac Shakur]

I'm going to leave you to it now, feel free to consider this thread a victory for brave colorblind America who's politics is free from any kind of racial discrimination.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. The UK is the country that's electing members of an actually racist, fascist party.

[Colonâ„¢]

B is silly. America will usually shoot first and ask questions later but the military isn't ready to go invade Libya at the drop of a hat. That's a tough sell to Americans though. If our ambassador is murdered, we like to see the local population centers reduced to rubble. Maybe line the Capitol Beltway with crucified Libyans or something awesome and Roman like that.

The good ol' days, when we'd send a bunch of gunboats to any country that'd just as much look the wrong way and reduce it rubble. This flat world rubbish is piss-annoying.

[DinoDoc]

b) The military was prevented from intervening

B is silly. America will usually shoot first and ask questions later but the military isn't ready to go invade Libya at the drop of a hat. That's a tough sell to Americans though. If our ambassador is murdered, we like to see the local population centers reduced to rubble. Maybe line the Capitol Beltway with crucified Libyans or something awesome and Roman like that.

B is somewhat interesting to me. The common refrain in response to it is that they had no assets that could have reacted in time. Given the deteriorating security situation in the country in the weeks/months beforehand, why not?

[SlowwHand]

The Benghazi conspiracy theorists claim that:


b) The military was prevented from intervening

B is silly. America will usually shoot first and ask questions later but the military isn't ready to go invade Libya at the drop of a hat. That's a tough sell to Americans though. If our ambassador is murdered, we like to see the local population centers reduced to rubble. Maybe line the Capitol Beltway with crucified Libyans or something awesome and Roman like that.

Of course, the real reason this is going on is to try to derail Clinton 2016.

These two observations are total bull****. The military personnel have to defend themselves (with paperwork) following a firefight, just like cops do domestically, which is ridiculous.
As far as derailing Clinton, she and Obama are doing that without help.

[Zevico]

I think it's remarkable that evidence has been given that Libya-based troops were ordered to stand down twice during the attacks--once, apparently, while they were boarding a plane at the airport to Benghazi.

No jets scrambled to fly over and scare or if feasible attack, no rescue team, nothing but some observatory drones.

What on earth were they thinking? This is an attack on an American consulate. On an American ambassador. It's sheer madness to just leave them to die. What will Americans think in future of putting their lives at risk for their nation if this persists? What will their enemies think?

And blaming it on a video no one in Libya had ever heard of. What on earth were they thinking? Who came up with that idea? How on earth did anyone approve it? What madness inspired the Secretary of State to promise to prosecute the person responsible for the video, as if the terrorists responsible for this act were somehow unaware that blasphemies were published in the United States, having not been told this fact every day of their lives in their schools and madrassas?

The video itself was no crime under American law. Is the Secretary's promise to prosecute its publisher not a repudiation of the principle that political speech is no crime under American law, as expressed in the First Amendment?

And what was this sacrifice for? Did the United States really decide not to defend its citizens, Ambassador and property lest it offend someone? Can the decay of the political elite really have reached this point? What other possible reason can there be? Or is it just a case of total, utter incompetence? I hope it is the latter.

Can vanity and ambition really reach such stupendous lengths? Is this the grim reality of American politics? Are there not checks on such conduct? Are not citizens of a democratic state entitled to hold these fools to account by law?

[SlowwHand]

News for benghazi

NPR
White House scrambles to contain Benghazi-gate fallout
Fox News - 9 hours ago
The White House scrambled Friday to explain newly released email excerpts that show a top State Department official pushing to water down ...
Pressure rises on White House over Benghazi talking points
Reuters - 6 hours ago
Obama administration e-mails raise new questions on Benghazi
CNN - 11 hours ago
Benghazi memos reportedly revised 12 times, official 'concerned ...

https://www.foxnews.com/.../benghazi-talking-points-reportedly-revised-12-tim...

12 hours ago – New details about the Obama administration's initial story-line on the Benghazi attack are raising additional questions about top-level efforts to ...

BBC News - After Benghazi revelations, heads will roll

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22483768

17 hours ago – However you read the motives, the state department and apparently the White House got the CIA to change its story on the Benghazi attacks ...
Officials removed terror reference from Benghazi memo - report - BBC

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22486332

14 hours ago – Talking points about an attack on a US consulate in Libya were edited by the state department to remove references to terrorism, US media ...
Report: White House ordered the Benghazi talking points changed ...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/.../benghazi.../2150103/

by Oren Dorell
12 hours ago – Contrary to claims by White House and State Department officials that the Benghazi talking points given to Susan Rice were produced by the ...
Exclusive: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions ...

abcnews.go.com › ABC News Blogs › Politics › The Note

by Jonathan Karl
When it became clear last fall that the CIA's now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put ...

[Zevico]

According to ABC News, the original paragraph read:

“The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.”

But Nuland wrote that the lines “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned …”

The paragraph in question was then reportedly deleted.

The Weekly Standard, which referenced that exchange briefly in a prior account, also reported new details Friday, describing how then-CIA Director David Petraeus voiced surprise when he learned the Saturday after the attack that officials had deleted all prior references to Al Qaeda and jihadists, leaving only the word “extremists.”

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice would use the final version of the talking points to say on several Sunday shows that the attack was triggered by protests over an anti-Islam film.

http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/2013/05/10/oh-oh-benghazi-memos-revised-12-times/

Wow.

Rank cowardice.

[giblets]

Australian politics must be really boring if you'd rather read about this stuff.

[Felch]

These two observations are total bull****. The military personnel have to defend themselves (with paperwork) following a firefight, just like cops do domestically, which is ridiculous.
As far as derailing Clinton, she and Obama are doing that without help.

What's this about paperwork?

[SlowwHand]

An incident report, yes.