Benghazi Will Screw Obama, Which He Deserves

[rah]

I agree that it has gotten out of hand but that shouldn't be the only filter that things are viewed through. Just because something can be viewed as partisan doesn't mean it isn't important. (again I agree that this was has gone beyond but that doesn't mean that I don't want to know what really happened. I don't think it comes anywhere near close to impeachment material but that doesn't mean that someone didn't do anything wrong. I would just like to know. That doesn't make me a partisan hack, just curioius.

[Wezil]

It's "Nixonian" Rah.

Please keep up.

[DinoDoc]

It's "Nixonian" Rah.

The IRS scandal and wiretapping the press come closer to that then this does.

[rah]

That's the main reason I hate seeing the partisan madness. Every issue is painted by it. I would just like to know the facts so I can make my own decisions. You'll note that I haven't done any previous ranting in this thread or any head hunting.

[Wezil]

You'll note that I haven't done any previous ranting in this thread or any head hunting.

I address this in the other thread.

Absolutes are rarely right. If any party claims to have a lock on the truth then they are liars.

[-Jrabbit]

WTF, people. If you're going to release electronic evidence in your witch hunt, at least have the decency not to tamper with it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57584947/wh-benghazi-emails-have-different-quotes-than-earlier-reported/

If their claim is that this administration is dishonest, agenda-driven, and out of control, I guess the loyal opposition is at least showing they know how that works...

Jeez.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

This. A thousand times, this.

Benghazi
Plot hole
May 16th 2013, 21:13 by M.S.
•
•
THE inquiry into the Benghazi affair is lending increasing substance to opponents' charges that the Obama administration massaged its talking points on the attacks, playing down the possible involvement of al-Qaeda-linked extremists and playing up linkages to an anti-Muslim video, in order to [EXPLANATION OF WHY THIS WOULD MAKE SENSE TK].

Let us return to the basics here, because what's going on in Washington right now is devoid of reason.

Yesterday the White House released a large dump of emails detailing the process of talking-point revision that took place in the run-up to Susan Rice's talk-show appearances in September. Those emails show a long series of contested revisions between staffers in the State Department, the CIA, and the White House over whether or not to include mention of al-Qaeda, whether or not to note CIA warnings of possible attacks, and various other topics. The CIA wanted to fend off possible accusations that they were at fault for failing to protect the Benghazi location. The State Department wanted to protect itself from what it felt was a CIA effort to blame it for insufficient security, particularly since, as is now known from testimony (though not mentioned in the emails, and obviously not in the talking points themselves) the Benghazi outpost was primarily a CIA operation. The White House intervened, in its own words, to protect the "equities" of the different agencies. Conservatives charge, however, that White House intervention was biased towards the State Department.

At this point the key question is becoming clear. That question is, as it has been from the beginning: who cares?

The accusation made at the start of the Benghazi affair was that the administration had mischaracterised the attacks and misled the American people in order to protect itself in the presidential campaign. This accusation never made any sense, because there was no electoral advantage to be gained by implying that the attacks at Benghazi were pre-planned rather than spontaneous, or that al-Qaeda was or was not involved. In the current round of shark-feeding, the accusation seems to be that the administration intervened in order to shield the State Department from the CIA. This appears not to be true; the initial ABC reportlast Friday on which it was based turned out, once the full emails were revealed, to be false and based on altered quotes. But if it were true, so what? Or perhaps the accusation is that the administration intervened in order to minimise the impression that State or the CIA had made serious errors by failing to adequately protect the Benghazi mission. But the subsequent independent inquiry quickly did come to that conclusion. If the administration happened not to make that statement in its immediate response three days after the attacks, and instead left it for an independent inquiry that came out a month later, what difference does that make?

There have been more serious accusations during the course of the hearings. The most serious was that the administration or senior military officials intervened to deliberately order units that could have come to the aid of the besieged mission to "stand down". These accusations have the disadvantage of being both untrue and completely crazy, not to mention slanderous towards the US military, and have been thoroughly debunked.

So what are we talking about here?

What we're talking about, at this point, is one thing. In November, Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, told the press that the talking points Ms Rice received had only been altered once, to change a minor terminology issue, and that this had come at the behest of the intelligence services. That was false. Why did Mr Carney say it? It's hard to figure out. It certainly would have helped end the controversy more quickly if it had been true, but given that it wasn't true, it clearly helped prolong the controversy. And the press that reported Mr Carney's lie is naturally furious. That's reasonable. I've been lied to by government spokespeople on subjects that were far more serious than this one, and it sure is infuriating. Spokespeople should not feel that they can get away with telling little white lies to the press. If they think they can, they may lie on matters of consequence.

This, however, is not a matter of consequence. How extensive the edits were on the talking points that Susan Rice used for TV appearances on one Sunday in September, and whether they came only from CIA or from CIA, the State Department, and the White House—this makes no difference to anyone outside the DC political and press community. Washington is obsessed by this affair. People around the world should recognise that Washington's obsession with this affair is yet another sign that America's capital is turning into a self-obsessed viper pit of scheming courtiers who care only about winning favour and office, and not about governing the country they're supposed to be running.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/05/benghazi

[MrFun]

Apparently, the White House's Benghazi emails have been altered by some of the Republicans.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Post 355

[Wezil]

There should be a full investigation into the altered emails. I want to know what the Republican leadership knew and when they knew it!

[Colon™]

The Economist.

[Dinner]

The incompetence of the Admin killed him long before the 9/11 attack, Sloww.

You're so full of ****. The Africa command offered the consulate which got attacked more military units twice in the run up to the attacks but both times Stevens declined them saying he didn't want to militarize the consulate. So what we have so far is one low level person requesting more security but then the Ambassador himself declining it when it was offered. Face it, DD, you're a clueless dumb ass who can't even get the story right and who just repeats which ever lies Fox and the Republicans are making on any given day.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/late-benghazi-ambassador-turned-security-report-article-1.1345119

Late Benghazi U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens turned down offers of more security — twice: report

Stevens, killed in the terrorist attack with 3 other Americans, is said to have turned down direct offers from Army Gen. Carter Ham, the then-chief of the U.S. Africa Command.

The American Ambassador killed last Sept. 11 in a brutal attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi refused offers for more security at the compound, according to a bombshell report.
Christopher Stevens, the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, who was killed along with three other Americans after terrorists stormed the mission, twice turned down offers from senior military officials for additional security at the facility, McClatchy news services reported.

“(Stevens) didn’t say why. He just turned it down,” an unnamed defense official told McClatchy.

In August, officials at the mission had drafted cables to Washington requesting “security upgrades, and staffing,” according to the report.

Shortly after the cable was sent, Stevens spoke by phone with Army Gen. Carter Ham, the then-chief of the U.S. Africa Command, who offered assistance, but Stevens refused the offer.
Stevens again turned down the offer from Ham when the two met for a previously scheduled meeting in Germany a few weeks later.
In the months since the assault, many have criticized the White House and the State Department for not providing sufficient security at the mission.

Note, this is after Congressional Republicans voted to gut embassy security as a waste of money. The telling point is that not even Darrel Issa can anwser a straight question while he continues to babble nonsense for the consumption of brain addled half wits in the tea party because when directly ask what if any crime does he suspect happened Issa couldn't anwser the question. He said he'd have to have a full investigation before he even knew what he was angry about! That, more than anything, should tell everyone this is made up nonsense with nothing behind it.

You really are stupid, DD, as is Slowwhand but that goes without question.

[Dinner]

Apparently, the White House's Benghazi emails have been altered by some of the Republicans.

Which once again tells you there is nothing there. Republicans wouldn't have to be lying and making fake things up if there was ANYTHING worth getting upset about. As usual the party of lies (anyone remember the lie about death panels? What about the lie about Obama being a muslim? Or the one about him being a "terrorist sleeper agent waiting to destroy America"? Or that he's a socialist? Or a million other things?) is doing nothing but making up lies.

BTW did you notice how all of their "edits" were written in such a way as to try to slander and lie about Hillary Clinton? Can they make it any more obvious that Republicans wet their pants at the thought of her running for President in 2016?

[DaShi]

WTF, people. If you're going to release electronic evidence in your witch hunt, at least have the decency not to tamper with it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57584947/wh-benghazi-emails-have-different-quotes-than-earlier-reported/

If their claim is that this administration is dishonest, agenda-driven, and out of control, I guess the loyal opposition is at least showing they know how that works...

Jeez.

Still I guess this is better for both sides than to be talking about jobs.

[DinoDoc]

You're so full of ****.

Projection much?

The Africa command offered the consulate which got attacked more military units twice in the run up to the attacks but both times Stevens declined them saying he didn't want to militarize the consulate.

A) This isn't what your article said: “(Stevens) didn’t say why. He just turned it down,” an unnamed defense official told McClatchy.
B) Ambassadors do not have the authority to bring in military units like that, and for good reason. He followed his appropriate channels by asking his own chain of command in State for security assistance and was refused.

Note, this is after Congressional Republicans voted to gut embassy security as a waste of money.

Should Charlene Lamb be in legal trouble for lying to Congress?