Benghazi Will Screw Obama, Which He Deserves

[DinoDoc]

Fallback defense:

Obama administration officials who were in key positions on Sept. 11, 2012 acknowledge that a range of mistakes were made the night of the attacks on the U.S. missions in Benghazi, and in messaging to Congress and the public in the aftermath.

The officials spoke to CBS News in a series of interviews and communications under the condition of anonymity so that they could be more frank in their assessments. They do not all agree on the list of mistakes and it’s important to note that they universally claim that any errors or missteps did not cost lives and reflect “incompetence rather than malice or cover up.” Nonetheless, in the eight months since the attacks, this is the most sweeping and detailed discussion by key players of what might have been done differently.

“We’re portrayed by Republicans as either being lying or idiots,” said one Obama administration official who was part of the Benghazi response. “It’s actually closer to us being idiots.”

[Alexander's Horse]

of course part of the problem here is people outside government have little or no idea of the drafting process, or even that almost every word is scripted by officials, the big loser here was Susan Rice, who had to go out and deliver faulty lines

Chris Stevens seems to be the sort of man who would horrified by the witchhunt, it won't bring him or the others back

[MrFun]

Some of the Republican politicians are so despicable. Looks like their atrocious politicization of the Benghazi tragedy is collapsing.

[MrFun]

Page 39, under heading, Accountability of Personnel. Says no one in the government breached their duty/responsibility in a manner that would warrant any disciplinary action or reprimand.

[Zevico]

Fallback defense:

Look on the bright side, DD. The English withstood Chamberlain. You folks will get by. Here's hoping, anyway.

[Dinner]

I especially love the Republican claim that the President some how covered up that it was a terrorist attack for... wait for it... a day and a half. Where as in reality they said the CIA thinks it had to do with a demonstration in the area but we don't have detailed information yet and then 36 hours later they said new information indicates it was a terrorist attack. If that qualifies as a cover up then that's just sad and pathetic.

There really is no there, there and instead we have a manufactured bit of political nonsense which only a dullard would believe. So naturally every Republican half wit thinks it is some how a scandal which says more about their own stupidity than anything else.

[Dinner]

Some of the Republican politicians are so despicable. Looks like their atrocious politicization of the Benghazi tragedy is collapsing.

To be fair Issa has always been a drooling idiot who can barely chew gum and remember to breath. He's a male Michael Bachmann from the California Republican Party also he's facing reelection while his poll numbers are in the toilet thus he went from king of the birthers to king of making up **** about Benghazi in the hopes that the wing nuts won't primary him. God I hope that embarrassment loses just so he can **** off and we never have to listen to his stupidity again.

[MrFun]

I especially love the Republican claim that the President some how covered up that it was a terrorist attack for... wait for it... a day and a half. Where as in reality they said the CIA thinks it had to do with a demonstration in the area but we don't have detailed information yet and then 36 hours later they said new information indicates it was a terrorist attack. If that qualifies as a cover up then that's just sad and pathetic.

There really is no there, there and instead we have a manufactured bit of political nonsense which only a dullard would believe. So naturally every Republican half wit thinks it is some how a scandal which says more about their own stupidity than anything else.

[MrFun]

nvm - moved post to the right thread

[MrFun]

Paul Ryan is doing some serious backpedaling now.

[SlowwHand]

He's honest, something that Obama still isn't.

[DinoDoc]

AP: U.S. officials have identified five Benghazi suspects — but won’t seize them because there’s not enough evidence to prosecute yet

U.S. officials say they have identified five men they believe might be behind the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, last year. 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.

So the officials say the men remain at large while the FBI gathers more evidence. The decision not to seize the men militarily underscores the White House’s aim to move away from hunting terrorists as enemy combatants and toward trying them as criminals in a civilian justice system.

This story confuses the hell out of me for a few reasons. It also amuses me a little.

[Aeson]

It is a bit weird that it takes less evidence to go to war than to put someone in prison...

[DinoDoc]

It is a bit weird that it takes less evidence to go to war than to put someone in prison...

I don't believe for a moment the Admin wants them in federal court as his whole counterterror M.O. has been to kill suspected terrorists on sight so that he doesn’t have to deal with the headache of housing and trying them.

[Aeson]

Yes, that is another confusing thing ... I would have expected the stories to be about how drones had killed the terrorists and a few babies or something like that.