If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Daily Beast)   Secretary of State Hillary Clinton throws Benghazi State Department officials under the bus, Secretary of State John Kerry picks them up from under the bus and reinstates them   (thedailybeast.com) divider line 110
    More: Interesting, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Benghazi, State Department, Assistant Secretary, Joint Chiefs Chairman Ret, security agency, Admiral Mike Mullen  
•       •       •

1007 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Aug 2013 at 11:25 AM (48 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



110 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-20 12:59:41 PM

Cletus C.: mediablitz: Cletus C.: Turns out Benghazi was not a riot. You need to update your talking points.

Wait. You didn't know that IMMEDIATELY?

A lot of people knew that immediately. But not everyone.


Really. A lot of people knew immediately? Like?
 
2013-08-20 01:01:00 PM

mediablitz: Cletus C.: mediablitz: Cletus C.: Turns out Benghazi was not a riot. You need to update your talking points.

Wait. You didn't know that IMMEDIATELY?

A lot of people knew that immediately. But not everyone.

Really. A lot of people knew immediately? Like?


Like they knew immediately it was totally Obama's fault and he needed to resign no matter what happened, duh.
 
2013-08-20 01:02:42 PM
So, given that consulate security is covered by the host nation, what exactly was the State Dept supposed to do other than pull everybody out? Which, they probably didn't want to do since we now know (Thanks Republicans!) that it was doubling as a CIA base.
 
2013-08-20 01:05:49 PM
Those four officials have been in legal and professional limbo, not fired but unable to return to their jobs, for eight months ... until today.

So in other words, an eight month paid holiday?

At least the bastard who made that damn video is in jail.
 
2013-08-20 01:08:10 PM

Danger Mouse: Those four officials have been in legal and professional limbo, not fired but unable to return to their jobs, for eight months ... until today.

So in other words, an eight month paid holiday?

At least the bastard who made that damn video is in jail.


Yeah I'm sure being hounded by thousands of idiots and worrying that their entire careers and livelihoods were over was a real picnic.  I bet they would all do it again if given the chance!
 
2013-08-20 01:09:43 PM
dinch:   So, given that consulate security is covered by the host nation, what exactly was the State Dept supposed to do other than pull everybody out?

i1276.photobucket.com
 
2013-08-20 01:11:53 PM

amiable: Danger Mouse: Those four officials have been in legal and professional limbo, not fired but unable to return to their jobs, for eight months ... until today.

So in other words, an eight month paid holiday?

At least the bastard who made that damn video is in jail.

Yeah I'm sure being hounded by thousands of idiots and worrying that their entire careers and livelihoods were over was a real picnic.  I bet they would all do it again if given the chance!


Yes. They suffered enough.
 
2013-08-20 01:12:04 PM

Zeb Hesselgresser: dinch:   So, given that consulate security is covered by the host nation, what exactly was the State Dept supposed to do other than pull everybody out?


Wtf am I looking at here?
 
2013-08-20 01:29:11 PM

mediablitz: Cletus C.: mediablitz: Cletus C.: Turns out Benghazi was not a riot. You need to update your talking points.

Wait. You didn't know that IMMEDIATELY?

A lot of people knew that immediately. But not everyone.

Really. A lot of people knew immediately? Like?


Ugh. Not that it makes it the scandal you're seeking but:

David Petraus, then head of the CIA, testified to that in Congress
Greg Hicks, the top diplomat in Libya told Congress he knew almost immediately it was a terrorist attack.
Hicks also said Stevens, right before he was killed, reported it as an terrorist attack, not a spontaneous demonstration.
AFRICOM commander Carter Hamm said he knew within hours it was a coordinated attack.
The Libyan president was insistent almost immediately
The BBC, Reuters and CNN were quickly reporting it as a terrorist attack, based on sources in the CIA and state department.
And of course, the president, who said it on Sept. 12
 
2013-08-20 01:31:18 PM
i23.photobucket.com
 
2013-08-20 01:37:56 PM

Danger Mouse: At least the bastard who made that damn video is in jail.


I never knew conservatives were so soft on crime when it comes to people who violate their parole.
 
2013-08-20 01:39:45 PM
I like the Contributors box to the right of the article: Josh Rogin, Eli Lake, Daniel Klaidman and Ben Jacobs. What a great source for unbiased news about US foreign policy in the mid-east.
 
2013-08-20 01:45:30 PM

ExpressPork: it was just protests over a youtube video, right Dems?


It's really too bad that the protesters/attackers don't wear different color tee shirts identifying who they are and what they are protesting/attacking over.  It's just too confusing having a bunch of people in street clothes outraged over something (a video, 911, or your mom raising her price).

Who really cares what they were protesting or raging about?  And how is the State Department supposed to gear up against a spontaneous mob in one of the several hundred offices they have scattered in shaithole countries throughout the middle east?

Faux outrage over this is faux.
 
2013-08-20 01:49:06 PM

Cletus C.: mediablitz: Cletus C.: mediablitz: Cletus C.: Turns out Benghazi was not a riot. You need to update your talking points.

Wait. You didn't know that IMMEDIATELY?

A lot of people knew that immediately. But not everyone.

Really. A lot of people knew immediately? Like?

Ugh. Not that it makes it the scandal you're seeking but:

David Petraus, then head of the CIA, testified to that in Congress
Greg Hicks, the top diplomat in Libya told Congress he knew almost immediately it was a terrorist attack.
Hicks also said Stevens, right before he was killed, reported it as an terrorist attack, not a spontaneous demonstration.
AFRICOM commander Carter Hamm said he knew within hours it was a coordinated attack.
The Libyan president was insistent almost immediately
The BBC, Reuters and CNN were quickly reporting it as a terrorist attack, based on sources in the CIA and state department.
And of course, the president, who said it on Sept. 12


Jebus Cripes. Are we going to try and polish this turd again?  Obama did not say that on Sept 12.   In fact  a few hours after his Rose Garden seech, 60 minutes interviwed Obama and directly asked him about it:

KROFT: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya Attack, do you believe that this was a terrorism attack?
OBAMA: Well it's too early to tell exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans.  And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.

In fact the adminstration went on for several more weeks telling the world it was all because of an anit muslim video.
 
2013-08-20 02:17:40 PM

Cletus C.: Ugh. Not that it makes it the scandal you're seeking but:

David Petraus, then head of the CIA, testified to that in Congress
Greg Hicks, the top diplomat in Libya told Congress he knew almost immediately it was a terrorist attack.
Hicks also said Stevens, right before he was killed, reported it as an terrorist attack, not a spontaneous demonstration.
AFRICOM commander Carter Hamm said he knew within hours it was a coordinated attack.
The Libyan president was insistent almost immediately
The BBC, Reuters and CNN were quickly reporting it as a terrorist attack, based on sources in the CIA and state department.
And of course, the president, who said it on Sept. 12


The initial talking points prepared by the CIA came to the assessment that there was a spontaneous protest over the video in Benghazi (a protest which they believe involved "a mix of individuals across many sectors of Libyan society"), which was then hijacked by Ansar al-Sharia and individuals linked to al-Qaeda.

So a list of people saying that it was a terrorist attack isn't the same as a list of people saying there was no protest, because these things aren't somehow mutually exclusive.
 
2013-08-20 03:52:54 PM

ExpressPork: it was just protests over a youtube video, right Dems?


Who farking cares?
 
2013-08-20 03:56:29 PM

Cletus C.: mediablitz: Cletus C.: Turns out Benghazi was not a riot. You need to update your talking points.

Wait. You didn't know that IMMEDIATELY?

A lot of people knew that immediately. But not everyone.


If they knew it was an attack at first, what difference would if have made? Does that change the fact that Americans died? What exactly could they have done differently?

Absolutely nothing at all.
 
2013-08-20 03:57:14 PM

Infernalist: Nah, it was outrage that your mom was raising her price from $5 to $7 per fark.


Mugato: What difference does it make what the cause was? How does that change anything?


Heraclitus: Because that riot was completely different from the 60 other riots that happened that week.


firemanbuck: Who really cares what they were protesting or raging about?


Good work as usual advertising to the world what incompetent partisan boobs you all are.

It's very noble of all of you to rationalize and defend POTUS and SOS.  They blatantly lied for weeks before finally being forced to admit that the laughable youtube excuse was, in fact, complete horseshiat.
I remember reading threads at the time on Fark in which conservatives argued that the youtube story couldn't possibly be true, because, well, common sense.  The response from Liberals was to call them conspiracy theorists and the usual "DERRRP" while applauding the President and shaming the creator of the dreaded youtube video.  It turns out you were duped and made to defend the bullshiat story.  Now that you all are exposed to have been used as the Democrat party's gullible sheep your response is that it "doesn't matter".  You're like sad whipped brainwashed puppydogs of scandalous politicians.  You eat up their shiat and beg for more.  It ridiculous.
"Youtube video?  Jail the creator!  Sieze the hatemonger!!"
"Oh it wasn't a youtube video at all?  It was a Terrorist attack?"
Oh...in that case let's not bicker about who killed who...
img376.imageshack.us
 
2013-08-20 04:06:54 PM

ExpressPork: Infernalist: Nah, it was outrage that your mom was raising her price from $5 to $7 per fark.

Mugato: What difference does it make what the cause was? How does that change anything?

Heraclitus: Because that riot was completely different from the 60 other riots that happened that week.

firemanbuck: Who really cares what they were protesting or raging about?

Good work as usual advertising to the world what incompetent partisan boobs you all are.

It's very noble of all of you to rationalize and defend POTUS and SOS.  They blatantly lied for weeks before finally being forced to admit that the laughable youtube excuse was, in fact, complete horseshiat.
I remember reading threads at the time on Fark in which conservatives argued that the youtube story couldn't possibly be true, because, well, common sense.  The response from Liberals was to call them conspiracy theorists and the usual "DERRRP" while applauding the President and shaming the creator of the dreaded youtube video.  It turns out you were duped and made to defend the bullshiat story.  Now that you all are exposed to have been used as the Democrat party's gullible sheep your response is that it "doesn't matter".  You're like sad whipped brainwashed puppydogs of scandalous politicians.  You eat up their shiat and beg for more.  It ridiculous.
"Youtube video?  Jail the creator!  Sieze the hatemonger!!"
"Oh it wasn't a youtube video at all?  It was a Terrorist attack?"
Oh...in that case let's not bicker about who killed who...
[img376.imageshack.us image 800x441]


Infernalist and Mugato are always on the wrong side. Always.  They are statists.  Not too sure about the other two.  Probably Linux alts like so many are.
 
2013-08-20 04:11:18 PM

ExpressPork: Infernalist: Nah, it was outrage that your mom was raising her price from $5 to $7 per fark.

Mugato: What difference does it make what the cause was? How does that change anything?

Heraclitus: Because that riot was completely different from the 60 other riots that happened that week.

firemanbuck: Who really cares what they were protesting or raging about?

Good work as usual advertising to the world what incompetent partisan boobs you all are.

It's very noble of all of you to rationalize and defend POTUS and SOS.  They blatantly lied for weeks before finally being forced to admit that the laughable youtube excuse was, in fact, complete horseshiat.
I remember reading threads at the time on Fark in which conservatives argued that the youtube story couldn't possibly be true, because, well, common sense.  The response from Liberals was to call them conspiracy theorists and the usual "DERRRP" while applauding the President and shaming the creator of the dreaded youtube video.  It turns out you were duped and made to defend the bullshiat story.  Now that you all are exposed to have been used as the Democrat party's gullible sheep your response is that it "doesn't matter".  You're like sad whipped brainwashed puppydogs of scandalous politicians.  You eat up their shiat and beg for more.  It ridiculous.
"Youtube video?  Jail the creator!  Sieze the hatemonger!!"
"Oh it wasn't a youtube video at all?  It was a Terrorist attack?"
Oh...in that case let's not bicker about who killed who...
[img376.imageshack.us image 800x441]


Can you explain, please, WTF difference it makes whether it was a video or "terrorist" attack, how the State Department's response to the situation should have been different?  Who the f*ck cares whether we thought the attack was due to someones dumsh*t video on youtube, or a danish cartoon, or some nebulous "terrorist" group.  Is the State Department not supposed to modify their understanding of the situation as new information comes in?  I'm going to say again, that one angry middle-eastern mob looks pretty much like the next one when they aren't wearing shirts or carrying signs 'splainin why they're butthurt this time.
 
2013-08-20 04:15:26 PM

Cletus C.: reported it as an terrorist attack, not a spontaneous demonstration.


They knew it was an attack (State's PDF), but the security situation had been deteriorating for awhile with many different popular and quasi-government militias and easy access to weapons. The idea that was a planned terrorist attack wasn't confirmed in the U.S. media until the Prez gave his speech the next day. State and CIA was eager to suppress any information on Qaedans or ongoing CIA ops in the region because they didn't want to leak info useful to the enemy. Rational people understand that.
 
2013-08-20 04:23:20 PM

ExpressPork: They blatantly lied for weeks before finally being forced to admit that the laughable youtube excuse was, in fact, complete horseshiat.


Apart from being untrue (the Prez called at an act of terror the next day) , why are you so eager to expose ongoing CIA and FBI ops on the ground there? Why does it matter to you so much whether it had anything to do with Youtube or Vimeo or the Grand Galloping Gala? The motivation for the Qaedans' attack in this case is clear and was clear within 24 hours. Rice wasn't authorized to reveal more than State or the CIA wanted her to. Why is it so important to you that she somehow expose classified information that State and the CIA wanted to keep quiet during the investigation? Stevens knew that the Cairo embassy had been breached by people protesting the film and was trying to figure out whether there was any sign of an attack at Special Ops Benghazi.
 
2013-08-20 04:25:48 PM

firemanbuck: Can you explain, please, WTF difference it makes whether it was a video or "terrorist" attack, how the State Department's response to the situation should have been different?


Yes.
For starters, instead of identifying the attack as a "protest over a youtube video." (for weeks) our President and Secretary of State should have said "It was a terrorist attack."  You know, since that's exactly what it was.
 
2013-08-20 04:28:12 PM

Biological Ali: Cletus C.: Ugh. Not that it makes it the scandal you're seeking but:

David Petraus, then head of the CIA, testified to that in Congress
Greg Hicks, the top diplomat in Libya told Congress he knew almost immediately it was a terrorist attack.
Hicks also said Stevens, right before he was killed, reported it as an terrorist attack, not a spontaneous demonstration.
AFRICOM commander Carter Hamm said he knew within hours it was a coordinated attack.
The Libyan president was insistent almost immediately
The BBC, Reuters and CNN were quickly reporting it as a terrorist attack, based on sources in the CIA and state department.
And of course, the president, who said it on Sept. 12

The initial talking points prepared by the CIA came to the assessment that there was a spontaneous protest 1. over the video in Benghazi (a protest which they believe involved "a mix of individuals across many sectors of Libyan society"), which 2. was then hijacked by Ansar al-Sharia and individuals linked to al-Qaeda.

So a list of people saying that it was a terrorist attack 3. isn't the same as a list of people saying there was no protest, because these things aren't somehow mutually exclusive.


This is tiring for all, I'm sure. But let's be clear these things.

1. The initial talking points referenced what happened in Benghazi as being inspired by the protests in Cairo. Being inspired by protests isn't the same thing as protesting because of a video. No mention of the video in the talking points. None. That was an administration add-on. And on and on and on.

2. Nope. Never said that.

3. There was no protest. This was a planned terrorist attack. We know that for sure now. There is no need to rationalize or parse words over that.

Here are the original CIA talking points. Go ahead and compare this to what Susan Rice said on her talk show tour. Suddenly, there was almost total emphasis on a hateful video that was never mentioned in the talking points and the terrorists were taken completely out of the picture. Very different. I'm just calling it a fabrication for the American public, not a scandal. It is a touchy topic with some, who don't like the truth, for some reason.

• We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex.
• The crowd almost certainly was a mix of individuals from across many sectors of Libyan society. That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa'ida participated in the attack.
• Initial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia. The group has since released a statement that its leadership did not order the attacks, but did not deny that some of its members were involved. Ansar al-Sharia's Facebook page aims to spread Sharia in Libya and emphasizes the need for jihad to counter what it views as false interpretations of Islam, according to an open source study.
• The wide availability of weapons and experienced fighters in Libya almost certainly contribute to the lethality of the attacks.
• 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.
• We are working w/ Libyan authorities and intelligence partners in an effort to help bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of U.S. citizens.
 
2013-08-20 04:34:10 PM

Aarontology: I'm still not entirely sure what the "scandal" is supposed to be.


You don't read?
 
2013-08-20 04:36:25 PM

Somacandra: Cletus C.: reported it as an terrorist attack, not a spontaneous demonstration.

They knew it was an attack (State's PDF), but the security situation had been deteriorating for awhile with many different popular and quasi-government militias and easy access to weapons. The idea that was a planned terrorist attack wasn't confirmed in the U.S. media until the Prez gave his speech the next day. State and CIA was eager to suppress any information on Qaedans or ongoing CIA ops in the region because they didn't want to leak info useful to the enemy. Rational people understand that.


You're having it both ways here. You're saying Obama confirmed it was a terrorist attack the next day, then sent out the ambassador to the U.N. days later to say it was something else. If the CIA did not want that information leaked, then why did Obama supposedly leak it?

Rational people would see the flaw in that logic.
 
2013-08-20 04:36:52 PM

Somacandra: Apart from being untrue (the Prez called at an act of terror the next day)


No he didn't , you water-carrying partisan sheep.
Here is the exact quote from Obama:"Well it's too early to tell exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans."

How is anyone in danger of "exposing CIA ops" by calling it a terrorist attack?  The election was coming up and a terrorist attack on an embassy looks so much worse than a "protest that got out of hand".  The only reason they even bothered to use such an absurd excuse is because sadly Democrats are so farking naive and complacent when it comes to their own party that they knew they could get away with it, and they did.  And they managed to repeat "it's not a scandal" as many times as it took to get the flock of sheep "baa"ing it for them daily like they do with erverything.
Libertarians are insane.
Baaa-a-a-a-a
Tea Partiers are all racists
Baaa-a-a-a-a
Banghazi/IRS/Fast & Furious/Solyndra/Targeting the Press/NSA/Holder Perjury/Ignoring Congress are not scandals, citizen....
Baaa-a-a-a-a
 
2013-08-20 05:05:47 PM
firemanbuck:

Can you explain, please, WTF difference it makes whether it was a video or "terrorist" attack, how the State Department's response to the situation should have been different?  Who the f*ck cares whether we thought the attack was due to someones dumsh*t video on youtube, or a danish cartoon, or some nebulous "terrorist" group.  Is the State Department not supposed to modify their understanding of the situation as new information comes in? ...

Oh, this one is too easy ....

Obama had been campaigning for months about how he had killed Bin Laden and Al Qaeda was on the run.  So a terrorist attack on 9/11 destroying our embassy and killing four americans, including the Ambassador and former US Special Forces two months before the election completely destroyed his narrative.  Just obliterated it.  So the White House lied.  They tried and hide the fact that it was a terrorist attack (and that the Ambassador had asked, repeatedly, for more security and flat out said the embassy was defenseless) and instead pretended it was simply a group of protesters that turned into a riot.  Then they pinned it all on an innocent guy who made a video (who is still sitting in prison, I might add, but that's a completely different scandal the media won't touch).

So yes, it does matter whether it was a protest or a terrorist attack.  It also matters who completely manufactured the story of the YouTube video to hide that it was a terrorist attack.  And it also matters why military assets were not sent immediately the instant the embassy perimeter was breached and who made that decision.  We don't know the answers to these last two questions, and that is why Benghazi is scandal-rific.  They didn't even fire the woman who refused the requests for extra security from Stevens.
 
2013-08-20 05:11:50 PM

Cletus C.: 1. The initial talking points referenced what happened in Benghazi as being inspired by the protests in Cairo. Being inspired by protests isn't the same thing as protesting because of a video. No mention of the video in the talking points. None. That was an administration add-on. And on and on and on.


Yes, the protests in Cairo that were specifically over the video. Maybe you didn't know that - maybe you were under the impression that they were just generic protests with no identifiable cause. But now you know - when somebody talks about a demonstration inspired by the protests in Cairo, they're talking about a demonstration against the video.

The personnel inside the Cairo embassy certainly knew right away what the protests were over (indeed, they were attacked by Republicans for putting up a statement that addressed the cause of the protests). Now you know too.

Cletus C.: 2. Nope. Never said that.


Never said what? The initial assessment was that a protest that initially involved ordinary Libyans eventually "evolved into a direct assault" carried out by terrorists. It doesn't immediately identify the terrorists as the only ones carrying out the attack, but it does seem to identify as the principle participants - hence it would seem fair to say that they hijacked the protest.

Cletus C.: 3. There was no protest. This was a planned terrorist attack. We know that for sure now. There is no need to rationalize or parse words over that.


I'm not talking about what we know "now", I'm talking about your falsely characterizing those comments as claims that there were no protests.

Cletus C.: I'm just calling it a fabrication for the American public, not a scandal.


Words mean things. Even if you're upset that the administration didn't immediately name its suspects on national television, that's not a "fabrication".
 
2013-08-20 05:51:57 PM

SunsetLament: firemanbuck:

Can you explain, please, WTF difference it makes whether it was a video or "terrorist" attack, how the State Department's response to the situation should have been different?  Who the f*ck cares whether we thought the attack was due to someones dumsh*t video on youtube, or a danish cartoon, or some nebulous "terrorist" group.  Is the State Department not supposed to modify their understanding of the situation as new information comes in? ...

Oh, this one is too easy ....

Obama had been campaigning for months about how he had killed Bin Laden and Al Qaeda was on the run.  So a terrorist attack on 9/11 destroying our embassy and killing four americans, including the Ambassador and former US Special Forces two months before the election completely destroyed his narrative.  Just obliterated it.  So the White House lied.  They tried and hide the fact that it was a terrorist attack (and that the Ambassador had asked, repeatedly, for more security and flat out said the embassy was defenseless) and instead pretended it was simply a group of protesters that turned into a riot.  Then they pinned it all on an innocent guy who made a video (who is still sitting in prison, I might add, but that's a completely different scandal the media won't touch).

So yes, it does matter whether it was a protest or a terrorist attack.  It also matters who completely manufactured the story of the YouTube video to hide that it was a terrorist attack.  And it also matters why military assets were not sent immediately the instant the embassy perimeter was breached and who made that decision.  We don't know the answers to these last two questions, and that is why Benghazi is scandal-rific.  They didn't even fire the woman who refused the requests for extra security from Stevens.


The initial assessment was that it was a protest. Protests were going on around the area for a while. It made sense at the time that it was part of those protests.

Where would those military assets come from, exactly? The closest assets we had were in Tripoli. It is a minimum 2 hour flight to Benghazi, not including any actual planning needed for the defense of the compound. We sent them right after the attack, and they arrived 3 hours later. The commanders of the assets in the area testified to this. The only people saying we could have had someone there right away, are folks who were not in command, have no say in sending the assets out, and have no idea of the exact details of the situation.
 
2013-08-20 05:53:25 PM

SunsetLament: Aarontology: I'm still not entirely sure what the "scandal" is supposed to be.

You don't read?


All I see is a lot of false information that has been debunked over and over, especially in the endless investigations into the matter.
 
2013-08-20 06:20:35 PM

Biological Ali: Cletus C.: 1. The initial talking points referenced what happened in Benghazi as being inspired by the protests in Cairo. Being inspired by protests isn't the same thing as protesting because of a video. No mention of the video in the talking points. None. That was an administration add-on. And on and on and on.

Yes, the protests in Cairo that were specifically over the video. Maybe you didn't know that ...

Good for Cairo. We have no disagreement with what was going on in Cairo. But again, no mention of the video in the talking points on Benghazi. The original talking points incorrectly said the Benghazi attacks were "inspired" by the protests. Unfortunately for your argument the talking points did not say anger over the video. That would have really helped your case. Instead, you cling to a connect-the-dots reality.

Cletus C.: 2. Nope. Never said that.

Never said what? The initial assessment was that a protest that initially involved ordinary Libyans eventually "evolved into a direct assault" carried out by terrorists. It doesn't immediately identify the terrorists as the only ones carrying out the attack, but it does seem to identify as the principle participants - hence it would seem fair to say that they hijacked the protest.


Again, you are connecting dots. Nobody said that, though. Well, except you.

Cletus C.: 3. There was no protest. This was a planned terrorist attack. We know that for sure now. There is no need to rationalize or parse words over that.

I'm not talking about what we know "now", I'm talking about your falsely characterizing those comments as claims that there were no protests.

Huh?

Cletus C.: I'm just calling it a fabrication for the American public, not a scandal.

Words mean things. Even if you're upset that the administration didn't immediately name its suspects on national television, that's not a "fabrication".


To you, words mean what you want them to mean, even if reasonable people would never draw the conclusions you draw. The talking points were b.s. In their original form they had some inaccuracies, as one might expect, but how they were finally delivered was almost all fabrication. Sorry.
 
2013-08-20 06:26:41 PM

Zeppelininthesky: Where would those military assets come from, exactly? The closest assets we had were in Tripoli. It is a minimum 2 hour flight to Benghazi, not including any actual planning needed for the defense of the compound. We sent them right after the attack, and they arrived 3 hours later. The commanders of the assets in the area testified to this. The only people saying we could have had someone there right away, are folks who were not in command, have no say in sending the assets out, and have no idea of the exact details of the situation.


And with that.... /thread.
 
2013-08-20 06:30:46 PM

Zeppelininthesky: SunsetLament: firemanbuck:

Can you explain, please, WTF difference it makes whether it was a video or "terrorist" attack, how the State Department's response to the situation should have been different?  Who the f*ck cares whether we thought the attack was due to someones dumsh*t video on youtube, or a danish cartoon, or some nebulous "terrorist" group.  Is the State Department not supposed to modify their understanding of the situation as new information comes in? ...

Oh, this one is too easy ....

Obama had been campaigning for months about how he had killed Bin Laden and Al Qaeda was on the run.  So a terrorist attack on 9/11 destroying our embassy and killing four americans, including the Ambassador and former US Special Forces two months before the election completely destroyed his narrative.  Just obliterated it.  So the White House lied.  They tried and hide the fact that it was a terrorist attack (and that the Ambassador had asked, repeatedly, for more security and flat out said the embassy was defenseless) and instead pretended it was simply a group of protesters that turned into a riot.  Then they pinned it all on an innocent guy who made a video (who is still sitting in prison, I might add, but that's a completely different scandal the media won't touch).

So yes, it does matter whether it was a protest or a terrorist attack.  It also matters who completely manufactured the story of the YouTube video to hide that it was a terrorist attack.  And it also matters why military assets were not sent immediately the instant the embassy perimeter was breached and who made that decision.  We don't know the answers to these last two questions, and that is why Benghazi is scandal-rific.  They didn't even fire the woman who refused the requests for extra security from Stevens.

The initial assessment was that it was a protest. Protests were going on around the area for a while. It made sense at the time that it was part of those protests.


The initial assessment by who?

Also, Tripoli is a 30 minute flight to Benghazi - not two hours.  Sigonella, on the other hand, is a two hour flight time.  Of course, as we all know, the violence lasted approximately 7 hours and 6 hours and 59 minutes in, the military still didn't have support on its way into Benghazi.  Someone (we still have a Commander in Chief, right?) essentially decided those people in the embassy were on their own.  Pathetic, embarrassing and shameful.

/Excusing it is also pathetic and shameful; I highly doubt you find it embarrassing.
 
2013-08-20 06:36:51 PM
Derp squad's out in force today. Triple teaming it, even.

imageshack.us
 
2013-08-20 06:39:03 PM

Cletus C.: Biological Ali: Cletus C.: Ugh. Not that it makes it the scandal you're seeking but:

David Petraus, then head of the CIA, testified to that in Congress
Greg Hicks, the top diplomat in Libya told Congress he knew almost immediately it was a terrorist attack.
Hicks also said Stevens, right before he was killed, reported it as an terrorist attack, not a spontaneous demonstration.
AFRICOM commander Carter Hamm said he knew within hours it was a coordinated attack.
The Libyan president was insistent almost immediately
The BBC, Reuters and CNN were quickly reporting it as a terrorist attack, based on sources in the CIA and state department.
And of course, the president, who said it on Sept. 12

The initial talking points prepared by the CIA came to the assessment that there was a spontaneous protest 1. over the video in Benghazi (a protest which they believe involved "a mix of individuals across many sectors of Libyan society"), which 2. was then hijacked by Ansar al-Sharia and individuals linked to al-Qaeda.

So a list of people saying that it was a terrorist attack 3. isn't the same as a list of people saying there was no protest, because these things aren't somehow mutually exclusive.

This is tiring for all, I'm sure. But let's be clear these things.

1. The initial talking points referenced what happened in Benghazi as being inspired by the protests in Cairo. Being inspired by protests isn't the same thing as protesting because of a video. No mention of the video in the talking points. None. That was an administration add-on. And on and on and on.

2. Nope. Never said that.

3. There was no protest. This was a planned terrorist attack. We know that for sure now. There is no need to rationalize or parse words over that.

Here are the original CIA talking points. Go ahead and compare this to what Susan Rice said on her talk show tour. Suddenly, there was almost total emphasis on a hateful video that was never mentioned in the talking points and the terrorists were tak ...


Let me ask you this. If Rice would have told the public it was a terror attack, how would it change how we reacted? The CIA told Rice that she needed to read the talking points memo. When the CIA tells you something, you do it now. The point of the talking points was not to tip off the attackers that we were watching them. If Rice said anything other than what was on the talking points, she could have caused more of a problem. We know there was a covert operation going on in the CIA annex. After all hell broke loose, the CIA would try to take care of all the assets and make sure they were safe and away from prying eyes.
 
2013-08-20 06:39:11 PM

Zeppelininthesky: Where would those military assets come from, exactly? The closest assets we had were in Tripoli. It is a minimum 2 hour flight to Benghazi, not including any actual planning needed for the defense of the compound. We sent them right after the attack, and they arrived 3 hours later. The commanders of the assets in the area testified to this. The only people saying we could have had someone there right away, are folks who were not in command, have no say in sending the assets out, and have no idea of the exact details of the situation.


"They" arrived 3 hours later?  *cough* bullshiat *cough*

According to the Pentagon, Special Forces made it to Benghazi 23 hours after the Defense Department became aware of the attack on the embassy (3:30PM the next day).
 
2013-08-20 06:50:15 PM

Zeppelininthesky: Let me ask you this. If Rice would have told the public it was a terror attack, 1. how would it change how we reacted? 2. The CIA told Rice that she needed to read the talking points memo. When the CIA tells you something, you do it now. The 2A. point of the talking points was not to tip off the attackers that we were watching them. If Rice said 3. anything other than what was on the talking points, she could have caused more of a problem. We know there was a covert operation going on in the CIA annex. After all hell broke loose, the CIA would try to take care of all the assets and make sure they were safe and away from prying eyes.


1, Well, my reaction wouldn't have been "what the fark is it with the administration's obsession with that video?"

2./2A. You made that up. Why?

3, So, Obama caused more of a problem when he called it a terrorist attack Sept. 12?
 
2013-08-20 06:54:36 PM

Zeppelininthesky: Let me ask you this. If Rice would have told the public it was a terror attack, how would it change how we reacted? The CIA told Rice that she needed to read the talking points memo. When the CIA tells you something, you do it now. The point of the talking points was not to tip off the attackers that we were watching them. If Rice said anything other than what was on the talking points, she could have caused more of a problem. We know there was a covert operation going on in the CIA annex. After all hell broke loose, the CIA would try to take care of all the assets and make sure they were safe and away from prying eyes.


Is that the talking points memo that the CIA wrote and the State Department subsequently fought with the CIA to get them to change it?  The memo that originally said it was an Al Qaeda terrorist attack?  The memo that was editted over the course of 94 emails between the CIA and the State Department?  The memo that Carney said only had one small "stylistic" edit?  The memo that (right before it was put into use by the White House) Petraeus said "Frankly, I'd just as soon not use this" because of all the material removed by the State Department?
 
2013-08-20 06:59:26 PM

SunsetLament: Zeppelininthesky: SunsetLament: firemanbuck:

Can you explain, please, WTF difference it makes whether it was a video or "terrorist" attack, how the State Department's response to the situation should have been different?  Who the f*ck cares whether we thought the attack was due to someones dumsh*t video on youtube, or a danish cartoon, or some nebulous "terrorist" group.  Is the State Department not supposed to modify their understanding of the situation as new information comes in? ...

Oh, this one is too easy ....

Obama had been campaigning for months about how he had killed Bin Laden and Al Qaeda was on the run.  So a terrorist attack on 9/11 destroying our embassy and killing four americans, including the Ambassador and former US Special Forces two months before the election completely destroyed his narrative.  Just obliterated it.  So the White House lied.  They tried and hide the fact that it was a terrorist attack (and that the Ambassador had asked, repeatedly, for more security and flat out said the embassy was defenseless) and instead pretended it was simply a group of protesters that turned into a riot.  Then they pinned it all on an innocent guy who made a video (who is still sitting in prison, I might add, but that's a completely different scandal the media won't touch).

So yes, it does matter whether it was a protest or a terrorist attack.  It also matters who completely manufactured the story of the YouTube video to hide that it was a terrorist attack.  And it also matters why military assets were not sent immediately the instant the embassy perimeter was breached and who made that decision.  We don't know the answers to these last two questions, and that is why Benghazi is scandal-rific.  They didn't even fire the woman who refused the requests for extra security from Stevens.

The initial assessment was that it was a protest. Protests were going on around the area for a while. It made sense at the time that it was part of those protests.

The ini ...


According to a trip calculator, the flight time from Tripoli to Benghazi is 1 hour 19 minutes.

http://www.travelmath.com/flying-time/from/Tripoli,+Libya/to/Benghaz i, +Libya

Still, it takes time to get your assets up to speed on what is going on, get your assessments from the scene, notify the appropriate commanders, and other things before your fly them to the scene. According to the official reports from people actually on the scene, the attack was brief, 2 hours at the most.  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444620104578008922056244 096.html

The second attack started a little later, and again was brief, about 2 hours give or take. We had already sent assets at that point.
 
2013-08-20 07:10:25 PM

SunsetLament: Zeppelininthesky: Where would those military assets come from, exactly? The closest assets we had were in Tripoli. It is a minimum 2 hour flight to Benghazi, not including any actual planning needed for the defense of the compound. We sent them right after the attack, and they arrived 3 hours later. The commanders of the assets in the area testified to this. The only people saying we could have had someone there right away, are folks who were not in command, have no say in sending the assets out, and have no idea of the exact details of the situation.

"They" arrived 3 hours later?  *cough* bullshiat *cough*

According to the Pentagon, Special Forces made it to Benghazi 23 hours after the Defense Department became aware of the attack on the embassy (3:30PM the next day).


No, they arrived a little after 1 AM.  http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/05/08/us/benghazi-pentagon-tim eline.html?_r=0">http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/05/08/us/ben ghazi-pentagon-tim eline.html?_r=0

Please stop lying. You are just making yourself look bad. 

Cletus C.: Zeppelininthesky: Let me ask you this. If Rice would have told the public it was a terror attack, 1. how would it change how we reacted? 2. The CIA told Rice that she needed to read the talking points memo. When the CIA tells you something, you do it now. The 2A. point of the talking points was not to tip off the attackers that we were watching them. If Rice said 3. anything other than what was on the talking points, she could have caused more of a problem. We know there was a covert operation going on in the CIA annex. After all hell broke loose, the CIA would try to take care of all the assets and make sure they were safe and away from prying eyes.

1, Well, my reaction wouldn't have been "what the fark is it with the administration's obsession with that video?"

2./2A. You made that up. Why?

3, So, Obama caused more of a problem when he called it a terrorist attack Sept. 12?


So, why did the CIA tell Rice to read what was on the talking points? If it was not to hide a classified CIA operation, than what was the point?

Again, what would we do differently if they called it a terrorist attack?
 
2013-08-20 07:11:28 PM
Bah, Fark ate my link.
 
2013-08-20 07:19:23 PM

Zeppelininthesky: Again, what would we do differently if they called it a terrorist attack?


I suppose I could watch a talk show where an administration official was explaining something without wondering if it was a complete line of bullshiat again.
 
2013-08-20 07:24:43 PM

Cletus C.: Zeppelininthesky: Again, what would we do differently if they called it a terrorist attack?

I suppose I could watch a talk show where an administration official was explaining something without wondering if it was a complete line of bullshiat again.


I don't think you are understanding my question. How would the Administration react if Rice would have said "Yes it is a terror attack"? They would have not acted any differently. We all know that the CIA was conducting a covert operation in the area. This is not a disputed fact. It is also not a disputed fact that the CIA told Rice to read the talking points. Even if we know it was not caused by a protest, what choice did Rice have? If she told everyone at that point that it is an attack and we knew exactly what happened, it would have been a *bad thing*.
 
2013-08-20 07:26:30 PM
Because Fark ate me link, here is the timeline of the attack. Notice, the team that landed at 1:30 local time.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/05/08/us/benghazi-pentagon-t im eline.html?_r=0
 
2013-08-20 07:37:17 PM

Zeppelininthesky: Cletus C.: Zeppelininthesky: Again, what would we do differently if they called it a terrorist attack?

I suppose I could watch a talk show where an administration official was explaining something without wondering if it was a complete line of bullshiat again.

I don't think you are understanding my question. How would the Administration react if Rice would have said "Yes it is a terror attack"? They would have not acted any differently. We all know that the CIA was conducting a covert operation in the area. This is not a disputed fact. It is also not a disputed fact that the CIA told Rice to read the talking points. Even if we know it was not caused by a protest, what choice did Rice have? If she told everyone at that point that it is an attack and we knew exactly what happened, it would have been a *bad thing*.


Well, according to the administration Obama did say, yes, it was a terrorist attack on Sept. 12. But that aside, how would telling the truth or saying nothing at all have changed anything? I have no idea. But lying as the default obviously disturbs me more than you.

You keep saying the CIA told Rice to read the talking points. Where are you getting that? The CIA prepared talking points for the administration, then they were massaged, edited, redacted and altered. Someone picked poor Susan Rice to go deliver that stuff. Not the CIA. Hardly.

And you keep saying that if she's said it was a terrorist attack that would have been a bad thing. But you also say Obama said just that days before Rice went on TV. WTF dude?
 
2013-08-20 08:01:07 PM

Cletus C.: Well, according to the administration Obama did say, yes, it was a terrorist attack on Sept. 12. But that aside, how would telling the truth or saying nothing at all have changed anything? I have no idea. But lying as the default obviously disturbs me more than you.


Jesus Christ, this whole thing is so tedious. You people don't even have a point.
 
2013-08-20 08:33:22 PM

Cletus C.: Again, you are connecting dots. Nobody said that, though. Well, except you.


I seriously have to explain basic human communication to you? This is how human beings convey and interpret information - they make inferences based on commonly-known information and their knowledge of how people communicate. This is why, even though the original talking points made no mention of Stevens or any of the other Americans killed, it wouldn't be a "fabrication" to mention these names while talking about them, because it's a commonly-known detail about the event they're mentioning.

You apparently feel that Susan Rice wrongly "connected the dots" when she talked about the video in the context of the Cairo-inspired protests that the CIA believed occurred in Benghazi. Let's leave aside for the moment the fact that nobody else has such a weirdly stringent view about the connectability of said dots - not even the Congressional GOP, as evidenced by the kinds of objections they raised when they, having seen the talking points for themselves, had a chance to question Petraeus about them.

No, when you accuse Susan Rice of lying, you make the additional assumption that she herself believed that the video had nothing to do with the Cairo-inspired protests that the CIA believed occurred in Benghazi rather than her merely "connecting the dots" and reaching a conclusion that you think was unwarranted. Even granting your highly novel theory on how language should be interpreted, it still requires additional unsupported assumptions to go from that to your suggestion that there was a lie told here.
 
2013-08-20 09:16:53 PM

Cletus C.: Zeppelininthesky: Cletus C.: Zeppelininthesky: Again, what would we do differently if they called it a terrorist attack?

I suppose I could watch a talk show where an administration official was explaining something without wondering if it was a complete line of bullshiat again.

I don't think you are understanding my question. How would the Administration react if Rice would have said "Yes it is a terror attack"? They would have not acted any differently. We all know that the CIA was conducting a covert operation in the area. This is not a disputed fact. It is also not a disputed fact that the CIA told Rice to read the talking points. Even if we know it was not caused by a protest, what choice did Rice have? If she told everyone at that point that it is an attack and we knew exactly what happened, it would have been a *bad thing*.

Well, according to the administration Obama did say, yes, it was a terrorist attack on Sept. 12. But that aside, how would telling the truth or saying nothing at all have changed anything? I have no idea. But lying as the default obviously disturbs me more than you.

You keep saying the CIA told Rice to read the talking points. Where are you getting that? The CIA prepared talking points for the administration, then they were massaged, edited, redacted and altered. Someone picked poor Susan Rice to go deliver that stuff. Not the CIA. Hardly.

And you keep saying that if she's said it was a terrorist attack that would have been a bad thing. But you also say Obama said just that days before Rice went on TV. WTF dude?


My point in all of this is why should she tell everyone what happened, when she was directly told to read what was on the talking points memo? The same memo, as you state, that was put out by the CIA. Regardless of why the attack occurred, the CIA put forth the notion that the attacks were a protest.  http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/06/white-house-benghazi-ema i ls-show-susan-rice-got-a-bad-rap/

Obama said the words "act of terror". He also said it was too early to know exactly what happened. Is it bad for someone to give all the details of an investigation that is still evolving? Did the CIA screw up in saying this was about protests? Yes. Was it wrong that Rice read what she was told to read? No.

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/05/benghazi-attack-revisited/

Regardless, it does not make a difference if it was a protest or a direct attack. The response is exactly the same.
 
2013-08-20 11:50:18 PM

Zeppelininthesky: No, they arrived a little after 1 AM. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/05/08/us/benghazi-pentagon-tim eline.html?_r=0">http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/05/08/us/ben ghazi-pentagon-tim eline.html?_r=0

Please stop lying. You are just making yourself look bad.


The "American Security Team" was the six guys (2 soldiers) coming from Tripoli to pick the survivors up on the plane and take them back.  This was not a military team coming in to meet force with force and rescue those trapped at the compound.  The special forces who were in Tripoli (four soldiers) were told to stay there and not to get on the plane.

The first time an actual team of special forces showed up on Benghazi was 23 hours later.  No air support, no drone strikes, no troops showed up in Benghazi for an entire day.  Disgraceful.  Hell, it took the freaking FBI over a month to show up and investigate, while CNN was combing through the rubble two days later.

This whole administration is an embarrassment.
 
Displayed 50 of 110 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report