hmmm...plot continues to thicken...

[OU_Sooners75]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/10/white-house-scrambles-to-contain-benghazi-gate-fallout/


The White House scrambled Friday to explain newly released email excerpts that show a top State Department official pushing to water down the intelligence community's initial story-line on the Benghazi attack, as Republicans sharply challenged the administration's honesty.


With new details emerging in the Benghazi-gate controversy, the White House held a background discussion with more than a dozen news organizations. Afterward, Press Secretary Jay Carney weathered a barrage of questions from the media during an at-times awkward White House briefing -- where he tried to defend the truthfulness of his and other officials' prior claims that the initial talking points on the attack reflected the best intelligence assessment of the time.


Carney lashed out at Republicans, accusing them of leaking the emails in an effort "to politicize this."

Further, he said: "These documents bear out what we've said all along."
But Carney was challenged on that point, repeatedly by reporters at Friday's briefing but also by substance of the email excerpts themselves.


The excerpts pertained to internal discussions in the days after the Sept. 11 attack on the talking points that would be provided to officials.


Carney had claimed last year that the only adjustment the White House or State Department made to the language was to change the word "consulate" to "diplomatic facility."


But ABC News reported Friday that the talking points were revised 12 times. Initial versions, as has been previously reported, contained references to Al Qaeda that were later deleted. But the latest excerpts show how State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland pressed the CIA to scrub references to the agency's prior security warnings out of concern they could be used against her department.

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.


Pressed on that exchange, Carney continued to insist that the only change made by the White House pertained to the description of the post. As for what the State Department requested, Carney suggested the information about terror groups and prior security warnings had questionable relevance.


"The overriding concern of everyone involved in that circumstance is always to make sure that we're not giving to those who speak in public about these issues information that cannot be confirmed, speculation about who is responsible, other things like warnings that may or may not be relevant," Carney said.


State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki also defended her agency's actions Friday, saying the department raised concern that "the points were inconsistent with the public language the Administration had used to date -- meaning members of Congress would be providing more guidance to the public than the Administration."


U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice would use those talking points as the basis for her controversial statements the Sunday after the attack that it was triggered by protests over an anti-Islam film.


Carney insisted Friday that the only statement to date that has turned out to be incorrect was the initial claim that there was a protest on the ground in Benghazi.


Whistle-blowers, though, ripped the administration over their response to the attack earlier this week, with one testifying that his "jaw dropped" after he heard Rice's comments on Sept. 16.
The Weekly Standard also reported on an email that then-CIA Director David Petraeus sent to the CIA's legislative affairs chief in which he reportedly expressed frustration at the administration's removal of all references to Islamic terrorists.


But Secretary of State John Kerry said Friday that, while he respects those whistle-blowers who testified, the "prolonged political process .... really doesn't tell us anything new about the facts."
While administration officials and congressional Democrats have described the protracted debate over the talking points as politically motivated and inconsequential, the testimony this week opened the door to additional questions.


Greg Hicks, former deputy chief of mission in Libya, said Rice's comments actually hurt the FBI investigation by insulting the Libyan president -- who gave a conflicting account at the time by saying the attack was premeditated.
Hicks said the anti-Islam film was actually a "nonevent" in Libya.
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said in an op-ed Friday that the hearing raised "new questions" about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's role in the initial description of the attack as "spontaneous."
ABC News reported that the CIA's first drafts did say the attack appeared to be "spontaneously inspired" by the protests at the embassy in Cairo. However, the early versions also said "we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa'ida participated in the attack."

[diverdog]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/10/white-house-scrambles-to-contain-benghazi-gate-fallout/


I am sorry but no one cares whether it was a riot or a planned attack except the right wing. After all the hoopla on Weds about this being a Watergate moment it turned into a meh moment. Keep going down this path and the Republicans are going to start looking really bad. That is the political reality of this situation. They would be far better off making sure this doesn't happen again.

[cleller]

I am sorry but no one cares whether it was a riot or a planned attack except the right wing. After all the hoopla on Weds about this being a Watergate moment it turned into a meh moment. Keep going down this path and the Republicans are going to start looking really bad. That is the political reality of this situation. They would be far better off making sure this doesn't happen again.

No one cared about Watergate, either. This hasn't even approached the level of hysteria that Watergate churned up. At least with Watergate, no one was brutally attacked and killed.

I think a lot of people care about whether Congress and the country were intentionally lied to. Like Watergate you've got the initial screw up, then the ham-handed effort to deny and cover up the screw up.

[Harry Beanbag]

I am sorry but no one cares whether it was a riot or a planned attack except the right wing. After all the hoopla on Weds about this being a Watergate moment it turned into a meh moment. Keep going down this path and the Republicans are going to start looking really bad. That is the political reality of this situation. They would be far better off making sure this doesn't happen again.

People that believe in honor, morality, the Constitution, and possess a set of balls and/or have a backbone care. I'm sorry that you aren't one of us.

[pphilfran]

I am sorry but no one cares whether it was a riot or a planned attack except the right wing. After all the hoopla on Weds about this being a Watergate moment it turned into a meh moment. Keep going down this path and the Republicans are going to start looking really bad. That is the political reality of this situation. They would be far better off making sure this doesn't happen again.
Evidently the White House/State Dept/Somebody cared enough to change the statement and call it a riot...this happened during the campaign season and the damn sure would rather have a riot against the Libyan government and not a planned attack against the US...

This thing stinks really friggin bad...

All that needs to be done is man up, show some nuts, and admit they screwed up badly in the intel, protective services, and support areas....take their sorry beating because they surely deserve one....then move on...

[soonerhubs]

Evidently the White House/State Dept/Somebody cared enough to change the statement and call it a riot...this happened during the campaign season and the damn sure would rather have a riot against the Libyan government and not a planned attack against the US...

This thing stinks really friggin bad...

All that needs to be done is man up, show some nuts, and admit they screwed up badly in the intel, protective services, and support areas....take their sorry beating because they surely deserve one....then move on...

Spot on.

[diverdog]

Evidently the White House/State Dept/Somebody cared enough to change the statement and call it a riot...this happened during the campaign season and the damn sure would rather have a riot against the Libyan government and not a planned attack against the US...

This thing stinks really friggin bad...

All that needs to be done is man up, show some nuts, and admit they screwed up badly in the intel, protective services, and support areas....take their sorry beating because they surely deserve one....then move on...

Had there not been riots, 3 US Embassies attacked outside Benghazi then you might be right. What most people see is 4 Americans were killed in the **** hole known as the ME.

People see this for what it is a partisan witch hunt by Issa who makes a living out of investigating Democrats and ultimately fails to prove anything criminal.

[OU_Sooners75]

I am sorry but no one cares whether it was a riot or a planned attack except the right wing. After all the hoopla on Weds about this being a Watergate moment it turned into a meh moment. Keep going down this path and the Republicans are going to start looking really bad. That is the political reality of this situation. They would be far better off making sure this doesn't happen again.

You truly are a piece of schit aren't you?

How can you say no one cares when 4 people died? Want to make a bet that the four families of the deceased want to know the truth and why there wasn't adequate protection, especially after the ambassador asked for more?

As public servants (and don't think for one moment they are not servants), they have an obligation to tell the truth.

This is far worse than Water-Gate, at least from what I am looking at.

The president decided to get more sleep time instead of actually handling a terror attack on US soil. That is treason and dereliction of duty!

For any person to defend the actions of the administration in how they handled this situation is showing sad judgment.

The democrats or anti-republicans want to say schit like "Keep going down this path and the Republicans are going to start looking really bad. That is the political reality of this situation. They would be far better off making sure this doesn't happen again." is simply fear mongering.

The republicans that are dealing with this is trying to make sure this doesn't happen again, hence the reason they are allowing the whistleblowers their testimony to congress.

The congress is doing nothing more than what they are intended to do...check the executive branch when they (executive branch) is getting too big in the britches.

[OU_Sooners75]

Had there not been riots, 3 US Embassies attacked outside Benghazi then you might be right. What most people see is 4 Americans were killed in the **** hole known as the ME.

When can I meet you so I can slap you in your vagina?

[OU_Sooners75]

Had there not been riots, 3 US Embassies attacked outside Benghazi then you might be right. What most people see is 4 Americans were killed in the **** hole known as the ME.

People see this for what it is a partisan which by Issa who makes a living out of investigating Democrats and ultimately fails to prove anything criminal.

But in all seriousness....

People see this as the truth coming out. Obama and his cronies have a history of "fixing" things to make him look better.

The masses are growing tired of this administration and his rhetoric.

The party that will feel the repercussions more is the democrat party.

What happened in Cairo was nothing like what happened in Lybia, to even think they are close or related just further solidifies my opinion of you...which is you're a fvcking idiot.

[diverdog]

No one cared about Watergate, either. This hasn't even approached the level of hysteria that Watergate churned up. At least with Watergate, no one was brutally attacked and killed.

I think a lot of people care about whether Congress and the country were intentionally lied to. Like Watergate you've got the initial screw up, then the ham-handed effort to deny and cover up the screw up.

Show me where a crime has been committed?

[OU_Sooners75]

Show me where a crime has been committed?

Falsifying records is a crime.

[pphilfran]

Had there not been riots, 3 US Embassies attacked outside Benghazi then you might be right. What most people see is 4 Americans were killed in the **** hole known as the ME.

People see this for what it is a partisan witch hunt by Issa who makes a living out of investigating Democrats and ultimately fails to prove anything criminal.

This thing stinks...somebody attempted to minimize the attack during the election season and now they are trying to cover up crap faster than a cat instead of just coming clean and moving on....

[diverdog]

But in all seriousness....

People see this as the truth coming out. Obama and his cronies have a history of "fixing" things to make him look better.

The masses are growing tired of this administration and his rhetoric.

The party that will feel the repercussions more is the democrat party.

What happened in Cairo was nothing like what happened in Lybia, to even think they are close or related just further solidifies my opinion of you...which is you're a fvcking idiot.

Can you for a second have a debate without the personal insults? Secondly the embassy in Yemen was breached and many others attacked. I can see why someone could think a protest happened in the initial days after this happened. The talking points were essentially correct other than how the attack happened. They were eventually corrected. So show me where there is a crime? Maybe congress should be working to figure out how to stop these attacks in the future and doing it in a bipartisan manner.

BTW your remarks in another thread about the Navy having air assets of the coast of Libya was flat out wrong.

[OU_Sooners75]

This thing stinks...somebody attempted to minimize the attack during the election season and now they are trying to cover up crap faster than a cat instead of just coming clean and moving on....

Nothing more truer has been said on this thread.

Diverdog is just a pathetic drone of the democrat party. So you just got to overlook his stupidity and ignorance. Next he will pretend to have served this nation.

[OU_Sooners75]

Can you for a second have a debate without the personal insults? Secondly the embassy in Yemen was breached and many others attacked. I can see why someone could think a protest happened in the initial days after this happened. The talking points were essentially correct other than how the attack happened. They were eventually corrected. So show me where there is a crime? Maybe congress should be working to figure out how to stop these attacks in the future and doing it in a bipartisan manner.

BTW your remarks in another thread about the Navy having air assets of the coast of Libya was flat out wrong.

I never said off the coast of Lybia...I said in the area...they had ships in the Mediterranean Sea.

As far as the rest of your drivel. If you didnt try so hard to insult people intelligence and insensitive, maybe I wouldnt insult your dumbazz.

You are a pathetic American!

[diverdog]

This thing stinks...somebody attempted to minimize the attack during the election season and now they are trying to cover up crap faster than a cat instead of just coming clean and moving on....

Phil:

Maybe or maybe not. It is not a crime to get this wrong. If that were the standard then a lot of politicians would be in jail.

I also wonder why there is no culpability on the part of the embassy in Libya. They knew it was dangerous, they had been warned by Libyan intelligence, they knew security was dicey and yet they chose to go.

[OU_Sooners75]

BTW Diver******...

It isn't up to Congress to figure out how to prevent attacks. That is up to those in charge of security and military. And that falls directly on the President and his cronies in the executive branch.

[OU_Sooners75]

Phil:

Maybe or maybe not. It is not a crime to get this wrong. If that were the standard then a lot of politicians would be in jail.

I also wonder why there is no culpability on the part of the embassy in Libya. They knew it was dangerous, they had been warned by Libyan intelligence, they knew security was dicey and yet they chose to go.

It is a crime to cover up their mistakes by blatantly lying. May not serve any jail time or pay a hefty fine. But it is definitely a crime against the constitution and the duties of the office.

[diverdog]

Falsifying records is a crime.

What records were falsified? They wete internal emails and talking points.

[diverdog]

BTW Diver******...

It isn't up to Congress to figure out how to prevent attacks. That is up to those in charge of security and military. And that falls directly on the President and his cronies in the executive branch.

Who has oversight on funding?

[pphilfran]

Phil:

Maybe or maybe not. It is not a crime to get this wrong. If that were the standard then a lot of politicians would be in jail.

I also wonder why there is no culpability on the part of the embassy in Libya. They knew it was dangerous, they had been warned by Libyan intelligence, they knew security was dicey and yet they chose to go.
I never said it was a crime...but there damn sure is a bucket load of incompetence...

[OU_Sooners75]

What records were falsified? They wete internal emails and talking points.

So telling subordinates isnt being a record?

They flat out made it a point to lie to the American people.

[OU_Sooners75]

Who has oversight on funding?

Funding is one thing. Preparation and policies is that of the Executive branch.

But glad to see you are trying to divert the real issue...and that is that the President condoned his subordinates lying to the American People and even congress.

[diverdog]

I never said it was a crime...but there damn sure is a bucket load of incompetence...

Phil:

I do not disagree. People should be fired. What really pisses me off is the attacks on our military and miltary leadership. There was nothing that could be done and they tried and they did not have enough time. I have been on rapid deployments and I have a good handle on the time it takes to get troops into action. Believe me if something could have been done it would have been done.

Back to my main point and that is this stuff is just not in the minds of the average American. They just do not care because they do not follow the news. Everyone on here is a political junkie so we care but we are not the norm.

[OU_Sooners75]

Phil:

I do not disagree. People should be fired. What really pisses me off is the attacks on our military and miltary leadership. There was nothing that could be done and they tried and they did not have enough time. I have been on rapid deployments and I have a good handle on the time it takes to get troops into action. Believe me if something could have been done it would have been done.

Yet, if true what Hicks said, there were special forces in Tripoli. And the Military Command of Africa ordered a stand down or no go?

Yeah, the military could have done something. But the President would have had to sign off on it, and he decided it was more important to sleep.


The military may not have saved the lives of the 4. But they could have made it there and secured the area. They could have made their presence felt, even after the deaths occurred.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Yet, if true what Hicks said, there were special forces in Tripoli. And the Military Command of Africa ordered a stand down or no go?

Yeah, the military could have done something. But the President would have had to sign off on it, and he decided it was more important to sleep.


The military may not have saved the lives of the 4. But they could have made it there and secured the area. They could have made their presence felt, even after the deaths occurred.and to blame the attack on some video that likely the attackers had not seen. I understand the maker of the video is still incarcerated.

[OU_Sooners75]

and to blame the attack on some video that likely the attackers had not seen. I understand the maker of the video is still incarcerated.

Hell,they knew the video wasnt seen by them. The video had less than 100 views before it was blamed.

[diverdog]

Yet, if true what Hicks said, there were special forces in Tripoli. And the Military Command of Africa ordered a stand down or no go?

Yeah, the military could have done something. But the President would have had to sign off on it, and he decided it was more important to sleep.


The military may not have saved the lives of the 4. But they could have made it there and secured the area. They could have made their presence felt, even after the deaths occurred.

How would they secure an area with minimum of weapons? I am pretty sure the African Central Command knows more about their capability then you and I do.

[diverdog]

Hell,they knew the video wasnt seen by them. The video had less than 100 views before it was blamed.

Do you have a link?

[OU_Sooners75]

How would they secure an area with minimum of weapons? I am pretty sure the African Central Command knows more about their capability then you and I do.

So you are telling me that there are no troops a few hours flight away from like Germany or Italy or Turkey or even Iraq?

Face it man, the attack went on for what, 8 hours? There were plenty of time to get troops there or at least some jets to fly over.

The special forces could have gone in and extracted the personnel at the consulate and/or the annex. Special Forces are trained for that stuff and do not carry with them heavy ordinances or heavy equipment. So your logic is very much flawed.

You obviously think there was absolutely nothing our military could have done...and you are wrong.

[OU_Sooners75]

Do you have a link?

I do believe the video has been taken down. But when the BS talking points came out, there were a few sites that had the youtube link.

Google, you may find it if it is still up somewhere.

BTW, asking for a link on something you supposedly know something about equals conceding you actually dont know jack!

[cleller]

Show me where a crime has been committed?


I don't think that whether or not a statute on the books has been broken is what the whole thing turns on. Though, if lies have been told in certain situations, that would be a crime. The crafty response would be "show me where someone died over Watergate".

Its the situation of something that is politically damaging to the administration presenting itself, then the administration lying and manipulating to try and keep the damage away from them.

Yes, burglary is a crime, and that was at the base of Watergate. Not doing your utmost to protect American embassy personnel is a disgrace.
The Nixon administration tried to hide a crime. The Obama administration is trying to hide their disgrace. Should the American people be limited to showing their disapproval in only one of these instances?

[C&CDean]

I never said off the coast of Lybia...I said in the area...they had ships in the Mediterranean Sea.

As far as the rest of your drivel. If you didnt try so hard to insult people intelligence and insensitive, maybe I wouldnt insult your dumbazz.

You are a pathetic American!

Dude, lighten up with the personal insults. You've had about a hundred in this thread alone.

Anyone who doesn't have complete and total disdain for this POS administration and what they do is a dildo. That should be enough.

[OU_Sooners75]

Sorry dean...I wont lighten up when such disregard for American lives are tolerated, especially from "dildos" that think nothing wrong happened.

Besides that, I cant stand the fool.

[okiewaker]

Not to butt in but,,"lighten up"means to lower your defenses or relinquish your position on the matter and allow others to trample your point. I say,,screw'em,,,,procede.,,,,

[sappstuf]

We spend $600 billion a year on defense. I find it extremely hard to believe that the military could not respond to an attack in a warzone that WE created for over 10 hours.

If they couldn't respond to that attack, it is doubtful they could have responded to any attack. Questioning the Generals on our threat posture and position of assets on the anniversary of 9/11 in Jihadi Central is perfectly legitimate and should be done.

[diverdog]

Sorry dean...I wont lighten up when such disregard for American lives are tolerated, especially from "dildos" that think nothing wrong happened.

Besides that, I cant stand the fool.

Put me on ignore and get a life. This is a political discussion on the internet. Nothing more. I have engaged you in a very respectful manner. If it makes you so angry to hear diverse opinions then maybe you should not be posting.

Secondly I did not say nothing wrong happen. Both parties have used Benghazi to their advantage and it is a shame. The political posturing should stop. People should be held accountable but the investigation needs to be either bipartisan or independent. The Republicans have zero credibility when it comes to getting intel right.

I now see we are developing a quick reaction force in Spain made up of 500 Marines to address this issue. That is the kind of thing that should be taking place.

Finally your little temper tantrum of mass neg specking me made me laugh. I'll wear it as a badge of honor. IDGAS about speks...turn me red for all I care.

[diverdog]

We spend $600 billion a year on defense. I find it extremely hard to believe that the military could not respond to an attack in a warzone that WE created for over 10 hours.

If they couldn't respond to that attack, it is doubtful they could have responded to any attack. Questioning the Generals on our threat posture and position of assets on the anniversary of 9/11 in Jihadi Central is perfectly legitimate and should be done.

Sapp:

They have questioned them and to man they said they did not have enough time. All of those bases in Europe are on a peace time footing. That means they are not on alert, soldiers/crew are not carrying beepers/bricks and have to be found. Rounding them up could take a few hours alone. Then you have to get your gear, go to the armory and get weapons, ammo, vehicles etc. on the aircrew side you would have to mission plan, fuel the airplane, pray you do not have mechanical issues ( which happen all the time), configure it for loading, load it, preflight it, put the troops on it and go. None of this includes all the back and forth between the commands, figuring out what is going on,and just getting there. You are also going to need a back up plan, an extraction plan and things like air refueling capabilities. On top of all that you have to get permission from Libya to go in. It just takes time.

I have loaded paratroopers and gear in under an hour on c-130's and I have taken as long as 16 hours loading spec ops gear on a c-5. From my perspective and I am willing to agree there are things I do not know but I just think we did not have enough time.

The questions I would like to ask. What was he doing there in the first place? Why did he go even though he knew the threat levels were high? Why did he not take extra security with him like the special forces we are just hearing about? Did he alert Africa Command that he was going? Why was the CIA there? Why was he meeting Turkish diplomats and what was the reason the libyan ship was in port and in contact with us? Was the Ambassador reckless and culpable in his own death? I think these are better question than figuring out why some talking point memo was altered.

I would also like to know more about this:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/25/was-syrian-weapons-shipment-factor-in-ambassadors-benghazi-visit/

[yermom]

the fact is, the government lies all the time. it's called classified information. things are left out of all the stories we hear. i'm sure there is gray area between what we want the world to know for some terrorist group to get credit for, or make us look weak in the eyes of the world, or what might hinder the sitting president from getting reelected. they still probably have some overlap.

the same people complaining about this coverup want to hang Bradley Manning. make up your minds.

if you were really squeamish about people dying over there, you'd be suggesting we weren't over there in the first place.

it really sounds like these people weren't there doing what we said they were, and trying to make that go away quietly could have likely been for various reasons.

[XingTheRubicon]

so.......


then why blame the video? That's not "left out," that's manufactured info for political gain.


also, when you are warned several times by the CIA that you need to increase security for one specific facility, and you ignore it...then the facility gets overrun and 4 Americans get murdered....THEN you specifically email from the State Dept that you need to scrub that info from the CIA's talking points because of how it might affect you politically>.....then **** you.

[yermom]

i guess if you hate the current administration, everything looks that much more sinister


it's not like there weren't other demonstrations over the video in the region. i don't think they really wanted anyone to know what was going on. they might have also not wanted to compromise other people still there

[sappstuf]

Sapp:

They have questioned them and to man they said they did not have enough time. All of those bases in Europe are on a peace time footing. That means they are not on alert, soldiers/crew are not carrying beepers/bricks and have to be found. Rounding them up could take a few hours alone. Then you have to get your gear, go to the armory and get weapons, ammo, vehicles etc. on the aircrew side you would have to mission plan, fuel the airplane, pray you do not have mechanical issues ( which happen all the time), configure it for loading, load it, preflight it, put the troops on it and go. None of this includes all the back and forth between the commands, figuring out what is going on,and just getting there. You are also going to need a back up plan, an extraction plan and things like air refueling capabilities. On top of all that you have to get permission from Libya to go in. It just takes time.

I have loaded paratroopers and gear in under an hour on c-130's and I have taken as long as 16 hours loading spec ops gear on a c-5. From my perspective and I am willing to agree there are things I do not know but I just think we did not have enough time.

The questions I would like to ask. What was he doing there in the first place? Why did he go even though he knew the threat levels were high? Why did he not take extra security with him like the special forces we are just hearing about? Did he alert Africa Command that he was going? Why was the CIA there? Why was he meeting Turkish diplomats and what was the reason the libyan ship was in port and in contact with us? Was the Ambassador reckless and culpable in his own death. I think these are better question than figuring out why some talking point memo was altered.

I would also like to know more about this:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/25/was-syrian-weapons-shipment-factor-in-ambassadors-benghazi-visit/

1. We are not talking about Europe. We are talking about Libya... You know, the country we started a war with? Do you believe that we were not on a "war footing" in a war zone?

2. Your second question is sort of meaningless. Let us say he wasn't there, but the attackers were more determined. They could have wiped out 50 Americans over 10 hours and the US military could not have saved a single life.

So if it is true that not a single American military unit was available to respond in a warzone, that speaks to Obama's expressive intent to keep our footprint in Libya too light. Hillary didn't provide enough security at the local level and Obama as CINC had placed his military Libya where every unit was on their own and no one could respond within 12 hours. Scary.

[sappstuf]

so.......


then why blame the video? That's not "left out," that's manufactured info for political gain.


also, when you are warned several times by the CIA that you need to increase security for one specific facility, and you ignore it...then the facility gets overrun and 4 Americans get murdered....THEN you specifically email from the State Dept that you need to scrub that info from the CIA's talking points because of how it might affect you politically>.....then **** you.

Pretty much. You would have thought there would have been something in those emails arguing the point of 'operation security' or something like that. Nope. The decision was completely political.

[Soonerjeepman]

Had there not been riots, 3 US Embassies attacked outside Benghazi then you might be right. What most people see is 4 Americans were killed in the **** hole known as the ME.

People see this for what it is a partisan witch hunt by Issa who makes a living out of investigating Democrats and ultimately fails to prove anything criminal.

DD, I do have some respect for you but man this is so far out there. Top officials lied, maybe even obama, to COVER their a$$es during the election and the fact they did NOT provide enough protection when asked, and you see nothing wrong with this? I'm sure you, maybe not, dogged Romney for any lies he was saying as well, so did the dem party.

[sappstuf]

Another email from Petraeus uncovered.. Talking points were useless, but it is the White House's call...

PEzN9TuN4G8

He called them "useless". They aren't if you are trying to cover up incompetence before an election..

[okie52]

the fact is, the government lies all the time. it's called classified information. things are left out of all the stories we hear. i'm sure there is gray area between what we want the world to know for some terrorist group to get credit for, or make us look weak in the eyes of the world, or what might hinder the sitting president from getting reelected. they still probably have some overlap.

the same people complaining about this coverup want to hang Bradley Manning. make up your minds.

if you were really squeamish about people dying over there, you'd be suggesting we weren't over there in the first place.

it really sounds like these people weren't there doing what we said they were, and trying to make that go away quietly could have likely been for various reasons.

I'd be suggesting we shouldn't be there in the first place. For all of those that screamed about Iraq at least congress voted on that war....Libya? Not only wasnt there a vote but we didn't even know who we were helping other than trying to depose Quadaffi.

Bradley manning? A soldier releasing classsified information about government to wiki is somehow the same thing as the executive branch lying about terrorist attacks killing 4 people?

[Soonerjeepman]

I'd be suggesting we shouldn't be there in the first place. For all of those that screamed about Iraq at least congress voted on that war....Libya? Not only wasnt there a vote but we didn't even know who we were helping other than trying to depose Quadaffi.

Bradley manning? A soldier releasing classsified information about government to wiki is somehow the same thing as the executive branch lying about terrorist attacks killing 4 people?

liberal logic, especially since it hurts their guy~

[Midtowner]

Okay, so Susan Rice lied, whether she knew it or not. There was some incompetence at a high level in assessing the security situation in Benghazi. Clinton artfully deflected during her testimony with Congress the question as to whether she lied previously (she did). The immediate response maybe could have been better although it is probably the most defensible thing here.

Here we have nothing more than politicians being politicians--they are not going to be truthful with you on the eve of a Presidential election. E.g., "read my lips, no new taxes." They posture, pivot, flip and flop, being mad at them for that is like being mad at a dog for licking its balls.

If you think one side lies and the other side doesn't, you're sadly mistaken.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/statements/byruling/false/

I can see why Republicans are mad. They feel like Obama's trickeration in the 4th quarter cost them the game. They're probably right, but... scoreboard.

[okiewaker]

To the Left,,Benghazi is a moot point,,,let's move on and talk about more pressing issues like Sexual Assault in the Military or same sex marriage. Nothing to see here,,,it's a witch hunt. Can y'all just get past the fact 4 men were needlessly killed? We really need to focus on the assault on the Constitution,,,we need to move on to gun control already.

[Midtowner]

To the Left,,Benghazi is a moot point,,,let's move on and talk about more pressing issues like Sexual Assault in the Military or same sex marriage. Nothing to see here,,,it's a witch hunt. Can y'all just get past the fact 4 men were needlessly killed? We really need to focus on the assault on the Constitution,,,we need to move on to gun control already.

Yep. It's pretty much a moot point. Just like no WMD in Iraq. We invaded based on bad intel and woopsie... And yes, there are a lot more pressing issues. Pretty much anything that's an issue is more pressing than 4 folks who died in a warzone.

Here's a story you probably haven't heard about 4 other Americans who were needlessly killed in our stupid war in Afghanistan.

http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/05/11/2886693/nc-soldier-was-betrayed-by-afghans.html

RWers are so easily led. Your right wing silly websites start championing a nothing story and so many RWers mindlessly begin to echo whatever they're told to say. Was there a coverup after Benghazi? If there was, it was probably the worst one ever. No one will defend the State/military/President's immediate response to it, the scrubbing of the talking points, etc., it's pretty much indefensible. But what of it? Do you think anyone is going to care about this in 2016? 2014? I'd imagine not...

[okie52]

Okay, so Susan Rice lied, whether she knew it or not. There was some incompetence at a high level in assessing the security situation in Benghazi. Clinton artfully deflected during her testimony with Congress the question as to whether she lied previously (she did). The immediate response maybe could have been better although it is probably the most defensible thing here.

Here we have nothing more than politicians being politicians--they are not going to be truthful with you on the eve of a Presidential election. E.g., "read my lips, no new taxes." They posture, pivot, flip and flop, being mad at them for that is like being mad at a dog for licking its balls.

If you think one side lies and the other side doesn't, you're sadly mistaken.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/statements/byruling/false/

I can see why Republicans are mad. They feel like Obama's trickeration in the 4th quarter cost them the game. They're probably right, but... scoreboard.

Heh..."What difference does it make" is artful deflection? that sound byte is going to be played many times in rhe future.

[okie52]

Yep. It's pretty much a moot point. Just like no WMD in Iraq. We invaded based on bad intel and woopsie... And yes, there are a lot more pressing issues. Pretty much anything that's an issue is more pressing than 4 folks who died in a warzone.

Here's a story you probably haven't heard about 4 other Americans who were needlessly killed in our stupid war in Afghanistan.

http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/05/11/2886693/nc-soldier-was-betrayed-by-afghans.html

RWers are so easily led. Your right wing silly websites start championing a nothing story and so many RWers mindlessly begin to echo whatever they're told to say. Was there a coverup after Benghazi? If there was, it was probably the worst one ever. No one will defend the State/military/President's immediate response to it, the scrubbing of the talking points, etc., it's pretty much indefensible. But what of it? Do you think anyone is going to care about this in 2016? 2014? I'd imagine not...

Stupid war in Afghanistan? Hell, it's the one that actually makes sense. Libya was a dumass intervention and we are paying the consequences for our intrusion

[Midtowner]

Heh..."What difference does it make" is artful deflection? that sound byte is going to be played many times in rhe future.

As rehearsed as it was, what difference does it make?

[Midtowner]

Stupid war in Afghanistan? Hell, it's the one that actually makes sense. Libya was a dumass intervention and we are paying the consequences for our intrusion

What are we doing in Afghanistan which is going to benefit us 10 years after we withdraw? Even presently? We got the dude we went there to get and he wasn't even in the right country. The Taliban has shown it's basically waiting for us to leave and then they'll swoop back into control, maybe everywhere except Kabul.

[Harry Beanbag]

Okay, so Susan Rice lied, whether she knew it or not. There was some incompetence at a high level in assessing the security situation in Benghazi. Clinton artfully deflected during her testimony with Congress the question as to whether she lied previously (she did). The immediate response maybe could have been better although it is probably the most defensible thing here.

Here we have nothing more than politicians being politicians--they are not going to be truthful with you on the eve of a Presidential election. E.g., "read my lips, no new taxes." They posture, pivot, flip and flop, being mad at them for that is like being mad at a dog for licking its balls.

If you think one side lies and the other side doesn't, you're sadly mistaken.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/statements/byruling/false/

I can see why Republicans are mad. They feel like Obama's trickeration in the 4th quarter cost them the game. They're probably right, but... scoreboard.


i would rather watch my dog lick his balls than read any of your posts.

[Midtowner]

i would rather watch my dog lick his balls than read any of your posts.

I invite you to use the ignore feature if it upsets you to read things which clash with your particular world view.

[okiewaker]

To the Left,,Benghazi is a moot point,,,let's move on and talk about more pressing issues like Sexual Assault in the Military or same sex marriage. Nothing to see here,,,it's a witch hunt. Can y'all just get past the fact 4 men were needlessly killed? We really need to focus on the assault on the Constitution,,,we need to move on to gun control already.

Yep. It's pretty much a moot point. Just like no WMD in Iraq. We invaded based on bad intel and woopsie... And yes, there are a lot more pressing issues. Pretty much anything that's an issue is more pressing than 4 folks who died in a warzone.

Here's a story you probably haven't heard about 4 other Americans who were needlessly killed in our stupid war in Afghanistan.

http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/05/11/2886693/nc-soldier-was-betrayed-by-afghans.html

RWers are so easily led. Your right wing silly websites start championing a nothing story and so many RWers mindlessly begin to echo whatever they're told to say. Was there a coverup after Benghazi? If there was, it was probably the worst one ever. No one will defend the State/military/President's immediate response to it, the scrubbing of the talking points, etc., it's pretty much indefensible. But what of it? Do you think anyone is going to care about this in 2016? 2014? I'd imagine not...

I wouldn't expect anything else BUT deflection,,,,okay, let's move on to Bush.

[Harry Beanbag]

I invite you to use the ignore feature if it upsets you to read things which clash with your particular world view.


Nah, that's not it at all. You're just retarded and I feel sorry for you.

[Midtowner]

I wouldn't expect anything else BUT deflection,,,,okay, let's move on to Bush.

Now how is it deflection? I said it was indefensibly bad and maybe the only defensible thing was the lack of immediate military response.

Okay, then.. so what?

[okiewaker]

Mid

But YOU started out with this:

"Yep. It's pretty much a moot point. Just like no WMD in Iraq. We invaded based on bad intel and woopsie..."

WTF does this have to with zero and Billiary lying? You saying Bush lied so its okay if zero lies too?

[olevetonahill]

Nah, that's not it at all. You're just retarded and I feel sorry for you.

Hell Harry, Old matlock likes His Dogs balls for him.

[soonerhubs]

Now how is it deflection? I said it was indefensibly bad and maybe the only defensible thing was the lack of immediate military response.

Okay, then.. so what?

So once this "administration of transparency" owns the ****ty leadership and cover ups, perhaps it's time to move on. So far they haven't owned it.

[soonerhubs]

Mid

But YOU started out with this:

"Yep. It's pretty much a moot point. Just like no WMD in Iraq. We invaded based on bad intel and woopsie..."

WTF does this have to with zero and Billiary lying? You saying Bush lied so its okay if zero lies too?

This is precisely what he's saying. The pledge of transparency was nothing but a canard. Ironic. I know. :)

[Midtowner]

Mid

But YOU started out with this:

"Yep. It's pretty much a moot point. Just like no WMD in Iraq. We invaded based on bad intel and woopsie..."

WTF does this have to with zero and Billiary lying? You saying Bush lied so its okay if zero lies too?

No, I'm saying we've moved on past Bush's lies (which killed a whole lot more than 4 people) and assuming we're not going to impeach the current President, which isn't happening, so what now? He's not going to say they lied and they don't have to tell you why they did. The fact is that they may have had and may continue to have a perfectly good reason, e.g., not tipping off the killers we were on to them or perhaps wanting the enemy to think our intel was really bad. Who knows? It's over, 4 people dead ain't a blip on the radar of the war on terrorism. I'm ready for the next phony crisis the RW blogosphere can cook up.

[TitoMorelli]

What was Secretary Clinton doing that was more important? What was the president doing? Aside, that is, from resting up for his big Vegas campaign event. A real government would be scrambling furiously to see what it could do to rescue its people. It’s easy, afterwards, to say that nothing would have made any difference. But, at the time Deputy Chief Hicks was calling 9-1-1 and getting executive-branch voicemail, nobody in Washington knew how long it would last.

A terrorist attack isn’t like a soccer game, over in 90 minutes. If it is a sport, it’s more like a tennis match: Whether it’s all over in three sets or goes to five depends on how hard the other guy pushes back. The government of the United States took the extremely strange decision to lose in straight sets. Not only did they not deploy out-of-area assets, they ordered even those in Libya to stand down.

...Instead of responding, the most powerful figures in the government decided that an unseen YouTube video better served their political needs. And, in the most revealing glimpse of the administration’s depravity, the president and secretary of state peddled the lie even in their mawkish eulogies to their buddy “Chris” and three other dead Americans. They lied to the victims’ coffins and then strolled over to lie to the bereaved, Hillary telling the Woods family that “we’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video.”

And she did. The government dispatched more firepower to arrest Nakoula Basseley Nakoula in Los Angeles than it did to protect its mission in Benghazi. It was such a great act of misdirection Hillary should have worn spangled tights and sawn Stevens’s casket in half.


http://www.nationalreview.com/article/347980/benghazi-lie

[soonerhubs]

No, I'm saying we've moved on past Bush's lies (which killed a whole lot more than 4 people) and assuming we're not going to impeach the current President, which isn't happening, so what now? He's not going to say they lied and they don't have to tell you why they did. The fact is that they may have had and may continue to have a perfectly good reason, e.g., not tipping off the killers we were on to them or perhaps wanting the enemy to think our intel was really bad. Who knows? It's over, 4 people dead ain't a blip on the radar of the war on terrorism. I'm ready for the next phony crisis the RW blogosphere can cook up.

Translation: What ever spin I need to justify sh:t leadership, I use it.


Transparency!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

To the Left,,Benghazi is a moot point,,,let's move on and talk about more pressing issues like Sexual Assault in the Military or same sex marriage. Nothing to see here,,,it's a witch hunt. Can y'all just get past the fact 4 men were needlessly killed? We really need to focus on the assault on the Constitution,,,we need to move on to gun control already.the current state of the American government and their lapdog Media.

[olevetonahill]

Translation: What ever spin I need to justify sh:t leadership, I use it.


Transparency!

Hub's No matter how much matlock tries to spin, this aint going away any time soon.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Hub's No matter how much matlock tries to spin, this aint going away any time soon.I don't have(sadly) much faith that heinous acts, or at least gross incompetence/negligence will result in serious loss of power by those in the administration. The media will fight the republicans tooth and nail, and neither will those in the entertainment industry nor public school system do much to challenge the nationally damaging acts of the Administration.

[yermom]

I'd be suggesting we shouldn't be there in the first place. For all of those that screamed about Iraq at least congress voted on that war....Libya? Not only wasnt there a vote but we didn't even know who we were helping other than trying to depose Quadaffi.

Bradley manning? A soldier releasing classsified information about government to wiki is somehow the same thing as the executive branch lying about terrorist attacks killing 4 people?

who determines what is classified? those in power. this is the kinda **** that he was trying to get into the open.

Bradley Manning saw things that were covered up and were now classified to protect the guilty. he then released that along with more that he presumably wasn't able to sift through. i'm sure he didn't figure he'd have much time to pick and choose.

the outcry over 4 dead Americans is just ridiculous after all the needless deaths in Iraq over some WMDs that weren't even there. we lost more than 4 a day in Afghanistan it seems. and over what at this point? hell Pakistan seems like as much or more of a threat at this point.

[sappstuf]

Hicks, who took over once Stevens was dead voted for Hillary and Obama twice. He was just a professional telling Congress his story of what happened that night.


"He voted for Hillary in the primary and Obama twice. NBC spiked the story where I told it before the hearings...
...It’s just amazing what the press is still trying to do to cover this up. So they try to make this partisan because of the lawyer. Well I’m not the messenger, he’s the messenger! The modus operandi is to find anything they can do to just attack.”

When you can't make the guy sound like a partisan hack, better to spike the story....

[okie52]

What are we doing in Afghanistan which is going to benefit us 10 years after we withdraw? Even presently? We got the dude we went there to get and he wasn't even in the right country. The Taliban has shown it's basically waiting for us to leave and then they'll swoop back into control, maybe everywhere except Kabul.

Oh we should've ended the war a long time ago but the war itself was absolutely correct.

[XingTheRubicon]

Okay, so Susan Rice lied, whether she knew it or not. There was some incompetence at a high level in assessing the security situation in Benghazi. Clinton artfully deflected during her testimony with Congress the question as to whether she lied previously (she did). The immediate response maybe could have been better although it is probably the most defensible thing here.

Here we have nothing more than politicians being politicians--they are not going to be truthful with you on the eve of a Presidential election. E.g., "read my lips, no new taxes." They posture, pivot, flip and flop, being mad at them for that is like being mad at a dog for licking its balls.

If you think one side lies and the other side doesn't, you're sadly mistaken.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/statements/byruling/false/

I can see why Republicans are mad. They feel like Obama's trickeration in the 4th quarter cost them the game. They're probably right, but... scoreboard.

Wow, one of your only objective posts...kudos to you for common sense and not blindly towing your party line.

and as far as scoreboard, Romney wasn't winning either way Benghazi played out...80% of Obama's voters are functionally retarded at best and I'm guessing it's hard to count food stamps AND be foreign policy savvy at the same time

[okie52]

who determines what is classified? those in power. this is the kinda **** that he was trying to get into the open.

Bradley Manning saw things that were covered up and were now classified to protect the guilty. he then released that along with more that he presumably wasn't able to sift through. i'm sure he didn't figure he'd have much time to pick and choose.

the outcry over 4 dead Americans is just ridiculous after all the needless deaths in Iraq over some WMDs that weren't even there. we lost more than 4 a day in Afghanistan it seems. and over what at this point? hell Pakistan seems like as much or more of a threat at this point.

And all of the angst from the left over the war in Iraq which was voted on by congress and supported by many dems but little outcry about our involvement in Libya before the embassy deaths. And now he's looking at involving us in Syria.

Of course the government decides what is classified. So manning thought he was going to expose coverups by putting it out there for all of the world to see regardless of he consequences? Could manning not have gone to a member of congress or some other authority and not risked Government security?

The idea should be that the US have minimal involvements by our military unless there is a direct threat to the US. What's stopping Obama from pulling out of Afghanistan? He's had 4 years to get us out.

[Midtowner]

and as far as scoreboard, Romney wasn't winning either way Benghazi played out...80% of Obama's voters are functionally retarded at best and I'm guessing it's hard to count food stamps AND be foreign policy savvy at the same time

Hindsight is always 20/20. For all we know, the Obama camp was drinking the same koolaid as the Republicans who were saying the polls were flawed.

They certainly weren't going to put the 'pubs in a position where they could make hay with a scandal in the last 8 weeks of the election. By burying it, they effectively delayed the public really knowing what was going on and didn't place themselves in jeopardy electorally.

[XingTheRubicon]

Yeah, we all know what happened, it was just a few months ago.

However, IMO, there's 4 levels of political lying:

1. Not revealing all info for security reasons

2. Plausible deniability - Wha????

3. Making sh*t up.

4. Threatening/demoting/killing/firing those who know about #3.


You can't do #3...because you almost always have to do #4 to hedge against the made up sh*t from getting out.

The delicious part of all of this is the only reason the community organizer and his secretary thought they could get away with flat-out blatant lying to everyone (even face to face with the parents of the deceased) is because the media had a 1,300 day streak of swinging from his caramel nuts. Then after Fox News broke every phase of this story and kicked everyone's a** in the ratings (even more than usual), the rest of the media popped up like a ground hog and smelled the blood. As Billy Bob Thorntons' character in Primary Colors said, "the media giveth,...and go **** yourself."

[Midtowner]

They didn't need to get away with it. Just get away with it for a few weeks.

And they did.

And no amount of angst and phony outrage is going to take the election back. I mean one of Romney's advisors referred to his own candidate as etch-a-sketch. I think that's even worse than anything Obama did. They acknowledged here that Romney was a blank slate and that anything they said today about him to get votes might not be true tomorrow.

It goes on on both sides.

[XingTheRubicon]

I think you look at lying differently than most.


and 2014 and 2016 say hello

[olevetonahill]

They didn't need to get away with it. Just get away with it for a few weeks.

And they did.

And no amount of angst and phony outrage is going to take the election back. I mean one of Romney's advisors referred to his own candidate as etch-a-sketch. I think that's even worse than anything Obama did. They acknowledged here that Romney was a blank slate and that anything they said today about him to get votes might not be true tomorrow.

It goes on on both sides.

You are one pitiful excuse for a Human being,
It "Worse" For some one to be referred to as "Etch a Sketch than to allow 4 US citizens to be murdered?
You would "Kill" your OWN unborn Baby to save a dog.

You are surely the lowest of the low.

[OU_Sooners75]

Diverdog...you are too fun to be on ignore. I don't disagree with everything you post...just your political views are ****ed up.

That said, I can carry on good conversation with those that do not come across as insulting others intelligence (ask yermom, MR2, and a few others not named diverdog, ST, or midtowner who have differing views). And that is how you come across. A lot of your posts come off as being smug and arrogant in reply.

Change the typical democrat elitist attitude and Ill change mine toward you.

[yermom]

And all of the angst from the left over the war in Iraq which was voted on by congress and supported by many dems but little outcry about our involvement in Libya before the embassy deaths. And now he's looking at involving us in Syria.

Of course the government decides what is classified. So manning thought he was going to expose coverups by putting it out there for all of the world to see regardless of he consequences? Could manning not have gone to a member of congress or some other authority and not risked Government security?

The idea should be that the US have minimal involvements by our military unless there is a direct threat to the US. What's stopping Obama from pulling out of Afghanistan? He's had 4 years to get us out.

i'm not really defending Obama. i don't agree with a lot of his **** either, but changing standards at this point seems kinda hollow.

[diverdog]

Diverdog...you are too fun to be on ignore. I don't disagree with everything you post...just your political views are ****ed up.

That said, I can carry on good conversation with those that do not come across as insulting others intelligence (ask yermom, MR2, and a few others not named diverdog, ST, or midtowner who have differing views). And that is how you come across. A lot of your posts come off as being smug and arrogant in reply.

Change the typical democrat elitist attitude and Ill change mine toward you.

You are the one who is an elitest. I do not go around calling people dumb azzes who disagree with me. Nor have I put you down in this thread.

[okie52]

i'm not really defending Obama. i don't agree with a lot of his **** either, but changing standards at this point seems kinda hollow.

Changing what standards?

[diverdog]

Wow, one of your only objective posts...kudos to you for common sense and not blindly towing your party line.

and as far as scoreboard, Romney wasn't winning either way Benghazi played out...80% of Obama's voters are functionally retarded at best and I'm guessing it's hard to count food stamps AND be foreign policy savvy at the same time

I saw a poll that just blew me away. 60% of US citizens have no idea Obamacare is the law of the land, 40% can't name the VP, I think it was like 6% who could name two Supreme Court Justices and it was a huge chunk of the population who could not find Iraq on a map. I could go on.

[C&CDean]

Sorry dean...I wont lighten up when such disregard for American lives are tolerated, especially from "dildos" that think nothing wrong happened.

Besides that, I cant stand the fool.

There's a lot of people I can't stand. Like I said, lighten up with the name calling. It makes it unfun for the rest of us.

[C&CDean]

I saw a poll that just blew me away. 60% of US citizens have no idea Obamacare is the law of the land, 40% can't name the VP, I think it was like 6% who could name two Supreme Court Justices and it was a huge chunk of the population who could not find Iraq on a map. I could go on.

Wanna make a bet which political party those 60/40 morans belong to?

[C&CDean]

Hint: they voted for the brother cause he was a brother. From another mother.

[diverdog]

Wanna make a bet which political party those 60/40 morans belong to?

Dean:

It is probably split 60/40 against the Dems. That is why I am unaffiliated by registration. :)

To be fair most Americans do not care about current events. We are sort of unique in that regard

[diverdog]

What was Secretary Clinton doing that was more important? What was the president doing? Aside, that is, from resting up for his big Vegas campaign event. A real government would be scrambling furiously to see what it could do to rescue its people. It’s easy, afterwards, to say that nothing would have made any difference. But, at the time Deputy Chief Hicks was calling 9-1-1 and getting executive-branch voicemail, nobody in Washington knew how long it would last.

A terrorist attack isn’t like a soccer game, over in 90 minutes. If it is a sport, it’s more like a tennis match: Whether it’s all over in three sets or goes to five depends on how hard the other guy pushes back. The government of the United States took the extremely strange decision to lose in straight sets. Not only did they not deploy out-of-area assets, they ordered even those in Libya to stand down.

...Instead of responding, the most powerful figures in the government decided that an unseen YouTube video better served their political needs. And, in the most revealing glimpse of the administration’s depravity, the president and secretary of state peddled the lie even in their mawkish eulogies to their buddy “Chris” and three other dead Americans. They lied to the victims’ coffins and then strolled over to lie to the bereaved, Hillary telling the Woods family that “we’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video.”

And she did. The government dispatched more firepower to arrest Nakoula Basseley Nakoula in Los Angeles than it did to protect its mission in Benghazi. It was such a great act of misdirection Hillary should have worn spangled tights and sawn Stevens’s casket in half.




http://www.nationalreview.com/article/347980/benghazi-lie

tito:


.Former Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates came to the assistance of the administration. Mr. Gates, who served several Republican presidents in various capacities before staying on under Mr. Obama for two and a half years, rebutted suggestions that the Pentagon could have scrambled jets or special forces during the attack, calling that a “cartoonish impression of military capabilities.”

I honestly think people believe our military has more capability than it really has and I think Gates assessment is spot on.

I think it is fair to question why we did not have some sort of quick reaction team (a real one) ready to go in Tripoli or more security in Benghazi.

[sappstuf]

Damnation. A Dem who gets it...


Look, we went into Benghazi under the assumption that somehow there was going to be a massacre in Benghazi. So we went there to protect the Libyan people. We couldn't go in to protect our own Americans who were serving there? I'm offended by this, and there has to be real answers to the questions being raised."

mQnHy92IeZI&

[sappstuf]

They didn't need to get away with it. Just get away with it for a few weeks.

And they did.

And no amount of angst and phony outrage is going to take the election back. I mean one of Romney's advisors referred to his own candidate as etch-a-sketch. I think that's even worse than anything Obama did. They acknowledged here that Romney was a blank slate and that anything they said today about him to get votes might not be true tomorrow.

It goes on on both sides.

Hicks, the whistleblower, who took over the mission once Stevens was declared dead voted for Hillary in the primary and then voted for Obama twice. He clearly leans left.

But leaning left politically didn't stop him from testifying because the facts of what happened were more important to him than the politics involved.

You could learn a lot from him. Of course you already know everything there is to know...

[cleller]

Has anyone kept track of the "etch a sketch" comments in this thread? An internal damnation to be had from that little soundbite, but no angst at all over dead Americans, indifference, cowardice, and lies.

What a great step forward. I can feel the world snickering behind our backs. That's probably satisfying to the Obama crowd.

[olevetonahill]

Has anyone kept track of the "etch a sketch" comments in this thread? An internal damnation to be had from that little soundbite, but no angst at all over dead Americans, indifference, cowardice, and lies.

What a great step forward. I can feel the world snickering behind our backs. That's probably satisfying to the Obama crowd.

Thats what the Libs do bro. Spin and Deflect, Spin and Deflect , If that dont werk then Bush caused it,

[cleller]

Thats what the Libs do bro. Spin and Deflect, Spin and Deflect , If that dont werk then Bush caused it,

The ones with the real Etch a Sketch issue is the administration that issued 12 different sets of "talking points" about what happened. Talk about shaking things up and starting over....

[olevetonahill]

The ones with the real Etch a Sketch issue is the administration that issued 12 different sets of "talking points" about what happened. Talk about shaking things up and starting over....

:pirate:

[SoonerProphet]

Why hasn't anyone been grilling the CIA, 23 of the 30 people at the "special mission" were CIA operatives? Issa and those lawyer types for Hicks haven't trotted out any CIA types to cry in fromt of the cameras.

[champions77]

I am sorry but no one cares whether it was a riot or a planned attack except the right wing. After all the hoopla on Weds about this being a Watergate moment it turned into a meh moment. Keep going down this path and the Republicans are going to start looking really bad. That is the political reality of this situation. They would be far better off making sure this doesn't happen again.

Your prideful attempts to respond on this forum in a rational, objective manner is shot to hell with this reply. If the death of Americans, lies and coverups don't float your boat...I don't what will.

[sappstuf]

Why hasn't anyone been grilling the CIA, 23 of the 30 people at the "special mission" were CIA operatives? Issa and those lawyer types for Hicks haven't trotted out any CIA types to cry in fromt of the cameras.

Probably because the Obama administration has not released a list of the names yet...

But don't worry. There are more whistleblowers in the pipeline and we will know who they are.

[SoonerProphet]

Probably because the Obama administration has not released a list of the names yet...

But don't worry. There are more whistleblowers in the pipeline and we will know who they are.

We want to roll out these CIA operatives for the cameras?

[sappstuf]

We want to roll out these CIA operatives for the cameras?

From what I understand the Obama administration has not even made them available for classified briefings that would be behind closed doors.

Too busy threatening the Chief of the Mission because he talked to a Congressman without a White House lawyer present, I guess...

[SoonerProphet]

From what I understand the Obama administration has not even made them available for classified briefings that would be behind closed doors.

Too busy threatening the Chief of the Mission because he talked to a Congressman without a White House lawyer present, I guess...

Seems to me they might have held up the Brennan nomination if they had any serious concerns.

[Midtowner]

Probably because the Obama administration has not released a list of the names yet...

But don't worry. There are more whistleblowers in the pipeline and we will know who they are.

So exposing CIA operatives is a good thing if it helps Republicans?

I guess Valerie Plame would agree.

[sappstuf]

So exposing CIA operatives is a good thing if it helps Republicans?

I guess Valerie Plame would agree.

Better reading comprehension from you would be a good thing for everyone.

[sappstuf]

Seems to me they might have held up the Brennan nomination if they had any serious concerns.

Graham attempted to and then pleaded with the House to do their job because Dems in the Senate refused to do theirs. Talked about how even though the Repubs controlled the Senate in 2004, they had hearings on Abu Graib with a Repub president.

Dems won't do that sort of thing..

[SoonerProphet]

Lot's of working parts in these conspiracy theories. One thing is certain, the House, Senate, and the ARB never gave us a solid understanding of what the CIA was doing.

[sappstuf]

Lot's of working parts in these conspiracy theories. One thing is certain, the House, Senate, and the ARB never gave us a solid understanding of what the CIA was doing.

Do you believe the story that Hicks gave is some kind of conspiracy? Please tell us the parts that were factual and which were part of the conspiracy?

[SoonerProphet]

Do you believe the story that Hicks gave is some kind of conspiracy? Please tell us the parts that were factual and which were part of the conspiracy?

No, I am not going to trust a client of Toensing or di Genova.

[sappstuf]

No, I am not going to trust a client of Toensing or di Genova.

So you believe his entire testimony is made up?

[SoonerProphet]

So you believe his entire testimony is made up?

I am certain that the law firm that has represented him is a known to be a bit dubious, at best. His testimony was mainly his opinions.

[champions77]

I am certain that the law firm that has represented him is a known to be a bit dubious, at best. His testimony was mainly his opinions.

"Mainly his opinions" So you don't think that he has logs of incoming/outgoing calls, records of emails and reports from various departments? Normally you formulate your "opinions" based on information that you receive from vrious sources. I would not be so quick to dismiss his testimony.

Be honest, this whole deal smelled from the git go, his testimony just confirmed what many have been thinking for a long time now. I would think that even libs on here would be concerned about our govenment trying to conceal the truth. This kind of thing should not be political, what transpired is either right or wrong..

[sappstuf]

I am certain that the law firm that has represented him is a known to be a bit dubious, at best. His testimony was mainly his opinions.

Were these opinions?

1. He took over the mission once Stevens was pronounced dead. Never happened?

2. He talked with Hillary at 0200 local time in Libya and gave her a Sitrep. Made up?

3. As lead diplomat he reported there was never a protest. Fiction?

4. That at around 3 a.m., he received a call from the prime minister of Libya informing him of Stevens' death. Crapola?

[SoonerProphet]

"Mainly his opinions" So you don't think that he has logs of incoming/outgoing calls, records of emails and reports from various departments? Normally you formulate your "opinions" based on information that you receive from vrious sources. I would not be so quick to dismiss his testimony.

Be honest, this whole deal smelled from the git go, his testimony just confirmed what many have been thinking for a long time now. I would think that even libs on here would be concerned about our govenment trying to conceal the truth. This kind of thing should not be political, what transpired is either right or wrong..


Smelled like a CIA operation from the get go. Again, this was a CIA "special mission", not a State dealio. There is a reason the politicians are eathing their own, that is what they do. This kinda thing is always political, both sides love to turn death into a glorious cause, it is nothing new. Don't think the CIA operates in the worl of strictly right or wrong.

[Midtowner]

Were these opinions?

1. He took over the mission once Stevens was pronounced dead. Never happened?

2. He talked with Hillary at 0200 local time in Libya and gave her a Sitrep. Made up?

3. As lead diplomat he reported there was never a protest. Fiction?

4. That at around 3 a.m., he received a call from the prime minister of Libya informing him of Stevens' death. Crapola?

And still no bigtime smoking gun. We've got an arguably bad response and an attempt to bury things for a few weeks for political reasons, which regardless of whether that happened, we'd still have four American corpses over there. We just have a bunch of politicians acting like politicians. Time to get over it. No one cares.

[sappstuf]

And still no bigtime smoking gun. We've got an arguably bad response and an attempt to bury things for a few weeks for political reasons, which regardless of whether that happened, we'd still have four American corpses over there. We just have a bunch of politicians acting like politicians. Time to get over it. No one cares.

So you don't believe it matters that security requests were ignored for months leading up to the attack?

[SoonerProphet]

So you don't believe it matters that security requests were ignored for months leading up to the attack?

If they are operating out of a CIA "special mission" isn't it the CIA's role to provide security. And yet Stevens knew the risks of traveling to Benghazi and went.

[sappstuf]

If they are operating out of a CIA "special mission" isn't it the CIA's role to provide security. And yet Stevens knew the risks of traveling to Benghazi and went.

http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/06/06/218969.html

Notice the date... The consulate was attacked in June... Reported in the news... An embassy spokesman is quoted in the story talking about "United States office in Benghazi".

Wasn't really a secret was it?

Edit:

After an attack like that, you would think someone higher in State might pay attention to those security requests.....

Nah.

[sappstuf]

tito:



I honestly think people believe our military has more capability than it really has and I think Gates assessment is spot on.

I think it is fair to question why we did not have some sort of quick reaction team (a real one) ready to go in Tripoli or more security in Benghazi.

Here is a Bing West and a pretty good take down of Gates assessment..


Sunday was quite a day for Benghazi and the U.S. military. At the platoon level, you are expected to admit errors in firefights in order to correct mistakes and do better the next time. We all make mistakes. But as we saw on yesterday’s talk shows, once you reach the top level, whether retired or not, you deny any possibility of error and label any question about military performance idiotic. This is not the behavior of a healthy organization, and if it persists, we are in for a nasty shock in a future crisis or conflict.

On CBS, former secretary of defense Bob Gates launched an impassioned defense of the Obama administration, sneering at critics for holding a “cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces.” He staunchly defended the administration’s high-level decision-making surrounding Benghazi, citing four reasons.

First, he said sending fighter jets “ignored the number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from Qaddafi’s arsenals. I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi.”

How many aircraft has the U.S. lost in hundreds of thousands of combat flights since 2001? Zero. The former SecDef is so afraid of an unknown risk that he would not send an aircraft capable of destroying a mortar site while Americans died? This is the pinnacle of risk avoidance.

Second, he said, ”To send some small number of special forces or other troops in without knowing what the environment is, without knowing what the threat is, without having any intelligence in terms of what is actually going on on the ground, would have been very dangerous.”

Let’s do a quick review: The CIA did send in seven fighters; four special-forces soldiers in Tripoli were ordered not to pitch in; the Marines on Sigonella wanted to help; and there was nothing more to face than a mob inspired by a video (accoridng to the administration). But for the Pentagon, the risk was just too great.

Message to those who were already fighting on the ground in Benghazi: You are on your own. SecDef believes it’s “very dangerous” to go into combat.

Third, Gates argued, “We don’t have a ready force standing by in the Middle East, and so getting somebody there in a timely way would have been very difficult, if not impossible. The one thing that our forces are noted for is planning and preparation before we send people in harm’s way, and there just wasn’t time to do that.”

Message to warfighters: Forget all those who, like Generals Mattis, Patton and Marshall, claim that in combat the ability to improvise is the mark of a true leader. The Pentagon will simply refuse to fight if we have not had the time to plan and prepare as we see fit.

Fourth, Gates explained, “my decisions would have been just as theirs were.”

Sadly, I believe him.

Meanwhile, over on ABC, George Will and retired general James Cartwright were excusing the military by saying ten hours was not enough time to react. The general said it takes up to “a day or two” to arm an F-16, file flight plans, arrange for refueling, etc. Therefore the solution is to pre-stage the right kinds of forces, which requires a much larger military and a knowledge beforehand about the location and severity of the threat.

By the reasoning of Will, Cartwright, and Gates, we do not have general-purpose forces; we have special-purpose forces. Do we need more forces staged around the world, or do we just need senior officers who can respond to emergencies outside their normal checklists?

Appearing on CBS and NBC, retired ambassador Thomas R. Pickering, who led a review of Benghazi, said in the process he posed no questions to Secretary Clinton. “I don’t think there was anything there that we didn’t know,” he said. “I don’t see yet any reason why what we did at the Accountability Review Board should be reopened.”

It was the review board that asserted the U.S. military could do nothing to help. The review made no mention of evacuating the embassy at Tripoli because of the risk of a terrorist attack, presumably because there wasn’t “anything there that we didn’t know.”

In fact, the congressional testimony by Mr. Hicks did include at least three new revelations.

First, very senior State Department officials reprimanded Hicks for bringing up the idea of a terrorist attack, rather than a mob enraged by a video.

Second, four special-forces soldiers, en route to Benghazi to help our wounded, were ordered by an officer in Stuttgart to stand down. Not only did that suggest unwillingness to take risks for beleaguered comrades, it also raised the question of misplaced authority in the chain of command during battle. What authority permits an officer thousands of miles away to override the commander on the ground?

Third, Mr. Hicks testified that Secretary Clinton approved, at about 8 p.m. Washington time, the evacuation of the embassy in Tripoli due to terrorist threats. That was a dramatic, escalatory decision, and it’s unknown whether the president or the Secretary of Defense was notified.

In the event, the U.S. military took no new, immediate action, even though the embassy was being evacuated, as a result of the chaos at Benghazi. That is big news. The military has justified itself by saying the battle was over by the next morning, but no human being could predict when the battle would end. Had the embassy in Tripoli been overrun, the military would not have rationalized its non-actions by saying, “well, the battle was over.”

The lack of military action reflects a failure to improvise, a basic test of leadership in battle.

One question illustrates the inertia of our top generals and staffs: Had it been President Obama who was missing in Benghazi, would the military still have done nothing?

[diverdog]

Here is a Bing West and a pretty good take down of Gates assessment..

Well I noticed you did not highlight the part about taking two days to get an f-16 ready to go. That is the weak link in all of this is the air transport and/ or fighters. I seriously doubt that the marines in Sig could have gotten there under 6 hours.

In my entire life I do not ever remember a mission where we just threw troops on a plane and sent them into battle where we had little or no planning or intel or warning.

Your author does not offer a realistic solution. All he does is offer criticism.

[XingTheRubicon]

Well I noticed you did not highlight the part about taking two days to get an f-16 ready to go. That is the weak link in all of this is the air transport and/ or fighters. I seriously doubt that the marines in Sig could have gotten there under 6 hours.

In my entire life I do not ever remember a mission where we just threw troops on a plane and sent them into battle where we had little or no planning or intel or warning.

Your author does not offer a realistic solution. All he does is offer criticism.


but we didn't know it was only gonna be 6 hours...it could have lasted 20 hours, yet they don't have anything even started

[OU_Sooners75]

but we didn't know it was only gonna be 6 hours...it could have lasted 20 hours, yet they don't have anything even started

Thats because they didnt want to get any sort of plan worked out and ready to go.

I have seen first hand, with my father in the Air Force...it doesn't take 2 days to get a F-16 scrambled and ready to fly.

[olevetonahill]

And still no bigtime smoking gun. We've got an arguably bad response and an attempt to bury things for a few weeks for political reasons, which regardless of whether that happened, we'd still have four American corpses over there. We just have a bunch of politicians acting like politicians. Time to get over it. No one cares.

Please !Yer sayin NO ONE CARES?
Im sorry but I say again YOU are the Biggest POS that has ever Said you where Human
I'd Love to have a Discussion with you , but YOU are so weird you make wally weird shoppers look sane :topsy_turvy:

[diverdog]

Thats because they didnt want to get any sort of plan worked out and ready to go.

I have seen first hand, with my father in the Air Force...it doesn't take 2 days to get a F-16 scrambled and ready to fly.

I will tell ya what. I have a very good friend who was an F-16 crew chief and a retired CMSGT and I am going to ask how long it would take to set up a non alert F16 with external fuel tanks, a full bomb load (including arming the bombs) targeting and gun pods mounted. In other words a full combat load. When I get the answer I will report back.

[olevetonahill]

I will tell ya what. I have a very good friend who was an F-16 crew chief and a retired CMSGT and I am going to ask how long it would take to set up a non alert F16 with external fuel tanks, a full bomb load (including arming the bombs) targeting and gun pods mounted. In other words a full combat load. When I get the answer I will report back.

I call BS!
If ya cant say it correctly then it prolly aint true. WTF? is a CMSGT?
I CALL BS DD.

[OU_Sooners75]

I will tell ya what. I have a very good friend who was an F-16 crew chief and a retired CMSGT and I am going to ask how long it would take to set up a non alert F16 with external fuel tanks, a full bomb load (including arming the bombs) targeting and gun pods mounted. In other words a full combat load. When I get the answer I will report back.

Go for it. It doesn't take 2 days.

[diverdog]

Go for it. It doesn't take 2 days.

Never said it did. Although if the munitions are not there that could be an issue. But I am sure Aviano has bunkered facilities.

Was your dad a pilot?

[sappstuf]

Well I noticed you did not highlight the part about taking two days to get an f-16 ready to go. That is the weak link in all of this is the air transport and/ or fighters. I seriously doubt that the marines in Sig could have gotten there under 6 hours.

In my entire life I do not ever remember a mission where we just threw troops on a plane and sent them into battle where we had little or no planning or intel or warning.

Your author does not offer a realistic solution. All he does is offer criticism.

That is more than the military offered...

Can you imagine a commander in Afghanistan responding to an attack on a convoy in his AOR and being told to stand down by someone in a different country thousands of miles away? I can't.

And what if that commander knew there was an attack on a convoy in his AOR and he didn't deploy his QRF? That would be the end of his career. Period.

The author, who is very well respected, has a valid point. Somewhere the military failed. To act like a nonresponse to an attack on a US consulate was the perfect plan of action is ludicrous.

[diverdog]

I call BS!
If ya cant say it correctly then it prolly aint true. WTF? is a CMSGT?
I CALL BS DD.

CMSGT=Chief Master Sergeant=E9. Highest enlisted rank in the USAF. And yes I know tons of guys who were crew chiefs on fighters. My roommate in tech school was a crew chief on F16's. They are not uncommon in the Air Force. A good crew chief is worth his weight in gold.

Vet what people need to understand is that none of those bases in Europe are on alert for this type of mission. The day was a normal day for them. So that means you literally have to hunt people down in the middle of the night and call them in. They do have calling trees and the report time is usually two hours...some times less.

Just to load a freaking bomb is a chore. They are usually stored in underground bunkers which means you have to call someone in to open the armory, get a team to fetch it, then you have to put the chit on it that makes it a direct attack munition, mount it and arm it ( which is another team), and then fly with it. At least around here there is a whole protocol around moving munitions. On top of all that you have to decide which munitions you are going to put on the fighter to take out targets in an urban environment.

My guess is the part that makes this difficult is the use of tankers. Generally they need to be prestaged and on a mission like this one you may need as many as two tankers in the air. They could have them fly from Aviano to Benghazi and then land at Sig, I suppose to cut down on the crew day for the pilots. Still I would think you would need one air refuel to make that trip.

When you think about it ten hours is not a lot of time to do everything that needed to be done.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

What I can't fathom, this stuff is waaaaaay bigger than Watergate, and tons more evil, yet the press is like la-de-da....Anyone of these things is Impeachable, all of them shows the cesspool of corruption that is the Progressives, liberals and Dems. If the AP phone hacking wont wake up the press, nothing will. Most corrupt admin, EVAR. No doubt about it... Nixon was a school boy in contrast to B-rack The Socialstic Liar....

[diverdog]

That is more than the military offered...

Can you imagine a commander in Afghanistan responding to an attack on a convoy in his AOR and being told to stand down by someone in a different country thousands of miles away? I can't.

And what if that commander knew there was an attack on a convoy in his AOR and he didn't deploy his QRF? That would be the end of his career. Period.

The author, who is very well respected, has a valid point. Somewhere the military failed. To act like a nonresponse to an attack on a US consulate was the perfect plan of action is ludicrous.

Sapp you are comparing apples to oranges. In your scenario everyone is on a wartime footing. The planes are always hot and ready to go. They generally have some intel on the area and they have plans for backup/support. Even then we have had rescue missions get messed up. I am thinking of the one that got all those SEALs killed.

I have asked this a several times. Has our military ever had a situation where we had to fly 600 to 1870 miles into a combat zone and fight with no plans or knowledge that an attack was going to happen? I am not talking about support missions in a war zone where you have forward deployed troops but an event where you have to go with minimum planning.

I will not disagree with you at all if you say security forces and back up contingency plans should have been made and the failure to do so falls on HRC.

[diverdog]

What I can't fathom, this stuff is waaaaaay bigger than Watergate, and tons more evil, yet the press is like la-de-da....Anyone of these things is Impeachable, all of them shows the cesspool of corruption that is the Progressives, liberals and Dems. If the AP phone hacking wont wake up the press, nothing will. Most corrupt admin, EVAR. No doubt about it... Nixon was a school boy in contrast to B-rack The Socialstic Liar....

I missed the story on the AP hacking. Do you have a link?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

What I can't fathom, this stuff is waaaaaay bigger than Watergate, and tons more evil, yet the press is like la-de-da....Anyone of these things is Impeachable, all of them shows the cesspool of corruption that is the Progressives, liberals and Dems. If the AP phone hacking wont wake up the press, nothing will. Most corrupt admin, EVAR. No doubt about it... Nixon was a school boy in contrast to B-rack The Socialstic Liar....we are still in the early stages of Banana Republic. Put on your fatigues, and light up a Cuban. Maybe they'll let you join in the largess.

[sappstuf]

Sapp you are comparing apples to oranges. In your scenario everyone is on a wartime footing. The planes are always hot and ready to go. They generally have some intel on the area and they have plans for backup/support. Even then we have had rescue missions get messed up. I am thinking of the one that got all those SEALs killed.

I have asked this a several times. Has our military ever had a situation where we had to fly 600 to 1870 miles into a combat zone and fight with no plans or knowledge that an attack was going to happen? I am not talking about support missions in a war zone where you have forward deployed troops but an event where you have to go with minimum planning.

I will not disagree with you at all if you say security forces and back up contingency plans should have been made and the failure to do so falls on HRC.

It was Libya. Do you think Libya was not a warzone? Military members there were getting tax free pay and combat pay so the government considered it a warzone.

How were we not on a war footing in a warzone?

[diverdog]

It was Libya. Do you think Libya was not a warzone? Military members there were getting tax free pay and combat pay so the government considered it a warzone.

How were we not on a war footing in a warzone?

sapp:

that is not what I meant. We do not have bases inside Libya or 50,000 troops conducting combat missions. I doubt there were more than a couple of hundred Americans in the entire country.

[sappstuf]

sapp:

that is not what I meant. We do not have bases inside Libya or 50,000 troops conducting combat missions. I doubt there were more than a couple of hundred Americans in the entire country.

A couple of hundred that had zero back up in a warzone. A couple of hundred that if they were under sustained attack for 24 to 48 hours, we could have done nothing to respond except watch it on TV in a warzone. A couple of hundred to be wiped out or captured and have their heads cut off with a knife in a warzone.

You are okay with that plan? Because apparently, that was the plan.

It seems to me that if we create a warzone and then put Americans in that warzone, we probably should have a way to respond and/or get them out. We didn't. You think that was appropriate.

[diverdog]

A couple of hundred that had zero back up in a warzone. A couple of hundred that if they were under sustained attack for 24 to 48 hours, we could have done nothing to respond except watch it on TV in a warzone. A couple of hundred to be wiped out or captured and have their heads cut off with a knife in a warzone.

You are okay with that plan? Because apparently, that was the plan.

It seems to me that if we create a warzone and then put Americans in that warzone, we probably should have a way to respond and/or get them out. We didn't. You think that was appropriate.

Sapp:

A lot of our diplomatic missions operate under the same conditions world wide. Libya at the time was not the most dangerous place where we had staff.

[cleller]

Please !Yer sayin NO ONE CARES?
Im sorry but I say again YOU are the Biggest POS that has ever Said you where Human
I'd Love to have a Discussion with you , but YOU are so weird you make wally weird shoppers look sane :topsy_turvy:

If no one cared, how on earth could there be all this uproar? Congressional hearings, upset diplomats, lies, coverups, non-stop coverage on the network talk shows. Its been the biggest story of the Obama presidency.

[diverdog]

If no one cared, how on earth could there be all this uproar? Congressional hearings, upset diplomats, lies, coverups, non-stop coverage on the network talk shows. Its been the biggest story of the Obama presidency.

Here you go:
http://www.people-press.org/2013/05/13/benghazi-investigation-does-not-reignite-broad-public-interest/

[pphilfran]

Honey Boo Boo probably has a higher interest rating... just sayin'

[cleller]

Here you go:
http://www.people-press.org/2013/05/13/benghazi-investigation-does-not-reignite-broad-public-interest/

If 44% of Americans say they are following the hearings, that seems a long ways from "no one cares". For something dealing with world events/government, its pretty darn high for Americans.

[Soonerjeepman]

CMSGT=Chief Master Sergeant=E9. Highest enlisted rank in the USAF. And yes I know tons of guys who were crew chiefs on fighters. My roommate in tech school was a crew chief on F16's. They are not uncommon in the Air Force. A good crew chief is worth his weight in gold.

Vet what people need to understand is that none of those bases in Europe are on alert for this type of mission. The day was a normal day for them. So that means you literally have to hunt people down in the middle of the night and call them in. They do have calling trees and the report time is usually two hours...some times less.

Just to load a freaking bomb is a chore. They are usually stored in underground bunkers which means you have to call someone in to open the armory, get a team to fetch it, then you have to put the chit on it that makes it a direct attack munition, mount it and arm it ( which is another team), and then fly with it. At least around here there is a whole protocol around moving munitions. On top of all that you have to decide which munitions you are going to put on the fighter to take out targets in an urban environment.

My guess is the part that makes this difficult is the use of tankers. Generally they need to be prestaged and on a mission like this one you may need as many as two tankers in the air. They could have them fly from Aviano to Benghazi and then land at Sig, I suppose to cut down on the crew day for the pilots. Still I would think you would need one air refuel to make that trip.

When you think about it ten hours is not a lot of time to do everything that needed to be done.

THIS is were it was a complete drop by the administration. Sept 11....in the ME...just a normal day. Not thinkin so. Especially since the folks at the embassy were calling for more security months ahead.

[Soonerjeepman]

I missed the story on the AP hacking. Do you have a link?

look under my thread....3rd time is a charm...

[sappstuf]

Sapp:

A lot of our diplomatic missions operate under the same conditions world wide. Libya at the time was not the most dangerous place where we had staff.

I'm sure Stevens and the other 3 people would disagree.... If they could.

It isn't like the consulate was bombed 3 months before the attack... Oh wait, it was.

[SoonerProphet]

He went there on his own accord, as did the CIA and private contractors charged with security. Two outfits that have not been brought before Issa's panel.

[diverdog]

I'm sure Stevens and the other 3 people would disagree.... If they could.

It isn't like the consulate was bombed 3 months before the attack... Oh wait, it was.

The embassy in Yemen was breached. The embassy in Iraq outside of the green zone would be very dangerous. Pakistan, Tunisia, and Sudan are also dangerous

[Soonerjeepman]

2 things...
#1..if we have an embassy PROTECT it or don't have it..

#2 kind of wish we could riot against any of those embassies here in the USA that attack us but I know we are too civilized for that..and of course WE would provide protection

[Soonerjeepman]

He went there on his own accord, as did the CIA and private contractors charged with security. Two outfits that have not been brought before Issa's panel.
hmmm, okay so Stevens just said, "hey I want to to go Libya? really? he wasn't sent there..at all...I find that hard to believe.

and if contractors, or the CIA (which is part of the gov), are charged with security then they didn't choose to go either.

Where are you finding this?

[olevetonahill]

hmmm, okay so Stevens just said, "hey I want to to go Libya? really? he wasn't sent there..at all...I find that hard to believe.

and if contractors, or the CIA (which is part of the gov), are charged with security then they didn't choose to go either.

Where are you finding this?

He's pulling shat out his ***. Anything to cover obammy

[olevetonahill]

Instead Of This with Truman.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/Truman_pass-the-buck.jpg

[sappstuf]

He went there on his own accord, as did the CIA and private contractors charged with security. Two outfits that have not been brought before Issa's panel.

You were claiming the Consulate in Benghazi was a secret compound... Don't think so anymore after I gave you that news link?

[olevetonahill]

And with Obammy we get this
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSskzkG18AlTOjKo0BkEYXHrqNkjs9ws pXoMwVeHNnjCS-Jj7DU

[Soonerjeepman]

nice

[SoonerProphet]

You were claiming the Consulate in Benghazi was a secret compound... Don't think so anymore after I gave you that news link?

Can't find the part where I stated it was a "secret compound", I called it a special mission, which it was...again, 23 of the 30 who flew out of there were CIA agents. Doesn't sound like State had too much going on there. It was were Stevens hit the ground running when the move to topple Qadiffi started, I am sure he had plenty of contacts in the area to liaise with. Not a single Blue Mountain security operative or the testimony of the CIA have been sought by Issa.

[sappstuf]

Can't find the part where I stated it was a "secret compound", I called it a special mission, which it was...again, 23 of the 30 who flew out of there were CIA agents. Doesn't sound like State had too much going on there. It was were Stevens hit the ground running when the move to topple Qadiffi started, I am sure he had plenty of contacts in the area to liaise with. Not a single Blue Mountain security operative or the testimony of the CIA have been sought by Issa.

Give us the names that the Obama administration has released.

[diverdog]

Can't find the part where I stated it was a "secret compound", I called it a special mission, which it was...again, 23 of the 30 who flew out of there were CIA agents. Doesn't sound like State had too much going on there. It was were Stevens hit the ground running when the move to topple Qadiffi started, I am sure he had plenty of contacts in the area to liaise with. Not a single Blue Mountain security operative or the testimony of the CIA have been sought by Issa.

Wow, I have not heard of Blue Mountain Security. This article is very interesting.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE89G1TI20121018?irpc=932

[SoonerProphet]

Give us the names that the Obama administration has released.

That is just it, don't know if you just release the names of CIA operatives working on clandestine humint in the Mideast.

[Soonerjeepman]

They sound like a bunch of misfits....I want to know WHO agreed to using them.

[sappstuf]

That is just it, don't know if you just release the names of CIA operatives working on clandestine humint in the Mideast.

So why are you insinuating that Issa should seek their testimony if he can't?

[SoonerProphet]

So why are you insinuating that Issa should seek their testimony if he can't?

First of all, Issa and his band of partisan lawyers aren't interested in finding out what happened. Everyone knows what happened. It was a dangerous place, the amb and the cia/security types do that type of sh*t, and it blew up in our faces. No cover up, no incompetence, no grand conspiracy to kill a gay ambassador, or any other goofy scheme. Trying to get various political groups to participate in governance cannot be done from a bunker, it takes conversation and a willingness to get out and meet the people. In regards to what the CIA was doing, one can only speculate, but I doubt is as nefarious as selling guns to the Syrians. Prolly trying to round up guns before the rebels took them to Mali to blow up sh!t there.

[sappstuf]

First of all, Issa and his band of partisan lawyers aren't interested in finding out what happened. Everyone knows what happened. It was a dangerous place, the amb and the cia/security types do that type of sh*t, and it blew up in our faces. No cover up, no incompetence, no grand conspiracy to kill a gay ambassador, or any other goofy scheme. Trying to get various political groups to participate in governance cannot be done from a bunker, it takes conversation and a willingness to get out and meet the people. In regards to what the CIA was doing, one can only speculate, but I doubt is as nefarious as selling guns to the Syrians. Prolly trying to round up guns before the rebels took them to Mali to blow up sh!t there.

The actual group that attacked the consulate was named almost immediately by members of the Obama administration. There was never a protest and the video that Obama was STILL talking about 2 weeks later had nothing to do with it.

You should wish it was a coverup because the other choice is that the incompetence of the Obama administration is Hors catégorie.

[SoonerProphet]

The actual group that attacked the consulate was named almost immediately by members of the Obama administration. There was never a protest and the video that Obama was STILL talking about 2 weeks later had nothing to do with it.

You should wish it was a coverup because the other choice is that the incompetence of the Obama administration is Hors catégorie.

There are several conflicting reports to your assertion. Various newpapers and media outlets discussed the protest, Gaddafy supporters, the Libyan government offered up conflicting information, eyemwitnesses, etc... The immediate aftermath of the attack was chaotic, as is often the case.

[sappstuf]

There are several conflicting reports to your assertion. Various newpapers and media outlets discussed the protest, Gaddafy supporters, the Libyan government offered up conflicting information, eyemwitnesses, etc... The immediate aftermath of the attack was chaotic, as is often the case.

Complete and utter failure to spin.

Who cares what various newspapers and media outlets discuss? The administration knew who it was.

The Libyan government did not offer up conflicting information... You did not watch Hicks' testimony. The Prime Minister of Libya was on one of the Sunday talk shows before Rice and said it was a straight up attack. It was Rice's protest story that Hick's believes caused the 18 day delay to get FBI agents to the scene because Rice embarrassed him. Of course he was correct. And to you last point, what eyewitnesses? We don't know any American eyewitnesses and the FBI wasn't in country for almost 3 weeks.

Try again and, good grief... Try harder.

[OU_Sooners75]

Never said it did. Although if the munitions are not there that could be an issue. But I am sure Aviano has bunkered facilities.

Was your dad a pilot?
My dad wasnt a pilot. He was part of an F-16 ground crew at the end of his military career (seeing as the F-16 was just getting under way then). Before that, I am not exactly sure what he did.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I missed the story on the AP hacking. Do you have a link?

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/editors-say/2013/may/13/doj-subpoenas-ap-phone-records/

[diverdog]

My dad wasnt a pilot. He was part of an F-16 ground crew at the end of his military career (seeing as the F-16 was just getting under way then). Before that, I am not exactly sure what he did.

I spoke to my friend today and it was very interesting. He was not an F16 crew chief but he did crew on A5's, A10's, F15's , F5's and a couple of other aircraft. Everytime I asked a question he kept saying depends. Anyway, I will post more later.

[SoonerProphet]

Complete and utter failure to spin.

Who cares what various newspapers and media outlets discuss? The administration knew who it was.

The Libyan government did not offer up conflicting information... You did not watch Hicks' testimony. The Prime Minister of Libya was on one of the Sunday talk shows before Rice and said it was a straight up attack. It was Rice's protest story that Hick's believes caused the 18 day delay to get FBI agents to the scene because Rice embarrassed him. Of course he was correct. And to you last point, what eyewitnesses? We don't know any American eyewitnesses and the FBI wasn't in country for almost 3 weeks.

Try again and, good grief... Try harder.

Sorry, no spin, just what I read days after. Appears there are reports that Petraeus even gave differing quotes:

"The clear impression we were given (in September) was that the overwhelming amount of evidence was that it arose out of a spontaneous demonstration, and was not a terrorist attack," & "[F]ormer CIA Director David Petraeus testified on Capitol Hill Friday that the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in September was an act of terrorism committed by al Qaeda-linked militants.

Here is some clown bitching about the video.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2012/sep/12/benghazi-us-consulate-video

As for Mr. Hicks and his thought on Mr. Mohammed el-Megarif had to say in an interview with NPR, "the idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous. We firmly believe that this was a precalculated, preplanned attack that was carried out specifically to attack the U.S. Consulate, the attackers used the protesters outside the consulate as a cover, and there is evidence showing that elements of Ansar al-Sharia, an extremist group in eastern Benghazi, were used by foreign citizens with ties to al-Qaida to attack the consulate".

So again, seems some mixed messages there, the group used the protesters as cover. The Libyan Interior Minister Wanis al-Sharif stated in some interview that it was elements of Gaddafi loyalist who sought revenge for this or the other.

Just telling like I see it. Still don't think we have a real reason to be there in the first place. This meddling interventionist policy is expensive and a complete and abject failure. It does very little to advance our national interests, waste yours and my money, and allows both parties to use any failure as a political tool to score partisan points. Not picking sides, just speaking about cold reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_investigation_into_the_2012_Bengha zi_attack

[SoonerProphet]

Seems like the deputy director of the CIA played a big role in the information coming out after the attack.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/white-house-benghazi-emails-91437.html?hp=t3_3

[sappstuf]

Jake Sullivan, deputy chief of staff to Hillary Clinton, reports to State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland that he’s spoken with Obama’s top spokesman at the National Security Council, Tommy Vietor. “I spoke with Tommy. We’ll work through this in the morning and get comments back.”

In a separate email, he writes: “Talked to Tommy. We can make edits.”

It is getting pretty high up the food chain. Deputy Chief of Staff to Hillary confirming they can make edits with approval from NSC.

[SoonerProphet]

More twists, reports out there that Stevens twice turned down additional security.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/report-stevens-declined-security-91406.html?hp=r2

[olevetonahill]

More twists, reports out there that Stevens twice turned down additional security.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/report-stevens-declined-security-91406.html?hp=r2

Did you even read that? Dint think so.

Here ya go. An UNNAMED source said "“He didn’t say why. He just turned it down,” an unnamed defense official told McClatchy.

While In yer same article theres THIS

One of the most outspoken critics, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), told McClatchy that he found it “odd” that Stevens wouldn’t want additional military assets.

“That is odd to me because Stevens requested from the State Department additional security four times, and there was an 18-person special forces security team headed by Lt. Col. Wood that Gen. Ham signed off on that the State Department said no to,” Graham told McClatchy.

Yall keep diggin, Yer BOY is spinning in the wind.

[SoonerProphet]

I'd say Graham has a bit of skin in that game. He is the one who has tried to make partisan gains outta the corpse, he is a piece of sh*t. The reason he finds it "odd" is because it doesn't fit the narrative he has been trying to peddle for the last 8 months. Sounds like the ambassador knew the scene and was trying to keep a low profile.

[olevetonahill]

You Libs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oU_rqm7WPPI

[olevetonahill]

I'd say Graham has a bit of skin in that game. He is the one who has tried to make partisan gains outta the corpse, he is a piece of sh*t. The reason he finds it "odd" is because it doesn't fit the narrative he has been trying to peddle for the last 8 months. Sounds like the ambassador knew the scene and was trying to keep a low profile.

It dont matter who has what. The article states that Stevens requested Extra security 4 times and was denied. Why would he then turn it down when offered?
Keep spinning

[sappstuf]

I'd say Graham has a bit of skin in that game. He is the one who has tried to make partisan gains outta the corpse, he is a piece of sh*t. The reason he finds it "odd" is because it doesn't fit the narrative he has been trying to peddle for the last 8 months. Sounds like the ambassador knew the scene and was trying to keep a low profile.

So an "unnamed source" blames the dead guy on the day emails show that very senior people at State and the White House were involved in changing the talking points.

I'm shocked.. Shocked!!

[olevetonahill]

So an "unnamed source" blames the dead guy on the day emails show that very senior people at State and the White House were involved in changing the talking points.

I'm shocked.. Shocked!!

He was hoping No one would notice the "Unnamed source" part of that.

[SoonerProphet]

So the meeting he had with Carter Ham in which he declined additional security is untrue? Who is spinning who? Why didn't Issa ask about the meeting or why hasn't he called on Ham to testify? Again, probably cause it doesn't jive with politicizing death and trying to score some gruesome partisan points.

[olevetonahill]

So the meeting he had with Carter Ham in which he declined additional security is untrue? Who is spinning who? Why didn't Issa ask about the meeting or why hasn't he called on Ham to testify? Again, probably cause it doesn't jive with politicizing death and trying to score some gruesome partisan points.

All you have done is post an article that alludes to said meeting, By an "UNNAMED SOURCE"

[sappstuf]

I'm through about page 60 of the emails and not a single mention of the Youtube video...

FBI specifically states on page 58

"FBI says AQ (not AQIM) was involved and they are pursuing that theory. So we are not ahead of law enforcement now"

[SoonerProphet]

I'm through about page 60 of the emails and not a single mention of the Youtube video...

FBI specifically states on page 58

"FBI says AQ (not AQIM) was involved and they are pursuing that theory. So we are not ahead of law enforcement now"

So you don't think that the reason people didn't want to disclose any "theories" on who was behind the attacks for clandestine or investigatory reasons.

[sappstuf]

So you don't think that the reason people didn't want to disclose any "theories" on who was behind the attacks for clandestine or investigatory reasons.

They didn't mention so in the emails, so the answer to your question is no.

[SoonerProphet]

They didn't mention so in the emails, so the answer to your question is no.

Really? A CIA operation doesn't need to kept close to the vest. We should spill the beans and let whomever know what kinda clandestine sh*t is going down.

[sappstuf]

Really? A CIA operation doesn't need to kept close to the vest. We should spill the beans and let whomever know what kinda clandestine sh*t is going down.

If the CIA needed to keep it close, then they would not have released it for revision by State in the first place. Duh.

[SoonerProphet]

If the CIA needed to keep it close, then they would not have released it for revision by State in the first place. Duh.

The CIA appears to be the ones revising the emails. It was their special mission and their operation.

[sappstuf]

The CIA appears to be the ones revising the emails. It was their special mission and their operation.

I don't know what is up with your "appears" and what if claims... There are 100 pages of email out there.

If you find the specific email where the CIA says they need to remove any Al-Qaeda references because of ongoing investigations, just tell us what page it is on and we can all see that you are right.

I'll give you a hint though... It isn't there.

But I will give you the link, if you need it.. Just ask.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

God prophet, is your record broken, or did your brain stop working? All of this is Chicago thug politics and The Socialist is in the middle of it. Anyone of these items should bring impeachment, all of them should be jail for someone...

[SoonerProphet]

I don't know what is up with your "appears" and what if claims... There are 100 pages of email out there.

If you find the specific email where the CIA says they need to remove any Al-Qaeda references because of ongoing investigations, just tell us what page it is on and we can all see that you are right.

I'll give you a hint though... It isn't there.

But I will give you the link, if you need it.. Just ask.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/05/16/do-the-white-house-emails-and-other-breaking-revelations-point-to-critical-cia-secrets-in-benghazi/#

•It was the CIA—not the State Department or the White House—that sought to remove language from the talking points directly discussing any potential involvement of any Al-Qaeda related terrorist groups in the Benghazi attack.

[sappstuf]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/05/16/do-the-white-house-emails-and-other-breaking-revelations-point-to-critical-cia-secrets-in-benghazi/#

•It was the CIA—not the State Department or the White House—that sought to remove language from the talking points directly discussing any potential involvement of any Al-Qaeda related terrorist groups in the Benghazi attack.

You don't need to link to a guy who describes his own writing as "I write from the left on politics and policy.". Why doesn't he quote directly from the the emails?

Just tell us what page.

[TitoMorelli]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...-in-benghazi/#
Rick Ungar, Contributor

I write from the left on politics and policy


And as usual, sapp beat me to the punch.


USA Today: The e-mails show that after an interagency meeting at the White House, Obama administration officials crossed out sections of the initial narrative provided by the CIA to be disseminated to the public, removing any mention of terrorism and the name of an al-Qaeda-linked group whose members the CIA said were involved.

ABC News: The emails confirm the ABC News report that the so-called "talking points" written by the CIA on the attack underwent extensive revisions – 12 versions – and that substantial changes were made after the State Department expressed concerns.


I'd toss in what Fox is reporting, but we all know that you'd focus your response on how biased Fox is instead of on why a majority of news agencies are reporting that State and WH officials made the call on the Benghazi lie.

[SoonerProphet]

https://twitter.com/StevenTDennis/status/334780521722822656/photo/1

Appears the redacted version from Morell is on page 63.

[SoonerProphet]

I'd toss in what Fox is reporting, but we all know that you'd focus your response on how biased Fox is instead of on why a majority of news agencies are reporting that State and WH officials made the call on the Benghazi lie.

That is pretty funny seeing how quick you cats where is discredit the dude from f*ckin Forbes magazine.

[TitoMorelli]

No, what's funny is how you immediately presented the Forbes opinion piece as argument-ending gospel without even bothering to do your own homework.

[SoonerProphet]

And as usual, sapp beat me to the punch.


USA Today: The e-mails show that after an interagency meeting at the White House, Obama administration officials crossed out sections of the initial narrative provided by the CIA to be disseminated to the public, removing any mention of terrorism and the name of an al-Qaeda-linked group whose members the CIA said were involved.

ABC News: The emails confirm the ABC News report that the so-called "talking points" written by the CIA on the attack underwent extensive revisions – 12 versions – and that substantial changes were made after the State Department expressed concerns.



I'd toss in what Fox is reporting, but we all know that you'd focus your response on how biased Fox is instead of on why a majority of news agencies are reporting that State and WH officials made the call on the Benghazi lie.

The abc story was proven to be complete and utter bullsh*t

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/14/cnn-debunks-abcs-benghazi-scoop-with-new-email-evidence/

[SoonerProphet]

No, what's funny is how you immediately presented the Forbes opinion piece as argument-ending gospel without even bothering to do your own homework.

Seriously Clark?

[TitoMorelli]

The abc story was proven to be complete and utter bullsh*t

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/14/cnn-debunks-abcs-benghazi-scoop-with-new-email-evidence/


Good lord, you're actually linking a puff-piece that quotes Joan Walsh and pretending that it's somehow authoritative? At least have the testicular fortitude to admit that you're no more objective than anyone else on here.

[sappstuf]

https://twitter.com/StevenTDennis/status/334780521722822656/photo/1

Appears the redacted version from Morell is on page 63.

You are either reading from idiots or people trying to dupe you.. Good god man.. Just read the emails.

If you go to page 62, you will see that the email is to " Toria". Toria is State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland.. Apparently she dropped the Vic. It is sent to her clean. It comes back with all the redactions.

Page 64 is the response to those redactions.

You should really read page 62 because it specifically states that the FBI has signed off on the talking points... So much for your theory about the investigation.

Read the emails.

[SoonerProphet]

Good lord, you're actually linking a puff-piece that quotes Joan Walsh and pretending that it's somehow authoritative? At least have the testicular fortitude to admit that you're no more objective than anyone else on here.

So again, you have no information to refute the redacted email from Morell, you continue to shoot the messenger, and the gaul to broach the subject of objectivity. You are providing more laughts than actual substance to this thread.

[SoonerProphet]

You are either reading from idiots or people trying to dupe you.. Good god man.. Just read the emails.

If you go to page 62, you will see that the email is to " Toria". Toria is State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland.. Apparently she dropped the Vic. It is sent to her clean. It comes back with all the redactions.

Page 64 is the response to those redactions.

You should really read page 62 because it specifically states that the FBI has signed off on the talking points... So much for your theory about the investigation.

Read the emails.


reading from idiots? wtf does that even mean and I am the one being duped.

[sappstuf]

reading from idiots? wtf does that even mean and I am the one being duped.

It means your Forbes dude is an idiot or trying to dupe you. Your ignorance is becoming willful at this point. Point of pride, I guess.

Read the emails.

[SoonerProphet]

It means your Forbes dude is an idiot or trying to dupe you. Your ignorance is becoming willful at this point. Point of pride, I guess.

Read the emails.

have, the cia had a role to play in what was to be talked about, seems pretty easy to follow.

[TitoMorelli]

So again, you have no information to refute the redacted email from Morell, you continue to shoot the messenger, and the gaul to broach the subject of objectivity. You are providing more laughts than actual substance to this thread.

Uh, I think it should be "gall."

And yes, I consider the majority of major news sources reporting that the WH and State were involved to be more reliable than the opinion of a hack from Salon.com. As would most sensible observers. Some messengers deserve to be shot.

[C&CDean]

Prophet, dude, c'mon. You're usually fairly ... I guess the word would be sharp? In this case, you really oughta just quit. You don't even have to admit you're wrong, just quit. Sheez, I'm getting embarrassed for you.

[sappstuf]

have, the cia had a role to play in what was to be talked about, seems pretty easy to follow.

So please post the initial talking point from the CIA before the State Department got involved. It is on Page 4..

Show everyone how right you are.

[olevetonahill]

Prophet, dude, c'mon. You're usually fairly ... I guess the word would be sharp? In this case, you really oughta just quit. You don't even have to admit you're wrong, just quit. Sheez, I'm getting embarrassed for you.

He's just appeared "Sharp" because he doesn't normally argue this long about ****.

[SoonerProphet]

Uh, I think it should be "gall."

And yes, I consider the majority of major news sources reporting that the WH and State were involved to be more reliable than the opinion of a hack from Salon.com. As would most sensible observers. Some messengers deserve to be shot.

Sorry will do better with my grammar and spelling next time.

[SoonerProphet]

Prophet, dude, c'mon. You're usually fairly ... I guess the word would be sharp? In this case, you really oughta just quit. You don't even have to admit you're wrong, just quit. Sheez, I'm getting embarrassed for you.

I average a post a day and hardly aggravate anyone here. It is a rare treat to see so many folks get rattled over emails.

[TitoMorelli]

Sorry will do better with my grammar and spelling next time.

That's ok, just thought you were trying to call me a Frenchie for a minute there.

[SoonerProphet]

besides, this sh*t will die down again and I won't have any cages to rattle of the outrage d'jour.

[TitoMorelli]

d'jour? So you WERE calling me a Frenchie, you bastage.

[SoonerProphet]

That's ok, just thought you were trying to call me a Frenchie for a minute there.

le bosch

[diverdog]

le bosch

LOL

[cleller]

I just realized that "plots" are like gravy. The longer they go on, the thicker they get.