Geeez ,, no talk of this , Big breaking story today ..

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

OK, so when a Republican congressman says that your source doesn't know what he's talking about, that's good enough for you to discredit him?

Spence, you, not I, quoted this guy. I guess you're saying that as long as anyone says Obama is perfect, they are a credible source. When anyone suggests Obama may have acted less than flawlessly, then they don't kno what they're talking about.

You are quoting a Republican to discredit your own source...you cannot make that up.

I'm not discrediting Lovell, rather that when pressed to be explicit on his position he backed down on any talk of "could" or "should."

I can see why Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif was so upset. Here he's thinking they've settled the issue once and for all yet his Republican cronies are pulling out anyone they can -- even someone who may not have been in a good position to know -- to give FOX News and the conservative blogosphere more fodder to confuse people.

Before the court I'd like to present exhibit A - that's your cue to look in the mirror.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

The funeral was two days after the attack. At that point they were still investigating. Hell, three days after the funeral Rice's talking points from the CIA indicated the evidence pointing towards the video.

But props to FOX News for using a grieving parent to bump their ratings.

-spence

Spence, please get your facts straight, the Bodies were RETURNED to the US 3 days after the attack, the funerals were many days later.

The parents were told with Hillary standing there as they took the bodies from the plane 3 days after the attack that the tape was the reason for the attack.

Oh, and you forgot the question of Admiral Lowell at the hearing asked, who would have to order military action the night of the attack. He said the Commander in Chief.
That order never came and the military cannot take action on it's own.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Spence, please get your facts straight, the Bodies were RETURNED to the US 3 days after the attack, the funerals were many days later.

The parents were told with Hillary standing there as they took the bodies from the plane that the tape was the reason for the attack.

The article I read said funeral. I don't see a material difference though, at that point the information was still the same.

Oh, and you forgot the question of Admiral Lowell at the hearing asked, who would have to order military action the night of the attack. He said the Commander in Chief.
That order never came and the military cannot take action on it's own.

You can't order military action if there's no military to act. Our people were out of Libya before the rapid response teams could have arrived so there's no reason to attack.

Given that, what's the point of the question other than create yet another misleading headline?

-spence

[spence]

Ultimately though, how many investigations do we need? Sweet Jesus now Bohner wants a select committee because of an email that reveals nothing new?

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You can't order military action if there's no military to act. Our people were out of Libya before the rapid response teams could have arrived so there's no reason to attack.


-spence

from your earlier link...

"Over the roughly 12 hours between the start of the attacks and the time the last Americans were evacuated from Benghazi"

12 hours? You're saying that there were zero American military assets that were within 12 hours of Benghazi? And you say I'm the one who doesn't know what I'm talking about? Twelve hours?

If it's true that not one American military asset was within 12 hours of Libya (and no one believes that's true), that's another scandal, given all the threats that were reported in Libya.

Spence, according to you, not only was Stevens denied the extra security he asked for, but we didn't have any military support in the same hemisphere? On the anniversary of 09/11, in Libya, after getting reports of increased threats, Obama/Clinton didn't have a single soldier within 12 hours. That's what you are seriously saying? And you think that's acceptable?

I heard there was a special ops team that was 4 hours out (Croatia, maybe?).

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

from your earlier link...

"Over the roughly 12 hours between the start of the attacks and the time the last Americans were evacuated from Benghazi"

12 hours? You're saying that there were zero American military assets that were within 12 hours of Benghazi? And you say I'm the one who doesn't know what I'm talking about? Twelve hours?

If it's true that not one American military asset was within 12 hours of Libya (and no one believes that's true), that's another scandal, given all the threats that were reported in Libya.

Once the Americans arrived at Tripoli the threat was far less and I'd assume not requiring special forces. If I remember right they left on an Air Force transport. This wasn't like the fall of Siagon...

Spence, according to you, not only was Stevens denied the extra security he asked for, but we didn't have any military support in the same hemisphere? On the anniversary of 09/11, in Libya, after getting reports of increased threats, Obama/Clinton didn't have a single soldier within 12 hours. That's what you are seriously saying? And you think that's acceptable?

No that's not what I'm saying.

I heard there was a special ops team that was 4 hours out (Croatia, maybe?).

Ok, so let's get this straight:

The Mullen investigation didn't know about your Croatian team.

The House investigation didn't know about your Croatian team.

The Military leadership who testified under oath didn't know about your Croatian team.

Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif, Chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services didn't know about your Croatian team.

These people are all clearly incompetent because you Jim, heard something.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Once the Americans arrived at Tripoli the threat was far less and I'd assume not requiring special forces. If I remember right they left on an Air Force transport. This wasn't like the fall of Siagon...


No that's not what I'm saying.


Ok, so let's get this straight:

The Mullen investigation didn't know about your Croatian team.

The House investigation didn't know about your Croatian team.

The Military leadership who testified under oath didn't know about your Croatian team.

Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif, Chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services didn't know about your Croatian team.

These people are all clearly incompetent because you Jim, heard something.

-spence

"the threat was far less and I'd assume not requiring special forces."

The point is, Obama could not have known what the timeframe was going to be, at the time he decided not to order the quick reaction forces to get there as soon as possible (unless he did give that order, but I don't think he did).

Spence, you seem to be justifying the actions of the administration, because it turns out that it's unlikely that forces could have helped. That's not the least bit relevant, because Obama didn't know how long the attack would last, right?

"The Mullen investigation didn't know about your Croatian team.

The House investigation didn't know about your Croatian team.

The Military leadership who testified under oath didn't know about your Croatian team.

Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif, Chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services didn't know about your Croatian team.

These people are all clearly incompetent because you Jim, heard something."

Only from Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs...if this piece is true, which maybe it's not. But it's wy we need a meaningful hearing, with everyone there and willing to answer questions. Look, if Obama told special forces to get there ASAP, and the closest unit was on the way but stopped when they learned that it was over, no one would have a problem with that. But if forces were not given the order to go, then regardless of whether or not it turns out they could have got there in time, someone needs to explain why they weren't ordered to go.

Why is that a controversial position to take? Seems to me, that one is only unwilling to ask the question, if one knows that the answer would damage someone they support.

I seem to recall Obama claiming he'd have the most open and transparent administration ever. Let's end this with one hearing that leaves no questions unanswered.

Sorry that Fox is the source of some of this. Could be that Sean Hannity is on a witch hunt. Or it could be that they are the only ones willing to ask anything resembling a tough question to our Dear Leader. An open and honest hearing would answer that once and for all. McCain I not a right wing attack dog, neither is Lindsay Graham. They both claim there are a lot of unanswered questions. McCain is not Ted Cruz or Darrell Issa.



http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/admission...from-benghazi/

[buckman]

Jim , you are assuming the President was available to give orders . From everything I've read he was not. We have no idea where the president was at the time of this attack. If there's nothing to hide then they should tell us where the hell he was.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by buckman

Jim , you are assuming the President was available to give orders . From everything I've read he was not. We have no idea where the president was at the time of this attack. If there's nothing to hide then they should tell us where the hell he was.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Another reason why we need more answers.

The hot question for me is, when (if ever) was the cavalry ordered to get there ASAP? It doesn't take more than 20 minutes to get a quick reaction force off the ground. And it seems to me, that on the anniversary of 09/11, after we had received serious threats, and the Ambassador asked for more security, we'd have the cavalry pointed in that direction and ready to go at a moment's notice. According to Spence's link, it was 12 hours from the start of the attack to when the last Americans left the area. In that time, we could have landed Marines from the continental US. Presumably someone was a lot closer than that.

We got caught with our pants down (State dept, under Hilary, denied Stevens' request for extra security). We likely didn't respond nearly as aggressively as we could have. It happened 8 weeks before a Presidential election, during which one of Obama's major themes was that Al Queda was on the run. You don't need to be Steven Hawking to make a really good guess as to what happened and why.

I feel sick for those families. Hilary sends Stevens to Libya, denies his request for extra security, we did noting to help him during the attack, Obama (at best) was reluctant to call this attack what it was, and we haven't brought anyone to justice for what happened. It's a disgrace (but maybe to be expected when our President thinks he can make everyone like him because he's so charming), and very likely a scandal.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

You can't order military action if there's no military to act.



-spence

Yes, and the President can't order it if he's not around. Ideally he would go to the Situation Room, but if not ,in this day and age he could be reached anywhere?

All this talk about not ordering military action because there wasn't enough time is bogus as you would need a crystal ball to know how long the fight would last.

The order was never given to try and save 4 American heroes.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Yes, and the President can't order it if he's not around. Ideally he would go to the Situation Room, but if not ,in this day and age he could be reached anywhere?

All this talk about not ordering military action because there wasn't enough time is bogus as you would need a crystal ball to know how long the fight would last.

The order was never given to try and save 4 American heroes.

Yea, he was probably out golfing.

This is just total nonsense. It was reported in 2012 that Panetta and top military advisers were with Obama an hour after the attack planning responses.

This idea that our people died because orders weren't given has not only been repeatedly dis-proven -- as have most of the conspiracy theories -- it's offensive.

-spence

I

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Yea, he was probably out golfing.

This is just total nonsense. It was reported in 2012 that Panetta and top military advisers were with Obama an hour after the attack planning responses.

This idea that our people died because orders weren't given has not only been repeatedly dis-proven -- as have most of the conspiracy theories -- it's offensive.

-spence

I

Spence, I don't know ass much here as I should. Your timeline you posted made no comment, that I saw, about how fast the closest special operations troops got in the air headed to Benghazi. Do you know when that happened? Were special forces in the air within 30 minutes of when the attack started? If so, that answers a key question. If not, Obama deserves to be impeached. I respond with common sense to empirical evidence. The link I posted suggest that there was a special forces team tat was a lot closer than 12 hours away. What orders were given to that team, and when?

You cannot tell me that's an unfair question. I honestly don't know if it has been answered. Do you?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, I don't know ass much here as I should. Your timeline you posted made no comment, that I saw, about how fast the closest special operations troops got in the air headed to Benghazi. Do you know when that happened? Were special forces in the air within 30 minutes of when the attack started? If so, that answers a key question. If not, Obama deserves to be impeached. I respond with common sense to empirical evidence. The link I posted suggest that there was a special forces team tat was a lot closer than 12 hours away. What orders were given to that team, and when?

You cannot tell me that's an unfair question. I honestly don't know if it has been answered. Do you?

First off WND is a tabloid and Aaron Klien an Obama hater. Your article is from 2013 when the DoD released the timeline of events in 2012. It's intentionally manipulative and not supported by facts.

The quotes in the piece don't substantiate the claim made in the headline.

Jim, if you'd take the time to read any of the already published information...you'd know that the special forces training in Croatia were given orders to prepare to deploy to Libya just after midnight, they didn't reach the staging base in Italy until 8pm the next day. An hour later the FAST team from Spain arrived in Tripoli.

i.e. There wasn't a special forces team in Croatia that could have been there in 4 hours.

Perhaps people have watched too much Iron Man and Captain America to think we can just jet people instantly across continents.

-spence

[justplugit]

[QUOTE=spence;1041179]"Yea, he was probably out golfing."

I wasn't implying he wasn't on the job, but I have yet to read where he was.


"It was reported in 2012 that Panetta and top military advisers were with Obama an hour after the attack planning responses."

Seriously where can I find that info?


"This idea that our people died because orders weren't given has not only been repeatedly dis-proven"- - -

What orders were given?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

First off WND is a tabloid and Aaron Klien an Obama hater. Your article is from 2013 when the DoD released the timeline of events in 2012. It's intentionally manipulative and not supported by facts.

The quotes in the piece don't substantiate the claim made in the headline.

Jim, if you'd take the time to read any of the already published information...you'd know that the special forces training in Croatia were given orders to prepare to deploy to Libya just after midnight, they didn't reach the staging base in Italy until 8pm the next day. An hour later the FAST team from Spain arrived in Tripoli.

i.e. There wasn't a special forces team in Croatia that could have been there in 4 hours.

Perhaps people have watched too much Iron Man and Captain America to think we can just jet people instantly across continents.

-spence

"i.e. There wasn't a special forces team in Croatia that could have been there in 4 hours."

So here is my question. How long after the attack began, was the nearest special forces team (wherever that was) in the air, on their way to Benghazi? Has that question been answered? I didn't see any mention of that in the timeline you posted?

"Perhaps people have watched too much Iron Man and Captain America to think we can just jet people instantly across continents"

I don't fit in that category, I do know a few things here, though I'm no expert on special forces.

It's not possible that there weren't any troops we could have gotten there within the 12 hours that lapsed between the start of the attack and when the last American left. It is a 100% certainty that there was a special forces team closer than 12 hours out. I don't know where they were, but someone was within 12 hours.

It does not tale very long to get a small team in the air within 30 minutes. That's why they are called quick reaction forces.

If some people are overly influenced by Captain America, others are too enthralled with Obama to the point that they are not capable of doubting anything he say or does.

[scottw]

I don't know why you guys keep asking him to answer questions..it's like asking Jay Carney to answer a question...the answer is always disturbing and incompletely slanted with a tinge of "do some homework idiot" which would apparently involve reciting administration talking points over and over and over....

Goldberg had a great take on Bengazi and Carney recently....

"BENGHAZI MADE SIMPLE

There is an enormous amount of theorizing about what the “real story” behind Benghazi really is. To me it’s always been obvious. The White House was caught off guard — for reasons stemming both from ideology and incompetence — on September 11, 2012. As they have after virtually every other (jihadist) terrorist attack on Americans, they acted as if it had absolutely nothing to do with them. As with the Times Square bomber, the Fort Hood shooter, and other Islamist assaults, there’s always some other reason for the bloodshed, some attempt to claim, at least for a while, that this was an “isolated incident” with no broader implications for the War on Terror or Obama’s foreign policy. Admittedly, even this White House understood that spinning the Benghazi attack as an isolated incident wasn’t going to work (such intense spinning could risk irreparable scrotal torsion). So they went with the story about the video.

Of course, the White House and its defenders insist that they really believed the video was to blame. This strikes me as a lie, for the most part, if not initially than certainly over time. But even if that’s true, that’s no exoneration. As I said, there was a mix of incompetence and ideology at work. As an ideological matter, that this White House could convince itself for hours — never mind weeks — that this terror attack was all about the video is incredibly damning, if true. And, as I argue in my column today, the fact that the once-proud champions of civil liberties under George W. Bush were perfectly happy to throw the First Amendment under the bus is even more damning.

Given that the Benghazi attack came during the thick of the presidential election, it’s no surprise that the White House’s political and ideological instincts overpowered everything else. It’s no surprise, either, that the press’s instincts pointed in the same direction. It’s really non-surprises for as far as the eye can see.

Obviously there are still some unknowns worth knowing, and they might be surprising — like the exact details of how and why the response was so non-responsive. Just because the White House and State Department were unprepared shouldn’t mean that the professional military was too. The exact nexus between the political screw-up and the military’s failure to “run to the sound of gunfire” hasn’t been established."

CARNEY

"On Wednesday, Jay Carney explained — as if he was talking to a room full of children — that the Benghazi e-mail the White House refused to release until the White House was forced to release its Benghazi e-mails wasn’t in fact about Benghazi, even though the e-mail talks about Benghazi. This is Monty Pythonesque of “Dead Parrot” proportions. That’s not a Benghazi e-mail, it’s just an e-mail about Benghazi, in a folder marked “Benghazi” e-mails, idiot.

As I said on Fox yesterday, Jay Carney is a very strange creature for Washington. He’s an extremely confident liar — we’ve got a lot of those! — but he’s not very convincing. Usually, confidence = convincing. As George Costanza (and in his own way Bill Clinton) liked to say, it’s not a lie if you believe it when you tell it. But with Carney, he lies in a way that makes it seem not so much like he believes it but that you’re an idiot for not believing it. There’s a kind of the-joke’s-on-you feel to the way he talks that reminds me of that (X-rated and not safe for work) Onion article, “Why Do These Homosexuals Keep [Fellating Me]?”

Carney actually seems shocked and, well, disappointed to the point of contemptuousness, when reporters won’t believe him. It’s like no one told him he doesn’t have Jedi mind tricks at his disposal.

Carney: These are not the droids you’re looking for, idiots.

Ed Henry, Fox News: But Jay, these look exactly like the droids we’ve been looking for. In fact, the serial numbers match.

Carney: Ed, I understand your network is deeply invested in finding a story here. But the simple fact is that these are in no way the droids you’re looking for. Move along.

Henry: One last follow-up, Jay. The golden droid on the right just said, “Excuse me sirs, but we are in fact exactly the droids you’ve been looking for. Thank goodness you found us.”

Carney: No, no they didn’t. And besides — I used to be a journalist as you know — and it’s common knowledge among real journalists [Carney winks to the non-Fox reporters in the room] that one should never believe what droids tell them.

Jonathan Karl, ABC: Jay, related question: Here is a photo of you from last month holding up a picture of these exact droids with the quote in the caption reading, ‘Carney vows the White House will not rest until these droids are found.’ Also, ABC News has obtained footage of you from this morning, hugging the two droids right there, with you saying ‘Thank Obama we found you!’ Can you explain that?

[Carney rolls his eyes and then desperately tries to telekinetically choke everyone in the room.]

Henry: Uh, Jay are you okay? Why are you squinting? What’s up with that hand gesture . . ."

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So here is my question. How long after the attack began, was the nearest special forces team (wherever that was) in the air, on their way to Benghazi? Has that question been answered? I didn't see any mention of that in the timeline you posted?

The article I linked indicates verbal orders were given immediately to move both the FAST teams in Spain and the special ops in Croatia…formal orders followed.

The problem here is that in an attempt to smear Obama all sorts of conspiracy stories were embraced by the blogs and even some reputable news outlets…They did nothing, they were told to stand down etc… and all of this has been proven false even by the House investigation.

I don't fit in that category, I do know a few things here, though I'm no expert on special forces.

It's not possible that there weren't any troops we could have gotten there within the 12 hours that lapsed between the start of the attack and when the last American left. It is a 100% certainty that there was a special forces team closer than 12 hours out. I don't know where they were, but someone was within 12 hours.

It does not tale very long to get a small team in the air within 30 minutes. That's why they are called quick reaction forces.

You're making it sound like they're firemen waiting for the bell to ring and slide down the pole into their boots.

Even the FAST teams in Spain would have to equip for the mission, same goes for the ops in Croatia training. They'd have to stage themselves and you'd probably need a plan. Basing this on flight time along isn't realistic, you know this.

Remember as well that the closest security team in Tripoli did deploy and got there at 1:30am.

If some people are overly influenced by Captain America, others are too enthralled with Obama to the point that they are not capable of doubting anything he say or does.

There's a body of research out there that can't be denied. Multiple investigations seem to be reaching the same conclusions.

-spence

[spence]

Another thing I don't get.

I watched Jane Harman get eviscerated on Fox last Sunday by Brit Hume's assertion that there wasn't *ANY* evidence the attack could have been a response by the video. I'm amazed really that someone with her stature could have been so unprepared for an easy question.

How about the fact that the attack happened after an assault on the neighboring Egyptian embassy?

How about the fact that the following week was rampant with video protests and violence towards US missions in the region?

How about the fact that the NY Times reported interviews with attackers who claimed the video was their inspiration?

Why is it so hard to believe that the attack could have been a product of both terrorism *AND* the video?

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Another thing I don't get.

I watched Jane Harman get eviscerated on Fox last Sunday by Brit Hume's assertion that there wasn't *ANY* evidence the attack could have been a response by the video. I'm amazed really that someone with her stature could have been so unprepared for an easy question.

How about the fact that the attack happened after an assault on the neighboring Egyptian embassy?

How about not providing adequate security to the consulate after that attack. Sept. 11 . . . Growing influence of Al Qaeda . . . The attack in Egypt . . .

How about the fact that the following week was rampant with video protests and violence towards US missions in the region?

OK. So you stick to the administration's talking points and disregard other "reports" that the violence in Egypt, as reported in Egyptian press, had more to do with other things than the video, such as the protest over the imprisonment of the blind Sheik. And that mass protests in dictatorial regimes opposed by other dictatorial and extremist opponents are nearly always instigated by one or the other of the opponents, and always by some talking point used to legitimize the violence. When a whole nation or its embassies is attacked over a video rather than retribution demanded by a fatwa against the individual who made the video, it is far, far, more likely that the video is a prop, a tool, used by, in these cases, jihadists, rather than spontaneous peaceful people upset over an isolated insult to the Prophet, or Islam. If normal peace loving Muslims can be so blindly incited to deadly mayhem by such a trifle, why would we be so stupid to trust them? And if it was more "extreme" Muslims, why were we caught so unaware? It wasn't as if there were no warnings or signals or evidence of trouble. I recall you bought the Kool-Aid that Libya was not, as I had put it, a hot bed of terrorism. And that, as the administration claimed, Al Qaeda was decimated, weakened, on the run, losing influence, and Libya or Benghazi was not a dangerous place. We based our policy on such a view?

How about the fact that the NY Times reported interviews with attackers who claimed the video was their inspiration?

That is, on one level, so laughable to believe that a reporter from the NY Times, a representative of the great Satan, was going to get the real skinny, and nothing but the real skinny, from a jihadist. Was the reporter going to be told to his face that he was an enemy. If the video was so offensive that it was cause to kill, not the video maker, but those who represented the U.S., what would the jihadist interviewed by the American reporter be expected to tell him. "Oh . . . it was just the video . . . and I like you so I'll tell you exactly what happened . . . but not in such a way that might make you uncomfortable, or feel threatened. And besides, if I were to kill you, without the aid of some anti-offensive talking point, I might be in deep trouble." And isn't it amazing that the reporter so easily found and got supposed confessions from attackers, but the administration which vowed to get them and bring them to justice has not yet done so. Again, even if the "extremist" attacker did so only because of the video, did he accidentally or "spontaneously" join in the well-coordinated attack? Wasn't there a wider group of like-minded extremists led by those who used whatever psycho babble was available to foment the desired and planned violence and killing?

Why is it so hard to believe that the attack could have been a product of both terrorism *AND* the video?

-spence

It is not "so hard to believe" if the video and terrorism were connected, not separate motivations. If the video was a tool of terrorists, not a separate entity that in itself would cause such mayhem.

And besides, it has been admitted that the video was not the reason for the attack on the Benghazi consulate and the killing of Ambassador Stevens. It would be kind of . . . sort of . . . OK . . . so you really, actually, did believe that it was about the video. So when you went on about the video you weren't trying to mislead the American people before an election, you were, according to the best available analysis, assuming it was the video.

Except that the initial reporting on the ground did not mention a protest. Because there was no protest. Therefore no protest could be reported as happening either before or during the attack. It was reported immediately as an attack. Even a well coordinated one. And Brit Hume was correct in saying there was no evidence that the attack was a response to the video. Your little "hows" and "why's" are not evidence of why the attack took place. The comingling of terror with the video is the marriage of two separate things that don't go together. A spontaneous riot, if such a thing exists, in response to offensive words is an act of rage motivated by revenge. An Islamo-terrorist attack is a calculated offensive, more than a response, motivated by the desire to rid infidels from Islamic domains. Now, the terrorists can use, in this case, the video as a tool to inspire some to attack, but the reason for the attack is not a response to the video, but to terrorize and eliminate the infidel.

Which is why, when in Obama's press conference he talked about the Benghazi attack being a result of the video, then later in the speech mentioned terrorism, the attack is not specifically called an act of terror. By specifying one and mentioning the other, there is an implication that they are related, even that the attack was terrorism. The response to the video could not be terrorism unless it was an instigating tool used by terrorists rather than the reason for a spontaneous "protest" gone bad.

And that's why the talking point in the new memos is so damning:

"To underscore that these protests are rooted in an internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."

If the "protests" were rooted in the video, not in terrorism, especially in Al Qaeda and its affiliates terrorism, then it is not to be presumed as a "broader failure of policy." So it had to be underscored that it was about a spontaneous reaction to the video, even when there was no such specific evidence. On the contrary, the evidence indicated terrorism, jihadism, the Al Qaeda brand. And policy was "rooted" on the notion that terrorism and Al Qaeda were not a viable threat.

Since it has been found that the attack was not "rooted" in the video, but was actually rooted in terrorism, and the rise of Al Qaeda, ergo, it WAS the failure of policy.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

. . . OK . . . so you really, actually, did believe that it was about the video. So when you went on about the video you weren't trying to mislead the American people before an election, you were, according to the best available analysis, assuming it was the video.

Except that the initial reporting on the ground did not mention a protest. Because there was no protest. Therefore no protest could be reported as happening either before or during the attack. It was reported immediately as an attack. Even a well coordinated one. And Brit Hume was correct in saying there was no evidence that the attack was a response to the video. Your little "hows" and "why's" are not evidence of why the attack took place.


And that's why the talking point in the new memos is so damning:

"To underscore that these protests are rooted in an internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."

If the "protests" were rooted in the video, not in terrorism, especially in Al Qaeda and its affiliates terrorism, then it is not to be presumed as a "broader failure of policy." So it had to be underscored that it was about a spontaneous reaction to the video, even when there was no such specific evidence. On the contrary, the evidence indicated terrorism, jihadism, the Al Qaeda brand. And policy was "rooted" on the notion that terrorism and Al Qaeda were not a viable threat.

Since it has been found that the attack was not "rooted" in the video, but was actually rooted in terrorism, and the rise of Al Qaeda, ergo, it WAS the failure of policy.

seems as though the video was and is a "conspiracy theory" of sorts.....and you are right, the new memos are incredibly damning and there are apparently more that the most transparent, honest and open administration in history has not been forthcoming with....

funny to watch him attack others as conspiracy theorist, haters, biased manipulators of facts, timelines and language to political ends


Classic .....Kevin Williamson

"Where’s the scandal?”....Bill Maher shouted, and if you want the voice of the incoherent and self-satisfied progressive id, you could do worse than to take the temperature of Bill Maher. The scandal, if you don’t know, is the White House’s maliciously misleading the American public about four dead Americans killed by preventable al-Qaeda attacks on the anniversary of 9/11 in order to serve its own narrow political purposes. The scandal itself is not very difficult to understand, unless you have a personal commitment to not understanding it. Such commitments frequently are rooted in partisanship and ideology, but in the case of our supine media and Democrats occupying the commanding heights of culture, it may be simple shame. They were intentionally misled by an administration that holds their intelligence in light esteem even as it takes for granted their support."

"But for politicians of President Obama’s genus, truth is simply another multiple-choice proposition, and he and his people chose the version that best suited their immediate needs. One of the many problems with having a government dominated by law-school graduates is that lawyers suffer from a collective delusion that clever argument has a truth of its own, a unique moral weight independent of the facts."

" In other words, the Obama administration did not mislead the American public about Benghazi out of political necessity; it misled the American public out of habit. And why wouldn’t it? From the economic effects of the stimulus bill to the GM bailout to blaming last quarter’s poor economic numbers on the fact that it is cold during the winter, the Obama administration has an excellent record for wholesaling fiction to the American electorate, which keeps enduring it. There is apparently enough collective intelligence in the Obama administration to hold in general contempt the wit and attention span of an American public that has elected it twice. Or perhaps the administration is fooling itself, too. A good huckster knows that he is a huckster, but a great huckster comes to sincerely believe in his own shtick, and perhaps somebody at the White House has read Good to Great."

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You're making it sound like they're firemen waiting for the bell to ring and slide down the pole into their boots.

Even the FAST teams in Spain would have to equip for the mission, same goes for the ops in Croatia training. They'd have to stage themselves and you'd probably need a plan. Basing this on flight time along isn't realistic, you know this.

Remember as well that the closest security team in Tripoli did deploy and got there at 1:30am.


There's a body of research out there that can't be denied. Multiple investigations seem to be reaching the same conclusions.

-spence

"You're making it sound like they're firemen waiting for the bell to ring and slide down the pole into their boots. "

Not exactly that. But it doesn't take them hours to get ready, either. A FAST team can be in the air in less than an hour. Read the book Lone Survivor, you'll see how fast 12 SEALs can get a chopper in the air with zero warning.

[buckman]

What spence fails to recognize is the apologizing for the video and then nonstop blaming of the video incited the violence over the video after the attack .
Hell nobody even heard about the YouTube video until the Obama administration decided to make it into what it wasn't. They should be held responsible for that violence too along with total incompetence over the security.
It's pathetic that there are apologist that will put their commonsense on the line to protect this group of elitist thugs and morons. At least they are in the minority in this country. The rest of his supporters are just waiting for a free ride.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

What spence fails to recognize is the apologizing for the video and then nonstop blaming of the video incited the violence over the video after the attack .
Hell nobody even heard about the YouTube video until the Obama administration decided to make it into what it wasn't.

Totally untrue, keep that white knuckle grip going.

-spence

[PaulS]

What is pathetic to me is the right's trying to make political points off the death of people who died servicing their county - Pathetic.

How many millions more will be spent with nothing to show for it?

[spence]

Originally Posted by PaulS

What is pathetic to me is the right's trying to make political points off the death of people who died servicing their county - Pathetic.

How many millions more will be spent with nothing to show for it?

If they can keep the issue alive into the 2016 election some would argue they've gotten a lot of value for the taxpayer's millions.

-spence

[PaulS]

No, the extreme left will think they are pathetic, the extreme right will think they are uncovering a scandal and the 60% in the middle will ignore it and say politics as usual.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Totally untrue, keep that white knuckle grip going.

-spence

Wasn't the video produced by an American citizen? What about that, Spence? Obama's job is to represent that citizen. And what does Obama do? Throws him under the bus, and informs jihadists all over the world that this American citizen made an anti-Islamic vodeo. Isn't that putting a target on that guy's head? Is that in Obama's job description - "rather than admit that you got caught looking the wrong way, better to blame an innocent civilian who you are supposed to be representing, even if it puts his life at risk"?

Am I wrong on that?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

What is pathetic to me is the right's trying to make political points off the death of people who died servicing their county - Pathetic.

How many millions more will be spent with nothing to show for it?

The mirror-image of your statement would be this...I can't believe the left is willing to sweep the deaths of 4 superb Americans under the rug, in order to preserve the reputation of our megalomaniac-in-chief.

Th etruth is somewhere between your statement and mine. I htink there are still un-answered questions. John McCain and Lindsay Graham are not right-wing fanatics, I presume they are truthful when they say we need this hearing. If it turns out that it was nothing more than a political witchhunt, hold them acountable.

The GOP picked the right guy to head these hearings.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

If they can keep the issue alive into the 2016 election some would argue they've gotten a lot of value for the taxpayer's millions.

-spence

She's got a lot of dark, ugly skeletons in her closet - Whitewater, travelgate, the FBI file scandal, staying married to that scumbag, attacking Lewinski instead of holding her husband accountable (how's that for women's rights?), lying through her teeth about coming under sniper fire (how in the name of God does that not end anyone's political career), and Benghazi, and the fact that a compelling case can be made that she was a disaster as SecState with few victories or accomplishments under her belt. For example, what has she done to free the Pakistani doctor who helped us get Bin Laden?

That's a LOT. But she'll probably win. A lot can happen between now and then, but at this point, I can't see how she loses. As the media (save for one TV station) portrays anyone who disagrees with Obama a racist, they will portray anyone who disagrees with her a sexist.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The mirror-image of your statement would be this...I can't believe the left is willing to sweep the deaths of 4 superb Americans under the rug, in order to preserve the reputation of our megalomaniac-in-chief.

Th etruth is somewhere between your statement and mine. I htink there are still un-answered questions. John McCain and Lindsay Graham are not right-wing fanatics, I presume they are truthful when they say we need this hearing. If it turns out that it was nothing more than a political witchhunt, hold them acountable.

The GOP picked the right guy to head these hearings.

So what have they found so far? Nothing.

I think the WH shouldn't have said anything until they were 100% clear. However if that happened people would be up in arms about the silence. With the 24/7 coverage, you're dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.

And didn't Hillary say in her "what difference does it make" speach something along the lines of .... "as long as we find out who did it, why and how to prevent it from happening again".