When is Jim in NJ

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Benghazi happened just as originally described. There was no coverup. The ties to al Qaeda were fabricated by a corrupt journalist to sell a story, which the GOP ate up with great delight. That is, unless my facts are wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"The ties to al Qaeda were fabricated by a corrupt journalist to sell a story"

Interesting. The US Senate, which last time I checked was run by the Democrats, issued a report saying definitively that there were ties to Al Queda.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...nghazi-report/

Our presidential front runner, Mrs Clinton, said during the hearings "what difference does it make" who was responsible. HOW ABOUT THIS...the difference is, the truth tells us accurately, who we need to go after to seek justice. That means nothing to the woman who was in charge of the department that lost 4 of its employees?

I don't get the liberal willingness to let politicians get away with absolutely anything, especially if their name is Kennedy or Clinton. I truly do not get it.

[PaulS]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1028711Our presidential front runner, Mrs Clinton, said during the hearings "what difference does it make" who was responsible. HOW ABOUT THIS...the difference is, the truth tells us accurately, who we need to go after to seek justice. That means nothing to the woman who was in charge of the department that lost 4 of its employees?

I don't get the liberal willingness to let politicians get away with absolutely anything, especially if their name is Kennedy or Clinton. I truly do not get it.[/QUOTE]

So when she made that statement, was she refering to "who was responsible" as you indicated b/c the way you wrote that it sounds like she didn't care who was responsible?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

So when she made that statement, was she refering to "who was responsible" as you indicated b/c the way you wrote that it sounds like she didn't care who was responsible?

Let's assume that all she was indifferent to, was the motivatiuon behind the attackers. How is that still not crucial? If the attack was a response toi a video, then we know we can avoid future attacks by stepping up security when such videos come out. If the attack was a pre-meditated terrorist plot, we avoid future attacks by killing the members of that terrorist group.

Those are very different scenarios Paul, each of which having a completely different response. I don't believe that you disagree with that statement. It's stupifying that the SesState, and presumptive presidential nomine sees no reason to split those hairs.

WHere am I going wrong Paul? No sarcasm, that's a sincere querstion. Politics aside, I don't see how her question doesn't raise serious questions about her ability to serve at that level.

As an aside, blaming the attack on a video, is blaming the attack on a goddamn American citizen, since it was an American who mnade the video. SHe is supposed to be looking out for Americans, not throwing them under the bus to deflect blame for an attack.

I don't blame her for the attack. In this age, you can't stop them all. Her response was astounding.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Interesting. The US Senate, which last time I checked was run by the Democrats, issued a report saying definitively that there were ties to Al Queda.

The report you cite was a product of the Senate Intel Committee which isn't run by democrats...it's bi-partisan. From what I've read it pretty much aligns with the independent review from a year ago.

It doesn't appear to establish anything new. It's been known for some time that participants in the attack had some level of linkage to groups claiming to be al Qaeda in north Africa, but there's still no evidence of material involvement by those groups or involvement by core alQaeda in Pakistan.

Anyone can raise a black flag and claim to be alQaeda.

Our presidential front runner, Mrs Clinton, said during the hearings "what difference does it make" who was responsible. HOW ABOUT THIS...the difference is, the truth tells us accurately, who we need to go after to seek justice. That means nothing to the woman who was in charge of the department that lost 4 of its employees?

To Paul's response...she said those responsible would come out in the investigation but the priority should be on the initial actions necessary to protect out people. Funny, Jim never posts the entire remarks...

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The report you cite was a product of the Senate Intel Committee which isn't run by democrats...it's bi-partisan. From what I've read it pretty much aligns with the independent review from a year ago.

It doesn't appear to establish anything new. It's been known for some time that participants in the attack had some level of linkage to groups claiming to be al Qaeda in north Africa, but there's still no evidence of material involvement by those groups or involvement by core alQaeda in Pakistan.

Anyone can raise a black flag and claim to be alQaeda.



To Paul's response...she said those responsible would come out in the investigation but the priority should be on the initial actions necessary to protect out people. Funny, Jim never posts the entire remarks...

-spence

"the Senate Intel Committee which isn't run by democrats"

The Senate Intel committee has a chairperson who runs the committee. That chairperson is Diane Feinstein. Ms Feinstein is a Democrat. Therefore that committee, like every single senate committee, is run by the democrats. Am I going too fast for you?

There are 15 members of the committee...7 Republicans, 7 democrats, an an independent who caucuses with the Democrats. Stop embarassing yourself.

Nebe said that the link to Al Queda was fabricated by a reporter. The report issued by the senate intelligence committee, run by those in your party, seems to contradict that.

"Anyone can raise a black flag and claim to be alQaeda."

That's true. Presumably, however, the Senate intelligence committee has some ability to differentiate between genuine Al Queda, and some wannabe. If that's not the case, perhaps Senator Feinstein is in over her head.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The Senate Intel committee has a chairperson who runs the committee. That chairperson is Diane Feinstein. Ms Feinstein is a Democrat. Therefore that committee, like every single senate committee, is run by the democrats. Am I going too fast for you?

There are 15 members of the committee...7 Republicans, 7 democrats, an an independent who caucuses with the Democrats. Stop embarassing yourself.

Unlike other Senate Committees the Intel Committee that Feinstein Chairs is fixed in the balanced of its membership -- by design -- to produce a bi-partisan product. Often times Senators don't agree but what the group publishes is what they do agree on. The report was a bi-partisan report.

Nebe said that the link to Al Queda was fabricated by a reporter. The report issued by the senate intelligence committee, run by those in your party, seems to contradict that.

I'm not responsible for Nebe's posts.

That's true. Presumably, however, the Senate intelligence committee has some ability to differentiate between genuine Al Queda, and some wannabe. If that's not the case, perhaps Senator Feinstein is in over her head.

Well, it sounds like those with access to the secret intel were able to make that distinction and didn't come up with anything new.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Unlike other Senate Committees the Intel Committee that Feinstein Chairs is fixed in the balanced of its membership -- by design -- to produce a bi-partisan product. Often times Senators don't agree but what the group publishes is what they do agree on. The report was a bi-partisan report.


I'm not responsible for Nebe's posts.


Well, it sounds like those with access to the secret intel were able to make that distinction and didn't come up with anything new.

-spence

You said that commottee is not led by Democrats. The chairperson is a hard core Democrat. I can't say it any more clearly.

"fixed in the balanced of its membership"

There are 8 members who caucus with the Democrats, and 7 members who caucus with the GOP. 8, I believe, is greater than 7.

The bi-partisan report sems to refute Nebe's claim that the link to AL Queda was fabricated by a reporter.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You said that commottee is not led by Democrats. The chairperson is a hard core Democrat. I can't say it any more clearly.

"fixed in the balanced of its membership"

There are 8 members who caucus with the Democrats, and 7 members who caucus with the GOP. 8, I believe, is greater than 7.

The bi-partisan report sems to refute Nebe's claim that the link to AL Queda was fabricated by a reporter.

Ha, "hardcore" Democrat. Feinstien is known as a moderate in the Senate. You want to make it sounds like because the Dem's have a senate majority that adds legitimacy to the findings...guess what? It wouldn't make a difference. It's also why the same committee didn't thrash Bush over Iraqi intel...

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

It doesn't appear to establish anything new. It's been known for some time that participants in the attack had some level of linkage to groups claiming to be al Qaeda in north Africa,

"some level of linkage"?? what would that level be, Spence? Is dismissing the affiliation as "some level" without having to describe it supposed to make the linkage irrelevant? Please do describe the linkage so we can see how insignificant it is.

but there's still no evidence of material involvement by those groups or involvement by core alQaeda in Pakistan.

What is "core" Al Qaeda, Spence? My understanding of a core is the center of something. What is Al Qaeda the "core" of? Isn't the core usually smaller than the mass that surrounds it? Isn't that which surrounds it connected to the core? Let me quote a statement in the New Yorker article which you called a good perspective:

". . . Al Qaeda today involves decentralized local affiliates."

Would the "participants in the attack" who had "some level of linkage" be part of that mass which surrounds the "core" of Al Qaeda?

Would "core" Al Qaeda ever be large enough to accomplish the worldwide Jihad Bin Laden summoned the children of Islam to do? Did he, or his "core" organizers envision such a feat to be done by a small "core"?

The short answer is no. The longer answer is THEY PLANNED ALL ALONG THAT THEIR MESSAGE AND MISSION WOULD BE DONE BY OTHERS. That's what Al Qaeda was about. Al Qaeda means "the base." It is only a base, a core ideology, from which the children of Islam would rise to reclaim the Muslim soul from the corruption of Western influence, especially from the influence of the Great Satin, the United States.

"Core" Al Qaeda could train leaders to infiltrate or start "affiliate" groups and so branch out into the larger "non-core" Al Qaeda brand. This is the way a religion grows, fractures, disseminates into different, seemingly disparate sects or groups or lone wolves, who in their separate ways preach and proselytize, or force their way into dominance.

That you, yourself, refer to a "core" Al Qaeda implies that there is a larger "Al Qaeda" beyond that core.

And not to understand this would lead to fatal errors such as Benghazi. As your New Yorker article states "in other words, it was the people the Obama administration judged to be our allies who turned on us . . . in a rational political environment, the President's opponents might see this as damning."

I think they do see it as damning, and in a rational environment of national security, the rest of us should see it so as well.

Anyone can raise a black flag and claim to be alQaeda.

-spence

Yes, exactly. That is all it takes to be an Al Qaeda affiliate with "some level of linkage."

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

The report you cite was a product of the Senate Intel Committee which isn't run by democrats...it's bi-partisan. From what I've read it pretty much aligns with the independent review from a year ago.

It doesn't appear to establish anything new.

"It doesn't appear, What may be new, It remains unclear, Some intelligence suggests, attacks were likely, suggesting that these, It appears to have been, doesn't discount the idea, I don't think she was trying, Doesn't it say?, she said she misspoke."

"Flip a few words around and it all make sense."

-spence

instead of arguing what the NY Times says the report says, how about simply reading the freakin' report...it DOES establish quite a bit that may be new for you and the NY Times and the troubling realization that the attack was inevitable and if you were to randomly pick a date for it to possibly occur....Sept. 11th would be a good place to start .... it is quite startling and troubling, contradicting many of your(administration) talking points


NY Times- "This dovetails with an investigation by The Times, which found that the attack was triggered in part by spontaneous anger over an anti-Islamic video. "

REALLY???? there is no evidence of this

Senate Report

"Contrary to many press reports at the time, eyewitness statements by U.S. personnel indicate that there were no protests at the start of the attacks.

On September 18,2012, the FBI and CIA reviewed the closed circuit
television video from the Mission facility that showed there were no protests prior to the attacks.

Other reporting indicated there were no protests.
Fot lC Qpt~ined closed circuit television video from the Mission
facility and there were credible eyewitness statements of U.S. personnel on the ground that night

As a result of evidence from closed circuit videos and other reports, the IC changed its assessment about a protest in classified intelligence reports on September 24, 2012, to state there were no demonstrations or protests at the Temporary Mission Facility prior to the attacks."

the administration and state even walked this back

HUFF PO- "The deadly September attack on a U.S. consulate in Libya was not precipitated by an anti-American protest, as had originally been reported, the State Department disclosed Tuesday night. According to reports from ABC and the Associated Press, the State Department now acknowledges that "gunfire and explosions near the front gate" were the first signs of danger precipitating the attacks that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

This revelation stands in contrast to the story originally reported by the Obama administration and others, who claimed that a protest against the anti-Islam film "The Innocence of Muslims" outside the American consulate was co-opted by violent extremists."

Huff Po-WASHINGTON — The State Department said Tuesday it never concluded that the consulate attack in Libya stemmed from protests over an American-made video ridiculing Islam, raising further questions about why the Obama administration used that explanation for more than a week after assailants killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.

what we are/were supposed to believe I guess is that a bunch of guys were sitting around a 10 inch black and white tv in their hut one afternoon watching al jezeera's coverage of protests breaking out across the arab streets one of them yelled...mohammeds!!....this our opportunity...we are deeply angered over an anti-islamic video which we have never seen........ during the commercial break we will coordinate an uncoordinated but very well armed assault on the loosely guarded compound of the great satan that is just down the street....quick...gather all of the mortars that you can carry....they will never expect that we are coming....what's that you say???? this is September the 11th!!!??? why this is truly a message for allah!!! make haste my brothers....we must kill everyone inside and burn the infadel's evil outpost to the ground...


Andy McCarthy had a great article regarding the Cairo rioting that was supposed to be caused by the video as well...

"As I said above, there is a kernel of truth to the claim that the video factored into the Cairo rioting. On September 9, two days before, the Grand Mufti publicly denounced “the actions undertaken by some extremist Copts who made a film offensive to the Prophet.” This denunciation led some of the Cairo hooligans to inveigh against the video.

It was, however, only one item in a broad list of grievances Islamic supremacists lodged against the United States. Many of the rioters focused on demanding the release of the Blind Sheikh and other jihadists. More to the point, many of them expressed their support for al Qaeda. They gleefully chanted, “Obama, Obama, there are still a million Osamas!” They tore down the Stars-and-Stripes from our flagpole, replacing it with al Qaeda’s notorious black jihad banner.

The claim that the Cairo rioting was over the video traces from the fact that the State Department – specifically, the U.S. embassy in Cairo – put out nauseating statements in the hours before the rioting started, deriding “the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims,” and indignantly condemning “religious incitement.”

Then, in the days after both the Cairo rioting and the massacre in Benghazi, President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, Ambassador Susan Rice, White House spokesman Jay Carney, and other administration figures repeatedly cited the video as the catalyst. The Obama-friendly press, naturally, ran with this spin: the video caused the rioting at the embassy in Cairo, which seamlessly spilled over into neighboring Libya, where a similar “protest” spontaneously erupted into deadly violence."

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/348125/print

[scottw]

bringing this back around to Christy...Jonah Goldberg has a great perspective about this in a recent column...

WHAT DIFFERENCE IT MAKES

'And that leaves out the <sarcasm> little </sarcasm> issue of Benghazi. The Senate Intelligence Committee report is at once a fascinating and utterly banal artifact of Washington. It identifies a huge mistake. It denounces said mistake. It concludes that the mistake could have been prevented. But nobody is responsible for the mistake. The bureaucracy did it!

Okay, you ask, who was in charge of that bureaucracy?

Shut up, they explain.

Liberal pundits and reporters are utterly contemptuous of the idea that the Benghazi scandal will be a problem for her. Eugene Robinson writes today that the Senate Intelligence Report is a total exoneration of the administration. This is bizarre on many levels. It’s also hard to square with the fact that the White House is livid with the Democrats who signed on to the report (or so a couple of Hill folks have told me). Why get furious at an exoneration?

The lack of curiosity about the report from the mainstream media is really remarkable. Why, exactly, aren’t reporters camped outside Clinton’s home demanding a reaction? I mean I understand that she didn’t close a couple of lanes on the George Washington Bridge, but four murdered Americans, including a U.S. ambassador, is important, too. Maybe if she had joked about putting traffic cones in front of the embassy on September 11?'

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

NY Times- "This dovetails with an investigation by The Times, which found that the attack was triggered in part by spontaneous anger over an anti-Islamic video. "

REALLY???? there is no evidence of this

The NYT reporting asserts the attackers themselves were in part motivated by the anti-Islam video. You can't say there's no evidence of this as you don't really know.

The initial reporting was that there was a protest, the video camera recordings etc... weren't available until later. The talking points were based on information at the time, and the Senate report found there was no effort by the Administration to cover up or manipulate the process.

Rushing a process doesn't make it a scandal.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

The NYT reporting asserts the attackers themselves were in part motivated by the anti-Islam video. You can't say there's no evidence of this as you don't really know.

The article you link in your next post states that Ansar al-Sharia organized the "protest" and they used the video as a reason for it. Ansar al-Sharia is, whether you like it or not, an Al Qaeda affiliate. So that "part" of the motivation was an Al Qaeda brand "catalyst," not a "spontaneous reaction to the video. what the other "part" of motivation for the "protest" would be is rather hazy.

The initial reporting was that there was a protest, the video camera recordings etc... weren't available until later. The talking points were based on information at the time, and the Senate report found there was no effort by the Administration to cover up or manipulate the process.

There was an initial assessment by the military, as testified by General Ham, that it was solely a terrorist attack, and that was immediately reported to the administration. Later video recordings "etc." proved that to be the case.

Rushing a process doesn't make it a scandal.

-spence

So why did the administration rush to the judgement that the video was the reason for the attack? And stick to that in spite of incoming information to the contrary?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The article you link in your next post states that Ansar al-Sharia organized the "protest" and they used the video as a reason for it. Ansar al-Sharia is, whether you like it or not, an Al Qaeda affiliate. So that "part" of the motivation was an Al Qaeda brand "catalyst," not a "spontaneous reaction to the video. what the other "part" of motivation for the "protest" would be is rather hazy.

I think the Senate report found the motivation for the attack inconclusive, perhaps other than just an American presence would make operations in the area difficult.

This is an area that I think the Times report gets right. What does it mean to be an "affiliate?" What does alQaeda mean anymore? It appears as though there were some links with individuals but there doesn't look to be much that's material. Just some of the more extreme militant factions branding themselves with a label.

There was an initial assessment by the military, as testified by General Ham, that it was solely a terrorist attack, and that was immediately reported to the administration. Later video recordings "etc." proved that to be the case.

No, that's not what he said. Ham didn't exclude a protest, rather he stated it wasn't "just" a sporadic protest.

"When we saw a rocket-propelled grenade attack, what appeared to be pretty well aimed small arms fire — again, this is all coming second and third hand through unclassified, you know, commercial cellphones for the most part initially. To me, it started to become clear pretty quickly that this was certainly a terrorist attack and not just not something sporadic," he stated.

His testimony is pretty interesting...

http://armedservices.house.gov/index...D-2DB9B53C3424

Like this...

General Ham. Well, certainly knowing now the events that transpired on the night of 11, 12 September I think all of us who are -- who have been involved in this would likely make some different decisions. But leading up to the events of 11 September_, watching the intelligence very carefully as all of us did and post attack having the opportunity to review the intelligence, I still don't find -- I have not found the intelligence that would indicate that an attack in Benghazi was imminent and that subsequent security should have been deployed. And I think the -- in my mind the most compelling argument to that conclusion is that the one individual in the U.S. Government who knew more about security and intelligence in Libya and in Benghazi specifically than anyone else was Ambassador Stevens. And I am convinced, knowing him, while I don't think he was particularly concerned about his own safety, I am absolutely convinced that had he any indication that an attack was likely or imminent in Benghazi he would not have put others at risk by traveling to Benghazi that evening.

So why did the administration rush to the judgement that the video was the reason for the attack? And stick to that in spite of incoming information to the contrary?

It looks like they were telling the story based on the information at the time, information that even today isn't totally wrong...but has evolved.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I think the Senate report found the motivation for the attack inconclusive, perhaps other than just an American presence would make operations in the area difficult.

It is often the case that when something is as obvious as Occam's razor would deduce, it becomes "inconclusive" to inferior minds. Or to minds who wish it to appear so.

This is an area that I think the Times report gets right. What does it mean to be an "affiliate?" What does alQaeda mean anymore?

That's been answered several times already.

It appears as though there were some links with individuals but there doesn't look to be much that's material. Just some of the more extreme militant factions branding themselves with a label.

The "labels" and "links" were already known, and would only be immaterial to those who have an agenda to deny them. And, if in the denial, there was blindness to danger simply because the "labels" and "links" were perceived to be immaterial, then the error was inexcusable. Lives were at stake. BTW Spence, what were those "labels" and "links"?

No, that's not what he said. Ham didn't exclude a protest, rather he stated it wasn't "just" a sporadic protest.

You quoted him as saying "To me, it started to become clear pretty quickly that this was certainly a terrorist attack and not something sporadic". I don't read that as not "just" a sporadic protest, but that it was NOT sporadic, and that it was an ATTACK, and no mention of a PROTEST as you conveniently insert in your interpretation. He has also stated that this was relayed to the administration as it was happening. Which makes the pronouncement that it was a spontaneous reaction to a video very peculiar.


It looks like they were telling the story based on the information at the time, information that even today isn't totally wrong...but has evolved.

-spence

No, the information they had at the time did not at all conclude that it was a spontaneous protest against a video. But then, if a fish can eventually evolve into a monkey, it doesn't mean it wasn't a sort of monkey all along. But, then, words, and excuses, and motivations, and all such human fabrications evolving into reality are not quite the same, are they? Unless lies evolving into truths is the same as fishes evolving into monkeys. I've heard that if you repeat a lie often enough it takes the place of truth.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So why did the administration rush to the judgement that the video was the reason for the attack? And stick to that in spite of incoming information to the contrary?

Let's remember that the video was made by an American citizen. In other words, the administration was more than willing to throw an American citizen under the bus, and invite Al Queda to declare a fatwah on that man, in order to minimize the political fallout.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"The ties to al Qaeda were fabricated by a corrupt journalist to sell a story"

Interesting. The US Senate, which last time I checked was run by the Democrats, issued a report saying definitively that there were ties to Al Queda.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...nghazi-report/

Our presidential front runner, Mrs Clinton, said during the hearings "what difference does it make" who was responsible. HOW ABOUT THIS...the difference is, the truth tells us accurately, who we need to go after to seek justice. That means nothing to the woman who was in charge of the department that lost 4 of its employees?

I don't get the liberal willingness to let politicians get away with absolutely anything, especially if their name is Kennedy or Clinton. I truly do not get it.

jim you quoted fox, how dare you....how about CNN?
Spence, once again you are totally WRONG a

CNN) -- The deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, was "likely preventable" based on known security shortfalls and prior warnings that the security situation there was deteriorating, the majority of the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded in a report released on Wednesday.Separately, the findings also noted what the FBI had told the panel -- that 15 people cooperating with its investigation had been killed in Benghazi, undercutting the investigation. It was not clear if the killings were related to the probe.

Moreover, it said that people linked with various al Qaeda-related groups in North Africa and elsewhere participated in the September 11, 2012, attack, but investigators haven't been able to determine whether any one group was in command.


http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/15/politi...html?hpt=hp_t2

carry on - and BTW, you people are all insane.

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

jim you quoted fox, how dare you....how about CNN?
Spence, once again you are totally WRONG a

CNN) -- The deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, was "likely preventable" based on known security shortfalls and prior warnings that the security situation there was deteriorating, the majority of the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded in a report released on Wednesday.Separately, the findings also noted what the FBI had told the panel -- that 15 people cooperating with its investigation had been killed in Benghazi, undercutting the investigation. It was not clear if the killings were related to the probe.

Moreover, it said that people linked with various al Qaeda-related groups in North Africa and elsewhere participated in the September 11, 2012, attack, but investigators haven't been able to determine whether any one group was in command.


http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/15/politi...html?hpt=hp_t2

carry on - and BTW, you people are all insane.

Funny, you said I'm wrong...even changed the size of the font for emphasis...then in your rant don't post anything that contradicts what I've said.

If you need any help cleaning your screen I'll send someone over. Know a lot of people down there...

-spence