JMS's Chronology of the Bengazi Raid and "cover-up"

[AsburySkinsFan]

i honestly just don't understand what the hell you are talking about here. I'm serious. I can read the outrage, but it is aimed at some vauge and fuzzy abstract general obomaness.... can you give me five one-sentence bullets outlining the source of your outrage? how was the administration caught with its hand in the cookie jar?

i honestly have no clue.

The Right believes that Obama should have spent more time developing a wormhole device so that the fighter jets could have flown from Italy to Libya faster than they could by conventional means. They are also furious that Obama let this happen, because W never allowed an attack on an embassy during his administration.....you just have to ignore the seven attacks that DID happen under his administration.

Oh wait Obama lied about the nature of the atracks...oh wait he didn't.

So what this whole rage boils down to is that the Right is enraged by the fact that Obama is a Democrat President.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

What were they supposed to be trying to cover up, and for what reason? As I recall, the initial complaint was that Obama didn't formally use the word "terrorism" in his speech the next day, which was a really stupid thing to howl about. After that, the focus keeps shifting and shifting.

What's curious is that the Right tried to create this same argument after Boston, and then eventually dropped it because it was so dumb.

I've yet to figure out exactly what Obama and Clinton are accused of doing here. A slow and confused response to events in real time is not an impeachable offense by any stretch. It's more or less SOP procedure in this situations for the last 100 years.

[AsburySkinsFan]

What's curious is that the Right tried to create this same argument after Boston' date=' and then eventually dropped it because it was so dumb.

I've yet to figure out exactly what Obama and Clinton are accused of doing here. A slow and confused response to events in real time is not an impeachable offense by any stretch. It's more or less SOP procedure in this situations for the last 100 years.[/quote']

Heck no! In this age of instant information if the media can get the story out instantly then the gov't should too! I don't care that instant news is wrong more often than it's right, we can always claim gov't conspiracy later when they change their story!

[Predicto]

Predicto, come on now this is a message board, hyperbole is a given. Of course it is not the entire administration it's just the President, the White House and the State Department leadership in this case.

But what do you think they did that was so henious? What is the scandal? What were they covering up, and how did they cover it up?

[@DCGoldPants]

I wonder if Issa feels dumb now for spending money (I hope his own and not taxpayer loot) on a twitter ad-buy on yesterday's hearing.

I mean, exposing failure could now refer to him I suppose. Seems pretty clear that whatever they expected Hicks to say, didn't happen. Beyond being very emotional, nothing new was brought to light.

[Bang]

Nothing like showing the result you want before you "look for answers".

What a dog and pony show. Another collossal waste of time and expense to score political points.

Lets face it, you don't even NEED to score political points anymore. No one on the right gives a **** about facts, whoever the candidate is in 2016, they will all vote for him, regardless of what he says. it could be a guilty piece of crap like Mark Samford and get practically 99% of the registered GOp vote. Hell, Charles Manson could too, i bet.

so quit wasting everyone's time trying to find things to gain leverage.

Just MAKE **** UP and run it through the echo chamber, and every one of them will believe it without having to disturb all the adults.

May as well. It's not like it'll be anything new

What an embarrassment the right has become.

~Bang

[Botched]

But what do you think they did that was so henious? What is the scandal? What were they covering up, and how did they cover it up?

I have asked this question a number of times in real life and on the interwebs, cause I honestly can't figure it out. Most of the time it's just turned around on me.

"I don't know what they're covering up, YOU tell ME!"

[nonniey]

i honestly just don't understand what the hell you are talking about here. I'm serious. I can read the outrage, but it is aimed at some vauge and fuzzy abstract general obomaness.... can you give me five one-sentence bullets outlining the source of your outrage? how was the administration caught with its hand in the cookie jar?

i honestly have no clue.

- Things that are now clear is that the President, the Secretary of State and likely the UN Ambassador (She may have not been fully informed) were lying when they said the attack was a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Islamic movie.

- There is no law against lying unless it is under oath, so there is little Republicans can do outside the media.

- The motivation is not entirely clear as to why they lied about the situation. Most are saying that the actual event could have undermined the victory of the War on Terror theme and damaged his re-election chances. Others think the lie reflected what they wanted it to be -i.e. irresponsible bigots goading Muslim masses to violence (Personally I think the latter was the motive as I don't think stating it was a terror attack would have hurt his election chances).

Ultimately this won't critically damage the administration.

[Bang]

did it ever occur to anyone that the CiC may lie about something like that because the enemy is also paying attention?

Do we think that we should just tell everything we know to the cameras so they can have it as well?

was Ike LYING when he sent Patton to the north of england to command a false force so the Germans would think he was massing to attack Calais?

was he LYING because FDR didn't tell us that those tanks and trucks were made of wood and balloon?

Was Truman LYING because he didn't tell us about the Atom Bomb until it was dropped?

It's absolutely ****ing STUPID to assume that during a WAR, in the MIDST of an attack (as we saw, there were other flareups around US installations in the entire ME region...)

that we should just say EVERYTHING we know on television? (and of course, KNOW everything that there is to know about what is happening)

Is the right THAT ****ING DUMB?

of course not.. but their leadership and mouthpieces DEFINITELY think YOU are,, so they do this to convince you of more bull****,, simply for the sake of power.

It could be argued that they are jeopardizing the mission by demanding answers to an unfolding military situation, and of course, 10 years ago they'd have called you a ****ing traitor for questioning the presidnet during wartime.

****ing STUPID.

~Bang

[nonniey]

But what do you think they did that was so henious? What is the scandal? What were they covering up, and how did they cover it up?

Did I saying anything was extremely henious? They were just caught lying about the true situation. Politicians lie all the time. It wasn't a lie under oath so as far as I can tell no laws were broken. Ulitimately I just don't see any critical damage to the President, could be a bit (just a bit though) more damaging to Clinton if she decides to run but again nothing crippling.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

- Things that are now clear is that the President, the Secretary of State and likely the UN Ambassador (She may have not been fully informed) were lying when they said the attack was a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Islamic movie.

- There is no law against lying unless it is under oath, so there is little Republicans can do outside the media.

- The motivation is not entirely clear as to why they lied about the situation. Most are saying that actual event could have undermined the victory of the War on Terror theme and damaged his re-election chances. Others think the lie reflected what they wanted it to be -i.e. irresponsible bigots goading Muslim masses to violence (Personally I think the latter was the motive as I don't think stating it was a terror attack would have hurt his election chances).

Ultimately this won't critically damage the adminstration.

So...that's it. They potentially mischaracterized the nature of the attacks for potentially legitimate reasons. That's what this is all about?

Where is the cookie jar?

[Bang]

Did I saying anything was extremely henious? They were just caught lying about the true situation. Politicians lie all the time. It wasn't a lie under oath so as far as I can tell no laws were broken. Ulitimately I just don't see any critical damage to the President, could be a bit (just a bit though) more damaging to Clinton if she decides to run but again nothing crippling.

Come on,, you're military.. you know better.

for one, i doubt you'd want any politician publicizing your maneuvers or your intel while you're in a war zone during an active incident, for the sake of truth or anything else. It unnecessarily puts you directly at risk.

and you sure as shoot know that when the shooting starts, things aren't always crystal clear... chatter on radios can be VERY confusing,,, half the time your own CQ isn't sure what's happening.

the enemy isn't stupid, and he's fighting too... and he's also counting on that confusion especially in an attack of the sort that occured in Bengazi

~Bang

[Predicto]

Really? That's what this is all about? That's all there is?

Oh for ***** sake.

Of course, anything will keep the IHOPs of the world fired up, but if that is the total cookie jar, it isn't big enough to hold a tic tac.

[PeterMP]

Predicto, come on now this is a message board, hyperbole is a given. Of course it is not the entire administration it's just the President, the White House and the State Department leadership in this case.

I really thought this post was sarcasm when I first read it.

I see now that it wasn't.

I liked it better before.

[Stadium-Armory]

There isn't any evidence to suggest that anyone lied. At least, I haven't seen it yet.. Please enlighten me.

[nonniey]

So...that's it. They potentially mischaracterized the nature of the attacks for potentially legitimate reasons. That's what this is all about?

Where is the cookie jar?

I can't see how one sees misstating the true nature of the attack was for legitimate reasons; unless one considers re-election politics a legitimate reason to lie about this situation.

Again, this won't really hurt the President too badly as that is what Politicians are known to do.

[nonniey]

There isn't any evidence to suggest that anyone lied. At least, I haven't seen it yet.. Please enlighten me.

Huh, you better go read the transcripts of what was presented yesterday. There is no longer any any dispute that the President, Secretary of State and likely the UN Ambassodor were lying, and continued to lie for weeks afterward.

But again this is what politicians do, it is not illegal and so I don't see any major damage.

[Predicto]

I can't see how one sees misstating the true nature of the attack was for legitimate reasons; unless one considers re-election politics a legitimate reason to lie about this situation.

Again, this won't really hurt the President too badly as that is what Politicians are known to do.

Huh, you better go read the transcripts of what was presented yesterday. There is no longer any any dispute that the President, Secretary of State and likely the UN Ambassodor were lying, and continued to lie for weeks afterward.

But again this is what politicians do, it is not illegal and so I don't see any major damage.

I honestly think you guys sometimes live in a different world than I do. Your definition of the words "lie" and "no longer any dispute" are completely different than mine. Your assumption that the various responses were motivated by reelection politics is supported by facts that only you can see.

It's astounding.

[Bang]

we should just put out a magazine called 'American Military Intelligence Weekly", , and tell everyone everything we know at all times.

I'm sure it will be appreciated by our enemies.

~bang

[Predicto]

we should just put out a magazine called 'American Military Intelligence Weekly", , and tell everyone everything we know at all times.

I'm sure it will be appreciated by our enemies.

~bang

Weekly? You need to do it within a few hours of the attack. Otherwise you are lying in order to get reelected.

(how any of this would help Obama get reelected is utterly baffling, but I guess it makes sense to some people).

[EersSkins05]

did it ever occur to anyone that the CiC may lie about something like that because the enemy is also paying attention?

Do we think that we should just tell everything we know to the cameras so they can have it as well?

was Ike LYING when he sent Patton to the north of england to command a false force so the Germans would think he was massing to attack Calais?

was he LYING because FDR didn't tell us that those tanks and trucks were made of wood and balloon?

Was Truman LYING because he didn't tell us about the Atom Bomb until it was dropped?

It's absolutely ****ing STUPID to assume that during a WAR, in the MIDST of an attack (as we saw, there were other flareups around US installations in the entire ME region...)

that we should just say EVERYTHING we know on television? (and of course, KNOW everything that there is to know about what is happening)

Is the right THAT ****ING DUMB?

of course not.. but their leadership and mouthpieces DEFINITELY think YOU are,, so they do this to convince you of more bull****,, simply for the sake of power.

It could be argued that they are jeopardizing the mission by demanding answers to an unfolding military situation, and of course, 10 years ago they'd have called you a ****ing traitor for questioning the presidnet during wartime.

****ing STUPID.

~Bang

Outstanding. The best summation of this argument that I've seen.

[nonniey]

Weekly? You need to do it within a few hours of the attack. Otherwise you are lying in order to get reelected.

(how any of this would help Obama get reelected is utterly baffling, but I guess it makes sense to some people).

Ok so I see we have generally come to an agreement on this board that they did lie. Correct?

So now the debate is why they lied?

Bang's theory is military necessity. (BTW Bang I think you are the only one I've seen anywhere and I mean not just in this thread that has that theory for their motivation in this case).

My theory it was politics and a so what, as that is what politicians do.

Others theorys are a so what they were lying for legitimate reasons (Reasons yet to be explained).

And some that this was politics so they should be burned at the stake.

[SkinsHokieFan]

The 2013 version of the Valerie Plame affair

[Bang]

(BTW Bang I think you are the only one I've seen anywhere and I mean not just in this thread that has that theory for their motivation in this case).

.

Considering we ARE at war, that's pretty sad. (Unfortunately, it's been my experience that most think of stuff like this only in terms of politics, right and left.. and forget the big giant huge military mission that is going on.)

Secrecy and sometimes misleading info are necessities.

hell, our evil government used to plant news stories in WW2 because they knew spies were reading them and would send false info back to their generals... and they would ALSO plant things like that so they could flush said spies out.

IMO, in time of war, which we most definitely are in, those types of explanations should be the default. We should not expect to be told everything, and likewise we should not expect that people like sean hannity and steve friggin' Doocey know anything. we should not expect that we know the motivations behind it.

In WW2, they DID catch quite a few spies like that. Who knows what they may have been trying to do with this video story, but if there's one thing for sure, the right isn't going to listen to anything other than what they've already decided, and if any of the drum beaters think THAT is doing the American people or our fighting forces overseas ANY favors, they're sadly mistaken..

Their persistent and idiotic "questions" distract from the mission. And, unfortunately, it's clear to pretty much everyone BUT the kool-aid drinkers on the right that THAT is their intention.

One of the loud screamers, Dan Issa voted AGAINST funding our embassy defenses prior to the attack. (along with every other lockstep republican.)

Now, did he do that so he could leave Americans defenseless in hopes an attack would happen and he could capitalize politically? Maybe he tipped them off? I dont know, i'm just asking,,, but IF that's true,, well now...

Could be. why isn't anyone asking why he voted against what could have possibly saved those people?

see how easy it is to make some **** up and cast doubts around?

and ftr,, you can read me making this exact same argument in defense of Bush throughout the war if the site search engines take you back that far

i may be one of the few here who have supported our action from the beginning, and i am definitely the only one of those now considered a 'lefty' on the board.. i argued these same things with Predicto, Baculus, Chomerics,, all the left heavyweights of the site back in the day on different topics surrounding the action.

~Bang

[jpyaks3]

Ok so I see we have generally come to an agreement on this board that they did lie. Correct?

So now the debate is why they lied?

Bang's theory is military necessity. (BTW Bang I think you are the only one I've seen anywhere and I mean not just in this thread that has that theory for their motivation in this case).

My theory it was politics and a so what, as that is what politicians do.

Others theorys are a so what they were lying for legitimate reasons (Reasons yet to be explained).

And some that this was politics so they should be burned at the stake.

There isn't a consensus on that, hell the original and second CIA talking points memo said that it was linked to the Cairo protests so inaccurate information in a confusing situation != lying.