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

[NoCalMike]

The Benghazi story has already been won by the right-wing press and pundits because they forced the rest of the media to take up the story and talk about it ad naseum even though in the end it amounted to none of the things it was hyped as.

In this era of cable news it seems like one network's time ends up being consumed with de-bunking another network's news instead of reporting stories that matter.

[twa]

Too bad your favor for one President couldn't be extended to another without moronic conspiracy charges..

so no answer to

Which ones would you judge a failure?

just more rhetoric

[@DCGoldPants]

The Benghazi story has already been won by the right-wing press.

I don't think it has. If it was, some folks wouldn't still be struggling so much to explain why its a conspiracy. Unless something new comes out, the public mostly has decided it was what it was, a tragedy and nothing more. Maybe some things could have been done better, as is always the case. But for the most part, people don't buy the fake rage by those who didn't shed a tear the previous decade and the loss of 1000x more Americans.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I would not repost this if it had not been posted this morning by a Marine (I'd say former but they get touchy about that) who is currently working in Afghanistan (at Camp Leatherneck) who's wife is still in the Marines on active duty in Afghanistan.

---------- Post added May-17th-2013 at 06:41 AM ----------

Which ones would you judge a failure?

Here's your mistake, you are falsely equating (what you consider) a failure with a conspiracy. And the worst part is that you're intentionally doing it for hyper-partisan reasons. That...is why we don't take you seriously.

just more rhetoric

Well heck twa you'd be the one to know.

[Redskins Diehard]

This whole thing is so stupid and so sad.

The controversy for some is not that nothing was done once the first "protester/terrorist/whatever" showed up at the consulate with bad intentions. And to what is not said by Gates is that another thing our military is known for is developing planning and preparation ahead of time. So my big questions with respect to Benghazi is why wasn't someone sent there before the night of September 11th based on available threat reporting. And two...what was the contingency plan for when something did happen. FAST? NEO? Close Air Support? It certainly appears that there was no contingency plan.

But since the discussion is all about pinning talking points on the President and defending the President the important discussion is being ignored. And I agree with the decision to not send the defense attache from Tripoli. It is not an organized fighting team. I respect their desire to go into the breach...I would expect nothing less. Just like the guys that left the annex to do what they could and probably saved some lives even at the cost of their own.

---------- Post added May-17th-2013 at 06:47 AM ----------

I would not repost this if it had not been posted this morning by a Marine (I'd say former but they get touchy about that) who is currently working in Afghanistan (at Camp Leatherneck) who's wife is still in the Marines on active duty in Afghanistan.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8560/8746370103_300a5c6dfc.jpg

---------- Post added May-17th-2013 at 06:41 AM ----------

Here's your mistake, you are falsely equating (what you consider) a failure with a conspiracy. And the worst part is that you're intentionally doing it for hyper-partisan reasons. That...is why we don't take you seriously.

Well heck twa you'd be the one to know.

If anyone would understand hyperpartisanship....

[twa]

Here's your mistake, you are falsely equating (what you consider) a failure with a conspiracy. And the worst part is that you're intentionally doing it for hyper-partisan reasons. That...is why we don't take you seriously.

when have I labelled it a conspiracy?

Deceit, incompetence and ass covering certainly.....you don't consider it a failure?

as far as the cartoon....answers would be nice, but ya'll ain't even asking questions,much less counting bodies.

[AsburySkinsFan]

If anyone would understand hyperpartisanship....

Again someone insists that opposition to the Right means embrace of the Left, this is the fallacy of bifurcation.

---------- Post added May-17th-2013 at 07:24 AM ----------

when have I labelled it a conspiracy?

Deceit, incompetence and ass covering certainly.....you don't consider it a failure?

I consider it an unfortunate attack on our embassy, just like many other attacks on our embassies throughout the years.

as far as the cartoon....answers would be nice, but ya'll ain't even asking questions,much less counting bodies.

You seriously believe that don't you? FYI we know just as much about what happened there as you do, we've asked the questions and we've counted the bodies.

[twa]

Again someone insists that opposition to the Right means embrace of the Left, this is the fallacy of bifurcation.

---------- Post added May-17th-2013 at 07:24 AM ----------

I consider it an unfortunate attack on our embassy, just like many other attacks on our embassies throughout the years.

You seriously believe that don't you? FYI we know just as much about what happened there as you do, we've asked the questions and we've counted the bodies.

have you reviewed the list of attacks you mentioned?....obviously not since you ignore the major differences.

do you still count the bodies?

[Redskins Diehard]

Again someone insists that opposition to the Right means embrace of the Left, this is the fallacy of bifurcation.

---------- Post added May-17th-2013 at 07:24 AM ----------

I consider it an unfortunate attack on our embassy, just like many other attacks on our embassies throughout the years.

You seriously believe that don't you? FYI we know just as much about what happened there as you do, we've asked the questions and we've counted the bodies.

Use whatever words you want. Motives are clear. Those that are adamantly defending the administration are no better than the Sean Hannity's of the world in my opinion.

Calling the 6th time a US Ambassador has been killed in the service to our country when no adjustment to our security posture has been made to include seemingly no contingency plan is in place an "unfortunate attack" says all that needs to be said. This is called the "fallacy of pretending to be righteous" when it fact you are other side of the same coin that you claim to hate.

[AsburySkinsFan]

249 US Embassies and Consulates around the world and you want to protect them all like the White House?

Get serious.

---------- Post added May-17th-2013 at 08:06 AM ----------

have you reviewed the list of attacks you mentioned?....obviously not since you ignore the major differences.

The only difference you're interested in is pronounced ˈdeməˌkrat

do you still count the bodies?

Yes....

Benghazi 4

Iraq 4488

[twa]

249 US Embassies and Consulates around the world and you want to protect them all like the White House?

Get serious.

---------- Post added May-17th-2013 at 08:06 AM ----------

The only difference you're interested in is pronounced ˈdeməˌkrat

Yes....

Benghazi 4

Iraq 4488

we have minimum standards for security that were both waived and unmet....how about we start there?

in the attacks ya'll keep bringing up to excuse/deflect....how many US embassy personnel died?

hint....one, by car bomb outside the embassy

why did you stop counting ?.....any idea how many died in Afghanistan this month or year w/o looking it up?

[nonniey]

And Obama has and will get a lot of flak for what happened in Bengazi and should and likely will get even more if he doesn't soon get the people that did it.

But every time somebody does something wrong it isn't a scandal.

The word scandal does not mean mistake or even incompetent.

The words you use in a conversation are important in terms of the meaning they bring and the level of conversation that they bring.

I think it is very constructive to look back at a situation where things were pretty comparable and see the complete lack of the use of scandal as compared to what you see today when there is a mistake by the Obama administration (especially amongst people that want to see and scream biases on a regular basis).

---------- Post added May-16th-2013 at 11:41 PM ----------

Who has said it should be brushed aside?

You keep making these statements that might be really good if somebody was making the opposite argument.

And then mixing it with completely moronic stuff that completely ignores history and the general realities of the US government.

Hopefully the Congressional leadership (Democrats and Republicans) have been more fully briefed on what happened and why it happened and the relevant committees and there will be an effort to learn something about it to prevent this sort of thing from happening again.

I wouldn't plan on you and me hearing much about it.

And I've been critical of where I think the level of secrecy used by the Executive Branch (and the Obama administration) is probably harmful with respect to actually formuating best policies (e.g. http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?379947-Questions-on-drone-use-in-terms-of-legality-and-effectiveness).

And that might be the case here, but I'd be really surprised if they decided to reverse course now and do something that no other President in my life time has done in terms of access to the actual decision making process in terms of troop use and deployment.

What is a definition of a Scandal? Mine is something illegal was done. So I'd have to agree with Peter this isn't a scandal. What gets me is most of the Presidents defenders in this thread wholesale denying that the President, his adminstration and the State Deparment lied about this situation and basically continues to lie about it. Why? The lying has been laid bare, there is no dispute (beyond this forum) that that is what happened and yet people in this thread still deny it. Lying isn't a crime (unless under Oath) and all politiicans do that so why the obstinance?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

What is a definition of a Scandal? Mine is something illegal was done. So I'd have to agree with Peter this isn't a scandal. What gets me is most of the Presidents defenders in this thread wholesale denying that the President, his adminstration and the State Deparment lied about this situation and basically continues to lie about it. Why? The lying has been laid bare, there is no dispute (beyond this forum) that that is what happened and yet people in this thread still deny it. Lying isn't a crime (unless under Oath) and all politiicans do that so why the obstinance?

What is the lie?

[ABQCOWBOY]

That's the 10K gorilla in the imagination of the far right wing. That's the current version of the "scandal" and it takes a particularly imaginative mind to concoct it, because there is zero evidence of it, anywhere. I suppose that if you hate Obama enough, it makes sense to attribute to him any bizarre motivation you like no matter how far fetched or unsupported, but there is a reason that this theory is only taking root with the people who already bitterly oppose Obama.

Perception is reality. The left knows this better then anybody. You can get upset over it, dislike, whatever you want to do but it won't change the fact that if it comes out that the President did this to win the election, it won't matter one bit. It will all roll down hill at breakneck speed.

[Bang]

that IF word... it precedes almost every complaint in this thread.

IF it comes out,, IF that's what they did.. IF it turns out..

IF isn't proof. IF isn't even a reason to look.

IF is a hypothetical situation.

IF the preconception didn't cloud judgment, then perhaps that would be obvious.

~Bang

[Larry]

Perception is reality. The left knows this better then anybody. You can get upset over it, dislike, whatever you want to do but it won't change the fact that if it comes out that the President did this to win the election, it won't matter one bit. It will all roll down hill at breakneck speed.

What about if it comes out that the President actually hired al Qaeda to attack the embassy, because the embassy had obtained a copy of his real birth certificate?

I mean, as long as we're throwing out conspiracy theories that only a moron could believe, and playing the "well, if it were to be proven true" game, and all.

[ABQCOWBOY]

And Obama has and will get a lot of flak for what happened in Bengazi and should and likely will get even more if he doesn't soon get the people that did it.

But every time somebody does something wrong it isn't a scandal.

The word scandal does not mean mistake or even incompetent.

The words you use in a conversation are important in terms of the meaning they bring and the level of conversation that they bring.

I think it is very constructive to look back at a situation where things were pretty comparable and see the complete lack of the use of scandal as compared to what you see today when there is a mistake by the Obama administration (especially amongst people that want to see and scream biases on a regular basis).

---------- Post added May-16th-2013 at 11:41 PM ----------

Who has said it should be brushed aside?

You keep making these statements that might be really good if somebody was making the opposite argument.

And then mixing it with completely moronic stuff that completely ignores history and the general realities of the US government.

Hopefully the Congressional leadership (Democrats and Republicans) have been more fully briefed on what happened and why it happened and the relevant committees and there will be an effort to learn something about it to prevent this sort of thing from happening again.

I wouldn't plan on you and me hearing much about it.

And I've been critical of where I think the level of secrecy used by the Executive Branch (and the Obama administration) is probably harmful with respect to actually formuating best policies (e.g. http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?379947-Questions-on-drone-use-in-terms-of-legality-and-effectiveness).

And that might be the case here, but I'd be really surprised if they decided to reverse course now and do something that no other President in my life time has done in terms of access to the actual decision making process in terms of troop use and deployment.

I don't agree Peter. It is a scandal. It's a scandal because we could have taken measures to prevent this. We could have taken measures to prevent the loss of lives and we didn't. Now the WH and the State Dept. won't even acknowledge the fact that a mistake was made and there is no question, at all, that serious mistakes were made. That is a scandalous IMO. If this were not a democratic President, this board would be falling all over themselves calling it scandalous. We know that because it has happened many times in the past. It is what it is and the President is going to have to accept the consequences. Nothing can be done about that.

---------- Post added May-17th-2013 at 07:45 AM ----------

What about if it comes out that the President actually hired al Qaeda to attack the embassy, because the embassy had obtained a copy of his real birth certificate?

I mean, as long as we're throwing out conspiracy theories that only a moron could believe, and playing the "well, if it were to be proven true" game, and all.

Then I would throw in my vote to elect you because only a MORON could try and take this line of tact to defend this situation but if you turned out to be right, then that would prove that you are more then just mortal but actually clairvoyant.

---------- Post added May-17th-2013 at 07:58 AM ----------

that IF word... it precedes almost every complaint in this thread.

IF it comes out,, IF that's what they did.. IF it turns out..

IF isn't proof. IF isn't even a reason to look.

IF is a hypothetical situation.

IF the preconception didn't cloud judgment, then perhaps that would be obvious.

~Bang

This administration is not forthcoming with info so it's very difficult to say with absolute certainty that any one thing happened. However, there is plenty of proof to substantiate a few very simple facts. The State Department and by extension, the White House new that Benghazi was a hotspot before the attacks. That consulate was ill equipped to defend itself and we knew this. It was 9/11 and we should have been ready to deal with something like this on that day. We did have forces that could have responded and the ridiculous story about not having transportation available to deal with such a threat is preposterous. All of these things are known.

It certainly doesn't help that the President, after being informed of the situation, elected to attend fund raisers instead of dealing with this in the situation room, to say nothing of Clinton's assorted mishaps during the period during and immediately after the incident.

None of this help the credibility so I do agree that "If" is a key factor here but the if is not going to go away and in truth, I don't know that I would want it to. What the White House has told us, to this point, is not true. We know this. The only real question is the why they were not telling the truth. That's what will be key to how this plays out IMO.

[@DCGoldPants]

Republicans Altered Benghazi Emails, CBS News Report Claims

One day after The White House released 100 pages of Benghazi emails, a report has surfaced alleging that Republicans released a set with altered text.

CBS News reported Thursday that leaked versions sent out by the GOP last Friday had visible differences than Wednesday's official batch. Two correspondences that were singled out in the report came from National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes and State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.

The GOP version of Rhodes' comment, according to CBS News: "We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don't want to undermine the FBI investigation."

The White House email: "We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation."

The GOP version of Nuland's comment, according to CBS News: The penultimate point is a paragraph talking about all the previous warnings provided by the Agency (CIA) about al-Qaeda's presence and activities of al-Qaeda."

The White House email: "The penultimate point could be abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings."

The news parallels a Tuesday CNN report which initially introduced the contradiction between what was revealed in a White House Benghazi email version, versus what was reported in media outlets. On Monday, Mother Jones noted that the Republicans' interim report included the correct version of the emails, signaling that more malice and less incompetence may have been at play with the alleged alterations.

More from the link

[AsburySkinsFan]

that IF word... it precedes almost every complaint in this thread.

IF it comes out,, IF that's what they did.. IF it turns out..

IF isn't proof. IF isn't even a reason to look.

IF is a hypothetical situation.

IF the preconception didn't cloud judgment, then perhaps that would be obvious.

~Bang

So what you're saying is that the fact that I can imagine a conspiracy is not the same as there actually being a conspiracy?

Hmmmmmm

I'm not sure about that.

[Bang]

IF we change the text of the emails to read the way we want it to, and IF we had entire networks of radio and television devoted to nothing but spreading our propaganda, and IF we had a base who believe everything we say without question, then, well.. then we'd be able to maybe get that Kenyan **** once and for all.

~Bang

[AsburySkinsFan]

More from the link

Hmmmmm....now that is interesting.

Is that a collective "Oh %$&@!" I hear coming from the Right?

---------- Post added May-17th-2013 at 10:29 AM ----------

we change the text of the emails to read the way we want it to, and we had entire networks of radio and television devoted to nothing but spreading our propaganda, and we had a base who believe everything we say without question, then, well.. then we'd be able to maybe get that Kenyan **** once and for all.

~Bang

Odd, look what happens when you remove the ifs.

[ABQCOWBOY]

More from the link

Seems like this can be easily resloved. The Text is there as public info. If somebody has acted inappropriately, that will be resolved quickly.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

More from the link

Time for Senate hearings on who lied to the American people about what the emails said. How funny would that be if Darrell Issa was called before the democratic senate.

[AsburySkinsFan]

if somebody has acted inappropriately, that will be resolved quickly.

if?

[@DCGoldPants]

Seems like this can be easily resloved. The Text is there as public info. If somebody has acted inappropriately, that will be resolved quickly.

More likely that you found your scandal with this....."IF" true.