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

[SteveFromYellowstone]

Yes, obviously, are you shamed that I posted it? and is that an admission that it's accurate; and if not why is it in context?

Yes Post #29, Reid did give his evidence, he sited two sources whom he trusted.. Evidently staking his reputation on the validity of what he said.

Yes. The WSJ Timeline sais re-enforcements reached the Annex after 1am from Tripoli. and they headed for the Anex.... as is reflected in the timeline, and thoughout this thread..

I'm trying to address your questions head on and would appreciate the same considerations rather than sophmoric plays on my handle.

You haven't really revised, sourced or even restated any of your assertions... I'm asking you as I've asked you countless times during this thread... What do you think happenned, why was it a failure of leadership or whatever term of outrage you want to use, and what sources do you have to support your position.

That's the question I would like you to take an honest stab at. Tell us what you thnk you know, and source it... Then in a few weeks or month we can see how it sorts out with what we find out.. I've given you what I consider to be a decent timeline from what I consider to be a reputable source, even though the source is owned by the same guy who owns Fox news, which I struggle to consider a reputable source.

Absoutely correct.. Why would the track record of a Democratic Adminstration in the 1060's, or a Republican Administration in 2003 and how long it took them to get a handle on a crisis; possible be relivent when considering what's reasonable for a President in 2012....

I think it's a perfectly valid point and I agree drawing historical comparisons is a typical JMS technique when I'm trying to figure out if a Presidential behavior is reasonable..

And I evidenly do so across party lines because in 2003 I was a life long republican who had never voted for a Democrat for public office in my life... Kerry was my first, and he was a protest vote reaction to Bush having taken 3 years to come clean on 9/11.

Thiebear usually isn't this evasive or ridiculous, I really don't get it. He keeps repeating all these accusations he refuses to back up, and then acts like you are the one avoiding questions and making things up. Why do normally reasonable people bend over backwards to make President Obama look bad and defend the Republican Media Machine and Romney at all costs? I really don't understand it because I've never seen this level of it before. President Obama is subject to so much unreasonable hate and accusations. Imagine how angry the Republicans would get if the Democrats tried to accuse a president Romney of holding off defending an embassy under attack and watching Americans die and not doing anything about it

[Madison Redskin]

The truth of the matter is we simply don't know yet what happened and if there is blame to be doled out to State, the WH or whomever was involved we simply have to let the truth come forward. To dismiss this as something that's manufactured by Fox OR to also condemn Obama both seem like foolishness to me or at the very least incredibly immature and premature. We simply don't know. None of you do.

The problem with this ^ is, notwithstanding the lack of facts as to what exactly transpired, Fox News is claiming (day in and day out for those of you not keeping tabs on them) that Obama is engaged in a cover-up, left the SEALs high and dry, etc. So, it IS a manufactured crisis at this point.

---------- Post added November-1st-2012 at 12:32 PM ----------

Why continue the idea that this had anything to do with a video? Why even come out with a story so quickly?

I'll grant that the MMQBing of the military options is still a little grasping in the dark at this point, but will eventually come to light, but why the necessity for cover early, and why the stonewalling now?

Absent additional facts, I'll chalk it up to the fog of war. There were a lot of pissed off people in a lot of cities violently protesting the video. And I don't think video shots of attack would necessarily reveal the identity of the attackers, so I'm not sure why people keep hammering away at that point on Fox News.

[deejaydana]

The problem with this ^ is, notwithstanding the lack of facts as to what exactly transpired, Fox News is claiming (day in and day out for those of you not keeping tabs on them) that Obama is engaged in a cover-up, left the SEALs high and dry, etc. So, it IS a manufactured crisis at this point.

I didn't dismiss Fox, I'll admit they're trying to make this front page news. It may be warranted and it could end up being baseless (and it's not good form either way). To say it's manufactured at this point disrespects the dead as equally as claims that it without question IS Obama's fault. I'll take the high road for now and not blame anyone. It's disgusting to me that people are using this story of political/campaign ends but it's where the game is at. Fox will use the story to hammer Obama's Administration and the other networks will soft peddal it as if it doesn't exist at all. I think all any one really wants is actual facts from the event.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I really don't care about the birth certificate crap, it's on par with asking for Romney's taxes, but apparently that IS up for debate while Big O's birth certificate is not. The bias is in full swing, and the only response is deflect and smiley faces.

What is the debate with Obama's certificate? The State of Hawaii says he was born there, which - under the Constitution mind you - means he was born there.

How do we debate that?

You: We don't know where he was born!!!

Hawaii: He was born here. See!

You: Oh. Never mind.

I wouldn't watch that debate on Piers Morgan, would you?

Also, it was nice that you announced that you don't care about the birth certificate before saying that you care about the birth certificate.

"No disrespect, but you are an idiot."

"Now I'm not a racist, but all black people are lazy."

"I'm not birther, but we don't know where President Obama was born."

And so on......

[Tweedr01]

You honestly think asking for Romney's tax returns is on par with the whole Obama birth certificate bs? Wow....

You don't like to deal in facts do you? The world is so simple to republicans like you, Obama=bad republican=good, and you'll ignore whatever contradicts your worldview

How, in anyones mind, can Romney refusing to release tax returns (which answers valid questions about his tax policy and claims he's made in the campaign) be equal to birther crap that the republicans have made up to hoodwink people like you

There is a FUNDAMENTAL difference.

Without a time machine, Obama can't PROVE that he was born in the US.

He can't PROVE that somebody forged is birth certificate (or the state of HI didn't really care back than when issuing birth certificates) AND somebody placed a story in the HI paper, but he was REALLY born in Kenya (or whereever).

Romney COULD release is tax records (like every other Presidential candidate going how ever far back).

Now, if he did so, and people came back and said those aren't what he REALLY paid, then your point would be valid.

EVERY CASE where somebody is saying X w/o much (or no) evidence is NOT the equavilent to Romney's taxes (I've also seen it comparted to Newts comments about "secret e-mails" related to Bengazi).

Because the issue is the standard of proof. If people are willing to go to a place of some real secret, extremely powerful, and unknown group acting in a secret manner, then that becomes really hard to disprove.

Romney's taxes could have been released. Lot's of people have done it.

Lot's of people have released their birth certificates...since when have anyone's personal taxes been any of your business? Making a big deal out of SOMEONE'S OWN PERSONAL FINANCES is less relevant than confirming a president is actually a citizen of our country. I don't care about either, as neither are a big deal to me.

Just more examples of people bending over backwards to protect their Big O.

---------- Post added November-1st-2012 at 03:11 PM ----------

What is the debate with Obama's certificate? The State of Hawaii says he was born there' date=' which - under the Constitution mind you - means he was born there.

How do we debate that?

You: We don't know where he was born!!!

Hawaii: He was born here. See!

You: Oh. Never mind.

I wouldn't watch that debate on Piers Morgan, would you?

Also, it was nice that you announced that you don't care about the birth certificate before saying that you care about the birth certificate.

"No disrespect, but you are an idiot."

"Now I'm not a racist, but all black people are lazy."

"I'm not birther, but we don't know where President Obama was born."

And so on......[/quote']

You don't read much huh? I never said Obama is not a US citizen, but people started comparing this to Romney not showing his taxes. Romney not showing all of his taxes is on par with Obama not showing his birth certificate, I don't care about either. This is bigger than that as involves our people being murdered, and our own people are trying to sweep it under the rug because it might make O or Hillary look bad.

[PeterMP]

Lot's of people have released their birth certificates...since when have anyone's personal taxes been any of your business? Making a big deal out of SOMEONE'S OWN PERSONAL FINANCES is less relevant than confirming a president is actually a citizen of our country. I don't care about either, as neither are a big deal to me.

Just more examples of people bending over backwards to protect their Big O.

He DID release is birth certificate.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/birthcertificate.asp

http://msgboard.snopes.com/politics/graphics/birth.jpg

And what happened, people called them fake.

IF Romeny released his tax returns and people called them fake, it would be a different story.

That's my point related to standard of proof. If you want to say that officials in the state of HI will lie for him and somebody had the forsight to announce his birth in a HI newspaper, then there's a conversation to have. But that's essentiallys setting an impossible standard of proof.

If Romney said to the IRS, please release my tax records, and the IRS said here they are. And Reid (or others) answered back they are forgeries, then you have a comparable situation.

And I think Romney's history of following the law, his attitudes towards people paying taxes are relevant, and what connections he's had and therefore who might influence a Romney Presidency are very relevant. There's a reason that most Presidential nominees have released their tax returns for years.

Who else do you know that has publically released their birth certificate?

Where is Romney's?

Do you KNOW that he's qualified?

[twa]

The problem with this ^ is, notwithstanding the lack of facts as to what exactly transpired, Fox News is claiming (day in and day out for those of you not keeping tabs on them) that Obama is engaged in a cover-up, left the SEALs high and dry, etc. So, it IS a manufactured crisis at this point.

---------- Post added November-1st-2012 at 12:32 PM ----------

Absent additional facts, I'll chalk it up to the fog of war. There were a lot of pissed off people in a lot of cities violently protesting the video. And I don't think video shots of attack would necessarily reveal the identity of the attackers, so I'm not sure why people keep hammering away at that point on Fox News.

the video shows what the markings were on the trucks that brought the attackers,as well as some of their identities and the fact there was no real protest

we further have testimony supporting that

It is possible O had nothing to do with the security,reaction or extraction effort...but someone high up did,and on the surface it stinks

[visionary]

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/11/01/troubling_surveillance_before_benghazi_attack?page=full

'Troubling' Surveillance Before Benghazi Attack

More than six weeks after the shocking assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi -- and nearly a month after an FBI team arrived to collect evidence about the attack - the battle-scarred, fire-damaged compound where Ambassador Chris Stevens and another Foreign Service officer lost their lives on Sept. 11 still holds sensitive documents and other relics of that traumatic final day, including drafts of two letters worrying that the compound was under "troubling" surveillance and complaining that the Libyan government failed to fulfill requests for additional security.

When we visited on Oct. 26 to prepare a story for Dubai based Al Aan TV, we found not only Stevens's personal copy of the Aug. 6 New Yorker, lying on remnants of the bed in the safe room where Stevens spent his final hours, but several ash-strewn documents beneath rubble in the looted Tactical Operations Center, one of the four main buildings of the partially destroyed compound. Some of the documents -- such as an email from Stevens to his political officer in Benghazi and a flight itinerary sent to Sean Smith, a U.S. diplomat slain in the attack -- are clearly marked as State Department correspondence. Others are unsigned printouts of messages to local and national Libyan authorities. The two unsigned draft letters are both dated Sept. 11 and express strong fears about the security situation at the compound on what would turn out to be a tragic day. They also indicate that Stevens and his team had officially requested additional security at the Benghazi compound for his visit -- and that they apparently did not feel it was being provided.

One letter, written on Sept. 11 and addressed to Mohamed Obeidi, the head of the Libyan Ministry of Foreign Affairs' office in Benghazi, reads:

"Finally, early this morning at 0643, September 11, 2012, one of our diligent guards made a troubling report. Near our main gate, a member of the police force was seen in the upper level of a building across from our compound. It is reported that this person was photographing the inside of the U.S. special mission and furthermore that this person was part of the police unit sent to protect the mission. The police car stationed where this event occurred was number 322."

The account accords with a message written by Smith, the IT officer who was killed in the assault, on a gaming forum on Sept. 11. "Assuming we don't die tonight. We saw one of our ‘police' that guard the compound taking pictures," he wrote hours before the assault.

A second letter is addressed to Benghazi's police chief and also concerns the police surveillance of the U.S. consulate on the morning of Sept. 11. The letter also requests an investigation of the incident, and states that the consulate "takes this opportunity to renew to the Benghazi Police the assurances of its highest consideration and hopes for increased cooperation."

Benghazi's head of police, Brigadier Hussain Abu Hmeidah, was fired by the government in Tripoli one week after the consulate attack. However, Abu Hmeidah refused to step down and is still serving as the head of police. He is currently on sick leave, according to his office manager, Captain Seraj Eddine al-Sheikhi, and was unavailable for comment.

[Tweedr01]

He DID release is birth certificate.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/birthcertificate.asp

http://msgboard.snopes.com/politics/graphics/birth.jpg

And what happened, people called them fake.

IF Romeny released his tax returns and people called them fake, it would be a different story.

That's my point related to standard of proof. If you want to say that officials in the state of HI will lie for him and somebody had the forsight to announce his birth in a HI newspaper, then there's a conversation to have. But that's essentiallys setting an impossible standard of proof.

If Romney said to the IRS, please release my tax records, and the IRS said here they are. And Reid (or others) answered back they are forgeries, then you have a comparable situation.

And I think Romney's history of following the law, his attitudes towards people paying taxes are relevant, and what connections he's had and therefore who might influence a Romney Presidency are very relevant. There's a reason that most Presidential nominees have released their tax returns for years

Dude, I know that he did, it isn't fake, I know. Let me repeat one more time...I KNOW. It really wasn't a big deal because, as you said, HI confirmed he is a citizen. They aren't just gonna lie for him, I KNOW. Romney not revealing all of his taxes (and as you said, MOST have, but not all) is not a big deal to me either, as any and all accusations are baseless and without merit. There is absolutely no proof that he did that, and he shouldn't have to release any of his taxes if he doesn't want to. It's none of our business.

There was a comparison between our own folks being attacked and murdered and Romney not revealing his taxes, THAT IS WHERE MY ISSUE WITH THIS LIES. This situation > Romney not giving everyone a copy of his taxes.

---------- Post added November-1st-2012 at 03:23 PM ----------

the video shows what the markings were on the trucks that brought the attackers,as well as some of their identities and the fact there was no real protest

we further have testimony supporting that

It is possible O had nothing to do with the security,reaction or extraction effort...but someone high up did,and on the surface it stinks

^THIS

We don't have all the facts yet, but someone screwed up. Not sure who, but it should be a priority. These are our people who were attacked at our embassy with reinforcements within range. Never should have happened and the fact that some want to just sweep it under the rug like nothing happened is an atrocity.

[PeterMP]

Dude, I know that he did, it isn't fake, I know. Let me repeat one more time...I KNOW. It really wasn't a big deal because, as you said, HI confirmed he is a citizen. They aren't just gonna lie for him, I KNOW. Romney not revealing all of his taxes (and as you said, MOST have, but not all) is not a big deal to me either, as any and all accusations are baseless and without merit. There is absolutely no proof that he did that, and he shouldn't have to release any of his taxes if he doesn't want to. It's none of our business.

There was a comparison between our own folks being attacked and murdered and Romney not revealing his taxes, THAT IS WHERE MY ISSUE WITH THIS LIES. This situation > Romney not giving everyone a copy of his taxes.

---------- Post added November-1st-2012 at 03:23 PM ----------

^THIS

We don't have all the facts yet, but someone screwed up. Not sure who, but it should be a priority. These are our people who were attacked at our embassy with reinforcements within range. Never should have happened and the fact that some want to just sweep it under the rug like nothing happened is an atrocity.

1. I agree this situation is greater, but that does NOT mean that all other things are EQUAL. If I give you $10,000 that is more significant than somebody giving you $100 or $50. That does NOT mean the $100 = $50.

2. You said: "I really don't care about the birth certificate crap, it's on par with asking for Romney's taxes, but apparently that IS up for debate while Big O's birth certificate is not. The bias is in full swing, and the only response is deflect and smiley faces."

(I added the bold.)

Obama's birth certificate is NOT really up for debate because he DID release it.

Romney's taxes ARE because he DID NOT release them.

There is a DISTINCT difference. One is debated because we haven't been given much official information (Romney's taxes). The other is NOT (really debated by most people) because we have been given all sorts of official and non-official (the news paper account) information.

In addition, what you see here is people applying the same burden of proof to this situation as the Obama birth certificate, essentially making it impossible for the conversation to die.

Obama can't PROVE there weren't secret e-mails if (essentially) part of your claim is there is no way they are going releast that information (at least before the election).

[Thiebear]

Thiebear usually isn't this evasive or ridiculous, I really don't get it. He keeps repeating all these accusations he refuses to back up, and then acts like you are the one avoiding questions and making things up. Why do normally reasonable people bend over backwards to make President Obama look bad and defend the Republican Media Machine and Romney at all costs? I really don't understand it because I've never seen this level of it before. President Obama is subject to so much unreasonable hate and accusations. Imagine how angry the Republicans would get if the Democrats tried to accuse a president Romney of holding off defending an embassy under attack and watching Americans die and not doing anything about it

Evasive?

At no point did i mention the President.

At no point did i mention 4 of the 5 things JMS said i posted.

All i did was take the timeline and show it is inaccurate based on your own link.

And then point out you came into this with a conclusion and have re-affirmed it several times.

There were Hero's in the Annex that rescued people in the Embassy that should be reflected in the timeline vs. "retreated" to Annex by themselves. (My only and entire point)

JMS: Post29? let me try again: Go to Google and type in Reid has claimed no taxes paid before... (Earlier in his career against his first opponent and apologized in his book) Yes or No

“Laxalt had relaxed the (gaming) licensing requirements for Hughes and I suspected that Hughes had in turn feathered Laxalt’s nest,” Reid wrote. “I made a real stink about it, insisting that Laxalt’s whole family disclose their finances. To my embarrassment, Laxalt complied.” http://www.lvrj.com/news/reid-has-history-of-making-dubious-charges-165105076.html

[SteveFromYellowstone]

Dude, I know that he did, it isn't fake, I know. Let me repeat one more time...I KNOW. It really wasn't a big deal because, as you said, HI confirmed he is a citizen. They aren't just gonna lie for him, I KNOW. Romney not revealing all of his taxes (and as you said, MOST have, but not all) is not a big deal to me either, as any and all accusations are baseless and without merit. There is absolutely no proof that he did that, and he shouldn't have to release any of his taxes if he doesn't want to. It's none of our business.

There was a comparison between our own folks being attacked and murdered and Romney not revealing his taxes, THAT IS WHERE MY ISSUE WITH THIS LIES. This situation > Romney not giving everyone a copy of his taxes.

---------- Post added November-1st-2012 at 03:23 PM ----------

^THIS

We don't have all the facts yet, but someone screwed up. Not sure who, but it should be a priority. These are our people who were attacked at our embassy with reinforcements within range. Never should have happened and the fact that some want to just sweep it under the rug like nothing happened is an atrocity.

Romney is talking about making MAJOR changes to the tax code and our entire system of taxes which include people in his income bracket getting a 20% decrease. Can you really not see the relevance there? Romney's father released 10 years of tax returns, but Mitt releases only 2 years of tax returns (in which he was running for president and knew people would scrutinize them) . Even the two years he did release had artificially higher rates. I bet you if I replaced the word "Romney" with "Obama" you would have no problem seeing the relevance at all

[Tweedr01]

Romney is talking about making MAJOR changes to the tax code and our entire system of taxes which include people in his income bracket getting a 20% decrease. Can you really not see the relevance there? Romney's father released 10 years of tax returns, but Mitt releases only 2 years of tax returns (in which he was running for president and knew people would scrutinize them) . Even the two years he did release had artificially higher rates. I bet you if I replaced the word "Romney" with "Obama" you would have no problem seeing the relevance at all

Yeah, that's the pot calling the kettle black.

I don't see the relevance, I wouldn't if it was O. It's their own personal business, I could really care less about their taxes. What I do care about is my taxes....because it's mine.

[BearintheATL]

---------- Post added November-1st-2012 at 12:32 PM ----------

[/color]

Absent additional facts, I'll chalk it up to the fog of war. There were a lot of pissed off people in a lot of cities violently protesting the video. And I don't think video shots of attack would necessarily reveal the identity of the attackers, so I'm not sure why people keep hammering away at that point on Fox News.

It was the convenient story that would have the least political ramifications. You can blame the "fog of war" for some military mishaps, but you cannot blame the "fog of protest" for a manufactured story carried by the Administration for 2 weeks.

[Tweedr01]

1. I agree this situation is greater, but that does NOT mean that all other things are EQUAL. If I give you $10,000 that is more significant than somebody giving you $100 or $50. That does NOT mean the $100 = $50.

2. You said: "I really don't care about the birth certificate crap, it's on par with asking for Romney's taxes, but apparently that IS up for debate while Big O's birth certificate is not. The bias is in full swing, and the only response is deflect and smiley faces."

(I added the bold.)

Obama's birth certificate is NOT really up for debate because he DID release it.

Romney's taxes ARE because he DID NOT release them.

There is a DISTINCT difference. One is debated because we haven't been given much official information (Romney's taxes). The other is NOT (really debated by most people) because we have been given all sorts of official and non-official (the news paper account) information.

In addition, what you see here is people applying the same burden of proof to this situation as the Obama birth certificate, essentially making it impossible for the conversation to die.

Obama can't PROVE there weren't secret e-mails if (essentially) part of your claim is there is no way they are going releast that information (at least before the election).

Ok, I think I may have misunderstood what you were getting at then. We don't have much yet, which makes it hard to say anything, but as twa said...this situation really stinks. I don't like it when our people are being attacked, and there are more rumors out than facts.

I still don't think we should be privy to anyone's personal taxes. I wouldn't ever release mine unless it was to the IRS. If there is an issue, they can handle it, it's none of our business.

[mcsluggo]

Didn't you get the memo? The Dem senator is allowed to make stuff up, but the Rep talk show host is not allowed. I mean, Romney can always show his taxes, but Obama doesn't have to show any emails or his birth certificate, or some kind of logic like that.

see now.... Popeman actually made a valid point. YOu, on the other hand, just stepped on your own crank. But you have no earthly idea of the difference....

[JMS]

There is a FUNDAMENTAL difference.

Without a time machine, Obama can't PROVE that he was born in the US.

Couple other fundimental differeces...

1. The Republican Gov and Atterney General of Hawaii stated that Obama's cirtificate of live birht was valid proof of his being born in Hawaii.
   
2. Obama has answered the birther's charge many times with official documents which all have been dismissed as inconclusive by there judgement.
   
3. No reasonable person could have ever entertained that the Birthers had a valid point to make, or were really even interested in making a point other than distracting and harrassing the President.
   
4. There is no precident for this line of questioning of the President. And Finally
   
5. If Obama were not born in Hawaii but were actually born in Kenya or Russia, or Indonisia;, it wouldn't make any difference to his right to hold office which is a real testiment to the intellect of the folks making these charges..
   

They have no point, but even if they had a point to make, it wouldn't support their addled conclusion.

1. Now on the other hand there is lots of precident for a presidential candidat to release more than two years of taxes...
   

   
   

   1. 
      
   2. Obama released 12
      
      
   3. Bush Jr released 8
      
      
   4. Clinton released 8
      
      
   5. Reagan released 6
      
      
   6. Carter released 3
      
      
   7. Ford Released 10
      
      
   8. Nixon 4
      
      
   9. FDR released 24
      
      

   [*]Most reasonable people do think Romney is hiding something why else would he pass up such a great opprotunity to embarrase Harry Reid? It's just that most reasonable people don't know what that something is..

   [*]Romney has been associated with tax fraud in the recent passed resulting in one of the largest corporate tax fines in US History. Hundreds of millions of dollars

   http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-22/romney-as-auditing-chairman-saw-marriott-son-of-boss-tax-shelter-defy-irs.html

[Tweedr01]

He's trolling, don't encourage him by trying to use reason to make your point against him. He's willfully oblivious to such an exersize. We are waiting for someone to actually tell us what they think happenned and source it which conflicts with the given timeline.

This is absolutely hilarious, how about you leave the trolling comments to the mods. I have more than 4x your posts in less time. Child please.

[Predicto]

We don't have all the facts yet, but someone screwed up. Not sure who, but it should be a priority. These are our people who were attacked at our embassy with reinforcements within range. Never should have happened and the fact that some want to just sweep it under the rug like nothing happened is an atrocity.

Fox and the conservative media is doing the 1) outrage first, 2) facts later approach to this thing. And you are enabling them.

[JMS]

Ok, I think I may have misunderstood what you were getting at then. We don't have much yet, which makes it hard to say anything, but as twa said...this situation really stinks. I don't like it when our people are being attacked, and there are more rumors out than facts.

I think that's a perfectly reasonable position, although saying it stinks in the same thought as saying you don't know what happenned I think is what we are going after here. And more ruors than facts is not really unprecidented, but in this case where most of the rumors are coming from one source I say you have to question the source...

Take MSNBC for example... Love the network... Love Rachael Maddow. Smart informative etc.... But I understand they have an bias which slants their coverage... So much so that when I find myself really getting excited about what they are saying I really need to change the channel and get comformation from CNN or the BBC or Bloomburg about what I heard.. It's just too easy to come away with a totally slanted understanding of an issue is all I do is relly on MSNBC... So while I watch it and it's a guilty pleasure, I understand it can't possible be my only news source.

I still don't think we should be privy to anyone's personal taxes. I wouldn't ever release mine unless it was to the IRS. If there is an issue, they can handle it, it's none of our business.

And I think that's perfectly reasonable too.. Only not if you are running for President. We have literally seven decades of precident for Presidential candidates to release their taxes... IT is thus perfectly reasonable to go there with Mitt. Unless you are willing to rewrite the entire precident and set a new precident just for him, which I find entirely unreasonable.

---------- Post added November-1st-2012 at 05:26 PM ----------

This is absolutely hilarious, how about you leave the trolling comments to the mods. I have more than 4x your posts in less time. Child please.

That is hillarious that you think you have four times my posts. or that you are so new to the tailgate that you think the post clock actually works.. You are funny.

I've had more posts than you have on your clock just in one thread with PeteMP or Techboy... just ask them their fingertips are still bleeding from my prolific posting style.

Posting what I'm going to say is trolling and doesn't help the conversation move. Post what you want to say, and let us take care of ourselves please. then I won't call you a troll again if you are actually adding the the conversation like above.

---------- Post added November-1st-2012 at 05:47 PM ----------

'Troubling' Surveillance Before Benghazi Attack

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/11/01/troubling_surveillance_before_benghazi_attack?page=full

Ok but what does that say to you? Initially I thoujght the article was about a drone flying over the consulate, from a very reputable source I might add, ( good for you), but reeading it's about a guy in a window who looks like a police officer taking pictures of the consulate? I don't know exactly what to make of that one way or another.

Also about the letters... if the reporters found these letters in the consulate on the floor, that means they weren't mailed, so nobody has seen them before right?

So what does that say to you? It was an interesting read..... I would just add though that if 150 terrorists did attack the consulate, maybe more, it's not supprising they were casing the place a head of time.

[JMS]

What would you expect them to come out and say?

To Recap: This is reffering the announcement that the current commander of Africom General Hamm, is being replaced by General David Rodriguez. and the only source associating that to Bengahzi being a blog entry theorizing the association in the Washington Times..... And this "theory" being refuted in strong terms by a letter from the Chairman of the Joint Cheifs to the Wasington Times...

Yes I think if it were a political issue the Chairman of the joint cheifs who himself is term limited to one 4 year term would not strongly say otherwise... I also think there would be someone, anyone who would cooborate the charge other than an anonymous blog entry... Hell Leon Panneta the Sec Def said General Ham was in agreeement with the consensus call on not to commit troops to Benghezi; I would think if Ham were not onboard with it he would have contradicted his sec def especially now that he's out of a job...

Why continue the idea that this had anything to do with a video? Why even come out with a story so quickly?

Obviously because they had creditable information to that effect... but why does that even matter? two days after the event and for the following 5-8 days the administration thought it might be a demonstration based upon the film... Why would they say iti if they didn't believe it, and then change their story back so quickly?

I'll grant that the MMQBing of the military options is still a little grasping in the dark at this point, but will eventually come to light, but why the necessity for cover early, and why the stonewalling now?

I think given that Bengezhi is a heavily armed place it's concievable a spontainious fervent demonstration could turn violent quickly. Even so violent as to use RPG's and Mortors given the fact the country is overrun with arms and folks who know how to use them. I think the early evidence it was an organized attack all stemmed around the weapons and persistence of the weapons used, which frankly isn't convicing given hello they just fought a civil war there. So I think they initially thought it was an organized attack, then they heard from sources on the ground that it wasn't, then finally a few days latter evidently they got conclusive evidence it was... All this transpiring over 8 - 10 days is not non standard...

I don't think they are stone walling now. I think they are conducting 4 separate investigations into what happenned and what decisions were made.. I think the most controversial will be the CJCS and Pannetta's not to send in military assets immediately; but I think they have pretty solid case to make on that given what happenned in the Battle of Mogadishu in 1993...

[twa]

JMS try reading the Congressional testimony linked in the original thread.

there are numerous facts you ignore or are unaware of

The Mogadishu angle is certainly possible,but that would only make the original ****ty level of security even a worse decision.....and it directly contradicts the protest angle.

[JMS]

Yeah, that's the pot calling the kettle black.

I don't see the relevance, I wouldn't if it was O. It's their own personal business, I could really care less about their taxes. What I do care about is my taxes....because it's mine.

Then you are living in your own reality Tweedy. Every President since FDR going back 80 years has released more income tax returns than Romney, and None of the Presidents in history over that time had such a close association with Tax Fraud. If you can't see the relevance then it's only because you are wishing to impose your myopic taylored view on the world and create an individual precident for Mitt Romney.... Which frankly sucks....

I mean hell the dude admitted paying about 12.9% taxes one year and 13.9% another year; on tens of millions of dollars worth of income, while sheltering tens of millions off shore. In the 60 minutes interview he thought it was reasonable for him to pay half the tax rate of folks making orders of magnatude less income.... Seriously how much worse could it be that he would be too embarrassed to release them? We can only wonder.

[Predicto]

Joke time.

Here is how Fox is investigating the Bengazi situation.

[JMS]

JMS try reading the Congressional testimony linked in the original thread.

What original thread, But seriously are we talking house nut job testimony? Eric Canter would kick a baby if he thought it would impact Obama and cause collateral damage.

there are numerous facts you ignore or are unaware of

Unaware off I'm sure.. Don't be shy, tell me, and source them please.

The Mogadishu angle is certainly possible,but that would only make the original ****ty level of security even a worse decision.....

Yeah and I think Mogadishu was exactly what they were thinking.. We lost 80 guys trying to relieve a black hawk crash in Mogadishu. And there is evidence Al Quada was involvedi in planning that ambush. I think they were smart to not commit troops to an unknown situation removed from any domestic governmental assistance since they didn't know what too expect; but given the reports 150 guys attacked the consulate... Hunker down and get them out of dodge asap. It's amaizing we only took 4 casualties.

Also remember the Tet offensive in Vietnam January 30, 1968. The US embassy was one of the most heavily fortified US embassies in the world at the time and we had close to 600,000 troops on the ground. 16 guys attacked that embassy and they got in and occupied one of the buildings for a time... 16 guys... this was 150 guys attacking a chancellery no embassy or chancellery could have stood up to that.

Again we have about 400 embassy's and consulates non of them could survive an assult by 150 terrorists. We have more than 100 embassies in Washington DC including a rather imposing Russian embassy on Wisconson... None of the Embassies in DC could repulse an attack by 150 terrorists if the host government weren't there to handle the heavy lifting... Our Diplomats know that, everybody knows that. It is a calculated risk to have our folks there especially with an emerging country like Libyia where Amerca is thought very highly of but still doesn't hve the resources or organization yet to provide adiquate security outside of Tripoli. evidently.

and it directly contradicts the protest angle.

I think there are numerous sources now inside and outside teh administration reporting no protest ever occured and the previous reports of protests were wrong.