I wonder if we are about to reach (or perhaps have reached) a tipping point in this administration.
Having lost, among others, reliably progressive 60 Minutes and Jon Stewart, “the base” is slowly being reduced to the skeleton crew lunacy of Mike Malloy, Ed Schultz and MSNBC (and all 6 of its viewers).
This can only be a good thing for this country.
We still don’t really know what was going on at the site, and we haven’t been offered any explanation of what was so important that it required the ambassador’s sudden trip there, without security, on September 11. Any theoeies?
I dunno T, if CBS is out front it hardly seems likely that CBS represents the vanguard of a change which hasn’t been generally reached. Hence, rather than “perhaps”, it looks like it might be a better bet to assume the transition took place quietly some indefinite time ago.
As to a change for the good? The mere need for such a thing would tend to militate against the possibility, at least in the nearer term (10 to 20 years). Too many other prerequisites stand in the way of that turn, which isn’t to say the turn cannot come.
It took them that long to come up with a propagandized, cleaned out, defense for the info block?
What were they doing for the past few years, checking out the Obama website?
Ambassador Stevens was negotiating deals with Libya’s Al Qaeda wing, as ordered by the pro Rebel regime in the White House. They wanted to negate Khaddafi’s air force and bombs via anti air manpad transfers to the “rebels”.
The AQ/Islamic tribe tasked with Stevens’ protection resigned their defense job, either threatened or paid off by AQ’s militant attack force. The weapons transfer, either America or Russian mad anti air shoulder fired missiles, would be similar to the ones that by chance took out various Special Forces helicopters in Afghanistan.
I suspect with the fall of Qaddafi, the quid pro quo arrangement was no longer tolerated with the infidel Americans and they wanted the embassy staff out of the country. Who knows who else these Americans will sell weapons to in the meantime.
Can someone tell us in a single coherent paragraph what exactly this scandal is supposed to be about?
Sure Booton,
The purposeful and intentional betrayal and abandonment of Americans in harms way for purely political gain making Obama, Clinton, Panetta and the top military leadership of this country complicit in their murders. Does that encapsulate it for you? Is that serious enough? Is that sufficient to qualify as “high crimes and misdemeanors”?
60 minutes is taking notice because it has judged it time for the media to lay the groundwork for the assertion that they did not ignore the story, that they reported the ‘facts’ as known at the time. A tactic otherwise known as ‘covering one’s ass’.
They too are complicit in the cover-up, otherwise known as “accessory after the fact”.
The MSM bears as much if not more responsibility for the misleading of the public as the democrat party. They have betrayed the public trust in what can only rationally be characterized as treasonous.
GB, I would just add to your summary, “lying to the American people and the world for weeks about the circumstances surrounding the attack”. There could also be elements of criminal obstruction by hiding persons of interest so that they would not be available for Congressional testimony on the subject.
For Boonton, I am sure none of this is as serious as a break-in at a DNC office by individuals who were not actually officials in the Nixon Administration, followed by attempts to distance the Administration, blah blah blah; but not all would agree with Boonton on that.
Geoffrey Britain:
Don’t forget to add, “repeatedly lying about it to cover their political asses.”
But requests such as Boonton’s, which appear to be indicating the idea that Benghazi is no big whoop and why are we folks so upset about it, really go to this phenomenon. My guess is that Boonton’s attitude may reflect (or be counting on) the sort of thing I discussed in that linked post.
I don’t know for sure, because Boonton’s underlying point of view is a bit hard to figure out. But it seems to me that anyone who comes onto a blog and demands a summary explanation of something that’s been aired over and over for well over a year is tweaking the regulars, as well as indicating some version of Hillary Clinton’s “what difference does it make?” query.
Here’s an excerpt from that earlier post of mine:
The American people do not seem to be “concerned,” either, not at all. Major Garrett can ask all the questions he wants (and this one was actually pretty good, as you’ll see when you watch the video), but few people except us blogophiles on the right are listening, and Carney and Obama have learned that simply thumbing their noses at the American people is an excellent way to get the people to shrug…
I discovered this myself a few days after the election, when I had dinner with an old friend who is an intelligent, moderate, non-leftist Democrat with some conservative tendencies. This friend just didn’t care about Benghazi or the administration’s handling of it, didn’t know the details and was cynically dismissive of the topic because “all politicians lie.”
Well, they surely do–but not this brazenly, because most politicians at least have the fear of being called to account by the media and then the American people.
The right has been outraged by a sequence of events and statements that have occurred under Obama’s watch, beginning with his 2008 campaign. Some are rather trivial (“corpse-man”) and some important (“bankrupt” the coal plants; “spread the wealth”). All have gained traction only on the right, because a majority (perhaps a small majority, but a majority nonetheless, and I believe a growing one) has answered the question “what difference does it make?” with the words “none at all.”
These are things that would have outraged an earlier generation. In fact, they have outraged an earlier generation; older people did not vote for Obama in large numbers (among voters 65 and older, Romney won 56% to 44%). But Hillary is correct; to most voters, Benghazi, and a host of other things that used to be considered important, make no difference at all.
One reason, which may seem somewhat paradoxical but really is not, is widespread cynicism. If the public doesn’t expect integrity or truth from what used to be called our public servants (what a quaint phrase!), then lies and strategic stonewalling will not bother most people at all. What matters is what those public servants can get for you, and what they can scare you into thinking the opposition will take away from you…
Were people like Boon in the Cindy Sheehan camp per chance?
The scandal can hardly be that a vicious man behaved viciously. I mean, that sort of thing follows as night follows day.
Better, I think, to place the scandal where it belongs, at the feet of those who are responsible: It’s about the ignorance of an American people — not merely meekly but enthusiastically — accepting as their premier Executive Officer and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of their nation a skilled, if yet commonplace (think pusillanimous) con-man, and the subsequent suffering of the foul consequences that such a freely made choice entails.
So, exactly how many times did they mention Obama’s name during that 60 Minutes piece?
Unless I counted wrong, the answer is ZERO.
This is why the general public doesn’t care about this “scandal”:
1) It is true that the attack was planned by the Al Qaeda group for some time. However, there were numerous reports from the ground that said the attackers explicitly mentioned the Innocence of Muslims video as one of the reasons they chose that day for the attack:
2) Yes, of course there was intelligence chatter about a possible attack against the Benghazi outpost, and they should have done more to beef up security there. But there’s still no direct evidence whatsoever that Rice and Clinton *knew* the attack was not a spontaneous one arising from a protest at the time they made those statements. The fact that SOME people knew it doesn’t mean Clinton or Rice knew it. Nothing in the 60 Minutes report is proof one way or the other about this.
3) There’s just no credible reason why Clinton or the Obama Administration would purposefully leave a diplomatic outpost unguarded to “make a political point.” It’s just a ludicrous assertion, one that makes no sense whatsoever. The best I’ve heard is some vague theory that somehow the Administration wanted to prove that there was no longer a terrorist threat in Libya, or something like that, or something — so they would rather have diplomatic personnel die than admit there might be a terror threat in Benghazi. That just makes no sense AT ALL, and no one except right-wing conspiracy theorists could possibly believe that makes any sense, especially given how aggressive Obama has been about going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
(A MUCH more credible explanation, in my view, is that State was cavalier about an attack in Benghazi because, as anyone who knows about Libya should know, Benghazi is the single city by far the most grateful for Western assistance during the war. They were about to be overrun by Qaddafi and we stepped in. Ambassador Stevens was wildly popular in Benghazi and so was the West in general, including the United States. They were complacent, in other words. This was stupid and shortsighted, and a fuckup, but that’s not a conspiracy, it’s just a fuckup.)
—- Oh, and another reason why the “left them unguarded to make a political point” explanation makes no sense — how would anyone in the US ever even know what the security arrangements were at that outpost? What “political point” could possibly have ever been made by such an intentional act? I.e., the theory here seems to be that the Administration KNEW there was a significant threat, agreed with those who thought there was a significant threat, but despite that, to “make a political point” intentionally left the outpost poorly guarded. THIS is what makes no sense whatsoever except to right-wing conspiracy theorists. If I’m misinterpreting what you guys are trying to say in terms of what their motivation was supposed to have been I’m open to hearing clarifications.
What seems to me to be the case, and most Americans, is that at worst State didn’t agree with the people who thought there was a significant threat, and they were worried about antagonizing the people of Benghazi by putting too much military force there, and they were wrong about this. That isn’t a conspiracy, that’s just a fuckup, as I keep saying. Yes, a mistake, but in the annals of bureaucratic fuckups, it’s just one of thousands the US has made over the decades, and not even remotely one of the worst we’ve ever made.
They’re just cooking up some damage control and letting low level operating agents like Mitsu a chance to hone their propaganda knives for 2014 and 2016.
The media isn’t on your side. They are going to put a boot on your face, same as Obama. Never expect anything else. Always look forwards to the worst evil has in store for you, else you will flee at the moment of truth.
Btw, Mitsu, how goes your “Reagan” plan to make yourself look like a moderate going?
Has it fooled more than the average of the marks yet?
Mitsu:
They lied about it to make a political point with Americans.
They left them unguarded in the first place to make a political point within Libya—they wanted the appearance of a light, friendly footprint there.
Others have more conspiratorial theories, no doubt.
I’m just describing my political views, Ymarsakar. I don’t care whether you call them “moderate” or what label you put on them. I’m not interested in where I fall on a left-right spectrum. I only concern myself with strategic and domestic policy in terms of what I think will work and what I don’t think will work.
I don’t think centralized state control will work. Obviously not, but then very few on the left think that these days either, and virtually no Democratic national politicians.
I don’t think pure unregulated markets work well.
I think regulation should be relatively minimal, but I think we should have more regulation than Tea Party folks like yourself think.
I think social democratic countries like Sweden result in stable societies with freedom of speech, but a relatively less dynamic economy. I prefer the American style entrepreneurial economy. However, I don’t think Sweden is anything like the USSR.
I think the US is sometimes right to go to war, and sometimes wrong. I’m not a blanket pacifist. I think the way to determine this depends on the complicated details of any given geopolitical situation.
I’ve held these views since I was in college, though I’ve evolved what I think was and is good policy, I’ve always felt this way.
Above all, I’m against oversimplification and dogmatism whether on the right or the left. If there’s any one thing I’ve always stood for, it’s that. Call that “moderate” or not, whatever, I don’t give a —-.
>They lied about it to make a political point with Americans.
This isn’t credible to me for two reasons: 1) if they really believed the story about the video was completely false, they would have known that would come out sooner or later, and that would be much worse than having told the truth in the first place. 2) if they had told the truth as we now know it (that the video was likely at least partly the reason for the timing of the attack, but it was carried out as part of a plan by Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists) how would that have significantly harmed the Administration’s position, politically? Most people would have rallied behind the flag as we usually do in such circumstances.
I do believe that State was involved in some ass-covering pushback because they knew they had fucked up before. But I see that as a small-scale bureaucratic sort of ass-covering for insiders, not anything seriously meant for the national public. And I believe they thought the “spontaneous” story was at least possibly correct, not that it was definitely wrong. You’re free to believe otherwise, but I guess I don’t see the evidence here. It just looks to me like a fuckup, and some run of the mill inside the Beltway ass covering.
About when Hillary likely knew it was a terrorist attack — from Reuters:
“Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.”
Mitus:
What is credible to you is not what is necessarily credible, or even true.
They knew. They lied. For quite a while. They thought Americans were just that credulous. And indeed, they were.
Being “advised” via email isn’t the same thing as “knowing”. After any attack there’s tons of intelligence chatter from all over the place, and they aren’t necessarily reading it all personally. They’re relying on their staffs to read it.
And again, it just doesn’t make for much of a scandal when there’s just no coherent story about what they supposedly gained that was so important that they would purposefully lie about this. (And again — there WERE many on the ground reports that the video was cited by attackers as one of the reasons for the attack — that part wasn’t a lie, and it’s astonishing how I never hear right-wingers mentioning this.) I mean, what, really, is the story here? That Obama is soft on terror? That just doesn’t fly.
Those emails were two hours after the attack. You really think Hillary et al. didn’t know even more assuredly five days later on September 16 when Susan Rice went on all the Sunday talk shows that it was a planned terrorist attack?
Gimme a break.
For a refresher on what Rice had to say on those shows, go here. Her repeated mantra was basically:
…based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy— —sparked by this hateful video.
Mitsu:
You’re working too hard here for too little reward.
Quoting as source the NYT is tantamount to quoting Pravda.
At the time she made her statements, Clinton absolutely knew the attack was not a spontaneous one arising from a protest. That the 60 Minutes report does not mention this is purposeful. Only the willfully gullible believe that any political reportage by 60 minutes is objectively factual. Their job is to spin propaganda.
No one here is asserting that Clinton, Obama or anyone in the administration purposefully left a diplomatic outpost unguarded to “make a political point.”. That’s a red herring. That Clinton herself purposely left the post unguarded, despite repeated requests by Stevens for increased security is established fact. Anyone who claims to be familiar with the case and doesn’t acknowledge that fact is being intentionally dishonest. That Stevens repeatedly requested increased security disproves the allegation that America was ‘popular’ in Benghazi.
This was no ‘fuckup’, this was no mistake. Clinton and Obama were not surprised when the Benghazi attack occurred, they knew that it was at least a possibility and had already prepared for such a contingency.
The assertion that Obama has been ‘aggressive’ at going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan is laughable. Shooting drones from above is NOT being ‘aggressive’ it is being passive aggressive. And incredibly restrictive ROE in Afghanistan put the lie to any assertions of Obama’s aggressiveness in either fighting the Taliban or pursuing al Qaeda. The Obama administration has done the minimum it can and relies entirely upon appeasement and obfuscation.
“I mean, what, really, is the story here?” Mitsu
There are one so blind as they who will not see. And in that willful blindness, you assume complicity in that crime.
Mitsu:
Watch the indicated 30 seconds from each of those two video links, above at 3:27PM (from the the 5:55 mark in the first one and from 0:50 in the second; if I knew how to cue them for you I would).
Can you not recognize the ‘tells’ of a bad liar when you see them?
Or is it just that you subscribe to the Big Lie theory, regardless of how bad the liar is? Susan Rice did a much better job with this because she probably really didn’t know the truth….
>those emails were two hours after the attack
Again: there is always a ton of intelligence chatter right after an incident. It’s not the responsibility of the Secretary of State to personally read all that, come up with an assessment of what is and isn’t credible, and decide what the truth is, single-handedly, up to the minute. As I noted before, and keep noting, there were reports the video WAS part of the reason for the attack happening on that day.
Carl in Atlanta:
I watched the clips. The second clip is explicitly about the video — I think you might not realize that there was widespread anger in the Middle East over the video, including angry demonstrations at our embassies in Egypt in many other countries, on the same day as the Benghazi attack. That’s the reason she is talking about the video in the second case — not solely because of Benghazi. Are you aware of this?
Mitsu’s reward is in the land after this Earth, be sure of that. Their alliance with Islamic Jihad is not merely for convenience, just mostly.
Mitsu isn’t aware that the families of the deceased got personal promises from Hillary/Barack that they would get back to them with justice or knowledge.
Crickets.
Golf.
Insider trading.
Too important that business on the DC hill.
You crack me up, Ymarsakar. Speaking of which, Y do you have such a difficult username to type.
What was that Mitsu zombie said about Sarah Palin in 2007, that she wasn’t ready for prime time, that she’d be too soft or ignorant about terrorists?
So can anyone imagine if President Palin was on the line for Benghazi and did the same things as HillaryCare and ObamaDrone, Mitsu would be championing his Demoncrat roots the same way?
You’re in IT, supposedly Mitsu, and you don’t even know what copy and paste does? Come on.
If President Palin (god forbid) was on the line for Benghazi, Democrats (not only me) would not even remotely be making an issue out of it, because it’s a non-story.
(There would be plenty of REAL scandals to harp on, believe me, without latching on to something as flimsy as this.)
Mitsu:
That comment about Palin and Democrats was probably the most unintentionally funny thing you’ve ever said.
See? Even Mitsu believes as Loyal Democrat was told is right.
It Makes no Difference What Actually Happened at this point.
That’s what they think. That’s what they were told to think. They obey. They will always Obey.
Funny, the President of Libya knew right away that it was Ansar Al Sharia (despite the sweet, oh so caring and soothing tones of the NPR narrator denying it).
The interview was aired on 9/16/12, five days after the attack. Figure the actual interview was carried out at least two days earlier for production purposes.
>The President of Libya knew right away that it was Ansar Al Sharia
I know. I was following the news quite carefully. I remember that the Libyans were contradicting State pretty much from the get go. So, I thought, maybe State is wrong about the story. Within a few days I had, after perusing the news, concluded that it almost certainly was Ansar Al Sharia, and the Libyans were right.
Look, I just look at the news at it comes and formulate what seems to me to be a parsimonious interpretation. Think about it this way: you’re sitting there at State, you are hearing about angry protests all over the world about this damn video. On THE SAME DAY the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi is attacked, and there are some intelligence reports that the attackers actually claimed the video was the or a reason they were attacking. You jump to the conclusion that it was an outgrowth of the protest, partly wishful thinking because you know that you guys were the ones who recommended lax security at the outpost to begin with, in a stupid assumption that Benghazi friendly = Benghazi safe. You want to promote that possible explanation because you think it is likely to be correct, and you want to downplay the possibility of ordinary terrorism.
All that seems to me to be almost certainly what happened. What DIDN’T happen, almost certainly, is that you KNEW there was a significant probability of an attack like this, you purposefully decided it was OK for Ambassador Stevens to die, and then afterwards you KNEW it was a terror attack by Ansar and not just a spontaneous outgrowth of the protests (not just thought might be a possibility, but KNEW), and you purposefully lied.
Of course, it is POSSIBLE that happened. It is just not very likely, to me, and furthermore it would be incredibly stupid if that actually did happen, because there’s just not enough to be gained from lying and so much to lose. Hence: non-story.
As for unintentionally funny — I just don’t see a comparable example of Democrats trumping up a minor fuckup into a major scandal with Republican Administrations the way Republicans constantly do. Iran-Contra, if anything, was WAY worse than this. The Iraq War: way, way, way, way, way worse. And so on.
Neo:
So even YOU have a troll infestation. eh? Mild though it may be…
Well, at least I’m “mild”.
Mitsu uses a line of argumentation I’ve seen a lot of liberals employ. Everything’s ambiguous. Everything’s always in process. Everything’s a buzzing confusion. It’s a kind of smudging-up process, accompanied by scoffing.
I deal with this same mentality from friends of mine on the Left, who assume everything that goes wrong is due to bankers who are purposefully manipulating everything according to an evil plan that they controlled from the beginning. For instance, I have friends who insist that the 2008 crash was engineered by the 1 percent to somehow benefit themselves. When I point out that lots of the 1 percent lost hundreds of millions to billions of dollars in the crash, that barely shakes their confidence that somehow the bankers are always in control of everything.
Yes, sometimes there are dark conspiracies going on. However, in my view, the majority of things going wrong are due to fuckups, and mostly the powers that be are only partially “in control” of anything, be they politicians or bankers or any other power center. I don’t believe any one group either fully is in control or fully knows what the fuck they are doing or what the consequences of their actions are going to be.
I have friends who insist that the 2008 crash was engineered by the 1 percent to somehow benefit themselves.
That’s not far from the truth.
Mitsu here thinks he is sitting on his high horse, as usual, watching over the peons on both sides. Except he’s just a normal Leftist, low level cannonfodder at that.
The men murdered by “the video” were deemed to be no longer viable. Benghazi was a late-term abortion of unwanted human lives.
Here ya go, Mitsu. I forgot to check this Obama voter’s site this morning. Enjoy.
Obama promoted post birth abortion. Not merely late term. Even after you are born and survived an abortion… the black Obama will still get ya in Chicago.
Can’t stop Margaret Sanger’s anti Black abortion project.
Mitsu,
Your coy posts, defending the indefensible, are simultaneously amusing (as in smirk worthy) and tedious. Benghazi was SNAFU from the very beginning and they lied their asses off to protect the campaign message that BHO had whipped AQ’s ass and all was now safe except for the mopping up. Of importance, secondarily, was to lie to protect Hillary from reprecussions come 2016.
The same goes for all the lies about Obamacare. While BHO (Nancy and crew) had no idea about exactly what was in it before they passed it, they had to of known it would greatly upset the apple cart. However, it was their job to know what was in it.
They don’t care, they don’t love you, and you along with the rest of us are chattel to herded and penned in by the fences they build to enhance their own power. Bottom line: They don’t give a shit about the peasants.
Mitsu: “And again, it just doesn’t make for much of a scandal when there’s just no coherent story about what they supposedly gained that was so important that they would purposefully lie about this.”
Obama’s campaign was pushing two lines.
1. Al Qaeda is dead, General motors is alive.
2. That Libya intervention was a huge foreign policy success.
The attack at Benghazi put a lie to both those claims. Hillary met with Obama before he left for his campaign stop in Las Vegas. (Which was a few hours after they learned of the attack and the President had left the situation room.) What do you think they talked about? IMO, they decided on a line of explanation that protected the story that al Qaeda was not a force to be reckoned with, and obfuscated about how terribly screwed up the situation was in Libya. It would also go without saying they wanted some cover for the way State had neglected to heed the warnings from Ambassador Stevens. They concocted a story and then stuck to it to get them through the election. There’s the motivation.
They sent Susan Rice on the Sunday morning shows to lie, since that would protect Clinton (and Rice could always claim ignorance).
Then there was the part of the debate where Bengazi came up, and the “moderator” lied to support Obama.
Benghazi was SNAFU from the very beginning and they lied their asses off to protect the campaign message that BHO had whipped AQ’s ass and all was now safe except for the mopping up. Of importance, secondarily, was to lie to protect Hillary from reprecussions come 2016.
Yes, that’s why Susan Rice was sent out to lie. Protect Obama in ’12 and Hillary in ’16.
“If President Palin (god forbid) was on the line for Benghazi, Democrats (not only me) would not even remotely be making an issue out of it, because it’s a non-story”
I know. I was following the news quite carefully.”
Cognitive dissonance. Why would anyone be following “quite carefully”… a “non-story”?
“Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive!” Sir Walter Scott
You think the Administration was trying to sell the line that AQ was “whupped”? Meanwhile, however, drone strikes continued week after week, month after month, Guantanamo is still not closed? Yes, he got bin Laden, but that’s not even remotely the end of it, and I have never had the feeling the war on terror was “over” nor has the Administration been acting as if it is.
As for Libya — I do think there was some ass-covering going on. They fucked up. They thought it was safer than it was. But come on — hardly anyone in the US was even following the situation there closely enough to know the difference. Had we simply announced that we’d gotten attacked by terrorists again, that would have been a perfectly fine thing in terms of national politics. It would only have been a problem internally, inside the Beltway, for the fuckups at State that ignored the warnings. But it has zero political significance in the American public at large, because they would just go “oh yeah, another terrorist attack” and that fits the narrative that we’ve been living under since 9/11.
Mitsu:
Mitsu, did you not see the the Congressional hearing? Did you not hear the testimony that the responsible official (I forget whether he was a Deputy Assistant Secretary or an Assistant Deputy Secretary) testified that he repeatedly passed up the chain information about the conditions in Bengazi, repeatedly asked for more security and was repeatedly turned down? Did you not hear Greg Hicks, the Deputy Ambassador, testify that he called the Secretary of State during the attack and personally told her what was happening?
Did you not hear Barry-O tell us the war on terror is over? Did you not hear the massacre at Ft. Hood described as “workplace violence?”
Oh, well, it’s no use — you’re right Mitsu, we have always been at war with Oceana.
Oops meant to post this here;
A lyric from Simon & Garfunkel’s “The Boxer” applies to the Mitsu’s of the world, “Still the man hears what he wants to hear / And disregards the rest”
Churchill opined that the mass of humanity share Mitsu’s ‘blinders’, “Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across the truth. Most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about their business as if nothing had happened.”
And wise old Ben Franklin knew of the Mitsu’s too, “You cannot reason a man out of a position he has not reasoned himself into.”
There was no “stand down” order given to Col. Gibson. That part of Hicks’ testimony was simply false:
That’s straight from Col Gibson’s own lips. He decided to give the order to keep people in Tripoli in case the embassy there was attacked.
As for the “war on terror” it is completely accurate to say that Al Qaeda has been decimated. It has been. But Al Qaeda is not the entirety of the war on terror. Drone strikes continue, special operations continue, we’ve been fighting this war continuously before, during, and after Benghazi. I can’t imagine if you asked average Americans if the war on terror was “over” they’d say, “Oh yeah, it’s done. The President said so.” Nobody thinks it’s over, and it isn’t over.
Geoffrey
The purposeful and intentional betrayal and abandonment of Americans in harms way for purely political gain making Obama, Clinton, Panetta and the top military leadership of this country complicit in their murders.
So the theory here is that Obama & co decided they would do better in elections if a US Ambassador was murdered in Libya? Is this what the 60 Minutes show demonstrated? Really? To me this sounds like the theory that was briefly popular on the left that all of 9/11 was part of some arcane conspiracy to open upen up a pipeline through Afghanistan….
neo-necon
1. Exactly what was the lie to Americans? Are you talking about the video? You are unable to post or cite any transcript or clip of Obama nor any high level adminstration official blaming the Libyan attack on the video. The best you can do is either cite statements regarding the other attacks on American interests that were uncontestedly tied to the video (such as the attack on the embassy in Egypt by a group of rioting protestors) or you will cite statements made right after the attack, all of which were qualified to the hilt (i.e. “best of our knowledge”, “investigation has just begun” and so on).
2. “They left them unguarded in the first place to make a political point within Libya–they wanted the appearance of a light, friendly footprint there.” –this seems like it could also be a tactical decision. A small footprint that isn’t very noticable makes a less inviting target. Keep in mind this was a consulate with a nearby CIA safehouse. Bad tactical decisions should be exposed, of course, but they typically aren’t made at the top and they are rarely impeachable offsenses (I missed Bush’s impeachment for letting Bin Laden slip out of Tora Bora, for example).
Mitsu & Boonton sitting is a tree kissing BHO’s ass 1,2,3. When it all comes down to dust the pair of you will be wondering why your betters consider you worthless and expendable. The difference between us is that we refuse to be dust. Conversely, you will gladly drink the kool-aid. http://tinyurl.com/4ck3w and step into the ‘showers’ at Auschwitz.
Be careful what you wish for. And, hat tip, your ignorance of history is showing; pull your skirts down and cover your knickers.
“Did you not hear the testimony..”
These are hear no, see no, speak no monkeys. Shun these monkeys.
“A small footprint.. blah,blah..”
You (he, she, it) are a sad joke. Your best bet is a guest appearance on Letterman. Otherwise, your vanishingly small minutes are… well, vanishing.
Boonton:
Of course they weren’t stupid enough to say outright “The Benghazi attack was absolutely caused by the video.” Obama and Clinton are lawyers, after all, and they know how to leave themselves a tiny bit of wiggle room to back away while carefully choosing words that deliver exactly the message they want to deliver, which in this case was that Benghazi was an unplanned riot that was sparked by the Egyptian riots and the video, and escalated quickly, and that al Qaeda (and its hallmark, planned attacks) was not involved.
They delivered this message over and over and over (particularly through Susan Rice) in a careful, lawyerly manner, with all the usual disclaimers about “best of our knowledge” so they could weasel out later. But they stated things carefully so that just about any and all listeners would draw the conclusion that the attack was sparked by the video (or by the Egypt attack which was sparked by the video, with Benghazi as a copycat attack sparked by the video plus the Egypt attack).
They emphasized the video over and over in connection with the attack and yet never even mentioned that it might have been al Qaeda behind it. They also explicitly stated many times that the attack was not planned although they knew almost immediately it was both al Qaeda and pre-planned. In some ways that may have been the most egregious and direct lie of all.
mitsu:
“I don’t think centralized state control will work. Obviously not, but then very few on the left think that these days either, and virtually no Democratic national politicians.”
Does anyone believe this gigantic stinking crock? That is all mitsu and the Dems are about – more government control of nearly everything.
“statements made right after the attack, all of which were qualified to the hilt”
This is completely misleading. There is no question the administration aggressively pushed the “blame the filmmaker” line for many days, inserting a few weasel words they could fall back on later because they *knew* they were lying. That is exactly what the Candy Crowley incident in the debate was about.
neo-neocon
Of course they weren’t stupid enough to say outright “The Benghazi attack was absolutely caused by the video.”
You forget yourself, you claimed they lied. A person tells a lie to convince someone of an untruth. Making a statement with numerous qualifications does not convince. BTW, you don’t have any statements from either Clinton or Obama that even go as far as you claim above.
They delivered this message over and over and over (particularly through Susan Rice) in a careful, lawyerly manner, with all the usual disclaimers about “best of our knowledge” so they could weasel out later.
Or they presented what was a perfectly reasonable hypothesis, that the video either sparked the attack or a video protest was hijacked by jihadists who used it as an opening to attack.
They emphasized the video over and over in connection with the attack and yet never even mentioned that it might have been al Qaeda behind it.
Ohhh Face the Nation
MR. SCHIEFFER: Do you agree or disagree with [the previous guest, the president of Libya’s general national congress] that al Qaeda had some part in this?
MS. RICE: Well, we’ll have to find out that out. I mean I think it’s clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we’ll have to determine.
Ok she’s not the one who mentioned it but it certainly seems even Rice was open to Al Qaeda playing a hand in the attack from the very beginning.
On Meet the Press
Well, let us— let me tell you the— the best information we have at present. First of all, there’s an FBI investigation which is ongoing. And we look to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpired. But putting together the best information that we have available to us today our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of— of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video. What we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. They came with heavy weapons which unfortunately are readily available in post revolutionary Libya. And it escalated into a much more violent episode. Obviously, that’s— that’s our best judgment now. We’ll await the results of the investigation. And the president has been very clear—we’ll work with the Libyan authorities to bring those responsible to justice.
Note that this isn’t a statement to tune of “it was the video, but we have an investigation going”. The video link is qualified at least 5 to 6 times in a single paragraph indicating a large measure of uncertainity and from the beginning the possibility that the attack was more than simple people protesting who happened to have guns left over from the revolution the door was fully open too.
They also explicitly stated many times that the attack was not planned although they knew almost immediately it was both al Qaeda and pre-planned.
Ohhh my neo, you’re in trouble here. You keep doubling down making it easier and easier to trash your assertions. Even today it’s not clear Al Qaeda was the principle behind the attack. The Libyan people claimed it was militias and marched 30,000 strong against armed militia groups about a week after the attack. One of the chief suspects, Ansar al-Sharia, is in fact a militia leader who spoke against the US on the grounds of, wait for it, that stupid video! So even today it is murkey who exactly attacked the consolute and why. Unless you assume Al Qaeda is simply a filler word that means any Muslim group that commits acts of anti-US terrorism.
FOAF
That (the video line) is exactly what the Candy Crowley incident in the debate was about.
Then how come no one could say that in the debate? The original Republican talking point was that Obama failed to say it was terrorism, not that the video link was incorrect. Romney made himself look like an ass by being ignorant of the actual statements he was supposedly complaining about. Now you want to tell us the debate was about linking the attack to the video, which seems like it would have been a very easy thing to have said then…instead we need you to divine ‘true meanings’ almost a year later?
Here’s an alternative narrative. On the day/night of the attack there were multiple violent protests over the video around the Muslim world, including one that actually resulted in an attack on our embassy in Egypt (which has mostly been forgotten now since no one was hurt but absent Libya would have been a huge deal since it’s a violation of diplomatic immunity and sovereignity). A very reasonable and plausible hypothesis was that the Libyian attack was part of that general protest, which continued afterwards for nearly a week or two. This was put forth with multiple qualifications about the investigation just beginning. Over time it became more clear that the attack was less likely linked to the video and more likely linked to a militia that either used the video as excuse or simply opted to attack independent of the video. This narrative is more believeable to the bulk of Americans because most people here hawking more damming versions quite frankly either smell unhinged (like Geoffrey who thinks the attack was somehow planned by Obama to help with his election) or by people who, being partisans already, are unable to dispassionately evaluate the evidence and instead just embrace opportunistic spin.
Valid criticisms such as why there wasn’t better security, who exactly was behind the attack and who exactly participated in it, are probably more relevant than the initial Republican obsesssion with whether or not it was called terrorism within 12 hours of happening and now the latest hobbyhorse of whether or not the video was cited as a cause but the general public probably does not see the Republican Party as honest players trying to get at the truth here. Which is a bit of a shame but not unexpected.
Boonton and (to a lesser extent) Mitsu are to this blog what the Baby Ruth bar was to the swimming pool in Caddy Shack….
If you have something to say worth reading, please let us know.
Boonton didn’t address my initial explanation above of course. He just reasked the question that was already answered in the Fifth comment from the top.
The Regime became very embarassed about selling weapons to AQ and didn’t want anyone to know about it. They thought that beefing up security and sending the QRF to Stevens would make the newspaper splash, so wanted to cover it all up. What difference does it make at this point why they died?
Because if people knew, more than just Stevens’ head might roll.
Ymarsakar
So let me get this straight, your theory is that the administration sold weapons to AQ by accident and wanted it to not become public. I’m unclear why the administration would need to sell shoulder fired missiles to a Libyan group since Nato put a no-fly zone over Libya thereby neutering Libya’s already pathetic air force…but regardless…..
Stevens was negotiating with someone and his bodyguard walked away leaving him open and exposed to an attack and AQ attacked him.
A pretty interesting story, not really sure what in the 60 minutes piece supports it. Nor am I sure how this reasonably accomplishes the goal of covering up a weapons sale or transfer? Why not keep Stevens in the embassy at the capital and just forget about the group that got weapons in error? It’s not like Libya’s a place lacking in weapons. After Qadaffi fell the army basically split up into various tribes and militias and grabbed all the weapons they could.
Boon…
The ManPADS were for SYRIA….. duh!
The op is now the WORST kept secret in the MENA.
One of the reasons that KSA has broken with Barry is because he’s shut this gambit down — too much blow-back.
BTW, there are other CIA operatives involved. There presence is still being kept hush-hush. Barry won’t let them testify before Congress.
So many weapons were involved that the CIA had more than the two facilities. The others are still kept on the QT.
Barry was running his own private war against Assad — with Congress kept at an arms length from the truth.
This op goes wildly beyond Iran-Contra, a fiasco that apparently escaped Barry’s keen.
Barry loves the CIA. His first job out of college was writing for a CIA front publishing house.
His grandparents and his mother all worked for the CIA and fronts for the CIA. (US AID is a notorious CIA altar ego — of which the Russians have bitched for generations.
The Ford Foundation was a CIA fellow traveler. They’d let CIA operatives function as putative employees as the CIA saw fit.
It’s now obvious that the grandmother ran the dark books in Honolulu — and that she got her daughter into the family trade. Hence her fluency in Russian (East-West Center, Manoa Campus, Honolulu) and Stanley Ann’s role as an assistant chief of station — office warrior in one hot spot after another.
First Indonesia — then straight off to Pakistan! As if it’s just a coincidence that these are the two nations most in play at their respective times. Stanley Ann spent five years living out of a four star hotel — on the CIA’s dime!
Such a high profile babe would naturally attract the attentions of the KGB. After all, Stanley Ann is the disburser for the CIA at the height of the Soviet-Afghan conflict.
In the fullness of time, don’t be surprised to find out that the wet work boys picked her off.
So, Barry has grown up with reverence for the CIA. It’s family for him. That’s why he thought he could run his private war using them. In this he was entirely reversing the flow of the Church investigation all those decades ago.
For what could go wrong?
Blert by far is the best spokesperson for your side. If you’re going to make up your facts, make them all up! Go large or go home suckers!
I wonder if we are about to reach (or perhaps have reached) a tipping point in this administration.
Having lost, among others, reliably progressive 60 Minutes and Jon Stewart, “the base” is slowly being reduced to the skeleton crew lunacy of Mike Malloy, Ed Schultz and MSNBC (and all 6 of its viewers).
This can only be a good thing for this country.
We still don’t really know what was going on at the site, and we haven’t been offered any explanation of what was so important that it required the ambassador’s sudden trip there, without security, on September 11. Any theoeies?
I dunno T, if CBS is out front it hardly seems likely that CBS represents the vanguard of a change which hasn’t been generally reached. Hence, rather than “perhaps”, it looks like it might be a better bet to assume the transition took place quietly some indefinite time ago.
As to a change for the good? The mere need for such a thing would tend to militate against the possibility, at least in the nearer term (10 to 20 years). Too many other prerequisites stand in the way of that turn, which isn’t to say the turn cannot come.
It took them that long to come up with a propagandized, cleaned out, defense for the info block?
What were they doing for the past few years, checking out the Obama website?
Ambassador Stevens was negotiating deals with Libya’s Al Qaeda wing, as ordered by the pro Rebel regime in the White House. They wanted to negate Khaddafi’s air force and bombs via anti air manpad transfers to the “rebels”.
The AQ/Islamic tribe tasked with Stevens’ protection resigned their defense job, either threatened or paid off by AQ’s militant attack force. The weapons transfer, either America or Russian mad anti air shoulder fired missiles, would be similar to the ones that by chance took out various Special Forces helicopters in Afghanistan.
I suspect with the fall of Qaddafi, the quid pro quo arrangement was no longer tolerated with the infidel Americans and they wanted the embassy staff out of the country. Who knows who else these Americans will sell weapons to in the meantime.
Can someone tell us in a single coherent paragraph what exactly this scandal is supposed to be about?
Sure Booton,
The purposeful and intentional betrayal and abandonment of Americans in harms way for purely political gain making Obama, Clinton, Panetta and the top military leadership of this country complicit in their murders. Does that encapsulate it for you? Is that serious enough? Is that sufficient to qualify as “high crimes and misdemeanors”?
60 minutes is taking notice because it has judged it time for the media to lay the groundwork for the assertion that they did not ignore the story, that they reported the ‘facts’ as known at the time. A tactic otherwise known as ‘covering one’s ass’.
They too are complicit in the cover-up, otherwise known as “accessory after the fact”.
The MSM bears as much if not more responsibility for the misleading of the public as the democrat party. They have betrayed the public trust in what can only rationally be characterized as treasonous.
GB, I would just add to your summary, “lying to the American people and the world for weeks about the circumstances surrounding the attack”. There could also be elements of criminal obstruction by hiding persons of interest so that they would not be available for Congressional testimony on the subject.
For Boonton, I am sure none of this is as serious as a break-in at a DNC office by individuals who were not actually officials in the Nixon Administration, followed by attempts to distance the Administration, blah blah blah; but not all would agree with Boonton on that.
Geoffrey Britain:
Don’t forget to add, “repeatedly lying about it to cover their political asses.”
But requests such as Boonton’s, which appear to be indicating the idea that Benghazi is no big whoop and why are we folks so upset about it, really go to this phenomenon. My guess is that Boonton’s attitude may reflect (or be counting on) the sort of thing I discussed in that linked post.
I don’t know for sure, because Boonton’s underlying point of view is a bit hard to figure out. But it seems to me that anyone who comes onto a blog and demands a summary explanation of something that’s been aired over and over for well over a year is tweaking the regulars, as well as indicating some version of Hillary Clinton’s “what difference does it make?” query.
Here’s an excerpt from that earlier post of mine:
Also please see this:
Were people like Boon in the Cindy Sheehan camp per chance?
The scandal can hardly be that a vicious man behaved viciously. I mean, that sort of thing follows as night follows day.
Better, I think, to place the scandal where it belongs, at the feet of those who are responsible: It’s about the ignorance of an American people — not merely meekly but enthusiastically — accepting as their premier Executive Officer and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of their nation a skilled, if yet commonplace (think pusillanimous) con-man, and the subsequent suffering of the foul consequences that such a freely made choice entails.
So, exactly how many times did they mention Obama’s name during that 60 Minutes piece?
Unless I counted wrong, the answer is ZERO.
This is why the general public doesn’t care about this “scandal”:
1) It is true that the attack was planned by the Al Qaeda group for some time. However, there were numerous reports from the ground that said the attackers explicitly mentioned the Innocence of Muslims video as one of the reasons they chose that day for the attack:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/world/africa/election-year-stakes-overshadow-nuances-of-benghazi-investigation.html?ref=todayspaper&pagewanted=all&_r=0
2) Yes, of course there was intelligence chatter about a possible attack against the Benghazi outpost, and they should have done more to beef up security there. But there’s still no direct evidence whatsoever that Rice and Clinton *knew* the attack was not a spontaneous one arising from a protest at the time they made those statements. The fact that SOME people knew it doesn’t mean Clinton or Rice knew it. Nothing in the 60 Minutes report is proof one way or the other about this.
3) There’s just no credible reason why Clinton or the Obama Administration would purposefully leave a diplomatic outpost unguarded to “make a political point.” It’s just a ludicrous assertion, one that makes no sense whatsoever. The best I’ve heard is some vague theory that somehow the Administration wanted to prove that there was no longer a terrorist threat in Libya, or something like that, or something — so they would rather have diplomatic personnel die than admit there might be a terror threat in Benghazi. That just makes no sense AT ALL, and no one except right-wing conspiracy theorists could possibly believe that makes any sense, especially given how aggressive Obama has been about going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
(A MUCH more credible explanation, in my view, is that State was cavalier about an attack in Benghazi because, as anyone who knows about Libya should know, Benghazi is the single city by far the most grateful for Western assistance during the war. They were about to be overrun by Qaddafi and we stepped in. Ambassador Stevens was wildly popular in Benghazi and so was the West in general, including the United States. They were complacent, in other words. This was stupid and shortsighted, and a fuckup, but that’s not a conspiracy, it’s just a fuckup.)
—- Oh, and another reason why the “left them unguarded to make a political point” explanation makes no sense — how would anyone in the US ever even know what the security arrangements were at that outpost? What “political point” could possibly have ever been made by such an intentional act? I.e., the theory here seems to be that the Administration KNEW there was a significant threat, agreed with those who thought there was a significant threat, but despite that, to “make a political point” intentionally left the outpost poorly guarded. THIS is what makes no sense whatsoever except to right-wing conspiracy theorists. If I’m misinterpreting what you guys are trying to say in terms of what their motivation was supposed to have been I’m open to hearing clarifications.
What seems to me to be the case, and most Americans, is that at worst State didn’t agree with the people who thought there was a significant threat, and they were worried about antagonizing the people of Benghazi by putting too much military force there, and they were wrong about this. That isn’t a conspiracy, that’s just a fuckup, as I keep saying. Yes, a mistake, but in the annals of bureaucratic fuckups, it’s just one of thousands the US has made over the decades, and not even remotely one of the worst we’ve ever made.
They’re just cooking up some damage control and letting low level operating agents like Mitsu a chance to hone their propaganda knives for 2014 and 2016.
The media isn’t on your side. They are going to put a boot on your face, same as Obama. Never expect anything else. Always look forwards to the worst evil has in store for you, else you will flee at the moment of truth.
Btw, Mitsu, how goes your “Reagan” plan to make yourself look like a moderate going?
Has it fooled more than the average of the marks yet?
Mitsu:
They lied about it to make a political point with Americans.
They left them unguarded in the first place to make a political point within Libya—they wanted the appearance of a light, friendly footprint there.
Others have more conspiratorial theories, no doubt.
I’m just describing my political views, Ymarsakar. I don’t care whether you call them “moderate” or what label you put on them. I’m not interested in where I fall on a left-right spectrum. I only concern myself with strategic and domestic policy in terms of what I think will work and what I don’t think will work.
I don’t think centralized state control will work. Obviously not, but then very few on the left think that these days either, and virtually no Democratic national politicians.
I don’t think pure unregulated markets work well.
I think regulation should be relatively minimal, but I think we should have more regulation than Tea Party folks like yourself think.
I think social democratic countries like Sweden result in stable societies with freedom of speech, but a relatively less dynamic economy. I prefer the American style entrepreneurial economy. However, I don’t think Sweden is anything like the USSR.
I think the US is sometimes right to go to war, and sometimes wrong. I’m not a blanket pacifist. I think the way to determine this depends on the complicated details of any given geopolitical situation.
I’ve held these views since I was in college, though I’ve evolved what I think was and is good policy, I’ve always felt this way.
Above all, I’m against oversimplification and dogmatism whether on the right or the left. If there’s any one thing I’ve always stood for, it’s that. Call that “moderate” or not, whatever, I don’t give a —-.
I’ll say it again:
See this video of Mrs. Clinton on the tarmac on 9/14/2012. Start at the 5:55 mark and watch watch the next 30 seconds or so:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K10ioQdEv80
Then watch this one for about 30 seconds beginning at 0:50:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXYdb57P7T4
Please don’t forget these speeches.
>They lied about it to make a political point with Americans.
This isn’t credible to me for two reasons: 1) if they really believed the story about the video was completely false, they would have known that would come out sooner or later, and that would be much worse than having told the truth in the first place. 2) if they had told the truth as we now know it (that the video was likely at least partly the reason for the timing of the attack, but it was carried out as part of a plan by Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists) how would that have significantly harmed the Administration’s position, politically? Most people would have rallied behind the flag as we usually do in such circumstances.
I do believe that State was involved in some ass-covering pushback because they knew they had fucked up before. But I see that as a small-scale bureaucratic sort of ass-covering for insiders, not anything seriously meant for the national public. And I believe they thought the “spontaneous” story was at least possibly correct, not that it was definitely wrong. You’re free to believe otherwise, but I guess I don’t see the evidence here. It just looks to me like a fuckup, and some run of the mill inside the Beltway ass covering.
About when Hillary likely knew it was a terrorist attack — from Reuters:
“Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.”
Mitus:
What is credible to you is not what is necessarily credible, or even true.
They knew. They lied. For quite a while. They thought Americans were just that credulous. And indeed, they were.
Sorry — here’s the Reuters link.
>They knew. They lied.
Being “advised” via email isn’t the same thing as “knowing”. After any attack there’s tons of intelligence chatter from all over the place, and they aren’t necessarily reading it all personally. They’re relying on their staffs to read it.
And again, it just doesn’t make for much of a scandal when there’s just no coherent story about what they supposedly gained that was so important that they would purposefully lie about this. (And again — there WERE many on the ground reports that the video was cited by attackers as one of the reasons for the attack — that part wasn’t a lie, and it’s astonishing how I never hear right-wingers mentioning this.) I mean, what, really, is the story here? That Obama is soft on terror? That just doesn’t fly.
Those emails were two hours after the attack. You really think Hillary et al. didn’t know even more assuredly five days later on September 16 when Susan Rice went on all the Sunday talk shows that it was a planned terrorist attack?
Gimme a break.
For a refresher on what Rice had to say on those shows, go here. Her repeated mantra was basically:
Mitsu:
You’re working too hard here for too little reward.
Quoting as source the NYT is tantamount to quoting Pravda.
At the time she made her statements, Clinton absolutely knew the attack was not a spontaneous one arising from a protest. That the 60 Minutes report does not mention this is purposeful. Only the willfully gullible believe that any political reportage by 60 minutes is objectively factual. Their job is to spin propaganda.
No one here is asserting that Clinton, Obama or anyone in the administration purposefully left a diplomatic outpost unguarded to “make a political point.”. That’s a red herring. That Clinton herself purposely left the post unguarded, despite repeated requests by Stevens for increased security is established fact. Anyone who claims to be familiar with the case and doesn’t acknowledge that fact is being intentionally dishonest. That Stevens repeatedly requested increased security disproves the allegation that America was ‘popular’ in Benghazi.
This was no ‘fuckup’, this was no mistake. Clinton and Obama were not surprised when the Benghazi attack occurred, they knew that it was at least a possibility and had already prepared for such a contingency.
The assertion that Obama has been ‘aggressive’ at going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan is laughable. Shooting drones from above is NOT being ‘aggressive’ it is being passive aggressive. And incredibly restrictive ROE in Afghanistan put the lie to any assertions of Obama’s aggressiveness in either fighting the Taliban or pursuing al Qaeda. The Obama administration has done the minimum it can and relies entirely upon appeasement and obfuscation.
“I mean, what, really, is the story here?” Mitsu
There are one so blind as they who will not see. And in that willful blindness, you assume complicity in that crime.
Mitsu:
Watch the indicated 30 seconds from each of those two video links, above at 3:27PM (from the the 5:55 mark in the first one and from 0:50 in the second; if I knew how to cue them for you I would).
Can you not recognize the ‘tells’ of a bad liar when you see them?
Or is it just that you subscribe to the Big Lie theory, regardless of how bad the liar is? Susan Rice did a much better job with this because she probably really didn’t know the truth….
>those emails were two hours after the attack
Again: there is always a ton of intelligence chatter right after an incident. It’s not the responsibility of the Secretary of State to personally read all that, come up with an assessment of what is and isn’t credible, and decide what the truth is, single-handedly, up to the minute. As I noted before, and keep noting, there were reports the video WAS part of the reason for the attack happening on that day.
Carl in Atlanta:
I watched the clips. The second clip is explicitly about the video — I think you might not realize that there was widespread anger in the Middle East over the video, including angry demonstrations at our embassies in Egypt in many other countries, on the same day as the Benghazi attack. That’s the reason she is talking about the video in the second case — not solely because of Benghazi. Are you aware of this?
Mitsu’s reward is in the land after this Earth, be sure of that. Their alliance with Islamic Jihad is not merely for convenience, just mostly.
Mitsu isn’t aware that the families of the deceased got personal promises from Hillary/Barack that they would get back to them with justice or knowledge.
Crickets.
Golf.
Insider trading.
Too important that business on the DC hill.
You crack me up, Ymarsakar. Speaking of which, Y do you have such a difficult username to type.
What was that Mitsu zombie said about Sarah Palin in 2007, that she wasn’t ready for prime time, that she’d be too soft or ignorant about terrorists?
So can anyone imagine if President Palin was on the line for Benghazi and did the same things as HillaryCare and ObamaDrone, Mitsu would be championing his Demoncrat roots the same way?
You’re in IT, supposedly Mitsu, and you don’t even know what copy and paste does? Come on.
If President Palin (god forbid) was on the line for Benghazi, Democrats (not only me) would not even remotely be making an issue out of it, because it’s a non-story.
(There would be plenty of REAL scandals to harp on, believe me, without latching on to something as flimsy as this.)
Mitsu:
That comment about Palin and Democrats was probably the most unintentionally funny thing you’ve ever said.
See? Even Mitsu believes as Loyal Democrat was told is right.
It Makes no Difference What Actually Happened at this point.
That’s what they think. That’s what they were told to think. They obey. They will always Obey.
Funny, the President of Libya knew right away that it was Ansar Al Sharia (despite the sweet, oh so caring and soothing tones of the NPR narrator denying it).
http://www.npr.org/2012/09/16/161228170/consulate-attack-preplanned-libya-s-president-says
The interview was aired on 9/16/12, five days after the attack. Figure the actual interview was carried out at least two days earlier for production purposes.
>The President of Libya knew right away that it was Ansar Al Sharia
I know. I was following the news quite carefully. I remember that the Libyans were contradicting State pretty much from the get go. So, I thought, maybe State is wrong about the story. Within a few days I had, after perusing the news, concluded that it almost certainly was Ansar Al Sharia, and the Libyans were right.
Look, I just look at the news at it comes and formulate what seems to me to be a parsimonious interpretation. Think about it this way: you’re sitting there at State, you are hearing about angry protests all over the world about this damn video. On THE SAME DAY the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi is attacked, and there are some intelligence reports that the attackers actually claimed the video was the or a reason they were attacking. You jump to the conclusion that it was an outgrowth of the protest, partly wishful thinking because you know that you guys were the ones who recommended lax security at the outpost to begin with, in a stupid assumption that Benghazi friendly = Benghazi safe. You want to promote that possible explanation because you think it is likely to be correct, and you want to downplay the possibility of ordinary terrorism.
All that seems to me to be almost certainly what happened. What DIDN’T happen, almost certainly, is that you KNEW there was a significant probability of an attack like this, you purposefully decided it was OK for Ambassador Stevens to die, and then afterwards you KNEW it was a terror attack by Ansar and not just a spontaneous outgrowth of the protests (not just thought might be a possibility, but KNEW), and you purposefully lied.
Of course, it is POSSIBLE that happened. It is just not very likely, to me, and furthermore it would be incredibly stupid if that actually did happen, because there’s just not enough to be gained from lying and so much to lose. Hence: non-story.
As for unintentionally funny — I just don’t see a comparable example of Democrats trumping up a minor fuckup into a major scandal with Republican Administrations the way Republicans constantly do. Iran-Contra, if anything, was WAY worse than this. The Iraq War: way, way, way, way, way worse. And so on.
Neo:
So even YOU have a troll infestation. eh? Mild though it may be…
Well, at least I’m “mild”.
Mitsu uses a line of argumentation I’ve seen a lot of liberals employ. Everything’s ambiguous. Everything’s always in process. Everything’s a buzzing confusion. It’s a kind of smudging-up process, accompanied by scoffing.
I deal with this same mentality from friends of mine on the Left, who assume everything that goes wrong is due to bankers who are purposefully manipulating everything according to an evil plan that they controlled from the beginning. For instance, I have friends who insist that the 2008 crash was engineered by the 1 percent to somehow benefit themselves. When I point out that lots of the 1 percent lost hundreds of millions to billions of dollars in the crash, that barely shakes their confidence that somehow the bankers are always in control of everything.
Yes, sometimes there are dark conspiracies going on. However, in my view, the majority of things going wrong are due to fuckups, and mostly the powers that be are only partially “in control” of anything, be they politicians or bankers or any other power center. I don’t believe any one group either fully is in control or fully knows what the fuck they are doing or what the consequences of their actions are going to be.
I have friends who insist that the 2008 crash was engineered by the 1 percent to somehow benefit themselves.
That’s not far from the truth.
Mitsu here thinks he is sitting on his high horse, as usual, watching over the peons on both sides. Except he’s just a normal Leftist, low level cannonfodder at that.
The men murdered by “the video” were deemed to be no longer viable. Benghazi was a late-term abortion of unwanted human lives.
Here ya go, Mitsu. I forgot to check this Obama voter’s site this morning. Enjoy.
Obama promoted post birth abortion. Not merely late term. Even after you are born and survived an abortion… the black Obama will still get ya in Chicago.
Can’t stop Margaret Sanger’s anti Black abortion project.
Mitsu,
Your coy posts, defending the indefensible, are simultaneously amusing (as in smirk worthy) and tedious. Benghazi was SNAFU from the very beginning and they lied their asses off to protect the campaign message that BHO had whipped AQ’s ass and all was now safe except for the mopping up. Of importance, secondarily, was to lie to protect Hillary from reprecussions come 2016.
The same goes for all the lies about Obamacare. While BHO (Nancy and crew) had no idea about exactly what was in it before they passed it, they had to of known it would greatly upset the apple cart. However, it was their job to know what was in it.
They don’t care, they don’t love you, and you along with the rest of us are chattel to herded and penned in by the fences they build to enhance their own power. Bottom line: They don’t give a shit about the peasants.
Mitsu: “And again, it just doesn’t make for much of a scandal when there’s just no coherent story about what they supposedly gained that was so important that they would purposefully lie about this.”
Obama’s campaign was pushing two lines.
1. Al Qaeda is dead, General motors is alive.
2. That Libya intervention was a huge foreign policy success.
The attack at Benghazi put a lie to both those claims. Hillary met with Obama before he left for his campaign stop in Las Vegas. (Which was a few hours after they learned of the attack and the President had left the situation room.) What do you think they talked about? IMO, they decided on a line of explanation that protected the story that al Qaeda was not a force to be reckoned with, and obfuscated about how terribly screwed up the situation was in Libya. It would also go without saying they wanted some cover for the way State had neglected to heed the warnings from Ambassador Stevens. They concocted a story and then stuck to it to get them through the election. There’s the motivation.
They sent Susan Rice on the Sunday morning shows to lie, since that would protect Clinton (and Rice could always claim ignorance).
Then there was the part of the debate where Bengazi came up, and the “moderator” lied to support Obama.
Yes, that’s why Susan Rice was sent out to lie. Protect Obama in ’12 and Hillary in ’16.
“If President Palin (god forbid) was on the line for Benghazi, Democrats (not only me) would not even remotely be making an issue out of it, because it’s a non-story”
I know. I was following the news quite carefully.”
Cognitive dissonance. Why would anyone be following “quite carefully”… a “non-story”?
“Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive!” Sir Walter Scott
You think the Administration was trying to sell the line that AQ was “whupped”? Meanwhile, however, drone strikes continued week after week, month after month, Guantanamo is still not closed? Yes, he got bin Laden, but that’s not even remotely the end of it, and I have never had the feeling the war on terror was “over” nor has the Administration been acting as if it is.
As for Libya — I do think there was some ass-covering going on. They fucked up. They thought it was safer than it was. But come on — hardly anyone in the US was even following the situation there closely enough to know the difference. Had we simply announced that we’d gotten attacked by terrorists again, that would have been a perfectly fine thing in terms of national politics. It would only have been a problem internally, inside the Beltway, for the fuckups at State that ignored the warnings. But it has zero political significance in the American public at large, because they would just go “oh yeah, another terrorist attack” and that fits the narrative that we’ve been living under since 9/11.
Mitsu:
Mitsu, did you not see the the Congressional hearing? Did you not hear the testimony that the responsible official (I forget whether he was a Deputy Assistant Secretary or an Assistant Deputy Secretary) testified that he repeatedly passed up the chain information about the conditions in Bengazi, repeatedly asked for more security and was repeatedly turned down? Did you not hear Greg Hicks, the Deputy Ambassador, testify that he called the Secretary of State during the attack and personally told her what was happening?
Did you not hear Barry-O tell us the war on terror is over? Did you not hear the massacre at Ft. Hood described as “workplace violence?”
Oh, well, it’s no use — you’re right Mitsu, we have always been at war with Oceana.
Oops meant to post this here;
A lyric from Simon & Garfunkel’s “The Boxer” applies to the Mitsu’s of the world, “Still the man hears what he wants to hear / And disregards the rest”
Churchill opined that the mass of humanity share Mitsu’s ‘blinders’, “Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across the truth. Most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about their business as if nothing had happened.”
And wise old Ben Franklin knew of the Mitsu’s too, “You cannot reason a man out of a position he has not reasoned himself into.”
There was no “stand down” order given to Col. Gibson. That part of Hicks’ testimony was simply false:
http://azstarnet.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/officer-no-libya-stand-down-order/article_3ebd5c58-41ab-577c-98ac-331d752cc9c4.html
That’s straight from Col Gibson’s own lips. He decided to give the order to keep people in Tripoli in case the embassy there was attacked.
As for the “war on terror” it is completely accurate to say that Al Qaeda has been decimated. It has been. But Al Qaeda is not the entirety of the war on terror. Drone strikes continue, special operations continue, we’ve been fighting this war continuously before, during, and after Benghazi. I can’t imagine if you asked average Americans if the war on terror was “over” they’d say, “Oh yeah, it’s done. The President said so.” Nobody thinks it’s over, and it isn’t over.
Geoffrey
The purposeful and intentional betrayal and abandonment of Americans in harms way for purely political gain making Obama, Clinton, Panetta and the top military leadership of this country complicit in their murders.
So the theory here is that Obama & co decided they would do better in elections if a US Ambassador was murdered in Libya? Is this what the 60 Minutes show demonstrated? Really? To me this sounds like the theory that was briefly popular on the left that all of 9/11 was part of some arcane conspiracy to open upen up a pipeline through Afghanistan….
neo-necon
1. Exactly what was the lie to Americans? Are you talking about the video? You are unable to post or cite any transcript or clip of Obama nor any high level adminstration official blaming the Libyan attack on the video. The best you can do is either cite statements regarding the other attacks on American interests that were uncontestedly tied to the video (such as the attack on the embassy in Egypt by a group of rioting protestors) or you will cite statements made right after the attack, all of which were qualified to the hilt (i.e. “best of our knowledge”, “investigation has just begun” and so on).
2. “They left them unguarded in the first place to make a political point within Libya–they wanted the appearance of a light, friendly footprint there.” –this seems like it could also be a tactical decision. A small footprint that isn’t very noticable makes a less inviting target. Keep in mind this was a consulate with a nearby CIA safehouse. Bad tactical decisions should be exposed, of course, but they typically aren’t made at the top and they are rarely impeachable offsenses (I missed Bush’s impeachment for letting Bin Laden slip out of Tora Bora, for example).
Mitsu & Boonton sitting is a tree kissing BHO’s ass 1,2,3. When it all comes down to dust the pair of you will be wondering why your betters consider you worthless and expendable. The difference between us is that we refuse to be dust. Conversely, you will gladly drink the kool-aid. http://tinyurl.com/4ck3w and step into the ‘showers’ at Auschwitz.
Be careful what you wish for. And, hat tip, your ignorance of history is showing; pull your skirts down and cover your knickers.
“Did you not hear the testimony..”
These are hear no, see no, speak no monkeys. Shun these monkeys.
“A small footprint.. blah,blah..”
You (he, she, it) are a sad joke. Your best bet is a guest appearance on Letterman. Otherwise, your vanishingly small minutes are… well, vanishing.
Boonton:
Of course they weren’t stupid enough to say outright “The Benghazi attack was absolutely caused by the video.” Obama and Clinton are lawyers, after all, and they know how to leave themselves a tiny bit of wiggle room to back away while carefully choosing words that deliver exactly the message they want to deliver, which in this case was that Benghazi was an unplanned riot that was sparked by the Egyptian riots and the video, and escalated quickly, and that al Qaeda (and its hallmark, planned attacks) was not involved.
They delivered this message over and over and over (particularly through Susan Rice) in a careful, lawyerly manner, with all the usual disclaimers about “best of our knowledge” so they could weasel out later. But they stated things carefully so that just about any and all listeners would draw the conclusion that the attack was sparked by the video (or by the Egypt attack which was sparked by the video, with Benghazi as a copycat attack sparked by the video plus the Egypt attack).
They emphasized the video over and over in connection with the attack and yet never even mentioned that it might have been al Qaeda behind it. They also explicitly stated many times that the attack was not planned although they knew almost immediately it was both al Qaeda and pre-planned. In some ways that may have been the most egregious and direct lie of all.
See this, this, this, this, this, this, and this.
mitsu:
“I don’t think centralized state control will work. Obviously not, but then very few on the left think that these days either, and virtually no Democratic national politicians.”
Does anyone believe this gigantic stinking crock? That is all mitsu and the Dems are about – more government control of nearly everything.
“statements made right after the attack, all of which were qualified to the hilt”
This is completely misleading. There is no question the administration aggressively pushed the “blame the filmmaker” line for many days, inserting a few weasel words they could fall back on later because they *knew* they were lying. That is exactly what the Candy Crowley incident in the debate was about.
neo-neocon
Of course they weren’t stupid enough to say outright “The Benghazi attack was absolutely caused by the video.”
You forget yourself, you claimed they lied. A person tells a lie to convince someone of an untruth. Making a statement with numerous qualifications does not convince. BTW, you don’t have any statements from either Clinton or Obama that even go as far as you claim above.
They delivered this message over and over and over (particularly through Susan Rice) in a careful, lawyerly manner, with all the usual disclaimers about “best of our knowledge” so they could weasel out later.
Or they presented what was a perfectly reasonable hypothesis, that the video either sparked the attack or a video protest was hijacked by jihadists who used it as an opening to attack.
They emphasized the video over and over in connection with the attack and yet never even mentioned that it might have been al Qaeda behind it.
Ohhh Face the Nation
MR. SCHIEFFER: Do you agree or disagree with [the previous guest, the president of Libya’s general national congress] that al Qaeda had some part in this?
MS. RICE: Well, we’ll have to find out that out. I mean I think it’s clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we’ll have to determine.
Ok she’s not the one who mentioned it but it certainly seems even Rice was open to Al Qaeda playing a hand in the attack from the very beginning.
On Meet the Press
Note that this isn’t a statement to tune of “it was the video, but we have an investigation going”. The video link is qualified at least 5 to 6 times in a single paragraph indicating a large measure of uncertainity and from the beginning the possibility that the attack was more than simple people protesting who happened to have guns left over from the revolution the door was fully open too.
They also explicitly stated many times that the attack was not planned although they knew almost immediately it was both al Qaeda and pre-planned.
Ohhh my neo, you’re in trouble here. You keep doubling down making it easier and easier to trash your assertions. Even today it’s not clear Al Qaeda was the principle behind the attack. The Libyan people claimed it was militias and marched 30,000 strong against armed militia groups about a week after the attack. One of the chief suspects, Ansar al-Sharia, is in fact a militia leader who spoke against the US on the grounds of, wait for it, that stupid video! So even today it is murkey who exactly attacked the consolute and why. Unless you assume Al Qaeda is simply a filler word that means any Muslim group that commits acts of anti-US terrorism.
FOAF
That (the video line) is exactly what the Candy Crowley incident in the debate was about.
Then how come no one could say that in the debate? The original Republican talking point was that Obama failed to say it was terrorism, not that the video link was incorrect. Romney made himself look like an ass by being ignorant of the actual statements he was supposedly complaining about. Now you want to tell us the debate was about linking the attack to the video, which seems like it would have been a very easy thing to have said then…instead we need you to divine ‘true meanings’ almost a year later?
Here’s an alternative narrative. On the day/night of the attack there were multiple violent protests over the video around the Muslim world, including one that actually resulted in an attack on our embassy in Egypt (which has mostly been forgotten now since no one was hurt but absent Libya would have been a huge deal since it’s a violation of diplomatic immunity and sovereignity). A very reasonable and plausible hypothesis was that the Libyian attack was part of that general protest, which continued afterwards for nearly a week or two. This was put forth with multiple qualifications about the investigation just beginning. Over time it became more clear that the attack was less likely linked to the video and more likely linked to a militia that either used the video as excuse or simply opted to attack independent of the video. This narrative is more believeable to the bulk of Americans because most people here hawking more damming versions quite frankly either smell unhinged (like Geoffrey who thinks the attack was somehow planned by Obama to help with his election) or by people who, being partisans already, are unable to dispassionately evaluate the evidence and instead just embrace opportunistic spin.
Valid criticisms such as why there wasn’t better security, who exactly was behind the attack and who exactly participated in it, are probably more relevant than the initial Republican obsesssion with whether or not it was called terrorism within 12 hours of happening and now the latest hobbyhorse of whether or not the video was cited as a cause but the general public probably does not see the Republican Party as honest players trying to get at the truth here. Which is a bit of a shame but not unexpected.
Boonton and (to a lesser extent) Mitsu are to this blog what the Baby Ruth bar was to the swimming pool in Caddy Shack….
If you have something to say worth reading, please let us know.
Boonton didn’t address my initial explanation above of course. He just reasked the question that was already answered in the Fifth comment from the top.
The Regime became very embarassed about selling weapons to AQ and didn’t want anyone to know about it. They thought that beefing up security and sending the QRF to Stevens would make the newspaper splash, so wanted to cover it all up. What difference does it make at this point why they died?
Because if people knew, more than just Stevens’ head might roll.
Ymarsakar
So let me get this straight, your theory is that the administration sold weapons to AQ by accident and wanted it to not become public. I’m unclear why the administration would need to sell shoulder fired missiles to a Libyan group since Nato put a no-fly zone over Libya thereby neutering Libya’s already pathetic air force…but regardless…..
Stevens was negotiating with someone and his bodyguard walked away leaving him open and exposed to an attack and AQ attacked him.
A pretty interesting story, not really sure what in the 60 minutes piece supports it. Nor am I sure how this reasonably accomplishes the goal of covering up a weapons sale or transfer? Why not keep Stevens in the embassy at the capital and just forget about the group that got weapons in error? It’s not like Libya’s a place lacking in weapons. After Qadaffi fell the army basically split up into various tribes and militias and grabbed all the weapons they could.
Boon…
The ManPADS were for SYRIA….. duh!
The op is now the WORST kept secret in the MENA.
One of the reasons that KSA has broken with Barry is because he’s shut this gambit down — too much blow-back.
BTW, there are other CIA operatives involved. There presence is still being kept hush-hush. Barry won’t let them testify before Congress.
So many weapons were involved that the CIA had more than the two facilities. The others are still kept on the QT.
Barry was running his own private war against Assad — with Congress kept at an arms length from the truth.
This op goes wildly beyond Iran-Contra, a fiasco that apparently escaped Barry’s keen.
Barry loves the CIA. His first job out of college was writing for a CIA front publishing house.
His grandparents and his mother all worked for the CIA and fronts for the CIA. (US AID is a notorious CIA altar ego — of which the Russians have bitched for generations.
The Ford Foundation was a CIA fellow traveler. They’d let CIA operatives function as putative employees as the CIA saw fit.
It’s now obvious that the grandmother ran the dark books in Honolulu — and that she got her daughter into the family trade. Hence her fluency in Russian (East-West Center, Manoa Campus, Honolulu) and Stanley Ann’s role as an assistant chief of station — office warrior in one hot spot after another.
First Indonesia — then straight off to Pakistan! As if it’s just a coincidence that these are the two nations most in play at their respective times. Stanley Ann spent five years living out of a four star hotel — on the CIA’s dime!
Such a high profile babe would naturally attract the attentions of the KGB. After all, Stanley Ann is the disburser for the CIA at the height of the Soviet-Afghan conflict.
In the fullness of time, don’t be surprised to find out that the wet work boys picked her off.
So, Barry has grown up with reverence for the CIA. It’s family for him. That’s why he thought he could run his private war using them. In this he was entirely reversing the flow of the Church investigation all those decades ago.
For what could go wrong?
Blert by far is the best spokesperson for your side. If you’re going to make up your facts, make them all up! Go large or go home suckers!
Boon…
If my information is radical news for you…
Then it’s telling. You really are in the bubble.
http://israelinprophecy.wordpress.com/2012/05/28/ann-dunham-cia-operative-obama-dossier-part-4/
The above is merely the tip of the iceberg.^^^^
Google around.
BTW, the above authors are all on the LEFT of the aisle.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/30/us-military-commandos-made-it-to-benghazi/
A boon for Boon.^^^^^
The leaks keep on coming.
Benghazigate keeps on giving.