What difference does it make now.............................................. if not so god dammed pathetic and dangerous that would be funny
I couldn't make out what he was saying after he got interrupted and lost it. It kind of sounded like he was headed in the same direction that I was, the ratio. Only he was doing a ratio of 4 to 225 kidnapped girls and the number that I found with a little searching was 4 to over a million. If that was he was heading in that direction a ratio of 56.25 to one or mine of 250,000 to one. The point would be that it's being blown out of proportion not that no one was guilty. I'm surprised that I'm finding out information this much later, like the 500 warheads. It almost makes up for the noise. Maybe that information would not have come out if it hadn't been built up bigger. If anyone who watches that show can tell me where I could get a transcript of that show it would be great. My hearing isn't that good anyway and the minute they start yelling at each other something in my brain turns to mush and I am completely unable to zero in on what's being said. I'll bet there is a transcript somewhere.
[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 05-03-2014).]
I couldn't make out what he was saying after he got interrupted and lost it. It kind of sounded like he was headed in the same direction that I was, the ratio. Only he was doing a ratio of 4 to 225 kidnapped girls and the number that I found with a little searching was 4 to over a million. If that was he was heading in that direction a ratio of 56.25 to one or mine of 250,000 to one. The point would be that it's being blown out of proportion not that no one was guilty.
I think the larger issues is the motives behind it. If a fanatic bombs a building and kills 100 people, it's a tragedy. If a sitting president conspires to kill his running mate - that's a lot bigger deal than the fact that 1 person murdered another. (hyperbole to illustrate a point - no, I'm not accusing 0bama of this).
A sitting president willfully covering up a story just before he's up for re-election goes beyond keeping a secret for national security.
Or is the bar we're using to judge the actions of our leaders set by criminals and kidnappers? So long as they keep doing monstrous things, anything less monstrous is fair game?
I think the larger issues is the motives behind it. If a fanatic bombs a building and kills 100 people, it's a tragedy. If a sitting president conspires to kill his running mate - that's a lot bigger deal than the fact that 1 person murdered another. (hyperbole to illustrate a point - no, I'm not accusing 0bama of this).
A sitting president willfully covering up a story just before he's up for re-election goes beyond keeping a secret for national security.
Or is the bar we're using to judge the actions of our leaders set by criminals and kidnappers? So long as they keep doing monstrous things, anything less monstrous is fair game?
Good point! All things being equal my numbers are accurate, but as you pointed out, all things are not equal. So the 56 to 1 could conceivably be 1 to 1. Not so sure about the other one. The 250,000 to 1. Most of those are not Americans so maybe only 4,486 to 4. I'm not saying that those Iraqi lives are not important to me, A human life is a human life, but I'm a product of my environment so those 4,486 are more important to me than 4,486 Iraqi. I can't find a moral justification for putting more value on one human life than another, but there it is. Anyway let's just get completely silly and say that the Iraqi lives don't count, that they're not important, that still leaves us with a 1121 to 1 ratio. I have a harder time adjusting that ratio to 1 to 1. I know that I'm comparing the importance of life lost due to our war in Iraq and a terrorist attack on our embassy. Not apples and oranges I'm sure, but there must be a reference that we can use to gauge the importance. That's all I've ever argued here. The importance, and I always felt that it was out of proportion. That being said, people will always perceive things differently and I understand that. Lots of variables to affect mathematical numbers.
Good point! All things being equal my numbers are accurate, but as you pointed out, all things are not equal. So the 56 to 1 could conceivably be 1 to 1. Not so sure about the other one. The 250,000 to 1. Most of those are not Americans so maybe only 4,486 to 4. I'm not saying that those Iraqi lives are not important to me, A human life is a human life, but I'm a product of my environment so those 4,486 are more important to me than 4,486 Iraqi. I can't find a moral justification for putting more value on one human life than another, but there it is. Anyway let's just get completely silly and say that the Iraqi lives don't count, that they're not important, that still leaves us with a 1121 to 1 ratio. I have a harder time adjusting that ratio to 1 to 1. I know that I'm comparing the importance of life lost due to our war in Iraq and a terrorist attack on our embassy. Not apples and oranges I'm sure, but there must be a reference that we can use to gauge the importance. That's all I've ever argued here. The importance, and I always felt that it was out of proportion. That being said, people will always perceive things differently and I understand that. Lots of variables to affect mathematical numbers.
I understand and respect your position. To me it's about more than the loss of life. When the leader of a nation is involved, the lives of millions can be affected. Did Benghazi affect all Americans? Not yet, but nothing happens in a bubble and global perceptions and diplomacy (or lack thereof) play a roll in future events. Look at Putin's actions in Ukraine. If there was a stronger US, would that have happened? I don't know, but the difference of a stronger U.S. deterrent would have affected the entire region.
A perfect example of this is the Cuban Missile Crisis. We very nearly ended up in a nuclear war with the Soviet Union because JFK was perceived to be weak. These things matter and have an impact far beyond the lives directly touched on that specific day.
You may not think it's as important as some are making it out. Fair enough, but do you think it's important enough to get to the answers, or is it so unimportant that it doesn't matter anymore and we should just forget about it and move on?
Was Brian Terry's life important enough to get the answers and hold someone accountable for his death? Nobody seems to care about that anymore - it's old news, even though no one was ever held accountable. Does the loss of life only matter for the duration of the news cycle? How long should it matter?
I find it deeply offensive that some on this blog are dismissing this as something unworthy. I still have not seen any of the liberals react like some of the Republicans did during the Watergate era. I doubt that is going to happen these days since the left is all about cover up, disparaging the other side and diversion.
So what do we know so far? That the president and his staff tried to deflect a political problem during an election by blaming this whole attack on some video that no one had seen.
We know that there was no military response, even though the firefight lasted many hours. It would have been much better to have at least tried to help them, but to not even try is extremely cold hearted.
We don't know why the ambassador was there in the first place on 9/11. Are they that stupid that they think that Al Qada wouldn't jump at the opportunity to put a stick in America's eye?
We don't know if the allegations about weapons running by eh ambassador to Al Qada is true or not.
We do know that the Obama administration is involved to their eye balls in the IRS holding back TEA Party, Conservatives and Constitutionalists prior to this election.
We do know that the IRS illegally gave personal information to other groups in the bureaucracy with the intent of harassing the Conservatives, the TEA Partiers and the Constitutionalists.
We do know that the IRS and other bureaucrats also went after donors to these groups.
Are you people blind who don't want to investigate this? Or is this willful ignorance on your part?
Just remember that the next time it might be you that these groups are after. How will you feel then? Because then it will be too late.
The ubiquitous lamestream media that dominates the country, coast to coast, encourages Congress to invent new scandals and then feeds by reporting on the endless Congressional hearings and investigations.
Originally posted by rinselberg: The ubiquitous lamestream media that dominates the country, coast to coast, encourages Congress to invent new scandals and then feeds by reporting on the endless Congressional hearings and investigations.
I can't believe that this is the first I've heard about this. All I remember is the story about the fake mobile chemical weapons vans. Found this, The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, though agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said.[121] It's not clear to me whether they were hidden or discarded. If you can find more information I would be very interested in hearing it.
You didn't hear about it b/c the liberal media didn't report it kind of like what they are doing now with Benghazi. Only Fox News reported it for one day (the election was already over and GW had already won, so they had no need to report on it over and over again like they do with stories that still have political implications). In order to find out what's really going on you have to watch Fox AND cnn (center right/center left) then put 1+1 together and get 2 (hopefully). Now, we did find WMD's but not in the quantities we thought they had to justify invading. That said, over 400 unmarked white trucks left Iraq and went into Syria in the days leading up to the invasion where Bush was waiting on the UN (that was a mistake...). Prior to us going in every intelligence agency on earth thought Saddam had these weapons and no one thought Syria had any where near the amount of Chemical Weapons they now possess. You can say that its all coincidence, but I see consequence. IMO those rebels in Syria are getting gassed with Saddam's munitions that were trucked out of there while we were waiting on the UN...
I think that what most potential voters (2014 midterms, 2016 national election) get from Hillary's "What difference does it make?" is that whether the Benghazi debacle was linked in any way to the "Mohammed" Internet video or whether it was not, it was a major and tragic screwup on the overseas security front--either way. And of course, it happened when the "O' was the CEO and Hillary was the big kahuna at State.
If Hillary brought up that insipid Internet video, face to face, to the father of one of the Benghazi casualties (when the bodies were returned stateside), that was ridiculous, tone deaf and outright stupid on her part. Did she actually say what some media reports alleged that she said? I have no reason to think otherwise.
Obama, on the other hand, used the words "terrorists" and "terrorism" about Benghazi, not long after it happened, without linking it to the dumbass Internet video, or reiterating it as a "spontaneous demonstration" that somehow escalated into a lethal attack on the consulate with heavy military scale weapons.
"Make no mistake, justice will be done." - Barack Obama.
Has justice been done? Have those who led the attack been brought to justice? Has any liability on the part of the US in failing to prepare been addressed? Has anyone been held accountable?
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 05-04-2014).]
"Make no mistake, justice will be done." - Barack Obama.
Has justice been done? Have those who led the attack been brought to justice? Has any liability on the part of the US in failing to prepare been addressed? Has anyone been held accountable?
To the extent that the Congressional hearings on Benghazi are focusing on those questions (as quoted), the hearings are all good. I think that they may have already uncovered as much as can be uncovered, but if the probes are still uncovering real information about any of these questions, that's all to the good.
The problem with these Republican-led panels is that they are coming across as mostly a politically motivated, media circus style sideshow, focusing on "smoking gun emails" that came in the immediate aftermath of the attack, all of the alleged palace intrigue about contrivances to link the Benghazi attack to the Muslim-baiting Internet video (a conspiracy theory that doesn't hold up under lucid examination), the administration's talking points and what UN Ambassador Susan Rice said or didn't say on the weekend talk shows immediately after the attack.
What difference does any of that make?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-04-2014).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: I have something to offer, but I was prompted to post it in one of the other active threads:
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: If the same rules and customs were in effect in 1983, when a truck bomb at a barracks in Lebanon killed 241 Marines during the Reagan administration, the Democrats in Congress would have held hearings and investigated it with such vigor that Congress would have not had time for anything else during the remainder of Reagan's tenure.
The commander of the barracks, Col. Timothy J. Geraghty, says in congressional hearings investigating the attacks that the compound was hard to defend because it was on flat ground and vehicles drove by it daily to access the airport.
Perhaps the difference is that the Reagan regime did not play politics over country, and released all pertinent information, you know "transparently". Perhaps there was "no there there".
quote
Originally posted by dratts: The Iran/Iraq war which we supported even while he used those chemical weapons. We are not guiltless on this count and maybe even a bit hypocritical.
Well ... you are right that we did support Saddam in their war. It doesn't make us guilty for his use of chemical weapons. We have a history of "bad relationships". Manual Noriega ? Karzai in Afghanistan ? Many others, including Kaddafi of Libya if I am not mistaken.
quote
Originally posted by dratts: Since there has been deflection all over the place I would like to add some more; Iraqi war, 4,486 americans killed, over !,000,000 killed including civilian during the war and occupation. Four killed/over one million killed. See the ratio?
4,486 American soldiers killed in an eight year war. 58,286 US soldiers killed in Vietnam. WW II ? 318,000 US soldiers and 60 million total. Deflection.
quote
Originally posted by dratts: Bad stuff all around, just trying to put it in perspective. I'm for no free pass on Benghazi, in fact I would like to know everything there is to know about it, but the POLITICAL noise is way, way,way out of proportion.
The political noise is the result of the regime using politics to hide failure and then using politics to cover it up. To the reprehensible lying to the family of the dead upon their caskets coming back, to Hilary's no show on five Sunday news shows, to the "fake" investigation of the ARB review board which did not even interview key players (including Hilary).
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: What difference does any of that make?
That is a question you should ask a couple of rogue agents in Cincinnati, . You don't think it matters that a political power will do anything to win an election ?
FOX News channel's precious "smoking gun email" goes up in smoke
Fox News is distorting a memo used to prepare an Obama administration official for media appearances to falsely suggest that the administration was lying about the Benghazi attacks for political gain.
On September 16, 2012, five days after the September 11 attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya, then-UN Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on the Sunday political talk shows and suggested that the terror attacks had grown out of spontaneous protests. At the time, there were riots at American facilities across the Muslim world, inspired by an anti-Islam video. Since then, conservatives led by Fox News have claimed that Rice's comments on the Sunday shows were part of a deliberate effort to deceive the American people about the cause of the attacks, to bolster President Obama's re-election campaign. This effort has often involved distorting the CIA-approved talking points that Rice used to prepare for the interviews.
On April 29, Fox renewed these claims, seizing on a newly released September 14, 2012 email from Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes to other key national security aides -- which details goals for the Sunday interviews and a series of potential questions and answers -- that was released under public records law by the conservative group Judicial Watch. Over on-screen text which claimed "New Benghazi Documents Lead Directly To The White House," Fox correspondent Catherine Herridge highlighted that according to the email, one of the goals for Rice's appearances was "To underscore that these protests are rooted in an internet video and not a broader failure of policy." She concluded that Fox had asked the White House "for comment on the Rhodes email, and what intelligence led to that conclusion that somehow an Internet video was responsible for the protests in Benghazi."
But contrary to Herridge's contention, the Rhodes email reveals nothing new. It is consistent with other intelligence briefings circulating at the time which have already been well-documented, and discusses a wide range of issues, not just Benghazi -- in fact, the specific comment Fox highlighted was an accurate depiction of the multiple riots occurring in the region at the time. When the email was sent, there were global anti-American protests in response to the video, often violent, many of which targeted U.S. diplomatic security posts, including in Egypt, Indonesia, Qatar, Pakistan, Sudan, Bangladesh, and Yemen.
In his twenty paragraph email advising Rice on her upcoming TV appearances, Rhodes made only two direct references to Benghazi -- first highlighting support from the Libyan government for U.S. diplomatic efforts in the country, and later debunking the false claim that there was any "actionable intelligence" prior to the attack on the facility in Benghazi and stating that "the currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US Consulate and subsequently its annex." That language is identical to the initial draft of the separate set of CIA talking points that were crafted by CIA analysts earlier that day, suggesting that Rhodes had seen that early document and was using it to ensure the administration's statements were consistent with the intelligence community's conclusions.
A bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report released in January 2014 stated that "[s]ome intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day's violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video." Indeed, former CIA acting director Mike Morrell has testified that the CIA chief of station in Libya believed at the time that the video might have motivated the attackers. The Senate report also determined that "there were no efforts by the White House or any other Executive Branch entities to 'cover-up' facts or make alterations for political purposes" -- a reality that Fox has refused to accept.
UPDATE: A report (PDF) from the Congressional Research Service published days after the attacks in Benghazi details how "Muslims in a number of countries have responded in recent days with anger at the United States that many observers describe as a response to a privately produced film circulating on the Internet that denigrates Islam and the prophet Mohammed." According to the report, as of September 14, 2012, when Rhodes' email was sent, such protests - often violent and focused on U.S. diplomatic facilities -- had occurred in Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Sudan, Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey, Yemen, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran, Bangladesh, and Malaysia.
I guess some people do not want to know the truth. Media Matters ? Really ? A self proclaimed progressive media watchdog group that says it is "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media". Who have ties deep in the White House and coordinates with them. What does the name "Media Matters" mean ? It doesn't seem like it means media does matter. If you want the truth, just look at the facts. The undisputed facts.
1) The White House, when asked about the video in the talking points, said that they did not craft them. That they only changed one stylistic thing. That is not true. Well, technically it might be, about the CIA talking points (which is another story). But they were asked about the video and they never said that they had their own set of talking points which blamed the video.
2) The White House hid the existence of the e-mail, even though it was subpoenaed.
3) Hilary Clinton blamed the video before the attack ended. The next day, the State Department told the Libyan government that the attack was by Ansar al Sharia. Why did the regime tell the Lybian's the truth but lie to the American people ?
4) The President and Hilary both blamed the attack on the video upon arrival of the caskets of the slain.
I could go on and waste my time. You don't want to know.
Originally posted by Tony Kania: Like Hillary, perhaps you should talk to the families of those lost Americans that were publicly paraded through the streets dead.
I hope that you read all of that brief, summary post and not just the one sentence at the very end.
Because that closing sentence is not constructed to make sense all on its own. It derives its meaning from the two brief paragraphs that preceded it.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-04-2014).]
Originally posted by Tony Kania: Like Hillary, perhaps you should talk to the families of those lost Americans that were publicly paraded through the streets dead.
Wasn't one of them beaten a brutally sodomized in the street? but what difference does it make now......................
"Make no mistake, justice will be done." - Barack Obama.
Has justice been done? Have those who led the attack been brought to justice Has any liability on the part of the US in failing to prepare been addressed? Has anyone been held accountable?
Important questions raised, at the end of that post. It would be praiseworthy if the FOX News channel and the Republicans in Congress were actually focusing methodically on those questions. But they're not. They are sidetracked with transparently false allegations that the Obama administration used a Muslim-baiting Internet video as a ploy to divert public awareness from what happened at Benghazi. [sarcasm]Now why on Earth would they want to promote and pursue such misleading allegations?[/sarcasm]
Consider the (three) YouTube segments that were posted above, offered in support of this idea. Each one came shortly after the Benghazi attack.
The first segment has been edited to remove context and to create a false impression that WH spokesman Jay Carney talked incessantly about the Internet video. At no time did Mr. Carney state definitively that there was a direct linkage between that Internet video and the Benghazi attack. The linkage is referred to [by Carney] as a theory, and subject to further investigation; but not as a given or as a definitive conclusion. This lines up with other documents that the administration has released.
During the second segment, President Obama talks about a persistent and ongoing threat posed by al Qaeda and other terrorists with similar anti-American agendas and methods. This is in direct contradiction to the scenario presented by the Benghazi truthers, who are still trying to mislead with the false narrative that the Obama administration downplayed the persisting threat, in accordance with a Team Obama campaign theme [known only by Benghazi truthers] that Islamic inspired terrorism had already subsided with the killing of Osama bin Laden.
There is no reference to any Internet video in the third and last segment, where Obama made his remarks from the WH Rose Garden. How does that support the Benghazi truthers? FAIL.
[sarcasm]What better way to serve the families who were devastated by the events at Benghazi, than to divert attention from the relevant and substantive issues with a misleading sideshow?[/sarcasm]
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-04-2014).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: ... [known only by Benghazi truthers] ... How does that support the Benghazi truthers? FAIL.
Ding ding ding, WINNER. You win two Saul Alinsky Gold Stars.
quote
* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.) * RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
Tell me, what do you care if it is investigated more ? Are you trying to protect the Repugnants ? Or, are you worried like the State Dept spokeswoman and Harry Reid that we have wasted too much time and money ? That we should instead be talking about jobs, the economy, minimum wage increases, extending unemployment benefits ?
Why was this kind of attack not anticipated and preempted, or met with effective counterforce from US military assets that should have been preplanned to be already in place and ready to go? Why did they overestimate the effectiveness or the loyalty of the "friendly" local militia group that was supposed to be the first line of defense? What communications were sent and received during the attack? What exactly transpired, in terms of decisions, decision makers and chain of command at the US embassy inTripoli, at the State Department, at Africom and at the White House during the attack? What are the required changes at the various federal agencies and departments to preempt another such attack, or respond to it with timely and effective counterforce? What's ever been done to find and punish the attackers, and why hasn't this justice been effected yet, and made public?
Those are all legitimate questions. If they are not already resolved, then continue with the Congressional panels and hearings. "Knock yourself out."
But what is this continuing nonsense about the talking points, about what Susan Rice said on TV during the weekend following the attack, about the (imaginary) Team Obama "spin machine"..? All that was in the immediate aftermath of the attack.
Would Ambassador Stevens and the other Americans who tried to help be any more alive if Susan Rice had said anything different on TV that weekend--after the attack?
Your "friends" at FOX News and among certain Republicans are still splitting hairs about what was said at that time by Ambassador Rice, Jay Carney, Hillary Clinton, President Obama, and so on. There were violence-attended demonstrations going on at that time in a number of different places, all helped along by agitators who seized on the Internet video. That's why administration officials were making references to the Internet video. The publicly accessible videos, documents and transcripts of interviews with the various people involved are already enough to discredit this "Obama spin machine in action" idea.
This talking points nonsense is a deceptive tactic, very common, of generating confusion and doubt when there shouldn't be any, by setting up theories and conjectures and shading and reinterpreting the words of various actors and reporters. The objective is to create and promote a conspiracy theory that is so nebulous that it cannot be falsified, because it aligns with any possible combination of observable data.
It's the same kind of tactic that is used by the least scientific and most biased partisans on all sides of the various arguments about global warming and changing planetary climates: an example that should especially strike home with the cliffw(s) of this world. Because you have observed and declaimed some of that.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-04-2014).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: There were violence-attended demonstrations going on at that time in a number of different places, all helped along by agitators who seized on the Internet video. That's why administration officials were making references to the Internet video.
Did you get that talking point from a White House press brief, or make it up on your own? Let me guess... what difference does it make?
Originally posted by rinselberg: Why was this kind of attack not anticipated and preempted, or met with effective counterforce from US military assets that should have been preplanned to be already in place and ready to go? Why did they overestimate the effectiveness and/or loyalty of the "friendly" Libyan militia that was supposed to be the first line of defense? What communications were sent and received during the attack? What exactly transpired, in terms of decisions, decision makers and chain of command at the US embassy inTripoli, at the State Department, at Africom and at the White House during the attack? What are the required changes at the various federal agencies and departments to preempt another such attack, or respond to it with timely and effective counterforce? What's ever been done to find and punish the attackers, and why hasn't this justice been effected yet, and made public? Those are all legitimate questions. If they are not already resolved, then continue with the Congressional panels and hearings. "Knock yourself out."
Why has not the regime answered those questions ? They have been asked.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: But what is all this continuing nonsense about the talking points, about what Susan Rice said on TV during the weekend following the attack, about the (imaginary) Team Obama "spin machine"..? All that was in the immediate aftermath of the attack.
It was the most discernible lie. The attempts to cover it up begged for more scrutiny. "There is no "no" there". They KNEW it was not a demonstration gone wrong from the get go.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: Would Ambassador Stevens and the other Americans who tried to help be anymore alive (or anymore dead) if Susan Rice had said anything different on TV that weekend?
No. Even if Hilary had the gonads to face the press that Sunday. Your point ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: Your "friends" at FOX News and among certain Republicans are still splitting hairs about what was said at that time by Ambassador Rice. There were violence-attended demonstrations going on at that time in a number of different places, all helped along by agitators who seized on the Internet video.
Helped along by agitators who seized upon the video ? That was the plan. Timed to coincide with 9/11. The video had nothing to do with any uprising/demonstration. That the Nobama regime does not recognize that, ... is a scandal. A hoodwinked suicide bomber or a hyped up populace. Both weapons being used against us. The "video inspired" demonstrations across the region Tell me. You I think are a Muslim. If not you understand their views. Did that video (Innocence of Islam) offend you ? You do know that it was made by a Muslim, no ? What about the film, "Honor Diaries", also made by two Muslim women ? Does that offend you ? It offends CIAR. What was in the "Benghazi video" which was so offensive ? Tell me. Why did the "pussy in chief" who occupies the "Oblate Office" in the White House not defend the freedom of the video maker to make that video ? Why did the regime tell the survivors of those killed that they would have the video maker arrested, ? The splitting of hairs is being done by the regime. Open your eyes. Who has something to hide ? Fox News and some truthers, or a failed regime ? There is not anything going on now that didn't go on when Watergate was exposed. Then, the truthers had a different scarlet letter on their jerseys. That regime had the same responses and strategies as this present one.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: That's why administration officials were making references to the Internet video. The publicly accessible videos, documents and transcripts of interviews with the various people involved are already enough to discredit this "Obama spin machine in action" idea.
Right, . Link ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: This talking points nonsense is a deceptive tactic, very common, of generating confusion and doubt when there shouldn't be any, by setting up theories and conjectures and shading and reinterpreting using supposed credibility the words of various people. The objective is to create and promote a conspiracy theory that is so nebulous that it cannot be falsified, because it aligns with any possible combination of observable data.
Like Global Warming ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: It's the same kind of tactic that is used by the least scientific and most biased partisans on all sides of the various arguments about global warming and changing planetary climates: an example that should especially strike home with the cliffw(s) of this world. Because you have observed and declaimed some of that.
Declaimed ? Nobama is a "claimer". Observed and declaimed, . Disclaimed ? Observed the facts disclaiming the fear mongering theory works for me. Too bad "Global Warming" stopped right after the announcement of the scam. They might have been able to get away with it. "Climate Change" was/is a saving grace. I wanted to believe it but I couldn't. My first clue ? When the regime aligned all the stars and planets with the Climate Exchange which was set up and financed by all the Progressives who want a new world order.
Wow. That was quite a ramble. As far as the video at the center of the FOX News encouraged, Republican enabled Team Obama Spin Machine for Benghazi fantasies, it's called "The Innocence of the Muslims". The actors were duped, although they signed standard acting industry waivers that were intended to immunize the producer. Their words were voiced over with a different script that was never revealed to them. At least one has tried to exact legal remedy (lawsuit) against the producer. The man who produced the video violated the conditions of his parole (convicted for embezzlement or fraud), because he was not supposed to be using the Internet in that way, under the restrictions of his parole.
I did watch the video, or some of it. Enough for me to characterize it as childish and absurd, and not engaging or effectively comical in any way whatsoever. Just dumbass. Not dumbass because it could be (and was) seized upon by certain anti-American, Islamist inspired agitators. Just dumbass, period. A total waste of the few minutes that I used to look at it.
My facts (what I believe is known) is that someone in the Obama administration made a request to YouTube to review it against their posting guidelines. But there was no coercion on the part of the Obama administration or anyone in the administration to try to force the video to be removed from YouTube.
It finally was removed, only a few months ago, by a court order that hinged on an actor's complaint about being duped by the video's producer, and not directly on the specific content of the video.
I think that Obama has been very clear that the First Amendment applies, that the federal government and all the states are constitutionally prohibited from forcing the video to be removed from the Internet or other distribution and that the people of the United States are solidly behind the First Amendment and would not have it any other way--and one more thing: that the video doesn't reflect the values of his administration, or of the people of the United States.
That, of course, is only his personal opinion about the content of the video and "American values", but he is entitled to speak to that, even as President.
As far as Hillary Clinton, there are reports that she said some real dumb things about the video that go against the grain of the First Amendment, even while serving as Secretary of State, but as far as I know, not any of her remarks in that vein were made specifically for public record. If the reports are true---attributed to the father of one of the Benghazi victims, and it's hard for me to imagine that the father would just make this stuff up--then it's shame on Hillary Clinton, and the best that can be said for her is that she did not further enlarge on these remarks, or repeat them for public record.
I think that you (Mr. "W") are just getting more and more off track about this story.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-05-2014).]
But how far off was Rice to talk about the video when compared with the information being put together at the time by the CIA, presumably the administration’s best intelligence source? Rhodes sent his email at 8 p.m. on Friday, Sept. 14. Nine hours earlier, the CIA had sent its first set of talking points. The very first line of the first CIA talking point reads: “The currently available information suggests that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US Consulate and subsequently its annex.”* (The original copies are here, released by the White House last May.)
What was causing the protests in Cairo that the CIA mentions? The video. If you said the uproar over L.A. Clippers owner Donald Sterling was created by foul racism versus saying it was created by an audiotape, how significant would the distinction be? Here's what Rice actually said on Face the Nation: “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.”
It may now be laughable for anyone to suggest that the Libyan attack was spontaneous, but that’s a question for the CIA, which made spontaneity its first and most durable claim that weekend. An intelligence failure is a different thing than a lie, and it should lead to a different set of questions about the underlying policy and skills of administration officials to accurately understand the world. You could also ask whether it’s possible to make good policy when engaged in one-foot-in and one-foot-out operations like the U.S. attack on Libya. But those are policy questions, not cover-up questions.
EXCERPT
Finally, there are countless references in the Judicial Watch documents to the video that have nothing to do with finding an explanation for the attack in Libya. The video is at the center of administration fears of a regionwide conflagration. There is a frantic effort to distance the U.S. government from the video and the violence that officials think is associated with it, and of course to show that the president is on the case. Rhodes writes: “We’ve made our views on this video crystal clear. The United States government had nothing to do with it. We reject its message and its contents. We find it disgusting and reprehensible. But there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence. And we are working to make sure that people around the globe hear that message.”
Even though the video wasn't the cause of the attack in Benghazi, word of the video got there. "A Libyan journalist working for The New York Times was blocked from entering by the sentries outside, and he learned of the film from the fighters who stopped him," wrote New York Times correspondent David Kirkpatrick in (what seemed at the time to be) a comprehensive December 2013 story. "Other Libyan witnesses, too, said they received lectures from the attackers about the evil of the film and the virtue of defending the prophet."
Obama's subsequent U.N. speech has become—to use an already overused cliche—the umpteenth "smoking gun." Sure, let's allow that the president referred to "acts of terror" the day after the Benghazi attack. Why, two weeks later, did he frame part of his speech around "Innocence of Muslims"? In an op-ed favorably tweeted by Rep. Darrell Issa, the San Diego Union-Tribune reminded readers that Obama's U.N. speech "suggested the attacks were a spontaneous outgrowth of protests over a crude anti-Muslim YouTube video posted by an American."
That's certainly how you have to read it if you forget that other attacks had broken out—after Benghazi!—in other countries. Obama began the speech by talking about Benghazi and the murder of Christopher Stevens, but went on to say that "the attacks of the last two weeks are not simply an assault on America." Attacks, plural; weeks, plural. In case that was too obscure, Obama went on to condemn what happened "in the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world."
[President Obama continued:]
There is no speech that justifies mindless violence. There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There's no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There's no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-05-2014).]
Would Ambassador Stevens and the other Americans who tried to help be any more alive if Susan Rice had said anything different on TV that weekend--after the attack?
And there it is, in all it's ugliness. The liberal mindset end-all point.
We can tell the public anything we wish, in spite of what the intelligence from CIA says--They're already dead so what difference does it make?
To that party and it's loyal followers, it makes no difference.
" The deputy director of the CIA, Michael Morell, told Congress that the video was “not something the analysts have attributed this attack to,” but the Obama administration was less interested in intelligence than in politics: Victoria Nuland of the State Department warned that acknowledging the role of organized terrorist groups might encourage members of Congress to “beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings.” The purpose of the video-protest narrative was to convince the American public that the bloodshed in the Middle East was the result of protests sparked by boobish Christians, and not a broader failure of policy. We know that because President Obama’s deputy national-security adviser, Ben Rhodes, helpfully put those precise words into an e-mail, describing U.N. ambassador Susan Rice’s storytelling session on the Sunday talk shows as intended “to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”"
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 05-05-2014).]
Originally posted by maryjane: " The deputy director of the CIA, Michael Morell, told Congress ...
You mean the same CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell, who while watching CIA Director (General) Petraeus tell Congress the CIA did not alter the talking points, did not volunteer that he indeed did ? You mean the same Michael Morell who will soon be working for Hilary Clinton's campaign team ?
The noise level the left is making about an investigation is amazing considering they say it is about nothing, . That would be called a clue. One would think they are worried.
Repub's eyeing South Carolina's Trey Gowdy to head up new Benghazi investigation committee
"The possible selection of Gowdy is being read by many as a blow to House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and his probe into the 2012 attacks... some sources on Capitol Hill argue that one of the reasons a select committee has been commissioned is to specifically sideline Issa. Issa's staff and the staff of the House Armed Services Committee got into a public dispute last week about the credibility of a Benghazi witness at an oversight committee hearing."
the liar train is going full speed Obumbles has the throttle & is stoking the smoking train flames with bengazhi!! throw in another big load of IRS treason against the tea party , the billions send down the green toilet make the train pick up more speed,, the hundreds of dead Mexicans killed by .fast & furious guns, keep the trains speed up hills, the 3 border agents deaths just add fuel to the boiler fire ,, never forget the millions in bribe money for A.G. holder & other democrats in the mark richey pay off, the destruction of our military will fuel the hi speed LIAR Obumbles express run away train for weeks,,never underestimate the LIAR EXPRESS speed,,, every run off the track protected by the criminal press & T.V. the president stood beside al Sharpton & praised him ,Sharpton owes the govmin 2 million dollars in back taxes & remember sharpton once had 10 kilo of cocaine ,a real reason for a corrupt president to praise & honor another fellow corrupt man finally the Bengazhi investication may slow the Obumbles express down.. I remember the hate democrats had for Bush WHY??only Obumbles is a total LIAR corrupt criminal,, protected by the democratic party press! no impeachment, send him to prison with the other corrupt Chicago politicians
Originally posted by rinselberg: If the same rules and customs were in effect in 1983, when a truck bomb at a barracks in Lebanon killed 241 Marines during the Reagan administration, the Democrats in Congress would have held hearings and investigated it with such vigor that Congress would have not had time for anything else during the remainder of Reagan's tenure.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: The same rules and customs were in effect in 1983. Just as they were in the Watergate era. In fact, a Congressional panel held a hearing and investigated the Lebanon barracks bombing.
I just learned that a Congressional panel investigated the 9/11 World Trade Center attack ... and that Bush released the Presidential Daily Briefings so as to be completely transparent. Calls are being made for Nobama to do the same.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: "The possible selection of Gowdy is being read by many as a blow to House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and his probe into the 2012 attacks.
Bless his poor wittle feelings.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: ... some sources on Capitol Hill argue that one of the reasons a select committee has been commissioned is to specifically sideline Issa. Issa's staff and the staff of the House Armed Services Committee got into a public dispute last week about the credibility of a Benghazi witness at an oversight committee hearing."
Some anonymous un-named sources I would bet. I would bet they have a "D" on their jersey. Only 'cause it sounds like an attack on Issa, in an attempt to make the process look lame. It should not be a blow to Issa'a ego. The process is lame. Five minute limited fact finding question/answer restrictions, . Which allows all to blab blab blab to distort the process. Do you know what the Issa/McKeon tiff was about ? McKeon said the AFCON General was not a credible witness in response to whether Nobama should have sent military assets as the attack was happening, which the General said Nobama should have. McKeon said the Generals capacity at the time did not allow him information as to whether that would be feasible. Issa believed as the General did, that they should have tried. They didn't know how long it was gonna take. If nothing else, you let the enemy know that you will show up.
quote
Originally posted by maryjane: The deputy director of the CIA, Michael Morell, told Congress ...
Oh no. Say it ain't so Joe.
quote
Sources familiar with Morell's second testimony say he admitted to changing the talking points, and he offered shifting explanations -- from classification issues, to not compromising the FBI investigation -- and that exposing the failure of Hillary Clinton's State Department to act on repeated security warnings seemed unprofessional.
The same Hilary Clinton he will be working for. He would butter burnt toast. I hope that biatch gets what she deserves. Just like a mistress that marries a lover she seduced from his wife. Unprofessional ? He should be serving the American people with the truth. The truth about intelligence, which is why we employ a Central Intelligence Agency
Lets face it. Liberals all over are going to ignore anything this administration does, no matter how dishonest, how heinous, how invasive, how treasonous, or how obvious the misdeed. Because to them, the ends justifies the means.
Or, they are just stupid, which is often the case.
Sometimes the ends do justify the means, have to have a little respect for those that believe in something is for the good of all that they will risk everything to make it happen. Founding father come to mind. BUT that said, this isn't one of them times, this is totally self serving self preservation style lying and maneuvering that has and will hurt Americans and other that depend on us.. A disgrace.
I bet it turns out to be all George Bush's fault! and likely some will believe that too.
.
A self proclaimed progressive media watchdog group that says it is "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media". Who have ties deep in the White House and coordinates with them. What does the name "Media Matters" mean ? It doesn't seem like it means media does matter.
. Disclaimed ?
and likely some will believe that too.
