• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ex-White House Official On Benghazi: 'Dude, This Was Like Two Years Ago'

Personally, I have not followed this Benghazi thing that closely.

So I'm wondering if the overall picture I have is accurate:

  1. Terrorists/someone attacked the US embassy in Benghazi. US embassy staff were killed, most notably the ambassador.
  2. Questions about how much warning we had, and our response to the attack, remain unanswered/partially answered.
  3. Accusations (specifically against Pres. Obama and Hillery Clinton, but also the state department in general) that we were warned, were aware of the ongoing attack, and did not send reinforcements when it was possible, have been made.
  4. Claims/suggestions were made that an inflammatory video posted online caused the attack. This video was later shown to be unrelated.
 
Then there was the New Yorker who put out their piece on the CIA Emails.....while pointing out how this all undermines Team O's credibility.


May 10, 2013
Spinning Benghazi.....


It’s a cliché, of course, but it really is true: in Washington, every scandal has a crime and a coverup. The ongoing debate about the attack on the United States facility in Benghazi where four Americans were killed, and the Obama Administration’s response to it, is no exception. For a long time, it seemed like the idea of a coverup was just a Republican obsession. But now there is something to it.

On Friday, ABC News’s Jonathan Karl revealed the details of the editing process for the C.I.A.’s talking points about the attack, including the edits themselves and some of the reasons a State Department spokeswoman gave for requesting those edits. It’s striking to see the twelve different iterations that the talking points went through before they were released to Congress and to United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice, who used them in Sunday show appearances that became a central focus of Republicans’ criticism of the Administration’s public response to the attacks. Over the course of about twenty-four hours, the remarks evolved from something specific and fairly detailed into a bland, vague mush.

From the very beginning of the editing process, the talking points contained the erroneous assertion that the attack was “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved.” That’s an important fact, because the right has always criticized the Administration based on the suggestion that the C.I.A. and the State Department, contrary to what they said, knew that the attack was not spontaneous and not an outgrowth of a demonstration. But everything else about the changes that were made is problematic.

The initial draft revealed by Karl mentions “at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi” before the one in which four Americans were killed. That’s not in the final version. Nor is this: “[W]e do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” That was replaced by the more tepid “There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.” (Even if we accept the argument that State wanted to be sure that extremists were involved, and that they could be linked to Al Qaeda, before saying so with any level of certainty—which is reasonable and supported by evidence from Karl’s reporting—that doesn’t fully explain these changes away.)

Democrats will argue that the editing process wasn’t motivated by a desire to protect Obama’s record on fighting Al Qaeda in the run-up to the 2012 election. They have a point; based on what we’ve seen from Karl’s report, the process that went into creating and then changing the talking points seems to have been driven in large measure by two parts of the government—C.I.A. and State—trying to make sure the blame for the attacks and the failure to protect American personnel in Benghazi fell on the other guy.

But the mere existence of the edits—whatever the motivation for them—seriously undermines the White House’s credibility on this issue. This past November (after Election Day), White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”

Remarkably, Carney is sticking with that line even now. In his regular press briefing on Friday afternoon (a briefing that was delayed several times, presumably in part so the White House could get its spin in order, but also so that it could hold a secretive pre-briefing briefing with select members of the White House press corps), he said:

The only edit made by the White House or the State Department to those talking points generated by the C.I.A. was a change from referring to the facility that was attacked in Benghazi from “consulate,” because it was not a consulate, to “diplomatic post”… it was a matter of non-substantive factual correction. But there was a process leading up to that that involved inputs from a lot of agencies, as is always the case in a situation like this and is always appropriate.....snip~

Spinning Benghazi: The C.I.A.'s Talking-Point Edits : The New Yorker
 
Personally, I have not followed this Benghazi thing that closely.

So I'm wondering if the overall picture I have is accurate:

  1. Terrorists/someone attacked the US embassy in Benghazi. US embassy staff were killed, most notably the ambassador.
  2. Questions about how much warning we had, and our response to the attack, remain unanswered/partially answered.
  3. Accusations (specifically against Pres. Obama and Hillery Clinton, but also the state department in general) that we were warned, were aware of the ongoing attack, and did not send reinforcements when it was possible, have been made.
  4. Claims/suggestions were made that an inflammatory video posted online caused the attack. This video was later shown to be unrelated.

Pretty much. But you have add the continued misdirection and blaming of other things besides a terrorist attack that the administration was spinning all the up until the election. In addition, all the stonewalling of the administration. It's years later and only now are some of the most relevant and pertinent documents finally coming to light.
 
Pretty much. But you have add the continued misdirection and blaming of other things besides a terrorist attack that the administration was spinning all the up until the election. In addition, all the stonewalling of the administration. It's years later and only now are some of the most relevant and pertinent documents finally coming to light.

Well plus the ongoing FBI Investigation inside Libya.....even though it has come to a dead stand still.
 
Then I'd be good with that. If someone responsible for not securing the ambassador was fired - I'm content. Only this regime hasn't told us that is the case. The only thing they told us was a lie about the cause, and then an oh well I gues we were wrong. Yet not one person was canned for telling us it was a video induced riot? They won't even identify who wanted to roll with that for 15 to 17 days before it became so obvious to everyone they were lying. Why is that?

If Stevens was denied adequate security....then why did he go? It was the 9/11 anniversary, protests all over the ME, Benghazi was in a state of anarcy, Lybia's president says he warned of an attack three days in advance, almost all the foreign diplomats and NGOs had evacuated and relocated to Tripoli..... so who told Ambassador that it was safe to go to Benghazi? It had to be the CIA....who else?



Heads did roll. They don't call him "former" CIA director for nothing.
 
Then I'd be good with that. If someone responsible for not securing the ambassador was fired - I'm content. Only this regime hasn't told us that is the case. The only thing they told us was a lie about the cause, and then an oh well I gues we were wrong. Yet not one person was canned for telling us it was a video induced riot? They won't even identify who wanted to roll with that for 15 to 17 days before it became so obvious to everyone they were lying. Why is that?

Hillary never even checked back on her own people after talking to Hicks.....now just think if she was a President and how she would leave Americans to die and not even have the decency to check back on them.

Run Hillary Run.
f_run.gif
 
Then I'd be good with that. If someone responsible for not securing the ambassador was fired - I'm content. Only this regime hasn't told us that is the case. The only thing they told us was a lie about the cause, and then an oh well I gues we were wrong. Yet not one person was canned for telling us it was a video induced riot? They won't even identify who wanted to roll with that for 15 to 17 days before it became so obvious to everyone they were lying. Why is that?

Yeah, but not even that happened. I believe that the people blamed by the administration got a few weeks paid vacation, and are back at their jobs, if I'm not mistaken.
 
Well plus the ongoing FBI Investigation inside Libya.....even though it has come to a dead stand still.

MMC, that investigation never got off of the ground. In order for it to 'come to a dead stand still' it would have to have been moving at one point. I don't think that it ever did.
 
MMC, that investigation never got off of the ground. In order for it to 'come to a dead stand still' it would have to have been moving at one point. I don't think that it ever did.

Yeah it didn't really.....not with Judges, Polices, and even a Interior Minister being kidnapped, killed, or told to take a vacation.
 
Remember when Romney first jumped on Benghazi, making it an election issue?
What did DEMs do on the original 9/11/2001?
They were expected to act like Patriotic lemmings for the party of the Patriotic, the GOP, and they did.

There will never be peace in foreign policy, as there will never be peace with any GOP faux issue.
Even if the GOP impeaches another DEM President, it will not satisfy their hatred of the DEMs over Watergate.

Your icon Goldwater is turning over in his grave on Benghazi.
Imagine how Goldwater would have responded if DEMs tried to pull this **** on Beirut in the 80's, when he was still in the Senate .

I wonder how LBJ would've reacted. Goldwater was done in with his declaration that he would bomb North Vietnam. LBJ made hay and was elected probably more on that advertisement than anything else. Later LBJ bombed North Vietnam. Wonder how LBJ would react? Got any insight? And by the way, nobody in the presidential office has been an outright scumbag except Obama, so it's not likely anybody has called other presidents a scumbag before now. Appropriate, don't you think?
 
I wonder how LBJ would've reacted. Goldwater was done in with his declaration that he would bomb North Vietnam. LBJ made hay and was elected probably more on that advertisement than anything else.
Did LBJ comment on something that just happened to another President--of course not.
Later LBJ bombed North Vietnam. Wonder how LBJ would react? Got any insight?
We were talking of 9/11.
Since you lose on the two comparisons, you have to go way back in the last Century--losing credibility.
And by the way, nobody in the presidential office has been an outright scumbag except Obama, so it's not likely anybody has called other presidents a scumbag before now. Appropriate, don't you think?
You can tell when righties are getting more desperate when their level of vitriol rises to yours .
 
Steyn nails it. Obama and Clinton let the PR boys handle Benghazi. The Dishonored Dead :: SteynOnline
When Bush laughed and mocked WMDs when he did his Alf Landon speech in 2004,
that would be the definition of dishonoring the dead.

Not to mention the tens of thousands who have PTSD and were maimed and destroyed for life.
Got a few jokes for the 22 suicides that occur each day from Bush's lying war?
 
When Bush laughed and mocked WMDs when he did his Alf Landon speech in 2004,
that would be the definition of dishonoring the dead.

Not to mention the tens of thousands who have PTSD and were maimed and destroyed for life.
Got a few jokes for the 22 suicides that occur each day from Bush's lying war?

Need I remind you that there were a number of other countries intelligence services who had collaborating evidence that the WMDs were in Iraq?

That hardly raises to the level of the direct dishonesty and lying from this president and this administration.

Beside what does this actually have to do with the Benghazi scandal anyway? Or yet another lame attempt to blame Bush?
 
Need I remind you that there were a number of other countries intelligence services who
had collaborating evidence that the WMDs were in Iraq?

And where did this intel come from?
Time for the Senate to open up just as many committees to investigate GOPs as what you're wasting taxpayer money on.

That hardly raises to the level of the direct dishonesty and lying from this president and this administration.

Obama is guilty until he proves himself innocent in your eyes.
You people made up the charges and now you're just trying to invent the evidence to fit, just like the IRA and the rest.

Beside what does this actually have to do with the Benghazi scandal anyway? Or yet another lame attempt to blame Bush?
As long as you want to play the Benghazi card, DEMs must play the dozens of GOP cards they own.
There's no need for DEMs to allow this tar-and-feathering to go unchallenged.
Time for some political ads showing how the GOP is LYING on Benghazi and who the true SCUMBAGS are for using these deaths as politically.
 
And where did this intel come from?
Time for the Senate to open up just as many committees to investigate GOPs as what you're wasting taxpayer money on.

Gee whiz. I'd have to go digging for that one. I believe Israel, Germany, UK, and a couple of others.

Obama is guilty until he proves himself innocent in your eyes.
You people made up the charges and now you're just trying to invent the evidence to fit, just like the IRA and the rest.

Sorry, no. That's a load of BS. Obama has been caught out on a number of occasions lying to the electorate right in the press conferences.
Have you already forgotten 'you can keep you plan'?
Have you already forgotten 'you can keep your doctor'?
Have you already forgotten 'save $2,500 a year on healthcare'?

And any number of other bold faced lies?

Both assertions by this president has turned out that the administration knew exactly that this wasn't the case. So you know it's not true, but you say it anyway?
What sort of sort of situational ethics rationalization have you offer?

As long as you want to play the Benghazi card, DEMs must play the dozens of GOP cards they own.
There's no need for DEMs to allow this tar-and-feathering to go unchallenged.
Time for some political ads showing how the GOP is LYING on Benghazi and who the true SCUMBAGS are for using these deaths as politically.

Please bring forth where you believe the GOP is lying about Benghazi.

I stand by my position:
The entire controversy, in my view, has 2 main parts.
  • 4 dead Americans, one of which a respected ambassador were killed
    • Repeatedly asked for greater security, and were never granted such
    • State didn't want a 'heavy footprint' (security presence) at that embassy
    • It was obvious that on 9/11 anniversary the likelihood of an attack is increased
  • After the event, in the heat of the rapidly concluding election, no bad news for the Obama administration must have been the mandate. Hence misdirection of quickly discredited memes that the administration put in talking point to present in the media, even though the truth of the attack being well coordinated and pre-planned was already well known to the administration shortly after the attack started.
Now, for #1, it's a darn shame, but sometimes mistakes are made and there are errors in judgement. You learn from the event, and make policy and procedural changes to prevent a recurrence. Fine.

For #2, I find it inexcusable that the administration, one again, lies to the public when politically convenient. Further, I find it dam frustrating that some would accept this as perfectly acceptable behavior. In my view, and according to my value system, it isn't. It raises the question as to what values the people hold who accept this as perfectly acceptable behavior.

This part of the Benghazi issue is far from over, in spite of nearly everyone on the left wanting to bury it.
 
And where did this intel come from?
Time for the Senate to open up just as many committees to investigate GOPs as what you're wasting taxpayer money on.



Obama is guilty until he proves himself innocent in your eyes.
You people made up the charges and now you're just trying to invent the evidence to fit, just like the IRA and the rest.


As long as you want to play the Benghazi card, DEMs must play the dozens of GOP cards they own.
There's no need for DEMs to allow this tar-and-feathering to go unchallenged.
Time for some political ads showing how the GOP is LYING on Benghazi and who the true SCUMBAGS are for using these deaths as politically.



No......the Demos don't get to play the dozens of GOP cards they mooched off of someone. This is about the Demos Playing cards with Benghazi and without blurring lines over 911 and the country being hit on BO's watch. While BO was out partying West Coast raising that money for his election.

Lets see those lies.....don't just talk the talk, now.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1063227376 said:
:laughat:



Merely a false narrative? This is the difference between the deniers and everyone else. They either reject the notion that any wrong doing occurred at all, or they believe their own tripe to make it more palatable to swallow.

yep says a Bush supporter.

However, I do keep looking at it. The narrative afterward is mostly meaningless. I'd be more concerned about the errors before the the event. These would concern me more. Hilary took some wind out of that, wisely, by admitting errors. This was a strong political move. Instead, you guys worry about a narrative that lasted a short time, and was corrected. Of the two, it is far and away the most minor. As your side has done all through the Obama presidency, you exaggerate and hype the smallest thing so much, that anyone outside your circle merely dismisses you, and real criticism gets lost. I don't know why you can't see this, as you've lost election after election.
 
Did LBJ comment on something that just happened to another President--of course not.

We were talking of 9/11.
Since you lose on the two comparisons, you have to go way back in the last Century--losing credibility.

You can tell when righties are getting more desperate when their level of vitriol rises to yours .

I can tell when you can't answer for the lies of the administration you support. You got one, or are you going to continue to deflect in support of the lies? There's a long list. Since the president can't, or won't, as an ardent supporter, maybe you can take the high road in his scumbag stead.
 
Remember when Romney first jumped on Benghazi, making it an election issue?
What did DEMs do on the original 9/11/2001?
They were expected to act like Patriotic lemmings for the party of the Patriotic, the GOP, and they did.

There will never be peace in foreign policy, as there will never be peace with any GOP faux issue.
Even if the GOP impeaches another DEM President, it will not satisfy their hatred of the DEMs over Watergate.

Your icon Goldwater is turning over in his grave on Benghazi.
Imagine how Goldwater would have responded if DEMs tried to pull this **** on Beirut in the 80's, when he was still in the Senate .

For the most part I believe politics should end at the waters edge. There are exceptions. The democrats showed this over Vietnam, but then Goldwater had advised LBJ to either win that damn war as he put or bring our boys home. LBJ did neither. But back then it was the Democratic Party that consisted of the hawks, a lot of Republicans were still isolationist. Vietnam changed that. The Democrats went from FDR, Truman, JFK and LBJ to McGovern and Carter. McGovern I think gets a bad rap.

I don't think Republicans hated the Democrats over Watergate, that was Nixon's doings. Not the break in, but the cover up. I have no doubt a lot of Republicans probably did hate the Democrats for forcing Nixon out, but that quickly abetted. In reality more Democrats hated Nixon for exposing Alger Hiss plus some other antics than Republicans hated Democrats for Watergate. Now I would think the Democrats would have excellent grounds for hating Republicans for Clinton's impeachment. The public as a whole wanted Nixon gone and impeached, the public as a whole thought the Republicans were crazy, stupid even for trying to impeach Clinton. In fact Clinton favorable rating actually rose during his impeachment and when it was all over he was around 10 points higher than when it began. But that doesn't mean the public wasn't tired of his antics. They liked Bill and still do, but I am not sure if they would have voted for him again if he could have ran for a third term.

I haven't said much on Benghazi, oh I believe there was a cover up. But I am not sure for what. I suggest you go back and read Moot's post number 182. She may be on to something, perhaps not exactly what she is saying, but close enough. Remember this is from a guy who was in Laos when Nixon said we have no American GI's in Laos.
 
I haven't said much on Benghazi, oh I believe there was a cover up. But I am not sure for what. I suggest you go back and read Moot's post number 182. She may be on to something, perhaps not exactly what she is saying, but close enough. Remember this is from a guy who was in Laos when Nixon said we have no American GI's in Laos.

Now that Benghazi thread posters just scream the LIE card and and the COVER-UP card and calling Obama and his administration SCUMBAGS,
there's really nothing left to talk to you people about.

When you try to out-do I$$A likening everything Obama to Watergate AND worse,
we see the 3+ year Kangaroo court locked in place for two more years, or less.

Next week you guys will be back to the IRS card, voting Lerner in contempt, and the week after you'll go back to your favorite card ACA.
Tell me one more time why you hate the law please.

How do you feel about LYING GOPs who say one thing on ACA in DC and another on their website.
The only contribution from your GOP right now, since you identify with their key lies about Obama,
is to continue to raise the negatives and drive down voting numberrs, Nixon on steroids .
 
Last edited:
I can tell when you can't answer for the lies of the administration you support. You got one, or are you going to continue to deflect in support of the lies? There's a long list. Since the president can't, or won't, as an ardent supporter, maybe you can take the high road in his scumbag stead.
I'm comfortable supporting positives, like today's job numbers.
You're comfortable being Nixon on steroids, parroting non-issues as your GOP talking points instruct.
All negatives and no action, except driving down DEM voter totals and tax breaks for the rich.
Voodoo economics on steroids .
 
Now that Benghazi thread posters just scream the LIE card and and the COVER-UP card and calling Obama and his administration SCUMBAGS,
there's really nothing left to talk to you people about.

When you try to out-do I$$A likening everything Obama to Watergate AND worse,
we see the 3+ year Kangaroo court locked in place for two more years, or less.

Next week you guys will be back to the IRS card, voting Lerner in contempt, and the week after you'll go back to your favorite card ACA.
Tell me one more time why you hate the law please.

How do you feel about LYING GOPs who say one thing on ACA in DC and another on their website.
The only contribution from your GOP right now, since you identify with their key lies about Obama,
is to continue to raise the negatives and drive down voting numberrs, Nixon on steroids .

Hmm, sometimes I do not think you read too good. Sometimes I think you are too hyper and too ready to jump on anyone and everyone that you fail to comprehend.

In my world after 46 years either in or working for the military, doing some of the things I have done I can acknowledge that there are good lies and bad lies, good cover ups and bad cover ups. Some work and some do not. The good lies and good cover ups are done to protect national security assets, intel and operations. Bad lies and cover ups are done for personal or political gain. I assume you are bright enough to figure out which is which.

I would appreciate it though where you think I said something bad about President Obama or attacked him. All I did was advise you or ask you to go back and read Moot's post. Number 182. If that in your opinion makes me deserving of your tirade, I have to come to a conclusion that you are no longer interested in fair and what I think is honest judgement when it comes to President Obama. I also think that being against the ACA in your opinion brands you as a Republican, no matter if you support the president more times than not. I wonder if that 20% who identify themselves as democrats and oppose the ACA know that in fact they are really Republicans. At least in your eyes.

Anyway the wife says it is getting time for bed. That is a good thing. I always thought you were one Democrat I could talk too and have decent conversations without one of us going off on the other, oh well.
 
NSC Spokesman On Benghazi: Dude, That Was Two Years Ago - Business Insider

The brazen arrogance is familiar isn't it? It's what we've come to expect of an elitist, egotistical, maniacal administration.

I don't know. US diplomats and missions have been under attack for decades. Some attacks work and others fail. These things happen all the time and there is usually information indicating danger. What do you want to do? Of course you check the circumstances and fire the irresponsible. But it is part of the business of international security take casualties.
 
2 years later and Republicans are still complaining about Americans killed in an embassy... something they didn't care about in any of these other incidents...

Here are all the attacks under Reagan:

18 April 1983 Beirut, Lebanon Islamic Jihad car bomb destroys Embassy (see April 1983 U.S. Embassy bombing) 63 (of which 17 were Americans)
12 December 1983 Kuwait City, Kuwait al-Dawa truck bomb outside Embassy 6
20 September 1984 Beirut, Lebanon Hezbollah car bomb outside embassy (see 1984 United States embassy annex bombing) 24
November 1984 Bogota, Colombia Car bomb outside Embassy planted by drug cartel 1
February 1986 Lisbon, Portugal Popular Forces of 25 April car bomb outside Embassy none
14 May 1986 Jakarta, Indonesia Japanese Red Army mortar barrage none
9 June 1987 Rome, Italy Japanese Red Army mortar barrage none
17 September 1989 Bogota, Colombia RPG fired on Embassy by unknown assailant none

and Bush:

22 January 2002 Calcutta, India Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami gunmen attacked American cultural centre, which included public affairs office of nearby US Consulate (more details) armed assault 5 Indian security
14 June 2002 Karachi, Pakistan al-Qaeda truck bomb detonated outside Consulate (more details) bombing 12 Pakistani civilians
12 October 2002 Denpasar, Indonesia Consular Office bombed by Jemaah Islamiyah as part of the Bali bombings bombing none
28 February 2003 Karachi, Pakistan Unknown gunmen attack US Consulate (more details) armed assault 2 Pakistani security
30 June 2004 Tashkent, Uzbekistan Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan bombs US Embassy bombing none
6 December 2004 Jeddah, Saudi Arabia al-Qaeda gunmen raid diplomatic compound armed assault 5 Saudi personnel
4 attackers
2 March 2006 Karachi, Pakistan Car bomb explodes outside Consulate, killing a US diplomat (more details) bombing 1 US personnel
1 Pakistani personnel
1 Pakistani security
1 attacker
12 September 2006 Damascus, Syria Gunmen raid US Embassy armed assault 1 Syrian security
3 attackers
12 January 2007 Athens, Greece RPG Fired at Embassy by Revolutionary Struggle bombing none
18 March 2008 Sana'a, Yemen Mortar rounds missed US Embassy, hitting nearby school bombing 2 Yemeni civilians
9 July 2008 Istanbul, Turkey Armed attack against Consulate (more details) armed assault 3 Turkish security
3 attackers
17 September 2008 Sana'a, Yemen A coordinated attack resulted in a 20-minute battle with security (more details) armed assault 6 Yemeni security
5 Yemeni civilians
1 US civilian
6 attackers

Where was their outrage then? Nowhere. The right's insistence that this particular case should bring US politicians to justice is betrayed by the fact that they've NEVER cared about attacks on US embassy personnel when a Republican is in charge. In the words of right wing slavery apologists: It was a long time ago ago. Get over it. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom