In response to:
They have stalled, lied, and evaded for too long.
I asked:
Toward what end? What were they trying to accomplish?
The response I got was:
For a start, we are going to find out what happened, and when. … Hows that for a start?
Apparently, I was misunderstood. I meant "toward what end" did people in the administration "stall, lie, and evade"?
As I outlined in that post (#115):
- There is a strong consensus among military experts that nothing could have been done to rescue the Ambassador once the attack was underway. So nothing there to cover up.
- Within two weeks of the attack, both top WH counterterrorism officials and Secretary Clinton made public statements that were widely reported linking AQ affiliates to the attack. So the idea that the administration was misleading anyone in order to maintain a fiction about AQ being "on the run" simply makes no sense. Of course, the whole thing makes no sense at all since AQ has surely been nothing but "on the run" since Sept 2001.
So I'm still wondering what it is that was being covered up.
The difference is that the President and his cabinet lied to us for two weeks and planted a false story about the attacks on Benghazi were inspired by a youtube video.
There was no lie. If there was. for God's sake, once and for all, let's hear it. WHO SAID WHAT that is a lie?
And then the administration recognized its mistake and said it was an act of terror.
Obama said it was an act of terror the next morning in the Rose Garden. The "mistake" was the CIA's decision to give credence to local newspaper reports that pointed to a protest over the video as instigating the assault on the facility. And yes, Rice was put out on television the following weekend with talking points that were designed to keep both State and CIA happy. It was taking the path of least bureaucratic resistance. It was inadequate — a mistake. But there was no lying and no covering up.
she contradicts herself in an effort to cover all the bases. And she didn't acknowledge that she was pretty much the first person to trot out those talking points she said were being looked into.
Where does she contradict herself? What did she fail to acknowledge? When did she do this "trotting out"?
It was not a mistake. It was an outright bald faced lie.
One MORE time, where is the lie? You guys say this over and over. Fox repeats it over and over. It's certainly more than clear to me that you guys have no doubt whatsoever about this. You don't voice doubts or suspicions. You KNOW that somebody, presumably Obama and/or Clinton and maybe others, lied. So you really should agree that you will have no problem, none at all, telling me just what that big old lie is. I don't mean to be a jerk or give anyone the satisfaction of thinking that they're getting under my skin, but I suppose I am becoming annoyed. So please, do me a favour, will ya? End the mystery.
Gaddafi became an American ally in 2003
Yes, and Stalin became one in 1941.
After some Americans got their panties all wadded in a bunch because the mastermind of 9-11 was waterboarded
For those who were to young during the 1990's or those who are older but are inflicted with short term memory lost from drinking to much alcohol or smoking to much pot
Is that the level of debate that I should come to expect in this forum?
Obama was violating the "War Powers Act" and waging an unlawful war
The man has committed one serious crime after another. Why has nothing ever come of it. Oh that's right, with this committee, you'll finally be able to get 'im.
When Obama became President he refused to capture terrorist or Al Qaeda to gather intelligence probably because he had no place to put them except at GITMO or on U.S. soil.
Of course, it's very easy to capture these people. You just go out there with a butterfly net, right? And how much of an expert on counterintelligence in this specific area are you? What intelligence should we be risking American lives to gather?
Obama had no use for Gaddafi and threw him under the bus like he did with Egypt's President Mubarak who protected Israel's southern flank.
Yeah, Obama had no real use for a mass slaughter of civilians in Benghazi. If you recall, that's when the coalition began serious air strikes against Libyan armour and artillery. If we hadn't stopped the loyalist forces closing in on the city, I have to wonder if Stevens might have resigned. He'd be alive, and monumental outrage over our weak, indecisive, desperate, flailing, panicking, cowardly failure to lead and respond in time to save the lives of thousands of innocent civilians would have taken the place of the monumental outrage over our weak, etc, failure to protect the life of our ambassador.
And so you feel Israel is now threatened by Egypt. You wanted us to continue to side with a rather brutal dictator when a democracy movement was exploding in the streets of the most important Arab nation. Well, I suppose as long as we didn't do it in a weak, feckless, indecisive way, things would have turned out OK. Ya just need t' get in there boldly, with plenty o' feck.
Speaking of John Christopher, I never did get a response to my enquiry regarding what you Obama haters would think of Stevens if he hadn't been killed. Oh well, a heroic figure in death at least.
Take a look at the promises made by the dems over the last 6 years. Compare them to now. The democrat party has nothing.
I don't want to continue this off-topic line, but I feel compelled to note that I have repeatedly listed Obama's accomplished goals and all you do is keep on saying he's never achieved them. I suppose I'll just give up — what's the point?
The Democratic party has three things that come to mind at the moment: the WH, the Senate, and a
higher level of party identification than Republicans.
The CIA has to be pretty bush league to have done that ... or pretty much in the tank.
I'm not denying that version but it sounds more likely that it was really the WH who believed the media story because it was most serendipitous.
CIA has done this before, as was mentioned in that
Time article:
"The intelligence community’s inability to collect, analyze and assess the value of information that is not secret has been a dangerous weakness of American spook services for a long time. It’s not just that the CIA is bad at catching errors in public news reports. The agency also has a bad track record at finding and prioritizing accurate information that originates not from highly secret sources but from publicly available ones.
A famous example of the agency’s blindness to facts that aren’t secret came when India tested a nuclear weapon in May 1998, catching American policy makers off-guard even though Indian politicians had publicly said they intended to go nuclear. That blindness has apparently continued in the age of Facebook. In the case of Benghazi, the SSCI reported that the CIA missed open source communications in social media around Benghazi that “could have flagged potential security threats." —
A Benghazi Scandal That’s Already Been Revealed: The CIA Believed A Media Mistake