Benghazi: What's the Charge Again?

[DeistPaladin]

Oh Sweet Reason. Seriously? You're still defending the Bush administration's case for war? I would have thought by now the right wing would be saying, "OK, he lied us into a war but that's all in the past now and let's not play the blame game."

[quote='DeistPaladin' pid='664463' dateline='1399303000']
[quote='A Theist' pid='664403' dateline='1399300157']
That's bull...to begin with, there's such an anti-American bias world wide that no American would stand a fair chance in an international Kangaroo Court. We can take care of our own.

Gee, maybe this anti-American bias isn't for no reason but because of stuff like the last Iraq war and the arrogance of certain conservatives that international law only applies to other countries. Recently, warhawk David Brooks who cheer led the Iraq War was on the air, got on the air to condemn Russia saying, without a hint of any awareness of the irony, "you don't just go around invading other countries."

But fine, we can try him here. I'd be happy with that. I think the rest of the world would be as well.

Secondly, if you're going to bring Bush up on charges over Iraq then you're also going to have go after Congress, Tony Blair, the British Parliament, the CIA, Britain's MI-6, and so on...They all saw the same MI-6 report that said Iraq had WMDs.

Don't diffuse responsibility. This was Bush administration's war. They pushed for it. They shoved for it. They got it. The buck stops with them.

The intelligence books were cooked by policy decision. The White House put tremendous pressure on the CIA and other groups to sing along. That's how the "Yellow Cake" story broke. It was b.s. and a brave reporter had the guts to say so. They outed his wife, a CIA agent, and ruined her career as an act of reprisal and then covered it up.

The Congress was controlled by the GOP and any Democrat or other resistance was labeled "unpatriotic" by the right wing. Sure, the Dems were spineless wimps and willing to go along with the GOP rather than put up a fight but what else is new?

A decision to go into Iraq was based on that report. Congress agreed, the British Parliament agreed, Tony Blair agreed, and so did some of our other allies. Just because Bush made a decision based on a British intelligence report that Blair brought to him doesn't prove he lied.

Downing Street Memo.
Yellow Cake from Niger.
Insider testimony from Clark.
The evidence is undeniable. Bush lied us into that war.

On the otherhand, I can't even begin to imagine that those so close to the President would keep him in the dark over what really happened in Benghazi....if Barack was truly in the dark over the events in Benghazi then Congress should find some way to impeach him for lack of experience and lack of leadership. IMO, I think Barack knew very early on that the attacks in Beghazi were terrorist attacks. I believe he lied, and I believe he knew of a cover up to hide the lie.

How about there was a lot of confusion, especially since there were violent Islamic protests elsewhere in the world at exactly that moment when the attack happened? We're only talking about a week later, remember and the White House did later correct and call it a terrorist attack. As scandals go, this is weak stuff and not worthy of the endless line of investigations that reveal nothing new.

Still researching the email from Rhodes. My preliminary finding is that this "smoking gun" like all the ones that came before it, are hyped up bullshit as well but I'm at work right now and will get to this when I can.

[Minimalist]

The Daily Show blasted the shit out of these two-bit phonies last night.

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/5aozn7...r-benghazi


http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/21ouz3...trage-spot

[DeistPaladin]

The Daily Show blasted the shit out of these two-bit phonies last night.

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/5aozn7...r-benghazi


http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/21ouz3...trage-spot

My one gripe here is that Stewart took the latest "smoking gun" (the latest in a long line of debunked smoking guns, the most notable being what was given air time on 60 minutes) seriously, at face value. The smoking gun may just be exhaling in the cold air.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/04/29/...-at/199067

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.

There's also a map that shows the violent protests at the time of the attack:


So yeah, there was reason to think, only a week afterwards, the attacks might have had something to do with the protests.

[Statler Waldorf]

This obsession has been going on for almost three years now …

The attack happened on September 11th, 2012 there chief.

Benghazi = black president.

Wait, you’re saying four Americans were killed because we have a black president? Racist.

[DeistPaladin]

The attack happened on September 11th, 2012 there chief.

Woah, sorry, I mistakenly thought that the terrorists, with their apparent obsession over numerology among other crazy beliefs, timed the attack on the 10 year anniversary. My bad. Thanks for the correction.

Wait, you’re saying four Americans were killed because we have a black president? Racist.

I think he's saying the witch hunt is over the fact that the president is black. Personally, I think he's wrong. I think it's over the fact that the president is a Democrat.

Benghazi = Whitewater 2, The Clinton Playbook Continues

[Heywood]

How about there was a lot of confusion, especially since there were violent Islamic protests elsewhere in the world at exactly that moment when the attack happened? We're only talking about a week later, remember and the White House did later correct and call it a terrorist attack. As scandals go, this is weak stuff and not worthy of the endless line of investigations that reveal nothing new.

Still researching the email from Rhodes. My preliminary finding is that this "smoking gun" like all the ones that came before it, are hyped up bullshit as well but I'm at work right now and will get to this when I can.

There was a drone flying over the consulate at the time of the attack. Why don't they release the footage?

[Statler Waldorf]

Gee, maybe this anti-American bias isn't for no reason but because of stuff like the last Iraq war and the arrogance of certain conservatives that international law only applies to other countries.

Yes the World Trade Center was attacked in 1993 and 2001 because Bush invaded Iraq in 2003. Effects now precede their causes. Makes perfect sense. Which international law was violated? I need specifics.

---

I think he's saying the witch hunt is over the fact that the president is black. Personally, I think he's wrong. I think it's over the fact that the president is a Democrat.

Benghazi = Whitewater 2, The Clinton Playbook Continues

Your eagerness to ascribe to every conspiracy theory under the sun regarding the Bush administration and reluctance to even consider ones under the Obama administration has nothing to do with their political affiliations would it?

[Heywood]

Your eagerness to ascribe to every conspiracy theory under the sun regarding the Bush administration and reluctance to even consider ones under the Obama administration has nothing to do with their political affiliations would it?

DeistPaladin has claimed several times in this thread that he doesn't find the evidence against Obama compelling.

You can argue the DeistPaladin is overly biased and blind to the obvious, but I don't think you can argue he is reluctant to consider the evidence.

[Elskidor]

DeistPaladin isn't alone in all of his opinions, but I'm just tired of hearing and debating it. I find the Republican side is far far more bias and the entire ordeal is beyond hypocritical, but that is not surprising. This dead horse has been beaten long enough. Let it die and pick something else to spam debate until 2016.

[Statler Waldorf]

DeistPaladin has claimed several times in this thread that he doesn't find the evidence against Obama compelling.

You can argue the DeistPaladin is overly biased and blind to the obvious, but I don't think you can argue he is reluctant to consider the evidence.

Perhaps I could have chosen a different word but someone saying they do not find the evidence to be compelling does not mean they have honestly considered it or even are aware of it. People engage in this sort of posturing all of the time. Obviously he started this thread in order to act as a shill for the Obama administration and he's done a fine job.

---

DeistPaladin isn't alone in all of his opinions, but I'm just tired of hearing and debating it. I find the Republican side is far far more bias and the entire ordeal is beyond hypocritical, but that is not surprising. This dead horse has been beaten long enough. Let it die and pick something else to spam debate until 2016.

I’d be interested in hearing how you measure a person’s level of bias sometime. Of course the Left wants this story to die and for everyone to focus on something else until 2016. Fortunately, it won’t die.