New Disclosures on Benghazi - Part II

[applecorped]

Does anyone here buy 16.5's so-tortured-it-should-be-illegal-under-the-Geneva-conventions logic? [EDIT: Or his laughable "laymen understand 'stand down' differently" thing?]

Anyone at all?

yes, does this help you?

 

[A'isha]

I'm a buyer. The stand down confusion was created by an early news report by Fox News (of course no other media source had time to do this kind of reporting; they were too busy covering for the Obama administration and smearing Romney for an ill-advised tweet) which referred to an order to wait as an order to stand down. To the reporter, and to the layman (including me), those two things mean roughly the same thing. Apparently, in the military "stand down" has a more precise and categorical meaning, i.e. terminate all operations and go back to doing whatever you were doing before (presumably up to and including jerking off).

In the more fevered swamps of the right wing blogosphere the reference to a stand down order took on a life of its own and was deemed to be indicative of cowardice at the highest echelons of the power structure.

It wasn't just "the fevered swamps of the right wing blogosphere" that deemed it to be indicative of that, it was the highest levels of the Republican leadership. And they didn't take "stand down" to mean "wait", but to mean the same thing it meant to Gibson: "do nothing".

Issa himself, for instance, wondered “Was there a stand-down order to Leon Panetta or did he just not do his job? Was there a stand-down order from the president who said he told them to use their resources and they didn’t use them? ... Why there was not one order given to turn on one Department of Defense asset?” He also said he “I have my suspicions, which is Secretary Clinton told Leon [Panetta] to stand down.” It rather stretches the bounds of credulity to think that Issa was using "stand down" to mean "wait", especially considering he was wondering why there were no orders given to activate any military assets (which wasn't true) when talking about his supposed "stand down".

And Chaffetz, for his part, described the "four individuals in Libya [being] told to stand down" as "as sickening and depressing and disgusting as anything I have seen. That is not the American way", which is pretty strong language if he thought they were merely ordered to wait and guard the Embassy Tripoli personnel from potential attacks there (which is what actually was going on), but make perfect sense if he thought the "stand down" order was instead to do nothing at all.

The truth is there was no official stand down order, but of course it would have been absolutely absurd to issue one under such circumstances. It is a red herring to argue against there being one.

It's not a red herring, because the right is still trying to push the idea that there was a "stand down" order (explicitly meaning not "wait", but "do nothing" in their use of the term) and trying to find a way to blame Clinton for issuing it.

I think a more important issue, however, is one raised by the latest report. It seems that many hours after the President told Panetta to use all means possible to rescue Americans being attacked in Benghazi, no forces had actually moved. That is a remarkable span of inactivity when the President has ordered action. I think there was some bad planning at the highest levels, and also some bad implementation.

On this, I completely agree with you.

 

[A'isha]

yes, does this help you?

At least sunmaster14 explained why. Could you please do the same?

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Say, does anyone else notice that A'isha is ducking these facts:

<snip>

Only if by "ducking" you mean "discussing them fully and in depth, with documentation."

Which you probably do. Your use of language has been clearly demonstrated to be tortured, facile, and based on expediency, to put it as kindly as possible.

Better you should ask, "Has anyone else noticed how thoroughly and consistently A'isha has proven our claims about Hillary to be self-serving distortions and lies?"

The answer to that would be, "Yes. Everyone reading these threads who is honest with themselves and isn't consumed with an irrational hatred of the Clintons in general and Hillary in particular."

 

[The Big Dog]

Only if by "ducking" you mean "discussing them fully and in depth, with documentation."

Which you probably do. Your use of language has been clearly demonstrated to be tortured, facile, and based on expediency, to put it as kindly as possible.

Better you should ask, "Has anyone else noticed how thoroughly and consistently A'isha has proven our claims about Hillary to be self-serving distortions and lies?"

The answer to that would be, "Yes. Everyone reading these threads who is honest with themselves and isn't consumed with an irrational hatred of the Clintons in general and Hillary in particular."

You know you are talking about A'isha right? The person who, among other things, called Greg Hicks an idiot.

No, Everyone reading these threads who is honest with themselves and isn't consumed with an irrational hatred of the Clintons in general and Hillary in particular. Greg Hicks.

Fixed that for you!

 

[quadraginta]

An independent investigation. I suggest Edward Snowden and WikiLeaks.

Republicans hate independent investigations. Those are always too biased.

 

[Tony Stark]

Benghazi conspiracy theorists turn on Trey Gowdy

LMAO

 

[Reheat]

What a bunch of ********. There is no difference between "stand down" and wait or do not proceed to go. They essentially are synonymous to the laymen and to some military too. Gibson was being literal whereas Hicks was simply expressing a failure to act by the words "stand down", which Gibson perceived to be imprecise terminology. They are both a failure to act. There are a lot of stupid conversations and this is one of the top of all time...

 

[Tony Stark]

What a bunch of ********. There is no difference between "stand down" and wait or do not proceed to go. They essentially are synonymous to the laymen and to some military too. Gibson was being literal whereas Hicks was simply expressing a failure to act by the words "stand down", which Gibson perceived to be imprecise terminology. They are both a failure to act. There are a lot of stupid conversations and this is one of the top of all time...

So do we need a ninth BENGHAZI!!!111 investigation?

 

[Fudbucker]

So do we need a ninth BENGHAZI!!!111 investigation?

We've had one for awhile. The FBI is handling it.

 

[Tony Stark]

We've had one for awhile. The FBI is handling it.

The aren't investigating Benghazi. Though I have no doubt that after it turns up nothing, the Republicans won't accept the results and demand another investigation. They will probably set up a House committee to "investigate" President Hillary Clinton. Assuming of course that the Trump disaster doesn't cost them the House.

They are pathetic.

 

[quadraginta]

Benghazi conspiracy theorists turn on Trey Gowdy

LMAO

Classic.

He didn't give them the answers they wanted. So he must be part of the conspiracy to cover up Clinton's crimes.

Textbook CT.

 

[Meadmaker]

I haven't exactly become an expert on Benghazi in the last few days, but I know a lot more about it than I did before. This is a very weird story. Some of the key facts, I think, about this issue.

1. The Secretary of State doesn't order troops to go places.
2. The military response to the activities was not nearly as inept as I had been led to believe, although this was hardly their finest hour.
3. The fighting in Benghazi wasn't the way I pictured it. I pictured sort of a continuous firefight lasting several hours. That wasn't it. This contributed to the confusion about whether or not troops ought to be sent to this place or that place. Was it a series of coordinated strikes at multiple targets? Where might they strike next? On the other hand, I don't think a different response would have saved lives that night.
4. The public communication afterwards was pretty dismal. That whole movie/no movie thing made them look stupid.
5. Most of the commentaries afterwards focused on the "lying" by Obama and administration officials, but as I said earlier, I don't think it makes sense that they would lie about a movie scenario in order to cover up a terrorist attack scenario. A movie scenario is worse for them. There would be no point.
6. On the other hand, there is little doubt that Hillary Clinton herself, and certain administration officials, made contradictory statements. After looking at some of them, I think what was really going on is that they wanted to make public statements that made themselves look confident and in control, and they said whatever they happened to think at that moment in time, but said it with more confidence than was warranted by their actual knowledge. A lot of people don't like to admit that they don't know answers to questions. A lot of people don't like to admit that they were wrong in the past, even when it is clear they were. That's my take on things, anyway. They ended up looking stupid.
7. If the Republicans hadn't tried to overplay their hand, they might have done a lot more damage to Hillary. As it is, she has successfully taken a very bad situation, and used it to make her opponents look worse than her. Republicans have done that a lot over the last 30 years, especially when aiming at someone named Clinton.
8. Looking at the way she handled this situation, it makes me less likely to want to vote for Clinton, but she's running against Trump, so I will.

 

[DavidJames]

I haven't exactly become an expert on Benghazi in the last few days, but I know a lot more about it than I did before. This is a very weird story. Some of the key facts, I think, about this issue.

1. The Secretary of State doesn't order troops to go places.
2. The military response to the activities was not nearly as inept as I had been led to believe, although this was hardly their finest hour.
3. The fighting in Benghazi wasn't the way I pictured it. I pictured sort of a continuous firefight lasting several hours. That wasn't it. This contributed to the confusion about whether or not troops ought to be sent to this place or that place. Was it a series of coordinated strikes at multiple targets? Where might they strike next? On the other hand, I don't think a different response would have saved lives that night.
4. The public communication afterwards was pretty dismal. That whole movie/no movie thing made them look stupid.
5. Most of the commentaries afterwards focused on the "lying" by Obama and administration officials, but as I said earlier, I don't think it makes sense that they would lie about a movie scenario in order to cover up a terrorist attack scenario. A movie scenario is worse for them. There would be no point.
6. On the other hand, there is little doubt that Hillary Clinton herself, and certain administration officials, made contradictory statements. After looking at some of them, I think what was really going on is that they wanted to make public statements that made themselves look confident and in control, and they said whatever they happened to think at that moment in time, but said it with more confidence than was warranted by their actual knowledge. A lot of people don't like to admit that they don't know answers to questions. A lot of people don't like to admit that they were wrong in the past, even when it is clear they were. That's my take on things, anyway. They ended up looking stupid.
7. If the Republicans hadn't tried to overplay their hand, they might have done a lot more damage to Hillary. As it is, she has successfully taken a very bad situation, and used it to make her opponents look worse than her. Republicans have done that a lot over the last 30 years, especially when aiming at someone named Clinton.
8. Looking at the way she handled this situation, it makes me less likely to want to vote for Clinton, but she's running against Trump, so I will.

I agree with most of your points. But looking at what you wrote, what leads to be less likely to vote for Clinton. I see very little substance in your words to warrant it. I see nothing that doesn't happen often when crisis occur. Add to it that she was attacked from day one. There must be something I'm missing.

 

[Giordano]

Classic.

He didn't give them the answers they wanted. So he must be part of the conspiracy to cover up Clinton's crimes.

Textbook CT.

I alluded to this in a reply I made to a post by 16.5- I am convinced that for those who viscerally hate Ms. Clinton, any committee report or investigation into Benghazi that does not conclude that her actions were villainous and reprehensible must not, by definition, be "the truth." Thus the number of investigations launched and concluded on this matter.

What is amazing to me is that with all this right wing enthusiasm and political pressure, the latest Republican investigation has been able to come up with relatively so little against Clinton. And arguments that this is because the Obama administration didn't fully cooperate with the Republican-lead committees seem hollow to me- actual wrong doing and crimes are unearthed all the time without any cooperation by the guilty parties.

 

[sunmaster14]

I alluded to this in a reply I made to a post by 16.5- I am convinced that for those who viscerally hate Ms. Clinton, any committee report or investigation into Benghazi that does not conclude that her actions were villainous and reprehensible must not, by definition, be "the truth." Thus the number of investigations launched and concluded on this matter.

What is amazing to me is that with all this right wing enthusiasm and political pressure, the latest Republican investigation has been able to come up with relatively so little against Clinton. And arguments that this is because the Obama administration didn't fully cooperate with the Republican-lead committees seem hollow to me- actual wrong doing and crimes are unearthed all the time without any cooperation by the guilty parties.

You do realize that the guilty parties here happen to be in charge of the executive branch of the United States and can simply refuse to give up any evidence they want, right? No, I guess you don't because otherwise you wouldn't have made such an absurd analogy. If Nixon had destroyed the White House tapes, tapes which he made himself for his own use, the Watergate investigation would be remembered as a failed, partisan witch hunt. I still have no idea why he didn't. I guess he wasn't quite as brazen as Obama and Hillary.

 

[Tony Stark]

You do realize that the guilty parties here happen to be in charge of the executive branch of the United States and can simply refuse to give up any evidence they want, right? No, I guess you don't because otherwise you wouldn't have made such an absurd analogy. If Nixon had destroyed the White House tapes, tapes which he made himself for his own use, the Watergate investigation would be remembered as a failed, partisan witch hunt. I still have no idea why he didn't. I guess he wasn't quite as brazen as Obama and Hillary.

Classic conspiracy theorist. The lack of evidence of wrongdoing on Obama and Hillary's part (in eight investigations!) only proves they were successful in the coverup.

We need a ninth investigation!

Do you understand how pathetic and desperate you people sound?

LOL

 

[Giordano]

You do realize that the guilty parties here happen to be in charge of the executive branch of the United States and can simply refuse to give up any evidence they want, right? No, I guess you don't because otherwise you wouldn't have made such an absurd analogy. If Nixon had destroyed the White House tapes, tapes which he made himself for his own use, the Watergate investigation would be remembered as a failed, partisan witch hunt. I still have no idea why he didn't. I guess he wasn't quite as brazen as Obama and Hillary.

Remind me again- did Nixon volunteer the information that he had the tapes and offer spontaneously to supply them to the Watergate committees and special prosecutor? Or instead was it revealed in testimony by a Whitehouse aide without Nixon's approval? As a result of this revelation of the tapes' existence, did Nixon then go on to immediately cooperate with the committee and provide the unedited tapes? Or did Nixon fight to keep them secret and fire both the special prosecutor and the attorney general in an attempt to do so? Subsequently Nixon would only volunteer to provide edited versions of the tape, fought multiple subpoenas, and and took the matter to the Supreme Court before he released the tapes. In fact, isn't it pretty clear that Nixon did destroy at least 18.5 minutes of a critical tape? Was this what you see as cooperation? Assuming that you do remember these events I am surprised that you don't find them "brazen."

I hardly see this as evidence that the Executive Branch can prevent being charged with serious crimes and deeds if they simply do not fully cooperate with a Congressional investigation- the facts were revealed and Nixon was forced from office facing certain impeachment despite his multiple attempts to stonewall it and cover it up.

You appear to be indicating that the Executive Branch can only be successfully investigated and found to be guilty of misbehavior if they cooperate with the investigation. The historical facts do not support this.

 

[sunmaster14]

Remind me again- did Nixon volunteer the information that he had the tapes and offer spontaneously to supply them to the Watergate committees and special prosecutor? Or instead was it revealed in testimony by a Whitehouse aid without Nixon's approval? As a result of this revelation of the tapes' existence, did Nixon then go on to immediately cooperate with the committee and provide the unedited tapes? Or did Nixon fight to keep them secret and fire both the special prosecutor and the attorney general in an attempt to do so? Subsequently Nixon would only volunteer to provide edited versions of the tape, fought multiple subpoenas, and and took the matter to the Supreme Court before he released the tapes. In fact, isn't pretty clear that Nixon did destroy at least 18.5 minutes of a critical tape? Was this what you see as cooperation? Assuming that you do remember these events I am surprised that you don't find them "brazen."

I hardly see this as evidence that the Executive Branch can prevent being charged with serious crimes and deeds if they simply do not fully cooperate with a Congressional investigation- the facts were revealed and Nixon was forced from office facing certain impeachment despite his multiple attempts to stonewall it and cover it up.

You appear to be indicating that the Executive Branch can only be successfully investigated and found to be guilty of misbehavior if they cooperate with the investigation. The historical facts do not support this.

The main difference is that the Republicans were not using scorched earth tactics to defend their President at all costs (they never do). The Democrats today do. It is literally impossible to investigate the executive branch if almost half of Congress acts as its Praetorian guard. Especially if the media has no interest, which it almost never does when a Democrat is President.

Here's a question. How many special prosecutors have been sicked on the Obama administration? Answer: Zero. How many Congressional investigations have led to a single resignation or punishment of an executive branch officer? Answer: One. Do you think it's because the Obama administration has been relatively scandal free? I can reel off half a dozen off the top of my head. Here's a more comprehensive list.

I would say that the ATF gunwalking scandal (which included undisputed lying to Congress by the DOJ), the IRS targeting scandal, the PRISM surveillance scandal, the investigations of reporters pursuant to the Espionage Act, and the VA scandal all merited a bipartisan Congressional investigation at a minimum, and probably a special prosecutor in most of the cases. The Democrats never cooperated on any of those scandals. They only obstructed.

 

[Tony Stark]

Why would Democrats help the Republicans in their extremely obvious partisan witchhunts?

And the previous President is a literal war criminal who lied his way into a war that got thousands of Americans killed. Do Republicans give the slightest **** about that? No, of course not. Because he is Republican.

Republicans don't give a flying **** about the so called scandals like Benghazi except trying to use them for their political gain. It could not be more obvious. That's why Democrats don't play along.