Thomas Ricks, Benghazi Issue, and Fox News

[thaiboxerken]

Oh, I agree. Especially that clown O'Donnell.

I doubt he said this.

 

[A'isha]

Weren’t protests against the scam film actually taking place at nearly the same time in different parts of the middle east

Yes. And just a few hours before the attack on the Benghazi consulate, protesters angry about the video stormed the US embassy in Cairo and tried to breach its walls.

 

[zeggman]

I could see the point of that before the election; but why bother now? It's done. What's the point? Do they think they're going to get the American electorate to demand to "take it back" and elect Romney instead? That can't even happen.

And anyway, they're not even running with the "Obama failed to protect" ball. Ever since Petraeus's testimony last week, the allegations about "leaving our people to die" and "denying military support when asked" seem to have come to a dead stop, at least from the Republicans on the Hill (the rank-and-file citizen support base probably continues to repeat them, not having been given different marching orders); whatever Petraeus et al told them during that hearing seems to have left no room or excuse for continuing that line of attack against the president. So now it's just this bizarre fixation over what Rice said on a couple of morning shows, as if her calling them protests instead of terrorist attacks somehow direly threatened national security or something.

It's pretty clear that Rice is Obama's choice to replace Hillary Clinton. When (not if) she's nominated, it would be unprecedented for the Senate to deny a President his choice of Cabinet appointment. I think the only thing Republicans stand to gain from it is to get some "See? We compromise all over the place" points when she's inevitably confirmed. It's an old negotiating tactic -- make a lot of noise about something you don't really give a damn about, and then grudgingly let it go to get something you really want.

 

[fishbob]

Rice appeared on CBS News' "Face the Nation" five days after the September assault and suggested that there was no evidence the incident was a pre-planned act of terrorism. She said the violence appeared to be a spontaneous flare-up by protesters enraged over an anti-Muslim video posted on YouTube.

Slight de-rail for today's rant:
What is the difference between "pre-planning" and regular planning?
The same as the difference between commingling (or is it comingling?) and regular mingling.
Not a damn thing.

The importance of this question should be of much greater concern to all of us than whatever Rice said in some interview.

Thank you.

 

[leftysergeant]

It's pretty clear that Rice is Obama's choice to replace Hillary Clinton. When (not if) she's nominated, it would be unprecedented for the Senate to deny a President his choice of Cabinet appointment. I think the only thing Republicans stand to gain from it is to get some "See? We compromise all over the place" points when she's inevitably confirmed. It's an old negotiating tactic -- make a lot of noise about something you don't really give a damn about, and then grudgingly let it go to get something you really want.

Remember John Bolton? There are people so far out there that nobody with common sense will allow them near any seat of power.

 

[Olowkow]

There is also this theory from Maddow as to why the republicans want Kerry instead of Rice. Frankly, the scenario strikes me as a little too clever in light of their recent abilities to orchestrate complex plans.

It doesn’t matter how many closed-door meetings Republicans have with the CIA and U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow theorized Tuesday, because Rice being named Secretary of State would prevent them from what they really want: the chance to get another seat in the Senate.
The reason, Maddow said, GOP lawmakers “prefer” Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) get a presidential cabinet nomination — either to that position or Secretary of Defense — is that the promotion would open up his Senate seat to a special election.

Raw Story (http://s.tt/1v8KN)

 

[Polaris]

Actually, it was sort of a back-handed compliment. MSNBC does not get as bogged in party loyalty and cheerleading as Fox Boobs.

That's three times in the same thread. Come on, you can and have done better than that.

 

[Upchurch]

Slight de-rail for today's rant:
What is the difference between "pre-planning" and regular planning?
The same as the difference between commingling (or is it comingling?) and regular mingling.
Not a damn thing.

Although it is obviously being misused here, there is a valid difference between planning and pre-planning. At least from a process engineering perspective.

/derail

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

From an opinion piece:

According to accounts of former CIA director David Petraeus' closed door testimony about Benghazi to congressional intelligence committees earlier this month, the intelligence community eliminated references to Ansar al-Sharia in the talking points so as not to tip off members of the terrorist group that the CIA believed that they were responsible for the attack.

The conspiracy therefore was not to mislead the American public but to mislead America's enemies.

If Rice had gone beyond her unclassified talking points and said that Ansar al-Sharia was suspected to be behind the Benghazi attacks, no doubt she would now be being hounded for the unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/27/opinion/bergen-gop-benghazi/index.html

 

[thaiboxerken]

I believe that to be true, Joe. This is not about Benghazi at all. It's just a witch hunt.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I believe that to be true, Joe. This is not about Benghazi at all. It's just a witch hunt.

If I understand you correctly, they caught one, named Rice.

Right?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

If I understand you correctly, they caught one, named Rice.

You obviously don't understand correctly. Strange, since he was using the conventional usage of the term:

witch-hunt also witch hunt (wchhnt)
n.
An investigation carried out ostensibly to uncover subversive activities but actually used to harass and undermine those with differing views.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/witch-hunt

Right?

 

[davefoc]

You are missing the point. He is comparing the reactions to the events and not the events themselves. The reporter had no idea how many had died for one very simple reason, the reporter didn't care. Their outrage over the death of Americans is provisional on whether the deaths can be used politically.

I think that is exactly right. There is zero doubt that Fox politicized the Benghazi attacks entirely as part of their overall corporate strategy of pandering to partisan conservatives. What was lost in the Fox nonsense was the heroism of the American ambassador and his staff that took significant risks to benefit American and Libyan interests. He could have stayed holed up in the embassy and been safe or he could have ventured out to do his job to the best of his ability. He did the latter, and Fox News didn't give a crap because their story was that he died because of either the Obama incompetence or cowardice. Also lost in the Fox News BS was the heroism of the American and Libyan defenders of the Ambassador and his staff. None of this mattered a lick to Fox because it makes its money by firing up true believers with hyper partisan rhetoric for which only a distant connection to reality is required.

Fox News carved out new ground here even for itself in its naked politicization and mischaracterizations about the details of an American tragedy to promote its own self interest by pandering to what it sees as its audience.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Obama was at least partly running on the message that he had kept Americans safe from terrorism. A terrorist attack by Al Qaeda on the anniversary of 9-11 that resulted in the deaths of 4 Americans might tend to undercut that message.

Yup, how'd that whole argument work out for you on... oh... say, November 6^th of this year?

 

[MattusMaximus]

I think that is exactly right. There is zero doubt that Fox politicized the Benghazi attacks entirely as part of their overall corporate strategy of pandering to partisan conservatives. What was lost in the Fox nonsense was the heroism of the American ambassador and his staff that took significant risks to benefit American and Libyan interests. He could have stayed holed up in the embassy and been safe or he could have ventured out to do his job to the best of his ability. He did the latter, and Fox News didn't give a crap because their story was that he died because of either the Obama incompetence or cowardice. Also lost in the Fox News BS was the heroism of the American and Libyan defenders of the Ambassador and his staff. None of this mattered a lick to Fox because it makes its money by firing up true believers with hyper partisan rhetoric for which only a distant connection to reality is required.

Fox News carved out new ground here even for itself in its naked politicization and mischaracterizations about the details of an American tragedy to promote its own self interest by pandering to what it sees as its audience.

And what's the main reason Fox News has for firing up the GOP/Tea Party base? One word: money

Keep the rubes fired up and stupid, and just watch the cash come rolling in. This sort of crap just reminds me of that old Don Henley song "Dirty Laundry"

 

[12AX7]

I think that is exactly right. There is zero doubt that Fox politicized the Benghazi attacks entirely as part of their overall corporate strategy of pandering to partisan conservatives. What was lost in the Fox nonsense was the heroism of the American ambassador and his staff that took significant risks to benefit American and Libyan interests. He could have stayed holed up in the embassy and been safe or he could have ventured out to do his job to the best of his ability. He did the latter, and Fox News didn't give a crap because their story was that he died because of either the Obama incompetence or cowardice. Also lost in the Fox News BS was the heroism of the American and Libyan defenders of the Ambassador and his staff. None of this mattered a lick to Fox because it makes its money by firing up true believers with hyper partisan rhetoric for which only a distant connection to reality is required.

Fox News carved out new ground here even for itself in its naked politicization and mischaracterizations about the details of an American tragedy to promote its own self interest by pandering to what it sees as its audience.

This.

 

[thaiboxerken]

If I understand you correctly, they caught one, named Rice.

Right?

Pretty much. Now the GOP will want to test and see if she's a witch by tossing her into the water with cement weight on her. If she drowns, she's innocent, but if she survives, she's a witch and they'll burn her. This is the typical GOP remedy for determining guilt of anyone, correct?