New Disclosures on Benghazi

[elbe]

Now I know I'm not as informed as some other people but is there any reason to believe the memo wasn't changed to reflect the most accurate information believed at the time?

 

[A'isha]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/nati...-incompetence-but-no-cover-up-20130508?page=1

Hicks' testimony appeared to lend credence to longstanding GOP charges that the administration was deliberately hiding evidence that new al-Qaida-linked terrorist groups were at work killing Americans, since one of the president’s big talking points in the election was that he had decimated al Qaida.

In fact, however, even today it is not clear exactly what happened to precipitate the Benghazi attack, and Libya remains somewhat in a “fog of war” situation just as it was during the Benghazi attacks. It was only a week ago that the FBI posted images of three suspects captured by surveillance cameras the night of the attack, asking the public's help in identifying them. Just two weeks ago the French embassy in Tripoli was hit by a mysterious car bomb, injuring two guards.

[...]

The intelligence community continues to maintain the same defense: that at the time of Rice’s appearance it simply did not have a good grasp of what had happened, and in some cases could not divulge classified information that was coming in about the attack. “The [talking] points were not edited to minimize the role of extremists, diminish terrorist affiliations, or play down that this was an attack,” a U.S. official told National Journal on Wednesday. “ It is important not to overlook that there are legitimate intelligence and legal issues to consider, as is almost always the case when explaining classified assessments publicly. First, the information about individuals linked to al-Qaeda was derived from classified sources. Second, when early links are tenuous it makes sense to be cautious before pointing fingers to avoid setting off a chain of circular and self-reinforcing assumptions and reporting. Finally, it is important to be careful not to prejudice a criminal investigation in its early stages.” And Rice, to her credit, did say that Sunday that her statement was “based on the best information we have to date.” She also referred to “extremist elements, individuals, [who] joined in …”

[...]

But that hardly adds up to a cover-up. In the end, Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the chairman of the committee, may find himself digging yet another dry well, as he has done so many times. Even before he took over the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, with zero evidence in hand, Issa called Obama “one of the most corrupt presidents in modern times.” In his relentless search for evidence (and headlines) since, he has found nothing to back up that statement, including his highly publicized and largely fruitless hearings last June into the the Justice Department’s botched “Fast and Furious” gun-tracking program.

Benghazi was a tragedy. It will, almost certainly, remain a political issue. What it is not – by a long shot -- is a scandal yet.

 

[uke2se]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/nati...-incompetence-but-no-cover-up-20130508?page=1

I would actually disagree with that article. I think Benghazi is a scandal. It's a scandal that these republicans attempt to use the deaths of their countrymen as political fodder just because they don't like the President. That's where the outrage should be. I know I'm pretty miffed about it, and I'm not even American.

 

[Newtons Bit]

The 9/11 Conspiracy people say the same thing.

I said the same thing when I came out of my apartment and noticed a big scrape on my car.

Must be a conspiracy theory to assume that the scrape didn't just magically appear on its own.

 

[Tony]

I said the same thing when I came out of my apartment and noticed a big scrape on my car.

Did you claim the president of your car tried to cover up the cause of the scratch?

 

[elbe]

Did you claim the president of your car tried to cover up the cause of the scratch?

...I'm going to from now on

 

[RandFan]

Rand Fan, I do declare, you are working hard! Thank you for your concern

You are quite welcome. Have you found that evidence yet?

 

[RandFan]

The 9/11 Conspiracy people say the same thing.

And they demand hearings. How 'bout that?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Did you claim the president of your car tried to cover up the cause of the scratch?

Was there a draft memo stating that he knew who was responsible that was later changed to say something else?

 

[A'isha]

McCain Falsely Claims No Photos Exist Of Obama From The Night Of Benghazi Attack

 

[Tony]

And they demand hearings. How 'bout that?

Didn't they also demand impeachment? The big difference between the left and the right is that on the right, the kooks are in control. Even supposed "skeptics" are being pulled along on the crazy train.

 

[RandFan]

I would actually disagree with that article. I think Benghazi is a scandal. It's a scandal that these republicans attempt to use the deaths of their countrymen as political fodder just because they don't like the President. That's where the outrage should be. I know I'm pretty miffed about it, and I'm not even American.

I'll tell you what, if the GOP had a history of being outraged over attacks on US interests abroad I'd at least think them morally consistent. Why now? Why all of this outrage over a single attack when there have been so many in the past? Where was that outrage? I don't buy it. It looks like politics. It's smells like politics and it quacks like politics.

 

[A'isha]

Was there a draft memo stating that he was responsible that was later changed to say he wasn't?

There wasn't one for Benghazi, either.

 

[Tony]

Was there a draft memo stating that he was responsible that was later changed to say he wasn't?

You tell me, its your car.

 

[A'isha]

Didn't they also demand impeachment? The big difference between the left and the right is that on the right, the kooks are in control. Even supposed "skeptics" are being pulled along on the crazy train.

Huckabee Predicts Obama Benghazi Impeachment

 

[RandFan]

Didn't they also demand impeachment? The big difference between the left and the right is that on the right, the kooks are in control. Even supposed "skeptics" are being pulled along on the crazy train.

Yes. And many in the GOP know this. From anti-gay zealots to neo-cons to birthers... I have to agree with you (and it's a big reason I left the GOP).

 

[The Big Dog]

I'll tell you what, if the GOP had a history of being outraged over attacks on US interests abroad I'd at least think them morally consistent. Why now? Why all of this outrage over a single attack when there have been so many in the past? Where was that outrage? I don't buy it. It looks like politics. It's smells like politics and it quacks like politics.

[qimg]http://imageshack.us/a/img46/4200/diplomaticattacks4.png[/qimg]

Bwhahaha!!! You still haven't looked up tu quoque fallacy have you?

 

[RandFan]

Oey vey:

Oh, and then there is this little nugget (connect THAT dot).

But hidden beneath the GOP campaign is the fact that House Republicans voted to cut nearly $300 million from the U.S. embassy security budget. When asked if he voted to cut the funds this morning on CNN, Chaffetz said, “Absolutely“:

 

[RandFan]

Bwhahaha!!! You still haven't looked up tu quoque fallacy have you?

I posted the definition. I'm not justifying anything Obama did. I'm not saying your arguments are wrong because you are morally inconsistent. I'm saying you are being morally inconsistent.

• Your argument is wrong because you are morally inconsistent is fallacy.
• Your argument is wrong AND you are morally inconsistent isn't.

Also, IMO, your lack of moral consistency make me think the basis for your outrage is politics and nothing more.

 

[The Big Dog]

I posted the definition. I'm not justifying anything Obama did. I'm not saying your arguments are wrong because you are morally inconsistent. I'm saying you are being morally inconsistent.

• Your argument is wrong because you are morally inconsistent is fallacy.
• Your argument is wrong AND you are morally inconsistent isn't.

Also, IMO, your lack of moral consistency make me think the basis for your outrage is politics and nothing more.

Oh, you are admitting that you are attacking the arguer, not the argument.

That is refreshingly honest, RandFan.

You didn't post the definition, you posted two other definitions. I found it charmingly amusing.