So your beef is with the government of Libya? Why didn't you just say so?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
New Disclosures on Benghazi
- Thread starter The Big Dog
- Start date
- Status
So your beef is with the government of Libya? Why didn't you just say so?
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
There isn't a conspiracy. The talking points changed. That's a fact. Who ordered them changed and why isn't well understand or explained by the administration.
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
I disagree. 16.5 loves the government of Libya, and takes everything its president says as the gospel truth.
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
And yet despite not knowing, the right is nevertheless convinced that Obama is responsible and that it was for nefarious purposes and is therefore a totally terribad thing deserving of months and months of Congressional hearings that get nowhere and reveal nothing.
I thought the comment about "no terrorists arrested" was directed at Libya, since they are a sovereign country and all. Do we even have arrest powers there?
The more I read about this, the less "there" seems to be there. And I'm really trying to see two sides to this. Really.
What gets me is, even in the worst case scenario (at least as bad as I can see alleged here) it's still not much. Maybe equivalent to misstating unemployment statistics to get some positive spin.
Something for politifact to cover maybe? It only gets legs if it plugs into another narrative about Obama being the sum of all evil. Is changing talking points something socialists do? That might be it.
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
Maybe he thinks that if Rice hadn't had the temerity to disagree with Magariaf's opinion (which couldn't possibly be wrong in any way) and thus forced Magariaf to hold a gigantic grudge against the entire US such that he took it out on the FBI agents that had no connection whatsoever to Rice that were sent to his country to investigate what happened to Americans in his country, that some suspects would have been arrested already.
Magariaf's temper tantrum which has apparently impeded the arrest of suspects for some eight months now, of course, is all Obama's fault.
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
It damaged our relationship with Libya. Which in turn hurt our ability to track down the people who killed a very senior member of our government.
Why you think this is something Congress should ignore is beyond me.
Those kind of mental gymnastics tell me I'm completely out of my league discussing the issues. I naively thought there were clear, straight-line suppositions to be explored. How do you manage to keep up with bizarro world? (Although I'm glad you do - I need an interpreter.)
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
Do you think that Congress needs to investigate every time an American official says something that contradicts what a foreign head of state says, especially when what that foreign head of state says is not entirely correct?
You mean except for the arrests of Muhammad Jamal al Kashef, Sheikh Adel Shehato and Nasr City terrorist cell?
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
Look, Hicks didn't say anything about them in his testimony, therefore that doesn't count!
Good enough. I don't think Congress should ignore it, but like most of what Congress does, it seems a great waste of time. I suppose it's better than what they might otherwise be doing though.
As far as our relationship with Libya goes, that sounds like something for the State Department to handle, or, if you want Congress to get involved, you might look to them to authorize some aid for the country. I assume that does something or other, although I've heard criticisms of Pakistan not prosecuting terrorists as much as we'd like.
I find it difficult to believe that the government of Libya wouldn't go after terrorists as a general policy, unless they couldn't or unless they covertly supported what the bad guys were up to.
I sense a bit of a problem though. It's as if whatever Libya actually does has to be related to us. I suspect Libya thinks more about what's best for Libya than how things will appear in the US. That might be a small part, but it seems simplistic to think it's the be-all and end-all.
But lets say all that is so. Is the allegation that the intent was to piss Libya off and allow terrorists to escape? That would be huge. Is that what you think is the reason the talking points were changed?
Or, is it more likely that this was an unforeseen consequence instead? Where do you think mistake lies and where animus and evil intent?
"You screwed up" is one thing. "You did this to allow terrorists to escape" is quite another.
Last edited:
KoihimeNakamura
Creativity Murderer
Because they haven't. This is the THIRD investigation. It's a witchhunt, much like the Dem's attempt during Bush 42's control.
Wait, what? Do you mean terrorists actually were arrested when I was just told they weren't? Darn. Does that mean I have to fact check everything he says now?
Here I was just taking things on faith. I feel like a noob.
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
They were arrested by Egypt for crimes in Egypt, has Egypt let the US talk to them yet about Benghazi?
As of February, the answer was no. Have not seen anything since.
By the way, thanks for a substantive response. I would be very interested in the status of these individuals.
Last edited:
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
- Messages
- 14,424
I disagree. The arguments from the witch hunters is very much like those from CTs.
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
Which is totally the fault of the Obama Administration and the result of Rice's comments angering the president of Libya, and this never would have happened if only they hadn't changed the memo.
- Status