New Disclosures on Benghazi

[RandFan]

Did W lie about 9/11?

He ignored all the warnings. IIRC he said there were no warnings or that it wasn't anticipated. W lied about Katrina and put in an incompetent as the head of FEMA with no experience for such a position. People died as a direct result of that. W lied about WMD in Iraq. Lots of people died as a result. If you want to argue Bush didn't lie I think your only other choice is gross incompetence. Bad news any way you look at it.

 

[RandFan]

Sure. And as I recall, Bush and Cheney caught a lot of flak over it.

Flak huh? Just flak?

Col. Hans Landa: You'll be shot for this!
Lt. Aldo Raine: Nah, I don't think so. More like chewed out. I've been chewed out before.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

He ignored all the warnings.

And that seems to be the extent of the allegations here when you strip away the hyperbole, insinuation and leading questions (JAQing off).

People who alleged that Dubya was responsible for the deaths in the 9/11 attacks or was trying to protect those who were responsible were rightly villified as CT nutjobs lacking any credibility.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Is this a fair summary of the questions from this thread:
1) was there a DELIBERATE cover up of something?
If so,
2) what was being covered up?
3) who was doing the covering up?
4) who knew about the cover up?
5) why was there a cover up?
6) could there be any legitimate reason to not have released the information that was "covered up"?

Yeah, turns out I was all wrong in my earlier prediction that this thread would only result in CT talk rather than any substantive discussion of U.S. politics.

What we have here is nothing like the 9/11 CT threads!

 

[A'isha]

Sure. And as I recall, Bush and Cheney caught a lot of flak over it.

Were there months and months of repeated Congressional Oversight Committee hearings about their role in what happened and investigating what they told the American public?

No? Hmm...

 

[RandFan]

And that seems to be the extent of the allegations here when you strip away the hyperbole, insinuation and leading questions (JAQing off).

People who alleged that Dubya was responsible for the deaths in the 9/11 attacks or was trying to protect those who were responsible were rightly villified as CT nutjobs lacking any credibility.

Yeah, turns out I was all wrong in my earlier prediction that this thread would only result in CT talk rather than any substantive discussion of U.S. politics.

What we have here is nothing like the 9/11 CT threads!

You and me both.

 

[RandFan]

Kristol shreds Karl Rove’s super PAC over anti-Hillary Benghazi attack ad

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Indeed.

We still do not actually know who was responsible for the attack and no group claimed responsibility.

Apparently some of the attackers were members of Ansar al-Sharia militia group, but the attackers might have been a heterogenic group affiliated with different militia groups (Parts of Martyrs of 17 February Brigade? Omar Abdurrahman group? Individuals from Libyan Supreme Security Council police? etc).

Some of the attackers claimed their motivation was the video, but perhaps the attackers had also other motivations.

And if it was a preplanned attack we do not know who planned it and when (months before? weeks? days? hours?).


Libyan government's early assessments seemed to be conlicting. They blamed supporters of Muammar Gaddafi and then OTOH al-Qaeda. Prime minister Mustafa Abu Shagur downplayed the assumption of al-Qaeda after arresting at least four suspects and promising more arrests: "We don't have any proof as yet of an al-Qaeda presence as an organisation in Libya," although "some youths have been influenced by the extremist ideology of al-Qaeda" (Libya makes arrests over Benghazi attack)

Some days later Libyan President Mohamed Magariaf said in "Face the Nation" that they had already arrested about 50 suspects, and that it was a preplanned attack "by foreigners" - he does not specifically mention al-Qaeda, but the reporter does.

I wonder what happened to the big breakthrough the Prime Minister claimed, and to those 50 arrested suspects the President mentioned.

Thanks for this info.

Sounds like allegations of a conspiracy or cover up are a bunch of noise about nothing at this point.

And Romney's slam at Obama during the debate was utterly pointless.

 

[RandFan]

Robert Gates: I think my decisions would have been the same

Gates: Some Benghazi critics have "cartoonish" view of military capability

"Frankly, had I been in the job at the time, I think my decisions would have been just as theirs were," said Gates, now the chancellor of the College of William and Mary.

"We don't have a ready force standing by in the Middle East, and so getting somebody there in a timely way would have been very difficult, if not impossible." he explained.

Suggestions that we could have flown a fighter jet over the attackers to "scare them with the noise or something," Gates said, ignored the "number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from [former Libyan leader] Qaddafi's arsenals."

"I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi under those circumstances," he said.

 

[TimCallahan]

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit
Did W lie about 9/11?

Does claiming that Iraq was involved in the attack constitute lying?

For that matter, Bush, Cheney and company asserted that Iraq was building a nuclear arsenal.

 

[RandFan]

Sorry for my failure to supply a source.

Gates: Some Benghazi critics have "cartoonish" view of military capability

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Conservative commentator David Brooks' take on this sounds pretty reasonable:

http://egbertowillies.com/2013/05/1...ect-take-on-benghazi-on-meet-the-press-video/

And does Issa sound more and more like a slimy bastard nearly every day? To claim Ambassador Pickering refused to testify at his committee, when he knew it was false, while Pickering was present on Meet the Press is not only slimy but stupid.

 

[RandFan]

Conservative commentator David Brooks' take on this sounds pretty reasonable:

http://egbertowillies.com/2013/05/1...ect-take-on-benghazi-on-meet-the-press-video/

Thanks.

And does Issa sound more and more like a slimy bastard nearly every day? To claim Ambassador Pickering refused to testify at his committee, when he knew it was false, while Pickering was present on Meet the Press is not only slimy but stupid.

I thought David Gregory did a reasonable job of interviewing Issa (video at Huff Po. I couldn't find another). And I thought Issa's answers sounded like a politician running for office.

 

[marplots]

I think Issa is doing just what his base wants - harassing the Dems until something, somewhere, sticks. And I think they believe there will be something. If not Benghazi, then the IRS. If not the IRS, then something else.

I think it will work too, at least for some segment of the conservative voting public. After all, who doesn't want a bulldog stirring up trouble for one's political enemies? And, even if no scandal emerges, it's good enough to have a litany of accusations to use when the election rolls around again.

Say it often enough and say it loud enough and of course, it must be true. Issa, for all the slime, is being an effective voice for outraged conservatives.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

For those making the tu quoque argument, the fact that there were several terrorist attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities (mostly embassies) during Bush's terms is more similar than the 9/11 attacks.

For those keeping score at home, under Bush's watch, 12 attacks resulted in 62 deaths, while under Obama's watch so far, 3 attacks have resulted in 13 deaths.

The fact is, working in embassies is very often a dangerous job. The people who take these positions are usually dedicated people who accept that risk. Granted, it doesn't justify needlessly or recklessly increasing the risk (as the GOP did when it cut the embassy security budget knowing full well that since Bush took office some 70 people have been killed in embassy attacks).

What we really ought be doing is decrying the politicization of these events that are, sadly, relatively common. Instead we should be praising the people who take these risky jobs and doing what we can to reduce that risk.

The only way I see this being a valid political topic is to discuss possible effects on the 2016 election. [ETA: Or, more realistically the midterm election next year.] Personally, I think the effect of all this will be slim to none because this will by then be relatively speaking, ancient history (unless a real scandal is uncovered--something like solid evidence that Hillary Clinton actually knew that specific attack was being planned and intentionally ignored it knowing people would die--n.b.: this is not the same thing as saying she or someone else ignored vague intel or threats that they deemed not credible).

As Brooks said, it's more likely to blow up in the Republicans' face, just as it did when Romney raised the issue during the debate with Obama. It's clearly partisan politics when an absurd (damned if you do; damned if you don't) standard of behavior is applied to one president that was never applied to others.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think Issa is doing just what his base wants - harassing the Dems until something, somewhere, sticks. And I think they believe there will be something. If not Benghazi, then the IRS. If not the IRS, then something else.

I think it will work too, at least for some segment of the conservative voting public.

How do you define it working? I think it can only be attractive (or even palatable) to the base that already votes conservative.

ETA: Also, if Hillary in 2016 is the target, it's waaay too early. There are a lot of 15 minute news cycles between now and campaign season.

 

[RandFan]

As Brooks said, it's more likely to blow up in the Republicans' face, just as it did when Romney raised the issue during the debate with Obama. It's clearly partisan politics when an absurd (damned if you do; damned if you don't) standard of behavior is applied to one president that was never applied to others.

When the Clinton whitewater scandal was first reported I was certain that Clinton would be impeached. I followed the story very closely and at some point I realized that the plausible deniability on Clinton's part was just to strong to get past. I was fine with the investigation and simply realized it just didn't pan out. But when the investigation went on and on and then was ever shifting in search of something I felt jaded. I wasn't interested in a partisan witch hunt. I was happy to condemn Clinton for lying but this wasn't the coverup of some crime. It was a coverup of his betrayal of family.

I think Issa is doing just what his base wants - harassing the Dems until something, somewhere, sticks. And I think they believe there will be something. If not Benghazi, then the IRS. If not the IRS, then something else.

I was a manager for 9 years and the philosophy my supervisor gave me was this, "assume that at any given time there is someone, somewhere under your supervision doing something wrong and it is your job to find it".

I think that is the philosophy of the GOP (and when the Dems are in power they often do it also).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I was a manager for 9 years and the philosophy my supervisor gave me was this, "assume that at any given time there is someone, somewhere under your supervision doing something wrong and it is your job to find it".

I think that is the philosophy of the GOP (and when the Dems are in power they often do it also).

I wouldn't mind if he were trying to ferret out wrong doing. In fact, I'd applaud that.

Here's what I was talking about from the Meet the Press interview:

REP. ISSA: This is a failure, it needs to be investigated. Our committee can investigate. Now, Ambassador Pickering, his people and he refused to come before our committee that…

AMB. THOMAS PICKERING (Former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs/Chair, Accountability Review Board on Benghazi): That is not true.

GREGORY: All right. We’re-- we’re going to get to Ambassador Pickering.

REP. ISSA: We have-- we have it in-- we have it in writing, we have White House correspondence. It may not have been the Ambassador’s decision but it was the White House decision. That has been reversed. We’re inviting him on Monday along with Admiral Mullen to come, to go through, with his papers, a private deposition so we can get the facts in a nonpartisan way.

GREGORY: Right.

REP. ISSA: We’ll have Republicans and Democratic…

GREGORY: Well, all right. Ambassador Pickering, you-- you just jumped in here. You’re willing to appear?

AMB. PICKERING: Of course. I’ve said the day before the hearings, I was willing to appear to come to the very hearings that he disclu-- he excluded me from. The White House told me back that he said…

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/51857413/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/#.UZE1xKC0qlg

If you're going to make accusations, especially if you're going to accuse an ambassador of not cooperating--especially when he's sitting right there--you'd better have your facts right. If Issa or his office excluded Pickering from the hearings, Issa had better know that.

 

[jj]

How do you define it working? I think it can only be attractive (or even palatable) to the base that already votes conservative.

ETA: Also, if Hillary in 2016 is the target, it's waaay too early. There are a lot of 15 minute news cycles between now and campaign season.

No, it's for starting the impeachment proceedings against Obama. They have a majority in the house after all.

It's more of "how to paralyze the government" in order to prevent a stronger economic recovery, and give them a better chance of crashing the economy a month before 2016.

And, as is clear from the fact Issa won't let people testify unless he knows they are in his camp, it is a knowing, intentional abuse of power intended to usurp lawfully elected members of the executive branch.

 

[RandFan]

OK, totally overwhelmed.

At least 1000 new articles about the ABC report.

Sunday Morning news programs have scheduled updates.

History as it happens.

Given Bill Kristol, Robert Gates, Admiral Pickering, etc., etc. Does anyone find this particularly historical? Issa said that Obama and Clinton are not targets. I'm still left scratching my head. I don't see much history in the making. Perhaps a footnote.

Did anyone see anything that was particularly persuasive to think Benghazi deserves significant historical reference?