I was away for a couple days.....

[callmeslick]

....and, it seems that no one wishes to mention this?
http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/ ... =fb-mobile

[Ferno]

dude.. you know better than to use the "b" word around here.

[callmeslick]

seems that the 'B' word contingent overlooked this little gem, eh?

[Tunnelcat]

Heaven forbid Obama gets cleared of doing something wrong.

[Will Robinson]

Wow, you sure accept a very low standard for celebration and declaring no harm no foul.

this report was from the House Intelligence Committee that has been unable to interview personnel that were there...hasn't got any answers from the White House about the ambassadors purpose for being there at that time...when the talking points were authored and by who that Susan Rice used...

And this little new article you linked...a little thin...selective and blurring some lines between news and editorializing I think.

For example, this part:

-- The administration's process for developing "talking points" was "flawed, but the talking points reflected the conflicting intelligence assessments in the days immediately following the crisis."

Those talking points included assertions that those who attacked the compound were angered by an obscure anti-Muhammad video posted to YouTube in the U.S. There is disagreement to this day about whether that was the case.

Is that second line from the actual committee report or the San Fran reporters editorializing?

Because I remember the administration, specifically Hillary and Biden, long after the details were established, still using it, telling the parents in the hanger as their sons bodies were returned to the US that they would 'get that video producer'.

In fact, is any of it from the report? Because I read that the CIA and other intelligence agencies have to now sign off on it before it is made public. So this reporter is quoting a Democrat member of the committee giving his interpretation of the conclusion I believe. Shoot me for being a little leary of the potential for spin considering the source.

Do you really believe at that point when Hillary was blaming the video in her comments to the parents that those talking points were legitimate?

Do you have any question in your mind what basis the "disagreement" the reporter alludes to is built upon?
I wonder if it is even the conclusion of the committee or just the 'reporter' forgetting her responsibility as a journalist and making an excuse.

Obviously anyone can truthfully say there is 'still disagreement'..as long as there are kool-aid drinkers who want to ignore the intel and commentary from our government who shot down that theory within days based on first hand reports and internet chatter among all the usual islamic groups, etc. etc. But is that kind of partisan based disagreement worthy of mention in the context it was used to make it look like it was a part of the report?

It is no wonder there is a Select Committee starting up now focused on getting to the answers that the committee this article/editorial allegedly quoted failed to get.

But regardless of that, using this articles opening...'no proof of deliberate failure' is not much to celebrate...unless you are a partisan democrat I guess.

[Ferno]

Wow, you sure accept a very low standard for celebration and declaring no harm no foul.

this report was from the House Intelligence Committee that has been unable to interview personnel that were there...hasn't got any answers from the White House about the ambassadors purpose for being there at that time...when the talking points were authored and by who that Susan Rice used...

And this little new article you linked...a little thin...selective and blurring some lines between news and editorializing I think.

For example, this part:

-- The administration's process for developing "talking points" was "flawed, but the talking points reflected the conflicting intelligence assessments in the days immediately following the crisis."

Those talking points included assertions that those who attacked the compound were angered by an obscure anti-Muhammad video posted to YouTube in the U.S. There is disagreement to this day about whether that was the case.

Is that second line from the actual committee report or the San Fran reporters editorializing?

Because I remember the administration, specifically Hillary and Biden, long after the details were established, still using it, telling the parents in the hanger as their sons bodies were returned to the US that they would 'get that video producer'.

In fact, is any of it from the report? Because I read that the CIA and other intelligence agencies have to now sign off on it before it is made public. So this reporter is quoting a Democrat member of the committee giving his interpretation of the conclusion I believe. Shoot me for being a little leary of the potential for spin considering the source.

Do you really believe at that point when Hillary was blaming the video in her comments to the parents that those talking points were legitimate?

Do you have any question in your mind what basis the "disagreement" the reporter alludes to is built upon?
I wonder if it is even the conclusion of the committee or just the 'reporter' forgetting her responsibility as a journalist and making an excuse.

Obviously anyone can truthfully say there is 'still disagreement'..as long as there are kool-aid drinkers who want to ignore the intel and commentary from our government who shot down that theory within days based on first hand reports and internet chatter among all the usual islamic groups, etc. etc. But is that kind of partisan based disagreement worthy of mention in the context it was used to make it look like it was a part of the report?

It is no wonder there is a Select Committee starting up now focused on getting to the answers that the committee this article/editorial allegedly quoted failed to get.

But regardless of that, using this articles opening...'no proof of deliberate failure' is not much to celebrate...unless you are a partisan democrat I guess.

what. the ★■◆● kind of rant is this?

[woodchip]

what. the ★■◆● kind of rant is this?

What the feck kind of reply is this? Oh wait, Ferny is again trying to intelligently respond to a post he hasn't the intellect to understand.

[callmeslick]

ranting is all they can do when reality slaps them in the face. You can bet if that committee found ANYTHING, or even fell short of exhausting possibilities, some GOP staffer would be trumpeting it to Faux News.

[Will Robinson]

Rant or reasonable doubt?
Released report or a democrat giving a 'reporter' some spin in advance of the reports actual release?

I expect we will see a similar 'reporting' with selected bullet points from the republican side on Fox that is spinning in the counter direction...will you accept it as eagerly as you do this one? If not why? (That last question is key to your integrity, wrestle with it at your own peril and let your dogma be damned)

You can take the concerns I raised and pretend you don't see the distinctions. Ignore the questions completely if you like. After all a lot of people go into denial mode for all sorts of bad reasons you too can go that way. And, as a benefit for some of you, if you do so in this case you too can celebrate this 'substantial exoneration' as slick has presented it.

[callmeslick]

funny how the threshold jumps up for folks who trade, daily, in suppositions, lies, fabrications and exaggerations. Like I said, ranting becomes their only retort when reality rears its ugly head.


put bluntly, the exact same individuals who readily spout bogus imaginary factoids about Obama admin policy regarding food stamps in Mexico(lie), recruitment of immigrants(lie), float innuendo from House committees about Bengazi,the IRS, etc(all lies), and spent literally years here floating suppositions about Obamacare that proved to be untrue, suddenly wish to read the entire Committee report text before they accept that the committee found nothing? Hilarious, freaking hilarious.

[Will Robinson]

I never knew you could recognize a fake laugh in a text format until today.

[woodchip]

funny how the threshold jumps up for folks who trade, daily, in suppositions, lies, fabrications and exaggerations. Like I said, ranting becomes their only retort when reality rears its ugly head.


put bluntly, the exact same individuals who readily spout bogus imaginary factoids about Obama admin policy regarding food stamps in Mexico(lie), recruitment of immigrants(lie), float innuendo from House committees about Bengazi,the IRS, etc(all lies), and spent literally years here floating suppositions about Obamacare that proved to be untrue, suddenly wish to read the entire Committee report text before they accept that the committee found nothing? Hilarious, freaking hilarious.

Of the above, just exactly what was untrue?

[callmeslick]

funny how the threshold jumps up for folks who trade, daily, in suppositions, lies, fabrications and exaggerations. Like I said, ranting becomes their only retort when reality rears its ugly head.


put bluntly, the exact same individuals who readily spout bogus imaginary factoids about Obama admin policy regarding food stamps in Mexico(lie), recruitment of immigrants(lie), float innuendo from House committees about Bengazi,the IRS, etc(all lies), and spent literally years here floating suppositions about Obamacare that proved to be untrue, suddenly wish to read the entire Committee report text before they accept that the committee found nothing? Hilarious, freaking hilarious.

Of the above, just exactly what was untrue?

none of it. You quoted me, and I stand behind every word.

[Tunnelcat]

I'm sorry that 4 people died because of a CIA screwup, and that's what it was, a CIA screwup, from a long line of CIA screwups. Republicans need to quit crying over the failure to place blame on a president they loathe, but who wasn't at fault this time. Now maybe they should go after the White House coverup of that CIA screwup. That's where Obama did know something. Oh wait, CIA activities are classified in most cases, so they, and the president, usually try to hide things, especially when they go fubar.

[Will Robinson]

TC, I readily concede that this was nothing out of the ordinary.
State Dept./Obama was using the CIA in its standard operating mode to move weapons it took from a government they just toppled (Libya) to a bunch of terrorists they decided to help topple another government (Syria).

But don't expect us to let the administration go without blame for the numerous blunders that led to it...security in the compound was not CIA's fault when the ambassador had warned them upon return from his previous visit that he needed more. They try to blame the budget?!? Come on! They spent more on liquor and catering for Embassy parties in a couple countries during the time they could have increased it. They purposely left it under manned trying to fly under the radar which was totally naive since the local militants were already rumbling about the weapons trade that appeared to be going on...al Queda flags popping up all around the compound in the weeks leading up to the disaster.

And the whole lie to the world, UN, TV for weeks, to the parents of the fallen operators as THE BODIES are received?!? Come on!

And to let the liberals get away with their constant rhetoric about how conservatives are the nation building, war-monger-party, meddling where we shouldn't be when they clearly have meddled to our detriment! severely to our detriment...Say hello to ISIS...goodbye to any hope for stability in Iraq...
Well, sorry but that is some low hanging fruit we arent going to pass on.

And considering all these lame lies were told to prop up a false narrative during Obama's re-election campaign...well the mainstream media hacks deserve to have this laid out under their nose to sniff even if it does result in Repubs engaging in a frenzy of hyperbolic rhetoric of their own.

It's like catching a bunch of self righteous priests gambling with a naked alter boy under each arm sniffing coke off a thirds butt. You know you are going to be a little extra outraged at the hypocrisy level of the pompous bastards getting caught.

[callmeslick]

wow, too many warped realities('nation building' by Dems? Really?, peddling 'lies' for 'weeks'? Where? When? The initial confusion cited by the committee lasted but days. And, so on, to end with a disgusting analogy clearly the product of an angry sick mind. Sad. Pathetic. And, those are just the first descriptions of Will's post that come to mind. Let's call those the 'low hanging fruit', if you will.....

[Tunnelcat]

Give me a break! Get off your Republican high horse and quit your griping Will. The CIA and every administration it's dealt with has had dirty ops problems, and they've all tried to keep their dirt secret, or at least cover it up all throughout our history and through all administrations. The CIA is pretty much a rogue operator itself. Reagan, Clinton and both Bush's all abused their power with clandestine operations involving the CIA. You want CIA and administration culpability, just wait until the Bush Torture report comes out soon. If you and you're Republican allies want to keep hammering Obama and his CIA for this one, there's plenty of dirt and bad doo doo under your carpets. What goes around comes around. It's about time Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz be tried and convicted of the crimes of invading a sovereign nation under false pretenses and the international crime of using torture. You keep hammering on Obama for his indiscretions, I'll keep hammering on Bush for his.

[callmeslick]

in a sense, you are BOTH sort of missing the truth........in the US, we've essentially had a shadow government comprised of security services for over 3 decades. It goes past Presidents, administrations, Congresses, even. That such has proven both fallible and counterproductive seems not to have lessened its power or influence.

[woodchip]

I'm sorry that 4 people died because of a CIA screwup, and that's what it was, a CIA screwup, from a long line of CIA screwups. Republicans need to quit crying over the failure to place blame on a president they loathe, but who wasn't at fault this time. Now maybe they should go after the White House coverup of that CIA screwup. That's where Obama did know something. Oh wait, CIA activities are classified in most cases, so they, and the president, usually try to hide things, especially when they go fubar.

How was it the CIA's screw up when Hillary didn't allow enough money to be allocated for proper security in Benghazi? How was it the CIA's fault that the rapid response team was not allowed to help? How was it the CIA's fault that Hillary and her mouth pieces claimed some obscure video was the cause?

[callmeslick]

I'm sorry that 4 people died because of a CIA screwup, and that's what it was, a CIA screwup, from a long line of CIA screwups. Republicans need to quit crying over the failure to place blame on a president they loathe, but who wasn't at fault this time. Now maybe they should go after the White House coverup of that CIA screwup. That's where Obama did know something. Oh wait, CIA activities are classified in most cases, so they, and the president, usually try to hide things, especially when they go fubar.

How was it the CIA's screw up when Hillary didn't allow enough money to be allocated for proper security in Benghazi?

preliminary committee report denied that any requested resources were denied. Why are you continuing to spout a proven lie?

How was it the CIA's fault that the rapid response team was not allowed to help?

the committee report found no evidence that a team was requested.

How was it the CIA's fault that Hillary and her mouth pieces claimed some obscure video was the cause?

the report specifically states that the INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY(read-CIA, NSA) were 'confused' for several days after the event, leading to the 'video story', and that the White House and State Department were merely relaying information based upon that confused info. Why, in a thread that provided the conclusions of the report(yes, the whole report is pending CIA/NSA scrutiny to protect confidential info, but the report's conclusions will not be in any way altered), do you persist in telling the same OLD lies that the committee, after two years of study, and Republicans at the helm, exposed as just such: LIES? Do you feel that you have the right to your own private version of the truth? Do you think we are so stupid as to believe someone who lies repeatedly in such a fashion? Is this supposed to help your credibility? Stop while you're ahead, man!

[woodchip]

preliminary committee report denied that any requested resources were denied. Why are you continuing to spout a proven lie?

Lets look at this one first, straight from the Intelligence Committee report as of January 2014:

FINDING#1:
In the months before the attacks on September 11,2012, the IC provided ample strategic warning that the security situation in eastern Libya was deteriorating and that US. facilities and personnel were at risk,:in Benghazi

FINDING #2:
The State Department should have increased its security posture more significantly in Benghazi based on the deteriorating security sltuation on the ground and IC threat reporting on the prior attacks against Westerners in Benghazi including two incidents at the Temporary Mission Facility on April 6 and June 6, 2012.

http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/beng ... nghazi.pdf

Now throw in Miss Lambs testimony that there was money in the budget for extra security, what I see here is just another blow it out your ass comment by slick because slick thinks everyone here is so stupid they will believe whatever he says. Grow up slick and stop your self delusional poasting that your word is all we should follow. The hell man, you just make yourself look like a idiot.

[callmeslick]

should have, maybe, etc......you are talking about hindsight, which we all know is 20/20. No evidence of any negligence on the level that gave us, say, 9/11/2001, for instance.

[woodchip]

Stop parsing slick, you're embarrassing yourself.

[callmeslick]

sorry, Woody, but it isn't me that spent years blaming Hillary and Obama for things they clearly never did, and trying to turn one of the MANY incidents which have occurred over the past 30 years in the world(and this was a VERY minor incident, compared to 9/11, the Cole bombing, the Beirut bombing, etc, etc,etc) into something it was not. Parsing? No, I'm laughing at you all. You've made asses of yourselves and now it will start to come home to roost.

[snoopy]

I know that we really love to have the "B" argument here, but I'd like to try to summarize why I think this is such a hot topic:

In defense of the president: Slick's right that hindsight is always revealing. The president and Clinton made imperfect decisions based on imperfect information - and things went poorly, which is known to happen. It isn't fair to crucify someone for not being all-knowing if they did the best they could with what they had.

The strikes against the president: The white house seemed to take their mistake (ignoring the signs that trouble was brewing) and turn it into an opportunity to push one of their political agendas (Let's be nicer to Muslims). Furthermore, when their explanation was questioned, they seemed to double down on it rather than backing off and admitting that they may have made a mistake. So, it adds up to seem like American lives were sacrificed for the sake of the White Houses political agendas.

[callmeslick]

your own timeline puts the lie to the conclusion. If the political decisions were made AFTER the event, how were any lives 'sacrificed'?The best you can state about the events leading up to it were 'it seemed'.....and frankly, I don't even see the merit in that part. The whole thing was yet another tragic demonstration of the reasons for disengagement of the US in the middle east and Muslim world, until we can:
1. learn more about the factions, tribal relations, etc
2. stop giving Israel billions in defense equipment
3. stop assuming that 'our way of life' is all anyone in the world wishes to aspire to.

beyond that, this was a mere blip on the radar. That blip cost a few Americans their lives. But, the millions of dollars spent on investigation after fruitless investigation, coupled with the idiotic rage that has come from the right is COMPLETELY unjustified.

[callmeslick]

to put it into clearer perspective, if the loss of 3 Americans generates this sort of outrage from the right, why on Earth are we not still investigating 9/11, and why do so many Republicans wish to put forward Condeleeza Rice as a national political figure? If Hillary is 'vulnerable' due to Bengazi, Condi Rice ought to be Public Enemy No.1. Bush should have been publicly hung for negligence in high office, and so on. There is ZERO sense of proportion in this made-up 'scandal', never has been any, and that fact is so obvious one would think that some on the right might be embarrassed by that by this point. Apparently not.

[woodchip]

sorry, Woody, but it isn't me that spent years blaming Hillary and Obama for things they clearly never did, and trying to turn one of the MANY incidents which have occurred over the past 30 years in the world(and this was a VERY minor incident, compared to 9/11, the Cole bombing, the Beirut bombing, etc, etc,etc) into something it was not. Parsing? No, I'm laughing at you all. You've made asses of yourselves and now it will start to come home to roost.

You should stop laughing as the report findings (at least for one item) shows how you are trying to turn a sows ear into a silk purse. I suggest you stop making a donkey of yourself.

[Will Robinson]

to put it into clearer perspective, if the loss of 3 Americans generates this sort of outrage from the right, why on Earth are we not still investigating 9/11, and why do so many Republicans wish to put forward Condeleeza Rice as a national political figure? If Hillary is 'vulnerable' due to Bengazi, Condi Rice ought to be Public Enemy No.1. Bush should have been publicly hung for negligence in high office, and so on. There is ZERO sense of proportion in this made-up 'scandal', never has been any, and that fact is so obvious one would think that some on the right might be embarrassed by that by this point. Apparently not.

Clearer?!

Clear as the muddy water you are using to blur the distinctions between making a couple of really bad mistakes and shamelessly lying about important issues to the country and the world for personal political gain.

The mistakes aren't just the slack security. The reason they were there at all is the mistake. The lies that flowed so willfully after the fact are the justification for the grief that we offer them.

They were gathering the more dangerous variety of weapons from Libya where they had just helped overthrow the Gaddafi regime and, instead of destroying them, as is the official mission of that branch working under the State Department, they were sending a bunch of surface to air, shoulder fired, missiles to islamic whacko's in Syria to help them overthrow Assad.

Hiding behind a bull★■◆● story when talking to the to the parents of the fallen CIA operators. Hiding behind that same story for weeks at the UN, on TV, in the campaign with the help of the moderator in the debate...
There would have been no attack because there would have been no personnel there if not for the mission.

No slick, it isn't the security at all. It is them doing dirty work and getting a pass from the scrutiny that getting caught for these things usually brings. It is just another example of an administration allowed to act with impunity. "What does it matter"...You have to pass the Bill before you can see what's inside of it"..."The law ties my hands"....This is the 'the dog ate my homework' administration and the teacher (read:media) has decided to pass the student regardless of the performance failures.
So, in a political context, they have to put up with whatever meager outrage can be shouted above the efforts to mute such a reaction. Keep huffing and puffing and we will keep shouting. But your complaints about these results of a process that you so eagerly perpetuate are the epitome of hypocrisy.

[callmeslick]

Will, are you actually trying to put Bengazi on the same plane as 9/11, in terms over overlooked risks, ignored warnings, et al? Seriously?
May be time to take the ideological blinders off and go play outside with the other kids in the neighborhood.

[snoopy]

Will, are you actually trying to put Bengazi on the same plane as 9/11, in terms over overlooked risks, ignored warnings, et al? Seriously?
May be time to take the ideological blinders off and go play outside with the other kids in the neighborhood.

See... Will's point is that it's not about the over looked risks, ignored warnings, etc...

It's that the administration (and some of the press) insisted on trying to shift the blame elsewhere. With 9/11 the administration took it on the nose and tried to take action to address the issue. (Now, it made lots of bad decisions in that attempt... and got plenty of press flak for it.) With this Bengazi thing there's this continual effort to shift to accountability anywhere other than the white house - and that's what the right is pissed off about. What ever happened to "the buck stops here?" In a sense it's a microcosm of my biggest issue with this administration as a whole: rather than lead through sacrifice and open honesty (which was one of Obama's big campaigning points) Obama continues to play the PR game rather than actually try to improve the country as a whole.

[callmeslick]

and this is in some way historically unique, or anything other than SOP for EVERY administration? Bush took WHAT on the chin? Ever get an explanation as to why procedure for intercepting commercial aircraft wasn't followed? I didn't. Ever find out what actions flowed from a memo clearly laying out the possible use of commercial aircraft as weapons? Nope, and it makes the prior question even more important. And, so on. Whenever the 24 hour press dives onto a situation, those at the heart of it respond defensively. It has no bearing on how the truth comes out, eventually. I still find the whole uproar over this both ridiculous and so obviously politically motivated as to be laughable.

[Will Robinson]

The pass Obama gets is historical.
The sense of deserved impunity with which the Dems now operate under as a result of the media and pop culture accepting the pass is historical.

Your attempt to deflect this point with that 'ratio-of-bad' 9/11 vs. anything-he-does red herring is pathetic.

You leftys won't dare admit it since you have dogmatically jumped onto that bandwagon...

But as it passes by in the parade there are a lot of us who are pointing and rightfully shouting: 'The emperor has no clothes'.

[Top Gun]

I love that line of bull★■◆● you ride so hard. "Waaaaah it's all the media's fault that more people don't hate Obama!"

[Will Robinson]

I love that line of **** you ride so hard. "Waaaaah it's all the media's fault that more people don't hate Obama!"

You're so hung up on defining hate as being part of the mix you can't see the trees.

[Spidey]

slicks last post proves snoopy’s point.

[callmeslick]

The pass Obama gets is historical.

that's one of the shortcomings of this medium. My rational brain tells me you can't possibly be writing the above with a straight face, yet, you may well think those words reflect reality. They don't.

The sense of deserved impunity with which the Dems now operate under as a result of the media and pop culture accepting the pass is historical.

ok, I get it......you found some mushrooms in the back yard.

Your attempt to deflect this point with that 'ratio-of-bad' 9/11 vs. anything-he-does red herring is pathetic.

You leftys won't dare admit it since you have dogmatically jumped onto that bandwagon...

But as it passes by in the parade there are a lot of us who are pointing and rightfully shouting: 'The emperor has no clothes'.

perfect illustration of why most on the left and the growing number of moderates are saying the right has no brain.

[Will Robinson]

There is a remarkable contrast from the last administration to this one with regard to how they are challenged...or not. How they are aided...or not...etc.
The media and pop culture have swung severely away from applying the same standards, scrutiny and level of criticism once the White House changed hands.

It will be a topic of history, poli-sci, social studies, journalism classes etc in the future.
In that sense 'historic'.

Your silly insults are not going to make people see it differently and, from my perspective, if you are having to make posts like you just did I'm exceeding my goals in driving the point home.

[Top Gun]

Orrrr maybe it's just that the previous administration was so historically, colossally shitty that increased scrutiny and criticism were a given.

[woodchip]

Will, are you actually trying to put Bengazi on the same plane as 9/11, in terms over overlooked risks, ignored warnings, et al? Seriously?
May be time to take the ideological blinders off and go play outside with the other kids in the neighborhood.

It appears slick, that you are the one trying to put Benghazi on the same level as 9/11