Benghazi just won't stay buried.....

[Z..]

If you don't think the actual deaths could result in an impeachment, then why does any of what they say even matter? So they were wrong about the cause of the attack...doesn't really change anything? The US Govt embellished both the Lynch and Tillman stories for whatever reason...it's all part of the game of politics. Shouldn't be done but it is...that's sort of why no one cares about this story except those that already hate Hillary.

The drone strikes? Yeah, that's totally legitimate fodder to go after in the next election, but this Benghazi business is just plain tired and overdone. Politicians don't admit their wrong; they simply change the wording to make it seem like they're still right.

"We know Iraq HAS wmd so we're going to war" <----2003
"We invaded Iraq because they violated UN treaties" <----2005
"We invaded Iraq because they had the capacity to make wmd" <---2007

I don't know brah, but the story isn't going anywhere.

[Will Robinson]

If you don't think the actual deaths could result in an impeachment, then why does any of what they say even matter? So they were wrong about the cause of the attack...doesn't really change anything? The US Govt embellished both the Lynch and Tillman stories for whatever reason...it's all part of the game of politics. Shouldn't be done but it is...that's sort of why no one cares about this story except those that already hate Hillary....

It matters as a part of that game, you probably liked the game better when it makes Bush look bad and don't like the part of the game where it makes Hillary and Obama look bad. But it is all part of the same game. You don't get to declare game over when you have the lead but things are turning against you...this is a game that never ends.... if the designers of the game have it their way.

The reason they are trying so hard to change the subject is because IT DOES matter to more than just the Hillary haters as I pointed out before....negative campaigning works really well. When you have a legitimate complaint about your opponent, and you verified it is legitimate "Shouldn't be done but it is...", then you call them out on it.

It weakens the resolve of their supporters, it hurts turnout on election day. You don't have to make them vote for the other guy, you just need them to get apathetic and not vote.
Those hipsters, and all the other types, go through their lives talking about how bad the government is for 'doing certain things that they shouldn't do' and then it comes out in the media that the candidate they were going to support is responsible for a most callous and hypocritical cover up of those very things. That makes it kind of hard for typical lazy american voters to get themselves to the voting booth. Go stand in line for that asshat who talks about doing the right thing but is obviously not practicing what they preach? F that, lets go get a coffee and see a movie instead.

That is exactly the kind of screwed up electoral system we get when we accept the role of being cheerleaders for team D or team R.

A great recent example is I started a thread about the hypocrisy of a so called civil rights leader (and the facts are overwhelming that the hypocrisy is as I claim it is) and the distinction I drew about the ill effects of allowing the false premises in the rhetoric used to continue to agitate people instead of using the event to help heal being so counter productive toward the goal of harmony.
A discussion worth having, even if you have an alternate view it would be a discussion...you would be thinking for yourself and hopefully challenging your own perceptions to test their validity during the debate...
But immediately the thread gets shouted down by the team cheerleaders who feel their teams status is being damaged by the mere existence of a non-party-approved discussion...

However, as long as following the 'team cheerleader rules' is the 'proper' way to respond...as long as you play the "game" you will have that screwed up electoral system and have to suffer being governed by pimps and poseurs.

[Tunnelcat]

TC
I don't see the attack and resulting deaths as impeachable. I said if the same thing happened under Bush you would hear people in the media talking about it in that context.

I also don't see where radicals attacking our embassies in the Middle East during Bush's presidency is the same. It isn't the attacks, it is the reaction and lies that followed.

I realize you want to ignore what we ARE talking about and instead focus on the premise that the Ambassador and some CIA operators were killed in what you hope to portray as analogous to radicals attacking embassies etc.

You have failed to alter reality. Why do you feel compelled to construct such flawed premise?

No, the attacks ARE the same because all these attacks were carried out by um..........TERRORISTS. DUH! All of Bush's incidents were near or at our embassies, in which said terrorists succeeded in killing Americans and our allies in most of the incidents. People still died. Bush didn't cover it up because the right wing press didn't make hay about it like Fox News and Republicans in Congress are doing NOW with Benghazi. Sure, Obama tried to cover it up, he's vain and worried about his image, and probably Hillary's. Is it crass, insipid and politically motivated, yes. Is it criminal, hardly. It's just really bad planning and intel that blew up in everyone's faces and ended up with some people dead, unfortunately. But Benghazi WAS after all, originally a CIA op that used our ambassador, willingly by the way, as cover for some clandestine operation that we'll never really know about and which went horribly wrong, like it or not. The CIA itself likes to try and cover up their clandestine f*ckups at all costs, so it's not just Obama's fault.

So why not go after Donald Rumsfeld? He sent our young troops into battle in 2 countries without the necessary equipment to survive or win in battle. THAT was criminal in my opinion, because everyone charged into war like it was a game and had piss poor plans for doing it. None of you right wingers latched onto that major screwup and all the deaths and maiming that resulted from it, because it was YOUR GUY'S screwup and that made it only a slight mistake in the fog of war.

[Spidey]

Boy…it’s a damn good thing both sides are totally fucked up, otherwise how would anybody ever justify their own sides fuckedupness.

[Will Robinson]

TC you are displaying just how poorly you comprehend what is actually written and how dogmatically you jerk your knee in reaction to what you ASSUME is being said. Go read the frikken words you just quoted and then read your ridiculous comments.

I'll try again. It isn't the attacks that matter. It is the way the political operators have lied about what was done after the fact. Got it now?

Where did Bush/Rumsfeld ever fabricate some story of a loopy American video maker to be the reason for the attacks that took place during their term?!?

They never needed to say a terrorist wasn't a terrorist because they never built a re-election campaign on that kind of false premise as Obama did.

And they never ever could have got away with all this ridiculous lying because the media wasn't ever on their side.

And as far as the CIA op, it wasn't the CIA's objective to redistribute shoulder fired missiles until the State Department gave that objective to them.

State/Obama wanted to overthrow Assad without getting any danger of using American troops. So you don't get to absolve Hillary or Obama from bearing the responsibility there.

The op to round up loose armament of that type is standard operating procedure, the guys were there in Libya doing it. It was State(read:Hillary/Obama) who signed off on redirecting those shoulder fired surface to air missiles from where they were collected in Libya to the radicals and rebels in Syria.

I wonder if a few of those missiles bring down an civilian aircraft or two will the media have the balls to continue blowing smoke as cover for that decision? Will you be ok with it since it is something done by a D not and R?

[callmeslick]

ooops! Gowdy shows the true intent:
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show ... sing-start


ummm, PROSECUTION is not investigation. And this guy clearly has no clue about either the events that were happening at the time, nor the results of the three investigations already held.

[woodchip]

actually, I have seen no evidence beyond some VERY likely doctored emails(the right wing loons seem to have ones that read differently than ones presented earlier), of ANY wrongdoing. Government isn't perfect, nor is defense. Crap happens, and, as opposed to Kent State, this isn't a case of ANYONE knowingly harming a US citizen. Mountains out of molehills, and NO, I don't think folks like Woody, with their righteous indignation are anything less than politically driven hypocrites who couldn't care less about US citizen's lives and well-being. Just look at their position on healthcare.....

So the liberal defense is now going to be the emails were doctored? How intellectually quaint.

[Tunnelcat]

TC you are displaying just how poorly you comprehend what is actually written and how dogmatically you jerk your knee in reaction to what you ASSUME is being said. Go read the frikken words you just quoted and then read your ridiculous comments.

I'll try again. It isn't the attacks that matter. It is the way the political operators have lied about what was done after the fact. Got it now?

Maybe

However, when the investigative committee members lie and spin the facts that just came from testimony they just heard, the partisan underwear starts showing, and it's a little dirty.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/0 ... 94767.html

[callmeslick]

actually, I have seen no evidence beyond some VERY likely doctored emails(the right wing loons seem to have ones that read differently than ones presented earlier), of ANY wrongdoing. Government isn't perfect, nor is defense. Crap happens, and, as opposed to Kent State, this isn't a case of ANYONE knowingly harming a US citizen. Mountains out of molehills, and NO, I don't think folks like Woody, with their righteous indignation are anything less than politically driven hypocrites who couldn't care less about US citizen's lives and well-being. Just look at their position on healthcare.....

So the liberal defense is now going to be the emails were doctored? How intellectually quaint.

I don't know what liberals think, but this moderate saw two different sets of the same emails, it seems. One set is doctored. We'll find out which.

[Will Robinson]

.....

However, when the investigative committee members lie and spin the facts that just came from testimony they just heard, the partisan underwear starts showing, and it's a little dirty.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/0 ... 94767.html

If the Rep. Mica was wrong to say the military could have done more because he was told previously they couldn't...and you put forth the effort to point that out...how do you reconcile your condemnation of my pointing out Hillary and Obama were told, thus knew, well before they launched multiple appearances to tell the world and the parents of our dead service men that a bigoted video maker caused a spontaneous riot that turned into the coordinated assault and mortar attack that took their lives?

Seems like you have a seriously selective sense of what is dirty!

[Tunnelcat]

I hate to dredge this up again, but the House Intelligence Committee just did a surreptitious news dump last Friday, Nov. 21. It seems they wanted to bury their findings on the weekend news cycle, so as to not publicize the fact that the Benghazi tragedy was NOT a top level White House conspiracy to hide their mistakes concerning the whole affair. It has now been debunked after a thorough 2 year investigation. Too bad they had to waste loads of our taxpayer dollars trying to find anything of substance in order to pin some sort of blame on the White House just to satisfy the conservative wingnut conspiracy theorists. Tough tooties.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014 ... story.html

[Will Robinson]

This isn't anything new TC.
I believe slick was talking about the leaked assessment of that report that was all over the news here a month or more back.
So I'll repeat what I said then.

If the report you are touting is the one where numerous questions were never answered by the administration and numerous witnesses were never interviewed by the commitee....and never interviewed by the administrations own investigators yet the results heralded as complete...and now you want to buy into the story line that "case is closed"...well go ahead. But you aren't relying on a thorough investigation.

The report your article cites was a dog and pony show so corrupted by partisan road blocks and re-election concerns by both sides that there was no way it was going to dig too deep.

That is why, on May 8, 2014, the House of Representatives adopted H. Res. 567 "Providing for the Establishment of the Select Committee on the Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi, Libya."

The Select Committee has had no report issued yet since it is just under way. The last two press releases from the select committee are:

Statement from Benghazi Select Committee Communications Director
September 16, 2014 Press Release

Washington, DC — Select Committee on Benghazi Communications Director Jamal D. Ware issued the following statement:

“As Chairman Gowdy has said, he is willing to risk answering the same question twice rather than risk it not be answered at all. Since all documents responsive to Congressional inquiries into the Benghazi terrorist attack have not been produced, it is fair to say that not all questions have been asked and answered.

“Chairman Gowdy is leading a fair, fact-based and impartial investigation. The Committee will consider all evidence, across all jurisdictions, and produce the final, definitive accounting on behalf of Congress of what happened before, during and after the terrorist attacks on our facilities in Benghazi.


“Chairman Gowdy sincerely hopes that all sides will not prejudge the outcome of the investigation—before even the Committee’s first hearing, which is on a topic suggested by the Democrats—and instead allow a constructive and thorough investigatory process that produces a final report on Benghazi that is beyond any doubt. Chairman Gowdy is committed to a process and result worthy of the sacrifice of the four Americans who were killed in Benghazi and worthy of the trust of our fellow citizens.”

Statement on HPSCI Report from Benghazi Select Committee Communications Director
November 21, 2014 Press Release

Washington, DC—Select Committee on Benghazi Communications Director Jamal D. Ware issued the following statement on the declassification of the House Intelligence Committee's Benghazi Report:

“The Select Committee on Benghazi received the Intelligence Committee’s report on the Benghazi terrorist attack months ago, and has reviewed it along with other Committee reports and materials as the investigation proceeds. It will aid the Select Committee’s comprehensive investigation to determine the full facts of what happened in Benghazi, Libya before, during and after the attack and contribute toward our final, definitive accounting of the attack on behalf of Congress.”

So you are going to have to hold your celebration and snarky comments until they have at least had the chance to actually interview all the people involved, especially since some of them have off the record made challenges to that 'report' you are so happy to post about'
No doubt the timing is going to coincide with Hilary's run for the Whitehouse so the dogs and ponies are being moved back stage to await curtain call for their encore...oh joy!

[Tunnelcat]

Perhaps. But you sound just like one of those constant unhappy protesters in Ferguson, MO who refuse to believe the facts of the case laid in front of their faces by any official investigation when it doesn't meet their expectation, or version, of their idea of the truth.

[vision]

Burned!

[Will Robinson]

Burned? Not even close. In Ferguson witnesses were thoroughly interviewed, forensic evidence poured over and only then was a determination made.

To suggest the two situations were looked into with the same scrutiny is laughable.
In Bengahzi the Fed basically sat on its hands and said it was caused by a bunch of protestors that weren't there. Hillary promised the parents of the dead Americans that the Fed would get that rascally video maker who caused the protest that never happened...that 'protest' she knew the morning after had never happened. She and Obama were shoveling that excuse for weeks after. Obama apologizing for it to the world at the UN!

The investigative authority for Bengahzi put their political fortunes above exposing the truth. In Ferguson the investigative authority put exposing the truth above anyone's politics.

If you want a true parallel here it is:

The Obama/Hillary story about the cause of the Bengahzi attack is just as much of a lie as the Ferguson 'Hands up, Don't shoot' meme.

There is the similarity.

[woodchip]

Burned!

[callmeslick]

that 'story' that Will refers to was a speculation that lasted less than 48 hours. So what?
And, to compare the scrutiny thus far given Benghazi to a badly presented Grand Jury hearing process in some backwater Red state looking to exonerate someone in advance is a JOKE.

You all are tossing the term 'burned' about? Try 'bored' because that is most people's response to Benghazi 'inquiries' at this point. Folks can figure out witch-hunts and smokescreens real quickly.

[Will Robinson]

that 'story' that Will refers to was a speculation that lasted less than 48 hours. So what? ....

"less than 48 hours" ?!?

It lasted 3 weeks...it found its way into the speeches of the President to major networks...the U.N....the Presidential election debate/campaign...offered to the parents of the dead americans parents when they met Hillary days after the attack as the focus of the administrations resolve to get to the guilty party who was the cause of their loss...etc. etc.

"less than 48 hours, so what?"

Lol! slick rewrites history again.

[woodchip]

slick is forwarding the Hillary mantra of "What difference does it make"

[Tunnelcat]

Burned!

Not really. Both incidences are full of politics. There's no difference. Neither side wants to see the truth. They only see what they WANT the truth to be.

[Will Robinson]

Burned!

Not really. Both incidences are full of politics. There's no difference. Neither side wants to see the truth. They only see what they WANT the truth to be.

Yes, there certainly is an abundance of politics in both situations but there is an important difference. The one I pointed out before:

The investigative authority for Benghazi put their political fortunes above exposing the truth. In Ferguson the investigative authority put exposing the truth above anyone's politics.

Instead of using the Grand Jury as it is often used...loading it with only the information that lends itself to an indictment... the prosecutor gave them everything he had...good and bad...and then released all that to the public.

The disingenuously self proclaimed "most transparent administration ever" did the exact opposite in the handling of the Benghazi incident.

[Foil]

...I pointed out before:

The investigative authority for Bengahzi put their political fortunes above exposing the truth. In Ferguson the investigative authority put exposing the truth above anyone's politics.

I find it interesting that both sides accept one investigation, and reject the other... but disagree on which.


The results of an investigation should inform our opinions, rather than our opinions shaping whether or not we accept those results.

[ Personally, I thought there was potentially something substantial to both the Benghazi conspiracy claims and the Ferguson bad-cop claims. Now that the investigations have concluded, my opinions have changed on both. ]

[callmeslick]

for the record, I said from about 5 days in on Ferguson that the cop just got a bit jumpy with no backup(turned out that his radio was fuxxored), and that given Missouri law, he had every right to shoot to kill, whether folks AGREE with that law or not. Likewise, after the third Benghazi hearing, I was pretty well convinced that there was no conspiracy or impeachable wrongdoing. In the Ferguson case, I understand the reluctance to accept that reality. There is a long history of disparity and unequal treatment under law. On the other hand, it has LONG been obvious that simple inquiry into Benghazi turned into a hopeful witchhunt for purely political gain, along with usage as a fund raising tool for ideologues.

[Will Robinson]

..

The results of an investigation should inform our opinions, rather than our opinions shaping whether or not we accept those results.

[ Personally, I thought there was potentially something substantial to both the Benghazi conspiracy claims and the Ferguson bad-cop claims. Now that the investigations have concluded, my opinions have changed on both. ]

In which of the two cases do you think the investigation resulted in, and then presented for public examination, a thorough accounting of the events no matter who it hurt?

And in which case was the investigation obstructed by those in power and initially investigated by the accused party and they delivered a 'nothing to see here, move along' report? Followed up by an investigation that they were still able to have good deal of influence on.

That, in my opinion, is an obvious distinction that should have you realizing you most likely don't have anything near a complete accounting of the Benghazi incident to base your conclusion on.

Put another way:
If the Ferguson Cop who shot Brown wasn't talking but his department was telling the kind of stories about what happened there that the administration told about Benghazi would you still have changed your mind and decided he was innocent?

[Tunnelcat]

I find it interesting that both sides accept one investigation, and reject the other... but disagree on which.


The results of an investigation should inform our opinions, rather than our opinions shaping whether or not we accept those results.

[ Personally, I thought there was potentially something substantial to both the Benghazi conspiracy claims and the Ferguson bad-cop claims. Now that the investigations have concluded, my opinions have changed on both. ]

The truth is always muddied by those who disagree with it.

[Spidey]

And embellished by those who agree.

The truth is usually too dull for most.

[Tunnelcat]

Actually, there is no real truth. Everything is an opinionated illusion.