gut;1332383 wrote:No, the administration did that. Simply under investigation or "we screwed up, and we're going to fix it". Done. Instead they blatantly lied to the American people motivated by what would appear to be irrational political fear. Transparent administration my ass.

Obama can't admit failure even with numerous opportunities to choose from.

No.

HitsRus;1332426 wrote:I think that is it ...at best. This administration continually creates side issues designed to distract and get people to take their eyes off the ball. they used it efeectively during the campaign for president, and I'm not so sure this cover story isn't another one to keep us from the deeper issues of what happened at Benghazi.

Yessss....That's what's going on here...

But I suppose I won't mind if you carry on with this charade so Republicans can continue to alienate the rest of the "reality-based community."

HitsRus;1332426 wrote:I think that is it ...at best. This administration continually creates side issues designed to distract and get people to take their eyes off the ball. they used it efeectively during the campaign for president, and I'm not so sure this cover story isn't another one to keep us from the deeper issues of what happened at Benghazi.

If your issue is why the compound was not more secure and why was there just CIA people there, which is the right line of questions, then say so. Then, call up the CIA, FBI, and SECSTATE offices to answer those questions.
Rice has nothing to do with any of that. She is the UN Amb.
She was on the talk shows as she was the highest person at that time to speak on it in the area.

I'm baffled as why the R's keep hammering on Rice, and ignore the bigger actual questions of embassy security and the STATE practices.
Dive into why the bureaucracy failed, not why Rice "lied" as you all say (which she didn't, but whatever people).

BoatShoes;1332694 wrote:No.

Yes, they lied. If they didn't know it from the very beginning, they soon did thereafter. But the video continued to be the narrative for weeks = outright and intentional deceit.

If your issue is why the compound was not more secure and why was there just CIA people there, which is the right line of questions, then say so.

Actually, I have throughout this entire thread....to which we have been treated to duck and dodge. Perhaps the most telling statement came from Leon Panetta who, when questioned about what was/could have been done during the 7 hours the attack was taking place, responded 'there's a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on".


....so there was a quarterback...and his decisions while the game was on....were...ugh, not so good politically.

I'm not so sure this cover story isn't another one to keep us from the deeper issues of what happened at Benghazi.

Yeah I'm sure you don't have an inkling, Boat. "nothing to see here....move along"...the weak minded are easily distracted.

Here's a good article that pretty much is spot on.....
http://townhall.com/columnists/dianawest/2012/11/30/benghazi_probe_must_not_get_sidetracked

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/30/susan-rice-under-fire-by-liberal-group-for-reported-investments-in-canadian/


Too funny.

In addition to her investments in Iran, which of course will never be mentioned on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NPR, or MSDNC. If it was Bush, Cheney, or Romney they would have been devoured. The hypocrisy is immeasurable.

gut;1332745 wrote:Yes, they lied. If they didn't know it from the very beginning, they soon did thereafter. But the video continued to be the narrative for weeks = outright and intentional deceit.

Not really. If you would have paid attention to people that knew what they were talking about, you would have seen the video was the spark, but then the demonstrations were hijacked by the terrorists who used it as an opportunity to then stage the attacks.
So, it was the video as well as the terrorists. No video, no chance to pounce and have the attack.

HitsRus;1332762 wrote:Actually, I have throughout this entire thread....to which we have been treated to duck and dodge. Perhaps the most telling statement came from Leon Panetta who, when questioned about what was/could have been done during the 7 hours the attack was taking place, responded 'there's a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on".


....so there was a quarterback...and his decisions while the game was on....were...ugh, not so good politically.

I agree that should be part of the focus. The fog of war argument only gets you so far. We need to figure out why the State Depart did not really beef up the compound. Also, what was going on with the CIA calling for more people. Why was this is a bureaucratic and intelligence failure? What can we learn from that, and how should the State Department learn and adapt to make sure it does not happen again? And, how should the CIA improve to make sure it's facilities are not overrun as well?

Those are the things we really need hearings on, not a timeline and grilling of Rice. That is irrelevant and a waste of time.

QuakerOats;1333949 wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/30/susan-rice-under-fire-by-liberal-group-for-reported-investments-in-canadian/


Too funny.

In addition to her investments in Iran, which of course will never be mentioned on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NPR, or MSDNC. If it was Bush, Cheney, or Romney they would have been devoured. The hypocrisy is immeasurable.

Well, if you try and link it to Libya, it is irrelevant. But, now, if you want to knock her for SECSTATE, that is fine. I actually think she is not the best SECSTATE. To me, that would be Kerry. He is more qualified and polished.
Rice would be a risky move in my view, plus, she carries too much partisan baggage.

Ignatius makes a nice argument saying how she is a risky choice:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-a-close-call-on-susan-rice/2012/11/30/fbcd3316-3b23-11e2-8a97-363b0f9a0ab3_story.html

ptown_trojans_1;1333990 wrote:Not really. If you would have paid attention to people that knew what they were talking about, you would have seen the video was the spark, but then the demonstrations were hijacked by the terrorists who used it as an opportunity to then stage the attacks.
So, it was the video as well as the terrorists. No video, no chance to pounce and have the attack.

LMAO, there was no demonstration in Benghazi.

Maybe you shouldn't be such a propaganda dumster for people who "know what they are [lying] about" - you really are swallowing a load. Even the administration isn't still blaming that video.

gut;1334062 wrote:LMAO, there was no demonstration in Benghazi.

Maybe you shouldn't be such a propaganda dumster for people who "know what they are [lying] about" - you really are swallowing a load. Even the administration isn't still blaming that video.

Demonstrations in Cairo, once those were learned of, which were due to the video, there were demonstrations in Benghanzi, which were then hijacked by al Qaeda. Then the attacks occurred. It's not that hard to figure out.

They were terror attacks, yes, and the video did have a small impact, yes. But, it was a terror attack. And if you were paying attention, this was part of the storyline once it started to develop. It wasn't just the video, it was an attack as well.
You guys can't get it out of your head that the administration said it was only the video. It wasn't just the video, but it played a small role. It just added fuel to fire.
But, it was al Qaeda elements that then used the situation to attack.
All I am saying is, the video had an impact, small, but one, saying otherwise, ignores the reality of the all the demonstrations that occurred worldwide.

C'mon Ptown, you're smarter than that. You're practically a shill for this administration, except you're pushing a lie they aren't even promoting any more:

"In the course of the meeting, we explained that the talking points provided by the intelligence community, and the initial assessment upon which they were based, were incorrect in a key respect: there was no protest or demonstration in Benghazi," Rice said. "While we certainly wish that we had had perfect information just days after the terrorist attack, as is often the case, the intelligence assessment has evolved."

For Rice there may be no distinction about who wrote the talking points, it was what she was given. But we know those "talking points" came from someone in the Administration.

I think there are two issues here, the largest being the apparent inadequacy/incompetentcy in the lack of security despite numerous requests and plenty of time to remedy it, the botched handling of the siege resulting in 4 deaths, and the necessity of fabricating a weak cover story, and trying to sell it for so long....and now calling it 'evolving' intelligence information. The White House can't have it both ways. The President , in his debate with Romney insisted he called it 'terrorism' in his Rose garden address... Yet a week later they are still promoting the video as a cause. I'm not buying the 'we didn't want alQaida to know we were on to them' story. That's pretty incredible and flimsy.
And we still don't know what BHO was doing, or who was the making the decisions and what those were during the 7 hours the attack was going on.

The Rice issue is smaller and framed within the backdrop of the first....and really just deals with her credibility as a possible SOS going forward. Because of her position, she was privy to the 'classified' information before she tried to sell the 'unclassified' talking points. She had to know what she was saying was not true. As others have pointed out...if you didn't want to divulge classified information, there were other ways of doing it besides going out and trying to sell what you know to be a falsehood.

ptown_trojans_1;1334084 wrote:But, it was al Qaeda elements that then used the situation to attack.
All I am saying is, the video had an impact, small, but one, saying otherwise, ignores the reality of the all the demonstrations that occurred worldwide.

With all due respect Ptown surely you can tell that this was a planned attack and not some flash mob grabbing guns and torches. The attackers had an arsenal of RPG's, hand grenades, AK47's, mortars, heavy machine guns, and pickup trucks mounted anti aircraft weapons used to block streets. They were able to get these weapons into position when the attack occurred at around 10 at night and likely happened on the day (September 11th) and time they were planned to occurr. The mortar rounds that killed the two SEALs indicate a level of sophistication and precision by effectively targeting two men in the dark of night. The SEAL's were killed at the tail end of the attack.

ptown_trojans_1;1334084 wrote:Demonstrations in Cairo, once those were learned of, which were due to the video, there were demonstrations in Benghanzi, which were then hijacked by al Qaeda. Then the attacks occurred. It's not that hard to figure out.

Complete and utter BS and you have to know it. There were NO 'demonostrations' in Libya and the administration will even say that now.

jmog;1334644 wrote:Complete and utter BS and you have to know it. There were NO 'demonostrations' in Libya and the administration will even say that now.

Given the incompetence and failures of this administration...it's entirely possible that Ptown simply hadn't gotten the memo with the new talking points yet.

Apparently living inside the Beltway can give one a severe case of Kool-Aid Psychosis.

A bit disappointed that the Republican grand standing on this issue has kind of faded into the background. Let's keep this charade going so the Republican party can continue to marginalize itself!

BoatShoes;1334986 wrote:A bit disappointed that the Republican grand standing on this issue has kind of faded into the background. Let's keep this charade going so the Republican party can continue to marginalize itself!

I wouldn't be too quick about that. This past weekend a German lady noticed my American accent in Scotland (yes, Scotland, unlike the lefty trolls here I actually do travel around the world and can back it up with proof) and asked why Congress (our Congress that is, why the rest of the world is so obsessed and uneducated about American politics is beyond me) isn't doing their job - I think she meant the budget but I responded, "You mean why they haven't impeached Obama for the Benghazi incompetence?"

Her jaw nearly hit the floor. Incompetence is incompetence. And the Obama administration effed this one up big time. I'm not forgetting it anytime soon, then again per my point above I actually visit our embassies overseas, unlike the lefty trolls and administration nut lickers here.

Manhattan Buckeye;1336049 wrote:I wouldn't be too quick about that. This past weekend a German lady noticed my American accent in Scotland (yes, Scotland, unlike the lefty trolls here I actually do travel around the world and can back it up with proof) and asked why Congress (our Congress that is, why the rest of the world is so obsessed and uneducated about American politics is beyond me) isn't doing their job - I think she meant the budget but I responded, "You mean why they haven't impeached Obama for the Benghazi incompetence?"

Her jaw nearly hit the floor. Incompetence is incompetence. And the Obama administration effed this one up big time. I'm not forgetting it anytime soon, then again per my point above I actually visit our embassies overseas, unlike the lefty trolls and administration nut lickers here.

I liked the story about you spontaneously ejaculating to the sight of pubic hair better.

But, otherwise...

[/URL][/IMG]

I'm sure it is nice to visit such places that us lefty trolls could never dream of seeing beyond our utopian liberal fantasies.

Beyond that, I'm sure spouting off to strangers about how Obama should be impeached will only improve the chances of the conservative movement in the future. :thumbup:

Well, I'll give you this, you solidified your status as the biggest douchebag here. At least you aren't calling yourself Libertarian anymore .

BTW, do you have an address where I can just send you my tax dollars and we can be rid of the DEM middle man...I don't think Obama needs my money, he has a Hawaiian vacation coming up.

Manhattan Buckeye;1336279 wrote:Well, I'll give you this, you solidified your status as the biggest douchebag here. At least you aren't calling yourself Libertarian anymore .

I think you're confused.

Manhattan Buckeye;1336281 wrote:BTW, do you have an address where I can just send you my tax dollars and we can be rid of the DEM middle man...I don't think Obama needs my money, he has a Hawaiian vacation coming up.

I can do paypal. Does that work for you?

http://www.freep.com/usatoday/article/1746003?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|s

No one seems to know who edited out the AlQaida reference in Rice's 'talking points'.

Petraeus testified Nov. 16 that he knew the day after the attack al-Qaeda was involved and that he approved a report to be sent to the White House stating that viewpoint. Petraeus said he didn't know who removed that from the assessment or why."These stories are inconsistent at best," Chaffetz said.
Acting CIA Director Michael Morell also appeared not to know who edited out the reference to terrorists. He met with the senators along with Rice on Nov. 27 and said the FBI had asked that the reference to terrorists be removed from the White House talking points. The CIA stated hours later that Morell "misspoke."

"move along....nothing to see here."

Manhattan Buckeye;1336049 wrote:I wouldn't be too quick about that. This past weekend a German lady noticed my American accent in Scotland (yes, Scotland, unlike the lefty trolls here I actually do travel around the world and can back it up with proof) and asked why Congress (our Congress that is, why the rest of the world is so obsessed and uneducated about American politics is beyond me) isn't doing their job - I think she meant the budget but I responded, "You mean why they haven't impeached Obama for the Benghazi incompetence?"

Her jaw nearly hit the floor. Incompetence is incompetence. And the Obama administration effed this one up big time. I'm not forgetting it anytime soon, then again per my point above I actually visit our embassies overseas, unlike the lefty trolls and administration nut lickers here.

You conveniently leave out the part where your expatriate status is YOUR CHOICE. Just because you chose to make your fortune there doesn't make you any more patriotic or informed than any of us and to imply that we aren't is, in fact, insulting. If your conversation with the woman from Germany is any indication, you might just fit the definition of the "ugly American".