Republicans have accused [Susan] of making misleading statements by referring to the assault as a "spontaneous" demonstration by extremists. Some have suggested she used the terminology she did for political reasons.It's one thing to chose not to specify which terrorist organization it was, quite another to spread a phony story about protesting over a video. Now, there seems to be an attempt to glue the true story to the phony story with the word "extremists," having it cover both organized terrorists making a military attack and a bunch of hotheads suddenly demonstrating because they're enraged by some YouTube video. Those are obviously 2 very different things! And Susan Rice took the lead in a very serious deceit. Right before the election.
However, an intelligence source tells CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan the links to al Qaeda were deemed too "tenuous" to make public....
"The intelligence community assessed from the very beginning that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack." DNI spokesman Shawn Turner tells CBS News. That information was shared at a classified level -- which Rice, as a member of President Obama's cabinet, would have been privy to.
So I don't get the "however" in the indented quote above. Maybe it relates only to the suggestion that there was a political motivation for omitting the part about terrorists. But it doesn't undermine the accusation that Rice's statements were misleading (indeed false).
Posts
163 comments:
Maybe, but this is just a news report.
Don't we have to wait until the investigation?
You know, the one Obama and his trolls said we needed to wait for?
The one that Harry Reid said the Senate won't do?
That investigation? Rhetorical.
Now, there seems to be an attempt to glue the true story to the phony story with the word "extremists," having it cover both organized terrorists making a military attack and a bunch of hotheads suddenly demonstrating because they're enraged by some YouTube video. Those are obviously 2 very different things!
Yes.
More BS and obfuscation from the administration that thinks everyone is as stupid as the people who watch their commercials.
Well instead of going after Susan Rice, we should be going after James Clapper? Clapper by the way has a history of convenient leaks to the NYT that help the Bamster.
But as we shall see Obama "come after me" takes responsibility for zero, zip, zilch and nada. It'll all get hung on Clapper. Like that other useful idiot, David Petraeua, James Clapper will ultimately get shoved under the bus.
"But it doesn't undermine the accusation that Rice's statements were misleading (indeed false)."
Oh Ann...don't you know that those are "code words" for racism???
See" Dem Rep. James Clyburn: GOP Letter Criticizing Susan Rice Uses Racial “Code Words”…" on weasel zippers
Yes, it's much better to make false claims and scapegoat a nobody.
What I think is racist is spreading the fake story that Muslims fly into an insane rage over a YouTube video. This is a disgusting stereotype.
"However, an intelligence source tells CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan the links to al Qaeda were deemed too "tenuous" to make public...."
But blaming an obscure anti islam video? not tenuous at all.
Who, you ask? Somebody with lots-o-clout, who dasn't let the truth out. Now, who COULD that be?
you'd have to be pretty stupid to fall for Clapper's bullshit and an utter moron to run with it.
How on Earth did it take this long to figure out who edited the talking points? I mean, shouldn't someone have been able to go through his own email, check and figure out what department did it and get the information to one of the administration spokespeople? And then you ask that department.
I mean, it speaks to an unbelievably poor level of organisation that they couldn't get this answer out within a few hours to protect the White House. There still might be a scandal here, but at least that would serve the President's goal #1, which is to keep the stink off himself.
white males seem to pretty good at duping stupid democrat women.
you'd have to be pretty stupid to fall for Clapper's bullshit and an utter moron to run with it.
You could've said the same thing about Axelrod's campaign strategy, yet Obama won.
They seem to know their clientele well.
Clapper, a political appointee, nuf said.
FORWARD!
Ann,
"What I think is racist is spreading the fake story that Muslims fly into an insane rage over a YouTube video. This is a disgusting stereotype."
OF course, Muslims actually flying into an insane rage over someone allegedly mistreating a Koran, Muslims themselves blaming the video, isn't to blame for the stereotype.
This whole meme about "who changed the talking points" is indeed BS and intentional obfuscation.
We still do not know exactly what happened in Benghazi on 9/11 or why, but we do know it had nothing to do with the story Susan Rice told us on the Sunday gasbag shows.
Who told her to go out with that story? We do not know, but it is noticeable that Hillary! has hardly been seen in this country since people beeegan asking that question.
Anyone over the age of 12 with a pulse and with an IQ just marginally into double-digits knows what's going on here. Obama thinks he can endlessly hype the natives--and with his apologists/promoters collectively running a free propaganda machine like the MSM, whose to say he cannot?
What I think is racist is spreading the fake story that Muslims fly into an insane rage over a YouTube video. This is a disgusting stereotype.
Isn't that what happened in Egypt?
Sorry-- should know viz "knows"
Getting crowded under the bus, but, each time somebody goes under, he/she is a little higher up the food chain.
Can Choomie afford to sacrifice Joe?
Muslims are a race?
The entire false narrative pushed by Hillary Obama Carney and Rice:
"It was the video."
It was a lie. But it was all they needed to carry them over the finish line.
@Scott,
The official story is that the demonstration in Cairo was instigated by a imam down the street making a fiery speech about "the video." However, it is just as likely, or more so, that the "spontaneous" demonstration was orchestrated by the new government in Egypt to show their displeasure with some of the rhetoric coming out of Washington and threats to cut their annual handout, etc.
Not a new tactic. In fact I am currently reading some American history suggesting that some Indian tribes did the variations of the same thing back when.
Unfortunately for Ann, she doesn't seem to realize/admit the fact that all stereotypes/caricatures have at their core a basic reality, else they would not appeal. One could not make jokes about the ski-slope shaped noses of Bob Hope and Dick Nixon unless they possessed, in fact, ski-slope shaped noses..
Rice said in September, appearing on Tapper's Sunday show:
"Well, first of all, we had a substantial security presence with our personnel...with our personnel and the consulate in Benghazi. Tragically, two of the four Americans who were killed were there providing security. [Referring to Woods and Doherty] That was their function. [No, it wasn't.] And indeed, there were many other colleagues who were doing the same with them."
Several laughable lies in there, starting with "substantial security presence." Were these talking points, too? Or was she spinning on her own?
This is the consequence of giving Democrats time to fabricate a story to feed to their consorts in the Obamamedia.
Not completely OT since the subject is 1937, one of the 3 years when WWII really began ('31 and '41 being the others), and we're looking at the possibility that what happens in Gaza won't stay in Gaza.
Off Insta, an Amity Shlaes piece comparing 2013 to '37, interesting because the numbers are all looking bad economically.
Unless, of course, Ned Silver has some magic algorithm to make that go away, too.
CBS:
"The White House or State Department did not make those changes."
DNI Website:
"As DNI, Mr. Clapper leads the United States Intelligence Community and serves as the principal intelligence advisor to the President."
Me:
Clapper IS the White House.
Ski slope nose. Retroussé. Retrousser to tuck up
Most people lie/change talking points, Benghazi doesn't bother them.
DNI (Damn Near Iran?)
Why did they mollycoddle terrorists and behave in a partisan manner?
Clapper has a history of makes comments that are either terminally stupid or politically advantageous.
Example: "The Muslim Brotherhood is a largely secular organization" (their motto: Islam is the Answer)
I expect my intel guys, to you know, have more intelligence.
Clapper had these facts available:
1. real-time video fro benghazi security cameras showing both, no demonstration, and terrorist fire teams sweeping across the compound with covering fire from machine guns. combined with mortars, even the newest 2LT could not help to recognize a rehearsed night attack.
2. SIGINT intercepts from AQ
3. On the ground observation from CIA agents
Look, as Farmer and others have mentioned, why complain. We voted for this guy, his administration, and how he does business. It's what we've been waiting for.
Sorry some people died, sorry the American people were lied to. Get over it.
"It's one thing to chose not to specify which terrorist organization it was, quite another to spread a phony story about protesting over a video."
A seemingly obvious point, clearly stated. Yet it somehow eluded CBS News. Charlie Rose undoubtedly knows he's being manipulated, yet he willingly plays along. Disgusting.
Sing it
Clap on, clap off. The Clapper.
Rice repeated obviously untrue talking points. She's either a total idiot, which seems unlikely, or part of the conspiracy to lie to Americans for political purposes.
What was in the daily CIA briefing to Obama on 9/11? 9/12? 9/13? 9/14? etc. Did the evil Clap manipulate the briefing as well?
Did Obama, as he says he did, order the military to rescue the people at the consulate and annex. Mother, may we see the order? The military says they never got it. I look forward to learning that Clap is to blame for this, too. He's the root of all evil.
We got the Clap
You got the Clap
We cook the rocks
You took the smack
oh yeah
We got the Clap
Can't be beat
Got off the back of a toilet seat
Shake your hips
Mind your feet
oh yeah
The DNI story is just their way of finding a fall guy to take the blame.
In reality everyone knew it was some sort of terrorist attack and in no way part of a video (which I doubt they even knew was out there yet.)
Oh, and then there is the problems with:
1. Who told the military to stand down and let them DIE.
2. Who failed to give security to them before they DIED.
3. Who knew there were terrorist camps right down the road and let them DIE.
The scandal with the generals is just a another smoke screen also. Anything to hide their own incompetence.
Also, Muslims have been known to riot over dumb stuff.
Sorry, but it's true.
That's why this story had legs. Everyone who isn't used to THINKING occasionally just said, Oh right, it's because of a video, that makes sense.
Clapper is the one who told Petraeus he had to resign.
Clapper has a long and distinguished record of being wrong about important things.
1. In 2003, he said WMDs had been shipped from Iraq to Syria just before the U.S. invasion.
2. He said the Muslim Brotherhood is largely secular.
3. In 2011, he said Qaddafi would prevail in the civil war in Libya.
It would help if the DNI were actually someone who understood intelligence.
To quote a defense of a former President,
"That depends on meaning of the word 'is'".
The veracity of Susan Rice's statements and the talking points provided to her depend on the emphasis put on the word "extremists"?
Not on whether Rice blamed the attack on terrorists or on a response to an unknown film-maker?
It was mildly funny the first time, because everyone lies (to some extent) about sexual behavior.
Not so funny this time.
The majority of Americans have determined that they prefer being lied to, They like obfuscatory mendacity.
Pointing out their fraud and incompetence is not a deterrent but an attractant.
It was obvious that the old, white guy did it.
"1. In 2003, he said WMDs had been shipped from Iraq to Syria just before the U.S. invasion."
Well he was right about that one.
I agree with those who say that this is what America voted for. Those white voters in Ohio and elsewhere who didn't vote decided the status quo was OK. The Amity Schlaes piece only tells us this doesn't matter. We've had a great 200 years. Good memories.
The future ? Not so much.
obfuscatory mendacity
Like it. Reminded me of this:
There ain't nothin' more powerful than the odor of mendacity...You can smell it. It smells like death.
-- Cat on a Hot Tin Roof
Susan Rice's expositions on the Sunday shows had nothing to do with modified "talking poits."
It was a completely new story from an alternate universe.
And by "like it," I meant the phrase, of course, not the mendacity.
The story that the attack on the consulate was a response to a video came from CNN's live coverage of the event. Obama's supposed to be faster than a speeding bullet? More powerful than a freight train? Able to leap tall buildings at a single bound?
Also, Democrats constantly call even center-right positions and the people in the US who hold them "extremist", such as the "extremist" disagreement from the liberal notion that all money belongs to the govt, so a tax cut is somehow a "cost" that should be "paid for", or the "extremist" view that Catholic institutions shouldn't have to pay for contraception, or the "extremist" view that a baby born alive from a botched abortion shouldn't be left to die.
So using the term "extremists" in the report is less of an accurate description, and more a glimpse into the mindset of Democrats.
@Balfegor
I mean, it speaks to an unbelievably poor level of organisation that they couldn't get this answer out within a few hours to protect the White House. There still might be a scandal here, but at least that would serve the President's goal #1, which is to keep the stink off himself.
Hey, it takes time to craft a plausible excuse that minimizes the professional/political damage to Obama, and even more time to ensure that plausible excuse places the blame on someone who can't deflect it back.
The Drill SGT said...
Clapper has a history of makes comments that are either terminally stupid or politically advantageous.
Example: "The Muslim Brotherhood is a largely secular organization" (their motto: Islam is the Answer)
I expect my intel guys, to you know, have more intelligence.
Clapper had these facts available:
1. real-time video fro benghazi security cameras showing both, no demonstration, and terrorist fire teams sweeping across the compound with covering fire from machine guns. combined with mortars, even the newest 2LT could not help to recognize a rehearsed night attack.
2. SIGINT intercepts from AQ
3. On the ground observation from CIA agents
Look! Some general is knockin' boots with some broad!
Tragic occurrence!
@Lydia
That word is said to great effect throughout the play. Made me love a word I'd rarely used before.
Ann Althouse said...
What I think is racist is spreading the fake story that Muslims fly into an insane rage over a YouTube video. This is a disgusting stereotype.
Tell that to Inga. Oh wait.
There is not a single person in the Obama administration whose word I would believe on any matter whatsoever.
If an Obama spokesperson told me that the sun rises in the east, I'd look outside myself to verify it.
Ann, how many people died in Muslim countries in riots over those Danish Mohammed cartoons?
That's not a "disgusting stereotype." It's behavior that has been observed on multiple occasions.
i guess i don't follow why they think this exonerates rice. dni and intelligence took out mention of al queda. okay. and even if they left out extremists, fine. but how do we get from that to the story that it was a spontaneous protest. provoked by a youtube video. and that there was absolutely no evidence that it was a preplanned attack. which is what rice insisted on. and is the opposite of what petraeous said (let alone the opposite of truth). that's not just removing details. it is completely changing the report to its opposite meaning. so nothing is changed really -- someone is still lying.
It is clear that a vast majority of Americans do not care about Benghazi or who is involved. They just want their circus and bread and to make sure that those that make it gives it to them post haste and without a fuss. Clearly Urkel motivated these idiots of our burgeoning idiocracy into voting for him, so in about a month this won't matter and it will fall on deaf ears while Christmas and New Years rolls along without a care in the world, while it begins to implode as we've ceded control from the adults to the children.
The founding fathers are no longer rolling in their graves, they've just turned their backs. The portraits that Jon McNaughton; Obamanation, The Forgotten Man, One Nation Under Socialism more or less tell the tale of where this country is headed and who is in the drivers seat cackling his way in taking it over the cliff. Democrats... Who needs enemies when they already live and work among you.
The story that the attack on the consulate was a response to a video came from CNN's live coverage of the event.
CNN had cameras covering the Benghazi attack live?!
WTF are you talking about?
Clyde, why do some want to forget that there were demonstrations in 22 countries and attacks on 11 embassies over the anti Islam film?
And why have they forgotten the incidents you speak of regarding the Danish cartoons?
What, doesn't fit the narrative of the moment?
Unfortunately, the electorate is too stupid to look past the hopes, dreams, and outright fabrications presented to them. They feel the democrats are telling the truth and protecting their interests while the republicans are lying and only out for personal gain.
Most people believe that the middle class pays more taxes than the upper classes in total and as a percentage of income.
Most people believe Obamacare will save them money, others believe it will be free.
Many people believe healthcare is a right and a moral duty of an advanced nation.
I wonder how many still believe in Santa Claus?
"It's one thing to chose not to specify which terrorist organization it was, quite another to spread a phony story about protesting over a video. Now, there seems to be an attempt to glue the true story to the phony story with the word "extremists," having it cover both organized terrorists making a military attack and a bunch of hotheads suddenly demonstrating because they're enraged by some YouTube video. Those are obviously 2 very different things!"
Right. Organized groups wear uniforms.
They are caught but they still lie.
And get away with it.
Because they are good at it and the press accepts the lying as standard operating procedure.
Deflection of personal responsibility as a political imperative, again and again and again.
Ann: 'What I think is racist is spreading the fake story that Muslims fly into an insane rage over a YouTube video. This is a disgusting stereotype."
Right. Can't imagine where people got that idea.
http://tinyurl.com/b4s5j28
David said:
They are caught but they still lie.
And get away with it.
Because they are good at it and the press accepts the lying as standard operating procedure.
I disagree that they are good at it. It's all pretty much of the "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" caliber, and everyone, even libs, saw through that.
It's just that the press has almost totally abandoned its first duty, which is to inform, and also that a good portion of that 51% who voted for Obama don't care.
Inga,
Please note that Ann considers you to be a racist. And a disgusting stereotyper.
Have a nice day!
Organized groups wear uniforms.
Not necessarily.
There are lots of organized groups that don't wear uniforms.
...unless I missed some sarcasm on your part?
...why do some want to forget that there were demonstrations in 22 countries and attacks on 11 embassies over the anti Islam film?
Better question: Why don't people even ask just how this video, published in July 2012, became a flash point on 11 September 2012? In Egypt in particular, where the video was erroneously attributed to Terry Jones (by the BBC among others), pseudo-pastor of a Florida church of what's happening now with about 29 members. Amazingly it fooled even Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, Gen Dempsey, who called Terry Jones to ask him to back off?
The shear coincidence of so many 9/11/2012 disturbances defies any argument that they weren't organized in advance.
Also, are folks here aware of the fact that when the Korans were accidentally burned by the Army that attacks increased in Afghanistan? When pictures of American troops urinating on Taliban corpses were released that attacks increased?
It's racist to point out that Muslims in the region are reactionary?
Ann Althouse said...
What I think is racist is spreading the fake story that Muslims fly into an insane rage over a YouTube video. This is a disgusting stereotype.
===============
Far too many people are conveniently forgetting the events of Sept 11th - 14th involved more than Benghazi.
Violent protests at 8 embassies and attacks on 3 embassies (two overrun and vandalized with all personnel inside in fear of their lives, the other the attack repelled with over a dozen dead in the mob)
. As a direct consequence of Islamoids being unchecked animals who DO fly into violent rages over videos, "insults", hatreds, etc. , etc.
The scumbag Nakoula/Bacile/Youssef was interviewed Sept 12th saying he hoped his video would provoke Muslims to riot, and hopefully kill or injure Americans. He knew the people of the land we stupidly gave the conman refuge from quite well. He only failed in the deaths happened outside the firestorm his Blasphemy caused.
But even there, at Benghazi, the attack organizers prepped their Jihadi combatants to be motivated to risk their lives and kill Americans with various propaganda tools. Leading with informing the combatants with the Prophet video, even playing seconds of it on their cell phones and websites. That is how you do it.
In WWII, before we attacked Japanese held islands, we showed footage of the Rape of Nanking and the Bataan Death March - ammo the stupid Jap media had released - to Marines to motivate their killer side.
Aridog a screening of the film with translation was shown on Egyptian TV on the Saturday before Tuesday 9/11, so there was a correlation between the TV showing and the demonstrations in Cairo and 22 other countries within days of 9/11.
Take it up with Ann, Inga.
See, you're not allowed to have those views. Debate is not allowed. You're just wrong. And racist. When will your side learn that you will continue to lose ground harboring such disgusting, racist views?
Mike, quit being an idiot.
Inga said...
Clyde, why do some want to forget that there were demonstrations in 22 countries and attacks on 11 embassies over the anti Islam film?
===============
Because many on the right wish to exonorate their 1st Amendmant Hero Nakoula..and are (like Rice and the Obamites) doing their best to try and spin the 11 embassies and 22 demos as never happening.
Inconvenient for their side cause and their 'falsely imprisoned' martyr Nakoula's cause!
Also a stupid recent mentality creeping in to the public - the meme that wounded and maimed combat casualties, unwounded soldiers serving in incredible stress in war zones and the impact of casualties and fear of loved ones serving at home.....plus sacked embassies, tens of thousands of Americans shelteribg from Muslim mobs DON'T MATTER -
only death tolls matter.
Thus all else is not worth discussing in Iraq, Afghanistan, or 9/11/2001 or 9/11/2012.
Only the DEAD HEROES!!
(Part if the dumbing down of America)
... there was a correlation between the TV showing and the demonstrations ...
No doubt in my military mind there was a correlation. Question, who organized the showing and who organized the near simultaneous uprisings 3+ days later? In so many places? And just who attributed the video to Terry Jones well enough to fool General Dempsey, the BBC and sundry others?
To assert that all were "spontaneous" is irrational.
I said at the time (9/12 IIRC) that I heard no one in my 50,000+ Arab Muslim community where I live attribute anything to the video. Some of these folks are my friends so I tend to believe them when they say "what video?"
Good thing I have the major media outlets to tell me the truth, eh?
Inga,
Ann stated quite clearly that it is racist to assume that Muslims would riot over a video. To assume so would be a disgusting stereotype.
You disagree.
Your problem is not with me.
Funny how Inga always winds up in bed with either Ritmo or Cedarford.
Inga:
You're right, there were mobs at various places rioting in protest against free speech.
As you know, my view is that the peril to free speech is the issue that is being neglected. And the President, in my view, did a lousy job of standing up for free speech throughout.
Inga said...
Clyde, why do some want to forget that there were demonstrations in 22 countries and attacks on 11 embassies over the anti Islam film?
And why have they forgotten the incidents you speak of regarding the Danish cartoons?
What, doesn't fit the narrative of the moment?
Inga, there is a difference between a planned or even a spontaneous demonstration and a terrorist attack by an Al Qaeda-affiliated militia. Generally, heavy weapons like rockets and mortars are your first dead giveaway. The attack on our consulate in Benghazi was clearly the latter, and anyone trying to obfuscate about it and trying to claim that it was the former is lying to you. Why do you suppose that they did that?
Ritingaford love triangle
True Aridog, I don't think the showing of the translated film on 9/8 and the demonstrations were spontaneous either. I do believe there was a plan in place, whether the plan got put of hand, who knows?
And the President, in my view, did a lousy job of standing up for free speech throughout.
He stood up at the UN and said "the future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam." He went on to imply that he'd like to punish the slanderers but unfortunately he was shackled by the 1st Amendment.
Clyde:
If I recall correctly, back when the attack on Benghazi happened, someone was making a pretty good argument that the so-called demonstrations were, in fact, probably organized by terrorists or jihadists--given how they "popped" up in so many places...on 9/11...
So it's not, was it terrorists or demonstrators. It's the terrorists or their fellow travelers.
Now...the President's defenders are claiming that the White House deliberately pretended it was about "demonstrations" in order to protect intelligence, but they knew it was terror all along.
That means the "it was a video" wasn't a mistake arising from the fog of war, but deliberate "disinformation."
Clyde, there is info out there that they purposefully put out a false narrative about the film and spontaneous demonstrations to not tip off the attackers. I don't know the truth of the matter any more than anyone does yet.
Aridog:
Sorry, you made the point before me, and better.
What I think is racist is spreading the fake story that Muslims fly into an insane rage over a YouTube video.
Which race is that? Or are they all "brown people?"
Chickelit, is a female commenter automatically having some sort of tryst with a male commenter because she happens to agree with them at times? I don't always agree with Ritmo or Cedarford. Sexist?
But when someone, anyone says something that resonates, I'm not going to ignore it.
to not tip off the attackers
Tip them off to what?
That makes it sound as if we deliberately sacrificed a few Americans for some larger picture strategy.
Chickelit, is a female commenter automatically having some sort of tryst with a male commenter because she happens to agree with them at times?
I believe it is called a "menage-a-twat" ; )
Mike, I get ya, but sheesh, don't drag me into a personal war with Althouse, it's her blog she gets to voice her opinion and she let's us voice ours.
Unless, of course, Ned Silver has some magic algorithm to make that go away, too.
Because, as edutcher assures us, Mittens won in a landslide!
Seems to me that the discussion on Benghazi should focus on just one question that should be repeated over and over: "Who gave the order to stand down and not send help to the consulate?"
That zeroes in on the key aspect of presidential leadership and keeps the story intellectually simple and emotionally compelling.
As it is now, it's a mess of distracting and confusing noise for many.
EMD is close to my line of thinking...tip off to what? And by whom?
Isn't it a little weird that this non-descript pastor in Florida has such "influence" that Sec of Def Gates (at the time) telephones him personally, then General Petraeus (in 2010) and again General Dempsey in 2012?
I've seen this guy Jones up close...he's a complete dipwad with a strange mustache. He periodically visits my hometown to stir up trouble, he has no entourage to speak of, demands protection, walks around with an empty pistol holster on his belt, and mostly draws crowds of 20 to 40 passers by. Few if any of my Muslim neighbors bother to even notice him.
So just WHO is he in the panoply of Washington DC?
That's a rhetorical question...I don't want to know more than I already know...that he is a tool, plain and simple. No one is going to tell me the truth anyway. And my neighbors are still going to ask me "who is that guy?"
Among the top three reasons that I retired when I did was the fact I grew weary of being lied to and being expected to lie as well. I expect no truth what-so-ever from anyone above the rank of lieutenant colonel or master sergeant now, or civilian politicians above the local mayor.
Jason Voorhees has crawled back out of the water at Camp Crystal Lake.
Gloria
WAS there an order to stand down? Is that proven? I heard there was no such order.
@Lydia- They didn't want anyone finding out about the illegal detainees at the annex.
The question that needs to be asked over and over again is WHY were we still in Libya after the Brits left? What the hell were we doing there?
@Lydia- They didn't want anyone finding out about the illegal detainees at the annex.
Lydia said...
Seems to me that the discussion on Benghazi should focus on just one question that should be repeated over and over: "Who gave the order to stand down and not send help to the consulate?"
===================
That would be like in Watergate saying "Ignore the coverup. What mid-level official ordered the break-in at a Democrat office."
+++++++++++++++++
Aridog - To assert that all were "spontaneous" is irrational.
Of course it wasn't purely spontaneous. If not organized leaders with cells or bullhorns there are almost ALWAYS some organizers and propgandists and media cabals and poailitical cabals behind most protests. Even foreign nations - as the Soviets were especially adept in.
Where the right FAILS is ignoring that all the protests BUT Benghazi used the blasmphemy video as useful, handy ammunition to be used against the enemy (American infidels) that stupidly allowed it.
And interviews at Benghazi seem to indicate the attack organizers ensured that members of their combat teams were aware of the blasphemous video to help motivate their killing desire.
Wow, every day a new story. This is the most complex cover-up ever engineered. Zero must really be afraid of impeachment hearings.
Everybody or anybody but the president may be deemed responsible. I think we should go after John F'n Kerry, who served in Vietnam, doing all those terrible things to the native population.
I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.
They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam ...
So Kerry knew, but took no action - just like Barry.
Are the various falsities and iterations deliberate attempts to cloud the story, or are they evidence that this administration does not know what it is doing?
My Magic 8-Ball says: "All signs point to yes."
What I think is racist is spreading the fake story that Muslims fly into an insane rage over a YouTube video. This is a disgusting stereotype.
That's hysterical. The MSM, the President, the Secretary of State, Inga...all of them said just that.
And yet the truth remains the same:
The President of the United States arrested and frog-marched a man for making a movie, all the while knowing that the man's movie had nothing to do with the attacks.
This is how free speech burns: when Easy Annie A. and Inga the Lying Obama Whore And Garbage Mahal do nothing but cheer when it happens.
Inga wrote:
WAS there an order to stand down? Is that proven? I heard there was no such order.
I heard there was. See how that lack of answers invites the need to ask questions? So why aren't you doing so?
Or why are you saying that it's repuublicans engaging in a with hunt trying to get that answer?
As Ive said before, there might be a reasonable explanation. BUT we have to get the answer from the administration, which requires ASKING THE QUESTIONS.
In other words, they'd rather blame a constitutional right for the violence than the enemy.
This sums up the administrations view of America quite well.
Here is what the DNI is.
The Director of National Intelligence (DNI) is the United States government official – subject to the authority, direction, and control of the President – required by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 to:
Serve as principal advisor to the President, the National Security Council, and the Homeland Security Council about intelligence matters related to national security;
Serve as head of the sixteen-member Intelligence Community; and
Direct and oversee the National Intelligence Program.
Ann, I don't know what Asshole started off that segment, but he stated: Another partisan issue in Washington, who edited, . . .
I distinctly recall Feinstein wanting answers too. Is she now a Republican?
And to Inga and all the other Ostrich Golden God Apologists: NO ONE KNOWS WHAT HAPPENED.
All we are saying is WE ARE ENTITLED TO KNOW.
Maybe you don't think so.
Inga wrote:
WAS there an order to stand down? Is that proven? I heard there was no such order.
Was there an execute order?
Remember, the president made the statment "“I can tell you as I have said over the last couple of months since this happened, that the minute I found out this was going on, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we’re going to investigate exactly what happened to make sure it doesn’t happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice.”
Is there an execute order that suggested he did do all he could to secure personnel?
According to a Fox News report by Jennifer Griffin, former Navy Seals Ty Woods and Glen Doherty (who were later killed), were ordered to stand down three times following calls during the attack.
This is either true or false. IF true though, it's suggestive as to why they went by themselves to protect the embassy.
No kidding we are entitled to know, we are not entitled to make shit up and then get pissed off when it's questioned though.
Geoff:
Constitutional rights don't matter very much anymore. Not to this President; but it didn't start with him.
And there are a good number of citizens for whom they don't matter much either, including some commenting here.
Inga said...
No kidding we are entitled to know, we are not entitled to make shit up and then get pissed off when it's questioned though.
you were making up stuff all along. are you a small mouth bass? your memory seems very short term.
Some white guy.
Inga,
Still waiting for your promised outrage for the lies about the video/riots/terrorism.
No kidding we are entitled to know, we are not entitled to make shit up and then get pissed off when it's questioned though.
We are not entitled. Only Democrats are entitled. That's right, when Republicans say such and such is crazy, we hear "Republicans have Racist Motives." When Republicans point out that Fucking retard Suzan Rice lied to the WORLD, it's "Racism, Racism."
No, you are right. I don't mean to complain about this, but sometimes the horse shit of hypocrisy gets a little bit deep, and stinky.
Tell us, IngaMao, what DO you expect your Golden God to do over the next for years? Better, right? Tell us how and what will be better.
Exhelordvr, why should I be outraged at information that still is not known for certain?
I'm more outraged at the KNOWN fact that we were in Libya beyond the time when the wiser Brits left after they were attacked. Also it's reasonable to be outraged at the fact that they had basically no security. IMO those two facts are deserving of righteous outrage.
Dante, you're getting your yellow feathers all ruffled again, calm down pretty bird.
chickelit said...
Funny how Inga always winds up in bed with either Ritmo or Cedarford.
Leftards and anti-semites all run in the same circle. Shit, they are all probably from Austria too.
Inga said...
Aridog a screening of the film with translation was shown on Egyptian TV on the Saturday before Tuesday 9/11, so there was a correlation between the TV showing and the demonstrations in Cairo and 22 other countries within days of 9/11.
Correlation isn't causation, you insipid fool. Or didn't they teach you that in nursing school?
Inga said...
Mike, I get ya, but sheesh, don't drag me into a personal war with Althouse, it's her blog she gets to voice her opinion and she let's us voice ours.
Awww, isn't that just quaint, you little dear? I mean, it's okay if we get to voice our opinions on other peoples blogs that let us, but it's just so sad when you condemn someone who used his free speech to make a movie that offended your precious muslims and their oh-so-cute religion. Then it's a bad thing and why, you can't let people know that you suffer from this type of moral hypocrisy now can we? I mean, that would just be mean and stuff. Poor, poor fascist. Always looking for a way to suppress and repress speech for people that you don't like who offend the ones you do like.
Fr Martin fox Said: . . . the peril to free speech is the issue that is being neglected. And the President, in my view, did a lousy job of standing up for free speech throughout.
Exactly right. I would contend that the damage inflicted on the US by this administration's willingness to condemn Nakoula instead of defend freedom is more hideous than all the other hideous, cowardly, leave-them-to-die calculations they did in those awful hours.
cf said...
Exactly right. I would contend that the damage inflicted on the US by this administration's willingness to condemn Nakoula instead of defend freedom is more hideous than all the other hideous, cowardly, leave-them-to-die calculations they did in those awful hours.
That clearly sounds like the modus operandi of our resident leftards on this blog. But then again, they accused Romney of shooting from the hip on Benghazi. They love to blame others except taking responsibility for themselves. It's par for the course. It's always someone else's fault. Nakoula, Bush, Free Speech, et al. Damn those facts.
Inga,
You said:
WAS there an order to stand down? Is that proven? I heard there was no such order.
Yes, we know there was an order to stand down.
The CIA agents did not start out in contact with the enemy. They were told to stand down and did not.
They proceeded to the Consulate and recovered one body, but not Ambassador Stevens.
They then came under fire from the enemy, and the battle lasted 7 hours.
They called for additional help.
Help of some sort was a maximum of 3 hours away.
One was exposing himself to enemy fire to use a laser to designate a target when he was killed by mortar fire.
He would not have been doing that if there wasn't something available that could hit that target.
We know this because the annex was in contact with superiors not on the scene.
The USAF creed says we never leave anyone behind. The Marines do to, I think, and I've been told by other servicemembers that every branch swears they will not leave anyone behind in their creed.
The attack was watched by drones as it developed.
So why did no one try to help?
It would take a direct order.
The CIA spokesperson, speaking on behalf of Petraeus, said, specifically: "Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate."
That wording strongly implies there was an order to not help that came from above the CIA.
It would take 48 hours, maximum, for the man who sits at the top of the most robust information chain to determine where the disconnect was, why no help was sent, who gave the order to stand down, why no help was available (if that was the case), etc.
Instead, he chose to lie to the American people about it for more than 2 weeks.
Then he lied about lying about it during a televised debate.
And then, more than a month after the attack, he made a statement about orders he gave that contained zero specifics.
1) He did not say when he "found out what was happening". That is a vital part of the issue that he refuses to tell us, even though he certainly knows, and could have told us that very same day. Why not? Why don't you care?
2) He did not specify what he meant by "what was happening". The attack on the Ambassador? The attack on the CIA annex? That his damage control had finally failed? That news sources had revealed his incompetence and/or malfeasance?
3) He did not specify to whom he gave the orders.
4) He did not specify what he meant by "Whatever we need to do".
5) He did not explain why, if he gave the order during the attack, why his orders were not followed.
6) If did not give the order during the attack, he did not explain the gap, or why he wasn't aware of the attack when it happened (which would be illegal).
So the problem is, bottom line, that President Obama is promising to investigate who attacked, and why security was inadequate, but more than 2 months later he hasn't given us even the simple facts he knew on 11 Sep 2012. More than 2 months later he hasn't given us an update on any aspect of the "investigation". He isn't even promising to investigate the problems in his chain of command about inadequate security or failure to make even a token attempt to save American lives.
Why will he not tell us even the most basics of who, when and what?
And why do you not care?
The most obvious conclusion is that the cold-blooded slaughter of Americans is no big deal to you as long as it didn't hurt President Obama's re-election.
Wipe your chin Meth, you hysterical ninny, your spittle has flown about and now the rest of it's dripping.
Inga,
You said:
Exhelordvr, why should I be outraged at information that still is not known for certain?
You should be outraged because much of the information you don't know for certain is already known by President Obama, and has been known since the attack occurred.
Specifically: where he was when the attack occurred, what time he gave the orders, who he gave the order to, and why no one helped (who gave the stand-down order, or who disobeyed the order to go in and help)
And 99% of the rest was (or could have been) known within 48 hours, max, from the time the attack ended.
Specifically, why he had Susan Rice tell everyone it was a spontaneous riot instead of an organized military-style assault, why the area was not secured weeks after the fact, why no one has been held accountable/responsible for the communication/leadership failures contributing to the deaths (including inadequate security despite warnings, failure to help during the attacks, and why he has not been forthcoming about all this even 2 months after the attack).
So you should be outraged because information we should know is being with-held by President Obama for no reason.
Nathan, your "conclusions" are tainted with your desire for them to be true, too bad you don't have better proof of your assertions. Nothing has changed I still don't buy into conspiracy theories by partisan commenters.
And you questioning me as to why I don't care is assuming I don't care, which you do wayyyyyy too much of Nathan, as I told you before.
Also, how long did it take for the 9/11 Commission to publish its findings?
As a side note, it has been fascinating watching keyboard brigades pick up the term "stand down" and use it.
Inga,the fool, is on to the newest talking point of the stupid wing of the progs: 9-11-01 is just like 9-11-12. Just like it. This is a common theme in the comments of the poorly educated leftists. Equivalency and GWB in one slogan.
And Michael the more you comment the clearer it becomes you are a lazy thinker, a lazy writer, and your "education" whatever it may be, didn't teach you a thing.
Inga said...
Wipe your chin Meth, you hysterical ninny, your spittle has flown about and now the rest of it's dripping.
Is this the typical drought you are going to exude from your keyboard? You never face facts, you simply dodge, bob, weave, and deflect. This is a classic example of you doing that. I display no hysterics here, but rather just pointing out what a repugnant individual you are in your beliefs. Please, continue to deflect more, hypocrite.
Meth, you have absolutely no self awareness do you?
Inga said...
Also, how long did it take for the 9/11 Commission to publish its findings?
More meaningless deflecting goal post moving going on here. She is unfortunately bad at it as its transparent usage is easily plain to see. Don't want to talk about a discussion point that is being thrust back into your chest, why then, just say squirrel. Any other tricks you want to employ lady?
Inga said...
Meth, you have absolutely no self awareness do you?
What does that even mean, you senile old nag?
Meth, I wonder how Althouse, or other older women must feel when you continue to call attention to my age as she is older than I am. Do you not recognize that when you spout ageist sexist crap you lose even more credibility?
Inga said...
Meth, I wonder how Althouse, or other older women must feel when you continue to call attention to my age as she is older than I am. Do you not recognize that when you spout ageist sexist crap you lose even more credibility?
I've never called attention to your age. Unless you consider me calling you a doddering old nag a delineator to how old you are, which I'm assuming, to you, somehow matters. But please cry more about spouting your incessant calls to ageism and sexism as if I or anyone, aside from your leftist cadre, actually cares about those things. I'd still like to understand how you can possibly tie or make the connection my credibility or lack thereof to your age?
You see, this is the kind of nonsense you spew, meaningless pablum that has no coherence in reality whatsoever. You're projecting your fantasy of retaliation again, but again, fail to gain any traction because you are constantly called out on your bullshit. But please deflect more. You are good at that. Yell squirrel more as if it will help you.
Why Althouse or any other woman would give two shits about me calling you a doddering old nag is more of your piffle. But hey, I understand that deep seeded need of yours to seek some type of gender/age solidarity looking around for support to get some back up. It's natural to do that, but in your case, there is usually no one behind you and anyone who does show up (the usual suspects) are about as effective as a period at the end of a sentence.
But please, cry more. It's really helping your case. I'm just gonna be standing over here laughing at you and shaking my head at what a cartoon clown you have become.
Some wingnuts will be disappointed at this news, blowing apart, as it does, one of their latest and most favored conspiracy theories -- what Ann, in her utterly reckless irresponsibility (and lunacy) said was Obama's deliberate decision to let the Ambassador die.
But don't be down, you fucking loons! These are just *facts!*
And when have you fucking loons ever let facts get in your way?
Never. That's when.
Meth head said:
I've never called attention to your age. Unless you consider me calling you a doddering old nag a delineator to how old you are ...
ROFL.
You loons. You are priceless. I *can* believe you just said that with a straight face.
Teabagger Ann Althouse said:
What I think is racist is spreading the fake story that Muslims fly into an insane rage over a YouTube video. This is a disgusting stereotype.
Ann, please. If you gave a single shit about Muslims or how they are demonized, you wouldn't work full time helping to elect Republicans, advancing the cause of ultraconservative extremism, or promoting that disgusting pig Rush Limbaugh.
You must really think the people who read your blog are stupid if you think they fall for these kinds of lies. And you're probably right: your core audience of 'baggers *are* that stupid. But certainly you must aspire to more than tossing red meat to wingnuts?
Or not.
Jack said...
Meth head said:
I've never called attention to your age. Unless you consider me calling you a doddering old nag a delineator to how old you are ...
ROFL.
You loons. You are priceless. I *can* believe you just said that with a straight face.
Hey look everyone, it's a period at the end of the sentence coming to offer aid. Leftards are amazing organisms. It's like they share this weird connection of stupidity and then vomit it back up for all of us to experience as if it had meaning and relevance.
Jack said...
Teabagger Ann Althouse said:
What I think is racist is spreading the fake story that Muslims fly into an insane rage over a YouTube video. This is a disgusting stereotype.
Ann, please. If you gave a single shit about Muslims or how they are demonized, you wouldn't work full time helping to elect Republicans, advancing the cause of ultraconservative extremism, or promoting that disgusting pig Rush Limbaugh.
You must really think the people who read your blog are stupid if you think they fall for these kinds of lies. And you're probably right: your core audience of 'baggers *are* that stupid. But certainly you must aspire to more than tossing red meat to wingnuts?
Or not.
ROFL!!! baggers, mittens, cons, etc. Can I ask how old that gets just saying it? I mean, I'm just curious and all, on how you picked up on this phraseology? Did you assimilate it from other like minded leftards? Did you find that these names and phrases had some kind of deep resonance of truthiness to them? How do you feel say and use these words? Do you sit down at your desk and glob on some anti-bacterial lotion. Sort of crack your knuckles and think to yourself as you are about to reply, "Yeah, this will showem. I'm gonna call those tea party people tea-bagger, or just baggers. Yeah, that's it. Man, then I will call their guy Mittens, because that just sounds so powerful, meaningful and poignant and stuff. Yeah. What I say here in every response will be as if it were made perfect for each one. Yeah..." Then you start hacking out a response, getting aroused at the thought that someone might read this witty insight into your devilish humor, weaving these words into the threads of your sentences and thinking to yourself how awesome you must be.
That must make you feel so nifty. Hell, after you are done, you probably walk around pitching a tent in your pants it was that good.
I see Meth is still spewing, disturbingly amusing.
Inga said...
I see Meth is still spewing, disturbingly amusing.
I see you are still evading. Again. Hey, how much did those bob and weave dance lessons for you cost?
And you questioning me as to why I don't care is assuming I don't care, which you do wayyyyyy too much of Nathan, as I told you before.
You don't care.
If you cared, you would be upset that the President isn't furnishing simple, important, straightforward information that is within his control.
Since you aren't upset, and don't object to the President stonewalling even the most basic facts, it is obvious you don't care.
Your protests to the contrary mean nothing.
As I told you before, actions count far more than words.
When push comes to shove, you support the political party that disenfranchised your daughter, put her at risk for no reason while undermining the efforts she sacrificed for, and showed that it will sacrifice her very life in a heartbeat for political reasons and avoid accountability for that choice.
You still support them, wholeheartedly.
Why?
Nathan, do you realize how manipulative your comments are just now? Bagoh tried pulling the same thing on me.
That "if you aren't upset, you don't care" is nonsense and an attempt to manipulate. Is that a conservative male trait? I'm beginning to wonder. I wonder if conservative women are more easily manipulated, which is strange because you conservative males seem to think we liberal females are manipulated by Obama.
Nathan, your "conclusions" are tainted with your desire for them to be true, too bad you don't have better proof of your assertions. Nothing has changed I still don't buy into conspiracy theories by partisan commenters.
Wrong.
Dead wrong.
Here are the facts:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/
You never had an excuse, because this was always available...but I've now spoon fed you the information. Ignorance is clearly no longer an excuse for you supporting the President stonewalling information that he has.
Like I said, you claim information isn't known yet.
The President could clear up 99% of the questions by just telling us what he already knows.
The fact that he hasn't for more than 2 months indicates something pretty bad.
Remember, he is stonewalling and lying to the parents of those who were murdered. They know it, and have called the President out on it.
Your claims of caring are empty.
The President could clear it all up in just 5 minutes of telling us actual, specific facts.
But he hasn't. And that doesn't bother you in the slightest.
Instead, you screech at those who repeat the known facts and ask the President to answer the questions raised by those known facts, project your partisanship on those who just want to know the specific facts about the chain of communication and the full, detailed timeline.
You are aiding and abetting the President in sidestepping accountability.
Please note: I haven't accused the President. But he had the capability of knowing the entire situation within 48 hours. Yet he still lied to the US populace about it.
And in a move that is pure evil, he lied to the parents of those murdered.
And you support this, fully, to the hilt.
Nathan, do you realize how manipulative your comments are just now? Bagoh tried pulling the same thing on me.
Not manipulative at all.
I don't judge people. I judge actions.
If you don't like the consequences of your actions, change your actions.
If you don't feel comfortable with people pointing out aiding and abetting a President lying to the US populace and the parents of the slain, then stop aiding abetting a President who lied to the US populace and the parents of the slain.
News flash: supporting Obama does not give you ultimate moral authority.
Having a daughter in Afghanistan does not give you ultimate moral authority, either.
Especially not to someone who has deployed to the war zone in Iraq himself.
The President has not been forthcoming on basic information that is within his knowledge and/or control regarding the slaughter of Americans...including the failures of leadership that left 2 vulnerable, the failures of leadership that let the other 2 die without any attempt to rescue, and the failures of leadership to ensure accountability afterwards.
You have no problem with that.
Why?
So the hapless, faceless Clapper is made the scapegoat.. What fuckers. These people are worse than Bush and his people.
You've used the word "manipulate" on this blog a lot, Inga. And I'm not sure you understand the word the way most people do.
Webster's says it's "to control or play upon by artful, unfair, or insidious means."
I don't see Nathan doing this at all. Rather, he's presented some observations and then asked some questions of you. Which, however, you refuse to address.
Webster's definition, by the way, perfectly describes how the Obama campaign appealed to women.
Inga said...
Nathan, do you realize how manipulative your comments are just now? Bagoh tried pulling the same thing on me.
That "if you aren't upset, you don't care" is nonsense and an attempt to manipulate. Is that a conservative male trait? I'm beginning to wonder. I wonder if conservative women are more easily manipulated, which is strange because you conservative males seem to think we liberal females are manipulated by Obama.
The hubris to think that you are beyond manipulation by Obama is astounding. Okay, let's say for a mere moment that you aren't being manipulated. Then you are either a willing participant or a tool. Manipulation at this juncture looks like the better bet, but hey, you just keep on being not manipulated.
Lydia, Nathan is playing to my level of caring, that's unfair and insidious. I don't know how that isn't clear to you.
And Lydia, he is attempting to control me by attempting to make me feel bad or guilty for not agreeing with him, especially when he brings up my daughter.
Lydia said...
You've used the word "manipulate" on this blog a lot, Inga. And I'm not sure you understand the word the way most people do.
Webster's says it's "to control or play upon by artful, unfair, or insidious means."
I don't see Nathan doing this at all. Rather, he's presented some observations and then asked some questions of you. Which, however, you refuse to address.
Webster's definition, by the way, perfectly describes how the Obama campaign appealed to women.
She can't answer them. She doesn't have the mental capacity to do such a thing. It's all so encompassing for her to even fathom that her loving presidential god is somehow culpable in this attack against US sovereignty that resulted in the murder of 4 men at his service and yet doesn't have the nerve to be straight with the American public about it. Hell, he could have even used the National Security card and people would have accepted that, but nope. He's deliberately gone out of his way to dodge, lie, and not answer these questions. Others in his administration, in the form of Clinton and specifically Rice took the talking point on 5 sunday show outings without a mere thought to the ramifications of the lie of omission, that we know of now, that she repeated.
Nope, the implications are to staggering for the mind of someone like Inga. Getting your hand caught in the cookie jar is one thing, but taking your hand out of the cookie jar and saying that your hand is now not in the cookie jar is something else.
But your "caring" nature, Inga, has been the way you've brought your argument to the table here and used as justification for most of your positions.
If we then ask questions of you in the context of that "caring," we're manipulating you?
Inga said...
Lydia, Nathan is playing to my level of caring, that's unfair and insidious. I don't know how that isn't clear to you.
11/20/12 8:33 PM
Blogger Inga said...
And Lydia, he is attempting to control me by attempting to make me feel bad or guilty for not agreeing with him, especially when he brings up my daughter.
Are you not capable of controlling your emotions? Or are you a weak to succumbing to base manipulations? Mind you, you've made and offered the statements about your daughters occupation and location. You've made it a point many times over. Now when it is highlighted and used, it's manipulation? Spare us the maudlin nonsense.
The implications are to great for you to fathom on the secrecy behind Benghazi will manifest if the truth is known. Like Nathan, I suspect a more insidious mission behind the entire affair, one that if known in full would be very bad for this president and this country. Neither prospect is good for anyone, but yet, you will just wait for the 'facts' to come out before rendering judgement. How convenient.
I'm so disappointed in President Obama and his Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice. I was counting on them to read My Pet Goat to some anxious schoolchildren in Florida. That would have calmed the masses and he wouldn't have needed to concede the election.
I love that the current R attack is that Rice should have revealed classified info rather than the info that she was legally authorized to share publicly.
You folks are nuts.
"Right before the election."
WTF?
September is not right before the election.
October is. There's a reason folks refer to "October surprises." October is meaningfully right before the election. September is not.
Duh!
I think @Nathan Alexander summarized everything very well in his comments at 6:26, 6:33, and 8:30 PM today 20 Sep 2012.
That said, "truth" will never be forth coming. No one above the grade of GS-13 or Lieutenant Colonel even knows what that is anymore.
No one has even tried to explain why two former Spec Ops people sought to go to and defend the consulate and annex, including the personnel. With or without orders per se. No one official has asked what motivates a man or woman under fire to move toward the fire to defend others. The whole senior apparatus is a fucking shameful embarrassment, and an insult to all soldiers past and present everywhere.
In short...we will be treated to a long series of "Squirrel" sightings and nothing more.
pbAndjFellowRepublican said...
I love that the current R attack is that Rice should have revealed classified info rather than the info that she was legally authorized to share publicly.
You folks are nuts.
Who's saying that?
She was made to look like an idiot by the administration bent on lying to the American people.
Rice, the lie, Prateus are all distractions from the real issue.
What was going on in Benghazi and why weren't our operators given the help they requested?
Why the elaborate cover up?
It only raises more questions.
Benghazi?
More like been gauzy!
Sorry.
pbAndjFellowRepublican said...
I love that the current R attack is that Rice should have revealed classified info rather than the info that she was legally authorized to share publicly.
You folks are nuts.
Who said that? What we know is that she read the script and didn't deviate. The script was a lie, just like her performance. Not once, but 5 times.
By the way, do you and I know each other? You made a reference that you live in Seattle. I have a very good friend living in Seattle. He's a Knight Boob. If you are him, you would know what that means.
Post a Comment