Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

you have been drinking what Ex has been. The people on the ground who know what they are talking about told of precision mortar rounds.

---

Yes so precision they left the ambassador alive to die of smoke inhaliation, sounds like a message to me.

You need to understand, Tom, that it is your people who are smoking dope, we have a saying here, is he on drugs? And the view we get, more and more, is that someone over there is, because reality this ain't.

Jihadists are everywhere, Why? Because of what your foreign policy stirred up in the world. The few successes there have been are nothing compared to the misery inflicted on a billion people. You really do need to concentrate on your own problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

The politicization came when the administration pushed the lies.

---

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/10/05/rice_on_benghazi_blame_the_intelligence_community

Quote:

---

Rice was responding to a Sept. 26 letter from the GOP senators in which they accused Rice of jumping the gun and disseminating false information about the attack. The letter quotes Rice's comments selectively, leaving out the context where she cautioned that the information was based on initial assessments. Rice emphasized in her response that she had caveated her remarks in her TV appearances.

---

So much for keeping you guys in the loop as things develop. Better she said nothing since you were going to holler LIES any way. You have done it before you no doubt will do it again while you yourself condone YOUR lies to the American people.

Without caveat I might add. You would politicize a bump on a log to get MITT elected, and that makes him the perfect right wing loony candidate.

Dude, they knew in a matter of hours. Rice was feeding us her load of crap FIVE DAYS LATER.

Hello again, desperate housewives, I mean right wingers...

So, Obama didn't protect our guy's, huh? He's the one who's weak, huh?

Turns out, the right wing shares the blame... In fact, the LOUDEST mouth on your side is the congressmen who VOTED to cut diplomatic security budget .

Whoda thunk that?

excon

According to the State Dept's testimony, there were NO budget issues for not sending more security.
No ,they can't behind that canard.

Hello again, tom:

I ain't buying it... If cutting a security budget doesn't result in LESS security on the ground, then why are we spending ANYTHING?

excon

I'm going by Congressional testimony provided by Eric Nordstrom ;the head of security in Libya who informed State he needed more personel ;and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb (the person most directly responsible for rejecting multiple requests for increased security) ,who testified under oath that she felt there was adequate security there .
Their decision had NOTHING to do with budgetary constraints. It had everything to do with this idea that they wanted the US to have a light presence there .

And by the way, Libya was denied use of a DC-3 for security ops in Libya but by golly, European embassies got their Chevy Volts, and a new $108,000 charging station 4 days after their request was denied.

Priorities you know.

Hello wingers:

Here's a little MORE from the hearing... In their right wing zeal to tarnish the president, they blew the CIA’s cover.

Silly Republicans..

excon

Ex there are some weird ideas at that enquiry, but really it's same old, same old, some back room Johnny, or in this case Jil,l has made a bad judgement call

I've known from open source information that the CIA was operating out of the safe house for weeks . I also know that they were there recruiting anti-Assad jihadists .Even Milbanks admits that both his Compost and the Slimes had reported about a CIA presence there.

But ,it appears that the State Dept was the one who disclosed it during the testimony by showing the sat. photo of the compound.

Of course there is a CIA rpesence there, good God there is even an ASIO presence there, but it means nothing, these agencies spend their time intelligence gathering and may even send the occasional misdirected drone. Without boots on the ground they may as well be whistling dixie

Indeed . Last night Biden outright lied about not getting requests for additional security .

Politicians lie, I don't know why you think otherwise, it is all about spin, telling the truth or some version of it whilst telling no one anything. How you can think a capitalist in control is a good thing is beyond me, the last one absolutely screwed things up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

politicians lie, I don't know why you think otherwise, it is all about spin, telling the truth or some version of it whilst telling no one anything. How you can think a capitalist in control is a good thing is beyond me, the last one absolutely screwed things up

---

As opposed to a generation of lawyer /politicians ? I'll take my chance on the capitalist.

Quote:

---

Hello wingers:

Here's a little MORE from the hearing... In their right wing zeal to tarnish the president, they blew the CIA’s cover.

Silly Republicans..

Excon

---

YOu libs really ought to check out a fact or two before running with your silly taunts. The NY Times reported this on September 23rd.

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON — The attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans has dealt the Central Intelligence Agency a major setback in its intelligence-gathering efforts at a time of increasing instability in the North African nation.

Among the more than two dozen American personnel evacuated from the city after the assault on the American mission and a nearby annex were about a dozen C.I.A. operatives and contractors, who played a crucial role in conducting surveillance and collecting information on an array of armed militant groups in and around the city.

---

Then last night the old fart threw the CIA under the bus... I doubt they'll take kindly to that.

Quote:

---

The lies within lies multiply. Now the White House is saying in perfectly Clinton-esque style that when Biden said “we” didn't know about the security request from Benghazi he just meant himself and the president. This is pathetic. Does the State Department not report to the president? Was the national security adviser unaware of what was going on in Libya? An administration that must resort so frequently to pleas of incompetence is not one to be entrsuted with national security.

---

Obama’s Libya debacle: Willful blindness - Right Turn - The Washington Post

Quote:

---

A spokesman tells Foreign Policy magazine that Biden was telling the truth — he just wasn't speaking for the whole administration. The president and vice president, Deputy National Security Adviser for Communications Ben Rhodes said, were unaware of the concerns.

The State Department security officials who testified before House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa's panel Wednesday never said they had made their requests to the president, Rhodes pointed out. That would be natural because the State Department is responsible for diplomatic security, not the White House, he said. Rhodes also pointed out that the officials were requesting more security in Tripoli, not Benghazi.

White House spokesman Jay Carney made the same point in Friday's White House Briefing. The vice president “was speaking directly for himself and for the president,” he said. “He meant the White House.”

---

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...bama-on-libya/

Ridiculous, the suggestion here is that the President should micromanage everything, that he should be informed that an ambassador had made routine requests for improvements in security. If this is so he doesn't need his various Secretaries and advisors all he needs is memos and he can wing it

There was no protest in Benghazi, there was no spillover from protest elsewhere as this administration continues to argue.

Quote:

---

Video footage from the United States consulate in Benghazi, Libya, taken the night of the Sept. 11 anniversary attacks, shows an organized group of armed men attacking the compound, according to two U.S. intelligence officials who have seen the footage and are involved in the ongoing investigation. The footage, which was recovered from the site last week by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, offers some of the most tangible evidence yet that a military-style assault took place, according to these officials…

The videos could also play into an expanding investigation by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that is looking at whether security steps could have been taken that would have saved the life of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans killed that day. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, who is one of the Republicans leading the House investigation, says he hasn’t been given the footage.

In addition to the footage from the consulate cameras, the U.S. government is also poring over video taken from an overhead U.S. surveillance drone that arrived for the final hour of the night battle at the consulate compound and nearby annex.

Video from the compound’s cameras debunk the initial line from the Obama administration that there was a protest in front of the consulate on the night of the attacks, according to one of the U.S. intelligence officials who has seen the footage, and a senior Obama administration official familiar with what they show.

---

Lies and more lies from Obama and co. but go ahead, keep excusing them even as their entire web of lies is being untangled.

Who is excusing them? It is clear that some sort of arse protecting went on here, that the spin machine was fully wound up, sadly it is what we have come to expect of the White House no matter who sits in the chair

The problem is not that there was a CIA operation ongoing . That was the worst kept secret ever . It is the operation they were doing that the Obots are trying to sweep under the rug. During the Bush years we fought wars against Sunni jihadists in places like Iraq and Afghanistan ;and covertly throughout the ummah . However ,since the Obama adm . We have been schizophrenic ;waging a drone war against them while at the same time supporting their efforts in Egypt ,the greater Maghreb ,and in the Syrian revolution. The CIA mission in Benghazi was recruiting, training ,and supporting the efforts in Syria . It is quite possible that CIA trained jihadists took part in the attack on Ambassador Stevens .

Anything is possible, but given so many moving parts, and the complexity of the entire region. I sure don't depend on campaign spin to make a judgement no matter which side is spinning.

Hello again,

The fact that we were attacked SHOULDN'T be a surprise to the right wing.. Apparently, they thought Obama SOLVED the Mid East Crisis.. When they find out he didn't, they're saying that his entire foreign policy is unraveling... Boy, oh boy, is THAT stupid, if only because what Obama is doing, is the BUSH doctrine on steroids?

Now, I agree, that with the BILLIONS and BILLIONS they spent on counter terror, we SHOULD be way ahead. Unfortunately, LOTS and LOTS of those BILLIONS were spent right HERE, SPYING on US. Maybe, if we spent those BILLIONS on defeating the enemy, we might actually have defeated them by now...

The problem with OUR government is, it thinks that WE'RE the terrorists. Boy, oh boy, oh boy, is THAT backwards.. They don't think Al Quaida will attack, but they think WE will.

excon

Quote:

---

Apparently, they thought Obama SOLVED the Mid East Crisis..

---

No ;in fact quite the opposite ;The President turned a winning hand into a wholesale chaotic retreat .

Quote:

---

If only because what Obama is doing, is the BUSH doctrine on steroids.

---

That would be true if Bush pursued a policy of supporting extremist Sunni terrorist organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood. But of course we know that isn't true . I had hoped he would continue the Bush Doctrine ;but alas ,he created his own in supporting Sunni extremism and his growing doctrine of R2P .

Quote:

---

Maybe, if we spent those BILLIONS on defeating the enemy, we might actually have defeated them by now...

---

or perhaps if State Dept funding had been allocated properly like... ummm... beefing up security for our embassies in the days before 9-11-12 so that our Ambassador wasn't attacked ;and AQ flags flown from 4 different embassies. Perhaps maybe buying Prius and chargers for our embassies was money foolishly spent .

Quote:

---

The problem with OUR government is, it thinks that WE'RE the terrorists. Boy, oh boy, oh boy, is THAT backwards.. They don't think Al Quaida will attack, but they think WE will.

---

This is true . DHS has a list of all these conservatives they have on their watch list . This adm has been extremely lucky .Twice the difference between a major jihadist attack at home was faulty trigger devices (the Christmas Detroit airline attack ;and the Time Square NYC attack) . The Adm also ignores the Fort Hood Massacre when they take credit for keeping us safe at home. They are obsessed with political correctness and that is how Major Hasan was able to commit his murders .
Meanwhile ,during my recent vacation ;I twice went through the x-ray zapping ,showing my naked body to a rent a voyer TSA agent . After both screenings I was subject to additional pat-downs . Why ? Because I was wearing hiker pants that had extra zippers.
So I agree our resources need to be directed against probable threats home and abroad . But also we need competent leadership at the State Dept who are more concerned about the security of their assets overseas ,instead of consciously putting them at risk to maintain a 'light footprint ' .

Quote:

---

or perhaps if State Dept funding had been allocated properly like... ummm... beefing up security for our embassies in the days before 9-11-12 so that our Ambassador wasn't attacked

---

Hello again, tom:

I thought we talked about YOUR party CUTTING the security budget from the State Department. If you were so concerned with their safety, you would have RAISED it, not cut it. Now, you want to pretend that they didn't do that, when they absolutely DID...

Wingers CUT, CUT, CUT, and when those cuts KILL, it's Obama's fault... Give me a break.

Excon

Umm none of the cuts are in effect yet . The State Dept testified that the cuts were not a factor in their decision. Finally ,the cuts are part of overall cuts to the State Dept budget that passed on a bipartisan vote. It is your side that is singalling out security . But the State Dept can easily allocate it's funding accordingly .

Our guy ain't perfect, but the shame is you think your guy is better. Heck he may NOT be as good as the guy YOU guys had before and he was a disaster. You guys said so!

I think the whole country needs more time to get over your last conservative before they get another one.

Amen to that

Hello again,

Republicans have no shame... The right wing thinks that budget line items are simply MONEY. They DON'T realize that cutting them makes a real difference in people's lives.. When it's pointed out to them that it DOES, they deny it.

Case in point... They CUT the budget for the State Department, and think they did GOOD.. But, it resulted in LESS security for our people overseas, and SOME of them got killed.. Now, they'll look you straight in the eye, and tell you it's Obama's fault - that SLASHING the security budget didn't make ANY difference in these killings.. But, of course, that's ludicrous.

Quote:

---

Republican Darrel Issa joined in cutting nearly a half-billion dollars from the State Department's two main security accounts. One covers things like security staffing, including local guards, armored vehicles and security technology; the other, embassy construction and upgrades. In 2011 and 2012, President Obama sought a total of $5 billion, and the House approved $4.5 billion.

In 2009, Mr. Issa voted for an amendment that would have cut nearly 300 diplomatic security positions. And the draconian budgets proposed by Mitt Romney's running mate, Representative Paul Ryan, would cut foreign affairs spending by 10 percent in 2013 and even more in 2016.

---

Excon

Cutting the budget had nothing to do with the security failures.The Benghazi consulate was never on the docket to be brought up to security standards;and as I already pointed out ;there was PC political reasons for the security decisions the Adm made in the ummah ;and particularly in Libya.

Edit.. this is Issa's response on 'Face the Nation' yesterday :
"In the case of our committee, we're– we're recognizing that there was 2.2 billion dollars in a discretionary fund that could have been used for security, still could be used for security enhancements throughout the region. Plus, the DOD, the military, if we need these things to keep our diplomats safe in these countries, we need to start spending that money and not claim that we don't have enough money.”

Hello again, tom:

I don't know how you guy's miss stuff.. You'll complain about how STUPID we are, but you don't connect it to FIRING teachers...

I maintain, that SLASHING a security budget DOES put people in jeopardy. Deny it again, if you wish..

excon

Yes I do deny it, and so did Charlene Lamb ,a deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, in testimony to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.Lamb is the person who denied requests from the top diplomatic security officer in Libya

State Department: Budget Had Nothing To Do With Security Decisions At Benghazi - YouTube

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

yes I do deny it, and so did Charlene Lamb ,a deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, in testimony to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.Lamb is the person who denied requests from the top diplomatic security officer in Libya

State Department: Budget Had Nothing To Do With Security Decisions At Benghazi - YouTube

---

No wonder there is a war on women

Yesterday Evita fell on her sword for the President. However ,her' take the responsibility ' statement will not end this.

Its not supposed to end it, only a thorough investigation can do that and not the Issa witch hunt in the house, muddying the waters for political gain. Now you may say the house has a right to get answers, and I agree but does their also have to be a camera to expose very sensitive information?

I thought you guys had learned from the Plame affair about mixing politics with objective facts.

Lol they were real time photos that the State Dept provided .

I am sure they weren't supposed to be broadcasted were they?

They were presented in open testimony . Republic members of the committee ;recognizing that there may be national security implications ,tried to move the meeting to closed session.

What are they afraid of they, might tell Al Qaeda something they already know?

That's the problem with these witch hunts to exploit tragedies in public in the name of investigations.

I guess discreet never crossed any ones minds?