- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 17, 2012 at 5:42 pm #777543
dobroParticipantAnd listen to this guy. He’s a Democrat, so he’s gotta be a liar.
A Democratic member of the House, Adam Schiff, said: “The general was adamant there was no politicisation of the process, no White House interference or political agenda. He completely debunked that idea.”
November 17, 2012 at 8:14 pm #777544
dobroParticipantHere’s some more reportage…
According to multiple intelligence sources who have served in Benghazi, there were more than just Libyan militia members who were held and interrogated by CIA contractors at the CIA annex in the days prior to the attack. Other prisoners from additional countries in Africa and the Middle East were brought to this location.
The Libya annex was the largest CIA station in North Africa, and two weeks prior to the attack, the CIA was preparing to shut it down. Most prisoners, according to British and American intelligence sources, had been moved two weeks earlier.
The CIA, though, categorically denied these allegations, saying: “The CIA has not had detention authority since January 2009, when Executive Order 13491 was issued. Any suggestion that the agency is still in the detention business is uninformed and baseless.”
McCain is asking for an investigation into the Benghazi attack to score political points against Obama, but for the sake of truth and justice, there should be an investigation into whether the CIA ignored Executive Order 13491 by running a secret prison in the Benghazi annex.
So it does seem like an investigation is in order, but not for the reasons the cranky right wingers are pushing.
November 17, 2012 at 8:14 pm #777545
JoBParticipantkootchman
you have repeated the bimbo remark.
I meant what i said and i said what i meant.
You have deeply offended me
and i no longer wish to have any conversation with you.
November 18, 2012 at 4:12 am #777546
kootchmanMemberYes I did…and still think she is one. Well let’s have it then dobro.. special commission, open to the press, public hearings.. the whole show. I’d love to see it. Obama, Hilary, all trotted out the “video” line… weeks after they knew it wasn’t true. Even trotted the turkey out in front of the UN?!! He knew it was bs then. Spin, spin, ..
November 18, 2012 at 6:38 am #777547
TrickParticipantSure Kootch, after they do a special commission on George Tenet’s actions, and redactions to classified intel on the lack of WMD’s, from his own CIA field reports.
Let alone his promise the intel given to Powell for the UN was accurate. We know how that relationship ended.
I’m still waiting for that investigation, and I’m sure the relatives of 8,000 plus victims are too.
November 18, 2012 at 4:40 pm #777548
dobroParticipant“Well let’s have it then dobro.. special commission, open to the press, public hearings…”
Not necessary. We have committees in Congress already that are charged with investigation and military and executive agencies. We don’t need McBitter McCain running his own show trial. Wisely, Harry Reid agrees with me. Google up his letter on McCain’s request for a select committee with him as chairman. It’s pretty funny.
I know all the righties are pretty sad right now, being major losers and all,and all they have left is throwing feces at the wall trying to make something stick to Obama, but I think he must’ve found the secret recipie for Presidential Teflon that Saint Ronnie left hidden somewhere in the Oval Office.
November 18, 2012 at 5:23 pm #777549
dobroParticipantEven Crusty McCain’s BFFs aren’t sticking with him on the “John McCain Select Committee” BS
“Today on Fox News Sunday, Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) said they did not think the U.S. Senate should create a special committee to investigate the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya on Sept. 11. Chambliss and Lieberman said the Senate currently has the capacity to investigate the matter and that a new committee is not needed.
Republican senators John McCain (AZ), Lindsey Graham (SC) and Kelly Ayotte (NH) this week called for a Watergate-style special “select committee” to investigate the attack, claiming that the Obama administration, particularly U.N. Ambasssador Rice, misled the public about the attack resulting from protests against an anti-Islam video.
But Chambliss and Lieberman, both close friends of McCain and Graham (Lieberman, Graham and McCain are often referred to as “The Three Amigos“), rejected the proposal. “I respectfully separate from my two amigos on this one,” Lieberman said”
November 18, 2012 at 8:01 pm #777550
JKBParticipantNovember 18, 2012 at 8:09 pm #777551
HMC RichParticipantWait a minute.
Susan Rice mislead the public. The President used the same excuse during the two weeks that the administration and then started changing the story.
I am glad Petreaus spoke. The more that comes out the better. But lets face it, four people are dead.
Can one of you tell me why the reinforcements they asked for did not show up?
We all want the truth. But lets face it, Administrations do not want to look bad right before an election if they are running.
Congress is doing its job in investigating. Whether or not they find the truth is irrelevant. It is all about politics.
JKB … MMMMMMMM that looks good
November 18, 2012 at 8:16 pm #777552
waynsterParticipantFrom what has come out from all of this is there was an affair (oh joy men cheating nothing new) this McCain/Graham witch hunt now has a new comer welcome Machele Bachmann now we are getting her 2 cents worth in…..
…Look the CIA has been wrong before and they will be wrong again its called the spy game and as long as we have embassies located through out the world its going to happen again not a matter of if but when…
November 18, 2012 at 8:50 pm #777553
JKBParticipantThey’re not all sweetness and spongecake. Once I had a little trouble in the snow and called a bimbo.
http://tow411.yuku.com/topic/111254
Wasn’t a very attractive bimbo, but I had needs.
November 18, 2012 at 9:29 pm #777554
JoBParticipantif only Bimbo had bought hostess :(
November 18, 2012 at 9:33 pm #777555
JoBParticipantHMCRich..
i see a pattern here..
republicans willing to out CIA operatives and operations for political gain
whether you agree that the CIA should function the way it does or not.. and personally i don’t really agree…
Do you really think playing political football with our national security is a good idea?
I am kind of remembering what happened last time the republicans turned our national attention away from that pesky AlQueda and towards Clinton’s sex life…
You would think they would have learned something from that fiasco, wouldn’t you?
November 18, 2012 at 10:06 pm #777556
dobroParticipant“Susan Rice mislead the public.”
Not true. She read the info she was given by the CIA that was current at the time. David Petraeus testified as much.Why don’t you believe him?
“Can one of you tell me why the reinforcements they asked for did not show up?”
No. Neither can you. That’s why we have investigations. Investigations take longer than overnight. Why was Mitt Romney politicizing the event before the administration had even made a statement?
“Congress is doing its job in investigating. Whether or not they find the truth is irrelevant. It is all about politics.”
What kind of silly statement is that? Finding the truth is irrelevant? Then why do you even want an investigation? I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that’s a misstatement unless you care to elaborate.
November 18, 2012 at 10:36 pm #777557
dobroParticipantMore analysis from Kevin Drum at MotherJones…
“The CIA’s collective judgment on Saturday the 15th, when Rice taped her interviews, was that the protests earlier in the week in Cairo — which had been inspired by the video — had also inspired protests in Benghazi. Later, extremist elements hijacked those protests to storm the consulate. The CIA subsequently backed off its belief that there had been protests in Benghazi, but that only happened later. On Saturday, the CIA told Rice there had been protests, and that’s what she said on TV.
The evidence to this day suggests that, in fact, the YouTube video did play a role in the attacks. It’s simply not true that Rice invented or exaggerated about that.
Rice was, in fact, properly cautious in her TV appearances. The transcripts here are crystal clear. On Face the Nation, for example, she carefully told Bob Schieffer that she couldn’t yet offer any “definitive conclusions,” but that “based on the best information we have to date” it appeared that there had been a spontaneous protest in Benghazi “as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where […] there was a violent protest outside of our embassy sparked by this hateful video.” She then immediately added: “But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.” When Schieffer pressed her on whether the attack had been preplanned, or whether al-Qaeda was involved, she said directly that we simply didn’t know yet.”
November 19, 2012 at 2:01 am #777558
HMC RichParticipantWell Dobro, I stand by my statement whether she did it intentionally or not and so does Diane Feinstein. I watched her speak about this today.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-feinstein-susan-rice-benghazi-20121118,0,7972422.story
Since you seem to want to speak for me I will reciprocate since your attitude of the admin colors your view IMO, but you may find the last few sentences in the article interesting. In fact I think those last few sentences make my point. Like I said, It is all about politics.
If they get to the truth I shall be happy but what I see in every aspect is a “Narrative” that is being used by the Admin and the people attacking that. Either way, the politicians involved can say “Look at me, I care, We are investigating and we are people of action because you elected us. Can I have a donation for my re-election (whether we find out the truth or not). Call me cynical.
To the meat of the matter. Susan Rice stated that under the Obama Presidency, Obama’s leadership had “decimated al Qaeda.” Intelligence officials and the President later said that terrorists likely affiliated with al Qaeda had been part of the attack. I also heard Hillary Clinton echo the YouTube video causing an organic attack. General Patreaus said he knew it was an organized attack.
So, she did officially speak for the administration and shall we say promoted the narrative for a positive spin for the admin. And we still do not know who denied the consulate staff extra support.
Regarding requests for more help, one month ago Biden stayed with the party line and PolitiFact said NO.. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/12/joe-biden/biden-says-we-werent-told-Libya-security-requests/
Another CYA moment.
The President has now been re-elected and should be transparent (Rich chuckles at that) and get to the bottom of this.
November 19, 2012 at 2:22 am #777559
HMC RichParticipantJoB, Nobody died due to Clinton’s issue with the cigar and then the lying under oath bit.
Wait, some people did die. The day before the House impeachment vote, Clinton bombed Iraq, delaying the impeachment vote. He continued the bombing throughout all the days of the impeachment vote. A few hours once the bombings ceased he said “We have achieved our objectives.” Of course, because the objective was to delay and distract from the impeachment vote!
To echo a point, was it good for that President to play political football?
I think we both know the answer.
November 19, 2012 at 2:52 am #777560
dobroParticipant“Well Dobro, I stand by my statement whether she did it intentionally or not and so does Diane Feinstein.”
Did you read this sentence that was in the article you cited?
“Feinstein said it was not right for Rice to be “pilloried” for comments that were consistent with the approved statement she was given to speak off of.”
Ms Feinstein might disagree with your characterization of her remarks.
“Since you seem to want to speak for me…”
I don’t believe I ever spoke for you. I quoted you and responded to those quotes with my own thoughts. You seem to think all of this is about politics (“call me cynical”) but yet you still badly want to blame someone for something. I’m still curious about what you might think about Mitt Romney politicizing the event before the administration had even made a statement?
I agree that we should find out what really happened but all this malarkey about Susan Rice is nothing but a distraction from that. She just went out and gave the information she was given. She could not have done otherwise and had nothing to do with the collection or organization of said information.
“General Patreaus said he knew it was an organized attack.”
Apparently you believe the General when he says something you want to hear. Why don’t you believe him when he says the info that Susan Rice had is what the CIA gave her?
Your statement about Clinton’s politically motivated bombing of Iraq is a load of cr*p too but I don’t feel like looking up the correct info right now. Maybe later.
November 19, 2012 at 6:20 am #777561
HMC RichParticipantYeah maybe later. Sure, Wag the dog. You call it cr*p before you check to see if I am correct.
I do believe the general. He came clean about the affair. He has served honorably in the military and did the right thing by stepping down. His public career has been very successful. But, The head of the CIA should not be the head of the CIA if he cannot keep an affair quiet. Get my drift. But I could use the old lib adage that it was just sex and his personal life is nobodies business. He didn’t lie under oath as far as I know. Sound familiar? You see, I know we humans make mistakes. I only wish they would own up to them. It is a hard lesson for everyone to learn. Some never do.
I did read the statements you spoke of, since I sent the link. In fact pointed out some partisanship elsewhere too.
Here is what she said on the talk shows. She consistently said there was more investigating to be done by the FBI, and that these were “spontaneous” demonstrations that were related to the You Tube video and that later armed people came and attacked. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/11/16/flashback-what-susan-rice-said-about-benghazi/
She painted the wrong picture and did it five times. Whoever gave her the talking points should be found and asked why they were blaming it on a Video. She spun it. If she had been wiser, she would have only said the FBI was looking into it. She did not need to go any further.
She also claimed in the NBC show that there was not any “actionable intelligence” about an attack on Benghazi which is untrue. Libya’s interim President told NPR that they gave the US a three day warning. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/libya-we-gave-us-threeday-warning-of-benghazi-attack-8145242.html
Don’t tell me it wasn’t politics. It was a failure by our government to react properly. The “narrative” was BS. They were spinning it and they spun it too hard.
Now, not everything is cut and dry. Just normal human error can explain parts of the issue but there were decisions made that make this horrible incident look so suspicious.
As far as Romney goes, he was on the campaign trail and had every right to bring it up. On September 11, members of our government were murdered by well armed terrorists. The story from the admin was suspect. Romney was talking about an incident which happened during the President’s term. The President had been promoting his foreign policy and Romney saw a weakness.
November 19, 2012 at 6:25 am #777562
dobroParticipantLet me look into my crystal ball and postulate the next right wing attack after this current load of cr*p fizzles. They’ll say Obama knew about Petraeus’ affair before he appointed him to the CIA, knowing that the General would have to do his bidding because of this info.They’ll say Obama’s “corrupt” admin is using the FBI to blackmail the intelligence community into lying for Obama. And Eric Holder is in on it too!
Waddaya think? Crazy enough?
November 19, 2012 at 6:28 am #777563
HMC RichParticipantGod I hope you aren’t correct. Who knows what they will say.
November 19, 2012 at 6:31 am #777564
HMC RichParticipantLook, I don’t really want to argue with you on this anymore. I just want to find out what happened and employ fixes that will hopefully keep people safe. The American people are very forgiving and if they see the Pols making a good effort to change they will support it.
November 19, 2012 at 6:35 am #777565
dobroParticipantI agree that we should find out what happened and do something about it. My point, tho, is that Susan Rice really has nothing to do with it and the smear campaign against her is shameless and outrageous.
So back to my original suggestion. STFU, quit politicizing a tragedy, let the appropriate agencies conduct their investigations, and see where it leads.
November 19, 2012 at 7:12 am #777566
dobroParticipant“The story from the admin was suspect. Romney was talking about an…”
The story wasn’t even out yet. Romney spoke before there were any official statements on the table.At any rate, it doesn’t matter. He lost and one of the reasons he did was his out-of-touch opportunism on this issue. He showed, just as McCain did in 2008 with his phony “cancel the debate I’ve got to run to Washington to fix the financial meltdown”, that not only did he have no expertise on foreign policy but he was a craven opportunist that would try to turn American casualties into political fodder for his campaign. Thank goodness the American people were smart enough to see it and vote accordingly.
November 19, 2012 at 7:40 am #777567
JanSParticipantRich…”As far as Romney goes, he was on the campaign trail and had every right to bring it up. On September 11, members of our government were murdered by well armed terrorists. The story from the admin was suspect. Romney was talking about an incident which happened during the President’s term. The President had been promoting his foreign policy and Romney saw a weakness.”
Are you seriously saying that it was OK for Romney to politicize this before any formal statement was made? Four people including our ambassador were killed, and he could have deferred for a few more days. But, no, he jumped on it, to the consternation of even the ambassador’s wife. How tasteless, how disrespectful would you let him be in this tragedy? It wasn’t a damned conspiracy, political anything,no matter what you’d like to espouse. Again, because you can doesn’t mean you should…advice to Mitt Romney !
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.