Benghazi hearing?

[Nua Corda]

Benghazi. Because Republicans can't find anything else to bitch about.

[Ethel mermania]

Lyndon Johnson and the gulf of Tonkin resolution.

I was wondering the same thing after that whole "Nixon scuttled the Vietnam peace talks in order to get elected in '68" thing came out. I was thinking about how the republicans have a great reputation in foreign affairs and yet they have horrible track records in reality. Nixon scuttling peace talks, secretly bombing Cambodia, Reagan selling arms to iran so he could fund wars in central America, bush2 lying us into war in Iraq. (ford didn't have time to do much wrong that way, bush1 carried the legacy of Reagan).

why do we elect republicans?

I haven't a clue. They have a great reputation for dealing with the economy too, but consistently fuck the dog on that too. I don't know why anyone votes for them.

i do

[Khadgar]

I haven't a clue. They have a great reputation for dealing with the economy too, but consistently fuck the dog on that too. I don't know why anyone votes for them.

i do

Do elaborate. I'd love to have a reason to vote for them. I tire of picking between Incompetent and Evil & Incompetent.

[Cosara]

Benghazi. Because Republicans can't find anything else to bitch about.

Watergate. Because Democrats couldn't find anything else to bitch about.

[Cosara]

Lyndon Johnson and the gulf of Tonkin resolution.

I was wondering the same thing after that whole "Nixon scuttled the Vietnam peace talks in order to get elected in '68" thing came out. I was thinking about how the republicans have a great reputation in foreign affairs and yet they have horrible track records in reality. Nixon scuttling peace talks, secretly bombing Cambodia, Reagan selling arms to iran so he could fund wars in central America, bush2 lying us into war in Iraq. (ford didn't have time to do much wrong that way, bush1 carried the legacy of Reagan).

why do we elect republicans?

I haven't a clue. They have a great reputation for dealing with the economy too, but consistently fuck the dog on that too. I don't know why anyone votes for them.

Because the Democrats' economic policies suck (PS, You cannot base the economic policies of the Republicans off of what Bush did.)

[The Corparation]

Benghazi. Because Republicans can't find anything else to bitch about.

Watergate. Because Democrats couldn't find anything else to bitch about.

Because having people working for you breaking into you opponents national committee headquarters, and then trying to cover it up is the same as having a consulate attacked by terrorists.

[Khadgar]

I haven't a clue. They have a great reputation for dealing with the economy too, but consistently fuck the dog on that too. I don't know why anyone votes for them.

Because the Democrats' economic policies suck (PS, You cannot base the economic policies of the Republicans off of what Bush did.)

Don't worry sweetheart, I don't have to:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-2 ... onomy.html
http://currencythoughts.com/2008/09/26/ ... sidencies/

[Gauthier]

Benghazi. Because Republicans can't find anything else to bitch about.

Watergate. Because Democrats couldn't find anything else to bitch about.

Yes, because Obama orchestrated the attack on the consulate to help his re-election and paid people hush money to keep that detail quiet.

[Choronzon]

Watergate. Because Democrats couldn't find anything else to bitch about.

Yes, because Obama orchestrated the attack on the consulate to help his re-election and paid people hush money to keep that detail quiet.

In Conservative Land (also known as Bullshit Mountain) as long as the Democrats did something, and it could be something as innocuous as sticking gum under the oval office desk, it becomes the exact equivalent as, say, sending an innocent Canadian we abducted for being a little to brown to Syria to be beaten with lead pipes.

[Ethel mermania]

i do

Do elaborate. I'd love to have a reason to vote for them. I tire of picking between Incompetent and Evil & Incompetent.

because i prefer policies that lean twoards the individual and not towards the class. i do see the democrats as the party of class politics. also i dont find republicans as inherently evil. i do find mark sanford as inherently evil.

that said, i dont find your characterization of our voting options that far from coorect.

[Choronzon]

because i prefer policies that lean twoards the individual and not towards the class.

So you vote Republican? What an odd concept of leaning "towards the individual and not towards the class," you have.

The Republican party is the largest instigator of class based politics in America.

[Wikkiwallana]

And so far in the hearing it is obvious that they pulled the muslim video out from nowhere to fit some kind of narrative.

You know, I've heard people use the term "bum-fuck Egypt" to describe something that's "in the middle of nowhere", but I think that this is the first time I've ever seen any indication that some people really think that "Egypt" and "nowhere" are actually the same place.

<roll eyes>

Seriously, I can't believe your level of news amnesia is so high that you can't remember that there were protests against that video in Cairo on the morning of the Benghazi attack. That's particularly true since conservatives spent the news day attacking the State Department and the Obama Administration because a mid-level staffer in the American Embassy in Cairo released a statement deploring the video and its contents instead of hurling back an angry, in-your-face defense of the 1st Amendment, which is what conservatives all said that the State Department should have done.

<pause>

No more bullshit, please. I can read time stamps, and I suspect you can, too. Look at the time stamp on the Politico article cited above ("U.S. embassy in Cairo condemns Muhammed video"): You'll see that it says "6:02 PM". Likewise, look at the time stamp on the Tweet by Andy Levy (@AndyLevy) criticizing the Cairo Embassy's statement (".@USEmbassyCairo How about 'We condemn the efforts by misguided individuals to act like children when their precious feelings are hurt'?"): It says "3:52 PM". The story of the protests against the YouTube video, the press release and Tweets against it by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo (now deleted, but you can see them still at Breitbart.com), the rabid conservative reaction to that attempt at mollification ("Appeasement! Obama Apology Tour 2.0!"), the official disavowal by State Department officials in Washington of the Cairo Tweets ("[N]o one in Washington approved that statement before it was released and it doesn’t reflect the views of the U.S. government"): All of this was what the September 11th, 2012 news cycle looked like before the story broke that there had been an attack on our consulate in Benghazi.

If you don't believe me, look at the timeline published by CBS:

Hours before the assault, nearly 750 miles away in Cairo, events were taking shape that would inform the early narrative surrounding the events in Benghazi:

Around 12:00 p.m. (6:00 a.m. ET): The U.S. Embassy in Cairo releases a statement on its website disavowing a YouTube film named "Innocence of Muslims," which mocks the Prophet Mohammad. Later that afternoon, protesters who had gathered outside the embassy compound stormed the gates and tore the American flag down, replacing it with a black Salafist flag.

Around 9:00 p.m. (3:00 p.m. ET): In the walled Benghazi compound, U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens says good night to the Turkish Ambassador Ali Kemal Aydin and retires to his room in Building C, a large residence with numerous bedrooms and a safe haven.

There are three other structures in the compound: Building B, a residence with bedrooms and a cantina and dining room; a Tactical Operations Center (TOC) located across from building B, containing offices, one bedroom and security cameras; and barracks located by the front gate, staffed by Libyan security guards.

At this time, there are five diplomatic security agents (DS) on site - three based in Benghazi and two traveling with Stevens. According to a U.S. State Department account given Oct. 9 there was "nothing unusual outside of the gates. "

9:40 p.m. (3:40 p.m. ET): Gunfire and an explosion are heard. A TOC agent sees dozens of armed people over security camera flowing through a pedestrian gate at the compound's main entrance. It is not clear how the gate was opened.

The agent hits the alarm and alerts the CIA security team in the nearby annex and the Libyan 17th of February Brigade, one of several powerful militias serving as a de facto security presence in Benghazi. The embassy in Tripoli and the State Dept. command center were also alerted.

State Dept. Diplomatic Security follows events in real time on a listen-only, audio-only feed, according to testimony of Charlene Lamb, the deputy assistant director for international programs, given before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Oct 10.

So the events in Cairo — the growing unrest through the course of the day, the press release, the incursion of the Egyptian mob onto embassy grounds and their replacement of the U.S. flag with a black flag of the sort usually associated with groups like al-Qaeda (i.e., the "black banner of Khorasan") — all unfold hours before anything begins happening on the ground in Benghazi. Given the delay inherent in a news cycle where the "news" is actually political reaction halfway around the world, this isn't quite so clear: The press release and Tweets out of Cairo hit the ether at 6:00 AM, where they generally aren't likely to get mentioned until the noon news broadcasts and/or the early afternoon conservative "talk radio" shows (Rush Limbaugh, for instance, airs between 12:00 PM and 3:00 PM), so the wave of conservative outrage at the statements only begins to become that news cycle's story by mid-afternoon.

In contrast, the story of the Benghazi consulate attack didn't begin to break until the early evening. You can find the content of CBS's Evening News program for September 11th, 2012 online: There are stories on the various 11th anniversary tributes of the 2001 attack, of how the two Presidential candidates spent their day, of delays in the construction of a 9/11 museum, and of the lingering heath issues of 9/11 first responders. There is nothing, however, on Benghazi or even the Cairo protests; that story broke across the next several hours, beginning with a release by Reuters ("U.S. staffer dies in Libya mission clash: source") at 7:51 PM. The whole thing then explodes overnight as Mitt Romney decides to release a statement on the attacks, in which he himself draws attention to the Cairo Embassy statement regarding the film, which he brands an "apology"; it is only by dawn on September 12th, 2012, that the media are finally reporting the death toll at four — including Ambassador Stevens — rather than just at one.

The Atlantic Monthly has compiled a media timeline (in contrast to the attack timeline, above) that you can use to verify this sequence of events.

So this "new" narrative that the White House and State Department "invented" a connection between the attacks and the film is pure horseshit. If anything (as the timeline shows), it was the Romney campaign that first drew such a connection, in an effort to expand upon conservatives' outrageous meme that Obama is some kind of "terrorist sympathizer" and "anti-American apologist".

I fucking love you…

[Wikkiwallana]

two reasons,

watergate was criminality by the president and staff, bengazi was incompetence

the liberal media has chosen to cover it as a political issue, not a policy one.

for example.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/10/opini ... .html?_r=0

If it was incompetence, then there was something better that they could have done. Mind sharing what that would have been?

[Ethel mermania]

two reasons,

watergate was criminality by the president and staff, bengazi was incompetence

the liberal media has chosen to cover it as a political issue, not a policy one.

for example.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/10/opini ... .html?_r=0

If it was incompetence, then there was something better that they could have done. Mind sharing what that would have been?

better preperation
listening to the on the ground intelligence
not jumping to conclusions because those conclusions fit obamas world view
recognizing al queda is still a world forxe
obamas worldview at the time. ( i do beleive it is changing)
claiming responsibility when no such thing was intended.

[Khadgar]

If it was incompetence, then there was something better that they could have done. Mind sharing what that would have been?

better preperation
listening to the on the ground intelligence
not jumping to conclusions because those conclusions fit obamas world view
recognizing al queda is still a world forxe
obamas worldview at the time. ( i do beleive it is changing)
claiming responsibility when no such thing was intended.

Better preparation through the magic of 20/20 hindsight. Gotcha.

[Chrome Legion]

I always love the shit storm the republicans raise about this this embassy attack, but if you had raise the point of any of the 13 embassy attacks under Bush you would have called a shit storm to your self about weakening the office of the President while troops are in harms way. It's utter bullshit that this is receiving the attention it is.
Also RIP Vile Rat.

Edit with source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/13-benghazis-that-occurre_b_3246847.html

[Wikkiwallana]

If it was incompetence, then there was something better that they could have done. Mind sharing what that would have been?

better preperation

That's pretty damn vague.

listening to the on the ground intelligence

What proof do you have that they didn't?

not jumping to conclusions because those conclusions fit obamas world view

Such as?

recognizing al queda is still a world forxe

Pretty sure they did.

obamas worldview at the time. ( i do beleive it is changing)

In what way?

claiming responsibility when no such thing was intended.

I'm not really sure what you mean by this.

[The New Sea Territory]

I always love the shit storm the republicans raise about this this embassy attack, but if you had raise the point of any of the 13 embassy attacks under Bush you would have called a shit storm to your self about weakening the office of the President while troops are in harms way. It's utter bullshit that this is receiving the attention it is.
Also RIP Vile Rat.

Edit with source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/13-benghazis-that-occurre_b_3246847.html

This is the typical Democrat:

Well, Bush did this.....even more than Obama.

Why can't we say neither of them are really good presidents?

[Ashmoria]

I haven't a clue. They have a great reputation for dealing with the economy too, but consistently fuck the dog on that too. I don't know why anyone votes for them.

Because the Democrats' economic policies suck (PS, You cannot base the economic policies of the Republicans off of what Bush did.)

yeah who cares what bush did. CURRENT republican economic policies are bad news. worse is when they run on creating jobs then don't create any jobs when they get into office.

[Ashmoria]

I always love the shit storm the republicans raise about this this embassy attack, but if you had raise the point of any of the 13 embassy attacks under Bush you would have called a shit storm to your self about weakening the office of the President while troops are in harms way. It's utter bullshit that this is receiving the attention it is.
Also RIP Vile Rat.

Edit with source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/13-benghazis-that-occurre_b_3246847.html

This is the typical Democrat:

Well, Bush did this.....even more than Obama.

Why can't we say neither of them are really good presidents?

no

we can say that the Obama administration's state department hadn't reconfigured their thinking on security after the Libyan revolution.

[Arkinesia]

there is a saying in my native language..roughly translated as 'carefully watching the ant crawl, while missing the elephant walking nearby'..

four people died, FOUR people died, FOUR PEOPLE DIED !!!!!111

bush cheney lied and hundreds of thousands died including THOUSANDS of americans and not a pipsqueak out of these people who are so animated by this manufactured outrage of benghazi. This is a safe test here, people who are so animated can be easily ignored as rabble rousers doing this precisely because they don't have anything actually substantial to stick on obama.

Let's not forget the billions of dollars that conveniently went missing.

[Arkinesia]

two reasons,

watergate was criminality by the president and staff, bengazi was incompetence

the liberal media has chosen to cover it as a political issue, not a policy one.

for example.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/10/opini ... .html?_r=0

If it was incompetence, then there was something better that they could have done. Mind sharing what that would have been?

Not building a diplomatic mission in a still-unstable Terroristland Theme Park™ aka Libya.

Seriously, why the fuck did we do that?

[Khadgar]

If it was incompetence, then there was something better that they could have done. Mind sharing what that would have been?

Not building a diplomatic mission in a still-unstable Terroristland Theme Park™ aka Libya.

Seriously, why the fuck did we do that?

I'm pretty sure the embassy was there before the whole Gaddaffi Kadaffi Qadaffi Coffee or whatever the hell the spelling is mess.

[Arkinesia]

Not building a diplomatic mission in a still-unstable Terroristland Theme Park™ aka Libya.

Seriously, why the fuck did we do that?

I'm pretty sure the embassy was there before the whole Gaddaffi Kadaffi Qadaffi Coffee or whatever the hell the spelling is mess.

Yeah, but embassies come with full security complements. Missions do not. Worse still, the security at the Benghazi mission wasn't even a real security force, it was a bunch of SAD guys.

[Blackhelm Confederacy]

I always love the shit storm the republicans raise about this this embassy attack, but if you had raise the point of any of the 13 embassy attacks under Bush you would have called a shit storm to your self about weakening the office of the President while troops are in harms way. It's utter bullshit that this is receiving the attention it is.
Also RIP Vile Rat.

Edit with source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/13-benghazis-that-occurre_b_3246847.html

How many diplomatic staff members were killed during the attacks outside of Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush administration?