Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video’ explanation

[drobeski 3,061]

For the worms and mike ponchos of the world....

http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-2014-duranty-award-winner-david-m-kirkpatricks-a-deadly-mix-in-benghazi/?singlepage=true

 

The 2014 Duranty Award Winner: David M. Kirkpatrick’s ‘A Deadly Mix in Benghazi’

The transcript of Roger Kimball's speech announcing this year's unanimous Duranty Award winner.

May 7, 2014 - 10:57 am

“O what a tangled web we weave/ when first we practice to deceive.”

The best authorities tell me that Sir Walter Scott did not in fact have the administration of Barack Obama in mind when he wrote those lines. Nor, I suppose, did the later wit who completed Scott’s lines with the observation: “But when we practice quite a while/ how vastly we improve our style.” Still, I am struck by the uncanny pertinence of that ditty to what was, for a few nanoseconds, described by some as “the most transparent administration in history.”

Well, there is a lot more I could say about the most transparent administration in history. And as it happens, this year’s First Prize winner of the Walter Duranty Award for Journalistic Mendacity has earned his laurel crown for aiding and abetting one critical — and indeed, ongoing — episode of the Obama administration’s fraud and dissimulation practiced against the American people. I mean the many centrifuges of spin, lies, stonewalling, and cover-ups that have emanated from the administration about Benghazi since the White House was first informed that Someone Had Blundered on September 11, 2012, even as former Navy SEALs Ty Woods and Glen Doherty were still fighting for their lives in that CIA annex in Libya.We award the Duranty Prizes for conspicuous achievement in the field of journalistic mendacity. Were we to broaden the Prizes to include political mendacity, the Obama administration would afford an embarrassment, not of riches, exactly, but certainly a plethora of tempting candidates for one or more Duranty awards. Remember: if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan, period; remember, too, that there is not a “smidgeon of corruption” in the IRS — just ask Lois Lerner, if you can get her to ditch taking the Fifth Amendment for a moment; and remember thatmassacre in Benghazi and those riots in Cairo on September 11, 2012 — September 11, mind you — they of course were sparked by a sophomoric internet video about a notorious medieval anti-Semite and pedophile. Those riots and that massacre hadabsolutely nothing to do with any failure of Obama’s policies with respect to the Islamic world: how could they? Obama himself has “decimated” al-Qaeda — he told us himself, just as he had told us as far back as 2007 that “Muslim hostility” toward the U.S. “would cease” the day —

! — he was inaugurated. Al-Qaeda was “on the run.” I am only surprised that he didn’t add: “Period.” Of course, the families of the victims of the shooting at Fort Hood, the bombings at the Boston Marathon, and the massacre at Benghazi might have something to say about that contention — but dude, that was all ages ago.

It was partly to shore up the Obama administration’s narrative about Benghazi, and partly to pave the way for the possible return of “What-Difference-Does-it-Make” Hillary Clinton, that The New York Times published David M. Kirkpatrick extraordinary saga “A Deadly Mix in Benghazi” on December 28, 2013.

You know from the citations my fellow judges have supplied for the runners-up that this was a year rich in journalistic mendacity. But we all felt that David Kirkpatrick was the clear winner, and indeed a worthy successor to the eponymous inspiration for this Prize, Walter Duranty, who telegraphed back to the Times’ readers in 1933 the grateful news that: “Any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda.” Modern estimates put the death toll of Stalin’s deliberately engineered terror famine somewhere north of 7,000,000. Duranty was awarded the Pulitzer Prize in 1932 for his reporting from the Soviet Union, which I think provides a good sense of exactly what that honor is worth. For its part, the New York Times has resisted repeated calls to revoke Duranty’s award, perhaps feeling that once started down that slippery slope they would not know where to end.

One of the most impressive things about “A Deadly Mix in Benghazi” is its detail. The long piece is divided into six chapters, from “Warning Signs” through “Bedlam” and “Aftermath.” It is accompanied by dramatic photographs, maps, and schematic drawings. The internet version boasts various animated graphics. The essay practically screams: “Please consider me for a Pultizer!”

I doubt that will happen, partly because the ink was not yet dry on the fish-wrap before its central contentions were authoritatively disputed, and partly because the abundance of detail is little more than an insubstantial smokescreen.

Let’s start with the story’s major contentions. “Months of investigation by the New York Times,” David Kirkpatrick writes near the beginning of his piece, “centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up [here comes contention number 1] no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. … And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, [and here is contention number 2] it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.”

Unfortunately for David Kirkpatrick, his story hadn’t even been packed up for the weekend recycling before a House Intelligence Committee report concluded, pace the Times, that the Benghazi attack was “an al-Qaeda-led event.”

The culprit was “not a video,” Rep. Mike Rogers observed. “That whole part was debunked time and time again.” It was not a “spontaneous uprising,” as was put about by the Obama administration at the time, and was, with certain qualifications, reprised by David Kirkpatrick, rather it was a “pre-planned, organized terrorist event,” orchestrated by al-Qaeda.

There has emerged, since that House Intelligence Committee report, a steady trickle of corroborating detail as group after group has wrested via Freedom of Information suits more and more facts about Benghazi from the most transparent administration in history. For example, not only do we know that the murderous terrorist attack that left four Americans dead was orchestrated by al-Qaeda offshoots, but we also know that the Obama administration knew, because Pentagon intelligence officers have told us so.

The drip-drip-drip of revelations about Benghazi suddenly turned into a cataract last week after Judicial Watch managed, via one of its many FOIA suits against the administration, to disgorge what has been called the “smoking-gun” “prep-call” email sent by Ben Rhodes, Obama’s Deputy National Security advisor, to help prepare Susan Rice, Obama’s ambassador to the UN, on her whirlwind tour of the television shows a few days after the massacre in Benghazi to explain, or rather utterly misrepresent, what happened. Among the talking points Ben Rhodes supplied for the guidance of Susan Rice was the advice to “underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.” The time, remember, was September 2012, just a few scant weeks before the presidential election. It was not a moment when the Obama administration wanted the issue of executive competence bruited about.

The poet Delmore Schwartz once observed that even paranoids have enemies. Delmore would have like the wheels-with-wheels story about Benghazi. He would, for example, have savored the detail that Ben Rhodes is the brother ofDavid Rhodes, head of news at CBS, which has maintained an almost autistic lack of curiosity about Benghazi and which cut loose their one inquisitive investigative reporter, Sheryl Attkisson, when she exhibited troubling signs of wanting to do her job and by actually finding out what happened there.

Let me end with a few observations about the smokescreen aspect of David Kirkpatrick’s essay. Many months of exhaustive investigation, and what does the Times produce? Not only is it dead wrong in its major contentions, but consider the questions it doesn’t answer, or even raise.

We learn that Ambassador Chris Stevens and the heads of some local militias got together and snacked on “Twinkie-like” cakes September 9. But how about these interesting questions: How did Chris Stevens actually die? Why has there been no autopsy published? Why did the U.S. military not try to intervene? There were assets in Italy little more than an hour away. There was a “stand-down” order issued to Ty Woods and Glen Doherty: who was the ultimate source of that order? And speaking of ultimate sources, where was the ultimate ultimate source that night — where was Barack Obama? We have it on the authority of Tommy “Dude” Vietor, a former National Security spokesman, that Obama was not in the situation room that night. Where was he? What was he doing? Preparing for his fundraiser in Las Vegas the next day? We don’t know.

Why wasn’t answering that part of the Times’ “exhaustive research”?

We’ll probably never get full answers to most of these questions. But David Kirkpatrick’s elaborate exercise in ideologically motivated historical revisionism nevertheless really is something special. It exhibits a mendacity that is both deep and insinuating, poaching skillfully on the tattered but still powerful reputation of a once great newspaper, coolly reinforcing the partisan damage control concocted as the 2012 presidential election entered its final phase, and subtly disparaging any counter-narrative that might be thought damaging to the administration’s skein of lies.My own suspicion is that David Kirkpatrick’s ultimate ambition had less to do with salvaging President Obama’s crumbling reputation than it did with removing obstacles littering the way towards Hillary Clinton’s eventual nomination in 2016. I also suspect, however, that recent revelations have put paid to that enterprise just as they have definitively revealed “A Deadly Mix in Benghazi” to be little more than a congeries of lies, half-truths, and ideologically motivated obfuscations.

So, congratulations to you, David M. Kirkpatrick. The judges were enthusiastically unanimous in recognizing your unsurpassed claim to first prize in this year’s Walter Duranty Award for Journalistic Mendacity. Dude, you deserve it.

[Googballz 39]

Back on topic.......

 

 

 

[SUXBNME 1,419]

 

 

1. You are RP

I'm RP

[Googballz 39]

I'm RP

No, I'm RP.

[Googballz 39]

Here is Obama, 2 weeks after everyone on Earth knew the youtube video excuse was BS, addressing the world at the United Nations.

 

 

[Sho Nuff 720]

Im guessing that dude just learned the word mendacity and wanted to see how many times he could use it in one article and then named the award that.

 

In addition...you can google the whole "the day Im inaugerated" part...and the claim they make of what he said? Its not even what he said. The youtube clips are entitled something that Obama didn't actually say in the clips they show. Why is that?

 

Also guessing this is where you lifted some of your own questions earlier in this thread.

Great...the piece about it being about the video are crap...yippee...we already know that.

Instead, many of this guy's questions focus around what? The prep to BS people about the video...and "where was Obama".

 

2 pieces of info that in the grand scheme of things are pretty pointless given the numerous gaffes of that attack.

[Sho Nuff 720]

No, I'm RP.

 

At least you finally admit it.

BTW...glad you are still hung up on the whole "video" part of the story.

As if we needed more proof of how big of a hack you are and that all you give a damn about are how this could hurt the democrats rather than figuring out what the real issues where that led to this that could keep Americans safe.

Pathetic as always from the political whack jobs.

[drobeski 3,061]

I just read it now bozo

[Sho Nuff 720]

Semantics.

 

Not at all.

I said "if he was in the Oval"...so then when someone wants a link to the guy being in the Oval...does that make sense to you?

Its not semantics...again, its what was actually said by making a hypothetical statement.

You really are dense aren't you.

But go ahead and keep whining about the internet video...that angle works great for you.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Back on topic.......

 

 

 

 

Was that supposed to make Obama look bad?

[Googballz 39]

[Sho Nuff 720]

 

This should hurt Hillary...no doubt.

Anything that can keep her out of the WH is a good thing (no, Im not saying this tragedy is a good thing).

 

But still funny how caught up on the video portion of this you are.

And her point that figuring out what happened and how to prevent it from happening again is dead on.

That is the important part.

But people like you don't really want that...you want more blood for Obama and Hillary to hurt them politically and help your side.

Again, pathetic.

[Googballz 39]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUdFTYWJXbs

[FlaHawker 24]

 

Answer the questions I asked first.

But you won't do that will you.

Then, look up the word "if" and get back to me.

So no link to support the lie that B Hussein was in the Oval Office for 8 hours being updated as 4 Americans were slaughtered by terrorists. Gotcha!

[Sho Nuff 720]

I dig Paul for sure...and she should take the biggest hit from this.

 

Do you actually have anything to say about this all...or just posting more videos because you really don't have the capacity to discuss the issue in any real manner?

[FlaHawker 24]

No, I'm RP.

Nope, I am RP.

[Sho Nuff 720]

So no link to support the lie that B Hussein was in the Oval Office for 8 hours being updated as 4 Americans were slaughtered by terrorists. Gotcha!

 

So...you can't answer actual questions and will keep deflecting for me to link to something I never claimed happened and only said "if he was in the oval"?

 

I see you didn't take my advice and look up the word if...you might try that and then get back to me.

Til then, obvious you can't really discuss such matters with anyone...because all you want to do is ask questions about why someone would lie...and not even give any iformation yourself...just the talking points of "obama lied".

Hell, you can't even tell us where he claimed he was that he supposedly lied about...why is that?

[FlaHawker 24]

 

Was that supposed to make Obama look bad?

Hussein will never look bad in your eyes.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Hussein will never look bad in your eyes.

 

Sure he will.

The lies are bad.

Not a fan of Obamacare at all...his whole "transparency" thing has been complete crap.

And many other things.

I mean...I did vote for the guy all of 0 times.

 

But that answer with the minor stutters...meh. Pretty weak attempt.

As weak as continuing to use Hussein as if you are insulting him...but you can keep playing dumb about why you do it.

[FlaHawker 24]

 

So...you can't answer actual questions and will keep deflecting for me to link to something I never claimed happened and only said "if he was in the oval"?

 

I see you didn't take my advice and look up the word if...you might try that and then get back to me.

Til then, obvious you can't really discuss such matters with anyone...because all you want to do is ask questions about why someone would lie...and not even give any iformation yourself...just the talking points of "obama lied".

Hell, you can't even tell us where he claimed he was that he supposedly lied about...why is that?

The problem is why does it not bother you that your hero is a liar?

[Sho Nuff 720]

The problem is why does it not bother you that your hero is a liar?

 

Who is my hero? The guy I never voted for?

 

Still can't answer simple questions can you?

Hey, I give you credit for almost talking about a topic for close to 2 pages...but still can't actually discuss things.

BTW...where did I say it doesn't bother me that a politician lies. psst...they all focking lie. I just chose to focus on the more important issues of it rather than the small crap that you are hung up on.

 

Now...back to answering those questions...or are you just going to run around in circles some more?

[Sho Nuff 720]

Or the simpler question which you won't answer...

How about providing a link to him lying about where he was...lets start there...???

[Ken8080 6]

Rusty (RP, Goog, dorbeski, SUX, et al) is playing everybody all the liberals like fools. He used to tell me about inciting 'the other side' and lengthening his Conservative threads so the far right titles stay up high on the board. In this instance, he has Bengazi as the main talking point. That's why he screams to stay on topic.

Why? Because he's a wannabe Electoral College 'Voter'. I say wannabe because the central committee sees his rants on this site and think he's too childish and goofy to hold this prestigious position. His admission.

 

He's playing all of you like a drum though here at the Geek Club.

But don't hate me, I'm just the messenger.

 

I just am perplexed as why a gaay man is so far right conservative.

[gocolts 300]

Classic pointless ad hominem attacks.

 

You're supposed to debate the ideas presented on their own merits, not the objectivity -or lack their of- of the people who make them.

 

[Phurfur 70]

Wow...linking what is going on in Nigeria to Libya and Benghazi...what a huge reach that one is.

Do you even read before you post? Those countries were mentioned in reference to this:

 

The United States needs an effective counterterrorism strategy in North Africa, and we do not have one.

 

That is the link, get a map you may get it.

[MDC 6,609]

I missed a few hours. Did we finally get to the bottom of what Obummer really tweeted on LinkedIn?

[Voltaire 4,833]

I've avoided this thread since it focuses on exactly the aspect of Benghazi that I don't care about- Susan Rice's interviews in the early days after the attacks. I've been asked to jump in even though -I may as well point out in advance- I really don't hardly pay attention to any of this anymore since all I see is disgusting political theater with an ambassador's corpse tossed around like a stage prop.

 

Just to refresh some of the observations I had. I think an investigation of what went wrong with security is not only fair game but warranted. How to upgrade said security in the future to either prevent another attack (which may be difficult since attacks on consulates in an unstable Islamic toilets are hard to prevent) or more likely to respond better when it does occur. Efforts to find and punish those responsible are important. Anything we can learn about what went wrong, why, and how to prevent it from happening or lessons on how to respond better next time are all important.

 

So far as any investigation has to do with that aspect of Benghazi, that's fine and appropriate. Further, since the obsession is all about political attacks on the Dem president and next presumed Dem presidential candidate, so far as President Obama and Secretary Clinton were culpable for making boneheaded decisions leading up to the attack and a slow response when the crisis, any criticisms they receive in this regard are justified.

 

But anyways security lapses and correcting them aren't what Republicans seem to care about. It's secondary. Once Hillary points out that they were the ones who cut funding for security, that aspect of the discussion is quickly done away with. What seems to get them super-agitated is about how slow/fast it was labeled a terrorist attack. What the fock does that matter? When I watch Susan Rice reruns, I see caveats flying left and right, up and down "we don't know yet" "we need more time" "investigations are still going on" "all findings at this point are preliminary." So far as I was concerned, the administration hould go ahead and take all the time they needed to reach a conclusion. I don't know why we're criticizing them to take a month or a day to classify the attack as terrorist or not. The video theory proved wrong... who cares?

 

This occurred in an unstable Islamic toilet full of heavily armed lunatics. These things cold have happened on any president's watch. Fockheads over there hate American and know or care even less about the difference between Dums and Repugs than I know or care about the difference between Shiite and Sunni. We're supposed to come together over something like that, not look to score political points. Then around here, watching all the excitement when it happened because it was presumed by the Obama-haters that it would tarnish him enough to cost him the election really, really was in terrible taste and set me off something fierce. In watching the GOP proceed, it remains obvious to me they really don't and never did give a sh*t about the dead ambassador to any extent other than how useful his corpse can be used to scoring political points.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Rusty (RP, Goog, dorbeski, SUX, et al) is playing everybody all the liberals like fools. He used to tell me about inciting 'the other side' and lengthening his Conservative threads so the far right titles stay up high on the board. In this instance, he has Bengazi as the main talking point. That's why he screams to stay on topic.

Why? Because he's a wannabe Electoral College 'Voter'. I say wannabe because the central committee sees his rants on this site and think he's too childish and goofy to hold this prestigious position. His admission.

 

He's playing all of you like a drum though here at the Geek Club.

But don't hate me, I'm just the messenger.

 

I just am perplexed as why a gaay man is so far right conservative.

 

You keep trying Ken...you keep trying.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Do you even read before you post? Those countries were mentioned in reference to this:

 

The United States needs an effective counterterrorism strategy in North Africa, and we do not have one.

 

That is the link, get a map you may get it.

 

Took you a few hours and a couple replies to finally figure out an answer I guess.

 

The kidnapping of the girls is not really terrorism against the US or their properties...nor something our counterterrorism policy or strategy would do anything about.

So...you pretty much fail on that one.

[jerryskids 6,049]

I've avoided this thread since it focuses on exactly the aspect of Benghazi that I don't care about- Susan Rice's interviews in the early days after the attacks. I've been asked to jump in even though -I may as well point out in advance- I really don't hardly pay attention to any of this anymore since all I see is disgusting political theater with an ambassador's corpse tossed around like a stage prop.

 

Just to refresh some of the observations I had. I think an investigation of what went wrong with security is not only fair game but warranted. How to upgrade said security in the future to either prevent another attack (which may be difficult since attacks on consulates in an unstable Islamic toilets are hard to prevent) or more likely to respond better when it does occur. Efforts to find and punish those responsible are important. Anything we can learn about what went wrong, why, and how to prevent it from happening or lessons on how to respond better next time are all important.

 

So far as any investigation has to do with that aspect of Benghazi, that's fine and appropriate. Further, since the obsession is all about political attacks on the Dem president and next presumed Dem presidential candidate, so far as President Obama and Secretary Clinton were culpable for making boneheaded decisions leading up to the attack and a slow response when the crisis, any criticisms they receive in this regard are justified.

 

But anyways security lapses and correcting them aren't what Republicans seem to care about. It's secondary. Once Hillary points out that they were the ones who cut funding for security, that aspect of the discussion is quickly done away with. What seems to get them super-agitated is about how slow/fast it was labeled a terrorist attack. What the fock does that matter? When I watch Susan Rice reruns, I see caveats flying left and right, up and down "we don't know yet" "we need more time" "investigations are still going on" "all findings at this point are preliminary." So far as I was concerned, the administration hould go ahead and take all the time they needed to reach a conclusion. I don't know why we're criticizing them to take a month or a day to classify the attack as terrorist or not. The video theory proved wrong... who cares?

 

This occurred in an unstable Islamic toilet full of heavily armed lunatics. These things cold have happened on any president's watch. Fockheads over there hate American and know or care even less about the difference between Dums and Repugs than I know or care about the difference between Shiite and Sunni. We're supposed to come together over something like that, not look to score political points. Then around here, watching all the excitement when it happened because it was presumed by the Obama-haters that it would tarnish him enough to cost him the election really, really was in terrible taste and set me off something fierce. In watching the GOP proceed, it remains obvious to me they really don't and never did give a sh*t about the dead ambassador to any extent other than how useful his corpse can be used to scoring political points.

A lot of good stuff in this post, some I would disagree with but I won't quibble.

 

What I think is lost in the discussion is that it is a good thing that such events are investigated. Without it there are no checks and balances. Here we have an email that was clearly relevant but was not provided. That's not good for the process. It brings into question the veracity of what we've learned to date. It is why I scratch my head at the "faux outrage" crowd. Is it unreasonable to presume we haven't gotten the truth?

[drobeski 3,061]

How about the obamanots crying it's political

 

 

 

Ummm clueless hack focktards, riddle me this....

The whole cover up, Hillary telling the families she'll get the video guy, withholding info, dodging and ddeflecting, every action of this administration regarding this situation, was it political ??????

Everything the left does is politically motivated, everything and every time that's the case, the PROJECT the exact thing they are doing onto to those seeking the truth.

Hey hackmaster snuff, what I just described is what hack is.

 

 

The greatest example of this is their favorite hero is Bill Clinton a womanizing sexual predator and the left claims carry the torch on the war on women more gold in the ironic Olympics, go take a chit in palins mouth you hypocritical hack fools.

[Voltaire 4,833]

A lot of good stuff in this post, some I would disagree with but I won't quibble.

 

What I think is lost in the discussion is that it is a good thing that such events are investigated. Without it there are no checks and balances. Here we have an email that was clearly relevant but was not provided. That's not good for the process. It brings into question the veracity of what we've learned to date. It is why I scratch my head at the "faux outrage" crowd. Is it unreasonable to presume we haven't gotten the truth?

The email is only relevant to Rice's talking points that day which -in turn- isn't relevant to anything.

 

Anyways, I'll be wanting out again soon of this thread. Not only am I not up to speed on the latest but I don't want to be bothered catching up. I really, truly, deeply don't give a sh*t about Susan Rice's interview, her talking points, or how they came to be. Also, she was the UN ambassador, she had zero responsibility for (let alone authority to oversee) what had happened there.

[NewbieJr 541]

How about the obamanots crying it's political

 

 

 

Ummm clueless hack focktards, riddle me this....

The whole cover up, Hillary telling the families she'll get the video guy, withholding info, dodging and ddeflecting, every action of this administration regarding this situation, was it political ??????

Everything the left does is politically motivated, everything and every time that's the case, the PROJECT the exact thing they are doing onto to those seeking the truth.

Hey hackmaster snuff, what I just described is what hack is.

 

 

The greatest example of this is their favorite hero is Bill Clinton a womanizing sexual predator and the left claims carry the torch on the war on women more gold in the ironic Olympics, go take a chit in palins mouth you hypocritical hack fools.

Nice. You managed to show your rightie-hack bias to the max by dogging on two Democrat presidents. Lol. Reminding everyone of Bush is terrible. But going back even farther is cool. Lolol

Seek help.

[Frank M 181]

Nice. You managed to show your rightie-hack bias to the max by dogging on two Democrat presidents. Lol. Reminding everyone of Bush is terrible. But going back even farther is cool. Lolol

Seek help.

 

He's a little off his rocker for the past few weeks. More than normal. I wonder what's up.

[drobeski 3,061]

Nice. You managed to show your rightie-hack bias to the max by dogging on two Democrat presidents. Lol. Reminding everyone of Bush is terrible. But going back even farther is cool. Lolol

Seek help.

Bush sucked ass to , they all do. They are all on the same team

[drobeski 3,061]

 

He's a little off his rocker for the past few weeks. More than normal. I wonder what's up.

another focking blown disk in my neck can't even golf had to quit the league

[Mike Honcho 4,599]

I've avoided this thread since it focuses on exactly the aspect of Benghazi that I don't care about- Susan Rice's interviews in the early days after the attacks. I've been asked to jump in even though -I may as well point out in advance- I really don't hardly pay attention to any of this anymore since all I see is disgusting political theater with an ambassador's corpse tossed around like a stage prop.

 

Just to refresh some of the observations I had. I think an investigation of what went wrong with security is not only fair game but warranted. How to upgrade said security in the future to either prevent another attack (which may be difficult since attacks on consulates in an unstable Islamic toilets are hard to prevent) or more likely to respond better when it does occur. Efforts to find and punish those responsible are important. Anything we can learn about what went wrong, why, and how to prevent it from happening or lessons on how to respond better next time are all important.

 

So far as any investigation has to do with that aspect of Benghazi, that's fine and appropriate. Further, since the obsession is all about political attacks on the Dem president and next presumed Dem presidential candidate, so far as President Obama and Secretary Clinton were culpable for making boneheaded decisions leading up to the attack and a slow response when the crisis, any criticisms they receive in this regard are justified.

 

But anyways security lapses and correcting them aren't what Republicans seem to care about. It's secondary. Once Hillary points out that they were the ones who cut funding for security, that aspect of the discussion is quickly done away with. What seems to get them super-agitated is about how slow/fast it was labeled a terrorist attack. What the fock does that matter? When I watch Susan Rice reruns, I see caveats flying left and right, up and down "we don't know yet" "we need more time" "investigations are still going on" "all findings at this point are preliminary." So far as I was concerned, the administration hould go ahead and take all the time they needed to reach a conclusion. I don't know why we're criticizing them to take a month or a day to classify the attack as terrorist or not. The video theory proved wrong... who cares?

 

This occurred in an unstable Islamic toilet full of heavily armed lunatics. These things cold have happened on any president's watch. Fockheads over there hate American and know or care even less about the difference between Dums and Repugs than I know or care about the difference between Shiite and Sunni. We're supposed to come together over something like that, not look to score political points. Then around here, watching all the excitement when it happened because it was presumed by the Obama-haters that it would tarnish him enough to cost him the election really, really was in terrible taste and set me off something fierce. In watching the GOP proceed, it remains obvious to me they really don't and never did give a sh*t about the dead ambassador to any extent other than how useful his corpse can be used to scoring political points.

 

Just to be clear, are you saying the US Select Committee's Bipartisan report, that both Dems and Reps signed off on, wasn't through enough?

[NewbieJr 541]

another focking blown disk in my neck can't even golf had to quit the league

ok good. Not that you're in pain. That sucks. But it's good to know you haven't totally gone full retard for no reason. You've been entering RP territory.

Seriously though, Hope you're feeling better. Neck pain sucks.

[drobeski 3,061]

ok good. Not that you're in pain. That sucks. But it's good to know you haven't totally gone full retard for no reason. You've been entering RP territory.

Seriously though, Hope you're feeling better. Neck pain sucks.

come on newbs ya gotta admit I'm pretty much spot on with this morning's rant. It's ok, you can do it.

[Sho Nuff 720]

A lot of good stuff in this post, some I would disagree with but I won't quibble.

 

What I think is lost in the discussion is that it is a good thing that such events are investigated. Without it there are no checks and balances. Here we have an email that was clearly relevant but was not provided. That's not good for the process. It brings into question the veracity of what we've learned to date. It is why I scratch my head at the "faux outrage" crowd. Is it unreasonable to presume we haven't gotten the truth?

 

I think the faux outrage comes from what many (especially here) keep focusing on. The trivial parts of it rather than the real tragedy of losing 4 Americans.