|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 23 2015 04:03 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2015 02:41 frazzle wrote:On October 23 2015 00:14 Danglars wrote:
The long-reaching possibilities are basically nil after McCarthy's gaffe. At least it helped cost him the speakership. You mean the possibilities of using a tragedy politically to sabotage Clinton's candidacy? Yeah. What a shame. FeelsBadMan D: The chance that the liars and manipulators responsible for negligence in the death of a diplomat and American servicemen will come to justice. The only speedy arrest in the wake of the tragedy was some dude that made a YouTube video. It isn't even McCarthy--he's just the face of an establishment primarily concerned with the pursuit of political power through partisanship.
Apart from political advantage it might bring them, I just have never understood this obsession on the right with what was said by administration officials in the first week after the attack. People on the right insist Clinton, Obama and others knew for certain exactly what happened the moment it happened, or even before it happened.
As an avid Starcraft fan, I am aware of this idea of the Fog of War. We know this video did prompt attacks in Cairo. The initial narrative from the press hewed to this line because it made sense. This investigative article by the New York Times pretty clearly shows that to some extent at least the Benghazi situation was also spurred on by the videos. Clinton, Obama and others in the administration have stated that the analysis of what happened kept developing over the days. They made initial assessments, got new information, changed their assessments and so on. That is the fog of war. I have no reason to doubt this, and the only things these repeated investigations have turned up is static points of belief they lay out as they come to develop a complete understanding of what happened.
I get that the right wants it to be the case that Obama or Clinton initially hoped to cover up a terror attack as a mere protest gone awry in order to bolster Obama's election chances since a terror attack would go against Obama's "Al Qaida on the run" narrative. That would make a great story. But there is no proof nor reason not to take them at their word that it was a fog of war scenario. Three years and there has been no smoking gun. On the other hand, we have Republican reps explicitly referencing the investigations as a tool for bringing down Clinton. Three years in and the only thing proven is that it has been a 3 year witch hunt. I am a Lessig or Sanders fan and have never really wanted Clinton, but after seeing her in the hearings I'm thinking, while I don't want to have a beer with her, I do feel alright with her getting the nomination now.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
this is the year where i strictly prefer some of the independent potential candidates over either party. it's also probably not enough for any independent to win.
|
I'm curious why Hillary doesn't just ask Blumenthal to go on 60 minutes and put the record straight about what went on in his testimony and his relationship with Hillary.
|
On October 23 2015 03:49 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
How to tell the hearing is a sham: 50% of questions are on Sydney Blumenthal (but the Republicans voted party line to block release of his testimony to the committee*). SB has zero to do with the attacks. SB had no idea about the security situation before the attacks. SB didn't know about the CIA annex. SB had no contact with Ambassador Stevens. SB didn't know even the littlest bit about Stevens' actual mission there**. But you have Gowdy hyping up just how many questions he is going to ask about SB.
*Every last transcript of this committee must be released immediately if it is to gain even the semblance of legitimacy. If you disagree you are a partisan tool.
**The hearing should be about what Stevens and the CIA were doing there.
It's really a damn shame the CIA has effectively completely dodged a role in this in the public eye because 1) the politicians would have to risk something 2) none of the politicians can exploit that angle for political gain and 3) media sources can't discuss it without politician input without looking like tabloids. Guess we'll never get to see behind any of the black curtains.
|
On October 23 2015 06:31 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2015 03:49 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
How to tell the hearing is a sham: 50% of questions are on Sydney Blumenthal (but the Republicans voted party line to block release of his testimony to the committee*). SB has zero to do with the attacks. SB had no idea about the security situation before the attacks. SB didn't know about the CIA annex. SB had no contact with Ambassador Stevens. SB didn't know even the littlest bit about Stevens' actual mission there**. But you have Gowdy hyping up just how many questions he is going to ask about SB.
*Every last transcript of this committee must be released immediately if it is to gain even the semblance of legitimacy. If you disagree you are a partisan tool.
**The hearing should be about what Stevens and the CIA were doing there. It's really a damn shame the CIA has effectively completely dodged a role in this in the public eye because 1) the politicians would have to risk something 2) none of the politicians can exploit that angle for political gain and 3) media sources can't discuss it without politician input without looking like tabloids. Guess we'll never get to see behind any of the black curtains.
The CIA had 35 guys in their building and State had 7 in theirs. The CIA mission was more important and I suspect Stevens was just a front for what the real CIA Op. What were they doing? Why was it worth risking so many people? And why was the CIA so woefully under prepared?
Note that Glen Doherty and Sean Smith were CIA contractors who arrived to save the day, only to die in the luckiest mortar strike of all time. They were part of the quick reaction force that only arrived just in time for the third assault of the night (the second at the CIA annex).
|
On October 23 2015 07:38 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2015 06:31 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2015 03:49 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
How to tell the hearing is a sham: 50% of questions are on Sydney Blumenthal (but the Republicans voted party line to block release of his testimony to the committee*). SB has zero to do with the attacks. SB had no idea about the security situation before the attacks. SB didn't know about the CIA annex. SB had no contact with Ambassador Stevens. SB didn't know even the littlest bit about Stevens' actual mission there**. But you have Gowdy hyping up just how many questions he is going to ask about SB.
*Every last transcript of this committee must be released immediately if it is to gain even the semblance of legitimacy. If you disagree you are a partisan tool.
**The hearing should be about what Stevens and the CIA were doing there. It's really a damn shame the CIA has effectively completely dodged a role in this in the public eye because 1) the politicians would have to risk something 2) none of the politicians can exploit that angle for political gain and 3) media sources can't discuss it without politician input without looking like tabloids. Guess we'll never get to see behind any of the black curtains. The CIA had 35 guys in their building and State had 7 in theirs. The CIA mission was more important and I suspect Stevens was just a front for what the real CIA Op. What were they doing? Why was it worth risking so many people? And why was the CIA so woefully under prepared? Note that Glen Doherty and Sean Smith were CIA contractors who arrived to save the day, only to die in the luckiest mortar strike of all time. They were part of the quick reaction force that only arrived just in time for the third assault of the night (the second at the CIA annex).
When you put it like that it sounds like it's ripped straight out of Homeland.
|
United States43910 Posts
On October 23 2015 07:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2015 07:38 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On October 23 2015 06:31 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2015 03:49 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
How to tell the hearing is a sham: 50% of questions are on Sydney Blumenthal (but the Republicans voted party line to block release of his testimony to the committee*). SB has zero to do with the attacks. SB had no idea about the security situation before the attacks. SB didn't know about the CIA annex. SB had no contact with Ambassador Stevens. SB didn't know even the littlest bit about Stevens' actual mission there**. But you have Gowdy hyping up just how many questions he is going to ask about SB.
*Every last transcript of this committee must be released immediately if it is to gain even the semblance of legitimacy. If you disagree you are a partisan tool.
**The hearing should be about what Stevens and the CIA were doing there. It's really a damn shame the CIA has effectively completely dodged a role in this in the public eye because 1) the politicians would have to risk something 2) none of the politicians can exploit that angle for political gain and 3) media sources can't discuss it without politician input without looking like tabloids. Guess we'll never get to see behind any of the black curtains. The CIA had 35 guys in their building and State had 7 in theirs. The CIA mission was more important and I suspect Stevens was just a front for what the real CIA Op. What were they doing? Why was it worth risking so many people? And why was the CIA so woefully under prepared? Note that Glen Doherty and Sean Smith were CIA contractors who arrived to save the day, only to die in the luckiest mortar strike of all time. They were part of the quick reaction force that only arrived just in time for the third assault of the night (the second at the CIA annex). When you put it like that it sounds like it's ripped straight out of Homeland.
Straight out of Glenn Beck's "The website Something Awful is a CIA front" conspiracy theory.
Sean Smith was a pretty big figure in the SA eve online community. He was chatting on jabber until the last few minutes and Glenn Beck extrapolated from that the eve online alliance Goonswarm are part of the CIA.
|
KwarK is clearly trying to pull a CIA cover job. Nice try.
|
On October 23 2015 07:59 farvacola wrote:
KwarK is clearly trying to pull a CIA cover job. Nice try.
Going by his extended eve portfolio I think KwarK is the head of CIA Eve branch.
|
On October 23 2015 07:52 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2015 07:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2015 07:38 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On October 23 2015 06:31 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2015 03:49 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
How to tell the hearing is a sham: 50% of questions are on Sydney Blumenthal (but the Republicans voted party line to block release of his testimony to the committee*). SB has zero to do with the attacks. SB had no idea about the security situation before the attacks. SB didn't know about the CIA annex. SB had no contact with Ambassador Stevens. SB didn't know even the littlest bit about Stevens' actual mission there**. But you have Gowdy hyping up just how many questions he is going to ask about SB.
*Every last transcript of this committee must be released immediately if it is to gain even the semblance of legitimacy. If you disagree you are a partisan tool.
**The hearing should be about what Stevens and the CIA were doing there. It's really a damn shame the CIA has effectively completely dodged a role in this in the public eye because 1) the politicians would have to risk something 2) none of the politicians can exploit that angle for political gain and 3) media sources can't discuss it without politician input without looking like tabloids. Guess we'll never get to see behind any of the black curtains. The CIA had 35 guys in their building and State had 7 in theirs. The CIA mission was more important and I suspect Stevens was just a front for what the real CIA Op. What were they doing? Why was it worth risking so many people? And why was the CIA so woefully under prepared? Note that Glen Doherty and Sean Smith were CIA contractors who arrived to save the day, only to die in the luckiest mortar strike of all time. They were part of the quick reaction force that only arrived just in time for the third assault of the night (the second at the CIA annex). When you put it like that it sounds like it's ripped straight out of Homeland. Straight out of Glenn Beck's "The website Something Awful is a CIA front" conspiracy theory. Sean Smith was a pretty big figure in the SA eve online community. He was chatting on jabber until the last few minutes and Glenn Beck extrapolated from that the eve online alliance Goonswarm are part of the CIA.
Whooops I meant "two security officers who were former Navy SEALs, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty". I got smith confused with woods.
See this for the details of the later assault:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack#Assault_on_the_CIA_annex
|
On October 23 2015 04:34 frazzle wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2015 04:03 Danglars wrote:On October 23 2015 02:41 frazzle wrote:On October 23 2015 00:14 Danglars wrote:
The long-reaching possibilities are basically nil after McCarthy's gaffe. At least it helped cost him the speakership. You mean the possibilities of using a tragedy politically to sabotage Clinton's candidacy? Yeah. What a shame. FeelsBadMan D: The chance that the liars and manipulators responsible for negligence in the death of a diplomat and American servicemen will come to justice. The only speedy arrest in the wake of the tragedy was some dude that made a YouTube video. It isn't even McCarthy--he's just the face of an establishment primarily concerned with the pursuit of political power through partisanship. Apart from political advantage it might bring them, I just have never understood this obsession on the right with what was said by administration officials in the first week after the attack. People on the right insist Clinton, Obama and others knew for certain exactly what happened the moment it happened, or even before it happened. As an avid Starcraft fan, I am aware of this idea of the Fog of War. We know this video did prompt attacks in Cairo. The initial narrative from the press hewed to this line because it made sense. This investigative article by the New York Times pretty clearly shows that to some extent at least the Benghazi situation was also spurred on by the videos. Clinton, Obama and others in the administration have stated that the analysis of what happened kept developing over the days. They made initial assessments, got new information, changed their assessments and so on. That is the fog of war. I have no reason to doubt this, and the only things these repeated investigations have turned up is static points of belief they lay out as they come to develop a complete understanding of what happened. I get that the right wants it to be the case that Obama or Clinton initially hoped to cover up a terror attack as a mere protest gone awry in order to bolster Obama's election chances since a terror attack would go against Obama's "Al Qaida on the run" narrative. That would make a great story. But there is no proof nor reason not to take them at their word that it was a fog of war scenario. Three years and there has been no smoking gun. On the other hand, we have Republican reps explicitly referencing the investigations as a tool for bringing down Clinton. Three years in and the only thing proven is that it has been a 3 year witch hunt. I am a Lessig or Sanders fan and have never really wanted Clinton, but after seeing her in the hearings I'm thinking, while I don't want to have a beer with her, I do feel alright with her getting the nomination now. I get the germ of the honest argument, and I commend you on it. Without discovered evidence, it could have been an absurd conglomeration of lower-level mistakes culminating in a misinformed president and cabinet.
Now, just take the partisanship out and the remarkably poor dialogue from GOP leaders. Wouldn't you want to know if the Obama administration knew it was a terrorist attack from the outset, and tried to see if a cover-up would take as means of deflecting the blame? Judicial Watch used FOIA requests to reveal defense department documents from the day after the benghazi attack, linked in the article. Basically, administration agencies knew it was a pre-planned attack, what terrorist offshoot was responsible, and when the planning had started.
Secondly, and more importantly, additional investigation is needed on an unresponsive secretary of state/state department/president before the attack and at key moments as the attack unfolded. We know Stevens issued dozens of requests for additional security, and Hillary claims not a single one made it to her desk (You can even watch Jake Tapper at CNN point out the obvious disconnect in accessibility). For contrast, people outside the state department like Blumenthal got quick responses from using Clinton's private email address, which apparently Stevens did not know to use. It took all this time to simply see Stevens' emails to see if the State Department was aware of the critical security situation happening in Libya.
So you say there's no proof of anything worthy of negotiation. You say no smoking gun, just Republicans pursuing political gain. I say there is sufficient proof warranting an investigation, and enough evasion on the merits of the case. Why the multiple requests for added security were denied. Eyewitness accounts and intelligence reports same day ... no protest no demonstration. Here's a link with Jordan's video segment. Anyone viewing the facts with nonpartisan eyes would back an investigation, whether a Bush state department or an Obama state department. It didn't deserve the amount of grandstanding or political gotchas, that was a stupid addition by the (granted) stupid party. It did deserve the slow grind to actually get the state department to release information to the committee so the American people could learn what was done and what wasn't done.
|
On October 23 2015 09:09 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2015 04:34 frazzle wrote:On October 23 2015 04:03 Danglars wrote:On October 23 2015 02:41 frazzle wrote:On October 23 2015 00:14 Danglars wrote:
The long-reaching possibilities are basically nil after McCarthy's gaffe. At least it helped cost him the speakership. You mean the possibilities of using a tragedy politically to sabotage Clinton's candidacy? Yeah. What a shame. FeelsBadMan D: The chance that the liars and manipulators responsible for negligence in the death of a diplomat and American servicemen will come to justice. The only speedy arrest in the wake of the tragedy was some dude that made a YouTube video. It isn't even McCarthy--he's just the face of an establishment primarily concerned with the pursuit of political power through partisanship. Apart from political advantage it might bring them, I just have never understood this obsession on the right with what was said by administration officials in the first week after the attack. People on the right insist Clinton, Obama and others knew for certain exactly what happened the moment it happened, or even before it happened. As an avid Starcraft fan, I am aware of this idea of the Fog of War. We know this video did prompt attacks in Cairo. The initial narrative from the press hewed to this line because it made sense. This investigative article by the New York Times pretty clearly shows that to some extent at least the Benghazi situation was also spurred on by the videos. Clinton, Obama and others in the administration have stated that the analysis of what happened kept developing over the days. They made initial assessments, got new information, changed their assessments and so on. That is the fog of war. I have no reason to doubt this, and the only things these repeated investigations have turned up is static points of belief they lay out as they come to develop a complete understanding of what happened. I get that the right wants it to be the case that Obama or Clinton initially hoped to cover up a terror attack as a mere protest gone awry in order to bolster Obama's election chances since a terror attack would go against Obama's "Al Qaida on the run" narrative. That would make a great story. But there is no proof nor reason not to take them at their word that it was a fog of war scenario. Three years and there has been no smoking gun. On the other hand, we have Republican reps explicitly referencing the investigations as a tool for bringing down Clinton. Three years in and the only thing proven is that it has been a 3 year witch hunt. I am a Lessig or Sanders fan and have never really wanted Clinton, but after seeing her in the hearings I'm thinking, while I don't want to have a beer with her, I do feel alright with her getting the nomination now. I get the germ of the honest argument, and I commend you on it. Without discovered evidence, it could have been an absurd conglomeration of lower-level mistakes culminating in a misinformed president and cabinet. Now, just take the partisanship out and the remarkably poor dialogue from GOP leaders. Wouldn't you want to know if the Obama administration knew it was a terrorist attack from the outset, and tried to see if a cover-up would take as means of deflecting the blame? Judicial Watch used FOIA requests to reveal defense department documents from the day after the benghazi attack, linked in the article. Basically, administration agencies knew it was a pre-planned attack, what terrorist offshoot was responsible, and when the planning had started. Secondly, and more importantly, additional investigation is needed on an unresponsive secretary of state/state department/president before the attack and at key moments as the attack unfolded. We know Stevens issued dozens of requests for additional security, and Hillary claims not a single one made it to her desk (You can even watch Jake Tapper at CNN point out the obvious disconnect in accessibility). For contrast, people outside the state department like Blumenthal got quick responses from using Clinton's private email address, which apparently Stevens did not know to use. It took all this time to simply see Stevens' emails to see if the State Department was aware of the critical security situation happening in Libya. So you say there's no proof of anything worthy of negotiation. You say no smoking gun, just Republicans pursuing political gain. I say there is sufficient proof warranting an investigation, and enough evasion on the merits of the case. Why the multiple requests for added security were denied. Eyewitness accounts and intelligence reports same day ... no protest no demonstration. Here's a link with Jordan's video segment. Anyone viewing the facts with nonpartisan eyes would back an investigation, whether a Bush state department or an Obama state department. It didn't deserve the amount of grandstanding or political gotchas, that was a stupid addition by the (granted) stupid party. It did deserve the slow grind to actually get the state department to release information to the committee so the American people could learn what was done and what wasn't done.
I wish we could know how much was State Department fuckup. Unfortunately there is a real possibility the answers to all those questions relate to information that the public is just not ever going to be allowed to have for security reasons and even the State Department might not be allowed to have. Even a nonpartisan unbiased inquest would have resulted in a lot of redaction in the final report I think to the point where it would be functionally unreadable. It wouldn't be the first time.
We won't even get to rule out that possibility because of how mishandled it was though.
|
I don't understand why people spend so much time thinking about this. If you don't want to get blown up, don't go as an emissary of imperial power to hostile territory. Just common sense.
|
On October 23 2015 09:09 Danglars wrote:Judicial Watch used FOIA requests to reveal defense department documents from the day after the benghazi attack, linked in the article. Basically, administration agencies knew it was a pre-planned attack, what terrorist offshoot was responsible, and when the planning had started.
Judicial Watch isn't exactly unbiased. They basically exist to do Clinton hunting. In any case, reading the linked FOIA releases, they state explicitly that they are "Information Reports: Not finally evaluated intelligence", so they are assessments by one entity among many stating what they thought to be the case at that time. This falls well short of being sufficient evidence to say Obama and Clinton knew for certain what had happened. In her testimony today Clinton was questioned regarding her statement to the Egyptians that BCOAR had claimed responsibility (as in the FOIA memo) the day after the attack. Clinton went on to mention BCOAR later rescinded that claim. Things changed. So this information is not a smoking gun.
We know Stevens issued dozens of requests for additional security, and Hillary claims not a single one made it to her desk (You can even watch Jake Tapper at CNN point out the obvious disconnect in accessibility). For contrast, people outside the state department like Blumenthal got quick responses from using Clinton's private email address, which apparently Stevens did not know to use. So Clinton's friends talk to her in emails, while people several steps down the chain of command in the State Dept. communicate with her via that chain of command and appropriate channels for security issues. Why is this remarkable?
Anyone viewing the facts with nonpartisan eyes would back an investigation OK, but 6 or 7 investigations? Parallels have been drawn to the investigations of the Beirut bombings under Reagan's watch. That was a non-partisan actual investigation. This whole process has been the definition of a political witch hunt, with de facto admissions to that effect by the investigating parties themselves.
Just being real about it, I don't doubt that the optics of the whole matter were regularly evaluated and weighed as the information poured in and press releases and statements were made. Obama and Clinton are politicians after all. But there is no evidence of any plan to cover it up for the election. Let's face it, even if that thought popped in their heads, there is no way they seriously considered it once the evidence started to trickle in.
|
Pretty sure an investigation into the investigators would be more damning than the initial investigation at this point.
|
If you look at the amount of time spent on this investigation in relation to all other investigations, including water gate and 9/11, it shows how bullshit this is. How many people died in 9/11? Why didn't we spend 5 years calling memebers of the bush administration in front of congress?
|
Hillary Clinton actually looked like she kinda enjoyed herself at the Benghazi hearing, far as one is able to enjoy these sorts of things
|
On October 23 2015 12:21 ticklishmusic wrote:
Hillary Clinton actually looked like she kinda enjoyed herself at the Benghazi hearing, far as one is able to enjoy these sorts of things
She has come out of the Dem Debate and this hearing looking like the President. Her confidence and grasp of the subject matter shows she is ready to lead. I was leaning Clinton over Sanders earlier, now I know for sure she is the go to this season for a real President in the chair.
Compare her lucid understanding and cool under pressure with the laughable performances of the Republicans at their own debates. They don't have a level head amongst the lot of them. Walker/Perry/Jindal/Santorum/Graham/Jeb/Rubio have all buckled under the glare of the national media. Trump can handle the 24 hour news cycle with his Triump-the-insult-comic-candidate routine, but Trump gets tired and cranky at hour 2 of a debate. Hillary went to 11.
|
On October 23 2015 12:21 ticklishmusic wrote:
Hillary Clinton actually looked like she kinda enjoyed herself at the Benghazi hearing, far as one is able to enjoy these sorts of things
Being fed easy enemies for breakfast? of course she did. She's a pro
evil, but a pro
|
On October 23 2015 11:48 frazzle wrote:
OK, but 6 or 7 investigations?
I'm glad we've reached this note of bipartisanship. I'd have preferred a forthcoming state department and quicker investigation too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
