The Goat Pen

I disagree. I don't think Benghazi really bothers Obama or Hillary. Having 3 Americans and an ambassador getting killed when they were warned about it before, could have stopped it during, and blatantly lied about it after - that's no big deal. All in a day's work and a night's fund raising.

The press doesn't care deeply about it either. They have been dragged kicking and screaming into covering it 8 months after it happened. Yes they might now grab a few headlines and feign a little editorial outrage, but they won't go for the throat like they would if it were a Republican administration. Obama and Hillary know this will blow over in a week or two.

But spying on the press might get sincerely upset them if their own constitutional rights get violated. (That's the one constitutional right they REALLY take seriously.) If they get upset enough, the AP phone spying story might actually disrupt the whole incestuous relationship with the White House. Obama and Hillary may not be able to count on the msm acting like their administration's immune system anymore. That will make the next two years rough on them.

They also need cover for the "trainwreck", i.e. Obama(don't)care....true costs are coming out all over. They can forget taking over the house next year, probably lose the senate tambien.

I think the Administration will keep the msm's love despite spying on the AP's phone records. Obama will take them out to an expensive French restaurant, turn down the lights, light a bunch of candles, play a little Teddy Pendergrass, pour a little wine, and say he loves them and nobody else, and the msm will swoon into his arms like they always do.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-575 ... -unfolded/

I really dont know what else was expected by the repubs short of a platoon of marines being deployed 24/7.

The attack was planned and it was coincidental that it happened the same day the cairo demonstrations over the film took place.

The term "several" DS agents leaving to get tactical gear tells me they split up and left the ambassador and 1 DS agent who also abandoned them leaving the 2 alone in a "safe house" that was burning all around them.

But within 25 minutes of the attack they had 20-30 local militias friendlies along with a security team from the CIA onsite along with "several" DS agents.

so overall I think they had a fairly good presence but that was an overwhelming coordinated attack

for the administration to blame it for 3 days on the propaganda film deflected attention away from the bad guys. still no arrests or justice served on this one

Professor Tiger wrote:

The press doesn't care deeply about it either. They have been dragged kicking and screaming into covering it 8 months after it happened. Yes they might now grab a few headlines and feign a little editorial outrage, but they won't go for the throat like they would if it were a Republican administration. Obama and Hillary know this will blow over in a week or two.

There have been 6 U.S. ambassadors murdered in the line of duty since 1968; Stevens makes the seventh.

During dubya's administration there were a half dozen attacks on U.S. Embassies and consulates that resulted in 60 casualties. Obviously there were no congressional hearings, or any noticeable furor at all with respect to those attacks. Maybe it was because the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were in full swing...making that kind of violence on our foreign service outposts insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

Repulbicans cut State Department spending for security in places like Benghazi, yet that is not viewed as nearly significant as Susan Rice's marathon talkshow Sunday. Dems historically suck at the blame game when it comes to issues of national security...comes with the territory when you are the peacenik party and always wanting to cut defense.

I knew it!.......if nothing else, yer consistent.

Dr. Strangelove wrote:Going through some old bookmarks and deleting them...who can forget this gem from a man who really should have known better

http://washingtonexaminer.com/barone-go ... JXgbWewVHi

If R's had voted in same numbers as in 2008...still stunned that so many people simply didn't vote.

Dr. Strangelove wrote:

Professor Tiger wrote:

They are spending significantly more time trying to get to the bottom of the administration's lies over Susan Rice's talking points than the lies used to send thousands of young men to their deaths in Iraq.

A lie is saying something you know to be untrue.

In the case of Iraq, W's own CIA (as well as most of the world's intelligence services and nearly every Democrat in government) believed Saddam had WMD. W was naive and colossally stupid and bumbling in his invasion. But, it was a mistake, not a lie.

However, in the case of Benghazi, Obama's own CIA and State Dept. knew withing hours that the attack had nothing to do with youtube videos and rowdy demonstrations. They knew the truth - that it was a terrorist attack (e.g. random public demonstrators don't normally bring RPG's and mortars along.) The Washington political hacks rampantly politicized the intelligence provided by their own eyewitness who were there, and edited all the salient facts out of their reporting. That is not a mistake. That is a lie.

Dick Armey, who was the Republican House majority leader at the time, was directly lied to by Dick Cheney, who promised him that the administration had solid evidence that Saddam was tied to Al Qaeda and that he had developed suitcase nukes . Cheney outright lied to him and knew he was lying. He needed Armey's support to get the war started.

I guess it's up to you to believe that the Bush Presidency was simply horrendously incompetent when it came to the intelligence gathered on Iraq. Me, I think certain administration figures simply wanted to go into Iraq, Cheney being the leader of that faction.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Author_Ch ... _0916.html

For the record I have heard reports since 1980 that Iran and/or Iraq was only a year or two away from having self made nukes. That was 33 years ago.

bluetick wrote:

Professor Tiger wrote:

The press doesn't care deeply about it either. They have been dragged kicking and screaming into covering it 8 months after it happened. Yes they might now grab a few headlines and feign a little editorial outrage, but they won't go for the throat like they would if it were a Republican administration. Obama and Hillary know this will blow over in a week or two.

There have been 6 U.S. ambassadors murdered in the line of duty since 1968; Stevens makes the seventh.

During dubya's administration there were a half dozen attacks on U.S. Embassies and consulates that resulted in 60 casualties. Obviously there were no congressional hearings, or any noticeable furor at all with respect to those attacks. Maybe it was because the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were in full swing...making that kind of violence on our foreign service outposts insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

Repulbicans cut State Department spending for security in places like Benghazi, yet that is not viewed as nearly significant as Susan Rice's marathon talkshow Sunday. Dems historically suck at the blame game when it comes to issues of national security...comes with the territory when you are the peacenik party and always wanting to cut defense.

You have multiple phases of this:

1. The leadup to the attack with the security requests.

2. The actual attack and complete lack of support for those on the ground.

3. And the aftermath with the out and out lies about what happened.

Leadup - Somebody said no to the security requests. Perhaps this was reasonable, but doesn't seem that way but maybe it was. Who made the requests and who said no? Was it requested to the proper folks? Did the requester continue to push for it? Is this something that would or should have come to the attention of SecState?

During attack - Everybody on site seemed pretty clear it was a terrorist attack right out of the box. Who told the military to stand down? Was it an internal recommendation from military commanders as they believed that tactically it wouldn't help and they wanted to avoid Blackhawk down scenario? Or was there pressure from outside military to not do it? IMO it would seem that there is no harm in having the rapid response team board, take-off, and be en route. This would at least give you some additional options based on what may occur over the time it takes them to get in theater. They certainly didn't have to land when they got in theater if the situation didn't warrant. I would have preferred to have those options. Who was the ultimate person who said no and why? Why no flyovers of fast movers in an attempt to at least try and scare attackers off? These folks were left to fend for themselves and we apparently refused to even re-position some assets that could have helped even though it didn't commit us to any course of action. WHY?

Aftermath - It is clear that terrorism was scrubbed in favor of this BS video story for political reasons. Who demanded the changes be made? Who decided to lie? Of course it was done to avoid any story of a terror attack on this admin's watch especially with the repeated requests for security being denied. To the PAH - It matters because it certainly mattered enough to some people to scrub it and lie. Why? People usually don't bother to lie about something that doesn't matter madam SecState.

Funny how Petraeus says the CIA didn't refuse to help and then the story on his affair breaks a couple of weeks later - heh.

"For the record I have heard reports since 1980 that Iran and/or Iraq was only a year or two away from having self made nukes. That was 33 years ago."

And I've been hearing that we are on the brink of economic collapse for longer than that unless our political leaders "do something"...

Professor Tiger wrote:10ac is right. Much like the country, this thread is now a majority liberal thread. The progressives 'tick, hedge, Augie and crash have their heels on the necks of conservatives 10ac, sardis, boj and toe. IB now stops by occasionally to provide comic relief.

It is up to me and rat to provide the wise, moderate middle. It is noble work that we do nobly.

Well frankly is used to be more fun for me when people actually tried to debate a subject. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to go on as much anymore.

Now many just throw out a few one liners or take a shoot the messenger approach (Hi Tick!).

I prefer to have some reasonable debate on issues.

I like it when Tick actually relies on his background to correct me on health insurance issues versus the "writer of that article is GOP tool!" (drops mike and walks off debate stage).

Rat has about one out of 1,000 posts where he is actually serious about a subject. Otherwise its pee flavored ham time.

hedge wrote:"For the record I have heard reports since 1980 that Iran and/or Iraq was only a year or two away from having self made nukes. That was 33 years ago."

And I've been hearing that we are on the brink of economic collapse for longer than that unless our political leaders "do something"...

I would equate it to house or car maintenance you know needs to be done, but just don't do. Eventually it will catch up with you and cost you a helluva lot more than it would have.

Kinda like global warming!

"Well frankly is used to be more fun for me when people actually tried to debate a subject."

I'm sure it used to be more fun for you when there was a repub in the white house and they also controlled congress...

puterbac wrote:
Well frankly is used to be more fun for me when people actually tried to debate a subject. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to go on as much anymore.

Now many just throw out a few one liners or take a shoot the messenger approach (Hi Tick!).

I prefer to have some reasonable debate on issues.

heh For the uninitiated, puter liked to spice things up with articles from NewsMax and WorldNewsDaily...two rwnj web sites devoted to scaring retirees into buying gold-plated coins.

The best were the British tabloid websites, though. Every article displayed came with the unspoken (or spoken!) warning that whatever the Brits were having to endure, it was only a matter of time before the USA faced the same calamity. That's why we're now up to our armpits in muslims eating our police dogs, petstore owners going to prison for selling goldfish, and old people dying of loneliness and neglect in dentist's waiting rooms.

Wait, are you telling me those coins were a bad investment?? Damn!

Puter is good people. I don't agree with what he says much of the time, but he is a good American who has a developed sense of fair play and a desire to understand others' opinions as well as defend his own beliefs.


Sure, some people take the intellectually lazy road and just attack the source of what he posts, but the true patriot will argue the points that he makes or that the linked article makes.

heh For the uninitiated, puter liked to spice things up with articles from NewsMax and WorldNewsDaily...two rwnj web sites devoted to scaring retirees into buying gold-plated coins.


...and for the initiated, you/I could quote an emeritus prof at MIT/uppity edumacated negro and get the same dismissal from tickster.

"Sure, some people take the intellectually lazy road and just attack the source of what he posts, but the true patriot will argue the points that he makes or that the linked article makes."

Esp. if the article is from The Onion...

Freedom costs a buck o five in gold plated coins.