CNN and the latest on Benghazi

[ScottsdaleHokie]

Cnn is now a republican new station? Lmao the idiots in this thread

Yeah, evidently the Atlantic has also become republican.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...er-all/278299/

[Kalyyn]

We started the conflict in Libya? Pretty sure it's been going on for a year now and we have yet to actually arm the rebels with weapons. Get your head out of your butt please.

Couple problems here.

Firstly, we directly intervened in Libya, and we already won. You're thinking of Syria, where we've been giving light armaments to the rebel forces for many months now.

[NYC17]

Couple problems here.

Firstly, we directly intervened in Libya, and we already won. You're thinking of Syria, where we've been giving light armaments to the rebel forces for many months now.

Weeeellll, partially true. We intervened in Libya after months of Republicans lobybying to do so, and complaining that Obama was indifferent to the Libyan's plight.

Oh this sounds so familiar...I've seen this one before recently.

[Skroe]

I would gladly accept that explanation from Washington. It would be worlds better than the explanation they offered, which was... none.

Would anyone listen to it though? I mean what it is saying, essentially, is that the saying "no man get's left behind" has a little bit of bullshit in it, which it of course, always really has.

One of the reasons I like Barack Obama's foreign policy so much is because it prizes brains over balls. Like in Syria, you have cartoonish people like John McCain and Lindsey Grahmn wanting to rush into Syria and save the civilians, all superhero like. Obama and his team on the other hand, know what Syria is. It's a massive geopolitical opportunity. It's Iran's Afghanistan. It's the single biggest Russian foreign policy problem at the moment. Iran and Russia are spending billions of dollars and resources they've spent 20 years stockpiling, just to prop up Asad. At the end, even if Asad stays in power, we still win, because our enemies will have expended immense resources to attain a vastly weaker and messier status quo ante bellum. Syria as a black hole for all the people we don't like (including the terrorists fighting and dying there) is far better than the US Military coming to rescue. Not this time.

We're a country that used to prize brains over balls, but now its the other way around, so Obama's foreign policy comes off as weak, which it isn't. It's smart. It's damned smart. It's doing what we used to do and be world class at.

If Obama came out and said what I did, he'd be called weak, even though it is smart, and the narrative would shift from Obama the liar to Obama the coward. It really doesn't make much sense for him to come out and argue against negative feelings about him that will express themselves in one form or another.

[Merkava]

Would anyone listen to it though? I mean what it is saying, essentially, is that the saying "no man get's left behind" has a little bit of bullshit in it, which it of course, always really has.

One of the reasons I like Barack Obama's foreign policy so much is because it prizes brains over balls. Like in Syria, you have cartoonish people like John McCain and Lindsey Grahmn wanting to rush into Syria and save the civilians, all superhero like. Obama and his team on the other hand, know what Syria is. It's a massive geopolitical opportunity. It's Iran's Afghanistan. It's the single biggest Russian foreign policy problem at the moment. Iran and Russia are spending billions of dollars and resources they've spent 20 years stockpiling, just to prop up Asad. At the end, even if Asad stays in power, we still win, because our enemies will have expended immense resources to attain a vastly weaker and messier status quo ante bellum. Syria as a black hole for all the people we don't like (including the terrorists fighting and dying there) is far better than the US Military coming to rescue. Not this time.

We're a country that used to prize brains over balls, but now its the other way around, so Obama's foreign policy comes off as weak, which it isn't. It's smart. It's damned smart. It's doing what we used to do and be world class at.

If Obama came out and said what I did, he'd be called weak, even though it is smart, and the narrative would shift from Obama the liar to Obama the coward. It really doesn't make much sense for him to come out and argue against negative feelings about him that will express themselves in one form or another.

Where have American interests been strengthened under Obama?

[Aeluron Lightsong]

I would gladly accept that explanation from Washington. It would be worlds better than the explanation they offered, which was... none.

Perhaps they wanted to save face. Yeah it sounds really stupid but I wouldn't be shocked if that was their *reasoning*. Personally if people are so worked up about THIS, then I want to know where all that rage is when the next scandal comes. I WANT YOU GUYS TO BE THERE. Don't be one sided.


EDIT: I wasn't yelling at you so if you thought I was, I apologize.

Where have American interests been strengthened under Obama?

Getting the blight out of Iraq, other stuff, Gay rights etc etc. Obviously not all interests because NO PRESIDENT in the universe can please every American in the country. It's far too unrealistic to think they can do that.

[Merkava]

Perhaps they wanted to save face. Yeah it sounds really stupid but I wouldn't be shocked if that was their *reasoning*. Personally if people are so worked up about THIS, then I want to know where all that rage is when the next scandal comes. I WANT YOU GUYS TO BE THERE. Don't be one sided.


EDIT: I wasn't yelling at you so if you thought I was, I apologize.

So that becomes the metric? I'll accept your outrage as legitimate retroactively and at some time in the indeterminate future as long as you are equally outraged at a future unnamed event of my choosing? Is that really what you're trying to say?

- - - Updated - - -

Getting the blight out of Iraq, other stuff, Gay rights etc etc. Obviously not all interests because NO PRESIDENT in the universe can please every American in the country. It's far too unrealistic to think they can do that.

My question, to Skroesec, was in regards to foreign policy. That should have been clear. That's why I quoted him. And no, American interests have not improved in Iraq under Obama.

- - - Updated - - -


Edit - And you're not big on specifics, either are you? I noticed that, in offering examples of ways you say American interests have improved under Obama (even though I was talking about foreign policy) you list "other stuff" and "etc, etc." It reminds of a friend in high school who got a job at Jiffy Lube. When we asked him what exactly comprised the 16 point inspection, he replied, "well oil, trans fluid, washer fluid, all that shit's like 1 through 12..." He didn't last long

[Reeve]

You're right man, and I do apologize to everyone. It's just a weird thing how I love so much about the US, and then get so goddamn frustrated about how little some people seem to care about the rest of us out here in the world, outside of the US. I have no idea what a hokie is, nor do I know where Scottsdale is, so I can show my ignorance there; mind you I think I kind of know the states and bigger cities, even lakes, rivers and mountain ranges, but smaller parishes and such forget about it.

Oh well. Fridays.

Cool. Everyone gets frustrated sometimes.

I've been to Helsinki, btw. Not a bad city, though has a weird obsession with McDonald's when the bars let out.

- - - Updated - - -

So funny now? Because it seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Nah, the joke was only worth one chortle. Revisiting jokes tends to make them less funny.

[Twotonsteak]

The CNN reporter is claiming that the CIA is intimidating its own operatives and threatening their families. I want to see some independent verification of those accusations before I start freaking out.

I'm sure the CIA will be most co-operative with your request.

Let's focus on what we know for sure...

1. Four Americans are dead.
2. Someone told our military to not even attempt a rescue.
3. The Obama Administration pushed false talking points AFTER finding out it was an act of terrorism.
4. The US media was walking around the "crime scene" almost a month before the FBI ever set foot there.

Either the entire thing has been handled in a REALLY poor and inept way...or someone is hiding something.

But I do love the irony in Democrats, normally willing to spend billions of dollars "if it helps just one American," calling the death of four Americans a "phony scandal."

EDIT:
It's a lot like the IRS scandal. The scandal came out, the Obama Administration put out a false narrative, the truth starts to leak out, Obama starts calling it a "phony scandal."

I mean, really, PA can't even get their voter ID law enacted because it might cause "voter disenfranchisement" and "excessive hardships." But the IRS targets Conservative and Tea Party Groups, then admits to it, and the chain of who knows goes all the way up to an Obama appointee, and it's a "phony scandal?"

[Merkava]

I'm sure the CIA will be most co-operative with your request.

Let's focus on what we know for sure...

1. Four Americans are dead.
2. Someone told our military to not even attempt a rescue.
3. The Obama Administration pushed false talking points AFTER finding out it was an act of terrorism.
4. The US media was walking around the "crime scene" almost a month before the FBI ever set foot there.

Either the entire thing has been handled in a REALLY poor and inept way...or someone is hiding something.

But I do love the irony in Democrats, normally willing to spend billions of dollars "if it helps just one American," calling the death of four Americans a "phony scandal."

Right, and let me add

5. Hillary Clinton either lied to Congress on Jan 23 or exhibited incompetence to a level that would deem her unfit for running for president.

[Garnier Fructis]

But I do love the irony in Democrats, normally willing to spend billions of dollars "if it helps just one American," calling the death of four Americans a "phony scandal."

Is this part serious? And it's not a phony scandal because 4 people died, it's a phony scandal because they would rather kick up a shitstorm on this in an obvious attempt to smear Hillary (who is apparently also made of Teflon like her husband). And generally wasting an inordinate amount of time on this when the people who voted them in did so in the hopes that they would get the economy rolling and create jobs.

[Deleted]

Is this part serious? And it's not a phony scandal because 4 people died, it's a phony scandal because they would rather kick up a shitstorm on this in an obvious attempt to smear Hillary (who is apparently also made of Teflon like her husband). And generally wasting an inordinate amount of time on this when the people who voted them in did so in the hopes that they would get the economy rolling and create jobs.

Political Ad hominem you say? Never would'be guessed

[Merkava]

Is this part serious? And it's not a phony scandal because 4 people died, it's a phony scandal because they would rather kick up a shitstorm on this in an obvious attempt to smear Hillary (who is apparently also made of Teflon like her husband). And generally wasting an inordinate amount of time on this when the people who voted them in did so in the hopes that they would get the economy rolling and create jobs.

It's not a smear job on Hillary. She either lied or is grossly incompetent. Take your pick.

[Endus]

But I do love the irony in Democrats, normally willing to spend billions of dollars "if it helps just one American," calling the death of four Americans a "phony scandal."

Neither of those statements are true.

In particular; there is absolutely nothing about the four American deaths that is, in any way, scandalous. Tragic and horrible, yes. Not scandalous. The supposed 'scandal' is that the US administration knew the attack was coming, somehow, and deliberately left the embassy unprotected regardless.

That is what is completely and utterly baseless, and for which there is not one whit of evidence nor even suggestion. It's a lie drummed up by oppositionists, taking any possible chance to slight Obama simply for being Obama. It's Birtherism 2.0.

It's a lot like the IRS scandal. The scandal came out, the Obama Administration put out a false narrative, the truth starts to leak out, Obama starts calling it a "phony scandal."

Again; the issue with the IRS shenanigans was that people claimed the orders came from on high. From the Obama administration. Which they did not. There is, again, no evidence whatsoever that that was the case. Again, it's something entirely manufactured in the attempt to create a scandal, where none exists.

That doesn't mean the actions of those IRS agents was entirely right, but that in and of itself does not make a scandal. At worst, it's a really minor nitpick on internal IRS procedures at a fairly low administrative level.

[Garnier Fructis]

It's not a smear job on Hillary. She either lied or is grossly incompetent. Take your pick.

If the same attention was shoveled onto the embassy attacks when Bush was president, you would have had similar results with different people. So unless we all became paragons of righteousness over the last decade, why did we fail to examine those with the same scrutiny we've examined this case with? The answer is because there's motivation to uncover the dirt. In that sense it's a hit on her credibility whether she lied or was incompetent or whatever.

Not that people seem to actually care, if polls are anything to go by.

[Endus]

It's not a smear job on Hillary. She either lied or is grossly incompetent. Take your pick.

What "lie"? This should be interesting.

Remember; 20/20 hindsight as to intel that turned out to be untrue does not make her statement retroactively a "lie".

[Merkava]

In particular; there is absolutely nothing about the four American deaths that is, in any way, scandalous. Tragic and horrible, yes. Not scandalous. The supposed 'scandal' is that the US administration knew the attack was coming, somehow, and deliberately left the embassy unprotected regardless.

That is what is completely and utterly baseless, and for which there is not one whit of evidence nor even suggestion. It's a lie drummed up by oppositionists, taking any possible chance to slight Obama simply for being Obama. It's Birtherism 2.0.

You've missed the point entirely. The scandal is that they lied about the nature of the attack for political gain.

[Tomservo]

[Merkava]

What "lie"? This should be interesting.

Remember; 20/20 hindsight as to intel that turned out to be untrue does not make her statement retroactively a "lie".

How much do you know about this? Are you familiar with her testimony before Congress on Jan 23?

[NYC17]

Neither of those statements are true.

In particular; there is absolutely nothing about the four American deaths that is, in any way, scandalous. Tragic and horrible, yes. Not scandalous. The supposed 'scandal' is that the US administration knew the attack was coming, somehow, and deliberately left the embassy unprotected regardless.

That is what is completely and utterly baseless, and for which there is not one whit of evidence nor even suggestion. It's a lie drummed up by oppositionists, taking any possible chance to slight Obama simply for being Obama. It's Birtherism 2.0.

Eh, I'm more cynical...it was about votes. They thought they had a winning topic and could hurt Obama in the polls. It became a non-issue right after the election due to disinterest, claims of voter fraud and election rigging, and eventually Sandy Hook.