My response to Benghazi congressional committee hearing

[Olo]

I was implying why they were not staffed before the event. But then that would bring in congress as to why they didn't fund security. So we won't hear anything.

Indeed. State had some local guards with baseball bats while the CIA safe house appears to have been a fortress.

[Payday]

Indeed. State had some local guards with baseball bats while the CIA safe house appears to have been a fortress.

The House GOP didn't slash CIA asset security spending, only State Dept. security.

[kunah]

No, you just need to be able to back up what you claim. Which is understandably difficult to do if you're not informed.

Additionally, I don't need a letter from Woodward, because I know the truth.

Cmon man. I have teenagers so I know what selective memory looks like.

Big hubbub about WH threating him. And as it turns out was nothing to the point of being funny.

[Merkava]

And of course you and I both know the truth is that he was not threatened, right? If this is the case, why was this a story for 3 days? Who put the story out? Did the White House drop the story to pound it's chest and say look at us intimidate reporters? Think about what claims came from what side.

Use your brain.

I don't know if he was threatened or not. I didn't listen to the phone conversation. I know Woodward never used the word threatened. I know the Washpost headline originally said "threatened" but that it was later changed.

If we're attempting to find some middle ground, here's what I think. Woodward built up a narrative that the White House was trying to intimidate him based on the conversation he had with Gene Sperling (which he characterized as a shouting match, the truth of which we'll never know) and what later was proven to be an out of context quote from an email from Sperling to Woodward.

I don't know if Woodward felt threatened because I don't have a transcript of the phone conversation. Based on the email should Woodward have felt threatened, no I don't think so. Taken in conjunction with the phone call should Woodward have felt threatened? I have no idea. If there was a particularly threatening component to the phone call I'm guessing Woodward would have disclosed it, especially on the heels of what appears to be a tendency on his part to overstate the issue. But I know he was never quoted as saying he was threatened.

But that's the last I'll say since it's off topic.

---------- Post added 2013-05-17 at 02:43 PM ----------

Cmon man. I have teenagers so I know what selective memory looks like.

Big hubbub about WH threating him. And as it turns out was nothing to the point of being funny.

That's off topic. But you know what's on topic? My question of why you'd continue to support someone that you think is incompetent.

[Lenonis]

*snip*

So I'm going to generalize here, so don't take this personally Merkava...

I see this attitude a lot in politics. Lately it's been the right, but I'm sure if the balance of power was reversed you'd see it on the left.

Merkava is giving every benefit of the doubt to Woodward, and in order to go against that s/he needs solid proof that the accused incident occurred exactly the way people claimed it did. That seems to be the appropriate stance -- innocent until proven guilty right?

However in the latest "scandals" the exact opposite is happening. Obama is immediately assumed guilty and had a direct hand in everything and you have to absolutely prove he didn't before it will be dropped. Guilty until proven innocent.

It's quite frustrating -- and often any parallels drawn to historical events get brushed off.

60 embassies attacked under Bush -- irrelevant.
Bush misled on WMD -- irrelevant.

And so on and so on.

It's frustrating and annoying...especially when it's quite obvious that this whole thing has so very little to do with actual embassy security and protecting americans overseas and more about destroying the opposition and tarnishing a potential 2016 candidate. This is why I hope Hillary doesn't run because I can't stand hearing about Benghazi anymore and I used to be one of the ones who really did want to know what really happened and why things were so messed up. Not anymore, I just want it go away since it's now just a political tool and it really disrespecting the people whose lives were lost.

[Payday]

I don't know if he was threatened or not. I didn't listen to the phone conversation. I know Woodward never used the word threatened. I know the Washpost headline originally said "threatened" but that it was later changed.

If we're attempting to find some middle ground, here's what I think. Woodward built up a narrative that the White House was trying to intimidate him based on the conversation he had with Gene Sperling (which he characterized as a shouting match, the truth of which we'll never know) and what later was proven to be an out of context quote from an email from Sperling to Woodward.

I don't know if Woodward felt threatened because I don't have a transcript of the phone conversation. Based on the email should Woodward have felt threatened, no I don't think so. Taken in conjunction with the phone call should Woodward have felt threatened? I have no idea. If there was a particularly threatening component to the phone call I'm guessing Woodward would have disclosed it, especially on the heels of what appears to be a tendency on his part to overstate the issue. But I know he was never quoted as saying he was threatened.

The whole "threat" issue is predicated on the email. Specifically the phrase "you will regret this," it had nothing to do with the phone call. This is why it was a huge joke when the O administration released the actual emails, and everyone in the media including members of Fox News were ridiculing Woodward for his claims. It's also why Woodward began going back on his claims at the exact moment that the emails were released. If he was threatened by the phone call, he sure as shit didn't relay that back in his email response to Sperling.

You don't have a whole lot (if any) of supporting evidence on your side. Even the right wing media accepted that it was a boy who cried wolf story, some with their tail between their legs and some without. The fact that you are even fighting this battle is very telling and even more ironic.

[kunah]

I don't know if he was threatened or not. I didn't listen to the phone conversation. I know Woodward never used the word threatened. I know the Washpost headline originally said "threatened" but that it was later changed.

If we're attempting to find some middle ground, here's what I think. Woodward built up a narrative that the White House was trying to intimidate him based on the conversation he had with Gene Sperling (which he characterized as a shouting match, the truth of which we'll never know) and what later was proven to be an out of context quote from an email from Sperling to Woodward.

I don't know if Woodward felt threatened because I don't have a transcript of the phone conversation. Based on the email should Woodward have felt threatened, no I don't think so. Taken in conjunction with the phone call should Woodward have felt threatened? I have no idea. If there was a particularly threatening component to the phone call I'm guessing Woodward would have disclosed it, especially on the heels of what appears to be a tendency on his part to overstate the issue. But I know he was never quoted as saying he was threatened.

But that's the last I'll say since it's off topic.

---------- Post added 2013-05-17 at 02:43 PM ----------



That's off topic. But you know what's on topic? My question of why you'd continue to support someone that you think is incompetent.

If you are so self deluded that you expect 100 competency in life(especially politicians) then you going to be disappointed every day of your life. The hindsighters(See Captain Obvious - South Park) will always be right and spin it however they want..

[Merkava]

So I'm going to generalize here, so don't take this personally Merkava...

I see this attitude a lot in politics. Lately it's been the right, but I'm sure if the balance of power was reversed you'd see it on the left.

Merkava is giving every benefit of the doubt to Woodward, and in order to go against that s/he needs solid proof that the accused incident occurred exactly the way people claimed it did. That seems to be the appropriate stance -- innocent until proven guilty right?

However in the latest "scandals" the exact opposite is happening. Obama is immediately assumed guilty and had a direct hand in everything and you have to absolutely prove he didn't before it will be dropped. Guilty until proven innocent.

You said not to take it personally, so I won't. Especially since that characterization doesn't describe me or my posting habits. If you think that it does, however please show me.

60 embassies attacked under Bush -- irrelevant.
Bush misled on WMD -- irrelevant.
.

Those are irrelevant to this topic. Every case deserves to be judged on it's own individually, surely you see that, right? What would you think of someone who said, "well Hillary deserves a pass for lying on Benghazi because I'm a Republican and I defended Reagan when he lied about Iran Contra?" Where do these sort of moral equivalencies leave independents and other fair minded people? If you want to make a thread to talk about the shortcomings of the Bush administration then that's fine. I'll participate. If you're saying that I've choosen to ignore those shortcomings simply because I don't want to talk about it in this thread then that's simply not correct.

---------- Post added 2013-05-17 at 03:03 PM ----------

The whole "threat" issue is predicated on the email. Specifically the phrase "you will regret this," it had nothing to do with the phone call. This is why it was a huge joke when the O administration released the actual emails, and everyone in the media including members of Fox News were ridiculing Woodward for his claims. It's also why Woodward began going back on his claims at the exact moment that the emails were released. If he was threatened by the phone call, he sure as shit didn't relay that back in his email response to Sperling.

You don't have a whole lot (if any) of supporting evidence on your side. Even the right wing media accepted that it was a boy who cried wolf story, some with their tail between their legs and some without. The fact that you are even fighting this battle is very telling and even more ironic.

You said Woodward said he was threatened. I pointed out that Woodward never used the word threatened. End of story. If you want to continue it, then start a new thread.

[Payday]

Democrats never used the word coverup, therefore this can't be a coverup.

Have a nice weekend

[Merkava]

If you are so self deluded that you expect 100 competency in life(especially politicians) then you going to be disappointed every day of your life. The hindsighters(See Captain Obvious - South Park) will always be right and spin it however they want..

Ok, this is progress at least. Maybe you don't see the level of incompetence that Hillary Clinton exhibited. That's really what this discussion between us is about now, correct? I posted this and gave three reasons why she was either lying or incompetant and you agreed that she was incompeant. Which of those three reasons that I gave were you agreeing with as evidence for her incompetence.

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...2#post21100912

[mvaliz]

Ok, this is progress at least. Maybe you don't see the level of incompetence that Hillary Clinton exhibited. That's really what this discussion between us is about now, correct? I posted this and gave three reasons why she was either lying or incompetant and you agreed that she was incompeant. Which of those three reasons that I gave were you agreeing with as evidence for her incompetence.

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...2#post21100912

And any "progress" that was made was felled back by this post.

Kunah, may I suggest printing out your post - crumbling it up - and throwing it JUST over Merkava's head? It would be a nice visual aid...

[Merkava]

And any "progress" that was made was felled back by this post.

Kunah, may I suggest printing out your post - crumbling it up - and throwing it JUST over Merkava's head? It would be a nice visual aid...

Welcome back. I answered your question and provided links to quotes. I'm sure you read them, right? That you wouldn't just ask people to provide evidence and then ignore their evidence and continue to say that they're wrong would you? So since I know you read the links I referenced tell me what you disagree with?

And if you don't have substantive to add, and simply want to offer sarcastic imagery, well like I said, welcome back. I have a feeling I may be saying it again before too long.

Infracted - please do not taunt other posters or discuss moderator activity

[Simca]

I don't really understand what Republicans expect to gain politically from this.

It's extremely unlikely that any major political official was directly involved in Benghazi. There's such a massive chain of command that I doubt Obama even knew before it was over (I heard somebody say that "Obama was informed of it" but I doubt it. It was the middle of the night.). He had people under him with more military experience and skills making those calls I'm sure.

If anyone gets fired or reprimanded from this, it'll be somebody who is irrelevant from a political perspective, so it just seems silly for the Republicans to be pushing this so hard. It's like they feel that if they push and push and push then suddenly the wall will give out and reveal that Obama is actually Hitler or something. Nothing of use will come from these hearings.

It's just funny how they try to refute Obama taking credit for Bin Laden when it was really people under Obama who did the work, but now that it is somebody under Obama making a mistake, they want to pretend it's ok to be hypocrites and blame Obama.

[kunah]

You said not to take it personally, so I won't. Especially since that characterization doesn't describe me or my posting habits. If you think that it does, however please show me.



Those are irrelevant to this topic. Every case deserves to be judged on it's own individually, surely you see that, right? What would you think of someone who said, "well Hillary deserves a pass for lying on Benghazi because I'm a Republican and I defended Reagan when he lied about Iran Contra?" Where do these sort of moral equivalencies leave independents and other fair minded people? If you want to make a thread to talk about the shortcomings of the Bush administration then that's fine. I'll participate. If you're saying that I've choosen to ignore those shortcomings simply because I don't want to talk about it in this thread then that's simply not correct.

---------- Post added 2013-05-17 at 03:03 PM ----------



You said Woodward said he was threatened. I pointed out that Woodward never used the word threatened. End of story. If you want to continue it, then start a new thread.

Payday,
Dont respond. Merk likes to pretend shes a lawyer in coutt dwelling on minutia from a week ago when the argument is lost. Some ego thing.

Infracted: Please refrain from personal attacks

[Adam Jensen]

Democrats never used the word coverup, therefore this can't be a coverup.

Have a nice weekend

It was an act of cover.

[mvaliz]

I don't really understand what Republicans expect to gain politically from this.

It's extremely unlikely that any major political official was directly involved in Benghazi. There's such a massive chain of command that I doubt Obama even knew before it was over (I heard somebody say that "Obama was informed of it" but I doubt it. It was the middle of the night.). He had people under him with more military experience and skills making those calls I'm sure.

If anyone gets fired or reprimanded from this, it'll be somebody who is irrelevant from a political perspective, so it just seems silly for the Republicans to be pushing this so hard. It's like they feel that if they push and push and push then suddenly the wall will give out and reveal that Obama is actually Hitler or something. Nothing of use will come from these hearings.

It's just funny how they try to refute Obama taking credit for Bin Laden when it was really people under Obama who did the work, but now that it is somebody under Obama making a mistake, they want to pretend it's ok to be hypocrites and blame Obama.

That's generally my whole take on this issue. I really don't see why they make it such a big deal other than hoping to use ANYTHING to make Dems look bad rather than showcasing new moments and actions when they (conservatives) do something RIGHT (morally correct I mean... not just politically speaking).

When they care more about scoring a political "snub" than tracking down the people who murdered 4 Americans... to me, that's a serious moral problem at play here than any argument the Republicans could make. I'm sure the American's who died said in their dying breath "Please....get...those...pencil...pushers...who...maybe...didn't...."

[Merkava]

Payday,
Dont respond. Merk likes to pretend shes a lawyer in coutt dwelling on minutia from a week ago when the argument is lost. Some ego thing.

If you don't want to respond to me that's fine. But if your only contribution is to tell others not to respond to me, then I have no time for you.

And you seem to have no way of rebutting my position other than to attack me personally. I feel sorry for you, best of luck.

---------- Post added 2013-05-17 at 05:40 PM ----------

I don't really understand what Republicans expect to gain politically from this.

It's extremely unlikely that any major political official was directly involved in Benghazi. There's such a massive chain of command that I doubt Obama even knew before it was over (I heard somebody say that "Obama was informed of it" but I doubt it. It was the middle of the night.). He had people under him with more military experience and skills making those calls I'm sure.
.

This sounds like the beginning of a decent conversation. I guess we can start with this. The consulate alarm sounded at 9:30pm EET which is, I think, 2:30pm EST. So it was the middle of the night in Libya, but the middle of the afternoon in the United States. The White House said Obama was notified of the attack in a pre-schuduled afternoon meeting and was kept up to date by his staff throughout the day. I read that in the Washington Times, if you want me to try to find a link to the White House statement I can. And we know that Hillary knew of the attack in real time.

So to start with, do you still think that no major political official knew of the attack in real time? I realize that's not exactly what you said, but it's what I gathered that you meant from your first paragraph.

[belfpala]

So to start with, do you still think that no major political official knew of the attack in real time? I realize that's not exactly what you said, but it's what I gathered that you meant from your first paragraph.

Bush was informed about 9/11 before the second plane hit the WTC. The air force was mobilized to shoot down other planes. BUT THEY DIDN'T OMG WHY NOT?

Close enough to the same thing for me to say... shit happens. The loss of life is bad, but we can't expect the president to be a superhero or anything. (Note: I'm not blaming Bush for 9/11. Don't take this post that way).

[stumpy]

I don't really understand what Republicans expect to gain politically from this.

What I don't understand is why they've now decided to beat the war drums louder when the only new information is that some of the e-mails they were leaning on so heavily as "evidence" were doctored.

[mvaliz]

Bush was informed about 9/11 before the second plane hit the WTC. The air force was mobilized to shoot down other planes. BUT THEY DIDN'T OMG WHY NOT?

Close enough to the same thing for me to say... shit happens. The loss of life is bad, but we can't expect the president to be a superhero or anything. (Note: I'm not blaming Bush for 9/11. Don't take this post that way).

Of course not... don't you remember, 9/11 is Clinton's fault according to the Republicans. Even Rudi Giuliani said there were no terrorist attacks on American Soil during Bush Jr's watch....