OT- Is this the best they can do with Benghazi?

User Forum Topic
Submitted by Zeitgeist on November 9, 2012 - 7:32pm

What's the matter. Did he refuse to take cyanide? "WASHINGTON — David H. Petraeus, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency and one of America’s most decorated four-star generals, resigned on Friday after an F.B.I. investigation uncovered evidence that he had been involved in an extramarital affair."

What a crock.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on November 9, 2012 - 9:05pm.

i voted for gary johnson and i believe it.

Submitted by Aecetia on November 10, 2012 - 7:27pm.

Sure you do."I don't like conspiracy theories, I may be totally wrong, but the timing of this, again, right after the election and right before Petraeus is supposed to get grilled on Capitol Hill, it's really smells."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2...

Submitted by Hobie on November 10, 2012 - 7:38pm.

+100

Submitted by scaredyclassic on November 10, 2012 - 8:58pm.

Isn't adultery a criminal offense under military law?

Submitted by Blogstar on November 10, 2012 - 9:01pm.

Why does losing his job mean that he can't be interrogated to the extent the republicans in government want to?

Submitted by Veritas on May 10, 2013 - 7:41pm.

"When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story."

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/201...

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on May 10, 2013 - 10:02pm.

Veritas: What is truly terrifying is that ABC News is reporting this story. Everyone in the administration must be having a collective "Oh, shit!" moment.

Watching Jay Carney trying to bob and weave, whilst toeing the party line was both cringeworthy and hilarious. He did manage to effectively bus chuck Hillary, though. I'm sure she and Bill are pleased. I mean, a smear like this won't follow here into the 2016 contest or anything...

Submitted by Aecetia on May 11, 2013 - 11:55pm.

"These have been a bad few months for journalism," he added. "We're getting the big stories wrong, over and over again."

You can say that again and again and again.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbs-...

Submitted by SK in CV on May 14, 2013 - 12:17pm.

Aecetia wrote:
"These have been a bad few months for journalism," he added. "We're getting the big stories wrong, over and over again."

You can say that again and again and again.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbs-anchor-we-are-getting-big-stories-wrong-over-and-over-again_722331.html

What are the odds of the first report being wrong?

CNN has obtained an e-mail sent by a top aide to President Barack Obama about White House reaction to the deadly attack last September 11 on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, that apparently differs from how sources characterized it to two different media organizations.

The actual e-mail from then-Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes appears to show that whomever leaked it did so in a way that made it appear that the White House was primarily concerned with the State Department's desire to remove references and warnings about specific terrorist groups so as to not bring criticism to the department.

Unlike the previous "leaked document", the actual email doesn't mention the State Dept.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/05/p...

Submitted by FlyerInHi on May 21, 2013 - 1:30pm.

A lot to do about nothing.
Sure there was not enough security. And the whole thing could have been managed better. But collateral damage in the fog of war is par for the course.

Stevens was likely a spook siding with the rebels against khadafi. If not a spook, he acted with conviction and knew that the American ambassador's presence would give a boost to the revels. He knew the risks of going to the consulate in Benghazi instead of staying holed up in the basement of the embassy in tripoli, or flying home to safety.

Chris Stevens did an exemplary job as a diplomat. Diplomats should take some risks to advance our interests and fix problems before we need to intervene militarily. May he rest in peace.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on May 21, 2013 - 2:14pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:
A lot to do about nothing.
Sure there was not enough security. And the whole thing could have been managed better. But collateral damage in the fog of war is par for the course.

Stevens was likely a spook siding with the rebels against khadafi. If not a spook, he acted with conviction and knew that the American ambassador's presence would give a boost to the revels. He knew the risks of going to the consulate in Benghazi instead of staying holed up in the basement of the embassy in tripoli, or flying home to safety.

Chris Stevens did an exemplary job as a diplomat. Diplomats should take some risks to advance our interests and fix problems before we need to intervene militarily. May he rest in peace.

FIH: Stevens was not a spook, he was a US Ambassador. The conflict to unseat Gaddafi had already taken place and Stevens was there to provide diplomatic cover for s CIA operation to move weapons from Libya to the anti-Assad forces in Syria. These are the facts, which you were not apparently aware of, and they are not being disputed.

What is being disputed, however, is the ass-covering exercise that followed.

To use the phrase "fog of war" is disingenuous. There was a drone circling the action, providing a real-time feed, so that certainly puts paid to the notion that this situation was somehow confusing. As Greg Hicks testimony indicates, Madame Secretary was made quickly aware exactly what this was and why it was happening (and it didn't have shit to do with a YouTube video). The administration tried to peddle that lie for nearly two weeks, including violating the producer's First Amendment rights in the process.

The lies, obfuscation, equivocation have continued since. Sure a lot of smoke and fire over nothing.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on May 21, 2013 - 2:48pm.

I use the term spook loosely.
As you said Chris Stevens was working in concert with the CIA.

Stevens was a Peace Corps volunteer. He belived that America has a role in making the world a better place. We was an active career diplomat, not an appointed figure head.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
The lies, obfuscation, equivocation have continued since. Sure a lot of smoke and fire over nothing.

Ok the Administration tried to write a different narrative from the exact chain of events for about 2 weeks.

Nothing criminal about that. It's not like it wasn't done countless times before in American foreign relations. Like you said its about nothing. They told a white lie and were caught. More incompetence than criminal. The dissembling and face-savivg is to be expected.

Also remember that Chris Stevens's death could have been avoided by himself and there would have been no story to tell. Chris Stevens had a history of showing up in places of unrest, often without much protection.

Submitted by Zeitgeist on May 21, 2013 - 7:08pm.

Definitely more than just that term being used loosely by All the President's Men. Loosely is definitely an understatement for the butchering of the truth at the alter of politics.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.