David M. Drucker:
House Republicans on the Benghazi select committee aren’t waiting for Democrats to make up their mind about joining, moving quickly to exercise the panel’s expanded powers to review evidence.
While Democrats still mull whether to fill the five slots reserved for them, the seven Republicans appointed by House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, are scheduled to convene later this week for what a House GOP aide described Monday as an “organizational” meeting.
Members began personally examining existing information within days of the select committee’s May 9 formation.
The panel is investigating the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya that left Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans dead.
The committee’s focus is on hiring staff. Phil Kiko, who has a strong legal background and previously served on Capitol Hill, was hired last week as majority staff director, a position equivalent to committee chief of staff. A timeline for when the committee will begin to question witnesses and hold hearings has yet to be revealed. Committee chairman, Rep. Trey Gowdy, has also gone quiet regarding his strategy.“I’m not going to talk about it for now. We’ll just let the work speak for itself,” the South Carolina Republican said during a brief interview.
But a review of the rules governing committee procedures points to a powerful panel that has the potential to break new ground not already covered by the five standing committees that had been investigating the attacks. The select committee’s key authorities, as established in the House-passed resolution creating the panel, include:
· Granting Gowdy the unilateral power to issue subpoenas and order witnesses to be deposed.
Let’s hope it is more than Darrell Issa’s hot air that makes good sound bites but hasn’t really nailed anyone yet.
Dems belatedly agreed to take part.
What are they going to do? Present FOX News segments as evidence?
The republican select committee appointees are an interesting mix. There are representatives from Indiana, South Carolina, Ohio, Alabama, Illinois, Georgia, and Koch Industries.
@Greg: No, perhaps they will force the administration to hand over the un-redacted documents that have already been requested. Their emails already prove they have been lying from the very beginning. What we need to know is who directed the lying.
@Bill, #5:
Lying about what? What exactly do people think the White House and State Department have done?
An initial assessment that one of many angry demonstrations triggered by a video spontaneously escalated into a disaster is an error, not a conspiracy. That this error would be reflected in internal communications concerning White House and State Department talking points reflects nothing more than how any administration normally conducts its business.
I’m predicting republicans are once again going to come up with nothing, because there’s nothing to come up with. The only conspiracy is an entirely imaginary one that has been built inside peoples’ heads. This time, however, the whole thing could blow up in their faces. They’ve created an expectation that some great revelation is about to come. They just might be right.
@Greg:
It seems so easy to forget the facts.
BEFORE Benghazi:
The State Department failed to increase security at its diplomatic mission despite warnings.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/senate-report-attack-on-us-compound-in-benghazi-could-have-been-prevented/2014/01/15/5e197224-7de9-11e3-95c6-0a7aa80874bc_story.html?hpid=z1
Contrary to White House and Hillary Clinton spin, this was from the outset known to be an al-Qaeda operation, one that could have been preventable.
Especially egregious is the lack of preparation for the anniversary for Sept. 11 and the State Department’s repeated denials of requests for security.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/01/15/can-hillary-clinton-survive-benghazi/
Obama’s pre-2012 election narrative that he had al-Qaeda on the run was a falsehood.
DURING Benghazi where was Obama?
Obama would have had to sign a ”Cross Border Authorization” for our military to come to the military aid of men still fighting HOURS after the first report that the compound was under attack.
Fact is, AFTER Benghazi we still don’t know why the administration failed to increase embassy security in the weeks leading up to the attack, even when it knew the situation on the ground was getting worse.
This is the COVER-UP.
The cover story has fallen apart.
Even the claim that anyone IN THE KNOW felt Susan Rice’s Sunday talking point was true has fallen apart.
The ONLY reason Rice was USED was she was ignorant, therefore had a bit of deniablity, albeit NOT plausible deniability.
@Nanny G, #7:
Something in Benghazi has been covered up, alright. The presence of a large CIA contingent operating out of their own compound probably has something to do with it. I’m sure there’s a lot that we don’t know.
@Greg: “Lying about what? What exactly do people think the White House and State Department have done?”
OK, I’m going to go way out on a limb and make some assumptions. First, I assume you know the difference between lies and truth, fact and fiction. Second, I am going to assume you are not solely fed by left wing media propaganda and sometimes, if even by accident, see some alternative sources of information.
OK, now we can continue.
First, in order to conceal the fact that Obama and Hillary were caught completely by surprise (despite multiple warnings and intelligence briefings, though one would have to actually ATTEND the briefing to absorb the data) the White House and State Department concocted a lie, out out thin air and with no foundation in fact or evidence, about a video causing a protest to get a bit out of control. They then sent Susan Rice to the media to spread a known lie. There’s a lie for you.
As I said, though all indications point to the obvious, it is important to find out how high up the direction to lie like lying bastards goes in the White House. This would have been very important information to have before the 2012 election. Therefore, it appears this administration and the State Department lied about their incompetent dereliction of duty to cover their political asses. They lied about the cause of the deaths of four Americans.
Beyond that, we need to know why these people were hung out to dry out in a hot-zone with no security and leadership that was “asleep at the switch”, more concerned with campaign money and political futures than national security and the lives of Americans.
“An initial assessment that one of many angry demonstrations triggered by a video spontaneously escalated into a disaster is an error, not a conspiracy. That this error would be reflected in internal communications concerning White House and State Department talking points reflects nothing more than how any administration normally conducts its business.” What was this “initial assessment” based on? All reports at the scene had assessed this as a terrorist attack. The video concept came from the political imagination of the administration. Even the prior warnings would indicate away from some “protest”… again, if anyone had bothered paying attention to the threat assessments. Which, apparently, they didn’t.
Greg, if anyone was going to make an honest mistake and mis-characterize the attack, it would be to call a protest a terror attack, not the other way around. They WANTED this to be some sort of civil disturbance, just like they wanted the Ft. Hood shootings to be “workplace violence” and they wanted every mass shooting to be a right-wing radical.
To predict the Republicans (representing concerned, patriotic Americans) will come up “again” with “nothing” indicates my initial assumptions must be incorrect. For, Greg, they have already found that the White House and State Department knew they were lying about the video. They show they lied due to political and campaign concerns. We now know they had the correct information, yet CHOSE to rely on the lie. At this point, Greg, you should be cheering on the investigation because right now, based on what we already know, Hillary and Barack look like total insensitive, incompetent scum bags. Perhaps revelation of the truth could vindicate their “character”.
Yeah, right.
There were 9 demonstrations focusing on U.S. embassies and diplomatic outposts because of the damn video. The Cairo embassy was totally under siege. Something like 37 or 38 video-related demonstrations world wide, some involving fire-bombings, property destruction, and multiple deaths. Everybody knows that Islamic extremists can be predictably provoked to mass violence over something so trivial as a newspaper cartoon. What’s the weird brain block that keeps some people from grasping the obvious fact that there was a cause-and-effect relationship between the promotion of a video specifically designed to insult Muslims and the wave of events that followed?
That events in Benghazi most likely began in the same fashion was a perfectly logical initial assumption. That assumption changed as initial facts became available.
@Greg: “What’s the weird brain block that keeps some people from grasping the obvious fact that there was a cause-and-effect relationship between the promotion of a video specifically designed to insult Muslims and the wave of events that followed?’
Well, I don’t know, Greg… let’s see if I can come up with something. Maybe the fact that, while there was NO evidence or indication that anyone in Libya was interested or concerned with an obscure trailer to a video, there WAS ample evidence that it was a terror attack, as indicated by a) prior warnings, b) Ambassador Stevens stating he was “under attack”, c) the use of heavy weapons, pre-positioned and GPS targeted and d) the fact that the intelligence personnel ON THE GROUND said it was a terrorist, al-Qaeda-related attack.
The conclusion that it was a protest gone awry was in no possible stretch possible to have been honestly made; it was sought out and justified (or attempted to be justified) in order to support a protective narrative.
@Bill Burris, #11:
And if that did in fact happen to be the case, what would be the significance of it? What would be the significance of the person occupying the White House attempting to control a narrative, in the same way that every other politician who has held the office has attempted to do? Name a president who hasn’t. Better still, name a republican politician who isn’t currently attempting to sell their own version of a Benghazi narrative.
@Greg: “And if that did in fact happen to be the case, what would be the significance of it? What would be the significance of the person occupying the White House attempting to control a narrative, in the same way that every other politician who has held the office has attempted to do?”
Now we’re getting somewhere; you are beginning to ask questions. Here’s why it matters. Four people were killed in the line of duty. Their deaths should not be lied about in order to make life easier for Obama and Hillary. People who seek the highest office should be held responsible for their actions or, in this case, in-actions.
Let me put it to you this way; I didn’t vote for Obama in 2008 because he was an inexperienced novice that was making far too many and varied big promises. I did not trust him. I did not vote for him in 2012 because he proved all my concerns valid, and then some. So, he didn’t lie to me; I already KNEW he was a lying incompetent… he had proven it. However, Greg, he lied to YOU. YOU voted for him when, had you been able to accept the fact that, after he and Hillary had ignored growing dangers and threats in Libya and putting Stevens and his team in an unnecessarily perilous situation (the questions of “why” are still unanswered, but perhaps we should not know), he lied to YOU so you would still like him SHOULD be a major sticking point in your relationship with the guy you trusted.
The left accused Bush of lying about WMD’s in order to launch a war in Iraq. Now, this HAS been investigated, had hearings conducted and has been dismissed, yet you on the left STILL persist in that fantasy… because you WANT to believe it. Why do you want to believe it? Why is it important for you to think Bush lied to us? Why is it important if a President lies or not?
You know, if Obama would lie about a video being the catalyst in the Benghazi attack he might lie about anything… possibly even whether or not one can keep the insurance and doctor one wants to keep. And, if he would lie about that, he might lie about the IRS purposely targeting conservative groups and individuals who were breaking no laws. A guy that would lie about that might lie about the economy, national security or future promises.
After John Edwards was caught lying about his affair while cheating on his dying wife, why did that make a difference with voters? Because, perhaps, it shows he is an untrustworthy liar that should not be entrusted with our well-being?
Leaders do sometimes lie or conceal the truth for national security reasons. However, Obama lied, in each and every one of these cases, to preserve his own political skin. As did Hillary, who currently has aspirations to follow in Obama’s foot steps. Yeah, it’s kind of important… it matters… it DOES make a difference, even at this point. Even, dude, two years later.
@Greg:
Yeah, as you said before when you linked to some Wikipedia entry written by some anonymous author (could have been someone in the bowels of the White House, for all you know). You want to ignore that Nic Robertson of CNN interviewed the organizers of the Cairo protest on Sept. 11 and they never mentioned any damn obscure video. But Hillary did at 10:08 p.m. that very night while two Americans were still fighting for their lives.
What’s the weird brain block that you seem to be suffering from that prevents you from acknowledging that the video had not one damn thing to do with radical Islamists showing up at the Benghazi compound with heavy arms? You Dimocrats have tried to lay the cause on everything from an obscure video that no one saw to lack of funds for security in Benghazi except Charlene Lamb destroyed that excuse.
You think all the questions have been answered, Greggie? Well then, give me the answer to these questions:
where was Obama while the attack was going on?
where was Hillary while the attack was going on?
why did Obama skip the National Security briefing the next day?
who, exactly, refused security at Benghazi and who ordered the existing security detail to leave?
why was Stevens in Benghazi on 9-11 when all other nations, including the Red Cross, had pulled out due to the threat from jihadists?
why was Stevens meeting with the representative from Turkey in Benghazi that night?
You can answer those, for starters.
But my guess is that your sole purpose is simply to be a boot licking OFAer for Obama at FA.
@Bill Burris, #13:
I don’t accept that he did lie. As I’ve stated before, I believe the initial assumption that Benghazi began as a demonstration related to the video was an entirely logical one at the time. I believe the right won’t acknowledge that, because their entire scandal hinges on selling the proposition that the Obama administration deliberately told a lie that there would be virtually no likelihood of maintaining. Why would they have done that?
They were simply wrong in their initial assessment. People willingly forget how few details were known with certainty during the first few hours and days following the attack. They also forget how many ridiculous details were simply made up on the right, and reported as truth.
@Greg:
And what details were simply made up?
The Rhodes email totally shatters your basis for denying this was a deliberate act of deceit by the Obama administration. You are either a blind leftist zealot, or a liar. Probably both.
@Greg: Do spontaneous protesters carry mortars and heavy machine guns around with them when they spontaneously protest in front of a consulate they have reconnoitered and cased for weeks?
It was a butt-saving lie, Greg. It was selfishly writing off four lives, Greg.
@Pete, #16:
That’s ridiculous. Ben Rhodes’ job is entirely political. Essentially he’s the resident spin doctor. He’s tasked with putting White House policy in the best light, and with communicating to the press staff what points are to be made or emphasized. Every administration has such people. The memo in question is a routine internal communication covering topics and talking points, not evidence of a conspiracy. At the point it went out, the question of whether the Benghazi attack had evolved from a protest or not was still up in the air. Hours earlier, the CIA had provided a draft of an assessment by their Office of Terrorism Analysis. It opened with the following statement:
Opinions shifted as more information came under consideration, but that was what was thought to begin with.
Republicans might be hallucinating with regard to the significance of the Rhodes memo. Possibly it’s because of too much exposure to their own propaganda. Or maybe they actually know what it is, but are trying to turn it into something else.
@Greg:
“
Note the time on this, Greggie.
September 14, 2012, two and half days after this:
Tuesday, 10:08 p.m. (9-11)
Clinton Confirms Death of One American in Libya
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton initially announced that one American had been killed in the attack in Libya.
I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today. As we work to secure our personnel and facilities, we have confirmed that one of our State Department officers was killed. We are heartbroken by this terrible loss. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and those who have suffered in this attack.
This evening, I called Libyan President Magariaf to coordinate additional support to protect Americans in Libya. President Magariaf expressed his condemnation and condolences and pledged his government’s full cooperation.
Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.
So that poses another question you will refuse to answer, Greggie. Why did Hillary come up with that excuse at the same time that two Americans were still fighting for their lives?
@retire05, #19:
I can’t figure out what the supposed “excuse” is that you’re referring to. What Clinton clearly states in the sentence you’ve put in bold text is that inflammatory material isn’t a justification for violence.
@Greg:
Nice attempt at spin.
Or are you really so stupid that you don’t understand that Hillary is pointing her gnarly finger at the “internet video” of the movie you claim (using Wikipedia as a source) was the cause of so many protests?
And no, the video was not the justification for the violence in Benghazi. So from whom did Hillary get the impression it was?
@retire05, #21:
Uh, from the draft document produced by the CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis? The item you blockquoted in post #19 was the opening sentence of that document. Clinton thought the video was a cause of the event, which is an entirely different thing from a justification. She thought it was a cause because the CIA had initially come to that conclusion and shared that opinion in the draft.
@Greg:
Classic doublethink on your part.
You admit Rhodes is a “spin doctor” trying to put things in a “good light” for Obama….which in reality is an effort to deceive the public about what happened at Benghazi. So even though it was KNOWN this was a terrorist attack Susan Rice went out – along with other Obama flacks – and pushed the bogus “spontaneous protest over a video” story 5 days later.
It was a lie. It was known to be a lie, and the administration continues to spin and obfuscate.
@Greg:
So provide a link to the draft document produced by the CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis, along with the date/time stamp that is on all documents.
If that is true, and it was due to the CIA document, the CIA document will have a date/time stamp PRIOR to Sept. 11, 10:08 p.m.
So back up your claim or we will know your just “spinning.”
@retire05: Recall the string of State Department emails released earlier which showed that State was suppressing the terror attack narrative in favor of the video to protect the decisions “state” (i.e. Hillary) had been making in regards to the requests for security and warnings of threats. THAT is where the original narrative of the video came from. The Rhodes email merely made it the official White House narrative as well, making, as the email said, it appear the “White House” (i.e. Obama) was assertive and in command.
@Bill:
Do not expect Greggie to provide the CIA document with its date stamp backing up Hillary’s statements on the night of 9-11. He will do what all Obamabot trolls do; move on.
Greg
those errors you talk about are criminal not errors,
by the way, why did the other holding board of obama image burning? they should have burn the maker of the video instead,
and the people who drag the ambassador out to take him to an ALQAEDA OWN HOSPITAL,
still alive, we know now he was also rape,
do you think they have eaten his liver while he was still alive? or do you think they waited him to die so to feed themselves in their choice pieces of human organ ?
@retire05, #24:
The Weekly Standard seems to be a source that conservatives appreciate. On May 13, 2013 they printed an article titled The Benghazi Talking Points, and How They Were Changed to Obscure the Truth. Their intention, of course, was to demonstrate how the Obama administration had deliberately misled the American public. Take note of the following comment, which you’ll find on Page 2 of that article:
Note that on page 2 of the online edition of the Weekly Standard’s print article, Version 1 actually appears further down the page, inside a blue blockquote. Apparently the Standard writer was so interested in the part of the the CIA’s draft referring to Islamic extremists that he completely missed the significance of the first item on the document. That would be the following:
Note that this portion of the CIA assessment remained virtually unchanged in Version 2 and in Version 3, the final version of the assessment, completed on Saturday, September 15th.
So… The CIA’s analysts were telling the White House, the State Department, and members of Congress that—based on all information available at the time—they believed Benghazi to have been a spontaneous event.
Ambassador Rice would certainly have read a copy of that document before making televised comments on the following day. Anyone commenting on behalf of the White House and State Department would have read that assessment.
THEY WHERE SPONTANIOUSLY CRASHING INTO THE AMBASSADOR LOCATION, AS A GROUP
AND ORGANIZE WITH WEAPONS AIM TO KILL, 7 HOURS,
AND THEY DID RAPE SPONTANEOUSLY, KILL, SPONTANEOUSLY, AND SET FIRE TO THE PLACE SPONTANEOUSLY,
THEY FIXED IT TO REALLY LOOK SPONTANEOUS, AND YOU GREG BELIEVED IT ,
BECAUSE THE CIA WHO WHERE GIVEN THEIR JOB FROM OBAMA, SAID SO,
The truth is what it is, not what people want it to be. The Benghazi investigations have become the lie. Their very purpose has become a lie. The truth is that republicans are using the Benghazi deaths as a political opportunity, and are using the investigations as a political weapon. They’re about as subtle as a crew of muggers stepping out of a dark alley carrying lead pipes. When the people finally get this—and it’s becoming increasingly obvious—there will be consequences.
Greg
don”t include the conservatives in your lie, own it like a brave,
not like the cowards who want other to be part of the lie,
SO TO FEEL BETTER,
THE FOX IS OUT OF ORDER, I DON”T KNOW WHY,
I THOUGHT IT WAS MY TELEVISION WHICH BURNED, NO THE OTHER CHANNELS WORK FINE
FOX IS BACK NOW,
what would we do without our FOX
@Greg: “All 12 versions of the talking points, as previously reported by ABC News, say that the attack in Benghazi was “spontaneously inspired by protest in Cairo.” In other words, all the talk of protests – which proved to be wrong – started with the CIA. What did get removed was the CIA’s saying that it believed Ansar al-Sharia took part in the attack and that the CIA had warned of the terror threat. ”
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/benghazi-emails-talking-points-changed-state-depts-request/story?id=19187137
It is now also known that those on the ground in Libya were saying from the beginning that this was a terror attack but, for some reason, the CIA in Washington inserted the “video” ruse.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/31/cia-ignored-station-chief-in-libya-when-creating-t/
So, you have two conflicting renditions of what happened; so what do you do? Do you just select the one that best suits your political purposes, trot it out there and hope no one is smart enough to figure it out or do you say NOTHING until you have your facts reasonably accounted for? Well, THIS administration always lies first, thinks second. Besides, as they have been doing, they could always rely on the MSM to alter, ignore and help cover up any damaging details.
Nice try, Greg. Next?
Report Confirms ‘No Protest Prior’ to Benghazi Attack, But Makes No Explanation for Contradictory CIA Testimony and Talking Points, from CNS News, another decidedly conservative outlet:
Say what? Senior administration officials initially thought there had been a protest in Benghazi because the frickin’ CIA report made reference to such a protest in the first damn line. That wasn’t later, that was to begin with. That’s what the White House and the State Department initially had to go on. There was a lot of confusion and contradictory information. As CIA officials explained, all of the various reports were not fully analysed and reconciled until several days had passed. That’s where later comes in.
That’s actually the very explanation that the title of the article denies was provided, leading me to believe that either the author is as dumb as a box of rocks, or he figures his readers are. Confusion and contradictory information, which took time to sort out… How difficult is so simple an explanation to understand?
GRETA
YOU ARE A SUPER LADY,
YOU WORK HARD FOR THE MARINE, WE ALSO THINK AND HOPE THAT HE COME HOME TO HIS LOVED ONES AS SOON AS POSSIBLE,
MEXICO LET THAT MARINE GO, HE IS INNOCENT OF AN ERROR OF ROAD LOOK ALIKE
EASY TO MAKE, AS GRETA CHECKED HERSELF, THE WRONG TURN , IT’S YOUR ERROR, OF HAVING A TRICKY ROAD,
NOT HIS, SO LET HIM GO, NOW, HE IS INNOCENT, IT’S EASY TO FIGURED OUT,
WHY WOULD HE GO TO MEXICO, WITH HIS WEAPON, UNLESS HE IS WITH THE CARTEL GANGSTERS IN YOUR COUNTRY, WELL HE IS NOT A GANGSTER, HE IS ONLY A BRAVE DECENT MARINE, TAKE CARE OF YOUR CRIMINALS, YOU ARE WAISTING TIME WITH THE GOOD MARINE, GET HIM BACK IN THE USA,NOW,
AND GET BACK TO YOUR CRIMINALS, not to innocent people,
The frustrating thing about right wing forums is that anytime the logic underpinning some bullshit story begins to wear a bit thin, those pitching it simply start another thread and begin telling the same bullshit story all over again. Refuting any assertion, however unsupportable that assertion might be by fact, is like playing an endless game of Whack-a-Mole. There’s no real concern about getting to the actual truth of anything. Only about selling the approved message, and convincing the gullible that anyone who disputes it is a liar.
Greg
I am sure this FLOPPING ACES people are so smart that no one get away with a lie,
be it a regular or a troll,
A LIE DOESN”T GO FAR, here,
I sometimes put the clock on a liar, to see how long it will take,
and sure enough the clock doesn’t have time to go around,
before one is on the person trying to sneak it under a nice sentence,
@Greg: What is the bullshit part? What has worn thin? Refuting assertions with nothing but what you wish was true is not really a refute.
You know, just because the facts are contrary to what you want to be true is actually a personal problem. YOUR problem. Benghazi was made possible because Hillary and Obama ignored threats (or briefings about threats) and failed to do their jobs. The story of the video was trotted out because if the attack was a spontaneous event (and not due to what they had been warned about) then they could shed the responsibility.
So, since the story about the video is a lie, then they are responsible for the neglect that created the opportunity for al Qaeda (the decimated, defeated al Qaeda) to score their second 9/11 success. This would have been very important information to have had before the 2012 election, maybe enough people would have had their eyes opened about this administration to prevent another disastrous term of Obama. That was hidden, aided and abetted by a corrupt media. So, perhaps now, at least, the information about Hillary’s incompetence and dishonesty can be made available to enough people to prevent ANOTHER disaster.
And maybe… just maybe… the lives of four brave and dedicated Americans can be avenged and honored. Finally.
@Bill Burris:
We know that the White House contacted YouTube at 9:11 p.m. on Sept. 11th, while the attack was still raging.
We know that Hillary’s statement about how there were those who were blaming a video for the attack came at 10:08 p.m. on Sept. 11th, according to the NY Slimes.
So the story about a “spontaneous” protest over an obscure video was already being pushed before the CIA issued any statements on 9-14.
Greggie, OFA troll, has one purpose here. To try to defend the Administration. Unfortunately, he does a poor job.
Here is an interesting run down of that night:
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2014/05/22/103-minutes-later-the-white-house-e-mails-google-darrell-issa-asks-white-house-to-declassify-their-911pm-email-to-google-on-night-of-benghazi-attack/
I don’t see anybody addressing the points that were raised in posts #15, 18, or 28. Inconvenient facts are simply ignored. The entire right-wing Benghazi witch hunt reminds me of Glenn Beck connecting dots and push pins.
If people actually wanted to honor them, they wouldn’t be exploiting their deaths by making them part of the center-ring act of a cheap political dog and pony show.
@retire05, #40:
There was nothing the least bit “obscure” about it in the Muslim world after it was dubbed into Arabic and the Arabic-language version was uploaded to YouTube. It was then brought to the Arabic-speaking public’s attention by Morris Sadek, and Arabic-language excerpts were broadcast on Egyptian television. All of which happened just a few days before demonstrations broke out.
That would be another relevant fact that you apparently prefer to ignore, or outright deny. Anyone who doesn’t believe that the video was relevant to the violent protests that followed has got to be totally out of touch with reality. Of course, if you rely exclusively on the right wing media for all of your information, you’re out of touch with reality by design. Facts that aren’t useful to their propaganda narrative might as well not exist.
YouTube should have been contacted. The video should have been pulled. The quicker, the better. The damn video was inciting riots and embassy sieges, and people were going to die before it was over.
@retire05: Good point, Retir05.
Hillary’s bosom buddy Huma could easily gotten word to the right people in the ME between the 11th and the 14th to spread the false meme that the video was a cause in Benghazi that night.
CIA was late with that.
@Greg:
So a video, that had been viewed less than 100 times prior to 9-11, was the catalyst for rioting according to you? So how did the Arab world get the word out? Smoke signals?
I don’t ignore or deny anything that is proven. What I do is not buy into your spin.
I know, I know, Greggie. You progressives have created a story and you are going to stick to it. But you don’t seem to want to talk about the fact that Nic Robertson of CNN interviewed the protest organizers, including Al Zawahir’s brother, the very day of the protest and not ONE DAMN WORD was mentioned about the video. Square that.
What right wing media would you have in mind? How do you know where I get my news? Do you think that Fox is the only channel available to me?
You want propaganda? Just listen to the Democrats who are comparing the Benghazi investigation to Jim Crow, or some other ridiculous scenario indicating the search for the truth is “racist.”
When did you become so indoctrinated in the Socialist mantra?
@Greg:
Why? Is the First Amendment only valuable when you Progressives think it is?
@Greg: I guess I underestimate the basic difference between you and me, Greg. See, I don’t like to be lied to. You, apparently, do. You like to be lied to, to the point that you seek it out and want more lies.
I would be offended and disgusted to feel I was lied to to be nothing more that a vote. That is all you are, Greg, is a vote. So, you will accept any lie, regardless of how lame or thinly veiled, as long as the liar pretends to care enough about you and your condition to make up a new lie every once in a while.
As I explained, the excuse of the video as the reason for the attack on the consulate (apparently, an alien invasion didn’t poll well, but YOU would have accepted it and wondered aloud why everyone doesn’t just accept it and move on) was the excuse agreed upon because spontaneous protest/attack absolves the incompetents of responsibility for ignoring threats, warnings and pleas for increased security.
Four people were killed and all Obama and Hillary can think about is how they can get out of a tight political spot. Just as with the VA scandal, which makes Obama angry only because it did not go away while he ignored it, Obama’s only concern how does he prevent any of Stevens’ blood from splashing on him.
Those who don’t like to be lied to have developed the skill of detecting a lie. Blaming the result of a year of ignoring intelligence, threats, warnings and people begging for their lives to be saved on an obscure video is such an obvious lie intended to piss on the lives of four Americans while preserving a political career of lies and destruction as to be unimaginably impossible to misinterpret. A person with eyes connected to a brain can see it.
@retire05, #44:
Where do you get “less than 100 times?” Is that some meme bounding around inside the right wing echo chamber? Read the first paragraph of post #42 slowly, until the meaning of the words register. No doubt there was some point in time where the YouTube video did have a view count of only 100, but that sure as hell wasn’t the case after Morris Sadek began his calculated effort to promote it in Arabic on his webpage. While it wasn’t exclusive to YouTube, a screenshot of the YouTube posting shows it had 1,286,080 as of 12/19/2012. And, as mentioned, Arabic language excerpts were broadcast on Egyptian television.
The video was designed to provoke a violent reaction. You seem to want to believe that the violent reaction was what got people to look at the video.
If you want to blame somebody, don’t forget to include this psycho on your list.
@Greg:
So over two months after 9-11, and after Susan Rice plopped her fat butt on 5 Sunday talk shows, and after the Administration made a big deal that the deaths of four Americans were due to “a video”, you think your number is proof of how it was viewed all across the Middle East? Are you certifiably NUTS?
So what? Does that excuse the barbarianism of the Islamists?
I notice you are still dodging discussing Nic Robertson’s CNN video. What’s the matter, Greggie? Doesn’t Robertson’s CNN video fit with your spin?
@retire05, #49:
I think the number strongly suggests any assertion that a video that triggered violent protests across most of the Islamic world was viewed only 100 times is total horseshit.
I notice that you haven’t cited any sources or provided any evidence for your own ridiculous 100 times claim at all.
Maybe you and the good Reverend should take a trip to Egypt and spout your bullshit there. Then the people you’re doing your best to anger and offend could take the matter up directly with the people who are doing the insulting, instead of venting their anger at U.S. diplomatic facilities while you continue to break wind from the safety of the United States—most likely while living off the Social Security benefits you condemn as part of a socialist conspiracy.