U.S. Ambassador Killed Over Anti-Islam Movie

[INDY500]

Here's what I'm hearing:

"It's no big deal being lied to as long as it's My Team doing the lying."

But back in Truthyland here's what we take notice of:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...th-and-benghaz

‘Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?”

That was how then–Secretary of State Hillary Clinton famously brushed off the question of when she knew that the attacks on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were, in fact, a terrorist assault and not a “protest” of an anti-Islam video that got out of hand.

Clinton’s fans, in and out of the press, loved her defiant response, and they should be ashamed of themselves for it.

What Clinton was really doing there was deflecting attention away from the fact that she had lied. We now know, thanks to Wednesday’s congressional hearings and reporting by The Weekly Standard’s Steve Hayes, that administration officials knew from the outset the video had nothing to do with it. Intelligence sources on the ground in Libya and officials in Washington knew it was a terrorist attack from the beginning. The video was a “non-event in Libya,” according to Gregory Hicks, the man who inherited Stevens’s duties after the ambassador was killed by al-Qaeda-linked militants. The false video story was simply imposed from above by Clinton, President Obama, and their subalterns.
Let’s return to that lie in a moment.

The hearings exposed another lie. Obama and Clinton have insisted that they did everything they could to help the Americans besieged in Libya; they just couldn’t get help to them in time.

That’s simply untrue.

But even if that were true, it would still be a self-serving falsehood.

If you see a child struggling in the ocean, you have no idea how long she will flail and paddle before she goes under for the last time. The moral response is to swim for her in the hope that you get there in time. If you fail and she dies, you can console yourself that you did your best to rescue her.

But if you just stand on the beach and do nothing as the child struggles for life, saying, “Well, there’s just no way I can get to her in time,” it doesn’t really matter whether you guessed right or not. You didn’t try.

The White House and State Department insist they guessed right, as if that somehow absolves them of responsibility. They would have sent help if they could have, they claim, but they simply weren’t ready to deploy forces on September 11, the one day of the year you’d expect our military and intelligence agencies to be ready for trouble in the Middle East, particularly given that before his murder, Stevens warned of security problems in Benghazi.

But we know the administration ordered others who were willing, able, and obliged to come to the consulate’s rescue to “stand down.” They in effect told the lifeguards, “Don’t get out of your chairs.”

Though an unmanned drone was there to capture the whole thing on video, which must have been reassuring as the mortar rounds rained down.

Leon Panetta, who was the secretary of defense during the attack, mocked critics who wanted to know why the Pentagon didn’t scramble any jets from Italy to the scene. “You can’t willy-nilly send F-16s there and blow the hell out of place. . . . You have to have good intelligence.”

Never mind that real-time video of the attack is pretty good intelligence. An F-16 doesn’t need to blow anyone to hell to have an impact. As military expert and former assistant defense secretary Bing West notes, “99 percent of air sorties over Afghanistan never drop a single bomb.” Just showing up is often intimidating enough.

What motivated the White House and the State Department to deceive the public about what they did is unknown. Maybe it was incompetence or politics or simply understandable bureaucratic confusion.

But we do know they deceived the public. Which brings us back to the lies over the video. In the wake of Benghazi, the country endured an intense debate over how much free speech we could afford because of the savage intolerance of rioters half a world away. Obama and Clinton fueled this debate by incessantly blaming the video — as if the First Amendment were the problem.

Clinton and Obama both swore oaths to support and defend the Constitution. But after failing to support and defend Americans left to die, they blamed the Constitution for their failure. That’s what difference it makes.

We also notice:
1) the producer of "the video" still sits in jail.
2) zero terrorists have been "tracked down and brought to justice" as the president promised.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

HRC is still going to clean your clocks in 2016.

Only if Candy Crowley is there to "moderate" the debates.

[the iron horse]

Thanks for posting that INDY500.

[U2DMfan]

Originally Posted by INDY500;

Here's what I'm hearing:

"It's no big deal being lied to as long as it's My Team doing the lying."

But back in Truthyland here's what we take notice of:

"Truthyland"...on Trek they called it the Mirror Universe.
Anyway, perhaps you guys should stop crying wolf all the time.
Maybe that would help. It all gets lost in the cacophony of nonsense.

A few things:
1) LOVE your new avatar! RIP Harryhausen.

2) Are we allowed to examine the authors of those kind of editorial pieces? Jonah Goldberg is a notorious Clinton hater. He was wrapped up in the Lewinsky bullshit. I am not a great fan of Obama (though he was clearly a better alternative to Mitt) but I absolutely DETEST that Right Wing crew from the 90's. Specifically those linked to the Lewinsky aftermath/scandal.

3) I still think it's a fair question. What difference did it really make?
If it's a terrorist attack or a random attack, what difference does it make?
I ask sincerely. A politician did something for political reasons? Scandalous!

4) If the answer is - 'because it proves they lied'...well, what kind of a lie are we talking about here? Is it severe enough to punish someone for? Or is it more of a WMD-esque "lie" where it's not a lie at all but a non-telling of the truth or knowing omission? I'm still waiting from someone from the non-Right Wing blogosphere to put this in a context where I am outraged.

That "lie" by the Bush admin was inarguably the single most egregious thing they did. (Office of Special Plans, etc.) and nothing happened.

Not only did nothing happen - Bush was re-elected after that WMD "lie" (not a literal lie - a political 'untruth'). So the standard is pretty high for "lies". Clinton himself was impeached for a lie under oath and not even removed from office. So tell me the answer and the proper repercussions outside of the "we know Hillary is inevitable in 2016 and this is all we got". Typical manufactured 2nd term scandal. The public is growing tired of it. The people reading National Review never would vote Democratic anyway.

5) It's only been 6 months and you still haven't learned the lesson of the 2012 election. Which is - not all of America resides inside of your alternate universe.
I am a perfect example of someone that SHOULD care about this story. I am open to being convinced that something egregious took place here. I just don't see it yet. All I keep seeing is the same crap. They "covered up" - what? And why? And if so - what should happen?

Looks like some bureaucratic failures in the State Dept. A political calculation over language...and that's about it. I guess if I thought Obama were Satan and HRC a "fascist" like Jonah Goldberg, maybe I'd be highly upset as well.

Nobody can make the case without resorting to the "blood of four Americans" in some convoluted sort-of Obama-lied/people died tantrum. It's possible the media is dropping the ball here but I'll wait until i see more credible sources before I start becoming outraged. Until then, all I hear is "wolf!"

[BVS]

Originally Posted by INDY500

We also notice:
1) the producer of "the video" still sits in jail.

How is this even a talking point in your alternate universe? He's in jail for legitimate fraud charges that were in effect before of of this ever happened.

[BVS]

Clinton and Obama both swore oaths to support and defend the Constitution. But after failing to support and defend Americans left to die, they blamed the Constitution for their failure. That’s what difference it makes.

Can someone try and explain what this is even suppose to mean?

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by U2DMfan;7661491

[quote

A few things:
1) LOVE your new avatar! RIP Harryhausen.

A true great.

2) Are we allowed to examine the authors of those kind of editorial pieces? Jonah Goldberg is a notorious Clinton hater. He was wrapped up in the Lewinsky bullshit. I am not a great fan of Obama (though he was clearly a better alternative to Mitt) but I absolutely DETEST that Right Wing crew from the 90's. Specifically those linked to the Lewinsky aftermath/scandal.

Sure, they and others are conservative. But it's also fair to examine who hasn't covered the story. You can check this thread and you will see me posting that Susan Rice was sent out to spread a false story days after it happened. The MSM is just now waking up to this. How did I know sitting at my computer 8 months ago? 1) The Libyan president declared it a terrorist attack. 2) it happened on 9/11 (duh) 3) I don't rely on traditional media for my news.

3) I still think it's a fair question. What difference did it really make?
If it's a terrorist attack or a random attack, what difference does it make?
I ask sincerely. A politician did something for political reasons? Scandalous!

Character still matters doesn't it? That question came up at this weeks hearing and here's how one whistleblower answered:

Examiner Editorial: Obama's Benghazi video tale made a big difference | WashingtonExaminer.com

Shown a video of Clinton's "what difference does it make" question, Hicks countered that such obfuscation had major consequences. "I definitely believe that it negatively affected our ability to get the FBI team quickly to Benghazi," said Hicks. And indeed, although Obama promised last September that the attackers would be brought to justice, the FBI investigation has progressed at a snail's pace, with next to nothing to show for the effort.

Five days after the attack, Libyan President Mohamed Magarief publicly stated it was premeditated, so, according to Hicks, Magarief "was insulted in front of his own people, in front of the world, his credibility was reduced," when Obama trotted out the video illusion. Magarief then denied the FBI access to the scorched compound for a crucial 17 days. Since the area wasn't secure during that period, vital evidence likely was lost forever. So to answer Clinton's question, one difference made by the false video narrative is that Americans possibly will never know the full truth of about who murdered Ambassador Chris Stevens and three of his brave colleagues in Benghazi.

4) If the answer is - 'because it proves they lied'...well, what kind of a lie are we talking about here? Is it severe enough to punish someone for? Or is it more of a WMD-esque "lie" where it's not a lie at all but a non-telling of the truth or knowing omission? I'm still waiting from someone from the non-Right Wing blogosphere to put this in a context where I am outraged.

The WMD "lie" was spread by HRC as well by the way. That "lie" was not ignored by the MSM.

5)
Nobody can make the case without resorting to the "blood of four Americans" in some convoluted sort-of Obama-lied/people died tantrum. It's possible the media is dropping the ball here but I'll wait until i see more credible sources before I start becoming outraged. Until then, all I hear is "wolf!"

Three things need to be answered.
Who called off any military response, where was the president during all this?
Two, who changed the talking points to remove all mention of terrorism and plug in a completely false narrative about a youtube video that was repeated for weeks?
Three, and what may be the real scandal, what CIA involvement was there in Benghazi at the time of the attack?

[Jive Turkey]

Can the mods make a Definitions and Semantics subforum for Indy to play in?

[bono_212]

I don't know, it seems to me like there's a difference between a terror attack and an attack made at random. The terrorist attack suggests planning and future planning.

[BVS]

Here's my take on this issue. There are far too many gray areas. This administration's opponents are acting as if they have the absolutes and are just exposing the truths, and this administration's supporters I do believe are glossing over some things. There are a lot of questions, and if you want to admit it or not, in foreign affairs there's going to be things that happen that we as citizens will never know. That's just a truth that I faced a long time ago, fair or not, moral or not, that's just a truth.

INDY will list a few questions, but for every one question he lists, I can think of three to counter. INDY you wonder who made the call to stand down, and I wonder what's the reason? Was there an assessment that was made that the body count could be more if action was taken? No administration, how evil you think they might be, orders a stand down based purely on indifference, or even a campaign(as some have suggested). In fact I don't think action would have had any negative effect whatsoever on his campaign, in fact the opposite.

So, where as I agree there are some issues that don't sit well with me, I don't think this is the scandal that INDY and the hard right make it out to be. It started out as a frothing at the mouth to destroy Obama, and now it's being used to make sure Clinton can't guarantee her spot if she so chooses. It's all pretty transparent, this isn't about truth.

[Pearl]

John McCain Refuses To Back Impeaching Obama Over Benghazi (VIDEO)

Obama should only be impeached if there is enough evidence - and not assumptions - that there was a cover-up. I like how not all Republicans are looking to impeach him and are being careful.

[BVS]

It's sad how far to the right loony that Huckabee has turned.

[Pearl]

So, from the State Department perspective, this was an attack on a CIA operation, perhaps by the very people the CIA was battling, and the ambassador tragically was in the wrong place at the wrong time. But, for obvious reasons, the administration could not publicly admit that Benghazi was mostly a secret CIA effort.
The talking points were originally developed by the CIA at the request of a member of the House Intelligence Committee. Interestingly, all of the versions are consistent on one point — that the attacks were “spontaneously inspired by protests at the U.S. embassy in Cairo,” a fact later deemed to be incorrect.
The talking points through Friday begin to become rather detailed, at which point there is sharp push-back from the State Department.

An alternative explanation for the Benghazi talking points: Bureaucratic knife fight - The Washington Post

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by BVS

It's sad how far to the right loony that Huckabee has turned.

What is sadder is how many take his words seriously.

[deep]

We also notice:
the producer of "the video" still sits in jail.

and Serrano is still pissing on a Christ crucified in a jar.

[U2DMfan]

I typed up a long response to Indy and deleted it before posting.
I just don't see the use in going back and forth with so little info.
All I want to say is - I just want the actual truth to come out. Whatever it is.

Let's have the "MSM" cover the story and see what happens. They love a good scandal. We'll see how "liberal" most of them are if there is actual teeth to this. I, for one, didn't sleep through the 90's. President Clinton was torn into pieces by the "MSM" as soon as they had a good salacious scandal to cover. They are all 'biased' towards this kind of stuff. To get more eyeballs and ears...more sensationalism...even more viewers...$$$$$

Others will demand a specific "truth" and if they don't get it, they'll keep demanding that specific "truth" forever. It's usually called conspiracy theory. We'll see where it goes.

[Irvine511]

Benghazi is really about Hillary. And the Clinton's ate the GOP for breakfast in the 1990s, and I expect them to again.

The IRS scandal is actually an issue. This is bullshit.

[MrsSpringsteen]

I don't think it's bullshit to the families of the people who were killed. They deserve the absolute truth, and several of them say they've never even gotten a lousy phone call.

I'd like to know the absolute truth, but I'd say odds are that we never will.

[Irvine511]

i think turning it into a "scandal" is bullshit.

what actually happened is a tragedy.

[MrsSpringsteen]

I get that- but I do think that it's automatically scandalous that an ambassador and others were murdered and there are all kinds of questions as to how that was handled and portrayed. You can't avoid the reality that it happened before a big election. I also think it's scandalous that the families of the murdered people can't get any answers directly from the people involved. The President, the Secretary of State, etc. Of course it's a tragedy and of course it is also being exploited politically. But I don't think it can't just be called political exploitation and leave it at that.