Democrats now critical of Rice's Benghazi explanation, amid more damaging evidence

  • Thread starter Thread starter livingwordunity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
colmywaykurtz said:
Don’t sweat it too much. We’ve been there before. Like when Reagan sent Marines to Beirut and they got blown up by Hezbollah. So, we withdrew.
Click to expand...
And rules made it so the Marines could not adequately defend themselves.
The Beirut Barracks Bombing (October 23, 1983 in Beirut, Lebanon) occurred during the Lebanese Civil War, when two truck bombs struck separate buildings housing United States and French military forces—members of the Multinational Force in Lebanon—killing 299 American and French servicemen. The organization Islamic Jihad, later known as Hezbollah, claimed responsibility for the bombing.[1]
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing

MultiNational Peacekeeping Force; that would seem to be a big difference though the Reagan administration probably did run guns to the Contras or the CIA did.

And that’s a possibility in Benghazi.
 
colmywaykurtz said:
What about the lack of dissimilarity between “Version 1” and the final version of the document, contrary to what The Weekly Standard was trying to assert? Why hasn’t anybody specifically addressed that?

Take another look at it, if you need to. mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05/06/weekly-standard-accidentally-disproves-central/193917

And let’s not split hairs over the difference between “terrorist” and “extremist,” shall we? All terrorists are extremists.
Click to expand...
Then we should not split hairs over everyone saying the video was the cause of the attack in Benghazi as appearing very untruthful and was the story that was run with to the press.
 
colmywaykurtz said:
Don’t sweat it too much. We’ve been there before. Like when Reagan sent Marines to Beirut and they got blown up by Hezbollah. So, we withdrew.
Click to expand...
Did we also outsource the guarding of our military to Islamic radicals like this administration decided to do?:rolleyes:
 
None other than the Washington Post:

Obama’s claim he called Benghazi an ‘act of terrorism’
“The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.”
Click to expand...
— President Obama, remarks at a news conference, May 13, 2013
Click to expand...
Some readers may think we are dancing on the head of pin here. The Fact Checker spent nine years as diplomatic correspondent for The Washington Post, and such nuances of phrasing are often very important. A president does not simply utter virtually the same phrase three times in two days about a major international incident without careful thought about the implications of each word.
Click to expand...
Whatever the reason, when given repeated opportunities to forthrightly declare this was an “act of terrorism,” the president ducked the question.
Click to expand...
For instance, on Sept. 12,** immediately after the Rose Garden statement the day after the attack, Obama sat down with Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes and acknowledged he purposely avoided the using the word “terrorism:”**
Click to expand...
KROFT: “Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word ‘terrorism’ in connection with the Libya attack.”
Click to expand...
Code: 
OBAMA: “Right.”
Click to expand...
Code: 
KROFT: “Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?”
Click to expand...
Code: 
OBAMA: “Well, it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.”
Click to expand...
So maybe it is important to differentiate.
 
BroomWagon said:
though the Reagan administration probably did run guns to the Contras or the CIA did.
And that’s a possibility in Benghazi.
Click to expand...
That’s quite possible—in fact, more than likely. sana.sy/eng/22/2012/09/14/441552.htm

But, as many Republicans said of Reagan in '87, at the height of Iran-Contra, what proof is there of what Obama knew and when he knew it, with regard to something like this?

In fact, how do we know he didn’t inherit something like this, the way Kennedy inherited Operation Mongoose and Bahia de Cochinos?
 
iamrefreshed said:
Did we also outsource the guarding of our military to Islamic radicals like this administration decided to do?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
As I recall, part of our military’s job was outsourced to Afghans at Tora Bora. The result? Osama bin Laden escaped and lived to terrorize another day.
 
BroomWagon said:
Then we should not split hairs over everyone saying the video was the cause of the attack in Benghazi as appearing very untruthful and was the story that was run with to the press.
Click to expand...
That (the abandonment of the original story, based on original CIA talking points), I am beginning to believe, was another instance of Obama caving in to the Republicans in Congress. When it comes to dealing with them, the guy IS still straining to grow a spine, I’m sorry to say.
 
colmywaykurtz said:
And Obama was trying to imply that it was THAT type that acted at Benghazi? Is that the point here?
Click to expand...
They’re coming at the Obama Administration with an army of strawmen. It’ll be quite the bonfire when its all over. 🙂
 
A full investigation will solve this.

I’m studying the articles from MM and Weekly Standard but this is one aspect of the whole scenario.
 
BroomWagon said:
weeklystandard.com/blogs/release-all-benghazi-emails_724486.html

Weekly Standard’s response to these latest assertions.

An electronic paper trail. Good luck at trying to fathom this.
Click to expand...
I agree. I read Jake Tapper’s piece earlier and it’s confusing about which emails (WS did not quote) were real and which were not. The Nuland portion though was consistent between various versions.

I still maintain Jonah Goldberg’s analysis is more appropriate. As he said all of the angst about the talking points is a bit of a sideshow but the Obama Administration wrote the script and played all of the leading roles. Further the emails are irrelevant when you look at the mental gymnastics done by Obama and Clinton not to admit that the attack was preplanned and was a quasi military action, not a bunch of ragtag rock throwers as in Egypt. Obama and Clinton continued to point to the video for weeks afterward.

Even WaPo is giving Obama four pinocchios for his latest version.

The real issue is still that the mighty USA was completely unprepared for this attack which means either those who pulled what security was in Benghazi are utter morons or they simply didn’t care. Given the many warnings and attacks at that facility, it was criminal that Ambassador Stevens was there in the first place, much less on 9/11.

The real issue is the abysmal preparation and even worse response to the attack. The talking points merely demonstrate the lengths to which this Administration will go to avoid taking responsibility.

They are using the Sgt Schultz method…I KNOW NOTHING NOTHING!!! About Benghazi, about the AP Reporters’ phone lines being tapped, about the IRS running amok.

Tell me who’s running this country since this group seems to be totally off the reservation.

Lisa
 
LisaA said:
I agree. I read Jake Tapper’s piece earlier and it’s confusing about which emails (WS did not quote) were real and which were not. The Nuland portion though was consistent between various versions.

I still maintain Jonah Goldberg’s analysis is more appropriate. As he said all of the angst about the talking points is a bit of a sideshow but the Obama Administration wrote the script and played all of the leading roles. Further the emails are irrelevant when you look at the mental gymnastics done by Obama and Clinton not to admit that the attack was preplanned and was a quasi military action, not a bunch of ragtag rock throwers as in Egypt. Obama and Clinton continued to point to the video for weeks afterward.

Even WaPo is giving Obama four pinocchios for his latest version.

The real issue is still that the mighty USA was completely unprepared for this attack which means either those who pulled what security was in Benghazi are utter morons or they simply didn’t care. Given the many warnings and attacks at that facility, it was criminal that Ambassador Stevens was there in the first place, much less on 9/11.

The real issue is the abysmal preparation and even worse response to the attack. The talking points merely demonstrate the lengths to which this Administration will go to avoid taking responsibility.

They are using the Sgt Schultz method…I KNOW NOTHING NOTHING!!! About Benghazi, about the AP Reporters’ phone lines being tapped, about the IRS running amok.

Tell me who’s running this country since this group seems to be totally off the reservation.

Lisa
Click to expand...
Or maybe running guns to Syria:
Geraldo Rivera: My Sources Tell Me Benghazi Was About Running Missiles to Syrian Rebels
 
Actually happened in history so this is not casting a dispersion on Hillary Clinton:

Watergate-era Judiciary chief of staff: Hillary Clinton fired for lies, unethical behavior
As Hillary Clinton came under increasing scrutiny for her story about facing sniper fire in Bosnia, one question that arose was whether she has engaged in a pattern of lying.
Click to expand...
The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes.
Click to expand...
I’ll bet most people didn’t know this. It sort of makes you say “hmmn”.
 
LisaA said:
Obama and Clinton continued to point to the video for weeks afterward.

The real issue is still that the mighty USA was completely unprepared for this attack

The real issue is the abysmal preparation and even worse response to the attack. The talking points merely demonstrate the lengths to which this Administration will go to avoid taking responsibility.

Lisa
Click to expand...
Hi Lisa. I think the military side - the unpreparedness for the attack, the lack of response, etc. are big issues. But the bigger issue for me is the false narrative and cover up - the lying about it. Presidents will make policy mistakes from time to time - Reagan and the marines in Beirut, e.g. but the bigger issue is trust. And the hunger for power that will motivate people to go to great lengths to cover up mistakes and lapses in judgement. I will give someone a pass if he/she admits a mistake and learns from it. But not if they try to hide the truth.

Ishii
 
ishii said:
Hi Lisa. I think the military side - the unpreparedness for the attack, the lack of response, etc. are big issues. But the bigger issue for me is the false narrative and cover up - the lying about it. Presidents will make policy mistakes from time to time - Reagan and the marines in Beirut, e.g. but the bigger issue is trust. And the hunger for power that will motivate people to go to great lengths to cover up mistakes and lapses in judgement. I will give someone a pass if he/she admits a mistake and learns from it. But not if they try to hide the truth.

Ishii
Click to expand...
Absolutely, we’ve always seen that it’s not so much the initial act but the cover up…just ask Martha Stewart! Now there was a really great use of the justice system…

I do not think the Obama supporters “Reagan and Beirut” dog hunts though. Yes we were unprepared but that was a different time, a different era, pre 9/11 and to my knowledge the Marines had NOT requested additional security…that would have been rather amusing. Gosh EN and Colm, what about PEARL HARBOR!!! That was a Democrat president.

During the election I said we have a President with the competence of Carter and the ethics of Nixon. Others have made this comparison. Benghazi demonstrates both of these parallels. Clearly incompetence in not being prepared, not being able or even willing to respond (gee on 9/11 our fast response team was in CROATIA?). The pre-election debacle then had to be hidden.

I am amazed anyone thinks anything can be hidden in this day and age. But that’s the arrogance of this Administration. It’s going to be an interesting second term.

Lisa
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top