Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
Benghazi: A Conspiracy Theory With No Conceivable Motive
Thursday, November 15, 2012 9:05 AM
KPO
Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.
Quote:Matt Steinglass makes a point about the whole Benghazi "coverup" narrative that I didn't have space to make in my post yesterday. He agrees that Susan Rice did nothing wrong, but says there's more to it: This is absolutely right as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough. At the most fundamental level, the reason it is absurd to suspect the existence of a "cover-up" over the Benghazi attack is that such a cover-up could not have had any conceivable goal. Back to the beginning: the underlying accusation about Benghazi is that the Obama administration deliberately mischaracterised the terrorist attack there as having grown out of a spontaneous demonstration because that would be less politically damaging. Such a cover-up would have made no sense because the attack would not have been less politically damaging had it grown out of a spontaneous demonstration. The attack on the Benghazi compound would not have been any less politically difficult for the administration if it had grown out of a riot, nor would any normal voter have expected it to be less politically damaging, nor would any normal campaign strategist have expected any normal voter to have expected it to be less politically damaging. As best I can tell, the suggestion from the right has been that Obama didn't want to admit that Benghazi was a terrorist attack because....well, I'm not sure, exactly. Something about how this would blow a hole in his claim to be decimating al-Qaeda via drone attacks. Or maybe it would remove some of the luster from being the killer of Osama bin Laden. Or something. But one way or another, the story is that Obama was deeply afraid of admitting that terrorists are still out there and want to do us harm. This has never made a lick of sense. If anything, the continuing existence of terrorists justifies his drone attacks. And it certainly wouldn't do him any harm in an election. The American public routinely rallies around a president responding to a terrorist attack. Dave Weigel has more here, responding to Sean Higgins, who manages to read all the transcripts of Rice's Sunday show appearances and still claim that she somehow misled the public. "There is considerable evidence that they knew even the day of the attacks that there had in fact been no protests and that the attacks were planned," says Higgins. "Who knew what when and whether the administration was trying to cover it up is precisely what Congress is trying to determine." Actually, there's considerable evidence that on September 15, when Rice taped her appearances, the CIA told her there had been protests in Benghazi earlier in the day. The CIA turned out to be wrong about that, but it simply makes no sense for them to have made this up. If it does anything at all, it only makes their response look worse. This whole thing is a conspiracy theory with no conceivable motive. It's a wild, scattershot attack hoping to take down someone, somewhere, just to claim a scalp. It's disgusting.
Thursday, November 15, 2012 9:15 AM
ANTHONYT
Freedom is Important because People are Important
Thursday, November 15, 2012 9:23 AM
Thursday, November 15, 2012 9:26 AM
Thursday, November 15, 2012 9:51 AM
BYTEMITE
Quote:The infiltration angle is new to me; are you sure you're using the right word?
Thursday, November 15, 2012 10:07 AM
KWICKO
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)
Thursday, November 15, 2012 10:14 AM
FREMDFIRMA
Thursday, November 15, 2012 11:54 AM
M52NICKERSON
DALEK!
Quote:Originally posted by BYTEMITE: There was apparently a mole on Steven's staff that directed Al Qaeda members to Steven's hiding location. Had the mole not been on Steven's staff, Steven's and the two former marines would still be alive.
Thursday, November 15, 2012 12:07 PM
STORYMARK
Thursday, November 15, 2012 12:47 PM
GEEZER
Keep the Shiny side up
Thursday, November 15, 2012 12:56 PM
Thursday, November 15, 2012 12:58 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Storymark: And after weeks of complaining that they have not heard the real story, today, as the Benghazi hearings start - many GOPers have skipped the hearing, to appear on Fox to complain some more about not hearing what they just bailed on. Assholes. Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears. "We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum "Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"
Thursday, November 15, 2012 12:59 PM
RIONAEIRE
Beir bua agus beannacht
Thursday, November 15, 2012 1:17 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: ... or it could have had something to do with the President's desire not to put "boots on the ground" and have a military presence in the country that could be seen as an occupying force.
Quote:And stationing a carrier battle group off the shores of Tripoli isn't a cheap endeavor, either, and would have led to lots and lots of carping by the right about how wasteful the president was being.
Thursday, November 15, 2012 2:37 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: ... or it could have had something to do with the President's desire not to put "boots on the ground" and have a military presence in the country that could be seen as an occupying force. That could be. He might have taken a calculated risk than nothing would occur to help the Libyan government look like it was functional. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case. Quote:And stationing a carrier battle group off the shores of Tripoli isn't a cheap endeavor, either, and would have led to lots and lots of carping by the right about how wasteful the president was being. Who are you and what have you done with Mike? You're proposing that the war-mongering Republicans would complain about rattling the saber near the Muslim world?
Thursday, November 15, 2012 2:39 PM
Thursday, November 15, 2012 2:42 PM
Quote:Whatever the Democrat does, you'll bitch about it. Whatever the Republican does, you'll applaud it.
Thursday, November 15, 2012 4:54 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: I'm proposing that the Republicans would complain no matter what this president did.
Quote:WASHINGTON — Top Senate Democrats and Republicans agreed Monday on a resolution backing limited U.S. involvement in the NATO-led military campaign against Libya, days after the expiration of the legal deadline for President Barack Obama to seek full-blown congressional authorization. Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, D-Mass., and Sen. John McCain, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, introduced the non-binding resolution along with five other Republicans and Democrats.
Thursday, November 15, 2012 8:48 PM
Thursday, November 15, 2012 11:21 PM
PIRATENEWS
John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!
Friday, November 16, 2012 3:41 AM
JONGSSTRAW
Friday, November 16, 2012 4:47 AM
NIKI2
Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...
Quote:Susan Rice should have known better and if she didn’t know better, she is not qualified. She should have known better. I will do everything in my power to block her from being the United States secretary of state. She has proven that she either doesn’t understand or she is not willing to accept evidence on its face. There is no doubt five days later what this attack was and for — look, I was on "Face the Nation" that Sunday. Right after her came the president of the Libyan National Assembly who said this was al-Qaeda. Everybody knew that. So she went out and told the American people something that was patently false and defied common sense.” When she presented the case absolutely this was a flash mob. Look at the reruns because I happened to have been there that morning.... The casual observer knew there was no demonstration. There was no demonstration, so you couldn't have known that to start with. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/mccains-claims-about-susan-rices-comments-on-the-libya-attack/2012/11/15/e6590650-2eb1-11e2-beb2-4b4cf5087636_blog.html] Just 'cuz, how about some facts?Quote:McCain’s recounting does not accurately reflect what she said. Much of her statement is filled with caveats, such as saying this is “the best information we have to date.” McCain knocks her for not saying this was the work of al-Qaeda, but she does not dispute that possibility; she simply says it needs to be investigated. She never uses the phrase “flash mob,” or says this is “absolutely” the case but instead says “we believe that it looks like extremist elements” appeared to have opportunistically taken advantage of a protest. McCain also claims “a casual observer” would know there was no demonstration. U.S. officials now say there is little evidence of a protest but it was not an outlandish thought at the time. After all, it had been heavily reported by the media — including in The Washington Post — based on witness accounts. This was the headline on the Post story just days before Rice’s appearance: “Libya consulate attack came after militants joined protesters, say witnesses, officials.” In fact, our timeline shows that the American news media did not report until Sept. 20, four days after Rice’s appearance, that there was no anti-American protest. Not until Oct. 9 did the State Department report there was no protest outside the embassy. Indeed, while McCain in his “Face the Nation” remarks clearly labels the incident an “act of terror,” he does not argue there was no demonstration, just that the event could not have happened without planning: “How spontaneous is a demonstration when people bring rocket-propelled grenades and heavy weapons and have a very tactically successful military operation?” Meanwhile, reporting in recent months suggests that Rice hewed rather closely to the talking points she was given before she went on the program. There are many questions about what happened in Libya on Sept.11. One could fault Susan Rice for not being quicker on her feet, especially when confronted by the comments of the Libyan official. But she was not directly involved in the running of the Libyan diplomatic mission or its security. She was essentially acting as an administration spokeswoman, apparently using words crafted by the CIA, to describe what was — and still is — a murky situation. McCain mischaracterizes Rice’s words and then assumes she should have had all the information that is known now about the Benghazi attack. Her claim that there was a protest is clearly wrong, but within the context of that week, it was not off base, since it appeared in news reports quoting witnesses and even in the president’s daily briefing. As we have written, the administration — and especially the president — appeared suspiciously reluctant to label the attack an act of terrorism. But within the context of all those statements, Susan Rice’s remarks five days after the attack appear to be a sideshow, especially because she had virtually no role in the key issues surrounding the Libyan mission. Readers know we frown on hypocrisy. Given that McCain was so quick to excuse Condi Rice for making remarks of much greater import, it seems rather unsporting to quickly rush to judgment and mischaracterization in the case of Susan Rice.Much more, timeline, transcript of Rice's remarks, comparison of CONDI RICE's lies about NUCLEAR WEAPONS in Iraq, which didn't seem to bother McCain at the time, and much more at http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/mccains-claims-about-susan-rices-comments-on-the-libya-attack/2012/11/15/e6590650-2eb1-11e2-beb2-4b4cf5087636_blog.html] They gave him two pinochios, by the way. As I believe Jon Stewart remarked, now that the election is over and the GOP lost, there is only one option: impeachment. "Two word," he said, "Benghazi, Solyndra". That's about it, as far as I'm concerned. Added to the fact that McCain was shooting his mouth off yet avoiding the meeting that would have briefed him points rather clearly to me what his motives are.Quote:John McCain is a grandstanding hypocrite who is still reliving the 2008 election. There’s no other explanation for why McCain would run up and down the halls of the Senate, demanding hearings to find out what “really” happened at Benghazi and what the administration ”really” knew, while actual hearings on Benghazi were taking place this week in the very committee John McCain sits on, and he didn’t even bother showing up. McCain is now claiming that he missed this most important hearing ever because of a “scheduling error.” Gee, what else was more important than something that McCain thinks merits “Watergate-style” hearings? Wait for it….. Alexander Abad-Santos of the Atlantic Wire recreated McCain’s schedule and the actual hearing schedule, and put them side by side in order to find out what “scheduling error” forced McCain to miss the Benghazi hearings that he’s been demanding for weeks. And what do you know: The “scheduling error” that prevented John McCain from attending the Benghazi hearings was John McCain’s own press conference demanding Benghazi hearings. The man was so fixated on having Benghazi hearings that he missed the actual Benghazi hearings. http://americablog.com/2012/11/mccain-skips-benghazi-hearings-rice.html This whole thing is of little interest to me. There were screw-ups...big surprise. People died...hold those responsible accountable, for both the clusterfuck and the attack. Obama didn't know about any of this shit, and yes, he DID use the word "terror" right away, please let's NOT go down that road yet again! By all means investigate, fix whatever went wrong, and move on. Susan Rice said what she was told to say, using her as a political tool is disgusting, given her record. To make this the centerpiece of the GOP's hate-fest is simply stupid, and as Bobby Jindal said, they realy need to stop being the Stupid Party. Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.
Quote:McCain’s recounting does not accurately reflect what she said. Much of her statement is filled with caveats, such as saying this is “the best information we have to date.” McCain knocks her for not saying this was the work of al-Qaeda, but she does not dispute that possibility; she simply says it needs to be investigated. She never uses the phrase “flash mob,” or says this is “absolutely” the case but instead says “we believe that it looks like extremist elements” appeared to have opportunistically taken advantage of a protest. McCain also claims “a casual observer” would know there was no demonstration. U.S. officials now say there is little evidence of a protest but it was not an outlandish thought at the time. After all, it had been heavily reported by the media — including in The Washington Post — based on witness accounts. This was the headline on the Post story just days before Rice’s appearance: “Libya consulate attack came after militants joined protesters, say witnesses, officials.” In fact, our timeline shows that the American news media did not report until Sept. 20, four days after Rice’s appearance, that there was no anti-American protest. Not until Oct. 9 did the State Department report there was no protest outside the embassy. Indeed, while McCain in his “Face the Nation” remarks clearly labels the incident an “act of terror,” he does not argue there was no demonstration, just that the event could not have happened without planning: “How spontaneous is a demonstration when people bring rocket-propelled grenades and heavy weapons and have a very tactically successful military operation?” Meanwhile, reporting in recent months suggests that Rice hewed rather closely to the talking points she was given before she went on the program. There are many questions about what happened in Libya on Sept.11. One could fault Susan Rice for not being quicker on her feet, especially when confronted by the comments of the Libyan official. But she was not directly involved in the running of the Libyan diplomatic mission or its security. She was essentially acting as an administration spokeswoman, apparently using words crafted by the CIA, to describe what was — and still is — a murky situation. McCain mischaracterizes Rice’s words and then assumes she should have had all the information that is known now about the Benghazi attack. Her claim that there was a protest is clearly wrong, but within the context of that week, it was not off base, since it appeared in news reports quoting witnesses and even in the president’s daily briefing. As we have written, the administration — and especially the president — appeared suspiciously reluctant to label the attack an act of terrorism. But within the context of all those statements, Susan Rice’s remarks five days after the attack appear to be a sideshow, especially because she had virtually no role in the key issues surrounding the Libyan mission. Readers know we frown on hypocrisy. Given that McCain was so quick to excuse Condi Rice for making remarks of much greater import, it seems rather unsporting to quickly rush to judgment and mischaracterization in the case of Susan Rice.Much more, timeline, transcript of Rice's remarks, comparison of CONDI RICE's lies about NUCLEAR WEAPONS in Iraq, which didn't seem to bother McCain at the time, and much more at http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/mccains-claims-about-susan-rices-comments-on-the-libya-attack/2012/11/15/e6590650-2eb1-11e2-beb2-4b4cf5087636_blog.html] They gave him two pinochios, by the way. As I believe Jon Stewart remarked, now that the election is over and the GOP lost, there is only one option: impeachment. "Two word," he said, "Benghazi, Solyndra". That's about it, as far as I'm concerned. Added to the fact that McCain was shooting his mouth off yet avoiding the meeting that would have briefed him points rather clearly to me what his motives are.Quote:John McCain is a grandstanding hypocrite who is still reliving the 2008 election. There’s no other explanation for why McCain would run up and down the halls of the Senate, demanding hearings to find out what “really” happened at Benghazi and what the administration ”really” knew, while actual hearings on Benghazi were taking place this week in the very committee John McCain sits on, and he didn’t even bother showing up. McCain is now claiming that he missed this most important hearing ever because of a “scheduling error.” Gee, what else was more important than something that McCain thinks merits “Watergate-style” hearings? Wait for it….. Alexander Abad-Santos of the Atlantic Wire recreated McCain’s schedule and the actual hearing schedule, and put them side by side in order to find out what “scheduling error” forced McCain to miss the Benghazi hearings that he’s been demanding for weeks. And what do you know: The “scheduling error” that prevented John McCain from attending the Benghazi hearings was John McCain’s own press conference demanding Benghazi hearings. The man was so fixated on having Benghazi hearings that he missed the actual Benghazi hearings. http://americablog.com/2012/11/mccain-skips-benghazi-hearings-rice.html This whole thing is of little interest to me. There were screw-ups...big surprise. People died...hold those responsible accountable, for both the clusterfuck and the attack. Obama didn't know about any of this shit, and yes, he DID use the word "terror" right away, please let's NOT go down that road yet again! By all means investigate, fix whatever went wrong, and move on. Susan Rice said what she was told to say, using her as a political tool is disgusting, given her record. To make this the centerpiece of the GOP's hate-fest is simply stupid, and as Bobby Jindal said, they realy need to stop being the Stupid Party. Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.
Quote:John McCain is a grandstanding hypocrite who is still reliving the 2008 election. There’s no other explanation for why McCain would run up and down the halls of the Senate, demanding hearings to find out what “really” happened at Benghazi and what the administration ”really” knew, while actual hearings on Benghazi were taking place this week in the very committee John McCain sits on, and he didn’t even bother showing up. McCain is now claiming that he missed this most important hearing ever because of a “scheduling error.” Gee, what else was more important than something that McCain thinks merits “Watergate-style” hearings? Wait for it….. Alexander Abad-Santos of the Atlantic Wire recreated McCain’s schedule and the actual hearing schedule, and put them side by side in order to find out what “scheduling error” forced McCain to miss the Benghazi hearings that he’s been demanding for weeks. And what do you know: The “scheduling error” that prevented John McCain from attending the Benghazi hearings was John McCain’s own press conference demanding Benghazi hearings. The man was so fixated on having Benghazi hearings that he missed the actual Benghazi hearings. http://americablog.com/2012/11/mccain-skips-benghazi-hearings-rice.html
Friday, November 16, 2012 6:51 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: I'm proposing that the Republicans would complain no matter what this president did. Not so much.
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL