- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: GOP Led Report Debunks Right-Wing Media's Benghazi Hoax
Posted on 11/24/14 at 7:05 am to germandawg
Posted on 11/24/14 at 7:05 am to germandawg
quote:
Calling this a scandal is an insult to scandals.
What is a scandal is there was no coordinated response when American citizens were in harms way. National Command Authority? State Department? Two Combatant Commands? All absent.
If not for the actions taken by individual CIA personnel in Benghazi and Tripoli all lives would have been lost.
The best they could muster afterwards was blaming a video.
That is the scandal.
2
Posted on 11/24/14 at 7:22 am to Wolfhound45
quote:
If not for the actions taken by individual CIA personnel in Benghazi and Tripoli all lives would have been lost.
And we would be remiss if we glossed over the fact that this was the first U.S. Ambassador killed in the line of duty since 1979 - Many ambassadorships are political paybacks and crony patronage. Not this one - Stephens (possibly the first gay U.S. ambassador, BTW, although he remained in the closet) was a career diplomat and foreign service officer.
Posted on 11/24/14 at 8:12 am to Ace Midnight
Agreed. Stephens deserved much better than he got. By all accounts an absolutely sterling public servant. He took on the tough jobs and did exceptionally well at them. But in Benghazi he became another "acceptable" loss to this administration and their agenda.
Sickening.
But the Progessives/Libearals are correct. There was absolutely, positively no stand down order given from those at the highest levels of government. None.
Because they gave no orders.
Sickening.
But the Progessives/Libearals are correct. There was absolutely, positively no stand down order given from those at the highest levels of government. None.
Because they gave no orders.
Posted on 11/24/14 at 8:29 am to Wolfhound45
Working my way through the actual House report and findings (thanks again NHTIGER). If Liberals/Progressives are using this to support the administration's actions on September 11th & 12th and the months leading up to it, then they are as looney as I have always suspected. This report in no way exonerates them. It eviscerates them instead.
But keep working those talking points.
More important to win a distorted narrative than to safeguard American citizens.
But keep working those talking points.
More important to win a distorted narrative than to safeguard American citizens.
Posted on 11/24/14 at 9:18 am to Wolfhound45
quote:Where did you read anything that says that? (I haven't been through the whole thing yet, plan on doing so by tonight).
This report in no way exonerates them. It eviscerates them instead.
Posted on 11/24/14 at 9:20 am to Draconian Sanctions
It is two people.
Posted on 11/24/14 at 9:36 am to mmcgrath
Firstly, read the opening points on Appendix 1. An utter and abysmal failure of this administration.
Secondly, this is a report of the actions of the Intelligence Community (IC). By and large, they are blameless in what happened. What little that could be salvaged from this debacle they managed to do.
National Command Authority and State Department (and to a lesser extent, Department of Defense) are only discussed as they are germane to the IC investigation. What little is covered is not flattering to any of them.
Secondly, this is a report of the actions of the Intelligence Community (IC). By and large, they are blameless in what happened. What little that could be salvaged from this debacle they managed to do.
National Command Authority and State Department (and to a lesser extent, Department of Defense) are only discussed as they are germane to the IC investigation. What little is covered is not flattering to any of them.
Posted on 11/24/14 at 9:46 am to Wolfhound45
quote:Appendix 1 is the view of 4 (out of 21) members of the committee. Views that were not backed by enough Republicans to even make it into the main report and are obviously contradicting the report itself. It's all a bunch of talking points on statements the administration has said over the years and doesn't have any credible evidence to back up any of their claims.
Firstly, read the opening points on Appendix 1. An utter and abysmal failure of this administration.
Why would you look at the personal views of 4 people who contradict the report and ignore the report itself?!?
quote:The whole thing (including the consulate and Stevens) seems like it was a CIA mission to me.
Secondly, this is a report of the actions of the Intelligence Community (IC). By and large, they are blameless in what happened. What little that could be salvaged from this debacle they managed to do.
National Command Authority and State Department (and to a lesser extent, Department of Defense) are only discussed as they are germane to the IC investigation. What little is covered is not flattering to any of them.
This post was edited on 11/24/14 at 9:50 am
Posted on 11/24/14 at 9:48 am to Wolfhound45
quote:
no stand down
But in this case, 'standing by' was just as deadly as 'standing down'.
Posted on 11/24/14 at 9:51 am to TrueTiger
quote:Probably saved lives, actually. And I guess you are ignoring the HUGE difference between the two orders.
But in this case, 'standing by' was just as deadly as 'standing down'.
Posted on 11/24/14 at 9:55 am to mmcgrath
Dismiss the appendix that doesn't confirm your bias. Got it.
Posted on 11/24/14 at 9:57 am to Wolfhound45
quote:
He took on the tough jobs and did exceptionally well at them.
No question - he spent the majority of his time in the dangerous places we send our foreign service officers.
quote:
Because they gave no orders.
Which is what leads to such consternation from those of us who've worked in those fields and those areas who were given all this false information to protect the campaign and we filled in the gaps when told they didn't do anything.
You and I (and others on here) kind of know the drill when there is any sort of crisis - the military guys (us) give a whole menu of options, when the most time sensitive ones have to be initiated, what can be done now - what can be done in 2 hours, etc., and the civilians mull it over and usually give you an answer.
Seems like a lot of "empty suiting" going on, because the campaign paralyzed any action - any action had the potential for negative fallout to hit the campaign so - it appears now, they just effectively walked away saying, "That's a shame" - it's so shocking it is extremely difficult to believe.
Posted on 11/24/14 at 10:07 am to mmcgrath
quote:
Appendix 1 is the view of 4 (out of 21) members of the committee.
Appendix 1 absolutely does offer commentary and opinion. All of which are supported by the findings in the main report. You simply do not agree with them.
So tell me, where are all of the stellar activities/efforts by the President, the Secretary of State and the two combatant commanders in the report? Both during the days in question and the months leading up to it?
I realize this will be a long wait.
quote:
The whole thing (including the consulate and Stevens) seems like it was a CIA mission to me.
The committee disagrees with you. Did you not read the report?
Posted on 11/24/14 at 10:08 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
Seems like a lot of "empty suiting" going on, because the campaign paralyzed any action - any action had the potential for negative fallout to hit the campaign so - it appears now, they just effectively walked away saying, "That's a shame" - it's so shocking it is extremely difficult to believe.
This.
Posted on 11/24/14 at 10:11 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
If you're not going to refer to me by my handle I'm not going to answer any of your questions
I've called you DC before but it's my nickname for you you.
Posted on 11/24/14 at 10:18 am to mmcgrath
quote:
The whole thing (including the consulate and Stevens) seems like it was a CIA mission to me.
The scuttlebutt has always been that this was an arms deal gone wrong - I heard whispers of that the month it happened. I initially dismissed it - of course I knew it had nothing to do with the video the day of the attack because of mortars and machine guns, etc. However, I was convinced that September 11th timing was unlikely to turn out to be coincidental.
And I continue to hear specific details, such as: surface to air missiles, bound for the "moderate" Syrian rebels. In that context, the cover-up makes sense - "Push the video, and then, when that fails, we act like that was credible (because of Cairo) and say we're sorry - terrible thing, etc." But, if a weapons deal, in the middle of the night, went wrong, and that comes out? That might have flipped the election or it might have appeared to have that potential in September 2012 to Obama's political advisors.
In any event, we'll likely not know the specifics for decades, if that is indeed the case. The fact that the CIA annex's location was compromised is the most troubling - now it could have been because they tried to respond from there, the Benghazi folks tried to rally there, or it had been compromised prior to the attack and part of the target list all along.
Just a terrible plan (whatever it was) and terribly executed - like LSU's offense the past 2 to 3 games.
Posted on 11/24/14 at 10:24 am to Wolfhound45
quote:Of a small number of committee members, not representative of the committee as a whole.
Appendix 1 absolutely does offer commentary and opinion.
quote:Please identify any of the opinions that are supported by something in the main report. The main report explicitly finds no wrong doing in the "talking points" used by Rice. It also finds no fault with the response to the incident as a whole.
All of which are supported by the findings in the main report.
quote:Thus I expressed it as an opinion. Which is something you failed to identify with what you said or even identifying that your primary source was strictly the opinions of a handful of people on the committee.
The committee disagrees with you. Did you not read the report?
(I am not even sure the report really contradicts my opinion at all)
Posted on 11/24/14 at 10:26 am to mmcgrath
Not heard much from gowdy doody.
Posted on 11/24/14 at 10:27 am to mmcgrath
quote:
Thus I expressed it as an opinion.
Well - where the colonel and I disagree is on the CIA issue - again, the annex was involved, as were agency personnel - while possibly incidental, I don't think you're crazy to suspect CIA involvement in whatever it was that went wrong, before it went wrong.
Because we got, literally, nothing but lies from the administration, everything seems sketchy about the Benghazi incident - and I mean everything.
Posted on 11/24/14 at 10:28 am to Draconian Sanctions
Oh, that's right, you welshed on it.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News