(05-21-2014 04:32 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(05-21-2014 04:28 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(05-21-2014 04:17 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Just for starters,

Why were repeated requests for additional security ignored?

Why was no one mobilized to assist? Wouldn't you have to know how long an attack was going to last to know whether you could get anything there in time?

What's up with the damn youtube video nobody watched?

3, 7, however many hearings and we still don't know the answer to those simple questions.

Do you seriously believe that none of the other investigations looked into those issues? Or do you not really care?

Oh, I'm sure the questions were asked. I'm just waiting on the answers.

Or do you not really care?

So you don't know if the questions were asked, and you assume there were no answers. That's pretty much the standard ignorant GOP position.

(05-21-2014 04:33 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(05-21-2014 04:32 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(05-21-2014 04:28 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(05-21-2014 04:17 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Just for starters,

Why were repeated requests for additional security ignored?

Why was no one mobilized to assist? Wouldn't you have to know how long an attack was going to last to know whether you could get anything there in time?

What's up with the damn youtube video nobody watched?

3, 7, however many hearings and we still don't know the answer to those simple questions.

Do you seriously believe that none of the other investigations looked into those issues? Or do you not really care?

Oh, I'm sure the questions were asked. I'm just waiting on the answers.

Or do you not really care?

So you don't know if the questions were asked, and you assume there were no answers. That's pretty much the standard ignorant GOP position.

So, what were the answers?

Thrill me with your acumen.

1. They don't have money to pay for more security for every single agent in the field. They all request more money and more security. In hindsight, they could have and should have put in more money and more guys to guard them. Everyone already knows this. The Senate report already covered this and blamed the State Department.

Quote:The bipartisan report laid out more than a dozen findings regarding the assaults on a diplomatic compound and a CIA annex in the city. It said the State Department failed to increase security at its mission despite warnings, and blamed intelligence agencies for not sharing information about the existence of the CIA outpost with the U.S. military.

Senate report: Attacks on U.S. compounds in Benghazi could have been prevented

2. No additional units were mobilized because there was nothing to be done. Stevens was basically gone within 30 minutes of the attack. And there was a team dispatched from the nearby CIA annex. Two members of that team were among the 4 total dead. That team rescued the rest of the Americans and got them safely to the airport. Scores of military experts have already testified and reported on this. And there was also no stand-down order. That has also been thoroughly debunked.

3. The video played a role according to what people on the ground told NY Times sources. They printed this the very next day. Highly doubtful the WH was the expertise to plant this within hours. But I'm sure you don't buy that.
Libya Attack Brings Challenges for U.S.

Quote:Fighters involved in the assault, which was spearheaded by an Islamist brigade formed during last year’s uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, said in interviews during the battle that they were moved to attack the mission by anger over a 14-minute, American-made video that depicted the Prophet Muhammad, Islam’s founder, as a villainous, homosexual and child-molesting buffoon. Their attack followed by just a few hours the storming of the compound surrounding the United States Embassy in Cairo by an unarmed mob protesting the same video. On Wednesday, new crowds of protesters gathered outside the United States Embassies in Tunis and Cairo.

The wave of unrest set off by the video, posted online in the United States two months ago and dubbed into Arabic for the first time eight days ago, has further underscored the instability of the countries that cast off their longtime dictators in the Arab Spring revolts. It also cast doubt on the adequacy of security preparations at American diplomatic outposts in the volatile region.

We later learned that it was more the fault of terrorists and not the video. But it certainly wasn't known with 100% certainty just a few days after the attack...when Rice went on TV. And in fact, protests for the video did take place for over a week after the Benghazi attack took place. Those did happen! From September 18th:

Quote:Protests sparked by an online film that mocks Islam's holy prophet entered a second week Monday, raising questions about whether the furor is isolated or a sign of broader anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world.
On Monday, demonstrators took to the streets in Afghanistan, Indonesia, Pakistan, Yemen, Lebanon and Iraq. Answering a call from the leader of Hezbollah -- deemed a terrorist organization by the United States -- thousands packed the streets of Beirut's southern suburbs and chanted "Death to America!"
Monday's protests weren't on the scale as those last week, nor did they provoke the same level of international crisis by endangering U.S. diplomatic missions. Still, the fact the demonstrations are continuing -- and that they have occurred, now, in more than 20 countries -- suggests the anti-American furor tied to the inflammatory film isn't going away.

No let-up in protests over anti-Islam film

Nicely done, Tom.

Yet you're still going to vote for the head of the State Department that owns this cluster**** in two years, aren't you?

Smaug, I'm a realist. We live in a crappy world. Bad guys killed Stevens. There's no guarantees. I know that, and so did Stevens. Yes, it sucks...but as long as we have assets in the field in dangerous places, people are going to get hurt and sometimes die no matter what we do. In the end, it was never her choice to bring everyone home, you know, the only proven way to prevent these things.

Don't know how old you are, but I'm guessing you voted for Reagan (or would have) after Beirut. And a whole host of republicans voted for W after we knew he screwed the pooch getting us into Iraq.

(05-21-2014 05:01 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Nicely done, Tom.

Yet you're still going to vote for the head of the State Department that owns this cluster**** in two years, aren't you?

The fact that your questions, and many others, have already been answered in previous investigations doesn't affect your desire for this House Select Committee one bit does it? Of course not, since this committee isn't about answers to legitimate questions.

Between OMGrad, Mack and commietom we must have a water carrier's convention on this thread. Douse those fires boys......

(05-21-2014 04:09 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-21-2014 04:07 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  It's pathetic. They've had what three committees already?

I thought it was close to 7...but that might be with the other investigations included.

It's maddening.

How many times were you libs willing to investigate George Zimmerman until you got what you wanted?

(05-21-2014 04:56 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  1. They don't have money to pay for more security for every single agent in the field.

You don't have to pay for "more security for every single agent in the field." You provide more security for your highest risks, and cut security for your low risks. And this had to be at the top of any risk calculus.

Quote:2. No additional units were mobilized because there was nothing to be done.

Agree here. But this doesn't get anybody off the hook. Instead it raises the much larger question of WHY we were so ill-prepared. The best use of force in a situation like this is a commando operation by a company or so of Marines. On September 11, we had exactly zero capability to mount that sort of response anywhere in the Mediterranean. Libya has Med coastline, Israel has Med coastline, Israel has Med coastline, Lebanon has Med coastline, Tunisia has Med coastline, all have Americans and all have been scenes of recent turmoil and 9/11 would obviously be a symbolic date for an attack. This issue has not been addressed anywhere, it is what republicans should be addressing, but like the death panels issue they are so far focused everywhere but where they should be.

Quote:3. The video played a role according to what people on the ground told NY Times sources.

Who gives a rat's ass what the NY Times knew? What is relevant is what the white house knew, and there are strong indications that the white house knew that it wasn't a video almost as it was happening. Pannetta knew it wasn't a video, CIA knew it wasn't a video. If the white house did not know that it wasn't a video, then they have severe command and control issues. That isn't proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that the white house knew, and as long as the white house can stonewall, they can probably persist in making that claim.

Of course, this whole discussion omits what really should be THE number one issue. Exactly what has been done in the way of retaliatory action against the perpetrators? And if that answer is nothing, then why the hell not?

(05-21-2014 04:02 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-21-2014 03:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think democrats need to proceed carefully here. If their efforts come across as nothing but disruption, could put them in a very bad light, particularly if the committee manages to come up with anything tangible despite those efforts.

I'd put it at maybe 50-50 that this will actually lead to something. The administration has had plenty of time to circle the wagons. If Gowdy lets his emotions get the better of him the way Issa has, I don't think much will come of it. But I think Gowdy may be smarter than that.

Circle what wagons? Other than who actually killed the guys, we've known everything for well over a year.

So, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

No, we don't know everything but that, and haven't.

If we know everything but that, why were there no amphib assets in the Med?

(05-21-2014 04:56 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  But it certainly wasn't known with 100% certainty just a few days after the attack...when Rice went on TV.

But Rice did not say that it wasn't known with 100% certainty. Rice said that it was known with 100% certainty that it was the video.

Your comment is actually quite damning of Rice.

Thank you Owl, it's been a long day and responding AGAIN to Toms tomfoolery was too much to bear at this point. The only option was to bring everyone home from Canada or reinforce the embassy in Bermuda...

What a moronic notion. Repeated requests for additional security, Al Qaeda flags flying allllll over town, a town, incidentally, in the recent aftermath of a bloody civil war, flooded with RPG's and other wepaons, and it's the Anniv. of 9/11. Yea, we gotta increase security in Luxembourg first... Talk about a 10 story straw man. knock it down redtom, knock it down.

So if all the questions have been answered, why the heavily redacted e-mails that gave rise to this select comm.? Why not simply turn it over in the first place? What else are they trying to cover up, or how many more FOIA requests and lawsuit need to be filed?

Transparency, thy name is Obammy! lol.

Hopey-changey!

(05-21-2014 01:41 PM)Smaug Wrote:  In order to...

Ready for it?

"Ensure transparency."

Yeah, that's why Cummings is on the panel... RRRRIGHT.

(05-21-2014 08:56 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(05-21-2014 01:41 PM)Smaug Wrote:  In order to...

Ready for it?

"Ensure transparency."

Yeah, that's why Cummings is on the panel... RRRRIGHT.

I think he's there for comic relief...

btw.. to answer Mach's question. I beileve this is only the 2nd full hearing on Benghazi. Everything else were subcommittees to supply data to the big committee.

(05-21-2014 06:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Rice said that it was known with 100% certainty that it was the video.

Quote:GREGORY: Well, let’s talk-- talk about-- well, you talked about this as spontaneous. Can you say definitively that the attacks on-- on our consulate in Libya that killed ambassador Stevens and others there security personnel, that was spontaneous, was it a planned attack? Was there a terrorist element to it?

MS. RICE: Well, let us-- let me tell you the-- the best information we have at present. First of all, there’s an FBI investigation which is ongoing. And we look to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpired. But putting together the best information that we have available to us today our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of-- of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video. What we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. They came with heavy weapons which unfortunately are readily available in post revolutionary Libya. And it escalated into a much more violent episode. Obviously, that’s-- that’s our best judgment now. We’ll await the results of the investigation. And the president has been very clear--we’ll work with the Libyan authorities to bring those responsible to justice.

Owl never lets the truth get in the way of his favorite conspiracy theories. If he has to make up a few lies, so be it.

(05-21-2014 09:27 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(05-21-2014 06:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Rice said that it was known with 100% certainty that it was the video.

Quote:GREGORY: Well, let’s talk-- talk about-- well, you talked about this as spontaneous. Can you say definitively that the attacks on-- on our consulate in Libya that killed ambassador Stevens and others there security personnel, that was spontaneous, was it a planned attack? Was there a terrorist element to it?
MS. RICE: Well, let us-- let me tell you the-- the best information we have at present. First of all, there’s an FBI investigation which is ongoing. And we look to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpired. But putting together the best information that we have available to us today our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of-- of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video. What we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. They came with heavy weapons which unfortunately are readily available in post revolutionary Libya. And it escalated into a much more violent episode. Obviously, that’s-- that’s our best judgment now. We’ll await the results of the investigation. And the president has been very clear--we’ll work with the Libyan authorities to bring those responsible to justice.

Owl never lets the truth get in the way of his favorite conspiracy theories. If he has to make up a few lies, so be it.

OK, she said "our best information now" when clearly the best information now was different. She didn't offer any other explanation or alternative. Maybe that isn't saying with 100% certainty, but it's pretty clear that she didn't want to leave any doubt. What I wrote is not as misleading as what she said.

And looking at all the transcripts, this is probably the most latitude she allowed in any of them. She pretty clearly tried to make it an open and shut case that it was the video.

(05-21-2014 09:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-21-2014 09:27 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(05-21-2014 06:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Rice said that it was known with 100% certainty that it was the video.

Quote:GREGORY: Well, let’s talk-- talk about-- well, you talked about this as spontaneous. Can you say definitively that the attacks on-- on our consulate in Libya that killed ambassador Stevens and others there security personnel, that was spontaneous, was it a planned attack? Was there a terrorist element to it?
MS. RICE: Well, let us-- let me tell you the-- the best information we have at present. First of all, there’s an FBI investigation which is ongoing. And we look to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpired. But putting together the best information that we have available to us today our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of-- of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video. What we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. They came with heavy weapons which unfortunately are readily available in post revolutionary Libya. And it escalated into a much more violent episode. Obviously, that’s-- that’s our best judgment now. We’ll await the results of the investigation. And the president has been very clear--we’ll work with the Libyan authorities to bring those responsible to justice.

Owl never lets the truth get in the way of his favorite conspiracy theories. If he has to make up a few lies, so be it.

OK, she said "our best information now" when clearly the best information now was different. She didn't offer any other explanation or alternative. Maybe that isn't saying with 100% certainty, but it's pretty clear that she didn't want to leave any doubt. What I wrote is not as misleading as what she said.

And looking at all the transcripts, this is probably the most latitude she allowed in any of them. She pretty clearly tried to make it an open and shut case that it was the video.

You said 100% certainty. There are loads of qualifiers and hedging in her comments. You completely - COMPLETELY - mischaracterized her comments. And, as usual, you're not intellectually honest enough to own up to it.

Pick that nit.

(05-21-2014 10:06 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(05-21-2014 09:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-21-2014 09:27 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(05-21-2014 06:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Rice said that it was known with 100% certainty that it was the video.

Quote:GREGORY: Well, let’s talk-- talk about-- well, you talked about this as spontaneous. Can you say definitively that the attacks on-- on our consulate in Libya that killed ambassador Stevens and others there security personnel, that was spontaneous, was it a planned attack? Was there a terrorist element to it?
MS. RICE: Well, let us-- let me tell you the-- the best information we have at present. First of all, there’s an FBI investigation which is ongoing. And we look to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpired. But putting together the best information that we have available to us today our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of-- of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video. What we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. They came with heavy weapons which unfortunately are readily available in post revolutionary Libya. And it escalated into a much more violent episode. Obviously, that’s-- that’s our best judgment now. We’ll await the results of the investigation. And the president has been very clear--we’ll work with the Libyan authorities to bring those responsible to justice.

Owl never lets the truth get in the way of his favorite conspiracy theories. If he has to make up a few lies, so be it.

OK, she said "our best information now" when clearly the best information now was different. She didn't offer any other explanation or alternative. Maybe that isn't saying with 100% certainty, but it's pretty clear that she didn't want to leave any doubt. What I wrote is not as misleading as what she said.

And looking at all the transcripts, this is probably the most latitude she allowed in any of them. She pretty clearly tried to make it an open and shut case that it was the video.

You said 100% certainty. There are loads of qualifiers and hedging in her comments. You completely - COMPLETELY - mischaracterized her comments. And, as usual, you're not intellectually honest enough to own up to it.

Fine, by your reckoning I overstated the point. I think what I stated is pretty much the message that she wanted to convey. If you look at all the transcripts, instead of just one, she basically said that everything we know to this point says it's a video, and nothing indicates any other possibility. The only outlet she really left was that further investigation might turn up a different explanation.

OK so what I should have said is that she said that, based on all the information known to that time, it was 100% certain. And obviously, that was simply a blatant misrepresentation.

So crucify me.