Benghazi isn't a scandal. AP-gate IS.

Basically title.

Benghazi isn't what the Republicans need it to be.

The IRS "scandal" isn't a big deal either; the IRS audited hundreds of groups with obvious political agendas, on both ends of the political spectrum. What's scandalous to me is that all the tea party groups investigated were cleared and given their c4 status.

If the Republicans really want to make a meaningful stand, and regain some (any) respect from the American people, they should be on this DOJ AP story.

Don't worry. They'll be on all of them.

Impeachment hearings before the end of the term.
I'm just wondering about the timing. Will it be before the midterms to boost their chances there? Or wait until after in hopes of taking the Senate and having a chance of convicting?

Either way, absolutely nothing else gets done until after 2016.

I'm not so sure. I don't think the right particularly cares about the rights of a free press as much as a certain other enumerated right in the constitution.

Even so, trying to link it to Obama would be folly. Holder should resign today, though.

Don't worry, the fact that the republicans did the same thing to the press and called for more thorough investigations into the leak will keep them from denouncing Obama too badly. They wouldn't want to look hypocritica.. cal.. HAHAHAHAHAHA.. sorry couldn't keep a strait face there.

It doesn't matter if the republicans did the same thing.
It doesn't matter if the republicans would have done it worse.
It doesn't even matter if its TRUE.

It makes Obama look bad, so they're going to grarg about it.

This line from McBeth sums up my feelings on Benghazi, the IRS and the AP wiretaps.

'Tis a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

--McBeth

Hrm. Everything I have seen on the AP scandal suggests that what the DOJ did was legal. Should we be outraged that the Executive branch has the legal authority to do what they did? Probably. But if we establish laws in a certain way, and the administration acts within them, is the problem the administration or the laws?

Link

Edit: I should clarify - I am not positing that the DOJ actions are okay. I am responding to the clamor in Washington and in the media to treat this as a criminal investigation, even though there does not appear to have been a crime. If you are only suggesting that the actions are ideologically objectionable, then you have a point.

If Benghazi is not a scandal, I want to know exactly why when the first attack took place at 9:40pm local, the CIA team from Tripoli did not arrive until some time in the early morning and had to basically commandeer a leerjet in Tripoli to get them there, scrape up what Libyan forces they could and arrived JUST in time to hold off an attack on the CIA Annex and then load everybody up and get them out of there before a much larger assault force arrived minutes later.

The only support they were given was an unarmed drone, tasked from Africa Command. No other support was given to those on the ground. What might of happened if the Tripoli CIA/JSOC team had not commandeered the jet to get them to Benghazi, and waited for official transport?

Why was there no In-Extremis force for Africa Command, and instead they had to try and tap an S.F. force training in Croatia, loosing precious hours in trying to bring the team back, get them wheels up and by the time they got to Siganella the whole thing was over. Why was Africa Command not given any armed gunship support? Not a single armed gunship or drone was tasked to support an ongoing siege of American personnel. Nothing was made available to them.

In essence from the moment this thing kicked off those men and women were utterly alone. It was only the fast thinking of the CIA/JSOC team in Tripoli in taking the jet to Benghazi without orders that saved what was left of the Embassy staff that morning at the CIA Annex.

Well the problem to me is this: we give government authority to do distasteful things in extraordinary circumstances. I don't like it, but it's the truth. But a big part of that is trusting the individual actors to behave accordingly and not exert authority when it's not warranted.

Peepin' and creepin' on reporters just cuz seems like a breech of that trust to me. It's not a matter of it being a crime, a lot of horrible things we've done haven't been illegal (Iraq and Afghanistan, according to the Bush regime waterboarding, etc.) it's a matter of expecting those we empower to personally rein in their power.

That those in power can exercise restraint is important to the progressive argument, which this case undermines.

If Benghazi is not a scandal, I want to know exactly why

Because the people being persecuted aren't at fault. You're asking why there isn't absolutely perfect and synchronous global response between our military and our ambassadors abroad. It's because, broadly, we have our forces, both military and diplomatic, stretched incredibly thin all around the world.

I should rephrase. It's a scandal, but Obama and his cabinet are no more at fault for a poor response to a sudden uprising than the Bush regime was for the 54 attacks under their watch. Perhaps unnecessary loss of life OUGHT to be more of a scandal than it is, but if that's the case where is all the coverage of the men and women who have died in Afghanistan every day since the Benghazi attack that only killed 4.

The only reason it is being trumped up is because our involvement in Libya was unilateral under Obama, whereas our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan was under a Republican president. They daren't mention casualties in our other wars.

The other question is, who gave orders to the CIA team at the Annex to "Stand Down" and "Hold for further instructions" while Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith were trapped in a burning building, surrounded by enemies pouring cans full of gas everywhere?

Why did it take a heroic defiance of orders on the part of CIA agent Ty Woods, who assembles a six man team that fights it way, alone, two hours from the Annex to the Consulate, locates the body of Information Manager Smith, but not Ambassador Stevens, rescues personnel trapped in the building and then fights their way back to the CIA Annex?

What if Ty Woods had not risked his life (That he would later loose in defending the Annex, waiting for help) in defiance of orders to save those people in that burning building? Why did Leon Panetta say that they lacked enough information to intervene when the Embassy was pleading, begging for help and the CIA/JSOC team in Tripoli CLEARLY knew how bad it was and flew there itself?

There was atleast one Predator drone on scene. How was it that somehow nobody had any idea what this Predator flyover was showing, an infantry and artillery assault on the Americans at the Annex?

Those are all good questions *yawn* that totally don't deserve to be answered. Sounds like a lot of internal CIA stuff.

Why is it Obama's fault again?

I don't think I've seen anyone say it's Obama's fault directly.
I've just seen people wanting the names of the people that made those decisions, and ask them to justify them.
If they can't, then criminal proceedings need to ensue.
We need to know why this happened to prevent it from happening again.

Perhaps it's that there is a certain air of it being his administration, and people under him are responsible, 'the buck stops here' and all that.

You'll clearly note that I never once mentioned Obama in anything I said.

I find it fascinating how any misstep suddenly becomes an us vs them game rather than finding out what happened, why, and exactly who is at fault regardless of their current standing or party affiliation.

Secretary of State Clinton and SecDef Leon Panetta clearly have a lot to answer for, as both were made privy to the details of the attack less than an hour and a half after the attack began. Leon Panetta less than an hour. Yet they both did not order any additional assistance to the area. Why did they make this decision?

Panetta claimed it was because of lack of information. The CIA/JSOC team that deployed itself, and the deployment of a Predator drone giving real time information casts doubt on this claim that there was not an understanding of the situation. We know that less than two hours after the attack, the Predator drone was broadcasting a live feed of the ongoing attack straight to Washington D.C.

I do not know when Obama was made aware of the attack, or in what capacity. Did he ever see the live feed? I can not say.

However, he did appoint both of these individuals. Until they give satisfactory explanations for their decisions, he does bear some responsibility for putting them in their positions. However the primary responsibility lies with Clinton and Panetta, atleast in my eyes.

I don't think I've seen anyone say it's Obama's fault directly.

I've just seen people wanting the names of the people that made those decisions, and ask them to justify them.
If they can't, then criminal proceedings need to ensue.
We need to know why this happened to prevent it from happening again.

Perhaps it's that there is a certain air of it being his administration, and people under him are responsible, 'the buck stops here' and all that.

So why wasn't there as thorough an investigation over the 54 attacks that happened under Bush's watch? Why wasn't there a similar if not grander-scale witch hunt for the decision makers in those situations?

And yes, people are saying it's Obama's fault, and publicly calling for impeachment.

You'll clearly note that I never once mentioned Obama in anything I said.

I find it fascinating how any misstep suddenly becomes an us vs them game rather than finding out what happened, why, and exactly who is at fault regardless of their current standing or party affiliation.

Then you'll stand with me in my call to reopen or launch investigations into each of the 54 attacks on US consulates during Bush's 8 years. Right? Since it's not political or anything.

Skeletal Steve wrote:

You'll clearly note that I never once mentioned Obama in anything I said.

I find it fascinating how any misstep suddenly becomes an us vs them game rather than finding out what happened, why, and exactly who is at fault regardless of their current standing or party affiliation.

Then you'll stand with me in my call to reopen or launch investigations into each of the 54 attacks on US consulates during Bush's 8 years. Right? Since it's not political or anything.

Sure. Bring me solid information about who knew what when, and then refused to do something despite seeing live images of what was going on at the scene? I'd be happy to see an investigation there as well.

This may surprise you, but some of us are more interested in justice than just taking shots at the rival political party.

Do you believe that the inaction had malicious intent? Do you genuinely believe that those in power wanted the Benghazi 4 to die? Or do you simply think it was a mistake or a miscalculation or that they were taken by surprise?

What exactly do you want a CIA team to do to stop a riot?

We also don't exactly like admitting we have CIA teams in hostile foreign countries. You have to consider the possibility of leading the locals back to the CIA compound too, getting everyone there killed as well.

meatrace wrote:

Skeletal Steve wrote:

You'll clearly note that I never once mentioned Obama in anything I said.

I find it fascinating how any misstep suddenly becomes an us vs them game rather than finding out what happened, why, and exactly who is at fault regardless of their current standing or party affiliation.

Then you'll stand with me in my call to reopen or launch investigations into each of the 54 attacks on US consulates during Bush's 8 years. Right? Since it's not political or anything.

Sure. Bring me solid information about who knew what when, and then refused to do something despite seeing live images of what was going on at the scene? I'd be happy to see an investigation there as well.

This may surprise you, but some of us are more interested in justice than just taking shots at the rival political party.

I have yet to see this.

We lost 54 ambassadors and 200+ seals trying to defend them because someone in the Bush administration made the decision not to send aid, then made up stories about youtube trailers setting off the attackers?
Then suppressed the survivors to prevent them spilling the beans?

That happened 54 times under Bush's watch?

Wow.

I'm a little fuzzy on where you are getting 54 attacks on embassies during that term. The ones I remember off of the top of my head was the '02 bombing of the consulate in Karachi, the '04 attack on the consulate in Jeddah that ended with all the attackers killed before they breached the inner compound, The '06 attack in Syria which largely failed with all the attackers killed. I think there was an attack in '08 the failed in Turkey, as well as one in Yemen that failed.

You'll have to help me remember the other 49.

What exactly do you want a CIA team to do to stop a riot?

We also don't exactly like admitting we have CIA teams in hostile foreign countries. You have to consider the possibility of leading the locals back to the CIA compound too, getting everyone there killed as well.

Rioters tend not to bring mortars and employ bracketing tactics to drop them right onto the roof of the CIA Annex. Just saying.

Do you believe that the inaction had malicious intent? Do you genuinely believe that those in power wanted the Benghazi 4 to die? Or do you simply think it was a mistake or a miscalculation or that they were taken by surprise?

The latter. But the mistake perhaps cost lives and at the very least was a dereliction of duty that would give me serious pause that either of them could be trusted to continue in their respective positions.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

What exactly do you want a CIA team to do to stop a riot?

We also don't exactly like admitting we have CIA teams in hostile foreign countries. You have to consider the possibility of leading the locals back to the CIA compound too, getting everyone there killed as well.

Rioters tend not to bring mortars and employ bracketing tactics to drop them right onto the roof of the CIA Annex. Just saying.

And do you fault people for making a decision with the information they had in the fog of war or do you fault people for not having the information you have with the benefit of hindsight?

What exactly do you want a CIA team to do to stop a riot?

We also don't exactly like admitting we have CIA teams in hostile foreign countries. You have to consider the possibility of leading the locals back to the CIA compound too, getting everyone there killed as well.

And apparently that CIA team was 4 guys with 9mm sidearms and not much else. Not a crack counterinsurgent combat team.

Sure, they wanted to go, but that doesn't mean sending them would have been a good tactical decision.

And do you fault people for making a decision with the information they had in the fog of war or do you fault people for not having the information you have with the benefit of hindsight?

At the time they had A) The live camera feed of the Predator drone on site showing an armed, organized attack against the CIA Annex. The had B) Reports from on site, begging for assistance that never came from the Ambassador and the CIA Annex. C) An understanding that Libya was a dangerous, unstable place.

That was the information they had on hand at the time. It is that with which I raise concerns about their decision making.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

What exactly do you want a CIA team to do to stop a riot?

We also don't exactly like admitting we have CIA teams in hostile foreign countries. You have to consider the possibility of leading the locals back to the CIA compound too, getting everyone there killed as well.

And apparently that CIA team was 4 guys with 9mm sidearms and not much else. Not a crack counterinsurgent combat team.

Sure, they wanted to go, but that doesn't mean sending them would have been a good tactical decision.

Except that they were KEY in scraping together the Libyans. Arriving on site, tapping into the Predator Drone that showed the arrival of another assault force and then decided to use the vehicles they brought along with the Libyans to fight their way out rather than wait and be overwhelmed.

Their rapid reaction and decision making saved the day, despite the muddling and foot dragging from superiors.

You'll have to help me remember the other 49.

Here's some (including some you mentioned) after a quick google search.

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al-Qaida attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of “Bali Bombings.” No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al-Qaida terrorists storm the diplomatic compound killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaida terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name “David Foy.” This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what’s considered American soil.)

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting “Allahu akbar” storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

March 18, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaida-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

September 17, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

Skeletal Steve wrote:

You'll have to help me remember the other 49.

Here's some (including some you mentioned) after a quick google search.

Most of these failed to penetrate the inner Embassy. Almost all of those killed were those outside of Embassy security. Each one did not occur over hours, involve constant gun battles with drone surveillance in Washington that decided to provide no combat support to them despite a clear and present need.

What is presented here are quick strikes by small groups that almost all end with the perpetrators killed immediately. We're still rather short of that 54 number. Where did that come from, by the way?

I think the Benghazi deal is really two issues (at least to me). The way the security was handled, who had intel about what and what happened during and after the attack (securing the site) is different from how the administration presented it.

The first part can be described as best as a cluster#$&%, but things happen. During all the chaos the chain of communication could have broken as the situation escalated. Without more detailed proof/information it would be hard to hold the administration directly responsible for what amounts to a risky operation in a dangerous and unstable part of the world. Was the response to the attack handled poorly – yes, scandal – some people should get fired/branded as incompetent but not scandal worthy. How it was managed afterwards was a scandal though.

The problem I see here is the way the administration tried extremely hard to downplay what happened, what they knew when it happened and who the principal aggressors were. The altered talking points and multiple revisions to the story amounts to nothing less than a cover-up. And that is this administrations responsibility on the matter. Obama was trying to sell people on how he vanquished OBL and terrorism in an attempt to paint a fantastic (and fantasy based) picture of the situation. To win an election.
I guess the guys in Lybia didn't get that memo (or in Boston for that matter).

Embassies get attacked - it happens.
On an operational level this fubar can go very high up the chain of command, but I doubt it went all the way up to the POTUS as it was happening where he could have made a difference,and this is from a guy who dislikes the POTUS very, very, very much. I just think that a rapidly changing situation - even with the elapsed time - got to the POTUS at a point where anything he could have ordered would not have mattered/should already have been ordered by the time it really went to hell. I think there are several layers of command and control infrastructure that did have a say and knew what was happening as it was unfolding and dropped the ball big-time. The people responsible in that chain need to identified and dealt with.

How this was pitched during the election and debates was a white washed cover-up perpetrated on the American citizenry. Had they (he) come clean the day after and he said "we were attacked by a terrorist group/this was a planned orchestrated attack" he would have taken his lumps and probably still won. But supra-genius Biden was spouting their "Bin Ladens Dead and GMs Alive!" drivel, and a new terrorist attack (which was the first US Ambassador to die in attack since 1979) didn’t fit into their security narrative. So they downplayed it, lied, bought time till the election was over - pretty much everything that you would need to frame this as a cover-up and scandal.

What is presented here are quick strikes by small groups that almost all end with the perpetrators killed immediately. We're still rather short of that 54 number. Where did that come from, by the way?

Seen this list floating around on Democratic Underground.

meatrace wrote:

Skeletal Steve wrote:

You'll have to help me remember the other 49.

Here's some (including some you mentioned) after a quick google search.

Most of these failed to penetrate the inner Embassy. Almost all of those killed were those outside of Embassy security. Each one did not occur over hours, involve constant gun battles with drone surveillance in Washington that decided to provide no combat support to them despite a clear and present need.

What is presented here are quick strikes by small groups that almost all end with the perpetrators killed immediately. We're still rather short of that 54 number. Where did that come from, by the way?

so.... these attacks don't matter?

Skeletal Steve wrote:

meatrace wrote:

Skeletal Steve wrote:

You'll have to help me remember the other 49.

Here's some (including some you mentioned) after a quick google search.

Most of these failed to penetrate the inner Embassy. Almost all of those killed were those outside of Embassy security. Each one did not occur over hours, involve constant gun battles with drone surveillance in Washington that decided to provide no combat support to them despite a clear and present need.

What is presented here are quick strikes by small groups that almost all end with the perpetrators killed immediately. We're still rather short of that 54 number. Where did that come from, by the way?

so.... these attacks don't matter?

Of course they matter. But the issue at hand is an ongoing attack over hours by an organized force involving artillery clearly seen by a drone on scene with Americans fighting a desperate battle for survival in a tiny building and somebody seeing that and deciding to do nothing.

But we can continue to move the goalposts all over so I can be portrayed as a Republican Apologist, if you so wish.

Freehold DM wrote:

Skeletal Steve wrote:

meatrace wrote:

Skeletal Steve wrote:

You'll have to help me remember the other 49.

Here's some (including some you mentioned) after a quick google search.

Most of these failed to penetrate the inner Embassy. Almost all of those killed were those outside of Embassy security. Each one did not occur over hours, involve constant gun battles with drone surveillance in Washington that decided to provide no combat support to them despite a clear and present need.

What is presented here are quick strikes by small groups that almost all end with the perpetrators killed immediately. We're still rather short of that 54 number. Where did that come from, by the way?

so.... these attacks don't matter?

Of course they matter. But the issue at hand is an ongoing attack over hours by an organized force involving artillery clearly seen by a drone on scene with Americans fighting a desperate battle for survival in a tiny building and somebody seeing that and deciding to do nothing.

But we can continue to move the goalposts all over so I can be portrayed as a Republican Apologist, if you so wish.

if asking your opinion on similar attacks that have occurred is moving goalposts, then we have little to discuss.

thejeff wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

What exactly do you want a CIA team to do to stop a riot?

We also don't exactly like admitting we have CIA teams in hostile foreign countries. You have to consider the possibility of leading the locals back to the CIA compound too, getting everyone there killed as well.

And apparently that CIA team was 4 guys with 9mm sidearms and not much else. Not a crack counterinsurgent combat team.

Sure, they wanted to go, but that doesn't mean sending them would have been a good tactical decision.

Except that they were KEY in scraping together the Libyans. Arriving on site, tapping into the Predator Drone that showed the arrival of another assault force and then decided to use the vehicles they brought along with the Libyans to fight their way out rather than wait and be overwhelmed.

Their rapid reaction and decision making saved the day, despite the muddling and foot dragging from superiors.

Wait. The team that wasn't allowed to go did this?

Just to get this out there, I am a conservative (I hesitate to say Republican). I think all three of these are huge deals. None of which do I want to see Obama impeached for. After all, we elected hi, and any impeachment is a black stain on history for America, and heaven knows he have plenty without impeachment.

Benghazi is a big deal because Obama would rather see four Americans die than proclaim the unspoken but unavoidable fact that the Middle East is still a tumultuous place, filled with radical ideology and a mentality of revenge for slights hundreds, even thousands of years old. The motives for this hesitance however, are hazy at best. Some would like to say that it's because elections were near and Obama wanted to appear to be a strong leader, but I'd like to give him a little more credit than that.

The tax thing is a big deal because a flaky "charity" (I don't have the numbers with me, put they raised quite a hefty sum and donated only a small fraction of it) run by Obama's half-brother, Malik Obama, became tax-exempt within weeks of applying, while conservative groups, such as those associated with the tea-party group, had to wait several months or even a few years to gain the same status. Any real crime? No, but suspicious none-the-less.

The AP scandal, I'll admit, I don't know much about. I just haven't taken the time to research it. As such, I can't comment on it.

Just my two copper-pieces. Please don't tar and feather me.

if asking your opinion on similar attacks that have occurred is moving goalposts, then we have little to discuss.

It's pretty clear what was going on there. What were you expecting me to say? "No, the attacks don't matter because they came under beloved El Presidente Bush, the greatest leader America has ever known?"

The point is that the attacks took place under vastly different circumstances and treating them all as if they were the same is foolish at best, dishonest at worst.

What makes this different is the sequence of events, their relative length and the statements made from those involved in them. Evidence matters, not partisan sniping. Again, come to me with something with similar evidence of poor handling of an ongoing attack of which it was clear those in the chain of command were aware and I will happily have a look at it.

I've yet to see anything like that. So no, I'm not real interested in making this a partisan blame game. Who did what, when, and why in this particular circumstance is all that matters.

Wait. The team that wasn't allowed to go did this?

My understanding was that you were speaking of the CIA/JSOC team in Tripoli that was waiting for a way to get to Benghazi that eventually had to commandeer a Leerjet to fly down there. I was unaware of the armaments, but I do not believe they received orders, but rather made the decision on their own to take the jet and fly to Benghazi, and later paid the pilots 30,000 bucks for their trouble.

The CIA Embassy Security team in the Annex was armed with M4 Carbines and other munitions. So, I naturally assumed you were talking about the CIA/JSOC team. Please inform me if there was another team you were referring to.

Benghazi is a big deal because Obama would rather see four Americans die than proclaim the unspoken but unavoidable fact that the Middle East is still a tumultuous place, filled with radical ideology and a mentality of revenge for slights hundreds, even thousands of years old

So how on earth is getting 5,000 americans killed knowing that no big deal but getting 4 americans killed in that meatgrinder suddenly all anyone can talk about?

Freehold DM wrote:

if asking your opinion on similar attacks that have occurred is moving goalposts, then we have little to discuss.

It's pretty clear what was going on there. What were you expecting me to say? "No, the attacks don't matter because they came under beloved El Presidente Bush, the greatest leader America has ever known?"

The point is that the attacks took place under vastly different circumstances and treating them all as if they were the same is foolish at best, dishonest at worst.

What makes this different is the sequence of events, their relative length and the statements made from those involved in them. Evidence matters, not partisan sniping. Again, come to me with something with similar evidence of poor handling of an ongoing attack of which it was clear those in the chain of command were aware and I will happily have a look at it.

The only reason you have information you have about Benghazi is because 1) The Obama administration is hundreds of times more open with the press than Bush was. 2) Because there have now been 3 hearings about it. The information you have was unearthed through those hearings. The hearings were only launched because of partisan politics.

I'll bet you dollars to donuts that if similar investigations had taken place around any of the other attacks, similar malfeasance would have come to light. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Freehold DM wrote:

if asking your opinion on similar attacks that have occurred is moving goalposts, then we have little to discuss.

It's pretty clear what was going on there. What were you expecting me to say? "No, the attacks don't matter because they came under beloved El Presidente Bush, the greatest leader America has ever known?"

The point is that the attacks took place under vastly different circumstances and treating them all as if they were the same is foolish at best, dishonest at worst.

What makes this different is the sequence of events, their relative length and the statements made from those involved in them. Evidence matters, not partisan sniping. Again, come to me with something with similar evidence of poor handling of an ongoing attack of which it was clear those in the chain of command were aware and I will happily have a look at it.

I've yet to see anything like that. So no, I'm not real interested in making this a partisan blame game. Who did what, when, and why in this particular circumstance is all that matters.

I never said they were the same, that they were poorly handled, that you love bush or anything implied above. I asked if they mattered or not. And considering very very few, if any republicans are involved in the chain of command on the response here, then I'm not going to take your claims of nonpartisanship seriously.

Skeletal Steve wrote:

Freehold DM wrote:

if asking your opinion on similar attacks that have occurred is moving goalposts, then we have little to discuss.

It's pretty clear what was going on there. What were you expecting me to say? "No, the attacks don't matter because they came under beloved El Presidente Bush, the greatest leader America has ever known?"

The point is that the attacks took place under vastly different circumstances and treating them all as if they were the same is foolish at best, dishonest at worst.

What makes this different is the sequence of events, their relative length and the statements made from those involved in them. Evidence matters, not partisan sniping. Again, come to me with something with similar evidence of poor handling of an ongoing attack of which it was clear those in the chain of command were aware and I will happily have a look at it.

The only reason you have information you have about Benghazi is because 1) The Obama administration is hundreds of times more open with the press than Bush was. 2) Because there have now been 3 hearings about it. The information you have was unearthed through those hearings. The hearings were only launched because of partisan politics.

I'll bet you dollars to donuts that if similar investigations had taken place around any of the other attacks, similar malfeasance would have come to light. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So we're back to partisan sniping about what administration X under party X rather than talking about the evidence at hand and wondering why those responsible have not been brought to task and why there are so many unanswered questions about that night and the following morning?

Somehow, the Democratic party is this meek thing that never raised it head if there was a hint of scandal in one of these attacks, it would just let it go by?

This sounds less like a respectful debate and more like political spin. It's disgusting how "B-but THEY DO IT TOO!" finger pointing is now substituted for justice and accepting responsibility for your mistakes. Mistakes by your predecessor in whatever office you serve be it SecDef or Secretary of State or even the President's does not somehow excuse you from culpability. Bush's multitude of mistakes are not excused by Clinton's, and so on down the line.

Beltway people wonder why more and more Americans are fed up with Congress, and every other branch of government. Nobody can admit they made a mistake anymore, and fire or reprimand those responsible even if they are close political allies. Mistakes were made, people died, heads should roll. I don't care if they are Democrats or Republicans that loose their job/suffer reprimands for this failure.

Senior Chief Tyrone Woods, Petty Officer First Class Glen Doherty, Information Manager Sean Smith and Ambassador Christopher Stephens. Their memories and family demand the truth, the unvarnished true from whatever dark hole it may emerge from.

This isn't even counting the events and spin after the fact.

Well, I think the reaction to this thread has proved my point.
This thread was SUPPOSED to be about the AP Leak-gate scandal, and how honorable people throughout the political spectrum ought to be able to agree on how wrong it is.

Instead we have a page of conservatives screaming about the singular non-scandal of Obama's presidency: Benghazi, and defending the clearly partisan witch-hunt surrounding it.

Instead we have a page of conservatives screaming about the singular non-scandal of Obama's presidency: Benghazi, and defending the clearly partisan witch-hunt surrounding it.

That's hardly screaming.

Well, I think the reaction to this thread has proved my point.

This thread was SUPPOSED to be about the AP Leak-gate scandal, and how honorable people throughout the political spectrum ought to be able to agree on how wrong it is.

Instead we have a page of conservatives screaming about the singular non-scandal of Obama's presidency: Benghazi, and defending the clearly partisan witch-hunt surrounding it.

You definitively stated Benghazi was not a scandal in the title of the thread. That is still open to debate as we do not have all the facts in this situation as recent testimony has shown. Apparently anybody who disagrees with you is a "conservative" who is "screaming" about the "singular" "non-scandal" of Obama's Presidency and calling for a "clearly partisan witch-hunt".

Who is the political hack again?

I'm not so sure. I don't think the right particularly cares about the rights of a free press as much as a certain other enumerated right in the constitution.

Even so, trying to link it to Obama would be folly. Holder should resign today, though.

Assuming the story holds up, Holder had recused himself because he'd been questioned in the investigation.

Whether it was legal and/or justified, I don't know. Is tapping a journalism company always wrong, regardless of the reason?
Is the justification just self-serving, after the fact cover? Or was this leak an actual problem that needed drastic measures?

I don't know. We don't know.

Skeletal Steve wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

What exactly do you want a CIA team to do to stop a riot?

We also don't exactly like admitting we have CIA teams in hostile foreign countries. You have to consider the possibility of leading the locals back to the CIA compound too, getting everyone there killed as well.

Rioters tend not to bring mortars and employ bracketing tactics to drop them right onto the roof of the CIA Annex. Just saying.

And do you fault people for making a decision with the information they had in the fog of war or do you fault people for not having the information you have with the benefit of hindsight?

You mean like democrat attacks on Bush over 9-11 and the following wars?

Just to get this out there, I am a conservative (I hesitate to say Republican). I think all three of these are huge deals. None of which do I want to see Obama impeached for. After all, we elected hi, and any impeachment is a black stain on history for America, and heaven knows he have plenty without impeachment.

Benghazi is a big deal because Obama would rather see four Americans die than proclaim the unspoken but unavoidable fact that the Middle East is still a tumultuous place, filled with radical ideology and a mentality of revenge for slights hundreds, even thousands of years old. The motives for this hesitance however, are hazy at best. Some would like to say that it's because elections were near and Obama wanted to appear to be a strong leader, but I'd like to give him a little more credit than that.

The tax thing is a big deal because a flaky "charity" (I don't have the numbers with me, put they raised quite a hefty sum and donated only a small fraction of it) run by Obama's half-brother, Malik Obama, became tax-exempt within weeks of applying, while conservative groups, such as those associated with the tea-party group, had to wait several months or even a few years to gain the same status. Any real crime? No, but suspicious none-the-less.

The AP scandal, I'll admit, I don't know much about. I just haven't taken the time to research it. As such, I can't comment on it.

Just my two copper-pieces. Please don't tar and feather me.

Not only that but the harassment of MUCH more frequent checks. Imagine if the police where mostly one group and they searched members of another different group at much higher frequency yet never found proof of wrongdoing how people would react..oh wait....

You mean like democrat attacks on Bush over 9-11 and the following wars?

The downing street memos and other evidence provide a pretty clear picture that the knew there were no WMD's, and that there was at worst, absolutely no rush to do anything. People told them that in advance.

Andrew R wrote:

You mean like democrat attacks on Bush over 9-11 and the following wars?

The downing street memos and other evidence provide a pretty clear picture that the knew there were no WMD's, and that there was at worst, absolutely no rush to do anything. People told them that in advance.

Uh huh and what about all of the ones talking about how he should have stopped it and that after the first plane it was all his fault for not acting fast enough to stop the rest. Also define WMD, iraq was known to have access to so many chemical/biological weapons it is not funny.

This thread is going bad places. Time to punch out.