- Joined
- Feb 21, 2012
- Messages
- 37,380
- Reaction score
- 10,655
- Location
- US Southwest
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
You can call Petraeus a liar, that is cool with me.
You can call Petraeus a liar, that is cool with me.Amazing that in the face of evidence....black and white, provided by the White House...you continue to deny.
IS it cartoon time?
Your problem is he isn't specifying anything....beyond once again.....that the decision to hold off on naming who might be involved in the attack was not politically motivated.
"It" will fall on State....because State was warned.....that terrorist actions might happen....on embassies....on the anniversary of 9-11?Nah.....if I wanted to throw up a Meme I would have. Petraeus and CBS was good enough.
Don't forget that's because he already knows the State Dept ignored Direct Warnings From the Libyans 48hrs Prior to the attack on the Diplomatic Facility. There's no getting round it will fall on the State Dept.
"It" will fall on State....because State was warned.....that terrorist actions might happen....on embassies....on the anniversary of 9-11?
Is your point that Stevens did not have a calendar?
No I already told you.....it was due to the State Dept being warned by the Libyans 48hrs in advance of the attack. Plus all those ARB Managerial Failures that Mullen's and Pickering found with the State. They got Charlene Lamb, Now Nuland, and of course they are looking into Susan Mills over the Whistleblower Intimidation tactics.
I do believe people have up the Timeline. In like 5 threads. Might want to check it out.
Heya Luther :2wave: .....this is what Slate has up.
I was told there was going to be a cover-up. After reading the 100 pages of emails related to the Benghazi media talking points, I’m hard-pressed to find evidence for the most damning accusations against the president and his staff. If they were involved, they were once again leading from behind.
The cover-up story relies on the premise that Obama administration officials pushed the idea of spontaneity in order to obscure the fact that they had missed warnings of planned terrorist attack. It's plausible that someone was pushing that story for parochial reasons in these email exchanges. Perhaps the CIA put that idea in its first assessment and kept it there in every subsequent version to cover for its failure to stay on top of the al-Qaida affiliates in Benghazi, even though there was a CIA outpost there. It's also obvious that the State Department wanted to shift blame away from its failure to protect its people in Benghazi. But there's no evidence in the emails that the idea of spontaneity was initiated by anyone associated with Obama, the White House, or the president's wider political fortunes. Did Obama benefit from the spontaneity narrative? Yes. But to embrace intelligence from your CIA that is favorable to you—when you have no reason to doubt your intelligence service—is not the same as making up a false story. It’s not even a sin.
Next we come to the claim that the president and his team removed the references to al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations as well as references to prior warnings about terrorist activity. If this were the case, you would expect to see some effort by the White House voices in the email traffic toward this goal. It’s not there. The opposite is the case. In the initial round of emails, one CIA official reports that the White House signed off right away on the full initial CIA assessment. "The White House cleared quickly, but State has major concerns," reads an email that a CIA official sent to CIA director David Petraeus. So rather than being the authors of the bowdlerizing effort, the White House was just fine with the fully caffeinated version that mentions Ansar al-Sharia, al-Qaida, and that the CIA had produced numerous warnings about extremists in Benghazi. White House aides reviewed the talking points, made no substantive changes, and moved them along.
When the language does eventually change in the talking points, it is clear that it is at the behest of State Department officials, not anyone in the White House. When Obama’s aides do come on stage, it’s pretty far in the background. One State Department official writes, "Talked to [NSC spokesman] Tommy [Vietor], we can make edits.” This is hardly the vision of a campaign-obsessed Obama operation pushing a storyline. There have been some sloppy Nixon analogies thrown around this week, so let's remind ourselves for a moment of what a real cover-up sounds like. "I don't give a **** what happens,” President Nixon was recorded saying. “I want you all to stonewall it, let them plead the Fifth Amendment, cover up or anything else if it'll save it—save the plan. That's the whole point. … We're going to protect our people, if we can."
Just because there's no real evidence of the grand White House conspiracy doesn't absolve the president of responsibility for the underlying failures and the shoddy efforts to explain the whole affair. From his first remarks in the Rose Garden, to the exchanges in the debates with Mitt Romney, to the present day, the president has been shading and back-dating what he said shortly after the attack to make it seem like he was aware it was a planned attack when at the time he was encouraging the view that it was a spontaneous one. That's spin and it's lame, but it's a present-day failing unconnected with White House actions last fall. So the president and his aides are guilty—guilty of doing a bad and misleading job of explaining why there was no cover-up. But that’s not the smoking gun Republicans set out to find.....snip~
Right. That's been the admin MO all along. "We know nothing>We did nothing>It's not our fault." Unfortunately for them when it's YOUR ADMINISTRATION you're supposed to know, do and take responsibility for these things. The excuses they are using are the equivalent of someone's 4 year old saying "Wasn't me".
There goes that "it" thingy again, you cannot specify what this "it" is. Secondarily, State was "warned" by a brigade that tensions had risen, that groups had attacked a Brit car carrying an envoy. There was no specific warning about a large group planning an assault on the compound....and if they knew of it, it was their responsibility to take action to prevent or defend....which they didn't do.No I already told you.....it was due to the State Dept being warned by the Libyans 48hrs in advance of the attack.
After the fact and the ARB review:Plus all those ARB Managerial Failures that Mullen's and Pickering found with the State. They got Charlene Lamb, Now Nuland, and of course they are looking into Susan Mills over the Whistleblower Intimidation tactics.
The timelines, like most of your cut and pastes, are full of erroneous data.I do believe people have up the Timeline. In like 5 threads. Might want to check it out.
Well, don't forget he still hasn't made any progress on bringing any to Justice. While having a investigation going on in Libya that ground to complete dead stop. Plus now that CNN and a couple of others are looking into what was going on with the CIA. We might get some more answers.
There goes that "it" thingy again, you cannot specify what this "it" is. Secondarily, State was "warned" by a brigade that tensions had risen, that groups had attacked a Brit car carrying an envoy. There was no specific warning about a large group planning an assault on the compound....and if they knew of it, it was their responsibility to take action to prevent or defend....which they didn't do.
After the fact and the ARB review:
"The ARB did not blame specific individuals, citing instead “systemic” failures."
The timelines, like most of your cut and pastes, are full of erroneous data.
It's a damn shame. Looks like some Republicans should be arrested for fudging the emails. They're mostly CIA defenders anyways. It's bad enough our President ain't the sharpest tack in the rack, but the Republicans keep coming up sucking the hind teet.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?