#Benghazi: Leaks, Resignations and More Questions

Well, the election is over and Benghazi is still here. I’m taking a break from full time blogging, but Benghazi is something I cannot let go without comment nor should any other American out there. We’re being lied to both by this administration and by the media. Having said that, we’ve had some interesting revelations in the last few days.

Days before the election, CBS admits they held back comments made by President Obama in an interview for 60 minutes given the day after the attacks (9/12).  Breitbart via Powerline:

Over at the Breitbart portal, Joel Pollak writes about footage from the 9/12 60 Minutes interview with Barack Obama that CBS left on the cutting room floor until this week. Like so much of the media formerly known as mainstream, CBS News is a hotbed of rabid leftists carefully reporting all the news that fits. At 60 Minutes, the situation is reductio ad absurdum. As Sarah Hoyt observes: “Whether we win or lose, we must make sure the mainstream media are done. The [D]emocrats can pay for their own operatives.”

Even more worthy of note is the stark relief in which this footage places Obama’s continuing liberties with the truth. As Obama’s foremost campaign surrogate put it yesterday: “Who wants a president who will knowingly, repeatedly tell you something he knows isn’t true?” (Dr. Krauthammer, call your office.)

I am taking the liberty of posting Pollak’s report below for the record. Pollak writes:

In an astonishing display of media malpractice, CBS News quietly released proof–two days before the election, far too late to reach the media and the public–that President Barack Obama lied to the public about the Benghazi attack, as well as about his later claim to have called the attack “terrorism” from the beginning.

CBS unveiled additional footage from its 60 Minutes interview with President Obama, conducted on Sep. 12 immediately after Obama had made his statement about the attacks in the Rose Garden, in which Obama quite clearly refuses to call the Benghazi an act of terror when asked a direct question by reporter Steve Kroft:

KROFT: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya Attack, do you believe that this was a terrorism attack?

OBAMA: Well it’s too early to tell exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.

CBS covered for the President. I am sure other outlets did as well. There is no other way to look at this. Hoyt is correct and I’ve already issued this as one of two things I will be pursuing in 2013: Media Bias.

I do not think CBS is alone in this. I think CNN has more to tell as I’ve written before.  We also now have an investigation into information leaked to the NY Times:

It’s also starting to look a bit like the Obama administration was running a Middle East version of Fast and Furious; running guns to rebels, specifically in Syria.

Moving on to the upcoming hearings…

Both the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee have hearings scheduled for November 15th on Benghazi. These are to be closed door hearings involving Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, CIA Director David Petraeus and Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center. The House FAC has invited Hillary Clinton to testify; she has declined.

Petraeus also will not be testifying now. He resigned yesterday when he admitted to having an extramarital affair. The FBI had been on an ‘unrelated’ case when they uncovered communications implicating Petraeus having an affair. It has been indicated that Petraeus waited until after the election to resign because he did not want to embarrass the President. I can buy that; Petraeus by all accounts and actions has been a man of honor and character. I have a few questions about the timing of this resignation aside from not wanting to be an embarrassment before the election.  My personal suspicion is he indeed decided to wait until after the election, but that the announcement of the Benghazi hearing so soon dictated when he resigned. This is my own speculation, but I think Petraeus just shed the only leverage this administration had to keep him silent and he did so in a very public way on purpose.  He is now free to be subpoenaed as a private citizen.

PJ Tatler has updates of note:

UPDATE: The Senate Intelligence Committee announced that Acting CIA Director Michael Morrell will testify Thursday in Petraeus’ place. This doesn’t mean that Petraeus couldn’t be subpoenaed by Congress at some point.

UPDATE: The other woman has been identified as Paula Broadwell, author of All In: The Education of General David Petraeus. Broadwell is married with two young boys. NBC News reports that the FBI was investigating Broadwell for trying to access Petraeus’ email and potentially accessing classified information.

I am sure we will hear more about Broadwell in the days to come. Either she’s really a driven, mercenary-style writer who wants her book(s) on Petraeus to be more thorough than what he has already given her or she’s there to get into classified documents for other purposes. The latter sounds more plausible at this point, however the woman could just be seriously stupid and have dreams of wearing an orange jumpsuit for the rest of her life.

Drudge has this up today:

There were these links with it at the top left of the page:

Petraeus Was Slated to Testify on Benghazi Next Week…
‘Timing Is Just Too Perfect’…
Lawmakers Considered Calling For Resignation Last Month…
FBI SPIED ON CIA DIRECTOR, WOMAN; EMAILS?

Drudge pairs headlines of what everyone’s thoughts are once again.

Let’s get back to the upcoming hearings. With Petraeus and Clinton taking a powder.  I have no idea what this man Morrell will be able to add. I’m assuming a lot of nothing. That leaves Clapper and Olsen. Any bets one or both won’t be able to testify or if they do it’s a series of non-answers? Interestingly, I didn’t see Panetta on the list. Odd since he seems to be the only one doing any and all talking right now. The Pentagon has offered a timeline saying they responded with a strike team from Tripoli. We already knew that but the questions still remained why they weren’t ordered to the consulate straight away, who gave the order and when. Panetta has made two statements recently that should raise eyebrows. One where Panetta claims there was no adequate air support in the region, begging the question, ‘why the HELL NOT?’.

Via the AP:

In a letter to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., on Friday, Panetta specifically addressed the claim that the military could have dispatched armed unmanned aerial vehicles, AC-130 gunships or fighter jets to thwart the attack. Such aircraft were not in the region and not an effective option, he said.

Panetta said that based on a continuous evaluation of threats, military forces were spread around Europe and the Middle East to deal with a variety of missions. In the months before the attack, he noted, “several hundred reports were received indicating possible threats to U.S. facilities around the world” and noted that there was no advance notice of imminent threats to U.S. personnel or facilities in Benghazi.

His explanation, however, did not satisfy McCain. In a statement Friday, McCain said Panetta’s letter, “only confirms what we already knew – that there were no forces at a sufficient alert posture in Europe, Africa or the Middle East to provide timely assistance to our fellow citizens in need in Libya. The letter fails to address the most important question – why not?”

Last Paragraph:

“The U.S. Armed Forces did everything they were in position to do to respond to the attack in Benghazi,” Panetta said in the letter, obtained by The Associated Press. “The department’s senior leaders and I spared no effort to save the lives of our American colleagues, as we worked to bolster security in response to a series of other threats in the region occurring at the same time.”

Clearly you didn’t, sir. Four men are dead. This does not answer any questions put to you so far, but instead raises more.

1. Why their security was cut when clearly the region was hostile?

2. Why wasn’t there more air support in an area we knew to be a hotbed and with reported attacks on our embassies in other parts of the Middle East all that day?  You’re telling me we hadn’t put anything in place air support-wise?

3. Why was Panetta giving the verbal orders? Panetta mentions talking with the President once in an already scheduled meeting unrelated to the attacks. Any support crossing country borders to get to the men would require Executive authority, yet we have Panetta admitting he himself did not give said verbal orders until between midnight and 2 am. The fighting broke out over 7 hours before that and they had a drone showing them the level of assault. Why did he wait that long?

Between midnight and 2 a.m., Panetta began to issue verbal orders, telling two Marine anti-terrorism teams based in Rota, Spain, to prepare to deploy to Libya, and he ordered a team of special operations forces in Central Europe and another team of special operations forces in the U.S. to prepare to deploy to a staging base in Europe.  (AP)

4. Why did this administration and every surrogate for them march out and lie to the American public, pushing an obscure YouTube video as being to blame for a spontaneous protest in Benghazi? This administration clearly knew within the first hour of the assault in Benghazi that this was no protest but a coordinated attack.

President Obama has promised to bring the men who did this to justice. Well, we saw what he did with the scapegoat so one can wonder what they will do with Mohammed Jamal Abu Ahmed, an Islamist freed from jail during the Arab Spring, claiming credit for helping plan the attack that killed our citizens in Benghazi.  Dear President Obama, you built that.

Related Reading:

Instapundit has two links to visit on the Petraeus resignation timing and how he should be called to testify anyway. Also, Instapundit has a ton of Petraeus related links here.

Jim Treacher: Petraeus resigns, and it definitely has nothing to do with Benghazi

Doug Ross: Larwyn’s Linx: The Sudden (and Curious) Departure of David Petraeus

Newsweek: Hey, Whities, You're Old, You're White And You're Finished
Mugshots of the Week: 11/10/12
  • Operafan1

    I am impressed with your Blog. Thank you and keep at it.

    • Hugh_G

      Wow, that’s too bad.

  • fustian24

    There is a rumor that Obama was using this embassy to get arms to Syrian insurgents that happened to be terrorists and thus the administration thought they had a free security pass.

    But does taking aggressive covert military action seem like anything this administration is capable of? They are more apt to avoid action than taking action it seems to me. I can’t help but wonder if this is just the usual internet noise coming from people attempting to explain what on its face is almost criminal negligence in the way the administration outsourced embassy security to guys named Mohammed.

    It is not clear that anything could have been done militarily, but if something WAS possible, this ought to play out pretty poorly for the President. If credible claims that a stand-down order was given to protect a re-election narrative, Obama should be impeached.

    Before we get too enamored of this outcome, I have read what I consider to be credible opinions that there was no legitimate military option. No gunships flying overhead, etc… Others believe there were. This will have to play out over time.

    The Petraeus resignation is interesting. Some people believe that this was some brilliant Machiavellian move by Obama. But I’m not seeing this yet. Petraeus was supposed to testify at the Senate next week as the CIA head. People seem to be implying that since he is no longer CIA head, Petraeus will no longer be testifying. I do not see why his information as former CIA head is not still relevant.

    I also cannot help wondering whether the Obama administration was attempting to blackmail Petraeus with this affair, and he called their bluff by resigning. Now presumably Petraeus would be free to spill the beans to reporters.

    If some could be found.

    • Commander_Chico

      Just the power of the pussy destroying another guy.

    • Commander_Chico

      Just the power of the pussy destroying another guy.

    • Hugh_G

      It’s always a salient comment when the first words are: “There is a rumor.” That’s AKA for a rightwingers wet dream.

      • fustian24

        Just another left-wing moron that took time out of his busy day to name-call.

        With a post suggesting he didn’t actually read what he insulted or didn’t understand it.

        Disappointingly typical.

    • Hugh_G

      It’s always a salient comment when the first words are: “There is a rumor.” That’s AKA for a rightwingers wet dream.

  • GarandFan

    In listening to the MSM this morning, the mantra is all the same. ‘The General had to go! He lost his credibility when he had an affair! He can’t be trusted any longer!’

    Odd. The MSM had no problem with the SERIAL philandering of JFK, LBJ or Slick Willie. Now their suddenly concerned?

    As for the ‘suddenly discovered affair’ – didn’t the General have to undergo a rather stringent background check when he was nominated to chair the CIA over a year ago?

    As for the most recent Benghazi explanation – what version is this now? I’ve lost track.

    Not to worry. Barry is having an ‘investigation’ conducted. Just like Fast and Furious, those responsible will be held accountable. Hahahahahahahaha!!!!!

    • fustian24

      Interestingly, just how is that investigation into those that killed our ambassador going on? Haven’t heard a word. They doing anything at all or are they just talking about it.

      I’m going with the latter.

      It’s been weeks and they don’t have single lead?

      • jim_m

        What do you mean that you haven’t heard a word. The filmmaker is doing another year in jail. Is there anyone else that should be pursued? Certainly not the fanatical muslims the admin is so bent on appeasing.

        • Commander_Chico

          The “filmmaker” was caught forging driver’s licenses, among other probation violations.

          • jim_m

            You are a fool if you think this had nothing to do with Hilary’s vow to get the maker of the film.

            When the federal government blames you for their errors I am sure that we will learn of all sorts of felonies that Chico has committed.

          • Commander_Chico

            This guy was a con-man and shyster. A convicted felon. I hope they offer him early release on the condition he spills the beans on the funding of the video and any foreign government involvement.

          • jim_m

            My point was that the federal government will be capable of painting you in starkly negative terms. Clearly you still think otherwise.

          • Commander_Chico

            This guy was a real crook and a drug dealer, not someone who was framed.

          • jim_m

            Jeez you’re dense. The point was that you would not be framed, but that if the government wants to nail you the laws are sufficiently complex that you will already have committed legitimate crimes to be put away for. You will be a real crook and a fraud.

          • Commander_Chico

            We are talking about Nakoula. Nakoula sold drugs, conned people and forged driver’s licenses. Those are not made-up crimes.

          • 914

            If you do not think this government could conjure up anything they wish to get you out of the picture when they want you are very naive. Who cares about a damn video. I care about the Secret police and tax lawyers being assembled to trample all over our rights. And worse, being paid by us.

          • jim_m

            Jeez you’re dense.

            Did you even bother reading my comments or following the link? I’m hoping the answer is no because if you have you are either being incredibly obtuse and nonresponsive, you are far more stupid than I have previously suspected or you are really drunk.

          • Commander_Chico

            This guy was a con-man and shyster. A convicted felon. I hope they offer him early release on the condition he spills the beans on the funding of the video and any foreign government involvement.

          • jim_m

            You are a fool if you think this had nothing to do with Hilary’s vow to get the maker of the film.

            When the federal government blames you for their errors I am sure that we will learn of all sorts of felonies that Chico has committed.

        • Commander_Chico

          The “filmmaker” was caught forging driver’s licenses, among other probation violations.

      • jim_m

        What do you mean that you haven’t heard a word. The filmmaker is doing another year in jail. Is there anyone else that should be pursued? Certainly not the fanatical muslims the admin is so bent on appeasing.

    • fustian24

      Interestingly, just how is that investigation into those that killed our ambassador going on? Haven’t heard a word. They doing anything at all or are they just talking about it.

      I’m going with the latter.

      It’s been weeks and they don’t have single lead?

    • Commander_Chico

      It’s not a media issue, it’s a security clearance issue. The FBI was looking at it.

      An affair potentially makes you vulnerable to blackmail leading to compromise of secrets. Unlikely in Petraeus’s case, but that’s the rule for top clearances. That’s why they give you a full-scope “lifestyle” polygraph before getting the clearance. I’m curious if Petraeus got a lifestyle poly, or was he waived in with his DOD TS/SCI clearance.

      • jim_m

        Wow even when it slaps you in the face you still cannot see he leftist double standard. That is what willful ignorance looks like folks.

        • Commander_Chico

          You know nothing about security clearances, not qualified to comment on standards.

          • jim_m

            I wasn’t even talking about them. Hence you have reinforced my comment about willful ignorance.

          • Commander_Chico

            Petraeus resigned because he breached security clearance rules. That is the issue. Who’s wilfully ignorant?

          • jim_m

            I’m pointing out that you are quite willing to ignore the double standard where the leftist media is concerned about the affair in this case but has no concern what so ever with other individuals. Their concern in this instance is purely political and borne of convenience. THAT was the point of GarandFan’s comment and you are completely oblivious to it. This was not about whether there is a security clearance issue, the MSM are completely transparent in their duplicity.

          • Commander_Chico

            The MSM did not cover the affair until Petraeus resigned. He resigned because of the security clearance issue. That is the reason for the story, not the affair.

          • jim_m

            I’m done Chico. you are clearly not sober. I have tried to plainly and clearly explain how it is not about his security clearance issue that it is about how the media is very serious about the character issue in someone who it is very convenient to have a character issue in but does not have the same character issue in those they support.

            The point is that you and the MSM are amoral and you are so without moral compass that it is nearly impossible to explain the issue to you in any way that you can understand.

          • GarandFan

            Hey NUMBNUTS! The MSM mantra was that he had to go! He had an AFFAIR! He could no longer be TRUSTED!

            I made the comment that the SERIAL PHILANDERING of JFK, LBJ and Slick Willie DID NOT AFFECT THEIR SECURITY CLEARANCE OR ABILITY TO BE ‘TRUSTED’.

            Get the point now? Or is the freaking hypocrisy so ingrained, it’s just like breathing air?

          • Brucehenry

            There was no “mantra.” It’s not like the world found out about the affair and then Petraeus tried to stonewall for a few days until a “mantra” developed. The world did not know of the affair until the guy resigned because he had it.

            Therefore the comparison to the philandering former presidents is invalid.

          • GarandFan

            3 different “reporters”, 3 different channels. Right Bruce.

            “Petraeus tried to stonewall”………that’s a new one. How did he “stonewall”?

            “Therefore the comparison to the philandering former presidents is invalid.”

            “Invalid”? BULLSHIT! “Inconvenient” is the term your looking for.

            Nice try……but the hypocrisy still reeks.

          • Brucehenry

            Hey, ummmm, “Numbnuts”…. I said IT’s NOT LIKE Petraeus tried to stonewall.

            There was no “mantra” that Petraeus can’t be trusted because of the affair, because the first time anyone HEARD of the affair was in the resignation letter.

            Unless you mean that there has been a “mantra” SINCE the resignation, but that would be, ummm, stupid. It’s not a “mantra,” it’s analysis. Because several monday-morning-quarterbacks say the same thing doesn’t make it a “mantra.”

          • GarandFan

            “Because several monday-morning-quarterbacks say the same thing doesn’t make it a “mantra.”

            Would you prefer “theme”? Yeah…….until it hits them the same can be said of several former Democratic presidents…and an alcoholic Senator.

          • Brucehenry

            Hey, ummmm, “Numbnuts”…. I said IT’s NOT LIKE Petraeus tried to stonewall.

            There was no “mantra” that Petraeus can’t be trusted because of the affair, because the first time anyone HEARD of the affair was in the resignation letter.

            Unless you mean that there has been a “mantra” SINCE the resignation, but that would be, ummm, stupid. It’s not a “mantra,” it’s analysis. Because several monday-morning-quarterbacks say the same thing doesn’t make it a “mantra.”

          • Commander_Chico

            He had already resigned by the time the story broke. He had to go because of the affair, yes, but because of the security issue. Again, what the MSM said had nothing to do with what happened.

          • GarandFan

            To quote you:

            “An affair potentially makes you vulnerable to blackmail leading to
            compromise of secrets. Unlikely in Petraeus’s case, but that’s the rule for top clearances.”

            That’s “the rule”? Odd, as I mentioned earlier, didn’t seem to apply to JFK, Splash, LBJ, or Slick Willie. Guess if you’re a Democrat it’s to be expected, so no need to worry. Right?

          • retired.military

            I am curios Chico.
            Having had a TS SBI with SCIF access myself.
            Since the affair has come out there is no need for his resignation since he cant be blackmailed by it now. When I worked at NSA I knew of at least 2 couples that had ongoing affairs with others in the work place who went through the 5 year reinvestigation, had the affairs come out, told their spouses, and kept their jobs.
            This should not be a reason for his resignation.

        • Commander_Chico

          You know nothing about security clearances, not qualified to comment on standards.

      • jim_m

        Wow even when it slaps you in the face you still cannot see he leftist double standard. That is what willful ignorance looks like folks.

    • Commander_Chico

      It’s not a media issue, it’s a security clearance issue. The FBI was looking at it.

      An affair potentially makes you vulnerable to blackmail leading to compromise of secrets. Unlikely in Petraeus’s case, but that’s the rule for top clearances. That’s why they give you a full-scope “lifestyle” polygraph before getting the clearance. I’m curious if Petraeus got a lifestyle poly, or was he waived in with his DOD TS/SCI clearance.

    • Hugh_G

      Well it might have something to do with the rules of the CIA. It’s pretty fundamental in that organization that adultery is grounds for dismissal (a compromised person). So if the troops have to go so, obviously does the boss – of the CIA anyway.

      As for the right’s hope and dream about a “Benghazegate” any bromide will help to soothe the pretty devastating loss of election day. Have fun with it! Next thing you know some loon from the right will be shooting up watermelons in the back yard. Or perhaps even another juicy story such as Hillary Clinton was behind it all to cover up her travel vouchers.

      • GarandFan

        Yeah Hugh, your Obamassiah has initiated another “investigation”. Just like he did on Fast and Furious.

        And where did that one go? More Kool Aid?

        • Hugh_G

          Well first of all he’s not my Messiah. Jesus Christ is. Our president’s a progressive, good president whom I respect.

          Secondly, you can keep a hoping and a wishing and conjuring up typical rightwing bullshit for 4 more years or you can just accept that your brand of bullshit has been found out.

          Have fun shooting up all those watermelons now. I’m going to enjoy your pain for the next 4 years and more likely longer than that.

          • GarandFan

            Feel better? Now as to answering to what I actually asked. Conveniently down the ol’ selective memory hole again.

            Mr. Bullshit. And I doubt 2 dead US agents and 200+ dead Mexican citizens don’t consider “Fast and Furious” to be “right-wing bullshit”.

          • Hugh_G

            cf. Above comment, particularly about shooting up watermelons.

            You might want to start taking something for your dyspeptic
            disorder. Otherwise you may start bleeding in the stomach lining.

          • GarandFan

            Actually, I’m laughing my ass off at your expense at the moment. But thanks for your concern about my health.

          • GarandFan

            Actually, I’m laughing my ass off at your expense at the moment. But thanks for your concern about my health.

          • Hugh_G

            cf. Above comment, particularly about shooting up watermelons.

            You might want to start taking something for your dyspeptic
            disorder. Otherwise you may start bleeding in the stomach lining.

          • GarandFan

            Feel better? Now as to answering to what I actually asked. Conveniently down the ol’ selective memory hole again.

            Mr. Bullshit. And I doubt 2 dead US agents and 200+ dead Mexican citizens don’t consider “Fast and Furious” to be “right-wing bullshit”.

  • GarandFan

    In listening to the MSM this morning, the mantra is all the same. ‘The General had to go! He lost his credibility when he had an affair! He can’t be trusted any longer!’

    Odd. The MSM had no problem with the SERIAL philandering of JFK, LBJ or Slick Willie. Now their suddenly concerned?

    As for the ‘suddenly discovered affair’ – didn’t the General have to undergo a rather stringent background check when he was nominated to chair the CIA over a year ago?

    As for the most recent Benghazi explanation – what version is this now? I’ve lost track.

    Not to worry. Barry is having an ‘investigation’ conducted. Just like Fast and Furious, those responsible will be held accountable. Hahahahahahahaha!!!!!

  • 914

    Petraeus betrayus comes to mind… Resigns right after the election. Why not a week before? We all know why. The massive cover up of Barry’s malfeasance continues.

    Barry flee’s town again. Thinking he is in the clear. Not!

  • 914

    Petraeus betrayus comes to mind… Resigns right after the election. Why not a week before? We all know why. The massive cover up of Barry’s malfeasance continues.

    Barry flee’s town again. Thinking he is in the clear. Not!

  • http://www.oss.net RobertDavidSTEELEVivas

    I and several other veterans have created a chart you can repost, use it any way you want! This shows all US military assets KNOWN to be 1-2 hours from Benghazi during the SEVEN HOURS that passed from time of State notification to the White House, to time of death of the first two US citizens.

    http://tinyurl.com/DoDBenghaziMap

    • Commander_Chico

      That is the most retarded chart I’ve ever seen. For one thing, 173rd Abn Bde was in Afghanistan at the time. And what would a C-130 or a P-3 do?

      • Carl

        Careful, facts make their heads explode — then you have orange jello everywhere.

      • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

        Depends what was on the C-130… but I agree, that chart shows what MIGHT be somewhere, not what was applicable to the problem at hand.

        • http://www.oss.net RobertDavidSTEELEVivas

          Actually, the chart was based on known current assets.

          • Commander_Chico

            Except you didn’t “know” 173rd Abn was in Afghanistan.

      • http://www.oss.net RobertDavidSTEELEVivas

        The ( – ) means left overs, enough to put a squad on a plane, and any aircraft capable of buzzing the place could have bought time — you ever been fried by afterburner? There are a lot of very ignorant comments on this blog — for example, adultery at CIA gets you a gold star, not dismissal. In any event, “Commander Chico” you need to get back to your bathtub.

        • Commander_Chico

          Yeah a P-3 buzzing people with dushkas and a squad of left-behind staffies (most likely with health issues) charging into Libya with no planning. That would have worked.

    • Commander_Chico

      That is the most retarded chart I’ve ever seen. For one thing, 173rd Abn Bde was in Afghanistan at the time. And what would a C-130 or a P-3 do?

    • 914

      I reposted on My facebook TY

  • http://www.oss.net RobertDavidSTEELEVivas

    I and several other veterans have created a chart you can repost, use it any way you want! This shows all US military assets KNOWN to be 1-2 hours from Benghazi during the SEVEN HOURS that passed from time of State notification to the White House, to time of death of the first two US citizens.

    http://tinyurl.com/DoDBenghaziMap

  • Commander_Chico

    Give it up. Ten times as many Americans have died in Afghanistan since Benghazi happened.

    You’d be better off asking why they died.

    • 914

      They are in a war zone. Apparently our ambassadors are as well.

      • Commander_Chico

        Libya was also a war zone, as is Iraq, Yemen, Congo and other places diplomats operate.

    • herddog505

      OK: I’ll bite. Tell us why Barry (who is SOOOOO much better than Romney would have been, what with wanting to start a nuclear war with Australia or whatever) is still sending men to die in the quagmire of A-stan.

      Next, you can tell us why there’s some sort of scale such that, if only X number of Americans die, we’re not supposed to give a sh*t or ask questions about it (though we ARE supposed to toss a filmmaker in the klink and hope he spills the beans about how the JOOOOOS put him up to it).

      • jim_m

        We’re not supposed to care how many Americans die as long as a dem is in the White House. That has always been how the left is. They will tear down this nation if anyone else is President. They would rather there be no USA if they cannot control it.

        • Hugh_G

          Oh how bitter the next 4++++ years it will be for haters such as you. I shall enjoy it.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            What is it with the ‘hate’ thing? You can’t stand (or apparently understand) simple disagreement, so you’ve got to morph it in your mind into hatred?

            Very weird, I’ve got to say…

          • Hugh_G

            Well there’s the difference. I see it one way you see it another.

            I read you as one who has reasonable and simple disagreement. jim_m, to me, goes clearly beyond that.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Yeah, it’s kind of funny about that – you accuse someone of hate often enough, they get kind of resentful of it. They might end up going – “Well, fuck. If I’m going to get accused of it, I might as well be as hateful as possible. Why be reasonable?”

            But yet – I don’t see Jim_m as being hateful or racist. I see him pointing out some glaring inconsistencies and serious concerns, and being pretty frustrated because apparently his thoughts aren’t even worth considering.

            But you apparently say mine are, for which I thank you. So can I get you to look at his, bit by bit, with my own commentary?

            “We’re not supposed to care how many Americans die as long as a dem is in the White House.”

            Before Obama got elected, the actions we were taking in the ME were almost chronicled by body count. Since then – it honestly doesn’t seem that how many die is a newsworthy event. In the case of a chopper crash – 5-10 dead would have been front-page news. Now, it barely rates third-page, maybe further back. What conclusion would you draw? That people are tired of the war? That maybe deaths aren’t news any more? That the emphasis changed right after Obama was elected COULD be a coincidence. But it doesn’t look like it to me.

            “That has always been how the left is.”

            This is a bit of a generalization, but not all that much. IF the relative importance of the deaths was the same as under a Republican President, THEN there should be the same notice and outcry. Why isn’t there?

            “They will tear down this nation if anyone else is President.”

            An exaggeration, but when you’ve already got Reid on record as saying he wasn’t going to be passing anything through Congress from the House re fiscal measures, and seeing how he’s blocked all attempts at budgets for the last three years, I wonder just how much of an exaggeration it actually is. He doesn’t seem to be taking it (the financial problems we’re having) seriously, that’s for sure.

            Then again, it could just be Reid being a dick. I don’t take his actions as being emblematic of the entire party – but in a top-down organization like the House and Senate, who is in control has a real effect on subordinate policy, and if that’s what he wants (and he decidedly wields enough power to influence others) then that’s what they’ll do or face party disapproval. Party disapproval means that whatever YOU want to get done won’t stand a chance.

            (Do I think that the folks in the House and Senate are so party-politic bound that they’ll put Party ahead of Country? 20 years ago, I wouldn’t have thought it. Even 10 years ago, I would have been reluctant to think it. But seeing how the last 10 years have gone, I’m really starting to have my doubts that the Democrats can see beyond party affiliation. Reid, at least, has lost sight of the whole picture – and as the head of the Senate, can enforce what he wants done, or not done.)

            “They would rather there be no USA if they cannot control it.”

            See the actions of Reid. We’re in dire financial straits, and he engages in fiscal pissing contests, and seems to enjoy them. For all the blame coming from the Democrats for the non-cooperation of the Republicans on this matter, there doesn’t seem to be any good-faith cooperation from the Democrats in the first place. At the least, I’d say Reid and Pelosi were psychotic control freaks who won’t let anyone else play if they can’t dictate exactly what the others can do.

            Of course, what incentive is there for them to cooperate in the first place? If they do actually cut spending (as opposed to the usual ‘we’ll cut the rate of scheduled increase, and say we’re slashing the budget’) then they lose power and influence. If Reid stays in his position like it looks he will, he’ll be able to force things to his liking – and if it all goes pear-shaped, it’s not going to affect him. At the very worst, he gets bounced out of office at the next election, but he’s got enough socked away that a massive Depression isn’t going to inconvenience him in the slightest during his lifetime. (The rest of us aren’t going to be so lucky.)

            In the mean time, he’s in essential control of the most powerful country in the world. No legislation even GETS to the President without his say-so. For a control freak, that’s got to be a near orgasmic thrill. He might not be President, but that’s got to be the next best thing for him.

            So,,, that’s my thinking on what Jim’s posted. Am I full of hate, or am I simply disagreeing?

          • Hugh_G

            I appreciate your thoughtful analysis, some of which I agree with, some of which I don’t. You are not full of hate. I still believe Jim is and I make that statement based on his overall posts.

            That said – look at his response to me and mine to him on the Newsweek thread. What you see as frustration I see a different way. In particular his blanket statements that democrats (this means all) are racists. His views of blacks are abhorrent – his statements indicating that THEY are ignorant and stupid without having the honesty to just say it. Of course he would deny that.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Would you say a meth addict is ignorant, or stupid? Or would you say they’re uncaring about what happens to them or the rest of the world so long as they get what they want?

            So long as they get what they want no matter the cost?

            Ignorance and stupidity are two different things. Ignorance can be cured, given a mindset that WANTS it to be cured, and the resources to cure it. (I’d argue that you can have one and not the other, and you’re going to still keep ignorance around. But having both isn’t a guarantee you’re going to succeed, it just makes success more likely.) There’s a large swath of the black cultural environment that has rejected ‘white knowledge’, and sees no value in an education. It isn’t relevant to what their lives are. I don’t think it’s racist to state that – at least, I hope it isn’t.

            Blacks post-Civil War knew the value of an education. They saw what it could get them, and wanted it. They wanted it enough to start institutions such as Tuskegee University. They were SERIOUS about knowledge and education, wanted it, because that was their way to a better life.

            Now it seems all their so-called leadership wants is handouts, not a hand up. They want money thrown at the problem – but the problem isn’t changing appreciably in response to resources expended, so you’ve got to wonder what’s changed.

            The schools… man, don’t get me started on the schools. The resources are there, but they’re social centers, not educational ones for the most part. If a student doesn’t want to learn, there’s no way to force him. You can expel them for bad behavior, but from talking with teacher friends it’s difficult to do. Classroom discipline as you or I might have known it is a thing of the past, and the parents (or more likely ‘parent’) isn’t involved in the educational process past a “he goes to school, it’s your job after that” point. And at a certain point (12-14 or so) the peer group has a much larger influence on the student than the parents or teachers do.

            Is there stupidity? No, not so much. I think there’s a ‘I’m getting something free (whether it be handouts, welfare, or whatever) so why do I have to exert effort to improve things?’ mindset that is completely color-independent.

            (Even suffered from that myself at one point. I was getting enough income that I could get by, so why exert myself to get more? I realized one day that if I wanted ANYTHING more than subsistence, I’d have to get off my ass. And even almost 30 years later, I kind of miss that period of my life. Don’t want to repeat it, but it was kind of nice having no real responsibilities…)

            I don’t call that stupidity, it’s more a case of just not caring.

            And I repeat – that’s NOT, by the way, restricted to any particular color. It isn’t melanin dependent, or a genetic trait. It’s a learned behavior, gotten from peers, from parents, and from a system that really doesn’t much care if you get off your ass or not.

            That mindset is a killer of initiative, and makes you think education simply isn’t important. And yes, that goes for a lot of whites as well.

            “Ignorance can be cured, given a mindset that WANTS it to be cured, and the resources to cure it.”

            So we’ve essentially done a 180, from a mindset that wanted ignorance to be cured but didn’t have the resources, to having all sorts of resources available but a mindset that just doesn’t much care to exert itself to fix the problem. And the problem CAN be fixed – in time. But it’s going to require a massive rearrangement of thinking…

            In the end, look to see which party facilitates the persistence of that mindset. Which party promises more handouts? Which party proposes cutting back?

            Which party would people who have become used to handouts, no matter how corrosive they might be to personal initiative and to their local environment, be more inclined to vote for?

            Is it racist to point out that there’s programs which, though well-meaning, are likely really bad for society, or at the least aren’t producing results that are commensurate with money and effort expended?

            Are Democrats racist? Or do they simply want to keep a voter base locked in? Hell, what party WOULDN’T like a built in percentage of people they know can be counted on to be absolutely loyal, no matter what?

            Which brings me back to my original question…

            Is the meth addict stupid or ignorant? I’d postulate no – they can see what it’s doing to them, they know what the end result is likely to be. Physical and mental deterioration, family problems, great amounts of no fun at all with law enforcement, fiscal ruination, likely death.

            But they don’t care. There’s one thing that’s important to them, no matter what it ends up costing them in the long run.

            And maybe I’m just tired, bitter and cynical this morning – but that’s kind of the way I see the Democrats going. Power is their meth. They’ll do whatever they’ve got to in order to maintain it. And if that includes keeping a wide swath of voters locked into an entitlement mentality, then that’s the breaks and it sucks to be them.

          • Hugh_G

            With regard to the addict I know a lot. I am a recovering one and have worked in the treatment field for 21 years. First, they have a disease. That is not an excuse for behavior and bad choice. Some are very intelligent and successful people. While in addiction addicts are uncaring about the consequences of their actions on others.

            When you talk about issues related to blacks there is no single or simple explanation. I grew up in a segregated town until I was 12. In our church (catholic) they had to sit up in a balcony of a secondary church out in the country – this was from 1949 to 1958 when we moved to New jersey. My parents would occasionally sit in the balcony with them and my older sisters sat in the balcony in the movie theater with them. My father(a physician) would not do business with the local drug store because of the segregated lunch counter. No one can possibly relate to the experience of blacks in this country. I cannot understand the mindset of people

            who are racist. My parents taught me that value. I marched with my father in civil rights marches and I still don’t understand

            how blacks feel or what there experiences were.

            I don’t believe that democrats (not including the racists and there were and are some still) believed in using blacks for a voting block by giving them “things.” in order to make them defendant. Not one white person II know has one whit of understanding of the experiences, treatment and struggles of the black community.

            What I do agree with you about is that the education system has utterly and completely failed blacks and other minorities as well. Even Bush’s program No Child Left Behind has been a failure. Here in Iowa there is a continuing struggle amongst Republicans and Democrats on how best to improve our education – and much of it has to do with the old and trite differences in philosophies of the 2 parties. And for God’s sake we have a 93% white population here. The old bromide that it the teachers unions is nonsense. Is it a factor? Absolutely, but there are many other issues and differences as well.

            Power is the meth of both parties for heavens sake. The system is corrupt and is corrupted by money on both sides. Good lord Rove et al thought they could buy this election. Thankfully, the view of the electorate as stupid and unknowing was just proven false.

            I too am a cynic but you and you I have different political philosophies I believe the cynic in us makes us see things they may well not be the reality in one anthers views but at least we can speak to one another civilly. Lastly, I was a history major and I love history. History in this country says everything will ultimately be OK. It really isn’t Armagedan when our guys aren’t in control.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            You hit it.

            “That is not an excuse for behavior and bad choice. Some are very intelligent and successful people. While in addiction addicts are uncaring about the consequences of their actions on others.”

            And we have politicians unconcerned about anything but their power. They don’t care about the effects of what they’ve got to do to get it. They’re addicted – which, as you point out, isn’t an excuse for behavior and bad choices. It’s a reason.

            And in the pursuit of their drug of choice, the additional damage they wreak through either neglect of their responsibilities or sheer grasping greed or need to control others can be the difference between subsistence or prosperity. And it’s hard to argue that the current administration’s been doing its bit to keep America prosperous…

            “History in this country says everything will ultimately be OK. It really isn’t Armagedan when our guys aren’t in control.”

            I agree. As I’ve posted elsewhere, the sun still shines, water still flows, compared to the 1930s we’re incalculably better off. We’re not going to descend into a Dark Ages quickly because of one election.

            But.

            If you study history, you’ll know that civilizations seem to have a self-limiting time span. I’d submit that the time span is probably the point at which more than half of the population of said civilization decides they don’t need to contribute anything to the maintenance of said civilization, that they feel they’re owed. And we’re actually perilously close to that point at present. What comes post-USA? I really don’t know…

            But anyhow – good talking with you. We’ll have to do this again sometime. But for me, the day (and the family) is calling… Hope your day goes well!

          • 914

            Enjoy the entitlements while you can simpleton. The gravy train wont last too much longer.

          • Hugh_G

            And what “entitlements” would those be since you seem to know?

            By the way, my effective tax rate was 50% higher than the man who despises the “47%”.

        • Hugh_G

          Oh how bitter the next 4++++ years it will be for haters such as you. I shall enjoy it.

      • Commander_Chico

        I don’t know why troops are still in Afghanistan. That’s one reason I didn’t vote for Barry. I just point out the hypocrisy of remaining silent on that issue while beating this red herring.

    • http://www.oss.net RobertDavidSTEELEVivas

      I agree with you on this. Benghazi is a microcosm of everything that is wrong with the USG. It was a CIA base, not a consulate, so State felt no obligation to protect. CIA did a Khost Kathy on it. Pentagon was conflicted, and most of the problem appears to be the Secretary of Defense having fears at the same time that US national intelligence could not provide useful information (but to dismiss the clear reporting from the people under attack, and to leave them hanging for seven hours, is in my view reprehensible. We need to hear from General Ham. Benghazi is not as bad as all the death we have rained upon others and our own for 200 years, but it is a useful public learning opportunity, and that is why I am paying attention to it.

      • Commander_Chico

        Well, I agree with you it is a lesson, but just one among many in how our meddling around the world is going to produce losses.

        The guys who died knew the risks they were taking. They deserve credit for being willing to take those risks. They were living on the sharp edge of existentialism.

  • Commander_Chico

    Give it up. Ten times as many Americans have died in Afghanistan since Benghazi happened.

    You’d be better off asking why they died.

  • Guest88888

    I now DEMAND a full investigation of the Bush administration’s foreign affairs, such as WMD’s and treatment of POW’s. I want answers that we the public never received by the administration, and the media’s neglect of the subject!!!

    • 914

      If there was anything it would have become public knowledge via the shitstream media long before now. Barry’s college transcripts however, are attached to his medical records and locked away in a dark crypt in area 51.

  • Brian_R_Allen

    I’m laying New York City to a single brick Zero, to provide cover for Zero’s perfidy with regard the calculated sacrifice of Mr Stephens et al to political expediency, attempted to blackmail Mr Petraeus with publication of the fact of the latter’s sexual dalliances.

    And Mr Petraeus showed him the bird!

    The Truth will out.

    And there endeth the Zero “legacy.”

  • http://www.oss.net RobertDavidSTEELEVivas

    ( – ) is home base. I cannot help you.

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE