Octopus Overlords

Holman wrote:So why is Benghazi a "coverup" instead of just Fog of War against a backdrop of similar rioting elsewhere? The administration erred in forcefully asserting one interpretation without a 100% solid basis, but that's not the same as lying and scheming, is it?

Did Obama claim they were using yellowcake uranium or something?

Freezer-TPF- wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

Anonymous Bosch wrote:It may not matter to the average voter whether the administration declared the Benghazi attack an act of terror within one day or ten days later. But it is likely to matter if the administration was purposely dissembling, and knowingly putting forward a false mob-violence narrative in an attempt to cover up any perceived foreign policy shortcomings in an election year.

+1.

minus election year since this would matter at any time during a president's term imo.

In other words, you're both agreeing with the FoxNews/Hannity analysis of the situation.

Exodor wrote:I think I'm being stalked by Obama.

just appeared in my Inbox wrote:According to our records associated with this exact email address, it looks like you made a donation to the 2008 campaign, but haven't yet this time:

-- Total you've donated for the 2012 campaign cycle: $0
-- Your most recent donation was on this date: August 29, 2008

Rip wrote: I would say the coverup was more about the mountain of intel and communications that would have made all but the most obtuse aware that an attack in Libya was a matter of when not if. I would say there was a desire to not present the attack as preplanned in hopes that the numerous intel reports and letters from the ambassador that security was very vulnerable.

It is easy to say "there was nothing we could have done" when it is a spontaneous act arising from anger about a video. It becomes much more difficult when the reality that it was an attack planned for weeks if not months and that internal alarms had been sounding in warning for weeks prior to. They would still be lying about it if the truth had been something they could have kept out of public knowledge.

An analysis by The Associated Press of data tracking the health of the gun industry shows that sales are on the rise, so much that some gun manufacturers can't make enough guns fast enough. Major gun company stock prices are up. The number of federally licensed, retail gun dealers is increasing for the first time in nearly 20 years. The NRA is bursting with cash and political clout. And Washington has expressed little interest in passing new gun laws, despite renewed calls to do so after recent deadly shootings in Colorado and Wisconsin.

GreenGoo wrote:

just appeared in my Inbox wrote:According to our records associated with this exact email address, it looks like you made a donation to the 2008 campaign, but haven't yet this time:

-- Total you've donated for the 2012 campaign cycle: $0
-- Your most recent donation was on this date: August 29, 2008

Yes, that's true, thank you for noticing. I hope you take this to heart and do some soul searching as to why former supporters are reluctant to give this campaign any money, despite nearly daily solicitations.

Good luck in the future,

Former Obama supporter.

RLMullen wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

just appeared in my Inbox wrote:According to our records associated with this exact email address, it looks like you made a donation to the 2008 campaign, but haven't yet this time:

-- Total you've donated for the 2012 campaign cycle: $0
-- Your most recent donation was on this date: August 29, 2008

Yes, that's true, thank you for noticing. I hope you take this to heart and do some soul searching as to why former supporters are reluctant to give this campaign any money, despite nearly daily solicitations.

Good luck in the future,

Former Obama supporter.

Are you saying that as a citizen of Canada, you made a contribution to Obama's campaign in 2008?

Someone is sure to correct me, but I thought it was illegal for candidates for federal office to accept donations from non-US citizens? Didn't either the Clinton or Gore campaign get in a load of trouble for taking contributions from Chinese businessmen?

We may need to launch a probe into Obama's campaign financing for 2008 and 2012!!

RLMullen wrote:Are you saying that as a citizen of Canada, you made a contribution to Obama's campaign in 2008?

Someone is sure to correct me, but I thought it was illegal for candidates for federal office to accept donations from non-US citizens? Didn't either the Clinton or Gore campaign get in a load of trouble for taking contributions from Chinese businessmen?

We may need to launch a probe into Obama's campaign financing for 2008 and 2012!!

RLMullen wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

just appeared in my Inbox wrote:According to our records associated with this exact email address, it looks like you made a donation to the 2008 campaign, but haven't yet this time:

-- Total you've donated for the 2012 campaign cycle: $0
-- Your most recent donation was on this date: August 29, 2008

Yes, that's true, thank you for noticing. I hope you take this to heart and do some soul searching as to why former supporters are reluctant to give this campaign any money, despite nearly daily solicitations.

Good luck in the future,

Former Obama supporter.

Are you saying that as a citizen of Canada, you made a contribution to Obama's campaign in 2008?

Someone is sure to correct me, but I thought it was illegal for candidates for federal office to accept donations from non-US citizens? Didn't either the Clinton or Gore campaign get in a load of trouble for taking contributions from Chinese businessmen?

We may need to launch a probe into Obama's campaign financing for 2008 and 2012!!

Freezer-TPF- wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

Anonymous Bosch wrote:It may not matter to the average voter whether the administration declared the Benghazi attack an act of terror within one day or ten days later. But it is likely to matter if the administration was purposely dissembling, and knowingly putting forward a false mob-violence narrative in an attempt to cover up any perceived foreign policy shortcomings in an election year.

+1.

minus election year since this would matter at any time during a president's term imo.

In other words, you're both agreeing with the FoxNews/Hannity analysis of the situation. Do you think the attempted cover up was also staged to avoid hurting the terrorists' feelings?

The most disgraceful statement of this whole episode is Romney's rush to claim that the President failed to condemn the attacks and instead sympathized with the attackers.

RLMullen wrote:
Are you saying that as a citizen of Canada, you made a contribution to Obama's campaign in 2008?

Rip wrote: There are already rumors about foreign contributions to Obama. I remember people saying that was why he was off first debate.

Rip wrote:
There are already rumors about foreign contributions to Obama. I remember people saying that was why he was off first debate.

GreenGoo wrote:

Rip wrote: There are already rumors about foreign contributions to Obama. I remember people saying that was why he was off first debate.

Those are highly credible rumours I assume.

El Guapo wrote:

Rip wrote:
There are already rumors about foreign contributions to Obama. I remember people saying that was why he was off first debate.

I'm probably going to regret asking this, but what? How would that have impacted the debate?

Zarathud wrote:Rip is just nostalic for the days when the intelligence community had definite information about 9/11, al-queda and WMDs in Iraq. You know, Romney didn't NEED to get any information to beat FOX News in making assumptions about what happened in Benghazi!

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

After the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi had been damaged by an improvised explosive device, earlier that month, Stevens had reported to his superiors that an Islamist group had claimed credit for the attack, and in so doing, had "described the attack as targeting the Christians supervising the management of the consulate."
"Islamic extremism appears to be on the rise in eastern Libya," the ambassador wrote, adding that "the Al-Qaeda flag has been spotted several times flying over government buildings and training facilities ..."
The documents also contain evidence that the State Department's denials of requests for enhanced security in Benghazi in the months leading up to the attack may have contributed to the ability of the attackers to plan their assault on the consulate and annex grounds without being detected.
"I've been placed in a very difficult spot," said Eric A. Nordstrom, the regional security officer who testified before a House hearing last week, in a Feb. 12 email to a colleague, "when the ambassador (Gene Cretz, at that time) that I need to support Benghazi but can't direct MSD (a mobile security detachment) there and been advised that DS (Diplomatic Security) isn't going to provide more than 3 agents over the long term."
"DS is hesitant to devout (sic) resources and as I indicated previously, this has severely hampered operations in Benghazi," wrote Karen Keshap, a State Department manager, to main State in Washington the day before. "That often means that DS agents are there guarding a compound with 2 other DOS (Department of State) personnel present. That often also means that outreach and reporting is non-existent."
Earlier that day, Feb. 11, a colleague of Keshap's, Shawn P. Crowley, had apologized to her and other officials in an email for "being a broken record" on the subject of inadequate security in Benghazi. Crowley added: "(T)omorrow Benghazi will be down to two (DS) agents. ... This will leave us unable to do any outreach to Libyan nationals ... and we will be extremely limited in the ability to obtain any useful information for reporting."
These exchanges followed a dire report to top DS officials a few days earlier from Nordstom. In a Feb. 1 memorandum, the officer warned that "Al-Qaida affiliated groups, including Al-Qaida In the Islamic Magreb (AQIM), and other violent extremist groups are likely to take advantage of the ongoing political turmoil in Libya. The U.S. Government remains concerned that such individuals and groups ... may use Libya as a platform from which to conduct attacks in the region."

Shortly after, Mr. Romney left for a trip abroad, where he held fundraisers in London and Israel.

We don’t actually know who donated what. While Citizens United does say that no foreign cash is allowed to enter elections, it also allows Super PACs to accept money without disclosing donors through a tricky set of loopholes involving a special tax-exempt non-profit filing status. Romney will have to disclose donations to his actual campaign accepted at the foreign fundraisers, but if foreign nationals gave money to Super PACs being run by people in attendance, we’d have no idea.

Rip wrote:

El Guapo wrote:

Rip wrote:
There are already rumors about foreign contributions to Obama. I remember people saying that was why he was off first debate.

I'm probably going to regret asking this, but what? How would that have impacted the debate?

That he was distracted by investigation into it. Note I am not saying I thought this just that I heard it thrown around.

Schweizer and Boyer present no hard data that show Obama’s 2012 campaign has benefited from widespread foreign or fraudulent donations. They also acknowledge that Republican nominee Mitt Romney could theoretically take advantage of the “loopholes,” as well. The report only purports to illustrate that the possibility for fraud exists.

Conservative blogger Erick Erickson of RedState.com, however, tested out the Obama campaign’s online contribution system and documented the apparent ease with which someone with a foreign mailing address and fraudulent passport number could make a gift via credit card. Erickson concedes, however, that his contribution was ultimately rejected by his bank.

Rip wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

Rip wrote: There are already rumors about foreign contributions to Obama. I remember people saying that was why he was off first debate.

Those are highly credible rumours I assume.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... -campaign/

Anonymous Bosch wrote:

Freezer-TPF- wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

Anonymous Bosch wrote:It may not matter to the average voter whether the administration declared the Benghazi attack an act of terror within one day or ten days later. But it is likely to matter if the administration was purposely dissembling, and knowingly putting forward a false mob-violence narrative in an attempt to cover up any perceived foreign policy shortcomings in an election year.

+1.

minus election year since this would matter at any time during a president's term imo.

In other words, you're both agreeing with the FoxNews/Hannity analysis of the situation. Do you think the attempted cover up was also staged to avoid hurting the terrorists' feelings?

The most disgraceful statement of this whole episode is Romney's rush to claim that the President failed to condemn the attacks and instead sympathized with the attackers.

No, that's your own bias clouding your reading comprehension. We have yet to discover what exactly led to the Obama administration's contradictions surrounding the Libya attack. I was not stating it was an established fact that the administration was knowingly dissembling by putting forward a false mob-violence narrative, but rather offering up a possible explanation to the likes of Exodor and Canuck, who expressed some confusion as to why it was even an issue. But if you apply the principle of Occam's razor, what is the most likely explanation which requires the fewest assumptions, when it comes to answering the question Grundbegriff posed earlier in the thread? If you have a more plausible explanation than an attempted cover-up, by all means share it. But simply because Fox News, or Hannity, or whatever other ominous boogeymen you dream up, says something, does not make it false; even a stopped clock gives the correct time twice a day.

Freezer-TPF- wrote: It seems to me that calling something an attempted cover-up is a giant assumption right off the bat. A mixture of fog of war and dealing with competing/conflicting intelligence and witness accounts in an ongoing investigation appears to be a simpler and more razor-friendly explanation.

GreenGoo wrote:

Rip wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

Rip wrote: There are already rumors about foreign contributions to Obama. I remember people saying that was why he was off first debate.

Those are highly credible rumours I assume.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... -campaign/

You serious, Clarke? It's a blog post about a blog post.

Freezer-TPF- wrote:It seems to me that calling something an attempted cover-up is a giant assumption right off the bat. A mixture of fog of war and dealing with competing/conflicting intelligence and witness accounts in an ongoing investigation appears to be a simpler and more razor-friendly explanation.

Anonymous Bosch wrote:

Freezer-TPF- wrote:It seems to me that calling something an attempted cover-up is a giant assumption right off the bat. A mixture of fog of war and dealing with competing/conflicting intelligence and witness accounts in an ongoing investigation appears to be a simpler and more razor-friendly explanation.

Perhaps so. Though most of the evidence coming from the intelligence community would seem to lend very little credence to the administration's rather protracted narrative of mob-violence (do we even know precisely where the mob-violence narrative actually came from?).

But the president cannot have it both ways; in the most recent debate he implied that his "acts of terror" remark in his Rose Garden speech the day after the attack was specifically referring to the attack in Benghazi. But that does not seem congruent with Obama's appearance on Letterman's show a week later, when he was asked by the host if the attack was an act of war, and he responded, "Here's what happened. You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here … a shadowy character who has an extremely offensive video directed at Mohammed and Islam … so this caused great offense in much of the Muslim world." Or why it wasn't until the Director of National Intelligence testified on the matter during a Senate hearing that the administration actually began to acknowledge it was a terrorist attack, rather than continuing to try to blame it on a non-existant mob responding to an internet video that few people in Libya had likely ever even seen.

As I said earlier, blaming the "foggy" intelligence community seems rather odd in light of the flawed 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The outcome of which was a commitment by the intelligence community to give policymakers the benefit of the range of views within the community and to attach confidence levels to assessments. Which makes it odder still to presume that policymakers were simply passive clients of their intelligence officers. So it stretches all credulity to believe that no one challenged the video-inspired, spontaneous-event narrative with information like that reportedly revealed to Congress by Ambassador Pat Kennedy soon after the attack: that it was a complex and synchronized assault.

Be that as it may, it certainly could have been outright incompetence (though that was an admission Obama was clearly unwilling to concede in the last debate). But it also could have been an incompetant attempt at covering up any perceived foreign policy shortcomings at the height of a highly competitive election season. The truth of the matter remains to be seen, so it will likely remain an ongoing issue during the next debate on foreign policy and beyond.

Holman wrote:I'm confused. Are you Michael Hayden, CNN contributor?

Anonymous Bosch wrote:

Holman wrote:I'm confused. Are you Michael Hayden, CNN contributor?

No, I intended to quote elements of that article in my post, but I closed the tab prior to being able to correctly attribute it and I was in a hurry, so I got sloppy and incorporated elements of it in my own post instead. No plagiarism intended.

Anonymous Bosch wrote:

Holman wrote:I'm confused. Are you Michael Hayden, CNN contributor?

No, I intended to quote elements of that article in my post, but I closed the tab prior to being able to correctly attribute it and I was in a hurry, so I got sloppy and incorporated elements of it in my own post instead. No plagiarism intended.

godhugh wrote:Obama diagnoses Romney with "Romnesia". Pretty clever speech, especially liked the part about pre-existing conditions.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012 ... 38989.html" target="_blank

From his embrace of the party’s radical right wing, to subsequent portrayals of himself as a moderate champion of the middle class, Romney has raised the most frequently asked question of the campaign: "Who is this guy, really, and what in the world does he truly believe?"

The evidence suggests no clear answer, or at least one that would survive Romney’s next speech or sound bite. Politicians routinely tailor their words to suit an audience. Romney, though, is shameless, lavishing vastly diverse audiences with words, any words, they would trade their votes to hear.

Alefroth wrote:

Anonymous Bosch wrote:

Holman wrote:I'm confused. Are you Michael Hayden, CNN contributor?

No, I intended to quote elements of that article in my post, but I closed the tab prior to being able to correctly attribute it and I was in a hurry, so I got sloppy and incorporated elements of it in my own post instead. No plagiarism intended.

Sounds like a cover up.

Ale

Anonymous Bosch wrote: (do we even know precisely where the mob-violence narrative actually came from?).

Carpet_pissr wrote:

Anonymous Bosch wrote: (do we even know precisely where the mob-violence narrative actually came from?).

Perhaps from pictures of the mob outside of the embassy acting violently, and burning flags and such?

You are aware that the video DID spark violence throughout the region, yes? Or does that not fit in with the conspiracy "narrative"?



Sent from mobile

The biggest difference was a clear statement that there were no protests before the attack. Also it was revealed that former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods died from a mortar attack and that officials still do not know how Stevens, who was suffering from severe smoke inhalation, made it from the compound to the hospital.

The officials gave a vivid narrative of the events of the night, painting a picture of exactly what the compound looked like...

...On Sept. 11, [slain Ambassador Chris] Stevens did not leave the compound because of security fears due to the 9/11 anniversary. He had arrived in Benghazi the day before with five guards in total. Two additional Diplomatic Security agents from Tripoli were with him in addition to the three agents normally detailed to the compound.

Though some administration officials had initially said that the attack grew out of protests over an anti-Muslim film, the senior State Department official told reporters today that "nothing was out of the ordinary" on the night of the attack.

Exodor wrote:Sounds about as credible as the accusations about Romney taking foreign cash

Shortly after, Mr. Romney left for a trip abroad, where he held fundraisers in London and Israel.

We don’t actually know who donated what. While Citizens United does say that no foreign cash is allowed to enter elections, it also allows Super PACs to accept money without disclosing donors through a tricky set of loopholes involving a special tax-exempt non-profit filing status. Romney will have to disclose donations to his actual campaign accepted at the foreign fundraisers, but if foreign nationals gave money to Super PACs being run by people in attendance, we’d have no idea.

My guess is both campaigns have inadvertently accepted small amounts of foreign money.

Holman wrote:I still don't get the OUTRAGE.

There was a terrorist attack in Benghazi. It happened after days of mob violence across the Arab world that had embassy staffs everywhere on edge, so it was easy to assume that the attack coming in was a particularly violent expression of what was already being seen elsewhere. Initial reports were confused, a story stuck, and it took on narrative life of its own, lasting longer than it should have. Later it was corrected.

Did this misunderstanding of the attack do further harm? Did it take more lives? Or is this just Obama Derangement Syndrome looking for any reason to criticize the President?

I keep seeing this folded into the narrative of a so-called apology for the hate movie, with the imputation that Obama will look for any reason to "roll over." The story being told on the Right is that the administration must have stuck to the mob violence interpretation because it justified the statements distancing America's diplomatic attitude from those expressed in the film. But that makes no sense in the light of the mob violence that was definitely going on elsewhere and that the State Department felt it necessary to address, Benghazi or no Benghazi.

Rip wrote:Perhaps if you had a son who was there and his boss had been pleading for more security for months before they were attacked and killed you would feel a little more outrage?

Rip wrote: Perhaps if you had a son who was there and his boss had been pleading for more security for months before they were attacked and killed you would feel a little more outrage?