Octopus Overlords

Speaking at the Iowa GOP’s annual Lincoln Dinner, Paul questioned the initial response to the attacks and asked, "First question to Hillary Clinton: Where in the hell were the Marines?"

"It was inexcusable, it was a dereliction of duty, and it should preclude her from holding higher office," the Kentucky Republican added to loud applause.

Kraken wrote:It depends on whether the constant investigation and re-investigation yields anything besides suspicion and innuendo.

Little Raven wrote: then the only people who will find Benghazi scandalous are people who were never going to vote for Hillary anyway.

RLMullen wrote:Wrong!!

YellowKing wrote:I don't think it will have much impact. It will be a distant memory by the time the campaign swings into full gear. I'm sure it will be brought up again in 2016, but it's going to be really tough making a 4 year old national security issue the top priority in voter's minds. I think it dings her credibility a bit, and that certainly has to pay some minor dividends, but I don't see it as a game-changer.

gbasden wrote:

YellowKing wrote:I don't think it will have much impact. It will be a distant memory by the time the campaign swings into full gear. I'm sure it will be brought up again in 2016, but it's going to be really tough making a 4 year old national security issue the top priority in voter's minds. I think it dings her credibility a bit, and that certainly has to pay some minor dividends, but I don't see it as a game-changer.

I agree. I just don't see that this has legs.

gbasden wrote:

YellowKing wrote:I don't think it will have much impact. It will be a distant memory by the time the campaign swings into full gear. I'm sure it will be brought up again in 2016, but it's going to be really tough making a 4 year old national security issue the top priority in voter's minds. I think it dings her credibility a bit, and that certainly has to pay some minor dividends, but I don't see it as a game-changer.

I agree. I just don't see that this has legs.

Rip wrote:

Wow, you guys are awfully accepting of being manipulated and then lied to about it.

So does everyone accept now that they did keep response forces from deploying?

How about that the talking points were scrubbed of references to it being a planned terrorist attack rather than a demonstration gone awry?

Which of course means that Carney was then told to lie about that fact?

Rip wrote:

Wow, you guys are awfully accepting of being manipulated and then lied to about it.

So does everyone accept now that they did keep response forces from deploying?

How about that the talking points were scrubbed of references to it being a planned terrorist attack rather than a demonstration gone awry?

Which of course means that Carney was then told to lie about that fact?

Combustible Lemur wrote:

Rip wrote:

Wow, you guys are awfully accepting of being manipulated and then lied to about it.

So does everyone accept now that they did keep response forces from deploying?

How about that the talking points were scrubbed of references to it being a planned terrorist attack rather than a demonstration gone awry?

Which of course means that Carney was then told to lie about that fact?

I think the problem (which is indicative of a much larger and more pressing issue) is that it's expected. Politicians have been lying and manipulating the populace about foreign policy forever. It is terrible and maybe real credible criminal acts will come out of it, but people are fairly numb to their Government spinning what went down in other countries. In the larger scheme of things though this may be deplorable it's fairly small potatoes next to propping dictators, Torture, wars based on wrong intelligence, domestic surveillance.

Sent courtesy of the Galaxy.... note2.

Captain Caveman wrote:The GOP suffers from crying wolf syndrome, and are often their own worst enemy at times. It gets really difficult to differentiate legitimate criticisms from all the crazy paranoid delusions.

LawBeefaroni wrote:It's not Powell/Bush vs. HClinton/Obama. It's Powell, Bush, Clinton, Obama vs. you. Your team is just as bad as the other team.

dbt1949 wrote:There's also the fact she'll be 70 years old in 2016. Do the people really want that? Remember Reagan and his naps and memory loss?

LawBeefaroni wrote:

Combustible Lemur wrote:

Rip wrote:

Wow, you guys are awfully accepting of being manipulated and then lied to about it.

So does everyone accept now that they did keep response forces from deploying?

How about that the talking points were scrubbed of references to it being a planned terrorist attack rather than a demonstration gone awry?

Which of course means that Carney was then told to lie about that fact?

I think the problem (which is indicative of a much larger and more pressing issue) is that it's expected. Politicians have been lying and manipulating the populace about foreign policy forever. It is terrible and maybe real credible criminal acts will come out of it, but people are fairly numb to their Government spinning what went down in other countries. In the larger scheme of things though this may be deplorable it's fairly small potatoes next to propping dictators, Torture, wars based on wrong intelligence, domestic surveillance.

Sent courtesy of the Galaxy.... note2.

It's indicative of a rotten government. Not a specific administration, mind you, but a decades old system of governing.

People might not think Benghazi is a big deal by itself. They'll blow it off by saying "Well, it's not as bad as what [Bush/Bush/BClinton,Regan/etc] did." That's falling victim to the illusion. It's not a lesser offense than Powell. It's the same damned thing from the same damned government. They sit there and lie and we sit here and take it. Again and again and again.

One day it's WMD in Iraq. The next it's about cluster bombing a hundred civilians. Then it's about selling automatic rifles on the street. Then about condoning banks laundering drug money. Then it's about the response in Benghazi.

It's not Powell/Bush vs. HClinton/Obama. It's Powell, Bush, Clinton, Obama vs. you. Your team is just as bad as the other team.

It's like if there were two guys on your street shaking your business down for money every day. Your partner says, "Man, you've got to stop paying Paulie, he smashed up the front window last week." You disagree, saying, "Oh yeah, you pay Tommy and he stole the last shipment of vegetables!" So you each pay your guy, complain about the other guy, and shake your head at the stupidity of your partner. Meanwhile Paulie and Tommy, the Johnson brothers, laugh together as they bleed you dry.

Little Raven wrote:

RLMullen wrote:Wrong!!

So you'll be voting for Cruz, then?

The latest survey from Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling found that nearly half of voters nationwide — 49 percent — trust Clinton more than Congressional Republicans when it comes to Benghazi. Thirty-nine percent said they trust Republicans more.

Those findings may be seen as an extension of the disparate popularity between Clinton and the GOP. Fifty-two percent of voters said they have a favorable opinion of Clinton, compared with 57 percent who said they have an unfavorable opinion of Congressional Republicans.

Shortly before last November's election I took part in a Fox News documentary on Benghazi, whose other participants included the former governor of New Hampshire, John Sununu. Making chitchat while the camera crew was setting up, Gov. Sununu said to me that, in his view, Benghazi mattered because it was "a question of character." That's correct. On a question of foreign policy or counterterrorism strategy, men of good faith can make the wrong decisions. But a failure of character corrodes the integrity of the state.

That's why career diplomat Gregory Hicks' testimony was so damning – not so much for the new facts as for what those facts revealed about the leaders of this republic. In this space in January, I noted that Hillary Clinton had denied ever seeing Ambassador Stevens' warnings about deteriorating security in Libya on the grounds that "1.43 million cables come to my office" – and she can't be expected to see all of them, or any. Once Ambassador Stevens was in his flag-draped coffin, listening to her eulogy for him at Andrews Air Force Base, he was her bestest friend in the world – it was all "Chris this" and "Chris that," as if they'd known each other since third grade. But up till that point he was just one of 1.43 million close personal friends of Hillary trying in vain to get her ear.

Now we know that, at 8 p.m. Eastern time on the last night of Stevens' life, his deputy in Libya spoke to Secretary Clinton and informed her of the attack in Benghazi and the fact that the ambassador was now missing. An hour later, Gregory Hicks received a call from the then-Libyan Prime Minister, Abdurrahim el-Keib, informing him that Stevens was dead. Hicks immediately called Washington. It was 9 p.m. Eastern time, or 3 a.m. in Libya. Remember the Clinton presidential team's most famous campaign ad? About how Hillary would be ready to take that 3 a.m. call? Four years later, the phone rings, and Secretary Clinton's not there. She doesn't call Hicks back that evening. Or the following day.

Are murdered ambassadors like those 1.43 million cables she doesn't read? Just too many of them to keep track of? No. Only six had been killed in the history of the republic – seven, if you include Arnold Raphel, who perished in General Zia's somewhat mysterious plane crash in Pakistan in 1988. Before that, you have to go back to Adolph Dubs, who died during a kidnapping attempt in Kabul in 1979. So we have here a once-in-a-third-of-a-century event. And at 3 a.m. Libyan time on Sept. 12th, it's still unfolding, with its outcome unclear. Hicks is now America's head man in the country, and the Cabinet secretary to whom he reports says, "Leave a message after the tone and I'll get back to you before the end of the week." Just to underline the difference here: Libya's head of government calls Hicks, but nobody who matters in his own government can be bothered to.

What was Secretary Clinton doing that was more important? What was the president doing? Aside, that is, from resting up for his big Vegas campaign event. A real government would be scrambling furiously to see what it could do to rescue its people. It's easy, afterwards, to say that nothing would have made any difference. But, at the time Deputy Chief Hicks was calling 911 and getting executive-branch voicemail, nobody in Washington knew how long it would last. A terrorist attack isn't like a soccer game, over in 90 minutes. If it is a sport, it's more like a tennis match: Whether it's all over in three sets or goes to five depends on how hard the other guy pushes back. The government of the United States took the extremely strange decision to lose in straight sets. Not only did they not deploy out-of-area assets, they ordered even those in Libya to stand down. Lt. Col. Gibson had a small team in Tripoli that twice readied to go to Benghazi to assist and twice was denied authority to do so, the latter when they were already at the airport. There weren't many of them, not compared to the estimated 150 men assailing the compound. But they were Special Forces, not bozo jihadists. Back in Benghazi, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty held off numerically superior forces for hours before dying on a rooftop waiting for backup from a government that had switched on the answering machine and gone to Vegas.

Anonymous Bosch wrote:"1.43 million cables come to my office"

Anonymous Bosch wrote:But up till that point he was just one of 1.43 million close personal friends of Hillary trying in vain to get her ear.

Kraken wrote:

dbt1949 wrote:There's also the fact she'll be 70 years old in 2016. Do the people really want that? Remember Reagan and his naps and memory loss?

That's going to be her biggest hurdle. That, and the question of whether voters want Bill back in the White House again. If the election were being held this year I think it would be a cakewalk for Team Clinton (at least as far as getting the nomination). But three more years is an eternity in politics.

Isgrimnur wrote:

Anonymous Bosch wrote:"1.43 million cables come to my office"

Anonymous Bosch wrote:But up till that point he was just one of 1.43 million close personal friends of Hillary trying in vain to get her ear.

We're equating each cable with a person now? Man, I guess you need to make sure that one cable you get every year is really well written.

LawBeefaroni wrote:

Combustible Lemur wrote:

Rip wrote:

Wow, you guys are awfully accepting of being manipulated and then lied to about it.

So does everyone accept now that they did keep response forces from deploying?

How about that the talking points were scrubbed of references to it being a planned terrorist attack rather than a demonstration gone awry?

Which of course means that Carney was then told to lie about that fact?

I think the problem (which is indicative of a much larger and more pressing issue) is that it's expected. Politicians have been lying and manipulating the populace about foreign policy forever. It is terrible and maybe real credible criminal acts will come out of it, but people are fairly numb to their Government spinning what went down in other countries. In the larger scheme of things though this may be deplorable it's fairly small potatoes next to propping dictators, Torture, wars based on wrong intelligence, domestic surveillance.

Sent courtesy of the Galaxy.... note2.

It's indicative of a rotten government. Not a specific administration, mind you, but a decades old system of governing.

People might not think Benghazi is a big deal by itself. They'll blow it off by saying "Well, it's not as bad as what [Bush/Bush/BClinton,Regan/etc] did." That's falling victim to the illusion. It's not a lesser offense than Powell. It's the same damned thing from the same damned government. They sit there and lie and we sit here and take it. Again and again and again.

One day it's WMD in Iraq. The next it's about cluster bombing a hundred civilians. Then it's about selling automatic rifles on the street. Then about condoning banks laundering drug money. Then it's about the response in Benghazi.

It's not Powell/Bush vs. HClinton/Obama. It's Powell, Bush, Clinton, Obama vs. you. Your team is just as bad as the other team.

It's like if there were two guys on your street shaking your business down for money every day. Your partner says, "Man, you've got to stop paying Paulie, he smashed up the front window last week." You disagree, saying, "Oh yeah, you pay Tommy and he stole the last shipment of vegetables!" So you each pay your guy, complain about the other guy, and shake your head at the stupidity of your partner. Meanwhile Paulie and Tommy, the Johnson brothers, laugh together as they bleed you dry.

Isgrimnur wrote:

Anonymous Bosch wrote:"1.43 million cables come to my office"

Anonymous Bosch wrote:But up till that point he was just one of 1.43 million close personal friends of Hillary trying in vain to get her ear.

We're equating each cable with a person now? Man, I guess you need to make sure that one cable you get every year is really well written.

El Guapo wrote:Well, the assertions aren't really "minutiae". I don't really care about the alleged "spin" afterwards - that the administration was labeling it a protest when they knew or should have known that it was a terror attack.

hepcat wrote:If we don't accept that premise, the bite is removed from the piece.

hepcat wrote:Flippant? Yes. Satire? Not really. He disagrees with Clinton's assertions outright.

Dictionary.com wrote:sat·ire [sat-ahyuhr]
noun
1. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
2. a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.
3. a literary genre comprising such compositions.

The former diplomats inform PJM the new revelations concentrate in two areas — what Ambassador Chris Stevens was actually doing in Benghazi and the pressure put on General Carter Ham, then in command of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) and therefore responsible for Libya, not to act to protect jeopardized U.S. personnel.

The former diplomat who spoke with PJ Media regarded the whole enterprise as totally amateurish and likened it to the Mike Nichols film Charlie Wilson’s War about a clueless congressman who supplies Stingers to the Afghan guerrillas. “It’s as if Hillary and the others just watched that movie and said ‘Hey, let’s do that!’” the diplomat said.

He added that he and his colleagues think the leaking of General David Petraeus’ affair with his biographer Paula Broadwell was timed to silence the former CIA chief on these matters.

Regarding General Ham, military contacts of the diplomats tell them that AFRICOM had Special Ops “assets in place that could have come to the aid of the Benghazi consulate immediately (not in six hours).”

Ham was told by the White House not to send the aid to the trapped men, but Ham decided to disobey and did so anyway, whereupon the White House “called his deputy and had the deputy threaten to relieve Ham of his command.”