PDA

View Full Version : May they eat a healthy portion of humble pie.



Qtec
10-21-2012, 05:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> GOP Libya Talking Points Collapse
Posted on 10/20/2012 at 1:15 pm by JM Ashby

Following the president’s righteous smackdown of Mitt Romney during the second presidential debate, the GOP and Fox News have slowly recognized the fact that the president did call the attack on the American embassy in Libya an “act of terror.”

They have not, however, accepted the administration’s explanation for why initial reports from the scene painted a mixed message concerning the motives of the attackers.

That’s going to change now because documents released yesterday prove senior administration officials were being completely honest about what they were initially told by the intelligence community.

“Talking points” prepared by the CIA on Sept. 15, the same day that Rice taped three television appearances, support her description of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate as a reaction to Arab anger about an anti-Muslim video prepared in the United States. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>According to the CIA account, “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”</span> [...]

<u>The official said the only major change he would make now in the CIA’s Sept. 15 talking points would be to drop the word “spontaneous” and substitute “opportunistic.” He explained that there apparently was “some pre-coordination but minimal planning.</u>”</div></div>

Q........... link (http://bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2012/10/gop-libya-talking-points-collapse.html)

LWW
10-21-2012, 07:48 AM
Your links position ... boiled down ... is that Rice and company were telling the truth only because higher ups in the regime led to them.

Personally. i find that entirely believable.

llotter
10-21-2012, 10:56 AM
The CYA 'talking points' can be nothing more than a very carefully contrived report to rationalize an alternative explanation to what was the known truth at the time. The truth exposes the gross incompetence of the administration the caused the deaths at the consulate in the first place by leaving our largely defenseless Americans in danger's path, despite repeated requests for increased protection. Their reaction to those requests was to reduce the protection in hopes of 'normalizing' relations within a hot bed that's under militant Islamist control. This was a major failure of The Moron's fundamental stance the Osama is dead and al Qaeda is dying.

So, in an effort to conceal this failure, a cover story was concocted to simply stated that the cause of the deaths in Benghazi was a mob that was instigated by a video and went out of control. In an all out effort to get in front and sell this fraud, the same day that this CYA report is assembled, Susan Rice appears on all five Sunday talk shows to overwhelm the market with a plausible lie in the hope that it would get them through till election day.

While the Ambassador may have innocently spread this lie there can be no doubt that the story started off as totally false. I suspect she was brought in because she was out of the loop about what happened on the ground there so she could be duped into participating in the marketing effort. There was real-time video and voice contact with those on the ground the verified that the was no mob but a coordinated attack and that was confirmed by others within 24 hours, none of which comport with either the CYA report or the contrived story.

This cover-up will sink this administration not so much because of the incompetence it was intended to hide but because it is of such poor quality that is shows no respect for the American voter.

Soflasnapper
10-21-2012, 12:15 PM
The request for more security was for Tripoli. You know, the place where the EMBASSY was? The Benghazi outpost was not even a consulate exactly, but a forward base of operations for State during the uprising, and where the imminent threat of Khaddafi's forces entering that rebel stronghold was used to kick-start the NATO bombardment.

The addition of a few extra men at Benghazi would have simply meant more dead Americans. The problem was that the ambassador went there in the first place, knowing the unrest that intel was already pointing to. The idea that Benghazi needed more personnel was from the ambassador's personal journal discovered after his death, and not apparently anything that reached up to the State Dept's attention.

The hard truth that the administration continues to withhold is that this provocation was done by forces in league with Romney, and a cold-blooded murder performed to aid him in attacking the allegedly proved by this attack failure of the Obama foreign policy, and area of profound weakness in the Romney/Ryan ticket. Typical Rovian trick-- attack where you yourself (your client) is weakest, to prevent scrutiny on those grounds of your own side.

What evidence is there for this theory? When Sec. State Clinton made the first official administration response to this in her official statement (the early statement from the Cairo ambassador was not out of Foggy Bottom but directly from the Cairo embassy), Romney's people had already prepared his response earlier, but embargoed it from being released or mentioned by the press until after midnight. That was out of sensitivity to the anniversary date of 9/11.

As soon as SecState Clinton made her official comment, within 2 minutes the Romney team had lifted the embargo (although it wasn't after 9/11 yet), and the campaign officials have said that ALL THEIR FOREIGN POLICY TEAM had been consulted and agreed this should be done.

Now there are 17 members of their foreign policy team. All were consulted, they had time for discussion, and this all then transpired within 2 minutes of the State Dept's official response?

I doubt you could even get a phone conference arranged in such haste and get everyone on the line in so short a period of time. Without foreknowledge, and/or having them all already ON a telephone conference (assuming they hadn't actually convened most of them in one location, with the foreknowledge they had).

This is only another in the long line of GOP treason around election time, with Nixon interfering with the Paris Peace Talks, to Reagan's people interfering with the release of the embassy prisoners in Iran.

While I'd like to see this plot blown out of the water and disclosed by Obama, I understand why he cannot do that. It would lead to too many strings to pull, and too many historical sweaters to unravel, so to speak. The same reason Nixon told Haldemann to tell DCI Richard Helms to quash L. Patrick Gray's Watergate investigation in the bud, since it would lead to all kinds of dirty laundry in the Agency.

llotter
10-21-2012, 06:04 PM
You always end up hanging yourself every time you attempt to 'clarify' your understanding of the world.

Soflasnapper
10-21-2012, 06:36 PM
That's a nice deflection away from maybe 10 different assertions, but looking at all of them, they are all true if you check into it.

Leaving that task to the readers to decide who hung what here. My view is that it decapitated your claims.

Sure, not everybody knows the timeline, that Romney jumped in 2 minutes after the State Dept. statement from the Secretary, after he'd previously embargoed his remarks to be released to the public only after midnight. But that's the case.

Few may know that RM Nixon interfered with the Paris Peace Talks for fear peace would hurt his presidential bid. But that's history as well.

Qtec
10-21-2012, 06:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fox’s Peter Johnson, Jr. – a legal analyst who also happens to be Roger Ailes’ personal attorney – visited Fox & Friends this morning to “ask” if President Obama <span style='font-size: 14pt'>deliberately allowed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans to die in Benghazi in order to avoid antagonizing Libya.</span> Johnson posited this theory even though he admitted he had<span style='font-size: 14pt'> “no evidence”</span> for it. But, of course, there was no challenge from host Heather Nauert. </div></div>

link (http://crooksandliars.com/news-hound-ellen/fox-baselessly-suggests-obama-tra)

The Dems hit back.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">M
On This Week, Rahm Emanuel Slams Darrell Issa As Reckless

Rahm is a weasel, but he's a very effective surrogate for the president, as he showed on This Week today. Notice how deftly he gets in that one-two punch on Darrell Issa over the Libya controversy:

EMANUEL: Yes, but George, first of all, I have been fortunate in my life to work on both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue, and the president of the United States has ordered an investigation of what happened, who's responsible, and bring them to justice, just like he did Osama bin Laden, Awlaki and the leadership of al Qaeda. That's what you have to do in the Oval Office.

Now, I have also worked in Congress where you have an oversight responsibility. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>And with that oversight responsibility comes responsibility. And what Darrell Issa did by releasing names in that entire document of individuals who are working with America, put people at risk in Libya, and people around the world will now know that you're at risk if you cooperate with the United States.

That office, that chairmanship of that committee comes with responsibility. And you can't act reckless with it.</span>

Now, we have a foreign policy issue. It is going to be handled. And people that did this will be brought to justice. And how it happened will be investigated so we can never see it again. <span style='font-size: 14pt'><u>But the idea that people from A, day one, have been trying to politicize this event</u> in my view is absolutely reckless.</span> </div></div>

link (http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/week-rahm-emanuel-slams-darrell-issa-)

Those now blaming Obama for this attack are the same ones who gave Bush a pass for the WTC attacks.

Q

Soflasnapper
10-21-2012, 06:39 PM
They use 'the ends justify the means' to pretend to justify their actions. Whatever it takes, that's what they'll try to do.

If it means making false attacks, so what? It's for the greater good (of Myth Robme).

llotter
10-21-2012, 07:47 PM
Romney was perfectly right in this criticism. Most Americans are sick of this administration's constantly apologizing for America and the freedom that it represents. He is running for president and should let the public know that under his leadership, there won't be any more Apology Tours. I applaud him for that.

Qtec
10-21-2012, 08:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The apology tour never happened. </div></div>

link (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/02/obamas_apology_tour.html)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Pinocchio Test

The claim that Obama repeatedly has apologized for the United States is not borne out by the facts, especially if his full quotes are viewed in context.

Obama often was trying to draw a rhetorical distinction between his policies and that of President Bush, a common practice when the presidency changes parties. The shift in policies, in fact, might have been more dramatic from Clinton to Bush than from Bush to Obama, given how Obama has largely maintained Bush's approach to fighting terrorism.

In other cases, Obama's quotes have been selectively trimmed for political purposes. Or they were not much different than sentiments expressed by Bush or his secretary of state. Republicans may certainly disagree with Obama's handling of foreign policy or particular policies he has pursued, but they should not invent a storyline that does not appear to exist.

Note to GOP speechwriters and campaign ad makers: The apology tour never happened.

Four Pinocchios </div></div>

Q

llotter
10-22-2012, 06:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's a nice deflection away from maybe 10 different assertions, but looking at all of them, they are all true if you check into it.

Leaving that task to the readers to decide who hung what here. My view is that it decapitated your claims.

Sure, not everybody knows the timeline, that Romney jumped in 2 minutes after the State Dept. statement from the Secretary, after he'd previously embargoed his remarks to be released to the public only after midnight. But that's the case.

Few may know that RM Nixon interfered with the Paris Peace Talks for fear peace would hurt his presidential bid. But that's history as well. </div></div>

Like Gayle, you want to throw as much s**t at the wall and see if anything sticks. Why not just start a separate thread for each of those 10 different assertions? Meanwhile, just stick to the subject of this thread.

eg8r
10-22-2012, 11:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Following the president’s righteous smackdown of Mitt Romney during the second presidential debate, the GOP and Fox News have slowly recognized the fact that the president did call the attack on the American embassy in Libya an “act of terror.”</div></div>So let's get this straight, at one point in the span of 14 days he uses the word terror. Then for the other 13 days afterwards, even when asked directly if it was terror, he says it was something else. LOL, wake up qtip. He didn't have his teleprompter when he called it an act of terror. He slipped up.

eg8r

eg8r
10-22-2012, 11:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The request for more security was for Tripoli. You know, the place where the EMBASSY was? The Benghazi outpost was not even a consulate exactly, but a forward base of operations for State during the uprising, and where the imminent threat of Khaddafi's forces entering that rebel stronghold was used to kick-start the NATO bombardment.</div></div>You defnintely like this defense, no matter how weak you continue to make it. If the added security showed up for Tripoli it doesn't take a scholar to know that added security would follow the ambassador where ever he went. Also, you like to think that a few extra men wouldn't have made a difference but it most certainly could. One extra pair of eyes could have seen something a split second sooner and given the others time to make a difference.

Hitlary fell on the sword on this one. I just wonder how long it will take before we find out what Obama's handlers have promised her. There is no way a Clinton does this on their own especially considering the chance to run for POTUS in 4 more years. This is a perfect coverup and I congratulate Obama's team for finding a way to keep the Clinton's out of the White House forever.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
10-22-2012, 11:11 AM
The job of the Marines tasked to an embassy is to protect the classified cables. They do not follow an ambassador around, because their charged protection remains at the embassy wherever the ambassador may go.

I appreciate your thousand of miles away armchair generalship opinion, but frankly, the opinions of the professionals carries just slightly a little more weight with me. THEY said a half dozen more men (all that would have been added) would not have made any difference in the most ferocious attack against that facility in history. Or, that the difference is more Americans would have been killed.

eg8r
10-22-2012, 11:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The job of the Marines tasked to an embassy is to protect the classified cables.</div></div>LOL, you really do have your head shoved clear up the Obama rear. I applaud you for wearing ignorance so well.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
10-22-2012, 11:24 AM
Quite an argument you have there. Obama's rear, wearing ignorance. Highly factual! (not)

Nicely played, I guess, if you have no facts or evidence against what I said.

What you said should be easily checked. Embassies all around the world have Marine guards assigned to them. Ambassadors travel around such countries frequently. So, according to you, the Marines assigned to the embassies form a traveling bodyguard as well. Although that would tend to leave the EMBASSY ITSELF, you know, where the top secret classified cables are kept, rather unguarded.

Does that really happen? Well of course, you have no idea. But you cannot see where YOUR head is, since it's very dark there.

Soflasnapper
10-22-2012, 11:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The job of the Marines tasked to an embassy is to protect the classified cables.</div></div>LOL, you really do have your head shoved clear up the Obama rear. I applaud you for wearing ignorance so well.

eg8r </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The primary mission of the Marine Security Guard (MSG) is to provide internal security at designated U.S. diplomatic and consular facilities in order to prevent the compromise of classified material vital to the national security of the United States. </div></div>

Official mission statement, (http://www.mcesg.marines.mil/) US Marine Corp. Embassy Security Group's official website.

eg8r
10-22-2012, 11:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nicely played, I guess, if you have no facts or evidence against what I said.</div></div>LOL, facts. When was the last time an embassy or consulate raided and the guys with guns sat around and refused to defend anything other than the cables? LOL, again, you wear ignorance well.

eg8r

eg8r
10-22-2012, 12:00 PM
Yep there it is. Proof your head is up Obama's rear. Thanks.

eg8r

eg8r
10-22-2012, 12:01 PM
What else is funny is that when those sites request more security you are dumb enough to think it is a request to have more people sit around and watch paper and computer equipment. LOL, I cannot stop laughing thinking about the ridiculous setting you have painted for yourself.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
10-22-2012, 12:08 PM
They guard the perimeter of the EMBASSY where the classified materials are kept, within it.

I guess if you won't take the Marines' own description of their own mission as factual, there is little more to say. You think any ambassador's movements include a company of Marines for travel around the country? In the same helo, or another one?

eg8r
10-22-2012, 12:13 PM
LOL, it is funny that you forgot to keep reading.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The secondary mission of Marine Security Guards is to provide protection for U.S. citizens and U.S. Government property located within designated U.S. Diplomatic and Consular premises during exigent circumstances, which require immediate aid or action.

MSGs focus on the interior security of a diplomatic post's building(s). In only the most extreme emergency situations are they authorized duties exterior to the building(s) or to provide special protection to the senior diplomatic officer off of the diplomatic compound. MSGs carry a certain level of diplomatic immunity in the performance of their official duties.[5]
</div></div>Just to help you out in the future, when they say "primary" that is not synonymous with "only". Wake up and smell the coffee.

Your favorite resource, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Security_Guard)

eg8r

hondo
10-29-2012, 04:57 PM
No attacks on larry from Hondo here.

LWW
10-29-2012, 05:22 PM
Read the good book.