Time to start thinking about its passing, and what comes after.
It’s not passing fast enough for me.
53 percent in the 2014 poll say it is more important to have Republican congressional majorities to check Obama’s policies, compared to 39 percent who believe it is more important to have Democratic congressional majorities to support those policies.
I continue to think it not outside the realm of possibility that the Republicans could run and win on a ticket of repealing and replacing the Democrats in the White House. Particularly as new revelations come to light about the IRS. At some point the scandals will metastasize into one big one.
[Update a few minutes later]
Related: The Benghazi deniers continue to panic.
As I tweeted a while ago, it’s pretty amusing to watch all the concern trolling from Democrats about the new investigation.
[Update a few minutes more later]
Chris Stevens was one of them, a Team Obama loyalist. But they abandoned him and dishonored him in death because the President’s political needs outweighed his life. The heartlessness of all these caring, compassionate Democrats would impress Putin – if it was ever applied to America’s enemies.
Indeed.
[Update a while later]
Building the case for Obama’s impeachment. Should be a very timely book
The Benghazi “deniers” aren’t panicking. They’re watching a clown show and laughing as the Republicans are trying to make Benghazi into Watergate or Monica Lewinski. It isn’t working.
Watergate, to remind everybody, was commission of felonies (burglary, wiretapping) on the behest of a sitting President to rig an election. Lewinski was at least lying by a President in a court hearing. Benghazi is at best poor judgment about the security posture at a remote diplomatic outpost. If we impeached Presidents for successful terrorist attacks, Reagan and both Bushes would have been impeached.
The second argument, that Obama “lied” to Americans about whether this was a terrorist attack or not, doesn’t hold water, since his very first official statement, the morning after the attack, was “this was a terrorist act.” The third argument, that it was not caused by the video, flies in the face of the fact that half-a-dozen other riots and protests were caused by the video. So if the video had nothing to do with the attack, it was one hell of a coincidence.
Ah, the daily talking points.
Please, sir, enlighten me. What have I said that was wrong?
Why would I waste my time?
Why would I waste my time?
Perhaps because everything I said in this thread is true and accurate. Trying to argue against the truth is difficult.
No, trying to argue with someone blind to the truth is a waste of time.
“Trying to argue against the truth is difficult.”
Thanks, as if my monitor didn’t have enough coffee stains. You can’t possibly think Obama is honest at this point so I have to assume you were making a clever joke.
Starting with the word “The”?
Watergate, to remind everybody, was commission of felonies (burglary, wiretapping) on the behest of a sitting President to rig an election.
Actually, that’s not completely true. One of the complaints in the articles of impeachment was the suggestion that the IRS be used as a political machine against known enemies on a list. In that regard, Nixon only dreamed of doing what Obama’s Administration has done.
Also, nobody is claiming Obama lied. They are claiming members of his administration intentionally developed talking points to mislead Congress. There’s no dispute that the talking points were written in such a fashion. At issue is who did it and why aren’t they being held accountable? Benghazi is far worse than la affair Plame, which got Admiral Gerrib’s panties in a wade during the Bush Administration.
“Watergate, to remind everybody, was commission of felonies (burglary, wiretapping) ”
Wow, it is amazing to think that Watergate was so serious back then. Over the last two Presidential election cycles we have seen Democrats engage in burglary and wiretapping and it barely raised eyebrows. Democrats were not even upset in the least about it. Rather amazing when you think about the historical context.
“Benghazi is at best poor judgment about the security posture at a remote diplomatic outpost. ”
That is a good place to start but then there are the lies to the American public and congress about the cause of the attack and what could have been done to respond to the attack. We also shouldn’t forget that scapegoating the video maker meant that he was sent to jail on Obama’s orders.
“The second argument, that Obama “lied” to Americans about whether this was a terrorist attack or not, doesn’t hold water”
Obama’s story does have more holes colander.
“since his very first official statement, the morning after the attack, was “this was a terrorist act.””
I disagree. You are not even using a real quote. He was clearly referring to other attacks and not Benghazi but lets assume your POV is right. Obama sent Rice, Democrats, and other administration officials out to blame a video after you say he blamed terrorists. He changed his story. He lied. People died. A scapegoat went to jail for a year. The Islamic militants armed by Obama sold guns to Boko Haram and have generally run amok in Libya and other countries. Obama’s support of Islamic militants has caused untold harm to countless people in the Middle East and Northern Africa.
“The third argument, that it was not caused by the video, flies in the face of the fact that half-a-dozen other riots and protests were caused by the video.”
Haha, you actually believe that a video was the cause of Benghazi? That is contrary to everything known about what happened. It is contrary to what you previously said about Obama blaming terrorists. You can’t have it both ways here.
Chris Gerrib: “Benghazi had nothing to do with a video! Obama said the very next day that it was a terrorist attack. What don’t you guys get? Obama never blamed a video. He never told the parents of the victims that the video maker would be thrown in jail. But you know what? Benghazi was caused by a video. What do you think it was, a coincidence? It was a coincidence that there were protests at American embassies in Arab countries on 9/11? There is only one acceptable reason that these events took place on 9/11 and that is a video. And I can’t believe you guys are blaming the freedom fighters in Libya.”
Over the last two Presidential election cycles we have seen Democrats engage in burglary and wiretapping and it barely raised eyebrows. – Who? On the President’s orders?
video maker meant that he was sent to jail on Obama’s orders. – Lie. he was sentenced by a Federal judge for violation of the terms of his supervised release.
So when he says No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. that can be read by any native speaker of English as anything but “terror attack?”
Susan Rice, on Face The Nation four days after the attack: Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we’ll have to determine.
Susan Rice on Face the Nation:
BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?
MS. RICE: We do not– we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.
They had information of threats over several months. This was known at the time and verified by other nation’s diplomatic missions. And the him Rice is not agreeing is the Libyan President, who made those statements. There is no advantage for him to claim a planned attack was successful versus a spontaneous attack.
Besides, we already know Admiral Gerrib believed the spontaneous protest turned attack line at the time of the misleading campaign.
On the President’s orders?
Do you think the burglary at Watergate was carried out under Nixon’s orders? I thought you had some history degree? Can I borrow it to wipe, because that might make it more valuable?
James Neal, the prosecuted Liddy, et al, didn’t even believe Nixon ordered the burglary, and as evidence, he cited the WH tapes on which Nixon is heard asking an advisor “Who was the asshole that did it?”. It would be nice if Obama at least asked a similar question.
It’s pretty sad when the best you got is comparing Obama to Watergate (note only one doing it is Gerrib), and Nixon comes out looking cleaner. You would do better sticking with the line that it was bureaucrat malfeasance and asking Obama to hold those civil servants accountable for misleading Congress and obstructing justice. Watergate isn’t the comparison for Benghazi. Rather this is Plame Affair all over with 4 deaths rather than a lively DC socialite.
Between IRS, Benghazi and other scandals, this administration is about three times the corruption of the Nixon administration, with none of the competence.
Do you think the burglary at Watergate was carried out under Nixon’s orders?
We don’t have proof either way. We do have proof that days later he ordered the CIA to shut down the FBI’s investigation into the burglary. We don’t have proof that Obama, or any top Obama aide, has done anything illegal.
There wasn’t proof of anything about Nixon until he was investigated. There’s evidence of corruption in the IRS, State Department, and EPA, so Congress is doing its job and investigating. It’s also the Administration’s job, but the DoJ doesn’t seem interested in investigating the crimes that Lois Lerner believed happened.
There wasn’t proof of anything about Nixon until he was investigated.
That argument proves too much. You can always say that more investigation might turn up malfeasance, but that’s an argument for never-ending investigations into absolutely everything. Multiple Congressional committees have looked into Benghazi, and they’ve found nothing criminal. Ditto the IRS. By contrast, within a year of the Watergate break-in you had top White House aides admitting to perjury, Nixon firing cabinet members, etc.
The GOP has whipped its supporters into such a lather over Benghazi and the IRS (and, before that, Fast and Furious) that they can’t let the matter drop no matter how little they fine. Instead they can keep flinging baseless charges, and hope the story crowds out topics that they’d rather not talk about (e.g. unemployment insurance, the minimum wage, the gender wage gap, Obamacare signups, etc.).
the crimes that Lois Lerner believed happened.
When did Lerner say she believes crimes were committed? Taking the Fifth does not indicate that one believes crimes were committed.
The House Oversight committee interviewed 39 IRS employees, and none has reported any White House involvement or political motive in screening non-profits. As far as we know none has reported any criminal activity at all, but we don’t have the transcripts of their interviews, because Issa won’t release them.
That argument proves too much. You can always say that more investigation might turn up malfeasance, but that’s an argument for never-ending investigations into absolutely everything.
Only when an administration is stonewalling and withholding information and documents, as this one has on every single scandal.
First, Rand’s reply explains why an investigation is needed.
Second, the investigation into Benghazi starts with the knowledge that misleading statements were made. With the IRS, we know a crime was committed, just like Watergate. So your general argument doesn’t fit reality.
Unless your general argument is about the John Doe investigation in Wisconsin. Did you oppose that investigation, Jim? It’s interesting how similar the John Doe investigation is to what the IRS was doing.
Only when an administration is stonewalling and withholding information and documents
Again, this proves too much. An antagonistic investigator can always claim to need more information and documents, and that therefore he’s being “stonewalled”. It’s a simple cycle:
1. Ask for documents and testimony
2. If you find something illegal, you win
3. If you don’t find something illegal, ask for more documents and testimony
4. If the target hands over the documents, go to step 2.
5. If the target refuses, their stonewalling justifies a new investigation, go to step 1.
It never has to end.
And as long as new documents keep showing up, then there is reason to go on. In addition, when documents receive are heavily redacted, there is good reason to demand more.
the investigation into Benghazi starts with the knowledge that misleading statements were made.
The statements in question were consistent with the CIA’s best information at the time, and there have been multiple Congressional investigations into the attack already. The rationale for opening yet another one is 100% political.
With the IRS, we know a crime was committed
What crime? We know that they used keywords that they shouldn’t have used, but that isn’t necessarily a crime (i.e. if it was done for expedience, as witnesses have testified, no laws were broken). That’s a far cry from finding five burglars in the Democratic headquarters.
Unless your general argument is about the John Doe investigation in Wisconsin. Did you oppose that investigation, Jim? It’s interesting how similar the John Doe investigation is to what the IRS was doing.
I am not familiar with that investigation.
But they abandoned him and dishonored him in death because the President’s political needs outweighed his life. – flat lie. Stevens was killed in the first hour, when the consulate was overrun. No help could have arrived.
There were no units “two hours away” ready to help. If there were, how come the members of those units aren’t talking to anybody? How come none of the dozens of people in the several headquarters that would have known of those units talking?
“Stevens was killed in the first hour, when the consulate was overrun. No help could have arrived.”
The attacks went on all night and into the morning. You don’t care about the dozens of other people who were seriously injured? Just write those people off like billions to Solyndra? No one knew how long the attacks were going to last. Help should have been sent immediately no matter how long it took for them to get there. At the very least they would have been there to secure the site for investigation, which did not happen for over a month. It is almost like the Obama administration didn’t want anyone to know what happened…
And why did the House Armed Services committee’s GOP majority conclude that there was no military option that would have saved the men who were killed?
Because they had hindsight. It couldn’t possibly have been known at the time.
The scandal is that they didn’t pursue a doomed, pointless mission?
The scandal is they didn’t provide security requested ahead of time and then tried to cover up the mistake by misleading Congress and obstructing justice. Tell us Jim, why did Scooter Libby go to jail and what was the rational behind that scandal?
The scandal is they didn’t provide security requested ahead of time
So if an administration ever turns down a request for more security resources and there’s subsequently an attack, that’s a scandal?
then tried to cover up the mistake
There was no effort to cover up the fact that security was inadequate, and that it was a mistake to not either increase security or pull the people out. Look at the independent commission report.
by misleading Congress and obstructing justice
How was Congress misled? How was justice obstructed?
why did Scooter Libby go to jail and what was the rational behind that scandal?
Libby never went to jail; his sentence was commuted by George W. Bush. The rationale behind his conviction was the fact that he lied to FBI agents and a federal grand jury.
How was Congress misled?
Congress was told the attack was about a video protest. That wasn’t true and never has been true.
How was justice obstructed?
Because of the lie told to Congress, the only person ever jailed for Benghazi was the creator of the video. If that is justice to Democrats, then they deserve their party affiliation to asses.
Congress was told the attack was about a video protest.
That’s what the CIA thought was true at the time. It isn’t misleading to report the CIA’s best assessment.
That wasn’t true and never has been true.
How can you be so sure? Here’s what David Kirkpatrick reported in December:
Maybe he’s wrong — maybe the video had nothing to do with it. But if months of investigation can come to that conclusion, you can’t fault the CIA for making the same mistake in the hours after the attack.
Because of the lie told to Congress, the only person ever jailed for Benghazi was the creator of the video.
That’s ridiculous. Indictments have been issued for the suspected attackers. There’s been no obstruction of efforts to bring them to justice — it just isn’t easy to do. It wasn’t “obstruction of justice” that it took years to catch or kill the people who bombed our African embassies in 1998.
It isn’t misleading to report the CIA’s best assessment.
It wasn’t the CIA’s best assessment. That came from the station chief on the ground, who said it was a terrorist attack. There was never any evidence whatsoever that it was a protest caused by a video, yet the president and Susan Rice lied about it for weeks afterward.
It wasn’t the CIA’s best assessment.
At the time the CIA thought it was.
That came from the station chief on the ground, who said it was a terrorist attack.
According to the deputy director of the CIA the station chief also “mused” that the web video was one of three possible motivations for the attack.
DCIA Morell has testified that “the chief of station based his assessment that there was no demonstration on two pieces of evidence. The first was that local press reports said there was no demonstration. But Morell said there were other press reports that said there was. Also, the chief of station relied on the accounts of CIA security contractors who were sent to Benghazi that evening. “This was not compelling because these officers did not arrive until almost an hour after the attack started and the protesters could have dispersed by them,” Morell said.”
There was never any evidence whatsoever that it was a protest caused by a video
Yes, there was: “reporters for western news organizations interviewed people at the scene after the attacks in Benghazi who said they were angry about the same film. And Libyan government officials repeated the reports.”
The evidence, then and even now, does not tell a simple story.
the president and Susan Rice lied about it for weeks afterward.
No, they simply reported the CIA’s tentative conclusions, with caveats that those conclusions might change as more information came out (e.g. “based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present”, “Obviously, we will wait for the results of the investigation and we don’t want to jump to conclusions before then.”, etc.).
At the time the CIA thought it was.
“The CIA” didn’t and doesn’t “think” anything.
At the time the CIA thought it was.
At the time, the CIA was sent an email telling them to blame the attack. We know that because the email has finally been released by the administration thanks to the pressure from the investigation.
At the time, the CIA was sent an email telling them to blame the attack. We know that because the email has finally been released by the administration thanks to the pressure from the investigation.
What email are you talking about? The Ben Rhodes email, sent 9 hours after the CIA issued its first draft of the talking points, with the opening line “We believe based on currently available information that the attacks 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.”? I don’t think that email was even addressed to the CIA!
No help could have arrived
Reread the sentence you quoted, moron. The administration abandoned Stevens. They denied his request for additional security. We remember when you, Admiral Gerrib, claimed Stevens security was what he requested, thus it was his fault. But now we know his request for security was denied by someone in Hillary’s office, who abandoned him. Because there was no additional security, no additional could arrive, so only on that self-fulfilling proficiency are you correct.
Unfortunately for your daily talking points, no one in the White House knew Stevens was killed in the first hour. So that after action details of yours wasn’t news for sometime later. Yet no help was sent. In fact, help was told to stand down. And even if Stevens was killed in the first hour, his staff was still under attack and deserved to be rescued, not left to carry on the attack alone and be killed.
So there are several questions that haven’t been answered about Benghazi, and should be answered for the safety of all our Ambassadors and Americans who work around the world.
Who denied Steven’s request for more security? Why did they deny it? Have they been fired for incompetence?
Who gave the order to stand forces down while the attack was ongoing? Why weren’t QRF elements pre-positioned with uprisings ongoing in Egypt and the anniversary of 9/11 coming up?
Who participated in the effort to mislead the US Congress about the attack? They need to spend some time in jail for their contempt of Congress, their obstruction of justice, and waste of taxpayer dollars. Their crime is at least as equal to Scooter Libby’s if not worse. They need to go to jail.
Obama’s issue is unlike Bush, he’s not pushing for an investigation and holding anyone accountable. And before you say “Bush pardoned Scooter”, it wasn’t until Scooter spent some time in jail. Further, apparently Bush was right about it being a political witch hunt, because progressive punks everywhere seem to no longer care about obstruction of justice and lying while under oath. So for them, it is just politics.
“Who gave the order to stand forces down while the attack was ongoing? ”
No one needed to give an order to stand down. Someone, President Obama, needed to give an order to assist. That never happened, so nothing was done. Obama’s claim in the aftermath that he ordered the military to do everything it could was just another lie. I can’t imagine that anyone in the military chain of command would ignore a direct order from the President and CIC to do everything they could and do nothing instead. Military people would lose their jobs over that and it goes against everything our military stands for.
That never happened, so nothing was done
The GOP Armed Services committee disagrees with you:
Defense Department officials believed nearly from the outset of violence in Benghazi that it was a terrorist attack rather than a protest gone awry, and the President subsequently permitted the military to respond with minimal direction.
Is the House GOP part of the conspiracy too?
But now we know his request for security was denied by someone in Hillary’s office, who abandoned him.
State has a limited security budget, not all requests are going to be approved. Does that mean the rest have been abandoned? And what about the CIA annex — that wasn’t the State Department’s responsibility, but it was apparently just as vulnerable. Why wasn’t there better security there?
Who gave the order to stand forces down while the attack was ongoing?
The House GOP investigation concluded that there was no such order.
Why weren’t QRF elements pre-positioned with uprisings ongoing in Egypt and the anniversary of 9/11 coming up?
There had been ten 9/11 anniversaries without fatal attacks on any of the hundreds of U.S. diplomatic facilities around the world. It wasn’t a given that 2012 would be different.
Their crime is at least as equal to Scooter Libby’s if not worse.
Libby repeatedly lied under oath to FBI agents and a federal grand jury. Who has done that in reference to Benghazi?
it wasn’t until Scooter spent some time in jail
Where did you get that idea?
Obama’s issue is unlike Bush, he’s not pushing for an investigation and holding anyone accountable.
Obama did push for an investigation, you can Google “Benghazi Accountability Review Board”.
The problem Chris is that some of us are old enough to know what things were like before Obama.
Attacking an embassy is an act of war. That’s the reason most countries will protect an embassy on their soil even, or especially, if they don’t particularly like the country it represents.
Then you have Hillary standing in front of the dead in coffins, knowingly trying to bullshit the American people with talking points later coming from that smoking gun memo just released.. You we can ignore. Her we will not. It will be a good day when she becomes the democrats choice for CinC.
The problem Chris is that some of us are old enough to know what things were like before Obama.
You mean under Bush, when there were a dozen fatal attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities? For some reason none of those attacks merited the attention Fox News has lavished on Benghazi (over 1,000 separate programs and counting).
There won’t be any impeachment. Consider for a moment the Iraq War. The Bush administration did more than edit talking points, they manufactured lies to sell a $ trillion+ war that resulted in the death of thousands of Americans. Americans couldn’t be bothered to demand impeachment over that. The thought that the “scandal” of Benghazi is enough to capture the attention of the public is ridiculous.
The Bush administration did more than edit talking points, they manufactured lies
You’re the one manufacturing lies.
So Saddam really did have WMDs in the basements of his palaces? He really had mobile chemical weapons labs?
Bush may not have lied, but he was obviously and badly wrong.
Bush may not have lied, but he was obviously and badly wrong.
As was almost everyone else (such as Bill and Hillary Clinton, perhaps even including Saddam).
As was almost everyone else (such as Bill and Hillary Clinton, perhaps even including Saddam).
Not the UN weapons inspectors, dissenters with deep knowledge of Iraqi arms control, foreign intelligence agencies, foreign press, Iraqi defectors, and anyone skeptical and curious enough to read widely.
I agree with Rand.
I agree with Rand (and even Leland) for a variety of reasons, but this comment is why I disagree with you, Dave, about the UN weapons inspectors. They didn’t decide that Iraq had WMDs but I read the UN reports from the arms inspectors, and the reports were pretty damning — the inspectors were certain that they were being deceived and that the Iraqis were hiding something. That a regime like Saddam’s would be secretive is not surprising, but given that these were arms inspectors who were supposedly being shown evidence that there were no WMDs to worry about, the obvious deception was deeply alarming. After I read the final UN reports, I was convinced that an attack on Iraq leading to regime change was called for.
I can look up the links to the specific UN reports if you are interested.
After I read the final UN reports, I was convinced that an attack on Iraq leading to regime change was called for.
That’s a conclusion too far. I, too, was convinced that Hussein probably had chemical weapons. But that didn’t mean that an invasion was called for. There was no evidence that he had the capability or inclination to damage the U.S. to such a degree that would justify a trillion-dollar, multi-thousand-casualty preventative war (not to mention that such a war would tip the regional balance of power to Iran). The simplistic formula that [chemical weapons are WMD] + [any WMD possession by bad guys poses a dire threat to the U.S.] + [all dire threats must be met with military action] = [we must invade Iraq], but all three elements of the formula were questionable — even if Hussein had possessed chemical weapons.
Jim – I’d really like to talk to you about this and don’t have time right now. No promises, but please check back here after the weekend. Thanks!
So Saddam really did have WMDs in the basements of his palaces?
Saddam really did claim to have them, and soldiers on the ground really did find weaponry to dispense chemical weapons. But then, I guess progressives also forget that the reason for the no fly zone was that Saddam really did use chemical weapons on civilians.
I’m not sure about Bush, but I know someone that is obviously and badly wrong.
Condolleeza Rice definitely did lie. She was briefed by the DOE that the aluminum tubes probably weren’t for centrifuges, and then turned around and went on TV claiming that they could only be used for centrifuges. After that lie came out she was promoted.
Condolleeza Rice definitely did lie.
Libel much?
The problem with Jim’s definitive statement is that the Aluminum Tubes in question are a controlled item that the UN prohibited Iraq from obtaining, because they could be used for gas centrifuges. In addition, the French government came to the same conclusion as Condoleezza Rice. But the more damning thing about Jim’s comment is the DoE told Congress: Based on the reported specifications, the tubes could be used to manufacture gas centrifuge rotor cylinders for uranium enrichment.
If Jim wants to hang his hat on “only” being a lie, he has the problem that the tubes were prohibited from Iraq by the UN because they could be used for a nuclear weapons program. Let’s see Rice’s words, shall we: High quality aluminum tubes that are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs.
For fun, let’s look at Susan Rice’s words, shall we: Rice stressed that “neither I nor anyone else in the administration intended to mislead the American people at any stage in this process, and the administration updated Congress and the American people as our assessments evolved.” Oh wait, she said that about this:
CBS:
SUSAN RICE: They are not on the ground yet, but they have already begun looking at all sorts of evidence of– of various sorts already available to them and to us. And they will get on the ground and continue the investigation. So we’ll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions. But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy–
BOB SCHIEFFER: Mm-Hm.
SUSAN RICE: –sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that– in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.
BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?
SUSAN RICE: We do not– we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.
Fox News:
RICE: Well, first of all, Chris, we are obviously investigating this very closely. The FBI has a lead in this investigation. The information, the best information and the best assessment we have today is that in fact this was not a preplanned, premeditated attack.That what happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video. People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent and those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya and that then spun out of control.
But we don’t see at this point signs this was a coordinated plan, premeditated attack. Obviously, we will wait for the results of the investigation and we don’t want to jump to conclusions before then. But I do think it’s important for the American people to know our best current assessment.
There was evidence from days before the attack of a potential attack. There were warnings by the supposed leader of the attack. The UK brought home its ambassador for that week, because of the warnings and a previous attack. What has not been found is any evidence of a protest of the video in Benghazi. Further, the word premeditation has special legal meaning in terms of what crime was committed. Is it the Democrat position that terrorist acts can be performed without premeditation? If so, how does the assailant know the act will cause terror?
The problem with Jim’s definitive statement is that the Aluminum Tubes in question are a controlled item
That isn’t a problem at all for my contention that Rice lied. The lie wasn’t saying that the tubes were a controlled item. The lie was saying that the tubes were “only really suited for nuclear weapons programs”, when she knew that wasn’t the case.
But the more damning thing about Jim’s comment is the DoE told Congress: Based on the reported specifications, the tubes could be used to manufacture gas centrifuge rotor cylinders for uranium enrichment.
Right, but Rice didn’t say the tubes “could” be used for nuclear weapons programs, she said they were “only really suited for nuclear weapons programs”. That’s a very different claim, a claim she knew to be false. According to the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, both the DOE and the State Department believed the tubes were meant for conventional weapons (as, indeed, they were). Rice deliberately misrepresented the findings of the intelligence community, in order to build support for a disastrous and unnecessary war.
What has not been found is any evidence of a protest of the video in Benghazi.
That’s not true. The NYT investigation concluded, based on interviews with witnesses, that “Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters.” Now maybe those witnesses are mistaken, but their accounts do constitute evidence.
The NYT investigation concluded
LOL
Anger at the video motivated the initial attack
Now your claiming it was a spontaneous attack? LOL
I’m beginning to think I’m psychic. I can almost always tell from the topic’s title if it’s going to bring the Talking Points Brigade out in force. I was mostly right about this one, but where’s dn-guy to throw in some brilliant gem, or Bob-1 (aka “Sidetrack Bob”) to try to shift the argument down some other lane?
Good thing these threads have a tree-like structure to support multiple lane!
But why did you bring up the subject of, well, sorry to put too fine a point on it, but why did you bring up the subject of me? Are you trying to shift the argument?
To answer your question: no.