Going to open up about the vile behavior of New Jersey Republicans and white wash the entire party in the process? :devil2:

-spence

I'm pretty sure you don't mean me. I can't compete in this forum on any topic. However, I wouldn't stick up for the aides responsible. With out a doubt some of the stupidest people on earth, thinking inappropriate emails sent to/from prominent state officials wouldn't sometime come back to bite them in the a$$ let alone incriminate them.

I'm sure Jim started a thread on the IRS scandal :) and blamed Pres Obama for the actions of some mid-level IRS agent, half way across the country (who was conserv. and targeted groups from both sides of the political spectrum) while he makes excuses for Gov. Christie's aide and childhood friend.

One of many quotes that made me laugh was when he said he wasn't a bully. I'm wondering if the people he has challenged to a fight would agree.

As an aside, I don't think Christie had anything to do with this.

An atypical response.

Its an election year and Christie's contemplating a run in '16 and there's a "scandal",imagine that!

You guys are #^&#^&#^&#^&ing pathetic.

Spence, if Christie was a Democrat, every single person here knows you'd be bending over backwards to defend him.

I'm more fair than that. If Christie had no first-hand knowledgs of what happened, he still deserves to catch a lot of heat, because the buck stops with him. If he did know, and I presume that he did, he deserves to be impeached. FAIR ENOUGH?

I'd say that what Christie did is slightly more appalling than Obama's closing the open-air WWII memorial, and other un-manned parks, during the shutdown. Both are cases of causing unnecessary stress, to innocent bystanders, for political motives (you will never admit Obama had political reasons for erecting barracades around open air parks). Spence, we all know that you endlessly defended that, as you are physically incapable of saying anything critical of your man-crush.

On these forums, I have, on occasion, lambasted conservatives when they have it coming. I have also stated that I believe conservatives are wrong on some issues like gay marriage and gun control.

That makes me more fair-minded than you are capable of ever being. Spence, I am not the right-wing equivalent of you, not even close, I'm not nearly as radically right as you are left. Not even remotely close. You're a liberal parrot. So please don't ever accuse me of being as blind and as brainwashed and thoughtless and as simple-minded and as predictable as you are. If you can't think for yourself, perhaps you can at least strive for a shred of intellectual honesty here. Is that really asking so much?

Obviously I'm right-leaning. However, you are the fanatic here, not me.

An atypical response.

Its an election year and Christie's contemplating a run in '16 and there's a "scandal",imagine that!

You guys are #^&#^&#^&#^&ing pathetic.

It is a legitimate scandal. Ambulances were late responding to calls, precisely because of the lane closures. Public servents have no business engaging in that kind of vindictive behavior. If Christie's team is pissed at the Fort Lee mayor, why not target their anger at him, instead of dragging all of the citizens into it. Christie is their governor, too, he is supposed to look out for them.

It's a real scandal. What's phony is the liberal outrage to this behavior, when those same liberals (read: Spence and everyone at MSNBC) refuse to criticize any Democrat for equally repugnant behavior. But the conservatives, unlike liberals, believe in family values, and we need to practice what we preach.

I cannot believe Christie would do something so asinine.

I'm sure Jim started a thread on the IRS scandal :) and blamed Pres Obama for the actions of some mid-level IRS agent, half way across the country (who was conserv. and targeted groups from both sides of the political spectrum) .

I have a hunch your facts are a bit mixed up here. I could be wrong, but I think the IRS was targeting conservatives, the IRS was not equally targeting conservatives and liberals.

And the person leading the Justice Department probe into the IRS scandal, is an Obama donor. Shocking.

I'm pretty sure you don't mean me.
Innocent.

-spence

I have a hunch your facts are a bit mixed up here. I could be wrong, but I think the IRS was targeting conservatives, the IRS was not equally targeting conservatives and liberals.

And the person leading the Justice Department probe into the IRS scandal, is an Obama donor.

Shocking.

There were far more cons groups then lib. groups who applied.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There were far more cons groups then lib. groups who applied.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is there any evidence that liberal groups were targeted specifically for their political beliefs?

Bump up the thread that I'm sure you started and we could rehash the things which were already discussed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bump up the thread that I'm sure you started and we could rehash the things which were already discussed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Seems to me that you are the one who initiated the rehashing of the IRS scandal, if you read the posts in this thread. I'm just responding to your accusation. If you used this thread to comment on the IRS scandal, I fail to see why I can't do the same.

I don't know if I started one. I don't think liberal groups were complaining that the IRS was targeting them specifically for their political beliefs. I have heard Obama apologize for the fact that the IRS was targeting conservatives.

Spence, if Christie was a Democrat, every single person here knows you'd be bending over backwards to defend him.


That makes me more fair-minded than you are capable of ever being. Spence, I am not the right-wing equivalent of you, not even close, I'm not nearly as radically right as you are left. Not even remotely close. .


I'm sure that he would be defending him but the difference is that he doesn't start threads every time he sees something that he doesn't like than state that all repubs. are like that as you do. Finally he doesn't resort to insults as you frequently do.

Is there any wonder this forum has lost so many members since you started posting? I always wonder if you speak like that when you're face to face with people.

I did get a laugh at that last comment though,
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm sure that he would be defending him but the difference is that he doesn't start threads every time he sees something that he doesn't like than state that all repubs. are like that as you do. Finally he doesn't resort to insults as you frequently do.

Is there any wonder this forum has lost so many members since you started posting? I always wonder if you speak like that when you're face to face with people.

I did get a laugh at that last comment though,
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Paul: The IRS didn't single out conservatives, they persecuted liberals too.

Jim: Do you have any facts to support that?

Paul: Everyone is leaving this forum because of you, you big meanie!

Do I have that about right, Paul? Is that what transpired here?

I did get a laugh at that last comment though,
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

My last comment was that Obama apologized for the IRS scandal, and that's funny to you? Well, as usual (not always, but usually) my facts seem to be correct. A quote from Obama...

"If, in fact, IRS personnel engaged in the kind of practices that have been reported on and were intentionally targeting conservative groups, then that is outrageous, and there is no place for it, and they have to be held fully accountable, because the IRS as an independent agency requires absolute integrity and people have to have confidence that they are applying the laws in a non-partisan way. You should feel that way regardless of party."

Paul, you denied that the IRS targeted conservative groups. Obama himself doesn't seem to be denying that, so why would you deny it?

Sorry for being so mean...

Is that what happened?

No, I don't think you are a meanie. I would say you are something else but since I can't say it to your face I won't say it.k
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

My last comment was that Obama apologized for the IRS scandal, and that's funny to you? Well, as usual (not always, but usually) my facts seem to be correct. A quote from Obama...

"If, in fact, IRS personnel engaged in the kind of practices that have been reported on and were intentionally targeting conservative groups, then that is outrageous, and there is no place for it, and they have to be held fully accountable, because the IRS as an independent agency requires absolute integrity and people have to have confidence that they are applying the laws in a non-partisan way. You should feel that way regardless of party."

Paul, you denied that the IRS targeted conservative groups. Obama himself doesn't seem to be denying that, so why would you deny it?

Sorry for being so mean...

No, the last comment was that you think you are fair minded, The irs targeted both lib and cons groups. More cons groups where targeted as there were more applying. While no conservative groups where denied NP status they were given extra scrutiny.

Where did I deny that the Irs targeted cons. groups?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, the last comment was that you think you are fair minded, The irs targeted both lib and cons groups. More cons groups where targeted as there were more applying. While no conservative groups where denied NP status they were
given extra scrutiny.

Where did I deny that the Irs cons. groups?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Paul, you said Obama's IRS targeted both sides. I asked for proof. You responded with insults.

Paul, you said Obama's IRS targeted both sides. I asked for proof. You responded with insults.

Just following your lead.

I just did a google search on "liberal groups targeted by the irs" and the articles said the irs used the terms emerge and Acorn - just as they used the term progressive.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just following your lead.

I just did a google search on "liberal groups targeted by the irs" and the articles said the irs used the terms emerge and Acorn - just as they used the term progressive.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
No, he's trying to deflect.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just following your lead.

I just did a google search on "liberal groups targeted by the irs" and the articles said the irs used the terms emerge and Acorn - just as they used the term progressive.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So why hasn't ACORN complained about being targeted?

Spence was right to bring up Christie, and I'm glad he did, because I'd be one heck of a hypocrite if I didn't criticize him. If he knew about this, he is unfit to be POTUS. So is a woman who lied about being shot at in Kosovo when she knows damn well that never happened.

A fine state of affairs when that's our choice. I did like Christie before this. I still agree with him on the issues, but we need someone with some ethics.

No, he's trying to deflect.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

<Sigh>. What exactly am I trying to deflect here, Spence? I said that if Christie knew about this, he should be impeached.

I'll also say this...within 24 hours of the story breaking, Christie had people fired, and said that even though he didn't know about this, it's his fault because the buck stops with him.

Has Obama ever stepped up like that? Is that how Obama handled the IRS scandal, or the failed stimulus (which he promised would keep unemployment under 8%), or the website disaster, or Benghazi? It was refreshing, at least, that Christie didn't blame George Bush.

I want this investigated, and if it turns out Christie ordered this, he should get impeached, and possibly charged with a crime. Ambulances couldn't get where they were trying to go because of this. Lives were put at risk, all for political spite. I want my side to be better than that. If he ordered this, he's unfit for public service.

I want this investigated, and if it turns out Christie ordered this, he should get impeached, and possibly charged with a crime. Ambulances couldn't get where they were trying to go because of this. Lives were put at risk, all for political spite. I want my side to be better than that. If he ordered this, he's unfit for public service.

I agree Jim, hard to believe such infantile behavior would come directly from Christie.
But if it did, he needs to have his head examined.
Having been a Prosecutor knowing the consequences and facing an election it doesn't make sense.

I agree Jim, hard to believe such infantile behavior would come directly from Christie.
But if it did, he needs to have his head examined.
Having been a Prosecutor knowing the consequences and facing an election it doesn't make sense.

Maybe he forgot which party he's in, because if he were a Democrat, we wouldn't be talking about this.

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1028099]<Sigh>. What exactly am I trying to deflect here, Spence?

QUOTE]

if you want to "deflect" you could refer to anyone who criticizes Christie and the goings on in his administration as "haters"...who are full of vile hate, motivated by extremist tendencies and probably also bigots who hate fat people who can't help being who they are and then you could make condescending remarks about how the " Christie haters and bigots" are incapable of "thinking", inject a lot of meaningless phrases and unsubstantiated "facts" that for you pass as "thinking" and then mock and ridicule the "haters and bigots" who point out the lunacy of your distortion of "facts" and the obvious flaws in your "thinking"and then disappear for a while only to pop up on another thread doing and saying essentially the same thing once again....:)

I think that's how it works :uhuh:

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1028099]<Sigh>. What exactly am I trying to deflect here, Spence?

QUOTE]

if you want to "deflect" you could refer to anyone who criticizes Christie and the goings on in his administration as "haters"...who are full of vile hate, motivated by extremist tendencies and probably also bigots who hate fat people who can't help being who they are and then you could make condescending remarks about how the " Christie haters and bigots" are incapable of "thinking", inject a lot of meaningless phrases and unsubstantiated "facts" that for you pass as "thinking" and then mock and ridicule the "haters and bigots" who point out the lunacy of your distortion of "facts" and the obvious flaws in your "thinking"and then disappear for a while only to pop up on another thread doing and saying essentially the same thing once again....:)

I think that's how it works :uhuh:

I think you're right. The Christie detractor are a bunch of anti-chubby bigots who can't see that Christie was trying to help the environment by getting people to walk to work.

Maybe he forgot which party he's in, because if he were a Democrat, we wouldn't be talking about this.C

Seems about right being NBC, CBS and MSNBC spent something like 17 X more time
on the Christie scandal in the first 24 hours than they spent in one year on the IRS Scandal.

You guys are funny. Here's Christie in a pickle and you just can't help but make it about Obama. I should trademark "Benghazi" as I'd make a fortune.

Records being released make it seem impossible Christie isn't lying about his knowledge, even if he didn't have a hand in the actual event.

-spence

You guys are funny. Here's Christie in a pickle and you just can't help but make it about Obama. I should trademark "Benghazi" as I'd make a fortune.

Records being released make it seem impossible Christie isn't lying about his knowledge, even if he didn't have a hand in the actual event.

-spence

The conservatives here seem to have concluded that Christie deserves whatever heat he takes. When did you say that about Obama? When the stimulus failed to keep unemployment under 8%? After Benghazi? After the IRS scandal? After the Obamacare website disaster? Answer: nope.

Spence, you began this thread with the assumption that I was a hypocrite who would point out liberal flaws, but give Christie a pass. Clearly you were mistaken, yet again.

Spence, there is one, and only one, ideological fanatic here who refuses to criticize his own party no matter what. That could not be more clear. It is demonstrably true.

The conservatives here seem to have concluded that Christie deserves whatever heat he takes. When did you say that about Obama? When the stimulus failed to keep unemployment under 8%? After Benghazi? After the IRS scandal? After the Obamacare website disaster? Answer: nope.

Spence, you began this thread with the assumption that I was a hypocrite who would point out liberal flaws, but give Christie a pass. Clearly you were mistaken, yet again.

Spence, there is one, and only one, ideological fanatic here who refuses to criticize his own party no matter what. That could not be more clear. It is demonstrably true.
Benghazi happened just as originally described. There was no coverup. The ties to al Qaeda were fabricated by a corrupt journalist to sell a story, which the GOP ate up with great delight. That is, unless my facts are wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Benghazi happened just as originally described. There was no coverup. The ties to al Qaeda were fabricated by a corrupt journalist to sell a story, which the GOP ate up with great delight. That is, unless my facts are wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Whether it was Al Queda or not (that may still be open for debate), it certainly had nothing to do with a video, yet the administration kept playing that card, which essentially was blaming an American citizen for what happened in Benghazi (the video was made by an American). What do you think of that? Then we have a senior administration official (Clinton), saying "what difference does it make" what the root cause was. What difference does it make. Tell that to the families.

Obama also (1) spent almost $1 trillion on a stimulus that he said would keep unemployment below 8%, and unemployment shot over 10%; (2) claimed to be post partisan, yet his IRS was targeting the tea party; (3) said "if you like your plan or doctor, you can keep them - period".

Not one critical syllable from you-know-who on any of those flubs.

So who is the fanatic? Hmmmmmmm...

Et tu, Nebe?

Benghazi happened just as originally described. There was no coverup. The ties to al Qaeda were fabricated by a corrupt journalist to sell a story, which the GOP ate up with great delight. That is, unless my facts are wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Nebe, bin laden ordered the hit. Hillary was smuggling manpads in her slacks to Iran in exchange for a discount at the rug emporium around exit 38 on the Long Island expressway. This is all about Chicago and Acorn, the Rev Wright and pot in Hawaii. It would be funny if he were really an American citizen.

Benghazi.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Lmao!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nebe, bin laden ordered the hit. Hillary was smuggling manpads in her slacks to Iran in exchange for a discount at the rug emporium around exit 38 on the Long Island expressway. This is all about Chicago and Acorn, the Rev Wright and pot in Hawaii. It would be funny if he were really an American citizen.

Benghazi.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Phew! Thank you for admitting it was about these loony tunes, not about Bush. And yet . . . you still have your nose up their butt.

this is great isn't it? Spence starts a thread hoping to make himself feel better about the failures of his hero and then complains that others make everything about his hero...Paul was actually the first to inject the O word...Eben makes a "statement of fact"(opinion)...neglecting to include any facts which makes the statement little more than an opinion based on ??? Paul insults Jim for being insulting.....and Eben and Spence tickle each other's navels and laugh at fart jokes-LMAO....I think they refer to this as "enlightened high-mindedness"

meanwhile...domestic economic policy is a disaster, foreign policy is a disaster, Governors act like thugs and Presidents take lavish 4 million dollar vacations and then whine about income inequality:smash:

Pinkies up spence!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Scott. Here is your facts. Old news....

http://www.theeverlastinggopstoppers.com/2013/05/cbs-news-destroys-benghazi-scandal-gop-fabrication-video/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, let's try a little exercise, shall we?

You started this thread with the assumption that I would not be critical of Christie. but I was.

Your turn.

Hilary, as we all know, recently made up stories about being under sniper fire at an airport in Kosovo or somewhere, where she had to DIVE! into waiting military vehicles. Video from that day showed she lied through her teeth, as she was calmly smiling and waving for the cameras.

Her excuse? She was tired from not getting enough sleep the night before! Anyone who raises kids knows what brutal sleep deprivation feels like. Never, not once, has sleep deprivation caused any of us to believe we were under sniper attack.

OK Spence, what say you? Why doesn't this incident show without a shred of doubt, that this is a woman who will say anything whatsoever, and then confronted with irrefutable evidence of a lie, she makes up another lie.

What say you?

Good luck!

Scott. Here is your facts. Old news....

http://www.theeverlastinggopstoppers.com/2013/05/cbs-news-destroys-benghazi-scandal-gop-fabrication-video/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The article is not related to your post to which ScottW referred.

It doesn't say that Benghazi happened as originally described. The original description involving the video is not even discussed.

It doesn't say there was NO cover-up. It says that a couple of memos were misquoted which somehow discredits the whole investigation, and disregards everything else about the incident. And the "misquotes" don't entirely change the nature of the "original" quotes. One left out mention of the State Dept. and the other was a rewrite by the CIA which left out references to al Qaeda which they had in their original quote to satisfy the sensitivities of State Dept.

It doesn't say that the ties to Al Qaeda were "fabricated" by a corrupt journalist to sell a story. It stays away from discussing ties to Al Qaeda, which subsequent stories by "reputable" journalists (including CNN :uhuh:)show existed.

As Spence likes to say, this is old news.

Scott. Here is your facts. Old news....

http://www.theeverlastinggopstoppers.com/2013/05/cbs-news-destroys-benghazi-scandal-gop-fabrication-video/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I suspect that if I were to reference or link the

http:www.theeverlastinglibstoppers.com

or something similar

for "facts and old news" on a controversial issue, you and Spence would be cackling and howling...:uhuh:

brilliant:)

You guys are funny. Here's Christie in a pickle and you just can't help but make it about Obama.

-spence

Christie's guilt is still unproven, and again if he is guilty I will be the first to say he
should face the consequences.
I will say this for him, he was willing to face it head on, not claiming he read it in the press, LOL, and he faced the charges in front of the press answering every question for an hour and a half including apologizing profusely.

I doubt the Rose Garden has been open for that much questioning or answering time about the many scandals in the last 5 years. :D

Spence starts a thread hoping to make himself feel better about the failures of his hero and then complains that others make everything about his hero...

Wrong. I started this thread to make fun of Jim.

-spence

Wrong. I started this thread to make fun of Jim.

-spence

And your jests proved to be unfounded, since I said that if Christie ordered this, he's unfit to serve the public. Since you dodged my question, allow me to ask again,. Spence, what do you think of the fact (and it is irrefutable fact) that Hilary lied to our faces about getting shot at, at the airport in Kosovo or somewhere? And her excuse for lying, that she was tired? Does that excuse hold water?

I mean, if sleep deprivation cause her to lose the ability to distinguish between reality and fantasy, what the hell is going to happen when she gets calls from the Situation Room at 3 AM? If she is suffering from exhaustion-induced psychosis, is she going to order the Marines to invade Portugal?

Let's lay down our cards, Spence. Let's see who the fanatic is who cannot be critical of those who share our political ideology. Hint - it's not me.

You started this, let's take it to its logical conclusion, shall we?

I await your reply...

Let's be fair, Christie doesn't share your "political ideology".

Let's be fair, Christie doesn't share your "political ideology".

Me? You think? I would think I agree with him on most of the issues, and for sure I admire his willingness to speak honestly and correctly about what needs to be addressed via the labor unions.

I was a huge supporter of his for a presidential run. If he had anything to do with ordering the lane closures, I want that to come out, because in that case, i would never vote for him in the primary.

Hope all is well Paul.

Jim

And your jests proved to be unfounded, since I said that if Christie ordered this, he's unfit to serve the public. Since you dodged my question, allow me to ask again,. Spence, what do you think of the fact (and it is irrefutable fact) that Hilary lied to our faces about getting shot at, at the airport in Kosovo or somewhere? And her excuse for lying, that she was tired? Does that excuse hold water?

I mean, if sleep deprivation cause her to lose the ability to distinguish between reality and fantasy, what the hell is going to happen when she gets calls from the Situation Room at 3 AM? If she is suffering from exhaustion-induced psychosis, is she going to order the Marines to invade Portugal?

Let's lay down our cards, Spence. Let's see who the fanatic is who cannot be critical of those who share our political ideology. Hint - it's not me.

You started this, let's take it to its logical conclusion, shall we?

I await your reply...

Yoo-hoo, Spence? Yo, Spence!!

Yoo-hoo, Spence? Yo, Spence!!

Can't I work a bit? It helps to pay the bills.

My jest is not unfounded as I never claimed you'd profess your fealty.

We've beaten the Kosovo topic to death. What's next? Biden's plaigerism and Wright's "chickens coming home to roost"?

What's interesting here is that you actually have a scandal broken with a smoking gun versus Obama's "scandals" that are highly manufactured.

What remains to be seen is if Christy can make it through this. I'd like to think he's being honest but the number of close aids that were involved makes that difficult. You know the guy is running for POTUS and you don't warn him of an ethics violation that could likely submarine his campaign?

This along with the Sandy story could very well spell doom. He's lucky it came out now.

-spence

We've beaten the Kosovo topic to death.
-spence

Kindly refresh my memory? Tell me how that lie actually makes her MORE suited to be POTUS than if she told the truth?

Can't I work a bit? It helps to pay the bills.

My jest is not unfounded as I never claimed you'd profess your fealty.

We've beaten the Kosovo topic to death. What's next? Biden's plaigerism and Wright's "chickens coming home to roost"?

What's interesting here is that you actually have a scandal broken with a smoking gun versus Obama's "scandals" that are highly manufactured.

What remains to be seen is if Christy can make it through this. I'd like to think he's being honest but the number of close aids that were involved makes that difficult. You know the guy is running for POTUS and you don't warn him of an ethics violation that could likely submarine his campaign?

This along with the Sandy story could very well spell doom. He's lucky it came out now.

-spence

:rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:

This "scandal" is actually more hilarious than SNL would portray it. No doubt they will. It's that there are those flashbacks of Christie (that name just doesn't seem to fit him) walking with Obama after Sandy and praising him, and being able to "reach across the aisle" and be "bi-partisan," and bashing tea partiers and "right wing conservatives." I can't help but snicker as I write this. He bashes and shuns those who should be his allies and cozies up to those who he supposedly runs against. Has he learned anything now? Those cuddly little puppy dogs that he would befriend are now furiously biting at his ankles, and soon the wildebeest that he is will fall and become prey to his own lack of principle.

Or, as you say, he's lucky it came out now. That is, of course, how "scandals" die, isn't it? Just let time pass and they go away. And if anyone brings them up, just ask haven't we "beaten them to death?", and say it's old news. Poof. And if that doesn't quiet the old news chatter, just sarcastically repeat the scandal's names as if that, like voodoo, cleanses them of any force or validity. Right. So, since all scandals are "manufactured" (played up big by the media to give them "legs," or given a mere mention, if anything, and dropped from the conversation to wither and die) they can be dismissed by time and lack of attention.

But my laughter is cynical here, tinged with a bit of joy. The establishment Republican willingness to play the progressive game is the same self-destruction that Christie is experiencing now. He has no true friends, neither among them, nor from those across the aisle, nor most of the media. He might actually now be the very candidate that the Democrats would like to run against. Not someone with the virtue and principle to inspire the majority of Americans who want something other than more of the same, but someone not too unlike themselves, but damaged, marginalized, destroyed, and a destruction brought about by appeasing them rather than truly fighting them.

When the Republican party can muster itself to being a true opponent to the progressive ideal of huge government and our dependence on it . . . can actually stand for the principles that made us "exceptional," made us the place for individuals hungering for freedom, not a bee hive society . . . when it can articulate such principles as well as act on them rather than concocting "strategies" for so-called victory such as funding and letting Obamacare grow so that most will hate it and then vote the Dems out . . . then it will be a truly different choice for the people. And it will have a reason to exist.

As it is now, Democrat lite is a losing proposition . . . even if they win.

Mea culpa. My above post went too far. Christie, I don't think, actually "bashed" right wingers. He's too accomplished a politician to do that. His profession to be "conservative" while acting more as a "centrist" makes him appear to "conservatives" to be soft on principles. He appears to talk "right" but slide "left" when the dust settles. And that is what the "conservative base" sees as a sort of slap in the face, and what makes that base suspicious of his bona fides as a leader. But if he can't convince that base, and if it distrusts him too much, he might, despite his reputed popularity, have a tough time winning the general election for President.

And his willingness to work with the left would probably lead us further down that road, just more slowly. If the Dems were actually willing to work with "conservatives" there might also be a slow down in the direction we're going, But their success in rapidly "transforming" America is built, not on compromise, but on the opposite.

So it appears that the unwillingness to "compromise," while talking it, is the means to success. That the Repubs try to be agreeable appears to make them weak, so they get rolled over without fear of retribution. Harry Reid boldly used the "nuclear option" to bar the ability of the minority to filibuster court nominees, so Obama can freely fill vacancies at record speed with the type of judges who will help further the progressive agenda. And what do the Repubs do? They promise to restore the filibuster power when they win. Brilliant. Instead of using the power to ram through their type of judges, they'll go back to having them denied. And we go further down the road.

So Christie may weather the storm. If he does, and if it makes him stronger and an even stronger candidate by beating his attackers, will he act as tough as he talks, or will he talk and slide?

Benghazi happened just as originally described. There was no coverup. The ties to al Qaeda were fabricated by a corrupt journalist to sell a story, which the GOP ate up with great delight. That is, unless my facts are wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"The ties to al Qaeda were fabricated by a corrupt journalist to sell a story"

Interesting. The US Senate, which last time I checked was run by the Democrats, issued a report saying definitively that there were ties to Al Queda.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/15/senate-intelligence-committee-releases-comprehensive-benghazi-report/

Our presidential front runner, Mrs Clinton, said during the hearings "what difference does it make" who was responsible. HOW ABOUT THIS...the difference is, the truth tells us accurately, who we need to go after to seek justice. That means nothing to the woman who was in charge of the department that lost 4 of its employees?

I don't get the liberal willingness to let politicians get away with absolutely anything, especially if their name is Kennedy or Clinton. I truly do not get it.

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1028711Our presidential front runner, Mrs Clinton, said during the hearings "what difference does it make" who was responsible. HOW ABOUT THIS...the difference is, the truth tells us accurately, who we need to go after to seek justice. That means nothing to the woman who was in charge of the department that lost 4 of its employees?

I don't get the liberal willingness to let politicians get away with absolutely anything, especially if their name is Kennedy or Clinton. I truly do not get it.[/QUOTE]

So when she made that statement, was she refering to "who was responsible" as you indicated b/c the way you wrote that it sounds like she didn't care who was responsible?

Interesting. The US Senate, which last time I checked was run by the Democrats, issued a report saying definitively that there were ties to Al Queda.
The report you cite was a product of the Senate Intel Committee which isn't run by democrats...it's bi-partisan. From what I've read it pretty much aligns with the independent review from a year ago.

It doesn't appear to establish anything new. It's been known for some time that participants in the attack had some level of linkage to groups claiming to be al Qaeda in north Africa, but there's still no evidence of material involvement by those groups or involvement by core alQaeda in Pakistan.

Anyone can raise a black flag and claim to be alQaeda.

Our presidential front runner, Mrs Clinton, said during the hearings "what difference does it make" who was responsible. HOW ABOUT THIS...the difference is, the truth tells us accurately, who we need to go after to seek justice. That means nothing to the woman who was in charge of the department that lost 4 of its employees?

To Paul's response...she said those responsible would come out in the investigation but the priority should be on the initial actions necessary to protect out people. Funny, Jim never posts the entire remarks...

-spence

But my laughter is cynical here, tinged with a bit of joy. The establishment Republican willingness to play the progressive game is the same self-destruction that Christie is experiencing now. He has no true friends, neither among them, nor from those across the aisle, nor most of the media. He might actually now be the very candidate that the Democrats would like to run against. Not someone with the virtue and principle to inspire the majority of Americans who want something other than more of the same, but someone not too unlike themselves, but damaged, marginalized, destroyed, and a destruction brought about by appeasing them rather than truly fighting them.
When you look at Christy's record on many issues he certainly looks like a conservative. That's he's not as rabid a partisan as the tea party would like doesn't diminish his own beliefs.

I think the GOP would benefit much from a Republican-light nominee. A hard change in course to the right from what's been established by both parties over the past decades would be seen are more progressive than what we have today.

-spence

The report you cite was a product of the Senate Intel Committee which isn't run by democrats...it's bi-partisan. From what I've read it pretty much aligns with the independent review from a year ago.

It doesn't appear to establish anything new. It's been known for some time that participants in the attack had some level of linkage to groups claiming to be al Qaeda in north Africa, but there's still no evidence of material involvement by those groups or involvement by core alQaeda in Pakistan.

Anyone can raise a black flag and claim to be alQaeda.



To Paul's response...she said those responsible would come out in the investigation but the priority should be on the initial actions necessary to protect out people. Funny, Jim never posts the entire remarks...

-spence

"the Senate Intel Committee which isn't run by democrats"

The Senate Intel committee has a chairperson who runs the committee. That chairperson is Diane Feinstein. Ms Feinstein is a Democrat. Therefore that committee, like every single senate committee, is run by the democrats. Am I going too fast for you?

There are 15 members of the committee...7 Republicans, 7 democrats, an an independent who caucuses with the Democrats. Stop embarassing yourself.

Nebe said that the link to Al Queda was fabricated by a reporter. The report issued by the senate intelligence committee, run by those in your party, seems to contradict that.

"Anyone can raise a black flag and claim to be alQaeda."

That's true. Presumably, however, the Senate intelligence committee has some ability to differentiate between genuine Al Queda, and some wannabe. If that's not the case, perhaps Senator Feinstein is in over her head.

So when she made that statement, was she refering to "who was responsible" as you indicated b/c the way you wrote that it sounds like she didn't care who was responsible?


Let's assume that all she was indifferent to, was the motivatiuon behind the attackers. How is that still not crucial? If the attack was a response toi a video, then we know we can avoid future attacks by stepping up security when such videos come out. If the attack was a pre-meditated terrorist plot, we avoid future attacks by killing the members of that terrorist group.

Those are very different scenarios Paul, each of which having a completely different response. I don't believe that you disagree with that statement. It's stupifying that the SesState, and presumptive presidential nomine sees no reason to split those hairs.

WHere am I going wrong Paul? No sarcasm, that's a sincere querstion. Politics aside, I don't see how her question doesn't raise serious questions about her ability to serve at that level.

As an aside, blaming the attack on a video, is blaming the attack on a goddamn American citizen, since it was an American who mnade the video. SHe is supposed to be looking out for Americans, not throwing them under the bus to deflect blame for an attack.

I don't blame her for the attack. In this age, you can't stop them all. Her response was astounding.

"The ties to al Qaeda were fabricated by a corrupt journalist to sell a story"

Interesting. The US Senate, which last time I checked was run by the Democrats, issued a report saying definitively that there were ties to Al Queda.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/15/senate-intelligence-committee-releases-comprehensive-benghazi-report/

Our presidential front runner, Mrs Clinton, said during the hearings "what difference does it make" who was responsible. HOW ABOUT THIS...the difference is, the truth tells us accurately, who we need to go after to seek justice. That means nothing to the woman who was in charge of the department that lost 4 of its employees?

I don't get the liberal willingness to let politicians get away with absolutely anything, especially if their name is Kennedy or Clinton. I truly do not get it.

jim you quoted fox, how dare you....how about CNN?
Spence, once again you are totally WRONG a

CNN) -- The deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, was "likely preventable" based on known security shortfalls and prior warnings that the security situation there was deteriorating, the majority of the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded in a report released on Wednesday.Separately, the findings also noted what the FBI had told the panel -- that 15 people cooperating with its investigation had been killed in Benghazi, undercutting the investigation. It was not clear if the killings were related to the probe.

Moreover, it said that people linked with various al Qaeda-related groups in North Africa and elsewhere participated in the September 11, 2012, attack, but investigators haven't been able to determine whether any one group was in command.


http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/15/politics/senate-benghazi-report/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

carry on - and BTW, you people are all insane.

Read what she said. I don't think you have ever read a transcript.

"Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime."

So she said she wanted to know what happened, prevent it from happening again, and bring them to justice.

Frankly, spending this much time on a sentence or 2 in a hour??? long questioning is silly.

I think the GOP would benefit much from a Republican-light nominee.

-spence

We tried that with McCain and Romney, didn't work out that well. I suppose the answer isn't to nominate a more radical conservative, but rather to nominate someone who won't let the Democrats and the media (sorry for the redundancy) launch unfounded attacks, one after the other. We need someone who (1) has appeal to independents, and (2) isn't afraid to throw an elbow back when attacked. That was Christie.

Read what she said. I don't think you have ever read a transcript.

"Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime."

"it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice"

Apparently you didn't read my last post. This quote from Clinton is idiotic. It is stupifying in its absurdity. The tactical response, in terms of preventing a future attack, is very different depending upon whether it was a reaction to a video, or a premeditated terrorist plot.

Paul, what about the fact that suggesting it was because of the video, is throwing an American citizen under the bus? As well as inviting Islamic radicals to declare a fatwah on the poor guy?

Obama should have been impeached for LYING and if Christy is lying about not knowing what happened then he should be impeached too....or maybe he should get a pass as did Obama.....LMAO

I read your last post. You changed what you said about the statement from her not caring about who was responsible to whether she was concerned with the motivation. She said "It is our job to figure out what happened". Don't you think that would cover the motivation?


I hate to say it but this is why I usually ignore your posts.

OOPS!.....if christy is only misleading then he should be forgiven

Obama should have been impeached for LYING and if Christy is lying about not knowing what happened then he should be impeached too....or maybe he should get a pass as did Obama.....LMAO

Read my lips:rotf2:

The Senate Intel committee has a chairperson who runs the committee. That chairperson is Diane Feinstein. Ms Feinstein is a Democrat. Therefore that committee, like every single senate committee, is run by the democrats. Am I going too fast for you?

There are 15 members of the committee...7 Republicans, 7 democrats, an an independent who caucuses with the Democrats. Stop embarassing yourself.
Unlike other Senate Committees the Intel Committee that Feinstein Chairs is fixed in the balanced of its membership -- by design -- to produce a bi-partisan product. Often times Senators don't agree but what the group publishes is what they do agree on. The report was a bi-partisan report.

Nebe said that the link to Al Queda was fabricated by a reporter. The report issued by the senate intelligence committee, run by those in your party, seems to contradict that.
I'm not responsible for Nebe's posts.

That's true. Presumably, however, the Senate intelligence committee has some ability to differentiate between genuine Al Queda, and some wannabe. If that's not the case, perhaps Senator Feinstein is in over her head.
Well, it sounds like those with access to the secret intel were able to make that distinction and didn't come up with anything new.

-spence

jim you quoted fox, how dare you....how about CNN?
Spence, once again you are totally WRONG a

CNN) -- The deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, was "likely preventable" based on known security shortfalls and prior warnings that the security situation there was deteriorating, the majority of the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded in a report released on Wednesday.Separately, the findings also noted what the FBI had told the panel -- that 15 people cooperating with its investigation had been killed in Benghazi, undercutting the investigation. It was not clear if the killings were related to the probe.

Moreover, it said that people linked with various al Qaeda-related groups in North Africa and elsewhere participated in the September 11, 2012, attack, but investigators haven't been able to determine whether any one group was in command.


http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/15/politics/senate-benghazi-report/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

carry on - and BTW, you people are all insane.
Funny, you said I'm wrong...even changed the size of the font for emphasis...then in your rant don't post anything that contradicts what I've said.

If you need any help cleaning your screen I'll send someone over. Know a lot of people down there...

-spence

I read your last post. You changed what you said about the statement from her not caring about who was responsible to whether she was concerned with the motivation. She said "It is our job to figure out what happened". Don't you think that would cover the motivation?


I hate to say it but this is why I usually ignore your posts.
You know what? I'll concede to you, that it's inappropriate to suggest that she doesn't care who did it. She seems to not care about why they did it, and the why has critical ramifications that, despite the fact that I mentioned it twice, you won't comment on.

You are also choosing not to comment on the fact that the administration blamed the attack on an American citizen.

"I usually ignore your posts"

It seems it would be more accurate to say that you ignore the sections of my posts that make your side look bad.

Unlike other Senate Committees the Intel Committee that Feinstein Chairs is fixed in the balanced of its membership -- by design -- to produce a bi-partisan product. Often times Senators don't agree but what the group publishes is what they do agree on. The report was a bi-partisan report.


I'm not responsible for Nebe's posts.


Well, it sounds like those with access to the secret intel were able to make that distinction and didn't come up with anything new.

-spence

You said that commottee is not led by Democrats. The chairperson is a hard core Democrat. I can't say it any more clearly.

"fixed in the balanced of its membership"

There are 8 members who caucus with the Democrats, and 7 members who caucus with the GOP. 8, I believe, is greater than 7.

The bi-partisan report sems to refute Nebe's claim that the link to AL Queda was fabricated by a reporter.

We've beaten the Kosovo topic to death.

-spence

Since you won't remind me of your opinion, I searched it. Here is what you said about the fact that she lied about sniper fire, then said that she lied because she was tired. Here is an exact quote from you...

"I'm not sure that really matters. A lot of fairly honest people are guilty of sensationalizing things along the way."

So Spence, your idea of "beating something to death", is to say that "it doesn't matter", and that's that?

Whether she is honest, or a blatant liar, "doesn't really matter" to you, as long as she's liberal.

You said that commottee is not led by Democrats. The chairperson is a hard core Democrat. I can't say it any more clearly.

"fixed in the balanced of its membership"

There are 8 members who caucus with the Democrats, and 7 members who caucus with the GOP. 8, I believe, is greater than 7.

The bi-partisan report sems to refute Nebe's claim that the link to AL Queda was fabricated by a reporter.
Ha, "hardcore" Democrat. Feinstien is known as a moderate in the Senate. You want to make it sounds like because the Dem's have a senate majority that adds legitimacy to the findings...guess what? It wouldn't make a difference. It's also why the same committee didn't thrash Bush over Iraqi intel...

-spence

Since you won't remind me of your opinion, I searched it. Here is what you said about the fact that she lied about sniper fire, then said that she lied because she was tired. Here is an exact quote from you...
She didn't say she "lied" because she was tired, she said she misspoke because she was tired.

I don't think she was trying to mislead anyone, she just conflated two stories. Flip a few words around and it all make sense.

-spence

She didn't say she "lied" because she was tired, she said she misspoke because she was tired.

I don't think she was trying to mislead anyone, she just conflated two stories. Flip a few words around and it all make sense.

-spence

Spence, what were the two stories she conflated? Please share.

One does not accidentally misremember getting shot at by snipers. Spence, was she referring to another time when she actually got shot at? Or has she never been shot at? If she claimed she got shot at in one place, but it actually happened in another place, that's one thing. If she has never been shot at, but claimed she has, that's something else. If one has been shot at nineteen times, but they claim it was twenty times, that's one thing. If one has been shot at zero times, but they claim it happened once, that's another thing entirely. It's not something you have trouble distinguishing between if it happened zero times or one time.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It doesn't appear to establish anything new. It's been known for some time that participants in the attack had some level of linkage to groups claiming to be al Qaeda in north Africa,

"some level of linkage"?? what would that level be, Spence? Is dismissing the affiliation as "some level" without having to describe it supposed to make the linkage irrelevant? Please do describe the linkage so we can see how insignificant it is.

but there's still no evidence of material involvement by those groups or involvement by core alQaeda in Pakistan.

What is "core" Al Qaeda, Spence? My understanding of a core is the center of something. What is Al Qaeda the "core" of? Isn't the core usually smaller than the mass that surrounds it? Isn't that which surrounds it connected to the core? Let me quote a statement in the New Yorker article which you called a good perspective:

". . . Al Qaeda today involves decentralized local affiliates."

Would the "participants in the attack" who had "some level of linkage" be part of that mass which surrounds the "core" of Al Qaeda?

Would "core" Al Qaeda ever be large enough to accomplish the worldwide Jihad Bin Laden summoned the children of Islam to do? Did he, or his "core" organizers envision such a feat to be done by a small "core"?

The short answer is no. The longer answer is THEY PLANNED ALL ALONG THAT THEIR MESSAGE AND MISSION WOULD BE DONE BY OTHERS. That's what Al Qaeda was about. Al Qaeda means "the base." It is only a base, a core ideology, from which the children of Islam would rise to reclaim the Muslim soul from the corruption of Western influence, especially from the influence of the Great Satin, the United States.

"Core" Al Qaeda could train leaders to infiltrate or start "affiliate" groups and so branch out into the larger "non-core" Al Qaeda brand. This is the way a religion grows, fractures, disseminates into different, seemingly disparate sects or groups or lone wolves, who in their separate ways preach and proselytize, or force their way into dominance.

That you, yourself, refer to a "core" Al Qaeda implies that there is a larger "Al Qaeda" beyond that core.

And not to understand this would lead to fatal errors such as Benghazi. As your New Yorker article states "in other words, it was the people the Obama administration judged to be our allies who turned on us . . . in a rational political environment, the President's opponents might see this as damning."

I think they do see it as damning, and in a rational environment of national security, the rest of us should see it so as well.

Anyone can raise a black flag and claim to be alQaeda.

-spence

Yes, exactly. That is all it takes to be an Al Qaeda affiliate with "some level of linkage."

You should read the NYT article again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You should read the NYT article again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I was quoting the New Yorker article. And I was not doing so to buy whatever larger premise the article advocated. The article was vague enough not to do so anyway. But what I quoted is valid beyond whatever else the author intended. And her intention was, beyond whatever else she may have intended, to say there was a screw up by the administration. She just didn't like the insistence that the "participants" in the attack had to be called Al Qaeda. She certainly didn't prove they were not. But what she said is damning to the administration. And Most sources say that Al Qaeda was involved. And there is testimony that the administration new right from the start, before it claimed that it was "sparked" by a video, that it was a terrorist attack. NOT a protest against the video gone bad.

You should also read the senate report then. It doesn't place blame on the admin for any manipulation of talking points and doesn't discount the idea that the video was a factor.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When you look at Christy's record on many issues he certainly looks like a conservative. That's he's not as rabid a partisan as the tea party would like doesn't diminish his own beliefs.

I understand that you don't have time to go into depth in your posts due to constraints of job, family, and life in general. And I respect that, in spite of those restraints, you are so willing to jump into the fray so often, and usually are the only one coming from the left who has a halfway rational approach. But the fact that you so often have to hit and run frequently results in quick, broad stroke stereotypical labels. And worse than just being pejorative snipes, they often completely miss the mark. "Rabid a partisan as the tea party" describes that group with the label of partisan, when it is the political "party" which is least interested in partisanship. It is not, at this point, an actual political party. It chooses to domicile in the Republican Party because of the two major parties it is the one which even remotely pretends to aspire to constitutional government. The Constitution is not a partisan document. It can be abused and distorted in partisan ways, and that tea "party" wishes to correct the distortion and eliminate the abuse. And I don't believe their other main goal, correcting the undisciplined, uncontrollable spending (which ties in with constitutionalism) is partisan either.

And one diminishes his own beliefs by compromising them. Going along to get along as a belief system cannot be compromised or diminished since its core principle, if it can be called a principle, IS compromise. I am not sure what Christie's core principle is. He says various things. He does, as you say, appear to be "conservative." Maybe he is (whatever it means to him in terms of what he wants to conserve). It would be a pleasant surprise if he got elected President and became as hard core "conservative" as Obama is "liberal."

The Democrat Party, no matter how much I disagree with their agenda, has to be admired for its unwillingness to compromise. And it never gives up, even if it loses, it keeps coming back with an even ramped up effort with even more "rabid partisan" rhetoric. Would that the Repubs would fight that way for the oath of office they swore to.

I think the GOP would benefit much from a Republican-light nominee. A hard change in course to the right from what's been established by both parties over the past decades would be seen are more progressive than what we have today.

-spence

What do you mean by "benefit"? Just winning? "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?" I know, it's the Bible, one of those stupid little guide books that Nebe frowns upon. But it has a lot of good lines, and that one says a lot to me. I don't know what the soul of the Republican Party is now. That of the Democrat Party is obvious. I realize that you believe both parties should be mostly similar. Not even certain in how you would like the Republican Party to be different. Does "Republican light" mean more or less like the Democrats, but just not let them go too far into the socialist stratosphere? At least not right away--just slow down a bit?

And I don't know what you mean by "what's been established by both parties over the past decades". You call it more "progressive than what we have today." So is that it? Democrats progressive--Republicans progressive light? Well from the way the Repubs keep giving, after sputtering complaints, in to Dem demands, I think that is what we have today. I don't know how that has changed over the past decades, its even got more "progressive." I would think you should be happy with the way it is.

You should also read the senate report then. It doesn't place blame on the admin for any manipulation of talking points and doesn't discount the idea that the video was a factor.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Doesn't it say the incident was avoidable? That there were unheeded warnings, so on and so forth, same old stuff . . . blah . . . blah . . . blah. Oh . . . but there was a mess up. Who shall we blame? Let's see, the buck . . . stops . . . here! (finger pointing to incompetent underlings). Funny how that never works in the real world . . . only in the la-la land of collegial politics.

And hasn't there just been some declassified testimony by a general that the administration was told pronto, before the administration kept blaming the video, that it was a terrorist attack, not a response to a video? Not hearing much about it. Maybe just dreamed it.

Doesn't it say the incident was avoidable? That there were unheeded warnings, so on and so forth, same old stuff . . . blah . . . blah . . . blah. Oh . . . but there was a mess up. Who shall we blame? Let's see, the buck . . . stops . . . here! (finger pointing to incompetent underlings). Funny how that never works in the real world . . . only in the la-la land of collegial politics.
Could have been avoided? Well, that's a surprise. The review from a year ago already took State to task for systemic problems that contributed. Stevens turned down two offers for more protection from the military and at other times requested more from State. It appears to have been a confusing situation. What else is new?

And hasn't there just been some declassified testimony by a general that the administration was told pronto, before the administration kept blaming the video, that it was a terrorist attack, not a response to a video? Not hearing much about it. Maybe just dreamed it.
The new Senate report reads.

"It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attacks or whether extremist group leaders directed their members to participate. Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day's violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video, suggesting that these and other terrorist groups could conduct similar attacks with little advance warning."

This follows the initial evidence that the video was a catalyst exploited by heavily armed extremists. Didn't Obama use the word "terror" just the following day?

What may be new in the report is that it goes deeper into into a potential military response finding there were no feasible options.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Could have been avoided? Well, that's a surprise. The review from a year ago already took State to task for systemic problems that contributed. Stevens turned down two offers for more protection from the military and at other times requested more from State. It appears to have been a confusing situation. What else is new?

That's the point. It is not new. What responsibility for "systemic Problems" does a CEO have? What kind of management by the top people allows for confusion? Where does the buck stop? In the real world CEO's are fired for allowing the "system" to be problematic, and for not attending to the confusion in performance of those beneath them. There were continuing problems and threats which were not addressed properly resulting in mission snafu. There was the inability to differentiate between friend and foe, or to understand the influence of Al Qaeda either by ignorance or by willful denial to support the narrative that Al Qaeda was no longer a serious threat. There was not a clear perception of what was going on in Benghazi and in Lybia after the overthrow of Qadaffi. There were obvious problems which others beside State and the Administration clearly saw. Wouldn't a competent commander in chief take heed of all the differing views, the confusion, the dangers, and at the very least, provide the proper security? Or was the agenda more important than the safety? And is the viability of the agenda now even less clear that policy is in tatters?

Leading from behind waits for disaster to happen in order to "fix" it.

The new Senate report reads.

"It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attacks or whether extremist group leaders directed their members to participate. Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day's violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video, suggesting that these and other terrorist groups could conduct similar attacks with little advance warning."

This follows the initial evidence that the video was a catalyst exploited by heavily armed extremists. Didn't Obama use the word "terror" just the following day?

Language can be so deceptive. Replace the word "catalyst" with the word "tool", and the connection between the video and the attack becomes more plausible.

Are we not made to understand that "insults" to Islam will result in violent response. We were told in the NY Times article that "someone" had translated the video into Arabic, and then it was disseminated. Now why would "someone" do that? Wasn't "someone" aware of what would happen? Is it not more plausible that "someone" actually wanted the video to produce useful violent reactions for the cause of Jihad--that "someone" would actually be looking for such videos or articles or cartoons or anything else to use to provoke anger against the West? The video was disseminated as a "U.S." product, not just by some person who should have a fatwa placed on him and hunted and done away with. It would be interesting to find out who the "someone" is. Al Qaeda brand?

Are we to believe that some innocent, normal run-of-the-mill usually peaceful Muslims decided to orderly protest an embassy (which had been under threat), but all of a sudden, in the midst of peaceful protest decided, hey let's go kill and burn? Yeah, you can bet that the "short order" planning was a result of a larger plan to use the video as a tool and to be ready to respond to any opportunity it presented.

What may be new in the report is that it goes deeper into into a potential military response finding there were no feasible options.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yeah, poor planning (as opposed to the better planning by the Al Qaeda brand) will result in "no feasible options".

The report you cite was a product of the Senate Intel Committee which isn't run by democrats...it's bi-partisan. From what I've read it pretty much aligns with the independent review from a year ago.

It doesn't appear to establish anything new.

"It doesn't appear, What may be new, It remains unclear, Some intelligence suggests, attacks were likely, suggesting that these, It appears to have been, doesn't discount the idea, I don't think she was trying, Doesn't it say?, she said she misspoke."

"Flip a few words around and it all make sense."

-spence

instead of arguing what the NY Times says the report says, how about simply reading the freakin' report...it DOES establish quite a bit that may be new for you and the NY Times and the troubling realization that the attack was inevitable and if you were to randomly pick a date for it to possibly occur....Sept. 11th would be a good place to start .... it is quite startling and troubling, contradicting many of your(administration) talking points :uhuh:


NY Times- "This dovetails with an investigation by The Times, which found that the attack was triggered in part by spontaneous anger over an anti-Islamic video. "

REALLY???? there is no evidence of this

Senate Report

"Contrary to many press reports at the time, eyewitness statements by U.S. personnel indicate that there were no protests at the start of the attacks.

On September 18,2012, the FBI and CIA reviewed the closed circuit
television video from the Mission facility that showed there were no protests prior to the attacks.

Other reporting indicated there were no protests.
Fot lC Qpt~ined closed circuit television video from the Mission
facility and there were credible eyewitness statements of U.S. personnel on the ground that night

As a result of evidence from closed circuit videos and other reports, the IC changed its assessment about a protest in classified intelligence reports on September 24, 2012, to state there were no demonstrations or protests at the Temporary Mission Facility prior to the attacks."

the administration and state even walked this back

HUFF PO- "The deadly September attack on a U.S. consulate in Libya was not precipitated by an anti-American protest, as had originally been reported, the State Department disclosed Tuesday night. According to reports from ABC and the Associated Press, the State Department now acknowledges that "gunfire and explosions near the front gate" were the first signs of danger precipitating the attacks that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

This revelation stands in contrast to the story originally reported by the Obama administration and others, who claimed that a protest against the anti-Islam film "The Innocence of Muslims" outside the American consulate was co-opted by violent extremists."

Huff Po-WASHINGTON — The State Department said Tuesday it never concluded that the consulate attack in Libya stemmed from protests over an American-made video ridiculing Islam, raising further questions about why the Obama administration used that explanation for more than a week after assailants killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.

what we are/were supposed to believe I guess is that a bunch of guys were sitting around a 10 inch black and white tv in their hut one afternoon watching al jezeera's coverage of protests breaking out across the arab streets one of them yelled...mohammeds!!....this our opportunity...we are deeply angered over an anti-islamic video which we have never seen........ during the commercial break we will coordinate an uncoordinated but very well armed assault on the loosely guarded compound of the great satan that is just down the street....quick...gather all of the mortars that you can carry....they will never expect that we are coming....what's that you say???? this is September the 11th!!!??? why this is truly a message for allah!!! make haste my brothers....we must kill everyone inside and burn the infadel's evil outpost to the ground...


Andy McCarthy had a great article regarding the Cairo rioting that was supposed to be caused by the video as well...

"As I said above, there is a kernel of truth to the claim that the video factored into the Cairo rioting. On September 9, two days before, the Grand Mufti publicly denounced “the actions undertaken by some extremist Copts who made a film offensive to the Prophet.” This denunciation led some of the Cairo hooligans to inveigh against the video.

It was, however, only one item in a broad list of grievances Islamic supremacists lodged against the United States. Many of the rioters focused on demanding the release of the Blind Sheikh and other jihadists. More to the point, many of them expressed their support for al Qaeda. They gleefully chanted, “Obama, Obama, there are still a million Osamas!” They tore down the Stars-and-Stripes from our flagpole, replacing it with al Qaeda’s notorious black jihad banner.

The claim that the Cairo rioting was over the video traces from the fact that the State Department – specifically, the U.S. embassy in Cairo – put out nauseating statements in the hours before the rioting started, deriding “the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims,” and indignantly condemning “religious incitement.”

Then, in the days after both the Cairo rioting and the massacre in Benghazi, President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, Ambassador Susan Rice, White House spokesman Jay Carney, and other administration figures repeatedly cited the video as the catalyst. The Obama-friendly press, naturally, ran with this spin: the video caused the rioting at the embassy in Cairo, which seamlessly spilled over into neighboring Libya, where a similar “protest” spontaneously erupted into deadly violence."

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/348125/print

bringing this back around to Christy...Jonah Goldberg has a great perspective about this in a recent column...

WHAT DIFFERENCE IT MAKES

'And that leaves out the <sarcasm> little </sarcasm> issue of Benghazi. The Senate Intelligence Committee report is at once a fascinating and utterly banal artifact of Washington. It identifies a huge mistake. It denounces said mistake. It concludes that the mistake could have been prevented. But nobody is responsible for the mistake. The bureaucracy did it!

Okay, you ask, who was in charge of that bureaucracy?

Shut up, they explain.

Liberal pundits and reporters are utterly contemptuous of the idea that the Benghazi scandal will be a problem for her. Eugene Robinson writes today that the Senate Intelligence Report is a total exoneration of the administration. This is bizarre on many levels. It’s also hard to square with the fact that the White House is livid with the Democrats who signed on to the report (or so a couple of Hill folks have told me). Why get furious at an exoneration?

The lack of curiosity about the report from the mainstream media is really remarkable. Why, exactly, aren’t reporters camped outside Clinton’s home demanding a reaction? I mean I understand that she didn’t close a couple of lanes on the George Washington Bridge, but four murdered Americans, including a U.S. ambassador, is important, too. Maybe if she had joked about putting traffic cones in front of the embassy on September 11?'

NY Times- "This dovetails with an investigation by The Times, which found that the attack was triggered in part by spontaneous anger over an anti-Islamic video. "

REALLY???? there is no evidence of this
The NYT reporting asserts the attackers themselves were in part motivated by the anti-Islam video. You can't say there's no evidence of this as you don't really know.

The initial reporting was that there was a protest, the video camera recordings etc... weren't available until later. The talking points were based on information at the time, and the Senate report found there was no effort by the Administration to cover up or manipulate the process.

Rushing a process doesn't make it a scandal.

-spence

That's the point. It is not new. What responsibility for "systemic Problems" does a CEO have? What kind of management by the top people allows for confusion? Where does the buck stop? In the real world CEO's are fired for allowing the "system" to be problematic, and for not attending to the confusion in performance of those beneath them.
If every CEO was fired for a problem within their organization you'd have monthly turnover. In this situation did Clinton's strategy or directive lead to the shortcomings? I've not read this was the case.

Also, the Ambassador appears to have had a lot of control over the security situation and seemed comfortable with local militias providing security at the Mission. From what I've read at least the problems were communication within the CIA and State that prevented the deteriorating situation from being fully understood by even those beneath the Secretary.

Many regard Clinton as a very strong and positive Secretary of State. Does the event in Libya make her unfit to serve? I don't think anyone has connected those dots yet.

Are we to believe that some innocent, normal run-of-the-mill usually peaceful Muslims decided to orderly protest an embassy (which had been under threat), but all of a sudden, in the midst of peaceful protest decided, hey let's go kill and burn? Yeah, you can bet that the "short order" planning was a result of a larger plan to use the video as a tool and to be ready to respond to any opportunity it presented.
Nobody has ever claimed that. Remember that in fact thousands of Benghazi's protested the attackers in support for the Ambassador and the USA.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/21/world/africa/libya-benghazi-counter-protest/

For some reason people keep forgetting to include this fact in their assessment of the "situation on the ground."

Ultimate, a complex and confused situation like this will never be clear once it's politicized.

-spence

The NYT reporting asserts the attackers themselves were in part motivated by the anti-Islam video. You can't say there's no evidence of this as you don't really know.

The article you link in your next post states that Ansar al-Sharia organized the "protest" and they used the video as a reason for it. Ansar al-Sharia is, whether you like it or not, an Al Qaeda affiliate. So that "part" of the motivation was an Al Qaeda brand "catalyst," not a "spontaneous reaction to the video. what the other "part" of motivation for the "protest" would be is rather hazy.

The initial reporting was that there was a protest, the video camera recordings etc... weren't available until later. The talking points were based on information at the time, and the Senate report found there was no effort by the Administration to cover up or manipulate the process.

There was an initial assessment by the military, as testified by General Ham, that it was solely a terrorist attack, and that was immediately reported to the administration. Later video recordings "etc." proved that to be the case.

Rushing a process doesn't make it a scandal.

-spence

So why did the administration rush to the judgement that the video was the reason for the attack? And stick to that in spite of incoming information to the contrary?

If every CEO was fired for a problem within their organization you'd have monthly turnover. In this situation did Clinton's strategy or directive lead to the shortcomings? I've not read this was the case.

"A problem"???? This was not merely "a problem." CEOs are fired for failures not problems. Granted, there is that current model where CEOs that are given raises even when their companies fail. I don't think We The People want our governments to follow that model. On the other hand, when those governments give us goodies, many of us, like the corrupt minions of failing corporations, choose to support the hand that feeds us, at least until it all collapses. And, anyway, it appears to keep lasting. And if it lasts long enough to cover our life span, who cares--that "Apres mois la deluge" syndrome.

And to which of Clinton's strategies or directives do you refer? If their were any, they certainly failed. If there were none, the omission is glaring in light of the failure.

Also, the Ambassador appears to have had a lot of control over the security situation and seemed comfortable with local militias providing security at the Mission.

And who appointed such an ignorant Ambassador? And when he requested security did he not get it because he was deemed to be correct in the first place but ignorant in the second? And why wasn't Clinton aware of the real danger and warnings that she should merely accept her underling's assessment? Why was it all such a surprise when what they thought they knew was untrue? Would you like to work for such bosses in such situations?

From what I've read at least the problems were communication within the CIA and State that prevented the deteriorating situation from being fully understood by even those beneath the Secretary.

Is it not the Secretary's responsibility to recognize a problem of communication and to correct it?

Many regard Clinton as a very strong and positive Secretary of State. Does the event in Libya make her unfit to serve? I don't think anyone has connected those dots yet.

Has anyone connected the dots of why Clinton is "a very strong and positive Secretary of State"? I don't know of what she's done to connect those dots. If the "event" in Libya is one of those dots, I cannot see how it would be a recommendation. And why she is such a front-runner for the Democrat presidential candidate is also curious.

Nobody has ever claimed that. Remember that in fact thousands of Benghazi's protested the attackers in support for the Ambassador and the USA.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/21/world/africa/libya-benghazi-counter-protest/

For some reason people keep forgetting to include this fact in their assessment of the "situation on the ground."

Ultimate, a complex and confused situation like this will never be clear once it's politicized.

-spence

None of the warm and fuzzy that we're supposed to get from your article has lessened the Al Qaeda brand jihadist activity in Libya. The final two sentences of the article are an amazing beatification of a dangerous and ugly "event." John McCain is quoted as saying
"Somewhere Chris Stevens is smiling . . . This is what we knew . . . about Libya."

Apparently, we didn't "know," at least other than some Pollyanna types, what we needed to know . . . about Libya.

The article you link in your next post states that Ansar al-Sharia organized the "protest" and they used the video as a reason for it. Ansar al-Sharia is, whether you like it or not, an Al Qaeda affiliate. So that "part" of the motivation was an Al Qaeda brand "catalyst," not a "spontaneous reaction to the video. what the other "part" of motivation for the "protest" would be is rather hazy.
I think the Senate report found the motivation for the attack inconclusive, perhaps other than just an American presence would make operations in the area difficult.

This is an area that I think the Times report gets right. What does it mean to be an "affiliate?" What does alQaeda mean anymore? It appears as though there were some links with individuals but there doesn't look to be much that's material. Just some of the more extreme militant factions branding themselves with a label.

There was an initial assessment by the military, as testified by General Ham, that it was solely a terrorist attack, and that was immediately reported to the administration. Later video recordings "etc." proved that to be the case.
No, that's not what he said. Ham didn't exclude a protest, rather he stated it wasn't "just" a sporadic protest.

"When we saw a rocket-propelled grenade attack, what appeared to be pretty well aimed small arms fire — again, this is all coming second and third hand through unclassified, you know, commercial cellphones for the most part initially. To me, it started to become clear pretty quickly that this was certainly a terrorist attack and not just not something sporadic," he stated.

His testimony is pretty interesting...

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=AAEBCAA5-4C8F-4820-BACD-2DB9B53C3424

Like this...

General Ham. Well, certainly knowing now the events that transpired on the night of 11, 12 September I think all of us who are -- who have been involved in this would likely make some different decisions. But leading up to the events of 11 September_, watching the intelligence very carefully as all of us did and post attack having the opportunity to review the intelligence, I still don't find -- I have not found the intelligence that would indicate that an attack in Benghazi was imminent and that subsequent security should have been deployed. And I think the -- in my mind the most compelling argument to that conclusion is that the one individual in the U.S. Government who knew more about security and intelligence in Libya and in Benghazi specifically than anyone else was Ambassador Stevens. And I am convinced, knowing him, while I don't think he was particularly concerned about his own safety, I am absolutely convinced that had he any indication that an attack was likely or imminent in Benghazi he would not have put others at risk by traveling to Benghazi that evening.

So why did the administration rush to the judgement that the video was the reason for the attack? And stick to that in spite of incoming information to the contrary?
It looks like they were telling the story based on the information at the time, information that even today isn't totally wrong...but has evolved.

-spence

So why did the administration rush to the judgement that the video was the reason for the attack? And stick to that in spite of incoming information to the contrary?

Let's remember that the video was made by an American citizen. In other words, the administration was more than willing to throw an American citizen under the bus, and invite Al Queda to declare a fatwah on that man, in order to minimize the political fallout.

I think the Senate report found the motivation for the attack inconclusive, perhaps other than just an American presence would make operations in the area difficult.

It is often the case that when something is as obvious as Occam's razor would deduce, it becomes "inconclusive" to inferior minds. Or to minds who wish it to appear so.

This is an area that I think the Times report gets right. What does it mean to be an "affiliate?" What does alQaeda mean anymore?

That's been answered several times already.

It appears as though there were some links with individuals but there doesn't look to be much that's material. Just some of the more extreme militant factions branding themselves with a label.

The "labels" and "links" were already known, and would only be immaterial to those who have an agenda to deny them. And, if in the denial, there was blindness to danger simply because the "labels" and "links" were perceived to be immaterial, then the error was inexcusable. Lives were at stake. BTW Spence, what were those "labels" and "links"?

No, that's not what he said. Ham didn't exclude a protest, rather he stated it wasn't "just" a sporadic protest.

You quoted him as saying "To me, it started to become clear pretty quickly that this was certainly a terrorist attack and not something sporadic". I don't read that as not "just" a sporadic protest, but that it was NOT sporadic, and that it was an ATTACK, and no mention of a PROTEST as you conveniently insert in your interpretation. He has also stated that this was relayed to the administration as it was happening. Which makes the pronouncement that it was a spontaneous reaction to a video very peculiar.


It looks like they were telling the story based on the information at the time, information that even today isn't totally wrong...but has evolved.

-spence

No, the information they had at the time did not at all conclude that it was a spontaneous protest against a video. But then, if a fish can eventually evolve into a monkey, it doesn't mean it wasn't a sort of monkey all along. But, then, words, and excuses, and motivations, and all such human fabrications evolving into reality are not quite the same, are they? Unless lies evolving into truths is the same as fishes evolving into monkeys. I've heard that if you repeat a lie often enough it takes the place of truth.

No, the information they had at the time did not at all conclude that it was a spontaneous protest against a video.
The Rice comments that caused such a fluppor never "concluded" it was a spontaneous protest...

What she said was:

But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to — or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in — in the wake of the revolution in Libya are — are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there.

Which given the NYT article and the recent Senate report (and so much other reporting) seems quite plausible.

What I don't understand is, what prohibits a terror attack's timing from being linked to furor over a video? Isn't it quite possible they've been thinking of an attack for some time and the events around the region -- there was more than just Egypt -- gave them some inspiration? Ham's remarks about no specific intel on the attack would certainly back this thinking.

Also, isn't it quite believable that a bunch of heavily armed, battle hardened veterans of the civil war would be able to assemble rapidly and coordinate an attack with RPG's and accurate small arms fire as Ham describes? Hell, that's exactly what they had been doing against the Libyan army for the past year. Didn't the civil war actually start in Benghazi?

-spence

The Rice comments that caused such a fluppor never "concluded" it was a spontaneous protest...

What she said was:
The beginning of what you quote her as saying was: ". . . based on the information that we have at present, is that, IN FACT, what this began as, it was a spontaneous--not a premeditated--response to what had inspired in Cairo."--emphasis mine. I don't know if a FACT is conclusive to you, but I assume that you would arrive at conclusions with facts. Maybe not. And if you're quibbling about the word "protest" as opposed to her use of the word "response" that she used to describe what "in fact" happened, the "response" was to, as she says, a "protest" in Cairo. I would assume from that, therefore, that the "response" was also a "protest." And it was untrue that the information they had at the time IN FACT corroborated that the attack was a spontaneous response to the video. For sure, they were told by Ham that it was a terrorist attack, not spontaneous, and any conflicting "reports" would have been enough to hold off on a conclusion/theory/conjecture/whatever that IN FACT the attack was "spontaneous--not premeditated."

She goes on, in your quote, to say: "We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to . . . replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo." She had already characterized that "challenge" as a "violent protest" to the video. If that was so, then this elusive "small number of people came to the embassy to" "replicate" violent protest. So it was intended to be, by her own rhetoric, violent. So how and why was it necessary to conclude (oops)--theorize--that this replicated challenge was "hijacked . . . by individual clusters of extremists" with the heavier weapons? What? . . . were the "small number who came to "replicate" the violence in Cairo going to do so without weapons? "And then it evolved from there."?


Which given the NYT article and the recent Senate report (and so much other reporting) seems quite plausible.

It's more plausible, using Occam's razor, that the simpler explanation which would remove more elements in an argument than are necessary, is that those who came to the embassy in the first place was not a small number of regular folks who merely wanted to replicate the violence of Cairo, but were folks who had intentions to do what, in fact, "evolved." And that is what further investigation has concluded to have happened.

What I don't understand is, what prohibits a terror attack's timing from being linked to furor over a video? Isn't it quite possible they've been thinking of an attack for some time and the events around the region -- there was more than just Egypt -- gave them some inspiration? Ham's remarks about no specific intel on the attack would certainly back this thinking.

That is exactly what I have been saying. The fabricated "furor" was inspired by a video DISSEMINATED by jihadists specifically to do so. The video was not a catalyst, it was a tool. It's dissemination and use were not accidental, it was all intentional. It was a "plausible" cover as much as a fictitious instigator for what the jihadists wanted to accomplish. Exactly as you surmise--they were thinking of an attack for some time. And the "events around the region" were also not spontaneous reactions, but were also instigated by jihadist elements (Al Qaeda brand elements).

Also, isn't it quite believable that a bunch of heavily armed, battle hardened veterans of the civil war would be able to assemble rapidly and coordinate an attack with RPG's and accurate small arms fire as Ham describes? Which is why Ham said it was a terrorist attack from the beginning, not a spontaneous protest. Hell, that's exactly what they had been doing against the Libyan army for the past year. Didn't the civil war actually start in Benghazi?

-spence

Why would the "heavily armed, battle hardened veterans of the civil war" want to "assemble rapidly" to torch the embassy which housed the people who were ostensibly on their side of the civil war? Unless they were actually opposed to those in the embassy? As is, and was and will be, Al Qaeda and its "affiliates."

If anything, veterans of the civil war against the Qaddafi regime, if they were that rather than anti-U.S. jihadists, would have PROTECTED the embassy from the supposed "small number of people" who came to the embassy to "replicate" the Cairo violence.

he beginning of what you quote her as saying was: ". . . based on the information that we have at present, is that, IN FACT, what this began as, it was a spontaneous--not a premeditated--response to what had inspired in Cairo."--emphasis mine. I don't know if a FACT is conclusive to you, but I assume that you would arrive at conclusions with facts. Maybe not. And if you're quibbling about the word "protest" as opposed to her use of the word "response" that she used to describe what "in fact" happened, the "response" was to, as she says, a "protest" in Cairo. I would assume from that, therefore, that the "response" was also a "protest." And it was untrue that the information they had at the time IN FACT corroborated that the attack was a spontaneous response to the video. For sure, they were told by Ham that it was a terrorist attack, not spontaneous, and any conflicting "reports" would have been enough to hold off on a conclusion/theory/conjecture/whatever that IN FACT the attack was "spontaneous--not premeditated."

The word "fact" can represent something known to be true or something said to be true...based on the evidence today, the fact is...

She goes on, in your quote, to say: "We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to . . . replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo." She had already characterized that "challenge" as a "violent protest" to the video. If that was so, then this elusive "small number of people came to the embassy to" "replicate" violent protest. So it was intended to be, by her own rhetoric, violent. So how and why was it necessary to conclude (oops)--theorize--that this replicated challenge was "hijacked . . . by individual clusters of extremists" with the heavier weapons? What? . . . were the "small number who came to "replicate" the violence in Cairo going to do so without weapons? "And then it evolved from there."?
It was reported at the scene that outrage over the video was a reason for the attack. If this was just an excuse or a deke doesn't make is do the reporting never occurred. Given the events of the day -- I think there were multiple video related protests -- the storyline is certainly plausible.

It's more plausible, using Occam's razor, that the simpler explanation which would remove more elements in an argument than are necessary, is that those who came to the embassy in the first place was not a small number of regular folks who merely wanted to replicate the violence of Cairo, but were folks who had intentions to do what, in fact, "evolved." And that is what further investigation has concluded to have happened.
What's the significance of the difference?

That is exactly what I have been saying. The fabricated "furor" was inspired by a video DISSEMINATED by jihadists specifically to do so. The video was not a catalyst, it was a tool. It's dissemination and use were not accidental, it was all intentional. It was a "plausible" cover as much as a fictitious instigator for what the jihadists wanted to accomplish. Exactly as you surmise--they were thinking of an attack for some time. And the "events around the region" were also not spontaneous reactions, but were also instigated by jihadist elements (Al Qaeda brand elements).
This is precisely the problem Michael Scheurer explores in his book Imperial Hubris. That the inclination to lump various opposing factions together without regard for their individual motives inhibits our ability to respond effectively against any of them.

The militias have various interests and range from moderate to extreme. Calling for Sharia law doesn't make you alQaeda, it makes you an Islamic fundamentalist. Hell, Saudi Arabia's legal system is based on Sharia.

Now, it would be logical for disparate extremist groups to share some common brand identity. Certainly make marketing more efficient. If any one of these groups acts in their own interest that happens to be a shared interest does that make them alQaeda...is that what it means now? Does using violence to advance a goal of imposing Sharia Law make you alQaeda?

Certainly the influence of outside extremists, including alQaeda, has been increasing. That doesn't mean they directed the attack.

Why would the "heavily armed, battle hardened veterans of the civil war" want to "assemble rapidly" to torch the embassy which housed the people who were ostensibly on their side of the civil war? Unless they were actually opposed to those in the embassy? As is, and was and will be, Al Qaeda and its "affiliates."
Pssssstttt...because they were extremists. Don't tell anyone.

If anything, veterans of the civil war against the Qaddafi regime, if they were that rather than anti-U.S. jihadists, would have PROTECTED the embassy from the supposed "small number of people" who came to the embassy to "replicate" the Cairo violence.
Veterans of the civil war represent both moderates and extremists. For some time it appears Stevens felt they would offer adequate protection. Why is the idea that Khaddafi's opponents could have differing objectives beyond his overthrow so difficult to grasp?

-spence

Doesn't it say the incident was avoidable? That there were unheeded warnings, so on and so forth, same old stuff . . . blah . . . blah . . . blah. Oh . . . but there was a mess up. Who shall we blame? Let's see, the buck . . . stops . . . here! (finger pointing to incompetent underlings). Funny how that never works in the real world . . . only in the la-la land of collegial politics.



Yes ,and isn't it amazing there were no consequences for the underlings or anyone else for the screw up? Seems like in this current administration all you have to say is "the buck stops here" and "we are looking into it." No, that is not the way it works in the real world, when people screw up there are consequences.
I would hope in the Super Bowl O'reilly interview with our President, he would be asked, where were you, who were you with, and what was your response the night of the attack.

I think the Administration's theme song is, "Time is on our side, yes it is, time is on our side" LOL,but really not funny.

The word "fact" can represent something known to be true or something said to be true...based on the evidence today, the fact is...

If something is "known to be true," one can refer to it as being "in fact."

If something is not "known to be true," but only reported or said to be true, it cannot be said to be "in fact." Especially if you are getting "reports" to the contrary, which was the case here.

It was reported at the scene that outrage over the video was a reason for the attack. If this was just an excuse or a deke doesn't make is do the reporting never occurred. Given the events of the day -- I think there were multiple video related protests -- the storyline is certainly plausible.

Various possibilities may be "plausible." But plausibility is not in question here. What needs to be answered is why the rush to judgment in describing what the attack was, especially when strong evidence to the contrary is reported? And the continued narrative for another week?

What's the significance of the difference?

The difference is the significance between plausible deniability and the truth. Between culpability for what happened, and being exonerated from responsibility.

This is precisely the problem Michael Scheurer explores in his book Imperial Hubris. That the inclination to lump various opposing factions together without regard for their individual motives inhibits our ability to respond effectively against any of them.

Well, since the administration refused to see connections between "factions" (or whether they rightly saw disconnections), it failed to adequately protect the embassy. In terms of factional disparities or similarities, they failed in every respect. Since, in its view, Al Qaeda was not involved, why was "our ability to respond effectively against any of them" inhibited? And if they had understood and recognized Al Qaeda influence, would that have changed their perspective on the need to better protect the embassy?

The militias have various interests and range from moderate to extreme. Calling for Sharia law doesn't make you alQaeda, it makes you an Islamic fundamentalist. Hell, Saudi Arabia's legal system is based on Sharia.

Saudi Arabia didn't attack the Benghazi embassy. Those who did were not merely Islamic fundamentalists. They were jihadists of the "extreme" type. The type that Bin Laden called to action--in exactly the way the attackers acted.

Now, it would be logical for disparate extremist groups to share some common brand identity. Certainly make marketing more efficient. If any one of these groups acts in their own interest that happens to be a shared interest does that make them alQaeda...is that what it means now?

As has been stated a few times already (apparently not by Michael Scheurer so not of importance to you) that was the goal of Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda from the beginning. That such groups or individuals would do exactly what they are doing.

Does using violence to advance a goal of imposing Sharia Law make you alQaeda?

It affiliates you with Al Qaeda. As even major news agencies and analysts have agreed. As various "reports" have stated. The actual number of "core" Al Qaeda is small. It needs the cooperation and action of all the various "children of Islam" to do what it bids. The enemy of my enemy is my friend (affiliate).

Certainly the influence of outside extremists, including alQaeda, has been increasing. That doesn't mean they directed the attack.

It is not necessary for "core" Al Qaeda to direct an attack. That is not, nor ever was, the intention of "core" Al Qaeda. The intention was all along, and is, that various "local" groups or individuals do the attacking, and, lately, not even to acknowledge any Al Qaeda direction. And, I ask you again, why have you used the term "core" Al Qaeda, if you do not see Al Qaeda connection outside the "core"?

Veterans of the civil war represent both moderates and extremists. For some time it appears Stevens felt they would offer adequate protection. Why is the idea that Khaddafi's opponents could have differing objectives beyond his overthrow so difficult to grasp?

-spence

This circularity is maddening. Al Qaeda is not an "outside" extremist org. It is a non-geographically specific ideological "base." It is an ideology, and anyone who shares that ideology is ideologically affiliated. Whatever name you wish to call them, or they wish to call themselves, they are an ideological family. The very family, the very "children of Islam" who Bin Laden spoke of. And "Al Qaeda" has evolved into a diaspora of groups and individuals of who may or may not have local aspirations, a federation if you will, but very similar ultimate models.

Why is that so difficult to grasp?

As for Stevens' perception of adequate protection and his responsibility of what happened, there's this:

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2014/01/24/blaming-the-victim-in-benghazigate/?subscriber=1

This circularity is maddening. Al Qaeda is not an "outside" extremist org. It is a non-geographically specific ideological "base." It is an ideology, and anyone who shares that ideology is ideologically affiliated. Whatever name you wish to call them, or they wish to call themselves, they are an ideological family. The very family, the very "children of Islam" who Bin Laden spoke of. And "Al Qaeda" has evolved into a diaspora of groups and individuals of who may or may not have local aspirations, a federation if you will, but very similar ultimate models.



And this is why Busch said we were at war with Terrorists and that it had to be fought in a completely different way than traditional war. That is why he called it like it is, "A War on Terror." He called for new methods and said this would be a long extended war because he knew it would be spread out over the world by different groups trying to destroy us.

Obama down played it and called it something else, more PC., forgot already!
"Al Qaeda is on the run", pfft, Al Qaeda and it's tentacles, including similar and unattached groups, or as you say" a diaspora of groups" will be trying to do us in for the foreseeable future. It's their only goal.