When is Jim in NJ

[Fly Rod]

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

[PaulS]

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.

[Fly Rod]

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

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

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/politi...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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by 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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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."

[spence]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[spence]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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".

[scottw]

Originally Posted by 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 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


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

[scottw]

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?'

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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/...unter-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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by 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?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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/...unter-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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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...D-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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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