|Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: Hillary's Next Job...|
Hillary's Next Job...
Posted - 1/26/2013 7:09:09 PM | show profile | flag this post
So is NOW a good time?
I mean "at this time" is it ok to care about who carried out the attack? I actually do understand why "at that time" it did not matter but I just think now it really should matter.
Posted - 1/26/2013 8:39:09 PM | show profile | flag this post
i'd agree with blacked on that one..
wed need to put a little pressure upon the libyan government (such as it is) to get up off the information it has that's been denied to our investigators..
it IS time to start coming up with answers.. if only to shut rand paul up..
Posted - 1/27/2013 12:41:53 AM | show profile | flag this post
Yes, we agree blackedtape;
"Now" is a good time to care about who carried out the attack.
When you're in the middle of a house fire you don't start wondering about whether it was the fuse box or the greasy rags that started it. You put the fire out. I AGREE it was wrong of Ambassador Rice to repeat the line handed to her--but that was the line handed to her.
And very "unlike" the first 9/11; this time we have an administration that actually gives a damn. 'Then' we had almost three thousand dead--and NO repercussions--but a whole lot of people got promoted though!! You were 'National Security Advisor during the worst national security crisis of all time?? Congrats!! You're now Secretary of State!! You were the head of the CIA during the 'it's a 'slam dunk' intelligence failure?? Congrats!! Here's the Medal of Freedom!! AND let's invade some country that had nothing to do with the attacks!!
This time--there were thank God only four tragic deaths--there was no written warning--we didn't invade Sweden in retaliation--people were actually fired--and security changes were immediately made. The President and the SecState actually took the blame--repeatedly--(if that happened in 2001 I must have missed it) And you can be damn sure we're actually going to catch the perps instead of waiting for the 'next guy' to deal with it. (And I doubt very much that 'our guys' are waiting on Libyan Intelligence to hand over what they know)
Libya was a tragic event. And mistakes were made. And lessons were learned. But mocking someone for the 'Benghazi Flu' when it was a friggin blood clot, and why didn't you read all one million cables and why wasn't the consulate treated like an embassy, and on and on...that is just politics for your home constituents.
Posted - 1/27/2013 1:02:54 AM | show profile | flag this post
THIS is reason #422 you would never be allowed near a newsroom. A "Quote" is something someone actually said.
Clinton never said: "At the time of the attack, it was not a priority to find out what happened" What happened was "Clinton erupted when Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., asked whether, in the days following the attack, the American public was "misled" by State Department and White House officials who falsely blamed the attack on spontaneous protests.
"With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans," she said, raising her voice and waving her arms. "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they'd go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?"
Please get your quotes right, or don't quote.
Posted - 1/27/2013 2:17:47 PM | show profile | flag this post
Let me explain something about quotes, dumbass
I was not directly quoting Clinton. I was quoting a left winger on here who purported to be quoting Clinton.
Now don't you feel foolish...expending all that pseudo-self-righteous pomposity...and being dead wrong?
Posted - 1/27/2013 2:21:12 PM | show profile | flag this post
But on the other hand...
being dead wrong is a familiar condition for you.
Posted - 1/27/2013 3:31:42 PM | show profile | flag this post
Yep, you were right, I was wrong
it'sjusttv did in fact say that. If you were quoting him and not Clinton; I mis-spoke (that is, I screwed up in my haste). Please accept my apology.
Posted - 1/28/2013 6:42:52 AM | show profile | flag this post
This is also an important question, mp
"I AGREE it was wrong of Ambassador Rice to repeat the line handed to her--but that was the line handed to her."
If Rice was handed the line, why was she handed the line? At the time, the hierarchy of the intelligence community knew the truth!
The fact that the President and his administration allowed this attack to happen on the anniversary of 9/11 while the President was in a heated election campaign, makes Rice's "unknowing" lies highly suspicious.
Posted - 1/28/2013 7:44:32 AM | show profile | flag this post
stopbs; I simply cannot accept
your last statement: "The fact that the President and his administration allowed this attack to happen..." You cannot possibly believe that. We 'allowed' the death of our Ambassador (and Clinton friend) for politics?!?!
I don't buy that anymore than I believe the Bushies 'allowed' 9/11 to happen, or Reagan 'allowed the Marine barracks to explode, or FDR allowed Pearl Harbor for that matter. Bad Intel is one thing, crazy conspiracy is something else altogether.
I believe (Jon) "Huntsman, who served as U.S. ambassador to China under President Barack Obama, said that it would have been nearly impossible for authorities to instantly obtain accurate intelligence about who was responsible for the September attack, which resulted in the death of four officials. Because of that, he said, recent criticism of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice for not immediately declaring the attack an act of terror was either politically motivated or misplaced.
"The issue of Benghazi, I think you can attribute to the fog of war, more than anything else," Huntsman said in an interview with The Huffington Post. "When you're in a wartime setting and you have an attack like that -- let's face it. No one is prepared for an attack like that. There is, as Robert McNamara used to say, there is a fog of war. And it takes awhile to sort through the details. And it doesn't do a whole lot of good for the political class to point fingers before you even know what was behind it. And you're not going to know that [immediately]."
Posted - 1/28/2013 7:54:47 AM | show profile | flag this post
And let's remember what Rice said:
ABC’s “This Week”:
MS. RICE: Well, Jake, first of all, it’s important to know that there’s an FBI investigation that has begun and will take some time to be completed. That will tell us with certainty what transpired.
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."
CBS’s “Face the Nation”
MS. RICE: So we’ll want to see the results of that [FBI] investigation to draw any definitive conclusions. But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy– –sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that– in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.
BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?
MS. RICE: We do not– we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.
MR. SCHIEFFER: Do you agree or disagree with [the previous guest, the president of Libya’s general national congress] that al Qaeda had some part in this?
MS. RICE: Well, we’ll have to find out that out. I mean I think it’s clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we’ll have to determine."
“Fox News Sunday”
CHRIS WALLACE: Let’s talk about the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi this week that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.
The top Libyan official says that the attack on Tuesday was, quote, his words “preplanned”. Al Qaeda says the operation was revenge for our killing a top Al Qaeda leader. What do we know?
MS. RICE: Well, first of all, Chris, we are obviously investigating this very closely. The FBI has a lead in this investigation. The information, the best information and the best assessment we have today is that in fact this was not a preplanned, premeditated attack. That what happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video. People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent and those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya and that then spun out of control."
(NOTE: Witnesses told Libyan officials on the streets some were there to protest that damned movie) And how many times do you have to say "we're investigating"????
Posted - 1/28/2013 8:05:35 AM | show profile | flag this post
what a disgusting thing to suggest.
"The fact that the President and his administration allowed this attack to happen on the anniversary of 9/11.
that is a disgusting suggestion to make, even from a cold
hearted conservative. plus, I can't see how it could have
helped Obama's campaign. if anything, I worried it would
hurt his chances.,
Posted - 1/28/2013 12:50:09 PM | show profile | flag this post
The administration certainly did not "want" the attack to happen but they "allowed the attack to happen" by not providing the security which the Ambassador had requested! The pleas from the Americans on the ground were ignored. On the 9/11 anniversary, the administration certainly should have supplied the requested protection. Where was it?
mp, Rice did not "repeat the line handed to her" in the real-time "fog of war." She said it 5 days later, well after, you say, President Obama had blamed the attacks on terrorists. Well after other high-ranking officials knew that this was the work of terrorists not an angry mob responding to a film trailer.
The question remains, why was Rice allowed to lie to the American public?
Posted - 1/28/2013 1:39:42 PM | show profile | flag this post
stopbs; You're making it verrrrry
difficult for me to give you the benefit of the doubt....
When you say "The fact that the President and his administration allowed this attack to happen on the anniversary of 9/11." Well, Jeez. It was a FACT they allowed this happen?? Really?? For an election??? Did you really mean that?
Rice CLEARLY said over and over and over The FBI (among others) was STILL investigating. What more did you want?? Would the Rummy 'dangers we know we know but dangers we know we don't know' make you feel better??
Perspective PLEASE. We didn't have near this kind iof conservative venom after 9/11. And do you remember ANY hearings like this after the past eleven some 'Embassy Attacks and over 50 killed?? Me either.
June 14, 2002, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide bomber kills 12 and injures 51.
February 20, 2003, international diplomatic compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia Truck bomb kills 17.
February 28, 2003, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Gunmen on motorcycles killed two consulate guards.
July 30, 2004, U.S. embassy in Taskkent, Uzbekistan
Suicide bomber kills two.
December 6, 2004, U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Militants stormed and occupied perimeter wall. Five killed, 10 wounded.
March 2, 2006, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide car bomber killed four, including a U.S. diplomate directly targeted by the assailants.
September 12, 2006, U.S. embassy in Damascus, Syria
Gunmen attacked embassy with grenades, automatic weapons, and a car bomb (though second truck bomb failed to detonate). One killed and 13 wounded.
January 12, 2007, U.S. embassy in Athens, Greece
A rocket-propelled grenade was fired at the embassy building. No one was injured.
July 9, 2008, U.S. consulate in Istanbul, Turkey
Armed men attacked consulate with pistols and shotguns. Three policemen killed.
March 18, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen
Mortar attack misses embassy, hits nearby girls' school instead.
September 17, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen
Militants dressed as policemen attacked the embassy with RPGs, rifles, grenades and car bombs. Six Yemeni soldiers and seven civilians were killed. Sixteen more were injured.
(And all that was after THE 9/11--where NO ONE was fired or prosecuted)
You cannot possibly say anyone "allowed" our people to be killed--any more than you'll ever convince me THIS attack deserves the outcry the other attacks never saw.
Posted - 1/29/2013 8:19:40 PM | show profile | flag this post
Don't get your feathers ruffled, mp
I never said that the administration let an attack happen for the purpose of an election. That would not make any sense.
What I've said is that the consulate employees and their ambassador ASKED FOR MORE PROTECTION in advance of 9/11. They were in the best position to understand the dynamics on the ground. Because the administration did NOT GRANT that protection, they allowed this attack to happen and they let it happen on, of all days, 9/11. That is the day that any administration should have had additional security at all of our overseas consulates and embassies, especially a consulate that asked for more protection!
There were points in Rice's Sunday talk show points where she did use the words "under investigation." I agree. But, she also repeatedly put forth a lie that emphasized an attack by people angered by a film trailer. A lie. The administration knew it was a lie IF we are to believe your interpretation that Obama's 9/12 address mentioning "acts of terror" was indeed referring to "terrorists" attacking the consulate. That has been the left's ongoing position.
Either Obama was talking about a "terrorist" attack and Rice was lying or Obama was referencing "acts of terror" in general and, well, we know now that Rice was still lying. But, the point is, you can't have it both ways.
I can't possibly address every single incident you mentioned. But noting that there have been other horrible losses of American lives does not negate the facts of this case. Did the people on the ground ask for additional protection in each of those cases? They did in Benghazi and were denied. I want to know why? And, I want to know why Rice was allowed to tell a lie that was awfully convenient for a President who wanted the country to think he had neutralized terrorists.
Posted - 1/29/2013 9:39:31 PM | show profile | flag this post
stopbs; because we're civil
We'll agree to disagree. But...you know me...I love to quote.
(you today) "I never said that the administration let an attack happen for the purpose of an election. That would not make any sense"
(you yesterday): "The fact that the President and his administration allowed this attack to happen on the anniversary of 9/11 while the President was in a heated election campaign..."
Gee. Where did I get this "ALLOWED TO HAPPEN...IN A HEATED ELECTION CAMPAIGN" stuff??
So I'm calling you on what you said--but you are also absolutely correct in your disgust that Benghazi was a fuckup. Every report done--including the State Departments says so. Even though THIS mission had government security, private security, a friggin CIA office nearby, and local police--all hell broke loose. NO ONE is disputing that. The PRESIDENT took personal responsibility. The SecState took personal responsibility.
There are 294 State Department Missions in the world; and still you say "they allowed this attack to happen and they let it happen on, of all days, 9/11". There you go again. We're supposed to put extra protection on this mission on this date every year?? You hear Hillary. Fine. Give me the funding. Nope.
There was a reason I pointed out those "other embassy attacks". You don't address them because you propably didn't even hear about them. We were at WAR donchaknow. You were either 'with us or against us' donchaknow. We were going to be greeted as liberators donchaknow. War's going to pay fo itself donchaknow. 54 dead in Embassy attacks?? So?? I'm sure they tried their best. Hundred thousand dead or wounded? SO??
Perspective. For the umpteenth time, Benghazi was a tragedy and a mistake that resulted in a handful of horrible deaths. But let's crucify all involved because it was on Obama's watch. Those "other" catastrophes?? We'll let them slide. But now "I want to know why?" (you) Were you you asking those questions then???
Posted - 1/29/2013 10:20:49 PM | show profile | flag this post
Two points, mp
I was not asking the same questions with each attack because the facts, to the best of my memory, were not the same. There was no plea from the top leader on sight for extra security (again, to the best of my memory. I have not reviewed each instance.) There was not a President who may have given one explanation, followed by an emissary (to the American people) who tried to sway our beliefs in the wrong direction a few days later. Those attacks, as I recall, did not happen during a heated campaign where the President was making a point of neutralizing terrorism. In short, the administrations behavior following those attacks, did not smell of a cover-up.
The other point, I'll give to you. What I said first was: "The fact that the President and his administration allowed this attack to happen on the anniversary of 9/11 while the President was in a heated election campaign," makes Rice's "unknowing" lies highly suspicious.
I was saying that Rice's "unknowing" lies, about a film trailer prompting the Benghazi attack, conveniently suited the President's campaign, not that the administration allowed the attack for the "purpose" of the campaign.
However, I understand why you took it the way you did.
The sentence was so poorly constructed that if I had time, I'd take it out and shoot it. (before you take away my gun, of course :)
Posted - 1/29/2013 10:44:52 PM | show profile | flag this post
stop.. if they take away your gun before you can shoot..
i'll lend you one of mine..anything to put that sentence out of its misery..:-)
Posted - 1/29/2013 11:01:33 PM | show profile | flag this post
"But let's crucify all involved because
it was on Obama's watch"
Your sarcasm is misplaced but I see you're still trying to cover for Obama.
I will make a bold declarative statement: I seriously doubt Obama would have tried to misdirect the narrative about Benghazi had he not...shortly beforehand and in the midst of a tough re-election campaign...asserted that al Qaeda was on its heels.
He tried mightily not to acknowledge that it was terrorism because that raised serious questions about the veracity of his assertion. But...as they always eventually do...the facts became common knowledge. Then it was a case of the coverup being worse than the "crime." Once committed to that course he could do nothing but ride it out...even two weeks later at the UN after EVERYONE knew the truth.
Fortunately for him it didn't seriously damage his credibility.
Posted - 1/30/2013 9:41:23 AM | show profile | flag this post
Obama called it a terrorist attack on the DAY AFTER THE ATTACK -- in his FIRST statement about the attack.
Posted - 1/30/2013 10:39:21 AM | show profile | flag this post
No, he emphatically did NOT...and you know that
He was speaking generically. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the English language could discern that.
But you are committed left winger, an Obama water carrier and an accomplished Democrat propagandist. We all know that and understand your zeal.
Posted - 1/30/2013 10:48:38 AM | show profile | flag this post
Obama referred to it as a terrorist attack.
But you and Mitt and the usual conspiracy crowd still deny it.
Doesn't change the fact, though.
Obama called it a terrorist attack in his FIRST statement on the attack.
Posted - 1/30/2013 11:20:10 AM | show profile | flag this post
Obama referred to the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center as a terrorist attack. We went over this at the time. Sorry but on this point cruiser is correct.
Posted - 1/30/2013 11:52:46 AM | show profile | flag this post
These were the President's words in response to the Benghazi attack, delivered on national television from the Rose Garden on the day after the Benghazi attack:
"NO ACTS OF TERROR will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."
He clearly referred to the Benghazi attacks as an act of terror.
Posted - 1/30/2013 12:04:02 PM | show profile | flag this post
Oh, and later on September 12...
Obama AGAIN referred to the attack as a terrorist act in a speech in Las Vegas, NV:
"As for the ones we lost last night: I want to assure you, we will bring their killers to justice. And we want to send a message all around the world -- anybody who would do us harm: No ACT OF TERROR will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America."
The next day, September 13, in Golden, Colorado, Obama AGAIN called it a terrorist attack:
"So what I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice. I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, NO ACT OF TERROR will go unpunished."
There's a pretty clear trail of Obama calling it a terrorist act in the immediate aftermath of the attack.
Posted - 1/30/2013 12:29:10 PM | show profile | flag this post