Social Media Marketing Boot Camp: April 16

Need Help?

Employers

Join Today or Log in

Jobs

Hiring?
Post your open positions on our job board.
Satisfaction guaranteed. Learn more.

FAQ Contact Us

Courses

June 6, 2013 | An Interactive Online Event
Implement a complete social media campaign in six weeks. Register now.

FAQ Contact Us

Events

June 4, 2013 | San Francisco

Explore how you can — and should — approach Twitter to make the most of it for your brand. Learn from social media pros at the San Francisco Giants, SFGate, and more. Learn more.

News

So What Do You Do, David Karp, Founder of Tumblr?
Way before Yahoo! came calling, we spoke with David Karp to find out how he launched the platform at the ripe old age of 20. Read more

FAQ Contact Us

Shortcuts: scoop jobs, social media jobs, online courses

Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: Instead of grandstanding on Benghazi...

Instead of grandstanding on Benghazi...

Post Reply Back to Forums

1–25 out of 51 messages

Author	Message

etaoin shrdlu	Posted - 11/15/2012 1:59:01 PM \| show profile \| flag this post maybe John McCain and Lindsey Graham should have been at the classified briefing on it. Their buddy Joe Lieberman attended the briefing, instead of the news conference where McCain and Graham went off half-cocked. Coming out of it, Lieberman said there's no need for a super-duper committee. He says his Homeland Security Committee can handle this. It sounds like McCain and Graham didn't want facts to get in the way of their narrative. And McCain is showing some official embarrassment from missing the briefing. http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=A5D391E5-7B25-4D5D-BF6E-C29AB2C5E2E0

mpdodgson	Posted - 11/16/2012 1:12:37 AM \| show profile \| flag this post And THIS has to be bumped... Becase it's just so outrageous. "This week, a number of Republican senators have strongly criticized the administration for failing to properly explain the circumstances surrounding the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi. Some of those senators failed to show up for a briefing on the attack Wednesday. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has been the leading congressional critic of the administration's handling of the Benghazi attack and what he sees as the administration's lack of candor with Congress on the matter. On Wednesday, he pledged to block the potential nomination of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to replace Secretary of State Hillary Clinton due to Rice's statements on the attack. That drew a sharp rebuke from President Barack Obama at Wednesday's press conference. But although McCain had time to speak on the Senate floor and on television about the lack of information provided to Congress about the attack, he didn't attend the classified briefing for senators Wednesday given to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, of which he is a member." (Foreign Policy) ALSO: "Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), another Homeland Security committee member who was on television complaining about the lack of Benghazi information, also did not show up for the Wednesday hearing. Paul did a CNN interview from the Capitol building Wednesday in which said he had questions about the anti-Islam video, the lack of Marines in Libya, and diplomatic security. At one point he says, "I don't know enough of the details." But see, he could have known more of the details if he had just been doing his job. If they had been doing their job. CNN posted this: "When CNN approached McCain in a Capitol hallway Thursday morning, the senator refused to comment about why he missed the briefing, which was conducted by top diplomatic, military and counter-terrorism officials. Instead, McCain got testy when pressed to say why he wasn't there. "I have no comment about my schedule and I'm not going to comment on how I spend my time to the media," McCain said. Asked why he wouldn't comment, McCain grew agitated: "Because I have the right as a senator to have no comment and who the hell are you to tell me I can or not?” When CNN noted that McCain had missed a key meeting on a subject the senator has been intensely upset about, McCain said, "I'm upset that you keep badgering me." While McCain refused to shed light on why he didn't show, his spokesman Brian Rogers emailed CNN a short time later with an explanation. He blamed it on a "scheduling error" but wouldn't provide any more detail." ------------ As I said before--IMO--McCain picking on ANYONE for being "unqualified" is the biggest joke I can think of--but especially in the aftermath of 9/11 AND Iraq--GOP attempts to turn Benghazi into another Watergate is downright disgusting. (Footnote: Those 'closed door hearings of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee?? Only three of the eight GOP members of the committee attended the two hour briefing that ran from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. ET. By contrast, seven of the nine Democratic members were there.)

con	Posted - 11/16/2012 8:09:30 AM \| show profile \| flag this post getting to the truth about benghazi is grandstanding? if not for the obama administration lying and blaming america first, benghazi would not be the scandal that it is.

etaoin shrdlu	Posted - 11/16/2012 9:25:33 AM \| show profile \| flag this post No, con(artist)... McCain decided to skip the briefing that would have let him get to the truth on Benghazi. He opted to grandstand instead. Now that he's being called on it, he blows up and blames the media. Shameful politicization of the Benghazi attack.

mpdodgson	Posted - 11/16/2012 10:34:17 AM \| show profile \| flag this post Yes, it's grandstanding. Remember when 299 soldiers were killed in the 1983 'Barracks Bombing'?? "Shortly after the barracks bombing, President Ronald Reagan appointed a military fact-finding committee headed by retired Admiral Robert L. J. Long to investigate the bombing. The commission's report found senior military officials responsible for security lapses and blamed the military chain of command for the disaster." There were even law suits--but I don't recall Dems demanding 'Watergate Style' hearings or impeachment proceedings. Andagain, who was fired, impeached, or jailed after 9/11?? Iraq?? Oh, but we did give the CIA guy the 'Medal of Freedom' for his service. Now there's harsh retribution. Going before the microphones instead of going to your closed door briefing on the subject at hand--then demanding to know 'more facts'--that takes grandstanding to a whole new level. A sad ending for a true american hero. Surprised he didn't yell at reporters to saty off the lawn.

etaoin shrdlu	Posted - 11/16/2012 11:47:07 AM \| show profile \| flag this post And if McCain HAD attended the briefing... he would have found out that Rice's comments came from the EXACT same CIA fact sheet McCain himself was given at the time. He would have also heard that the CIA initially had 20 different reports that the attack grew out of a protest over the "Innocence of Muslims" video and that it took several days for the CIA to figure out the attackers were using the ruse to cover their plans. http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/15/politics/benghazi-hearings/index.html

cruiser	Posted - 11/16/2012 12:13:02 PM \| show profile \| flag this post You people are unbelievable Director Petraeus testified that the talking points prepared by the CIA had been edited to remove any mention of terrorism. McCain and Graham are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT to demand an invenstigation into who changed the information and who told Susan Rice to mislead the American people.

mpdodgson	Posted - 11/16/2012 1:18:33 PM \| show profile \| flag this post "You people are unbelievable" YES--you people are--your statement: "Director Petraeus testified that the talking points prepared by the CIA had been edited to remove any mention of terrorism." Wow, that says...what?? Well first of all, it proves that Ambassador Rice was doing nothing more than reciting what she was told: (MTP) "GREGORY: Well, let’s talk-- talk about-- well, you talked about this as spontaneous. Can you say definitively that the attacks on-- on our consulate in Libya that killed ambassador Stevens and others there security personnel, that was spontaneous, was it a planned attack? Was there a terrorist element to it? MS. RICE: Well, let us-- let me tell you the-- the best information we have at present. First of all, there’s an FBI investigation which is ongoing. And we look to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpired. But putting together the best information that we have available to us today..." So now cruise, you admit she didn't do anything that Condi Rice or Colin Powell, or president Bush did--" the best information that we have available to us today..." Thanks for that. Second Point: Where'd you find this 'behind closed testimony anyway??? Ah...Noted Obama hater Rep Peter King. NO problem with rushing to a mic to explain to Fox what he heard in closed testimony. "He had told us that this was a terrorist attack and there were terrorists involved from the start," King said. "I told him, my questions, I had a very different recollection of that (earlier account)," he said. "The clear impression we (lawmakers) were given was that the overwhelming amount of evidence was that it arose out of a spontaneous demonstration and it was not a terrorist attack." "The cause of that discrepancy is unclear, King said." WHY are these guys even talking about closed door testimony anyway?? But even a Dem did it: "After the hearing, Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, D-Maryland, blamed confusion over two seemingly different versions of the consulate violence -- was it caused by a protest or by terrorists? He said there were essentially two threads of violence: one caused by the protest, which was chaotic, and a second that was orchestrated by terrorists, which was highly coordinated. There were "two different types of situations at play," Ruppersberger said, explaining that in the hours and days after the attack, it was naturally difficult to clearly discern what happened." (CNN and Fox) OH. So there was confusion. Well, hell, that's obviously why we should call Ambassdor Rice "unqualified", and why we can call the president a liar and beign impeachment proceedings. AND I note you did not addres why do these Senators so in need of information choose to ignore actual briefings and rush to a mic instead.

it's just tv folks	Posted - 11/16/2012 2:20:19 PM \| show profile \| flag this post "This seems to be an investigation in search of a scandal" Best line I've heard this far ... sorry, I don't remember who said it. There is an investigation, which there should be. What is troubling is that Republicans are going into this thing having already decided who they want to be "guilty" and who get's a pass. Petraeus has shown that he can be reckless but Republicans and some Democrats are giving him a pass because they have a man crush on him. Patraeus said his affair had no effect on his testimony. Oh, ok, let's just take his word on it. One aspect that gets little attention is the FACT that the Republican Congress cut the budget for security at embassies and consulates. Remember those halcyon days when those sweet dulcet notes waffed through the halls of the Capitol "we're broke, we can't afford it". So what is a life worth.

etaoin shrdlu	Posted - 11/16/2012 2:27:02 PM \| show profile \| flag this post Cruzo fails to mention... that Petraeus also strongly denied the talking points provided to Rice were altered for political purposes. Cruzo fails to mention testimony that Rice's talking points were the EXACT same ones that were delivered to members of Congress. Cruzo also fails to mention testimony that the early reports to the CIA -- TWENTY separate reports -- all indicated that the attack grew out of a protest over the "Innocence of Muslims" video. Beginning to look like the GOP is upset over losing the elections and using the deaths of four Americans for some sick political gain. Shame on them. Can you imagine how upset they'd have been if Democrats demanded hearings to blame Reagan for the Marine barracks bombing in Beiruit or to blame Bush for 9/11? Absolutely shameful.

it's just tv folks	Posted - 11/16/2012 2:30:18 PM \| show profile \| flag this post and while we're at it can we look into the motives of a couple of Congressmen who revealed sensitive information about a CIA operation and in the process also revealed the names of Egyptian citizens who have been helping us thus putting their lives in danger? I think we need to know whether it was done with malice or if they are just plain stupid.

orthicon	Posted - 11/16/2012 2:44:09 PM \| show profile \| flag this post well, you'd like to HOPE that just plain stupidity.. is the explanation.. for most of congress, that's completely believable.. the other motives are darker, and harder to think about..

it's just tv folks	Posted - 11/16/2012 3:02:53 PM \| show profile \| flag this post stupidity is the likely cause but all of these things need to be investigated with an open mind.

mpdodgson	Posted - 11/16/2012 3:05:36 PM \| show profile \| flag this post All of which reminds me-- Besides NOT holding hearings on foriegn tragedies much worse than this--- My "(Footnote: Those 'closed door hearings of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee?? Only three of the eight GOP members of the committee attended the two hour briefing that ran from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. ET. By contrast, seven of the nine Democratic members were there.) Exactly WHERE were these people--either perty--if this is of WATERGATE proportions?? They demand answers, and don't show up, at a secure briefing?? And those who do show up talk about what was said in a secure briefing???? WTF??

etaoin shrdlu	Posted - 11/16/2012 3:12:13 PM \| show profile \| flag this post Rep Peter King (R-NY)... repeat REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN Peter King, who was in the closed door hearing, admits that the CIA approved the talking points handed off to Rice. Here's the transcript from King with reporters at the Capitol today: Q: Did he say why it was taken out of the talking points that [the attack] was Al Qaeda affiliated? KING: He didn’t know. Q: He didn’t know? What do you mean he didn’t know? KING: They were not involved — it was done, the process was completed and they said, “Ok go with those talking points.” Again it’s interagency — I got the impression that 7, 8, 9 different agencies. Q: Did he give you the impression that he was upset it was taken out? KING: No. Q: You said the CIA said “OK” to the revised report – KING: No, well, they said in that, after it goes through the process, they OK’d it to go. Yeah, they said “Okay for it to go.”

cruiser	Posted - 11/16/2012 3:38:10 PM \| show profile \| flag this post "Petraeus also strongly denied the talking points provided to Rice were altered for political purposes" How would he know that? And how would YOU know that to state it so definitively? There are a LOT of unanswered questions, a lot of apparent "fudging" of the talking points, and a lot of misleading of the American public. We need answers as to whom is responsible for that, when the facts were known, who knew them and why the American public was misled. By the way, the vigor, intensity and disingenuousness of the far left's (read: those far lefties who post here) defense of the administration tells a story all by itself...and it's not one I'd be proud to tell.

etaoin shrdlu	Posted - 11/16/2012 4:07:18 PM \| show profile \| flag this post I would know that, cruzo... because I followed the coverage of the hearings, read the statements of the Congresscritters who were there. Again, pick up a newspaper, read something besides World Net Daily or the Drudge Report, watch something besides FOX News. I don't know how YOU could NOT know this -- considering the massive amount of coverage it's getting. Like I said above, even Rep Peter King, talking to reporters afterwards, admits the Obama administration did not play politics on the Rice statements. And since our "casual readers" have been watching the pool feeds of this all afternoon, they instantly know how uninformed and lacking credibility you are on this topic.

mpdodgson	Posted - 11/16/2012 4:07:37 PM \| show profile \| flag this post Talk about stubborn... "Petraeus also strongly denied the talking points provided to Rice were altered for political purposes"...."How would he know that?" Because he was the head o the CIA and testified to it under oath you moron. "And how would YOU know that to state it so definitively?" Because he was the hea of the CIA and testified to it under oath you moron. How would he know that? And how would YOU know that to state it so definitively? Oh I dunno, he was the friggin DIRECTOR OF THE CIA. let's assume--for one seond--the guy has a clue as to what actually happened....And Remember--this guy was was a goddamn hero to to the right a few years ago--He's OUT now. His motivation for lying would be what..... "There are a LOT of unanswered questions, a lot of apparent "fudging" of the talking points, and a lot of misleading of the American public. We need answers as to whom is responsible for that, when the facts were known, who knew them and why the American public was misled." BOY WHEN YOU'RE RIGHT YOU'RE RIGHT. And when I said that about Iraq, I was called un-American--you're either with us or aginst us--and don't forget, giving aid and comfort to the enemy.... "the vigor, intensity and disingenuousness of the far left's (read: those far lefties who post here) defense of the administration tells a story all by itself..." The story HAS BEEN TOLD. It was a tragic TERRORIST attack on one of our consulates that resulted in four deaths. THAT is exactly what the Administration says. Repeatedly. It said it the day after. Going back to what "Well, but, but, well, they didn't say that that afternoon....so there must be a cover up here somewhere..." This is one of the many many reasons why Romney lost. Trying to make something out of a tragic event for political puposes--and nothing more--gets you no where. (Here's an idea--Deal with the presidents proposals to put people back to work, Stop being the Party of NO--and you will win elections. So far? not a great game plan)

etaoin shrdlu	Posted - 11/16/2012 4:09:30 PM \| show profile \| flag this post Oh, and, cruzo, to borrow from your words... By the way, the vigor, intensity and disingenuousness of the far right's (read: those far right wing nuts who post here) political attacks on the administration (and politicization of an attack on the U.S.) tells a story all by itself...and it's not one cruzo and his buddies should be proud to tell.

cruiser	Posted - 11/16/2012 4:51:47 PM \| show profile \| flag this post How original... NOT. But you do that all the time. You have no creativity of your own but you're a good plagiarist.

con	Posted - 11/16/2012 5:53:57 PM \| show profile \| flag this post of course we find the obama administration tried to downplay terrorism- and blame a tube video.

Grateful Deadline	Posted - 11/16/2012 6:09:01 PM \| show profile \| flag this post Cruiser and con, after six months of being here, I think you are incapable of discussing anything, not even the weather -- in other words, that you lack the capacity for normal human interaction. So I will ask you outright, as I would ask any of my students showing the same symptoms: Have you been tested for a learning disability? If you have not been tested, you should be. Then a professional could help you to work with your needs, so that you could hold conversations, read and analyze what you read without lashing out all the time. It could make your life happier and more fulfilling -- you might even find other things to do, and succeed at, besides sitting on this forum.

con	Posted - 11/16/2012 6:15:36 PM \| show profile \| flag this post Grateful Deadline psychological projection is just dripping from your post. have a great weekend.

etaoin shrdlu	Posted - 11/16/2012 6:45:14 PM \| show profile \| flag this post And now it turns out... Petraeus and others have told the Congresscritters that the CIA and other intel agencies wanted to blame the video to keep the attackers off balance -- to not let them know how the U.S. intel operation was progressing. Looks like the GOP wants to out our spies for political gain. Sounds familiar.

cruiser	Posted - 11/16/2012 8:19:23 PM \| show profile \| flag this post "read and analyze what you read without lashing out all the time" You need to take your own advice, dearie.