US Politics Thread |OT| THE DARKEST TIMELINE

[Am_I_Anonymous]

Sadly, I am not surprised at all that you're making excuses and not coming through, AIA. Oh well.

Why should I type out what you can read yourself? Take a minute, read it, and refute what is stated there. Because that is exactly how I feel it went down. If you would like to debate any of that account I'll be glad to engage.

Consider it a source for my viewpoint on the matter if it makes it easier for you.

[Great Rumbler]

Okay, AIA.  No more Socratic method.

YOU tell US how Benghazi went down.  Explain the timeline, be explicit about exactly what Obama did that was wrong and why this is a big deal or exceptional, and make your own case.  Less bumper sticker descriptions, more showing us you've actually got your shit together.  You're the one who said you're "probably better educated."

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

They do a fair enough job and employ better writing skills than me on my tablet.

This has absolutely zero to do with things the Obama administration did wrong prior to the attack, zero to do with the physical response while the attack was happening, and zero to do with the administration's on-going investigation into who committed the attack.

[Am_I_Anonymous]

Incorrect it distinctly outlines their lies about a non-existant protest. I mean it's the first point. It's verifable. They LIED about a protest for what reason?

In my opinion they lied because Obama is so cautious of not being seen as a Bush-esque aggressor that he's rather lie to his own people than take a hit from his middle eastern diplomatic contacts.

[Phoenix Dark]

It should be pretty obvious by now that Benghazi was a CIA fuck up, and they have attempted to pass blame to the State Department. We'll probably never get details of why a CIA front was posing as an embassy, why so many CIA personnel were on the ground, etc. Guess what: republicans know this, and have been milking it for a year because they know the administration can't say shit.

There were countless attacks on "embassies" during Bush's years, Clinton's, etc. Yet the only one that has gained notoriety is this one. Gee I wonder why. Could it be desperate politics, republicans intent on the Romney Reagan/Obama Carter analogy hoping to turn it into an Iran hostage situation-esque debacle, extremists milking money out of stupid old people, etc?

Who does the CIA work for? Just curious.

You realize the CIA has a large degree of autonomy and presidents are unaware of much of their action, correct? 

Again, just to be clear, you are definitively saying Obama's team had NO IDEA what was happening over there, right? This is what you're saying?

I'm saying that Obama likely knew a deal was going on, but to suggest he or any president knows everything the CIA does is utterly ridiculous.

The CIA tends to handle its own security, and the Libyan government provided support. The idea that the "embassy" wasn't protected because of some fuck up on the White House's end is idiotic. They were doing something - a weapon's deal perhaps? - and clearly there was a leak. Or maybe the Libyan support militias fucked the CIA. Guess what, we'll never get all the details. But to act like this is some Obama crafted disaster is to display a level of ignorance on how foreign policy works, and what the CIA does.

With respect to the administration's lies on what happened...again, you're not going to get the truth from them. Just as you're not going to get the truth on what happened here: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/11/13/uk-police-spy-whose-body-was-found-in-padlocked-gym-bag-probably-died-by/

[TakingBackSunday]

This thread got unreadable really fast.

Then I have emulated this adminstration and my job in this thread is done ;-)

what a zinger

[Great Rumbler]

Incorrect it distinctly outlines their lies about a non-existant protest. I mean it's the first point. It's verifable. They LIED about a protest for what reason?

Because the CIA asked them to go with the angle initially?

[Am_I_Anonymous]

Incorrect it distinctly outlines their lies about a non-existant protest. I mean it's the first point. It's verifable. They LIED about a protest for what reason?

Because the CIA asked them to go with the angle initially?

Do you think for even one second that Reagan or Kennedy for instance would lie to the country about an attack on American people? Be honest.

If that IS the case then I would have expected to see some type of apology for their actions if not publically than spread through select sources rather than let an innocent administation hang at the cross. Either way, shame on us.

[Steve Contra]

Or because Obama planned the attack himself and was looking to scapegoat someone

[Great Rumbler]

Incorrect it distinctly outlines their lies about a non-existant protest. I mean it's the first point. It's verifable. They LIED about a protest for what reason?

Because the CIA asked them to go with the angle initially?

Do you think for even one second that Reagan or Kennedy for instance would lie to the country about an attack on American people? Be honest?

Well, gee, Annie, Reagan would NEVER lie! Except about Iran/Contra, I guess.

[Am_I_Anonymous]

Incorrect it distinctly outlines their lies about a non-existant protest. I mean it's the first point. It's verifable. They LIED about a protest for what reason?

Because the CIA asked them to go with the angle initially?

Do you think for even one second that Reagan or Kennedy for instance would lie to the country about an attack on American people? Be honest?

Well, gee, Annie, Reagan would NEVER lie! Except about Iran/Contra, I guess.

Noted.

[Steve Contra]

Incorrect it distinctly outlines their lies about a non-existant protest. I mean it's the first point. It's verifable. They LIED about a protest for what reason?

Because the CIA asked them to go with the angle initially?

Do you think for even one second that Reagan or Kennedy for instance would lie to the country about an attack on American people? Be honest.

If that IS the case then I would have expected to see some type of apology for their actions if not publically than spread through select sources rather than let an innocent administation hang at the cross. Either way, shame on us.

The bay of pigs guy?  Lying?  How dare you even suggest that.

[Am_I_Anonymous]

Incorrect it distinctly outlines their lies about a non-existant protest. I mean it's the first point. It's verifable. They LIED about a protest for what reason?

Because the CIA asked them to go with the angle initially?

Do you think for even one second that Reagan or Kennedy for instance would lie to the country about an attack on American people? Be honest.

If that IS the case then I would have expected to see some type of apology for their actions if not publically than spread through select sources rather than let an innocent administation hang at the cross. Either way, shame on us.

The bay of pigs guy?  Lying?  How dare you even suggest that.

Attacks on other nations require secrecy. Being attacked really does not unless you're hiding something bigger, which could be the case I admit. Now that makes me cringe.

[Phoenix Dark]

Incorrect it distinctly outlines their lies about a non-existant protest. I mean it's the first point. It's verifable. They LIED about a protest for what reason?

Because the CIA asked them to go with the angle initially?

Do you think for even one second that Reagan or Kennedy for instance would lie to the country about an attack on American people? Be honest.

If that IS the case then I would have expected to see some type of apology for their actions if not publically than spread through select sources rather than let an innocent administation hang at the cross. Either way, shame on us.

You mean like the Bay Of Pigs or Iran Contra?

[Brehvolution]

Incorrect it distinctly outlines their lies about a non-existant protest. I mean it's the first point. It's verifable. They LIED about a protest for what reason?

Because the CIA asked them to go with the angle initially?

Do you think for even one second that Reagan or Kennedy for instance would lie to the country about an attack on American people? Be honest.

If that IS the case then I would have expected to see some type of apology for their actions if not publically than spread through select sources rather than let an innocent administation hang at the cross. Either way, shame on us.

The bay of pigs guy?  Lying?  How dare you even suggest that.

Attacks on other nations require secrecy.

Except for Obama!

[Am_I_Anonymous]

Incorrect it distinctly outlines their lies about a non-existant protest. I mean it's the first point. It's verifable. They LIED about a protest for what reason?

Because the CIA asked them to go with the angle initially?

Do you think for even one second that Reagan or Kennedy for instance would lie to the country about an attack on American people? Be honest.

If that IS the case then I would have expected to see some type of apology for their actions if not publically than spread through select sources rather than let an innocent administation hang at the cross. Either way, shame on us.

You mean like the Bay Of Pigs or Iran Contra?

Again, noted, but neither of those were americans being killed in what was atleast considered a diplomatic setting.

Iran Contra was reagan's biggest mistake, the bay of pigs, kennedys. Benghazi will be Obama's, which one is the worst in your opinion?

That's a serious question by the way, I am curious to see which you feel is the worst.

[Great Rumbler]

"Talking points" prepared by the CIA on Sept. 15, the same day that Rice taped three television appearances, support her description of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate as a reaction to Arab anger about an anti-Muslim video prepared in the United States. According to the CIA account, "The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations."

According to reporting by David D. Kirkpatrick and Suliman Ali Zway of The New York Times, eyewitnesses have said there was no peaceful demonstration against the video outside the compound before the attack, though a crowd of Benghazi residents soon gathered, and some later looted the compound. But the attackers, recognized as members of a local militant group called Ansar al-Shariah, did tell bystanders that they were attacking the compound because they were angry about the video.

It was a -- a unit or a group that Lieutenant Colonel Wood's personnel and I had -- had tracked for quite some time, we were concerned about. That specific group had been involved in a similar but obviously much smaller scale incident at the end of June involving the Tunisian consulate in Benghazi where they stormed that facility and it was in protest to what they claimed was an anti-Islamic film in Tunis.

[Steve Contra]

Incorrect it distinctly outlines their lies about a non-existant protest. I mean it's the first point. It's verifable. They LIED about a protest for what reason?

Because the CIA asked them to go with the angle initially?

Do you think for even one second that Reagan or Kennedy for instance would lie to the country about an attack on American people? Be honest.

If that IS the case then I would have expected to see some type of apology for their actions if not publically than spread through select sources rather than let an innocent administation hang at the cross. Either way, shame on us.

The bay of pigs guy?  Lying?  How dare you even suggest that.

Attacks on other nations require secrecy. Being attacked really does not unless you're hiding something bigger, which could be the case I admit. Now that makes me cringe.

Or if you don't want to tip your hat?  I mean police mislead the press all the time when someone is killed so they don't give away something too early.  Do you think they should jump right in and tell everyone everything right away?

[Am_I_Anonymous]

Incorrect it distinctly outlines their lies about a non-existant protest. I mean it's the first point. It's verifable. They LIED about a protest for what reason?

Because the CIA asked them to go with the angle initially?

Do you think for even one second that Reagan or Kennedy for instance would lie to the country about an attack on American people? Be honest.

If that IS the case then I would have expected to see some type of apology for their actions if not publically than spread through select sources rather than let an innocent administation hang at the cross. Either way, shame on us.

The bay of pigs guy?  Lying?  How dare you even suggest that.

Attacks on other nations require secrecy. Being attacked really does not unless you're hiding something bigger, which could be the case I admit. Now that makes me cringe.

Or if you don't want to tip your hat?  I mean police mislead the press all the time when someone is killed so they don't give away something too early.  Do you think they should jump right in and tell everyone everything right away?

What would have been wrong with "we are not answering questions at this time?" or "we are investigating this situation" rather than immediate lies?

[Great Rumbler]

Rice repeatedly mentioned the ongoing FBI investigation of the Benghazi attack and said that no definitive conclusions could be drawn until after the investigation was completed.

[Great Rumbler]

On September 28, the office of the Director of National Intelligence released a statement on the Benghazi attack. It said, "Throughout our investigation we continued to emphasize that information gathered was preliminary and evolving." It also noted that its initial assessment was that the attack "began spontaneously":

[Mandark]

Why should I type out what you can read yourself? Take a minute, read it, and refute what is stated there. Because that is exactly how I feel it went down. If you would like to debate any of that account I'll be glad to engage.

Consider it a source for my viewpoint on the matter if it makes it easier for you.

First, if you have a viewpoint, you should be able to put it in your own words and make a cogent argument.  That's not an unreasonable demand, that's like the bare minimum.

Second, that story is ENTIRELY about the administration's public statements after the attack.  This has NOTHING to do with the security arrangements or the administration's conduct before the attack (as GR said), so how can any of this, even if it were super damning, be interpreted as "a hit on their own people"?

Instead of summarizing your own views, you're outsourcing to something that isn't even covering the same bases.  C'mon, man.

[Great Rumbler]

Rice told host Chris Wallace that the FBI was investigating the attacks "closely" and stated that "we don't want to jump to conclusions before then."

[Mandark]

Do you think for even one second that Reagan or Kennedy for instance would lie to the country about an attack on American people? Be honest.

If that IS the case then I would have expected to see some type of apology for their actions if not publically than spread through select sources rather than let an innocent administation hang at the cross. Either way, shame on us.

HOLY SHIT YES THEY WOULD.

Kennedy was up to his waist in cold war shit that the public wasn't allowed to know the truth of.  Military advisors in Vietnam indeed.

[Phoenix Dark]

Incorrect it distinctly outlines their lies about a non-existant protest. I mean it's the first point. It's verifable. They LIED about a protest for what reason?

Because the CIA asked them to go with the angle initially?

Do you think for even one second that Reagan or Kennedy for instance would lie to the country about an attack on American people? Be honest.

If that IS the case then I would have expected to see some type of apology for their actions if not publically than spread through select sources rather than let an innocent administation hang at the cross. Either way, shame on us.

You mean like the Bay Of Pigs or Iran Contra?

Again, noted, but neither of those were americans being killed in what was atleast considered a diplomatic setting.

Iran Contra was reagan's biggest mistake, the bay of pigs, kennedys. Benghazi will be Obama's, which one is the worst in your opinion?

That's a serious question by the way, I am curious to see which you feel is the worst.

No Americans were killed during the Bay of Pigs? Major Riley Shamburger, Captain Thomas W. Ray, Wade Gray, and Leo Baker. All US airmen who were shot down during the invasion. The CIA lost men as well. US special forces were involved with the commandos who were left behind.

It's clear you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

The Bay Of Pigs was significantly worse than Benghazi, as was Iran/Contra. To suggest otherwise is to display a stunning lack of knowledge. The Bay Of Pigs got thousands of people killed, could have sparked a war, and had a huge influence on the final years of JFK's presidency, specifically in how he treated the CIA. Iran/Contra dealt with a direct sale of arms to foreign death squads. You're going to sit here and say a sneak attack on a CIA operation in Benghazi was worse than both?

[Steve Contra]

Yeah I think "the one that could have started a nuclear war" was probably the worst.  But that's just me.

[Mandark]

IIRC the Kennedy administration also lied about the resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis, in that the removal of US missiles from Turkey were agreed to in a secret protocol that was denied to the public.  Might have the details fuzzy, but I'm pretty sure that's basically true.  Plus the FBI was pretty much wiping its ass with ethical standards during all of J. Edgar Hoover's reign.


The larger point though is that American administrations have been seriously fudging the truth about security and intelligence matters since at least the end of WW2.  And there's a ton of shit to debate about how much that should be allowed, under what circumstances, with what mechanisms for accountability, etc.  But it's dishonest to act like the current administration invented this, or is unique in its disregard of civil liberties.  For all the brouhaha of the NSA revelations, has a bill passed either the Democratic Senate or the Republican House to end PRISM or severely curtail the NSA's telecom snooping?  I'm pretty sure the answer's no.

[Great Rumbler]

I'd just like, for once, for the GOP to have an investigation into what can be done GOING FORWARD to prevent future attacks against US embassies [and there will be] in succeeding in killing Americans.

[Mr. Gundam]

I'd just like, for once, for the GOP to have an investigation into what can be done GOING FORWARD to prevent future attacks against US embassies [and there will be] in succeeding in killing Americans.

Just like gun violence in the states... oh wait.

[Dickie Dee]

I am no fan of Putin, but he is a better leader than Obama. Probably cares about his people more too.

You're a fucking distinguished mentally-challenged fellow. I don't much care for Obama, but this is among the dumbest shit i've read in months.

Forgot the whole gay thing, I submit that was not well thought out on my part.

Newsfeed

[Dickie Dee]

Incorrect it distinctly outlines their lies about a non-existant protest. I mean it's the first point. It's verifable. They LIED about a protest for what reason?

Because the CIA asked them to go with the angle initially?

Do you think for even one second that Reagan or Kennedy for instance would lie to the country about an attack on American people? Be honest.

I'm dying here

[Dickie Dee]

Apart from vague innuendo, what is the official Conservative line on Benghazi once you look past the frothing at the mouth. Do they really know themselves? I bet AIA truly thought Obama ordered a hit on our own people. Because...?

There's barely even any twisted logic cooked up to justify it to themselves. Just starting from the assumption that Obama is evil, and ending on the assumption that Obama is evil.

[Steve Contra]

The whole barely concealed subtext is that Obama knew about the attack beforehand and let it happen and tried to cover it up because hey, he's Muslim.  There's really no other reason that this has gone on so long.  Even people who definitely don't believe any of that keep it alive because it plays well well their base.

[Great Rumbler]

-Obama purposefully left the embassy undefended
-Obama stopped the military from mounting a rescue
-Obama lied about it afterward

[Dickie Dee]

To what end though? I'm genuinely confused.

(Question is half-rhetorical of course, don't expect an real answer)

[Human Snorenado]

Apart from vague innuendo, what is the official Conservative line on Benghazi once you look past the frothing at the mouth. Do they really know themselves? I bet AIA truly thought Obama ordered a hit on our own people. Because...?

There's barely even any twisted logic cooked up to justify it to themselves. Just starting from the assumption that Obama is evil, and ending on the assumption that Obama is evil.

Click here for basic explanation

[Phoenix Dark]

With respect to Benghazi it's time to call a spade a spade: this is straight up incitement. Snoop around on twitter or far right sites and it'll become clear that they believe Obama allowed the attack to occur specifically to kill US forces. Which would be treason. They are actively claiming the commander in chief purposely killed US forces. Likewise they claim Obama wants to arm terrorists in Syria specifically so that they can killed US forces. At some point this goes beyond fear mongering into incitement, and I think we passed that point ages ago.

These are the same people who claim Obama personally sent an Imam to military funerals to damn Navy Seals to hell

[Mandark]

Benghazi reminds me of Whitewater, in that lots of conservatives were absolutely sure that Clinton did something shady and illegal, and if they couldn't explain quite exactly what he had done, well, that was just proof that he was hiding something, wasn't it?

[Dickie Dee]

Benghazi reminds me of Whitewater, in that lots of conservatives were absolutely sure that Clinton did something shady and illegal, and if they couldn't explain quite exactly what he had done, well, that was just proof that he was hiding something, wasn't it?

Yeah, but even "shady land deal" isn't all that fantastical and illogical. It's not an unreasonable thing to think of someone you don't like, it just happened to be bullshit.

[Human Snorenado]

This guy really rustled our jimmies huh

I kind of (ok, really) overreacted, but in my defense my trip to the mechanic turned into a trip to the proctologist's today, so I was in a really, reaaaaaaallllly shitty mood when I read that fucking nonsense.

[TakingBackSunday]

Obama lied
Americans died


BrandNew sighed

[Phoenix Dark]

This guy really rustled our jimmies huh

Liberals can't tolerate a black man who has left their plantation

[Human Snorenado]

Guys.  Guys.  GUYS.

http://www.capitalisminstitute.org/holder-impeachment-text/

[Great Rumbler]

roflmao

Edit: 9 of the 20 Reps. are from Texas.

[Boogie]

I came in here all "holy shit, how did this thread grow four pages in one day"

and then I clicked back and saw an AIA post and went "ahhhhh"

[tiesto]

What is the official conservative position on Syria again?  That we should also have a strong and forceful response to the situation, but also doing that would mean helping Al Qaeda, and also that Obama's involvement would put us in a quagmire, but also we should definitely do something to not show weakness to the Russians, but that Obama's involvement is a very bad thing.

Also conservative Putin dickriding is fucking hilarious.

My personal opinion is it was as mishandled as poorly as everything this administration has tried. I did not support and attack but I certainly do NOT want our decisions that will save the lives of innocents left up to a vote. At some point we have to shit or get off the pot.

I am no fan of Putin, but he is a better leader than Obama. Probably cares about his people more too.

DO SOMETHING BUT DON'T DO SOMETHING

Also seriously, I think conservative dudes want a Putin like figure to come in.  They hate the gays, don't mind the press getting fucked, have no problem with an oligarchy and crazy religious leaders, and they also secretly want a strong man to pin them down and fuck them.

Do you blame them?

[Phoenix Dark]

It's like those psychological tests that ask if you believe a strong leader with moral conviction is required to put the country back on the right path.

[Dickie Dee]

[Great Rumbler]

Issa is a massive tool.

[chronovore]

What is the official conservative position on Syria again?  That we should also have a strong and forceful response to the situation, but also doing that would mean helping Al Qaeda, and also that Obama's involvement would put us in a quagmire, but also we should definitely do something to not show weakness to the Russians, but that Obama's involvement is a very bad thing.

Also conservative Putin dickriding is fucking hilarious.

My personal opinion is it was as mishandled as poorly as everything this administration has tried. I did not support and attack but I certainly do NOT want our decisions that will save the lives of innocents left up to a vote. At some point we have to shit or get off the pot.

I am no fan of Putin, but he is a better leader than Obama. Probably cares about his people more too.

DO SOMETHING BUT DON'T DO SOMETHING

Also seriously, I think conservative dudes want a Putin like figure to come in.  They hate the gays, don't mind the press getting fucked, have no problem with an oligarchy and crazy religious leaders, and they also secretly want a strong man to pin them down and fuck them.

Do you blame them?
(Image removed from quote.)

I like how Putin is fishing, but he's got a big-ass knife in case a bear comes out of the water.

No, not that kind of bear, demi.

[Joe Molotov]

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/15/illinois-bishop-plans-gay-marriage-exorcism/?hpt=hp_t3

A bishop is going to exorcise the gay demon from Illinois once and for all, ridding it of the dark influence of our Homo-in-Chief.

[brawndolicious]

In like a century when we're all old and ornery and every major religion adapts to gay people just being people, I'll have to remember all this shit to bitch to little kids about why it's so hard to trust religious organizations.

[Phoenix Dark]

I'll be too busy crossing the street whenever I see minority whites walking towards me to care about the death of religion.

[Oblivion]

Here's a fun game we can all play. Let's guess which insane right-wing outlet said the following:

The disastrous rollout of [President Obama's] health care law not only threatens the rest of his agenda but also raises questions about his competence in the same way that the Bush administration’s botched response to Hurricane Katrina undermined any semblance of Republican efficiency.

Answer:

spoiler (click to show/hide)

The New York Times.

[close]

[Great Rumbler]

"Obama's Katrina"

[Phoenix Dark]

Yes the rollout is horrible and it could fuck the law, thus fucking Obama's legacy...and yes, like Katrina it's an example of the federal government failing to do something. But every federal government fails to do something or another, and I can't tolerate a straight up comparison to one of the worst responses in US history, that led to thousands of people being killed, starving, etc.

How many Katrinas can Obama have at this point? First, they claimed the oil spill was his Katrina. Then Cash For Clinkers and a host of other stuff that wasn't good...but ultimately didn't lead to anyone dying.

The frustrating thing about this is that if the website actually worked, I think the administration could have beaten their sign up projections. There are people on COBRA right now who'd love to sign up for this thing.

[Great Rumbler]

The response to Katrina was hobbled almost exclusively because the President put his buddy in charge of FEMA because he honestly didn't care one bit whether FEMA worked properly or not.

The ACA rollout is a bit of a mess at least partly because there was never supposed to be a federal exchange in the first place [and thus money wasn't set aside for it in the original bill], but lots of Republican governors would rather spit in Obama's eye than accept free money.

[Phoenix Dark]

That doesn't excuse wasting a bunch of money to build a shitty, poorly coded website that doesn't work though, to be fair. And not putting it through adequate stress tests, then watching it fail it's last stress test and being like "oh well, out of time!"

BTW I'm more shocked that Oregon's state site is so borked. They've been on the forefront of making the law work since it passed, only to drop the ball on their site. Meanwhile Kentucky is trucking along with a great site.

[TakingBackSunday]

The website worked for me *shrugs*

[Phoenix Dark]

http://queenofspainblog.com/2013/11/13/we-just-enrolled-in-obamacare/

can't be overlooked/forgotten that the law is going to help a whole lot of folks.

[Great Rumbler]

http://queenofspainblog.com/2013/11/13/we-just-enrolled-in-obamacare/

can't be overlooked/forgotten that the law is going to help a whole lot of folks.

Unlike Katrina.