So McCain and his ilk praised Patreaus as being highly intelligent and competent when it suited their hawkishness in Iraq, but when Patreaus defended Susan Rice, he wasn’t worth listening to.
Petaeus is said to have told one of the committees that they knew it was a terrorist attack in the first 10 minutes. They held on to that information for over two weeks because “they didn’t want Al Qaeda to know what the CIA knew” That’s a paraphrase, but is basically what he said. It is also what I said about three weeks ago. The CIA doesn’t like to be transparent. Just as cops don’t tell you where they are at in an investigation, the CIA is not going to tell people who like to stand in front of cameras where they are in an investigation. These investigations also reinforce my statement from a few weeks ago about the fact that republicans in charge of the HoR committee responsible for security at places like Benghazi did NOT release the funds. The only reason I’m pointing “blame” is because of how many people have been ADAMANT that Obama had done something criminally wrong.Benghazi was a tragedy from which we can learn. It was not an opportunity to impeach a sitting President. Can we please move on to a real issue, or, if you like, I can provide links and proofs to my above statements.Respectfully,C.
Susan Rice had nothing to do with what happened in Benghazi but, the GOP is trying to score political points by smearing an innocent woman. Good luck with that, Dumb(o).
Condoleezza was the richest “poor kid” ever, private skating and piano lessons, got into college ‘cause “Daddy” was Chancellor, and there’s that photo of her uncle’s Bentley in Time. Yup, she should have been in the pot a long time ago, and so many would have lived, past 9/11, and not been killed in the wars she, Cheney, Perle, and Wolfowitz and the “gang” started.
Yup, way too late to be looking to blame a “rice”.
Rice is all we will be able to AFFORD TO BUY AT THE GROCERY STORE IN ORDER TO SURVIVE! UNLESS, OF COURSE, THE COST OF RICE SKY ROCKETS LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE HAS FOR THE COMMON MAN!
To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck the United States Mission without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier. And it is an explanation that tracks with their history as members of a local militant group determined to protect Libya from Western influence.. . .The fighters said at the time that they were moved to act because of the video, which had first gained attention across the region after a protest in Egypt that day. The assailants approvingly recalled a 2006 assault by local Islamists that had destroyed an Italian diplomatic mission in Benghazi over a perceived insult to the prophet. In June the group staged a similar attack against the Tunisian Consulate over a different film, according to the Congressional testimony of the American security chief at the time, Eric A. Nordstrom.It does not it your narrative, but these observations come from witnesses there at the time of the attack, reporting for the New York Times. (You are entitled to your opinion of the Times, but that doesn’t change the facts reported.From General P’s testimony we learned why early reports were “imprecise”. Not lies, imprecise.The lack of specifics arose from intelligence concerns that we not tip our hand relating as to how much we knew about the attackers.No question exists that the attack was terrorism, but it was also an attack occasioned by outrage over the video. The pathetic machinations of the right, notwithstanding.
Your narrative is fascinating. It just doesn’t conform to the facts.
From The Guardian, UK:
During the hearings, Petraeus – who has once been touted as a possible Republican candidate – appears to have undercut GOP arguments, saying the aftermath of Benghazi had not been a political issue and that there had been no attempt by the White House to distort the talking points in advance of Rice’s appearance before the media.
Petraeus, who gave evidence to both the Senate and House intelligence committees, said that references to the group alleged to have been behind the 11 September attack were in the CIA’s classified talking points, which were classified, but removed from the unclassified memo relied upon by Rice. The reason, he said, was not to tip off the group about what the US authorities knew.
Hello Harley,Glad you survived the elections, I’ve not seen your posts in a bit.As I did initially believe the attacks were inspired by the anti Muslim video which created such outrage in various parts of the middle east. Now, I believe a well prepared group of Al Qayadah operatives saw the regional protests as a way to get close to a US consulate and attack it. The testimony of General Petraeus concurs with my other suspicions. CIA knew they were terrorists and even Al Qayadah, but kept that info classified until they couldget as close to the attackers as possible. You mention the people of Libya in your post, but you fail to mention that many Libyans, outraged by the death of a man they admired, attacked several extremist compounds and drove them out of their town. Some of them died fighting against people they thought might have killed their friend, Ambassador Stevens.Ambassador Stevens thought they were a people worth the risk. Ambassador Crocker, a man assigned to help build a relationship with Syrian rebels also seems to think there are Musilms worth risking a life for. You also fail to acknowledge that money budgeted to upgrade security at embassies world wide was tied up in a Republican led committee for months. To my knowledge, it has still not been released while Congressman Issa tries to find a way to punish someone for what happened in Benghazi.It is a serious situation and deserves serious action.Sorry you think I’m an idiot, however, I feel the facts are supporting me so far.Have a happy thanksgiving Harley.Respectfully,C.
The fighters said at the time that they were moved to act because of the video, which had first gained attention across the region after a protest in Egypt that day. The assailants approvingly recalled a 2006 assault by local Islamists that had destroyed an Italian diplomatic mission in Benghazi over a perceived insult to the prophet.From the New York Times, regarding the immediate aftermath of the attack.. . .
The salient portions of the President’s remarks:
Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.. . .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.
. . .
The incident is recognized as a terrorist act, without any specific reference points to identify the terrorists.Reports from the ground tend to confirm the video as motivation.The problem eludes those of us outside the echochamber.
The other day I heard Cokie Roberts opine, and I paraphrase heavily, that the ‘pubs have detected a shrinkage in their defense/foreign policy “testes” since Obama took office. In some respects, this is a product of “Bush foreign policy fatigue”, but also has root in the President’s aggressive drone assasination policies, and of course . . .
(insert fanfare)
. . . in the OBL raid.So, the ’pubs use this tragedy to beat their chests and try to pump up their testes. Of course, this is politics, but it seems to me that every time the ’pubs tread this ground, they get more crap on themselves than on Obama
Nebulous Premium Member over 11 years ago
But I thought the GOP LIKED Condoleezza?
larryrhoades over 11 years ago
Good cartoon; funny, timely, subtle.
zekedog55 over 11 years ago
Do you even know how to read?
zekedog55 over 11 years ago
Sorta like “Mission Accomplished”.
braindead Premium Member over 11 years ago
The mission accomplished banner came from the pentagon. Of course, Fox “news” viewers do not know this.
Stormrider2112 over 11 years ago
Robert Bork was one of the most insane people ever put up for a Supreme Court nomination.
Marty Z over 11 years ago
So McCain and his ilk praised Patreaus as being highly intelligent and competent when it suited their hawkishness in Iraq, but when Patreaus defended Susan Rice, he wasn’t worth listening to.
Gary Williams Premium Member over 11 years ago
they want to forget that their Rice along with Cheney and Bush blwe up 3000+ Americans on 9/11.
chazandru over 11 years ago
Petaeus is said to have told one of the committees that they knew it was a terrorist attack in the first 10 minutes. They held on to that information for over two weeks because “they didn’t want Al Qaeda to know what the CIA knew” That’s a paraphrase, but is basically what he said. It is also what I said about three weeks ago. The CIA doesn’t like to be transparent. Just as cops don’t tell you where they are at in an investigation, the CIA is not going to tell people who like to stand in front of cameras where they are in an investigation. These investigations also reinforce my statement from a few weeks ago about the fact that republicans in charge of the HoR committee responsible for security at places like Benghazi did NOT release the funds. The only reason I’m pointing “blame” is because of how many people have been ADAMANT that Obama had done something criminally wrong.Benghazi was a tragedy from which we can learn. It was not an opportunity to impeach a sitting President. Can we please move on to a real issue, or, if you like, I can provide links and proofs to my above statements.Respectfully,C.
pirate227 over 11 years ago
Susan Rice had nothing to do with what happened in Benghazi but, the GOP is trying to score political points by smearing an innocent woman. Good luck with that, Dumb(o).
Dtroutma over 11 years ago
Condoleezza was the richest “poor kid” ever, private skating and piano lessons, got into college ‘cause “Daddy” was Chancellor, and there’s that photo of her uncle’s Bentley in Time. Yup, she should have been in the pot a long time ago, and so many would have lived, past 9/11, and not been killed in the wars she, Cheney, Perle, and Wolfowitz and the “gang” started.
Yup, way too late to be looking to blame a “rice”.
Dry and Dusty Premium Member over 11 years ago
Oh MY GAWD! Would some of you wake up!
Rice is all we will be able to AFFORD TO BUY AT THE GROCERY STORE IN ORDER TO SURVIVE! UNLESS, OF COURSE, THE COST OF RICE SKY ROCKETS LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE HAS FOR THE COMMON MAN!
1
charliekane over 11 years ago
To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck the United States Mission without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier. And it is an explanation that tracks with their history as members of a local militant group determined to protect Libya from Western influence.. . .The fighters said at the time that they were moved to act because of the video, which had first gained attention across the region after a protest in Egypt that day. The assailants approvingly recalled a 2006 assault by local Islamists that had destroyed an Italian diplomatic mission in Benghazi over a perceived insult to the prophet. In June the group staged a similar attack against the Tunisian Consulate over a different film, according to the Congressional testimony of the American security chief at the time, Eric A. Nordstrom.It does not it your narrative, but these observations come from witnesses there at the time of the attack, reporting for the New York Times. (You are entitled to your opinion of the Times, but that doesn’t change the facts reported.From General P’s testimony we learned why early reports were “imprecise”. Not lies, imprecise.The lack of specifics arose from intelligence concerns that we not tip our hand relating as to how much we knew about the attackers.No question exists that the attack was terrorism, but it was also an attack occasioned by outrage over the video. The pathetic machinations of the right, notwithstanding.
PlainBill over 11 years ago
False, you dittohead.
PlainBill over 11 years ago
False again. The banner was provided by Bush’s advance party.
charliekane over 11 years ago
Your narrative is fascinating. It just doesn’t conform to the facts.
From The Guardian, UK:
During the hearings, Petraeus – who has once been touted as a possible Republican candidate – appears to have undercut GOP arguments, saying the aftermath of Benghazi had not been a political issue and that there had been no attempt by the White House to distort the talking points in advance of Rice’s appearance before the media.
Petraeus, who gave evidence to both the Senate and House intelligence committees, said that references to the group alleged to have been behind the 11 September attack were in the CIA’s classified talking points, which were classified, but removed from the unclassified memo relied upon by Rice. The reason, he said, was not to tip off the group about what the US authorities knew.
chazandru over 11 years ago
Hello Harley,Glad you survived the elections, I’ve not seen your posts in a bit.As I did initially believe the attacks were inspired by the anti Muslim video which created such outrage in various parts of the middle east. Now, I believe a well prepared group of Al Qayadah operatives saw the regional protests as a way to get close to a US consulate and attack it. The testimony of General Petraeus concurs with my other suspicions. CIA knew they were terrorists and even Al Qayadah, but kept that info classified until they couldget as close to the attackers as possible. You mention the people of Libya in your post, but you fail to mention that many Libyans, outraged by the death of a man they admired, attacked several extremist compounds and drove them out of their town. Some of them died fighting against people they thought might have killed their friend, Ambassador Stevens.Ambassador Stevens thought they were a people worth the risk. Ambassador Crocker, a man assigned to help build a relationship with Syrian rebels also seems to think there are Musilms worth risking a life for. You also fail to acknowledge that money budgeted to upgrade security at embassies world wide was tied up in a Republican led committee for months. To my knowledge, it has still not been released while Congressman Issa tries to find a way to punish someone for what happened in Benghazi.It is a serious situation and deserves serious action.Sorry you think I’m an idiot, however, I feel the facts are supporting me so far.Have a happy thanksgiving Harley.Respectfully,C.
zekedog55 over 11 years ago
So you truly are illiterate!
zekedog55 over 11 years ago
So, 1opinion, do you think Big Shot Lying Howie cares about his falsehoods?
Thx for rubbing his nose in his B.S. mountain blabber…
feverjr Premium Member over 11 years ago
McCain, Graham and the rest of the GOP have stuck with their Bengazi lie and it gives a new meaning to “like white on rice”.
Call me Ishmael over 11 years ago
He’s still dealing with W’s failures.
charliekane over 11 years ago
The fighters said at the time that they were moved to act because of the video, which had first gained attention across the region after a protest in Egypt that day. The assailants approvingly recalled a 2006 assault by local Islamists that had destroyed an Italian diplomatic mission in Benghazi over a perceived insult to the prophet.From the New York Times, regarding the immediate aftermath of the attack.. . .
The salient portions of the President’s remarks:
Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.. . .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.
. . .
The incident is recognized as a terrorist act, without any specific reference points to identify the terrorists.Reports from the ground tend to confirm the video as motivation.The problem eludes those of us outside the echochamber.
The other day I heard Cokie Roberts opine, and I paraphrase heavily, that the ‘pubs have detected a shrinkage in their defense/foreign policy “testes” since Obama took office. In some respects, this is a product of “Bush foreign policy fatigue”, but also has root in the President’s aggressive drone assasination policies, and of course . . .
(insert fanfare). . . in the OBL raid.So, the ’pubs use this tragedy to beat their chests and try to pump up their testes. Of course, this is politics, but it seems to me that every time the ’pubs tread this ground, they get more crap on themselves than on Obama