Chip Bok for May 11, 2013

You people have lost your minds. There is no there there.

What about the 60 embassy staff killed while W. was President?

I’m sure they’re next in the Republican “investigation.”

I was going to attempt an elaborate post to reason with you. But then I thought, why waste my time (and at the age of 70, I do not have a whole lot left anymore). Neither you nor any of the other ultra conservatives on these boards would ever bother to listen to reason under any circumstances anyway. It does not matter to you that in attempting to destroy the current president over this (or all of the things that you wish to use to tear him down wit)h you create the collateral damage of tearing down the country that diplomatic personnel risk their lives for in such areas as the Middle East anyways!!

I heard an interview with Pickering, the author of the original Benghazi report, yesterday. He said that after trying very hard to reach the folks in charge of the hearings, because he knows a lot about the issue, he was never able to get a return call. Then at the hearing, the house members described Pickering several times as “refusing to show up.” The hearing was a farce. They’re not interested in truth. They’re interested in scandal. And anyone who might have told the truth was not allowed to testify.

I’ve said this numerous times before, but it always bears repeating. I no longer try to discuss issues with conservatives in 21st Century America. I can get a more reasonable conversation with a bag of hammers.

nz4mo60 no one lied about other deaths it is the lieing that makes it worst ask nixon

In the interest of objectivity, I offer this link:http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/benghazi-talking-points-memos-documents-scrubbed-terror-reference-19152258

If you google Doug Hagmann from ansonia’s link, you’ll find he is a a far right kook who specializes in disinformation.-———-I didn’t have to go a Google search; I could tell all that from the general negative tone of the article..I looked for the official report of the Accountability Review Board chaired by Pickering, so that I could check certain things..Noteworthy is the fact that Hagmann quoted only the portion of the concluding paragraph that served his distortive purposes, leaving out this significant portion:.The Board found that certain senior State Department officials within two bureaus in critical positions of authority and responsibility in Washington demonstrated a lack of proactive leadership and management ability appropriate for the State Department’s senior ranks in their responses to security concerns posed by Special Mission Benghazi, given the deteriorating threat environment and the lack of reliable host government protection. .The entire report can be found here:http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf

1. Obama said the next day the attack was an act of terrorism.

2. Ambassador Stevens, long a friend of Libya made the choice, against “best advice” to go to Benghazi, despite the known “danger”. HIS family knew this, and had no problem with the administration, or how events unfolded.

3. The family of one of our hired mercenaries came up with a load of garbage, but the facts have repeatedly disproved all their charges.

4. Even if the 14 or so Marines “panel members” and complainers have brought up had been present, it just would have added to the body count given the actual events. The military did NOT have time to respond given the short time frame that “panel members” keep ignoring.

5. The total idiocy of Issa and the Republican panel members, and the right-wing press and blowhards like Hannity and Limbaugh just prove WHY many actions, especially “covert” our government undertakes should remain classified, AND why giving details of real operations and what’s really in progress to try to “get the bad guys” should be kept from the media, even if it involves giving out false leads (to all those morons like Issa and LImbaugh and the dittoheads.).

I’ve been in combat, and my son has participated in many “covert operations” overseas before getting his disability retirement from the Navy after 13 years of service, so this isn’t some “liberal rant”, merely a knowledgable, informed, and accurate response, which Issa, and our rignt-wingers here on this blog could care less about, but will undoubtedly attack as “prejudiced and ill-informed”. BTW: there aren’t “links” to first-hand experiences of friends and family who participated in covert activities abroad, because they’re still classified. (Which is why Issa and his buddies should be censured by the Congress, not “encouraged” or supported."

nice rewrite of history dtroutma a few minor corrections are needed1] bho said he was against terrorism the next day but did NOT call benghazi attack terrorism2] the decision to keep the consulate open was done farther up the line than stevens 3]this is garbage4] 70+ troops were available in tripoli with chinooks but was told to stand down and more troops were 3 hours away 5]koolaide guzzlers still defend bho even after emails and clegg

Ansonia, the tape has been played dozens of times, without your, or Rush’s, edits. Or maybe it’s just you’re deaf, dumb, and bllind to reality, like the fact it was well known, and proven, that Saddam had NO VIABLE WMDs in 2002!

Thanks, Just got home from work and was too tired to copy a paste a long response like you did.Only thing I would have otherwise mentioned is, combine paragraphs 9 and 10 together. Paragraph 9 leads into his reference of “No act’s of terror…” in paragraph 10.

I don’t think CIA operatives have to be told to keep a plug in it. GOP congressmen, on the other hand, are a real security risk.

I see exactly what you mean: Obama gave the Rose Garden speech specifically to address the Benghazi incident, but the fact that he said “acts of terror” didn’t have anything to do with that incident. Good analogy.

Obama NEVER, not once, ever in the Rose Garden speech said, “The Benghazi attack was an act of terrorism.” THAT would be calling the attack an act of terrorism. He never said, “This attack was done by terrorists.”-————I really enjoyed reading your post. It is obvious that you put a lot of thought into it. Unfortunately, you haven’t considered that the entire purpose of the Rose Garden speech was to address the Benghazi attack and the deaths of four Americans, which was the common thread that connected all the comments..You state: Look! He can’t even call 9/11 an act of terrorism. They were just “attacks.” Actually, you are reinforcing the rationale that is being offered contending that the Administration didn’t want to prejudice the outcome of any investigation..Then, you summarize the speech with this: Basically all he said was “an attack was done” and “we won’t tolerate terrorism.” In so doing, you connect the dots and arrive at the correct conclusion, showing that Obama basically stated that the attack was an act of terrorism. Good job!.Strangely, though, you become entangled with contrary conclusions based upon flawed reasoning. You try to make a point that he didn’t come right out and directly say that Benghazi was an act of terrorism; yet you make the following inference based upon something that Obama did not say: See, he makes a reference to the video, which “denigrated the religious beliefs” of Muslims. (This inference is based upon his statement that 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. ).There is no direct reference to the video, but you want to take something from the speech regarding denigrating the religious beliefs of others and turn it into something that wasn’t said. Yet, you deny that a reference to “acts of terror” in the context of the speech taken as a whole, whose purpose is to address the attack, does not apply to Benghazi..You did put a lot of thought into this analysis, but objectivity is lacking.

Insomnia must have fallen asleep. It’s been 3 days since my rebuttal.