Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
52 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Republicans finally admit that Benghazi-gate isn't a real thing rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Xander Fulton
United States
Astoria
Oregon
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Republican report concludes Benghazi outcome could not have been changed.

No tl;dr - the article is an already-short brief on the report, go read it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric "Shippy McShipperson" Mowrer
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Ami. Geek.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
XanderF wrote:
Republican report concludes Benghazi outcome could not have been changed.

No tl;dr - the article is an already-short brief on the report, go read it.

So... they had no choice but to lie about it in order to win an election?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Vincent
United States
Ridgefield
Washington
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This is what the report actually says:

Quote:
Findings

I. In assessing military posture in anticipation of the September 11 anniversary, White House officials failed to comprehend or ignored the dramatically deteriorating security situation in Libya and the growing threat to U.S. interests in the region. Official public statements seem to have exaggerated the extent and rigor of the security assessment conducted at the time.

II. U.S. personnel in Benghazi were woefully vulnerable in September 2012 because a.) the administration did not direct a change in military force posture, b.) there was no intelligence of a specific “imminent” threat in Libya, and c.) the Department of State, which has primary responsibility for diplomatic security, favored a reduction of Department of Defense security personnel in Libya before the attack.

III. Defense Department officials believed nearly from the outset of violence in Benghazi that it was a terrorist attack rather than a protest gone awry, and the President subsequently permitted the military to respond with minimal direction.

IV. The U.S. military’s response to the Benghazi attack was severely degraded because of the location and readiness posture of U.S. forces, and because of lack of clarity about how the terrorist action was unfolding. However, given the uncertainty about the prospective length and scope of the attack, military commanders did not take all possible steps to prepare for a more extended operation.

V. There was no “stand down” order issued to U.S. military personnel in Tripoli who sought to join the fight in Benghazi. However, because official reviews after the attack were not sufficiently comprehensive, there was confusion about the roles and responsibilities of these individuals.

VI. The Department of Defense is working to correct many weaknesses revealed by the Benghazi attack, but the global security situation is still deteriorating and military resources continue to decline.

Edit: Link
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It reads almost like something that makes sense. There was a lack of resources(already admitted in budget cuts) the intel was nonspecific and libya is generally a hot spot(admitted) the location and nature of the attack made potential responses more complicated (rolling US troops through forgeign soil in a powderkeg nation to an unknlwn target for an unknkwn ammount of time, already admitted) and someone made a call and people died which is shitty(admitted). Envision a scenario where a platoon was dispatched but surrounded by superior force in the urban environment and butchered too, that'd go over well.

It reads like every terror attsck that had succeeded since ever. Shifty intel that reads multiple ways(imagine how many threats are recieved on a dsily basis ae don't hear about) not enough resources to cover all the potential scenarios, and something gets through.

Still shitty it happened, but if the roof of your house develops a leak after ten years you don't burn down the house or hang the cknttactor, you just fix the leak and move on.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If only the embassy had not refused help, blast Obama for not listening to the man on the ground.

Come 2016 Obama bashing will be a vote winner.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Hoffman
United States
Cortlandt Manor
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
That's all fine and good, but when is Obama going to finally admit the truth about Benghazi?

Benghazi Benghazi Lewinsky . . . um, wut?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bat Profile
United States
Sandworms USA
Plateau of Leng
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Now that the truth is out, all we have to do is wait for the real truth to come out.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Agent J
United States
Coldwater
Michigan
flag msg tools
He's looking real sharp in his 1940's fedora. He's got nerves of steel, an iron will, and several other metal-themed attributes. His fur is water tight and he's always up for a fight.
badge
He's a semi-aquatic egg-laying mammal of action. He's a furry little flat-foot who'll never flinch from a fray. He's got more than just mad skills, he's got a beaver tail and a bill.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
We're still waiting for 'the whole truth' and 'nothing but the truth'
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric "Shippy McShipperson" Mowrer
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Ami. Geek.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MWChapel wrote:
Quote:
Findings

I. In assessing military posture in anticipation of the September 11 anniversary, White House officials failed to comprehend or ignored the dramatically deteriorating security situation in Libya and the growing threat to U.S. interests in the region. Official public statements seem to have exaggerated the extent and rigor of the security assessment conducted at the time.

II. U.S. personnel in Benghazi were woefully vulnerable in September 2012 because a.) the administration did not direct a change in military force posture, b.) there was no intelligence of a specific “imminent” threat in Libya, and c.) the Department of State, which has primary responsibility for diplomatic security, favored a reduction of Department of Defense security personnel in Libya before the attack.

III. Defense Department officials believed nearly from the outset of violence in Benghazi that it was a terrorist attack rather than a protest gone awry, and the President subsequently permitted the military to respond with minimal direction.

IV. The U.S. military’s response to the Benghazi attack was severely degraded because of the location and readiness posture of U.S. forces, and because of lack of clarity about how the terrorist action was unfolding. However, given the uncertainty about the prospective length and scope of the attack, military commanders did not take all possible steps to prepare for a more extended operation.

V. There was no “stand down” order issued to U.S. military personnel in Tripoli who sought to join the fight in Benghazi. However, because official reviews after the attack were not sufficiently comprehensive, there was confusion about the roles and responsibilities of these individuals.

VI. The Department of Defense is working to correct many weaknesses revealed by the Benghazi attack, but the global security situation is still deteriorating and military resources continue to decline.


So they took a risk by trying to create a diplomatic center in Benghazai without a military presence which they believed would only hurt diplomatic chances with this new Libya and were unprepared for an attack that happened.

And? Welcome to diplomacy!

If they would have placed a military garrison in the embassy in a country who has been an enemy of the state for how long now? That might have been seen as the U.S. trying to intervene in the activities of the revolution.

Was it risky? YES. Did it pay off? NO. But that is the nature of the game.

Get the fuck over it.

And then they deliberately lied about whether it was a terrorist attack because they were afraid the truth would cost them the election. Lying about why people died in order to get political gain is not worthy of somebody holding public office. That alone is enough for me to be pissed bout this and is indeed the most disappointing part of it. I get it that people working at embassies in unsafe countries sometimes are killed by mobs.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ejmowrer wrote:
MWChapel wrote:
Quote:
Findings

I. In assessing military posture in anticipation of the September 11 anniversary, White House officials failed to comprehend or ignored the dramatically deteriorating security situation in Libya and the growing threat to U.S. interests in the region. Official public statements seem to have exaggerated the extent and rigor of the security assessment conducted at the time.

II. U.S. personnel in Benghazi were woefully vulnerable in September 2012 because a.) the administration did not direct a change in military force posture, b.) there was no intelligence of a specific “imminent” threat in Libya, and c.) the Department of State, which has primary responsibility for diplomatic security, favored a reduction of Department of Defense security personnel in Libya before the attack.

III. Defense Department officials believed nearly from the outset of violence in Benghazi that it was a terrorist attack rather than a protest gone awry, and the President subsequently permitted the military to respond with minimal direction.

IV. The U.S. military’s response to the Benghazi attack was severely degraded because of the location and readiness posture of U.S. forces, and because of lack of clarity about how the terrorist action was unfolding. However, given the uncertainty about the prospective length and scope of the attack, military commanders did not take all possible steps to prepare for a more extended operation.

V. There was no “stand down” order issued to U.S. military personnel in Tripoli who sought to join the fight in Benghazi. However, because official reviews after the attack were not sufficiently comprehensive, there was confusion about the roles and responsibilities of these individuals.

VI. The Department of Defense is working to correct many weaknesses revealed by the Benghazi attack, but the global security situation is still deteriorating and military resources continue to decline.


So they took a risk by trying to create a diplomatic center in Benghazai without a military presence which they believed would only hurt diplomatic chances with this new Libya and were unprepared for an attack that happened.

And? Welcome to diplomacy!

If they would have placed a military garrison in the embassy in a country who has been an enemy of the state for how long now? That might have been seen as the U.S. trying to intervene in the activities of the revolution.

Was it risky? YES. Did it pay off? NO. But that is the nature of the game.

Get the fuck over it.

And then they deliberately lied about whether it was a terrorist attack because they were afraid the truth would cost them the election. Lying about why people died in order to get political gain is not worthy of somebody holding public office. That alone is enough for me to be pissed bout this and is indeed the most disappointing part of it. I get it that people working at embassies in unsafe countries sometimes are killed by mobs.

I'm currently reading "Camelot's Court" and I can assure you that politicians who do not lie are rapidly booted from office. And that's been true forever. Kennedy, the presidents before him, and the presidents after him all lied-- massively and constantly.

It's really amazing how much they lie to me and I thought I was jaded.
Somehow, they draw a line between different various of lying- lying to get the desired outcome- lying in an acceptable way to hide a deeper unacceptable truth- lying to manipulate people into the desired emotional state.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
There is no Dana, only Zuul
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
What we have now is an atmospshere where politicians blatantly lie, everyone knows it's a lie, but there are political and social consequences for calling out those lies.

Do you mean, there are no political and social consequences? (not being snarky - real question).

I don't see how there are actual, real consequences beyond party fighting and screwing each other's nominations...they're still elected and still do a fine job of being ineffective lame ducks at their jobs.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bat Profile
United States
Sandworms USA
Plateau of Leng
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Jythier wrote:
We're still waiting for 'the whole truth' and 'nothing but the truth'


Those are lies. Not real lies though.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

XanderF wrote:
Republican report concludes Benghazi outcome could not have been changed.

No tl;dr - the article is an already-short brief on the report, go read it.
No wonder Rand Paul is revisiting the Monica Lewinsky Scandal!

Of course, in the long run, Rand Paul may well very much regret it after the comments he made in the wake of the discovery of Republican Presidential candidate Herman Cain's own sexual exploits in the workplace become more well known. After all, Rand Paul then expressed frustration that as a result of the Cain episode, he'd henceforth never again be able to make jokes about sexual advances made in the work place!

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bat Profile
United States
Sandworms USA
Plateau of Leng
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
whistle




Says the guy who can't stop making shit up.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
"Captain, although your abilities intrigue me, you are quite honestly inferior"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The government lies? Huh? Yeah, I'm not quite sure that is news.



There are lies and then there are lies.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Grand Admiral Thrawn
United States
New Jersey
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
Chapel, you've always been a "I got mine, screw everyone else" person. You're a perfect citizen. You don't really care what happens in Washington. You chose your tribe, you'll defend it unquestioningly to the end.

When people joke that Obama could eat live babies on national television and some people would still support him, they're thinking of you.

Good little prole. Never question authority.

Drew, just because people agree with the president sometimes doesn't make them "proles". Aren't we all subservient to "the system" in some way (even if we define the system differently)? If we disagree with what the government or the economic system is doing, we could use some encouragement to protest. But not by calling people proles. Because unless you're 100% self-sufficient on a farm or commune somewhere, you're a prole just as much as the rest of us.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Seth Iniguez
United States
Idaho Springs
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ejmowrer wrote:
And then they deliberately lied about whether it was a terrorist attack because they were afraid the truth would cost them the election.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/10/world/libya-attack-statements/

September 11 -- Benghazi attack
September 12 -- President Barack Obama
"The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. ... No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation."

Although there was some confusion about the connection to the video protests, I don't think there was much confusion about it being terrorism.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

Sutehk wrote:
ejmowrer wrote:
And then they deliberately lied about whether it was a terrorist attack because they were afraid the truth would cost them the election.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/10/world/libya-attack-statements/

September 11 -- Benghazi attack
September 12 -- President Barack Obama
"The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. ... No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation."

Although there was some confusion about the connection to the video protests, I don't think there was much confusion about it being terrorism.
On the contrary, at that point, it could certainly be suspected as likely being terrorism, but only investigators on the ground there would be able to confirm and verify it with any accountable reliability.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Seth Iniguez
United States
Idaho Springs
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
Sutehk wrote:
Although there was some confusion about the connection to the video protests, I don't think there was much confusion about it being terrorism.

There was no confusion about the connection to video protests. The State Department knew immediately that a silly YouTube video had nothing to do with the attack on Benghazi.

Yet Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama blamed the YouTube video for FIVE WEEKS.

They went around apologizing to terrorists for the video. They cut an ad for Pakistan apologizing for the video. They kept blaming the video until they couldn't fake it any longer.

I don't care if he spoke generally of "acts of terror," and had Candy Crowley fill in for him during a debate (although that should have cost Crowley her job). What I know is that he continued to lie to the American people knowing that it was a lie.

And it is wrong to keep pretending that it wasn't a lie. Don't be complicit in a politician's lying. Don't prop up his lies because you're a Democrat.

We have a duty to the truth.

Just so long as we are clear about what the accusation is, because if the accusation is, as Eric indicated, that the administration denied it was a terrorist attack, I find that to be incorrect.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich Shipley
United States
Baltimore
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
the liberal unsavory type
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
Sutehk wrote:
Although there was some confusion about the connection to the video protests, I don't think there was much confusion about it being terrorism.

There was no confusion about the connection to video protests. The State Department knew immediately that a silly YouTube video had nothing to do with the attack on Benghazi.

Yet Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama blamed the YouTube video for FIVE WEEKS.

It was mentioned as a possible cause. Other reasons for the attack were not ruled out.

Quote:
They went around apologizing to terrorists for the video. They cut an ad for Pakistan apologizing for the video. They kept blaming the video until they couldn't fake it any longer.

There were protests across the region over the video, including one in Cairo that same night where that embassy was being attacked. That is what garnered the most attention while it was going on.

Quote:
I don't care if he spoke generally of "acts of terror," and had Candy Crowley fill in for him during a debate (although that should have cost Crowley her job). What I know is that he continued to lie to the American people knowing that it was a lie.

I'm not sure why it is important for the President to be the first guy to yell terrorism in any particular case (is it like Bingo?), but he certainly was referring to the incident when he talked about acts of terror. I'm not sure why thinking the video might have contributed makes the failure to protect the people on the ground any better.

Quote:
And it is wrong to keep pretending that it wasn't a lie. Don't be complicit in a politician's lying. Don't prop up his lies because you're a Democrat.

We have a duty to the truth.

Damn, that's funny from you.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
A question, did Obama ever say the attack on Benghazi was a result of the video, or just the violence in the Arab world?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
There is no Dana, only Zuul
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
For journalists, for example, because they depend on access to the President. But if they start saying "Hey, the President is lying here," then so much for that access.
Yes and no. I don't think it's true that journalists rely on access to the president at all. One of the issues of the Obama presidency is that you can't get people to shut up. I think it was Washington Post that said they were inundated with White House insiders...including Joe Biden (ffs). The big McKhrystal story sources were civilians who couldn't shut up.

I think it's far more that there are corporate and political interests that shut down journalists. Whether you agree with the final story or not that Dan Rather did on W. Bush - he still was fairly detailed in how journalism and its integrity has been completely undermined by corporate and political interests. Yes, that certainly shuts down reporters...but it's not necessarily so damaging as it once was. We have evidence of journalists (or not-really-journalists) having quite powerful voices on the interwebz.

Quote:
For politicians, sure. What happens to a Joe Wilson who correctly points out that the President is lying? The left-wing attack machine goes apeshit.
Agreed. I don't think that's necessarily party exclusive, though. I think that's a consequence of our current system. I would interested to see the removal of representation based on congressional district and see the US be one, large district...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
There is no Dana, only Zuul
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
Whoa whoa whoa.

That was, without a doubt, a complete hoax by Rather. That should be the end of the story there. No apologia about how he was some victim of corporate interests.
Regarding Rather's detail about journalistic integrity and its erosion affected by corporate and political interests: are you dismissing it based on one story you don't agree with?

Regarding Rather's W. story: it's not so cut and dried. The actual data is interesting. It's far more interesting looking at in the context of the change of journalism and the echo chamber of the internet and that impact on actual investigative journalism.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Snowball
Belgium
n/a
flag msg tools
badge
Gender: pot*ato. My opinion is an opinion.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:

from leftists with no personal integrity like you.

That level of precision means you are softening.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
There is no Dana, only Zuul
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
xilan wrote:
Regarding Rather's detail about journalistic integrity and its erosion affected by corporate and political interests: are you dismissing it based on one story you don't agree with?

So, yes.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   |