Clearly Hillary Got to Them...

[ONW]

"CBS issued a statement Thursday saying, "60 Minutes has learned of new information that undercuts the account told to us by Morgan Jones of his actions on the night of the attack on the Benghazi compound. We are currently looking into this serious matter to determine if he misled us, and if so, we will make a correction."

Did witness lie about Benghazi attacks?

A U.S. official told CNN Thursday there are discrepancies between the contractor's accounts to the FBI and CBS, although the official did not specify them.

The New York Times, citing two senior government officials, reported Thursday that the contractor told the FBI he did not go the Benghazi compound on the night of the attack."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/08/politics/cbs-benghazi/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

 

[ONW]

jhmd bat signal?

 

[Lectro]

David Petraeus testified that he and his company ( CIA), arguably the worlds foremost intelligence apparatus, knew the nature of the Benghazi attack within minutes of the event.

Can't spin that.

 

[jhmd2000]

David Petraeus testified that he and his company ( CIA), arguably the worlds foremost intelligence apparatus, knew the nature of the Benghazi attack within minutes of the event.

Can't spin that.

Don't bother. If you like your opinion that a Youtube video caused a premeditated terrorist attack on 9/11 that the British saw coming six weeks ahead of time and wisely withdrew, you actually can keep it. Period.

Some of the people, all of the time.

 

[ONW]

That's more like it!

 

[Lectro]

Well, I'm not trying to change any minds just simply demonstrating the absurdity of the presidents position and those defending it. Look, embassies are attacked under every president but you don't see the storylines twisted in the manner this admin chose on this occasion. That's where the disappointment lies...I'm not looking to blame anyone for the loss of life but rather for the gross and intentional mis-representation of what happened.

This absurdity strangely by-passed both the media and the senate "questionnaires" -- it was a simple question to ask... the easiest question : "madam secretary, did you have any contact with our intelligence services following the attack?". It's not a difficult line of questioning. As Secretary of State you have either contacted the foremost intelligence outfit in the world or you have essentially abandoned your duties if you have failed to do so.

After the initial question -- where you have simply asked if the Secretary or her office had contacted David Patraeus' office or vice versa-- you then ask what the assessment of the CIA was at the time of the attacks.

This admin's line has been completely at odds with common sense from the outset.

No doubt that in the real world and in real time the WH had the CIA assessment within hours if not minutes... Patraeus testified that his agency knew within minutes and so I imagine a well connected WH knew the intel very shortly after.

 

[ONW]

She testified in front of Congress, right? And then in private discussed the classified parts, and no one outside of Issa, Fox News, and (insert conservative talk radio host) have continued to pursue this issue.

 

[jhmd2000]

Well, I'm not trying to change any minds just simply demonstrating the absurdity of the presidents position and those defending it. Look, embassies are attacked under every president but you don't see the storylines twisted in the manner this admin chose on this occasion. That's where the disappointment lies...I'm not looking to blame anyone for the loss of life but rather for the gross and intentional mis-representation of what happened.

This absurdity strangely by-passed both the media and the senate "questionnaires" -- it was a simple question to ask... the easiest question : "madam secretary, did you have any contact with our intelligence services following the attack?". It's not a difficult line of questioning. As Secretary of State you have either contacted the foremost intelligence outfit in the world or you have essentially abandoned your duties if you have failed to do so.

After the initial question -- where you have simply asked if the Secretary or her office had contacted David Patraeus' office or vice versa-- you then ask what the assessment of the CIA was at the time of the attacks.

This admin's line has been completely at odds with common sense from the outset.

No doubt that in the real world and in real time the WH had the CIA assessment within hours if not minutes... Patraeus testified that his agency knew within minutes and so I imagine a well connected WH knew the intel very shortly after.

The difference is DP wanted to know. Hell, the British knew six weeks before it happened that the situation deteriorated. Before DP had a chance to testify, a years old story about his girlfriend problem magically leaked. Amazing. Then Hillary calls in sick to her testimony.

Again, some of the people, all of the time.

eta: All that said, I'm not going to rise to the bait for another lap on this one. I'm perfectly confident that the people who rushed towards the sound of trouble and gave their lives defending the Ambassador and U.S. soil that the Administration abandoned deserve(d) better leadership---before, during and afterwards---but I respect your right to feel differently. If you want to vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016, go right ahead.

 

[ONW]

The difference is DP wanted to know. Hell, the British knew six weeks before it happened that the situation deteriorated. Before DP had a chance to testify, a years old story about his girlfriend problem magically leaked. Amazing. Then Hillary calls in sick to her testimony.

Again, some of the people, all of the time.

eta: All that said, I'm not going to rise to the bait for another lap on this one. I'm perfectly confident that the people who rushed towards the sound of trouble and gave their lives defending the Ambassador and U.S. soil that the Administration abandoned deserve(d) better leadership---before, during and afterwards---but I respect your right to feel differently. If you want to vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016, go right ahead.

:jfk:

 

[RJKarl]

The reality the 60 Minutes was so completely FOS that they had to send Lara Logan on an apology tour for being suckered into presenting a total liar as one who was telling the truth.

someone should do an investigation to if the interviewee had ties to anyone in the political world.

 

[jhmd2000]

:jfk:

I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that they're that dishonest. The notion that they actually believed that load of feces that they shoveled down your willing throat is much, much more frightening. You vote for whoever you want to, and it's on you when you do.

 

[Lectro]

The reality the 60 Minutes was so completely FOS that they had to send Lara Logan on an apology tour for being suckered into presenting a total liar as one who was telling the truth.

someone should do an investigation to if the interviewee had ties to anyone in the political world.

That's not the subject here... but on the point of CBS and their "mole"...you have the usual pressures of getting a story out and 60 minutes struggling to be relevant. That's probably more the issue and maybe Logan was being pressured to produce having come from CNN's front lines -- future successor to Amanpour? Anyway, trying to deliver a knockout and they ran short on the vetting process. That has become the mo for CBS news over the last 2 decades.

Nevertheless, this guy's false narrative is but one story. There were a lot people there who have been debriefed and forbidden to speak...so we wait and maybe are interested enough to glance at it at Barnes and Noble -- that is if we still care - which is doubtful.

The issue has always been, for me..."did the WH have any communication with the CIA following this event?"

If the answer is "yes" then it is obvious that you follow up with "and what was the CIA's assessment of what happened at Benghazi?"

If the answer is that the WH had no comm w/ CIA then you have a dereliction of duty which would rise to an impeachable offense. If a WH tells the people that they don't depend on the most extensive and expensive spy agency in the world for their intel but rather look to their own skills on the web...Anyway, they most certainly communicated with one another and thus the repeated lying looks shabby.

 

[ONW]

What would be a satisfactory resolution to the Benghazi incident for you?

 

[Deacfreak07]

What would be a satisfactory resolution to the Benghazi incident for you?

Pretty sure the initial expectation was that Mitt Romney would win the Presidential election of 2012.

 

[Lectro]

What would be a satisfactory resolution to the Benghazi incident for you?

It is over. You posted a story on 60 minutes that would appear to exonerate the administration. It doesn't. I am bothered by any official who is lying about an event. I don't care whether it is a Dick Cheney or a Hillary Clinton. I am an "equal opportunity criticizer" and always have been -- at least since I ceased being a partisan liberal some 15 years ago. I did, however, vote for Obama in 2008 in part because I bought the hype and in part because the opposition candidates were wholly unacceptable.

 

[RJKarl]

Well, I'm not trying to change any minds just simply demonstrating the absurdity of the presidents position and those defending it. Look, embassies are attacked under every president but you don't see the storylines twisted in the manner this admin chose on this occasion. That's where the disappointment lies...I'm not looking to blame anyone for the loss of life but rather for the gross and intentional mis-representation of what happened.

This absurdity strangely by-passed both the media and the senate "questionnaires" -- it was a simple question to ask... the easiest question : "madam secretary, did you have any contact with our intelligence services following the attack?". It's not a difficult line of questioning. As Secretary of State you have either contacted the foremost intelligence outfit in the world or you have essentially abandoned your duties if you have failed to do so.

After the initial question -- where you have simply asked if the Secretary or her office had contacted David Patraeus' office or vice versa-- you then ask what the assessment of the CIA was at the time of the attacks.

LECTRO's line has been completely at odds with common sense from the outset.

No doubt that in the real world and in real time the WH had the CIA assessment within hours if not minutes... Patraeus testified that his agency knew within minutes and so I imagine a well connected WH knew the intel very shortly after.

FIFY

 

[WFFaithful]

It is over. You posted a story on 60 minutes that would appear to exonerate the administration. It doesn't. I am bothered by any official who is lying about an event. I don't care whether it is a Dick Cheney or a Hillary Clinton. I am an "equal opportunity criticizer" and always have been -- at least since I ceased being a partisan liberal some 15 years ago. I did, however, vote for Obama in 2008 in part because I bought the hype and in part because the opposition candidates were wholly unacceptable.

Perhaps you should tell Lindsey Graham.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/10/graham-to-keep-holds-on-obama-nominees/?hpt=hp_bn3

 

[Lectro]

Perhaps you should tell Lindsey Graham.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/10/graham-to-keep-holds-on-obama-nominees/?hpt=hp_bn3

No doubt we have the usual political machinations at work. I have less sympathy for guys like Issa --who is a grand stander and rabble rouser -- I prefer guys like Waxman and Kucinich in those roles...they seem more noble going after the Cheney's of the world. Those 2 were effectively and continuously stone-walled through the Bush years but I strongly supported their desire for accountability. Kucinich was a grandstander at times but was tolerable because I actually believed his attempts to ferret out the truth were based in an honest desire. With Lindsey I see politics being played on this issue but I also see the same indignation Henry Waxman would show when Cheney, et.al, would tell either he or Patrick Leahy to "fuck off!" --as Cheney famously told Leahy on the Senate steps.

Alas, the White House, regardless of affiliation has gotten stronger and stronger since Watergate and Presidential power is back to pre-Nixonian levels. So, essentially, the ability to stonewall has become an art form and getting past the gates and attempting to interview participants is next to impossible. National Security and Executive Privelige trumps all...

 

[ArlingtonDeac]

David Petraeus testified that he and his company ( CIA), arguably the worlds foremost intelligence apparatus, knew the nature of the Benghazi attack within minutes of the event.

Can't spin that.

Not accurate, or even close to accurate really. Has literally no one read the Benghazi commission's actual after-action report? I posted it here months ago.

 

[ArlingtonDeac]

The difference is DP wanted to know. Hell, the British knew six weeks before it happened that the situation deteriorated. Before DP had a chance to testify, a years old story about his girlfriend problem magically leaked. Amazing. Then Hillary calls in sick to her testimony.

Again, some of the people, all of the time.

eta: All that said, I'm not going to rise to the bait for another lap on this one. I'm perfectly confident that the people who rushed towards the sound of trouble and gave their lives defending the Ambassador and U.S. soil that the Administration abandoned deserve(d) better leadership---before, during and afterwards---but I respect your right to feel differently. If you want to vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016, go right ahead.

Inaccurate facts in that statement. Wildly, in fact.