So Petraeus testified behind closed doors and lo and behold:
Former CIA Director David Petraeus testified in a closed-door hearing Friday morning that his agency determined immediately after the Sept. 11 Libya attack that “Al-Qaeda involvement” was suspected — but the line was taken out in the final version circulated to administration officials, according to a top lawmaker who was briefed.
Who took it out?
Who then decided to send Rice out with that misinformation?
Now if we had a Republican in the White House during this whole affair you know the media and the left would be howling for blood. It would be front page news for months on end.
But now? Not so much.
Funny how that happens.
It gets better:
Petraeus’ testimony both challenges the Obama administration’s repeated claims that the attack was a “spontaneous” protest over an anti-Islam video, and according to King conflicts with his own briefing to lawmakers on Sept. 14. Sources have said Petraeus, in that briefing, also described the attack as a protest that spun out of control.
“His testimony today was that from the start, he had told us that this was a terrorist attack,” King said, adding that he told Petraeus he had a “different recollection.”
Petraeus hides an affair, now he hides the truth it seems as well.
Is there a Bernstein and Woodward amongst our MSM ready to break this story wide open?
Seeing as how our colleges are now leftist indoctrination centers I kinda doubt it.
Example number 1…reporter Joy-Ann Reid:
The administration was given an assessment by the CIA. Susan Rice was the person who went to the public and gave that assessment to the public. When that information changed, the information was given to the public that was new. So I am really not sure what it is that Mr. Fournier and othe
rs are looking for because I don't know that there’s anything beyond that.
…So the issue is the word terrorism weren’t used to the public satisfaction? I’m not sure I understand what the scandal is.
I'm not sure what the scandal is?
Wow.
First, the attack itself. Why wasn't more security not authorized when they begged for it. During the attack why didn't Obama send in help during a 7-8 hour attack? Afterwards, even when they KNEW that this was a terrorist attack they deliberately lied to the American people and tried to blame it on a video, and that it was all a protest that got out of hand. How about the CIA annex itself? Was it used to jail and interrogate suspected terrorists?
And now we know that someone redacted the official story and changed it.
Who did it?
Roger Simon has a theory up from a reader:
Consider this possibility … the talking points came from the CIA, and they were altered by the campaign people in Chicago. The coverup has been about hiding the sharing of classified information with campaign officials who don’t have the proper clearance. This sharing of information could also be the source of the earlier leaks such as the virus in Iran’s nuclear program.
I’ve always wondered why David Axelrod appeared on news programs to talk about the administration’s official policies when he was a campaign official. Those of us old enough to remember Watergate will recall the mixing of official administration business with CREEP (Committee to Reelect the President) activities and the Democrat’s outrage at the time. Perhaps we are seeing the results of a similar improper mix.
Roger Simon continues:
I suspect too that, if true, this is more than just an “improper mix.” Legal lines may have been crossed here with a political campaign redacting or helping to redact classified material it should never have seen in the first place.
What may emerge is a kind of government by cabal, a super-government composed of David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, Eric Holder, and possibly a few others who operated, in the service of the president, above and beyond our legal and constitutional systems — all the time thinking what they did was for the better good of our country.
Watergate anyone? Of course as we all know, no one died during that scandal.
See author page
It had to have been Obama, himself.
Anyone else he would have thrown under the bus by now.
What did they know and then what did they change to meet their political agenda?? “Al Qaeda is on the Run” my ass!!
It’s ridiculous how what it is we’re supposed to be outraged about concerning Benghazi keeps shifting. The moment one story loses traction, the narrative is reconstructed to turn the focus on something else. Everything is being viewed through the lens of adversarial politics. Too many investigators aren’t interested in getting to the actual truth. They’re really only interested in establishing some politically useful version of the the truth.
Not likely this story is going anywhere…did you see the press corps the other day at Obama’s “press conference”? Smooch, smooch, kiss, kiss….they need to get a private room with their messiah. They’re going to cover this up. Count on it. I was actually embarrassed for these people.
@Greg: So you think it’s a political truth the Republican’s want….and what about the families of the ‘expendable’ four who lost their lives? You Democrats can always find some disgusting, vile way to wipe away the crimes you commit against patriots and the Constitution. Obama had a ringside seat and then walked away. He is a snake. How political is that?
@Greg: Truth, now there is a new term for you Greg. Truth would be that 0-blama and his administration covered up the truth about what happened in Benghazi for political gain. Truth would be that 0-blama said he would cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term but he added $5 trillion on to it. Truth is 0-blama said he would have unemployment at or below or 6% by the end of his first term instead it ended higher than when he took office. Truth is he lied about then and he is lying now. Truth is Reid said Romney didn’t pay taxes. These are your truths Greg but reality is they are lies. Once again you just run off at the mouth and blame Republicans and Bush for the failures of 0-blama and his administration.
@Art, #5:
Correct. A politically useful version of the truth. That’s what I believe some republicans want.
“You democrats” reveals much. It’s a different way of looking at the world than “some republicans” implies. I figure we’re all Americans.
This is beyond ridiculous. These were closed, private national security briefings. The only information which has gotten out is been leaked, vague generalizations and at least one statement attributed to a Republican to the effect that they had been provided with information which clarified certain things (what, precisely was clarified wasn’t stated).
For weeks and weeks, a great many people on this board have been stating, with great certitude, a narrative of events (my favorite being Obama watching clear video of events unfolding in real time and ostensibly watching the slaughter occur while doing nothing — now appears that nothing remotely similar to this ever occurred). We also have the CIA team on the ground pleading for help which was callously denied — again, seemingly not supported by what was leaked of this week’s testimony.
I don’t claim to know what went on. But neither does anyone who writes on this discussion board know what went on. If you want to demand a full investigation, you’ve got every right to do so; but that’s what the President promised weeks ago and that’s what we are in the midst of observing. It’ll all be investigated. Everything which is not classified will be revealed. At a certain point, we’ll have sufficient information to have an intelligent and informed debate. But what we’ve observed over the past 6 weeks has been nothing beyond blathering and blustering over gossip. That’s all which is still going on.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
Forget ”classified” or ”unclassified.”
The version the White House trotted out in their ad to Muslims starring Obama and Hillary, as well as the version Obama touted in front of the UN 6 times, as well as the version Hillary touted publicly a couple times, as well as the version Susan Rice repeated 5 times on one Sunday on every major news show was DECEPTIVE!
The ”OFFICIAL” version was deceptive.
Who were Obama and his Cabinet trying to keep the TRUTH from?
The perpetrators knew they were al Qaeda and Ansar al Shariah.
The CIA and White House knew the truth.
So, it was only the AMERICAN PEOPLE Obama wanted to deceive!
Obama had a narrative, a politically correct one….
al Qaeda is on the run and the war on ISLAMIC terror is over.
The DECEPTIVE version of events backed up Obama’s approved narrative.
But only portions of the AMERICAN PEOPLE were fooled.
PC makes a lousy basis for policy.
It keeps getting us mugged by reality.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
You don’t know what went on? Let me draw it out for you:
the American compound (not a consulate) and the CIA annex were attacked by people who are a spin-off of al Qaeda who were using RPGs and other heavy arms
the call was placed for help from the American personnel
help did not come
four Americans were slaughtered
instead of answers from the Oval Office, we’re getting sex scandals, demonization of three four star generals and one admiral, and lots of spin.
Does that handle the problem for you, Larry?
The “problem,” Retire, is something which will be grist for informed discussion at some future point; when both of us are informed. As I’ve stated many times, it’s a discussion in which I’ll look forward to being a participant.
I’m planning already on putting together an anthology of what I’m tentatively planning to entitle: “Top Ten most memorable Benghazi quotations appearing on Flopping Aces.” I’ve little doubt that at least several of yours will make the final cut.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@VoteOutIncumbents: The proper emotion re the press corpse is “absolute revulsion” – embarrassed for them — not so much
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Be sure to add this:
just hours after the Benghazi attack started, an email that was copied to every one who should have had it (CIA, State, FBI, DoD, DoJ, Oval Office) went out with the name of the AQ affiliate that was claiming credit for the attack
The next day, Obama did not say “Benghazi was a terrorist attack” he said “terrorist attacks” will not be tolerated.
Within days, Jay Carney was telling the press corp that the attack was due to a anti-Mohammed video. Just five days later, Susan Rice went on not one, but FIVE news shows saying the same thing. The day that the bodies of the four slaughtered Americans were received at Andrews, Hillary talks about the film. Obama goes to the UN and talks about the film. The story line coming out of the White House? It was a film that no one has ever seen and few ever heard about.
But it wasn’t good enough to push the meme that it was a video on YouTube that created such a broohaha, the Administration doubled down saying the Cairo protests were due to the same video although Nic Robertson had done an interview the very day of the Cairo protests with the two main organizers and they NEVER mentioned any video.
Oh, and when you quote me, be sure you do it accurately. You have a nasty habit of putting words into people’s mouths.
Yes, let’s withold knowing any facts or having any opinions, especially negative ones, until all the completely vetted and compiled information comes out — like maybe two o’clock next summer or so.
Larry, your comments are pure spin. Your claims boil down to an assertion that nothing at all is known by any of us. This is simply not so. Right after the events occurred, it was obvious to anyone with a brain that the pre-sighted mortars and rocket-propelled grenades used in the attacks utterly precluded the ‘spontaneous demonstration’ angle. We learned that militias set up road blocks around the targets to isolate them – not spontaneous. The denial of requests for increased security by the murdered ambassador himself in the months leading up to the attack are a matter of undisputed record, as are the actual removal of assets that were already there. Local reports consistently indicated that there was no demonstration in Benghazi. What was known already conflicted with the absurd video-rage story told by Rice on multiple TV news shows and by Obama at the United Nations at the time that that they spoke. So we knew some fairly significant and generally-accepted things fairly soon – much of it within days.
Are you saying that facts are not facts until they have the official stamp of approval from the White House? Because, you know Larry, Presidents and the people who work for them have been known to obfuscate, misdirect, and outright lie from time to time. Not just Republican ones, either. That’s one of the things that investigations are predicated upon — that somebody is not necessarily telling the truth.
@Nan G: It was enuff to get the SOB and his band of merry commissars re-elected
@retire05: Hopefully you did not over-simplify
Hi Retire:
I would never make such a libelous charge –here or anywhere — about you or about anyone else here without being specific — thus giving you (or whomever) the opportunity to refute or respond to the charge. I think a good rule by which to go is this: would one’s mother be proud of one for having said that and for saying it in that tone?
I shall look forward to re-visiting this, as stated.
– Larry W/HB
I wonder, when the facts come out, will individuals step forward and take responsibility for claims such as “he watched them die”? That’s a question that goes to integrity. A related question is, if these individuals won’t clean up their messes, how does that impact how we view what they write going forward? That goes to veracity. Ultimately, a person’s responsibility to his or her claims is a window into whether a search for objective truth was ever a critical component of their inquiries in the first place. Certainly partisan spin has a short memory and little use for introspection.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Well, now, after all the times you have drug your poor kids into a debate, you now want to drag my mother into the debate? You want to know what my mother would have said?
She would have told you to stop being a sniveling little whiner, who gets his Hanes in a wad, and to grow a set and not snivel everytime someone says something to you that doesn’t sing your praises or hold your opinion up to some lofty position. And although a Democrat, my mother would have called you a “Commie” in the vernacular of her day.
And if she had read your posts here on Benghazi, she would have pointed to you as a prime example of the “useful” idiot. You see, my mother had no time for fools nor did she have a problem pointing them out.
@Tom:
Are you claiming that Obama has any integrity? Perhaps you should do a little research on the integrity he used in destroying his opponents in Illinois. He didn’t seem to have any problem with his SS troops going to court to get divorce documents released on his opponent, although the judge had sealed them to protect the children involved in that divorce.
Integrity is not a trait I would apply to Obama.
As a conservative I was angry with Nixon, but the fact that the media followed it and Congress investigated it helped make me believe that citizens would see justice. People went to jail over that cover-up of a 3rd rate burglary and a President resigned. Now with Fast and Furious, where hundreds of Mexicans died as well as 2 American officers, and the Benghazi murders after proper security was denied, the media is not interested and the Democrats drag their feet and protect the President. I am so dang angry because no one seems willing to hold my government officials accountable. I am having difficulty containing my rage because few seemly want justice.
OK. Maybe it’s possible that rather than watching them die, he instead went off to bed while they were dying, and calmly went to sleep so he would be fresh for his Vegas fundraiser in the morning. That’s much better.
@retire05:
An interesting, if predictable, misunderstanding of my comment.
tom, I will admit I was wrong about bengazhi (if proven wrong), if you admit you were wrong to attack the GOP while defending the dems for smearing us over the Tucson shooting.
That also applies if you and the other mentally ill leftists admit it’s the dems fault the economy went bad and has stayed bad. I won’t be holding my breath for either since your beliefs are driven by narcissism and a need to feel good about yourselves rather than face reality.
Twinkies will probably be made by another company.
But, to tide you over:
A guide to making your own Twinkies
http://www.wdtn.com/dpps/entertainment/dining/sweet-eats-weekly-jan-13-2012-nt12-tvw_4038987#.UKbpeYZj7Sj
Personally, I prefer these:
http://www.thefreshloaf.com/node/5605/italian-jam-tart
Oh!
YUM!
Um……
Benghazi?
Oh, let those wheels in Congress slowly expose what really happened.
I’m betting it was the Obama CAMPAIGN that made that change between what the CIA wrote and what Susan Rice spouted.
Curt, the Simon suggestion that there exists a “government by cabal, a super-government composed of David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, Eric Holder” seems to never have been in doubt.
What seems to be increasingly clear is that the ‘triumvirate’ does not include the guy in the Oval Office. They let him know what, when, whom, and why, if and as they deem it necessary. He’s their teleprompter king, and they leave him alone to enjoy the trappings of the position, while they manipulate the game.
Their ideological roots are fearsome.
What could go wrong?
H.R says ” It’s the Dems. fault the economy went bad” Reality check for you H.R.
‘ narcissism and a need to feel good about oneself.” What kind of psycho-babble is that H.R?
@Common Sense: #6: Exactly why Greg measures up as the original BOHICA man. The only question is whether he is a BOHICAer or a BOHICAee (or maybe both as an equal opportunity perpetrator).
@Richard Wheeler:
Who put the Community Reinvestment Act on steroids, Rich?
Perhaps you should read more than just PuffingtonPost and the DailyKos.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: #8: Right! No story, move on. Any investigation only supports the welfare state.
@Greg: What are you interested in Greg? Are you satisfied with:
* the refusal to increase security in the days and months leading up to 9/11?
* the denial to send in troops during the attack?
* the constantly changing meme as to what this attack was about?
* the fact that the administration has yet to make a public statement about this, other than softball questions in a supposed press conference?
I mean can you honestly say that none of the things I’ve listed bothers you in the least??
.
.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: You said:
Yeah? How do you know this? Because the next thing you said was:
So which is it, Larry? Do you know or don’t you?.
.
.
Retire05 #29 I was a mortgage banker at ground zero– Irvine Ca. when the R.E. market imploded under easy money and “greater fool” theory. Plenty of fault to go around. “W” was pleading the benefits of home ownership for all y’awl.
“Greed is good” was the mantra. Party affiliation had nothing to do with it though 80-90% of those around me were Repubs. It was disgraceful.
@Tom: You said:
Glass houses, Tom.
@Richard Wheeler: You said:
Um, that would be Bawney Fwank, I believe.
Here’s a timeline of events as regards Fannie and Freddie:
.
.
Hi Retire,
It is just so easy, isn’t it, to hide behind a pseudonym, to huddle inside a spider hole, surrounded, as you are, by some of the most conservative people in the world, and lob personal insults at a real person, with a real name, and a real family, and a real business, and a real reputation, who has been engaging decent people here in actual, dispassionate, objective, mutually respectful debate, over the past 4 years.
Sign your own name and spew your cowardly lip over on The Daily Kos or the Huff Po and then presume to give me lectures about my “pair.”
I respect 90% of the people who contribute to this blog, and I respect them with high esteem. I tolerate and understand 9%. You, alone, are truly a piece of work. You are one of the most viscerally angry, insecure people I have ever had the misfortune to meet. Get a life. And have a nice day.
– Larry Weisenthal
17031 Courtney Lane
Huntington Beach CA 92649
email: runnswim@aol.com
phone: 714-596-2100
I’m a believer in the First Amendment. As an American, I have the privilege and right to say anything I darn well please and I don’t have to scribble anonymous graffiti, unlike you. And scribble the graffiti, at that, on a site where you are surrounded by like thinking friends.
Come and get me, gutless coward.
You can’t grow a pair, but maybe you can hook up with Lance Armstrong’s doctor.
Another esteemed resident of the soon to be flipped Blue Lone Star State. Which is adding Latinos to Anglos at a 4 to one ratio, in its so called economic miracle.
You might check out the debt to GDP ratios of California compared to Texas. They are within margin of error of being the same. You might note the fact that California outpaces Texas by more than 10 to one in venture capital investment. California creates breakthrough industries and businesses and grows them to the point where the main way to grow the business is to reduce costs, so they outsource them to third world places and second rate states.
See, I can be just as hateful as you. Quoting Yogi Berra again: nobody’s human.
ANTICSROCKS Barney,”W”,myself,my boss,people in the gym,EVERYBODY was touting home ownership for all. 100% financing, no doc loans–“market’s gonna keep going up 20+% a year”
I wouldn’t believe it if I HADN’T SEEN IT MYSELF.
Larry Good for you. Retire o5 is a coward. She can pay me a visit on the way to your place
Richard Wheeler
9 S. Montilla
San Clemente Ca.92672
RJWheeler22@yahoo.com
@anticsrocks:
I’m interested in what’s currently happening in Gaza, in how to most effectively frustrate Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and in how to reduce federal deficits without putting most of the burden on those least able to cope with it, or precipitating another economic downturn. Finding out what errors led to Benghazi is also on the list, but that shouldn’t distract attention from the items previously mentioned.
@Greg: So none of what I listed bothers you?
Interesting
@Richard Wheeler: Yes, in 2000 and right after 9/11 Bush was talking the market up. But you cannot deny that by ’05 he was trying to regulate Fannie/Freddie and the Dems blocked it.
Alright kids, it’s really not a good idea to put up your personal information, the people who may be crazy might not ever comment, so the risk is not worth the point. IMHO
There is no reason to insult each other, especially family members who have nothing to do with this blog and are entitled to their opinions.
I like to think that the battle is won by strategic debate; if we behave like kids throwing snowballs, it proves nothing, because anyone can throw a snowball. Yes, I admit it, I tend to kick Lib 1 through the goal post of life a little too often, but he is only a manure thrower.
I have no authority to demand anything on this thread, I can only plead for sound judgement and reason to be employed.
It is reasonable that Conservatives feel betrayed by media and no Liberals have managed to counter those feeling in any way, except for moaning about Fox News. However with the whining Liberals they have hired on, many of us have quit watching. The fact that the president, his administration, and his obedient press service falsely represented the terrorist attack on Benghazi has the Republicans mad as Hell, since it may have been a determining factor in the election. Four Americans lost their lives, and the president is more concerned that Republicans have called Rice an Obama stooge for lying to America and the UN over the story. Why we ask, could it be that it was a ploy to keep from damaging his image before the election? Of course it was, what could be more obvious. Do Democrats hate to be caught in their deceit? Yes, it is awkward, and they want to appear clean and innocent. They would get away with it if it wasn’t for hundreds of groups like us saying, “wait a doggone minute, this isn’t right.” We are not evil for wanting the truth or for declaring corruption of several layers in government and media.
Demanding a complete investigation is reasonable. Pre-judging based on anything known to date is not reasonable. I will greatly look forward to discussing this when the discussion can be based on facts and not wild speculation. Four years from now, I sincerely hope that the GOP’s slate of Presidential candidates will include at least one candidate who wants to be eveyone’s president. Reagan demonized government, but he never demonized or dismissed people. Convince young conservatives to go to journalism school and others to get PhDs and go into academia. The MSM and academia trend liberal because of career self selection — unless you think conservatives are unusually susceptible to brain washing. Show me a press corps anywhere in the world which trends conservative. Or a university faculty at a renowned school. Conservatives do not tend to aspire to these jobs. Conservative writers in the mainstream media sign their own names, are readily locatable, and reach a vastly larger audience than anyone here reaches, including yours truly. Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA. – tapped out on my mobile phone. P.S. comment on the following?
http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/fox-news-mangled-huge-benghazi-story/2012/11/16/c2d152c6-2f99-11e2-9f50-0308e1e75445_blog.html
An interesting and revealing post Larry #42.
Yes, if this was the standard of the past, it would be much easier to impose the standard now.
Larry, no one assumes Obama wants to be everyman’s president, except from the standpoint of power and control. The meme of being able to unite Americans was discarded for 2012; however, a man who can unite America is part of the definition of a great president. America is literally closer to dissolution now, than it has been since the Civil War. This is not the mark of a great leader and statesman.
I have considered going back to school, but age and economic factors are difficult. It is hard to get young Conservatives to consider joining the bearded, Birkenstock crowd, when more lucrative careers are on the horizon. To be happy with your career, it is important to have camaraderie with coworkers. I am sure you remember Conservative students being bullied into submission by aggressive professors. This abuse doesn’t encourage young Conservatives to pursue careers in academia. No, it is the resistance to Liberal bullying that forms the steel of the Conservative backbone in college. Such tactics works well with weaklings, but not with the college Conservative. I have been invited to participate on their website, and I find the naiveté and Conservative ideals to be refreshing. They are good kids, and they often mention the harassment and bullying by Lib profs and offer eachother suggestions on how to deal with these situations.
Larry this is a loaded statement with multiple tangents. I don’t think I need to illustrate all the contributing factors to an intelligent man like you.
Larry, we are amateurs. A big article will be read or at least partially read by several thousand, it is a drop in the bucket. If we were big shots like Drudge or Breitbart, the format would change, but for us to accept the risk of nuts from the peanut gallery is just not worth the risk. I commend you for making your information available, but I also worry whether you are doing the right thing, and that’s the truth. Ninety-nine point nine percent of these people are harmless, but it is that one out of a thousand we are concerned with.
There are also a few people like myself who are not active socially and seek a solitary lifestyle; yet, we still have political views. I talk with customers almost every day, but when I am done, I am done communicating with people and rarely leave the ranch. We are all different, anonymity is great for us who seek neither fame nor fortune.
Just for the record, my real name is Buford Abernathy, I’m 94 years old, 3 foot, 4 inches tall and I weigh 640 pounds. I live in a house, by a road, USA.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Who threatened you? Nobody. This picture you present of yourself as a fearless crusader for justice in the face of danger is, uh, revealing. It’s your style in a nutshell — the chirping sanctimony, the question-begging presumption of evil intent and bad faith directed at people skeptical of your beloved nanny state. Your entire style is an insult but you refuse to see it,
Why anonymity? Well let’s see here. There are two sides. On one side, a belief in limited government, rule of law, and individual worth. On the other side, a belief in redistribution, social justice, collective worth, and radical social transformation “by any means necessary.” Of the two sides, one consistently does not blackball, threaten, harass, vandalize, hack accounts, and attack opponents at their homes and jobs; and the other side consistently does. You’re on the side that does, and are safe from the side that doesn’t. You can post personal information here knowing full well you have little to fear, but astoundingly, attribute your safety to cowardice in the people at whom you’re ranting rather than any moral principle, or respect for the law, or simple awareness of the Golden Rule.
Here’s an experiment for you Larry. Go to a Leftist web site and criticize your messiah Obama. Put your phone number there as well, and throw down the gauntlet: ‘Come and get me you gutless cowards.’ Not your real name or home address; let’s be reasonable here. It’s just an experiment, no need to take away your peace of mind entirely. See what happens and get back to us.
Getting back to the topic at hand, I find it very reasonable to want to know what happened that led to four Americans being killed. Before, during, and after.
I also find it reasonable, however, that people will take what little facts we have at the moment and extrapolate possibilities about what occurred, out of those facts. People are just trying to understand what happened, and one way to do so is to build the story by inserting likely actions. Granted, some of these “likely actions” are colored by one’s own perspective, whether it be on Islam, Obama, the opposition political party, or all of them. But just because you can say that, and then state that the missing actions are not known, and therefore not right, doesn’t mean that they are wrong, either. We don’t know.
And the Obama admin seems to be stringing people along on this story, not admitting to what it actually knew, or when it knew it, and most importantly, what it actually did during the attack. Why they are stringing everyone along is anyone’s guess. It could have been the bombshell(s) would have turned the election. It could be that they are protecting their own asses. It could be that they do not actually know anything at all, though I find this doubtful.
Either way, asking the questions, and even coloring the story with one’s own take on it, shouldn’t be derided by anyone. Unless the story has been colored in such a way as to ignore, delete, or change the few facts we do know.
You want to prove these “heartless” conservatives wrong on their suggestions about what happened? Then join the chorus calling on Obama to release the requisite information on the attack. Otherwise, you are merely doing the same thing that you are accusing the conservatives of doing, but from the opposite end of it. That is, making up things out of thin air to satisfy your own ideological viewpoint. The way around doing that, for everyone, is to address the one person who has not been forthcoming with the answers. Obama.
Not fully established, but based on recent reports, rather likely: The Benghazi CIA annex was among other things a confinement and interrogation facility of the type that the Obama Administration swore up and down that this country was all done with in the new era of the Lightworker. The ‘consulate’ served as cover for the existence of the CIA facility. The consulate was attacked to (1) retaliate for the drone killings of Al Qaeda leadership in Afghanistan, (2) Because it was 9/11, and the annex was attacked to free the prisoners inside. With the oncoming election, the Administration considered it preferable to allow the attacks to go to completion rather than acknowledge the existence of a foreign CIA interrogation center of the type it had sworn never to have again.
If anybody doesn’t like such speculation, too bad. We know they did nothing and that it was intentional. The question is why.
But you know, I think that ultimately nothing will be done about this. The R leadership is in surrender mode, and the Senate will never impeach while controlled by Democrats. This Administration has ignored the law, piled up bodies here and there, started a war without Congressional authorization, left their own people exposed to murder, and nothing will ever happen to them. In light of that, to say we mustn’t even talk about it is especially galling and bound to get a reaction. Don’t say anything bad about Dear Leader, huh? Damn, what country do you think this is?
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
My, my, I must have hit a nerve for this last diatribe of yours to appear. So let’s look at it, shall we?
You whine anytime I challenge you, claiming you have been insulted, yet you seem to have no problem insulting me calling what I write “anonymous graffiti” all in the name of “hateful” equality. You boast your openess, revealing your real identity, simply because you are smart enough to be aware that conservatives don’t resort to destruction like your beloved left wingers. If I were a left winger, like you, and you were actually a conservative, like me, I would be working hard to not only destroy you with slander by posting bad reviews of you on doctor rating websites, but would be making anonymous calls to your Bishop questioning your dedication to your professed faith. But because of my political beliefs, you are secure in the knowledge that will not happen. I believe in debate, not personal destruction via any means possible. Your side does not.
You put way too much store in being open about who you are. I have warned you against that before. Not all are as willing as I am to tolerate your radical, progressive viewpoints. I can only attribute your folly to the knowledge that you are safe from conservatives. You think by challenging me to publish my real name at some radical left wing sites that you are throwing down the gaunlet. You’re not, since you are fully aware of how left wingers react to any dissention.
You say you respect 90% of those who contribute to this blog. Do you have a problem with their assuming a moniker that doesn’t permit you to know their true identity? Or is it just me that you hold to a different standard, because I am vocal against your political philosophy? And how gracious of you to “tolerate” 9% of them, as if you are bestowing your benevolence on them. Lack of arrogance doesn’t seem to be a problem for you, Larry.
Now, as to my “viseral” anger that you seem to object to; I never denied it. Yes, I am angry and I previously explained to you why. I believe that people like you, Tom, Lib1 and Greg, are enemies of the Republic. I made no bones about it. You want to “fundamentally transform” this nation into some socialist utopia that you believe can be acheived.
Come and get me, gutless coward.
Why? Do you really think you hold so much value that I would do that? You do flatter yourself. And I most certainly honor your First Amendment rights, while you subscibe to a party that would abolish mine. Therein lies the difference between us, Larry. And of course, while you would object to someone smearing you and your medical practice, you had no problem smearing Lance Armstrong’s doctor, did you. In my neck of the woods, that is called hypocracy. If you want to talk about athlets that have fallen from grace, you have to lay claim to O.J. Simpson, et al.
Now, as to your wet dream of Texas turning blue, I guess that ain’t gonna happen, Bubba.
Obama took 226,724 fewer Texas votes this election compared to his vote total in 2008, and lost two of the 28 counties he took in 2008, both border counties. Harris County (Houston) votes went from 588,611 in 2008 for Obama to 585,451 in 2012 for a loss of 3,160 votes while the vote count for McCain @ 570,143 increased for Romney to 584,866, an increase of 14,723. While Obama garnered a solid win in Harris County in 2008, Romney closed that gap to lose by 1/2 of 1%. Harris County is turning redder.
Travis County (Austin) saw Obama take 253,278 votes in 2008, decreased by 22,238 votes in 2012. And Romney garnered 3,100 more votes than McCain. And while Travis County, due to Austin, will never be deep red, it is turning redder. Bexar County (San Antonio) a largely Hispanic County, did not get out the vote for Obama. And while the other blue counties (26, mostly border counties with high Hispanic populations) did not vote in the majority for Romney, in all but two, the numbers of votes for Obama were considerably less than they were in 2008. Texas is leading the way in producing Hispanic Republicans with the elections of Ted Cruz, Bill Flores and Francisco Canseco. One Hispanic Democrat told me that Democrats, in Texas, are struggling to hold on to their voter base as more and more Hispanics in Texas gain higher educations and become wealthier.
So you can put away that false idea that Texas is a “soon to be flipped Blue Lone Star State.” Numbers don’t lie, and Texas, for all the yapping at Huffington Post and Democrat Underground, is getting redder by the day.
Now, to your point that the GDP of California and Texas are within the margin of error. They are. But why? California has a population 46% greater than Texas. The GDP should be a lot greater, but it’s not. It is only 18% greater, so per capita, your residents produce less. Your unemployment numbers (1,916,494) are also more than double what it is in Texas (791,156) , but should only be 46% greater if based on population. California’s revenue is increasing as it debt increases compared to Texas, with an increasing revenue and decreasing debt.
Your state is dying, Larry, and it can all be attributed to the progressive, left wing political policies that you seem to cling to.
“California now stands as blue America’s end point, but contrary to the media celebration, it presents not such a pretty picture. Even amidst our decennial tech bubble, the state’s unemployment is among the highest in the country, and is trending down slowly. Over the past decade, California has slowed as a source of fast-growing companies, as a recent Kauffman Foundation study shows, while other states such as Washington, Virginia, Texas and Utah have gained ground.
Old-styled liberals might point out that California’s progressive policies have not done much for the working – or middle class- folks often trumpeted as its beneficiaries. Instead income inequality has grown far more than the national average. True, the fortunate sliver of dot-com geniuses make billions, but the ranks of the poor have swollen to the point that the state, with 12% of the nation’s population, account for one third of its welfare cases. Large parts of the state, notably in the interior regions, suffer unemployment in the 15% range and higher.”
California is also bleeding brains. Of the 15 cities with the largest increase in population with a bachelor degree, Texas, not California, has four; Austin (52.3%) , San Antonio (48.1%) , Houston (39.5) and Dallas (36.9%) while Los Angeles, San Jose and San Francisco were in the bottom cities for bachelor degree gains.
In 2012, Texas retained its place as the best state for Business, while California remained on the bottom, at #50, again. According to Spectrum Location Solutions, 254 companies moved out of California in 2011 to other states, an increase of 26% over the previous year and five times as many as in 2009.
Now, I know you will question my stats, so you are more than free to research them at the non-partisan site
http://www.newgeography.com
You see, Larry, buff surfer dudes and bikini clad girls on roller blades don’t create jobs, nor does excessive regulations and high taxes on businesses. And what you fail to realize is that progressive ideals of taxation doesn’t stop the wealthy of California from moving their money out of the state. It only encourages it. And while there is no doubt that Californias think themselves so much smarter than us rubes, hicks, hillbillies, or red necks in Texas, facts don’t lie. Arrogance won’t buy groceries, nor pay the light bill.
And while you hold the opinion that my state is “second rate”, the fleeing population of California says differently.
And what you label as “hate” (from me) is simply truth. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
@Wm T Sherman:
I’m not sure if you’ve followed the extended back and forth between Larry and Retire, but Larry has made multiple, sincere overtures to find common ground, or at least establish a commonly understood level of civility, and all he’s gotten for his trouble are personal insults. I’ve lobbed my fair share of insults, so I’m not pointing this out from a high horse, it’s just fact: Larry has done everything humanly possible to keep the discussions on the topics and Retire has done everything humanly possible to bait him into the mud. Personally, I admire Larry’s idealism, but I found it, in this particular case, quite quixotic because Retire clearly has little interest in objective truth or spirited debate, and that seems self-evident. Larry nailed it when he wrote she is a “viscerally angry, insecure”person. It’s pointless to think you can have an objective debate inside someone else’s paranoid psychodrama, but I commend and admire Larry for his efforts.
On the topic of anonymity, my thoughts are in line with Shookum’s well-expressed reasons, but I think people like Larry and Rich deserve respect and admiration for putting their name behind their words. Certainly Larry is correct that insults hurled at him represent a much more potent attack due to his real name being attached.
It seems Larry is sincere.
Too bad the stonewallers and liars are all on the Obama team.
What happened before?
During?
After?
We are mostly at the mercy of Obama peeps who have already shown blatant disregard for truth.
There are a few others bringing out what part of the story they know.
Petraeus was slimed so bad that some might think it was a way to take away his credibility as to what his CIA knew when it knew it.
He is the one who personally interviewed survivors from that day in Banghazi.
Why was he slimed just before he was to testify?
Why should a woman who spewed a known (maybe not by her) false story 5 times on Sunday news shows be IMMUNE from criticism?
(I know. I’m a ”racist.”) /