Skip to main content

Rand Paul at a campaign stop in Waterloo, Iowa for his father, ahead of the Ames Straw Poll.
I'm not really picking on Sen. Rand Paul here (though I suppose it's an added bonus), but when he makes this patently false claim ...
We had some more Special Operations forces in Tripoli. They couldn’t find a plane for them. So instead of calling to get a plane or to try to make arrangements to get a plane, they’re on the phone trying to create spin to say that, ‘You know what? This is about a video, which never had anything to do with this attack.’
The only thing he's demonstrating is that after nearly two years, Republicans still can't get the facts right about what happened in Benghazi. The entire Republican obsession with Benghazi boils down to two conspiracy theories: First, that the White House concocted the flawed video story in order to deflect criticism of the president following the attack and second, that during the attack, the White House—for political reasons—refused to do everything possible to save those who were killed.

But while it is true that the initial view of the White House—and the national security establishment—was that the attacks were part of protests throughout the Middle East that had been inspired by the video, and it's true that their initial view was wrong, it wasn't long before they realized their first assessment was wrong. Far from trying to perpetuate a cover-up, President Obama was eager to distance himself from the initial flawed intelligence. Remember the debate in which he scored a TKO of Mitt Romney by pointing out that he had in fact called the attack an act of terror? That wasn't the work of a guy trying to blame the attack on a video.

But while the White House pivoted when the facts became clear, Republicans have steadfastly refused to do the same. For two years they've been repeating the same nonsense. It's ridiculous. But given that their Benghazi bubble is impervious to reality, it's not going to change anytime soon.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  They can get the facts right about #Benghazi (18+ / 0-)

    It just isn't in their best interest to do so.

    The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy;the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness

    by CTMET on Thu May 29, 2014 at 05:33:31 PM PDT

  •  They'll be getting it wrong 22 years from now n/t (7+ / 0-)

    Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle. --Martin Luther King Jr.

    by Egalitare on Thu May 29, 2014 at 05:35:58 PM PDT

  •  Republicans: they're dim, Jed! n/t (5+ / 0-)

    Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

    by JeffW on Thu May 29, 2014 at 05:42:37 PM PDT

  •  I don't disagree with anything except (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    why the hell are you front pagers putting so many diaries out on a bunch of hooh hah about nothing.

    “ Success has a great tendency to conceal and throw a veil over the evil of men. ” — Demosthenes

    by Dburn on Thu May 29, 2014 at 05:46:48 PM PDT

  •  Tragedy then farce (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JML9999, JeffW, mjd in florida

    Or payback's a joke.

    Nixon resignation begets Clinton bj impeachment. Bush II criminal and negligent foreign policy begets bengaaaaaaazzzi

  •  They're professional liars, telling lies to people (5+ / 0-)

    Who aren't interested in facts or the actual truth. They've made it abundantly clear for months (years now?) that the whole purpose is to keep their insane base at a frothing frenzy for the next election, and they know that the same old lies are what the base wants and needs to hear. So we'll just keep hearing them over and over and over, no matter how disproven they are.

    "War is not a political game." - Senator John McCain

    by Fordmandalay on Thu May 29, 2014 at 05:52:05 PM PDT

  •  We can't seem to get the facts right, either. T... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    We can't seem to get the facts right, either. The administration never said the attack was a protest that went out of control. From the beginning, the administration consistently said the attackers were heavily-armed Islamic extremists--not simply locals upset about the video. Rice said it on all the Sunday shows. Obama said it. Why do we keep getting it wrong?

    •  Is this true? (0+ / 0-)

      The initial view of the White House—and the national security establishment—was that part of the attacks were part of protests throughout the Middle East that had been inspired by the video … and that that was correct?

      "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

      by GussieFN on Thu May 29, 2014 at 05:59:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Republicans have chosen a strategy which is (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    effective with many people, namely ignore facts and focus on emotion.  Engage that lizard brain and the higher levels shut down.

  •  Tea Party & GOP Conservatives (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:


     By – Jays Jewels

    The nation’s devolved into a circus of lunacy. Blame sits squarely where deserved, in Wash. D.C. – aka ‘The District of Corruption.’ Elected officials have stricken constitutionality, ethics & morals from their lexicon. (D)’s aren’t ‘squeaky clean’ – but facts speak for themselves. Here’s a sampling of major players,
    . . . wrongdoing best exemplified by (R)’s. . . .
    - FACTOID:
    •    Sen. Rand Paul, (R) Teabag Darling:  Sept. 23, 2009, D.C. fundraiser ‘theme’ - a fight between Paul & We the People vs. D.C. Insiders. He pledged not to take money from lobbyists & Senators who had voted for the banking bailout. Instead, subsequently held a DC fundraiser with the same Senators. Paul ended up raising some $3 million. Hmm???

    Paul stated, he favored 9 of 10 titles of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but, had he been a senator during the 1960s, he would have raised some questions on the constitutionality of Title II of the Act. Ugh, ugly! Later, Paul characterized statements made by Obama Administration officials regarding the BP oil spill cleanup as sounding ‘un-American.’ WHAT?!?

    •    Jan. 1, 2013: Speaker of the House, (R) John Boehner, after passing the fiscal cliff deal, Boehner adjourned the house without passing the $60 million Hurricane Sandy relief bill!

    Oct. 1–17, 2013: The federal government - shut down. Congress failed to enact legislation appropriating funds for fiscal year 2014. Constitutional authority for appropriations is held by the House, ‘thank you for your leadership Speaker Boehner.’

    Sept. 2010, N.Y.T’s, ‘Boehner Tightly Bound to Lobbyists,’ he maintains especially tight ties to lobbyists and former aides representing some of the nation’s largest businesses, including Goldman Sachs, Google, Citigroup, R.J. Reynolds, Miller-Coors and UPS. He didn’t denied this. ‘Mr. Speaker, since you enjoy close relationships with US corporate behemoths, where are the jobs your party leadership created?’  . . . ‘YIKES, NONE!’

    June 1995, Boehner distributed campaign contributions from tobacco industry lobbyists on the House floor - as House members were weighing how to vote on tobacco subsidies! 1996 on PBS, Boehner said, ‘They asked me to give out a half dozen checks, [quickly] before we got to the end of the month and I complied.’  

    •    Mitch McConnell, (R) Sen. Minority leader from Ky., spent, [winning the (R) primary] over $11 million of the nearly $22 million he has stockpiled. Where do such HUGE sums of $ come from? WHERE INDEED?!

    McConnell Declared He Stood Up for Women in a Senate Sexual-Harassment Scandal; claiming he led a 1995 investigation against a GOP senator accused of sexual misconduct. Why? Undoubtedly, because now in 2014, his reelection battle is against a well-known, well-financed female opponent. So, McConnell ‘boasted’ that he led the Senate in ousting a GOP colleague accused of sexual harassment. NOT TRUE, A BIG LIE! Reports from that time show McConnell tried to stall the probe against his fellow (R), Sen. Bob Packwood. He derided efforts by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) to hold public hearings.

    The fairest examination of McConnell is simply his performance as his party’s leader in the US Senate. While the American public suffered through the worst economic disaster since the ‘Great Depression’ – he vowed to make Pres. Obama a one-term POTUS; that this was his number one priority. Placing character & integrity before party and his own personal gain never meant a thing to McConnell. Read the official record(s)!

    •    The 4th leading (R) shill is the forgettable Eric Cantor; self-deluded magician of financial finagling not seen since the days of Regan trickling _ _ _ _ down upon the American public. It didn’t work then, (Regan raised taxes), & ‘austerity’ won’t work now. Investment, incentives to innovate, and progressive forward thinking solutions have always been the hallmark of America’s success. Except of course to (R) DC contaminants, aka, conservative members of congress!  

    Jay H. Berman is a Freelance author and an Assoc. Editor at Thank you.


    •    The Associated Press
    •    Bloomberg
    •    The NY Times
    •    The Washington Post
    •    The Wall St. Journal
    •    The Lexington-Herald Examiner
    •    PBS
    •    Fox News
    •    Wikipedia

    -    Follow Jay on twitter @BermanJ1

    Political activist & advocate for disabled, homeless and military veterans. (D) Liberal since 1968. First active campaign work for Sen. Robert F. Kennedy. NY Yankee fanatic and Procol Harum freak.

    by Jays Jewels on Thu May 29, 2014 at 06:03:18 PM PDT

  •  We elect shit people, we get shit investigations. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW, Hastur, Shawn87

    Fuck it, let them have their "Aristocrats" moment just before the elections.  Maybe it'll change things for the better and we'll vote a few of these assholes out of office.

    Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

    by darthstar on Thu May 29, 2014 at 06:05:34 PM PDT

  •  Google "Please proceed governor" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW, Shawn87

    The first hit is direct to Kos' diary on the moment as his favorite of the campaign. For Democrats, Bengazi, is made a political gift that keeps on giving. Not ironic coming from Republicans but, I think it qualifies as poetic justice.

  •  But there *Was* a Security Team sent from Tripoli (5+ / 0-)

    so they have it not just wrong, but wrong and backwards.  As I commented a couple days ago a CIA Security Team was dispatched from Tripoli to Benghazi on a chartered flight as soon as they were aware of the attack.  This was the backup team on their way to support the CIA Annex Security Team that was onsite at the consulate within the first 2 hours.

    The mobilization of the Annex Team [which included 6 CIA Security Officers and 60 Libya Security personnel who successfully pulled all survivors out of the attacked compound within the first 2 hours], an additional Team from Tripoli Chartered a Flight to support the Benghazi compound.  This team included 4 GRS Security Officers (one of whom was Glen Doherty), a CIA Case officer and 2 Military Officers. After being temporarily held up at the airport by Libyan officials this second team ultimately joined the first team at the annex at about 5:00 am, Glen Doherty took a position on the roof with one of the annex security officers.
    Glen was ultimately killed along with CIA Annex Security Officer Tyrone Woods when a second attack began with  mortar fire hitting the roof at about 5:15 am.  Both of them had been mobilized in support of the original consulate attack.  So, Paul's suggestion that they didn't mobilize anyone from Tripoli is flat out false. They did. Further there were three additional Special Forces groups mobilized, One from Spain, One from Central Europe and one from the U.S., by then SecDef Leon Panetta - not the White House - that same day.  The first of those arrived in Tripoli at 8 p.m. that night.  

    If he's saying that team couldn't catch a flight to Benghazi, they could have used the chartered flight that the CIA Team used because they had already arrived back in Tripoli with all of the survivors of the consulate by that time. In fact, about an hour before the Spain Special Forces group arrived, the survivors were on a plane to Germany.

    The fact that the WH may have been on the phone to try and get the video that had sparked protests in 40 Countries taken down did not stop them from mobilizing defensive forces in support of the Benghazi consulate, they did both.

    If we hadn't mobilized anyone to fight against the consulate attack, neither Glen Doherty nor Tyrone Woods Would have even Been There when the mortars started falling on the Annex.


  •  the video was front page news the morning (0+ / 0-)

    of the benghazi attack, protestors quoted in cairo saying it was about the video. so an attack the same day in libya - who didnt think the video had something to do with it. thats what we read immediately preceding the benghazi news.

    but something is making people stupid and gullible. so somebody somewhere says, nobody ever heard of the video, and even though you can link to the news story, nobody ever heard of the video til the white house dreamed it up.

    here it is, before the benghazi attack

    drones are a cost effective way of generating enough new terrorists that calls to cut military spending will fail.

    by just want to comment on Thu May 29, 2014 at 06:20:10 PM PDT

  •  But it was about the video (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    From a Time article earlier this month:

    Furthermore, reporters for western news organizations interviewed people at the scene after the attacks in Benghazi who said they were angry about the same film.
    Journalists on the ground the night of the attack interviewed people who said not only that they knew about the video, but that they too were angry about it. And I have not ready any reports about intelligence saying it was a planned attack. That means it was unplanned = spontaneous.

    In the SSCI report, there is mention of prior attacks, but none of those involved 60+ armed attackers with mortars and heavy weapons. Further, Eric Nordstom in his testimony to Congress stated in his prepared remarks that none of the security enhancements he requested would have been sufficient to repel such an attack.

    So, as Rice claimed, it was a spontaneous attack resulting from the video. Republicans have continued to say that Benghazi was not about a video, but it really was.

    Look at it this way: if not for the video and resulting protests in Cairo, would the consulate in Benghazi have been attacked at 940pm local time on 9/11/13?

  •  I feel bad for hear that same shit ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I feel bad for hear that same shit every single freaking day.

  •  Vid (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shawn87, sajiocity

    Well, Reuters and AP had reporters on the ground in Benghazi interviewing the attackers, and they said that it was because of the video. Google it. I've never seen a retraction. The attackers themselves, Ansar Al-Sharia, said it was because of the video.

    Benghazi was awash in militias. It would be no problem at all to raise hundreds on soldiers on short notice to attack the US. The attackers at the Temporary Mission had six or more US personnel for targets, and the only two injured were killed by smoke inhalation - and the attackers may not even have known about them in the "safe" room. There was no heavy weapons - tanks and stuff - which makes it sound pretty spontaneous. And any "good" militia in Benghazi would have a plan for attacking the Mission, wouldn't they - seems like a class project for terrorist school!

    Sounds to me like the video inspired the attack... but I'm not a Republican.

  •  Getting a plane is not like getting a taxi (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sajiocity, Shawn87

    That is what the Repo brainless twits have been told over and over by military people who are in a position to know.  There was no strike force by land, sea, or air that could have gotten to Benghazi in time to do anything but maybe help put the fire out.

    Some news person needs to have the balls to ask the Republicans what an air plane, of any sort could have done even it it could have arrived while the attack was still on going.

    And the Spineless Dims need to start saying that over and over until inauguration 2016 or Republicans will continue to claim the lie and the far righters will continue to believe it and sent hem money.

  •  I wonder if there are any republicans... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sajiocity, Shawn87

    ...who can NAME the four people who died there?

    I ask my BenghaziBuddies™ that question. None of them know ANY of the names they purport to be so fucking concerned.

    "Wealthy the Spirit which knows its own flight. Stealthy the Hunter who slays his own fright. Blessed is the Traveler who journeys the length of the Light."

    by CanisMaximus on Thu May 29, 2014 at 06:56:41 PM PDT

  •  Speaking of that debate (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Scott Campbell, Shawn87

    You have to keep in mind that Republicans cried foul when how DARE the moderator fact-corrected Romney during the same above-mentioned debate.

    It's like they think they can spout off any comment no matter how wrong and no one can call them on it...

    Faith Manages. -- J.M. Straczynski

    by Master Alchemi on Thu May 29, 2014 at 07:04:51 PM PDT

  •  A few questions (0+ / 0-)

    while I think this was just a giant cluster of miscommunications turf protection, and quite normal political calculations. There are claims here that do not add up.

    You say

    "the initial view of the White House—and the national security establishment—was that the attacks were part of protests throughout the Middle East that had been inspired by the video,..."
    When was that original assessment established?

    then you say

    "it wasn't long before they realized their first assessment was wrong."
    When did "they" a) know the video assessment was incorrect, and b) correct the record?

    And he did not

    "...called the attack an act of terror?"
    in the Rose Garden address that was referenced by Crowley at the debate.
    •  Here's the CNN description (0+ / 0-)

      There are 2 separate instances of Pres. Obama using the term "acts of terror" on Sept. 12, 2011, and "act of terror" on Sept. 14, 2011. CNN Fact Check on Sept. 17, 2012.

      Wall Street Journal, Fox News, Washington Times, etc., ad nauseum have peddled their standard fake versions of what Pres. Obama actually said and then attempted to subtly parse that "acts of terror" and "act of terror" are somehow massively different in meaning than terrorist act.

      It is absolutely, positively clear that Pres. Obama lumped together the Benghazi attack with all other "acts of terror." It is even more absolutely and perfectly and indisputably clear that the Las Vegas speech on Sept. 14 labeled the Benghazi attacks as an act of terror by the President.

      And another speech on Sept. 13 in Golden CO is even more specific. From the White House website:
      "So what I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice.  (Applause.)  I want people around the world to hear me:  To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished."

      But, of course, if a person is a rightwingnutjob, then the words don't mean what they mean unless the precise, Foxaganda fabricated, Glenn Kessler approved term "terrorist act" is used.

      I can just hear Tsarnaev's attorneys now: "Oh no, our client did not commit a terrorist act. Not at all, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. It was an act of terror, and it was just one among many acts of terror. You know, those Obama kinds of terror--not the real deal." /snark off

      We're all just working for Pharaoh.

      by whl on Thu May 29, 2014 at 10:23:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  A vague reference (0+ / 0-)

        to "acts of terror" is quite a different thing.

        4 Pinocchios

        And there are the other questions that I can't resolve.

        •  Let's see . . . (0+ / 0-)

          A White House briefing on the deaths of 4 Federal employees in Benghazi, Libya . . . that is specifically the President's remarks on Benghazi . . . somehow becomes a "vague reference" to something other than Benghazi.

          Kessler lists all 3 of the statements by Pres. Obama. He then describes his idiotic parsing of the phrases as probably "dancing on the head of a pin" to many of his readers.

          He even references specialized "diplomatic" usage and "nuances" that go beyond the normal meanings of words.

          He even accurately references the White House comments that McCain, Issa, and Pres. W. Bush have all used the same phrase.

          But, then he throws the pinocchios as if the meaning is meaningless.

          And you buy into it. Pathetic.

          We're all just working for Pharaoh.

          by whl on Fri May 30, 2014 at 12:50:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Let's see indeed (0+ / 0-)

            The President had the opportunity to address the issue repeatedly. A vague non specific reference to acts of terror that are not related to the Benghazi tragedy itself, and ten paragraphs into the speech, is not the same thing (and I suspect you realize that). As Kessler says:

            So, given three opportunities to affirmatively agree that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack, the president obfuscated or ducked the question.
            There's no getting around that.

            Not sure how you can claim he did call it terrorism on September 12 but he would not do so when asked it explicitly as late as Sept. 25th. I think they should have been honest in the beginning and say "we are not sure" instead of trying to pretend they had a concrete analysis so soon.

            •  Vague. (0+ / 0-)

              Golden CO Sept. 13, 2011

              four Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Libya. Yesterday I had a chance to go over to the State Department to talk to friends and colleagues of those who were killed.  And these were Americans who, like so many others, both in uniform and civilians, who serve in difficult and dangerous places all around the world

              their work goes unheralded

              they do an outstanding job

              we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice

              To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished

              So . . . for some people such as Mitt Romney, Glenn Kessler, Fox News, etc., and you, those sequential statements are a "vague" reference to the antecedent pronouns.

              Kessler's appeal to authority (his own) as a "diplomatic" reporter offers the claim that his access to some nuanced super secret sauce gives him the ability to parse Pres. Obama's words in a much more meaningful way than other folks. Native speakers of the English language just can't quite fathom the special herbs & spices of Pres. Obama's cagey, obfuscatory, sneaky remarks that mislead all but "experts" such as Kessler who know the international implications of his carefully chosen artful euphemisms.

              Of course, we all know now that O'Bummer planted those weasel word comments in the Rose Garden briefing just so he could later falsely claim that he described the Benghazi attacks (yes, there were 2 of them) as "acts of terror" (yes, plural) and spring his rhetorical trap on the poor, unsuspecting, dupe Mitt Romney--and you.

              Ahhhh . . . that clever Kenyan socialist.

              And here's the exact quote from Sept. 12, 2011, in the Rose Garden:

              As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it.  Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

              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.

              Yeah, it's taken from the DailyKos diary on it.

              We're all just working for Pharaoh.

              by whl on Fri May 30, 2014 at 07:42:08 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Dude, again, context (0+ / 0-)

                is everything. That 9/12 quote was 10 paragraphs late and did not reference Benghazi, period. He had moved off that topic. C'mon you're a smart guy right?

                As for Colorado- that is not calling it terrorism. Again how do you explain that versus this? C'mon.

                Joy Behar: It was reported that people just went crazy and wild because of this anti-Muslim movie, or anti-Muhammad, I guess, movie. But then I heard Hillary Clinton say that it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say?

                Obama: Well, we’re still doing an investigation. There’s no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. Now, we don’t have all the information yet, so we’re still gathering it. But what’s clear is that around the world, there’s still a lot of threats out there. That’s why we have to maintain the strongest military in the world, that’s why we can’t let down our guard when it comes to the intelligence work that we do and staying on top of — not just al Qaeda, the traditional al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan.


                •  The ONLY topic of the Sept. 12, 2011 Rose Garden (0+ / 0-)

                  briefing was Benghazi.

                  The ONLY topic.

                  And then there's this.


                  And Romney says hjk.

                  And Krauthammer says ghjkikmnbnm,.

                  And Mr. T says, "Right."

                  We're all just working for Pharaoh.

                  by whl on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 06:25:33 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  sorry you cannot accept the facts (0+ / 0-)

                    No one would consider the 10th paragraph oblique reference  a direct link to Benghazi. No one. You are smarter than that I suspect. Not even Obama or Clinton- unless you can (again i ask) explain why they kept blaming the video a week later? That's pretzel logic. Pathetic indeed.

                    I await your explanation. Peace.

                    •  Argle bargle. (0+ / 0-)

                      The parfagarphs are blaukunpat unbd der perbiagatage
                      ist nkiehc in zein szetazen.

                      Und der worterbuch ist nich geframden haupt.

                      It wouldn't matter if it was the 25th paragraph. Forty-tooth paragraph. Lebenty sebenth subordinate clause dependent upon the dangling predicate.

                      There are 3 reasons that Pres. Obama circled around a specific statement that you (personally), all of the rightwingnbutjobz, Fox (I repeat myself), and the Romney type jackasses of the American public insist on hearing and reading.

                      1. Benghazi was/is an utterly botched CIA operation that cannot and will not ever be divulged--even to Congress. With the additional caveat that neither the State Dept. nor the US Armed Forces (as obliquely stated by Gen. Carter Ham to Congress) are responsible for CIA security at their spook outposts.

                      2. Diplomatically (which is what that turd Kessler claims to know something about--and absolutely does not), a "TERRORIST act" must be committed by a person or persons (and usually a specific identified group) known to be, or later demonstrated to be, a terrorist or terrorist organization. If you/we/Pres. Obama don't know who ran the 2 separate attacks in Benghazi, then none of us can know whether they were terrorists, an armed Libyan militia, or a bunch of guys on the way to an attack on the two known CIA outposts.

                      3. Anyone or any group can commit "an act of terror" because of the general meaning of the word "terror." Only a terrorist can commit a terrorist act.

                      Finally, if you intend to deal with Benghazi in some informed manner, it is important to be "informed." The New York Times reports

                      Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam…

                      Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda….

                      And, yes, NYT is a liberal, leftwing, lame stream, Obama loving medium. So . . . Reuters far more precise report show that the video was a pretext or cause and the groups involved were not terrorists, but Libyan milita.

                      "Think Progress" summarizes it well. And "Think Progress" also debunks Romney's silly claim, the Fox News foolishness, the rightwingnutjobz blather, and your apparently continual/continuous/constant "belief" that Pres. Obama did not call it an "act of terror." He did. It's proven. You're wrong. Go away!

                      We're all just working for Pharaoh.

                      by whl on Mon Jun 02, 2014 at 11:41:40 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Lawd, it does matter what paragraph (0+ / 0-)

                        it is. He did not say it was terrorist act in the rose garden speech in which you insist that he did. Grammatically speaking, the previous antecedent of the paragraph with a definitive subject is the topic. In Paragraph 8 he Notes the topic is 'the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks." The topic of paragraph 10 is is the 9/11 terrorists attacks, not Benghazi, when he says "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation,..." "acts of terror" are not the (single) attack of Benghazi.  Sorry but that is simple and plain English. Your claim  "Obama did not call it an "act of terror." He did. It's proven. " is false, as even my 15 year old daughter could point out using the rules of proper writing.

                        And You keep answering questions did not ask. So I'll ask again, Why did he not concede it was a terrorist act when specifically asked about it several times within a two week period? Instead he still referenced a video. That is a very very simple question answer is it not? You cannot have it both ways. Sorry, but your beef with Kessler (who I would opine knows a heck of a lot more about politcial speech writing and diplomatic rhetoric than you or I) because he presents facts that conflict with your (wishful) opinion. Not because he is some closet RW Obama hater.

                        You cannot claim Obama called it terrorism the day after, then declined to do so for two weeks because  that "can't be divulged". You cannot claim that he called it terrorism on Sept 12 but didn't later because he didn't know. So why did he say that on Sept. 12 (in your grammatically incorrect mind)? Why did he claim he did at the debate? These logical insistences must make your head spin, because I assume you actually know these to premises cannot coexist and each be true.

                        Sorry dude. Grammar matters. These things are written very very precisely for diplomatic reasons as Kessler notes.

                        2) There is zero in the Reuters piece about the video. What was the point of that?

                        Maybe because of this?

                        or this?

                        HAM: "Again, sir, I think, you know, there was some preliminary discussion about, you know, maybe there was a demonstration. But I think at the command, I personally and I think the command very quickly got to the point that this was not a demonstration, this was a terrorist attack."

                        WENSTRUP: "And you would have advised as such if asked. Would that be correct?"

                        HAM: "Well, and with General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta, that is the nature of the conversation we had, yes, sir."


    •  Odd the diarist doesn't respond? N/T (0+ / 0-)
  •  the GOP version of our Libyan involvement (0+ / 0-)


    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "If we appear to seek the unattainable, then let it be known that we do so to avoid the unimaginable." (@eState4Column5)

    by annieli on Thu May 29, 2014 at 09:41:38 PM PDT

  •  It's Simple....Their Base Loves Benghazi (0+ / 0-)

    It will get their idiots out to vote.  So, it's Benghazi 24/7.

    Their IRS thing fizzled out.  Their repeal Obamacare thing fizzled out.

    Benghazi is all they got.  That plus Rand Paul & that thing he wears on his head.  

    I wouldn't let him check my eyes......even if blindness was

  •  The attack WAS caused by the video... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Proud Liberal Dem

    at least in part, according to the New York Times.

    ● NYT (9/12/12): "Fighters… said…they were moved to attack… by anger over a 14-minute, American-made video"

    ● NYT (9/12/12): "attackers…said they were determined to defend their faith from the video’s insults"

    ● NYT (9/15/12): "…found a pretext in anger over an American-made video mocking the Prophet"

    ● HuffPo (10/14/12): NYT: "at least some… involved in the incident were informed & motivated by the video"

    ● NYT (10/15/12): "fighters said at the time that they were moved to act because of the video"

    Finally: NationalMemo (5/7/2014): The Great #Benghazi Scandal Gets Sillier 'it doesn’t always have to be either/or – often it’s both/and":

    "David D. Kirkpatrick’s masterful reporting in The New York Times established that the anti-western Libyan militia Ansar Al-Sharia had long had the consulate under surveillance, although “[a]nger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters….A Libyan journalist working for The New York Times was blocked from entering by the sentries outside, and he learned of the film from the fighters who stopped him.”
    Perhaps the Select Committee will find, after months of haranguing witnesses & millions of wasted dollars, that the Administration was indeed guilty — of reading the New York Times.

    "All politics is national."

    by Auriandra on Fri May 30, 2014 at 01:34:14 AM PDT

  •  I don't fully understand the so-called "scandal... (0+ / 0-)

    I don't fully understand the so-called "scandal" or why it is being raised to the level that it is. I just hope that the Republicans embarrass themselves badly with this "select committee" to the point that it kills them at the polls. Given their statements so far, I remain hopeful. The bad thing is that we have months left before the committee even gets started. *sigh*

    •  Benghazi (0+ / 0-)

      I donot fully understand it either  but there are issues that are odd hence the reason it does not go away. There are three aspects to the story. One is the pre attack issues. There were attacks in the area of the embassy prior to the attack and other countries were pulling their people out. Terrorists were known to be in the area. Our embassy asked for  more security but were turned down. The second aspect is the response to the attack with accusations that more could have been done. The third aspect gets the most attention and that concerns how the White House reported on it. They sent Rice out to news stations four days after the attack and she said the attack resulted from a spontaneous protest in response to a video. The problem is that an email from Beth Jones, a top official at the State Dept dated the day after the attack shows her identifying the Al Qaeda group responsible for the attack. A terrorist group attacking an embassy on an anniversary of the 9-11 attacks is not spontaneous and not likely due to a video. Also, the top CIA guy in Libya testified there were no protests but a terrorist attack. So, the accusation is that the White House knew it was a terrorist attack from the get go but was saying something else to the public. Indeed,  Hillary apparently told the father of the SEAL who died that the maker of the video would be apprehended. Personnally, I feel the latter problem will turn out to be the product of miscommunication and disorganization. But that may be just as problematic for Hillary in 2016 because you cannot afford to look like you cannot run the State Dept while asking to be become president.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site