Obama administration determined to stop Petraeus testimony on Benghazi attack.

[RLENT]

With all the sideshows from the Army generals, politicians and their concubines, etc. it's easy for the media to push the core issues to the side. Four good men including our Libyan ambassador died because of the negligence and/or incompetence of somebody in our State Dept.

Appears you haven't gotten the memo - what was going on in Benghazi was largely a CIA operation, being run - at least to some extent - under diplomatic cover ...

That fact is confirmed by the relative distribution of the personnel between the two agencies - something the order of 6 or so from State (most of which were security or technical), with the remainder (17 ?) from the CIA ...

Doesn't take a real genius to figure out what was going on there was not normal State Department business ... something confirmed by the fact that State's website did not list a consular facility in Benghazi ...

Covert para-military operations are often fraught with all kinds of danger ... sometimes people die ... just the way it is ...

Since you are apparently a fan of such sorts of things, I'd think you'd have come to grips with it by now ...

Supposedly was some confusion between State and CIA about who was repsonsible for what in terms of security ... typical bureaucracy ...

In any event, the fact remains - it was what it was - and because of what it was, it probably isn't in the interest of national security to have all the gory details cried from the rooftops to all the world by a bunch of bloviating partisan hacks ...

If that reality is one that you are incapable of grasping and wrapping your head around, well then ... you have my condolences for your crippled intellectual condition ...

The White House spin machine at the very least obfuscated, but more likely covered up this travesty in order to get past election day.

That sounds like more typical dumb-***ery from the Focks Nooz "Bubba" crowd ...

Hillary Clinton "takes responsibility" from somewhere in South America, then takes cover in Austrailia. If something like this had happened during a Republican administration the Democrats would be screaming for heads on a pike.

Really ... ?

Iz zat right ?

Can you point to the screaming for heads on a pike from the Democrats that occurred when gunmen attacked our consulate in Calcutta, India back in 2002 and killed 5 ?

How about when there was a truck bomb detonated outside our consulate in Karachi, Pakistan in 2002, which killed 12 ?

What about when our consular office in Denpasar, Indonesia was bombed in 2002 ?

Maybe the attack on our embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan in 2003, where 2 were killed ?

How about the 2004 suicide bomber attacks on our embassy in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, which killed two ?

Well ... surely there must have been some hollering about the 2004 attack in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia where gunmen raided our diplomatic compound and killed 9 ?

How about the car-bombing in Karachi, Pakistan in 2006 where two died ?

Maybe the attack on our embassy by gunmen in Demascuc, Syria in 2006 in which 4 were killed ?

Would it be the RPG attack on our embassy in 2007, in Athens, Greece ?

Well ... what about the mortar attack against US Embassy in Sana'a, Yemen in 2008, where 2 died ?

How about the attack by gunmen on our embassy in Istanbul, Turkey in 2008 where 6 were killed ?

Possibly the 2008 dual car-bomb attack on our embassy in Sana'a, Yemen where 16 died ?

Geez ... I don't seem to recall much partisan rancor and screaming over any of that ...

If a special prosecuter was appointed to investigate the "outing" of a non-covert bimbo like Valerie Plame, why can't we get a similar process to delve into administrative malfeasance that resulted in our Libyan ambassador and three other Americans losing their lives?

I've covered one of the possible reasons above (covert intel ops)

Beyond that, the people that are asking - for obvious partisan reasons - are L-O-S-E-R-S ...

Get used to it ... given the way y'all are going, it just may become a permanent condition ...

 

[muttly]

More details - including repeated confirmation that former terrorist fund-raiser and New York Rep. Peter King has memory difficulties, and is also incorrect (or just lying) about who took out the reference to A-Q:


Petraeus to Congress: CIA believed early on that terrorists were behind Libya consulate attack

My apologies to Muttly - I realize now that I have failed to give Rep. King the full credit due for his part in pushing the partisan stupidity - but I'll certainly try and make up for it in the future.

Avoid tipping them off....on there trail.....hehe. How all that work out for them?

How does Petreaus know that the altered talking points were not based on politics if he doesn't know who changed them? Why doesn't the whitehouse just say who changed them?Inquiring minds would like to know. Haha If they said it wasn't them, they could easily find out and let us all know. Well we're waiting.

 

[RLENT]

Your analysis that there isn't a genuine interest in those folks and their issues is a ignorant comment and untrue.

Actually, my analysis is based on my observations and my own interactions with a variety actors on the political stage and behind the scenes, both in and out of the GOP, but largely in the conservative realm - from the local to the national level.

It may not be entirely true of the rank and file, but it is generally true in GOP officialdom - at least the ones I have had the pleasure of interacting with. To some extent or another, officialdom is representative and reflective of the rank and file.

What exactly informs your opinion ?

You attended your local town council meeting once or something ?

 

[muttly]

More details - including repeated confirmation that former terrorist fund-raiser and New York Rep. Peter King has memory difficulties, and is also incorrect (or just lying) about who took out the reference to A-Q:


Petraeus to Congress: CIA believed early on that terrorists were behind Libya consulate attack

My apologies to Muttly - I realize now that I have failed to give Rep. King the full credit due for his part in pushing the partisan stupidity - but I'll certainly try and make up for it in the future.

Hey, MSNBC got it right for a change. Kudos to Joe,Andrea,and Maureen. Blind suirrel finds a nut once in a while.
Joe Scarborough On Susan Rice, Candy Crowley, And Intel Community: Why Can’t They Get The Story Straight? | Mediaite

 

[RLENT]

Avoid tipping them off ... on there trail ..... hehe. How all that work out for them?

Probably not as well as it might have had the morons in the Party of Stupid not elected to try and make political hay out of the matter solely for partisan gain ...

How does Petreaus know that the altered talking points were not based on politics if he doesn't know who changed them?

Because he - unlike you apparently - actually understands the actual sequential process that they go through to be circulated, vetted, edited, and amended by the United States Intelligence Community ... and not only does he understand it, he was involved with it ... and he signed off on the alterations/edits ... which is an indication that he had some understanding of why they were changed.

Why doesn't the whitehouse just say who changed them? Inquiring minds would like to know. Haha If they said it wasn't them, they could easily find out and let us all know. Well we're waiting.

Well, I'd say: get comfortable ...

Mutt,

Your posts actually convey a level of ignorance and lack of understanding that is pretty amazing ... and the reasoning powers (or more appropriately the lack thereof) that you continually demonstrate border on of the level of the Boob-bah-lah ...

Apparently, you've never had much in the way of dealings with the bureaucracy ...

 

[RLENT]

Hey, MSNBC got it right for a change. Kudos to Joe, Andrea, and Maureen.

Nothing more there than speculation by the ignorant and uninformed ...

I can understand why you like it though ... given that they are like you: largely ignorant and uninformed ...

 

[jaminjim]

RLENT, out of curiosity if General Petraeus' narrative didn't bolster your narrative, would you be heaping some of your adjectives on him? After all he did resign in disgrace.

 

[skyraider]

Its about to get nasty guys.

 

[davekc]

Actually, my analysis is based on my observations and my own interactions with a variety actors on the political stage and behind the scenes, both in and out of the GOP, but largely in the conservative realm - from the local to the national level.

Ok.....so you are reading a lot of political blogs. Got it.
I would agree with Jim's question in that your information is primarily based on what you think Petreaus said or didn't say. The guy had a ongoing affair and was forced to resign. I would say anything he said should be scutinized rather than taken as some kind of gospel.
Even more so based on current events.
You are using his comments to accelerate your disdain for the republican party. No problem there but it erodes many of your opinions.
If he said things were changed yet doesn't know who changed what, then obviously he wasn't fully informed or he is trying to protect others. That is why you now have all these investigations.

 

[RLENT]

RLENT, out of curiosity if General Petraeus' narrative didn't bolster your narrative, would you be heaping some of your adjectives on him? After all he did resign in disgrace.

JJ,

I have plenty of adjectives to heap on Petraeus, regardless of him bolstering my narrative or not ... and they would not be kind words at all - but that's an entirely different conversation.

That has to do with Petraeus' culpability in overseeing the training of Iraqi security forces (and then later Afghani security forces) ... where Petraeus and the US military adopted a policy of willful ignorance in terms of human rights violations against innocent civilians, the violation of laws of war, and the Geneva Conventions ... and failed to act when he/they could have.

He is no "hero" or "genius" in my book ... and I find all the fawning and drooling over him in the media to be rather depraved and disgusting.

King David is largely a product of his own experiences, as we all are ... what he ended up becoming ultimately is something he will have to endure for the remainder of his own personal eternity. I suspect it will be a heavy burden to bear. In that regard he has my pity.

While his marital infidelity is certainly disgraceful, given his vows and the pain it caused to variety of people (including his family and Broadwell's family among many others) there are things that are far, far more disgraceful ... IMHO ...

I'd prefer to believe that he has some sense of shame and a desire for contrition for at least some of his actions ... and that he is not entirely without any honor whatsoever.

Hopefully he has acted in a manner to at least partially redeem himself.

 

[xiggi]

JJ,

I have plenty of adjectives to heap on Petraeus, regardless of him bolstering my narrative or not ... and they would not be kind words at all - but that's an entirely different conversation.

That has to do with Petraeus' culpability in overseeing the training of Iraqi security forces (and then later Afghani security forces) ... where Petraeus and the US military adopted a policy of willful ignorance in terms of human rights violations against innocent civilians, the violation of laws of war, and the Geneva Conventions ... and failed to act when he/they could have.

He is no "hero" or "genius" in my book ... and I find all the fawning and drooling over him in the media to be rather depraved and disgusting.

King David is largely a product of his own experiences, as we all are ... what he ended up becoming ultimately is something he will have to endure for the remainder of his own personal eternity. I suspect it will be a heavy burden to bear. In that regard he has my pity.

While his marital infidelity is certainly disgraceful, given his vows and the pain it caused to variety of people (including his family and Broadwell's family among many others) there are things that are far, far more disgraceful ... IMHO ...

I'd prefer to believe that he has some sense of shame and a desire for contrition for at least some of his actions ... and that he is not entirely without any honor whatsoever.

Hopefully he has acted in a manner to at least partially redeem himself.

Jmho but a post like this without the personal attacks and put downs comes across much more honest sounding and believable. For me anyway it does not cause me to dismiss the entire posts content out of the gate.

Sent from my Fisher Price ABC123 via EO Forums

 

[RLENT]

Ok.....so you are reading a lot of political blogs. Got it.

Not even close ...

I would agree with Jim's question in that your information is primarily based on what you think Petreaus said or didn't say.

Oh you would, would you ? ... LOL ...

The guy had a ongoing affair and was forced to resign. I would say anything he said should be scutinized rather than taken as some kind of gospel. Even more so based on current events.

There is nothing wrong with legitimate scrutiny ... there is everything wrong with overblown "scrutiny" done solely for partisan political reasons.

You are using his comments to accelerate your disdain for the republican party. No problem there but it erodes many of your opinions.

Dave you need to relax ... calm down a little ... take a chill pill ...

If he said things were changed yet doesn't know who changed what, then obviously he wasn't fully informed or he is trying to protect others.

The above largely speaks to your ignorance of the process ... and of the bureaucracy ...

Sorta like the mutt ...

That is why you now have all these investigations.

The reason why you have all these investigations and the brouhaha surrounding them is simply the desire on the part of some to exploit a national tragedy for crass political reasons.

That is something that is recognized even within the GOP itself ... based on the comments of party members - from Boehner saying that separate "Watergate-style" hearings are not needed, to Susan Collins inadvertently rebuking McLame just for starters ...

These folks understand how much of a potential loser this thing is - if it is exploited politically.

McCain is acting as a political opportunist (as are Graham, King, and Ayotte) ... trying to do something to remain relevant in what is undoubtedly the twilight of his career ...

It's actually rather sad ... given his service and earlier record, and what he endured as a POW ... he could have chosen to be the senior statesman of the party ... a serious actor on the stage of national politics ... he actually was well-suited for it in some respects (as a maverick)

Instead, he's reduced himself to a national joke ... caricature of much of what is wrong with our politics ...

Hopefully, his just reward for having done so will be to lose his position as the ranking minority member on the Senate Armed Services Committee (required by the term limit rules that the GOP operates under for Committee assignments) ... and receive a rather insignificant position in terms of relevance in national politics - the only seat currently available: ranking minority member on Senate Committee on Indian Affairs ...

 

[Pilgrim]

Avoid tipping them off....on there trail.....hehe. How all that work out for them?

How does Petreaus know that the altered talking points were not based on politics if he doesn't know who changed them? Why doesn't the whitehouse just say who changed them?Inquiring minds would like to know. Haha If they said it wasn't them, they could easily find out and let us all know. Well we're waiting.

Looks like Petraeus might be wishing he had stayed in the military instead of getting into the political arena, especially his involvement with the Obama administration. He was far better as a soldier. Speaking of military careers, wonder what the re-enlistment rates among our current officers will be like over the next four years?

 

[davekc]

Not even close ...

Sure. As long as you are convinced. You got some work to do on everyone else based on this thread.

[/QUOTE]

Oh you would, would you ? ... LOL ...


Sure why not?



There is nothing wrong with legitimate scrutiny ... there is everything wrong with overblown "scrutiny" done solely for partisan political reasons.

It is done with both parties all day long. You are just focused on one.



Dave you need to relax ... calm down a little ... take a chill pill ...



Got something better than a pill. But thanks for asking.



The above largely speaks to your ignorance of the process ... and of the bureaucracy ...

Sorta like the mutt ...


And your agenda speaks to your personal disdain for the Republican party which I already mentioned. You are hardly an authority on the "process" based on this thread. But nice try though.



The reason why you have all these investigations and the brouhaha surrounding them is simply the desire on the part of some to exploit a national tragedy for crass political reasons.

That is something that is recognized even within the GOP itself ... based on the comments of party members - from Boehner saying that separate "Watergate-style" hearings are not needed, to Susan Collins inadvertently rebuking McLame just for starters ...

These folks understand how much of a potential loser this thing is - if it is exploited politically.

McCain is acting as a political opportunist (as are Graham, King, and Ayotte) ... trying to do something to remain relevant in what is undoubtedly the twilight of his career ...

It's actually rather sad ... given his service and earlier record, and what he endured as a POW ... he could have chosen to be the senior statesman of the party ... a serious actor on the stage of national politics ... he actually was well-suited for it in some respects (as a maverick)

Instead, he's reduced himself to a national joke ... caricature of much of what is wrong with our politics ...

Hopefully, his just reward for having done so will be to lose his position as the ranking minority member on the Senate Armed Services Committee (required by the term limit rules that the GOP operates under for Committee assignments) ... and receive a rather insignificant position in terms of relevance in national politics - the only seat currently available: ranking minority member on Senate Committee on Indian Affairs ...



You worry too much about McCain. Apparently there is enough there that Diane Finestien said some of it needed to be investigated Sunday. And of course she is a democrat. Things will run there course and it will be political. One side tried to suppress information in front of an election and the other is exploiting it for current political gain. No reason to act surprised and not say a word about the democrats involvement. You seem to constantly leave that out. But of couse that is necessary with your current agenda.

 

[muttly]

Probably not as well as it might have had the morons in the Party of Stupid not elected to try and make political hay out of the matter solely for partisan gain ...


Because he - unlike you apparently - actually understands the actual sequential process that they go through to be circulated, vetted, edited, and amended by the United States Intelligence Community ... and not only does he understand it, he was involved with it ... and he signed off on the alterations/edits ... which is an indication that he had some understanding of why they were changed.


Well, I'd say: get comfortable ...

Mutt,

Your posts actually convey a level of ignorance and lack of understanding that is pretty amazing ... and the reasoning powers (or more appropriately the lack thereof) that you continually demonstrate border on of the level of the Boob-bah-lah ...

Apparently, you've never had much in the way of dealings with the bureaucracy ...

Petreaus apparently signed off on it, but it has to be scrutinized in the context of what was happening at the time. At the time he knew he was under investigation by the FBI. He also reportedly wanted to stay in his current position as CIA Director. There was probably a lot of pressure on him to go along and to not to disrupt the whitehouse "agenda".

 

[muttly]

Looks like Petraeus might be wishing he had stayed in the military instead of getting into the political arena, especially his involvement with the Obama administration. He was far better as a soldier. Speaking of military careers, wonder what the re-enlistment rates among our current officers will be like over the next four years?

The Obama administration played him pretty bad. Not sure what the re-enlistment rates will be. With Obama at the helm for four more years,don't see much improvement in the economy and jobs for them.

 

[muttly]

Looks like the whitehouse got all their ducks in a row now. Hehe. It was Clapper's "people". I thought he said last week it wasn't him...... but now it is. Barry to Clapper: "Pssst. just say it was your people that did it,yeah that's the ticket." If any one wants to dig further on this I'll just mark it classified. Done and done".
Sources: Director of National Intelligence Edited Benghazi Talking Points

 

[layoutshooter]

"" If any one wants to dig further on this I'll just mark it classified. Done and done"."



Just like "Rockin' Ronnie" did with Carters "mess up"

 

[layoutshooter]

The Obama administration played him pretty bad. Not sure what the re-enlistment rates will be. With Obama at the helm for four more years,don't see much improvement in the economy and jobs for them.

Officers don't get 're-enlistment' bonuses. They are NOT enlisted. Just sayin.

 

[davekc]

Petreaus apparently signed off on it, but it has to be scrutinized in the context of what was happening at the time. At the time he knew he was under investigation by the FBI. He also reportedly wanted to stay in his current position as CIA Director. There was probably a lot of pressure on him to go along and to not to disrupt the whitehouse "agenda".

I'm sure there was since several knew of his affair before all of this hit. Really just common sense.
Hardly need the understanding of "process or the bureaucracy" to figure that out.
More will come out. Took two and half months to squeeze out what they got so far. Probably take another as there are still many open questions. But the good news is that answers are coming daily now. At least the Republicans and a few democrats have stayed on them. Had they not, this would be swept under the rug like several other things.