Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
There are Discrepancies in Petraeus' Stories
1 view
Skip to first unread message
mg
Nov 18, 2012, 6:17:05 AM11/18/12
to
If you can't trust a philandering General, who can you trust?
"Representative Peter King, chairman of the House homeland security
committee, emerged just after 9am to say the hearing before his
committee was over. He said there were discrepancies between what
Petraeus had previously told the committee about the Benghazi attack
and what he said on Friday. King said that earlier, Petraeus had said
it was principally a reaction to an anti-Muslim video produced in the
US; on Friday he said it was an attack by extremists."
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/1014307972
"Representative Peter King, chairman of the House homeland security
committee, emerged just after 9am to say the hearing before his
committee was over. He said there were discrepancies between what
Petraeus had previously told the committee about the Benghazi attack
and what he said on Friday. King said that earlier, Petraeus had said
it was principally a reaction to an anti-Muslim video produced in the
US; on Friday he said it was an attack by extremists."
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/1014307972
Islander
Nov 18, 2012, 11:44:35 AM11/18/12
to
was a terrorist attack. In fact, Rachel Maddow did a long segment on
how the demonstration in Cairo was different from the attack in
Benghazi, giving the background of el Qaeda in the Benghazi area,
retaliation over the killing of Abu Yahya al-Libi. Here is my summary
written on 9/16:
----
The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), an Al Qaeda affiliate that
provided fighters in the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, had
gained power in eastern Libya after the fall of Gaddafi and had engaged
in a number of attacks against western organizations around Benghazi
subsequent to the drone killing of the Al Qaeda second in command, Abu
Yahya al-Libi, a native of Libya.
Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri released a video on Monday, September
10th to commemorate 9/11 and called for revenge for the death in June of
Abu Yahya al-Libi. LIFG rose to the occasion with a 20 man attack on
the Benghazi consulate on the evening of Sept 10th at 10:00pm when they
quickly gained access to the compound and set fire to the main building.
The fighting continued until 2:20am when security forces regained
control of the compound.
Four members of LIFG have been detained by the Libyans. The US has
dispatched FBI investigators to Benghazi to assist in the investigation
of the attack.
It all seems too well orchestrated to have been spontaneous.
----
So, why did Susan Rice discount terrorism in the attack on the consulate
on 9/16? She was clearly chosen as a spokesperson for the
administration, even though she would not have had any direct
involvement and was given a script.
I think that this may have been a case where an effort to inform the
public was premature. Despite the fact that she clearly qualified what
she said, the Republicans jumped on it as a conspiracy.
Here is the transcript of what she said to David Gregory on Meet the Press:
GREGORY: Well, let’s talk-- talk about-- well, you talked about this as
spontaneous. Can you say definitively that the attacks on-- on our
consulate in Libya that killed ambassador Stevens and others there
security personnel, that was spontaneous, was it a planned attack? Was
there a terrorist element to it?
MS. RICE: Well, let us-- let me tell you the-- the best information we
have at present. First of all, there’s an FBI investigation which is
ongoing. And we look to that investigation to give us the definitive
word as to what transpired. But putting together the best information
that we have available to us today our current assessment is that what
happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to
what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of-- of
the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted,
of course, by the video. What we think then transpired in Benghazi is
that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was
unfolding. They came with heavy weapons which unfortunately are readily
available in post revolutionary Libya. And it escalated into a much
more violent episode. Obviously, that’s-- that’s our best judgment now.
We’ll await the results of the investigation. And the president has
been very clear--we’ll work with the Libyan authorities to bring those
responsible to justice.
...Judge for yourself...
Werner
Nov 18, 2012, 11:50:18 AM11/18/12
to
At least the philandering General resigned. The philandering President lied and did not resign. Instead he started a war to deflect attention.
Will Janoschka
Nov 18, 2012, 12:30:29 PM11/18/12
to
I don't see any discrepancy, only politics, then was then, now is
always
different.
El Castor
Nov 18, 2012, 2:09:35 PM11/18/12
to
On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 04:17:05 -0700, mg <mgke...@yaoo.com> wrote:
>If you can't trust a philandering General, who can you trust?
>
A philandering president?
>If you can't trust a philandering General, who can you trust?
>
mg
Nov 18, 2012, 3:27:53 PM11/18/12
to
you should act quickly and decisively. In real life, though, that sort
of knee-jerk reflex hardly ever works. I suspect that part of the
problem with the discrepancies in Petraeus' stories is that he was
pressured by the White House to come up with something quick. With
possible pressure from the White House, and an impossible deadline and
the desire to please his superior, the whole thing sort of reminds me
of the scenario with Colin Powell. Did you happen to catch this news
item awhile back, by the way, where McCain now blames Powell for the
war:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/26/john-mccain-colin-powell_n_2024574.html
mg
Nov 18, 2012, 3:53:25 PM11/18/12
to
On Nov 18, 12:09 pm, El Castor <DrE...@justuschickens.com> wrote:
(Republican in name only) and Democrats have their DINOs (Democrat in
name only). Bill Clinton deregulated the banks, gave us NAFTA, and the
China Trade Agreement, reappointed Greenspan as the FED chairman, and
to be honest, I don't know what else since I didn't follow politics
much back in those days. Imagine how much better things would be now
if he had spent his time fixing Social Security, for instance, instead
of deregulating the banks.
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 04:17:05 -0700, mg <mgkel...@yaoo.com> wrote:
> >If you can't trust a philandering General, who can you trust?
>
> A philandering president?
I'm not a big admirer of Bill Clinton. Republicans have their RINO's
> >If you can't trust a philandering General, who can you trust?
>
> A philandering president?
(Republican in name only) and Democrats have their DINOs (Democrat in
name only). Bill Clinton deregulated the banks, gave us NAFTA, and the
China Trade Agreement, reappointed Greenspan as the FED chairman, and
to be honest, I don't know what else since I didn't follow politics
much back in those days. Imagine how much better things would be now
if he had spent his time fixing Social Security, for instance, instead
of deregulating the banks.
El Castor
Nov 18, 2012, 7:18:04 PM11/18/12
to
On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 12:53:25 -0800 (PST), mg <mgke...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
I don't think philandering had much to do with it. How much better off
would we be if Obama had spent more time leading (and fixing Social
Security) and less playing golf and bowing?
wrote:
would we be if Obama had spent more time leading (and fixing Social
Security) and less playing golf and bowing?
Will Janoschka
Nov 18, 2012, 7:21:05 PM11/18/12
to
On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 20:53:25, mg <mgke...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Shit happens! (most of the time) now what? -will-
>
>
mg
Nov 18, 2012, 8:04:39 PM11/18/12
to
On Nov 18, 5:18 pm, El Castor <DrE...@justuschickens.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 12:53:25 -0800 (PST), mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com>
I've always figured that maybe Obama spends a lot of time watching
basketball, but I'm just guessing. Obama, however, is I believe, a
Reagan Democrat that fits in the DINO category. He's actually pretty
conservative. When it comes to Social Security, specifically, by the
way, he has obviously been very careful about hiding his views. In
fact, since he became president, I've never heard him articulate his
goals, plans, or vision for Social Security even once. My guess is
that he supports the Simpson/Bowles recommendation since he's the one
who established the commission and, incidentally, appointed two
conservatives to run it.
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 12:53:25 -0800 (PST), mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com>
basketball, but I'm just guessing. Obama, however, is I believe, a
Reagan Democrat that fits in the DINO category. He's actually pretty
conservative. When it comes to Social Security, specifically, by the
way, he has obviously been very careful about hiding his views. In
fact, since he became president, I've never heard him articulate his
goals, plans, or vision for Social Security even once. My guess is
that he supports the Simpson/Bowles recommendation since he's the one
who established the commission and, incidentally, appointed two
conservatives to run it.
mg
Nov 18, 2012, 8:09:04 PM11/18/12
to
On Nov 18, 5:21 pm, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:
If you believe in preserving the Social Security and Medicare
programs, the only thing you can do, that I can think of, is hope that
people like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Elizabeth Warren prevent
Obama from selling us down the river.
programs, the only thing you can do, that I can think of, is hope that
people like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Elizabeth Warren prevent
Obama from selling us down the river.
Islander
Nov 18, 2012, 8:41:15 PM11/18/12
to
On Benghazi, there is another possibility. It is the responsibility of
the host nation to protect the embassies and consulates. The initial
response from Libya was that the attack was motivated by the movie and
followed the Cairo attack. It did follow the Cairo attack, but it would
have been an embarrassment to the new government in Libya to have failed
the nation who helped put them in power. Who knows what the diplomatic
implications might have been.
So, the Obama administration was faced with wild speculation on the part
of the media, Romney making political statements, and Republicans in the
House ready to blame Obama for the deaths. What do you do?
Obama could have left it drift, but that would have produced a shit
storm of speculation. The CIA does not make public statements,
especially where there is sensitivity about the number of agents located
at that consulate and what their role might be. The Dept of State could
have put someone forward, but then there would have been speculation
about why Hilary did not address the press. I suspect that Susan Rice
was picked as a non-controversial figure to give a statement to the
press with lots of qualifications - which is what she did. Who else
could have done the job?
Will Janoschka
Nov 18, 2012, 9:09:30 PM11/18/12
to
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 01:09:04, mg <mgke...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 18, 5:21ÿpm, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:
> > On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 20:53:25, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 18, 12:09 pm, El Castor <DrE...@justuschickens.com> wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 04:17:05 -0700, mg <mgkel...@yaoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >If you can't trust a philandering General, who can you trust?
> >
> > > > A philandering president?
> >
> > > I'm not a big admirer of Bill Clinton. Republicans have their RINO's
> > > (Republican in name only) and Democrats have their DINOs (Democrat in
> > > name only). Bill Clinton deregulated the banks, gave us NAFTA, and the
> > > China Trade Agreement, reappointed Greenspan as the FED chairman, and
> > > to be honest, I don't know what else since I didn't follow politics
> > > much back in those days. Imagine how much better things would be now
> > > if he had spent his time fixing Social Security, for instance, instead
> > > of deregulating the banks.
> >
> > Shit happens! ÿ ÿ (most of the time) ÿ now what? ÿ ÿ -will-
he could have done better, in your opinion! Selling us down the river
got the repubnicrats to give up funding the military complex. Where
is
your help in navigating the river?
> On Nov 18, 5:21ÿpm, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:
> > On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 20:53:25, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 18, 12:09 pm, El Castor <DrE...@justuschickens.com> wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 04:17:05 -0700, mg <mgkel...@yaoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >If you can't trust a philandering General, who can you trust?
> >
> > > > A philandering president?
> >
> > > I'm not a big admirer of Bill Clinton. Republicans have their RINO's
> > > (Republican in name only) and Democrats have their DINOs (Democrat in
> > > name only). Bill Clinton deregulated the banks, gave us NAFTA, and the
> > > China Trade Agreement, reappointed Greenspan as the FED chairman, and
> > > to be honest, I don't know what else since I didn't follow politics
> > > much back in those days. Imagine how much better things would be now
> > > if he had spent his time fixing Social Security, for instance, instead
> > > of deregulating the banks.
> >
>
> If you believe in preserving the Social Security and Medicare
> programs, the only thing you can do, that I can think of, is hope that
> people like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Elizabeth Warren prevent
> Obama from selling us down the river.
>
Max, why so down on Obama? Nothing like Bush! Please say what
> If you believe in preserving the Social Security and Medicare
> programs, the only thing you can do, that I can think of, is hope that
> people like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Elizabeth Warren prevent
> Obama from selling us down the river.
>
he could have done better, in your opinion! Selling us down the river
got the repubnicrats to give up funding the military complex. Where
is
your help in navigating the river?
rumpelstiltskin
Nov 19, 2012, 2:12:14 AM11/19/12
to
On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 17:09:04 -0800 (PST), mg <mgke...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Elizabeth Warren, I expect, is going to be a great new ally.
During the spontaneous(?) rally on Castro Street the evening
of the election, a cheer went up at the news that she was
elected that was as enthusiastic as when it was announced
that the three states with measures on the ballot approving
it had passed by popular vote, for the first time, and the
bill in Minnesota to make it illegal had been voted down.
wrote:
During the spontaneous(?) rally on Castro Street the evening
of the election, a cheer went up at the news that she was
elected that was as enthusiastic as when it was announced
that the three states with measures on the ballot approving
it had passed by popular vote, for the first time, and the
bill in Minnesota to make it illegal had been voted down.
rumpelstiltskin
Nov 19, 2012, 2:14:00 AM11/19/12
to
El Castor
Nov 19, 2012, 4:28:30 AM11/19/12
to
On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 17:04:39 -0800 (PST), mg <mgke...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
MG, the reason Obama looks like a right winger to you is because you
are as far out in left field as its possible to go, so everything
appears to be to your right. Anyhow, Obama is a good Democrat, so he
is lazy and shiftless, but a conservative he is not.
wrote:
are as far out in left field as its possible to go, so everything
appears to be to your right. Anyhow, Obama is a good Democrat, so he
is lazy and shiftless, but a conservative he is not.
mg
Nov 19, 2012, 10:13:15 AM11/19/12
to
On Nov 19, 2:28 am, El Castor <DrE...@justuschickens.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 17:04:39 -0800 (PST), mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com>
What evidence do you have of that?
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 17:04:39 -0800 (PST), mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com>
mg
Nov 19, 2012, 1:19:38 PM11/19/12
to
On Nov 18, 7:09 pm, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:
necessarily mean that he is necessarily all that interested in the
middle class. It's very difficult to convince a Republican or a
Democrat that a president in their own party is acting against their
self-interest. It's more difficult, if not impossible, to convince a
Republican of that, but it is also difficult to convince a Democrat.
In regard to Obama, though, I believe that he not only failed to help
the Democrats in congress get a better health-care bill, I think he
actually obstructed them. Then too, rather than making an effort to
save Social Security and Medicare, I believe that he has gone out of
his way to cut those programs.
All Democrats ought to be asking themselves at least a couple of
questions, if they haven't already: What is Obama's policy on Social
Security and what has he done to implement that program and sell it to
the American people?
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 01:09:04, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 18, 5:21 pm, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:
> > > On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 20:53:25, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 18, 12:09 pm, El Castor <DrE...@justuschickens.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 04:17:05 -0700, mg <mgkel...@yaoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > >If you can't trust a philandering General, who can you trust?
>
> > > > > A philandering president?
>
> > > > I'm not a big admirer of Bill Clinton. Republicans have their RINO's
> > > > (Republican in name only) and Democrats have their DINOs (Democrat in
> > > > name only). Bill Clinton deregulated the banks, gave us NAFTA, and the
> > > > China Trade Agreement, reappointed Greenspan as the FED chairman, and
> > > > to be honest, I don't know what else since I didn't follow politics
> > > > much back in those days. Imagine how much better things would be now
> > > > if he had spent his time fixing Social Security, for instance, instead
> > > > of deregulating the banks.
>
> > > Shit happens! (most of the time) now what? -will-
> > On Nov 18, 5:21 pm, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:
> > > On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 20:53:25, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 18, 12:09 pm, El Castor <DrE...@justuschickens.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 04:17:05 -0700, mg <mgkel...@yaoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > >If you can't trust a philandering General, who can you trust?
>
> > > > > A philandering president?
>
> > > > I'm not a big admirer of Bill Clinton. Republicans have their RINO's
> > > > (Republican in name only) and Democrats have their DINOs (Democrat in
> > > > name only). Bill Clinton deregulated the banks, gave us NAFTA, and the
> > > > China Trade Agreement, reappointed Greenspan as the FED chairman, and
> > > > to be honest, I don't know what else since I didn't follow politics
> > > > much back in those days. Imagine how much better things would be now
> > > > if he had spent his time fixing Social Security, for instance, instead
> > > > of deregulating the banks.
>
>
> > If you believe in preserving the Social Security and Medicare
> > programs, the only thing you can do, that I can think of, is hope that
> > people like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Elizabeth Warren prevent
> > Obama from selling us down the river.
>
> Max, why so down on Obama? Nothing like Bush! Please say what
> he could have done better, in your opinion! Selling us down the river
> got the repubnicrats to give up funding the military complex. Where
> is
> your help in navigating the river?
Obama is a thousand times better than Bush or Romney, but that doesn't
> > If you believe in preserving the Social Security and Medicare
> > programs, the only thing you can do, that I can think of, is hope that
> > people like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Elizabeth Warren prevent
> > Obama from selling us down the river.
>
> Max, why so down on Obama? Nothing like Bush! Please say what
> he could have done better, in your opinion! Selling us down the river
> got the repubnicrats to give up funding the military complex. Where
> is
> your help in navigating the river?
necessarily mean that he is necessarily all that interested in the
middle class. It's very difficult to convince a Republican or a
Democrat that a president in their own party is acting against their
self-interest. It's more difficult, if not impossible, to convince a
Republican of that, but it is also difficult to convince a Democrat.
In regard to Obama, though, I believe that he not only failed to help
the Democrats in congress get a better health-care bill, I think he
actually obstructed them. Then too, rather than making an effort to
save Social Security and Medicare, I believe that he has gone out of
his way to cut those programs.
All Democrats ought to be asking themselves at least a couple of
questions, if they haven't already: What is Obama's policy on Social
Security and what has he done to implement that program and sell it to
the American people?
mg
Nov 19, 2012, 1:23:04 PM11/19/12
to
On Nov 19, 12:12 am, rumpelstiltskin <rumpelstilts...@x.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 17:09:04 -0800 (PST), mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com>
Warren has joined with a half-dozen other Democrats, incidentally, to
try to force a change in the filibuster rules on the first day of the
first session of the next congress. It will be interesting to see how
much luck she has and how much resistance she gets from other
Democrats, including maybe even Reid.
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 17:09:04 -0800 (PST), mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com>
try to force a change in the filibuster rules on the first day of the
first session of the next congress. It will be interesting to see how
much luck she has and how much resistance she gets from other
Democrats, including maybe even Reid.
rumpelstiltskin
Nov 19, 2012, 3:38:20 PM11/19/12
to
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 10:23:04 -0800 (PST), mg <mgke...@yahoo.com>
<snip>
>Warren has joined with a half-dozen other Democrats, incidentally, to
>try to force a change in the filibuster rules on the first day of the
>first session of the next congress. It will be interesting to see how
>much luck she has and how much resistance she gets from other
>Democrats, including maybe even Reid.
>
Looks like she's not wasting any time! There is likely to
be a lot of existence, since people fear change, especially
sudden change. There's no filibuster in the House though,
of course, which is a good example to use when asking
why there should be one in the Senate.
<snip>
>Warren has joined with a half-dozen other Democrats, incidentally, to
>try to force a change in the filibuster rules on the first day of the
>first session of the next congress. It will be interesting to see how
>much luck she has and how much resistance she gets from other
>Democrats, including maybe even Reid.
>
be a lot of existence, since people fear change, especially
sudden change. There's no filibuster in the House though,
of course, which is a good example to use when asking
why there should be one in the Senate.
mg
Nov 19, 2012, 8:12:29 PM11/19/12
to
On Nov 19, 1:38 pm, rumpelstiltskin <rumpelstilts...@x.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 10:23:04 -0800 (PST), mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com>
Great Warren quote:
"If the notion on this is, we’re going to elect somebody to the United
States Senate so they can be the 100th least-senior person in there
and be polite,” she said, “and somewhere in their fourth or fifth year
do some bipartisan bill that nobody cares about, don’t vote for me."
Embracing the mantle of liberal champion, she added, “I’m not going
so that I can create a long and illustrious career in the Senate. I’m
going to make change."
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 10:23:04 -0800 (PST), mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com>
"If the notion on this is, we’re going to elect somebody to the United
States Senate so they can be the 100th least-senior person in there
and be polite,” she said, “and somewhere in their fourth or fifth year
do some bipartisan bill that nobody cares about, don’t vote for me."
Embracing the mantle of liberal champion, she added, “I’m not going
so that I can create a long and illustrious career in the Senate. I’m
going to make change."
rumpelstiltskin
Nov 19, 2012, 10:57:41 PM11/19/12
to
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 17:12:29 -0800 (PST), mg <mgke...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
I just noticed my "existence" which was supposed to be
"resistance"! That must have been a spell-check Gotcha.
I do have a spell checker, but most of the words it
complains about (such as "gotcha") are words I really
intended, such that I get too quick on the "next" trigger
and things get past me. If something's misspelt, that's
one thing, but is something is spelt as a real word that
means something completely different from what one
intended, that's quite another thing.
wrote:
"resistance"! That must have been a spell-check Gotcha.
I do have a spell checker, but most of the words it
complains about (such as "gotcha") are words I really
intended, such that I get too quick on the "next" trigger
and things get past me. If something's misspelt, that's
one thing, but is something is spelt as a real word that
means something completely different from what one
intended, that's quite another thing.
mg
Nov 20, 2012, 12:05:49 AM11/20/12
to
>
> McCain seems to be losing it lately!
>
> On Benghazi, there is another possibility. It is the responsibility of
> the host nation to protect the embassies and consulates. The initial
> response from Libya was that the attack was motivated by the movie and
> followed the Cairo attack. It did follow the Cairo attack, but it would
> have been an embarrassment to the new government in Libya to have failed
> the nation who helped put them in power. Who knows what the diplomatic
> implications might have been.
>
> So, the Obama administration was faced with wild speculation on the part
> of the media, Romney making political statements, and Republicans in the
> House ready to blame Obama for the deaths. What do you do?
>
> Obama could have left it drift, but that would have produced a shit
> storm of speculation. The CIA does not make public statements,
> especially where there is sensitivity about the number of agents located
> at that consulate and what their role might be. The Dept of State could
> have put someone forward, but then there would have been speculation
> about why Hilary did not address the press. I suspect that Susan Rice
> was picked as a non-controversial figure to give a statement to the
> press with lots of qualifications - which is what she did. Who else
> could have done the job?
I don't know whether McCain has always been pretty stupid, or if he's
> McCain seems to be losing it lately!
>
> On Benghazi, there is another possibility. It is the responsibility of
> the host nation to protect the embassies and consulates. The initial
> response from Libya was that the attack was motivated by the movie and
> followed the Cairo attack. It did follow the Cairo attack, but it would
> have been an embarrassment to the new government in Libya to have failed
> the nation who helped put them in power. Who knows what the diplomatic
> implications might have been.
>
> So, the Obama administration was faced with wild speculation on the part
> of the media, Romney making political statements, and Republicans in the
> House ready to blame Obama for the deaths. What do you do?
>
> Obama could have left it drift, but that would have produced a shit
> storm of speculation. The CIA does not make public statements,
> especially where there is sensitivity about the number of agents located
> at that consulate and what their role might be. The Dept of State could
> have put someone forward, but then there would have been speculation
> about why Hilary did not address the press. I suspect that Susan Rice
> was picked as a non-controversial figure to give a statement to the
> press with lots of qualifications - which is what she did. Who else
> could have done the job?
getting worse. I do think that he's probably losing the publicity war
right now, though. I've never really understood exactly why he's
thought of as a war hero when it doesn't appear that he actually did
anything exceptional.
My take on the Rice/Benghazi thing is that it will likely help McCain
and the Republican party about as much as the Birther thing helped
Trump and the Republican party. From the public's point of view, I
think about all they see is a bunch of looney-tunes, Republicans
making a lot of incoherent, offensive noise as usual.
Having said that, though, I continue to be amazed at how stupid
Democrats are, in general, in understanding right-wing propaganda
techniques. Even after experiencing 8 years of Reagan and 8 years of
George Bush, they seem to be just as stupid as ever. Sending UN
Ambassador Rice out on the talk-show circuit to try to explain
something that no one understood yet seems to be an incredibly stupid
decision to me.
mg
Nov 20, 2012, 12:28:30 AM11/20/12
to
On Nov 19, 8:57 pm, rumpelstiltskin <rumpelstilts...@x.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 17:12:29 -0800 (PST), mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com>
I try not to worry about that sort of stuff too much on the
newsgroups. The worst mistake, I ever made that way, though, still
haunts me to this day, and I've never been able to forget it. Shortly
after graduating and being hired on as a new engineer, I wrote a white
paper, and later my supervisor mentioned that I had confused the words
perimeter and parameter. That was in 1990, as I recall, and here we
are in 2012, and I still feel stupid about that.
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 17:12:29 -0800 (PST), mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com>
newsgroups. The worst mistake, I ever made that way, though, still
haunts me to this day, and I've never been able to forget it. Shortly
after graduating and being hired on as a new engineer, I wrote a white
paper, and later my supervisor mentioned that I had confused the words
perimeter and parameter. That was in 1990, as I recall, and here we
are in 2012, and I still feel stupid about that.
Islander
Nov 20, 2012, 11:30:01 AM11/20/12
to
foreign policy that the Republicans appear to have abandoned. He is
losing Lieberman as an ally and that leaves him with only Lindsay
Graham. The neoconservatives who dominated Romney's foreign policy
appear to have disappeared back into the woodwork like cockroaches.
I read this morning that McCain is in a battle with Inhofe for the top
Republican slot on the Armed Services Committee. That would be a big
loss for McCain and he is probably amping up his hawk image as he tries
to appeal to the Republican caucus.
As to putting Susan Rice on the Sunday talk shows, I'm thinking that
there was a lot of emphasis in the Obama administration to "get out
ahead" of the story before it got too crazy. Was the choice of Rice the
best choice? I don't know, especially in view of Clinton's plan to
resign and the possibility of naming Rice to replace her. Were they
intending to give Rice some favorable exposure in a volatile situation?
If so, they handicapped her with bad intelligence. Perhaps that will
be a chapter in an upcoming Woodward book.
Islander
Nov 20, 2012, 11:46:20 AM11/20/12
to
spend enough time out on the trail selling programs to the American
people. He has demonstrated that he is very good at that.
This next year is going to be very important. The Republicans will be
redoubling their efforts to capture the Senate and retain control of the
House. The Democrats, led by Obama need some quick wins to take
advantage of the loss that the Republicans sustained.
Obama knows that his legacy will depend on having control of the
Congress his last two years. How he will achieve that is his major
challenge right now!
mg
Nov 20, 2012, 6:24:46 PM11/20/12
to
guest and to be honest, it is starting to look like the intelligence
was right and Rice's presentation was misleading. So, now I'm
wondering again why they picked on Rice. The most obvious one to
answer questions would have been Clinton. Then after that I would say
Joe Biden.
mg
Nov 20, 2012, 6:30:58 PM11/20/12
to
or campaigning for congressmen during the 2010 elections. Evidently,
the 2010 elections did a lot more damage than one might assume, by the
way, since the Republicans took control of a lot of states and
gerrymandered a lot of the House districts.
Islander
Nov 20, 2012, 9:34:58 PM11/20/12
to
the far east and Russia on Sept 9th, so she should have been on top of
the issue in Benghazi. I'm suspicious that she didn't want to become
too visible on this because of her plans for 2016. Still, she did make
a public statement on the day after the attack.
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2012/09/197654.htm
Biden would not have been a good choice to answer questions, IMV. Too
far removed from the issues.
mg
Nov 20, 2012, 10:02:25 PM11/20/12
to
>
> Biden would not have been a good choice to answer questions, IMV. Too
> far removed from the issues.
Hopefully, a Vice President is never too far removed from the issues
> Biden would not have been a good choice to answer questions, IMV. Too
> far removed from the issues.
since he has to be able to assume the presidency with a moment's
notice. The cynic in me tends to assume that Clinton figured she had
already given an excellent account of the situation and she was smart
enough not to fall into the same kind of trap Colin Powell did by just
being a puppet reading from a script.
Islander
Nov 21, 2012, 10:53:50 AM11/21/12
to
groomed for the Presidency and the Democrats do not want a bitter
primary battle. I also suspect that Bill Clinton put a lot of energy
into the reelection of Obama because he didn't want Hillary facing an
incumbent Romney in 2016. I think that Hillary has done a fine job as
SecState, but now wants to get out with a good record. You never know
when something is going to turn to shit in the world!
mg
Nov 21, 2012, 11:21:30 AM11/21/12
to
previously is her support for the Iraq war. I think that problem has
largely dissipated now, though, and it will certainly be gone by 2016.
Another problem that she could conceivably have is with the failure to
protect the diplomatic mission in Benghazi. I don't know anything
about that, though. In fact, I'm not positive that it's even her
responsibility. Or, if it is, she certainly wouldn't be the only one
responsible. Another problem that she might have in 2016, is if a
Democrat runs against her from the left. I've always had the vague
impression, that Hillary leans quite a ways to the right. If she does
run, my knee-jerk guess, by the way, is that she'll probably be
running against Jeb Bush.
0 new messages