US Embassy Stormed in Cairo...

[statman]

[QUOTE=Color Me Badd Fan;978970}

And then David Petraeus is lurking out there and he may have quite the axe to grind. I'm sure he has an assload of information.[/QUOTE]]

Word on the street from those connected to Petraeus is that his ax-grinding has already started in that he's providing cover for the next set of whistleblowers from the CIA and Pentagon. Mess with them, and Petraeus releases the deadman switch on his suicide belt. His career is already over and has little more to lose...

[il Padrino Ute]

Car bomb in Benghazi

[calicoug]

The sad state of the world is this - "real" news organizations are part of the progressive left and, in general, only report stories that further that agenda. "fake" news organizations (those not fully all up in Progressive Left) like Fox, drudge, breitbart, etc can't be trusted for anything that they say - because they're "fake." Even when what they say is 100% correct - it's still "fake"

Sorry CS libs, you've lost all ability to look at the facts your side is telling you and see bullshit, or even take what's said with the slightest degree of skepticism. You've got your heads so far up your collective asses, you can't smell shit when your elected officials leave a big steaming pile on your face. And that's just how the Obama Administration has been treating you for 5 years. So great that they can count on you...

Anyone who didn't see Benghazi talking points as a compendium of lies from the second they dropped needs to seriously recalibrate their bullshit-meter. This one made no sense. Ever...

On what are you basing your belief that the talking points were lies? Drafts of the talking points consistently show that the CIA and State Department both believed this was a spontaneous demonstration in which terrorists may have joined. That same story existed from the beginning. It may have ultimately been wrong, but that's hardly a scandal or a lie. It's just being incorrect. Like the IRS matter, I just don't see a scandal anywhere around this issue.

[LA Ute]

On what are you basing your belief that the talking points were lies? Drafts of the talking points consistently show that the CIA and State Department both believed this was a spontaneous demonstration in which terrorists may have joined. That same story existed from the beginning. It may have ultimately been wrong, but that's hardly a scandal or a lie. It's just being incorrect. Like the IRS matter, I just don't see a scandal anywhere around this issue.

Really? The progressive changes are laid out here:

The Benghazi Talking Points

The graphics showing the changes are too big to post here. Go to page 2 of the article. The talking points are posted side by side and you can see how they, um, evolved.

[calicoug]

Really? The progressive changes are laid out here:

The Benghazi Talking Points

The graphics showing the changes are too big to post here. Go to page 2 of the article. The talking points are posted side by side and you can see how they, um, evolved.

Nobody disagrees that the draft was modified multiple times by State and the CIA. But so what? Which modification in particular gives you heartburn? Notice, again, that the key paragraph remains in each draft (including the first): "The currently available information suggests that the demonstrators in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post and subsequently its annex."

That is the same thing Obama said in his first press briefing (although he also referred to "acts of terror").

You can read the email discussing the reasoning for the edits here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ghazi-scandal/

Note, by the way, that this is the actual full copy of the email text which was already leaked, although the leak inaccurately quoted and paraphrased the email to suggest a cover up. The email is pretty clear- additional information in the talking points which isn't yet confirmed (all the stuff you see redacted in your National Review link) shouldn't be released until it can be verified and every effort needs to be made to avoid mis-information from being distributed. So again- what's the scandal? That the CIA and State Department go through several drafts of talking points before releasing the final version? You've been in politics. Did you not already know that happens all the time? Guess what- the draft of the State of the Union Obama gave is also not the same one he started with. I just gave you another huge scandal.

[Surfah]

I don't know why you guys bother with CaliCoug.

[il Padrino Ute]

I don't know why you guys bother with CaliCoug.

Agreed. There are some who aren't worth the effort it takes to mock their blind worship of an asshole. It took me a while to figure that out and I'm now better off.

[LA Ute]

Nobody disagrees that the draft was modified multiple times by State and the CIA. But so what? Which modification in particular gives you heartburn? Notice, again, that the key paragraph remains in each draft (including the first): "The currently available information suggests that the demonstrators in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post and subsequently its annex."

That is the same thing Obama said in his first press briefing (although he also referred to "acts of terror").

You can read the email discussing the reasoning for the edits here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ghazi-scandal/

Note, by the way, that this is the actual full copy of the email text which was already leaked, although the leak inaccurately quoted and paraphrased the email to suggest a cover up. The email is pretty clear- additional information in the talking points which isn't yet confirmed (all the stuff you see redacted in your National Review link) shouldn't be released until it can be verified and every effort needs to be made to avoid mis-information from being distributed. So again- what's the scandal? That the CIA and State Department go through several drafts of talking points before releasing the final version? You've been in politics. Did you not already know that happens all the time? Guess what- the draft of the State of the Union Obama gave is also not the same one he started with. I just gave you another huge scandal.

Cute-Chimpanzees.jpg

(You're not a monkey but your approach seems awfully similar. )

[calicoug]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2164[/ATTACH]

(You're not a monkey but your approach seems awfully similar. )

Feel free to respond with something substantive.

Conservatives are falling into a dangerous trap where the information they receive is based much more on a desire for scandal and salaciousness or reinforcing information than fact. In the process, facts are quickly discarded in favor of information that sounds better than reality. This was evident in the election with the polling and all of the "unskewed" news that conservatives latched onto (which ironically was just skewing data). It was evident when conservatives ran with the news that Hagel had contributed to Friends of Hamas (a story started by Breitbart based on a joke told by another reporter which Breitbart took seriously). It is evident here too.

What is the "scandal" with Benghazi? Conservatives like you are saying it is clear the administration knew this wasn't a spontaneous event from the beginning and lied about it (for what reason nobody really knows but conservatives are happy to offer a litany of increasingly paranoid reasons). The facts show the talking points began with language that the attacks were spontaneous and ended with that same language. Emails show they believed terrorists joined into the protests. That's what Obama said. Then it was corrected once more information was known. So again- what's the scandal?

[pellegrino]

Feel free to respond with something substantive.

Conservatives are falling into a dangerous trap where the information they receive is based much more on a desire for scandal and salaciousness or reinforcing information than fact. In the process, facts are quickly discarded in favor of information that sounds better than reality. This was evident in the election with the polling and all of the "unskewed" news that conservatives latched onto (which ironically was just skewing data). It was evident when conservatives ran with the news that Hagel had contributed to Friends of Hamas (a story started by Breitbart based on a joke told by another reporter which Breitbart took seriously). It is evident here too.

What is the "scandal" with Benghazi? Conservatives like you are saying it is clear the administration knew this wasn't a spontaneous event from the beginning and lied about it (for what reason nobody really knows but conservatives are happy to offer a litany of increasingly paranoid reasons). The facts show the talking points began with language that the attacks were spontaneous and ended with that same language. Emails show they believed terrorists joined into the protests. That's what Obama said. Then it was corrected once more information was known. So again- what's the scandal?

do you really think that if the truth of the Benghazi incident had come out from day one that it wouldn't have affected Obama's chances at reelection?

[Pelado]

Feel free to respond with something substantive.

Conservatives are falling into a dangerous trap where the information they receive is based much more on a desire for scandal and salaciousness or reinforcing information than fact. In the process, facts are quickly discarded in favor of information that sounds better than reality. This was evident in the election with the polling and all of the "unskewed" news that conservatives latched onto (which ironically was just skewing data). It was evident when conservatives ran with the news that Hagel had contributed to Friends of Hamas (a story started by Breitbart based on a joke told by another reporter which Breitbart took seriously). It is evident here too.

What is the "scandal" with Benghazi? Conservatives like you are saying it is clear the administration knew this wasn't a spontaneous event from the beginning and lied about it (for what reason nobody really knows but conservatives are happy to offer a litany of increasingly paranoid reasons). The facts show the talking points began with language that the attacks were spontaneous and ended with that same language. Emails show they believed terrorists joined into the protests. That's what Obama said. Then it was corrected once more information was known. So again- what's the scandal?

State knew there were no protests. Why didn't their input result in correcting the CIA's erroneous assertions?

[byu71]

do you really think that if the truth of the Benghazi incident had come out from day one that it wouldn't have affected Obama's chances at reelection?

I am not sure it would have changed the outcome, but it is obvious the press thought it could or would. Otherwise they wouldn't have made such an effort to cover his ass. Miss Candy Crowley looks like an absolute idiot right now. Even the Washington Post is now giving Obama pinochio's for claiming he called it a terror attack from the beginning.

Cali reminds me of myself back in the Nixon days. Only in the last couple of years have I come to the conclusion Nixon did something wrong.

[calicoug]

do you really think that if the truth of the Benghazi incident had come out from day one that it wouldn't have affected Obama's chances at reelection?

How would it have? Popularity generally increases following a terrorist attack. What leads you to believe announcing there was a terrorist attack at an American embassy would have been damaging to his reelection odds? Frankly, I think the path they followed was about the worst political path they could have selected if they were trying to game this.

[byu71]

How would it have? Popularity generally increases following a terrorist attack. What leads you to believe announcing there was a terrorist attack at an American embassy would have been damaging to his reelection odds? Frankly, I think the path they followed was about the worst political path they could have selected if they were trying to game this.

I agree with you. I think their arrogance got them and they didn't want to admit they hadn't stamped out terrorism. Then their incompetence took over and of course the press dutifully covered up their incompetence.

If they had called it what it was in the beginning, they would have probably been just fine. They remind me of Nixon. The cover ups were far worse than the actual event. Of course the press didn't cover his ass.

[pellegrino]

How would it have? Popularity generally increases following a terrorist attack. What leads you to believe announcing there was a terrorist attack at an American embassy would have been damaging to his reelection odds? Frankly, I think the path they followed was about the worst political path they could have selected if they were trying to game this.

cali, you're thinking like a moron now and it is causing me to wonder if you really have an objective thought in your head. If even half the truth about Benghazi had surfaced before October and the incompetency of the Obama administration been made clear then they would have been in big trouble. There is no way that he would have seen a bump in the polls for his reaction (or lack thereof) to the attack had Americans known the details about the attack and the administration's pansy ass response.

Instead, what happened? Romney was roasted for at least a week, possibly two for "jumping to conclusions" about it being a terrorist attack. Everyone but FOX was reporting it as some stupid protest that went bad. Nobody was talking about the lack of response, unless they were spinning it away. Don't forget that Romney also had his ass handed to him, not by Obama, but by Candy Crawley for bringing up Benghazi in the second debate. Romney was made to look like a fool for his analysis of Benghazi and Obama was portrayed as a hero for "keeping abreast of the situation" while fund-raising in Vegas.