Gates Smacks Down Obama Critics

Gates served as Secretary of Defense under Bush when the President altered his Iraq policy

Gates served as Secretary of Defense under Bush when the President altered his Iraq policy

Gates was harsh on Republican critiques of the President, ridiculing the idea that we could have flown planes overhead so “apparently the noise” should scare them.   Not only would they be undeterred by noise, but Gates noted that given all the missing anti-aircraft weapons, it would have been a stupid decision.

Gates said that he would have made the same choices the President did, and defended former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.   There was no military alternative, he insisted; Republican critics that imagine some group could have been flown in on the fly have a “cartoonish” view of what military action is all about.

Of course.

There is no scandal around Benghazi except for the fact that some Republicans are shamelessly trying to use an attack on America to fish for some kind of partisan jab at the President.   Or perhaps they want to hurt Secretary Clinton’s chances to be elected in 2016.

We should come together to learn about what went wrong or right on a tragedy, but not turn it into a political partisan circus – something that the hearings last week obviously became.   With wild hyperbole (Sen. Jim Inholfe  R-OK, said it was worse than Watergate, Iran Contra and Clinton’s scandals) and claims of a cover up, they use noise and accusations to hide that they have nothing.   It is a fishing expedition designed for partisan purposes, nothing more.

The only claim they really have is that maybe some talking points right after the attack didn’t call it terrorism when they knew it was terrorism.  They claim it was to somehow protect Obama’s re-election campaign; but given how quickly he came out and labeled it terrorism and got the information out there, that’s a pretty lame argument.  It’s also one that has no traction.  In the early days after an event when so much is still uncertain, and when the Administration is weighing responses, there are limits to what you want to be public.

So they have that non-attack, absurd claims that the military could respond, smacked down by Secretary Gates who has served for both Obama and Bush, and who knows Obama’s character.

The bottom line is that many Republicans didn’t think Obama would be re-elected, they thought they’d have the Senate, and they don’t like how the media is focusing on how out of touch their message is right now.   As pragmatic Republicans try to wrestle power away from the extremists, many want to construct a scandal where none exists.  They hope to use that to weaken the President, take the public’s mind off both the pressing issues of the day and how dysfunctional a divided Congress has become.

It will backfire – it already has.   The story is old and despite all the hype FOX and the GOP are trying to create,  more columns are being written critical of the Republicans in Congress than the President.   It has given the late night hosts plenty to mock.   Jon Stewart skewered FOX for playing up the hype of yelling fire when there’s not even smoke!
But sadly, this circus is indicative of the political dysfunction that paralyzes the country as our problems mount.  Rather than recognizing that the attack was a tragedy that should bring us together and learn how to better defend our embassies, politicians search for partisan gain (and Democrats are not blameless, some claiming that Republican cuts to embassy security allowed the attacks).

This is why we can’t reach compromises and deal with the difficult issues facing the country.  It’s spectacle and posturing, rather than hard work and compromise.   It is a sign that our democratic institutions are starting to buckle at the hands of ideologues who don’t understand that the founders designed a system to inspire compromise.  They were divided t00 – the founders had a variety of different views, and they know that would always be true in a democracy.   They compromised, and created a system that requires compromise to function.

Thank you,  Secretary Gates for pointing out the absurdity of the charges being made.   I hope within the GOP leaders look at the lack of evidence of even a whiff of scandal and recognize that this absurd circus is hurting them, and that real issues facing the country need serious attention.

Advertisements
  1. #1 by jalal michael sabbagh.http://gravatar.com/jmsabbagh86@gmail.com on May 13, 2013 - 00:10

    l thought he is smarter than this nonsense.

  2. #2 by lbwoodgate on May 13, 2013 - 06:36

    ” Or perhaps they want to hurt Secretary Clinton’s chances to be elected in 2016.”

    This appears to be what Rand Paul has in mine when he recently stated that Hillary “wasn’t fit for public service”, supposedly based on how she handled the Benghazi issue

  3. #3 by thenewamericanlondoner on May 13, 2013 - 15:00

    Amen, brother. What a marvelous read, Scott. I enjoyed it and it reassured in me the constructive sensibility at work in the homeland right now.

  4. #4 by Girl for Animal Liberation on May 13, 2013 - 16:26

    Hi there! I have nominated you for the Shine On Blog Award. Do with it what you will. http://girrlearth.com/2013/05/13/receiving-and-giving-the-shine-on-blog-award/
    -Best,
    Girl for Animal Liberation

  5. #5 by Girl for Animal Liberation on May 13, 2013 - 16:40

    Your blog is always so very educational. 🙂
    Hope you are well. Me? Not so much but can’t say here. If you had a “contact me” I’d dump it all out. LOL!

  6. #6 by SShiell on May 14, 2013 - 19:26

    Benghazi? Take a little stroll down memory lane to review the bidding on Watergate, Iran-Contra, and Monica and other infamous scandals and you will see the same formula – The media accepted the Administrations lies – hook, line and sinker (even from Nixon) – except for one media outlet who stuck with the story like a pit bull. With Watergate, it was famously the Washington Post. Until one event shook the Fourth Estate from their lethargy – when the media determined they had been lied to and they were complicit by repeating the lie as truth.

    Obama and his minions lied about Benghazi. Why? Pick your poison as to the reason – to save the Administrations narrative regarding “Bin Laden is dead and Al Qaeda is on the run” or to save Hillary’s ass or whatever you want it to be – they lied.

    But now a whole new host of problems are now surfacing for the Obama folks to deal with – new allegations involving the IRS, the Associated Press phone records, EPA penalties and Kathleen Sibelius all hitting the sheets at the same time, Benghazi may slip from the headlines only because of the accumulated weight of these other allegations and (Gasp!) Administration admissions and apologies (Can we spell I-R-S?). And these are not actions brought on by outside forces reflective of the arrogance of power. These are such self-inflicted wounds that even the ACLU is repelled by the gangrenous stench.

    Benghazi? Old news. Will it wither on the vine – we’ll see. Gates? Yawn!

    In any event, pass the popcorn, the real show is just beginning!!!!

    • #7 by Scott Erb on May 14, 2013 - 20:56

      Except no one can report to any lie of any substance. I know you want these to become big scandals, but little is there. Personally I think the IRS was right to focus on the filings of new political groups claiming to be tax exempt – and they should do so if they are related to the Democrats too. Too many political groups abusing the tax system, I’d put them ALL under scrutiny!

      • #8 by SShiell on May 14, 2013 - 21:22

        Even Ressler over at the Washington Post gave the President “4 Pinnochios” for lying about when he called the attack at Benghazi a terrorist act.

        Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-he-called-benghazi-an-act-of-terrorism/2013/05/13/7b65b83e-bc14-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html

        So much for your “Except no one can report to any lie of any substance.”

        And as far as the IRS is concerned, it doesn’t matter if you would put them “ALL under scrutiny!” They didn’t!!! They purposely singled out conservative groups. That is called abuse of power no matter what political party is in power!

      • #9 by SShiell on May 14, 2013 - 21:42

        And as a further follow-up. From today’s Morning Joe show(MSNBC!!!!!):

        National Journal’s Ron Fournier, who covered the Clinton and Bush scandals and was once the AP Washington bureau chief, said on the show: “And it goes beyond even the story. One common thing with Benghazi and the IRS scandal, is we’re being misled every day. We were lied to on Benghazi, on the talking points behind Benghazi, for months. We were lied to by the IRS for months and now they’re sending a clear message to our sources: Don’t embarrass the administration or we’re coming after you.”

        Source: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/dc-turns-on-obama-91386_Page2.html#ixzz2TKCyUcNd

        So you still stand by your “Except no one can report to any lie of any substance” statement? Well, to paraphrase our fearless leader “There is lots of there, there!”

  7. #10 by Scott Erb on May 14, 2013 - 22:33

    That’s all you have for a scandal. Obama saying he called it terrorism earlier than maybe he did? The timing of when he used terrorism to describe this – by a few days – is the stuff of scandal? I am ROFLMAO! Seriously, SShiell, Seriously? You have nothing scandalous there. I still see nothing but a party in decline, whose views are increasingly rejected by the next generation, trying to construct scandals because they enjoy that more than working with the Democrats to compromise and find solutions to problems.

    You’re not giving me anything concrete – just vague claims and innuendo. Concrete should be clear. Put it in a sentence or two. Say why it is significant. Otherwise, I think Robert Gates very correctly put the GOP in its place on Benghazi – and Gates is a Republican!

    • #11 by SShiell on May 14, 2013 - 23:12

      You said “no one can report to any lie of any substance.” He LIED. When the lies concern brave Americans who died serving on foreign soil, it means something to me. To you, it seems not so much.

      You see a “party in decline” – good for you. And it may even be true but so what? What matters is I see a party in power full of arrogance and hubris who will sic IRS and EPA dogs on groups whose sin against nature was beliefs other than their own. That’s the kind of government you want? Well it looks like you/we got it!!!

      The framers of the Constitution feared the rampant power of government – try reading the Federalist Papers. I remember the 60s (long before you were a gleam in your father’s eye) when the left screamed to all within hearing NEVER to trust the government. And that was with a Democrat (LBJ) in the White House! How things have changed.

      As far as “vague claims and innuendo”, the words you refer to are not my words, but those of the Washington Post and the Associated Press. I showed you their words and gave you links to see for yourself. You don’t like what they said, take it up with them.

      Gates spoke of actions taken or not taken the night of the attack on Benghazi. I can’t argue with his assessment, nor did I comment on his statements. He wasn’t there. And his clearance died when he left the office. So he can only state what he would have done knowing what you and I are aware of. He has an opinion – he also has an anatomical section of his body similar to my own. You put a lot of stock in what he says – I don’t. You also seem to put a lot of stock in Gates being a Republican – LOL – well so was Nixon.

      • #12 by Scott Erb on May 15, 2013 - 05:57

        I still don’t see a lie, and I certainly don’t see a scandal (what to see what real lies look like – look at the Bush Administration before Iraq and Gates’ quote above). You here have a quibble over when something was publically said. That’s nothing in politics. Given the disasters and dishonesty of the Bush administration, I find it hilarious that the GOP wants to try to quibble over timing of when a word was used (which in the confusion of events and the need to keep secrecy is normal) to try to fantasize a scandal. There is nothing there – it’s the GOP shamelessly trying to use a national tragedy for political purposes. It will backfire – and already is as CNN is blowing huge holes in the GOP story – seems the leakers on Benghazi and their GOP supporters….lied.

      • #13 by SShiell on May 15, 2013 - 06:28

        “I still don’t see a lie”

        First – Maybe we are talking semantics here. Could be your definition of a lie is different than my own. I was raised to believe that when someone purposely does not tell the truth, it is a lie. Maybe your liberal education taught you something different.

        Second – We are not talking about the Bush administration. What they did then has nothing to do with what is occurring today.

        Third – “Methinks he doth protest too much.” You are trying way too hard to defend what you say is nothing. But then you have been carrying Obama’s water for some time and habitually parrot Democrat talking points as gospel in other forums. (“30 pieces of silver” ring a bell, Erb?)

        Bottom line and my final word on this line of comments – To you this is nothing – that does not mean it HAS TO BE NOTHING to me.

  8. #14 by Scott Erb on May 15, 2013 - 06:42

    No President has ever not had moments when he lied, often because of secrecy concerns. Unless there is something nefarious, that’s not an issue – and of course if in his mind he always considered it terrorism – he labeled that early – he may have thought he used a word earlier. But its unimportant. You have nothing of substance. I love how you try to simply push the Bush administration away, but given how insignificant Obama’s possible misstatement (and possibly not) is, compared to the myriad of lies from Cheney, Bush and others, the fact that people who defended Bush on that try to quibble with Obama on this is important. It will be brought up to mock those attacking Obama at every turn. That’s why this is a net loser for the GOP. There is no scandal. There is no lie, even if Obama was wrong about the timing of when he used a word, there is no substance or consequence. It’s trivial. It can mean something to you, I’m just noting that I think it is dishonorable for the GOP to use a national tragedy as a partisan fishing operation with circus hearings that we now learn from CNN was based on fantasy.

    • #15 by SShiell on May 15, 2013 - 10:43

      So the White House leaks one e-mail to Jake Tapper at CNN that supposedly makes all this go away??????

      LOL!!!

      ABC’s response, “The White House has refused multiple requests to release the full email exchange, which would clear up the confusion.”

      Yeah, boy I am glad all that fantasy thingee got cleared up!!!!

      LOL!!!!!!

      • #16 by Scott Erb on May 15, 2013 - 12:18

        Yawn. Can you succinctly tell me what Obama said that was a lie. In one sentence, what exactly was his alleged lie? Don’t quote others, just tell me directly what you think his alleged lie was.

  9. #17 by Scott Erb on May 15, 2013 - 16:24

    Also note: the CNN story debunks ABC, it gives a full e-mail, the ABC “leak” was an altered version. This really takes away the credibility of the ABC report. Did they know the leaker had altered the e-mail? Was the GOP in on that? There maybe should be an investigation as to whether the GOP is abusing a national tragedy for political purposes through lies. (Not really, but that’s the kind of logic dominating these days): http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/14/cnn-debunks-abcs-benghazi-scoop-with-new-email-evidence/

  10. #18 by SShiell on May 15, 2013 - 16:38

    “Don’t quote others, just tell me directly what you think his alleged lie was.”
    You want them – Read ’em and weep:

    Statements by Obama

    “You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character who is extremely offensive video directed at Mohammed and Islam. We had nothing to do with the video.”
    Obama on 12 September 2012

    “What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”
    Obama in a speech on 13 September 2012

    18 September 2012 – On the Letterman Show (From the Transcript)
    “Here’s what happened. … You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character who — who made an extremely offensive video directed at — at Mohammed and Islam –“
    “Making fun of the Prophet Mohammed. And so, this caused great offense in much of the Muslim world. But what also happened, extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the one, the consulate in Libya.”

    20 September on Univision
    “What we’ve seen over the last week, week and a half, is something that actually we’ve seen in the past, where there is an offensive video or cartoon directed at the prophet Muhammad. And this is obviously something that then is used as an excuse by some to carry out inexcusable violent acts directed at Westerners or Americans.”

    25 September 2012 at the United Nations:
    “That is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video, sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.”
    “I know there are some who ask, why don’t we just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws. Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.”

    But just to add insult to injury, here are comments made by a myriad of other Administration Spokespersons

    Statements by Hillary Clinton:

    “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior along with the protest that took place at our embassy in Cairo yesterday as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”
    12 September 2012

    “To address the video circulating on the Internet that has led to these protests.”
    13 September 2012

    Statements by Susan Rice:

    “Our current best assessment based on the information we have at present is that in fact what this began as was a spontaneous, not a premeditated, response to what had transpired in Cairo.”
    16 September 2012 – Meet the Press

    “Was a violent protest outside of our embassy sparked by this hateful video.”
    16 September 2012 – Face the Nation

    “But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo.”
    16 September 2012 – ABC’s “This Week”

    “The information, the best information and the best assessment we have today is that in fact this was not a preplanned, premeditated attack. That what happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video. People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent and those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya and that then spun out of control. But we don’t see at this point signs this was a coordinated plan, premeditated attack.”
    16 September 2012 – Fox News Sunday

    Statements by Victoria Nuland (State Department Spokesperson)

    “We can all condemn this reprehensible video.”
    19 September 2012 – State Department Daily Briefing

    Statements by Jay Carney:

    “Find the video that has been so offensive to Muslims to be disgusting and reprehensible.”
    14 September 2012 – Daily Press Briefing

    “And it is in response, not to United States policy, not to obviously the administration, not to the American people. It is in response to a video.”
    14 September 2012

    “Let’s be clear. These protests were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region.”
    14 September 2012

    Sorry, I couldn’t keep it to one sentence!

  11. #19 by Scott Erb on May 15, 2013 - 17:22

    None of this is about the raid! I saw the Letterman clip. He said the protests were caused by the video (which they were) and that extremists used that as an excuse to engage in terrorism. NOT ONE of those statements is a lie!

    There were protests all over about the video and we condemned it – as well they should have. Have you forgotten that. Your “examples” are so bad as to prove that you know you don’t have a case. Give me one clear lie by the President. Provide it! You can’t! You know you can’t!

    You embarrass yourself with those quotes, all of which are true. Now, again I challenge: PROVIDE ONE LIE Obama said. You can’t, can you. Just one. (Gotcha!)

  12. #20 by Scott Erb on May 15, 2013 - 17:25

    By the way, I applaud your ability to use the old lawyers trick – when you have no case you throw out a whole bunch of stuff that is irrelevant and hope that people just assume there must be something in there. So again, ONE example. ONE. That is your challenge. Clear, concise, ONE example of an Obama lie. I challenge you.

    By the way, you realize on the first statement after the attacks Obama said the US won’t let terrorism deter us.

  13. #21 by SShiell on May 15, 2013 - 19:49

    Since you brought up Letterman, let’s go to the transcript:

    LETTERMAN: Now, I don’t understand, um, the ambassador to Libya killed in an attack on the consulate in Benghazi. Is this an act of war? Are we at war now? What happens here?

    OBAMA: Here’s what happened. … You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character who — who made an extremely offensive video directed at — at Mohammed and Islam —

    LETTERMAN: Making fun of the Prophet Mohammed.

    OBAMA: Making fun of the Prophet Mohammed. And so, this caused great offense in much of the Muslim world. But what also happened, extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the one, the consulate in Libya.

    Additionally, here is his exchange with Univision co-host Maria Elena Salinas on September 20 (from the transcript):

    SALINAS: Before we start, before talking about education and its future, we would like to talk about something that is happening right now in recent news. As we know, at the present time, 1,000 people are trying to get into the embassy in Pakistan, and we have seen protests, anti-American protests in thousands [sic] of countries.
    We know in Libya, four Americans were killed. We know now that Ambassador Chris Stevens warned about security days before he was killed. Many people want to know whether — if you expected so much anti-American sentiment in the Islamic world. And why wasn’t your administration better prepared with more security at our embassies on September 11?

    OBAMA: Well, first of all, obviously we mourn the loss of the Americans who were killed in Benghazi. But I think it’s important to understand that that’s not representative of the attitudes of the Libyan people towards America, because they understand because of the incredible work that our diplomats did as well as our men and women in uniform, we liberated that country from a dictator who had terrorized them for 40 years. And Chris Stevens, the ambassador there, was one of the leaders of that process. So when he was killed, there were vigils in Libya but also in front of the White House expressing the deep sorrow that the Libyan people felt towards them.
    What we’ve seen over the last week, week and a half, is something that actually we’ve seen in the past, where there is an offensive video or cartoon directed at the prophet Muhammad. And this is obviously something that then is used as an excuse by some to carry out inexcusable violent acts directed at Westerners or Americans.

    In both cases, the questioner specifically asked about the attack in Benghazi.

    The money quote is from Letterman: ” . .extremists and terrorists used this (previously referenced video) as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the one, the consulate in Libya.”

    Both instances Obama blamed the video for the attack.

    You challenged, I responded. In your own words, GOTCHA!!!

    Now to end this, you will still call me out for having done something wrong somehow or other, violating some rule of debating or some other such sh*t – Quit whining. Obama lied. Admit it. Just say it out loud, “Obama lied.” It’s easy, and even more, it’s true. And in the back, front or whatever part of your meager little mind, you can console yourself by saying, “But it doesn’t matter! All politicians lie.” Or you may even go on your favorite rant “But Bush was worse!!!”

    LOL!!!

    Now that’s my last word on this thread. Now if you want to talk about the IRS . . . .

  14. #22 by Scott Erb on May 15, 2013 - 19:56

    You can’t do it, can you? Not one succinct lie. The Letterman interview he talks about the protests, but then separates out the extremists noting they want to do harm anyway, you cut that part off. If you watch the whole interview it’s absolutely clear he is NOT blaming the attack on the video! Convenient where you snipped it.

    What’s telling is you can’t give an example of a lie. You post a bunch of stuff talking about other things – the protests, and then try to pretend he’s lying. Point to one lie above. I challenge you. Post a clear lie, not a long discussion of the protests, because of course Obama talked about the protests and the video.

    You can’t! There is no lie! The more you protest and try to post long long snippets, the more you show that you have nothing. Your claim that Obama lied is a LIE. You lied.

  15. #23 by SShiell on May 15, 2013 - 20:41

    Boy Erb, you have outdone yourself!!! You’re right – I lied. This is really my last word. Ready for it? Here goes.

    You can go back to your Democratic Masters and tell them you really earned your 30 pieces of silver today.

    Laugh all the way to the bank. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  16. #24 by Scott Erb on May 15, 2013 - 21:10

    Just a short snippet – A direct quote from Obama which is a lie. That’s all I’m asking. Concise, clear, not surrounded by a lot of verbage, but an obvious clear lie. That’s all I’m asking you to provide.

  17. #25 by Alan Scott on May 15, 2013 - 21:52

    Scott,

    Two weeks after the attack the Administration was still blaming the video. It makes no difference whether Hillary or Obama ordered the deception. If they were aware of it, that’s what matters. If you say they weren’t then they are more stupid than Foxnews who had the right story with in a few days. If you have a third option, I’m listening.

    • #26 by Scott Erb on May 15, 2013 - 22:13

      No, very shortly after the attack the administration labeled it an act of terror. You are wrong. Again, I challenge you: post a concise clear statement that is a lie. No one has been able to do it. Because Obama didn’t lie. One statement that is clearly a lie. A few lines long, that’s all I ask. Not a bunch of quotes about other things – but a clear, obvious lie. If it’s there, you can post it.

  18. #27 by Alan Scott on May 16, 2013 - 06:38

    Scott,

    You asked for a statement. Okay . Susan Rice saying that the Benghazi attack was a spontaneous response to what happened in Cairo a few hours earlier. Was that not an obvious untruth? When she said that, the Administration had to know the evidence did not support it. Her bosses had to know it. If they allowed it and did not immediately correct her, then it is the same as if they sent her. Hillary and President Obama talking about ” this disgusting video “, which had nothing to do with the attack. Why did they keep speaking about it, if not to add credence to Susan Rice’s talking points?

    You set the burden of proof extremely high. This Administration says a lot of things. I ask you, what did they emphasize? Are you really telling me they did not mean to deceive the public? Are you saying there is no pattern of burying this story to get through the election? Are you saying they did not intimidate witnesses?

  19. #28 by Scott Erb on May 16, 2013 - 06:50

    You said Obama lied, not Rice. As for whether Rice lied, it depends on what Rice believed at the time. She could have been wrong. Many people concluded early on it was terrorism, but they didn’t want to say anything definitive until all the information was analyzed — there were some who early on thought it was about the video. That’s why Obama’s Letterman interview shows my point: he said there were a lot of people angered by the video, but the extremists used that as an excuse for what they wanted to do anyway. He was separating out the two.

    Rice was hurt by that mistake, not getting Secretary of State. But if you want to quibble about things staff members say at press conferences — when Obama clearly labeled it terrorism very quickly — that’s really nothing. I’m just amazed by the Republican hypocrisy — all the stuff that the Bush Administration did in the run up to Iraq was defended by the GOP, but here it’s like an argument about what the definition of “is” is. Obama talked about terrorism in his first statement, and the administration once they got all the information and analyzed it concluded publicly that it was indeed terrorism. Quibbling about wording of staff members say right after the event … I mean, don’t you see how silly that looks? Worse, it looks like playing word games to try to gain partisan advantage of a national tragedy.

  20. #29 by Scott Erb on May 16, 2013 - 08:38

    Here’s a snippet of a report about the e-mails:

    “What stands out from the 100 pages of email is just how little the U.S. intelligence community actually knew about the Benghazi attacks during the development of the talking points. One email for example from an official at the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) dated September 15 says, “As time progresses, we are learning more, but we still don’t have a complete picture of what happened.” The same email goes on to say, “At this point, we are not aware of any actionable intelligence that this attack was planned or imminent. The intelligence community is combing through reporting from before and after the attack to determine the full extent of who was involved.”

    Cite: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/15/inside-the-latest-benghazi-emails-no-one-knew-much-of-anything.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=cheatsheet_morning&cid=newsletter%3Bemail%3Bcheatsheet_morning&utm_term=Cheat%20Sheet

    That reinforces the idea it took them awhile to figure out what was happening.

  21. #30 by Alan Scott on May 16, 2013 - 12:27

    Scott,

    I am willing to give Susan Rice the benefit of the doubt. She was following orders. I am not willing to give Hillary or Obama the same courtesy. Again if they knowingly allowed her to give out misleading information, that is the same as ordering her to do it.

    I take it that you do not believe Mr. Hicks testimony regarding how he was chastised by his boss Beth Jones for daring to question why wrong information was being put out about Benghazi? I take also it you do not believe he was demoted for this? I believe this man voted for Obama, twice. He was no Obama hating right wing Bush leftover. Maybe nobody in Washington wanted to know what he knew, which is maybe why they were supposedly so confused.

    • #31 by Scott Erb on May 16, 2013 - 12:42

      I never believe one side of a dispute, and I suspect it’s complex. But that’s down the food chain a bit. As the article up there notes, there was a lot of disagreement at the top about what happened for days. Things like that happen all the time, and disgruntled employees may try to hurt their superiors. But that’s a far cry from some big scandal. It looks more like a fishing expedition. And the thing is, with all the information that’s been released, if something big existed it would be easily graspable and clear.

  22. #32 by Scott Erb on May 16, 2013 - 14:36

  23. #33 by Alan Scott on May 17, 2013 - 18:18

    Scott,

    The one common thread in all of these scandals is the lack of accountable individuals. If the Obama Administration is truly innocent they have to stop dragging their collective feet and give the committees some names. This collective blame game where no one is guilty will only hurt them.

    • #34 by Scott Erb on May 17, 2013 - 18:54

      On Benghazi I’m convinced there’s nothing there, beyond the fact the CIA was confused for about five days and unsure what was happening (and that’s not Obama’s fault). On the IRS they are investigating and already some people are being held accountable. It’s routine, no big scandal.

  24. #35 by Alan Scott on May 17, 2013 - 22:56

    Scott,

    Your record of prediction at least by the last election is far better than mine, but I believe you are mistaken, most especially with the IRS incident. President Obama may be able to keep the blame off of himself, but an awful lot of people at the IRS will have to tell a better story than their boss just told to the investigating committee. His firing just before his retirement was meaningless.

    Politically this is bad for Obama-Care. The IRS is a main part of the enforcement and Republicans were just handed a lot of ammunition to bash the agency with. Even the press is in a sour mood over the AP story. I actually don’t care about that so much, but it most likely hurts the Administration directly more than the other two.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: