Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
What "facts?" You're just a sheeple believing all the lies fed to you by the Man
!
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Et Tu, Petraeus?
- Thread starter STOVLer
- Start date
!Here's another piece of the interview, that you conveniently left out:
In any event, I'll quit wasting my time on this issue, since I know you'll spin the above quote, too.
The fact of the matter is that this issue is not going away any time soon. I'm not the least bit optimistic that the full truth will ever be revealed, but hopefully we'll get some answers about what did/did not happen. (I'm sure Oliver Stone is working on his screenplay as we speak.)
Man, good to know that so much time and effort is being spent on the video stuff.
ETA:
ETA:
Man, good to know that so much time and effort is being spent on the video stuff.
ETA:
That's the best you could do when confronted with the fact that the "video stuff," as you so eloquently put it, is the explanation we were originally presented with?
I was just going to let sleeping dogs lie, since, as you said, I'll just spin, but sure. I'm your huckleberry.
Let's look at the quote in context and then closely, shall we? Here's the whole thing, starting where Tapper changes gears to talk about "protests around the world" and ending when he starts talking about Egypt.
Now, the quote by itself:
Here is the smoking gun, right? Except she's talking about the widespread protests around the rim of Africa. Look at the rest of the remarks - they're not talking about Libya, they're talking about the region as a whole. Yes, she throws "Benghazi" in there, based on the information they had at the time. Later, when more information was available, they changed the assessment, which is exactly what they're supposed to do.
Am I missing something?
I am with you here. But if you think the conspiratorial types ran with the ball, just watch them now. Media that gave Benghazi scant attention will go all in now that it can be linked, if even tangentially, to a salacious sex scandal (and their guy's election is over). Conspiracies and sex, the stuff of too much of modern media.Agree. My frustration is with those who seem spring-loaded to believe in conspiracy when in all probability, it's the latter two. I don't think the press needs to stop asking questions - far from it, but when the answer is "we don't know yet," people shouldn't jump to conspiratorial conclusions. I know that's demanding a lot from the public these days, but hey.
Yes, why was anything said. Why didn't she stop when invoking the investigation excuse not to answer. It is the universal dodge when wanting to say nothing or needing to say nothing while appearing before cameras. Senior officials have all gotten the executive course on public relations. They know how to not answer questions and control the message. For God's sake, she is an ambassador. Debate is her stock and trade. Words are her weapons. And why Rice, the UN Ambassador? Where were the truly relevant State talking heads or White House mouth pieces. And why only her. She appeared on ALL the big Sunday shows. I can't think of the last time that happened, if ever. There are plenty of surrogates to get the word out. Add up to nothing? Maybe, probably. But if it doesn't bring up questions for the press or congress or ADM Mullin's investigation they are brain dead. You have questions or does all this just sound like business as usual to you? If it does you have set a very low expectation level for this administration. You pick, buffoonery, conspiracy or incompetence. It sure isn't top shelf public relations, diplomacy, damage control or politics.
If nothing is said, it's "stonewalling" and leaves the message out of your control.
Again, looking at the quote, the meat of it is not about the protests themselves, but about how the US government had nothing to do with the production of the video, which most decidedly was the catalyst for the protests.
Again, looking at the quote, the meat of it is not about the protests themselves, but about how the US government had nothing to do with the production of the video, which most decidedly was the catalyst for the protests.
There's alot more to this than the White House video nonscense. Why was there a consulate in Benghazi? What were all of those CIA assets doing there? Was a QRF spun up in Sigonella....then stood down and who made those calls?
There's most likely a logical explanation for all of this but State, DOD, WH and CIA have some explaining to do.
There's most likely a logical explanation for all of this but State, DOD, WH and CIA have some explaining to do.
I have and it does answer some. I have a buddy that works for the JPRA. I'm seeing the Who with him Tuesday. After a couple of drinks I'll try to get his take on it and not post it here.
What is playing out in public with the attack in Benghazi almost always happens behind closed doors at watch/crisis/ops centers when bad shit happens. You get the initial word, then often a trickle of info turns into a torrent. Often times it can take a few hours but sometimes days to figure out what happened, depending on what happened and how reliable the information is. You try your best to keep up with it and make good decisions but what may seem like a no-brainer at the time can turn out to be the right or wrong decision later down the road.
The intial information from the administration was not because they were trying to cover something up but because the folks whose job it is to figure out what happened were trying to figure it out at the same time the administration was speaking about it publicly. Ambassador Rice apparently publicly stated what was the early analysis at the time, that analysis obviously changed as more reliable information became available. The fact that she was on several programs was because she had the 'duty' that morning and as one of the senior foreign policy folks in the administration she was an appropriate official to address what happened at the time.
One thing that makes Libya unique is that we had a mix of forces in a country that is still teetering on anarchy in some areas. We have significant relations with the government and some militias/parties/factions that control much of the country but there are still large areas of the country where there is a vacuum. It is interesting to note that the main local rapid reaction force was a militia friendly to the US, I can't think of another place where we have a presence like we do in Libya where we rely on a militia to help with security. This unique mix of forces and the situation on the ground hampered and helped the reaction to the attack, the folks from the nearby 'annex' were able to react to the attack relatively quickly and save quite a few personnel but more conventional help, US military forces, were hours away and unprepared to react in time to a rapidly changing and fluid situation on the ground.
I think much of the reaction that sees a conspiracy is grossly uninformed as to what we as a country and a military can do and how fast we can do it. Hollywood would have you believe that we can call upon forces anywhere in the world and they can react at a moments notice to any crisis but as we know the reality is far different and some of the limitations were evident in Libya. The time from the start of the attack on the consulate to the final attack on the 'annex' was 2140 to 0400, a little more than six hours. That is barely time to sort out what is going on much less mount an effective military response with forces from Italy.
There are plenty of questions that have to be answered from should we have had a diplomatic mission in a often lawless part of the country to whether there was appropriate security in place for the consulate to begin with. But to suggest that those involved in the response to the attack didn't try to save fellow Americans in peril is nothing but conspiratorial blather from the ill-informed or those so blinded by hatred of the current administration they can't see reason.
"You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity" - Robert Heinlein
The intial information from the administration was not because they were trying to cover something up but because the folks whose job it is to figure out what happened were trying to figure it out at the same time the administration was speaking about it publicly. Ambassador Rice apparently publicly stated what was the early analysis at the time, that analysis obviously changed as more reliable information became available. The fact that she was on several programs was because she had the 'duty' that morning and as one of the senior foreign policy folks in the administration she was an appropriate official to address what happened at the time.
One thing that makes Libya unique is that we had a mix of forces in a country that is still teetering on anarchy in some areas. We have significant relations with the government and some militias/parties/factions that control much of the country but there are still large areas of the country where there is a vacuum. It is interesting to note that the main local rapid reaction force was a militia friendly to the US, I can't think of another place where we have a presence like we do in Libya where we rely on a militia to help with security. This unique mix of forces and the situation on the ground hampered and helped the reaction to the attack, the folks from the nearby 'annex' were able to react to the attack relatively quickly and save quite a few personnel but more conventional help, US military forces, were hours away and unprepared to react in time to a rapidly changing and fluid situation on the ground.
I think much of the reaction that sees a conspiracy is grossly uninformed as to what we as a country and a military can do and how fast we can do it. Hollywood would have you believe that we can call upon forces anywhere in the world and they can react at a moments notice to any crisis but as we know the reality is far different and some of the limitations were evident in Libya. The time from the start of the attack on the consulate to the final attack on the 'annex' was 2140 to 0400, a little more than six hours. That is barely time to sort out what is going on much less mount an effective military response with forces from Italy.
There are plenty of questions that have to be answered from should we have had a diplomatic mission in a often lawless part of the country to whether there was appropriate security in place for the consulate to begin with. But to suggest that those involved in the response to the attack didn't try to save fellow Americans in peril is nothing but conspiratorial blather from the ill-informed or those so blinded by hatred of the current administration they can't see reason.
"You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity" - Robert Heinlein
Well here is your answer, crazy chic was threatening the State Department rep to SOCOM. Federal employee getting threatened by someone = FBI involvement. For someone who is supposed to be wicked smart emailing whatever 'threats' she did wasn't the brightest of moves (maybe she couldn't find a pay phone?), of course you could say that about Petraeus as well.......
Found that out this afternoon (I think I posted it here). Also there's a story floating around that Petraes was sending on average 30 emails a day to the crazy chic after she broke things off.