Support NeoGAF

[Link]

Wow look at all of you. We have a few who think its ok for the woman who was in charge of the State Department at the time these men died to basically say she doesn't care why they died. It doesn't matter whether if it was a protest, like her department said, or whether that was a lie constructed in an attempt to shift blame away from her and her staff. So it's ok if that was a poorly constructed lie because nothing will bring those 4 men back? Why bother investigating at all then, since nothing we will learn will bring those guys back to life? Really?

You're taking her comment grossly out of context, but considering your ranting, that doesn't surprise me. She was saying the reason the building was attacked doesn't matter, what matters is that Americans were killed.

 

[UnlimitedRx]

They didn't lie though, they just didn't want to be brash. Who cares if they immediately called it a terrorist attack or not? Are we to assume that they knew every single detail of the attack immediately after it happened? This whole argument is so fucken stupid, I cannot stand it.

They blamed the attack on a YouTube video. They scrubbed information about previous attacks and threats in the days leading up to the attack. The YouTube video protest was a lie.

 

[Frank the Great]

It was ostensibly in response to the videos of misconduct by ACORN employees, though Republicans may have supported it because of the reason you claim. Even so, ACORN was at least accused of having done something wrong (not that this should be enough to warrant punishment), whereas the only thing the conservative groups targeted by the IRS did was include certain conservative-sounding terms in their applications. The IRS didn't have any reason to believe they were violating the tax code.

did congress return the funding to ACORN after it came out that the videos were faked? it was nakedly political.

i'm not saying the situations are exactly the same, i'm just saying that conservatives have not expressed concern about going after 501(c) organizations in the past for political reasons. again, similar to the benghazi/state department example, if conservatives were interested in protecting all non-profit groups from political interference, i would welcome that argument. but they are just butthurt that they were targeted this time and don't give a shit if 501(c) groups that help democrats are attacked for bullshit reasons.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Actually that is exactly what she said. She said what difference does it make whether they died because of a spontaneous protests where people "got out of bed and decided to kill Americans" or it was a coordinated attack. The difference is she and her department lied about why it happened.

What? No they did not. Please tell me how they lied and deceived america then had some huge coverup the likes of Watergate?

They blamed the attack on a YouTube video. They scrubbed information about previous attacks and threats in the days leading up to the attack. The YouTube video protest was a lie.

Nope, they said it was a possibility, but there was tons of miscommunication going on. They made a mistake and immediately corrected it... it was still the same day it happened!! You are being absurd.

 

[el retorno]

Actually that is exactly what she said. She said what difference does it make whether they died because of a spontaneous protests where people "got out of bed and decided to kill Americans" or it was a coordinated attack. The difference is she and her department lied about why it happened.

She was talking about the fact it doesn't matter for security. If we're trying to protect them it doesn't make a difference. Security would protect against all attacks whether they were protests or a terrorist attacks. She's not belittling the deaths.

 

[Frank the Great]

They blamed the attack on a YouTube video. They scrubbed information about previous attacks and threats in the days leading up to the attack. The YouTube video protest was a lie.

who cares though. it was corrected in a couple of days by the god damn president himself. where was the harm?

i did not see this outrage from conservatives when bush lied about WMDs. i wonder why.

 

[Particle Physicist]

i did not see this outrage from conservatives when bush lied about WMDs. i wonder why.

Because they are children, and they keep trying to create false contraversies in an attempt to "get back" at Democrats for being upset over all the crap Bush did. How many times throughout Obama's presidency have we heard garbage like, "This is Obama's 911!," "This is Obama's Katrina!," etc. Children, and horrible people.

 

[el retorno]

I really think that conservatives are digging for the equivalent of the perjury charge to impeach Obama

 

[Frank the Great]

Because they are children, and they keep trying to create false contraversies in an attempt to "get back" at Democrats for being upset over all the crap Bush did. How many times throughout Obama's presidency have we heard garbage like, "This is Obama's 911!," "This is Obama's Katrina!," etc. Children, and horrible people.

also, if the head of the state department was not the 2016 presidential favorite, you can be damn sure republicans wouldn't care as much about this.

 

[speculawyer]

Full quote from reality

"Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk last night who decided to kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator."

From Herp derpia:

Wow look at all of you. We have a few who think its ok for the woman who was in charge of the State Department at the time these men died to basically say she doesn't care why they died.

Why bother investigating at all then, since nothing we will learn will bring those guys back to life? Really?

Again, here is why we investigate:

It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.

It is amazing . . . you've been so mind-melted that you use her quote in the EXACT OPPOSITE of what she was saying.

 

[B-Dubs]

also, if the head of the state department was not the 2016 presidential favorite, you can be damn sure republicans wouldn't care as much about this.

That's the thing, they're after Hillary with this. Impeaching Obama would just be a bonus. If they get rid of Obama they'd be stuck with Biden, who is not only more liberal but knows how to play congress better. They don't want that, it's all about poisoning the well for Hillary.

 

[reggieandTFE]

The W administration went after labor unions ten times as hard as this IRS thing. Bush cut funding for every single regulatory agency in DC except for the one that looks at Unions. Unions were already held to a significantly higher level of accounting than any corporations or other similar non-profit organizations.

 

[PhoenixDark]

The IRS thing is worse than Benghazi IMO

 

[B-Dubs]

The IRS thing is worse than Benghazi IMO

That's because it's an actual thing.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Crazy how Benghazi truthers honestly don't give a fuck about the four people that died, they are only concerned with tearing down the administration.

 

[el retorno]

Full quote from reality


From Herp derpia:




Again, here is why we investigate:


It is amazing . . . you've been so mind-melted that you use her quote in the EXACT OPPOSITE of what she was saying.

Truth bombs

 

[Metaphoreus]

Essentially yes, but this strikes me as something of a false equivalency. The ACORN shit was ridiculous, but it was nakedly political and done by an obviously partisan body. I obviously don't approve of it, but Congress gonna Congress.

The IRS should absolutely not be engaging in politically-motivated anything. It is an important tool in the running of the government, and really needs to be politically neutral.

This is another good point, but I don't think you can characterize the defunding of ACORN as nakedly political. For Republicans, I think that's a likely characterization, but remember that the act also enjoyed the support of an overwhelming majority of Democrats in Congress.

 

[bonercop]

Wait, Glenn Greenwald is a Benghazi truther? The fuck?

Nah.

 

[Oblivion]

Crazy how Benghazi truthers honestly don't give a fuck about the four people that died, they are only concerned with tearing down the administration.

No, I think it's crazy that the Benghazi truthers DO give a fuck about the four people that died. In any other context, these dipshits wouldn't have given such an event a second thought. But because it deals with making Obama look bad, every single Fox News watching tea bagger is grieving as if they were all Chris Stevens' best friend from the very beginning.

This is another good point, but I don't think you can characterize the defunding of ACORN as nakedly political. For Republicans, I think that's a likely characterization, but remember that the act also enjoyed the support of an overwhelming majority of Democrats in Congress.

But that's cause they were all tricked by that stupid video.

 

[empty vessel]

And at no point did I say the administration wanted anyone to die. But they made very significant mistakes in both the immediate response and their public response in the days after. And then rather than tell people the truth, they tried to cover up what happened.

So they covered up the mistakes in their response and public response? That's not a big deal. I'm still more offended by the US presence in Libya in the first place. If conservatives would complain about meaningful things instead of relatively meaningless things, they could have my support.

I'm not a fan of Glenn Greenwald. He is basically the stereotype Blame-American-First person.

This is a ridiculous right-wing thing to say. Holding your government accountable is precisely what responsible citizenship is supposed to entail. Saying lazy things about people being "blame America first" is just utterly vapid.

 

[TacticalFox88]

So they covered up the mistakes in their response and public response? That's not a big deal. I'm still more offended by the US presence in Libya in the first place. If conservatives would complain about meaningful things instead of relatively meaningless things, they could have my support.



This is a ridiculous right-wing thing to say. Holding your government accountable is precisely what responsible citizenship is supposed to entail. Saying lazy things about people being "blame America first" is just utterly vapid.

If Conservatives complained about meaningful things they'd be considered liberals.

 

[el retorno]

This is a ridiculous right-wing thing to say. Holding your government accountable is precisely what responsible citizenship is supposed to entail. Saying lazy things about people being "blame America first" is just utterly vapid.

There is a difference between Holding accountable and saying everything is the US fault

 

[empty vessel]

There is a difference between Holding accountable and saying everything is the US fault

And it's utterly ridiculous on every level to refer to Greenwald as the latter. In fact, there is no such thing as the latter, with the possible exception of various "truthers." "Blame America First" is right wing bullshit that anybody with an ounce of sense should be ashamed of ever repeating, all the more so directed towards a respected constitutional lawyer like Greenwald.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I wasn't comparing the situations, I assume that is what Frank was talking about.

Oops, I didn't realize a different person had responded. My bad.

i'm not saying the situations are exactly the same, i'm just saying that conservatives have not expressed concern about going after 501(c) organizations in the past for political reasons. again, similar to the benghazi/state department example, if conservatives were interested in protecting all non-profit groups from political interference, i would welcome that argument. but they are just butthurt that they were targeted this time and don't give a shit if 501(c) groups that help democrats are attacked for bullshit reasons.

My point is that if the situations aren't comparable, then you can't draw the conclusion that you're drawing.

EDIT:

But that's cause they were all tricked by that stupid video.

The same could be said of the Republicans. It makes no difference.

 

[Trakdown]

Crazy how Benghazi truthers honestly don't give a fuck about the four people that died, they are only concerned with tearing down the administration.

How's that crazy? These were the same fuckers who called Obama a socialist kenyan muslim nazi colonialist and wouldn't believe his birth certificate if Jesus himself stapled it to their fucking foreheads. They've been trying to revoke his presidency since day one. Because, you know, they love America but not as much as they hate losing elections.

 

[el retorno]

And it's utterly ridiculous on every level to refer to Greenwald as the latter. In fact, there is no such thing as the latter, with the possible exception of various "truthers." "Blame America First" is right wing bullshit that anybody with an ounce of sense should be ashamed of ever repeating, all the more so directed towards a respected constitutional lawyer like Greenwald.

I agreed the term "blame america first" is a right wing creation. But the first response for Glenn is how do our behavior cause things nothing every seems to be their inherent ideology or actions.

 

[UnlimitedRx]

Full quote from reality


From Herp derpia:




Again, here is why we investigate:


It is amazing . . . you've been so mind-melted that you use her quote in the EXACT OPPOSITE of what she was saying.

Actually what she said makes no sense whatsoever. First of all, neither of the two ways she characterized the attack where accurate. It wasn't a protest and it wasn't just "guys out for a walk who decided to kill Americans". It was a premeditated terrorist attack carried out by a known group of Islamic extremists.

Also, how in one sentence can she say it doesn't matter what motivated the attack. Basically, she said what does it matter why they did it. And then in the next say "it is our job to investigate and prevent further violence. Well in order to do that, it helps to understand who attacked you and why. So it does make a difference. And all of that talk is pretty hypocritical after her department spent the first week lying about who carried out the attack and why they did it. (Again, they knew it wasn't a YouTube video protest and they knew it was a premeditated attack carried out by Ansar al Sharia before Susan Rice went out and misled the American people 6 weeks before an election.

 

[Oblivion]

The same could be said of the Republicans. It makes no difference.

Why do you think it makes no difference? One party desperately wanted what the video showed to be true. The other wanted to distance themselves from PP as quickly as possible.

 

[ViperVisor]

OK.

So you have a good idea of who did is behind it.

It makes sense to go on TV and point the finger at them?

I figure they are always ducking questions from the media. That is why there are talking points.

I mean jesus christ, mother fucking NFL coaches are never open and honest about injuries and won't say anything other than cliches.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Actually what she said makes no sense whatsoever. First of all, neither of the two ways she characterized the attack where accurate. It wasn't a protest and it wasn't just "guys out for a walk who decided to kill Americans". It was a premeditated terrorist attack carried out by a known group of Islamic extremists.

Also, how in one sentence can she say it doesn't matter what motivated the attack. Basically, she said what does it matter why they did it. And then in the next say "it is our job to investigate and prevent further violence. Well in order to do that, it helps to understand who attacked you and why. So it does make a difference. And all of that talk is pretty hypocritical after her department spent the first week lying about who carried out the attack and why they did it. (Again, they knew it wasn't a YouTube video protest and they knew it was a premeditated attack carried out by Ansar al Sharia before Susan Rice went out and misled the American people 6 weeks before an election.

Her point may have been poorly articulated but made sense. She was essentially saying that a witch hunt over who said what shouldn't be the focus: the focus should be investigating the crime and arresting or killing those responsible for the attack. I think it's ridiculous to suggest she doesn't care that four Americans died, that's not what she meant.

We agree the State Department lied about this, and the WH was involved. But that's where this "conspiracy" ends. The motive of the edited report was the CIA and State Department attempting to cover their asses. This was not some plan hatched by David Axelrod in the White House and given the green light by the president. And without the president you don't have a bigger scandal than Watergate. The end.

This is about spreading FUD and pre-emptively kneecapping Hillary's presidential run. The former has worked within a bubble(the far right), the latter will not work.

 

[UnlimitedRx]

Her point may have been poorly articulated but made sense. She was essentially saying that a witch hunt over who said what shouldn't be the focus: the focus should be investigating the crime and arresting or killing those responsible for the attack. I think it's ridiculous to suggest she doesn't care that four Americans died, that's not what she meant.

We agree the State Department lied about this, and the WH was involved. But that's where this "conspiracy" ends. The motive of the edited report was the CIA and State Department attempting to cover their asses. This was not some plan hatched by David Axelrod in the White House and given the green light by the president. And without the president you don't have a bigger scandal than Watergate. The end.

This is about spreading FUD and pre-emptively kneecapping Hillary's presidential run. The former has worked within a bubble(the far right), the latter will not work.

I couldn't care less about Hillary's run for President. But I don't think it helps her that this all happened while she was running the State Department. Her agency was more concerned with saving face than with being honest. And while that is a common theme in politics, when you get caught lying to cover your ass, it is supposed to hurt. Otherwise, what are the consequences for lying? All the people here who are all right with this are only inviting more of it. There have to be repercussions for straight up creating a false narrative about something serious like 4 dead Americans, especially when it happens that close to an election. Not impeachment obviously. But it should hurt your credibility with the American people. It bothers me more that people here are acting like its no big deal to be lied to. It is even worse when people refuse to admit there was any lie to begin with, even when it is staring them in the face.

 

[Stinkles]

Actually what she said makes no sense whatsoever. First of all, neither of the two ways she characterized the attack where accurate. It wasn't a protest and it wasn't just "guys out for a walk who decided to kill Americans". It was a premeditated terrorist attack carried out by a known group of Islamic extremists.

Also, how in one sentence can she say it doesn't matter what motivated the attack. Basically, she said what does it matter why they did it. And then in the next say "it is our job to investigate and prevent further violence. Well in order to do that, it helps to understand who attacked you and why. So it does make a difference. And all of that talk is pretty hypocritical after her department spent the first week lying about who carried out the attack and why they did it. (Again, they knew it wasn't a YouTube video protest and they knew it was a premeditated attack carried out by Ansar al Sharia before Susan Rice went out and misled the American people 6 weeks before an election.

You have great opinions about Benghazi and women's rights over their own bodies. You seem like a rational person.

 

[GaimeGuy]

I couldn't care less about Hillary's run for President. But I don't think it helps her that this all happened while she was running the State Department. Her agency was more concerned with saving face than with being honest. And while that is a common theme in politics, when you get caught lying to cover your ass, it is supposed to hurt. Otherwise, what are the consequences for lying? All the people here who are all right with this are only inviting more of it. There have to be repercussions for straight up creating a false narrative about something serious like 4 dead Americans, especially when it happens that close to an election. Not impeachment obviously. But it should hurt your credibility with the American people. It bothers me more that people here are acting like its no big deal to be lied to. It is even worse when people refuse to admit there was any lie to begin with, even when it is staring them in the face.

what you have is two independent agencies that can't get their PR straight tentatively until a full investigation is performed, not some elaborate conspiracy of a cover-up.

 

[UnlimitedRx]

You have great opinions about Benghazi and women's rights over their own bodies. You seem like a rational person.

I'm confused. Is this some weak attempt to attack me personally rather than debate the issue or are you being sincere. Subtlety isn't the internet's best feature. My opinions on abortion are far from extreme. Not that it has anything to do with this.

 

[GaimeGuy]

What's the issue? That there wasn't a consistent and accurate narrative/understanding of what happened in the immediate aftermath of the event?

 

[Stinkles]

I'm confused. Is this some weak attempt to attack me personally rather than debate the issue or are you being sincere. Subtlety isn't the internet's best feature. My opinions on abortion are far from extreme. Not that it has anything to do with this.

Anyone currently talking about Benghazi and Hillary as if it is a real thing is a conspiracy nut. The end. It's fucking lame and worse, it's a form of Swiftboating, only with less credence. It's FUCKING GARBAGE.


STOP FUCKING TALKING ABOUT IT AS IF IT IS REAL.


Four Americans died.
Scumbag terrorists killed them.
US agencies scrambled to identify and communicate and fucked that process up.


GO HOME TEA PARTY YOU ARE DRUNK.

You know why this never got traction? Because people understood it IN THE FIRST FUCKING PLACE.

The "insight" and "arguments" from the right are not even interesting. Never mind rational.

 

[UnlimitedRx]

What's the issue? That there wasn't a consistent and accurate narrative/understanding of what happened in the immediate aftermath of the event?

The issue is that they knew initially what this was and why it happened. They knew there had been threats in advance and requests for increased security. The original story included all of that information. Then the State Department emailed the CIA and expressed concern that that would send the wrong message. So they changed their story to include the stuff about the YouTube video and a protest out of hand. They removed information about Ansar al Sharia and Al Qaeda. They misled the public, essentially.

 

[Oblivion]

Obviously Hillary and Obama didn't care about the lives of Steven and the other 3 officers. For who better to show immense hatred to than your own underlings?

 

[UnlimitedRx]

Anyone currently talking about Benghazi and Hillary as if it is a real thing is a conspiracy nut. The end. It's fucking lame and worse, it's a form of Swiftboating, only with less credence. It's FUCKING GARBAGE.


STOP FUCKING TALKING ABOUT IT AS IF IT IS REAL.


Four Americans died.
Scumbag terrorists killed them.
US agencies scrambled to identify and communicate and fucked that process up.


GO HOME TEA PARTY YOU ARE DRUNK.

You know why this never got traction? Because people understood it IN THE FIRST FUCKING PLACE.

The "insight" and "arguments" from the right are not even interesting. Never mind rational.

Oh wow. The guy covering his eyes and screaming "it's not REAL!!!" is going to tell other people about being rational. Ok then.

 

[Particle Physicist]

The issue is that they knew initially what this was and why it happened. They knew there had been threats in advance and requests for increased security. The original story included all of that information. Then the State Department emailed the CIA and expressed concern that that would send the wrong message. So they changed their story to include the stuff about the YouTube video and a protest out of hand. They removed information about Ansar al Sharia and Al Qaeda. They misled the public, essentially.

1) Do you have proof that any of this happened?

2) it lasted one whole fucken day until they had a consistent message. Wow. Of all the things to pop blood vessels over.

This whole shit started because the unamerican Obama was apprehensive about immediately calling this a terrorist attack without further consistent information, and now it's become a complete witch hunt for political gain.

 

[GaimeGuy]

I just don't understand the outrage.

What were the consequences of this scandal? That we didn't know what happened until a day later?

I don't understand why there's such a huge outrage over a communication failure that occurred AFTER an attack. They didn't want to attach names to the attack until they were 100% sure. That's the responsible thing to do.

More people died of un-natural causes in the US in the time it took me to type this post than the # of people who died in the attacks.

 

[Oblivion]

The issue is that they knew initially what this was and why it happened. They knew there had been threats in advance and requests for increased security. The original story included all of that information. Then the State Department emailed the CIA and expressed concern that that would send the wrong message. So they changed their story to include the stuff about the YouTube video and a protest out of hand. They removed information about Ansar al Sharia and Al Qaeda. They misled the public, essentially.

See, this is what I thought the original complaint was about back in September: the idiotic right wing meme where Obama said that he's completely destroyed Al Qaeda forever, and that the shit at Benghazi would hurt that image. But didn't the White House mention Al Qaeda's involvement a few days afterwards?

Again, where's the scandal?

 

[PhoenixDark]

See, this is what I thought the original complaint was about back in September: the idiotic right wing meme where Obama said that he's completely destroyed Al Qaeda forever, and that the shit at Benghazi would hurt that image. But didn't the White House mention Al Qaeda's involvement a few days afterwards?

Again, where's the scandal?

It's also worth mentioning that the CIA apparently had an Ansar al Sharia hideout bugged and didn't want the group to find out, hence why they were slow to reveal that information; republicans essentially blew an under cover operation. They know the WH can't talk about all this stuff openly, and have used the silence to spread nonsense. That of course doesn't excuse the WH's poor handling of all of this or the State Dep lying about the video.

Interestingly, I wonder if the video might have been an attempt to hide the Ansar al Sharia bug. IE if the group believes the US thinks the video was responsible for the attack, they'd be relaxed and easier to catch. Godfather II style.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Why do you think it makes no difference? One party desperately wanted what the video showed to be true. The other wanted to distance themselves from PP as quickly as possible.

Because ACORN was targeted on the basis of the video. The fact that Republicans targeted them gleefully and Democrats targeted them pragmatically doesn't change the existence of a justification (meritorious or not) for the government's actions. What's more, because there appeared to be a justification, the failure of conservatives to respond as they have in the current scenario doesn't indicate a double-standard, which is my point.

 

[Stinkles]

Oh wow. The guy covering his eyes and screaming "it's not REAL!!!" is going to tell other people about being rational. Ok then.

fucking hell.

 

[Jooney]

And it's utterly ridiculous on every level to refer to Greenwald as the latter. In fact, there is no such thing as the latter, with the possible exception of various "truthers." "Blame America First" is right wing bullshit that anybody with an ounce of sense should be ashamed of ever repeating, all the more so directed towards a respected constitutional lawyer like Greenwald.

EV dropping truth bombs.

There was nothing in that Real Time video that Greenwald said that gave me pause. He is not a 'Benghazi Truther', but his point was that whenever the government says something that is non-factual, whether it is by error or by deceit, it should be investigated. That is not an unreasonable statement. The only retort to this is that they have already been investigations that have reached the highest levels (Hillary, Patreaus, Panetta, etc), but Glenn's wider point still stands.

His other comments were also on the mark. It is not "blame america first" to say that America's enduring, heavy footprint in the Middle East is a contributor to the instability and hatred that comes out of the region. He was right to clownslap Bill Maher attributing it solely to extremist Islam.

Greenwald is a speaker of uncomfortable truths - from civil liberties to drone strikes to military interventions, he speaks to keep the government honest. Writing him off as "blame america first" is silly, absurd, and shows a poor judge of character.

 

[Dram]

I always wondered how Republicans would have reacted if 9/11 happened on Al Gore's watch.

 

[GaimeGuy]

I always wondered how Republicans would have reacted if 9/11 happened on Al Gore's watch.

He would have been assassinated within the week "For the good of America"

 

[UnlimitedRx]

1) Do you have proof that any of this happened?

2) it lasted one whole fucken day until they had a consistent message. Wow. Of all the things to pop blood vessels over.

This whole shit started because the unamerican Obama was apprehensive about immediately calling this a terrorist attack without further consistent information, and now it's become a complete witch hunt for political gain.

Of course I have proof. Read the ABC story about the emails sent from the State Department. The talking points were edited 12 times prior to Susan Rice's appearances on the Sunday shows. All the things I mentioned were removed and the stuff about the video and protest was added.

 

[Stinkles]

Of course I have proof. Read the ABC story about the emails sent from the State Department. The talking points were edited 12 times prior to Susan Rice's appearances on the Sunday shows. All the things I mentioned were removed and the stuff about the video and protest was added.

What do you have proof OF?

That the State (and other departments and stakeholders) couldn't agree on messaging about a geopol crime for 24 hours?