Because you seemed to know what you were talking about, and I had no time to search for myself.
I think you’re taking what I’m saying as an attack. I think Behghazi is utterly trumped up nonsense, but I’m interested in the facts of the situation.
Since you don’t know, I’ll look it up myself when I get a chance.
I don’t know how to take it. If it’s not an argument, then I’m not sure whether it’s worth taking at all.
I do think the evidence that tends to point against the conclusion that the ambassador was responsible for the size of the security detail in Benghazi. For one, I seriously doubt that ambassadors get to make decisions on security details. Ambassadors are diplomats with no training or expertise in security matters, so they would presumably not be entrusted with making those life or death decisions. And if the ambassador was able to decide the size of his own security contingent, the ambassador would not have been forced to ask repeatedly for additional security, he could have just ordered it for himself.
Second, both the Pickering report and Obama have said that fault lies with the State Dept., not the ambassador. I have a difficult time conforming those conclusions with the idea that the ambassador was responsible for cutting his own security.
I also admit that I find it somewhat distasteful to blame the dead guy. While that may be distasteful, I guess it could also be fair. So let me know what you find.
I’ll also say that, while I think calling the murder of an ambassador and three other Americans “trumped up” is kind of mind boggling, I don’t think this is the type of scandal that should be compared to events like Watergate. The ultimate blame for the murders lies with the terrorists. If the Obama admin should have done more – and it appears that (almost) everyone agrees that they should have – then that’s a tragedy that those responsible will have to live with.
And if it turns out that the Obama admin did lie – and I think the jury’s still out on that one – then that’s shameful, but not exactly world shattering. But I will never, ever understand those who say that it doesn’t matter whether the Obama admin lied. I’m surprised that no one else jumped up and tried to distance themselves from it.
Victoria Nuland didn’t insert ‘Demonstrations’ and cross-out the word ‘attack’ into the drafts being circulated.
This is the text that Victoria Nuland requested revisions:
A bi-partisan committee is what is needed. One with full sopoena powers. The results may not satisfy any side but at least the truth will get out.
I don’t have much faith in bipartisan committees. They tend to arrive at watered down conclusions that are more the result of mediation between the two competing sides than reaching difficult conclusions. I tend to prefer independent processes – like media investigations – where people aren’t afraid to throw some mud. And I also have little faith in politicians.
I think the Pickering report – which I believe was sort of an independent analysis – was pretty good on the security issues. It made some pretty strict condemnations and arrived at some pretty strong conclusions, which have since been adopted by the Obama admin. (If I remember correctly, 4 people at State lost their jobs over this.)
I think it’s probably too much to hope for an independent or bipartisan committee to investigate whether someone in the Obama admin lied. If we started making bipartisan committees to investigate every time a politician was accused of lying, bipartisan committees would pretty quickly become America’s biggest industry. 
What on earth is the potential lie that the Obama Administration lied?
Read some of the prior posts in this thread.
It depends on which style of pizza they order.
I did; I’m not seeing what it is they supposedly covered-up.
Am I being trolled? Because in this post, you denied that the Obama admin lied, and suggested they were simply mistaken:
Did you not know what you were talking about when you posted that? You were just blindly suggesting that the Obama admin did nothing wrong without even knowing what they were accused of?
Or have completely forgotten those accusations over the past 2 days, and didn’t bother to read down to the 11th post in the thread?
What the hork are you talking about? I see no contradictions in what I said.
So what are they accused of lying about? Certainly not the nature of the attack; it is clear there were differing points of view from State, CIA and others; it is not a high crime or misdemeanor to change the talking points as information develops.
Certainly not the defense of the consulate; it is clear the attackers would have overwhelmed it, even if there had been reasonably more security. There is no way to defend all diplomatic posts against any and all conceivable attacks, especially with Republicans slashing security funding.
And certainly not the military response to the attack, which all experts agree would be too late to change the outcome.
You are just wrong on all counts.
You don’t see any contradiction in saying that you don’t know what they’re accused of lying about, and arguing that they didn’t lie?
You’re either not being serious, or your argument should not be taken seriously. Have fun.
I said what they are accused of does not constitute a lie. No contradiction.
OK, that opens a plausible window for “why?”. Benghazi was known to be in the center of an area much aligned with “insurgents” (for lack of a better word). And he depended upon his personal popularity to give him an opportunity to build bridges and connections.
And that answers one of my questions. If he wasn’t required to report his movements in advance, no one would have said that he couldn’t do it, too risky.
Yeah, that works.
But someone did. Your Atlantic Wire link shows that this happened from the Sept 14 12:23pm draft to the 4:42pm draft.
That link offers this general statement, implying that the State Dept. was responsible for the changes:
The link also says that beneath each draft version will appear comments that describe why a change was made and who requested it - but those comments don’t appear for me. Is it known who changed “attacks” to “demonstrations” ?
So this scandal is about… memos or something?
Not even that. I notice that Age Quod Agis hasn’t even commented on the fact that the email that blew the GOP up was a lie that the GOP itself told.
Don’t let *facts *upset your argument. Just pretend those facts don’t exist and start complaining about something else!
I disagree.
I’d be a little surprised if one could get elected president without being power-hungry.
Whether or not “liberal”, “elitist” and being from New York are bad depends on one’s political views (and how the first two terms are defined), though any of these elements seem self-evidently evil to at least some Americans.
What’s the ideal exact opposite of this? A meek humble fundamentalist high-school dropout from Wyoming?