“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” - Mark Twain
CMC
Why the fuck is this thread still active?
When was the last time there was a rational post that posited something nefarious or even mildly scandalous about the attacks? This has long ago slipped into conspiracy woo.
Starving Artist must post while taking fluids intravenously.
Bet’cha can’t post one lie I’ve ever told.
No one like you ever can. 
Well, at least you give attribution for that little crack, which is more than luci can sometimes say. 
I won’t take that bait to break board rules, but suffice it to say that there are whole threads about stuff you got wrong.
I don’t think you’re actually lying. But you repeat lies that you think are true.
You have a strong ideology and judge things that reinforce it as true, and things that contradict it as not true. Simple as that, really.
Talent borrows, genius steals.
Generally stuff I’m alleged to have “gotten wrong” is but merely someone’s opinion.
But be that as it may, my challenge was to John_Stamos’_Left_Ear. He’s the one who implied I was a liar…here in this forum not the Pit, now that you mention it. 
(But have no fear, John, I’m not in a tattling mood today.) 
Yeah, you and Steve Jobs…pirates in arms!
Still waiting on cool shit from you though. 
Well, as I said above, I temper that ideology with observation and experience, and both have taught me that Bill and Hilary Clinton both are lying, arrogant, obstinate, obfuscatory and evidence-hiding pieces of shit, and when Hilary suddenly comes up with a slip-and-fall concussion (without even the facade of hospitalization, no less, which once again might leave her vulnerable to exposure if the facts got out) five days before having to give testimony on a ticklish issue for the administration that she’s been giving every appearance of trying to avoid/postpone for at least two months now, I think I can be forgiving for suspecting that perhaps all is not on the up and up.
And vice versa.
Surely you people can’t quibble with my estimation of the Clintons?
Or the circumstances of this alleged injury, all of which appear, oh, so conveniently, to keep her out of the investigatory loop of the Benghazi inquiry while at the same time providing no verifiable or discoverable record as to whether or not this supposed injury which is serving to keep her out of it actually exists?
I’m not sure what “conspiracy woo” is. But there is plenty and more worth discussing about Benghazi.
It is beyond dispute, for example, that the administration’s early response to the incident, and especially the Susan Rice press tour, involved the knowing dissemination of false information (i.e., “spontaneous protest that was hijacked”). Even Susan Rice has now disavowed her earlier statements as inaccurate. We still don’t know why the statements were made in the first place, though.
It likewise is beyond dispute that on the number-one-red-letter-terrorist-day-of-the-year (“it was September 11 all over the world”), the United States either lacked a rapid-response force capable of reaching the Arab Spring nations or failed to deploy one when it was needed. Again, we still don’t know why.
I’m not calling either situation “nefarious” or “scandalous” yet, but the events slipped from the public radar before we, the public, were able to learn whether it was gross incompetence or something more. The longer the story remains buried, however, the more likely it is to reach beyond incompetence.
Some other points that have not been resolved:
[ul]
[li]Why security was so lax in a diplomatic mission in a hot zone. We can rule out it being solely the preference of the Ambassador - he affirmatively asked for more protection - but was the rest the status of the mission (and perhaps Chefguy or someone else with relevant experience can comment on the difference between a “consulate” (as the station was called originally) and a “diplomatic mission”) or the lack of time, or funds, or interest?[/li]
[li]The extent to which the US presence in Benghazi “diplomatic” at all, as opposed to being a CIA post?[/li]
[li]The reason(s) that the US has not “brought to justice” the perpetrators, who are well known. I mean, Wikipedia has a photo of the Ansar al Sharia trucks in mid-attack. The New York Times famously interviewed Abu Khattala casually chatting about the incident. [/li]
[li]How the “protest” fiction was created, and approved.[/li]
[li]Whether the US had any role in arming the militias and others who ultimately destroyed the compound.[/li]
[li]The extent to which the US was using its Benghazi presence to run a gun-smuggling operation for the benefit of Syrian rebels. [/li]
[li]The extent to which the attack was orchestrated by al Qaeda cadres outside of Benghazi, and the reason for the known presence of militants from other nations at the scene of the attack.[/li][/ul]
The largest question, of course, is the extent to which the Arab Spring fomented with US arms and encouragement will result in a stable, western-friendly, human-rights-recognizing region – and the extent to which it created a power vacuum into which autocrats even less savory than the ones we ousted will rise.
This isn’t, or shouldn’t be, a partisan issue. This is a question of how the US conducts itself, and protects its interests and those of others.
If Ms Clinton continues to have a series of “convenient” injuries, you might then have a point. As it stands, there is no reason to believe that this incident is anything other than what she says it is.
That one of them would fake an illness and injury, take time away from her job as Secretary of State, enlist a few doctors in the scheme to pretend to treat her at home, all to avoid testifying about a made-up scandal that she might just as well testify about in a couple weeks anyway?
No, who could possibly quibble with that.
Gotcha, not “scandalous” or “nefarious”, just “gross incompetence” or “something more”. Glad to see you’re keeping an open mind about it.
Buried, you think this story has been buried? The press has been yammering on about this for months.
If by “press” you mean “Fox”, I’d agree.
First one: Money, most likely; Congress has not approved adequate funding for security in many years. People are costly, and the Department has to weigh the danger against the cost. As it turns out, they were right about the embassy, and wrong about the consulate, though nobody could have predicted what happened. However, the CIA may have weighed in and asked that no more Americans be sent there because of the danger of a blown cover. Speculation. The diplomatic mission is the American diplomatic presence in the country, just as the AID mission is that organization’s presence in a country. The diplomatic mission consists of the embassy and any of its ancillary functions, including consulates in other cities. ALL Americans in country answer to the ambassador as senior American and the President’s direct representative, regardless of what agency they come from. At least in theory.
Second one: Will likely never be answered, as it falls under the heading of none of your fucking business and don’t make us knock on your door for asking. Obviously, there is a legitimate consulate there, with actual consular officers. The rest is speculation, although it’s known that there is a CIA station there.
[quote=“bbonden, post:194, topic:639384”]
…
[ul]
[li]Why security was so lax in a diplomatic mission in a hot zone. We can rule out it being solely the preference of the Ambassador - he affirmatively asked for more protection - but was the rest the status of the mission (and perhaps Chefguy or someone else with relevant experience can comment on the difference between a “consulate” (as the station was called originally) and a “diplomatic mission”) or the lack of time, or funds, or interest?..[/li][/quote]
[/ul]
Correct if mistaken, but I believe that Amb. Stevens requested more security for the Embassy in Tripoli. I admit that Benghazi is only a few hundred miles away.
Covert intelligence agencies are not in the habit of opening up storefronts with banners: “CIA Post Walk-ins Welcome” Hiding within entirely legitimate diplomatic missions is a standard procedure around the world. Which is to say, you are much more likely to have a diplomatic mission with no CIA operatives within, than a CIA office without such “cover”.
I don’t know how “casually” he was chatting, but any number of news sources has him denying it. Have you any proof?
Suspect In Libya Attack Denies Involvement
One of many such, easily available
What do you mean “role”? Have you even the slightest substance to offer in support of this insinuation?
Why in the name of all that is holy would anyone base a gun smuggling operation to Syria in Benghazi? Might as well wonder if the US Embassy in Belgium had something to do with it. What advantage does Benghazi offer? Why would anyone do that?
.
The known presence? Known to whom? And even so, so what? The place is full of turmoil, where would you expect them to be?
You got hands full of nothin’ much and a mouth full of maybe.