All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!

[Hanson724]

Judicial Watch sued to get the redactions elimininated. Not all the emails/documents were un-redacted, but the ones that were showed a clear attempt by the White House AND Pres. Obama's re-election staff to change the narrative on the attack. They willingly lied to us (using Susan Rice- who I think was a dupe in this) and then continued to cover it up by redacting non-secretive emails/documents. They thwarted Congress by refusing to give them the unredacted memos showing this, and it took a judge to force them to do this YEARS later. All for the glory and re-election of Pres. Obama.

Hopefully this will torpedo Hillary"What difference does it make?" Clinton from running. Thats why that story about her hating the press came out yesterday to make it look like the media has it out for her. If " What difference does it make?" is her take on 4 people getting killed , they should go after her.

[Puppetmaker Grae]

And in Bundy's case specifically, he's not going to start paying tax if the state owns the land. He might not even "believe in" the state, not with his only-the-county-sheriff views.

I bet he'd quickly stop believing in the county if the land was given to it by the Feds.

[CenturianSpy]

So what exactly would have caused President Obama to lose his reelection campaign here? Maintaining the same level of protection for our embassies as every one of his predecessors in office? Didn't seem to hurt anyone before him. Being in office while one of our embassies was attacked? Reagan coasted to reelection after the attack in Beirut.

We can't possibly know what effect the truth of what happened in Benghazi would have had on the election (probably very little). What we do know is the White House and Obama's re-election committe conspired to change the narrative, then covered it up, and now are being dismissive of what they did. If the White House and Obama re-election staff DIDN'T think it would harm their chances, they wouldn't have pulled all these hijinks.

Or is this really a pathetic attempt by those on the right to drum up any kind of controversy they can, despicably using the deaths of our diplomats for political gain, in the absence of any real controversy? The truth is the economy was improving and the administration was making gains in their foreign policy (even if you ignore the death of Bin Laden). The Republican's best chance at taking the President down was attacking the ACA and they chose the worst possible candidate to do that.

This was a last-ditch effort to sling mud at the President that failed, and only continues because they still have no legitimate arguments or controversies other than traditional partisan differences. Well, this and trying 50 times to kill the ACA.

Or the argument: The White House/State Dept were warned this would/could happen, did nothing to prevent it (actually told forces NOT to help)/was too inept to stop it, and then duped the American public using Susan Rice into making the attack all about a video. I find the ignoring/minimizing of memos that warned the White House/State Dept of an attack, the failure to help during the attack, the concerted misdirection after the attack, the cover-up and thwarting of Congress during the investigation, and the fact that it took a private concern suing the Govt. to get non-redacted memos/emails/documents into the public's view to be what is "pathetic".

My main argument against reverting control back to states (and the reason I oppose most states rights arguments) is that this is exactly what large multinational corporations want. It's much easier and cheaper to manipulate local and state governments to roll back regulations, sell land for development that would better serve the population undeveloped, and generally get their way than it would be if they had the Federal Government to contend with. Divide and conquer.

There is NO larger multinational corporation than the US Federal Govt. and just like a state government, it only takes one powerful special interest group to manipulate it. I rather the people who are being manipulated and doing the manipulation to be nearer to the people that are getting hosed.

[Hanson724]

So what exactly would have caused President Obama to lose his reelection campaign here? Maintaining the same level of protection for our embassies as every one of his predecessors in office? Didn't seem to hurt anyone before him. Being in office while one of our embassies was attacked? Reagan coasted to reelection after the attack in Beirut.Or is this really a pathetic attempt by those on the right to drum up any kind of controversy they can, despicably using the deaths of our diplomats for political gain, in the absence of any real controversy? The truth is the economy was improving and the administration was making gains in their foreign policy (even if you ignore the death of Bin Laden). The Republican's best chance at taking the President down was attacking the ACA and they chose the worst possible candidate to do that.

This was a last-ditch effort to sling mud at the President that failed, and only continues because they still have no legitimate arguments or controversies other than traditional partisan differences. Well, this and trying 50 times to kill the ACA.

Reagan took responsibility instead of blaming it on a video.

[7thangel]

bengahzi, bengazhi, benghazi.

nothing has changed, the c.i.a. came up with the narrative while they were still trying to figure out what happened.

Why There Is No Cure for the GOP's Benghazi Fever

[...]

A-ha! cried the Benghazi truthers. Here's proof that the White House schemed to convince the public that the tragic attack—which claimed the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans—was merely the result of protests spurred by an anti-Islam video made by some American wacko, not the doing of Al Qaeda or its allies. President Obama and his comrades, the Benghazi truthers insist, wanted to cover up the politically inconvenient fact that Al Qaeda-ish terrorism was responsible for the killing of four Americans, since acknowledgment of this would have tainted the counter-terrorism credentials of Obama, the Bin Laden slayer, and decreased his chances of reelection.

But as we know now, the CIA and the State Department took the lead in fashioning the talking points. A year ago, the release of internal White House emails about the drafting of the talking points clearly showed there had been no White House effort to shape the narrative in a devious manner. (It appeared the CIA and the State Department were more concerned about their own bureaucratic imperatives.) And the new email from Rhodes is pretty standard stuff, indicating a White House desire to justify its policy on the Arab Spring in the face of troubling events. Rhodes was encouraging Rice to present the case that the anti-video protests that had occurred in various places in the Muslim world were sort of a one-off event, not an indication that the overall Obama approach toward the region was misguided. Note that Rhodes referred to "protests," plural, when making this point. That week there had been violent anti-video uprisings in Egypt, Yemen, and Sudan, not just Libya. So all the fuss about the Rhodes email—which quickly passed through membrane between Fox News and the rest of the media, receiving airtime on CNN, ABC News, and elsewhere—is smoke, not fire.

Moreover, the Rhodes email is a reminder of how far off the rails the Benghazi-bashers have gone. At the bottom of the second page of his four-page memo is proposed language for discussing the Benghazi attack: "The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the [anti-video] protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US Consulate and subsequently its annex." According to the internal White House emails released last year, this was how the CIA had asked for the event to be described.

[...]

[CenturianSpy]

bengahzi, bengazhi, benghazi.

nothing has changed, the c.i.a. came up with the narrative while they were still trying to figure out what happened.

The documents have shown the CIA did indeed come up with multiple theories in the beginning INCLUDING the prevailing 'video theory' in the first briefing. BUT, they quickly (within 4 hours) dismissed the 'video theory'. The White House & Obama re-election staff decided to stay with that narrative because it suited their strategy for re-election.

[Mikekerr3]

Reagan took responsibility instead of blaming it on a video.

And in the process precluded the court marshals and the firing that were due the idiots whom made it possible with the idiotic rules of engagement, rules of engagement that came form the military not the State department

[CenturianSpy]

MERS in the US:

http://time.com/#86243/cdc-confirms-...ection-in-u-s/

[Mikekerr3]

Hopefully this will torpedo Hillary"What difference does it make?" Clinton from running. Thats why that story about her hating the press came out yesterday to make it look like the media has it out for her. If " What difference does it make?" is her take on 4 people getting killed , they should go after her.

The Republican party is basically "what difference does it make" about getting over thousands Americans killed over a lie, So u you really think they will get traction over four in Benghazi?
?

they have been going after her, they have managed to repeatedly make them selves look like the fools they are by going after her, I really hope they continue to shoot themselves in the foot with a line that has become fodder for comics

[7thangel]

The documents have shown the CIA did indeed come up with multiple theories in the beginning INCLUDING the prevailing 'video theory' in the first briefing. BUT, they quickly (within 4 hours) dismissed the 'video theory'. The White House & Obama re-election staff decided to stay with that narrative because it suited their strategy for re-election.

okay, since the last post was deleted

http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/b...zi.pdf#page=65

here is the special investigative report not only showing that it was the c.i.a. talking points, but that there was no conspiracy. now, i know it's impossible for certain people to believe, and i know certain people just can't accept the current reality, but it's beyond silly

[CenturianSpy]

okay, since the last post was deleted

http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/b...zi.pdf#page=65

here is the special investigative report not only showing that it was the c.i.a. talking points, but that there was no conspiracy. now, i know it's impossible for certain people to believe, and i know certain people just can't accept the current reality, but it's beyond silly

Shocking that a Democrat majority Senate committee votes down party lines for a Democrat President. I wonder if the Republican majority Congress gets the same results in their investigation (which has MANY more documents and emails provided because of the lawsuit). Again, who is arguing that the CIA didn't start the talking points? They clearly did. It went through the interagency process and EVEN after the new information the CIA provided, the White House & Obama re-election committee continued to use the narrative that it was spontaneous and because of a video. In no way does this report prove that there wasn't a conspiracy. First of all, they didn't have all of the memos/emails/documents. Second, they did not investigate why the White House & Obama re-election committee did not use updated CIA findings. Third, one of the three talking points meeting was completely dark, so NO one outside that meeting has discussed what was said during that meeting. Clearly the report shows the White House helped edit talking points produced MAINLY by the CIA, and when the CIA updated their findings (which they reserved the right to in all of their edits), the White House & Obama re-election committee CHOSE not to update their talking points.

[7thangel]

lol, the re-election committee.

the c.i.a. did not know anymore when susan rice and the emails were sent, and we're still getting info. plus, the shows were about not just benghazi but cairo, which preceded benghazi and was sparked by the video.

i know better to even bother. the repubs can, no, will, ride bengahzi all the way to the next pres election.

[worstblogever]

Wow. Crazy conspiracy theorists spent what, 5-7 years, refusing to believe any evidence that the president was born an American citizen in Hawaii, to a naturalized citizen, his mother.

Now, they see the next Democratic candidate for president, and keep babbling about a new conspiracy, to desperately try to de-legitimize her, as well?

I'm shocked. SHOCKED.

Current GOP campaign tactics:

GOP: Vote for us, not them.

Voter: Why?

GOP: Because, CONSPIRACY.

[Pinsir]

[king mob]

Meanwhile, is some real news that doesn't involve tinfoil hats.

More than 30 people have been killed in Odessa in what is now clearly a civil war.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...ainian-clashes