pacino wrote:gun-running? meaning what? that the government itself caused this for 'positive' news coverage? for what purpose would hte government willingly let this happen?

what are the murky dealings of which you speak?

karn wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

karn wrote:Fair points, and none of which I disagree with. Where I land on the matter is that if the people in charge cannot and will not take seriously something as morally simple as protecting the lives of its people, or, at the very least, being forthcoming about how or why those lives were lost, how then can we, as citizens largely on equal footing with those who died, feel satisfied to entrust those same people with the responsibilities of doing the right thing on the big domestic issues? How are the whitewashing tactics and the handcart reality of the country not directly correlated?

They are - and have been. This event you've chosen to elevate is hardly singular

I would differ and argue that it is quite singular insofar as it undermines some pretty fundamental practices of governance in such a malicious way that it's hard for me to even conceive. Leaving Americans to die and then lying about doing so is so far away from anything I'd ever want to think about my country that is physically repulses me. It's pretty easy to talk about winning a war on terror when terrorist attacks are reclassified as "events" and dead Americans are swept under the rug. It is a big story and not "just another embassy attack" because I believe the tendrils of this administration are wrapped up in some pretty murky dealings. The gentleman from Iowa is likely insinuating further gun running ala Fast and Furious as being a big part of what happened at Benghazi.

For the record, I've voted straight Democrat in all 17 elections I've participated in.

karn wrote:I would differ and argue that it is quite singular insofar as it undermines some pretty fundamental practices of governance in such a malicious way that it's hard for me to even conceive.

The team had been vaguely referred to in the Pentagon’s official timeline (.PDF) of its mobilization for Benghazi, released in October. But Little and Lapan explained for the first time on the record that the U.S. Special Operations Command’s detachment in U.S Africa Command told the team not to head to Benghazi.

The team, in Tripoli already to train Libyan forces, requested to hop on a Libyan C-130 cargo plane to head to Benghazi. But Special Operations Command Africa told them not to go, because “there was nothing this team could do to assist,” Little said, opting to tell the team to stay in Tripoli to assist with consular staff’s evacuation from Benghazi.

According to Little and Lapan, the C-130 the team wanted to fly to Benghazi on had space for the men, but it didn’t arrive in the city until after the battle ended. “There’s no evidence they could have arrived in Benghazi before the end of the attack,” said Lapan, a spokesman for Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Dempsey and other top Pentagon officials have previously testified that they could not get commandos or fighter planes into Benghazi in time to save the lives of Amb. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. There was an unarmed surveillance drone over Benghazi, but Air Force fighters in Italy’s Aviano air base lacked refueling tankers to allow them to get to the scene. Special-operations teams in the U.S. and Croatia were initially told to prepare for Benghazi, for a possible hostage-rescue mission, but they ultimately didn’t get closer than a staging base in Europe before the attacks ended.

The Pentagon’s timeline about what it did in response to Benghazi hasn’t satisfied key Congressional Republicans. “I find it insufficient, which is why I requested additional information from the Department of Defense,” Rep. Buck McKeon, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said in a statement today. McKeon wants the Pentagon to prepare a classified timeline for the committee to supplement the public one the Pentagon has released.

The Pentagon’s top legislative official, Elizabeth King, told the committee that the Defense Department never prepared any classified timeline, either internally or for the committee. Little and Lapan indicated they did not have a classified timeline to provide the committee. It’s unlikely that today’s hearing will end the controversy over what the Pentagon should have done — if it could have done anything — about the assault on Benghazi.

drsmooth wrote:

karn wrote:I would differ and argue that it is quite singular insofar as it undermines some pretty fundamental practices of governance in such a malicious way that it's hard for me to even conceive.

no, not really. Your giving Benghazi attention does not actually do anything to the magnitude of the alleged activities, which do not rise to the level you apparently imagine they do. Read some history.

It's good that you're paying attention though

jerseyhoya wrote:Jay Carney suuuuuuuuuucks at this and is getting pummeled.

karn wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

karn wrote:I would differ and argue that it is quite singular insofar as it undermines some pretty fundamental practices of governance in such a malicious way that it's hard for me to even conceive.

no, not really. Your giving Benghazi attention does not actually do anything to the magnitude of the alleged activities, which do not rise to the level you apparently imagine they do. Read some history.

It's good that you're paying attention though

Can you honestly suggest some comparable events I can study as the precedents for willfully leaving American citizens to die at enemy hands? Like, as you know they're being attacked and killed?

Re: pacino's bolded statement, how can one determine the length of an ongoing terrorist attack? You send help. Immediately and always. At the very least, send personnel in there to secure the scene - which according to Wednesday's hearing wasn't done for 2 1/2 WEEKS.

The C.I.A.’s first draft of the talking points in the Sept. 11 attack was e-mailed to a group of senior officials at several federal agencies shortly before 7 p.m. on Sept. 14, according to several officials.

About 45 minutes later, the State Department’s spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, raised concerns with the White House and the intelligence agencies, saying the information could be “abused” by members of Congress “to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either?”

C.I.A. officials responded with a new draft, but Ms. Nuland replied that the changes did not “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership.” A State Department official said Ms. Nuland was expressing concerns that the C.I.A.’s first versions of talking points, intended to be made available to lawmakers, were more explicit than what she had been allowed to tell reporters. She also believed that the C.I.A., which had more than 20 people in Benghazi on the night of the attack, was trying to absolve itself at the State Department’s expense before any investigation was completed by suggesting that repeated C.I.A. warnings about the security situation in the city were being ignored, this official said.

TenuredVulture wrote:On this Benghazi thing--were there any US affiliated reporters on site? Why not? Why are media outlets relying on "talking points" generated by the White House? If so-called reporters did their job and stopped paying attention to talking points, there would be a lot more accountability. Is there anyone out there without a political axe to grind who has any first hand knowledge of what happened? I guess CNN is too busy paying Nancy Grace to actually gather news.

Swiggers wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:On this Benghazi thing--were there any US affiliated reporters on site? Why not? Why are media outlets relying on "talking points" generated by the White House? If so-called reporters did their job and stopped paying attention to talking points, there would be a lot more accountability. Is there anyone out there without a political axe to grind who has any first hand knowledge of what happened? I guess CNN is too busy paying Nancy Grace to actually gather news.

It's really the same as with sports reporting. Either you can bust your ass and dig up your own information, or you can coast and just write up what your contacts tell you. You get paid the same either way.

dajafi wrote:

Swiggers wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:On this Benghazi thing--were there any US affiliated reporters on site? Why not? Why are media outlets relying on "talking points" generated by the White House? If so-called reporters did their job and stopped paying attention to talking points, there would be a lot more accountability. Is there anyone out there without a political axe to grind who has any first hand knowledge of what happened? I guess CNN is too busy paying Nancy Grace to actually gather news.

It's really the same as with sports reporting. Either you can bust your ass and dig up your own information, or you can coast and just write up what your contacts tell you. You get paid the same either way.

Except that there's no budget in news organizations for foreign affairs reporting anymore. If there's an ongoing story, they'll send someone--though if it's a war, they're probably "embedded" with all the lousy consequences for access and objectivity that come along with it. But otherwise it's very unlikely there will be reporters on the ground; these are small-margin operations now, even for TV let alone print. And if they try to send in someone after the fact to piece the story together, best of luck unless you've got someone with existing relationships, who speaks the language and understands the culture. Even then, it might not happen.

So I sympathize with Paul's point, but that's just not how news works anymore. CNN, utterly pathetic as they are, is the closest thing left to a news organization with global reach. And they spend it on ratings whores like rabid Nancy Grace or Wall Street whores like the equally vile but proper-salad-fork-knowledgeable Erin Burnett.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Did McCain basically ask Hillary Clinton why she didn't release classified info?

At various points over the past two years, Internal Revenue Service officials singled out for scrutiny not only groups with “tea party” or “patriot” in their name but also nonprofit groups that criticized the government and sought to educate Americans about the U.S. Constitution, according to documents in an audit conducted by the agency’s inspector general.

The documents, obtained by The Washington Post from a congressional aide with knowledge of the findings, show that the IRS field office in charge of evaluating applications for tax-exempt status decided to focus on groups making statements that “criticize how the country is being run” and those that were involved in educating Americans “on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.”

Senior Internal Revenue Service officials knew agents were targeting tea party groups as early as 2011, according to a draft of an inspector general's report obtained by The Associated Press that seemingly contradicts public statements by the IRS commissioner.