Petraeus

[Boz]

The fact that you don't think Benghazi and its aftermath is a scandal (not to mention Fast and Furious) is almost as appalling as the events themselves.

I've seen Cirque du Soleil shows that didn't involve as much bending over backwards and contortions as some people (including most of our "objective media") have done trying to defend these events.

[Problem of Dog]

I don't think Benghazi is a scandal whatsoever. The government can tell us whatever they want, and if it doesn't have a direct effect on our safety, I do not care. Hearing that it was extremists rather than terrorists didn't put anyone in harm's way.

[quickplay]

Nov 17, 2012 16:23:44 GMT -5 Boz said:

The fact that you don't think Benghazi and its aftermath is a scandal (not to mention Fast and Furious) is almost as appalling as the events themselves.

I've seen Cirque du Soleil shows that didn't involve as much bending over backwards and contortions as some people (including most of our "objective media") have done trying to defend these events.

My not thinking this is a scandal is as big a deal as the events themselves? So you mean the non-scandal? Makes sense to me. Unless by events you mean the attacks themselves, but that would be one of the most insane things I've ever heard.

Here's the thing. The focus on this series of events IMMEDIATELY was looking for a scandal. So far we have...there was some contradiction between what was originally claimed and later intel. Which seems to generally be explained by not releasing the information that wound up being true until they were SURE it was true and did not contain classified information. Scandal?

Even IF there was some obfuscation/lying/spin/whatever you want to call it here, I just sincerely don't understand why this particular thing is being held onto except for the outrage-machine has decided to focus on it.

Now here I'm not making a distinction that bad things shouldn't be treated as bad things. I'm saying that it is cynical, hypocritical, and a joke that this is being focused on in relation to the other things Republicans and the right-wing outrage machine have been happy to sweep under the rug.

So please spare me the 'if you don't get why it's a big deal...' schtick and explain WHY this is a huge scandal to be treated this way. As far as 'well they said something and it wasn't true at first before they corrected themselves,' explain how that's a scandal and not something that happens constantly.

Seriously, the Right is always searching for something to be outraged about, some claim of victimization and oppression, all while screaming about political correctness gone awry and strawmen 'well IF we said that you'd claim racism!'

So please, in the context of the last 13 years of America, please explain why this is a scandal to be treated with multiple hearings and 24/7 coverage by Foxnews.

[Boz]

Perhaps we should re-define "scandal."

Members of the government knowingly, deliberately and publicly lied about the events that took place in Benghazi. To this day, we don't know the full truth about what happened. So yeah, an attack on American soil where there is clear obfuscation in the aftermath deserves some hearings and media coverage.

But, you know, no one got a BJ, so maybe we shouldn't call it a "scandal."

As for this assertion: "The government can tell us whatever they want..."

Well, there's simply no response to that if that's what you really believe.

[quickplay]

I also don't agree with the assertion that the government should tell us whatever they want outside of 'need to know' scenarios.

I understand getting behind the issues here, but the lies so far seem to be part of a larger reality of intelligence operations being run through the consulate. It just seems like a fairly standard thing that happens in all administrations (the aftermath, not the event itself) that was jumped on for the election, and now that it's over some groups within the Republican party are trying to hold onto....something.

I would be all for this kind of zeal into warrantless surveillance, or the drone 'kill list,' or federal bailout expenditures - or a whole host of other things.

I still just don't see this with the urgency that some seem to.

[derhoya]

To add to quick's point, this issue should be about why 4 people died, not the schematics or mis-phrasing used 4/5 days after the event when certain facts weren't privy for public consumption yet.

Why did the AMB go to a 'consulate' for week during 9/11 when it had such a poor security track record? I'd be interested in more information on this topic as it will help update SOPs for other missions abroad.