Gen. Lovell's testimony on Benghazi

May 15, 2014 1:31:31 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Of course I would not favor a law that would require a man to use a condom when having recreational sex. (It might be a good idea, however, for the female partner to seek protection--whether "The Pill," an IUD, or some other device--since she is the one to bear the potential consequences of unprotected sex. Likewise, I lock my doors at night, and whenever I am away from home, as a means of protection.)

The cannibal seems to me much more like the woman seeking an abortion than like anyone else, since this cannibal is killing another human being in order to further his (or her) own interests. 

.... and if every driver focused 100% on driving safely and properly maintaining their vehicles we won't have automobile accidents.

I will assume that you're not demanding a law that requires women to use birth control anymore than a requirement for a man to use birth control during recreational sex. Most women probably do use some form of birth control but there are millions of cases where they don't and while rare overall unprotected sex can result in an accidental pregnancy.

The "preborn" can be medically removed from the woman's body without "harm" if we wanted to impose that requirement under the law but it would, in the vast majority of cases, die of natural causes if that occurs. Only a "fetus at viability" has the possibility of surviving outside of the womb. We don't impose a medical requirement that the preborn be removed intact from the womb because it imposes unnecesary costs as well as unnecessary risks to the woman and that is illogical because the "preborn" prior to viability will die outside of the womb of Natural Causes anyway. It would impose a "cost" with no benefit.

We could "impose" the requirement that the "preborn" be removed intact without harm if that makes you feel better. Then you couldn't make the claim that the "woman" is in anyway responsible for the death of the "preborn" as she in no way causes that death. The "preborn" would be "alive and well" when removed from her body although it might die of natural causes within minutes of removal. Is that something you would advocate?

It's sort of like finding an unwanted guest in your house and requiring them to leave. Just because they might die because they are forced from your house, perhaps from exposure because it's 20 below outside, doesn't mean that you murdered them. It might be a heartless thing to do but it is not murder by any definition.

May 16, 2014 0:02:04 GMT pjohns1873 said:

I think that we may learn for a certainty what many of us have long suspected, i.e. that the White House (and its surrogates--including Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton) tried to pretend that the murder of four Americans was the unfortunate result of some obscure Internet video, instead of a pre-planned attack.

And I find it hugely offensive that our own government would lie to the American people.

Don't you?    

A few points.

First of all according to the emails between State Dept. and the CIA the "talking points" originated with the CIA and did not originate at the White House. The CIA was trying to cover it's ass related to it's covert operations in Benghazi. We (the American People) knew the attack was a terrorist attack from the moment we heard about it and whether it was spontanious or pre-planned is a rather moot issue.

Next is that our government (and especially the CIA) lies to the American people all of the time. Name one adminstration is our lifetime that hasn't lied to us or deceived us. We can both find that "hugely offensive" but that complaint is not specific to any single adminstration but instead is applicable to ALL adminstrations.

Every American I know of is already aware of the fact that the terrorist attack at Benghazi wasn't directly related to the anti-Islamic video and that this part of the "Talking Points" was a lie. We knew that within two weeks of the actual attack. Why are Republicans still trying to establish something the American People have known for the last two years?

If we really wanted Congress to address "lying to Americans" then why not an investigation into the lies by the Bush Adminstration related to the invasion of Iraq where thousands of US soldiers died as a result. Of course that is also a waste of time because Americans already know that the Bush Adminstration lied about WMD's in Iraq and the non-existant "threat" that Iraq represented to the United States.

If Congress wants to investigate something then why don't they investigate something we don't already know?

For example we know that the IRS investigated "conservative" political organizations that filed for 501(c) tax exempt status but they only represented 1/3rd of political organizations that filed for 501(c) status that were investigated. Who were the other 2/3rds of the organizations that the IRS investigated and why were their filings questioned? We know about the 1/3rd but don't know anything about the other 2/3rds.  

May 16, 2014 20:56:47 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Your argument--that other administrations have lied, too--is a tu quoque line of reasoning.  You can surely do better than that.  (Or, given what you are attempting to defend, perhaps not...)

And the part about WMDs in Iraq (which you refer to, breezily, as "the lies by the Bush administration," resulting in the deaths of "thousands of US soldiers") is quite reminiscent of the anti-GOP bumper sticker seen just a few years ago: "Bush lied, people died."

It is my understanding that Lois Lerner requested "special scrutiny" for any groups whose names included such terms as "Tea Party," "patriots," or "9/12 Project."  Most of these requests were not denied, outright--that would have set the table for an appeal--but were, instead, slow walked, so as to result in their effective denial.  

Oh, here is a link to an article concerning Ms. Lerner:  www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/04/10/lois-lerner-files-partisan-bureaucrat-at-work/

As for the CIA's role in this, I believe this slant ignores (rather conveniently) the recently discovered Ben Rhodes e-mail.  As Judicial Watch puts it, this shows "then-White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes and other Obama administration public relations officials attempting to orchestrate a campaign to 'reinforce' President Obama and to portray the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack as being 'rooted in an Internet video, and not a failure of policy.'"

Again, the link:  www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-benghazi-documents-point-white-house-misleading-talking-points/
 

We know for a fact that the Bush Adminstration wanted to go to war against Iraq and was intentionally ignoring "current" intelligences from the UN Weapons Inspectors that stated Iraq did not have WMD programs and there was no evidence of Iraq having WMD's and the adminstration was instead knowingly citing information on Iraq's WMD program from the 1980s when Iraq did have WMD programs and weapons. There is no reason to investigate this because we know the facts. The Bush adminstration wanted to go to war against Iraq and would not be deterred from doing that based upon the current intelligence from the UN Weapons Inspectors. The adminstration went so far as implying linkage between al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks even though there had never been any evidence of a connection. We know all there is to know abou it.

The Fox News story is "typically Fox" where they ignore the facts. The truth it that too many political action organizations are obtaining 501(c)(4) status that shouldn't. I've looked at two, the Tea Party Patriots and the Campaign For America, that are at opposite ends of the political spectrum and neither one of these organizations should have been given 501(c)(4) tax exempt status. I would also state that any organization that originates based upon a "political agenda" should be subjected to the highest scrutiny by the IRS if it does seek 501(c)(4) tax exempt status. Of course we don't know who the other 2/3rds of the organizations were that were subjected to additional scrutiny so the Fox News implied claim that "liberal" organzations were not targeted is false. The three organizations it cites (ACLU, the NAACP, and Moveon.org) are non-partisan organizations that actually are civic organizations and not partisan political action groups.

There wasn't a "failure of policy" by the White House related to Benghazi. The fact that a few individuals might have stated a concern about it doesn't change the fact that there wasn't a failure of policy related to consulate security or the overall policies by the White House related to generally accepted policies addressing terrorism.

Of course I believe the whole War On Terrorism as well as the US foreign policy since WW II is misguided but I'm admittedly in the minority.

May 17, 2014 23:35:03 GMT pjohns1873 said:

I am trying to figure out why you might suppose that the Bush administration "wanted to go to war against Iraq,"  and therefore simply manufactured a rationale.  Why?  What conceivable gain was there (potentially, even) to be realized by this?

And we will probably never know if Saddam actually had WMDs--spirited over the border, perhaps, to Syria. 

Your dismissive (and downright hostile) attitude toward Fox News--"typically Fox"--speaks volumes, as concerning your left-of-center mindset.  (Rather instructively, I have never heard a left-of-center thinker dismiss a cable network as being "typically CNN" or--even more glaringly--"typically MSNBC.")     

Oh, from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration's Russell George:  "We...determined that 14 tax-exempt applications filed between May 2010 and May 2012 using the words 'progress' or 'progressive' in their names were not referred for added scrutiny as potential political cases. ...In total, 30 percent of the organizations we identified with the words 'progress' or 'progressive' in their names were processed as potential political cases. In comparison, our audit found that 100 percent of the tax-exempt applications with Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 in their names were processed as potential political cases during the timeframe of our audit." 

It's impossible for me today to document what we knew in 2002/2003 before the Iraq invasion but we did know that Bush had ordered his staff to come up with a reason to rationalize the invasion of Iraq within a couple of weeks of taking office. Bush used 9/11 and outdated and highly unreliable information on Iraq's WMD programs from the 1980's while intentionally ignoring current information from the UN Weapons Inspectors to rationalize an invasion of Iraq.

We do know for a fact today that virtually all of Iraqs WMD's were destroyed at the end of the Gulf War and it had no WMD facilities after the Gulf War. We also know that what few remaining WMD's that were missed by the UN at the end of the Gulf War were ordered destroyed by Saddam in 1998. No WMD's existed in Iraq by 2002 and none were shipped anywhere. We know this all to be factual.

While some might find this cynical it is my belief that former President Bush wanted to remove Saddam from power because Saddam has previously wanted to assassinate his father. It is also my belief that his father got the US involved in the Gulf War because the royal families of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were close friends and former business associates. In short I believe in both cases the actions of Bush and his father were based upon personal reasons unrelated to any national interests of the United States. That is indeed cynical reasoning but I believe the facts actually support my conclusions in both cases.

I don't watch Fox News, MSNBC News, or CNN News when it comes to politics and even when I read online news from any of  them I fact check what they state. The reason I refer to Fox News is because "conservatives" often cite it as a source and, more so than other sources are cited, I can see that it is highly active in using the new as a political propaganda machine by addressing half-turths or glossing over vital information hopeing the "reader" will miss the caveats. I don't even recall ever looking into someone citing MSNBC News where I would fact check the story but perhaps I have. Sort of hard for me to condemn a "news source" like MSNBC that nobody quotes.

The problems wasn't that the "tea party" organizations were targeted but instead probably that not enough liberal organizations were targeted for additional scrutiny. We also know that the BOLO (Be On Look Out) lists did not originate at the IRS headquarters and instead came from a regional office and the criteria being used was rejected when the lists were submitted to the head office. Finally, not a single "conservative" (or liberal) organization had their 501(c) application denied by the IRS.

Based upon my personal investigations into three specific organizations (i.e. Tea Party Patriots, Organization for America, and National Organization for Marriage) none of them should have been granted 501(c) status and all should have been subjected to PAC regulation because they are PACs.

Back to Benghazi - We know all we need to know. Yes, the "Talking Points" were somewhat deceptive during the week following the attacks but every American knew they were terrorist attacks and no one was "deceived" but the inaccuracy of the Talking Points. We also know there were no policy failures by the White House. Finally we know that the US response (with the possible exception of deploying additional security forces from Tripoli that were unnecessary and  resulted in two more Americans dying) was correct related to the terrorist attack.

There is nothing to be gained by dragging out more and more investigations into Benghazi and the American People have moved on.

May 18, 2014 20:43:43 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Yes, I believe that it is, indeed, "cynical" to suppose that the actions of George W. Bush, as regarding Iraq (or anything else) were animated by a mere vendetta. And unnecessarily churlish.

Is therereally anybody left in America who still believes that the (highly inappropriate) actions of the IRS were merely the result of the preferences of a couple of rogue agents in Cincinnati?

If you do not watch Fox News--or MSNBC--or CNN either, you would appear to be limiting yourself rather severely.

To say that theWhite House's talking points, in the immediate aftermath of Benghazi, were "somewhat deceptive," is rather akin to one's asserting that Adolf Hitler was "somewhat" anti-Semitic. (I believe the grammatical term for that is litotes; although it would probably apply with greater force if the phraseology were in the negative, as in, "The White House's talking points were not entirely truthful.") 

As for the assertion that not a single conservative organization had its 501(c) status "denied" by the IRS: The simple fact is that it was much worse than that.  An outright denial could have resulted in an appeal; but by their dragging their feet interminably, the IRS made any appeal effectively impossible.   

It is typical of the left to stonewall for as long as possible, and then--at some point in the future--to declare that the subject under discussion is old news, and that it is therefore time to "move on." (In fact, that is how the leftist website, MoveOn.org, got started.)

I didn't start out as a cynic but when I looked at the Gulf War and the invasion of Iraq I was never able to find any logical reason why the US should have been involved in either but I did have substantial evidence to believe that there were personal reasons why Bush Sr and Bush Jr would get the US involved respectively. To believe that Presients never act based upon personal reasons is naive IMO.

The actual investigations of political organizations filing for 501(c) status by the IRS actually originated from a request by Congress. Congress was correct in requesting greater scrutiny by the IRS of political organizations seeking to secure 501(c) status. The problems were three-fold IMO. The BOLO lists that did originate in Cincinnati but were rejected by the IRS upon review, some of the information being requested that also originated at the Cincinnati office, and the fact that most of these organizations were eventually granted 501(c) status when they are clearly PAC's IMO.

As for news sources there is far more news on the internet that you can obtain from television and it is easier to compare stories and verify facts from the internet so that you obtain a far more accurate picture. I still watch the local news though and read the local newspaper but those stories rarely warrant comment on forums. Perhaps the only internet source I don't use is the Huffington Post because, for whatever reason, it doesn't load very well on my computer.

I did read (on the internet) what the Republicans are apparently trying to address with this new investigation.

news.yahoo.com/gop-benghazi-team-brings-long-list-accusations-121420423.html

All of this has been previously addressed and we know all that we need to know about it.

The Libyan security forces were responsible for security in Benghazi and they carried out their responsibilities admirably when the attack occurred in Benghazi. The US only provides US military as security at US embassies and security for consulates and other US government offices in a foreign country is always the responsibility of the host country.    

President Obama was kept appraised of the situation as it was happening and was listening to his top advisors like he was supposed to be doing.

The US military did not have any assets close enough to Benghazi to respond and the top US military commanders advised against mobilizing forces that couldn't have reached Benghazi in a timely manner.  

The CIA was predominately responsible for the talking points as it wanted to hide the fact that Benghazi was, in truth, a CIA outpost and not a "consulate" as it provided no diplomatic functions. President Obama, the morning after the attack, did clearly establish that the US would make every effort to bring the "terrorists" responsible to justice (not an easy task).

The Obama administration didn't really cover up anything after this "video" explanation was shown to be false and was forthright in addressing the fact that the video was not primarily responsible within a week or so after the "talking points" were exposed as not being accurate.

So what more is there for us to learn from another investigation?

There were, of course, politican considerations related to the "wording" of statements at the time because it was right before the presidential election of 2012 but the election is over and Mitt Romney lost. President Obama is in his final term of office and the 2012 election is over so it's really rather silly for Republicans do keep trying to affect the outcome of the 2012 election. 

May 19, 2014 17:22:26 GMT pjohns1873 said:

It is certainly true that President Obama--on September 12, 2012--referred to the murderers' attack in Benghazi, the day prior, as an "act of terror." But he did not describe it as an act of terrorism.  And the difference is not trivial.

Certainly, what occurred on 9/11/12 inspired "terror" in those under attack.  But terrorism, as the term is commonly understood, amounts to much more than that.

Are there any ulterior motives by some Republicans for this continuing investigation?  Presumably. I am not so innocent as to imagine otherwise. But that certainly does not vitiate the fact that such an investigation seems reasonable enough.

It strikes me as rather odd that President Obama would have prioritized the advice of his "top advisors" above the advice of those on the ground in Benghazi.

As for the assertion that the military could not have arrived in time to make any substantial difference:  Perhaps.  But how might anyone have known, at the time, just how long the assault would last?  And why would we not have wanted, above all else, to seek justice by immediately capturing or killing those responsible?  (In fact, President Obama long ago promised to bring the perpetrators to justice; but that has still not happened, more than 20 months later.)   

All of the above has been hashed over and re-hashed over during the last two years.

I will cover just two issues you address.

I've been under attack and the only thing you can do is report your situation somewhat. You certainly don't know what's really going on and can only report what you actually know is happening at the moment. As it was the Libyan security forces arrived promptly and evacuated all of the Americans they could locate and took them to the Libyan compound where they were completely safe. All of that occurred within about 1-2 hours as I recall.

There was nothing that those on the ground in Benghazi could have offered as advice to the commanders in charge of US military forces.

We have horrible crimes committed right here in the US where those responsible are not identifed or captured. It is obviously a lot harder to do this in a foreign country where US law enforcement doesn't have jurisdiction. We also need to remember that Libya is actually responsible for finding the terrorists and prosecuting them because the criminal acts did occur in Libya and not the United States.